Irrefutable pro-life argument

[banjo]

If someone is braindead with no hope of recovery society generally agrees that it’s no longer a person.

I disagree. Take the Terri Shaivo case. If she were no longer considered a person, why wasn’t she simply given a massive overdose of something that would have killed her instantly instead of ‘allowing her to die’ of dehydration and lack of nourishment?

 

[LittleSoldier]

So the children that would saved under this more restrictive regime are of no consequence then?

They are as of much consequence as any other unborn children.

They shouldn’t be murdered. ANY of them.

I think your point is a valid one, but I still have to disagree with the proposal. It’s messing around with Truth. Either an unborn child is a human being or she is not. The Church teaches that she is.

I can’t pretend that it’s OK to compromise on Truth.

*Holy Mother, please keep
all unborn children safe today.

St. Francis, please pray for all unwanted and hurt animals.*

 

[JimG]

I’m sorry but I can’t go along with that. At all. What you are proposing is to allow murder in certain cases.

At conception a new human being is formed. Her existence and protection is what is important - not the way she was formed. Also, allowing her to be aborted results in her mother now not only being victimized by a rapist, but turned into the murderer of her own child.

In rape the rapist is the one who sins. Punish him. Don’t give a death sentence to an unborn child who did absolutely nothing wrong.

There can be no compromise here. The Church has stated the Truth and it can’t be changed - not even to agree with pro-abortionists. We can’t change or compromise on Truth.

*Holy Mother, please keep
all unborn children safe today.

St. Francis, please pray for all unwanted and hurt animals.*

While I agree that truth does not allow for compromise, politics does. If political compromise would prevent 95% of abortions now being performed, that’s better than nothing. It would also establish in law that abortion is unacceptable except in extreme conditions, compared to current law which establishes the principle that abortion anytime before birth is acceptable.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

The problem with compromises such the proposed ban on ‘anything but rape/incest and life of mother’ is focusing on something other than absolute truth.

The absolute truth is that all human beings are entitled to or have a right to life.

That being so, the circumstances of conception or the circumstances of the lives of mother, child, or others do not have anything to do with the inherent right to life.

Under this type of ‘compromise’ the focus becomes false in that it is ‘assumed’ that there are certain ‘circumstances’ which ‘trump’ the right of the child to live.

Some may argue, well, but if they did change, ‘more’ children would live. Yes, that would be a positive good.

So why, though, would we want to stop something which all acknowledge as a positive good (more children not being killed)?

Suppose there was a random ‘death ray’ that would automatically fire from the skies and kill lots of people all over the world. Now, would y’all say, "Hey, here is a great shield against that death ray. Now, it is only going to work 50% of the time, but hey, we’ll save 50% of the people who would have died. . .so let’s put it in place as the final ultimate solution to the problem. "

Um, don’t y’all think most people would say, “I think it’s great that we’re saving some but we can’t stop here! We need to go on and develop something that will save 100% of the people!”

 

[Worthy5]

Tantum ergo;6470505]

The pro-choice people know that the child in the womb is a child. But that doesn’t stop them from ‘pretending’ that the fact that a child is present in the womb ‘does not matter’.

It does matter, but it does not necessarily follow that the govt police power should be the exclusive means used in every circumstance to address the abortion problem. It is called the policy of limited govt—this govt does not get to make every decision in this society. That does not mean however, that govt cannot use other means to help individuals make better decisions for themselves.

Pro-life people care for both the mother and child. In fact, we care for the mother so much that we want to help her not only to have (and to raise) that child (however she may choose, in that she may choose adoption), but we also want to save her from the ghastly mistake of being complicit, often without her understanding, in the death of that child.

Yes that is great-----but why do you think that means the govt police power should be used in every instance. Such use of power often appears like a desire to “control” for power sake than to “care” by helping the individual make a better decision.

Are you guys not seeing the problem of using excessive govt power? It can inhibit the precise goal you claim to have.

 

[JimG]

The problem with compromises such the proposed ban on ‘anything but rape/incest and life of mother’ is focusing on something other than absolute truth.

That’s true. In practice, the pro-abortion contingent fights against any limitations on abortion whatsoever, because their core principle is that only the woman gets to decide whether to abort and her reason is sufficient.

Before Roe v Wade, there were laws on the books which, while not prohibiting abortion entirely, severely restricted it.

As a result of Roe & Doe, nearly any restrictions are impossible to pass constitutional muster. The numbers of abortions exploded.

It would be a very good start to at least get back to the pre-Roe jurisprudence. Then work on tightening abortion laws further. But if followed, such a compromise would immediately and dramatically reduce abortion while affirming the principle that abortion is not a good thing and must be restricted.

 

[Des]

The presence of a mind is a poor definition of a human being or “person” - a mind is a characteristic that a human being develops as she grows. Every single human being alive today began life at conception. No exceptions. Then as the human being developed and grew, her mind developed and grew, just like her hands and liver and spleen and skeletal system developed and grew. Her mind will continue to develop and grow long past the time she has gone through the process of birth. That’s why there are two “soft spots” in the skull at birth - they allow the brain to increase in size, along with giving the skull elasticity to help during her birth.

