My new favorite pro-life argument


#1

According to what possibly may be the most recognizable phrase of the entire Declaration of Independence:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.”

Thank you Thomas Jefferson.

:slight_smile:


#2

he stole that from Locke…

The problem is the opposition can just say that despite his political genius, he lived in a less “enlightened” age and would be on their side if he lived today.


#3

people dont argue that killing an innocent person is murder…

however, those in favor of abortion justify their beliefs and actions by questioning what a person is and when life begins…

really not hard to refute, thank God for all the new technology that allows us to detect brain waves as early as what 12 weeks…
now if we determine death by the cessation of brain activity…you follow the logic thorugh

what about the fact that preemies have survived being born as much as three months pre mature…that means the baby is a baby and is certainly alive…however, abortion is still legal through all nine months of pregnancy…why do we not err on the side of life?

also, if in our judicial system we use the conservative measure of beyond a reaonsable doubt in the sentencing of criminals wouldnt it make sense to apply this same stabdard of beyonfd a reasonable doubt to preserving the life of the surley innocent child?

interesting, i have come to the conclusion that the prophet Jeremiah reached what 2900 years ago…that hte human heart is deceitful and wicked above all things…we are capable of rationalizing the most outrageous sort of non sense to justify our desires and actions…


#4

this country had the same debate on whether or not these words, and the Constitutional protection of these rights applied to slaves, on the basis of both “personhood” and “citizen”. both these terms had to be defined in relation to slaves (and former slaves). Trouble was the peaceful political process did not work until the issue was decided by a bloody civil war, and ultimately amending the constitution. I am a historian by background, and don’t want to try and predict how this will pan out, but I will venture to suggest that we have already had over a million victims in a bloody civil war over the issue of “Personhood” of the unborn, and that a constitutional amendment defining that term may be the only solution.


#5

[quote=Anonymous_1]people dont argue that killing an innocent person is murder…

however, those in favor of abortion justify their beliefs and actions by questioning what a person is and when life begins…
[/quote]

Inspite of all the evidence that shows that the unbord child is really alive, the pro-abortionists still try to argue that the child is not human until it is born. I even heard some “Christian” say that the child does not get a soul until after it is born.

It’s so sad how we never learn. The last time some people tried to class a whole group of other people as “not human”, six million Jews died. The same thing is being done now with abortion, stem cell research and euthanasia.


#6

Sorry, that only gives MEN the right to life. Keep working on it though.:wink:


#7

[quote=Malachi4U]Sorry, that only gives MEN the right to life. Keep working on it though.:wink:
[/quote]

Hey how about us girls;)


#8

Overall, I just thought it was nice choice of words that “all men are created equal,” as opposed to “all men are **born ** equal.” Just a thought I guess.


#9

[quote=Pedro]Inspite of all the evidence that shows that the unbord child is really alive, the pro-abortionists still try to argue that the child is not human until it is born.
[/quote]

No one in his right mind would assert that a fetus is not “alive”. It also has human DNA. But so has a malignant tumor, and not even the most ardent “pro-lifer” (aka. anti-choice) person would dare to argue that a tumor should have the right to “live”. The removal of a tumor could rightly be called “testing God” (which is a big no-no around here), because such a removal denies God the chance of performing a miracle and allowing the tumor to grow into a human being.

A question to all of you: Would you call a dish of scrambled eggs - a fried chicken? The eggs are potential chickens, not real chickens.

Another question: Would you call a medical student a fully qualified doctor? The medical student is a potential doctor, nothing more.

In every facet of live you all understand the difference between a potential and the final result. Why is this stubborn resistence when it comes to such an obvious difference as fetus vs. full human? (A fetus is actually a parasitic being feeding off the mother’s body and gives nothing physical in return.)

And a final question: when speaking of abortion I have yet to see a “pro-lifer” NOT calling it the “murder” of an innocent baby. Regardless of the misuse of the word “baby” here, why do you call them “innocent”? Are they not guilty of the original sin? They are guilty in the eyes of God, are they not?


#10

Based on your childish vitriol, only the innocent should not be murdered? What is your point? Obviously you just came here to twist words that people use defend such a horrific crime, rather than tackle the actual issue.

Fact is, murder is illegal in this country, regardless of who you are killing. Therefore, it is incredibly logical to say that no one should be murdered out of personal gain of the murderer, especially those who cannot defend themselves.


#11

[quote=Malachi4U]Sorry, that only gives MEN the right to life. Keep working on it though.:wink:
[/quote]

in English grammar, men in this context is understood to include all mankind, all humankind regardless of age or gender. it does not connote males over 21. just because feminists want to change or refuse to accept the rules of grammar of this language is no reason to change the reading of the intent of the founding fathers (or of sacred scripture, for that matter).


