God's grace on display for the seemingly "unforgivable"

towermonkey wrote: By stating that both sex outside of marriage and abortion are immoral, you cloud the issue. This is why your argument will never be successful - you are fighting from the fringe and trying to impose YOUR morals on others who might not have the same moral code.

LadyJazzer wrote: Not all abortions are the result of "sex outside of marriage"... There goes your "moral imperative."

towermonkey wrote: Oh I agree to a point, but for instance, I am non-religious. You can tell me about God's word all day long and it won't mean a hill of beans to me. If you tell me that abortion is really taking a life and not just a lump of cells and then back it up with a video like the one toward the beginning of this thread, that at least starts me down the path. If I then reach the decision, nased on that information, that abortion is wrong, I have actually learned something. That's all I was trying to get at with the "imposing" statement.

archer wrote:

major bean wrote:

AspenValley wrote:

major bean wrote: If it would work to prevent the murder of babies, it will work to prevent ALL murders. If A=B and B=C, then A=C.
The logic is perfect. The premise is faulty.

The logic of If A=B and B=C, then A=C is indeed flawless.

However, the "logic" of your attack on SCs point, if we can call it logic, does not follow that model or even vaguely resemble it.

What rate of "acceptable losses" is reasonable to you? How many abortions are OK with you? If the number is 0% then your logic for supporting "some" abortions (oh, they were ignorant girls) is seriously flawed. If the number is greater then 0% then you support abortion. It is simple logic. Go figure.

MB....it will never be zero.....even if it is made illegal to have any kind of abortion.....you will just drive some girls/women to try to self abort or visit the friendly neighborhood abortionist who will most likely NOT be a medical doctor.

AspenValley wrote:

major bean wrote:

AspenValley wrote:

major bean wrote: If it would work to prevent the murder of babies, it will work to prevent ALL murders. If A=B and B=C, then A=C.
The logic is perfect. The premise is faulty.

The logic of If A=B and B=C, then A=C is indeed flawless.

However, the "logic" of your attack on SCs point, if we can call it logic, does not follow that model or even vaguely resemble it.

What rate of "acceptable losses" is reasonable to you? How many abortions are OK with you? If the number is 0% then your logic for supporting "some" abortions (oh, they were ignorant girls) is seriously flawed. If the number is greater then 0% then you support abortion. It is simple logic. Go figure.

What does this have to do with my comments above?

And what are you talking about? You are making less sense with every post.

"Oh they were ignorant girls"? Who said that? I sure didn't. Was it voices in your head?

major bean wrote:

AspenValley wrote:

major bean wrote:

AspenValley wrote:

major bean wrote: If it would work to prevent the murder of babies, it will work to prevent ALL murders. If A=B and B=C, then A=C.
The logic is perfect. The premise is faulty.

The logic of If A=B and B=C, then A=C is indeed flawless.

However, the "logic" of your attack on SCs point, if we can call it logic, does not follow that model or even vaguely resemble it.

What rate of "acceptable losses" is reasonable to you? How many abortions are OK with you? If the number is 0% then your logic for supporting "some" abortions (oh, they were ignorant girls) is seriously flawed. If the number is greater then 0% then you support abortion. It is simple logic. Go figure.

What does this have to do with my comments above?

And what are you talking about? You are making less sense with every post.

"Oh they were ignorant girls"? Who said that? I sure didn't. Was it voices in your head?

I do not see where you would be puzzled. You are advocating education for solve the abortion problem. The girls must be ignorant or you would not need to educate them. This is simple.