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

  • Thread starter Thread starter Holly3278
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Doc_Keele said:
Fantastic level of intellectual debate!!!đź‘Ť
Click to expand...
I cannot keep going down this rabbit hole. This thread seeks to point out the truth of what “pro choice” really means. Those in favor of legalized killing do not like the truth spelled out plainly. I do not blame them at all. If I held that position I would be crushed to see exactly how my position was so devoid of reason and morality.

To paraphrase one great priest…Let them be offended…Let them be offended and go to heaven…
 
So when someone refers to a lump of cells that’s not also the truth?

If “Pro-Lifers” are interested in results they will be willing to listen. If they are interested in self-righteousness and rhetoric then they will not.

To caricature the Pro-Choice position as devoid of reason and morality only demonstrates why you have not been able to articulate an argument that engages people, IMO.
 
Doc_Keele said:
So when someone refers to a lump of cells that’s not also the truth?
Click to expand...
Sure, but the context matters. You are a lump of cells in some sense.
If “Pro-Lifers” are interested in results they will be willing to listen. If they are interested in self-righteousness and rhetoric then they will not.
Click to expand...
We are interested in being faithful. It is the Holy Spirit that converts. Also, I reject your assertion that one must conform to your standards as the only way to “succeed”.
To caricature the Pro-Choice position as devoid of reason and morality only demonstrates why you have not been able to articulate an argument that engages people, IMO.
Click to expand...
The pro abort position is devoid of morality, for sure. Unless, you hold that might makes right or the ends justify the means?

As to whether my argument engages people I see that you are responding to my posts.
 
fix said:
Sure, but the context matters. You are a lump of cells in some sense
Click to expand...
and this also applies to killing
As to whether my argument engages people I see that you are responding to my posts.
Click to expand...
Right - and I’m not Pro-Choice.
And I deny that the means is always more important than the ends, that is true.
 
fix said:
What is your point here?
Click to expand...
Quite obvious I would have thought. Not all killing is murder.
So, you accept that legalized abortion is wrong and unjust?
Click to expand...
It depends on the reason for abortion, since I don’t believe a woman should have to die due to ectopic pregnancy etc.
 
fix said:
Murder is intentionally killing an innocent person.
Click to expand...
Well, not exactly, but at least you’re getting close. They very concept of murder requires the law to define it, as murder is the “intentional, unlawful, killing of a human being”. Absent a law, there is by definition no murder. Your opinion doesn’t affect that reality one way or another.
fix said:
Your attempt to redine murder as simply a legal concept is exactly the point I am making. That a law is unjust cannot change what is really happening. This is why I oppose the pro abort propaganda that claims we must say “choice”.
Click to expand...
I’m not the one trying to change the definition to suit my purposes. It may suit your purposes to misrepresent things to make you arguments seem more effective. but that doesn’t make it true.
fix said:
If you hold that killing an unborn baby is not murder then then the problem is not only language but something much deeper.
Click to expand...
I think you really should ask yourself, what exactly you’re trying to accomplish, and why you are willing to lie and misrepresent things in furtherance of it?
 
Doc_Keele said:
Quite obvious I would have thought. Not all killing is murder.
Click to expand...
But, intentionally killing an innocent child is murder.
It depends on the reason for abortion, since I don’t believe a woman should have to die due to ectopic pregnancy etc.
Click to expand...
Direct abortion is always wrong. The issue of ectopic pregnancy deals with indirect abortion which is not murder unless illicit means are used or there is an evil intent.

By your resonse do you mean you support legalized abortion?
 
BillP said:
Well, not exactly, but at least you’re getting close. They very concept of murder requires the law to define it, as murder is the “intentional, unlawful, killing of a human being”. Absent a law, there is by definition no murder. Your opinion doesn’t affect that reality one way or another.
Click to expand...
The civil law must be conformity with the moral law, or there is no law at all. If you claim intentionally killing of an innocent person is not murder because the government allows such that is not reasonable.
I’m not the one trying to change the definition to suit my purposes. It may suit your purposes to misrepresent things to make you arguments seem more effective. but that doesn’t make it true.
Click to expand...
I am not changing definitions. I am disagreeing that murder does not apply simply because an unjust law is standing. The state may say an elephant is an orange but that cannot change reality.
I think you really should ask yourself, what exactly you’re trying to accomplish, and why you are willing to lie and misrepresent things in furtherance of it?
Click to expand...
I think you really should ask yourself, what exactly you’re trying to accomplish, and why you are willing to lie and misrepresent things in furtherance of it?
 
fix said:
Direct abortion is always wrong. The issue of ectopic pregnancy deals with indirect abortion which is not murder unless illicit means are used or there is an evil intent
Click to expand...
It’s more complicated than this tho. Probably dozens of academic papers have been written on the ethics and morals of the different treatments of ectopic pregnancy. Tkae for example “intention” and “direct abortion” - not as easy to define as you might think.
By your resonse do you mean you support legalized abortion?
Click to expand...
I don’t support the “Pro-Life” position, because I don’t believe it’s genuinely pro-life.
 
