No, You Reallly Are Not "Pro-Choice"

[Jenny_8675309]

In the US, if you're a man and an immoral woman wants to murder your child, there is nothing you can do about it because men have no rights over their own children in America thanks to liberal feminists imposing their will on everyone else. So although you're being sarcastic, it's literally true that men are defenseless and hapless victims in these situations. Even in cases where a man wants or even pressures a woman to abort a child, it's still ultimately the women's decision and she will be held accountable by God for her gravely sinful actions.

Get back to me when women can force a man to carry an unwanted child

 

[Archivist]

Get back to me when women can force a man to carry an unwanted child

And we have at least one poster in this thread who says that a pregnant woman should have no say even if her life is in danger--that the choice of who to save should be left to a third party.

 

[Archivist]

In the US, if you're a man and an immoral woman wants to murder your child, there is nothing you can do about it because men have no rights over their own children in America thanks to liberal feminists imposing their will on everyone else. So although you're being sarcastic, it's literally true that men are defenseless and hapless victims in these situations. Even in cases where a man wants or even pressures a woman to abort a child, it's still ultimately the women's decision and she will be held accountable by God for her gravely sinful actions.

So untrue. A woman cannot legally murder a child.

 

[SPF]

You can take a child outside the whom and sustain it, "you" being society, or other family, or whatever, even if the mother doesn't want any part of it. The same is not true for a child before it's born, so it's a chalk and cheese situation.

You can support the life of child once it's born without infringing anyone else's self determination. You can't before it's born.

Jenny, please correct me if I'm wrong, I don't want to put any words into your mouth. It sounds to me like what you're saying is that so long as the unborn child is located inside a woman's womb that the woman has the authority to determine whether or not the unborn child is permitted to live. Is that correct? If so, then I would suggest that you have completely missed the heart of the issue.

The quickest way to derail the abortion discussion is to allow it to become a discussion over women's rights. The morality of abortion begins and ends with our understanding and classification of the zygote/embryo/fetus inside the mother’s womb.

All of us agree that we have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. But even those rights have limitations. For example, if I'm a kleptomaniac and my pursuit of happiness involves indiscriminately stealing from every store I walk into, there are laws in place to prevent that. My pursuit of happiness can be restricted. For people who break the law, they risk forfeiting their right to liberty either temporarily or permanently depending on their actions. It is even possible to forfeit your right to life by committing heinous acts of violence against another person. Thus, attempting to justify abortion from a women's rights line of reasoning fails because there are times when our rights can be limited or temporarily, or permanently suspended. In order to determine whether pregnancy is one of those times or not is going to be based upon our understanding of what the baby in the womb is.

I have provided answers. If you don't like them that is your problem.

Honestly, I've scrolled back and I cannot find where you explained why a child located inside the womb (a potential life in being) possesses less inherent moral value to a child located outside the womb (a life in being). That IS the heart of the entire abortion discussion. Does the child inside the womb possess inherent moral value or not? You're asserting that it doesn't. But I'm not finding any defense for your assertion, you're just stating it as if it is an axiom. So for my sake, and for anyone else's sake who's following along, can you actually explain your position instead of just stating it?

 

[Jenny_8675309]

Jenny, please correct me if I'm wrong, I don't want to put any words into your mouth. It sounds to me like what you're saying is that so long as the unborn child is located inside a woman's womb that the woman has the authority to determine whether or not the unborn child is permitted to live. Is that correct? If so, then I would suggest that you have completely missed the heart of the issue.

If medical science comes up with a way for women carrying unwanted pregnancies to stop being pregnant without killing the baby, that would be great. Until that time, however, the child's "right to life" does not trump the woman's right to self determination.

Consider, for example, if I had a rare blood disorder, and needed a blood transfusion that only one person could give. Does my "right to life" trump that person' right to self determination? Can I demand that person provides me a blood transfusion?

The quickest way to derail the abortion discussion is to allow it to become a discussion over women's rights. The morality of abortion begins and ends with our understanding and classification of the zygote/embryo/fetus inside the mother’s womb.

Why? Because the "woman's rights" aspect of it is unarguable?

 

[SPF]

If medical science comes up with a way for women carryig unwanted pregnancies to stop being pregnant without killing the baby, that would be great. Until that time, however, the child's "right to life" does not trump the woman's right to self determination.

