Pro Life versus Pro Choice Debate

[Caramel]

You sound quite active, and I applaud your efforts.

My church has an organization that provides support for low-income expectant mothers, who no doubt are overwhelmed by the joys and strains of pending motherhood.

Also, I am not familiar with all of the procedures involved in adoption, but I understand it is quite invasive for those parents trying to adopt. While I realize that some safeguards need to be in place, I have no doubt that much can be done to make adoption easier for couples.

Also perhaps counseling anyone you may know who may be considering abortion as a viable option. I don’t have any ‘real world’ experiences to share in this regard, as to my knowledge there is no one in my family who has an abortion. In fact, I don’t personally know anyone who has told me they have had one.

Thank you, but I know I could do much more than I do. I am quite selfish and materialistic and though I try to fight it I fail an awful lot of the time. I’m considered lower class in this country because I’m living on half the salary I was earning almost 16 years ago (plus a COLA which does not keep up with inflation) yet I know that I am extremely wealthy compared to most of the people in the world.

I applaud your efforts, too.

I’ve heard the same thing about adoption. I would gladly have gone through the procedure before I was injured and I would go through it now but I know they would think I’m too poor financially and I’m widowed and I’m disabled. Three strikes and you’re out!! That’s me. They wouldn’t be happy about my age either. The adoption process needs to be streamlined and they need to allow multi-racial adoptions… From what I’ve heard people want to adopt “special needs” children. There is no doubt in my mind that all children are wanted by somebody.

Like you I don’t know anybody who is considering abortion. Come to think of it I don’t even know anybody who is pregnant. I have two friends who have had abortions but we don’t discuss the topic. Both are too old to become pregnant again anyway.

 

[elts1956]

I disagree.

We can use science to ascertain the level of development of an embryo/fetus or measure the activity in it, but the question of when that level reaches a point where it should be recognized as a “person” is a question that’s likely beyond the purview of science. At that point, we turn to questions like “does the fetus have a ‘soul’?” and what the basis of our beliefs about the fetus are. And the answers to these questions are often rooted in religion.

You need to replace the word “person” with the word “Human”. Do we have the “right” to kill ANY human born, or unborn? All killing, at its very basic meaning, can be termed murder. In Pope John II’s Encyclical Evangelium Vitae, he states circumstances can change culpibility in abortion, in war, in the death penalty. Absence of culpibility does not mean one has not committed a wrong, but may lessen the “weight” of what was done and therefore punishment by God may be less. But God demands Justice, therefore punishment of one form, or another will come for any wrong doing.

 

[elts1956]

I disagree.

We can use science to ascertain the level of development of an embryo/fetus or measure the activity in it, but the question of when that level reaches a point where it should be recognized as a “person” is a question that’s likely beyond the purview of science. At that point, we turn to questions like “does the fetus have a ‘soul’?” and what the basis of our beliefs about the fetus are. And the answers to these questions are often rooted in religion.

I apologize that I haven’t been able to read all the posts but what would you have us do?? I think you are right about changing hearts and minds but what is the best way to do that? How do we convince a woman who is going into a clinic to have an abortion to not take that course of action? Do we stand in front of the abortion clinic and say the rosary? Honestly, when I hear about things like that (and it was done in my town a few weeks ago) I think nonCatholics laugh and say things like, “Oh you know those dumb little Catholics and their rosaries…they always have to walk around making the Sign of the Cross and jingling their rosary beads.” I know that rosaries help but I question making a public display of it.

Do we walk around with pictures of aborted babies on picket signs? I wonder about the little kids who see those pictures and have nightmares.

Do we provide counseling for those who are considering abortion? Now here is something that I see having very positive results. My sister lives in a fairly large city where there is a Planned Parenthood clinic in a strip mall. There is also a counseling center there and over the years it has managed to move closer to the PP clinic and is now right next door. Inside the counseling center are rows and rows of photos of babies that were supposed to be aborted but were saved because their mothers decided to take a chance and checked out the counseling center.

