Pro Life versus Pro Choice Debate

[Lutheranteach]

There is so much inconsistency on both the religious and legal fronts on this that it’s no wonder there are so many questions:

All Christian people should be baptized; but we do not baptize until birth, not in utero. Does that mean the unborn are not seen as having souls yet? Life is sacred? But only human life? And only under certain circumstances as we allowed to kill in war and in self defense even if the war is clearly unjust? So is this sacredness conditional? Are we saying the unborn are not people until they are born? Yes? No? If I were to shoot a pregnant woman and the fetus died, I could be tried for murder in many places. However, fetuses are not included in the census or population studies. I can’t deduct a fetus as a child on my taxes. No one issues a death certificate for a miscarriage. There is no funeral. Why? Isn’t this a person? And also if life begins at fertilization there is a six or seven day window where that fertilized egg is a question mark. Will it implant or will it not? 80% don’t, and they end up as part of a woman’s monthly flow. To me, I think human life of value begins when distinctly human brain activity begins, probably not until about the 30th week of pregnancy. But here, I have my own inconsistency. I personally feel A) In 2009 there is any reason for abortion as there are a myriad of birth control options and morning after pills should there be a need for them. And B) Unless there is some kind of major change in health conditions abortion decisions should and could be made by the 12th week.

What we do not like to admit is that it’s not a question of when life begins. It’s a matter of when we decide, and under what circumstance we decide to place or remove its value. Whether we will admit it to ourselves we make those decisions daily. If the government decides we go to war we just devalued the lives of those we are opposing. For the parents of a child terribly hurt and brain dead they decide does this child’s life still have value? For the stroke victim who is brain dead and has told his loved ones to pull the plug. That man has decided his “life” in such a condition does not have the value he would need to want to live. The terminal cancer patient who declines treatment saying she wants three months of feeling good rather than 9 months of agony. She has made a value judgment.

Now, people will say that is “playing God.” Well, the first time man picked up a rock or log and moved just because he or she thought it looked better over there we were playing God.

It’s something to think about.

 

[fix]

There is so much inconsistency on both the religious and legal fronts on this that it’s no wonder there are so many questions:

All Christian people should be baptized; but we do not baptize until birth, not in utero. Does that mean the unborn are not seen as having souls yet? Life is sacred? But only human life? And only under certain circumstances as we allowed to kill in war and in self defense even if the war is clearly unjust? So is this sacredness conditional? Are we saying the unborn are not people until they are born? Yes? No? If I were to shoot a pregnant woman and the fetus died, I could be tried for murder in many places. However, fetuses are not included in the census or population studies. I can’t deduct a fetus as a child on my taxes. No one issues a death certificate for a miscarriage. There is no funeral. Why? Isn’t this a person? And also if life begins at fertilization there is a six or seven day window where that fertilized egg is a question mark. Will it implant or will it no? 80% don’t they end up as part of a woman’s monthly flow.

What we do not like to admit is that it’s not a question of when life begins. It’s a matter of when we decide, and under what circumstance we decide to place or remove its value. Whether we will admit it to ourselves we make those decisions daily. If the government decides we go to war we just devalued the lives of those we are opposing. For the parents of a child terribly hurt and brain dead they decide does this child’s life still have value? For the stroke victim who is brain dead and has told his loved ones to pull the plug. That man has decided his “life” in such a condition does not have the value he would need to want to live. The terminal cancer patient who declines treatment saying she wants three months of feeling good rather than 9 months of agony. She has made a value judgment.

Now, people will say that is “playing God.” Well, the first time man picked up a rock or log and moved just because he or she thought it looked better over there we were playing God.

It’s something to think about.

I cannot follow how any of this has much to do with protection of innocent life?

Does the timing of a birthday or baptism reflect on the wrongness of murder?

Is self defense of the same moral weight as the intentional direct killing of an innocent child?

The issues you raised are answered, many times over, in Catholic moral theology. It really is not arbirtrary at all.

Each situation you mentioned deserves its own thread. The real issue is why any person now would claim it is morally acceptable to kill some innocent child.

I would ask you, any the others, why it is acceptable to intend to end an innocent life?

 

[fix]

How much “personhood” is needed before we protect a thing, though… that’s a different matter, and IMO a personal value judgement.

Do you really believe this? That means pretty much anything goes.

