Pro-life arguments (page 3)

Skimmer

Argument #24: "Pro-lifers don't care about children after they are born."

* This assertion is absolutely untrue. Pro-lifers show deep concern for mothers and their babies before and after birth. There are over 1500 crisis pregnancy centers in the U.S, a figure roughly double the number of abortuaries. An estimated 30,000 women are living in the homes of pro-lifers. In addition to individual households, there are many homes for unwed mothers run by pro-lifers. The operation of pro-life centers and homes is made possible by caring and compassionate volunteers. Commonly, pregnant women are taught child rearing as well as vocational skills.

* Compare this with Planned Parenthood, the world's largest provider of abortion and "family planning" services. They teach women only one thing: how not to have children (and if that fails, how to get rid of one's "mistake"). Planned Parenthood has an annual budget of well over 300 million dollars. With this huge, government-subsidized, taxpayer-funded budget, guess how many homes they run? None! When it comes to "family planning," having a family seems to be the one thing that Planned Parenthood doesn't plan for!

* It is the pro-abortion cartel that doesn't care about children after they are born, nor the woman who chooses life for her baby. Every woman who chooses to let her baby live has rejected the only thing that pro-aborts offer: Death. And despite the "choicespeak" of a child before birth being a potential person, he or she is truly a potential source of revenue for the abortionist. Perhaps in this morbid sense, pro-abortionists "care" more about children before birth than after: "Once born, never to be aborted!"

* Pro-lifers have always extended their time, energy, resources and compassion to help unwed or poor mothers in need of support. These efforts do not suddenly disappear when a baby is born. Examine where much of today's charity money comes from. Very little comes from "pro-choice" organizations.

* Unlike pro-lifers, pro-abortionists have a hard time justifying the birth of children in less than ideal circumstances. If a woman is poor and unable to feed her child, the "problem" could have been eliminated before birth, they reason. A starving child should never have been born, they say. The pro-abortionist is not merely "pro-choice"; abortion in many cases is the "promoted-choice." Is it any surprise then that despite the great financial resources of the pro-abortion industry, it does virtually nothing to help those poor mothers who nonetheless choose life for their babies?

* Whenever a pro-abortionist laments about the suffering of children and how it should be avoided, we must clarify their "solution": death NOW for the potential suffering of a child. The pro-lifer sees a child with a problem; the pro-abortionist sees the child as a problem.

RollerDave

reread your bible- pro lifers seem pro life 'till you are born. Then.....hang 'em high.

You cannot be serious.

I am pro life, because the right to life supercedes any right to privacy or property.

If we are OK with ending life because it is not convenient, or unwanted, or 'not viably independent' then euthanasia of the elderly or disabled cannot be far off.

There can be no question that the fetus is life, this has been firmly and scientifically established.

I am pro death penalty for those who have forfeited their life by violent crime, because it serves as a valuable deterrent and also removes the violent criminal from society.

If you refuse to see the difference, then shame on you.

And the reason we cannot just say, 'oh well, we disagree' is that this is IMPORTANT.

Would you be ok with agreeing to disagree about euthanizing a disabled child?

I am truly sorry for those that cannot see that this issue uses politics and polemics to complicate an issue as simple as life and death.

Wrong is wrong, life is life.

To the OP, thanks for the info, awesome.

RD

Kenneson

Here in Tallahassee, there is a pro-life clinic. I heard that there are a few others in South Florida. Be that as it may, not only do they give tests (ultrasounds), etc., they also counsel the women to keep their babies. Those who choose against abortion are referred to two groups that were organized to help such women. These groups collect baby clothes and other baby items for the newlyborn, plus they refer the mother to other sources who will help her until she can make it on her own. I like this approach because they don't only voice their opposition to abortion, but they are doing something to help those women who might otherwise choose abortion.

blueviceroy

We all exist because we impose ourselves on all of creation

Noone alive today is free of the fact that we all exist at the cost of other life, period

To take an imaginary moral high ground is just another fine example of our conditioning to believe we are supeior which allows us to do as we wish.

What makes an opinion valuble?

The intent is valuable , the expression of love in an intent is valuable, the expression of hate ,anger ,exclusion, seperatness inherint in an opinion are only more fuel to the negative energy that chokes the truth from the world

Life and death are two sides if the same thing.

