Anybody out there "pro-choice"?

[limerick]

Like those who use it to disguise the fact that it’s murder?

**We must now agree to disagree. You are certainly entitled to your opinion, as am I. There will never be a meeting of the minds here, so get in your final shot and we are done.

Limerick**

 

[FanChan]

**We must now agree to disagree. You are certainly entitled to your opinion, as am I. There will never be a meeting of the minds here, so get in your final shot and we are done.

Limerick**

The phrase ‘agree to disagree’ works when you’re talking about, say, the very best ice cream flavor. You might say chocolate, and I say vanilla. There’s no arguing either way, so it’s best just to agree to disagree. However, on the topic of whether or not abortion is the murder of an innocent child, one cannot simply agree to disagree. If an anti-semite told you that we’d just have to agree to disagree on the topic of whether or not Jews are human under the law, or a white supremist on the topic of Blacks in the same topic, would you be satisfied?

Having lost my big brother to abortion, and knowing how many of you would console my mother with “it was the best choice for you at the time”, I cannot stand by and simply shrug and say ‘well, that’s what you believe’.

 

[fix]

**Look it up. You employ the rhetorical use of the word “choice”. That is but a modern colloquial interpretation, incendiary at best, and does not honor the total meaning of the word.

Limerick**

Again, can one be pro choice on rape? Genocide? I think it is disingenuous to claim being “pro choice” is being authentic in terms of language or ideas. It is a ploy to soften what is wrong.

 

[limerick]

The phrase ‘agree to disagree’ works when you’re talking about, say, the very best ice cream flavor. You might say chocolate, and I say vanilla. There’s no arguing either way, so it’s best just to agree to disagree. However, on the topic of whether or not abortion is the murder of an innocent child, one cannot simply agree to disagree. If an anti-semite told you that we’d just have to agree to disagree on the topic of whether or not Jews are human under the law, or a white supremist on the topic of Blacks in the same topic, would you be satisfied?

Having lost my big brother to abortion, and knowing how many of you would console my mother with “it was the best choice for you at the time”, I cannot stand by and simply shrug and say ‘well, that’s what you believe’.

**Having had a pre-Roe abortion, I somewhat respectfully disagree.

Limerick**

 

[limerick]

Again, can one be pro choice on rape? Genocide? I think it is disingenuous to claim being “pro choice” is being authentic in terms of language or ideas. It is a ploy to soften what is wrong.

**Pro-choice means pro-free will. This does not mean that everyone will choose the legal option, the reasonable option, the rational option, the moral option. It simply means that options exist.

So, yes, one can be pro-choice on rape, on genocide. It depends on the person and his or her moral code. And yes, I have been called a relativist, and I do not disclaim this description of my position so, you see, no use trying to modify my view here. It remains as it has always been: “choice” = free will. We are free to choose the least moral, the least reasonable or rational or legal option. If God did not give us free will and instead infused us with one immovable, unalterable moral code, where every individual behaved according to His wishes all the time, what would be the value or necessity of Judgment Day?

Limerick**

 

[njervis]

Isn’t it funny that - to quote the sage whose name I can’t remember right now - “None of those advocating abortion have ever been aborted.” Not only that, most of them seem to be vigorously alive and probably would respond if asked that they love life…Too bad they can’t see how those millions of aborted babies would have loved to live too.

 

[FanChan]

**Pro-choice means pro-free will. This does not mean that everyone will choose the legal option, the reasonable option, the rational option, the moral option. It simply means that options exist.

So, yes, one can be pro-choice on rape, on genocide. It depends on the person and his or her moral code. And yes, I have been called a relativist, and I do not disclaim this description of my position so, you see, no use trying to modify my view here. It remains as it has always been: “choice” = free will. We are free to choose the least moral, the least reasonable or rational or legal option. If God did not give us free will and instead infused us with one immovable, unalterable moral code, where every individual behaved according to His wishes all the time, what would be the value or necessity of Judgment Day?

Limerick**

I believe the point of this topic is to address people who consider themselves pro-choice in the political sense. I think everyone here believes in free will, there for would agree with your stance that everyone has the ability to choose options that are illegal or immoral. The point of the political pro-choice stance is that the choice to kill one’s unborn baby should be legal, so that the choice can legally exist. The point of the pro-life stance is that that choice to kill one’s baby should not be legal, whether it’s been born yet or not.

Everyone always has a choice. I could choose to kill my parents tonight. That doesn’t mean it should be a legal choice. This is the point. Going off about free will and believing the choice exists has nothing to do with the topic.

