Pro Life versus Pro Choice Debate

[CWBetts]

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.

Doesn’t change the fact that you are trying to ride the fence, and trying to justify it by using presumptuous phraseology in a weak attempt to make people think you are intellectual

 

[Worthy5]

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.

The post is not saying it is not a moral issue-it is. It becomes a legal issue because you make it so by holding the view that since it is immoral it must be criminalized in all cases thus making it now a legal issue. The question is not whether it is immoral-it is, nor a question even if life begins at conception-let us say it does-the merit of the pro-choice position is that society’s moral obligation to the unborn child can be fulfilled by other means then just outlawing abortion in all cases.

More specifically, with regards to the early stages of the pregnancy, society can engage in attempts to help the women make the better moral decision and not have the abortion and thus performing its moral obligation to the unborn child. This also recognizes that the women has a duty herself to protect the life of the fetus.

As the pregnancy matures, society decides to change its approach and criminalize later term abortions. Thus, being pro-choice does not mean being pro-abortion but rather that society can meet its obligation to the unborn child from conception forward without having to make abortion criminal in all cases. Making it criminal would not guarantee an abortion would not occur anyway but rather can only punish the women after the fact. Practically, does it make sense to put a 20 year women in jail for an early stage abortion taking up already crowded prison space. Society’s resources are limited.

Your slavery analogy is weak. Nature has intimately entrusted the women with the fetus-without the mother as a vehicle the fetus at the early stages has no viability. Nature does not entrust a fully mature person to another person for services without pay.

 

[CWBetts]

The post is not saying it is not a moral issue-it is. It becomes a legal issue because you make it so by holding the view that since it is immoral it must be criminalized in all cases thus making it now a legal issue. The question is not whether it is immoral-it is, nor a question even if life begins at conception-let us say it does-the merit of the pro-choice position is that society’s moral obligation to the unborn child can be fulfilled by other means then just outlawing abortion in all cases.

More specifically, with regards to the early stages of the pregnancy, society can engage in attempts to help the women make the better moral decision and not have the abortion and thus performing its moral obligation to the unborn child. This also recognizes that the women has a duty herself to protect the life of the fetus.

As the pregnancy matures, society decides to change its approach and criminalize later term abortions. Thus, being pro-choice does not mean being pro-abortion but rather that society can meet its obligation to the unborn child from conception forward without having to make abortion criminal in all cases. Making it criminal would not guarantee an abortion would not occur anyway but rather can only punish the women after the fact. Practically, does it make sense to put a 20 year women in jail for an early stage abortion taking up already crowded prison space. Society’s resources are limited.

Your slavery analogy is weak. Nature has intimately entrusted the women with the fetus-without the mother as a vehicle the fetus at the early stages has no viability. Nature does not entrust a fully mature person to another person for services without pay.

Who said anything about punishing the woman. It is the doctor who should be punished. We have all kinds of laws based on morality, so your argument is inherently flawed. Slavery is a good analogy because both slavery and abortion are intrinsic evils

 

[gakroeger]

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) .

No, I did not start this thread to enter into semantics, bringing in the faulty laws that have been established which are against all morality serve only to cloud an issue that is morally clear. People who insist on making this a legal argument are arguing legalities because the moral issue is to difficult for them to tackle.

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)?

Society has the exact same obligation to the unborn child that it has for every other human being.

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 has the exact same obligation to the unborn child that it has for every other human being.

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.

Society has the exact same obligation to the unborn child that it has for every other human being.

See how easy it is?

 

[gearhead]

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.

Ah… so it’s metaphysically hypocritical.

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.

So… you say that there’s a fundamental link between sex, procreation and marriage. How is this fundamentally different from someone saying that there’s a fundamental link between purchase, ownership and the marketplace?

Try this on for size:

“I don’t like it that this man owns another man, but he paid good money for him. When the slave escapes, he commits theft against the owner. Theft is wrong in all circumstances; all stolen goods must be returned to their legal owner, including the slave.”

In both cases, you apply a moral principle (“sex gives us procreation” in the one case and “stealing is wrong” in the other) and apply it well beyond its reasonable limits.

You have a clear choice between contraception and abortion: decrease of contraception will inexorably increase abortion. You may not like contraception, but acting on this dislike to the maximal degree without thought to the consequences means that something you dislike even more, abortion, will occur at a greater rate.

In the same way, the slave catcher has a choice: in the battle between property rights and freedom, which wins out? An escaping slave does commit a “theft” of a sort, but to allow the greater good to flourish, this theft must be overlooked because we recognize that in this case, stamping out theft would also mean enabling slavery.

