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

[Drawmack]

Assuming they are strangers and there is nothing to differentiate them other than race, I save the Asian.

I think everyone is quick to answer the question in their own mind. However, the anti-abortion folks don’t want to admit it.

pro-life

 

[Drawmack]

Good point. One of the benefits of dealing with this type of scanario is we have the time to consider the situation. Think of it as training. If we embrace challenges like this, we are likely to make better decisions when faced with real decisions and no time to waste. It also lets us see if our convictions and principles hiold up under pressure. If they don’t hold up under the pressure of a thought experiment, I question if they have much real value.

There is no pressure in this type of game, I can say whatever I want to say it doesn’t mean that’s what I would do. That is why I refuse to answer. I, honestly and from experience, know that I do not know what I would do.

 

[Drawmack]

***(That would be a good name for a band: One Year Old and the Hundred Embryos.

Limerick)***

yeah, but you’d have to go on tour with 10,000 Maniacs

 

[Drawmack]

How can you call them pro choice when they are against giving the child or father a choice? Further, many of the leaders of this movement are totalitarian in nearly every other aspect of life.

No one, in the United States, is forcing the woman to kill her child, therefore it is a choice. It is a choice she shouldn’t legally have. It is a choice to murder. But, it is a choice.

 

[Drawmack]

good one

Then therefore they should support my CHOICE to call them pro abortion.

And you should respect their life by calling them what they want to be called.

 

[limerick]

yeah, but you’d have to go on tour with 10,000 Maniacs

**That wouldn’t be so bad now that Natalie Merchant is gone.

L**

 

[Drawmack]

This wouild be true if they were to take on a name with out a pre assigned meaning. However these terms have meanings that predated the movement. To call them by a name with a known meaning when they do not represent that meaning is to lie unless you phrase it as the ‘self proclaimed “Pro-choice”’ or the ‘so called “pro-choice”’ these qualifiers are necesary when using a term outside of its accepted meaning.

Mulligan!!!

In the English language of today every reasonable and rational person knows what someone means by the term pro-choice and pro-life. These have become the terms used to refer to the groups who support and condemn (respectively) legalization of abortion. By your logic we also can’t use the term gun-rights activist because no one is arguing to give a gun rights. By your logic we cannot use the term politically correct because there is nothing political about the way this term is applied. By your logic we can’t use the term affirmative action because the actions taken do not affirm anything.

 

[Drawmack]

I’ll play this game a while. Are you willing to insist that they all refer to me as “The worlds highest and most respected authority on any subject currently or ever to be known by mankind” If they can ask others to refer to them by innaccurate titles, why can’t I?

Yours is an individualized titled used to refer only to you. There’s is the name of a movement. If you belonged to a multibillion member group called “The world’s highest and most respected authority on any subject currently or ever to be known by mankind” I would insist that they refer to you as a member of this group and that when referencing this group they used this name. I would insist that they not use the much more apropos title of “someone who injects logical fallacies into arguments and thinks they are making a point by doing so”.

 

[WillieWonka]

There is no pressure in this type of game, I can say whatever I want to say it doesn’t mean that’s what I would do. That is why I refuse to answer. I, honestly and from experience, know that I do not know what I would do.

OK. What do you think you should do based on your convictions, principles, and faith?

 

[Drawmack]

Then you must be a racist who would be willing to just let that other person die simply because of their race. Of course such scrutiny is illogical but that is what the pro abortion people are: illogical. They use emotional arguments to demonize people who see things differently.

pro-choice

 

[Drawmack]

**That wouldn’t be so bad now that Natalie Merchant is gone.

L**

Yeah, but the name 9,999 Maniacs and One Really Crazy Guy just isn’t as catchy.

 

[Drawmack]

OK. What do you think you should do based on your convictions, principles, and faith?

What should I do based on my convictions, principles, and faith? I should save the baby. Before you jump to a comment read the justification below.

