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

[church_mouse]

you can see from a previous post that I acknowledge the work of the catholic church in supporting pregnant women (but no I have never worked in a CPC)
that is not my point
my point is the attitude of some Christians in condemning unwed pregnant mothers, single or not

My point is, if you saw first hand how pregnant women were treated by those who care for both mother and baby you wouldn’t make such allegations:

until single mothers are supported without the judgmental attitudes, then it will always be attractive to “remove the evidence of the crime”
so all those who are so condemning must IMO take some of the blame for abortions

 

[church_mouse]

And just an observation way off topic: you sure do have an awful lot of time for a physician (over 1500 posts in 3 months!!). Perhaps you are retired or maybe the healthcare business is just very slow over there in UK?

 

[vern_humphrey]

you can see from a previous post that I acknowledge the work of the catholic church in supporting pregnant women (but no I have never worked in a CPC)
that is not my point
my point is the attitude of some Christians in condemning unwed pregnant mothers, single or not

I’m always bemused at how people who defend abortion want to blame the people who work to prevent abortion for all the evils of the world.

I’ll guarentee you that people who work in crisis pregnancy centers don’t condemn the unwed mother – nor do people who do other work with them.

By the way, Jack – I notice you’ve stopped using capital letters at the beginning of sentences, and youv’e started crowding your posts all together, and dropping punctuation. Who’s doing your typing these days, Blind Pew?

 

[mapleoak]

For the most part. I am basically 100% pro-life in that I don’t agree w/abortion in any circumstances.

Bingo!!

That being said I certainly can see why people would feel compelled to do so in the event where that is the only option to save the mother’s life.

Certainly motivated by a compassion of some sort. Though compassion does not justify immoral action.

I just fear the slippery slope of rationalizing abortion for other circumstances, e.g. the mother’s “health,” which can be a big umbrella which can cover many meanings.

It is not possible to rationalize as one poster seems to think. One of my original posts on this thread pointed out that once that rationalization starts, it is very true that slope does get very slippery:

Much of what many pro-life people say, who do not fully understand what ectopic pregnancy is or why it may occur, are poor attempts to justify the unfortunate death of the unborn child. Based on such grounds they have very little in the way of argument for defending the decision to solve this ‘problem’. In fact they are easily refuted when they fall from their moral basis.

your comment is not very clear - could you expand?

Yes, in one post you said an ectopic pregnancy does not consist of a living human being and then you refer to it as a living human being.

I have already, by citing the example of AAA as preventative surgery. It is obviously pertinent to the point you raised of preventative surgery

Is that the best you can do? Sorry, not convinced. Did not make the point.

you have no intention of decisive action according to your previous comments about “preventative surgery”
a good doctor bases his decisions on his knowledge of the prognosis of a particular condition, rather than waiting to react to the situation as it develops

That is most certainly correct. No action that is going to result in the death of a human being can be acceptable for the purposes of preventative surgery, nor can it be adequately rationalized.

In Christ - J.M.J.
Mapleoak

 

[Imryl]

You already did.

Actually I made a point to say there were a thousand arguments just like the one you posted, but I wasn’t going to get into it. Knowing someone like you would post.

No opinion to it – do you deny that you see the unborn child as having less rights than those already born? And that you use that concept in your argument?

A cluster of cells may be ‘living’ in the organic sense, but that does not constitute a living breathing, thinking, feeling thing. You better go turn yourself into the justice department, all those trees you’ve killed, bacteria you’ve decimated with your cleaners, all the insects that you have plastered on your windshield.

Now when did the unborn person get due process of law before being deprived of life? When was the arrest warrant served? What Grand Jury issued a True Bill? Who was the unborn person’s defense attorney? What jury found the unborn person guilty of a capital crime? What judge handed down the death sentence?

I don’t see anything in your articles that references an unborn child. There’s a reason why our laws are specific. I’m quite certain that when the constitution was drafted, they weren’t even considering abortion. They couldn’t forsee the technological advances hundreds of years later. (Unfortunately I can’t quote your quote, and since I don’tknow it by heart, I’ll probably edit this post.) But mayhaps you should consider the context that paragraph was actually addressing. Namely crime. But in the spirit of being specific… it’s not just crime, but it certainly isn’t referring to abortion.

