Pro-abortion arguments...those who are pro-choice, what do/did you really believe?

[mapleoak]

That is why we speak of direct and indirect abortion. I know some Catholic moralists claim methotrexate use is justified by double effect, but I cannot see how that passes the test.

Exactly right. That is why these definitions need to be clarified. The direct and intentional killing of an innocent embryo is always wrong. Methotrexate is nothing more than poison when used in these situations.

In Christ - J.M.J.
Mapleoak

 

[hasikelee]

right let’s explain the science
ectopic pregnancy is where the enbryo implants somewhere it shouldn’t
the most common place is the Fallopian tubes/salpinges (singular salpinx)
this may be due to a problem in the tubes affecting egg transport, but clearly not always as the embryo has a remarkable ability to implant, even implanting in the pouch of Douglas for example or on the bowel
the pregnancy cannot go to term
this pregnancy will rupture
the aim of treatment is destroy this non-viable pregnancy
this is why tubal preservation is possible and why methotrexate is an alternative treatment
they are all morally equivalent, as the pregnancy has to be terminated to save the mother’s life

In other words, you sanction killing everyone when disease is present in one or two people.

Perhaps dropping a bomb on a whole city, instead of trying to warn people ahead of time.

Why not just chop the whole arm off instead of trying to amputate the finger and stop the spread of disease.

Overkill is the sign of the radical.

Interestingly, with all the fuss over such treatments as IVF and the rush to experiment on humans in the zygote or embryonic stage, good may indeed come of it in that careful observance of these practices may lead to a discovery on preventing ectopic pregnancies and in the instance of one, saving both the mother and her child.

 

[hasikelee]

Well, I am going to answer the OP’s question rather than get involved in the current argument. When I was in highschool and younger, I didn’t really know much about the development of a fetus. My primary reason for being what I considered prochoice was that in some cases, these “unwanted” babies were going to be born into poverty, abuse, or worse. I thouht these babies were better off aborted than with a mother who does drugs, abuses the child mentally or physically, who would be bumped from home to home in foster care, or just completely unloved. I’m still not sure that I wasn’t right, but it doesn’t matter because murder is never an option and never alright.

Moocow, thank you for sharing. This is one argument in which I am particularly interested. I have wondered if this argument exists due to a desensitization towards violence, or perhaps an innocent ignorance towards violence?

It seems that this argument is very popular with naturally peaceful, younger, gentler debaters.

I have always wondered if this argument is able to exist because abortion is out of sight, out of mind. I have met such peaceful and friendly people who support this that it leaves me guessing they must not know.

Have you found this to be true in your experience?

 

[jack_hawkins]

Hi guanophore
yes I have let my frustration with “pro-life” fanatics affect my presentation
the problem with an ectopic pregnancy is -
it is not viable - that is to say that it cannot continue and produce a baby at the end of the process
therefore the embryo is not going to produce a life in the normally accepted sense of the word
do you agree with that logic?
with current technology there is not a way of taking that embryo and putting it in the uterus
agreed?
if the ectopic pregnancy is allowed to continue the mother’s life is at very serious risk
agreed?
the only way to get rid of this risk is to destroy the pregnancy
agreed?
salpingectomy destroys the pregnancy
agreed?
so therefore it does the same as surgery that removes the embryo but preserves the tube
agreed?
or methotrexate?
agreed?
do you see the logic?
treatment of ectopic pregnancy with current technology requires destruction of the embryo
if you disagree with that you are consigning a large number of women to death
that is the problem with working from a flawed idea “The direct and intentional killing of an innocent embryo is always wrong” and applying it to a real life situation - you perversely become “pro-death” instead of “pro-life”
I am the pro-life campaigner here

 

[mapleoak]

the problem with an ectopic pregnancy is -
it is not viable - that is to say that it cannot continue and produce a baby at the end of the process

Not “always” true.

therefore the embryo is not going to produce a life in the normally accepted sense of the word
do you agree with that logic?

