"Pro-Lifers are Hypocrites"

[CatholicLeanne]

I must’ve gone to a very secular ‘Catholic’ school, cos we had really graphic sex education that made everybody involved super uncomfortable. Putting a bunch of twelve year old girls in a room with a male teacher explaining to them how menstruation and pregnancy works wasn’t the nicest experience

 

[Aquinas11]

making it illegal without appropriate supporting alternatives is not going to solve the problem

Like saying we can’t make murder illegal until we help these angry murderers find “appropriate supporting alternatives” to vent their obvious frustration

 

[Clare]

I’ve seen some pro life people say that they are for the death penalty, to me pro life is all people, not just the unborn.

 

[midori]

My oldest six are adopted.

Congratulations on your beautiful family!

 

[13pollitos]

It was similar for us. It wasn’t a one time class either. The first section was 4th grade and touched on the “basics” (organs and their functions) and puberty. The next section was in 6th grade when we started with discussing relationships and attractions. Eighth grade we talked about the benefits of abstinence before marriage, pregnancy, and STDs. Condoms were talked about and it was mentioned that some infections (herpes and HPV in particular) are more prevalent than AIDS, yet condoms not work well to prevent the spread of these infections. So even with “safe sex” practices, abstinence is the only fool proof method to prevent infections. Various forms of birth control were also talked about. Once again, abstinence is the only fool proof preventative.

In high school it was much more in-depth. NFP was talked about at length in religion, health and biology classes. Various forms of birth control was as well, especially in biology. We learned how they work and why they are known to fail. Our teacher in 10th grade biology even broke statistics down to show the percentages of failures in teens compared to adults. We talked about why those failures likely occur more often with teens (improper use). Birth control was not at all presented to encourage its use. We were given factual, straight forward answers though.

Compared to the kids I knew that were in public school, compared to the districts I have taught in as a teacher, the Catholic schools I attended were miles ahead in sex education. I attended a few public schools as a child as well, and the majority of sex ed came from fellow students that really had no clue what they were talking about. It wasn’t nearly as in-depth or fact based.

 

[blackforest]

You’re proving the point of this thread.

Can you defend the act of abortion - i.e. can you lay out a case that abortion is ethically acceptable - without personally attacking @goout ?

For the sake of argument, let’s suppose we’re all hypocrites of horrible character. How does that justify crushing embryos to death and dismissing any ethical concerns about it with the word “choice?”

 

[Sbee0]

goout:

The pro life community is the one doing the hard work of adoption and social justice.
The accusation of non-compassion is a tired canard.

Just stop. So wrong you are embarrassing yourself.

How many unwanted babies have you brought into your home as foster children?
How many have you adopted?
How many unwanted, special needs or mixed race children have you brought into your home?
What have you ACTIVELY done to support the adoption and foster care process?
How many at-risk pregnant women/families have you directly worked with to support their journey both during pregnancy and afterwards?
How much money have you donated or given to DIRECT support of pregnant women at risk?
How many adopted/foster pre-teens do you DIRECTLY support as they go through the emerging psychological challenges of being given up by their biological parents?

I am pro-choice, and I will put my answers to the above against ANYONE.

Ok first let’s hear your answers so we know for sure you’re not just doubling down on the logical fallacy of the double standard. This is a fallacy that pro choicers use all the time and it’s not a good look.

 

[Jimbo]

I still don’t understand this.

To be clear, I’m not a Republican (or a Democrat) and I’m fine with the things you say. But none of those address the grave wrong done to human beings in the womb.

To me it sounds like ‘We can’t free the slaves until we have jobs and infrastructure for them outside of their plantations’.

No, we free the slaves and work on those issues simultaneously and after the fact.

Similarly, asking people to stop killing human beings even though we might not have the infrastructure there yet isn’t outrageous.

All these arguments are side stepping the issue of the dehumanization and subsequent death of those in the womb, to the tune of around a million a year.

 

[Sbee0]

Sbee0:

I’d say the number of pro lifers who “only care about children before they’re born” is quite close to zero.

The problem is that “pro-life” from a religious standpoint is NOT the same as “pro-life” from a Republican standpoint.
For example, the Catholic Church supports universal health care. It is a fundamental component of pro-life. So is welfare, food stamp programs, foster care programs, etc.

