The Town Hall Archives

Hisgirl84 · Junior Member Joined: 16 May 2003 Posts: 199 Location: US

Something that was mentioned in Politics 101 gave me the idea of starting this thread. I imagine most of us are pro-lifers, so I thought it might be interesting to have a place to talk about that.

Why are you pro-life? Do you try to keep updated on what's going on in this movement? Have you ever done any decidedly pro-life activities? Do you get the National Right to Life newspaper and if so, what do you think of the latest issue? How are you a voice for the unborn?

I'll answer later...when I have more time. Wink

Elf of Rivendell · Posted: Sat May 31, 2003 5:57 am Post subject:

Uh... in Japan? Here,(especially in the city I live in) when we protest against something or become in the least bit conspicuous, this strange religious group(who also plays a big part in Japan's politics) harrass you... Our neighbors, who belong to that cult, found out we were Christians and started bothering us on purpose. It's so annoying... and besides, unlike what they say, the politicians DON'T listen to what the citizens say. They just do everything for themselves and for money.

Japanese politicians... Rolling Eyes

Erica Clark · Junior Member Joined: 24 Nov 2002 Posts: 162

American politicians...

Jared · Posted: Sat May 31, 2003 3:05 pm Post subject:

My family doesn't belong to any pro-life organizations... not out of non-interest in the important issue but because we support the cause in other ways. Politically, for example, we send our money straight to the campaigns of pro-life candidates instead of through organizations where some will have to be deducted for organizational costs, overhead, advertising, etc.

I personally have also not participated in any marches in D.C. I know a lot of people who have and respect their desire to do so, but I'm pragmatic. Liberals march on Washington for media coverage, but pro-life marchers only get a line or two about some anti-choice far right conservatives protesting...

It really doesn't get a whole lot accomplished; I think people would be better served to donate the money they would normally put toward the trip to Washington to a pro-life organization or CPC -- or to the campaign of a pro-life candidate.

alwaysHis324 · Posted: Sat May 31, 2003 4:10 pm Post subject:

Human life is precious in every stage of development. That is a strong conviction that I hold. Mainly because I was raised that way, but also God has a lot to say on this topic (Psalms 139 for example). If I had the money I would buy myself a prolife t-shirt or sweatshirt (being a jobless college student, my funds are severly limited!) I like the "Rock for Life" sweatshirts, and the "I survived" shirts. I'm hoping I can make one for myself though, with fabric paint.

I've signed several petitions concerning anti-abortion issues. And I wrote a monologue about abortion as well. My brother thinks its pretty powerful, but I have yet to present it anywhere.

You know something that I have really felt convicted about in the Right for Life campaign is the frozen embryos. That really breaks my heart. There are all these little lives just waiting to get the chance to grow and breath, but they can't. Like I said, it totally breaks my heart.

hawkeye · Posted: Sat May 31, 2003 7:05 pm Post subject:

I was raised with the view abortion is wrong, etc, etc, etc. But when I went to my 1 semester of college, I was (of course) required to take an English course, and at the end, I had to do a final paper. I chose abortion as my topic. After doing my research, my view was solidified (and well based). The pics of aborted babies does infact look very much like the pictures from the Holocaust. A few of the women were surprised a guy would use that as his topic, and were glad I cared enough.

But my position is when a woman gives herself (all but rape), she has given up her right to privacy (now if we could get politicians to admit that).

And only God knows what the murdered child could have done. I mean, they wait for a cure to world hunger, AIDS, drought, cancer, .... but kill the one who might have solved it. Double shame to prochoicers.

So, we vote for pro life people and legislation.

Carolita · Posted: Sat May 31, 2003 8:05 pm Post subject:

I am pro-life, but our family isn't really involved in any orginization. A few of our home-church members are part of a CPC. A part of our tithe goes to support the CPC orginization.

Jared · Posted: Sat May 31, 2003 9:21 pm Post subject:

Hawkeye,

While we obviously both agree on the issue, I think we disagree somewhat on proper presentation of it. Perhaps because I've read so many (as in, WAY too many) opinion articles on every side of just about every conceivable issue, I tend to know in advance how an argument can be picked apart, what loopholes might be found in it. Not because I have some great understanding of how this stuff works -- just because I've probably read two dozen op-eds by liberals picking apart the argument in question.

While your pro-life argument is a good one, it is not a legal one. In other words, it appeals to the moral aspects of abortion but its attempt to discuss its legality is, for all practical purposes, useless.

First, let's start with the basics: you say that you believe that a woman who conceives chose that by her actions. I wholeheartedly agree and acknowledge that this diffuses arguments on the grounds of "but she didn't know what she was getting into" or the "it's not her fault" rhetoric. What it doesn't address, however, is anything relating to the law governing and regulating abortion. You attempt to make a connection ("she has given up her right to privacy"), but it doesn't stand up legally. Main reason? Because there is no right to privacy either written or implicit in the constitution -- nor in federal law. The "right to privacy" was implied by the Supreme Court in a ruling in the 1930s and while having precedent on its side, has no true legal merit.

But let's continue on with your argument, assuming that since the courts have accepted the false "right to privacy" in the past, they'll rule that this closes that interpretation. Now, being optimistic, perhaps abortion is made illegal because the woman gave up her right to privacy.

Take that to the logical conclusion. First, all rape victims will be exempt, because they did not choose to do so. Second, be ready to start seeing insanity and temporary insanity pleas. It happens in murder cases all the time, but I would not be surprised to see it pop up here: "But your honor, I didn't know what I was doing! Something snapped..." Temporary insanity means incapable of waiving a right. Abortion available.

Then more questions arise: if a woman is on drugs or is drunk when, for sake of keeping this at a proper level, conception happens, did she possess the ability to waive a right? There must be a demonstrable ability to waive any right (or right so-called, in this case) for it to be legally valid.

And another question: how could the court ever prove that a person WAS sober at the time of conception? When the woman decides she wants an abortion seven months later and tells the judge that she was drunk at the time, who exactly is going to be able to prove that not to be the case? Now, if my understanding of the law is correct, the burden of proof in this matter would not rest completely on the prosecution, as the facts of the situation are in evidence and what has yet to be established is up to the defense to prove, but I can already imagine pro-choice justices finding in favor of the woman even if the evidence is not in. In a case like this, it really is up to him and the ruling is subjective, so its not something that is likely to hurt his career.

And finally, what about those under the age of eighteen? Not being of age to consent, they could not be considered able to give up their right to privacy by reason of age.

Briefly on the other issue of what murdered babies could have done if allowed to live: I don't know what they could have done and it really doesn't matter. The pro-choice side could argue back that who knows what these women might accomplish if not "encumbered" by an unwanted child. The point is that speculating on what might be doesn't matter and doesn't change the simple facts: since Roe v Wade, somewhere around 43 million babies have been murdered.

So, while we agree completely on the issue, I must respectfully disagree with your argument against it. It's not that its not morally valid, but it doesn't cover the entire scope of the issue and simply is not legally valid. I just want to see the pro-life side with the best arguments possible working for them.

The Top Crusader · Posted: Sun Jun 01, 2003 12:12 am Post subject:

Elf of Rivendell · Posted: Sun Jun 01, 2003 12:46 am Post subject: