Any ex-pro-life staunchly pro-choicers out there?

[Apryl]

Why do we spend so much time on extremely rare scenarios?

No matter how rare the occurences are… those are STILL people!

Heck, Beethoven was a rare occurence. Steven Hawking in a rare occurence.

I’M a rare occurence!

 

[Rence]

Ive been in heated conversations with friends and family…some became so mad at me that they did not talk to me for month on end…but with prayer and fasting, they came around…you see we need to plant seeds of truth, and I promise they will sprout and flourish…some take longer than others…some don’t take long at all.

FOR THE GLORY OF GOD! PEACE BE WITH YOU ALL!

This is probably the biggest “piece” of common sense and kindness I have read on this board in a long time. nuf said.

Thank you DebCat

 

[flyingfish]

So, to follow your logic, when I was in an abusive relationship with my addict ex-husband, broke, alone and scared; I should have killed my 1 year old daughter because she wasn’t self-aware and would have had a hard life with me as a single mom? looking back, since she’s a recovering addict, do you think I should have? Was I evil for letting her live? What a terrible mother I must be. wait. I wouldn’t be then, would I? Of course, I would. Sorry this just doesn’t fly for me.

That is not what I said at all. I said that if you did kill your 1 year old daughter, I would not have thought of you as a murderer.

I would never pretend to decide that someone would be better off never having come into existence.

People who kill abortion providers do not get praised because (where’ve you been?) we value LIFE. All life is precious. Does that mean that you respect Scott Roeder? He has no support whatsoever from the Pro-Life groups. Love, compassion and understanding, yes, but support? No way. All human life is precious.

Since I am not pro life, I don’t respect Scott Roeder. But if for example, someone had been killing 7 year olds for a fee, and Scott Roeder shot that person, I would certainly have respect for him and I would say that he did the right thing. Wouldn’t you?

Perhaps you did, but they were killed.

I’m not sure what you mean.

WHy do we spend so much time on extremely rare scenarios?

An “extremely rare” scenario is not so rare when the planet has nearly 7 billion people living on it. If the “extremely rare” scenarios only happen with 1 in 100,000 women that is still nearly 70,000 women in the world. And I daresay many of these scenarios are more common than one in 100,000.

Plus, we are talking about fundamentals here, and rare scenarios are edge cases that are useful for forming moral principles.

 

[DebCat129]

\I think that outlawing abortion will not olve the problem, women will still have abortions ut instead of going to a doctor in a sterile environment they will do with coat hangers or other dangerous and scary things.\

**The chop shops have standards up to the best back alleys:

Reusing disposable plastic cannulas and curettes

Rats and roaches in their treatment rooms

Physicans who are not board certified, have malpractice insurance, or hospital admitting privileges.**

You babble about coat hangers…If a woman is not ready for children, then she should not engage in sexual relations! Also, I think most women are smart enough to know that a coat hanger will most likely kill herself. When you make that statement, you demean and present women as barbaric, and well unintelligent.

And don’t say “What about the women who are raped?” Because they are a very small percentage of women who have abortions.

Pro choicers have no moral high ground so they resort to vicious personal attacks, and false truths. They create scenarios and push them off as though all women would react that way. Most women you speak to that have had abortions regret them, and I don’t mean the type of regret where you only give it a moments thought…I mean the kind of regret that take over lives, and takes lives.

 

[budgie2]

You babble about coat hangers…If a woman is not ready for children, then she should not engage in sexual relations! Also, I think most women are smart enough to know that a coat hanger will most likely kill herself. When you make that statement, you demean and present women as barbaric, and well unintelligent.

And don’t say “What about the women who are raped?” Because they are a very small percentage of women who have abortions.

Pro choicers have no moral high ground so they resort to vicious personal attacks, and false truths. They create scenarios and push them off as though all women would react that way. Most women you speak to that have had abortions regret them, and I don’t mean the type of regret where you only give it a moments thought…I mean the kind of regret that take over lives, and takes lives.

I agree. Legalising and funding abortion through taxpayers money as they do in Britain makes abortion far more widespread than when it was backstreet. The abortion rate is rising all the time. If there was the will, back street abortion could also be prevented through policing, aswell as putting high risk “self-harmers” who are threatening to commit suicide and seriously hurt themselves in hospital with proper mental health care.

