Pro-Abortion

[Anomaly]

15 hours ago, Peace said:

If you believe that the issues that Knight, I, and others have been discussing are simple, I suggest that you think about them more deeply and rejoin the conversation after doing so.

I will try not to choke on my own drool while reading.

I will try again.   Not being 100% against abortion (defined as an intentional act whose purpose is to kill or destroy a fertilized egg at some point of development into an adult ) is pro abortion.    

One could argue and equivocate the degree of pro abortion, and why.  The "label semantics" do not matter to the aborted entity.

 

[Not A Real Name]

51 minutes ago, Peace said:

Maybe you should speak to more people.

I've spoken to many of them. Friends, family, and strangers. The label pro-choice was created by those who supported abortion. If they support abortion laws then they are pro-abortion. It's not complicated or derogatory to call them pro-abortion. Pro-lifers can also be called anti-abortion, since that is what they are.  I do find it ironic that you do not like the term "pro-abortion" for "pro-choicers" but you're happy to call "pro-lifers" as "anti-abortion." You do know if you call one group "anti" you are therefore calling their opponents "pro", right?

 

[Peace]

1 hour ago, Anomaly said:

I will try not to choke on my own drool while reading.

I will try again.   Not being 100% against abortion (defined as an intentional act whose purpose is to kill or destroy a fertilized egg at some point of development into an adult ) is pro abortion.    

One could argue and equivocate the degree of pro abortion, and why.  The "label semantics" do not matter to the aborted entity.

 

Unfortunately we do not have a magical button that we can push that will eliminate or allow all abortions. People will have them regardless of whether they are legal or illegal, and regardless of what penalty is applied. The issue here is what penalty (if any) must one advocate for in order not to be labeled "pro-abortion". 

The standard that you set forth (anything less than 100 percent against) likely makes you, me, Knight and virtually everyone else "pro-abortion".

This is because your standard is hopelessly vague. What makes someone "100 percent against" abortion (defining abortion as you set forth above)? 

1) If a woman says "I would never have an abortion and I believe that it is morally wrong" is she 100 percent against it? 

2) If a woman says "I would never have an abortion, I believe that it is morally wrong, and anyone who has an abortion or assists in one should be given a 1 dollar fine," is she 100 percent against it?

3) If woman says "I believe that abortion is wrong and that anyone who has one should be given the death penalty, but not physically punished" is she 100 percent against it? 

4) If a woman says "I believe that abortion is wrong and that anyone who has one should be fined, physically punished, tortured, and given the death penalty" is she 100 percent against it?

You and Knight probably fall somewhere less than (4) above, and therefore you are not 100 percent against abortion. So why are the two of you also not "pro-abortion"? You sound pretty pro-abortion to me.

You have not provided any logical reason why the person in (1) should be considered "pro-abortion" and you should not. You are arbitrarily applying a standard in a way that enables you to label others while avoiding the same label yourself. It is all too convenient.

2 hours ago, KnightofChrist said:

Motives and reasoning for murder can be highly complex, but murder is rather simple. Someone who murders another and someone who thinks murder should not be unlawful is pro-murder. That much is simple.  Anomaly is correct.

OK, then you are pro-masturbation, or whatever sins you commit that you don't think there should be a criminal penalty for.

1 hour ago, Not A Real Name said:

I've spoken to many of them. Friends, family, and strangers. The label pro-choice was created by those who supported abortion. If they support abortion laws then they are pro-abortion. It's not complicated or derogatory to call them pro-abortion. Pro-lifers can also be called anti-abortion, since that is what they are.  I do find it ironic that you do not like the term "pro-abortion" for "pro-choicers" but you're happy to call "pro-lifers" as "anti-abortion." You do know if you call one group "anti" you are therefore calling their opponents "pro", right?

 

Thank you for your opinion.

[Anomaly]

Peace,

To the fetus, any permitting of abortion is pro abortion, regardless of penalties for those who commit or allow it.  I don't see any logic or reason to redefine the label to make some people feel better about their reason to commit abortion.  

It is abortion. An act intended to kill someone else that committed no crime or acted with any intent to harm anyone.  How can abortion be justified in any context? 

You started this thread with how you did not like the term, and provided various secondary reasons that justifies an intentional act to kill someone.  That is not a hopelessly vague standard.   Currently, the Catholic Church is very clear about the standard for abortion.   Poverty, rape, are not just circumstances that affect the mother, but the child as well.   We don't condone killing anyone because the are poor or inconvenient or unpleasant unless they are acting with intent to harm.  Murders happen hourly despite being outlawed by every society, ever.   Should we give up on that as well?

