Pro Life versus Pro Choice Debate

[gakroeger]

My friend, that post was not addressed to you. Further, there was nothing in that post arguing for “the unborn from the rest of us human beings”. The post was outlining the self-donated love that is the Church’s rationale against contraception and abortion. The post was slightly off thread because it was getting into the self-donated love rationale on contraception and not focusing on the the legal argument surrounding " the pro-life vs the pro-choice debate".

I understand you are new to CAF, however, a basic premise of these threads are open to all for (name removed by moderator)ut. You may address an individual but you may not exclude anyone from responding.

Every point you have made separates the unborn from the rest of us.

The fact ( if it is one) that people who use contraception are more likely get abortion has nothing to do with what is the government’s obligation to prevent abortion in general and what means should the government use to meet its moral obligation in that area.

You want to criminalize all abortions-fine, but others who see abortion as wrong may reasonable believe that the govt can take other approaches to attempt to protect life than simply outlawing all abortions under all circumstances-which again would not stop all the abortions anyway and overlooks the individual responsibility of the women.

??? What part of this is a moral issue and not a legal one don’t you understand? I am not proposing punishment or enforcement by the government. The less the government has to do with it the better I like it. I want people to see what abortion is from a moral stand point not a legal one. Laws are man made and subject to error, moral law is God made and not subject to error.

PLEASE quit putting words in my mouth…

 

[Worthy5]

Hello Worthy5!

Yes, every human being has a right to live…if abortion was made illegal, it would probably still go one just like selling a gun illegally goes on. But at least, there would be some protection for the unborn! The point is: With all this talk of freedom in our country (well, not anymore) we forget how unequally we are treating those who cannot speak for themselves. If a women doesn’t want her child, she can eliminate it, just like that. That’s like a conservative saying, “I don’t like a lot of liberals; can I abort them too?” It’s just not fair.

“Abortion alters the future,” said an ad I read. The babies who are aborted everyday could have grown up to find a cure for cancer, or make a significant discovery in the study of science, etc. We need to give every human being a chance. Not just those who are wanted.

I really do not understand how some pro-life people cannot accept the reasonable position of being against abortion but being pro-choice= which is saying that the govt can fulfill is duty to attempt to protect the unborn child by means other than just criminalizing all abortions in all circumstances. You keep going back to how horrible abortion is=we all agree on that! The question is how to best prevent abortion while still respecting the need to limit the power of government coercion. And again, outlawing abortion does not guarantee abortions will not occur anyway!

 

[CWBetts]

I really do not understand how some pro-life people cannot accept the reasonable position of being against abortion but being pro-choice= which is saying that the govt can fulfill is duty to attempt to protect the unborn child by means other than just criminalizing all abortions in all circumstances. You keep going back to how horrible abortion is=we all agree on that! The question is how to best prevent abortion while still respecting the need to limit the power of government coercion. And again, outlawing abortion does not guarantee abortions will not occur anyway!

Because it is not reasonable. It is exactly the same as “I am personally opposed to murder (or, rape, or racism, or theft, etc) but I don’t want to restrict the choice of someone who disagrees with me.” This is moral relativism, and in that way lies death.

 

[Bluegoat]

I really do not understand how some pro-life people cannot accept the reasonable position of being against abortion but being pro-choice= which is saying that the govt can fulfill is duty to attempt to protect the unborn child by means other than just criminalizing all abortions in all circumstances. You keep going back to how horrible abortion is=we all agree on that! The question is how to best prevent abortion while still respecting the need to limit the power of government coercion. And again, outlawing abortion does not guarantee abortions will not occur anyway!

I think you need to differentiate why you think that in the case of abortion it is not appropriate for the government to make a law, and in the case of murder it is appropriate for the government to make a law.

Most pro-life supporters consider abortion to be murder. Some would allow abortion as a choice in the case where the life of the mother was seriously and directly threatened, but in that case sees it of a matter of choosing one complete human life against another, just as if it were two adults in a similar situation. So both groups would consider abortion to be the objective equivalent to murder in both cases.