 

[Fidelis_Unus]

…if you did kill your 1 year old daughter, I would not have thought of you as a murderer.

Perhaps I’m reading this wrong? You would not call me a murdered if I killed my 1 year old?

The Catholic Faith acknowledges the sanctity of ALL human life, not just the life that someone “decides” to allow to live. We are also commanded by our faith to Trust God and accept His will above all others, for He knows all and we cannot presume to know His plan. God decided, for whatever reason, to allow this life to come into the world, regardless of how. Who are we to play God and decide a baby should not be allowed to live?

Since I am not pro life, I don’t respect Scott Roeder.

Why do people assume that Pro-Life people support him. **Every single Pro-Life organization spoke out against Scott Roeder’s actions **.

But if for example, someone had been killing 7 year olds for a fee …I would say that he did the right thing. Wouldn’t you?

Absolutely NOT and, thankfully, we have one of (if not “the”) best judicial systems in the world to address this. Help to catch him, if it’s in my power, protect my children and other children. You bet! kill him. nope.

Is Roeder’s suffering over children dying less valid than that of pregnant women’s suffering after being raped? They both suffer. The life of the baby, the murderer of 7 yr olds and Scott Roeder hold the same value. You decide who should or shouldn’t be able to kill based on what? He’s means well or she’s unhappy? I’m trying to understand your thinking.

I’m not sure what you mean…

Just trying to make a point that if a man has sex with a woman, his offspring may have been killed during an abortion or while practicing chemical birth control. He or she may never know that they had a child. This is the Catholic viewpoint, life begins at conception. Not trying to get too personal here, just trying to illustrate a point. I hope that clarifies, no reply necessary.

There were numerous issues in the previous post so I’m splitting them up.

 

[Fidelis_Unus]

An “extremely rare” scenario is not so rare when the planet has nearly 7 billion people living on it. If the “extremely rare” scenarios only happen with 1 in 100,000 women that is still nearly 70,000 women in the world. And I daresay many of these scenarios are more common than one in 100,000.

I’d rather avoid numbers in a such a debate; however it’s important to use correct data…this is an older number from Planned Parenthoods’ Guttmacher Institute in the 80’s; however it refers to the US, not the entire world. we now know that women lied so that they could get an abortion on demand during those times. Other sources show a more accurate figure of 1/3 of 1%. I have sources I can PM. **This would make the percentage of women who have an abortion in these circumstances FAR LESS common than one in 100,000. **

It is this skewed premise of rape and medical necessity that brought us abortion on demand and both scenarios were lies. Norma McCorvey (Roe v Wade) lied and her story is well-worth reading - really interesting. Sandra Cano (Doe v Bolton) was misrepresented by the ACLU and never wanted an abortion. Our laws are based on lies.

Important to note: A majority of women (75-85%) who are pregnant due to rape choose to carry their child. Many women share stories about how abortion further traumatized them after their attack and their stories fall on deaf ears. Just looking at the issue of rape and guilt helps to understand why. If you are raped, you feel unwarranted guilt, its’ hard, but you can bet past this. When you add abortion, the guilt becomes yours and become intertwined with the rape. Tough issue. Women deserve better. See afterabortion.org.

Let say one person in a million is pregnant due to rape. That still ignores the 1.2 million people’s lives who are lost every year and the suffering of millions of women who suffer from abortion, so that one person can continue their life at the mercy of the life that God created. We all have a fundamental right to life, given to us by God. Period.

Plus, we are talking about fundamentals here, and rare scenarios are edge cases that are useful for forming moral principles.

I have no problem discussing “edge cases” if we do so honestly, but we generally don’t. We keep hearing emotional fringe cases to sway opinions, rather than discuss the Truths about abortion, its history and the terrible effects on society. We ignore that both Roe and Doe were based on lies and deception.

Even if MOST pregnancies were a result of rape; it does not change the fact that in every case there is a live human being already in existence that has as much of a right to live as the body he/she is being nurtured in. You can call it a zygote, a cell, a fetus, whatever you want, it is still a living human being and, as such, it has the inherent right to life that you or I have, however it came into being and, remember, God creates life. God decided that this life should be brought forth. It is not for us to decide that He is wrong.

