Pro Life versus Pro Choice Debate

[Worthy5]

Okay

 

[gearhead]

So, how about we make exceptions for rape and failed contraceptions.

Really? I think the second group would amount to the vast majority of abortions.
I think very few women use abortion as their primary means of birth control.

Obviously I don’t concur that it is ok to kill the baby who did nothing wrong in these cases, however, I am trying to find out how far back you are willing to push the “choice”.

I’m not sure what you’re getting at here.

 

[CWBetts]

Hi all, I put two cents in here. Sorry if this has been said.The pro-choice position has merit. The key is this, not all legal issues are completely and solely moral issues. One of the the seminal policies of our country is the policy of limited government-we do not want an autocratic government. The question is not whether a fetus is a human-let us agree it is. The question is who has the duty to protect that life at certain points-the government or the women. Well, God has entrusted women to conceive and bring to term a new life-that is who He gave the decision to.

Sure, society at some point has an interest in the new potential life as a member of society as well as late terms abortions simply shocking the conscience. Thus, the cutoff time period -viability the Court says, perhaps it should be 90 days from conception etc… Thus, for a short time the decision belongs to the women than after that society takes over. Further, before a women makes that decision, society can ask questions of the women to insure she is making an informed decision, adoption options etc… Thus the court with the Casey decision set up the undue burden standard.

Taking a hardball legal position on abortion,(note legal position not hardline moral position) really rubs much of the public the wrong way and I dare say that even the US Catholic Bishops castigation of politician is a bit much. Sure, a Catholic politician should maintain the hard moral position against abortion and support programs to help women make better choices but rebuking them for not supporting a complete outlawing is really uncalled for and does not respect the distinction that not all legal issues are completely and soley moral issues.

This one IS a moral question. Those that support abortion, or the so-called “right” to have an abortion are just as morally bankrupt as those who participated in and/or condoned slavery, or the right of one to own a slave.

 

[gakroeger]

Really? I think the second group would amount to the vast majority of abortions.
I think very few women use abortion as their primary means of birth control.

I’m not sure what you’re getting at here.

Obviously…

 

[gakroeger]

Hi all, I put two cents in here. Sorry if this has been said.The pro-choice position has merit. The key is this, not all legal issues are completely and solely moral issues. One of the the seminal policies of our country is the policy of limited government-we do not want an autocratic government. The question is not whether a fetus is a human-let us agree it is. The question is who has the duty to protect that life at certain points-the government or the women. Well, God has entrusted women to conceive and bring to term a new life-that is who He gave the decision to.

No, the answer is (again assuming the fetus is human) we all do. Not just the women and not just the government. Human life cannot under any circumstances be categorized differently at different stages. This is exactly why the past categorization of the fetus as not yet fully human has lead to the new issue of the mentally retarded, elderly, and terminally ill. Now, this immoral position has lead to extending this “not fully human, or not a useful enough human to these new classes of individuals. Where does this slide end? It is like the old story of the 3rd Reich “First they came for the Jews, I was not Jewish so I did nothing, then they came for the Catholics, I was not Catholic so I did nothing, then they came for me and there was no one left to protect me.”

Sure, society at some point has an interest in the new potential life as a member of society as well as late terms abortions simply shocking the conscience. Thus, the cutoff time period -viability the Court says, perhaps it should be 90 days from conception etc… Thus, for a short time the decision belongs to the women than after that society takes over. Further, before a women makes that decision, society can ask questions of the women to insure she is making an informed decision, adoption options etc… Thus the court with the Casey decision set up the undue burden standard.

Potential life??? Have you missed the entire crux of this discussion? This is a fully human from the moment of conception.

Taking a hardball legal position on abortion,(note legal position not hardline moral position) really rubs much of the public the wrong way and I dare say that even the US Catholic Bishops castigation of politician is a bit much. Sure, a Catholic politician should maintain the hard moral position against abortion and support programs to help women make better choices but rebuking them for not supporting a complete outlawing is really uncalled for and does not respect the distinction that not all legal issues are completely and soley moral issues.

Sorry, if it rubs some people the wrong way. Right is right, wrong is wrong, there are some things that are non negotiable, murder is one of them.