First off Jenny, I have to wonder how much of a "Catholic" you actually are. You are aware that the Catholic Church condemns abortion as a grave evil, right?

Second off, you've put forth the violinist argument. The problem is that no philosopher actually accepts this argument as a sound and analogous pro-choice argument. The key logical flaw lies in its failure to distinguish between killing and letting die. If you want to read up on this particular argument I can point you in the right direction.

In an abortion, there is an intentional move to kill an innocent human being. Life begins at conception, this is not scientifically or medically debated any longer. So the question that we have to answer is why is it morally acceptable to kill an innocent human for no other reason than the convenience of another?

If the unborn child possesses the same inherent moral worth and value as the child located outside the womb, then abortion is immoral. Abortion is not a women's rights issue. Rights can be temporarily or permanently suspended. The way we determine if pregnancy is one of those is by determining the nature of the human life inside the womb.

 

[Jenny_8675309]

First off Jenny, I have to wonder how much of a "Catholic" you actually are. You are aware that the Catholic Church condemns abortion as a grave evil, right?

I'm perfectly aware of the Catholic Churches teachings on abortion, and fully compliant with the catechism on the matter, thank you very much. I'll thank you not to attempt to bully me with appeals to my church's authority.

Second off, you've put forth the violinist argument. The problem is that no philosopher actually accepts this argument as a sound and analogous pro-choice argument. The key logical flaw lies in its failure to distinguish between killing and letting die. If you want to read up on this particular argument I can point you in the right direction.

If that's where your crux lies, use an abortion method that "lets die" rather than "kills". Everyone's happy then, right?

In an abortion, there is an intentional move to kill an innocent human being. Life begins at conception, this is not scientifically or medically debated any longer. So the question that we have to answer is why is it morally acceptable to kill an innocent human for no other reason than the convenience of another?

Life begins at conception. When does personhood start? Define "human being" in a way that is medically significant?

If the unborn child possesses the same inherent moral worth and value as the child located outside the womb, then abortion is immoral. Abortion is not a women's rights issue. Rights can be temporarily or permanently suspended. The way we determine if pregnancy is one of those is by determining the nature of the human life inside the womb.

Why does the child's "right to life" supersede the mother's rights?

You have a situation here where there are simply two contradictory interests. Whatever position you hold, someone's rights get ignored. Why should it be the woman's?

 

[SPF]

Life begins at conception. When does personhood start?

This is the heart of the issue. Right here. You nailed it.

Why does the child's "right to life" supersede the mother's rights? You have a situation here where there are simply two contradictory interests. Whatever position you hold, someone's rights get ignored. Why should it be the woman's?

Forget abortion for a second. Let's just think about life in general - your rights as a human living in the good ole US of A. If you were to order the rights that you think are most important to you, and you had three of them - life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness - which would you put at the top? Surely you would put life at the top, right? Wouldn't everyone? Doesn't everyone?

If my pursuit of happiness is dependent upon killing you, I don't think you would have a problem saying your right to life trumps my pursuit of happiness. Would you?

When we look at the laws in America, we can be certain that under all circumstances, the law seeks to protect the innocent. The only time when people risk losing their liberty or life it is a direct result of their individual choice to break the law. Yes, it is true that innocent people are convicted of crimes at times, but that is reflective of a failure of the practice of law as carried out by imperfect people. But the law itself never intends to do harm to innocent individuals.

It is not a difficult thing to say that the human life inside a mother’s womb is indeed innocent. So why is abortion legal? Both The Biblical evidence and scientific evidence are in agreement that human life begins at conception. The answer lies in a fabricated and arbitrary distinction known as Personhood. Advocates of abortion have created a distinction between a human being and a human person. The argument is that human beings do not possess natural rights, only human persons do.

The human life can be broken into stages such as this: Zygote --> Embryo --> Fetus --> New Born --> Infant --> Toddler --> Adolescent --> Teenager --> Young Adult --> Adult --> Elderly. People who are Pro-Choice, in order to justify the killing of innocent humans must create an arbitrary line where a human qualifies for personhood. One simple method we can use to demonstrate the arbitrary nature of this line is by looking at all the different views as to when a human becomes a person. Some Pro-Choice advocates argue viability; arguing that until the fetus is able to be medically kept alive outside the womb that abortion is acceptable. The problem with this of course is that this line is going to be slightly different for each baby, and as we advance medically, this line will change. Thus, this position is not based on anything related to the nature of the child, but upon our medical technology.

