Trying to make an agurement for Pro-Life in my politics class for the church without bringing up the church... can anyone help me please?

[TaylorSSYM]

Hey guys,

I’m in a politics class and we have an online class discussion board and I want to make a reasonable argument for Pro-Life without sounding that it’s just because of my religious reasons I believe this. Is there a way to defend Pro-Life issues without bringing up the church? If there is can I have some examples? One thing to understand is that most of my classmates believe the U.S. ruling on what is a fetus and what is a baby and at contraception to them it’s not. I thought about bringing up the bad side effects of abortions but I’m afraid they will say that is becoming easier as technology grows so I need a stronger argument then that, this class is an honors class so a lot of them are going to think quite hard on this.

Thanks guys, appreciate your help.
Taylor

 

[markomalley]

Hey guys,

I’m in a politics class and we have an online class discussion board and I want to make a reasonable argument for Pro-Life without sounding that it’s just because of my religious reasons I believe this. Is there a way to defend Pro-Life issues without bringing up the church? If there is can I have some examples? One thing to understand is that most of my classmates believe the U.S. ruling on what is a fetus and what is a baby and at contraception to them it’s not. I thought about bringing up the bad side effects of abortions but I’m afraid they will say that is becoming easier as technology grows so I need a stronger argument then that, this class is an honors class so a lot of them are going to think quite hard on this.

Thanks guys, appreciate your help.
Taylor

1. As far as making an argument for life, you can take Peter Singer’s philosophy and stand it on it’s head – take it to its logical extreme. The life inside the womb is a distinct life from the mother’s life: it has its own DNA from the moment of its fertilization.
2. As far as moral relativism, if there are no moral absolutes, then it should be perfectly OK for you to kill your correspondent on this board.
3. As to constitutional rights: Consider this:
   Amendment V:
   ​

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
​

Amendment XIV Section 1:
​

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
​

You will note the distinction between citizen and person in the 14th Amendment. The distinction is there for a reason. A person is a distinct individual. A citizen is one who is born in the United States or naturalized at some point. What determines personhood?

If the infant in the mother’s womb is not a person, when does it become a person? At birth? What about a woman who has a c-section? She didn’t really give birth; the baby was removed from the womb in an artificial fashion. So “birth” is not it. What if a baby is removed at 20 weeks with the intent for it to live? It is a “person” at that point, right? What about a baby at 21 weeks who is still in utero? Is it any less of a person? But it is legal to murder that second baby. Sometimes.

Do a little research on the Scott Peterson case. He was charged with a separate count of murder because of the death of his son Conner. But if Conner wasn’t a person, how could there be a charge of murder? (Mind you, if his wife, Lacy, would have gone for an abortion, she could have done so with full protection of the law…go figure) There are other cases out there where murder or manslaughter were charged from a male doing damage to the baby in utero. In fact, I recall one case where a teenaged girl wanted her boyfriend to get rid of the baby who was in her womb by hitting her in the abdomen with a baseball bat.

You don’t need Church doctrine or the Scriptures to support a pro-life belief. You just have to have a little common sense.

Good luck with your debate.

 

[markomalley]

One other thing: somebody will bring up the point about the SCOTUS not being able to define a “person” during the Roe V Wade case (you can and should read the decision online). Be ready for that…that’s when I’d bring up the examples of fetal homicide (Peterson, et al) in order to debunk that notion.

 

[PJM]

=TaylorSSYM;7193850]Hey guys,

I’m in a politics class and we have an online class discussion board and I want to make a reasonable argument for Pro-Life without sounding that it’s just because of my religious reasons I believe this. Is there a way to defend Pro-Life issues without bringing up the church? If there is can I have some examples? One thing to understand is that most of my classmates believe the U.S. ruling on what is a fetus and what is a baby and at contraception to them it’s not. I thought about bringing up the bad side effects of abortions but I’m afraid they will say that is becoming easier as technology grows so I need a stronger argument then that, this class is an honors class so a lot of them are going to think quite hard on this.

Thanks guys, appreciate your help.
Taylor

ASK: Is murder right or wrong?

Then ask is it OK to support in ANY way a person who supports murder?

Love and prayers,

 

[buffalo]

Pro-choice - the choice a woman wants to murder her unborn baby who is denied choice and the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

 

[TaylorSSYM]

1. As far as making an argument for life, you can take Peter Singer’s philosophy and stand it on it’s head – take it to its logical extreme. The life inside the womb is a distinct life from the mother’s life: it has its own DNA from the moment of its fertilization.
2. As far as moral relativism, if there are no moral absolutes, then it should be perfectly OK for you to kill your correspondent on this board.
3. As to constitutional rights: Consider this:
   Amendment V:
   ​

**No person **shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
​

Amendment XIV Section 1:
​

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; **nor shall any state deprive any person **of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
​

You will note the distinction between citizen and person in the 14th Amendment. The distinction is there for a reason. A person is a distinct individual. A citizen is one who is born in the United States or naturalized at some point. What determines personhood?

