Pro Life versus Pro Choice Debate

  • Thread starter Thread starter gakroeger
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Dear Gearhead and Bluegoat

I would be interested to know if either of you have looked at the images at the link on the first post. With all the denial that the embryo is a fully developing human being on these posts; can you look at those images and honestly say it was not a complete human being?
 
And the intent of those bomber crews was to decimate whole sections of cities. Now…whether they were doing this to target a strategic railway yard or an orphanage plays a key role in the morality of their actions, but the effects are the same regardless of what was in their hearts.
Their actions may have been immoral. How does that justify abortion?
 
Once the killer is incarcerated and held securely, that goal is accomplished. If he represents a threat to other inmates, then you can isolate him from them.

Capital punishment is nothing more than state-sanctioned revenge. It’s worthless as a deterrent and serves no legitimate purpose.

And the intent of those bomber crews was to decimate whole sections of cities. Now…whether they were doing this to target a strategic railway yard or an orphanage plays a key role in the morality of their actions, but the effects are the same regardless of what was in their hearts.
Would you actually like me to list the names of people who have been killed by killers once in prison for killing someone else?

We are off subject, however, because you say capitol punishment is a worthless deterrent does not make it so. Logic would tell any thinking person that it is a very strong deterrent and it certainly insures the killer will not kill again.
 
Virtually everyone I know places weight on the rights of developing babies. It’s just that many of them don’t consider fetuses to be babies. And very, very few people I know would try to make the argument that a blastocyst is somehow a person.
When does a person get to be a person?
 
Dear Gearhead and Bluegoat

I would be interested to know if either of you have looked at the images at the link on the first post. With all the denial that the embryo is a fully developing human being on these posts; can you look at those images and honestly say it was not a complete human being?
I am not, as you seem to think, pro-choice. I do object to silly pro-life arguments.

In the original post, there was an attempt to reduce all pro-choice views to some rather simple, and not very compelling, arguments. Not only was it not accurate, it does a disservice to the pro-life movement. People who take that characterization seriously then fail to address the real pro-life arguments, and just end up looking ill-informed or dense. Or pro-life people resent that they are being presented as saying something that they are not, which is a pretty natural response, and so stop listening to what is being said at all.

I can’t see what could possibly be gained by presenting a parody of pro-choice views, except to make ill-informed people pat themselves on the back and feel good for being so much smarter and moral.
 
I am not, as you seem to think, pro-choice. I do object to silly pro-life arguments.

In the original post, there was an attempt to reduce all pro-choice views to some rather simple, and not very compelling, arguments. Not only was it not accurate, it does a disservice to the pro-life movement. People who take that characterization seriously then fail to address the real pro-life arguments, and just end up looking ill-informed or dense. Or pro-life people resent that they are being presented as saying something that they are not, which is a pretty natural response, and so stop listening to what is being said at all.

I can’t see what could possibly be gained by presenting a parody of pro-choice views, except to make ill-informed people pat themselves on the back and feel good for being so much smarter and moral.
I thought not…

If you do not like pro life arguments, why are you participating in one?

Some of us do more than try to convince wrong headed people on this forum that the millions of babies being aborted deserve to live just as much as all of us.

Some of us actually work to fund homes for unwed mothers.

Thank you for answering, even if not directly, my question about whether you are hiding from the reality of abortion.
 
To compare the actions of a state government in punishment of a criminal who has taken human life and to protect society from them doing it again, to murdering a baby in its mother’s womb is beyond all logic.

Whether you agree with capital punishment or not; for a state to execute a psychopathic killer is not because they do not value human life, it is because they DO value human life and are taking steps to prevent this killer from killing again.

Again, I am amazed at the attempts to justify the unjustifiable by those wanting to eliminate the inconvenience of a new baby.
Not if you understand why the Catholic Church, and many other Christian groups, object to abortion. It has nothing to do with the innocence of the baby involved.

Remember, the Catholic Church and other Western Christians in general do not believe that any human being since the Fall is innocent, and that includes the unborn. We are all fallen. By the same token, we are all offered Salvation, and Christ died for all - infants, adults, saints and murderers. None of us deserves life; we are all given it as a gift of God’s grace. This is pretty basic to the Church’s understanding.

How does this apply to abortion, murder, killing, etc? Well, the Church does not allow us to kill another person except in very unusual circumstances. In a real case of self-defense lethal force may be justified, although not if lesser force would suffice. War is the other situation, and I would say too big a discussion and too much off topic to get into here, especially since there seems to be a lot more disagreement about it.

