Is The March For Life A Waste Of Time?

[add]

[quote name='Ice_nine' timestamp='1327938284' post='2377648']


lol I was talking about the brother who wrote the article. Not you silly
[/quote]
What you talking about, Willis?

[4588686]

[quote name='Maggie' timestamp='1327857397' post='2376992']
I think legalized abortion will only end when it is seen as a secular civil rights issue, not just as a "religious beliefs" issue.
[/quote]

I agree with this. It is stunning how little thought much of the left has put into the infanicidial implications of unrestricted abortion.

I think the problem that a lot of people like myself have with the pro-life movement is its uncompromising nature and the potential interminability of the cause.

In the very first weeks of fetal development the argument against abortion is almost totally religious. Yet the pro-life movement will never agree to, for example, allowing unrestricted abortion within the first month but a total ban after that. The pro-life movement will not stop, it seems to me, until a fertilized egg is granted the same rights as any other citizen of this country.

A related matter is that the cause seems interminable. I really doubt that most pro-life people will be willing to stop with just abortion. The same individuals, generally speaking, are just as passionate about denying homosexuals equal rights and see laws prohibiting contraception as equally fundamental to ending the 'culture of death.'

Therefore people who do not want their sexual practices subject to the approval of the religious right-wing see things, quite correctly, as somewhat zero-sum. Either the prerogative of the religious conservatives to dictate other people's sexual and reproductive practices is totally smashed or our rights will forever be subject to the professionally pious.

[MissyP89]

[quote name='MissScripture' timestamp='1327848622' post='2376937']
He sounds like the religion dept where I went to high school. They almost didn't let one of my friends start a pro-life club called "Little Feet" because it was focusing on abortion and not the other pro-life issues. My question is, if people can't respect life at it's earliest, most innocent stage, who is going to respect it later on?
[/quote]

And why would "the other pro-life issues" matter at all if abortion isn't first and foremost? No right to be alive = no other rights.

[quote name='dUSt' timestamp='1327856530' post='2376984']
The priest at my grandma's church talked about abortion in his homily, and I think he made an excellent point...

Even though he wishes Roe vs Wade would be overturned, he pointed out it would not end abortion. It would simply put the decision back to the state level, where women would still be able to cross state lines to get abortions if they wanted.

He said the only way to stop abortion is by changing one person at a time. And that is OUR job. Each of us must have the courage to defend life everywhere we go--at our jobs, our schools, within our families, etc. It is up to US to change hearts--not the government.
[/quote]

Amen! So many in the pro-life movement see the end of Roe v. Wade as a quick fix that will change everything. But it's not the law that needs to change (although that would help immensely), it's hearts and minds.

[quote name='Maggie' timestamp='1327857397' post='2376992']
I think the March is a good thing and I think it is wonderful there is so much prayer involved, but at the same time it can kind of be seen as a Right Wing Jesus People March. I think legalized abortion will only end when it is seen as a secular civil rights issue, not just as a "religious beliefs" issue. So I am conflicted, like in the video there are images of the crucifix and Our Lady of Guadalupe and while I know at a deeper level that is great and good, I almost wish there was less of that.
[/quote]

I agree. I understand your sentiments completely. Abortion isn't a religious issue, really, but a human rights issue. While it makes a whole lot of sense that people of faith gravitate to that belief, and often ground their belief [i]in [/i]that faith, it does have a tendency to alienate people.

Some people might listen to a pro-life position when argued from an entirely secular, reason-based angle. But those same people may be isolated and weirded out when they discover I'm one of those people praying in front of my local clinic.

It's kind of like arguing in favor of Christianity using only quotes from the Bible. That's also why the Church in her wisdom believes in [i]fides et ratio -- [/i]faith [i]and [/i]reason.

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1327974965' post='2378009']
In the very first weeks of fetal development the argument against abortion is almost totally religious. ... The pro-life movement will not stop, it seems to me, until a fertilized egg is granted the same rights as any other citizen of this country.[/quote]

Not true. When I became pro-life a few years ago, my faith ironically had nothing to do with it. Life begins at conception, period. You can leave out all the bits about God and dignity and souls if you want. All life deserves protection from the second that process begins. It's not just a zygote that will "become" a life at some contended point. The pro-life movement is only refusing to accept the idea that some stages of life are better or somehow more valuable than others.

[4588686]

[quote name='MissyP89' timestamp='1327978492' post='2378060']

Not true. When I became pro-life a few years ago, my faith ironically had nothing to do with it. Life begins at conception, period.[/QUOTE]

According what? Without the religious notion of some immortal soul I'm not sure how you can get there

[QUOTE]You can leave out all the bits about God and dignity and souls if you want. All life deserves protection from the second that process begins. It's not just a zygote that will "become" a life at some contended point. [/QUOTE]

You're conflating human life with human person without justifying the conflation. A brain dead body with no conscious activity is a living human thing, in that it is matter with the genetic identity of a human being. Does that human thing possess personhood? Absent the notion of a soul, personhood is usually defined in terms of consciousness. As that's the thing of value that merits preservation.

