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

[estesbob]

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.

The sex preperation(Im sorry , sex education") programs for schools are designed on the premise that Kids our mindless animals consumed by lust and will fornicate regardless of what they are told. Of course they dont tak this attittude with smoking-if they did i suspcect they would hand out low tar a nicotine cigarretes and promote it as “safe smoking”

 

[vern_humphrey]

The sex preperation(Im sorry , sex education") programs for schools are designed on the premise that Kids our mindless animals consumed by lust and will fornicate regardless of what they are told. Of course they dont tak this attittude with smoking-if they did i suspcect they would hand out low tar a nicotine cigarretes and promote it as “safe smoking”

Only because lawyers couldn’t make money sueing tobacco companies if they did that.

The essense of modern liberalism is that there are two human species. One species – the majority – is stupid, feckless, sex-mad and incapable of making decisions. So they must be ruled by the other species – liberals.

 

[ElizabethAnne]

You missed the whole point. You need to go back and read the thread. Jack is explaining a pro-life solution to an ectopic pregnancy that perserves the fallopian tube for the possibility of a future successful pregnancy.

Jeez, Jack, you are sure a magnet for slander!

guanophore,

Jack is not a victim of slander from me. What I said was, “You seem to be suggesting that anyone who is pro-life must support every woman in the world having as many babies as she possibly can.” The words “seem to be suggesting” clearly demonstrate that I never declared that my interpretation of his comments was correct.

I did not miss the whole point of this thread, and I have read it in its entirety. My post was an effort to try to understand Jack’s definition of pro-life. He said in one post that a pro-life person MUST support preserving the fallopian tube because that is the only thing that would be truly pro-life. I completely disagree with him, and pointed out that people who are pro-life do not need to support everyone having tons of babies and therefore need not support preservation of all fallopian tubes all the time.

 

[jack_hawkins]

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

the self-deception is staring you in the face
I thought you understood the issues and science but it seems I was mistaken
how do you treat ectopic pregnancy then? just let the woman take her chances?

 

[jack_hawkins]

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!?!

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.

many thanks for the clarification guanophore!

 

[jack_hawkins]

Again - “Directly killing an innocent living human being is never permissable”

well that can be clearly argued to not be the case
plus it is arguable that an ectopic pregnancy being effectively non-viable is not an “innocent living[sic] human being”

 

[guanophore]

well that can be clearly argued to not be the case

This is probably off topic, too, but in what case might one be justified taking the life of a innocent human being?

plus it is arguable that an ectopic pregnancy being effectively non-viable is not an “innocent living[sic] human being”

That argurment won’t get you very far, since the foundation of the presumption is that life begins at conception, and therefore, the viability of the embryo/fetus is irrelevant.

I am not sure that removing the zygote/embryo from the area in which it is misimplanted can be properly described as “double effect” either. I suppose it can be construed as an attempt to treat the mother for some disease or “condition” (ectopic pregnancy). However, it seems to me that, if the treatment of choice is to terminate the embryo, you are still back where you started.

 

[fix]

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.

It is an innocent life. Moral acts have an intent and a means and an end. Treatment that directly ends the killing of innocent life is immoral. Simply calling an evil intent and/or an evil means by another name does not make it less evil.

 

[estesbob]

well that can be clearly argued to not be the case
plus it is arguable that an ectopic pregnancy being effectively non-viable is not an “innocent living[sic] human being”

What are the other circumstances where you feel abortion is OK?

 

[jack_hawkins]

This is probably off topic, too, but in what case might one be justified taking the life of a innocent human being?

if someone with a psychosis is wielding a gun, then he/she may have to be killed to prevent loss of life for example
they are innocent of malice, being psychotic

the viability of the embryo/fetus is irrelevant.

how can it be? it is crucial to the point
logic must not go near the sacred cows lest people find out the inconsistencies…

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Are there any people on here who were at one time in their lives for abortion and now against it? Or anyone on here that is still for abortion?

