Arguement for Pro life

[nordskoven]

Boiled down, the Mafia and other sex traffickers had to streamline scraping babies out of prostitutes to get them back on their backs. isn’t that the truth. Check out the secret videos of Planned Parenthood helping their undercover fake pimp of underage illegals plan the perfect abortion experience. Very spa-like.

Abortion is “ethical” like NAZI’s, urged by the Muslim Brotherhood, killed Jews as “ethical” i.e. merely legal, not moral. Morals don’t change. That’s why the Hippocratic Oath had to be aborted from medical schools–no abortion allowed. The blood of innocents cries out from the Earth for God’s vengeance. May God have mercy on us and reverse this curse; and confirm us in life and blessing. AMEn

 

[ManRay]

Because it was the mother’s (and the father’s) decision to bring forth this life (which you call “zygote”, but that is such only for 4 days, on the 5th day becoming a blastocyst, on the 56th day an embryo, on the 63rd day a fetus.

Oh Reallly! Saying you know better is offensive, and doesn’t make it so. Look at the above statement - you COMPLETELY framed an argument out of one part of a whole! What about rape? A woman is tortured and raped becoming pregnant, and you would then FORCE her to bring the life into the world. Not only was she forced to have sex, she is now forced to have the baby of this monster. Talk about maliciousness. Like I said - why not just beat her to death with a bible? I don’t understand any of this. This goes back to the forced production of life which you completely either didn’t understand, or chose to sidestep. If it’s immoral to take a life by force then by shear logical principles it is immoral to force someone to bring forth a life. It’s diametric. We can get into the psychological harm that could come into play also.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

It is absolutely true that the Catholic Church bans abortion to save the life of the mother. However (and this is an extremely important point) the mother’s life may be saved by a surgical procedure that does not directly attack the unborn baby’s life.
y will of course die. But this would not be categorized as an abortion. This is all the difference between deliberate murder (abortion) and unintentional natural death.

I am familiar with it. Its a discussion that I’ve had with my friends of various religious backgrounds, including catholic. In these forums I’ve read many times how removal of the tube is moral while the less invasive therapudic abortion is not. I won’t derail this thread with my questions on that. But if I ever meet some one face to face that agrees with it I might have a discussion on it; thus far that seems be be a position that the catholics I have met have not yet accepted.

Pardon my mistakes. Sent from my mobile device.

 

[ManRay]

I am familiar with it. Its a discussion that I’ve had with my friends of various religious backgrounds, including catholic. In these forums I’ve read many times how removal of the tube is moral while the less invasive therapudic abortion is not. I won’t derail this thread with my questions on that. But if I ever meet some one face to face that agrees with it I might have a discussion on it; thus far that seems be be a position that the catholics I have met have not yet accepted.

Pardon my mistakes. Sent from my mobile device.

That’s an excellent point by which a more invasive (usual meaning more harmful) way is acceptable vs. the less invasive way - thereby once again subjugating one rights over another.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

The problem is, what is your definition of life and what implications come along with this?

I’ve had the privilege of being able to study developmental biology and the life that is there after conception, looks very different and is very different from the kind of life you’d find in a womb say 6 months later.

What will be a baby is a simple collection of 2…4…8…etc cells for awhile. Nothing resembling a human being. We don’t even have a heart beat until the 4th week.

So, its important you define what you mean by life and why this is important. Bacteria is alive but i dont see many people shedding tears over their beer or bread made with yeast. These are crucial distinctions.

For this discussion, let’s distinguish by discussing the biologic development of human beings.

Once living cells, through/from sexual reproduction, fuse and begin development the normal end result is the birth of a baby. There are stages, but still all stages are a part of the development of a human being, considering human being parents. The cells are no less, or no more alive, once a heart develops and begins beating.

 

[teenphilo1]

For this discussion, let’s distinguish by discussing the biologic development of human beings.

Once living cells, through/from sexual reproduction, fuse and begin development the normal end result is the birth of a baby. There are stages, but still all stages are a part of the development of a human being, considering human being parents. The cells are no less, or no more alive, once a heart develops and begins beating.

Spot-on.