Not being a Dr, specifically an embryologist, I do not have the expertise to test for viability of any given embryo. In the presented scenario even an embryologist would not have time to check for the viability of 100 embryos. Therefore, one must act logically. The living baby has proven it’s viability. The 100 embryos may or may not be viable. So the question is should I save a living person or allow a living person to die and gamble on the possibility of 100 other lives with may or may not be possible?

Now, if you put those 100 embryos in 100 living women, I’ll save the embryos. This is why the question is a false dichotomy that doesn’t really apply to the morals involved in the abortion debate. As a matter of fact anyone with even a rudimentary understanding of Catholic moral teaching wouldn’t ask this question on a Catholic message board.

Catholic moral teaching is that in the case where the condition threatens both the mother and the baby the doctor should act to save both. However, the mother’s life may be saved even if it kills the baby so long as killing the baby is not the intent of the action. So, in this case – only one can be saved. Save the baby it has proven viability while the embryos have not.

 

[limerick]

Yeah, but the name 9,999 Maniacs and One Really Crazy Guy just isn’t as catchy.

**Solid.

L**

 

[JRKH]

In another thread both the original post and a comment many pages later mentioned the fact that were abortion to be outlawed tomorrow, so many people would be lost and not really understand. I thought it would be interesting to discuss some ways of re-educating this society…

This is a good idea for a thread
Thanks for bringing it up.

First of all, we have no problem telling people that smoking is evil. We have public service announcements, restrictions on advertising and portrayals in movies, and lots of comments during the course of public education about the evils of smoking.

First of all we have to recognize to a certain extent how we got to where we are with smoking etc. It’s easy to look at things now and say, “hey lets’ do that”, but are you old enough to remember the fight it took to get the government to jsut put warnings on cigarette packages?? Let alone pull smoking ads etc.
It was a long and hard fight. The Tobacco lobby was huge, well financed and powerful in those days.
I don’t say this to discourage, but rather to demonstrate that, a) We need to be prepared for a long and protracted struggle, and that, b) It is possible to win out over time.
The struggle will take much time and at least a generation to succeed, but we must begin now.

It seems to me that if we had a moral sex education program throughout the course of education, that children would grow up pro-life. Instead of Heather has 2 Mommies, we have pictures of babies as they developed and happy stories about babies’ arrivals and about family life (even if the families are “non-traditional”–single-parent, blended, etc).

Unfortunately Society is going in the opposite direction. Education is refusing to give our children ANY moral compass at all let alone one that reflects actual values of our communities. Parents too have, in many cases, abandoned their responsibility in this. Has anyone else seen the ads where parents are encouraged to act like adults in order to protect their children? Why in the world should we need such ads if parents were actually being parents.

And ads: alongside smoking kills, this is your brain on drugs, and the like; we just have ads showing unborn babies. We don’t have to have anything anyone would consider gory, just pictures of the babies, maybe with a voice-over saying, a baby’s heart starts beating at 22 days, and other things like that.

I absolutely agree with this and in fact here locally I have seen just such an ad during Cincinnati Reds games. It shows a “ultrasound” picture of a baby and switches back and forth to texts about how “this child’s future is a broken home” - He will be abandoned by his father - His single mother will struggle to raise him - In spite of all his struggles this child will grow up to be the first African American President.

Of course the thing about television ads is their expense. I agree that they are the most effective, but also the most expensive route.

But also to foster in people the idea that sex and pregnancy are connected; that people shouldn’t have sex if they are not ready for a baby. Right now, it seems like the most irresponsible thing a person can do is to “get caught” with a baby or an STD. I think we need to move to the idea that the most irresponsible thing a person could do is to run the risk of conceiving a baby. Like: Not ready for a baby? Then maybe you’re not ready for sex.