Can society do more to eliminate reasons why people seek abortions?! Of course.   Just like we do things to improve society to eliminate crimes and murder.  

But bottom line, killing for convenience is simply horrific to almost all sane people and the vast majority of humanity.  That is simple. 

Edited May 13, 2016 by Anomaly

[KnightofChrist]

1 hour ago, Peace said:

OK, then you are pro-masturbation, or whatever sins you commit that you don't think there should be a criminal penalty for.

Because killing a baby is just like masturbation? Horse flop. There are some sins that can, regrettable, be tolerated but murder is never one of them.  The act of murder must always be condemned by law and those that partake in the act must be punished by law. Those that partake in the act are pro-murder.  I understand you don't like that fact, maybe you have friends or family that are close to you that are pro-abortion/murder and you don't want to think of them in that way. It is hard for me to know that many of my friends and family are pro-abortion/murder. But that is the unfortunate reality. Again you've accepted too much of the pro-abortion logic. But I think at this time it is fruitless to convince you otherwise and I simply do not have the time to try and continue doing so. I hope you will turn from this error in future.

[Peace]

16 minutes ago, Anomaly said:

Peace,

To the fetus, any permitting of abortion is pro abortion, regardless of penalties for those who commit or allow it.  I don't see any logic or reason to redefine the label to make some people feel better about their reason to commit abortion.  

What is "any permitting of abortion"? To permit is to allow to occur. Have you done everything possible that you can do to prevent abortion? No. You spend time on this website when you could be protesting in front of a clinic. Therefore you permit abortion and you are pro-abortion. 

And as I mentioned in my original post, people who call themselves "pro-choice" are not limited to people who have or would have an abortion. Some of those people never would and believe that it is immoral. I do not believe that it is fair to call these people pro-abortion merely because they differ with you concerning the penalty that should be applied to people who have an abortion or assist with an abortion.

16 minutes ago, Anomaly said:

It is abortion. An act intended to kill someone else that committed no crime or acted with any intent to harm anyone.  How can abortion be justified in any context? 

Abortion cannot be justified in any context.

16 minutes ago, Anomaly said:

You started this thread with how you did not like the term, and provided various secondary reasons that justifies an intentional act to kill someone.  That is not a hopelessly vague standard.   Currently, the Catholic Church is very clear about the standard for abortion.   Poverty, rape, are not just circumstances that affect the mother, but the child as well.   We don't condone killing anyone because the are poor or inconvenient or unpleasant unless they are acting with intent to harm.  Murders happen hourly despite being outlawed by every society, ever.   Should we give up on that as well?

I do not know what you are talking about. I completely assent to the Church's teaching on abortion. It should be illegal.

16 minutes ago, Anomaly said:

Can society do more to eliminate reasons why people seek abortions?! Of course.   Just like we do things to improve society to eliminate crimes and murder.  

But bottom line, killing for convenience is simply horrific to almost all sane people and the vast majority of humanity.  That is simple. 

Agreed.

[Anomaly]

Peace,

I guess you're really just trolling. 

I don't patrol my neighborhood either to prevent burglary.    I'm pro burglary. 

[Peace]

23 minutes ago, KnightofChrist said:

Because killing a baby is just like masturbation? Horse flop. There are some sins that can, regrettable, be tolerated but murder is never one of them.  The act of murder must always be condemned by law and those that partake in the act must be punished by law. Those that partake in the act are pro-murder.

You also tolerate murder. You don't think that every person who has an abortion should pay a fine, be physically punished, and given the death penalty. The only thing you disagree upon is the specific penalty that you think is just, but you tolerate abortion as do those who would not apply any criminal penalty. Therefore you are pro-abortion.

Some people who call themselves "pro-choice" actively try to help pregnant women in difficult situations avoid abortion, but I guess they are pro-abortion because they disagree with Knight concerning the proper legal action. I find that to be unwarranted, and you have not provided any logical reason why that should be the case.

Quote

  I understand you don't like that fact, maybe you have friends or family that are close to you that are pro-abortion/murder and you don't want to think of them in that way. It is hard for me to know that many of my friends and family are pro-abortion/murder. But that is the unfortunate reality. Again you've accepted too much of the pro-abortion logic. But I think at this time it is fruitless to convince you otherwise and I simply do not have the time to try and continue doing so. I hope you will turn from this error in future.

