Pro-life arguments

by Skimmer 109 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  fifi40

  Wozadummy...........do you think that nobody disposes of aborted babies............it is someone's job you know.

  Skimmer my connection to you and the bible lay only with you reference to the book of Acts regarding diet.......my point being that to be completely pro life you really would have to be a vegetarian and you used the bible in defense rather implying that is you guideline......and who are you addressing the pro abortion comments to...........if being pro abortion means that women have the right to decide what happens to their bodies and whether they continue with a pregnancy that they dont want, is critical to their health, is the product of rape or some form of abuse or has severe disabilities then I am pro abortion

  I find it strange that in the main you are all men arguing the point here.
• 

  wozadummy

  FiFi - I know that silly ,I was suggesting pro abortion people think of the graphic reality involved in the process instead of the "out of sight out of mind " that hides the reality.

  I find it strange that in the main you are all men arguing the point here.

  Can't men have opinions about human life ,some of us have had their children aborted when they wanted to see them live?
• 

  fifi40

  Wozadummy

  I agree men are entitled to discuss this subject and have opinions and personal feelings on this matters........it just seems odd that this thread is mainly men discussing the subject, thats all.

  I can totally undertsand that for a man it would be distressing if he wished a pregnancy to go ahead whilst his partner wished to terminate.......

  The problem lies in that all circumstances are individual and unique.............and sometimes until we have walked in anothers shoes it is impossible to undertsand their position.

  Not all abortions would be the first choice of the mother concerned, but circumstances lead them to conclude that it is the best option for them and others involved.
• 

  Skimmer

  fifi40, upon what basis do you claim that a pro-life stance covers species other than homo sapiens? And what about plant species? Must one avoid eating them to be pro-life?
  
  Concerning issues like rape, incest, and other "hard cases", see my earlier post. One does not compound a crime or tragedy by committing another crime and tragedy.
• 

  fifi40

  Skimmer.............I dont...........but it would seem hypocritical to say that saving the life of humans is justified and saving the lives of animals is not..........all are living breathing beings......does having a bigger brain make you more eligible to life and the having those rights defended.

  Also it is your opinion that deems abortion a crime and yet it is legal in most of the western world.......if a animal was born with severe disabilities we would not blink an eye at calling the vet to put it to sleep........and yet when a mother is faced with the knowledge that her child will have severe disabilities you call it murder if she chooses to terminate that pregnancy.

  There are many circumstances personal to the women who chooses to have an abortion........unless you have walked in that persons shoes you have no right to comment on their choice.
• 

  emy the infidel

  fifty-- Save the whales or orduckbilled platypus, or great sea-horn otters of the Anarctica, but abort the babies?

  My only argument is this --- One million occur every year.
• 

  Skimmer

  It should be obvious that the term "pro-life" means pro-human-life. Your attempt to insert ambiguity detracts from any coherency your argument might have.
  
  --------
  
  You say: "There are many circumstances personal to the women who chooses to have an abortion".
  
  I say: Only about one percent of all abortions are due to rape or incest. Even if these cases were justified, what about the 99 percent that are due to the fact that a pregnancy is a bit inconvenient for a limited time? Do you think that women who abort solely for reasons of birth control are doing something wrong? If so, what are you going to do about it?
  
  --------
  
  You say: "unless you have walked in that persons shoes you have no right to comment".
  
  I say: Is this any different from the old pro-slavery argument where a slave owner says "Unless you have put up with all the difficulties of running a plantation, you have no right to comment on their choice to own slaves"?
• 

  Abaddon

  Ah, the quintessential recurring unsolvable debate; what we have here ladies and gentlemen is two paradigms. The arguments of relevance for one are irrelevant to the other and vice-verse.

  But I find the following points of interest even if others don't.

  Firstly, saying 'prostitution and drug use are illegal; therefore restriction of a person's freedom of action with their own body is okay' is not a good argument; it assumes that drugs and prostitution being illegal is right, when this is certainly open to much argument.

  Secondly, the Bible does not outlaw abortion; not once, no where. Despite there being a separate word for it, despite abortion being a known practise in Biblical times, the word is not used and whilst boiling baby goats in their mother's milk and wearing a fringe round your garments does get into the Mosaic Law, abortion does not. Please prove me wrong. But to start, think about the word for a living soul in Hebrew and how this cannot apply to the unborn.

  Thirdly, if a fetus representative of the average abortion in a well-ordered medical system is a person, then so is small rodent. Small rodents and first trimester fetuses have equivalent levels of neurological complexity. Do some research on brain weights. Of course, if you believe some divine spark enters the egg on conception then you are pushing a religious argument of no value in secular society and may as well start handing out head-scarves.

