Pro Life versus Pro Choice Debate

[gearhead]

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

It always has value. A single human hair has value. However, the question is when that value reaches a point where it warrants taking away other things of value… freedom, for instance.

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…

A toddler is a person. So is a college graduate and a retiree. However, a toddler is not a college graduate, and a person who just graduated from college is not a retiree. In the same way, a fetus is not a baby.

It’s really not that difficult a concept. And I’m not trying to slip any moral judgements in here; you’re free to say that a fetus is a person if you want (though I’d personally like it if you backed up this assertion with something of substance). My point is that calling a fetus a baby does slip in a moral judgement, since “baby” necessarily implies “person”.

If you want to argue that a fetus is a person, fine, but do it on the merits of the issue. It bothers me when people try to win the argument through semantic trickery.

 

[marybridget123]

If you are interested…I am quite at peace.

I’m just being realistic with my comments about this being a never-ending debate. How many pages are in this thread? I suspect that two of the posters on this thread - ‘gearhead’ and ‘gakroeger’ - could go back and forth on this issue for months and still not have convinced the other of anything.

Hi Christopher 68, and yes i was sincere about my hope for peace, for you==for all of us. I understand your “never-ending” position on the debate. I’s not much different than the never ending battle between good and evil. It is different in terms of the vocal and emotional siding. I believe good will prevail, and evil will alway be ‘on the heels’ of any good. I’m pro-life, and let the debates rage on. Many have been converted to lifer’s only after having been traumatize by abortion. Thank you for your post. mb123

 

[gakroeger]

It always has value. A single human hair has value. However, the question is when that value reaches a point where it warrants taking away other things of value… freedom, for instance.

A toddler is a person. So is a college graduate and a retiree. However, a toddler is not a college graduate, and a person who just graduated from college is not a retiree. In the same way, a fetus is not a baby.

Thanks gearhead, this post is probably the best argument for the pro life side I have seen here. It truly makes one see the fallacy of your analogies.

 

[gearhead]

Thanks gearhead, this post is probably the best argument for the pro life side I have seen here. It truly makes one see the fallacy of your analogies.

Only if you ignore my point.

Edit: but if you like analogies, maybe it would help to extend the one analogy a little further: if you take the retiree and “leave him alone”, eventually, he’ll become a corpse. However, the retiree is not a corpse, and neither is the college graduate, the toddler, the baby, the fetus, the embryo, or the egg and sperm.

 

[gakroeger]

Only if you ignore my point.

Edit: but if you like analogies, maybe it would help to extend the one analogy a little further: if you take the retiree and “leave him alone”, eventually, he’ll become a corpse. However, the retiree is not a corpse, and neither is the college graduate, the toddler, the baby, the fetus, the embryo, or the egg and sperm.

Thank you again…

 

[antunesaa]

Infanticide is a fairly good comparison, because there is really little difference between an infant and older fetus. And there are a lot of people who have serious problems with late abortions on that basis. The question of early abortion really depends on what people think it means to be human - a complex question by all accounts, and there are a wide variety of views on it, some less thoughtful than others.

Now, one difficulty is that the Catholic Church - most Christian groups really - say that we are to give up everything for another, including our life, if required. However, to say the same thing legally is a different problem. How much of a person’s body/time/money or whatever can we legally oblige them to give up for the life of another? Can we oblige them to give up their health or their life?

If you look at the laws we have, we actually don’t insists that people give up their life, shatter their health, or even give up money (except through taxes) to help others, although we celebrate those that do such things as heroes - partly because they have done more than is required.

What is the difference between passively letting a person starve, drown or die because you won’t give blood, and actively causing someone to die to avoid these things? Or if we are in the water and a drowning victim tries to drag us down - what actions are we justified in taking, morally and legally? Legally we can’t take the active rout but we can take the passive rout. I remember once while serving overseas, my husband was not only allowed to, but required to use lethal force if necessary against someone who was going to steal his helmet. Morally I would argue both are difficult. In the drowning scenario I don’t think we would consider it a sin if the swimmer was unable to save the fellow who grabbed him. I guess I don’t see that it is always as simple as some make it out to be - not when you get down to the practical level of telling people what they ought to do in various real situations and what they are legally obliged to do.

I think it is important to differentiate what we think is right morally, and what we would like to see as a legal solution. Otherwise it becomes very difficult to move forward, people just complain about the lack of action among politicians without offering those politicians possible actions to take.

