Any ex-pro-life staunchly pro-choicers out there?

[OraLabora]

I was 100% pro-life, now I am pro-choice. I became pro-choice when I realized that I was pro-life only because I was supposed to be. I don’t think that embryos are persons, they don’t have thoughts or plans for the future, so feel the wishes of the woman are a far more important consideration for me.

Utter nonsense. Neither does a newborn have thoughts or plans for the future. Where do you think life starts?

Science and faith agree on one thing: a few short moments after conception, the embryo has the genetic composition of a unique, human individual, the DNA that it will carry until (its hopefully natural) death. Being an embryo is just one phase on the journey from conception to death, that a human being travels.

Will outlawing murder stop all murders? No. Will outlawing abortion stop all abortions? No.

But it is a matter of justice that we try and convict murderers, whether they be murderers of adults, or murderers of human beings in utero.

 

[Annie39]

Depending on what you mean by pro-choice, I am. When I say pro-choice I mean that I think every baby that is conceived should be treated like a human being and notkilled, but I cannot imagine what it is to be pregnant with a rapists child, and I think pro-life has to go farther than the birth if a child will simply die of starvation or be neglected or worse abused then is it truly a service to that child to bring them into the world? So in some cases, more than the Catholic Church, I am understanding of an abortion. When it comes to laws of the United States, I do not support anti-abortion laws, because even though I truly believe it is a life and it is murder I also think that there are extenuating circumstances and I think that outlawing abortion will not olve the problem, women will still have abortions ut instead of going to a doctor in a sterile environment they will do with coat hangers or other dangerous and scary things. So if that is what you consider pro-choice then I am a Catholic who is also pro-choice. As far as ex-pro-life, I am that but only in the sense that I was pro-life because the Church is so sure it is the right way and I had not developed my fully informed conscionce (sorry for the spelling).

So laura kathleen. You think that it is okay to murder a little babe for the crime/sin of his father. You should get the book that has just came out by a Fox News person Kelly Wright amazon.com/Americas-Hope-Kelly-Wright/dp/product-description/1581581556 He happens to be the grown up victim of a rape (the mother is not the only victim). Write to him and tell him that he should have been murdered.

Annie

 

[vera_dicere]

Until the self awareness is there, I wouldn’t call it a person, but that’s my personal opinion.

Roe states that if it is established that human uterine entity is a person then abortion is no longer legal.

“Person” is simply a semantic, it has no grounding in biology.

However, self-awareness begins around age 2 - 4 depending on the child.

So, by your logic, toddlers are not persons.

So we can kill toddlers.

That is your logic.

 

[flyingfish]

Roe states that if it is established that human uterine entity is a person then abortion is no longer legal.

“Person” is simply a semantic, it has no grounding in biology.

However, self-awareness begins around age 2 - 4 depending on the child.

So, by your logic, toddlers are not persons.

So we can kill toddlers.

That is your logic.

If the science does say that human self awareness begins at 2-4, then I think that killing anyone before such time is not murder.

It might still be a crime, for instance depriving the parents of the child they have invested time and effort into, but I would not equate it with the killing of a conscious person but more with the killing of an animal.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

Mental illnesses and disabilities are not on the level of not having a consciousness at all.

If someone is brain dead, I think they are no longer a person. I am not sure at what age babies start to have thoughts/become self aware. My own earliest memories are from about 2 years old.

Until the self awareness is there, I wouldn’t call it a person, but that’s my personal opinion.

My son was born at almost 29 weeks. To be considered ‘full term’ he needed another 11 weeks. Was he not a person?

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

If the science does say that human self awareness begins at 2-4, then I think that killing anyone before such time is not murder.

It might still be a crime, for instance depriving the parents of the child they have invested time and effort into, but I would not equate it with the killing of a conscious person but more with the killing of an animal.

Really??? Historically people have been sentenced to death for the murder of innocent babies. To defend the lives of the unborn is hard enough, now 4 year olds are not people??? if a gunman breaks into my daughters school and bumps off the pre-k, is that a misdemeanor!!!

 

[flyingfish]

Really??? Historically people have been sentenced to death for the murder of innocent babies. To defend the lives of the unborn is hard enough, now 4 year olds are not people??? if a gunman breaks into my daughters school and bumps off the pre-k, is that a misdemeanor!!!

Historically people have also left newborns behind to die of exposure. I am also not claiming any numbers, but just responding to the person who said children become self aware at 2-4 years old.

As I said, I personally remember things from when I was around 2. I definitely don’t remember being a newborn, so there was no me to mind if someone had killed me back then. I also realize that memories are not the best way to judge when someone becomes conscious, it’s really up to scientists in relevant fields to figure this out.

I don’t see why you are getting upset though, the OP asked the question of why people who were pro-life became pro-choice. I am not advocating this position, but just explaining my reasoning to the OP.

