Legality

[musturde]

[quote name='rkwright' timestamp='1320420485' post='2331255']
Laws about fundamental rights should not be so utilitarian in nature.[/quote]
Ah, that's very true! How would you answer this question if it was for something considered immoral by the Church but much less significant (like marijuana or other lower grade drugs)?
[quote]
The baby's right to life, and the state's responsibility to protect life, does not depend on how many people choose to violate that right.

Don't forget the victim in this crime. It is offensive to tell the vicitim, the baby, that what happened to you is not a crime because it would have happened anyways. [/quote]
That's true. I'm trying to gauge whether you would prefer a tactic of slowly restricting abortion while convincing the populace that this act is immoral or if you believed that outlawing abortion immediately would be the better option. I'm also curious to find whether the state's actual position on this issue matters more than the results of its stance (as in, if you would prefer the immediate full restriction even if it was less effective).

[quote]
As to whether all immoral things should also be illegal - that is another debate completely. Aborition is in a different class because it involves the most basic fundamental right - the right to life. While we can debate whether the state has the right to regulate all immoral acts (for example alcohol abuse, prostitution, adultery), there is no question that the state at its core has a duty protect the lives of its citizens.
[/quote]
Indeed, the fundamental rights are key.

[musturde]

[quote name='SuscipeMeDomine' timestamp='1320423238' post='2331277']

I think that people need to be convinced something is wrong before they will promote laws banning the act.

Suppose I wanted to enact a law banning children from riding bicycles. Do you think I would have any hope of getting such a law passed? No, because people don't see anything wrong with children riding bikes. [/quote]
This is very true. If something seems ridiculous, people will resist the law. However, there are good examples and counterexamples to this point.

[quote]I don't think there's much hope of enacting laws that would ban abortions unless people are first convinced that abortion is wrong. If they see it simply as removing some unwanted tissue, it's no more wrong to them than removing an appendix, and no one is trying to ban appendectomies.[/quote]
This is a very good point. Though this is a weak example, one could look at the laws against slavery in the same way. Even though many southerners needed the man labor and believed black people were inferior, slavery was still gone (or mostly gone) after it was outlawed.

[quote]
First people's hearts need to change, then the laws will change.
[/quote]
Thank you. I knew SOMEONE had to believe this. I'm not completely one way or the other (though I was leaning in favor of this opinion to push buttons and get a discussion going).

[musturde]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1320428840' post='2331300']
The justice of the law is of paramount importance. A law which explicitly denies the most fundamental right to life of the most vulnerable persons is the ultimate in injustice.
If the law does not protect the right to life of helpless innocent persons, it has failed in its most basic and fundamental purpose.

(I guess I - along with the Church - take the very un-pc and uncool stance that the law should be about right and wrong, rather than about opinion polls.) [/quote]
I apologize If I'm not very clear but I'll try to rephrase my question again. Let's say the government wants to ban the prescription drug Adderall (which is a million times worse than many illegal drugs). Let's say the Church agreed that Adderall should be illegal because it's basically a legal dose of speed. However, many people are prescribed this drug and would not be very happy that it's going away (because of dependency/it's addictive/they feel it works for them). Would you prefer that the government completely outlaw this drug immediately or restrict it's consumption over time? There's already a black market for Adderall. There are worse drugs on the black market that can mimic the desired effects of Adderall as well. Let's say that completely outlawing this drug today would cause people to immediately search for these other drugs. Would you prefer that the state outlaw the drug today or would you prefer that the state slowly place restrictions on adderall over time and then prohibit it fully later? I know this is different from abortion. This is precisely why I told you that abortion was a bad example but I'll gladly continue discussing this topic since it has become interesting.