I would never presume to know better than our Pope and our Magisterium who have devoted years of contemplation, prayer and studying by experts in humanity, philosophy, psychology, theology, medical science and many other areas. When I came back to the faith, I wasn’t certain, but deferred to the Church, later as I learned more and talked with more women and gathered more data, I know now, fully and completely, that this little child has just as much a right to live as I do.

If you disagree with the Pope, after Humane Vitae, then perhaps the Catholic faith is not in line with your thinking. I’m not saying you are unwelcome only that your beliefs are not in line with the Church in a very serious and critical issue.

Perhaps it would help to know your opinion on when life begins. Does the fetus’ value increase with age? Is there a degree of sin based on the age of the fetus or the pain of the mother? Help me to understand your thinking. I’m really baffled by some of your previous scenarios.

 

[Fidelis_Unus]

I don’t think evidence is applicable here, seeing how we’re talking about personal opinions about what it means to be a person. There is no right answer.

You can have as many opinions as you have people, however, there is only one Truth.

I thought we were hear to talk “who out there is an ex-pro-lifer and why?” To address some of these comments one must deal in absolutes, as far as we know them. If you want to say, “It depends on conciousness”, ok. Some are simply trying to point out to you your opinion is not absolute. Further discussion about conciousness should be done on a different thread, lest we stray very far off topic.

IMHO

 

[Fidelis_Unus]

With all due respect…this is :whacky:

She most certainly was brain dead…after they pulled the plug!

Something tells me that a fetus is certainly aware (conscious) of being ripped apart, limb from limb.

Not anymore. It’s my understanding that the methods today more humane, so as to prevent the need for partial-birth abortion. Now there is a shot into the brain or the heart to kill the baby first. Saline abortions still require the fetus be alive. Please feel free to correct me if I’m wrong. This info is hard to gather.

If this stuff was done at the SPCA people would be in an uproar, wouldn’t they?

Is this progress?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

flyingfish

Since I am not pro life, I don’t respect Scott Roeder. But if for example, someone had been killing 7 year olds for a fee, and Scott Roeder shot that person, I would certainly have respect for him and I would say that he did the right thing. Wouldn’t you?

You raise an interesting question. Here is a similar situation I just posted in another forum:

*A worried woman went to her gynecologist and said:

'Doctor, I have a serious problem and desperately need your help!

My baby is not even 1 yr. old and I’m pregnant again.

I don’t want kids so close together.’

So the doctor said: ‘Ok, and what do you want me to do?’

She said: ‘I want you to end my pregnancy, and I’m counting on your help with this.’

The doctor thought for a little, and after some silence he said to the lady:

‘I think I have a better solution for your problem. It’s less dangerous for you too.’

She smiled, thinking that the doctor was going to accept her request.

Then he continued: You see, in order for you not to have to take care of 2 babies at the same time, let’s kill the one in your arms. This way, you could rest some before the other one is born.

If we’re going to kill one of them, it doesn’t matter which one it is.

There would be no risk for your body if you chose the one in your arms.

The lady was horrified and said: 'No doctor! How terrible! It’s a crime to kill a child!

‘I agree’, the doctor replied. 'But you seemed to be ok with it, so I thought maybe that was the best solution.*

I would be interested in how an ex pro-lifer would comment on this hypothetical situation.

 

[hosemonkey]

flyingfish

Since I am not pro life, I don’t respect Scott Roeder. But if for example, someone had been killing 7 year olds for a fee, and Scott Roeder shot that person, I would certainly have respect for him and I would say that he did the right thing. Wouldn’t you?

The key here seems to be WANTEDNESS. If a baby is WANTED, there seems that no amount of medical expertise and money is too much to ensure that this child lives. If a baby is UNWANTED, then no amount of care and compassion is enough to save it. We see one floor of the hospital dedicated to exerting every possible medical technology in order to save children at risk. On another floor, perfectly healthy, viable babies are ruthlessly slaughtered and dumped into buckets, all perfectly legal. I worked in the health-care field for many years, I know of which I speak. So, little ones, pray very hard that you are WANTED, because if you are UNWANTED, your life is not worth a plugged nickel. Why? because pro-choice people have stunted or absent souls, who do not seem to be equipped with normal human responses. Some seem borderline sociopathic. Difficult for me to understand.

