How to re-educate so that people will understand about abortion?

[limerick]

So what is it that you are saying, that you are not for abortion? Then that makes you prolife not prochoice. If you are for a womans right to choose to abort her baby then that makes you prochoice, and that also makes you pro abortion, meaning that you believe someone has the right to choose to end the life of their preborn child.

Is your last sentance there suppose to be “But, yes, it is true that I’ve been lost?”
Because quite frankly, it sounds like it.

Forty lashes from Strunk and White, the last sentence should have read "It is true that liveshave been lost".

I am pro-choice. I feel abortion is the saddest choice, but it is on the menu.

I have tried literally thousands of times to throw my life away but God said “no.” So I am still here, and I still pray for direction, and I still pray to be relieved of fear but God says, “no”. Okay. This is what He wants for me. I suppose I have to put on my best Job face and say, “Thy will be done.” But I think life was really over for me decades ago.

Hope that answers your questions.

Limerick

 

[allhers]

Forty lashes from Strunk and White, the last sentence should have read "It is true that liveshave been lost".

I am pro-choice. I feel abortion is the saddest choice, but it is on the menu.

I have tried literally thousands of times to throw my life away but God said “no.” So I am still here, and I still pray for direction, and I still pray to be relieved of fear but God says, “no”. Okay. This is what He wants for me. I suppose I have to put on my best Job face and say, “Thy will be done.” But I think life was really over for me decades ago.

Hope that answers your questions.

Limerick

Why not just accept His grace and mercy and be grateful that you are alive, He choose life for you. When we are truly sorry for the bad choices we have made in the past, we are suppose to then turn and become a better person for it and then advocate for the truth-LIFE is a gift from God.

 

[limerick]

Why not just accept His grace and mercy and be grateful that you are alive, He choose life for you. When we are truly sorry for the bad choices we have made in the past, we are suppose to then turn and become a better person for it and then advocate for the truth-LIFE is a gift from God.

**On being alive: grateful and bewildered.
On grace and mercy: I recognize it.
On becoming a better person: no question I am better for my trials.
On advocating for “the truth” : I am not a practicing Catholic; I do not follow the Catholic path or endorse Catholic teachings.
On the sequence of events in life: I’m not stupid.
On a better life now: compared to what?

Limerick**

 

[allhers]

**What about “pro-I think I’ll change my mind choice”? What about “pro-let’s try this as a married couple - we can make it!” choice? "What about “pro-it’s only seven more months, and then I can place the baby for adoption” choice?

Choice is not the harbinger of death and mortal sin you would have us believe.

You have a choice, too. How about “pro-maybe I should just pray for all involved and allow these people room to decide how to proceed in this very private matter” choice?

Limerick**

Let’s take your above examples and figure this out.

Now, if the first one you mentioned…What about “pro-I think I’ll change my mind choice”? -

If the changing of the mind is that the person deceided to keep their baby instead of having an abortion, then that is Pro-life.

The second one…What about “pro-let’s try this as a married couple - we can make it!” choice?
That too is pro-life.

The third…"What about “pro-it’s only seven more months, and then I can place the baby for adoption” choice?
Also pro-life

But this one…Choice is not the harbinger of death and mortal sin you would have us believe.
It is if one chooses to abort the baby. The baby dies and the person commits a mortal sin, (they cut off the life of the grace of God within them), that is why they need to seek His forgiveness. If they do and they are sincere, they are forgiven, that is why we have the Sacrament of Confession/Reconciliation, we are back in the grace of God and are not suppose to persist in sin. We are then called to live that grace and mercy out by realizing what a gift LIFE is.

God loves us sinners, that was His whole purpose in coming here, to reconcile us back to God by giving His life so that we might live. He knew we were going to make mistakes and sin mortally even before we were given the gift of life, in the garden He saw ALL our sins, all people’s sins, past, present and future. He gave His life for us anyway. God is love

Thats why, we say, we love them both. Both the mother (who could have felt she had no choice but to end the life of her little one), and the baby. We want everyone to choose Life as the gift of God that it is.

We don’t condemn anyone, Jesus didn’t do that, He loves us. Accept that love and live your life in thankfulness and praise.

Thats why I believe that some people aren’t really responsible for the huge mistake they have made, sometimes they really believed the lies they were told and didn’t really know it was a baby, even some adult women, who probably ought to have known better did that.
God loves a repentant sinner and all the angels in heaven rejoice over them!!

