* Deciding whether to engage in sexual intercourse is the "reproductive choice." The ability to make this choice is the "reproductive right." Abortion is neither a reproductive choice nor a reproductive right. If pregnant, with the rare exception of rape, the choice has already been made, the right already exercised; reproduction has already occurred, a new human life has begun.
Rape, of course, violates the woman's reproductive right and denies her reproductive choice. However, for all cases of pregnancy, because reproduction has already occurred, the reproductive right or choice is no longer applicable. The only "choice" remaining is whether the mother's preborn son or daughter shall live-or become a victim of legal homicide, i.e. abortion.
* People have the right to reproduce, and an obligation to exercise this right responsibly. Killing the human being created by reproduction is always irresponsible, and should never be a legal right.
* The "reproductive act" is sexual intercourse, not childbirth. When a woman decides to have sexual intercourse she exercises her reproductive choice (as does the man). Yet, the pro-abortionist tries to define "reproductive freedom" not in terms of sex but in terms of abortion; whether or not one chose reproductive activity beforehand seems irrelevant. However, the truth is that opting against abortion does not create a life; it spares a life already created.
* Abortion has nothing to do with "reproductive choice." Once fertilization has taken place, reproduction has already occurred and the woman is pregnant. And once a woman is pregnant, her choices with regard to her pregnancy are childbirth or abortion, i.e. the life or death of her child. Thus, the abortion choice is not a reproductive one, it is the choice of whether or not to kill the young, already "reproduced" individual.
* The "reproductive choice" is the "reproductive act"; i.e. sexual intercourse.
Skimmer
JoinedPosts by Skimmer
-
109
Pro-life arguments
by Skimmer ina thoughtful series of twenty six pro-life arguments specifically against abortion can be found at: .
http://www.all.org/article.php?id=10229 .
through (following down the links the left side of each page) .
-
-
Skimmer
-
109
Pro-life arguments
by Skimmer ina thoughtful series of twenty six pro-life arguments specifically against abortion can be found at: .
http://www.all.org/article.php?id=10229 .
through (following down the links the left side of each page) .
-
-
Skimmer
* "You think that the killing of preborn children for any reason at any time before birth should be a legal choice. That's not pro-abortion?"
* "If you're not pro-abortion, which of the 4,400 preborn children slaughtered daily do you think should not be killed?
* "Pro-choice" means that no child has the right to be born, but every woman has the right to kill her preborn child. That's not pro-abortion?
* "You say you're not pro-abortion? Why not? I'm not pro-abortion because abortion kills innocent children; why aren't you pro-abortion? Obviously, you are pro-abortion." -
109
Pro-life arguments
by Skimmer ina thoughtful series of twenty six pro-life arguments specifically against abortion can be found at: .
http://www.all.org/article.php?id=10229 .
through (following down the links the left side of each page) .
-
-
Skimmer
You say that I am anti abortion, and that's true although I have never said such myself. I am pro-life which includes being against convenience abortion along with other practices.
And where did I ever say that my being pro-life is based on bible principles? Where in any of my pro-life arguments is there any reference to the bible? -
109
Pro-life arguments
by Skimmer ina thoughtful series of twenty six pro-life arguments specifically against abortion can be found at: .
http://www.all.org/article.php?id=10229 .
through (following down the links the left side of each page) .
-
-
Skimmer
Actually, I was a strict vegetarian for about five years back in the 1990s. But I had to stop as the practice was messing with my liver chemistry. Nowadays I do eat some meat, but probably less than one Kg per month.
As I recall, there's a passage in Acts where it's expressly demonstrated that there are no dietary restrictions in the new covenant (except cannibalism, I guess). -
109
Pro-life arguments
by Skimmer ina thoughtful series of twenty six pro-life arguments specifically against abortion can be found at: .
http://www.all.org/article.php?id=10229 .
through (following down the links the left side of each page) .
