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

[royal_archer]

There will never be agreement between the pro-abortion and the anti-abortion forces.because they lack a common set of assumptions upon which to build a logical case.

One side assigns the same right to life to every instance of a human species at any and all states of development.

The other side assigns these rights progressively as the instance of the human species develops, starting with none, and gradually garnering more.

Both sides assert their prmary asumption is correct and their opposition is wrong. Neither can prove their assumption is correct; that’s why they are assumptions. Each builds its case on its own primary assumption. Each attacks the other by basing the develpment of its case on its own primary asusmption.

good obervation.

However when I attempt to argue against the progressive rights assumption stating cases of other less developed individuals the opposition tends to not apply their logic consistently.

 

[fix]

Looking at this issue in issolation I can agree with you but I look at the issue in context of larger and related issues knowing that there tends to be a common mindset that advocates pro choice in the realm of abortion but anti choice in many other areas.

It is anti choice.The baby gets no choice. They are for choice for one particular type of violent deed. However, that “choice” really means they want legal protection to kill innocent children. The obfuscation must not continue.

Yes, although my previous discussions with her have been disapointment where she will agree with logic in one area then at the next logical step change her her perspective.

She is ignoring me now but you may try asking her if she feels a woman should be probited by law from having an abortion until 15 days after the father is notified and if the father chooses to keep the child, should she be prohibited from having an abortion under penalty of law. I suspect she would not agree and only offers lip service to the concept of fathers rights but does not support those rights if they interfere with a womans “choice” to murder her baby.

Yes, the “choice” is really a very limited issue that is a political term used to cover up the deed.

 

[fix]

There will never be agreement between the pro-abortion and the anti-abortion forces.because they lack a common set of assumptions upon which to build a logical case.

One side assigns the same right to life to every instance of a human species at any and all states of development.

The other side assigns these rights progressively as the instance of the human species develops, starting with none, and gradually garnering more.

Both sides assert their prmary asumption is correct and their opposition is wrong. Neither can prove their assumption is correct; that’s why they are assumptions. Each builds its case on its own primary assumption. Each attacks the other by basing the develpment of its case on its own primary asusmption.

I do not agree here. There is plenty of proof the unborn child is a human. There is plenty of proof the unborn baby should not be killed. The probelm is not lack of proof. The problem is obstinance. Refusing to accept proof does not make the proof invalid.

 

[Drawmack]

I’m a mother: you have to ask me that? :doh2:

Let me tell you a little bit about who I am. I am a father. I raise a child that is not my biological daughter because her real father was never in the picture. Even though her mother and I are not together anymore I pay child support and maintain visitation because she’s my daughter. I never adopted her. Legally I have no obligations to her. I do what I do because moral obligations are more important to me than legal ones. Why should your rights exceed mine? Why should anyone’s rights supersede anyone else’s?

Any father is welcome and able to contest until the poor little mother just gives up or goes broke. It has happened. But the men that I have known over the last 40 years have nearly all been free spirits, not wanting to be encumbered with an infant or a toddler or a child, and certainly not a teenager. YES there are exceptions, and I have known a few. But the majority of men that I have known would rather have had the woman handle all the details. Then they could have their Disneyland days with the kids - particularly the sons - and brag about their “little men”, etc.

Well, I am one of those exceptions. Do you think the father has a right to know that his child is being aborted? You said there are exceptions. If most men wouldn’t give a damn, like you said, then should the father at least be notified?

I’m not saying women are hard-wired to be the caregiver and men are hard-wired to be the breadwinner. Culture has mashed us into those roles and many, many men and women are breaking out of them. The trend that I have seen lately, though, is still boys wanting to be boys and women picking up the slack.

I’m not going to deny that this happens, but I will tell you that the last time I was a wanted poster for a bunch on people who didn’t pay child support it had 7 men and 3 women on it. So, you’re right, people are breaking out of those roles.

These statements are derived exclusively from my own personal experience and are not meant to be interpreted as statistics.

Thank you for the disclaimer.