Also, very few people at all think murder should not be against the law. I suppose if we could effectively eradicate murder then we would not need a law, but of course that isn’t the case.

If abortion is murder, should it not then also be against the law, by extension? I can think of a few ways one could argue no; but not to avoid interference by government, unless you would make the same argument for regular old murder.

The reasons I could think of (there may be more of course) are:

• No one gets abortions, so there is no need to have a law. (That is not true now, and wasn’t true when it was illegal, so you would need to show you could stop it some other way.)
• Sometimes if there is no way to detect or police a certain kind of crime than there can be a good argument against making laws about it. (That doesn’t seem to be the case here.)
• You think current laws about murder should also be abolished.
• You think that abortions should be allowed in the case of the life of the mother, AND that there is no effective/fair/just way to differentiate between these and other abortions.

I think the last is the only possible viable argument. One might need to do some research on other systems that have laws of this nature to see how they work.

 

[gakroeger]

I really do not understand how some pro-life people cannot accept the reasonable position of being against abortion but being pro-choice= which is saying that the govt can fulfill is duty to attempt to protect the unborn child by means other than just criminalizing all abortions in all circumstances. You keep going back to how horrible abortion is=we all agree on that! The question is how to best prevent abortion while still respecting the need to limit the power of government coercion. And again, outlawing abortion does not guarantee abortions will not occur anyway!

You prevent abortions by changing people’s hearts and minds not by legislating it. Everyone – especially the pro choice people- wants to make this a legal issue, write more laws on top the unenforceable ones we have now. We need to “backup” not continue down the road we have been on. When you have made a wrong turn and are going in the wrong direction, no amount of change of speed is going to get you back on track. You need to turn around and go back to the place where you made the wrong turn and go the right way.

In 1973 our supreme court misinterpreted our Countries constitution and separated the unborn from the rest of us. They decided that there is not one class of humans (similar to how we classified slaves 150 years ago) but several. They started with the unborn and decided that they are not fully human and progressed to the retarded, elderly, and terminally ill. We need to go back to the point where the wrong turn was made and go the right way.

IMHO, as stated in the first post on this thread, this is the defining issue of this debate. And, people continually ignore this fact. Even some who claim to be against abortion continually talk in terms of the unborn being something other than us. Statements like the one above “protect the unborn child by means other than just criminalizing all abortions in all circumstances”. Isn’t this the same thing as saying I want to protect certain people, however, there are some other people that don’t deserve the same protection?

Folks’ all of this confusion goes away by admitting one simple fact. ALL human life is sacred from the moment of conception until natural death. If we can just please accept this one fact and all debate goes away.

 

[Worthy5]

I understand you are new to CAF, however, a basic premise of these threads are open to all for (name removed by moderator)ut. You may address an individual but you may not exclude anyone from responding.

Every point you have made separates the unborn from the rest of us.

??? What part of this is a moral issue and not a legal one don’t you understand? I am not proposing punishment or enforcement by the government. The less the government has to do with it the better I like it. I want people to see what abortion is from a moral stand point not a legal one. Laws are man made and subject to error, moral law is God made and not subject to error.

PLEASE quit putting words in my mouth…

My friend, that was just a polite way of saying that your evaluation of my post regarding the Church’s rationale behind contraception added nothing. Your words of " that was pretty good" implies you have some superior view than others on this thread-you do not.

" Every point you have made separates the unborn from the rest of us." You are simply re-stating a conclusion. But let us try again, it is not I that is separating but rather it is society deciding that it will use a different method to protect the life of the unborn in the early stages of the pregnancy by not criminalizing earlier term abortions but rather it will use other methods to help prevent women from making the decision to abort the child at that stage.

You are trying to characterize the govt’s decision to use a non-criminal law ban as a means to protect the fetus life in the early stages as govt saying that the early fetus is “less” of a person than later term unborns and the rest of us. Fine that is your characterization.

