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?

[Joan_of_Ark]

I think it is important to make the argument about the personhood humanity of the fetus, because the other side of the argument is that the unborn human is not a human, that is how they justify it not being murder! And the the way things are now, they don’t have to proove it isn’t . So it isn’t going to stop abortion by telling them they have to proove it isn’t murder. they don’t have to proove anything! Abortion is already legal! This person has to argue pro life using the Natural Law…why abortion is pro death…because murder is illegal Church or no Church.

And killing an unborn human being is murder

Let’s .Look at the Kangaroo.

When marsupials are born, they are very small fetal form, tiny, fragile, and they do not look anything like their fully developed stage. They come out of the womb but are still in need of protection and further development. So they go into the pouch which is like an outside womb for further development. They are still kangaroos, though they look like a fetus.

And if a human baby could survive outside of the womb in fetal form and continue to develop,say in a pouch outside the womb… then the argument about “is it a human being”, would be moot.

My argument about the development of living creatures shows that just because it doesn’t look like a fully developed human being, doesn’t mean it is not a human being. if you can get a person on the pro abortion side to hear that logic, they would have to be converted, she would win her argument! … (or at least get an A on it!), or they simply are not listening, or thinking. That is the problem and a great tragedy, that there is no deep thought about what it means to be a human being…humans are constantly developing, and human in ALL stages! How difficult is that to understand??? Ahhhhhh!

 

[buffalo]

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.

Yes, this is big and overlooked. Estimates are over 35 trillion in lost Gross Domestic Product.and 70 trillion if you include IUD, RU486 etc…

 

[Joan_of_Ark]

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!

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

O snap! Glad you could use it!! Good luck and God Blesss you and may the Holy Spirit be with you!

 

[stephe1987]

Changing the terminology so that a fetus is not a baby does not help. It just moves it back so it is more convenient to abort the baby. It makes it easier to abort when you de-humanize them. Just as it was easier to abuse slaves when they weren’t thought of as human. A fetus is a human. A slave is a human. Think about it. The ONLY reason they change the terminology is to make it emotionally easier to abort. A fetus is a human. An infant is a human. A toddler is a human. A child is a human. A teenager is a human. An adult is a human. An elderly person is a human. Everyone is HUMAN; the terms only state the stage of development.

A fetus is alive and growing. New cells are formed every day, which will eventually become organs. And when the body is complete, the baby will continue to grow and gain weight until he or she is ready to be born. Each fetus has his/her own unique complete set of DNA (note that sperm or egg cells by themselves do not have a complete set of DNA).

Medically, women who have had abortions are at higher risk for certain kinds of cancer (no cure, some say there may never be a cure, especially with all the people whose job it is to research a cure). Women who have had abortions are at high risk for depression, suicide, etc. And the more abortions a woman has, the greater the chance will be that she will never be able to carry a baby to term; when she “wants” a child, he/she will be born early. The earlier a baby is born, the greater the risk is that he or she will not live.

Many women who abort their children end up regretting it later on. And many women are forced to get abortions by their boyfriends or fathers. Many young girls have been sexually abused for years and it has been covered up because abortion clinics don’t pay attention to their victims, nor are they required to report sexual abuse to the police.

Women do not “need” abortions. They need counseling and help if they are considering abortion. They are abused. They may feel trapped or unable to care for a child.

There are thousands of couples on waiting lists to adopt newborns, and there are classes available to help the young woman not bond with the baby, so it will be easier for them both when it’s time for the baby to meet his or her parents. Also, many couples are turning to IVF because they can’t find a baby to adopt, or they don’t want to deal with a birthmother who has changed her mind and wants to take their baby away.

“The baby might grow up to be a criminal” argument is false for two reasons: 1) you cannot punish a person for crimes they have not committed and “might” commit in the future. If that were the case, many poor/ghetto neighborhoods would be wiped out. 2) many rich or middle-class (not poor) families are willing to adopt newborns, and people with more money are even less likely than those with less money to be criminals, drug dealers, etc.

“Babies are hard to find homes for.” False. OLDER children are hard to find homes for. There are hundreds of thousands of families on waiting lists to adopt newborns. There are even waiting lists of a few thousand couples who are willing to adopt newborns with disabilities.

Re: A woman who does not want to carry a baby, and the “using her body” argument. The baby needs his/her mother for a short period of time to live. Why should one person’s temporary wants/comfort level be placed above another’s needs? It should not. This is just like slavery. The slaveowner wants to be more comfortable, so the slave has to suffer and not get paid, not much food, etc. The comfort of one person cannot be placed above the needs of another. That is evil.