My church has “baby showers” where we all meet and donate new/used clothing and supplies for babies. It is actually fun and therapeutic for me because I can go to Fred Meyer (our only department store) and buy the baby and toddler clothes I wanted to buy for my daughter but never could. They always have nice clothes on sale so it costs very little.

I also donate to the Women’s Center in town. It’s hard to be pregnant and poor and maybe it helps the mother who feels she has to choose between household items and clothes for herself versus items that her newborn or toddler might need.

Oh, and then there is Habitat for Humanity which is, if I am not mistaken, administered at least partially by the Catholic Church here. I’m still waiting for my little HH stuffed bear. Here there is a man who builds birdhouses and donates the money he makes to Habitat for Humanity. And there is a retail store run by a Catholic woman who sells the birdhouses, too. It helps to have a place to live.

Do you have any other suggestions? I really apologize if I have not found them and I know this is somewhat off-topic but I feel that now it’s getting down to actions. We can’t just “talk the talk”, we have to “walk the walk”, too.

Go to 40daysforlife.com/blog/ to see the success of Pro Life advocates during the 40 days for life vigils this Fall. These people said many “little rosaries” some Protestants may make fun of. Over 2000 babies saved through their efforts.

 

[elts1956]

Yesterday I attended a presentation by Scott Klusendorf one of the leading pro life speakers in the Country today. Scott has debated many pro choice people and his speech yesterday was centered on the differences in thought between the opposing sides in this ongoing controversy.

Scott’s explanation as to why this debate continues to rage is because of our society’s indifference to truth. We tend to accept relativism instead of a definite truth. Instead of seeking what is true, we accept some middle ground that allows us to do what we would not do if we knew the truth.

If we truly believed that an embryo was human, we would not permit it to be destroyed.

Scott started his talk by outlining a few of the points his opponents make in their argument for a woman’s right to choose abortion.

1. Pro life people do not have the right to impose their opinion on others
2. Every person has the right to “choose”
3. Abortion is a choice between a woman and her doctor. No one else’s business.
4. Restricting abortion for the poor who cannot afford more children is unfair.
5. Women should have the right to abort their pregnancy at any time though out the nine months of pregnancy.
6. Women should not be required to give birth to an unwanted child that may be subjected to abuse, poverty, or illness.
7. Abortion should be permitted in all cases of rape or incest.

Scott surprises his opponent and his audience by agreeing with these arguments. He agrees with every aspect of their arguments; IF, the fetus is not human.

Scott’s point is that the whole controversy boils down to “is the fetus human?” Virtually no one would use any of these arguments to kill a 2 year old toddler. So, the question really is, “is the fetus human?” If the fetus is not human then all of the pro choice people are correct and we pro life people concede the right of a woman to have an abortion. The reason however, that we continue to oppose abortion is that all scientific evidence supports the fact that the fetus is human. If we were however, to concede for arguments sake that we do not know when the fetus becomes human; does that alone permit us to morally kill the fetus? If there is a doubt should we assume the fetus is human or assume it is not human? To illustrate this point, Scott uses the analogy of hunting with a friend and you see a bush rustling, and you are not sure if it is the deer you have been pursuing or your hunting partner, do shoot hoping it is the deer, or do you not shoot until you know it is a deer?

The pro choice people seem to take the position that since they do not know if the fetus is human or not, It is okay to accept this as an unknown and an excuse to do what is convenient. The fact that they do not know does not mean there is no truth or correct answer. There was a time when people were not sure if slavery was right or if the world was flat or round, but there always was a correct answer, as there is for this question. We should always error on the side of morality.

Some pro choice people like to make this an argument about religion. Religion has nothing to do with if we have the right to kill another human being. The most devout atheist does not believe we have the right to kill another human being. The religion argument is nothing but an attempt to change the subject and not face the real issue.

