Catholics Can Be Pro-Choice?

[vern_humphrey]

I just can’t take this claim seriously. What kind of counsellors allow women to be forced or co-erced into having an abortion?

The kind of “counsellors” who work in abortion centers – and sometimes in public schools.

Do the women not have to sign an agreement that they fully understand and agree with the procedure?

Yep – but it is often signed under duress. If a woman or girl, accompanied by her boyfriend or parents is weeping and has to be persuaded to sign, so what? The abortionist is covered.

And recently a woman sued – her abortionist told her her baby was “just a lump of tissue.” She later learned that at that stage of development, it was considerably more than that, and was stricken by remorse – so much so that she developed mental problems.

The state supreme court of New Jersey ruled that informed consent doesn’t apply to abortion.

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?

I don’t defend all women who have abortions – I point out that many women are under intense pressure to have abortions, and have little recourse at law if they are pressured, lied to, or otherwise treated unfairly.

 

[estesbob]

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?

So after 36 posts you are reduced to calling me a liar. You have not got a clue as to what goes on in a CPC-not a clue. You also do not have a clue as to what goes on in an abortion mill. You have not got a clue as to what motivates women to get an abortion. At any rate this is my last post to you. I dont take being called a liar lightly.

I

 

[JRKH]

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…

If you continued to read through the posts you have seen that I already had a rather lengthy exchange with Mr. Vern Humphrey on this.
If you haven’t read through them I suggest you do so before you post additional questions to me.

Peace
James

 

[He_Man]

If you continued to read through the posts you have seen that I already had a rather lengthy exchange with Mr. Vern Humphrey on this.
If you haven’t read through them I suggest you do so before you post additional questions to me.

Peace
James

I did read all the posts, and your words frankly don’t match your explanation.

Reread what you wrote, then reread your defense of it.

Essentially you defended your posts by saying “I don’t think Jesus would use such methods”, and “love thy neighbor” and “I feel it is counterproductive.”

How that ties in to what youw rote above is beyond me, which is where my question stemmed from.

 

[RobbyS]

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?

Murder is unlawfull killing. Abortion is lawful, therefore it is not murder. An abortionist is a doctor with a license to kill and with minimal restrictions on his license. It is sad that there is less regulation of this sort of “operation” than on any other, because the state is loathe to exercise what authority it does have lest it infringe on the woman’s absolute right to have her child killed. Ironically many legal abortion clinics are less sanitary than the physicians’ private offices’ where per-Roe many illegal abortions were performed.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Murder is unlawfull killing. Abortion is lawful, therefore it is not murder.

In the legal sense you are right – just as killing the Jews during the Holocaust was legal under Nazi law.

But as a matter of morals, both were murder – horrible, grisly mass murder.

An abortionist is a doctor with a license to kill and with minimal restrictions on his license. a

Sort of like a modern American version of a Nazi Sonderkommando.

It is sad that there is less regulation of this sort of “operation” than on any other, because the loathe to exercise what authority it does have lest it infringe on the woman’s absolute right to have her child killed.

Well, you wouldn’t want the Board of Health to come and inspect Auschwitz, now would you?

 

[RobbyS]

The kind of “counsellors” who work in abortion centers – and sometimes in public schools.

Yep – but it is often signed under duress. If a woman or girl, accompanied by her boyfriend or parents is weeping and has to be persuaded to sign, so what? The abortionist is covered.

And recently a woman sued – her abortionist told her her baby was “just a lump of tissue.” She later learned that at that stage of development, it was considerably more than that, and was stricken by remorse – so much so that she developed mental problems.

The state supreme court of New Jersey ruled that informed consent doesn’t apply to abortion.

I don’t defend all women who have abortions – I point out that many women are under intense pressure to have abortions, and have little recourse at law if they are pressured, lied to, or otherwise treated unfairly.[/Q[/COLOR]UOTE]

This stands to reason in some places. Where a girl who is too young to be married is allowed by the state to have an abortion, then she cannot be presumed to making a free decision.

 

[JRKH]

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…

I guess I am somewhat unclear as to what you are getting at but I shall try to explain.
My entire line of attempted discussion relates to the framing of the discussion and not the merits of the specific sides.
I believe that the mis-use of terms such as Pro-Choice and the use of deliberately inflamatory arguments such as “Murder” and the Holocaust are counterproductive.
I tried to explain that to Mr. Humphrey to no avail.

