Gallup Finds "Pro-Choice" Americans Back Most Abortion Limits

[Rence]

Exactly! There are societies that deviate from the norm. And when they do, we can rightly condemn them because there is an objective moral law that exists that allows us to do so.

So as I understand it, we agree on two things so far:

1. There is a an objective moral law that everyone is subject to.
2. Societies can deviate from this moral law, and when they do, they are wrong.

Stop me here if I did not get that right.

With abortion in cases of rape and when the woman’s life is at risk, it is the Catholic Church that deviates from the norm…so then what you say about deviating from the norm should also apply to Cathlics…and those who are not Catholic who do NOT want to deviate from that norm.

 

[Rence]

Rence, I have been following your responses and I am wondering about something, is it your belief that the only moral way to stop abortion is for all women to freely choose to not have one as a form of medical treatment do matter what the health risks are?

Abortion will NEVER go away unless there isn’t a woman out there who doesn’t want one. The only way for an abortion not to occur is for a woman not to have one. The only way to “stop” abortion is for women to choose not to have them. Taking away a woman’s right to direct her own healthcare related to her own body will only open up doors to more abuses against women, and bring us back in time, not move us forward. The right to consent or refuse treatment, any treatment, lies with the individual. In the meantime, women will still have abortions if they want them. Because there will always be someone out there willing to perform one for the money. Notice the Church never says anything about taking rights away from women. The Church never dictates restricting a woman’s choice to direct her own healthcare. What the Church says is that abortion is forbidden. There is a difference.

 

[Rence]

But what about the killing of the innocent unborn baby? The baby within the mother is an entirely seperate organism.

The unborn are not scentient and therefore are unable to consent or refuse treatment. The right to consent or refuse treatment lies with the woman. There is no higher a person on the todem pole who should override a woman’s right to consent or refuse treatment. No one else should have the right to consent on behalf of her, and trump her rights. When a person is born, they retain rights as invidiuals. Until that time, the decisions are all made by the woman.

Just because many think the baby is disposable, the baby does not have the right to live, or that the mother’s rights trump baby, does not make killing them any way moral. For any reason.

That still doesn’t change the fact that the right to consent or refuse treatment lies with the woman.

Is there any reason to stone a woman? NO. Because she is a human being created in the likeness of God. And it causes you to feel shock and anger and disgust because a woman is being mistreated.

Is there any reason to kill a baby? Well you are mentioning a woman’s autonomous rights over her body. Baby has it’s own body. Baby is entrusted to mom to grow and be preserved. Why should this innocent have no rights and be entirely at the whim of mom?

Because she is the one with the right to consent or refuse treatment. No one else should have the authority to override her decision with regards to treatment over her own body. If someone Joe Blow can veto her decisions, regarding her own body, and direct her medical care against her will and without her consent, she is being treated as an object, not as an individual with the right to consent and refuse treatments directed on her body. She should make the decision to refuse or consent to treatment like everyone else. Her rights don’t evaporate just because she is pregnant. And if someone, anyone, has the right to trump her rights while she is pregnant, then they would have the right to trump her rights while she is not pregnant. There was a time when women weren’t told of their medical conditions…their husband were. And their husbands chose for them. I don’t think women are going to let that happen again.

Most abortions are done for reasons completely other than health. Health reasons, according to Doe v Bolton, do not have to be life and death issues, they can mean psychological, they can mean economical.

That’s what the law says, yes.

You don’t seem to understand that stoning a woman is wrong not because she is being treated as man’s property. What about stoning a man for say the crime of blasphemy? That is done in parts of the world. Is that something that should be considered immoral? Of course. Tell me why that is immoral?

The above is your senario. I don’t have to explain your senario to you. I have already answered, in earnest, the questions posed as they relate to women’s rights over their own body. You are the one who enter these senarios, so you should be the one answering the questions, not demanding it of me.

Then tell me why it is moral to kill a baby in the womb? Is it location? Is it because baby is small, mostly invisible? Why?

It is immoral to strip the right to direct medical treatment to one’s own body. It is immoral to deprive anyone the right to consent or refuse treatment on their own body. A fetus does not have the ability, and therefore the right, to consent or refuse treatments, and the woman is the one with consent. There is no one more appropriate to have rights over the woman.

The fact that we even entertatin the idea the abortion is somehow a woman’s health right is the epitome of deviant.

That’s only because there is this need among some to control the medical decisions regarding another person’s body. It’s not enough that they have the freedom to direct their own decisions. They take for granted that there was a time when they didn’t have freedom and were owned by another party, and that other party made all the decisions for them, regardless of the consent or will of the woman.

