No, You Reallly Are Not "Pro-Choice"

[AACJ]

People who are so-called "pro-choice" are nothing of the sort. If they were, then they would not be denying America's destroyed children the choice to live and to serve the Lord.

Thank God Almighty that our Lord Jesus Christ, John the Baptist, the Prophet Jeremiah, and Samson were not destroyed in their mothers' wombs. Jesus was called Lord before he was born (Luke 1:41-43). John was filled with the Holy Spirit before he was born (Luke 1:15). God "knew" Jeremiah before He "formed him in the womb." God "sanctified" Jeremiah before he was born (Jeremiah 1:5). Samson was ordained a Nazarite before he was born (Judges 13:5).

People who condone abortion had better fearfully consider who it is they are killing, want to kill, or enabling to be killed.

The fear of God is the beginning of wisdom (Proverbs 9:10).

Are you pro-abortion? Well then, please carefully consider the past possibility of one of your current dear loved ones having been ripped limb from limb in their mother's womb.

Are you pro-abortion? Well then, it really would not have been morally corrupt if you had been ripped limb from limb in your mother's womb, correct? And of course, the children you have born, raised and loved would never have been born...but hey, that's not really a big deal either, right?

 

[Wolfe]

Problem is, people like sex.
Their irresponsibility kills, and they don't care.

This is because they are taught that it is a choice, and that it's a womans body, and not an actual baby to begin with.

If I don't see someone as human, such as Hitler did with the Jews, does that justify my actions?
And they see it as a basic human right, to kill babies.
Where I stand, you don't have the right to live.

Abortion is a very emotionally charged subject for me, I see people who think it's an okay thing to do as vile, pathetic waste of human skin. Killing a defenseless, innocent being, that doesn't have a voice of it's own, is repulsive.

I'm aiming my anger at the ones who think it's alright, that there is absolutely nothing wrong with it.
I of course can sympathize with a scared teen, or a rape victim.
But in either of those circumstances, abortion is not the answer.

But hey, sex feels good right? But babies can bring financial ruin... But sex feels good!
It's convenient to kill them, they can't press charges, you can't get in trouble, there's minimal health risk.

Bottom line: If you're not responsible enough to deal with the consequences, you're not responsible enough to have sex.

 

[Silmarien]

With all due respect, it's not that simple.

I don't believe that a woman forfeits her rights by choosing to carry a child to term. I find it morally repugnant that women can be and have been forced to have C-sections against their will because their own preferences are no longer factored into the equation. I'm against "ripping fetuses limb from limb," but I'm equally against taking a woman into custody, strapping her legs together, dragging her to the hospital, and cutting her open, as happened to Laura Pemberton in 1999. She later sued for civil rights violations and was told fetal rights outweighed hers.

Regardless of whether or not a woman should have a right to an abortion, she should not lose the rights that everyone is entitled to by becoming pregnant. In countries where abortion is illegal, this all too often turns into women losing their own lives or freedom. Savita Halappanavar died in Ireland in 2012 after being denied an abortion when miscarriage was inevitable. In 2016, a pregnant woman in El Salvador was denied cancer treatment because the country's abortion law doesn't permit it. She also died. Likewise in El Salvador, women have had miscarriages and been sentenced to 30 years of prison because they were suspected of having had abortions. This is a thing that happens.

I'm morally opposed to abortion. I'm also morally opposed to a pro-life movement that doesn't address the systemic causes behind many abortions, i.e., poverty and opportunity costs. Champion affordable prenatal care, daycare, healthcare, and whatever other social programs would remove the onus from vulnerable women and families. Support the sort of sex education programs that would prevent plenty of this situations from arising in the first place. Speak out when the lives and rights of pregnant women, regardless of whether or not they want to abort, are devalued and discarded. Then we'll talk.

Until then, yeah, I actually really am pro-choice.

 

[Cuddles333]

First, I think we should use correct terms. The term 'Pro-Life' is in reality 'Pro-Birth' . For after the births, there is no more hup-la for these now children, from the fundamentalist pulpit. What there is, is a tirade against the growing low class need for welfare money. Hardly anything said about the onslaught of Corporate Welfare.

As far as the term. 'Pro-Choice, imagine that you were not 100% legally responsible for your sperm. That if it were mixed with some female's egg inside your body cavity where it would naturally develop. You know that it is not partially you... but you. This transcends any civil law to the contrary.

