Pro-life vs Pro-choice

[Lily]

Does anyone else find it ironic that many Christians came to this country to flee religious persecution? Why is it that they now persecute the rest of us? It must be a power thing. They that hold the power make the rules, right?

I don't find it ironic at all. I find it a repeat of the past. Quite a few of the Puritans came because they were pretty much kicked out of England. The high and mighty ones were trying to make decisions for all based on their interpretation of God's love. It wasn't tolerated too well back then, either.

[Theodore]

So basically what you're saying is that my wife should have gone through 9 months of mental torture because of she was sexually abused? How very sadistic you are! I thought the Spanish Inquisition was bad!

The abuser caused the mental torture, not the baby. The baby is innocent. If your next door neighbor looked just like the rapist, would you go shoot him because he reminds you of what happened? You can't be against abortion in principle and then support this particular abortion. It's either all or nothing, or your stance has nothing to do with religion / morality. I'm sorry if that puts you in a bad spot, but it's the only logical way to look at the issue.

[Decrease]

Sunnie,

So, based upon my scenario, would you say that abortion is murder? Or, is my logic wrong? If my logic is wrong then how is it wrong? If it is right, are you concluding that murder is okay based upon choice?

That is how simple the matter is. Either abortion is murder or not. If it is murder then pro-choice believes murder is right based upon another persons choice. If it is not murder then you have to provide rationally how it is not murder.

I think that is rational.

BTW, you have yet to state when life begins, what murder is, or anything like that. You simply state that a woman should have choice. You have yet to prove that presupposition.

OK, enough is enough!! Stop asking me if its murder!! Obviously no matter what the hell I say your going to keep asking me. I have stated I am pro choice, Is it taking a life yes. I HAVE SAID THAT!!!!!! Stop trying to twist my freaking arm to go in your direction all your doing is ticking me off. ALL I SAID IS THAT IT IS NOT MY PLACE TO TELL SOMEONE ELSE THAT CAN OR CAN NOT CHOOSE WHAT TO DO WITH THEIR OWN BODIES!!!!!! Now, I'm DONE!! And, im not trying to freaken prove anything. I was stating what I believe, not trying to change anyones damn mind! Im off to go beat my head against a wall now. Buh bye!

I am sorry my simple question caused such a tyrrade. I just wanted a rational discussion rather than dealing in mere presuppositional issues that are both unprovable and impossible. It was a simple question that deserved a simple answer but I guess you don't like dialog.

[Decrease]

Lily,

Show me how the following is irrational:

Definition: Murder is the taking of an innocent life

Conception is the beginning of life by the following proof:

1. The single cell is a distinct human with distinct DNA characteristics
2. The Single cell if kept in an environment friendly to life, will grow to become an adult. There is nothing else needed besides the basic essentials to life (nutrition and a safe environment).
3. The single cell is scientifically human in every regards.
4. There is no other point in the process in which anyone points to as being the beginning of life.

Therefore, I conclude that the single cell is a human being. Therefore, by definition, the taking of a single cell or greater is murder.

My statements in the previous post states that the other side clearly makes choice more valuable than life... more important than murder. I think that is evident.

Could you please show me where I am irrational in any of the statements above. Could you also please define the beginning of life? WOuld you not agree that you place choice as being more valuable than life or certain lives?

Thanks

Following your logic here, anyone who has ever had an ectopic pregnancy should be damned to die, rather than "murder" a cell, which would die anyway since at this point is a parasite and the human -its host.

And that is why the legal definition is different than your philosophical or religious one as to the start of life. In fact, quite a few religions used to state that the beginning of life was later than the conception date, so the debate on the when is nothing new.

Again, you can't possibly make a decision for everyone. That is why CHOICE is available.

Lilly,

Well, I do believe my definition of murder probably does lack in two regards. One is the issue you brought up and the other I should have inserted "human" before "life" to say "human life".

Morally and religiously, in a case where someone will die, there may be a tough decision that is made and there is not a problem in choosing which life would live. Yet, that is an extreme situation that rarely occurs, but it does occur. In the case where a life of a baby threatens another life, you have the right to protect yourself. That is traditionally not considered murder.