Some Pro-Choice advocates draw the line at the first, second, or third trimester. Some even approve of partial-birth abortion, arguing that so long as the baby is in the womb, or even partly in the womb that it is not considered a human person.

The point is that all these lines are entirely arbitrary. The real question we need to ask is why even make this distinction? The answer is as obvious as it is alarming. The creation of a distinction between a human being and a human person only exists so that we can justify doing something to the human being that we would otherwise consider immoral.

Remember, the law seeks at all times to protect innocent people. If we can say that a fetus is not a person, then they are excluded from the protection of the law.

 

[Jenny_8675309]

This is the heart of the issue. Right here. You nailed it.

Forget abortion for a second. Let's just think about life in general - your rights as a human living in the good ole US of A. If you were to order the rights that you think are most important to you, and you had three of them - life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness - which would you put at the top? Surely you would put life at the top, right? Wouldn't everyone? Doesn't everyone?

If my pursuit of happiness is dependent upon killing you, I don't think you would have a problem saying your right to life trumps my pursuit of happiness. Would you?

When we look at the laws in America, we can be certain that under all circumstances, the law seeks to protect the innocent. The only time when people risk losing their liberty or life it is a direct result of their individual choice to break the law. Yes, it is true that innocent people are convicted of crimes at times, but that is reflective of a failure of the practice of law as carried out by imperfect people. But the law itself never intends to do harm to innocent individuals.

It is not a difficult thing to say that the human life inside a mother’s womb is indeed innocent. So why is abortion legal? Both The Biblical evidence and scientific evidence are in agreement that human life begins at conception. The answer lies in a fabricated and arbitrary distinction known as Personhood. Advocates of abortion have created a distinction between a human being and a human person. The argument is that human beings do not possess natural rights, only human persons do.

The human life can be broken into stages such as this: Zygote --> Embryo --> Fetus --> New Born --> Infant --> Toddler --> Adolescent --> Teenager --> Young Adult --> Adult --> Elderly. People who are Pro-Choice, in order to justify the killing of innocent humans must create an arbitrary line where a human qualifies for personhood. One simple method we can use to demonstrate the arbitrary nature of this line is by looking at all the different views as to when a human becomes a person. Some Pro-Choice advocates argue viability; arguing that until the fetus is able to be medically kept alive outside the womb that abortion is acceptable. The problem with this of course is that this line is going to be slightly different for each baby, and as we advance medically, this line will change. Thus, this position is not based on anything related to the nature of the child, but upon our medical technology.

Some Pro-Choice advocates draw the line at the first, second, or third trimester. Some even approve of partial-birth abortion, arguing that so long as the baby is in the womb, or even partly in the womb that it is not considered a human person.

The point is that all these lines are entirely arbitrary. The real question we need to ask is why even make this distinction? The answer is as obvious as it is alarming. The creation of a distinction between a human being and a human person only exists so that we can justify doing something to the human being that we would otherwise consider immoral.

Remember, the law seeks at all times to protect innocent people. If we can say that a fetus is not a person, then they are excluded from the protection of the law.

So let's have that discussion.

edit:

The creation of a distinction between a human being and a human person only exists so that we can justify doing something to the human being that we would otherwise consider immoral.

And yet the distinction clearly must exist. If there hasn't ALWAYS been a person there, but there is NOW, there must, necessarily, have been a point at which either a non-person became a person, or a person arrived from elsewhere. No third alternative I can imagine.

 

[Archivist]

Honestly, I've scrolled back and I cannot find where you explained why a child located inside the womb (a potential life in being) possesses less inherent moral value to a child located outside the womb (a life in being). That IS the heart of the entire abortion discussion. Does the child inside the womb possess inherent moral value or not? You're asserting that it doesn't. But I'm not finding any defense for your assertion, you're just stating it as if it is an axiom. So for my sake, and for anyone else's sake who's following along, can you actually explain your position instead of just stating it?

I have provided answers. You apparently do not understand them.

Since you don't seem to want to accept the answers that I have provided to you, perhaps before I try to once again answer your questions you could take time to answer the questions I have asked you. Thus far you have not done so:

When both the fetus and the pregnant woman are both at risk, why should the decision as to who lives be left in the hands of a third party. Why should the pregnant woman--the life in being--not be the one making that decision?

Do you have a right to self defense? If so, what gives you the right to determine that your life is morally worth more than that of your attacker.

