I'm sitting in a Pro Life meeting right now...

cincybearcat · July 2008

scb wrote:

Yes - that's my point exactly! This is a very complex issue for each individual and so it is inappropriate for anyone to presume they know what's best for someone else and impose their will on them.

I get frustrated with the idea that debate is about two different sides each trying to impose their will on the other. That couldn't be further from the truth! This issue is about one side trying to impose its will on other people and those people resisting that imposition.

Just so you can take a look at it from "the other side"

Many anti-abortion people would say the exact same thing. It's about one side imposing their views on people (the children) and the other side trying to protect those people.

This is why I still continue to participate in abortion discussions. Most of the time the discussion starts off with each side blasting each other...it's not productive. It's best to try and understand the other side's point of view...even if ultimately you disagree, you at least now have an understanding as to where they are coming from...so Anti-abortion people are no longer just anti-women/choice or pro-choice people are no longer just baby killers. They have a reasoning behind their opinion.

I use to not have any understanding of how anyone in the world could think it's okay to abort a baby. I still believe that ultimately abortion is killing a baby. But, thanks to the discussions I've had here and outside of here, I can no at least begin to understand the other side. And that's when the real discussion can begin.

So please don't just dismiss the other side as being 'Anti-Choice', etc...it's disrespectful...just like calling someone who is pro-choice a baby killer, etc. And don't think that they are just trying to impose their own opinions on others to control...they are, in their minds, protecting the rights of another...both sides of this argument think that in fact.

cincybearcat · July 2008

scb wrote:

Then you're not "pro-life," just "pro-human life".

So you don't think that married people should have sex if they're poor? If they already have enough kids? If they're too old to raise kids? If they're sick?

What about those who were prepared to raise a kid when they had sex, but then the circumstance changed?

Haha! You mean like CHILDBIRTH?

This is where I think it's important to know the facts: Having an abortion in general is 12 times safer than having a child. Having an abortion in the first 9 weeks of pregnancy (which accounts for the majority of abortions) is 71 times safer than having a child. Abortion is an extremely safe process.

It seems to me that if you're going to make an argument you should be expected to defend your position. It sounds to me like either:

1. You can't back up your opinions, or

2. You have had some experience with abortion that hurt you personally and you don't want to share. If this is the case, I'm sorry. (But I still don't think your personal experience should be used against others.)

Don't get hung up on Pro-choice, Pro-life, etc...they are both misnomers. Just the labels that the media has thrown out there.

Childbirth vs. Abortion is 10000000000 million times safer for the baby though.

_ · July 2008

VINNY GOOMBA wrote:

There isn't a person on this planet that is of age, and able to procreate that doesn't understand that pregnancy is a consequence of having sex.

That might be true - if we had better sex education. But we don't. (Or if we had better education in general. Or if millions of women weren't so disempowered.)

VINNY GOOMBA wrote:

But if you choose to engage in this act, you are accepting any possible consequences. You have a choice, already.

Once again, you're living in a elite American dreamworld. For women in much of the world (and even more than we'd like to admit in the U.S.), "choice" is is a shady concept when it comes to sex and contraception.

VINNY GOOMBA wrote:

But if it takes law, to protect that person, then that's what it takes. Give the kid a chance. Adoption. Whatever. Even in the case of rape, is it the kid's fault? Why should he or she be terminated?

Once again, another assumption that the continuation of life is necessarily the ultimate goal, complete with words like "protect," "chance," and "fault". Please back up this assumption.

cincybearcat · July 2008

scb wrote:

Once again, another assumption that the continuation of life is necessarily the ultimate goal, complete with words like "protect," "chance," and "fault". Please back up this assumption.

This is getting old.

_ · July 2008

cincybearcat wrote:

Just so you can take a look at it from "the other side"

Many anti-abortion people would say the exact same thing. It's about one side imposing their views on people (the children) and the other side trying to protect those people.

This is why I still continue to participate in abortion discussions. Most of the time the discussion starts off with each side blasting each other...it's not productive. It's best to try and understand the other side's point of view...even if ultimately you disagree, you at least now have an understanding as to where they are coming from...so Anti-abortion people are no longer just anti-women/choice or pro-choice people are no longer just baby killers. They have a reasoning behind their opinion.

I use to not have any understanding of how anyone in the world could think it's okay to abort a baby. I still believe that ultimately abortion is killing a baby. But, thanks to the discussions I've had here and outside of here, I can no at least begin to understand the other side. And that's when the real discussion can begin.

So please don't just dismiss the other side as being 'Anti-Choice', etc...it's disrespectful...just like calling someone who is pro-choice a baby killer, etc. And don't think that they are just trying to impose their own opinions on others to control...they are, in their minds, protecting the rights of another...both sides of this argument think that in fact.

