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

  • Thread starter Thread starter St_Francis
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Drawmack said:
If we refuse to use the terminology they designate to themselves, we loose the right to designate a name for ourselves. The poor language used in the abortion debate, by both sides, is divisive and contributes to the misunderstanding.
Click to expand...
Hardly.
I refuse to allow the other side to coin their own terms and define their own words.
If someone does not like the term pro-abortion, then perhaps they should not advocate abortion.

If you are for abortion, then you are pro-abortion.
 
WillieWonka said:
What is the poblem with elevating the status and respect owed to skin cells. Remember that DNA they have?
Click to expand...
I am glad you can see the freedom people have over their own bodies.
The skin cell is part of a human, and that human has the right to do with their skin cells what they wish.

Now if we could recognize that right in ALL humans, we would make progress…
 
vz71 said:
Hardly.
I refuse to allow the other side to coin their own terms and define their own words.
If someone does not like the term pro-abortion, then perhaps they should not advocate abortion.

If you are for abortion, then you are pro-abortion.
Click to expand...
**You “refuse to allow …”?? Your highness?

“If someone does not like the term pro-abortion, then perhaps they should not advocate abortion.”** Fine. Then it’s all right with you if a pro-choice person says, “Don’t like abortion? Then don’t have one.”

Limerick
 
Drawmack said:
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.
Click to expand...
There is no mother in the burning building.
 
vz71 said:
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.

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.
Click to expand...
  1. I’m not denying anything. Nor am I dealing with an argument. I’m asking for a cite to a pro-abortion advocate who says abortions are like hangnails or appendix removal. Do you have any?
  2. A skin cell has human DNA. Is that enough to qualify it as fully human and endowed with the right to lfe?
 
JRKH said:
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
Click to expand...
OK. Now the skin cell has the same rights to life as a fetus? Do we then have obligations to the skin cells? Are we obliged to recognize their right to life? Is this why Drawmack insists on the term “pro-life?”

Is use of an exfoliator a violation of the right to life of the skin cell?
 
vz71 said:
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.
Click to expand...
The convictions, principles, and faith of the anti-abortion crowd are disappointing. How can anyone expect to reeducate the population if they can’t even deal with a simple game scenario. To date, only Drawmack has stood up for his beliefs.

Please, someone else answer the question and prove me wrong.
 
vz71 said:
I am glad you can see the freedom people have over their own bodies.
The skin cell is part of a human, and that human has the right to do with their skin cells what they wish.

Now if we could recognize that right in ALL humans, we would make progress…
Click to expand...
But, JRKH says the skin cell has rights. How can I violate those rights by doing as I wish with the cells?
 
WillieWonka said:
Sorry. I don’t follow you. Can you elaborate?
Click to expand...
You chose the Asian over the person of the other race. Therefore you must be a racist who wishes death on that other race.

NOTE: for those joining this discussion late: I’m really not calling him racist, I am demonstrating the result of the logic trap that was started several posts back.
 
WillieWonka said:
Just in case anyone has forgotten, here’s the scenario again.

You are in a burning building. You can rescue a one-year-old baby or a cooler with 100 human embryos. You can’t rescue both, and you are certain the one you do not rescue will perish. Do you rescue the one-year-old or the embryos? Who here would rescue the embryos and let the one-year-old cook?

I said earlier that anti-abortion folks can’t answer. I think this thread is proving me right.
Click to expand...
False assumption: what you have proven is that pro life people are smart enough to realize the logic trap. While the true heart of the question is which is the lesser of two evils, most people who are pro abortion (its an adjective not a title Drawmack, layoff) will twist the response to say the person thinks less of the prebirth babies than they think of the post birth baby or will accuse the person of being wrong for allowing the single baby to die. Being that either answer will typically generate an irrational and hatefull response from the opposition.
 
Drawmack said:
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.
Click to expand...
OK as long as it is an illegal choice along with all other murders.
 
Drawmack said:
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.
Click to expand...
It would be o ne thing to stretch the meaning to keep the original intent but used in a different way. However to use it in a way completely opposite to its original meaning in order to deceive is where they go wrong.

I consider myself pro choice in that I believe in the libertarian perspective of our founding fathers of each to his own choices as long as they don’t harm others. Abortion does not fall into this category.

I agree on affirmative action; pollitically correct is not correct hence the term political as a qualifier. if the term were guns rights (possessive) I would agree.
 
Drawmack said:
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”.
Click to expand...
But that is a group of me and all who agree with me.
 
Drawmack said:
pro-choice
Click to expand...
But I wasn’t talking about the pro choice people I was talking about the pro abortion people. it is a different group. If you will notice the words were not capitalized indicating it was not a proper title.
 
WillieWonka said:
  1. I’m not denying anything. Nor am I dealing with an argument. I’m asking for a cite to a pro-abortion advocate who says abortions are like hangnails or appendix removal. Do you have any?
Click to expand...
I do not need any. You have already conceded the point.
Remember this quote?
WillieWonka said:
That doesn’t mean it’s never used,
Click to expand...
WillieWonka said:
  1. A skin cell has human DNA. Is that enough to qualify it as fully human and endowed with the right to lfe?
Click to expand...
No it does not. The skin cell is merely part of the human.
It is the human that has the right to life, not merely a part of it.
 
WillieWonka said:
The convictions, principles, and faith of the anti-abortion crowd are disappointing. How can anyone expect to reeducate the population if they can’t even deal with a simple game scenario. To date, only Drawmack has stood up for his beliefs.

Please, someone else answer the question and prove me wrong.
Click to expand...
The question is not a valid one and does not deserve an answer
 
WillieWonka said:
But, JRKH says the skin cell has rights. How can I violate those rights by doing as I wish with the cells?
Click to expand...
He is not my authority.

I have a question for you. Why are you so prejudiced?
You claim that people have rights over their own bodies, yet you deny the most basic of this right to a huge segment of humans.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top