B
Bluegoat
Guest
I wasn’t suggesting the deacon was pro-choice, but rather that he had good reason for using the term instead of pro-abortion. I guess I wasn’t very clear.
- Status
D
Drawmack
Guest
I apologize for the misunderstanding.
T
Tomb54
Guest
Agree this is the choice part not after you make a human life because murder is murder by another name
T
Tomb54
Guest
Yes that is true but you can use the same argument for pro choice for a murderer but that doesn’t make it right either and murder is still illegal even if they choose to do it.
I think someone who murders someone should for their defense just say they did not murder them – they were only choosing to preform a late abortion on that person.
C
Corki
Guest
It depends on the venue. If you are talking about a legal or even a political viewpoint, you can make that case. One of the things we learned in the last election cycle is that some people who cling to the term “pro choice” and bristle at the term “pro abortion” go way beyond simply wanting to keep options open for women. When a person advocates government funding, spreading the practice in other countries and lifting legal safeguards, he/she goes beyond just being about the choice, he/she becomes an advocate of a particular choice, in this case abortion. For that reason, I try to use the term “abortion advocate,” when speaking about abortion as a legal or political issue.
When you are talking about abortion as a religious or moral issue, then “pro choice” as a legitimate position doens’t exist for abortion any more than it could exist for slavery, wife-beating, drunk driving or child abuse. If someone can “see the act as an evil,” he could not in good conscience want anyone to chose to commit the evil or to be allowed to commit evil in the name of the state.
M
Mijoy2
Guest
Both terms are correct.
Am I missing something here? Isn’t the argument, NOT, that an appropriate term for abortion is pro-choice, but that the choice we get to make is whether to murder, or not?
People who favor abortion laws are correct in characterizing themselves as pro-choice.
The fact that they are correct in refering to themselves as pro-choice is the central issue. They DO have the (legal) choice. Our goverment has provided them with the choice to kill the innocent.
In other words, if we legalized killing anyone who cut us off on the road then we could call ourselves pro-choice when pressed, if we favored this law.
Pro-choice = the legal choice to kill. Maybe we should call it pro-choice-to-kill. It’s not that we have a choice (this is indisputable, we do). It’s the choice to do what, that is more deeply troubling.
D
Debra_C
Guest
I don’t really disagree with what you have quoted him as saying, though I fail to grasp his determination to reduce it to an argument over semantics.
I think there is a real difference in the amount of culpability between those who outright advocate use of abortion for population control and /or birth control as if the unborn child is not yet to be considered human, much less a person deserving of protection under the law and one who simply feels this is an individual moral choice that is based largely on personal religious belief. Though I, too, think the people in the latter group are incorrect in thinking it is merely a religious issue, I can easily see that they do not take this stance out of a desire to see more babies murdered. This is not true of the first group (and yes, they do really exist–our new “science czar” has expressed precisely this view, in fact) who simply callously disregards any rights of the new little human growing in the womb and thinks it’s a good idea to eliminate as many new babies as possible.
It is reasonable that one might wish to draw a distinction between these two mind sets by referring to them with different labels. However, it does start to seem silly to argue over it when clearly what is generally understood by the term “pro choice” in politics advocates keeping abortion legal, meaning abortions will ultimately result. This being the case, both ideologies obviously lead to more abortions, which makes it equally reasonable to label them both pro abortion.
Debra
I think there is a real difference in the amount of culpability between those who outright advocate use of abortion for population control and /or birth control as if the unborn child is not yet to be considered human, much less a person deserving of protection under the law and one who simply feels this is an individual moral choice that is based largely on personal religious belief. Though I, too, think the people in the latter group are incorrect in thinking it is merely a religious issue, I can easily see that they do not take this stance out of a desire to see more babies murdered. This is not true of the first group (and yes, they do really exist–our new “science czar” has expressed precisely this view, in fact) who simply callously disregards any rights of the new little human growing in the womb and thinks it’s a good idea to eliminate as many new babies as possible.
It is reasonable that one might wish to draw a distinction between these two mind sets by referring to them with different labels. However, it does start to seem silly to argue over it when clearly what is generally understood by the term “pro choice” in politics advocates keeping abortion legal, meaning abortions will ultimately result. This being the case, both ideologies obviously lead to more abortions, which makes it equally reasonable to label them both pro abortion.
Debra
C
Christopher68
Guest
I suspect that if someone you loved was murdered, that the murderer using the ‘I just performed a late abortion on that person’ would be of little comfort.
T
Tomb54
Guest
I do not want to sound callous (which I guess I did – sorry) but I would think something like this would bring light onto what abortion really is since so many people do not seem to think what is happening.
I also think sometimes when the mother realizes what she did and she no longer believes what Planned Parenthood told her, she might feel the same way you suggested about a loved one being murdered (might even be worse since she made the decision).
A
Answersplease
Guest
A
Answersplease
Guest
Editing my previous post #30:
G
Godfollower
Guest
But the purpose isn’t to “win” a debate; it’s to persuade the other side. How open will they be to reason if you start the conversation by calling them “pro-baby murders”?
