Pro-Life Dilemma

  • Thread starter Thread starter adartse
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

adartse

Guest
I’m a second year at UC Berkeley and I am attending a class on Science, Technology, and Culture. In a week, we will be discussing Abortion. I know that a lot of my fellow classmates are Pro-Death and I will be put down for my comments about the protection of all life, from conception to death. Right now, I am being put down because I am not supposed to impose my beliefs on other people and that I have no right to judge people.

How can discuss to them that abortion is wrong, probably in a non-Catholic perspective, but in a scientific or non-religious way, so that my non-Catholic classmates can understand?

I will be severely attacked if I do say that the Church of God condemns abortion, because they don’t give a **** about our great Catholic Church.

Someone told me that everything is gray and not black and white, nothing is absolute, and that there are grave times when we do have to use abortion for the betterment of family and society. Although I do understand his viewpoint, I always say that it is still wrong. And he goes on saying that we humans are imperfect and try in our best judgement to do our best. Therefore, abortion may be used for grave matters, like rape or incest, and other similar situations. I said that there are adoption agencies and people willing to take your child if you deem it to full term. But he said that the agencies are overwhelmed, and this argument goes on forever and ever.

Please help, I need prayer during this time, and I need your help.

Please respond. Please email me at joel.estrada (@) gmail (.) com
 
Actully the big lie is the “Grey Area”. Chirst Teachings and his Church are absolute.

now scientifically, you could investigate that a fetus from conseption has a completely different DNA from conception, making him/her a whole new person. Google is your friend.

Then there is the fact that the baby is a different blood type…again a whole new being.

There are lots of angles out there, once again…Google is your friend lol…Fear not persecution, for you will be doubly blessed for bearing that cross in the Name of Christ.
I hope my purely 'laymen" examples can be of some use to atleast spark an idea…

Peace of the Lord be with you!
 
From a sceintific viewpoint, I would talk about the specific abortion proceedures. Describe them from a medical textbook like Abortion Practice. You might want to contrast that with another medical textbook like The Unborn Patient which shows how to heal the same kids.

Play on their sense of concern for women. Why do women do this? Do they feel regrets and experience negative consequences? (Even in non Christian societies like Japan or China where grieving ceremonies are held or in the U.S. where even some pro-aborts recommend ritualizing abortion to try to deal with the loss process). get them to think about if this is truly the best and most “necessary” route for women or if we ought not be providing other positive options. Get into the shoes of the aborted generation. Everyone who is under the age of 32 in the U.S. could have been legally aborted. That means that, if they are arguing in favor of abortion rights, that they are saying that it would have been just fine if they (assuming that college students are likely under that age) would have had one of these proceedures which you described done to them. Would it be alright for them to have been aborted? Is it a good thing that 1/3 of their generation is dead? What about their mothers and fathers who have had to experience the difficulties of abortion? What about their friends or themselvs who might have to do the same? Should not society provide more supportive and upbuilding options? Do women just feel abaondoned, then, without any other choice (no freedom and no choice) rather than as if this choice is truly liberating and positive? (“Women choose abortion not like one chooses to have an ice cream cone, but as an animal chooses to graw off it’s life”…from Real Choices by Frediricka Matthews Green.) As far as rape or incest, the first thing that needs to be said is how much we feel for the person who was wronged and would like to see the violater meet justice. But do we help the person wronged by abandoning them to abortion? Do we put them through hurting someone else (her own child) and becoming just as abusive as the one who hurt her? The reality is that there are very few cases (1%) where rape or incest leads to pregnancy, anyway. So if someone wants to give us that much, at least, I’ll take it! However, are not the children of rape and incest important and valuable? What would you say to a person who you learned was conceived in that way if you met one face to face? They are out there, afterall. Perhaps somebody in your very class is one of them. Would you tell her that her mom should have aborted her? If you say that it is good that they were born, but maybe some other woman just couldn’t handle it so it was ok for that person, then one must rhetorically ask, “Well what if it was difficult for my mom (which I am sure it was)? Would it then have been alright for her to abort me?”

