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

[mapleoak]

I believe I read something somewhere about “speaking the Truth in Love”…

Playing the sympathy card usually comes after the argument has run dry.

 

[Fitswimmer]

This is true but usually the soft, squwishy love is just that, soft and squwishy and it has no effect. Tough love, on the other hand, has been proven to be very effective.

Abortion is ugly. Why do you want us to make it pretty by being soft and squwishy? The truth is sometimes hard to hear, that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t tell it.

Believe me, Marietta can take care of herself. From what I’ve read of her posts, she too is a tough cookie.

So it is impossible to speak about Pro Life issues without becoming shrill and angry?

Playing the sympathy card usually comes after the argument has run dry.

The only “argument” I’m making is that anger and insults are not a good way to win people over who disagree.

 

[fix]

vz71:

In English this time: I do not defend the choice to abort. I defend the right to choose.

Sorry, but how is this not defending abortion? If you think the law should allow one to kill another innocent peson is that not supporting their action?

Would this apply to something like slavery too? As in I do not want to own a slave, but I support another’s right to own one if they choose?

 

[KathleenElsie]

So it is impossible to speak about Pro Life issues without becoming shrill and angry?

The only “argument” I’m making is that anger and insults are not a good way to win people over who disagree.

True. In some cases, maybe most cases. Yet if the person posting has an agenda and/or is blind the the fact that their choice leads to death of children, we as Catholic Christians MUST inform them in any way they will listen (read) because of God’s law to inform that person they are wrong. We do no one a kindness to be gentle and discrete to those that persist in enabling the death to continue. Sin is sin. Murder is murder. Choice as in this thread is death and murder of the Innocent. (not choosing chicken or beef)

As to the argument of Catholics abort also. Catholics sin just like every other human in this world. That is never a reason to support the decision others make to kill God’s children.

Sadly the insults have gone both ways on this thread.

 

[Catholic_Kat]

Faith becomes a passive acceptance that certain things “out there” are true, but without practical relevance for everyday life. The result is a growing separation of faith from life: living “as if God did not exist”. This is aggravated by an individualistic and eclectic approach to faith and religion: far from a Catholic approach to “thinking with the Church”, each person believes he or she has a right to pick and choose, maintaining external social bonds but without an integral, interior conversion to the law of Christ. Consequently, rather than being transformed and renewed in mind, Christians are easily tempted to conform themselves to the spirit of this age (cf. Rom 12:3). We have seen this emerge in an acute way in the scandal given by Catholics who promote an alleged right to abortion.

I loved this quote from the Holy Father. Thank you for posting this!!! This is relativism and the exact point that I have been making all along. It is so much better when the Holy Father says it. Just because abortion exists, does not make it right. Just because it is the law, does not make it right. And the WORST thing a person can do is claim to be pro-life personally, but pro-choice for everyone else. This is the same thing as saying I would never sexually abuse a child, but if a teacher at my kids’ school is, I can’t do anything about it --after all, it’s his/her choice and I can’t put myself in his/her shoes and try to tell him/her what he/she can’t do. Get real! That is ridiculous. Of course you can!!!

 

[KathleenElsie]

Food for thought

In April, the annual report for Planned Parenthood Federation of America revealed that the abortion giant had a total income of $1.02 billion – with reported profits of nearly $115 million. Taxpayers kick in more than $336 million worth of government grants and contracts at both the state and federal levels. That’s a third of Planned Parenthood’s budget.
And what market-distorting results do we get for those government incentives? In 2006 alone: 289,750 abortions.

289,750 deaths by murder. Maybe on, just one, of them was the person that could have found the cure for cancer or how to feed the starving.

 

[Fitswimmer]

Food for thought

289,750 deaths by murder. Maybe on, just one, of them was the person that could have found the cure for cancer or how to feed the starving.

And maybe one was the next Hitler. I’ve never liked that argument because the potential for evil is just as strong as the potential for good.

There are so many more valid arguments against abortion, we really should retire that one.

 

[vern_humphrey]

And maybe one was the next Hitler. I’ve never liked that argument because the potential for evil is just as strong as the potential for good.

There are so many more valid arguments against abortion, we really should retire that one.

How many people have won the Nobel Prize in medicine, biology, and so on? And how many Hitlers have there been?

How many babies grew up to be good fathers and mothers? And how many Hitlers have there been?

 

[mapleoak]

And maybe one was the next Hitler. I’ve never liked that argument because the potential for evil is just as strong as the potential for good.

The ‘potential’ for evil is greater in a society that believes that abortion is acceptable.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

What I would prefer is that abortion services remain legal in the U.S. I have been in offices where abortions are performed, more than once, and what I have observed is professional care in a meticulously clean environment, with open-minded staff and compassionate doctors. Don’t even go there: these doctors have reconciled their actions spiritually or philosophically and, after all, we’re not here to judge, now are we?

These clinics could be “clean, open minded, compassionate”, it does not change the fact that these “doctors” specialize in taking the lives of innocent pre-born babies. These “doctors” see in front of them the mangled tiny bodies of the pre-born. These “doctors” look at the baby through sonogram, locate their tiny beating hearts, and inject them with drugs to stop the heart beat.

These “doctors” are not compassionate. They pretend to be compassionate while taking the money of a confused, distraught woman. The woman might truly not know what she is doing…but the “doctor” sees first hand.

I cannot sit in judgment of these "doctors’ " immortal souls… Lord, have mercy. But these actions are diabolical, I am not sure how they sleep at night.

If you don’t believe me go to www.priestsforlife.org. You can witness a video about abortion. I could only make it through about 5 seconds without feeling faint.

