Pro Life versus Pro Choice Debate

[CWBetts]

Not riding any fence at all, CW. I am pro-life (anti-abortion), right to life (pro-(responsible)choice)
What has been done is show you that you are among those answering me who who do not think.CW, Forgive me my intellectualisms and I’ll forgive you your lack.

Personal insults are wholly unnecessary. Is your self-esteem so low that you have to try prove that you are more intelligent than others by being presumptious?

 

[Worthy5]

Lets not deflect the true meaning to human beings these ‘other’ means will have for them. The ‘other’ means provides an environment that abortion is not criminalized ie; is givn a permissable place to happen for thos ‘difficult situations’. You should dmit that what you propose is a lawfull place to perform abortions under the guise that everything will bwe done to sway mothers away from abortion. I have to comment because you mentioned the value of the fetus. If you wish to preserve an environment that will not protect the life of the fetus from the will of another to who wishes to end it you most certainly are placing the value of some other good over it. Since that good isn’t over human beings in other developemental stages you most certainly are proposing measures that devalue the fetus. By the way why should the state criminilize certain acts? That requires a faulty assumption to stand. The state doesn’t decide to criminilize acts at most it can acknowledge certain acts are crimes and protect the human beings it serves from suffering it.The state isn’t capable of deciding what is a crime, It criminilizes certain acts because they are recognized crimes.

Given you are willing to acknowledge the fetus as a human being.
Why would it be good to not recognize that abortion is a crime against the fetus?

Why are the womans wishes more valuable than a human being at the early developemental stage?

All of these reasons are more valuable than a human being that is a fetus. At least stop trying to argue that the fetus is not devalued by not criminilizing abortion. I doubt that an underground industry would emerge for long.

" to preserve an environment that will not protect the life of the fetus "
The prior post were not suggesting that.

“The state doesn’t decide to criminilize acts at most it can acknowledge certain acts are crimes and protect the human beings it serves from suffering it”
Okay so what purpose does this point serve to the discussion on how best to protect life.

" Why would it be good to not recognize that abortion is a crime against the fetus? "
Okay recognize it as such, so for that law to mean anything do you not have to enforce it? What do you suggest? Place all women who commit abortions in jail. Is there enough jail space? Why cannot society select a different approach than simply putting women in jail?

“Why are the womans wishes more valuable than a human being at the early developemental stage?”

There not, but given the early fetus is inside the women, does she not have a responsibility to protect the life? Why is society having to take complete responsibility for this? And cannot society use different approaches to the problem?

" stop trying to argue that the fetus is not devalued by not criminilizing abortion."
Who is arguing such, later terms abortions are criminalized already thus making a value statement. Why cannot society select other methods to protect and emphasize the value of the life of the early fetus?

“I doubt that an underground industry would emerge for long.”
Drugs are illegal, but buying them is not too hard. You do not think back alley abortions would not occur?

There are many methods that might actually lead to fewer abortions occurring. God Bless

 

[gakroeger]

For those who argue that rape victims should abort pregnancies caused by the rape please read this story.

While this is undoubtedly a very traumatic experience for the rape victim; we still need to remember that the baby is human and did nothing wrong and deserves to live. The brave victim in this real life story lived to realize she made a wise and in the end happy decision.

Even without stories such as the one at this link, rape is not a good argument for 1 million plus abortions per year.

wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=112324

 

[Benadam]

]" to preserve an environment that will not protect the life of the fetus "
The prior post were not suggesting that.[/I]

If the fetus lives in a land where it is lawfull to kill it, it lives in an environment that is not protected from a mother who would kill it. The previous posts argue that it be lawfull to kill a fetus.

"The state doesn’t decide to criminilize acts at most it can acknowledge certain acts are crimes and protect the human beings it serves from suffering it"
***Okay so what purpose does this point serve to the discussion on how best to protect life. ***

You have been using the term ‘criminal ban’ it seems to mean the state would acknowledge an act as criminal but not treat as criminal when in fact you are arguing that the state not acknowledge the act as a crime at all so it would not come under acts that are crimes but banned from being treated as a crime.

"* Why would it be good to not recognize that abortion is a crime against the fetus? "*
Okay recognize it as such, so for that law to mean anything do you not have to enforce it? What do you suggest? Place all women who commit abortions in jail. Is there enough jail space? Why cannot society select a different approach than simply putting women in jail?

