Pro-Choice folks, what are your reasons for supporting abortion?

[Ridgerunner]

Ridgerunner:

Once again, I will try to explain my position on choice. A woman’s reason for choosing to have a child or to terminate a pregnancy is irrelevant to me. Why must you people continue to drive home the very narrow presumption that abortions all take place because the pregnancy is “inconvenient”? I suppose you chose this tack to set up the rest of your post regarding ancient, agrarian and Native American societies and the ways they dealt with troublesome family members.

The laws of ancient Rome are moot. Abortion is currently legal in Rome. The father’s consent is not required for the termination to take place.

The rest of your post uses illustrations of people who were already born. I won’t go there; that’s not germane to my argument.

As far as the politics of abortion are concerned, you hotheads out there should just be grateful that you enjoy the freedom to decide what is right for you. Vote according to your conscience, your faith, your fear, whatever. Behold: CHOICE!

marietta

Children can certainly be inconvenient, stressful, burdensome, whatever you want to say, to fathers. In some societies, very much so. Should fathers also have the right to terminate the lives of children?

The topic asks what your reasons are for supporting abortion. So far, all you have identified is your desire to have choice whether or not to terminate a pregnancy by abortion. Is that it, or is there more?

 

[neat62]

Go back and read my posts. I gave my reason why I would support the person most likely to win that would limit the killing. Check the USCCB and see that this is the better choice of bad choices.

And that’s exactly what we are supposed to do…per many Catholic Voter guide books, they are say the same…we must, if we cannot eliminate the evil completely, do what we can to limit it as much as possible.

ewtn.com/vote/brief_catechism.htm

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

.

Even if we use a criterial of ‘unique DNA’ we run into trouble. Some fertilized zygotes are destined to become uterine cysts, complete with DNA other than the mother’s. If, 40 years later, one of these cysts become malignant is it an abortion to have it removed?

.

Ok…If the zygote is"destined to become a uterine cyst" wouldn’t it be logical that the “zygote” stopped living, and wasn’t expelled. It is totally licit to have a D and C following a miscarriage because the baby has died. A D and C following a miscarriage is not the same as abortion.
Some fertilized eggs are only destined to live a few days or a few weeks. Because they die, does not mean that they were never alive.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Can you show us where in the bill (summary above) it says anything about contraception or abortion funding? It appears to be a bill to generically keep drug prices affordable.

Someone seems to have theorized that since one of the drugs poor people and college students might buy is oral contraceptives, the bill is somehow ‘anti life’. You seem to have gone a step further and equated oral contraceptives to abortions.

The bill is actually nothing totally new, it closes a relatively new loophole that permits a certain form of price gouging and restores a forumulation supported by the Reagan administration.

Also, the president also threatened to veto the bill because he thought that the veteren spending provisions are too high.

Your description of the bill:

11/13/2007–Introduced.
Prevention Through Affordable Access Act - Amends title XIX (Medicaid) of the Social Security Act to revise requirements for the best price component of the formula for determination of the Medicaid rebate for a covered single source outpatient drug or a covered innovator multiple source outpatient drug. (Under current law, best prices shall not take into account prices that are merely nominal in amount.)

Revises the list of entities to which sales by a manufacturer of covered outpatient drugs at nominal prices shall be considered to be sales at a nominal price, or merely nominal in amount (and thus excluded from computation of the best price for such drugs).
Adds to such list any entity that is: (1) operated by a health center of an institution of higher education, primarily for its students (university-based clinic); or (2) a public or private nonprofit entity that provides family planning services under the Public Health Service Act (safety-net clinic).

So price-controlled (lowered) drugs are to be provided to “family planning services” in the same way they are provided to poor people under Medicaid. In other words, subsidies to the likes of Planned Parenthood. Your candidate is for it, and I take it by your defense of it, that you are too.

Who gets your vote this fall, SoCal?

