The pro-life common sense clincher

  • Thread starter Thread starter Charlemagne_II
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Charlemagne_II said:
Worthy5
Where in the Bible is the word trinity?
Click to expand...
Thanks for the added point that does not support your argument. As a Catholic you should know written language is inherently indeterminate—requiring an authoritative teacher. The Church with the Bible and the… Surpeme Court with the Constitution. 😃 God Bless
Click to expand...
 
Charlemagne_II said:
Has anyone ever found an approach to explaining the pro-life position that would leave the pro-choice advocates without a leg to stand on? I mean a *really convincing case *that can stop all discussion dead in its tracks because the pro-choicers have no answer?
Click to expand...
I’m responding to the title of your thread.

Yesterday at the Grand Opening of the Planned Parenthood Abortion Mill, a huge multi-million dollar building, I was there holding my sign and some neighborhood black and latino teenagers came up and asked what was going on.

I briefly explained what that building was going to be used for. The kids’ unanimous response, ***“That’s messed up.” ***

I told these kids, “You’re right, it’s messed up.” I told them to keep listening to that voice inside their hearts that tells them it’s messed up.

These kids spent probably the next 2 hours on the lines after calling their moms on their cell phones. They wanted to hold signs with us. I have no idea if they are Christian, agnostic, or atheist kids, abortion doesn’t need to be a religions issue, it’s a common sense issue.
 
Charlemagne_II said:
Has anyone ever found an approach to explaining the pro-life position that would leave the pro-choice advocates without a leg to stand on? I mean a *really convincing case *that can stop all discussion dead in its tracks because the pro-choicers have no answer?
Click to expand...
You need a course in pro life apologetics. You can get this all online.

Read Healing the Culture by Fr. Robert Spitzer. Ignatius Press

healingtheculture.com/mm5/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=HTC&Product_Code=40HTC-B&Category_Code=PROD

and go to this website and begin with checking out Life Principles. This is the best stuff I’ve found. healingtheculture.com/lc_welcome.php
 
Worthy5

*Well who knows Charlemagne? Why is not your amendment part of the Constitution already given it is so " common sense". *

Perhaps the Framers were so imbued with the common sense that you don’t kill your own children, they never imagined that it would be necessary to provide constitutional protection. They were all for protecting the right to life, not finding “legal” ways to pretend that the unborn are not entitled to protection.

I’m not eager about a Constitutional amendment, though given the treachery of the Supreme Court (seeking in the Constitution a right to privacy that supercedes the right to life), I see no alternative. Do you? Do you really think that five Catholics on the Supreme Court will make a difference? One of the Justices who voted for Roe v Wade was a Catholic!

So much for common sense among the political elites.
 
graceandglory

*They wanted to hold signs with us. I have no idea if they are Christian, agnostic, or atheist kids, abortion doesn’t need to be a religions issue, it’s a common sense issue. *

That is my position throughout this thread. However, it invariably will fall to religious people of every persuasion that they can throw their common weight together for a common cause. Failing to do so, they will leave “common sense” with relatively few champions.

As the Pope recently said, the Catholic bishops are among those who rightly have an obligation to raise the public consciousness in areas where it fallen even below the level of common sense.

But for strategic purposes, it really is necessary to emphasize the degree to which common sense on abortion in America has been corrupted by the liberal establishment.

It is common sense: “You do not kill your own child!” An atheist can agree with a bishop on this.
 
Charlemagne_II said:
graceandglory

*They wanted to hold signs with us. I have no idea if they are Christian, agnostic, or atheist kids, abortion doesn’t need to be a religions issue, it’s a common sense issue. *

That is my position throughout this thread. However, it invariably will fall to religious people of every persuasion that they can throw their common weight together for a common cause. Failing to do so, they will leave “common sense” with relatively few champions.

As the Pope recently said, the Catholic bishops are among those who rightly have an obligation to raise the public consciousness in areas where it fallen even below the level of common sense.

But for strategic purposes, it really is necessary to emphasize the degree to which common sense on abortion in America has been corrupted by the liberal establishment.

It is common sense: “You do not kill your own child!” An atheist can agree with a bishop on this.
Click to expand...
👍👍
 
Charlemagne_II said:
graceandglory

*They wanted to hold signs with us. I have no idea if they are Christian, agnostic, or atheist kids, abortion doesn’t need to be a religions issue, it’s a common sense issue. *

That is my position throughout this thread. However, it invariably will fall to religious people of every persuasion that they can throw their common weight together for a common cause. Failing to do so, they will leave “common sense” with relatively few champions.

As the Pope recently said, the Catholic bishops are among those who rightly have an obligation to raise the public consciousness in areas where it fallen even below the level of common sense.

But for strategic purposes, it really is necessary to emphasize the degree to which common sense on abortion in America has been corrupted by the liberal establishment.

It is common sense: “You do not kill your own child!” An atheist can agree with a bishop on this.
Click to expand...
👍👍
 
There is no arguing with some

I got into a heated debate with my younger half sister on this matter. He stance?

If a woman takes a knife ad plunges it into her own abdomen to kill the baby, it is not a crime. If he huband does the same thing, it is murder, unless she asked him to do it.

I…don’t even know where to start…
 
I…don’t even know where to start…

Start with a prayer to the Holy Spirit for the gifts of wisdom and understanding.
 
Charlemagne_II said:
Has anyone ever found an approach to explaining the pro-life position that would leave the pro-choice advocates without a leg to stand on? I mean a *really convincing case *that can stop all discussion dead in its tracks because the pro-choicers have no answer?
Click to expand...
There isn’t one.
Have you come across the “unconscious violinist” thought experiment?
 