[quote] People can only be won fully to the pro-life side when they realize this truth. And the deliberate killing of a baby is at least as evil as rape, though both are vile and despicable acts of violence.[/quote]
Exactly. If people don't believe abortion is murder, they'll think it's ludicrous to outlaw it.
[quote]Yes, there are effective and ineffective ways of teaching this truth, and not every method is appropriate for every circumstance, but the truth about abortion can and is spoken in charity. But if we refuse to call the evil of abortion for what it is - murder of the innocent - then we are being neither effective nor honest. If we insist on pussyfooting around this central truth, talking as though abortion is really not that bad, and nothing more than a not-so-great personal choice, then there is little reason to want to get rid of this evil nor for others to oppose it. Refusing to call evil by its true name is not truly Christian.[/quote] We can call it murder but, realistically speaking, it doesn't stop there. It rarely stops there. You even said "murdering the innocent". Although this is a redundant statement, it's interesting to point out that you, most likely without noticing, emphasized "innocent". Much of the Pro-life lingo seems to be worded in a way to make the other side look horrible. Our tactics need to change from making pro-choicers seem monstrous to actually dialoguing with the other side. I'm not blaming you for this because it's ingrained in us so much that we don't realize it. We need to be more charitable about discussing this issue and it starts by taking the emotion out of the arguments.

[quote]While nobody mentioned Hitler here, since you brought him up, this brings up an interesting issue: If you were a German in the Nazi era who was opposed to Hitler and was aware of the Jewish Holocaust, and were trying to win supporters of Hitler to your side, would you refuse to call out the Nazis' murderous actions for what they really were, and expose the murderous evil of the "Final Solution," or would you insist on avoiding being straightforward about these issues for fear of upsetting people and turning them away? Would you refuse any criticism of the Nazis as "not Christian"?[/quote]

Very interesting point. I believe Pope Pius XII was criticized for doing what I would have done. I wouldn't have tried to convince people to join me. My experiences abroad have taught me that it's better to work behind the scenes if you want to do any good under an oppressive government. I'd rather help Jews secretly instead of get killed and achieve nothing.
[quote](And before everyone starts screaming "Godwin's Law," try giving this scenario some serious thought. Is it wrong to call out evil for what it is and inform people of it? Evil in this world is hardly confined to a long-dead Austrian guy with a dorky little mustache.)
[/quote]
I very much appreciate this turn in conversation. It's interesting, even though It might not fit the abortion topic completely.

Edited November 5, 2011 by musturde

[Socrates]

[quote name='musturde' timestamp='1320476749' post='2331760']
I apologize If I'm not very clear but I'll try to rephrase my question again. Let's say the government wants to ban the prescription drug Adderall (which is a million times worse than many illegal drugs). Let's say the Church agreed that Adderall should be illegal because it's basically a legal dose of speed. However, many people are prescribed this drug and would not be very happy that it's going away (because of dependency/it's addictive/they feel it works for them). Would you prefer that the government completely outlaw this drug immediately or restrict it's consumption over time? There's already a black market for Adderall. There are worse drugs on the black market that can mimic the desired effects of Adderall as well. Let's say that completely outlawing this drug today would cause people to immediately search for these other drugs. Would you prefer that the state outlaw the drug today or would you prefer that the state slowly place restrictions on adderall over time and then prohibit it fully later? I know this is different from abortion. This is precisely why I told you that abortion was a bad example but I'll gladly continue discussing this topic since it has become interesting.[/quote]
It's good that you see how this issue is different from that of abortion.

While the Church condemns use of drugs "except on strictly therapeutic grounds" (CCC 2291) and their clandestine production and trafficking, it doesn't ever give a list of exactly what drugs should and should not be outlawed. I think that there's a certain moral "grey area" involving drugs. If the drug does have a legitimate medical purpose (even if in very small, controlled doses), then its use would not be intrinsically immoral in itself (as is true of abortion and other intrinsically evil acts). The legal actions taken against this drug, and whether their outlawing would lead to worse evils would be more a prudential decision.

While this is definitely a legitimate debate topic, it's one I'm not personally as interested in debating as the abortion issue - in which I saw a serous problem with your argument regarding it in your earlier posts.

[quote]Exactly. If people don't believe abortion is murder, they'll think it's ludicrous to outlaw it.

