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

[SoCalRC]

The drug pricing change is modeled after legislation (S 2347) introduced by Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) in November 2007

S. 2347: Prevention Through Affordable Access Act
A bill to restore and protect access to discount drug prices for university-based and safety-net clinics.

The following summary is provided by the Congressional Research Service, which is a nonpartisan government entity that serves Congress and is run by the Library of Congress. The summary is taken from the official website THOMAS.

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).

Pretty telling. For all the Democrats, including the Senator from Illinois who introduced the contraception/abortion funding provision to begin with, it’s okay to fund the war they profess to oppose, as long as contraception and abortion are funded along with it.

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.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

We wouldn’t vote for such a candidate, and that’s the point.

But the other point is, if one candidate will do something to reduce the number of abortions, and his opponent will increase them, we are bound to vote for the former.

Your government is a parliamentary system. Ours has separation of powers. You understand the difference and the significance?

In your system, coalition governments are possible. In our system, they are not. Therefore in your system, smaller parties can have an impact all our of proportion to their numbers. That is not the case in our system.

Hi Vern,
I never thought I’d see the day that I might support what I see as your position.
As I see it, in order to raise a stone, you first need to worry away at an edge in contact with the ground, sufficiently to insert a wedge.
Then you can insert a lever, and insert another wedge.
Only after wedges have been inserted under all four sides can a strop be placed about the stone, and the stone lifted.
This pro-life / pro-‘choice’ as a problem like a stone set on a flat surface, with no handle for an easy lift.
The lift can only be made starting with tiny gains, starting with fractions of an inch.
Limiting abortions to cases of rape or incest, where the life of the mother is not threatened, is one gain.
Limitin abortions to before the establishment of a functioning CNS, or at worst, to before the quickening, would be another small step.
Likewise, debunking the criterion of ‘viability’ would be a major small step: a 24 week foetus is, being post quickening, an unborn child, and capable of degrees of consciousness, and subject to pain and anxiety. Clearly abortion post quickening is homicide.
This was always the view of the ancients, and I find no improved position based upon provable evidence.
Markyou: I do not say that prior to quickening, it is not homicide, only that such is not proveable.

 

[mdr]

With due respect, would the people who have segued from the OP to politics please, please create another thread for their argument?

I had looked forward to reading this topic and participating in a substantive discussion. I had thought it would give me a window into the minds of those who support abortion on demand and give me an opportunity to engage them in thoughtful debate.

What has happened is that a side issue has co-opted the original topic, and to read the paltry handful of posts related to the OP one must slog through pages and pages and pages and pages and pages and … (are you tired of it, too?) …pages and pages of interminable political bickering. Yuk.

 

[rlg94086]

With due respect, would the people who have segued from the OP to politics please, please create another thread for their argument?

I had looked forward to reading this topic and participating in a substantive discussion. I had thought it would give me a window into the minds of those who support abortion on demand and give me an opportunity to engage them in thoughtful debate.

What has happened is that a side issue has co-opted the original topic, and to read the paltry handful of posts related to the OP one must slog through pages and pages and pages and pages and pages and … (are you tired of it, too?) …pages and pages of interminable political bickering. Yuk.

Hi mdr,

Welcome to CAF!

 

[vern_humphrey]

With due respect, would the people who have segued from the OP to politics please, please create another thread for their argument?

That’s because the “reasons” for supporting abortion are political. People – especially Cathoilics – who support “choice” do so by supporting pro-choice politicians, who they see as doing things worth supporting, even at the price of continued mass abortion.

 

[Tom_Bombadil]

With due respect, would the people who have segued from the OP to politics please, please create another thread for their argument?

This is a link to another topic regarding the link between the Susan G. Komen Race for the Cure and Planned Parenthood.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=243378

Those posting here might be interested to weigh in.

 

[SoCalRC]

The lift can only be made starting with tiny gains, starting with fractions of an inch.

Why do you think that a small gains secular law approach is even plausible?

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)).

Saying we need ‘more’ justices doesn’t seem very compelling, since 8 of the 9 justices on the court that upheld Roe in '92 were GOP appointed.

