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

[whm]

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.

So why do very very young embryos have measurable brainwaves?

Why do late term embryos react in pain while they are being attacked in the womb?

How about a one month old baby then? How about a 2 month old baby that was born 8 weeks early?

What if the women wishes to keep the baby but is under pressure to abort it(which is often the case)?

I would be careful about deciding who is and who is not a person. Historically bad things happen to the group labeled non-persons.

 

[flyingfish]

So why do very very young embryos have measurable brainwaves?

Why do late term embryos react in pain while they are being attacked in the womb?

How about a one month old baby then? How about a 2 month old baby that was born 8 weeks early?

What if the women wishes to keep the baby but is under pressure to abort it(which is often the case)?

I would be careful about deciding who is and who is not a person. Historically bad things happen to the group labeled non-persons.

Brainwaves don’t equal self awareness. Many things in this world have brainwaves and react to being attacked, I doubt for example that fish or ants have self awareness.

Wishing to keep the baby but being pressured to abort it (whether by people or life circumstances like poverty) may well be the reason for many abortions. As people who are against abortions and feel that stopping them is a huge priority, how much money do you regularly give to these women so that they choose life?

 

[whm]

Wishing to keep the baby but being pressured to abort it (whether by people or life circumstances like poverty) may well be the reason for many abortions. As people who are against abortions and feel that stopping them is a huge priority, how much money do you regularly give to these women so that they choose life?

So you support abortion because you don’t want to (indirectly) pay for the babies? Do you realize that those aborted babies are need to keep our economy going into the future? They would one day be paying your social security check.

Although it is a tired pro-choice comeback i will answer your question, me and my family support a local women shelter, a food bank and a homeless shelter. Note, anything we give is available though God’s blessings and is a reflection of His merits not ours. I can get you the address of the women’s shelter if you would like to donate something.

 

[Scoobyshme]

The reasons you all give for being pro-“choice” are things that we have to work on in order to eliminate the “need” for abortion. Read what pro-life feminist Serrin Foster has written in her essay “Women Deserve Better Than Abortion”: feministsforlife.org/news/WDBSMF150.pdf

There are even things that you can do for ectopic pregnancies: cuf.org/Faithfacts/details_view.asp?ffID=57

64% of abortions are forced. 80% of women who have had an abortion didn’t know that there was another choice. They were never helped. They were never offered help. They didn’t know that there are people willing to help them, house them, give them jobs, money, food, items for the child, babysitting, people willing to help them get through school and achieve their dreams.

There is no reason to be pro-choice, other than to eliminate a child coming into this world. Abortion is anti-women, anti-life, pro-cancer, pro-eugenics, pro-slavery, racist, masculist, etc.

No child should be unwanted. No woman should be forced into a choice they don’t want to make. Abortion backs women into a corner. Abortion is not the answer. Support, love, and care are the answer.

MoonChild, I have to say that your answer is one of the most outstanding answers I’ve ever seen on these boards! You really nailed that one! I’m bookmarking it to use for later discussions on other boards, if you don’t mind.

God bless!

 

[carinapir]

A person as has been argued about before can have various definitions. At the fundamental level, we are dealing with a human being, that’s an absolute classification, not only in religion, but at the scientific level.

I used to be pro-life until I got pregnant at 19 and pro-choice became very convenient. Now I’m back on the fence, but the bottom line is that the “state” does not classify it a murder so, while his arguments might not seem logical, the U.S. agrees with flyingfish. As a secular matter, since it’s not murder, it should be a woman’s choice, until such time as you can convince the state to call it murder.

 

[whm]

I used to be pro-life until I got pregnant at 19 and pro-choice became very convenient. Now I’m back on the fence, but the bottom line is that the “state” does not classify it a murder so, while his arguments might not seem logical, the U.S. agrees with flyingfish. As a secular matter, since it’s not murder, it should be a woman’s choice, until such time as you can convince the state to call it murder.

Well the state is not always right. (slavery, women not being allowed to vote, dropping the bomb twice on Japan, etc) Row v Wade was a farce and an example of legislating from the bench. Roe btw never had the abortion and is now a pro lifer.

 

[Scoobyshme]

I used to be pro-life until I got pregnant at 19 and pro-choice became very convenient. Now I’m back on the fence, but the bottom line is that the “state” does not classify it a murder so, while his arguments might not seem logical, the U.S. agrees with flyingfish. As a secular matter, since it’s not murder, it should be a woman’s choice, until such time as you can convince the state to call it murder.

carinapir, when you die, who’s going to judge you? Certainly not the state.