The twisting of scripture in an effort to try to make plays against today's Pro-Choice, I think has it's origin in the far past, in the world of male domination.
​

 

[Silmarien]

The twisting of scripture in an effort to try to make plays against today's Pro-Choice, I think has it's origin in the far past, in the world of male domination.​

Well, from the perspective of Scripture, I'd be most comfortable putting it in the same category as the parable of the Good Samaritan. If you can save someone's life and refrain from doing so, that's obviously a moral evil, and a major one, since it goes straight to the Second Great Commandment. (I do not view early term abortion as murder because it's more analogous to a "failure to save" situation, and you don't need to scream "murder, murder, murder" to argue that it's wrong.) Though if you don't think the embryo/fetus is a person at all, that'd obviously change the way you look at it entirely.

What I dislike is that so many people conflate moral and legal obligations. They are very different things, and the bar is often different. I'd say that overly restrictive legal burdens undermine moral decisions by taking the responsibility out of the individual's hands--I've seen pro-lifers celebrate women's "difficult decision" to keep a child, and that reaction seems to cut straight to the heart of the problem: it can't be a difficult decision or anything worth celebrating if it isn't your choice to make.

(Probably also worth pointing out that the 1873 Comstock laws that criminalized contraception and abortion in the US were pretty much a reaction to the Women's Suffrage Movement, so... hard not to read some things into that.)

 

[Wolfe]

First, I think we should use correct terms. The term 'Pro-Life' is in reality 'Pro-Birth' . For after the births, there is no more hup-la for these now children, from the fundamentalist pulpit. What there is, is a tirade against the growing low class need for welfare money. Hardly anything said about the onslaught of Corporate Welfare.

Ahh yes, because if someone should suffer, would be better to kill them before it happens.

I agree that we don't do a good job with helping these people, but this is a flimsy argument. It does not excuse murder.

 

[AACJ]

Ripped limb from limb and piece by piece. I am thinking that it is highly probable that Josef Mengele would have greatly appreciated this procedure.

 

[AACJ]

Watch the film, The Silent Scream. It is graphic and horrifyingly disturbing. It shows a live, 12 week old baby, while being ultra-sounded, being ripped limb from limb and piece by piece, in real time. The babe is actually and desperately trying to get away from the instrument that is destroying it. It's posted on youtube, but I'm not sure if I can post the link on this website.

It would be appreciated if someone could find out if the forum rules allows for such a link to be posted here.

 

[brinny]

Praying. God help us. In Jesus name, help us, amen.

 

[SPF]

First, I think we should use correct terms. The term 'Pro-Life' is in reality 'Pro-Birth' . For after the births, there is no more hup-la for these now children, from the fundamentalist pulpit. What there is, is a tirade against the growing low class need for welfare money. Hardly anything said about the onslaught of Corporate Welfare.

It's this kind of sweeping, assuming judgment that really has no place in conversation. It's said out of total and complete ignorance. I believe abortion is immoral and a form of murder. I'm also a foster parent and have spent years helping and supporting single mothers in need. Your sweeping judgment is insulting and ignorant. Philosophically it's a basket full of fallacies such as it's an ad hominem as well as a red herring as well as moving the goal post.

Here's a very very small list that disagrees with what you've said. Thanks to RedLegHunter for providing it...

Christian Pregnancy Services and After Care:

Just a few examples here:

https://cmda.org/resources/publication/crisis-pregnancy-centers
Pregnancy Centers in PA
Listing Of Crisis Pregnancy Centers In Illinois
Christian Life Resources
Special Delivery | Overlake Christian Church
Top 10 Non Profit Organizations that help Mothers
Creating a Cradle Care Ministry for Expectant & New Parents

These are a few examples of Christian ministries which span all 50 states.

Sanctuary of Hope:

https://www.jhm.org/SOHCares
The above is a grand scale example of after and future care. Others include Catholic charities and Samaritans Purse.

Becoming Adoptive Parents - FAQs
Counseling
Help Protect Vulnerable Women


Here's just one example of a conservative Evangelical charitable organization's ministry:


Help Families Fleeing the Fighting in Mosul

Emergency Field Hospital Sent as Christmas Gift to Iraq

Loving Care for an Orphan | Samaritan’s Purse Gift Catalog

A Brighter Future for Ebola Widows

Women’s Programs

Crisis & Disaster Response

Feeding Programs

Health & Medical Ministries

Water, Sanitation & Hygiene

Children’s Heart Project

Putting a Stop to Human Trafficking

Deadly Earthquake in Nepal

U.S. Disaster Relief

I don't believe that a woman forfeits her rights by choosing to carry a child to term.

