Are you Pro-Life or Pro-Abortion

[jmdrake]

In hindsight, I could have phrased my argument more effectively. Nobody, except for a very few demented individuals on the extreme and absolutist end of the pro-choice side, actually likes or endorses abortion. I say this as a fairly pro-life individual myself, who also used to be pro-choice but now has serious qualms and moral issues with it. I think either absolutist extreme is dangerous territory, just like some pro-life folks who don't believe that being pro-life precludes bombing abortion clinics (mind you, I'm not saying that this group makes up most, or even many, of the pro-life movement's ranks). My only trouble is that it's such a difficult issue, the longer I contemplate it, the more confused and conflicted I get, which is pretty rare, as normally, one's assurance in his or her belief system only grows more resolute with time and thought.

I don't reject the arguments used to support curtailing or even abolishing abortion. I only reject the terminology most people use to make the case for either position, which, whether used knowingly or unknowingly, have an implied effect of usurping moral authority or the appearance of a conscience from the opposition. Besides that, the terms are inadequate for descriptive purposes. I don't think "pro-choicers" are anti-life or pro-abortion. Many of them just have a different perception of where life begins definitively, which, when you think about it, only God knows for sure.

Ok. I agree with that. And I used to be a pro choicer myself. I think the Terri Schiavo case first turned me off. It's not that I approved of the antics of the Bush administration, but I couldn't see why MoveOn.Org made it SUCH an important cause to get her feeding tube removed. If she was really braindead as they claimed (and contrary to everything I found in my research about persistent vegetative state) then why did they care? A brain dead person by definition can't be suffering any pain. And why was she given morphine?

Listening to Ron Paul (who didn't take the position I did on Schiavo) I began to question my support for abortion in general. Especially his argument that as a doctor he's held medically liable for what some people claim is not a person.

But what has REALLY soured me on the choice side is arguments I've had with some who claim to be "pro peace" but HATE Ron Paul because of his stance on abortion and other issues. I've heard a fetus being compared to a tumor or a fish. (I guess their good with tartar sauce?) I've heard a woman claim that since pregnancy is a medical condition that only affects women, men have no right to have an opinion about it or make policy about it. I guess then there should be no women proctologists or urologists since those are medical conditions that only effect men? I guess Ron Paul should have his obstetrician's license revoked because he is male? I know you haven't put forward such shrill arguments and I find what you are saying reasonable.

You are right, only God knows for certain when life begins. I used to look at that and give the benefit of the doubt to the choice side. Now I give the benefit of the doubt to the life side. If the choice side is right then the worst thing that happens is someone is inconvenienced while waiting to give her baby up for adoption. If the life side is right then the worst thing that happens is an innocent dies. Tough choice. (Pun intended). I'm not so strongly pro life that I'm against things like the morning after pill. (If it's really a child worthy of protection at the embryo stage, then we REALLY need to rethink in vitro fertilization.) But ultimately I wish people would make better choices before getting even to that stage. Wishful thinking I'm sure.

Regards,

John M. Drake

 

[pahs1994]

when i was in catholic school i was pretty much forced into the pro-life club by my principal. i have been pro-choice ever since. its funny how stuff like that works out.

 

[allyinoh]

But ultimately I wish people would make better choices before getting even to that stage. Wishful thinking I'm sure.

This is the problem. People know how you get pregnant yet they still take the chances. It's irresponsible.

People need to own up to things. That's a big problem in our society, there's always an easy way out and people don't have to deal with consequences of their actions.

 

[Rangeley]

I implied no such thing, I merely asked a good faith question.

Why, if god is in charge of things, does he allow mutated human life to even start to begin with?

Is he somehow unhappy with the normal chromosomal compliment of wild-type humans and feels the need to mess up certain individuals from time to time?

Again, you are implying with your question, whether it is how you truly feel or merely a side effect of the question you are posing, that there would be a reason that people with downs syndrome would not be allowed to be born. Its like if I were to say "why does God allow people with blue eyes to be born?" and say "is he somehow unhappy with brown eyed people and feels the need to mess up certain people from time to time?" In these questions there is inherently an implication that I somehow see people with blue eyes to be inferior as people, and therefore have to question why they would be allowed to exist.

My point, if it hasnt been made clear yet, is that the answer to your question is the same as the answer to my hypothetical question regarding eye color - what gives our lives value goes beyond whether we have downs syndrome or blue eyes or some other trait. I dont think we disagree here, we just get to this point from different approaches.

The way I have experienced life is very unique to me, just as the way you have experienced life is very unique to you. Because we can never really get beyond our own experiences and actually walk in the shoes of another, its very easy for us to say we would never want to have downs syndrome, never want to be blind or deaf, never want to experience this or that. That we would rather never be born than go through these things. But because we are not omniscient beings, we should not be the ones to judge lives in this manner - this is what I touched on in earlier posts.

