Pro Choice/Abortion “Catholics”

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

It was you who embedded a quote of @LateCatholic’s into your post leaving the impression that you agreed with what he wrote, or at least are sympathetic to his thoughts.

Yes I did. I noted he outright stated he is not an advocate of abortion and I must believe a person is whom they say they are and are not. I haven’t noted anyone come out with even an illusion they are Promoting it!~Persons may have different beliefs about how one goes about procuring the end of the nightmare, but argue from that fact…Stop with your accusations and to Gehenna with your “impressions”!~
Please, stay in the choir loft high and mighty above us all, but leave me in peace. I have no inclination to believe any law on stone is going to change anyone’s heart.

Again, the “law on stone” isn’t meant to change anyone’s heart, it is meant to protect the vulnerable from the actions of those who have hearts of stone.

At the very least, the law written in stone, will grind down those stony hearts when they try to rub up against the law in stone by having their own way, when that way has, in the words of @LateCatholic, “a detrimental affect [sic] [on] the rights and freedom of a fellow citizen,” in this case, the fetus.

 

[LateCatholic]

Your grasp of logic is not only tenuous but unhinged.

No need for insults.

Why, precisely, would we need to issue social security numbers or give tax breaks to fetuses once it is accepted that life begins at conception?

I am just pointing out that the Republican position is hypocritical. If you claim life begins at conception, and therefore citizenship, you need to provide the same benefits to an unborn fetus as a baby. Why would you even argue this as a Catholic? The point is that Republicans don’t give a rat’s behind about “life”. They just want our votes as Catholics because we are easy to trick. Come on. How can you be “pro-life” and want to take away pregnant women’s health care? How can you support insurance companies designating pregnancy, or miscarriages even, as pre-existing conditions to deny healthcare? I can go on and on and on about so-called Republican “pro-life” policies. Stop being so gullible.

There is nothing that prevents someone from claiming that individual human beings have a right to life, all the while acknowledging that certain other rights, privileges or responsibilities do not necessarily accrue as a function of a basic right to life.

You are arguing from the moral angle. I am arguing from the political. The political angle is what is important because that’s how laws and policies are enacted. I agree with you from a moral point of view. You are wasting your time trying to convince me that abortion is wrong. But there are dozens of things that are wrong that are legal, and must remain legal. Simply making abortion illegal and declaring “Too bad, son;t have sex next time” is NOT IN ANY WAY solving the problem.

You cannot argue that one person has a right to take the life of another merely because they are an undue burden. If that were the case then any parent would have a right to kill any of their children once those children became an undo burden. Do you really want to go there?

Did you even read my posts?

 

[LateCatholic]

What, precisely, is “the problem”?

The Problem:
Unwanted pregnancy and associated social framework whereupon a girl or woman believes an abortion is the better, or perhaps only, long-term option for maintaining acceptable living standards for herself and her family going forward.

Desired Outcome
Abortion is effectively obsolete, without making it illegal.

Two solutions:
1) Republican

• Make abortion illegal. Send doctors, women, or both, to jail. Unless you want to fine them, but that just let’s rich women have abortions and poor women not.
• Fight against all social programs that would support the massive influx of infants, children, and resultant poverty.
• General lack of empathy, specifically “You had sex, deal with it”

2. Mine

• Make birth control free, promote for families/women living in poverty. If you don;t like this, read EVERY article ever written on the number one cause of poverty in the world.
• Ubiquitous sex education programs - Promote abstinence first, but educate teens/adults on the ramifications of unplanned reproduction.
• Support and subsidize adoption and foster parent programs. Will this cost money? Yeah, put up or shut up. I know about this personally.
• Provide quality healthcare, social programs, and financial support for women that have children. Again, put up or shut up.
• Keep abortion legal, with restrictions, up to a certain point in a pregnancy. Allow it, but regulate it.

Again, I am arguing from a political standpoint. Do you want to solve the PROBLEM or not?

 

[LateCatholic]

I want to make two separate analogies that illustrate where I am coming from, to perhaps minimize the emotion here.

First, consider eradicating a disease. In a free society, you cannot FORCE a person to take a vaccination. I am not for mandatory inoculations. However, if you don;t get inoculated, no public school. No public outings around infants. Educate people on the importance of herd vaccinations. Provide funded healthcare so vaccinations are free, or at least cost-effective. etc etc.