The Church does not allow killing for convenience, for monetary gain, for revenge, for punishment, for guilt, to prevent something that hasn’t happened yet. So the Church does not support abortion (some other Christian groups and most legal systems allow it when the mother’s life is really in danger,) it doesn’t support the death penalty, and it doesn’t support killing to protect property alone. This is quite consistent with the idea that human life is all the gift of God, and something we do not have the right to mess with.

I do not know why the pro-life movement is constantly talking about innocents being killed, because that is not really the point. I suppose it has a wider appeal, although it reminds me a bit of Greenpeace’s use of the baby seals to raise money because they are cute. It also allows people to feel comfortable supporting the death penalty while objecting to abortion.

I think it is a big mistake to attach a cause motivated by the Church’s profound respect for life to something which is immaterial to it, because it confuses people. If someone thinks that is the real reason, it will allow that “culture of death” people talk about to continue because they haven’t really understood the meaning of life.

In that scenario, I think any gains made in the US on the abortion front are likely to be short-lived. They will always be undercut when society sees human life as less important than property, or thinks that the value of life depends on innocence and guilt, or even that other types of life have no intrinsic value. A much more comprehensive approach is required.
 
I thought not…

If you do not like pro life arguments, why are you participating in one?

Some of us do more than try to convince wrong headed people on this forum that the millions of babies being aborted deserve to live just as much as all of us.

Some of us actually work to fund homes for unwed mothers.

Thank you for answering, even if not directly, my question about whether you are hiding from the reality of abortion.
We are not allowed to use un-Truth in the service of Truth. It isn’t pleasing to God. I don’t think ad hominem arguments are very useful.
 
Not if you understand why the Catholic Church, and many other Christian groups, object to abortion. It has nothing to do with the innocence of the baby involved.

Remember, the Catholic Church and other Western Christians in general do not believe that any human being since the Fall is innocent, and that includes the unborn. We are all fallen. By the same token, we are all offered Salvation, and Christ died for all - infants, adults, saints and murderers. None of us deserves life; we are all given it as a gift of God’s grace. This is pretty basic to the Church’s understanding.

How does this apply to abortion, murder, killing, etc? Well, the Church does not allow us to kill another person except in very unusual circumstances. In a real case of self-defense lethal force may be justified, although not if lesser force would suffice. War is the other situation, and I would say too big a discussion and too much off topic to get into here, especially since there seems to be a lot more disagreement about it.

The Church does not allow killing for convenience, for monetary gain, for revenge, for punishment, for guilt, to prevent something that hasn’t happened yet. So the Church does not support abortion (some other Christian groups and most legal systems allow it when the mother’s life is really in danger,) it doesn’t support the death penalty, and it doesn’t support killing to protect property alone. This is quite consistent with the idea that human life is all the gift of God, and something we do not have the right to mess with.

I do not know why the pro-life movement is constantly talking about innocents being killed, because that is not really the point. I suppose it has a wider appeal, although it reminds me a bit of Greenpeace’s use of the baby seals to raise money because they are cute. It also allows people to feel comfortable supporting the death penalty while objecting to abortion.

I think it is a big mistake to attach a cause motivated by the Church’s profound respect for life to something which is immaterial to it, because it confuses people. If someone thinks that is the real reason, it will allow that “culture of death” people talk about to continue because they haven’t really understood the meaning of life.

In that scenario, I think any gains made in the US on the abortion front are likely to be short-lived. They will always be undercut when society sees human life as less important than property, or thinks that the value of life depends on innocence and guilt, or even that other types of life have no intrinsic value. A much more comprehensive approach is required.
Could you tell me once more please that you are NOT pro choice? I am having a very hard time believing it for some obscure reason.

Your long rant is nothing but more attempt to put grey between the black and white.

I don’t think (I could be wrong) but I don’t think God will ask us why we did not follow his commandments, I am pretty sure He will just let us know we did or did not. The time for excuses will be over.
 
The Church does not allow killing for convenience, for monetary gain, for revenge, for punishment, for guilt, to prevent something that hasn’t happened yet. So the Church does not support abortion (some other Christian groups and most legal systems allow it when the mother’s life is really in danger,) it doesn’t support the death penalty, and it doesn’t support killing to protect property alone. This is quite consistent with the idea that human life is all the gift of God, and something we do not have the right to mess with.
… unless it meets the specific criteria that the Church considers justification, right? I personally think that the Church’s position on abortion would be a lot more consistent if it also were an advocate for pacifism.

Also, killing in self-defense is killing to prevent something that hasn’t happened yet.
 
We are not allowed to use un-Truth in the service of Truth. It isn’t pleasing to God. I don’t think ad hominem arguments are very useful.
Either you are misinterpreting my statement or you do not understand what a ad hominem argument is.

