Why Radical Pro-Lifers Are Wasting Their Time

[JimG]

While education is important, I doubt that it would have changed the post Roe v Wade pro-abortion steamroller.

It was apparent long before Roe that every new human being has its beginning at conception. That’s been an embryological fact long before Roe, which the Roe court chose to ignore.

Fact is, the pro-aborts didn’t care when a new human being began. They cared that a woman could legally abort her child at any point during pregnancy. The sexual revolution demanded it.

It’s moral blindness.

Nobody celebrates an expectant mother with a “fetal shower.” No, they always give her a baby shower. They know she’s having a baby. They resort to medical terminology in order to make it easier to kill the new human being.

 

[hansiepansie]

Well okay fair enough I’m an atheist, but to be honest I disagree with all of this.
A woman’s body is not defined by religion. If said woman is a Catholic and chooses to go ahead with her baby, that’s fine. It’s her choice. If she decides to have an abortion what’s so wrong with that? It’s HER body. Not the Popes, not her priests, not “Gods”. It should definitely not be looked down upon to have an abortion and the woman shouldn’t feel any less Catholic.

 

[Seeker1961]

This argument is as specious as suggesting that we wouldn’t need a deer hunting season if we could just get everybody to watch the movie Bambi.

I’m not surprised that any suggestion that the political answer may not be the best would be met with derision here. Many CAF posters are VERY personally invested in politics.

 

[JimG]

Well okay fair enough I’m an atheist, but to be honest I disagree with all of this.
A woman’s body is not defined by religion. If said woman is a Catholic and chooses to go ahead with her baby, that’s fine. It’s her choice. If she decides to have an abortion what’s so wrong with that? It’s HER body. Not the Popes, not her priests, not “Gods”. It should definitely not be looked down upon to have an abortion and the woman shouldn’t feel any less Catholic.

No, a woman’s body is defined by biology, as is her baby’s body. Religion has nothing to do with it.

At what point is she no longer free to kill the baby? at 8 months? 9 months? or possibly, as Professor Singer has suggested, up to six months after birth?

 

[fix]

What if something was legal, but nobody cared because they didn’t want to use it? Would it matter that it was legal?

Yes, it would matter. The law is a teacher. Whether you accept reality or not it matters greatly. Indeed, the Church teaches specifically that the law must prohibit abortion. She teaches that for a reason.

 

[twoshoes]

Well okay fair enough I’m an atheist, but to be honest I disagree with all of this.
A woman’s body is not defined by religion. If said woman is a Catholic and chooses to go ahead with her baby, that’s fine. It’s her choice. If she decides to have an abortion what’s so wrong with that? It’s HER body. Not the Popes, not her priests, not “Gods”. It should definitely not be looked down upon to have an abortion and the woman shouldn’t feel any less Catholic.

This is were we are today, it’s her body not Gods. If you believe God doesn’t exist then your still makes no sense to me. if we continue with along this line of thinking, then it doesnot matter at what stage a killing of the child in the womb occurs. The irresponsible mother has control of creation, not God. From conception to birth, and in the case of Obama, after birth, taking the life away from a new an uniquely human person with his own DNA is ok. The child in the womb has no rights, there is that thing in the Preamble to constitution called, "Life, but we can forget about that, that was two hundred years ago. But the baby is just a parasite of it’s mother, a parasite she along with her male partner created. It didnot just enter her body, she helped create it, she had control of the process. Now here again we can say a baby after birth is totally dependent on it’s mother. So is Obama right? This child is dependent on it’s mother, and sometime father for 18 years, can we kill them too. Some people do.

Were does this line of thinking stop, can the father exercise his rights and demand an abortion?, Some men do by coersion. Can the government demand the limit on number of children you can have? China does. Can parents abort a child in the womb because of sex? Some do. Then again in your way of thinking it’s a mothers choice, she alone has the right of life and death. “Because it’s a CHOICE”, were does responsibility enter into your thinking… Her choice ended when she decided to make sex a game of pleasure and not for procreation, another life is involved. try the word responsibility instead of choice.