Second, consider gun control. In a free society, you must allow people to defend themselves. But defense is not ‘offense’. We should allow gun ownership, but it must be highly regulated. There must be no-gun zones (if you don;t like it, don’t go into one). Tax guns to pay for law enforcement. Enforce licensing and gun training. Punish offenders. etc etc.

In summary, you will not solve the abortion problem by making it illegal. You are just making things worse.

 

[LateCatholic]

The solution is to implement social programs, health care, safety nets, birth control, adoption programs, and so on so that abortion - even if legal to a point - is never needed……

You cannot possible be serious.

How about healthcare, for one.
You do realize that prior to Obamacare women that had miscarriages could be denied healthcare due to the “pre-existing condition”?

 

[Annie]

Yeah, and I know that Obama voted against the SCHIP program that would have fixed that problem, too.

That aside, we now have Obama care, so what else is needed?

 

[Annie]

The first problem I have with your arguments is That you are hung up on the freedom of the individual, and seem to think that reducing the number of laws about what people can and cannot do would maximize freedom for the individual (once born).

That, to me, is the wrong goal altogether.

In the instance of the question of abortion, it leads to a political party’s holding unborn children hostage to their goal of creating a good pol/bad pol dichotomy. The Dems say, to reduce abortion, we need to provide more aid to poor women so they will have their babies rather than abort their babies.

They then demonize the Reps, saying they want to dismantle the social safety net. (Simply untrue.)

The social safety net is filled with limits, tho: little traps to keep people in poverty. Before Obama care, for example, you could get a raise at work and thus lose your eligibility for Medicare while not yet being at a level to afford or get as a benefit medical insurance. If you had a child who needed lots of medical care, you had to keep your income low… This still holds true, I imagine, for other benefits such as housing.

The next problem is that by saying abortion is legal, we are abdicating our responsibility to each individual. We are saying that we get to judge the level of humanity attained by different people. Wow, who else do we know who did that sort of thing?

First we had Roe v Wade, then passage of physician-assisted suicide. (Want to read something interesting? Check out the reasoning of the USSC justices for refusing to call physician-assisted suicide a Constitutional right. Your head will spin and you’ll wonder what Ruth Bader-Ginsberg really meant when she commented that abortion was supposed to get rid of the people “we” wanted fewer of.)

 

[TULIPed]

Provide quality healthcare, social programs, and financial support for women that have children. Again, put up or shut up.

Fair enough. So you’re ok with prohibiting rich people from getting abortions. How would you means test?

Unwanted pregnancy and associated social framework whereupon a girl or woman believes an abortion is the better, or perhaps only, long-term option for maintaining acceptable living standards for herself and her family going forward.

I want to make sure I understand - abortion is acceptable if somebody doesn’t have enough money to maintain an acceptable living standard. What is an acceptable living standard? Does everyone get a cell phone? Cable? Home or apartment? Again - how would you means test?

Come to think of it - why would you not means test for something like theft? Some people steal because they legitimately need money to eat - forget about an “acceptable living standard”. Furthermore - they could be (and probably are) poor through no action of their own (vs. pregnancy). Why don’t we let people off the hook for theft?

Ah - I know. If somebody steals - say from me - then they’ve impinged directly upon my rights, no? Otherwise it would be ok to steal - to maintain an “acceptable living standard”.

Maybe we could make it ok to steal from really big companies. They could afford it - and it wouldn’t directly impact anyone right? Certainly we could make it ok to steal from the government - especially if somebody had to steal to eat, right?

 

[Annie]

Unwanted pregnancy and associated social framework whereupon a girl or woman believes an abortion is the better, or perhaps only, long-term option for maintaining acceptable living standards for herself and her family going forward.

Desired Outcome
Abortion is effectively obsolete, without making it illegal.

Oops, my previous post posted by mistake.

Well, the first problem is with your casting of the problem. You think the problem does not begin until a woman becomes pregnant.

So we go back to how women become pregnant. Do they “fall” pregnant, as the British say, the way people “fall” ill? “I was just walking along minding my own business when I suddenly found myself pregnant”?

