Pro Life versus Pro Choice Debate

[gakroeger]

I’ve already explained my position as clearly as I can. Either I have not done a good job of explaining myself (which is entirely possible), or you are making no effort to understand what I have written. But I do not have the time or inclination to repeat myself.

And once again, it is you who are twisting my words. I did not use the words ‘middle ground’, which would imply that I asking you to moderate your position. I used the words ‘common ground’, by which I mean that even those on polar sides of this issue can likely agree on certain things - such as the desire to reduce the number of abortions.

Ok, I accept the fact you will not answer my direct questions and I understand why not, because they cannot be answered directly without exposing the fallacy of your position.

You continue to use semantics such as the difference between “middle ground” and “common ground” as your argument.

I pray that you and other Cafeteria Catholics who are caught in this delusion will soon follow all Church teachings 24/7.

 

[fix]

Nooooo, its that society can use different means to attack each problem and secondary, that at some point limits should be placed on government power.

And it is pro-choice my friend, quit mischaracterizing. No, we do want protection for the unborn just in different ways. And, limited government is a policy that protects our liberty.

No such thing as pro choice in this context. It is pro abortion. What choice does the baby get? If you deny legal protection in such a case that is support for abortion.

 

[fix]

There you go again, its an analogy fest! LOL. “Idealized” notion of limited government. So what are you saying, that we live in a country were the govt should not have limited power?

That only false idea in this thread is the one that claims it is just to allow direct killing of innocents based on jail space and cost.

Because you have to show how your law is going to work and how the enforcement will be paid for. And your second statement makes no sense given abortion is legal right now. And no we prosecute that person, but that person is a physically outwardly violent person who likely has a high chance at a repeat offense. Once again, society can select different means to deal with different problems.

Laws against murder have noting to do with jail space or cost. I see you adimt that abortion is not a violent act towrd a human life. Your position is clear, again.

 

[Worthy5]

No such thing as pro choice in this context. It is pro abortion. What choice does the baby get? If you deny legal protection in such a case that is support for abortion.

Let us do some more analogies since you like them so much. What choice does someone who is killed in a robbery have? Did outlawing robbery prevent that death? Why do you think outlawing all abortions in all circumstances is going to give that fetus anymore of a choice or a chance than other means? In fact, your hardball legal postion reflects the Texas statue in Roe v Wade. Where did that get us? The Court getting involved! And now look where we are at.

 

[Worthy5]

That only false idea in this thread is the one that claims it is just to allow direct killing of innocents based on jail space and cost.

No my friend, quit misrepresenting. No reason was ever asserted to justify abortion. You again work on the faulty assumption that complete outlawing of all abortions means no abortion, which is not going to be the case and you know it. Its a practicality you have to deal with based on your proposed law.

]Laws against murder have noting to do with jail space or cost. I see you adimt that abortion is not a violent act towrd a human life. Your position is clear, again.

 

[Caramel]

I didn’t suggest that there was a middle ground on the morality of the issue. That’s not what my post was about. I was suggesting that people on both sides of the issue should try to find ‘common ground’ (such as working together to try to reduce the abortion rate). Are you opposed to engaging someone in constructive dialogue?

I apologize if I misread your post. I’m not opposed to engaging anyone in constructive dialogue. And I apologize for changing “common” to “middle.” I don’t know why that happened.

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

 

[fix]

Let us do some more analogies since you like them so much. What choice does someone who is killed in a robbery have? Did outlawing robbery prevent that death? Why do you think outlawing all abortions in all circumstances is going to give that fetus anymore of a choice or a chance than other means? In fact, your hardball legal postion reflects the Texas statue in Roe v Wade. Where did that get us? The Court getting involved! And now look where we are at.

The “fetus” gets less chance when the state allows unchecked killing. It is not about stopping every single abortion due to the law. It is about what the CCC referred to I posted before. Including that the law is a teacher and that the most vulnerable deserve legal protection.

As to your robbery analogy would you claim it is safer to have no laws against robbery? Is that your position?

 

[fix]

No my friend, quit misrepresenting. No reason was ever asserted to justify abortion. You again work on the faulty assumption that complete outlawing of all abortions means no abortion, which is not going to be the case and you know it. Its a practicality you have to deal with based on your proposed law.