I see your point that they think they need to protect the unborn. But I don't see that anyone has demonstrated that the unborn need/want to be "protected" from termination. Many people are pro-choice so as to protect the unborn as well - not just to protect the rights of the mothers.

I don't call people anti-choice to be dismissive or disrespectful - just the opposite! I call people anti-choice to be clear about the people with whom I am disagreeing. I don't necessarily have a problem with everyone who calls themselves pro-life - only those of them who oppose choice (or pass judgement or misrepresent facts). I do think they should use a more precise term when expressing exactly which kind of life they are are trying to support, just as I am trying to be precise about what exactly I oppose. It's all in the interest of really understanding each other and getting to the bottom of what exactly we disagree about. I am trying to understand the other side's point of view (of which there are many). Unfortunately, rather than explaining their arguments and answering my questions, half the time people just say something is stupid, or spout off misinformation, or don't answer at all.

_ · July 2008

cincybearcat wrote:

Don't get hung up on Pro-choice, Pro-life, etc...they are both misnomers. Just the labels that the media has thrown out there.

I don't believe pro-choice is a misnomer. And I'm trying to get people to take charge of and be precise about their own labels rather than let the media have control.

cincybearcat wrote:

Childbirth vs. Abortion is 10000000000 million times safer for the baby though.

Yeah, yeah. You know that's not what know1 was referring to when I responded.

_ · July 2008

cincybearcat wrote:

This is getting old.

Waiting for someone to actually answer the question? Yeah, that is getting old!

Anon · July 2008

How is your conference going?

know1 · July 2008

scb wrote:

Then you're not "pro-life," just "pro-human life".

So you don't think that married people should have sex if they're poor? If they already have enough kids? If they're too old to raise kids? If they're sick?

What about those who were prepared to raise a kid when they had sex, but then the circumstance changed?

Haha! You mean like CHILDBIRTH?

This is where I think it's important to know the facts: Having an abortion in general is 12 times safer than having a child. Having an abortion in the first 9 weeks of pregnancy (which accounts for the majority of abortions) is 71 times safer than having a child. Abortion is an extremely safe process.

It seems to me that if you're going to make an argument you should be expected to defend your position. It sounds to me like either:

1. You can't back up your opinions, or

2. You have had some experience with abortion that hurt you personally and you don't want to share. If this is the case, I'm sorry. (But I still don't think your personal experience should be used against others.)

You're right. I am pro-human life. Just like the so-called pro-choice people are really pro-legal abortion.

What if the circumstances change after the birth. Should they kill the child then?

You got me on the childbirth one. I have no rebuttal for that.

I have no personal experience with abortion. Remember that I said I'm against it due to feeling that it's murder as well as for religious reasons. My point was that I feel that if those reasons were removed, I'd still be against it.

_ · July 2008

know1 wrote:

You're right. I am pro-human life. Just like the so-called pro-choice people are really pro-legal abortion.

Hmm... pro-legal abortion? Haven't heard that one. I still think it's probably not accurate though, with abortion being the noun. How about pro-legalization of abortion? That would work since it's the legalization we're in support of, not the abortion per se. Of course, abortion is already legal, so there's no reason to be pro-legalization.

know1 wrote:

What if the circumstances change after the birth. Should they kill the child then?

Haven't we already covered this?

know1 wrote:

You got me on the childbirth one. I have no rebuttal for that.

Good - now spread the facts!!

know1 wrote:

I have no personal experience with abortion. Remember that I said I'm against it due to feeling that it's murder as well as for religious reasons. My point was that I feel that if those reasons were removed, I'd still be against it.

Why?

cincybearcat · July 2008

scb wrote:

Waiting for someone to actually answer the question? Yeah, that is getting old!

Your asking us to speak to unbron children and see if they want to be born basically.

Also, to swing it around, what proof do you have that an unborn child would rather be aborted then born?

_ · July 2008

cincybearcat wrote:

Your asking us to speak to unbron children and see if they want to be born basically.

If you're going to assert that they want to be born then, yes, I want you to give me some reason to believe that.

cincybearcat wrote:

Also, to swing it around, what proof do you have that an unborn child would rather be aborted then born?

Nope. Which is why I never said they do.

_ · July 2008

cincybearcat wrote:

Your asking us to speak to unbron children and see if they want to be born basically.

Also, to swing it around, what proof do you have that an unborn child would rather be aborted then born?

