Pro-abortion nun still active

[childofmary1143]

She is correct, “pro-choice” does not equal “pro-abortion”, years of often repeated talking points has created this myth. She is a good Catholic, with the same overall goal to minimize abortions as much as possible. The key is to have enough resources in society so it becomes a no brainier to have the child for the mother. The mother often is between a rock and hard place with decreasing welfare help, lack of clear adoption services, health care for her child, etc…

It is a sad situation that many who choose abortions do it as a last resort.

Your credentials as to what a Good Catholic is are worth squat.

 

[estesbob]

Your credentials as to what a Good Catholic is are worth squat.

 

[East_and_West]

After Roe V Wade was imposed on the country abortions quadruled in this country.

I realized that there was a substantial increase. I did not realize it was so great an increase. :crying:

 

[VociMike]

She has no point. There is a HUGE difference between an adult man, who is armed and trained, VOLUNTARILY going into battle, and a pre-born child, allegedly “safe” inside his mother’s womb, who is utterly and completely defenseless. An adult, with a free will, can exercise his choice to defend himself and his country. A baby in the womb is not given that same choice.

Yep. I haven’t run across any armed and dangerous babies in utero. Has anybody else? Has a baby in utero ever invaded another country? Enslaved a people? Committed atrocities?

 

[bilop]

She is correct, “pro-choice” does not equal “pro-abortion”, years of often repeated talking points has created this myth. She is a good Catholic, with the same overall goal to minimize abortions as much as possible. The key is to have enough resources in society so it becomes a no brainier to have the child for the mother. The mother often is between a rock and hard place with decreasing welfare help, lack of clear adoption services, health care for her child, etc…

It is a sad situation that many who choose abortions do it as a last resort.

So they kill their babies because the child won’t get healthcare. What’s gonna happen? The baby might die? So, we’ll kill it first. Good logic.

God Bless

 

[estesbob]

So they kill their babies because the child won’t get healthcare. What’s gonna happen? The baby might die, so we’ll kill it first. Good logic.

God Bless

Its the classic “better dead than underfed” argument…

 

[NewUlm1976_2000]

Remember, abortion is the ultimate in child abuse and our goals should not be to **minimize **abortions but to eliminate them.

Brenda V.

I hate to say it but in real life that is a impossible goal. I pointed out the driving abortion seekers to the back alley and the black market. The best we can do is to minimize them.

 

[NewUlm1976_2000]

No offense intended, but this is convoluted. Abortion is intrinsically evil. There is never, under any circumstances a justification for either the act or the laws that permit it. You’re justifying the law by putting forth a “silver lining”.

And anyone who has a back alley abortion is assuming the risk. The equivalent would be a drug user that gets some bad heroine in a back alley and dies. Would it be better to legalize drugs so only quality heroine is sold?

Where did I say it was a good thing? I never said that in my posts. A back-ally abortion is a end without any hope. The key is to have enough social support things to help the woman choose to have it.

 

[NewUlm1976_2000]

It happens alot less when it is illegal. Using your logic we should make murder, rape, burglary, etc legal because then at least there would be a chance of outreach.

We don’t know that. Often many of the statistics are never kept when done in back corners. It will only be lower because it is not being recorded.

 

[estesbob]

I hate to say it but in real life that is a impossible goal. I pointed out the driving abortion seekers to the back alley and the black market. The best we can do is to minimize them.

And has been pointed out the mythical back alley abortion is no more dangerous than a legal abortion and making abortion illegal will probably cut the number of abortions by about a million a year. In the year prior to Roe there we approx 400,000 , Two later it was 1,5 million a year. So tell me-shouldn’t we make abortion illegal to save a million lives a year?

 

[estesbob]

We don’t know that. Often many of the statistics are never kept when done in back corners. It will only be lower because it is not being recorded.

Simply not true. if you have any evidence whatsoever to back this up please post it. Over 90% of abortions prior to Roe were done is a sterile clinic by a licensed physician. The idea that anyone was able to hide a million abortions a year is specious.

 

[East_and_West]

We don’t know that. Often many of the statistics are never kept when done in back corners. It will only be lower because it is not being recorded.

It will cut down on the crime of abortion if there are SERIOUS legal consequences for this serious crime. Furthermore, making it illegal has a psychological effect on most people. It helps to deter serious crimes.

 

[estesbob]

Where did I say it was a good thing? I never said that in my posts. A back-ally abortion is a end without any hope. The key is to have enough social support things to help the woman choose to have it.

again invoking the myth of the back alley abortion:

Lets examne this myth:

The “Vital Statistics of the The Unites States” , a Govt publication, Reported that in 1964 there were there were 247 deaths from abortions.

