Pro-life

[Andrew]

.

 

[ValleyGal]

This thread is not about birth control, it's about abortion. If you want to talk about birth control, I recommend you start a thread on that, this one is about abortion.

It's not about abortion either. It's about the terminology surrounding life and abortion.

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

As I said earlier, if people decide to use birth control, then they are preventing new life, and are therefore “anti-life” even if they may condemn abortion. In this case, they are both “anti-abortion” and “anti-life”.

One who is pro-life, but provides birth control may be supporting what is called "harm reduction". Abstaining is one form of it; however, if a person holds back on providing birth control and education for a woman (or man) who has made it clear that sexual activity is something they are actively engaged in, can we then condemn them for further choices made? How is the person providing harm reduction "anti-life"? I guess I'm showing my cards a bit here...

The only option the Lord gives us is to get married and have the number of children God chooses, or stay single and be celibate.

Is this the Catholic view or an accepted biblical view? How does this, then, give clarity to the "anti-abortion" label, which I reject, even though I am pro-life?

Any Christian claiming to be “Pro-Life” but favors birth control is both a liar and a hypocrite. You cannot be Pro-Life and condone birth control. Birth control prevents new life. It is anti-life.

Which is the greater harm -prevention or the taking of life?

 

[ValleyGal]

In the Bible we are commanded to choose. Choose this day whom you will serve
Choose life
So the Bible is not against choice; it is pro choice


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This is the bottom line. I chose life when I had my son. But I will not force my choice on someone else because I value my own right to choose. I would be a hypocrite if I took away other people's right to choose.

This is about the terminology. I am pro-life and chose life for my son. Interestingly, the terminology about abortion can also be applied to assisted suicide. I will never judge another person's decisions because there may come a day when I wish I had that choice available - and pray that God would give me the ability to choose life until natural death. But I do understand why people would choose assisted suicide. They have been pro-life all their lives, until life isn't anything more than barely functioning. I suppose it depends on how you define life. And in the case of assisted suicide, being pro-life is to be anti-death. And yet to die is life for those of us who are believers. Maybe that is the one consolation we can all have as believers regarding abortion - they are alive in Christ. This spiritual element has been missing from this thread. However, the thread is actually about the terminology.

It's not about abortion. It's about terminology.

 

[Lamb]

Isn't the opposite of pro-life... pro-death?

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

Isn't the opposite of pro-life... pro-death?

No. I'm suggesting that the black-and-white thinking we bring to the debate needs closer examination

 

[RichWh1]

Isn't the opposite of pro-life... pro-death?

Not necessarily. Being pro life doesn’t always mean you are against death.
Pro choice can be either choosing life or choosing death or choosing anything


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Joshua1Eight]

Isn't the opposite of pro-life... pro-death?

Abortion is not just merely death. It is murder.

Murder is taking a life out of this world. The opposite of that: Bringing a life into the world.

 

[Joshua1Eight]

This thread is not about birth control, it's about abortion.

I disagree. MILLIONS of people choose not to have sex. That does not make them "anti-life". Not conceiving is not the same thing as purposely killing - you know that.







I find this both illogical and nonsensical. Those against abortion are against killing and child abuse. This has nothing whatsoever to do with not having children. By your logic, a person who doesn't own a car is guilty of stealing. It's simply absurd.

And I'd remind you of what we all know: By far, the largest proponent of birth control is the Catholic Church and its obsession with a particular method couples are taught to have sex but not have children. We all know, the Catholic Church is NOT opposed to birth control (it is the world's largest teacher and proponent of such), it is against certain methods of such - what it calls "unnatural." But it's NOT the birth control it opposes, it's certain methods of such.


This thread is not about birth control, it's about abortion. If you want to talk about birth control, I recommend you start a thread on that, this one is about abortion.




.

Abortion is one form of birth control. And the choice not to have sex is a choice God gives us. The choice that God does NOT give us is to enjoy the pleasures of sex while not accepting the responsibility of taking care of children. If God chooses to close the womb, then that is His choice. It’s not our choice. It’s our choice to refrain from sex. It’s not our choice to have sex and use unnatural means of getting out of the responsibility that goes with it.

 

[Josiah]

This is the bottom line. I chose life when I had my son. But I will not force my choice on someone else because I value my own right to choose. I would be a hypocrite if I took away other people's right to choose.

Whose right to choose?

IMO, a fundamental problem to this rationale is that it actually derprives any choice to the one directly and primarily impacted. In other words, it's about the depriving of choice, not the granting of it. After all, is any choice given to the one to be "terminated?" No. It's a bit like insisting Hitler was just embracing pro-choice when he ordered the "termination" of 6 million Jews.... or that slave owners were just embracing pro-choice when they bought a slave... or a rapist is just embracing "pro-choice" when he rapes a woman.

IMO, in abortion, we can say TWO people are involved... one most directly (since they will be killed) and one less so (as the mother). If "choice" and "freedom" are the key moral issue, then BOTH would need to consent - fully. Now, I realize, an unborn child cannot do that - but that makes this whole basis not only morally problematic and practically impossible. The one to be murdered simply cannot consent, cannot choose that. Thus, it seems to me, the MINIMUM that must be done in a moral, civilized society is to protect and defend that life at least until that one CAN give full, informed consent.

