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.
vz71 said:
If you do not support killing, why would you support the choice to do so?

Why would you so willingly give up that choice for the legislation against murder but fight so much for this decision in utero.

What exactly is the difference between one human life and another human life that makes the one worthy of death and the other not?
Click to expand...
**You may not know or understand this, but women actually have free will: the freedom to make decisions in their lives about everything from “what’s for dinner” to “should I kill this kid?”

You cannot accept the fact that free will allows us to make poor choices, or choices we may regret later on. Who are you to step in the way of it? You are nobody in this picture. You are free to make choices for yourself, vz, but not for every woman who gets pregnant tonight. You’ve got your forum, you’ve got your keyboard bullhorn, you’ve got your vote and you certainly have a boatload more support than I do, so why not use all your resources productively instead of nitpicking on someone who will never, ever agree with you?

Limerick**
 
limerick said:
**You may not know or understand this, but women actually have free will: the freedom to make decisions in their lives about everything from “what’s for dinner” to “should I kill this kid?”

You cannot accept the fact that free will allows us to make poor choices, or choices we may regret later on. Who are you to step in the way of it? You are nobody in this picture. You are free to make choices for yourself, vz, but not for every woman who gets pregnant tonight. You’ve got your forum, you’ve got your keyboard bullhorn, you’ve got your vote and you certainly have a boatload more support than I do, so why not use all your resources productively instead of nitpicking on someone who will never, ever agree with you?

Limerick**
Click to expand...
But legislation punnishes people who abuse free will to the detriment of society as a whole. No one in this forum has ever suggested using mind control to stop people from thinking on their own. (outside a sarcastic joke at least.) The discussion is over punnishing people who committ attrocities against another human being.
 
Suppose someone supports elections and the choice they give the people. Does that mean they support Obama because he was one of the available choices?
 
WillieWonka said:
Suppose someone supports elections and the choice they give the people. Does that mean they support Obama because he was one of the available choices?
Click to expand...
If there was a movement to change the way we do elections specifically to allow a new option then support for that change would be support for that option. Further if that same movement made an effort to limmit peoples selection of options other than the one the group endorsed, it would reinforce their stance as being for that option.

So those who are pro election would not necesarilly be pro Obama. but those who advocated changing the election law in a way that supported Obama could be considered pro Obama.
 
limerick said:
**You may not know or understand this, but women actually have free will: the freedom to make decisions in their lives about everything from “what’s for dinner” to “should I kill this kid?”

You cannot accept the fact that free will allows us to make poor choices, or choices we may regret later on. Who are you to step in the way of it? You are nobody in this picture. You are free to make choices for yourself, vz, but not for every woman who gets pregnant tonight. You’ve got your forum, you’ve got your keyboard bullhorn, you’ve got your vote and you certainly have a boatload more support than I do, so why not use all your resources productively instead of nitpicking on someone who will never, ever agree with you?

Limerick**
Click to expand...
And what percentage of the money raised and spent by the “pro choice” movement goes to support those who choose life?
 
royal_archer said:
If there was a movement to change the way we do elections specifically to allow a new option then support for that change would be support for that option. Further if that same movement made an effort to limmit peoples selection of options other than the one the group endorsed, it would reinforce their stance as being for that option.

So those who are pro election would not necesarilly be pro Obama. but those who advocated changing the election law in a way that supported Obama could be considered pro Obama.
Click to expand...
It’s a simple choice. Obama or McCain. Gestation or abortion. Highway bond or no highway bond. Gay marriage or no gay marriage.
 
WillieWonka: It’s a simple choice. Obama or McCain (Third party). Gestation or abortion (abstinance). Highway bond or no highway bond (toll road). Gay marriage or no gay marriage (abstinance).

Pro Life or Pro Murder
 
royal_archer said:
WillieWonka: It’s a simple choice. Obama or McCain (Third party). Gestation or abortion (abstinance). Highway bond or no highway bond (toll road). Gay marriage or no gay marriage (abstinance).

