Pro Choice/Abortion “Catholics”

[Sbee0]

Annie:

There actually.is something special about conception, for that is the moment a new human comes into existence. Before your conception, you did not exist, bit who you are now can be traced back to that very moment, when DNA from your father entwined with DNA from your mother to create the individual you.

How could any other point be chosen? At all later points, the baby has already been in existence before,; it is only at conception that life begins.

But regardless, your is still a subjective opinion. And scientifically it’s not entirely correct. Consider, for example, stem cells or even identical twins. A stem cell can become two people days after conception. Is the new twin “not alive”?

My point is that, even if I am mostly on your side, declaring your subjective opinion as correct without any thought on compromise may satisfy you in terms of your faith, it is NOT going to SOLVE anything in a human society. The thing that frustrates me about the Catholic position on abortion is not that it is wrong per se, but that it is a PERSONAL moral framework that fails completely to actually solve the problem of abortion when applied to society as a whole.

It is scientifically correct to say life begins at conception. Stem cells, sperm cells, cancer, etc are not unique “life”, nor can they “become people”, nor can they inherently develop into each stage of the growth of a human being. There is nothing subjective about it, it’s fact. Understandable that the pro abortion argument strongly rejects this, as they know it causes most of their other arguments to completely collapse. But it doesn’t make it any less factual.

The problem of abortion isn’t solved by making it legal any more than solving the problem of opioid abuse by making that legal.

Liberty is not an argument for anarchy. There’s a reason why laws are in place that might curtail absolute “freedom” for the good of society.

 

[Sbee0]

LateCatholic:

Consider, for example, stem cells or even identical twins. A stem cell can become two people days after conception. Is the new twin “not alive”?

Of course the newer twin is also alive, and a separate human being. However, does the fact that the newer twin came into existence at a later point mean the earlier twin did not exist?

And do we consider the newer twin a separate human being from the earlier one? If so, how can we consider a single unborn baby a part of his mother-s body which she can dispose of at will?

I like to use an example of conjoined twins when those in favor of abortion rights insist that dependency is a reason why an unborn child is not a human being. There is a clear dependency there on each other for life. But it’s clearly not valid to say that this dependency makes them non-persons or not human beings. So this is a non argument.

 

[Sbee0]

“pro-life” and "pro-choice” are misnomers. Pro-life people are really pro-birth

Incorrect.

Always amazed to see how widely this caricature of conservatism and Republicans is so accepted by the left and MSM. It would be no different than me saying that all liberals are commies who hate Christianity.

Conservatives do not believe generally that big government can adequately address society’s needs nor that big government and high taxes is essential to do so. It is a fallacy non sequitur to suggest that that this means conservatives don’t want to address society’s needs at all.

 

[chessnerd321]

Saying a woman MUST carry a baby to term from the moment of conception is not compatible with a free society. A fascist or communist society, sure. But not a free one.

I think this is a pretty cherry picker definition of a free society. Even the most libertarian of libertarians say that one of the roles of government is to protect life. If the government protecting people from murder is facist I’m a whole hearted facist.

 

[fullmetalcatholic]

The woman should not have been engaged in sex out of wedlock and her abortion is murder, so she is in double jeapordy and will for certain be condemned to Hell without prayer, penance, fasting, and sacraments.

 

[QwertyGirl]

The woman should not have been engaged in sex out of wedlock and her abortion is murder, so she is in double jeapordy and will for certain be condemned to Hell without prayer, penance, fasting, and sacraments.

Way too judgemental for my comfort level. There can be all kinds of mitigating circumstances, not to mention God’s infinite mercy. I would be careful with making blanket statements of condemnation like that. Furthermore, that isn’t what the church teaches. Even with most conservative of church teaching she would only need to go to confession and repent for her actions there. As long as she is truly remorseful, God does not require any of the other things you listed.

