The pro-life common sense clincher

[Worthy5]

Again, the sad thing here is their response to that.

“Well, a tumor is unique, growing, human tissue, and no one whines when someone cuts one of those out of their body. What’s the difference?”

Whiteacre Girl

Just be clear that a pro-choice position is not necessarily a pro-abortion position. Pro-choice is a legal position—not a moral position.

 

[Jermosh]

Play of words usually does it. Basically I ask for proof that abortion is not killing a human life in medical and scientific terms. I then ask for what line is allowed to be used to justify killing a human life, usually if I am lucky they say for it to be able to survive on it own, to that I state then its ok to kill toddlers since most cannot survive on their own. It then turns to if they are conscience or not, I then move into quantum mechanics on how how thought is actually on the sub-atomic level.

Things to stay away from are like calling it murder, baby, person, etc, etc. While these may be true, these are more emotional or philosophical terms and will usually always lead to a long and dead-end debate.

 

[vacanebrake]

I agree w/ some of the earlier posts, I don’t think you can come up with an argument that would convince them that their pro-choice is not killing. I don’t understand how most people I know (I have a science back ground and many of the people I know come from a similar back ground and many are very liberal) they all agree that you can have a single cell living organism (an amoeba for example) - however and fertilized human egg wh/ shows similar functions as most single cell organisms ain’t alive go figure.

 

[PrayHarder]

Like any good proof, you have to start with a premise. Both parties need to agree that murdering a human is wrong. If you cannot agree on that, then there is no way you can build an argument against abortion.

If you agree with the premise then pose this circumstance. A woman walked into an abortion clinic. Before the procedure starts, she goes into labor and gives birth. The baby is very premature, but is breathing. The nurse, knowing that the woman came in for an abortion, decides to kills the baby by placing it in a bio-hazard bag and sealing it. The nurse is then charged with murder.

Think about this for a second, If the procedure had started a few minutes earlier then everything would have been fine because a human being was not being murdered (according to the pro-choice crowd). So, at what point in the birth canal did the fetus turn into a human? At what point did the situation turn from a medical procedure to murder? One inch down the birth canal? Two? 2.5?

So what does the pro-choice crowd have to say about this situation? I’ve never heard a good response to it. And if this scenario sounds crazy, remember that this case actually happened in Florida a little while ago.

 

[Worthy5]

Play of words usually does it. Basically I ask for proof that abortion is not killing a human life in medical and scientific terms. I then ask for what line is allowed to be used to justify killing a human life, usually if I am lucky they say for it to be able to survive on it own, to that I state then its ok to kill toddlers since most cannot survive on their own. It then turns to if they are conscience or not, I then move into quantum mechanics on how how thought is actually on the sub-atomic level.

Things to stay away from are like calling it murder, baby, person, etc, etc. While these may be true, these are more emotional or philosophical terms and will usually always lead to a long and dead-end debate.

What does this have to do with the pro-choice position as a legal position?

 

[JimG]

I don’t think there is a clincher. I am simply baffled by the ferocity with which the ability to kill our young is defended as an essential right.

I sometimes wonder if even a pro-choice person might acknowledge some point in the existence of a human being at which it has a right not to be killed. Can it be protected–or killed–at 3 months? 6 months? 9 months? While making it’s way through the birth canal? After it has left the womb but before the umbilical cord is cut? As suggested by Dr. Peter Singer, should the mother be given a 2 month grace period post-birth in which to decide whether the child shall live?

I also wonder if there is any particular reason that they would consider unacceptable for an abortion. We all know Down Syndrome babies get aborted. What if it’s a girl and we want a boy? What if it’s birth would inappropriately coincide with a scheduled vacation? What if it’s going to be gay and we wanted a straight?

It seems to me that abortion is the “peculiar institution” of our times, comparable to slavery in the 1800’s. We don’t want to look at it too closely. Those people aren’t really human, after all. Best not to think about it too much. Only one thing is certain, we must keep it legal. That seems to be the position of the pro-choice side.

 

[Worthy5]

I don’t think there is a clincher. I am simply baffled by the ferocity with which the ability to kill our young is defended as an essential right.