Nice speculation, but those are not my motives. 

As for logic, I accept correct logic, and I do not accept incorrect logic. It just so happens that in this case I believe that you are incorrect. I am guessing that you can remember at least one instance in your life where that was the case.

11 minutes ago, Anomaly said:

Peace,

I guess you're really just trolling. 

I don't patrol my neighborhood either to prevent burglary.    I'm pro burglary. 

I am glad that you realize how ridiculous that argument is. But that is the essentially same exact argument that you and Knight are applying to other people.

You are holding others to a standard that you do not apply to yourself.

Edited May 13, 2016 by Peace

[KnightofChrist]

17 minutes ago, Peace said:

You also tolerate murder. You don't think that every person who has an abortion should pay a fine, be physically punished, and given the death penalty. The only thing you disagree upon is the specific penalty that you think is just, but you tolerate abortion as do those who would not apply any criminal penalty. Therefore you are pro-abortion.

False. Anyone that murders anyone else should be punished by law. There are degrees to murder, and each degree carries different penalties but in no way am I in favor of allowing any murder to go unpunished. 

[Peace]

34 minutes ago, KnightofChrist said:

False. Anyone that murders anyone else should be punished by law. There are degrees to murder, and each degree carries different penalties but in no way am I in favor of allowing any murder to go unpunished. 

How about a "pro-choice" person advocating for a one dollar fine then? A one dollar punishment by law?

Under your logic that should be sufficient to change the person from "pro-abortion" to "pro-life" because he is no longer in favor of allowing the crime to go unpunished. 

Or would the one dollar fine be too lenient?

You seem to believe that if a person does not agree with the penalty that you deem to be just, then they are pro-sin. In the case of murder, you suggest that penalty X is appropriate, but anyone who thinks that something less than penalty X is appropriate is pro-murder.

Well then, if I think the penalty for a sin (murder) should be higher than you think it should be, why does that not make you pro-sin (murder)? Again, you are appying a standard to others that you are not appying to yourself. 

But if you want to define or re-define the standard you are using we can re-evaluate it for consistency.

Now, why you think the standard above should be applied only towards certain grave sins, while other sins that are more or less grave such as idolatry or adultery is beyond me, but we can leave this issue aside for the moment.

Edited May 13, 2016 by Peace

[KnightofChrist]

13 minutes ago, Peace said:

How about a "pro-choice" person advocating for a one dollar fine then? A one dollar punishment by law?

Under your logic that should be sufficient to change the person from "pro-abortion" to "pro-life" because he is no longer in favor of allowing the crime to go unpunished. 

Or would the one dollar fine be too lenient?

You seem to believe that if a person does not agree with the penalty that you deem to be just, then they are pro-sin. In the case of murder, you suggest that penalty X is appropriate, but anyone who thinks that something less than penalty X is appropriate is pro-murder.

Well then, if I think the penalty for a sin (murder) should be higher than you think it should be, why does that not make you pro-sin (murder)? Again, you are appying a standard to others that you are not appying to yourself. 

But if you want to define or re-define the standard you are using we can re-evaluate it for consistency.

Now, why you think the standard above should be applied only towards certain grave sins, while other sins that are more or less grave such as idolatry or adultery is beyond me, but we can leave this issue aside for the moment.

As I've stated before I believe in equal protection and equal value, and treating murders that are alike the same as regards to punishment. In the Untied States there is first degree murder which is punished with life in prison or capital punishment. Second degree murder which is punished with a number of years in prison or life in prison. Then there is voluntary manslaughter which can carry a fine or 15 years in prison, and involuntary manslaughter which can carry a fine or 8 years in prison. (according to Wikipedia)

Murder in the first degree of a pre-born person, should be treated the same by the law as murder in the first degree as a toddler person. Because both murdered persons have equal value. And the same should be true for the other degrees of murder. This has been my position the whole time so there is no need to change it.

Your logic and attempt to turn the tables on me fails. And I remind you we aren't talking about people who think that murder by abortion should carry lesser penalties, but no penalties and should be legal. That in effect devalues the life and personhood of the victim, and that is pro-murder.

