Help with a pro abortionist!!!!

[Vanny]

Yes, I agree with the others you need to pray for this friend.

If we are just following the natural order and have no right to “judge”
others, If it’s all just survival of the fittest, than why is killing people OUTSIDE the womb wrong?
Why was what Hitler did wrong, then?
The trouble with that argument is that it can be extended to already born human life- and is.
If human life has no oither value than animal or insect life than we shouldn’t complain when someone kills someone else born or unborn who’s Inconvienent or cost the state too much money.
That’s what so frightening about those arguments, but I don’t think those pro-aborts think logically to those conclusions.
I’m not Catholic- but I don’t buy that “priests perfomed abortions business”.
I’ve heard simliar stories from my rabidly anit-Catholic friends and families about nuns giving birth to babies after having sex with priest and committing infanticide to get rid of them during the medival period.
Even if that did happen, those people were in sin and going against the teaching to the Church and Christianity.

 

[Hildebrand]

Wormwood:

And the pro-life people that post all of the abortion photos should realize that pictures of any invasive surgery look disgusting. Ever seen eye surgery? Should that be outlawed because it’s disgusting?

When you look at a dead children, ripped limb from limb, you are not looking at invasive surgery. You are looking the slaughter of a children.

When the Americans GIs forced the German civilian population after World War II to enter the death camps to witness what had been going on, it was not to gross them out. It was so they could come to grips of man’s inhumanity toward his fellow man, to see with their own eyes the results of the Third Reich.

Showing images of murdered children is not meant to get people grossed out anyone, it is to allow people to realize what is actually going on.

 

[Seeks_God]

my opinion is obviously skewed, but I once knew a person who supported the pro-choice agenda, but liked Buddhism because buddhists respect life…

Anyways, it’s been my experience that most pro-abortionists will always be able to explain why abotion is ‘okay’, but really lack the understanding of the action. The main problem with the abortion movement is their concept of the beginning of life - i.e. after conception, whereas us Catholics believe the life-creating process occurs within the marital union of a man and a woman. I’ve long given up trying to convince pro-abortionists, rather I’ve resorted to calling abortion what it is - murder. I let them ponder the meaning of life on their own.

SG

 

[FdeS2]

Come on Wormwood, quoting my insincere comments and leaving the good stuff out? Obviously that’s not what the person meant. I was demonstrating how much the person sounds like a raving lunatic. I agree that this person probably has guilt and is rationalizing away murder because it fits into his/her agenda. I also agree that we need to pray for him/her. The person is very far from the truth.

Now I would like to raise the subject of moral relativism. This means that for some people actions are wrong and for others (who “don’t know any better”) they are not. Another dangerous pattern of thought is rationalization. You’re saying that it is beter to kill children than to have them live and have the chance to find God (and therefore happiness). In essense you mean that it’s better to kill than to let live (no matter how poorly)? That borders on mercy-killing (in some instances A.K.A. euthanasia). Getting back to moral relativism, abortion is a terrible sin for anyone who executes, participates, and/or supports it. There are no gray areas. IT IS WRONG. The accountability for the sin is less if the person does not know that it is bad. However, I think that most people know in their hearts that abortion is wrong.

P.S. Telling this person the truth (official Catholic moral positions) cannot be considered forcing moral views on him/her. Whoever it is needs to know the truth.

 

[Ghosty]

Just as an aside, I was an atheist for most of my life. I was also pro-life the entire time I was an atheist. As an atheist I believed in a person’s right to choose, including the person in the womb. I did not recognize the right of a powerful person to take from the weak, nor did I recognize their right to kill a weaker person.

Abortion as a form of “free choice” is an inherently illogical act, because it necessitates not just taking away the free choice of another, but literally destroying another’s ability to ever make a free choice. Abortion supporters who couch their arguments in the language of choice are taking an inherently unreasonable position.

I much prefer the honesty of people who are pro-abortion simply because they dislike people. At least they have their (wicked) heads on straight.

 

[reggie]

After watching womens groups and forums on CSPAN over the course of the last election and since, I have come to realize that for many, many women, abortion is not about choice or freedom but about power. Afterall, what is more powerful than the control over life and death. These women are so angry about the history of women’s oppression, that they are willing to sacrifice the lives of their children to have power. You’ll notice that these supposedly pro-choice women want men to have no choice. If a man wants the baby to live they cannot stop the abortion and if a man wants to end the pregnancy, they cannot force a woman to abort.