 

[Lutheranteach]

I cannot follow how any of this has much to do with protection of innocent life?

Does the timing of a birthday or baptism reflect on the wrongness of murder?

Is self defense of the same moral weight as the intentional direct killing of an innocent child?

The issues you raised are answered, many times over, in Catholic moral theology. It really is not arbirtrary at all.

Each situation you mentioned deserves its own thread. The real issue is why any person now would claim it is morally acceptable to kill some innocent child.

I would ask you, any the others, why it is acceptable to intend to end an innocent life?

If it’s a child, why can’t it be baptized in utero? And what is innocent? I disagree. It’s extremely arbitrary in both the legal and religious realms

 

[Whitacre_Girl]

If it’s a child, why can’t it be baptized in utero? And what is innocent? I disagree. It’s extremely arbitrary in both the legal and religious realms

The question of baptism doesn’t relate to the personhood of the child at all. It’s about age and timing of sacraments. People receive confirmation at around 14. People receive first communion about 2nd grade, people can only receive marriage at a certain age. Same for baptism. They receive this sacrament when they are old enough to be born. Not because they are any less of a person beforehand, just as a 1st grader isn’t less of a person because he can’t receive communion until 2nd grade. Baptism doesn’t determine personhood any more than marriage does. But this is off topic, and I think there is a thread somewhere else about baptising in utero.

 

[gearhead]

I would ask you, any the others, why it is acceptable to intend to end an innocent life?

A question for you: why do you think it’s acceptable to be reckless toward innocent lives?

A huge number of pregnancies end in miscarriage. If embryos really are people, then the act of trying to conceive would be as dangerously negligent as shooting practice in a playground at recess would be. Moreso, actually.

Do you really believe this?

Yes, I do.

That means pretty much anything goes.

No, it doesn’t.

 

[fix]

If it’s a child, why can’t it be baptized in utero?

For one thing water is required. How would the baby receive the water? Sacraments require a proper form.

And what is innocent?

What has the baby done to warrant being killed?

I disagree. It’s extremely arbitrary in both the legal and religious realms

The law is arbitrary, that we agree. It should not be but it is legislated by people who have varying degrees of understanding for varying reasons.

The Catholic teaching on all the matters you raised is hardly arbitrary.

 

[fix]

A question for you: why do you think it’s acceptable to be reckless toward innocent lives?

I do not think it is acceptable.

A huge number of pregnancies end in miscarriage. If embryos really are people, then the act of trying to conceive would be as dangerously negligent as shooting practice in a playground at recess would be. Moreso, actually.

This is a joke, right? Do you fail to recognize a vast moral difference between an act of nature and intentional killing?

Yes, I do.

Troubling, but not surprising.

No, it doesn’t.

It sure does. That seems basically a form of moral relativism. You get to decide, arbitrarily, who is a person and who is not.

 

[gearhead]

This is a joke, right? Do you fail to recognize a vast moral difference between an act of nature and intentional killing?

No, it’s not a joke. The act of nature is the miscarriage itself, not the intentional act of trying to have a child despite the significant risk of miscarriage.

And I agree there’s a difference between a wilful act and a negligent one, however, negligent acts are still culpable. And following a course of action knowing that it has a high likelihood of ending in the death of people but not caring about the cost in lives is negligent.

It sure does. That seems basically a form of moral relativism. You get to decide, arbitrarily, who is a person and who is not.

Unless I live as a hermit with no contact with anyone else, I am not free to make arbitrary moral decisions.

 

[fix]

No, it’s not a joke. The act of nature is the miscarriage itself, not the intentional act of trying to have a child despite the significant risk of miscarriage.

And I agree there’s a difference between a wilful act and a negligent one, however, negligent acts are still culpable. And following a course of action knowing that it has a high likelihood of ending in the death of people but not caring about the cost in lives is negligent.

Again, this is absurd. The “course of action” is not arbitrary or negligent. That is like saying it is immoral to eat because some will die from choking.

Unless I live as a hermit with no contact with anyone else, I am not free to make arbitrary moral decisions.

No, you are free to act morally. If you choose to act arbitrarily in regard to the moral law that is an abuse.

 

[gearhead]

Again, this is absurd. The “course of action” is not arbitrary or negligent. That is like saying it is immoral to eat because some will die from choking.

