How could it possibly be anything else?Is it not seen as unreasonable here to automatically equate any and all pro-choice positions with believing “it is OK to kill the unborn.” .
By taking into account the lives lost due to certain kinds of dramatically oversimplified approaches to complex and ever- worsening problems, like abortion. Does the term taxation term “bracket creep” strike you as possibly relevant to this issue? If anyone wants to start comparing numbers of lives lost by being strictly pro-choice vs. pro life, they should make the sign of the cross before challenging me. I am not someone with whom it is safe to be casual about facts and figures where loss of life is concerned. But no digital challengers should expect instant reporting back on number questions, unless they prefer instant potatoes.How could it possibly be anything else?
Your statement here:I don’t see anything to object to here. If I was expected to object to something then I might need help seeing what should make you look so unreasonable to me.
You admit to a position that you will drop when a safe world happens. You admit then that the pro-choice position is not consistent with a safe world?I said I will remain pro-choice “until such time as an adequately safe and secure world is created by men — according to 2271 of Church Catechism.”
There is nothing complex about the abortion issue. It takes human life. The Church’s teaching on this is crystal clear-you cant support it either directly or remotely.By taking into account the lives lost due to certain kinds of dramatically oversimplified approaches to complex and ever- worsening problems, like abortion. Does the term taxation term “bracket creep” strike you as possibly relevant to this issue? If anyone wants to start comparing numbers of lives lost by being strictly pro-choice vs. pro life, they should make the sign of the cross before challenging me. I am not someone with whom it is safe to be casual about facts and figures where loss of life is concerned. But no digital challengers should expect instant reporting back on number questions, unless they prefer instant potatoes.
I’m glad you don’t expect me make the sign of the cross for a CPA, but I would like to make one for you since you were offering a freebee. (CPA? Freebie?) Who could refuse such an offer as taking part in an idea waiting to happen like a numbers thread making a fresh start? I cannot be OP but a CPA is the better fit according to my math anyway, so ‘count’ me in.There is nothing complex about the abortion issue. It takes human life. The Church’s teaching on this is crystal clear-you cant support it either directly or remotely.
I am a CPA who has been in private practice for 28 years-if you want to talk about bracket creep start a thread and Ill discuss it with you and you dont even have to make a sign of the cross.
You are right that I plan to drop pro-choice when a safe world happens, and I appreciate that you asked me as a question, instead of reading my mind (before I make it up, haha). You asked if I will admit that a pro-choice position would be inconsistent with a safe world, and I think that is a fair question. Right now I do not see any reason why women should not still retain their control over their reproductive capability, without deferring to RoboCop or RoboDoc, just like no one tries to control men’s reproductive rights. So I hope my opinion becomes irrelevant, in which case it can change every day for all that it would matter. As long as I do not cause any abortions, that is.Your statement here:
You admit to a position that you will drop when a safe world happens. You admit then that the pro-choice position is not consistent with a safe world?
Thank you. As for reproductive rights of men, there are men who grieve the loss of their child because it was aborted by it’s mother. Women have been invested with authority over what men reproduce in civil society. I’m not saying that’s wrong considering that men have created that condition by not living up to the responsibilities of fatherhood. This leads women to want that license as well. 2271 teaches that men, as in male humans, are entrusted with the responsibility to make the world a place where the womb is not a dangerous place. Primarily by not putting their seed in dangerous places.May the Lord continue to bless you zamboni.You are right that I plan to drop pro-choice when a safe world happens, and I appreciate that you asked me as a question, instead of reading my mind (before I make it up, haha). You asked if I will admit that a pro-choice position would be inconsistent with a safe world, and I think that is a fair question. Right now I do not see any reason why women should not still retain their control over their reproductive capability, without deferring to Robocop, just like no one tries to control men’s reproductive rights. So I hope my opinion becomes irrelevant, in which case it can change every day for all that it would matter. As long as I do not cause any abortions, that is.
That men also grieve the loss of aborted children is not something I would ever doubt. Everything else that I was able to learn and find confirmation in from your few brief posts was certainly appreciated. May the Lord also continue to bless Benadam.Thank you. As for reproductive rights of men, there are men who grieve the loss of their child because it was aborted by it’s mother. Women have been invested with authority over what men reproduce in civil society. I’m not saying that’s wrong considering that men have created that condition by not living up to the responsibilities of fatherhood. This leads women to want that license as well. 2271 teaches that men, as in male humans, are entrusted with the responsibility to make the world a place where the womb is not a dangerous place. Primarily by not putting their seed in dangerous places.May the Lord continue to bless you zamboni.