to claim the right to abortion, infanticide and euthanasia, and to recognize that right in law, means to attribute to human freedom a perverse and evil significance: That of an absolute power over others and against others. This is the death of true freedom: “truly, truly, i say to you, every one who commits sin is a slave to sin” (jn 8:34).
Click to expand...
given such a grave situation, we need now more than ever to have the courage to look the truth in the eye and to call things by their proper name, without yielding to convenient compromises or to the temptation of self-deception. in this regard the reproach of the prophet is extremely straightforward: “woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness” (is 5:20). Especially in the case of abortion there is a widespread use of ambiguous terminology, such as “interruption of pregnancy”, which tends to hide abortion’s true nature and to attenuate its seriousness in public opinion. Perhaps this linguistic phenomenon is itself a symptom of an uneasiness of conscience. But no word has the power to change the reality of things: Procured abortion is the deliberate and direct killing, by whatever means it is carried out, of a human being in the initial phase of his or her existence, extending from conception to birth.
Click to expand...
the moral gravity of procured abortion is apparent in all its truth if we recognize that we are dealing with murder and, in particular, when we consider the specific elements involved. The one eliminated is a human being at the very beginning of life. No one more absolutely innocent could be imagined. …
Click to expand...
evangelium vitae
Click to expand...
 
Doc_Keele said:
It’s more complicated than this tho. Probably dozens of academic papers have been written on the ethics and morals of the different treatments of ectopic pregnancy. Tkae for example “intention” and “direct abortion” - not as easy to define as you might think.
Click to expand...
Actually, the princples involved are very simple. Each case is different, but denying the basic premise tells much.
I don’t support the “Pro-Life” position, because I don’t believe it’s genuinely pro-life.
Click to expand...
You support legalized abortion?
 
fix said:
Actually, the princples involved are very simple. Each case is different, but denying the basic premise tells much
Click to expand...
Well my reading says differently. How many articles from philosophical journals etc have you read on the matter?
You support legalized abortion?
Click to expand...
I have stated my position. You make whatever deductions you like from it.
 
fix said:
I reject your assertion that one must conform to your standards as the only way to “succeed”.
Click to expand...
The only way to “succeed” beyond just rhetoric is to communicate with your opposition in terms that opposers can agree upon. Otherwise, you just enjoy listening to yourself repeat yourself. That is true whether you define success by persuasion to your position, or by action.

Thus, if you want change in the civil arena you have to both speak and act in ways that the civil arena understands. I believe it was BillP who brought up an excellent point about definitions. Mostly, the civil arena is not persuaded to change through equations made between abortion and murder, because murder is defined legally in society, not morally. (Even though the basis of civil law is, yes, a common morality. Note that that common morality is not one in which secular law accepts the Catholic Church’s definition of murder.)

Therefore, again, if you actually care about achieving “success,” as in “results,” your actions and words will accord with those ends. So if you believe that the legal definition of murder should be broadened, that is where your battle should be. It makes no sense to call all those who engage in any kind, stage, reason for abortion “murderers,” because legally they are not. It would be no more persuasive than my standing outside public schools, holding a sign that parents are engaginig in child abuse (or neglect) by allowing their children to attend there. Now, personally, as an educator myself I may have one heck of a lot of objections about what is being taught (and not taught) inside public schools these days, and know that not much of a moral compass is being offered to those attending, but my opinion will fall on deaf ears – and offended ears – if I call public school attendance a form of child abuse, no matter how strongly I feel, and many other citizens feel, about public education today. It doesn’t matter what I “know,” and what my church “knows” about that.
As to whether my argument engages people I see that you are responding to my posts.
Click to expand...
If you believe that you’re getting anywhere except arguing in circles, then you’re not following the arguments of your debaters. Your debaters are engaged in opposition to your assumptions about the civil realm.
 
Elizabeth - fix is also mounting a straw man argument, because I never stipulated that only one method could succeed. I merely observed, like yourself, that “success” should be the aim of the “Pro-Life” movement. Whether or not it is their aim is another matter.
 
Doc_Keele said:
Elizabeth - fix is also mounting a straw man argument, because I never stipulated that only one method could succeed. I merely observed, like yourself, that “success” should be the aim of the “Pro-Life” movement. Whether or not it is their aim is another matter.
Click to expand...
Again, it is about being faithful not winning by any means.
 
fix said:
Again, it is about being faithful not winning by any means.
Click to expand...
I realise that, but I’m glad that you’ve been explicit about your agenda. It certainly explains a lot that I’ve seen and heard.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top