Another thing I have observed is that many who support abortion do so out of a desire for license to do whatever they want, to themselves and others. It’s simple really. If there is no God, then human life is as valuable or valueless as one chooses to make it. This frees people to do to themselves or others whatever they want. There is no accountability, no restrictions, no prohibitions.

This misguided soul however, doesn’t seem to fit either of these. My guess is that he or she is a pantheist who thinks that everything is god and of equal value. I can’t understand this type and have no idea of how best to evangelize them. Using the Bible to point out that God gave man dominion over all the earth is pointless as the belief in God is absent. I can’t help but wonder though, what do they eat, wear, live in etc… I’m sorry, I can’t help as this person seems to be way over the edge and in serious need of prayer. That is probably all you can do. I would however, post some sort of reply in the hope that someone else would hear something to plant a seed that may lead them to abandon their support of abortion.

Jesus, Mary, Joseph – save souls. Amen

 

[Wormwood]

Are you saying that you are pro-choice? I thought maybe I was misunderstanding your statement above.

You seem to have it. Yes I am pro-choice.

Hildebrand:
Showing images of murdered children is not meant to get people grossed out anyone, it is to allow people to realize what is actually going on

Well call it what you want, just seems like shock value to me. Do you show pictures of the doctors and nurses killed and maimed by bombings commited by religious lunatics when you preach how murder is wrong? Probably not. It is just taking the sensationalistic opposing stance on ONE issue. That is shock value.

Seeks God:
Anyways, it’s been my experience that most pro-abortionists will always be able to explain why abotion is ‘okay’, but really lack the understanding of the action. The main problem with the abortion movement is their concept of the beginning of life - i.e. after conception

Actually the concept is after birth, not conception. After conception the fetus is still dependant on the mother for survival, and not a sentient being. After birth the child is a seperate life form and therefore sentient and able to maintain life by itself (organ functions).

Now I would like to raise the subject of moral relativism. This means that for some people actions are wrong and for others (who “don’t know any better”) they are not.

Not at all. What I meant was that your moral code is self inflicted and therefore not everyone is subject to it’s rules. Just as no one can make you pray to Mecca, no one can make her respect life.

Another dangerous pattern of thought is rationalization. You’re saying that it is beter to kill children than to have them live and have the chance to find God (and therefore happiness). In essense you mean that it’s better to kill than to let live (no matter how poorly)? That borders on mercy-killing (in some instances A.K.A. euthanasia).

What I am saying is that statistically if they were put up for adoption, their childhood spent in and out of foster care would be miserable, and their adult life, statistically in prison would also be unfulfilling. And you would have more people who don’t care about anything, therefore more pro-abortionists. As for mercy killing, who are you to say until you are in that position? If i had some horrible accident and was maimed and crippled I would want a mercy killing because I would not be myself anymore, and if I were in a position (with brain damage for instance) where I could not kill myself, I would want the right to ask ( or to have that included in my medical records for ) someone else to do it for me.
Are you saying that I should suffer for your beliefs regaurding the sanctity of life?

 

[Hildebrand]

Wormwood:

Well call it what you want, just seems like shock value to me. Do you show pictures of the doctors and nurses killed and maimed by bombings commited by religious lunatics when you preach how murder is wrong? Probably not. It is just taking the sensationalistic opposing stance on ONE issue. That is shock value.

There is a difference. We as a society accept that bombing buildings is wrong. For the most part, everyone agrees with that. If for some reason, bombing buildings was viewed as OK by society and a legal practice… Then I would support showing the victims of those crimes. It is not shock value, it is to show the results of barbaric acts to a nation that allows and approves of barbaric acts.

 

[Wormwood]

Abortion as a form of “free choice” is an inherently illogical act, because it necessitates not just taking away the free choice of another, but literally destroying another’s ability to ever make a free choice. Abortion supporters who couch their arguments in the language of choice are taking an inherently unreasonable position.

Ah Ghosty, we meet again. Like I said earlier, someone’s choice will have to suffer. The courts gave women the right to choose over a non sentient being. Seems logical enough. Also, we can speculate what we wish, but the fact remains that it is the newly pregnant woman that has to do everything. She must lose her shape, carry extra weight, adhere to a diet fit for pregnancy, deal with morning sickness and (oh God!) the emotional swings. Not to mention the enormous amount of other complications and side effects, not the least of which is the ruining of the rest of her life. I am not personally for the idea of an abortion, I like children. But I don’t think that I am in any place to force my moral objections onto other people. If what they are doing is wrong, they will be judged accordingly, but not by me. So my argument is not unreasonable by testament of your statement. You said abortion supporters who couch their position on choice are illogical, but I don’t support abortion, I support choice…so where’s your “logic” now tough guy?

