Pro Life versus Pro Choice Debate

[fix]

The term " legalized killing" is a loaded term. It sounds like govt is supporting such activity when in reality govt can and should be doing much more to prevent abortion decisions from being made. No funding for abortion should take place.

And it is not my position, but rather a position that can be argued for----like a lawyer argues in court. What is the purpose of this forum if not to make different types of arguments----that is how the best ideas are eventually found.

And Again, you seems to think the only thing govt must do is criminalize all abortions and place women in jail. Govt can provide a measure of protection for the fetus in other ways.

No, you seem to think a just law protecting the most vulnerable is contrary to some idea of limited government. You cannot dismiss the law as if it does not matter or is of liitle importance to such an issue.

I understand your argument. I reject it. The Church rejects it. Common sense rejects it.

Laws can attempt to protect the life without putting women in jail.

Laws cannot protect life if they allow abortion.

Some measures exits but not nearly enough, abortion needs to be heavily regulated which means the early fetus is not being " denied" legal protection----just not exactly the protection you want.

How is the baby protected if he/she may be killed and the state allows it.

No the costs are not more important, but they are a reality that has to be dealt with. .

The reality is a child can be killed and the state allows it.

Again, you use the means to protect the life that you prefer as indicating the measure of the value of the life. Would not the measure of the value better be found in terms of what methods actually help reduce the number of abortions? You assume criminalizing all abortions is the best means to prevent them----that is subject to debate.

Again, it is not the sole means but a fundamental one. The notion one can be against abortion, yet support legalized abortion lacks credibility.

And the policy of limited govt is not " my" ideology. It is called one of the foundations of the American legal system.

Limited government has nothing to do with allowing the killing of children.

My friend your position is reasonable. But people who have different views on how to deal with this problem have reasonable positions as well, even if you disagree with it.

No, it is not reasonable. Not unlike the pols who want it “safe, leagl, and rare”. Not really reasonable, especially not reasonable to the child.

 

[CWBetts]

No, you seem to think a just law protecting the most vulnerable is contrary to some idea of limited government. You cannot dismiss the law as if it does not matter or is of liitle importance to such an issue.

I understand your argument. I reject it. The Church rejects it. Common sense rejects it.

Laws cannot protect life if they allow abortion.

How is the baby protected if he/she may be killed and the state allows it.

The reality is a child can be killed and the state allows it.

Again, it is not the sole means but a fundamental one. The notion one can be against abortion, yet support legalized abortion lacks credibility.

Limited government has nothing to do with allowing the killing of children.

No, it is not reasonable. Not unlike the pols who want it “safe, leagl, and rare”. Not really reasonable, especially not reasonable to the child.

Give it up, Fix. You can’t talk sense to a Libertarian.

 

[Worthy5]

QUOTE=fix;5893428]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.

So why did you not just say that then using another analogy, and especially one that does not have the same clear choice as the first analogy.

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

Then it is a weak analogy.

It does not prove unequal value.

Only the first poster tried to indicate such.

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

This poster never said it did—those certain factors are your responsibility to clear up since you made the analogy

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

Your point on " intentional killing" is noted. But the first analogy was that poster’s attempt to say the eggs are less valuable then an adult. This poster stated that that analogy is not about the inherent value of one over the other in generally ( or that the egg has not value)but only specifically to that situation of the fire and the trade-off that situation required. The fact that abortion is intentional killing does not eliminate the trade-offs noted in the prior post.

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

This poster never said otherwise (are you reading what is said)

Tell that to the baby getting aborted.

That is your position, you want to have the govt use all of its police power to protect that fetus regardless of the costs in resources or to other values----------as indicated you can have that position but other positions can reasonable disagree with you.

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

I am not saying anything my friend. A strand of the Pro-choice position says that the fetus gets a different type of protection given it is in a different situation than " the rest of us". Govt makes classification all of the time to carry out multiple policy goals in any particular situation-----without that balancing then no policy, including the protection of life, would be secure in the long run.

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

No, it a balancing of competiting policies to insure all policies are protected—that is what makes a relatively free society with a free market economic system, with law and order, possible.

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

No, relativism refers to morality—there is no argument abortion is wrong. But as said numerous time, the law has to do more than just protect morality but also protect individual decision making and limit govt power. And no, the fetus does get protection just not as much as you or I want at this time.

The right to life is an absolute right and should be protected.

You can have that position----but you must recognize the trade-offs involved and respect that reasonable people can differ on your opinion on what govt should do in each circumstance to fulfill its obligation.

You are protected. Too bad you cannot see that others derserve such protection.

The fetus does deserve protection, and should have more of it—but not every position has to agree with your level of protection and its up for debate whether your proposed protection is the best to prevent abortion anyway.

 

[fix]

Give it up, Fix. You can’t talk sense to a Libertarian.

I know. I did it for any lurkers.

There is no one particular argument that going to win people over. Only the HS can do that. We can hope some of the Catholic reasoning will make an impression and perhaps will “click” with some at some time in the future.

 

[fix]

So why did you not just say that then using another analogy, and especially one that does not have the same clear choice as the first analogy.

Then it is a weak analogy.

Only the first poster tried to indicate such.

This poster never said it did—those certain factors are your responsibility to clear up since you made the analogy

Your point on " intentional killing" is noted. But the first analogy was that poster’s attempt to say the eggs are less valuable then an adult. This poster stated that that analogy is not about the inherent value of one over the other in generally ( or that the egg has not value)but only specifically to that situation of the fire and the trade-off that situation required. The fact that abortion is intentional killing does not eliminate the trade-offs noted in the prior post.

This poster never said otherwise (are you reading what is said)

That is your position, you want to have the govt use all of its police power to protect that fetus regardless of the costs in resources or to other values----------as indicated you can have that position but other positions can reasonable disagree with you.

