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

[neat62]

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.**

And your attitude is disgusting, frightening and completely backwards. But is certainly not original…I’ve heard all the excuses from those who would choose to murder the most vulnerable among us. Simple fact is who choose to support absolute evil and nothing I say can change your mind…as you have willingling given in to the “its all about me” attitude so prevelant in society today.

Talk about needing to get a grip…solution is simple you know…don’t want to risk getting pregnant…don’t have sex…but of course that’s expecting to much of women today right? We are supposed to believe and perpetuate the myth that we are all nothing but weak minded fools, incapble of controlling ourselves…

 

[Catholic_Kat]

One other thing…
I had a priest point out one time this:

Throughout the history of science and medicine, theories have been presented, proven, and then disproven. Again and again science and medicine tell us one thing (i.e. a baby in the womb can’t feel/think until he is x-number of weeks along), only to be proven wrong in the next study, year, decade. When it comes to determining when a life begins, we must be 100% certain we are right before we decide it is not a life —one hundred percent. Because if we are wrong, we have violated God’s commandment to NOT kill. This is something that is very clear —Thou shall not kill.

When life begins is something science and medicine will never be able to prove —but if we let someone kill a fetus because we THINK it might not be fully human and we are wrong —what a price we have paid for being wrong.

 

[marietta]

Catholic Kat:

The 22-week-old preemie was saved because the mother and perhaps the father chose to move forward with medical measures, likely at the behest of the medical team present at the birth. The baby was no longer in utero. For better or worse it was born, independent of the placenta, with some functioning organs. Did your friends have medical insurance? Let’s say they did. A 22-week-old premature baby born to a woman with no insurance may have had a decidedly different outcome than the child of your friends.

Some mothers spend their entire pregnancy on bedrest because they choose to. This doesn’t mean they want to, or they enjoy being bedridden day after day, week after week. They have somewhere along the line decided they are ready to have this child come into their lives and they choose to stay in bed to champion their cause.

And if I were receiving Communion every Sunday, just how would the repercussions of that act trickle down into your world? What on earth difference would that make to anyone but God?

marietta

 

[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.

QUOTE]

The bill itself doesn’t. As you know, it re-inserts language into the law regarding sales of drugs to governmental entities; language that was taken out in 2005.

Basically, what Sen. Obama’s authored change did was put “family planning” clinics on the same price footing with governmental entities like the Veterans’ Administration and Medicaid. Basically, it forces manufacturers to give rebates on drugs back to the states, which then gives them back to, e.g., Planned Parenthood. If the manufacturer fails to do it, it cannot participate in any governmental program at all.

Now, one might wonder what’s so unfair about making drug manufacturers give rebates to Planned Parenthood through the states. After all, they don’t have to make the contraceptive or abortifacient drugs Planned Parenthood wants to provide to women. But since they do make them, the only way the drug manufacturers can make up for it is to charge others more for drugs, including drugs that have nothing to do with abortion or contraception. Heart medicine, blood pressure medicine, diabetes medicine, asthma medicine, etc. It’s up to the drug makers to decide who they will overcharge in order to subsidize Planned Parenthood. So, in this way, the public is being forced to subsidize Planned Parenthood. It’s not a subsidy for college students only, but any “community based” “family planning” clinic.

The bill Sen Obama authored was cosponsored by the majority of Senate Democrats, virtually all of the big names. Clinton, Schumer, Dodd, Kennedy, etc, etc.

 

[mdr]

…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?

Of course it would not be an “abortion” to remove a cyst, even if said cyst originated as a human zygote. The fact that this newly-conceived human’s lifespan was not long enough for him/her to develop fully does not negate its humanity at the beginning of that lifespan. I’m asking Marietta what, in her opinion, is the status of the “POC” at the time of “choice,” not what that POC’s ultimate outcome will be. We’re not talking electrons here, so it should be knowable!

I think that focusing on natural variations in outcome distracts from the question of what the POC is at the crucial time. We could talk about umpteen different ways in which “POC’s” naturally die without progressing to full term pregnancy and birth, but I don’t believe that would be productive.

There is also the case of the woman whose pregnancy was not known to be extrauterine until it came time for the baby to be born. The baby’s position, as shown on ultrasound, appeared normal, when in fact the embryo had implanted in the mother’s abdominal wall. Had her physicians known in advance about the implantation site, they would surely have advised surgical termination. Yet this “abnormal” pregnancy resulted in a joyful family with a healthy infant after a Cesarean birth!

My point here is that the lifespan or developmental outcome of a newly conceived human life does not affect the status or intrinsic nature of that life at its origin, so your cyst example does not apply.

