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

[vern_humphrey]

The exact circumstances are as follows, I noted that there was no reason maligning people with stereotypes, though it is occassionally very tempting to do so in anger.

The response was something to the effect that, yes, there was incest in that person’s family, but I had the wrong familial relationship in my generic example.

Not so, I stated, it was instead, some impossible multi familial relationship, like Cletus, from the Simpsons…

So, from my perspective, the situation was - I am not going to join in regional stereotypes (like ones about me living in California), but I understand the temptation. Reply, our incest is cousins thank you very much. Me, oh yeah…

I assumed that the reply was in jest and answered in kind. If, in fact, the poster is the result of a close familial union, I apologize. One is not responsible for the conditions of one’s conception.

As far as “problems”, you are not interested in theological discussion, you are only interested in baseless attacks against me. I’ve asked you a series of questions, so that we can establish what, exactly, my theological transgressions are. But, like Vern, answering questions does not come as easily as baseless attacks.

You’re just full of excuses, aren’t you?

 

[SoCalRC]

No, you’re the one with a problem with honesty.

Alas, the record suggests otherwise. Remember, you invented non-existant statistics with regards to ectopic pregrnancy, but could not bring yourself to directly admit it when caught.

Similiarly, you attacked me for asserting that support for abortions in the case of rape and incest is not licit in Catholic teaching, but then have aggresively avoided speaking clearly on the matter when questioned.

There is your honesty problem. You keep pretending that the Church forbids me to vote for a less than perfect candidate. That is evidence of disnhonesty on your part.

Again, no. In questioning you I repeatedly made a distinction between voting for the candidate, which may be licit under limiting the harm or proportionate reasons, and the canidate’s position itself. Like repeatedly asserting that I have not answered your simple question (something I have actually now done more than a dozen times), this is another example of deceptive miss-direction on your part.

Is honesty not part of your makeup? Does your ability cast slurs of incest on those you debate make you proud? Or is it simply a matter of believing that deception and misdirection are suitable forms of discourse?

And again, you resort to miss representation and baseless attack. If we remove humor, then at most I can be accused of debating the exact nature of an admitted incestual relationship. As noted, I took the comment in humor. If it was not, then my response was unfortunate. One cannot be held accountable for the circumstances of one’s inception.

Now accuse me of incest in this public forum. I dare you.

Why would you taunt me to engage in the sort of un-Christian activity that is your hall mark? Do you think it becomes less immoral in quantity?

I can only note that Catholic right to life does not seem to be an important issue to you. I base this on the following:

• You attack me and others for voting 100% pro life
• Unlike Rlg, you are deliberately evasive when questioned directly about the morality (in Catholic teaching) of the canidate position on abortion that you are supporting
• Like Bamarider and Ridgerunner you periodically present a non pro-life position on abortion as inarguably “pro life”
• You are unmoved by other right-to-life concerns (ranging from modern forms of slavery and society’s protection of minors to forced abortions and war) raised by Rome and the USCCB with regards to your political agenda

This does not prove that you do not care about Catholic right-to-life teaching, but it strongly suggests that something else matters to you more.

Further, I can note that your motives do not appear to be Catholic. Notice that Rlg, Mapleoak, and I all hold different views on this, but we all share something which you, Bamarider, and Ridgerunner do not. We (and others) have noted that we accept that others can, in good faith, hold views other than our own. Rlg referred to this as ‘prudential judgement’, others have described it as ‘proportional reasons’. But all are a general acknowledgement of Catholic teaching:

“A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself. Yet it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments about acts to be performed or already committed.” - CCC 1790

One must obey the absolute certainty of one’s own moral conscience, but one also remain aware of one’s imperfection. We must walk humbly in our faith.

But aside from noting the seeming hypocrisy and lack of humility in your position, I cannot, in good conscience propose any additional knowledge about your motives.