 

[mdr]

mdr:

The POCs are sometimes living, sometimes dead, and each is inert; that is, without independent power to move or to resist an opposing force.

I am of the very simple opinion that, even if Mary Smith was carrying around a full-grown Winston Churchill in her uterus, I am neither qualified nor driven by any force to tell her what to do with Winston Churchill. It is her choice. If she wants to squat, frown and grin and then pistol-whip Winston Churchill, that is her prerogative. Hers alone. I cannot and will not make decisions for her. She is a grown woman with her own conscience. She does not need mine.

marietta

Marietta, I see that we each define “inert” differently. Perhaps I should have chosen another term. The distinction I was asking about was biological material, something that is, has been, or can be alive (alive: consumes nourishment, exchanges oxygen for CO2 or vice versa, and grows) vs. material that cannot be alive, such as talc or granite or quartz or… You get the point, I’m sure.

I truly would be interested in your answers to those questions, in addition to your elaboration upon your own opinion that abortion is entirely private and affects only the pregnant woman.

If you are “not driven by any force to tell her what to do” with, as in your example, a sentient human being, I must ask: do you support laws which forbid and penalize the destruction of nesting or gestating endangered animals? Say, spotted owls or bald eagles? I believe that it is punishable by law to destroy bald eagle eggs. Do you agree with this legal protection? It seems a sad state of affairs when a demonstrably human life may legally be destroyed but nonhuman life may not.

 

[vz71]

A fetus is incapable of constructing a thought (such as “I don’t want to be brutality [sic] murdered!”) This is a clear case of attaching adult human emotion to a source incapable of forming that emotion or thought.

Oh dear…I thought this argument had been crushed some time ago:blush:

OK, marietta, please provide proof to back up this claim, or retract it.

 

[neat62]

Oh dear…I thought this argument had been crushed some time ago:blush:

OK, marietta, please provide proof to back up this claim, or retract it.

Not only should she prove that…but also consider say…umm…those who are autistic, or mentally disabled…because many would be considered incapable of the doing the same - so should they be killed??

I have a cousin, a beautiful young girl, who suffers with Rett Syndrome, apparently she’s not worthy of living because she’s unable, as far as we know, to “construct” a thought…sigh…

Its disgusting isn’t it??

 

[vz71]

Vern Humphrey,

You should be flogged.

Vern, I think you struck a nerve.

 

[vz71]

Its disgusting isn’t it??

It is what I have come to expect from the “I worship my body” crowd.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Are you sure you are not related to Pee-Wee Herman?

your utter lack of coherence

you magically know that my intentions are not just because of a special power you are gifted with (presumably one that came to you in the form of strange and disturbing thoughts while you were watching gladiator movies)

attempting to falsely errode the credibility of others is the only way you can think of to ‘defend’ your position

you are so distracted by the lawn gnome who keeps telling you to burn things

 

[vz71]

As far as the politics of abortion are concerned, you hotheads out there should just be grateful that you enjoy the freedom to decide what is right for you. Vote according to your conscience, your faith, your fear, whatever. Behold: CHOICE!

marietta

Thye arguments being put together by marietta do not appear to be much more then bumper sticker slogans.

Surely the argument can be more coherently defended???
Can’t it?

 

[neat62]

It is what I have come to expect from the “I worship my body” crowd.

Its actually not even that…they don’t worship their bodies otherwise they would want to keep them sacred and safe…instead its simply all about “pleasing self” - do what I want without worry of consequences, no personal responsibility or accountability!

 

[Ridgerunner]

you ignore the explanations and keep repeating the falsehood.

you are either just being dishonest

is just beyond your cognitive ability.

you should slow down and try to grasp slightly more complicated concepts

your dishonesty, along with your evasiveness, is evidence that you are not acting with Christian intent.

you are not constrained by reality, reason, or truth.

your standard MO, which appears to be:

1. Nastily declare that anyone who disagrees and/or reaches a different conclussion is a false Catholic and an agent for evil
2. Use every vile tactic of character assassination and evasion to avoid answering legitimate questions about your reasoning or theology
3. Soil yourself in a fit of false moral outrage.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I’m seriously asking. For a long time the mantra was, we just need to stack the Supreme Court and we’ll overturn Roe. Now we have 5 GOP appointed Catholics on the Supreme Court and all of them just applied Roe and Casey as legal precedent (only two even did so “with comment” (Scalia and Thomas)).