 

[goout]

The woman should not have been engaged in sex out of wedlock and her abortion is murder, so she is in double jeapordy and will for certain be condemned to Hell without prayer, penance, fasting, and sacraments.

Umm, the bolded is probably not within your sphere of competence or influence.

 

[goout]

chessnerd321:

Why then, should a woman’s right to choose trump a baby’s right to live?

It doesn’t. BUT - the world isn’t perfect. If babies popped out the moment of conception, there would be no issue. But we’ve got this 9 month problem.
Saying a woman MUST carry a baby to term from the moment of conception is not compatible with a free society. A fascist or communist society, sure. But not a free one.

?
This is nothing but relativism. The moral principles are not based on anything objective. The Church holds that human life is sacred at all stages, and so it doesn’t matter who has control of another, or what political system you live under, one’s person’s freedom to act does not give them license to kill innocent human beings.
Freedom and license are not the same thing.

This is the same relativism that allows all sorts of barbaric evil to happen. It’s cloaked in language that seems open and tolerant, but it’s at the expense of defenseless human beings.

 

[LateCatholic]

Conservatives do not believe generally that big government can adequately address society’s needs nor that big government and high taxes is essential to do so. It is a fallacy non sequitur to suggest that that this means conservatives don’t want to address society’s needs at all.

You are the OLD Republican party. The new Republican party is dominated by radical populists. It’s focus is anti-immigrant, anti-minority, protectionist, anti-environment, anti-trade, high deficit, high spending. Even the tax cuts are focused on the rich. The removal of regulations has been solely to benefit the rich, not help the people. Trump has destroyed the Republican party. Even the things he brags about are wrong. For example, he has increased effective military spending by 3% versus Obama. If you include GDP increase, that’s basically keeping it the same.

 

[LateCatholic]

The Church holds that human life is sacred at all stages, and so it doesn’t matter who has control of another, or what political system you live under, one’s person’s freedom to act does not give them license to kill innocent human beings.

This is not the argument. The position of pro-choice is that YOU cannot force YOUR opinion on someone else. Pro-choice is not trying to convince you to change your opinion. A society where YOU dictate morality is not a free society. A society that professes freedom of religion yet dictates laws based on the subjective designs of one such religion is hypocritical. If it were mandated that all Down Syndrome babies had to be aborted, pro-choice people would be against THAT.

You believe that life starts at conception. You want everyone in our society to share that view. Yet, even Republicans do not believe this. Why are not social security cards issued at conception? Why are not tax breaks afforded to mothers as soon as they become pregnant? I do not have a beef so much with the Catholic position as with the Republican one. However, I do feel that FORCING people to be pro-life is the wrong approach. I would rather convince them with facts, social programs, health care, adoption assistance, free birth control, and so on. Your approach doesn’t solve the problem.

Please note that I also believe life starts at conception. I am not pro-abortion. But I will not FORCE that opinion on others.

 

[Elf01]

I am not pro-abortion.

Yes you arr. Or at least you dpend a lot of yime arguing thatwomen should be allowed murder babies in their wombs.

 

[LateCatholic]

I like to use an example of conjoined twins when those in favor of abortion rights insist that dependency is a reason why an unborn child is not a human being.

I never made that argument.

My point about twins is that when you make a claim such as “life begins at conception” and base your morality on that, you are asking for trouble. Identical twins, in vitro, and so forth cause headaches. Also, as I mention elsewhere, you need to give fetuses social security numbers, tax breaks and so forth. Otherwise you are just lying. The catholic position is somewhat respectable, but Republicans? Disgraceful.

 

[LateCatholic]

It is scientifically correct to say life begins at conception.

Please define ‘life’. Are individual cells not alive? You are completely wrong in this statement.

However, it is irrelevant anyway. The argument is not when life begins. It is about the nature of a free society and the reality of the world we live in.

Think of a parallel: I am pro-gun control, but not against the 2nd amendment. In a free society, you must give people the right to defend themselves. 2nd amendment advocates are “pro-choice” when it comes to guns. People that want NO guns are your equivalent. Correspondingly, I am “pro abortion-control”, but i still think people have the right to choose.

