The abortion argument that catches people?

[CR89er]

The sad part is that many would agree with this method. There are many abortionists out there who literally kill babies who are “accidentally” born alive. And, that is what partial birth abortion is basically. I believe there is some abortionist on trial right now for killing a number of babies who were born alive–and I believe one of his “nurses” is also on trial for assisting in those murders. It is interesting too to note that many in the abortion industry know very little about their foundress, Margaret Sanger. She was a rabid racist, anti-semite, and promoted forced sterilization on those who she deemed sub-human. She also was a eugenics promoter and a strong supporter of euthanasia. Of course, you’ll not hear that from planned parenthood or other abortion supporters. I guess it’s their “dirty little secret” that’s not so secret anymore.

True, Sister Terese. Quite true. My point was that Chesterton’s quote illustrates, I believe, that abortion is murder either way. I’m very glad you mentioned the evil Margaret Sanger who, in addition to the things you wrote, was also a virulent anti-Catholic bigot.

 

[ProVobis]

As JPII said in theology of the body, the abortion debate boils down to not having the right to kill a baby but rather to have unrestricted sex or sex without consequences, and of course the answer to this unrestricted sex is abortion because babies are viewed as consequences and not human beings with dignity and rights and are in the mind of some people "disposable ". You want to end abortion? Change society and sexuality. Until then abortion is still going to be available and widely practiced because it’s seen as the ultimate answer to unrestricted sex

You nailed it. Well-stated.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

If you say to the people who are pro-choice about killing an unborn child that they should also be pro-choice about killing useless old grandpa, that might catch them up.

Killing grandpa ought to be less objectionable than killing the unborn child. After all, at least grandpa has lived a full life.

 

[Sister_Terese]

Not really, because the term “pro-choice” is almost exclusively used in the context of the topic of legalized abortion. I say “almost” because I can’t say that there are no exceptions, but I certainly haven’t heard of any. So I think that your position that people who consider themselves pro-choice “aren’t usually pro-abortion” is completely false. Or did I misunderstand what you were trying to say?

Consider the current situation going on in New York City about Mayor Bloomberg’s desire to ban large soft drinks. Those in opposition to this aren’t specifically labeling it a “pro-choice” issue. Even though the issue is, indeed, one of choice, they express their position in different terminology (an action which acknowledges that the term “pro-choice” is typically understood to mean “pro-abortion”). Generally speaking, in today’s society “pro-choice” is simply a euphemism for “pro-abortion.”

I’m not sure what your point is. Are you suggesting that because humans have freewill then the law should allow people to do whatever they choose? Human freedom is very broad but it has limits, and that has always been the case. Consider what God said in the Garden of Eden: “And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, ‘You may freely eat of every tree of the garden; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall die’” (Genesis 2:16-17, RSV).

In the U.S. a person has the right to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” One of the main purposes of the law is to protect this right on behalf of people, especially for the sake of the weaker members of society. Moreover, no one is to be denied this right without the due process of law. For example, someone cannot be executed (i.e., denial of life) or imprisoned (i.e., denial of liberty & the pursuit of happiness) unless first put on trial and found guilty of a serious crime. The fact that people have freewill does not subvert these responsibilities of the law. Once again, human freedom always has limitations. One of the biggest problems with abortion is that the unborn are denied the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Moreover, they are denied this right without due process of law, because the legalization of abortion stemmed from a ruling on a woman’s right to privacy, leaving the question of the rights of the unborn completely unaddressed.

Eloquently put! You must be a lawyer!!!

 

[Sister_Terese]

To be honest, I never bring up the Margaret Sanger scandal because her immoral and loathesomely evil activities don’t feature in the abortion essence of the abortion debate, the fact that babies are human and no human really wants to die.

But I agree with everyone here, thanks for all the good answers. I actually did put forth the ‘what if you were aborted’ question and they said they wouldn’t care. I told them what about family? What about a career? What about being loved? Screw all that, it’s better to obey the wishes of a mother and a bunch of selfish jerks who throw others away than to follow your own path.

