Pro-choice Catholics

[Toomey1979]

There are severe and fatal risks in a great many medical treatments.

If your understanding of the gift of infallibity is as impaired as your understanding of the Church’s position on Life then all that means is that you have more valuable learning opportunities ahead.

No, Toomey. Pregnancy is a natural function of sexual relations. If interrupting this natural state requires that an innocent life be taken, then it is wrong to interrupt it.

Besides, pregnancy only lasts 9 months. If a person cannot refrain from committing murder for that short period of time, they probably need mental health treatment in addition to spiritual counseling.

No, because abortion is not a treatment, and does not save anyone.

no woman needs to seek an abortion to save her own life. Abortion is not a medical treatment. It is the forcible removal of the fetus from the wome TO TERMINATE THE PREGNANCY, not to treat a medical problem.

Like I said before, even if it were certain that a woman and her child would die and certain that abortion would save her it wouldn’t matter to you. So arguing circumstances with you is pointless.

 

[lil_flower_luv]

But not all of the time. I don’t understand how you can trumpet being pro-life and demand someone take such a chance with their own. Like it isn’t hard enough for those people without you labeling them murderers. And lets face it. Even if was 100% certain that continuing would kill both woman and child and 100% chance that abortion would save the woman you would still oppose it. Because, for people like you, this aint about life, its about religious obedience.

Abortion is, was, and shall always be the Devil’s business - period.

Once again, your message rings meaningless because abortion is NEVER good for women. I can talk all day about women’s rights with you. And those who are truly advocators for women’s rights are on my side.

 

[JimG]

I just thought it was interesting to note that the views about the beginning of life rest entirely on very recent papal pronouncements. And everybody knows papal prouncements change over time

No. Views about the beginning of life rest on the facts of embryology. It is undeniable that a new individual human being, genetically distinct from both parents, has its beginning at conception.

 

[PRmerger]

Madame, you just said that you would continue to protest abortions even if they were only to save a woman’s life. You care only for your religious ideas. Not those women. Women don’t need your kind of care

Pro-aborts are right to jump on those who support abortion only to save the life of a woman, for they correctly note the inconsistency. They crow: you really don’t believe it’s a human life, then, do you, if you would advocate that it’s okay to kill a human being, ever, even to ostensibly save a woman’s life.

They would be right.

Thus, we pro-lifers are quite consistent in declaring that abortion is always, and in every case, wrong.

Otherwise, we put ourselves up for rightful accusations of inconsistency.

 

[Toomey1979]

No. Views about the beginning of life rest on the facts of embryology. It is undeniable that a new individual human being, genetically distinct from both parents, has its beginning at conception.

Yes but it is debatable that the presence of genetically distinct cells constitute a human being.

 

[PRmerger]

I just thought it was interesting to note that the views about the beginning of life rest entirely on very recent papal pronouncements. And everybody knows papal prouncements change over time

Are you not aware that our views about the beginning of life rest in writings that are thousands of years old, Toomey? They are called the Old Testament.

 

[PRmerger]

Good for you. If you get raped or are facing complication from pregnancy that will kill you I support your rigfht to choose whatever you want to do.

Are there any cases in which a pregnancy will kill you unless you abort? How would it do so?

I am aware that women can be placed on bedrest. And there are therapeutic agents that have properties that can reverse some complications of pregnancy. And then there is waiting until the baby is viable (these days around 24 weeks EGA) and inducing labor.

But I’m not aware of any cases in which doctors said you have to abort or else you die.

 

[JimG]

Yes but it is debatable that the presence of genetically distinct cells constitute a human being.

Every new individual of the human species has a beginning. That beginning is at conception; there is not any doubt to the biology. A new individual of the human species, distinct from its parents, is by definition a human being.

Do you propose that we not declare new human entities to be human beings until some later point? What? 3 months, 5 months, 9 months, 12 months? Adolescents are not yet fully developed; do we deny that they are human beings? Infants are not fully developed. Are they human beings?

What’s the cutoff point for being able to kill them? Legally, now it’s 9 months, why not 10? And doesn’t it seem a little gruesome to allow the killing of 9 month old humans, as current law does?

 

[Toomey1979]

Pro-aborts are right to jump on those who support abortion only to save the life of a woman, for they correctly note the inconsistency. They crow: you really don’t believe it’s a human life, then, do you, if you would advocate that it’s okay to kill a human being, ever, even to ostensibly save a woman’s life.

They would be right.

Thus, we pro-lifers are quite consistent in declaring that abortion is always, and in every case, wrong.

Otherwise, we put ourselves up for rightful accusations of inconsistency.

But your consistency leads to absurdity. Its kinda moot really. I’m sure that there wont be many people protesting with lil flower to end the few abortions that actually preserve life. Its just weird to interact with fanatics on both sides of the issue. You guys are no different than those partial birth abortion folks. Both of you are irrelevant.

 

[PRmerger]

Knowing that, why risk it if you you the child will be lost anyway?

Why risk it?

Because I would never shoot into a woods knowing there might be a person behind a tree.

 

[guanophore]

LOL. So even if we got rid of all abortion execpt when there is a credible thrat to a woman life you will still march up and down the street. Ironic that your crusade for life will continue to end the lives of women with troubled pregnancies. You don’t see the irony in that do you?

The taking of innocent life is not a form of treatmetn for a troubled pregnancy Toomey. This is the erroneous assumption.

There are treatments for complicated pregnancies. Murder is not among them.

But not all of the time. I don’t understand how you can trumpet being pro-life and demand someone take such a chance with their own.

Toomey, complicated pregnancies are risky. I dont’ make them risky. The conditions of the pregnancy do not come from me.