I sometimes wonder if even a pro-choice person might acknowledge some point in the existence of a human being at which it has a right not to be killed. Can it be protected–or killed–at 3 months? 6 months? 9 months? While making it’s way through the birth canal? After it has left the womb but before the umbilical cord is cut? As suggested by Dr. Peter Singer, should the mother be given a 2 month grace period post-birth in which to decide whether the child shall live?

The crux of the pro-choice is that it is a legal position–not a moral one. The question is who has the duty to protect the unborn life and when?

 

[JimG]

The crux of the pro-choice is that it is a legal position–not a moral one. The question is who has the duty to protect the unborn life and when?

To paraphrase Justice Scalia, it’s the duty of the people through their legislatures. The Constitution says nothing about abortion, either way. If pro-life people want restrictions on abortion, do it the old fashioned way, through their legislatures.

But actually, they did do this. Prior to Roe, every state in the union had laws regulating the practice of abortion, enacted by state legislatures elected by citizens. It was all of these laws which the Court negated. And if the people want abortion on demand, let them get it the old fashioned way, through their state legislatures. Let’s not just cut the people out of the process.

If the people of a state want to allow abortion only to save a mother’s life, let them pass that law. They can’t do that now.

 

[JimG]

The crux of the pro-choice is that it is a legal position–not a moral one. The question is who has the duty to protect the unborn life and when?

P.S. I’m really not sure what to make of this. The same could be said of any matter that is legislated. As far as the law is concerned, capital murder is a legal position, not a moral one. So is armed robbery, aggravated assault, and securities fraud.

 

[vera_dicere]

The pro-aborts are in love with a lie, and nothing we do or say will make them see the lie for what it is. Of course, only God can change hearts. We can provide the foundation for the information they need, but the hardcore pro-aborts will not be swayed by pictures of foetuses in the womb.

I met a pro-abort who quite frankly said he didn’t care if the unborn was aware, or if it was a person, for him it boiled back to the its the woman’s body and so she is in her right to have an abortion right up to the moment of birth.

I’ve swayed luke warm pro-aborts over to the side of life, but I’ve yet to win any “all nine months of pregnancy” pro-aborts. I just leave them to God.

Of course, I’ve found their love of abortion often makes the luke warm ones a little uncomfortable. I’ve had discussions on other forums where a pro-abort made a real @rse out of themselves, and as a result I got a lot of PMs from the more stable pro-aborts who actually really gave consideration to the pro-life mindset, and several of them actually joined up.

 

[Protestant101]

I don’t think there is a clincher. I am simply baffled by the ferocity with which the ability to kill our young is defended as an essential right.

Only one thing is certain, we must keep it legal. That seems to be the position of the pro-choice side.

People have been deluded into thinking that they can get away with having abortions, with impunity to consequences, because abortions have been falsely labelled as a “right.” Abortions Change You and not for the better.

People who think that abortion does not affect the men involved, also need to rethink that falsehood. Men And Abortion.

From a nursing, and a personal, moral standpoint, I think that 99.9% of abortions are very wrong. I do have some questions in regards to the other 0.1% which would be classed as medical emergencies. Does the official Catholic position allow for any kinds of medical reasons/exceptions for abortion decisions? Provided the decision was made by the physician, as a choice between saving the Mom, or saving the baby?

I know that even 30 years ago; a person I know was asked by the doctor, “Do you want us to save you or the baby?” Would Catholics consider it “pro-choice” if the mother chose to live, because she already had four other children at home, AND the attending physician was the one who suggested it?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Worthy5

*The problem is that those in the pro-life position that cannot see the reasonable position of the pro-choice position is due to the fact that they do not undertand the distinction between a moral issue and a legal issue. *

You keep repeating this remark as if it were a “clincher” for your side. Would you mind explaining why?

When the law prohibits murder, what is the difference between the “moral” and the “legal” issue? Doesn’t the legal issue flow out of the moral issue?

 

[ALLGIRLS]

I personally think the best evidence is a high-resolution sonogram. Pro-aborts absolutely HATE having to view a picture of a baby in utero, and they seem to uniformly hate laws which require that someone be shown access to a sonogram before they can abort. Why? Because a child knows what they won’t admit - that the picture is of a baby.