The problem is that current abortion laws are extremely receptive to abortion. The life-or-death cases (physical health of the mother, basically) are responsible for a tiny portion of all abortions. The bulk of abortions are just procured abortions. One of my sisters in law is a physician in a small town in central Portugal. She objects to abortion but is required to direct women to doctors who perform them. And the truth is that over 90% of abortions are frivolous, medically unnecessary, or the product of immaturity or recklessness. Abortion is essentially free up to 20 weeks of pregnancy in Portugal. From a legal and practical standpoint, I would say that pro-life people should fight relentlessly against laws permitting procured abortion, etc. In other cases (eugenic abortion, incest or rape) we should fight for laws vehemently discouraging it and offering real alternatives, and in life-or-death cases I think we should allow abortions to be legally made. These would still be imperfect laws from our stand point, but at least the pain of knowing so many human beings are terminated every day would be much smaller. Who knows, over time perhaps abortion would be limited to ectopic pregnancies and things like that.

 

[Bluegoat]

The problem is that current abortion laws are extremely receptive to abortion. The life-or-death cases (physical health of the mother, basically) are responsible for a tiny portion of all abortions. The bulk of abortions are just procured abortions. One of my sisters in law is a physician in a small town in central Portugal. She objects to abortion but is required to direct women to doctors who perform them. And the truth is that over 90% of abortions are frivolous, medically unnecessary, or the product of immaturity or recklessness. Abortion is essentially free up to 20 weeks of pregnancy in Portugal. From a legal and practical standpoint, I would say that pro-life people should fight relentlessly against laws permitting procured abortion, etc. In other cases (eugenic abortion, incest or rape) we should fight for laws vehemently discouraging it and offering real alternatives, and in life-or-death cases I think we should allow abortions to be legally made. These would still be imperfect laws from our stand point, but at least the pain of knowing so many human beings are terminated every day would be much smaller. Who knows, over time perhaps abortion would be limited to ectopic pregnancies and things like that.

I think something like that would be much better than what we have now.

So, who gets to decide which abortions might be medically necessary? Under the last abortion law we had in Canada, a person who wanted an abortion for medical reasons had to present her case to a board of doctors for approval. It wasn’t the greatest success in a number of ways, and was eventually struck down for legal reasons relating to privacy.

 

[Supercatholic]

Even if the embryo is human, virtually every jurisdiction recognizes the right of the average citizen to choose to not place themselves at even a minor risk, even if it means the certain death of another person.

We’ve made great strides in making pregnancy safer, but carrying a pregnancy to term still represents a significant risk to the mother. It’s perfectly legal in most other situations for a person to stand by and do nothing at all to help while a person dies; why should it not be legal in this case as well?

If we take as given (for the purposes of this discussion) that a fetus or embryo is a person, What’s the fundamental moral difference between these two cases?

• a pregnant woman in her first trimester decides that she doesn’t want the personal risk of pregnancy and gets an abortion.
• a mother decides that she doesn’t want the personal risk of minor smoke inhalation or first-degree burns and leaves her baby in its crib next to the curtains that have caught fire and runs out of the house alone.

Keep in mind that the second course of action is perfectly legal.

Even if you establish that a fetus is a person (which by itself is a massive leap to make), you still haven’t reached a rationale for prohibition of abortion.

I would just like to point out that the author of the above post uses the typical pro “choice” method of pitting the mother against the unborn baby. Also the fact that the author denies that the fetus is a person displays a personal opinion and has no basis in scientific and/or medical fact that the fetus IS a person. A person is a person from the moment of conception. This is not an opinion. This is concrete medical fact. That alone should be the rationale for the prohibition of abortion. Also another reason should be, no one, absolutely no one should ever self appoint themselves or be appointed by others as the gate keeper or keepers of this world. It’s sad, contradictory, and ironic that people who were not aborted claim to have authority to decide who is allowed to be born and who gets their heads smashed and arms and legs torn off by a so-called “medical proceedure”. If a baby is born pre-mature, hundreds of thousands of dollars are spent to keep the baby alive and if that baby is murdered we agree that the killer should be severely punished. But if a baby who is further developed in the womb is abrubtly removed and destroyed it’s conveniently called a “medical proceedure”, a “choice”, a “woman’s right” or any other deceitful little sound bites pro “choicers” like to use. It’s been long overdue that these pro “choice” advocates take off their masks of false sympathy and call themselves what they really are. WOMEN HARMING, PRO DEATH, BABY KILLERS.

 

[gearhead]

PRO DEATH, BABY KILLING, WOMEN HARMING LIARS

It’s a bit rich that you’re calling me a liar, seeing how you were just caught using made-up statistics in support of your argument.

 

[Supercatholic]

It’s a bit rich that you’re calling me a liar, seeing how you were just caught using made-up statistics in support of your argument.

Quote one statistic and prove it was made up.

 

[gearhead]

Quote one statistic and prove it was made up.

Going back a page in the thread:

37 women have died giving birth since Roe v Wade.

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.

When you’re off by three orders of magnitude, it’s more than a simple error. That “37 women have died” line might not have been pulled out of your rear end, but it was pulled out of someone’s.

 

[holy_moly]

It always has value. A single human hair has value. However, the question is when that value reaches a point where it warrants taking away other things of value… freedom, for instance.

