The Problem of Pro-Choice

[servus]

I am starting this thread because I am tired of pro-life supporters sounding uneducated and naive in debates and statements about why they are pro-life, and why abortion is wrong. Every day I walk to work and pass by a large planned parenthood facility, and there are always, usually Catholic (they have rosaries) protesters out in front, accompanied by police officers keeping the killers inside safe from the protesters outside. Oftentimes I hear what other people are saying about the protesters as people pass by. They say things like, “those crazy people are here again” or “that’s the problem with free speech”, etc.

Being pro-choice is about several things:

1. It’s about power. This is a popular one in universities and colleges. Professors will preach to the classes that abortion is a woman’s rights issue. Women should have control over theirs bodies = the right to kill an unwanted child.
2. It’s about relativism: there is no moral absolute, and whatever people do is inconsequential and relative to their own experience.
3. It’s about disposal. While there are several problems which are factors in abortion, such as low Social-Economic Status and non-consensual pregnancies, there are two solutions which have been concocted by two different mindsets. The liberal mindset is: disposal of the unwanted child is the solution. In order to make this sound less grim they call it reproductive health and justice. The conservative mindset is to acknowledge the worth and value of every human being, whether wanted or unwanted. The fact is, no one on earth chose to be born of their own volition, so why should people kill infants whose parents don’t want them?
4. The beginning of life: in order to pose before the world as something other than murderers, pro-choice supports claim that life doesn’t begin until some arbitrary point in time during the pregnancy, therefore abortion is not the killing of innocent life. This is nonsense, because they wouldn’t call it abortion if there was no process to abort. You can’t stop/ abort something that hasn’t begun.

In all your debates and discussions with those who are pro-choice, remember these things. The solution to overpopulation, unwanted children and and reproductive health concerns according to the liberal mindset is disposal. The human and Christian response is to value all life, even that unwanted by its parents

Servus

 

[Chrisy58]

In all your debates and discussions with those who are pro-choice, remember these things. The solution to overpopulation, unwanted children and and reproductive health concerns according to the liberal mindset is disposal. The human and Christian response is to value all life, even that unwanted by its parents

Servus

Dear Servus,

You seem to make a general statement about Liberal/Progressives that I find to be untrue. You say “liberal mindset is disposal”. I don’t think that is a true statement. There are lots of Liberal/Progressives who value all life. You make it sound like we Liberal/Progressives are not even human beings or even Christians. I don’t believe that either. I am not a Democrat so I do not believe in the Democratic platform. I am not a Republican nor do I believe in the Republican platform. I am registered Green Party at this point and I don’t totally agree with their platform either. I am actually hoping that a party that is Liberal/Progressive will be formed but at the same time honors all life.

The word Pro-life now to many people represents the Christian Right and I think that is unfair, as I would hope that everyone is pro-life and values and celebrates the wonder of all of God’s creation. God created all of creation and life. We are serving God by being a good caregiver of all life. It just seems people on both sides pick and choose which part of life they will protect. The Republican Pro-lifers fight to save the unborn but many times they are for the death penality. Democratic Pro-lifers believe that since abortion is legal in this country that even though they are opposed to abortion that the woman should be allowed to choose and many times they are the ones who oppose the death penality. Pro-life in my defination means honoring all life that God has created. Though the word pro-life has been hijacked to mean being anti-abortion only.

I am against abortion. I would hope that every Catholic would be against abortion as it is evil. It not only destroys the baby, but the young woman who has the abortion is destroyed as well. She will never be the same. Yet, how many times do I see people blame the women and hold her out to be some evil person who is beyond any hope of redemption. Unless you have walked in the person’s shoes you have no idea what she is feeling. She doesn’t say to herself Hip Hip Hooray I get to have an abortion. You don’t know the pressures she is under and many times she is being pushed into having the abortion by either the father of the child or her family members and if she is all alone in the fight to keep the baby she will give in at some point. You like to think that other Catholics will help the young woman. Maybe they do a better job now than they did in the past. I surely hope so.

