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

[Abu]

To flyingfish
Catholics don’t have the luxury of believing or “feeling” whatever they choose – that’s simply not a follower of Christ’s Church. There are no conservative or liberal Catholics – there are only faithful Catholics and dissenters.

Christ gave infallibility to Peter to bind and loose in His Name – that’s why we have HIs Church. Simple really.

You simply can’t be doing “your best” to follow God in His Son, Jesus of Nazareth, in doing good and avoiding evil as He teaches through His Church.

From your own words you are following selfism as defined by convert Dr Paul Vitz – the reward for self is the only functional ethical principle – self worship. In effect you have set yourself up as a god.

If you start using your God-given reason you may see:

That the embryo is 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.

 

[vera_dicere]

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.

This guy heard everything around him, despite doctors thinking he was “gone”.

celebrifi.com/gossip/Mom-Son-in-coma-heard-everything-for-23-years-1103327.html

This isn’t the only case. Its rather horrific for people to allocate “rights” to people based on ignorance of someone else’s awareness.

Life shouldn’t be protected based on sentience or higher brain function, but on the simple fact that they’re a human being.

 

[vera_dicere]

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??

I think the other issue with todays “enlightened” pro-choice [to kill unborn children] individuals ignore the history.

My Sittee (gran) told me she never thought she’d see the day when a woman could walk into a hospital and have a “doctor” kill her child. My Sittee is a staunch advocate for the unborn, she herself lost relatives to the Nazi’s, and so isn’t a big fan of the “non-person” mantra.

Feminists of old that I’ve spoken too, women who argued for abortion to be safe, legal and rare back in 1960, 70s, have told me they never thought “safe legal and rare” would happen over 4,000 times a day in America, nor include a procedure where viable children were pulled out of the womb feet first and stabbed in the back of the head to have their brains sucked out.

Those in the Netherlands and other places where Euthanasia are now starting to see that elderly, “chronically” ill and infants with downs are being “euthanised” and probably against their will for the fiscal gain of others.

Abortion has slaughtered one third of a generation. The remaining 2/3rds of us will have to support 3/3rds of our parents’ generation, the same generation who legalised child killing within the womb, our parents’ generation is living longer, its our generation who are victims of sitting on the internet and gorging on twinkies. Our generation will not be able to support our parents generation.

And so, fiscal purdency will win and life will loose. It is logical and reasonable to expect that if we do not turn back the tide of the “culture of death” it will be our turn to kill our parents for them killing our siblings. It will reach a point where its no longer a mandatory retirement age, but a mandatory euthanasia age, whether its conscented too or not.

This is what history has taught us, and those who ignore it or scoff at it will be in for a nasty surprise.

 

[Abu]

BTW face some more facts on the evil of abortion

Researcher: Abortion is $38.5 Trillion Drag on the Economy

MT. FREEDOM, NJ, January 20, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) – In its latest estimate on the economic impact of abortion, the Movement for a Better America is reporting that the abortion toll is projected to climb to a new high of 52,333,000 as of January 22, 2010, the 37th anniversary of Roe V. Wade.

The group also estimated that the economic impact has risen to $38.5 trillion in lost U.S. Gross Domestic Product (GDP) since 1970.

“This year alone, the impact involved another $2.45 trillion, or roughly equal to half the GDP of Germany and France combined,” said the Movement in a press release.

lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/jan/10012007.html

 

[vera_dicere]

I think there is a fundamental disconnect between some pro-life positions and actions. For example, if you think that the unborn are truly persons, why aren’t you out there all the time fighting for them? Why aren’t you physically restraining abortion providers or women who have abortions to save lives? Why aren’t people who kill abortion providers praised as defenders of life? We certianly would have praised anyone who killed Hitler, had anyone managed to do so.

What, you don’t think us Lifers can care about the women? I’m a pro-life loud mouth feminist! Women deserve better then abortion! Instead of killing her child surely we as a society can offer her more support then scarring her mental health and her soul by killing her child! Seesh!! But violence will only beget more violence! Killing is wrong, and that includes killing those abortionists. And as another as mentioned, killing abortionists will only put us in jail where we can not help women or their unborn. Its counterproductive.

