Pro-life vs Pro-choice

Anything having to do with religion or religious debate goes here.

Moderators: Theodore, elliemaejune

Ceili
User
Posts: 20
Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2008 9:28 am

Postby Ceili » Tue Jan 29, 2008 1:38 pm

Decrease wrote:Well, essentially, I think I was just citing you. You said that there is a distinction between being pro-abortion and pro-choice. That may be so, but in the debate about Pro-life, both the pro-abortionist and the pro-choice person would still have to argue the same arguments against the pro-life people. Namely, they would have to say the baby is not a human life or that there is no intrinsic human value in life that should be protected for all human beings.

I was saying they are not one in the same because those who are pro-life tend to use the terms interchangeably--as if they were one in the same. When in reality, one doesn't even exist--it's a made up label.

You keep using terms intended to incite in an attempt to validate your point (again, in vain), but it's not very effective because what it comes down to is what I've already said:
Your trying to convince someone who is pro-choice that they need to feel guilty and stand up for an innocent human being when they do not view a zygote as a human being is pointless and very likely frustrating for you--hence, the inflammatory and fomenting (yet illogical, inaccurate, and irrelevant) references.

What people don't seem to understand is while attempting to rile someone into a good debate, these tactics result in being taken less seriously and often put an end to the debate. And what is even more interesting, is that when the debate comes to a halt, the person using the illogical and irrelevant terminology mistakenly believes that they somehow "won" the debate.

Decrease
User
Posts: 125
Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2008 9:39 am
Location: Verona VA
Contact:

Postby Decrease » Tue Jan 29, 2008 1:46 pm

Ceila,

I hope I do not "make you feel guilty". I do believe emotional arguments are used on either side. Yet, that is why I have been so focused on the two areas that I think can rationally be discussed. First, when human life begins and second the intrinsic value of all human life.

Yes, I do call abortion murder. Yet, that is because I hold to #1 and #2. The goal of the Pro-choice people is to either show that certain murder is acceptable or that this is not an innocent human life.

No guilt about it. Now, I do believe some of what is said can be taken to make one feel guilty. For instance, using the word "murder", but by definition that is what is occurring unless someone wishes to prove this is not an innocent human life.

I think more emotional is when someone says "You want to come between a decision between a woman and her doctor." To which I respond, "Yes, when it involves murder."

The focus on the two issues of this debate is vital to getting to the heart of the issue and what can be debated.

4given
User
Posts: 735
Joined: Thu Mar 22, 2007 5:50 am
Location: S.Indiana

Postby 4given » Tue Jan 29, 2008 1:48 pm

Ceili,

While I must admit that Decrease is hard to follow and annoying at times...

I do not find any statement that would lead me to believe he is trying to make anyone feel guilty. He does seem to be trying to follow a line of reasoning to a logical conclusion. Just my opinion.

And I haven't seen any evidence that Decrease believes he has won this debate. Correct me if I'm wrong.

User avatar
Theodore
Moderator
Posts: 2122
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2005 4:14 pm
Location: Missouri, US
Contact:

Postby Theodore » Tue Jan 29, 2008 1:48 pm

Ceili wrote:
Theodore wrote:We were all given free will, which means we all have the capability to do the wrong thing. That does not mean, however, that we aren't supposed to do our best to convince others that the wrong thing is the wrong thing.


Again...whether or not it's "wrong" is not agreed upon, so the secondary debate is non-existant.


If everyone already agreed that abortion is wrong, there'd be no point to talking to them about it, now would there? No point preaching to the choir.

Again...whether or not it's "wrong" is not agreed upon. If you don't think it's "wrong" (I won't repeat myself--see my previous post if you're interested), there's nothing for which you should be standing up and there's nothing for which you should feel guilty.


You are correct. Feelings of guilt come from knowing you did something wrong. If you don't believe something is wrong, you obviously aren't going to feel guilty for doing it (or letting it happen). However, that has nothing to do with the root question of whether it is wrong, unless you believe that right and wrong are based on personal decision and not an absolute standard.

What are two different beliefs? Pro-choice and pro-abortion? There isn't even such a thing as pro-abortion. I've never met anyone who was pro-abortion. "Pro-abortion" is an inflammatory label created by those who are against abortion trying, in vain, to make a better argument.


Like I said before, there isn't really a middle ground on this issue. Either you're against abortion or you're in favor of it - having no opinion just means you're giving the latter group your tacit approval. If you don't agree with that, then there's no use arguing the point further.

Ceili
User
Posts: 20
Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2008 9:28 am

Postby Ceili » Tue Jan 29, 2008 2:59 pm

When I mentioned guilt, that was what I viewed as the intention of using terms like “murderâ€

User avatar
Theodore
Moderator
Posts: 2122
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2005 4:14 pm
Location: Missouri, US
Contact:

Postby Theodore » Tue Jan 29, 2008 4:24 pm

Ceili wrote:But, if you want to try, that's fine. But it's unlikely to happen—especially by using words intending to incite. The object of the game is to persuade not incite. I really don't think that making someone leave the discussion because they think you're totally ridiculous is the way to go. That is just my humble opinion, mind you.


Well, you certainly don't want to get personal and insult a person directly. That's just admitting that you've run out of rational things to say and are conceding the argument. However, there are many issues that you can't really discuss without starting heated arguments, as there's always someone who will get offended. My philosophy is to be civil, but not necessarily to treat everyone's ideas with kid gloves. If an argument can't make it through the fire unscathed, it obviously has something wrong with it.

You can't convince everyone, and the people who you don't convince may often end up flaming you. That's their problem, not yours.