The question we should be asking ourselves instead of blaming the woman is what can we do as a society to stop the need for abortion? Even if we were to outlaw all abortion in this nation, women would still be pressured to have abortions and it would go back to the days of back ally abortions and more women dying. I don’t want to go back to the day of backstreet abortions where women were dying. The answer is to take away the need for the abortion by focusing our efforts on giving the women real choice. Many times the women is not giving any choices but abortion. The word Pro-choice means to me that women are given real choices, like going to a safe place to have the baby to be given up for adoption if she wants adoption, being able to keep the child and if she is not going to have the support of her family than we as the church can be her support system. Choice means taking the needs of both the woman and her child into consideration. Yet, like the word Pro-Life has been distorted so has the word Pro-choice been distorted to be pro-abortion.

Do we try and encourage the young to wait until marriage to begin having sexual intercourse? Yet, youth tend to be rebellious. I know we Baby Boomers were rebellous. Each generation is rebellious in their own way.

These are some real questions that have to be solved. Ending abortion is much more than just outlawing it in the United States. It is what can we do to end the need for abortion and give women who are unmarried real options to choose from that are good for both her and the baby.

We are in the situation where we have the church say abortion is evil and we have the state say that it is legal. We as Catholics also have to decide do we believe in Seperation between church and state and render onto Ceaser what belongs to Ceaser or do we follow God’s Law over Man’s Law. These too are questions that we ask ourselves as we find America passing more Laws that go against the teachings of the Catholic Church.

So you see, I just don’t think you can say all Liberals are not human or Christian and only want to destroy life. I think that most Liberals are just trying to find answers for the questions and trying to sort out what role Christ would have us play in modern America.

Christine

 

[JimG]

Abortion is indeed a tragedy for both the woman and her child. As you mentioned, women may face tremendous pressures from boyfriends and family members to abort. The boyfriend wishes to avoid responsibility for the child for 18 years; it’s easier to pay for an abortion. And it’s easier for her family members too, who will be called upon to help her raise the child.

The biggest loser in all this is the child, who either ends up dead through abortion or fatherless and without the support of both a mom and a dad and an intact family. Is the solution simply to make Uncle Sam the substitute father? That doesn’t really make the family any more functional.

The second biggest loser is the mother, who either ends up disposing of her own child, or raising the child on her own without the support of the dad and without the benefit of a stable marriage. Her options become much more limited compared to a woman who married and then began a family. Because of this, adoption is an option that should be strongly considered.

The third biggest loser is society itself; with each unwed mother, its cohesion loses a supporting link, as the social costs and responsibilities of fatherhood are transferred from the individual to society.

 

[JimG]

1. The beginning of life: in order to pose before the world as something other than murderers, pro-choice supports claim that life doesn’t begin until some arbitrary point in time during the pregnancy, therefore abortion is not the killing of innocent life. This is nonsense, because they wouldn’t call it abortion if there was no process to abort. You can’t stop/ abort something that hasn’t begun.

A pro-choice person may take the position that life doesn’t begin until “some arbitrary point in time during pregnancy,” but I have yet to see a pro-choice person state just what that point is, and then agree to prohibit all abortions after that point. Instead, abortions are defended–and are legal–at any time up to birth.

 

[St_Francis]

…I am against abortion. I would hope that every Catholic would be against abortion as it is evil. It not only destroys the baby, but the young woman who has the abortion is destroyed as well. She will never be the same. Yet, how many times do I see people blame the women and hold her out to be some evil person who is beyond any hope of redemption. Unless you have walked in the person’s shoes you have no idea what she is feeling. She doesn’t say to herself Hip Hip Hooray I get to have an abortion. You don’t know the pressures she is under and many times she is being pushed into having the abortion by either the father of the child or her family members and if she is all alone in the fight to keep the baby she will give in at some point.