 

[smichhertz]

With abortion in cases of rape and when the woman’s life is at risk, it is the Catholic Church that deviates from the norm…so then what you say about deviating from the norm should also apply to Cathlics…and those who are not Catholic who do NOT want to deviate from that norm.

Back up for a second, do you agree with what I posted? Let’s make sure we agree before we move on. There’s no point in discussing abortion if we don’t even agree on an objective morality.

 

[Rence]

Back up for a second, do you agree with what I posted? Let’s make sure we agree before we move on. There’s no point in discussing abortion if we don’t even agree on an objective morality.

No, we don’t agree because your “objective morality” is based on Church teaching only and I’m looking at the whole picture. What I will agree with is that women have the right to consent or refuse treatment on their own body, and that they have the right to direct their own healthcare, and should remain in charge of their decisions without them being trumped by an party outside of themselves. If you want a woman to not have an abortion, you’d have to work on changing her mind, not holding her down and depriving her of her rights as an individual with the right to consent and refuse treatments directed at her own body. I also understand that not everyone is Catholic, or chooses to adhere to Catholic teachings, and will choose in contradiction to Church teaching as a result. I also understand that Catholics are free as anyone else to practice their faith and be in compliance with the Church, and that people who do not subscribe to Catholic beliefs should be afforded the same.

That’s why Gallops poll concluded as it did. The majority of people don’t find abortion on demand moral. But they also believe that in the case of rape or when a woman’s life is in danger, the decision should lie with the woman. That’s why the majority of pro-choicers would back most limits, as long as it didn’t violate the rights of the woman seeking medical attention. This is what I stand by, and I understand you don’t agree. You believe someone else should be able to trump a woman’s rights and veto the decision, and force her against her will, to choose the way the Catholic Church teaches. I understand, I really do. But a decision to do good, or to not do bad, is not your decision if someone else makes it for you…

 

[JimG]

But the fact that most who view themselves as pro-choice, would still favor many limits on abortion, means that there are instances when they would not agree that a woman must have complete freedom in making her own medical decisions.

If they would limit abortion in the 7th, 8th, or 9th month, if they would prohibit partial birth abortion, if they would limit abortion for the purpose of sex selection, then they are taking a position which in those instance takes away control over her own body from a woman. They are willing to limit her freedom because another person’s body is also at stake.

 

[Rence]

But the fact that most who view themselves as pro-choice, would still favor many limits on abortion, means that there are instances when they would not agree that a woman must have complete freedom in making her own medical decisions.

If they would limit abortion in the 7th, 8th, or 9th month, if they would prohibit partial birth abortion, if they would limit abortion for the purpose of sex selection, then they are taking a position which in those instance takes away control over her own body from a woman. They are willing to limit her freedom because another person’s body is also at stake.

Contrary to the first few posts on this thread: it’s not surprising to me to know that polls show that most pro-choicers accept some limitations to abortion. I don’t think anyone particularly likes the idea of abortion on demand, and they certainly don’t want to pay for it.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

Back up for a second, do you agree with what I posted? Let’s make sure we agree before we move on. There’s no point in discussing abortion if we don’t even agree on an objective morality.

Morality is subjective when someone can find it wrong that a woman can be stoned, because that some how deviates from the norm…but a baby can be killed because,“The mother has the right to consent to treatment that includes abortion.”

WE DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO KILL BABIES IN THE WOMB!!!

It does not matter if 99.9999 percent of the population thinks it’s fine. What it means is that 99.9999 percent of a population is deviating from what objective morality says.

It is a human being. Human beings cannot be put to death without due cause (just war theory, etc) A baby in the womb is not capable of comitting a capital crime.

If someone cannot acknowledge this fact…then we can argue anything is permissible soley on consensus. Women getting stoned? no problem there is a majority of people in that specific society that says it’s fine.

Babies getting killed for choice? Sure a majority of people are fine with that.

TOTALLY SUBJECTIVE MORALITY.

 

[JReducation]

Abortion will NEVER go away unless there isn’t a woman out there who doesn’t want one. The only way for an abortion not to occur is for a woman not to have one. The only way to “stop” abortion is for women to choose not to have them. Taking away a woman’s right to direct her own healthcare related to her own body will only open up doors to more abuses against women, and bring us back in time, not move us forward. The right to consent or refuse treatment, any treatment, lies with the individual. In the meantime, women will still have abortions if they want them. Because there will always be someone out there willing to perform one for the money. Notice the Church never says anything about taking rights away from women. The Church never dictates restricting a woman’s choice to direct her own healthcare. What the Church says is that abortion is forbidden. There is a difference.

