Pro Life versus Pro Choice Debate

[fix]

That is your opinion.

No one said both should not be used for the early fetus–you just are not getting the type of legal protection you want—which has yet to be shown would actually mean less abortions.

Yes it does, to balance the competing policies society must promote in order to flourish, one of which is using govt police power to protect life.

.

The early fetus is getting protection (though it should get more) just not the type you want----which again has not been shown to be the most effective anyway nor that it would not create an unacceptable costs to other policy goals and in fact such use of govt power you want actually could threaten the very value you claim to stand for.

Again, you deny this one class of persons the same protection you and I have. Would the baby think your “justification” was good enough?

 

[fix]

If “pro-choice” does not mean “pro-abortion” it means “completely apathetic to the terror of abortion”

His position is one may be “pro choice” and then claim they do not approve of abortion, yet if some person wants to commit that act he would allow it to happen. That places such an act on the same level as choosing some innocuous item.

If this is a human, and it certainly is, then claiming the law should allow it cannot be defended. Then, to claim some other means will compensate for such an unjust law defies common sense, common experience, and the basic meaning of having a law in a civilized society in the first place.

 

[Caramel]

It is not God this poster is worried about. This poster wants govt protection as well as you do, just in different measures given other values that must also be protected. You can disagree, but what this poster’s statements have hopefully brought to light is that " pro-choice" does not necessarily mean pro-abortion but rather a recognition about the proper role govt power should play in a free country as well as opening up the debate that what at first looks like the best means to prevent abortions—may not really be the best means.

Again, I ask you : What would YOU do to stop abortions??

 

[Caramel]

I kind of like George W. Bush’s definition. He said that we know that a heartbeat and brainwave activity are signs of life. When these signs are gone, a person has died. Inversely, when these signs appear we now have a human life. After they disappear, you have a lifeless corpse. Before they appear, you have a lifeless embryo.

I thought this was a good explantion. It avoids the absudity of killing a kicking baby in the womb and the need to rescue a tray of cells. Via media.

OK, you kind of like George W. Bush’s definition. But just kind of. What is your actual definition??

 

[Caramel]

Wow. you’re pretty nasty. Intelligent conversation just burns you up doesn’t it? I don’t mind having a civil conversation but I would ask that you be respectful.

I kind of like George W. Bush’s definition. He said that we know that a heartbeat and brainwave activity are signs of life. When these signs are gone, a person has died. Inversely, when these signs appear we now have a human life. After they disappear, you have a lifeless corpse. Before they appear, you have a lifeless embryo.

I thought this was a good explantion. It avoids the absudity of killing a kicking baby in the womb and the need to rescue a tray of cells. Via media.

Is George W. Bush a scientist?? Is he an embryologist?? Do you actually believe that an embryo with cells that are dividing and multiplying rapidly and constantly is lifeless? IMHO that seems to be somewhat bizarre thinking.

A cell that does not divide or is not fertilized is either dead or dying. But there was certainly life there at one time.

When do you believe LIFE occurs or is bestowed upon the human being? Does it happen at birth?? Science tells us no for already all the organs, including the heart with decipherable pulse and the brain with decipherable brain waves are functioning. So when does the embryo become alive?? I get the feeling that you think it is dead and lifeless until the pulse and brain waves can be measured by our primitive medical equipment. Do you really believe this?? How can a “lifeless” embryo suddenly become alive?? How do the heart and brain develop in a “lifeless” embryo?? How does a dead embryo become alive and how did it die in the first place??

I am very confused by your concept. Could you please explain when, exactly when a zygote/embryo/fetus becomes “alive?”

 

[Caramel]

LOL. Go bomb a clinic if you feel that way. In a civil society, respectful discussion is what is appropriate in this situation. If you are feel that a more militant approach is necessary, then go why are you here instead of murdering abortion doctors?

You don’t know what PRO-LIFE is, do you?? You really do not know!! Prolifers do not bomb clinics and murder doctors!! Is that how you see us?? If someone shows that sort of behavior he/she is not pro-life.