Interestingly, the terminology about abortion can also be applied to assisted suicide.

The morality can, certainly. But there is one enormous difference: In suicide, one is killing SELF. In abortion, one is killing ANOTHER. One with a different DNA, one who 50% of the time is of the opposite gender. True, the unborn RESIDES in her mother but LOCATION does not impact humanity.... and true, the unborn is DEPENDENT on her mother (and will be for perhaps 21 years!!!) but then humans are not independent at any age, even at the age of 16, most would have a hard time existing in isolation from any other human.... and of course one is still human even if on a ventilator and then fully dependent.

I will never judge another person's decisions because there may come a day when I wish I had that choice available

.... and yet virtually every law on the books is about depriving some choice....




.

 

[Lamb]

No. I'm suggesting that the black-and-white thinking we bring to the debate needs closer examination

It's when we re-label things that the original meanings get lost in translation.

Not necessarily. Being pro life doesn’t always mean you are against death.
Pro choice can be either choosing life or choosing death or choosing anything


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Pro Life means exactly what it is...it was labeled as such to mean life for all in the womb, no abortions.

Pro Choice means turning a blind eye to the killing of those in the womb. So those who are pro-choice are okay with the deaths.

Abortion is not just merely death. It is murder.

Murder is taking a life out of this world. The opposite of that: Bringing a life into the world.

Exactly so. It's contemplated murder, not accidental.

We strive so hard to protect those who are already born but so many applaud the death of the unborn. Then then there are those who would easily call the police on the attempted murder of a child already born...but turn a blind eye when he or she still remains inside the mother because then it's the mother's choice to kill? And that's what it is...it's killing their child.

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

It's when we re-label things that the original meanings get lost in translation.

"Original meanings" are subjective, just as someone using the term "anti-abortion" to refer to me since I am pro-life is not correct. It's a subjective judgment

Pro Life means exactly what it is...it was labeled as such to mean life for all in the womb, no abortions.

Okay, I would agree with this.

Pro Choice means turning a blind eye to the killing of those in the womb. So those who are pro-choice are okay with the deaths.

Here's where the trouble comes in. The assumption that a "blind eye" has been turned. Further, that one is "okay" with the deaths. This is subjective and may not be based in truth.

It's contemplated murder, not accidental.

Yes, it is contemplated, not accidental.

We strive so hard to protect those who are already born but so many applaud the death of the unborn.

Who?

Then then there are those who would easily call the police on the attempted murder of a child already born...but turn a blind eye when he or she still remains inside the mother because then it's the mother's choice to kill?

It's a mother's choice to abort. It is tragic and needs not happen. All the opportunities in the world exist for this not to happen. But a tragic fact is that it is a right, and does happen. WHY should one who has made this decision NOT be afforded every amount of care and compassion that can be extended?

And that's what it is...it's killing their child.

And it's tragic

 

[Lamb]

"Original meanings" are subjective, just as someone using the term "anti-abortion" to refer to me since I am pro-life is not correct. It's a subjective judgment

Okay, I would agree with this.

Here's where the trouble comes in. The assumption that a "blind eye" has been turned. Further, that one is "okay" with the deaths. This is subjective and may not be based in truth.

Yes, it is contemplated, not accidental.

Who?

It's a mother's choice to abort. It is tragic and needs not happen. All the opportunities in the world exist for this not to happen. But a tragic fact is that it is a right, and does happen. WHY should one who has made this decision NOT be afforded every amount of care and compassion that can be extended?

And it's tragic

You asked WHO applauds the deaths of the unborn...I can name 3 of my husband's relatives, a famous artist I know from art school and a friend I rode the train with along with her entire family after each one of her 5 abortions.

The mother's choice to abort while in the womb but we have laws to prevent the same murder while outside the womb? That's messed up.

 

[Albion]

Is this the Catholic view or an accepted biblical view?

No, and no. The Catholic Church isn't against birth control (depending on which kind is used) and it doesn't say that a couple has to have as many children as they can.


P.S. This isnt a reply to Tango but I cannot seem to delete that part. Sorry.

 

[tango]

You asked WHO applauds the deaths of the unborn...I can name 3 of my husband's relatives, a famous artist I know from art school and a friend I rode the train with along with her entire family after each one of her 5 abortions.

The mother's choice to abort while in the womb but we have laws to prevent the same murder while outside the womb? That's messed up.

... and the law that classifies killing a pregnant woman as a double homicide (i.e. the baby counts as a life) while simultaneously allowing the mother to kill the baby at will (i.e. the baby doesn't count as a life).

Perhaps the fetus should be called Schrodinger's Human. It would be laughable if it weren't real.

 

[tango]

Murder is taking a life out of this world. The opposite of that: Bringing a life into the world.

Er, no. The opposite of taking a life out of the world is not taking a life out of the world.

 

[ValleyGal]

Whose right to choose?