So you value freedom more than life? Which comes first?

 

[gearhead]

So you value freedom more than life? Which comes first?

I think that there are a number of implicit assumptions in your questions that make it difficult for me to answer.

I value freedom more than some life. Under the right circumstances, I would value freedom more than even my own life… but I don’t think that’s what you were going for with your questions.

 

[gakroeger]

It is a classic case of that river in Egypt; denial. The premise of Scott Klusendorf at the beginning of this thread that the whole pro life versus pro choice debate boils down to whether the fetus is human, and my theory that most pro choice promoters have their heads in the sand regarding the true nature of abortion; seem to me to be confirmed by the posts on this thread.

None of the arguers for pro choice here have (by their own admission) bothered to look at the images of the aftermath of an abortion. Looking at these images makes it virtually impossible for any rational human being to argue it was anything but a human just like we all were at one point in our development. Not looking at these images makes it possible to continue to deny the humanity of the aborted human. If all pro choice people would move a little closer to the reality of abortion either by viewing such images, actually witnessing an abortion, or talking to a few women who have actually gone through the process, I guarantee there would be a whole lot fewer pro choice people. So, our challenge is to challenge pro choicer’s to become more informed about the reality of abortion though one or more of these options.

I believe we are making progress in this effort, recent polls indicate that there is a steadily moving tide toward more and more people favoring more restrictions on abortions.

God willing some of us will live to see this downward spiral of society begin to reverse and the dignity of human life at all stages restored.

 

[Supercatholic]

Going back a page in the thread:

When you’re off by three orders of magnitude, it’s more than a simple error. That “37 women have died” line might not have been pulled out of your rear end, but it was pulled out of someone’s.

I stand slightly corrected. 39 women have died in abortion related deaths the year before Roe vs Wade. And 200 per year since Roe vs Wade. These are U.S statistics reported by the American Rights Coalition. My numbers were off, but it does not negate the fact more and more women are dying from so called “safe and legal” abortions. It certainly isn’t safe for the baby and always puts the mother at serious health risks. Let’s just be truthful on this one point. I like living babies and you like dead babies.

 

[holy_moly]

I think that there are a number of implicit assumptions in your questions that make it difficult for me to answer.

I value freedom more than some life. Under the right circumstances, I would value freedom more than even my own life… but I don’t think that’s what you were going for with your questions.

In other words, moral relativism/situation ethics? Intuitively to me, it seems there can be no freedom w/out there 1st being life.

 

[gearhead]

In other words, moral relativism/situation ethics?

All morals are relative and all ethics are situational. If they weren’t, we wouldn’t be able to apply them to real life.

Even though I know many Catholics don’t like their morality described as “relativistic”, it properly applies to morals as the Church teaches them as well. For example: is killing wrong? Sometimes it is (murder, unjust war, etc.), sometimes it isn’t (just war, self-defense, when God does it, etc.).

Intuitively to me, it seems there can be no freedom w/out there 1st being life.

I’m not sure what you’re going for. The freedom I originally referred to was that of the pregnant woman; she’s most certainly alive.

 

[gearhead]

I stand slightly corrected. 39 women have died in abortion related deaths the year before Roe vs Wade. And 200 per year since Roe vs Wade. These are U.S statistics reported by the American Rights Coalition. My numbers were off, but it does not negate the fact more and more women are dying from so called “safe and legal” abortions.

How many women have died from the Plan B pill?

It certainly isn’t safe for the baby and always puts the mother at serious health risks. Let’s just be truthful on this one point. I like living babies and you like dead babies.

If we’re going for hollow rhetoric, how about this: I want children to be wanted and loved; you want them to be unwanted and unloved.

 

[holy_moly]

It always has value. A single human hair has value. However, the question is when that value reaches a point where it warrants taking away other things of value… freedom, for instance.

A toddler is a person. So is a college graduate and a retiree. However, a toddler is not a college graduate, and a person who just graduated from college is not a retiree. In the same way, a fetus is not a baby.

But they are all the same human & therefore have the same unalienable rights, whether God given or those construed in our Bill of Rights. You say that such life always has value, even a single hair, but not an unborn baby human, complete w/ a separate beating heart?

 

[holy_moly]

It’s really not that difficult a concept. And I’m not trying to slip any moral judgements in here; you’re free to say that a fetus is a person if you want (though I’d personally like it if you backed up this assertion with something of substance). My point is that calling a fetus a baby does slip in a moral judgement, since “baby” necessarily implies “person”.

gearhead, I have not said, nor do I believe that a fetus is a person per se, but it is human life. Do you have something of substance to show that ‘baby’ implies ‘person’ or that from the time of sperm-egg fusion, the concept of ‘personhood’ is necessary to determine that the zygote is human & therefore deserving of protection from his/her own mother & doctor? But you are right about one thing: abortion does have moral consequences.