Pro Life versus Pro Choice Debate

[Caramel]

You guys are the ones that keep wanting to equate a born person with the early fetus—that is the analogy. You are doing that in order to have the govt criminalize abortion in the same way that it criminalize murder on a born person. Fine. You can have that position.

It is not an analogy to compare a person to a person. And really now, **please do not tell me why I am doing something. It’s fine with me if you say you think I am doing something for some reason, but I find it extremely irritating that you maintain this habit of putting words into my mouth and suggesting ulterior motives to my actions. I have already told you that I don’t want to discuss law and I have told you why. Several times. **
So please stop it!!

But another position is noting the distinction. The early fetus is NOT in the same position as a born person. It is a life but not in the same position--------it has been entrusted to the women. One rationale for a pro-choice position is as stated many times----it is the women’s duty to protect the life at that point and society, though it has an obligation, does not have to criminalize every abortion act, but rather can use other means to help the women fulfill her moral obligation—this also gives respect to the fact that this govt is not founded on the notion that it must solve every human problem. Because such a govt that does that inevitable ends up authoritarian.

The early fetus and a born person are obviously different in many respects. So is a toddler and an elderly man on his deathbed. What is your point here? We are all dependent upon others at times in our lives: first it is the mother (and this is because of the way humans reproduce - someone has to have the child inside of them for a certain amount of time. In kangaroos a tiny embryonic kangaroo leaves the mother’s womb and heads for the pouch where it clenches onto a teat to complete its development. Do you consider the tiny kangaroo in the pouch to be a born kangaroo?? ) If humans reproduced like kangaroos would you consider the human embryo that left her mother’s womb and latched onto a teat in her pouch a person?? Well I don’t see much difference between that and a born baby latched onto his mother’s breast while she holds him.

AND AGAIN, I HAVE NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER STATED THAT ALL ABORTIONS SHOULD BE ILLEGAL!! HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO REPEAT THIS?? PUHLEEZE STOP PUTTING WORDS INTO MY MOUTH!!!

This is a reasonable postition to have within the context of the American legal system. Just because one is morally against abortion does not mean one has to support an expansive use of govt police power in the attempt to prevent it—especially given the question whether such efforts actually would prevent abortions is in debate anyway.

What is your obsession with laws about?? Of course it would be better if the law did not have to get involved. I have told you before that I am not debating law.

In fact, WHY DON’T YOU START A THREAD ON LAW AND HOW IT IS RELATED TO THE ABORTION PROBLEM?HUH?? WHY DON’T YOU START ANOTHER THREAD?? WHY DON’T YOU START ANOTHER THREAD?? WHY DON’T YOU START ANOTHER THREAD??

This thread is close to being shut down. I’m not sure of the maximum number of posts allowed but I believe we are reaching that point. So, why don’t we discuss what the thread is supposed to be about - the personhood of the unborn?

 

[CWBetts]

I do not say this to be offensive, but your view of this issue in relation to laws and politics sounds like a ‘pie-in-the-sky’ viewpoint that perhaps a high school or college student would have, before they lived a little bit and understood the reality of government. The majority of us on this board believe abortion is wrong. However, while murder is universally recognized as wrong, abortion is not universally recognized as wrong. Because murder is universally recognized as wrong, laws against it are relatively easy to enforce. However, laws against practices that aren’t universally recognized as wrong almost always do more harm than good. And I think we’ve already established that government is incapable of changing someone’s heart or mind on the issue. I’m paraphrasing, but the OP said his goal in starting this thread was to get people to realize how bad abortion is. That is something that is done on an individual level. If you think the coercive power of government will positively affect this issue, you are mistaken.

Yet another “Catholic” trying to make excuse for genocide against the unborn…

 

[Caramel]

Hi, thanks for your reply. Having known people on the Pill and initially concerned for their health, I have indeed read the research on it. I would not make a statement like the one I made on something i do not know about. I also did say that yes, when a woman is already pregnant, it can harm the zygote/fetus. However this is not the intention of people who take it a nd doctors who prescribe it. No one is performing an abortion here. I agree that if someone is paranoid(for lack of a better word) about having an accidental abortion take place they should not have sex or use other forms of birth control(before i get angry replies about this i know all birth control is against church teaching, however this is a hypothetical situation).
The pill is not the same as the abortion pill. Many many other prescription drugs can potentially harm fetuses. Yet they are not labeled baby killing weapons. About the low-estrogen pills in the US, im from Europe and we dont seem to have that ruling here.