We can call it murder but, realistically speaking, it doesn't stop there. It rarely stops there. You even said "murdering the innocent". Although this is a redundant statement, it's interesting to point out that you, most likely without noticing, emphasized "innocent". Much of the Pro-life lingo seems to be worded in a way to make the other side look horrible. Our tactics need to change from making pro-choicers seem monstrous to actually dialoguing with the other side. I'm not blaming you for this because it's ingrained in us so much that we don't realize it. We need to be more charitable about discussing this issue and it starts by taking the emotion out of the arguments.[/quote]
While the phrase "murdering the innocent" may be a bit redundant, my use of the word "innocent" was not accidental or thoughtless. There are few human beings this side of heaven more innocent than a baby, nor more completely helpless and vulnerable. It has done and can do nothing malicious against another person.
Yes, I do regard the killing of an innocent child as a particularly abhorrent, cowardly, and despicable kind of murder - much as that fact may offend modern sensibilities which like to excuse killing for convenience. I would regard the deliberate murder of an innocent baby as being in a sense worse than, say, a gangster whacking a rival gangster, even though both acts would be murder and morally wrong.

If you think it's somehow wrong for us to even emphasize the innocence of the victims of abortion, then it seems you truly want to hobble and water down the pro-life message in order to make it pc and inoffensive to liberal ears. Sorry, but that I refuse to do.

And, yes, objectively the act of abortion which we oppose - as well as promoting and profiting from it -[i][b] is[/b][/i] horrible. We pro-lifers would not be so adamantly opposed to it if it were not.
If people were running a business in which they killed your year-old baby and tossed its remains in the garbage for a fee, would you regard [i]that[/i] as horrible? Or would you insist on watering down your opposition to this disgusting business ("let's not call those babies innocent!") in order to avoid upsetting people?

If people are unaware of the horror of what is involved in the abortion racket, they should be made aware of it in all charity, in order that they might avoid being a party to this evil.

The language I'm using here is simply honest. The language of the "other side" is calculatedly and deliberately deceptive and full of dishonest euphemisms. The very term "pro-choice" is itself a calculated term to make people view the pro-abortion cause more favorably, as is their even-more-ridiculous epiphet "anti-choice" (popular in pro-abortion literature) to refer to those opposed to abortion. The issue of contention is not "choice" in some generic, broad sense, but specifically the choice to kill a child by abortion. The other side will do anything to draw the attention away from the act of abortion itself and what involves. It's all nice-sounding and evasive rhetoric about "choice" and "women's rights" and "reproductive freedom." Anything and everything to avoid discussion of abortion itself.

There's absolutely nothing uncharitable or un-Christian about calling out evil for what it is.

Letting the enemy define the debate with their deceptive and deliberately misleading language is not charitable nor effective, but merely helps keep people muddled and in the dark.


[quote]Very interesting point. I believe Pope Pius XII was criticized for doing what I would have done. I wouldn't have tried to convince people to join me. My experiences abroad have taught me that it's better to work behind the scenes if you want to do any good under an oppressive government. I'd rather help Jews secretly instead of get killed and achieve nothing.[/quote]
Fine, though I believe you missed the point of what I was asking. My point was about trying to convince other people about the evil of something they may support - which they may be genuinely or willfully ignorant of. It wasn't so much about doing good under an oppressive government regime. You probably won't get killed by the government for speaking out against abortion - though you may face opposition or ridicule from others.

I probably should have set my scenario specifically before the Nazis were actually in control of the government - though that would be before the holocaust (which most Germans were unaware of until after the war was over). People can and do support very evil things out of ignorance or fear without being monsters themselves. I don't think there's anything wrong with trying to clearly expose the evil of what they perhaps unwittingly support.

I don't think watering down our language to talk as if abortion isn't really that bad will do any good.

[musturde]

[quote]
While the Church condemns use of drugs "except on strictly therapeutic grounds" (CCC 2291) and their clandestine production and trafficking, it doesn't ever give a list of exactly what drugs should and should not be outlawed. I think that there's a certain moral "grey area" involving drugs. If the drug does have a legitimate medical purpose (even if in very small, controlled doses), then its use would not be intrinsically immoral in itself (as is true of abortion and other intrinsically evil acts). The legal actions taken against this drug, and whether their outlawing would lead to worse evils would be more a prudential decision. [/quote] Thank you, this is the answer I was interested in.

[quote]While this is definitely a legitimate debate topic, it's one I'm not personally as interested in debating as the abortion issue - in which I saw a serous problem with your argument regarding it in your earlier posts. [/quote]
That's fine. We can discuss this too.