"Is it not seen as unreasonable here to automatically equate any and all pro-choice positions with believing “it is OK to kill the unborn.” Is this a question? I have no idea what you are saying.Is it not seen as unreasonable here to automatically equate any and all pro-choice positions with believing “it is OK to kill the unborn.” My previous responses might explain more of my own opinions (not go back very far in this thread), but if you would be so kind as to ask a more accurately targeted question than why am I the “OK” Simpson of abortion, I would be happy to take it as seriously as possible.
Not sure if there is a difference between a “perfect world” and a “utopia” or what difference it would make to this thread topic.
Prolifers believe in the sanctity of human life from conception to natural death. That means all human life, including Dr. Tiller. To murder him took away any possibility of remorse and/or atonement for his guilt in aborting children. It is just as wrong to murder Dr. Tiller as it is for Dr. Tiller to murder unborn children. And it would also be wrong to carry out a death sentence on the murderer of Dr. Tiller.If not, it would also be useful to know what some people here would say of this man who executed his responsibilities as a life-safeguarding (so-called Christian) man by executing an abortion doctor. Not that I am expecting anyone here to relate with how this man defines his own “narrow path.” thestar.blogs.com/broadsides/2009/11/defending-the-right-to-prelife.html
Thank you for your heartfelt post. I feel so sad for you and a little afraid that your post will be swallowed up in the recent pseudo off-topic debate going on now. That is why I emphasized the post. We should all listen to you because of all the posters in this thread I think you are the only one who really knows the heartbreak and pain.**I’m writing this out of sorrow and praying that it will touch some hearts and open some eyes who refuse to see. It saddens me that my brothers and sisters in Christ don’t see what being pro-choice really means.
Dear pro-choicer:
Thank you for being pro-choice. Thank you for supporting a decision that was never mine but my boyfriend’s. Thank you for the doctor who took advantage of my distress and made money out of it. Thank you for supporting the choice to kill my child. Thank you for the guilt, the shame, the depression, the drug addiction, the inability to bond with my “wanted” children. Thank you for a life long of regret. Thank you for the miscarriages and the difficulty to conceive. Thank you for the breast cancer.
Thank you for supporting the legal killing of our children and to allow us to live with the physical and mental consequences.
Sincerely,
Women who have made the choice that you are supporting
silentnomoreawareness.org/**
It is totally incomprehensible to me, also. It’s OK to be a prochoice Catholic but at the same time it"s OK for the Catholic Church to be prolife? Aren’t we, as Catholics, part of the Catholic Church? It makes no sense whatsoever.Wow, talk about a disconnected stretch. What did you find in 2271 that lead you to this? I have seen some pretty twisted logic, however, this is totally incomprehensible.
Thank you. As for reproductive rights of men, there are men who grieve the loss of their child because it was aborted by it’s mother.
I have to disagree with you on the meaning of “men” in 2271. 355 states the following:2271 teaches that men, as in male humans, are entrusted with the responsibility to make the world a place where the womb is not a dangerous place. Primarily by not putting their seed in dangerous places.May the Lord continue to bless you zamboni.
Exactly. Would the baby claim it is a legitimate “choice” that the government should allow?How could it possibly be anything else?
So , in your opinion, the right to life is dependent on a “safe” world? What other rights do you beleive are dependent on society measuring up to your strandars?You are right that I plan to drop pro-choice when a safe world happens, and I appreciate that you asked me as a question, instead of reading my mind (before I make it up, haha). You asked if I will admit that a pro-choice position would be inconsistent with a safe world, and I think that is a fair question. Right now I do not see any reason why women should not still retain their control over their reproductive capability, without deferring to RoboCop or RoboDoc, just like no one tries to control men’s reproductive rights. So I hope my opinion becomes irrelevant, in which case it can change every day for all that it would matter. As long as I do not cause any abortions, that is.
Violent individuals do not represent the Pro-life movement any more than the Unabomber represents the environmental movement. Our activism is peaceful.Why not discuss on this thread, or would another thread be more suitable? Either way, I could use any information that I would be free to use elsewhere to better defend the “narrow path” (thanks “gakroeger”) of the Church. Or is this the wrong thread? If not, it would also be useful to know what some people here would say of this man who executed his responsibilities as a life-safeguarding (so-called Christian) man by executing an abortion doctor. Not that I am expecting anyone here to relate with how this man defines his own “narrow path.” thestar.blogs.com/broadsides/2009/11/defending-the-right-to-prelife.html
That’s what “pro-choice” means - it is the pro-abortion position.Is it not seen as unreasonable here to automatically equate any and all pro-choice positions with believing “it is OK to kill the unborn.”