They stated that Roe and Casey were precedent. They could hardly have denied it, since “precedent” simply means a decided case that has not been overruled. Actually, Roberts and Alito said nothing in the opinion themselves, as you know. They only joined in the majority ruling in favor of a ban of partial birth abortion. As you know, Kennedy is not usually a prolife judge, but did, in this one case, vote AGAINST THE DEMOCRAT APPOINTEES who voted 100% to keep partial birth abortion legal. Clinton appointee Ginsberg, of course, said the decision to ban partial birth abortion was “alarming”.

Everybody knows four of the nine justices are prolife. It only takes one more who can be counted on (which Kennedy cannot) and Roe and Casey are no longer “precedent”. Are you afraid another prolife justice will be appointed?

 

[SoCalRC]

Do you deny that you have presented the idea – and tried to back it up with twisted research – that the Church demands we vote only for perfect candidates?

Absolutely. I demonstrated that the Church holds certain moral principles to be non negotiable in voting. This is clear in the Doctrinal Note from Rome, the statement from the USCCB, and Pope Benedict XVI’s Post-synodal apostolic exhortation.

These evils should NEVER be directly supported. However, the USCCB introduces several types of compromise in its statement. This fall under the concepts of limiting the harm (EVANGELIUM VITAE) and proportional reasons (VERITATIS SPLENDOR). I have quoted these at length as well.

By “twisted” I suppose you mean ‘don’t agree with me’, but you have always turned down invitations to fit your interpretation to the text of the Church documents quoted.

The whole ‘perfect’ thing is an invention of yours, which you presumably have convnced yourself to be true by repetition. As far as I can tell, the real distinctions between our positions are:

1. You insist that candidate viability is a valid criteria for evaluation
2. You insist that compromise is the only moral choice
3. You seem to believe that actively concealing the evil being compromised on is licit

I can find no foundation in the Church or USCCB documents for these three aspects of your position. I’ve invited you to show me where, in the documents, it is spelled out, but you have repeatedly refused to do so.

And by the way, I though you were through.

You keep framing your responses in the form of questions. Since not answering questions is your MO, I feel compelled to keep answering yours (I also find it strangely funny that you will almost inevitable claim that I did not answer them at a later date). If you want the last word, don’t put it in question format.

 

[Catholic_Kat]

st lucy (and I use the term loosely):

Just a note here: most abortions in this country are performed before the 17th week of pregnancy. A fetus is incapable of constructing a thought (such as “I don’t want to be brutality [sic] murdered!”) This is a clear case of attaching adult human emotion to a source incapable of forming that emotion or thought.

There are “living” people in with mental disabilities who are incapable of constructing a thought —should we kill them as well and/or let mothers choose if they should live?

 

[SoCalRC]

Go back and read my posts. I gave my reason why I would support the person most likely to win that would limit the killing. Check the USCCB and see that this is the better choice of bad choices.

Please distinguish between what the Church teaches and what you believe.

Here is the USCCB document:

usccb.org/faithfulcitizenship/FCStatement.pdf

And here is a relevent paragraph:

1. When all candidates hold a position in favor of an intrinsic evil, the conscientious voter faces a dilemma. The voter may decide to take the extraordinary step of not voting for any candidate or, after careful deliberation, may decide to vote for the candidate deemed less likely to advance such a morally flawed position and more likely to pursue other authentic human goods.

I notice that it says “all candidates” not ‘all viable candidates’. Also, it lists two possible responses to such a situation but does not indicate that one is superior to the other.

