Pro-abortion Or Pro-choice

[Socrates]

[quote name='Hassan' post='1632241' date='Aug 19 2008, 09:15 PM']The Human Personhood of a black or Jewish man is not a religious stipulation and can be scientifically demonstrated. The idea that two cells enjoy personhood and ought to be treated as a fully developed and self aware human being is.[/quote]
It's scientific fact that a new human being begins life at conception. (And by the time most women realize they're pregnant, the baby is [i]much[/i] more than "two cells," but that's another discussion.)
It's sad how most "pro-choicers," while claiming "rationality," seem to keep themselves willfully ignorant of the facts of human life.

[Majella]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1632260' date='Aug 20 2008, 03:37 PM']It's scientific fact that a new human being begins life at conception. (And by the time most women realize they're pregnant, the baby is [i]much[/i] more than "two cells," but that's another discussion.)
It's sad how most "pro-choicers," while claiming "rationality," seem to keep themselves willfully ignorant of the facts of human life.[/quote]
I fully agree!
Life is characterized by the capacity to perform certain functional activities, incl. metabolism,growth, and reproduction, and further by the complex transformations of organic molecules, and by the organization of such molecules into the successively larger units of protoplasm,cells,organs, and organisms.
\We know that these processes take place as soon as the ovum is fertilised by the sperm, so the conclusion is, that the embryo is alive.
Now the question that arises is: can it be morally and ethically right to destroy a human being for any reason ?
Abortion is the willful destruction of an unborn child. Even abortionists will agree on this point,(at least in New Zealand).
How can the destruction of a human being ever be considered morally good and right? The end doesn't justify the means.
The killing of one group of people in a society for the "benefit" of others, is dehumanizing, immoral and unethical.
The most basic "right" is the right to life. A society that denies that right to a substantial portion of its population,is barbaric and uncivilized.
All other rights are superfluous, when the right to life has been abolished!
Pro-choice can never be prolife, as it denies the choice of at least one other person.
As the Bible says: CHOOSE LIFE!!!!!

[Hassan]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1632260' date='Aug 19 2008, 10:37 PM']It's scientific fact that a new human being begins life at conception.[/quote]

the cells may have human genetic material, that does not mean a cluster of cells is an individual. The fact that the cells are infused with a unique, individual soul at the moment of conception is a religious postulation that cannot be proven at the moment.

[quote](And by the time most women realize they're pregnant, the baby is [i]much[/i] more than "two cells," but that's another discussion.)[/quote]

correct.

[quote]It's sad how most "pro-choicers," while claiming "rationality," seem to keep themselves willfully ignorant of the facts of human life.[/quote]



I am more or less anti-abortion and would not consider myself presently pro-choice.

I never said the cells we not a unique human life. I simply said that unlike a black or Jewish man this belief is not scientifically verifiable

can you define "human life"

[Hassan]

[quote name='Majella' post='1632469' date='Aug 20 2008, 03:47 AM']As the Bible says: CHOOSE LIFE!!!!![/quote]

With all due respect, the God of the Bible does not seem to have any qualms ordering the slaughter of children.

[Majella]

Please give examples!

[Didymus]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1632232' date='Aug 19 2008, 10:10 PM']If you would be offended by the term "pro-choice" being used to defend legalization of rape or slavery, maybe you can see why some of us are opposed to using it with regards to abortion. One can just as validly use the vague term of "choice" to justify legalizing absolutely anything.[/quote]

I never said that I don't understand why some of you prefer to use the terms "pro-abortion" instead of "pro-choice." I just disagree that your way is the best way to find common ground in our differences with our opponents and thus find a solution to this issue.

Edited August 21, 2008 by Didymus

[Socrates]

[quote name='Hassan' post='1632494' date='Aug 20 2008, 06:34 AM']the cells may have human genetic material, that does not mean a cluster of cells is an individual. The fact that the cells are infused with a unique, individual soul at the moment of conception is a religious postulation that cannot be proven at the moment.



correct.





I am more or less anti-abortion and would not consider myself presently pro-choice.

I never said the cells we not a unique human life. I simply said that unlike a black or Jewish man this belief is not scientifically verifiable

can you define "human life"[/quote]
An unborn child is not a mere "cluster of cells" (implying an indistinct, functionless mass, like a tumor), but a unique, living, growing human being in its early stages of development.
However, you apparently agree with me here, as you admit the "cells" are a unique human life.
The fact that a human being is unique and alive from the moment of conception is scientific fact.
(I have never seen any serious scientific evidence that an unborn child is non-living, not a unique organism, or is some species other than human.)
The humanity of an unborn child is just as scientifically verifiable as that of a black or Jewish man (or any grown man, for that matter).
Can you "scientifically" prove that a black or Jewish man is "infused with a unique, individual soul," or is that a "religious postulation"?
As Christians, we believe that the soul is the life-principle of the human body, so as long as a human being is alive, it has a soul, and is worthy of protection.
A human being is alive from conception, it does not magically "come to life" after leaving the womb. [i]That[/i] would be an unscientific postulation.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Didymus' post='1633507' date='Aug 21 2008, 10:08 AM']I never said that I don't understand why some of you prefer to use the terms "pro-abortion" instead of "pro-choice." I just disagree that your way is the best way to find common ground in our differences with our opponents and thus find a solution to this issue.[/quote]
Truth must never be sacrificed in the name of "finding common ground."
And I disagree that adopting the deceptive language of the pro-abortionists will actually do anything to end abortion, but at this point we're just repeating ourselves.

