Pro Life versus Pro Choice Debate

[VARC]

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.

.

Interesting analogy. I had another in mind. The staunchest Roman Catholic firefighter runs into a burning fertility clinic. There is a young lady passed out on the floor and a refrigerator full of 100’s of fertilized eggs. Now do you think it would even be a question in that good catholic firefighter’s mind what the moral choice would be? It wouldn’t even enter his mind to grab the eggs and leave the girl. But if what you are asserting, that fertilized eggs are of equal value to other human beings, the choice should be to save the 100s of lives at the expense of the one woman’s. But that is absurd and everybody knows it. Deep down we all know that it isn’t the same thing because if you would even consider letting the woman burn to save the eggs, you’d be considered a lunatic.

 

[CWBetts]

Interesting analogy. I had another in mind. The staunchest Roman Catholic firefighter runs into a burning fertility clinic. There is a young lady passed out on the floor and a refrigerator full of 100’s of fertilized eggs. Now do you think it would even be a question in that good catholic firefighter’s mind what the moral choice would be? It wouldn’t even enter his mind to grab the eggs and leave the girl. But if what you are asserting, that fertilized eggs are of equal value to other human beings, the choice should be to save the 100s of lives at the expense of the one woman’s. But that is absurd and everybody knows it. Deep down we all know that it isn’t the same thing because if you would even consider letting the woman burn to save the eggs, you’d be considered a lunatic.

This is precisely why hypothetical scenarios are stupid. Fertilized embryos are human beings. By your logic, since an adult is more developed than an infant, the adult’s life is worth more. This is the kind of illogic that was used to justify the Holocaust and slavery. The victims were considered somehow less than human. Would you please desist form using such idiotic scenarios in an effort to justify the slaughter of millions of innocents.

 

[Caramel]

beafedor:
I’m sorry but I had to delete your post from my reply because of space constraints.

Thank you for your post. It is kind of weird that since I added the word “struggling” to my religion I have received one PM from someone I didn’t know and now this. I didn’t think anyone cared enough about me to even notice.

I understand that you wrote your post out of love. I smiled when I read it. It’s early here and dark yet your post brought me some much-needed light.

I struggle with the concept of “God.” If I can get that part straightened out in my mind I have no problem at all with being a Catholic. If deep down inside of my heart I really really believe in God it logically follows (at least to me) that Catholicism is correct because it was founded by Jesus (God incarnate) and He said the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. But I struggle with faith. I am a “Doubting Thomas” and I don’t think the Holy Spirit is going to come down to me and put a little fire above my head and give me strength and faith although I know He could if He wanted to, if He exists. I’m working on my faith issues and I do have help.

OK, now onto the question of why I would support an abortion in case of danger to the mother’s life. First of all I don’t like to use the word “acceptable.” Technically I guess it is acceptable but I really hate it. When this happens (and I believe it is extremely rare) it is a horrible situation. I will present a hypothetical situation. Let’s say that a mother has an ectopic pregnancy. The child (which is a human being) is going to die. If the child is not removed the mother will also die. In this case I believe that it is “acceptable” to remove the living human being from the mother because the child will die anyway but there is a good chance the mother will live. It is also a tragedy because a human being is going to die.

In another hypothetical sitaution (which is probably much more rare than ectopic pregnancies) let’s say the mother is seven months pregnant and for some medical reason she will die if the baby progresses to term. No matter how ugly it is to me I would support the mother’s right to choose at this point. If the mother wishes to give her life so that her child will live that is wonderful. It is the most beautiful gift - to give one’s life for another is so unselfish and pure. Didn’t Jesus say that is no greater love than this? But what if the mother is not able to tell her physician that she will gladly offer her life for her little one? What if she already has six other children and a husband? Who decides who will live?? If it’s an emergency situation it gets fuzzy. Maybe it should be the husband’s choice but if he chooses his child who is going to help him raise seven children who need their mother? And what if he isn’t there?? What if there is no husband? What if the husband died or ran off and deserted his children? Who decides then? I believe it is the physician. What a horrible decision to be forced to make!!

In cases other than risk to the mother’s life I am totally against abortion - 100 percent. And in the situations presented above I am devastated by the horror of being forced to kill in order to save. I can’t imagine many situations worse than this.