[tinytherese]

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1327981866' post='2378094']
According what? Without the religious notion of some immortal soul I'm not sure how you can get there



You're conflating human life with human person without justifying the conflation. A brain dead body with no conscious activity is a living human thing, in that it is matter with the genetic identity of a human being. Does that human thing possess personhood? Absent the notion of a soul, personhood is usually defined in terms of consciousness. As that's the thing of value that merits preservation.
[/quote]

So when someone is asleep or in a comma, they are not persons?

As far as when life begins, look at science books in regards to embryos. From the moment of conception, a separate being from the mother is in her womb.

[Norseman82]

[quote name='tinytherese' timestamp='1327986232' post='2378117']
So when someone is asleep or in a [b]comma[/b], they are not persons?
[/quote]

Or when they are having their [b]period[/b]?












(sorry, couldn't resist)

Edited January 31, 2012 by Norseman82

[Socrates]

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1327974965' post='2378009']
I agree with this. It is stunning how little thought much of the left has put into the infanicidial implications of unrestricted abortion.[/quote]
Dr. Peter Singer put plenty of thought into it, and has no problem with legalizing infanticide for children up to two years of age.

He (correctly) notes that there is no logical reason for allowing the killing of a baby before birth, but not after, as the only real change occurring in birth is one of location.

[quote]I think the problem that a lot of people like myself have with the pro-life movement is its uncompromising nature and the potential interminability of the cause.

In the very first weeks of fetal development the argument against abortion is almost totally religious. Yet the pro-life movement will never agree to, for example, allowing unrestricted abortion within the first month but a total ban after that. The pro-life movement will not stop, it seems to me, until a fertilized egg is granted the same rights as any other citizen of this country. [/quote]
You could argue that any rules based on the idea of the sacredness of human life, and that human beings have an intrinsic right to life are "almost totally religious." And appealing to "human rights" is circular reasoning, as it avoids the issue of where these rights come from. If rights come from the state, then the state can take them away. The strong killing the weak happens all the time in nature.

The same embryo grows into a baby, into a child, into an adult. Growth of this living person is continuous and organic. There's no single point where a second before the baby was not human, then a second after becomes "human."


[quote]A related matter is that the cause seems interminable. I really doubt that most pro-life people will be willing to stop with just abortion. The same individuals, generally speaking, are just as passionate about denying homosexuals equal rights and see laws prohibiting contraception as equally fundamental to ending the 'culture of death.'

Therefore people who do not want their sexual practices subject to the approval of the religious right-wing see things, quite correctly, as somewhat zero-sum. Either the prerogative of the religious conservatives to dictate other people's sexual and reproductive practices is totally smashed or our rights will forever be subject to the professionally pious.[/quote]
Yeah, yeah. Give those pro-life religious conservatives an inch (such as by allowing any restrictions on abortion, or handing abortion laws back to the states), and next thing you know there'll be cops in every bedroom and women stoned in the streets for adultery!

This is the sort of blanket argument, slippery-slope nonsense you'd rip to shreds were it made by someone on the "religious right."

While I believe contraception is immoral, the truth is that there are absolutely no politicians of any stature in this country striving to make it illegal, nor is there any widespread political movement to ban contraception. As my priest noted, even the most conservative, right-wing Protestant denominations allow contraception, and over 90% of American "Catholics" use contraception. As an orthodox Catholic, I certainly don't see that as a good thing, but the whole "outlaw abortion, and they'll ban contraception!" thing is nothing but a bug-bear completely unrelated to political reality.

Likewise, while I also disagree with you about it, abortion and homosexuality are different issues, and there are people who are pro-life and support so-called "gay rights." I've seen "Gays for Life" at the March for Life.


One could just as accurately argue that unless the prerogative of the secularist left to restrict the influence of religion in the public sphere is totally smashed, Christians will end up being shipped out to gulags, and priests and nuns herded to the guillotine.

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1327981866' post='2378094']
You're conflating human life with human person without justifying the conflation. A brain dead body with no conscious activity is a living human thing, in that it is matter with the genetic identity of a human being. Does that human thing possess personhood? Absent the notion of a soul, personhood is usually defined in terms of consciousness. As that's the thing of value that merits preservation.
[/quote]
It's defined as consciousness by Peter Singer types who support infanticide and killing the retarded. Consciousness can be hard to accurately determine, and it's simply not true that someone who is unconscious is not a human being. The fact that a being is human and alive should qualify it for personhood. Anything is else is basing "personhood" on extraneous factors, which is a dangerous path to take.

Edited January 31, 2012 by Socrates

[tinytherese]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1328053607' post='2378586']
As an orthodox Catholic, I certainly don't see that as a good thing, but the whole "outlaw abortion, and they'll ban contraception!" thing is nothing but a bug-bear completely unrelated to political reality.
[/quote]

In theory though, abortafacients could be banned (though perhaps not likely.)

[kujo]

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1327981866' post='2378094']


According what? Without the religious notion of some immortal soul I'm not sure how you can get there
[/quote]

When fertilization occurs, something is created. That something is an organism which we call "homo sapien." If you're a homo sapien, you're a human. If you're a human, your right to life ought to be protected by law.

That's how I get there with those who aren't religiously inclined.