[quote] While the phrase "murdering the innocent" may be a bit redundant, my use of the word "innocent" was not accidental or thoughtless. There are few human beings this side of heaven more innocent than a baby, nor more completely helpless and vulnerable. It has done and can do nothing malicious against another person. Yes, I do regard the killing of an innocent child as a particularly abhorrent, cowardly, and despicable kind of murder - much as that fact may offend modern sensibilities which like to excuse killing for convenience. I would regard the deliberate murder of an innocent baby as being in a sense worse than, say, a gangster whacking a rival gangster, even though both acts would be murder and morally wrong. [/quote]
I understand what you're saying. However, convincing pro-choicers that aborting the fetus within the first week or so is murder may not make much sense to them. Late abortions can easily be argued to be murder because the baby is developed up to a point where very few people can even argue it's not a person yet. One can say "Abortion is murder". That's fine. However, we cannot deny that at some point in every abortion argument, words like "holocaust" come up. In a political environment, such terms are unacceptable because they lead to nothing. Calling people from the pro-choice camp names does not change their point of view (especially if we're talking about early abortions). This sort of tactic might appeal to people who know nothing about the abortion argument or to people who are already pro-life but it will alienate the pro-choicers. Imagine if I went to a Synagogue and told everyone they're going to hell unless they convert to Christianity while calling them heathens and infidels. Does this tactic actually work? Criticizing others does not lead to a resolution. Unless we believe the pro-choicers are hopeless and not worth convincing, I think we should be careful about our choice of words in dialogue with them.

[musturde]

I apologize Socrates, I responded to the rest of your post but I keep getting error messages while trying to submit. I need to re-edit my post because it keeps adding weird characters whenever I try to fix it. I'll send the rest of this by the end of the day.

Edited November 7, 2011 by musturde

[musturde]

[font="Times New Roman, serif"][quote] If you think it's somehow wrong for us to even emphasize the innocence of the victims of abortion, then it seems you truly want to hobble and water down the pro-life message in order to make it pc and inoffensive to liberal ears. Sorry, but that I refuse to do. [/quote][/font]

[font="Times New Roman, serif"]I understand. I don 't believe this method is effective.[/font]

[font="Times New Roman, serif"][quote] And, yes, objectively the act of abortion which we oppose - as well as promoting and profiting from it - is horrible. We pro-lifers would not be so adamantly opposed to it if it were not. If people were running a business in which they killed your year-old baby and tossed its remains in the garbage for a fee, would you regard that as horrible? Or would you insist on watering down your opposition to this disgusting business (not call those babies innocent!) in order to avoid upsetting people? [/quote][/font]

[font="Times New Roman, serif"]This is different. Barely anyone agrees with killing babies after they've exited the womb. It 's harder to say that abortion is murder to non-Christians in the case of a week old fetus. We can use an argument that involves the soul's presence at the moment of conception to someone who does not believe in the Catholic understanding of a soul. Therefore, it's hard to say that the pro-choice camp is always being deceptive. If anything, they're ignorant.[/font]

[font="Times New Roman, serif"][quote] If people are unaware of the horror of what is involved in the abortion racket, they should be made aware of it in all charity, in order that they might avoid being a party to this evil. [/quote][/font]

[font="Times New Roman, serif"]Exactly. We can provide studies, evidence, and statistics to back our claims without calling people names.[/font]



[font="Times New Roman, serif"][quote] The language I'm using here is simply honest. The language of the other side is calculatedly and deliberately deceptive and full of dishonest euphemisms. [/quote][/font]

[font="Times New Roman, serif"]They believe the same thing about us. I honestly think they don 't know any better half of the time. I tend to be less understanding of positions that support abortion in the later stages because it's undeniable that the baby is a human being at this point. Nonetheless, a position of openness and understanding is needed because this situation is emotional for all sides. The mothers who abort their babies are not always monsters. A lot of times they know no better. Those who support the pro-choice movement will think we're crazy and extreme if we use lingo that they cannot relate with and call them names in the process.[/font]



[font="Times New Roman, serif"][quote] The very term ;amp;amp;quot;pro-choice ;amp;amp;quot; is itself a calculated term to make people view the pro-abortion cause more favorably, as is their even-more-ridiculous epiphet anti-choice (popular in pro-abortion literature) to refer to those opposed to abortion. [/quote][/font]

