Pro-choice questions?

[Shannon9791]

First, as some of you already know, I refuse to call infanticide “choice.” Do not allow the pro-abort crowd win this war of words.

It’s not CHOICE. It’s ABORTION.

Second, aren’t they already butchering babies as they’re being born? Isn’t that the horror of partial-birth abortion?

And if we’re going to embrace that, why not simply remove all laws against murder at any age?

I believe that’s the purpose of this thread, to ask the question “How far will they go?”

 

[DustinM]

It would seem to me that if we base rights solely on the ability to suffer, or feel pain we would turn into a very sadistic society. Why can you not destroy someone who doesn’t have the ability to suffer, and why should that person still have rights? Because they’re still a human life, and that seems like the bottom line to me. I’m sure we can argue what constitutes life all day until our fingers fall off, but I think that’s what it all boils down to.

Why would it be sadistic? Destroying things that don’t care (or cannot possibly care!) that they’re being destroyed?
I feel that you should explain why it’s sadistic not just state that it is.

I agree that a fetus, zygote, and embryo are all human life (individual human organisms); and in the end agree with you.
But it seems like a lot of religious people say it’s wrong to destroy a human life that is literally incapable of suffering because of things related to the soul.
I’m looking for a secular reason beyond just “Well it’s sadistic” or “Well it’s human.”

 

[vera_dicere]

One atheist was a pro-choice as they come before a fetus can emit brain waves. Once it can emit brain waves, he was a pro-life as the Pope (as far as I can remember), because his criteria for personhood was then met.

6 weeks? That’s pretty good of them then, as the embryo has measurable brain waves at 6 weeks.

Anyway, a lot of pro-choice to kill unborn children individuals that I’ve met are extreme in they beleive “if its in the woman’s body, she can have it out”. Which is silly really, if I wanted my legs cut off because of whatever reason, there wouldn’t be a doctor alive who’d consider doing so if they were healthy? Yet, its my body isn’t it? My legs don’t think, if you cut them off they’re not going to live indepednantly, they wont’ get an education or a job or pay taxes, they’re just a big blob of cells? Yet, no doctor will cut my legs off.

So really, the “my body, my choice” business is kinda stupid.

As for thinking, there’s a level of brain activity while we are alive, even in coma but there’s a great deal of debate as to whether certain groups in the population can “think” like those with mental disabilities or brain injuries - should we start snuffing them?

That’s the big problem with the pro-choice to kill unborn children lobby. THere’s no logical opinion or common opinion as to when life should be protected or when there shoudl be restrictions. There’s also no logical scientific bases, just a few sob stories involving idiot women before Roe.

The only people who really suffered pre-Roe were the coathanger manufacturers and their PR devisions.

 

[Georgia]

A earlier post spoke of not knowing Mr. Obama’s stance on abortion. If his record is an indication, he believes there should be no restrictions whatsoever. He also said he would not want his daughters, if they made a mistake, punished with a baby. How one is punished with a baby, I don’t know.

 

[Shannon9791]

Why would it be sadistic? Destroying things that don’t care (or cannot possibly care!) that they’re being destroyed?
I feel that you should explain why it’s sadistic not just state that it is.

I agree that a fetus, zygote, and embryo are all human life (individual human organisms); and in the end agree with you.
But it seems like a lot of religious people say it’s wrong to destroy a human life that is literally incapable of suffering because of things related to the soul.
I’m looking for a secular reason beyond just “Well it’s sadistic” or “Well it’s human.”

Who is going to choose what is an acceptable amount of suffering? Maybe you have a higher tolerance for pain than someone else, so the same malady wouldn’t cause you the same problems. Would it be OK for a homeless person in the dead of winter to go into someone’s house and kill them because they’re not suffering from the cold? By basing an argument on something that varies from individual to individual you create a slippery slope that is almost vertical.
If you’re looking for an answer beyond it’s a human life with a soul, it’s going to be tough to find one, I think.

 

[ncgolf]

Why would it be sadistic? Destroying things that don’t care (or cannot possibly care!) that they’re being destroyed?
I feel that you should explain why it’s sadistic not just state that it is.

I agree that a fetus, zygote, and embryo are all human life (individual human organisms); and in the end agree with you.
But it seems like a lot of religious people say it’s wrong to destroy a human life that is literally incapable of suffering because of things related to the soul.
I’m looking for a secular reason beyond just “Well it’s sadistic” or “Well it’s human.”

Why is this standard any different than a brain wave standard?

JPII states that each human has an inherent dignity given by God since each is made in the image of God. This inherent dignity does not have a threshold to meet before applying … it simply is.

What is suffering then … explain … is it pain only … or is suffering a condition we all have regardless of our situation in life?

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

Which is silly really, if I wanted my legs cut off because of whatever reason, there wouldn’t be a doctor alive who’d consider doing so if they were healthy? Yet, its my body isn’t it? My legs don’t think, if you cut them off they’re not going to live indepednantly, they wont’ get an education or a job or pay taxes, they’re just a big blob of cells? Yet, no doctor will cut my legs off.

So really, the “my body, my choice” business is kinda stupid.

Just wait—the day is coming when doctors will harvest organs from living, healthy people they deem ‘less worthy’ than others.

This is the inevitable result of putting the government in charge of ‘health care.’ My local Catholic paper had a sterling editorial on this very subject.