[Didymus]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1634047' date='Aug 21 2008, 10:06 PM']Truth must never be sacrificed in the name of "finding common ground."
And I disagree that adopting the deceptive language of the pro-abortionists will actually do anything to end abortion, but at this point we're just repeating ourselves.[/quote]

How is truth being sacrificed here? Even if "pro-choice" is a [i]deceptive[/i] term, that doesn't mean it is untrue. To believe that every woman ought to have the right to keep her baby, put it up for adoption, or to rip its very life from its body is to believe in the equality of several choices. Just because one of these choices is horrible and heinous doesn't take away from the fact that these folks believe that all choices should be available equally. "Pro-choice" is a term. Just because it doesn't fit your rhetoric doesn't mean it isn't a truthful term. Just because it is deceptive and lends support to evil options as much as admirable options doesn't mean it isn't true. As Ironmonk would say: Learn logic..

And yes, having respect for your opponent does lead to the type of dialog that will bring solutions to this crisis into the pitcure.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Didymus' post='1634515' date='Aug 22 2008, 10:53 AM']How is truth being sacrificed here? Even if "pro-choice" is a [i]deceptive[/i] term, that doesn't mean it is untrue.[/quote]

If something is deceptive it is untrue.

[Didymus]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1635698' date='Aug 23 2008, 04:27 PM']If something is deceptive it is untrue.[/quote]

Applying the term "pro-choice" to the cases Socrates mentioned, such as rape and murdering those of a different race, would still be true, but it would be deceptive because it would take attention away from the evil action at hand..

[Fidei Defensor]

Not that it makes it okay, but God did give free will, so technically, pro-choice is a proper term. One can choose between good and evil willingly. Pro-choice just means they believe one can choose evil. Yes, that's against what you believe, but it's not a deceptive term.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Didymus' post='1636573' date='Aug 24 2008, 10:36 AM']Applying the term "pro-choice" to the cases Socrates mentioned, such as rape and murdering those of a different race, would still be true, but it would be deceptive because it would take attention away from the evil action at hand..[/quote]

The same is also true for Abortion the murder of a unborn child.

[KnightofChrist]

To add to my last post, The same is also true for Abortion the murder of a unborn child, in that it would take attention away from the evil action at hand.

[Hassan]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1634043' date='Aug 21 2008, 10:03 PM']An unborn child is not a mere "cluster of cells" (implying an indistinct, functionless mass, like a tumor), but a unique, living, growing human being in its early stages of development.[/quote]
Again, how do you define "human being" and "life"

A Fetus is not identical with a fully developed human, would you agree with that?


[quote]However, you apparently agree with me here, as you admit the "cells" are a unique human life.[/quote]

In a sense yes, I don't heave nearly clear enough an idea of what "life" is to affirm that fully.

[quote]The fact that a human being is unique and alive from the moment of conception is scientific fact.[/quote]

That depends a lot on how you define alive


[quote](I have never seen any serious scientific evidence that an unborn child is non-living, not a unique organism, or is some species other than human.)
The humanity of an unborn child is just as scientifically verifiable as that of a black or Jewish man (or any grown man, for that matter).[/quote]

No, the unborn child at conception does not, so far as we can know scientifically, have any concept of self, aualitative experience, ability to understand itself as an individual, etc.

[quote]Can you "scientifically" prove that a black or Jewish man is "infused with a unique, individual soul," or is that a "religious postulation"?[/quote]

I can prove that there is no scientific defference substantially between any member of the human species


[quote]As Christians, we believe that the soul is the life-principle of the human body, so as long as a human being is alive, it has a soul, and is worthy of protection.[/quote]

That's fine, you have every right to believe that and I think it's great (honestly). It just isin't something that one can know absence revelation from God

[quote]A human being is alive from conception, it does not magically "come to life" after leaving the womb. [i]That[/i] would be an unscientific postulation.[/quote]

The Mind is not identical with the brain, but it is very much contingent on it, and is produced by the brain. The child's brain develops.

[KnightofChrist]

How do you define "human being" and "life" Hassan? You question but give no answers.

[dairygirl4u2c]

it doesn't have to do with the issue of whether it's ensouled or not. i mean,,, well, that's one issue.

but hte main issue is scientific. is that first cell a person, or is it not? as a matter of what's significant.
i don't mean signifiant as in, my kinda conclusion must be that a delapidated old person in a hospital signifiant,,, i mean it in terms of what it inherently is,,, ie, a cell.


even if you called it an organism, it doens't prove it's a person, or something signifiant whatever you call it.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Didymus' post='1634515' date='Aug 22 2008, 09:53 AM']How is truth being sacrificed here? Even if "pro-choice" is a [i]deceptive[/i] term, that doesn't mean it is untrue. To believe that every woman ought to have the right to keep her baby, put it up for adoption, or to rip its very life from its body is to believe in the equality of several choices. Just because one of these choices is horrible and heinous doesn't take away from the fact that these folks believe that all choices should be available equally. "Pro-choice" is a term. Just because it doesn't fit your rhetoric doesn't mean it isn't a truthful term. Just because it is deceptive and lends support to evil options as much as admirable options doesn't mean it isn't true. As Ironmonk would say: Learn logic..

