Pro Life versus Pro Choice Debate

[Caramel]

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

Yes, there is someone on this thread who is saying it is not a life, or at least not a person. If you check post 384 you will see that the poster stated “…I don’t believe that a 1 or 2 month old embryo/fetus is a person.”

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?

It’s not shifting the debate back to “is it a life”. That is what the debate originally was about and that is why the OP keeps stating that he/she doesn’t want to get into the legality issue in this thread.

I never stated anything about a two year old toddler and I am confused as to why you are replying to my post with a reference to what somebody else said without giving a post number.

 

[Caramel]

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.

OK I think I understand what you are stating. I think you are saying that someone is taking the thread off topic by diverting the issue to morality. You did not state what “utterly” is in reference to. That was part of why I was confused. OK. And you believe this person is doing this to grandstand. Where did you ever get this idea? This thread is supposed to be about morality. I don’t understand what you mean by " “innocent life” value which is not in dispute by a certain strand of the pro-choice group." But I’m not going to spend any more time on your post.

 

[Worthy5]

Yes, there is someone on this thread who is saying it is not a life, or at least not a person. If you check post 384 you will see that the poster stated “…I don’t believe that a 1 or 2 month old embryo/fetus is a person.”

It’s not

Your post address the issue of what is the topic of the thread. As just stated, discussing that " it is a life" is what the prolife position wants in order to have the same protection under the murder statue as any other born person. It is a legal issue and to say that is not the aim of the original post is well… The two year old toddler was the analogy used in the original post.

 

[Worthy5]

OK I think I understand what you are stating. I think you are saying that someone is taking the thread off topic by diverting the issue to morality. You did not state what “utterly” is in reference to. That was part of why I was confused. OK. And you believe this person is doing this to grandstand. Where did you ever get this idea? This thread is supposed

to be about morality. I don’t understand what you mean by " “innocent life” value which is not in dispute by a certain strand of the pro-choice group." But I’m not going to spend any more time on your post.

No the morality can be discussed but that is not where the real issue is, it is in the legal issue where the discussion centers. " innocent life"–well what do you think, the goal that society has to help protect the fetus.

 

[Caramel]

No the morality can be discussed but that is not where the real issue is, it is in the legal issue where the discussion centers. " innocent life"–well what do you think, the goal that society has to help protect the fetus.

If you wish to debate the legal issues you are free to start another thread.

 

[Caramel]

Your post address the issue of what is the topic of the thread. As just stated, discussing that " it is a life" is what the prolife position wants in order to have the same protection under the murder statue as any other born person. It is a legal issue and to say that is not the aim of the original post is well… The two year old toddler was the analogy used in the original post.

…and to say that is not the aim of the original post is well…

well…what? I am confused here. The analogy was about the personhood of the two year old toddler, not about the legal issues involved.

If you wish to start a thread on the legal issues in the abortion debate you are free to do so.

 

[Worthy5]

…and to say that is not the aim of the original post is well…

well…what? I am confused here. The analogy was about the personhood

Come on Caramel, you are not typing that with a straight face. If you cannot see the legal issue at this point then no further discussion would matter. It is just a discussion.Thanks for your time and God Bless.

 

[gakroeger]

Caramel

The only argument the pro choice people have is a legal argument. This is why they keep pushing to argue legalities, when debating the moral aspects of abortion they do not have a leg to stand on. Since many laws are immoral or being interpreted as immoral, arguing legalities is a losing battle for pro life. The law could (as abortion is) be legal but still wrong. This is why I keep trying to avoid the legalities of abortion.

 

[gearhead]

The only argument the pro choice people have is a legal argument. This is why they keep pushing to argue legalities, when debating the moral aspects of abortion they do not have a leg to stand on. Since many laws are immoral or being interpreted as immoral, arguing legalities is a losing battle for pro life. The law could (as abortion is) be legal but still wrong. This is why I keep trying to avoid the legalities of abortion.

I think you’re getting at a core difference in the approach between the pro-choice and “pro-life” sides of the debate.

For the pro-choice side, it’s about freedom; this is by definition a legal issue. If you’re not willing to talk about the law, then you’re not really speaking to the pro-choice position.

 

[CWBetts]

I think you’re getting at a core difference in the approach between the pro-choice and “pro-life” sides of the debate.

For the pro-choice side, it’s about freedom; this is by definition a legal issue. If you’re not willing to talk about the law, then you’re not really speaking to the pro-choice position.

Pro-Choice does not exist. It is pro-abortion. If you are opposed to those who oppose abortion it stands to reason that you are pro-abortion. Don’t use euphemisms intended to make abortion anything less than the horror that it is.

 

[gakroeger]

I think you’re getting at a core difference in the approach between the pro-choice and “pro-life” sides of the debate.

For the pro-choice side, it’s about freedom; this is by definition a legal issue. If you’re not willing to talk about the law, then you’re not really speaking to the pro-choice position.

Well, I guess we finally agree on something.

I boils down to most pro life people believe in something greater than our selves and that our life on earth is only temporary. The important thing is eternal life and to attain that one must follow Christ.

 

[gearhead]

Pro-Choice does not exist. It is pro-abortion. If you are opposed to those who oppose abortion it stands to reason that you are pro-abortion. Don’t use euphemisms intended to make abortion anything less than the horror that it is.

No, pro-choice really is pro-choice.

There have been campaigns at various times in history to use abortion for eugenics; to force women deemed “unfit” to have abortions against their will. The pro-choice movement is just as opposed to this (moreso, IMO) as they are to prohibition of abortion.

The pro-choice movement really is about the freedom to choose whether to abort or not.

Well, I guess we finally agree on something.

I boils down to most pro life people believe in something greater than our selves and that our life on earth is only temporary. The important thing is eternal life and to attain that one must follow Christ.

Wait - I didn’t say that morals don’t factor into the pro-choice position. There are plenty of moral issues in the question of what should and shouldn’t be legal. But at the end of the day, the fundamental criterion is the person’s attitude to the law: if someone is personally opposed to abortion but still in favour of laws that allow the freedom to do it, then that person is pro-choice.

 

[gakroeger]

No, pro-choice really is pro-choice.

There have been campaigns at various times in history to use abortion for eugenics; to force women deemed “unfit” to have abortions against their will. The pro-choice movement is just as opposed to this (moreso, IMO) as they are to prohibition of abortion.

The pro-choice movement really is about the freedom to choose whether to abort or not.

Wait - I didn’t say that morals don’t factor into the pro-choice position. There are plenty of moral issues in the question of what should and shouldn’t be legal. But at the end of the day, the fundamental criterion is the person’s attitude to the law: if someone is personally opposed to abortion but still in favour of laws that allow the freedom to do it, then that person is pro-choice.

And, pro choice is an immoral position per Catholic Church teaching…

 

[gearhead]

And, pro choice is an immoral position per Catholic Church teaching…

In all cases?

Given the right political climate, would it be considered immoral for a Catholic to take a pragmatic position like “I’m opposed to abortion, but it’s not a battle I can win right now, so for the time being I’ll leave it alone and focus on other issues”?

Because I personally consider that position to be pro-choice. Maybe only temporarily pro-choice, but still pro-choice.

 

[CWBetts]

No, pro-choice really is pro-choice.

There have been campaigns at various times in history to use abortion for eugenics; to force women deemed “unfit” to have abortions against their will. The pro-choice movement is just as opposed to this (moreso, IMO) as they are to prohibition of abortion.

The pro-choice movement really is about the freedom to choose whether to abort or not.

Wait - I didn’t say that morals don’t factor into the pro-choice position. There are plenty of moral issues in the question of what should and shouldn’t be legal. But at the end of the day, the fundamental criterion is the person’s attitude to the law: if someone is personally opposed to abortion but still in favour of laws that allow the freedom to do it, then that person is pro-choice.

