Anybody out there "pro-choice"?

[Eddie_Mac]

I just don’t like seeing debates degenerate into mud-slinging contests.

I’m not killing an unborn child, I’m debating whether it’s right for others to do it. I’d like to continue the debate, but only if it can stay as a debate, and not an insult match.

I did not insult you.

Your posts have stated that you advocate the killing of the unborn and your belief that the unborn are not persons until they reach some stage of consciousness, whatever that is.

The Catholic Curch holds that your beliefs are counter to the truth, the teachings of the Church.

My posts have stated my beliefs as well.

It is not my fault that our beliefs differ. You are on a Catholic forum. I am a Catholic. This is my belief. My beliefs are not insulting.

Eddie Mac

 

[fix]

Shredder, you have to understand that for the most part these folks don’t grasp the difference between constructive exchange of ideas. That would require an open mind and you’ll find very little of that in this thread.

By open mind do you mean having a dead conscience? Do you mean embracing moral relativism?

 

[Shredderbeam]

I did not insult you.

I thought that the following parts of your first reply to me were insults:

Shredderbeam, you yourself are not being sensible, in that you are not making sense. In your own words, you are not sensible so you are in the same state of consciousness as you claim unborn babies to be in.

Exercise your neurons a little more and stop with the moronic explanations you are using to justify your position of allowing the unborn to be murdered.

Eddie Mac

My apologies if I took that the wrong way.

 

[cdanison]

'THOU SHALT NOT KILL"!.

Are there any other questions?

 

[dkoinzan]

By open mind do you mean having a dead conscience? Do you mean embracing moral relativism?

Was it Mother Angelica that said, “Don’t be so open minded that your brains fall out.”

 

[Palm_Tree]

'THOU SHALT NOT KILL"!.

Are there any other questions?

Thou shall not kill humans. Usually, pro-life people don’t believe the aborted baby is a human, so they don’t believe they are killing a human. So to tell them “thou shall not kill” is irrevelant to them.

IMO, the main message to pro-choice people should be that LIFE BEGINS AT CONCEPTION. I forget how they dispute this, but they have their arguments.

The best thing to do is to show them pictures of aborted fetuses. Aftering seeing that, it’s hard to believe that the aborted baby is not a human.

 

[royal_archer]

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.

If you truly believe people have a right over their own body that can not be limmited by society, then I presume you also support the right of minors to smoke, drink, do drugs, engage in prostitution, sell them selves into slavery, engage in the production of pornograpy, etc. all of these things are things we as society choose to limmit a person from doing to themselves an none of them involve the murder of innocent bystanders.

 

[royal_archer]

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.

That uncomfortable feeling is something, or someones, way of telling you to reevaluate your possition.

Let me give you another way of looking at this that you may feel more comfortable with. You are at the bank and a robbery occurs, in the process shots are fired. you fall to the ground. You realize that there is a baby there who is wounded and you are laying on them causing enough preasure to stop the bleeding. This child is now dependent on you to live. It was not your choice it just happened. can you just stop rendering care and allow the child to die? Can you kill the child because it is interfering with your plans? Obviously not. you have to keep attending to the child until you can safely pass the child on. This is the state the mother is in. Now propose this situation to any of your pro abortion confidants but do not tell them that the scenario is abortion related and see what they say.

 

[royal_archer]

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…

Now given the abortionist that was recently killed. The pro life people have been consistent that this is a violation of life (differentiating between pro life and anti abortion). Are the “Pro choice” people going to be equally consistent and state that the assailant had the right to choose to kill another or assert that while they disagree with the murder that they don’t feel it should have been against the law?

Every board has it’s share of rude people. most here will only challenge with facts, perspective, stories, and opinions. If you are proud of your possition then you have nothing to worry about.

 

[royal_archer]

**Quote:
Originally Posted by royal archer
So do you agree that it at least should be illegal to kill a baby at at least 8.5 months of pre birth development? **

Yes, I think it should be.

So now that you agree that abortion should be illegal in some circumstances, it is just a matter of determining when. Right?

 

[Shredderbeam]

So now that you agree that abortion should be illegal in some circumstances, it is just a matter of determining when. Right?

Yes, that sounds right.

 

[royal_archer]

I haven’t read all the posts on this, but I’m probably in the minority here. Pro-choice does not automatically mean pro-abortion. It means that the pregnant woman has many choices, some that surprisingly don’t involve abortion. Pro-choice means that the pregnant woman can choose to keep the baby, she can choose to put the baby up for adoption, or she can choose to terminate the pregnancy.

I agree that because someone supports the existence of the option to kill babies, it does not follow logically that they accross the board want all babies killed. However the same is true of the so called pro choice crowd. Many of these same people claim to be pro choice and then go about the rest of their day trying to limmit other peoples choices. Because of this the pro choice label is not applicable. Since the abortion act by default eliminates the choice of one of the two as such the pro choice nomenclature is diametrically opposite to the movement that is seeking to allow women to kill their children. Abortion will or will not exist as a legal activity. Those who say a mother may kill her children advocate for the existence of abortion as a legal activity. Therefore they are pro abortion. As such the pro abortion title is much more appropriate than pro choice.

