My Position On Abortion

[Fidei Defensor]

[quote name='apparently' date='20 November 2009 - 10:27 AM' timestamp='1258734436' post='2006228']
okay, are you pro choice or not?
[/quote]
I am pro-choice in that you can choose whether or not you want to have a baby. You do not have a choice to end a life, though.

[Aloysius]

you know perfectly well that the term "pro-choice" refers to supporting giving women the right to choose to have abortions. while your word-play may be cute, wouldn't it just be more accurate to label yourself "pro-life"? pro-lifers are in favor of allowing people the choice of whether or not to have sex... the only difference might be that you would think they should also have the choice of whether or not to use contraceptives, but many Protestant pro-lifers would agree with you there too, so I think you're more adequately defined as "pro-life"

[Socrates]

[quote name='fidei defensor' date='20 November 2009 - 12:55 AM' timestamp='1258696555' post='2006119']
I am pro-choice: you have to choice to have sex, you have the choice to have a baby. You do not have the choice to terminate a pregnancy, however. You made your choice when you decided to have sex. After that, you've made the choice and have to live with it.

As a biologist, I assent that from the moment of conception, the embryo is a living human being. No one should be able to decide to kill a human being, be it pre-born or post born.

What I disagree with:
[list]

[*]the tactics of argument. I don't believe it's an effective method to throw emotionally charged around and expect to change minds. People need to be shown why an embryo or fetus is living, not accused of supporting murder. Yes, you believe what you believe. But not everyone does, regardless of how reasonable you think that belief is. Learn to deal with those differences and make better arguments around them rather than being pig-headed and repeating the same thing over and over again as if it'll make a difference the next time you say it.
[*]Personhood. I embrace life as an inalienable right that should never be taken away. However, in the Catholic argument, having a soul plays a major role in the inalienable right - God granted a soul. I think more of an effort needs to be made in regards to how pro-choice persons use "personhood" as a qualifier, not for the sake of agreement but to better understand their argument in an effort to persuade them. Personhood refers to when the fetus becomes a viable member of society, rather than just a living organism that it became at conception. Usually personhood can be equated with ensoulment, which for Catholics, happens at conception. However, the secular view is usually that personhood beings when the fetus is viable outside of the womb. I DO NOT WANT TO DEBATE THIS POINT. I am just pointing it out so that you can understand the difference in opinion. Again, a useful debate is about the issues, not calling people murderers.
[/list]

Now everyone can know where I stand.
[/quote]
I agree with the first part of your position, but not the second, for reasons you should be familiar with.

1) The reason we have such a problem with abortion is that it is the deliberate killing of an innocent human person - murder. While you and others might not like that or agree, we're simply telling it like it is, and have given plenty to back it up.

2) We Christians do not see the soul as something separate from a living human body. The soul is simply the "form" or "life principle" of the body. Quite simply, if a human being is alive, it has a soul, and is a person. If a human body does not have a soul, it is a dead corpse, and no longer a human being.

And yes, I saw where you said you do not want to debate that point. But it is incredibly silly to post your position on the "Debate Table," then demand that no one argue against your statements. You can either argue or not argue as you see fit, but you don't make the rules here.
If you want to avoid argument, best keep your opinions off the debate table.

Nice av, btw.

[Winchester]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='20 November 2009 - 11:41 AM' timestamp='1258735262' post='2006232']
you know perfectly well that the term "pro-choice" refers to supporting giving women the right to choose to have abortions. while your word-play may be cute, wouldn't it just be more accurate to label yourself "pro-life"? pro-lifers are in favor of allowing people the choice of whether or not to have sex... the only difference might be that you would think they should also have the choice of whether or not to use contraceptives, but many Protestant pro-lifers would agree with you there too, so I think you're more adequately defined as "pro-life"
[/quote]
You didn't expect him to avoid entirely any outrage, did you? He's as much a poker of anthills as the rest of us.

[Fidei Defensor]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='20 November 2009 - 10:41 AM' timestamp='1258735262' post='2006232']
you know perfectly well that the term "pro-choice" refers to supporting giving women the right to choose to have abortions. while your word-play may be cute, wouldn't it just be more accurate to label yourself "pro-life"? pro-lifers are in favor of allowing people the choice of whether or not to have sex... the only difference might be that you would think they should also have the choice of whether or not to use contraceptives, but many Protestant pro-lifers would agree with you there too, so I think you're more adequately defined as "pro-life"
[/quote]
I'm trying to emphasize that the choice is in one's decisions before pregnancy even occurs. It's a perfectly legitimate position to have and quite frankly, no different than the position that I had when I was Catholic.