God bless

In the USA the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) must approve new medications and has the authority to remove what they consider dangerous medications from the market. IMHO they became a little paranoid after the thalidomide horror. I don’t know how it is in Europe but here there are warning labels on cigarettes, alcohol (I think, I’m not sure), and some medications that warn pregnant women about the effects the products may have on their unborn children and their born children via breastfeeding.

In my personal experience I’ve noticed that a lot of meds that I take have warning labels. But also, in my personal experience, I’ve discovered that many women take their physicians’ word almost like it’s God’s word. They don’t question it. If the physician says, “Here, if you don’t want to get pregnant now take the Pill and you won’t get pregnant.” That used to be true. But when the amount of estrogen was dramatically lowered many physicians, even though they knew better, still made the same statement. They lied to their patients. I don’t know why except that maybe they thought that we are all stupid (especially women - I remember one male doctor who called me “honey” so many times I almost asked him, “Why do you keep referring to me as a product of bees?” Of course I didn’t. After a friend’s mother’s doctor missed her cancer and she died I got scared. I had the same doctor. I changed doctors and now I have a great doctor who doesn’t think I’m stupid (he has admitted I get loopy sometimes from pain meds) - I know I’m rambling. I apologize; I’m sick.

What I’m trying to get across is that the Pill used to be a contraceptive. Now it isn’t - it prevents implantation. I mean, in the USA. But women (and men) weren’t educated about it and part of that is because of the awe and fear that many people have toward their physicians. It’s a social thing. It’s changing now. More and more people are taking charge of their own health and their children’s health and asking their physicians questions, although I know there are still some physicians who pat women on the tops of their heads and say, “Don’t you worry your pretty little head about it.” (grrrrr)

So here the Pill does hurt the zygote in the worst way - it kills it!! And that is an abortion, albeit at an extremely early gestational age. A fertilized egg is a human being - it is a person at the first stage of her life. We all started life this way. To prevent its implantation in the uterine wall is to kill it.

 

[Worthy5]

=Caramel;5887338]It is not an analogy to compare a person to a person.

In this context it is because a fetus is in a different situation than a born person.

And really now, **please do not tell me why I am doing something. It’s fine with me if you say you think I am doing something for some reason, but I find it extremely irritating that you maintain this habit of putting words into my mouth and suggesting ulterior motives to my actions. I have already told you that I don’t want to discuss law and I have told you why. Several times. **
So please stop it!!

So you respond to my post, that was a response to another person’s post (not yours) and now you want to tell me what I can or cannot place in my response to your response. This is just a discussion, you seem to be taking it too personally.

The early fetus and a born person are obviously different in many respects

.

And those differences is why the law, as it now stands, treats them differently.

What is your point here?

You know the point being made—its why the law currently now is pro-choice.

We are all dependent upon others at times in our lives: first it is the mother (and this is because of the way humans reproduce - someone has to have the child inside of them for a certain amount of time. In kangaroos a tiny embryonic kangaroo leaves the mother’s womb and heads for the pouch where it clenches onto a teat to complete its development. Do you consider the tiny kangaroo in the pouch to be a born kangaroo?? ) If humans reproduced like kangaroos would you consider the human embryo that left her mother’s womb and latched onto a teat in her pouch a person??Well I don’t see much difference between that and a born baby latched onto his mother’s breast while she holds him.

There is nothing your saying here. The law makes a distinction because the " person " in the women is in a different position than the " person" outside the women. You keep going back to saying that the early fetus is a person or a life. Okay, this poster never indicated otherwise. Moreover, the issue is about who (women and govt) has the duty to protect that person at certain points and in what ways.

AND AGAIN, I HAVE NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER STATED THAT ALL ABORTIONS SHOULD BE ILLEGAL!! HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO REPEAT THIS?? PUHLEEZE STOP PUTTING WORDS INTO MY MOUTH!!!