 

[Worthy5]

Similar

 

[Worthy5]

No, the answer is (again assuming the fetus is human) we all do. Not just the women and not just the government. Human life cannot under any circumstances be categorized differently at different stages. This is exactly why the past categorization of the fetus as not yet fully human has lead to the new issue of the mentally retarded, elderly, and terminally ill. Now, this immoral position has lead to extending this “not fully human, or not a useful enough human to these new classes of individuals. Where does this slide end? It is like the old story of the 3rd Reich “First they came for the Jews, I was not Jewish so I did nothing, then they came for the Catholics, I was not Catholic so I did nothing, then they came for me and there was no one left to protect me.”

Potential life??? Have you missed the entire crux of this discussion? This is a fully human from the moment of conception.

Sorry, if it rubs some people the wrong way. Right is right, wrong is wrong, there are some things that are non negotiable, murder is one of them.

My friend, please spare the parade of horribles argument and strike out “potential " from my last post-it is a life let us agree( of course it really is potential right because the women could on her own end it in a horrible way and there would be nothing you could do to stop that). The point of the post remains-who has the duty to protect that life. How did you arrive that " we all do”? What are you suggesting that " it takes a village"? Okay, then is it " all " of our responsibility that each person has healthcare or makes a certain living wage, and has certain conditions to live in. I mean this " all" thing can lead to its own parade of horribles right? To give no recognition that there is some merit in the pro-choice position is to to deny the concept of limited government.

You want to protect the unborn, so do I, but the society can do that in many ways not just say that the only way is to simply outlaw abortion-which would not stop abortion anyway would it?

 

[gakroeger]

My friend, please spare the parade of horribles argument and strike out “potential " from my last post-it is a life let us agree( of course it really is potential right because the women could on her own end it in a horrible way and there would be nothing you could do to stop that). The point of the post remains-who has the duty to protect that life. How did you arrive that " we all do”? What are you suggesting that " it takes a village"? Okay, then is it " all " of our responsibility that each person has healthcare or makes a certain living wage, and has certain conditions to live in. I mean this " all" thing can lead to its own parade of horribles right? To give no recognition that there is some merit in the pro-choice position is to to deny the concept of limited government.

You want to protect the unborn, so do I, but the society can do that in many ways not just say that the only way is to simply outlaw abortion-which would not stop abortion anyway would it?

Is there merit to choose to kill a 2 year old toddler? Of course not, and if you agree that the fetus is fully human at conception, there is no difference and therefore no merit to chose to kill a fetus. You may want to compromise to play nice to “limit” abortion. However, believe me; those fighting for unlimited access to abortion will, once you compromise the truth will use it to beat you to death. You cannot compromise what is true. We will live and die with the Lord’s truth on our tongues.

 

[Mystic_Banana]

Even at my most liberal/doubting, I can’t feel comfortable with the idea of abortion. You’re talking about killing a uniquely created person, here, in embryonic form. You wouldn’t kill a born baby, would you? Because it moves too much, and is cuter than a fetus, perhaps? The idea of when an abortion is ethically okay is farcical - too underdeveloped to be a person? What gives anyone the right to decide when a conception is a person or not?!? Read the Philip K Dick story “Pre-person”. I’m sure the Spartans thought they were ethically perfectly justified throwing disabled babies off cliffs…

I’m adopted and proud of it. Someone found courage enough to bear a baby they didn’t want, and some other people were glad to raise me well. Today, in the UK at least, adoption is demonised in every popular representation I’ve ever seen, and is wrapped up in legal difficulties. It is presented as more morally wrong to give your child to another (so ‘unnatural’!) than to kill it before it’s born. What kind of twisted morality is that of the modern world?

 

[gakroeger]

Even at my most liberal/doubting, I can’t feel comfortable with the idea of abortion. You’re talking about killing a uniquely created person, here, in embryonic form. You wouldn’t kill a born baby, would you? Because it moves too much, and is cuter than a fetus, perhaps? The idea of when an abortion is ethically okay is farcical - too underdeveloped to be a person? What gives anyone the right to decide when a conception is a person or not?!? Read the Philip K Dick story “Pre-person”. I’m sure the Spartans thought they were ethically perfectly justified throwing disabled babies off cliffs…

I’m adopted and proud of it. Someone found courage enough to bear a baby they didn’t want, and some other people were glad to raise me well. Today, in the UK at least, adoption is demonised in every popular representation I’ve ever seen, and is wrapped up in legal difficulties. It is presented as more morally wrong to give your child to another (so ‘unnatural’!) than to kill it before it’s born. What kind of twisted morality is that of the modern world?

