Pro choice but not Pro Abortion

  • Thread starter Thread starter thelocke
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
catharina said:
On second thought, bob, simply go ahead and applaud pong on his ph.d. That was his point.
Wasn’t it? (Vanity,. vanity and all is vanity.)
Click to expand...
Well I get to put initials behind my name also. And what I’ve found over the last 20 years is that plus seven bucks will buy you a cup of coffee at Starbucks
 
estesbob said:
Well I get to put initials behind my name also. And what I’ve found over the last 20 years is that plus seven bucks will buy you a cup of coffee at Starbucks
Click to expand...
I can remember when that line was:
that and a quarter will get you on the bus.

😛
 
The simple answer is Abortion is wrong - you cannot be pro choice without agreeing that abortion is ok,
The catholic church tells you its wrong, your own moral compass should tell you its wrong murder is murder and a childs life begins at conception whether you have abortive surgery or abortive meds you ARE killing an unborn innocent LIFE.

Some people may never understand how wrong abortion is and there is no point arguing the issue the only thing worth saying to these people is that Jesus treasures each and every life and who are they to decide that a life is not worth living.
 
CATHARINA, DUSKYJEWEL, FEANARO’S WIFE:

My sincere apologies for misreading and misappropriating the quote - long day in the medical field, my eyes were kinda blurry. I am sorry. 😊

It was duskyjewel who said, “Oh PUH-LEASE! If a woman truly desires not to get pregnant, then she should not have sex. Period.”

. . . and, "“If no one forced her to have sex, then no one is forcing her to carry a baby. She made that choice the moment she took her clothes off and got into the bed!”

Yes, I was in error in attributing the quote to Catharina. My question, now directed to duskyjewel, is the same: What is your view of rape, its consequences, its aftereffects?

I concur with lauramelissa, in her eloquent posts (#144 and #151) regarding the standard by which so many people “judge” the circumstances surrounding rape and the choices women make as a result of this trauma. Her ideas are sound, reasonable, and keep do-gooders’ hands off the uterus and conscience of the pregnant woman. Call it relativism if you need to label it. I call it compassionate.

marietta
 
juhothenero:

You tell us, “. . .there has been truth around for 2000 years and it does not need to be re-invented.”

If there is a moral absolute in the universe, and the universe is certainly older than 2000 years, what was “truth” before our visit from Christ?

So true morality has existed for only two millenia. Were the Neanderthals, the Babylonians, the Egyptians, the Mesopotamians Relativists? Are they all still suffering in stadium-seating Purgatory, waiting for their sins to be expunged?

If they did not believe as modern-day Catholics, then I would think they had a shot as a good afterlife because they would not be “judged” by the Catholic morality yardstick.

Same goes for the rest of us who do not believe as modern-day Catholics. So why beat folks up for not believing as you do? Are you not here to simply do God’s* work *and not His job?

marietta

marietta
 
marietta said:
CATHARINA, DUSKYJEWEL, FEANARO’S WIFE:

My sincere apologies for misreading and misappropriating the quote - long day in the medical field, my eyes were kinda blurry. I am sorry. 😊

It was duskyjewel who said, “Oh PUH-LEASE! If a woman truly desires not to get pregnant, then she should not have sex. Period.”

. . . and, "“If no one forced her to have sex, then no one is forcing her to carry a baby. She made that choice the moment she took her clothes off and got into the bed!”

Yes, I was in error in attributing the quote to Catharina. My question, now directed to duskyjewel, is the same: What is your view of rape, its consequences, its aftereffects?

I concur with lauramelissa, in her eloquent posts (#144 and #151) regarding the standard by which so many people “judge” the circumstances surrounding rape and the choices women make as a result of this trauma. Her ideas are sound, reasonable, and keep do-gooders’ hands off the uterus and conscience of the pregnant woman. Call it relativism if you need to label it. I call it compassionate.

marietta
Click to expand...
Yes - I’ll call it relativism. Of all the women who were served in my two yrs of directing the pro-life program I mentioned, a number had already had abortions in their past; one had had four abortions. Abortion adds no compassion or support to the life of any pregnant woman. Instead it allows her to manifest some personal “power” in a situation (pregnancy) that has left her feeling rather powerless. As a “cure” for the emotional upset that often comes along with an unplanned pregnancy, it offers nothing other than the real possibiity of much more emotional scarring and a physical aftermath that is never predictable.

