Pro Choice

[Guest nvzbl]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1718002' date='Dec 3 2008, 07:17 PM']nvbl, i think, is ignoring this post.




i disagree with win that the issue is clearly over as to the personhood of the child.

but that really is the issue. life, murder etc.

nvz, the issue is not that we should just be happy happy about murder. if you don't think that you're being happy happy about murder, then you are tacitly acknowledging that murder ist he issue, and that it needs to be addressed more explicitly, cause it's really the heart of hte matter.

again, since you're not, it seems pretty obvious to me that nvz is ignoring the issue.[/quote]

Love is the heart of the matter.

[Tinkerlina]

[quote name='fidei defensor' post='1718060' date='Dec 3 2008, 08:41 PM']Because I don't subscribe to all-or-nothing thinking. Abortion is not a good thing, that's why I am not pro-abortion. I don't think anyone needs abortion. That doesn't stop me from presuming to make decisions for other people, though.[/quote]

I get what you're saying but would you agree that if I categorically believe that a fetus is a human life, it would be unreasonable for me to support another's right to take his/her life? And if you're not sure, wouldn't it be better to err on the side of caution? -Katie

Edited December 4, 2008 by Tinkerlina

[MissScripture]

[quote name='fidei defensor' post='1718055' date='Dec 3 2008, 07:39 PM']Red herring. There is no disagreement about whether a born child is a person. There is much disagreement about whether or not a fetus is a person, however. It stems from differences in belief about what gives personhood. If someone doesn't believe in souls, its quite easy to believe a baby isnt a person until after it's born.[/quote]
But what makes it a person once it is born? How is a born baby so different from an unborn baby that makes the difference between it being a person or not being a person?

[Tinkerlina]

[quote name='MissScripture' post='1718069' date='Dec 3 2008, 08:45 PM']But what makes it a person once it is born? How is a born baby so different from an unborn baby that makes the difference between it being a person or not being a person?[/quote]

Even more than this, though, I think the issue is if someone believes that a fetus is a human life and is thus against abortion, how can that person then support the "right" of another to take the life? -Katie

[rizz_loves_jesus]

[quote name='fidei defensor' post='1718055' date='Dec 3 2008, 07:39 PM']Red herring. There is no disagreement about whether a born child is a person. There is much disagreement about whether or not a fetus is a person, however. It stems from differences in belief about what gives personhood. If someone doesn't believe in souls, its quite easy to believe a baby isnt a person until after it's born.[/quote]

You said some people don't believe the unborn are persons, so they should be allowed to kill them. My point is, WHAT IF someone said the same about a toddler? It's purely a hypothetical, but if it were to happen, would you defend them in the same way as you do people who support abortion?

[icelandic_iceskater]

fedei, just asking- at what point do you believe human life begins?

[dairygirl4u2c]

no rvn you are absolutely wrong.
love is not the heart of the matter.
i appreciate that you acknowledge the power of love.
but, using love as your reason, can be abused. love can be misapplied and misunderstood.

you would not say to someone who molests children that all that matters is that we love the child molester. you would not say all that mattered was taht we love hitler.
we'd not say that all that matters is that we love someone who kills kids in their womb.

now, i suppose if you meant that love is the heart of the matter, in that whether it's murder is indeed a threshhold issue, but love is what matters most, i won't quibble with that.

but you've yet to address the issue of personhood.

beyond the semantics of what's "primary" as the issue, you can't deny that personhood is at least a threshhold issue.

if you deny that, yu're just wrong, objectively, and sinning powerfully against God. (at least as far as your objective act goes, whether you're denying what you know to be true such taht you'd be accountable for it, is abother issue. you do seem genuine after all)

Edited December 4, 2008 by dairygirl4u2c

[Winchester]

[quote name='fidei defensor' post='1717882' date='Dec 3 2008, 06:38 PM']lol.

I'm pro-[b]choice[/b] but anti-religion. I hate religion. I think it turns people's brains into mush and causes them to become like robots, following anything their leader tells them. However, I am pro-[b]choice[/b] and I think that everyone has the [b]choice[/b] to follow a religion, even if I think they are complete morons for doing so.