We do pray for women to make the right choice, choose Life!!!

 

[allhers]

**On being alive: grateful and bewildered.
On grace and mercy: I recognize it.
On becoming a better person: no question I am better for my trials.
On advocating for “the truth” : I am not a practicing Catholic; I do not follow the Catholic path or endorse Catholic teachings.
On the sequence of events in life: I’m not stupid.
On a better life now: compared to what?

Limerick**

If you were Catholic at one time, all you need do is go to confession and then you could begin again to follow His teachings.

Never thought you were stupid so I don’t know where that one came from.

I don’t know about your past life, much, other than what you’d spoken of on here, so I guess compared to how you once use to think and believe, perhaps pray for the grace to know His will for your life and the ability to carry that out. I’ll keep you in my prayers too.
You can keep me in yours, how’s that?

 

[Traditional_Ang]

One of the items high on the agenda of people who want to re-educate the public is convincing them a fertlized egg is a human being with a composite body and soul, and therefore has the right to life. Do you contend that idea should not be part of a re-education effort? It seems to me that’s the most important item for the re-educators.

One might also ask if the targets of the re-education effort will simply sit quietly while someone tells them how it is. What I have said here is just a sample of what awaits anyone contemplating re-education the public.

Willie:

It’s also a topic, that because of the Doctrine of Separation of Church and State, would be completely off-Limits in most Secular discussions, esp. since the concept of the body-soul duality-unity is Christian Doctrine and NOT BIOLOGY.

Most of a GOVERNMENT SPONSORED Re-Education Program would need to rely on Biology & Genetics - Simple Science which teaches that LIFE BEGINS AT CONCEPTION. In such a program, we would almost never deal with a question of “Ensoulment”. We might be allowed to say that ALL PEOPLE ARE PRECIOUS IN GOD’S SIGHT, but even then, the odds of dealing with issues of “Ensoulment” would be quite small.

Willie, I’ve been debating Abortion (on both sides) for 25 years, and this might be the 3rd time I’ve had someone bring the issue up. In the other 2 cases, they were smokescreens for something else. Why do you keep insisting on bringing up an issue that has NOTHING to do with a program that would have to deal with BIOLOGY & GENETICS? and, That has NOTHING to do with the topic of this thread?

BTW, I saw NO ANSWER, What is YOUR POSITION on ABORTION?

In Christ, Michael

 

[Traditional_Ang]

**
I hate to put an end to your winning streak, but I’m pro-choice (not** pro-abortion) and I freely admit that abortion has been going on not just since Roe, but since men and women first understood there are ways to end pregnancy.

I’m not saying this has been the optimal way for men and women to conduct their reproductive lives. But, yes, it is true that live have been lost.

Limerick

Limerick:

I didn’t know I had a “winning streak”, but it seems you ignored where I said the Church forbade Abortion from the time of the Apostles - That was because, in the Roman Empire, Abortion was part of Pater Familia, the absolute rule fathers had over all members of their families, including their wives and their unmarried & divorced daughters. IOW, a Father could force any woman in his household to have an Abortion for any reason - That was the Law, except in the Church, where Abortion was prohibited.

The Didache - The Lord’s Teaching through the Twelve Apostles
**
Chapter 2. The Second Commandment: Grave Sin Forbidden.** And the second commandment of the Teaching; You shall not commit murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not commit pederasty, you shall not commit fornication, you shall not steal, you shall not practice magic, you shall not practice witchcraft, you shall not murder a child by abortion nor kill that which is born. You shall not covet the things of your neighbor, you shall not swear, you shall not bear false witness, you shall not speak evil, you shall bear no grudge. You shall not be double-minded nor double-tongued, for to be double-tongued is a snare of death. Your speech shall not be false, nor empty, but fulfilled by deed. You shall not be covetous, nor rapacious, nor a hypocrite, nor evil disposed, nor haughty. You shall not take evil counsel against your neighbor. You shall not hate any man; but some you shall reprove, and concerning some you shall pray, and some you shall love more than your own life*.*
earlychristianwritings.com/text/didache-roberts.html

I know you said SOME lives have been lost, but 48 MILLION in this country alone & 2 BILLION Worldwide just since the Late 1960’s?!? I know some would like to think the unborn baby isn’t a human being, but I’m NOT asserting that it is on the basis of Religion - I’m asserting that on the basis of SCIENCE!

Atheist & Agnostic Pro-Life League Library
godlessprolifers.org/library.html

Please read all of the links…

BTW, Saying that Lives have been lost through Abortion is sort of like saying that lives were lost during the Holocaust, or Stalin’s Purges, or Mao’s “Great Leap Forward” & “Cultural Revolution” or any of the number of Genocides and Mass Murders humanity has experienced during the last 70 years. I say that because of the literally stomach churning numbers of babies humanity has slaughtered in the past 40 years alone.

Continued on Next Post, Michael

 

[Traditional_Ang]

Limerick:

Continued from Previous Post…

And, Slavery was not an optimal way for humans to conduct business relations, but that didn’t make it profoundly wrong and the proximate cause of the Civil War and the reason President Lincoln had this to say:

President Abraham Lincoln - Second Inaugural

One-eighth of the whole population were colored slaves, not distributed generally over the Union, but localized in the southern part of it. These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that this interest was somehow the cause of the war. To strengthen, perpetuate, and extend this interest was the object for which the insurgents would rend the Union even by war, while the Government claimed no right to do more than to restrict the territorial enlargement of it. Neither party expected for the war the magnitude or the duration which it has already attained. Neither anticipated that the cause of the conflict might cease with or even before the conflict itself should cease. Each looked for an easier triumph, and a result less fundamental and astounding. Both read the same Bible and pray to the same God, and each invokes His aid against the other. It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God’s assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men’s faces, but let us judge not, that we be not judged. The prayers of both could not be answered. That of neither has been answered fully. The Almighty has His own purposes. “Woe unto the world because of offenses; for it must needs be that offenses come, but woe to that man by whom the offense cometh.” If we shall suppose that American slavery is one of those offenses which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South this terrible war as the woe due to those by whom the offense came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a living God always ascribe to Him? Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman’s two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said “the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether.”

bartleby.com/124/pres32.html

If you have a chance read Dred Scott v. Sanford, 60 U.S. 393 (1856), Read it - I’ve linked it here:
Dred Scott Decision - Full Text
supreme.justia.com/us/60/393/case.html
And, Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537, 538 (1890) NO. 210
caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=163&invol=537

I cites & linked these because many of those who claim to be “Pro-Choice” use the same logic these decisions used.

And, I think it should be noted for the record that, in the 1990’s when 2 women who had given birth and fled the PRC, Planned Parenthood and other “Pro-Choice” Organizations filed Amicus Curae Briefs NOT supporting the women’s bid for freedom from the Red Chinese, but supporting the Clinton Administration State Dept. which was trying to deport these women BACK TO the PRC where they would have been IMPRISONED FOR THE CRIME OF GIVING BIRTH! The ONLY PEOPLE who wrote Amicus Curae briefs defending the women and their right to stay in the USA as refugees were PRO-LIFE Organizations.

In Christ, Michael

 

[vz71]

I hate to put an end to your winning streak, but I’m pro-choice (not pro-abortion) and I freely admit that abortion has been going on not just since Roe, but since men and women first understood there are ways to end pregnancy.

**I’m not saying this has been the optimal way for men and women to conduct their reproductive lives. But, yes, it is true that live have been lost. **

Limerick

OK, I have a question…
Pro-Choice to choose what?

 

[fix]

**What about “pro-I think I’ll change my mind choice”? What about “pro-let’s try this as a married couple - we can make it!” choice? "What about “pro-it’s only seven more months, and then I can place the baby for adoption” choice?

Choice is not the harbinger of death and mortal sin you would have us believe.

You have a choice, too. How about “pro-maybe I should just pray for all involved and allow these people room to decide how to proceed in this very private matter” choice?

Limerick**

No way. How about making it illegal and then claim if one wants to kill and break the law that is “pro choice”? See, pro life is pro choice. You can choose life or choose to break the law.

Does the baby get a say in whether she/he gets killed? Where is their “choice”?

 

[WillieWonka]

Willie:

It’s also a topic, that because of the Doctrine of Separation of Church and State, would be completely off-Limits in most Secular discussions, esp. since the concept of the body-soul duality-unity is Christian Doctrine and NOT BIOLOGY.