Agreed the embryo is not going to produce a life. The embyo itself is already a living human being.

with current technology there is not a way of taking that embryo and putting it in the uterus
agreed?

Not sure, and I admit I don’t know this one. This has been done with animals. Also not sure what is meant by this. If a person (in this case the embryo) is going to die anyway, might as well just kill them and get it over with?

if the ectopic pregnancy is allowed to continue the mother’s life is at very serious risk
agreed?

Agreed. There are many things things in life that are a serious risk.

the only way to get rid of this risk is to destroy the pregnancy
agreed?

Disagreed. Pregnancy is an event. An embryo is a living human being. Directly killing a living human being is never permissable.

salpingectomy destroys the pregnancy
agreed?

Agreed

so therefore it does the same as surgery that removes the embryo but preserves the tube
agreed?

Disagreed. It depends on what is meant by “does the same”. One procedure removes the tube, one doesn’t. Different. In one procedure the baby unfortunately dies. In the other the baby is killed or murdered.

or methotrexate?
agreed?

Same here.

do you see the logic?

No

treatment of ectopic pregnancy with current technology requires destruction of the embryo
if you disagree with that you are consigning a large number of women to death

No, since when is accepting God’s will consigning anyone to death.

that is the problem with working from a flawed idea “The direct and intentional killing of an innocent embryo is always wrong” and applying it to a real life situation - you perversely become “pro-death” instead of “pro-life”

Funny twist of logic, indeed.

In Christ - J.M.J.
Mapleoak

 

[jack_hawkins]

Not “always” true

it’s as rare as hen’s teeth - so it doesn’t affect the argument at all
it’s not something you’d bet your life on - which you would be doing - I believe the very rare examples have been intra-abdominal?

Disagreed. It depends on what is meant by “does the same”. One procedure removes the tube, one doesn’t. Different. In one procedure the baby unfortunately dies. In the other the baby is killed or murdered

you obviously are completely missing the point
please read what I am saying, otherwise you will continue to come to the same illogical conclusion as the “pro-life” fanatics

No, since when is accepting God’s will consigning anyone to death.

well that’s a major example of false opposition for a start!
if you extrapolate that logic then passive euthanasia is Ok in all circumstances, indeed any medical treatment is obstructing the will of God
so you like the others are happy for women to die…
“pro-death”!

 

[Grace_Angel]

It’s not really possible to have a rational discussion of anything remotely “pro-life” as defined by “pro-life” extremists on this board. I particularly take issue with their description of being “pro-life” as the more rabid campaigners actually promote death in certain circumstances. Basically some people when they take up the “pro-life” banner abandon all belief in science and logic and take on all the less desirable traits of secular rights groups.

Jack you cannot be halfway when it concerns life. You are either pro life or not. This is what the pro choice brigade depend upon, wishy washy people like you. Or as Jesus might have said lukewarm ones.
Life is not negotiable. Science, logic or anything else you might want to push forward you can, but you are either pro life from the moment of conception to natural end, or you are not. You are lukewarm, and remember what Jesus said he does with lukewarm followers. Jack without the “right” to be born and to live then all other rights, logic, science, is useless. Sorry not with you in this instance.
GraceAngel.

 

[jack_hawkins]

Jack you cannot be halfway when it concerns life. You are either pro life or not

That is precisely the sort of half-baked thinking I am on about.

This is what the pro choice brigade depend upon, wishy washy people like you

How exactly are you defining wishy-washy? Anyone that dares to think, use logic or disagree with the fanatics?

Or as Jesus might have said lukewarm ones.
Life is not negotiable. Science, logic or anything else you might want to push forward you can, but you are either pro life from the moment of conception to natural end, or you are not. You are lukewarm, and remember what Jesus said he does with lukewarm followers. Jack without the “right” to be born and to live then all other rights, logic, science, is useless. Sorry not with you in this instance.
GraceAngel.

well you have obviously not followed where I am coming from
sorry, I don’t believe in being “pro-death” under the guise of being “pro-life” - and I can’t see how that’s remotely lukewarm?
what’s “prolife” about expecting a mother and baby to die because of an illogical stance?
what’s “pro-life” about letting people catch HIV when it could be prevented?
I could go on

 

[mapleoak]

well that’s a major example of false opposition for a start!
if you extrapolate that logic then passive euthanasia is Ok in all circumstances, indeed any medical treatment is obstructing the will of God
so you like the others are happy for women to die…
“pro-death”!