That's why pro-choice isn't necessarily pro-abortion. Not everyone believes a fetus is a person. I'm quite aware of all the fuss you throw about it being one. But that doesn't change the fact that SOME PEOPLE DON'T BELIEVE THAT. You can call it whatever you want, but until you take a walk in someone else's shoes and understand what they believe, you have no idea what in the hell you are talking about. There are honest to God people out there who don't see why a fetus is a person and are pro-choice, but not pro-abortion.[/quote]
Was the lol necessary?

[Jesus_lol]

so if you let other people say anti-gay or racist remarks, are you a homophobe or a racist yourself? no, you would be letting them exercise freedom of speech.

in the same way being pro choice doesn't necessarily make you pro abortion.


if the government doesn't interfere when a catholic priest makes a sermon on focusing negatively on the gay culture, that lack of interference doesn't mean that they agree with the statements or support them in any way, but they do support their right to say them.

how is this different?

not i am not arguing that abortion should or shouldn't be legal, dont bother arguing on that point. i am agreeing and expanding on the original post.

[Guest nvzbl]

personhood isnt even a word.

[Guest nvzbl]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1718085' date='Dec 3 2008, 07:54 PM']no rvn you are absolutely wrong.
love is not the heart of the matter.
i appreciate that you acknowledge the power of love.
but, using love as your reason, can be abused. love can be misapplied and misunderstood.

you would not say to someone who molests children that all that matters is that we love the child molester. you would not say all that mattered was taht we love hitler.
we'd not say that all that matters is that we love someone who kills kids in their womb.

now, i suppose if you meant that love is the heart of the matter, in that whether it's murder is indeed a threshhold issue, but love is what matters most, i won't quibble with that.

but you've yet to address the issue of personhood.

beyond the semantics of what's "primary" as the issue, you can't deny that personhood is at least a threshhold issue.

if you deny that, yu're just wrong, objectively, and sinning powerfully against God. (at least as far as your objective act goes, whether you're denying what you know to be true such taht you'd be accountable for it, is abother issue. you do seem genuine after all)[/quote]
I'm sorry, but I think you might be a little confused.

[Fidei Defensor]

[quote name='rizz_loves_jesus' post='1718076' date='Dec 3 2008, 06:48 PM']You said some people don't believe the unborn are persons, so they should be allowed to kill them. My point is, WHAT IF someone said the same about a toddler? It's purely a hypothetical, but if it were to happen, would you defend them in the same way as you do people who support abortion?[/quote]
I know the point of your question, but it's still a red herring. You are trying to stir up emotion as means of making an argument, and the analogy doesn't fit in this case. You're trying to make me "question" my logic, because why would I be for killing a toddler? You can't prove an unborn fetus is a person without invoking the belief in a soul. If the fetus isn't a person but only has the potential, then it's not "killing," it would be ending a potential. I don't necessarily believe that, but there are multiple facets, besides your own beliefs, about personhood.

[quote name='icelandic_iceskater' post='1718081' date='Dec 3 2008, 06:52 PM']fedei, just asking- at what point do you believe human life begins?[/quote]
I have no opinion as of right now.

[quote name='Winchester' post='1718128' date='Dec 3 2008, 07:23 PM']Was the lol necessary?[/quote]
Yes.

[XIX]

[quote name='fidei defensor' post='1718182' date='Dec 3 2008, 10:04 PM']I know the point of your question, but it's still a red herring. You are trying to stir up emotion as means of making an argument, and the analogy doesn't fit in this case. You're trying to make me "question" my logic, because why would I be for killing a toddler? You can't prove an unborn fetus is a person without invoking the belief in a soul. If the fetus isn't a person but only has the potential, then it's not "killing," it would be ending a potential. I don't necessarily believe that, but there are multiple facets, besides your own beliefs, about personhood.[/quote]
The point of the question is to wonder what the difference is between a baby that is in a mother's lap, and a baby that's in a mother's uterus. Essentially the only differences are size, location, method of breathing/eating, and ability to move.

See? Basic pro-life argument that has nothing to do with religion at all.

