Pro Life versus Pro Choice Debate

[Worthy5]

Worthy 5,

Without properly defining liberty you can easily have tryanny.

And my friend how would you define liberty?

 

[CWBetts]

It is never wise to quote the Scriptures without the proper context: “What is truth?” was a question posed to Christ by Pilate. It is not difficult to see whose camp you are in when it comes to spiritual warfare.

 

[gakroeger]

View attachment 6784

 

[Worthy5]

It is never wise to quote the Scriptures without the proper context: “What is truth?” was a question posed to Christ by Pilate. It is not difficult to see whose camp you are in when it comes to spiritual warfare.

LOL It was from the movies my friend, it is okay to have a little fun, isn’t it? And what was Christ answer? And what are you saying, that such a question cannot be asked? And your statement " It is not difficult to see whose camp you are in when it comes to spiritual warfare" has a tone of questions they asked Thomas More. Where in any post has there been an argument that stated abortion was moral? Where?

 

[CWBetts]

LOL It was from the movies my friend, it is okay to have a little fun, isn’t it? And what was Christ answer? And what are you saying, that such a question cannot be asked? And your statement " It is not difficult to see whose camp you are in when it comes to spiritual warfare" has a tone of questions they asked Thomas More. Where in any post has there been an argument that stated abortion was moral? Where?

By allowing abortion you dispute that it is an intrinsic evil

 

[fix]

Worthy 5,

Freedom is doing what is right.

Truth is a person. Moral truth is objective and unchanging.

The government has a duty to protect innocent life. This is self evident. The most basic protection is having a law that makes it a crime to murder. That this requires proof says more about the one seeking such proof than it does about any argument I offer.

The analogy with slavery simply shows that just because the state allows some item does not mean the state is correct or that the law is just. That means there is a “deeper” issue at play then simply what any majority, or minority, wants to impose on people.

 

[Worthy5]

By allowing abortion you dispute that it is an intrinsic evil

My friend, neither I nor you, nor Fix, nor society as a whole either allows or disallows abortion-it happens and will happen whether you outlaw it or not. Once again, the question is how best can govt help prevent it and still respect the fundamental notion that our country is founded on the concept of a limited government.

 

[fix]

My friend, neither I nor you, nor Fix, nor society as a whole either allows or disallows abortion-it happens and will happen whether you outlaw it or not. Once again, the question is how best can govt help prevent it and still respect the fundamental notion that our country is founded on the concept of a limited government.

Replace the word abortion with rape or murder and then read it and tell us it is reasonable.

 

[fix]

By allowing abortion you dispute that it is an intrinsic evil

They claim it may be evil, but should not be illegal for various reasons. Not convincing to any person interested in preserving life and certainly not convincing to the baby about to be killed. What an ideology!

 

[Worthy5]

Replace the word abortion with rape or murder and then read it and tell us it is reasonable.

There you go again with those analogies, we are not talking about rape or murder of a born person on another born person. Do you see the flaw with analogies?

This is an unborn person intrinsically dependent on the mother. You just do not want to accept that society can select other means, that may be more effective at preventing the early term abortion, than just criminally outlawing them. You also do not want to accept that the women has her own individual independent duty to make the moral decision and that society does not have to shoulder that entire responsibility given it has other policy goals it needs to meet with limited resources.

One of those man goals is limited government-that not all decision, if not most decisions, this government should not make and that such a government that makes such decisions is way too instrusive.

 

[gearhead]

The government has a duty to protect innocent life. This is self evident.

Why do you think this is self evident? In many ways, government actions often show a blatant disregard for innocent life, IMO. And I’m not talking about abortion.

 

[Worthy5]

They claim it may be evil, but should not be illegal for various reasons. Not convincing to any person interested in preserving life and certainly not convincing to the baby about to be killed. What an ideology!

My friend, that is a misrepresentation. I too want to prevent as many abortions as possible. I simply disagree with your means. I do not think your means will prevent the most number of abortions. As stated above, using the full power of centralized government for any goal you select, no matter how noble, actually threatens the very value you claim to support-an individual right.

You still have not answered how you would pay for and implement your criminal law ban. Are we placing these women in jail or not? What about the jail space? If the jails are too crowded and you do not want to pay more money then are you going to release violent criminal like, say rapist and adult on adult murderers? Is the girl that has an abortion more of a threat to society then these individuals? Please lay out your framework.

 

[CWBetts]

There you go again with those analogies, we are not talking about rape or murder of a born person on another born person. Do you see the flaw with analogies?

This is an unborn person intrinsically dependent on the mother. You just do not want to accept that society can select other means, that may be more effective at preventing the early term abortion, than just criminally outlawing them. You also do not want to accept that the women has her own individual independent duty to make the moral decision and that society does not have to shoulder that entire responsibility given it has other policy goals it needs to meet with limited resources.

One of those man goals is limited government-that not all decision, if not most decisions, this government should not make and that such a government that makes such decisions is way too instrusive.

There is no metaphysical difference between the born and the unborn. The substance is the same.

 

[Christopher68]

My friend, that is a misrepresentation. I too want to prevent as many abortions as possible. I simply disagree with your means. I do not think your means will prevent the most number of abortions. As stated above, using the full power of centralized government for any goal you select, no matter how noble, actually threatens the very value you claim to support-an individual right.

You still have not answered how you would pay for and implement your criminal law ban. Are we placing these women in jail or not? What about the jail space? If the jails are too crowded and you do not want to pay more money then are you going to release violent criminal like, say rapist and adult on adult murderers? Is the girl that has an abortion more of a threat to society then these individuals? Please lay out your framework.

Worthy5,

The mindset of ‘fix’ and ‘CWBetts’ is very difficult to overcome. The emotional nature of the issue leads some people to believe that making abortion illegal is the key activity with regard to abortion. They need to realize that women will seek abortion whether thye are legal or not. They need to re-focus their efforts to changing peoples hearts and minds - because then women would not view abortion as their preferred alternative. And that is not something that involves government or laws. However, I have had enough forum discussions with people of this mindset, and have read enough threads on this issue, to realize that emotion often overcomes logic on this issue.

 

[Caramel]

My friend, that is a misrepresentation. I too want to prevent as many abortions as possible. I simply disagree with your means. I do not think your means will prevent the most number of abortions. As stated above, using the full power of centralized government for any goal you select, no matter how noble, actually threatens the very value you claim to support-an individual right.

You still have not answered how you would pay for and implement your criminal law ban. Are we placing these women in jail or not? What about the jail space? If the jails are too crowded and you do not want to pay more money then are you going to release violent criminal like, say rapist and adult on adult murderers? Is the girl that has an abortion more of a threat to society then these individuals? Please lay out your framework.

Wouldn’t it be interesting to find out what would happen to the rate of abortions if a law were passed banning them across the board, with the exception of saving the life of the mother? I mean today, not twenty or fifty years ago - today with all that is going on and the poor economy and the hope of many people that Obama will make things better (I’m not one of those people) and the reality of widespread torture and even slavery in our world.

I’ve heard it over and over through personal conversations and emails and posts. So many pro-aborts say that passing a law banning abortion would just drive women into back alleys and the use of clothes hangers would skyrocket because there have always been abortions and there always will be. But I just wonder what would really happen.

I suspect that the number of abortions would drop dramatically, especially if it were a federal law and women couldn’t “flee” to another state to have a legal abortion. I also suspect that the number of abandoned newborns would increase, though not dramatically. People need to know if they can leave an unwanted (to them) newborn at a fire station or hospital without being arrested or even detained or having to give their name.

I realize this post is rather pointless because we aren’t going to get to know. A law banning abortion is just not going to happen now. Obama is pro-abort and loves his FOCA (there is that “freedom” and “choice” thing again. Who could be against freedom of choice? It sounds so warm and nice and American.)

Just wanted to throw this into the pot.

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

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

 

[Caramel]

=Worthy5
No how were the statics (sic) gathered.

Are you giving your replies as quotes? If somebody wants to reply to your post and they click on “QUOTE” nothing shows up except for your name and some numbers. It makes it difficult to keep things straight. Is the above quote yours?

Whoever the statement belongs to, I want to say that statistics were offered with proper references. The poster who provided the link to the source of the statistics is not writing a doctoral dissertation here and picking apart his/her posting is like asking him/her to go off and do a lot of unnecessary work. Methinks that it might be a ploy to keep him/her from responding but instead digging around in books and journals, wasting time, when we could be learning something from what he/she has to say.

We are here not only to present our own theories and beliefs but to learn from others’ theories and beliefs.

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

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

 

[gearhead]

I suspect that the number of abortions would drop dramatically, especially if it were a federal law and women couldn’t “flee” to another state to have a legal abortion.

They could go to other countries. This happened quite a bit with the Irish abortion ban - women would go across the border into Northern Ireland, get their abortion, and then go back home. Especially in the northern states, many women would probably just jump across the border to Canada.

I don’t think there’s anywhere in the US (except maybe Hawaii) that isn’t a 3- or 4-hour flight away from a country where abortion is legal.

 

[SteveGC]

There you go again with those analogies, we are not talking about rape or murder of a born person on another born person. Do you see the flaw with analogies?

This is an unborn person intrinsically dependent on the mother. You just do not want to accept that society can select other means, that may be more effective at preventing the early term abortion, than just criminally outlawing them. You also do not want to accept that the women has her own individual independent duty to make the moral decision and that society does not have to shoulder that entire responsibility given it has other policy goals it needs to meet with limited resources.

One of those man goals is limited government-that not all decision, if not most decisions, this government should not make and that such a government that makes such decisions is way too instrusive.

Is the official definition of murder a born person taking the life of another born person? Does it make that distinction? I think putting the word murder in place of abortion is a perfect analogy. All the elements are there…intent to kill…killing a living innocent person…what more fitting of a word for abortion is there than murder?

I agree there are multiple ways in which abortion prevention can be addressed outside of legislation. But first and foremost we have to close the wound and stop the bleeding. The legalization of abortion is that gaping wound…and no, we don’t have to throw mothers into jail. We throw the doctor’s who offer and perform them in jail…a much lesser number than the women who seek them out for their service. I agree with caramel…we would see a profoundly dramatic decrease in abortions if it were illegal to offer that procedure anywhere in the U.S. The absence of law surrounding an issue is one of the most significant enablers of acting on that issue. No law against theft…the world becomes a looting cesspool…no law against murder…watch your back every minute of every day. No law against abortion…well…that’s where we are…

 

[CWBetts]

Are you giving your replies as quotes? If somebody wants to reply to your post and they click on “QUOTE” nothing shows up except for your name and some numbers. It makes it difficult to keep things straight. Is the above quote yours?

Whoever the statement belongs to, I want to say that statistics were offered with proper references. The poster who provided the link to the source of the statistics is not writing a doctoral dissertation here and picking apart his/her posting is like asking him/her to go off and do a lot of unnecessary work. Methinks that it might be a ploy to keep him/her from responding but instead digging around in books and journals, wasting time, when we could be learning something from what he/she has to say.

We are here not only to present our own theories and beliefs but to learn from others’ theories and beliefs.

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

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

Don’t worry, as a college student I have better things to do with my time than do research that I’m NOT being graded on! Like doing research I actually AM being graded on, studying for exams, staying caught up on reading, and the like! Worthy5 is just using undue scrutiny on every post opposing his own, and taking any post in agreement with him as undisputed fact. This tactic is most commonly used my propagandists and conspiracy theorists. His problem is he can’t deal with the fact that he is wrong. The simple fact ti anyone who does not speak out against evil actually cooperates in the evil, and any who actually makes excuse for evil bears an even heavier burden. Until he sees this, he has no hope.

 

[Worthy5]

Don’t worry, as a college student I have better things to do with my time than do research that I’m NOT being graded on! Like doing research I actually AM being graded on, studying for exams, staying caught up on reading, and the like! Worthy5 is just using undue scrutiny on every post opposing his own, and taking any post in agreement with him as undisputed fact. This tactic is most commonly used my propagandists and conspiracy theorists. His problem is he can’t deal with the fact that he is wrong. The simple fact ti anyone who does not speak out against evil actually cooperates in the evil, and any who actually makes excuse for evil bears an even heavier burden. Until he sees this, he has no hope.

“Worthy5 is just using undue scrutiny on every post opposing his own” Yes my friend it is called critical thinking.

“taking any post in agreement with him as undisputed fact” How so? I have never referenced or address any other post except those who want to criminalize all abortions under all circumstances.

There you go again, suggesting that I am for abortion and against any attempt by the govt to regulate it, speak out against it, and prevent it at every opportunity when it can,-none of which is true.

What I am doing is standing up for the policy of limited government and the right for society to take various approaches to deal with the outrage of abortion. I am not certain where you think I am making excuses for " evil ". As Thomas More once said " this country is planted think with laws, man’s laws not God’s. Cut them down, where do you hide. I give the devil the benefit of law for my own safety sake. "

My friend, reasonable people can disagree, and I not certain that a women should not be found guilty of a crime and such crime be expunged after her appearances in Court and free to go her way. But I am certain that locking women, or doctors, up for long sentencing involving murder and driving abortion underground seems—untenable. But mostly, and all that govt power.