As I said, and apparently you did not read, there are a great many medical conditions that are problematic to life and treatments for them are risking.

Killing an innocent bystander is not an answer in any of them. We don’t kill organ matches to take their body parts, either.

Like it isn't hard enough for those people without you labeling them murderers.

I am sorry, Toomey, but I have not called anyone a murderer. These are your words. You seem to be thinking very emotionally and hysterically right now. People who get medical treatment for complicated pregnancies do not commit murder.

Only people that kill an innocent bystander for their own convenience could be charged with such a sin.

And lets face it. Even if was 100% certain that continuing would kill both woman and child and 100% chance that abortion would save the woman you would still oppose it. Because, for people like you, this aint about life, its about religious obedience.

What kind of “people” am I ?

You don’t realize this, since you have been sucked into the culture of death, and are not within the Catholic faith, but there isn o distinction between life and religious obedience. To be obedient to the Catholic faith is to be entirely pro life. We don’t support killing mothers, babies, or even rapists.

 

[Toomey1979]

Every new individual of the human species has a beginning. That beginning is at conception; there is not any doubt to the biology. A new individual of the human species, distinct from its parents, is by definition a human being.

Do you propose that we not declare new human entities to be human beings until some later point? What? 3 months, 5 months, 9 months, 12 months? Adolescents are not yet fully developed; do we deny that they are human beings? Infants are not fully developed. Are they human beings?

What’s the cutoff point for being able to kill them. Legally, now it’s 9 months, why not 10?

At conception there really is just a clump of cells isn’t there? Why cutoff there?

 

[PRmerger]

But your consistency leads to absurdity. Its kinda moot really. I’m sure that there wont be many people protesting with lil flower to end the few abortions that actually preserve life. Its just weird to interact with fanatics on both sides of the issue. You guys are no different than those partial birth abortion folks. Both of you are irrelevant.

What partial birth abortion folks?

Are you against partial birth abortions then? Why?

Do you think at 23 weeks 4/7 days it’s not a human beings but at, say 23 weeks 5/7 days it suddenly becomes “human”?

And when do you start calling it a child?

 

[Toomey1979]

What kind of “people” am I ?

You don’t realize this, since you have been sucked into the culture of death, and are not within the Catholic faith, but there isn o distinction between life and religious obedience. To be obedient to the Catholic faith is to be entirely pro life. We don’t support killing mothers, babies, or even rapists.

Like I said, you are obedient to the Church even if people have to die. I get it. You really don’t care whether or not abortion could save a woman. Its just hypocrtical to trumpet how pro-life you are.

 

[lil_flower_luv]

Madame, you just said that you would continue to protest abortions even if they were only to save a woman’s life. You care only for your religious ideas. Not those women. Women don’t need your kind of care

That’s a mighty hefty assumption to be making. My “religious ideas” call me to work at pregnancy centers helping women who use to think their only way out was abortion. In the end, it was never about a woman’s “right” to “choose” because they were backed into a corner and in many cases, **forced ** to have an abortion by their parents, boyfriend, etc. I know what abortion can and cannot do for women, whatever their circumstances may be–YES, EVEN IF they are ill or were raped.

You know, Catholic doctors loyal to their Faith treat a mother and her unborn child as if they are–get this–separate beings. If a mother is ill, they do their best to treat both her and her child equally (because, this may be news, the mother’s sickness can also affect her unborn child). I want what’s best for both mother and child. And I always shall.

 

[PRmerger]

I wear the badge of a liberal proudly and I believe my Lord and Savior was a liberal. Letters? To me I see letters in the Catholic faith.

Yes, Jesus was a liberal in the same way that the Church is liberal. She is socially liberal and morally conservative. Just like Jesus.

(For how could she, His Body, be any different than Him, the Head?)

 

[JimG]

At conception there really is just a clump of cells isn’t there? Why cutoff there?

Conception results in a one celled zygote, set on a course of development over a period of nine months. An embryologist would not refer to any stage of the process as a “clump of cells.” This is how we all began.

But, as I said, the cutoff point established by Roe and Doe at which we can no longer kill them is presently after 9 months–birth. Seems a little late to me. Not much different from infanticide. I’ve not heard any pro-choice lobbyist ask for an earlier cutoff point.

And as for the oft-cited cases of rape, incest, and life of the mother–if abortion were limited to only those possibilities, the abortion rate would immediately drop by 98%.

 

[Toomey1979]

What partial birth abortion folks?

Are you against partial birth abortions then? Why?

Do you think at 23 weeks 4/7 days it’s not a human beings but at, say 23 weeks 5/7 days it suddenly becomes “human”?

And when do you start calling it a child?

You are an extremist just like them. I’m glad you have an outlet for your extremism and also glad nobody in our government will touch you. You are an embarassment. With all due respect.

 

[PRmerger]

Sorry, I don’t think popes are infallible period.

Then how is it that you know that Jesus loves you? Or that your sins are forgiven?

 

[guanophore]

Madame, you just said that you would continue to protest abortions even if they were only to save a woman’s life. You care only for your religious ideas. Not those women. Women don’t need your kind of care

Toomey, taking an innocent life to save yours is never right.

Abortion does not save anyone’s life. It only terminates the life of the child.

Like I said before, even if it were certain that a woman and her child would die and certain that abortion would save her it wouldn’t matter to you. So arguing circumstances with you is pointless.

What is certain is that abortion is not a treatment of any kind. It does not address medical complications of pregnancy for a woman. The sole purpose of an abortion is to terminate the pregnacy by removing the child from the womb.

You are right about arguing circumstances. What we need to be arguing are intentions.