* "You think that the killing of preborn children for any reason at any time before birth should be a legal choice. That's not pro-abortion?"
* "If you're not pro-abortion, which of the 4,400 preborn children slaughtered daily do you think should not be killed?
* "Pro-choice" means that no child has the right to be born, but every woman has the right to kill her preborn child. That's not pro-abortion?
* "You say you're not pro-abortion? Why not? I'm not pro-abortion because abortion kills innocent children; why aren't you pro-abortion? Obviously, you are pro-abortion."
Pro-life arguments
by Skimmer 109 Replies latest jw friends
-
Skimmer
-
Skimmer
* Deciding whether to engage in sexual intercourse is the "reproductive choice." The ability to make this choice is the "reproductive right." Abortion is neither a reproductive choice nor a reproductive right. If pregnant, with the rare exception of rape, the choice has already been made, the right already exercised; reproduction has already occurred, a new human life has begun.
Rape, of course, violates the woman's reproductive right and denies her reproductive choice. However, for all cases of pregnancy, because reproduction has already occurred, the reproductive right or choice is no longer applicable. The only "choice" remaining is whether the mother's preborn son or daughter shall live-or become a victim of legal homicide, i.e. abortion.
* People have the right to reproduce, and an obligation to exercise this right responsibly. Killing the human being created by reproduction is always irresponsible, and should never be a legal right.
* The "reproductive act" is sexual intercourse, not childbirth. When a woman decides to have sexual intercourse she exercises her reproductive choice (as does the man). Yet, the pro-abortionist tries to define "reproductive freedom" not in terms of sex but in terms of abortion; whether or not one chose reproductive activity beforehand seems irrelevant. However, the truth is that opting against abortion does not create a life; it spares a life already created.
* Abortion has nothing to do with "reproductive choice." Once fertilization has taken place, reproduction has already occurred and the woman is pregnant. And once a woman is pregnant, her choices with regard to her pregnancy are childbirth or abortion, i.e. the life or death of her child. Thus, the abortion choice is not a reproductive one, it is the choice of whether or not to kill the young, already "reproduced" individual.
* The "reproductive choice" is the "reproductive act"; i.e. sexual intercourse. -
5go
If you are in support of the death penalty, you simply cannot be pro life. That is a given. I would however call them "anti-choice".
And pro choice is not pro abortion. There is a HUGE difference. I suppose that stem cells are on the pro lifers list, too.
If you want to ask me what I am- I am 100 percent pro life. I just want government off peoples back.
I have to say I have some respect for those that are true Pro-lifers (I.E. ending execution and abortion). It still doesn't change my mind on the abortion matter.
-
Skimmer
The euphemism "garment cut from whole cloth" means having consistency in one's moral stances and not having a patchwork of beliefs. A patchwork made from whatever opinions might be convenient at the present moment, but its contradictions will sooner or later harm its wearer.
Also, pro-life is much more than being anti-abortion. It also includes decent treatment for the disabled and elderly along with an abhorrence of euthanasia. The motto is "respect for life, from natural conception to natural death".
Pro-lifers are against capital punishment in general, although I suppose most do support the use of death by incarceration (life without parole) as a deterrent and to protect society against major malefactors. Some pro-lifers would permit judicial execution in cases where a life prisoner murders another prisoner or a guard; fortunately these offenses are relatively rare circumstances.
Before heaping too much criticism of those against abortion but not against judicial execution (I stand I had many years ago), let's keep the numbers in perspective. The United States executes about a hundred prisoners a year, nearly all for murder or accessory to murder. Legal convenience abortion, and that's about 99% of all abortion, kills that many unborn children EVERY THIRTY MINUTES in the United States.
For some people, perhaps making the transition from being pro-abortion to anti-abortion (a good idea) is only the first step and eventually they someday will be against capital punishment as well. Maybe the sequence is reversed for others. Either way, it's the process of donning the garment cut from whole cloth. -
BurnTheShips
Wow. I never thought of it that way before BA.
That one blew me away. I am going to bookmark. Thanks.
Burn -
5go
natural conception to natural death
UM then why are pro-lifers so into life support?
-
Skimmer
5go, from where are you getting your information?
You should try a more reliable source, as few, if any, pro-lifers demand excessive and ultimately unproductive measures to delay a natural death.
The following somewhat long article discusses end of life treatment in the larger context of the practice of euthanasia.
See: http://all.org/article.php?id=10163
Note and compare the definitions of "Ordinary means" and "Extraordinary means" for end of life treatment. -
veradico
I wish to disagree with the following argument:
"Pro-choice" is a euphemism for pro-abortion. If the issue were slavery, "pro-choice" would be a euphemism for pro-slavery.