 

[Luke_K]

If the science does say that human self awareness begins at 2-4, then I think that killing anyone before such time is not murder.

It might still be a crime, for instance depriving the parents of the child they have invested time and effort into, but I would not equate it with the killing of a conscious person but more with the killing of an animal.

Philosophically, it is impossible to prove the self-awareness of anyone else besides yourself. It’s called self-awareness for a reason. Regardless, all men are created equal and endowed by their creator with the inalienable right to life. There isn’t a condition attached to that.

People in comas are totally unaware of being alive. Do we have the right to kill them if they don’t have a family? After all, the only thing separating a baby boy in the womb and a man in a coma from consciousness is a matter of time.

 

[flyingfish]

Philosophically, it is impossible to prove the consciousness of anyone else besides yourself. It’s called self-consciousness for a reason. Regardless, all men are created equal and endowed by their creator with the inalienable right to life. There isn’t a condition attached to that.

People in comas are totally unaware of being alive. Do we have the right to kill them if they don’t have a family? After all, the only thing separating a baby boy in the womb and a man in a coma from consciousness is a matter of time.

And if someone held the belief that they were the only conscious entity, I would accept their view as intellectually defensible. Of course if they went around killing people, the rest of us would probably agree to lock that person up and throw away the key.

Coma is an interesting thing, I don’t know very much about it from the point of view of science. For me the deciding factor would be whether the person in a coma is brain dead, if they are, I would say it’s okay to cut life support.

If they are not brain dead, then it’s a different case from a baby in the womb. A person in a coma who is not brain dead is a person that was conscious, and is now (sleeping?) and may yet recover. A baby in the womb has never been conscious, so there was never a person there. So in my view, no one to attempt to protect.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

We live in a time in which most people live like kings of old. . .they have internet access, food, clothing, shelter, reasonable freedom from most of humanity’s ills such as sickness and war… .

"Free schooling’ through high school, and then college is available to a far greater number of people than ever before. . .

and in such a time when people should be not only wiser through education, and more ‘altruistic’ because their own lives are, relatively speaking, pleasant, fruitful, and full of potential. . .

When we’re so concerned with ‘saving the planet’ and so concerned for the ‘feelings’ of everything from people to plants. . .

these pro’choice’ (pro-kill) people. . .a product of the ‘golden age’, probably considering themselves to be educated, urbane, a slightly-better-than-average specimen of AD 2010 humanity. . .

are ready to cavalierly kill any beings whom they deem to display ‘lack of potential’, ‘lack of reasoning’, etc.

Unborn? “doesn’t plan ahead. . .kill it.”
Mental illness, any type? “Can’t think up to MY level. . .kill it.”

Under 4? “If I don’t have memories before then, they don’t either. . .no memory, no thinkee. . .kill it.”

Traumatic brain injury, Alzheimer’s, dementias of various types, brain lesions, plaques, various sequelae of illness or reaction to treatments that cause mental ‘fog’ or slowdown? “The quality of life doesn’t meet my standards. Kill it.”

Well, my pro-kill-them friends, maybe in 20 years when you’re in your peak, Botoxed 40s or so you’ll have shipped everybody over 60 onto the ice floes. . .buhbye, Granny!–and aborted any of the 'defect’ive infants, and ‘culled’ everybody of any age who didn’t meet the stringent “gotta think like me” criteria.

But heaven help you if you smugly walk out to your hovercar and get hit by a (perfectly fit and functioning) young man’s baseball, and wind up with a TBI (traumatic brain injury) yourself. . .because they’ll be wheeling you off to the "insta-suicide’ machines. Of course, you’ll be more than willing to go because if you can’t **be as perfect as you are now, **you’d **rather not live at all. **Right??

 

[Harmony1988]

Depending on what you mean by pro-choice, I am. When I say pro-choice I mean that I think every baby that is conceived should be treated like a human being and notkilled, but I cannot imagine what it is to be pregnant with a rapists child, and I think pro-life has to go farther than the birth if a child will simply die of starvation or be neglected or worse abused then is it truly a service to that child to bring them into the world? So in some cases, more than the Catholic Church, I am understanding of an abortion. When it comes to laws of the United States, I do not support anti-abortion laws, because even though I truly believe it is a life and it is murder I also think that there are extenuating circumstances and I think that outlawing abortion will not olve the problem, women will still have abortions ut instead of going to a doctor in a sterile environment they will do with coat hangers or other dangerous and scary things. So if that is what you consider pro-choice then I am a Catholic who is also pro-choice. As far as ex-pro-life, I am that but only in the sense that I was pro-life because the Church is so sure it is the right way and I had not developed my fully informed conscionce (sorry for the spelling).

What extenuating circumstances? Moral decisions can’t be made with vague references to hypothetical situations.