If you can show me where in the document it indicates that a candidate who supporting upholding Roe one election cycle ago, publicly expressed misgivings about overturning it last year, and still holds that some legalized abortion “must be protected” is inarguably the “better choice” over the candidate on my ballot who is wholly inline with the Church on abortion, I’d be happy to examine and discuss those sections with you.

 

[Catholic_Kat]

Right. I say if a candidate is not Pro-Life, then they are not a candidate to even consider —EVER. As Fr. Frank Pavone says, if a candidate had a stellar resume, said they were going to cut taxes for everyone, build new schools, build new roads, restore decent gas prices, end the war in Iraq, had a history of being an excellent politician, etc., but that same candidate belonged to a terrorist organization that murdered 3,000 people would you still vote for him/her? Of course not!! You wouldn’t look past the terrorist side of the candidate. This is the very same with candidates who are pro-choice. No matter how appealing the candidate is, if they do not respect life then they do not deserve a vote. It doesn’t make you a one issue voter, it makes you a voter who understands what “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” for all humans means.

How can a candidate stand before an audience and act like he/she cares about children, making the promise to help children who are underfed and not receiving enough healthcare and then turn around and say it’s okay to murder them if you choose to do so is beyond me.

 

[marietta]

neat62:

In a 2005 study published in The Journal of the American Medical Association, researchers at the University of California at San Francisco found that, based on existing studies of how babies’ brains develop in utero, pain is unlikely to be experienced before around 29 or 30 weeks. If most abortions take place before the 17th week of gestation, it’s doubtful that a fetus can put a complete sentence together in its cluster of brain cells which tells it that its mother is “murdering” it.

Mine is not a position which needs defending, per se. My personal philosophy on this topic is that *I have no right to decide *for any woman what to do with her pregnancy. That’s all it is. Call it a bumper sticker, call it fluff, call it non-Catholic drivel, suit your small selves.

I don’t know what you mean by the “I worship my body crowd” - what is that, exactly?

Your pithy remarks about killing the autistic and mentally disabled, though thoroughly unoriginal, do not pertain to my position. I have addressed the issue of the unborn, not the already-born. My statements regarding a woman’s right to decide for herself whether or not to carry a pregnancy to term have not in any way pertained to those already born. It is my understanding that we have been talking about abortion.

Women who choose abortion know all too well the crush of accountability and personal responsibility. Your blase attitude when discussing this moral dilemma is uncalled for and juvenile.
Get a grip.

**vz71: **

If after reading my posts on this subject you cannot comprehend the very simple point I am trying to make, then you have decided not to comprehend it. I don’t ask that you agree with it. So far, out of, what, 655+ posts, **I am the only person on board defending a woman’s right to choose. ** Why are you compelled to insult me? Is simplicity just not dogmatic enough for you?

mdr:

In view of these studies which suggest that the fetus can feel no pain before 29 or 30 weeks’ gestation, do you maintain that a 17-week-old fetus is a “sentient” human being? May I ask how you support your theory? Also, I do not believe that abortion affects only the pregnant woman. If there is a present father, he may or may not be negatively affected by her decision. And I know for a fact that if she brought her experience to Catholic Answers Forum, nearly 700 people would be affected, whether it was any of their business or not.

marietta

 

[Catholic_Kat]

What I don’t understand, marietta is why we bother saving a premature baby. I had friends whose baby was born at 22 weeks —technically, this baby was “unborn.” It still had another 18 weeks in the womb until it could develop a real thought. Why did doctors bother to save it? Because though technically it should have been “unborn” it was a life, and one worth saving. Their baby is now a healthy 7 month old with no problems. It’s the same reason some mother’s spend their entire pregnancy on bedrest --trying to save the baby inside their womb. A BABY --not a worthless thing that can be expelled at a person’s choosing. I pray that you are not one of those Catholics still receiving communion with the views/opinion that you hold.