How to re-educate so that people will understand about abortion?

[Drawmack]

I am not changing the subject. I am on subject. Using proper terms for support for killing innocent citizens is not disrespectful. If you claim it is please show me how.

I am white, American, anglo, and of German heritage. So you can refer to me a white – it will be true. You can refer to me as anglo – it will be true. You can refer to me a of German descent – it will be true. Now, if I tell you that I wish to be called European-American (also true) it becomes disrespectful to refer to me by the other terms because you have disrespected my wishes. Thus those who believe abortion should be kept legal wish to be called pro-choice. This is a correct terminology because they believe they are supporting the woman’s right to choose abortion. Therefore, referring to them by anything else is disrespectful because it is disrespectful of their wishes. Just as someone referring to pro-life by any other, correct, term is still disrespectful because we wish to be known as pro-life.

Yes, it could be misinformed, but seeing as how there is a large political effort that supports pro abortion it is mostly a propaganda tool.

I think that is over reaching. They view the issue from a completely different perspective than we do and refusing to even acknowledge their perspective, let alone calling it propagandist, is disrespectful.

 

[Drawmack]

No thanks. I’ll use the terms I choose to communicate what I choose. I recommend everyone communicate their own thoughts rather than another’s.

You are extremely disrespectful!

 

[vz71]

Okay, following that argument then if there is one single person who is pro-life and pro-death penalty the term pro-life is not correct. Do you have to be anti-death penalty to be a member of the pro-life movement?

Wow. Do I see derailment possibilities here…

The question then becomes, are you willing to accept the illogic of being pro-life and yet against certain lives?

I believe that position weakens the entire pro life argument and I cannot accept the illogic there, so I am against the death penalty.

But that is REALLY for another thread.

 

[vz71]

Nobody denies DNA is in a fertilized egg.

Those who support fetal stem cell research all know the cells contain DNA. Many are biologists.

So with the DNA in front of them proving the humanity of the organism…people still advocate the right to kill it?

I would like to believe people simply do not understand the humanity they are allowing to be killed then to believe they are willing participants in murder.

but I have been wrong before.

 

[WillieWonka]

You are extremely disrespectful!

I regret that. I don’t intend to be disresectful. I think any discussion can be undertaken in a civil manner, and I attempt to do so. I choose words to communicate what I choose. If I restrict myself to someone else’s choice of words, then I am not communicating my thoughts.

 

[Drawmack]

Wow. Do I see derailment possibilities here…

The question then becomes, are you willing to accept the illogic of being pro-life and yet against certain lives?

I cannot accept the illogic there, so I am against the death penalty.

But that is REALLY for another thread.

Not really. We are talking about educating people on abortion. I think it is important for all members of the debate to agree on the terminology to be used. I don’t think we can adequately educate people about our stance, pro-choice or pro-life, if we can’t agree on the language we use. If every one is making up their own language the people we are attempting to educate can easily become confused further on the topic.

So, I’m trying to understand why both sides use the terminology they use and determine if we can even agree on something as simple as how we refer to one another. If we cannot come to an agreement on the language used any attempts at education will be in vain.

 

[Drawmack]

I regret that. I don’t intend to be disresectful. I think any discussion can be undertaken in a civil manner, and I attempt to do so. I choose words to communicate what I choose. If I restrict myself to someone else’s choice of words, then I am not communicating my thoughts.

Why can you not refer to me as pro-life and still express what you want to express? Why do your thoughts crux on the term you use to refer to me? I mean, if you think I’m a butt does it matter if my name is John or Jeff?

If you cannot utilize the term pro-life and still express what you wish to express why?

 

[WillieWonka]

So with the DNA in front of them proving the humanity of the organism…people still advocate the right to kill it?

I would like to believe people simply do not understand the humanity they are allowing to be killed then to believe they are willing participants in murder.

but I have been wrong before.

1. Obviously they know the cell contains DNA, and they still advocate the right to kill it. I think that is the whole issue.
2. Many see the DNA in the single cell as a plan or blueprint for a fully developed human. Much as they don’t think architectural drawings are a house, they don’t think presence of DNA in a cell makes it a human being until other mechanisms have acted to express the plan of the DNA. Like a skin cell, it contains the full DNA plan, but it has not been expressed.
3. Try a thought experiment. Suppose we find that Korean scientists have suceeded in coaxing a skin cell of a mouse into subdividing, so that it can be implanted in a mother mouse, and will eventually become a real, live mouse. Would that change our ideas about anything? What?

