Anybody out there "pro-choice"?

[FanChan]

Because there is a deficit of turtles, unlike people, and because the turtle-mother isn’t asking for it to stop, unlike almost all of the human mothers.

This suggests that the life of a turtle is more important than the life of a human. Humans were made in the image of God, were imparted with immortal souls, and were granted redemption when Christ hung on a cross for us. God did not become a Man, suffer, and die for turtles.

 

[Arthur001]

This suggests that the life of a turtle is more important than the life of a human. Humans were made in the image of God, were imparted with immortal souls, and were granted redemption when Christ hung on a cross for us. God did not become a Man, suffer, and die for turtles.

I was raised Protestant, so I think there could be circumstances in which your first sentence was correct.

My hypothetical example, which I am making up on the spot crosses just-war theory. If there could be a just war, one of the aims of which was preserving some turtles (eg because they were on the critical path to creating some medicine which would save a large number of people’s lives) then the lives of some specific humans (the soldiers fighting the war) would be less important than the lives of some specific turtles (the ones specified in the war aims).

In general, I don’t understand Catholic philosophy. Under what other conditions (than a just war) is it morally appropriate to take a significant risk of death? ie under what other conditions would doing so and dying not be regarded as suicide?

 

[FanChan]

I was raised Protestant, so I think there could be circumstances in which your first sentence was correct.

My hypothetical example, which I am making up on the spot crosses just-war theory. If there could be a just war, one of the aims of which was preserving some turtles (eg because they were on the critical path to creating some medicine which would save a large number of people’s lives) then the lives of some specific humans (the soldiers fighting the war) would be less important than the lives of some specific turtles (the ones specified in the war aims).

In general, I don’t understand Catholic philosophy. Under what other conditions (than a just war) is it morally appropriate to take a significant risk of death? ie under what other conditions would doing so and dying not be regarded as suicide?

I’m not entirely sure I’m following your train of thought. Hypothetical or no, I can’t think of any circumstance in which one would wage war over turtles - if they were the key to curing a large number of lives, who would want to wipe them out, in this day and age? - let alone if it would be morally just for people to die for them. ((I imagine certain animal rights activists would get in the way of using them for research, anyway. Hehe.))

So, I can’t answer your question on ‘catholic philosophy’ since I’m not quite sure where this is coming from or where it’s going. Though, now that I ponder it, it’s acceptable to risk death for the sake of another at any time - however, it’s not always acceptable to take the life of another in that defense. This would all boil down to a case by case basis, though. But, as it’s said, there is no greater gift than to give one’s life for another.

 

[limerick]

I didn’t mean you are whining. My mind just driiiifted off at that point. Thinking of someone else. Sorry.

Offering to help someone does not mean one is getting s/his hands all over another person’t delemma. There are many ways of helping another without imposing your will on theirs.

Since we are talking about abortion, what would you do if you saw a woman crying outside an abortion clinic? Would you ignore her, or offer to console her?

**
I would pray for her to follow her conscience and do what she understood was the correct course of action in her situation. I would neither ignore her nor offer to console her. At that point she would be in the moment, perhaps as close to God as she would ever get in her lifetime. Far be it from me to interrupt such a personal communication.

Then again, she might just be crying because she forgot to fast and the doctor sent her home because the procedure would pose additional risk if she tried to undergo it on a full stomach. What could I possibly have to offer her except, “Tomorrow is another day”?

Limerick**

 

[St_Francis]

Under what other conditions (than a just war) is it morally appropriate to take a significant risk of death? ie under what other conditions would doing so and dying not be regarded as suicide?

Trying to save the life of another.

Standing up for a just cause in a totalitarian state.

Also, certain medical might be categorized that way, usually experimental ones like the first transplants. ETA: this does not mean that one can undergo risky surgeries willy-nilly: there must be a proportionate benefit expected.)

 

[Amolibri]

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

My apologies if I took that the wrong way.

NCSue, I hope you have learned a lesson here. Why ask a question like that in an OP???
This is what invariably happens. :tsktsk:uch:

PS: pro-life must be ALL life. ergo it’s easier to be only anti-abortion than to be pro-life.

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

Because there is a deficit of turtles, unlike people, and because the turtle-mother isn’t asking for it to stop, unlike almost all of the human mothers.

I’ve been listening to a lot of judgmental people and it’s rubbing off on me. If I’m wrong in my next sentence then I apologise in advance. I believe that you will find my answer above unsatisfactory because you were speaking for rhetorical effect, and do not want there to be an answer.

If I can get one that makes sense…

So to recap, there are still people arguing that it’s okay to slaughter unborn babies.

 

[limerick]

If I can get one that makes sense…

So to recap, there are still people arguing that it’s okay to slaughter unborn babies.

**
Let’s narrow this down. Who are these people you refer to? Who are they by name? Are they on this thread? Let’s narrow it down to the people who are arguing that it’s okay to slaughter unborn babies, people who are currently posting on this thread. That way we can all focus on these select few individuals.

Have you not yet said everything you intend to say to them? Because here is your opportunity. Now is the time. Let’s disregard your thin argument about turtles and focus on people who think it’s okay to slaughter unborn babies.