I think it’s really sad how brainwashed kids these days are. How anyone could justify murder is evil, but it always begins with de-humanizing the victims. Unborn children aren’t humans (sadly, most of the world today). Sick people aren’t humans (Nazi). The elderly aren’t humans (Nazi). Christians aren’t humans (atheist Soviet Union). Slaves aren’t humans. And it gets worse from there. Look at China. China murders millions of girls each year. Now they are facing huge shortages of women, incest, and they are going to have a large elderly population and a small working class population. In 50 years, I wouldn’t be surprised if they made a “1 grandparent” rule, since there won’t be enough workers to tax to give money for the elderly to live on. The future doesn’t look bright if people are denied the human right to life.

 

[markomalley]

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

One other thing to consider:

fetus comes from the latin foetus…meaning offspring, progeny.

 

[Asian_Lefty]

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.

I have a question. Is it appropriate to use the Constitution to appease the will of the church on people who do not believe in your doctrine or in god? The issue came up with Proposition 8 in California and now, the Constitution is used to oppress women who choose to commit a sin as you folks believe, but at the same time, are quite silent from the abuse by priests who molest and rape children. Do you really think that paying hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars to the victims would appease god from the sins committed by your priests? In California, the Catholic church was upset that former Governor Gray Davis (D) removed the statute of limitation on priests who committed these sex crimes and put hundreds of priests in jail. Some were killed. Some committed suicide. But the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the governor’s executive order and said it was cruel and unusual. BUT RAPING CHILDREN ISN’T??? Your Bible said in Romans 13vs1:

Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.

Yet when Bishops hide their priests or refuse to excommunicate them, that there is a violation of your bible. Selective usage of the bible seems to me hypocritical.

Therefore, if abortion is evil and wrong, and say that the church manages to pass laws making abortion illegal, thus creating a theocracy in the U.S., will the church then freely (without tax breaks or support), raise a child until they are 18, send the child to school, feed them clothe them, house them, free medical, free dental and so forth without using MY tax money so your religious agenda can be fulfilled? Ban abortion, remove a woman’s right to choose, create a theocracy and the church will have to pay…financially.

 

[Linda_Marie]

An ex-abortionist speaks to explain the deceptions used to get people to approve of abortion when abortion was legalized in the U.S.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=507236

Dr. Nathanson was a leading abortion advocate (and the doctor at 75,000 abortions) at the time the laws against abortion were nullified in the U, S. in the 1970s. Still living, and now prolife, he explains in the article linked below how abortion advocates caused Americans, though most of them had been against abortion, to accept it in the space of a few years. He, like the others in the cause, he explains in most of this article, changed public opinion in their favor by fabricating facts and by ceaselessly vilifying the Catholic Church.

These tactics have also been used throughout the Western world to change abortion law, he explains. See

www.catholicnewsagency.com/resource.php?n=402

 

[Cat_Herder]

[rant about sexual abuse scandal]

I regret to inform you that Protestant clergy have their own sexual abuse scandal, as do public school teachers. Why are you not complaining about them?

Did you know that the United Nations, which is a global institution comparable in scope to the Catholic Church, has its own international sexual abuse scandal which has been going on for over a decade? Funded by… your tax money, of course. And obviously the UN violated its own Convention on the Rights of the Child, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, and the principles enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

If you want to hold the Church (and not just individual perpetrators) responsible for the Catholic sexual abuse scandal then you need to hold the UN (and not just individual peacekeepers) responsible for the UN sexual abuse scandal with the same zeal. If you will not do so, you are engaging in special pleading, if not outright anti-Catholic bigotry.

Now back to the topic.

Therefore, if abortion is evil and wrong, and say that the church manages to pass laws making abortion illegal, thus creating a theocracy…

Abortion was illegal for most of this country’s existence, until Roe v. Wade. Was the USA a theocracy before then? No. Will it be a theocracy if Roe v. Wade is (God willing) reversed? No.

 

[Asian_Lefty]

I regret to inform you that Protestant clergy have their own sexual abuse scandal, as do public school teachers. Why are you not complaining about them?

Did you know that the United Nations, which is a global institution comparable in scope to the Catholic Church, has its own international sexual abuse scandal which has been going on for over a decade? Funded by… your tax money, of course. And obviously the UN violated its own Convention on the Rights of the Child, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, and the principles enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

If you want to hold the Church (and not just individual perpetrators) responsible for the Catholic sexual abuse scandal then you need to hold the UN (and not just individual peacekeepers) responsible for the UN sexual abuse scandal with the same zeal. If you will not do so, you are engaging in special pleading, if not outright anti-Catholic bigotry.

