<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: BioSLED &#8211; best argument against abortion-choice</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.thrufire.com/blog/2009/02/biosled-anti-abortion-argument/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.thrufire.com/blog/2009/02/biosled-anti-abortion-argument/</link>
	<description>Burning off the dross</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 13 Mar 2010 16:18:34 -0500</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: BioSLED - Bodily-autonomy Abortion Absurdity &#124; ThruFire</title>
		<link>http://www.thrufire.com/blog/2009/02/biosled-anti-abortion-argument/comment-page-1/#comment-120</link>
		<dc:creator>BioSLED - Bodily-autonomy Abortion Absurdity &#124; ThruFire</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 13 Mar 2010 16:14:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thrufire.com/blog/?p=629#comment-120</guid>
		<description>[...] to apply BioSLED &#8211; the best argument against abortion-choice against those who insist a mother&#8217;s &#8220;right to bodily autonomy&#8221; justifies [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] to apply BioSLED &#8211; the best argument against abortion-choice against those who insist a mother&#8217;s &ldquo;right to bodily autonomy&rdquo; justifies [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Chris Arsenault</title>
		<link>http://www.thrufire.com/blog/2009/02/biosled-anti-abortion-argument/comment-page-1/#comment-113</link>
		<dc:creator>Chris Arsenault</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 21 Dec 2009 13:19:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thrufire.com/blog/?p=629#comment-113</guid>
		<description>&lt;blockquote cite=&quot;#commentbody-111&quot;&gt;
&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;#comment-111&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Nik said&lt;/a&gt; :&lt;/strong&gt;
In general, I tend to agree with your argument.  However, you don’t address the fact that the majority of abortion candidates are uneducated and poor,... one would be endorsing increasing the violent crime rate, the illiteracy rate, and the poverty rate in the US.  Is that an acceptable trade-off?  &lt;/blockquote&gt;

Your question (counter-argument, really) implies 1) that humans are only &lt;i&gt;functionally valuable&lt;/i&gt;, not &lt;b&gt;immeasurably&lt;/b&gt; valuable;  and 2) people can&#039;t change when they face adverse conditions.

That&#039;s a very depressing perspective. Simple question: do you love people for who they are, or for what they do for you?  Would you tell someone you &quot;loved&quot; they were only functional to you?

Further, your justification (via Ayn Rand) based on human exceptionalism only works if you are exceptional. Do you realize you live entirely at the mercy of others upholding their responsibility not to kill you?   Seriously.  Laws on paper are only good to the point where people believe there is a morality behind them.  And last time I checked murder continues.  Shall we talk about that likelihood?


You contend my argument is based on emotion, while yours isn&#039;t. However, at the very core of your argument is a pure hypocrisy: 

 you condone violence to avert violence;  
deadly force is merciful and morally justifiable against innocent human beings;
killing our own children is an act of responsibility to others;
and, ultimately the violence of abortion is an appeal to force to remove the assertion (truth) of the child.


Sorry, that&#039;s not rational, it&#039;s insane. So your logic is invalid and your charge false.  Nik - your comment looks fearful,  very typical of pro-choice &quot;population-control&quot; arguments - &quot;get them before they get us.&quot;

&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;#comment-111&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Nik said&lt;/a&gt; :&lt;/strong&gt;The way to minimize the number of abortions performed is to minimize the number of unintended pregnancies.  Where does your group stand on contraception, birth control and sex education?
&lt;/blockquote&gt;

 Group, what group?  My family and I believe in the sanctity of marriage, the blessing of chilldren, that sex is a family matter, not a public one and that sex education should be frank discussions between parents and their children, not for the public to impose upon our family.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<blockquote cite="#commentbody-111"><p>
<strong><a href="#comment-111" rel="nofollow">Nik said</a> :</strong><br />
In general, I tend to agree with your argument.  However, you don’t address the fact that the majority of abortion candidates are uneducated and poor,&#8230; one would be endorsing increasing the violent crime rate, the illiteracy rate, and the poverty rate in the US.  Is that an acceptable trade-off?  </p></blockquote>
<p>Your question (counter-argument, really) implies 1) that humans are only <i>functionally valuable</i>, not <b>immeasurably</b> valuable;  and 2) people can&#8217;t change when they face adverse conditions.</p>
<p>That&#8217;s a very depressing perspective. Simple question: do you love people for who they are, or for what they do for you?  Would you tell someone you &#8220;loved&#8221; they were only functional to you?</p>
<p>Further, your justification (via Ayn Rand) based on human exceptionalism only works if you are exceptional. Do you realize you live entirely at the mercy of others upholding their responsibility not to kill you?   Seriously.  Laws on paper are only good to the point where people believe there is a morality behind them.  And last time I checked murder continues.  Shall we talk about that likelihood?</p>
<p>You contend my argument is based on emotion, while yours isn&#8217;t. However, at the very core of your argument is a pure hypocrisy: </p>
<p> you condone violence to avert violence;<br />
deadly force is merciful and morally justifiable against innocent human beings;<br />
killing our own children is an act of responsibility to others;<br />
and, ultimately the violence of abortion is an appeal to force to remove the assertion (truth) of the child.</p>
<p>Sorry, that&#8217;s not rational, it&#8217;s insane. So your logic is invalid and your charge false.  Nik &#8211; your comment looks fearful,  very typical of pro-choice &#8220;population-control&#8221; arguments &#8211; &#8220;get them before they get us.&#8221;</p>
<blockquote><p><strong><a href="#comment-111" rel="nofollow">Nik said</a> :</strong>The way to minimize the number of abortions performed is to minimize the number of unintended pregnancies.  Where does your group stand on contraception, birth control and sex education?
</p></blockquote>
<p> Group, what group?  My family and I believe in the sanctity of marriage, the blessing of chilldren, that sex is a family matter, not a public one and that sex education should be frank discussions between parents and their children, not for the public to impose upon our family.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Nik</title>
		<link>http://www.thrufire.com/blog/2009/02/biosled-anti-abortion-argument/comment-page-1/#comment-111</link>
		<dc:creator>Nik</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 20 Dec 2009 02:33:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thrufire.com/blog/?p=629#comment-111</guid>
		<description>In general, I tend to agree with your argument.  However, you don&#039;t address the fact that the majority of abortion candidates are uneducated and poor, and if these children were to be born, then they would be impoverished, likely grow up to continue the cycle of generational poverty, and to commit crimes.  By advocating criminalizing abortion in the US, then, one would be endorsing increasing the violent crime rate, the illiteracy rate, and the poverty rate in the US.  Is that an acceptable trade-off?  Perhaps one in a million of these unborn children would accomplish great things (assuming an even distribution of success)... Ayn Rand says only about one in three-hundred people (about 3z) matter.  So, 299/300 of these aborted children don&#039;t matter? And that&#039;s assuming that these infants have the same chance as born infants to matter... in fact, these children are LEAST likely of all to have exceptional lives.  When your entire argument and political stance is based on exceptional, unusual cases and not likelihoods, few thinking people are interested in buying into your arguments.  Yours is an entirely emotional, not rational, argument.