 

[R_C]

Oh Reallly! Saying you know better is offensive, and doesn’t make it so. Look at the above statement - you COMPLETELY framed an argument out of one part of a whole! What about rape? A woman is tortured and raped becoming pregnant, and you would then FORCE her to bring the life into the world. Not only was she forced to have sex, she is now forced to have the baby of this monster. Talk about maliciousness. Like I said - why not just beat her to death with a bible? I don’t understand any of this. This goes back to the forced production of life which you completely either didn’t understand, or chose to sidestep. If it’s immoral to take a life by force then by shear logical principles it is immoral to force someone to bring forth a life. It’s diametric. We can get into the psychological harm that could come into play also.

This is disgusting.

Yes, I admit that as part of my chain of thought I had not taken into consideration those very sad situations in which a woman is abused.

However, how can you utter the phrase “force to bring forth a life”? How can you say that she is forced to have the baby of someone? For goodness sake, it is her baby as well! Flesh of her flesh! It is sheer absurdity to claim that giving birth to a baby can be immoral, yet causing his death can be moral!

And what is the meaning of this ludicrous question, “beat her to death with a bible”, other than further disqualifying this discussion?

The baby - call it fetus, zigote, thing, or whatever you want - is still alive (and yes, not I but Holy Church knows better, for She knows that at the time of conception God Almighty creates a soul meant to inhabit that flesh, a pristine soul in God’s likeness that may grow to become a wonderful person just like any other child). This wicked theory according to which someone - science, society? - should choose which unborn baby deserves to be born based on arbitrary reasons is inhuman. By the way, have you ever heard of adoption?

Do you know that one of the greatest minds of our time, Steve Jobs, was born of two unmarried college students, and that the family of the mother did not want them to maintain a relationship? However they decided to still bring the child to this world, and give him for adoption. When he met his biological mother, according to his account, she burst into tears apologizing for having given him away for adoption. His reply was that he wanted to thank her - because he was glad he didn’t end up in an abortion.

Dear ManRay, I ignore your background and I can only pray that one day you may repent of upholding these gravely erroneous view on life and death. Everyone makes grave mistakes. The important thing is that the moment we learn and understand that something we did was a mistake, we acknowledge so and we repent, wishing we hadn’t done it. To persevere in an erroneous view is to transform what was an erroneous decision into an evil deed. The Church has helped countless of women who, for a myriad of different reasons, did choose to have abortions, actually making them feel alive again through the very Bible - something the secular world will never be able to do, not even in a million years.

I would like you to know - in case you are not aware of this - that your remarks are very offensive towards those people who were perhaps conceived as the result of an unwanted pregnancy - yes, perhaps even because of rape - and yet were brought into this world and had a life, like mine and yours, growing to become people, like me and you. Perhaps someone like this is present in this very forum, and feels great sorrow not so much in the fact that you support abortion, but from the fact that you have called him son of a monster and that you consider it would have been better for him never to be born.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I must have not been clear but I’m having trouble understanding why it is so hard to not see the problem in logic with this. A human being has a right to posses it’s own life. Our lives cannot trump another life. We cannot murder someone as they possesses the same right to life we have (obviously) nor can we force anyone to do the same. So - you are stating that a zygote possesses these same rights to life. One of the major reasons for allowing abortion is the physical and mental health of the mother. So you enter a scenario where giving birth will kill the mother. This is where the logic problem happens. By not allowing the woman to protect her own life - you are defacto stating the the zygote’s alleged rights to life can trump the women’s right to life. You are forcing her in no uncertain terms to continue with the pregnancy at the expense of her own life. This is a clear contradiction in terms, and very problematic.

I apologize, I had thought I had addressed this specifically and after checking back through I see I missed voicing my opinion.

This is another moral issue that does not justify blanket coverage of what is happening in the abortion industry. One life does not trump another life; however, one must be assured one life will definitely end prematurely.

The forcing of life came through a mother’s decision and actions. In normal circumstances, women are not impregnated against their will.

What if a woman had a child and found it stressful on her mental, and or physical, health? Should we consider ending the life of a 1 year old, or 2 year old? That’s the argument of all mental and physical issues being included.

This is about potentiality. I would argue that cloning is a natural occurrence since it is now part of the natural world. We culture, and destroy embryos during in vitro fertilization. The laity doesn’t seem to decided on a candidate based on whether they have or condoned in vitro do they - even though there are multiple abortions during that process.