 

[njervis]

Excellent logic! What a shame that logic and logical thinking has gone the way of the dinosaurs…

 

[fix]

**Pro-choice means pro-free will. **

It does not. It means people want the law to allow them to abort.**

This does not mean that everyone will choose the legal option, the reasonable option, the rational option, the moral option. It simply means that options exist.

**No, everyone has the option to kill right now. What we speak of is the state not protecting innocent life and calling that a “choice”.
**

So, yes, one can be pro-choice on rape, on genocide. It depends on the person and his or her moral code. And yes, I have been called a relativist, and I do not disclaim this description of my position so, you see, no use trying to modify my view here. It remains as it has always been: “choice” = free will. We are free to choose the least moral, the least reasonable or rational or legal option. If God did not give us free will and instead infused us with one immovable, unalterable moral code, where every individual behaved according to His wishes all the time, what would be the value or necessity of Judgment Day?

**You are free to choose good. Choosing evil is slavery.

 

[royal_archer]

**Pro-choice means pro-free will. This does not mean that everyone will choose the legal option, the reasonable option, the rational option, the moral option. It simply means that options exist.

So, yes, one can be pro-choice on rape, on genocide. It depends on the person and his or her moral code. And yes, I have been called a relativist, and I do not disclaim this description of my position so, you see, no use trying to modify my view here. It remains as it has always been: “choice” = free will. We are free to choose the least moral, the least reasonable or rational or legal option. If God did not give us free will and instead infused us with one immovable, unalterable moral code, where every individual behaved according to His wishes all the time, what would be the value or necessity of Judgment Day?

Limerick**

The discusion is not over the semantics of the term choice. Yes, we all have the option of choosing to do something illegal. The self proclaimed pro choice crowd as it relates to this discussion is not out there advocating that the laws of physics be changed to allow the physical act of infantcide even though it is immoral and should be illegal. What they are advocating is a legal structure where they can make a specific choice with out legal concequences.

 

[limerick]

The discusion is not over the semantics of the term choice. Yes, we all have the option of choosing to do something illegal. The self proclaimed pro choice crowd as it relates to this discussion is not out there advocating that the laws of physics be changed to allow the physical act of infantcide even though it is immoral and should be illegal. What they are advocating is a legal structure where they can make a specific choice with out legal concequences.

We have had the ability to make specific choices without legal consequences and have for decades, so what’s to advocate? My discussion is and has always been over the semantics of the term choice. Pro-life people would prefer to believe that choice equals abortion when IT DOES NOT. Choice says get off my uterus, get off my spiritual beliefs , step back from my morality. It means there is no place for the sanctimonious to attempt to enforce a code of moral conduct on any individual who does not subscribe to their beliefs, nor does it allow for any person to call the moral shots for any person who DOES subscribe to their beliefs.

A woman can choose to have an abortion and then change her mind. That, too, is choice. Don’t limit the power of the word, or the power of choice itself, by the narrowness of rhetoric.

Negatiave epithets? Hurl away. My beliefs will remain unchanged.

Limerick

 

[limerick]

We have had the ability to make specific choices without legal consequences and have for decades, so what’s to advocate? My discussion is and has always been over the semantics of the term choice. Pro-life people would prefer to believe that choice equals abortion when IT DOES NOT. Choice says get off my uterus, get off my spiritual beliefs , step back from my morality. It means there is no place for the sanctimonious to attempt to enforce a code of moral conduct on any individual who does not subscribe to their beliefs, nor does it allow for any person to call the moral shots for any person who DOES subscribe to their beliefs.

A woman can choose to have an abortion and then change her mind. That, too, is choice. Don’t limit the power of the word, or the power of choice itself, by the narrowness of rhetoric.

Negatiave epithets? Hurl away. My beliefs will remain unchanged.

Limerick

**“Negatiave”! Oy.

L**

 

[limerick]

I believe the point of this topic is to address people who consider themselves pro-choice in the political sense. I think everyone here believes in free will, there for would agree with your stance that everyone has the ability to choose options that are illegal or immoral. The point of the political pro-choice stance is that the choice to kill one’s unborn baby should be legal, so that the choice can legally exist. The point of the pro-life stance is that that choice to kill one’s baby should not be legal, whether it’s been born yet or not.

Everyone always has a choice. I could choose to kill my parents tonight. That doesn’t mean it should be a legal choice. This is the point. Going off about free will and believing the choice exists has nothing to do with the topic.