Some pro choice people like to use the argument that the fetus is not fully human by using the well known argument of the laboratory fire. This argument goes like this; you are in a laboratory that is on fire, in one corner are several frozen embryos, in another corner is a 2 year old toddler, you have time to save only the embryos or the toddler, which do you save? Because most people would choose the toddler, the pro choice argument is that even you pro life people do not believe that the embryos are human. Scott’s rebuttal is that emotional feelings do not change the fact of what is human and what is not. His example was if his 8 year old daughter was in the auditorium with us and a fire broke out and he had the choice of saving his daughter or all of us, we would all be “toast”; this does not prove that none of us were human.

Over the years of dialog I have had with those supporting the right to “choose” I have always been intrigued by the fact that they, almost without exception, have not watched, and refuse to watch any picture, video, or image of an actual abortion. Of course the excuse is always, “I refuse to watch such gory pictures” because they are offensive to me. Interestingly, these same individuals will pay good money to go to a movie which contains more graphic images then the abortion images. So, what is the real reason they do not want to see the images of an abortion; maybe, because they don’t want to subject themselves to the reality of abortion?

This link will take you to a short video of not an actual abortion but the after math; if you have not seen these images, you need to see them at least once, once will be enough. If these images do not convince you that the fetus was human, I don’t think anything will.

Abortion after math Video

It is a poverty to decide that a child must die
so that you may live as you wish.

~Blessed Mother Teresa of Calcutta

What is even more confusing is the thought process of pro choicers if you ask them what the offspring of various other animals will be, such as an eagle, otter, buffalo. Guess what, they know the answer. I think they are definitely in the state of denial when it comes to abortion. Absolutely pitiful.

 

[gakroeger]

gakroeger,

My hunch is that the assumptions you made on post 846 are correct. I suspect that almost all pro-choice people will say - yes - that is how I view the issue. And I suspect that there will no reluctance or hesitation in their answer.

My apologies for contributing to the many ‘legal’ posts that you are trying to mitigate. It just seems that this topic has a natural tendency to gravitate back to the legal aspects of the issue.

Interestingly, still no “pro choice” poster has come forward on my “assumption”. One “pro choice” poster did try to dodge the issue by claiming it is off topic, which only further proves his/her lack of understanding of the issue. Immorality is immorality and those associated with it cannot seem to come to grips with it…

 

[gakroeger]

Pro Life people should take note of the fact that every time a point of truth is made which reinforces the immorality of abortion, those attempting to argue for “pro choice” conveniently side step the issue and pretend the point was never was made.

Reference a few of these posts

#847 the result of a refusal to abort.
#846 rationalization of evil
#775 Testimony of the result of abortion and the coercion to have an abortion
#615 Catechism teaching on abortion

This is a Catholic forum, why do we not see more references and discussion about the Catechism and the various encyclicals by our Pope’s? People sometimes misquote the bible because that is easy to do, however, the Catechism is the bible interpreted for us by theologians that are qualified to interpret the bible we should be using this wonderful gift. We have been allowing the “pro choice” posters to drag this discussion into all directions but the correct one. Immorality is NOT off topic it is the topic……

 

[Caramel]

Pro Life people should take note of the fact that every time a point of truth is made which reinforces the immorality of abortion, those attempting to argue for “pro choice” conveniently side step the issue and pretend the point was never was made.

Reference a few of these posts

#847 the result of a refusal to abort.
#846 rationalization of evil
#775 Testimony of the result of abortion and the coercion to have an abortion
#615 Catechism teaching on abortion

This is a Catholic forum, why do we not see more references and discussion about the Catechism and the various encyclicals by our Pope’s? People sometimes misquote the bible because that is easy to do, however, the Catechism is the bible interpreted for us by theologians that are qualified to interpret the bible we should be using this wonderful gift. We have been allowing the “pro choice” posters to drag this discussion into all directions but the correct one. Immorality is NOT off topic it is the topic……

With all due respect, I am wondering how discussing only what you are suggesting is going to change prochoicers’ thinking and positions on the abortion issue. I don’t think that I as a prolifer was dragged off topic when I began to discuss biology; I believe that biology is central to the prolifers’ position. I believe that we reproduce in the way we do because God wants us to do it that way. Why is it wrong to bring in science?? What about the people who are atheists or agnostics or nonCatholics but are still members of this forum? What do we say to them? What about the members who do not post in this thread but read the posts? Aren’t all these people important enough to us that we do everything in our power to make a difference??

