Anybody out there "pro-choice"?

[limerick]

Perhaps a little more charity and humility is needed here.

Look what is written in the sand then look what is in your hand. If there’s a rock maybe it’s best to put it down.

In the end, God Knows.

Just what is written in the sand, Spek? Does it say “put the rock down” or does it say, “Man, you need a bigger rock!”?

L

 

[limerick]

Two choices still remain and can’t be erased with lots of words and justification.
Pro Death or Pro Life. To support Death is to support evil. Only the road to life is good. Death is inevitable when the human person wears out, or through accident or illness. Abortion is not. It is a choice to kill. To make something alive and human dead. Period. No judgement or opinion here. Just facts.

**
This is perfect! I’m so glad you see my point: life is served when a woman chooses** to give birth.

Limerick

 

[CMP2]

**Are adultery in the heart and adultery in the sack equally punishable?

Matthew 21-22 does not say “anger in the heart is the same as murder”. It says that one who kills is liable to judgment and one who is angry is liable to judgment. It does not** say they are the same thing, nor does it detail the penalty for either.

Limerick

Lust is adultery in or out of the ‘sack’

 

[CMP2]

**
This is perfect! I’m so glad you see my point: life is served when a woman chooses** to give birth.

Limerick

But life exists whether or not a woman ‘chooses’ to give birth. If she ends life it is dead and she is liable for this death.

 

[GodLovesTheSpek]

It says nothing about the rock.

Just what is written in the sand, Spek? Does it say “put the rock down” or does it say, “Man, you need a bigger rock!”?

L

 

[limerick]

Lust is adultery in or out of the ‘sack’

**You are saying, then, that the thought of doing something and choosing, through free will, not to do that thing is equally repugnant to God as actually doing that thing, and that they are both punished with equal ferocity?

What, then, is the point of free will?

Limerick**

 

[limerick]

But life exists whether or not a woman ‘chooses’ to give birth. If she ends life it is dead and she is liable for this death.

**I have not disagreed with this point.

Limerick**

 

[Eddie_Mac]

*"Since murder is grave matter, the Church holds murder and anger to violate the Fifth commandment, therefore, anger is grave matter and will be judged accordingly.

Are you willing to challenge Jesus on how He will judge?"*

**I am not satisfied that you have interpreted these quotations correctly and so I am willing to challenge you on where you connect the dots between murder being a grave matter and anger being an equally grave matter; or have I misunderstood you?

I understand the concept of forgiveness, but I don’t find it very practical. To offer it has never opened my heart or cleared my conscience or abated my anger. It has more often than not opened the door to further abuses from those I would seek to forgive. And I have found on this forum that God forgives, but only if we subject ourselves to ridicule, to torment, to judgment and scorn through specially-appointed Evaluators on CAF.

It’s looking more and more like the solution to life as I know it is to cash out and hold my breath until it all goes away.

Limerick **

Edit: Add to that “mindreaders” on CAF. What a gifted bunch.

I do not interpret scripture. I rely on the Church’s interpretation of scripture.

Whether or not something is grave matter does not rely on its outward appearance of violence or evil. That proof is evident in the scripturee passage about lust and adultery. Grave matter applies to sin and the state of my soul. Why isn’t being angry with someone not as grave as klling someone? You are still harboring hatred and ill feelings in your heart. I wonder how many times anger has led to murder? Again, I am not the judge. I didn’t inspire scripture, and I am not capable of interpreting scripture. Certainly their are different degrees of anger. A proper examination of conscience is a great way to discern one’s spiritual state.

Forgiving someone has absolutely nothing to do with tolerating or allowing those who you forgive to hurt you further. You don’t even have to tell the person you are forgiving that you have done so. If you forgive someone and there is the risk that they will do so again then you must remove yourself from the situation.

Eddie Mac

 

[royal_archer]

**Please explain the consecutive steps one must take in order that God may consider that person repentant.

Limerick**

1. Not advocating the sinful conduct in a public setting.
2. Acknowledge what the sin is, not try to hide it’s meaning with pleasant euphanisms.
3. True regret over conducting the sin.
   …

 

[Eddie_Mac]

**You are saying, then, that the thought of doing something and choosing, through free will, not to do that thing is equally repugnant to God as actually doing that thing, and that they are both punished with equal ferocity?

What, then, is the point of free will?