Already answered this question anyway:

scb wrote:

Well, for one thing, it's debatable whether preventing someone from being born is the same as killing them. But, for the sake of argument, let's say it is. Here are some of my thoughts on the subject:

1. The whole "does the baby want to be born or not?" question assumes that a fetus or embryo has free will to even have a desire one way or the other. Given especially that nearly 90% of abortions occur in the first trimester, I think it's really a BIG stretch to say that they do. And yet people frequently imply that abortion kills babies against their will. Mustn't they first prove that a fetus has a free will before they can say it's even possible for us to go againt it?

2. Even if a fetus had a free will, now it must be shown that the will of the fetus is to be born before abortions can be said to violate that will. This hasn't and can't be shown. I understand your point that we also can't show that a fetus wants to not be born, and I agree. But I'm not trying to say a fetus necessarily wants to not be born like others are saying it necessarily wants to be born. My whole point is that you (or whoever) don't know any more than I do, so that argument can't fly.

3. Then you might say, "you can't undo killing someone so you better let them be born just in case that's what they wanted, and then they can decide to kill themselves if you were wrong." But what about the injustice that would be done if you were wrong? Wouldn't it be just as wrong to make someone be born who didn't want to be born as to prevent someone from being born who did want to be born? Why is one more wrong than the other? After all, dying in the womb results in unfathomably less suffering (physical and emotional) than dying in the world.

4. We just don't know if a baby wants to be born or if it doesn't. Until someone shows me otherwise, let's say there's a 50/50 chance either way. If a fetus were able to let us know that it wanted to be born, I would say it should be up to it and we shouldn't defy its wishes. But since it can't make that decision, it falls to someone else to make the decision for it. There is no better person to make this decision on behalf of the fetus than the mother (ideally in counsel with the father, the doctor, and God). Even if the baby were born and a life support decision needed to be made, the mother & father would have to make it. It's a difficult and complicated decision, and it's certainly not the place of you or me or any politicians or churches to judge it as black and white and make it for anyone else's child.

5. See #1.

(It's okay if you missed it; I know I've posted a lot on this thread.

)

VINNY GOOMBA · July 2008

scb wrote:

I am Christian and I am pro-choice. It's not your place to tell me I'm not a Christian. You do not have the monopoply on Christianity.

Furthermore, I'll go so far as to say that I believe Jesus was pro-choice.

Additionally, nearly 2/3 of women who have abortions in the U.S. are Christians. Their faith and prayer guided them to abortion.

Yeah, Jesus would have definitely been pro-choice... The long hair and the beard are a dead give away!

Seriously though, that's way off. I think the beatitudes would best explain that no matter how raw of a deal you are dealt, faith and love of God will always make things alright. People will always suffer, whether you are in elite America dreamland, or the poorest parts of Africa, obviously some worse than others-- but, if you believe, there is something greater in store for all of us. Speaking to you, Christian to Christian, what is the greatest gift God has given us? Life? You betcha. Why not try and PROTECT (yeah, I said protect) it, especially here, in America Candyland-- where most of these procedures are, in all likelihood, the worst form of birth control.

Yes, you make good points about the rest of the world, and the women not having a choice to even procreate / have sex or not. Again, why does the child get deprived of life?

And Christian to Christian, did Mary have a choice?

_ · July 2008

VINNY GOOMBA wrote:

Seriously though, that's way off. I think the beatitudes would best explain that no matter how raw of a deal you are dealt, faith and love of God will always make things alright. People will always suffer, whether you are in elite America dreamland, or the poorest parts of Africa, obviously some worse than others-- but, if you believe, there is something greater in store for all of us.

Yes, but that doesn't mean we should allow those here to suffer.

VINNY GOOMBA wrote:

Speaking to you, Christian to Christian, what is the greatest gift God has given us? Life? You betcha.

No, not life. Love. Love and compassion for one another, which is what prevents me from judging.

VINNY GOOMBA wrote:

Why not try and PROTECT (yeah, I said protect) it, especially here, in America Candyland-- where most of these procedures are, in all likelihood, the worst form of birth control.

Abortion as birth control - another catch phrase everyone spouts off but can't support.

Although there have been countries that use abortion as birth control, thankfully America is not one of them. If a sexually active woman were to use abortion as her method of birth control and wanted two children, she would have about 30 abortions by the age of 45. I don't know even one single woman who has had that many abortions, do you?

VINNY GOOMBA wrote:

Yes, you make good points about the rest of the world, and the women not having a choice to even procreate / have sex or not. Again, why does the child get deprived of life?

Again, why do you use the word deprived as if to imply that life is right for everyone? I was just pointing out that you were wrong when you said all women have a choice regarding sex.

VINNY GOOMBA wrote:

And Christian to Christian, did Mary have a choice?

Well that depends on how you define choice.

VINNY GOOMBA · July 2008

scb wrote:

Yes, but that doesn't mean we should allow those here to suffer.

