Pro-choice friends

[Newbie2]

I have a few pro-choice friends. I don’t know if the way I handle it is right, but say one of my friends says “there’s nothing wrong with gay marriage”. I’d say something like “but that’s merely your opinion, and a new opinion at that. Only until recently was this an issue, and why is it all of a sudden right that men should marry men? I know the truth, and that marriage is only between one man and one woman. There is only one truth. Do you want to hear about it?”

How’s that?

Excellent.

It’s always frustrating when a friend says something contrary to our POV, then says they really don’t want to discuss it. Drive-by comments, methinks. If they’re really a friend, you could have a discussion agreeing to disagree, but at least it’s a discussion and not a one-sided comment.

 

[mountee]

Had the same problem myself and have come to the conclusion that I must adopt a stronger prayer life and trust in God to bring these friends to the place He needs them to be. I am certain that I must make myself clear but avoid arguing. If I lose the friendship I will lose the opportunity to continue to minister to these friends. God bless all of us with wisdom and patience.

 

[spencelo]

Just found out my two long time friends are pro-choice. We never discussed politics or religion until recently so I wasn’t totally sure.

One is a non-practicing Jew who said she wouldn’t see a Clint Eastwood movie because of his stint at the Convention and she is pro-choice believing in abortion up to three months and she is pro-gay. She knows I am a Republican and says we shouldn’t discuss politics or religion but the Clint comment upset me. My insides went haywire but we hung up friends.

Other friend I thought was a devout Baptist but just told me this week she was thinking about pro-choice and gays and now is for both as she said she is more tolerant. my response was just that Roe vs. Wade should be reversed and I have no problem with gays but they should be celibate.

We changed the conversations and had no hard feelings when we hung up.

How do you handle these situations? I get all riled up when I hang up and my thoughts turn to mentally arguing pro-life with them and it can become obsessive. My confessor didn’t make a big deal when i told him my thoughts about arguing in my mind.

I don’t like to have these thoughts going through my head but I do get riled up inside.

Thanks everyone.

Think about it from the pro-choice perspective: the notion that abortion is immoral is purely a religious idea, one that shouldn’t be imposed by the government. There is no empirical evidence that the “soul” appears at the moment of conception, and thus there is no empirical evidence that fetuses are persons. In other words, the belief that fetuses are persons is more a matter of faith than sound, secular philosophy.

 

[triumphguy]

Think about it from the pro-choice perspective: the notion that abortion is immoral is purely a religious idea, one that shouldn’t be imposed by the government. There is no empirical evidence that the “soul” appears at the moment of conception, and thus there is no empirical evidence that fetuses are persons. In other words, the belief that fetuses are persons is more a matter of faith than sound, secular philosophy.

It’s immoral not because they are a person, but because they are a being - a human being - with all the DNA and human potential that the developing person will ever possess already embedded in them. And abortion deprives them of their future. (Much like pigs lose their future potential when sent for slaughter - hint hint - except you don’t have a consistent ethic so you don’t get the connection)

 

[spencelo]

It’s immoral not because they are a person, but because they are a being - a human being - with all the DNA and human potential that the developing person will ever possess already embedded in them. And abortion deprives them of their future. (Much like pigs lose their future potential when sent for slaughter - hint hint - except you don’t have a consistent ethic so you don’t get the connection)

A fetus is a nonsentient human being, unlike a pig. The “deprivation of a future” rationale only applies to sentient beings who already exist.

 

[triumphguy]

A fetus is a nonsentient human being, unlike a pig. The “deprivation of a future” rationale only applies to sentient beings who already exist.

Pigs aren’t sentient - unlike humans. However, humans have value even when not sentient.

You have a future even when asleep, or stoned out of your gourd do you not?

Why not join the knittingandcrochetforum.org and proselytize your vegan-atheism there?

 

[spencelo]

Pigs aren’t sentient - unlike humans.

But they are, and I posted numerous links demonstrating that. You simply refuse to consider the evidence.

However, humans have value even when not sentient.

Why? If you are basing your claim on Catholic ideology, then why should that ideology be imposed on the rest of the country?

 

[Crescentinus]

It’s immoral not because they are a person, but because they are a being - a human being - with all the DNA and human potential that the developing person will ever possess already embedded in them. And abortion deprives them of their future. (Much like pigs lose their future potential when sent for slaughter - hint hint - except you don’t have a consistent ethic so you don’t get the connection)

 

[triumphguy]

But they are, and I posted numerous links demonstrating that. You simply refuse to consider the evidence.

Why? If you are basing your claim on Catholic ideology, then why should that ideology be imposed on the rest of the country?

Kermit the Frog and Miss Piggy are sentient. Pigs are not.

You need to stop getting your info from Nick Junior.

This is a Catholic site. If you don’t like the theology, then don’t visit.

 

[spencelo]

Pigs are not.