[Peace]

7 minutes ago, KnightofChrist said:

As I've stated before I believe in equal protection and equal value, and treating murders that are alike the same as regards to punishment. In the Untied States there is first degree murder which is punished with life in prison or capital punishment. Second degree murder which is punished with a number of years in prison or life in prison. Then there is voluntary manslaughter which can carry a fine or 15 years in prison, and involuntary manslaughter which can carry a fine or 8 years in prison. (according to Wikipedia)

Murder in the first degree of a pre-born person, should be treated the same by the law as murder in the first degree as a toddler person. Because both murdered persons have equal value. And the same should be true for the other degrees of murder. This has been my position the whole time so there is no need to change it.

I have no problem with your position that the penalty for homicide and abortion should be the same. Although I might disagree with that point for various reasons that we could discuss later if you desire, for the sake of our discussion I assume that this assertion is correct. 

If I agree that the penalty for homicide and abortion should be the same, but believe that the actual penalty in any given circumstance should be higher than you, why does this not make you pro-murder? In this thread you have argued that people who believe the penalty should be less than you do (people who believe that abortion is immoral but who do not believe there should be a criminal penalty for it) are pro-murder. If you believe that the actual penalty (e.g. 2 years in jail) is less than what I believe it should be (e.g. 3 years in jail), why should I not call you pro-murder if it is OK for you to call someone else pro-murder because he believes that the penalty (e.g. zero years in jail) should be less than what you believe it should be (2 years)?

What is the difference? Why do you get a free pass but they do not, when I am literally doing the same exact thing to you that you are doing to them?

You seem to suggest that you get a free pass because you believe in "some" penalty greater than zero. Well, how about a one dollar fine for a homicide or an abortion? That is a fine greater than zero. Does that make the person pro-life, or is there some higher threshold requirement that must be met? 

If there is a higher threshold requirement beyond a one dollar fine, then what hapens if my threshold is higher than yours? Then I am justified in calling you pro-abortion, just as you assert that you are justified in calling other people pro-abortion.

It's either that or difference between being called pro-abortion or pro-life hinges on the presence or absence of a one dollar fine, which is ridiculous.

7 minutes ago, KnightofChrist said:

Your logic and attempt to turn the tables on me fails.

I disagree. You have still have not provided any logical reason that justifies you in calling other people pro-abortion, which reason does not also apply to you.

7 minutes ago, KnightofChrist said:

And I remind you we aren't talking about people who think that murder by abortion should carry lesser penalties, but no penalties and should be legal. That in effect devalues the life and personhood of the victim, and that is pro-murder.

Well again, if a person believes that a 1 dollar penalty should apply does that make him pro-life? What if he agrees that this same 1 dollar fine should apply to homicide as well? Under your logic is the person neither pro-homicide nor pro-abortion because he believes that there should be a penalty? Are you really appying a standard by which one becomes pro-abortion by not advocating for a 1 dollar penalty and by which one becomes pro-life by advocating for a 1 dollar penalty? 

If not, what penalty must one advocate in order to not be pro-abortion? You must believe that either one dollar is sufficient, or have some higher threshold that you believe is sufficient. 

So if my threshold is higher than yours why does that not justify me in calling you pro-abortion, if you having a higher threshold than someone else justifies you in calling him pro-abortion? 

Again, you are applying a standard to other people that you do not apply to yourself.

[KnightofChrist]

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

In other words I give up. Again I hope you will one day turn from this error. Terms like "Pro-Choice" degrade and devalue the victims of abortion. Those that would allow it, those that would see that it has lesser penalties than the murder of a born person, those that partake in it are pro-abortion. End of story. Good night everybody, well good morning anyway.

[Peace]

1 hour ago, KnightofChrist said:

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

In other words I give up. Again I hope you will one day turn from this error. Terms like "Pro-Choice" degrade and devalue the victims of abortion. Those that would allow it, those that would see that it has lesser penalties than the murder of a born person, those that partake in it are pro-abortion. End of story. Good night everybody, well good morning anyway.

That's fine. We do not have to discuss it further if you do not want to. As I explained and as you have not refuted, the same standard by which you accuse others of being "pro-abortion" makes you "pro-abortion" when the standard is applied to yourself.

Out of chartity, however, I will refrain from calling you "pro-abortion", notwithstanding your hypocrisy.

Good morning as well.

Edited May 14, 2016 by Peace

[little2add]

Instead of "pro-choice" l like "anti-life"

or 

instead of "anti-abortion" I like "pro-human"