After all, it is not the women experiencing miscarriages, blithe pregnancies, or zygotes which become cysts who seek elective abortions. The vast majority of women seeking abortions are experiencing pregnancies which, at least up to the stage at which the abortions are performed, appear to be moving toward their natural conclusions, that is, births.

I’m not necessarily trying to “lead” Marietta or anyone else anywhere so much as to discover whether the questions which led me first to reject the pro-abortion mentality and eventually to return to the Church have been seriously addressed by Marietta, Emervents, et al.

 

[neat62]

Catholic Kat:

The 22-week-old preemie was saved because the mother and perhaps the father chose to move forward with medical measures, likely at the behest of the medical team present at the birth. The baby was no longer in utero. For better or worse it was born, independent of the placenta, with some functioning organs. Did your friends have medical insurance? Let’s say they did. A 22-week-old premature baby born to a woman with no insurance may have had a decidedly different outcome than the child of your friends.

Some mothers spend their entire pregnancy on bedrest because they choose to. This doesn’t mean they want to, or they enjoy being bedridden day after day, week after week. They have somewhere along the line decided they are ready to have this child come into their lives and they choose to stay in bed to champion their cause.

And if I were receiving Communion every Sunday, just how would the repercussions of that act trickle down into your world? What on earth difference would that make to anyone but God?

marietta

I’ll tell you how it effects me…it is a direct insult to Christ. You are blantantly defying His laws and insulting the integrity of the Body of Christ…which I and others are a member of. Just as sinful behavior of any kind effects the entire Body of Christ…so does the attitude and sinful behavior you support.

 

[Robert_Bay]

GENERAL REMINDER

Catholic Answers Forum has a policy that bans all discussions of political candidates. This ban includes posts that name a candidate, allude to a particular candidate, use euphemisms for a candidate, or refer to surrogates for a particular candidate. This includes signatures. This also applies to the supporting of particular political parties.

For more information see Banned Topics and the discussion at:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthrea…ight=candidate

God bless,

 

[Catholic_Kat]

Catholic Kat:
A 22-week-old premature baby born to a woman with no insurance may have had a decidedly different outcome than the child of your friends.

And if I were receiving Communion every Sunday, just how would the repercussions of that act trickle down into your world? What on earth difference would that make to anyone but God?

marietta

First, you really believe a baby born premature to someone without health insurance would be left for dead —come on!

The act of receiving communion is just that —you say you are in communion with the Church and the teachings/beliefs of the Church. It is an outward demonstration that you are 100% Catholic --through and through. It affects every member of the Church and undermines the Church’s teachings when Catholics receive communion who do not believe and practice the faith as it should be.

 

[marietta]

neat62:

“It’s all about me”? Is that what you have come to understand about me? Can you read? All I’ve been saying is IT IS NOT ABOUT ME.

There are solutions to the issue of abortion, but I have found that Catholics are just as easily disgusted by talk of sex education; I’d like to hear somebody address the issue from a solution standpoint. If abortion doesn’t work for you, and sex education doesn’t work for you, and contraception doesn’t work for you, what realistic solution do you have to offer us?

If you make one more remark about “controlling ourselves” I will find you and personally give you an attitude adjustment. I am a sexual abuse survivor and I find your casual attitude humorless and sickening. You think everyone can control himself? You think that’s FUNNY?

marietta

 

[Catholic_Kat]

I would like to add that regardless of what science proves/disproves about conception and when life begins, when a baby feels, when a child is worth saving. Science and medicine are not God. We are not talking about the ability to create a thought as a determining factor as to whether or not someone is alive —we are talking about whether or not a person has the soul God gave him/her? Please, show me a scientific article or study that says when the soul is infused into the being. Until we know specifically when that happens, we can’t take a chance and take a life.

 

[Catholic_Kat]

neat62:

“It’s all about me”? Is that what you have come to understand about me? Can you read? All I’ve been saying is IT IS NOT ABOUT ME.

There are solutions to the issue of abortion, but I have found that Catholics are just as easily disgusted by talk of sex education; I’d like to hear somebody address the issue from a solution standpoint. If abortion doesn’t work for you, and sex education doesn’t work for you, and contraception doesn’t work for you, what realistic solution do you have to offer us?

If you make one more remark about “controlling ourselves” I will find you and personally give you an attitude adjustment. I am a sexual abuse survivor and I find your casual attitude humorless and sickening. You think everyone can control himself? You think that’s FUNNY?

marietta

I have some solutions:

Wait until one is married to have sex–then, should conception occur, it is done so in a loving committed relationship.

