Racial turn for abortion debate

Superfreak said:
Bullshit. That is simply a copout. They are thinking about THEMSELVES... not the child.

Put yourself in the childs place...... your choices are....

1) To be born into the world with the possibility your life will be extremely hard. You have to fight and scrape for everything you get. If you fight hard enough, you might make it to a life of comfort, but the odds are severely stacked against you

and

2) I kill you

Which of those options would you choose?

I encourage everyone here that is pro-abortion to answer that.
Click to expand...

I've given it considerable thought. Would I have wanted to be born in a ghetto, been a high school drop-out and spent the next 40 years living in poverty? Going through life slowly having my teeth removed because I couldn't afford a dentist for check-ups and fillings? Suffering physical ailments because I couldn't afford a doctor? Or joined a gang, got shot and spent the rest of my life in a wheelchair or jail?

As for asking someone which option they would choose, unfortunately, nature programs living creatures to fight for life regardless of the circumstances. They become "conditioned", for lack of a better word.

Witness a child that has been physically abused. It will still want to stay with it's parent. Even an abused animal, like a dog, will still try to protect it's abuser (master).

Why would anyone choose abject poverty over the option of not having been born at all? Why would anyone choose pain and constant hardship?

I encourage everyone here who is anti-abortion to answer that.
 
apple0154 said:
I've given it considerable thought. Would I have wanted to be born in a ghetto, been a high school drop-out and spent the next 40 years living in poverty? Going through life slowly having my teeth removed because I couldn't afford a dentist for check-ups and fillings? Suffering physical ailments because I couldn't afford a doctor? Or joined a gang, got shot and spent the rest of my life in a wheelchair or jail?

As for asking someone which option they would choose, unfortunately, nature programs living creatures to fight for life regardless of the circumstances. They become "conditioned", for lack of a better word.

Witness a child that has been physically abused. It will still want to stay with it's parent. Even an abused animal, like a dog, will still try to protect it's abuser (master).

Why would anyone choose abject poverty over the option of not having been born at all? Why would anyone choose pain and constant hardship?

I encourage everyone here who is anti-abortion to answer that.
Click to expand...

Maybe these people?

http://www.toptenz.net/top-10-rags-to-riches-stories.php


Or maybe -
Oprah Winfrey
Net worth: $2.5 billion

Born in rural Mississippi to a poor unwed teenaged mother, and later raised in an inner city Milwaukee neighborhood, Winfrey was raped at the age of nine, and at fourteen, gave birth to a son who died in infancy. Sent to live with the man she calls her father, a barber in Tennessee, Winfrey landed a job in radio while still in high school and began co-anchoring the local evening news at the age of 19.

Her emotional ad-lib delivery eventually got her transferred to the daytime talk show arena, and after boosting a third-rated local Chicago talk show to first place, she launched her own production company and became internationally syndicated.

Winfrey became a millionaire at age 32 when her talk show went national. Because of the amount of revenue the show generated, Winfrey was in a position to negotiate ownership of the show and start her own production company. By 1994 the show’s ratings were still thriving and Winfrey negotiated a contract that earned her nine figures a year.

Considered the richest woman in entertainment by the early 1990s, at age 41 Winfrey’s wealth crossed another milestone when with a net worth of $340 million, she replaced Bill Cosby as the only African American on the Forbes 400. Although blacks are 12% of the U.S. population, Winfrey has remained the only black person wealthy enough to rank among America’s 400 richest people nearly every year since 1995.
 
are the signs in the black hoods? No it's in lilly white birther gated communities
To me the racist move is using hate of Obama to highlight the point.
 
Sometimes offending people with blunt truth is the only way to get a jaded populace to actually revisit their actions. Would it work in cases like this? I don't know, at first it will be all covered with the bad flavor or racial sauce... but it may get some people to think twice about whether it was true...
 
apple0154 said:
I've given it considerable thought. Would I have wanted to be born in a ghetto, been a high school drop-out and spent the next 40 years living in poverty? Going through life slowly having my teeth removed because I couldn't afford a dentist for check-ups and fillings? Suffering physical ailments because I couldn't afford a doctor? Or joined a gang, got shot and spent the rest of my life in a wheelchair or jail?

As for asking someone which option they would choose, unfortunately, nature programs living creatures to fight for life regardless of the circumstances. They become "conditioned", for lack of a better word.