The strange thing is that while the secular law approach has been extraordinarily ineffective, stead gains have now been made in reducing abortions for decades. Rates plummeted during the Clinton years and, although the rate of decline has significantly slowed, we’ve now reached some of our lowest abortion rates since Roe. Nothing suggests that ‘nibbling the edges’ in secular law has had anything to do with this. For example, Oregon is widely considered the most abortion friendly state in the nation law wise, but is a national leader in actually reducing its abortion rate.

I resist legalized abortion as a matter or principle. It is intrinsically evil in the Catholic faith. Why does it make sense to ‘compromise’ that principle for what has, so far, been an ineffective strategy? Wouldn’t it make more sense to continue to stand on principle but also help make ‘incremental improvements’ by indentifying the things that have actually helped reduce abortion rates and then supporting and promoting the licit ones?

 

[SoCalRC]

That’s because the “reasons” for supporting abortion are political. People – especially Cathoilics – who support “choice” do so by supporting pro-choice politicians, who they see as doing things worth supporting, even at the price of continued mass abortion.

Are you saying that the reasons you, yourself are supporting a pro choice politician are political?

I know that you would prefer to redefine “pro choice” to mean ‘a candidate who supports more legalized abortion than mine’, but the Church’s position on abortion is clear and absolute.

If mdr is looking into insight into the thinking of a pro choice mind, perhaps you should share. In addition to your voting, you have previously been quite adamant about exceptions for certain cases involving maternal health.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Are you saying that the reasons you, yourself are supporting a pro choice politician are political?

No, I’m saying that the reasons you, yourself are supporting a pro choice politician are political. Your aim is to direct all votes that might produce a pro-life president and congress out into the wilderness, or toward the pro-choice party.

I know that you would prefer to redefine “pro choice” to mean ‘a candidate who supports more legalized abortion than mine’, but the Church’s position on abortion is clear and absolute.

Like most everything else you “know,” that’s not true.

I define pro-choice as one who supports increasing abortion, and pro-life, even imperfectly, as one who will try to reduce aborion.

If mdr is looking into insight into the thinking of a pro choice mind, perhaps you should share.

I won’t pretend to read your mind.

In addition to your voting, you have previously been quite adamant about exceptions for certain cases involving maternal health.

Another falsehood. My position is (and this is consistent with the Church) if both mother and child will die, intervention to save the mother is licit, even if it is not possible to save the child.

It works the other way, too – intervention to save the child is licit, even if the mother can’t be saved.

 

[marietta]

Ridgerunner:

When your uterus contains products of conception which, for whatever reason, present you with options to optimally manage the situation, options including abortion, then you will be in the sole significant position to decide what should be and what will be done.

Voco proTatiano? SoCalRC? vern humphrey? marietta? All of these opinions and beliefs are legitimate to those of us who embrace them. But the only opinion, the only belief, the only moral code which counts in the matter of your decision-making belongs to you. If you were to choose abortion, don’t think for one second that any of the above-named posters would be willing to take a percentage of the heat in Purgatory for you. I certainly would not. But if you were to choose to carry the pregnancy to term, who among us would argue on moral or political grounds against it? I certainly would not.

Our noise does not tarnish your right to live your life as you see fit.
Your uterus, your choice, your consequences.

And if you are not a woman and you are guessing at how an unwanted or blighted or compromised pregnancy feels, please lower your volume. The voice of experience is far louder than anything you can shout from your bully pulpit.

marietta

 

[SoCalRC]

No, I’m saying that the reasons you, yourself are supporting a pro choice politician are political.

But, unlike you, I do not support a pro-legalized-abortion candidate. So your first sentence is nonsensical. Your second assertion, that standing by a 100% pro life position on abortion somehow is a significant factor seems just stupid.

We just had three special elections in ultra ‘safe’ GOP districts. All, including the supposedly safest district in the country, just switched political parties.

According to RLG’s figures something on the order of 2/3 to 86% of the US public are OK with some legalized abortion, or compromise on the issue. Of the tiny percentage of the public that, like me, holds an absolute position on the matter and feels strongly enough about it not to compromise in voting is not going to swing this election cycle. It will have everything to do with two costly and ineffectual wars, a stagnant economy, serious inflation, $4+ gasoline, and a president who is about as popular as a French kiss at a family reunion…

Like most everything else you “know,” that’s not true.

