The pro-life common sense clincher

[Charlemagne_II]

seekerz

I can well imagine you’ll say this is America, but the reasoning applies because the attitudes to abortion in the medical community are overwhelmingly tolerant of the practice regardless of personal beliefs on the matter.

This is an interesting point. I can well imagine that the vast majority of physicians are tolerant of abortion. They certainly have not been among the forefront of those opposing the practice of it, as their ancient Greek ancestors did when they took the Hippocratic oath forbidding it.

It should be noted that the ancient hippocratic oath began with invoking the name of Apollo. There are, perhaps, not so many religious men left in the medical profession. They have, many of them anyway, lost the sense of the sacred. If they ever get it back, we could see them finally emerge as defenders of the unborn who so far have seen few champions in their corner.

I would not want to stand before my maker after having spent the better part of my life as so-called “healer” slaughtering hundreds or thousands of children for profit. I think there would be a special place prepared for me in hell.

So I would not be surprised if most abortionists do not believe in God. It may be a comforting thought to believe that no such Being exists to prepare such a place for them.

 

[Doc_Keele]

Laws against homicide generally do not stop all homicides. I think we can be fairly certain they stop a good many. Without such a law, there would no doubt be a good many more

pure speculation

 

[Worthy5]

Charlemagne II;6334858]

[It obviously meant the “best” point to make for the pro-life position. It certainly did not mean the “magic bullet” that would end all abortions.

Really, here is the definition of “clincher”—a statement, argument, fact, situation, or the like, that is decisive or conclusive.
[/quote]

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Worthy5

*Really, here is the definition of “clincher”—a statement, argument, fact, situation, or the like, that is decisive or conclusive. *

Agreed. And the clincher is that it’s common sense that we don’t kill our own children, and we don’t invoke the protection of the law when we do so.

Obviously, the argument is not going to stop people who are blind to common sense.

 

[Doc_Keele]

We’re back to the “commonsense” argument that was debunked several pages back?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Doc Keele

We’re back to the “commonsense” argument that was debunked several pages back?

You tried to debunk it, but did not succeed.

Explain to me why it is common sense that *we should *kill our children at will.

 

[Doc_Keele]

Well your argument succeeds only by totally redefining “commonsense”, or ignoring all the other times that “commonsense” leads to a position contrary to Catholic dogma. Or by defining commonsense as what Charlemagne says it is.

 

[Worthy5]

Charlemagne II;6335129]Worthy5

Agreed. And the clincher is that it’s common sense that we don’t kill our own children, and we don’t invoke the protection of the law when we do so

.

" our own children" …so what are you saying Charlemagne----“it takes a village”.

Charlemagne we appreciate your passion…and share it as well…but the govt police power is a very delicate thing.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Doc Keele

*Well your argument succeeds only by totally redefining “commonsense”, or ignoring all the other times that “commonsense” leads to a position contrary to Catholic dogma. Or by defining commonsense as what Charlemagne says it is. *

Common sense has to exist somewhere. Or is it your position that there is no such thing?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Worthy5

Charlemagne we appreciate your passion…and share it as well…but the govt police power is a very delicate thing.

Indeed it is, but with respect to saving life or preventing murder, there cannot be too much of it!

 

[Kolbe300]

Common sense has to exist somewhere. Or is it your position that there is no such thing?

Charlemagne, I truly admire your ability to continue with the debate. Unfortunately, it’s going to go round and round for you. I usually stay out of these threads for that reason. What I find fascinating (and I’m sure you’ve probably noticed it) is how the argument is so often re-directed towards something like: “well, that depends on what the definition of ‘is’ is.” The common sense you speak of does exist. The only people who have a problem with a “common sense” argument are those who either don’t have common sense or don’t like where common sense is taking them. In that case, their only option is to either shift the discussion to who and what defines common sense, or to begin treating a discussion board as a court of law. I’ve been waiting for someone to pound on their desk and yell, “Objection your honor!!”.

If one’s common sense actually makes sense, then they should simply state it. If it doesn’t, then the debate tends to goes scrambling towards “well, what really IS common sense?” etc., etc. You are absolutely correct, common sense says we don’t kill our children. If a person’s common sense leads them to a different conclusion than that, then I’d argue that their sense is anything but common. I’ll bow out now, though, because I’m no lawyer and common sense tells me this one is going to go nowhere fast. For the record, however, I admire your tenacity.

Peace to everyone and an extra prayer tonight for the end of abortion!

 

[exoflare]

Read the whole sentence if you want to get the sense of what I’m saying. I can give an example: abortion is supposedly illegal in India, except in certain defined situations (not only medical admittedly). Medical indications are routinely used to justify what is essentially abortion on demand. The patients seek it, the doctor’s generally are sympathetic and a judge cannot personally determine whether a particular diagnosis is genuine or fake.