Cloning is not natural, in that it cannot be accomplished by two consenting adults without outside aids.

They can also begin through unnatural means. Chicken farms are the most unnatural things on the planet. Do you think that chickens prefer to be hobbled? Kept in cages? We’ve created eggs where no eggs would have existed before. What about genetically modified foods etc…? Tree farms? It is not enough to just state that those things happened naturally - there is a whole world of scenarios, and methodology that can be completely unnatural, and lead to a ‘natural’ happening by your definition. In vitro is a perfect example - sperm meets egg - totally natural, but it sure didn’t happen through copulation?

You are correct in that man now has the ability to start the natural fertilization of biologic entities outside the purely natural way it has happened throughout man’s history. Once fertilization has taken place nature takes over and the development of life has begun. Man did no more than introduce natural cells to do as they always done.

I would argue that our concepts and constructs of supposed and natural reality are absolutely tied to our times. There may be something about the development and production of life that we have totally over looked, or have misunderstood. Maybe Aquinas was right, and the soul does enter the body after conception. There are just as many passages in the bible that describe life as breath, as there are that talk about god knowing you before you were born. I’m not even sure if what is natural really means anything at all. Homosexuality - whether you consider it an aberration or not is a completely natural act. You can look to the most primitive animals, animals that are almost living as pure instinct, and they engage. Would you argue that some animal has decided to act unnaturally? That’s a hard sell.

What it seems you are proposing, forgive me if I’m wrong, is that a new developing life is subservient to those that participated in their beginning development. The question becomes at which point that life attains rights to exist. Again, after the fact, do we consider allowing mothers to make post birth decisions of ‘abortion’?

Homosexuality is another subject completely and has no place in a reproductive discussion since two members of the same sex cannot reproduce, even through artificial means. Because of this, I would argue against it being a completely natural act.

 

[benjohnson]

To figure out if a fetus is human is rather easy; Wait two years and you can talk to it and ask it.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

That’s an excellent point by which a more invasive (usual meaning more harmful) way is acceptable vs. the less invasive way - thereby once again subjugating one rights over another.

But you don’t seem to be distinguishing any differences and proposing a right to abortion for all reasons while using excuses that are a minority of the cases involved in the wholesale allowance of abortions. I apologize if I’m misreading this.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

To figure out if a fetus is human is rather easy; Wait two years and you can talk to it and ask it.

 

[ManRay]

This is disgusting.

Yes, I admit that as part of my chain of thought I had not taken into consideration those very sad situations in which a woman is abused.

However, how can you utter the phrase “force to bring forth a life”? How can you say that she is forced to have the baby of someone? For goodness sake, it is her baby as well! Flesh of her flesh!

This is simple human language to me. In your first argument you stated that a man and a woman make that decision together - I exposed the error, and now you are simply saying so what - it’s still her flesh? That’s weak. SHE DIDN’T MAKE A DECISION TO HAVE A CHILD. SHE MAY HAVE NEVER WANTED CHILDREN. So she gets forcibly raped and becomes pregnant and then cannot terminate the pregnancy - how is that not FORCING someone to have a baby??? HOW??? Who in there right mind grew up thinking - yea - I want to be raped, and I want to bear the child of the rapist. Seriously.

And what is the meaning of this ludicrous question, “beat her to death with a bible”, other than further disqualifying this discussion?

It’s just a metaphor for this illogical stance that people are swept up in. It really doesn’t matter how many holes I punch in your position at the end of the day the catholic church is right no matter what. Beat me to death with the bible…

The baby - call it fetus, zigote, thing, or whatever you want - is still alive (and yes, not I but Holy Church knows better, for She knows that at the time of conception God Almighty creates a soul meant to inhabit that flesh, a pristine soul in God’s likeness that may grow to become a wonderful person just like any other child). This wicked theory according to which someone - science, society? - should choose which unborn baby deserves to be born based on arbitrary reasons is inhuman. By the way, have you ever heard of adoption?

I don’t even support abortion - I support the rights of people to make informed decisions and I don’t presume to impose my views upon them - as I don’t necessarily think that “I know better - just because”…Also it’s a really old pattern that when I debate with Catholics 9 times out of 10 they eventually start resorting to this rosy, and poetic flowery language to inject some mysticism into the argument. It’s awesome.