No, “like the others”, I am not happy for women to die. Medical treatment when use to promote “life” and health, not death, is certainly in line with the Will of God, not an obstruction. Ultimately, God is the arbiter of life and death, and we are not free to use any immoral means (killing a child), even though good may come result from it (saving the mother’s life).

In Christ - J.M.J.
Mapleoak

 

[jack_hawkins]

No, “like the others”, I am not happy for women to die. Medical treatment when use to promote “life” and health, not death, is certainly in line with the Will of God, not an obstruction. Ultimately, God is the arbiter of life and death, and we are not free to use any immoral means (killing a child), even though good may come result from it (saving the mother’s life).

In Christ - J.M.J.
Mapleoak

but all methods of treating ectopic pregnancy destroy the embryo, so you are performing feats of mental gymnastics to say that you are not destroying the embryo - self-deception
is there any way with current technology to treat ectopic pregnancy without destroying that pregnancy?

 

[mapleoak]

but all methods of treating ectopic pregnancy destroy the embryo, so you are performing feats of mental gymnastics to say that you are not destroying the embryo - self-deception
is there any way with current technology to treat ectopic pregnancy without destroying that pregnancy?

No there isn’t. To kill an embryo just by virtue of the fact that it is located in a fallopian tube is not justifiable. Where is the self deception?

In Christ - J.M.J.
Mapleoak

 

[fix]

but all methods of treating ectopic pregnancy destroy the embryo, so you are performing feats of mental gymnastics to say that you are not destroying the embryo - self-deception
is there any way with current technology to treat ectopic pregnancy without destroying that pregnancy?

Are you claiming intentions play no role in moral reasoning?

 

[guanophore]

Disagreed. Pregnancy is an event. An embryo is a living human being. Directly killing a living human being is never permissable.

Does that mean that you also oppose the death penalty, and the war in Iraq? I realize this question has the potential of getting us off topic, but if your pro-life stance is based on this principle, then the principle should apply throughout.

No, since when is accepting God’s will consigning anyone to death.

I would like to point out that Jesus consigned Himself to death in order to fulfill the Father’s will, and that he prophesied to Peter that Peter would also be consigned to death by the will of the Father.

 

[guanophore]

Jack you cannot be halfway when it concerns life. You are either pro life or not. This is what the pro choice brigade depend upon, wishy washy people like you. Or as Jesus might have said lukewarm ones.
Life is not negotiable. Science, logic or anything else you might want to push forward you can, but you are either pro life from the moment of conception to natural end, or you are not. You are lukewarm, and remember what Jesus said he does with lukewarm followers. Jack without the “right” to be born and to live then all other rights, logic, science, is useless. Sorry not with you in this instance.
GraceAngel.

Not only is this an unfounded and false accusation against Jack, but it is illogical as well. you are accusing Jack of not being “pro-life” because he is suggesting that the embryo should be removed in the case of an ectopic pregnancy. You are using as the basis of your arguement that the embryo has the “right” to be born. This is faulty because the ectopic embroyo does not have that chance. In addition to not being able to develop and be born normally, the ectopic pregnancy also threatens the life of the mother. To accuse Jack of depriving the misplaced embryo of something that embryo never had in the first place is not logical. Jack is not the one who allowed the embryo to plant in the wrong place! How did it get to be his fault!?!

 

[guanophore]

Jack you cannot be halfway when it concerns life. You are either pro life or not. This is what the pro choice brigade depend upon, wishy washy people like you. Or as Jesus might have said lukewarm ones.
Life is not negotiable. Science, logic or anything else you might want to push forward you can, but you are either pro life from the moment of conception to natural end, or you are not. You are lukewarm, and remember what Jesus said he does with lukewarm followers. Jack without the “right” to be born and to live then all other rights, logic, science, is useless. Sorry not with you in this instance.
GraceAngel.