Most of a GOVERNMENT SPONSORED Re-Education Program would need to rely on Biology & Genetics - Simple Science which teaches that LIFE BEGINS AT CONCEPTION. In such a program, we would almost never deal with a question of “Ensoulment”. We might be allowed to say that ALL PEOPLE ARE PRECIOUS IN GOD’S SIGHT, but even then, the odds of dealing with issues of “Ensoulment” would be quite small.

Willie, I’ve been debating Abortion (on both sides) for 25 years, and this might be the 3rd time I’ve had someone bring the issue up. In the other 2 cases, they were smokescreens for something else. Why do you keep insisting on bringing up an issue that has NOTHING to do with a program that would have to deal with BIOLOGY & GENETICS? and, That has NOTHING to do with the topic of this thread?

BTW, I saw NO ANSWER, What is YOUR POSITION on ABORTION?

In Christ, Michael

I bring it up because in the discussion people have said the teaching of the Cathlic Church is that body and soul form a composite at conception. Many have said abortion of the fertilized egg is wrong because it is fully human and has a full compliment of human rights. I’d say the fully human status of the fertilized egg is the foundation of the anti-abortion campaign of many people.I didn’t introduce the issue. I answered it. Unfortunately, I think my answer comes as a surprise to many Catholics.

And we can see from the Document the Scared Congregation published that it considers it only probable, and not certain, that body and soul unite in a composite at conception.

Others have expressed contempt for those who do not think the fertilized egg is fully human. But, we can see the Sacred Congregation allows for this possibility, and it says Church tradition is not unanimous on this point, and discussions continue today.

.

 

[fix]

I bring it up because in the discussion people have said the teaching of the Cathlic Church is that body and soul form a composite at conception. Many have said abortion of the fertilized egg is wrong because it is fully human and has a full compliment of human rights. I’d say the fully human status of the fertilized egg is the foundation of the anti-abortion campaign of many people.I didn’t introduce the issue. I answered it. Unfortunately, I think my answer comes as a surprise to many Catholics.

And we can see from the Document the Scared Congregation published that it considers it only probable, and not certain, that body and soul unite in a composite at conception.

Others have expressed contempt for those who do not think the fertilized egg is fully human. But, we can see the Sacred Congregation allows for this possibility, and it says Church tradition is not unanimous on this point, and discussions continue today.

.

You may be intersted this this.

 

[WillieWonka]

You may be intersted this this.

I’d say that’s a fair and accurate statement of the Church’s poition.

My observation is that it is poorly understood by everyone, regardless of their religion. The Church is actually making a reasonable secular argument against abortion that does not rely on religious belief.

I’d recommend that article to anyone interested in the abrtion issue.

 

[allhers]

I’d say that’s a fair and accurate statement of the Church’s poition.

My observation is that it is poorly understood by everyone, regardless of their religion. The Church is actually making a reasonable secular argument against abortion that does not rely on religious belief.

I’d recommend that article to anyone interested in the abrtion issue.

I would recommend that they read instead, the Declaration on Procured Abortion from the
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. It’s on the Vatican web site here:

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19741118_declaration-abortion_en.html

That way they could see that it doesn’t even say what that site claims it says.

Start with this paragraph:
8. Respect for human life is not just a Christian obligation.(and ends with this):
**Created immediately by God, man’s soul is spiritual and therefore immortal.**I told you this yesterday on the other thread titled Abortion. You, in part replied, with
your opinion that you thought that meant, in part this–“I think the word “immediately”
there refers to God alone creating the soul, without any (name removed by moderator)ut from the parents.” Remember
when you said that? You clearly persist in your error. You obviously are trying very hard to
mislead others. I would ask you and fix (the poster that first gave that link to you in the
other thread titled Abortion(post #191) and anyone reading this-AGAIN, to read the Document yourself and then you can see that whatever it is that they copied this part from, that it sure wasn’t from the Document on the Vatican web site that I gave the link to.

This declaration expressly leaves aside the question of the moment when the spiritual soul
is infused. There is not a unanimous tradition on this point and authors are as yet in
disagreement. For some it dates from the first instant; for others it could not at least
precede nidation [implantation in the uterus]. It is not within the competence of science
to decide between these views, because the existence of an immortal soul is not a question
in its field. It is a philosophical problem from which our moral affirmation remains
independent. …

That paragraph above certainly was NOT from that Document on Procured Abortion on the Vatican web site.