I think that all these things could be done without “bringing religion into it,” or “being judgemental.” Just pressure Hollywood to bring up some outrage when a friend discovers her friend has lost her virginity: What??? Are you crazy? You could conceive a baby–have you thought of that? --Well, we used abc!–Yes, but abc doesn’t always work. You’re being really irresponsible! Just the way they never have any good guys smoking anymore!!!

Here again there has to be a grass-roots movement first for this to work. Hollywood will pay lip service but nothing more until ratings drop, or some other form of “protest pressure” is built up.

I am sure there are a lot of good ideas out there, and I think that discussing them is a good idea, and maybe something will percolate out of those discussions.

PS This in no way is meant to reduce the importance of fighting for the government to protect the unborn just as they protect those already born. Just that I think that most of the proposals for “reducing [the need for] abortion” are not going to work because they don’t address the root cause, and also have already been proven not to work.

Understood. The fight in both science and Government must continue.
I am reminded of the 1960’s when the Vietnam War was going on and protests early on were viewed as evil and anti-patriotic, but by the end of the decade, it was the war that was seen as evil. This was due to a great many different things and not just protests. this is the way that the abortion issue must be attacked - on multiple fronts.

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

Advertising campaigns are great!

Are you going to pay for it? Big slick ad campaigns cost millions of dollars. Planned Parenthood HAS millions to spend.

As the pro life world does not have the financial support of the govt and private industry, we have to do what we can do on a shoestring budget.

Get involved with your local groups - they NEED you.

Well said Get involved. Pray in front of planned parenthood etc. might be a good start.

I will ad though that we, as catholics really need to consider carefully how we spend our money and on what. Years ago parents would sacrifice greatly to make sure their children were raised right and went to Catholic School. I know because I am the product of such a family.
They would also work and sacrifice to give to worthy charities.
Yes ad campagns are expensive as I mention above, but on some level they need to be part of the mix. Maybe not as slick, and maybe not “Nationally generated” but something.

 

[limerick]

**Where does the money you tithe go? Namibia? Uganda? Why can’t you tell your bishops or whomever that the money should stay here in the U.S.?

Just wonderin’.

Limerick**

 

[vz71]

That doesn’t mean it’s never used, So does anyone have a handy link showing this argument used by pro-abortion folks?

Your talking out both sides here. Either you deny the argument or you do not. But I will take your concession just the same.
The pro-abortion side has many times utilized that particular argument, and DNA shows it false.

But, we have made progress here. By considering twins and clones, we have extablished it is experience, not DNA, that makes an individual unique.

I do not care if they are unique. The human DNA is enough to qualify it as fully human, and endowed with the right to life.

 

[JRKH]

“DNA of a fetus is the same as it is for the same infant, the same child, the same adolescent, the same adult, the same senior, the same cadaver. Ergo, same should have the same rights. Am I close?”

I would say Yes it does. It has the right to live and perform the function for which it was designed. The Skin cell will perform said fucntion until it dies of natural causes and then decays. However, the skin cell is also different in that it has already fully developed. That is, the DNA contained in a skin cell won’t spontaniously produce a blood cell, or brain cell.

The “Feti” cells are also performing as designed and will, if not interupted, morph and change and make every effort to produce a fully formed and ready for delivery human infant.

Peace
James

 

[vz71]

Absolutely. The deck is stacked to test conviction and principles. Does life always give a fair deal? Conviction and principles need to be tested.

No, the deck is stacked to force a decision against life.

And apparently the results are also being misrepresented as well. So it wouldn’t matter how one answers.

You see, a pro-abortion advocate may well answer the one year old because they see no other life in need.
But the pro-life knows better, and are caught in a moral dilema of one life over another.
The non-answer is the result, they recognize the human life of all present in the fire.
They hesitate, they struggle with the idea of one life or the other, then they recognize the purpose of the question and refuse to answer.

But if you inisist on an answer, here…
I would use my fictional powers to put the fictional fire out and rescue everyone all at once.

 

[vz71]

“When did you stop beeting your wife?”

I haven’t thrown beets at my wife in weeks.