Pro Life versus Pro Choice Debate

[gearhead]

An embryo that develops into a fetus IS a developing baby. At the moment of it’s birth it’s a baby, but five minutes before it was a fetus?

Yes. Whether a fetus is a person is a separate question.

Wow… your post was pretty short once I pared it down to the parts that weren’t insults.

 

[CWBetts]

Yes. Whether a fetus is a person is a separate question.

Wow… your post was pretty short once I pared it down to the parts that weren’t insults.

A fetus is a person.

 

[choy]

we must all be pro-choice

we must choose not to have sex when we don’t want to have an offspring
we must choose not to have sex outside of marriage

i am very pro-choice

 

[Eric_Hilbert]

Let’s stop the personal attacks on this thread or it will be locked and infractions given out.

 

[Supercatholic]

Let’s stop the personal attacks on this thread or it will be locked and infractions given out.

Noted. Can you please reinstate the rest of my post minus the personal attacks. Or just send it to me and I will remove them.

 

[uther]

It begs which question?

And if you think the term “pro-choice” is misleading, you should hear what people in the pro-choice camp think of the term “pro-life”.

Well, if it is support for the death penalty that bothers those in the “pro-choice” camp, while I can’t speak for all pro-lifers I would venture to suggest that if a ban on abortion were offered in exchange for a ban on capital punishment, they would take that trade-off in a heart-beat.
If it is a perceived indifference to the woman involved in any abortion, I have found that those who make such accusations are usually woefully uninformed of what those on the pro-life side actually do to support women who choose life.

By the same argument, any Catholic who agrees with the legal right to religious freedom is “pro-heresy”.

Category change. Actually the Church, in Dignitatis Humanae, proclaims religious freedom as Church doctrine. That is because we believe in freedom of the will. It follows from that principle that nobody can be forced to a Catholic. It is not rational to think that anyway, because regardless of coercion, belief is internal.
Murder, however, is recognized by atheists, agnostics, Muslims, Christians, etc, etc. as a moral evil and to be banned under the law and that legal sanction against it is not considered onerous or limiting to an individual’s “choice.” The differences are in the definition of what constitutes murder in practice and that is what this debate is about.

No, I don’t. And I don’t consider the moral debate closed; I just don’t think it’s central in determining whether the label “pro-choice” is appropriate.

As I pointed out above there are moral choices that are condemned universally, and it is only the definition of what constitutes that action that is at issue. I am pointing out that it avoids that issue to glibly talk about choice when it is well-known that if abortion does equal murder then choice is off the table.
If we were talking about the moral choice to get totally drunk, the moral position of the Church would be against it, but would not consider such a belief should be elevated to the level of law. In a pluralistic society then, one could be “pro-choice” about drunkenness and personally against it at the same time.
There are clearly some actions that are on a more serious moral level than others. What one does when drunk is a case in point. Driving a car while drunk is a higher moral evil, and is now recognized as such under the law as well, but wasn’t always. But we don’t then speak of being “pro-choice” about drunk driving.
As I said initially, if abortion is murder, whether recognized as such by the law, there is no question of “choice.” Knowing this, it is insulting to the pro-life position to pretend this fiction of being “pro-choice” but not “pro-abortion.” The moral level of the issue does not permit it.

The “choice” in pro-choice really is the relevant idea. As I pointed out before, the pro-choice movement would be just as opposed to forced abortion (as has happened in the name of eugenics at various times in history) as the “pro-life” camp would be.

Again, to use the word choice implies that the moral issue is settled. Moreover, it is rather a sweeping statement to suggest the entire “pro-choice” movement would oppose forced abortion. There is forced abortion right now in China and I have heard warm support for that country’s “one-child” policy from some on the far left of the radical environmentalists who indeed describe themselves at this point in time as “pro-choice.”

Hmm. In that legal climate, I would think that a school that teaches abstinence-only to their students could be considered guilty of criminal negligence causing death. No?

Only if you consider sexual intercourse as an involuntary act. If, on the other hand, each person is responsible under the law for their own sexual acts, that in itself implies the voluntary nature of those acts, and then the obvious way to avoid the consequences of sexual activity is to avoid the activity. That is not rocket science. Anyone who teaches abstinence only is giving credit to the students for having the moral ability to “have control of their own bodies” and the full knowledge of the possible consequences if they voluntarily engage in sexual activity.

 

[gearhead]

Well, if it is support for the death penalty that bothers those in the “pro-choice” camp, while I can’t speak for all pro-lifers I would venture to suggest that if a ban on abortion were offered in exchange for a ban on capital punishment, they would take that trade-off in a heart-beat.

It’s not just the death penalty. It’s the religious right’s support for war, it’s its opposition to social programs that would actually benefit people, it’s its opposition to birth control, and it’s a general impression that many members of the “pro-life” camp don’t care worth a rat’s hind quarters about those precious fetuses once they’ve passed through the birth canal.