 

[DebCat129]

The key here seems to be WANTEDNESS. If a baby is WANTED, there seems that no amount of medical expertise and money is too much to ensure that this child lives. If a baby is UNWANTED, then no amount of care and compassion is enough to save it. We see one floor of the hospital dedicated to exerting every possible medical technology in order to save children at risk. On another floor, perfectly healthy, viable babies are ruthlessly slaughtered and dumped into buckets, all perfectly legal. I worked in the health-care field for many years, I know of which I speak. So, little ones, pray very hard that you are WANTED, because if you are UNWANTED, your life is not worth a plugged nickel. Why? because pro-choice people have stunted or absent souls, who do not seem to be equipped with normal human responses. Some seem borderline sociopathic. Difficult for me to understand.

Well said, for the most part. Pro-choicer, so to speak, don’t have stunted or absent souls, although that would be giving them an easy out…most of these people, you will find are the type that go with the flow…what I mean is they are afraid of confrontation, so they start to believe the lies they are told by someone they may respect or look up to, or its the common belief among friends. Rarely you will find a group of friends that disagree in such subjects, and usually their beliefs, no matter how twisted they may be are decided by the leader of the group. Liberals, or should I say the PROGRESSIVE lot of people will have you (you being the pro-choicer) believe that it you your God given right to choose (to murder you unborn child) that its your life and your body…and that women and men alike should respect someones right to choose (murder), even if you don’t feel that way yourself. But the irony here is that by just supporting someones so called right (murder), you are complicit in the act…if you do nothing to stop this heinous act you will still be called to answer for that in the end much in the same way one who may have known of a murder plot and did nothing to stop it.

Progressives do this with all moral issues…Lets look at homosexuality…to be homosexual in of its self is not a sin, however the sexual immorality involved with it is a sin…and sadly, in my experience, my homosexual friends and family, well they are very wounded, and the progressive movement takes advantage of that…they prey on these folks. They tell them they are discriminated against, (its true that some homosexuals are harassed, but no more that say an obese, African American, Mexican, or any other minority) that their lifestyle should be equal, but what they fail to really say, it that you do have equal rights, we just want you to have special rights, better rights that those who are not homosexual. They brain wash people and intimidate those who don’t agree with same sex marriage. But when you look at it…these people are fighting for a lie…the lie that they are extra special in Gods eyes…that God will over look their sexual immorality, and accept them into heaven with open arms… when John doe over there who is having a premarital affair (sexual immorality), or Jane doe over here is molesting children (sexual immorality), or the rapist over there…these people are sinners, but homosexuals…no they are not sinners, they cant help it, (is what they will tell you) but the bottom line is sexual immorality is sexual immorality, and no homosexual is above Gods judgment, just like no adulterer, child molester, or rapist, and on the flip side of the token they are not worst sinner than the above mentioned…but I will add this, there is a big difference between someone who is living in sin and someone that commits a sin. The difference is strongholds, and addictions.
So what I’m trying to say is that most of these people have no Idea what it means to have a well formed conscience, and it is THEY who believe what they are told, it is THEY who are not the free thinkers, because it is They who look to others to tell them what is right or wrong, not the other way around…
Propaganda and lies, that’s what you get from the liberal left and right.

 

[flyingfish]

Perhaps I’m reading this wrong? You would not call me a murdered if I killed my 1 year old?

You’re reading right, I don’t think humans become people until consciousness develops. 1 year olds aren’t yet aware of their existence, and their minds are not at the level where I would consider them people and worry about them being killed any more than I worry about animals being killed.

Absolutely NOT and, thankfully, we have one of (if not “the”) best judicial systems in the world to address this. Help to catch him, if it’s in my power, protect my children and other children. You bet! kill him. nope.

What if you were walking down the street and witnessed a man trying to stab a 7 year old to death, you have a gun, do you shoot and kill the man to save the child?