As it is in the U.S.; we truly are living in an upside down world. When one backs away from this inane give and take dialog taking place here and looks at the reality of abortion, as you just did, one has to wonder at the power of the devil in our world. People created for good and claiming to be trying their best to follow Christ, arguing for the rationalization of killing the unborn; wow.

Our society has become so numb to abortion that stories like yours and even stories by people who survived an abortion attempt and women who have gone through an abortion and told of the regrets are ignored.

Prayer is the answer, pray the rosary every day for the unborn and those invovled with both sides of abortion.

 

[Worthy5]

Is there merit to choose to kill a 2 year old toddler? Of course not, and if you agree that the fetus is fully human at conception, there is no difference and therefore no merit to chose to kill a fetus. You may want to compromise to play nice to “limit” abortion. However, believe me; those fighting for unlimited access to abortion will, once you compromise the truth will use it to beat you to death. You cannot compromise what is true. We will live and die with the Lord’s truth on our tongues.

My friend you are diverting the issue again. We are not debating the moral issue-there is agreement there-it is murder, we are debating the legal issue. Why do you think that it is society’s (govt) duty to protect the unborn life and not the duty of the women? (under current law the duty begins to shift from the women to society as the fetus matures) The focus is not on whether it is a life but who has the duty to protect the life at certain points in time.

But let us talk about the morality further. Am I or you culpable morally because a women makes the wrong decision and aborts her child. What is the justification for you or I (society) having to undertake that responsibility?

Okay, society has a moral duty to the unborn-granted. Society can attempt to protect the unborn child from conception by promoting programs to educate women about the moral issue, adoption etc…so women make better decisions. Thus society then is meeting its responsibility that way in the early stages of the pregnancy with the later stages is where society makes abortion criminal-but making it criminal does not guarantee abortion will not happen.

Your two year old toddler analogy is noted but the distinction is still there-society is simply deciding that it will criminalize harm to a child after a certain point (in the womb) but before that time society uses other methods to attempt to protect the unborn child.

It is murder to kill a two year old but in reality the government cannot stop a mother from doing it-society only can punish her after the fact. Outlawing abortion cannot guarantee it from never happening, it only can punish the women after the fact.

Seems one would have to show why society must criminalize abortion in all circumstances in order for it to meet its moral obligation to the unborn child. Practically, would it really lead to less abortions versus educating women to make better decisions?

 

[gakroeger]

My friend you are diverting the issue again. We are not debating the moral issue-there is agreement there-it is murder, we are debating the legal issue. Why do you think that it is society’s (govt) duty to protect the unborn life and not the duty of the women? (under current law the duty begins to shift from the women to society as the fetus matures) The focus is not on whether it is a life but who has the duty to protect the life at certain points in time.

But let us talk about the morality further. Am I or you culpable morally because a women makes the wrong decision and aborts her child. What is the justification for you or I (society) having to undertake that responsibility?

Okay, society has a moral duty to the unborn-granted. Society can attempt to protect the unborn child from conception by promoting programs to educate women about the moral issue, adoption etc…so women make better decisions. Thus society then is meeting its responsibility that way in the early stages of the pregnancy with the later stages is where society makes abortion criminal-but making it criminal does not guarantee abortion will not happen.

Your two year old toddler analogy is noted but the distinction is still there-society is simply deciding that it will criminalize harm to a child after a certain point (in the womb) but before that time society uses other methods to attempt to protect the unborn child.

It is murder to kill a two year old but in reality the government cannot stop a mother from doing it-society only can punish her after the fact. Outlawing abortion cannot guarantee it from never happening, it only can punish the women after the fact.

Seems one would have to show why society must criminalize abortion in all circumstances in order for it to meet its moral obligation to the unborn child. Practically, would it really lead to less abortions versus educating women to make better decisions?

I am not the one diverting the issue here. You are the one arguing semantics. The issue as I stated in the first post on this thread is a simple one. If the fetus is human, abortion is murder, plain and simple. Those opposing the clear black and white issue are the ones attempting justify the unjustifiable. You may be debating the legal issue, I am debating the moral issue.