I am extremely confused.

 

[gakroeger]

With all due respect, I am wondering how discussing only what you are suggesting is going to change prochoicers’ thinking and positions on the abortion issue. I don’t think that I as a prolifer was dragged off topic when I began to discuss biology; I believe that biology is central to the prolifers’ position. I believe that we reproduce in the way we do because God wants us to do it that way. Why is it wrong to bring in science?? What about the people who are atheists or agnostics or nonCatholics but are still members of this forum? What do we say to them? What about the members who do not post in this thread but read the posts? Aren’t all these people important enough to us that we do everything in our power to make a difference??

I am extremely confused.

With all due respect right back at you; in my mind, the answer to your question is very simple.

Number 1. The “pro choice” people on this thread use all of the intricate details of biology and law to side step the moral issue. Abortion is basically a moral issue and these discussions are merely providing a path to ignore the morality of abortion. One can (and has) argued endlessly about the legal and biological aspects of abortion and not accomplish a thing in the end. If you doubt the logic of this statement, I suggest you go back and reread all of the biological and legal ramblings on this thread and see if anything was resolved.

Number 2. This is a Catholic forum; I mentioned earlier two distinct groups of “pro choice” people, the political leaders and those arguing for “pro choice” on this thread. This second group can be broken down further to the Catholic “pro choice” people, and the non Catholic “pro choice” people. My main target is the Catholic “pro choice” people. Those who believe that they are in communion with the Church but still consider themselves to be pro choice. There are mountains of evidence within Church teaching that is irrefutable that you cannot be both in communion with the Catholic Church and still be “pro choice” (their label not mine).

This is the debate I would like to see started. However, understandably the people who fit this profile do not want to enter this debate.

This would undoubtedly greatly reduce the number of posts, however, if this approach brings one of these people back into communion with the Church and opens their eyes to the evil of abortion, the effort was worthwhile.

 

[Caramel]

With all due respect right back at you; in my mind, the answer to your question is very simple.

Number 1. The “pro choice” people on this thread use all of the intricate details of biology and law to side step the moral issue. Abortion is basically a moral issue and these discussions are merely providing a path to ignore the morality of abortion. One can (and has) argued endlessly about the legal and biological aspects of abortion and not accomplish a thing in the end. If you doubt the logic of this statement, I suggest you go back and reread all of the biological and legal ramblings on this thread and see if anything was resolved.

Number 2. This is a Catholic forum; I mentioned earlier two distinct groups of “pro choice” people, the political leaders and those arguing for “pro choice” on this thread. This second group can be broken down further to the Catholic “pro choice” people, and the non Catholic “pro choice” people. My main target is the Catholic “pro choice” people. Those who believe that they are in communion with the Church but still consider themselves to be pro choice. There are mountains of evidence within Church teaching that is irrefutable that you cannot be both in communion with the Catholic Church and still be “pro choice” (their label not mine).

This is the debate I would like to see started. However, understandably the people who fit this profile do not want to enter this debate.

This would undoubtedly greatly reduce the number of posts, however, if this approach brings one of these people back into communion with the Church and opens their eyes to the evil of abortion, the effort was worthwhile.

I deeply apologize if I have gone off-topic with discussing biology; I will start another thread on that subject. I thought we were discussing the “personhood” of the unborn child and/or whether she is a “human being.” I know this is a Catholic forum but a lot of members are not Catholic and there just might be someone out there who is pregnant and considering abortion and reading these posts.

I do remember that somewhere you referred to “prochoice Catholics” (which IMHO are mutually exclusive) and I know that you are wanting to emphasize that group. How many posters on this thread are “prochoice Catholics?” I guess we can’t know the number of “prochoice Catholics” that are lurkers - that is probably a higher percentage.