A reading of the Document itself would clear this up for anyone. Its a fairly
quick read.

(This reminds me of when “others” said what they thought the Vatican II Documents said, when clearly they hadn’t read them, or they would have known better.)

 

[limerick]

Limerick:

Continued from Previous Post…

And, Slavery was not an optimal way for humans to conduct business relations, but that didn’t make it profoundly wrong and the proximate cause of the Civil War and the reason President Lincoln had this to say:

President Abraham Lincoln - Second Inaugural

One-eighth of the whole population were colored slaves, not distributed generally over the Union, but localized in the southern part of it. These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that this interest was somehow the cause of the war. To strengthen, perpetuate, and extend this interest was the object for which the insurgents would rend the Union even by war, while the Government claimed no right to do more than to restrict the territorial enlargement of it. Neither party expected for the war the magnitude or the duration which it has already attained. Neither anticipated that the cause of the conflict might cease with or even before the conflict itself should cease. Each looked for an easier triumph, and a result less fundamental and astounding. Both read the same Bible and pray to the same God, and each invokes His aid against the other. It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God’s assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men’s faces, but let us judge not, that we be not judged. The prayers of both could not be answered. That of neither has been answered fully. The Almighty has His own purposes. “Woe unto the world because of offenses; for it must needs be that offenses come, but woe to that man by whom the offense cometh.” If we shall suppose that American slavery is one of those offenses which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South this terrible war as the woe due to those by whom the offense came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a living God always ascribe to Him? Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman’s two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said “the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether.”

bartleby.com/124/pres32.html

If you have a chance read Dred Scott v. Sanford, 60 U.S. 393 (1856), Read it - I’ve linked it here:
Dred Scott Decision - Full Text
supreme.justia.com/us/60/393/case.html
And, Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537, 538 (1890) NO. 210
caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=163&invol=537

I cites & linked these because many of those who claim to be “Pro-Choice” use the same logic these decisions used.

And, I think it should be noted for the record that, in the 1990’s when 2 women who had given birth and fled the PRC, Planned Parenthood and other “Pro-Choice” Organizations filed Amicus Curae Briefs NOT supporting the women’s bid for freedom from the Red Chinese, but supporting the Clinton Administration State Dept. which was trying to deport these women BACK TO the PRC where they would have been IMPRISONED FOR THE CRIME OF GIVING BIRTH! The ONLY PEOPLE who wrote Amicus Curae briefs defending the women and their right to stay in the USA as refugees were PRO-LIFE Organizations.

In Christ, Michael

**I appreciate all the work you did to present your beliefs and your links and sources. Just know we will never come to a meeting of the minds of the topic. Maybe another reader will be swayed if on the fence.

Limerick**

 

[limerick]

Let’s take your above examples and figure this out.

Now, if the first one you mentioned…What about “pro-I think I’ll change my mind choice”? -

If the changing of the mind is that the person deceided to keep their baby instead of having an abortion, then that is Pro-life.

The second one…What about “pro-let’s try this as a married couple - we can make it!” choice?
That too is pro-life.

The third…"What about “pro-it’s only seven more months, and then I can place the baby for adoption” choice?
Also pro-life

But this one…Choice is not the harbinger of death and mortal sin you would have us believe.
It is if one chooses to abort the baby. The baby dies and the person commits a mortal sin, (they cut off the life of the grace of God within them), that is why they need to seek His forgiveness. If they do and they are sincere, they are forgiven, that is why we have the Sacrament of Confession/Reconciliation, we are back in the grace of God and are not suppose to persist in sin. We are then called to live that grace and mercy out by realizing what a gift LIFE is.

God loves us sinners, that was His whole purpose in coming here, to reconcile us back to God by giving His life so that we might live. He knew we were going to make mistakes and sin mortally even before we were given the gift of life, in the garden He saw ALL our sins, all people’s sins, past, present and future. He gave His life for us anyway. God is love

Thats why, we say, we love them both. Both the mother (who could have felt she had no choice but to end the life of her little one), and the baby. We want everyone to choose Life as the gift of God that it is.

We don’t condemn anyone, Jesus didn’t do that, He loves us. Accept that love and live your life in thankfulness and praise.