 

[Drawmack]

There will never be agreement between the pro-abortion and the anti-abortion forces.because they lack a common set of assumptions upon which to build a logical case.

One side assigns the same right to life to every instance of a human species at any and all states of development.

The other side assigns these rights progressively as the instance of the human species develops, starting with none, and gradually garnering more.

Both sides assert their prmary asumption is correct and their opposition is wrong. Neither can prove their assumption is correct; that’s why they are assumptions. Each builds its case on its own primary assumption. Each attacks the other by basing the develpment of its case on its own primary asusmption.

I agree with what you’ve said here. What I am saying is that we can dialogue without attacking if the words and attitudes are reigned in. First we have to talk respectfully to one another. Then we have to listen respectfully to one another. Then we have to be able to say I disagree without making personal attacks. Right now, neither side does any of these things very well.

 

[Drawmack]

I was not attempting to talk about her but summarize my understanding of her possition.

FYI:

Royal, you were blatantly talking about her. I’m sorry, but you really were.

 

[WillieWonka]

good obervation.

However when I attempt to argue against the progressive rights assumption stating cases of other less developed individuals the opposition tends to not apply their logic consistently.

I don’t understand. Can you elaborate?

 

[WillieWonka]

I agree with what you’ve said here. What I am saying is that we can dialogue without attacking if the words and attitudes are reigned in. First we have to talk respectfully to one another. Then we have to listen respectfully to one another. Then we have to be able to say I disagree without making personal attacks. Right now, neither side does any of these things very well.

Regardless of the approach employed by the opponents, the primary assumptions remain.

However, dropping personal attacks would make it much easier for each side to realize the issue is those primary assumptions that are invulnerable to both logic and argument. Again, that’s why they are assumptions.

Once people understand the primary assumptions won’t change, they can turn their attention to the political arena which is designed to force the primary assumptions of one side into law.

 

[allhers]

**This fable has no meaning to me; in CCD we studied a bastardized version of Baltimore Catechism and nothing else. We never opened a bible. I became a non-practicing (and non-interested) Catholic when I left home at age 18 and was not inspired to read the bible for any reason before or after that time. I own a bible and have used it as a reference from time to time; it is currently in a storage unit 15 miles from the house where I live.

Crime? What crime? Who committed the crime?

Limerick**

Your fables have no meaning to me either. Perhaps you ought to make the effort to go get your Bible.

In the meantime, here is an online version.

usccb.org/nab/bible/

 

[allhers]

**If he sticks around and is willing to abide by a legal contract, to be agreed upon by the mother and the father, where every issue is spelled out, such as visitation, schooling, holidays, medical care, education, then why not? But it needs to be done before the 24th week of gestation or the mother is really put in a bind.

I think every woman should carry a pre-sex contract in her purse, just to protect herself until the legal document is drawn up. Of course some men will wiggle out of it, but it’s a starting place.

Limerick**

This all sounds very perverse to me. Talk about a fable.

This is what your line of thinking leads to:

IPPF’s (as you probably know, that stands for International Planned Parenthood Federation’s) declaration on “sexual rights,” Part 1
all.org/article.php?id=12002

Lost in Lust: Part 2
all.org/article.php?id=12013

In part, it says this:
“Principle 2 – The rights and protections guaranteed to people under age eighteen differ from those of adults, and must take into account the evolving capacities of the individual child to exercise rights on his or her own behalf.” ,

It goes on and on…and the people at STOPP (to STOP Planned Parenthood) explain it:

…**What this means is that your child will not be safe **from this ideology. For example, **if Planned Parenthood can convince a judge that your child is mature and that the child is being stifled because of the Christian morality you are attempting to “impose” on him or her, then the judge can declare your child to be emancipated for purposes of attaining sexual pleasure. **It means that once the attainment of sexual pleasure is declared a right, you will be helpless to enforce any rules restricting your minor child’s sexual activity.

People need to start paying attention and not listen to the like’s of you. I propose that instead they go and read the links I provided if they really want to re-educate people.

This culture of death is already more than too much and its only going to get worse if people don’t start waking up!