[font="Times New Roman, serif"]Pro-life works the same way. We cannot expect pro-choicers to call themselves ;amp;amp;quot;the Anti-Life ;amp;amp;quot; movement? I'm not saying they don't do the same thing. I'm saying that we could be a better example and not do what they're doing. Our charity could be inspiring. It might actually make us look more competent than the other side.[/font]


[font="Times New Roman, serif"][quote] The issue of contention is not “choice” in some generic, broad sense, but specifically the choice to kill a child by abortion. The other side will do anything to draw the attention away from the act of abortion itself and what involves. all nice-sounding and evasive rhetoric about and Anything and everything to avoid discussion of abortion itself. [/quote][/font]

[font="Times New Roman, serif"]Youre right. This is true mostly for the later stages of abortion. I still believe charity is key, as well as an effective way to give our message. As a college student, I can tell you that seeing late abortion pictures displayed across A&M campus makes the pro-life movement look bad. Even my religious friends were weirded out when they saw this. Forcing people to look at abortion pictures while saying, “Abortion is murder! Prochoicers are monsters” to everyone we see will have the opposite effect a lot of times.[/font]

[font="Times New Roman, serif"][quote] Theres absolutely nothing uncharitable or un-Christian about calling out evil for what it is. [/quote][/font]

[font="Times New Roman, serif"]It is when doing this leads to nothing fruitful. It ends conversations. One might get a high-five from a pro-lifer by doing this but I doubt he/she will accomplish anything.[/font]

Edited November 7, 2011 by musturde

[musturde]

[font="Times New Roman, serif"][quote] Letting the enemy define the debate with their deceptive and deliberately misleading language is not charitable nor effective, but merely helps keep people muddled and in the dark. [/quote][/font]

[font="Times New Roman, serif"]That's the problem. I really don 't think half of them are really trying to deceive anyone. Both sides think the other one is crazy. This is why we need to set an example and only argue our side objectively as well as charitably. Calling them names won 't work. If we set an example, I believe we will get people to listen to us more than them (or at least as much).[/font]


[font="Times New Roman, serif"][quote] Fine, though I believe you missed the point of what I was asking. ;amp;amp;nbsp; ;amp;amp;nbsp;My point was about trying to convince other people about the evil of something they may support - which they may be genuinely or willfully ignorant of. It wasn't so much about doing good under an oppressive government regime. You probably won't get killed by the government for speaking out against abortion - though you may face opposition or ridicule from others. [/quote][/font]

[font="Times New Roman, serif"]I 'm not saying we shouldn't call abortion murder but I am saying we should be more careful in how we approach this topic. I really think emotion should get taken out of the debates.[/font]



[font="Times New Roman, serif"][quote] I probably should have set my scenario specifically before the Nazis were actually in control of the government - though that would be before the holocaust (which most Germans were unaware of until after the war was over).People can and do support very evil things out of ignorance or fear without being monsters themselves. I don 't think there 's anything wrong with trying to clearly expose the evil of what they perhaps unwittingly support. [/quote][/font]

[font="Times New Roman, serif"]I agree. I think there are other methods of doing this. We can easily convince someone that abortion is wrong without using the words “innocent,” “monster,” or “holocaust,”.[/font]

[font="Times New Roman, serif"][quote][/font]

[font="Times New Roman, serif"]I don 't think watering down our language to talk as if abortion isn 't really that bad will do any good.[/font]

[font="Times New Roman, serif"][/quote][/font]

[font="Times New Roman, serif"]It 's not neccesarily watering it down to glorify it or make it seem okay. I'm arguing for taking out the emotional side of the debate. Sure, if we want to attract people who know nothing about abortion to our side, we can use this type of lingo (though I still would advise against it). We can even convince other Christians easily that abortion is wrong because it is always murder. However, it's hard to convince those who argue that the life that begins at conception is no more of a life than a chicken or a dog because of what it is at that stage. We need to learn to argue to people who don 't think the same way we do. I would advise we focus more on philosophical approaches. I could say, for example, that the fetus has the potential to become a human and abortion takes that away from him/her. An animal only has the potential to become an animal.[/font]

[Papist]

[quote name='musturde' timestamp='1320098981' post='2329509']
Hey guys, I havent been on here in a while but I was hoping to gather some opinions. I will use the example abortion, however this question is not directly concerning it. If, for example, if we were to find that making abortions illegal did not decrease the abortion rate, would it still be required for Catholics to fight for its prohibition? I know this will sound goofy but I'm going to provide an example and exaggerate it to clarify what I'm asking. Let's say we are in Egypt, where abortion is illegal. The percentage of abortions is, at least on paper, lower because of the law but many women are still performing street abortions, which are much more dangerous. Let's apply this scenario to the United States and pretend that we knew for a fact that the percentage of abortions wouldn't drop if abortion was illegal. Keep in mind that women would, instead, have street abortions which are much more dangerous. In this situation, would it be more important for a Catholic to make abortion illegal immediately or to first try to change the population's views on abortion? Also, is the State's official stance against abortion through the law more important than the results of the law?
[/quote]
Murder is wrong and should be illegal regardless if murder rates don't change.

[musturde]

[quote name='Papist' timestamp='1320699352' post='2332736']
Murder is wrong and should be illegal regardless if murder rates don't change.
[/quote]
Interesting view. Would you hold the same opinion if it was a law dealing with a less serious issue, like prohibiting drug use?

[Papist]

[quote name='musturde' timestamp='1320739047' post='2333093']
Interesting view. Would you hold the same opinion if it was a law dealing with a less serious issue, like prohibiting drug use?
[/quote]
Drugs is a more subjective issue. There are good/helpful drugs and there are bad/hurtful drugs. There is never good/helpful murder...always bad/hurtful murder.

[musturde]

[quote name='Papist' timestamp='1320755174' post='2333113']
Drugs is a more subjective issue. There are good/helpful drugs and there are bad/hurtful drugs. There is never good/helpful murder...always bad/hurtful murder.
[/quote]
Let's say we're talking about marijuana.

[i<3LSOP]

I just wanted to voice my opinion on abortion:

When you have an abortion, you get a death certificate. You kill life...a baby. Same thing with contraception, you are stopping life that God wants.

Point blank, I think that abortion should be illegal.

[Papist]

[quote name='musturde' timestamp='1320768140' post='2333211']
Let's say we're talking about marijuana.
[/quote]
I am not for the legalization. But if the guvment made it legal, I would accept it. However, moving forward my acceptance would be dictated by the harm caused to to society.

[musturde]

[quote name='i<3LSOP' timestamp='1320769173' post='2333218']
I just wanted to voice my opinion on abortion:

When you have an abortion, you get a death certificate. You kill life...a baby. Same thing with contraception, you are stopping life that God wants.

Point blank, I think that abortion should be illegal.
[/quote]

Do you think contraception should be illegal?

[musturde]

[quote name='Papist' timestamp='1320782018' post='2333300']
I am not for the legalization. But if the guvment made it legal, I would accept it. However, moving forward my acceptance would be dictated by the harm caused to to society.
[/quote]
Sorry, I didn't have my coffee when i responded to you. How about Adderall? I have an example explained for it in the last page or so. It's a better example because it's not illegal.

[Socrates]

[quote name='musturde' timestamp='1320697229' post='2332697']
I understand what you're saying. However, convincing pro-choicers that aborting the fetus within the first week or so is murder may not make much sense to them. Late abortions can easily be argued to be murder because the baby is developed up to a point where very few people can even argue it's not a person yet. One can say "Abortion is murder". That's fine. However, we cannot deny that at some point in every abortion argument, words like "holocaust" come up. In a political environment, such terms are unacceptable because they lead to nothing. Calling people from the pro-choice camp names does not change their point of view (especially if we're talking about early abortions). This sort of tactic might appeal to people who know nothing about the abortion argument or to people who are already pro-life but it will alienate the pro-choicers. Imagine if I went to a Synagogue and told everyone they're going to hell unless they convert to Christianity while calling them heathens and infidels. Does this tactic actually work? Criticizing others does not lead to a resolution. Unless we believe the pro-choicers are hopeless and not worth convincing, I think we should be careful about our choice of words in dialogue with them.
[/quote]
I never advocated calling names here. I agree there is kinds of language that may not be prudent in certain circumstances (and what language is appropriate for one situation or audience may not be appropriate for another), however, I don't think we need to mince words or water down the message of how and why abortion is wrong.