The definition of life. First, I think I showed scientifically that life begins at conception. You do not dispute that. I have yet to show the religious view of when life begins.

Secondly, the issue I do ask you to do is define life.

Finally, if you believe choice should trump life I would ask for the principles that you use in deciding those and why you came up with those principles. Why? Well, are you basing choice upon one being a surrogate? Or, are you basing it upon one being a nuisance who relies upon the host? That criteria is vital in order to understand when we can choose and when we cannot. If you simply say that a woman should be able to choose a baby, then you are making a CHOICE and enforcing that upon society for no logical or rational reason.

At least in my case I think we can agree on the definition of murder and agree on a definition of life. If we can agree on those two things then we can move forward. You may still say it is okay to murder in certain circumstances but we are on the same page.

[Decrease]

So basically what you're saying is that my wife should have gone through 9 months of mental torture because of she was sexually abused? How very sadistic you are! I thought the Spanish Inquisition was bad!

Does anyone else find it ironic that many Christians came to this country to flee religious persecution? Why is it that they now persecute the rest of us? It must be a power thing. They that hold the power make the rules, right?

I’m sorry, I don’t mean to get off on a rant, but I have a hard time believing that a human being would wish that kind of unbearable suffering on a 16 year old girl. What if something like that would happen to one of your own children? Hopefully it wouldn’t, but what if it did? I’m not trying to be personal, just to give you some perspective.

JKenney,

Actually, have you done the research on those sexually abused. There was a survey done by those who kept a child after being sexually abused and those who did not. This study conducted by a renowned University found that no one who decided to keep the child regreted the decision. Yet, they found a high percentage of those who decided to abort regretted the decision. There has been no other study conducted that refutes these findings and all studies done support these findings. In my case, my best friend in High School was a result of a rape. She was and is one of the nicest people you will ever meet.

Also, let me say that I have sat down with many women who have been raped and trying to decide about the life issues... as recently as last week. I do not know the horrors they go through but I have walked with women going through tragedies and later finding they were pregnant. I would never pretend to say it is easy for them. Yet, I do not believe murder is the solution. It is never the solution. If murder is the taking of an innocent human life then we must define life. What is life to you?

Secondly, I am not abusing or persecuting you. I am simply defining life. I think it is persecution by murdering people.

What I want from the other side is a rational dialog on the following:

1. When does human life begin and defend this scientifically.

2. Define murder

3. Is it ever okay to murder, define the principles of murder.

As you can see, I am not persecuting you. Simply speaking, I am trying to engage in a rationale understanding of life and murder. What I find is that most who are "Pro-Choice" avoid these questions because they either can't answer the questions or they are afraid to answer the questions. They do not want to admit that they are murdering a human life. They want to just think they are removing some cells. Yet, the discussion is based upon the idea of "what is life" and "what is murder".

No one wants to engage in that type of dialog, thy just want to say "She should have a choice." Who cares, let's first define life and murder and then we can get to the choice issue. That is, unless someone is afraid to answer those because they hate where it may take them philosophically.

BTW, if you notice, I am not using religious proofs. I am citing scientific and definitional statements. Yet, people think I am using my religion. I can do that but I believe this is a philosophical discussion first.

[Lily]

Lilly,

Well, I do believe my definition of murder probably does lack in two regards. One is the issue you brought up and the other I should have inserted "human" before "life" to say "human life".

Morally and religiously, in a case where someone will die, there may be a tough decision that is made and there is not a problem in choosing which life would live. Yet, that is an extreme situation that rarely occurs, but it does occur. In the case where a life of a baby threatens another life, you have the right to protect yourself. That is traditionally not considered murder.

The definition of life. First, I think I showed scientifically that life begins at conception. You do not dispute that. I have yet to show the religious view of when life begins.

Secondly, the issue I do ask you to do is define life.

Finally, if you believe choice should trump life I would ask for the principles that you use in deciding those and why you came up with those principles. Why? Well, are you basing choice upon one being a surrogate? Or, are you basing it upon one being a nuisance who relies upon the host? That criteria is vital in order to understand when we can choose and when we cannot. If you simply say that a woman should be able to choose a baby, then you are making a CHOICE and enforcing that upon society for no logical or rational reason.

