Pro Choice/Abortion “Catholics”

[LateCatholic]

I am beyond shocked at this comment… how could anyone in their right mind allow a teen to procure a serious medical procedure without notifying their parents for consent … i’m flabbergasted

I agree in principle. But I am torn about this because in some cases parents get violent, throw the child out on the street, or force her to carry the child even though it could have been sexual assault or rape. However, the main reason is that in many cases, there are no parents at all, or the parents cannot be contacted, and this restriction is nothing more than red tape used to block the procedure, rather than actually trying to do the right thing.

Also, remember that in these cases, by definition, we are dealing with young teen pregnancies. If the parents must be notified, they must also sign on to raise and support the child financially as well. If you are going to force a person to maintain a pregnancy against her will, you better be willing to commit to it yourself. If they refuse to sign, they void their decision rights.

I am open to some type of legislation as long as it addresses the above issues.

 

[LateCatholic]

I agree. I was just saying that the term “pro choice” is misleading when many on the pro abortion side of the argument are very hostile to a “choice” that they don’t like

Pro-choice is not pro-abortion. Yes, there are people who believe that having an abortion is the right decision, such as when a mother has no financial support or cannot afford it.

But this is why I get so angry when conservatives claim to be pro-life. How can you be pro-life when you take away health care for pregnant women and their babies? Or separate mothers from babies at the border? How can you be against birth control when that is the best, healthiest, and cheapest way (by far) to prevent unwanted pregnancies? How can you be pro-life when you allow businesses to fire women who decide to keep their babies? How can you be pro-life when you want to take away welfare, public education, and food programs for the poor?

 

[Convert3]

. How can you be pro-life when you take away health care for pregnant women and their babies? Or separate mothers from babies at the border? How can you be against birth control when that is the best, healthiest, and cheapest way (by far) to prevent unwanted pregnancies? How can you be pro-life when you allow businesses to fire women who decide to keep their babies? How can you be pro-life when you want to take away welfare, public education, and food programs for the poor?

Perhaps you should research facts instead of just listening to liberal talking points. None of these are accurate. The only item with any basis might be birth control, where Catholic teaching is against its use and Catholic organizations don’t want to pay for it in it’s health insurance.

 

[Loud-living-dogma]

You conflate so many different issues here. We’re talking about whether moms have the right to terminate their unborn children. Federal government benefits and policy considerations are a separate issue.

 

[Annie]

I am still trying to find out where Republicans are trying to eliminate Medicare and welfare.

I admit that they may be trying to do things like shift the responsibility to the states (subsidiarity–a Catholic principle!), or do something about the ever-spiraling (upwards!) costs, but eliminate them?

Maybe you can show me evidence of those Republicans.

Try applying some of your arguments to chattel slavery.

I can’t get rid of my slave because my parents would throw me out of the house! Or the government would throw me in jail.

Without my slaves, I would lose my livelihood.

Slavery should be a choice: those who want to have slaves should be allowed to have them, but those who are against slavery shouldn’t impose their religion on those who want to have slaves.

ETA: Slavery should be a person’s choice. Just because I think people should be able to chose to own slaves doesn’t mean I am for slavery.

 

[Annie]

Maybe “pro-choice” people are hypocrite because the think that one person has the right to take away a lifetime of choices for another person.

 

[goout]

goout:

Right. Because it’s ok to kill innocent civilians in wars, and it’s ok for police to kill innocent people on the street.
It’s their choice and we shouldn’t make that choice for them, right?

Your logic is full of holes.

I wasn’t making a case for either side. I was just stating that what pro-choice people find wrong with pro-life people is that the pro-life people would like to make the choice for pro-choice people.

Faulty logic. Societies make choices like this literally all the time. If you are allowing someone the choice to kill a child, you can’t then object to lynching, killing women for adultery, or dumping carcinogens into the neighbors pond. You are infringing on choice.

You can see the silliness of this argument.

the pro-choice people I know don’t care what pro-life people choose for themselves.

Nonsense. The very argument here is about what we will choose and allow as a society.

 

[Annie]

How can you be against birth control when that is the best, healthiest, and cheapest way (by far) to prevent unwanted pregnancies?

