Pro Life versus Pro Choice Debate

[CWBetts]

No it is not, and for you to say it is shows how little you have learned from the discussion here.

Pro-Choice a lie. It depends on the denial of choice to the baby. Legalized abortion has resulted in women being coerced into abortions by parents, boyfriends, and employers. Abortion advocates are anti-choice.

 

[beafedor]

Abortion experience

As a woman who had 2 abortions and who knows many post abortive women, I can tell you this much: abortion is not a free choice. We are not having abortions because we are free but because we are desperate. We are having abortions because we haven’t found the financial and emotional support from our partner, friends and family members. And also because the abortion provider doesn’t share information about alternatives (crisis pregnancy centers, churches, adoption agencies…)

Our culture is teaching women: ‘My body, my choice’. This translates into: “it’s my problem, I’m on my own”.

If we want a world where women don’t need abortion, the financial and the emotional issues have to be addressed.

And an abortion is not over once you’re finished with the procedure and follow up visits. An abortion has long lasting consequences.

The truth is, women still die from legal abortion. Some women have infections, become infertile, have cancer related to an abortion.

A few issues a woman experiences after an abortion: substance abuse, depression, eating disorders, relationship problems, a feeling of loss and unworthiness to become a mother when she is pregnant with a “wanted” child, inability to bound with her “wanted” children.

Abortion doesn’t solve a pregnancy problem, but it creates new ones.
Women deserve better than abortion. No compassionate person wants a woman to suffer through the personal tragedy of abortion.

Please listen to the voices of those who have experienced abortion in this debate.
silentnomoreawareness.org/

 

[gearhead]

The human race would die out without procreation.

The human race will continue regardless of your personal, individual decision to have children or not. Many, many people choose not to have children, yet the human race is still here.

And if the human race does die out… so what? Do we have a moral imperative to procreate?

Your position is absurd on many levels.

It follows logically and directly from the premise that an embryo is a person. If my conclusion is absurd, it’s because the original premise is absurd.

Not necessarily as I have pointed out. Physical evils are often unavoidable. That does not make one morally culpable.

This “physical evil” is easily avoidable. This makes the decision to allow it to happen morally culpable.

I have given two examples already of human activity that may lead to death including breathing. Unintended death by natural causes is not a moral evil.

Earlier in the thread, it was brought up that oral contraceptives can cause “abortions” by preventing implantation. If this is unintended, is this similarily not a moral evil?

Pro life accurately describes the situation as does pro abortion.

“Pro life” only accurately describes the situation for a person whose anti-abortion stance is only one aspect of a general esteem and respect for human life (and only then if we assume that abortion is a matter of “life”, which, as was pointed out in the OP, is a matter of contention). It would imply other actions that I don’t generally see people or organizations who oppose abortion doing,

Pro choice is a type of lie.

No, it’s not.

 

[gearhead]

Pro-Choice a lie. It depends on the denial of choice to the baby.

Well, yes, it does. Just as amputation “depends on the denial of choice” to the amputated limb.

You’re basing your assessment of the pro-choice position on assumptions that are not generally held by pro-choice people.

Legalized abortion has resulted in women being coerced into abortions by parents, boyfriends, and employers. Abortion advocates are anti-choice.

If that’s happening, I strongly object to it. I really do think that abortion should be a matter of choice for the woman. No woman should be coerced into having an abortion she doesn’t want or hounded away from having an abortion she does want.

 

[fix]

No it is not, and for you to say it is shows how little you have learned from the discussion here.

What choice does the baby get?

 

[fix]

Pro-Choice a lie. It depends on the denial of choice to the baby. Legalized abortion has resulted in women being coerced into abortions by parents, boyfriends, and employers. Abortion advocates are anti-choice.

Very true. The claim of “choice” must really refer to a very limited “choice”. If we play that game then we can easily say pro life is pro choice. I mean we can have laws against arson and still say the arsonist is making a choice to break the law. So, we can say we are “pro choice” on arson we just want laws against it.

In the end, pro choice is a disingenuous term.

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

From Freedom2Care, for those who wish to act:

Just moments ago, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi revealed the federal healthcare “reform” bill that pro-abortion legislators have been working on behind closed doors.

In just a few days, the Speaker wants Congress to vote on the bill.

So our time to act and speak out to our legislators is very, very short. We must do so today.

No one in this short time can analyze the many details of this bill, but one thing is sure:

This legislation would radically change U.S. policy by having the government subsidize abortion on demand.

So our message to Congress is quite simple:

Keep our government from paying for abortions in any way.

When you tell your legislators this simple message, you may get excuses in response. Don’t buy the excuses:

The “Capps Amendment” is a phony scheme written by a pro-abortion legislator to set up accounting screens to mask federal subsidy of abortion. The bottom line after the smoke clears is that an abortionist would get a check from the U.S. Treasury to pay him for the abortion he performed.

