Pro Life versus Pro Choice Debate

[Worthy5]

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

Interesting, so now you accept the reality that everything has its " trade off". So the fact that the govt decides not to outlaw all early terms abortions under all circumstances but use other means to reduce these incidents, is the govt " picking its battles".

 

[Worthy5]

QUOTE=Caramel;5847294]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.

He is on topic, what he is doing is showing how legal reasoning works. The laws he is talking about our “religious freedom” laws. As we know, in Constititutional it is in the first amendment-freedom of religion. The laws are striking a balance and showing how the govt is limited in inhibiting the rights of free expression of religion.

Not familiar with these laws specifically, but what they show is the importance of the policy of limted govt and that the law makes classifications all the time to promote both policies of ‘protecton of life’ and ‘lmited govt’ or any other two polices. That is at the heart of the pro-choice debate-what is govt’s role.

 

[CWBetts]

Worthy5:
He is on topic, what he is doing is showing how legal reasoning works. The laws he is talking about our “religious freedom” laws. As we know, in Constititutional it is in the first amendment-freedom of religion. The laws are striking a balance and showing how the govt is limited in inhibiting the rights of free expression of religion.

Not familiar with these laws specifically, but what they show is the importance of the policy of limted govt and that the law makes classifications all the time to promote both policies of ‘protecton of life’ and ‘lmited govt’ or any other two polices. That is at the heart of the pro-choice debate-what is govt’s role.

The government is not overstepping its bounds in making immoral, actually evil, behavior illegal. There are lots of laws based on morality. Unless you think we should repeal laws against murder, rape, theft, arson, and so on.

 

[gakroeger]

Interesting, so now you accept the reality that everything has its " trade off". So the fact that the govt decides not to outlaw all early terms abortions under all circumstances but use other means to reduce these incidents, is the govt " picking its battles".

Again your analogies are poor. The issue we are discussing it a moral issue not a government issue.

Trade off has nothing to do with it, it is a matter of priorities…

 

[gearhead]

Again your analogies are poor. The issue we are discussing it a moral issue not a government issue.

Those two things aren’t mutually exclusive. If it’s a legal issue (and it is if you’re looking for a legal prohibition), then it’s a government issue.

 

[gakroeger]

Those two things aren’t mutually exclusive. If it’s a legal issue (and it is if you’re looking for a legal prohibition), then it’s a government issue.

How many times do I have to repeat myself on this? I am NOT looking for a legal prohibition, I am looking for people to come to an understanding that the unborn are human (we were all unborn at one point) AND that killing the unborn just like killing the born is an intrinsic evil.

 

[gearhead]

How many times do I have to repeat myself on this? I am NOT looking for a legal prohibition, I am looking for people to come to an understanding that the unborn are human (we were all unborn at one point) AND that killing the unborn just like killing the born is an intrinsic evil.

Hmm. Didn’t you just spend several pages arguing with someone who suggested that they were “pro-life” but didn’t want to change the law?

 

[Worthy5]

QUOTE=CWBetts;5848160]He is on topic, what he is doing is showing how legal reasoning works. The laws he is talking about our “religious freedom” laws. As we know, in Constititutional it is in the first amendment-freedom of religion. The laws are striking a balance and showing how the govt is limited in inhibiting the rights of free expression of religion.

Not familiar with these laws specifically, but what they show is the importance of the policy of limted govt and that the law makes classifications all the time to promote both policies of ‘protecton of life’ and ‘lmited govt’ or any other two polices. That is at the heart of the pro-choice debate-what is govt’s role.

. Unless you think we should repeal laws against murder, rape, theft, arson, and so on.

Yeah, that is exactly what I said.

 

[Worthy5]

Again your analogies are poor. The issue we are discussing it a moral issue not a government issue.

Trade off has nothing to do with it, it is a matter of priorities…

 

[gakroeger]

Hmm. Didn’t you just spend several pages arguing with someone who suggested that they were “pro-life” but didn’t want to change the law?

Don’t think so, I argued with Christopher68 who was also hung up on the legalities of Abortion, however, if you read back through those posts, I believe you will find I have tried over and over to steer this discussion away from the legalities and the government’s involvement and get people to focus on the morality of the issue.

 

[gakroeger]

gakroeger;5848221:

Again your analogies are poor. The issue we are discussing it a moral issue not a government issue.

But is not making something a priority placing one thing ahead of another-sounds like a trade off.

No wonder your analogies are so bad. No a trade off and a priority are two different things. In a trade off you abandon one thing for another, in a priority you focus on the highest priority first. You do not abandon your disire to eliminate all unjustness.

 

[Worthy5]

Worthy5;5848346:

No wonder your analogies are so bad. No a trade off and a priority are two different things. In a trade off you abandon one thing for another, in a priority you focus on the highest priority first. You do not abandon your disire to eliminate all unjustness.

My friend, I was not the one making the analogies. And analogies are not “good” or “bad”, they are either “strong” or “weak” depending the on the distinctions being made.

You made a distinction but not enough for it to matter to the discussion thus missing the point made. Both items imply a choice, a cost incurred for pursuing a certain course of action. Making something a priority in one situation inevitably compromises something else that could have itself been made the priority in that situation—thus the trade off.

We do not outlaw abortions in the early terms context to preserve the value of limited govt (trade off some lives are lost (although govt could be using other means to blunt this)) You are making limited govt the priority in that context not the value of protecting life. . -
" you pick your battles." The priority shifts as the term of the fetus develops. (a new context).

 

[sauce]

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

This is beautifully put. And very very simple.