At least in my case I think we can agree on the definition of murder and agree on a definition of life. If we can agree on those two things then we can move forward. You may still say it is okay to murder in certain circumstances but we are on the same page.

I have defined my stance. Your inability to accept it is puzzling. Legally, life does not begin at conception. In my opinion, life is not achieved while in a parasitic state. Until the state of viability, a fetus is nothing more than a parasite and a woman, its host. I do not agree that it is murder, nor do I think it's my place to judge another woman's stance and her situation. And I really dislike your condescending tone and atttempt to put words in my mouth. If you are unclear on something, ask me, don't assume and tell me what I think.

Ectopic pregnancies are not rare. They are quite common. What is rare is death from them now. Your pompous ideas of morality would have several women killed or rendered sterile in order to not terminate such a thing early - which of course is silly, because it's going to die and possibly kill its host anyway.

You know, there are very few 'christians' I know who are pro-life who don't either profit off abortion in some way (as in vaccinations) or use DIY kits every month (birth control pills). And its these who blindly stumble through life that seem to be the most condemning of everyone else's actions, since they do not care to know anything more than the tip of their nose - not even enough to imagine themselves in someone else's shoes.

[Decrease]

You said I refuse to "accept" your beliefs and definitions. I asked questions because you do not define specifics. It is not that I do not accept your viewpoint, but that I believe it is logically inconsistent.

So, you are saying that while the baby is a in a parasitic state is it not viable. So, you would believe it is right to murder that child up until when? In other words, when does human life begin? I think I have scientifically shown that this is a human life from conception, give me an exact point this child is a life that should be protected... 22 weeks, birth???? This is important because the first couple of years of birth, some would still say that the child is in a parasitic state. Would you say that it was okay to kill a senior who was hooked up to feeding tubes and O2 because they are in a parasitic state? Would you believe that parapolegics are in a less of a state because they must rely upon people for their very substance? Some ethicists believe that based upon your argumentation that they hold to, killing a baby should be allowed up to 6 months after they are born. Would you agree? Why or why not? Also, define parasitic state. By most definitions, we are in a parasitic state of the planet earth. Finally, why is being in a parasitic state make the person less of a person? Could you please explain this? Are you saying that dependence upon someone for substance to live makes you less of a person?

By the way, Hitler believed the Jews were parasites of society. How would you differentiate your beliefs from that?

Finally, your statement about profiting from abortions in some manner I want to address. Yes, and there is not a person in the Western world who did not profit in some manner from the experiments Hitler used against the Jews. The medical progress made by Hitler at that time was extraordinary. While we cannot deny the fact it happened this does not mean the method of obtaining those medical advances are right. I hope we will not use the logical fallacy that says that since good came from something it therefore must be good.

[Ceili]

Hmmm…like jkenney, I found this site by doing an “Obama +home schoolâ€

[Lily]

You said I refuse to "accept" your beliefs and definitions. I asked questions because you do not define specifics. It is not that I do not accept your viewpoint, but that I believe it is logically inconsistent.

So, you are saying that while the baby is a in a parasitic state is it not viable. So, you would believe it is right to murder that child up until when? In other words, when does human life begin? I think I have scientifically shown that this is a human life from conception, give me an exact point this child is a life that should be protected... 22 weeks, birth???? This is important because the first couple of years of birth, some would still say that the child is in a parasitic state. Would you say that it was okay to kill a senior who was hooked up to feeding tubes and O2 because they are in a parasitic state? Would you believe that parapolegics are in a less of a state because they must rely upon people for their very substance? Some ethicists believe that based upon your argumentation that they hold to, killing a baby should be allowed up to 6 months after they are born. Would you agree? Why or why not? Also, define parasitic state. By most definitions, we are in a parasitic state of the planet earth. Finally, why is being in a parasitic state make the person less of a person? Could you please explain this? Are you saying that dependence upon someone for substance to live makes you less of a person?

By the way, Hitler believed the Jews were parasites of society. How would you differentiate your beliefs from that?