  Fourthly, if 'human potential' is so important (as small rodents will always be small rodents but a percentage of fertilised human ova would one day be born if they weren't aborted), then why do anti-choicers not show the same level of concern to the children of the poor whose human potential is being cast aside? Why is it right to stop a woman getting an abortion yet okay to support political policies that condemn many children to gross disadvantage?

  Fifth; between 40 and 60% of conceived eggs spontaneously abort before the mother is aware she is pregnant. Anti-choicers apparently hold the blastocyst or far greater import than 'mother nature'.

  Sixth; many animals spontaneously abort if conditions are not right for giving birth. Humans certainly can't d this naturally, but then there are lots of things that humans cannot do naturally that they do everyday, so why should a human aborting if conditions are not right for giving birth be so wrong?

  Seven; if killing people is wrong, why is killing unborn 'people' 2.5 cm long okay, but killing people by judicial execution okay? It's not like the death penalty has never killed innocent people.

  Eight; great apes and dolphins have intellectual and emotional complexity approaching that of humans, and way way more than that of even a second term fetus. Why is it okay to kill them?

  Nine; I firmly believe if human fetuses looked like lizards, no one would give a $hit. The fact they look like tiny humans is what skews the debate. Yet people see the (if we are talking about fetuses or embryos of an age where abortion would normally take place) apparently human appearance yet fail to consider the already made point about neurological complexity.

  Ten; if you don't like abortion, don't have one.
• 

  fifi40

  It was not my intention to be ambiguous...........my question is why do we deem human life of greater importance?

  No I dont think women who choose to have an abortion are doing something wrong...........I think they are making their own choices........they have to live with their decision......and as such I would choose to do nothing about it.

  I think your example of slavery........is a case of the pot calling the kettle black...........or is ambiguous in nature........individuals have choice about what happens to their OWN bodies........'using slaves' is a whole other topic.

  I respect anyones right to have an opinion..........to have a set of belief's which they can defend.........but I object to calling people murderers for a making a difficult, personal and yet entirely legal choice, based on your own opinion......
• 

  Skimmer

  * A "human being" is a living member of the species Homo sapiens. Science can determine, without doubt, whether or not any living thing is a human being. Genetically, once a human, always a human. A human being, from the moment of fertilization, is genetically complete. To quote professor Jerome Lejeune: "If a fertilized egg is not by itself a full human being, it could never become a man, because something would have to be added to it, and we know that does not happen."'
  
  * Fetal development:
  
  o By 6 weeks: all vital organs are present; brain waves can be recorded.
  o By 8 weeks: baby responds to painful stimuli; can grasp objects.
  o By 10 weeks: fingerprints and footprints permanently engraved on the skin; sucks thumb.
  o By 11-12 weeks: inhales and exhales amniotic fluid; shows distinct facial characteristics.
  o By 16 weeks: fingernails and eyelashes present; high activity level (e.g., kicking).
  
  * Humanity is not something one acquires like a skill; you are either human or you are not. People may undergo socialization, societies may undergo civilization, but a human being cannot undergo "humanization." Humanity is innate, and no human being is more human than any other.
  
  * Quoted from Jerome Lejeune: "Because when people want to discard a baby they say to you it is not yet a baby. It's something which is not that. And they try to build a theory of 'humanization,' saying that in the beginning there is something which is living, something which is maybe a little human, but it is not a human being, and it is with the improvement of it that some day, by a humanization process, it will become a true human fellow.
  
  "Well, that's curious, because nobody argues about that when we are dealing with mice, for example, or when we are dealing with cattle, or even when we are dealing with a big primate like the chimpanzee. Nobody believes that there is a progressive chimpanzification of a chimpanzee. Why, then, does he believe that there is a progressive humanization of a human being? For a very simple reason. Because it doesn't matter the size of the chimpanzee you kill, you are sure you are killing just a chimpanzee. But when you are dealing with human beings that you want to destroy, it is difficult to accept that they are similar to you. Then you get into moral trouble. And that is just the reason why people try to masquerade the truth by asking questions which have no sense. Because they would not scientifically ask those questions for any other living system than the system they will to destroy."
  
  * Define the "fetus"
  
  When the pro-abortionist refers to "the fetus," insist that the kind of fetus be specified. The monkey fetus? The pig fetus? No. The human fetus.
  
  Remember, the anti-lifer's goal is to dehumanize the preborn child. Forcing pro-abortionists to admit they're talking about the human fetus makes this much harder.
  
  They must now say:
  
  "The human fetus is not a human being." Yet, both are human. This would imply the unentable notion that the fetus is not a "being," or living entity. Fact: the fetus is a being; the human fetus is a human being.
  
  And human fetus is just scientific jargon for baby in the womb.