Pro-life

[doug yowell]

The original post mentions several things that make abortion rarer other than legislation: high quality sex education and access to contraception, for two. Education in general, for another.

Just these two assertions alone are untrue. Today's woman has unparalleled access to contraception and sex education yet the number of abortions (I'm only talking USA) has remained the constant since abortion was legalized in 1973.General education beyond high school shows a decline in pregnancies (and thus abortions). Arguing that killing one's unborn child becomes a pro-life option because a woman hasn't had enough schooling is an oxymoron.

[Bravus]

Which is why that is not what I was arguing. Nor do I think it was what the original post was arguing.

As I said above, no-one here is arguing *for* abortion. They're arguing that a position *against* abortion is laudable - but that to be logically consistent it makes sense to also be *for* a variety of other things.

If you're happy to be logically inconsistent, no problem.

Just don't assume that anything that uses the 'pro-life' meme has to be an argument for or against abortion. It wasn't and isn't.

[CoAspen]

You have covered my thoughts on the subject.

One example of the inconsistency of 'pro life' is that many do not take a stand against war. When using the term 'collateral damage' in defense of 'freedoms' we have a real problem.

We are either 'pro life' for everyone or we simply use the term to push our own personal agenda. When that happens, saying a person is 'pro life' loses it validity.

That is the way I read the article and some of the thoughts it ignited. Consistency is at the root of the issue.

[phkrause]

You have covered my thoughts on the subject.

One example of the inconsistency of 'pro life' is that many do not take a stand against war. When using the term 'collateral damage' in defense of 'freedoms' we have a real problem.

We are either 'pro life' for everyone or we simply use the term to push our own personal agenda. When that happens, saying a person is 'pro life' loses it validity.

That is the way I read the article and some of the thoughts it ignited. Consistency is at the root of the issue.

Excellent points CoA

[doug yowell]

Which is why that is not what I was arguing. Nor do I think it was what the original post was arguing.

If you don't see that that's exactly what the OP was arguing then we'll never get anywhere in this discussion.Why does the article go out of it's way to target only "pro-fetus" (you'll notice that the OP didn't identify the unborn as a baby,think that was just an oversight?) supporters who call themselves pro-life? It's just the same old anti-pro-lifer arguments wrapped in a new rhetorical package. And you still haven't demonstrated why any of the points are legitimate necessities for being pro-life. Nor have you responded to my question about one (now two)conspicuous omission in the list?Nor have you told the forum what exactly my beliefs are regarding abortion even though you said that your take was divergent from mine.Start by defending one of the claims made by the OP rather than simply stating that they are consistent.On the positive side, however, at least you're directly addressing me, and that's a good thing.

[Bravus]

Nup. Not interested in *either* a direct one-to-one argument - that could go to PM, this is a discussion forum - or in playing 'guess what's in my head'.

If you see omissions, point them out and I'll address them.

But you can't just make an assumption about the intentions of the poster and then tell everyone who interprets it differently that they are wrong.

[doug yowell]

As I said above, no-one here is arguing *for* abortion.

[doug yowell]

The original post mentions several things that make abortion rarer other than legislation: high quality sex education and access to contraception, for two. Education in general, for another.

So again, it's been pointed out that the claim that these things that make abortion rarer are,in fact, false indefensable,claims. So if these claims are erroneous, why should one expect that the other points have any more validity?

[doug yowell]

Nup. Not interested in *either* a direct one-to-one argument - that could go to PM, this is a discussion forum - or in playing 'guess what's in my head'.

.

You mean like "someone" reading my posts and then telling the forum that I was angry?

[Bravus]

Evidence please. In fact you *posted* that 'general education beyond high school makes pregnancies (and therefore abortions) rarer', or words to that effect.

Off to a job interview now, but will post evidence relating to the other two claims when I get back.

Your assertion is not evidence.

[doug yowell]

One example of the inconsistency of 'pro life' is that many do not take a stand against war. When using the term 'collateral damage' in defense of 'freedoms' we have a real problem.

We are either 'pro life' for everyone or we simply use the term to push our own personal agenda. When that happens, saying a person is 'pro life' loses it validity.

.

Thanks for addressing one of the issues here,CoA.So let's examine the issue more closely.Are you saying that ANY support of any war is inconsistent with a pro-life identity? Clarity is important and I can't know what you really intend by this statement if you are not a little more precise.

[doug yowell]

Evidence please. In fact you *posted* that 'general education beyond high school makes pregnancies (and therefore abortions) rarer', or words to that effect.

