Pro-abortion Or Pro-choice

[KnightofChrist]

How do you define "human being" and "life" Hassan? You question but give no answers.

[dairygirl4u2c]

it doesn't have to do with the issue of whether it's ensouled or not. i mean,,, well, that's one issue.

but hte main issue is scientific. is that first cell a person, or is it not? as a matter of what's significant.
i don't mean signifiant as in, my kinda conclusion must be that a delapidated old person in a hospital signifiant,,, i mean it in terms of what it inherently is,,, ie, a cell.


even if you called it an organism, it doens't prove it's a person, or something signifiant whatever you call it.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Didymus' post='1634515' date='Aug 22 2008, 09:53 AM']How is truth being sacrificed here? Even if "pro-choice" is a [i]deceptive[/i] term, that doesn't mean it is untrue. To believe that every woman ought to have the right to keep her baby, put it up for adoption, or to rip its very life from its body is to believe in the equality of several choices. Just because one of these choices is horrible and heinous doesn't take away from the fact that these folks believe that all choices should be available equally. "Pro-choice" is a term. Just because it doesn't fit your rhetoric doesn't mean it isn't a truthful term. Just because it is deceptive and lends support to evil options as much as admirable options doesn't mean it isn't true. As Ironmonk would say: Learn logic..

And yes, having respect for your opponent does lead to the type of dialog that will bring solutions to this crisis into the pitcure.[/quote]
(Sorry this response is late - I've been otherwise occupied lately.)

If words or language are deceptive, that, by definition, means it purposely hides or detracts from the truth.

As I've said plenty of times here, "pro-choice" is [i]not[/i] a truthful term because it makes the abortion debate to be about freedom of choice, rather than the taking of human life.

And the truth is that at least the vast majority of "pro-choicers" do not in fact believe all choices should be available equally. If that was the case, they'd all be total anarchists.
You've said you would not support using the term "pro-choice" to refer to things such as theft, rape, or slavery - yet these things are no more or less choices than killing an unborn baby.
If all choices are equally valid, then absolutely nothing one chooses to do should be illegal.

No, the real issue is not choice at all, but legalized abortion.

There is absolutely no reason pro-lifers should engage in the enemy's deceitful rhetoric.
Deception is countered by truthful language, not deceptive language.

And one can certainly have respect for one's opponents without using their language of deceitful propaganda.

It's you that needs to learn logic, Joker.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Hassan' post='1637313' date='Aug 24 2008, 10:46 PM']Again, how do you define "human being" and "life"[/quote]
A human being is any individual of the species [i]homo sapiens[/i], regardless of age, race or sex.
Life is defined by Webster's as:
" a: the quality that distinguishes a vital and functional being from a dead body b: a principle or force that is considered to underlie the distinctive quality of animate beings c: an organismic state characterized by capacity for metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction"

An unborn human, or fetus, is alive by any one of these standards (presuming it has not been killed, in which case it is a dead fetus. You can't kill that which is not alive to begin with).

I have seen absolutely no scientific proof that an unborn human being is dead or non-living matter, nor that it is some species other than human.

[quote]A Fetus is not identical with a fully developed human, would you agree with that?[/quote]
Neither is a newborn infant, nor a six-year-old, for that matter. Human beings usually aren't "fully developed" until their teens or twenties.
Not being physically fully developed is never used to argue that young children are not human beings or that it is acceptable to kill them.

The truth is that there are really not arguments for the rightness of killing an unborn baby which could not also be used to justify the killing of some human beings already born.



[quote]In a sense yes, I don't heave nearly clear enough an idea of what "life" is to affirm that fully.

That depends a lot on how you define alive[/quote]
How do [i]you[/i] define "life"? Any biologist could tell you that an unborn child is alive. It is certainly alive by any normal biological definition of life.

[quote]No, the unborn child at conception does not, so far as we can know scientifically, have any concept of self, aualitative experience, ability to understand itself as an individual, etc.[/quote]
And how would you know that with certainty? Does a newborn infant have these qualities?

[quote]I can prove that there is no scientific defference substantially between any member of the human species[/quote]
Exactly. And an unborn human is a member of the human species as well.

[quote]That's fine, you have every right to believe that and I think it's great (honestly). It just isin't something that one can know absence revelation from God[/quote]
No mystical revelation from God is necessary to determine that an unborn baby is in fact alive. That can be scientifically determined. If it was not alive, it would be dead.

[quote]The Mind is not identical with the brain, but it is very much contingent on it, and is produced by the brain. The child's brain develops.[/quote]
This has nothing to do with whether an unborn child is alive or human.

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='Didymus' post='1614693' date='Jul 31 2008, 10:00 PM']This may have been discussed before, but I really don't want to hack away at an ancient thread.

Even if it was already debated, I really believe we can cover new ground in this new thread, so here we go.

Socrates and I were just about to start discussing this in the "Anti-Obama or Pro-McCain" thread. I mentioned briefly that I do not follow the typical pro-life habit of referring to our 'opponents' as being 'pro-abortion,' but rather 'pro-choice.'