**Yes, everyone has a choice about everything. And yes, you could choose to kill your parents tonight. It makes absolutely no difference if the act is legal or illegal. THAT is the point. You say I’m “going off about free will”? You bet I am. If I am driven to smash the car into a restaurant full of people, that decision would come from choice. If I decided to give away everything I own and wander the lower 48 with nothing but a loaf of bread and a prayer book, that decision would originate in choice. It would come from having options and the God-given free will to decide what was to be my next course of action, the next thing that I do with the life that God gave me. And it has everything to do with the topic, which is “Anybody out there pro-choice?” That IS the topic, for heaven’s sake.

I’m not saying abortion is the right choice. I believe I have no business deciding what is right for anyone but myself. Choice allows us to make mistakes and learn from them. Or haven’t you ever done that?

Limerick **

 

[elts1956]

**Yes, everyone has a choice about everything. And yes, you could choose to kill your parents tonight. It makes absolutely no difference if the act is legal or illegal. THAT is the point. You say I’m “going off about free will”? You bet I am. If I am driven to smash the car into a restaurant full of people, that decision would come from choice. If I decided to give away everything I own and wander the lower 48 with nothing but a loaf of bread and a prayer book, that decision would originate in choice. It would come from having options and the God-given free will to decide what was to be my next course of action, the next thing that I do with the life that God gave me. And it has everything to do with the topic, which is “Anybody out there pro-choice?” That IS the topic, for heaven’s sake.

I’m not saying abortion is the right choice. I believe I have no business deciding what is right for anyone but myself. Choice allows us to make mistakes and learn from them. Or haven’t you ever done that?

Limerick **

Do you believe God, the Giver of Life, approves of His gift being thrown away? The gift of life is the most Sacred given and received. Should we disdain it and if we are FOR God, should we let others disdain it? Those who should be protecting and appreciating it?

 

[limerick]

Do you believe God, the Giver of Life, approves of His gift being thrown away? The gift of life is the most Sacred given and received. Should we disdain it and if we are FOR God, should we let others disdain it? Those who should be protecting and appreciating it?

**
Does God have to approve of our behaviors? He has the last word with judgment. If He is indeed omniscient, then He knew from long before He created the universe that free will was going to be the downfall of man. His set-up here allows people to choose right or wrong. Free will is also a gift - don’t discount it. Should we disdain life? I have, often. But then I manage to get back on track. Others disdain their own lives and choose to end them. Every pregnant woman has a story, none of which will impress you. But do you have to approve of their behaviors? No, you do not. If something offends you in another’s behavior, you must know that there is nothing you can do to make them “act right”, or do things the way you believe they should. Each of us decides for ourselves, with the minds and consciences and hearts and free will that God gave us. I will not use your conscience to decide my next action, nor should you use mine to decide your next action. If you choose to subscribe to a Catholic moral code, one that you believe was handed directly to Peter from Jesus, that is your prerogative. If a Jew doesn’t mix meat with dairy, that’s his prerogative. If I decide that aborting my naturally and normally developing fetus at 13 weeks is the right thing to do, I will do it. This does not mean I have no sorrow, no regret, no conflicted emotions. But if circumstances dictate that abortion is the option left to me, then I will do it. And whether it impacts you, makes you sad or angry or depressed, is immaterial. My conscience, my actions, my spiritual consequences. You will not be holding my hand at the Pearly Gates. I’ll be doing a solo act “up there”. So it’s up to God to judge my actions. Not you.

I do not endorse abortion, I don’t like abortion, I think it’s profoundly sad that so many abortions are performed even within one city in this country within a 12-hour period. But people live their lives as they see fit, not as you see fit. God may be part of their equation and He may not. If you are compelled to evangelize, have at it. But I have never, ever seen or heard of one woman being persuaded not to have an abortion based on what a God-fearing person preached to her. This is not to say it has never happened; I’m sure it has. But I have never seen it happen myself.

You are saying others “should” do this and “should” do that. You are measuring their actions with your own moral yardstick. Not everyone believes as you do. Not everyone is a devout Catholic. I appreciate your dismay at the abortion situation, but really, what do you expect your society to do about it, and how? How should society go about rescinding a legal right that has been in place for 36 years? I don’t see it happening in my lifetime. So the best that can be done is working with kids on a grass roots level, with realism and not pie in the sky. No 14-year-old boy is going to put his hormones aside to hear a speech about abstinence. Oh, he might tolerate it, but the one thing he wants to do, is driven to do, is being egged on to do, is the very thing stuffy old dad is prohibiting. So what’s the answer? Do you have one? Does anything stick to kids anymore?

Should we “let others disdain [life]?” You do what you need to do to stay on the good foot. I’ll do the same.