[Nic Samojluk]

CoAspen wrote:

“One example of the inconsistency of 'pro life' is that many do not take a stand against war.”

You are not comparing apples with apples! Take the case of the war to liberate Europe from Hitler. Would you condemn the U.S. for engaging in said war? Was it wrong for our country to defend itself after Pearl Harbor?

How can you compare self defense or the defense of a victim of violence with abortion? In the case of abortion the abortionist is the aggressor. The aim of pro-lifers is acting in defense of the victim.

“When using the term 'collateral damage' in defense of 'freedoms' we have a real problem.”

It all depends on what kind of freedom we are talking about! Is it the freedom from foreign domination, or the freedom to dominate others?

What about the collateral damage when the police respond to a hostage situation and an innocent person is killed? Should we condemn the police for the collateral damage?

[Stan]

Thought this was interesting

[Nic Samojluk]

Obama’s problem is that he doesn’t see the unborn as a human being. If he were to admit that the unborn baby is in fact a member of the human race, he would see the need to protect the innocent victim from a violent death.

The duty of the government is to protect the right to life of all human beings and to protect their property. This moral and legal duty is valid regardless of any religious persuasion.

There is a terrible inconsistency in the government’s attitude towards the abortion issue. If a woman wants the unborn baby, killing her baby is murder, but if the woman doesn’t want the baby, no crime is committed when an abortionists dismembers the body of the unborn. This is moral madness!

Let’s remember what Obama said about abortion some years ago: “I don’t want my daughters to be punished with an unwanted baby.” Obama is morally inconsistent, in my view.

[Neil D]

Obama’s problem is that he doesn’t see the unborn as a human being. If he were to admit that the unborn baby is in fact a member of the human race, he would see the need to protect the innocent victim from a violent death.

The duty of the government is to protect the right to life of all human beings and to protect their property. This moral and legal duty is valid regardless of any religious persuasion.

Given the above Obama quote, and taken your stance as outlined above, I have to understand something hypothetically....

Human life has stages...there is the wanted life of a child, in this case, me....I also when thru the stage of fetus, infant, baby, youth, teen, and adult...In the adult stage of my life, there is reproduction, maturity and aging and finally death...I have to go thru each of these stages. They are given to me to use to my best ability...A problem in any stage can result in ending my life. I, naturally, desire the best outcomes at any time...but sometimes/occasionally, these stages dont result in the best outcomes...For example, when a disease come to me, I desire to be rid of the disease. Why? because it is not the best outcome... And whether we like it or not, life desires to live, but it might not have the right to live because it will not produce the best outcome for me....Even disease desires to live, but it will not produce the best outcome...for me...

Whether you agree with us or not, all life forms desire life...not all life forms have the right to live....Lupus or Cancer are two items...murders are another....and baby/fetuses are another...but not all choices rest with me...And I don't want goverment telling me that I HAVE to carry to term a child that I don't want....Let me decide what to do with my mistake....after all, I am the one that is responsible.

[CoAspen]

For the "PRO-LIFE"

What I am continuing to read here and being stated, is that being pro-life is only about one thing...abortion. That was the reason for the original article posting.

Babies and children of nations we choose to be at war with, are okay to die? We are defending our freedom and taking another life so we can live, just a defensive tactic? What choice were they given?

I also see a desire to force a persons belief on others. The Pres is criticized for saying he must represent all people, not just his own. Based on such criticism, and the talk of morality with it, whose morality is to be unforced?

Is not all life sacred or just those lives we deem sacred? To say we are only talking about those that don't have a choice, is a red herring and obfuscation.

Disagree, then explain your position on sentence two above!

[doug yowell]

For the "PRO-LIFE"

What I am continuing to read here and being stated, is that being pro-life is only about one thing...abortion. That was the reason for the original article posting.

Babies and children of nations we choose to be at war with, are okay to die? We are defending our freedom and taking another life so we can live, just a defensive tactic? What choice were they given?

I also see a desire to force a persons belief on others. The Pres is criticized for saying he must represent all people, not just his own. Based on such criticism, and the talk of morality with it, whose morality is to be unforced?

Is not all life sacred or just those lives we deem sacred? To say we are only talking about those that don't have a choice, is a red herring and obfuscation.

Disagree, then explain your position on sentence two above!