I respect your view in the case of rape, I disagree with it however. No one is saying it’s easy, however it seems that abortion appears to be a dependent morality in the mind of many. For in all cases, it’s not the fault of a child.

It’s not like self-defense where killing another being is done because they threaten your life, as opposed to murder, which is a calculated termination not threatening you or family/friends.

Keeping this in mind, it seems that saying abortion is wrong generally, but OK for rape victims as a fallacy (two wrongs make a right), not only is the argument logically incorrect, but it’s morally suspect looking at another analogy that’s given quite often:

1. Murder is wrong
2. However, he killed my wife
3. Therefore I will kill him

Either the person still acknowledges the revenge act is wrong, or he creates an exception.

1. Abortion is wrong
2. However, she was raped
3. Therefore I will abort

Same issue here, an exception is created.

I’m not saying that an exception to every scenario is automatically wrong, however when dealing with moral objectivity I think creating exceptions and laws based on vague references to “extenuating circumstances” questionable.

It also ties in with “turn the other cheek” - no one said it’s easy. You mentioned that you cannot imagine what it is to be pregnant as a rape victim, yes it must be horrible, however doing the right thing is never easy. Furthermore there have been some rape victims that have not aborted, so that should pretty much give real life examples to invalidate the rape victim argument.

Cheers

 

[flyingfish]

We live in a time in which most people live like kings of old. . .they have internet access, food, clothing, shelter, reasonable freedom from most of humanity’s ills such as sickness and war… .

"Free schooling’ through high school, and then college is available to a far greater number of people than ever before. . .

and in such a time when people should be not only wiser through education, and more ‘altruistic’ because their own lives are, relatively speaking, pleasant, fruitful, and full of potential. . .

When we’re so concerned with ‘saving the planet’ and so concerned for the ‘feelings’ of everything from people to plants. . .

these pro’choice’ (pro-kill) people. . .a product of the ‘golden age’, probably considering themselves to be educated, urbane, a slightly-better-than-average specimen of AD 2010 humanity. . .

are ready to cavalierly kill any beings whom they deem to display ‘lack of potential’, ‘lack of reasoning’, etc.

Unborn? “doesn’t plan ahead. . .kill it.”
Mental illness, any type? “Can’t think up to MY level. . .kill it.”

Under 4? “If I don’t have memories before then, they don’t either. . .no memory, no thinkee. . .kill it.”

Traumatic brain injury, Alzheimer’s, dementias of various types, brain lesions, plaques, various sequelae of illness or reaction to treatments that cause mental ‘fog’ or slowdown? “The quality of life doesn’t meet my standards. Kill it.”

Well, my pro-kill-them friends, maybe in 20 years when you’re in your peak, Botoxed 40s or so you’ll have shipped everybody over 60 onto the ice floes. . .buhbye, Granny!–and aborted any of the 'defect’ive infants, and ‘culled’ everybody of any age who didn’t meet the stringent “gotta think like me” criteria.

But heaven help you if you smugly walk out to your hovercar and get hit by a (perfectly fit and functioning) young man’s baseball, and wind up with a TBI (traumatic brain injury) yourself. . .because they’ll be wheeling you off to the "insta-suicide’ machines. Of course, you’ll be more than willing to go because if you can’t **be as perfect as you are now, **you’d **rather not live at all. **Right??

This is completely the opposite of what I feel. I am not pro-choice because I want to go around killing fetuses, I am pro-choice because I care about the women who are pregnant.

I feel compassion for those women, when they feel the pregnancy would be hard on them and their lives. They are the reason I am pro-choice, it has nothing to do with the fetuses. I was simply saying that because the unborn don’t have minds, I don’t see a conflict of interest between them and the women. The women get all my “interest” because they are the only party in the equation that is a person.

 

[Abu]

Opinion is useless when it is based on prejudice.

Reason and abortion

This reasoning is based on Princeton Professor Robert P George’s The Clash of Orthodoxies, ISI Books, 2001.

What then is the embryo? A living human being, a distinct, self-integrating organism internally directing its own growth and already possessing the active capacity to develop itself to further stages of maturity of its own kind retaining intact its distinctiveness and identity, as its DNA shows — the same DNA sequence that he or she will have in every cell of his or her fully developed body — this is what science has confirmed. This development is from the embryo to the foetus, infant, child and adolescent. You or I are the same being that was once an adolescent, and before that a toddler, an infant, a foetus and an embryo. To have destroyed the being at any of these stages would have destroyed you or me.

Neither the sperm cell from the father, nor the ovum from the mother, both of which unite to bring into being a distinct, self-integrating organism that is organically part of neither the father nor the mother regardless of where he or she is conceived, are themselves distinct self-integrating organisms.

Another secularist argument is that human embryos possess only “some” value but are not yet “persons” with rights.