No, it’s not. If you eat, there’s a very small but non-zero chance that you’ll die from choking, but if you don’t eat, there’s a 100% chance you’ll die of starvation. Eating is the best option to preserve your own life.

In contrast, if you try to have children, there’s a very high chance of miscarriage, but if you don’t try to have children, the chance of miscarriage is zero because miscarriage can’t occur unless conception has already happened.

Your life does not depend on you having children. It’s not an arbitrary action (though I never said it was), but it is voluntary.

So… to summarize:

• try to have kids: you won’t suffer any ill effects, but death of a “child” is likely.
• don’t try to have kids: you still won’t suffer any ill effects, and death of a “child” will not occur.

 

[gakroeger]

There is so much inconsistency on both the religious and legal fronts on this that it’s no wonder there are so many questions:

All Christian people should be baptized; but we do not baptize until birth, not in utero. Does that mean the unborn are not seen as having souls yet? Life is sacred? But only human life? And only under certain circumstances as we allowed to kill in war and in self defense even if the war is clearly unjust? So is this sacredness conditional? Are we saying the unborn are not people until they are born? Yes? No? If I were to shoot a pregnant woman and the fetus died, I could be tried for murder in many places. However, fetuses are not included in the census or population studies. I can’t deduct a fetus as a child on my taxes. No one issues a death certificate for a miscarriage. There is no funeral. Why? Isn’t this a person? And also if life begins at fertilization there is a six or seven day window where that fertilized egg is a question mark. Will it implant or will it not? 80% don’t, and they end up as part of a woman’s monthly flow. To me, I think human life of value begins when distinctly human brain activity begins, probably not until about the 30th week of pregnancy. But here, I have my own inconsistency. I personally feel A) In 2009 there is any reason for abortion as there are a myriad of birth control options and morning after pills should there be a need for them. And B) Unless there is some kind of major change in health conditions abortion decisions should and could be made by the 12th week.

What we do not like to admit is that it’s not a question of when life begins. It’s a matter of when we decide, and under what circumstance we decide to place or remove its value. Whether we will admit it to ourselves we make those decisions daily. If the government decides we go to war we just devalued the lives of those we are opposing. For the parents of a child terribly hurt and brain dead they decide does this child’s life still have value? For the stroke victim who is brain dead and has told his loved ones to pull the plug. That man has decided his “life” in such a condition does not have the value he would need to want to live. The terminal cancer patient who declines treatment saying she wants three months of feeling good rather than 9 months of agony. She has made a value judgment.

Now, people will say that is “playing God.” Well, the first time man picked up a rock or log and moved just because he or she thought it looked better over there we were playing God.

It’s something to think about.

Ditto on Fix’s comments
All of this gobble-de-gook is nothing more than a search for justification to do the unjustifiable. Regardless of what stage of life brain activity starts or the heart beats or any other event in the normal development of a human being it is still a human being and as long as the purpose of ending its life is nothing more than the convenience of other human being(s), it is WRONG PERIOD…….

Comparisons to war, capital punishment, and all the other feeble attempts to justify killing the unborn just plain doesn’t make sense to any person who is honest with him or herself.

We cannot ask the unborn person if they want to be aborted, however, many people who have survived abortion attempts are speaking for these little one and we need to listen to them. Without exception (that I know of) every one of these survivors have stated over and over, “stop the killing”.

 

[cnmarrelli]

Pro-lifers are waking up to the fact that the womb-phase of life is the root of the abortion debate. When we allow pro-choicers to argue the conditions and circumstances of abortion rather than its substance and cause, we neglect the central issue. We know that the preborn boy or girl in the womb is human at every stage; if we focus relentlessly on the personhood of that human life, we will keep the debate centered on the preborn’s humanity, who by nature is a member of our human family. Early pro-life voices were smothered by the pro-abortion language and imagery of choice, privacy, and woman’s rights; we fumbled the ball and let them shift the debate, with the help of the media, from the truth and consequence of each abortion—the murder of an innocent living person. The sciences have amassed evidence that prove what we’ve always known from experience, and common sense; the zygote in utero is a tiny one-celled person with a full-sized right to be born. Pro-choicers, in denial of reality, dodge logic and science to mitigate their guilt for supporting of the abortion slaughter. Every preborn, from the earliest zygote stage, up to and including birth, is a separate, individuated person with a full complement of DNA; he or she is an innocent, voiceless, and defenseless person with the right to breathe free. The instant the womb-phase of life begins, that life is equal to every other living human person, in any other stage of life, be it baby, child, teen, adult, or senior. It’s our duty as responsible citizens to protect that life. Writers for Life, prolifedigest.com.

