E
elts1956
Guest
Or never.:whackadoo:
- Status
Q
qaz
Guest
I have always found abortion a difficult issue I have a simple nature I think if we all began as a small collection of cells and were not aborted why should anyone else be denied the right to live
However I can understand the way some people have been persuaded into supporting pro choice which was a very clever tactic by pro abortion campaigners because some people can then comfort themselves with the illusion that it is possibl to be pro choice but not pro abortion which is simply a lie.
Abortion is an issue like slavery.You are either for or against it There is no middle ground. Why? Both treat the human person as a disposable possesssion.
Mother Teresa said abortion is the death of conscience.It is a chillingly perceptive commentWhen the conscience is dulled or misinformed anything becomes possible.Increasing violence in families and on the streets is a natural consequence when we have allowed the safe sanctuary of the womb to be violated
Exalt sounds like a sensitive and soft hearted person.It is true pregnancy is a big ask of any woman and every pregnant woman should be treated with kindness and respect but it does not help any woman to kill the child It goes against the very essence of a woman’s nature and even if a woman actively seeks an abortion It is damaging psychologically because Mother Nature has inbuilt wiring that is not meant to be tamoered with When there are exceptions due to mental or emotional damage in the mother to be they can and should be addressed with counselling and if required children can be put up for adoption.Abortion is never a choice always a death sentence.
However I can understand the way some people have been persuaded into supporting pro choice which was a very clever tactic by pro abortion campaigners because some people can then comfort themselves with the illusion that it is possibl to be pro choice but not pro abortion which is simply a lie.
Abortion is an issue like slavery.You are either for or against it There is no middle ground. Why? Both treat the human person as a disposable possesssion.
Mother Teresa said abortion is the death of conscience.It is a chillingly perceptive commentWhen the conscience is dulled or misinformed anything becomes possible.Increasing violence in families and on the streets is a natural consequence when we have allowed the safe sanctuary of the womb to be violated
Exalt sounds like a sensitive and soft hearted person.It is true pregnancy is a big ask of any woman and every pregnant woman should be treated with kindness and respect but it does not help any woman to kill the child It goes against the very essence of a woman’s nature and even if a woman actively seeks an abortion It is damaging psychologically because Mother Nature has inbuilt wiring that is not meant to be tamoered with When there are exceptions due to mental or emotional damage in the mother to be they can and should be addressed with counselling and if required children can be put up for adoption.Abortion is never a choice always a death sentence.
K
kentuckyliz
Guest
All Catholics are “pro choice” in the general sense that we acknowledge that God gave us free will.
R
rcdianne
Guest
YES, I’M DEFINITELY PRO-CHOICE! 
I believe whole-heartedly in a woman’s right to get into bed (or wherever) with a man. HOWEVER, once she has then her “Right to Choose” is over.
I believe whole-heartedly in a woman’s right to get into bed (or wherever) with a man. HOWEVER, once she has then her “Right to Choose” is over.
S
Sailor_Kenshin
Guest
I’m pro-choice. I CHOOSE to permit unborn babies to be born.
I am, however, steadfastly anti-ABORTION.
Let’s please not play into enemy hands by playing fast and loose with the meaning of words.
N
Nemesis
Guest
Generally I am for abortion under two circumstances. 1) By giving birth it would put the mother’s life in danger, or severe damage to her. 2) Rape/incest.
Otherwise I am against abortion, but I also do not think I have the right to deny a womens rights over her own body. I also refuse to look down on someone who is thinking or has had one. For the former I would of course try and talk her out of it.
Otherwise I am against abortion, but I also do not think I have the right to deny a womens rights over her own body. I also refuse to look down on someone who is thinking or has had one. For the former I would of course try and talk her out of it.
F
fix
Guest
What about the right of the child not to be killed?
N
Nemesis
Guest
I think i once tried to explain this, mostly to see if I could, and I realized something. No matter how I tried to tackle this, it always ended up in a messed up way. It also ended up with me trying to explain something I was rather uncomfortable with. But I guess that sort of feeling just comes with the topic in general.