Also can you explain where the untruth was in my post?
 
It is relevant because claiming a young baby is not a person seems absurd.
Sure, if you assume a priori that a fetus or embryo is a “young baby”. However, if you don’t do this, the question becomes whether it’s reasonable to make that leap.

And to reiterate my point before, calling my position (or even a mischaracterization of my position) “absurd” does not automatically imply that your position is reasonable. Defend it on its own merits.
 
Sure, if you assume a priori that a fetus or embryo is a “young baby”. However, if you don’t do this, the question becomes whether it’s reasonable to make that leap.
What is the developing baby then? Is it a mouse? A table?
And to reiterate my point before, calling my position (or even a mischaracterization of my position) “absurd” does not automatically imply that your position is reasonable. Defend it on its own merits.
My position is reasonable I am simply pointing out your position is not.
 
Not if you understand why the Catholic Church, and many other Christian groups, object to abortion. It has nothing to do with the innocence of the baby involved.

Remember, the Catholic Church and other Western Christians in general do not believe that any human being since the Fall is innocent, and that includes the unborn. We are all fallen. By the same token, we are all offered Salvation, and Christ died for all - infants, adults, saints and murderers. None of us deserves life; we are all given it as a gift of God’s grace. This is pretty basic to the Church’s understanding.

How does this apply to abortion, murder, killing, etc? Well, the Church does not allow us to kill another person except in very unusual circumstances. In a real case of self-defense lethal force may be justified, although not if lesser force would suffice. War is the other situation, and I would say too big a discussion and too much off topic to get into here, especially since there seems to be a lot more disagreement about it.

The Church does not allow killing for convenience, for monetary gain, for revenge, for punishment, for guilt, to prevent something that hasn’t happened yet. So the Church does not support abortion (some other Christian groups and most legal systems allow it when the mother’s life is really in danger,) it doesn’t support the death penalty, and it doesn’t support killing to protect property alone. This is quite consistent with the idea that human life is all the gift of God, and something we do not have the right to mess with.

I do not know why the pro-life movement is constantly talking about innocents being killed, because that is not really the point. I suppose it has a wider appeal, although it reminds me a bit of Greenpeace’s use of the baby seals to raise money because they are cute. It also allows people to feel comfortable supporting the death penalty while objecting to abortion.

I think it is a big mistake to attach a cause motivated by the Church’s profound respect for life to something which is immaterial to it, because it confuses people. If someone thinks that is the real reason, it will allow that “culture of death” people talk about to continue because they haven’t really understood the meaning of life.

In that scenario, I think any gains made in the US on the abortion front are likely to be short-lived. They will always be undercut when society sees human life as less important than property, or thinks that the value of life depends on innocence and guilt, or even that other types of life have no intrinsic value. A much more comprehensive approach is required.
I suggest you see what the Catholic Church really teaches:
The appearance of the strictest respect for legality is maintained, at least when the laws permitting abortion and euthanasia are the result of a ballot in accordance with what are generally seen as the rules of democracy. Really, what we have here is only the tragic caricature of legality; the democratic ideal, which is only truly such when it acknowledges and safeguards the dignity of every human person, is betrayed in its very foundations: "How is it still possible to speak of the dignity of every human person when the killing of the weakest and most innocent is permitted? …
In the first place that commandment prohibits murder: “You shall not kill” (Ex 20:13); “do not slay the innocent and righteous” (Ex 23:7). But, as is brought out in Israel’s later legislation, it also prohibits all personal injury inflicted on another (cf. Ex 21:12-27)…
The Prophets point an accusing finger at those who show contempt for life and violate people’s rights: “They trample the head of the poor into the dust of the earth” (Amos 2:7); “they have filled this place with the blood of innocents” (Jer 19:4).
“Human life is sacred because from its beginning it involves ?the creative action of God’, and it remains forever in a special relationship with the Creator, who is its sole end. God alone is the Lord of life from its beginning until its end: no one can, in any circumstance, claim for himself the right to destroy directly an innocent human being”.41 With these words the Instruction Donum Vitae sets forth the central content of God’s revelation on the sacredness and inviolability of human life…
In effect, the absolute inviolability of innocent human life is a moral truth clearly taught by Sacred Scripture, constantly upheld in the Church’s Tradition and consistently proposed by her Magisterium…
 
What is the developing baby then? Is it a mouse? A table?
A fetus is a fetus. An embryo is an embryo. Both will develop into a baby if things proceed normally, but neither are a “developing baby”, since “baby” is the term we use post-birth.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top