Okay sorry, so you them have some form of a pro-choice position.

What is your obsession with laws about?? Of course it would be better if the law did not have to get involved. I have told you before that I am not debating law.

In fact, WHY DON’T YOU START A THREAD ON LAW AND HOW IT IS RELATED TO THE ABORTION PROBLEM?HUH?? WHY DON’T YOU START ANOTHER THREAD?? WHY DON’T YOU START ANOTHER THREAD?? WHY DON’T YOU START ANOTHER THREAD??
This thread is close to being shut down. I’m not sure of the maximum number of posts allowed but I believe we are reaching that point. So, why don’t we discuss what the thread is supposed to be about - the personhood of the unborn?

We have been through this. If this is not about ultimately what the govt is to do to protect the " person" in the womb then there really is no pro-life v pro-choice debate.

And with all due sincere respect, I do not believe you are the moderator. My friend this is just a discussion, it is not something to be upset about. It is through discussion that the best ideas come about.

 

[CWBetts]

A fetus is a person. This is not open to debate, and as a person deserves equal protection under the law. I really don’t care what your Supreme Court prophets say.

 

[Christopher68]

A fetus is a person. This is not open to debate, and as a person deserves equal protection under the law. I really don’t care what your Supreme Court prophets say.

And perhaps 50% of the population disagrees with you and doesn’t care what ‘you’ think on this issue either. Or what I think, for that matter. Since all you did was engage in name calling in your previous reply to my post, I will ask again. Since abortion is not universally recognized as wrong, and enforcing laws in these situations has proven problematic at best, please explain how you think this would possibly work?

 

[Caramel]

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.

Who are “they?” Who is the enemy?? Maybe I am wrong but I thought that Satan and evil were the enemy. Are you stating that people who are prochoice are the enemy??

This is such a loving Christian, Catholic attitude - NOT!! I am sincerely sorry for posting this but I am going to anyway. Attitudes like yours embarrass me and tend to make me ashamed of being Catholic. We ALL sin and we ALL fail.

AND WHY WON’T YOU START ANOTHER, YES ANOTHER THREAD ON THIS SUBJECT? WHAT PART OF “OFF-TOPIC” DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND??
**
PROCHOICERS ARE NOT THE ENEMY!! **

Sailor Kenshin, let he who is without fault cast the first stone.

 

[Worthy5]

If you really knew anything about St. Thomas More you woludn’t misuse his memory to push your own political agenda. By keeping abortion legal, you are culpable for every abortion that occurs by merely assenting to its legitimacy. If you truly thought abortion wrong, you would be opposed to it being legal. I find it sickening that you put your own freedoms above the rights of others. That degree of selfishness is pretty much the definition of evil.

LOL CW you are funny. I have enjoyed the debate. Never once did this poster approve of abortion. Just because someone does not agree with the means you support to attack this problem does not make them “selfish” and “evil” or otherwise not against abortion. Again, you assume that outlawing all abortion is the best and only way to help prevent it—that is in debate.

This poster knows a fair amount about St Thomas More. He was a lawyer and a judge. He knew the function of the law in a society, that this nation is ruled by law, not by the rule of man. In fact, Thomas More said he give " the devil the benefit of the law, for his own safety."

 

[CWBetts]

And perhaps 50% of the population disagrees with you and doesn’t care what ‘you’ think on this issue either. Or what I think, for that matter. Since all you did was engage in name calling in your previous reply to my post, I will ask again. Since abortion is not universally recognized as wrong, and enforcing laws in these situations has proven problematic at best, please explain how you think this would possibly work?

Changing laws will change minds. As long as it remains legal all the cafeteria Catholics will have an excuse to support genocide. If illegal, the number will drastically be reduced. When prohibition was in force, liquor consumption went down. The same will happen here. Will it eliminate abortion? No. But that is also not a valid argument. Prostitution is illegal, but there are still prostitutes. Murder is illegal but there are still murders. The fact is that like it or not, our laws are based on Judeo-Christian morality. If you try to argue that morality can’t be legislated, I know of a bunch of laws against other intrinsic evils that tell me that argument is wrong as well. Stop making excuse for this evil. The cafeteria is closed.