And from what you wrote it sounds to me like god is punishing innocent unborns for sins that they did not commit.

Well, I honestly do not see where this is coming from, as I never said anything remotely similar to this. What I did say was that suffering should not be equated to divine punishment from God, and I used the example of Jesus Christ himself, who suffered greatly yet committed no sins.

Christians dont beleive in Karma, which seems to be the general idea you are talking about where having bad things happen to you must be preceded by you doing bad things.

 

[MilitaryDave]

whats ironic are the nutcases who stand outside abortion clinics protesting and chanting about how pro life they are but wanting the staff of the clinic dead...or worse yet, the ones who actually have killed staff members, so much for being "pro life" or is that a pick and choose kinda thing?

kinda like saying you are pro life but support the death penalty

I couldn't agree more, that is why faithful Catholics take the Catholic pro-life position and understand it ... no abortion (including embryonic), no death penalty, no euthanasia and no unjust war.

HEY, THIS IS RON PAUL'S POSITION TOO!!!

Just like the Catholic Church, Ron Paul rests on Christian principles and while technology changes and social movements change, sound principles should not. The pro-life position rests on the core principle of human dignity.

check out http://www.catholicsforronpaul.com

 

[MilitaryDave]

I thought we had many more realists here. Many of you are beginning to become caught up in your own moral ideals, and neglect to actually analyze the information. Whether or not abortion is legal, it is going to happen. This is really a debate in whether you want abortion to happen in a backalley with a closehanger or in a sanitary abortion clinic with legally liable doctors. Making abortion illegal will do the same thing making drugs illegal has done, create a legally uncontrollable black market.

I've tried to keep it real, but nobody cares. Whether or not murder is legal, it is going to happen over passion or money. This is really a debate in whether you want murder to happen gruesomely in a back-alley or basement by a gun, knife or blunt instrument or should we have a sanitary death clinic with legally liable doctors. Making murder illegal creates a legally uncontrollable black market for hit men and "vigilantes".

I know, I sound as silly as you do. Maybe we should both read Ron Paul's book on Liberty and Abortion and get our facts straight.

 

[theczar1776]

wow quite a debate

 

[MilitaryDave]

The problem is arguing when life starts is if you take it back to conception, it's very easy to take it back to birth control being abortion because it prevents conception. It's a very slipery slope.

...


You can't just make it illegal and move on without fixing the issues that cause us to be in this situation. J...

We also need to make basic sex ed avaliable to people. The idea of not having sex until marriage is the safest way, I agree. ....

...


...

Besides doing the things I mentioned above, we can all put some of our efforts in supporting charities that help make it possible for these women to raise their children and that help find homes for the children that can't be raised by their biological parents. This one thing will tie in with all the things I've already mentioned. Many of these charities provide women with knowledge, emotional support, financial assistance (free stuff), medical assistance, and even legitimate adoption assistance.

...

(Sorry for the long post. I feel so strong on this issue.)

Excellent post. I hope everybody reads your whole post. I believe that any coitus outside of a marriage context (protected or not) is tacit approval of abortion. The end of sex is to conceive and if conception doesn't occur, then the sexual experience still creates a powerful emotional and spiritual bond between the couple. Yes, I think a Christian theocracy is tempting as a concept but realize it offer the state too much power and power corrupts (unless you are God). The next best thing is the Constitution of the United States ... LET'S WORK TO GET IT BACK!

 

[theczar1776]

you can make all the moral arguments you want but i say, if 2 people do not to take the responsibility of MAYBE having kids, why tempt fate? God, take some responsibility

 

[allyinoh]

you can make all the moral arguments you want but i say, if 2 people do not to take the responsibility of MAYBE having kids, why tempt fate? God, take some responsibility

Nevermind I get what you mean.

 

[theczar1776]

it is politically incorrect but look at the facts more that half (52%) of abortions are to women with more than one child, and less that 20% of abortions are to women under 25 hmm. abortion sound like an economic issue to me.

 

[Nirvikalpa]

I am not "Pro-Life" I am "Anti-Abortion." I am for the death penalty.

Children are not criminals who deserve death for things they've done nor are they enemy soldiers threatening our rights that need to be shot down. They are INNOCENT. A woman who is carrying a child does not have the right to end an innocent life. She had the choice not to have sex or to choose one of the many effective birth control options available to you in order to prevent the pregnancy. Once you're pregnant its too late. Now there is another persons life at stake and like any parent you are responsible for it. The father of the child is also responsible for what he helped bring to the world as well. This is why sex is not "just for fun." It has serious consequences for at least 3 people involved.

