Pro Life versus Pro Choice Debate

[SteveGC]

And I’m not convinced that your conviction is based in fact, so where does this get us?

Between you and I? An apparent impasse. In the political and social arena? Nowhere but continued genocide.

No, what I’m telling you is that despite the conviction with which you hold your beliefs, you might be wrong.

Of course you would say this, gear. But that doesn’t change the fact that we believe it to be bonafide murder, nothing less. And it is therefore our duty to stand up for the rights of the unborn humans to keep them from slaughter. Sorry if you don’t like our belief…but that will never change, nor will our calling to do our part to protect these children. Won’t ever change. And I’m not necessarily talking about our calling to vote for a president who claims he’s pro-life…I’m talking about our calling to help influence the lawmaking to exclude abortion from legal activity.

I’ve heard the same argument from PETA for why meat-eating should be illegal. If we both reject it from them, why shouldn’t I reject it from you?

Because we’re talking about humans, gear…not animals.

 

[Benadam]

No, I don’t.

I can somewhat understand that mindset when we’re talking about an 8-month fetus, but absolutely not when we’re talking about an embryo.

Most people mistake consciousness, or the activity of intellect for the essence of personhood. That’s understandable too. Most people intuitively know that personal distinction is contingent on nature and being but are unable to divorce that knowledge from a chronological conceptualization of themselves. Our nature is human and what makes us persons is that we are also what distinguishes us from other humans. That is the substance of our personality. That is human personhood. This is true because we are self determined. We are what makes us distinct.

Since human beings are what distinguishes them from other humans,
at conception we are being personally distinct humans.
At conception we are human beings that are distinct persons.

What is it that makes a human a person in your mind?

 

[Caramel]

What makes you think that I was using age to determine personhood? There’s a heck of a lot of difference between an embryo and a baby besides age.

The only difference between the plans for a house and the finished house itself is “development”, too, but I’m not about to try to live in a set of blueprints.

That is not a valid analogy. You are stating that the blueprints are the house, which they obviously are not. The blueprints remain the same as the house “develops.” In a human being the “blueprints” are the genetic information in the cell(s). The blueprints are not the human being.

The difference between a fertilized egg and an eight month old fetus is that of development. That’s all.

 

[Caramel]

No, I don’t.

I can somewhat understand that mindset when we’re talking about an 8-month fetus, but absolutely not when we’re talking about an embryo.

Gearhead, premature infants are being saved at earlier and earlier ages. Children at 20 weeks gestational age have been saved. Successful surgeries have been performed on unborn children at 24 weeks gestation. Do you believe that these “beings” are not human beings; that they are not persons? What are your criteria for inclusion in the class of “human beings?”

 

[Caramel]

What makes you think that I was using age to determine personhood? There’s a heck of a lot of difference between an embryo and a baby besides age.

Gearhead, when did you become a person? When were you given the rights that other persons have?? When you became an adult? When you became a 3-year-old toddler? When you were born? When you were a fetus? When your heart began to beat? When you had decipherable brain activity? Or was it when you were a tiny cell containing all the information within you to guide you through the rest of your physical life?** Can you tell me the exact point in your development when you because a person?**

Is it when you became a eight-month old fetus, still inside your mother’s womb? If so, why??

 

[Kay_Cee]

bump

 

[bigfootbob]

What makes you think that I was using age to determine personhood? There’s a heck of a lot of difference between an embryo and a baby besides age.

The only difference between the plans for a house and the finished house itself is “development”, too, but I’m not about to try to live in a set of blueprints.

So where do you draw the line? When do they become a person in your mind?

 

[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.

Gearhead, when did you become a person? When were you given the rights that other persons have?? When you became an adult? When you became a 3-year-old toddler? When you were born? When you were a fetus? When your heart began to beat? When you had decipherable brain activity? Or was it when you were a tiny cell containing all the information within you to guide you through the rest of your physical life?** Can you tell me the exact point in your development when you because a person?**

Is it when you became a eight-month old fetus, still inside your mother’s womb? If so, why??

Excellent questions. My money’s on the baby.

 

[gearhead]

Because we’re talking about humans, gear…not animals.

This seems to me to be circular reasoning: a fetus is a person and an animal isn’t, so therefore a fetus is a person and an animal isn’t?

 

[CWBetts]

This seems to me to be circular reasoning: a fetus is a person and an animal isn’t, so therefore a fetus is a person and an animal isn’t?

You have yet to tell us the substantive meaning of what a person is. Until you do, nothing you say has any degree of credence. You are ignoring a definition central to your arguments. One more time: what makes a person?

 

[gearhead]

You have yet to tell us the substantive meaning of what a person is. Until you do, nothing you say has any degree of credence. You are ignoring a definition central to your arguments.

No, I’m not.

The burden of proof is normally on the person making the claim. In a free society, the burden of justification is on the person demanding the restriction of freedom. In both cases, these fall on you, the anti-abortion side.

Is abortion morally wrong? Then justify it.

Should abortion be illegal? Then justify it.

One more time: what makes a person?

I think that when it comes right down to it, the only thing that makes a person a person is the ability of others to consider it “one of us”.

However, I think that your question is a bit too leading. What do you think is implied by “personhood”? If you’re saying it implies certain inalienable rights, well, I don’t think any rights are inalienable.

This isn’t to say that we can’t value things or protect the things that we mutually value; I just think that humans tend to try to infuse their particular beliefs and feelings with “cosmic” importance when it’s really not warranted.

 

[Whitacre_Girl]

No, I’m not.

The burden of proof is normally on the person making the claim. In a free society, the burden of justification is on the person demanding the restriction of freedom. In both cases, these fall on you, the anti-abortion side.

