Arguement for Pro life

[mymamamary]

I want to present my reasoning for the Pro-Life arguement. I want someone to either challenge it, or tell me what they think

1. Science verify’s that Life begins at the moment of conception.
2. So when we say “It’s the Mothers choice, we give her the right to kill an unborn human being”
3. You have just subjected the value of life, which begs the question
4. “What makes your life or mine anymore valuable than an unborn Childs, if life is as subjective as you have made it, instead of an objective fact?”
5. You say " we are more developed". Hitler would have been proud of you. He also said that the “Jews, Gypsies, Homosexuals, Catholics etc.” were not as developed either, however does this excuse his crime? any genocide in history has always begun with the value and Sacredness of human life becoming a subjective value, instead of remaing the objective value it HAS to remain.
6. “Fetus” when used by professional scientists, is a term meaning a stage of life. Just as teens are professionally called Adolescents, Grown-ups “Adults”, etc. The term “Fetus” does not denote the value or instance of Life in the Mother. Its a mere scientific term used for a LIFE stage. (Key word there being LIFE)
7. I cannot kill anyone for “choice”. Neither should a MOTHER be allowed to do the same.

You sir, have subjected the value of life, given me no solid refuatations, and have clearly lost this debate.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I want to present my reasoning for the Pro-Life arguement. I want someone to either challenge it, or tell me what they think

1. Science verify’s that Life begins at the moment of conception.
   Agree. It seems like common sense to me.
2. So when we say “It’s the Mothers choice, we give her the right to kill an unborn human being”
   Here is where I think we make mistakes. We cannot legislate morality. Murder, rape, theft, etc. is against the law, yet it hasn’t stopped any of it. God could certainly force His will, yet does not. He seeks a conversion of the heart. How can man do a better job of what God does not?
   We should be seeking new legislation; however, we should be concentrating greatly on converting hearts to God prior and post decision for all mothers, irregardless of their decision.
3. You have just subjected the value of life, which begs the question
   Doesn’t apply
4. “What makes your life or mine anymore valuable than an unborn Childs, if life is as subjective as you have made it, instead of an objective fact?”
   Doesn’t apply
5. You say " we are more developed". Hitler would have been proud of you. He also said that the “Jews, Gypsies, Homosexuals, Catholics etc.” were not as developed either, however does this excuse his crime? any genocide in history has always begun with the value and Sacredness of human life becoming a subjective value, instead of remaing the objective value it HAS to remain.
   Calling names, or making inflaming accusations, will not win people over to your argument. It can actually work in reverse and concrete them in the position.
6. “Fetus” when used by professional scientists, is a term meaning a stage of life. Just as teens are professionally called Adolescents, Grown-ups “Adults”, etc. The term “Fetus” does not denote the value or instance of Life in the Mother. Its a mere scientific term used for a LIFE stage. (Key word there being LIFE)
   Agreed.
7. I cannot kill anyone for “choice”. Neither should a MOTHER be allowed to do the same.
   No one should kill anyone, yet man made laws will not stop it alone.
   You sir, have subjected the value of life, given me no solid refuatations, and have clearly lost this debate.
   Don’t know where this is coming from.

 

[ManRay]

It’s not a question of science - it’s a question of philosophy.

 

[sainthumbert]

I think you are pretty much right on. In particular, the insistence that science, not just faith, says that human life begins at conception. If it is a human life, it must be afforded the same rights as any other human.

Prodigal Son says: So when we say “It’s the Mothers choice, we give her the right to kill an unborn human being” Here is where I think we make mistakes. We cannot legislate morality. Murder, rape, theft, etc. is against the law, yet it hasn’t stopped any of it. God could certainly force His will, yet does not. He seeks a conversion of the heart. How can man do a better job of what God does not?