Just because, for example, you publicly support a candidate who appears poised to expand war on an additional front, Bamarider supports torture at odds with the Bishops and Rome, and Ridgerunner has defended your candidate’s failure to protect marriage as a moral issue (preferring instead to label it a matter of state’s rights), I cannot propose that your votes are intended to promote this evils. I make the presumption that you are not using an imperfect position on abortion as a smokescreen to promote other evils - even though your methods have shown themselves to be fruitless so far in actually stopping abortions.

Those sorts of huge moral leaps and inappropriate judgements I will leave to you.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Alas, the record suggests otherwise. Remember, you invented non-existant statistics with regards to ectopic pregrnancy, but could not bring yourself to directly admit it when caught.

Similiarly, you attacked me for asserting that support for abortions in the case of rape and incest is not licit in Catholic teaching, but then have aggresively avoided speaking clearly on the matter when questioned.

Again, no. In questioning you I repeatedly made a distinction between voting for the candidate, which may be licit under limiting the harm or proportionate reasons, and the canidate’s position itself. Like repeatedly asserting that I have not answered your simple question (something I have actually now done more than a dozen times), this is another example of deceptive miss-direction on your part.

And again, you resort to miss representation and baseless attack. If we remove humor, then at most I can be accused of debating the exact nature of an admitted incestual relationship. As noted, I took the comment in humor. If it was not, then my response was unfortunate. One cannot be held accountable for the circumstances of one’s inception.

Why would you taunt me to engage in the sort of un-Christian activity that is your hall mark? Do you think it becomes less immoral in quantity?

I can only note that Catholic right to life does not seem to be an important issue to you. I base this on the following:

• You attack me and others for voting 100% pro life
• Unlike Rlg, you are deliberately evasive when questioned directly about the morality (in Catholic teaching) of the canidate position on abortion that you are supporting
• Like Bamarider and Ridgerunner you periodically present a non pro-life position on abortion as inarguably “pro life”
• You are unmoved by other right-to-life concerns (ranging from modern forms of slavery and society’s protection of minors to forced abortions and war) raised by Rome and the USCCB with regards to your political agenda

This does not prove that you do not care about Catholic right-to-life teaching, but it strongly suggests that something else matters to you more.

Further, I can note that your motives do not appear to be Catholic. Notice that Rlg, Mapleoak, and I all hold different views on this, but we all share something which you, Bamarider, and Ridgerunner do not. We (and others) have noted that we accept that others can, in good faith, hold views other than our own. Rlg referred to this as ‘prudential judgement’, others have described it as ‘proportional reasons’. But all are a general acknowledgement of Catholic teaching:

One must obey the absolute certainty of one’s own moral conscience, but one also remain aware of one’s imperfection. We must walk humbly in our faith.

But aside from noting the seeming hypocrisy and lack of humility in your position, I cannot, in good conscience propose any additional knowledge about your motives.

Just because, for example, you publicly support a candidate who appears poised to expand war on an additional front, Bamarider supports torture at odds with the Bishops and Rome, and Ridgerunner has defended your candidate’s failure to protect marriage as a moral issue (preferring instead to label it a matter of state’s rights), I cannot propose that your votes are intended to promote this evils. I make the presumption that you are not using an imperfect position on abortion as a smokescreen to promote other evils - even though your methods have shown themselves to be fruitless so far in actually stopping abortions.

Those sorts of huge moral leaps and inappropriate judgements I will leave to you.

Aside from smearing people with charges of incest, you make up strawmen and present them falsely as your opponents’ positions.

 

[Ridgerunner]

But aside from noting the seeming hypocrisy and lack of humility in your position, I cannot, in good conscience propose any additional knowledge about your motives.

Ridgerunner has defended your candidate’s failure to protect marriage as a moral issue (preferring instead to label it a matter of state’s rights),

Never did I say this. You made it up. Just plain invented it. Just like you invented Catholic Justices Roberts and Alito being supporters of abortion.

You attributed the following to others on here: “lying”, “incest”, “hypocrisy” “lack of humility”. And you consider you conscience clear because you don’t “propose any additional knowledge about (Vern’s?) motives.”

Wonder if my wife needs me to clean the toilets. It would be more appetizing than this thread.