Many organizations such as Priests for Life, Human Life International, the Elliot Institute, Pro-Life Action League, and have excellent resources which could help you.
 
From a current event standpoint:

Due to the current abortion policy in the US, there have been significantly fewer births than would have occurred otherwise. Now, not talking within the last 15 years, but prior to that. There were fewer births, therefore, there are less people over the age of 15 => there are less people available to work => higher inflation due to smaller pool of potential employees, also, with less people available to work and working, less is being contributed into social security, leading to the current problems with that program.

Just something I’ve been thinking of for a while.
 
maybe this site will help…

godlessprolifers.org

I would probably take the DNA approach.

Every human being has a unique genetic code that is separate from their biological parents.

The first moment this code comes into existence is fertilization.
This is confirmation that a unique human being comes into existence when that unique code first comes into existence.

To eliminate that living being is to eliminate a unique human life.
 
Frankly, I don’t like the approaches of chicago or mjdonnelly; I think they miss the point. I don’t think the abortion debate should focus on women, because they’re really not the issue. Because even if absolutely no women felt any regret for their abortions, and if there were no medical complications ever associated with it, then you would still be right back where you started. Abortion is not wrong because it hurts women. It does hurt women, and this needs to be discussed, by not initially. First things first: ‘abortion kills an innocent human person. Furthermore, it hurts women.’
And while mjdonnelly might be right in his analysis, we cannot frame our debate on utilitarianism. ‘We shouldn’t abort because it’d be better for our economy if we didn’t.’ Well, we haven’t really gotten anywhere, morally speaking. Abortion and birth are still seen in light of ‘what can these do for me/us?’ We could also point out that the Democratic party is really shooting itself in the foot considering its constituency is having the majority of abortions. But that’s not why it’s wrong to have them.

Before anything, people need to understand what abortion does. It takes the life of a human person. Fetal personhood is the road to take, and you can do it very easily. Here’s a good tactic to use from philosopher Gregory Koukl:
The unborn differs from the newborn in four ways, none of which are relevant to its status as a human being. Those four ways are size, level of development, environment, and degree of dependency. The acronym SLED is a helpful reminder of those differences.
Click to expand...
Size: The unborn are smaller then newborns, but since when has size had anything to do with the rights that people have? Men are generally larger than women, does that mean they deserve more rights? Is Shaquille O’Neal more of a person than feminist Gloria Steinem simply because he is larger? Clearly size isn’t the issue.
Click to expand...
Level of development: True, the unborn are less developed than newborns, but this too is morally irrelevant. A newborn, for that matter, is less developed than a toddler. A toddler is less developed than an adolescent. An adolescent is less developed than an adult. But we speak of all as equally human. Is a child of four, for example, less of a person because she has not yet developed sexually? It follows, then, that the ability to perform human functions is not a necessary condition for human personhood. Rather, a person is one with the natural, inherent capacity to give rise to personal acts–even if she lacks the current ability to perform those acts. People who are unconscious do not have the present capacity to perform personal acts. We don’t kill them because of it, nor should we kill the unborn.
Click to expand...
Environment: True, the unborn is located in a different place, but how does a change in location suddenly change a non-human entity into a human one? Did you stop being human when you walked from your house to the car? From the kitchen to the den? Clearly, where one is has no bearing on who one is. A child in the incubator of her mother’s womb is no less a child then the one being sustained by neonatal technology. Ladies and gentlemen, you don’t stop being human simply because you have a different address.
Click to expand...
Degree of dependency: If viability is what makes one human, then all those dependent on kidney machines, heart pace-makers, and insulin would have to be declared non-persons. There is no ethical difference between an unborn child who is plugged into and dependent upon its mother and a kidney patient who is plugged into and dependent upon a kidney machine. Siamese twins do not forfeit their right to live simply because they depend on each others circulatory systems.
Click to expand...
We can see, then, that the unborn child differs from a newborn one in only four ways–size, level of development, environment, and degree of dependency–and none of those differences are good reasons for disqualifying it as fully human.
Click to expand...
Good luck, Joel.
 