ABC actually has the reverse effect of allowing women to think that since they are taking steps to prevent pregnancy, they can have as much sex as they want, and they thus become pregnant at higher rates. A short but detailed summary of this idea is provided by the Brookings Institute, that bastion of conservatism, here: Redirect Notice Note that I do not agree with their final conclusions.

Moreover, adoption has pretty much completely collapsed as a solution to unwed pregnancy in the US due to the availability of abortion, but would probably revive were abortion to become unavailable. This would provide a solution to women who did not want to raise their children in poverty.

as to your solutions, that is what has been happening all along.

Increases in availability to ABC have only increased the problem of women having sex when and with whom they do not want to have children.

Sex education has similarly increased for decades.l

Your next two points will not help. Adoption will not be a solution as long as mothers can receive government aid and there is more stigma against giving a baby up for adoption when abortion is available than there is to raise the child.

Government aid has also increased over the same decades that abortion and out-of-wedlock births have increased (put together).

And last, allowing abortion is… well, allowing abortion. It is not reducing the number of abortions. This is simply not a logical solution to reducing abortions.

 

[LateCatholic]

Well, the first problem is with your casting of the problem. You think the problem does not begin until a woman becomes pregnant.

Did you even read my posts?

How can you say that when a core component of my position is teaching abstinence and free birth control?
Also, I state the importance of various liberal social net programs so that people can become financially self-sufficient before getting pregnant.

adoption has pretty much completely collapsed as a solution to unwed pregnancy in the US due to the availability of abortion

You know NOTHING of adoption and foster care in this country if you say that.
Have you tried adopting? First find out how much Catholic Family Service charges per child before you talk to me about adoption.
How about every “pro-life” person promising to adopt a child? If you really are serious about stopping abortion, would you do that? Why don’t you make it mandatory for every person to adopt a child at least once in their lifetime???

Increases in availability to ABC have only increased the problem of women having sex when and with whom they do not want to have children.

You have no idea what you are talking about. You do not understand the pill either. Condoms not only prevent pregnancy they prevent diseases. Your comments are unbelievably dangerous.

there is more stigma against giving a baby up for adoption when abortion is available than there is to raise the child

This is not 1950. And trust me, that “stigma” comes from the Catholic Church, which would grab pregnant teenagers and hide them in special facilities until they gave birth. You really have no idea what you are talking about, and to even argue that adoption and foster care is not part of the solution makes me completely question your true intentions. Are you a Republican first or a Catholic first? Do you even know what the organization Catholic Family Services does?

 

[LateCatholic]

So you’re ok with prohibiting rich people from getting abortions.

I didn’t say that. First,I don’t want ANYONE to have an abortion - rich or poor. However, individually, it is more difficult to justify a person having an abortion if they have the means to support the child. But - again - as an American I cannot force my opinion on someone else, until at least the fetus’ rights outweigh the mothers.

I want to make sure I understand - abortion is acceptable if somebody doesn’t have enough money to maintain an acceptable living standard.

How did you come to this conclusion? All I said was that a key solution to reducing abortions is to provide social programs and financial safety nets so that women who want to keep their baby now have the financial means to do so. How can someone that is “pro-life” possibly argue this? This is on me of the reasons why the Republican position makes me sick. Force a woman to have a baby and raise it, at the same time take away her healthcare, reduce her employment benefits, raise the cost of day care, take away food stamps (Trump literally has done this and bragged about it). Republicans = pro-life? My you-know-what.

 

[greenqueen]

LateCatholic: I have been following this thread for the last few days, and I have a question for you:

If you disagree with the RCC so much, why do you continue to spout off about how abortion should be legal? It’s a hopeless argument for you here as the MAJORITY of people posting are devout, and you have .00000000001 (pick any minute number) percent chance of changing their minds. Mine included.

My prayer is that your reason for continuously posting is that deep down you want us to change YOUR mind.

If not, please lay out your fantastic plan to the nearest pro-choice politician on how YOU think legally killing children will make this world a better place.

Lord help me, I’m trying to be charitable.

 

[LateCatholic]

My prayer is that your reason for continuously posting is that deep down you want us to change YOUR mind.

Why is that ‘deep down’? Of course I am here for you to change MY mind. If I change your mind, great, but I don’t expect to. Why would I go to a liberal web site and everyone agree with me? I WANT to hear other opinions. I am willing to change my mind.

