If "pro-choicers" are really so "pro-choice" then why are they against the choice to be pro-life?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Holly3278
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Newbie2 said:
And the same question could be asked of a newborn, no?
Click to expand...
No. Not the same.
The answer remains, because Catholic theology espouses the notion that every human has a right to life. It’s not a case (or let’s say rarely, when it’s either mom or the baby) of her life vs. its life.
Click to expand...
Sadly there are cases (rare, yes) where it is the foetus vs mother - and the Catholic church comes down on the side of the foetus.
 
With all due respect, this topic seems to be a bit of a red herring.

Pro-choice has a very limited meaning in our society. Yes, pro-choice a poor label, but we all know exactly what it says about those it describes. They want abortion to be legal. That’s about it. It does not refer to some school of philosophy with a consistent set of values, so attempting to pin its adherents by pointing out a hypocrisy in meaning is not going to be very fruitful. 🤷
 
Holly3278 said:
This has been bothering me for some time. If “pro-choicers” are really so “pro-choice” then why are they so against the choice of being pro-life?
Click to expand...
I’m not. Nor is anyone else I am aware of on a personal basis.

Why is it that “pro-lifers” are so in favor of the death penalty and unnecessary wars?
 
BillP said:
I’m not. Nor is anyone else I am aware of on a personal basis.

Why is it that “pro-lifers” are so in favor of the death penalty and unnecessary wars?
Click to expand...
Take what I said in post #42 and switch life with choice.

These labels are just bad labels. As far as Catholic pro-lifers are concerned, I don’t know that most do support the death penalty or unnecessary wars. According to Church teaching, both are last resorts, when all other alternatives have been exercised.
 
thistle said:
Being pro-choice by definition means not against abortion.
Click to expand...
Hogwash, being pro-choice means being in favor of allowing other human beings the right to make their own decisions whether or not I agree with them.
thistle said:
Catholics cannot be pro-choice.
Click to expand...
I am. Last time I checked, one only incurred a latae sententiae excommunication for procuring a completed abortion. Even then, the person excommunicated would still be Catholic, albeit one not in full communion with the Church.

We don’t live in Wonderland, words don’t mean exactly what you choose them to mean. 😃
 
BillP said:
Hogwash, being pro-choice means being in favor of allowing other human beings the right to make their own decisions whether or not I agree with them.
Click to expand...
You could apply that rationale to murder though, right? Not saying you do, of course. But what’s the extra bit to your rationale on abortion legality that makes it different?
 
Writerr Elizabeth 502 put it exactly right. In my own case, a dear friend of mine was undergoing some medical treatment. The doctor wanted her to sign a paper stating that in the event she became pregnant while on this treatment, she would have an abortion. She happened to ask my opinion (though I wasn’t directly involved except that I cared about her well-being). I advised her to REFUSE to sign such a document. If she were to become pregnant during an extended medical treatment which might harm the fetus in her womb, it would be HER decision about how to carry on. NO doctor had any right to make it for her. It was an ironic case where a pro-life woman (as she is) and a pro-choice man (as I am) quickly came to the same conclusion.
 
Presumably this treatment was highly teratogenic, something like isotretinoin?
 
Doc_Keele said:
No. Not the same.

Sadly there are cases (rare, yes) where it is the foetus vs mother - and the Catholic church comes down on the side of the foetus.
Click to expand...
Why are the two situations different? You’re saying that the moral rights of a baby not yet born (let’s say even late third trimester) are different than those of one just born? So an hour before they didn’t have the same moral rights as mom but by being pushed out they acquire such rights? Please explain, that way of thinking seems very confusing to me.

Keep in mind we’re discussing moral rights, not legal ones, as the two can differ significantly.

No, the Catholic Church does not automatically “come down on the side of the foetus”. It’s not a matter of taking sides, it’s about giving voice to those who have none. Moms have a choice to sacrifice themself for their child; the baby has no such voice. And it’s never as simple as mom vs. unborn baby as you might make it seem, although I’m pleased to see your acknowledgement that such cases where both lives might be in danger are rare; the frequency of such a scenario is often wildly exaggerated to advance the pro-choice POV.
 
Newbie2 said:
Why are the two situations different? You’re saying that the moral rights of a baby not yet born (let’s say even late third trimester) are different than those of one just born? So an hour before they didn’t have the same moral rights as mom but by being pushed out they acquire such rights? Please explain, that way of thinking seems very confusing to me.