One last commend, If you do not know God, then he will never be real to you,. Man from the time of creation instinctively knew GOD exist, but not the Atheist, so sad for you. Sorry if I was sarcastic, I didn’t mean to be, I’m very passionate about saving all life from conception to natural death.

 

[clem456]

Well okay fair enough I’m an atheist, but to be honest I disagree with all of this.
A woman’s body is not defined by religion. If said woman is a Catholic and chooses to go ahead with her baby, that’s fine. It’s her choice. If she decides to have an abortion what’s so wrong with that? It’s HER body. Not the Popes, not her priests, not “Gods”. It should definitely not be looked down upon to have an abortion and the woman shouldn’t feel any less Catholic.

The possession-based philosophy of humanity. Human beings are possessions. That makes evil so much easier when humans can be seen as objects.

So, the obvious question is, are all human beings possessions? This should frighten anyone, when they realize they themselves are subjects of someone else, property to be disposed of as someone else wishes. Or are just some human beings possessions? If only some are possessions, then it’s ok to have power struggles to assert one’s rights. So war is ok, murder, stealing, rape, etc…are all justified if people are possessions.

 

[Newbie2]

How can it be that the same folks who are rightly outraged about the deaths of 20 children in Newtown don’t blink an eye at the death of 10’s of millions through abortion?

Can someone explain the thought process going on there?
I guess unborns are not human persons?
They are possessions until born? Kinda like slaves?
They don’t exist because we can’t see them?
What?

No, we can’t. And when you ask them, neither can they.

I would also add that there is an element of evil that creeps into the thought process of those who advocate the killing of the unborn.

Well okay fair enough I’m an atheist, but to be honest I disagree with all of this.
A woman’s body is not defined by religion. If said woman is a Catholic and chooses to go ahead with her baby, that’s fine. It’s her choice. If she decides to have an abortion what’s so wrong with that? It’s HER body. Not the Popes, not her priests, not “Gods”. It should definitely not be looked down upon to have an abortion and the woman shouldn’t feel any less Catholic.

So a person of a certain religion shouldn’t feel any less a part of that religion if they reject the teachings of that religion? Beg to differ.

No, a woman’s body is defined by biology, as is her baby’s body. Religion has nothing to do with it.

At what point is she no longer free to kill the baby? at 8 months? 9 months? or possibly, as Professor Singer has suggested, up to six months after birth?

Exactomundo. If one does not consider conception the beginning of personhood, any other designation is completely arbitrary.

 

[wynnejj]

Exactomundo. If one does not consider conception the beginning of personhood, any other designation is completely arbitrary.

Per the author of the article cited in the 1st post, there is a suggestion of a non-arbitrary cut-off point …

That’s hardly a new Catholic concept. As far back as the Middle Ages, the sainted theologian Thomas Aquinas recognized that a first-trimester fetus wasn’t yet a sentient human being but rather a potential human being — a vegetative organism lacking “ensoulment.” It wasn’t until the Popes felt their power threatened by the Enlightenment that they started to assert a blanket ban on abortion, co-opting new scientific instruments like the microscope to claim even the youngest fetus as a “homunculus,” or miniature human being.

The author is suggesting that a first-trimester fetus is not a person because (s)he is not sentient presumably because brain & pain centers are not developed.

This is where those who want abortion with restrictions suggest that religious values must not be legally imposed on the mother at a point when the child is not even aware of its own existence.

 

[andrewstx]

Yes? Why is that surprising? Adults are not children, and yet they are still people.

I think I know maybe what you are getting at. When I think of a child I think of a toddler at least and not a new born or baby in thw womb.

Think radicals are wasting their time, since the people they are trying to convince about abortion really don’t beleive the pre-born are the same as the born.