Is Roeder’s suffering over children dying less valid than that of pregnant women’s suffering after being raped? They both suffer. The life of the baby, the murderer of 7 yr olds and Scott Roeder hold the same value. You decide who should or shouldn’t be able to kill based on what? He’s means well or she’s unhappy? I’m trying to understand your thinking.

My thinking is that consciousness makes a living thing a person, without it, it’s not a person and I don’t worry about killing it. 7 year olds have consciousness, the unborn and newborns for example do not. Still, if you kill someone else’s newborn without their consent, you are destroying a baby they spent 9 months producing, may have spent even more time and money trying to conceive. It is a serious offense against them to destroy the newborn.

Just trying to make a point that if a man has sex with a woman, his offspring may have been killed during an abortion or while practicing chemical birth control. He or she may never know that they had a child. This is the Catholic viewpoint, life begins at conception. Not trying to get too personal here, just trying to illustrate a point. I hope that clarifies, no reply necessary.

Ah, I understand, but just so you know I am a woman.

If you disagree with the Pope, after Humane Vitae, then perhaps the Catholic faith is not in line with your thinking. I’m not saying you are unwelcome only that your beliefs are not in line with the Church in a very serious and critical issue.

This is true, and I wonder sometimes if I can call myself Catholic because my beliefs are so at odds in many areas. I even made a thread about this.

Perhaps it would help to know your opinion on when life begins. Does the fetus’ value increase with age? Is there a degree of sin based on the age of the fetus or the pain of the mother? Help me to understand your thinking. I’m really baffled by some of your previous scenarios.

I think to a point a child’s “value” does increase with age. I wouldn’t feel too sad for example if a young child died, because that child doesn’t really have a mind yet, doesn’t really understand life, dream of the future and so on. But once a certain level of consciousness is reached, I’d say all conscious beings have equal value. I don’t think this level has to be very high either. I don’t have children of my own, and I haven’t interacted with children since I was a child myself. But I think maybe by 7 years old or so it’s already there, maybe even earlier.

But from what I understand of the science, consciousness develops around the age of 2-3 years old. Before that, there isn’t a self aware person.

 

[MikiBee]

I’m not sure why all the debates over abortion. We all know that Catholics are against it and why they are against it. Catholics view life starts at conception. Simple.

The problem is, however, that not everyone is Catholic and believes that life starts at conception. Some don’t feel it’s a person until there’s a heartbeat. Others feel it’s later on when the central nervous system is developed and they can feel pain. Yet others feel it’s not until birth–or at a gestational period where the fetus could survive outside its mother’s womb.

I am Catholic and believe abortion is wrong and would go out of my way to talk someone out of it. But it is not my place to judge. And as much as I would disagree, they have their own moral code they live by. It would be great if Catholics ruled the world and could make every law and enforce them. But that’s never going to happen. Not everyone is Catholic. This argument will never end unless everyone were Catholic-- and strict Catholics at that.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

flyingfish

*I think to a point a child’s “value” does increase with age. I wouldn’t feel too sad for example if a young child died, because that child doesn’t really have a mind yet, doesn’t really understand life, dream of the future and so on. But once a certain level of consciousness is reached, I’d say all conscious beings have equal value. I don’t think this level has to be very high either. I don’t have children of my own, and I haven’t interacted with children since I was a child myself. *

To say that a child would not object to being murdered because it does not have self-consciousness is to take away that child’s future without his permission, to rob him of all his dreams of the future because you have robbed him of his future in which those dreams would occur. If self-consciousness is the only criteria for whether it is right to kill someone, I suppose a mass murderer could go into a hospital nursery and bullet-spray all the cribs without being held accountable for murder, just because by your definition these children are not conscious of what has happened to them?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Mikibee

*I am Catholic and believe abortion is wrong and would go out of my way to talk someone out of it. But it is not my place to judge. And as much as I would disagree, they have their own moral code they live by. It would be great if Catholics ruled the world and could make every law and enforce them. But that’s never going to happen. Not everyone is Catholic. This argument will never end unless everyone were Catholic-- and strict Catholics at that. *

I don’t agree. I know atheists who are dead set against abortion and see the rationality of the Catholic point of view just because they too can be rational about what constitutes a human. The issue is not for Catholics to impose their will on non-Catholics. The issue is for Catholics to bring consciousness of the wrongness of abortion to everyone they meet, and to help build a consensus sufficient to establish in the popular mind that abortion is simply a type of murder of the most vulnerable and defenseless among us.