Do you have a right to self preservation? Why doesn't a pregnant woman than have that same right?

 

[SPF]

So let's have that discussion.

I started it, feel free to respond. Here's my position:

P1. All human life is created in the image of God and possesses inherent moral worth and value.
P2. Human life begins at conception.
C. Therefore, all human life, from its beginning possesses inherent moral worth and value.

If the above is true, then abortion is immoral because the unborn child is an innocent human that possesses moral worth and value.

As I said, the only way around this, and the only way to make abortion morally acceptable is to create a necessarily subjective and arbitrary distinction between a human being and a human person. And I have yet to see a sound objective argument on why there is a distinction between a human being and a human person.

This is exactly why we statistically find that the majority of people who are pro-life are professing Christians. In fact, it's why I am pro-life. I can't get around the fact that I am created in the image of God and that Scripture teaches that all humans possess the Imago Dei. If I wasn't a Christian, then I wouldn't believe that we are intrinsically morally valuable, and I would therefore not have a problem with at the very least, early term abortion.

But hey, if you think you can make the objective case that a distinction between a human being and a human person exists, I more than welcome it.

Since you don't seem to want to accept the answers that I have provided to you

The problem doesn't lie in that I don't want to accept the answers you've provided, the problem lies in that I can't actually find the positive argument you've made that explains why there is a difference in moral value from a human located in the womb (potential life in being) as compared to the human located outside the womb (life in being). All I'm asking you to do is point me to the post # where you did something other than state this as axiomatically true. You don't have to re-explain it, I'll re-read it. Just give the post # where I can find the objective argument that supports your assertion!

The problem with your questions is that you're asking questions that relate to the practice when we haven't even established the principle. The first thing that must be done is the foundation must be laid, and then we can move onto understanding how that is played out in practice. You seem like a relatively educated person, so this should make sense to you.

 

[samir]

Get back to me when women can force a man to carry an unwanted child

Men can't have children but women can certainly force men to pay for 18 years of child support. Women can even force men to pay while denying them the right to see their own children. In liberal feminist America, women control everything - whether the child lives or dies, who gets custody, and who pays to support him.

 

[samir]

I'm perfectly aware of the Catholic Churches teachings on abortion, and fully compliant with the catechism on the matter, thank you very much.

Your posts strongly suggest you reject Catholic teaching by twisting it to conform to your own opinions. Catholic teaching is clear that abortion is ALWAYS gravely evil. It doesn't matter if she was raped. There are no excuses for it ever, no exceptions. Women are 100% responsible for their actions. It doesn't matter what a man believes, says, or does. Women bear full responsibility for their own actions.

I'll thank you not to attempt to bully me with appeals to my church's authority.If that's where your crux lies, use an abortion method that "lets die" rather than "kills". Everyone's happy then, right?

No, everyone's not happy. Letting someone die when you're able to save their life is the equivalent of murdering them yourself and women who do it commit a mortal sin and will be culpable for their death. Women living in the Roman Empire used to leave unwanted children in the mountains to be eaten by lions and the Catholic Church strongly condemned it as murder so letting someone die is not a valid excuse for murdering someone indirectly.

Life begins at conception. When does personhood start? Define "human being" in a way that is medically significant?

Sounds like you're looking to justify murder and get around clear Catholic teaching but please tell us when personhood starts. When does what you consider to be "non-human life" suddenly become a person?

Why does the child's "right to life" supersede the mother's rights?

A mother does not have any rights other than the reproductive right to carry her child until birth.

You have a situation here where there are simply two contradictory interests. Whatever position you hold, someone's rights get ignored. Why should it be the woman's?

What woman's right do you think would be ignored if a woman is not allowed to murder a child?

 

[Jenny_8675309]

Your posts strongly suggest you reject Catholic teaching by twisting it to conform to your own opinions. Catholic teaching is clear that abortion is ALWAYS gravely evil. It doesn't matter if she was raped. There are no excuses for it ever, no exceptions. Women are 100% responsible for their actions. It doesn't matter what a man believes, says, or does. Women bear full responsibility for their own actions.

What Catholic teaching have I "twisted"?

No, everyone's not happy. Letting someone die when you're able to save their life is the equivalent of murdering them yourself and women who do it commit a mortal sin and will be culpable for their death. Women living in the Roman Empire used to leave unwanted children in the mountains to be eaten by lions and the Catholic Church strongly condemned it as murder so letting someone die is not a valid excuse for murdering someone indirectly.