Now back to the topic.

Abortion was illegal for most of this country’s existence, until Roe v. Wade. Was the USA a theocracy before then? No. Will it be a theocracy if Roe v. Wade is (God willing) reversed? No.

That’s why the 14th Amendment protects women wanting an abortion. Protestant, Catholic who rape and molest children are all evil. But if the Bishop or Cardinal hides the priest without turning over the offender, then HOW IN GOD’S NAME CAN YOU SAY ABORTION IS A SIN WHEN THE CHURCH THEMSELVES ARE COMMITTING A SIN ON CHILDREN??? AND YOU DID NOT ANSWER ME! IF ABORTION IS LEGAL WILL YOUR CHURCH PAY 18 PLUS YEARS TO KEEP THAT UNWANTED CHILD ALIVE!!! STOP DEFLECTING LIKE AN EVIL LIBERAL!!! Or are all Christians liars?

 

[Cat_Herder]

That’s why the 14th Amendment protects women wanting an abortion.

The 14th Amendment protects persons. That includes women, infants, and children, and the unborn as well. The Supreme Court may have differed in Roe v. Wade, but the Supreme Court is not infallible and does make mistakes.

Protestant, Catholic who rape and molest children are all evil.

That act is evil regardless of who does it. But then you say because members of Group X have done it, Group X has no moral authority. Well, then the United Nations has no moral authority. Same with all the member nations. That leads us to global anarchy and I’m not going there with you.

Be consistent with your reasoning or you will not be taken seriously.

 

[VisionaryOne]

Life is not given for people to take.

 

[Black_Rose]

** My argument about the development of living creatures shows that just because it doesn’t look like a fully developed human being, doesn’t mean it is not a human being. ** if you can get a person on the pro abortion side to hear that logic, they would have to be converted, she would win her argument! … (or at least get an A on it!), or they simply are not listening, or thinking. That is the problem and a great tragedy, that there is no deep thought about what it means to be a human being…humans are constantly developing, and human in ALL stages! How difficult is that to understand??? Ahhhhhh!

Actually, one of the pro-life movement’s tactics is sonograms which shows that a fetus has the physical semblance of a human. Also, the utilitarian case for abortion does not dispute the humanity of the fetus, but its personhood.

 

[Asian_Lefty]

Getting back to the thread. Being pro-life and how would you defend being pro-life? Being pro-life does not ONLY mean being anti-abortion. pro-choice folks are anti-abortion, Hence the word choice? So how can you defend yourself or be an apologist for being pro life? Do what the liberals do. Promote sexual education and teach safe sex. No wait, premarital sex is a sin. Abstinence is the ONLY way. Well, the pro-abstinence ideal don’t work, ask Sarah Palin the queen of pro-abstinence. It don’t work.So if being abstinence doesn’t work, if you’re against abortion and have a phobia for sex ed, what’s left?

Taxes.

How’s that? Lets assume your wish comes true and abortions is illegal. Life does not begin and end in the womb. Life continues until you die. So if you’re truly pro-life, then do the pro-life thing and raises taxes. Taxes so that when an unwanted child is born, that child has the opportunity to have a/an:

Home
Clothing
Food
Education
Health care
Dental care
Visual care
Transportation (bus, train and other form of public transportation)

And other necessities needed to stay alive. And if the family decides to keep the child/children (Nadya Suleman), make sure that she does not lose her home, she raise her 13 children, they are fed and clothe and schooled. She is the poster child of anti-abortion and to take her children away only means that being pro-life is a farce, because, no one is willing to increase taxes to make sure that none of her 13? children die

Suleman quickly captured the public eye with the birth of octuplets. Within the first week, the media had coined her the nickname of “Octomom”. Suleman hired the Killeen Furtney Group as her initial public relations company, with Wes Yoder providing a small amount of pro bono advice. Both groups soon ended their involvement after receiving death threats. (articles.latimes.com/2009/feb/15/local/me-octuplets15).

So if you want to defend pro life, you will have to use Suleman as an example and defend her and people like her till the day you die as a Catholic. I do and I am not a Catholic. I want taxes raised. She deserves as well as EVERY single parent support if they need it. Because if the County steps in, then where then is the church in all this? If the church says do not use contraceptives. If the church says no abortion and the people follow the church to a tee, then maybe it’s time the church calls for increasing taxes so that no child or adult (yes adult) will suffer from lack of care. Life does not end after child birth and life does not end when you have a job.

Don’t like what I’m saying? Disagree with what I’m typing? This is the end-result of limiting ones right to choose. If you take away the choice of others, then expect to have your choices taken away and you MUST defend tax increase for people like Suleman.