The way to minimize the number of abortions performed is to minimize the number of unintended pregnancies.  Where does your group stand on contraception, birth control and sex education?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In general, I tend to agree with your argument.  However, you don&#8217;t address the fact that the majority of abortion candidates are uneducated and poor, and if these children were to be born, then they would be impoverished, likely grow up to continue the cycle of generational poverty, and to commit crimes.  By advocating criminalizing abortion in the US, then, one would be endorsing increasing the violent crime rate, the illiteracy rate, and the poverty rate in the US.  Is that an acceptable trade-off?  Perhaps one in a million of these unborn children would accomplish great things (assuming an even distribution of success)&#8230; Ayn Rand says only about one in three-hundred people (about 3z) matter.  So, 299/300 of these aborted children don&#8217;t matter? And that&#8217;s assuming that these infants have the same chance as born infants to matter&#8230; in fact, these children are LEAST likely of all to have exceptional lives.  When your entire argument and political stance is based on exceptional, unusual cases and not likelihoods, few thinking people are interested in buying into your arguments.  Yours is an entirely emotional, not rational, argument.</p>
<p>The way to minimize the number of abortions performed is to minimize the number of unintended pregnancies.  Where does your group stand on contraception, birth control and sex education?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: BioSLED - essential pro-life position &#124; ThruFire</title>
		<link>http://www.thrufire.com/blog/2009/02/biosled-anti-abortion-argument/comment-page-1/#comment-102</link>
		<dc:creator>BioSLED - essential pro-life position &#124; ThruFire</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 18 Aug 2009 22:16:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thrufire.com/blog/?p=629#comment-102</guid>
		<description>[...] BioSLED - the best argument against abortion-choice. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] BioSLED &#8211; the best argument against abortion-choice. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Embryology Texts &#124; ThruFire</title>
		<link>http://www.thrufire.com/blog/2009/02/biosled-anti-abortion-argument/comment-page-1/#comment-101</link>
		<dc:creator>Embryology Texts &#124; ThruFire</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 18 Aug 2009 15:12:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thrufire.com/blog/?p=629#comment-101</guid>
		<description>[...] texts are invaluable when you use BioSLED to defend life. They provide the &#8220;Bio&#8221; - logical scientific portion of the [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] texts are invaluable when you use BioSLED to defend life. They provide the &#8220;Bio&#8221; &#8211; logical scientific portion of the [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: BioSLED - Handling Bodily Autonomy Abortion Arguments &#124; ThruFire</title>
		<link>http://www.thrufire.com/blog/2009/02/biosled-anti-abortion-argument/comment-page-1/#comment-92</link>
		<dc:creator>BioSLED - Handling Bodily Autonomy Abortion Arguments &#124; ThruFire</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 19 May 2009 16:09:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thrufire.com/blog/?p=629#comment-92</guid>
		<description>[...] to apply BioSLED - the best argument against abortion-choice against those who believe a mother&#8217;s &#8220;right to bodily autonomy&#8221; justifies [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] to apply BioSLED &#8211; the best argument against abortion-choice against those who believe a mother&#8217;s &#8220;right to bodily autonomy&#8221; justifies [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: BioSLED - Handling Non-personhood abortion arguments &#124; ThruFire</title>
		<link>http://www.thrufire.com/blog/2009/02/biosled-anti-abortion-argument/comment-page-1/#comment-73</link>
		<dc:creator>BioSLED - Handling Non-personhood abortion arguments &#124; ThruFire</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 13 May 2009 18:05:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thrufire.com/blog/?p=629#comment-73</guid>
		<description>[...] How to handle personhood arguments using BioSLED - the best argument against abortion-choice. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] How to handle personhood arguments using BioSLED &#8211; the best argument against abortion-choice. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Choice? &#124; ThruFire</title>
		<link>http://www.thrufire.com/blog/2009/02/biosled-anti-abortion-argument/comment-page-1/#comment-72</link>
		<dc:creator>Choice? &#124; ThruFire</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 12 May 2009 20:14:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thrufire.com/blog/?p=629#comment-72</guid>
		<description>[...] If abortion-choicers complain, ask them questions based on BioSLED. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] If abortion-choicers complain, ask them questions based on BioSLED. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