The “best, healthiest, and cheapest way (by far) to prevent unwanted pregnancies” is to not have sex.

People who don’t have sex don’t get pregnant.

People who don’t have sex don’t get STDs.

ABC seems to be incredibly expensive. Not having sex costs nothing.

 

[goout]

Sbee0:

I agree. I was just saying that the term “pro choice” is misleading when many on the pro abortion side of the argument are very hostile to a “choice” that they don’t like

Pro-choice is not pro-abortion. Yes, there are people who believe that having an abortion is the right decision, such as when a mother has no financial support or cannot afford it.

Likewise,
Pro choice is not pro genocide. Pro choice is not pro lynching. Pro choice is not pro child slavery.
Yes there are people who believe killing inferior human beings is the right decision. Because “we can’t afford them we don’t want them they are a burden.”
Yes there are people who believe lynching inferior races is the right decision.
Yes there are people who believe child slavery is the right decision.

You think they should have that “pro-choice”, evidently.

 

[Sbee0]

Sbee0:

I agree. I was just saying that the term “pro choice” is misleading when many on the pro abortion side of the argument are very hostile to a “choice” that they don’t like

Pro-choice is not pro-abortion. Yes, there are people who believe that having an abortion is the right decision, such as when a mother has no financial support or cannot afford it.

But this is why I get so angry when conservatives claim to be pro-life. How can you be pro-life when you take away health care for pregnant women and their babies? Or separate mothers from babies at the border? How can you be against birth control when that is the best, healthiest, and cheapest way (by far) to prevent unwanted pregnancies? How can you be pro-life when you allow businesses to fire women who decide to keep their babies? How can you be pro-life when you want to take away welfare, public education, and food programs for the poor?

As stated before, many on the left side of the political spectrum make the mistake of assuming that R’s or anyone who opposes big government (and the inevitable higher taxes) running things and being intrusive in the day to day lives of its citizens automatically means opposition to charity and the things every decent person cares about. That is a Left-wing Democrat talking point with no basis in reality.

Being genuinely pro choice means you may disagree with those who do not support abortion but you respect the fact that they have the right to disagree, i.e. they chose differently than you. Unfortunately many of those on your side of the issue (not saying you, just in general) are extremely hostile to those who disagree. They are not pro choice, they are pro abortion rights and anti-pro-lifers. Like I said… I’ve seen it. So I know exactly what I’m talking about.

Being pro abortion rights is also completely incompatible with Catholic teaching.

 

[Sbee0]

Honestly you can look at things entirely through a secular lens and it’s still easy to see where the whole “it’s my body” argument falls down.

It’s a proven scientific fact that life begins at conception. Thus the unborn child is a unique and different human entity, completely different DNA, etc. Any argument that the unborn child is just a “clump of cells” is not just disingenuous it is actually wrong. A clump of cells shares the same DNA as its host and doesn’t have the inherent capability to make themselves grow into each stage of human development.

Once you understand that an unborn child is a human being, there cannot possibly be any moral justification for abortion.

 

[goout]

Honestly you can look at things entirely through a secular lens and it’s still easy to see where the whole “it’s my body” argument falls down.

It’s a proven scientific fact that life begins at conception. Thus the unborn child is a unique and different human entity, completely different DNA, etc. Any argument that the unborn child is just a “clump of cells” is not just disingenuous it is actually wrong. A clump of cells shares the same DNA as its host and doesn’t have the inherent capability to make themselves grow into each stage of human development.

Once you understand that an unborn child is a human being, there cannot possibly be any moral justification for abortion.

Yes. And the root of the problem is the loss of solid thinking. If a person can’t look at an individual, and make the connection with it’s universals…right?

I see humanity, and I can connect it to the universals of humanity. If I can’t make these thoughtful connections, then my thinking is stunted.

 

[Sbee0]

On the one hand, I am willing to amend my statement as I did later in the discussion.

On the other hand, in order to have clear discussions about issues in their general sense, it is sometimes necessary to simply state baldly what one wants to say, without hedging the matter for fear of its being read by an emotionally vulnerable person. Perhaps those who are likely to be so affected should care for themselves by avoiding such topics.