Laws against bank robbery do not stop every robbery, but few would claim having no law and “changing hearts and minds” would be a reasonable idea.

This comes down to how you view innocent life. The pro abort crowd, that cares nothing for just laws, is content to claim they would not have an abortion, but it is acceptable for others to “choose” such a crime. That logic is not moral.

Your posts not only misrepresent others positions but are increasingly hostile and accusatory. Questions regarding the enforcement of the law has everything to do with that law for the law to have any measurable impact.

My posts show that the pro abort argument is disingenuous. If you call that hostile and accusatory that is incorrect. The problem is the truth of this matter is often too hard to accept because accepting what is going on means changing the way we lead our lives. And that is too often unwanted.

The enforcement of this law, like any law, depends on multiple factors. None of those factors include not making it illegal due to jail space or cost.

 

[fix]

Y’know, CHOICE is such a fuzzy little word. It’s a good word, a positive word, a word we can all embrace.

However, it does nothing to describe the ugliness, the sinfulness, of the act of ABORTION. The word ‘abortion’ describes what the act itself is: the slaughter of an unborn baby.

Do you think that the substitute word was substituted by accident? Think again. Satan’s handmaidens are fairly clever. They want to confuse the issue.

Everyone knows what the word ABORTION means. There’s no spin, no attempt to make it a good thing, nothing to separate the act from the meaning.

If you are not in favor of abortion, then you can not use the word CHOICE to describe it.

Yes, and there is a strong pro life poster here who usually at this point will make a significant comment. The comment attempts to point out that people, particularly Catholics, who hold positions that are “pro choice” or minimize the law in this issue usually want some ideology to defend support for pro abort politicians. I can’t help but think that plays a role much of the time.

If you call it a “choice” and claim the law does not matter or even will make matters worse if illegal they will go on to say we need to focus on government welfare as the “answer”.

This is about politics more than morals for too many people.

 

[Christopher68]

Ok, I accept the fact you will not answer my direct questions and I understand why not, because they cannot be answered directly without exposing the fallacy of your position.

You continue to use semantics such as the difference between “middle ground” and “common ground” as your argument.

I pray that you and other Cafeteria Catholics who are caught in this delusion will soon follow all Church teachings 24/7.

First of all, where in this thread did I mention anything that could be remotely construed as my believing that abortion is something other than highly undesirable? I have made no comments in this thread that contradict the church position on the issue of abortion itself. You are conferring beliefs on me that I do not hold. Perhaps because I do not share your opinions on the correct course of action???

I just happen to believe that government is highly inefficient and incapable of achieving even simply objectives. In other posts I’ve mentioned the Great Society programs which INCREASED poverty, the failed war on drugs that INCREASED drug abuse. I do not believe that the strong arm of government can positively influence the rate of abortion. In fact, I think government can only make the issue worse.

Moreover, I am fearful of those who would use the coercive power of government to enforce moral issues. Why do you believe this is something positive? And would you feel the same way if it was Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton deciding moral issues for YOU? Or perhaps a radical muslim? Because by asking the government to enforce your moral beliefs, you are implicityly giving government the power to enforce THE OPPOSITE of your beliefs as well.

And your retort about my using semantics is absurd, as it is you who twisted the meaning of my use of the words ‘common ground’. You replaced these words with the words ‘middle ground,’ which implies that I am asking you to fundamentally alter your position, which is not at all what I suggested. In using the words ‘common ground’, I am suggesting that it might be possible to find some common areas of agreement with those you disagree with - without altering your core beliefs. There is a VAST difference here.

 

[Worthy5]

QUOTE=Christopher68;5833955]First of all, where in this thread did I mention anything that could be remotely construed as my believing that abortion is something other than highly undesirable? I have made no comments in this thread that contradict the church position on the issue of abortion itself. You are conferring beliefs on me that I do not hold. Perhaps because I do not share your opinions on the correct course of action???

I just happen to believe that government is highly inefficient and incapable of achieving even simply objectives. In other posts I’ve mentioned the Great Society programs which INCREASED poverty, the failed war on drugs that INCREASED drug abuse. I do not believe that the strong arm of government can positively influence the rate of abortion. In fact, I think government can only make the issue worse.