I think that it must be very difficult to keep a thread on one aspect of abortion kept focused on that one aspect, especially when it gets this long. People tend to pop in after 700 or 800 posts and post their opinions - opinions that may not be restricted to the narrow focus of this thread. But when I see a prochoice argument that I feel I can refute I refute it to the best of my ability. And often the best that I can do is to refute it in terms of biology.

I believe I have consistently attempted to steer the thread back to personhood by refusing to discuss law. It doesn’t do any good. I am mocked for my efforts. Not one of the prolife or prochoicers posting on this thread has actually answered my question: “Why don’t you start another thread?” I know it’s a joke to them and I don’t think they have any intention of starting another thread. They won’t tell me why. Maybe you are right and it is a conscious effort to move this thread away from its original intent in order to muddy the issue. I hope you are not right but the fact that they will not start another thread leads me to think that you are.

I want to stop abortion (except in case of risk to the mother’s life.) I am definitely prolife; I’m sure everyone who has posted or read the posts knows this. I have a limited amount of knowledge available to me at this time and although I am really doing my best I am becoming very frustrated and confused.

It’s not just the prochoicers who have taken the thread off-topic; prolifers have also. It’s not just the prochoicers who haven’t listed references. It’s also some prolifers, including me, not because I wanted to but because of time and space constraints.

I hope that people posting in this thread stick to the topic. But I still am somewhat confused about what the topic is, not for lack of you trying to explain it to me but because I cannot comprehend it due to possible brain damage from many, many years of opiate use (for pain, legally.) I know this isn’t your fault - it just makes it harder for me. So again I apologize if I have led the thread off-topic or have responded to posts leading the thread off-topic. I’m doing the best that I can.

(added during edit): I’ve read your post and your reply to my post again and I think what you are stating is finally beginning to make sense. It takes me awhile to understand.

God bless you and bring you peace…

 

[Caramel]

With all due respect right back at you

Is this an attack on me?? I am confused again; if you are stating this sarcastically I don’t understand why. What have I done to offend you?? Did I commit a CAF faux pas?? I used the phrase “with all due respect” in order to show my respect for your position. How else could I have put it? I didn’t want to write “Dear sir or madam as the case may be” or anything like that. Don’t people say “with all due respect” when they are questioning someone but want to be polite??

Have I done something wrong??

 

[elts1956]

I deeply apologize if I have gone off-topic with discussing biology; I will start another thread on that subject. I thought we were discussing the “personhood” of the unborn child and/or whether she is a “human being.” I know this is a Catholic forum but a lot of members are not Catholic and there just might be someone out there who is pregnant and considering abortion and reading these posts.

I do remember that somewhere you referred to “prochoice Catholics” (which IMHO are mutually exclusive) and I know that you are wanting to emphasize that group. How many posters on this thread are “prochoice Catholics?” I guess we can’t know the number of “prochoice Catholics” that are lurkers - that is probably a higher percentage.

I think that it must be very difficult to keep a thread on one aspect of abortion kept focused on that one aspect, especially when it gets this long. People tend to pop in after 700 or 800 posts and post their opinions - opinions that may not be restricted to the narrow focus of this thread. But when I see a prochoice argument that I feel I can refute I refute it to the best of my ability. And often the best that I can do is to refute it in terms of biology.

I believe I have consistently attempted to steer the thread back to personhood by refusing to discuss law. It doesn’t do any good. I am mocked for my efforts. Not one of the prolife or prochoicers posting on this thread has actually answered my question: “Why don’t you start another thread?” I know it’s a joke to them and I don’t think they have any intention of starting another thread. They won’t tell me why. Maybe you are right and it is a conscious effort to move this thread away from its original intent in order to muddy the issue. I hope you are not right but the fact that they will not start another thread leads me to think that you are.

I want to stop abortion (except in case of risk to the mother’s life.) I am definitely prolife; I’m sure everyone who has posted or read the posts knows this. I have a limited amount of knowledge available to me at this time and although I am really doing my best I am becoming very frustrated and confused.