I disagree with the Prodigal Son. He says that legislating against murder, rape, and theft hasn’t stopped any of it. This is not true. There would be an absolute explosion in rape and theft if it was not against the law. If abortion was illegal in all cases, there is no doubt the number of abortions would decrease. People would be more likely to perceive the seriousness of the action if there were consequences and if it was not as easy as simply walking into a clinic. I do agree that converting every heart would be better, but that doesn’t mean progress should not be sought on the legal status of abortion.

 

[teenphilo1]

It’s really simple.

From conception, the child has a unique genetic code and is distinguishable from the mother. Case closed.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

It’s really simple.

From conception, the child has a unique genetic code and is distinguishable from the mother. Case closed.

But will telling a mother considering such a decision ‘case closed’ convince her of it being wrong?

Scriptures tell us ‘love and charity’ in ALL things.

 

[buffalo]

Boiled down -

Pro choice is the choice a woman wants to murder her unborn baby who is denied choice and the right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Boiled down -

Pro choice is the choice a woman wants to murder her unborn baby who is denied choice and the right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.

That is a correct, but blunt, definition of pro choice, and I believe the OP has a correct definition of pro life. Now, how do we convince someone, without alienating them?

Abortion is older than the laws that allow it. We have laws against murder, did that stop it?

 

[mymamamary]

That is a correct, but blunt, definition of pro choice, and I believe the OP has a correct definition of pro life. Now, how do we convince someone, without alienating them?

Abortion is older than the laws that allow it. We have laws against murder, did that stop it?

I agree. Prodigal Son You are right. We cannot start throwing the heavy punches, as correct as they would be, because that would only inflame the wound, not heal it…

too zealous for my own good sometimes!!.. :blush:

 

[SgtSchultz]

We have laws against murder, did that stop it?

No it did not. Does that mean we should repeal laws against murder?

It’s illogical to say “we shouldn’t make a law against/work to stop X because X will always exist.” You don’t honestly believe that criminalising abortion wouldn’t cause there to be fewer abortions, do you?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

No it did not. Does that mean we should repeal laws against murder?

It’s illogical to say “we shouldn’t make a law against/work to stop X because X will always exist.” You don’t honestly believe that criminalising abortion wouldn’t cause there to be fewer abortions, do you?

I know pro choice vs. pro life is a very heated topic with people, but I never said we shouldn’t seek legislation.

If you check my first post in this thread, it’s red responses to each point the OP posted, you’ll see I say, ‘We should be seeking new legislation; however, we should be concentrating greatly on converting hearts to God prior and post decision for all mothers, irregardless of their decision.’

I don’t believe our obligation ends with a vote, one way or another. I also believe we don’t throw people away, turn our backs on people, for their mistakes.

 

[mymamamary]

Of course not, we are all sinners,

Rachaels vineyard is something good to get into!!

 

[ManRay]

Arguments involving rights, genetic codes, etc… etc…if aren’t argued correctly are really lacking in logical merit.
And whoever posted “case closed” wow…

Rights are sovereign possessions that cannot trump another’s sovereign possessions. For example you have a right to possess your own life. Which is why murder crosses that barrier. When someone murders someone they are using their life to trump another life. So if you follow the logic you run into a problem regarding a zygote and it’s power of right’s. There is a simple problem in logic. If it is illogical to take a life through force, then it is illogical to force the production of a life. If a pregnancy will halt the life of the mother, then you are straight away stating that the embryo’s life trumps the mother’s life…but how can this be so? This is a clear contradiction in terms. People who feel that a fetus is a human being have no choice but to assert this argument - or quite frankly they have no argument, but that this status is an objective scientific fact is debatable in contextual terms. Anti abortionists always confuse the nouns human…and* human being* - stating that a fetus is human - well of course? Like we think that it’s a creature from another planet. Get serious. My skin is human, cells in my body are human - but they are not human beings. Unfortunately, they are assuming the very thing that requires proving, thereby committing the logical fallacy of “begging the question.” Biology, medicine, law, philosophy, and theology have no consensus on the issue, and neither does society as a whole. There will never be a consensus because of the subjective and unscientific nature of the claim, philosophical concepts are not tenets of science. There is such a concept as personhood… so we must give the benefit of the doubt to women, who are indisputable human beings with rights. * An cell or zygote possessing genetic code doesn’t mean anything. My blood contains DNA - my blood is not a human being. You may argue - hey but a zygote has chromosomes, it isn’t blood or dead skin cells - but this is where potentiality comes into play - with cloning, a cell from my dandruff is enough to create a new human being. Although it would have my identical genetic make-up, it would still be a unique individual, because human beings are much more than our genes* Both a fertilized egg and a cloned cell represent a potential, not an actual human being. It’s a worn cliché, but it bears repeating—an acorn isn’t an oak tree and the egg you had for breakfast isn’t a chicken. Historically a fetus has never been considered a human being (or at least very rarely). It wasn’t until the antiquated term ‘quickening’ came about when people noticed the fetus moving that they actually started sometimes referring to it as such. This wasn’t until the 1800’s. Do catholics realize that the church allowed abortions up to the quickening as late as 1869??? I could go on, and on - but this is a good start