-
-
Skimmer
Argument #22: "Pro-choice is not pro-abortion."
* How can "pro-choice" not be pro-abortion when the choice in question is abortion? When the question is whether or not abortion can be a legal/moral choice?
* We're talking about morality and legality, not "choice." Unless we deny freewill, we're not really arguing about choice per se. Human beings have freewill-they can choose good or evil. Thus, intentional abortion, like any homicide, is always a "choice," legal or not. The real questions: among all the possible choices involving innocent children, which are moral? Which should be legal?
* You cannot separate the "choice" from its action (object). Choice, without a referent object, is meaningless. "I'm for choice." What choice? Rape? Murder? Child pornography?
* In practice, if you are not expressly against abortion, you are at minimum implicitly in favor of it. An analogy: "We are not in favor of slavery, only for the right to choose whether or not to own one." This, of course, is a de facto sanction of slavery as legally and morally valid. Likewise, the statement that one is in favor of the "choice" to abort strictly defines abortion as a legal or moral choice. Believing that abortion is a legally and morally valid choice is the crucial pro-abortion tenet.
Further, any attempt to define pro-abortion as actively promulgating abortion, but "pro-choice" as abortion-neutral is in reality creating a distinction without a difference. The major "pro-choice" groups can hardly be described as neutral observers passively monitoring abortion from the sidelines bereft of any relevant ideology or interests.
* "Pro-choice" is a euphemism for pro-abortion. If the issue were slavery, "pro-choice" would be a euphemism for pro-slavery.
If abortion is not evil, why do so many of its advocates reject the objective term pro-abortion?
* Pro and anti are well understood prefixes meaning "for" and "against," respectively. In classifying someone's position on abortion "pro-abortion" or "anti-abortion" are the most objective terms possible. If someone is afraid of being called pro-abortion, perhaps their conscience is telling them something! -
109
Pro-life arguments
by Skimmer ina thoughtful series of twenty six pro-life arguments specifically against abortion can be found at: .
http://www.all.org/article.php?id=10229 .
through (following down the links the left side of each page) .
-
-
Skimmer
You say:
"There is no argument there is only choice ,kill or not .
To believe that we have the right to make that decision for another individual is the epitome of arrogance"
I say:
To make a decision to kill another individual (an innocent unborn child) is far, far worse than mere arrogance. -
109
Pro-life arguments
by Skimmer ina thoughtful series of twenty six pro-life arguments specifically against abortion can be found at: .
http://www.all.org/article.php?id=10229 .
through (following down the links the left side of each page) .
-
-
Skimmer
The posted material is free from emotional and religious content as such could be used to justify anything.
I'm a mathematician and so will judge augmentation validity on logical grounds. I don't give a crap about feel-good moral relativism. -
109
Pro-life arguments
by Skimmer ina thoughtful series of twenty six pro-life arguments specifically against abortion can be found at: .
http://www.all.org/article.php?id=10229 .
through (following down the links the left side of each page) .
-
-
Skimmer
* The preborn is not a part of the woman's body. Once fertilization occurs, a new, unique, individual human being is created. As Professor Jerome Lejeune has stated: "The fetus is a human being. Genetically he is complete. This is not an opinion, it is a fact."
* "Every one of the higher animals starts life as a single cell-the fertilized ovum.. .The union of two such sex cells to form a zygote constitutes the process of fertilization and initiates the life of a new individual."
Thus, while the preborn child resides within his mother, he is truly an individual, possessing his own body, metabolism, genetic makeup and unique destiny.
* The preborn is not the woman's property. This concept is an explicit sanction of filial slavery. Parents are legal guardians of children, never legal owners.
Human beings may never be considered chattel, or the property of another. All are "created equal," and possess an inherent dignity because they are a part of the human family.
