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

[vern_humphrey]

“‘choice’: implies the chance, right or power to choose, usually by the free exercise of one’s judgment’”

The free exercise of one’s judgment. Free will. We all have it. We all put it into play every single day. Sometimes we choose something that will be harmful to ourselves or to another. We’ve all done it. When a woman is standing on the precipice of opting for abortion or not opting for abortion, what is so hard about our granting her the same free will that God has and allowing her to decide on her own?

When a man is standing on the precipice of opting for killing or not killing his wife, what is so hard about our granting him the same free will that God has and allowing him to decide on his own?

The fallacy in your argument is you expect us to agree – in this case, only – that the decision to kill another human being at whim has no moral implications.

"Murder. To kill a person unlawfully and with malice. Much to your chagrin, abortion is not unlawful today. I know of not one single woman who has approached abortion with malice in her heart. I have not known a rape victim who sought an abortion, however; perhaps that might be different.

marietta

Making something lawful doesn’t change the nature of the act. Abortion is the pre-meditated killing of an innocent human being – and that’s murder, regardless what activists say.

 

[marietta]

vern humphrey: within my definition and my dictionary’s definition, “choice” is not a crime. According to the laws of the United States, abortion itself is not a crime. You are talking about morality. I understand how you would view abortion as a moral affront to God. To a person, these posts have been about abortion, with the exception of mine and one or two others who carefully, patiently, throroughly explained to no one’s satisfaction (but mine) the sequence of events before, during and after conception. My gripe is not that anyone is offended or sickened by abortion. My problem is with one person getting all over another person about birth control, pregnancy, abortion, birth - these are private matters. Pray for them, the men, women and children embroiled in this dilemma. Offer to raise their children if they carry to term and they cannot do it themselves. Adopt the children. Find them homes. Pay the women’s medical bills. Give them a safe haven.

**rusty20: **

“. . . that does not mean that [the women’s] actions are morally or legally correct. This is incomprehensible to me . . .” Actually, the actions of these women are protected by law. And I’ve already addressed the one-world, one-morality, and-it-has-to-be-mine code you have all served up. By the way, I’m sure we can find you a nice metal folding chair in Purgatory for laughing at any of these posts.

fix:

Please find my post where I said “abortion is neutral”. Never mind: I said, “The death of the unborn may not be a morally neutral thing . . .” Instead, find the post where I allegedly said I “have no interest in the killing of [my] fellow man”. Thank you.

Choice, as defined at the top of my previous post, is not inherently evil.

I am not going to take on state and federal intentions so you can watch me dance. This is more important than your game.

vern humphrey:

“First of all, abortions due to incest or rape make up only about 1 1/2% of all abortions.”: your point?

Allowing a woman to decide whether or not to have an abortion is not demanding “a death sentence for an innocent victim”. I’m not even talking about killing, vern, I’m talking about making a decision. Good grief.

A rape victim’s choices are as wide and broad as the choices available to any other human being.

CHOOSING LIFE IS A ALSO A CHOICE MADE OF GOD-GIVEN FREE WILL. Why assume that every woman who experiences an unexpected pregnancy and explores the option of abortion will choose abortion?

I can’t respond to your final question because I don’t understand it.

Verisimilitude:

In my 4th pregnancy I experienced quickening at a little over 4 months. I did not consider abortion because I had planned this baby. But that was my “magic moment”, if you must know. I think it’s fair to acknowledge that many women don’t get a “magic moment” and that my personal “magic moment” would be meaningless to them.

The mother of a born baby also has choice. Ask Susan Smith or Andrea Davis, if you’re looking for an answer to whether or not a woman can make the choice to kill her children. These women, however, are not afforded any protection under the law. Abortion is protected under U.S. law. How do I feel about any of this? Disheartened, still, by the need for abortion, set up by circumstances which may or may not have their roots in irresponsibility. Also dismayed at the fact that our government seems not to take treatment for mental illness very seriously. Sad, also, that so many folks believe that unwanted pregnancy is the natural byproduct of wanton, Godless behavior.