I am not saying anything my friend. A strand of the Pro-choice position says that the fetus gets a different type of protection given it is in a different situation than " the rest of us". Govt makes classification all of the time to carry out multiple policy goals in any particular situation-----without that balancing then no policy, including the protection of life, would be secure in the long run.

No, it a balancing of competiting policies to insure all policies are protected—that is what makes a relatively free society with a free market economic system, with law and order, possible.

No, relativism refers to morality—there is no argument abortion is wrong. But as said numerous time, the law has to do more than just protect morality but also protect individual decision making and limit govt power. And no, the fetus does get protection just not as much as you or I want at this time.

You can have that position----but you must recognize the trade-offs involved and respect that reasonable people can differ on your opinion on what govt should do in each circumstance to fulfill its obligation.

The fetus does deserve protection, and should have more of it—but not every position has to agree with your level of protection and its up for debate whether your proposed protection is the best to prevent abortion anyway.

No matter how you say it your position is that a less developed person deserves less legal protection.

 

[Worthy5]

No matter how you say it your position is that a less developed person deserves less legal protection.

But not without justification. And moreover, not necessarily less effective means at actually stopping abortions-----is that not what really matters?

If a women violates God’s law, despite what society has tried to do to help her, then God can arrest her. This land is think with laws, man’s laws, not God’s.

 

[Worthy5]

Give it up, Fix. You can’t talk sense to a Libertarian.

Hey guys, it was a good debate though. Thanks for the discussion.

 

[CWBetts]

But not without justification. And moreover, not necessarily less effective means at actually stopping abortions-----is that not what really matters?

If a women violates God’s law, despite what society has tried to do to help her, then God can arrest her. This land is think with laws, man’s laws, not God’s.

But mans laws should, and in numerous cases do, reflect God’s laws. But we have been over this before. The libertarian mindset is irreconcilable with faithful Catholicism. Libertarians reject all forms of Social Justice and morality in the legal code. This much is sure: Jesus was no Libertarian.

 

[Worthy5]

But mans laws should, and in numerous cases do, reflect God’s laws. But we have been over this before. The libertarian mindset is irreconcilable with faithful Catholicism. Libertarians reject all forms of Social Justice and morality in the legal code. This much is sure: Jesus was no Libertarian.

Yes and the law should reflect God’s laws----but not exclusively or completely. To do so would mean we live in a theocracy–which we do not. We live in a democratic-republic that respects individual liberty despite some of the costs that it incurs.

Libertarianism—that is a view over a wide variety of issues, not just one issue like abortion.

And how do you know what Jesus was? If anything He was for compassion, and if more was shown to women in difficult situations then perhaps better decisions not to abort would occur.

 

[CWBetts]

Yes and the law should reflect God’s laws----but not exclusively or completely. To do so would mean we live in a theocracy–which we do not. We live in a democratic-republic that respects individual liberty despite some of the costs that it incurs.

Libertarianism—that is a view over a wide variety of issues, not just one issue like abortion.

And how do you know what Jesus was? If anything He was for compassion, and if more was shown to women in difficult situations then perhaps better decisions not to abort would occur.

Jesus was not an amoral capitalist, which is libertarianism in a nutshell.

 

[Christopher68]

Jesus was not an amoral capitalist, which is libertarianism in a nutshell.

None of the libertarians I know fit your nutshell description.

 

[Caramel]

Hey guys, it was a good debate though. Thanks for the discussion.

Do you think you’re done? I’m going to start a new thread on abortion, based on biology. So there!!

 

[gakroeger]

Lets keep it on topic, Okay?

 

[CWBetts]

None of the libertarians I know fit your nutshell description.

Then you aren;t being honest with yourself. Libertarian = morally permissive + lassaiz-faire capitilst

 

[Worthy5]

Then you aren;t being honest with yourself. Libertarian = morally permissive + lassaiz-faire capitilst

CW give Dr Hahn a hello for me.:tiphat: I like some of his material.

 

[elts1956]

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.

I thought we were trying to stick to the TOPIC the OP posted. Mea Culpa.

 

[elts1956]

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.

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.

Please read the original post by the OP. This argument has been used many times.

 

[VARC]

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.

I am not trying to justify anything. I merely made the anaolgy (in response to the first anaolgy given) to hightlight the absurd logical conclusion of believing that fertilized eggs should bring about if that ideology was applied. I also wanted to highlight the fact, that even though folks oftentimes say they believe that a fertilzed egg=a human being, they wouldn’t even think to apply such an ideology in the real world. The position is too simplistic and ignores reality.

The fact that you reacted with such anger shows that critical thinking is something that you dislike

 

[gakroeger]

I am not trying to justify anything. I merely made the anaolgy (in response to the first anaolgy given) to hightlight the absurd logical conclusion of believing that fertilized eggs should bring about if that ideology was applied. I also wanted to highlight the fact, that even though folks oftentimes say they believe that a fertilzed egg=a human being, they wouldn’t even think to apply such an ideology in the real world. The position is too simplistic and ignores reality.

The fact that you reacted with such anger shows that critical thinking is something that you dislike

If this is what you were doing, it didn’t work.

 

[VARC]

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??

Stick em in the refrigerator. Some will be worthless but some would be viable.

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??

Well, then why do pro-life people oppose stem cell research? They use the discarded ovam from fertility clinics.

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!!”

You tell me. You seem like a loyal catholic. Would you save the eggs so that they could be refrigerated and possibly transferred? Are they of more value than the single woman?

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.

The only thing that is absurd is the oversimplication many pro-life persons have made of the issue. The analogy highlghts the problem with your thinking that is why, instead of really pondering it, you just lash out at the guy who made the point.