Any law that contradicts either the Natural Law or Divine Law is null and void. It is no law at all. Such is the case with Roe v Wade.

You may be interested in listening to Dr. Charles Rice speak on Natural Law at the following link:

alabamacatholicresources.com/Downloads/Natural_Law-1.mp3

Or Dr. Peter Kreeft give a lesson on the logic of being pro-life, etc., at the following link:

alabamacatholicresources.com/Downloads/peter-kreeft_prolife-logic.mp3

 

[carinapir]

carinapir, when you die, who’s going to judge you? Certainly not the state.

No, the state will not judge us after we die, but not everyone believes that, so that’s not a good argument if the person you are talking to isn’t already on the same page. Besides, we all get to choose what we will be judged for by choosing what we do in our lives.

I was responding to a specific point made by another poster. While the fetus is definitely human and not some other animal, abortion is still not judged to be murder by the law. As such, it remains a woman’s choice. It doesn’t matter if it’s human, only if it’s murder.

I read something interesting somewhere about Pro-Life versus Pro-Choice saying that the terms did not make since and in order to really equate them you would have to change them to “pro-life” vs. “pro-death” or “pro-choice” vs. “pro-coercion” both of which label the other side incorrectly.

 

[Scoobyshme]

No, the state will not judge us after we die, but not everyone believes that, so that’s not a good argument if the person you are talking to isn’t already on the same page.

I was responding to a specific point made by another poster. While the fetus is definitely human and not some other animal, abortion is still not judged to be murder by the law. As such, it remains a woman’s choice. It doesn’t matter if it’s human, only if it’s murder.

I read something interesting somewhere about Pro-Life versus Pro-Choice saying that the terms did not make since and in order to really equate them you would have to change them to “pro-life” vs. “pro-death” or “pro-choice” vs. “pro-coercion” both of which label the other side incorrectly.

It seems like you’re saying that the law governs the morality of an act (such as abortion). It doesn’t. If that were the case, then the Nazi’s did nothing wrong in killing six million Jews during their reign, because it was within the bounds of German law at the time. And, yet, I think you would find it hard to find someone that thought that the Holocaust was just fine because it was “legal” at the time. Or how about slavery, which at one time was legal in the United States. Did that make it moral? Of course not.

We have to be careful to whom it is we listen. There isn’t anything new in the world. Just old ideas repackaged. Abortion was, is, and always will be intrinsically evil. It’s playing God. God is the Author of life, not man. It is for Him to decide when life begins, and when it ends.

This viewpoint you have is held by many, not because they have really thought it through, but because they bought into someone else’s already existing ideology. It will eventually destroy our economy and our culture. Google “Demographic Bomb” or “Demographic Winter” and see what they have to say about it. There’s a website with an interesting couple of trailers at www.demographicwinter.com, if you’re interested.

 

[carinapir]

It seems like you’re saying that the law governs the morality of an act (such as abortion).

Nope, I saying that the law has nothing to do with what is moral or immoral. The current abortion law simply does not seek prevent someone from making their own moral choice. I feel that the anti-abortion fight wastes it’s time with the law when it is the individuals and society that needs to change if we truly want to eliminate abortions. Abortion could remain legal and society could make it obsolete.

 

[Luke_K]

Nope, I saying that the law has nothing to do with what is moral or immoral. The current abortion law simply does not seek prevent someone from making their own moral choice. I feel that the anti-abortion fight wastes it’s time with the law when it is the individuals and society that needs to change if we truly want to eliminate abortions. Abortion could remain legal and society could make it obsolete.

Imagine if we had went with that approach for slavery, child labor, and segregation. “Oh we don’t need to make a law against it! Just make slavery obsolete by changing the hearts of the people!”

Civil rights are not attained when laws exist to enable the devaluation of a social class.

 

[flyingfish]

So you support abortion because you don’t want to (indirectly) pay for the babies? Do you realize that those aborted babies are need to keep our economy going into the future? They would one day be paying your social security check.

Although it is a tired pro-choice comeback i will answer your question, me and my family support a local women shelter, a food bank and a homeless shelter. Note, anything we give is available though God’s blessings and is a reflection of His merits not ours. I can get you the address of the women’s shelter if you would like to donate something.

That is absolutely not what I said, I said that many women have abortions because they are poor and feel they cannot afford a child, cannot afford to be pregnant (maybe they have to work more than 1 job, and pregnancy would take that away).

Women who are poor are also more likely to succumb to the pressure of their parents or boyfriends or husbands who may be financially supporting them.

These women may not want to have abortions, but they feel they must. I wonder if people who are pro life put their money where their mouth is.

 

[carinapir]

Imagine if we had went with that approach for slavery, child labor, and segregation.

“Oh we don’t need to make a law against it! Just change the hearts of the people!”

Let’s make a law against masturbation then. Oh, and not honoring your father and mother, too!

The point is that the law has a different function than one’s personal moral code. Society has made choices about what is punishable under human law and what is not. It has nothing to do with what is moral and what is not.

 

[Luke_K]

These women may not want to have abortions, but they feel they must. I wonder if people who are pro life put their money where their mouth is.

Not that I want you to, but have you helped pay for a poor woman’s abortion?

 

[flyingfish]

Not that I want you to, but have you helped pay for a poor woman’s abortion?

No, and why would I? If you are pro-life, you might want to give money to a woman so that she doesn’t have an abortion because she is too poor to be pregnant or financially depends on people who are pushing her into the abortion.

I don’t want the woman to have an abortion, I don’t care whether or not she has one.

 

[Luke_K]

Let’s make a law against masturbation then. Oh, and not honoring your father and mother, too!

The point is that the law has a different function than one’s personal moral code. Society has made choices about what is punishable under human law and what is not. It has nothing to do with what is moral and what is not.

So you believe that the government is the arbiter of what’s right and wrong to do? What if the nation amended the constitution to have you executed just for fun? I suppose it would be okay to do so then under your logic.

 

[carinapir]

So you believe that the government is the arbiter of what’s right and wrong to do?

Not right and wrong as referring just versus sinful, no. That is not government’s purpose. The government attempts to regulate society so that it functions. It does not attempt to get us into heaven. Seeking to legislate the path to God is foolish. But your logic, every sin should be illegal which is redundant really because every sin already will be punished.

What if the nation amended the constitution to have you executed just for fun? I suppose it would be okay to do so then under your logic.

Now, that is just ridiculous and rude! The U.S. wouldn’t change the constitution to execute one person, so what is your point?

 

[Luke_K]

But your logic, every sin should be illegal which is redundant really because every sin already will be punished.

That isn’t my logic whatsoever. I have no idea where you are getting the idea that I want every sin to be made illegal. I made the analogies to slavery, child labor, and segregation where the country didn’t just “change the hearts of the people,” but made them illegal, and so abortion should be treated the same way.

Now, that is just ridiculous and rude! The U.S. wouldn’t change the constitution to execute one person, so what is your point?

The point is that it is entirely possible, despite what may realistically happen. For something more real, how about if the Supreme Court ruled that African Americans were not persons like white people? (Dred Scott v. Sandford)

Chief Justice Taney, in attempting to show that Negroes were not considered “citizens” or “people” in the constitution, appealed to the “public history of every European nation” as regarding black people only as slaves:
We refer to these historical facts for the purpose of showing the fixed opinions concerning that race, upon which the statesmen of that day spoke and acted. It is necessary to do this, in order to determine whether the general terms used in the Constitution of the United States, as to the rights of man and the rights of the people, was intended to include them, or to give to them or their posterity the benefit of any of its provisions.

 

[carinapir]

That isn’t my logic whatsoever. I have no idea where you are getting the idea that I want every sin to be made illegal. I made the analogies to slavery, child labor, and segregation where the country didn’t just “change the hearts of the people,” but made them illegal, and so abortion should be treated the same way.

I got the idea in the same place that you got that by my logic the U.S. would pass a constitutional amendment to kill me. A sarcastic place.

The point is that it is entirely possible, despite what may realistically happen. For something more real, how about if the Supreme Court ruled that African Americans were not persons like white people?

African Americans are not one individual person.

 

[OraLabora]

God made both humans and animals. I don’t read the bible literally, so I don’t agree with the argument that humans are children of God while chimps and dolphins are not.

Can a dolphin or chimp consciously come to know God, love Him, and choose Him over evil?

If not, then what does that mean for your alleged filial relationship between them and God?