I think that you have hit upon an area that has not been fully clarified, and that is our attitude towards those women who have abortions. First, the range is very wide, from those who understand fully what they are doing to those who have been lied to and have no clue to those who are being very heavily pressured by those around her, so that makes it difficult, but I think that if the movement in general has a coherent and unified attitude towards these women, one of kindness and assuming the best, then others might be more receptive to what we are saying.

And I do believe that most people are like that (kind), but it’s not something much discussed. I know that lately abortion supporters have been using the tactic of asking what the penalties would be for women who sought abortions should abortion become illegal and I have seen this question fluster people (I myself was flustered and had to come up with my thoughts on that). So this is a very good issue.

 

[St_Francis]

Dear Servus,

You seem to make a general statement about Liberal/Progressives that I find to be untrue. You say “liberal mindset is disposal”. I don’t think that is a true statement. There are lots of Liberal/Progressives who value all life. You make it sound like we Liberal/Progressives are not even human beings or even Christians. I don’t believe that either. I am not a Democrat so I do not believe in the Democratic platform. I am not a Republican nor do I believe in the Republican platform. I am registered Green Party at this point and I don’t totally agree with their platform either. I am actually hoping that a party that is Liberal/Progressive will be formed but at the same time honors all life.

The word Pro-life now to many people represents the Christian Right and I think that is unfair, as I would hope that everyone is pro-life and values and celebrates the wonder of all of God’s creation. God created all of creation and life. We are serving God by being a good caregiver of all life. It just seems people on both sides pick and choose which part of life they will protect. The Republican Pro-lifers fight to save the unborn but many times they are for the death penality. Democratic Pro-lifers believe that since abortion is legal in this country that even though they are opposed to abortion that the woman should be allowed to choose and many times they are the ones who oppose the death penality. Pro-life in my defination means honoring all life that God has created. Though the word pro-life has been hijacked to mean being anti-abortion only.

1. The word pro-life was coined in 1978 to refer to those who opposed legalization of abortion, apparently in reaction to those who coined the word “pro-choice” in 1975. It was other, later influences which brought the other issues in.
2. I think it is a little confusing when you say we should honor all God’s creation equally. One of the problems within any organization is when their focus gets diffused over too many issues (i have seen this happen so many times!). And the same is true for terms like pro-life. If we put many different issues under the auspices of pro-life, then the term will cease to have any meaning at all, those who disagree on issues aside from abortion will be shut out, and the resources will be pulled away from the issue that many of us believe overrides all other issues: the fact that the US government offers no protection to the unborn.
3. It is legitimate for the state or legitimate authority to kill people convicted of heinous crimes. Some supporters of the death penalty understand that there are some crimes which cry out for the justice of the death penalty and there are those who understand that some people remain a danger despite conviction and imprisonment and believe that prisoners and their guards deserve protection from very dangerous people.
4. The issue of the death penalty is very different from the issue of abortion as the latter *rests upon *the innocence of the unborn child. In the rare cases of rape or incest, the unborn child, who has done *nothing, *is in danger of “the death penalty” even though the perpetrator of the crime is not!

 

[Drawmack]

I think that a large part of the problem with debating and discussing the abortion issue is that both sides reduce the opposition to a caricature. The pro-choice has a tendency to represent the pro-life as religious ideologues who seek to impose their morality on society as a whole. The pro-life has a tendency to represent the pro-choice as amoral, or unintelligent, people who do not take the ramifications of their actions into account. Both of these are wrong because they reduce the other side to caricature.

There is not one single reason that explains why everyone who is pro-life chooses to be pro-life. There is not one single reason that explains why everyone who is pro-choice chooses to be pro-choice. The reasons, on both sides, are as varied as the people who identify themselves as a member of whatever side they are a member of.

There are people who are pro-choice because they do not believe that they have the right to force their beliefs on another person. This person will often stand there and agree with everything that a pro-life person says, but when it comes right down to it they do not believe they have the right to tell someone else they must believe this as well. If a pro-life person attempts to reduce this person to the caricature explained above they will simply make the pro-lifer look like an uninformed boob.