Finally, your statement about profiting from abortions in some manner I want to address. Yes, and there is not a person in the Western world who did not profit in some manner from the experiments Hitler used against the Jews. The medical progress made by Hitler at that time was extraordinary. While we cannot deny the fact it happened this does not mean the method of obtaining those medical advances are right. I hope we will not use the logical fallacy that says that since good came from something it therefore must be good.

Dear heavens, are you truly serious?

Parasitic - having one host and not being able to transfer. No, humans from birth on are not parasitic.

How on earth do you make a rational leap from that, to Hitler's view of the Jews?

Remember, key word is rational.

ETA: I accept that you believe it is murder, Decrease, but as a grown, thinking adult who has informed hersself quite a bit on this subject, I think I am owed the courtesy of respect of my beliefs and my refusal to make such a personal decision for others. I will continue to give my point of view if you wish it, but the conversation must be a rational one and not full of hype and exagerations. If you do not understand what I am saying, ask me directly instead of going about it in such a way that either tries to inform me of my beliefs or pretends to know them.

[Theodore]

Dear heavens, are you truly serious?

Parasitic - having one host and not being able to transfer. No, humans from birth on are not parasitic.

I don't know - babies are totally reliant on others, and depending on the definition of parasitic that you use (check dictionary.com), babies could be considered parasitic for some time after birth. But is parasitic the correct word to use? A parasite only takes, it doesn't give, but there are plenty of studies showing that women who have children have significantly reduced chances of cancer, mental illness, etc., while women who have abortions show significantly increased chances. Isn't the relationship therefore more of a symbiosis?

[Decrease]

Lily,

There are two types of parasites. External parasites and internal. A tick is a parasite that requires a host. A tape worm is a parasite that operates internally. Is this irrational? If so, please tell me and how. Yet, according to science, I am right about parasites. A baby one day old could be, according to your ideas, be considered an external parasite like a tick. The problem with your rational, as well, is that a parasite is often considered a foriegn species unlike the host species. Thus, a tapeworm is another species. A human is not a different species. This baby has the DNA that is unique but is the same species. In all scientific measurements, this is not even a parasite, but a human with human DNA. As a result, it is neither a parasite nor a part of the mother's body. This is a human life.

You still will not define the exact point of life that should be protected. Why? Are you afraid to? It seems you are pointing to after birth... but you are not clear in your appraisal. I think the reason why is because whatever stand you take is philosophically impossible to argue and maintain consistency.

Yet, the issue is simple. So, I ask you the question, when can we stop calling the baby a parasite and stop killing it. Some ethicists on colleges use your argument to say that a child under 6 months old should be killed. Where do you draw the line?

BTW, I think most mothers if you told them your child was a parasite, would be offended. This is a baby... from conception. Prove it otherwise. I notice you have yet to do so, just calling it a parasite does not mitigate the facts, this is a human life with unique DNA who feels pain, sucks its thumb, hiccups, jumps, and only needs a safe place to develop. It is a child. You are essentially saying that the value of human life is totally measured on how independent the child is. All life is precious, even if you believe it is trash.

Why do you believe that a parasitic state means you are allowed to be destroyed? Do you have any scientific evidence to show a child is anything less than a human life? Or, would you agree, that you are essentially saying that some human life it is okay to murder?

[Decrease]

Addendum,

I wanted to add a couple of things on the parasite issue. First, I think all scientists throughout history have recognized that the parasitic is:

1. Often to the detriment of the host.
2. Often not sought nor desired by the host
3. Is from a foreign species in which the parasite wishes their life is as a parasite.
4. The species that is a parasite is one by its very nature and never "outgrows" this.

Scientists actually have another name for what we are discussing that they say is unique from parasites. The scientific word that you may or may not have heard is called pregnancy. This actually is of benefit. The host actually had to engage in a certain act in order to achieve this state--the vast majority of the time they enjoyed the act and many times with the express purpose of achieving the state of pregnancy. Except recently, this was a desired state. Eventually, the host will "give birth" and have the child who will never ever desire to be in that state again. The organism that is birthed, is not a parasite by nature, in other words it does stop receiving nutrients from the host (usually after College).