The “Hyde Amendment” is a good law barring certain government funding (HHS appropriations) of certain abortions, but it does not apply to funding from this new healthcare legislation. It also has to be approved again and again each year, and pro-abortion legislators are aiming to vote it down. That would open the floodgates for government funding of abortion on demand.

Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich. 1) is leading about 40 pro-life colleagues from his party, along with Republican Representatives, in demanding an amendment to bar government funding of abortions.

The Stupak-Pitts amendment would—unlike the phony “compromises” by abortion proponents—clearly and explicitly bar government funding of abortions. The Stupak-Pitts amendment would parallel the good Hyde amendment.

So far, the Speaker and other pro-abortion leaders have refused to give this group a chance to vote. This battle is now coming to a head.

The pro-abortion Speaker doesn’t want that to happen. In a few days, the Speaker will try to get Representatives to vote to disallow any amendments to the healthcare legislation. That’s called a “closed rule” and it prohibits any amendments.

So when you tell your legislators to keep the government from funding abortions, tell them to vote NO on the closed rule. Tell them the Stupak-Pitts amendment deserves a YES vote to keep the government from funding abortions.

What you can do:
Contact the offices of your U.S. Representative today:

capwiz.com/nrlc/dbq/officials/

Tell your legislator to keep the government from funding abortions by:

Voting NO on the “closed rule” (the rule that abortion proponents want to prevent pro-life amendments).
Voting YES on the Stupak-Pitts amendment to ban government funding of abortions.
This is not just politics. Little lives hang in the balance.

Thank you for speaking out.

This bill is wrong. Everything about it is wrong. Abortion is an intrinsic evil. May God have mercy on those of us who see that IF this bill passes.

Not just the unborn, but also the infirm and elderly will be discarded ON YOUR DIME.

 

[fix]

The human race will continue regardless of your personal, individual decision to have children or not. Many, many people choose not to have children, yet the human race is still here.

And if the human race does die out… so what? Do we have a moral imperative to procreate?

Yes, in some sense there is a moral imperative to procreate. That is the primary purpose of marriage.

It follows logically and directly from the premise that an embryo is a person. If my conclusion is absurd, it’s because the original premise is absurd.

No, it does not follow. You fail to grasp that physical evils result from nature, not from the intent of the actor.

This “physical evil” is easily avoidable. This makes the decision to allow it to happen morally culpable.

It is unavoidable. Just like contracting a cold is unavoidable. Bad physical things happen that does not mean the person is morally responsible.

Earlier in the thread, it was brought up that oral contraceptives can cause “abortions” by preventing implantation. If this is unintended, is this similarily not a moral evil?

If the drug is taken as to contracept there is moral culpability. If the drug is taken to treat a medical pathology, then there is not moral culpability.

“Pro life” only accurately describes the situation for a person whose anti-abortion stance is only one aspect of a general esteem and respect for human life (and only then if we assume that abortion is a matter of “life”, which, as was pointed out in the OP, is a matter of contention). It would imply other actions that I don’t generally see people or organizations who oppose abortion doing,

Pro life reflects the reality of the situation. They want protection for those who have none. Pro choice is a cover to commit abortion

No, it’s not.

It is a lie. The baby gets no choice and the so-called choice is not a legitimate choice.

 

[gearhead]

What choice does the baby get?

This is just stupid (and off-topic). What you’re effectively arguing is that if pro-choice people believed the same things as you did, then their position wouldn’t be motivated by the principle of freedom of choice for the woman.

News flash: pro-choice people don’t believe the same things you do. Their position is based on the principle of freedom of choice.

OTOH, as far as I can tell, the anti-abortion movement really is about abortion and nothing else. I mean, I’ve heard about lots of cases where supposedly “pro-life” people would stand outside of abortion clinics holding pictures of dismembered fetuses, but I’ve never heard of one “pro-life” rally where people hold pictures of flag-draped coffins in front of military recruitment offices.

The “pro-life” movement has existed as a major political force for decades now. If any group of people as large as that had actually been working in the general service of “life”, the world would be a very different place. There are currently a billion people in the world who don’t have clean drinking water. Millions of people die every year from diseases that can be easily treated by cheap antibiotics. These are just a few of the signs that the “pro-life” movement is really concerned with abortion and maybe euthanasia… but certainly nothing as mundane as actually saving lives.

 

[fix]

This is just stupid (and off-topic). What you’re effectively arguing is that if pro-choice people believed the same things as you did, then their position wouldn’t be motivated by the principle of freedom of choice for the woman.

Freedom to kill?

News flash: pro-choice people don’t believe the same things you do. Their position is based on the principle of freedom of choice.

Freedom to kill?

OTOH, as far as I can tell, the anti-abortion movement really is about abortion and nothing else. I mean, I’ve heard about lots of cases where supposedly “pro-life” people would stand outside of abortion clinics holding pictures of dismembered fetuses, but I’ve never heard of one “pro-life” rally where people hold pictures of flag-draped coffins in front of military recruitment offices.

This is absurd, again. How are these two issues equal?

The “pro-life” movement has existed as a major political force for decades now. If any group of people as large as that had actually been working in the general service of “life”, the world would be a very different place. There are currently a billion people in the world who don’t have clean drinking water. Millions of people die every year from diseases that can be easily treated by cheap antibiotics. These are just a few of the signs that the “pro-life” movement is really concerned with abortion and maybe euthanasia… but certainly nothing as mundane as actually saving lives.

The millions of babies killed each year get what voice?

 

[Worthy5]

What choice does the baby get?

Well, thanks for playing God. If the unborn fetus choice is the trump card then why are women entrusted by nature with the fetus. Seems to be me nature would just use the " stork". That is not the case, women have the duty, the govt has a duty, just because someone disagrees with you on how those duties to protect the life are allocated is a disagreement on means not the end.

You know that. But your statements (your all or nothing position and your labeling that all pro-choice positions are also necessarily proabortion positions) continues to show that you (and CWBetts) are more interested in grandstanding on morality for your own ego than expanding the discussion on how best to address the abortion problem.

 

[beafedor]

To Gearhead:

If that’s happening, I strongly object to it. I really do think that abortion should be a matter of choice for the woman. No woman should be coerced into having an abortion she doesn’t want or hounded away from having an abortion she does want.

Please read my previous post. Woman ARE coerced into having abortions by their partners who refuse to support them, family members and friends who don’t care.

 

[gearhead]

Freedom to kill?

(facepalm)

This is absurd, again. How are these two issues equal?

I didn’t say they were equal, but both would flow from a general principle of the protection of life.

The millions of babies killed each year get what voice?

Ahh… so forget the kids with cholera and dysentery, hmm? If it’s about abortion, just say it’s about abortion.

Do you think the term “anti-abortion” is inaccurate? You are against abortion, aren’t you?

 

[fix]

Well, thanks for playing God. If the unborn fetus choice is the trump card then why are women entrusted by nature with the fetus. Seems to be me nature would just use the " stork". That is not the case, women have the duty, the govt has a duty, just because someone disagrees with you on how those duties to protect the life are allocated is a disagreement on means not the end.

You know that. But your statements (your all or nothing position and your labeling that all pro-choice positions are also necessarily proabortion positions) continues to show that you (and CWBetts) are more interested in grandstanding on morality for your own ego than expanding the discussion on how best to address the abortion problem.

Nice misdirection, but not buying it. The pro life position is not “grandstanding”, it is a simple position that advocates common sense.

Why does a two year old not get the same treatment you advocate for the unborn child? The two year old is dependent on the mother as well.

If you really cared about the issue you would admit it is unjust that the law allows for the taking of innocent life and admit the connection is central to the issue.

BTW, the ones playing God are the ones who advocate “pro choice”.

 

[gearhead]

Please read my previous post. Woman ARE coerced into having abortions by their partners who refuse to support them, family members and friends who don’t care.

Wait a minute… you’re changing your tune. How would “friends who don’t care” coerce a woman into having an abortion?

To the extent that coercion - actual coercion - occurs, it should be stopped. But it isn’t “coercion” for a friend to simply not offer to help with babysitting or the like.

 

[bigfootbob]

Well, thanks for playing God. If the unborn fetus choice is the trump card then why are women entrusted by nature with the fetus. Seems to be me nature would just use the " stork". That is not the case, women have the duty, the govt has a duty, just because someone disagrees with you on how those duties to protect the life are allocated is a disagreement on means not the end.

You know that. But your statements (your all or nothing position and your labeling that all pro-choice positions are also necessarily proabortion positions) continues to show that you (and CWBetts) are more interested in grandstanding on morality for your own ego than expanding the discussion on how best to address the abortion problem.

Fix and CWBetts aren’t doing this for their own ego. I am sure they they could find better ways to do that if they were. They think abortion is wrong and they are trying to do something about it.

 

[gakroeger]

Abortion experience

As a woman who had 2 abortions and who knows many post abortive women, I can tell you this much: abortion is not a free choice. We are not having abortions because we are free but because we are desperate. We are having abortions because we haven’t found the financial and emotional support from our partner, friends and family members. And also because the abortion provider doesn’t share information about alternatives (crisis pregnancy centers, churches, adoption agencies…)

Our culture is teaching women: ‘My body, my choice’. This translates into: “it’s my problem, I’m on my own”.