REGGIE:

After watching womens groups and forums on CSPAN over the course of the last election and since, I have come to realize that for many, many women, abortion is not about choice or freedom but about power.

The same could be said for the churches position.

Another thing I have observed is that many who support abortion do so out of a desire for license to do whatever they want, to themselves and others.

Well not so much to others, but yes you are on to something here. People do want the choice to do what they want to themselves. I think laws in place to “save people from themselves” are ridiculous. Everything you have can be taken and owned by someone else, but not your body…at least it should be that way. If I want to do heroine until I die, I should be allowed to, because it doesn’t effect anyone other than myself…why should an outside party get a say and regulate my behavior?

If there is no God, then human life is as valuable or valueless as one chooses to make it. This frees people to do to themselves or others whatever they want. There is no accountability, no restrictions, no prohibitions

Well yes and no. It is the same theory as religion, but on a way less epic and less impressive nature. The police. Both use a fear of punishment to exact a specific behavior, one is just more demanding and in depth than the other. Still accountability and restrictions.

This misguided soul however, doesn’t seem to fit either of these. My guess is that he or she is a pantheist who thinks that everything is god and of equal value. I can’t understand this type and have no idea of how best to evangelize them

Well the native americans were like this…just do what the good christian folk of days past did…maybe not the best example of “evangelization”. Sorry…I couldn’t resist

 

[Hildebrand]

Wormwood:

The courts gave women the right to choose over a non sentient being.

Wow. This is a major breakthrough. The unborn child has lost consciousness and sense perception. So premature babies do not gain consciousness until 9 full months of development? This is news to me.

So the following is a non sentient being:

outsidethebeltway.com/fotos/preemie.jpg

 

[Wormwood]

There is a difference. We as a society accept that bombing buildings is wrong. For the most part, everyone agrees with that. If for some reason, bombing buildings was viewed as OK by society and a legal practice… Then I would support showing the victims of those crimes. It is not shock value, it is to show the results of barbaric acts to a nation that allows and approves of barbaric acts.

Well if you ever read some posts on the topic or chat in a public room you will see that a large number of people calling themselves christians think it is ok. And it was people calling themselves “pro-life” and christian that did these things (that alone gives me a headache when I try to fathom it…killing to show support for all things living…sounds like modern art.) The point is your extreme actions, though done with good intentions, only breed more extreme responses. It isn’t like people don’t know what an abortion is, showing it is just for a more vivid response from your target audience. Also you could use this tactic with any surgery because they are always unpleasant to watch or think about. I recently had to watch a film on a surgery to remove the lower lobe of someones lung…it was cancerous. After seeing the movie, I would rather just die of the lung cancer. Just like showing a black lung to a smoker this is a shock value tactic…and hey there are still TONS of smokers so they must not be too effective.
You say it is a legal issue, and that if abortion were not legal, you would not protest so strongly, but that does not compute. The same number of abortions could take place, but because they are done in a non-legal non-sterile and probably non-safe environment that you could rest more at ease?

 

[Hildebrand]

Wormwood:

You say it is a legal issue, and that if abortion were not legal, you would not protest so strongly, but that does not compute. The same number of abortions could take place, but because they are done in a non-legal non-sterile and probably non-safe environment that you could rest more at ease?

Valtiel, I’ll take my own advice and leave it here for a while. Especially when I am arguing with a person who thinks premature babies do not have consciousness and sense perception. That is up there with saying “The abortive procedure was developed by Catholic priests”.

 

[Wormwood]

Wow. This is a major breakthrough. The unborn child has lost consciousness and sense perception. So premature babies do not gain consciousness until 9 full months of development? This is news to me.

**

sentient

2: consciously perceiving;

One could debate that they are not FULLY sentient for some time after birth given that they lack essential brain waves for concious lucid thought. But that is for another thread perhaps, what I will say is that as long as they rely on the mother for blood, nourishment, and oxygen, they are not independant creatures. Certainly not capable of forming coherant thoughts. Argue this if you must, but for a creature with a forming brain that has never been exposed to words or pictures would have no means with which to express such thoughts in the unlikely event it were possible. Also we are not talking about ninth month abortions or anything, and in the first two months nothing capable of thoughts and feelings has been formed.**

 

[Wormwood]

Valtiel, I’ll take my own advice and leave it here for a while. Especially when I am arguing with a person who thinks premature babies do not have consciousness and sense perception. That is up there with saying “The abortive procedure was developed by Catholic priests”.