I’ve personally been in the situation where I was told by my physician that I should abort my child. There was absolutely no doubt in my mind as to what I was going to do. I refused to have the abortion. I am against abortion in cases where the unborn may be seriously “defective” (not my term, but a physician’s term.) I am pro-life and that isn’t just in the case of abortion. I am against capital punishment; I believe in the sanctity of life from conception to death. Maybe I haven’t made that clear. I have had a problem with someone here who consistently accuses me of being against all abortions in all situations even though I have told him over and over that I am not. That’s why I make the statement that I never said I was against all abortions. I’ve said it like about ten times but he doesn’t seem to comprehend. I don’t like it when another poster says that I said something that I never said.

I don’t know what the Church’s teaching is in cases like the hypothetical ones I presented above. I need to find out. But the word “struggling” has nothing to do with the problem of abortion.

I made the remark about praying the rosary in front of abortion clinics as an honest question. I know that if there is a God and if Mary wants us to pray the rosary then rosaries are helpful in all situations. This is hard for me to explain but I will try. Even if God exists and Mary asked us to pray the rosary I still didn’t know what effect this would have on women entering the abortion clinic. I thought it might make them angry. I wondered if it would do more damage than good, not the rosary itself, but perhaps the presence of a group of people standing around praying the rosary. I know that some people think it’s funny and that Catholics are stupid: “Look at those stupid Catholics praying the rosary - they ALWAYS do that in front of abortion clinics, isn’t it funny how stupid they are with their stupid little beads ha ha ha…”

I didn’t know if it did any good. Your post indicates that it does and I breathe a sigh of relief here because of course I hope it does good. I’ve never been to an abortion clinic so I just did not know!! Thank you for clearing that up.

And thank you, thank you, thank you for caring about me so much that you went to a lot of trouble to post to me. I don’t think you can know how good it made me feel!!

 

[Caramel]

Interesting analogy. I had another in mind. The staunchest Roman Catholic firefighter runs into a burning fertility clinic. There is a young lady passed out on the floor and a refrigerator full of 100’s of fertilized eggs. Now do you think it would even be a question in that good catholic firefighter’s mind what the moral choice would be? It wouldn’t even enter his mind to grab the eggs and leave the girl. But if what you are asserting, that fertilized eggs are of equal value to other human beings, the choice should be to save the 100s of lives at the expense of the one woman’s. But that is absurd and everybody knows it. Deep down we all know that it isn’t the same thing because if you would even consider letting the woman burn to save the eggs, you’d be considered a lunatic.

If the firefighter left the woman to die and saved the fertilized ova, what could she possibly do with the hundreds of lives she has saved?? Most of these fertilized ova are going to die evem if they are implanted. We don’t have the technology to artificially help fertilized ova develop into fetuses, much less born babies. Is she supposed to find hundreds of women and have the fertilized ova implanted into them??

What do you expect her to do?? Don’t you think that she, as a Catholic firefighter, might possibly mourn the loss of life?? Do you think she saves the lady and then pats herself on the back and thinks, “What a good firefighter I am!! I saved the lady and let hundreds of fertilized ova die!! Good for me!!”

Of course your hypothetical situation is absurd. But it does not change the fact that every single one of those fertilized ova is a human being; is a person. And it is a tragedy that they died.

 

[gakroeger]

Interesting analogy. I had another in mind. The staunchest Roman Catholic firefighter runs into a burning fertility clinic. There is a young lady passed out on the floor and a refrigerator full of 100’s of fertilized eggs. Now do you think it would even be a question in that good catholic firefighter’s mind what the moral choice would be? It wouldn’t even enter his mind to grab the eggs and leave the girl. But if what you are asserting, that fertilized eggs are of equal value to other human beings, the choice should be to save the 100s of lives at the expense of the one woman’s. But that is absurd and everybody knows it. Deep down we all know that it isn’t the same thing because if you would even consider letting the woman burn to save the eggs, you’d be considered a lunatic.

This argument has already been debunked, you obviously did not read the first post.

 

[Worthy5]

This is precisely why hypothetical scenarios are stupid. Fertilized embryos are human beings. By your logic, since an adult is more developed than an infant, the adult’s life is worth more. This is the kind of illogic that was used to justify the Holocaust and slavery. The victims were considered somehow less than human. Would you please desist form using such idiotic scenarios in an effort to justify the slaughter of millions of innocents.

CW it is good to have you back.

 

[fix]

Interesting analogy. I had another in mind. The staunchest Roman Catholic firefighter runs into a burning fertility clinic. There is a young lady passed out on the floor and a refrigerator full of 100’s of fertilized eggs. Now do you think it would even be a question in that good catholic firefighter’s mind what the moral choice would be? It wouldn’t even enter his mind to grab the eggs and leave the girl. But if what you are asserting, that fertilized eggs are of equal value to other human beings, the choice should be to save the 100s of lives at the expense of the one woman’s. But that is absurd and everybody knows it. Deep down we all know that it isn’t the same thing because if you would even consider letting the woman burn to save the eggs, you’d be considered a lunatic.