Witness a child that has been physically abused. It will still want to stay with it's parent. Even an abused animal, like a dog, will still try to protect it's abuser (master).

Why would anyone choose abject poverty over the option of not having been born at all? Why would anyone choose pain and constant hardship?

I encourage everyone here who is anti-abortion to answer that.
Click to expand...

That is a simple question to answer. Because I would have a chance. Even if born in the worst ghetto, I would not HAVE to be a high school dropout. I could CHOOSE to learn. I could CHOOSE to graduate. Yes, the deck would be stacked against me.... but people do it every day. They CHOOSE to fight.... for themselves. While many will certainly end up living the life you described above, it is still better than having been given no chance at all.

Just to clarify... your answer to my previous question is that you would choose to have been killed?

Not to get to far off topic, but a follow up question. Based on the above rationale of 'why would anyone want to live in such a state'... would you consider it humane to put those people who do live in such circumstances out of their misery? Would you advocate the death penalty vs. life in prison without parole as a more humane act?

Note: The above are not attempts at 'gotcha's'.... I just think it could lead to an interesting discussion.
 
I am going to guess that Apple et al are vehemently against the death penalty, which is the biggest irony of all with Pro-choicers and the abortion issue.
 
King of Hoops said:
Keep telling yourself that Christie. However, every once in a while, you should stop to consider whether that's the proper attitude to take as a Catholic. Or forgetting that, since its obviously not giving you pause, just think of it as proper behavior for a human being. Deflection doesn't take away from your own sins, it merely serves as a pointless reminder that everyone is flawed, and if you as a pro-choicer won't take my criticisms, then the only thing left for you is judgement.
Click to expand...

The Catholic church is not 100% against abortion. The Church allows abortion in very limited instances. From the Catholic Encyclopedia:

"However, if medical treatment or surgical operation, necessary to save a mother's life, is applied to her organism (though the child's death would, or at least might, follow as a regretted but unavoidable consequence), it should not be maintained that the fetal life is thereby directly attacked. Moralists agree that we are not always prohibited from doing what is lawful in itself, though evil consequences may follow which we do not desire. The good effects of our acts are then directly intended, and the regretted evil consequences are reluctantly permitted to follow because we cannot avoid them. The evil thus permitted is said to be indirectly intended. It is not imputed to us provided four conditions are verified, namely:

* That we do not wish the evil effects, but make all reasonable efforts to avoid them;
* That the immediate effect be good in itself;
* That the evil is not made a means to obtain the good effect; for this would be to do evil that good might come of it — a procedure never allowed;
* That the good effect be as important at least as the evil effect.

All four conditions may be verified in treating or operating on a woman with child. The death of the child is not intended, and every reasonable precaution is taken to save its life; the immediate effect intended, the mother's life, is good — no harm is done to the child in order to save the mother — the saving of the mother's life is in itself as good as the saving of the child's life."

See also: Directive 47 in the U.S. Catholic Church's ethical guidelines for health care providers

Even though the Church says abortions may be permitted to save the mother's life, Catholics, especially clergy, still disagree about it. In spite of Directive 47, a Phoenix bishop excommunicated a nun for allowing a gravely ill woman to have an abortion. When this was made public some clergy supported the bishop and some didn't. So who was right?

See: Nun Excommunicated For Allowing Abortion

Your comment that I consider abortion proper behaviour for a human being is baseless. IMO you, along with others, see abortion as a standalone issue rather than as one point on the continuum of life. You chose a career that might possibly compel you to take a human life. Maybe your answer is that would only happen in case of war. Well, the Catholic church has some very strong opinions about war also.

See: Just War Doctrinehttp://www.catholic.com/library
/Just_War_Doctrine_1.asp

How many of the four conditions applied to most of the wars we're familiar with? IMO, only WW2 could even approach all four. The Iraq War doesn't even come close. John Paul II condemned the Iraq War. I did, too. Did you, as a good Catholic, support it?

I am not counseling women to have abortions. I don't agree that abortion should be used casually, as birth control, sex selection, or any other reasons the article stated. I support the use of birth control, another practice the Catholic church is against, except for the farce known as "natural family planning." I support the right of women to make decisions about their own body and to be judged accordingly in the end.

