Are pro-choicers worse than Holocaust deniers?

[GandalfTheWhite]

Yes, without a question.

 

[Fred_4]

Absolutely NOT!**** Individuals who are pro-choice usually truly believe that it is the correct choice based upon a woman’s rights. The fact that they perhaps have not actually thought through the ramifications of their position vis a vis morality in general, or do not have a strong philosophic foundation for their position makes them no different than many thousands of people on many thousands of issues.

To deny the holocaust is just plain ignorance of history. Or deliberate disingenuity.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Absolutely NOT!**** Individuals who are pro-choice usually truly believe that it is the correct choice based upon a woman’s rights. The fact that they perhaps have not actually thought through the ramifications of their position vis a vis morality in general, or do not have a strong philosophic foundation for their position makes them no different than many thousands of people on many thousands of issues.

To deny the holocaust is just plain ignorance of history. Or deliberate disingenuity.

I agree. I believe the OP intended the thread to convey the point that such vitrolic argument is not really argument. Of course that is lost on the those that engage in it.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Absolutely NOT!**** Individuals who are pro-choice usually truly believe that it is the correct choice based upon a woman’s rights.

Just like many Nazis “truly believed” that Jews were sub-humans.

The fact that they perhaps have not actually thought through the ramifications of their position vis a vis morality in general, or do not have a strong philosophic foundation for their position makes them no different than many thousands of people on many thousands of issues.

Except that they commit or support murder.

To deny the holocaust is just plain ignorance of history. Or deliberate disingenuity.

But that’s a far cry from commiting or supporting murder.

 

[Rand_Al_Thor]

Absolutely NOT! Individuals who are pro-choice usually truly believe that it is the correct choice based upon a woman’s rights. The fact that they perhaps have not actually thought through the ramifications of their position vis a vis morality in general, or do not have a strong philosophic foundation for their position makes them no different than many thousands of people on many thousands of issues.

To deny the holocaust is just plain ignorance of history. Or deliberate disingenuity.

To deny that a fetus is a human being is just plain ignorance of science. Or deliberate disingenuity. You see, pro-abortionists completely ignore the fact that science says it is a life.

In Christ,
Rand

 

[Amolibri]

To deny that a fetus is a human being is just plain ignorance of science. Or deliberate disingenuity. You see, pro-abortionists completely ignore the fact that science says it is a life.

In Christ,
Rand

Here we go again!
Hey, ribo…aren’t you glad you started this thread.

 

[vern_humphrey]

To deny that a fetus is a human being is just plain ignorance of science. Or deliberate disingenuity. You see, pro-abortionists completely ignore the fact that science says it is a life.

In Christ,
Rand

They also ignore the fact that science says it is a** human** life – as human as you or I, or they, themselves.

 

[BlaineTog]

Anyone here read “The Screwtape Letters” by C.S. Lewis? It’s a series of tips from Screwtape, a senior demon, to Wormtongue, a newbie demon working on his first human. One of the tips Screwtape gives is to keep the human focused on whether one evil is worse than another evil. The knowledge is not very useful for salvation, but it does draw the mind into sinful modes of thought and saps the charity right out of it.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Anyone here read “The Screwtape Letters” by C.S. Lewis? It’s a series of tips from Screwtape, a senior demon, to Wormtongue, a newbie demon working on his first human. One of the tips Screwtape gives is to keep the human focused on whether one evil is worse than another evil. The knowledge is not very useful for salvation, but it does draw the mind into sinful modes of thought and saps the charity right out of it.

That is a work of fiction, and not Catholic doctrine. The Church makes sharp distinctions between venal and mortal sins.

As Pope Benedict XVI said:

As far as the Catholic Church is concerned, the principal focus of her interventions in the public arena is the promotion and dignity of the person, and she is thereby consciously drawing particular attention to principles which are** not negotiable**. Among these, the following emerge clearly today.

• Protection of life in all its stages, from the first moment of conception until natural death.

• Recognition and promotion of the natural structure of the family in a union between a man and a woman based on marriage and its defense from attempts to make it juridically equivallent to radically different forms of union which in reality harm it and contribute to its destabilization, obscuring its particular character and its irreplaceable social role.

• The protection of the rights of parents to educate their childeren.

(My emphasis)

 

[ribozyme]

They also ignore the fact that science says it is a** human** life – as human as you or I, or they, themselves.

But Singer would ask, what is special about a human life?

Of course, this will elicit an answer that God create humans in his image. However, I do not accept that.

Singer readily acknowledges abortion extinguishes a human life and I do too. However, since they do not have interests, nor possess the ability to suffer, they are not factored in the utilitarian calculus.

 

[vern_humphrey]

But Singer would ask, what is special about a human life?

And who is Singer to make this argument for other human beings?

Of course, this will elicit an answer that God create humans in his image. However, I do not accept that.

And suppose someone says that God forbids us to commit rape, “However, I do not accept that.”

How would you respond to that?

Singer readily acknowledges abortion extinguishes a human life and I do too. However, since they do not have interests, nor suffer, they are not factored in the utilitarian calculus.