Limerick **

 

[elts1956]

**
Does God have to approve of our behaviors? He has the last word with judgment. If He is indeed omniscient, then He knew from long before He created the universe that free will was going to be the downfall of man. His set-up here allows people to choose right or wrong. Free will is also a gift - don’t discount it. Should we disdain life? I have, often. But then I manage to get back on track. Others disdain their own lives and choose to end them. Every pregnant woman has a story, none of which will impress you. But do you have to approve of their behaviors? No, you do not. If something offends you in another’s behavior, you must know that there is nothing you can do to make them “act right”, or do things the way you believe they should. Each of us decides for ourselves, with the minds and consciences and hearts and free will that God gave us. I will not use your conscience to decide my next action, nor should you use mine to decide your next action. If you choose to subscribe to a Catholic moral code, one that you believe was handed directly to Peter from Jesus, that is your prerogative. If a Jew doesn’t mix meat with dairy, that’s his prerogative. If I decide that aborting my naturally and normally developing fetus at 13 weeks is the right thing to do, I will do it. This does not mean I have no sorrow, no regret, no conflicted emotions. But if circumstances dictate that abortion is the option left to me, then I will do it. And whether it impacts you, makes you sad or angry or depressed, is immaterial. My conscience, my actions, my spiritual consequences. You will not be holding my hand at the Pearly Gates. I’ll be doing a solo act “up there”. So it’s up to God to judge my actions. Not you.

I do not endorse abortion, I don’t like abortion, I think it’s profoundly sad that so many abortions are performed even within one city in this country within a 12-hour period. But people live their lives as they see fit, not as you see fit. God may be part of their equation and He may not. If you are compelled to evangelize, have at it. But I have never, ever seen or heard of one woman being persuaded not to have an abortion based on what a God-fearing person preached to her. This is not to say it has never happened; I’m sure it has. But I have never seen it happen myself.

You are saying others “should” do this and “should” do that. You are measuring their actions with your own moral yardstick. Not everyone believes as you do. Not everyone is a devout Catholic. I appreciate your dismay at the abortion situation, but really, what do you expect your society to do about it, and how? How should society go about rescinding a legal right that has been in place for 36 years? I don’t see it happening in my lifetime. So the best that can be done is working with kids on a grass roots level, with realism and not pie in the sky. No 14-year-old boy is going to put his hormones aside to hear a speech about abstinence. Oh, he might tolerate it, but the one thing he wants to do, is driven to do, is being egged on to do, is the very thing stuffy old dad is prohibiting. So what’s the answer? Do you have one? Does anything stick to kids anymore?

Should we “let others disdain [life]?” You do what you need to do to stay on the good foot. I’ll do the same.

Limerick **

So would you offer love, help as you can give it, and sympathy to someone who was either thinking about, or has had an abortion? This is all I am saying. Of course we cannot change another’s heart or mind. That would be the work of the Holy Spirit perhaps working through us. Using us as his “mouth piece” so to speak. And yes, I would hope God would approve of that behavior.

And how do you know the stories of pregnant women wouldn’t impress ME? That I wouldn’t sit and listen, perhaps cry with them and give what I can of myself? How do you know I haven’t a couple of stories to tell of my life?

I believe we have the responsibility to protect what God has given us. Especially life. We are a little part of humanity and an infinitesimal part of God. The babies aborted, or not aborted, are also a part of humanity and whatever God is. We are all joined in some fashion or another. The Church teaches we are a member of the Body of Christ. What one does, or does not do, effects all members. Threre are other individuals who look at humanity as being a part of the cosmos. Any interruption in the flow and organization of it causes a disruption. Perhaps the way the Church teaches and the way others believe in the cosmic effects of actions done/not done is the same. I, for one, do not know. But I do believe that what we do, or do not do, ripples through all eternity. We have one chance to get it right, but most of us don’t.

This is part of my belief. We are responsible for the welfare of others. Whether we are able to do this through actions, or only through prayer, we still will have an effect somewhere. Othersare responsible for their actions and believe it, or not, also for their emotions. And as you say, each of us will have to face our judge alone, no one will be holding our hand at those pearly gates. But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t hold another’s hand now.

 

[elts1956]

**Pro-choice means pro-free will. This does not mean that everyone will choose the legal option, the reasonable option, the rational option, the moral option. It simply means that options exist.

So, yes, one can be pro-choice on rape, on genocide. It depends on the person and his or her moral code. And yes, I have been called a relativist, and I do not disclaim this description of my position so, you see, no use trying to modify my view here. It remains as it has always been: “choice” = free will. We are free to choose the least moral, the least reasonable or rational or legal option. If God did not give us free will and instead infused us with one immovable, unalterable moral code, where every individual behaved according to His wishes all the time, what would be the value or necessity of Judgment Day?

Limerick**

Given all that freedom, where does responsibility come into the picture. Freedom without responsibility is chaos.