We, as conscious and desiring agents, do not “have” organisms that we possess and use; we are rational organisms. The persons we are come into being precisely as and when the organisms we are come into being. We are essentially human, physical organisms — not some mere consciousness living in and using a human body — so all human beings are “persons” whose rights deserve respect and protection: embryonic human beings, retarded human beings, frail, deranged and dying human beings.

These are the responses that deny any rational validity whatsoever to abortion.

 

[Harmony1988]

I was 100% pro-life, now I am pro-choice. I became pro-choice when I realized that I was pro-life only because I was supposed to be. I don’t think that embryos are persons, they don’t have thoughts or plans for the future, so feel the wishes of the woman are a far more important consideration for me.

You “don’t think” - so you’re not completely sure?

Embryos don’t have personality, however they are human beings for they are living beings, and they are begotten by humans, hence human beings. It can’t get any simpler than that to understand.

The other important point is potential, you claimed they don’t have plans for the future, well, new born babies don’t have plans for the future either, they usually start making “plans” when they are well into the school years, and strictly speaking there are some individuals wasting away in their 30’s and 40’s with still no plans for the future, so using your argument, we should terminate them as well.

Choose your words carefully, shoddy ideas with no reasoning behind them is deconstructed easily.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

This is completely the opposite of what I feel. I am not pro-choice because I want to go around killing fetuses, I am pro-choice because I care about the women who are pregnant.

I feel compassion for those women, when they feel the pregnancy would be hard on them and their lives. They are the reason I am pro-choice, it has nothing to do with the fetuses. I was simply saying that because the unborn don’t have minds, I don’t see a conflict of interest between them and the women. The women get all my “interest” because they are the only party in the equation that is a person.

Ok…SO would you feel compassion for Andrea Yates, who was mentally ill, could not cope with 5 children, and drown them.? Some of them were under four…,so they wouldn’t ‘count’ as people anyway. But, caring for five children is so hard, Yates should have had the right to choose?

 

[Luke_K]

Of course if they went around killing people, the rest of us would probably agree to lock that person up and throw away the key.

There we have it! The historically timeless reason that de-humanization of certain classes of humans is possible:

They can’t defend themselves.

 

[flyingfish]

Ok…SO would you feel compassion for Andrea Yates, who was mentally ill, could not cope with 5 children, and drown them.? Some of them were under four…,so they wouldn’t ‘count’ as people anyway. But, caring for five children is so hard, Yates should have had the right to choose?

My understanding is that quite a few of those children were older and were self aware.

Even if they were all babies, there is still the father’s interest to contend with, the children are his as well and he put resources into them. It is an offense against him to kill them. Potentially those children could have been adopted out.

I don’t see why you keep using 4, since I’ve already said that I personally have memories from when I was 2, and don’t agree with that number.

I don’t know what you want me to say, if none of them had consciousness and she killed the, I don’t think murder is an applicable charge. I don’t feel guilty or bad typing this. I really do believe it.

 

[PAboy57]

unfortunately our society is sick in general. everyone is chasing a better life and more money and don’t want anything to get in the way of that. so many don’t have time for God anymore or even think to say thanks or a prayer. we have become so pathetic that many don’t even realize the value of a life regardless how young it is.

People just aren’t thinking this issue through. If they took time to see the research, the pictures, hear the pain of those who have done it, surely they would see it is wrong.

 

[TexCatholic4JMJ]

…

I feel compassion for those women, when they feel the pregnancy would be hard on them and their lives. …QUOTE]

What about thinking of the long term disasterous effects that the woman is likely to suffer?
Things such as breast cancer, depression, suicide, failed relationships,miscarriages,etc.
I think you need to talk to a few women who regret their abortion. Maybe you can then have real compassion and talk to them about options and help.

 

[flyingfish]

flyingfish;6190280:

…

I feel compassion for those women, when they feel the pregnancy would be hard on them and their lives. …QUOTE]

What about thinking of the long term disasterous effects that the woman is likely to suffer?
Things such as breast cancer, depression, suicide, failed relationships,miscarriages,etc.
I think you need to talk to a few women who regret their abortion. Maybe you can then have real compassion and talk to them about options and help.

Abortion is not a good choice for all women. This is why I am pro-choice though:

news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6470403.stm

When Alicja Tysiac became pregnant in February 2000, three eye specialists told her having another baby could put her eyesight at serious risk.

But neither the specialists nor her GP would authorise an abortion.

After giving birth later that year, Ms Tysiac suffered a retinal haemorrhage and feared she may go blind.

She now wears glasses with thick powerful lenses but she cannot see objects more than a metre and a half (5ft) away.

The eyesight of a person is far more valuable in my opinion than the continued existence of a lifeform that doesn’t even have a conscious mind.