I am not defending abortion and I don’t know how you could get that from any of my posts. If there are things that appear that way please call them to my attention and I will address the specifics.
What I was trying to communicate is that there are a great many people who are not so rabidly Pro-Abortion that they cannot be reached and convinced though a loving dialog, but that could just as readily be lost by Unloving dialog.

I will be happy to address any specific points you wish to bring up, but please do not try draw any “implication” from what I have written. I am not so smart or subtle as to communicate through vieled messages and implications.

Finally I can say catagorically that I am NOT saying that nothing should be done legally to end abortions. What I am saying is that we can gain more support by the soft and persistant discussion than we can by harsh and accusatory argument.

Peace
James

 

[vern_humphrey]

[This stands to reason in some places. Where a girl who is too young to be married is allowed by the state to have an abortion, then she cannot be presumed to making a free decision.

I have been talking to a state legislator about a law allowing such girls to sue when reaching maturity.

I also want a 4-D sonogram required as part of informed concent.
[/quote]

 

[estesbob]

I
Finally I can say catagorically that I am NOT saying that nothing should be done legally to end abortions. What I am saying is that we can gain more support by the soft and persistant discussion than we can by harsh and accusatory argument.

Peace
James

I was wondering when the “hearts and minds” argument would be presentd. Weve already had :

The better dead than underfed argument
Pro-choice does not mean one supports abortion dodge
The “abortion is not murder” dodge
The "Death penalty is just as bad " dodge
“The pro-life canidates really arent pro-life and pro-abortion canidates are really pro-life” dodge
The "you want to execute women:"dodge
The war in Iraq is just as bad dodge
Women have to have abortions becuase the country wont adopt the left wing agenda dodge.

I am not sure- has the rape incest or estopic pregnancy cards been played yet?

All of the above are designed to one thing-change the topic from discussing the fact that 1.2 million children a year are chopped to pieces and thrown out with the garbage.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I was wondering when the “hearts and minds” argument would be presentd. Weve already had :

The better dead than underfed argument
Pro-choice does not mean one supports abortion dodge
The “abortion is not murder” dodge
The "Death penalty is just as bad " dodge
“The pro-life canidates really arent pro-life and pro-abortion canidates are really pro-life” dodge
The "you want to execute women:"dodge
The war in Iraq is just as bad dodge
Women have to have abortions becuase the country wont adopt the left wing agenda dodge.

I am not sure- has the rape incest or estopic pregnancy cards been played yet?

All of the above are designed to one thing-change the topic from discussing the fact that 1.2 million children a year are chopped to pieces and thrown out with the garbage.

We’re missing a couple:

The “Seventy (or whatever figures you choose) percent of all pregnancies end in natural abortions, so God is an abortionist.”

And “Muslims (or some other religious group) don’t believe the fetus has a soul until the end of the first trimester (or some other point) and making abortion a crime would infring on their religious rights.”

 

[mmortal03]

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.

It may sound like that to you, but I am not making that argument. I am not in favor of killing the mentally handicapped without their consent, and even with their consent, because they are mentally handicapped, that would also be reason to keep them alive.

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

If you would check my religious description on my profile, you would see that I CAN make that argument. Your claim that it is an immutable fact that we have a soul is nonsense.

 

[mmortal03]

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

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

That is where we are differing on this argument. If I believed the unborn child was an equal at whichever stage of development that we are talking about, then I would consider it murder.

 

[mmortal03]

Another one is that we must keep abortion legal because we must keep it safe.

 

[ribozyme]

That is where we are differing on this argument. If I believed the unborn child was an equal at whichever stage of development that we are talking about, then I would consider it murder.

He is not going to concede that point… but if you want to raise your post count, keep talking to him about the moral status of an unborn child.

 

[Ender]

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.

We believe that abortion must be criminalized; you believe that it should remain legal. Although your reasons may be totally different than the pro-abortion crowd, your actions are identical: you vote for politicians who, for whatever reason, work to safeguard Roe. In a voting booth there is no fence; your vote brings you down on one side or the other.

Ender

 

[JRKH]

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.

When dealing with a secular society and secular laws I too wanted an argument that was based on science. Not so much for my own concsience and spiritual position which has always been Pro-Life, but rather an argument that would stand up in the secular world. In other words, is this a place where I have no right to impose my views (in other words it is a mothers right to choose) or is there a clear unbiased scientific basis to say when a fetus is a human?