And yes, having respect for your opponent does lead to the type of dialog that will bring solutions to this crisis into the pitcure.[/quote]
(Sorry this response is late - I've been otherwise occupied lately.)

If words or language are deceptive, that, by definition, means it purposely hides or detracts from the truth.

As I've said plenty of times here, "pro-choice" is [i]not[/i] a truthful term because it makes the abortion debate to be about freedom of choice, rather than the taking of human life.

And the truth is that at least the vast majority of "pro-choicers" do not in fact believe all choices should be available equally. If that was the case, they'd all be total anarchists.
You've said you would not support using the term "pro-choice" to refer to things such as theft, rape, or slavery - yet these things are no more or less choices than killing an unborn baby.
If all choices are equally valid, then absolutely nothing one chooses to do should be illegal.

No, the real issue is not choice at all, but legalized abortion.

There is absolutely no reason pro-lifers should engage in the enemy's deceitful rhetoric.
Deception is countered by truthful language, not deceptive language.

And one can certainly have respect for one's opponents without using their language of deceitful propaganda.

It's you that needs to learn logic, Joker.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Hassan' post='1637313' date='Aug 24 2008, 10:46 PM']Again, how do you define "human being" and "life"[/quote]
A human being is any individual of the species [i]homo sapiens[/i], regardless of age, race or sex.
Life is defined by Webster's as:
" a: the quality that distinguishes a vital and functional being from a dead body b: a principle or force that is considered to underlie the distinctive quality of animate beings c: an organismic state characterized by capacity for metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction"

An unborn human, or fetus, is alive by any one of these standards (presuming it has not been killed, in which case it is a dead fetus. You can't kill that which is not alive to begin with).

I have seen absolutely no scientific proof that an unborn human being is dead or non-living matter, nor that it is some species other than human.

[quote]A Fetus is not identical with a fully developed human, would you agree with that?[/quote]
Neither is a newborn infant, nor a six-year-old, for that matter. Human beings usually aren't "fully developed" until their teens or twenties.
Not being physically fully developed is never used to argue that young children are not human beings or that it is acceptable to kill them.

The truth is that there are really not arguments for the rightness of killing an unborn baby which could not also be used to justify the killing of some human beings already born.



[quote]In a sense yes, I don't heave nearly clear enough an idea of what "life" is to affirm that fully.

That depends a lot on how you define alive[/quote]
How do [i]you[/i] define "life"? Any biologist could tell you that an unborn child is alive. It is certainly alive by any normal biological definition of life.

[quote]No, the unborn child at conception does not, so far as we can know scientifically, have any concept of self, aualitative experience, ability to understand itself as an individual, etc.[/quote]
And how would you know that with certainty? Does a newborn infant have these qualities?

[quote]I can prove that there is no scientific defference substantially between any member of the human species[/quote]
Exactly. And an unborn human is a member of the human species as well.

[quote]That's fine, you have every right to believe that and I think it's great (honestly). It just isin't something that one can know absence revelation from God[/quote]
No mystical revelation from God is necessary to determine that an unborn baby is in fact alive. That can be scientifically determined. If it was not alive, it would be dead.

[quote]The Mind is not identical with the brain, but it is very much contingent on it, and is produced by the brain. The child's brain develops.[/quote]
This has nothing to do with whether an unborn child is alive or human.

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='Didymus' post='1614693' date='Jul 31 2008, 10:00 PM']This may have been discussed before, but I really don't want to hack away at an ancient thread.

Even if it was already debated, I really believe we can cover new ground in this new thread, so here we go.

Socrates and I were just about to start discussing this in the "Anti-Obama or Pro-McCain" thread. I mentioned briefly that I do not follow the typical pro-life habit of referring to our 'opponents' as being 'pro-abortion,' but rather 'pro-choice.'

Here is Socrates' response, followed by my initial response:





I will return to this thread in a little bit. My bad, I've just been doing a lot of work around the house..[/quote]


I used to use the term pro-choice. I didn't have a problem with calling it as they wanted it just for the sake of discussion. And sometimes I still do when I'm not really thinking about it in random discussions. But when I'm writing and have time to make a conscious decision I do now use the term pro-abortion. Ever since the Planned Parenthood clinic in South Dakota closed instead of agreeing to provide the facts about abortion, I have decided to use the term pro-abortion because while many of the women involved are probably pro-choice, the culture as a whole is in fact pro-abortion and would rather withhold information from a pregnant woman than risk them deciding to keep the baby. So I think pro-abortion is a more accurate term for the culture overall than pro-choice.

Edited August 30, 2008 by goldenchild17