As for the woman loosing her eyesight, yes, that is heart wrenchingly tragic, but she would be in the slimest minority. Generally 98% of abortions are for social reasons. That leaves 2% of the 1.2 million pa in America for rape, foetal abnormality and maternal health threats. My math is not great, but 2% of 1.2 million is a slightly smaller number. (Though, still too many, especially given that 9 out of 10 downs babies are aborted).

I can’t comment further on that woman’s case, as well, I odnt’ have her medical notes in front of me, but there is generally no case where the foetus MUST be aborted to save the mother from pregnancy inflicted ills. There are other options that don’t get the light of day in so many arguments.

I think there’s hope for you getting away from that misplaced logic of “conscious = valuable person” argument. You just have to expand your consciousness a little more.

 

[BVM_1221]

Sad that you call yourself Catholic and your informed conscience…turns out, really isn’t all that informed.

Sigh…here we go again.

What did the original poster say about NOT trying to bait the pro-choice readers?:coffeeread:

My my, that attempt at politeness and courtesy didn’t last long, now did it?:dts:

So here we go once again, baiting those whose opinions you do not like with the concept of “well formed conscience”. :slapfight:

 

[Chelsie]

The devil loves the color gray { your so called extenuating circumstances } because it is neither black nor white. There is no ryme or reason for abortion. I have a deep sympathy for every woman who finds herself in the position of trying to decide if she wants to have an abortion but if everybody would support her in life and doing whats right then she could and would find the strength mabey not of her own but through God Jesus and the Holy Spirit. To do the right thing. It is an intrinsic evil that is not alowed by the church. For the sake of your soul I sugest you pray that your heart will be softened and that you will see the error of your selfesness. Jesus gave his life for us out of selflessness. Try to follow his example no matter what the extenuating circumstances may be.

 

[Harmony1988]

If you’re interested in my views read my other points in this thread, but generally there are exceptions to this. Most notably when the pregnancy threatens the mothers health or even life (I posted an actual example of a woman who is nearly blind because Poland didn’t let her have an abortion despite specialists saying pregnancy would do this to her).

We already know your view, we’re simply asking for logical reasoning behind your argumentation, of which you have supplied none currently.

For each dismissal, you bring up your “view” in a new form, each more ridiculous than the last.

You might say these cases are not normal. But I am not pro-abortion, I think abortion is generally a very bad thing. I just think there are situations when having an abortion is the best decision.

You aren’t even sure of your own stance, let alone argue for the case of pro-choice. This is what you said earlier:

“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.”

Your two statements are in stark contradiction to each other. First the wishes of the woman in question is to be desired (pro-choice) - pro-choice is generally when people agree the decision should be made by the woman regardless of what the situation is, for the choice is entirely up to her. That is also known as “pro-abortion” - However you concede just now that abortion is generally a bad thing, and it depends on the situation. That is not at all in line with what pro-choice is it? So first you were pro-abortion/pro-choice, and now you aren’t?

Are you arguing for a law to be set depending on the situation, or are you saying the law should leave the choice up to the woman regardless of the situation? I have a feeling you yourself aren’t too sure of what your stance is and are just trying to weasel your way in and out, concede here, concede there, make an irrelevant point there etc.

Sort out which side of fence you’re on, or whether you’re on the fence, and then form your arguments.

 

[Harmony1988]

If I wanted to read articles about comas, I would search for them and read them. If you think there are relevant points in the article, please summarize them.

If you don’t want to read what is given, especially when it concerns what you’re arguing about, then don’t argue! I don’t want to summarize points from the article, because it wouldn’t make any sense without being read in its entirety.

My argument remains the same, personhood comes down to whether the organism is capable of producing conscious thought.

Where is the evidence for this? Remember, you are entitled to your opinion, but an opinion lacking some kind of evidence and logical reasoning behind the opinion as to why things are the way they are, or why we should embrace your opinion is null and void, because it’s as convincing as claiming the boogey-man is making his rounds tonight.