But the opposite arguments is the belief that criminalizing all abortions is not the best “means” to stop as many abortions as possible but rather non-criminal ban means are more effective in working with women to make the better decision to not have any abortion at all. The belief that those “means” are better is actually not displaying a belief that the early fetus is less than everyone else but rather recognizes the reality that has to be worked with, that such a fetus is inside the body of an independent, autonomous person (the women) who God has entrusted to carry the unborn life to terms. Society’s job is to help her make better decisions.

These methods also promotes society’s need to limit government power and to maximize its resources in the best way. And again, what are you going to do, place in jail each women who commits an abortion for murder. Is that women really more of a threat to society than other types of criminals?

You say " I want the unborn treated exactly like every other human being. This means there is no further law is required, there is already a law against murder."

My friend, a new law has to be past and the Court has to overturn Roe. There is nothing on the books that is going to trigger the state to prosecute when the unborn early fetus is not being treated as you say " like every other human being" under the murder law.

My friend it has been fun debating you but unless you have something to add in your next post, I respectfully withdraw from this discussion. Thanks and God Bless

 

[Worthy5]

I think you need to differentiate why you think that in the case of abortion it is not appropriate for the government to make a law, and in the case of murder it is appropriate for the government to make a law.

Most pro-life supporters consider abortion to be murder. Some would allow abortion as a choice in the case where the life of the mother was seriously and directly threatened, but in that case sees it of a matter of choosing one complete human life against another, just as if it were two adults in a similar situation. So both groups would consider abortion to be the objective equivalent to murder in both cases.

Also, very few people at all think murder should not be against the law. I suppose if we could effectively eradicate murder then we would not need a law, but of course that isn’t the case.

If abortion is murder, should it not then also be against the law, by extension? I can think of a few ways one could argue no; but not to avoid interference by government, unless you would make the same argument for regular old murder.

The reasons I could think of (there may be more of course) are:

• No one gets abortions, so there is no need to have a law. (That is not true now, and wasn’t true when it was illegal, so you would need to show you could stop it some other way.)
• Sometimes if there is no way to detect or police a certain kind of crime than there can be a good argument against making laws about it. (That doesn’t seem to be the case here.)
• You think current laws about murder should also be abolished.
• You think that abortions should be allowed in the case of the life of the mother, AND that there is no effective/fair/just way to differentiate between these and other abortions.

I think the last is the only possible viable argument. One might need to do some research on other systems that have laws of this nature to see how they work.

Read all my posts. The early fetus is intimately connected to the body of an independent, autonomous being-the women. You guys need to explain why the govt (society) should take its official stamp (the law) and all the resources to enfore the law for it to mean anything, to prevent a women from destroying the early fetus. Why cannot the govt choose another method, perhaps more effective methods (honey is often better than bile) to prevent the women from making the wrong choice. A some level her choice matters otherwise you are arguing for complete govt power to usurp the decision of the individual-that borders on totalitarianism.

 

[CWBetts]

Read all my posts. The early fetus is intimately connected to the body of an independent, autonomous being-the women. You guys need to explain why the govt (society) should take is official stamp (the law) and all the resources to enfore the law for it to mean anything, to prevent a women from destroying the early fetus. Why cannot the govt choose another method, perhaps more effective methods (honey is often better than bile) to prevent the women from making the wrong choice. A some level her choice matters otherwise you are arguing for complete govt power to usurp the decision of the individual-that borders on totalitarianism.

We are not dealing with one individual, but two. The woman is making the choice to murder someone who cannot raise their own voice in protest. It is uo to the government to protect that silent citizen.

 

[Bluegoat]

Read all my posts. The early fetus is intimately connected to the body of an independent, autonomous being-the women. You guys need to explain why the govt (society) should take is official stamp (the law) and all the resources to enfore the law for it to mean anything, to prevent a women from destroying the early fetus. Why cannot the govt choose another method, perhaps more effective methods (honey is often better than bile) to prevent the women from making the wrong choice. A some level her choice matters otherwise you are arguing for complete govt power to usurp the decision of the individual-that borders on totalitarianism.