There are laws that recognize acts as criminal but are not meant to treat the act as a crime except in the rare circumstances that the act causes damages that a victim seeks justice for suffering.
Your position comes off as much more genuine if killing the fetus is recognized as a crime but the consequences imposed by the state for committing it are made flexible so that the social issues you are addressing can be, but under the provision of laws that are able to protect all human lives. An attitude of leniency under the law rather than freedom from law is more acceptable when discussing the right to end human life.

“Why are the womans wishes more valuable than a human being at the early developemental stage?”

**There not, but given the early fetus is inside the women, does she not have a responsibility to protect the life? Why is society having to take complete responsibility for this? And cannot society use different approaches to the problem? **

The state functions to serve for the good of all members of society. Allowing a particular class to be subject to the will of another class that contains a high percentage of members who want to end their lives at the moment their lives are detected constitutes a blatant failure of the state to perform it’s duties.

" stop trying to argue that the fetus is not devalued by not criminilizing abortion."
Who is arguing such, later terms abortions are criminalized already thus making a value statement. Why cannot society select other methods to protect and emphasize the value of the life of the early fetus?

Your position is to not make it a crime to end the life of a certain class of human beings. I don’t know how that desire can exist if that class is valued as much as the lives that are protected. In fact that you would want it to be lawfull to kill any fetus betrays the value you place on fetus unless you think it could be lawfull to kill other citizens as well.

“I doubt that an underground industry would emerge for long.”
***Drugs are illegal, but buying them is not too hard. You do not think back alley abortions would not occur? ***

Drugs are a health issue not a crime IMO so that analogy doesn’t work for me. The state’s method has been proven to be dysfunctional and the argument you present would suit that area of human behavior but not this one.

**There are many methods that might actually lead to fewer abortions occurring. **

We can apply those methods under a law that protects the life of the fetus from a mother who would end it’s life.**

God Bless

** Thank you. May God continue to bless you as well.

 

[Worthy5]

Okay, so let us now say that society, whatever the costs, must protect the fetus from harm. So do you want women tested each week to see if they are pregnant and if they are then the govt must then monitor them for the nine months to insure that the women does not take matters into her own hands and have an abortion by your reasoning.
Outlawing does not really insure the fetus will be protected does it? If, according to you, the fetus cannot live in " an environment that is not protected from a mother who would kill it" you must surely support the above means. Are you offering to pay more in taxes for the services or perhaps you like to volunteer to monitor a women for nine months to insure she does not harm the fetus.

You have been using the term ‘criminal ban’ it seems to mean the state would acknowledge an act as criminal but not treat as criminal when in fact you are arguing that the state not acknowledge the act as a crime at all so it would not come under acts that are crimes but banned from being treated as a crime.

My friend, make a point that adds something. A criminal ban means just that, that early term abortions would be considered a crime, under current law the states cannot make it a crime thus triggering punishment.

There are laws that recognize acts as criminal but are not meant to treat the act as a crime except in the rare circumstances that the act causes damages that a victim seeks justice for suffering.

What does that have to do with this discussion? The issue is whether under the criminal code if early terms abortions are criminalized it means prosecution and punishment for murder. How does what you said support your argument, that is presumed, that criminal punishment should be used to prevent abortions.

Your position comes off as much more genuine if killing the fetus is recognized as a crime but the consequences imposed by the state for committing it are made flexible so that the social issues you are addressing can be, but under the provision of laws that are able to protect all human lives. An attitude of leniency under the law rather than freedom from law is more acceptable when discussing the right to end human life.

What are you saying? Again, you want to use a criminal law to make a statement about the value of the fetus at any stage. Society can use other methods to promote the value of the early fetus and what do you propose here that that early term abortions would be a crime but a court may punish one women differently then another? Come on.

The state functions to serve for the good of all members of society. Allowing a particular class to be subject to the will of another class that contains a high percentage of members who want to end their lives at the moment their lives are detected constitutes a blatant failure of the state to perform it’s duties.

There you go again, you assume that making all abortions criminal is the most effective means to prevent abortion from happening. What is the goal for the state? To reduce abortions, outlawing them does not stop them. The state can select different means to accomplish its goal of reducing abortions. And if you are not willing to accept the individual responsibility of the women(according to you a high percentage want to kill the fetus) (and that God charged to bring the unborn life to term by the way) then you must support 24 hours monitoring of all pregnant women. Sounds like a police state to me.

Your position is to not make it a crime to end the life of a certain class of human beings. I don’t know how that desire can exist if that class is valued as much as the lives that are protected. In fact that you would want it to be lawfull to kill any fetus betrays the value you place on fetus unless you think it could be lawfull to kill other citizens as well.

Once again, you assume to criminalize will prevent, it does not. Actually, the same argument can be turned onto you. Insisting on criminalizing all abortions and saying the state should not take different approaches to deal with the problem seems more about using the criminal statue to grandstand on morality than focus on how to reduce abortion.

Drugs are a health issue not a crime IMO so that analogy doesn’t work for me. The state’s method has been proven to be dysfunctional and the argument you present would suit that area of human behavior but not this one.

You just stated a conclusion with no reasoning to support it.

We can apply those methods under a law that protects the life of the fetus from a mother who would end it’s life.

Okay so what is your point. No one said you could not but that does not give support for your position.

**** Thank you. May God continue to bless you as well.

[/QUOTE]

 

[John_Pascendi]

I suspect that this is a never-ending debate.

I agree,why should the death of some 55 million developing babies be even a subject for maybe one day…we were assured by having 'safe’abortions this will make …each child a wanted child! ahh the establishment and their clever slogans. I guess child abuse,kids left in garbage dumpsters,rape of children ,neglected ones etc have all disappeared…correct? And did not a male participate in this birth process,how come the male is never brought into this discussion ?In the early creed the medical professionals used to recite ,abortion was condemned…as it always has been in civilized societies. Abortion is a form of slavery! The amendment outlawing slavery in America used the term…‘person’ thus the supremes had to change the deftinition of person so that the developing baby can be liquidated by its temporary host. One wonders in sadness and awe,out of those millions aborted what future scientist was not allowed to live and cure cancer,or writer,or singer,or public servant …bewildering how this holocaust continues relentlessly…and a certain former tennis star who had an abortion so as to finish her tournament…has many dusty trophies on the shelf,but her crib is empty…wonder if she had it to do all over again what she would ‘choose’ to do!..Lets pray for all concerned…amen and amen…Pas

 

[ExDeoVita]

What human being is an unfertilized egg part of? The mother? The two don’t even have the same DNA.

Actually, all else being equal, I think that it would be a reasonable compromise to restrict late-term abortions to cases where it really is a matter of life or death for the mother (i.e. a near-blanket prohibition on late-term abortion). However, here’s the thing: I don’t for a second trust the anti-abortion movement to not use such a compromise as a foothold toward an all-out abortion ban. I think this is a common viewpoint in the pro-choice movement: they’d be willing to concede late-term abortions, but they aren’t willing to help strengthen the anti-abortion movement. If they thought that compromise on this issue wouldn’t result in a strengthened attack on abortion generally, they’d probably be willing to give up some ground.

So, effectively, your pressure for no abortions at all helps to keep late-term abortions legal.

This guy consistantly uses skewed logic. What IS apparent is he dose not understand the pro-life position given the above statement. He does not understand how something as abhorant as abortion cannot be allowed to continue, even to a lesser extant. I believe the minds of the pro-abortion sect are disallusioned in this area.

g. head would be consistent in his logic if he could say without missing a beat that it would have been permissible to just restrict Hitler’s holocaust to a certain demographic and somehow find middle ground between Hitler’s viewpoint and those who opposed his viewpoint. Yet it is clear for most people to see that those who were against the holocaust would be working with false compassion if they sought a solution that included something short of halting the murder of ALL the innocent people in every case and in every place.

If g. head would say that a viable ‘solution’ to ending Hitler’s holocaust could have included just limiting it or ‘reducing the numbers’ as we often hear than at least he would be consistent in his logic as pertains to true pro-life philosophy. Yet, if he (as I suppose he will) negates this comparison, writes off the analogy, (dodges the question) - his refusal is in fact is a loud answer telling all that “Hey guys my logic is inconsistent, and inasmuch as I can sidestep these types of analogies that would otherwise break the wobbly logic that my arguments rest on - I will do so. Even if the only one I continue to convince via this shotty logic is myself” Then by all means go ahead - but really all you will be doing is continuing in vain even though it may be unknown to you.

