If "pro-choicers" are really so "pro-choice" then why are they against the choice to be pro-life?

[Highwayhound]

I think it is interesting to examine the motivation behind each side of a “choice”.

The clearest example that comes to mind would be of King Herod and Jesus.

King Herod made a choice out of a selfish heart to kill hundreds if not thousands of babies 2 years old and under. Why did he make this “choice”? He wanted to protect his himself and thought it was okay to kill others to do so.

Jesus, who was the target of King Herod’s action, made a “choice” to face death, “a death he freely accepted.” This choice was made out of love and not selfishness.

Watching a video of an abortion is a gruesome bit of time. There is nothing one can do about the matter as a baby’s leg, then the baby’s arm and other parts are with drawn from the mother. If you have never viewed an abortion (great spectator sport eh?) find the courage to watch a video and then ponder the “choice”. It is not pleasant nor is it a comfortable philosophical debate. It is a stark reality (especially the when you see half of the baby’s head).

catholic.org/video/?v=13

Have the courage and may God bless you

 

[Darryl1958]

This has been bothering me for some time. If “pro-choicers” are really so “pro-choice” then why are they so against the choice of being pro-life?

Because pro-choice is just an expression.

 

[Doc_Keele]

The gruesomeness of an act doesn’t necessarily correlate with its morality though, does it?
Ever seen a breast reduction, or other similar operation? Not a pretty sight either.

 

[o_mlly]

If my (name removed by moderator)ut is indeed unwelcome (as my dictionary defines “kibitzing”) then I will happily withdraw:thumbsup:
If I’m not welcome I have no wish to stay.

I am not a moderator; just a poster but I welcome your (name removed by moderator)ut. All I ask is that in your posts, you provide along with your opinion a rationale that can be argued for or against. That would allow us to “push the ball down the field” so to speak.

 

[o_mlly]

You think I can prove that in a single post???
I tried to address this to a limited extent on another thread but was told that the original poster has the right to rule on what was and wasn’t relevant:shrug:

There’s various thought experiments that demonstrate for me the problems with a deontological approach -
Sophie’s Choice
Sam and the Indians

Actually, I don’t think you could prove it in an infinite number of posts. But I am willing to argue the proposition in small bites if you prefer.

And, as the original poster, you can call the shots!

 

[fix]

Well actually there’s several problems with that statement. It doesn’t resolve the issue of abortion.

No, no problems. The truth that murder is wrong is self evident. If you want a formal proof many are available. But, this issue is not about sufficient proof as many exist. The real problem is that no proof will be accepted by those who refuse to be convinced of what is really true.

 

[fix]

In your view, in the Church’s view, there’s a great deal of misperception of reality in the general (especially non-Catholic) public. The problem again is a philosophical one. The general public does not accept, has not adopted the philosophical underpinnings of the Catholic Church, one of which holds to an “objective” truth. That’s not what the public buys, and they’re not likely to do so any time soon. Society considers many truths to be relative, and also sees rights as relative to other rights. (And yes, they’re obstinate about that, just as religious institutions have a right to be obstinate, and are, about their own views.)

But, there is an objective truth. I agree many refuse to see what is true, but that does not change reality.

 

[Doc_Keele]

No, no problems. The truth that murder is wrong is self evident. If you want a formal proof many are available. But, this issue is not about sufficient proof as many exist. .

You’ve misunderstood my point fix.
Murder is wrong is self-evident. Of course. I wasn’t arguing against that. So I need no proof, although of course there are formal proofs.
You seem to be equating intentionally killing an innocent person with murder. That is not correct, there are a few circumstances where this would not be true. You could intentionally kill someone due to a mistaken belief they are going to kill you, for example. Then there’s yet further problems assuming that the foetus is a person, as some people would not accept that premise.

The real problem is that no proof will be accepted by those who refuse to be convinced of what is really true

Rhetoric. Plain and simple.
And argumentum ad hominem.
Save it for the choir.

 

[Doc_Keele]

Actually, I don’t think you could prove it in an infinite number of posts. But I am willing to argue the proposition in small bites if you prefer.