I’m busy today – how about tomorrow?

So typical.

What a cop-out! You were willing to kill her, were you not?

I was willing to have an abortion which would have prevented her from having a life, yes. But kill would indicate I thought she was alive at that point.

Actually, I and my parish are constantly busy with things like this. Our tiny Catholic community is deeply involved in caring for people, helping the needy, assisting young girls who are pregnant, and so on.

Want a reward? Heh.

Do you consider yourself the only person who knos people not as fortunate as yourself?

Nope.

You don’t get involved in coaching kids in school, helping adults learn to read, giving math tutoring to people going to nursing school, and so on? How is it a person who supports abortion knows better than those who constantly work to help pregnant girls?

I tutor a lot of people, but now you’re making assumptions about my personal life to which you have no knowledge. I have suggested abortion to people who have asked my advice, and I also told them to consider how they might feel afterward. I have also helped plenty of ‘pregnant’ friends of mine.

How is it a person who supports abortion knows better than those who constantly work to help pregnant girls?

How is it a person who doesn’t know me, thinks they know how I spend my time.

You seem to have formed in your imagination a picture of how the rest of us think and behave – and you condemn us based on your imagination.

I have only presented a single opinion. Much like you.

 

[church_mouse]

your comment is not very clear - could you expand?when have I ever said that? your question is just trying to muddy the waters
I have already, by citing the example of AAA as preventative surgery
it is obviously pertinent to the point you raised of preventative surgery
you have no intention of decisive action according to your previous comments about “preventative surgery”
a good doctor bases his decisions on his knowledge of the prognosis of a particular condition, rather than waiting to react to the situation as it develops

Really? They sure do things differently over there in the UK. Over here, AAA’s (as per you own example) are often monitored and surgical intervention is delayed and sometimes not deemed necessary at all…not that that is comparable to the 2 lives involved in ectopic pregnancy.

 

[Imryl]

I’m always bemused at how people who defend abortion want to blame the people who work to prevent abortion for all the evils of the world.

No one is blaming anyone for the evil in the world. Less blowing smoke, more action.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Actually I made a point to say there were a thousand arguments just like the one you posted, but I wasn’t going to get into it. Knowing someone like you would post.

Someone like me?

I hate to be the one to tell you, but there just aren’t that many charming, witty, devilishly handsome men out there.

A cluster of cells may be ‘living’ in the organic sense, but that does not constitute a living breathing, thinking, feeling thing.

It is a living human being. We come in all sorts of configurations – from unborn children to old ladies with Alzheimers. But we all have the right to live.

You better go turn yourself into the justice department, all those trees you’ve killed, bacteria you’ve decimated with your cleaners, all the insects that you have plastered on your windshield.

Are you one of those people who thinks butterflys should have the right to vote?

I don’t see anything in your articles that references an unborn child. There’s a reason why our laws are specific. I’m quite certain that when the constitution was drafted, they weren’t even considering abortion.

You’re right – if they thought of if at all, it was to consider it the sordid crime it is. They certainly didn’t mean to legalize it and promote it, nor pay for it with government funds.

They couldn’t forsee the technological advances hundreds of years later. (Unfortunately I can’t quote your quote, and since I don’tknow it by heart, I’ll probably edit this post.) But mayhaps you should consider the context that paragraph was actually addressing. Namely crime. But in the spirit of being specific… it’s not just crime, but it certainly isn’t referring to abortion.

They couldn’t forsee radio, television, telephones, high-speed preses, the internet, etc. But that doesn’t negate freedom of the press or of speech, now does it?

So typical.

If you’re all that impatient, why not do it yourself?

I was willing to have an abortion which would have prevented her from having a life, yes. But kill would indicate I thought she was alive at that point.a

You thought she was dead? And she somehow came back to life?

Want a reward? Heh.

I have my reward, many times over.

I tutor a lot of people, but now you’re making assumptions about my personal life to which you have no knowledge. I have suggested abortion to people who have asked my advice, and I also told them to consider how they might feel afterward. I have also helped plenty of ‘pregnant’ friends of mine.

So you have materially assisted in an abortion?

