Anybody out there "pro-choice"?

[SteveGC]

It isn’t that I’m saying I agree with many pro-choice people who advocate abortion as a first-line of contraception. I’m simply recognizing that there are **multiple **choices and each woman has to make the choice that’s right for her situation and with her own conscience. It’s in line with the concept of “free will” as advocated by the Church. If she’s wrong, then that’s a matter for God and her soul to deal with when she dies.

Many posts I’ve read on this subject seem to think that there’s only 1 choice available in pro-choice. That’s just not what pro-choice means.

At 17, in my senior year of high school 35 years ago my choice was to have the baby. It wasn’t easy, but I’m very proud of my son. Had I conceived another child after my first marriage ended, I probably would have made the same choice. But that’s me.

It’s not that one of the choices in “pro-choice” is the choice for “life”.

It’s that there is more than one choice at all.

There is NO choice left. That’s the point of pro-life. Or, to put it another way, there is but ONE choice, not more than one. That choice is Life, always.

To allow more than one choice, is to deliberately turn a blind eye and deaf ear to murder. This is unacceptable.

And The Church does NOT “advocate” free will over righteousness. Advocate means to represent, or defend a position. The Church advocates LIFE, in all circumstances, for the innocent. The Church teaches that we have free will, and teaches that abortion is murder, and teaches that murder, or the endorsement or tolerance for it, is a grave sin. Thus, this behavior must be contritely confessed, with the resolve to cease doing it forever, if one desires to remain in the state of sanctifying grace.

And so, as Fr. Corapi says, it’s impossible to be pro-choice and Christian.

 

[ntenaglia]

It’s not that one of the choices in “pro-choice” is the choice for “life”.

It’s that there is more than one choice at all.

There is NO choice left. That’s the point of pro-life. Or, to put it another way, there is but ONE choice, not more than one. That choice is Life, always.

To allow more than one choice, is to deliberately turn a blind eye and deaf ear to murder. This is unacceptable.

And The Church does NOT “advocate” free will over righteousness. Advocate means to represent, or defend a position. The Church advocates LIFE, in all circumstances, for the innocent. The Church teaches that we have free will, and teaches that abortion is murder, and teaches that murder, or the endorsement or tolerance for it, is a grave sin. Thus, this behavior must be contritely confessed, with the resolve to cease doing it forever, if one desires to remain in the state of sanctifying grace.

And so, as Fr. Corapi says, it’s impossible to be pro-choice and Christian.

So, you’re not pro-adoption?

 

[FanChan]

So, you’re not pro-adoption?

Adopting = life. It’s a choice that comes after the baby is born. The mother may set up for it before hand, but it’s included in the choice for life as opposed to death.

Saying something like that in response to the argument is deflecting the point, and childish.

 

[SteveGC]

So, you’re not pro-adoption?

Yes, of course I am.

But pro-choice is about the two choices available while baby is in the womb. One or the other is decided at that time. And those two choices are: Murder or Life.

Adoption is an offshoot of the righteous choice made for life, and is therefore a moral act.

Abortion is the sinful choice made for murder, never a moral act.

 

[ntenaglia]

Adopting = life. It’s a choice that comes after the baby is born. The mother may set up for it before hand, but it’s included in the choice for life as opposed to death.

Saying something like that in response to the argument is deflecting the point, and childish.

No, adoption is still a choice made before birth. Many women make this choice when they decide what to do about the unplanned pregnancy because they can gain financially via private adoption.

 

[SteveGC]

No, adoption is still a choice made before birth. Many women make this choice when they decide what to do about the unplanned pregnancy because they can gain financially via private adoption.

You’re re-inventing the definition of Pro-Choice, and it is perilous to do this, because by doing so, you scandalize the Church’s position.

Adoption is part of LIFE. Even if this decision comes prior to birth, it is a subset of the choice for LIFE, and therefore is not at issue in the Pro-choice vs. Pro-life battle.

That’s like me arguing with a pro-abortionist over what she’ll do with the dead body of the aborted baby. It doesn’t really matter, she’s already in grave sin, it doesn’t matter what she does with the body. Likewise, the mom choosing adoption has already made the prior righteous and highly moral, choice for LIFE. Adoption is great, but to elevate that as one of the “choices” in defense of calling oneself “PRO-CHOICE” is diversionary and scandalous…and sinful in my opinion.

 

[FanChan]

No, adoption is still a choice made before birth. Many women make this choice when they decide what to do about the unplanned pregnancy because they can gain financially via private adoption.

These sorts of comments, pointless and illogical, make me think you’re a troll.

 

[livi]

First of all, someone made a comment about being willing to fight to save babies who have developed to a certain point. A baby is a baby from the moment it is conceived, and we should fight to save them all, regardless of brainwave activity or whatever.

Second of all, adoption is not always a choice made because of what a woman can gain from private adoption. There are women who make the choice for adoption because they do not feel able to raise their child but do not want to kill it by abortion either.

 

[ntenaglia]

These sorts of comments, pointless and illogical, make me think you’re a troll.

Comments like that are so mature. Why don’t you just grow up?

 

[FanChan]

Comments like that are so mature. Why don’t you just grow up?

I was simply making a fair observation.

To the poster before this, thank-you for pointing out some women don’t look into adoption just for the cash. If women really thought of that, I’d think there’d be a lot more looking into adoption than there are. I’d be willing to say that very few women look into adoption for the sake of the money. Those sorts of women get into being surrogate mothers.

 

[ntenaglia]

I was simply making a fair observation.

To the poster before this, thank-you for pointing out some women don’t look into adoption just for the cash. If women really thought of that, I’d think there’d be a lot more looking into adoption than there are. I’d be willing to say that very few women look into adoption for the sake of the money. Those sorts of women get into being surrogate mothers.

So you consider name-calling a mature trait? Wow, I guess maturity sure must be taking a beating these days… along with democracy according to you.

 

[Erchomai_Kyrios]

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Why call a "bad choice" “pro choice”?
This is especially true when the Lord has spoken to us through His prophets.

Moses:

**Deu 30:10-20 **
If you obey the LORD your God to keep His commandments and His statutes which are written in this book of the law, if you turn to the LORD your God with all your heart and soul. For this commandment which I command you today is not too difficult for you, nor is it out of reach. It is not in heaven, that you should say, ‘Who will go up to heaven for us to get it for us and make us hear it, that we may observe it?’ Nor is it beyond the sea, that you should say, ‘Who will cross the sea for us to get it for us and make us hear it, that we may observe it?’

But the Word is very near you, in your mouth and in your heart, that you may observe it. See, I have set before you today life and prosperity, and death and adversity; in that I command you today to love the LORD your God, to walk in His ways and to keep His commandments and His statutes and His judgments, that you may live and multiply, and that the LORD your God may bless you in the land where you are entering to possess it.

But if your heart turns away and you will not obey, but are drawn away and worship other gods and serve them, I declare to you today that you shall surely perish. You will not prolong your days in the land where you are crossing the Jordan to enter and possess it. I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that I** have set before you life and death, the blessing and the curse. So choose life in order that you may live, you and your descendants**, by loving the LORD your God, by obeying His voice, and by holding fast to Him; for this is your life and the length of your days, that you may live in the land which the LORD swore to your fathers, to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, to give them."

Life is a wonderful gift from God! We should not destroy it we should embrace it just as naturally as that little baby in the above picture did - though America refuses to recognize or respect its life. Embracing life is the “choice”! The Lord desires us to make that choice for our unborn, our born, protecting life from the womb to the tomb and honoring & celebrating our life in Him. Choose life therefore in order that you may live and acquire His blessings.
In Christ, Erchomai Kyrios.

 

[Palm_Tree]

So you have a better idea than God?

It is not pro-CHOICE. Their stance is pro-ABORTION. Please get that straight. The baby has no choice.

‘Choice’ is a fuzzy and pleasant word to disguise the fact that murder is being committed. The war against meaning is a serious one, and every Catholic needs to be aware of it.

Once and for all, pro-abortion is not pro-choice.

Some guy reads a story saying that God says that all the good people get aborted and you think that is actually God talking to you? What if I told I heard a story about how God said abortion is Good. Would you think that is God talking to you as well?

As for the rest of what you wrote, how does that apply to me? I’m one of the ones that has been arguing that pro-choice means pro-abortion, just like you.

 

[FanChan]

So you consider name-calling a mature trait? Wow, I guess maturity sure must be taking a beating these days… along with democracy according to you.

Not quite sure where the democracy part comes in, but I didn’t call you any names. I called your comments pointless and illogical, and made the observation that it seems to me you’re a troll, someone who likes to stir up trouble.

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

Using your logic, pro-choice is not necessarily pro-abortion.

The war against meaning has been fully engaged.

Pro-abortion people want to remove the sinfulness and ugliness of the act as far as possible from the meaning of the word. Until everyone’s eyes have been opened, we cannot allow the term pro-choice to be synonymous with infanticide.

 

[Palm_Tree]

It isn’t that I’m saying I agree with many pro-choice people who advocate abortion as a first-line of contraception. I’m simply recognizing that there are **multiple **choices and each woman has to make the choice that’s right for her situation and with her own conscience. It’s in line with the concept of “free will” as advocated by the Church. If she’s wrong, then that’s a matter for God and her soul to deal with when she dies.