I have troubles with radicals of any kind. I belive there are radicals on both sides, not only on the left.

 

[JimG]

Per the author of the article cited in the 1st post, there is a suggestion of a non-arbitrary cut-off point …

The author is suggesting that a first-trimester fetus is not a person because (s)he is not sentient presumably because brain & pain centers are not developed.

This is where those who want abortion with restrictions suggest that religious values must not be legally imposed on the mother at a point when the child is not even aware of its own existence.

Aquinas had no knowledge of embryology and no way of determining when a new human being began in the womb, other than the perception of movement, which is rather late in the game. But human beings do have a beginning, and embryology is clear on when that is.

 

[wynnejj]

Aquinas had no knowledge of embryology and no way of determining when a new human being began in the womb, other than the perception of movement, which is rather late in the game. But human beings do have a beginning, and embryology is clear on when that is.

The “perception of movement” or an indication of sentience is the criteria of those who support abortion with restrictions, including large segments of Christian societies. I’m sure I’m not telling you anything new, but it seems that the majority of those who support abortion with restrictions are not concerned about human life, but only sentient human life. (Think Terry Schiavo controversy.) And concerned Christians are concerned about “radical pro-lifers” who do not distinguish between human life without brain & pain centers and sentient human life, will effectively use up all our chips at the political bargaining table if we don’t budge on this distinction in a pluralistic democratic society. These are valid concerns. Yet Christianity is a high percentage of the population, and if Christian society was convinced that Jesus is our brother, and therefore we are his brother, and that that status started at the point of “becoming flesh” rather than “sentient” … then Christianity would be able to put society back on the correct course of enacting a Human Life Amendment that would end this controversy. Christians have to be convinced that they have no wiggle room on this issue. The Nicene Creed is the perfect expression of this belief when we bow our heads and say “by the power of the Holy Spirit, he became incarnate of the Virgin Mary, and became Man”.

 

[OxygenMan]

I am sad to admit it, but the numbers don’t surprise me much. The Church is large, and many who follow her do so only in a loose way. It is the same with any large religion. For example, in Morocco, a Muslim nation, my father was easily able to obtain alcohol. Every large religion also has large numbers of people who don’t follow its teachings.

What is a shame is when so many lives are at stake. The secular culture infects the Church’s culture.

 

[peduzzi89]

This thread seems to be missing a point - that poll found that the majority of Catholics thought it should remain legal, but doesn’t mean that they don’t agree that it’s morally wrong. The unfortunate reality of the situation is that legally prohibiting abortion puts more lives in danger. I was just reading a study the other day that found that the death rate of mothers seeking abortions in South Africa went down by 50-90% when abortion was made legal depending on what percentage of mothers with early terminated pregnancies were in that situation due to miscarriage.

This is such a tough stance to take, but ultimately I believe you have to take the stance that saves the most lives - historically a somewhat pro-choice is actually that stance. You can still believe, as a Catholic should, that abortion is absolutely amoral. But it is a gross oversight to not recognize that if you try impose that belief on the majority of Americans who are not devout Catholics, that the number of unsafe abortions will skyrocket.

The comparison to homicide being illegal not preventing murders from occurring is not a totally fair one, because someone committing homicide does not pose the same intrinsic risk on one’s life as an unsafe abortion does. Unless, of course, you think that a mother should automatically die for seeking an abortion or a killer should automatically die for committing murder. Maybe you do, and if that’s the official Catholic teaching, then I stand corrected.

I know we’re supposed to stand up for what’s morally right, but when it boils down, you have the choice of one life being put in danger, or two. And I just can’t imagine that the scenario put two in danger is better, especially when the most fragile and innocent life is always in danger either way.

 

[SuperLuigi]

NOTE: That is not my title, it is the title of the article.

