Pro-choice? Where do you draw the line?

[Catholic Crusader]

You romanticize a clump of cells that will develop into a human being......

But you are a clump of cells too, just a bigger clump.
The child in the womb IS a human being. DNA proves that.

Your absurd post has nothing to do with science and everything to do with size-ism, just as bad as racism and sexism.

And they say Republicans hate science. LOL Its the pro-choicers who really hate science.

 

[quip]

But you are a clump of cells too, just a bigger clump.
The child in the womb IS a human being. DNA proves that.

Your absurd post has nothing to do with science and everything to do with size-ism, just as bad as racism and sexism.

And they say Republicans hate science. LOL Its the pro-choicers who really hate science.

Well, there's an obvious difference between an undifferentiated "clump of cells" and a differentiated one. You and Px qualify as the latter...as a matter of fact, the basic concept of 'person', which distinguishes your "clump of cells" from Px's.....qualifies as the latter. :idea:

 

[PureX]

But you are a clump of cells too, just a bigger clump.
The child in the womb IS a human being. DNA proves that.

My arm is a clump of living cells with my DNA, too. But my arm is not a human being. It's not a human being because it does not have a sufficiently developed brain and nervous system to experience reality as a human being would.

So it's not the DNA, or the size of the clump of cells that defines a human being. It's the sufficiently developed brain and nervous system. But we don't exactly know how developed these must be to become a human being. We do know, though, that some significant degree of development must take place, because just any clump of cells with human DNA does not make a human being. So that a human being doesn't exist from the moment of conception, but is created as the brain and nervous system develops. Though exactly WHEN this creation occurs, is unknown to us.

 

[WizardofOz]

And the pro-choice fallacy factory commences unabated.

quip has red herrings - should all abortions involving differentiated "clumps of cells" be illegal? No? Then your "argument" is a red herring.

PureX is comparing parts of a human to a human. Is a human arm a human? :nono:

And then he throws in the classic argument from ignorance. We don't collectively know when the CNS is developed enough for PureX to consider a fetus a human being, therefore abortion should remain legal.

Of course PureX's CNS argument is also a red herring as he clearly does not feel that a fetus with a developed CNS should be given legal protection against being aborted.

Compelling stuff guys. Really lain:

 

[drbrumley]

And the pro-choice fallacy factory commences unabated.

quip has red herrings - should all abortions involving differentiated "clumps of cells" be illegal? No? Then your "argument" is a red herring.

PureX is comparing parts of a human to a human. Is a human arm a human? :nono:

And then he throws in the classic argument from ignorance. We don't collectively know when the CNS is developed enough for PureX to consider a fetus a human being, therefore abortion should remain legal.

Of course PureX's CNS argument is also a red herring as he clearly does not feel that a fetus with a developed CNS should be given legal protection against being aborted.

Compelling stuff guys. Really lain:

Word!!!!!

 

[drbrumley]

Wonders if Px can say this not a human being with a soul

 

[IMJerusha]

You're feelings don't set the criteria for all womankind.

No, they don't. God did!

"Know that the Lord Himself is God; it is He who has made us, and not we ourselves; we are His people and the sheep of His pasture" -- Psalm 100:3

"Thus says the Lord, your Redeemer, and the One who formed you from the womb, ‘I, the LORD, am the maker of all things, stretching out the heavens by Myself, and spreading out the earth all alone . . .'" -- Isaiah 44:24

"But now, O Lord, Thou art our Father, we are the clay, and Thou our potter; and all of us are the work of Thy hand" -- Isaiah 64:8

"For You formed my inward parts; You covered me in my mother’s womb. I will praise You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; marvelous are Your works and that my soul knows well. My frame was not hidden from You, when I was made in secret, and skillfully wrought in the lowest parts of the earth. Your eyes saw my substance, being yet unformed, and in Your book they all were written, the days fashioned for me, when as yet there were none of them" -- Psalm 139:13-16

"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations" -- Jeremiah 1:5

“You shall not murder." -- Exodus 20:13

"This day I call the heavens and the earth as witnesses against you that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life, so that you and your children may live and that you may love the Lord your God, listen to his voice, and hold fast to him." Deuteronomy 30:19-20

"Parents are not to be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their parents; each will die for their own sin." -- Deuteronomy 24:16