 

[Worthy5]

I am not the one diverting the issue here. You are the one arguing semantics. The issue as I stated in the first post on this thread is a simple one. If the fetus is human, abortion is murder, plain and simple. Those opposing the clear black and white issue are the ones attempting justify the unjustifiable. You may be debating the legal issue, I am debating the moral issue.

Because it is murder, you support that it should be criminal to have an abortion are you not? Thus, the legal issue has entered the debate has it not? This is what is at the center of the " Pro Life vs. Pro-Choice debate" (the title of the thread)

You are debating the moral issue too-great. What is the moral duty that society has to the unborn child from conception? That is what my post outlined. Nothing in the post attempted to justify abortion. The proper question is: Who has the duty to protect the child, when, and what would such a duty require (esp from society’s viewpoint)?

Govt cannot be responsible for everything in reality-even murder. Given it is murder, to what extent would you have society go to insure the murder does not happen. Outlaw all abortions? But that would not guarantee none would occur. Are women then require to report each week for government run pregnancy tests? And if found pregnant then women would be under 24 hour watch for nine months to make sure she does not take matters into her own hands and commit the abortion?

Society’s time and resources are limited, the above questions are absurd (big brother to say the least) and unworkable-not to mention an individual freedom issue. The individual women bears the moral responsibility, society has some moral responsibility-the question is where is the proper balance-and that is the legal issue-where to strike the balance.

 

[Benadam]

5803414Seems one would have to show why society must criminalize abortion in all circumstances in order for it to meet its moral obligation to the unborn child. Practically, would it really lead to less abortions versus educating women to make better decisions?

The state’s function is to serve society. Primarily the society from which it originates. The family. If it is deemed that abortion destroys a human being and harms the society from which the state flows then it is a moral obligation to criminalize it.

An issue rarely brought up in this debate is the rights of the father. Why is a woman’s right to choose so powerfully defended and a man’s so completely ignored? Knowing my exwife may have chosen to end my child’s life added very deep insult to the injury of my loss. Why are a woman’s rights defended at the expense of a man’s? The father’s duties are not ignored why are his rights?

 

[Worthy5]

Your first paragraph is not a bad argument. But two points: 1. Society has a moral obligation-true but is criminalizing abortion the only way for society to meet that obligation in say the first 90 days of pregnancy? Practically, making it criminal would not stop all abortions. Again, the question is what does society have to do to meet its obligation? I am not certain criminalizing abortion in all circumstances is the only way to meet that obligation.

Your second paragraph is good as well but there is a distinction I think between married people and non-married. Marriage as a convenant and a contract would seem to support the notion that a married women would need her husband’s knowledge and consent.

Unmarried, well does society need to step up its intervention (outside of what it is going to do to protect the life of the unborn) for those men who engage in relations outside of marriage? I do not think society needs to take that in consideration in addition to what it will already do for the unborn child.

But again, this is not about not doing anything. Society will do something (as it does now)for the unborn child, the question is what should it do and is what it is doing (to prevent the abortion) enough for society to meets its moral obligation.

The women has an obligation and it would seem that society would do more to hold the women to that obligation (not to have the abortion-again we all agree that is the wrong moral choice) once she entered into a marriage-thus she would need a husband consent.
But given that most states have no fault divorce laws now, that simply is not where the law is going.

The focus thus is still the duty society has to the unborn child, but having said that, protecting the child does naturally promote the interest of a father who wants the child to be born.

The strong point of the pro-choice position is that Pro-choice does not mean pro-abortion. It means that society does not need to criminalize abortion in all circumstances to meet its moral obligation to the unborn child.

The entire abortion debate seems to be misrepresented and misunderstood by many pro-life people.

 

[gearhead]

This one IS a moral question. Those that support abortion, or the so-called “right” to have an abortion are just as morally bankrupt as those who participated in and/or condoned slavery, or the right of one to own a slave.

Hmm. If that’s the case, then I’d say that the Church’s position of opposing both contraception AND abortion would be like that of someone who condemns slavery but works as a slave catcher.

 

[Worthy5]

Hmm. If that’s the case, then I’d say that the Church’s position of opposing both contraception AND abortion would be like that of someone who condemns slavery but works as a slave catcher.

