If abortion wasn't murder

[ralphinal]

darcee:

I seriously doubt if a you were to have a growth in your body that would have the same results that you would regard the speedy removal of it elective.

The only way that argument works is if you downplay the reality of pregnancy. I have given birth to 5 children and there is NO WAY I would go through a pregnancy for anything less then a life. If there was an otherwise harmless growth that would cause the same affects of a pregnancy I would not think treating it sympomatically to be prudent.

-D

Actually, I do. There is a place in and on my left thigh bone. It does not cause me as much trouble as a pregnancy would, but it still causes pain, especially when it rains (in ALabama, that is everyday from April to September). I can have it removed, but I may lose my leg. It is benign and not a problem like that. My earlier point is that surgery should always be the last option.

By the way, anyone who thinks that a fetus is not a life is either an uneducated fool or in denial.

 

[darcee]

By the way, anyone who thinks that a fetus is not a life is either an uneducated fool or in denial.

Totally agree on that.

But to the other point. If it could be removed and not cost you your leg then wouldn’t you have it removed?

-D

 

[Bruised_Reed]

karisue:

By definition though, abortion is taking a human life. The questions appears to be philosophical nonsense. How does one think out of the box on this. Can you elaborate?

Setting aside the definition we have of abortion is the thinking outside of the box part. Set it aside for a second; were not abandoning it. Then ask the question. People who are prochoice don’t neccessarily have the same definition.

 

[darcee]

Blood Rain:

Yes, I didn’t respond because you quoted ralphinal. I thought he could make his point waaaay better that I could. And hey, I was right.

But more to the point what I want is to be able to say to a person who is prochoice “If abortion didn’t stop a beathing heart, kill a living human being, than I wouldn’t have a problem with it.” I know this is incomplete because I am leaving out everything about contraception, the gift of human sexuality and God’s design for it and his will for our lives.

The one time I was able to say this to someone we at least were able to agree that we disagreed about wether or not it was a human being. That’s as far as it got. Which is fine. She thinks Peter Singer is on target. I knew I couldn’t argue it because his position is so…evil, that I just get too frustrated to speak. I mean, saying “that’s just evil (insane, stupid)” no matter how true, isn’t a solid arguement.

For those who disagree on a fetus being a living human being it is just willful ignorance. I feel very sorry for women who buy into that argument and then have abortions. I have seen the aftermath when they are confronted with and believe the truth. But until they come to the truth you are stuck with the problem that they do not see life inutro as life. Which I agree is evil, but other then asking “when do you think life begins” and then dealing with whatever relativistic garbage you get it is a dead end argument.

The trouble I have with the article you linked to is that is has a problem in that it fails to address what is the core issue to most of those who are affective in debating the pro-choice side. That is the argument I posed above.

“Sure, it is alive, life starts at conception, BUT I have the right to determine what happens to my body. No one can force me give them aid. I am not obligated to allow this stranger to use my uterus. It doesn’t matter that it is a life and death situation to them, no one else has the right to violate my body.”

-D

 

[ralphinal]

darcee:

Totally agree on that.

But to the other point. If it could be removed and not cost you your leg then wouldn’t you have it removed?

-D

No. I would keep it an continue to offer up the pain and discomfort for my soul and the souls of others. I am Catholic!

 

[darcee]

ralphinal:

No. I would keep it an continue to offer up the pain and discomfort for my soul and the souls of others. I am Catholic!

Fare enough… but I don’t think you will find that a compelling argument for calling such a procedure elective. Which if it was would be morally neutral.

So would it be mutilation to remove it or vanity… I think not. In which case it would be morally permissible.

-D

 

[space_ghost]

Blood Rain:

Not exactly, but you are getting there. If I were in a discussion with a person who was prochoice I want to let them know that I wouldn’t be against abortion if it didn’t kill a life.

If they believe it kills a child (and surprisingly, many do) that’s one direction for the discussion to take. If they don’t we can talk about the definition of life.

The fourth paragraph from the bottem states my point.

Science says there’s life at conception… and those that believe life doesn’t begin at conception can’t see the problem… well, i guess if you believe the world is flat (even though sicence can prove otherwise) then you can stay off the water, (hide in your box and don’t interact with people globally)… in other words… phillosophically speaking… if you believe that your actions don’t effect man or God…get the abortion…

 

[Bruised_Reed]

darcee:

The trouble I have with the article you linked to is that is has a problem in that it fails to address what is the core issue to most of those who are affective in debating the pro-choice side. That is the argument I posed above.