Were others to say (as they should), “I’ll help you through this pregnancy, I’ll help plan for this baby whether you choose to keep it or not,” then one can speak of compassionate support. If others say “Let’s get rid of this problem” then the problem becomes a matter of relativism since the “problem” is another human being’s very existence.
 
Pong said:
This is incorrect. The Church does not allow for abortion under ANY CIRCUMSTANCE.
Click to expand...
Yes, and I believe when a mother has an ectopic pregnancy, the unborn baby must be removed from Fillopian tube, which will be an action to safeguard the mother’s life with no intent to kill the baby, who is still given the chance to live. However, the baby would (or may) not survive. despite the fact it was not intentionally killed.
(oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Abortion)
A wide interpretation of the term, I know. I apologize for its usage, but the baby still dies in the end:(
This flies in the face of what the Church has to say about the unitive aspect of the marital embrace.
Click to expand...
No…it doesn’t…
The marital embrace is supposed to be open to life. Things such as abortions and contraception prevent life, so therefore your “opinion” on abortion is further proved wrong by the Church’s teachings.
Maybe because I’m the only one that noticed?
Click to expand...
Maybe because I misused a term, or rather skipped a step in the overall operation.
Yes, it would seem that I do. It would also seem that you are a very young person, perhaps not yet out of high school since you referenced an AP biology class. For future reference, if one wants to cite an academic textbook as a reference for some fact, one must properly cite the book itself, not make a vague reference to “an AP biology book.” (Just one of those little things I picked up along the way to my Ph.D)
Click to expand...
I’m 19, I suppose that’s very young. But its obviously old enough to know more about the faith than you, miss Ph.D.
I did not reference my textbook because I did not have it around at that moment. Though I can go upstairs and rummage through my closet and find it. (I took the AP course about 2 years ago, which is pretty early.)
My point was that I never attempted to pass my beliefs off as Catholic doctrine; you’ve interjected a seperate point which would properly be called a “red herring.”
Click to expand...
Who cares?
You’ve never used doctrine because you CAN’T use doctrine! So not only are we backed by science, we’re backed by the Infallible Church, which you reject!
Its not a seperate issue, since you’re acting as if you’re restraining yourself by not citing Church teachings, but you’re only refraining from doing so because it would be impossible to justify your claims at the same time!
You’re wasting your keystrokes, although I will say that these “salvation tirades” as I’ve taken to calling them are providing some laughs for my fellow academics.
Click to expand...
Its my moral obligation to inform you of your mistakes, so that I am not be held responsible for the fate of your immortal soul.
You’re a troll, obviously. You come on here pretending to be a Catholic, yet you deny the key beliefs that define one as a Catholic. (Papal, and Church infallibility, etc)
 
marietta said:
juhothenero:

You tell us, “. . .there has been truth around for 2000 years and it does not need to be re-invented.”

If there is a moral absolute in the universe, and the universe is certainly older than 2000 years, what was “truth” before our visit from Christ?

So true morality has existed for only two millenia. Were the Neanderthals, the Babylonians, the Egyptians, the Mesopotamians Relativists? Are they all still suffering in stadium-seating Purgatory, waiting for their sins to be expunged?

If they did not believe as modern-day Catholics, then I would think they had a shot as a good afterlife because they would not be “judged” by the Catholic morality yardstick.

Same goes for the rest of us who do not believe as modern-day Catholics. So why beat folks up for not believing as you do? Are you not here to simply do God’s* work *and not His job?

marietta

marietta
Click to expand...
Fascinating twist of reality: Christ came to visit us?

No. He came to dwell among us. He has not left us orphans. The Holy Spirit enlightens us and dwells in our midst - within our very beings. I don’t know your age but I’ll guess you’re under 40. There was a day in my living memory when abortion was outlawed around the Western world. It was that way for generations. It was COMMON MORALITY.