The entire reason we are so opposed to abortion is that it is the deliberate killing of an innocent human life. The unborn child has a right to life, and it is wrong to kill it for three reasons: it is human, it is alive, and it is innocent.

These three things can be proven philosophically pretty easily, even though pro-abortion people may be stubborn in choosing to accept the truth because it is inconvenient for them.

Insisting that we never use the word "innocent" to refer to an unborn child, or emphasize its innocence is just absurd. It's hard to make a moral argument while refusing to use any moral language. And such emphasis on the child's innocence is not a negative slur against those who disagree with us, but a positive emphasis on the unborn child whose life deserves protection.

Plenty of pro-abortion folks are upset by calling the unborn child a "child," "baby," "person" or "human being," or by referring to the act of abortion as "killing." Must we excise those words from the pro-life vocabulary too? We should not sacrifice truth in a (probably vain) attempt to pacify our opponents.

[musturde]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1320791663' post='2333383']
Insisting that we never use the word "innocent" to refer to an unborn child, or emphasize its innocence is just absurd. It's hard to make a moral argument while refusing to use any moral language. And such emphasis on the child's innocence is not a negative slur against those who disagree with us, but a positive emphasis on the unborn child whose life deserves protection.
[/quote]
I don't have a problem with using the word innocent, I was concerned about the overemphasis of it to the point where it becomes redundant. Also, while debating very early abortions, the terms "murder" and "innocent" would make much less sense to non-Catholics (Even people fighting to make late abortions illegal don't understand the logic we would use to argue against earlier abortions).
[quote]Plenty of pro-abortion folks are upset by calling the unborn child a "child," "baby," "person" or "human being," or by referring to the act of abortion as "killing." Must we excise those words from the pro-life vocabulary too? We should not sacrifice truth in a (probably vain) attempt to pacify our opponents.
[/quote]
We can easily argue that the fetus is a baby and a person by a certain point. We can't as easily argue, for example, that aborting an embryo is still murder.

[Socrates]

[quote name='musturde' timestamp='1320698067' post='2332714']


[font=Times New Roman, serif]I understand. I don 't believe this method is effective.[/quote][/font]
[font=Times New Roman, serif]I sincerely doubt that refusing to call an unborn baby innocent will increase the effectiveness of the pro-life message.[/font]




[quote]This is different. Barely anyone agrees with killing babies after they've exited the womb. It 's harder to say that abortion is murder to non-Christians in the case of a week old fetus. We can use an argument that involves the soul's presence at the moment of conception to someone who does not believe in the Catholic understanding of a soul. Therefore, it's hard to say that the pro-choice camp is always being deceptive. If anything, they're ignorant.[/quote]

There's a lot of deception in the pro-abortion camp. Abortion is a multi-billion dollar business, with a powerful political lobby, and it is to these people's advantage to dupe other people into thinking an unborn child is not a human being, in order that they will consider it acceptable to kill it.

A human being remains the same human being from conception, though it continues to grow and develop for long after birth. There is no point at which something non-human ceases to exist, and a human being exists in its place. Its alive and human from conception.



[quote]Exactly. We can provide studies, evidence, and statistics to back our claims without calling people names.[/quote]

And what names did I say that we should call people?



[quote]They believe the same thing about us. I honestly think they don 't know any better half of the time. I tend to be less understanding of positions that support abortion in the later stages because it's undeniable that the baby is a human being at this point. Nonetheless, a position of openness and understanding is needed because this situation is emotional for all sides. The mothers who abort their babies are not always monsters. A lot of times they know no better. Those who support the pro-choice movement will think we're crazy and extreme if we use lingo that they cannot relate with and call them names in the process.[/quote]

Again, I never called any body names, nor said said anyone was a monster. I simply said that we should be truthful in our language, and counter euphemistic and deceptive language which avoids discussing the reality of abortion at all by using vague evasive terms like "choice" and "rights," rather than deal with the reality of what's at stake.