S
Sonny1954
Guest
Revert TSIEG, I agree with you on two points. First, being pro-choice is not the same thing as being “pro-abortion.” People on this site will never concede that and maybe they can’t see it, but it’s true nonetheless. I also find smoking disgusting. I don’t smoke. I don’t buy cigarettes for other people to smoke. As far as I’m concerned, the government can tax the heqq out of cigarettes. But I’m not in favor of making it against the law. That’s not my judgement to make. I guess that makes me “pro-smoking.”
Secondly, I doubt that I am the only person who is very hesitant to express views in this community. Abortion is the hot-button issue, certainly. But if one expresses an opinion that is “left of the Spanish Inquisition” so to speak, they open themselves to relentless attacks by people who are so sure about their own sanctity.
Okay folks, let’s have it…
Secondly, I doubt that I am the only person who is very hesitant to express views in this community. Abortion is the hot-button issue, certainly. But if one expresses an opinion that is “left of the Spanish Inquisition” so to speak, they open themselves to relentless attacks by people who are so sure about their own sanctity.
Okay folks, let’s have it…
S
Shredderbeam
Guest
I meant conscious preferences, but that plays a secondary role to conscious experience.
"elts1956:
It will react to stimuli, but I’m concerned most with when it has conscious experience.
I do not find it wrong to kill a being that has no conscious experience, such as a flower, as there is nothing that experiences any pain, but a being with conscious experience can experience pain - that’s why conscious experience is where I draw the line.
I have heard of cases where people in comas were able to hear and think.
I don’t see much of a difference between a person with severe brain damage (to the point that they are a vegetable) and a fetus.
I’d prefer to keep this non-hostile.
It’s hard to give a concrete, objective answer, especially since I’m no expert on embryology, but I would think that once their brain is developed enough to allow for near-human sensibility, it would be wrong to kill them.
"royal archer:
I’d probably group the football player and the artist together, as their levels of sensibility, I assume, would not be that different.
Yes, I think it should be.
F
fix
Guest
It is the same. The pro “choicer” says it is acceptable for the law to allow killing. That is support for abortion.
Why would they concede to an untruth?
There is a big difference between someone smoking, which is not intrinsically evil, and allowing another to kill an innocent person.
Would you hold that some person claiming the government should allow rape as being pro choice on rape?
If one holds a view that the innocent should not be protected by the state one is holding a view that contradicts the CCC.
F
fix
Guest
That proves at least you understand that your position is impossible to reconcile with what is moral.
O
Orogeny
Guest
Well, this is a Catholic forum. Which side of the issue does the Catholic Church take?
Spare us with your self-martyrdom. It does nothing for your argument.
Peace
Tim
N
njervis
Guest
I would like to take a different tack here. As Catholics, we KNOW and believe firmly that abortion is murder, but I think it is necessary to lay out other arguments that are not directly linked to Faith or Natural Law when arguing for Life with non-
believers and secularists:
Saying that you are personally opposed to abortion, but do not think that your beliefs should be “imposed” on anyone is like saying “I’m personally opposed to slavery, but I can’t impose my views on others.” Slave owners had rights too. Thy had the “sacrosant” right to property. They had “legally” bought or bred those slaves and needed them to pursue their way of life: the entire U.S. South’s economy was based on slave labor. So aboliton directly affected slave owners’ “rights.” But this premise is totally morally and logically bankrupt. The right of those slaves to be free trumped the right of those slave owners to own this “property.” It is important to realize that “rights” are not subjective, but objective: they arise and reflect the general good, not necessarily the particular interest of an individual “good”. Likewise, the rights of a woman end where the rights of another (the unborn child’s) begin.
. The genius of the U.S. preamble to the Declaration of Independence rests in large part on the explicit statement that human beings are endowed BY THEIR CREATOR with certain inalienable rights: LIFE, LIBERTY and the pursuit of happiness. These are not the gift of the State, or a benign despot, but intrinsic, fundamental attributes of the human person and thus, take precedence over ALL other secondary rights derived thereof. Most importantly, if secondary rights, such as property, are in opposition to these basic, fundamental rights, that “secondary right” is superseded. The most basic, fundamental and intrinsic “right” - if we are to speak of rights in relation to humans - IS the right to Life, without which every other right is moot. And a right exists in its entirety or not at all: you cannot have a little bit or small right. And this right must belong equally to all beings who are “human.” Thus being Human equals the basic, fundamental :tiphat:Right to Life.