You have been on this agenda for a long time and enough is enough. Either you’re Catholic or you’re not. I’m going to report this thread and your history on these fora. For months now, I have observed you proselytize for the pro-choice camp and tell people falsehoods.

The fact is that the Church is not trying to take away a woman’s right to guide her healthcare.

The other fact is that abortion is not healthcare, regardless of who says that it is. Abortion is an attack on the nature of God and man, because it denies two fundamental principles.

a. Conception in part of God’s plan.

b. Man has not authority over conception. It is not man who puts a soul into int a fertilized human egg.

Since abortion is not a right, the presence of a law that grants people the choice is irrational. We do not have laws that allow people to make a choice to walk into mall and start shooting. If we’re going to be pro-choice and one of those choices is murder, why stop at at abortion?

In an ideal world, the solution would be for women not to want or seek an abortion. But we don’t live in that world. We have to deal with the human condition, which is tainted by Original Sin and injustice.

Precisely, because we are in a world that is tainted by sin, we must be on our guard. Any law that says that a person has the right to take the life of another, without provocation, without aggression, when the intended target has done nothing to warrant execution is a illegitimate and immoral law.

As Catholics, we defend the right of every human being, not just women, to quality healthcare and to participate in the decision making process. However, that process may never offer murder as an aption. Abortion and euthanasia are equally forms of murder. The difference is that abortion is even more serious, because the targe has no defense, even legal defense.

We have an infallible doctrinal decree that this is an evil and that we cannot tolerate it, which means that we cannot even offer people this choice. What else do we need to understand?

To conclude, Catholics have a moral obligation to defend the right of every human being to quality healthcare, regardless of gender, race, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, etc etc. And we have the moral obligation to expunge for the law any option to murder another human being. Murder is not healthcare. Therefore, it’s not a healthcare option.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Rence]

You have been on this agenda for a long time and enough is enough. Either you’re Catholic or you’re not. I’m going to report this thread and your history on these fora. For months now, I have observed you proselytize for the pro-choice camp and tell people falsehoods.

The fact is that the Church is not trying to take away a woman’s right to guide her healthcare.

I know that…that’s what I said.

In an ideal world, the solution would be for women not to want or seek an abortion. But we don’t live in that world. We have to deal with the human condition, which is tainted by Original Sin and injustice.

You’re right about that too. We should always lead women to alternatives to abortion, and show them the resources that are available to them. I think that’s the only way there will be less abortion.

To conclude, Catholics have a moral obligation to defend the right of every human being to quality healthcare, regardless of gender, race, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, etc etc. And we have the moral obligation to expunge for the law any option to murder another human being. Murder is not healthcare. Therefore, it’s not a healthcare option.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

I completely understand that is forbidden by the Church in every circumstance. But unfortunately, it’s part of healthcare here.

 

[smichhertz]

No, we don’t agree because your “objective morality” is based on Church teaching only and I’m looking at the whole picture…

Rence, you’re missing the point. It doesn’t do anyone any good to just sling mud back and forth at each other. We probably will never agree, no matter what is posted on this thread. But if we can establish a common ground on morality and build from there, we can at least gain insight on the issue and be constructive about it.

It makes no sense to debate about quantum physics if we don’t agree on arithmetic. In the same way, it makes no sense to debate the morality of abortion, if we don’t have a basic agreement on what morality is. So let’s start with something we can see eye to eye on, and move towards where we disagree. I think that’s reasonable, don’t you?

So, here are the two points:

1. There is a an objective moral law that everyone is subject to.
2. Societies can deviate from this moral law, and when they do, they are wrong.

Do you agree with those two points? If so, then we can go from there. If not, why?

 

[Rence]

Rence, you’re missing the point. It doesn’t do anyone any good to just sling mud back and forth at each other. We probably will never agree, no matter what is posted on this thread. But if we can establish a common ground on morality and build from there, we can at least gain insight on the issue and be constructive about it.

You know, you’re really a hell of a guy. It’s cool that you’re trying to understand me, as I’ve been trying to understand you. Maybe we’ll come out of this knowing more about each other. I don’t know if we can establish some common ground, but we’ll keep trying I think probably the only thing we have in common is that we both think abortion is a very bad thing.