*Have you come across the “unconscious violinist” thought experiment? *

Yes. And I have come across this answer to it.

str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5689

I still don’t see how any feminist can say that the moral turpitude of killing one’s own child is trumped by the notion that a mother has a right not to be “invaded” by her own child.
 
Charlemagne_II said:
*Have you come across the “unconscious violinist” thought experiment? *

Yes. And I have come across this answer to it.

str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5689

I still don’t see how any feminist can say that the moral turpitude of killing one’s own child is trumped by the notion that a mother has a right not to be “invaded” by her own child.
Click to expand...
Charlemagne, you can have your legal pro-life position but as stated being legal pro-choice is just that, a legal position—it does not argue that abortion is in any way moral.

The issue is about govt power. This is not an autocratic theocracy, this is a democratic-republic based on the notion of limited govt–specifically here the limited use of state’s police power. (criminalizing all abortions). The Court split up the duty to protect the life of the fetus. It is the women’s responsibility in the early term, the state’s interest take priority as the fetus matures.

You do not have to agree with this, and further can believe the Court overreached its power—fine, well the Constitution can be amended–so the process allows for a correction.

Limited govt means that the govt just does not get to make all the decisions in this society. With abortion, there are other means that the govt can use to convince women to make the correct choice—if she makes the wrong choice then God can arrest her. This country is planted thick with laws, man’s laws not God’s.

That is the argument—thus you do not have a " clincher". The issue is not about abortion, the issue is what should be the amount of govt power used to address the problem. Reasonable people are going to disagree on this point—thus again you do not have a " clincher".

That is where the arguments are----though no doubt there are pro-choice position that do not think abortion is morally wrong. This poster has nothing to say there, nor that this poster is pro-choice even but this poster does know the arguments on both sides. 🙂 God Bless
 
I find the perfect way to “trump” pro-choicers is to ask them if the baby’s life is more important than the reason they are having an abortion. If they say that the unborn baby is not a baby, then ask them what else it could be. It has a heartbeat at 9 weeks (long before you can legally abort a baby) so it is alive. It is obviously alive. Ask them how many chronosomes an unborn baby has. there is no way to answer that. The last option is that it is an organ of the mother having an abortion, but babies often have a different blood type than the mother, so it must be a FULLY ALIVE HUMAN BABY. In all of my debates, noone has ever come up with a logical counter to this argument. When I used this on a fellow Scout in Boy Scout camp, he backtracked and said that it was morally wrong to change someone’s opinion!!!
 
NoviceApologist said:
I find the perfect way to “trump” pro-choicers is to ask them if the baby’s life is more important than the reason they are having an abortion. If they say that the unborn baby is not a baby, then ask them what else it could be. It has a heartbeat at 9 weeks (long before you can legally abort a baby) so it is alive. It is obviously alive. Ask them how many chronosomes an unborn baby has. there is no way to answer that. The last option is that it is an organ of the mother having an abortion, but babies often have a different blood type than the mother, so it must be a FULLY ALIVE HUMAN BABY. In all of my debates, noone has ever come up with a logical counter to this argument. When I used this on a fellow Scout in Boy Scout camp, he backtracked and said that it was morally wrong to change someone’s opinion!!!
Click to expand...
I have tried this argument myself, and come across people who say the embryo has just as much DNA as the root ball attached to a hair you pluck out of your head and claim it is no more “human” than the hair at that stage of development. And that if you pluck that embryo out of the mother it would have the same chance of living and growing as the same hair. I have run across many arguments such as this, and it always ends up the same. This argument will never be won, unfortunately.
 
NoviceApologist

*When I used this on a fellow Scout in Boy Scout camp, he backtracked and said that it was morally wrong to change someone’s opinion!!! *

Sounds like you are dealing with an untrained and immature intellect.

The "clincher for me is to show anyone willing to literally “see” the truth before their very eyes what an abortion is. Even anyone so hard-hearted as to view abortion as a strictly logical matter has to have his logic shattered by observing a real abortion by dismemberment: the baby’s limbs are one by one torn from his torso, and finally his head is crushed.

There is supposed to be a moral and legal right for a mother to do this to her child, and for a butcher to get paid for doing it?

Such videos are obtainable. The most famous was titled “Eclipse of Reason.” And that is exactly what abortion is: the eclipse of common sense: “We do not kill our children.”
 
Worthy5 said:
The issue is about govt power. This is not an autocratic theocracy, this is a democratic-republic based on the notion of limited govt–specifically here the limited use of state’s police power. (criminalizing all abortions). The Court split up the duty to protect the life of the fetus. It is the women’s responsibility in the early term, the state’s interest take priority as the fetus matures.
Click to expand...
The issue is indeed about government power. Seven men on the supreme court took upon themselves the sole power to impose abortion on demand on the nation as a whole, despite the fact that every state in the nation had laws regulating abortion. No, all abortion was not criminalized in every state, pre-Roe. The court told the states, you can no longer legislate on this, because seven of us think that there is a right to abortion buried somewhere among the penumbras in the constitution.

That’s just a raw exercise of judicial power. (Personally, I don’t think that even the Roe justices really thought that there was a constitutional right to abortion. They just wanted to make new law–something for the legislatures to do.)

And they did not split up the duty to protect the life of the unborn child–they simply removed protection from it. Going by Doe v Bolton’s definition of health, any abortion can be justified by an abortionist at any time up till birth. No prosecutor will second guess any reason given. In fact, the unborn child has no protection.

Presumably the instant the umbilical cord is cut, it suddenly transforms from the equivalent of a root-ball to a human being. The lack of embryological knowledge used in public debate is distressing. Every new human being has a biological beginning. It starts with its own DNA, distinct from the parents. That beginning is at conception.

The only question is, do all human beings deserve protection. Or are some more equal than others, because we’re older and have the means to kill.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top