Why would you not bring up the planned parenthood’s foundress? And, her influence over pp and other abortion advocates are clearly evident in how they operate and function in society. They could almost be called a “secret” society for most of us are kept from the true agenda of pp and other abortion groups.

 

[Sister_Terese]

True, Sister Terese. Quite true. My point was that Chesterton’s quote illustrates, I believe, that abortion is murder either way. I’m very glad you mentioned the evil Margaret Sanger who, in addition to the things you wrote, was also a virulent anti-Catholic bigot.

Thank you for your thoughts and you are absolutely correct. Ms. Sanger was an atheist…does that surprise anyone?? BTW, I am a huge fan of Chesterton! EWTN has devoted a weekly show just to study his works. Awesome man!!

 

[mrajax]

Thank you for your thoughts and you are absolutely correct. Ms. Sanger was an atheist…does that surprise anyone?? BTW, I am a huge fan of Chesterton! EWTN has devoted a weekly show just to study his works. Awesome man!!

Sister Therese, as someone who has had some very unpleasant experiences with militant atheists, who does not support aboriton and wants to end it all instead of hypocritally saying he hates it but doesn’t want to over turn Roe vs Wade, you really can’t use things like ‘he’s evil because he is atheist’ etc… you can be a decent person if you are an atheist but you can’t be a decent person if you are pro-abortion and there are atheists who are pro-life (Hitchens, that loser, doesn’t count).

 

[Lampo]

… ‘what about rape’…

I would respond to their rape objection with this analogy. Suppose a husband and wife have sexual relations. God forbid, a few days later the wife is raped. They go to the doctor to have a paternity test to find out if the child is the rapist’s and whether to have an abortion. The tests come back and it is her husband’s child. She gives birth. One day, they get a call from the doctor’s office and they say, “We are sorry, but we made a terrible mistake. Your child is actually the rapist’s.” The child is three months old, healthy and sleeping in the crib. Should that woman be allowed to kill that three month old?

…their final argument boiled down to this: they don’t want children to suffer through poverty,

I know plenty of two year olds who live in poverty. Should we be allowed to kill them?

…an irrespnsible mother

I know plenty of teenagers who have irresponsible parents. Should we be allowed to kill teenagers?

…or through the flawed adoption business.

One day, a person might need to go through our flawed criminal justice system. Should we be allowed to kill them so they don’t have to possibly suffer through our criminal justice system?

 

[mrajax]

I would respond to their rape objection with this analogy. Suppose a husband and wife have sexual relations. God forbid, a few days later the wife is raped. They go to the doctor to have a paternity test to find out if the child is the rapist’s and whether to have an abortion. The tests come back and it is her husband’s child. She gives birth. One day, they get a call from the doctor’s office and they say, “We are sorry, but we made a terrible mistake. Your child is actually the rapist’s.” The child is three months old, healthy and sleeping in the crib. Should that woman be allowed to kill that three month old?

I know plenty of two year olds who live in poverty. Should we be allowed to kill them?

I know plenty of teenagers who have irresponsible parents. Should we be allowed to kill teenagers?

One day, a person might need to go through our flawed criminal justice system. Should we be allowed to kill them so they don’t have to possibly suffer through our criminal justice system?

Heh, you’re right, the criminal justice system in America is flawed but then it does a lot of good. But note I am pro-life, absolutely.

 

[Lampo]

Heh, you’re right, the criminal justice system in America is flawed but then it does a lot of good. But note I am pro-life, absolutely.

Maybe similar to the “flawed adoption business”.

 

[OriginalJS]

Sounds like Chesterton borrowed a bit from Lamb’s A Modest Proposal.

 

[OriginalJS]

Not really, because the term “pro-choice” is almost exclusively used in the context of the topic of legalized abortion. I say “almost” because I can’t say that there are no exceptions, but I certainly haven’t heard of any. So I think that your position that people who consider themselves pro-choice “aren’t usually pro-abortion” is completely false. Or did I misunderstand what you were trying to say?

