Anybody out there "pro-choice"?

[limerick]

So if the law were changed to punish those who kill babies you would be 100% in support of that? Or at least equaly appathetic to it as you are to the current condition where laws against infantcide are surprressed by a supreme court ruling?

**Ask me when the law changes.

Limerick**

 

[elts1956]

**elts 1956 and royal archer:

I have not said that “it is OK to kill a pre-natal baby” anywhere.

It makes absolutely no difference to me how others interpret my philosophy or moral code. It is no one’s business unless and until I break the law. Even then juries are seated to evaluate a crime and decide punishment - it is not a task for every single person on earth. royal archer, if you see someone “harming” me and you have the capacity to stop him or her, you will do what your conscience and your moral code dictate. If you intervened without my asking for help I would accept that. If you did not intervene, I would accept that. As for physics, I am trained enough to maneuver in this life but resent having had to learn difficult skills just to get along. With the exception of philosophy, astronomy and the like, as an artist I find the discipline of physics a total drag. I am grateful to those who are immersed in it, and equally grateful when any discoveries or inventions trickle down that make my life easier (though not necessarily simpler). So wherever else physics applies to my life today, if you look you will find frustration and resentment.

elts, I am not talking about a world without law. We are all held to the letter of the law of this land. Here we are talking about civil law and common law, a system of rules generally enforced through a set of institutions. I agree with you when you say, “This does not mean there should be no agreed upon law for protection of individuals and citizens.” Live and Let Live does not need to be applied to common or civil law - those parameters are already in place. Instead, Live and Let Live does indeed mean “one does not judge another as to the level of right and wrong,” as you have said. I have done my share of breaking civil law and have faced some fairly steep consequences, all of which I accepted - there was no option but to accept them. But morality is different. Every American citizen is bound by civil and common law. But not every citizen is governed by a Roman Catholic moral code, or a Christian moral code or any code at all. Some were not raised with religion, others have cast it aside. What seems a given to you may be totally foreign to the next person. Morality and the penal code are two different animals; as with apples and oranges, it is useless to compare them.

Limerick**

Would you say there are moral codes that are intuitive, not taught?

 

[St_Francis]

Religion has no place in politics.

No, but protection of people does. We have laws against all sorts of things, like murder and other harm to people, even potential harm to people like drunk driving. But it’s ok to murder a child in the womb–this is *not *a religious issue.

 

[royal_archer]

Anarchist?

No, just don’t see good stuff comming out of the back room dealing between the two big parties and their lobbyist. Our country was much better off before the statesmen were replaced with politicians.

 

[royal_archer]

No, but protection of people does. We have laws against all sorts of things, like murder and other harm to people, even potential harm to people like drunk driving. But it’s ok to murder a child in the womb–this is *not *a religious issue.

…and of course all of those religious types who ended slavery. Just because an idea is supported by religious people does not mean that the idea is in whole soley religious in nature.

 

[fix]

Religion has no place in politics.

That is like saying morality has no place in politics.

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

**

I do not believe abortion is always a harmful act.

Perhaps this might answer some of your questions.

Limerick **

Abortion is always a harmful act.

Maybe you and some others would like to start an abortion apologist thread.

 

[limerick]

Would you say there are moral codes that are intuitive, not taught?

**No, I would not.

Limerick**

 

[limerick]

Abortion is always a harmful act.

Maybe you and some others would like to start an abortion apologist thread.

**Maybe not.

Limerick**

 

[SteveGC]

Obviously what is at issue here is moral relativism vs. objective, divine moral law.

“live and let live” is moral relativism, the false notion that there is room for my distinct morals, and your distinct morals, and his morals, and her morals, and their morals…and so since everyone can have their own morals, we should just let man-made law be our guide, and let everyone do whatever they will within the confines of those man-made laws. Live and let live.

But the truth is, morality is NOT subjective. It never has been, never will be. And morals don’t BELONG to any person. No one possesses them, or establishes them for themselves through their development as human beings. I live by morals, but I don’t live by MY morals, and no one else is supposed to live by THEIR morals either. We are all to live by God’s morals. There are no such thing as morals outside of God’s law. Morality is singularly of God, and nothing else. And He only has one set of morals for everyone collectively, not individual ones for each individual.