Sorry for my anger…sorry for the use of graphic descriptions… But there is really no way to sugar coat that abortion is evil.

By the way, MY Doctor is compassionate, he donates his own time and services for a life center, that deals with women with unexpected pregnancies. The truly compassionate way to deal with a pregnant woman who is confused is to help her see and realize the beauty of the LIFE within her, and help her make the only morally acceptable choice

 

[vern_humphrey]

The ‘potential’ for evil is greater in a society that believes that abortion is acceptable.

Indeed – after all, what was Hitler all about, if not about killing those persons he deemed sub-human? What does abortion do on a daily basis?

 

[Fitswimmer]

The ‘potential’ for evil is greater in a society that believes that abortion is acceptable.

There’s no objective proof whatsoever for that. It’s hyperbole that adds nothing to the argument.

Again, there are so many good arguments against abortion, arguments that can be objectively validiated-why do we resort to the type that can’t?

 

[MIZER]

Fitswimmer asks:

So it is impossible to speak about Pro Life issues without becoming shrill and angry?

Of course not. But show me just one shrill comment on this thread. If my anger that someone is before me on a catholic website defending a woman’s so called right to chose to have her unborn child violently killed bother’s you then don’t read my posts.

Isn’t that what Marrietta would say about abortion? “If you don’t like it don’t have one.” Abortion makes me angry. The money changers in the temple made Jesus angry. Jesus didn’t ask nicely if they would please leave the holy place and conduct their filthy business elswhere and I’m not often inclined to ask nicely if people would please stop killing the babies.

 

[Aquinas74]

There’s no objective proof whatsoever for that. It’s hyperbole that adds nothing to the argument.

Again, there are so many good arguments against abortion, arguments that can be objectively validiated-why do we resort to the type that can’t?

Well the Nazis embraced Euthanasia, and then ultimately the murder of Jews, Catholics, and countless other groups. It’s not quite as much hyperbole as you might think.

 

[MIZER]

This is also fitswimmer:

The only “argument” I’m making is that anger and insults are not a good way to win people over who disagree.

No one has really insulted Marietta. Not really. As a nation we are far too easily offended. Usually it’s the truth about ourselves that offends us the most, so as my teenager’s would say, “take a chill pill and suck it up.”

 

[vern_humphrey]

There’s no objective proof whatsoever for that. It’s hyperbole that adds nothing to the argument.

Again, there are so many good arguments against abortion, arguments that can be objectively validiated-why do we resort to the type that can’t?

There is indeed objective proof. Take the example of Hitler – he could never have done what he did if anti-semitism were not extensive and deep-rooted in Germany.

 

[Fitswimmer]

Well the Nazis embraced Euthanasia, and then ultimately the murder of Jews, Catholics, and countless other groups. It’s not quite as much hyperbole as you might think.

(also known as Godwin’s Rule of Nazi Analogies)[1] is an adage formulated by Mike Godwin in 1990. The law states:[2][3]

"As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."

Godwin’s Law is often cited in online discussions as a caution against the use of inflammatory rhetoric or exaggerated comparisons, and is often conflated with fallacious arguments of the reductio ad Hitlerum form.

The rule does not make any statement whether any particular reference or comparison to Hitler or the Nazis might be appropriate, but only asserts that one arising is increasingly probable. It is precisely because such a comparison or reference may sometimes be appropriate, Godwin has argued[4] that overuse of Nazi and Hitler comparisons should be avoided, because it robs the valid comparisons of their impact. Although in one of its early forms Godwin’s Law referred specifically to Usenet newsgroup discussions,[5] the law is now applied to any threaded online discussion: electronic mailing lists, message boards, chat rooms, and more recently blog comment threads and wiki talk pages

As for the shrillness and anger-the choice of how we respond to someone who disagrees with us is ours alone and if a person truly believes that the best way is to display anger-that’s certainly a valid choice. I’m just not convinced that it is the most fruitful one.

 

[Aquinas74]

As for the shrillness and anger-the choice of how we respond to someone who disagrees with us is ours alone and if a person truly believes that the best way is to display anger-that’s certainly a valid choice. I’m just not convinced that it is the most fruitful one.

I don’t believe I have used any anger in my discussions. My analogy of the Nazis is not that far off. The Nazis embraced a nihilistic and destructive attitude towards life. They started by killing those whom they saw as weak. Then they killed the Jews and other groups. In each case they put themselves above God by choosing when the life God began would end. Is Abortion not the same thing? Ending a god given life by playing God and choosing when it will end, not allowing God in his divine love and wisdom to choose when that life is supposed to end. The comparison is not as far off as it may seem.

 

[MIZER]

Sorry for my anger…sorry for the use of graphic descriptions… But there is really no way to sugar coat that abortion is evil.

Dear Mary Gail,

Never apologize for being angry about abortion. We are to be un-apologetically pro-life.

Never back away from showing people the pictures of abortion. If abortion is too horrific to look at perhaps we shouldn’t be tollerating it. That’s what you tell someone who complains about the awful pictures and are more upset by having seen them then they are by the act that produced thier content.

 

[vern_humphrey]

As for the shrillness and anger-the choice of how we respond to someone who disagrees with us is ours alone and if a person truly believes that the best way is to display anger-that’s certainly a valid choice. I’m just not convinced that it is the most fruitful one.

Humphrey’s Law Of Nazi Analogies:

If it is inappropriate to refer to the Holocaust when discussing abortion, it is only because the Nazi Holocaust was too small – only one-fourth as many people were killed by the Nazis as by abortion in America.