Pro Life versus Pro Choice Debate

[SteveGC]

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

Yeah…you bet…He can do lots of things without our help, gear. But that just so happens to be the way He does things…with our help.

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.

Everyone has some sort of “god”, gear. Yours is probably some version of secular, existential philosophy…probably a mosaic of various concepts and beliefs, some you latch onto and come to agree with, others you reject…all very subtle…but still all very much a source of your beliefs. Hence, I could just as easily say “strange how whenever someone gives you ‘the word of their varied influences throughout their lives of the existence and purpose of man’, it always exactly lines up with the beliefs and opinions of the person giving it.” It really is a senseless argument. Your beliefs and opinions did not originate from within you exclusive to exterior influence, gear…nor more than mine did, nor anyone else’s. It’s just that you get an easy target because I happen to have a solitary Creator that guides my beliefs, as opposed to a much more multi-headed philosophical outlook that non-believers have…but both of those are sources of our beliefs and opinions.

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”.

Didn’t rank them. But if I did, I would indeed put “killing my children” at the top. You’re exposing your desperation here to find loopholes, it seems.

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

Yes, rare cases of killing in self defense or in protection of grave evil acts against humanity can be seen as an evil allowed over a worse evil, but only by those who misunderstand what the underlying concept is. In a just war, the divine teaching is that grave and certain evil acts must not go unchecked, and that the use of deadly force to check that evil is subject to many precursory moral examinations. If those strict criteria are met, and they rarely if ever are, then the use of deadly force is not a “lesser evil”, it is a righteous act in the defense of righteousness.

Ha! So the Church is beyond rationality and logic?

You like playing this gotcha game, don’t you? I can understand…if you have no real solid belief system, the only thing you really can do is look for holes in other people’s beliefs. No, the Church is not beyond MY rationality and logic…perhaps yours. The Church’s role is partly to make God more understandable to all of us. But God Himself does not fit into our rational and logical minds very well…not because He is irrational and illogical, but because our fallen nature prohibits us from seeing Him the way we once were capable of…but someday we will all see.

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?

I’m not worried about the secular idea of consistency. I say that trying to have a child isn’t an evil act because God says it isn’t. Do I see your secular logic about it being better to contracept than risk a miscarriage? Yes, I can see how you would believe that, or atleast how you would like to force us to concede that point, but even on the secular level, it makes no sense, for you would have the entire world cease to procreate just to avoid possible natural death during pregnancy. I know you don’t think that to be a rational idea. And again, if you’re trying to call us on our religious hypocrisy of it, it doesn’t hold water because you first have to have some sensible understanding of God before you critique His teachings and His plan for creation.

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.

So, I’ll take that as a “yes, there COULD be billions of versions of the personhood defintion, but it’s acceptable to just have a handful of definitions”. That fair?

 

[Caramel]

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.

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.

So who gets to decide whether a person has enough “personhood” to be protected? If I have a baby in my womb, do I get to decide if that baby has enough personhood to be protected? And if I decided she doesn’t and I have her aborted, is that morally correct in your opinion?

 

[gearhead]

So who gets to decide whether a person has enough “personhood” to be protected? If I have a baby in my womb, do I get to decide if that baby has enough personhood to be protected?

You can decide whatever you want. If you can get enough other people on side, you can even get your decision enshrined in law.

And if I decided she doesn’t and I have her aborted, is that morally correct in your opinion?

It’s fine by me. Other people may feel differently - as evidenced by this thread.

 

[Caramel]

You can decide whatever you want. If you can get enough other people on side, you can even get your decision enshrined in law.

It’s fine by me. Other people may feel differently - as evidenced by this thread.

OK. I think I understand your position. So if I give birth to the baby and then decide that she doesn’t have enough “personhood” in her I can kill her. Right?? And that would be morally OK. And if she is a teenager and sasses me I can decide she doesn’t have enough “personhood” and I can kill her. And that would be morally correct.

And if enough people decide that you, Gearhead, do not have enough “personhood” in you, we can kill you, right?? That would be morally right??

If you and I are on an uncharted desert island with twenty other people and 19 of us decide that you do not have enough “personhood” it is morally correct for us to decide to kill you. And it is morally correct if we do kill you. Is that right?? Is that what you are saying?