#12

however, those in favor of abortion justify their beliefs and actions by questioning what a person is and when life begins…really not hard to refute, thank God for all the new technology that allows us to detect brain waves as early as what 12 weeks…now if we determine death by the cessation of brain activity…you follow the logic thorugh

That abortion should be permitted until the 12th week (1st trimester)?


#13

Hitetlen, please explain to me who deserves to live. What is the difference between someone 5 minutes before they are born and 2 months after they are born? Perhaps you would like to direct us to Peter Singer for our morality? If we’re going to define personhood upon intellectual ability, where do we draw the line. I’d say kill everyone who’s not in the top 50% intellectually unless they are strong. Then we can use them for manual labor.

Do you have any problems with that besides that it wouldn’t be “nice” and you consider yourself to be a “nice” person. Ask yourself whether or not you would have been against slavery when it was still an issue. I already know the answer, but I doubt you’ll be objective enough to admit it.

Don’t take this as an attack against you as a person, but do take it as an attack against your lack of any sense of moral justice.


#14

[quote=Hitetlen]No one in his right mind would assert that a fetus is not “alive”. It also has human DNA. But so has a malignant tumor, and not even the most ardent “pro-lifer” (aka. anti-choice) person would dare to argue that a tumor should have the right to “live”. The removal of a tumor could rightly be called “testing God” (which is a big no-no around here), because such a removal denies God the chance of performing a miracle and allowing the tumor to grow into a human being.

A question to all of you: Would you call a dish of scrambled eggs - a fried chicken? The eggs are potential chickens, not real chickens.

Another question: Would you call a medical student a fully qualified doctor? The medical student is a potential doctor, nothing more.

In every facet of live you all understand the difference between a potential and the final result. Why is this stubborn resistence when it comes to such an obvious difference as fetus vs. full human? (A fetus is actually a parasitic being feeding off the mother’s body and gives nothing physical in return.)

And a final question: when speaking of abortion I have yet to see a “pro-lifer” NOT calling it the “murder” of an innocent baby. Regardless of the misuse of the word “baby” here, why do you call them “innocent”? Are they not guilty of the original sin? They are guilty in the eyes of God, are they not?
[/quote]

According to your logic, you are nothing more than a malignant tumor that has grown out of a parasitical fetus. Since you have commited far more sins that just original sin, you far more deserve to be aborted. How can you even claim to be fully human, as there is no trace of humanity in your statements?

Perhaps a council of pro-choice supporters should sit in judgement of you and try to determine if you have justified your existence, or if you have been a parasite on society. Maybe they would judge that you are only a “potential” human being who has fallen short of someone else’s idea of what constitutes a valid human being. Perhaps they would deem that you are a tumor that society would do best to remove.

Do you not realize that when one condones the killing of an unborn, one automatically condones all forms of killing since all other people are more gulity and less defenseless? How can one accuse Saddam Hussein of killing people to preserve his empire, when we condone killing a child for the purpose of preventing inconvenience to ourselves?

Have you not noticed the Pandora’s box that has been opened? Look at the multitude of events of mass-murder or indiscriminate killings that have occured after Roe vs. Wade. The occurence of such senseless random killings has multiplied once we ratified the notion that it is acceptable to take human life to solve one’s problems.

This is what happens when life or death matters are put into the hands of people who can’t discern the difference between a fetus and a tumor.

Thal59


#15

[quote=Hitetlen]No one in his right mind would assert that a fetus is not “alive”. It also has human DNA. But so has a malignant tumor, and not even the most ardent “pro-lifer” (aka. anti-choice) person would dare to argue that a tumor should have the right to “live”. The removal of a tumor could rightly be called “testing God” (which is a big no-no around here), because such a removal denies God the chance of performing a miracle and allowing the tumor to grow into a human being.

A question to all of you: Would you call a dish of scrambled eggs - a fried chicken? The eggs are potential chickens, not real chickens.

Another question: Would you call a medical student a fully qualified doctor? The medical student is a potential doctor, nothing more.

In every facet of live you all understand the difference between a potential and the final result. Why is this stubborn resistence when it comes to such an obvious difference as fetus vs. full human? (A fetus is actually a parasitic being feeding off the mother’s body and gives nothing physical in return.)

And a final question: when speaking of abortion I have yet to see a “pro-lifer” NOT calling it the “murder” of an innocent baby. Regardless of the misuse of the word “baby” here, why do you call them “innocent”? Are they not guilty of the original sin? They are guilty in the eyes of God, are they not?
[/quote]

I said this on another thread the other day, and I’ll say it again here.

