Can someone help me come up with a response to pro-choice attacks?

[limerick]

It is a code word used to change how people view reality. Making a decision to take a life is not life choosing beef or fish. There is no right to choose murder. The pro abort crowd use disingenuous language.

Do you folks claim rape is pro choice? Arson?

**

“Code word”? Such conspiracy theory nonsense! And remember: free will most certainly does allow for anyone, anywhere, at any time, to murder another.

You are coming in at the end of the movie, fix. You enter at the part where a woman has already committed to having an abortion. Choice occurs before the commitment has a chance to root. In choice there is an area of freedom, a place where options all carry the same weight. More women than you or I will ever know choose not to have the abortion, or choose to give birth and raise the child, or choose to give birth and adopt that child out to a loving family. This is choice. And choice may lead to abortion, but many, many times it does not.

To answer your question about rape and arson, let me say that when one embarks on a particular behavior, that behavior will occur as a result of that individual having made the choice to do so. Arson and rape are largely acts of violence, the incendiary events of which can often be traced in the offender’s history. So, yes, arson and rape occur through the phenomenon of free will. A choice is made in either case.

Limerick**

 

[fix]

**

“Code word”? Such conspiracy theory nonsense! And remember: free will most certainly does allow for anyone, anywhere, at any time, to murder another.

You are coming in at the end of the movie, fix. You enter at the part where a woman has already committed to having an abortion. Choice occurs before the commitment has a chance to root. In choice there is an area of freedom, a place where options all carry the same weight. More women than you or I will ever know choose not to have the abortion, or choose to give birth and raise the child, or choose to give birth and adopt that child out to a loving family. This is choice. And choice may lead to abortion, but many, many times it does not.

To answer your question about rape and arson, let me say that when one embarks on a particular behavior, that behavior will occur as a result of that individual having made the choice to do so. Arson and rape are largely acts of violence, the incendiary events of which can often be traced in the offender’s history. So, yes, arson and rape occur through the phenomenon of free will. A choice is made in either case.

Limerick**

So, you are pro choice on rape and arson. That means we can have laws against abortion just like we do against rape and arson. Great. We agree.

 

[newbetx]

**No, there are two other considerations: LIFE is of value; or LIFE is valueless. Innocence has absolutely nothing to do with it.

Limerick**

I was about to agree with you, but then I thought about something…

Who is Innocent? In any bigotry situation, those who are oppressed are considered a “problem” and not innocent. The issue isn’t whether one believes that life is valuable or valueless as much as they believe they can determine if it is valuable or valueless given their perspective and have the right to act upon that decision.

It is immaterial the state of a person’s sins or culture. No one is disposable OR all are disposable. A person is free to believe either. Unfortunately, like many other things in this country, people want to believe they are free to pick and choose.

And on a related subject, one of name calling.

Pro-choice folks are named Pro-abortion and Pro-life are called Anti-Abortion. Not all pro-choice people like the idea of abortion but they believe it to be a right. A right to choose to be pregnant or not. What most don’t understand is that they don’t really have a right to sex without the possibility of getting pregnant. Until we get past that hurdle, abortion will continue to exist. Well, even if illegal, it will continue to exist. What the abortionists want is a “safe” way to obtain an abortion. But this too is flawed as much as the concept of “safe” sex.

So would the core problem be what society constitutes something as “safe” and that is what we want? Think about it… We want “safe” neighborhoods, internet, playgrounds, parks, roads, schools, toys, cars, and sex. So why wouldn’t they want a safe alternative to pregnancy? Really. We’re told “sex” is a right to have without a need to be concerned with pregnancy. Should we be surprised that abortions are such big business?

Good news, at least for now, abortion rates are down. The pro-life efforts may be able to get some credit although birth control availability is being given the credit from what I hear. But after all, if the efforts weren’t effective there wouldn’t be need for the liberal wing of the government to have to step in to squash them.

I say that abortion is a symptom of a larger problem in this country and the world. Treating a symptom won’t cure the problem. We have to go after the problem with the same vigor as we do with abortion but we’re not. We didn’t get this level of problem only when abortion became “legal.” It came when we allowed “sex” to become a “right” rather than a responsibility. I, personally, could never have become pro-life without that understanding.