Now, for a quotation from the article:

Read more: ideas.time.com/2011/11/17/why-radical-pro-lifers-are-wasting-their-time/#ixzz2Gw0VyMUE

If this is true then this is just downright shocking. 52% of American Catholics believe abortion should be kept legal??? Just how bad is the problem of cafeteria Catholicism???

Anytime you read polls about abortion, you have to look if they ask about danger to mother, rape or incest.

Most Americans seem okay with abortion in those cases but want it heavily regulated.

I am opposed to abortion in ALL cases except danger to mother.

As for the article, well, I’ve said on here long before you posted that the pro-life movement needs to get real.

We’ve seen a law repealed in South Dakota and a personhood amendment fail in Mississippi.

I think we need to start smaller and work our way up, because right now, the electorate will not stand for raped women to be forced to bear the child.

The Senate losses in MO and IN should say something about that.

If you want results, then that is what we need to do.

As for me, I’m not going to keep pouring my money into organizations that above all else worry about exact moral purity.

I want to save babies.

 

[wynnejj]

I know we’re supposed to stand up for what’s morally right, but when it boils down, you have the choice of one life being put in danger, or two. And I just can’t imagine that the scenario put two in danger is better, especially when the most fragile and innocent life is always in danger either way.

With this logic, if a man has a gun to your head, a policeman would be exercising prudential judgement, given the lesser of two evils - risk to you versus risk to you & policeman - in taking no action to save your life at the risk of his.

 

[wynnejj]

This thread seems to be missing a point - that poll found that the majority of Catholics thought it should remain legal, but doesn’t mean that they don’t agree that it’s morally wrong. The unfortunate reality of the situation is that legally prohibiting abortion puts more lives in danger. I was just reading a study the other day that found that the death rate of mothers seeking abortions in South Africa went down by 50-90% when abortion was made legal depending on what percentage of mothers with early terminated pregnancies were in that situation due to miscarriage.

What is “death rate of mothers seeking abortion”? How does one tabulate the number of mother seeking illegal abortions? If you are simply saying that the total number of deaths due to abortion has decreased, then has the total number of abortions increased due to legalization? If total abortions are doubled, then a 50-90% decrease in deaths of mothers due to abortion is accompanied by a 100% increase in the deaths of babies.

This is such a tough stance to take, but ultimately I believe you have to take the stance that saves the most lives - historically a somewhat pro-choice is actually that stance. You can still believe, as a Catholic should, that abortion is absolutely amoral. But it is a gross oversight to not recognize that if you try impose that belief on the majority of Americans who are not devout Catholics, that the number of unsafe abortions will skyrocket.

This presupposes that making abortion illegal will not greatly decrease the number of abortions. If we are simply putting abortion back to the states, then this may be somewhat true … as there may be increased pressure to legalize, if not already, at the state level. If we are talking about a Human Life Amendment to the Constitution, where unborn babies are protected by law nationally, then it will most definitely greatly decrease the number of abortions.

The comparison to homicide being illegal not preventing murders from occurring is not a totally fair one, because someone committing homicide does not pose the same intrinsic risk on one’s life as an unsafe abortion does. Unless, of course, you think that a mother should automatically die for seeking an abortion or a killer should automatically die for committing murder. Maybe you do, and if that’s the official Catholic teaching, then I stand corrected.

Not sure what you are saying here. What comes to mind here is the idea of a mother having the right to terminate the life of her born child. If it were illegal, the mother’s life might be in jeopardy by the child’s father or other family members. If it were safe, legal, and accessible, the mother could go terminate-on-demand without endangering her life due to protection of law.

I know we’re supposed to stand up for what’s morally right, but when it boils down, you have the choice of one life being put in danger, or two. And I just can’t imagine that the scenario put two in danger is better, especially when the most fragile and innocent life is always in danger either way.

If someone has a gun at your head, are you suggesting that police should do the smart thing to maximize lives? An assassin should be able to terminate-on-demand without concern to safety of his life?

