Pro-choice Catholics

[Iowa_Mike]

On the contrary, I have made reading your posts a daily practice.

How else will I keep from missing that sensitivity you claim?

The thrust of your question had nothing to do with the reproductive freedoms of women - consent over what happens to her own body.

Maybe the abuse of women in fundamentalist Muslim communities…but it is a stretch.

I think you have not been able to catch up on the thread, Mike. It is a very fast moving thread. She has made it clear that the law does not recognize the rights of people until they are born, and that she does not support the taking of life after it comes out of the womb.

My, my. A little touchy, arent we? If you don’t want anyone else to read or respond, it might be better to send her a PM.

LOL really…I didn’t say one word about woman’s reproductive rights and her positions on life are crystal clear. The context of my question is also crystal clear and your inability to understand it speaks volumes. The question I posed went to where she draws the line on life…perhaps I can draw you a picture…with soft colors if that would help.

Touchy, I’m not touchy but I’m not interested in your interpretation of someone else’s posts either…I like to get it direct, from the horses mouth so to speak. From what I’ve read she’s pretty articulate. Inserting yourself the way you have is a little like having your mother-in-law along for the honeymoon; unnecessary, annoying and unwelcome.

God Bless,

Iowa Mike

 

[guanophore]

LOL really…I didn’t say one word about woman’s reproductive rights and her positions on life are crystal clear.

I know. And yet, those are the basis of her dissent.

She does not support the commission of crimes, or at least those activities deemed as crimes in our society.
Iowa Mike:

The context of my question is also crystal clear and your inability to understand it speaks volumes. The question I posed went to where she draws the line on life…perhaps I can draw you a picture…with soft colors if that would help.

I think she has been equally clear that she does not afford the contents of the womb a person for legal purposes until it exits the womb. It seems clear that she draws the “line on life” with the woman’s right over her own body.
Iowa Mike:

Touchy, I’m not touchy but I’m not interested in your interpretation of someone else’s posts either…I like to get it direct, from the horses mouth so to speak.

You seem to be doing quite a bit of reading and responding for a disinterested person.
Iowa Mike:

From what I’ve read she’s pretty articulate. Inserting yourself the way you have is a little like having your mother-in-law along for the honeymoon; unnecessary, annoying and unwelcome.

Well thanks Mike! that is the nicest thing anyone has said to me all day! That must be an example of the sensitivity you were talking about, isnt’ it?

 

[Iowa_Mike]

Originally Posted by Rence
I didn’t miss your point. I answered your question directly. It’s just not the answer you wanted me to write. So you asked again, and I’ll answer again: Murdering a bank teller for money is illegal. Choosing an abortion, especially after one has been raped, or when their life is in danger, is not.

I sent an earlier post asking you a question about the above statement. Strangely I received an answer from Guanophore who spoke on your behalf. But she didn’t understand the question so I want to reask it and get an answer from you.

In your statement above the law is the differentiator you use; aborting a baby is legal and shooting a bank teller for money is illegal. Your OK with the abortion and not OK with the shooting of the bank teller. I’m tryingto figure out where you would draw the line on other death laws e.g. mercy killing or euthanasia. If euthanizing people over 70 became the law of the land, would you be OK with that? Would you agree with a mercy killing law covering (including children) people with a terminal diseases? Where would you draw the line or would you?

God Bless,

Iowa Mike