So state your personal opinion with reasoning of some sort. Unless of course your evidence and reasoning is the aforementioned existence/non-existence new-age being (completely unscientific) argument

Edit: I looked through the article, and I remember reading about this case before. It is questionable whether the man is alive because “facilitated communication” is itself questionable.

The issue was not regarding whether he was alive or not. Question all you want, but the end result of that was that despite the negative views, with advancement of technology he was brought back to a “normal” state. If the plug was pulled on him, he would have died.

Not that it’s relevant to the discussion, since conceivably there might well be people we say are unconscious who actually are.

You brought it up mate, you argued about it for a while, so don’t rant about relevancy

 

[PaulinVA]

Flying Fish, I’ve followed this discussion with interest.

I will only say that grading people by their perceived conciseness something that is arbitrary and capricious, and really isn’t supported by facts. What I mean by that is saying that this person is conscious but this one is not, or this person can survive outside the womb and this one can not not definitive. I have teenagers - sometimes I wonder if they would survive without their mother and me, much less if a newborn would survive outside the womb without intervention from an adult. Some people, quite frankly, would probably never rise to the level of conscious being if we could vote on it!

It is much easier to say that life begins at conception. This is a scientifically proven point in time. When people have their first thought, when people are aware of life around them, when people begin to contribute to society, when people no longer contribute to society - these things are subjective, are not easily measured, could be different for each person, and, quite frankly, could be used to arbitrarily kill people. People, not collections of cells.

 

[Harmony1988]

Flying Fish, I’ve followed this discussion with interest.

I will only say that grading people by their perceived conciseness something that is arbitrary and capricious, and really isn’t supported by facts. What I mean by that is saying that this person is conscious but this one is not, or this person can survive outside the womb and this one can not not definitive. I have teenagers - sometimes I wonder if they would survive without their mother and me, much less if a newborn would survive outside the womb without intervention from an adult. Some people, quite frankly, would probably never rise to the level of conscious being if we could vote on it!

It is much easier to say that life begins at conception. This is a scientifically proven point in time. When people have their first thought, when people are aware of life around them, when people begin to contribute to society, when people no longer contribute to society - these things are subjective, are not easily measured, could be different for each person, and, quite frankly, could be used to arbitrarily kill people. People, not collections of cells.

Well said PaulinVA!

 

[flyingfish]

Where is the evidence for this?

What is my evidence for what being a person means to me? I don’t think evidence is applicable here, seeing how we’re talking about personal opinions about what it means to be a person. There is no right answer.

Some people might want to say that all humans are persons, I think all conscious entities are person, regardless of whether or not they are human (for instance there is evidence that chimps and dolphins qualify as persons in my definition).

As for abortions, I am prochoice insofar as I think the choice should always be up to the woman regardless of the circumstances. But I don’t think the choice to have an abortion is the best one in all circumstances.

 

[flyingfish]

It is much easier to say that life begins at conception. This is a scientifically proven point in time. When people have their first thought, when people are aware of life around them, when people begin to contribute to society, when people no longer contribute to society - these things are subjective, are not easily measured, could be different for each person, and, quite frankly, could be used to arbitrarily kill people. People, not collections of cells.

I never said life doesn’t begin at conception. But if you think about it, human beings are not the only thing alive on this planet. Every day we eat other things that were once alive, whether plants or animals.

I personally don’t feel bad when I eat my steak and veggies, even though I am eating something that was killed for me to eat it.

For this reason, I don’t think think simply being alive is a good classification for defining what it means to be a person.

 

[PaulinVA]

I never said life doesn’t begin at conception. But if you think about it, human beings are not the only thing alive on this planet. Every day we eat other things that were once alive, whether plants or animals.

I personally don’t feel bad when I eat my steak and veggies, even though I am eating something that was killed for me to eat it.

For this reason, I don’t think think simply being alive is a good classification for defining what it means to be a person.

