Tebow to appear in Focus on the Family commercial during SB XLIV

It's neither morally nor logically indefensible.

 

Check the surveys, you say? Gladly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism#cite_note-Britannica_demographics-3

And yes, this is a Wiki link. However, it is a citation of an Encylopaedia Brittanica entry; that entry is unfortunately behind a registration wall.

So I make that nearly 15 percent of the world's population that is either out-and-out atheist or at the very least entirely indifferent to religion. Somewhere in the neighborhood of a billion people.

16.1 percent of Americans, by the way, making it by far the second-most popular choice.

 

God I loathe abortion discussions, but this will drag me in for a moment...

YF, that's actually the one stance I find least defensible.

If abortion is the killing of an innocent child, how is that OK if it was incest or rape?

In general terms, "pro-choice" people believe it is not really a baby until a certain point of the pregnancy, so to end the pregnancy before that point is not murder.

"Pro-life" people believe it's a baby from the point of conception, so abortion is the murder of an innocent child.

If a baby is the result of a rape, is it OK to kill it?

 

If your mother exercised the right you support, you would not be here to support that "right" today.

There's no way around that issue for pro-choice people. It demonstrates the absurdity of supporting a right to abortion.

 

That makes so little sense it's mind-boggling. You can no sooner argue that than you can argue that the Second Amendment requires everyone to own a gun.

 

You dismissed the "eye for an eye" thing because it's from Deuteronomy. Are there other parts of the Bible also easily dismissed?

 

I'm trying to get your side to make the trade. I've got to give in a little, right?

I said I'd settle for that. I didn't say it's what I'd want in a perfect world.

 

I think you misunderstood me. I wasn't dismissing it because it was from the Old Testament, I was trying to say that it was a Biblically rooted concept.

Sorry if that wasn't clear.

Though, Jesus did put his own spin on it.

 

Ah, so in your perfect world, a rape victim is required to carry her attacker's baby. That about right?

 

That's not a valid argument. That's the equivalent of, "You'd want the death penalty if your wife was killed!"

 

It's not even that. The "you'd want X if Y happened" at least is possibly true, albeit irrelevant.

This argument is several steps below. It quite literally makes no logical sense.

 

Well, politically, yeah. Morally, I'm not sure how I understand how you can make the trade.

And ultimately, this is the dealbreaker for me, and why I'm pro-choice. I can't fathom forcing a rape victim to carry the child, which tells me that deep down I don't believe it's a baby for the first period of the pregnancy, and that people who are OK with that compromise don't either.