Murder, however, is recognized by atheists, agnostics, Muslims, Christians, etc, etc. as a moral evil and to be banned under the law and that legal sanction against it is not considered onerous or limiting to an individual’s “choice.”

And destruction of things that aren’t people is recognized by all those people as not murder.

Only if you consider sexual intercourse as an involuntary act. If, on the other hand, each person is responsible under the law for their own sexual acts, that in itself implies the voluntary nature of those acts, and then the obvious way to avoid the consequences of sexual activity is to avoid the activity. That is not rocket science. Anyone who teaches abstinence only is giving credit to the students for having the moral ability to “have control of their own bodies” and the full knowledge of the possible consequences if they voluntarily engage in sexual activity.

Incorrect.

Analogy time: say you’re a structural engineer. You’re hired to design the structure of a building. The local zoning bylaws only allow an office to be built on the property. You know full well that the owners of the property plan to use the building as a heavy goods warehouse, but regardless, you design the structure for the light loads of an office instead of the heavy loads of a warehouse.

After the building is built and the owner moves in, it predictably collapses and people die. Will you be held responsible?

The answer is yes. You’ll lose your licence. You’ll probably go to jail as well. Despite the fact that the owner acted illegally, you would be held personally liable.

In the same way, a person who is in a position to teach children and teenagers about safe sex but decides to teach them “abstinence only” despite knowing that it’s abysmally ineffective directly contributes to unwanted pregnancy and to abortion. If abortion were considered murder under the law, then a person who did this would be just as liable and responsible as the engineer in my analogy.

 

[holy_moly]

I love it when people use womens rights to kill a embryo that was created by that women’s actions. Anyone who has talked or worked with women dealing with the emotional trama of having had an abortion would not even think of using this as an argument for abortion. There are at least two victims in every abortion, the child and the mother, and probably several other people, like grandparents, siblings, and society in general.

Don’t forget the fathers’!

 

[holy_moly]

You know, something occurred to me. I’m not sure how I feel about it, but I thought I should throw it out there for discussion:

The Church is very strongly anti-abortion (obviously). The vast majority of practicing Catholics would not get an abortion themselves under any circumstance, regardless of the state of the law. The same is true for the members of a number of other mainstream Christian denominations.

This means that the “babies” that would be “saved” by making abortion illegal would be predominantly raised not by Catholics, and likely not by members of any other Christian denomination either.

These children will probably not have an upbringing in any sort of church that you see as “correct”, not receive any of the sacraments, and not be brought up to have faith in God or Christ.

If we take as given the whole of Catholic theology and not just its position on abortion in isolation, doesn’t this mean that most of the “children” whose lives would be saved by the anti-abortion movement would go on to lose their *souls *to Hell?

In your minds, does this factor into the abortion debate at all?

Again, like I said, I’m not sure how I feel about this. I’m just throwing it out for discussion./QUOT

Unfortunately, this scenario is based on the fallacy that Catholics & other Christians have a lower abortion percentage; the truth is, that the percentage is about the same. Taken to its logical conclusion, this argument implies that all babies should be killed so as to avoid the chance at damnation!

 

[holy_moly]

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.

But they are human life. When does human life have value in your opinion?

 

[holy_moly]

Is a pan full of raw dough a cake? Is a chassis and bins full of parts a car?

Just because it will be a thing given time and the processes to develop does not mean it is the thing right now.

Look - if you want to make an argument that a fetus, an embryo or a paperweight is a person, make it. Don’t rely on semantic games and false equivocations.

Is a fetus a baby or a baby a toddler or a toddler a college graduate or a college graduate a retiree? At what stage does human life have value? The right parts are there from sperm-egg fusion…

 

[Tonyfk]

As I see it the problem is that only human creatures have a God Given Gift of Choice. One which we all use every day in a good, bad or indifferent way. With Abortion we are considering a particular situation concerning life or death. Logically it would be a decision made by the woman concerned.However it often will be one made by Medical Professionals - who usually are following the Law of the country in which they reside. But like many other people I hold the view that every human has a God given right to use their God given Gift of choice…in any way they choose. They like all christians will have to accept God’s Judgement on their last day…

As a Convert of 50 years I am almost ashamed our church carries on year after year shouting over all catholic Media about Abortion. They should have learnt by now that only God can do the impossible - they should pray that less Abortions occur and spend more time promoting Jesus.

 

[gakroeger]

Don’t forget the fathers’!

Good point…

 

[gakroeger]

As I see it the problem is that only human creatures have a God Given Gift of Choice. One which we all use every day in a good, bad or indifferent way. With Abortion we are considering a particular situation concerning life or death. Logically it would be a decision made by the woman concerned.However it often will be one made by Medical Professionals - who usually are following the Law of the country in which they reside. But like many other people I hold the view that every human has a God given right to use their God given Gift of choice…in any way they choose. They like all christians will have to accept God’s Judgement on their last day…

As a Convert of 50 years I am almost ashamed our church carries on year after year shouting over all catholic Media about Abortion. They should have learnt by now that only God can do the impossible - they should pray that less Abortions occur and spend more time promoting Jesus.