[Fidei Defensor]

[quote name='Socrates' date='20 November 2009 - 10:41 AM' timestamp='1258735303' post='2006233']
I agree with the first part of your position, but not the second, for reasons you should be familiar with.

1) The reason we have such a problem with abortion is that it is the deliberate killing of an innocent human person - murder. While you and others might not like that or agree, we're simply telling it like it is, and have given plenty to back it up.

2) We Christians do not see the soul as something separate from a living human body. The soul is simply the "form" or "life principle" of the body. Quite simply, if a human being is alive, it has a soul, and is a person. If a human body does not have a soul, it is a dead corpse, and no longer a human being.

And yes, I saw where you said you do not want to debate that point. But it is incredibly silly to post your position on the "Debate Table," then demand that no one argue against your statements. You can either argue or not argue as you see fit, but you don't make the rules here.
If you want to avoid argument, best keep your opinions off the debate table.

Nice av, btw.
[/quote]
Yes, yes. The reason why I said I didn't want to debate it is because it's not my opinion. I've been consistent with that. I've never claimed it as my opinion. I have, however, stated it many times as one of many opposing opinions.

And as I said before, I put this on the debate table because my intended audience tends to frequent the debate board more often. But lets be honest, if this was in open mic instead, you would have most likely commented exactly the same way as you just did.

[rkwright]

From my understanding, it is a much harder argument to make that the fetus is indeed a human at the moment of conception, but not a constitutional person. This leads too all sorts of problems. Most pro-choice advocates do not argue this point because it is simply too difficult. Its much eaiser for them to just say its not a human.

Try telling a young mother that the thing inside her is a human, its just not a "person" as protected by the constitution so you can kill the human-non-person.

To me, the pro-choice argument is mostly based on emotion - I want to be free to do anything I want with my body!

[Fidei Defensor]

[quote name='rkwright' date='20 November 2009 - 12:03 PM' timestamp='1258740202' post='2006260']
From my understanding, it is a much harder argument to make that the fetus is indeed a human at the moment of conception, but not a constitutional person. This leads too all sorts of problems. Most pro-choice advocates do not argue this point because it is simply too difficult. Its much eaiser for them to just say its not a human.

Try telling a young mother that the thing inside her is a human, its just not a "person" as protected by the constitution so you can kill the human-non-person.

To me, the pro-choice argument is mostly based on emotion - I want to be free to do anything I want with my body!
[/quote]
It is a rough argument, yes. I have tried to argue it, being the devil's advocate, but I forfeited the debate because it's not a very strong argument.

[Nihil Obstat]

Recently I've found that the scariest, but most effective and consistent pro abortion argument is accepting that the fetus is a person, accepting that you're killing it, but arguing on the value of human life and whether or not the infant's life is worth as much as ours.

[Fidei Defensor]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='20 November 2009 - 12:17 PM' timestamp='1258741069' post='2006265']
Recently I've found that the scariest, but most effective and consistent pro abortion argument is accepting that the fetus is a person, accepting that you're killing it, but arguing on the value of human life and whether or not the infant's life is worth as much as ours.
[/quote]

[zunshynn]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='20 November 2009 - 11:17 AM' timestamp='1258741069' post='2006265']
Recently I've found that the scariest, but most effective and consistent pro abortion argument is accepting that the fetus is a person, accepting that you're killing it, but arguing on the value of human life and whether or not the infant's life is worth as much as ours.
[/quote]

Isn't it ironic that the same people that usually think a baby's life is worth less than ours also think that monkeys, trees and dogs are worth more than us?



Don't get me wrong, I think dogs and monkeys and trees are great. I just wonder where those priorities come from...

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='zunshynn' date='20 November 2009 - 12:26 PM' timestamp='1258741570' post='2006272']
Isn't it ironic that the same people that usually think a baby's life is worth less than ours also think that monkeys, trees and dogs are worth more than us?



Don't get me wrong, I think dogs and monkeys and trees are great. I just wonder where those priorities come from...
[/quote]
They're the extra crazy ones. They're not even the ones I'm talking about though. I'm talking about intelligent people....... whose positions are consistently evil.

I went to a talk last night from the president of Priests for Life Canada. Great guy. He was talking about a suicide advocate that he was to debate with once. First thing when he sat down, this woman said "right off the bat I want to say that I'll accept that assisted suicide is killing. I want to debate about whether it's worth it to society." How do you argue with someone who is fully prepared to reduce life to a question of money and superficial 'happiness'? This, in my opinion, is where willful ignorance crosses over into blatant evil.
Same experience in my philosophy class. Some of the best pro abort debaters will accept that the fetus is alive, accept that it's a person, and accept that it's a human, but are willing to argue that it's not worth as much as a fully grown adult, and also willing at the other end to argue that an old sick person isn't worth as much as a healthy young adult.

[philothea]

[quote name='rkwright' date='20 November 2009 - 01:03 PM' timestamp='1258740202' post='2006260']
From my understanding, it is a much harder argument to make that the fetus is indeed a human at the moment of conception, but not a constitutional person. This leads too all sorts of problems. Most pro-choice advocates do not argue this point because it is simply too difficult. Its much eaiser for them to just say its not a human.

Try telling a young mother that the thing inside her is a human, its just not a "person" as protected by the constitution so you can kill the human-non-person.

To me, the pro-choice argument is mostly based on emotion - I want to be free to do anything I want with my body!
[/quote]
I always found the constitutional argument beyond crazy. Still find it hard to believe that was what Roe v. Wade was based on. I mean, okay, citizenship granted at birth, so abortion is legal... does that mean it's legal to kill foreigners too?

In my experience, the fundamental motivation behind ardent pro-abortion (and pro-BC) people is anger at the difference between men and women. It's not fair that women can't have sex without consequences like men can. Any method to to balance the issue is justified.

[Lil Red]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='20 November 2009 - 12:17 PM' timestamp='1258741069' post='2006265']
Recently I've found that the scariest, but most effective and consistent pro abortion argument is accepting that the fetus is a person, accepting that you're killing it, but arguing on the value of human life and whether or not the infant's life is worth as much as ours.
[/quote]
+J.M.J.+
that's Camile Paglia's argument.

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='zunshynn' date='20 November 2009 - 01:26 PM' timestamp='1258741570' post='2006272']
I just wonder where those priorities come from...
[/quote]

Selfishness.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Lil Red' date='20 November 2009 - 12:58 PM' timestamp='1258743535' post='2006297']
+J.M.J.+
that's Camile Paglia's argument.
[/quote]
Luckily one of the most famous pro-abort philosophers ever, Judith Thomson, is pretty much an idiot when it comes to good arguments. Her 'analogies' are sometimes laughably far fetched and just surreally weird. She actually made an analogy about little "people seeds" which float around, and when they land, they grow into a baby...... and you have to suppose that one drifts into your house and starts growing in your living room (even though you put up screens on your windows to keep them out)... and she has the gall to compare this to voluntary intercourse with birth control.
We're lucky she's one of the most famous they've got. Lol.

Edited November 20, 2009 by Nihil Obstat

[King's Rook's Pawn]

[quote]I am pro-choice: you have to choice to have sex, you have the choice to have a baby. You do not have the choice to terminate a pregnancy, however. You made your choice when you decided to have sex. After that, you've made the choice and have to live with it.[/quote]

This still seems to justify abortion in cases of rape, though.

[King's Rook's Pawn]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='20 November 2009 - 02:17 PM' timestamp='1258741069' post='2006265']
Recently I've found that the scariest, but most effective and consistent pro abortion argument is accepting that the fetus is a person, accepting that you're killing it, but arguing on the value of human life and whether or not the infant's life is worth as much as ours.
[/quote]

I think the most sophisticated pro-choice argument is the one that says even though the fetus is a person with rights equal to those of the mother, abortion is still justifiable because the fetus still has no right to invade the mother's body. The mother has the legal right to evict the fetus as a trespasser, even though fetus's death will result. On the other hand, if the fetus is viable, abortion is illegal because the fetus can be evicted without killing it. It's a matter of self-defense in other words. This is the argument of the economist, Walter Block, who I generally greatly respect as a thinker. I disagree without, however, because I do not believe it is proportional justice to cause someone's death because of property trespass. For example, it is unjustifiable to throw a stowaway on your ship overboard. Also, of course, the stowaway in this case has no culpability being such.

[add]

[quote name='King's Rook's Pawn' date='21 November 2009 - 11:30 AM' timestamp='1258817416' post='2006842']
This still seems to justify abortion in cases of rape, though.
[/quote]

Is or are statics available that indicate the percentage of abortions that are the result of rape, incest, drug (crack-babies etc) or due the healthof the mother (life in danger, kind of thing)?

My guess is that an overwhelming majority of cases are [b][size="3"][color="#000080"]none of the above[/color][/size][/b]. I have no real idea, I'm guessing.

[Nihil Obstat]

I've heard 99% and 99.5% (not involving rape or danger to the mother) tossed around, but I don't know if it was an accurate statistic or not.