Keep in mind we’re discussing moral rights, not legal ones, as the two can differ significantly.

No, the Catholic Church does not automatically “come down on the side of the foetus”. It’s not a matter of taking sides, it’s about giving voice to those who have none. Moms have a choice to sacrifice themself for their child; the baby has no such voice. And it’s never as simple as mom vs. unborn baby as you might make it seem, although I’m pleased to see your acknowledgement that such cases where both lives might be in danger are rare; the frequency of such a scenario is often wildly exaggerated to advance the pro-choice POV.
Click to expand...
Does the mother have a choice under Catholic teaching? You reckon?
I personally don’t hold the “watershed” as birth so I wasn’t arguing on the basis of third trimester foetuses, but it would not be an arbitrary distinction to do so.
The frequency of the scenario doesn’t have much if any relevance to the morality.
 
Havard said:
You could apply that rationale to murder though, right? Not saying you do, of course. But what’s the extra bit to your rationale on abortion legality that makes it different?
Click to expand...
I don’t think it applies to “murder” because we, as a society, have come to enough of a consensus on that particular issue. However, I would point out that this rationale applies to the homicide (the legal term for killing a human being) where society’s consensus includes a whole range of responses to homicide in general which range from letting killers go unprosecuted under certain circumstances (self defense) through light or heavy punishment (say 3 years for negligent homicide compared to 25 years for 2nd or 3rd degree murder) up to the death penalty under certain circumstances (murder for hire, or pre-meditated murder). So yes, I guess that rationale does apply to other forms of killing.

I am against abortion laws because we have not yet established such a consensus. Only about 15% of Americans are totally pro-choice under any set of circumstances (oddly enough about 15% are totally anti-abortion under all circumstances). The other 70% of Americans favor limiting abortion to certain circumstances, but they do favor permitting access abortion in those circumstances. Because we live under a representative government, where political legitimacy is derived from the consent of the governed, until this basic calculus changes, we are stuck with more or less our current set of laws.

I am in favor of efforts to educate the population on pro-life issues, and efforts to provide material and emotional support for pregnant women so they are less likely to choose abortion. I look forward to the day when even the concept of abortion is an archaic thing found only in history textbooks.

I don’t think we will get there through legislation, which, in this day and age, I am convinced does more harm then good.
 
homicide is unlawful killing
self-defence is a denial that the act was unlawful killing - so no homicide occurred
 
Doc_Keele said:
homicide is unlawful killing
self-defence is a denial that the act was unlawful killing - so no homicide occurred
Click to expand...
No, homicide is any killing of a human, by a human. Period.

Surely you’re familiar with the term “justifiable homicide”.
homicide
Click to expand...
The killing of one human being by another human being.
Although the term homicide is sometimes used synonymously with murder, homicide is broader in scope than murder. Murder is a form of criminal homicide; other forms of homicide might not constitute criminal acts. These homicides are regarded as justified or excusable. For example, individuals may, in a necessary act of Self-Defense, kill a person who threatens them with death or serious injury, or they may be commanded or authorized by law to kill a person who is a member of an enemy force or who has committed a serious crime.** Typically, the circumstances surrounding a killing determine whether it is criminal. **The intent of the killer usually determines whether a criminal homicide is classified as murder or Manslaughter and at what degree.
Click to expand...
legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/homicide
 
well yes that’s true for the US, who hold to the older terminology
the UK doesn’t use those classifications anymore, just like they don’t use the term felony anymore

so you’re right for the US, but not the UK
the UK common law definition was formulated by Coke CJ, who stated it was “when a man of sound memory and of the age of discretion, unlawfully killeth within any country of the realm any reasonable creature in rerum naturae under the king’s peace with malice aforethought …” (that’s not the whole definition)

IAAL
 
Doc_Keele said:
well yes that’s true for the US, who hold to the older terminology
the UK doesn’t use those classifications anymore, just like they don’t use the term felony anymore

so you’re right for the US, but not the UK
the UK common law definition was formulated by Coke CJ, who stated it was “when a man of sound memory and of the age of discretion, unlawfully killeth within any country of the realm any reasonable creature in rerum naturae under the king’s peace with malice aforethought …” (that’s not the whole definition)

IAAL
Click to expand...
Well, I live in the US, not the UK, the only thing I know about UK justice is from reading The Economist and Rumpole books, but surely they still have the concept of non-criminal killing, as well as different degrees of criminal culpability based on circumstances and intent, right?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top