That is a bold-faced LIE. Pro-choice is about selfishness. Under no circumstances is it anyone’s choice if someone else should live or die. NEVER. Pro-choice is the “choice” to destroy a life. Where is the choice for the infant. Where is the concern for his or her freedom? I find it interesting that every person that is “pro-choice” seems to be glad that their mother didn’t have an abortion. Pro-Abortion is not about freedom. It is about devaluing life. It is about tyrannizing a segment of the population.

 

[Worthy5]

QUOTE=gakroeger;5857397]And, pro choice is an immoral position per Catholic Church teaching…

Has the Church declared that with the doctrine of infallibility? Is one’s legal position an essential matter of faith and morals? Is the Church saying that, even if you oppose abortion personally, that because you believe that the US and state govts can use different approaches to curb the number of abortions (other than full criminal ban) that one is committing an immoral act by supporting such positions thus requiring confession? If so, please indicate your source. Thanks

 

[CWBetts]

Worthy5:
Has the Church declared that with the doctrine of infallibility? Is one’s legal position an essential matter of faith and morals? Is the Church saying that, even if you oppose abortion personally, that because you believe that the US and state govts can use different approaches to curb the number of abortions (other than full criminal ban) that one is committing an immoral act by supporting such positions thus requiring confession? If so, please indicate your source. Thanks

If something has not been declared dogmatically, that does not mean it is optional. The Church’s stand against abortion goes all the way back to the Didache! It is not subject to change. Abortion is an intrinsic evil.

 

[gearhead]

That is a bold-faced LIE. Pro-choice is about selfishness. Under no circumstances is it anyone’s choice if someone else should live or die. NEVER.

Of course it is. The fact that you personally consider it an unacceptable choice doesn’t mean that the choice doesn’t exist.

Edit: by your statement, I assume that you oppose the Catholic Church’s positions on war and capital punishment, right?

I find it interesting that every person that is “pro-choice” seems to be glad that their mother didn’t have an abortion.

I am glad she had me. I’m glad she had the choice to do it.

My mother was diagnosed with epilepsy as a teenager (incorrectly, as it turns out, but anyhow); in another place and time, she might’ve been forced to have an abortion. I’m certainly glad she had the freedom to have me.

 

[CWBetts]

Of course it is. The fact that you personally consider it an unacceptable choice doesn’t mean that the choice doesn’t exist.

Edit: by your statement, I assume that you oppose the Catholic Church’s positions on war and capital punishment, right?

I am glad she had me. I’m glad she had the choice to do it.

My mother was diagnosed with epilepsy as a teenager (incorrectly, as it turns out, but anyhow); in another place and time, she might’ve been forced to have an abortion. I’m certainly glad she had the freedom to have me.

I accept the Just War doctrine and I support the position that capital punishmnet has no place in industrialized nations, as indicated by the Catechism

 

[gakroeger]

In all cases?

Given the right political climate, would it be considered immoral for a Catholic to take a pragmatic position like “I’m opposed to abortion, but it’s not a battle I can win right now, so for the time being I’ll leave it alone and focus on other issues”?

Because I personally consider that position to be pro-choice. Maybe only temporarily pro-choice, but still pro-choice.

There are various levels of culpability, however, yes it would be immoral for a Catholic (or anyone else) to take a pragmatic position like “I am opposed to abortion, but it’s not a battle I can win right now”. They may not be required to take extra ordinary steps to fight abortion; however, to support it in any way either by voting for a pro choice candidate or verbally expressing their concurrence is a serious sin.

That being said, in order for an individual to be guilty of serious sin they must know it is a serious sin and do it anyhow. As has been stated on this thread before, the way pro choice Catholics including Catholic politicians who support abortion have gotten around this is to claim they do not believe it to be wrong. This is an extremely dangerous position IMHO, God will be the judge. They are certainly defying Catholic Church teaching.

For further explanation, visit these links to the appropriate sections of the Catholic Catechism.

Catechism 2270
Catechism 2271
Catechism 2272
Catechism 2273
Catechism 2274
Catechism 2275
Catechism 2319
Catechism 2322
Catechism 2323