I am genuinely curious about general arguments heard in the abortion debate. Did you, as a pro-choicer, believe these arguments, or was it more of a smokescreen or distraction?

For example, I have found in my own debating that the majority of accusations tossed at me are things such as:

“It’s not a person”

“It’s not a baby”

“You only care about babies, not women”

“Women will just go back to coat hangers if it’s made illegal”

“Abortion is needed in case a woman’s life is in danger”

In general, was there some experience in your life, or some authority/mentor figure who ingrained these beliefs in you? When arguing for abortion, was there a sincere belief that the pre-born child was human but not person, or that anti-abortion protestors had an agenda and didn’t care about women?

I’m sorry if any of this sounds leading. I’m not trying to bait, I really am curious. Because I know some people who honestly believe it’s not a person until it is completely removed from the birth canal. Or that pro-lifers are nuts who want to degrade women…etc.

What I am wondering is, did this belief form through taking a stance and needing an argument to hold onto? From personal experiences? Maybe secondhand stories? Or scare tactics from a leader?

What is meant by “being pro-choice” ?​

This may seem an odd question - but, in my experience, those who are opposed to abortion but do not agree with others on the best way in which to do something about it, have been labelled “pro-choice” by those with whom they don’t agree. So I for one would like to be sure of what you mean

To add to your list:

“Anti-abortionists have shown they are prepared to kill - so they are at worst, murderous hypocrites, & at best, very inconsistent”

“The Church seems to be far more interested in making sure that foetuses are born, than in looking after them & their mothers once they are born”

In the forms in which they are stated, both of these complaints are unjust - but neither of them is wholly without foundation; the first more than the second, perhaps.

 

[guanophore]

It is an innocent life. Moral acts have an intent and a means and an end. Treatment that directly ends the killing of innocent life is immoral. Simply calling an evil intent and/or an evil means by another name does not make it less evil.

I was not speaking of the treatment of ectopic pregnancy in moral terms, but in medical terms. From a medical point of view, the treatment of the mother’s condition results in the loss of the embryo. The embryo was not situated such that completion of a successful pregnancy and birth was possible, and serious complications for the mother are present. These are the facts. I was not advocating and “evil” act. That would presume the “intention” to do harm to the embryo, which has, by it’s own accord, entered into a harmful state of existence without any intervention from the outside.

if someone with a psychosis is wielding a gun, then he/she may have to be killed to prevent loss of life for example they are innocent of malice, being psychotic

Excellent example!

(Viable fetus) is crucial to the point sadly, this thread shows how even simple discussion of these matters is against the ethos of CAF to even dare to question the “pro-death” oops “pro-life” agenda means getting warnings and infractions

Did you get censured?!

logic must not go near the sacred cows lest people find out the inconsistencies…

I think the point is well made that the embryo in an ectopic situation cannot be considered viable. I know there are times when such a pregnancy can be carried to term, but I agree with you that they are as “rare as hen’s teeth”. I do not think that removing the embryo in this situation is an “evil means to an end” as has been suggested. I also think that an effort to preserve the fallopian tube toward future possiblility of pregnancy is a pro-life decision. Perhaps I will get censured too?

 

[Amolibri]

I do agree that there are those who are against abortion but advocate the death penalty, but I really think that these are very few. *I’m afraid I don’t agree that there are “very few” * I’ll try to find some polling on that one.
After all the Pope asks us to be pro-life from conception to natural death. *Not just from conception until you commit some kind of crime. * This is the way I understand the Catholic [Bishops] position on the death penalty.

Pro life is not SOME lives, it is all lives. I’ve seen in other Catholic forums many so-called “exceptions” to the position on the death penalty…can’t remember what source was cited, but there were people insisting that the church is not totally vs. the death penalty.

As far as the viability issue, I agree with Jack on the ectopic pregancy. Modern medicine is meant to help women in such circumstances. The women and their doctors are the ones who need to decide.

 

[mapleoak]

the self-deception is staring you in the face
I thought you understood the issues and science but it seems I was mistaken
how do you treat ectopic pregnancy then? just let the woman take her chances?

Did I phrase the statement in an ambiguous way? I said it is not justifiable to kill the person stuck in the tube on merit of it just so happening to be there. Now, I ask YOU to reread my earlier posts to see if I understand what I am talking about. In all fairness, then please enlighten me of my failure to understand the science behind this issue.

In Christ - J.M.J.
Mapleoak

 

[mapleoak]

I was not speaking of the treatment of ectopic pregnancy in moral terms, but in medical terms. From a medical point of view, the treatment of the mother’s condition results in the loss of the embryo. The embryo was not situated such that completion of a successful pregnancy and birth was possible, and serious complications for the mother are present.

Morality of course, depends on intent behing the treatment. Treatment can be of different varieties. Some are intended to kill, others just so happen to result in death. Some treat the unborn itself as a disease.

if someone with a psychosis is wielding a gun, then he/she may have to be killed to prevent loss of life for example
they are innocent of malice, being psychotic
how can it be? it is crucial to the point

In this instance, there is still no justification in directly intending the death of the person. Are you now choosing between the life of the psychosis patient or the person he/she may kill?

In Christ - J.M.J.
Mapleoak

 

[mapleoak]

It is an innocent life. Moral acts have an intent and a means and an end. Treatment that directly ends the killing of innocent life is immoral. Simply calling an evil intent and/or an evil means by another name does not make it less evil.

Couldn’t be said better

In Christ - J.M.J.
Mapleoak

 

[Grace_Angel]

Removing an infected fallopian tube which contains a fetus is not a direct abortion (the intention is not to kill the child but rather the removal of the infected tube) and is considered an ethical procedure.
Do you have another example of the life of the mother vs the life of the baby?

Cancer of uterus which requires chemotherapy.
We are reminded of St Gianna Molla who was found to have cancer but refused tgreatment to save the life of her newly conceived baby (a daughter).
I recently met her sister (Sr. Virginia) in Portugal in Fatima…so lovely. The sister of a recognised church declared Saint. Wow.
GraceAngel.

 

[church_mouse]

Cancer of uterus which requires chemotherapy.
We are reminded of St Gianna Molla who was found to have cancer but refused tgreatment to save the life of her newly conceived baby (a daughter).
I recently met her sister (Sr. Virginia) in Portugal in Fatima…so lovely. The sister of a recognised church declared Saint. Wow.
GraceAngel.

Yes, a beautiful saint for our day! How fortunate for you to meet her sister too.

 

[fix]

I was not speaking of the treatment of ectopic pregnancy in moral terms, but in medical terms. From a medical point of view, the treatment of the mother’s condition results in the loss of the embryo. The embryo was not situated such that completion of a successful pregnancy and birth was possible, and serious complications for the mother are present. These are the facts. I was not advocating and “evil” act. That would presume the “intention” to do harm to the embryo, which has, by it’s own accord, entered into a harmful state of existence without any intervention from the outside.

Excellent example!

Did you get censured?!

I think the point is well made that the embryo in an ectopic situation cannot be considered viable. I know there are times when such a pregnancy can be carried to term, but I agree with you that they are as “rare as hen’s teeth”. I do not think that removing the embryo in this situation is an “evil means to an end” as has been suggested. I also think that an effort to preserve the fallopian tube toward future possiblility of pregnancy is a pro-life decision. Perhaps I will get censured too?

The fetus is never an unjust aggressor and never guilty. The fetus is innocent. Medical treatment should be aimed at treating pathology, not killing innocent people.

The baby is not pathology. In the example used here that portion of the tube is pathological and that should be the subject of medical intervention. That science does not have the capability to sustain the baby at this time does not mean we are justified in intentionally killing the fetus.

 

[jack_hawkins]

As far as the viability issue, I agree with Jack on the ectopic pregancy. Modern medicine is meant to help women in such circumstances. The women and their doctors are the ones who need to decide.

let’s try and think like Jesus would
we are allowed to use our common sense