 

[limerick]

So, you are pro choice on rape and arson. That means we can have laws against abortion just like we do against rape and arson. Great. We agree.

**You presume to understand my post, but the meaning has eluded you.

I did not say I am pro-choice on rape or arson. I said these acts take place because individuals are faced with options and, unfortunately, some choose destructive paths. This is not an endorsement of either rape or arson.

So, you see, we remain in disagreement and will continue to disagree on this fine point.

Limerick**

 

[limerick]

Whether you believe these folks do or do not have “the right to act upon that decision”, the fact remains that people do act, often without regard to rights or permission or decree. People are free to pick and choose. You may disagree with their choices, the Law may disagree with their choices, and God Himself may disagree with their choices; but free will allows them to decide and then to act.

Pro-choice folks are named Pro-abortion and Pro-life are called Anti-Abortion.
**
Who assigned these names to these groups? I don’t find either particularly accurate.**

Not all pro-choice people like the idea of abortion but they believe it to be a right. A right to choose to be pregnant or not. What most don’t understand is that they don’t really have a right to sex without the possibility of getting pregnant.

This is incorrect. Men and women have a right to their sexuality, to the expression of said sexuality, but with that comes the responsibility to prevent conception when it is undesired. Of course, the Catholic Church has these options tied up in guilt and shame as well.

Until we get past that hurdle, abortion will continue to exist. Well, even if illegal, it will continue to exist. What the abortionists want is a “safe” way to obtain an abortion. But this too is flawed as much as the concept of “safe” sex.

Abortionists are not the only people interested in maintaining the safest methods of performing abortions. Every patient who ends up on the table is interested in safety and support as well. The only way that I have personally seen the system flawed is through patient non-compliance, in everything from waiting too long to have a medically safe abortion to eating before their procedures, to failing to disclose certain medications they are taking, to having sex too soon after their procedures - the patients put themselves at risk far more often than the doctors do. There are cases that do not go well for one reason or another, from a medical standpoint, but this is to be expected in all medical procedures performed throughout this country at any given time. There is always risk involved, and the patients assume all risk when they agree to the procedures.

So would the core problem be what society constitutes something as “safe” and that is what we want? Think about it… We want “safe” neighborhoods, internet, playgrounds, parks, roads, schools, toys, cars, and sex. So why wouldn’t they want a safe alternative to pregnancy? Really. We’re told “sex” is a right to have without a need to be concerned with pregnancy. Should we be surprised that abortions are such big business?

And your candidates for “safe” alternatives to pregnancy? If you are touting total abstinence, that is fine for anyone willing to live his or her life that way. But the world is not Catholic, no matter how often I hear the definition of such as “universal”. Abstinence, or living life with no reproductive rights (i.e., allowing a celibate male who is connected with his “constituents” in only the most academic and remote manner to dictate sexual practices) is decidedly not embraced throughout the world. So for these folks, whaddya got?

Good news, at least for now, abortion rates are down. The pro-life efforts may be able to get some credit although birth control availability is being given the credit from what I hear. But after all, if the efforts weren’t effective there wouldn’t be need for the liberal wing of the government to have to step in to squash them.

I find this ambiguous - to whom are you giving credit for the drop in abortion rates?

I say that abortion is a symptom of a larger problem in this country and the world. Treating a symptom won’t cure the problem. We have to go after the problem with the same vigor as we do with abortion but we’re not. We didn’t get this level of problem only when abortion became “legal.” It came when we allowed “sex” to become a “right” rather than a responsibility. I, personally, could never have become pro-life without that understanding.
**
I agree with the first part of this paragraph in that I believe the problems that lead to abortion begin in early relationships within families - that some fathers sexualize daughters, that some daughters believe the only way to get love is to become sexually available, that some mothers castrate sons verbally and attitudinally and cause resentment and rage enough to drive their sons to abuse young girls and women - these are only a few of the problems I see in relationships. No emphasis is given to trustworthiness or compatibility or the study of the pitfalls of entering into a committed relationship. It’s all white picket fence jive, and I for one resent it. There is no knight in shining armor, and there is no girl next door. Let’s get real, people.

