2
   

Christian and Pro-Choice

 
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Sat 1 Jan, 2005 10:33 am
gungasnake wrote:
DrewDad wrote:

Should not anti-reproductive rights women be lining up to have these poor, abandoned embryos implanted in order to preserve these precious lives?


Come on, arguments against right2life aren't that hard to frame. For instance, if there is such a thing as a "right to life" in the universe, then why are there predators?

Better yet, the next time you get into it with a right2lifer, try this on him:

Quote:

You come home from a hard day at the office, and there's a letter in your mailbox informing you that a Mr. John Doe who you never met is in desparate need of a kidney transplant, and that the data banks indicate that you are the closest thing there is on the planet to a tissue-type matchup for Mr. Doe. Therefore you are ORDERED to report to Federal hospital #557 in Atlanta Ga. three days hence at 10:00 AM to donate one of your kidneys to Doe, because he has a right to life!!!


I mean, why not? If an unborn could possibly have a "right to life" sufficient to compell hardship and suffering on another person, then why could a 55 year old businessman not have such a right?

Like I say, I'd advise people against abortion in something like 90 - 99% of all cases, but of all the conservative issues, this is the one I wish I'd never heard of.



Snake...since I have disagreed with you so vociferously on so many issues...I simply had to compliment you on your thinking and presentation on this one.

I think it is interesting...and significant...that I've heard similar sentiments from several other dedicated conservatives.

I think it is even more interesting...and perhaps even more signiicant...that I've known dedicated liberals who have substantial apprehension about the so-called liberal position on this matter.

I personally am adamently opposed to imposing ANY restrictions on a woman's right to discontinue a pregnancy should she choose to do so...but even I see...and appreciate...the position others have on the question.
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Sat 1 Jan, 2005 11:13 am
For whatever stupid reason, there are three groups of people you can't talk to or say anything to or anything about on FreeRepublic, and those are right2lifers, the evolutionists, and SUV owners. Those are the three basic issues on which more than a handful of conservatives are irrational on some fundamental level.

The other side of the abortion issue, to the extent that it isn't logically flawed, looks to me like this. Many people thought that the world wars arose from population pressures, particularly in Japan and Germany, and then you had books like "The Population Bomb" being written and end-of-world due to overpopulation scenarios being bandied about, and the upshot of it was that for the entire lives of most babyboomers such as myself, there have always been negative incentives both from government and social institutions for ordinary middle-class people to have children, and this has clearly been the case even moreso in Europe than in America. A lot of people thought that the US had passed its ideal population level in the 1950s. And then, lo and behold, the industrialized democracies actually achieve the birthrate at which their populations no longer expand, and what happens? Naturally, the powers which be start importing people from third world countries who average four or five children per family, in wholesale lots, and the middle class, having been told all its lives that the world cannot afford them having children, get to pay for schools, hospitals, and every other need of all these new immigrant kids, most of whom in this country at least are basically illegal.

Anybody who doesn't feel some sort of a sense of betrayal here is missing something. Moreover, having any sort of an abortion industry in the country while this is going on strikes a lot of people as counterproductive.

Obvious also is that the hype about overpopulation was basically junk science, and that the US could probably support ten or twenty times its current population.
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Sat 1 Jan, 2005 03:12 pm
gungasnake wrote:
DrewDad wrote:

Should not anti-reproductive rights women be lining up to have these poor, abandoned embryos implanted in order to preserve these precious lives?


Come on, arguments against right2life aren't that hard to frame. For instance, if there is such a thing as a "right to life" in the universe, then why are there predators?

Better yet, the next time you get into it with a right2lifer, try this on him:

Quote:

You come home from a hard day at the office, and there's a letter in your mailbox informing you that a Mr. John Doe who you never met is in desparate need of a kidney transplant, and that the data banks indicate that you are the closest thing there is on the planet to a tissue-type matchup for Mr. Doe. Therefore you are ORDERED to report to Federal hospital #557 in Atlanta Ga. three days hence at 10:00 AM to donate one of your kidneys to Doe, because he has a right to life!!!


I mean, why not? If an unborn could possibly have a "right to life" sufficient to compell hardship and suffering on another person, then why could a 55 year old businessman not have such a right?

Like I say, I'd advise people against abortion in something like 90 - 99% of all cases, but of all the conservative issues, this is the one I wish I'd never heard of.


OK, Frank's honesty compels me to 'fess up, too... Gunga, this is a good argument.
0 Replies
 
dadothree
 
  1  
Reply Sat 1 Jan, 2005 05:37 pm
You guys are so full of misinformation that it's hard to know where to start.
Drewdad, I suggest you reread my 1st post because you obviously missed something. The situation was not about a pregnant woman causing harm to herself. It involved someone else who beat the pregnant woman and thereby caused the baby's death. So called prochoice people protested the prosecutor's decision to charge the offender. Those people who protested are therefore proabortion not prochoice.
dadothree
0 Replies
 
dadothree
 
  1  
Reply Sat 1 Jan, 2005 08:28 pm
right to life
Quote:
Better yet, the next time you get into it with a right2lifer, try this on him:


Quote:

You come home from a hard day at the office, and there's a letter in your mailbox informing you that a Mr. John Doe who you never met is in desparate need of a kidney transplant, and that the data banks indicate that you are the closest thing there is on the planet to a tissue-type matchup for Mr. Doe. Therefore you are ORDERED to report to Federal hospital #557 in Atlanta Ga. three days hence at 10:00 AM to donate one of your kidneys to Doe, because he has a right to life!!!


Quote:
I mean, why not? If an unborn could possibly have a "right to life" sufficient to compell hardship and suffering on another person, then why could a 55 year old businessman not have such a right?

Like I say, I'd advise people against abortion in something like 90 - 99% of all cases, but of all the conservative issues, this is the one I wish I'd never heard of.
[/QUOTE]

Gunga
This make believe scenario was first presented in the 70s in a slightly different form. It is revealing that proabortion people cannot come up with real world arguments. Instead it is always some type of scare tactic. The reason your argument does not hold water is that your scenario puts the donor in an unnatural risk. If the human condition was that we all were in need of transplants at birth and had all been recipients then maybe your argument might have some merit as we would all have the same risk. However, God or evolution (thats a different argument) did not make us that way. Pregnancy on the other hand is not an unnatural risk. We all (including proabortion people) have been the recipient of the benefits of someone being pregnant. The prolife view is that we are all equal. Therefore, it is revealing that the proabortion strategy in this argument is to elevate value of one life( 55 yr old) while decreasing the value of the donor's life. This falls right in line with Margaret Sanger's devotion to Malthusian eugenics.

"We should hire 3 or 4 colored ministers, preferably with social service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. the most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don't want word to get out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members." Margaret Sanger 1939


So the ones who would be more likely to advocate the forced donations of organs are actually those on the proabortion side, as long as the donor is black , jewish , italian ,etc.

Also you mentioned earlier the bombing of clinics. The next time you hear about one of those I hope you'll notice that they are usually done by white supremacist. Their goal is not to stop abortion but to encourage it among minorities. They bomb a clinic in a white neighborhood thereby decreasing abortion among whites. The media paints all anti abortion people with a broad brush. We look like radicals and abortion continues to be the # 1 cause of death among blacks. Planned Parenthood has killed more blacks than the kkk ever dreamed of killing.
dadothree
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Sat 1 Jan, 2005 09:45 pm
dadothree wrote:
You guys are so full of misinformation that it's hard to know where to start.

You could start by providing some logical arguments as to why your position is correct.
dadothree wrote:
Drewdad, I suggest you reread my 1st post because you obviously missed something. The situation was not about a pregnant woman causing harm to herself. It involved someone else who beat the pregnant woman and thereby caused the baby's death. So called prochoice people protested the prosecutor's decision to charge the offender. Those people who protested are therefore proabortion not prochoice.
dadothree

I read your post in its entirety; I simply do not agree with your logic or your conclusions.
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Sat 1 Jan, 2005 09:47 pm
Re: right to life
dadothree wrote:
This make believe scenario was first presented in the 70s in a slightly different form. It is revealing that proabortion people cannot come up with real world arguments.


I provided a real-world scenario - fertility clinics. Perhaps you would care to address it?
0 Replies
 
dadothree
 
  1  
Reply Sat 1 Jan, 2005 10:57 pm
prochoice vs proabortion
Quote:
I read your post in its entirety; I simply do not agree with your logic or your conclusions.
[/QUOTE]

Would you also call China's policy of coerced abortion prochoice instead of proabortion?
dadothree
0 Replies
 
dadothree
 
  1  
Reply Sat 1 Jan, 2005 11:03 pm
Re: right to life
I provided a real-world scenario - fertility clinics. Perhaps you would care to address it?[/quote]

Many of these embryos are being adopted for implantation. Saving someones life usually involves more time than killing them. This is true of embryos, kids, or adults.
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Sat 1 Jan, 2005 11:33 pm
Re: prochoice vs proabortion
dadothree wrote:
DrewDad wrote:
I read your post in its entirety; I simply do not agree with your logic or your conclusions.


Would you also call China's policy of coerced abortion prochoice instead of proabortion?
dadothree


Since China does not allow a choice then no, I would not call China's policy pro-choice.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/14/2021 at 09:15:54