Moreover, I am fearful of those who would use the coercive power of government to enforce moral issues. Why do you believe this is something positive? And would you feel the same way if it was Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton deciding moral issues for YOU? Or perhaps a radical muslim? Because by asking the government to enforce your moral beliefs, you are implicityly giving government the power to enforce THE OPPOSITE of your beliefs as well.

And your retort about my using semantics is absurd, as it is you who twisted the meaning of my use of the words ‘common ground’. You replaced these words with the words ‘middle ground,’ which implies that I am asking you to fundamentally alter your position, which is not at all what I suggested. In using the words ‘common ground’, I am suggesting that it might be possible to find some common areas of agreement with those you disagree with - without altering your core beliefs. There is a VAST difference here

Well said my friend. Well said!!! Bravo!! :yyeess:

 

[Benadam]

First of all, where in this thread did I mention anything that could be remotely construed as my believing that abortion is something other than highly undesirable? I have made no comments in this thread that contradict the church position on the issue of abortion itself.

This doesn’t reflect the Church’s position. Highly undesireable isn’t the way the Church describes it. The Church would always refer to it in terms appropriate to unjust end of human life. A pimple on my forehead is highly undesireable. The willfull end of a human being for no other reason than they are an inconvenience is tragic.

 

[Caramel]

" Pro-abort" quit mislabeling.

Huh? What?? I don’t know what you are trying to state here. Are you telling a pro-abort to quit mislabelling? Well, I agree. They call themselves “pro-choice.” Well I am “pro-choice” too!! Oh, but they don’t really mean “pro-choice” do they? No, they don’t. What they mean is that a woman should be able to choose what goes on inside her body, which means that she should be able to choose abortion. There is that nasty little word again. Abortion. They are for abortion. They are pro-aborts. The father of the child doesn’t get to choose. And the child certainly has absolutely no say in the matter. It’s the WOMAN. It’s the woman who chose to have unsafe sex and is now carrying a new person inside her that makes all the decisions. How degrading to women!! How degrading to men and children!!

Okay that is your opinion (you obviously are not too concerned about excessive govt power)(and you still do not seem to want to deal with the resource problem placing all these people in jail).

Yes, it is my opinion. I’m certainly not going to state your opinion. And what is this about me OBVIOUSLY not being too concerned about excessive government power?!? I am extremely concerned about excessive government power. Why is it obvious? Where do you get this stuff? And I still do not seem to want to deal with the resource problems with jailing women? I’ve never even mentioned jailing women.

Are you reading my posts? Do you have me mixed up with somebody else? I’ve never mentioned punishing women who have abortions.

This is not a moral issue( it never was), this is an issue about govt power and the use of that power.

Oh yes it is a moral issue. It always was, it is now, and it always will be. It is not an issue about government power and the use of that power except in regards to equal protection under the law. There are some things that answer to a higher power (and I’m not tallking about kosher hot dogs.) There are some things that are under the jurisdiction of universal law and sanctity of human life is one of them.

Please stop putting words into my mouth. I have enough words of my own, thank you. I don’t appreciate it, it is rude, and it ends up muddying the issue.

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

 

[Benadam]

I just happen to believe that government is highly inefficient and incapable of achieving even simply objectives. In other posts I’ve mentioned the Great Society programs which INCREASED poverty, the failed war on drugs that INCREASED drug abuse. I do not believe that the strong arm of government can positively influence the rate of abortion. In fact, I think government can only make the issue worse.

 

[Worthy5]

QUOTE=Caramel;5834569]Huh? What?? I don’t know what you are trying to state here. Are you telling a pro-abort to quit mislabelling? Well, I agree. They call themselves “pro-choice.” Well I am “pro-choice” too!! Oh, but they don’t really mean “pro-choice” do they? No, they don’t. What they mean is that a woman should be able to choose what goes on inside her body, which means that she should be able to choose abortion. There is that nasty little word again. Abortion. They are for abortion. They are pro-aborts. The father of the child doesn’t get to choose. And the child certainly has absolutely no say in the matter. It’s the WOMAN. It’s the woman who chose to have unsafe sex and is now carrying a new person inside her that makes all the decisions. How degrading to women!! How degrading to men and children!!

