Skip to comments.
The Pro-Life Movement's Problem With Morality
The Washington Dispatch ^
| June 6, 2003
| Cathryn Crawford
Posted on 06/06/2003 10:32:33 AM PDT by Cathryn Crawford
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 641-643 next last
Comment #21 Removed by Moderator
To: Cathryn Crawford
It seems that the mainstream religious pro-life movement is not so clear when it comes to reasons not to have an abortion beyond the basic arguments that its a sin and youll go straight to hell.?I have not seen a lot of anti abortion arguments based solely on morality. Most of what Ive seen and heard is on the order of Abortion is immoral because it takes an innocent life. Are you suggesting that the pro-life crowd would be better off making the amoral argument that abortion should be opposed because it goes our instinct of self preservation?
22
posted on
06/06/2003 10:54:11 AM PDT
by
tbpiper
To: MHGinTN
BTTT!!!!!!
23
posted on
06/06/2003 10:54:33 AM PDT
by
E.G.C.
To: N3WBI3
See post #11.
24
posted on
06/06/2003 10:54:35 AM PDT
by
Cathryn Crawford
(Save your breath. You'll need it to blow up your date.)
Comment #25 Removed by Moderator
To: Nonstatist
If I remember correctly, a pro-life group was successfully sued for contending that publicly, in an attempt to dissude women from going to abortion clinics.Incorrect. The pro-life group filed the suit, and lost.
26
posted on
06/06/2003 10:55:23 AM PDT
by
Poohbah
(Crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and hear the lamentations of their women!)
To: tbpiper
Perhaps. It should certianly be a part of the argument.
27
posted on
06/06/2003 10:55:50 AM PDT
by
Cathryn Crawford
(Save your breath. You'll need it to blow up your date.)
To: RedBloodedAmerican
Don't think too hard.
So, what does my being a student have to do with anything?
28
posted on
06/06/2003 10:57:16 AM PDT
by
Cathryn Crawford
(Save your breath. You'll need it to blow up your date.)
To: Onelifetogive
A genetic marker for gayness would not interfere with ChristianityBut it would completely screw up the crux of most of the gay-obsessed FReepers' arguments.
29
posted on
06/06/2003 10:57:43 AM PDT
by
jmc813
(After two years of FReeping, I've finally created a profile page. Check it out!)
To: Hunble
>>I grew up in the 1970's when women that I personally knew in High School dies from back alley abortions. If they must have an abortion, I do want it done legally and in a hospital.<<
I grew up in the 70's as well and stayed a virgin until I was 34. No need for an abortion without intercourse, HUH?
We are putting our children at risk of STDs, AIDS and sterilization from them by telling them that having sex with multiple partners is ok. My niece (21) works for one of the "Lovers" shops in Cleveland. She tells me that the girls of today have more sense then their mothers. They know what Outercourse is and use dental damns.
No need for backroom abortions without unwanted pregnancies.
We need to go back to the time when "petting" was the way to go.
30
posted on
06/06/2003 10:58:14 AM PDT
by
netmilsmom
(God Bless our President, those with him & our troops)
To: Cathryn Crawford
You can believe that abortion is morally wrong, yes, and at the appropriate moment, appealing to the emotions can be effective, but too much time is spent on arguing about why abortion is wrong morally instead of why abortion is wrong logically. As if we must choose between being logical and being moral -- a false alternative.
31
posted on
06/06/2003 10:58:15 AM PDT
by
kesg
To: Cathryn Crawford
What about the increased risk of breast cancer in women who have abortions?
Scientists Claim No Abortion-Breast Cancer Link
Christine Hall
Staff Writer
(CNSNews.com) - Scientists attending a recent National Cancer Institute (NCI) conference claim that there's no link between abortion and breast cancer, a conclusion that was met with skepticism by pro-life groups.
The scientists evaluated a number of studies on abortion and breast cancer, some as yet unpublished, and found that the most credible studies showed no causal link between breast cancer and abortion.
"I think it was fair, and it was balanced, and it reflected the science as it is today," said Barbara Vonderhaar, an NCI scientist who participated in the conference. "I can honestly say I think that they were the world's experts on the topic," she added.
