Pro Life versus Pro Choice Debate

[Worthy5]

Worthy5;5848866:

sauce;5848710:

Caramel;5847611:

HUH???

 

[Caramel]

Caramel;5849673:

Worthy5;5848866:

sauce;5848710:

Worthy, I am trying very hard to understand you. But you consistently misuse the QUOTE function, a function which I managed to figure out on my first day posting.

Your reply is missing the quote that you are responding to. And your reply is a

So again, I say HUH???

I do not understand what you are stating in the post the I replied to. It would help very much if you would reword what you stated so that others can understand it easily. Is it possible for you to do this? I would appreciate your helping me understand what you are trying to say.

Thank you!

 

[Worthy5]

Worthy5;5849760:

Caramel;5849673:

Worthy5;5848866:

Worthy, I am trying very hard to understand you. But you consistently misuse the QUOTE function, a function which I managed to figure out on my first day posting.

Your reply is missing the quote that you are responding to. And your reply is a

So again, I say HUH???

I do not understand what you are stating in the post the I replied to. It would help very much if you would reword what you stated so that others can understand it easily. Is it possible for you to do this? I would appreciate your helping me understand what you are trying to say.

Thank you!

I think the posts are fairly easy to follow, and you use the quote function inconsistently just as much as anyone, but I can see what you are saying. So read again.

 

[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.

This is the full quote of the post I was replying to in my last post. There was an extra “/quote” (that was put in by Worthy5, not me) and it caused some of the post I was replying to show up as part of my reply. Except for that error, my reply remains the same.

I’m sorry if this confused anyone. My apologies. I should have caught it when I previewed what I had written.

 

[Caramel]

Caramel;5849837:

Worthy5;5849760:

Caramel;5849673:

I think the posts are fairly easy to follow, and you use the quote function inconsistently just as much as anyone, but I can see what you are saying. So read again.

Would you please list the posts in which I misused the QUOTE function? I would be interested in seeing them.

I still don’t understand what you were stating. But you haven’t restated it, so I must assume that you don’t understand what you are stating. And by refusing to restate it indicates that you are not interested in getting your point across.

This is a debate - not a game.

 

[Caramel]

In Post 577, because of the addition of an extra “QUOTE” in the post I was replying to, the quote was attributed to Sauce. This is incorrect. It should be attributed to Worthy5. I did not put the extra “QUOTE” in the post that I was replying to. I don’t know if Worthy5 put it in. But it is there.

I wanted to clarify the authorship of the quote.

Again, I apologize for any confusion.

 

[SteveGC]

While I am not well-versed in the Christian Science arena, nor the legalities surrounding their alleged medical neglect for critically ill children, I do believe the issue was relevant to the pro-life issue, but perhaps not completely relevant to the OP (for only gakroeger can judge that). I will therefore only briefly offer my opinion for any who care to read it…

first, prioritization does not necessarily equate to trade-off. If that were true, all of us would be guilty of neglecting everything in our lives which we are not currently focusing on and dealing with. The truth is that, being human, we cannot distribute our efforts (political, social, personal, etc) on everything equally, nor is it necessarily prudent to do so.

secondly, if Christian Science parents are indeed willfully abusing their children through medical neglect of life-threatening illnesses, then a counter-voice and strong opposition to laws which enable that sort of behavior must be brought forward, best sooner than later. Can the pro-life movement (regarding abortion laws) be suspended to refocus efforts exclusively to those regarding CS parental neglect? Yes.

Should it be? I would say ‘no’.

Why? Well, what’s the mortality rate of CS children under this alleged neglect? I’m assuming there’s good stats out there, and I’d guess they’d pale in comparison to the millions that die annually from abortion. Abortion must remain the number 1 priority of political focus for the pro-life community, because we’re really dealing with a form of genocide.

But should the “CS neglect” issue be completely shelved until the abortion issue is sufficiently tempered? No. Absolutely not. That issue is obviously not well known throughout the nation. But if it is as diabolical as some might suggest, and laws enable the behavior, then it needs more attention and opposition.

I want to simply stress that Catholic activists (if that’s a fair term) do not isolate themselves to a single issue in politics at the exclusion of all others. It’s simply that abortion is the most fundamentally tragic and profoundly murderous issues facing our nation, our world, right now. Nothing else comes even close in comparison…not gay marriage, not isolated cases of medical neglect, not anything. But to assume that the pro-life community is somehow espousing a double-standard because they have perceived exclusiveness of their political activism, is a complete mischaracterization of that community as a whole. Sure, some individuals perhaps couldn’t care less about anything BUT abortion, but they are the exception, not the rule, the definite minority. Most in the pro-life camp are equal opportunity immorality detectors and opposers. But we must prioritize the fight to a degree if we’re to have any effectiveness at all.