How is it a person who doesn’t know me, thinks they know how I spend my time.

I was going to ask you that same question when I read your pronouncements on those who oppose abortion.

I have only presented a single opinion. Much like you.

Except that mine is in accord with science (the unborn child’s unique DNA proves it is a living human being) and the Church.

 

[jedimasterham]

well, I’m pro choice obviously… I would never want to limit ones freedom at all. If someone wants to kill me, then do it, but face the consequences. I was almost aborted, but my birthmom decided to adopt me to her friend when I was born… So I’m thankful that my birthmom had pro choice and had enough constraint to not accept abortion… So I’m alive and well today.

 

[vern_humphrey]

No one is blaming anyone for the evil in the world. Less blowing smoke, more action.

More action like this?

I have suggested abortion to people who have asked my advice,

Did you phone to make an appointment for them, and drive them to the abortionist, too?

 

[church_mouse]

A cluster of cells may be ‘living’ in the organic sense, but that does not constitute a living breathing, thinking, feeling thing. You better go turn yourself into the justice department, all those trees you’ve killed, bacteria you’ve decimated with your cleaners, all the insects that you have plastered on your windshield.

 

[Imryl]

It is a living human being. We come in all sorts of configurations – from unborn children to old ladies with Alzheimers. But we all have the right to live.

Opinions.

Are you one of those people who thinks butterflys should have the right to vote?

Naw

You’re right – if they thought of if at all, it was to consider it the sordid crime it is. They certainly didn’t mean to legalize it and promote it, nor pay for it with government funds.

It’s still just a moral opinion.

They couldn’t forsee radio, television, telephones, high-speed preses, the internet, etc. But that doesn’t negate freedom of the press or of speech, now does it?

No, but they did have to make new laws to address them, both to expand, and regulate their use.

If you’re all that impatient, why not do it yourself?

I never claimed to be impatient about wanting to die. But I certainly don’t fear it.

You thought she was dead? And she somehow came back to life?

She was neither dead or alive, otherwise I kill someone every month, when I ovulate.

So you have materially assisted in an abortion?

I suppose so.

Except that mine is in accord with science (the unborn child’s unique DNA proves it is a living human being) and the Church.

It’s not living yet. It has the potential to be a living human being.

You could, if so inclined, check the medical library and see what the embryology text book considers that “cluster of cells”. Hint: human…

So what are animals? Chopped liver? I know you’re not suggesting that. But that’s a fairly general statement. You’re not ‘alive’ until you can live outside your mothers womb. (Which is strickly just my opinion by the way)

I’m truly sorry you have this misconception.

There’s no misconception. There’s a difference in opinion.

Did you phone to make an appointment for them, and drive them to the abortionist, too?

I would have if I had been asked.

 

[church_mouse]

She was neither dead or alive, otherwise I kill someone every month, when I ovulate.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Opinions.

No, science. Unless you are prepared to claim and prove that the unborn child is not living, does not have huiman DNA, and does not have its own DNA.

It’s still just a moral opinion.

As opposed to an immoral opinion, coincocked to justify the killing of a wholly-innocent human being.

No, but they did have to make new laws to address them, both to expand, and regulate their use.

Did they abolish those rights in the new technology?

Hardly! In fact, bloggers, something the Founding Fathers never dreamed of, are now held to be journalists.

What has happened is that human rights have expanded to keep up with technology – whereas you want to limit and contract them, denying them to certain classes of humans.

I never claimed to be impatient about wanting to die. But I certainly don’t fear it.

So when are you going?

She was neither dead or alive, otherwise I kill someone every month, when I ovulate.

Do you claim your ovum has its own DNA?

If so, you are a unique individual!

I suppose so.

Then you hardly have the moral standing to lecture to the rest of us.

It’s not living yet. It has the potential to be a living human being.

It has its own, unique DNA, it grows, it ingests nutrients and excretes waste products. It is living by definition.

 

[Imryl]

Ah yes but the potential was there, I just choose not to have sex that month. Again, obviously I don’t believe this… but this arguement can go either way.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Ah yes but the potential was there, I just choose not to have sex that month. Again, obviously I don’t believe this… but this arguement can go either way.