Correct. If we start stating that lack of a mind within a growing fetus is the criteria for when one should be called a human being or not with full fledged human rights then logically we will likewise have to set up a system of basic rights for mentally challenged individuals or others with a lesser mind capactiy than the average person.

The flyingfish chart of a Human being’s status

• No mind within a growing fetus = None human being, no basic rights.
• A mind with a lesser capacity (the mentally challenged) = Part human/Less basic human rights.
• A mind with a full capacity = Human status being with all the basic rights that go with it.

I don’t believe we have souls, and I don’t believe human beings are special by virtue of being human. I think it’s our minds that make us special. Without a religious framework, I don’t see how you can use anything other than a mind to define personhood.

It’s this kind of dangerous secular thinking that one day certain cultures will have the handicapped looked down upon rather than cherished for the speical unique human beings that they are.

 

[Doc_Keele]

They are as of much consequence as any other unborn children.

They shouldn’t be murdered. ANY of them.

I think your point is a valid one, but I still have to disagree with the proposal. It’s messing around with Truth. Either an unborn child is a human being or she is not. The Church teaches that she is.

I can’t pretend that it’s OK to compromise on Truth

…but you wouldn’t be compromising on the truth or your principles by accepting a change in the law that fell short of what you felt right. Politicians have to compromise all the time, it doesn’t mean that they have necessarily given up their principles.

 

[Doc_Keele]

Suppose there was a random ‘death ray’ that would automatically fire from the skies and kill lots of people all over the world. Now, would y’all say, "Hey, here is a great shield against that death ray. Now, it is only going to work 50% of the time, but hey, we’ll save 50% of the people who would have died. . .so let’s put it in place as the final ultimate solution to the problem. "

Um, don’t y’all think most people would say, “I think it’s great that we’re saving some but we can’t stop here! We need to go on and develop something that will save 100% of the people!”

The counter-argument would be that a better analogy would be that a shield is developed that would protect 90% of people, and most people would say, “let’s use that whilst we develop a shield that protects 100% of people”, but a vocal minority say “we can’t compromise, so no using the shield until it protects 100% (not even 99.999%) of people”.

 

[flyingfish]

I disagree. Take the Terri Shaivo case. If she were no longer considered a person, why wasn’t she simply given a massive overdose of something that would have killed her instantly instead of ‘allowing her to die’ of dehydration and lack of nourishment?

Actually, the debate around whether her husband should be allowed to cut life support centered around whether she was brain dead. People who opposed the husband’s decision were not arguing “yes, she’s brain dead” they were trying to argue that she was still in there, there were videos of her seeming to react to her parents’ presence and so on.

Also, the fight was between the husband who wanted to turn off life support and the parents who wanted to keep it on.

 

[flyingfish]

The flyingfish chart of a Human being’s status

• No mind within a growing fetus = None human being, no basic rights.

That’s what I think.

• A mind with a lesser capacity (the mentally challenged) = Part human/Less basic human rights.
• A mind with a full capacity = Human status being with all the basic rights that go with it.

I don’t see why you want to put words in my mouth when I explicitly said I don’t think this way. I said it doesn’t matter if the mind is advanced or not, whether it’s fully developed or not. Just that it has to be there.

 

[Doc_Keele]

Just to clarify the medical facts: Terry Schiavo, like Tony Bland, was diagnosed as being in a persistent vegetative state and so wasn’t on “life support”, just artificial nutrition and hydration.

 

[LittleSoldier]

While I agree that truth does not allow for compromise, politics does. If political compromise would prevent 95% of abortions now being performed, that’s better than nothing. It would also establish in law that abortion is unacceptable except in extreme conditions, compared to current law which establishes the principle that abortion anytime before birth is acceptable.

The Church teaches that evil means cannot be used, even if the expected ends are good.

I am a Catholic when I’m participating in the making of or debating of law.

Your proposal would allows certain murders to be legitimized, while others remain illegitimate. It’s unfair.

I can’t condone any system where murder is legitimized. It’s wrong.

*Holy Mother, please keep
all unborn children safe today.

St. Francis, please pray for all unwanted and hurt animals.

Lord, please help me accept persecution from a fellow Catholic who believes I am a hypocrite for praying to St. Francis, a saint alive in you. Please help me to be strong and to not bow down to pressure from those who will not see Truth.*

 

[LittleSoldier]

…but you wouldn’t be compromising on the truth or your principles by accepting a change in the law that fell short of what you felt right. Politicians have to compromise all the time, it doesn’t mean that they have necessarily given up their principles.

Politicians don’t have to compromise all the time. They may feel pressure to do so, but they don’t have to succumb to the pressure.

Catholic politicians should *never *leave their faith outside the building when they enter to debate and propose laws. If a politician compromises in a way that goes against her principles, even though she feels the ends justify it, she is a hypocrite.

I believe this hypocrisy is one reason politicians are held in such low regard by most of the population they are involved in with their governing powers.