* Prohibiting abortion cannot be equated with "forced motherhood" or feminine servility. Once a woman has conceived a child, a new, unique individual human being has been created. Thus, the woman is already a mother; the separate life within her is her child. "Forced motherhood," rather than an apt description of anti-abortion law, is more appropriately a description of rape with the intent to impregnate. Prohibiting abortion does not force conception or motherhood, it protects the human being already conceived.
* Even if the woman's body was our only concern, there are still legal limits on human behavior-social constraints on individuals for the common good. An individual's rights usually end where another's rights begin. Killing someone is the greatest violation of another's rights.
* Yet even beyond this, people are governed by social constraints for the common good. Thus, drug use and other destructive behavior is prohibited even though the user is acting upon his or her own body. Likewise, prostitution is prohibited, even though the prostitute has individual autonomy over his or her body in other circumstances. Further, people are obliged to pay taxes, support public schools etc.-all for the common good. People wishing to remain free members of society have to accept just constraints upon their personal freedom. Without just constraints, anarchy and anomie will result. -
109
Pro-life arguments
by Skimmer ina thoughtful series of twenty six pro-life arguments specifically against abortion can be found at: .
http://www.all.org/article.php?id=10229 .
through (following down the links the left side of each page) .
-
-
Skimmer
Argument #24: "Pro-lifers don't care about children after they are born."
* This assertion is absolutely untrue. Pro-lifers show deep concern for mothers and their babies before and after birth. There are over 1500 crisis pregnancy centers in the U.S, a figure roughly double the number of abortuaries. An estimated 30,000 women are living in the homes of pro-lifers. In addition to individual households, there are many homes for unwed mothers run by pro-lifers. The operation of pro-life centers and homes is made possible by caring and compassionate volunteers. Commonly, pregnant women are taught child rearing as well as vocational skills.
* Compare this with Planned Parenthood, the world's largest provider of abortion and "family planning" services. They teach women only one thing: how not to have children (and if that fails, how to get rid of one's "mistake"). Planned Parenthood has an annual budget of well over 300 million dollars. With this huge, government-subsidized, taxpayer-funded budget, guess how many homes they run? None! When it comes to "family planning," having a family seems to be the one thing that Planned Parenthood doesn't plan for!
* It is the pro-abortion cartel that doesn't care about children after they are born, nor the woman who chooses life for her baby. Every woman who chooses to let her baby live has rejected the only thing that pro-aborts offer: Death. And despite the "choicespeak" of a child before birth being a potential person, he or she is truly a potential source of revenue for the abortionist. Perhaps in this morbid sense, pro-abortionists "care" more about children before birth than after: "Once born, never to be aborted!"
* Pro-lifers have always extended their time, energy, resources and compassion to help unwed or poor mothers in need of support. These efforts do not suddenly disappear when a baby is born. Examine where much of today's charity money comes from. Very little comes from "pro-choice" organizations.
* Unlike pro-lifers, pro-abortionists have a hard time justifying the birth of children in less than ideal circumstances. If a woman is poor and unable to feed her child, the "problem" could have been eliminated before birth, they reason. A starving child should never have been born, they say. The pro-abortionist is not merely "pro-choice"; abortion in many cases is the "promoted-choice." Is it any surprise then that despite the great financial resources of the pro-abortion industry, it does virtually nothing to help those poor mothers who nonetheless choose life for their babies?
* Whenever a pro-abortionist laments about the suffering of children and how it should be avoided, we must clarify their "solution": death NOW for the potential suffering of a child. The pro-lifer sees a child with a problem; the pro-abortionist sees the child as a problem. -
5
A Paul Harvey riddle.
by DJK inwhen asked this riddle, 80% of kindergarten kids got the answer, compared to 17% .
of stanford university seniors.
what is greater than god, more evil than the devil, the poor have it, the rich .
-
-
Skimmer
Too easy; I suspect that the SU seniors should have done better.
A related paradox:
1. Nothing is better than eternal happiness.
2. A ham sandwich is better than nothing.
3. Therefore, a ham sandwich is better than eternal happiness.