Tell him that his little girl has a high chance of suffering from a serious infection or a perforated uterus due to a botched abortion,
One of the reasons we have abortion on demand is the horrible consequences of back alley abortions,
a much more common occurrence when abortion was illegal than botched abortions when it is legal.
32
posted on
06/06/2003 10:59:11 AM PDT
by
gcruse
(Superstition is a mind in chains.)
To: kesg
That's not what I meant. Logic should be stressed more than morality.
33
posted on
06/06/2003 10:59:51 AM PDT
by
Cathryn Crawford
(Save your breath. You'll need it to blow up your date.)
To: Cathryn Crawford
Tell him that his little girl has a high chance of suffering from a serious infection or a perforated uterus due to a botched abortion, however, and hell take a bit more notice. Tell him that hes likely to suffer sexual side effects from the mental trauma of his own child being aborted and hell take even more notice. Yeah
thats the best reason NOT to kill your own child
you might become impudent or have to take antibiotics? These anti-Christian zealots, and I see some have been pinged to this thread, are first to find fault with the religious reasoning behind certain points of view but cant say why that point of view is wrong in its own vacuum. Moral relativism is simply an excuse for selfishness in light of some things being objectively and universally always right and always wrong, this is one of those things. BTW dont bother with the rape and mothers life scenarios, theyre just a red herring argument that has nothing to do with abortion being used contraceptively for purposes of inconvenience.
To: N3WBI3
Good point and the criminal argument was good.
I will stick with the "quickening" definition. If my daughter tried to abort her baby after it started to kick, then I would accuse her of murder.
Before that time, I would consider it her own personal choice.
This is a very difficult choice for me at the moment. My stupid daughter got pregnant with a married man in an effort to force him to marry him. She use a child as a weapon.
My first thought was to demand that she get an abortion! Well, she did not tell me about it until it was too late. Once the baby started to kick, that is no longer an option.
Now my daughter must live with her choice and be held responsible for the rest of her life.
35
posted on
06/06/2003 11:00:41 AM PDT
by
Hunble
To: Cathryn Crawford
Why was gassing the Jews wrong?
(I am leading you through an arguement that one may even use with liberals, here; This is called the Socratic method of teaching.
As Laz pointed out, I am doing it badly.
And, as Winston Churchil stated, "Personally, I love to learn. But I hate to be taught."
So you are forgiven if you decide to ignore me.)
36
posted on
06/06/2003 11:01:44 AM PDT
by
patton
(I wish we could all look at the evil of abortion with the pure, honest heart of a child.)
To: patton
I could learn if I understood what point you're trying to make. :-)
37
posted on
06/06/2003 11:02:38 AM PDT
by
Cathryn Crawford
(Save your breath. You'll need it to blow up your date.)
To: Cathryn Crawford
That's not what I meant. Logic should be stressed more than morality. Well, my confusion here is that I don't separate the two in my own mind, but having now finished the rest of your article (including what you are actually referring to with the word "morality") I think I better understand your point and fully agree with it.
38
posted on
06/06/2003 11:03:21 AM PDT
by
kesg
To: Cathryn Crawford
I think he was just trying to play matchmaker not knowing, of course, that you're mine. :-)
39
posted on
06/06/2003 11:03:28 AM PDT
by
jmc813
(After two years of FReeping, I've finally created a profile page. Check it out!)
To: Cathryn Crawford
With all due respect, I disagree with the premise of the piece. Pro-lifers regularly advance all the arguments you seem to think they ignore. The recourse to biblical proscriptions against abortion has a far less prominent place in staple pro-life arguments than it has had in years past. The main argument has shifted to the measureable negative emotional and physical effects an abortion has on the woman who has one, and to exposing as false, based on scientific knowledge which in turn is based on the rigorous application of logic, the unsupportable contentions that a child in the womb is just a "part of the woman's body" or a "mindless piece of protoplasm."
If the breast cancer/abortion link has not received the attention it deserves in the mainstream media, it's not because pro-lifers have ignored the story. It's because pro-choice activists and their confreres in media have worked hard to spike it.
40
posted on
06/06/2003 11:03:47 AM PDT
by
beckett
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 641-643 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson