Pro Life versus Pro Choice Debate

[Caramel]

I’ll try to break it down more simply. Consider the things under discussion:

• 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.

That’s all I was trying to get at.

What makes a person a person?

caramel
mother of Ryan Christopher
and Elysia Catherine

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

 

[Caramel]

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.

I’m sorry if I haven’t made myself clear. It just seems so obvious and true to me that an unborn child is a person that it is difficult for me to comprehend any other position. But it seems that I find myself mired in a swamp of ridiculous statements, lack of logic, and on and on and on.

So I will make this statment: AN UNBORN CHILD IS A HUMAN BEING AND SHOULD BE GIVEN ALL THE RIGHTS THAT ANY OTHER HUMAN BEING RECEIVES. That is what I believe!! That is what I KNOW is true!! And I knew it was true during the period of my life when I was not a practicing Catholic and I still know it is true now that I am a practicing Catholic. Biology and faith have both led me to the same conclusion.

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

 

[gakroeger]

I’m sorry if I haven’t made myself clear. It just seems so obvious and true to me that an unborn child is a person that it is difficult for me to comprehend any other position. But it seems that I find myself mired in a swamp of ridiculous statements, lack of logic, and on and on and on.

So I will make this statment: AN UNBORN CHILD IS A HUMAN BEING AND SHOULD BE GIVEN ALL THE RIGHTS THAT ANY OTHER HUMAN BEING RECEIVES. That is what I believe!! That is what I KNOW is true!! And I knew it was true during the period of my life when I was not a practicing Catholic and I still know it is true now that I am a practicing Catholic. Biology and faith have both led me to the same conclusion.

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

Dear Caramel, thank you for your clear statement, however, I knew you were not one of the pro choice Catholics I was attempting to convert. Your position (like mine) has been very clear and I do understand how you can get embroiled in these ridiculous arguments, I have also fallen in that trap.

All available scientific evidence supports the fact the the unborn baby is wholly human from the moment of conception; this is what the pro choice people have to prove is not true. This is what the Church has taught for 2000 years and now science has confirmed it.

Pro choice arguments that are personal opinion are invalid; they MUST provide scientific evidence that disproves this fact. And this cannot be done; this is why they keep reverting to all of this banter about issues other than this simple fact.

If their argument cannot be applied to a 2 year old toddler, it cannot be applied to an unborn baby either.

 

[Caramel]

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

Gearhead, you just stated that every baby started out as an unfertilized egg. That means you are stating that an unfertilized egg is a baby. I don’t agree with this, but if you make that statement you must also agree that if an unfertilized egg is a baby, than a fertilized egg must be a baby also. And a baby is a person.

Is this what you meant to state?

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]

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.

Please provide some evidence which shows that the “pro-choice movement” would be willing to compromise; specifically, to “concede” late-term abortions. Oh, and could you also give a definition of “late-term abortion”?

Thanks!

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

 

[gakroeger]

Todays reading is appropriate to this discussion…

Reading 1
Rom 1:16-25

Brothers and sisters:
I am not ashamed of the Gospel.
It is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes:
for Jew first, and then Greek.
For in it is revealed the righteousness of God from faith to faith;
as it is written, “The one who is righteous by faith will live.”

The wrath of God is indeed being revealed from heaven
against every impiety and wickedness
of those who suppress the truth by their wickedness.
For what can be known about God is evident to them,
because God made it evident to them.
Ever since the creation of the world,
his invisible attributes of eternal power and divinity
have been able to be understood and perceived in what he has made.
As a result, they have no excuse;
for although they knew God
they did not accord him glory as God or give him thanks.
Instead, they became vain in their reasoning,
and their senseless minds were darkened.
While claiming to be wise, they became fools
and exchanged the glory of the immortal God
for the likeness of an image of mortal man
or of birds or of four-legged animals or of snakes.

Therefore, God handed them over to impurity
through the lusts of their hearts
for the mutual degradation of their bodies.
They exchanged the truth of God for a lie
and revered and worshiped the creature rather than the creator,
who is blessed forever. Amen.

 

[gearhead]

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?

I agree that the Catholic Church has the right to say what it wants on the subject of abortion. By the same token, I have the right to say that they should use that right responsibly.

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.

No, you don’t. We each have to ask ourselves what it is that gives a human being value, and then ask ourselves whether these things are present in an embryo or fetus.

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.

I disagree that the Church’s position is intellectually honest. In more ways than I care to count, it does not give embryos and fetuses the regard that would be considered appropriate for a human being.

At the risk of getting too personal, here’s an example from my own life: my wife and I trying to have a baby. So far, we’ve been unsuccessful - we can conceive, but so far the embryo/fetus consistently miscarries in the first trimester… there have been at least 6 or 7 times that we know of for sure, but probably more, since we don’t really have a good way of knowing if a miscarriage occurred less than a month in.

We’ve been seeing a fertility specialist who works through a Catholic hospital. So far, this has meant different treatments, each with less-than-even odds of success, but with the aim of going through different possible causes until we find the one that applies to us. Our specialist keeps telling us to try to conceive normally, though, in addition to the various treatments, despite the fact that at this point, we know that the odds are quite high that the next time we conceive, it will end in miscarriage.

Now… the hospital, being a Catholic hospital, has a “pro-life” policy that forbids in-vitro fertilization supposedly on the grounds that embryos are “people” and that the IVF process would “kill” a number of them. However, it apparently has no ethical issues at all with us engaging in a course of behaviour that it knows will almost certainly result in the “death” of a number of “people” before we successfully have a baby.

Now… I don’t grieve or mourn for the miscarried fetuses & embryos. As I’ve alluded to in this thread, I don’t believe that a 1- or 2-month-old embryo/fetus is a person. I simply consider them to be lost opportunities to have a child. However, I can’t see how the hospital can reconcile its policies with the idea that a fetus is a person.

I think it’s mainly this plus contraception where I see the Church as deeply hypocritical on the abortion issue. As long as people are furthering doctrine (e.g. by not using condoms or by trying to have kids as a married couple), it apparently doesn’t give a fig about whether people (or at least what it considers to be people) die.

 

[CWBetts]

I agree that the Catholic Church has the right to say what it wants on the subject of abortion. By the same token, I have the right to say that they should use that right responsibly.

No, you don’t. We each have to ask ourselves what it is that gives a human being value, and then ask ourselves whether these things are present in an embryo or fetus.

I disagree that the Church’s position is intellectually honest. In more ways than I care to count, it does not give embryos and fetuses the regard that would be considered appropriate for a human being.

At the risk of getting too personal, here’s an example from my own life: my wife and I trying to have a baby. So far, we’ve been unsuccessful - we can conceive, but so far the embryo/fetus consistently miscarries in the first trimester… there have been at least 6 or 7 times that we know of for sure, but probably more, since we don’t really have a good way of knowing if a miscarriage occurred less than a month in.

We’ve been seeing a fertility specialist who works through a Catholic hospital. So far, this has meant different treatments, each with less-than-even odds of success, but with the aim of going through different possible causes until we find the one that applies to us. Our specialist keeps telling us to try to conceive normally, though, in addition to the various treatments, despite the fact that at this point, we know that the odds are quite high that the next time we conceive, it will end in miscarriage.

Now… the hospital, being a Catholic hospital, has a “pro-life” policy that forbids in-vitro fertilization supposedly on the grounds that embryos are “people” and that the IVF process would “kill” a number of them. However, it apparently has no ethical issues at all with us engaging in a course of behaviour that it knows will almost certainly result in the “death” of a number of “people” before we successfully have a baby.

Now… I don’t grieve or mourn for the miscarried fetuses & embryos. As I’ve alluded to in this thread, I don’t believe that a 1- or 2-month-old embryo/fetus is a person. I simply consider them to be lost opportunities to have a child. However, I can’t see how the hospital can reconcile its policies with the idea that a fetus is a person.

I think it’s mainly this plus contraception where I see the Church as deeply hypocritical on the abortion issue. As long as people are furthering doctrine (e.g. by not using condoms or by trying to have kids as a married couple), it apparently doesn’t give a fig about whether people (or at least what it considers to be people) die.

Your position would be like saying that it is hypocritical accept death as a natural cycle of life and to be opposed to murder…

 

[Caramel]

At the risk of getting too personal, here’s an example from my own life: my wife and I trying to have a baby. So far, we’ve been unsuccessful - we can conceive, but so far the embryo/fetus consistently miscarries in the first trimester… there have been at least 6 or 7 times that we know of for sure, but probably more, since we don’t really have a good way of knowing if a miscarriage occurred less than a month in.

Now… the hospital, being a Catholic hospital, has a “pro-life” policy that forbids in-vitro fertilization supposedly on the grounds that embryos are “people” and that the IVF process would “kill” a number of them. However, it apparently has no ethical issues at all with us engaging in a course of behaviour that it knows will almost certainly result in the “death” of a number of “people” before we successfully have a baby.

Now… I don’t grieve or mourn for the miscarried fetuses & embryos. As I’ve alluded to in this thread, I don’t believe that a 1- or 2-month-old embryo/fetus is a person. I simply consider them to be lost opportunities to have a child. However, I can’t see how the hospital can reconcile its policies with the idea that a fetus is a person.

I think it’s mainly this plus contraception where I see the Church as deeply hypocritical on the abortion issue. As long as people are furthering doctrine (e.g. by not using condoms or by trying to have kids as a married couple), it apparently doesn’t give a fig about whether people (or at least what it considers to be people) die.

You can’t have it both ways. If the hospital adheres to a pro-life policy it can’t allow in vitro fertilization for the very reason you stated. Do you honestly expect the hospital personnel to kill what they consider to be human beings? You KNOW they are pro-life, yet you continue to use their services and then complain about it. If you really believe in pro-abort, then go to a hospital/doctor who is pro-abort and will conduct an in vitro fertilization.

The hospital you are using has reconciled its policies with the idea that a fetus is a person. That is why they don’t allow in vitro fertilization. In a way I understand what you are saying here. But Catholic pro-lifers know that the children you and your wife conceived were/are people and are in heaven now because they are holy innocents.

It is YOUR behavior that results in the death of the children you conceive. If you did not conceive them, they would not die. Don’t blame the hospital you use because your pregnancies resulted in spontaneous abortions. It isn’t their fault your wife becomes pregnant. The children you conceive are living human beings that, unfortunately, die before birth. This happens a lot, as we both know. Unfortunately you don’t believe these children are persons and you don’t believe in an afterlife anyway so it seems to make little difference to you. They are just lost opportunities.

Don’t blame the doctor or the hospital. They are acting correctly.

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

“A person’s a person, no matter how small.” - Dr. Seuss

 

[fix]

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

Society has an obligation to protect innocent life. This is fundamental. The law plays a central role.

 

[gearhead]

Your position would be like saying that it is hypocritical accept death as a natural cycle of life and to be opposed to murder…

No, I’m saying that it’s hypocritical to accept needless death and be opposed to murder.

You can’t have it both ways. If the hospital adheres to a pro-life policy it can’t allow in vitro fertilization for the very reason you stated. Do you honestly expect the hospital personnel to kill what they consider to be human beings? You KNOW they are pro-life, yet you continue to use their services and then complain about it. If you really believe in pro-abort, then go to a hospital/doctor who is pro-abort and will conduct an in vitro fertilization.

I’m not after an in-vitro fertilization. I only brought it up to note the fact that, in some respects, the hospital rules have built into them the notion that an embryo is a person.

The hospital you are using has reconciled its policies with the idea that a fetus is a person. That is why they don’t allow in vitro fertilization. In a way I understand what you are saying here. But Catholic pro-lifers know that the children you and your wife conceived were/are people and are in heaven now because they are holy innocents.

What does this matter? Presumably a deliberately aborted fetus would be a “holy innocent” as well, but you don’t think this excuses abortion, do you?

It is YOUR behavior that results in the death of the children you conceive. If you did not conceive them, they would not die. Don’t blame the hospital you use because your pregnancies resulted in spontaneous abortions. It isn’t their fault your wife becomes pregnant. The children you conceive are living human beings that, unfortunately, die before birth. This happens a lot, as we both know.

I don’t blame the hospital for the miscarriages. I do note, however, that a Catholic institution has counselled my wife and I to engage in a course of behaviour that they know has a high likelihood of resulting in more miscarriages.

Don’t blame the doctor or the hospital. They are acting correctly.

Can you give me any other instance where it would be proper for a doctor or a hospital to recommend that a person undertake a voluntary, medically unnecessary course of action that had a high probability of resulting in the death of even one person?

 

[sauce]

Being absolutely specific would help. Nobody knows what this “course of behavior” is all about except that you say it is medically unnecessary. Respectfully asking, what do you mean??

Got the feeling that you are letting your intellect totally drive your decision-making.
Sometimes, you need more than that. Faith, hope, instinct. The rest is mystery.

 

[gearhead]

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.

In many cases, geographic location is an arbitrary definition.

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.

Now, from the ocean, paddle up the Kaukonahua Stream; are you still in sea water? Even though there’s no definite line between sea water and fresh water, and instead just a gradation where there’s no distinction between “dilute sea water” and “fresh water with high salt content”, you did transition from one to the other.

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.

Saying “a human being is a human being” or “a person is a person” does nothing to tell us what a human being or a person are.

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

I don’t think there’s a clear line. While I personally consider the life of an infant to be sacrosanct, when I think about it, I think it’s more based on emotion and social convention than any sort of objective assessment.

I think it’s very difficult to come up with a meaningful definition of “person” that:

• applies to all humans but only to humans,
• “poofs” on at either birth or conception, and
• remains in full effect continuously until death.

Aside from the concept of a soul, that is, but people seem unwilling to deal with that in this thread.

 

[Caramel]

No, I’m saying that it’s hypocritical to accept needless death and be opposed to murder.

I’m not after an in-vitro fertilization. I only brought it up to note the fact that, in some respects, the hospital rules have built into them the notion that an embryo is a person.

What does this matter? Presumably a deliberately aborted fetus would be a “holy innocent” as well, but you don’t think this excuses abortion, do you?

I don’t blame the hospital for the miscarriages. I do note, however, that a Catholic institution has counselled my wife and I to engage in a course of behaviour that they know has a high likelihood of resulting in more miscarriages.

Can you give me any other instance where it would be proper for a doctor or a hospital to recommend that a person undertake a voluntary, medically unnecessary course of action that had a high probability of resulting in the death of even one person?

I have an idea which may not have occured to you. Why don’t you answer the questions I have posted to you previously. So far you haven’t. Once you have done that we can discuss this post.

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

“A person’s a person, no matter how small.” = Dr. Seuss

 

[Caramel]

In many cases, geographic location is an arbitrary definition.

Now, from the ocean, paddle up the Kaukonahua Stream; are you still in sea water? Even though there’s no definite line between sea water and fresh water, and instead just a gradation where there’s no distinction between “dilute sea water” and “fresh water with high salt content”, you did transition from one to the other.

I’ve never been to Hawaii nor do I have much knowledge of its geography. I will take your word that once you paddle up the Kaukonahua Stream, past the estuary, you are now in fresh water. But what does that have to do with stages of life? Sea water, estuary, fresh water. There is a distinction here. You are first in sea water, then in an estuary, then in fresh water. But It is still water. And it is a continuum of water, like the stages of life are a continuum.

Saying “a human being is a human being” or “a person is a person” does nothing to tell us what a human being or a person are.

I didn’t make either of those statements. I said a human being is a person. Please stop putting words into my mouth.

Why don’t you bring your radical animal rights activists to this discussion and let them join in. Or better yet, why don’t you start a new thread with what your ideas on personhood are. I’ve given you my definition. It is simple and concise.

I don’t think there’s a clear line. While I personally consider the life of an infant to be sacrosanct, when I think about it, I think it’s more based on emotion and social convention than any sort of objective assessment.

Good. So now why don’t you think about it a little more?

I think it’s very difficult to come up with a meaningful definition of “person” that:

• applies to all humans but only to humans,
• “poofs” on at either birth or conception, and
• remains in full effect continuously until death.

Aside from the concept of a soul, that is, but people seem unwilling to deal with that in this thread.

So you don’t have a definition of “person.” Without a clear definition I find it difficult to debate with you. I am not a psychic. The only way I know what is going on in your brain is what you write in this discussion (until we meet each other in another discussion.) Until you can provide me with at least an operational definition of “person” I’m not going to debate that any longer with you.

I thought you didn’t believe in souls. So what good would it do to debate that with you? I do believe that a fertilized egg is a human being and that all human beings have souls. I cannot prove this scientifically. I know human beings have souls because I have faith.
I believe a fertilized egg is a human being both because I am a biologist and because I have faith. I came to the conclusion (as I have stated before) that a fertilized egg is a human being when I wasn’t even a practicing Catholic. I was an agnostic. You are an atheist and I believe that it will do no good to debate the presence of a soul with you. And I don’t like wasting my time when I can spend it doing more important things like glorifying God.

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

“A person’s a person, no matter how small.” - Dr. Seuss

 

[gearhead]

I’ve never been to Hawaii nor do I have much knowledge of its geography. I will take your word that once you paddle up the Kaukonahua Stream, past the estuary, you are now in fresh water. But what does that have to do with stages of life? Sea water, estuary, fresh water. There is a distinction here. You are first in sea water, then in an estuary, then in fresh water. But It is still water. And it is a continuum of water, like the stages of life are a continuum.

Arrgh. Maybe it would be best to give up this analogy. It seems to be muddying the waters more than anything else (no pun intended).

I didn’t make either of those statements. I said a human being is a person. Please stop putting words into my mouth.

If you didn’t make those statements, then someone has hacked into your account:

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.

Why don’t you bring your radical animal rights activists to this discussion and let them join in. Or better yet, why don’t you start a new thread with what your ideas on personhood are. I’ve given you my definition. It is simple and concise.

What would doing that prove?

As I’ve said before, there are more options than your opinion and my opinion. Simply declaring my opinion to be wrong doesn’t mean that yours is automatically right. If you want your opinion to be the basis of law, then defend it on its own merits.

So you don’t have a definition of “person.” Without a clear definition I find it difficult to debate with you. I am not a psychic. The only way I know what is going on in your brain is what you write in this discussion (until we meet each other in another discussion.) Until you can provide me with at least an operational definition of “person” I’m not going to debate that any longer with you.

Again, I really don’t see what this would do. My personal definitions are irrelevant to the debate over whether abortion should be legal. In a free society, every action is legal unless a reasonable justification can be provided for why is should be illegal.

It’s not a matter of deciding between your opinion and mine; it’s a matter of deciding whether your opinion is a reasonable justification for the law, period.

I thought you didn’t believe in souls. So what good would it do to debate that with you? I do believe that a fertilized egg is a human being and that all human beings have souls. I cannot prove this scientifically. I know human beings have souls because I have faith.

I don’t believe in souls. I think that people are unwilling to bring them up because they know that the soul is a religious concept. They want their opinion to rest on some sort of objectively provable foundation, but AFAICT, there isn’t one.

I believe a fertilized egg is a human being both because I am a biologist and because I have faith.

How did being a biologist have an effect on your position?

I’m personally of the opinion that the sciences only provide us with factual knowledge; while they do give us information on which we can base moral choices, they don’t dictate morality themselves.

 

[sauce]

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.

You probably just described a “seared conscience.” It has a branded quality. It shows up in all the arguing. There is no sense of awareness, only “attack the other.” As they did with Palin and continue to do. Kind of like waving a cape, as the bullfighter does. There’s a distraction “away from the truth” so that the bullfighter can use the sword to kill the target.

So I just see a lot of “cape waving” from the “seared of conscience.” And boy is it boring.

 

[Worthy5]

Society has an obligation to protect innocent life. This is fundamental. The law plays a central role.

Yes it does, but not the exclusive role. Society can decide different means are best to attempt to meet that goal of protecting life. Society must also promote other policies not only because it values all such policies but to value one policy always at the expense of every other policies actually results in the destruction of that one policy. You do not have individual rights without majority rule and vice-versa. That is what a law is, a balancing of competing interests. Time to pick up a book on legal reasoning, it might help.

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

This thread might be more aptly titled, ‘Pro-life versus pro-death: only fools will argue for the latter.’

 

[fix]

Yes it does, but not the exclusive role.

Not exclusive, but primary and fundamental. Without that protection all else is meaningless.

Society can decide different means are best to attempt to meet that goal of protecting life.

If it denies the protection of the civil law then you have no protection.

Society must also promote other policies not only because it values all such policies but to value one policy always at the expense of every other policies actually results in the destruction of that one policy.

Such as?

You do not have individual rights without majority rule and vice-versa. That is what a law is, a balancing of competing interests. Time to pick up a book on legal reasoning, it might help.

Natural Rights do not come from the majority. Time to pick up a book on moral reasoning, it might help.