Not only is this an unfounded and false accusation against Jack, but it is illogical as well. you are accusing Jack of not being “pro-life” because he is suggesting that the embryo should be removed in the case of an ectopic pregnancy. You are using as the basis of your arguement that the embryo has the “right” to be born. This is faulty because the ectopic embroyo does not have that chance. In addition to not being able to develop and be born normally, the ectopic pregnancy also threatens the life of the mother. To accuse Jack of depriving the misplaced embryo of something that embryo never had in the first place is not logical. Jack is not the one who allowed the embryo to plant in the wrong place! How did it get to be his fault!?!

but all methods of treating ectopic pregnancy destroy the embryo, so you are performing feats of mental gymnastics to say that you are not destroying the embryo - self-deception
is there any way with current technology to treat ectopic pregnancy without destroying that pregnancy?

It may be that this “event” cannot even be termed properly a “pregnancy”. It does not meet the criteria for definition of a pregnancy. In pregnancy, the embryo has a reasonable or likely chance of being born, if the event is not interfered with from the outside. In the case of an egg planting in the tube, or on the intestine, treatment will cause what might be more properly described as a miscarriage.

 

[fraisinette]

When confronted with opinions like this woman’s, I have occasionally suggested that “having control” over your own life can also include not having sex unless you are prepared to have the child that could result. The usual response is that I am hopelessly naive for even thinking that way.

I once said the same thing on a Livejournal forum and people called me a moron, a fascist, a misogynist, told me that I think women are nothing but uteruses on legs… And they called me worse things.

 

[church_mouse]

guanophore:

It may be that this “event” cannot even be termed properly a “pregnancy”. It does not meet the criteria for definition of a pregnancy. In pregnancy, the embryo has a reasonable or likely chance of being born, if the event is not interfered with from the outside. In the case of an egg planting in the tube, or on the intestine, treatment will cause what might be more properly described as a miscarriage.

A simple search in any dictionary will show your definitons of pregnancy and miscarriage are incorrect.

 

[vern_humphrey]

This is apples and oranges. The zygote (by product of conception) is a normal function of the body. It is not a chemical or substance that is “added” such as a medication. Furthermore, a lobotomy is considered an invasive procedure that makes permanent changes to the physiology, where abortion is not.

What in the world are you talking about?

The issue is not the zygote, but the mental trauma many women feel after being aborted – especially when they learn more about life in the womb.

I am curious to know what type of morally acceptable intervention is considered when the embryo implants in the colon.

Read the Catechism and you will get an answer to that question. The Church’s position is that in the case where the baby is doomed, then efforts to safe the mother are examples of Double Effect.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I once said the same thing on a Livejournal forum and people called me a moron, a fascist, a misogynist, told me that I think women are nothing but uteruses on legs… And they called me worse things.

It would seem to me that people who claim it is “unrealistic” for women to not have sex and get pregnant when they don’t want a child are the ones who truly believe a woman is “nothing but uteruses on legs.”

They see women as completely unable to control their desires and actions – driven by primal urges they cannot withstand or understand.

 

[mapleoak]

Disagreed. Pregnancy is an event. An embryo is a living human being. Directly killing a living human being is never permissable.

Does that mean that you also oppose the death penalty, and the war in Iraq? I realize this question has the potential of getting us off topic, but if your pro-life stance is based on this principle, then the principle should apply throughout.

Meant to say “Directly killing an INNOCENT living human being is never permissable.”

Sorry.

I would like to point out that Jesus consigned Himself to death in order to fulfill the Father’s will, and that he prophesied to Peter that Peter would also be consigned to death by the will of the Father.

Ah, yes. But He didn’t put Himself to death nor did Peter put himself to death. They were killed. Again - “Directly killing an innocent living human being is never permissable”.

In Christ - J.M.J.
Mapleoak