What a gross misrepresentation. Just because you don’t like what I say, doesn’t make it false. I gave a more detailed response and I fail to see any refutal of anything. All you offer is speculation and derogatory comments, with no evidence supporting why you are correct. Prove that a fetus has conscious thought…I am interested to hear this.

 

[Hildebrand]

Hildebrand:

sentient

dictionary.reference.com/search?q=sentient%20

1. 
   *]Having sense perception; conscious
   *]Experiencing sensation or feeling
   
   dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=71829&dict=CALD
   
   able to experience physical and possibly emotional feelings

 

[mom_07]

Could be, but usually post abortion emotional disorders (if any) are repentance and guilt, not avid support. You have to understand that some people simply don’t have the capacity to care about human life outside of their own. I am in no way trying to condemn anyone who is like that, just stating that they are a portion of the population. I am not a psychologist, but I believe anti-social patterns like that are from feelings of worthlessness from neglectful or abusive parents, or at least that is the popular speculation these days.

I am not an expert either but there is much research to suggest that anti-social thinking has less to do with environment and more to do with abnormal thinking patterns and processes. These atypical thinking patterns cannot be explained by social environmental causes alone. For instance, a large family may have one child out of many who exhibits anti-social thinking and behavior and many children who are exposed to neglect and abuse nevertheless grow into responsible, caring adults. However, for the sake of this discussion that is neither here nor there. Unless, of course, you support killing those who might possibly be victims of unfortunate happenstance sometimes in the future for their own sake.

The point they were making was just for this instance. You are compelled to care about people you don’t even know, so you would never have an abortion. The author of the article has no capacity to care even about very familiar figures in her life, so she has no problem with abortion (if that is indeed the case). Who is right here?

I would say without hesitation that those who argue that his or her feelings and or passions have little or nothing to do with societies larger responsibility to protect innocent human life are absolutely in the right.

Tough to say (just like my official stance…I am pro-choice, but I would never personally make that choice). She has no morality to tell her what she is doing is wrong, so she is not compelled by the same forces as you. Is it fair to inflict your religious beliefs on her? Not really. Is it fair to inflict her lack of morality on the fetus? Not really. Someones rights HAVE to suffer here…and the courts ruled for the taxpayer over the fetus.

Firstly, I am no more inflicting my religious beliefs on others when I support a ban on abortion than I am when I support a ban on rape. Secondly, no one has the right to take innocent life. Ever.

                                                                                                                                           If

If the courts had ruled for the fetus, and for some reason people stopped doing back alley abortions, the children would grow up neglected and abused, and the world would be even more populated with people who don’t care about anything.(I am sure I will see this opinion quoted)

It will be quoted because it is provocative and nonsense. You have taken a great leap to assume that all mothers who are panicked with an unplanned pregnancy would necessarily hate their born child enough to neglect and abuse them. Again nonsense. Most everyone alive was the result of an unplanned pregnancy. Abortion fanatics to justify murder invented the disease of unwanted ness. And they have had over thirty years weed out all the unwanted children, yet child abuse and neglect continue to skyrocket. Have you ever considered it’s the culture of abortion that is the causation of the growing lack of capacity to care for others outside themselves?

 

[Wormwood]

Originally Posted by Hildebrand
*sentient *

dictionary.reference.com/search?q=sentient%20

1. 
   *]Having sense perception; conscious
   *]Experiencing sensation or feeling

1. 
   dictionary.cambridge.org/def…71829&dict=CALD
   

   able to experience physical and possibly emotional feelings

   Well if we are talking within the legal time frame of an abortion, the CNS hasn’t formed…so your physical sensation argument is out. As for emotional…if you believe like the ancient chinese that emotions originate in the heart, then MAYBE…but a childs brain isn’t even formed after birth, it runs on it’s forming brain’s capacity which is instinctual for the most part. To presume a fetus of two months or so can think and feel is against the evidence to say the least.

 

[Wormwood]

I am not an expert either but there is much research to suggest that anti-social thinking has less to do with environment and more to do with abnormal thinking patterns and processes. These atypical thinking patterns cannot be explained by social environmental causes alone.