And the government’s role? Contrary to your opinion that the government should not tell women what to do with their bodies, Thomas Jefferson, the Leftists’ favorite Founding Father (who by the way was himself a slave owner!), put it very succinctly: “The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only legitimate object of good government.”
believers and secularists:
Saying that you are personally opposed to abortion, but do not think that your beliefs should be “imposed” on anyone is like saying “I’m personally opposed to slavery, but I can’t impose my views on others.” Slave owners had rights too. Thy had the “sacrosant” right to property. They had “legally” bought or bred those slaves and needed them to pursue their way of life: the entire U.S. South’s economy was based on slave labor. So aboliton directly affected slave owners’ “rights.” But this premise is totally morally and logically bankrupt. The right of those slaves to be free trumped the right of those slave owners to own this “property.” It is important to realize that “rights” are not subjective, but objective: they arise and reflect the general good, not necessarily the particular interest of an individual “good”. Likewise, the rights of a woman end where the rights of another (the unborn child’s) begin.
. The genius of the U.S. preamble to the Declaration of Independence rests in large part on the explicit statement that human beings are endowed BY THEIR CREATOR with certain inalienable rights: LIFE, LIBERTY and the pursuit of happiness. These are not the gift of the State, or a benign despot, but intrinsic, fundamental attributes of the human person and thus, take precedence over ALL other secondary rights derived thereof. Most importantly, if secondary rights, such as property, are in opposition to these basic, fundamental rights, that “secondary right” is superseded. The most basic, fundamental and intrinsic “right” - if we are to speak of rights in relation to humans - IS the right to Life, without which every other right is moot. And a right exists in its entirety or not at all: you cannot have a little bit or small right. And this right must belong equally to all beings who are “human.” Thus being Human equals the basic, fundamental :tiphat:Right to Life.
And the government’s role? Contrary to your opinion that the government should not tell women what to do with their bodies, Thomas Jefferson, the Leftists’ favorite Founding Father (who by the way was himself a slave owner!), put it very succinctly: “The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only legitimate object of good government.”
D
dkoinzan
Guest
I am 100 percent prolife. It is the easiest most simple truth there is. I have held the bodies of my dead preborn children in my hands and I know that the only difference between them and my living children are their size. At 14 weeks my son was fully formed. His body was perfect and he is and will always be my child. My daughter died at around 31 weeks her body was perfectly formed. The only difference between her and my other children is the size of her body.
My heart aches for women who have aborted their children. I know how hard it is to survive the death of a child. It is beyond any pain I have ever experienced, but I did not choose to have the die. I can not fathom the agony of a woman who has chosen to kill her child once she has come to the realization of what she has done.
My heart aches for women who have aborted their children. I know how hard it is to survive the death of a child. It is beyond any pain I have ever experienced, but I did not choose to have the die. I can not fathom the agony of a woman who has chosen to kill her child once she has come to the realization of what she has done.
M
MarysGirls
Guest
Please accept my sincere condolences for your losses. While I have never had to experience that kind of pain, I agree with you totally.
K
kage_ar
Guest
The baby is to pay for the sins and crimes of the father? How brutal.
As every pregnancy puts a mother’s life and health in danger, then, pretty much you are all for abortion.
S
Sailor_Kenshin
Guest
Statistics. That’s what we need. That’ll save us.
Do you have any statistics that show that treating people on a level with rutting animals does no damage to their immortal souls?
P
Palm_Tree
Guest
Do you think you have the right to deny a woman’s right to kill her 5-year-old child? What’s the difference between that and denying a woman’s right to kill her 5-week-old child? Because you think the 5-week only child isn’t really a child, but just some random growth of cells that is inside the woman’s body?
E
Eddie_Mac
Guest
Except from the unborn’s point of view based on your warped sense of reasoning.
Eddie Mac
- Status