 

[LateCatholic]

Liberty is not absolute.

But this is my point. i agree abortion should be illegal at a certain point in time. The reality of our society and biology means we must compromise. Where is the balance? We can discuss that. But abortion cannot be illegal. That will make the problem worse.

 

[LateCatholic]

So you don’t believe in Catholicism, or Christianity for that matter. I’m curious why you call yourself Catholic, if you don’t mind my asking. Just a q.

By the actual definition of Catholicism, almost NO ONE is a true Catholic. Start with divorcees, for example, or how 80% of Catholics don’t go to Church.

But that being said, I was raised a Catholic. Now, yeah, I’m pretty far from it. It’s not easy being a Catholic if you actually educate yourself, watch the news, learn history, and think things through. Try it.

 

[SeriousQuestion]

The law already enforces things that are opinions. At least in this case there is some science.

 

[SeriousQuestion]

I have, but it still is pretty easy for me.

 

[Sbee0]

Sbee0:

It is scientifically correct to say life begins at conception.

Please define ‘life’. Are individual cells not alive? You are completely wrong in this statement.

However, it is irrelevant anyway. The argument is not when life begins. It is about the nature of a free society and the reality of the world we live in.

Think of a parallel: I am pro-gun control, but not against the 2nd amendment. In a free society, you must give people the right to defend themselves. 2nd amendment advocates are “pro-choice” when it comes to guns. People that want NO guns are your equivalent. Correspondingly, I am “pro abortion-control”, but i still think people have the right to choose.

I’ve never heard someone say cell life begins at conception. The word for that is mitosis or meiosis not conception. I suspect you and everyone else knows exactly what “life” is being talked about in the phrase “life begins at conception”. Anything else is an attempt at a straw man fallacy.

The abortion argument is ENTIRELY all about when life begins. If life (and again you know what “life” I’m referring to) begins at conception then there is no moral justification for abortion whatsoever. If that was not the case then the reverse would be true.

Once people understand that then it puts the act of abortion in a completely different light for then and I suspect not a favorable one. I also completely disagree that abortion is some kind of necessary evil as what seems to be your position. This is exactly how pro abortion rights advocates frame the debate- they want to “soften” the repugnancy of the procedure and make it a better sell to the public.

The fact we have abortion isn’t a necessary evil at all, it’s a symptom of the failure of our society to have met the needs of women. We can do a lot better than this “necessary evil” or more accurately, without the word necessary…

 

[goout]

goout:

The Church holds that human life is sacred at all stages, and so it doesn’t matter who has control of another, or what political system you live under, one’s person’s freedom to act does not give them license to kill innocent human beings.

This is not the argument. The position of pro-choice is that YOU cannot force YOUR opinion on someone else.

Let’s do this real basic:
If you cannot force your opinion on me, how can you force me against my choice to pay taxes to support the unfortunate?
How can you take away my choice to shoot Mexicans at the border. They are REAL inconvenient and infringing on my choices.
How about my neighbor’s dog that barks all night. Don’t take away my choice to shoot it!
How can you take away my choice to steal a new car. I NEED THAT.

We (that means YOU)…force people to do things against their choice ALL - THE -TIME. Having objective standards is part of life.

The bottom line you are avoiding (not very deftly) is you relativize the value of human life to something called “choice”.
That is barbaric. Let’s just call it what it is.

 

[Pattylt]

May I ask for one small clarification? Conception occurs in the Fallopian tubes. Implantation occurs hours to days later. 1 to 2% of conceptions implant in the Fallopian tubes and the fetus is non viable if it implants there. It can also be life threatening to the mother. Should you change your definition to implantation rather than conception or must the mother needlessly risk her life and future fertility by banning abortion at conception. I’m just trying to clarify the Catholic position. Thank you.