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.

Well then, you and the Church have a choice to make: which is more important?

• forcing people to “respect” the totality of what the Church think it means to be a human being.
• saving what it thinks are human lives.

In the here and now, this is an either-or proposition. However low you get the abortion rate without contraception, it will be lower still with it. There is a significant and quantifiable cost in what the Church deems human life in promoting its doctrine in this matter.

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.

“Not approving the escape of slaves is respecting the totality of a person’s commitment to God by following His commandments that were handed down to humanity on Mount Sinai.”

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.

Maybe not, but it does carry quite a bit of influence. For instance, the lobbying it does has an effect on things like whether students will be taught “abstinence only” sex ed or not.

 

[CWBetts]

Actually statistics show that most (56-58%) of all prenatal homicides are contracted by women on contraception!

Source: physiciansforlife.org/content/view/1397/72/

 

[Worthy5]

Who said anything about punishing the woman. It is the doctor who should be punished. We have all kinds of laws based on morality, so your argument is inherently flawed. Slavery is a good analogy because both slavery and abortion are intrinsic evils

Why do you want to put the doctor in jail and not the women? Two people rob a store-you only want to punish one? Yes our laws are based on morality, but not SOLEY based on morality. In the US, there is no duty to come to the rescue of another who is in peril. (ex. person lying in the street bleeding to death) But you would argue that if you are able to help that person then you have a moral obligation to do so.

There are other policies that exists in society-like the policy of limited government that conservatives like to champion. And cannot the govt fulfill its moral duty to the unborn child outside of criminalizing all abortions in all cases? Why is that the only way? Is that the best way? Again, what about the duty of the women to make the right decision? By outlawing abortion in all cases, are you not inserting the govt’s decision for the individual’s decision. Why is society having to take that complete responsibility with the resources it needs to enforce such responsibility?

Analogies are either strong or weak, not good or bad. An analogy is just that, an analogy. The issue is not whether slavery and abortion are both evil-they are. But they are also different as indicated with the distinction made in the last post. The issues are who has the duty to protect against the evil of abortion? What are the best means to effectuate that protection?

 

[CWBetts]

Why do you want to put the doctor in jail and not the women? Two people rob a store-you only want to punish one? Yes our laws are based on morality, but not SOLEY based on morality. In the US, there is no duty to come to the rescue of another who is in peril. (ex. person lying in the street bleeding to death) But you would argue that if you are able to help that person then you have a moral obligation to do so.

There are other policies that exists in society-like the policy of limited government that conservatives like to champion. And cannot the govt fulfill its moral duty to the unborn child outside of criminalizing all abortions in all cases? Why is that the only way? Is that the best way? Again, what about the duty of the women to make the right decision? By outlawing abortion in all cases, are you not inserting the govt’s decision for the individual’s decision. Why is society having to take that complete responsibility with the resources it needs to enforce such responsibility?

Analogies are either strong or weak, not good or bad. An analogy is just that, an analogy. The issue is not whether slavery and abortion are both evil-they are. But they are also different as indicated with the distinction made in the last post. The issues are who has the duty to protect against the evil of abortion? What are the best means to effectuate that protection?

It must be made illegal because society has shown that people are incapable of making the correct decision for themselves. Anyone who believes abortion should not be criminalized has serious problems with the value of life.

 

[Worthy5]

No, I did not start this thread to enter into semantics, bringing in the faulty laws that have been established which are against all morality serve only to cloud an issue that is morally clear. People who insist on making this a legal argument are arguing legalities because the moral issue is to difficult for them to tackle.

Society has the exact same obligation to the unborn child that it has for every other human being.

Society has the exact same obligation to the unborn child that it has for every other human being.

Society has the exact same obligation to the unborn child that it has for every other human being.

See how easy it is?

My friend, what is semantics=word selection or connotation problems. There is none of that here. And it is a legal issue because you want abortion outlawed, I presume, in all cases.

You say " society has the exact same obligation" okay great you can take that position, but abortions are not going to be stopped, just illegal. Are you going to help arrest and prosecute these women or offer to pay increase taxes to help pay for hiring more people to handle the increase workload? Or will this law be like the law against fornication? It is on the books but never enforced.

I am not trying to be difficult my friend but flushing out all aspects of this issue. God Bless

 

[Worthy5]

Ah… so it’s metaphysically hypocritical.