 

[Christopher68]

Changing laws will change minds. As long as it remains legal all the cafeteria Catholics will have an excuse to support genocide. If illegal, the number will drastically be reduced. When prohibition was in force, liquor consumption went down. The same will happen here. Will it eliminate abortion? No. But that is also not a valid argument. Prostitution is illegal, but there are still prostitutes. Murder is illegal but there are still murders. The fact is that like it or not, our laws are based on Judeo-Christian morality. If you try to argue that morality can’t be legislated, I know of a bunch of laws against other intrinsic evils that tell me that argument is wrong as well. Stop making excuse for this evil. The cafeteria is closed.

Prohibition was an unmitigated disaster. If that’s your reasoning, then you have no understanding of government.

 

[Caramel]

To everyone: BOO!! :bigyikes:

Sorry, couldn’t resist that as it is Halloween in the US!!

Anyway, here is a link to an article by an American obstetrician/gynecologist who has performed over 75,000 abortions (including one on a woman who was carrying his child.) I found his story fascinating.

aboutabortions.com/DrNathan.html.

 

[Supercatholic]

It is not an analogy to compare a person to a person. And really now, **please do not tell me why I am doing something. It’s fine with me if you say you think I am doing something for some reason, but I find it extremely irritating that you maintain this habit of putting words into my mouth and suggesting ulterior motives to my actions. I have already told you that I don’t want to discuss law and I have told you why. Several times. **
So please stop it!!

The early fetus and a born person are obviously different in many respects. So is a toddler and an elderly man on his deathbed. What is your point here? We are all dependent upon others at times in our lives: first it is the mother (and this is because of the way humans reproduce - someone has to have the child inside of them for a certain amount of time. In kangaroos a tiny embryonic kangaroo leaves the mother’s womb and heads for the pouch where it clenches onto a teat to complete its development. Do you consider the tiny kangaroo in the pouch to be a born kangaroo?? ) If humans reproduced like kangaroos would you consider the human embryo that left her mother’s womb and latched onto a teat in her pouch a person?? Well I don’t see much difference between that and a born baby latched onto his mother’s breast while she holds him.

AND AGAIN, I HAVE NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER STATED THAT ALL ABORTIONS SHOULD BE ILLEGAL!! HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO REPEAT THIS?? PUHLEEZE STOP PUTTING WORDS INTO MY MOUTH!!!

What is your obsession with laws about?? Of course it would be better if the law did not have to get involved. I have told you before that I am not debating law.

In fact, WHY DON’T YOU START A THREAD ON LAW AND HOW IT IS RELATED TO THE ABORTION PROBLEM?HUH?? WHY DON’T YOU START ANOTHER THREAD?? WHY DON’T YOU START ANOTHER THREAD?? WHY DON’T YOU START ANOTHER THREAD??

This thread is close to being shut down. I’m not sure of the maximum number of posts allowed but I believe we are reaching that point. So, why don’t we discuss what the thread is supposed to be about - the personhood of the unborn?

You are absolutely right. This thread IS supposed to be about the personhood of the unborn, but every post that proves and confirms that position is met with the opposition sticking their fingers in their ears and saying “La la la la la la la la la la I’m not listening!” along with a what about this and a what about that. My previous post was number 852. I thought for sure that would have settled the argument, but I guess Satan is just too powerful. Here’s one to chew on. “I’m opposed to bank robbery, but I believe it’s the robber’s choice, or maybe if the bank has too much money, or better yet if it’s the bank president then who is anybody to say he/she doesn’t have a right to rob it, after all it’s his/ her bank, isn’t it?”

 

[Caramel]

LOL CW you are funny. I have enjoyed the debate. Never once did this poster approve of abortion.

Yeah, I figured that out awhile ago. I look upon you as a devil’s advocate and sometimes you do a fairly good job of being one. Just sometimes…

 

[CWBetts]

Prohibition was an unmitigated disaster. If that’s your reasoning, then you have no understanding of government.