If all murder is to be outlawed, why have fifty million murders been government sanctioned over the last forty years? This is a holocaust that dwarfs the holocaust against the Jews. You would think Jews would be in the forefront of those fighting this holocaust.

 

[flyingfish]

flyingfish

*I think to a point a child’s “value” does increase with age. I wouldn’t feel too sad for example if a young child died, because that child doesn’t really have a mind yet, doesn’t really understand life, dream of the future and so on. But once a certain level of consciousness is reached, I’d say all conscious beings have equal value. I don’t think this level has to be very high either. I don’t have children of my own, and I haven’t interacted with children since I was a child myself. *

To say that a child would not object to being murdered because it does not have self-consciousness is to take away that child’s future without his permission, to rob him of all his dreams of the future because you have robbed him of his future in which those dreams would occur. If self-consciousness is the only criteria for whether it is right to kill someone, I suppose a mass murderer could go into a hospital nursery and bullet-spray all the cribs without being held accountable for murder, just because by your definition these children are not conscious of what has happened to them?

Personally I don’t think murder would be the appropriate charge, but I’m not saying he should be able to get away with it. As I pointed out, having a child is a huge deal, in the best case scenario it’s 9 months of pregnancy. In the worst case people may have been going to fertility specialists for years and spending a lot of money to have that child. It is a very serious offense to destroy it. (Just like it would be an offense to destroy people’s houses, steal their life savings and so on.)

It’s an interesting case though if both parents together decide to kill their newborn. Can society claim that they are committing an offense against society? My guess would be no. And such a crime would be comparable to people deciding to kill their pet.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

flyingfish

*It’s an interesting case though if both parents together decide to kill their newborn. Can society claim that they are committing an offense against society? My guess would be no. And such a crime would be comparable to people deciding to kill their pet. *

Are you grateful to your parents that they did not kill you in the womb? If you are, then you know that a baby’s whole life has been destroyed by an abortion, and that baby will not get to know the life that you have lived and enjoyed because your parents did not choose to kill you either before your birth or during the first “unconscious” years of your life.

“Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” Jesus Christ

 

[hosemonkey]

Personally I don’t think murder would be the appropriate charge, but I’m not saying he should be able to get away with it. As I pointed out, having a child is a huge deal, in the best case scenario it’s 9 months of pregnancy. In the worst case people may have been going to fertility specialists for years and spending a lot of money to have that child. It is a very serious offense to destroy it. (Just like it would be an offense to destroy people’s houses, steal their life savings and so on.)

It’s an interesting case though if both parents together decide to kill their newborn. Can society claim that they are committing an offense against society? My guess would be no. And such a crime would be comparable to people deciding to kill their pet.

In my humble opinion, you are a sad, stunted individual, all the worse that you are a woman, supposedly endowed with the virtues of nurturing and compassion. Not an attack, merely an observation. I pray for you and those like you. And yes, I find it odd that you refer to yourself as Catholic, since you are so far from the mind of the Church on these matters. Peace.

 

[flyingfish]

flyingfish

*It’s an interesting case though if both parents together decide to kill their newborn. Can society claim that they are committing an offense against society? My guess would be no. And such a crime would be comparable to people deciding to kill their pet. *

Are you grateful to your parents that they did not kill you in the womb? If you are, then you know that a baby’s whole life has been destroyed by an abortion, and that baby will not get to know the life that you have lived and enjoyed because your parents did not choose to kill you either before your birth or during the first “unconscious” years of your life.

“Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” Jesus Christ

Am I grateful that my parents had me? Sure. But this is an after the fact kind of reasoning. I don’t think I existed until I became conscious, so if my mom had decided to have an abortion, I wouldn’t have existed in the first place, and there wouldn’t have been a me to kill or be glad to be alive.

I don’t agree with your logic because it would be the same as saying that people who chose not to have children destroyed the life of the children they would have had. In fact they didn’t destroy anyone’s life, because the children never existed to begin with.

I don’t think we can agree because we don’t agree on what a person is.