"Woe to him who quarrels with his Maker, to him who is but a potsherd among the potsherds on the ground. Does the clay say to the potter, 'What are you making?' Does your work say, 'He has no hands?' Woe to him who says to his father, 'What have you begotten?' or to his mother, 'What have you brought to birth?' This is what the LORD says—the Holy One of Israel, and its Maker: Concerning things to come, do you question Me about My children, or give Me orders about the work of My hands?" -- Isaiah 45:9-11

 

[Catholic Crusader]

Today is the day!
Tune in to EWTN.
God bless the marchers and the children.
http://www.ewtn.com

March For Life: January 22, 2014
Website: http://marchforlife.org/
Thread: http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=98643
Live Coverage: http://www.ewtn.com

The biggest march in the United States with the most people every year, and the biggest protest in the United States with the most people every year, is the one march and protest that the mainstream media blacks out and never reports on. But I will:

March for Life
2014 March for Life
January 22, 2014
http://marchforlife.org/


QUOTE:
We look forward to seeing you at the 41st annual March for Life on January 22, 2014 ! Send a text message to 99000 with the keyword MARCH4LIFE for updates.

Schedule:

**The March will not be canceled due to inclement weather. Please dress appropriately by wearing many layers, and covering extremities!

11:15-11:45 Matt Maher on the National Mall

12:00 March for Life Rally - Full Lineup of Speakers: http://marchforlife.org/media-center/press-contacts

1:00 March for Life to the U.S. Supreme Court

We encourage you to visit your Congressman - http://marchforlife.org/march-with-us/capitol-hill-receptions

....to advocate for life upon completing the March: http://marchforlife.org/take-action/citizen-lobbying-0#overlay-context=take-action/contact-your-legislator

More pics and videos: http://nicedeb.wordpress.com/2012/01/23/over-400000-march-for-life-in-washington-dc-pics-and-videos/

 

[alwight]

And the pro-choice fallacy factory commences unabated.

quip has red herrings - should all abortions involving differentiated "clumps of cells" be illegal? No? Then your "argument" is a red herring.

PureX is comparing parts of a human to a human. Is a human arm a human? :nono:

And then he throws in the classic argument from ignorance. We don't collectively know when the CNS is developed enough for PureX to consider a fetus a human being, therefore abortion should remain legal.

Of course PureX's CNS argument is also a red herring as he clearly does not feel that a fetus with a developed CNS should be given legal protection against being aborted.

Compelling stuff guys. Really lain:

Choice itself is not a fallacy. The central issue here imo is about choice and being able to have a choice.
Not being prevented by others with perhaps their own agenda from being able to make that choice regarding what happens to your own body and in your own life. Choice based on one's own morality and circumstances is what I think is rather more important than someone else's opinion that (say) a "soul" exists at conception or that in their opinion every zygote is sacred.

Yes I understand that "pro-life"ers claim to be concerned for the potential baby but I would argue that despite that, the right of choice, including all the moral issues, supposed "souls", personhood, a capacity to even function as a human being, whether it's a person from the moment conception or at some later point etc, are not sufficiently clear cut issues for others to deny the woman concerned her right of choice.

Being pro-choice myself I would typically personally worry for a healthy foetus with a somewhat functioning CNS, but later abortions are not for me to deny nor to seek to impose through civil laws my own choices on others who have their own lives to live.

 

[Rusha]

You romanticize a clump of cells that will develop into a human being, into an "innocent child", and then accuse anyone who disagree with you of being a "murderer".

Feel free to show a quote where I have called anyone a *murderer*. Oh that's right. You can't. After so many years of dealing with the tactics of pro-abortionists, I don't bother using that word anymore. Instead, I just flat out refer to your side as anti-child/pro-abortion advocates.

So, because abortion is legal, it is moral to kill a child while still in the womb at any point during the pregnancy? A simple yes or no will suffice.

I'm sorry, but I don't see that as a particularly moral position. I see it mostly as a self-centric position.

That suits me just fine. I don't need for anyone to agree that my anti-abortion advocacy is morally superior to that of someone who makes excuses and words for the sole purpose of justifying abortion AKA the intentional killing of an unborn baby.

At some point in the development process, the clump of cells will become a human person, and because we do not know when that is, I believe we should limit abortion to the earliest stages of development, as is reasonably possible. And I, personally, would not choose to abort even then.

WHY? You say that you would not choose to abort then, and then add the famous "personally" to your argument. THAT shows that you know your claim is contradictory.