Death comes to all

No right or wrong it just comes to ALL

To label right or wrong to an inevitable event is as productive as fearing it

I do not desire the death of any living thing ever

Attaching an emotional charge to an opinion is just allowing oneself to fall deeper into the trance of our self delusion and suffer for an even longer period of time

Our desires to see "right" done are in reallity just poison to our spirit

We all know in our deepest inner self what is "right" or "wrong"

Denying this truth is how suffering and "wrong" come to be in the first place, so ultimately we are all guilty of the very thing that we despise ,on the most fundamental level, we are guilty of the same mind and way of seeing the world that causes what we loathe to occur.

Skimmer

* The preborn is not a part of the woman's body. Once fertilization occurs, a new, unique, individual human being is created. As Professor Jerome Lejeune has stated: "The fetus is a human being. Genetically he is complete. This is not an opinion, it is a fact."

* "Every one of the higher animals starts life as a single cell-the fertilized ovum.. .The union of two such sex cells to form a zygote constitutes the process of fertilization and initiates the life of a new individual."

Thus, while the preborn child resides within his mother, he is truly an individual, possessing his own body, metabolism, genetic makeup and unique destiny.
* The preborn is not the woman's property. This concept is an explicit sanction of filial slavery. Parents are legal guardians of children, never legal owners.

Human beings may never be considered chattel, or the property of another. All are "created equal," and possess an inherent dignity because they are a part of the human family.
* Prohibiting abortion cannot be equated with "forced motherhood" or feminine servility. Once a woman has conceived a child, a new, unique individual human being has been created. Thus, the woman is already a mother; the separate life within her is her child. "Forced motherhood," rather than an apt description of anti-abortion law, is more appropriately a description of rape with the intent to impregnate. Prohibiting abortion does not force conception or motherhood, it protects the human being already conceived.

* Even if the woman's body was our only concern, there are still legal limits on human behavior-social constraints on individuals for the common good. An individual's rights usually end where another's rights begin. Killing someone is the greatest violation of another's rights.

* Yet even beyond this, people are governed by social constraints for the common good. Thus, drug use and other destructive behavior is prohibited even though the user is acting upon his or her own body. Likewise, prostitution is prohibited, even though the prostitute has individual autonomy over his or her body in other circumstances. Further, people are obliged to pay taxes, support public schools etc.-all for the common good. People wishing to remain free members of society have to accept just constraints upon their personal freedom. Without just constraints, anarchy and anomie will result.

blueviceroy

Skimmer your data seems to based on some strange legalistic view point

How about speaking from a more human expression so what is there would actually be part of the criteria that is utilized when a Woman must make the arguable most difficult decision in her life

Skimmer

The posted material is free from emotional and religious content as such could be used to justify anything.

I'm a mathematician and so will judge augmentation validity on logical grounds. I don't give a crap about feel-good moral relativism.

blueviceroy

I do not suffer from "feel good moral relatavism" I see things the way they are nothing more nothing less

The nature of all things is plain to see if one removes ones conditioning from the observation

I believe that would be described as the scientific approach

That being so it would behoove an honest mind to accept the apparent truth of an observation and take understanding from that alone on it's own merit rather than attempting to gain a consensus or impose ones own conditioning on others in an attempt to alter the observation in some way

Honesty is nothing more than seeing what is ,rather than what we would like to see , morality is a delusion as well as a hinderence to true understanding of the fundamental state of reality

pro-life is just a label pro-choice is a label

There is no argument there is only choice ,kill or not .

To believe that we have the right to make that decision for another individual is the epitome of arrogance

War is wrong ,starvation is wrong ,drug abuse is wrong , many things are wrong

You can engage in it or not, be a part of it or not , you cannot change a persons conditioning with any action except love

This is an observation that has been around for a very long time.

Brother Apostate

I do not suffer from "feel good moral relatavism"

morality is a delusion as well as a hinderence

A contradiction, methinks.

Morality is absolute, not relative, not a delusion, and the absolutes are spelled out in the Bible.

Abortion is murder and murder is wrong.

BA

Skimmer

You say:

"There is no argument there is only choice ,kill or not .

To believe that we have the right to make that decision for another individual is the epitome of arrogance"

I say:

To make a decision to kill another individual (an innocent unborn child) is far, far worse than mere arrogance.

Pro-life arguments

Share this