But then that is the origin of the disagreement, and it isn’t mysterious at all. To any Catholic, and many others, each soul is of equal worth, and the the soul exists at conception. In order to talk about that one would have to get into a discussion about what a soul is, and how it is connected to the body. I suspect many are not prepared to enter into such a discussion, but that is the position of the CC, and from that POV, the conclusion is perfectly logical.

 

[Worthy5]

We are not dealing with one individual, but two. The woman is making the choice to murder someone who cannot raise their own voice in protest. It is uo to the government to protect that silent citizen.

And the govt is usually, it is just selecting other means than criminal bans on all abortions under all circumstances to attempt to protect the the unborn life. Look I am not going to argue with Thomas More! LOL. I have to go, it has been a good discussion guys, take care and God Bless.

 

[Worthy5]

But then that is the origin of the disagreement, and it isn’t mysterious at all. To any Catholic, and many others, each soul is of equal worth, and the the soul exists at conception. In order to talk about that one would have to get into a discussion about what a soul is, and how it is connected to the body. I suspect many are not prepared to enter into such a discussion, but that is the position of the CC, and from that POV, the conclusion is perfectly logical.

This is about what US law should be. But there is this incessant characterization that if the govt uses different methods in its attempts to protect the life of the unborn child at different stages that that means govt is saying that the early fetus is less valuable than the latter stage fetus or child. A use of a means does not define the value.

But moreover, a strong argument can be made that the govt by not using the criminal ban in the early stages but being more flexible and adopting measure to counsel and help women in the early stages to not abort is the most effective way to reduce abortions from happening. A complete criminal ban across the board sends the abortion industry underground where the govt would have less of a chance to counsel a women. By criminalizing abortion in the later stages, society is already making a statement with the law about how it morally feels about abortion. An all out ban does not measurable increase the moral statement enough given the costs it incurs with the govt’s loss of the abortion industry to the underground and the more resources needed to enforce a larger criminal ban.

As John McLaughlin says- " We gotta get out. Predictions Freddy"

 

[Bluegoat]

This is about what US law should be. But there is this incessant characterization that if the govt uses different methods in its attempts to protect the life of the unborn child at different stages that that means govt is saying that the early fetus is less valuable than the latter stage fetus or child. A use of a means does not define the value.

But moreover, a strong argument can be made that the govt by not using the criminal ban in the early stages but being more flexible and adopting measure to counsel and help women in the early stages to not abort is the most effective way to reduce abortions from happening. A complete criminal ban across the board sends the abortion industry underground where the govt would have less of a chance to counsel a women. By criminalizing abortion in the later stages, society is already making a statement with the law about how it morally feels about abortion. An all out ban does not measurable increase the moral statement enough given the costs it incurs with the govt’s loss of the abortion industry to the underground and the more resources needed to enforce a larger criminal ban.

As John McLaughlin says- " We gotta get out. Predictions Freddy"

So, you are saying, I think, that a law against early abortion is likely to be ineffective, and so it would be best to confine the law to late term abortions, which would be more effective, and also send the message that abortion is a serious moral problem? And that also money spent on other ways of reducing early abortion would be more effective than money spent on trying to outlaw it?

If so, I agree that money should be spent on other ways of reducing abortion. I would also agree that a law restricting late term abortion would not be a bad thing at all, and might have a positive impact on early abortion and societies attitudes to abortion.

I am not sure that laws restricting early abortion are actually ineffective. If that was known to be the case, it could be a problem in creating legislation against it.

It seems to me the biggest difficulty here is the argument from justice - if early term abortions are really unjust, then I think one could argue that unless there is really no benefit to legislation, not to do so would be wrong.

 

[gakroeger]

My friend, that was just a polite way of saying that your evaluation of my post regarding the Church’s rationale behind contraception added nothing. Your words of " that was pretty good" implies you have some superior view than others on this thread-you do not.

" Every point you have made separates the unborn from the rest of us." You are simply re-stating a conclusion. But let us try again, it is not I that is separating but rather it is society deciding that it will use a different method to protect the life of the unborn in the early stages of the pregnancy by not criminalizing earlier term abortions but rather it will use other methods to help prevent women from making the decision to abort the child at that stage.