But I don't have the right to force other people to comply with my choice, because their choice ISN'T my choice. As a society, however, I think we should keep the laws as they are, or maybe limit them to an even earlier time frame. Maybe something like 12-16 weeks or less.

When it comes to protecting the innocent, we make laws to make people comply all the time regardless of their *choice*.

Can we reasonably expect a woman to recognize that she is pregnant in that time period? If so, I think it's reasonable to require her to make up her mind quickly, while the development process is still in it's early stages. If she can't do that, then perhaps it's better that she take it to term, anyway.

I really wish you would make up your mind. The only thing that can be known for SURE is that when the doctor says "Congratulations, you are pregnant", he/she is not referring to a clump of cells or tissue. IF that were the case, it would be "My goodness you have a growth. We need to get that thing out of you ASAP".

My arm is a clump of living cells with my DNA, too. But my arm is not a human being. It's not a human being because it does not have a sufficiently developed brain and nervous system to experience reality as a human being would.

I would love to see you post some cases where the doctor said "congratulations ... in a few months you will be giving birth to an ARM". Seriously, is the best you can do? Body parts.

So it's not the DNA, or the size of the clump of cells that defines a human being. It's the sufficiently developed brain and nervous system. But we don't exactly know how developed these must be to become a human being. We do know, though, that some significant degree of development must take place, because just any clump of cells with human DNA does not make a human being. So that a human being doesn't exist from the moment of conception, but is created as the brain and nervous system develops. Though exactly WHEN this creation occurs, is unknown to us.

When the decision involves the life or death of what "may or may not" be an innocent human being, why would anyone argue against erring on the side of caution?

I know why. Most individuals who actually value the life of the unborn know why.

Here it is: Abortion is best friend of selfish individuals who have found a legal loophole that allows them to play now and kill later.

 

[PureX]

You say that you would not choose to abort then, and then add the famous "personally" to your argument. THAT shows that you know your claim is contradictory.

It's not contradictory when you understand that other human beings are your equals, and not you lessors.

When it comes to protecting the innocent, we make laws to make people comply all the time regardless of their *choice*.

Our laws are based on the idea of equality. So that the mother's right of choice is equal to your own. Just as a child's right to life is equal to anyone else's (regardless of "innocence"). But we don't all agree on when a fetus becomes a child, and therefor has that individual right to life. You can huff and puff all you want about protecting the "innocent child", but that was never really the issue. The issue is when the fetus becomes an "innocent child", and who is going to make that decision.

You seem to think that you have the right to make that decision for everyone else. I don't happen to believe that you do. Just as I don't happen to believe that I do, either. So I will, then, cede to the will of our society as a collective, regarding this issue, because there is currently no more objective way of establishing our functional response to the question.

I really wish you would make up your mind.

Why? So I can then preach my biased opinions at everyone else? My biased opinion is that people should choose for themselves until we have enough information to objectively determine this issue with some certainty.

When the decision involves the life or death of what "may or may not" be an innocent human being, why would anyone argue against erring on the side of caution?

I don't know. Why isn't the world full of people who think exactly as you do?

 

[IMJerusha]

I don't know. Why isn't the world full of people who think exactly as you do?

I think CC has brought forth enough evidence in only a few photos of the great numbers of people who love God's creation. From the Washington Times:

"America’s pro-choice voice is losing force, while pro-life messages are resonating more, a couple of separate polls conducted by different agencies found.

Rasmussen finds in a survey of 1,000 likely voters that the gap between pro-choice and pro-life camps is narrowing. Now, 46 percent consider themselves pro-choice and 43 percent pro-life. Rasmussen says the 46 percent represents “the lowest finding in three years of regular surveying,” while the 43 percent represents a tie with “the highest finding [in that category] to date.”

Meanwhile, Gallup’s recent findings are similar.

The survey posed the question: “With respect to the abortion issue, would you consider yourself to be pro-choice or pro-life?” Fully 48 percent said pro-life; 45 percent, pro-choice.

The Rasmussen survey was conducted on Friday and has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

The Gallup figures are based on random telephone interviews of 1,535 adults on May 2-7; the margin of error is plus or minus 4 percentage points."

 

[Jezebel]

The fetus must be removed if the mother is going to die without such action. All care should be made and all attempts should be made to keep the fetus alive, but if the mother dies, they both die, and the end result for the fetus is the same.

This isn't always true. I've shown you this. You want to believe that both have to die to make it easier for you to justify it.

