Pro-abortion arguments...those who are pro-choice, what do/did you really believe?

[guanophore]

I have seen those pictures before, and they do not move me in the slightest. And yes, I did know when the heart starts beating.

wow

 

[guanophore]

it is of course allowed - but it is not always necessary the point is that the aim of treatment is to destroy the pregnancy, even though it suits some to employ self-deception

No, Jack. It is about intentions. Perhaps you don’t realize how offensive and callous it sounds to say “destroy the pregnancy”.

 

[hasikelee]

At one point, I was very pro-choice. I never understood why, but over the past 10 years, I’ve learned that it’s due to the silent influences of my mother and father. They never talked to us about how abortion is wrong. Heck, I really didn’t know what abortion was until I was in highschool! And by then, I was of the mindset that a woman should be the one to say what goes on with her body.

Fast forward a few years… I had my first abortion. I was still pro-choice, but even when I found out I was pregnant, I felt joy of the new baby. I was torn when my mother told me to abort. I was threatened that I would no longer receive help for college, I would be disowned and everyone would hate the child. In essence, I wasn’t given a “choice.” and I started to doubt the pro-choice view. I went through with my abortion due to others pressing me to do it.

Fast foward two years later… I had my second abortion. I did it without telling anyone but the father of the child because I already knew the answer of anyone else, so why bother listening to them again? I still felt it was wrong, but I believed it was the right thing to do because I got it into my head that we weren’t ready yet. The doubts about the pro-choice stance continue to mount.

Fast foward three years later and I’m now married and pregnant. My past starts to creep up on me and how funny I find it telling my mother of an intense burning desire to go to Confession. She tells me “That’s the old school Catholic coming through!” Yet how much hatred I felt for her because she basically MADE me get an abortion!

After a few years of inner conflict, I finally attend a Rachel’s Vineyard retreat and I was finally able to connect some dots as to why I behaved in the way I did after my abortions. Total self destruction and the attempts to destroy everyone around me. I was so angry at everyone and this retreat gave me a chance to let go.

By this time, I realized I have to be pro-life. I can’t allow other women/girls to feel like I did and NOT have a “choice” when their heart believed to do the right thing. So it was a 10 year process of changing my heart but I had to basically burn in hell to figure it out.

And now, I just pray for my mother all the time as she’s a very devout Catholic, is an EME in her parish but is very pro-abortion. She believes that there are some cases where the child just isn’t supposed to be born. Heck, she’s even telling me now that I’m pregnant with baby #4 (pregnancy #7 though), that it’s time for me to stop. Which is doing nothing for me but making me relive those rage feelings that I had when she told me that I have to abort. I feel as if she’s trying to control my reproductive life, ya know? And I just don’t know what to do with this rage I feel.

Thank you for sharing your perspective and your story. As someone who has journeyed through abortion and external pressure, do you have any advice for someone who has just done the same?

A coworker of mine is working through her own situation that is very similar to yours. In fact, she has been hurting more than usual as May 13th was her due date.

 

[jack_hawkins]

No, Jack. It is about intentions. Perhaps you don’t realize how offensive and callous it sounds to say “destroy the pregnancy”.

the whole problem is people exercising denial
so talking about destroying the pregnancy is no more callous than telling someone who has been bereaved that thier loved one has died - in other words direct language is required to avoid denial
when it is offensive and callous to describe reality, that is a sign that people don’t want to face reality
this thing about “intentions” is part of that process of denial

 

[jack_hawkins]

Oh God. This is why I’m going to a Catholic College for Pre-Med. I don’t wannna come out like you. God help me if I become a “baby doc” just to belive it’s not a baby till it’s born.

well I hope you learn to read what people say before judging then
and I hope you learn to differentiate a cloying sentimentality from true compassion - otherwise you will be a handwringing ineffectual physician
so don’t post lies please - when at any stage have I written that “it’s not a baby till it’s born” - not only dreadful English but dreadful presumption
yes, please brush up on your reading skills first - it may surprise some but the main skill in being a doctor is still the ability to diagnose and decide on a course of action

 

[Amolibri]

Jack, I admire you for your tenacity. This would not be a dialogue if not for you. Callousness exists on both sides (maybe more?) of this debate. To call a pregnant woman or girl selfish as a blanket statement is quite callous, IMO. I dare say that the great majority of the posters here have not ever been intimately involved with a decision of this magnitude. I do not understand how someone can call another, VERY pro-abortion.

A previous poster cautioned that pregnant woman/girls must be treated with care lest they rebel…very true.

My encounters with demonstrators at planned parenthood have not all been positive or prayerful…when I’ve stopped to discuss the adoption choice…part of “pro-choice” in my book. So I’d be careful with the “pro-abortion” label, please. A little more of Jesus’ compassion and less judgement would go a very long way.
Thanks, and God Bless.

 

[mapleoak]

I am confused. If an embryo is implanted in the fallopian tube, and that portion of the tube is removed to prevent the embryo from damaging the organs, how does it not result in the death of the embryo?

Actually this was in reference to the rediculous example of treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysm as a preventative measure in comparison to the abortion of an embryo implanted in the fallopian tube as a preventative measure. The latter results in death of a human being, the former has nothing whatsoever to do with pregnancy.

With regard to whether the embryo is “human” (has a soul) it is true that we do not know when this occurs, but since we do not, it is safer to assume that life exists at the moment of conception. In fact, there are some scriptures that state God knows us before that! ?!

Exactly right!

 

[jack_hawkins]

anyone conversant with the reasons for operating on ectopic pregnancy would see the analogy with abdominal aortic aneurysm
my main point was about your fallacious designation “preventative surgery”
the matter of ensoulment doesn’t really affect the arguments to be honest - although saying that the ectopic pregnancy has a soul is not a valid assumption and I don’t accept that for the sake of this discussion
only God knows, and basing decisions on the presumption the ectopic pregnancy is ensouled is illogical and flawed

 

[mapleoak]

mapleoak, I think you have managed to confuse even yourself with your word games
you seem to think that accepting one of your premises for the sake of making my argument is accepting your premise full stop
this clearly is not the case

No, I haven’t confused myself. I have pointed out instances where your reasoning seems at odd with itself. You either believe that an embryo, whether stuck in the wrong place or not, is a human being or you don’t. If you made a mistake, all you need to do is fess up. No one will laugh. Promise.

thereafter your post becomes more and more nonsensical
I have made my points clearly several times, and at no time have had you had a satisfactory answer or even shown any sign of understanding

Obviously you are having trouble finding an example of where I expressed a lack of medical knowledge. Kind of like an “I’m right, your wrong 'cause I said so” type of deal.

PS you confuse inferring with implying

You probably need to look into proper English usage before making a comment like this!

In Christ - J.M.J.
Mapleoak

 

[jack_hawkins]

TY Amolibri:thumbsup:
the fervour surrouding prolife discussion makes logical debate very difficult - basically anyone who dares disagree with even a minor point is branded a baby-killing devil! I’ve lost count of the number of people on this thread alone have attributed sentiments and statements to me I have never expressed
it also affects the process in real life situations
this is why I feel fanaticism has infected the Church and subverted its mission
the most important thing isn’t abortion - it’s Christ
the Church should never become a pressure group

 

[jack_hawkins]

mapleoak, you claimed I inferred something
either you inferred it, or I implied it
that’s your English lesson for today

I have detailed plenty of times where you have misunderstood the issues - it seems amazing that I should have restate something that is pretty obvious again and again
for example I had to correct over the issue of surgery for ectopic pregnancy - but this seems to conveniently slip your memory

the rest is your silly word games and failing to understand my arguments

I will reply when you have any substantive points to make - at the moment you are getting like vern and the Muslim posters on NCR- repetitive and artless, hoping quantity of posts will outweigh quality

 

[mapleoak]

a good analogy to the fallacious differentiation of salpingectomy versus tubal preservation is someone trying to say they haven’t killed someone because they bombed the house he was living in, as opposed to shooting him

They would have killed someone either way. What are you saying? Salpingectomy is like bombing the house or shooting the occupant? Which one is Tubal preservation similar to?

In Christ - J.M.J.
Mapleoak

 

[jack_hawkins]

for example mapleoak - why is it necessary to operate on an ectopic pregnancy?
why is it necessary to operate on an abdominal aortic aneurysm?

 

[guanophore]

They would have killed someone either way. What are you saying? Salpingectomy is like bombing the house or shooting the occupant? Which one is Tubal preservation similar to?

In Christ - J.M.J.
Mapleoak

I would say that, if there is a terrorist in the house, and the goal was to stop the terrorist from terrorizing, one could either shoot the terrorist, or bomb the house with him in it. Either way, the INTENTION is to stop the terrorist from terrorizing. Both methods will work.

If the embryo is in the tube, and you want to stop it from growing in the tube, then I would say that the salpingectomy is akin to bombing the house, and the chemical intervention, that of shooting.

 

[mapleoak]

for example mapleoak - why is it necessary to operate on an ectopic pregnancy?
why is it necessary to operate on an abdominal aortic aneurysm?

There are no moral conundrums associated with operating on abdominal aortic aneurysms. The sooner something can be done the better. No need to worry about killing an embryo in the process. Can’t say the same about ectopic pregnancy. Treatment of ectopic pregnancy has grave moral implications associated with it since there is another life involved.

mapleoak, you claimed I inferred something
either you inferred it, or I implied it
that’s your English lesson for today

<this doth infer the zeal I had to see him – Shakespeare>
<are you inferring I don’t know what I am talking about?>
American Heritage’s usage note indicates that Shakespeare must not know what he was doing. Webster disagrees, saying that this has been a long and honorable usage and was made “without comment until some time around the end of World War I.” Kind of like when people were getting confused about usage of words such as both/either, lie/lay, and further/farther.

Are you an English teacher too?

In Christ - J.M.J.
Mapleoak

 

[mapleoak]

I would say that, if there is a terrorist in the house, and the goal was to stop the terrorist from terrorizing, one could either shoot the terrorist, or bomb the house with him in it. Either way, the INTENTION is to stop the terrorist from terrorizing. Both methods will work.

Yes I would have to agree with what you said here.

If the embryo is in the tube, and you want to stop it from growing in the tube, then I would say that the salpingectomy is akin to bombing the house, and the chemical intervention, that of shooting.

True, the two options are parallel to the bombing/shooting example with one difference. In the house is a terrorist intent on commiting terror. In the tube is an innocent human being. It is like grandma in the house, and either bombing the house or shooting grandma. That I believe is the real concern with either type of treatment. How can either one be morally sound?

In Christ - J.M.J.
Mapleoak

 

[mapleoak]

the whole problem is people exercising denial so talking about destroying the pregnancy is no more callous than telling someone who has been bereaved that thier loved one has died - in other words direct language is required to avoid denial when it is offensive and callous to describe reality, that is a sign that people don’t want to face reality
this thing about “intentions” is part of that process of denial

Direct language is “killing a person”. Indirect language is “destroying a pregnancy”. Which one is more offensive and callous? “killing a person” describes reality. “Destroying a pregnancy” is part of that process of denial.

In Christ - J.M.J.
Mapleoak

 

[jack_hawkins]

There are no moral conundrums associated with operating on abdominal aortic aneurysms. The sooner something can be done the better. No need to worry about killing an embryo in the process. Can’t say the same about ectopic pregnancy. Treatment of ectopic pregnancy has grave moral implications associated with it since there is another life involved

I don’t know how much you manage to miss the point so often. If you had simply answered my questions instead of jumping ahead my point would have been clear, but no…
Please just answer my questions instead of answering another set of questions. I’ll ask again:
why is it necessary to operate on an ectopic pregnancy?
why is it necessary to operate on an abdominal aortic aneurysm?

<this doth infer the zeal I had to see him – Shakespeare>
<are you inferring I don’t know what I am talking about?>
American Heritage’s usage note indicates that Shakespeare must not know what he was doing. Webster disagrees, saying that this has been a long and honorable usage and was made “without comment until some time around the end of World War I.” Kind of like when people were getting confused about usage of words such as both/either, lie/lay, and further/farther.

Are you an English teacher too?

In Christ - J.M.J.
Mapleoak

I am an English teacher for those who need remedial lessons. The rider which I thought I didn’t need to add is if I make a statement, then you can infer from it, and I can imply from it - you had me inferring from it. Thus you got it wrong!Historical English is irrelevant. Check your “Law & Order” if you want an American context for that!

 

[jack_hawkins]

Direct language is “killing a person”. Indirect language is “destroying a pregnancy”. Which one is more offensive and callous? “killing a person” describes reality. “Destroying a pregnancy” is part of that process of denial.

In Christ - J.M.J.
Mapleoak

I’m trying to draw you out of your denial not put you further in it
does an ectopic pregnancy result in a live birth? NO (with extremely rare exceptions)
however if you want to label a salpingectomy as killing a person, by all means go ahead
you are happy killing a person and pretending you’re not???

 

[jack_hawkins]

I would say that, if there is a terrorist in the house, and the goal was to stop the terrorist from terrorizing, one could either shoot the terrorist, or bomb the house with him in it. Either way, the INTENTION is to stop the terrorist from terrorizing. Both methods will work.

If the embryo is in the tube, and you want to stop it from growing in the tube, then I would say that the salpingectomy is akin to bombing the house, and the chemical intervention, that of shooting.

TY
I am intrigued as to how you understand my point when mapleoak who is apparently a physician I think claims not to understand???
yes, bombing a house to kill someone whilst claiming you are just bombing the house is the same sort of deceit as performing a salpingectomy for ectopic pregnancy and claiming this is not destroying the pregnancy, killing a person, whatever term you want to use
at least shooting the person or tubal preservation avoids collateral damage which is not necessary
mapleoak tries to muddy the waters by saying that the pregnancy isn’t the focus of treatment - that is totally wrong
either he/she knows this and is being disingenuous
or he/she does not know much about ectopic pregnancy