I'm morally opposed to abortion

I actually really am pro-choice.

You need to attempt some consistency in your position. If you're morally opposed to abortion, then that necessarily means you think that abortion is morally wrong. If you think an action is morally wrong, why would you support it? Can you think of another example in which you think an action is morally wrong yet you support it? That seems very inconsistent.

The morality of abortion stands or falls with how we understand the nature of the life inside the womb. Abortion is not a women's rights issue.

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.

Is the child inside the womb morally valuable from its conception or not? The answer to that question, an that question alone determines whether or not abortion is morally acceptable or not.

 

[Silmarien]

You need to attempt some consistency in your position. If you're morally opposed to abortion, then that necessarily means you think that abortion is morally wrong. If you think an action is morally wrong, why would you support it? Can you think of another example in which you think an action is morally wrong yet you support it? That seems very inconsistent.

Absolutely. I believe that if someone is drowning, it's morally wrong not to try to save them, but I don't believe that the law should require action in such situations. As I stated above, there are distinctions between moral and legal obligations, and I see no inconsistency in recognizing that.

I'm an attorney, and I'm beginning to see this as almost more of a due process than a women's rights issue. If procuring an abortion is a crime, all miscarriages must be suspect. If a woman does not know she's pregnant, does something stupid and then loses the pregnancy, would that be manslaughter? If abortion is murder, then I would say that unintentionally causing a miscarriage by definition has to be manslaughter. If a woman is sexually active, every heavy period could potentially be manslaughter, which quickly takes us into the realm of absurdity. But I find it inconsistent to believe that legal rights begin at conception and not take issues like this seriously.

This doesn't speak to the moral issues involved, of course, but as far as I'm concerned, that's an entirely different question. What a person ought to do and what secular law is in a position to require don't match up perfectly. I don't believe that the law should get involved until after viability.

 

[SPF]

If procuring an abortion is a crime, all miscarriages must be suspect. If a woman does not know she's pregnant, does something stupid and then loses the pregnancy, would that be manslaughter? If abortion is murder, then I would say that unintentionally causing a miscarriage by definition has to be manslaughter. If a woman is sexually active, every heavy period could potentially be manslaughter, which quickly takes us into the realm of absurdity. But I find it inconsistent to believe that legal rights begin at conception and not take issues like this seriously.

With your level of education, I would expect you to recognize that this line of reasoning is fallacious. It's a slippery slope argument.

We agree that cold blooded murder (first-degree) is morally wrong. However, not all killing is considered first-degree. There is second-degree, there is manslaughter, there's felony murder, vehicular homicide, and a few others. The point is that we all recognize that in general, killing is bad. But not all killing is the same, so we have laws in place that address different types of killing.

The first thing related to abortion is to actually decide whether or not the human life inside the womb possesses inherent moral worth from its conception, or if it does not. That is the first and most important question that needs to be addressed. Whatever laws or decisions or consequences that come from that understanding do not have any role in addressing the actual truth as to whether or not the human life inside the womb is morally valuable.

Abortion is the killing of a human life. The reason that it's not considered a morally wrong form of killing is because we have created an arbitrary and subjective distinction between a human being and a human person. We then have arbitrarily stated that only human person's are morally valuable. We then have gone on to say that children located inside of a womb do not qualify as morally valuable persons. And viola, it is not morally wrong to commit an action against the human non-person that would otherwise be considered immoral.

 

[AACJ]

Absolutely. I believe that if someone is drowning, it's morally wrong not to try to save them, but I don't believe that the law should require action in such situations. As I stated above, there are distinctions between moral and legal obligations, and I see no inconsistency in recognizing that.

I'm an attorney, and I'm beginning to see this as almost more of a due process than a women's rights issue. If procuring an abortion is a crime, all miscarriages must be suspect. If a woman does not know she's pregnant, does something stupid and then loses the pregnancy, would that be manslaughter? If abortion is murder, then I would say that unintentionally causing a miscarriage by definition has to be manslaughter. If a woman is sexually active, every heavy period could potentially be manslaughter, which quickly takes us into the realm of absurdity. But I find it inconsistent to believe that legal rights begin at conception and not take issues like this seriously.

This doesn't speak to the moral issues involved, of course, but as far as I'm concerned, that's an entirely different question. What a person ought to do and what secular law is in a position to require don't match up perfectly. I don't believe that the law should get involved until after viability.