If the infant in the mother’s womb is not a person, when does it become a person? At birth? What about a woman who has a c-section? She didn’t really give birth; the baby was removed from the womb in an artificial fashion. So “birth” is not it. What if a baby is removed at 20 weeks with the intent for it to live? It is a “person” at that point, right? What about a baby at 21 weeks who is still in utero? Is it any less of a person? But it is legal to murder that second baby. Sometimes.

Do a little research on the Scott Peterson case. He was charged with a separate count of murder because of the death of his son Conner. But if Conner wasn’t a person, how could there be a charge of murder? (Mind you, if his wife, Lacy, would have gone for an abortion, she could have done so with full protection of the law…go figure) There are other cases out there where murder or manslaughter were charged from a male doing damage to the baby in utero. In fact, I recall one case where a teenaged girl wanted her boyfriend to get rid of the baby who was in her womb by hitting her in the abdomen with a baseball bat.

You don’t need Church doctrine or the Scriptures to support a pro-life belief. You just have to have a little common sense.

Good luck with your debate.

One other thing: somebody will bring up the point about the SCOTUS not being able to define a “person” during the Roe V Wade case (you can and should read the decision online). Be ready for that…that’s when I’d bring up the examples of fetal homicide (Peterson, et al) in order to debunk that notion.

Yeah I may be able to use this thank you, though as you stated in your next comment they will ask when dose it become a person and thats my problem. My classmates, at least most of them believe that it is a fetus at contraception and thus not a person. Now I’ve never heard of fetal homicide I guess I can go do some research on that.
Thank so much though!

 

[buffalo]

Priests for Life has some good stuff to help with the when does life begin issue.

 

[TaylorSSYM]

ASK: Is murder right or wrong?

Then ask is it OK to support in ANY way a person who supports murder?

Love and prayers,

I could use this one as well, though I’m wondering if they would ask me if murder in war is right or wrong then… not trying to play devils advocate here I’m just try to think how they may respond to that… I do like the argument though.

thanks for the help.

Pro-choice - the choice a woman wants to murder her unborn baby who is denied choice and the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

I really like this saying but it may be a bit harsh in my online discussion. I do like it a lot though thank you for the help.

 

[buffalo]

I could use this one as well, though I’m wondering if they would ask me if murder in war is right or wrong then… not trying to play devils advocate here I’m just try to think how they may respond to that… I do like the argument though.

thanks for the help.

I really like this saying but it may be a bit harsh in my online discussion. I do like it a lot though thank you for the help.

One other one - They want abortion to be safe, legal and rare. You reply - How can it be safe for the unborn baby?

 

[Cat_Herder]

There’s also this old document which, for some reason, gets left out of federal politics:
US Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that** all men are created equal**, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness

It does not say “born” equal. It says created equal.

This position paper of the National Lawyers Association should be a great resource for you in arguing the authoritativeness of the Declaration vis a vis federal law.

 

[wanner47]

Apple Argument Against Abortion – Peter Singer argues against abortion using Socratic logic.

Articles by atheist pro-lifers: godlessprolifers.org/library.html

 

[mark_a]

Here’s a Catholic Answers Live show from last week that addressed your issue (from a non-religious perspective):
catholic.com/audio/2010/real/ca101013b.ram

 

[faithfully]

I could use this one as well, though I’m wondering if they would ask me if murder in war is right or wrong then… not trying to play devils advocate here I’m just try to think how they may respond to that… I do like the argument though.

thanks for the help.

I really like this saying but it may be a bit harsh in my online discussion. I do like it a lot though thank you for the help.

Just straight up murder is wrong. Even in a war. You don’t walk into a village of unarmed people and blow the place up. That’s MURDER… But if they are shooting at you and you light them up, that’s self defense.

And if you can’t FATHOM war at any cost, then surely you can’t fathom the killing of an innocent baby. And few people who support a war, think they are doing it willy nilly. There is perceived danger like a threat to an entire society.
And we have already determined that self defense is allowable.

 

[Joan_of_Ark]

There are many ways because the Church follows the Natural Law of God, so you can just use logic about life and the sacredness of all living creatures.

this one is my favorite: The argument is that a person in the womb is an undeveloped human being, but still a human being, just as as the baby who makes it outside of the womb, is also not fully developed, yet pro abortionists consider this stage of development a human being simply because it isn’t in the womb anymore. (think Kangaroo!)…it isn’t logical!!