Prolifers believe in the sanctity of all human life. Prolifers abhor clinic bombings and murders. There are lunatics on the fringe edge of every group - people who call themselves prolife but really are not.

 

[elts1956]

I think I am not stating it clearly if you are confused. Abortion is not a Catholic issue; well in a way it is just because the word “catholic” means “universal.” What I was actually referring to (although I didn’t enter it in my haste) was that it had been pointed out to me that in the Catholic Catechism it states (paraphrasing here) that removal of a fertilized ovum during treatment for an ectopic pregnancy is not considered an “abortion” by the Catholic Church. I agree with the reasoning here but in my mind it is still an abortion because an unborn life is snuffed out by the surgeon; that is my scientific bias.

It has been also pointed out to me (with great kindness) that to state that one is against abortion except in cases of risk to the mother’s life weakens the prolife statement. Of course I don’t want to weaken the prolife statement or movement in any way!! The thought horrifies me. But I was trained as a scientist: a biologist and a research psychologist, and these fields are what I know. I think I’ve mentioned a few times that I came to the conclusion that a new human being is formed when the ovum is fertilized as a **scientist
**, not as a Catholic. I was agnostic at the time, yet I still discovered the truth. Now as a practicing but struggling Catholic I am seeing more parts of the truth (oh I hope that I am making this clear - I get a bit loopy at times, my apologies)

It’s like** TRUTH** is a multi-faceted perfect diamond. We can look at it and see its beauty but different people hold it up to the light in different positions and see facets that other people don’t see. It is still a diamond and we lucky ones who have discovered it all see the beauty but we look at it in different ways. A scientist may look at TRUTH in one way while a Christian may look at it in another way. They are still both looking at a beautiful perfect diamond and they both see the beauty in it, like we both see the beauty in TRUTH yet may discover that beauty in differing ways. I am now seeing more facets - facets that I didn’t notice before. One of these is morality.

I think when you refer to “moral choice” you are actually making a reference to moral relativism. And I agree with you. Moral relativism doesn’t work. Truth is truth is truth. It is there whether or not we ever discover it.

I have trouble getting what is in my brain keyed into the computer. I KNOW what I want to say but I have trouble saying it. I agree with you. I didn’t mean to imply that it is just a Catholic issue; I was trying to explain the “grayness” that exists in the entire debate of abortion; or perhaps the gray areas in my own thinking.

The TRUTH is that ABORTION IS WRONG. Now wait and see if I receive any posts telling me why it isn’t wrong in this case or in that case and why unborn babies are not people, and what about spontaneous abortions because they are still abortions but you say they are wrong but how can that be, etc., etc., etc…

I love this!! May I use this in other debates??

Hi Caramel, I don’t remember where I got the quote, but I copied it, so I don’t see any reason for you not to use it.

When I said abortion is not only a Catholic issue, but a moral issue for everyone including atheists, agnostics etc. I was assuming many people see the word Catholic and immediately think Catholic Church. Many don’t know that Catholic means universal.

I don’t mean to dis you, really I don’t, but when it comes to abortion, there are no grey areas in my mind. I think one’s mind has to be very clear in order to put abortion in the black and white category. One must peel off all the layers of dialogue, what ifs and supposes and get, right down to the bottom line to take an absolute anti abortion stand.

Astounding that you could come to the conclusions you did about life while an agnostic. Good for you.

 

[Worthy5]

Caramel, you are confusing religious belief with moral certainty if you think abortion is only a Catholic issue. Abortion did not become legal in the US until 1973. I don’t know when it became legal in other countries. Always, always, before the secular law here in the US said abortion was illegal. Always, always before, Christians said abortion is morally wrong and the unborn must be protected. If they have their heads on straight, they still say this. Just because much of “society” believes it is okay, or they shouldn’t force their “beliefs” on others does not make abortion a moral choice.

This is what the Court in Roe noted about the history of abortion in the U.S.