40.png
adartse:
I’m a second year at UC Berkeley and I am attending a class on Science, Technology, and Culture. In a week, we will be discussing Abortion. I know that a lot of my fellow classmates are Pro-Death and I will be put down for my comments about the protection of all life, from conception to death. Right now, I am being put down because I am not supposed to impose my beliefs on other people and that I have no right to judge people.

How can discuss to them that abortion is wrong, probably in a non-Catholic perspective, but in a scientific or non-religious way, so that my non-Catholic classmates can understand?

I will be severely attacked if I do say that the Church of God condemns abortion, because they don’t give a **** about our great Catholic Church.

Someone told me that everything is gray and not black and white, nothing is absolute, and that there are grave times when we do have to use abortion for the betterment of family and society. Although I do understand his viewpoint, I always say that it is still wrong. And he goes on saying that we humans are imperfect and try in our best judgement to do our best. Therefore, abortion may be used for grave matters, like rape or incest, and other similar situations. I said that there are adoption agencies and people willing to take your child if you deem it to full term. But he said that the agencies are overwhelmed, and this argument goes on forever and ever.

Please help, I need prayer during this time, and I need your help.

Please respond. Please email me at joel.estrada (@) gmail (.) com
Click to expand...
Get a copy of the book Pro Life Answers to Pro Choice Arguments by Randy Alcorn and download everything you can from www.omsoul.com
 
I remember a professor discussing the battles he had teaching a college class where he contended that there is absolute truth. He said that invariably a number of the students would eventually be “converted” by the undeniable logic.

Sorry, I don’t remember if it was Prof. Peter Kreeft or the gentleman who’s wife, also a professor is a guest on EWTN occasionally (hopefully someone else will remember the name).

Remember, despite the vitriol truth and logic are actually on your side.

With respect to abortion, I think the bottom line is that it is an undeniable fact that the abortionist is deliberately killing an innocent human being.

If you are interested in wading through some flying epithets etc. there is a pretty long thread I started on a rather liberal politics board where I argued this point:

www.politicsandcurrentaffairs.com/Forum/viewtopi…0

A couple of small excerpts:

As Dianne N. Irving, M.A., Ph.D. notes:
It might surprise many that there has been an unaltered scientific consensus for half a century that a real, already existing, live, whole human being begins as a human embryo (or zygote) immediately at fertilization. This is a scientific fact - not an “opinion”, or a religious or theological belief. And public policy debates and decision making should not continue to escape that unavoidable scientific fact. (1)

As the “Father of Modern Genetics” Dr. Jerome Lejeune told the lawmakers (as did every other expert witness) when testifying before the Senate Judiciary subcommittee: “To accept the fact that after fertilization has taken place a new human has come into being is no longer a matter of taste or opinion … it is plain experimental evidence.” *(2)

You might also want to touch on the inherent racism and genocidal tendencies of the eugenics movement which was and still is behind the abortion movement.

If you are attacked, sometimes the best defense is a strong offense. Put them on the defensive and don’t let them think they even have the slightest chance at the moral high ground. That is yours. They are in favor of the legalized deliberate, often brutal slaughter of millions of innocent human beings every year in the United States alone and additional tens of millions worldwide.

Some resources:

*1. Cloning:
When Word Games Kill
Dianne N. Irving, M.A., Ph.D.
www.lifeissues.net/writers/irv/irv_06wordgame.html
  1. Senate Judiciary Subcommittee Hearings on “When Does Life Begin” (April 23-24, 1981)
    www.roevwade.org/upl39.html
See also:

When do human beings (normally) begin?
“scientific” myths and scientific facts
Dianne N. Irving, M.A., Ph.D.
lifeissues.net/writers/irv/irv_01lifebegin1.html

When Does Human Life Begin?
by Jay Johansen
pregnantpause.org/develop/when.htm
  1. The Abortionist Speaks
    The Carhart Testimony:
    Death - Omaha Style
    mttu.com/Articles/The%20Abortionist%20Speaks.htm
  2. Why Abortion is Genocide
    Greg Cunningham
    www.cbrinfo.org/Resources/abortion.html
  3. Who Was Margaret Sanger?
    www.ewtn.com/library/prolife/pp04a.txt
  4. Planned Parenthood’s Racism.
    www.ewtn.com/library/prolife/ppracism.txt
  5. Klanned Parenthood
    www.klannedparenthood.com/History_of_Abortion_Statistics/
  6. Abortion and the Black Community
    Blackgenocide.com
    blackgenocide.org/black.html
 
I would also look up information on women who have suffored from Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome due to their abortions. I used to be active in a College Pro-Life Organization, we had quite a bit of information on this topic.
 