You put up a picture of a child at the moment of conception then show a progression of development…The fertilized egg…you can find these pictures on the web
Then one of a baby in the first trimester in her mothers womb
Then one of the baby in the 2nd and one in the 3rd stage,
then a newborn baby
Then a child who is 1 year old (use the same sex in all pics and try to get them to have the same nationality, hair color etc…
THen one who is 5
Then one at 10
A picture of the child at 16, then 21, then the perfect fully developed age of 33. someone who changed the world…even if he is an atheist. you can use Beethoven, Einstein or Walt Disney, You can use Barak OBama, whoever would make an impact

And you can say something to the effect of , " These are the stages of development of a human being! If it is murder to kill a person in this stage (put up picture of the newborn), or this stage: ( put up picture of the teenager), or this stage(put up pic of the famous person who made the world a happy place)…then it isn 't right to kill a person in this stage of development either. Put up picture of fetus.

If you can’t use this format, you can at least use the idea to write your paper. A baby out of the womb is not a fully developed human being, it doesn’t look like the man of 33 at all, but neither does a newborn look like the full developed human being, nor does the 3 year old or even the 16 yr old. All these stages including the fetus in the womb are stages of development of a human being! You have to proove that the unborn fetus is indeed a human being. And it is against the natural law to kill an innocent human being.

Hope this gives you some ideas.

J

 

[EricFilmer]

Dr. Peter Kreeft has examined the pro-life debate in detail (and from a philosophical rather than religious angle) in his book, The Unaborted Socrates:
amazon.com/Unaborted-Socrates-Dramatic-Surrounding-Abortion/dp/0877848106/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1287884705&sr=1-1

I will now paraphrase one of his arguments (which he presented on page 72 of the paperback version) and give it some of my own elaboration:

If someone is going to commit an action that could endanger a human life, he has a moral obligation to ensure that there is not a human life present at the time. For example, if an exterminator is going to fumigate a building then he has a moral obligation to check all the rooms before he turns on the toxic gas and make sure no one is inside. If he does not properly evacuate the building but goes ahead and turns on the gas, he is acting upon the presumption that the building is empty of people, even though he does not actually know this for certain. In such a case, he is acting foolishly and recklessly. And if a person ends up getting killed along with the bugs, then the exterminator is responsible for the death.

Pro-life supporters and pro-abortion supporters argue over whether or not the life in the womb is human. No one can definitively prove their case (at least at this time). But pro-abortionists have the moral obligation to prove their case, because they are the ones promoting a procedure that could result in the death of a human being. The current law in the U.S., however, dismisses this obligation on the basis of a woman’s right to privacy. But the moral obligation remains, even if the law chooses to ignore it. An abortionist who does an abortion without first proving that the life in the womb is not human is like an exterminator who fumigates a building without first checking to see if anyone is inside. The abortionist does not truly know that the fetus in the womb is not human, but goes ahead and acts as if he is certain that the fetus is not.

 

[TaylorSSYM]

One other one - They want abortion to be safe, legal and rare. You reply - How can it be safe for the unborn baby?

Yeah but still like I’ve been saying my classmates are going to reply it’s a fetus, I do like the arguments down future that explain for that though. Thanks for your help though!

There’s also this old document which, for some reason, gets left out of federal politics:

Quote:
Originally Posted by US Declaration of Independence
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness
It does not say “born” equal. It says created equal.

Trust me I like that argument but I’m quite sure my classmates could turn that around also for saying that it’s just a fetus… hm… I can’t personally come up with an argument back for that but I’m also Pro-Life so my mind and heart are already set on the unborn baby. Thanks for the argument though .

Apple Argument Against Abortion – Peter Singer argues against abortion using Socratic logic.

Articles by atheist pro-lifers: godlessprolifers.org/library.html

I’ll looks these up and look at them a little later. Thanks for the links though .

Here’s a Catholic Answers Live show from last week that addressed your issue (from a non-religious perspective):
catholic.com/audio/2010/real/ca101013b.ram

Thank so much for this link! I thought I heard the other day that this was going to be on Catholic Answers Live but I missed the show thanks for the link!!!

Just straight up murder is wrong. Even in a war. You don’t walk into a village of unarmed people and blow the place up. That’s MURDER… But if they are shooting at you and you light them up, that’s self defense.

And if you can’t FATHOM war at any cost, then surely you can’t fathom the killing of an innocent baby. And few people who support a war, think they are doing it willy nilly. There is perceived danger like a threat to an entire society.
And we have already determined that self defense is allowable.

Yeah I mean I understand but I’m sure they would go back saying it’s not a human and since it’s not and just a fetus then it should be allowed… then they would say things about the woman’s choice and stuff… sigh my class is not easy to argue against sorry but I do enjoy the argument I’ll keep it in mind and think about it myself later a bit more .