" It perhaps is not generally appreciated that the restrictive criminal abortion laws in effect in a majority of States today are of relatively recent vintage. Those laws, generally proscribing abortion or its attempt at any time during pregnancy except when necessary to preserve the pregnant woman’s life, are not of ancient or even of common-law origin. Instead, they derive from statutory changes effected, for the most part, in the latter half of the 19th century. "

 

[Worthy5]

=CWBettsIf “pro-choice” does not mean “pro-abortion” it means "completely apathetic to the terror of abortion

Again, you assume that your desire the criminalize all abortion is necessarily the best means to stop abortion—that is in debate.

 

[Worthy5]

QUOTE=fix;5897831]Again, you deny this one class of persons the same protection you and I have. Would the baby think your “justification” was good enough?

You are not saying anything new. Your trying to “win” the argument by focusing on the subjective reality of the fetus----an emotional pull. But this shows why the concept of justice is subjective. What is justice to an individual is litigated in the courts everyday.

The point is not to " win" the argument. You can have your position–it is reasonable to hold. But you have to except its policy trade-offs and should at least acknowledge that certain aspects of the " pro-choice" position can be reasonable held by others. Someone can be against abortion just not in favor of yours means on how best to prevent it.

 

[Caramel]

This is what the Court in Roe noted about the history of abortion in the U.S.

 

[CWBetts]

Worthy5:
You are not saying anything new. Your trying to “win” the argument by focusing on the subjective reality of the fetus----an emotional pull. But this shows why the concept of justice is subjective. What is justice to an individual is litigated in the courts everyday.

The point is not to " win" the argument. You can have your position–it is reasonable to hold. But you have to except its policy trade-offs and should at least acknowledge that certain aspects of the " pro-choice" position can be reasonable held by others. Someone can be against abortion just not in favor of yours means on how best to prevent it.

There are no reasonable “pro-death” positions. I refuse to call it “pro-choice” because the infant never has a choice, and the mothers are often coerced by employers, family, etc. Either you think that the killing of an infant is acceptible or you do not. If not, then you would be in favor of legislation to ban the practice. If you are not in favor of abortion, but are not in favor of seeing the practice ended by legislation, then you are merely apathetic towards the rights of others. That is really how you can tell which is the right side. Those opposed to abortion are concerned about the rights of others, the unborn. Those opposed to making the barbarity illegal are concerned chiefly with themselves and how it impacts them.

 

[Worthy5]

=CWBetts;5898926].

There are no reasonable “pro-death” positions. I refuse to call it “pro-choice” because the infant never has a choice, and the mothers are often coerced by employers, family, etc. Either you think that the killing of an infant is acceptible or you do not. If not, then you would be in favor of legislation to ban the practice. If you are not in favor of abortion, but are not in favor of seeing the practice ended by legislation, then you are merely apathetic towards the rights of others. That is really how you can tell which is the right side. Those opposed to abortion are concerned about the rights of others, the unborn. Those opposed to making the barbarity illegal are concerned chiefly with themselves and how it impacts them.

What is of concern is your inability to see that the police power of govt is exactly the type of power grab that threatens, in the long run, the very thing, individual rights, that you claim to be championing.

Moreover, outlawing all abortion under all circumstances is not going to lead to the fetus having a " choice" because ultimately the women makes that choice for the fetus whether you like it or not, or whether the law allows it or not. God did not entrust you or the govt with the obligation to protect that life. You might want to resign as the general manager of the universe.

Anyway, it has been fun CW but we are being ball hogs here. Next time I am up that way I will buy you one. Peace.

 

[CWBetts]

What is of concern is your inability to see that the police power of govt is exactly the type of power grab that threatens, in the long run, the very thing, individual rights, that you claim to be championing.

Moreover, outlawing all abortion under all circumstances is not going to lead to the fetus having a " choice" because ultimately the women makes that choice for the fetus whether you like it or not, or whether the law allows it or not. God did not entrust you or the govt with the obligation to protect that life. You might want to resign as the general manager of the universe.