I define pro-choice as one who supports increasing abortion, and pro-life, even imperfectly, as one who will try to reduce aborion.

So, you first say it isn’t true, then indicate that, yes, you do not use the Catholic definition, but a compromised one of your own making. Oddly, using your definition, there are not any ‘pro-choice’ candidates among the major parties. All have publicly indicated a desire to see fewer abortions.

Another falsehood. My position is (and this is consistent with the Church) if both mother and child will die, intervention to save the mother is licit, even if it is not possible to save the child.

Could you provide any Church documentation to support this? My understanding is that direct abortion is never licit, even to save the life of the mother.

What I find very interesting is that the same questions I ask about abortion are being asked about other conservative principles. I just read this by conservative activist Richard Viguerie:

"Conservatives need to face reality. If ever was a conservative, he has not been one for many years. It’s been at least a decade and a half ago since he veered off the conservative path. In 2000, he blamed us for his defeat and for the unfair treatment he received in that campaign, and it appears that he decided to teach us a lesson.

Based on reality - not false hopes - each of you needs to make a decision, as a conservative…"

Viguerie is directly arguing that folks have to decide what matters to them most, the political party, or conservative principles. This is essentially the same question I ask. At what point does abortion really come first? Remember, we are not just talking about a candidate whose position in “imperfect”, we are talking about a candidate who has flip flopped on overturning Roe and who expressed misgivings about the consequences of overturning Roe last year.

But, like me, Viguerie does not see holding politicians accountable to real principle as a bad thing. Previously he wrote:

"Sometimes a loss for the Republican Party is a gain for conservatives. Often, a little taste of liberal Democrats in power is enough to remind the voters what they don’t like about liberal Democrats and to focus the minds of Republicans on the principles that really matter. That’s why the conservative movement has grown fastest during those periods when things seemed darkest, such as during the Carter administration and the first two years of the Clinton White House.

Conservatives are, by nature, insurgents, and it’s hard to maintain an insurgency when your friends, or people you thought were your friends, are in power."

Will you be now claiming that Richard Viguerie is not a real conservitive or a ‘pro abortionist’? In addition to raising the issue of legitimately held conservative values, he has openly questioned the legitimacy of your candidate’s pro life credentials and has suggested on multiple occassions that 3rd party voting might help “steer the GOP back on course”…

 

[vern_humphrey]

When your uterus contains products of conception which, for whatever reason, present you with options to optimally manage the situation, options including abortion, then you will be in the sole significant position to decide what should be and what will be done.

When your house contains products of conception which, for whatever reason, present you with options to optimally manage the situation, options including murder, then you will be in the sole significant position to decide what should be and what will be done.

 

[vern_humphrey]

But, unlike you, I do not support a pro-legalized-abortion candidate.

Actually, you do. You seek to syphon off votes that could put pro-life candidates into office, because they are not “perfect.” You even offer justifications for voting for pro-choice politicians, since you deny the validity of trying to reduce abortion over time.

So your first sentence is nonsensical. Your second assertion, that standing by a 100% pro life position on abortion somehow is a significant factor seems just stupid.

Is this the part where you throw in the incest smear?

 

[marietta]

vern humphrey:

You demand control over another person’s body by virtue of the fact that she is, what? - living in your house??

This attitude clearly explains the divorce statistics in this country.

Don’t want an abortion? *Don’t have one. * Don’t want your wife/girlfriend/tart to have an abortion? Keep your pants zipped.

marietta

 

[vern_humphrey]

vern humphrey:

You demand control over another person’s body by virtue of the fact that she is, what? - living in your house??

marietta:

You demand control over another person’s body by virtue of the fact that she was conceived for your pleasure, and is now inconvenient?

This attitude clearly explains the divorce statistics in this country.

This attitude clearly explains the divorce statistics in this country.