After following this thread for a while, I’ve noticed that this debate has deteriorated into a puke-picking festival. One detour after another: “Let’s look at this little piece of puke and uber-analize it. This little piece of puke is so interesting, won’t you join me so that we may come to some conclusion regarding eggs and sperm?”

In actuality, it’s intellectually stingy. Pro-choicers love to carry on this way in order to avoid
the recognition of an innocent life. How utterly spiritually “barren” that is.

 

[Worthy5]

Caramel;5847611:

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

This is beautifully put. And very very simple.

Yes it is, but it is not the issue. The question is not the protection of life or what is life but rather to who has the duty to protect that life and by what means given society has other values it must protect.

In actuality, it’s intellectually stingy. Pro-choicers love to carry on this way in order to avoid
the recognition of an innocent life. How utterly spiritually “barren” that is.

No what is " utterly" is for some pro-life people to divert the issue in order to grandstand morally on " innocent life" value which is not in dispute by a certain strand of the pro-choice group.

 

[Benadam]

quote=Worthy5

The question is not the protection of life or what is life but rather to who has the duty to protect that life and by what means given society has other values it must protect.

Everyone has the duty to protect everyone else don’t they? I mean if our borders are attacked isn’t it the duty of every one to contribute to protecting in what ever way they can?

The question really isn’t who’s duty it is to protect life if thos who’s duty it is aren’t protecting it.

I think you are confusing the issue of duty to protect with the right to decide if life is worthy of protecting.

 

[gakroeger]

gakroeger;5848446:

My friend, I was not the one making the analogies. And analogies are not “good” or “bad”, they are either “strong” or “weak” depending the on the distinctions being made.

You made a distinction but not enough for it to matter to the discussion thus missing the point made. Both items imply a choice, a cost incurred for pursuing a certain course of action. Making something a priority in one situation inevitably compromises something else that could have itself been made the priority in that situation—thus the trade off.

We do not outlaw abortions in the early terms context to preserve the value of limited govt (trade off some lives are lost (although govt could be using other means to blunt this)) You are making limited govt the priority in that context

not the value of protecting life. . -
" you pick your battles." The priority shifts as the term of the fetus develops. (a new context).

I am not sure how you are replying to the posts, and using the quote facility, however, you are not doing it correctly and it is extremely difficult to follow. I believe this has been pointed out to you by someone else a ways back in the thread.

 

[Worthy5]

Everyone has the duty to protect everyone else don’t they? I mean if our borders are attacked isn’t it the duty of every one to contribute to protecting in what ever way they can?

The question really isn’t who’s duty it is to protect life if thos who’s duty it is aren’t protecting it.

I think you are confusing the issue of duty to protect with the right to decide if life is worthy of protecting.

 

[Worthy5]

Worthy5;5848580:

I am not sure how you are replying to the posts, and using the quote facility, however, you are not doing it correctly and it is extremely difficult to follow. I believe this has been pointed out to you by someone else a ways back in the thread.

Well I think you get the point right?

 

[Caramel]

Worthy5:
He is on topic, what he is doing is showing how legal reasoning works. The laws he is talking about our “religious freedom” laws. As we know, in Constititutional it is in the first amendment-freedom of religion. The laws are striking a balance and showing how the govt is limited in inhibiting the rights of free expression of religion.

Not familiar with these laws specifically, but what they show is the importance of the policy of limted govt and that the law makes classifications all the time to promote both policies of ‘protecton of life’ and ‘lmited govt’ or any other two polices. That is at the heart of the pro-choice debate-what is govt’s role.

But he was responding to one of my posts and I had already stated earlier that I would NOT discuss law as I am not a lawyer or an expert on law. How can I debate something when I do not know what states he is referring to, what the laws in the each state state, and what they mean.

If he intended this to be for everyone he should have just written a post, not a reply to a post of mine. Of course anyone can reply to any post and I’m not disagreeing with that, but I was singled out by gearhead and I felt a responsibility to respond in the best manner that I could.

Gearhead replied to a post of mine which in turn was a reply to an earlier post which stated the similarities of nonpersonhood in slavery and in abortion. That earlier post was on topic as it noted specific aspects that were present in slavery and are present in abortion. But gearhead’s post was very general, not quoting any laws. He did not give sufficient information for me to be able to reply in a coherent manner. As I mentioned before, I am not an expert on law. Am I supposed to go out and find these laws and read them and post them? That is not my responsibility, as I did not bring up the topic of Christian Science. If I knew what these laws stated and specifically why they are present on the law books in certain states (I don’t know which states because gearhead did not put that in his reply), then it would be much easier for me to understand what he was attempting to say.

Nobody is doubting the personhood of children who are denied medical care because one or both of their parents are Christian Scientists. The post that I replied to showed how a slave was once considered to be a nonperson, while today unborn children are believed by many people to be nonpersons. And I agree with that poster. I believe that is clear in my reply to him/her.

As it was a reply to my reply to an earlier post, and I was quoted, I needed to respond to gearhead. I hold to my view that it is off topic but I do understand your point also. I’m not trying to pick apart posts or attack posters. I’m trying to understand and learn and also to get my opinion stated. IMHO he stepped over the line. But other people disagree with me and that is fine.

I will defer to the OP in this case. It is his/her thread.

 

[Caramel]

sauce;5848710:

Caramel;5847611:

No what is " utterly" is for some pro-life people to divert the issue in order to grandstand morally on " innocent life" value which is not in dispute by a certain strand of the pro-choice group.

HUH???