You could point out that when a baby is born after 24 weeks they usually try to save it’s life, therefore considering the baby a human being. And why would someone want to abort a tissue blob when someone else is trying to save a baby, and both are the same age?
And how is it not a life when some women feel their baby move as early as 15 or 16 weeks that they fall in love with that baby completely, and others are just trying to figure out how to get rid of “it”.

Kat
 
40.png
adartse:
I’m a second year at UC Berkeley and I am attending a class on Science, Technology, and Culture. In a week, we will be discussing Abortion. I know that a lot of my fellow classmates are Pro-Death and I will be put down for my comments about the protection of all life, from conception to death. Right now, I am being put down because I am not supposed to impose my beliefs on other people and that I have no right to judge people.

How can discuss to them that abortion is wrong, probably in a non-Catholic perspective, but in a scientific or non-religious way, so that my non-Catholic classmates can understand?

I will be severely attacked if I do say that the Church of God condemns abortion, because they don’t give a **** about our great Catholic Church.

Someone told me that everything is gray and not black and white, nothing is absolute, and that there are grave times when we do have to use abortion for the betterment of family and society. Although I do understand his viewpoint, I always say that it is still wrong. And he goes on saying that we humans are imperfect and try in our best judgement to do our best. Therefore, abortion may be used for grave matters, like rape or incest, and other similar situations. I said that there are adoption agencies and people willing to take your child if you deem it to full term. But he said that the agencies are overwhelmed, and this argument goes on forever and ever.

Please help, I need prayer during this time, and I need your help.

Please respond. Please email me at joel.estrada (@) gmail (.) com
Click to expand...
Ask then when a life become a life and inelligible for being killed?

If they have an answer, ask them how they know that absolutely and if everyone has to adhere to that belief and why?

If they say it’s just their opinion and everyone can do likewise, ask them what if someone’s opinion was to wipe out all college-aged students with black hair? Would that be ok?

If they say their position is correct, ask them if they are the source of absolute truth or someone else is?
 
MIght try asking if the unborn life is “inconvenient” and therefore a matter of charity to the mother that she abort, then why might you now eliminate someone else who is “inconvenient” to you? Why does the logic work for the mother and not for you?
 
Joel,
Your friend is wrong that “adoption agencies are overwhelmed.” Look in any newspaper, there will be a list of couples hoping to adopt a newborn, any newborn. There are approx 20 couples in line for each infant born.

Another great book is Healing the Culture by Fr. Spitzer. He points out that Roe vs Wade is an illegitimate usurpation of the inalienable rights of a group of citizens – it used to be blacks (cf the Dred Scott decision) and now it’s the unborn. His arguments are intellectual and compelling, if you can wade through them. (a little over my head).
We can argue, but it’s actually the Holy Spirit who changes hearts. Present your arguments, and leave the results to God. I used to be proabortion, then became a Christian, woke up one morning and said, “Hey, abortion is wrong!” Surprise.
God bless.
 
It’s simple Roe vs Wade is self contradictory. Read it and see for yourself. Roe vs Wade was incapable of defining when life starts.

Before the new legislation on double felony homicide in cases like the Scott Peterson case where the fetus dies as a result of a crime, lower courts were already unable to make any rulings other than that the fetus is a person and therefore enjoys the protection of the Constitution.

Now there is new legislation which says that an infant who survives a botched abortion is a person under the Constitution and must be given the necessities of life.

All of these cases prove that a distinction cannot be made between unborn person and fetus.
 
I recomend you visit www.afterabortion.org The Elliot Institute. Believe the man who started it is David Reardon. He has done research on the psychological and physiological after effects of abortion. It might give you a good perspective and argument to where the human race is headed.