 

[Worthy5]

Worthy5;5849854:

Caramel;5849837:

Worthy5;5849760:

Would you please list the posts in which I misused the QUOTE function? I would be interested in seeing them.

I still don’t understand what you were stating. But you haven’t restated it, so I must assume that you don’t understand what you are stating. And by refusing to restate it indicates that you are not interested in getting your point across.

This is a debate - not a game.

Sure you do, what was said is right there in front of you seen in your previous post. So you are good to go.

 

[Worthy5]

While I am not well-versed in the Christian Science arena, nor the legalities surrounding their alleged medical neglect for critically ill children, I do believe the issue was relevant to the pro-life issue, but perhaps not completely relevant to the OP (for only gakroeger can judge that). I will therefore only briefly offer my opinion for any who care to read it…

first, prioritization does not necessarily equate to trade-off. If that were true, all of us would be guilty of neglecting everything in our lives which we are not currently focusing on and dealing with. The truth is that, being human, we cannot distribute our efforts (political, social, personal, etc) on everything equally, nor is it necessarily prudent to do so.

 

[sauce]

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.

I believe this is the correct thrust of the thread.

Killing the unborn is an intrinsic evil. To not realize this is a poverty.
No one has to stand on some higher moral ground than someone else in order to get this.
I think pro-lifers “look” and have eyes to see this reality.

It’s rather uncomplicated.

Peace

 

[Caramel]

Caramel;5849902:

Worthy5;5849854:

Caramel;5849837:

Sure you do, what was said is right there in front of you seen in your previous post. So you are good to go.

Ah, but if you look at the post you are referring to you will see that it was a clarification of a response to a post by YOU. In fact, I have had problems replying to many of your posts but I don’t have problems replying to anyone else’s posts. I wonder why that is. Could it be that YOU are the one who is misusing the QUOTE function? Now could you please tell me the numbers of the posts in which I misused the QUOTE function on?

Now, back to the Pro Life versus Pro Choice Debate which is what this thread is about. You still haven’t restated your position in a manner that I can understand. Would you please attempt to do so? I am interested in your opinion. I want to understand what you are trying to tell me. So far I have not been able to figure it out.I would really appreciate it!! Thanks!!

 

[Worthy5]

=Caramel;5851486

Ah, but if you look at the post you are referring to you will see that it was a clarification of a response to a post by YOU.

So.

You will find the position stated in numerous posts throughout the thread. They all pretty much say the same thing. The last one before this one is a good summary though. Good Luck.

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

Again, let’s not collaborate with the enemy by calling ‘abortion’ ‘choice.’ The two words are not synonymous.

 

[Caramel]

I believe this is the correct thrust of the thread.

Killing the unborn is an intrinsic evil. To not realize this is a poverty.
No one has to stand on some higher moral ground than someone else in order to get this.
I think pro-lifers “look” and have eyes to see this reality.

It’s rather uncomplicated.

Peace

You are right. And we need to keep this on topic. The OP has stated several times that he/she does not want to get into the area of legal restrictions. I don’t think anybody would disagree with the importance of law in the prolife movement. However, this thread is about “personhood” - is the unborn human a person?

If someone wants to start a thread about the legal aspects generally or Christian Science specifically, they are free to do so and I wish they would. I won’t start one at this time because, as I have stated before, I am not an expert in law.

So let’s debate what the OP wants to debate. It is the OP’s thread and I believe it is veering off course.

 

[Caramel]

I would like to post a link. It will take you to an article written by a prochoice woman (Naomi Wolf) and published in the New Republic. Although I do not agree with everything she states (such as use of contraception), I believe that her article is very appropriate for this discussion.

Take it for what it’s worth. I think it will add to this debate.

priestsforlife.org/prochoice/ourbodiesoursouls.htm.

 

[gakroeger]

I would like to post a link. It will take you to an article written by a prochoice woman (Naomi Wolf) and published in the New Republic. Although I do not agree with everything she states (such as use of contraception), I believe that her article is very appropriate for this discussion.

Take it for what it’s worth. I think it will add to this debate.

priestsforlife.org/prochoice/ourbodiesoursouls.htm.

I believe this article although long and rambling covers a very narrow point of view. There are many accurate observations, however, just as most pro choice people on this thread it focuses on the current social issues of today and seems to assume that this fixed condition is where we must operate from.

The main issue (as mentioned by Caramel) is that the author speaks of artificial contraception as a fixed situation and does not address alternatives. If the author would refocus her lens a bit wider and look at the whole picture as it has evolved, she would more clearly see the truth that was given to us by Pope Paul VI in 1968 with his Humane Vitae.

