Pro Life versus Pro Choice Debate

[gakroeger]

I know there are many who are thinking ‘but abortion is murder - we have to prosecute it as murder’. Rape and murder are opposed by 99.99999% of the population. However, there is no such unanimity on abortion. While you may think this is a black and white issue, society as a whole views this differently, as evidenced by the percentage of those who classify themselves as pro-choice. Consider all of the political and legal maneuvering on this issue over the past 30 years. I don’t believe it has fundamentally changed the debate in any way. That is why I don’t believe the force of government is the solution here.

You keep basing your opinions on what is the current state of our civilization. The problem here is that we have already passed the point of becoming an immoral society. This may sound harsh however, again the reason it sounds harsh is that we are killing our young and many don’t seem to realize this can lead nowhere but down. Because half of the population believes killing our young is alright, does not make it right.

You have made another point I would like to agree with, “we need to change the hearts and minds” of those who believe abortion is an acceptable solution to an unwanted pregnancy. However, this must be done with logic which holds true to truth itself. Once we compromise truth in anyway, our whole argument falls apart. The first step after convincing people that the unborn are just like us only younger and that we were once just like them, is to get society to accept adoption, there are thousands if not millions of couples who would welcome one of these babies into their homes. Admittedly there is a problem with the adoption of some minority children, but this is just another challenge to be overcome. In my own family, I have a son and daughter-in-law who were unable to conceive a child and they tried for years to adopt a white baby. This proved to be virtually impossible and they adopted a premature black baby that was miraculously born of a crack addicted mother. The baby weighed only a little less than 2 pounds when born. Today this granddaughter is an intelligent, outgoing, 13 years old, six foot tall basketball player and the joy of all of our lives.

 

[Caramel]

At the beginning of this debate a link was provided which showed a video of an abortion. I wasn’t able to access the video but I did see some photos of aborted babies on the same site.

I am providing a new link. Take a look at these photos. Take a look at the aborted children in the trash can. This is what the people in this country are doing to their children.

It is not a pro-KKK site, although I thought it was at first.

I am reading the posts with great interest and I was googling, trying to get some stats and I ran across this web site:

100abortionpictures.com/Aborted_Baby_Pictures_Abortion_Photos/

I know that most of the posters on this debate are pro-life and I don’t get a kick out of looking at photos like these. But I believe that it is necessary for us (and for the people who might be reading what we are writing but not posting themselves) to SEE what pro-lifers are trying to stop.

God help us.

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

 

[gakroeger]

At the beginning of this debate a link was provided which showed a video of an abortion. I wasn’t able to access the video but I did see some photos of aborted babies on the same site.

I am providing a new link. Take a look at these photos. Take a look at the aborted children in the trash can. This is what the people in this country are doing to their children.

It is not a pro-KKK site, although I thought it was at first.

I am reading the posts with great interest and I was googling, trying to get some stats and I ran across this web site:

100abortionpictures.com/Aborted_Baby_Pictures_Abortion_Photos/

I know that most of the posters on this debate are pro-life and I don’t get a kick out of looking at photos like these. But I believe that it is necessary for us (and for the people who might be reading what we are writing but not posting themselves) to SEE what pro-lifers are trying to stop.

God help us.

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

Unfortuately the people who need to see this reality will either refuse to subject themselves to it or will claim the pictures are fake as one pro choice person did on this thread. With a million abortions a year in this country it is hardly necessary to fake pictures such as these.

 

[John_Pascendi]

Lets compare two dates…and issues…The year : 1857…slavery the other Abortion…now:under slavery: 'Although he may have a heart and a brain,and be a human biolegically,a slave is not a legal person. The Dred Scott decision has decided that" Now"Although he may have a heart and a brain, and be a human life biologically,an unborn child is not a legal person…our courts have decided that!..A black man only becomes a legal person when he is set free. Before that time,we should not concern ourselves about him because he has no legal rights!..1857…and now "A baby only becomes a legal person when he or she is born. Before that time,we should not concern ourselves about him because he has no legal rights!..1857: If you think slavery is wrong,then nobody is forcing you to be a slave owner…so dont impose your morality on somebody else!..and now "If you think abortion is wrong,nobody is forcing you to have one…so dont impose your morality on somebody else!..1857: A man has a right to do what he wants with his own property! and now: A woman has the right to do what she wants with her own body! and finally :1857 "Isnt slavery really something merciful,after all ,every black man or woman has a right to be protected…isn’t it better never to be set free than to be sent unprepared and ill-equipped,into a cruel world (spoken by someone already free) and now: Isn’t abortion really something merciful?After all,every baby has a right to be wanted.Isn’t it better never to be born than to be sent along and unloved into a cruel world?..(spoken by someone already born…)…and so it goes…amen and amen.Pas