Don’t want an abortion? *Don’t have one. * Don’t want your wife/girlfriend/tart to have an abortion? Keep your pants zipped.

marietta

Don’t want an a baby? Keep your pants zipped.

 

[Catholic_Kat]

I am pro-choice because I think the facts speak for themselves and I have not had a “sanctity of human life” ethic drummed into me since infancy.

The facts that influence my view:

It is a fact that women will seek abortions whether they are legal or not.
Emervents

People will also murder one another whether we have laws saying that it is illegal —should we do away with those laws?

People will rob banks even though the law says that they can’t.

People will abuse children, even though the law says that they can’t.

Should we throw those laws away as well simply because people are still going to commit those crimes? No.

Your comment is one of the silliest I have ever heard for keeping abortion legal.

May God have mercy on your soul.

 

[st_lucy]

vern humphrey:

You demand control over another person’s body by virtue of the fact that she is, what? - living in your house??

This attitude clearly explains the divorce statistics in this country.

Don’t want an abortion? *Don’t have one. * Don’t want your wife/girlfriend/tart to have an abortion? Keep your pants zipped.

marietta

You keep talking about someone else’s body. What of the child you want to tear apart limb by limb, or have a hole drilled into his head. What of his body. Are you saying the women is the only person who matters? There are two people here the mother and the child not one BUT TWO. It is not a choice because I am sure that child does not want to be brutality murdered. My gosh you wouldn’t even sentence an animal to that kind of death but you will tell a mother to do that to her child!

 

[st_lucy]

vern humphrey:

You demand control over another person’s body by virtue of the fact that she is, what? - living in your house??

This attitude clearly explains the divorce statistics in this country.

Don’t want an abortion? *Don’t have one. * Don’t want your wife/girlfriend/tart to have an abortion? Keep your pants zipped.

marietta

This is the most appalling statement I have ever heard. The reason the divorce rate is so high is because of legalized abortion. Look at the stats before and after roe v wade.

You are willing to KILL another human all because you made a mistake. With that kind of thought why don’t you say it’s okay to KILL your neighbor because you got drunk last night! IT IS MURDER.

 

[mdr]

Ridgerunner:

When your uterus contains products of conception

I have several questions, Marietta, regarding your “products of conception”:

1. Are these “POC’s” (abbreviation mine) living, dead, or inert matter?
2. If not inert matter, the POC’s belong to some biologically identifiable species. In your viewpoint, to what species do the POC’s belong?
3. If the POC’s are not inert, dead, or belonging to a species other than Homo Sapiens, are they integral to the body of the woman within whom they reside? That is, are the POC’s analogous to a nonessential body part like the vermiform appendix, or are they genetically distinct entities which are temporarily dependent upon and contained within said body?

I would very much like to understand your answers to the above questions and to explore your point of view. Fair warning, it was questions such as this which I asked myself many years ago that led me away from the contracept-and-abort-at-will-because-it’s-my-body-not-yours mindset.

I will do my best to address your arguments fairly and logically.

Thanks in advance for your answer.

 

[marietta]

st lucy (and I use the term loosely):

You are not understanding my point. I have no desire to tear apart a child limb from limb and have neither alluded to nor expressed such a desire. My point is PRECISELY that I would NEVER TELL A MOTHER TO DO ANYTHING!! Get *it? * It’s not my place to tell a mother to do one thing or another. It is HER CHOICE. If she feels abortion is murder, then she must reconcile that within her faith. If she does not feel that abortion is murder, then she can expect to experience little or no consequence resulting from her action.

Abortion is not only available to women who have “made a mistake”. It is currently available to all women in the United States regardless of the circumstances under which they have become pregnant.

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.

The “divorce rate is so high because of legalized abortion”? Really? Where can I find a non-biased, impartial source for the stats?

I doubt that I would kill my neighbor because I got drunk last night. The last cocktail I ingested was on July 14, 1984.

Catholic Kat:

So do away with the laws. Rein in those wayward women if you can! But you know that abortion will still be available on some level, though not necessarily in a sterile field, and likely without support of aftercare for the women. Take that giant leap backward to 1970, 1950, 1920.

vern humphrey:

Your response to my post is simply illegible and incomprehensible.

marietta