It’s not just the prochoicers who have taken the thread off-topic; prolifers have also. It’s not just the prochoicers who haven’t listed references. It’s also some prolifers, including me, not because I wanted to but because of time and space constraints.

I hope that people posting in this thread stick to the topic. But I still am somewhat confused about what the topic is, not for lack of you trying to explain it to me but because I cannot comprehend it due to possible brain damage from many, many years of opiate use (for pain, legally.) I know this isn’t your fault - it just makes it harder for me. So again I apologize if I have led the thread off-topic or have responded to posts leading the thread off-topic. I’m doing the best that I can.

(added during edit): I’ve read your post and your reply to my post again and I think what you are stating is finally beginning to make sense. It takes me awhile to understand.

God bless you and bring you peace…

Amazing, as I said in a previous post. Everyone knows that an eagle conceives an eagle, a porpoise a porpoise, a whale a whale, but pro choicers/pro aborts just can’t seem to get a handle on the fact that humans conceive humans. The question regarding personhood is another side step by pro choicers. This has been discussed ad naseum. In many countries children and adults do not receive “personhood”. Does this make them LESS human? Personhood and being human do not equate. A human is a human is a human. Society gives personhood, God gives us the gift of conceiving humans.

The easiest way for a pro abort believer to salve their conscience is to dehumanize the human that has been conceived. This has happened and is still happening throughout the world. Although we here in the US give rights to those who are born, we dehumanize that which is not yet born and our conscience is clear. :banghead::banghead:

 

[gakroeger]

Is this an attack on me?? I am confused again; if you are stating this sarcastically I don’t understand why. What have I done to offend you?? Did I commit a CAF faux pas?? I used the phrase “with all due respect” in order to show my respect for your position. How else could I have put it? I didn’t want to write “Dear sir or madam as the case may be” or anything like that. Don’t people say “with all due respect” when they are questioning someone but want to be polite??

Have I done something wrong??

Caramel, you seem to be overly sensitive, no this was not an attack on you. Why would me repeating with all due respect back to you be an attack?

 

[Worthy5]

Amazing, as I said in a previous post. Everyone knows that an eagle conceives an eagle, a porpoise a porpoise, a whale a whale, but pro choicers/pro aborts just can’t seem to get a handle on the fact that humans conceive humans. The question regarding personhood is another side step by pro choicers. This has been discussed ad naseum. In many countries children and adults do not receive “personhood”. Does this make them LESS human? Personhood and being human do not equate. A human is a human is a human. Society gives personhood, God gives us the gift of conceiving humans.

The easiest way for a pro abort believer to salve their conscience is to dehumanize the human that has been conceived. This has happened and is still happening throughout the world. Although we here in the US give rights to those who are born, we dehumanize that which is not yet born and our conscience is clear. :banghead::banghead:

Does the concept of limited govt mean anything to you?

 

[Caramel]

Caramel, you seem to be overly sensitive, no this was not an attack on you. Why would me repeating with all due respect back to you be an attack?

I am overly sensitive and I tend to rely on body language (probably because I’ve been lied to so many times in my life.) Of course I can’t see your body language and so I get confused.

Thanks for clearing that up for me. It’s hard to rely on typed words and emoticons which is all we have. Lots of times I come to the wrong conclusion. That’s why I asked.

I’m sorry and thank you!!

God bless!!

 

[Caramel]

Amazing, as I said in a previous post. Everyone knows that an eagle conceives an eagle, a porpoise a porpoise, a whale a whale, but pro choicers/pro aborts just can’t seem to get a handle on the fact that humans conceive humans. The question regarding personhood is another side step by pro choicers. This has been discussed ad naseum. In many countries children and adults do not receive “personhood”. Does this make them LESS human? Personhood and being human do not equate. A human is a human is a human. Society gives personhood, God gives us the gift of conceiving humans.