 

[limerick]

Given all that freedom, where does responsibility come into the picture. Freedom without responsibility is chaos.

**I couldn’t agree more. Freedom demands responsibility. So who is responsible? Parents must educate their children about sexuality. I feel that many parents are too embarrassed by sexuality at all, or horrified that their kids would one day enter into a sexual relationship; so they bury their heads in the sand, hoping the topic won’t emerge until the kids are out on their own. Unfortunately, this attitude is still prevalent. Communities could get into the act by providing classes for parents on how to teach their kids the facts of life and how to keep themselves safe and healthy. Much of what can be done is not condoned by the Catholic Church, so I suppose you would have to develop your own programs for parents and children.

Men and women continue to be irresponsible and this is the main thrust behind abortion and the staggering numbers. I know of women who are “frequent fliers” and appear in the clinic every 8 weeks or 3-4 months for another procedure. They have the information, they simply refuse to implement it. My daughter and I have talked about this at length and it seems if abortion cannot become illegal it could at least become financially prohibitive. I have toyed with the idea of graduated fines for repeat offenders - those who refuse to learn anything from their initial abortion experience. But how to set this in place - I don’t know. And I’m sure there are other facets of this idea that are sour in some way.

It could even work like AA: speakers meetings for young men and women where they could hear the speaker talk about “what it was like, what happened, and what it’s like now”. In other words, what factors lead up to the abortion (rape, alcoholism, drug addiction, a need for attention, failure of birth control method, whatever), then what happened (a critical and honest retelling of the abortion experience) and what it’s like now (how the woman learned from the experience, perhaps came closer to her Higher Power, came to cherish life in ways she had not before, etc.)

I don’t know, elts. It’s a great big complex mess and it seems people are powerless to clean it up. Once the floodgates are open, how do you shut them again?

Limerick**

 

[livi]

First of all, pro-choice means pro-legal abortion. It does not mean a belief in free will. Free will means a person can choose to do something whether it is legal or illegal. However, we have a responsibility to protect people. We cannot givve people the legal right to commit murder. If a person chooses to kill an unborn baby, they should be held accountable for murder the same way they would if they murdered a child who has already been born. Being pro-life is not about forcing personal morality or religious beliefs on people. It is about protecting innocent, unborn human lives. And I for one am sick of people talking about “a woman’s right to choose.” As a woman, I do not believe I have such a right and many other women agree with me. So people need to stop acting like they speak for women when what they really speak for is the legal murder of human beings.

And in response to the “agree to disagree” comments, we cannot just agree to disagree on such an issue. Either murder is wrong or it is not, and I know that it is. And I will not recognize any other point of view as valid.

 

[royal_archer]

We have had the ability to make specific choices without legal consequences and have for decades, so what’s to advocate? My discussion is and has always been over the semantics of the term choice. Pro-life people would prefer to believe that choice equals abortion when IT DOES NOT. Choice says get off my uterus, get off my spiritual beliefs , step back from my morality. It means there is no place for the sanctimonious to attempt to enforce a code of moral conduct on any individual who does not subscribe to their beliefs, nor does it allow for any person to call the moral shots for any person who DOES subscribe to their beliefs.

A woman can choose to have an abortion and then change her mind. That, too, is choice. Don’t limit the power of the word, or the power of choice itself, by the narrowness of rhetoric.

Negatiave epithets? Hurl away. My beliefs will remain unchanged.

Limerick

What choices is the so called pro choice movement supporting? Are the sypporting the choice of whether we pay school taxes or not and send our kids to private school? are they supporitn the choice to use medicines not approved by the FDA? are they supporting our right to choose to hire who we wish with out fear of discrimination suits? are they supporting any other choice other than one very specific option? In the braoder sence I am pro choice but the self proclaimed pro choice movement does not stand for choice they stand for advocating one specific act.

As to your point of morality. I do not believe that abortion should be illegal based on it’s immorality. There are many acts that are immoral that I believe the government should not involve itself in. The reason that abortion is different from those other immoral acts and deserves government intervention is because it impacts another person. If a woman wants to destroy a part of her body I am against it but will not advocate the force of government act to stop her because it is a moral issue that solely within the scope of her authority to choose. If she wishes to harm another person’s body then she is attempting to make a choice she does not have the authority to make and is going beyond the moral implications into a realm where society has authority to stop her.

You can say that pro choice is good based on what you want the term to be. unfortunately you have to deal with the fact that people associate the term pro choice with voilent murder. Idealy we will change that the way society sees the term but until then, we can not allow people to use benign terminology to describe a malignant act with out exposing it.