Now, on the other hand, it is almost impossible to change a religious person’s mind because they do not base their position on facts or evidence. That’s what faith is. Heck, I’m still trying to convince people on this forum that evolution is viable and Genesis is a myth. It’s unbelievable that people in the 21st century still argue this. But here we are.

My position can be summarized as follows. As an AMERICAN:

• Making abortion illegal does not solve the problem, but regulating it and implementing the right policies will.

You can draw analogies to gun control, vaccinations, and so forth:

• Full gun control does not solve the problem, but regulating and implementing the right policies will.
• Forced vaccinations does not solve the problem, but regulating and implementing the right policies will.
  etc etc

I am an American. Freedom is important. The world isn’t perfect. It is flawed. Society is flawed. Do not implement policies that assume the world can be perfect. This is a core problem of the radically religious. They assume God created a perfect world, and if you follow the laws laid out in the Bible, it will be perfect - and you want to force others to you opinion as well, regardless of the repercussions. This approach is not only illogical and unreasonable - it is very, very dangerous.

 

[Ryan1]

In a spirit of charity, we ought to assume that a Catholic who identifies as pro-choice has adopted that view out of ignorance. Charity also demands that we correct them, where appropriate.

 

[Ryan1]

Please define what you consider to be “the problem” which is in need of solving.

 

[TULIPed]

I didn’t say that. First,I don’t want ANYONE to have an abortion - rich or poor.

Fair enough. I didn’t mean “you” meaning “you” I meant “you” meaning “as if you were the government”. I understand that you’re arguing a societal point and not your personal feelings.

All I said was that a key solution to reducing abortions is to provide social programs and financial safety nets so that women who want to keep their baby now have the financial means to do so

Maybe. I wonder what the real data is on this though. I wonder what the definition of “the financial means to do so” is. I do take your point though with regard to the poor.

Jesus, in his parable about the sheep and the goats, implored us to take care of the “least of these”. Biblically, we are called to give the first fruits to God. To that point, I wonder what % of a typical church’s congregation/parish tithes? I wonder what % of a church’s budget goes to take care of the poor.

Having said all that, one’s financial means don’t excuse bad behavior. Even a desperately poor person knows what the possible consequences are associated with sex. There are plenty of desperately poor people who don’t lie, steal or murder people. Should poor people be able to have as much sex as rich people? Maybe - but why stop at sex? Why shouldn’t everyone be rich? Said another way - if we all have the same amount of money, will there be no more abortions?

 

[goout]

greenqueen:

My prayer is that your reason for continuously posting is that deep down you want us to change YOUR mind.

Why is that ‘deep down’? Of course I am here for you to change MY mind. If I change your mind, great, but I don’t expect to. Why would I go to a liberal web site and everyone agree with me? I WANT to hear other opinions. I am willing to change my mind.

Now, on the other hand, it is almost impossible to change a religious person’s mind because they do not base their position on facts or evidence. That’s what faith is. Heck, I’m still trying to convince people on this forum that evolution is viable and Genesis is a myth. It’s unbelievable that people in the 21st century still argue this. But here we are.

Yes here we are. Your paragraph is self contradictory. Your mind is not changed on this despite the plain evidence, and in the same breath you paint “religious persons” as fideists devoid of reason who are not open to change. Is change only for other people?
You said you are Catholic. Are you one of the ignorant religious people also? Or are you not Catholic? I detect that your religion is maybe superior to everyone else’s?

That’s what faith is.

That’s not what faith is. Faith and reason are integrated. It’s not an either/or proposition.

it is almost impossible to change a religious person’s mind because they do not base their position on facts or evidence.

Since you bring up superstitious religious people who can’t think straight, let me remind you of the scientific realities here:
An unborn child:
1 possesses human dna
2 that is unique
3 as an individual
4 possessing the full potential to live til death like any other human being.

Which of these are you going to dispute as you fall into your religious superstitions?
You can dispute that the child deserves human rights, but you can’t rest an argument on your superior reasoning because you have failed in your reasoning.
Your only argument is that an unborn child is inconveniencing another human being, and the unborn child is not deserving of human rights. That’s known as an assertion of power, not sound reasoning on objective truths.
Do you want to be a well reasoned person or not?