It makes no sense to debate about quantum physics if we don’t agree on arithmetic. In the same way, it makes no sense to debate the morality of abortion, if we don’t have a basic agreement on what morality is. So let’s start with something we can see eye to eye on, and move towards where we disagree. I think that’s reasonable, don’t you?

We can try

So, here are the two points:

1. There is a an objective moral law that everyone is subject to.
2. Societies can deviate from this moral law, and when they do, they are wrong.

Do you agree with those two points? If so, then we can go from there. If not, why?

No, I don’t agree. Because in your case #2, those societies who deviate from the ‘moral law’ aren’t always wrong. For example, in England in the time of Thomas More, it was against the law for people to practice any religion other than Catholicism and they were imprisoned, tortured and put to death because of it. It was a norm in that time for countries to base their laws on the religious majority. When the US was made, that ‘norm’ was deviated from, and freedom to choose your religion was made part of the law, and that was a good thing. So no, it’s not always wrong to deviate from the ‘norm’.

You know, real life isn’t always about black and white. In real life, a lot of things fall into the grey area.

 

[JReducation]

I completely understand that is forbidden by the Church in every circumstance. But unfortunately, it’s part of healthcare here.

This healthcare system has to be overturned. This healthcare system is quickly losing credibility. Let’s see:

1. It calls the murder of the unborn and sterilization, reproductive healthcare.
2. It calls euthanasia, death with dignity.
3. It calls sex-reassignment surgery, mental health.
4. Cloning is an adventure into the future.
5. In vitro fertilization is consolation for those who cannot conceive.

And the list goes on.

It’s not really healthcare. It’s a runaway train.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[simple_soul]

Abortion will NEVER go away unless there isn’t a woman out there who doesn’t want one. The only way for an abortion not to occur is for a woman not to have one. The only way to “stop” abortion is for women to choose not to have them. Taking away a woman’s right to direct her own healthcare related to her own body will only open up doors to more abuses against women, and bring us back in time, not move us forward.

If the laws are written to ensure both the woman’s rights and the unborn person’s rights I do not believe it will be moving us backward…it would be correcting a mistaken assumed “right” of committing murder and correcting it and at the same time protecting a woman’s rights while establishing rights for the unborn, that, I believe, would be moving us forward.

The right to consent or refuse treatment, any treatment, lies with the individual.

*I believe you have to keep in mind what is a right and what is not a right. *

In the meantime, women will still have abortions if they want them. Because there will always be someone out there willing to perform one for the money.

Which is a sad reality but should not keep one from writing laws that protect all persons. Remember, even though murdering someone just walking down the street is against the law, it still happens.

Notice the Church never says anything about taking rights away from women. The Church never dictates restricting a woman’s choice to direct her own healthcare. What the Church says is that abortion is forbidden. There is a difference.

*I believe that in understanding why the Church says it is forbidden you might understand why it is not or should not be a healthcare option. Then you might come to understand why removing it from being an option is not violating a woman’s rights. *

 

[Rence]

If the laws are written to ensure both the woman’s rights and the unborn person’s rights I do not believe it will be moving us backward…it would be correcting a mistaken assumed “right” of committing murder and correcting it and at the same time protecting a woman’s rights while establishing rights for the unborn, that, I believe, would be moving us forward.

At the risk of being accused again of having an agenda, in my opinion it would be better to restrict abortion services, rather than restrict women’s rights to abortive services. As long as abortion is legal and is a sanctioned medical treatment or option that the medical community advocates as a valid option, then in my opinion, a woman should have the right to consent or refuse it, and should do so without any outside interference from a separate party. Legally restricting abortion services takes the the focus away from women and their rights to direct their medical decisions, and focuses on abortion itself.

*I believe you have to keep in mind what is a right and what is not a right. *

Well, I’m trying to. You certainly don’t have to agree with me.

Which is a sad reality but should not keep one from writing laws that protect all persons. Remember, even though murdering someone just walking down the street is against the law, it still happens.

Again, not trying to dissuade you from YOUR views, and I’m certainly not up to an agenda, but my opinion is that that the laws are attempting to protect all persons. Remember, the US is home to many different people with different cultures and religions. All of them forbid abortion…BUT, the majority of them allow it in the case of rape and when the woman’s health or life is at risk. The laws are there to accomodate all of the people represented, not just one demographic. The laws are in place to insure everyone has the right to practice the religion of their choice and live their lives in conformity with that religion’s guidelines.

