Pro Choice/Abortion “Catholics”

[Sbee0]

The fetus is just as human as the mother is. Science says so.

There is no such thing as an arbitrary time where human life begins, scientific fact demands that we accept the fact it begins at conception, period, full stop.

Once people accept what science tells them about this, I suspect you’ll see very few people who are still in favor of abortion rights. The abortion rights lobby has done a great job at propaganda, distorting science and hiding this fact over the years. And for good reason.

 

[Sbee0]

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.

I’ve said this before but it really sounds to me like you confuse a leftist caricature of Christianity with the Catholic faith. Learn about it sometime and you might surprise yourself how wrong you are about the faith.

……but regulating it and implementing the right policies will.

The latter yes, the former it will do no such thing.

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.

The use of the term “radically religious” completely validates what I said earlier about a leftist caricature of Christianity, as well as the pro abortion side of the argument sticking like glue to their talking points instead of critically thinking about them.

Facts: Catholics are not anti-science, we are very much pro science. Catholics do not believe in a young earth, and neither do 99.99% of Christians and other religious people, is only a very tiny number of fundamentalists who do. Catholics do not treat Genesis as a scientific textbook about creation. Catholics are also not marching in lockstep with every single Republican policy just the one about abortion because abortion is always murder in all circumstances. We don’t say so. Science does. I’m always happy to smash the caricature, hope it helps.

 

[Pattylt]

I am not a Catholic and I know the following information is not acceptable to Catholic theology but if someone really wanted to lower the abortion rate AND lower teen sex, you should look to the nation that has the lowest abortion rate and lowest teen pregnancy rates and see what they are doing.
1 yes, they allow abortion through 22 weeks and it is considered a procedure of last resort.
2 they have national health care and their general practitioners and clinics dispense free birth control
3. They have comprehensive sex education beginning in late elementary school through high school explaining all the facts and risks of engaging in intercourse. They have the lowest rate of teen pregnancies.

It works. It is fact based education and prevention with free and easy access to birth control and of all countries that provide abortions, they have the least and all consider it the procedure of last resort.

I am anti abortion but I know I am an outlier in that my ideal would be to address every other situation first and work strongly toward abortion legality being the last piece that almost dies a natural death.

 

[Annie]

And this country is…?

 

[QwertyGirl]

Pro-choice people are usually concerned with personhood and when that begins. They don’t see an undeveloped fetus as a person. This is why these types of arguments don’t hold water for them.

 

[Sbee0]

Pro-choice people are usually concerned with personhood and when that begins. They don’t see an undeveloped fetus as a person. This is why these types of arguments don’t hold water for them.

And they would be wrong as there is absolutely no objective distinction between personhood and the human being at any stage of life.

Any arbitrary markers that one comes up with to define personhood with the goal of separating it from the unborn child is not logically or scientifically sound and therefore not valid.

 

[PureKathleen46]

And are you willing to be taxed for all your altruistic fantasies?

 

[QwertyGirl]

And they would be wrong as there is absolutely no objective distinction between personhood and the human being at any stage of life.

Any arbitrary markers that one comes up with to define personhood with the goal of separating it from the unborn child is not logically or scientifically sound and therefore not valid.

I understand that is how you and many others view things. However, it isn’t “proveable” and is therefore subjective at this point in time. I only remarked because if you are truly trying to convince Pro-Choicers of the evils of abortion, that argument is a non-starter. To make an impact, you have to try a different door.

 

[Sbee0]

Sbee0:

And they would be wrong as there is absolutely no objective distinction between personhood and the human being at any stage of life.

Any arbitrary markers that one comes up with to define personhood with the goal of separating it from the unborn child is not logically or scientifically sound and therefore not valid.

I understand that is how you and many others view things. However, it isn’t “proveable” and is therefore subjective at this point in time. I only remarked because if you are truly trying to convince Pro-Choicers of the evils of abortion, that argument is a non-starter. To make an impact, you have to try a different door.

No actually it is proveable, it’s a scientific fact that human life begins at conception. It is not an opinion. Science says that human life begins at conception. Anything to the contrary is wrong. If someone denies science then the problem is theirs not mine.

It’s also easily proveable that personhood also begins at conception both from a scientific and logical perspective, plus of course the faith perspective. It is not logically possible to define where personhood begins anywhere else arbitrarily and it’s quite easy to invalidate any argument that attempts to do so. Nobody has that authority, among other reasons.