There are people who are pro-choice because they believe that abortion should be an option in specific circumstances (deformities, congenital diseases, etc) but do not think the woman should have to divulge her reasons. These people also tend to agree with the arguments made by the pro-life side, but hit a stumbling block when it comes to the specific cases where they think abortion is okay. They already know that these abortions make up less than 1% (if you want to discuss this please open another thread) of the abortions in this country, they simply do not care about that. I am simply explaining how they see it. So the pro-life assumptions break down with this person and they end up making the pro-lifer look like an uninformed boob.

There are people who are pro-life because they have seen the after effects of abortion on the mother. These people do not believe that the fetus is a child. They are not fighting for the rights of the fetus. They are fighting because they know the damage that these women are doing to themselves and just want the women to understand that as well. So the pro-choice assumptions do not work with this person and they end up making the pro-choicer look like an uninformed boob.

There are people who are pro-life because the laws which govern abortion are not, and cannot be made, fair to all concerned parties. These people do not believe that the fetus is a person. They do not think that the fetus should have any rights. These people think that if abortion is going to be legal the father should have the same right to choice as the mother. Any rational person can see that this can’t realistically be accomplished. So, these people are pro-life. So the pro-choice assumptions do not work with this person and they end up making the pro-choicer look like an uninformed boob.

The way to correct this problem is to approach the abortion debate the same way we approach any other debate. Before a debate can start two things must be understood and agreed upon.

The first is language. The people engaged in the debate must agree on the language they are going to use and what the definition of this language is within the confines of this debate. If both sides say that pro-life is the term used for those who support illegalization of abortions and pro-choice is the term used for those who support keeping abortion legal then that is how the terminology should be used. For all it matters both sides can agree that agraflble will be the term for those who support illegalization of abortion and egriblub will be the term used for those who support keeping it legal. It makes, absolutely, no difference what term we use to refer to either side; it, only, matters that those involved know what the terms mean within the scope of the debate.

The second is the position of the participants. The debate must start with a clear and concise statement by each participant as to what their position is and why. This will allow all participants to frame their argument in a manner that makes sense for the issues at hand. It keeps out strawmen. It keeps the debate focused on the issues as the participants see them. It stops the endless what ifs and I’m not saying thats.

I do not see either of these basic guidelines of debate held to by either side. Both sides want to invent their own terminology to refer to both themselves and the opposition. Both sides want to operate on the assumption that they already know why the other side believes as they do. Both sides want to simply rail against those who do not see it their way. Until we all start approaching this debate the way we would approach any other debate there will be no true debate. There will simply be both sides yelling at one another and trying to shout each other down instead of discussing the actual issue.

 

[JimG]

The way to correct this problem is to approach the abortion debate the same way we approach any other debate.

Those are the sorts of debates that are carried out in state legislatures–precisely where the abortion debate belongs. When legislators have their own already debated laws usurped by SCOTUS, nothing can be done until jurisdiction is returned to where it rightly belongs.

 

[Drawmack]

Those are the sorts of debates that are carried out in state legislatures–precisely where the abortion debate belongs. When legislators have their own already debated laws usurped by SCOTUS, nothing can be done until jurisdiction is returned to where it rightly belongs.

Either refute my points or don’t, but do not attempt to do an end run around them.

This is a thread about talking to and dealing with individuals that are pro-choice. It is not a thread about how the debate should, or has to, be handled in courts and legislatures.

If we apply what you have said to the topic at hand then we should just stop doing anything until the court ruling is over turned. That is why staw men should be avoided in debates. Thank you for exemplifying one of the points I was making in my original post I could not have done better myself.

 

[limerick]

I am starting this thread because I am tired of pro-life supporters sounding uneducated and naive in debates and statements about why they are pro-life, and why abortion is wrong. Every day I walk to work and pass by a large planned parenthood facility, and there are always, usually Catholic (they have rosaries) protesters out in front, accompanied by police officers keeping the killers inside safe from the protesters outside. Oftentimes I hear what other people are saying about the protesters as people pass by. They say things like, “those crazy people are here again” or “that’s the problem with free speech”, etc.