I'm not sure that your comparison is similar enough for your apparent purpose. For example, concerning your manslaughter comparison; in a manslaughter case, the accused person is actually aware that a certain derelict action can potentially cause harm to another because that "other" actually exists and the accused is aware of their (potential victims, whomever they be) existence. However, in your supposed scenario of a potential mother (not knowing that a human being is growing inside her) doing something stupid that results in a miscarriage, she would not have a reason to believe that the growing human inside her exists.

There is also a vast difference between willfully and knowingly obtaining an abortion, while knowing that life is growing in the mothers womb, and a miscarriage arising from ignorance.

But I do agree with your conclusion that "what a person ought to do and what secular law is in a position to require" (or should require) should not be confused. Otherwise, we end up with the great evil of over-criminilization of a nation, which has already occurred in the US.

Practically speaking, it seems to me that at least awareness of a growing human life is confirmed with consent to the procedure of aborting a child.

 

[AACJ]

We agree that cold blooded murder (first-degree) is morally wrong. However, not all killing is considered first-degree. There is second-degree, there is manslaughter, there's felony murder, vehicular homicide, and a few others. The point is that we all recognize that in general, killing is bad. But not all killing is the same, so we have laws in place that address different types of killing.

The first thing related to abortion is to actually decide whether or not the human life inside the womb possesses inherent moral worth from its conception, or if it does not. That is the first and most important question that needs to be addressed. Whatever laws or decisions or consequences that come from that understanding do not have any role in addressing the actual truth as to whether or not the human life inside the womb is morally valuable.

Well stated.

 

[AACJ]

.

 

[AACJ]

Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations (Jeremiah 1:5).

It must not be ignored that when God Almighty has plans for a child before they are “formed in the belly,” value of that child at the earliest stages of development is self evident as revealed by such stated plans. This is one of those verses that convinces me that human life begins with the fertilized egg.

 

[Silmarien]

With your level of education, I would expect you to recognize that this line of reasoning is fallacious. It's a slippery slope argument.

I think you've misunderstood my comment, as I wasn't arguing slippery slope. I was specifically addressing the variety of different types of killing aside from murder, and the fact that if legal rights are granted at conception, it would logically follow that various behaviors count as manslaughter. I would not expect a woman to be charged with murder for accidentally provoking a miscarriage, but I find it hard to say that a person's legal rights begin at conception and then not investigate every miscarriage for potential foul play. Either the fetus is legally a person or it is not--its status should not change depending upon the situation.

It is worth noting that Roe v. Wade was decided on the basis of the right to privacy and due process, not specifically on women's rights--presumably this was the only way they could get the Catholic Justice Kennedy on board. I was not Christian in law school, so it is interesting to me how much more sense deciding the issue on these particular grounds makes now.

Abortion is the killing of a human life. The reason that it's not considered a morally wrong form of killing is because we have created an arbitrary and subjective distinction between a human being and a human person. We then have arbitrarily stated that only human person's are morally valuable. We then have gone on to say that children located inside of a womb do not qualify as morally valuable persons. And viola, it is not morally wrong to commit an action against the human non-person that would otherwise be considered immoral.

This is not always true. As someone who draws the line at viability, it's not the fetus's location that makes the difference, but its physical dependency upon another human being's body for its continued survival. I'm sure you've heard of the Violinist Argument? I agree with the Pro-Life response that the comparison falls flat in late term abortions where the fetus is directly killed, but I see an early term chemical abortion as procedurally analogous to severing the tubes.

I'm not sure that your comparison is similar enough for your apparent purpose. For example, concerning your manslaughter comparison; in a manslaughter case, the accused person is actually aware that a certain derelict action can potentially cause harm to another because that "other" actually exists and the accused is aware of their (potential victims, whomever they be) existence. However, in your supposed scenario of a potential mother (not knowing that a human being is growing inside her) doing something stupid that results in a miscarriage, she would not have a reason to believe that the growing human inside her exists.

Yes, which is why the idea of legal rights beginning at conception, before a person is even known to exist, is such a disturbing idea to me. It is either a completely meaningless legal fabrication or it leads to all sorts of absurd situations.

That said, the comparison is not limited to situations where a woman does not know she's pregnant. I don't think taking the stairs three at a time suddenly becomes reckless endangerment because you're pregnant, and to toss in a much more serious issue--drug addiction.