Do you know that one of the greatest minds of our time, Steve Jobs, was born of two unmarried college students, and that the family of the mother did not want them to maintain a relationship? However they decided to still bring the child to this world, and give him for adoption. When he met his biological mother, according to his account, she burst into tears apologizing for having given him away for adoption. His reply was that he wanted to thank her - because he was glad he didn’t end up in an abortion.

That was a logical fallacy - but I’ll play anyway. In my opinion Steve Jobs is a tool. I don’t necessarily believe that just because someone happens to be in the right place at the right time gives them any special claim of knowledge or power. Besides everyone knows that the windows style mouse and click system was stolen/purchased from Xerox. There is a designer somewhere crying in his beer. If your argument is that it’s great that Jobs wasn’t aborted - maybe I should argue that it’s a tragedy that some people weren’t. Aborting Hitler would have saved billions of innocent souls…(of course I wouldn never argue that - because it’s weak)

Dear ManRay, I ignore your background and I can only pray that one day you may repent of upholding these gravely erroneous view on life and death. Everyone makes grave mistakes. The important thing is that the moment we learn and understand that something we did was a mistake, we acknowledge so and we repent, wishing we hadn’t done it. To persevere in an erroneous view is to transform what was an erroneous decision into an evil deed. The Church has helped countless of women who, for a myriad of different reasons, did choose to have abortions, actually making them feel alive again through the very Bible - something the secular world will never be able to do, not even in a million years.

Like I said above I don’t support abortion - and what the Catholic Church has done for people throughout the ages is highly dabatable…besides there are tons of other non religious groups who help the world. God isn’t a prerequisite. RedCross, Doctors without borders, Amnesty international and so on, and so on

The rest of what you wrote below is a gross mis characterization of my position.

 

[ManRay]

But you don’t seem to be distinguishing any differences and proposing a right to abortion for all reasons while using excuses that are a minority of the cases involved in the wholesale allowance of abortions. I apologize if I’m misreading this.

I would argue that one exception destroys the universality of a position. We don’t come to sound conclusions based on what happens most of the time. I worked in the field of law for years - it’s called mitigating circumstances.
Like I said - I don’t support abortion - I’m concerned about understanding rights, and what it means to be sovereign. A have a severe problem with a woman being tortured, and raped - forced copulation, and then forced to bare a child if pregnant. That’s like some serious cruel and unusual punishment. Not to mention the psychological damage such a position may cause. You may very well be complicit in turning someone into a zombie (metaphorically speaking of course)- I don’t reason that some political buffoon should be engaged in legislating and making some law of the land on a position that the medical, legal, bio, and philoshophical fields cant even come to an agreement on. I don’t support theocratic notions. If some muslim group wanted to legislate that it was Ok to beat your wife I would fight against that too. And they would argue with me the same way a catholic does citing the Quran, and scholars and everything else, and yes I would tell them to shove off. You get no quarter here.

 

[teenphilo1]

The right to life trumps all rights because without it, no rights exist.

We all know it is incredibly hard for the mother, especially in the case of rape and incest. It is important to ask what did the child do to the mother? What did the child do to deserve to die? Exist? Is the baby’s mere existence a reason to kill it? I think not. The mother does not have to live with the constant reminder for the rest of her life, either. I think that all states should have a “safe haven” law where a mother can walk up to on-duty hospital staff, give the doctor/nurse/EMT her baby, and walk away. Banning abortion is not enough. There must be a system in place to ensure the mother will be cared for, emotionally and physically. Any responsible abortion legislation should involve these points.

I fail to see how the right to life is a theocratic notion, especially when so many diverse religions are unified in their opposition.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I would argue that one exception destroys the universality of a position. We don’t come to sound conclusions based on what happens most of the time. I worked in the field of law for years - it’s called mitigating circumstances.
Like I said - I don’t support abortion - I’m concerned about understanding rights, and what it means to be sovereign. A have a severe problem with a woman being tortured, and raped - forced copulation, and then forced to bare a child if pregnant. That’s like some serious cruel and unusual punishment. Not to mention the psychological damage such a position may cause. You may very well be complicit in turning someone into a zombie (metaphorically speaking of course)- I don’t reason that some political buffoon should be engaged in legislating and making some law of the land on a position that the medical, legal, bio, and philoshophical fields cant even come to an agreement on. I don’t support theocratic notions. If some muslim group wanted to legislate that it was Ok to beat your wife I would fight against that too. And they would argue with me the same way a catholic does citing the Quran, and scholars and everything else, and yes I would tell them to shove off. You get no quarter here.