 

[Christopher68]

You keep basing your opinions on what is the current state of our civilization. The problem here is that we have already passed the point of becoming an immoral society. This may sound harsh however, again the reason it sounds harsh is that we are killing our young and many don’t seem to realize this can lead nowhere but down. Because half of the population believes killing our young is alright, does not make it right.

You have made another point I would like to agree with, “we need to change the hearts and minds” of those who believe abortion is an acceptable solution to an unwanted pregnancy. However, this must be done with logic which holds true to truth itself. Once we compromise truth in anyway, our whole argument falls apart. The first step after convincing people that the unborn are just like us only younger and that we were once just like them, is to get society to accept adoption, there are thousands if not millions of couples who would welcome one of these babies into their homes. Admittedly there is a problem with the adoption of some minority children, but this is just another challenge to be overcome. In my own family, I have a son and daughter-in-law who were unable to conceive a child and they tried for years to adopt a white baby. This proved to be virtually impossible and they adopted a premature black baby that was miraculously born of a crack addicted mother. The baby weighed only a little less than 2 pounds when born. Today this granddaughter is an intelligent, outgoing, 13 years old, six foot tall basketball player and the joy of all of our lives.

gakroeger,

Thank you for your replies.

I am not sure if I mentioned this before, but I did not vote for Obama. I share your concern with government taking over health care, as who knows where this could lead. You’ve read my earlier posts where I give my opinions on government, which are not favorable to say the least. I truly believe that government should be a fraction of it’s current size - because a government that is empowered to do good can just as easily be empowered to do evil. As I’ve said before, by asking government to enforce certain beliefs, we are implicitly giving government the power to enforce the opposite of those beliefs as well. And believe me, it’s not you or me that going to be in charge of determining what is right or wrong - it’s going to be people like Barack Obama, David Vitter, Nancy Pelosi, Larry Craig, etc. The last group of people I need determining morality for me is a group of politicians and bureaucrats.

You made the comment that your objective is to convince people that abortion is a terrible act. You have no disagreement with me on that. That’s my main point - that the correct way forward is to educate and to change hearts and minds. I also share your belief in adoption as a noble and viable alternative that should be encouraged. Your granddaughter sounds outstanding - congratulations. Certainly there is a lot that can be done to streamline adoption procedures and make it easier for couples.

 

[gakroeger]

gakroeger,

Thank you for your replies.

I am not sure if I mentioned this before, but I did not vote for Obama. I share your concern with government taking over health care, as who knows where this could lead. You’ve read my earlier posts where I give my opinions on government, which are not favorable to say the least. I truly believe that government should be a fraction of it’s current size - because a government that is empowered to do good can just as easily be empowered to do evil. As I’ve said before, by asking government to enforce certain beliefs, we are implicitly giving government the power to enforce the opposite of those beliefs as well. And believe me, it’s not you or me that going to be in charge of determining what is right or wrong - it’s going to be people like Barack Obama, David Vitter, Nancy Pelosi, Larry Craig, etc. The last group of people I need determining morality for me is a group of politicians and bureaucrats.

You made the comment that your objective is to convince people that abortion is a terrible act. You have no disagreement with me on that. That’s my main point - that the correct way forward is to educate and to change hearts and minds. I also share your belief in adoption as a noble and viable alternative that should be encouraged. Your granddaughter sounds outstanding - congratulations. Certainly there is a lot that can be done to streamline adoption procedures and make it easier for couples.

Christopher68

And, thank you for your reply, it sounds like we were not as far apart as I initially thought.

I have learned through our exchange and I hope you have also.