What do you suppose may have lead these people to the conclusions they have drawn about abortion, about murder, about choice, about the subset of troubling semantics that permeates every single debate on this topic? How has any woman’s abortion personally touched your life and molded your beliefs about this tragedy? I don’t ask you to set aside your faith or your religion; I’m simply wondering just how close you have been to the epicenter of the topic and how powerful or impotent you may have felt in the face of it. I don’t read any of your posts with the impression that you have examined abortion in any detail. Indeed, I find your quips and red herrings and smack-downs superficial, failing to add to the discussion in any meaningful way. Yes, you are Catholic; yes, you follow the dictates of your religion to the letter. That does not mean that you cannot examine the topic with some maturity or humanity. Just because you’re a Catholic does not preclude you from thinking or absolve you of a certain responsibility to find a way to discuss this topic in a helpful way. Pro-life people are forever giving lip-service to the compassion they feel for the pregnant woman seeking an abortion, for their prayers and willingness to help them in their moment of desperation. And yet here you are, engaged in a debate about the most divisive topic in politics and religion today, and the best you have to offer is,
*“Maybe you and some others would like to start an abortion apologist thread.” *** and, “Like those who use [the word ‘choice’] to disguise the fact that it’s murder? ” Are these remarks typical of what you would say to a woman considering abortion?

You and I will never agree on this or likely any other topic, and neither of us loses in the process: it’s a draw. But I feel that, since it’s been pointed out that I am indeed involved in this discourse, it is incumbent upon me to gently suggest to you that you think about your choice of words, because words are important. And if you sincerely wish to carry the message of Jesus Christ to women who are suffering before, during, or after an abortion procedure, it seems kindness would work with elegance and grace in place of dismissal.

Limerick

 

[Arthur001]

I think that I will have difficulty engaging constructively, by my definition of what that means, if I continue this conversation. If I do re-engage, I will start by defining the word slaughter. Do you want me to?

 

[royal_archer]

Trying to save the life of another.

Standing up for a just cause in a totalitarian state.

Also, certain medical might be categorized that way, usually experimental ones like the first transplants. ETA: this does not mean that one can undergo risky surgeries willy-nilly: there must be a proportionate benefit expected.)

And the person risking their life must be willing to do so. To risk or take another’s life for the sake of medicine is no better than what happened at the concentration camps where captives were experimented on for the purpose of science Nor would it be better than where babies are butchered to extract cells for “medical purposes”.

 

[royal_archer]

If I can get one that makes sense…

So to recap, there are still people arguing that it’s okay to slaughter unborn babies.

No they are arguing that it is not OK but we should treat it like it is OK in that we should not stop people from “making mistakes” or harming/killing others.

 

[limerick]

No they are arguing that it is not OK but we should treat it like it is OK in that we should not stop people from “making mistakes” or harming/killing others.

**Is abortion primarily an immoral act or a grossly irresponsible act?

Limerick**

 

[limerick]

I think that I will have difficulty engaging constructively, by my definition of what that means, if I continue this conversation. If I do re-engage, I will start by defining the word slaughter. Do you want me to?

**Are you directing your question to Sailor Kenshin?

Limerick**

 

[royal_archer]

**Is abortion primarily an immoral act or a grossly irresponsible act?

Limerick**

The last time I said what I thought abortion was I remember someone getting very upset. But since you asked:

The option of immoral vs irresponsible is flawed in two ways. First it comes close to asserting that these two concepts are mutually exclusive, second it does not leave room for additional options. Abortion is both and more in that it is also murder. ( I know you don’t like the word but it is the most appropriate word I can think of to describe willingly killing another human with out provocation on the part of the victim.)

 

[limerick]

The last time I said what I thought abortion was I remember someone getting very upset. But since you asked:

The option of immoral vs irresponsible is flawed in two ways. First it comes close to asserting that these two concepts are mutually exclusive, second it does not leave room for additional options. Abortion is both and more in that it is also murder. ( I know you don’t like the word but it is the most appropriate word I can think of to describe willingly killing another human with out provocation on the part of the victim.)

**First, my argument against the use of the word “murder” does not pertain to the abortion procedure itself; I find it offensive when you stoop to addressing a woman who has had an abortion a murderer. It is unkind and in extremely poor taste. You don’t know her circumstances, you don’t know anything but what she has revealed to you, which would probably be minimal at best.

But you will continue on with your diatribe and I will just ignore it.

So you like options? Now, remembering that murder comes under the heading of “immorality”, and aside from immorality and irresponsibility, what other descriptions of abortion are on the game board, Alex?

Limerick**

 

[royal_archer]

**First, my argument against the use of the word “murder” does not pertain to the abortion procedure itself; I find it offensive when you stoop to addressing a woman who has had an abortion a murderer. It is unkind and in extremely poor taste. You don’t know her circumstances, you don’t know anything but what she has revealed to you, which would probably be minimal at best.

But you will continue on with your diatribe and I will just ignore it.