 

[gearhead]

g. head would be consistent in his logic if he could say without missing a beat that it would have been permissible to just restrict Hitler’s holocaust to a certain demographic and somehow find middle ground between Hitler’s viewpoint and those who opposed his viewpoint.

EDV, thank you for reaffirming my confidence in Godwin’s Law.

However, now that Godwin’s Law has been fulfilled, given the Church’s position on contraception, I’m as inclined to pay as much regard to its position on abortion as I would to a government that denounced the holocaust while it was busy deporting Jews back to Germany.

 

[ExDeoVita]

EDV, thank you for reaffirming my confidence in Godwin’s Law.

However, now that Godwin’s Law has been fulfilled, given the Church’s position on contraception, I’m as inclined to pay as much regard to its position on abortion as I would to a government that denounced the holocaust while it was busy deporting Jews back to Germany.

Yet, if he (as I suppose he will) negates this comparison, writes off the analogy, (dodges the question) - his refusal is in fact is a loud answer telling all that “Hey guys my logic is inconsistent, and inasmuch as I can sidestep these types of analogies that would otherwise break the wobbly logic that my arguments rest on - I will do so. Even if the only one I continue to convince via this shotty logic is myself” Then by all means go ahead - but really all you will be doing is continuing in vain even though it may be unknown to you.

Your dodge not mine bud… all I need to do is cut, paste, and re-post until you step up and and stop sidestepping questions…

 

[gearhead]

Your dodge not mine bud… all I need to do is cut, paste, and re-post until you step up and and stop sidestepping questions…

Exactly what question do you want me to respond to? Your post didn’t have a single question that I could’ve sidestepped if I wanted to. You putting words in my mouth does not constitute a question.

 

[gakroeger]

Here is the problem with arguing logic with one who puts more faith in Godwin’s law than in God’s law;

Godwin’s law is a typical tactic of the far left. Whenever there is a valid point (or person) such as the lessons of history like Hitler and Nazis Germany (or Sarah Palin) for which they have no counter argument, they demonize the use of the argument (or person) in an attempt to discredit its (or their) use. Because this causes some to shy away from supporting these arguments (or people), this tactic has been very successful, hence why it is continually used by those without a conscience.

 

[Christopher68]

I agree,why should the death of some 55 million developing babies be even a subject for maybe one day…we were assured by having 'safe’abortions this will make …each child a wanted child! ahh the establishment and their clever slogans. I guess child abuse,kids left in garbage dumpsters,rape of children ,neglected ones etc have all disappeared…correct? And did not a male participate in this birth process,how come the male is never brought into this discussion ?In the early creed the medical professionals used to recite ,abortion was condemned…as it always has been in civilized societies. Abortion is a form of slavery! The amendment outlawing slavery in America used the term…‘person’ thus the supremes had to change the deftinition of person so that the developing baby can be liquidated by its temporary host. One wonders in sadness and awe,out of those millions aborted what future scientist was not allowed to live and cure cancer,or writer,or singer,or public servant …bewildering how this holocaust continues relentlessly…and a certain former tennis star who had an abortion so as to finish her tournament…has many dusty trophies on the shelf,but her crib is empty…wonder if she had it to do all over again what she would ‘choose’ to do!..Lets pray for all concerned…amen and amen…Pas

I’ve had several replies to my earlier comment that the pro-life versus pro-choice debate is likely a never-ending debate. I also commented earlier in the thread that several of the posters in this thread - gakroeger and gearhead - could debate this issue ad infinitum and still find very few points of agreement. I would like to elaborate a bit further on these comments.

gakroeger interpreted my comments as making light of the debate, which was not my intention at all. I just realize there are people on both sides of this debate that have very firmly held positions that aren’t likely to be swayed by a few posts on a message forum. After I posted my comments, there were a lot of back-and-forth exchanges between the above mentioned posters that reinforced the point I was trying to make.