Your analogy only proves that people under stress at times have to make snap decisions, it does not prove what is objectively right or wrong.

To be sure, a life is a life no matter who denies it.

If that firefighter saw a conscious 5 year and 5 unconscious 5 year olds, but not dead, would you claim saving the conscious one first was proof the unconscious ones were not really persons or do not deserve to be protected?

 

[beafedor]

Dear Caramel, thank you so much for your answer. I have some Catechism of the Catholic Church quotes for you, (and by the way, I applaud you for your courage to stand up to your doctor and refusing abortion.)

2270 Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person – among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life.

2273 The inalienable right to life of every innocent human individual is a constitutive element of a civil society and its legislation:
‘The inalienable rights of the person must be recognized and respected by civil society and the political authority. These human rights depend neither on single individuals nor on parents; nor do they represent a concession made by society and the state; they belong to human nature and are inherent in the person by virtue of the creative act from which the person took his origin. Among such fundamental rights one should mention in this regard every human being’s right to life and physical integrity from the moment of conception until death.’
‘The moment a positive law deprives a category of human beings of the protection which civil legislation ought to accord them, the state is denying the equality of all before the law. When the state does not place its power at the service of the rights of each citizen, and in particular of the more vulnerable, the very foundations of a state based on law are undermined. . . As a consequence of the respect and protection which must be ensured for the unborn child from the moment of conception, the law must provide appropriate penal sanctions for every deliberate violation of the child’s rights.’

And These are quotes from articles from the American Life League. all.org/

“… Medical operations such as the removal of a cancerous uterus or the removal of an ectopic pregnancy are moral even under Catholic teaching and are not considered abortions. Such operations are justified by the “principle of double effect,” because the death of the child is an unintended effect of an operation independently justified to save the mother’s life. **They do not involve the intentional and willful destruction of an unborn child. **Physicians must make their best effort to save both patients, giving equal care to mother and child. They should never be given a license to intentionally kill either of them. Finally, many abortionists believe the very condition of pregnancy itself is a life-threatening condition. Consequently, a “life of the mother” exception can become a massive statutory loophole through which to drive abortion on demand.”

“When those in the pro-life movement support abortion in exceptional cases, it is destructive to the whole movement. The point is to end ALL abortion. The child is ALWAYS an innocent victim. Once pro-lifers say there can be a “good reason” to kill a preborn baby, the foundation of the pro-life movement crumbles. The argument is lost. Either the preborn child is a person, or the child is not a person. Since the preborn child is a person, there can be no exceptions for abortion.”

I will end with a quote from Dr. Alan Guttmacher, pro-abortionist and former head of Planned Parenthood, in 1967: “Today it is possible for almost any patient to be brought through pregnancy alive, unless she suffers from a fatal illness such as cancer or leukemia, and if so, abortion would be unlikely to prolong, much less save life.”

 

[Worthy5]

Your analogy only proves that people under stress at times have to make snap decisions, it does not prove what is objectively right or wrong.

To be sure, a life is a life no matter who denies it.

The analogy is another illustration of the inherent reality of trade-offs. It not that it shows that one subset of life is less than another but that different means are used and choices made in the attempt to protect each of the different subsets of a life from harm given that each subset is in a different situation than the other.

 

[fix]

The analogy is another illustration of the inherent reality of trade-offs. It not that it shows that one subset of life is less than another but that different means are used and choices made in the attempt to protect each of the different subsets of a life.

The analogy fails because direct abortion is the intentional taking of an innocent life. Trying to save all, as in the fire scene, is simply not the same moral issue.

 

[Worthy5]

The analogy fails because direct abortion is the intentional taking of an innocent life. Trying to save all, as in the fire scene, is simply not the same moral issue.

So why did you modify the fire scene analogy with another analogy of your own. No analogy is exactly like the situation it is compared—that why it is called an analogy. And an analogy does not “fail”—because no analogy provides proof of anything, it is either a “weak” analogy or a “strong” analogy giving support of why one situtation should be seen the same as the other (even though they are different in some respect).

The first analogy was an attempt to show that (in that poster’s view) that the fertilized egg is not of equal value as a born adult by placing both in a fire scene. You indicated that your analogy would not prove " the unconscious ones were not really persons or do not deserve to be protected? "

(Your analogy is not clear–could not the conscious one jump on his back and grab at least one of the unconsious ones?)