 

[mymamamary]

It is a potential human being. That is undebatable. Your blood isn’t. Its merely a life force.

Also, you have just subjectifed the Value of life

Which makes me ask

Why is your life or mine anymore valuable than an unborn human beings??

(P.s, what I said about the Fetus being a life stage, not an indicator of non life, is true)

Human life begins from the moment of conception. So now science wont even satisfy you? Atheists, I’ll tell ya…

 

[mymamamary]

Give women the benfit of the doubt?

Let them make the choice over personhood???

What gave them or you the right to say such a thing? What is the objective value that is backing you up saying that “Mr. Poster has the right to tell us when to terminate life and who does etc. etc”

 

[mymamamary]

Arguments involving rights, genetic codes, etc… etc…if aren’t argued correctly are really lacking in logical merit.
And whoever posted “case closed” wow…

Rights are sovereign possessions that cannot trump another’s sovereign possessions. For example you have a right to possess your own life. Which is why murder crosses that barrier. When someone murders someone they are using their life to trump another life. So if you follow the logic you run into a problem regarding a zygote and it’s power of right’s. There is a simple problem in logic. If it is illogical to take a life through force, then it is illogical to force the production of a life. If a pregnancy will halt the life of the mother, then you are straight away stating that the embryo’s life trumps the mother’s life…but how can this be so? This is a clear contradiction in terms. People who feel that a fetus is a human being have no choice but to assert this argument - or quite frankly they have no argument, but that this status is an objective scientific fact is debatable in contextual terms. Anti abortionists always confuse the nouns human…and* human being* - stating that a fetus is human - well of course? Like we think that it’s a creature from another planet. Get serious. My skin is human, cells in my body are human - but they are not human beings. Unfortunately, they are assuming the very thing that requires proving, thereby committing the logical fallacy of “begging the question.” Biology, medicine, law, philosophy, and theology have no consensus on the issue, and neither does society as a whole. There will never be a consensus because of the subjective and unscientific nature of the claim, philosophical concepts are not tenets of science. There is such a concept as personhood… so we must give the benefit of the doubt to women, who are indisputable human beings with rights. * An cell or zygote possessing genetic code doesn’t mean anything. My blood contains DNA - my blood is not a human being. You may argue - hey but a zygote has chromosomes, it isn’t blood or dead skin cells - but this is where potentiality comes into play - with cloning, a cell from my dandruff is enough to create a new human being. Although it would have my identical genetic make-up, it would still be a unique individual, because human beings are much more than our genes* Both a fertilized egg and a cloned cell represent a potential, not an actual human being. It’s a worn cliché, but it bears repeating—an acorn isn’t an oak tree and the egg you had for breakfast isn’t a chicken. Historically a fetus has never been considered a human being (or at least very rarely). It wasn’t until the antiquated term ‘quickening’ came about when people noticed the fetus moving that they actually started sometimes referring to it as such. This wasn’t until the 1800’s. Do catholics realize that the church allowed abortions up to the quickening as late as 1869??? I could go on, and on - but this is a good start

You will need to give me evidence for your claims, I just see a mouth running off with no solid facts coming forth, which ultimatley means that your points are a waste of my time.