 

[MIZER]

Originally Posted by Emervents
To say that abortion is not safe for the child is not a response to my points and is a very bad argument against abortion given that the intent of abortion is not to produce a child at all.

I haven’t read through all 38 pages of this thread yet, but I wonder if Emervents understands what the intent of abortion is. Emervents is correct to say that abortion is not to produce a child at all. This statement should be qualified, however, with the word “living” preceeding the word child.

The sad fact of the matter is that a child has already been produced and the intent of abortion is to turn that living child into a dead child. That is the goal. And the goal is accomplished through the most vile and violent means imaginable, in every single case.

Consider the many late term abortions, Emervents. Consisder that many women could simply be induced and be done with the pregnancy. But, opps, that would leave us with a living child and that is not the intent of abortion. NO! The intent is to be left with a dead child. That’s better some how. That’s somehow safer for everyone. That’s more convenient.

The better to kill it then give it away mentality, boggles my mind and makes me sick to my stomach.

Emervents, and all so-called “pro-choicers” on this board, have you ever heard of the Center for Bio-Ehtical Reform? Go to www.abortionno.org and check it out. Come back and tell us if you’re proud to support what you see there. This is the definition of the what you are “PRO” about. Abortion is the violient destruction of human life. That’s the “choice” in “pro-choice.” I don’t see any of you out there fighting for a womans’s right to choose adoption for her unborn child. So don’t be offended when pro-life activists call you pro-abort. It’s what you are. “Pro-choice” is propaganda designed to allow you to keep your heads stuck in the sand and deny what the word “choice” means.

Go to www.abortionno.org and find out for yourself what “choice” you are supporting when you call yourself “pro-choice”. There is no “pro-choice.” There is only pro-life and pro-abort. You get to choose which side of the fence you are on but don’t hide behind a slogan that was invented to allow you to deny the truth.

*“It is a poverty that a child must die so that you may live as you please.” * Mother Theresa of Calcutta

 

[MIZER]

Ribozyme,

Who in the world did you buy this bill of goods from?

No, but people have a right not to live in poverty and not suffer. I suppose some reasons of aborting fetuses are justified.

This is utterly false. No one has the right to posterity. Even in America we only have the right to pursue happiness. And Jesus said we are to “take up our cross and follow him.” As I recall Jesus did a great deal of suffering. So to follow Him we better be ready and willing to suffer.

Also, since you are all about “rights,” what about the right to life? The only reason the unborn are denied this Constitutional right is because they are denied personhood. Something the black community in this country could tell you about. Disgraceful !!!

 

[MIZER]

So, Ribozyme, does using the term fetus instead of child or baby, help you sleep at night and justify your pro-abort position?

Well, you use “child,” “baby.” I just use “fetus.”

The word fetus only defines the stage of development. The fact is you are still talking about a human being. It’s not a ferrat, you know? Phill Donahue, lo those many years ago, when he was pioneering the morning talk show, put this argument to rest.

Whether you call a human being a fetus or an infant or an adolescent or a geriatric, it simply refers to ones age or stage of development, not whether one is a human being or not. Abortion is an act of violence that kills a child. Accept it. It’s a fact. It’s what is meant by the word “choice” in the slogan “pro-choice.” So when you say you are “pro-choice” you are saying you are for violence that kills children. Accept it. It’s a fact.

 

[MIZER]

The term baby is one of endearment which has many different definitions. Baby is a term typically given to the human after birth. It also has strong connotations for all who participate in the debates, so baby is probably the least accurate term to use.

Hasiklee,

Are you serious?

This is Merriam Webster on the subject of what a baby is:

1 a (1): an extremely young child;

Now Merriam Webster on the definiton of child:

1 a: an unborn or recently born person

Your comment is outrageous. The fact is, the word baby is the most appropriate term to use and is in fact the term used exclusively by pregnant women the world over. I’ve never heard a woman say, I’m having an embryo or I’m having a fetus. The truth is, it’s a baby. It’s a human baby and you can dress it up any way you like but the fact is Abortion is an act of violence that kills a human baby, that is, a child.