Here’s what I said back on post # 353, which I still believe to be the correct way forward:

In my opinion, the only way to ‘win’ the abortion issue is by changing hearts and minds - and that is something that doesn’t involve the government or laws. I also believe that government has been an abject failure whenever they tackle ‘moral’ issues - i.e. the Great Society actually made poverty worse, the War on Drugs has been an unmitigated disaster, etc. Some people will counter that by saying ‘why do we have laws against rape and murder - after all, aren’t those moral issues or personal choices too?’ However, the comparison is absurd, as virtually 100% of the polulation is opposed to rape and murder - while the percentage of people who are either ‘pro-life’ or ‘pro-choice’ is approximately 50%, depending on who has done the surveying and how they have slanted the questions that were being asked. Also, many people are caught up in the emotional nature of the issue, and they fail to see that the force of government is not the solution here. As mentioned, the solution is changing hearts and minds

 

[gakroeger]

Unfortunately, this thread which I started 17 days ago and since has had 4,152 views and 370 posts has not had the impact or result I hoped for; I had hoped that Catholics who have supported abortion in all or just some cases would come to understand how erroneous that position is.

Instead we have seen a lot of meaningless banter and endless semantic arguments about the legalities, biological processes, and one attempted analogy after another. However, unless I missed it, I have not seen a single case of a pro choice Catholic coming to the conclusion that the unborn child is indeed human just like the rest of us and entitled to the same respect and protection.

In spite of the fact that this thread was started with the position that we on the pro life side concede to every argument postulated by the pro choice people IF the unborn baby is not human. This being the case, the only argument should be, is the unborn baby human? If the unborn baby is human what is your argument for killing it? If the unborn baby is not human, please provide scientific evidence that it is not human. In spite of this starting point many continue to argue points about women’s rights, rights of women who have been raped, social and economic issues, etc. Would the rights of a women ever justify killing a two year old toddler? If not, women’s right’s have no point in this discussion. Again this issue should be, prove that the unborn child is not human or stop defending the abortion of them.

I have been chastised on several occasions for appearing to come across as superior or arrogant in my defense of the unborn. For this I sincerely apologize, I which I knew how to express the Church’s truth without my personality coming across; however, my point is this, show me where my position is different than Church teaching and I will immediately change my position to match Church teaching. All I ask is that my Catholic opponents in this discussion do the same.

 

[antunesaa]

Just because something is legal doesn’t make it necessarily a good idea medically, or even possible in practical terms.

And the dividing line at birth is no more arbitrary than the dividing line at conception.

Well, this is the whole point of this thread. The only non-arbitrary way of dealing with this question is defining the beginning of any human life as the moment of fertilization. Otherwise you are always subject to the regression problem. Before fertilization there are no living organisms, but living cells, and the regression argument doesn’t apply anymore. The cases where twins come out of the same fertilized egg are, due to their rarity, clearly second order issues that I’m sure philosophers, biologists, ethicists and other knowledgeable people will be glad to deal with. So you’re stuck with an utilitarian approach here, by weighting human beings in their different stages of development against other “goods” such as the “freedom” of the mother and so on. But please be aware that you are killing a human being when doing an abortion. This is clear and should not be denied by pro-abortion people. I once read that someone (a US writer? can’t remember) with that stance said something like: “Abortion is killing human beings, and we must defend our camp based on utilitarian arguments.” At least this is an intelectually honest position.

 

[fix]

I really do not understand how some pro-life people cannot accept the reasonable position of being against abortion but being pro-choice= which is saying that the govt can fulfill is duty to attempt to protect the unborn child by means other than just criminalizing all abortions in all circumstances. You keep going back to how horrible abortion is=we all agree on that! The question is how to best prevent abortion while still respecting the need to limit the power of government coercion. And again, outlawing abortion does not guarantee abortions will not occur anyway!

Nothing will stop all abortions, or all rapes, or bank robbery, or anything else. The civil law plays an important function in forming consciences for good or for ill. There is no one way to prevent abortion. We need to address many factors, but why minimize the legal aspect which is central to protecting rights and life?

 

[Caramel]

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?

OK, I already replied to part of your post but it disappeared. So, sigh, here we go again:

Whether you’re doing it intentionally or not, I think you’re playing the game of being illogical.

You are using two criteria in your “joke analogy” that I didn’t. The first is “arbitrary definition.” The second is geographical location. Those are not what I am talking about. I am talking about stages of life.

Let’s take your “analogy” and change it around so that it more closely resembles what I am attempting to point out to you.