There you go again, arguing with a phantom. No one one here is arguing abortion is moral. And yes it is about choice, it is about who makes the decision given who has the duty to protect the unborn life at certain times–just because someone disagrees with you does not mean they are " pro-abort".

Yes, it is my opinion. I’m certainly not going to state your opinion. And what is this about me OBVIOUSLY not being too concerned about excessive government power?!? I am extremely concerned about excessive government power. Why is it obvious? Where do you get this stuff? And I still do not seem to want to deal with the resource problems with jailing women? I’ve never even mentioned jailing women.

Because you seem more concern with making it a moral issue-which it is not here because no one on here is arguing that abortion is anything other than immoral-the issue is a legal issue—about what role a limited government has in using its power.

If you want abortion outlawed in all circumstances as murder then are you not require to place these women in jail? How long would their jail terms be? How are you dealing with jail space? And do not say we will just put the doctors in jail for that is punishing only one of the thieves.

Oh yes it is a moral issue. It always was, it is now, and it always will be. It is not an issue about government power and the use of that power except in regards to equal protection under the law. There are some things that answer to a higher power (and I’m not tallking about kosher hot dogs.) There are some things that are under the jurisdiction of universal law and sanctity of human life is one of them.

No it is not a moral issue on this post, because no one is disagreeing that it is immoral to commit such an act.

Please stop putting words into my mouth. I have enough words of my own, thank you. I don’t appreciate it, it is rude, and it ends up muddying the issue.

This is not placing words in your mouth, you hold the same position as the others correct?, that abortion should be punished as murder in all cases. Thus, the above issues apply.

This is just a discussion, nothing more.

 

[CWBetts]

There you go again, arguing with a phantom. No one one here is arguing abortion is moral. And yes it is about choice, it is about who makes the decision given who has the duty to protect the unborn life at certain times–just because someone disagrees with you does not mean they are " pro-abort".

Because you seem more concern with making it a moral issue-which it is not here because no one on here is arguing that abortion is anything other than immoral-the issue is a legal issue—about what role a limited government has in using its power.

If you want abortion outlawed in all circumstances as murder then are you not require to place these women in jail? How long would their jail terms be? How are you dealing with jail space? And do not say we will just put the doctors in jail for that is punishing only one of the thieves.

No it is not a moral issue on this post, because no one is disagreeing that it is immoral to commit such an act.

This is not placing words in your mouth, you hold the same position as the others correct?, that abortion should be punished as murder in all cases. Thus, the above issues apply.

This is just a discussion, nothing more.

Anyone who does not believe that abortion should be illegal shares in the guilt of the murders. Consenting to the crime carries a share of the culpability.

 

[gearhead]

Anyone who does not believe that abortion should be illegal shares in the guilt of the murders. Consenting to the crime carries a share of the culpability.

Would the same thing apply to all the people who didn’t condemn the Iraq War after the Vatican declared it to not be a “just war”?

 

[Caramel]

Would the same thing apply to all the people who didn’t condemn the Iraq War after the Vatican declared it to not be a “just war”?

IMHO it would apply to all the people who didn’t condemn the Iraq war BEFORE the Vatican declared it to not be a “just war.”

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]

There you go again, arguing with a phantom. No one one here is arguing abortion is moral. And yes it is about choice, it is about who makes the decision given who has the duty to protect the unborn life at certain times–just because someone disagrees with you does not mean they are " pro-abort".

There are more people involved in this discussion than you realize. They are called lurkers. And they read these posts and they think about what has been stated.
So, what did you mean by “pro-abort stop mislabeling” or whatever you stated? Did you mean that I am wrong for calling people who are pro abortion "pro-aborts? If so, why didn’t you ask that?

If a person is for abortion they are pro-abort. If a person is for protecting the environment they are pro-environment. If a person is for using coal as an energy source they are pro-coal. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and reproduces with another duck to form a new duck, it’s a duck. If a person is for abortion, if a person argues for the right of a woman to obtain an abortion, if a woman has an abortion using her free will, she is pro-abort.

So, yes, in this matter, if people disagree with me on the issue of abortion in that they support abortion, they are pro-abort. What is the problem here? If people think that abortion is OK then they will not complain about being called pro-abort. I didn’t label them pro-murder or pro-child slaughterers. I am describing what they are. The word “choice” is much too general. They are for abortion. They are pro-abort. I am for life. I am pro-life.
I have NEVER before received a post from a debater who is for abortion complaining about being called pro-abort.