Dandruff?

Unborn Baby

Seriously, please tell me which is more liklier to become life… I doubt its your dandruff. Historically, people were scientifically ignorant. Now, science says “Human Life begins at conception”. Science is the authority on natural matters, so let me see your papers on the authority you have to trump proven science

 

[onmyknees]

No it did not. Does that mean we should repeal laws against murder?

It’s illogical to say “we shouldn’t make a law against/work to stop X because X will always exist.” You don’t honestly believe that criminalising abortion wouldn’t cause there to be fewer abortions, do you?

This!!!

 

[R_C]

It’s not at all a matter of science. We are not purely physical beings - we are physical and spiritual in nature.

At the moment of conception, Almighty God Himself creates a new soul in His image and likeness.

I do not know much about this horrific debate, but I do seem to understand that it is extremely difficult for someone to believe this (or, I should say, to be aware of this truth) and yet to be “pro choice”.

“All it would take is
one day without any abortion
for God to grant peace to the world
until the end of time.”

http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/p148x148/427880_514889865205298_937760476_n.jpg

 

[ManRay]

It is a potential human being. That is undebatable. Your blood isn’t. Its merely a life force.

Life force??? Are you making things up my child? Don’t respond to my posts if you don’t read them, oh and parts of my body most certainly are potential human beings through cloning. This IS scientific fact. Sorry.

Also, you have just subjectifed the Value of life

What is this some kind of pet phrase?? Do you even know what your are talking about? Where did I subjectify the value of life? I would like for you to explain that to me. Please. Coherently.

Which makes me ask

Why is your life or mine anymore valuable than an unborn human beings??

See - you didn’t read my post at all I guess. If that is your argument then I can easily turn that on its head by asking you why is the fetus’ life more valuable than the born human being?

The rest of your post must be for someone else because I never argued any of that. It’s like you are making up arguments and attributing them to me, so that you can say…SEE - THERE! - It makes no sense.

 

[ccmnxc]

Biology, medicine, law, philosophy, and theology have no consensus on the issue, and neither does society as a whole. There will never be a consensus because of the subjective and unscientific nature of the claim, philosophical concepts are not tenets of science.

So you’re saying we basically don’t know. Let me borrow from Peter Kreeft. We have four options:

1. Abortion is murder and we know it.
2. Abortion is murder and we don’t know it.
3. Abortion isn’t murder and we know it.
4. Abortion isn’t murder and we don’t know it.
   Abortion is only acceptable in case number three, and here’s why I think why:
   We’ll use the hypothetical case that charges are set on a building about to be demolished. In case 1, the charges are blown when there are people inside and it was known by the detonator. He would/should be charged with murder for deliberately and knowingly ending a human life. In case 2, the charges are blown when there are people inside but it wasn’t known for sure. In that case, the detonator would be charged with manslaughter because he killed people but didn’t know and do it with deliberation. In case 3 (the only one which is okay, the charges are blown, people weren’t inside, and this was known. Everyone goes home happy. In case 4, the charges are blown, nobody was killed, but nobody knew if there was anyone inside or not. In tha case, someone would be losing their job at best and facing criminal negligence at worst.

There is such a concept as personhood… so we must give the benefit of the doubt to women, who are indisputable human beings with rights.

Two points:

1. The definition of personhood allows for some different interpretation. I could disagree that a women is person in the same way you could say a fetus isn’t a person. How would I be wrong in saying this?
2. If the decision would hold the same weight for either side, I’d agree with you. However, the woman would be inconvenienced whereas the baby would be killed. I’d say the benfit of a doubt lies with the baby as it has the potential to lose far more.