I have never seen the host of a parasite cry because they lost the parasite pre-maturely. I have never seen a host of a parasite talk to friends saying how they wished they could get a tape worm. I have never seen a host talk glowingly about how they feel the tapeworm growing inside of them and show off ultra-sound pictures of the little rascal. This is a baby.

Accordingly, my position is consistent. This is not a parasite, no scientist would say this baby is one. My position is the following:

1. This baby in the womb is scientifically a living human with distinct and scientifically verifiable qualities which confirm this fact. This is not, by definition a parasite or something other than a human with life and dignity.
2. All innocent human life should be protected from death.
3. Therefore, a baby in the womb should be protected from death.

That is a logical sequence. You have not refuted one of those three statements. You wish to degrade a baby by calling it a parasite... There is no scientific evidence to support such. This is a baby... who hiccups, jumps, sucks his thumb, and has all the scientific characteristics of a human life in a special event that scientifically we call "pregnancy". If you disagree with any of my 3 points, I will be glad to defend it. Yet, you have failed to even attack these ideas.... you have just resorted to calling a baby a parasite. Please, the next time you go to your OB and see a room full of mothers... go around and tell them they just have a parasite in their belly... not a baby.

You wish to degrade pregnancy to a tape worm, life as a bunch of cells, and uplift choice to the extent of murder.

Yes, if one has had an abortion, there is forgiveness. Yet, let's not degrade one of the most precious things God has given us... the gift of bringing life into this world.

[Lily]

You still will not define the exact point of life that should be protected. Why? Are you afraid to? It seems you are pointing to after birth... but you are not clear in your appraisal. I think the reason why is because whatever stand you take is philosophically impossible to argue and maintain consistency.

I will not address your entire posts. I do not believe summation of points is your strong suit and quite frankly I have limited time to read. Perhaps you can restate clearly your points, and respond to mine and my questions.

This, however, I will take a minute to respond to. No, I will not define the exact point of viability, though I believe it to be around 26 weeks. What I will do is state, yet again, and this time in big, bold letters, that it is not my choice to make for another person. I will not make someone else live to my ideals at the detriment of themselves. That is selfish and wrong, to presume I know what is best for all.

[Theodore]

Hmm. So if someone else decides it's ok to kill their aged relatives, that's fine because it's part of their belief system? What about handicapped children? What about black people? Etc. The only way abortion based on individual decision can be morally ok is if you assume that babies don't count - in which case you're already imposing your point of view. Let's face it, the two viewpoints are mutually exclusive, and it's impossible to be open-minded enough to include both.

The classic example of open-mindedness is a professor who says that all viewpoints are equally valid, then complains when a thief steals his wallet. Wouldn't forcing the thief to give back the wallet be imposing another's viewpoint on him, to his detriment?

[Decrease]

Lily,

So a point of "viability" is the point in which you define when abortions should stop. I did read your entire post, I am sorry you are not going to take the time to read my own. In summary, parasite issue is degrading and wrong and that my point is the following:


1. This baby in the womb is scientifically a living human with distinct and scientifically verifiable qualities which confirm this fact. This is not, by definition a parasite or something other than a human with life and dignity.
2. All innocent human life should be protected from death.
3. Therefore, a baby in the womb should be protected from death.

Therefore, I believe you are saying one of the following:

1. The baby in the womb is either not human.
2. That some innocent human life should not be protected from death (murder).

Thus, I am trying to find a place for life. Yet, in your most recent statement you said essentially #1 does not matter. Why? You said it does not matter when you define life.

Therefore, by your own admission you disagree with this phrase, "All innocent human life should be protected from death".

That is the only rational conclusion to your last post. Therefore, you hold the same belief as Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, etc... I would be glad to argue for my viewpoint "that all innocent human life should be protected from murder."

You have offered no basis for your belief except that you believe it should be a choice (which, by definition, this is circular reasoning. You have not tried to show the logical sequence of that rational, unlike me in which I point out three points).

That is it in a nutshell. You do not believe all innocent human life should be protected from death (murder) and I do.