Because you seem more concern with making it a moral issue-which it is not here because no one on here is arguing that abortion is anything other than immoral-the issue is a legal issue—about what role a limited government has in using its power.

If you want abortion outlawed in all circumstances as murder then are you not require to place these women in jail? How long would their jail terms be? How are you dealing with jail space? And do not say we will just put the doctors in jail for that is punishing only one of the thieves.

OK, you finally ASKED me the question you have claimed that I have been dodging. But you tell me “do not say put the doctors in jail…” DON’T TELL ME WHAT I CAN STATE IN MY REPLY TO YOU!!

First of all, I DID NOT SAY THAT I WANTED ABORTION TO BE OUTLAWED IN ALL CIRCUMSTANCES!! I said that it should be outlawed with the exception of risk of life to the mother. Did you forget this? AGAIN, HERE YOU GO PUTTING WORDS INTO MY MOUTH!!

I’m not ready to debate jail times, punishment, etc. I am not an attorney or other expert on law. But that does not change my belief (yes, my OPINION) that all human beings deserve equal protection under the law. And as an unborn child is a human being, he/she should receive that protection.

No it is not a moral issue on this post, because no one is disagreeing that it is immoral to commit such an act.

It is ALWAYS a moral issue!! That can NEVER be stated too many times!!

This is not placing words in your mouth, you hold the same position as the others correct?, that abortion should be punished as murder in all cases. Thus, the above issues apply.

This is just a discussion, nothing more.

You ARE placing words into my mouth. I NEVER STATED THAT ABORTION SHOULD BE PUNISHED AS MURDER IN ALL CASES!! I am pro-life. I may not agree with everything other pro-lifers believe, suggest, and/or state.

It is not a discussion. Now it has become a matter of you taking the bizarre position of lumping all pro-lifers into one neat category. What one pro-lifer states is what all of us state. Is that what you are saying? That is weird. And PLEASE STOP PUTTING WORDS INTO MY MOUTH!! When you do this you are trying to take away my right of free speech. If you disagree with what I state, fine. If you disagree with what I don’t state, fine. But you are muddying the issue by your tactics. If you want to debate with me, fine. But until you start following the correct procedures for debating you are showing that you are desperate and can’t defend your own position.

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

 

[SteveGC]

Not sure I follow the logic of keeping the abortion issue out of the legal system…

Are there some here who honestly believe the number of abortions wouldn’t drastically be reduced if abortion were an illegal practice? Please justify for me your position on that. I think millions of lives would be saved simply by only enforcing one small part of proposed anti-abortion law: namely, making it illegal for abortions to be performed at any medical facility. Just throw the docs who disobey the law in jail. No docs but the few highly crooked ones will continue to offer them, and even they for only a limited time before they’re eventually caught. Millions of lives saved on that one simple enforcement alone. If that reality is not enough to support anti-abortion law, I don’t know what is.

But even if we take it to the next level, and go after women who are caught attempting to abort underground…are there some here who believe we would have a prison space problem if we outlawed abortion in this way? Really? So…if the law forbids all clinics and medical institutions from performing abortions, such that the only way to have one is to find an “underground” source willing to risk their freedom to offer them at an elevated price, the result is that there will be so many women and “doctors” prosecuted for being caught in the abortive act that prisons would over-populate? I find that quite implausible. Sure, there will be an increase in jail sentences for those involved, but I highly doubt the numbers would be at an elevated level that would threaten over-population. Yes, we already have a population problem in our prison system, but abortion criminals would not significantly contribute to that number. I just don’t see how the underground abortion scheme would be capable of secretly surviving at any substantial level, or for any substantial amount of time. Sure, some women will travel outside the U.S. to abort…I’m sure they would. But that’s not something we can control right now. The best thing we do right now is to proclaim: “abortion? not in this country, jack!”

I’m not discrediting the substantial other means to reduce abortions…like increasing Christian faith and providing significant education and support systems for unwanted pregancies. But change the friggin laws. Close the gaping wound and then tend to the rest of the bleeding.