You already made your statement on anti-war/pro-life so why don't you answer the(your own) question? I already asked you to clarify your previous statement concerning the same clarification of the morality of supporting war or not? Every war involves the taking of human life and the collateral fallout of the deaths of other "innocent" human beings.Neither the article nor you have allowed for war in any circumstance and have claimed that any position that does not condemn war in every case cannot be legitimately be labeled as pro-life. Is that your position or do you allow for any "just war"? I'm intersted in applying Bravus' law of logic to our pro-life definition and I don't want to misrepresent anyone's position.

[doug yowell]

Thought this was interesting

See, even Stan and Pres. Obama see this thread as focusing on the abortion issue!!

[doug yowell]

Given the above Obama quote, and taken your stance as outlined above, I have to understand something hypothetically....

Human life has stages...there is the wanted life of a child,

[BobRyan]

Pro life means not killing those women and men in their pre-born state.

Pro life mean not killing humans for the sake of convenience.

Pro life means not killing the pre-born babies in demonstration of your free will to "choose".

Pro life means valuing human life even in its preborn state.

When civilizations turned to the killing of their own infants they filled up their cup of iniquity.

Turns out "that is a bad thing".

Pro life means that we value human life today instead of yielding to popular ideas about downgrading the value of human life.

Many today who would not think of approving slavery the way the democrats did in the 1800's will not give a second thought to approving the killing of humans if they are not quite born.

In the 1800's SDAs were on the record as voting against slavery - and upholding the value of human life.

In modern times our own religious liberty department as seen its way clear to not side with abortionists under that same principle of upholding the value of human life.

So what is the logical end of those who deny these glaringly obvious truths?

Someone has already been kind enough to illustrate that end for us --

Quote:

Not all life forms have the right to live....Lupus or Cancer are two items...murders are another....and baby/fetuses are another

in Christ,

Bob

[M. T. Cross]

Seems to me that the original post very clearly points out that the catch phrase "Pro-Life" is much bigger than just being anti abortion.

A great point was made in another post - why do we place the importance of an unborn life above that of the many children that are killed in times of war? Why should that life concern us more than the other? I guess it is biblically workable, since it did not seem to matter how many small children were likely killed as the Hebrews made thier warring way across the land after leaving Egypt. I can't imagine that when the walls of Jericho came down all were safe......

As far as abortion is concerned, I don't think it should ever be illegal. I think laws could be more defined on it, possibly a criteria to be met. I agree that sex ed is very very important. Yes there is, in Western Culture, more contrecptives available than ever - and they are often free. But what has not changed is the stigma of a girl being scared of being labeled as a [censored] if she uses these services. What also has not changed is sex being an emotional act that is most often spur of the moment - especially among the youth. What has not changed is that guys will successfully use the whole "Its ok baby, you can't get pregnant from one time" (or some other line ) with a girl that is caught up in the moment of feeling special, beautiful, and loved.

Want to prevent unwanted pregnancies? We need to change society as a whole. Now some of those changes may conflict with Christian moral standards.Some of those changes have to be with the media monster that makes young girls feel that they need to be sexy, beautiful and loved by a guy. Empower those girls to feel good about themselves for simply being themselves and you will see changes.

It also is inaccurate to say that making abortion illegal makes much of a difference in number of abortions. See the thing is, there is not much recorded data on the number of coat hanger type abortions or self induced miscarriages. I personally would much rather see these women get the procedure done in a safe, sanitary clinical enviroment - regardless of what I think about their decision.

For the record I would like to say that abortion being used as a method of birth control leaves a real sour taste in my mouth. I don't think it is right. But that is my personal view. I don't think I have the right to push it on others.

[doug yowell]

Pro life means not killing those women and men in their pre-born state.

Pro life mean not killing humans for the sake of convenience.

Pro life means not killing the pre-born babies in demonstration of your free will to "choose".

Pro life means valuing human life even in its preborn state.

Pro life means that we value human life today instead of yielding to popular ideas about downgrading the value of human life.

I previously asked the question of what was a glaring omission from the list of pro-life attributes. No one who supported the original article premise was willing to even venture an honest guess. Thanks for supplying the obvious answer,Bob.

[M. T. Cross]

Bob, Doug.......

Take a minute to think about the state of the world. Then please tell me what is so great about the human species.

[doug yowell]

In modern times our own religious liberty department as seen its way clear to not side with abortionists under that same principle of upholding the value of human life.

I will take strong issue with this statement,however. Even a brief look at the contemporary (past 30 years)history of our RL dept. will show that it has often sided with the abortion on demand crowd and never supported the pro-life cause under the same principles that you have decried above. Sorry but this is a sadly well documented fact.But that would be another unfortunate thread. Just