So… you say that there’s a fundamental link between sex, procreation and marriage. How is this fundamentally different from someone saying that there’s a fundamental link between purchase, ownership and the marketplace?

Try this on for size:

“I don’t like it that this man owns another man, but he paid good money for him. When the slave escapes, he commits theft against the owner. Theft is wrong in all circumstances; all stolen goods must be returned to their legal owner, including the slave.”

In both cases, you apply a moral principle (“sex gives us procreation” in the one case and “stealing is wrong” in the other) and apply it well beyond its reasonable limits.

You have a clear choice between contraception and abortion: decrease of contraception will inexorably increase abortion. You may not like contraception, but acting on this dislike to the maximal degree without thought to the consequences means that something you dislike even more, abortion, will occur at a greater rate.

In the same way, the slave catcher has a choice: in the battle between property rights and freedom, which wins out? An escaping slave does commit a “theft” of a sort, but to allow the greater good to flourish, this theft must be overlooked because we recognize that in this case, stamping out theft would also mean enabling slavery.

Well then, you and the Church have a choice to make: which is more important?

• forcing people to “respect” the totality of what the Church think it means to be a human being.
• saving what it thinks are human lives.

In the here and now, this is an either-or proposition. However low you get the abortion rate without contraception, it will be lower still with it. There is a significant and quantifiable cost in what the Church deems human life in promoting its doctrine in this matter.

“Not approving the escape of slaves is respecting the totality of a person’s commitment to God by following His commandments that were handed down to humanity on Mount Sinai.”

Maybe not, but it does carry quite a bit of influence. For instance, the lobbying it does has an effect on things like whether students will be taught “abstinence only” sex ed or not.

My friend, arguing by analogy is really a tricky endeavor and something most people should probably never try.

But I will make a comment on your last statement. So the Catholic Church does lobbying, well you and I can lobby too right as well as other organizations, so why cannot the Church? You are not suggesting it cannot are you?

 

[Worthy5]

It must be made illegal because society has shown that people are incapable of making the correct decision for themselves. Anyone who believes abortion should not be criminalized has serious problems with the value of life.

Okay criminalize it in all circumstances, but is that going to stop it? and " people incapable of making correct decisions" …my friend I am going nowhere near that one. But hey thanks for the discussion, I like the Thomas More picture. God Bless.

 

[Caramel]

And they’re expelled from her during ovulation, thereby rendering them not part of her.

I mean that all the immediate needs of the embryo/fetus would be met, but at some point, the embryo or fetus will be expelled from the womb and will have to deal with a different environment. In the meantime, though, its material needs would have been met.

Effectively, yes, it means there’s no afterlife for it (or for me, you, rocks, plants, etc., etc.).

And how sad it is depends on your point of view. I don’t personally think that aborting a fetus “takes away the only life” from a person any more than not agreeing to have an unprotected one-night stand does. In both cases, the person that might’ve resulted doesn’t materialize.

So… because the egg is tissue derived from the woman, it’s part of the woman.

A fertilized egg is tissue derived from the woman and the man; is it part of the woman and the man?

Maybe. It depends on whether we can come to an agreement on what makes a person a person.

I have had rather militant vegetarians tell me that cows, pigs and even chickens are “persons”. Can you prove they’re not? If you can’t, are you a vegan?

I agree that a fertilized egg is alive. However, I also recognize that an unfertilized egg is alive. We are all part of an uninterrupted chain of life that goes back for billions of years.

Whether you’re doing it intentionally or not, I think you’re playing a game of false equivocation. Try this as an analogy:

• the waters just east of Cape Horn are part of the Atlantic Ocean.
• the difference between the waters just east of Cape Horn and just west of Cape Horn is an arbitrary definition.
• similarily, difference between the waters just west of Cape Horn and those immediately northwest is also an arbitrary definiton.
• similarily, difference between these waters and those immediately northwest is also an arbitrary definiton.
• this can be repeated many times until you get to the waters around Hawaii.
• therefore, the waters around Hawaii are part of the Atlantic Ocean.
• therefore, Hawaii is in the Atlantic Ocean.

What’s wrong with this argument that isn’t wrong with yours?

Before I answer with what is probably going to be a long reply, could you please tell me how you managed to get such a long reply posted when I couldn’t get my complete reply posted? I kept getting the message that it was longer than 7000 characters and I didn’t count the characters in your reply but it seems awfully long. I appreciate any info you can give me. Thanks!!

caramel

 

[gakroeger]

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.

This is actually a very good summarization. The only problem I see with it is that you seem to again separate the unborn from the rest of us human beings. You are correct in your statement that the Church does not have the authority (or the desire) to dictate the Laws of the US or any other nation. But it does have the obligation to teach morality and to point out where laws are immoral. This being the case, there is no argument about the legalities of abortion. The laws against murder should already be applied to abortion and since our supreme court has erroneously separated the unborn from the rest of us, it is the duty of the Church to point out this fallacy.

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!

Again, pretty good; however, a few problems yet; the easiest one first; you apparently are still not in tune with the basis for this thread because you are exactly “on thread”. Although I see where you are going with your comment “contraception does not allow people to get pregnant” and that point is valid, however, the comment is false and it is one of the reasons abortion is so widespread and accepted. Women DO get pregnant using contraception and these are most frequently the babies that are aborted. And this is why moral law and Church teaching forbids artificial means of contraception. If people do not want to procreate, they should not engage in sexual activity. This is also why homosexual activity is included in sex outside of marriage ban in Church teaching. The marriage act is intended for married people for the intention of procreation; very straight forward, not difficult to understand, but for some, very difficult to accept.

 

[gakroeger]

Ah… so it’s metaphysically hypocritical.
So… you say that there’s a fundamental link between sex, procreation and marriage. How is this fundamentally different from someone saying that there’s a fundamental link between purchase, ownership and the marketplace?
Try this on for size:

“I don’t like it that this man owns another man, but he paid good money for him. When the slave escapes, he commits theft against the owner. Theft is wrong in all circumstances; all stolen goods must be returned to their legal owner, including the slave.”
In both cases, you apply a moral principle (“sex gives us procreation” in the one case and “stealing is wrong” in the other) and apply it well beyond its reasonable limits.

As usual your analogies are not analogies. You have a habit, it appears of devising an analogy that has no similarity to the subject and think it proves your point when it fact it does quite the opposite, it proves the counter point.

This particular (I will call it a) comparison is flawed from the start because it starts with an immoral condition. Slavery is immoral so the person who owned the slave (legally) was acting immorally. Therefore he has no right to compensation when his “slave” is stolen from him. This is just like a criminal who stole a car and then had it stolen from him by another criminal, he has no recourse. This is the reason I keep insisting that we not fall into arguments about the legality of abortion. Laws that permit abortion, like the laws of yesteryear the permitted slavery are immoral and therefore as moral people we have no obligation to obey them.

You have a clear choice between contraception and abortion: decrease of contraception will inexorably increase abortion. You may not like contraception, but acting on this dislike to the maximal degree without thought to the consequences means that something you dislike even more, abortion, will occur at a greater rate.

This is a totally uninformed “opinion” not based on any fact except your prospective. You may apply the same argument to the statement I am going to make here, however, the facts I have seen support my statement more than yours.

If you have read and understood the points that Worthy5 made above about Church teaching, you can readily see that if Church teaching was follow by all humans involved in sexual activity both birthrates and abortions would decline because sexual activity would decline. Further, aids and other STD’s would be virtually eliminated.

Now, since we both agree I am sure, this is not going to happen, let’s say that we reverse our thinking in schools and sex education classes and teach abstinence first and stop passing out condoms and teaching artificial birth control. IMHO unwanted pregnancies, STD’s, and abortions would decline almost immediately. If teenagers did not have ready access to contraception just like they do not have ready access to cigarettes and alcohol, sure they can still get access and it would not eliminate the problem, but again IMHO it would sure reduce all of these unwanted things.

Why don’t we do it then? Because we have become so selfish, so in need of instant self gratification, that we cannot deny ourselves anything even to the point of murdering the unborn to satisfy our desires.

 

[gakroeger]

My friend, what is semantics=word selection or connotation problems. There is none of that here. And it is a legal issue because you want abortion outlawed, I presume, in all cases.

You say " society has the exact same obligation" okay great you can take that position, but abortions are not going to be stopped, just illegal. Are you going to help arrest and prosecute these women or offer to pay increase taxes to help pay for hiring more people to handle the increase workload? Or will this law be like the law against fornication? It is on the books but never enforced.

I am not trying to be difficult my friend but flushing out all aspects of this issue. God Bless

My friend… semantics is the art (which has been on display here) of arguing the insignificant aspects and spliting hairs of non relevant points to avoid the real issue.