 

[Des]

And pro-choice is a very acceptable term because they are for the woman’s right to choose abortion.

It’s half a phrase hiding the actual cause and intent that this ‘choice’ will bring about. It’s used to hide the shame that the term ‘pro abortion’ has with it where as a pro-lifer is fine if we are called both pro-life or anti-abortion.

Pro-choice doesn’t defend ‘all’ choices a woman will make unless it also includes the choice she could make to kill her new born.
However, pro-life does include defending all human life, from conception till it’s natural end.

 

[fix]

I didn’t say there was anything wrong with it. I’m simply saying that if you’re going to crux your argument on the fact that the debate is about abortion then you have to refer to yourself as anti-abortion. If you’re going to call yourself pro-life then you must concede that the other side can also use a term that doesn’t include the word abortion.

No, that is not my position. Calling oneself pro life is accurate as they defend all innocent life. One subset of innocent life is the unborn. If you want to only focus on the unborn for the sake of discussion I have no problem with that.

OTOH, claiming to be pro choice deflects the issue. We are speaking about the intentional killing of an innocent person. To lump that in with all other choices one may make may be correct in some superficial , academic way but it really covers up what the main issue is. That main issue is killing innocent children. Words have meanings and how they are used should convey reality not be parsed so as to devalue human life.

 

[fix]

I am white, American, anglo, and of German heritage. So you can refer to me a white – it will be true. You can refer to me as anglo – it will be true. You can refer to me a of German descent – it will be true. Now, if I tell you that I wish to be called European-American (also true) it becomes disrespectful to refer to me by the other terms because you have disrespected my wishes.

And if you claim disrespect all that means is you are overly sensitive for some reason. If the conversation requires characterizing your heritage as white, or German, for the sake of clarity and you still claim offense then I, respectfully, suggest you are obstinate and seeking offense. There is nothing offensive in being white or German no matter how you misperceive these issues.

Thus those who believe abortion should be kept legal wish to be called pro-choice. This is a correct terminology because they believe they are supporting the woman’s right to choose abortion.

They are mistaken. Why indulge such a grave error?

Therefore, referring to them by anything else is disrespectful because it is disrespectful of their wishes. Just as someone referring to pro-life by any other, correct, term is still disrespectful because we wish to be known as pro-life.

It is not disrespectful at all. What is, authentically, disrespectful is to dehumanize innocent children by claiming murder is simply a choice.

I think that is over reaching. They view the issue from a completely different perspective than we do and refusing to even acknowledge their perspective, let alone calling it propagandist, is disrespectful.

No, calling murder a choice is disrespectful.

 

[vz71]

1. Obviously they know the cell contains DNA, and they still advocate the right to kill it. I think that is the whole issue.

Nope. I still hold out hope for education.

1. Many see the DNA in the single cell as a plan or blueprint for a fully developed human. Much as they don’t think architectural drawings are a house, they don’t think presence of DNA in a cell makes it a human being until other mechanisms have acted to express the plan of the DNA. Like a skin cell, it contains the full DNA plan, but it has not been expressed.

What else do they need?
It has human DNA, it is an individual organism, and it is alive.

1. Try a thought experiment. Suppose we find that Korean scientists have suceeded in coaxing a skin cell of a mouse into subdividing, so that it can be implanted in a mother mouse, and will eventually become a real, live mouse. Would that change our ideas about anything? What?

No, it wouldn’t change my ideas at all.

 

[fix]

If I restrict myself to someone else’s choice of words, then I am not communicating my thoughts.

Finally, we agree on some point.

 

[Drawmack]

It’s half a phrase hiding the actual cause and intent that this ‘choice’ will bring about. It’s used to hide the shame that the term ‘pro abortion’ has with it where as a pro-lifer is fine if we are called both pro-life or anti-abortion.

Pro-choice doesn’t defend ‘all’ choices a woman will make unless it also includes the choice she could make to kill her new born.
However, pro-life does include defending all human life, from conception till it’s natural end.