It is a newer and better law and Christ Himself told us about the New Covenant. That modern humanity has chosen to set aside the truth about when human life begins only proves that modern folks are guided by the principle of convenient, expedient relativism. There is no natural or supernatural support for such thinking. It is based in a lie. As I’ve said, in China, the nation - even the neighborhood - decides if a pregancy is welcome. Shall we go there in our thinking?

Forget the Babylonians unless you are one.
 
Belagarion:

You offer us this: " . . .the infallible Church has spoken. It decides when abortions are necessary, and its only when the mother and child are threatened. (OR even just the mother, I believe)"

Not only does this not sound infallible, it sounds half-baked. Do *you * believe abortion could be a necessity only when the mother and child are threatened? Or do you believe that abortion might be a necessity when just the mother’s life may be threated?

I’m not asking for what the “infallible Church” has handed down. I’m asking what you think.

Thank you.

marietta
 
Catharina:

Visit, dwell among, perch, have a chair, whatever. If you can’t understand the premise there’s no use trying to communicate with you.

I believe you can understand and that you got your feathers ruffled by a word choice when the big picture continues to loom. The way I understand you, the Holy Spirit actually dwells only within those who adhere strictly and inbendingly to Catholicism. That makes the rest of us orphans, no?

I remember when abortion was outlawed in the United States, as I am fifty-six years old. Do not discount my experience or attempt to belabor the view that I am not familiar with pre-Roe and post-Roe.

The earliest mention of the city of Babylon can be found in a tablet from the reign of Sargon of Akkad, dating back to the 23rd century BC. That’s a whole lotta non-Catholics sweating Purgatory. Or did they get a pass because the New Covenant wasn’t to be persented to the world for another 22,000 years?

Forget the Chinese - unless you are one.

marietta
 
The earliest mention of the city of Babylon can be found in a tablet from the reign of Sargon of Akkad, dating back to the 23rd century BC. That’s a whole lotta non-Catholics sweating Purgatory. Or did they get a pass because the New Covenant wasn’t to be persented to the world for another 22,000 years?
Click to expand...
marietta,

Do you even know what Purgatory is? I’m sure many Catholics will be going to Purgatory as well… Purgatory is a good thing, because it means that you are on your way to Heaven! And you will be in Heaven. It is a purification process so that we can be perfect for Heaven.
 
ummm… are some of you forgetting that the right to life supersedes the right to comfort? Is comfort a right? It is certainly a sought after state of being but it is NOT a right.

As far as abortion for rape goes… that is saying that because a woman is raped, she can kill an innocent person. Killing an innocent child is wrong no matter the parentage. Studies show that women who have become pregnant as a result of rape and carry their child to term end up healing emotionally from the rape much better than those who have abortions.

I am not saying rape isn’t wrong… it is… but what gives the victim of rape the right to kill another innocent victim? That would be like saying if someone steals from you it is OK to rob a bank…

It really isn’t about the mother in the case of abortion, it is about the child that she carries isn’t it? As far as I am concerned, and I have stated it before… the mother makes the choice when she has sex… after that if she is pregnant, the focus becomes the child’s right to life.
 
marietta said:
CATHARINA, DUSKYJEWEL, FEANARO’S WIFE:

My sincere apologies for misreading and misappropriating the quote - long day in the medical field, my eyes were kinda blurry. I am sorry. 😊

It was duskyjewel who said, “Oh PUH-LEASE! If a woman truly desires not to get pregnant, then she should not have sex. Period.”

. . . and, "“If no one forced her to have sex, then no one is forcing her to carry a baby. She made that choice the moment she took her clothes off and got into the bed!”

Yes, I was in error in attributing the quote to Catharina. My question, now directed to duskyjewel, is the same: What is your view of rape, its consequences, its aftereffects?

I concur with lauramelissa, in her eloquent posts (#144 and #151) regarding the standard by which so many people “judge” the circumstances surrounding rape and the choices women make as a result of this trauma. Her ideas are sound, reasonable, and keep do-gooders’ hands off the uterus and conscience of the pregnant woman. Call it relativism if you need to label it. I call it compassionate.

marietta
Click to expand...
As my quotes above clearly show, I said “no one forced” and “she made that choice.” How does rape come into it, since with the words I used, I clearly was not talking about that circumstance?