Yes it is. Of course this does not mean GOVERNMENT is the best way to deliver these services.

Here’s why I became “limited” pro-choice:

1. The Catholic platform of pro-life is both illogical and unsustainable. For example, being against contraception and against abortion are mutually contradictory positions. Such a platform cannot succeed. If the Church changed and supported sex education and contraception and family planning, and lobbied for major increased funding of foster care and adoption assistance, we may start to get somewhere.

Abortion is murder of the unborn child. Contraception violates the church’s teaching on the openness to procreation during the sexual act which is reserved for marriage. Seems straightforward and consistent to me. There is no evidence that the church is against sex education.

1. The Republican platform of pro-life is hypocritical and laughable. It is a scam to get the votes of the religious. Just read the history of the moral majority and the Republican party. Who can seriously kill healthcare and be called pro-life? What a scam. Just look at the statistics - abortion rate of change INCREASES under Republican administrations.

That last part is a textbook ecological logical fallacy and thus is worthless to bring up in any debate.

The reason I say “limited” pro-choice is because I don’t support abortion. We should do everything we can to stop it - but making it illegal without appropriate supporting alternatives is not going to solve the problem. You don’t want to go down the same path as Prohibition. That is where we are headed.

If you support choice you support abortion rights. “I don’t support abortion” means nothing. Nobody does.

 

[LateCatholic]

Catholics do promote family planning, even if it’s not with the methods you prefer. Natural Family Planning is what Catholics promote.

Natural family planning doesn’t work. Ask a doctor.

I am not sure what you mean specifically about financial aid.

Finci

You’re proving the point of this thread.

Can you defend the act of abortion - i.e. can you lay out a case that abortion is ethically acceptable - without personally attacking @goout ?

For the sake of argument, let’s suppose we’re all hypocrites of horrible character. How does that justify crushing embryos to death and dismissing any ethical concerns about it with the word “choice?”

But I do NOT think abortion is a viable approach to family planning. I do NOT personally support abortion.
But I do NOT think making it illegal is a valid position.
Consider these similar positions:

1. I thinking drinking alcohol is immoral and dangerous, and there should be major limitations and laws governing it, but Prohibition not only violates the Constitution it is unenforceable and makes the situation worse.
2. I do not believe in guns. I do not own a gun. I think there should be major restrictions and limitations on their use, ownership, and proliferation. But I do not think banning guns is a viable position, and that banning gun ownership to responsible people does violate the Constitution.

Why cannot I do everything I can to prevent abortion and support pregnant women, yet still allow them the opportunity to make their own choice within reason? I believe my view and position is far more ethical than that of the pro-life crowd, and - as I said in another post - I will put my ACTIONS in this regard up against anyone’s in this forum.

 

[LateCatholic]

this does not mean GOVERNMENT is the best way to deliver these services.

Then you diverge from the Catholic Church’s position on ObamaCare. The Church WANTS governments to support and care for the sick and disabled.

 

[13pollitos]

Finci

I am not understanding what this means.

 

[Sbee0]

Sbee0:

this does not mean GOVERNMENT is the best way to deliver these services.

Then you diverge from the Catholic Church’s position on ObamaCare. The Church WANTS governments to support and care for the sick and disabled.

Source? 10 char

 

[13pollitos]

Why cannot I do everything I can to prevent abortion and support pregnant women, yet still allow them the opportunity to make their own choice within reason? I believe my view and position is far more ethical than that of the pro-life crowd, and - as I said in another post - I will put my ACTIONS in this regard up against anyone’s in this forum.

What are your actions? Can you give a run down on what you do for pregnant women and foster/adoption programs?

 

[JoeShlabotnik]

Rather than confronting others, I pray for them.

 

[LateCatholic]

To me it sounds like ‘We can’t free the slaves until we have jobs and infrastructure for them outside of their plantations’.

No, we free the slaves and work on those issues simultaneously and after the fact.

This is along the right track but its more akin to freeing the slaves by tossing them over the ship halfway across the Atlantic.