*I believe that in understanding why the Church says it is forbidden you might understand why it is not or should not be a healthcare option. Then you might come to understand why removing it from being an option is not violating a woman’s rights. *

I do understand why the Church forbids abortion. And I’m not denying that Church teaching. But I also understand that the secular laws in the U.S. are representative of all demographics, not just Catholics. And I still feel that restricting abortion services is better than restricting women’s rights to those services. I don’t think restricting anyone from available, legal and santioned treatments is advantageous.

 

[Flavius_Aetius]

Again, not trying to dissuade you from YOUR views, and I’m certainly not up to an agenda, but my opinion is that that the laws are attempting to protect all persons. Remember, the US is home to many different people with different cultures and religions. All of them forbid abortion…BUT, the majority of them allow it in the case of rape and when the woman’s health or life is at risk. The laws are there to accomodate all of the people represented, not just one demographic. The laws are in place to insure everyone has the right to practice the religion of their choice and live their lives in conformity with that religion’s guidelines.

Obviously it does not since the laws cherry picks what constitutes as human life based on selfish desires rather than the Truth that all humans deserve the right to not be killed. After all plenty of cases have murderers getting charged two counts of murder if they kill a pregnant woman, and yet at the same time no one bats an eye when a woman with an unwanted baby kill it in a abortion clinic.

I cannot believe people who say that abortion is terrible but necessary; you either believe an unborn child is a living human being deserving of the right to LIFE as is said in our Declaration of Independence, or you play a game of Relativism where you pick and choose which innocent souls deserve to die a brutal death in their most fragile state.

 

[simple_soul]

Rence, I deleted the majority of your post because I believe it is mostley redundent but this part of it stuck out…

I do understand why the Church forbids abortion. And I’m not denying that Church teaching.

*You have said this a few times but I believe the reason it stuck out this time is because of a sermon I heard today. One sentence really stuck out and this remark of yours reminded me of it.
The Bishop giving the sermon said, regarding the Apostolic Leaders of the Church, "When you here our voice you here the voice of Christ. If you are with us you are with Christ. If you are against us you are against Christ.

So if we understand how the Church forbids abortion then in order to be with Christ we have to forbid it too the way the Church forbids it. No matter how legal or sanctioned or how much a medical community advocates it. If we want to be with Christ, we have to forbid it as the Church forbids it. *

 

[JReducation]

Rence, I deleted the majority of your post because I believe it is mostley redundent but this part of it stuck out…

*You have said this a few times but I believe the reason it stuck out this time is because of a sermon I heard today. One sentence really stuck out and this remark of yours reminded me of it.
The Bishop giving the sermon said, regarding the Apostolic Leaders of the Church, "When you here our voice you here the voice of Christ. If you are with us you are with Christ. If you are against us you are against Christ.

So if we understand how the Church forbids abortion then in order to be with Christ we have to forbid it too the way the Church forbids it. No matter how legal or sanctioned or how much a medical community advocates it. If we want to be with Christ, we have to forbid it as the Church forbids it. *

Well said. Archbishop Chaput, in his book, Render unto Caesar said that at the end of the day the faithful will have to give an account to God not for how faithful they were to civil authority, but to His Church.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Rence]

Rence, I deleted the majority of your post because I believe it is mostley redundent but this part of it stuck out…

*You have said this a few times but I believe the reason it stuck out this time is because of a sermon I heard today. One sentence really stuck out and this remark of yours reminded me of it.
The Bishop giving the sermon said, regarding the Apostolic Leaders of the Church, "When you here our voice you here the voice of Christ. If you are with us you are with Christ. If you are against us you are against Christ.

So if we understand how the Church forbids abortion then in order to be with Christ we have to forbid it too the way the Church forbids it. No matter how legal or sanctioned or how much a medical community advocates it. If we want to be with Christ, we have to forbid it as the Church forbids it. *

Simple Soul, I’ve done my best to explain my persepectives to you and answer all of your questions, and I’ve done so honestly and with all my heart. I understand where you’re coming from and I understand your views. But I still have mine. Neither of us is going to change. But then, I don’t think either one of us had the goal of changing the other’s mind My last post pretty much summed it up in a nutshell for me. Thank you for being civil, I appreciate you

 

[followingtheway]

We should all just band together and end the money-hungry bloodbath known as abortion. But yeah there are many groups that would seem to unlikely oppose abortion but do anyway… according to this site there are many Atheists, Agnostics, Feminists, Anarchists, Libertarians, Gays, Lesbians and so on who oppose abortion, even some Democrats (this is another link).

God bless :byzsoc:

David