And, as the original poster, you can call the shots!

I’m sure you’re right, no one has found an overarching theory of ethics and morals yet!

 

[Doc_Keele]

I am not a moderator; just a poster but I welcome your (name removed by moderator)ut. All I ask is that in your posts, you provide along with your opinion a rationale that can be argued for or against. That would allow us to “push the ball down the field” so to speak.

OK, I see where you’re coming from
give me a nudge if I don’t provide a sufficient rationale:thumbsup:

 

[Newbie2]

I don’t think your solution without problems, but that’s a different thread.
Go ahead, present your scenario. Or do you want me to come up with one?

Go ahead, you come up with one.

 

[Doc_Keele]

Easy enough. Woman with Eisenmenger’s Syndrome becomes pregnant after being raped. She is at serious risk of death if the pregnancy precedes.

 

[Newbie2]

Easy enough. Woman with Eisenmenger’s Syndrome becomes pregnant after being raped. She is at serious risk of death if the pregnancy precedes.

Is “serious risk” a valid criteria for killing?

I see a two parallel situations:

1. The lifeboat. Three people in a lifeboat, only enough food, water to support two. One is elderly and sick.

Morally OK to throw him overboard or deny him food and water in order to help save the other two in the boat? They all are at “serious risk” of dying otherwise.

1. Pre-emptive war, like the war in Iraq. I know there is a lot of debate about were there really WMDs, etc. etc. but for our purposes, lets say the Iraq war or any other hypothetical war that got started over the stated purposes of protecting a nation that was at “serious risk” of getting nuked.

Morally OK to kill the other guys in a pre-emptive move, even though not a single shot were to be fired? i.e. questionable self defense.

Maybe a better scenario, and I know of someone that was in this situation:

Psycopathic kid (grade school) living next door, in the past has come after your kid with an ax. Parents are incapable of controlling him, law enforcement won’t do anything unless there is actually an assault “Hey, he’s just a little kid”. Poor neighborhood, not able to move or live elsewhere due to a number of factors. OK to kill the kid to protect your kid?

(In the real-life situation, they were fortunately able to move away)

Moral question in all of these situations, although they are all a bit different, is it OK to kill another to preserve your own life when you’re not in imminent danger of losing your life?

 

[Doc_Keele]

Serious risk of death not a valid criteria? Virtually the only time you can say that death was certain is retrospectively - pathologists are 100% accurate but 1 day too late*.

As for the lifeboat scenario, there is a legal precedent covering almost exactly this scenario - R v Dudley and Stephens

Both scenarios have problems.
They both differ from the relationship of mother to unborn child, which is what makes the situation worthy of exceptional treatment.
Pre-emption is morally acceptable in certain circumstances. The 1967 Arab-Israeli War is a classic example, as are police marksmen shooting someone about to shoot.

OK, not 100% but it’s a rhetorical device

 

[Fidelis_Unus]

No. Pro-choice = The government does not make my moral choices for me, nor moral choices for others. That’s all it means. Now, I understand your second point, but there’s the rub: the philosophical difference. Millions of people of both genders and various religious affiliations in this country do not equate (especially early-stage) abortion with murder or other inhumane crimes. It is not, to them, in the same category as genocide or rape. The Catholic “reality” is that abortion is murder. The “reality” of people of many other beliefs (and of some moralists with no religious beliefs) is that abortion is murder. But it is not universally believed such as murder of a born person, etc.

Again, I’m just the messenger, not the advocate.

Elizabeth, Your comments are very well-said and much appreciated.

IMHO People who are pro-choice simply cannot be pro-life, because the choice ends the life of a child, who is given no choice; however well meant the personal decision to support the choice of abortion may be. Even if only one baby were to die, it is anti-life for that one child, not pro-choice.

Like the OP’s original question I wonder why, if people are truly pro-choice, do organisations like PP and Choice medical not provide help or information about adoptions or assistance to help women be able to keep the child? Their focus seems to be simply BC, STD info and abortions rather than an open discussion about all the choices available, (e.g. adoption).

For someone who is pro-choice, I suspect the pro-life movement is considered an attack on the pro-choice movement, rather than simply difference in beliefs. Not surprisingly.