Why don’t you lobby for a law that states every childless couple MUST adopt an unwanted baby from a pregnant woman? THEN make abortion illegal. Why not? In all seriousness, I could accept that rather than just making it illegal without any plan and support for the mothers.
But - and this is my point - Republicans do NOT want to solve the problem. They want your votes. They know abortion is a hot button issue.
Why do you think they are all panicking now? Because they actually may WIN the issue, and now LOSE the votes in the future.

Come on, watch the news. Trump says he’s pro-life. Yeah right. Now this Alabama law comes into play and he’s like “Whoa Nelly - let’s slow down a bit shall we?”. It is NOT about solving the problem. Making abortion illegal would be a disaster for Republicans and they all know it.
I mean, how can you cut food stamps and make abortion illegal? I don’t get it.
This whole “Government shouldn’t do it” thing is, to be honest, an embarrassment. I really would like to see the people in this forum go hungry or lose their healthcare and then maintain how the government should still not help them.

 

[LateCatholic]

Source? 10 char

Catholic bishops urge Congress to preserve health care coverage | National Catholic Reporter

 

[Sbee0]

Sbee0:

Source? 10 char

Catholic bishops urge Congress to preserve health care coverage | National Catholic Reporter

No I don’t think so. That doesn’t quite back up your original statement that the Church wants governments to do that, nor does it say that government is the BEST way to do that, as Democrats believe. All the bishops were concerned about is people suddenly losing access to health care, it did NOT advocate that Obamacare should stay. It’s right there in the article.

 

[blackforest]

I do NOT personally support abortion.

I am personally opposed to Kramer putting cucumbers on his pizza, (a reference to that brilliant Seinfeld episode that satirizes the abortion debate). I’m personally opposed to hanging toilet paper in the overhand position. I’m personally opposed to knitting with cheap acrylic yarn.

But abortion is different. Abortion involves a scared woman lying down on an exam table, spreading her legs, and enduring hellish cramps while her offspring is sucked out of her and crushed to death in a vacuum tube - head, organs, limbs, and all. It is a human rights violation.

Human rights violations are not a matter of what we “personally” oppose. They are universally wrong.

I’m somewhat with you on this. I think we’d do better to work harder on reducing the demand for abortion rather than the supply. But let’s stop kidding ourselves that it’s in any way a matter of “personal” preference.

 

[LateCatholic]

Ok first let’s hear your answers so we know for sure you’re not just doubling down on the logical fallacy of the double standard. This is a fallacy that pro choicers use all the time and it’s not a good look.

Well, I didn’t want to do this because my position should stand on its own. But to to be fair:

How many unwanted babies have you brought into your home as foster children? 12

How many have you adopted? 5, all five being “difficult to place”, such as medically complex, special needs. 4 continue to be special needs. 3 are medically complex (although one really isn’t any more). All five are mixed race. All five were legally challenged adoptions. I actually tried to adopt 8, but lost 3 in court.
Side note - those that say it’s hard to adopt haven’t tried. You can adopt tomorrow if you are qualified (10 week course, pass medical restrictions, etc). What they mean is they want to adopt a healthy, white baby with no legal strings. there are no such babies, or very few. Want to adopt a mixed race baby in detox whose mother is on heroin with legal complications to boot? Expect a call in a day or so.

How many unwanted, special needs or mixed race children have you brought into your home? 8

What have you ACTIVELY done to support the adoption and foster care process? I was a board of director for our Catholic Family Services chapter for three years, running and participating in multiple fund raising activities that supporting pregnant women and children born to single mothers.

How many at-risk pregnant women/families have you directly worked with to support their journey both during pregnancy and afterwards? 7 (including letting them temporarily live in my home)

How much money have you donated or given to DIRECT support of pregnant women at risk?
Around $45K,. Fun fact - Catholic Family Services charges about $20K for each child you adopt. The state government often PAYS you to adopt or foster children. And they still don’t have enough. Catholic Family Services also rejects babies and children because they are hard to place. The state of course cannot reject ANY child. That’s also why I get mad when I hear people say that the government should not provide services, that the private sector will do it. Hogwash and lies. And dangerous. You have no idea if you say that. None.

How many adopted/foster pre-teens do you DIRECTLY support as they go through the emerging psychological challenges of being given up by their biological parents?
5

I am pro-choice, and I will put my answers to the above against ANYONE.