Inisfallen was making one point, and I wanted to counter that point. During the course of our discussion, I have learned a better way to put that point, one which acknowledges that 1% of those who seek abortion did not agree to have sex.

Given that only 1/2 of those women impregnated by rape seek an abortion, I think it is possible to help those women who are impregnated through rape to deal with the situation in ways other than condemning the unborn baby to death.

Thus, this aspect of the abortion issue is a numerically small aspect which has other solutions, such as support through the terrible mess this event makes of her life.

There is a parallel between a rape victim being pregnant and a sailor finding a stowaway. Is it justified that a sailor throws the stowaway overboard because it’s “unfair” they were put in this position? There is a moral obligation in play here to take care of him/her.

Like I said, let’s support the rape victim rather than executing the unborn child who didn’t commit any crime. Adoption is always an option as well.

 

[TheLittleLady]

I can’t get rid of my slave because my parents would throw me out of the house! Or the government would throw me in jail.

The abortion to slavery rhetoric can work when one is disucssing the dignity of the human person.

It breaks down, collapses with your above arguments.

There was never a time in US history when people were jailed for freeing their slaves. The idea of a young person being thrown out of a house for getting rid of a slave is simply something from maybe a badly written novel.

If you want to use the slavery parallel, I would suggest a study of John Qunicy Adams’ in this book Arguing about Slavery: John Quincy Adams and the Great Battle in the United States Congress: Miller, William Lee: 9780679768449: Amazon.com: Books

I also did an in depth study of the Southern Slave Codes years ago (for me, to draw an analogy I have to make sure it actually applies and follows logic). That meant digging through many sources to understand the laws that were put in place in the Southern US to protect the lives of slaves. A recent book has gathered many of these sources!

Amazon.com

 

[QwertyGirl]

Nonsense. The very argument here is about what we will choose and allow as a society.

Yes. And for the most part, we have chosen a woman’s right to choose.

 

[Pug]

There is a parallel between a rape victim being pregnant and a sailor finding a stowaway. Is it justified that a sailor throws the stowaway overboard because it’s “unfair” they were put in this position?

Sbee0, I’ve never heard this one before. If it should happen that you read about it somewhere, I’d love the reference so I could read up more on this line of reasoning and how to employ it. If it is your own contribution to the internet, well, that is super too!

 

[Jimbo]

Amen. Honestly, I think both parties are horrible, and fractious. They pick key points and use them to wedge the electorate apart.

I can’t vote Republican for many reasons.
I can’t vote Democrat primarily because they have become the party of abortion; wanting even to eliminate the fig leaf of the Hyde amendment.

I’m not probably closest to the American Solidarity party.

 

[Jimbo]

The biggest problem I have with your argument is that it takes a human being and denies them personhood and the rights therein.

It doesn’t matter how the person became a person. They are a person nonetheless.

So, while I agree we should give more aid to mothers and provide more help to the poor, I will full stop disagree that we should allow, legally, the right of one person to kill another person.

Suppose that the Democrats still held all the things in your original post that they did, (healthcare, pre school, etc.) but at the end they said ‘Oh yeah, and we think complete segregation of blacks and whites is a positive good’. Would you still vote for them because you don’t like Republicans? Or would you say ‘Whoa! That’s completely evil, dehumanizing someone because of their race!’.

I suspect, given the compassion you seem to have, that you would never vote for such a party.

It is no different for those persons still in the womb.

They are biologically human.
They are alive.
They are human.
They are persons.

They don’t have rights because the Congress or the Supreme Court says they do, they have rights because all human beings have rights.

 

[Annie]

Yes, carelessly written–i was trying to equate a pregnant daughter’s being thrown out of the house with a manumitting ex-slave-holder’s being thrown in jail…

However, it is my understanding that it was indeed illegal, at least in Virginia, for a slaveholder to free his slaves.

 

[Annie]

I don’t think stowaways are a good analogy, since they usually get themselves on the boat, but suppose the stowaway was a baby? And suppose the boat was a house?

i make these changes since it is not the baby’s fault he is wherever he is found, and because on a boat, a person could reply that it would be all right to kill the stowawy if there was not enough food and water for two.