Catholics Can Be Pro-Choice?

[JRKH]

I will make this my last post here because it is obvious to me that you cannot keep from using inflamatory arguments. For this I am sorry since it precludes having any kind of meaningful discussion.

Now you see the problem – it was a change in the law (by judicial fiat) that got us where we are. The fix must be to change that by making abortion a crime in law as it is in fact. In the process, we show official social disapproval, which is the key to turning people’s attitudes.

You seem to equate Law with peoples attitudes whereas I equate attitudes with law.
You also seem to equate outlawing abortion with ending abortion. This is, of course, false. Abortions occurred before roe v wade and they would continue even if the law is changed back.

Originally Posted by JRKH
So long as we, who believe abortion to be morally and ethically wrong, continue to use inflammatory language, such as murder, to make the case it will only serve to drive moderates into a defensive mode.

What evidence do you have of that?

How about common sense and personal observation.

Originally Posted by JRKH
Regardless of the Fact that it is murder in the moral sense, it is not in the legal sense. Until that can be changed, the opposition can paint the “anti-abortion” camp as fanatics who don’t care about the law.

Which is why we can make no significant headway until the law is changed.

So we are left with a chicken and egg argument. You believe that changing the law changes the mind. It does not. Changing the mind changes the law. In fact if minds are changed, the law is unimportant because almost no one would seek an abortion.

Originally Posted by JRKH
What works to our advantage is that there are many discrepencies in the law. For instance, a person who kills a pregnant woman in DUI accident can, in some places anyway, be charged with homicde for the death of the child as well as the mother.

What these descrepencies mean is that much of the population at least tacitly feels that the fetus is a human. This view must be fostered so that it can grow and build a larger base for changing the Law.

And I have no objection to that – I don’t believe “perfection” is the only standard we can accept.
But let us keep in mind that abortion is murder – and pretty sordid, gruesome murder at that.

Agreed, but lets also keep in mind that when discussing these things in public, we must use arguments designed to change peoples hearts, and not inflame their passions. Unless of course you have great confidence in the predictable results coming from an inflamed, passionate mob.

Originally Posted by JRKH
Well let me be perfectly clear. I believe abortion to be wrong. And I have faith that this country will eventually right this wrong. However so long as the laws remain written as they are I cannot in good concsience call another person, who may not be of my faith, a murderer.

You are mistaking debate for tactics. It is one thing to treat a person with respect and compassion, regardless of what they have done. It is another thing to provide cover and justification for the act.

I am making no mistake here. I am only pointing up the need for careful use of language both in private and in public.
Since you cannot see that, there is no point in continuing the discussion.

Originally Posted by JRKH
I have the same problem with the murder argument as I have with the use of Pro-Choice and Pro-abortion as if they are interchangable. They are not. Doing so is THE most counterproductive thing we can do.

What evidence do you have for that?

First of all there is the evidence of my own feelings when I hear the terms used thus. It makes me angry. And it makes me sad because it is simple grandstanding.
Second of all is the terms themselves.
If a person is pro-abortion, that is clear. They have made their decision and it is that the fetus is not a Human being and therefore not legally protected.
If a person is pro-chioce, that is not clear. They may believe that abortion is morally wrong, but that they have no right to impose their morals on others. They may have not made up their mind as to the argument of when a child is to be considered Human. They may yet be open to honest and clear discussion. But to lump the two terms together as though they mean the same thing is counterproductive.
If you cannot see that then I you are simply not open to reason.
If you cannot recognize that seperating the Pro-Choice people from the Pro-Abortion people divides the opposition and weakens the Pro-abortion position, If you cannot recognize a sound tactical method of dividing the opposition and strengthening your own, then there is nothing I more I can say.

Continued…

 

[JRKH]

That’s the holocaust syndrome. Millions of Germans saw the boxcars full of Jews, tut-tutted about it and did nothing.

Have you ever spoken to someone who lived in Nazi Germany? They feel the same way – they were not guilty.