Or are you some feminist who thinks all sex is rape even when the woman chooses it?

What do I think about rape, its effects, and the choices women make afterward? Rape is a heinous crime and rapists should be thrown in prison to rot for a long time. Most likely, they will find out what it is like to be raped while in prison, though that is not something I think should happen either. I don’t condone it, but it is a fact of life in many prisons. Obviously rape is traumatic, sometimes to the point of the victim being unable to function in her life. She needs compassionate counseling to get her through the emotional damage and trauma so that she can return to functioning in her life and even grow to be healthy again one day. What she does not need, in the rare chance she falls pregnant, is someone telling her that murder is the solution to her problems. A child should not get the death penalty for the crime of its biological father. Carrying a pregnancy in those circumstances would likely be extremely painful and desperate. I can’t imagine feeling a baby grow inside me with whom I am not totally in love from the first moment. But would murdering that innocent soul cause its mother more or fewer problems?

Thankfully, this rape argument is usually a red herring thrown out by the pro-choice side. Rape from pregnancy is extremely rare, and with the advent of emergency contraception, as long as the victim goes to the hospital in timely fashion, she can usually prevent pregnancy from occuring. And before anyone goes ballistic on me, I have been assured by a very educated, orthodox, and compassionate theologian/apologist I trust that it is perfectly morally acceptable for rape victims to use emergency contraception.

Here is a thread I put up about it: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=232386&highlight=emergency+contraception
 
marietta said:
Catharina:

Visit, dwell among, perch, have a chair, whatever. If you can’t understand the premise there’s no use trying to communicate with you.

I believe you can understand and that you got your feathers ruffled by a word choice when the big picture continues to loom. The way I understand you, the Holy Spirit actually dwells only within those who adhere strictly and inbendingly to Catholicism. That makes the rest of us orphans, no?

You’re an orphan if you choose to be one. YOUR CHOICE.

I remember when abortion was outlawed in the United States, as I am fifty-six years old. Do not discount my experience or attempt to belabor the view that I am not familiar with pre-Roe and post-Roe.

Hard to believe it but your maturity didn’t bring wisdom.

The earliest mention of the city of Babylon can be found in a tablet from the reign of Sargon of Akkad, dating back to the 23rd century BC. That’s a whole lotta non-Catholics sweating Purgatory. Or did they get a pass because the New Covenant wasn’t to be persented to the world for another 22,000 years?

**You might get something out of studying Theology (especially, the aspect of Church Teachings) but maybe not. I learned the answer to your Babylonian puzzle in 1950 when I was in first grade. **

Forget the Chinese - unless you are one.

Excuse me while I send word to Chicago to have my oldest grand-nephews killed. Poor dears. They’re half-Chinese. **Oh well - they’re OUT of my family. Marietta says so. **

marietta
Click to expand...
I agree. There’s no point in attempting to communicate with you.
At your age, what could possibly be your excuse?
I’ll pray for you.
 
BlestOne said:
ummm… are some of you forgetting that the right to life supersedes the right to comfort? Is comfort a right? It is certainly a sought after state of being but it is NOT a right.

As far as abortion for rape goes… that is saying that because a woman is raped, she can kill an innocent person. Killing an innocent child is wrong no matter the parentage. Studies show that women who have become pregnant as a result of rape and carry their child to term end up healing emotionally from the rape much better than those who have abortions.

I am not saying rape isn’t wrong… it is… but what gives the victim of rape the right to kill another innocent victim? That would be like saying if someone steals from you it is OK to rob a bank…

It really isn’t about the mother in the case of abortion, it is about the child that she carries isn’t it? As far as I am concerned, and I have stated it before… the mother makes the choice when she has sex… after that if she is pregnant, the focus becomes the child’s right to life.
Click to expand...
Great post, BlestOne.
 
marietta said:
CATHARINA, DUSKYJEWEL, FEANARO’S WIFE:

My sincere apologies for misreading and misappropriating the quote - long day in the medical field, my eyes were kinda blurry. I am sorry. 😊

It was duskyjewel who said, “Oh PUH-LEASE! If a woman truly desires not to get pregnant, then she should not have sex. Period.”