 

[Caramel]

As I said, contraception helps to reduce the incidence of abortion by reducing the incidence of unwanted pregnancy.

Could you please provide some research cites? I’m not sure this is true. It might be but I’m not sure. Is this just your opinion or do you have research to back it up?

It’s inconsistent (actually, I would argue hypocritical) to argue that abortion is murder at the same time as arguing against contraception.

If abortion really were murder, consistency would demand that the Church do whatever it could to prevent its, and this would ?QUOTE]

and this would… WHAT???

I think that binary distinctions like “person”/“not a person” are human constructs. It’s not like a switch got flipped and I suddenly went from not being a person at all to being fully a person.

Depending on what you mean by “person”, I’d probably say that I was a person in some respects well before I was conceived, and increased in “personhood” through pregnancy, and arguably through early childhood. In some respects, I’m probably still increasing in “personhood” still.

How much “personhood” is needed before we protect a thing, though… that’s a different matter, and IMO a personal value judgement.

OK, thank you!! You answered my question. So if I am reading this correctly you are stating that you were a person even before conception, but after conception the “amount” of personhood you had that was required to protect you (I assume here you mean protect you from being aborted) was a personal decision made by your mother. Is that correct??

So, there is no such thing as personhood per se but varying degrees of personhood. And the person making the choice as to whether she should have an abortion or not is the mother, correct? And is this why you are prochoice? Am I reading this correctly? I want to be sure.

 

[SteveGC]

No; it’s not that I believe you’re not sincere; I just think you don’t realize the conflict [between pro-life and no funerals for miscarriages].

I fail to see the conflict, gear. You are only speculating about the Catholic view regarding loss of life via miscarriage…my personal experience with many Catholics is that there is sincere grieving, much of it stemming from the realization that a real human being died. Your recent argument that suggests we are also hypocritical for even trying to procreate in light of miscarriage statistics is a good attempt to turn the tables on our morality, but unfortunately you fail to recognize a central point…God is the ordainer of these things…not us…He decrees what is moral, and what is not. We choose to follow it, to the letter…others do not, hence their futile attempt to trap us in their secular understanding of our own moral code. God decrees that we multiply in number, populate the earth with people He makes in His own image…He also says thou shalt not kill, and through His Church, He teaches us that human life begins at conception…period. You may find this morality confusing and even contradictory, but realize that this is simply because you have an undeveloped understanding of God, who loves you more than you will ever realize, btw (had to make that plug…sorry) Look, the simple version of all this is that God is in charge, we are not…we are to be cooperators with grace, His divine power. He will take care of the miscarried children, just as He will the aborted ones…but He wants children, gear…and He wants them to live without our interference in their life. If He takes them back to Himself, that’s His business, not ours. We don’t decide that, though.

Just my wife… though we’re getting dangerously close to some rather personal subject matter.

Was not going anywhere near the personal with this, gear. It was completely rhetorical. My apologizes for any implication otherwise. My point is that you are speculating in the dark, and then drawing rash conclusions from that speculation.

 

[SteveGC]

As I said, contraception helps to reduce the incidence of abortion by reducing the incidence of unwanted pregnancy. It’s inconsistent (actually, I would argue hypocritical) to argue that abortion is murder at the same time as arguing against contraception.

If abortion really were murder, consistency would demand that the Church do whatever it could to prevent its, and this would

Again, God wants children, gear, from those of us who He calls to the vocation of marriage. Contraception is our way of saying, “um…don’t care what you want, God…I don’t want them in my marriage”. He also has no tolerance for any attempt we would make to rationalize our contraceptive activities by explaining that if there are less pregnancies, there’ll be less abortions. Know what He says to that? Quit havin sex outside marriage, be open to life, and stop killing my children!! Ok, He probably doesn’t talk that way…but God isn’t about choosing one evil over a worse evil. He calls us to no evil. He calls us to cooperate with His plan for our earthly life, as well as His plan for our eternal life. The Church doesn’t compromise on the Truth revealed by God to placate a secular sense of consistency.