You are wrong. We are all called to protect all life. What part of “intrinsic evil” do you not understand? All that is required for evil to flourish is for the good to do nothing. If you are content to stand by and watch a genocide and do nothing, I feel sorry for you. You are the same kind of person that stood by and watched as the Holocaust happened. You are the same kind of person that figured that if someone else wanted to own slaves, then that was their business. You are the same person who accepted Jim Crow, bucause that is the way things were done. Agin it is clear whose side you are on: Yours. And to the devil with anyone else.

 

[Worthy5]

You are wrong. We are all called to protect all life. What part of “intrinsic evil” do you not understand? All that is required for evil to flourish is for the good to do nothing. If you are content to stand by and watch a genocide and do nothing, I feel sorry for you. You are the same kind of person that stood by and watched as the Holocaust happened. You are the same kind of person that figured that if someone else wanted to own slaves, then that was their business. You are the same person who accepted Jim Crow, bucause that is the way things were done. Agin it is clear whose side you are on: Yours. And to the devil with anyone else.

I figured you could not resist my friend, well here you go. Once again you mischaracterize, no one every said govt should do nothing, it should, but it cannot match the women’s role----your mischaracterizations I think shows your inability to listen to any other opinion but your own.LOL

Finally, read history my friend, the holocaust, slavery, the inquisition, the Great Leap Forward, yes indeed, and those were horrors committed by centralized, autocratic institutions of government…so thanks my friend for making our argument for us.

Peace my friend thanks for the debate.

 

[CWBetts]

I figured you could not resist my friend, well here you go. Once again you mischaracterize, no one every said govt should do nothing, it should, but it cannot match the women’s role----your mischaracterizations I think shows your inability to listen to any other opinion but your own.LOL

Finally, read history my friend, the holocaust, slavery, the inquisition, the Great Leap Forward, yes indeed, and those were horrors committed by centralized, autocratic institutions of government…so thanks my friend for making our argument for us.

Peace my friend thanks for the debate.

Slavery was instituted not by a government, but by individuals, while the governments turned a blind eye to the evil. The holocaust happened because an evil man took control of a government and no one had the courage to take a stand. We now have a government trying to make end of life decisions for us, and allowing the death of the unborn. The war aginst the unborn must be stopped, and unlike you I am not a moral coward.

 

[elts1956]

Again, you assume that your desire the criminalize all abortion is necessarily the best means to stop abortion—that is in debate.

I haven’t seen any statistics showing the passing of roe vs. wade has lessened the number of abortions in the US.

 

[Worthy5]

I haven’t seen any statistics showing the passing of roe vs. wade has lessened the number of abortions in the US.

Well Roe’s a court case limiting govt power. It is not an alternative govt action to attempt to prevent abortions.

 

[Worthy5]

Slavery was instituted not by a government, but by individuals, while the governments turned a blind eye to the evil. The holocaust happened because an evil man took control of a government and no one had the courage to take a stand. We now have a government trying to make end of life decisions for us, and allowing the death of the unborn. The war aginst the unborn must be stopped, and unlike you I am not a moral coward.

Come on CW, let us grab a beer. Govt power is a very dangerous thing (and to say slavery was not institutionalize, come on). But I am rubber, your glue.

Peace! God Bless!

 

[Caramel]

Come on CW, let us grab a beer. Govt power is a very dangerous thing (and to say slavery was not institutionalize, come on). But I am rubber, your glue.

Peace! God Bless!

I HAVE ASKED THREE TIMES NOW YET YOU DO NOT ANSWER!! WHAT WOULD YOU DO TO STOP ABORTION??

At this point I assume you CAN’T answer the question - you sidestep it with references to government and law. You keep going on and on about limited government but I haven’t seen one post by YOU that states what YOU would do about the problem of abortion!!

If you do not even have the ability to answer my question (and I don’t think you have) why not just admit it?? You consistently put down other posters’ ideas about government but you can’t come up with ONE THING THAT YOU WOULD DO IN ORDER TO SOLVE THIS PROBLEM. All you do is play Devil’s Advocate - you really do not seem to have anything CONSTRUCTIVE to add to this debate.

At this point I suspect you will continue with your “law law law law I can’t hear you law law law” routine.

I can only think that you really do not know…