This is exactly what I am talking about. You take a horrific event out of history and completely out of context and try to use it against the opposition which you term Pro-Choice. The result is that you look like the fanatic. you look like the Facist. And because you lump the pro-choice people with the pro-abortion people, you end up with a stronger and more determined opposition.
You refer earlier to my playing into the hands of the Pro-Abortion Arguments. Well what are you doing when you use arguments that, while may sound good to your pals, drive the opposition closer together and force even those on the fence into a postion of defending themselves against you.

I am a student of History, and particularly that period. Yes the holocaust was horrific. I dare say I may know more about it than you do. Yes the German people looked the other way. Partly because they didn’t have any other choice. They didn’t have an election every year. Opposition to what was happening resulted in joining the Jews and Catholics and others in the camps. Don’t try playing this card with me because it won’t work. It is not the same thing and any intelligent person knows that. By using this kind of terminology you don’t hurt abortion, you help it.
At this moment even I, who am opposed to abortion, am angry at you for using such terms. It is just plain idiotic!!! You are helping Satan!!!

Does it strike you that on this forum, we debate, and in the real world we act?

And I prefer the action of intelligent discource to Mob Inciting Name Calling. I wish you did too.

Originally Posted by JRKH
Remember, In order to push someone toward God I have to get behind them and that puts me further away from God than they are. If I want to draw them towards God I must first be closer to Him than they are.

But is it possible to do that by giving approval and absolution to those who support abortion, even though they say they wouldn’t choose to have one?

No, but it is possible to give them love, understanding and a helping hand. It is possible to frame the discussion in terms of Christian Love instead of Hate. It is possible to resist the temptation to lash out thus making you the bad guy.

Abortion is wrong there is no doubt in my mind on that point.
But each child that is aborted returns to God. Of this I am certain.
The sin of abortion is less on the loss of the child, who is innocent and returns to God, than it is on those who calmly recommend and perform abortions.
The vast majority of those caught in the Middle, families and young mothers, who have no strong convictions one way or another can be helped more by the gentle campaigns of loving than they can by the harsh campaigns of accusation and name calling.

There is a line from Shakespeare’s Henry V that is fitting. In the scene, the King has just had a man Hanged for stealing from the locals. (The English were fighting the French in France). Henry declares that in their marches nothing is to be taken that is not paid for, and:
“None of the French upbraided, or abused in distainful language; for when lenity and cruelty play for a kingdom, the gentler gamester is the soonest winner.”

We would all do well to remember this.

Clever arguments that are appauded only by those who agree with us win no converts. Careful study and reasoned discussion can and will win great allies.

I hope that you will take my points to heart and re-examine your arguments in light of what the ultimate goal is.

Peace
James

 

[vern_humphrey]

They aren’t saying abortion IS a choice. That would be a pointless argument. Anything you do “is a choice”. They are saying it should ultimately BE the choice of the woman.

Which is exactly like saying murder should be the choice of the murderer.

Trying to equate those crimes to abortion is pointless. They are each a different issue to consider.

The unborn child is as human as you or I – and has the same right to life.

 

[vern_humphrey]

This is exactly what I am talking about. You take a horrific event out of history and completely out of context and try to use it against the opposition which you term Pro-Choice.

How is it out of context?

In the Nazi Holocaust certain groups of people were de-humanized, first Jews and alter Catholics.

In the Abortion Holocaust a certain group of people is de-humanized.

In the Nazi Holocaust millons of innocent human beings were put to death.

In the Abortion Holocaust millions of innocent human beings are being put to death – the total in this country is now four times that of the Nazi Holocaust.

In the Nazi Holocaust people saw what was happening, and turned a blind eye to it.

In the Abortion Holocaust people see what’s happening and actually defend it.

In the Nazi Holocaust people supported the Nazis because they liked some of the other Nazi policies.

In the Abortion Holocaust people support pro-abortion politicians because they like some of their other programs.

 

[JRKH]

How is it out of context?

I know I am wasting my time because you won’t accept this, but perhaps someone else will benefit.

You listed a number of points that are similar between the Nazi holocaust and todays abortion situation. However, you don’t mention any of the differences.

1. In the early to mid 30’s Germany was broke! People were out of work and many on the verge of starving. The Reichsmark was in TRIPLE-DIGIT Inflation. It would take a wheel barrow to carry enough money to by a loaf of bread. The Government was split and the communists, socialists, and facists were all involved in bloody street fighting to gain control.
   This situation was prime breeding ground for any strong man to come in and “solve” the nations woes.
2. Germany was not alone in blaming the Jews of many of their ills. Jew baiting, slandering of Jews, killing of Jews, Polgroms of all kinds were part and parcel of European History, and also permeated US politics and society. So Hitler’s railing against the Jews would not have been seen that unusual.
3. By the time Hitler implemented the “final solution” in 1942, Germany had been at war or 3 years and so many people had a lot more to worry about than just what was happening to the Jews in the camps. Like dodging American and British Bombs and worrying about their sons fighting in Africa and Russia.
4. People in Germany during the 12 years of Nazi rule did not have the opportunity to “vote” Hitler out. Nor did they have the opportunity to meet, speak, organize, or protest the treatment of the Jews or any other government program. Not unless they wanted to find themselves in the same predicamant.

So if you want to compare historical situations you have to include a great many other things than a body count.

As I said before I’m sure you won’t accept this since your mind is closed, but perhaps others will benefit from looking at the situation in a more balanced perspective.

Peace
James

 

[vern_humphrey]

I know I am wasting my time because you won’t accept this, but perhaps someone else will benefit.

You listed a number of points that are similar between the Nazi holocaust and todays abortion situation. However, you don’t mention any of the differences.

1. In the early to mid 30’s Germany was broke! People were out of work and many on the verge of starving. The Reichsmark was in TRIPLE-DIGIT Inflation. It would take a wheel barrow to carry enough money to by a loaf of bread. The Government was split and the communists, socialists, and facists were all involved in bloody street fighting to gain control.
   This situation was prime breeding ground for any strong man to come in and “solve” the nations woes.
2. Germany was not alone in blaming the Jews of many of their ills. Jew baiting, slandering of Jews, killing of Jews, Polgroms of all kinds were part and parcel of European History, and also permeated US politics and society. So Hitler’s railing against the Jews would not have been seen that unusual.
3. By the time Hitler implemented the “final solution” in 1942, Germany had been at war or 3 years and so many people had a lot more to worry about than just what was happening to the Jews in the camps. Like dodging American and British Bombs and worrying about their sons fighting in Africa and Russia.
4. People in Germany during the 12 years of Nazi rule did not have the opportunity to “vote” Hitler out. Nor did they have the opportunity to meet, speak, organize, or protest the treatment of the Jews or any other government program. Not unless they wanted to find themselves in the same predicamant.

So if you want to compare historical situations you have to include a great many other things than a body count.

As I said before I’m sure you won’t accept this since your mind is closed, but perhaps others will benefit from looking at the situation in a more balanced perspective.

Peace
James

Did the Germans support Hitler or not? (Hint – millions of them served the Nazis in every field from military to commercial.)

Did the German people know what was going on? (Hint – the trains full of starving Jews ran through many towns.)

Those who support pro-choice are in the position of the “good Germans” – with this difference: The “good Germans” pretended they didn’t know what was going on. The pro-choice people bloody well know that tens of millions of innocent children have been killed, and the slaughter continues.

If your post has any meaning at all, it is the pro-choice advocates have less excuse than the “good Germans” and are more complicit in a more horrible Holocaust.

 

[Valke2]

So every women who has an abortion is a murderess and is no different from a nazi who is engaging in genocide. That is what you are saying, yes?

 

[vern_humphrey]

So every women who has an abortion is a murderess and is no different from a nazi who is engaging in genocide. That is what you are saying, yes?

My aren’t you quick to put words in someone else’s mouth.

I say abortion is murder. An abortionist is a serial killer. A woman who kills her child in January is just as guilty as if she wanted until December to kill it.

In the United States, every person accused of a crime is entitled to a trial – where that act is considered all by itself. It is up to the jury to determine whether a particular crime merits severe punishment or not.

Do you say different?

 

[Valke2]

My aren’t you quick to put words in someone else’s mouth.

I say abortion is murder. An abortionist is a serial killer. A woman who kills her child in January is just as guilty as if she wanted until December to kill it.

In the United States, every person accused of a crime is entitled to a trial – where that act is considered all by itself. It is up to the jury to determine whether a particular crime merits severe punishment or not.

Do you say different?

Yes, I do. I do not consider a woman who has an abortion to be a murderer. But I just want to make sure I understand how other’s interpret it. It’s hard not to believe that these woman aren’t considered nazis because almost every debate here on abortion compares it to the holocaust.

 

[estesbob]

So every women who has an abortion is a murderess and is no different from a nazi who is engaging in genocide. That is what you are saying, yes?

How many women were imprisioned for having an abortion in the years leading up to Roe V Wade?

In my experience most women are forced or coerced into having an abortion.Nobody, however, can force an abotionist to perform an abortion. Yes-the abortionist is particiapting in genocide. It is no coincidence that a third o fthe children killed are Africans Americans. it is no coincidence that Family planning organiaztions spend the bulk of their time and money trying to cut down on the number of brown,black and yellow children born into the world.

Having said that what does this have to do with the question “Catholics can be pro-chice?” The answer, of course, is no.

 

[buffalo]

Yes, I do. I do not consider a woman who has an abortion to be a murderer. But I just want to make sure I understand how other’s interpret it. It’s hard not to believe that these woman aren’t considered nazis because almost every debate here on abortion compares it to the holocaust.

That is just plain refusal to acknowledge a baby is a living being. Even worse abortion is a pre-meditated murder as opposed to most homicides in the US.

 

[Valke2]

That is just plain refusal to acknowledge a baby is a living being. Even worse abortion is a pre-meditated murder as opposed to most homicides in the US.

It is a refusal to acknowledge a fetus as a baby. Not a baby as a living thing. But Ok. You would obviously be in favor of charging a woman who has an abortion with murder. Perhaps even a capital crime, depending on where the abortion takes place. I don’t agree with this, but at least it is a consistent position with the argument that abortion is murder.

 

[Valke2]

How many women were imprisioned for having an abortion in the years leading up to Roe V Wade?

None as far as I know. But that is another question. THe debate here often comes down to the argument that abortion is murder. IF so, then women who have them are murderers. That historically they have not been charged with such a crime doesn’t mean that they weren’t guilty of it.

In my experience most women are forced or coerced into having an abortion.

Really? And what experience is that? If the abortionist is participating in genocide, and the woman is paying him for it, it seems clear that, barring extraordinary circumstances, she is committing murder.

It’s a cop out to go after abortionists without going after the women who are choosing to have this murder done.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Yes, I do. I do not consider a woman who has an abortion to be a murderer.

That’s not the question I asked you.

Is not the unborn child an innocent human being?

Is not killing an innocent human being murder?

But I just want to make sure I understand how other’s interpret it. It’s hard not to believe that these woman aren’t considered nazis because almost every debate here on abortion compares it to the holocaust.

I suggest the moral parallel reflects on those who support abortion as much as on those who have them.

 

[vern_humphrey]

It is a refusal to acknowledge a fetus as a baby. Not a baby as a living thing. But Ok. You would obviously be in favor of charging a woman who has an abortion with murder. Perhaps even a capital crime, depending on where the abortion takes place. I don’t agree with this, but at least it is a consistent position with the argument that abortion is murder.

Dehumanizing the victim is necessary if one is to commit mass murder. A baby becomes a “fetus” (which is simply Latin for “baby.”) That was the tactic the Nazis used, too.