So, you’re implying that there is not a single person in the pro-life movement that is pro-capital punishment. If I can find one person who is pro-life and also pro-capital punishment will you admit that the name is a misnomer?

 

[Drawmack]

No, that is not my position. Calling oneself pro life is accurate as they defend all innocent life. One subset of innocent life is the unborn. If you want to only focus on the unborn for the sake of discussion I have no problem with that.

OTOH, claiming to be pro choice deflects the issue. We are speaking about the intentional killing of an innocent person. To lump that in with all other choices one may make may be correct in some superficial , academic way but it really covers up what the main issue is. That main issue is killing innocent children. Words have meanings and how they are used should convey reality not be parsed so as to devalue human life.

As far as they are concerned the main issue is that you’re trying to take away someone’s choice. I’m certain they are also pro every other choice as well. You’re assuming they are anti-some choices and pro-this choice. Why do you assume that? Also how is pro-life to mean pro-innocent-life correct if pro-choice to mean pro-the-choice-to-abort is incorrect?

 

[Drawmack]

And if you claim disrespect all that means is you are overly sensitive for some reason. If the conversation requires characterizing your heritage as white, or German, for the sake of clarity and you still claim offense then I, respectfully, suggest you are obstinate and seeking offense. There is nothing offensive in being white or German no matter how you misperceive these issues.
They are mistaken. Why indulge such a grave error?

This is a thread about how to educate people. If someone finds your words disrespectful they are likely to stop listening to you. Therefore, it doesn’t matter if they are overly sensitive or not. You have lost the opportunity to educate if they have stopped listening. If you’re seeking to educate, how does it serve your purposes to utilize language which stands a good chance of getting people to stop listening?

It is not disrespectful at all. What is, authentically, disrespectful is to dehumanize innocent children by claiming murder is simply a choice.

I don’t remember anyone ever using the term pro-simply-a-choice. Is it a choice to stop extra-measures? Is this simply a choice? Is this a choice with the same gravity as the choice of a soft drink?

No, calling murder a choice is disrespectful.

Murder is a choice unless someone is making the murder kill the other person and when someone is forced to murder someone else we have another word for that man-slaughter. So, if you say it is not a choice and say it is murder you are contradicting yourself.

 

[WillieWonka]

Nope. I still hold out hope for education.

What else do they need?
It has human DNA, it is an individual organism, and it is alive.

No, it wouldn’t change my ideas at all.

1. Education is fine for advancing a cause. How has it worked since RvW in 1973?
2. A skin cell has human DNA. It is an individual organism. It is alive.
3. Well, if a skin cell could become a fully developed human being, wouldn’t the skin cell have the same status as the fertilized egg? Both have DNA, and both develop into a full human being. Would you say it is OK to abort a fetus derived fom a skin cell?

 

[WillieWonka]

Finally, we agree on some point.

Good. Actually, I lack the skill to communicate my ideas without using my own words. I wish I had that skill, but I don’t.

 

[Des]

So, you’re implying that there is not a single person in the pro-life movement that is pro-capital punishment. If I can find one person who is pro-life and also pro-capital punishment will you admit that the name is a misnomer?

I never said that at all. I am referring to what the term actually means and if one is truly a prolifer, it will be consistant with their belief. I can find you many who call themselves pro-life but believe it’s ok to murder the fetus before 3 months or even if one is raped but it doesn’t necessarily mean they really are ‘Pro-life’ now does it.

1. A skin cell has human DNA. It is an individual organism. It is alive.

It comes nowhere close to what a zyogote cell is which has the capabiliies to grow into an adult human being. A skin cell will always be a skin cell.

1. Well, if a skin cell could become a fully developed human being, wouldn’t the skin cell have the same status as the fertilized egg? Both have DNA, and both develop into a full human being. Would you say it is OK to abort a fetus derived fom a skin cell?

If that were possible, then no, it would not be ok to abort a fetus derived from a skin cell.

 

[allhers]

How about pro-life and pro-death?

Those who wish to call themselves pro-choice already realize that they are for abortion,
some are for it in only certain and rare circumstances, which if they would read the sites I posted earlier, they just might learn that those reasons that they use really do not even exist.

Education is the key.