Kids need facts. ALL the facts. They need to be respected and loved and cherished and educated. And still there will be unexpected pregnancies. But if love can permeate the act and command staying power through the drama, an unexpected pregnancy can turn inside out and be a welcome event. Not always. Nothing is always. There are no guarantees. And this is another deficiency I find in God’s world. But I’m not the Boss. He is. And since He is the Boss, He needs to instruct all of His people on how to handle this dilemma and drain off the vitriol that surrounds the topic. Otherwise, the polarity of the issue will be center-stage, and victory over our own human shortcomings and neediness will never be within our reach.

Limerick **

 

[fix]

**You presume to understand my post, but the meaning has eluded you.

I did not say I am pro-choice on rape or arson. I said these acts take place because individuals are faced with options and, unfortunately, some choose destructive paths. This is not an endorsement of either rape or arson.

So, you see, we remain in disagreement and will continue to disagree on this fine point.

Limerick**

How is the choice to rape or commit arson not a choice?

 

[buffalo]

Pro Life Day of Silent Solidarity - Schools Registered 3863

 

[limerick]

How is the choice to rape or commit arson not a choice?

**Here was your question: *“Do you folks claim rape is pro choice? Arson?” ***

First of all, the term “you folks” is an unnecessary dig at individual thought and I correct you here on including me in any homogenized grouping of people.

Now, you have asked if rape is pro-choice, if arson is pro-choice. My response is that rape and arson are matters of individual choice, but I do not include these acts in a pro-choice mentality. To split hairs, it could be said that some people choose to rape or commit arson, but to claim that pro-choice people endorse these acts is just silly. First you want “choice” to refer to abortion exclusively, as if it is some code word for abortion; then you want to use it as a blanket term to cover all manner of reprehensible behaviors. Pick one and stick with it.

Limerick

 

[crazzeto]

Hi there,

Well, I need some help coming up with a response to these statements

“Why wouldn’t you abort your child? What if your daughter got raped by a violent thug, would you keep that baby? I would forget the so called “God” and kill the child.”

and I respond:

“Well, what if your mom was raped by some violent thug?? I bet you’re glad that she carried you for nine months and gave you the chance to make something out of your life. And also, if a baby is born out of rape, incest, or whatever, it dosen’t make it any less of a human being. The child could grow up to cure cancer, be president, or the next music sensation.”

Here’s a better answer:

“Well let me ask you this, why not just kill your daughter for getting raped? I mean if it’s ok to make the child pay a deadly price for the fathers crime, why not the daughter? What’s the difference?”

This should get you off the “blah blah rape” topic and more to the crux of the issue, is the fetus alive (hint, it is).

and they respond:

“Blah blah blah. I would like to see your daughter raise a child after being raped at the age of 14. I bet that would make some music sensation. He would probably get MTV awards too.”

Well there are a number of possiblities here, first and foremost if you don’t want to raise the child why not give it up for adoption. Don’t let them ignore this, adoption is a valid option that so called “pro-choicers” choose to ignore.

Can someone help me out here?

-Jeanne

Good luck

 

[fix]

**Here was your question: *“Do you folks claim rape is pro choice? Arson?” ***

First of all, the term “you folks” is an unnecessary dig at individual thought and I correct you here on including me in any homogenized grouping of people.

By you folks I was intending those that support legalized abortion and support the phrase “pro choice”.**

Now, you have asked if rape is pro

-choice, if arson is pro-choice. My response is that rape and arson are matters of individual choice, but I do not include these acts in a pro-choice mentality.I have no idea what this means? What is the difference between matters of individual choice and a pro-choice mentality?

To split hairs, it could be said that some people choose to rape or commit arson, but to claim that pro-choice people endorse these acts is just silly. First you want “choice” to refer to abortion exclusively, as if it is some code word for abortion; then you want to use it as a blanket term to cover all manner of reprehensible behaviors. Pick one and stick with it.