You keep arguing and are apparently not reading or understanding the responses you get. You keep insisting that I want abortion outlawed. Can you point to a single instance where I have said this? To the contrary (I will repeat once more with large bold type) **I want the unborn treated exactly like every other human being. This means there is no further law is required, there is already a law against murder. **

 

[gakroeger]

Before I answer with what is probably going to be a long reply, could you please tell me how you managed to get such a long reply posted when I couldn’t get my complete reply posted? I kept getting the message that it was longer than 7000 characters and I didn’t count the characters in your reply but it seems awfully long. I appreciate any info you can give me. Thanks!!

caramel

Hi Caramel

It was probably because the quote you were attaching was large. Eliminate some of the quote.

 

[Worthy5]

This is actually a very good summarization. The only problem I see with it is that you seem to again separate the unborn from the rest of us human beings. You are correct in your statement that the Church does not have the authority (or the desire) to dictate the Laws of the US or any other nation. But it does have the obligation to teach morality and to point out where laws are immoral. This being the case, there is no argument about the legalities of abortion. The laws against murder should already be applied to abortion and since our supreme court has erroneously separated the unborn from the rest of us, it is the duty of the Church to point out this fallacy.

Again, pretty good; however, a few problems yet; the easiest one first; you apparently are still not in tune with the basis for this thread because you are exactly “on thread”. Although I see where you are going with your comment “contraception does not allow people to get pregnant” and that point is valid, however, the comment is false and it is one of the reasons abortion is so widespread and accepted. Women DO get pregnant using contraception and these are most frequently the babies that are aborted. And this is why moral law and Church teaching forbids artificial means of contraception. If people do not want to procreate, they should not engage in sexual activity. This is also why homosexual activity is included in sex outside of marriage ban in Church teaching. The marriage act is intended for married people for the intention of procreation; very straight forward, not difficult to understand, but for some, very difficult to accept.

My friend, that post was not addressed to you. Further, there was nothing in that post arguing for “the unborn from the rest of us human beings”. The post was outlining the self-donated love that is the Church’s rationale against contraception and abortion. The post was slightly off thread because it was getting into the self-donated love rationale on contraception and not focusing on the the legal argument surrounding " the pro-life vs the pro-choice debate".

The fact ( if it is one) that people who use contraception are more likely get abortion has nothing to do with what is the government’s obligation to prevent abortion in general and what means should the government use to meet its moral obligation in that area.

You want to criminalize all abortions-fine, but others who see abortion as wrong may reasonable believe that the govt can take other approaches to attempt to protect life than simply outlawing all abortions under all circumstances-which again would not stop all the abortions anyway and overlooks the individual responsibility of the women.

 

[Worthy5]

My friend… semantics is the art (which has been on display here) of arguing the insignificant aspects and spliting hairs of non relevant points to avoid the real issue.

You keep arguing and are apparently not reading or understanding the responses you get. You keep insisting that I want abortion outlawed. Can you point to a single instance where I have said this? To the contrary (I will repeat once more with large bold type) **I want the unborn treated exactly like every other human being. This means there is no further law is required, there is already a law against murder. **

Okay fine, then you want a law that clearly defines the fetus, from conception, as human, thus triggering murder law protection for the fetus. If the fetus is aborted then it is murder thus requiring arrest and prosecution. Looks like a legal issue to me.

 

[lil_flower_luv]

Okay fine, then you want a law that clearly defines the fetus, from conception, as human, thus triggering murder law protection for the fetus. If the fetus is aborted then it is murder thus requiring arrest and prosecution. Looks like a legal issue to me.

Hello Worthy5!

Yes, every human being has a right to live…if abortion was made illegal, it would probably still go one just like selling a gun illegally goes on. But at least, there would be some protection for the unborn! The point is: With all this talk of freedom in our country (well, not anymore) we forget how unequally we are treating those who cannot speak for themselves. If a women doesn’t want her child, she can eliminate it, just like that. That’s like a conservative saying, “I don’t like a lot of liberals; can I abort them too?” It’s just not fair.

“Abortion alters the future,” said an ad I read. The babies who are aborted everyday could have grown up to find a cure for cancer, or make a significant discovery in the study of science, etc. We need to give every human being a chance. Not just those who are wanted.

 

[gakroeger]

Okay fine, then you want a law that clearly defines the fetus, from conception, as human, thus triggering murder law protection for the fetus. If the fetus is aborted then it is murder thus requiring arrest and prosecution. Looks like a legal issue to me.

Hello, Hello,

Do, I have to make the type bigger yet? I am not proposing any new laws. I am proposing that we the American People return to morality…

I am not sure just how much simplier I can state this