How much “personhood” is needed before we protect a thing, though… that’s a different matter, and IMO a personal value judgement.

Does this mean that as many people as there are in the world, there can be as many versions of what personhood deserving of protection is defined as?

 

[gearhead]

and this would… WHAT???

Whoops - I got distracted while typing my post and when I came back, I forgot to finish my thought.

My point was just that if abortion truly were murder, then it would be imperitive for the Church to do everything it could to stop it, including telling people that if they do have sex but don’t want a baby, to practice birth control.

OK, thank you!! You answered my question. So if I am reading this correctly you are stating that you were a person even before conception, but after conception the “amount” of personhood you had that was required to protect you (I assume here you mean protect you from being aborted) was a personal decision made by your mother. Is that correct??

So, there is no such thing as personhood per se but varying degrees of personhood. And the person making the choice as to whether she should have an abortion or not is the mother, correct? And is this why you are prochoice? Am I reading this correctly? I want to be sure.

Kinda. I don’t think that there’s any magic value where we “poof” from being “not a person” to “a person” all of a sudden. The things we value in a person arise (and go away, potentially) over time.

 

[gearhead]

Again, God wants children, gear, from those of us who He calls to the vocation of marriage.

An almighty God would be more than capable of creating whatever children He wants without your help.

Contraception is our way of saying, “um…don’t care what you want, God…I don’t want them in my marriage”. He also has no tolerance for any attempt we would make to rationalize our contraceptive activities by explaining that if there are less pregnancies, there’ll be less abortions. Know what He says to that? Quit havin sex outside marriage, be open to life, and stop killing my children!! Ok, He probably doesn’t talk that way…but God isn’t about choosing one evil over a worse evil.

I think they’re right: it’s strange how whenever someone gives you “God’s word”, it always exactly lines up with the beliefs and opinions of the person giving it.

I think it’s also strange that your God would rank “quit havin’ sex outside marriage” and “be open to life” above “stop killing my children”.

And the bit at the end about God not choosing one evil over a worse one is contradicted by the idea of “just war”.

He calls us to no evil. He calls us to cooperate with His plan for our earthly life, as well as His plan for our eternal life. The Church doesn’t compromise on the Truth revealed by God to placate a secular sense of consistency.

Ha! So the Church is beyond rationality and logic?

And I know you say you’re not worried about consistency, but if an embryo really is a person, then how can you say that trying to have a child isn’t an evil act?

Does this mean that as many people as there are in the world, there can be as many versions of what personhood deserving of protection is defined as?
Well, everyone can and does come to their own conclusions about what to value and what not to value. We share lots of things in common, so there tends to be commonality in our value judgements as well.

 

[SteveGC]

Now, people will say that is “playing God.” Well, the first time man picked up a rock or log and moved just because he or she thought it looked better over there we were playing God.

It’s something to think about.

Funny thing is, God never said “though shalt not move a rock”…we don’t play God when we manipulate the natural world.

He actually said that we were to have dominion over the earth, and that we shall not kill. So, yes Lt…you are playing God indeed with those personal opinions of yours, for those types of opinions follow no authentic teaching of God, and seek to make creation the creators, instead of letting our Creator keep that job.

 

[Caramel]

There is no funeral. Why? Isn’t this a person?

As I have already stated, funerals are held for babies who died before birth.
Please refer to Post #719. Also,

The Church does permit funerals for miscarried infants:

Order of Christian Funerals (Canadian Edition), no. 425:

Funeral rites may be celebrated for children whose parents intended them to be baptized but who died before baptism. In these celebrations the Christian community entrusts the child to God’s all-embracing love and finds strength in this love and in Jesus’ affirmation that the kingdom of God belongs to the little children (see Matthew 19:14).

Further more, the Order of Christian Funerals (Canadian Edition), includes a special Collect for a stillborn child:

Lord God,
ever caring and gentle,
we commit to your love this little one,
quickened to life for so short a time.
Enfold him/her in eternal life.
We pray for his/her parents
who are saddened by the loss of their baby.
Give them courage
and help then in their pain and grief.
May they all meet one day
in the joy and peace of your kingdom.
We ask this . . .

.

To me, I think human life of value begins when distinctly human brain activity begins, probably not until about the 30th week of pregnancy.

What do you mean by “distinctly human brain activity?”