This, along with the undeniable biological FACT that, from the moment of conception, the unborn child is a complete separate HUMAN being apart from the mother, should, logically, stop them in their tracks. However, they know this, but are so entrenched in their position, that they then fall back on “the child is not a LEGAL person with rights/the mother’s rights supercedes the child’s rights”. They usually use the child’s inability to survive on his/her own as justification. However, born infants also can’t survive on their own. In fact, I’m not sure how old a child would be b/f they could “survive” (i.e., be able to feed themselves and keep themselves out of danger) on their own. But the pro-aborts (except for Peter Singer, of course) never advocate killing them. They know they’re hypocrites without a leg to stand on. Luckily, they’ll soon be dying off, and the younger generation is definately more prolife.

In Christ,

Ellen

 

[Charlemagne_II]

I have come to the admission that there is no “clincher” as such. Remarks by others made earlier rightly indicate that no matter how logical of compassionate the Christian argument against abortion, there are some who are neither logical and/or compassionate enough to change their position.

The feminist “rights” argument I see as the biggest enemy of both reason and compassion. They wear blinders, seeing only rights for women and no rights whatever for the child in the womb.

It is these same feminists (men and women, among whom we sadly find many Catholic sympathizers) who have their rights only because their mother’s chose not to kill them before they were born.

What good are rights without life?

 

[Worthy5]

To paraphrase Justice Scalia, it’s the duty of the people through their legislatures. The Constitution says nothing about abortion, either way. If pro-life people want restrictions on abortion, do it the old fashioned way, through their legislatures.

But actually, they did

To quote Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes " …that it is a constitution we are expounding. …". The Court role is to protect individual rights from the majority will----in Roe the seven justices felt the Constitution had something to say.

Your position is reasonable, but so is the above position.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Worthy5

*To quote Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes " …that it is a constitution we are expounding. …". The Court role is to protect individual rights from the majority will----in Roe the seven justices felt the Constitution had something to say. *

I thought the role of the Court was to uphold the Constitution. The framers of the Constitution believed in the “right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Which of these rights do you think is pre-eminent, the one without which all other rights are meaningless?

 

[JimG]

To quote Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes " …that it is a constitution we are expounding. …". The Court role is to protect individual rights from the majority will----in Roe the seven justices felt the Constitution had something to say.

Your position is reasonable, but so is the above position.

I would only say that when the constitution is silent about a matter, the matter is by default left up to the states. There is no need for the SCOTUS to act as an imperial arbiter–thinking it must always make some decision–rather than as a simple interpreter of what is already written. Roe would have been an ideal case for the Court to simply have said, “The Constitution has nothing to say about this. Therefore the state law stands.”

 

[Incomplete]

The whole “life” issue matters less and less. The alarming trend I’ve seen (and one that even somebody I love very much buys into) is that sure, abortion is taking a life, but it should still be the woman’s choice. You can’t take that choice away. Somehow it’s a big deal because the baby’s home is in the woman’s body, so she should be able to decide if it continues to live or not.

 

[JimG]

The whole “life” issue matters less and less. The alarming trend I’ve seen (and one that even somebody I love very much buys into) is that sure, abortion is taking a life, but it should still be the woman’s choice. You can’t take that choice away. Somehow it’s a big deal because the baby’s home is in the woman’s body, so she should be able to decide if it continues to live or not.

Yes, that is exactly right. And that attitude has ramifications into the rest of life. I’ve already mentioned that Peter Singer, (head of the Princeton Ethics Department!, IIRC) has suggested that the right to life should not even be conferred at birth, but at some later point, say up to 6 months, so the parents can have a chance to assess him. And the right of the elderly and disabled to continue living are coming under increased scrutiny.

 

[Whitacre_Girl]

The whole “life” issue matters less and less. The alarming trend I’ve seen (and one that even somebody I love very much buys into) is that sure, abortion is taking a life, but it should still be the woman’s choice. You can’t take that choice away. Somehow it’s a big deal because the baby’s home is in the woman’s body, so she should be able to decide if it continues to live or not.

I have to admit…I really feel that this is the sign of an utterly sick and depraved society.