The easiest way for a pro abort believer to salve their conscience is to dehumanize the human that has been conceived. This has happened and is still happening throughout the world. Although we here in the US give rights to those who are born, we dehumanize that which is not yet born and our conscience is clear. :banghead::banghead:

If you read the OP and the following posts (which I’m sure would take up a large amount of time) you might understand why I used the word “personhood.” That is basically the topic of this particular thread - not the laws, not attacks on prochoicers, not even biology (which I will start a new thread on as soon as I am able.)

Is the unborn child a person?? Is she a human being?? You might be surprised at the number of people who answer “no” to both questions. You are right when you state that being a person and being a human being are not the same thing.

What I want to point out here is that the idea of the “personhood” is not an attempt by any prochoicer to divert the thread off-topic. It IS the topic of this thread. And it has been discussed and debated for over 900 posts now.

 

[Eric_Hilbert]

With all due respect…I suggest we remain on topic and leave personal remarks out of the conversation.

 

[beafedor]

I think we Pro-lifers should respectfully reply to Caramel’s posts because she describes herself as a “Struggling Roman Catholic” and a Pro-lifer but with some exceptions.
Dear Caramel, I’m posting this out of love, not to attack you but on the contrary, I would like to help. I don’t want you to struggle with our beautiful Catholic Faith because really if I’m alive today it’s because there is a God and a loving Jesus who died for us and gave us His Church where He is alive in the Holy Eucharist.

Caramel stated the following:

-“I have never stated that all abortions should be illegal” (post 874)
-“I want to stop abortion (except in case of risk to the mother’s life.)” (post 922)

In post 909, Caramel is wondering how a couple of people saying a rosary in front of an abortion clinic can make a difference.

I’m going to answer that last question because I have had 2 abortions and I’m a pro-life activist: it can make all the difference in the world. Us women who are desperate and reduced to abort our own child are longing for a sign that somebody cares and that there is hope for us and our baby. 40 days for Life is doing exactly that. A simple presence, with a rosary, a prayer book or a Bible sends the message that these folks care. They care so much about their pregnant sisters and their babies that they are taking one hour off of their busy schedule to pray in front of that horrible place on the poor, dangerous side of town (that’s usually where you find the abortion clinics). We are also doing side walk counseling and yes, babies are saved and women are spared the pain of abortion.

Now, in brotherly love, I would like to ask why you think that abortion is acceptable if a doctor said that the mother’s life is at risk? And why is abortion not acceptable in other cases?
Also, is the Church’s teaching on abortion (opposing abortion in all cases, no exceptions) one of the things you are struggling with?
I would really like to help, please email me if you would rather a private conversation. God Bless you.

 

[elts1956]

Does the concept of limited govt mean anything to you?

Oh yeah. That’s where there are no laws Right? Libiterianism? Shucks.

 

[elts1956]

Does the concept of limited govt mean anything to you?

If you read the OP and the following posts (which I’m sure would take up a large amount of time) you might understand why I used the word “personhood.” That is basically the topic of this particular thread - not the laws, not attacks on prochoicers, not even biology (which I will start a new thread on as soon as I am able.)

Is the unborn child a person?? Is she a human being?? You might be surprised at the number of people who answer “no” to both questions. You are right when you state that being a person and being a human being are not the same thing.

What I want to point out here is that the idea of the “personhood” is not an attempt by any prochoicer to divert the thread off-topic. It IS the topic of this thread. And it has been discussed and debated for over 900 posts now.

Excuse me. If you go back to posting #1 as below: I have had to delete some of Scotts article due to space.

Pro Life versus Pro Choice Debate

Yesterday I attended a presentation by Scott Klusendorf …

Scott’s explanation as to why this debate continues to rage is because of our society’s indifference to truth. We tend to accept relativism instead of a definite truth. , we accept some middle ground that allows us to do what we would not do if we knew the truth.

If we truly believed that an embryo was human, we would not permit it to be destroyed.