My friend I disagree with your statement. The Church can speak authoritatively on moral issues like abortion ( and sexual morality) given the authority given to Her by Christ on matters of faith and morals. The Church cannot speak authoritatively in saying that US society can ONLY satisfy its moral obligation to the unborn child by outlawing abortion in all cases. That may be the Church’s opinion but that opinion is no higher than yours or mine.

In regards to contraception, where the Church does have moral authority, we first must undestand what the Church’s reasoning is for its position. It is metaphysically based. For the Church, intercourse is more that a physical act but has spirtual, sacramental implications-the unitive function of bringing two people as spiritually one- a total self donated love (the Christian ideal) in addition to the procreation function (accepting God’s will by accepting children).

For the Church, contraception in any form, betrays the self-donation of the two people for each other. The relationship of marriage is an ongoing self-donation reality for the couple. Every act that " holds " complete self-donation back (contraception) betrays the sacramental reality of marriage.

Contraception does not allow people to get pregnant (thus no need for abortion) but it betrays the unitive and procreation function of marriage=these two functions reflect and respect the diginity of the totality of what its means to be a human being.

You analogy is weak, that somehow not approving of contraception and abortion the Church causes pregnancy (slavery, slave catcher) but prevents the person to free himself from the slavery by speaking against abortion.

Not approving contraception is respecting the totality of a married partner’s human dignity while accepting a pregnancy and bringing it to term is doing God’s will by accepting and protecting the life of an unborn child.

Seems the Church’s reasoning on both positions is sound. A message of self-donated love for another, and for God.

But this is a free country, you do not have to believe or accept any of it. The Church is not the US govt at last check.

Okay sorry this is off thread!

 

[MattLark]

You are misusing the highly presumptuous phrase “Sine Qua Non.” It can be translates as "without which there is nothing " or “the foundation.” Your terminology of “Pro-Life-choice” lacks any conviction whatsoever. this is an issue where there can be no compromise!

As is made clear every one who chooses is alive, therefore, Pro-Life choice makes sense. Pro-choice-Life is also my attempt to turn ‘choice’ back into the good word it was before 1973.
My use of the phrases ‘sine qua non’ and “Sine Qua Non” has evidently been lost on you.My translation of the phrase is “without which not” and is used creatively as a quality and then humbly for the Creator.
Ergo, my new signature block with edits follows:

P. S. Please be Pro-Life-choice or Pro-choice-LIFE: Choices should be great, but LIFE is the sine qua non of each and every choice, so, your life, mine, all lives are gifts to you, me, each other and when holy to the Sine Qua Non, Who chose you. Amen.

Whether one chooses Life or Life is always chosen the satisfaction is two sides of the same (philosophical) coin impossible to enjoy without a personal life that realizes fulfillment in and of itself in and with others who recognize the Ultimate Chooser.

 

[John_Pascendi]

Of course there is the example of being home when your kids come home from school…evidently Palins kids were latch key type…or did she rush home each day from the gov.s office to tend to her kids? I as a ‘right to innocent life’ person…that way I can be for capital punishment and a 'just’war…not these handy no-win wars we have been involved in since Korea!..

 

[Benadam]

As is made clear every one who chooses is alive, therefore, Pro-Life choice makes sense. Pro-choice-Life is also my attempt to turn ‘choice’ back into the good word it was before 1973.
My use of the phrases ‘sine qua non’ and “Sine Qua Non” has evidently been lost on you.My translation of the phrase is “without which not” and is used creatively as a quality and then humbly for the Creator.
Ergo, my new signature block with edits follows:

P. S. Please be Pro-Life-choice or Pro-choice-LIFE: Choices should be great, but LIFE is the sine qua non of each and every choice, so, your life, mine, all lives are gifts to you, me, each other and when holy to the Sine Qua Non, Who chose you. Amen.

Whether one chooses Life or Life is always chosen the satisfaction is two sides of the same (philosophical) coin impossible to enjoy without a personal life that realizes fulfillment in and of itself in and with others who recognize the Ultimate Chooser.

You hit upon a delusion our culture has become subject to. That managing the consequences that result from the inability to choose freely is mistaken for the ability to choose freely.