Again, the only reason women and doctors are getting away with murder in this country is because the unborn do not enjoy the rights of personhood.

Merriam webster defines person as:

1: human, individual

So we can see the injustice of this heinous act, some on this board would like us all to call “choice.” What it really is, is genocide, plain, and dirty. We are allowing genocide to occur in our own back yard and we won’t call it what it is because we want to be nice to the perpetrators.

So again, I will ask you Hasiklee,…ARE YOU SERIOUS?

 

[MIZER]

Originally posted by Dameeda:

I support abortion, but I’m not sure why this topic is every raised, since the OP of such topic is not usually interested in Answers, but in arguments. But just in case they are seeking genuine answers…

I do believe that life is very precious. By that I mean all life, not just human life. Life is precious to me, because it took an incredibly long time to get here, through an incredibly labourious process, and is such an unbelievable miracle. I think it should be preserved as much as we possibly can.

Now, abortion is a situation that I consider to be unique in and of itself. I do not support captial punishment, I do support euthanasia, and I do support a “just” war(though that’s a slippery slope).

I won’t get into the other “life” debates as specified above, but for me, each situation needs to be looked at, for its individual merits/lackthereof. Let me make this very, very clear to those that are interested. I DO NOT BELIEVE there is one set of absolute rules that apply to every given situation. This is often a big difference between me, and the pro-life crowd.

Abortion involves one life, living off another. One body, being reliant on another. The fetus, is not aware that it exists, and does not during early gestation feel pain. The mother, is aware she exists and does feel pain.

I pick the human, who is self-aware over the one that is not. I recognize it is not the infants fault, and that it is not the choice I would prefer to be made for that infant.

But, that is my choice.

There are many reasons why a person may want an abortion. There are all the big ticket items, such as rape, extreme poverty, and damaging health toward the mother.

I won’t get into those.

The area that I think a lot of people are MORE affected by, is abortion occuring in societies, and for individuals that have no apparent reason to do so. They can afford the child. They could have afforded contraception, they could have abstained(IE they weren’t raped). It is a tough one.

I support abortion up to 3 months, and longer if medically necessary.

I think that abortion should only follow councelling and I think that women should very clearly know what abortion actually IS. There is nothing more devastating, than to think you are getting rid of a collection of cells, only to find out that your baby was almost viable.

Many, MANY abortion clinics agree, there is way too much secrecy around abortion and not enough clarification of what it is.

There are many more “elements” of the discussin I could get into, but these are the main ones.

This is just plain scary and the reason why our country is going to hell in a handbasket. God Bless all of you who responded to Dameeda. Her post just makes me want to curl into the fetal postition and cry my heart out. God help us!!

 

[KathleenElsie]

Ribozyme,

Who in the world did you buy this bill of goods from?

This is utterly false. No one has the right to posterity. Even in America we only have the right to pursue happiness. And Jesus said we are to “take up our cross and follow him.” As I recall Jesus did a great deal of suffering. So to follow Him we better be ready and willing to suffer.

Also, since you are all about “rights,” what about the right to life? The only reason the unborn are denied this Constitutional right is because they are denied personhood. Something the black community in this country could tell you about. Disgraceful !!!

Well put. Bless You

 

[mdr]

We are Pro-Choice. This means that no woman should be forced into any reproductive action against her will.

I quite agree that no woman should be raped. The “reproductive action” is the reproductive act, that is, sexual intercourse, which should never, ever be forced.

I once bought into the whole contraceptive mentality. What they gloss over is that no contraceptive method, short of total surgical sterilization, is 100% effective. All it does is take out some of the bullets in your Russian roulette game. Name a method, I’ve known someone with a surprise pregnancy while using it.

Engaging in reproductive activity without being prepared to face its natural consequences is foolish and immature.

Ending a human life in order to “erase” the consequences of one’s own bad judgment does not qualify IMO as causing the least suffering: even Great Britain’s doctors, enthusiastic providers of abortion for many years, have acknowledged that abortion has long-term negative effects on both physical and mental health.