You can read in read in deatil the obfuscation of deaths by abortion by the abortion industry in Germain Grisez" Abortion : The Myths, the Realities and the Arguments. Copyright 1970. It is an interesting read because it was written before Roe V wade was forced on the Country.

In Britain in 1965 the number of deaths from abortion was 65, In California it was 30

Mary S Calderone, a former director of planned Parenthood wrote this in 1960:

“Abortion is no longer a dangerous procedure.This applies not just to therapeutic abortions performed in a hospital but also to so called illegal abortions as done by physicians. in 1957 there were only 269 deaths in the whole country attributed to abortions of any kind,”

And this from Dr Robert E Hilol. president of the Association for the Study of Abortion, also written in 1960:

If would quarrel with Nuswander on only one point , namely, his perpetuation of Tsassig’s thirty year old claim that 5,000 to 10,000 American Women die every year as a result of Criminal abortion. Whether this statistic was valid in 1936 I d not know, but it certainly is not now.There are in fact fewer than 1,500 hundred total pregnancy related deaths in this country per annum: very few other could go undetected and of those 1,500 no more than a third are the result of abortion. Even the "unskilled "
abortionist is evidently more skillful and/or more careful these days. Although Criminal abortion is of course to be decried , the demand for it abolition cannot reasonably be based upon thirty year old statistics.

 

[NewUlm1976_2000]

And has been pointed out the mythical back alley abortion is no more dangerous than a legal abortion and making abortion illegal will probably cut the number of abortions by about a million a year. In the year prior to Roe there we approx 400,000 , Two later it was 1,5 million a year. So tell me-shouldn’t we make abortion illegal to save a million lives a year?

And we do not know prior to Roe how many were just not counted. Post-Roe the stats are much more reliable. So we are not comparing equal datasets.

What I see is both sides have the same goal, to have as few abortions as possible and have different approaches to get to them but many ideas seem to overlap.

 

[East_and_West]

Again, this is very simple.
Abortion = Murder
Legalized Abortion = Legalized Murder.

Why would anyone want murder to be legal?

 

[estesbob]

And we do not know prior to Roe how many were just not counted. Post-Roe the stats are much more reliable. So we are not comparing equal datasets.

In your opinion, The best estimate of the number of abortions prior to Roe v wade is 400,000.(Germain Grisez, Abirtion-the Myths, the Realities and the Arguments. Copyright 1970, pp 40ff
The 400,000 figure comes from intensive research, comparison to abortion rates in other countries and surveys taken of women of child baring age.

If you have anything other than you opinion to refute this please post it.

What I see is both sides have the same goal, to have as few abortions as possible and have different approaches to get to them but many ideas seem to overlap.

We arent even close to having the same goals. your goal is to allow women to kill their unborn children at will until the country adopts a social program you apporve of. My goal is to make abortion illegal.

 

[Brenda_V]

I hate to say it but in real life that is a impossible goal. I pointed out the driving abortion seekers to the back alley and the black market. The best we can do is to minimize them.

And has been pointed out the mythical back alley abortion is no more dangerous than a legal abortion and making abortion illegal will probably cut the number of abortions by about a million a year. In the year prior to Roe there we approx 400,000 , Two later it was 1,5 million a year. So tell me-shouldn’t we make abortion illegal to save a million lives a year?

Thanks estesbob. I am so tired of the “back alley abortion” myth - even the Dr. who testified for Roe in Roe v Wade said that the numbers were gravely inflated.

As a matter of fact, abortion clinics today have no regulation whatsoever and many are not sanitary at all. Would you get a major surgical procedure done in unsanitary conditions? That makes them no better than that back alley abortion so often talked about.

I will say that in my world the goal might not be achievable but it is a goal worth seeking! I stand by what I said that the goal is to eliminate abortions.

I don’t want to see women get abortions, they are not safe and damage more than their bodies! I have a friend who had one shortly after they were made legal, she is in her 50’s (she might be 60 now, don’t remember) but she is just now opening up about it and admitting that had she had known about a Crisis Pregnancy Center that baby would be alive today! She did go on to have three beautiful daughters with her second husband.

Brenda V.

 

[Renton405]

arent these people suspossed to be excommunicated according to canon law?

 

[Amolibri]

So what should I do if I find out a parishioner is a member of Call to Action? Go to my priest first?

 

[Mimi]

So what should I do if I find out a parishioner is a member of Call to Action? Go to my priest first?

Are you insinuating my priest likely knows this already and allows people to keep on receving communion??
Please explain your comment, Amolibri.

Mimi