Here is Socrates' response, followed by my initial response:





I will return to this thread in a little bit. My bad, I've just been doing a lot of work around the house..[/quote]


I used to use the term pro-choice. I didn't have a problem with calling it as they wanted it just for the sake of discussion. And sometimes I still do when I'm not really thinking about it in random discussions. But when I'm writing and have time to make a conscious decision I do now use the term pro-abortion. Ever since the Planned Parenthood clinic in South Dakota closed instead of agreeing to provide the facts about abortion, I have decided to use the term pro-abortion because while many of the women involved are probably pro-choice, the culture as a whole is in fact pro-abortion and would rather withhold information from a pregnant woman than risk them deciding to keep the baby. So I think pro-abortion is a more accurate term for the culture overall than pro-choice.

Edited August 30, 2008 by goldenchild17

[MakeYouThink]

[quote name='goldenchild17' post='1642112' date='Aug 29 2008, 10:38 PM']I used to use the term pro-choice. I didn't have a problem with calling it as they wanted it just for the sake of discussion. And sometimes I still do when I'm not really thinking about it in random discussions. But when I'm writing and have time to make a conscious decision I do now use the term pro-abortion. Ever since the Planned Parenthood clinic in South Dakota closed instead of agreeing to provide the facts about abortion, I have decided to use the term pro-abortion because while many of the women involved are probably pro-choice, the culture as a whole is in fact pro-abortion and would rather withhold information from a pregnant woman than risk them deciding to keep the baby. So I think pro-abortion is a more accurate term for the culture overall than pro-choice.[/quote]

And that is what evil people do. When they have to tell the truth, they'd rather run and go into hiding!

Woot! That was a great victory!

[Bubblicious]

Well said, Socrates.

The term pro-choice is a unacceptable attempted softening of one of the greatest horrors in the world. Referring to the killing of innocents by using the term pro-choice is yet another example of the political correctness that is destroying western civilization.

GB,

Bubble

[Didymus]

[quote name='Bubblicious' post='1644194' date='Sep 1 2008, 11:48 AM']Well said, Socrates.

The term pro-choice is a unacceptable attempted softening of one of the greatest horrors in the world. Referring to the killing of innocents by using the term pro-choice is yet another example of the political correctness that is destroying western civilization.

GB,

Bubble[/quote]

Who says it's soft? If the value of my own life were always labeled with "CHOICE" then I would certainly find the word to be as ugly as it can be.

[priest]

"pro-abortion" - "pro-choice": People on today give other names to sin, to make it more acceptable. It's a different package, but same content...

[T-Bone _]

Since most "pro-choicers" are against my choice in food, my recreation (I'm a hunter), my transportation (I drive V-8 pickups and SUVs), and most other aspects of my lifestyle, "pro-choice" is a very deceptive description.

[Didymus]

for that matter so is pro-life though, since many [i]if not most[/i] "pro-lifers" are for aggressive military action (which results in many unnecessary deaths) and the death penalty in the U.S.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='Didymus' post='1653220' date='Sep 11 2008, 03:15 PM']for that matter so is pro-life though, since many [i]if not most[/i] "pro-lifers" are for aggressive military action (which results in many unnecessary deaths [color="#FF0000"](This is an opinion[/color]) and the death penalty in the U.S.[/quote]

yup i usually don't call myself a prolifer, i say I am against abortion.... if I am not in a particular fight picking mood. Sometimes I just say it like it is, I oppose the mass murder of babies.


Edited for accuaracy

Edited September 12, 2008 by Don John of Austria

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1614809' date='Aug 1 2008, 12:37 AM']i mean, pragmatically.. if the only way you're going to change someone from being a murder or holocaust supporter, is by meeting them at their level,,,, i'd consider doing that.
i don't think i would, but really i don't know, how could i not in a sense.

so when talking about abortion, which is more dissimilar to holocaust etc, than not, then without a doubt, if that's the only way to change them, then use the term prochoice. meet them at their level. if it's the only way.[/quote]

Meeting them at their level would involve ripping thier limbs of while they were still alive and then dumping their body in a dumpster for disposal.

[Didymus]

[quote post='1653505' date='Sep 11 2008, 10:16 PM']yup i usually don't call myself a prolifer, i say I am against abortion.... if I am not in a particular fight picking mood. Sometimes I just say it like it is, I oppose the mass murder of babies.


Edited for accuracy[/quote]

please do not alter my quotes without first removing my name. I find that a tad bit unethical.

for example, I have just edited your quote, in order to spell accuracy correctly, but I have removed your name as it is not something you actually said.

[Didymus]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' post='1653509' date='Sep 11 2008, 10:18 PM']Meeting them at their level would involve ripping thier limbs of while they were still alive and then dumping their body in a dumpster for disposal.[/quote]

cmom? is that you?

Edited September 12, 2008 by Didymus