Because if that is what you are saying, it is moral relativism. And that is wrong. An individual’s right to protection does not depend upon a quantity of any attribute. An individual’s status as a person worthy of protection depends simply on that individual being a person, being a human being. “Personhood” does not accumulate with age. It’s not like sand in a hourglass where the quantity on the bottom determines whether you should be protected. And consensus is not enough either. Truth is not determined by consensus. Truth does not change with changes in the zeitgeist or the opinions of new judges appointed to the Supreme Court. Truth is constant and unchanging.

That is the danger in a society where there is “majority rule.” The rights of the minority, the rights of those who can’t speak up for themselves are supposed to be protected; everyone should be protected: you, me, and all the unborn persons who are purposely aborted.

 

[dgrif88]

Kyrie Eleison

 

[gearhead]

OK. I think I understand your position. So if I give birth to the baby and then decide that she doesn’t have enough “personhood” in her I can kill her. Right?? And that would be morally OK. And if she is a teenager and sasses me I can decide she doesn’t have enough “personhood” and I can kill her. And that would be morally correct.

I’d be opposed to the idea. What’s going through your head, though, only you can say.

And if enough people decide that you, Gearhead, do not have enough “personhood” in you, we can kill you, right?? That would be morally right??

Well, I certainly wouldn’t like that prospect, but if there were enough people, it’s going to happen whether or not I want it to.

If you and I are on an uncharted desert island with twenty other people and 19 of us decide that you do not have enough “personhood” it is morally correct for us to decide to kill you. And it is morally correct if we do kill you. Is that right??

It probably wouldn’t be beneficial for you. I’d be one more hand to fetch water, build shelter, hunt/fish, etc.

Is that what you are saying?

No, it’s not what I’m saying.

What I’m saying is that arbitrary labels stretched beyond the limits of reason or common sense make poor bases for judgements of morality and values. I think it’s much more appropriate to base our judgements on the actual characteristics of the things we’re making our decisions about.

Because if that is what you are saying, it is moral relativism. And that is wrong.

What’s wrong with moral relativism?

An individual’s right to protection does not depend upon a quantity of any attribute.

Of course it does. And unless you’re going to argue that an individual rock or sponge mold warrants a “right to protection”, I think you have to agree.

An individual’s status as a person worthy of protection depends simply on that individual being a person, being a human being. “Personhood” does not accumulate with age. It’s not like sand in a hourglass where the quantity on the bottom determines whether you should be protected.

My point is just that an embryo and an adult human being are very different things in just about every measurable way. They’re different, so it makes perfect sense that our judgements and treatment of them would be different. If you’re going to argue that they warrant the same rights and protections, then I think you need to demonstrate that the basis for that equal treatment is present in both, and demonstrate that the basis you claim is reasonable.

And consensus is not enough either. Truth is not determined by consensus. Truth does not change with changes in the zeitgeist or the opinions of new judges appointed to the Supreme Court. Truth is constant and unchanging.

Truth may not be determined by consensus, but social conventions certainly are.

 

[Benadam]

Truth may not be determined by consensus, but social conventions certainly are.

Gear, it really seems to boil down to this; I know eneogh to know I don’t know when after conception that this living tissue will show physical evidence that you would give human value to. There were ancient beliefs that it was the ability to reason. The kids who had yet to exercise the upper faculties were subject to slaughter then too.

I know since what you seek as proof eludes you, you have chosen the developemental stage that seems good to you. And that everyone has the right to that decision themselves. Unless it;s two year old or something like that But you know just that moment in time will never be found, it doesn’t exist. To you that should be proof it never does or it always has. I imagine you see it like the ancients, attached to consciousness or some visible sign that human life is bveing experienced.

The moral opposition here can be pretty simplified. The possibility of killing someone isn’t a deterent for your side.

 

[CWBetts]

I have to disagree with you here. Sorry. Gakroeger has made the valid point that calling people who are for abortion “proabortion” does nothing to help this useful and meaningful discussion. We all know what prochoice means, as we all know what prolife means. It’s here and even if people have problems with it, this isn’t the place to bring that up. Besides, it’s already been brought up once with disastrous results.