Many posts I’ve read on this subject seem to think that there’s only 1 choice available in pro-choice. That’s just not what pro-choice means.

At 17, in my senior year of high school 35 years ago my choice was to have the baby. It wasn’t easy, but I’m very proud of my son. Had I conceived another child after my first marriage ended, I probably would have made the same choice. But that’s me.

As for how you think many posts here are saying there is only 1 choice available in being Pro-Choice, how did you come to that conclusion? Every person, Pro-Life or otherwise, recognizes all the choices you face: the choice to have sex in the first place, the choice have the abortion, the choice to kill yourself, the choice to have the baby and raise it yourself, the choice to have the baby and give it to someone else to raise, etc.

Yes, Christians believe that God gave us free will. However, God also calls us to choose to do His will. It’s not that each Christian has to make the choice that’s in line with the concept of free will – rather, each Christian has to make the choice that is in line with God’s will.

Yes, you can take a gun and go on a shooting spree, shooting every person you see in the head. The reason you can do that is because God gave you free will (instead of making us robots programmed to do no evil). But that doesn’t mean that doing so is in line with God’s will. In other words, the point you are missing is that is that we are called to do God’s will, and God’s will is not that you just do whatever you want to do. The free will thing just means that we aren’t robots programmed to do no evil.

Another thing you are ignoring is that as a society, we have laws for the public good. In the US, the most serious law we have, the only one you can get the death penalty for, is murder, homicide – the intentional taking the life of another human. You keep making it sound like because God gave us free will, that the US shouldn’t have laws making it illegal to take a gun and shoot somebody else in the head. That’s silly.

 

[AHapka]

In the US, the most serious law we have, the only one you can get the death penalty for, is murder, homicide –

And treason.

 

[HappyRevert]

I’m an ex-Protestant. I took a position much like that when I was a teenager. Maybe not exactly because of that position, but I now think I was fairly offensive as a teenager.

I think sperms, fetuses and some uneaten carrots are alive. I think the right question is whether they’re alive in the way that qualifies them for the same responses that happen if a civilian kills another civilian.

If fetuses are alive in that sense:

• if someone miscarries, should there be a fatal accident enquiry?
• is malnourishing pregnant women in time of war a war-crime, due to the damage to their unborn children? (eg the differences between the children gestated during the Dutch Hunger Winter and the following generation) If so, when in the child’s life does malnourishing it cease to be a crime?

There aren’t fatal accident inquiries when people die of natural causes. A miscarriage is a death by natural cause. If someone is actively trying to conceive, the doctors will do an assessment to figure out what went wrong in hopes to prevent another death by treating the mother and fetus in a different way during the next pregnancy.

Starvation is already a war crime as put forth in the 1977 Additional Protocols to the Geneva Conventions so we don’t need to add your clauses to it.

 

[royal_archer]

It’s hard to say for certain, in part because I’m not an expert on brain development, but from what I’ve read, I think that an acceptable cut-off limit would be somewhere around 18-20 weeks. I suppose I’d be willing to fight to save babies older than that.

Great, welcome to the fight against abortion. But remember that people are going to try to turn you against your pro life bretheren. When asked a general question about your possition be sure to answer that you are pro life. The front line of the fight is to get third trimester babies protected. If you answer in a way that identifies your allowance of abortion in the early days of pregnancy the pro abortion activist will use your answer to advocate for even late term abortions. I understand that when the late term and mid term babies are safe that we may part ways in the continuation of the fight. But untill then I look forward to you standing side by side with us in trying to save these babies.

 

[royal_archer]

It isn’t that I’m saying I agree with many pro-choice people who advocate abortion as a first-line of contraception. I’m simply recognizing that there are **multiple **choices and each woman has to make the choice that’s right for her situation and with her own conscience. It’s in line with the concept of “free will” as advocated by the Church. If she’s wrong, then that’s a matter for God and her soul to deal with when she dies.

Many posts I’ve read on this subject seem to think that there’s only 1 choice available in pro-choice. That’s just not what pro-choice means.

At 17, in my senior year of high school 35 years ago my choice was to have the baby. It wasn’t easy, but I’m very proud of my son. Had I conceived another child after my first marriage ended, I probably would have made the same choice. But that’s me.

So Do you also believe that those who kill abortionist are also just exercising free will and we as a society should not punnish them?

Normally with moral issues I am among those who believe that we should educate but not prohibit them from exercising free will. With out the option to do evil there is no option to choose good. This how ever is an exception. From a secular point of view it is right for the government to prevent one member of society from harming another.

I applaud your making the right choice and those billions of others who make the right choice. But there must be concequences for those that make the wrong choice and intentionall hurt another.