That wasn't a red herring; rather, your post was a strawman.

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='nvzbl' post='1717987' date='Dec 3 2008, 07:09 PM']I believe in freedom. I do not agree with abortion. (personally)[/quote]

But we do not have the freedom to murder, which is what abortion is. So if you are personally against abortion, you must be publically against it as well. (Assuming by "I believe in freedom" you mean an individual's "freedom" to choose between killing the child or not killing the child.)

[XIX]

[quote name='fidei defensor' post='1717882' date='Dec 3 2008, 07:38 PM']lol.

I'm pro-[b]choice[/b] but anti-religion. I hate religion. I think it turns people's brains into mush and causes them to become like robots, following anything their leader tells them. However, I am pro-[b]choice[/b] and I think that everyone has the [b]choice[/b] to follow a religion, even if I think they are complete morons for doing so.[/quote]
To put it bluntly, your logical thought flow here is pretty bad, bordering on outright pathetic.

People are morons for disagreeing with you about whether religion is a good thing? Assertion after assertion...care to offer any arguments?

And why do you think people should have the right to make a decision if you think it's so destructive as to turn peoples' brains into mush? Why would you not want to ban something that you find so abhorrent--indeed, that you [i]hate?[/i]

Honestly, why do you want something you hate to remain legal, or to remain a viable option to the masses?

[Guest nvzbl]

[quote name='HisChildForever' post='1718190' date='Dec 3 2008, 09:11 PM']But we do not have the freedom to murder, which is what abortion is. So if you are personally against abortion, you must be publically against it as well. (Assuming by "I believe in freedom" you mean an individual's "freedom" to choose between killing the child or not killing the child.)[/quote]
No, I mean freedom in general.

[Servus_Mariae]

1.) Is an infant a person?
2.) If an infant is a person then abortion is murder
3.) An indavidual does not support abortion (murder)
4.) An indavidual accepts abortion (murder) as a right for others

5.) One must reconcile abortion being murder and permitting it to be legal.

The Constitution guaranetees freedom for an indavidual to make the choices he deems best for himself, provided he does not infringe on anothers right to do the same.

If a baby is a person then abortion is an infringement on his basic right to life. If all bear a choice, what choice does the infant in the womb have?

To acknowledge that a baby is a person and that it be legal to take his life, is to be accepting of legalized murder.

This is unconstitutional and unjust.

[Fidei Defensor]

[quote name='XIX' post='1718195' date='Dec 3 2008, 08:17 PM']To put it bluntly, your logical thought flow here is pretty bad, bordering on outright pathetic.

People are morons for disagreeing with you about whether religion is a good thing? Assertion after assertion...care to offer any arguments?

And why do you think people should have the right to make a decision if you think it's so destructive as to turn peoples' brains into mush? Why would you not want to ban something that you find so abhorrent--indeed, that you [i]hate?[/i]

Honestly, why do you want something you hate to remain legal, or to remain a viable option to the masses?[/quote]
You missed my point.

[Guest nvzbl]

[quote name='Servus_Mariae' post='1718222' date='Dec 3 2008, 09:33 PM']1.) Is an infant a person?
2.) If an infant is a person then abortion is murder
3.) An indavidual does not support abortion (murder)
4.) An indavidual accepts abortion (murder) as a right for others

5.) One must reconcile abortion being murder and permitting it to be legal.

The Constitution guaranetees freedom for an indavidual to make the choices he deems best for himself, provided he does not infringe on anothers right to do the same.

If a baby is a person then abortion is an infringement on his basic right to life. If all bear a choice, what choice does the infant in the womb have?

To acknowledge that a baby is a person and that it be legal to take his life, is to be accepting of legalized murder.

This is unconstitutional and unjust.[/quote]
So is the death penalty.

[IrishSalesian]

[quote name='Servus_Mariae' post='1718222' date='Dec 3 2008, 10:33 PM']1.) indavidual
2.) indavidual
3.) indavidual[/quote]
I-N-D-I-V-I-D-U-A-L INDIVIDUAL.

Edited December 4, 2008 by IrishSalesian