If only there were a middle ground.

 

[Fidelis_Unus]

Hi Doc.

No. Not the same.

Would you mind clarifying how they are different, then? 'cause they are the same to me. Either a human life has intrinsic value, or it doesn’t.

Sadly there are cases (rare, yes) where it is the foetus vs mother - and the Catholic church comes down on the side of the foetus.

This is not a true statement, at least not entirely. The Church’s desire is for human life to prevail whenever possible. There are many cases, which we’ve discussed elsewhere, ectopic pregnancy, chemo treatments, etc. where the fetus while not survive the treatment. What kind of cases are you referring to and how often have you come across this?

Not trying to argue, just think it’s important to be clear when stating the Churches position. It’s a tough issue, but I find it uncomfortable to refer to extremely rare situations when discussing such an issue where people are allowed to terminate life on-demand ending millions of lives.

 

[Doc_Keele]

Hi Doc.
Would you mind clarifying how they are different, then? 'cause they are the same to me. Either a human life has intrinsic value, or it doesn’t

Firstly, the difference isn’t necessarily down to intrinsic value. The unborn baby is dependent in a way that the newborn baby isn’t. It affects the woman’s right to self-determination in a way that a newborn baby doesn’t.

This is not a true statement, at least not entirely. The Church’s desire is for human life to prevail whenever possible. There are many cases, which we’ve discussed elsewhere, ectopic pregnancy, chemo treatments, etc. where the fetus while not survive the treatment. What kind of cases are you referring to and how often have you come across this?

True, the church does allow the mother medical treatment that it deems not to constitute direct abortion.

Not trying to argue, just think it’s important to be clear when stating the Churches position. It’s a tough issue, but I find it uncomfortable to refer to extremely rare situations when discussing such an issue where people are allowed to terminate life on-demand ending millions of lives.

The rarity of a situation isn’t that relevant. For the person in that rare situation it is obviously still a life and death issue. If you’re arguing that the policy is justified on policy grounds, then you’re eroding the moral authority of the church, which must be surely committed to perfect justice?

 

[fix]

You’ve misunderstood my point fix.
Murder is wrong is self-evident. Of course. I wasn’t arguing against that. So I need no proof, although of course there are formal proofs.
You seem to be equating intentionally killing an innocent person with murder. That is not correct, there are a few circumstances where this would not be true. You could intentionally kill someone due to a mistaken belief they are going to kill you, for example.

I equate intentionally killing an innocent person with murder because that is what murder is. If one mistakenly kills then one did not murder.

Then there’s yet further problems assuming that the foetus is a person, as some people would not accept that premise.

Some do not accept certain races are equal in humanity to other races. Should I accept their premise is good simply because they hold it?

Rhetoric. Plain and simple.
And argumentum ad hominem.
Save it for the choir.

What is an unborn baby?

 

[Doc_Keele]

I equate intentionally killing an innocent person with murder because that is what murder is. If one mistakenly kills then one did not murder

Right, your response doesn’t actually make much sense. The definition of murder I go by is Coke’s, albeit amended by certain statutory provisions.

Some do not accept certain races are equal in humanity to other races. Should I accept their premise is good simply because they hold it?

That’s a straw man argument.

What is an unborn baby?

A rhetorical question.

 

[Newbie2]

Serious risk of death not a valid criteria? Virtually the only time you can say that death was certain is retrospectively - pathologists are 100% accurate but 1 day too late*.

So where is the line drawn when defining “serious”, and who draws that line?

As for the lifeboat scenario, there is a legal precedent covering almost exactly this scenario - R v Dudley and Stephens

Legal has little to do with it. What is the moral thing to do in such a situation?

Both scenarios have problems.
They both differ from the relationship of mother to unborn child, which is what makes the situation worthy of exceptional treatment.

Pre-emption is morally acceptable in certain circumstances. The 1967 Arab-Israeli War is a classic example, as are police marksmen shooting someone about to shoot.

Exactly why I used the term “parallels”. Similar, in some ways.

OK, not 100% but it’s a rhetorical device