And my point is that if you go beyond being alive, any classification system is man made, arbitrary, and has no justification in facts.

 

[Harmony1988]

What is my evidence for what being a person means to me? I don’t think evidence is applicable here, seeing how we’re talking about personal opinions about what it means to be a person. There is no right answer.

Some people might want to say that all humans are persons, I think all conscious entities are person, regardless of whether or not they are human (for instance there is evidence that chimps and dolphins qualify as persons in my definition).

As for abortions, I am prochoice insofar as I think the choice should always be up to the woman regardless of the circumstances. But I don’t think the choice to have an abortion is the best one in all circumstances.

I’m sorry, there should have been an or in that sentence:

Where is the evidence for this? Remember, you are entitled to your opinion, but an opinion lacking some kind of evidence or logical reasoning behind the…

 

[Harmony1988]

I never said life doesn’t begin at conception. But if you think about it, human beings are not the only thing alive on this planet. Every day we eat other things that were once alive, whether plants or animals.

I personally don’t feel bad when I eat my steak and veggies, even though I am eating something that was killed for me to eat it.

For this reason, I don’t think think simply being alive is a good classification for defining what it means to be a person.

Don’t muddle the distinction between a human being and another type of being. 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.

So I fail to see why you’re bringing in other beings as a part of your argument in this post It’s not even relevant.

 

[flyingfish]

And my point is that if you go beyond being alive, any classification system is man made, arbitrary, and has no justification in facts.

If you are going to go this route, being alive is arbitrary too. Why should we value life at all? Why should we value human life more than other types of life?

At some point you say, this is what I value and this is why.

Don’t muddle the distinction between a human being and another type of being. 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.

So I fail to see why you’re bringing in other beings as a part of your argument in this post It’s not even relevant.

I don’t see why human beings should be treated any differently from any other beings. Dolphins and chimps are self aware for example, they recognize themselves in the mirror, and chimps are approximately equivalent to a 3 year old. Some scientists have recently said that dolphins should be classified as non-human persons.

Should we develop artificial intelligence, I would classify it as a person as well .

I am bringing in other beings into the argument because I see no reason to make personhood human-specific. Whether a being is human or not, seems to be completely irrelevant to me.

Another poster said that life should define personhood, and I pointed out that there are plenty of things that are definitely alive and we have no trouble killing and eating.

Saying that only human life counts, to me seems completely arbitrary, which is why this definition doesn’t make sense to me, and why I don’t think this way.

 

[OraLabora]

Saying that only human life counts, to me seems completely arbitrary, which is why this definition doesn’t make sense to me, and why I don’t think this way.

Were animals made in God’s image?

I didn’t think so.

He is the Father. We (humans) are His children. All of us. We are in fact the only creatures on Earth capable of entering into a relationship with God.

Which makes talk about the self-awareness of chimps and dolphins irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

 

[dixieagle]

Actually, I have thought about this for a long time, and I truly do believe that I cease to exist every time I fall asleep. In fact, I think I cease to exist from instant of time to instant of time, and a new, nearly identical “I”, is created by my brain. I don’t think that personhood, or consciousness is continuous. If you think I’m lying to you, not much I can do to convince you I’m telling the truth that this is what I really think.

With all due respect…this is :whacky:

Not all “comas” are the save. Terry Shiavo for example was brain dead, they did an autopsy on her following her death that confirmed it. She was never going to wake up.

She most certainly was brain dead…after they pulled the plug!

And I already told you that I am not sure how to treat sleep/temporary unconsciousness.

I don’t think it’s anything like the situation of the fetus though. On the one hand you have an organism capable of generating consciousness, on the other you don’t.

Something tells me that a fetus is certainly aware (conscious) of being ripped apart, limb from limb.

 

[flyingfish]

Were animals made in God’s image?

I didn’t think so.

He is the Father. We (humans) are His children. All of us. We are in fact the only creatures on Earth capable of entering into a relationship with God.

Which makes talk about the self-awareness of chimps and dolphins irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

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.