Question to Pro choice Christians

[RosaryFan]

Not my cell phone reception. You’ll have to be more precise.

I’ll be as precise as possible: Your argument is a bit ridiculous and I don’t think anyone really cares one way or another about your cell phone reception.

Shall we take a vote?

(1) Anyone who cares about TheTrueCentrist’s cell phone reception, raise your hand.

(2) Anyone who cares about the unborn, raise your hand.

Okay. Let’s count 'em up.

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

ok I see I agree having these policies would reduce population, but let me ask this question would you also be ok with killing all the 2 year olds in a country to reduce population. just a simple yes or no will suffice.

No

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

I’ll be as precise as possible: Your argument is a bit ridiculous and I don’t think anyone really cares one way or another about your cell phone reception.

Shall we take a vote?

(1) Anyone who cares about TheTrueCentrist’s cell phone reception, raise your hand.

(2) Anyone who cares about the unborn, raise your hand.

Okay. Let’s count 'em up.

No, you made the clearly false statement that abortion disrupts everything and I gave a counter example. You are convinced that abortion does indeed disrupt *something *but are evidently unable to articulate what that something is.

 

[estesbob]

I’ll be as precise as possible: Your argument is a bit ridiculous and I don’t think anyone really cares one way or another about your cell phone reception.

Shall we take a vote?

(1) Anyone who cares about TheTrueCentrist’s cell phone reception, raise your hand.

(2) Anyone who cares about the unborn, raise your hand.

Okay. Let’s count 'em up.

The prime tactic of those trying to defend the indefensible is change the subject.

 

[catholictiger]

No

why?

 

[Rascalking]

Shall we take a vote?

(1) Anyone who cares about TheTrueCentrist’s cell phone reception, raise your hand.
.

This really made me laugh!

I care deeply about their cell phone reception. In fact, it’s all I think about.

Yeah, it’s truly absurd to bring that up-I don’t know what in the world TheTrueCentrist is talking about.

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

why?

Avoidable future cost, both in economic terms and in emotional terms.

Killing 2 year-olds would be highly onerous to the parents, and would likely be unsustainable as public policy.

 

[RosaryFan]

No, you made the clearly false statement that abortion disrupts everything and I gave a counter example. You are convinced that abortion does indeed disrupt *something *but are evidently unable to articulate what that something is.

It disrupts life. It does not disrupt your cell phone reception. It not only disrupts one life, but all of the lives that would have come from that one life. That one child’s children, grandchildren, great grandchildren, great-great grandchildren, great-great-great grandchildren, and so on…

Each abortion is the eradication of an entire family line, not just one person.

But you are right about one thing - it does not disrupt your cell phone reception. Thank you so much for pointing out that very important fact! We wouldn’t want anyone here on CAF to be misled about your cell phone reception. And thank you for your wise contribution to the argument. Heaven knows we could really use your wisdom!

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

It disrupts life. It does not disrupt your cell phone reception. It not only disrupts one life, but all of the lives that would have come from that one life. That one child’s children, grandchildren, great grandchildren, great-great grandchildren, great-great-great grandchildren, and so on…

Each abortion is the eradication of an entire family line, not just one person.

But you are right about one thing - it does not disrupt your cell phone reception. Thank you so much for pointing out that very important fact! We wouldn’t want anyone here on CAF to be misled about your cell phone reception. And thank you for your wise contribution to the argument. Heaven knows we could really use your wisdom!

I’m not talking about the morality of abortion, but the legality. Why should the state be concerned with a potential family line?

 

[catholictiger]

Avoidable future cost, both in economic terms and in emotional terms.

Killing 2 year-olds would be highly onerous to the parents, and would likely be unsustainable as public policy.

ok I would agree that having abortion would avoid future cost, but would you be ok with killing a 2 year old for the same reason.

 

[RosaryFan]

I’m not talking about the morality of abortion, but the legality. Why should the state be concerned with a potential family line?

The state should be concerned with the continuation of the human species, that is, unless our legislators plan on living forever.

Murdering a convenience store clerk because he won’t hand over the money also does not disrupt your cell phone reception. Should that also be legal?

Incidentally, the aborted child’s cell phone reception would, in fact, be disrupted.

I really don’t like duking it out with such a scholarly thinker.

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

ok I would agree that having abortion would avoid future cost, but would you be ok with killing a 2 year old for the same reason.

For which same reason?

 

[ChristisRisen32]

To be quite honest I cant see any sense in this question in rela ion to pro choice. Mary had a choice, she was given it before she conceived, she consented to be the mother of Chirst. Like all of us she had free will. In an ideal world I can see nothing wrong with being pro choice because in an ideal world noone would chose abortion.Unfortunately we are not in a morally mature society so i think we should stand up for the rights of the unborn. But actually I think given that we are not a morally mature society contraception should be promoted to those as yet unable to conform to the will of Christ for a relationship.

Just like we choose to with free will whether or not to have sex and deal with the the consequences.

 

[catholictiger]

For which same reason?

for avoiding the finical burdens of having a child

let me address it in another way, lets say a women who is working a decent job but then all of a sudden because of the economy this women losses her job and she can no longer afford to have the baby, would it be ok for her to kill the baby to get rid of that finical border. This is the same reason you gave for a women having an abortion.

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

The state should be concerned with the continuation of the human species, that is, unless our legislators plan on living forever.

Murdering a convenience store clerk because he won’t hand over the money also does not disrupt your cell phone reception. Should that also be legal?

Incidentally, the aborted child’s cell phone reception would, in fact, be disrupted.

I really don’t like duking it out with such a scholarly thinker.

As soon as underpopulation becomes a problem, then I would expect the state to adopt somewhat different policies, but underpopulation is not currently a problem.

No, murdering a convenience store clerk disrupts society because the clerk represents skills and relationships that are cut from society. Society suffers when it constantly has to replace these and when people can’t count on sustained relationships. Abortion is different because there are no relationships (the fetus is unwanted) and no significant material investment in the fetus.

 

[catholictiger]

As soon as underpopulation becomes a problem, then I would expect the state to adopt somewhat different policies, but underpopulation is not currently a problem.

No, murdering a convenience store clerk disrupts society because the clerk represents skills and relationships that are cut from society. Society suffers when it constantly has to replace these and when people can’t count on sustained relationships. Abortion is different because there are no relationships (the fetus is unwanted) and no significant material investment in the fetus.

so it all has to do with benefiting society, I know I’m kinda drilling you with question but stick with me, if there is someone in society who is a criminal only hurts society has no relationships with anyone, should we go ahead and just kill him, he has committed no major crimes that would get the death penalty, but he does do a lot of smaller crimes.

 

[estesbob]

As soon as underpopulation becomes a problem, then I would expect the state to adopt somewhat different policies, but underpopulation is not currently a problem.

So we are to treat hyman beings like we do any other commodity. Destroying them when there is an excess, developing them when there is not? And you consoder the :crentist" position?

No, murdering a convenience store clerk disrupts society because the clerk represents skills and relationships that are cut from society. Society suffers when it constantly has to replace these and when people can’t count on sustained relationships. Abortion is different because there are no relationships (the fetus is unwanted) and no significant material investment in the fetus.

So you would not oppose mudering someone who had no skills and no one really likes? And this is the “centrist” position?

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

for avoiding the finical burdens of having a child

let me address it in another way, lets say a women who is working a decent job but then all of a sudden because of the economy this women losses her job and she can no longer afford to have the baby, would it be ok for her to kill the baby to get rid of that finical border. This is the same reason you gave for a women having an abortion.

So the question is: “should we legalize infanticide for children under a certain age?” I don’t see any reason why we should. We have social programs designed to help parents, and if there were evidence that a desire for infanticide were widespread and financially driven, it would be a reason to expand or improve the social programs rather than legalize infanticide.

If there were a group of people advocating for infanticide, they could likely try to use an argument similar to mine. However, they would have to justify severing the bond that has formed between the child and those that interact with him/her as well as the material investments it takes to deliver the baby. They would also have to overcome most peoples understanding that delivery of a child is a commitment to take care of the child (a significantly stronger and more deliberate commitment than is conception.) In other words, if a mother expressed a desire for infanticide, people would say “since you decided not to have an abortion, you now have a responsibility to raise the child. If you can no longer do so, find someone who can.”

 

[catholictiger]

So the question is: “should we legalize infanticide for children under a certain age?” I don’t see any reason why we should. We have social programs designed to help parents, and if there were evidence that a desire for infanticide were widespread and financially driven, it would be a reason to expand or improve the social programs rather than legalize infanticide.

so if the situation allowed you would be ok with infanticide?

If there were a group of people advocating for infanticide, they could likely try to use an argument similar to mine. However, they would have to justify severing the bond that has formed between the child and those that interact with him/her as well as the material investments it takes to deliver the baby. They would also have to overcome most peoples understanding that delivery of a child is a commitment to take care of the child (a significantly stronger and more deliberate commitment than is conception.) In other words, if a mother expressed a desire for infanticide, people would say “since you decided not to have an abortion, you now have a responsibility to raise the child. If you can no longer do so, find someone who can.”

they also have to get past the point that they are killing Humans.

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

So we are to treat hyman beings like we do any other commodity. Destroying them when there is an excess, developing them when there is not? And you consoder the :crentist" position?

We are not so advanced that we are immune to the problems caused by shortages of people or food. We certainly could let nature take care of the excess people through starvation, disease, etc, but since we are capable of understanding the causes of our problems, we are also capable of taking measures to solve them.

So you would not oppose mudering someone who had no skills and no one really likes? And this is the “centrist” position?

Do you believe such a person exists? Skills don’t have to be job skills.

Also, we do allow capital punishment.