A rock is also not sentient, so if I cut it with a sword I can’t hurt the rock. Are you saying pigs are like rocks? It would be okay to gratuitously stab a pig?

 

[adrift]

A fetus is a nonsentient human being, unlike a pig. The “deprivation of a future” rationale only applies to sentient beings who already exist.

The Silent Scream is proof against your claim.

 

[triumphguy]

A rock is also not sentient, so if I cut it with a sword I can’t hurt the rock. Are you saying pigs are like rocks? It would be okay to gratuitously stab a pig?

Step away from the sentient stuff, and we can agree on much.

Of course, and you know this, I don’t think it fine to gratuitously stab a pig. I don’t even think it’s OK to gratuitously harm anything sentient or not, living or not.

I wouldn’t kick your bicycle for instance - but I would bend and weld metal to make a bicycle.

There’s a difference.

 

[spencelo]

Step away from the sentient stuff, and we can agree on much.

Of course, and you know this, I don’t think it fine to gratuitously stab a pig. I don’t even think it’s OK to gratuitously harm anything sentient or not, living or not.

I wouldn’t kick your bicycle for instance - but I would bend and weld metal to make a bicycle.

There’s a difference.

But if we’re talking about a non-sentient entity, then it can’t be “harmed.” I can’t harm a rock by smashing it. If you say that a pig isn’t sentient, then you’re saying that it’s impossible to harm the pig.

 

[Farsight001]

But if we’re talking about a non-sentient entity, then it can’t be “harmed.” I can’t harm a rock by smashing it. If you say that a pig isn’t sentient, then you’re saying that it’s impossible to harm the pig.

Ability to be harmed is not the determining factor in sentience. So saying it isn’t sentient is NOT saying it’s impossible to be harmed.

 

[spencelo]

Ability to be harmed is not the determining factor in sentience. So saying it isn’t sentient is NOT saying it’s impossible to be harmed.

To me it is. How do you understand sentience? A rock can’t be harmed precisely because it doesn’t have any capacity for pain and suffering, unlike sentient beings.

 

[wendy_w]

I too have pro-choice friends, really think in this day and age you will. I don’t argue with them because I have learned that it just doesn’t seem to make a difference to them. I do however let friends know that I praticipate in the march for life, support crisis pregnancy centers and I’m pro-life. I also pray that they will have a conversion of heart on these issues.

 

[Farsight001]

To me it is. How do you understand sentience? A rock can’t be harmed precisely because it doesn’t have any capacity for pain and suffering, unlike sentient beings.

Well, to be frank, then your understanding of sentience is just plain incorrect. The word has a specific meaning and definition, of which ability to be harmed is not a part of it. Sentience is simply self consciousness - to be self aware, to put it simply.

While it may be true that all sentient beings can, in fact, be harmed, it is due to overlap, not causation.

 

[spencelo]

Well, to be frank, then your understanding of sentience is just plain incorrect. The word has a specific meaning and definition, of which ability to be harmed is not a part of it. Sentience is simply self consciousness - to be self aware, to put it simply.

While it may be true that all sentient beings can, in fact, be harmed, it is due to overlap, not causation.

To say that my understanding is incorrect is to say that numerous philosophers who understand the term the same way are incorrect. Are you really prepared to make such a claim? There are degrees of sentience, and full self-consciousness is at one end of the spectrum. In any case, it’s the underlying ideas that matter - not definitions. Since rocks don’t have the capacity to suffer, they can’t be harmed. The same is true of fetuses.

 

[Farsight001]

To say that my understanding is incorrect is to say that numerous philosophers who understand the term the same way are incorrect. Are you really prepared to make such a claim? There are degrees of sentience, and full self-consciousness is at one end of the spectrum. In any case, it’s the underlying ideas that matter - not definitions. Since rocks don’t have the capacity to suffer, they can’t be harmed. The same is true of fetuses.

I know of no philosophers who consider that to be the definition of sentience, but if they do say that, then yes, they are incorrect. Again, it is the very definition of the word. Saying it means something other than what it is really defined as is, by it’s nature, incorrect.

And no, the same is not true of fetuses. They certainly have the capacity to suffer. It will be grotesque, but go on youtube and watch an abortion being performed using an internal camera (there are several videos). You will see clearly that the fetus is in agonizing pain as it is literally being ripped limb from limb.

 

[IBombAtomically]

I’m in the same boat with OP. My best friend who I love dearly is a pro-choice atheist and my parents are pro-choice. They already know my position, and it will come up occasionally. Just pray that God will give you the words to defend life, and learn as much as you can about fetal development and the actual act of abortion. The worst kind of argument is the one where both parties end up shouting opinions at each other, and the best kind is each side listening more than talking, and trying to find common ground.

spencelo: I don’t mean to highjack the thread and turn it into an argument, but I’m wondering exactly when you believe sentience begins? Do you have any studies to show where your opinion comes from?