 

[TaylorSSYM]

There are many ways because the Church follows the Natural Law of God, so you can just use logic about life and the sacredness of all living creatures.

this one is my favorite: The argument is that a person in the womb is an undeveloped human being, but still a human being, just as as the baby who makes it outside of the womb, is also not fully developed, yet pro abortionists consider this stage of development a human being simply because it isn’t in the womb anymore. (think Kangaroo!)…it isn’t logical!!

You put up a picture of a child at the moment of conception then show a progression of development…The fertilized egg…you can find these pictures on the web
Then one of a baby in the first trimester in her mothers womb
Then one of the baby in the 2nd and one in the 3rd stage,
then a newborn baby
Then a child who is 1 year old (use the same sex in all pics and try to get them to have the same nationality, hair color etc…
THen one who is 5
Then one at 10
A picture of the child at 16, then 21, then the perfect fully developed age of 33. someone who changed the world…even if he is an atheist. you can use Beethoven, Einstein or Walt Disney, You can use Barak OBama, whoever would make an impact

And you can say something to the effect of , " These are the stages of development of a human being! If it is murder to kill a person in this stage (put up picture of the newborn), or this stage: ( put up picture of the teenager), or this stage(put up pic of the famous person who made the world a happy place)…then it isn 't right to kill a person in this stage of development either. Put up picture of fetus.

If you can’t use this format, you can at least use the idea to write your paper. A baby out of the womb is not a fully developed human being, it doesn’t look like the man of 33 at all, but neither does a newborn look like the full developed human being, nor does the 3 year old or even the 16 yr old. All these stages including the fetus in the womb are stages of development of a human being! You have to proove that the unborn fetus is indeed a human being. And it is against the natural law to kill an innocent human being.

Hope this gives you some ideas.

J

Ok gotta say I like this one a lot and I could throw something together with this one, though this isn’t a paper just an online discussion but I could throw pictures up for them to look at. Very good argument thanks!

Dr. Peter Kreeft has examined the pro-life debate in detail (and from a philosophical rather than religious angle) in his book, The Unaborted Socrates:
amazon.com/Unaborted-Socrates-Dramatic-Surrounding-Abortion/dp/0877848106/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1287884705&sr=1-1

I will now paraphrase one of his arguments (which he presented on page 72 of the paperback version) and give it some of my own elaboration:

If someone is going to commit an action that could endanger a human life, he has a moral obligation to ensure that there is not a human life present at the time. For example, if an exterminator is going to fumigate a building then he has a moral obligation to check all the rooms before he turns on the toxic gas and make sure no one is inside. If he does not properly evacuate the building but goes ahead and turns on the gas, he is acting upon the presumption that the building is empty of people, even though he does not actually know this for certain. In such a case, he is acting foolishly and recklessly. And if a person ends up getting killed along with the bugs, then the exterminator is responsible for the death.

Pro-life supporters and pro-abortion supporters argue over whether or not the life in the womb is human. No one can definitively prove their case (at least at this time). But pro-abortionists have the moral obligation to prove their case, because they are the ones promoting a procedure that could result in the death of a human being. The current law in the U.S., however, dismisses this obligation on the basis of a woman’s right to privacy. But the moral obligation remains, even if the law chooses to ignore it. An abortionist who does an abortion without first proving that the life in the womb is not human is like an exterminator who fumigates a building without first checking to see if anyone is inside. The abortionist does not truly know that the fetus in the womb is not human, but goes ahead and acts as if he is certain that the fetus is not.

I love this argument also! I’ll probably end up combining your and Joan of Ark. Thanks so much!

 

[ConstantineTG]

The economic models of Free Market economies rely on growing population. As already seen in current data, western countries who are also the world leaders in population control are well below the replacement level of 2.1 fertility rate. Not only will the current generation not be replaced, the smaller in population next generation won’t be able to sustain today’s economic models because the markets will shrink.

 

[InspiritCarol]

This is short and to the point: The Truth About First Trimester Abortions

fallibleblogma.com/index.php/the-truth-about-first-trimester-abortions/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+FallibleBlogma+%28Fallible+Blogma%29

For the science, go here.

tinyurl.com/qwb94b

Blessings

 

[PJM]

=TaylorSSYM;7194109]I could use this one as well, though I’m wondering if they would ask me if murder in war is right or wrong then… not trying to play devils advocate here I’m just try to think how they may respond to that… I do like the argument though.

thanks for the help.

I really like this saying but it may be a bit harsh in my online discussion. I do like it a lot though thank you for the help.

An additional thought:

Is there not a difference in “killing” and “murder.” War is kiling; while abortion remains murder.