Abortion is the willing taking of a human life otherwise known as murder. It’s one thing to be aware of that and still support abortion rights. It’s another to wrongly believe (as many do on the pro choice side) that there is no life or person being terminated, it’s just a “clump of cells” or whatever soft analogy is out there to make the procedure more palpable that is being removed in the process.

It is our duty to educate the misinformed, and I suspect once they are, most would think twice about being in favor of the procedure.

 

[LateCatholic]

And are you willing to be taxed for all your altruistic fantasies?

How else would we pay for it?
Only Republicans want abortion to be illegal and at the same time cut social programs.
It’s idiotic. But like I said, the GOP is not pro-life. They are pro-birth and just want the Catholic vote. It’s a trick.

 

[LateCatholic]

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

So I know more about this than anyone here. I do not make that claim lightly.
Less than 10% of adoptions are now foreign. If was never that high, ever.

The three biggest problems against adopting are:

1. The cost
2. The legal risk of losing a child to the birth family
3. Health of children due to poor pre-natal care, or poor child care
4. Race

I deal with these issues directly.

 

[goout]

PureKathleen46:

And are you willing to be taxed for all your altruistic fantasies?

How else would we pay for it?

How do you pay for your cable and your Iphone?
?
Yes, paying for people’s needs can be painful. If taxes won’t do it, the churches will. I will, You will, although if you don’t value unborn children what’s the point? Paying for human welfare is kinda pointless if human life is cheap.
Is that sinking in?

Only Republicans want abortion to be illegal and at the same time cut social programs.
It’s idiotic. But like I said, the GOP is not pro-life. They are pro-birth and just want the Catholic vote. It’s a trick.

Ah yes, reduce it to partisan politics.

 

[SeriousQuestion]

If science doesn’t change their minds then I don’t see what will.

 

[goout]

Sbee0:

And they would be wrong as there is absolutely no objective distinction between personhood and the human being at any stage of life.

Any arbitrary markers that one comes up with to define personhood with the goal of separating it from the unborn child is not logically or scientifically sound and therefore not valid.

I understand that is how you and many others view things. However, it isn’t “proveable” and is therefore subjective at this point in time. I only remarked because if you are truly trying to convince Pro-Choicers of the evils of abortion, that argument is a non-starter. To make an impact, you have to try a different door.

Stop me when you disagree:
At the moment of conception we have unique DNA.
An individual with unique DNA.
The DNA is human.
The unique human has the potential to live and die like everyone else.

Is this settled science for you or does some religious belief of yours trump this?

 

[Brendan_64]

At the moment of conception we have unique DNA.
An individual with unique DNA.
The DNA is human.
The unique human has the potential to live and die like everyone else.

And is a human’s right to live something that is inherent to them or is it something that is bestowed upon them (or not) by another more powerful human?

 

[Pattylt]

Oops… the Netherlands!

 

[goout]

goout:

At the moment of conception we have unique DNA.
An individual with unique DNA.
The DNA is human.
The unique human has the potential to live and die like everyone else.

And is a human’s right to live something that is inherent to them or is it something that is bestowed upon them (or not) by another more powerful human?

Right. The opposing argument to inherent human dignity is a naked appeal to power.
Doesn’t matter what sort of nice language is cloaked in.

There is also evident in this line of reasoning a denial of the cross. Everything Catholic should know that our Christian walk goes through the cross with Christ.
Life is difficult, and the degree of difficulty does not change the moral principles we should live by. It’s precisely by giving our best effort for every human being, even sacrificially, that we love others.

 

[QwertyGirl]

Stop me when you disagree:
At the moment of conception we have unique DNA.
An individual with unique DNA.
The DNA is human.
The unique human has the potential to live and die like everyone else.

Is this settled science for you or does some religious belief of yours trump this?

You almost caught me. I don’t debate my personal feelings about abortion here in this form. I do try to give (name removed by moderator)ut sometimes when I see someone making an argument that I know will not fly with the pro-choice crowd.

 

[SeriousQuestion]

Some pro-choice people might find that convincing.

 

[Brendan_64]

Right. The opposing argument to inherent human dignity is a naked appeal to power.
Doesn’t matter what sort of nice language is cloaked in.

When the right to whether a person lives or dies is determined by a person(s) more powerful points to a society where almost no person has an inherent right to live.

The other way to justify it is to deem the weaker human being as not actually having the status of person and therefore can be eliminated at will.