Well, the first analogy does not lend support to the first poster’s conclusion that the one subset of life is more valuable than the second subset of life, but rather supports the notion that, given the two in that situation, requires making choices about what type of protection each subset of lives get.

The firefighter grabs the live person, and accepting the eggs are life too, goes back in, only if able, to grab the eggs.(But given the analogy we assume he will not be able to go back in.) Thus, he makes the decision—a trade off–and basing it on the view that the born person deserves the priority of protection in this situation—not because he does not see the eggs as life or not valuable or even less valuable because he would go back in the house if he could. (If your two kids are drowing and you can only save one, does not mean you did not equally value the life of the other one lost)

The early fetus in a women. Well society wants to protect that early fetus but believes criminalizing all abortions under all circumstances strains resources (prosecution and jail space) that are better spent protecting society from violent criminals. (a women who commits an abortion is not the violent threat to others that a gun holding robber is)

Further, expanding govt police power is dangerous because govt police power is one of the main threats to individual liberty, as well as the notion that govt does not get to make all decisions in this society—the women’s duty (individual responsibility) here—the fetus is inside her.

So society uses, other, non coercive means (many more which are needed) to attempt to protect the early fetus by convincing the women to make a better decision. But does criminalize later terms abortions----it just shocks the conscience at this point and the women’s exclusive duty time is up.

Society does not value the early fetus less, nor does not recognize it as life, but rather recognizes the different situations between the early fetus and a born person and employs different means to attempt to protect both. With the early fetus, other considerations come into play as noted above------thus the reality of trade-offs.

The first analogy is good to show how trade-offs happen given the reality of the situation. Though, in the analogy, no effort is made to protect the eggs where efforts are employed to help the early fetus (not enough though). Well, we could say the the building meeting the fire code would be some effort for the fertilizeed eggs.

You can disagree and say the means should be the same for both the early fetus and the born adult despite resources and concerns of govt power-----fine your opinion.

But you cannot ignore the trade-offs and you cannot assert that another position that supports different means to protect both subsets of life, justified by the different conditions, necessarily means that position sees the one life less than the other life---- but again recognizes the trade-offs that reality creates given limited resources and other values that need promotion. The fire analogy helps because it starkly shows a trade-off in action.

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

Father John Corapi refers to the substitution of the word CHOICE for ABORTION as ‘verbal engineering.’

Can’t say it much better than that.

 

[gakroeger]

You are kicking a dead horse…

This dumb laboratory fire argument was explained in the first post. The argument even though proven to be a false argument will not die, because the pro choice movement has no choice but to keep bringing up old arguments hoping it will fool somebody.

Reposted from first post on this thread

gakroeger

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.

 

[Caramel]

Father John Corapi refers to the substitution of the word CHOICE for ABORTION as ‘verbal engineering.’

Can’t say it much better than that.

Who is Father John Corapi and what does this have to do with the personhood or human beingness of an unborn human??

 

[CWBetts]

Who is Father John Corapi and what does this have to do with the personhood or human beingness of an unborn human??

Fr. Corapi is one of the most popular Catholic speakers today. He is orthodox, and a bit to conservative fore those who like to hang out in the cafeteria.

 

[Caramel]

Excuse me.

Did you count the number of times the word “human” was used?

No I did not 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.

You are Scott Klusendorf?? You must be because you are privy to why the word “personhood” was not used. If you aren’t Scott Klusendorf I don’t think you know what his reasons for not using “personhood” were.

IMO personhood is not determined by society, although you say it is. Fine. That is your opinion. We do not agree. But I have to ask you the following questions: Do you think that blacks in the USA were not persons when they were slaves but somehow suddenly became persons when they were emancipated?? Do you believe that in countries where abortion is legal the unborn are not persons but “develop” personhood when they are born while in countries where abortion is illegal the unborn are persons from conception on?

Society does not determine personhood. Being a member of the species homo sapiens is what determines personhood. Society determines how persons are treated.

I’m sorry but I find your post to be extremely condescending both to me and to the other poster you replied to. If you had taken the time you spent coloring the word “human” and instead read some of the other posts you might have understood what I was stating.

 

[Worthy5]

Fr. Corapi is one of the most popular Catholic speakers today. He is orthodox, and a bit to conservative fore those who like to hang out in the cafeteria.

CW, there is some coffee left would you like some? LOL :compcoff:

 

[fix]

So why did you modify the fire scene analogy with another analogy of your own.

To show that the choice under duress is no proof a person is not a person. The analogy has nothing to do with the choice to kill.