Ok, let’s set aside rape, and health risks of the mother, for a moment.

When you say you don’t support abortion, do you support a woman’s right to an abortion under other circumstances? That’s what it appears you are saying, ‘one exception destroys the universality of a position.’

P.S. What do you call 100 lawyers on the bottom of the ocean?

A good start.

It’s only a joke, I am not trying to antagonize.

 

[Farsight001]

I would argue that one exception destroys the universality of a position. We don’t come to sound conclusions based on what happens most of the time. I worked in the field of law for years - it’s called mitigating circumstances.

Mitigating circumstances apply to self defense against an assailant. It would be applicable to action taken against the rapist, not the baby that results from rape. You should know this.

Like I said - I don’t support abortion - I’m concerned about understanding rights, and what it means to be sovereign. A have a severe problem with a woman being tortured, and raped - forced copulation, and then forced to bare a child if pregnant.

So you would let one victim create another victim?

That’s like some serious cruel and unusual punishment.

No. Cruel and unusual punishment is killing an innocent person that has committed no crime ever.

Not to mention the psychological damage such a position may cause.

Psychological damage resulting from rape victims keeping their children is astronomically low. Psychological damage resulting from abortion is astronomically high. It causes a whole hell of a lot of PTSD. If psychological damage is your concern, then you are logically necessarily in the pro-life camp on this issue.

I don’t support theocratic notions. If some muslim group wanted to legislate that it was Ok to beat your wife I would fight against that too. And they would argue with me the same way a catholic does citing the Quran, and scholars and everything else, and yes I would tell them to shove off. You get no quarter here.

Where do you get the assumption that we are pro-life solely because of our faith? Take away our faith, take away the bible, and we would still be pro-life.

 

[ManRay]

Lawyer jokes rock. Like I said I’m mostly concerned with rights. If two people engage in consensual sex and then decide - hey - we don’t want a child - well too bad. You sowed it - you reap it. I don’t think ‘changing your mind’ works. But in the case of a rape…their was no mindset to have a child. No a prior thought of consensual sex. At that point everything becomes forced. The rights of the living breathing woman have been subjugated for the potential, and alleged rights of the -fill in the blank. That’s a point we haven’t even discussed. Until a child is actually born it’s a potential as there is no guarantee it will actually emerge from the womb just as there is no guarantee you will return from getting the mail. Any medical doctor will tell you that it is near impossible to even p(name removed by moderator)oint the actual time of conception so you are in reality assigning rights to some ‘undetermined point in time’ - It simply comes down to rights. You are a reasonable and intelligent person. I can respect your right to believe that life(personhood) begins at conception. What I expect in return is a reciprocal respect for those who do not share your beliefs. The problem is that people who feel as you do strongly believe life begins at conception want to force other women to bow to their moral position about abortion and they want their beliefs on the issue to be compelled by law. See we are once again entering the realm of force, and rights. But I would never presume to force anyone to get an abortion. I look at it as simple logic - diametric realities. Until the world locates, and captures the soul and keeps it in a box as evidence (it better weigh 21 grams) then I am under no burden to except your opinion or any church’s opinion regarding a soul or what qualifies as personhood. Nor am I under any burden to forfeit my rights to satisfy your position which I’m not in agreement with. My position would never restrict someones rights not to have an abortion, the opposing position does.

Ok, let’s set aside rape, and health risks of the mother, for a moment.

When you say you don’t support abortion, do you support a woman’s right to an abortion under other circumstances? That’s what it appears you are saying, ‘one exception destroys the universality of a position.’

P.S. What do you call 100 lawyers on the bottom of the ocean?

A good start.

It’s only a joke, I am not trying to antagonize.