I can well imagine you’ll say this is America, but the reasoning applies because the attitudes to abortion in the medical community are overwhelmingly tolerant of the practice regardless of personal beliefs on the matter.

From what you say, abortion is not really illegal at all in India anyway so it doesn’t matter. If you can find a real example I would still be interested to hear it though. In any case, this is just another attempt to repackage the ubiquitous “but some people will still do it anyway” argument even though it applies to any other law ever made. Again, hooray for double standards.

Sorry, but the term ‘clincher’ in the topic seemed to indicate that to me.

You knew that the word “clincher” in the OP referred to an argument and not a law. At least try not to sound disingenuous.

 

[Doc_Keele]

Doc Keele

*Well your argument succeeds only by totally redefining “commonsense”, or ignoring all the other times that “commonsense” leads to a position contrary to Catholic dogma. Or by defining commonsense as what Charlemagne says it is. *

Common sense has to exist somewhere. Or is it your position that there is no such thing?

I never ever said that Charlemagne, did I?

 

[Doc_Keele]

For millions, their world does end because of the issue of abortion. They never get a chance for their world to begin and end with their Lord Jesus Christ the way yours does. Unfortunately, they are also unable to come on here and make an argument for themselves

That’s begging the question.
Does God reject innocent victims? If he does, that is with respect God’s problem. I don’t believe he does, in which case abortion is a problem for those who have been involved in it, not the victim.

I don’t get the sense that anyone is arguing that banning abortion should be our only aim. That being said, until we stop snuffing out the innocent lives of millions how can we possibly be a light to the world? Countless millions of lives are being destroyed in what should be their safest place. You think we should focus on bringing Christ to the people. I totally agree. I just think we should start by bringing Him to the unborn in any way we can. Something tells me they could use His help. Should our efforts begin and end with banning abortion? Absolutely not, but I think it’s a darn good place to start.

How can we “bring Christ” to the unborn. No, I don’t think banning abortion is the place to start. It’s a substitute for genuine evangelism.

 

[fix]

Charlemagne, I truly admire your ability to continue with the debate. Unfortunately, it’s going to go round and round for you. I usually stay out of these threads for that reason. What I find fascinating (and I’m sure you’ve probably noticed it) is how the argument is so often re-directed towards something like: “well, that depends on what the definition of ‘is’ is.” The common sense you speak of does exist. The only people who have a problem with a “common sense” argument are those who either don’t have common sense or don’t like where common sense is taking them. In that case, their only option is to either shift the discussion to who and what defines common sense, or to begin treating a discussion board as a court of law. I’ve been waiting for someone to pound on their desk and yell, “Objection your honor!!”.

If one’s common sense actually makes sense, then they should simply state it. If it doesn’t, then the debate tends to goes scrambling towards “well, what really IS common sense?” etc., etc. You are absolutely correct, common sense says we don’t kill our children. If a person’s common sense leads them to a different conclusion than that, then I’d argue that their sense is anything but common. I’ll bow out now, though, because I’m no lawyer and common sense tells me this one is going to go nowhere fast. For the record, however, I admire your tenacity.

Peace to everyone and an extra prayer tonight for the end of abortion!

Thank you for expressing so clearly what I have tried to do several times. The issue is clear to those who choose to see. All the obfuscation and moral relativism in the world can never change what is so obviously true.

 

[fix]

How can we “bring Christ” to the unborn. No, I don’t think banning abortion is the place to start. It’s a substitute for genuine evangelism.

It is not a substitue. It is a moral imperative for anyone who claims to follow Christ.

 

[fix]

.

Charlemagne we appreciate your passion…and share it as well…but the govt police power is a very delicate thing.

Yes, such police power allows millions to be killed. The solution is not rejecting legitimate authority. The solution is for Christians to live, especially pols, judges, lawyers, physicians, and voters as Christians.

 

[Doc_Keele]

It is not a substitue. It is a moral imperative for anyone who claims to follow Christ.

It’s being used as a substitute.
It’s not a moral imperative to change someone else’s behaviour. It can’t be.

 

[fix]

It’s being used as a substitute.
It’s not a moral imperative to change someone else’s behaviour. It can’t be.

It is an imperative to try and change unjust laws. It is no substitute; it is part of evangelization.

 

[Doc_Keele]

It’s not part of evangelisation. What do you want to do first, convert people’s hearts or overturn abortion laws?
Which is most important?
Which do you prefer, a pro-choice Christian or a pro-life atheist?
(I anticipate what the response will be)