You are trying to characterize the govt’s decision to use a non-criminal law ban as a means to protect the fetus life in the early stages as govt saying that the early fetus is “less” of a person than later term unborns and the rest of us. Fine that is your characterization.

But the opposite arguments is the belief that criminalizing all abortions is not the best “means” to stop as many abortions as possible but rather non-criminal ban means are more effective in working with women to make the better decision to not have any abortion at all. The belief that those “means” are better is actually not displaying a belief that the early fetus is less than everyone else but rather recognizes the reality that has to be worked with, that such a fetus is inside the body of an independent, autonomous person (the women) who God has entrusted to carry the unborn life to terms. Society’s job is to help her make better decisions.

These methods also promotes society’s need to limit government power and to maximize its resources in the best way. And again, what are you going to do, place in jail each women who commits an abortion for murder. Is that women really more of a threat to society than other types of criminals?

You say " I want the unborn treated exactly like every other human being. This means there is no further law is required, there is already a law against murder."

My friend, a new law has to be past and the Court has to overturn Roe. There is nothing on the books that is going to trigger the state to prosecute when the unborn early fetus is not being treated as you say " like every other human being" under the murder law.

My friend it has been fun debating you but unless you have something to add in your next post, I respectfully withdraw from this discussion. Thanks and God Bless

Saint Paul to Timothy,
1 Timothy 6:
My dear Timothy, take great care of all that has been entrusted to you. Have nothing to do with the pointless philosophical discussions and antagonistic beliefs of the ‘knowledge’ which is not knowledge at all; by adopting this, some have gone right away from the faith. Grace be with you.

There is none so blind as those who will not see…

 

[Christopher68]

I really do not understand how some pro-life people cannot accept the reasonable position of being against abortion but being pro-choice= which is saying that the govt can fulfill is duty to attempt to protect the unborn child by means other than just criminalizing all abortions in all circumstances. You keep going back to how horrible abortion is=we all agree on that! The question is how to best prevent abortion while still respecting the need to limit the power of government coercion. And again, outlawing abortion does not guarantee abortions will not occur anyway!

I understand exactly the point you are trying to make. Abortion is an issue where approximately half the population views the issue one way, and the other half views it the other way, and in many ways the two positions are irreconcilable. And if abortion is made illegal, half the polulation will rejoice and half will think the law is complete bunk.

In my opinion, the only way to ‘win’ the abortion issue is by changing hearts and minds - and that is something that doesn’t involve the government or laws. I also believe that government has been an abject failure whenever they tackle ‘moral’ issues - i.e. the Great Society actually made poverty worse, the War on Drugs has been an unmitigated disaster, etc. Some people will counter that by saying ‘why do we have laws against rape and murder - after all, aren’t those moral issues or personal choices too?’ However, the comparison is absurd, as virtually 100% of the polulation is opposed to rape and murder - while the percentage of people who are either ‘pro-life’ or ‘pro-choice’ is approximately 50%, depending on who has done the surveying and how they have slanted the questions that were being asked. Also, many people are caught up in the emotional nature of the issue, and they fail to see that the force of government is not the solution here. As mentioned, the solution is changing hearts and minds.

 

[Worthy5]

Saint Paul to Timothy,
1 Timothy 6:
My dear Timothy, take great care of all that has been entrusted to you. Have nothing to do with the pointless philosophical discussions and antagonistic beliefs of the ‘knowledge’ which is not knowledge at all; by adopting this, some have gone right away from the faith. Grace be with you.

There is none so blind as those who will not see…

That added nothing, but as a conclusion to prior posts, the other means the govt can use to help stop abortions outside of criminal bans vary from state to state and of course are always subject to challenges in the courts under the " undue burden " standard the Supreme Court outlined in the 1992 Casey decision. Without knowing all the states laws on this matter, it is very possible a particular state is not doing much right now to attempt to protect the life of the early fetus.