So, in your opinion, there should be no civil law what-so-ever? Everyone should be free to do to one another whatever they feel like doing and let God make a final judgement? Murder, rape, incest, whatever, lets just be (charitable?) and let these actions continue?

Do you actually believe that is God’s plan?

 

[CWBetts]

As I see it the problem is that only human creatures have a God Given Gift of Choice. One which we all use every day in a good, bad or indifferent way. With Abortion we are considering a particular situation concerning life or death. Logically it would be a decision made by the woman concerned.However it often will be one made by Medical Professionals - who usually are following the Law of the country in which they reside. But like many other people I hold the view that every human has a God given right to use their God given Gift of choice…in any way they choose. They like all christians will have to accept God’s Judgement on their last day…

As a Convert of 50 years I am almost ashamed our church carries on year after year shouting over all catholic Media about Abortion. They should have learnt by now that only God can do the impossible - they should pray that less Abortions occur and spend more time promoting Jesus.

Just lay down and give up? That is spineless. To promote life is to promote Jesus

 

[gearhead]

Just lay down and give up? That is spineless. To promote life is to promote Jesus

Interesting that you would call trusting in prayer “giving up”. I might expect a response like that from an atheist like me, but it seems a bit inconsistent coming from a Catholic.

 

[Bluegoat]

Is a fetus a baby or a baby a toddler or a toddler a college graduate or a college graduate a retiree? At what stage does human life have value? The right parts are there from sperm-egg fusion…

I think if you all want to resolve this, you are going to have to get into a discussion on the nature of substance. What makes a thing what it is and not something else?

Good luck.

 

[CWBetts]

Interesting that you would call trusting in prayer “giving up”. I might expect a response like that from an atheist like me, but it seems a bit inconsistent coming from a Catholic.

You completely missed his post. I do trust in prayer. At the same time we must not be silent. To be silent to abortion is to consent to it. To not actively try to stop it is to participate in it.

 

[fix]

As I see it the problem is that only human creatures have a God Given Gift of Choice. One which we all use every day in a good, bad or indifferent way. With Abortion we are considering a particular situation concerning life or death. Logically it would be a decision made by the woman concerned.However it often will be one made by Medical Professionals - who usually are following the Law of the country in which they reside. But like many other people I hold the view that every human has a God given right to use their God given Gift of choice…in any way they choose. They like all christians will have to accept God’s Judgement on their last day…

As a Convert of 50 years I am almost ashamed our church carries on year after year shouting over all catholic Media about Abortion. They should have learnt by now that only God can do the impossible - they should pray that less Abortions occur and spend more time promoting Jesus.

Sorry, but I find what you said here confusing. I do not find the Church shouting about anything or at anyone. She preaches the truth in season and out. Catholics, the laity in particular, have an obligation to help transform our society:

Now the laity are called in a special way to make the Church present and operative in those places and circumstances where only through them can it become the salt of the earth (2*). Thus every layman, in virtue of the very gifts bestowed upon him, is at the same time a witness and a living instrument of the mission of the Church itself “according to the measure of Christ’s bestowal”.(197)…

That means we need to live our faith including in how we vote and how we make laws.

 

[gearhead]

There are such things as complicated pregnancies, but the vast majority offer absolutely no risk whatsoever. 37 women have died giving birth since Roe v Wade. Roughly 200 women per year have died from abortions since Roe v Wade. That’s about 7,800 and counting. So much for your pregnancy is a risk theory.

According to the World Health Organization, in 2005 (the most recent statistics I could quickly find) The maternal mortality rate for the United States was 11 deaths per 100,000 live births. The worldwide average was 400 deaths per 100,000 live births.

In 2006 (the closest year I could find to the mortality data), there were 4,265,555 live births in the United States. That mortality rate works out to about 469 deaths per year, or more than double the rate that you gave for abortion-related deaths.

However, given that your statistic for deaths due to childbirth was abysmally inaccurate, I’m not really inclined to trust your statistic for abortion-related deaths either.

Your argument that a mother leaves her baby to die in fire is very interesting. I’m now posing this question to all mothers reading this post. (WOULD YOU LET YOUR BABY DIE IN A FIRE JUST TO AVOID YOU BREATHING IN SOME SMOKE OR GETTING SOME BURNS? long term smoke inhaltion can kill you. Short term won’t, but it might make you sick for a while, depending on your size and how much actual smoke you breathed in.

This is dangerously inaccurate. I sincerely hope that the readers here don’t rely on your advice, since the main cause of deaths due to fire is smoke inhalation.

However, it’s all a bit irrelevant to the point I was making.

Burnt skin can be treated. But how do you treat your conscience if you let your baby die because of selfishness?

Personally, I don’t know. If I were in that situation myself, I’d jump right in and save the baby. However, I also acknowledge that the law allows for the mother to simply walk away and not risk herself.