I am an American. Freedom is important. The world isn’t perfect. It is flawed. Society is flawed. Do not implement policies that assume the world can be perfect.

Let’s just throw up our hands in exasperation cause… life is sooo hard. it’s so hard, and virtue is soooo difficult. Protecting others requires saaaacrifice, and we just can’t be expected to do the hard things.

So let’s just kill them, cause life is hard and we shouldn’t aim very high to help others.

 

[Annie]

Did you even read my posts?

LOL! Did you read mine?

How can you say that when a core component of my position is teaching abstinence and free birth control?
Also, I state the importance of various liberal social net programs so that people can become financially self-sufficient before getting pregnant.

I say that because the rise in abortions and out-of-wedlock birth coincided with a rise in these so-called solutions.

When I speed on the highway, I get a ticket and an increased insurance rate. I am careful how I drive. If people started saying that the government needs to give me lots of things like watches and a cleaning lady and to keep me from speeding, guess what? Lots more speeders on the highway.

You know NOTHING of adoption and foster care in this country if you say that.

I do know that when I was young, before abortion was legalized , most infants adopted in the US were born in the US. In later decades, almost all adopters were from overseas, as couples who wanted to adopt infants could not find them here.

You have no idea what you are talking about. You do not understand the pill either. Condoms not only prevent pregnancy they prevent diseases. Your comments are unbelievably dangerous.

What is it about the Pill that I don’t understand?

What diseases do condoms protect against? Sexually Transmitted Diseases, hence STD.

If someone fears getting one of these diseases, he or she will avoid having sex with people who have had multiple partners. If this person says condoms will protect him or her, then he or she will feel free to engage in sex with others who have had multiple partners. One misstep with the condom and he or she now has an STD.

This explains why the rate of STDs is much higher now than it was back in the 1950s.

And trust me, that “stigma” comes from the Catholic Church, which would grab pregnant teenagers and hide them in special facilities until they gave birth.

The Church did not “grab” them… Often they themselves, unable to care for themselves, went to the places and saw them as a refuge to dying on the streets. Parents also placed ttheir daughters there. This was a typical solution at the time; Protestant communities also had them, at least in the US.

 

[Annie]

You really have no idea what you are talking about, and to even argue that adoption and foster care is not part of the solution makes me completely question your true intentions.

This is the part which made me believe you had not understood what I wrote. I definitely believe that adoption is the moral alternative to the immoral act of abortion, an l would totally encourage it.

Are you a Republican first or a Catholic first? Do you even know what the organization

I am not a Republican, and the Republicans are not as evil as the Democrats portray them to be. Try reading more widely.

I don’t know what your reference to CFS implies.

 

[Sbee0]

I want to make two separate analogies that illustrate where I am coming from, to perhaps minimize the emotion here.

First, consider eradicating a disease. In a free society, you cannot FORCE a person to take a vaccination. I am not for mandatory inoculations. However, if you don;t get inoculated, no public school. No public outings around infants. Educate people on the importance of herd vaccinations. Provide funded healthcare so vaccinations are free, or at least cost-effective. etc etc.

Second, consider gun control. In a free society, you must allow people to defend themselves. But defense is not ‘offense’. We should allow gun ownership, but it must be highly regulated. There must be no-gun zones (if you don;t like it, don’t go into one). Tax guns to pay for law enforcement. Enforce licensing and gun training. Punish offenders. etc etc.

In summary, you will not solve the abortion problem by making it illegal. You are just making things worse.

Personal liberty cannot be an absolute concept in a civilized society. It’s dangerous to allow quack science which say, started the rise of the anti-vaxxer movement - to impact both real understanding of science and human lives. For the same reason society cannot permit a child to die from disease due to their parents refusing them treatment because of their “religion”. Neither of those groups should be granted absolute personal freedom, it must be qualified.

As I said before…legal abortion is a symptom of society that has failed women. It is not, never was, and never will be a solution or a cure for such. Saying abortion should be a necessary evil is no different than saying parents who lose their jobs and are put in desperate financial circumstances should have the right to kill their young children to ease their financial circumstances. Society should help the latter group and also give women the services and things that they need in order to support themselves and their unborn child.

And of course, where the left is wrong is that big government is not necessarily the best people to be providing such services.