In this article she is attempting to (correctly) point out to pro choice people their errors in today’s environment; however, she needs to step back further to see where this problem began. As Pope Paul VI so wisely and prophetically pointed out, the disconnection of human sexuality from reproduction by adopting artificial contraception and sex outside of valid marriage is where the fast freight to hell began. The only way to slow (don’t believe it can be reversed) this slide is with a return to Christian values, especially by Catholics. In spite of popular opinion, we human beings do have control of our natural desires if we have the courage of our convictions. Of course we were given a free will and we can chose to be selfish and cave to those natural desires and therein lies the problem.

I can hear God saying “Pay me now or pay me later”.

This may be temporarily slightly off subject, but I think it applies. As I write this, I am reminded of a discussion I heard on Catholic radio recently. The discussion revolved around the widening gap between Catholic teaching and our society. The discussion was about how society is reducing the importance of Marriage and how the Catholic Church may at some point have to declare that only a marriage recognized by the Church (not a civil marriage) would be considered a valid marriage by the Church. This brought to mind the Amish in North Eastern Ohio that I was familiar with as a child; they were considered outcast from society because they did not believe in modern farm equipment, automobiles, etc. It makes me think this may be where Catholicism is headed. If we want to follow Christ and society does not, we may become outcasts from society.

It would not be the first time, early Christians were also outcasts.

 

[Worthy5]

You are right. And we need to keep this on topic. The OP has stated several times that he/she does not want to get into the area of legal restrictions. I don’t think anybody would disagree with the importance of law in the prolife movement. However, this thread is about “personhood” - is the unborn human a person?

If someone wants to start a thread about the legal aspects generally or Christian Science specifically, they are free to do so and I wish they would. I won’t start one at this time because, as I have stated before, I am not an expert in law.

You cannot have the discussion of the one without it leading to the other. If the fetus is a life, then is it not the prolife position to outlaw all abortions? The thread contained statements made by the Pro-choice position-----it is the women’s right to decide (sounds legal to me), then attacked those statements by saying no right of the women to decide exists if the fetus is a human life.

Be honest, pro-life people want to talk about how the fetus is a life because that would trigger the protection that born people have from murder—ie the 2 year old toddler example----which is to say what is govt going to do about it---------sounds like a legal issue to me.

Is anyone on here saying it is not a life? That it is not immoral to commit abortion?-----Not really.

Shifting the debate back to " is it a life" is an attempt to focus the debate on sympathy for the unborn life and, again, bolster the pro-life position with the analogy of the two year old toddler thus arguing for the same govt protection. If you are talking about govt protection-it is a legal issue because:

The next question becomes what would exactly be govt role:who really has the duty to protect that life given the policy we value in this country of a limited govt and individual responsibility? Further, can govt’s select a variety of means to fulfill its part to protect the life?

 

[Worthy5]

You are right. And we need to keep this on topic. The OP has stated several times that he/she does not want to get into the area of legal restrictions. I don’t think anybody would disagree with the importance of law in the prolife movement. However, this thread is about “personhood” - is the unborn human a person?

If someone wants to start a thread about the legal aspects generally or Christian Science specifically, they are free to do so and I wish they would. I won’t start one at this time because, as I have stated before, I am not an expert in law.

Sympathy is certainly needed but not only for the unborn life but for the mothers involved in difficult circumstances. We all hate abortion—but love our country. We need to work together to do our best to attack this horror but still maintain a civil and free America. God Bless

 

[SteveGC]

Sympathy is certainly needed but not only for the unborn life but for the mothers involved in difficult circumstances. We all hate abortion—but love our country. We need to work together to do our best to attack this horror but still maintain a civil and free America. God Bless

Worthy, you may have already addressed this earlier and I missed it…but could you please explain to me if you think that current laws against murder are indicative of a government exercising too much control? IOW, does your vision of limited govt include a suspension of laws against murder?

You might get upset that I seem to be leading you to reveal that you don’t think abortion is murder, and I apologize…but I really would like to know if you indeed feel that way. Thanks.

 

[Caramel]

Sympathy is certainly needed but not only for the unborn life but for the mothers involved in difficult circumstances. We all hate abortion—but love our country. We need to work together to do our best to attack this horror but still maintain a civil and free America. God Bless

Absolutely correct!! I remember the bumper sticker that read: “Abortion: One Dead, One Wounded.” I wonder how many women go through this procedure and never receive counseling.

At the risk of getting too personal I would like to share something. My best friend had an abortion, fairly late gestational age (I’m not sure what the actual gestational age was.) After the procedure was complete a clinic worker handed her her dead child and said “Here is your son.” I think that was needlessly cruel.