                                          ***

You will never see my point. I can see many of your points (those which appear rational go to the head of the line) - and I know that never the twain shall meet. What I carry away from this interchange today is that 1) I’ll continue to post here, and 2) I’m going to have to look elsewhere to find gentility. Your big stick doesn’t scare me. Your arrogance does.

marietta

 

[Aquinas74]

Whats amazing is the same arguments being made today for Abortion, were being made in the 1930’s by Nazi germany for Euthanasia and the Holocaust against the Jews. Mass murder by the state is never acceptable. That people have not learned from the lessons of the past is just sad. I pray for a conversion of heart, mind, and soul for all those who support abortion.

 

[marietta]

gochrist9436:

“Abortion is the murder of a living breathing human being. Plain and Simple.”

Then can you please define for me the word “choice”? Not the rhetorical, anti-abortion, pro-life, smaller-than-Daniel-Webster-ever-intended-for-it-to-be “choice” but just the generic word itself?

Thank you.

marietta

 

[vern_humphrey]

vern humphrey: within my definition and my dictionary’s definition, “choice” is not a crime.

Acting on a choice may be, though.

A husband who chooses to kill his wife – and does kill her – commits a crime.

According to the laws of the United States, abortion itself is not a crime.

According to a very bad ruling by activists jurists – on a par with the Dred Scott decision, or Plessy v Ferguson, that’s the law currently.

But the pre-meditated killing a perfectly innocent human being is, and will always be murder – regardless what activist judges say.

“First of all, abortions due to incest or rape make up only about 1 1/2% of all abortions.”: your point?

That 98.5% of all these murders of the innocent are “justified” based on the “incest and rape” argument. The Roe v Wade case falsely claimed rape.

Allowing a woman to decide whether or not to have an abortion is not demanding “a death sentence for an innocent victim”. I’m not even talking about killing, vern, I’m talking about making a decision. Good grief.

A decision to kill – with pre-mediation – another innocent human being.

 

[marietta]

fix:

I can only get to them as fast as I get to them - the slings and arrows have really been picking up speed today.

Regarding your question on genocide: I don’t know how much clearer I can make this, or how many languages I need to post this in, but here’s another shot at it:

Genocide is the systematic killing or extermination of a whole people or nation. Though inflammatory, I can understand how many people, particularly Catholics, view the act of abortion in this light.

I am trying not to address the act of abortion. My posts have referred to **the act of choosing **just what to do in the case of unexpected or blighted pregnancy. I don’t like abortion. It is painful on levels that no man will know and very, very few Catholic women will know. We each are entitled to our opinion on this subject. I do not disagree with the fact that abortion is a tragedy, it is profoundly sad. Yes, lives are lost. Yes, relationships are damaged. Yes, God’s tears can be felt all over the world because of it.

But the rhetoric the surrounds the pro-life, anti-abortion movement (and I daresay anything rhetorical from the pro-abortion side) needs to get dialed back a notch. Nothing comes of hurling epithets. I guess I was just born to late to enjoy civility.

marietta

 

[vz71]

I am trying not to address the act of abortion. My posts have referred to **the act of choosing **just what to do in the case of unexpected or blighted pregnancy. I don’t like abortion. It is painful on levels that no man will know and very, very few Catholic women will know. We each are entitled to our opinion on this subject. I do not disagree with the fact that abortion is a tragedy, it is profoundly sad. Yes, lives are lost. Yes, relationships are damaged. Yes, God’s tears can be felt all over the world because of it.

It sounds as though you disagree with abortion, but you do not appear to understand that approval of the choice to have an abortion is an approval of the abortion.

People are not free to choose an intrinsic evil.

 

[Believe_85]

why does a choice exist when it comes to abortion?

I think it’s because society wants the choice to exist on the matter, not because they want to exercize their free will.

Rapists exercise their free will when they make their choices and are legally liable because society says they have lost their right to freedom by deeply disrespecting the humanity of someone else.

If said rapist impregnates someone, how does the pregnant woman have a right to deeply disrespect the humanity of the life within her by denying it’s right to life?

This is such an inconsistency. I don’t think the “free will” argument stands up at all.

In addition, there is the argument that the fetus’ soul is disrespected. Since we cannot disprove that souls exist, in order to respect everyone, we would have to assume that everyone has a soul. We cannot prove when a soul is assigned to a body, so you would have to err on the safe side and presume it occurs upon conception. Therefore, to abort a baby is to also abort a soul. Even if someone doesn’t believe in souls, one should logically and morally consider this: the existence of the fetal soul cannot be disproven, and when it comes to the matter of fetal life one should not take harmful action against it or you also take action against the soul.

 

[marietta]

Believe_85:

Choice evidently **does not **exist. You assume that women go from conception to abortion without the slightest inclination to even consider the matter.

We’ve examined the rapist question. We have already established their culpability from the standpoint of law. Why are you glossing over the fact that abortion is legal? And why do you assume that a woman who has been raped will automatically and without aforethought jettison herself to the nearest abortion clinic so she can “disrespect the humanity of the life within her”? Not all victims of rape who conceive as a result of that rape abort their fetuses. Some choose to carry to term.

No, we do not know when a soul becomes a part of a developing fetus. " . . .so you would have to err on the safe side and presume it occurs upon conception," you say. To whom are you addressing this directive? If a woman does not believe the soul enters the child until it is born, should her personal beliefs take a back seat to yours? “Even if someone doesn’t believe in souls,” you continue, “one should logically and morally consider this: the existence of the fetal soul cannot be disproven, and when it comes to the matter of fetal life one should not take harmful action against it or you also take action against the soul.”

In other words, every woman on this planet, no matter what her belief system, no matter if she does not even have a belief system, should subjugate herself, abandon her own values and ability to assess her own private situation, not even bother to examine her dilemma because you have already done this for her?

vz71:

I have repeatedly stated my position on abortion. My position on choice is that it every woman’s right to choose what is right *for *her. I have never even said that choosing abortion is “right”. All I have been defending is the right to choose.

This circling of the wagons is very impressive. Safety in numbers, I guess.

vern humphrey:

“A decision to kill – with pre-mediation . . .” - Is this a joke?

marietta

 

[allhers]

We are free to choose to do good
Everything is a choice, choose good or choose evil. Your choice.

 

[rlg94086]

I defend the right to choose, for a woman and her partner. The choices come before the vacuum aspirator is cranked up, ladies and gentlemen. The woman and her partner, if he is so inclined, have an opportunity to turn around and walk away from the check-in desk at the clinic. Some women are already on the table, have their IVs in place and have a nitrous mask over their faces and they change their minds: they choose not to continue with the termination.** I defend their right to do this. I do not defend their “right to kill”; I defend their right to think, feel, pray, anguish, research, worry, discuss, and choose**.

…to kill.

Your point is meaningless - of course you support their right to kill. If you take away the choice to kill, as we should, the couple still has the “right to think, feel, pray, anguish, research, worry, discuss, and choose.” They just don’t have the choice to kill the unborn child.

You have yet to give a good reason for them to have the right to choose to kill their unborn child.

 

[rusty20]

**rusty20: **

“. . . that does not mean that [the women’s] actions are morally or legally correct. This is incomprehensible to me . . .” Actually, the actions of these women are protected by law. And I’ve already addressed the one-world, one-morality, and-it-has-to-be-mine code you have all served up. By the way, I’m sure we can find you a nice metal folding chair in Purgatory for laughing at any of these posts.

marietta

Marietta, the last time I checked, murder was illegal . I’ll accept your argument on legalities though. On to morality:

Though I see a particular moral universe, I do not wish to impose that universe on others. However, I believe, and it appears most in this thread agree, that some actions are morally wrong, no matter the time, place, consequences, etc. Perhaps I could name this the natural law? Among these things, I include murder of the innocent (abortion), rape, and child molestation. Thus, I believe that abortion (murder of the innocent) is wrong in every case, no matter whether or not a woman should think or convince herself otherwise.

Please note, I am not trying to push my personal beliefs on everyone. I also believe that sex should be used in a loving way that expresses the desire to procreate and use God’s gift of sex to create life and families. I do not wish to tell society it must use sex only for these purposes (though society would be much better off if we all followed that belief ).

 

[Believe_85]

Believe_85:

Choice evidentlydoes not exist. You assume that women go from conception to abortion without the slightest inclination to even consider the matter.
Isn’t that your argument, that women have a choice? I don’t get it. I guess you agree then.
Abortion is not a choice, it’s a child. /I]
We’ve examined the rapist question. We have already established their culpability from the standpoint of law. Why are you glossing over the fact that abortion is legal? And why do you assume that a woman who has been raped will automatically and without aforethought jettison herself to the nearest abortion clinic so she can “disrespect the humanity of the life within her”? Not all victims of rape who conceive as a result of that rape abort their fetuses. Some choose to carry to term.
My point was not the legality of rape or abortion. My point was a rapist is exercising his free will when he rapes someone and is punished for it, yet a woman aborting her baby is not. That is inconsistent and so the free will argument cannot stand as it was presented in earlier postings. Further, I didn’t assume anything about a rape victim getting an abortion, I was merely staying on topic by using the raped woman who gets an abortion as an illustration for my counterpoint. You seem to be adding to what I posted.
No, we do not know when a soul becomes a part of a developing fetus. " . . .so you would have to err on the safe side and presume it occurs upon conception," you say. To whom are you addressing this directive? If a woman does not believe the soul enters the child until it is born, should her personal beliefs take a back seat to yours? “Even if someone doesn’t believe in souls,” you continue, “one should logically and morally consider this: the existence of the fetal soul cannot be disproven, and when it comes to the matter of fetal life one should not take harmful action against it or you also take action against the soul.”
*This is basic logic and Kant’s idea of respect for humanity. I think my argument stands, since I can’t find a counterpoint in your post./*I]
In other words, every woman on this planet, no matter what her belief system, no matter if she does not even have a belief system, should subjugate herself, abandon her own values and ability to assess her own private situation, not even bother to examine her dilemma because you have already done this for her?
Logically, any woman regardless of her belief system, since she can’t prove her baby doesn’t have a soul should consider that it therefore could have a soul, and to abort it, if you read my argument, is to disrespect its soul, whether or not it exists. I’m making an argument, not pushing beliefs. That’s what you are here for, right? To defend your argument? As am I. Shall we call it free will?
=QUOTE]

 

[Verisimilitude]

In my 4th pregnancy I experienced quickening at a little over 4 months. I did not consider abortion because I had planned this baby. But that was my “magic moment”, if you must know. I think it’s fair to acknowledge that many women don’t get a “magic moment” and that my personal “magic moment” would be meaningless to them.

sorry if I was unclear. The magic moment I was refering to was when the human baby is a human baby: at conception and not some indeterminate time after it. Biology has little to do with emotion here.

The mother of a born baby also has choice. Ask Susan Smith or Andrea Davis, if you’re looking for an answer to whether or not a woman can make the choice to kill her children. These women, however, are not afforded any protection under the law.

Smith and Davis/Yates have lawyers arguing their defense for their lives and freedoms as there are theives and pedophiles with a multitude of protections. I am curious, do you support automatic US citizenship to be granted a newborn from a illegal immigrant?

Abortion is protected under U.S. law.

So was Prohibition but that had a constitutional Amendment before it was repealed. SCOTUS cannot make law as in Roe. Congress passes laws though this is not the first time they have shirked their responsibility i.e. war; another anti-life activity.

How do I feel about any of this? Disheartened, still, by the need for abortion, set up by circumstances which may or may not have their roots in irresponsibility.

The need is arguably 99% regret or indifference to that life. The responsible, just, and honorable thing is to respect and nuture the created life despite the circumstance it has come to be.

Also dismayed at the fact that our government seems not to take treatment for mental illness very seriously…

Mental illness is as destructive as free will in that sense since your claim of free will and choice equates to the justification to on demand abortion. You likely answered before…do you self impse a time limit before birth that abortion is wrong to you?

Sad, also, that so many folks believe that unwanted pregnancy is the natural byproduct of wanton, Godless behavior

More sad is the deflection and focus on ‘cause’ rather than ‘effect’ as it doesnt matter. The effect is a new human life regardless of cause.

                                          ***

You will never see my point. I can see many of your points (those which appear rational go to the head of the line) - and I know that never the twain shall meet.

Once the life is known the personal choice of the mother (and father) must take into account the personal choice of the new life. Since that new life cannot speak for itself and if the mother or anyone intends to do lethal harm to that individual they deserve the same level of legal representation as Smith and Yates in self defense.

What I carry away from this interchange today is that 1) I’ll continue to post here, and 2) I’m going to have to look elsewhere to find gentility. Your big stick doesn’t scare me. Your arrogance does.

marietta

Some if not all other issues are not as central to life as life itself. Abortion devalues life itself and it reflects in our society today. I don’t know about the big stick or arrogance you are refering too but I do know about being a hypocrite since I discover it in myself on occasion from the small to the large issues throughout my life and I suspect I will have a few more before its over. Gentility is a casualty because sweet words have no sound when dead.

A child that continues to believe in the tooth fairy once they know dad puts the money under their pillow is not to be encouraged in that thought or they could rightfully be a hypocrite if simple ignorance is untrue. The severity of hypocricy increases as the knowledge grows.

 

[vz71]

I have repeatedly stated my position on abortion. My position on choice is that it every woman’s right to choose what is right *for *her. I have never even said that choosing abortion is “right”. All I have been defending is the right to choose.

I see.
Well, if you disagree that abortion is right, then why not make it illegal? In fact, why defend the ‘wrong’ choice at all?
If it is, in fact, wrong then there should be no problem with making it illegal. After all, we have made the choice to burglerize illegal, we have made the choice to attempt to kill people illegal, we have even made the choice to drive while intoxicated illegal.
So what is wrong with making the choice to abort illegal?

 

[marietta]

rlg94086:

Only time for one post before work this a.m.:

The right to choose to kill or to choose not to kill: this is my sole point.

vz71:

I said abortion is a tragedy; I have not said it is either right or wrong, except in the mind, heart and soul of the woman who is considering it.

marietta

 

[MIZER]

For crying out loud Marietta,

Your head is stuck so far in the sand I don’t know if any of us can ever pull you out.

This is because the word “choice” has been diminished to a tool of extremely narrow interpretation, and used as such by anti-abortion people throughout this country and the world.

The word CHOICE was garnared by the pro-abort movement, in this country, some 40 years ago, precisely for the purpose of propoganda in thier effort to get the American people to stop thinking and accept something they had, up to that point in history, adamantly and without exception, rejected. It has worked so well on you that you think the word has been “diminished” by the pro-life side. You don’t have a clue what you are talking about! How old are you?

PRO-LIFERS,

ARE YOU ALL GETTING THIS?

This is why we need to stop cattering to the pro-abort movement in this country by using their own propaganda to refer to them. Every time we use “pro-choice” to refer to someone like Marietta who believes women and doctors have a consitutional right to commit murder, we feed the monster. Every time we use the word “choice” instead of abortion, as in “reproductive choice” or “a woman’s right to choose,” or even “stem-cell research” without defining whose stem-cells and how they will be collected, we feed the monster.

There is no “pro-choice.” There is only pro-life and pro-abort. Either you believe the created human-being has a right to live or you believe he/she may be murdered during his/her first nine months of life, if his/her mother “chooses” murder for him/her.