However, I think it would be great for another thread… (I feel like a broken record )

I will not capitulate on this issue. If not Pro-Abortion, then how about Abortion Advocate? “Pro-Choice” attempts to change the focus of the issue through rhetoric. The issue is that babies are being killed to the tune of 3700 per day in the United States alone. This has nothing to do with freedom of choice! This has everything to do with the right to be born!

 

[Caramel]

Oh yeah, evolution; we Catholics and religious who happen to believe the bible are ridiculed because some bible stories are difficult to accept for some people, however, these arguments from pro choicers have ten times more faith than us Catholics or religious, they take on faith Darwin and those who dispute the bible, theories about how all of creation with its infinite precision, its infinite time and space, its miraculous daily occurrences is an accident that just happened. Now that is what I call FAITH.

Lets drop the biology of humans just for a moment and ask one of the pro choice people to explain (you can even cheat and use reference material) how does a simple mustard seed when placed into the ground become a mustard plant? Can science make a mustard seed? No more than science can create an embryo. All science can do is take material made by God and alter it. The embryo is also made by God and He has declared “Thou Shalt Not Kill”.

A side note here. I believe in evolution and I believe in God. The two are not mutually exclusive. IMHO God works His will in ways that may be confusing to some but of course they make perfect sense to Him. Many, many Catholics who are prolife are firm believers in evolution.

 

[Caramel]

I will not capitulate on this issue. If not Pro-Abortion, then how about Abortion Advocate? “Pro-Choice” attempts to change the focus of the issue through rhetoric. The issue is that babies are being killed to the tune of 3700 per day in the United States alone. This has nothing to do with freedom of choice! This has everything to do with the right to be born!

If you feel so strongly about it why don’t you start a thread on it?? I’m not being sarcastic here; I really want to know why you don’t.

I am not trying to be argumentative. I believe your point has merit; however it isn’t the topic of this thread. That is what I was trying to point out.

 

[Caramel]

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.

Very well put!! I agree with you 100%!!

 

[fix]

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.

If married people do not engage in the marital embrace there is no chance of having children. The act is natural regardless of any acts of nature. The act is not negligent.

And eating does mean you could choke. Breathing means you could inhale a virus and die. The list is endless. None of it means we stop living.

And if 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.

Miscarriage is not a moral evil.

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.

Marriage is about having children. That is how life works and was ordained as such. That physical evils occur is no proof one should not live as we were made.

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.

To summarize:

Physical evils are part of this fallen world. They are in no way equivalent to moral evils.
The pro abort analogy you use, and is often used, is not genuine in any respect.

 

[gakroeger]

A side note here. I believe in evolution and I believe in God. The two are not mutually exclusive. IMHO God works His will in ways that may be confusing to some but of course they make perfect sense to Him. Many, many Catholics who are prolife are firm believers in evolution.

You need to be careful here. Evolution is real, it does exist but it happens after creation not instead of…

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

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.

Thanks! That’s always the point I am trying to make: words have meaning, and the enemy’s tactic is to rename unpleasant things in an attempt to remove the word from its true meaning.

We must not fall into that trap and we absolutely must not use THEIR terms.

 

[Worthy5]

the pro-abortion language and imagery of choice, privacy, and woman’s rights;

It is more than just imagery my friend, it is about the important policy of limited government. It is about a women right–but it is also about a women’s duty to protect that life. You decided that govt power should be increased and supplant the women’'s duty to protect the unborn life. Fine.

But there is another reasonable position that says this country is about the need to limit govt power (govt does not make all decisions) because wth limited govt power comes individual liberty. No matter how noble the goal, the means used to effectuate that goal can be just as destructive, if not more so, over time than the original problem. Further, govt can select different approaches to try to deal with the abortion problem.

 

[Worthy5]

QUOTE=CWBetts;5857322]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.

CW, there you go again.

 

[gearhead]

If married people do not engage in the marital embrace there is no chance of having children. The act is natural regardless of any acts of nature. The act is not negligent.

It’s definitely negligent if an embryo is a person. It’s the deliberate choice to engage in a course of action without regard for the human lives that could end as a result. This is textbook negligence… if the fetus is a person.

And eating does mean you could choke. Breathing means you could inhale a virus and die. The list is endless. None of it means we stop living.

Having children is not a necessary part of “living”. Many people live long, fulfilled and childless lives… many priests and nuns, for instance.

