How can Abortion be Wrong?

[neat62]

RWMorris;3874308

Surely, someone in the pro-Life crowd can present a reasoned argument against abortion. If not, the battle is surely lost

There are plenty of reasons. People don't care. They want a way out. They want the "freedom". They know a fetus is a live human being, but they don't care.

No argument will convince them. The battle is lost because we talk like good little polite and proper Christains who don't dare upset anyone or hurt their wittle fweeings.

THAT is why we are losing.

The Liberal talk up about being tolerant and polite and PC, but when it comes to something they want, they take the gloves off and all of that goes out the window. And they win because of it.

[ALLGIRLS]

Originally Posted by neat62

No, if anything, we should join forces. Why should we sit back like we don't exist and let the seculars get more power? No, the time has come for new tactics. Get mad, and let people, politicans, courts know it.

Oh, I don't mean religious people should do nothing, but the nonbelievers need to be more vocal about the fact that it's NOT a religious issue. Religion can be part of it, as we believe God said "Thou shalt not murder", and everyone is created in His image and likeness, and "whatsoever you do to the least of these you do unto me....", etc., but it can be seen in a completely secular way, using basic biology and constitutional rights. What the prochoicers have going for them, their only real argument that can stand (b/c everybody really knows when human life begins, you just have to pick up a biology textbook), is that it's all a religious question, so we can't "force our beliefs" (that an unborn child is person and killing it is murder and should be illegal) on others. Atheists would be able to effectively dismantle that, having no faith at all except in science and reason.

In Christ,

Ellen

[neat62]

Originally Posted by ALLGIRLS

Oh, I don't mean religious people should do nothing, but the nonbelievers need to be more vocal about the fact that it's NOT a religious issue. Religion can be part of it, as we believe God said "Thou shalt not murder", and everyone is created in His image and likeness, and "whatsoever you do to the least of these you do unto me....", etc., but it can be seen in a completely secular way, using basic biology and constitutional rights. What the prochoicers have going for them, their only real argument that can stand (b/c everybody really knows when human life begins, you just have to pick up a biology textbook), is that it's all a religious question, so we can't "force our beliefs" (that an unborn child is person and killing it is murder and should be illegal) on others. Atheists would be able to effectively dismantle that, having no faith at all except in science and reason.

In Christ,

Ellen

OK I see. Well, I don't know. I don't think it is a matter of educating people. The people we need to fight don't care when or where life begins. They only care about themselves. They do know that fetus is alive, and still don't care. You don't think that the Liberal, well educated politicans know that a fetus is alive when they throw their full support behind Roe? How do you deal with people like that? You don't. You do what you have to to force our will on them. Just like they do to us. This is a war. The only way to win is to beat the enemy. To win over them. To the victor goes the spoils.

[RWMorris]

Originally Posted by neat62

There are plenty of reasons. People don't care. They want a way out. They want the "freedom". They know a fetus is a live human being, but they don't care. No argument will convince them...

Don't stop trying, sharpen your arguments, build your knowledge, and keep on praying. What ever you do, do not become cynical in your outlook and arguments. If you do you might as well sign the surrender documents.

Originally Posted by neat62

... prayer is the number one weapon, but that is not all. God also gave us free will in this world. It is high time we used more of it.

Now, that's more like it!

Originally Posted by mangy dog

Well, the debate club is going to have to understand that we (catholic christians) base all of our reasoning and logic on what you called "myth" and beliefs. That probably means we're off the debate team ...

I don't think so. Catholicism has a long and noble history of the use of reason and logic in apologetics. This reservoir of skills will serve you well in debates with pro-choice people. Study the people who have these skills, their writings, their skills. Jimmy Akin, Jeff Cavins, Marcus Grodi, Thomas Howard, Karl Keating, Patrick Madrid, Scott Hahn. Some of these folk have websites with resources that will assist you. Heck, you can probably use the "Ask an Apologist" forum of this website if you have specific questions. And don't forget to study the science of logic. If pro-choice people do not believe in God, it will do you no good to quote Scripture. But logic is quite another matter.

Originally Posted by neat62

We are all lumps of tissue, be it 7 weeks or 70 years.

Yeah, I'm feeling pretty lumpy right about now. It was a l-o-o-o-o-n-g day!

Originally Posted by ALLGIRLS

... It's not like Christians are the only people against abortion ... and, yes, there are some total nonbelievers who rightly see it as a human rights (for the unborn child) issue.

Can we build on this resource? Can we learn from them? Can we enlist their assistance?

Originally Posted by ALLGIRLS

... Atheists would be able to effectively dismantle [pro-choice arguments], having no faith at all except in science and reason ...

Christians can learn the same arguments, we don't have to argue from a faith perspective.

God bless all of you, keep the faith, and fight the good fight!

[ribozyme]

Originally Posted by neat62

RWMorris;3874308



There are plenty of reasons. People don't care. They want a way out. They want the "freedom". They know a fetus is a live human being, but they don't care.

No argument will convince them. The battle is lost because we talk like good little polite and proper Christains who don't dare upset anyone or hurt their wittle fweeings.

THAT is why we are losing.

The Liberal talk up about being tolerant and polite and PC, but when it comes to something they want, they take the gloves off and all of that goes out the window. And they win because of it.

So do you think PC only effects conservatives? As an environmentalist, I am shocked about how unPC it is to talk about population control.

And yes, a fetus is a living human being okay, but under a utilitarian scheme we can abort it because it cannot suffer nor does it possess any preferences.