Pro Life or Pro Murder
Click to expand...
Those additions in green are all valid, and there certainly could be more. So, by supporting the election choice, does one support all the possible election outcomes?
 
limerick said:
You may not know or understand this, but women actually have free will: the freedom to make decisions in their lives about everything from “what’s for dinner” to "should I kill this kid?"
Click to expand...
I just wanted to be certain everyone here including yourself understand the position you proclaim.
You advocate killing kids.

You wish to hide it behind the word choice, but the facts remain.

Your words…not mine.
“Should I kill this kid.”
 
WillieWonka said:
Suppose someone supports elections and the choice they give the people. Does that mean they support Obama because he was one of the available choices?
Click to expand...
No, but when they adamently support a vote for him, yes.
The choice here (to kill an unborn child) is what is being defended…over and over.

As I pointed out early in this thread…“Choice to choose what exactly?”

Once the answer is given, the support for it is shown.
 
WillieWonka said:
What’s an example of an argument that demands grace for acceptance?
Click to expand...
It is not argument that is in question it is that the hearer needs grace. A closed mind may not always accept the truth.
Rerarding the racist: I don’t know. What’s the argument?
Click to expand...
The argument is not the issue. The closed heart is the issue.
 
vz71 said:
No, but when they adamently support a vote for him, yes.
The choice here (to kill an unborn child) is what is being defended…over and over.

As I pointed out early in this thread…“Choice to choose what exactly?”

Once the answer is given, the support for it is shown.
Click to expand...
OK.They support the process of choice, but not necessarily all the options. One can support the election process and still consider one candidate to be a jerk and hope nobody chooses him.
 
fix said:
It is not argument that is in question it is that the hearer needs grace. A closed mind may not always accept the truth.

The argument is not the issue. The closed heart is the issue.
Click to expand...
  1. OK. Does the hearer need grace to correctly discern natural law?
  2. You asked if the arguments for dignity were weak. I couldn’t say without knowing the arguments.
  3. Can someone correctly discern NL without grace, revelation, or the Church?
 
WillieWonka said:
OK.They support the process of choice, but not necessarily all the options. One can support the election process and still consider one candidate to be a jerk and hope nobody chooses him.
Click to expand...
The line is crossed when the choice to kill an innocent human life is considered a valid choice.
 
As long as Roe v Wade remains the law, the use of any form of public media, be it airwaves or public education, will not be available for pro life education. Pro life has been too closely linked to religious based doctrine to be permitted by our court system to have a place in public understanding. Roe v Wade is a legal embarassment - even Justice Ginsburg has admitted that there is absolutely no constitutional basis for the decision. The court as it is currently made up does not appear to have a desire to re-hear the case as it will cause significant political fallout. The absurd medical language in the 1973 case made use of the fact that medical science could not determine when life begins. Modern medical technology has provided answers to those questions, answers that the kill your baby crowd does not want to be before a court.
The legislation pending in Congress to lift all restrictions on abortion may be the vehicle to challenge and force a re-hearing on Roe v Wade. The court determined that killing babies in the first trimester was a constitutional right, but placed restrictions on the second and third trimesters. The legislation is a back door change to the constitutional issue decided by the court. Legislation can not change constitutional law. Only a constitutional amendment, a constitutional convention or a reversal of a prior supreme court decision can effect the change. Thus the legislation will be challengable as unconstitutional. The issue with which I have been wresteling is finding a plaintiff who will have standing to sue. Perhaps some of the participants in this forum may have an idea?
 
vz71 said:
The line is crossed when the choice to kill an innocent human life is considered a valid choice.
Click to expand...
What line? Obama supports abortion. Was he a valid candidate in the choice last November?
 
vz71 said:
The line is crossed when the choice to kill an innocent human life is considered a valid choice.
Click to expand...
valid: having legal efficacy or force (merriam-webster.com/dictionary/valid)

choice: the act of choosing (merriam-webster.com/dictionary/choice)

It is a valid choice. You can argue that it is not a moral choice. You can argue that it is not an ethical choice. You can argue that it should not be a legal choice. But you cannot argue that it is not a valid choice to do so is to ignore the definitions of the words you are using or the reality of the situation, either of which will not lead to effective re-education.
 