"Have you ever noticed that ALL pro-choice people have already been born?"
Gee, I’m glad my parents were PRO-LIFE! :thumbsup:


#16

[quote=ChiFaithful]Based on your childish vitriol, only the innocent should not be murdered? What is your point? Obviously you just came here to twist words that people use defend such a horrific crime, rather than tackle the actual issue.
[/quote]

Vitriol? I am simply pointing out the inconsistency and emotionalism in your point of view.

[quote=ChiFaithful]Fact is, murder is illegal in this country, regardless of who you are killing. Therefore, it is incredibly logical to say that no one should be murdered out of personal gain of the murderer, especially those who cannot defend themselves.
[/quote]

Indeed murder is illegal and rightly so. However, termination of life is not necessirly murder. Only humans can be murdered, and fetuses are only potential humans.

I see that none of you wished to tackle the questions about the qualitiative difference between an egg and a chicken or a medical student and the doctor. I wonder why not?


#17

[quote=Aaron I.]Hitetlen, please explain to me who deserves to live. What is the difference between someone 5 minutes before they are born and 2 months after they are born?
[/quote]

There is one difference: before the birth the fetus is physically dependent on the mother’s body; her blood circulation to deliver the nutrients to the fetus. After the birth the child is not dependent on anyone in particular, his/her existence is independent of the caretaker. This is an objective difference.

Interestingly enough in some languages (Hungarian for example) the word “soul” is a derivative of the word “breath” or “breathing” indicating that the “ensoulment” occurs when the newborn takes his/her first breath. (Not that I accept the existence of a “soul”, but even learned theologians could not agree when the “ensoulment” occurs.)

[quote=Aaron I.]Do you have any problems with that besides that it wouldn’t be “nice” and you consider yourself to be a “nice” person. Ask yourself whether or not you would have been against slavery when it was still an issue. I already know the answer, but I doubt you’ll be objective enough to admit it.
[/quote]

Of course I am against slavery, because the slaves are persons, while the fetuses are only potential persons. Nevertheless I don’t think that abortion is a “good thing” and I seriously doubt that any woman ever got pregnant just to have an abortion.

You also neglected to answer to my two questions about the qualitative difference between the egg and the chicken and the medical student and the doctor.


#18

[quote=Thal59]According to your logic, you are nothing more than a malignant tumor that has grown out of a parasitical fetus. Since you have commited far more sins that just original sin, you far more deserve to be aborted. How can you even claim to be fully human, as there is no trace of humanity in your statements?
[/quote]

Actually I am without “sin”, because “sin” is a religious concept, which I do not accept.

[quote=Thal59]Do you not realize that when one condones the killing of an unborn, one automatically condones all forms of killing since all other people are more gulity and less defenseless?
[/quote]

No, it does not follow automatically at all.

[quote=Thal59]Have you not noticed the Pandora’s box that has been opened? Look at the multitude of events of mass-murder or indiscriminate killings that have occured after Roe vs. Wade.
[/quote]

Post hoc, ergo propter hoc?


#19

[quote=Hitetlen]Vitriol? I am simply pointing out the inconsistency and emotionalism in your point of view.

Indeed murder is illegal and rightly so. However, termination of life is not necessirly murder. Only humans can be murdered, and fetuses are only potential humans.

I see that none of you wished to tackle the questions about the qualitiative difference between an egg and a chicken or a medical student and the doctor. I wonder why not?
[/quote]

Okay. The qualitative difference between a chicken and an egg is that an egg that we eat is not fertilized. And I wouldn’t kill a med student either.

Thanks for wasting my time.


#20

Hiteltan,

Here’s the argument:
Logical Argument:

   **Moral Premise: **It is always morally wrong to kill an innocent human being

**Factual Premise: **Abortion is the killing of an innocent human being

 **Conclusion: **Abortion is always morally wrong

Definition of Terms:

Kill – to, by voluntary and willful conduct, take positive action (as opposed to inaction or omission) by which death is forced upon another human being

   **Innocent** – being undeserving of death; having no personal culpability; having done nothing by which to justify killing

Human being – a biological entity possessing life in the species of Homo sapiens

 **Life** – the property or quality that distinguishes living organisms from dead organisms and inanimate matter, manifested in functions such as metabolism, growth, reproduction, and response to stimuli or adaptation to the environment originating from within the organism.

Underlying Legal Premise:

 **Legal Premise: **The purpose of Law is to protect people, specifically to protect innocent and weak people from guilty and strong people; consequently, an immoral killing, which is the killing of the innocent and weak by the guilty and strong, should never justified by the law.

Please refute this.

Finally, your usage of Original Sin manifests that you are not familiar with Catholic teaching on the subject. I recommend you read up a bit before you come back.

God Bless,
RyanL


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.