We are not talking about “potential.” We are talking about actual human beings, who have their own, unique human DNA.

The right to life is the most fundamental of all human rights. Without a right to life, all other rights are valueless. What good does freedom of speech do a dead man? How can a corpse exercise the right to trial by jury?

The right to life accrues to each of us as a part of our basic humanity. It is as much a part of us as our minds, our personalities, or our arms and legs. It is given to us by no one. It is ours merely because we are living human beings.

There are those who say that “society” or the government decides when we get the right to life. If that is so, then it is no right at all, but merely a privilege, for if the government can grant the right to life, it can surely withhold it. Once you accept that the government has this power, you must accept, willy-nilly that the government can decree some people – perhaps Jews, or Blacks or Catholics – never get the right to life.

If, therefore there is such a thing as a right to life, it must accrue to every living human being. This sets up a simple, three-part test.

 Is the unborn child living? If it were not, we would not be having this debate!

 Is it human? Check the DNA. If it has rabbit or squirrel DNA, then it is not human. But if it has human DNA, it is human.

 But is it a being? Check the DNA again. If it has the mother’s DNA, then it is a part of her body. But if it has its own DNA, then it is a being – a separate and distinct human life.

Very clearly, the unborn has the same right to live as any other living human being. Who denies that, denies the whole concept of human rights.

 

[Imryl]

No, science. Unless you are prepared to claim and prove that the unborn child is not living, does not have huiman DNA, and does not have its own DNA.

I only claim that it is not living. Until after it can survive outside it’s mothers womb

As opposed to an immoral opinion, coincocked to justify the killing of a wholly-innocent human being.

More opinions. Based again, on your personal, moral, ethical (whatever) outlook on life. Obviously we differ there.

Did they abolish those rights in the new technology? Hardly! In fact, bloggers, something the Founding Fathers never dreamed of, are now held to be journalists.

Like I said, they have expanded, AND restricted ‘rights’. They have made laws to address and regulate. The point is, our laws grow, change, expand, restrict, unrestrict, etc… If they didn’t then our government would come to a grinding halt.

Then you hardly have the moral standing to lecture to the rest of us.

Lecturing? I’m fairly certain my first post was answering the question posed by the OP. Lecturing only came after that. Just because we have a difference of opinion, doesn’t make you morally superior to me in any way.

Editted a phrase to make more sense!

 

[Imryl]

So what you’re saying here, is only your opinion matters when we start defining what life actually is. You get to define it? If this were all so scientific, we wouldn’t even be having this conversation. There is a grey area… I imagine, because of religion mostly.

But again, that is just my opinion.

 

[church_mouse]

So what you’re saying here, is only your opinion matters when we start defining what life actually is. You get to define it? If this were all so scientific, we wouldn’t even be having this conversation. There is a grey area… I imagine, because of religion mostly.

But again, that is just my opinion.

It is all scientific, that why it is so tragic. You’ve been deceived. Did you know that the baby’s heart starts beating at about 18 days after conception? Most women are only suspecting that they may be pregnant (if their cycles are very regular they are only 4 days late).
Look at these pictures of aborted babies and see if you still think the are just a cluster of cells.

Warning: very graphic photos of aborted babies:
priestsforlife.org/resources/photosbyage/index.htm#thumbnails

 

[vern_humphrey]

I only claim that it is not living. Until after it can survive outside it’s mothers womb

It is growing, taking in nutrients, and excreting waste products. It is living.
Imryl;2231459:

More opinions. Based again, on your personal, moral, ethical (whatever) outlook on life. Obviously we differ there.

And that gives you the right to commit murder?

Like I said, they have expanded, AND restricted ‘rights’. They have made laws to address and regulate. The point is, our laws grow, change, expand, restrict, unrestrict, etc… If they didn’t then our government would come to a grinding halt.

When we deny the basic right to life, our govenment has come to a grinding halt – it has failed to do the one thing we created it to do – protect the innocent and helpless.

Lecturing? I’m fairly certain my first post was answering the question posed by the OP. Lecturing only came after that. Just because we have a difference of opinion, doesn’t make you morally superior to me in any way.

Perhaps not. But I never committed a murder, nor participated in one.