No, not life. Love. Love and compassion for one another, which is what prevents me from judging.

Abortion as birth control - another catch phrase everyone spouts off but can't support.

Although there have been countries that use abortion as birth control, thankfully America is not one of them. If a sexually active woman were to use abortion as her method of birth control and wanted two children, she would have about 30 abortions by the age of 45. I don't know even one single woman who has had that many abortions, do you?

Again, why do you use the word deprived as if to imply that life is right for everyone? I was just pointing out that you were wrong when you said all women have a choice regarding sex.

Well that depends on how you define choice.

LOVE. That is a great answer. However, I will see that, and raise you God's Love as being the greatest gift. Within that, is all that he has given us, including this whole world for us to share with each other. That's why I use the word "deprived." Again, I believe it goes back to faith. Through faith, you can and will be delivered from any harm, and will get to enjoy this gift of a world, if not the next one. Some would argue that you have to "endure" this world to partake in the next. Which, here comes a potential great divide among Christians: Catholics - The Catechism claims that aborted babies end up in Limbo, aka a lesser level of Hell. I don't know what protestants believe. Honestly, I don't know what I believe on that subject. If that is true, then it is pretty explicit that aborted babies are "saved" from terrible earth, but then endure a much worse existence. OUCH. What happens to the people who put them there? Not sure I want to know...

When people spout off the phrase "abortion as birth control," they specifically refer to the people whose other forms of birth control have failed them and have looked at the child as a matter of inconvenience. The woman was pregnant, and did something about it. BOOM. Birth Control. Hopefully, no one goes through abortions like they go through condoms. Was that the wrong use of the term? For people who think that abortion is terribly wrong, and actually murder, I don't think they care how it's used.

How is life "right" for anyone at all?-- now there's a question. Who understands it? Who really knows their purpose here? Who is truly happy? If you were to be born into the "right" life, who's to say tragedy doesn't hit seconds later! Not fair, God! You tricked me! It's a mystery we won't understand till we leave this world for the next, which to people like myself, and yourself, that's what it's all about, right?

Limbo or not, I do believe everyone with the opportunity to experience this world, should. Arguing on a message board probably isn't the most fruitful approach to trying to ensure this for people.

I find it ironic that the pro-choice movement doesn't want anyone to tell anyone else what to do with their bodies-- yet, people who have abortions completely rob someone of their body and life, with no choice for that person in the matter... Especially in America, where there ALWAYS are other options.

With that, I just felt like I had to say my piece (peace?). It's been a lively debate. Take care, and responsibility.

writersu · July 2008

scb wrote:

I am Christian and I am pro-choice. It's not your place to tell me I'm not a Christian. You do not have the monopoply on Christianity.

Furthermore, I'll go so far as to say that I believe Jesus was pro-choice.

Additionally, nearly 2/3 of women who have abortions in the U.S. are Christians. Their faith and prayer guided them to abortion.

I second that. I do not clearly know what Jesus would do (WWJD?) as my fellow pompous christians would claim (I purposely did not capitalize the "C" in Christian to point to their lack of credibility in my terms), but I DO know that many of the thoughts and opinions about both people and things have been made up by people who share the same thoughts and ideas so that they SEEM very Jesus-like.
The main thing people forget is that He was humble and said He came for the sick as well as He was there to protect the weak. And some may say that the "weak" could be the fetus'......ok, maybe. But who is to say that the "weak" is not the mother of that fetus who perhaps is ill, poor, abused, on drugs, too young, too crazed, etc............the list goes on.
We tread dangerous ground when we pretend to know what Jesus would do or how He would judge.

sorry,.........

meistereder · July 2008

cincybearcat wrote:

Well, there you go, that is where it shoudl start, because whether you are pro-choice or pro-life, we all benefit from eliminating the need for abortions...the argument/disagreement/conversation goes away to a large extent.

If we could convince the people bombing planned parenthood centers of this, we'd be in good shape. I think most reasonable people agree that the need for abortions is to be avoided.

_ · July 2008

meistereder wrote:

If we could convince the people bombing planned parenthood centers of this, we'd be in good shape. I think most reasonable people agree that the need for abortions is to be avoided.

And yet, sadly, these same "reasonable people" don't agree that we should have sytems in place to help people avoid it (e.g. access to birth control, comprehensive sex education).

know1 · July 2008

meistereder wrote:

If we could convince the people bombing planned parenthood centers of this, we'd be in good shape. I think most reasonable people agree that the need for abortions is to be avoided.

And what percentage of the anti-abortion crowd has ever bombed an abortion clinic?

I'm sitting in a Pro Life meeting right now...

Comments

Categories