You have already proven you have no understanding of morality

 

[Worthy5]

=Supercatholic;5887524][Here’s one to chew on. “I’m opposed to bank robbery, but I believe it’s the robber’s choice, or maybe if the bank has too much money, or better yet if it’s the bank president then who is anybody to say he/she doesn’t have a right to rob it, after all it’s his/ her bank, isn’t it?”

Yes! Another analogy. Why cannot you guys just argue on the facts of abortion itself. But okay, the robber analogy…but what a second. . . . I thought we no longer could talk about the law.
[/quote]

 

[Worthy5]

Yeah, I figured that out awhile ago. I look upon you as a devil’s advocate and sometimes you do a fairly good job of being one. Just sometimes…

 

[CWBetts]

Yes! Another analogy. Why cannot you guys just argue on the facts of abortion itself. But okay, the robber analogy…but what a second. . . . I thought we no longer could talk about the law.

We have TRIED to argue the facts of abortion…but you will not listen! A fetus is a person. It is illegal to kill people, therefore abortion should be illegal.

 

[gakroeger]

Again, this thread is supposed to be about the moral aspects of abortion and whether the unborn child is human from conception. This is a Catholic forum and we should be discussing the Catholic teaching on this subject and not the immoral laws that allow for the disobedience to moral law. I can understand the non Catholics that jump on this thread want to divert the discussion to a legal one, however, why are the Catholics on this forum unwilling to face the truth of Catholic teaching. It appears that they push toward the legal aspects in order to avoid what their Church teaches on this matter.

I posted an assumption on my part back in post #846 and asked for any “pro choice” person that disagreed with that assumption to reply, since I haven’t received any replies, I assume this assumption was correct. I repost the assumption below…

gakroeger
*One of the very first obstacles to those who support abortion in at least some circumstances is the non acceptance of the immorality of unwed sex. I believe that most individuals that support abortion in at least some circumstances either believe unwed sex is not wrong or believe that it is acceptable. I would be interested in hearing from any “pro choice” person that does not think this assumption on my part is correct. This is the first point where the “pro choice” philosophy and Church teaching separate ways.

Once an individual accepts that unwed sex is not wrong, they naturally accept that unwed sex is an entitlement and nothing should interfere with that right.

The first thing that interferes with this entitlement is an unwanted pregnancy. This is the first time that the question comes up as to if the unborn child is a human being. If he/she is human it presents a huge moral problem for the parents of this unwanted child. Rationalization now becomes part of the equation, we are basically good people and we must rationalize why we do bad things.

This rationalization knows no boundaries; those who participate in this rationalization will ignore every valid point that challenges their rationalization or come up with meaningless analogies that will satisfy their conscience but not any honest thinking person.*

 

[Caramel]

You are absolutely right. This thread IS supposed to be about the personhood of the unborn, but every post that proves and confirms that position is met with the opposition sticking their fingers in their ears and saying “La la la la la la la la la la I’m not listening!” along with a what about this and a what about that. My previous post was number 852. I thought for sure that would have settled the argument, but I guess Satan is just too powerful. Here’s one to chew on. “I’m opposed to bank robbery, but I believe it’s the robber’s choice, or maybe if the bank has too much money, or better yet if it’s the bank president then who is anybody to say he/she doesn’t have a right to rob it, after all it’s his/ her bank, isn’t it?”

Lol though sometimes I think one poster in particular sticks his fingers in his ears and says, “law law law law law law law law law I’m not listening law law law law!!” He has been somewhat successful in taking the thread off topic with this emphasis on law. AND HE WON’T START ANOTHER THREAD!! It can’t be that hard. I have even done it myself and if I can do it I’m sure anyone could. But he won’t. WHY???

 

[Worthy5]

Lol though sometimes I think one poster in particular sticks his fingers in his ears and says, “law law law law law law law law law I’m not listening law law law law!!” He has been somewhat successful in taking the thread off topic with this emphasis on law. AND HE WON’T START ANOTHER THREAD!! It can’t be that hard. I have even done it myself and if I can do it I’m sure anyone could. But he won’t. WHY???

Come now Caramel, we have been through this before. Did I see moderator after your name?

Gakroeger, the OP, wants to bring in " the immorality of unwed sex" is that on topic enough for you.