No analogy is exactly like the situation it is compared—that why it is called an analogy. And an analogy does not “fail”—because no analogy provides proof of anything, it is either a “weak” analogy or a “strong” analogy giving support of why one situtation should be seen the same as the other (even though they are different in some respect).

No, it is not a weak analogy it is one that does not apply.

The first analogy was an attempt to show that (in that poster’s view) that the fertilized egg is not of equal value as a born adult by placing both in a fire scene. You indicated that your analogy would not prove " the unconscious ones were not really persons or do not deserve to be protected? "

It does not prove unequal value.

(Your analogy is not clear–could not the conscious one jump on his back and grab at least one of the unconsious ones?)

That would depend on certain factors, but none of that proves the unconscious ones are less human or derserving of being intentionally killed.

Well, the first analogy does not lend support to the first poster’s conclusion that the one subset of life is more valuable than the second subset of life, but rather supports the notion that, given the two in that situation, requires making choices about what type of protection each subset of lives get.

Yes, and we can apply moral principles to that situation but it has nothing to do with intending to end a life.

(If your two kids are drowing and you can only save one, does not mean you did not equally value the life of the other one lost)

That is the point. It is no proof we hold one person of less value.

The early fetus in a women. Well society wants to protect that early fetus but believes criminalizing all abortions under all circumstances strains resources (prosecution and jail space) that are better spent protecting society from violent criminals. (a women who commits an abortion is not the violent threat to others that a gun holding robber is)

Tell that to the baby getting aborted.

Further, expanding govt police power is dangerous because govt police power is one of the main threats to individual liberty, as well as the notion that govt does not get to make all decisions in this society—the women’s duty (individual responsibility) here—the fetus is inside her.

You are saying the baby is not deserving of legal protection like the rest of us.

So society uses, other, non coercive means (many more which are needed) to attempt to protect the early fetus by convincing the women to make a better decision. But does criminalize later terms abortions----it just shocks the conscience at this point and the women’s exclusive duty time is up.

Basically, it is an arbitrary position. That is why “pro choice” is a type of lie.

Society does not value the early fetus less, nor does not recognize it as life, but rather recognizes the different situations between the early fetus and a born person and employs different means to attempt to protect both. With the early fetus, other considerations come into play as noted above------thus the reality of trade-offs.

You are describing the tyranny of relativism. The baby gets no legal protection, like the rest of us do.

The first analogy is good to show how trade-offs happen given the reality of the situation. Though, in the analogy, no effort is made to protect the eggs where efforts are employed to help the early fetus (not enough though). Well, we could say the the building meeting the fire code would be some effort for the fertilizeed eggs.

You can disagree and say the means should be the same for both the early fetus and the born adult despite resources and concerns of govt power-----fine your opinion.

But you cannot ignore the trade-offs and you cannot assert that another position that supports different means to protect both subsets of life, justified by the different conditions, necessarily means that position sees the one life less than the other life---- but again recognizes the trade-offs that reality creates given limited resources and other values that need promotion. The fire analogy helps because it starkly shows a trade-off in action.

The right to life is an absolute right and should be protected. You are protected. Too bad you cannot see that others derserve such protection.

 

[fix]

I will offer, again:

The real purpose of civil law is to guarantee an ordered social coexistence in true justice, so that all may “lead a quiet and peaceable life, godly and respectful in every way” (1 Tim 2:2). Precisely for this reason, civil law must ensure that all members of society enjoy respect for certain fundamental rights which innately belong to the person, rights which every positive law must recognize and guarantee. First and fundamental among these is the inviolable right to life of every innocent human being. While public authority can sometimes choose not to put a stop to something which-were it prohibited- would cause more serious harm, 92 it can never presume to legitimize as a right of individuals-even if they are the majority of the members of society-an offence against other persons caused by the disregard of so fundamental a right as the right to life. The legal toleration of abortion or of euthanasia can in no way claim to be based on respect for the conscience of others, precisely because society has the right and the duty to protect itself against the abuses which can occur in the name of conscience and under the pretext of freedom. 93

 

[Caramel]

Fr. Corapi is one of the most popular Catholic speakers today. He is orthodox, and a bit to conservative fore those who like to hang out in the cafeteria.

Thank you for the info. I will google him (lol I am sorry but that phrase “google him” just made me laugh - it somehow sounds (looks) perverse. I apologize. Really. :blushing:

And as I am neither conservative nor liberal and don’t hang out in the cafeteria I will be glad to listen (look at) what he has to say (or write.)

I’m done.

ha ha ha…I am really very sorry. I know this is a very serious matter and maybe I am finding humor in it because it helps relieve the tension I feel.

I’ll go google him right now…