Pro-Lifers Should Get Same Access to Schools as Planned Parenthood Does

[Hume]

Good job avoiding the question, I’ll ask you again is a fetus a human or not?

Of course it’s human. But a woman still has the right to kick it out of her body if she wishes. It’s her body.

And yes there is a unitice function to sex but it has to be open to procreation. If it isn’t then it’s fornication. Which is a sin.

I understand. The woman in question may not be Catholic and thus shouldn’t be subject to Catholic norms.

 

[Elias]

Of course it’s human. But a woman still has the right to kick it out of her body if she wishes. It’s her body.

So tell me what happens when the baby is “kicked out”?

I understand. The woman in question may not be Catholic and thus shouldn’t be subject to Catholic norms.

You’re the one who brought up Catholic dogma. which is redundant because it’s still against the law to purposely kill a human.

 

[vz71]

Keep the baby or don’t. They’ve got support structures for either choice.

PP isn’t just an abortion mill.

You were pointing out the difference between the offering of pro life groups to PP.
What exactly is that?
Pro life groups offer the choice of keeping the baby or not as well.

 

[vz71]

Please don’t speak for me. I’m reasonably sure its a violation of the forum rules of conduct.

You do have a point. Perhaps you are speaking of some other option that PP provides the a pro life group does not.

What exactly would that be?
What options, other than life, are there?

 

[JimG]

Two choices. Keep the baby or kill it. Life or death.

 

[Hume]

So tell me what happens when the baby is “kicked out”?

If it’s viable, it will live. If not, it will die.

Excuse me, muddled that with birth.

In an abortion the baby typically dies. However, viability is a concern among those rare late term abortions.

You’re the one who brought up Catholic dogma. which is redundant because it’s still against the law to purposely kill a human.

It’s not against the law to have an abortion. It shouldn’t be against the law.

The bodily autonomy and self determination of a woman should not be hijacked. Her body, her consent.

 

[vz71]

Depends on the woman involved.

PP provides resources in raising and caring for babies. They provide referral to adoption services.

These are also offered by pro life groups, therefore it is not pertinent to differences.

They also perform abortions at many of their clinics.

And we finally arrive at the key distinction.

Why should pro life groups be excluded for refusing to participate in murder?

 

[vz71]

Her body, her consent.

The fetus is not her body.

 

[Elias]

If it’s viable, it will live. If not, it will die.

But how many times does it live? Not very many times, especially if it’s very early on in the pregnancy. No matter how you put it, it’s still murder. You you are deliberately acting in a way that results in the death of a human. At the very least it’s still manslaughter, which is a crime.

Victims of drunk drivers sometimes live, but mostly die. The perpetrator is still held responsible whether or not the victim dies. The perpetrator is held responsible for their actions. The same goes for those that procure and perform abortions. They are actively putting a human life at risk.

It’s not against the law to have an abortion. It shouldn’t be against the law.

Murder and manslaughter are still against the law. Therefore the legality of abortion is contradictory to the law, making it unjust.

The bodily autonomy and self determination of a woman should not be hijacked. Her body, her consent.

The bodily autonomy and self-determination of a baby should not be hijacked. It has the right to life just the same as she does.

 

[Hume]

These are also offered by pro life groups, therefore it is not pertinent to differences.

That’s a good point on first glance.

However there may be some who feel best served by presenting the options in a way that is not laden with emotion or tinged with a religious view - as PP will provide.

In short, no “sugar-coating” for the sake of avoiding abortions. You could argue that it’s objectively better information than what would be offered by a religious-based group that wanted to influence you toward an outcome.

And we finally arrive at the key distinction.

Well, a big distinction, to be sure. But what I posted above still stands, in my humble opinion.

Why should pro life groups be excluded for refusing to participate in murder?

Because, again, PP presents the same options they’ll present but in a less biased way - more than likely.

Pro-life groups generally want to sell you on an outcome. PP just wants to inform you of your options and let you make your choice.

---

Thank you for re-routing this back to the topic.

 

[vz71]

In short, no “sugar-coating” for the sake of avoid abortions.

No one has shown this to be the case.
Are you engaging in embellishment to shore up a weak point?

 

[vz71]

Pro-life groups generally want to sell you on an outcome. PP just wants to inform you of your options and let you make your choice.

Again, you have made a very harsh accusation with no backing.
I believe that is a straw man argument.

 

[Hume]

Hume:

In short, no “sugar-coating” for the sake of avoid abortions.

No one has shown this to be the case.
Are you engaging in embellishment to shore up a weak point?

No. My sister had an abortion when I was in college and I was called by the local Christian-run pregnancy center before she had it to employ my help in convincing her not to do it.

A gross violation of their legal and ethical codes, in any case.

This was from an employee I knew that messed up. I imagine what goes on when they aren’t calling siblings out of error.

By the virtue of being pro-life, they have an outcome they want to push - life.

Can you see how they’re fundamentally biased? Whereas PP is not?

 

[Hume]

Hume:

Pro-life groups generally want to sell you on an outcome. PP just wants to inform you of your options and let you make your choice.

Again, you have made a very harsh accusation with no backing.
I believe that is a straw man argument.

It’s a strawman to say that pro-life groups are trying to sell you on life?

 

[vz71]

. My sister had an abortion when I was in college and I was called by the local Christian-run pregnancy center before she had it to employ my help in convincing her not to do it.

A gross violation of their legal and ethical codes, in any case.

This was from an employee I knew that messed up. I imagine what goes on when they aren’t calling siblings out of error.

By the virtue of being pro-life, they have an outcome they want to push - life.

Can you see how they’re fundamentally biased? Whereas PP is not?

I see a lack of documentation and a plethora of story.
Perhaps true, perhaps not. But either way you would have no way to know if this was an exception or a rule.
And you certainly do not have enough to support the accusations made earlier.

 

[Elias]

By the virtue of being pro-life, they have an outcome they want to push - life.

You say that like life is a bad thing. So does life not matter to you or only some lives don’t matter to you?

 

[vz71]

By the virtue of being pro-life, they have an outcome they want to push - life.

Weak.
I can just as easily say that by virtue of collecting a paycheck for the abortion, PP has a vested interest in making sure that happens.

 

[vz71]

You say that like life is a bad thing. So does life not matter to you or only some lives don’t matter to you?

I missed that point.
Thank you.

It seems that some are arguing a virtue in providing the option of murder.

 

[Hume]

I see a lack of documentation and a plethora of story.
Perhaps true, perhaps not. But either way you would have no way to know if this was an exception or a rule.
And you certainly do not have enough to support the accusations made earlier.

Two points;

I think as you have a deep, emotionally based position on the argument, I’m not sure you could be moved from your position by a reasonable effort.

Second, I think your expectations of what proof, evidences and armies will be brought to bear on a chat forum may be a bit unreasonable. There’s typically a tacit agreement in forums where participants accept what the others have to say at face value.

Without that tacit agreement, a forum of strangers doesn’t really function. As I think you might not share in this agreement for those that are not ideological compeers, I’m not sure anything I say would make a difference.

To the mods - I’ve tried to be as polite here as I could be while still making the point.

 

[Elias]

It seems that some are arguing a virtue in providing the option of murder.

Exactly

If somebody makes a choice that deliberately results in the death of another human being, that choice is illegal. Unless that human being is a fetus, apparently. The implications of this is astoundingly horrible.

Either some people have the right to choose when innocent people die, or a fetus is a non-human or a subhuman and it doesn’t matter if they die. If that’s not Injustice I don’t know what is