In the rare instance that a child is created from a hidious act such as rape/incest --accept it for what it is --a beautiful life created from a heinous crime. Murdering the child will not change the fact that the crime was committed. Yet something beautiful can come of the crime --life.

Educate people on what abortion really is. Show photos of aborted babies at 8, 10, 12, 17 weeks.

 

[marietta]

Catholic Kat:

If the Church’s teachings are infallible, then how can they be undermined?

No one knows when the soul enters the body. (With some of tonight’s posters, I firmly believe this has not yet occurred.) Hence, there is no scientific proof on one side or the other. And so your position is that until “we” know, “we” can’t take a chance and take a life. My position is that it is not my decision, nor is it my chance to take.

We are not all surrounded by loveliness and light. Many of us live solitary lives. We are not aligned with any sect, denomination or religion. This doesn’t make us bad or unfit or “disgusting” - it just makes us different.

Honestly, this is the most merciless forum I’ve ever posted on. I don’t mean devout, I mean totally without mercy, unendingly judgmental, and at times downright hateful.

Your Catholic Church has made some impression.

marietta

 

[marietta]

neat62:

So if my hypothetical behavior angers God, let Him throw my tail into the bowels of Hell.

How is that any skin off your self-righteous nose?

marietta

 

[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.

Not so.

The bill itself doesn’t. As you know, it re-inserts language into the law regarding sales of drugs to governmental entities; language that was taken out in 2005.

Basically, what the Dem authored change did was put “family planning” clinics on the same price footing with governmental entities like the Veterans’ Administration and Medicaid. Basically, it forces manufacturers to give rebates on drugs back to the states, which then gives them back to, e.g., Planned Parenthood. If the manufacturer fails to do it, it cannot participate in any governmental program at all.

Now, one might wonder what’s so unfair about making drug manufacturers give rebates to Planned Parenthood through the states. After all, they don’t have to make the contraceptive or abortifacient drugs Planned Parenthood wants to provide to women. But since they do make them, the only way the drug manufacturers can make up for it is to charge others more for drugs, including drugs that have nothing to do with abortion or contraception. Heart medicine, blood pressure medicine, diabetes medicine, asthma medicine, etc. It’s up to the drug makers to decide who they will overcharge in order to subsidize Planned Parenthood. So, in this way, the public is being forced to subsidize Planned Parenthood. They’re the ones getting “gouged” as you say. It’s not a subsidy for college students only, but any “community based” “family planning” clinic. Some 400 clinics.

The bill was cosponsored by the majority of Senate Democrats.

 

[marietta]

mdr:

It’s on the front burner, but I gotta get some sleep!

marietta

 

[mdr]

…In many Native American societies, (and doubtless in others) elderly or otherwise disabled people were exposed to the elements and to predators when they could no longer produce as much as they consumed. In hunter-gatherer societies, such a person would undoubtedly be a major burden on a family, and could, in very lean times, actually present a threat to the health, or even the life, of the family. Would you grant the right to such family members to expose such an elderly or disabled person to the elements or to predators?

Ridgerunner, you remind me of something attributed to Margaret Mead. When asked how she distinguished a “civilized” society from an uncivilized one, Ms. Mead replied that she considered a healed femur as evidence of civilization. That meant to her that the society in question took care of its injured, even those who were practically helpless. I’ve always rather liked that thought.

BTW, thanks for seconding my motion

 

[Ridgerunner]

ERROR CORRECTION:

Thread 769. The bill was not “sponsored” by the majority of Senate Democrats. It was voted favorably by the overwhelming majority of Senate Democrats and 25 Senate Republicans. It was co-sponsored by 34 Senators, virtually all of whom are Democrats.

 

[mdr]

…
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

Marietta, the “sentient” human being referred to was the “fully grown Winston Churchill” of your own example. Perhaps you misread my post.

Again, it appears that you negate, deny, or otherwise ignore the entity being aborted. I have not tried to insult or belittle you. I have asked some questions which have yet to be addressed head-on. Is there something offensive to you about my asking them? What is the specific nature of the entity which is dismantled (see my neutral language? really trying to avoid emotional arguments!) and removed from the pregnant woman’s body during an elective abortion?

 

[mdr]

mdr:

It’s on the front burner, but I gotta get some sleep!

marietta

OK, g’night!

 

[neat62]

neat62:

So if my hypothetical behavior angers God, let Him throw my tail into the bowels of Hell.

How is that any skin off your self-righteous nose?

marietta

Because as a good servant of Christ I am to love my fellow bretheren…even those who persist in wrong thinking and behavior. I don’t wish the depths of hell on anyone, because that would make me evil and hatefilled…which I am neither, despite what those who attempt to persecute and spit on me think.