For the record I find the anti-abortion crowd far more judgmental than the pro-choice people. I find them extremely judgmental toward women while they leave men out of the equation. The AA crowd is quick to resort to name-calling and slander, and they don't see women as people, just pawns in their fight. Not seeing the forest for the trees sums it up for me.

Get back to me when you or someone you love is faced with a desperate, life-changing decision that has no simple answers. I find it real easy for people to pass judgment when they have no dog in the fight.

You said "Deflection doesn't take away from your own sins, it merely serves as a pointless reminder that everyone is flawed... Truer words have never been spoken.
 
Last edited:
Every person has a right to defend themselves, even from their own progeny. However, it seems the only valid reason to kill something that hasn't even had the chance to be the horrid creature that they "might" become if they are born into a bad economic situation. Can you give me a good reason to give the death penalty to anybody before they even have thought of committing a crime?
 
Christie, if you want to use those arguments in defense of your immortal soul, go right ahead. As for the argument about the pro-life side being more judgemental, to my knowledge, they don't typically judge infants as being worthy of death. There are plenty of things which pertain to the Church, such as birth control, that I don't really worry about people doing in American society, because the use of contraceptives doesn't kill anyone, and may, indeed, cut back on other problems. I cease to condone actions, however, when they cross the line and get people killed.
 
In other words, you're just as selective about Catholic teaching as I am.

No worries, 3D. When I'm burning in the eternal flame, maybe one of you flawless individuals will dip your finger in the water and cool my tongue.
 
christiefan915 said:
In other words, you're just as selective about Catholic teaching as I am.

No worries, 3D. When I'm burning in the eternal flame, maybe one of you flawless individuals will dip your finger in the water and cool my tongue.
Click to expand...

If by "selective," you mean, me trying to ram the Church's teachings down every American's throat (meatless Fridays during Lent, annual confessions, etc.), then that's just funny. This isn't even a deflection, its more just you, sticking your tongue out at me.

As for "saving you" from your decisions, that really isn't my style. I did kind of hope to appeal to your Catholicism, to see what the deal was with you, though. In fact, one tenet of both the Church and the Knights of Columbus that I don't fit into well, is to evangelize the faith. This is one thing I'm not big on, because I don't have the patience for people. One thing I have learned from hanging out with leftists online, is that life can be easier for me if I just keep my mouth shut about the things that matter most. That's fine, because as the saying goes, its more fun to party with the... whatevers. Abortion is one thing that doesn't really require communion with the Church to look at, and observe as a murderous act. There are some things people shouldn't just sit around and let happen, and abortion happens to be one of them.
 
tinfoil said:
You can't argue that it's possible the greatest leader we might have ever had was never born. Millions of fetuses were aborted. Statistics would suggest there would have been a few extrordinary humans in such a large group.

This isn't even a criticism of abortion. It's just an observation os statistical probabilities
Click to expand...
Would you say the same thing if we posted a photo of George W. Bush in an upscale Houston neighborhood with the message "An Education is a terrible thing to waste!"??
 
It's odd that the image of a child of a white woman is being used to highlight the disproportionately high rate of abortions among black women, no?
 
NigelTufnel said:
It's odd that the image of a child of a white woman is being used to highlight the disproportionately high rate of abortions among black women, no?
Click to expand...

Is it odd that the child of a white woman is consider the first black President of the U.S.?
 
NigelTufnel said:
It's odd that the image of a child of a white woman is being used to highlight the disproportionately high rate of abortions among black women, no?
Click to expand...

Yes.... we all know Obama is biracial .... thanks for that tidbit. I am sure you are unaware of this.... but Obama is ALSO known as the first Black President of the United States. I know you think you are being clever, but really... not so much.
 
That is odd. I remember overhearing a conversation on the subway among two black women back when the "is he black enough?" debate was all the rage in the heady days of primary season. It went something like this:

Woman 1: Is his mom black or white?

Woman 2: She's white.

Woman 1: What about his wife?

Woman 2: She's black.

Woman 1: Then he's black enough for me.
 
Superfreak said:
Yes.... we all know Obama is biracial .... thanks for that tidbit. I am sure you are unaware of this.... but Obama is ALSO known as the first Black President of the United States. I know you think you are being clever, but really... not so much.
Click to expand...

Especially since it's been pointed out several times in this thread alone, but Nigey won't give up his Captain Obvious cape.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top