**

Please provide the number of the post where I labled someone as a murder (other than a generic/situation specific role)

So you like options? Now, remembering that murder comes under the heading of “immorality”, and aside from immorality and irresponsibility, what other descriptions of abortion are on the game board, Alex?
Limerick

Murder comes under more “headings” than just immorality. There are also social, ethical, and natural law reasons why murder is wrong. Abortion is also a violation of the babies human rights, it is a violation of the father’s rigths, and it is a situation where big business exploits the vulnerable to make a quick buck.

 

[St_Francis]

And the person risking their life must be willing to do so. To risk or take another’s life for the sake of medicine is no better than what happened at the concentration camps where captives were experimented on for the purpose of science Nor would it be better than where babies are butchered to extract cells for “medical purposes”.

Thanks for clarifying that!

 

[limerick]

Please provide the number of the post where I labled someone as a murder (other than a generic/situation specific role)

In post 567, with full knowledge that I have had an abortion, you wrote: "Sio because you can not hear the screams of the innocent children being murdered, they are not worthy of your help? You are being helped, why won’t you return the favor and help these children?"**

In post 569, you reinforced the thinly-veiled insult thus: "This thread is not about faith and religion it is about the murder of innocent children."

Murder comes under more “headings” than just immorality. There are also social, ethical, and natural law reasons why murder is wrong. Abortion is also a violation of the babies human rights, it is a violation of the father’s rigths, and it is a situation where big business exploits the vulnerable to make a quick buck.

And here you continue. I am responding because you asked the question, although I reiterate the fact that I find your reference tasteless in view of the fact that you know I (and perhaps a few other readers) have chosen abortion as our only option to continuing our own lives. Yeah, how selfish was that?

Tell me, how can this thread NOT be about faith and religion? I’m the non-practicing Catholic here - have we reversed roles?

Limerick

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

**
I will not see your logic because I do not live in a world of logic. To me it is mathematics and schedules and angles and hard surfaces. My life has been built upon my experiences. So, yes, I have personal history that has influenced my viewpoint. Who doesn’t?

You continue to insist that I claim it is “OK to kill a prenatal baby”. I have not said that in any post. I have said that the decision rests with the woman who is pregnant, not with me. If it is a sin it will be her sin, not mine. I do not insinuate myself, my opinions, my spirituality, or anything else into her decision-making unless she asks me, and even then I am careful not to persuade her in one direction or another which way to go. My view is Live and Let Live. She has her own conscience to direct her. She doesn’t need mine.

Limerick**

Wow, this is scary stuff. So if you had lived in Nazi Germany circa 1942 or so, you would’ve been one of those, “hey, I’m not killing Jews and I personally think they’re human beings. But I do recognize Herr Himmler and Fuhrer Hitler don’t believe they’re human beings. As a result, I respect the rights of my fellow Germans to eradicate them, turn them into lamp shades, rip their teeth out, dehumanize them, and slaughter them in death camps. I wouldn’t do it myself, trust me! But it’s ok for them. Let their conscience guide them? Who am I to say that they’re people? I can’t PROVE that really. Who can really prove anything, am I right? Heck, whatever floats your boat. There’s no subjective truth so just go with your gut. Hitler’s gut and my gut are different but I respect his holocausts.”

That’s the argument you’re making that can be applied anywhere at anytime. Would you have been ok with slavery in the South because it’s “live and let live?” How about sufferage? How about the laws in some states that forbade interracial marriages? Where does it end with the whole “live and let live” burying your head in the sand?

A fetus either IS or IS NOT a human being, a person or not a person. If it is a person, you do indeed personally have blood on your hands for voting and encouraging a policy of allowing this slaughter. It’s like walking by a woman being raped and just turning the other cheek, keep on walkin’. That’s a form of assistance to the rapists. Your view is to not take any position about the viability or life of the fetus and hope it’s not human. Well it is human and a majority of Americans are pro-life if you follow the recent Gallup Polls and other opinion polls. More Americans are pro-life than not. And if you look at abortion for what it really is, you wouldn’t be for it. If you had to spend a day in an abortion clinic and had to stand there watching this “procedure,” you’d think differently. If you could face the pictures, the surgery, the blood, and the end game, you’d think differently. If you had to counsel the millions of women who regret what they did and who wake up in a cold sweat the rest of their lives with nightmares, you’d think differently. From where you’re sitting, abortion is like the choice to go with a Whopper or a McChicken Sandwich. Fries or Onion Rings. It’s theoretical and trivial from your vantage point, not a life or death moral precipice.

This post amounts to moral cowardice and I’m sickened to read it, period. May God have mercy on you, enlighten you, and I pray for your conversion. This is sad stuff!

 

[elts1956]

**
I would pray for her to follow her conscience and do what she understood was the correct course of action in her situation. I would neither ignore her nor offer to console her. At that point she would be in the moment, perhaps as close to God as she would ever get in her lifetime. Far be it from me to interrupt such a personal communication.

Then again, she might just be crying because she forgot to fast and the doctor sent her home because the procedure would pose additional risk if she tried to undergo it on a full stomach. What could I possibly have to offer her except, “Tomorrow is another day”?

Limerick**

Maybe that is all she would need to hear from another warm body.