"Pro-abortion," to my mind, implies a desire to compel the termination of all pregnancies just as the term "pro-life" signifies the desire to compel the bringing to term of all pregnancies. If the issue were slavery and the term "pro-choice" were used, it would imply that one respects another's freedom to own slaves. However, let us continue the argument. If the issue were alcohol, "pro-choice" would imply, not an endorsement of drinking, but a willingness to tolerate another's freedom to drink. Of the two examples, slavery is wrong, but, unless one is a Mormon or a Muslim, drinking alcohol is not.
I believe women have the right to control their reproductive powers, so I would support one in any decision one made. I don't feel required to base my thoughts on a book or a religious consensus, but, in defense of a woman's right to make up her mind without judgment by those who call themselves Christians, I would point out (1) that the books canonical to orthodox Christians are, in fact, silent on the question itself even though abortions were performed in ancient times, (2) that the fetus (though valuable, as is all life) is not a human being, and (3) that the Bible contains passages that affirm the existence of situations in which it would have been preferable to have never been born (Job 3) and in which suicide would be a rational choice (Philippians 1:21-25). However, whatever a woman were to decide (putting the child up for adoption, aborting the pregnancy, or being a young parent), the decision would represent the end of many possibilities.
Let me be clear. There is an old Christian distinction between an evil (a negative consequence of being fallen) and a sin. To use this Christian language (which, by the way, I personally dislike since I find the notion of original sin repugnant), judgment is a sin; abortion is an evil. We live in a messy world. Abortion may be necessary in cases of rape, incest (or other conditions that might produce a baby whose life would be a horribly miserable genetic disaster), poverty, youth, or ignorance, but it is obviously necessitated by a negative situation and cannot, consequently, be anything but negative. Any time a life is taken--whether that of a bug, or a human, or a potential bug, or a potential human--it is not a good. To put it differently, abortion is less bad than judgment (note: the Bible is replete with condemnations of judgment, but, as I pointed out, it never explicitly condemns abortion). I support the woman's right to choose what will happen (though I think there should perhaps be some provision for the man to request that she bring the child to term, even if she does not want it, and give custody to him, allowing him to raise it or put it up for adoption), and, in general, this means supporting the woman's right to choose to have the child live. However, just as I deem judgment to be worse than abortion, I deem a woman's feelings and life (a realized consciousness) to be of more value than a collection of cells in her womb (a potential, or at least a primitive, consciousness).
Being a gay man who is in no way involved in the medical profession, I don't foresee myself being directly involved in this choice. But I do have the power, small though it may be, to exert an influence on what range of options women have through my words and political decisions. A frightened 13-year-old or an impoverished, unmarried woman or women in a number of other hypothetical situations, these will find a way to end their pregnancies. They should have access to high quality health care and not have to resort to wire hangers or underground surgeons. -
Skimmer
To veradico:
You say: I believe women have the right to control their reproductive powers.
I say: I agree; see my comment on reproductive rights and reproductive choice. The point is that one a new life is conceived, the reproduction event has occurred. It's been done. The right was exercised and the choice was made. All that's left is growth, both inside and outside the womb. Without a time machine, there's no way to go back and undo the choice.
--------
You say: I would point out that the books canonical to orthodox Christians are, in fact, silent on the question itself even though abortions were performed in ancient times.
I say: There are plenty of Christian writings dating back many centuries that are unanimously against abortion. (Also, pre Christian documents; cf. the Hippocratic Oath.) Now, it is true that in the early times there were those who thought that a new, independent life did not begin until the mother noticed via interruption of the menses of by fetal movement, and this was reflected in some texts (cf. Summa Theologica). But now we know better.
--------
You say: Abortion may be necessary in cases of rape, incest (or other conditions that might produce a baby whose life would be a horribly miserable genetic disaster), poverty, youth, or ignorance.
I say: You, and others with a similar view, could use this old and tired argument to justify infanticide. Slight adjustments would support the elimination of the disabled, elderly, and other unfortunate or unproductive humans.
---------
You characterize an unborn child as just "a collection of cells in a mother's womb". Isn't the mother just a somewhat larger collection of cells? Is there some magic number of cells such that anything above that number is a human being and anything below can be discarded due to inconvenience? Please tell us what that number is, and how it was derived. -
wozadummy
I can't see how killing a feotus is not taking the life of a human.
For those that favour the above, maybe taking a few buckets of aborted babies out to dispose of ,and actually looking at the bodies dying might bring it home, but then no-one would do that for you can be pro abortion and not have to look in the buckets and get comfortable in your armchair.
C'mon start your howling