Also might want to consider the millions of moms and dads out there who are trying to raise children, after having experienced abortion.
 
Ani Ibi:
It’s simple Roe vs Wade is self contradictory. Read it and see for yourself. Roe vs Wade was incapable of defining when life starts.

Before the new legislation on double felony homicide in cases like the Scott Peterson case where the fetus dies as a result of a crime, lower courts were already unable to make any rulings other than that the fetus is a person and therefore enjoys the protection of the Constitution.

Now there is new legislation which says that an infant who survives a botched abortion is a person under the Constitution and must be given the necessities of life.

All of these cases prove that a distinction cannot be made between unborn person and fetus.
Click to expand...
Actually Roe V. Wade should be null and void. In the decision, it was stated that if the “fetus” was ever determined to be a “person” then the life would be protected under the Constitution. Well, not that “sacred” science (to which the modern culture of academiac intellectuals assumes is superior knowledge) clearly indicates that within the womb looks, acts, and feels like someone outside the womb, we must invalidate the ruling.
 
40.png
Brad:
Actually Roe V. Wade should be null and void. In the decision, it was stated that if the “fetus” was ever determined to be a “person” then the life would be protected under the Constitution. Well, not that “sacred” science (to which the modern culture of academiac intellectuals assumes is superior knowledge) clearly indicates that within the womb looks, acts, and feels like someone outside the womb, we must invalidate the ruling.
Click to expand...
Roe vs Wade was not able to determine when the person started being a person. This precedent contradicted itself and therefore is bad law.

By the way, if university students want to do something here is a really worthwhile project in which you will make a lot of alliances and learn a lot about pro-life action:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=622185#post622185

Thank you. Ani.
 
Joel,

One thing the Culture of Death esposes is tolerance. Tolerance of everything, and non-judgement of everything.

SO…use it against them. Call them on their glass-half-empty assumptions as well.

Point to the oldest in the classroom (probably the professor) and ask the student next to you, "you don’t even know professor x personally beyond the classroom do you?? But would you consider him to have “potential for greatness”??

Student a: “uh, of course” (why would he say other wise?)

To student b: "You don’t know and have never seen student a’s mother, but would you suppose she has “potential for greatness?”

Student b: “Uh, of course”.(why would he say otherwise?)

To student c: “You have never seen student b’s sister/brother, but would you suppose she has “potential for greatness”?”

Student c: “Uh, of course”.(why would he say otherwise?)

To student d: “You have never seen my sister’s little toddler, but would you suppose she has “potential for greatness”?”

Student d: “Uh, of course”.(why would he say otherwise?)

To student e: “You have never seen my my brothers newborn baby, but would you suppose she has “potential for greatness”?”

Student e: “Uh, of course”.(why would he say otherwise?)

To student f: You have never seen a baby JUST prior to childbirth, but would you suppose she has “potential for greatness”?"

Student f: “Uh…”

If the students start down the road of doubt, then you can begin the “The Hunter: Is it my friend or a deer in the brush” argument:

Wouldn’t it be better to err on the side of caution if we might be snuffing out a life with “potential for greatness”???
 
Thank you all for your help in this matter. Each post has been helpful for me and I plan to use the knowledge I’ve gained here for the Abortion discussion tomorrow.

I’m sorry CCF_JEFF that you were ridiculed on that liberal discussion forum in which you provided a link to.

Please pray for me. Please pray for my classmates who feel that abortion must be sanctioned because they feel that every situation isn’t black or white, and that in some cases, it must be administered.

They claim that we are only humans and we try our best, even if we have to abort.

Thank you again.

Joel Joseph Estrada
 
They claim that we are only humans and we try our best, even if we have to abort.
Click to expand...
Hmmm…abortion is not trying our “best” at all.
It is taking the “easy” way out. It fails to treat the underlying problem of why so many people are risking unwanted pregnancies.
Abortion is humanity at its worst.

Just in case the issue gets sidetracked to the feminist angle…here is a good pro-life feminist site.

feministsforlife.org

Good luck!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top