 

[Archivist]

People who are so-called "pro-choice" are nothing of the sort.

But I have seen many of CF who claim that they are so-called "pro-life" say that women should not be allowed to have an abortion even if the woman's life is at risk because of the pregnancy. How can that be "pro-life" if it means that the pregnant woman may die?

 

[SnowyMacie]

With all due respect, it's not that simple.

I don't believe that a woman forfeits her rights by choosing to carry a child to term. I find it morally repugnant that women can be and have been forced to have C-sections against their will because their own preferences are no longer factored into the equation. I'm against "ripping fetuses limb from limb," but I'm equally against taking a woman into custody, strapping her legs together, dragging her to the hospital, and cutting her open, as happened to Laura Pemberton in 1999. She later sued for civil rights violations and was told fetal rights outweighed hers.

Regardless of whether or not a woman should have a right to an abortion, she should not lose the rights that everyone is entitled to by becoming pregnant. In countries where abortion is illegal, this all too often turns into women losing their own lives or freedom. Savita Halappanavar died in Ireland in 2012 after being denied an abortion when miscarriage was inevitable. In 2016, a pregnant woman in El Salvador was denied cancer treatment because the country's abortion law doesn't permit it. She also died. Likewise in El Salvador, women have had miscarriages and been sentenced to 30 years of prison because they were suspected of having had abortions. This is a thing that happens.

I'm morally opposed to abortion. I'm also morally opposed to a pro-life movement that doesn't address the systemic causes behind many abortions, i.e., poverty and opportunity costs. Champion affordable prenatal care, daycare, healthcare, and whatever other social programs would remove the onus from vulnerable women and families. Support the sort of sex education programs that would prevent plenty of this situations from arising in the first place. Speak out when the lives and rights of pregnant women, regardless of whether or not they want to abort, are devalued and discarded. Then we'll talk.

Until then, yeah, I actually really am pro-choice.

Very well said, especially with the last paragraph is very spot on with where I stand on the issue. What you say at the beginning is ultimately the problem in this debate. For many pro-life people, it is a very simple issue, when the reality is that it is much more complicated than that. Like you say, outlawing abortion completely does not make the situation better, and I'll also add that all it will ultimately do is make abortion an unsafe practice for the child and the mother (I've seen some extreme pro-life people say they don't care because they have no sympathy for a desperate mother who seeks an abortion).

 

[SPF]

But I have seen many of CF who claim that they are so-called "pro-life" say that women should not be allowed to have an abortion even if the woman's life is at risk because of the pregnancy. How can that be "pro-life" if it means that the pregnant woman may die?

I would say that people who hold this line of reasoning are mistaken. The first thing to recognize is that 99% of all abortions are done for convenience sake. So when we are talking about the rare instance where there is a life threatening event to both the mother and the unborn child, I personally think the prudent thing is for the doctor to look at both mother and child as his patients. As the doctor, it's his job to do his best to save the lives of both. However, in rare circumstances, this is not possible. I would say that in that terrible situation the doctor simply must make the best medical decision he can.

Very well said, especially with the last paragraph is very spot on with where I stand on the issue. What you say at the beginning is ultimately the problem in this debate. For many pro-life people, it is a very simple issue, when the reality is that it is much more complicated than that. Like you say, outlawing abortion completely does not make the situation better, and I'll also add that all it will ultimately do is make abortion an unsafe practice for the child and the mother (I've seen some extreme pro-life people say they don't care because they have no sympathy for a desperate mother who seeks an abortion).

One mistake in discussing abortion that people often make is confusing the principle with the practice. When discussing the morality of action X, it will be determined completely independently from a practice that occurs.

For example, consider the death penalty. It is possible that an innocent person may receive the death penalty, and that would be a terrible thing to happen. There are also forms of carrying out the death penalty that we would not condone, such as dropping a man in a pool of hungry alligators. But, this is the important thing - the practice of the principle does not determine the morality of the principle.

The death penalty is either moral or immoral apart from whether or not innocent people may be condemned or the way in which it is carried out. The question we must answer first is whether or not it is in itself a moral thing to do. Then after that is determined we can examine the practice and try to figure out the best way to carry out the practice of the principle.

Same thing with abortion. The morality of abortion stands or falls with how we determine the value of the life inside the woman. It is not a woman's rights issue, it is a child in the womb's rights issue. Once we determine the morality of abortion, which is completely separate from any and all practices associated with the outcome of the principle, then we can move onto how to best handle the practice of the principle.