B
Bluegoat
Guest
There is little to savour in winning if the other person feels you have cheated and so pays it no mind.
S
StillWondering
Guest
Can you kindly let him know that a number of youths in my generation growing up became confused with the term pro-choice and thought it meant that this supports choosing life for the child as well? Would not pro-life be a pro-choice by his usage of the term. Since we all have to be “pro-choice” to even have an opinion at all.
P
paperwight
Guest
I don’t want to get off-topic, but I feel I should point out that an individual can be gay/homosexual without there being any physical acts.
The Church is not against gay-orientated people who do not have physical relations, and the impression should not be given that it is.
D
Drawmack
Guest
Then why can’t a gay person become a priest? If a gay person is called to chastity and a priest is called to chastity, why can’t a gay person be a priest?
(Yes, I know the priest could just keep their mouth shut and noone would ever know. But, the official stance of the Church is that a gay man cannot become a priest.)
B
Bluegoat
Guest
The Church says that a person who is attracted to people of the same gender suffers from a kind of disordered affection. So that it is not the same as a woman attracted to a man she should not be involved with, which is nature working as it is supposed to do, although she would have to respond appropriately to that attraction.
In the case of homosexual attraction, the church feels that it is, of itself, disordered, or goes against nature. That does not mean that it is the fault of the person who experiences the feeling, or really even say much about why it happens to some people. And the person who experiences it has the same responsibility for behavior as everyone else does.
A priest should not be a person who suffers from a malady that prompts him to act against nature, sexually or in some other way for that matter. It makes them less able to function as a priest.
FWIW, I don’t particularly support the CC position on this, but in any case it does not mean that homosexuals are considered somehow sub-human or outside God’s grace, or at fault for their feelings.
S
Sudie_Nim
Guest
Being pro-choice is just another thing people in this enlightened age seem to think of as a “right”. But I can’t help but wonder what happened to the word “responsibility”.
A
Answersplease
Guest
Maybe Jesus The Christ and the people he called “white washed tombs” (Pharisees) will agree with you.
Will you stand aside and be polite while millions of God’s babies are cut up, poisoned, or left to bleed or freeze to death if born alive during a botched abortion, just so you can “pursuade” the other side. Unless you are a prophet, time does’nt stand still, how many babies died while you were having a persuasive discussion with the other side.
Do you think these murbered/aborted babies went ot heaven?
To my knowledge there is NO infallible Catholic teaching on that.
These murdered/aborted babies might end up in LIMBO because they were not baptised.
Is LIMBO good enough for you?
So you consider that cheating?
Anyway, if you ever get to talk to the 50 million (and rising at a rate of about 5,000 per day) souls that have died, are you going to tell them you held back and while they were dying so you could try to get a victory you could “savour”?
When it is time to vote what name are they going to use on the ballot, the nice sounding name? After all “gay” means “merry”, sounds nice does’nt it? Could it be propaganda that homosexuals coopted that name?
Maybe they will have a “Gay” Pride Parade when they legalize “Gay” marriage in your area.
K
Kay_Cee
Guest
It looks to me like the problem here is two definitions of “pro-choice.”
If “pro-choice” means “pro free will” then I think we are all in favor of that. After all, free will is a gift from God, and without it we cannot choose to love Him.
However, that is not what the so-called “pro-choice” people mean by the term.
I have yet to meet any person claiming to be “pro-choice” who actually is. I usually ask such a person this question: A single mother of five living on welfare discovers she is pregnant. What should she do?
Every single time I have been told “She should get an abortion.” Not one supposedly “pro-choice” person has said “She should make a choice.”
This is when I point out that the dictionary definition of “pro” is “in favor of.” Such a person is actually “pro abortion,” not “pro-choice” for if he were, he would have said he was in favor of her making a choice, not in favor of her getting an abortion.
The OP and the deacon are both right, depending upon which definition is being used. However, since most supposedly “pro-choice” folks don’t mean “choice=free will” if the discussion is about abortion, it seems to me the most common term, that is “pro-abort,” should be the default one.
If “pro-choice” means “pro free will” then I think we are all in favor of that. After all, free will is a gift from God, and without it we cannot choose to love Him.
However, that is not what the so-called “pro-choice” people mean by the term.
I have yet to meet any person claiming to be “pro-choice” who actually is. I usually ask such a person this question: A single mother of five living on welfare discovers she is pregnant. What should she do?
Every single time I have been told “She should get an abortion.” Not one supposedly “pro-choice” person has said “She should make a choice.”
This is when I point out that the dictionary definition of “pro” is “in favor of.” Such a person is actually “pro abortion,” not “pro-choice” for if he were, he would have said he was in favor of her making a choice, not in favor of her getting an abortion.
The OP and the deacon are both right, depending upon which definition is being used. However, since most supposedly “pro-choice” folks don’t mean “choice=free will” if the discussion is about abortion, it seems to me the most common term, that is “pro-abort,” should be the default one.
- Status