Look at this part under Principle 4

Attempting to divorce society from the natural law, to divorce civilization from its most
basic and beneficial institution – sacramental marriage between one man and one woman, and
the children who spring forth from and thrive within this marital bond – this document
paints a bleak picture of a heathen world entitled to self-destruction through self-centered
sexual pleasure with no regard for the consequences of that behavior.

Children become something that interferes with pleasure and thus something to be avoided.
When avoidance fails, they are easily destroyed by abortion. They become, on the other hand,
property to which adults are entitled, without the need of reproductive sex (i.e., through
cloning; in vitro fertilization; adoption by anyone regardless of sexual orientation or
sexual behavior, etc.).

Pulling out all the stops, IPPF then claims, “All persons are entitled to the conditions
that enable the pursuit of a pleasurable sexuality.” It continues, “Given that pleasure is
an intrinsic aspect of sexuality, the right to seek, express and determine when to
experience it must not be denied to anyone.”

Having opened the door to all sorts of deviant sexual activity, this document seeks to
place a permanent wedge in the door, allowing evil to run at full force.
With an entitlement to seek, express and determine when, where and how to express one’s
sexuality, what’s to stop someone from fornicating in the middle of the public square?
According to Principle 4, such an activity should not be denied. When a society begins to
accept and embrace evil, total chaos will follow.

(my bold above)

 

[WillieWonka]

I believe this is nearly the only area you have mentioned that I find myself in agreement with.

You might be surprised at how little I have really said in this thread.

 

[allhers]

There will never be agreement between the pro-abortion and the anti-abortion forces.because they lack a common set of assumptions upon which to build a logical case.

One side assigns the same right to life to every instance of a human species at any and all states of development.

The other side assigns these rights progressively as the instance of the human species develops, starting with none, and gradually garnering more.

Both sides assert their prmary asumption is correct and their opposition is wrong. Neither can prove their assumption is correct; that’s why they are assumptions. Each builds its case on its own primary assumption. Each attacks the other by basing the develpment of its case on its own primary asusmption.

Perhaps this pdf file on Fetal Development will help you to understand:
(I found this on Fr. Tom’s website (Human life international)

A new human being is created at conception: From the instant the male gamete (sperm) fuses with the female gamete (egg), a unique human being with his or her own DNA, different from those of his mother and father, is present. After fertilization, there are 46 chromosomes (or 47 in the case of Down Syndrome) where there were two sets of 23 chromosomes before. The resulting being is genetically human and alive, and therefore, by standard biological definition, a human being. PLTP_Fetal.pdf

(you’ll have to go here first and check under FETAL DEVELOPMENT and then click on
the file to download it.)

hli.org/index.php/component/content/248?task=view

 

[allhers]

I believe that a father should have all the same rights as a mother. That being said, do you think the father’s rights should be protected?

This one may help you Drawman, since you are concerned about it. It could help you educate others on it.

Men & Abortion
Men suffer in the aftermath of abortion as well as women: Though not nearly as much research has been done on abortion’s effects on men as on women, considerable evidence shows that abortion often negatively affects men’s mental health and that a large proportion of men regret their partner’s abortion later on. PLTP_Men_Abortion.pdf
(click on the link below and you can download the file.)
hli.org/index.php/component/content/248?task=view

 

[allhers]

I do not agree here. There is plenty of proof the unborn child is a human. There is plenty of proof the unborn baby should not be killed. The probelm is not lack of proof. The problem is obstinance. Refusing to accept proof does not make the proof invalid.

Amen!!

 

[allhers]

There will never be agreement between the pro-abortion and the anti-abortion forces.because they lack a common set of assumptions upon which to build a logical case.

One side assigns the same right to life to every instance of a human species at any and all states of development.

The other side assigns these rights progressively as the instance of the human species develops, starting with none, and gradually garnering more.

Both sides assert their prmary asumption is correct and their opposition is wrong. Neither can prove their assumption is correct; that’s why they are assumptions. Each builds its case on its own primary assumption. Each attacks the other by basing the develpment of its case on its own primary asusmption.