 

[gakroeger]

That added nothing, but as a conclusion to prior posts, the other means the govt can use to help stop abortions outside of criminal bans vary from state to state and of course are always subject to challenges in the courts under the " undue burden " standard the Supreme Court outlined in the 1992 Casey decision. Without knowing all the states laws on this matter, it is very possible a particular state is not doing much right now to attempt to protect the life of the early fetus.

I thought you withdrew.

 

[CWBetts]

That added nothing, but as a conclusion to prior posts, the other means the govt can use to help stop abortions outside of criminal bans vary from state to state and of course are always subject to challenges in the courts under the " undue burden " standard the Supreme Court outlined in the 1992 Casey decision. Without knowing all the states laws on this matter, it is very possible a particular state is not doing much right now to attempt to protect the life of the early fetus.

Individual states have their hands tied. They are doing all they can, except for banning abortions. And if Obama has his way, any legislation whatsoever, including parental notification laws will be overturned

 

[Caramel]

Hi Caramel

It was probably because the quote you were attaching was large. Eliminate some of the quote.

Yeah, but it’s so frustrating to work so hard on a reply and then to be informed that your reply is too long. And it gets confusing to me when I delete parts of quotes (although that is what I did) because then I forget the specific point I am arguing about. It’s because I have retroactive amnesia because of medication I take for chronic pain. Things go into my head and right back out again. I’m getting off the meds but the retroactive amnesia is not going away. It makes it difficult to debate, but I will always hang in there, especially when it is about abortion.

Thanks for your help and God bless,
caramel
mother of Ryan Christopher
and Elysia Catherine (in heaven)

“Having your dreams come true can be far more therapeutic than having them analyzed…” - anonymous

 

[Benadam]

This is about what US law should be. But there is this incessant characterization that if the govt uses different methods in its attempts to protect the life of the unborn child at different stages that that means govt is saying that the early fetus is less valuable than the latter stage fetus or child. A use of a means does not define the value.

Lets not deflect the true meaning to human beings these ‘other’ means will have for them. The ‘other’ means provides an environment that abortion is not criminalized ie; is givn a permissable place to happen for thos ‘difficult situations’. You should dmit that what you propose is a lawfull place to perform abortions under the guise that everything will bwe done to sway mothers away from abortion. I have to comment because you mentioned the value of the fetus. If you wish to preserve an environment that will not protect the life of the fetus from the will of another to who wishes to end it you most certainly are placing the value of some other good over it. Since that good isn’t over human beings in other developemental stages you most certainly are proposing measures that devalue the fetus. By the way why should the state criminilize certain acts? That requires a faulty assumption to stand. The state doesn’t decide to criminilize acts at most it can acknowledge certain acts are crimes and protect the human beings it serves from suffering it.The state isn’t capable of deciding what is a crime, It criminilizes certain acts because they are recognized crimes.

Given you are willing to acknowledge the fetus as a human being.
Why would it be good to not recognize that abortion is a crime against the fetus?

But moreover, a strong argument can be made that the govt by not using the criminal ban in the early stages but being more flexible and adopting measure to counsel and help women in the early stages to not abort is the most effective way to reduce abortions from happening.

Why are the womans wishes more valuable than a human being at the early developemental stage?

A complete criminal ban across the board sends the abortion industry underground where the govt would have less of a chance to counsel a women. By criminalizing abortion in the later stages, society is already making a statement with the law about how it morally feels about abortion. An all out ban does not measurable increase the moral statement enough given the costs it incurs with the govt’s loss of the abortion industry to the underground and the more resources needed to enforce a larger criminal ban.

All of these reasons are more valuable than a human being that is a fetus. At least stop trying to argue that the fetus is not devalued by not criminilizing abortion. I doubt that an underground industry would emerge for long.

 

[MattLark]

Doesn’t change the fact that you are trying to ride the fence, and trying to justify it by using presumptuous phraseology in a weak attempt to make people think you are intellectual

Not riding any fence at all, CW. I am pro-life (anti-abortion), right to life (pro-(responsible)choice)
What has been done is show you that you are among those answering me who who do not think.CW, Forgive me my intellectualisms and I’ll forgive you your lack.