 

[He_Man]

I’m not suggesting you should vote pro-choice. But, a “yes” vote to pro-life is a “no” vote to Democratic social programs that ALSO potentially save a lot of lives.

So, can’t you make them an ultimatum or something? I’m just wondering…

Most democratic social programs are complete garbage that don’t do anything except waste money that could better be served elsewhere. And the politicians who “support” them couldn’t care less about the the poor and their plight.

 

[He_Man]

I have always liked this pro-life argument the best, because I have seen it derived in a secular manner, but I am now reconsidering it, and don’t think it always holds, depending on what stage of development the fetus is in. To “give him the benefit of the doubt” would have to assume that the fetus wants to live. I don’t think there is any consciousness or feeling there before a certain stage that can be assumed to be aware and of any interest in the matter of whether it lives or dies. Furthermore, if you remove the Christian idea of there being a soul at conception, then there would be no soul to save, and therefore fetus would never even have had a conscious life (or soul) to begin with if the abortion was carried out early enough.

First of all, this sound like an argument that would be used in Nazi Germany in favor of killing the mentally handicapped. Unless they provide proof they want to be alive, we are justified in killing them. That’s disgusting.

Secondly, you conveniently remove God and the soul (an immutable fact) to make your argument. WHich means, you can’t actually make your argument.

I can’t defend a position by just making up falsehoods to simply make my case easier.

 

[estesbob]

None as far as I know. But that is another question. THe debate here often comes down to the argument that abortion is murder. IF so, then women who have them are murderers. That historically they have not been charged with such a crime doesn’t mean that they weren’t guilty of it.

The answer is none.

Really? And what experience is that? If the abortionist is participating in genocide, and the woman is paying him for it, it seems clear that, barring extraordinary circumstances, she is committing murder.

Over 5 years couseling women in a Crisis Pregnancy center. During that time I not only talked to a multitude of women considering an abortion but also had contact with a large number of counsleors all over the country. All confirmed my observation.

 

[He_Man]

I have to catagorically take issue with the idea of Green-tea needing to comeup with another term. Thisis preposterous. I suggest that the people who mis-use the terms stop it.
For heaven’s sake look at the term:
Pro = in favor of
Choice = making a selection from several alternatives.

Making the term Pro-Choice the same as Pro-Abortion is blatantly political and argumentative. It serves no practical purpose. It is divisive and fails to allow real progress in any discussion, as is proved here on thsi board time and again.

The main problem with this entire discussion, and the debate in general is that it mixes the moral questions which are personal with the legal questions which are societal.

Those who want abortions banned do so to protect thel lives of the developing person. It is their belief that human life begins at conception and to end it is wrong and sinful. To drive home their point the “murder” term is used. Morally and ethically I believe they are right.
The problem is that society and the law does not agree. Under the Law the child is not considered a person. It is not fully human. UNDER THE LAW!! Therefore the courts permit the termination of pregancy at anytime before birth and no murder has occurred, Under the Civil Law.

So you are saying you value the right to make a choice over the right for skmeone to not be killed? That is what you imply when you decry those who link pro-choice with pro-abortion.

And are you defending the postion of not doing anything legally to stop abortion because babies are not seen as human beings in the womb? If so, I am sure God will smile on you when you have to face Him and you explain the fact that you wouldn’t take a firm stand against the slaughter of His children because the law technically didn’t recognize them as human. That should get you off the hook…

 

[Agnes_Ainsworth]

The answer is none.

Over 5 years couseling women in a Crisis Pregnancy center. During that time I not only talked to a multitude of women considering an abortion but also had contact with a large number of counsleors all over the country. All confirmed my observation.

I just can’t take this claim seriously. What kind of counsellors allow women to be forced or co-erced into having an abortion? Do the women not have to sign an agreement that they fully understand and agree with the procedure? I can see that in some cases there is persuasion by men or parents but surely this is a rhetorical claim that is over the top or are you just rationalising to defend all the women who have abortions?