**Let’s see what you are saying here. Apparently, we are to believe the term pro choice does not mean abortion but that folks are excerising free will. Then, we are to believe choosing rape or arson in some way is not a choice in the same way choosing abortion is a choice. Basically, you want to apply the word “choice” to abortion but then use it differently when talking about other seriously wrong acts for no apparent reason other than it does not fit with your argument.

 

[Eric_Hilbert]

Let’s keep the discussion civil and adult or the thread will be closed.

 

[limerick]

Here’s a better answer:

“Well let me ask you this, why not just kill your daughter for getting raped? I mean if it’s ok to make the child pay a deadly price for the fathers crime, why not the daughter? What’s the difference?”

This should get you off the “blah blah rape” topic and more to the crux of the issue, is the fetus alive (hint, it is).

Well there are a number of possiblities here, first and foremost if you don’t want to raise the child why not give it up for adoption. Don’t let them ignore this, adoption is a valid option that so called “pro-choicers” choose to ignore.

Good luck

**If you read back over even the most recent posts you will find that those of us who advocate for choice embrace the adoption scenario. We do not ignore it. It is a component of choice.

Limerick**

 

[crazzeto]

**If you read back over even the most recent posts you will find that those of us who advocate for choice embrace the adoption scenario. We do not ignore it. It is a component of choice.

Limerick**

I accept that it would be implied in the title “choice”, however I hope you can accept that in reality it seems the only “choice” is “abortion”. Certainly in the presented senario that is the case, the questioning is loaded with “why wouldn’t you have the rapped 14 year old get an abortion”. In this line of questioning, the “choice” has been made.

 

[limerick]

I accept that it would be implied in the title “choice”, however I hope you can accept that in reality it seems the only “choice” is “abortion”. Certainly in the presented senario that is the case, the questioning is loaded with “why wouldn’t you have the rapped 14 year old get an abortion”. In this line of questioning, the “choice” has been made.

**Your response does not change the fact that pro-choice individuals support adoption as one option in this difficult situation. And I don’t see that any choice has been made - the original poster was speaking in hypothetical terms, no? Armchair zealots are particularly dangerous.

Limerick**

 

[newbetx]

**Your response does not change the fact that pro-choice individuals support adoption as one option in this difficult situation. And I don’t see that any choice has been made - the original poster was speaking in hypothetical terms, no? .

Limerick**

And you wondered why I said “pro-choice folks are called pro-abortion”. It’s part of the polarization problem. We spend too much time not discussing the issue but calling each other names. Easier to label someone and make assumptions. Or maybe it’s just more “fun.”

 

[crazzeto]

**Your response does not change the fact that pro-choice individuals support adoption as one option in this difficult situation. And I don’t see that any choice has been made - the original poster was speaking in hypothetical terms, no? Armchair zealots are particularly dangerous.

Limerick**

My response is grounded in reality, as opposed to “theoretically speaking”. In reality the position put forth by the OP is not one of choice, rather it’s an imparitive. It’s an imparitive that all childern, conseved as a result of rape, must be aborted.

I submit that it is not an imparitive, further I submit that such action is in no way morally superior to shooting the rape victem. So now I will direct my question at you, why not kill the rape victem? And I don’t see any reason why not to bring this up hypothedically if bringing up an imparitive to abort all products of rape hypothedically.

So why don’t we kill rape victems?

 

[limerick]

My response is grounded in reality, as opposed to “theoretically speaking”. In reality the position put forth by the OP is not one of choice, rather it’s an imparitive. It’s an imparitive that all childern, conseved as a result of rape, must be aborted.

I submit that it is not an imparitive, further I submit that such action is in no way morally superior to shooting the rape victem. So now I will direct my question at you, why not kill the rape victem? And I don’t see any reason why not to bring this up hypothedically if bringing up an imparitive to abort all products of rape hypothedically.

So why don’t we kill rape victems?

**This whole notion is uselessly abstract. A true problem lies at your feet and you dance around it with what-ifs and yeah-buts. Addressing these non-issues is doing nothing to face the true dilemma of abortion. Have you done one thing to give comfort or assistance or accurate and complete information today to a woman struggling with her own choice? No? Is it easier to take pot shots at phantoms?