Currently, the mother's.

IMO, a fundamental problem to this rationale is that it actually derprives any choice to the one directly and primarily impacted. In other words, it's about the depriving of choice, not the granting of it.

Of course it does. Who is going to consent to their own death, aside from those who choose suicide? And the legalities - yes, it's murder. I consider it murder as it applies to me and the decisions I make for me and any being inside of me. But for those who do not consider it a baby, it is not murder, and is not a sin to remove unwanted cells. To others, they do not share morality and do not believe in sin. Etc. The point is, each of us is responsible to God for the decisions we make in our own lives.

IMO, in abortion, we can say TWO people are involved... one most directly (since they will be killed) and one less so (as the mother). If "choice" and "freedom" are the key moral issue, then BOTH would need to consent - fully.

IMO, there are three people involved, and two do not get a choice. IMO, fathers should be involved in the decision, and where there is disagreement, the one who chooses life should get custody of the baby. But this is not a conversation about abortion or beliefs or morality. This is a conversation about language.

and yet virtually every law on the books is about depriving some choice....

Which is why discussions of language used it important. It isn't clear-cut. Harm reduction includes harm to the mom. In other words, women are going to make the decision to abort whether we like it or not. Let's reduce the harm by giving them access to sterile environments so they don't end up using a coat hanger in the back alley.

 

[Lamb]

Currently, the mother's.

Of course it does. Who is going to consent to their own death, aside from those who choose suicide? And the legalities - yes, it's murder. I consider it murder as it applies to me and the decisions I make for me and any being inside of me. But for those who do not consider it a baby, it is not murder, and is not a sin to remove unwanted cells. To others, they do not share morality and do not believe in sin. Etc. The point is, each of us is responsible to God for the decisions we make in our own lives.

IMO, there are three people involved, and two do not get a choice. IMO, fathers should be involved in the decision, and where there is disagreement, the one who chooses life should get custody of the baby. But this is not a conversation about abortion or beliefs or morality. This is a conversation about language.

Which is why discussions of language used it important. It isn't clear-cut. Harm reduction includes harm to the mom. In other words, women are going to make the decision to abort whether we like it or not. Let's reduce the harm by giving them access to sterile environments so they don't end up using a coat hanger in the back alley.

But God considers it a baby so as Christians we listen to what God says, not atheist scientists or politicians:

Luke 1:41 When Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the baby leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit.

 

[Josiah]

Currently, the mother's.

Then I'm right: The whole point is to DEPRIVE any choice to the one most impacted. "Pro-choice" is simply insisting that choice be withheld, disallowed, forbidden. It's a bit like claiming Hitler was just exercising "choice" when he ordered the termination of 6 million Jews because the one most impacted is not given ANY choice.... or like claiming a rapist is just exercising "choice" when he rapes a woman because the one most impacted is deprived of any choice.

There are AT LEAST two impacted by this choice: the child most of all (she will be killed) and also the mother. If there's "choice" when TWO must have the choice - most of all the child, secondly the mother. Otherwise, it's not pro-choice but anti-choice, the deprivation of choice to some.

Who is going to consent to their own death,

Not many. But it's irrelevant to the pro-choice crowd since the one to be killed is not given a choice. Anymore that the Jews of Nazi Germany. "Pro-choice" is actually all about DEPRIVING choice.

IMO, there are three people involved, and two do not get a choice. IMO, fathers should be involved in the decision

Good point.

But the whole "pro-choice" argument is that the child AND THE FATHER are totally deprived of any choice. So much for "pro-choice"




.

 

[tango]

But for those who do not consider it a baby, it is not murder, and is not a sin to remove unwanted cells. To others, they do not share morality and do not believe in sin. Etc. The point is, each of us is responsible to God for the decisions we make in our own lives.

Are you seriously saying that reality is nothing more than what someone else believes it to be? If I consider my annoying neighbor to be "not human" can I just go ahead and kill him? It won't be murder, right?

IMO, there are three people involved, and two do not get a choice. IMO, fathers should be involved in the decision, and where there is disagreement, the one who chooses life should get custody of the baby. But this is not a conversation about abortion or beliefs or morality. This is a conversation about language.

Which is why discussions of language used it important. It isn't clear-cut. Harm reduction includes harm to the mom. In other words, women are going to make the decision to abort whether we like it or not. Let's reduce the harm by giving them access to sterile environments so they don't end up using a coat hanger in the back alley.

I'll probably kill my annoying neighbor sooner or later anyway, so why not just make it legal so I can get on with it and not have to figure out a clever way to make it look like an accident, right?

Harm reduction certainly does include the consideration of harm to the mother. But "I don't really want a baby right now" isn't a good reason to kill the baby, nor is "it's really stressful thinking about this" or similar. The reality is that consenting to sex means consenting to a baby making process, even if you're hoping no babies are actually made. You can't consent to an activity and then claim you didn't consent to the well known consequences of that activity. This is where obvious issues arise in situations such as rape where the mother did not consent to the sex at all, but I suspect rape victims represent a minority of women seeking abortions.