Consider the current situation going on in New York City about Mayor Bloomberg’s desire to ban large soft drinks. Those in opposition to this aren’t specifically labeling it a “pro-choice” issue. Even though the issue is, indeed, one of choice, they express their position in different terminology (an action which acknowledges that the term “pro-choice” is typically understood to mean “pro-abortion”). Generally speaking, in today’s society “pro-choice” is simply a euphemism for “pro-abortion.”

What then are women who at theyareprochioce ans have children? Seems to me proliferate do not have a choice but pro-choice have the choice whether to keep the baby or not. I know women who say they are. Pro-choice who have children.

I’m not sure what your point is. Are you suggesting that because humans have freewill then the law should allow people to do whatever they choose? Human freedom is very broad but it has limits, and that has always been the case. Consider what God said in the Garden of Eden: “And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, ‘You may freely eat of every tree of the garden; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall die’” (Genesis 2:16-17, RSV).

In the U.S. a person has the right to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” One of the main purposes of the law is to protect this right on behalf of people, especially for the sake of the weaker members of society. Moreover, no one is to be denied this right without the due process of law. For example, someone cannot be executed (i.e., denial of life) or imprisoned (i.e., denial of liberty & the pursuit of happiness) unless first put on trial and found guilty of a serious crime. The fact that people have freewill does not subvert these responsibilities of the law. Once again, human freedom always has limitations. One of the biggest problems with abortion is that the unborn are denied the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Moreover, they are denied this right without due process of law, because the legalization of abortion stemmed from a ruling on a woman’s right to privacy, leaving the question of the rights of the unborn completely unaddressed.

 

[thewanderer]

People aren’t usually “pro” abortion…they are pro “choice”.
There is a difference.

Pro-choicers feel a person must have the* free will* to decide for themselves the choices they make in life.
Like God. Who gave people the *free will *to decide for themselves the choices they make in life.

I suppose an all-loving, all powerful, all-knowing God could have made choices like abortion or murder or divorce or all sorts of other upsetting circumstances that happen to people without their choice --like starvation and devastating earthquakes or illnesses–impossible.
But he didn’t.
He wanted people to have free will…and, he allows tragedy and pain to happen to them.

.

See, the thing that confuses me about this kind of argument is that people** only **apply it to abortion. Now, if pro-choicers all of a sudden became anarchists then I would concede that they are being logically consistent, but the fact is that every person who claims to be pro-choice would never dream of saying a rapist should be given the choice, because of his free will, to either rape someone or not. Or that serial killers should be given the choice as to whether or not they will go on a killing spree. Or whether or not upstanding citizens should be given the choice of owning automatic rifles etc. The only time they ever apply this idea of “They have free will so we shouldn’t interfere with their choice” is when it comes to abortion. In other words, their argument doesn’t really rest on free-will, but rather it rests specifically on the act of abortion. In other words, they can’t claim that what they are for is the universal idea of unrestricted free will, but rather what they are for is unrestricted free will with respect to abortion. Which means that there is something about abortion they believe is acceptable enough that people should be allowed to choose it. In other words, implicitly, there is something about abortion specifically which they are for, despite all their protests.

 

[EricFilmer]

What then are women who at theyareprochioce ans have children? Seems to me proliferate do not have a choice but pro-choice have the choice whether to keep the baby or not. I know women who say they are. Pro-choice who have children.

When the terms “pro-life” and “pro-choice” / “pro-abortion” are used in our society, it is usually about the topic of the legality of abortion. For example, a person who is pro-life desires abortion to be illegal. Of course the pro-life movement encompasses other issues beyond abortion, but the thread topic is specifically about abortion so I’ll stick with that in my description.

On the other hand, a person who is “pro-choice” or “pro abortion” desires abortion to remain legal. Therefore, people who desire abortion to remain legal but also choose to have their children (rather than aborting them) are still pro-abortion.