It’s about 50/50 environment/genetics from what the best guesses can speculate. So a particular recessive gene could appear as an anomaly in a large family, however, varying degrees of environmental factors are not controlled, that is too say they are not strictly raised exactly the same in every situation. For example, i neglect all of my kids to watch my soaps or something, and 4 out of five do fine with that, but one broke his arm while I was neglecting him, his perspective will be different. Also competition with siblings that the older children might not had to have faced, and any other number of factors could contribute to that.

Firstly, I am no more inflicting my religious beliefs on others when I support a ban on abortion than I am when I support a ban on rape.

Apples and oranges. I have never heard of someone who prevents a rape being refered to as “butting in” “sticking their nose in others business” etc. But while we’re on the subject, are you proposing that if a woman were rapped she should have to go thru with the pregnancy?

It will be quoted because it is provocative and nonsense. You have taken a great leap to assume that all mothers who are panicked with an unplanned pregnancy would necessarily hate their born child enough to neglect and abuse them.

Nope. I said statistically children who are given up for adoption…(since that is the alternative I hear offered so much)
But you are right. I should just assume that these young women having abortions (or throwing babies in dumpsters when they can’t have an abortion) would make outstanding and attenuative mothers. It’s my fault really for making such “great leaps” to provide “provocative nonsense”. I should just assume that if you make them have a child, their personality will fix itself and the child will be fine. I know that my opinions sound heartless to you, but I am not trying to be malicious. “unwantedness” and parental resentment are not just buzz words cooked up in the last 30 years, they are a very real occurance. I am not offering this as an umbrella argument or anything, I do see the “moral” quandry, and as I’ve said I would never participate. That does not give me the right to stop someone else. I can not make someone else stay pregnant. Even if outlawed there are a million alternatives…many which would result not in success, but in marred and deformed children. If it is going to be done anyway, you should at least consider the health of the person that we KNOW is a person.

 

[mom_07]

Wormwood wrote:

Also, we can speculate what we wish, but the fact remains that it is the newly pregnant woman that has to do everything. She must lose her shape, carry extra weight, adhere to a diet fit for pregnancy, deal with morning sickness and (oh God!) the emotional swings. Not to mention the enormous amount of other complications and side effects, not the least of which is the ruining of the rest of her life. I am not personally for the idea of an abortion, I like children. But I don’t think that I am in any place to force my moral objections onto other people. If what they are doing is wrong, they will be judged accordingly, but not by me. So my argument is not unreasonable by testament of your statement. You said abortion supporters who couch their position on choice are illogical, but I don’t support abortion, I support choice…so where’s your “logic” now tough guy?

Also, we can speculate what we wish, but the fact remains that it is the newly stationed soldier that has to do everything. He must lose his or her freedom, carry extra weight, and adhere to a diet fit for fighting a war on foreign soil and deal with homesickness and (oh God!) the emotional swings. Not to mention the enormous amount of other complications and side affects, not the least of which is losing the rest of his life. I am not personally for the idea of a foreign dictatorship taking control I like freedom and liberty. But I don’t think that I am in any place to force my moral objections onto other people. If desertion from military duty is wrong, they will be judged accordingly, but not by me. And the government has no right to get involved. So my argument is not unreasonable by testament of your statement. You said supporters of military desertion who couch their position on choice are illogical, but I don’t support treason by desertion, I support choice, because it is an elementary truth that all choices are equal. At least in my world they are.
So where's your "logic" now tough guy? : )

 

[Eden]

Wormwood:

Well call it what you want, just seems like shock value to me. Do you show pictures of the doctors and nurses killed and maimed by bombings commited by religious lunatics when you preach how murder is wrong? Probably not. It is just taking the sensationalistic opposing stance on ONE issue. That is shock value.

Thank you for agreeing that killing doctors and nurses is the moral equivalent to killing unborn babies. I also believe both are murder. As killing the abortion doctors is already a crime, I don’t see the point of showing pictures of the crime scene other than at trial. “Abortion clinics” are crime scenes every day that they are open. It’s the murder that goes unprosecuted and is legal for which using pictures is useful.

No one can make her respect life.

Um…at least you admit it’s a life. Don’t you think it’s odd to say “no one can make her respect life” yet I’m sure you have no problem saying “Someone can stop her from speeding 110 MPH on the highway”? Endangering a life is endangering a life.

What I am saying is that statistically if they were put up for adoption, their childhood spent in and out of foster care would be miserable, and their adult life, statistically in prison would also be unfulfilling. And you would have more people who don’t care about anything, therefore more pro-abortionists.

Can you please show me the study to which you refer along with a link to view the statistics?