Ceili
User
Posts: 20
Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2008 9:28 am

Postby Ceili » Tue Jan 29, 2008 4:51 pm

Theodore wrote:
Ceili wrote:But, if you want to try, that's fine. But it's unlikely to happen—especially by using words intending to incite. The object of the game is to persuade not incite. I really don't think that making someone leave the discussion because they think you're totally ridiculous is the way to go. That is just my humble opinion, mind you.


Well, you certainly don't want to get personal and insult a person directly. That's just admitting that you've run out of rational things to say and are conceding the argument. However, there are many issues that you can't really discuss without starting heated arguments, as there's always someone who will get offended. My philosophy is to be civil, but not necessarily to treat everyone's ideas with kid gloves. If an argument can't make it through the fire unscathed, it obviously has something wrong with it.

You can't convince everyone, and the people who you don't convince may often end up flaming you. That's their problem, not yours.


I couldn't agree with you more! :)

betterley
User
Posts: 14
Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2007 5:56 pm

Postby betterley » Tue Jan 29, 2008 10:30 pm

Just a quick question, what about in the case of rape? Shouldn’t the victim be able to choose not to have a child from such a devastating life changing event? There are some people that are strong enough to carry a baby in those circumstances, but there are also a lot who could not get through it emotionally.
Carol

Decrease
User
Posts: 125
Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2008 9:39 am
Location: Verona VA
Contact:

Postby Decrease » Wed Jan 30, 2008 12:12 am

If everyone notices, I did something key in this discussion that I believe was not inciting but defining. For instance, I defined what murder was and in regards to the pure definition of murder, this fits that description. Now, if there is a problem with that definition, please show how this is wrong. Which, in my estimation, would require to engage in the debate on whether the baby in the mother is a living human or not.

Secondly, the Hitler issue. There was another issue calling babies parasites. Of which, I simply stated how they differed and should not be compared. The same goes with Hitler. If this baby is a living human then the comparison is valid. If not, then I will grant you the comparison is invalid.

This is not inciting but I believe a proper. We make a definition that is commonly held onto and showing how this fits that definition. That is actually proper debate technique.

Now, if you don't like the murder issue, you the can show how the baby is not a life. The Hitler illustration is based upon the idea that there can be a negative social influence or status. That is the view of Nazi Germany. Now, if there is a difference, I think it should be stated and exemplified.

Yet, if the illustrations are valid then this is not inciting but truth.

User avatar
Theodore
Moderator
Posts: 2122
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2005 4:14 pm
Location: Missouri, US
Contact:

Postby Theodore » Wed Jan 30, 2008 7:20 am

betterley wrote:Just a quick question, what about in the case of rape? Shouldn’t the victim be able to choose not to have a child from such a devastating life changing event? There are some people that are strong enough to carry a baby in those circumstances, but there are also a lot who could not get through it emotionally.


See the earlier post by Decrease, about 1/3 of the way down page 3 of the discussion. There are many people who commit suicide after having an abortion too, I'm willing to bet that the percentage of those is significantly higher even among rape victims than the percentage who can't "get through it" initially.

That's ignoring, of course, the question of cancer, which is several times more likely if you abort than if you carry to term. Abortion screws up the hormonal balance big time.

Lily
User
Posts: 427
Joined: Sun Jun 10, 2007 5:51 am

Postby Lily » Wed Jan 30, 2008 7:46 am

Theodore wrote:
That's ignoring, of course, the question of cancer, which is several times more likely if you abort than if you carry to term. Abortion screws up the hormonal balance big time.


Proof? Because everything I've read says that pregnancy ups the risk of cancer, not abortion. Oh, and could you find actual cancer sites/references? The abortion ones tend to skew the facts to fit their point of view.
"The greatest sign of success for a teacher... is to be able to say, "The children are now working as if I did not exist."
- M. Montessori
Proud non-member of the HSLDA

Decrease
User
Posts: 125
Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2008 9:39 am
Location: Verona VA
Contact:

Postby Decrease » Wed Jan 30, 2008 8:12 am

The abortion cancer link has been studied several times and I think it is rather conclusive
http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/med ... /index.htm

Yet, let me note that I do not use that as evidence against abortion for a couple of reasons. Mainly, would abortion still be right if they could curve the risk through other medications or procedures?

Thus, the issue of whether abortion is the taking of an innocent life or the intrinsic value of all human life is where the debate should rage. They are the core topics on this discussion.

Lily
User
Posts: 427
Joined: Sun Jun 10, 2007 5:51 am

Postby Lily » Wed Jan 30, 2008 8:51 am

Decrease wrote:The abortion cancer link has been studied several times and I think it is rather conclusive
http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/med ... /index.htm



People believing it is not the same as proof.

Are you going to tell me the Easter bunny is pink and fuzzy and real because you can list people who believe that?
"The greatest sign of success for a teacher... is to be able to say, "The children are now working as if I did not exist."

- M. Montessori

Proud non-member of the HSLDA

Decrease
User
Posts: 125
Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2008 9:39 am
Location: Verona VA
Contact:

Postby Decrease » Wed Jan 30, 2008 9:12 am

Lily,

I believe if you read some of the links, they cite studies showing the abortion cancer link and the like. Yet, again, this is only an issue if you believe morality should be based upon the risk of cancer. I think that is a poor analysis and believe we would be better spent discussing either the beginning of life or the intrinsic value of human life.

User avatar
Theodore
Moderator
Posts: 2122
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2005 4:14 pm
Location: Missouri, US
Contact:

Postby Theodore » Wed Jan 30, 2008 1:50 pm

I think that since one of the major arguments used for keeping abortion legal is that women would hurt themselves with back-alley abortions, the long-term health effects of abortion (re: cancer) are extremely relevant.


Return to “Religious Discussion / Topics”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest