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

[SoCalRC]

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.

No Vern, my secret agenda is to make you look dishonest and uncharitable. It has succeeded beyond my wildest expectations…

Not one aspect of your statement is true and your accusations are, as usual, positively vile. Frankly, I am tired of debunking your perpetual garbage, post after post. But I am truly and extremely grateful that the good Lord has spared me whatever formed the likes of you.

Seriously, I’ve survived combat, cancer, and reared a disabled son. But if what you are willing to say to other human beings is any indication, I wouldn’t last 10 minutes in the vile world that must be in your head.

I am deeply sorry that you politically support abortion. I think it is a terrible mistake, particularly since you directly attempt to conceal the intrinsic evil you are supporting, hence potentially making yourself complicant. But no amount of shrieking or vehement personal attacks on your part is going to change Catholic teaching, or measurable reality. In other words, no matter how loudly you yell, how vilely you accuse, or how isnsistantly you claim victimhood, you still have a giant skid mark on the back of your pants.

All your shenanigans might distract some people, make others angry, or even make some (like me) feel very, very sorry for you. But at the end of the day, it’s still your problem. You’re the one supporting abortion, you’re the one making vile claims in absolute terms against other Catholics, and you’re the one who will ultimately have to answer for both.

I’ll continue to pray for you, but I’m done dealing with you.

 

[marietta]

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

 

[vern_humphrey]

But if what you are willing to say to other human beings is any indication, I wouldn’t last 10 minutes in the vile world that must be in your head.

And if what you are willing to say to other human beings is any indication – including smears about incest – I wouldn’t last 10 minutes in the vile world that must be in your head

I am deeply sorry that you politically support abortion. I think it is a terrible mistake, particularly since you directly attempt to conceal the intrinsic evil you are supporting, hence potentially making yourself complicant.

I am deeply sorry that you politically support abortion, to the point of trying to syphon off votes from people would support anti-abortion measures, and justifying voting for pro-abotion politicians. I think it is a terrible mistake, particularly since you directly attempt to conceal the intrinsic evil you are supporting, hence potentially making yourself complicant.

I’ll continue to pray for you, but I’m done dealing with you.

And I’ll pray for you, and advise you to exercise caution upon departure.

 

[SoCalRC]

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.

I think I realize where you are trying to lead her. But biologically, these are incredibly complex questions. For example, a fertilized zygote will not develop into a recognizable fetus without considerable interaction with the mother’s body. It is, in many ways, biologically indistinguishable from other tissue and organs in her body.

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?

Or turn it around. Using modern biology, it is now theoretically possible to take, say, a mole from your own ear and use it to clone a human being. It is not yet practical, and it is certainly not licit, but what if it occured? Like a test tube baby or the results of IVF, I have no doubt that your mole-child would be a human person, complete with a soul which is a unique creation by God and saved by the blood of Christ. But at what point does it stop being ‘your’ mole and become his/her own ‘individual human life form’, with the inalienable gift of life from God?

I’m not trying to be difficult, I am just pointing out, as the Church did in Donum Vitae, that science and biology cannot provide us with a clear and definitive answers on what is, ultimately, a question of theology and Faith.

 

[SoCalRC]

And if what you are willing to say to other human beings is any indication – including smears about incest – I wouldn’t last 10 minutes in the vile world that must be in your head.

Are you sure you are not related to Pee-Wee Herman? ‘I know you are but what am I…’ seems to be your ‘A game’ when it comes to retorts.

I am deeply sorry that you politically support abortion, to the point of trying to syphon off votes from people would support anti-abortion measures, and justifying voting for pro-abotion politicians.

I’m sorry, I was going to let it go, but sometimes your utter lack of coherence just begs for a response.

Since I have clearly stated that I have no such intentions as you claim. And since I have shown that Rome and the USCCB consider my position perfectly licit. Are you indicating that:

A. The Church is wrong, and my position is not licit

B. The position is licit, but 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)

C. You are just throwing out baseless claims because attacking and attempting to falsely errode the credibility of others is the only way you can think of to ‘defend’ your position

D. You are not even sure what you are saying, because you are so distracted by the lawn gnome who keeps telling you to burn things

I’m sure that inquiring minds want to know…

 

[vern_humphrey]

Are you sure you are not related to Pee-Wee Herman? ‘I know you are but what am I…’ seems to be your ‘A game’ when it comes to retorts.

I’m sorry, I was going to let it go, but sometimes your utter lack of coherence just begs for a response.

Since I have clearly stated that I have no such intentions as you claim. And since I have shown that Rome and the USCCB consider my position perfectly licit. Are you indicating that:

A. The Church is wrong, and my position is not licit

B. The position is licit, but 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)

C. You are just throwing out baseless claims because attacking and attempting to falsely errode the credibility of others is the only way you can think of to ‘defend’ your position

D. You are not even sure what you are saying, because you are so distracted by the lawn gnome who keeps telling you to burn things

I’m sure that inquiring minds want to know…

I merely point out that your pretense that the Church forbids us to vote for anyone but the perfect candidate is designed for one (or both) of two purposes – to syphon votes away from pro-life (albeit imperfect) candidates, or to serve as rationalization for voting for pro-choice candidates.

You can easily refute me by telling me if you plan to vote at all – because if you do, it will be for either an imperfect pro-life candiate or a pro-choice candidate.

 

[Ridgerunner]

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.

You are correct, of course. Supposedly, this thread was for pro-choice people to state their reasons for supporting it and, presumably, for people to question those reasons. There has been some of that. But mostly it’s people who claim to be prolife accusing others who claim to be prolife, of not being prolife enough.

It’s probably too late to turn it around, but for whatever it’s worth, I second the motion.

 

[KathleenElsie]

Around and around we go and where this thread stops no one knows.

Maybe it is time to get back to the original thought. You all remember it. What are the reasons for pro-choice folks to support abortion?

 

[MIZER]

Vern Humphrey,

You should be ashamed of yourself and eliminated by the forum moderator for this one:

including pregnant women gunned down for sport by US paid Pinochet thugs

This sort of comment has no place in America, let alone on a Christian forum or website. What a coward you are. I dare you to stand before one of our fine men or women in uniform or before the parents of one of our fallen soldiers and make such a disgusting comment. You should be flogged.

My typing can’t begin to express my outrage. Anyone else share my abhorrence for this written abomination? Disgraceful!!!

 

[Ridgerunner]

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.

Not having a uterus, I’ll never experience it, of course. However, if it ever happens that I hold the life of someone in my hands for nine months; someone who is not to blame for the situation but is a major inconvenience, and whom I could kill within that time without adverse legal consequence to myself, and for whom, at the conclusion of the nine months I have the choice whether to continue taking responsibility or giving it to another, I will consider carefully how I will handle the situation. I am fairly sure, however, I would refrain from the option to kill.

But maybe that’s too easy. In many ancient societies, including that of Rome, a father had an absolute legal right to kill, usually by exposure, any child of his up to some age which varied with time and place, but certainly included babyhood. Would you grant to fathers this right, and if so, at what age, if any, would you say fathers should no longer have the right?

In ancient societies less complex than ours when, for example, a father discovered, let’s say at around age two, that his child was autistic, the subject was certainly at the forefront. Autistic children can be immensely troublesome. Fathers, then, were expected to support, usually by hand labor, the entire family. Breakables were expensive and/or difficult to build. An autistic child could significantly damage or destroy a daub and wattle house in one day, thus exposing the family to the elements. Would you grant to fathers in such a society the right to kill such a child? At what age, if any, would you say the father no longer had the right?

Most such families were agrarian, and depended on the labor of children to help in feeding and clothing the family. If, say, a child was born with physical handicaps that prevented him from contributing labor, but was otherwise harmless, would you grant to the father the right to kill such a child? If so, at what age, if any, you would say the father no longer had the right?

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?

 

[vern_humphrey]

Vern Humphrey,

You should be ashamed of yourself and eliminated by the forum moderator for this one:

This sort of comment has no place in America, let alone on a Christian forum or website. What a coward you are. I dare you to stand before one of our fine men or women in uniform or before the parents of one of our fallen soldiers and make such a disgusting comment. You should be flogged.

My typing can’t begin to express my outrage. Anyone else share my abhorrence for this written abomination? Disgraceful!!!

Where did you come up with this? The words you quoted are certainly not mine.

For your information, I am a retired Army officer with two Purple Hearts and three Bronze Stars.

I think the proper thing for you to do is go back and look at the orgin of the words you quoted, then apologize for your intemperate attack on me.

 

[SoCalRC]

I merely point out that your pretense that the Church forbids us to vote for anyone but the perfect candidate is designed for one (or both) of two purposes – to syphon votes away from pro-life (albeit imperfect) candidates, or to serve as rationalization for voting for pro-choice candidates.

What pretense? The only person who has made that claim is you. It isn’t even logical. I have tried to explain the distinction to you. Others, like Mapleoak, have tried to explain the distinction to you, but you ignore the explanations and keep repeating the falsehood.

Presumably, you are either just being dishonest or the concept that it is possible to not be a baby killer while still not being a saint is just beyond your cognitive ability.

If it is the latter, perhaps you should slow down and try to grasp slightly more complicated concepts before having another sanctimonious tantrum. If it is the former, then the logical deduction would be that your dishonesty, along with your evasiveness, is evidence that you are not acting with Christian intent.

You can easily refute me by telling me if you plan to vote at all – because if you do, it will be for either an imperfect pro-life candiate or a pro-choice candidate.

The candidate I am looking closest at now is not a perfect person (but again, that is just your invention), but does hold a 100% pro life position (from a Catholic perspective) on abortion, euthanasia, and stem cell research. Also, the candidate is in sync with the Church with regards to the death penalty, torture, and the war.

If I end up compromising on a non negotiable moral principle (per Rome), it looks like it might be either education and/or a socially just economy. I am not certain that I would be compromising, I am still studying the candidate’s positions and record. There is another candidate that I am also considering, who is also 100% pro life on abortion, euthanasia, and stem cell reaserch, but favors the death penalty and is divorced, so, for me, that vote would have to be an application of proportionate reasons.

But, of course, this does not “refute you”, because you are not constrained by reality, reason, or truth. You’ll howl that my honest answer is somehow dishonest or incomplete, spew more nonsensical attacks on my character, and then go back to your standard MO, which appears to be:

1. Correctly give attack on human life issues special signficance
2. Incorrectly (per Rome and the USCCB) raise that significance to the point where it “trumps” other fundemental moral demands
3. Incorrectly (per Rome and the USCCB) collapse “right to life” to just abortion
4. Incorrectly (per Rome and the USCCB) Collapse abortion to just secular law
5. Loudly proclaims that abortion is THE true litmus test for “real” Catholics in voting
6. Compromise on abortion however much is required to vote for the party you intended to vote for all along
7. Loudly proclaim that your compromise is the one obvious and true choice for all Catholics
8. Nastily declare that anyone who disagrees and/or reaches a different conclussion is a false Catholic and an agent for evil
9. Use every vile tactic of character assassination and evasion to avoid answering legitimate questions about your reasoning or theology
10. Lay out a ‘challenge’ to your detractors
11. Pretend it wasn’t answered
12. Soil yourself in a fit of false moral outrage, and repeat…

I’m just glad I don’t have to do your laundry!

 

[SoCalRC]

Around and around we go and where this thread stops no one knows.

Maybe it is time to get back to the original thought. You all remember it. What are the reasons for pro-choice folks to support abortion?

But didn’t you indicate that you are probably going to vote for a candidate who supports a position on abortion that the Church considers intrinsically evil?

What are your reasons?

After all, why shouldn’t we use the Church’s definition of pro life instead of one created for partisan political purposes?

 

[vern_humphrey]

What pretense? The only person who has made that claim is you.

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?

And by the way, I though you were through.

 

[KathleenElsie]

But didn’t you indicate that you are probably going to vote for a candidate who supports a position on abortion that the Church considers intrinsically evil?

What are your reasons?

After all, why shouldn’t we use the Church’s definition of pro life instead of one created for partisan political purposes?

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.

 

[marietta]

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

 

[marietta]

KathleenElsie:

What is a “Collabotator”?

marietta

 

[st_lucy]

KathleenElsie:

What is a “Collabotator”?

marietta

she answered your question to this on the other thread about hispanics.

 

[Ridgerunner]

But didn’t you indicate that you are probably going to vote for a candidate who supports a position on abortion that the Church considers intrinsically evil?

What are your reasons?

After all, why shouldn’t we use the Church’s definition of pro life instead of one created for partisan political purposes?

Maybe you, SoCal, should identify YOUR candidate so KathleenElsie will know whether YOU are going to vote for an abortion -supporting candidate? Don’t hide, now.

 

[mdr]

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.

To me, your above statement indicates moral relativism, the concept that right and wrong are not objective but exist only in relation to each individual’s perception.

I’m sure you don’t need me to tell you that this is not at all the Catholic view.

Indeed, many non-Catholics, non-Christians, and even non-theists have discovered for themselves that there is a moral law and that evil acts harm the doer even when the doer is not cognizant of the evil inherent in these acts.

This was illustrated just a couple of months ago when Britain’s Royal College of Psychiatrists recommended a “cooling-off period” and counseling about physical and mental health risks before women obtained abortions. They cited several recent studies, as well as decades of anecdotal evidence, which indicate significantly higher incidence of future substance abuse, depression, and other mental disorders in women who have procured abortions. These are women whose social milieu is very supportive of abortion on demand and who have, theoretically, been free to choose according to their individual consciences. Yet they suffer from their actions, actions which they did not view as evil at the time of choice.

Sorry, Marietta, I just cannot agree with you here.