The argument that did it for me is the genetic one. Once conception occurs, the genetic makeup of the person is set. That thing which makes one a human distinct from other species is the number of chromosones. Once these are set the process begins. The human person will continue to develop in a fairly predictable manner throughout it’s life until death.
From the time of conception onward, our looks will change, our capbilities will change, our capacities will change, our needs will change, and on and on…
The one thing that will not change is our genetic makeup comprised of 46 chromosones.

It is this scientific argument that I could not find a way around and I don’t know of anyone who has. As a result of this one argument I cannot, in good conscience, support the “abortion on demand laws” because they are based on an arbitrary legal definition of life and not on a scientific basis.

Every other argument I have heard advanced by either side could be countered on the basis of religious or social factors, but this one is clear, and unequivical. Abortion is wrong because it is the taking of a genetically valid human life.

Peace
James

 

[He_Man]

It may sound like that to you, but I am not making that argument. I am not in favor of killing the mentally handicapped without their consent, and even with their consent, because they are mentally handicapped, that would also be reason to keep them alive.

If you would check my religious description on my profile, you would see that I CAN make that argument. Your claim that it is an immutable fact that we have a soul is nonsense.

You can claim whatever you want.

You might also argue that water isn’t wet. But much like arguing the lack of a soul, that would be foolish.

And why would your profile matter so much as fact is concerned? I don’t base discussions or arguments on someone else’s beliefs, especially when they are wrong. Just because you disavow God doesn’t mean that is true, or a point worth debating, no offense.

 

[JRKH]

We believe that abortion must be criminalized; you believe that it should remain legal. Although your reasons may be totally different than the pro-abortion crowd, your actions are identical: you vote for politicians who, for whatever reason, work to safeguard Roe. In a voting booth there is no fence; your vote brings you down on one side or the other.

Ender

You are completely wrong.
I would ask you to show in any of my posts where I advocated leaving the laws as they are.
Where did I ever say I would vote for pro-abortion.

You cannot because I never did say either of these things.
As a matter of fact I have made quite clear statements that I am against abortion.

You are more than welcome to debate me on any of the points I have made, but you may not accuse me based on what you think I might be inferring from how you read what I wrote.

Peace
James

 

[Al_Masetti]

Do any pro-lifers notice a trend? Every time there’s an election, you vote pro-life, and then at the next election you get to vote pro-life AGAIN because nothing was actually done about abortion.

How many Republicans do you have to go through before you realize it’s campaign rhetoric?

The day abortion becomes illegal is the day the Republican Party comes to an end. Really.

Mike

We don’t live in a dictatorship.

We live in a very messy form of government which technically is a Republic. (Not a democracy.)

The Constitution which is supposed to prescribe the structure of our Federal (central) government has all sorts of safeguards to prevent one party or one group or any popular emotions from running wild and free.

The state governments and the Federal government are supposed to counterbalance one another. [Read the Tenth Amendment. It is very brief and to the point.]

tenthamendmentcenter.com/

In addition to the Democrat Party and the Republican Party, there are liberals and conservatives. And “middle of the roaders” and “moderates” … whatever that is.

Abortion became legal … and anti-abortion laws in the individual states … because the Federal Supreme Court … the judicial branch went way over the line in assuming powers it didn’t have … and outlawed all the state laws prohibiting or limiting abortion.

Since then, a Republican president, George W. Bush, has appointed two pro-life justices.

We need to have one or two more pro-life justices appointed. BUT, the pro-abortion justices now on the Supreme Court won’t retire until a Democrat is elected President … so that the Democrat President can appoint replacement pro-abortion (“pro-choice”) judges.

The Senate (now controlled by the Democrats) refuses to confirm pro-life judges to Federal courts.

Go here:

confirmthem.com/

We also need for the American people to reform the Federal government to bring it closer to what the original intent of the Constitution was.

Ask yourself this question: which political party has consistently been pro-choice? The answer is: the Democrats.

So, Democrats aided by Rino’s [Republicans in Name Only] … liberal Republicans … [they only are members of the Republican Party because in their states, it is or was easier for Republicans to get elected] … have consistently defeated all efforts to limit or stop abortion.

Senators such as Jim Jeffords, Arlen Spector, Lincoln Chaffee, Olympia Snow, and others consistently join with the Democrats. Some even change party affiliation after being elected to throw control of the Congress into Democrat hands.

A lot of dirty tricks by the liberals/socialists to protect abortion “rights”. There will be a lot of weeping and gnashing of teeth at their last judgments. That’s one judgment I pray that I don’t get to experience. I want Heaven, not Hell.