I’m sorry, you haven’t even come close to convincing me, or re-convincing me, since I had bought the contracept-and-abort-as-backup mentality in college. Didn’t reject it until I had the courage to analyze it objectively.

I don’t mean to unkind, it’s just that I’ve been there before and have seen the logical defects of so many of the arguments on my own, long before I even came back to the Church. It would take some very compelling arguments to get my attention, though I promise to treat any arguments seriously and as objectively as I can.

-mary

 

[mdr]

Actually I think that enslaving children so that the rich west can eat cheap chocolate bars is a cheapening of human life. But I’m entitled to my opinion am I not?

Emervents, you certainly are entitled to your opinion. What I fail to see is why it is an either/or proposition.

You equate abhorrence of voluntary abortion with tolerance of enslavement and forced child labor. Why?

I abhor both practices, though I do believe that abortion is the worse of the two, simply because a slave can be freed but death is permanent.

The Catholic Church teaches a consistent ethic of life.

-mary

 

[mdr]

I think it goes to the heart of the fetus having the equality of a fully developed, able-to-survive outside the womb, baby. IMO, the fetus does not equal a human, it hasn’t even formed enough to be aware of itself or life (unlike someone in a coma or PVS who has developed that ability, so PLEASE do not compare the two as I am not doing so).

Swan, I would like to explore your assertion that an early-stage fetus “does not equal a human.” You puzzle me exceedingly, unless your definition of “human” is not the same as the one familiar to me.

It seems abundantly clear that the fetus, conceptus, embryo - choose your terminology for the developing-but-not-yet-born homo sapiens - is a distinct human life.

Distinct: While temporarily contained within and supported by the mother, the fetus is not integral to the mother’s body. The fetus does not necessarily share the gender, blood type, or any other characteristic of the mother, and inherits only a half-share of the mother’s DNA.

Human: Well, the fetus is hardly likely to be any other species, is it?

Life: A fetus grows and develops and changes. A fetus may die of natural causes (while I haven’t experienced this sort of loss personally, I have known mothers who have) while still in the womb. Inert matter neither grows nor dies.

What am I missing?

-mary

 

[SoCalRC]

Never did I say this. You made it up. Just plain invented it. Just like you invented Catholic Justices Roberts and Alito being supporters of abortion.

Better search your own comments on a vote against a certain constitutional ammendment.

And I never indicated that either Roberts or Alito were personally in favor of abortion, that is another falsehood you insist on repeating. I insisted only that they had publicly acknowledged it as estabilished legal precedent and have now both applied it as legal precedent from the Supreme Court.

You made this false assertion before, and I went through my exact comment, as you quoted, and confirmed it with quotes from Alito and Roberts themselves, as well as Scalia and Thomas concurring opinion from a Supreme Court Case. Somehow, reality just does not enter your world

You attributed the following to others on here: “lying”, “incest”, “hypocrisy” “lack of humility”. And you consider you conscience clear because you don’t “propose any additional knowledge about (Vern’s?) motives.”

Let’s get it right. Vern (and you) have now been caught lying several times. And I do think that calling others “pro aboritionists” because they 100% reject abortion while one personally politically supports a position on abortion that the Church considers intrinsically evil is a tad hypocritical. But the incest claim is false. That is just typically tool-dom, repeating a false assertion over and over until it becomes ‘truth’, at least among a certain segment of the population.

And yes, I do consider it a distinction that, should Vern at least find the courage to acknowledge the evil his is politically supporting (like Rlg) that his position might be potentially licit. That is quite a difference from being called a pro aboritonist and a couch potato Catholic.

If I were to adopt your and Vern’s methodology, I would note all the examples of your political activity promoting the gay agenda and its attack on the Sacrament of Marriage and the Family, then propose that it is proof that you are “Log Cabin Republicans” using abortion as a smokescreen to cover your promotion of your agenda. Of course, I’d add in a cutting comment about the suitability of your, Vern’s, and Bama’s chosen user names…

Wonder if my wife needs me to clean the toilets. It would be more appetizing than this thread.