Take it up with SPF, it was his claim

Sounds like you're looking to justify murder and get around clear Catholic teaching but please tell us when personhood starts. When does what you consider to be "non-human life" suddenly become a person?

You're the one making the claim about a fetus being a person. You tell me?

A mother does not have any rights other than the reproductive right to carry her child until birth.

... and people ask why we need feminism.

What woman's right do you think would be ignored if a woman is not allowed to murder a child?

the emotive language helps no one.

Men can't have children but women can certainly force men to pay for 18 years of child support. Women can even force men to pay while denying them the right to see their own children. In liberal feminist America, women control everything - whether the child lives or dies, who gets custody, and who pays to support him.

Aww, boo hoo. Take it to /r/redpill

 

[samir]

What Catholic teaching have I "twisted"?

You're defending abortion by making excuses for women who abort in some circumstances, blaming men for women's choices, and questioning whether a fetus is a person, which makes me wonder whether you believe the Catholic teaching that:

1. Abortion should be treated as murder
2. Abortion is always a mortal sin and a grave moral evil. There are NO exceptions.
3. Women are fully responsible for their own actions

Do you agree with those three statements?

You're the one making the claim about a fetus being a person.

I did not make that claim and am not interested in playing this game (I will not affirm or deny whether a fetus is a person since it's not necessary because Catholic teaching is clear that abortion should be treated as murder).

and people ask why we need feminism.

Feminism is needed to stand up for women's rights? Which rights are those?

Aww, boo hoo. Take it to /r/redpill

Sounds like you don't care much about men's rights.

 

[Jenny_8675309]

You're defending abortion by making excuses for women who abort in some circumstances, blaming men for women's choices, and questioning whether a fetus is a person, which makes me wonder whether you believe the Catholic teaching that:

1. Abortion should be treated as murder
2. Abortion is always a mortal sin and a grave moral evil. There are NO exceptions
3. Women are fully responsible for their own actions

Do you agree with those three statements?

well, the first one isn't a Catholic teaching, so no.

I did not make that claim and an not interested in playing this game (I will not affirm or deny whether a fetus is a person since it's not necessary because Catholic teaching is clear that abortion should be treated as murder).

That's not Catholic teaching.

Feminism is needed to stand up for women's rights? Which rights are those?



Sounds like you don't care much about men's rights.

Rights aren't a zero sum game.

 

[SPF]

Jenny, any comments to my Reply #91 ?

 

[SPF]

With regards to Catholic teaching, the Catholic Church has always been against abortion. All Catholics are "supposed" to be pro-life.

The Roman Catholic Church has consistently condemned abortion — the direct and purposeful taking of the life of the unborn child. In principle, Catholic Christians believe that all life is sacred from conception until natural death, and the taking of innocent human life, whether born or unborn, is morally wrong. The Church teaches,

"Human life is sacred because from its beginning it involves the creative action of God and it remains for ever in a special relationship with the Creator, who is its sole end. God alone is the Lord of life from its beginning until its end: no one can under any circumstance claim for himself the right directly to destroy an innocent human being" ("Donum vitae," 5).

In fact, my position is actually the same as the Catholic position on this issue.

 

[Jenny_8675309]

Jenny, any comments to my Reply #91 ?

Sorry, I missed it before. You seem to be saying that human life=personhood. Is that right?

Why does human life have inherent worth? Can you articulate a reason, or is this just axiomatic?

 

[Jenny_8675309]

With regards to Catholic teaching, the Catholic Church has always been against abortion. All Catholics are "supposed" to be pro-life.

The Roman Catholic Church has consistently condemned abortion — the direct and purposeful taking of the life of the unborn child. In principle, Catholic Christians believe that all life is sacred from conception until natural death, and the taking of innocent human life, whether born or unborn, is morally wrong. The Church teaches,

"Human life is sacred because from its beginning it involves the creative action of God and it remains for ever in a special relationship with the Creator, who is its sole end. God alone is the Lord of life from its beginning until its end: no one can under any circumstance claim for himself the right directly to destroy an innocent human being" ("Donum vitae," 5).

In fact, my position is actually the same as the Catholic position on this issue.

Catholics are supposed to be pro life. I'm pro life. That isn't the same as "Abortion should be treated as murder".