Manny_DeStefano said:
As long as Roe v Wade remains the law, the use of any form of public media, be it airwaves or public education, will not be available for pro life education. Pro life has been too closely linked to religious based doctrine to be permitted by our court system to have a place in public understanding. Roe v Wade is a legal embarassment - even Justice Ginsburg has admitted that there is absolutely no constitutional basis for the decision. The court as it is currently made up does not appear to have a desire to re-hear the case as it will cause significant political fallout. The absurd medical language in the 1973 case made use of the fact that medical science could not determine when life begins. Modern medical technology has provided answers to those questions, answers that the kill your baby crowd does not want to be before a court.
The legislation pending in Congress to lift all restrictions on abortion may be the vehicle to challenge and force a re-hearing on Roe v Wade. The court determined that killing babies in the first trimester was a constitutional right, but placed restrictions on the second and third trimesters. The legislation is a back door change to the constitutional issue decided by the court. Legislation can not change constitutional law. Only a constitutional amendment, a constitutional convention or a reversal of a prior supreme court decision can effect the change. Thus the legislation will be challengable as unconstitutional. The issue with which I have been wresteling is finding a plaintiff who will have standing to sue. Perhaps some of the participants in this forum may have an idea?
Click to expand...
You can go out and buy all the media time you want. Publish any book you want. It’s all available. I can’t even drop EWTN from my cable package.

The courts have nothing to do with having a place in the public understanding. Just what is the public understanding and how are courts blocking access?

Your post is available all over the world. This existence of this web site demonstrates that media is available. The internet is thriving and there are very low barriers to entry.

Here’s the link to the Planned Parenthood website. I entered my zip code and got one center 3 miles away, and two others 5 miles away. The point is, you can do the same thing. Nothing stopped PP, and nothing will stop you. Do the anti-abortion forces have anything comparable? I don’t know.

plannedparenthood.org/
 
Manny_DeStefano said:
As long as Roe v Wade remains the law, the use of any form of public media, be it airwaves or public education, will not be available for pro life education. Pro life has been too closely linked to religious based doctrine to be permitted by our court system to have a place in public understanding. Roe v Wade is a legal embarassment - even Justice Ginsburg has admitted that there is absolutely no constitutional basis for the decision. The court as it is currently made up does not appear to have a desire to re-hear the case as it will cause significant political fallout. The absurd medical language in the 1973 case made use of the fact that medical science could not determine when life begins. Modern medical technology has provided answers to those questions, answers that the kill your baby crowd does not want to be before a court.
The legislation pending in Congress to lift all restrictions on abortion may be the vehicle to challenge and force a re-hearing on Roe v Wade. The court determined that killing babies in the first trimester was a constitutional right, but placed restrictions on the second and third trimesters. The legislation is a back door change to the constitutional issue decided by the court. Legislation can not change constitutional law. Only a constitutional amendment, a constitutional convention or a reversal of a prior supreme court decision can effect the change. Thus the legislation will be challengable as unconstitutional. The issue with which I have been wresteling is finding a plaintiff who will have standing to sue. Perhaps some of the participants in this forum may have an idea?
Click to expand...
I think there is another means of challenge to the issue. Recently in Texas there was a man who was driving drunk, he hit a pregnant woman (in the first trimester) killing both her and the baby. He was charged with two counts of manslaughter.

It would be a huge benefit to the pro-life cause of some pro-life lawyers would actually take up his cause and fight this ruling. Either the fetus is a person or it is not. If it is a person then his conviction for manslaughter stands and this ruling can be used to challenge abortion laws. If it is not a person then his conviction for manslaughter is invalid. If this case was actually appealed, do you think that any court would overturn his sentence to protect the abortion laws?

The problem is that the pro-life lawyer would actually have to take the side of devil’s advocate in order to bring this case up. I can’t even get pro-life people to stop using uncivil language; I wouldn’t even want to try and get one to argue for the precepts of pro-choice.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top