Miscarriage is not a moral evil.

It’s not the miscarriage itself that I’m talking about - it’s the decision to follow a course of action knowing that it has a high likelihood of resulting in miscarriage. It’s a decision, i.e. a moral choice, that allows what you call a “physical evil” that would not otherwise occur.

Marriage is about having children. That is how life works and was ordained as such. That physical evils occur is no proof one should not live as we were made.

Marriage and childbirth are both optional. No person must marry and no married person must have children.

To summarize:

Physical evils are part of this fallen world. They are in no way equivalent to moral evils.
The pro abort analogy you use, and is often used, is not genuine in any respect.

If physical evil exists, then taking a course of action that you know is likely to result in physical evils is itself a moral evil.

However, if you disagree, perhaps you could give us an example of some other activity that you consider moral that’s also voluntary and also has at least a 1-in-4 chance of ending in the death of a child.

Thanks! That’s always the point I am trying to make: words have meaning, and the enemy’s tactic is to rename unpleasant things in an attempt to remove the word from its true meaning.

We must not fall into that trap and we absolutely must not use THEIR terms.

I feel similarily about the euphemism “pro-life” for the anti-abortion movement.

 

[CWBetts]

It’s definitely negligent if an embryo is a person. It’s the deliberate choice to engage in a course of action without regard for the human lives that could end as a result. This is textbook negligence… if the fetus is a person.

Having children is not a necessary part of “living”. Many people live long, fulfilled and childless lives… many priests and nuns, for instance.

It’s not the miscarriage itself that I’m talking about - it’s the decision to follow a course of action knowing that it has a high likelihood of resulting in miscarriage. It’s a decision, i.e. a moral choice, that allows what you call a “physical evil” that would not otherwise occur.

Marriage and childbirth are both optional. No person must marry and no married person must have children.

If physical evil exists, then taking a course of action that you know is likely to result in physical evils is itself a moral evil.

However, if you disagree, perhaps you could give us an example of some other activity that you consider moral that’s also voluntary and also has at least a 1-in-4 chance of ending in the death of a child.

I feel similarily about the euphemism “pro-life” for the anti-abortion movement.

The difference is the pro-life movement at its core is the respect for the dignity of all life, whereas the pro-death movement at its core is the disregard for the sanctity of life.

 

[fix]

It’s definitely negligent if an embryo is a person. It’s the deliberate choice to engage in a course of action without regard for the human lives that could end as a result. This is textbook negligence… if the fetus is a person.

No, it is not. The marital act is a natural act, it is not negligent. That is like claiming the act of consuming food is negligent because unwanted physical effects may happen. It is really nonsensical.

Having children is not a necessary part of “living”. Many people live long, fulfilled and childless lives… many priests and nuns, for instance.

The human race would die out without procreation. Your position is absurd on many levels.

It’s not the miscarriage itself that I’m talking about - it’s the decision to follow a course of action knowing that it has a high likelihood of resulting in miscarriage. It’s a decision, i.e. a moral choice, that allows what you call a “physical evil” that would not otherwise occur.

The marital act is natural and morally good. Like all acts there can be unintended consequences through no fault of the actors. Again, eating can have bad effects. Breathing may have bad effects. That does not prove it is bad to do either.

Marriage and childbirth are both optional. No person must marry and no married person must have children.

No individual must, but as a race we must or there will be no more humans. The problem is you falsely equate physical evils with moral evils. Any natural act may have bad consequences due to nature.

If physical evil exists, then taking a course of action that you know is likely to result in physical evils is itself a moral evil.

Not necessarily as I have pointed out. Physical evils are often unavoidable. That does not make one morally culpable.

However, if you disagree, perhaps you could give us an example of some other activity that you consider moral that’s also voluntary and also has at least a 1-in-4 chance of ending in the death of a child.

I have given two examples already of human activity that may lead to death including breathing. Unintended death by natural causes is not a moral evil.

I feel similarily about the euphemism “pro-life” for the anti-abortion movement.

Pro life accurately describes the situation as does pro abortion. Pro choice is a type of lie.

 

[Worthy5]

=fix;5877861]
.
Pro choice is a type of lie

No it is not, and for you to say it is shows how little you have learned from the discussion here.