“Sure, it is alive, life starts at conception, BUT I have the right to determine what happens to my body. No one can force me give them aid. I am not obligated to allow this stranger to use my uterus. It doesn’t matter that it is a life and death situation to them, no one else has the right to violate my body.”

-D

That is what many women believe when and have an abortion anyway. There are different ways of approaching the defence of life. The whole article wasn’t completely relevevant to point but I’m glad you read it.

darcee:

Which I agree is evil, but other then asking “when do you think life begins” and then dealing with whatever relativistic garbage you get it is a dead end argument.

If I ws really invested in a person I would at least listen to any “relativisic garbage” she needed to get off her chest. It doesn’t have to be a dead end. Really listening and hearing someone can open a door that was locked tight.

I guess a forum like this isn’t the best way of persuading others to look at something from a different point of view. I’ve read other threads (esp. in Apologetics) and most people are trying to make their point without listening to those that disagree with them. The arguement just goes back and forth. Most people aren’t going to a rat’s rear about what I say unless they think I actually care about them, not just about making my point and being right and ultimately changing their mind.

 

[darcee]

Blood Rain:

I guess a forum like this isn’t the best way of persuading others to look at something from a different point of view. I’ve read other threads (esp. in Apologetics) and most people are trying to make their point without listening to those that disagree with them. The arguement just goes back and forth. Most people aren’t going to a rat’s rear about what I say unless they think I actually care about them, not just about making my point and being right.

And of all topics this one is probably the hardest to look at from a different POV because the other POV are basically evil (either a denial of life or an insistance on rights)

I still am not seeing what it is you are expecting. Sure, most of us here COULD look outside the box and develope arugments for the absured point that life doesn’t begin at concepetion, but to what end?

Additionally I think if you listen to what people who are pro-choce have to say about abortion you find it has less to do with when life begins and more to do with what works for the mother. In the end the only way to counter the best argument of por-choice side is to go back to birth control.

-D

 

[The_Hidden_Life]

Blood Rain, I agree with Darcee that your question as originally worded doesn’t meet the requirements of logic, as so concisely stated by Darcee. However, moving past that, I’m glad that Raphinal understood what you were trying to get at and answered it to your satisfaction.

Unfortunately, I have several friends, all of whom were raised in Christian households, that fully understand the science of conception and agree that life begins then. Yet, they also support abortion!

It simply does not matter to them that it is a human life with a soul of his or her own. The perceived needs or wishes of the mother are more important than anything else.

I have one friend that tried to solve this problem by believing that the soul of an unborn child can return to Heaven if aborted and reappear later in another body when the mother is finally ready to take care of a baby.

She’d had an abortion herself, so I can understand why her guilty conscience accepted this rationalization. It simply makes her feel better to think that her first baby’s soul was plopped back into place into the body of her next child. This woman has a doctorate in social work and teaches childbirth classes. What a travesty.

 

[Bruised_Reed]

darcee:

Additionally I think if you listen to what people who are pro-choce have to say about abortion you find it has less to do with when life begins and more to do with what works for the mother. In the end the only way to counter the best argument of por-choice side is to go back to birth control.

-D

I don’t think it always is the best arguement. Just like the jumping off point I’m discussing here (the foundation of my question) won’t work with everyone neither will starting from contraception.

Also, I know that many who are pro-choice are so because of the women’s rights/body thing. I’m not trying to ignore that. What I want to be able to do, (and I think I said this earlier) is:

-start out with a simple foundation of what I believe and,
-find out if they believe the embryo or fetus are alive/human.

If I start throwing out arguements that defend the life of the fetus and they are already there I’ve wasted time and possibly lessened their desire to hear what else I have to say. I hate being lectured on what I already know and I figure it annoys others, too.

 

[Bruised_Reed]

The Hidden Life:

Blood Rain, I agree with Darcee that your question as originally worded doesn’t meet the requirements of logic, as so concisely stated by Darcee.

So it was the way I worded it. Hrm.
The Hidden Life:

She’d had an abortion herself, so I can understand why her guilty conscience accepted this rationalization. It simply makes her feel better to think that her first baby’s soul was plopped back into place into the body of her next child. This woman has a doctorate in social work and teaches childbirth classes. What a travesty.

I’ve heard this rationalization before. I can’t imagine how much pain she will be in when she realizes this is not so. It’s almost like that is where she is stuck in the greif process.