Here are cases of pregnant women who decided to forgo chemotherapy treatment, died and their children lived.
http://www.nydailynews.com/life-sty...ild-dottie-mae-article-1.964103#ixzz1bEj3EBhN
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/woman-dies-of-cancer-after-refusing-treatment-to-save-unborn-child/
http://www.foxnews.com/health/2011/12/28/idaho-teen-loses-cancer-fight-after-delivering-son/
Should it be mandated that women who are pregnant be barred from chemotherapy if it will kill their fetus?

What about the case of a 13 year old girl who had to have an abortion before doctors could operate on her spine so that she wouldn't be permanently paralyzed from the neck down?

L.C., the young woman in the video, lives in poverty in Lima, Peru. At the age of 13, she was raped repeatedly by a 34-year-old man, but when she discovered that she was pregnant, he denied that the child could be his. In desperation,tried to commit suicide by jumping from a window, but didn't die; instead, she lay on the ground for hours, paralyzed. When she was finally found and taken to the hospital, doctors refused to operate because she was pregnant, but also refused her family's petition for a therapeutic abortion.

Abortion in Peru is illegal except in rare circumstances. One of these circumstances, however, is when the mother's health and life are at risk, which was clearly the case with L.C. Because of the severity of her injuries, L.C. eventually suffered a miscarriage, but it wasn't until several weeks after the miscarriage and four months after she was told that she needed surgery that she finally received the spinal procedure she needed. By this time, though, the surgery could have little to no effect, and she remained paralyzed.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/...eatment-and-abortion-left-paralyzed-for-life#

Another question, why does it matter if the fetus will "die anyway"? When have we ever killed terminally ill people in this country because they would die anyway?

Again, it depends on the state but I did do some digging for you.

"Louisiana is one of at least 38 states with fetal homicide laws, and one of 23 with such laws applying to the earliest stage of pregnancy, according to the National Council of State Legislatures (NCSL).

Feticide in Indiana is a Class B felony, and a conviction could carry a six-to-20-year prison sentence"

This seems fair.

Again, I didn't ask you about the sentences states actually give. I was asking what you think it should be. Why do you keep hiding behind state laws and just can't bear to give your actual opinion?

Take a look at this case. Should he not be charged with a crime at all?

TAMPA, Fla. (AP) — The 28-year-old son of a Florida fertility doctor has been charged by federal authorities with tricking his girlfriend into taking a pill used to induce labor and cause an abortion, killing the embryo she was carrying. John Andrew Welden was indicted Tuesday by a federal grand jury on charges of product tampering and first-degree murder and faces up to life in prison if convicted of the murder charge. He's also the defendant in a lawsuit filed in state court by his ex-girlfriend, 26-year-old Remee Lee.

Your thoughts?

He should be charged with poisoning. If it it was up to me he would be sentenced to 1 to 5 years in prison, depending on what the woman wanted. Personally I would give him 1. See how easy that was? Why can't you do the same for me?

Yes, that is murder. Clearly.



:doh: I believe it is feticide. I think we've been over this.

What is the difference between the woman who hired the hit man to kill her newborn and the woman who hired an abortionist?

Why should they be charged differently? For example, when a woman murders her infant she is not charged with infanticide and given a lesser sentence because her victim is young. She is charged with murder. Why should it be different for fetuses if they are the same as infants with all the same legal rights?

I would have no qualms over abortion being legally classified as murder. I'm a pragmatist offering middle ground here. I would be content with the practice being outlawed.

Period.

Why offer middle ground to people you believe are murderers?
If you have no qualms about it, why not come out and say you support it?

How does outlawing abortion completely and violating a woman's right to bodily autonomy=middle ground?

 

[Jezebel]

Allowing an innocent child to live is not punishment. That is a lie that pro-abortion advocates use to justify the killing of the innocent.

Why do you keep completely erasing the rape victim in the scenario as if she is irrelevant? Even wanted and planned pregnancies be risky, painful, life threatening and draining experiences. What would you call forcing someone to endure and unwanted, unplanned pregnancy that was the result of one of the most humiliating and devastating act in their lives? A reward?

A lot of rape victims share his sentiment given the amount that choose to have abortions. Just because you, a stranger who will not be affected or harmed feels it is not a punishment, does mean that the actual victims will.

Just like I said in my earlier post. If the woman is the cause of the pregnancy focus on blaming her, if she is not erase her altogether.

 

[Jezebel]

A few question for all of the pro lifers in this thread.