FWIW, Rush always has a disaster when he ventures out of his bubble as well. For some reason his sanctimonious hate speech does not play nearly as well when he is forced to defend it against reality…

Just a reminder, you have claimed to have committed grievous sin against the inalienable rights of the human person in this thread, but still seem to lack the courage to answer questions about your exact position on Catholic teaching about abortion.

 

[vern_humphrey]

If I were to adopt your and Vern’s methodology, I would note all the examples of your political activity promoting the gay agenda and its attack on the Sacrament of Marriage and the Family, then propose that it is proof that you are “Log Cabin Republicans” using abortion as a smokescreen to cover your promotion of your agenda. Of course, I’d add in a cutting comment about the suitability of your, Vern’s, and Bama’s chosen user names…

That’s exactly what you’re dong – but not honestly and straightforwardly. Kinda like your self-serving excuse for that incest smear.

 

[SoCalRC]

Aside from smearing people with charges of incest, you make up strawmen and present them falsely as your opponents’ positions.

Reality check, the “incest” charge is a false one. At most you could assert that I was callous about an admission of incest. I took it as humor, are you now asserting it is not? If so, you are making an accusation of incest, not me.

And you position is clear. You support a candidate whose position on abortion is intrinsically evil. But you lack the courage to admit as much, making your position illicit as an application of either “limiting the harm” or “proportionate reasons”.

If you will not acknolwedge and distance yourself from the evil, you are supporting it - see the letter from Cardinal Ratzinger that you are so fond of misquoting…

But, of course, you have long been fickle about how much weight you give teachings from the Church or the Princes. Arguments of convenience for you perhaps?

 

[vern_humphrey]

Reality check, the “incest” charge is a false one. At most you could assert that I was callous about an admission of incest. I took it as humor, are you now asserting it is not? If so, you are making an accusation of incest, not me.

What a smarmy, self-serving “excuse” for what you did!

 

[SoCalRC]

That’s exactly what you’re dong – but not honestly and straightforwardly. Kinda like your self-serving excuse for that incest smear.

I can only account for what I actually say, and the comments I respond to. I know this is incovenient for you and Ridgerunner because you are only used to tearing down straw men you create. A certain person stated he did fit a southern stereotype, I disagreed - on the exact nature of his meeting the stereotype. I thought the exchange was in jest. Throwing something like this up as a distraction just indicates that you want to cover up the evil you are supporting. Embracing it instead of acknowledging it for what it is. Again, see what Cardinal Ratzinger had to say about that.

The bottom line here is that it would take courage and character to answer my questions directly. For example, is your candidate’s position on abortion licit in Church teaching or not?

Simple question.

Or, where in Catholic teaching are you given the right to assign illicit motives to a position on a subject that both Rome and the USCCB have declared is licit?

Again, simple question.

But you’ll never answer, presumably because your motives here are not centered in the Catholic faith.

I find it pretty pathetic that, instead of honest dialog, you always resort to the tactics of an overweight drug convict with seeming erectile disfunction and an appetite for underage Domincan prostitutes. How sady that haven’t found a better moral role model in your life.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I can only account for what I actually say, and the comments I respond to.

But you won’t take responsibiliy for them, now will you? How about a public apology to the man you smeared?

 

[SoCalRC]

What a smarmy, self-serving “excuse” for what you did!

Vern, if the person in question wants to OK it, I’m happy to publicly provide the entire sequence of exchanges. It will just be another case of catching you promoting a falsehood.

You, of course, will refuse to take responsibilty, and find some other distraction to avoid talking about the issue at hand. That’s what you do. But for anyone who does not keep falling for Rush tactics, it is clear you are voting for intrinsic evil and aggressively covering up that fact.

This, in the opinion of the Cardinal who is now our current Pope and the USCCB, makes your voting illicit. You cannot be voting to support the evil.

Come clean, clearly acknowledge the compromise you are making. Why is that so hard for you?

But you won’t take responsibiliy for them, now will you? How about a public apology to the man you smeared?

Look back a few posts, even in the context of my understanding of the exchange, I appologized if it was incorrect and caused hurt.

Should we add this new one to the long list of falsehoods you cannot seem to drop?