 

[ManRay]

Mitigating circumstances apply to self defense against an assailant. It would be applicable to action taken against the rapist, not the baby that results from rape. You should know this.

Brother I know law - so don’t go down this road with me. I’ll let the legal definition correct you

 

[Farsight001]

Brother I know law - so don’t go down this road with me. I’ll let the legal definition correct you

**mitigating circumstances

n. in criminal law, conditions or happenings which do not excuse or justify criminal conduct, but are considered out of mercy or fairness in deciding the degree of the offense the prosecutor charges or influencing reduction of the penalty upon conviction**.

Where does it say it only pertains to self defense against an assailant???
It can exist in many circumstances.

Where does it say it pertains to innocent bystanders?

I would also note that mitigating circumstances might be applied to reduce the sentence, not negate a crime entirely, so your reference to mitigating circumstances is a non-argument in the first place. Your entire purpose in citing mitigating circumstances was to suggest there were situations in which abortion is justified, but even application of mitigating circumstances is not considered justification of the action in question, but merely reduction of culpability for it.

Lastly, you got that off of law.com. How about a real, textual legal dictionary?

To be a victim you have to possess personhood. Cells aren’t people, acorns aren’t oak tress.

A fetus, by definition, DOES possess personhood. It is, according to every biology textbook and medical dictionary on the planet, alive and human. That is your basic, non-corporate definition of personhood - a living human. Call it a clump of cells all you want. It’s just an ignorant tag line that everyone knows is false. You’re not fooling anyone with it.

See above

Seen above. You failed to address cruel and unusual punishment, so try again.

I’m pro life and pro rights. Stating that something is more rare to defend that position logically fails. Anemia is more rare than diabetes - so following that logic anemic patients don’t necessarily need or deserve to get the same quality care.

Well that’s a bold faced lie if I ever saw one. Abortion is ok, but you’re pro-life? Ridiculous. Listen, if you’re just going to lie through your teeth like that, don’t bother posting anymore replies to me.

 

[ManRay]

Where does it say it pertains to innocent bystanders?

Mr. obtuse - Ok I’ll hold your hand - since you want to be a hateful person, and know that you wont’ get banned - be the keyboard warrior that you think you are!!! Tough guy!!! Yea - the internet provides courage for the people who have none!!! Awesome!! If you read properly I was referring to mitigation is regards to painting a complex subject with one stroke - nothing to do with what you are talking about. IT DOESN"T SAY IT PERTAINS TO INNOCENT BYSTANDERS!!! THAT"S THE WHOLE POINT BRAINIAC!!! It doesn’t pertain to any one subject. In your infinite wisdom you stated that it pertained to an attacking assailant or whatever. Wow - you’re amazing!!! Make sure you report this so I can get banned and you can pat yourself on the back - MIGHT MAKES RIGHT!!! YEA!!!

A fetus, by definition, DOES possess personhood. It is, according to every biology textbook and medical dictionary on the planet, alive and human. That is your basic, non-corporate definition of personhood - a living human. Call it a clump of cells all you want. It’s just an ignorant tag line that everyone knows is false. You’re not fooling anyone with it.

Wow - you are a hateful person. Are you a republican by chance? Just curious. There is no universal definition that a fetus possesses personhood - you are wrong. Youre probably confusion the nouns human, and human being - even the lame source wiki sums it up well.​

The beginning of human personhood is the period in an individual’s life when he or she is recognized, or begins to be recognized, as a person. The precise timing and nature of this occurrence is not universally agreed upon, and has been the subject of discussion and debate in science, religion and philosophy. The question of when and how personhood begins is the often the nexus of controversy on issues such as abortion, stem cell research, reproductive rights, and fetal rights.

Seen above.  You failed to address cruel and unusual punishment, so try again

.
Sure I did - you just can’t read. Sorry

Well that’s a bold faced lie if I ever saw one. Abortion is ok, but you’re pro-life? Ridiculous. Listen, if you’re just going to lie through your teeth like that, don’t bother posting anymore replies to me.

Oh so now I’m a liar huh? You know I would get banned if I wrote that - I bet you won’t though. Very telling. You are an awesome representative of catholic charity…You rock. Thanx for your charity, but I need a shower now. I won’t be letting you wast any more of my time. I’m sure I was baited anyway.