Limerick**

Free will is choosing not to sin, to do the Will of God. When we sin we are slaves to sin and separate ourselves from God. Yes, we fail in our journey, but the same free will allows us to seek God’s mercy and forgiveness enabling us to return to communion with Jesus and freely choose to continue our journey to our final reward. Why are you so intent on insisting that your free will is there to omnly allow you to choose sin?

Choosing holiness is true freedom, not captivity.

Eddie Mac

 

[royal_archer]

**
I am a non-interventionist - I will not insinuate my opinions, beliefs, suspicions into anyone else’s lives or life decisions.**

Your repeated posts here are evidence to the contrary. with this two sided arguement you are actively advocating the side of murder.

 

[royal_archer]

**
This is perfect! I’m so glad you see my point: life is served when a woman chooses** to give birth.

Limerick

And evil is served when a woman chooses murder.

 

[FanChan]

And evil is served when a woman chooses murder.

I don’t think she misunderstands this. Limerick seems to understand perfectly that abortion is evil, and she wishes (or says so) that no one do it. The issue here is that she believes that since God has given us free will, and since we are able to choose abortion, that it is our right to do so.

To continue to push the fact that by being pro-choice she approves of abortion (when in her heart it seems she only approves of the woman having the freedom to make her own mistakes) will continue to run this conversation around in circles. The debate should focus on the fact that while the idea of someone going out and making their own mistakes is understandable, we have the duty to intervene when those mistakes cost other people their lives, in this case the babies.

I’d still like to hear L’s response to the question of if she believes people will do whatever they want, legal or illegal, why she has a problem with abortion becoming illegal. Given that she’s ignored me, would someone else re-pose that question?

 

[SteveGC]

L,

FanChan wanted you to see this…in case you’re still in “ignore” mode:

I don’t think she misunderstands this. Limerick seems to understand perfectly that abortion is evil, and she wishes (or says so) that no one do it. The issue here is that she believes that since God has given us free will, and since we are able to choose abortion, that it is our right to do so.

To continue to push the fact that by being pro-choice she approves of abortion (when in her heart it seems she only approves of the woman having the freedom to make her own mistakes) will continue to run this conversation around in circles. The debate should focus on the fact that while the idea of someone going out and making their own mistakes is understandable, we have the duty to intervene when those mistakes cost other people their lives, in this case the babies.

I’d still like to hear L’s response to the question of if she believes people will do whatever they want, legal or illegal, why she has a problem with abortion becoming illegal. Given that she’s ignored me, would someone else re-pose that question?

And I’d like to ask a similar question…

If you grew up in a society where abortion was always illegal, but you knew that some people were doing it illegally, how much do you think you’d do to publicly advocate and argue for the legalization of it? I mean, do you support legal abortion because it already IS legal? Or would you fight for legalization if it never WAS legal?

And no…I’m not trying to expose sinfulness. I’m trying to understand why in one breath you admit that abortion is wrong, and is indeed the killing of a human…and then in the next breath, say that you advocate for keeping abortion as an available option for all women? Granted, I know you are saying that, to you, abortion can be “justified” when not used as a normative means of birth control. Nevertheless, I’d be interested in your response to these questions. Thanks, as always.

 

[limerick]

Free will is choosing not to sin, to do the Will of God. When we sin we are slaves to sin and separate ourselves from God. Yes, we fail in our journey, but the same free will allows us to seek God’s mercy and forgiveness enabling us to return to communion with Jesus and freely choose to continue our journey to our final reward. Why are you so intent on insisting that your free will is there to omnly allow you to choose sin?

Choosing holiness is true freedom, not captivity.

Eddie Mac

Free will has not been bestowed upon us to allow us to choose only sin or to choose only obedience. Free will is in place to allow us to choose. **Only in this way do we become architects of our afterlife. Otherwise, “free” will is a misnomer.

Limerick**

 

[limerick]

L,

FanChan wanted you to see this…in case you’re still in “ignore” mode …

And I’d like to ask a similar question…

If you grew up in a society where abortion was always illegal, but you knew that some people were doing it illegally, how much do you think you’d do to publicly advocate and argue for the legalization of it? I mean, do you support legal abortion because it already IS legal? Or would you fight for legalization if it never WAS legal?

I grew up in a society where abortion had always been illegal. I had my own abortion before Roe. I would neither fight for nor against legalization. Every human being will do what s/he must do in times of strife, regardless of the il/legality of the act(s).