They aren’t assumptions however, just read limrick’s post 454, she doesn’t even know, by her own admission that abortion is a crime against God. It could just be that in her ignorance that she will not be held accountable, or it could be because of her own ignorance and total lack of care to find out the truth, that she will be held accountable, we aren’t God and only He knows each one’s heart (life, story, soul)

It is however, my job, as a Catholic to inform people about the truth to the best of my ability and when I find out about the truth, to share it and not act like we aren’t all one another’s “brothers keepers”. (as in, oh well, at least I know and follow the truth, who cares about the rest of you poor slobs, you’re on your own…or well, I am ignorant of the truth because I wasn’t taught well and even though I know where I can find the truth, I’m just too uninterested in this point in my life to do that…or well hey, that truth is great and all for you guys, but I found another way in life to handle what comes my way and if it offends your God and you guys, thats your personal problem.) See a problem here?

It isn’t because the truth isn’t out there, its because some don’t seek HIM—
some don’t know how to and some just don’t care. Isn’t that the purpose of this thread-to educate?

 

[WillieWonka]

Perhaps this pdf file on Fetal Development will help you to understand:
(I found this on Fr. Tom’s website (Human life international)

A new human being is created at conception: From the instant the male gamete (sperm) fuses with the female gamete (egg), a unique human being with his or her own DNA, different from those of his mother and father, is present. After fertilization, there are 46 chromosomes (or 47 in the case of Down Syndrome) where there were two sets of 23 chromosomes before. The resulting being is genetically human and alive, and therefore, by standard biological definition, a human being. PLTP_Fetal.pdf

(you’ll have to go here first and check under FETAL DEVELOPMENT and then click on
the file to download it.)

hli.org/index.php/component/content/248?task=view

I understand that. Anti-abortion folks understand it. Pro-abortion folks understand it.

Anti-abortion folks assume the fertilized egg with a full complement of DNA has an absolute right to life.

Pro-abortion folks assume the fertilized egg with a full compliment of DNA does not have an absolute right to life.

Both sides understand very well how conception works, and what the result is.

 

[WillieWonka]

They aren’t assumptions however, just read limrick’s post 454, she doesn’t even know, by her own admission that abortion is a crime against God. It could just be that in her ignorance that she will not be held accountable, or it could be because of her own ignorance and total lack of care to find out the truth, that she will be held accountable, we aren’t God and only He knows each one’s heart (life, story, soul)

It is however, my job, as a Catholic to inform people about the truth to the best of my ability and when I find out about the truth, to share it and not act like we aren’t all one another’s “brothers keepers”. (as in, oh well, at least I know and follow the truth, who cares about the rest of you poor slobs, you’re on your own…or well, I am ignorant of the truth because I wasn’t taught well and even though I know where I can find the truth, I’m just too uninterested in this point in my life to do that…or well hey, that truth is great and all for you guys, but I found another way in life to handle what comes my way and if it offends your God and you guys, thats your personal problem.) See a problem here?

It isn’t because the truth isn’t out there, its because some don’t seek HIM—
some don’t know how to and some just don’t care. Isn’t that the purpose of this thread-to educate?

Sorry. I’ll discuss issues, but not particular people who comment.

 

[limerick]

And yet again…the opposition is squirming and grasping for anything.

"I squirm for no one!"

We can’t be discussing life. Anything but that…

We can discuss death, vz. What do you want to say to me? Not to “the opposition”, that vague and dishonest reference to anyone who does not agree with your every point.

And we even have assurtions to it.
**
There is no such thing as an assurtion.**

The claim is to choice again.
But by this time, everyone knows this is a sham. Were it really about choice then the entirety would have progressed differently. Agreement with all but the one choice would be common ground…but it is not.
As the opposition boldly asserted some time ago, we agree on nothing.
**
This is correct and will remain correct.**

The appeal to choice is a lie.
It has never been about choice. It has always been about life.

Here you contradict yourself. You seem to have been saying all along that choice is about death.

The opposition cannot bring themselves to see it for what it is.