Limerick**

 

[crazzeto]

**This whole notion is uselessly abstract. A true problem lies at your feet and you dance around it with what-ifs and yeah-buts. Addressing these non-issues is doing nothing to face the true dilemma of abortion. Have you done one thing to give comfort or assistance or accurate and complete information today to a woman struggling with her own choice? No? Is it easier to take pot shots at phantoms?

Limerick**

What exactly am I dancing around? I really truely have to ask here, because frankly I’m dealing with this subjet (particularly the one in the OP) in exactly the spirit presented. The choice was made, abortion is that choice. In the mind of the person the OP is debating (perhaps yours as well?) any other choice is simply wrong.

Here are some facts for you to ponder:
Embryo’s are in fact alive, a fact which even the US federal court system agrees with (look up “South Dakota - Abortion”)
To deny the basic fact that an embryo is alive is well, just plain lieing to your self
Once we’ve established 1 & 2 collectivly abortion in a legal sense (lets leave morals out for now) should, rightly be considered in terms of two individuals
If our legal system no longer recognizes that the rights of one individual, can no loger superseed the rights of another, then well, where are we?

Now, in a moral sense. As South Dakota law dictate requires (now) every woman be informed prior to an abortion, you are in fact killing a seperate human being.

So lets consider the OP. The embryo, resulting from a rape is a seperate human being, only associated by accident with the rape. The embryo commited no crime, there is no guarantee if it survies that it would ever commit a crime. So, why is it paying for the fathers crime?

I hope I didn’t “dance around the issue” too much for you. I’m going for a “direct” approch here.

 

[limerick]

**The original poster poses this scenario:

“Why wouldn’t you abort your child? What if your daughter got raped by a violent thug, would you keep that baby? I would forget the so called “God” and kill the child.”** Here we have a bona fide “what if”, which places this person’s response squarely in the hypothetical arena. Not only that, I interpret this respondent’s reaction as an answer to the dilemma, “What would I do if my daughter got raped by a violent thug?” So, how old is the daughter in this fictitious scene? Fourteen or thirty-four? That makes a difference. Also, be aware that a minor child can apply for judicial bypass through the court system and, if granted, can pursue an abortion without her parents’ or legal guardian’s knowledge or consent. [See “Jane’s Due Process”.]

Now comes this series of hypotheses: * “Well, what if your mom was raped by some violent thug?? I bet you’re glad that she carried you for nine months and gave you the chance to make something out of your life. And also, if a baby is born out of rape, incest, or whatever, it dosen’t make it any less of a human being. The child could grow up to cure cancer, be president, or the next music sensation.”* The person on the receiving end of this presumption might actually be thoroughly miserable, with depression, disease, economic problems - all fixable, yes - but all having the power to present a convincing argument that s/he is despondent over the fact that the mother carried him or her to term. And the child born to a woman who has been raped can also develop into a character considerably less savory than a researcher who cures cancer, a president or a “music sensation”, the value of which I fail to grasp. Again, all conjecture. No abortion appears to have taken place thus far in the original poster’s presentation.

The OP is asking for help in hitting back with legitimate arguments against abortion. This is all mouth and ego, with little in the way of furthering the pro-life cause. My suggestion would be to quietly develop one’s own beliefs or philosophy about said topic, and when the time comes to offer anything even remotely insightful it should be done discreetly and without judgment or undue, unsolicited influence. No one knows what they would do in the case of an unexpected pregnancy unless and until they are the mother who has conceived or the father who has donated his DNA to the mix. It’s easy to give lip service to taking the high road.

This whole argument sounds like school yard braggadocio. I stand by my evaluation: the entire thread is based on “what ifs” and “yeah buts”.

 

[crazzeto]

I disagree completely, I beleive an issue this critical should not be simply not discussed. I don’t believe people should, quitely introspectivly with out hearing the full story develop their own opinions. Because with out these discussions, the opinions will be handed to people in k-12 schools, and never questioned.

This is a critical moral issue, and moral teaching is very much the job of both the church and every member of it. It is all of our jobs to educate on any subject of this importance.

In this case, the “choice” is clear and it’s life. There is no valid way to refute the basic fact that an embryo is in fact alive. Once you move past that the moral and legal arguments are essentally academic.