God Bless

 

[Caramel]

Lets compare two dates…and issues…The year : 1857…slavery the other Abortion…now:under slavery: 'Although he may have a heart and a brain,and be a human biolegically,a slave is not a legal person. The Dred Scott decision has decided that" Now"Although he may have a heart and a brain, and be a human life biologically,an unborn child is not a legal person…our courts have decided that!..A black man only becomes a legal person when he is set free. Before that time,we should not concern ourselves about him because he has no legal rights!..1857…and now "A baby only becomes a legal person when he or she is born. Before that time,we should not concern ourselves about him because he has no legal rights!..1857: If you think slavery is wrong,then nobody is forcing you to be a slave owner…so dont impose your morality on somebody else!..and now "If you think abortion is wrong,nobody is forcing you to have one…so dont impose your morality on somebody else!..1857: A man has a right to do what he wants with his own property! and now: A woman has the right to do what she wants with her own body! and finally :1857 "Isnt slavery really something merciful,after all ,every black man or woman has a right to be protected…isn’t it better never to be set free than to be sent unprepared and ill-equipped,into a cruel world (spoken by someone already free) and now: Isn’t abortion really something merciful?After all,every baby has a right to be wanted.Isn’t it better never to be born than to be sent along and unloved into a cruel world?..(spoken by someone already born…)…and so it goes…amen and amen.Pas

What you wrote makes so much sense!! Slavery and abortion are both moral issues and both are subject to the universal law of sanctity of life. I’ve run across this before: “If you are against abortion, then don’t have one!!” which to me, as a pro-lifer, is saying: “If you are against murder, then don’t murder anyone!!” Some things are absolute wrongs, such as slavery, murder, and abortion.

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

 

[Christopher68]

Christopher68

And, thank you for your reply, it sounds like we were not as far apart as I initially thought.

I have learned through our exchange and I hope you have also.

God Bless

Likewise…I knew we were close!

 

[gearhead]

What you wrote makes so much sense!! Slavery and abortion are both moral issues and both are subject to the universal law of sanctity of life. I’ve run across this before: “If you are against abortion, then don’t have one!!” which to me, as a pro-lifer, is saying: “If you are against murder, then don’t murder anyone!!” Some things are absolute wrongs, such as slavery, murder, and abortion.

Bear with me for a moment.

I was listening to a podcast the other day that mentioned a bit about the Christian Science movement. One of their beliefs is that all disease is a direct result of sin, and (except for certain specific conditions like broken bones) doctors are to be avoided. Instead, members of the denomination are told to seek treatment from “practitioners” who attempt to heal people with nothing but prayer.

Needless to say, many people die of this and a significant proportion of the people who do die are children… kids with conditions that are easily treatable by modern medicine, but lethal without treatment: diabetes, for example.

In many places, Christian Scientists whose children die because they failed to provide them with medical care are charged with crimes like failing to provide the necessities of life, or in extreme cases, criminal negligence causing death or even manslaughter.

However, in a number of US states, these prosecutions don’t happen, because there are exceptions on the books (largely put in place by lobbying from the Christian Science movement) that deem any course of action that a person follows out of religious belief to not be negligence or failure of parental duty.

So… here’s a question for the “pro-life” people here: if you live in a state that has these religious exemptions to the laws regarding negligence, child abuse and the duties of a parent, will you campaign for these exemptions to be to be removed?

If you don’t do this, are you declaring to the world that it’s acceptable to you that a child slowly and painfully die because she’s deprived of the insulin she needs for her diabetes?

You do say that murder is absolutely wrong, don’t you?

 

[gakroeger]

Bear with me for a moment.

I was listening to a podcast the other day that mentioned a bit about the Christian Science movement. One of their beliefs is that all disease is a direct result of sin, and (except for certain specific conditions like broken bones) doctors are to be avoided. Instead, members of the denomination are told to seek treatment from “practitioners” who attempt to heal people with nothing but prayer.

Needless to say, many people die of this and a significant proportion of the people who do die are children… kids with conditions that are easily treatable by modern medicine, but lethal without treatment: diabetes, for example.

In many places, Christian Scientists whose children die because they failed to provide them with medical care are charged with crimes like failing to provide the necessities of life, or in extreme cases, criminal negligence causing death or even manslaughter.

However, in a number of US states, these prosecutions don’t happen, because there are exceptions on the books (largely put in place by lobbying from the Christian Science movement) that deem any course of action that a person follows out of religious belief to not be negligence or failure of parental duty.