If abortion becomes illegal, what should be the punishment for women who procure abortions? Should they receive life imprisonment/the death penalty? If not what should the length of their prison term be?

Does the woman being a victim of rape/having an abortion because of health risks affect your stance any? If she's a juvenile should she be tried as an adult?

 

[Jezebel]

This must be the post you were referring to. So, effectively your opinion is that abortion should be legal anytime for any reason, correct?

Okay, I have been a little confusing. Let me be clear. My only concern is that women have the right to end their pregnancy at any time. I want to preserve my right to complete bodily autonomy as a woman, and for the women close to me who may opt to end their pregnancies. I realize that many people find late term abortions abhorrent unless under extenuating circumstances so to balance the interests of both the woman and the fetus, the fetus should be delivered alive as long as it adds no extra risks to the woman.

To simplify: I don't believe a woman should be forced to share her body with a fetus against her will. I don't believe a fetus has any rights to be in a woman's body, whether it needs her to survive of not.

Earlier you mentioned middle ground. What middle ground do you feel you are offering, given your sentiment on the legality of abortion?

The fetus can still be delivered alive if viable. I said:

However, I don't think the doctor should face any penalties should he deliver the fetus alive. If a law was drawn up that said after the point of viability the doctor can deliver the fetus alive and face no penalty. I'd have no issues with that law.

Would this law strike you as middle ground? I would not be opposed to it.

A woman may have end her pregnancy at anytime by removal of the fetus/embryo. However if the pregnancy is to the point that the fetus can survive the fetus should be removed per the women's request but must be removed alive.

I would not be opposed to this law. I don't believe it erases women's bodily autonomy. Would you?

 

[Jezebel]

I think CC has brought forth enough evidence in only a few photos of the great numbers of people who love God's creation. From the Washington Times:

"America’s pro-choice voice is losing force, while pro-life messages are resonating more, a couple of separate polls conducted by different agencies found.

Rasmussen finds in a survey of 1,000 likely voters that the gap between pro-choice and pro-life camps is narrowing. Now, 46 percent consider themselves pro-choice and 43 percent pro-life. Rasmussen says the 46 percent represents “the lowest finding in three years of regular surveying,” while the 43 percent represents a tie with “the highest finding [in that category] to date.”

Meanwhile, Gallup’s recent findings are similar.

The survey posed the question: “With respect to the abortion issue, would you consider yourself to be pro-choice or pro-life?” Fully 48 percent said pro-life; 45 percent, pro-choice.

The Rasmussen survey was conducted on Friday and has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

The Gallup figures are based on random telephone interviews of 1,535 adults on May 2-7; the margin of error is plus or minus 4 percentage points."

This is more to do with both sides inability to clearly define the meaning of both labels and what the beliefs on legality are for both side. In short, labels are useless. There are pro lifers who think abortion should be legal, but that it is wrong. There are pro choicers who think they're pro choice because they believe abortion should be legal in cases of rape/life of mother. Most people are opposed to complete bans on abortion

Seven in 10 Americans believe Roe v. Wade should stand, the most since 1989, according to data from a WSJl/NBC News poll, as the landmark Supreme Court abortion-rights ruling turns 40 on Tuesday. WSJ's Louise Radnofsky reports.

That is the highest level of support for the decision, which established a woman's right to an abortion, since polls began tracking it in 1989. The shift is mostly the result of more Democrats backing the decision—particularly Hispanics and African-Americans—and a slight uptick in support from Republicans.

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424127887323301104578255831504582200

and also:

More and more ‘pro-life’ Americans support abortion rights
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/more-and-more-pro-life-americans-support-ab

 

[One Eyed Jack]

A few question for all of the pro lifers in this thread.

I'm not pro-life -- I'm anti-abortion, but I'll answer anyway.

If abortion becomes illegal, what should be the punishment for women who procure abortions?

The same as murder.

Should they receive life imprisonment/the death penalty?

I think they deserve the death penalty. As do the doctors who perform them.

 

[Jezebel]

I'm not pro-life -- I'm anti-abortion, but I'll answer anyway.



The same as murder.



I think they deserve the death penalty. As do the doctors who perform them.

Thank you for your honesty. Two more questions and I'm done, I should have put this in the OP.

Does the woman being a victim of rape/having an abortion because of health risks affect your stance any? If she's a juvenile should she be tried as an adult?

 

[intojoy]

Death is universal, live with it.


Posted from the TOL App!