Scott started his talk by outlining a few of the points…

1. Pro life people do not have the right to impose their opinion on others
2. Every person has the right to “choose”
3. Abortion is a choice between a woman and her doctor. No one else’s business.
4. Restricting abortion for the poor who cannot afford more children is unfair.
5. Women should have the right to abort their pregnancy at any time though out the nine months of pregnancy.
6. Women should not be required to give birth to an unwanted child that may be subjected to abuse, poverty, or illness.
7. Abortion should be permitted in all cases of rape or incest.

Scott surprises his opponent and his audience by agreeing with these arguments. He agrees with every aspect of their arguments; IF, the fetus is not human

So, the question really is, “is the fetus human?” If the fetus is not human then all of the pro choice people are correct and we pro life people concede the right of a woman to have an abortion. … all scientific evidence supports the fact that the fetus is human. If we were however, to concede for arguments sake that we do not know when the fetus becomes human; does that alone permit us to morally kill the fetus? If there is a doubt should we assume the fetus is human or assume it is not human? To illustrate this point, Scott uses the analogy of hunting with a friend and you see a bush rustling, and you are not sure if it is the deer you have been pursuing or your hunting partner, …

The pro choice people seem to take the position that since they do not know if the fetus is human or not, It is okay to accept this as an unknown and an excuse to do what is convenient. The fact that they do not know does not mean there is no truth or correct answer. There was a time when people were not sure if slavery was right or if the world was flat or round, but there always was a correct answer, as there is for this question. We should always error on the side of morality.

Some pro choice people like to make this an argument about religion. Religion has nothing to do with if we have the right to kill another human being.

Some pro choice people like to use the argument that the fetus is not fully human by using the well known argument of the laboratory fire. This argument goes like this; you are in a laboratory that is on fire, in one corner are several frozen embryos, in another corner is a 2 year old toddler, you have time to save only the embryos or the toddler, which do you save? Because most people would choose the toddler, the pro choice argument is that even you pro life people do not believe that the embryos are human.

Scott’s rebuttal is that emotional feelings do not change the fact of what is human and what is not. His example was if his 8 year old daughter was in the auditorium with us and a fire broke out and he had the choice of saving his daughter or all of us, we would all be “toast”; this does not prove that none of us were human.

Over the years of dialog I have had with those supporting the right to “choose” I have always been intrigued by the fact that they, almost without exception, have not watched, and refuse to watch any picture, video, or image of an actual abortion.

This link will take you to a short video of not an actual abortion but the after math; if you have not seen these images, you need to see them at least once, once will be enough. If these images do not convince you that the fetus was human, I don’t think anything will.

Abortion after math Video

It is a poverty to decide that a child must die
so that you may live as you wish.

~Blessed Mother Teresa of Calcutta

Did you count the number of times the word “human” was used? The term “personhood” was not used because it is ambigious. The term “human” is not.

 

[Caramel]

Excuse me. If you go back to posting #1 as below: I have had to delete some of Scotts article due to space.

Excuse me, but my reply to you stated that if you read the OP and the following posts you might understand why I used the term “personhood.” You spent a fair amount of time picking apart the OP and adding color to the word “human” any time it appeared, but HAVE YOU TAKEN THE TIME TO READ THE POSTS FOLLOWING THE OP??

The debate started with the OP and developed over time to become the debate that we are in now. The word “human” is ambiguous. What do you mean by “human?” Do you mean “human tissue”; do you mean “potential human”; do you mean “human being?” IMO the thread early on began to focus on the “personhood” and the “human beingness” of the unborn. Everyone seemed to agree that the unborn are human - what else could they be? But arguments were brought up that the human tissue in the unborn was a part of the mother’s human tissue. Then some prolifers brought up the possibility that the “human tissue” in the mother was that of a separate, distinct “person.”

THAT is the difference. When you jump into a debate at such a late stage it is difficult to comprehend the way the thread has developed. If I could I would draw you a flow chart, showing the OP and the posts following the OP, indicating the “dead ends” and the continuing discussion.

The debate developed and changed until IMHO it came down to if an unborn human is a person; is a human being.

And yes, “person” and “human being” are not the same. But they are related.