Marrietta is pro-abort.

Please, if we can’t save all the babies lives at least we should be able to take back the language. Stop using the propaganda, it feeds the evil monster of abortion and it allows Marietta to think she is making an argument for CHOICE when she is really arguing for the violent, sytematic, killing of innocent human beings. That’s genocide in every language. And, incidently, that’s genocide at every stage of human developement from conception until natural death.

 

[MIZER]

rlg94086 tells Marrietta,

You have yet to give a good reason for them to have the right to choose to kill their unborn child

That’s correct. And the reason would be that Marrietta is wallowing in the sunny rays of the word “choice.” She thinks she’s arguing for our “right to choose.” Our right to choose and exercise our free will. Our right to choose anything we wish to choose. She does not yet recognize what is being chosen, and she does not recognize that with her position, she gives her blessing to that choice. I would guess Marietta was born in the eighties. I’m I right Marrietta? At the very least I’ll bet she was born post Roe v Wade. Born into the culture of death, not reaching cognition of the world around her until the eighties when we as a society became truly enmeshed in that culture.

Marrietta Dear Heart,

I wan’t you to know that none of us hates you. I can imagine at this point you must feel pretty well ganged up on and I’m hoping your not missing the fact that this is a public forum and we are attacking your ideology, not you personally. I for one applaud you for your staying power. Most people in your shoes would have bailed a long time ago and yet you keep coming back, attempting to defend your indefensable position. That takes a certain strength of conviction which I don’t mind telling you, I respect and admire. I don’t know if you are a Christian but the Bible speaks of our Lord’s preference for passion. In the New Testemont Jesus says that we are to be passionate in our beliefs, never lukewarm. He says God will “vomit out of HIS mouth” the lukewarm. You are obviously passionate and I would sooner call the passionate, albiet ignorant, pro-abort indvividual my friend than the lukewarm pro-lifer any day of the week. Does that make sense to you? Will you accept my friendship on this board even though we both passionately disagree with one another on this issue?

 

[fix]

fix:

Please find my post where I said “abortion is neutral”. Never mind: I said, “The death of the unborn may not be a morally neutral thing . . .” Instead, find the post where I allegedly said I “have no interest in the killing of [my] fellow man”. Thank you.

Choice, as defined at the top of my previous post, is not inherently evil.

I am not going to take on state and federal intentions so you can watch me dance. This is more important than your game.

Have you not said you have no interest in whether another person chooses to abort or not? Your position is confusing and vague.

If abortion is not neutral than it must be good or bad. Which is it?

 

[MIZER]

Marrietta,

Look closely at what Rusty 20 tells you,

some actions are morally wrong, no matter the time, place, consequences, etc. Perhaps I could name this the natural law? Among these things, I include murder of the innocent (abortion), rape, and child molestation. Thus, I believe that abortion (murder of the innocent) is wrong in every case, no matter whether or not a woman should think or convince herself otherwise.

I would have added, "and no matter what the law dictates.

Ask yourself this question. If the Supreme Court found that under the “right to privacy,” which they errantly found in 1973, mothers also have the right to prostitute thier own children, thus making child sexual abuse as long as money changes hands, a matter of “choice.” Would you still be defending our “right to choose?”

Keep in mind that this particular choice would be perfectly legal in all 50 States and until the child reached his/her 18th birthday. And if the mother so chose prostitution for her baby (we all call our children our babies no matter how big they get) then that person, her baby, would have no choice to counteract her decision and must, by law, be prostituted until he/she turns 18. At 18 years, then the choice becomes his/her own, but he/she must also follow the law and the Supreme Court hasn’t yet (not even in my hypothetical) allowed prostitution for adults to be covered under the “right of privacy.”

So, under this law, would you say that mother’s should have the right to stand on the precipuce, exercise their free will and choose for their own child, a life of prostitution for 18 years? How far will you logically take your conviction? To it’s conclusion I hope.