 

[Cat_Herder]

If you take away the choice of others, then expect to have your choices taken away and you MUST defend tax increase for people like Suleman.

Your whole rant is founded on the notion that tax rates must increase as the population increases. Apparently you never took a macroeconomics class, because if you did you would understand that an increase in the population increases the amount of tax money collected even if the rate remains the same.

So if you want to defend pro life, you will have to use Suleman as an example and defend her and people like her till the day you die as a Catholic.

Actually we don’t. Octomom used IVF to concieve her eight children. IVF is morally reprehensible and condemned by the Church.

Sorry to burst your bubble.

 

[Asian_Lefty]

Your whole rant is founded on the notion that tax rates must increase as the population increases. Apparently you never took a macroeconomics class, because if you did you would understand that an increase in the population increases the amount of tax money collected even if the rate remains the same…

Who cares about macroeconomics? What happened to Christian charity? What happened to the Good Samaratan theory? Or is it just a fable used to oppress the people? I’m posting this and every quote to my Facebook page and a lot of non-Christians (including former Catholics) are are getting upset. Not that you care

Actually we don’t. Octomom used IVF to concieve her eight children. IVF is morally reprehensible and condemned by the Church.

Sorry to burst your bubble.

And back to you, so then Natalie Suleman should have aborted the babies God created? Don’t you believe that Jesus touched heer womb and made the babies happen? Or is this all lies and everything in the Catholic church is based upon conditions?

P.S., I have no bubble to burst, as I do not believe in the sky-spook

 

[Cat_Herder]

Who cares about macroeconomics? What happened to Christian charity? What happened to the Good Samaratan theory? Or is it just a fable used to oppress the people? I’m posting this and every quote to my Facebook page and a lot of non-Christians (including former Catholics) are are getting upset. Not that you care

If you want to start a thread about communism (and get thoroughly schooled on free will and history), go right ahead. This thread is about the life issue.

By the way, in four or five years your Facebook profile will be abandoned and no one will care, including you. The Catholic Church will still be there, though.

And back to you, so then Natalie Suleman should have aborted the babies God created?

No.

Don’t you believe that Jesus touched heer womb and made the babies happen?

God gave them souls. The way she conceived is reprehensible but nowhere have I or anyone else said that the children should be punished for the mother’s sins.

Or is this all lies and everything in the Catholic church is based upon conditions? P.S., I have no bubble to burst, as I do not believe in the sky-spook

Your religion profile (“Christian Agnostic”) is deceptive.

 

[Asian_Lefty]

If you want to start a thread about communism (and get thoroughly schooled on free will and history), go right ahead. This thread is about the life issue.

By the way, in four or five years your Facebook profile will be abandoned and no one will care, including you. The Catholic Church will still be there, though.

No.

God gave them souls. The way she conceived is reprehensible but nowhere have I or anyone else said that the children should be punished for the mother’s sins.

Your religion profile (“Christian Agnostic”) is deceptive.

So who’s going to take care of the baby, Jesus? God? The Church? And as for communism, I never said Communism. I am a socialist. Something Jesus was too, but I guess you wouldn’t know. And yes I am a Christian agnostic. I don’t believe in the bull called organized religion. Maybe you do.

 

[Cat_Herder]

So who’s going to take care of the baby, Jesus? God? The Church?

If Octomom is unable to do so herself then she should place the children for adoption. If she won’t do that then Child Protective Services will step in and do it for her. The children will go to a foster home or a charitable orphanage.

And as for communism, I never said Communism. I am a socialist.

Socialists don’t execute children and bury them in mass graves. Commies do. By advocating abortion you have embraced violence to further your ideology and thus you have crossed the line.

Something Jesus was too, but I guess you wouldn’t know. And yes I am a Christian agnostic. I don’t believe in the bull called organized religion. Maybe you do.

You need to check the dictionary.
Princeton University Wordnet:

Christianity, Christian religion (a monotheistic system of beliefs and practices based on the Old Testament and the teachings of Jesus as embodied in the New Testament and emphasizing the role of Jesus as savior)

 

[Marc_Anthony]

Yeah, that’s going to get us to agree with you or consider your point of view fairly…calling our religion “bull”.

 

[Brendan]

. I am a socialist. Something Jesus was too, .

Really?

Where exactly did Christ say that charity was to be done through the State? Everything I read ( such as Matthew 25) says that it’s a personal action.

And it was to Peter, not Cesear, that He told “Feed my sheep” and “tend my lambs”.

Charity, in the Christian view, cannot be compelled. It has to be freely given, not threated out of a person by tax law and imprisonment.