If we want a world where women don’t need abortion, the financial and the emotional issues have to be addressed.

And an abortion is not over once you’re finished with the procedure and follow up visits. An abortion has long lasting consequences.

The truth is, women still die from legal abortion. Some women have infections, become infertile, have cancer related to an abortion.

A few issues a woman experiences after an abortion: substance abuse, depression, eating disorders, relationship problems, a feeling of loss and unworthiness to become a mother when she is pregnant with a “wanted” child, inability to bound with her “wanted” children.

Abortion doesn’t solve a pregnancy problem, but it creates new ones.
Women deserve better than abortion. No compassionate person wants a woman to suffer through the personal tragedy of abortion.

Please listen to the voices of those who have experienced abortion in this debate.
silentnomoreawareness.org/

Dear beafedor

Thank you so much for your post. We need more (name removed by moderator)ut from people who are closest to this problem. I find that most of those pushing for “pro choice” are operating from philosophical opinions and not open to (name removed by moderator)ut from real life situations.

Your post helped me to better understand the responsibilities of those other then the women in situations where she feels she has no other choice. Obviously the other main participant is the father who shares an equal responsibility; the woman should not be placed in the position of sole responsibility.

The other people who share responsibility such as councilors and government agencies that are suppose to help; I have been more familiar with. Organizations such as Planned Parenthood push women in this position toward abortion because this is what they do; they are in the business of killing babies. If organizations such as Planned Parenthood were truly trying to help women and society in general, they would be pushing for adoption. There are many couples that would love to adopt these unwanted babies.

It is so sad to me that if adoption were the “choice” instead of abortion; the birth mother would not have the guilt feelings which lead to all of the problems you mention, the baby would live, and the adoptive parents would be ecstatic. It all boils down to the idiotic ideology that these “pro choice” people think they know better what is good for mankind then God or the actual people themselves.

 

[fix]

(facepalm)

Truth is hard to accept for some.

I didn’t say they were equal, but both would flow from a general principle of the protection of life.

It is a type of red herring.

Ahh… so forget the kids with cholera and dysentery, hmm? If it’s about abortion, just say it’s about abortion.

Of course they matter, why try and make it an either/or? No one advocates killing these kids, but many do the unborn. You are deflecting.

Do you think the term “anti-abortion” is inaccurate? You are against abortion, aren’t you?

I have no problem with the term anti abortion, anti rape, anti genocide, etc. Why would I?

 

[beafedor]

Wait a minute… you’re changing your tune. How would “friends who don’t care” coerce a woman into having an abortion?

To the extent that coercion - actual coercion - occurs, it should be stopped. But it isn’t “coercion” for a friend to simply not offer to help with babysitting or the like.

I’m glad I caught your attention. I apologize if I don’t use the proper words as English is not my first language.

Let me explain:
If you think that coercion means to take a woman against her will to the abortion clinic, that does happen EVERY DAY. Abusive men do that to abused women, well meaning parents (including Christians) do that to teenage girls. Please go to your local abortion clinic and take a look at some of the patients and their “escort”.

There is also indirect coercion, when the father gave up on the mother and the child and friends and family members don’t want to help her financially or support her emotionally.

Being pregnant in itself is a scary and overwhelming situation and the woman is feeling pressured to “fix a problem”. So she doesn’t freely choose abortion but she reluctantly chooses it as a last resort. Our culture is telling us that women shouldn’t have kids if they can’t support themselves and their child. Since we don’t want to be bothered with their pregnancy, we are quick to advise abortion to our sisters or our friends. And it is degrading to a woman to make them feel that her child is not welcome.

 

[gakroeger]

I’m glad I caught your attention. I apologize if I don’t use the proper words as English is not my first language.

Let me explain:
If you think that coercion means to take a woman against her will to the abortion clinic, that does happen EVERY DAY. Abusive men do that to abused women, well meaning parents (including Christians) do that to teenage girls. Please go to your local abortion clinic and take a look at some of the patients and their “escort”.

There is also indirect coercion, when the father gave up on the mother and the child and friends and family members don’t want to help her financially or support her emotionally.

Being pregnant in itself is a scary and overwhelming situation and the woman is feeling pressured to “fix a problem”. So she doesn’t freely choose abortion but she reluctantly chooses it as a last resort. Our culture is telling us that women shouldn’t have kids if they can’t support themselves and their child. Since we don’t want to be bothered with their pregnancy, we are quick to advise abortion to our sisters or our friends. And it is degrading to a woman to make them feel that her child is not welcome.

Again, thank you beafedor

This is some of the most courageous testimony we have seen on this thread…