*Holy Mother, please keep
all unborn children safe today.

St. Francis, please pray for all unwanted and hurt animals.

Lord, please help me accept persecution from a fellow Catholic who believes I am a hypocrite for praying to St. Francis, a saint alive in you. Please help me to be strong and to not bow down to pressure from those who will not see Truth. *

 

[LittleSoldier]

That’s what I think.

I don’t see why you want to put words in my mouth when I explicitly said I don’t think this way. I said it doesn’t matter if the mind is advanced or not, whether it’s fully developed or not. Just that it has to be there.

And how do you determine that the mind is there?

*Holy Mother, please keep
all unborn children safe.

St. Francis, please pray for all unwanted and hurt animals.

Lord, please help me accept persecution from a fellow Catholic who believes I am a hypocrite for praying to St. Francis, a saint alive in you. Please help me to be strong and to not bow down to pressure from those who will not see Truth.

 

[JimG]

The Church teaches that evil means cannot be used, even if the expected ends are good.

I am a Catholic when I’m participating in the making of or debating of law.

Your proposal would allows certain murders to be legitimized, while others remain illegitimate. It’s unfair.

I can’t condone any system where murder is legitimized. It’s wrong.

But you already condone the system by living in the United States under its laws. There is nothing in Catholic moral law which requires that one take no action to save any lives unless all lives can be saved.

I likewise view divorce as a great evil. No-fault divorce has destroyed families and the lives of countless children.
I favor a return to the previous laws requiring sufficient grounds for divorce. But there is no moral requirement for me to settle for nothing less than full imposition of Catholic marital law.

 

[flyingfish]

And how do you determine that the mind is there?

A question to ask neuroscientists and psychologists. To begin with, you’d need a sufficiently developed brain.

 

[Doc_Keele]

Politicians don’t have to compromise all the time. They may feel pressure to do so, but they don’t have to succumb to the pressure

Yes, I’m not sure that’s reflecting the political realities. Compromise isn’t a dirty word. Nor is pragmatism.

 

[Worthy5]

LittleSoldier;.

Catholic politicians should *never *leave their faith outside the building when they enter to debate and propose laws. If a politician compromises in a way that goes against her principles, even though she feels the ends justify it, she is a hypocrite.

Littlesoldier, what would you say if Protestant ministers, in the wake of the abuse scandal in the Church, declared that as a true Christians, (Catholics in their view are not because they believe “works” in salvation), one must support the outlaw of the Catholic Church in America. The Pope is the Anti-Christ as indicated in the Bible, proof of which this scandal shows. Children need to be protected from the insular world of the Catholic Church. It is not a religion, but a cult. No Protestant politician should ever leave their faith outside the building when they enter to debate and propose laws.

Just a thought experiment. What is wrong with this thinking?

.

 

[LittleSoldier]

But you already condone the system by living in the United States under its laws. There is nothing in Catholic moral law which requires that one take no action to save any lives unless all lives can be saved.

I likewise view divorce as a great evil. No-fault divorce has destroyed families and the lives of countless children.
I favor a return to the previous laws requiring sufficient grounds for divorce. But there is no moral requirement for me to settle for nothing less than full imposition of Catholic marital law.

First of all, you are assuming that I live in the USA.

Second of all, you are assuming that if I live in the USA I condone its laws. And that is just not true. The Church teaches that we are not required to comply with unjust laws, and more than that, as Catholics we are required to not comply with unjust laws.

The reason you are going against Church teaching is that your proposal uses evil means (the accepted murder of the unborn who are conceived via rape) to achieve a good ends. That is not acceptable.

CCC 1753:

A good intention (for example, helping one’s neighbor) does not make behavior that is intrinsically disordered, such as lying and calumny, good or just. The end does not justify the means. Thus the condemnation of an innocent person cannot be justified as a legitimate means of saving the nation.

----Who is more innocent than an unborn child, including one who is conceived via rape?

CCC 1756:

It is therefore an error to judge the morality of human acts by considering only the intention that inspires them or the circumstances (environment, social pressure, duress or emergency, etc.) which supply their context. There are acts which, in and of themselves, independently of circumstances and intentions, are always gravely illicit by reason of their object; such as blasphemy and perjury, murder and adultery. One may not do evil so that good may result from it.

[bolding mine]

----Allowing the murder of the unborn who are conceived via rape is evil. It is against Church teaching to do evil so that good may result from it.

CCC 2270:

Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person - among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life.

----Aborting a human being who was conceived via rape is not protecting her.

CCC 2271:

Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable.** Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law.**

[bolding mine]

----Allowing the abortion of a child conceived via rape is gravely contrary to the moral law.

Your proposal is just not acceptable.

*Holy Mother, please keep
all unborn children safe tonight.

St. Francis, please pray for all unwanted and hurt animals.

Lord, please help me accept persecution from a fellow Catholic who believes I am a hypocrite for praying to St. Francis, a saint alive in you. Please help me to be strong and to not bow down to pressure from those who will not see Truth.*