[quote]Pro-life works the same way. We cannot expect pro-choicers to call themselves ;amp;amp;quot;the Anti-Life ;amp;amp;quot; movement? I'm not saying they don't do the same thing. I'm saying that we could be a better example and not do what they're doing. Our charity could be inspiring. It might actually make us look more competent than the other side.[/quote]

"Pro-life" extends beyond abortion, and can refer to other life issues like human euthanasia. I heard a lecture some years back by a lady who was a long-time veteran of the pro-life movement, and she said it took years for the other side to come up with the term "pro-choice." She was very insistent that we not use the enemy's language in this regard. Language has a very powerful influence on people's thinking in this regard, and the term "pro-choice" is a clever propaganda move. Once the focus of the language is shifted away from what abortion entails and the right to life of the unborn child to talk of "choice," the ball is in the enemy's court.




[quote]Youre right. This is true mostly for the later stages of abortion. I still believe charity is key, as well as an effective way to give our message. As a college student, I can tell you that seeing late abortion pictures displayed across A&M campus makes the pro-life movement look bad. Even my religious friends were weirded out when they saw this. Forcing people to look at abortion pictures while saying, “Abortion is murder! Prochoicers are monsters” to everyone we see will have the opposite effect a lot of times.[/quote]

I believe gruesome pictures can be effective in their place. Seeing such gruesome pictures and videos of abortion in my young years helped really drive home the reality of how evil abortion is, and proved in a very real way the horror of abortion, and how it is undeniable that it is the murder of a child. Sometimes a picture really is worth a thousand words. It quickly shows the emptiness of talk of "choice" and "reproductive rights," and the lie that it is only "removing a blob of tissue." Abortion kills a baby. Sometimes the truth needs to be shown graphically. People may react negatively at first to this unpleasant truth, but it makes it hard to see abortion as something good or benign.

I agree that such pictures are not appropriate in all circumstances (such as in counseling women in difficult pregnancies), but they can be an effective means of getting the horrible truth out about abortion.



[quote]It is when doing this leads to nothing fruitful. It ends conversations. One might get a high-five from a pro-lifer by doing this but I doubt he/she will accomplish anything.[/quote]

Refusing to call evil for what it is accomplishes nothing.

[Socrates]

[quote name='musturde' timestamp='1320698548' post='2332723']


[font=Times New Roman, serif]That's the problem. I really don 't think half of them are really trying to deceive anyone. Both sides think the other one is crazy. This is why we need to set an example and only argue our side objectively as well as charitably. Calling them names won 't work. If we set an example, I believe we will get people to listen to us more than them (or at least as much).[/quote][/font]
Once more, I never said we should call people names.



[quote]I 'm not saying we shouldn't call abortion murder but I am saying we should be more careful in how we approach this topic. I really think emotion should get taken out of the debates.






[font=Times New Roman, serif]I agree. I think there are other methods of doing this. We can easily convince someone that abortion is wrong without using the words “innocent,” “monster,” or “holocaust,”[/quote][/font]
[font=Times New Roman, serif]I don't think the word "innocent" falls in that category, but I'm already beating a dead horse here.[/font]




[quote]It 's not neccesarily watering it down to glorify it or make it seem okay. I'm arguing for taking out the emotional side of the debate. Sure, if we want to attract people who know nothing about abortion to our side, we can use this type of lingo (though I still would advise against it). We can even convince other Christians easily that abortion is wrong because it is always murder. However, it's hard to convince those who argue that the life that begins at conception is no more of a life than a chicken or a dog because of what it is at that stage. We need to learn to argue to people who don 't think the same way we do. I would advise we focus more on philosophical approaches. I could say, for example, that the fetus has the potential to become a human and abortion takes that away from him/her. An animal only has the potential to become an animal.[/quote]

We should not fall prey the other's side's bad philosophy, which is in fact at the heart of the problem. Pro-abortion people say a fetus "has the potential to become a human" (but is not yet human, and thus okay to kill). A living being is either human or not human. A non-human being does not magically become human at some stage in development. Neither can it only be partially human: either it is a human being or it is not.

Of course, it can be hard to convince those who believe there is nothing intrinsically sacred about human life that killing human life in its early stages is wrong. One's philosophical world-view makes a huge difference in how one view morality, and we need a return to sound philosophy before we can make much progress in convincing people of moral truth.