So… here’s a question for the “pro-life” people here: if you live in a state that has these religious exemptions to the laws regarding negligence, child abuse and the duties of a parent, will you campaign for these exemptions to be to be removed?

If you don’t do this, are you declaring to the world that it’s acceptable to you that a child slowly and painfully die because she’s deprived of the insulin she needs for her diabetes?

You do say that murder is absolutely wrong, don’t you?

I think you are asking this question on the wrong forum. Christian Science thinking is totally out of line with Catholic Church teaching. However, in answer ro your question, yes pro-life Catholics would campaign against any restriction on children or anyone else receiving proper medical care and would oppose any exception under “supposed religious freedom exemptions”. Catholic Church teaching says that God provides us with the intelligence and science to develop medical means to heal. The only time the Church objects is when the dignity or welfare of man is threatened.

 

[gearhead]

I think you are asking this question on the wrong forum. Christian Science thinking is totally out of line with Catholic Church teaching. However, in answer ro your question, yes pro-life Catholics would campaign against any restriction on children or anyone else receiving proper medical care and would oppose any exception under “supposed religious freedom exemptions”.

You say that they would - have they?

I’m looking for consistency: if “children” dying warrants all sorts of lobbying and sign-waving against legalized abortion, then children dying would also warrant lobbying and sign-waving against religiously-motivated fatal child neglect, right?

I just wonder if that’s actually happening, or whether the “pro-life” movement picks and chooses which “life” it wants to be “pro”.

 

[Caramel]

Bear with me for a moment.

I was listening to a podcast the other day that mentioned a bit about the Christian Science movement. One of their beliefs is that all disease is a direct result of sin, and (except for certain specific conditions like broken bones) doctors are to be avoided. Instead, members of the denomination are told to seek treatment from “practitioners” who attempt to heal people with nothing but prayer.

Needless to say, many people die of this and a significant proportion of the people who do die are children… kids with conditions that are easily treatable by modern medicine, but lethal without treatment: diabetes, for example.

In many places, Christian Scientists whose children die because they failed to provide them with medical care are charged with crimes like failing to provide the necessities of life, or in extreme cases, criminal negligence causing death or even manslaughter.

However, in a number of US states, these prosecutions don’t happen, because there are exceptions on the books (largely put in place by lobbying from the Christian Science movement) that deem any course of action that a person follows out of religious belief to not be negligence or failure of parental duty.

So… here’s a question for the “pro-life” people here: if you live in a state that has these religious exemptions to the laws regarding negligence, child abuse and the duties of a parent, will you campaign for these exemptions to be to be removed?

If you don’t do this, are you declaring to the world that it’s acceptable to you that a child slowly and painfully die because she’s deprived of the insulin she needs for her diabetes?

You do say that murder is absolutely wrong, don’t you?

This is a debate about abortion. If you wish to start a thread about the Christian Science movement, you are free to do so.

 

[Kay_Cee]

I have been following this thread off and on, and I have to agree with Caramel. Posters should stick to the subject of abortion, not discuss other topics such as the Christian Science movement.

 

[gearhead]

This is a debate about abortion. If you wish to start a thread about the Christian Science movement, you are free to do so.

I thought the thread was about the “pro-life” movement. Is “pro-life” really just a euphemism for “anti-abortion”?

And I only brought up Christian Science in the context of asking whether the principles that the “pro-life” people here hold up in defense of their position on abortion actually apply in general, or whether they’re “flags of convenience” that they disregard when it suits them.

I see the possibility for two different approaches taken by people in the pro-life movement:

1. “I place high value on human life. What position on abortion is consistent with this?”
2. “I disagree with abortion a priori (or because I think God told me to). How can I now justify this?”

That’s what I was trying to get at. If “pro-life” people don’t place high value on human life generally, then they cannot have taken approach (1). The value that people place on human life can be inferred from their other positions… for instance, on the issue of children dying from parental neglect.

If you want the “pro-life” movement to be taken as anything other than an arbitrary or solely religious position, then your concern for life must be demonstrable in ways other than your position on abortion.

 

[gakroeger]

You say that they would - have they?

I’m looking for consistency: if “children” dying warrants all sorts of lobbying and sign-waving against legalized abortion, then children dying would also warrant lobbying and sign-waving against religiously-motivated fatal child neglect, right?

I just wonder if that’s actually happening, or whether the “pro-life” movement picks and chooses which “life” it wants to be “pro”.

It is a matter of degrees, millions versus maybe hundreds. We must pick our battles.

 

[Caramel]

I thought the thread was about the “pro-life” movement. Is “pro-life” really just a euphemism for “anti-abortion”?

And I only brought up Christian Science in the context of asking whether the principles that the “pro-life” people here hold up in defense of their position on abortion actually apply in general, or whether they’re “flags of convenience” that they disregard when it suits them.

I see the possibility for two different approaches taken by people in the pro-life movement:

1. “I place high value on human life. What position on abortion is consistent with this?”
2. “I disagree with abortion a priori (or because I think God told me to). How can I now justify this?”

That’s what I was trying to get at. If “pro-life” people don’t place high value on human life generally, then they cannot have taken approach (1). The value that people place on human life can be inferred from their other positions… for instance, on the issue of children dying from parental neglect.

If you want the “pro-life” movement to be taken as anything other than an arbitrary or solely religious position, then your concern for life must be demonstrable in ways other than your position on abortion.

Prolifers believe in the protection of all human life from conception to natural death.

However, this thread is entitled “Prolife versus Prochoice Debate”. Therefore it is about abortion, not about other aspects of the prolife movement. Please limit your comments to the topic of this thread. If you wish to discuss other aspects of the prolife movement, you should start another thread. Forum rules require that we must stay on topic. If you click on “Forum Rules” you will see this listed as Rule Number 1 under “Discussion Forums.” I intend to stick to the Forum Rules as we all agreed to do when we became members.

 

[gearhead]

Prolifers believe in the protection of all human life from conception to natural death.

However, this thread is entitled “Prolife versus Prochoice Debate”. Therefore it is about abortion, not about other aspects of the prolife movement. Please limit your comments to the topic of this thread.

It’s very much on topic. The OP presented us with the idea that if we view a fetus as a human being, it’s our duty to protect it. Implicit in this is the idea that, as a general principle, it’s our duty to protect human beings. Either this is true in all cases and it’s our duty to protect all human beings, or it’s only true in some cases but not others… but then the argument in the OP is incomplete: to get to the conclusion he gives, we would not only have to establish that a fetus is a human being, but also establish that a fetus is of the class of human beings that warrant protection, as opposed to the class that doesn’t warrant protection.

 

[Caramel]

It’s very much on topic. The OP presented us with the idea that if we view a fetus as a human being, it’s our duty to protect it. Implicit in this is the idea that, as a general principle, it’s our duty to protect human beings. Either this is true in all cases and it’s our duty to protect all human beings, or it’s only true in some cases but not others… but then the argument in the OP is incomplete: to get to the conclusion he gives, we would not only have to establish that a fetus is a human being, but also establish that a fetus is of the class of human beings that warrant protection, as opposed to the class that doesn’t warrant protection.

As I stated in Post 551, pro-lifers believe in the protection of all human life from conception to natural death. Your question has been answered. Now let’s get back to the abortion debate which is what this thread is about.

 

[gearhead]

As I stated in Post 551, pro-lifers believe in the protection of all human life from conception to natural death. Your question has been answered. Now let’s get back to the abortion debate which is what this thread is about.

I was on the abortion debate. But to make it more clear, here’s my point more explicitly: if the fetus is a human being, does this imply that it warrants protection? If so, why?

Basically, I’m questioning the implicit assumption of the OP that the question of whether the fetus is a person is the only question in the abortion debate.

 

[Caramel]

But to make it more clear, here’s my point more explicitly: if the fetus is a human being, does this imply that it warrants protection? If so, why?

If you are a human being (and no one here is stating that you aren’t), do you warrant protection? If so, why?

Basically, I’m questioning the implicit assumption of the OP that the question of whether the fetus is a person is the only question in the abortion debate.

I don’t believe for a moment that it’s the only question in the abortion debate. As I stated in Post 551, pro-lifers believe in the protection of all human life from conception to natural death. By the use of “only” do you mean to exclude other stages of development before birth?