• The waters just east of Cape Horn are sea water.
• The waters just east of Cape Horn and just west of Cape Horn are both sea water.
• The waters just west of Cape Horn and those immediately northwest are sea water.
• Similarly, the waters just northwest of that point are sea water.
• This can be repeated many times until you get to the waters around Hawaii. which is sea water.
  -Therefore, the sea water around Hawaii is sea water. (I know this is circular but I wanted to respond to all of your statements.)
  -Therefore, Hawaii is in sea water.

Which it is, right? I don’t think Hawaii is in fresh water. Sea water is sea water. A human being is a human being, no matter what stage it is at, and a person is a person, no matter what stage it is at.

What makes you a person, Gearhead? When did you become a person? When did you become a human being?

I want to make sure this posts, so I’ll answer your other objections in another post.

caramel
mother of Ryan Christopher
and Elysia Catherine (in heaven)

“Having your dreams come true can be far more therapeutic than having them analyzed…” - anonymous

 

[Caramel]

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

.

Agreed. They are her tissue which is expelled from her body. At that point they are no longer 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.

Huh?

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

Rocks got life???

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.

I find THAT (what you are stating here) to be very sad. You don’t even care if people exist at all, do you?

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?

The woman and the man are the parents of the new, individual life. It is not part of either because it is a new life with a complete component of chromosomes.

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

Can’t answer this until I go back to my post to see what I stated there.

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?

They aren’t persons because they aren’t human begins. You are just being silly here.

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.

Yes a fertilized egg is alive. An unfertilized egg is alive. BUT, a fertilized egg will, with the proper nutrients and oxygen, progress through the stages of life. An unfertilized egg will be flushed out. It can’t develop or progress to anything other than an unfertilized egg. If it isn’t fertilized it will die as an unfertilized egg. A fertilized egg has the ability to progress through the stages of life, which form a continuum. It is a human being and will die as a human being.

caramel
mother of Ryan Christopher
and Elysia Catherine (in heaven)

“Having your dreams come true can be far more therapeutic than having them analyzed…” - anonymous

 

[Caramel]

Well, this is the whole point of this thread. The only non-arbitrary way of dealing with this question is defining the beginning of any human life as the moment of fertilization. Otherwise you are always subject to the regression problem. Before fertilization there are no living organisms, but living cells, and the regression argument doesn’t apply anymore. The cases where twins come out of the same fertilized egg are, due to their rarity, clearly second order issues that I’m sure philosophers, biologists, ethicists and other knowledgeable people will be glad to deal with. So you’re stuck with an utilitarian approach here, by weighting human beings in their different stages of development against other “goods” such as the “freedom” of the mother and so on. But please be aware that you are killing a human being when doing an abortion. This is clear and should not be denied by pro-abortion people. I once read that someone (a US writer? can’t remember) with that stance said something like: “Abortion is killing human beings, and we must defend our camp based on utilitarian arguments.” At least this is an intelectually honest position.

Very good points!! I applaud you!!

caramel
mother of Ryan Christopher
and Elysia Catherine (in heaven)

“Having your dreams come true can be far more therapeutic than having them analyzed…” - anonymous

 

[PeterMuz]

That seems a bizarre statement. Every baby started out as an unfertilized egg.

This statement was made in response to your comment that most women pass unfertilized eggs through the birth canal once a month. I was saying that never has one of those unfertilized eggs become a human being.

• fertilized egg: we both agree this is not a person.
• embryo or fetus: we disagree on whether this is a person.
• five-year-old child: we both agree this is a person.

Regardless of our respective positions, we can both agree that the category “things that depend on others for shelter and nourishment” includes both things that are people and things that aren’t. Therefore, the mere fact that a thing depends on others for shelter and nourishment does not automatically make it a person.

I understand that just because something needs shelter and nourishment does not automatically make it a person.

My question to you is this… At what point does a “embryo or fetus” become a human being?? I’d like a specific point, maybe to be used as a standard.

That’s all I was trying to get at.

 

[Worthy5]

Nothing will stop all abortions, or all rapes, or bank robbery, or anything else. The civil law plays an important function in forming consciences for good or for ill. There is no one way to prevent abortion. We need to address many factors, but why minimize the legal aspect which is central to protecting rights and life?

No one is, read the prior post but society has to promote multiple policies at once-one of which is limited government.