I got pregnant 35 years ago when I was a senior in high school. I chose to keep the baby and marry the father of the baby. For the next 20 years after that choice he beat me regularly and abused me emotionally and verbally as well. In hindsight I should have kept the baby, terminated the relationship.

I’ve known a few women who have chosen to terminate the pregnancy. I will say that personally I don’t think I could have done that. I do know that it was not a decision made lightly. They went to counselling, explored other options, and cried afterward. Some have even doubted if they made the right choice. I just tell them that God doesn’t let you make a wrong choice. If they learn something from the choice (and this goes for any choice on any subject), then take that lesson and carry it in your heart. Quite often I’ve seen this decision portrayed as being made very flippantly, along the lines of what dress to wear or what color nail polish. It’s not an easy decision. Some women and teenagers feel that it is the best decision not just for them, but also for the baby. Have you spent much time around abused children? It’s not good. It makes a great case for some women not being allowed to be mothers (they’re that biologically only).

God does not stop all wrong choices. No one is saying the decision of the mother to kill her child is made cassually. But that does not make it right. It must be very traumatic to kill your child because it is evil. Our society should set up an infrastructure to help make it easier for a mother to do the right thing, not surpress the truth when she wants to do the wrong thing. Yes there are bad parrents. But I am willing to venture that these are just bad people and there are better ways of dealing with these bad people than going around and killing those who they could potentially abuse. Adoption is an option as well as removing the child from bad situations.

This whole issue has always reminded me of the OT story of Job. My favorite part is when Job’s friends are telling him that all his problems are because he has offended God and God’s response is to ask who are they to speak for God? If anyone who has made the choice to terminate a pregnancy offends God, then that’s between that soul and God at the end of her life. They’ll have to figure out how to make it right. Not anyone else.

Now I’ll put my soapbox away and get back to work.

It is wrong to go to someone who has sinned and say that what happened to them is the result of God’s anger at their sin. That is very different than showing people how their acts or potential acts violate the commandments of God as documented in the Bible.

 

[royal_archer]

But doesn’t second-hand smoke kill innocent people?

Second hand smoke is not forced on people. (With the exception of parrents who smoke around their children which should be banned.)

 

[royal_archer]

In my own case I would say that it begins at conception because I have with the exception of the first used contraception to prevent conception. But you see that’s where the choice part comes in. I can make decisions for me. If I screw up and **** off God, then that’s between me and God at the end of my life. Sorry, I didn’t see the question in your previous posts. We’re not that far off, just that I make decisions for myself and my soul and you make decisions for others.

But the question really is “does society have the right/obligation to protect a weeker individual from becoming the victim of a stronger individual?”

 

[royal_archer]

Let me say first off I am coming to this post way into the discussion. My point may have long been made. We need to change our language.

I am a pro-choice Catholic. I choose everything I do. I choose to sin…I choose not to…I choose to follow the Ten Commandments…I choose to strive to grow in holiness…I choose to ~ continue to name what it takes to attain heaven.

I am anti-abortion. That is a more accurate statement of my belief of life. I believe in the dignity of human life from the moment of conception to the moment of natural death.

I believe we need to do away with the terminology of “pro-life” and “pro-choice” and name them what they are…anti-abortion and pro-abortion.

I would not consider myself anti abortion since there is a violent aspect of the movement that is against abortion but not pro life such as those who engage in deadly force against abortionist. being that I find bothe forms of murder wrong, I feel the pro life title is much more appropriate.

 

[Heysus_Christo]

What if your baby is going to be born with aids? Give birth to it?

 

[royal_archer]

Shredder, you have to understand that for the most part these folks don’t grasp the difference between constructive exchange of ideas. That would require an open mind and you’ll find very little of that in this thread.

I am very open minded but that does not mean I accept every silly thought that I hear. I have accumulated a good bit of experience, knowledge, and reasoning. I am very willing to add to that when I hear a logical argument or valid fact. But these are complex issues and if I have a lot of strong rationale for one perspective and you do not offer equally strong rationale for a conflicting point of view, why should I support an irrational possition?

 

[royal_archer]

Abstinence works 100 percent of the time.

That is with one notable exception.

 

[royal_archer]

Originally Posted by royal archer
So now that you agree that abortion should be illegal in some circumstances, it is just a matter of determining when. Right?

Yes, that sounds right.

So shouldn’t we err on the side of caution when the child is cognizent or what ever other criteria we use?

 

[royal_archer]

What if your baby is going to be born with aids? Give birth to it?

What if you discover that the baby has AIDS a week after birth? would you killl it to keep it from a pre mature death?