Is abortion morally wrong? Then justify it.

Should abortion be illegal? Then justify it.

I think that when it comes right down to it, the only thing that makes a person a person is the ability of others to consider it “one of us”.

However, I think that your question is a bit too leading. What do you think is implied by “personhood”? If you’re saying it implies certain inalienable rights, well, I don’t think any rights are inalienable.

This isn’t to say that we can’t value things or protect the things that we mutually value; I just think that humans tend to try to infuse their particular beliefs and feelings with “cosmic” importance when it’s really not warranted.

Actually Gearhead, abortion started out as illegal in this nation. It was legalized in '73 and done so without determining whether or not the baby was being deprived of its right to live. According to the legal precedent in this country the right to life ALWAYS supercedes all other rights and freedoms. In this case the burden of proof comes upon those who were changing existing laws, and to show that the greater harm (muder, in this case) is not being done.

Also, this is what is concerning by those who call themselves “pro choice”

I think that when it comes right down to it, the only thing that makes a person a person is the ability of others to consider it “one of us”

It was the inability of white plantation owners to see blacks as “one of us” that led to slavery. It was the inability of Nazis to see Jews as “one of us” that led to the holocaust. And now, it is the inability of people to see the unborn as “one of us” that is causing the slaughter of over a million children per year in america.

The other thing to consider is that anytime anyone ever tries to show pictures to relate these unborn children to the mothers/doctors/society that would have them killed are deemed “anti-choice extremists” who use “fear and lies to strike guilt and fear in the hearts of innocent women seeking healthcare” you can find this right on PP’s website.

Besides, the law has already defined the unborn as alive. In this country, if a man hears his wife/girlfriend/lover is pregnant, and punches her in the stomach and kills the baby he is charges with 1 count of assault and 1 count of murder. If he kills the woman, he is charged with 2 counts of murder. However, should the same woman beat him to the abortion clinic, she is deemed as “exercising her rights.”

The point is, the prochoice people changed the laws. They are fighting that the rights of the mother to “choose” whether her child lives or dies supercedes the long-defended larger right of the child to live. The law already charges men who kill unborn children with murder, while women who abort at the same gestational age are seen as exercising “choice.” I am also noticing that you are failing to define where life begins for you, while those of us defending prolife have adamantly stated where it begins, why, and scientific data to back up our claims.

 

[bigfootbob]

I think that when it comes right down to it, the only thing that makes a person a person is the ability of others to consider it “one of us”.

So when do you think it’s “one of us”?

 

[Caramel]

I think that when it comes right down to it, the only thing that makes a person a person is the ability of others to consider it “one of us”.

This sounds like a fallacy in logic - argumentum ad populum. I had no idea that truth is discovered by majority vote.

 

[Caramel]

No, I’m not.

The burden of proof is normally on the person making the claim. In a free society, the burden of justification is on the person demanding the restriction of freedom. In both cases, these fall on you, the anti-abortion side.

Is abortion morally wrong? Then justify it.

Should abortion be illegal? Then justify it.

Since, as you say, “The burden of proof is normally on the person making the claim. In a free society, the burden of justification is on the person demanding the restriction of freedom” and I see here an attempt to demand the restriction of an embryo’s freedom to live, these fall on you, the pro-abortion side.

Is the killing of embryos morally right? Then justify it.

Should abortion be legal? Then justify it.

 

[Benadam]

This seems to me to be circular reasoning: a fetus is a person and an animal isn’t, so therefore a fetus is a person and an animal isn’t?

it’s not circular. Humans are self determined creatures. That being so, our particular distinction at conception is the beginning of personal distinction. Animals are not self determined creatures so their physiological differences at conception begins an individual being but they aren’t personal distinctions. At conception humans are being personaly distinct because our physiological differences are ordered to being human and proper to rational self determined creatures. The physiological differences of animals are not of the same order.

 

[Worthy5]

Actually Gearhead, abortion started out as illegal in this nation. It was legalized in '73 and done so without determining whether or not the baby was being deprived of its right to live. According to the legal precedent in this country the right to life ALWAYS supercedes all other rights and freedoms. In this case the burden of proof comes upon those who were changing existing laws, and to show that the greater harm (muder, in this case) is not being done.

Actually, the Surpreme Court in the Roe case made this observation:

“It perhaps is not generally appreciated that the restrictive criminal abortion laws in effect in a majority of States today are of relatively recent vintage. Those laws, generally proscribing abortion or its attempt at any time during pregnancy except when necessary to preserve the pregnant woman’s life, are not of ancient or even of common law origin. Instead, they derive from statutory changes effected, for the most part, in the latter half of the 19th century.”

The Court decided that it did not have to decide the life issue but rather resolve the case as follows:
" We, therefore, conclude that the right of personal privacy includes the abortion decision (underline added), but that this right is not unqualified, and must be considered against important state interests in regulation."

So I am not sure where you are getting " According to the legal precedent in this country the right to life ALWAYS supercedes all other rights and freedoms."

 

[CWBetts]

Actually, the Surpreme Court in the Roe case made this observation:

 

[Worthy5]

; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Pretty clear here, don’t you think? “nor be deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law” Legalized abortion takes away the due process from the unborn.

My friend, it does not matter. Here is the key: Who has the authority to say what the Constitution means? Not you, not I, but the U.S. Supreme Court. As a Catholic you know what argument from authority means right? And my friend the Court looked at primarily at the 14th Amendment and the Ninth Amendment and thought differently didn’t they.

You may want to remove your post. Arguing with the Supreme Court about what the Constitution means, is well…you know… Not is clear as you think right?

 

[CWBetts]

My friend, it does not matter. Here is the key: Who has the authority to say what the Constitution means?