Devout Catholics will therefore always take the position that our morals can and should be imposed upon all of humanity, because we faithfully represent God’s morals, and we are called to not only follow these morals, but also seek justice for all those who are victimized by the immorality of others. Moral relativists will always stand aside and just let people “choose” to do good or evil as their own moral codes dictate, and only get involved if they “break the law”. Limerick, I know you do not advocate abortion, and I commend you for that. I do. But by your believing morality is unique for each person, you are saying that man-made laws are our moral compass. This type of morality is based on a fallen human, and ever-changing doctrine of good and evil. This is NOT of God, but it IS of a spirit (and not a good one).

And somehow you’ve come to the faulty notion that a woman has the right to end the life growing within her. Call it a fetus, an embryo, or whatever. It’s human life, and therefore is to be protected from all immorality directed towards it. You seem to think the unborn belongs to the mother and she can therefore do what she will. Well, it is NOT hers, any more than my 4 year old daughter is MINE. Everyone belongs to God, even the unborn children in their mother’s wombs…they do NOT belong to the mothers, nor either of their parents when they are born. The mother did not create the embryo/fetus/baby. Nor did the father. God did. Humans just cooperated with God to allow Him to create it. So it is therefore protected by God according to His moral law. Parents are called to do everything they can to protect the life growing within the mother.

Catholics, and other Christians in-line with Catholic morality, believe abortion is the holocaust of our age, the murder of innocents, the most tragic infringement of the most fundamental moral law of God. On that issue, we do not “live and let live”. We say “let BABIES live”.

 

[elts1956]

…and of course all of those religious types who ended slavery. Just because an idea is supported by religious people does not mean that the idea is in whole soley religious in nature.

You’re right. They aren’t RELIGIOUS in nature. They are MORAL in nature.

 

[St_Francis]

I acknowledge the right and duty of every member of American society to allow women to choose abortion as an alternative to carrying an unexpected pregnancy to term. I acknowledge the right and duty of society’s members to follow their own individual consciences, to lobby for and vote for and pray for and activate for the changes that they feel are necessary to make ours a better society.

Limerick,
I realize that you have a personal problem with logic, but it is very difficult for human beings to operate without it–that leads to cognitive dissonance.

Here you say that each person has the “duty” to “allow women to choose abortion,” and then you go on to say that each person has the “duty” to work for laws which they think will improve society. Do you see that those two things are contradictory?

I acknowledge the right and duty of every person who finds the abortion dilemma hitting particularly close to home to deal with the situation as his or her conscience dictates, and to be free of hindrance, ridicule or censure from other members of society for having done so.

Why should a person who has an abortion be more free from hindrance or censure than, say, a rapist? Or an employer who pays women less than he does men? (Reminder: this is not taking your words out of context; it is taking your idea to its logical conclusion.)

What I do not understand is why you think that some actions should be against the law, but other actions which are as bad or worse than those actions should be perfectly ok with the rest of society?

I believe that free will is often interpreted as freedom to choose only the good, but that it is, in fact, freedom to choose a poorer alternative, even an evil alternative. If it is to be free will it must be completely free by definition, without limitations, without conditions, without demands, exempt from arbitrary domination or distinction: the faculty of choosing good or evil without compulsion or necessity.

Yes, free will does mean the ability to choose the bad or evil act. But “society” in the form of the government, is supposed to protect people from those who would do them harm.

I do not believe abortion is always a harmful act.

Abortion is always harmful to the baby.

I am old enough to remember all the lies told by the advocates of abortion: esp that the baby is just a “blob of cells, like an appendix.” If you read what women who have worked in abortion clinics say, they will tell you that they are instructed to lie about this *still. *

I can see that it would be difficult to acknowledge this truth, that one has fallen for a lie, that one has committed a very bad act based on this belief in a lie, but this is something that many people who have worked in the abortion industry have done. Doctors who have made a living performing abortions, women who have worked in abortion clinics, women who have had abortions, even the woman who started the whole thing off–“Roe” of Roe v Wade, Norma McCorvey, have all seen the lies and accepted that they did what they did, and are now working to help prevent others from doing the same.

 

[limerick]

QUOTE=St Francis;5330812]Limerick,
I realize that you have a personal problem with logic, but it is very difficult for human beings to operate without it–that leads to cognitive dissonance.

Here you say that each person has the “duty” to “allow women to choose abortion,” and then you go on to say that each person has the “duty” to work for laws which they think will improve society. Do you see that those two things are contradictory?

**No, I do not. Abortion is legal in the United States. Women who choose abortion, operating in response to their own individual consciences, must be permitted to undergo the procedure without hindrance or censure. If one is offended by abortion, then that person, operating in response to his or her own conscience, should avail him/herself of the proper channels to pursue change in the law in the United States. **

Why should a person who has an abortion be more free from hindrance or censure than, say, a rapist? Or an employer who pays women less than he does men? (Reminder: this is not taking your words out of context; it is taking your idea to its logical conclusion.)

Vis a vis the rapist: apples and oranges. The act of rape is illegal in the U.S. The employer who pays women less than he does men? The woman is free to contest the inequity and/or pursue a position elsewhere.

What I do not understand is why you think that some actions should be against the law, but other actions which are as bad or worse than those actions should be perfectly ok with the rest of society?

If one’s heart, mind, soul and conscience cannot tolerate the reality that legal abortion exists in this country, then I encourage that individual to consider becoming visibly pro-active within his or her community to repeal the laws making abortion legal. By the same token, I remind you that we each have a conscience to guide our actions in this life, and 50 million women have chosen to listen to their own consciences and not to yours. If you believe prayer might help them to change their views, then pray. But keep in mind that you may be setting yourself up for disappointment and resentment when they continue to disagree with you.

Yes, free will does mean the ability to choose the bad or evil act. But “society” in the form of the government, is supposed to protect people from those who would do them harm.

**Correct me if I’m wrong, but it is my understanding that Roe v Wade [410 U.S. 113 1973)], was a United States Supreme Court case, not one settled by “popular vote”. **

Abortion is always harmful to the baby.

Abortion is almost always harmful to the fetus, but not always. And it has the potential to be harmful to the mother as well. These are facts to be taken into consideration by the woman seeking an abortion, not her neighbor, her teacher, her lover, her accountant.

I am old enough to remember all the lies told by the advocates of abortion: esp that the baby is just a “blob of cells, like an appendix.” If you read what women who have worked in abortion clinics say, they will tell you that they are instructed to lie about this *still. *

**My child works in the abortion field and has never been instructed to lie about a “blob of cells”, “it’s just like an appendix” or any like nonsense. She counsels women before their procedures and, more often than you might like to acknowledge, she sends home those who are ambivalent, fearful, or uninformed about the procedure and hesitant to go any further. Her job is not to coerce women to cough up the cash and hop on the table. I have no doubt that there are facilities that rely on this despicable tactic, but every abortion facility is not run like you describe.

I am old enough to remember all the lies told by people with good intentions that “having a baby will make your life complete”. That, too, was a gravely misleading lie. **

I can see that it would be difficult to acknowledge this truth, that one has fallen for a lie, that one has committed a very bad act based on this belief in a lie, but this is something that many people who have worked in the abortion industry have done. Doctors who have made a living performing abortions, women who have worked in abortion clinics, women who have had abortions, even the woman who started the whole thing off–“Roe” of Roe v Wade, Norma McCorvey, have all seen the lies and accepted that they did what they did, and are now working to help prevent others from doing the same.
**
Some** doctors,* some* women in the abortion field, some women who have had abortions have changed their minds, their philosophies, their beliefs about abortion and are working toward helping women who are struggling with the dilemma. I believe that is noteworthy. However, those who are trying to prevent others from participating in abortion are the ones I would like to see backing off and allow women the moral right that they have to exercise their own God-given free will, and the legal right to have an abortion if they believe it is the right thing for them. It is no one else’s business.

I say this as a woman, a mother, and someone who has experienced abortion.

Limerick

 

[fix]

Conscience is not a god. Choosing evil is no right.

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

Can anyone address the sheer barbarism that takes place where it is illegal to step on a turtle egg yet legal to butcher a human baby as it’s being born?

 

[SteveGC]

** No, I do not. Abortion is legal in the United States. Women who choose abortion, operating in response to their own individual consciences, must be permitted to undergo the procedure without hindrance or censure. **

They only “must be permitted” in the sense that this “permission” comes from man, not God. God does not permit this, and so those faithful to God should attempt to prohibit women from this procedure, so long as they themselves remain within the boundaries of God’s law as they work to do so. Keep in mind that EVERYONE is bound by God’s moral code, whether they recognize and accept it, or not.

** If one is offended by abortion, then that person, operating in response to his or her own conscience, should avail him/herself of the proper channels to pursue change in the law in the United States. **

And while we all wait for laws to be changed, those who are offended should also not be afraid of establishing a physical presence before these women, to charitably persuade them to choose life for their child.