. . . and, "“If no one forced her to have sex, then no one is forcing her to carry a baby. She made that choice the moment she took her clothes off and got into the bed!”

Yes, I was in error in attributing the quote to Catharina. My question, now directed to duskyjewel, is the same: What is your view of rape, its consequences, its aftereffects?

I concur with lauramelissa, in her eloquent posts (#144 and #151) regarding the standard by which so many people “judge” the circumstances surrounding rape and the choices women make as a result of this trauma. Her ideas are sound, reasonable, and keep do-gooders’ hands off the uterus and conscience of the pregnant woman. Call it relativism if you need to label it. I call it compassionate.

marietta
Click to expand...
Abortions due to rape and incest account for less than 400 abortions a year. So lets put those aside and talk about the other 1,199,600 abortions. Ill keep my hands off your uterus and you keep you sharp instruments off the child. Deal?
 
thelocke said:
Is it wrong that I believe woman should have the choice to have an abortion even though I would never EVER choose let my girlfriend (for example) get one.

As an American I love this country for it being free of choice. Not everyone in this country is a Christian.

I would never ask for someone to get an abortion (if it came to it, I would even take care of the baby my self), but I still want other people to have that choice.

Any opinion on this?
Click to expand...
I would like to see a time when there are no abortions performed because all babies are wanted and healthy. Unfortunately, today not all babies are healthy or wanted.

So that leaves a quandry. Do you immediately outlaw abortion and hope that the lack of legal medical intervention changes society views so that fewer people are having unwanted pregnancies or do you keep abortion legal for the time being and work on other methods to reduce unwanted pregnancies through better sex education, birth control methods, etc until there are no unwanted pregnancies at which time you can revisit outlawing abortion because it’s ‘need’ isn’t as strong. Same with healthy babies. Do you outlaw abortions and hope/pray that all babies are healthy and if an unhealthy baby is born start, at that moment, the process of deciding for natural death or intervention, or do you keep abortion legal until such a time that the scientific community has come up with ‘fixes’ to ‘problems’ such as the Trich-18 genetic malformation (I don’t think I spelled that exactly right). Note: I’m usuing generic terms for ‘fixes’ and ‘problems’ because I realize that this is a touchy subject, especially for parents with children whom society considers not normal. But who’s to say what’s normal?! Just using this topic for discussion.

This is the problem I have. Do I want abortions? No. But does making abortion immediately illegal have the long-term affect of reducing abortions over the alternative of keeping abortion legal for a little longer to allow for changes in society. I don’t know. And that’s what I struggle with.
 
takers said:
I would like to see a time when there are no abortions performed because all babies are wanted and healthy. Unfortunately, today not all babies are healthy or wanted.

Give a call to Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny. This “wish” will never come true.
(In the meantime, kill the unwanted and unhealthy? Novel approach.)

So that leaves a quandry. Do you immediately outlaw abortion and hope that the lack of legal medical intervention changes society views so that fewer people are having unwanted pregnancies or do you keep abortion legal for the time being and work on other methods to reduce unwanted pregnancies through better sex education, birth control methods, etc until there are no unwanted pregnancies at which time you can revisit outlawing abortion because it’s ‘need’ isn’t as strong. Same with healthy babies. Do you outlaw abortions and hope/pray that all babies are healthy and if an unhealthy baby is born start, at that moment, the process of deciding for natural death or intervention, or do you keep abortion legal until such a time that the scientific community has come up with ‘fixes’ to ‘problems’ such as the Trich-18 genetic malformation (I don’t think I spelled that exactly right). Note: I’m usuing generic terms for ‘fixes’ and ‘problems’ because I realize that this is a touchy subject, especially for parents with children whom society considers not normal. But who’s to say what’s normal?! Just using this topic for discussion.

This is the problem I have. Do I want abortions? No. But does making abortion immediately illegal have the long-term affect of reducing abortions over the alternative of keeping abortion legal for a little longer to allow for changes in society. I don’t know. And that’s what I struggle with.
Click to expand...
Outlawing abortion leads to many fewer abortions - as it was pre-RvsW.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top