 

[peduzzi89]

What is “death rate of mothers seeking abortion”? How does one tabulate the number of mother seeking illegal abortions? If you are simply saying that the total number of deaths due to abortion has decreased, then has the total number of abortions increased due to legalization? If total abortions are doubled, then a 50-90% decrease in deaths of mothers due to abortion is accompanied by a 100% increase in the deaths of babies.

This presupposes that making abortion illegal will not greatly decrease the number of abortions. If we are simply putting abortion back to the states, then this may be somewhat true … as there may be increased pressure to legalize, if not already, at the state level. If we are talking about a Human Life Amendment to the Constitution, where unborn babies are protected by law nationally, then it will most definitely greatly decrease the number of abortions.

There is no perfect set of data for this, but what we do know is that over the past few decades, the amount of countries around the world legalizing abortion has increased, while the overall number of abortions has decreased appreciably. That may not be the most conclusive piece of data, but it at least proves that legalizing abortion is not increasing the number of lives taken by it - and legalizing it certainly doesn’t double its occurrence.

Not sure what you are saying here. What comes to mind here is the idea of a mother having the right to terminate the life of her born child. If it were illegal, the mother’s life might be in jeopardy by the child’s father or other family members. If it were safe, legal, and accessible, the mother could go terminate-on-demand without endangering her life due to protection of law.

All I was saying is that when people make arguments like “should we legalize murder just because its prohibition doesn’t stop it from occurring?” that the analogy is not a a fair one.

If someone has a gun at your head, are you suggesting that police should do the smart thing to maximize lives? An assassin should be able to terminate-on-demand without concern to safety of his life?

And now I’m not sure what you’re saying here.

Basically what I was saying is to compare these two scenarios: A) abortion is legal, and B) abortion is illegal. With both scenarios, one life is always lost. But with B), a second life is also being greatly risked. Is this risk worth it just to say that you’re “on the right side of the issue?” Does the fact that the mother is aborting her baby make her life more expendable? Clearly the data don’t point to prohibiting abortion reducing its occurrence, so what other reason is there?

An interesting note, and one that would make for an interesting thread which I might start, is that the strongest data suggest that where contraception is widely available, abortions are drastically reduced, for obvious reasons. But let’s save that for a different thread Look for it tomorrow perhaps!

 

[wynnejj]

Basically what I was saying is to compare these two scenarios: A) abortion is legal, and B) abortion is illegal. With both scenarios, one life is always lost. But with B), a second life is also being greatly risked. Is this risk worth it just to say that you’re “on the right side of the issue?” Does the fact that the mother is aborting her baby make her life more expendable? Clearly the data don’t point to prohibiting abortion reducing its occurrence, so what other reason is there?

Let me illustrate. If before legalization, there are 100 abortions and deaths due to abortion are 10, then 110 lives are lost. If after legalization, abortions increase just marginally to 110 and the deaths due to abortion decrease to 1 to 5 (50-90% decrease), then total lives lost are 111 to 115. A very small increase in the number of abortions due to legalization increases the number of lives lost.

 

[peduzzi89]

Let me illustrate. If before legalization, there are 100 abortions and deaths due to abortion are 10, then 110 lives are lost. If after legalization, abortions increase just marginally to 110 and the deaths due to abortion decrease to 1 to 5 (50-90% decrease), then total lives lost are 111 to 115. A very small increase in the number of abortions due to legalization increases the number of lives lost.

I just realized that I forgot to separate the quotations of my earlier post - there are additional responses to your earlier post that look like they’re part of the quote if you care to read them

Anywho, what I’m saying is that there is no evidence to show that legalizing abortion increases the number of abortions that actually happen. The fact that worldwide abortion has decreased by almost 20% despite an increased trend for its legalization - especially in third world countries where the most abortions occur - actually suggests the opposite.

IF legalizing abortion increased its prevalence, then you would be right, but its prevalence has clearly not increased despite more countries legalizing it.