**Vis a vis the rapist: apples and oranges. The act of rape is illegal in the U.S. **

Yes, and so it goes…defining morality by the law of man. A dangerous endeavor, that ultimately will lead you nowhere. Morality is NOT defined by civil law. We are fortunate that most civil law is in accord with God’s moral law, thanks to the focus on God that this country’s forefathers maintained. Abortion is the modern exception, and none of us should rest until it is proclaimed to be murder, as God proclaims it to be.

If one’s heart, mind, soul and conscience cannot tolerate the reality that legal abortion exists in this country, then I encourage that individual to consider becoming visibly pro-active within his or her community to repeal the laws making abortion legal. By the same token, I remind you that we each have a conscience to guide our actions in this life, and 50 million women have chosen to listen to their own consciences and not to yours. If you believe prayer might help them to change their views, then pray. But keep in mind that you may be setting yourself up for disappointment and resentment when they continue to disagree with you.

Of course there is disappointment and resentment involved when human morality is confronted by divine morality. Those who understand that morality is of God, not man, and who pit God’s law against the law of man are quite used to disappointment and resentment…and yet still fight. Why do you think that is?

** Abortion is almost always harmful to the fetus, but not always. And it has the potential to be harmful to the mother as well. These are facts to be taken into consideration by the woman seeking an abortion**, not her neighbor, her teacher, her lover, her accountant.

Looks like a definition of “harmful” is in order. It’s not confined to physical pain or suffering. Harm is anything that prohibits innocent human life. So, yes…abortion is ALWAYS harmful to the baby. And it is ALWAYS harmful to God, in the sense that it offends Him greatly.

** I am old enough to remember all the lies told by people with good intentions that “having a baby will make your life complete”. That, too, was a gravely misleading lie. **

It’s one thing to be misled about your “happiness”, and quite another to be misled about morality. The concept of “completeness” of one’s life as offered by the birth of a child is immaterial to the right of the unborn child to live.

**
However, those who are trying to prevent** others from participating in abortion are the ones I would like to see backing off and allow women the moral right that they have to exercise their own God-given free will, and the legal right to have an abortion if they believe it is the right thing for them. It is no one else’s business. .

That’s only true if morality is relative, which it is not. Morality is objective, of God, and is therefore everyone’s business. As soon as someone decides to act immorally, those around them are called to intervene and help guide them toward proper morality

 

[St_Francis]

No, I do not. Abortion is legal in the United States. Women who choose abortion, operating in response to their own individual consciences, must be permitted to undergo the procedure without hindrance or censure. If one is offended by abortion, then that person, operating in response to his or her own conscience, should avail him/herself of the proper channels to pursue change in the law in the United States.

Why? (wrt your comment in red)

Labor unions picket businesses they think are unfair. Women picket businesses they think are being unfair. People constantly try to talk people into or out of decisions they think are wrong.

So why should women contemplating abortion have any different experience?

Vis a vis the rapist: apples and oranges. The act of rape is illegal in the U.S. The employer who pays women less than he does men? The woman is free to contest the inequity and/or pursue a position elsewhere.

And we are free to follow our consciences and let women contemplating abortion know what a lot of doctors won’t tell them.

For example, and I have experienced this myself, the staff at an ob/gyn’s office will not say that a woman is “having a baby” until they find out that she wants to have the baby. They will say a woman is pregnant until then.

If one’s heart, mind, soul and conscience cannot tolerate the reality that legal abortion exists in this country, then I encourage that individual to consider becoming visibly pro-active within his or her community to repeal the laws making abortion legal. By the same token, I remind you that we each have a conscience to guide our actions in this life, and 50 million women have chosen to listen to their own consciences and not to yours. If you believe prayer might help them to change their views, then pray. But keep in mind that you may be setting yourself up for disappointment and resentment when they continue to disagree with you.

Only if I have the expectation that they will change their minds will I be disappointed. Praying and working for changes in the law will not set me up for “up for disappointment and resentment” **if **they continue to disagree with me.

**Correct me if I’m wrong, but it is my understanding that Roe v Wade [410 U.S. 113 1973)], was a United States Supreme Court case, not one settled by “popular vote”. **

Is the Supreme Court not part of the government?

Abortion is almost always harmful to the fetus, but not always. And it has the potential to be harmful to the mother as well. These are facts to be taken into consideration by the woman seeking an abortion, not her neighbor, her teacher, her lover, her accountant.

What do you mean, that abortion is “not always” harmful to the baby?

Moreover, those who advocate that abortion be made illegal are doing so because of that very harm involved in the taking of the unborn child’s life. Medical procedures often involve risk, and that *is *something which should be left up to the person receiving the treatment (after being fully informed and having the normal medical regulations fulfilled in the facility itself). However, the taking of innocent human life is wrong and ought to be illegal, no matter the age or condition of the person whose life is being taken.