Thats why I believe that some people aren’t really responsible for the huge mistake they have made, sometimes they really believed the lies they were told and didn’t really know it was a baby, even some adult women, who probably ought to have known better did that.
God loves a repentant sinner and all the angels in heaven rejoice over them!!

We do pray for women to make the right choice, choose Life!!!

Perhaps you’ve never met or known a woman who has hopped off the table, removed her IV, removed her headphones with tranquil sounds playing, and re-dressed and left the abortion clinic out of choice, out of having made another decision.

You view it as pro-life. I view it as choice. Maybe this is the only instance where it could be considered both.

Limerick

 

[limerick]

OK, I have a question…
Pro-Choice to choose what?

**Get on board. Read the entire thread.

Limerick**

 

[limerick]

No way. How about making it illegal and then claim if one wants to kill and break the law that is “pro choice”? See, pro life is pro choice. You can choose life or choose to break the law.

Does the baby get a say in whether she/he gets killed? Where is their “choice”?

**I have already answered your questions in previous posts.

How about you** lobby to make abortion illegal? Don’t ask me to do it because I will not.

A fetus obviously gets no say in the matter. None. Zero.

Limerick

 

[WillieWonka]

I would recommend that they read instead, the Declaration on Procured Abortion from the
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. It’s on the Vatican web site here:

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19741118_declaration-abortion_en.html

That way they could see that it doesn’t even say what that site claims it says.

Start with this paragraph:
8. Respect for human life is not just a Christian obligation.(and ends with this):
**Created immediately by God, man’s soul is spiritual and therefore immortal.**I told you this yesterday on the other thread titled Abortion. You, in part replied, with
your opinion that you thought that meant, in part this–“I think the word “immediately”
there refers to God alone creating the soul, without any (name removed by moderator)ut from the parents.” Remember
when you said that? You clearly persist in your error. You obviously are trying very hard to
mislead others. I would ask you and fix (the poster that first gave that link to you in the
other thread titled Abortion(post #191) and anyone reading this-AGAIN, to read the Document yourself and then you can see that whatever it is that they copied this part from, that it sure wasn’t from the Document on the Vatican web site that I gave the link to.

This declaration expressly leaves aside the question of the moment when the spiritual soul
is infused. There is not a unanimous tradition on this point and authors are as yet in
disagreement. For some it dates from the first instant; for others it could not at least
precede nidation [implantation in the uterus]. It is not within the competence of science
to decide between these views, because the existence of an immortal soul is not a question
in its field. It is a philosophical problem from which our moral affirmation remains
independent. …

That paragraph above certainly was NOT from that Document on Procured Abortion on the Vatican web site.

A reading of the Document itself would clear this up for anyone. Its a fairly
quick read.

(This reminds me of when “others” said what they thought the Vatican II Documents said, when clearly they hadn’t read them, or they would have known better.)

It’s number 19 in the End Notes in the link you and Fix provided.

"19. This declaration expressly leaves aside the question of the moment when the spiritual soul is infused. **There is not a unanimous tradition on this point and authors are as yet in disagreement. For some it dates from the first instant; for others it could not at least precede nidation. It is not within the competence of science to decide between these views, because the existence of an immortal soul is not a question in its field. It is a philosophical problem from which our moral affirmation remains independent for two reasons: (1) supposing a belated animation, there is still nothing less than a human life, preparing for and calling for a soul in which the nature received from parents is completed, (2) on the other hand, it suffices that this presence of the soul be probable **(and one can never prove the contrary) in order that the taking of life involve accepting the risk of killing a man, not only waiting for, but already in possession of his soul.

 

[allhers]

Perhaps you’ve never met or known a woman who has hopped off the table, removed her IV, removed her headphones with tranquil sounds playing, and re-dressed and left the abortion clinic out of choice, out of having made another decision.

You view it as pro-life. I view it as choice. Maybe this is the only instance where it could be considered both.

Limerick

No, but I have heard of women who tried to do just that and were prevented from doing so, they were held against their will and told it was too late and all kinds of other horrible things that have happened to them. Sadly, far too many women have tried to do just that and were unable to. They were not given that CHOICE. They speak out about it now though, and they are going to continue to. Nothing is going to stop them now!

If a woman did do that, I would thank God for that!!! She chose LIFE for her child. That’s awesome.