And how do you factor “in the utilitarian calculus?”

 

[Rand_Al_Thor]

But Singer would ask, what is special about a human life?

Of course, this will elicit an answer that God create humans in his image. However, I do not accept that.

Singer readily acknowledges abortion extinguishes a human life and I do too. However, since they do not have interests, nor possess the ability to suffer, they are not factored in the utilitarian calculus.

How do you and Singer come to the conclusion that it is ok to extinguish a human life? If it is ok to kill a child in the womb, since you admit that it is a human life, then it is ok to kill someone at any age in any place. If it is not, why is that not morally acceptable but killing someone in the womb is?

Why, in the view of you and Singer, is anything right or wrong? What determines morality?

In Christ,
Rand

 

[ribozyme]

And who is Singer to make this argument for other human beings?

And suppose someone says that God forbids us to commit rape, “However, I do not accept that.”

How would you respond to that?

Rape isn’t condoned in the various schools of utilitarian ethics too. I suppose it doesn’t increase the overall happiness (classic utilitarianism), it doesn’t respect the victims preferences as I suppose people do not want to be coerced into sexual intercourse (preference utilitarianism), and the victim will likely suffer (negative utilitarianism) .

And how do you factor “in the utilitarian calculus?”

I have interests such as wanting to live to see the future and not suffering so they should be factored in.

 

[Rand_Al_Thor]

Rape isn’t condoned in the various schools of utilitarian ethics too. I suppose it doesn’t increase the overall happiness (classic utilitarianism), it doesn’t respect the victims preferences as I suppose people do not want to be coerced into sexual intercourse (preference utilitarianism), and the victim will likely suffer (negative utilitarianism) .

I have interests such as wanting to live to see the future and not suffering so they should be factored in.

And those who you advocate killing don’t want to live and want to suffer? Is that it?

 

[ribozyme]

And those who you advocate killing don’t want to live and want to suffer? Is that it?

I thought embryos and fetuses do not have that capacity. I do not know when a fetus have the capacity to feel pain. I think it is at 20 weeks. I think the lower bound is eight weeks because that is when brain stem activity is first detected.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Rape isn’t condoned in the various schools of utilitarian ethics too.

What are “various schools of utilitarian ethics?”

Suppose there is a school, or culture, or group that does condone rape?

I suppose it doesn’t increase the overall happiness (classic utilitarianism), it doesn’t respect the victims preferences as I suppose people do not want to be coerced into sexual intercourse (preference utilitarianism), and the victim will likely suffer (negative utilitarianism) .

And the aborted child? Does abortion respect the victims’ preferences?

I have interests such as wanting to live to see the future and not suffering so they should be factored in.

Ah, but I know a school of thought where what you want is immaterial. And your suffering is not factored in.

 

[estesbob]

Absolutely NOT! Individuals who are pro-choice usually truly believe that it is the correct choice based upon a woman’s rights. The fact that they perhaps have not actually thought through the ramifications of their position vis a vis morality in general, or do not have a strong philosophic foundation for their position makes them no different than many thousands of people on many thousands of issues.

The Nazis thought that jews were not human so they bleived their choice was ok. Do you give the same pass to those who are the pro-ifanticide?

To deny the holocaust is just plain ignorance of history. Or deliberate disingenuity.

I would agree but denying the holocuast is killing 1.2 million children a year.

 

[ChrisWRIT]

But Singer would ask, what is special about a human life?

Of course, this will elicit an answer that God create humans in his image. However, I do not accept that.

Singer readily acknowledges abortion extinguishes a human life and I do too. However, since they do not have interests, nor possess the ability to suffer, they are not factored in the utilitarian calculus.

Sorry, this argument is based on incorrect assumptions.

“They do not have interests”? Says who? Every living creature has the instinctual interest to continue living. They don’t “possess the ability to suffer”? The unborn certainly do have the ability to suffer, as do infants & the disabled.

Apparently, “life” is defined differently by atheist philosophers & biologists.

I thought embryos and fetuses do not have that capacity. I do not know when a fetus have the capacity to feel pain. I think it is at 20 weeks. I think the lower bound is eight weeks because that is when brain stem activity is first detected.

And this is the real problem with utilitarianism & most forms of atheism that base their “morality” on subjective value judgments.

Someone else ALWAYS has a different set of values, so what the “victim” wants is subordinated to whoever is stronger & has different values - ending up with a “Might makes right” society.

Chris

 

[BlaineTog]

That is a work of fiction, and not Catholic doctrine. The Church makes sharp distinctions between venal and mortal sins.

Other than the form, the book is 100% orthodox (or very nearly so, I haven’t actually counted). And the point was not that the distinctions don’t exist but that there’s no point in dwelling on them, that dwelling on them is actively harmful.

 

[hasikelee]

I thought embryos and fetuses do not have that capacity. I do not know when a fetus have the capacity to feel pain. I think it is at 20 weeks. I think the lower bound is eight weeks because that is when brain stem activity is first detected.

Some studies are dipping close to 6 weeks, now that our medical technology is advancing.

Yet the most common time to kill the human is right around 10 weeks.