**…I am old enough to remember all the lies told by people with good intentions that “having a baby will make your life complete”. That, too, was a gravely misleading lie. **

But those lies did not help anyone to commit an immoral act.

Some doctors,* some* women in the abortion field, some women who have had abortions have changed their minds, their philosophies, their beliefs about abortion and are working toward helping women who are struggling with the dilemma. I believe that is noteworthy.

Did I ever say that all of them had changed their minds? Don’t tell me that you are “putting words in my mouth!”

However, those who are trying to prevent others from participating in abortion are the ones I would like to see backing off and allow women the moral right that they have to exercise their own God-given free will, and the legal right to have an abortion if they believe it is the right thing for them. It is no one else’s business.

Women have no more of a “moral right” to have an abortion than a man has to rape a woman.

You seem to think that a person’s having free will is some special phrase which then allows you to say that a person should be permitted to do anything they like after it. That is ridiculous. What would you say if a pedophile said, Well, I have free will, and I chose to exercise it? Would you say, Oh, well, then, of course it’s all right that you go around molesting children.

**I say this as a woman, a mother, and someone who has experienced abortion.

Limerick**

As I pointed out before, your experience doesn’t have any effect on the truth.

 

[limerick]

Conscience is not a god. Choosing evil is no right.

**What if conscience is based on the teachings of God’s son?

Choosing evil is anyone’s right. It may not be wise or kind or thoughtful, but anyone can do it at any time. Consequences attach.

Limerick**

 

[St_Francis]

What if conscience is based on the teachings of God’s son?

If the conscience is truly based on the teachings of Christ, then the person will not commit any evil acts, including abortion.

Choosing evil is anyone’s right.

No one has the “right” to choose evil.

It may not be wise or kind or thoughtful, but anyone can do it at any time.

Wise or kind or thoughtful?

Evil is much much worse than unwise, unkind, or unthoughtful. Consider an act you are very sure is evil: Would you call rape *unwise? *Would you call murder unkind? Would you call child molestation *unthoughtful? *

And would you say that people have a right to do these things?

And would you say they were following the teachings of Christ if they did those things?

Consequences attach.

I don’t know what you mean by this.

 

[limerick]

They only “must be permitted” in the sense that this “permission” comes from man, not God. God does not permit this, and so those faithful to God should attempt to prohibit women from this procedure, so long as they themselves remain within the boundaries of God’s law as they work to do so. Keep in mind that EVERYONE is bound by God’s moral code, whether they recognize and accept it, or not.

God does permit this: He has not once intervened in the act of abortion that I know of.

And while we all wait for laws to be changed, those who are offended should also not be afraid of establishing a physical presence before these women, to charitably persuade them to choose life for their child.

**They can do what they will to follow their individual or collective conscience, but they cannot be surprised if met by frustration, anger or violence. **

Yes, and so it goes…defining morality by the law of man. A dangerous endeavor, that ultimately will lead you nowhere. Morality is NOT defined by civil law. We are fortunate that most civil law is in accord with God’s moral law, thanks to the focus on God that this country’s forefathers maintained. Abortion is the modern exception, and none of us should rest until it is proclaimed to be murder, as God proclaims it to be.

"None of us should rest … " There it is, that edict mentality again.

Of course there is disappointment and resentment involved when human morality is confronted by divine morality. Those who understand that morality is of God, not man, and who pit God’s law against the law of man are quite used to disappointment and resentment…and yet still fight. Why do you think that is?

I can’t muster up much interest in why that is.

Looks like a definition of “harmful” is in order. It’s not confined to physical pain or suffering. Harm is anything that prohibits innocent human life. So, yes…abortion is ALWAYS harmful to the baby. And it is ALWAYS harmful to God, in the sense that it offends Him greatly.

My point was that abortion is not always fatal to the fetus. Come on, pro-lifers, share this good news with SteveGC!

It’s one thing to be misled about your “happiness”, and quite another to be misled about morality. The concept of “completeness” of one’s life as offered by the birth of a child is immaterial to the right of the unborn child to live.

**Your response, though thoughtful, does not apply to the point I was making in my post. **

That’s only true if morality is relative, which it is not. Morality is objective, of God, and is therefore everyone’s business. As soon as someone decides to act immorally, those around them are called to intervene and help guide them toward proper morality
**
I simply disagree. I will not intervene unless summoned or asked.

L**