And no…I’m not trying to expose sinfulness. I’m trying to understand why in one breath you admit that abortion is wrong, and is indeed the killing of a human…and then in the next breath, say that you advocate for keeping abortion as an available option for all women? Granted, I know you are saying that, to you, abortion can be “justified” when not used as a normative means of birth control. Nevertheless, I’d be interested in your response to these questions. Thanks, as always.
**
I believe abortion is wrong if one believes it is wrong (yes: relativism). I happen to regret having taken a life but I did what I thought was the right thing for me, in my circumstances, at the time. Many women struggle with the dilemma and others book abortion appointments like hair appointments, once every six weeks. I support abortion as an option for all women, those who believe the tissue is a blob and those who are certain God will banish them from the kingdom of heaven for eternity if they proceed. Each struggle is unique unto itself. It is personal, it is private, it is no one’s concern but that of the woman and God, if she believes. If the father of the fetus is in the picture and wishes to be heard on the matter, then of course his position should be considered.

If abortion again becomes illegal, it will be business as usual, circa 1950, although I believe medical options for the pregnant woman have progressed in the last fifty years. Abortion will go underground but it will not evaporate. Some doctors and some women will get busted in the process, which is the risk they will be willing to take. Each is accountable for his or her own participation in the act. In anticipation of your next question, let me say that I am not convinced that God is the same entity for every person, as in your objective moral truth argument. I was saturated with images and examples of a vengeful God from a very early age on so, no matter how I try to morph this image into a more kind and loving God, I am completely unsuccessful. Whatever I have done in my life has been put before this Higher Power and likely partially explains my withdrawal from life. I find it is impossible to undo years and years of faulty and controlling indoctrination. I have had a couple of very positive experiences with God, but the main body of my dealings with Him (or His dealings with me) have been bookended with "If it’s all the same to you, God … " and “Oh, well - I was a fool to expect anything good to come of it.”

My relationship with God is a by-product of uber-wrong catechesis, alcoholism, drug addiction and bi-polar disorder. The events that have colored these conditions are just the symptoms of deep illness that are now in remission but still call the shots from time to time. If an opportunity comes for advancement I refuse to take it. If an invitation arrives in the mailbox to celebrate something I do not respond. Nearly all the things I have loved in my life - music, art, composition, photography, gardening - one by one they have fallen. And I look at them academically, as if I were never inspired by them, as if they are just cluttering up a space that should by all rights be empty and devoid of any signs of life.

Maybe this is more than you bargained for when you asked. Just please be aware that I don’t want your God because I can’t believe in Him. It would be the same as wearing a size 42 men’s tuxedo and entering a wedding reception as if everything were on the up and up.

Limerick **

 

[SteveGC]

L,

Thanks for your candid response. I think I understand your position better. You know that I will not agree with moral relativism, but I do see your moral non-interventionist concept as being something I can understand to a certain degree. The exception for me certainly being matters of life and death for any human being. I just think we have a duty to intervene somehow on those matters. Somehow.

And I agree with you about the idea of God is different for many, but not in the way you probably mean it. God is not the same from the perspective of every person. But He is the same being…same yesterday today and tomorrow as the saying goes. He Himself is always the same, whether we relate to Him, envision Him, or understand Him in that authentic way or not. Indeed, as you would agree, most of us do not understand Him as He truly is…but He Himself is not a different being for different people. This is what is meant by objective moral truth. Different people who have either a faulty impression of God, or none at all…or a perfectly correct one for that matter…does not alter the existence of one truth as opposed to many truths. There still is but one truth, but plausibly many many perceptions and interpretations of that one truth, which gives off the illusion of there being differing moral guidance for differing individuals.

That does nothing for you, I’m sure…because the fact still remains that it’s next to impossible for someone who has a disastrously faulty view of God (even through no fault of their own) to bring themselves to a more correct view of God. But it’s only next to impossible…not truly impossible. With God…all things are…

Well, you get my drift.

Peace.

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

**I did not claim that the fetus was not human. That fits in nicely with your black and white.

L**

A lof of issues ARE black and white. Like the existence of God. You may not believe in Him; however, He created and believes in you.

 

[limerick]

A lof of issues ARE black and white. Like the existence of God. You may not believe in Him; however, He created and believes in you.

**Do you think I said that I don’t believe in God?

L**

 

[WillieWonka]

Can someone on the anti-abortion side explain why so many anti-abortion people concentrate their arguments on the fact that the fetus is alive? Is anyone disputing that? Does anyone argue the fetus is dead?

I’m afraid I must be missing the point. Everyone agrees the fetus is alive, yet anti-abortion folks spend lots of time telling us it is alive. There must be some reason. What is it?