[strngrnrth]

Originally Posted by ribozyme

And yes, a fetus is a living human being okay, but under a utilitarian scheme we can abort it because it cannot suffer nor does it possess any preferences.

Live nerves mean the baby can suffer. Most young living things try hard ot live. There is no reason to assume the human young are different. In general the younger the creature the greater the effort toward life. It therefore makes inductive sense to assume the youngest humans desire life the most and that as soon as the nerves function the child has an intense will to live and can and does hurt badly when injured.

[AndyClaymore]

The leading causes of abortions are a lack of financial and emotional support. It is simply not enough to try and win the argument if appropriate emotional and financial support is nowhere to be found for pregnant women.

[RWMorris]

Originally Posted by ribozyme

So do you think PC only effects conservatives? As an environmentalist, I am shocked about how unPC it is to talk about population control.

And yes, a fetus is a living human being okay, but under a utilitarian scheme we can abort it because it cannot suffer nor does it possess any preferences.

It is not unPC to talk about population control, it is unsupportable. No matter how you feel about the subject, any premise you advance is false. In other words, it is a lie. The problem people face discussing population control is not political correctness, it is mental fatigue.

And concerning utilitarianism. As a Christian I cannot view the philosophy as a serious option. The law exists, not to ensure the safety of the greatest number of people, but the safety of every person. Is it successful? No. But we must never stop trying. Utilitarianism is simply an excuse to stop trying. The common good is not greater than the individual, but equally important. Abortion is allowed under utilitarianism because the common good is greater than the individual, because abortion is useful.

[ribozyme]

Originally Posted by RWMorris

It is not unPC to talk about population control, it is unsupportable. No matter how you feel about the subject, any premise you advance is false. In other words, it is a lie. The problem people face discussing population control is not political correctness, it is mental fatigue.

And concerning utilitarianism. As a Christian I cannot view the philosophy as a serious option. The law exists, not to ensure the safety of the greatest number of people, but the safety of every person. Is it successful? No. But we must never stop trying. Utilitarianism is simply an excuse to stop trying. The common good is not greater than the individual, but equally important. Abortion is allowed under utilitarianism because the common good is greater than the individual, because abortion is useful.

Population control is based on a simple premise: this is a finite world, and we cannot perpetually satisfy everyone's needs if population is growing exponentially.


Utilitarians never mention that we should stop trying. I am simply saying that the "welfare" of a fetus should not be calculated in the utilitarian calculus because it lacks the capacity to suffer and have preferences.

[RWMorris]

Originally Posted by ribozyme

Population control is based on a simple premise: this is a finite world, and we cannot perpetually satisfy everyone's needs if population is growing exponentially.

And that simple premise is false on two points. This is not a finite world. Technology, innovation, and conservation make it, for all practical purposes, infinite. And the so-called exponential population growth has been proven false in the biological world. Populations do not grow exponentially, they only appear to over the short term.

Originally Posted by ribozyme

Utilitarians never mention that we should stop trying. I am simply saying that the "welfare" of a fetus should not be calculated in the utilitarian calculus because it lacks the capacity to suffer and have preferences.

Your own words reveal the depravity of your premise. Abortion is a utilitarian tool for population control. The silence of a fetus is your licence. In your mother's womb, in a bag full of amniotic fluid, without air to flow across your vocal chords, can anyone hear you scream?

[vern humphrey]

How about this:

The right to life is the most fundamental of all human rights. Without a right to life, all other rights are valueless. What good does freedom of speech do a dead man? How can a corpse exercise the right to trial by jury?

The right to life accrues to each of us as a part of our basic humanity. It is as much a part of us as our minds, our personalities, or our arms and legs. It is given to us by no one. It is ours merely because we are living human beings.

There are those who say that "society" or the government decides when we get the right to life. If that is so, then it is no right at all, but merely a privilege, for if the government can grant the right to life, it can surely withhold it. Once you accept that the government has this power, you must accept, willy-nilly that the government can decree some people -- perhaps Jews, or Blacks or Catholics -- never get the right to life.

If, therefore there is such a thing as a right to life, it must accrue to every living human being. This sets up a simple, three-part test.

 Is the unborn child living? If it were not, we would not be having this debate!

 Is it human? Check the DNA. If it has rabbit or squirrel DNA, then it is not human. But if it has human DNA, it is human.

 But is it a being? Check the DNA again. If it has the mother's DNA, then it is a part of her body. But if it has its own DNA, then it is a being -- a separate and distinct human life.

Very clearly, the unborn has the same right to live as any other living human being. Who denies that, denies the whole concept of human rights.

[vern humphrey]

Originally Posted by ribozyme

Population control is based on a simple premise: this is a finite world, and we cannot perpetually satisfy everyone's needs if population is growing exponentially.


Utilitarians never mention that we should stop trying. I am simply saying that the "welfare" of a fetus should not be calculated in the utilitarian calculus because it lacks the capacity to suffer and have preferences.

Do you understand how danger it is for a guy who's never had a job to argue for utilitarianism?

[catharina]

Originally Posted by vern humphrey

Do you understand how danger it is for a guy who's never had a job to argue for utilitarianism?

Maybe his plan is to be paid to be a great thinker AND law-giver?

[Mark77]

Obviously God is perfect and would never allow the murder of
innocent babies without a greater purpose.

Perhaps it is a test.

The apostles were all martyred except John.

Despite our self-inflicted importance, we really are so insignificant.

Eternity exists despite us.

Rather than worry about the evil others do, let's do God's will.

He will sort it all out.

[grandma glor]

Abortion is wrong and will always be wrong

grandma glor