If you do not want to care for the child then there is adoption. You can drop the child off at any fire station you wish.

Hitler only killed 6 million. Pro-Abortion women have killed over 40 million. This is truly a crime against humanity.

Agreed whole-heartedly. There's a HUGE difference between being 'Pro-Life' and 'Pro-Death Penalty' they are NOT THE SAME THING.

If something can be made so easy, it's hard to believe that it's sacred.

That's not entirely true. Visited a fertility clinic any time soon? Tell that statement to a man who is infertile and a woman who has had continuous miscarriages, who desperately want children.

 

[jyakulis]

can we change pro-choice to pro-death...haha kind of like estate tax=death tax now.

but seriously. i tend to sit on the fence on the issue. i see the plight of people that conceive a child and do not have the means to properly take care of it. at the same time, i say to myself that they should have practiced more personal responsibility. i don't know it's not going to change anyway so, ultimately i find the debate rather pointless. it needs to be handled in the courts and we just had a pro life candidate for 8 years and nothing changed other than maybe some conservative supreme court justices appointed.

 

[DDMX]

My opinion - Abortion is murder.

Why is it legal to kill a child the day before it was going to be born, but not the day after it is born?

It is sick.

 

[IowaGarrett]

For the second time:

I challenge ANY pro-abortion/choice supporter to try to debase the argument I have established on this thread. Not one of you have been able to touch my arguments yet.

 

[IowaGarrett]

bump.

 

[RonPaulMania]

Over and over again, "No one can tell me to do what I can do with my own body" "Who are you to tell me about my body" "It's not gov't's function to stop a choice" "No gov't can police abortion" "There will be coat-hanger abortions in back alleys"...

Yet, when it is explained over and over again it's not their body's they are violating, it's another's no one responds logically to the fact we aren't talking about the rights of the mother, but of the child. Viability is not an issue as a child for the first 6 years isn't really viable independently either.

If gov't cannot intrude in the "choice" of murdering innocent life when should the gov't interfere with the good and rights of all citizens? The government was founded on the grounds of defending life, liberty and happiness; but when you play with life you lose the others. When Washington said he fought for the rights of every citizen, and included the unborn as part of those who he fights for I see this as spitting on the founders who never even dreamed that murder would just be considered a choice.

Frankly, I don't care if there are back-alleys murders in comparison to the greatest holocaust that has ever existed. If you saw a man with a knife about to kill a new-born baby everyone would scream, let that same monster do it with a vacuum and forceps and it's a choice.

Here is the head abortionist of Washington, DC in the 70's talking and explaining that abortion really is murder. You can watch the "foetus" fight for it's life and scream in the womb. The movie is called "Silent Scream" and you can avoid the obvious conclusion. Watch for yourself, it's called Silent Scream and you can see an abortion:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjNo_0cW-ek

Watch his follow-up called the Eclipse of Reason. Abortion is murder, it's a medical fact and proven by ultra-sound abortions and the huge numbers of ex-abortionists that are suicidal and have joined a group called the Society of Centurions:
http://realchoice.0catch.com/library/weekly/aa020701a.htm

 

[Conservative Christian]

if you are not pro life it does NOT mean you are pro abortion---What it is called is pro choice and what that means to me is even though I think abortion is wrong --for me--I can't tell anyone what thier "choice" should be----

remember the old saying dont judge till you walked a mile in thier shoes

No offense intended, but your logic is deplorable. Let's apply it to some similar situations:

"Even though I think lynching black people is wrong--for me--I can't tell anyone what their choice should be."

"Even though I think gassing Jews is wrong--for me--I can't tell anyone what their choice should be."

Killing unborn babies, blacks and Jews is wrong. There is no room for "choice". I can walk fifty miles in "their shoes" and that won't change that hard fact.

 

[ErikBlack]

Killing a fetus is different from killing a living person because a fetus has nothing to lose. It hasn't experienced life yet. It hasn't made friends and loved ones. No-body will miss it when it's gone because nobody ever knew it. There is a difference. A fetus is not a person. It just has the potential to become a person. Erasing that potential is not the same as erasing an existing human life.

 

[familydog]

Killing a fetus is different from killing a living person because a fetus has nothing to lose. It hasn't experienced life yet. It hasn't made friends and loved ones. No-body will miss it when it's gone because nobody ever knew it. There is a difference. A fetus is not a person. It just has the potential to become a person. Erasing that potential is not the same as erasing an existing human life.

So by that logic, many shut ins, elderly, people living off the grid, homeless people, etc should all be killed because nobody will miss them.

EDIT: And mountain hermits too!