Perhaps we know all to well what it really is, but we allow for the possibility that not every person on the planet is a Roman Catholic or believes and behaves as a Roman Catholic does.

Perhaps they are ashamed. Perhaps their heart is simply too hardened.
Perhaps they are simply too blind.

Perhaps we feel that abortion is a by-product of vague and dishonest relationships between parent and child, between boys and girls, between men and women. Perhaps we are not compelled to manipulate “acceptable behavior” out of others, or shame them into believing that a loving God will not forgive them their transgressions. Perhaps we are not ashamed. Perhaps judgmental people have hardened their hearts. (And perhaps “too blind” is redundant.)

And within it they also attempt to be graphic.
This is a good point for everyone to learn from. Emotions have a place, but never in a debate. This appeal our emotions is an attempt to make us lose our control of the argument.
If they can make it about emotions, they no longer have to discuss life.

First you say we’re not warm and fuzzy enough because our hearts have been hardened; then you say there is no room for our inappropriate emotions in the most emotion-laden topic of the last 40 years. Pick one and stick with it.

And note…they have still avoided answering the question on the table.
Why do you suppose that might be?
We have agreement that abortion ends human life.
We have agreement that they are in support of abortion.
Yet they are reluctant to tell us if they support the current legislation against murder.
Maybe they can see that it undercuts their argument of choice.

**If you are referring to me as “they”, may I ask why? Why can you not be direct yourself, vz71?

My argument is this. Abortion is legal, but if it were not it would not stop women from having abortions. Murder is illegal, but just because it is against the law it will not stop people from committing murder. It’s the same thing as every cop is just this side of criminal behavior and every psychiatrist is just this side of going mad.**

 

[allhers]

I bring it up because in the discussion people have said the teaching of the Cathlic Church is that body and soul form a composite at conception. Many have said abortion of the fertilized egg is wrong because it is fully human and has a full compliment of human rights. I’d say the fully human status of the fertilized egg is the foundation of the anti-abortion campaign of many people.I didn’t introduce the issue. I answered it. Unfortunately, I think my answer comes as a surprise to many Catholics.

And we can see from the Document the Scared Congregation published that it considers it only probable, and not certain, that body and soul unite in a composite at conception.

Others have expressed contempt for those who do not think the fertilized egg is fully human. But, we can see the Sacred Congregation allows for this possibility, and it says Church tradition is not unanimous on this point, and discussions continue today.

.

Oh yeah, you’re the one who thought that the Sacred Congregation was saying something that it wasn’t saying to begin with until I explained all of that to you, which you never responded to, so, I guess you don’t respond to much, you just make comments once in awhile or ask questions, right?

 

[limerick]

Let me tell you a little bit about who I am. I am a father. I raise a child that is not my biological daughter because her real father was never in the picture. Even though her mother and I are not together anymore I pay child support and maintain visitation because she’s my daughter. I never adopted her. Legally I have no obligations to her. I do what I do because moral obligations are more important to me than legal ones. Why should your rights exceed mine? Why should anyone’s rights supersede anyone else’s?

This is not a question of how MY rights exceed yours. It is, rather, a question of how YOUR EX’s rights exceed yours, which it appears they do if she has primary custody. And as far as anyone’s rights exceeding anyone else’s, why do you think I suggested a binding legal contract? Verbal arguments disintegrate as soon as the sound of the voices die out.

Well, I am one of those exceptions. Do you think the father has a right to know that his child is being aborted? You said there are exceptions. If most men wouldn’t give a damn, like you said, then should the father at least be notified?

If the mother knows who the father is, it is up to her to decide whether or not to notify him. If he is criminal in any way, or threatening or vicious or invasive, then I would think she would prefer not to notify him. If she does not know who the father is, it’s a moot point.

I’m not going to deny that this happens, but I will tell you that the last time I was a wanted poster for a bunch on people who didn’t pay child support it had 7 men and 3 women on it. So, you’re right, people are breaking out of those roles.

Equal opportunity in the world of Pond Scum.

Thank you for the disclaimer.

**Soitenly! **