Being pro-choice is about several things:

1. It’s about power. This is a popular one in universities and colleges. Professors will preach to the classes that abortion is a woman’s rights issue. Women should have control over theirs bodies = the right to kill an unwanted child.
2. It’s about relativism: there is no moral absolute, and whatever people do is inconsequential and relative to their own experience.
3. It’s about disposal. While there are several problems which are factors in abortion, such as low Social-Economic Status and non-consensual pregnancies, there are two solutions which have been concocted by two different mindsets. The liberal mindset is: disposal of the unwanted child is the solution. In order to make this sound less grim they call it reproductive health and justice. The conservative mindset is to acknowledge the worth and value of every human being, whether wanted or unwanted. The fact is, no one on earth chose to be born of their own volition, so why should people kill infants whose parents don’t want them?
4. The beginning of life: in order to pose before the world as something other than murderers, pro-choice supports claim that life doesn’t begin until some arbitrary point in time during the pregnancy, therefore abortion is not the killing of innocent life. This is nonsense, because they wouldn’t call it abortion if there was no process to abort. You can’t stop/ abort something that hasn’t begun.

In all your debates and discussions with those who are pro-choice, remember these things. The solution to overpopulation, unwanted children and and reproductive health concerns according to the liberal mindset is disposal. The human and Christian response is to value all life, even that unwanted by its parents

Servus

**What is the Christian, no, the Catholic, response to overpopulation?

Limerick**

 

[Drawmack]

**What is the Christian, no, the Catholic, response to overpopulation?

Limerick**

In case you haven’t heard, world population is on the decline. Humans, like all mammals, will reach a symbiotic stasis population with their environment. Unless you are postulating that humans will not naturally achieve this symbiosis with the environment. There is one type of life form which does not, the virus. So, are you postulating that the human race is a virus which must be culled or it will over run the earth?

 

[limerick]

In case you haven’t heard, world population is on the decline. Humans, like all mammals, will reach a symbiotic stasis population with their environment. Unless you are postulating that humans will not naturally achieve this symbiosis with the environment. There is one type of life form which does not, the virus. So, are you postulating that the human race is a virus which must be culled or it will over run the earth?

I’m not postulating jack. I was merely asking a question!

Limerick

 

[Drawmack]

I’m not postulating jack. I was merely asking a question!

Limerick

And, I answered you.

 

[royal_archer]

In case you haven’t heard, world population is on the decline. Humans, like all mammals, will reach a symbiotic stasis population with their environment. Unless you are postulating that humans will not naturally achieve this symbiosis with the environment. There is one type of life form which does not, the virus. So, are you postulating that the human race is a virus which must be culled or it will over run the earth?

There are some people who have a bitter hatred towards humans or a cold disposition to humans in general. A coworker stated support for abortion because of their belief that poor people shouldn’t have kids. I understand that hate groups are funneling money to abortion clinics in minority neighborhoods.

There are some women who feel they are in someway disenfranchised. for some of these they see prenancy as symbolic of injustices they feel men have placed on them. For those of this mindset Abortion has become a symbolic issue of them fighting back against evil men who want to keep them barefoot and pregnant, in a way it is simmilar to the symbolic bra burnings of the 60s / 70s.

 

[royal_archer]

I am starting this thread because I am tired of pro-life supporters sounding uneducated and naive in debates and statements about why they are pro-life, and why abortion is wrong. Every day I walk to work and pass by a large planned parenthood facility, and there are always, usually Catholic (they have rosaries) protesters out in front, accompanied by police officers keeping the killers inside safe from the protesters outside. Oftentimes I hear what other people are saying about the protesters as people pass by. They say things like, “those crazy people are here again” or “that’s the problem with free speech”, etc.

Being pro-choice is about several things:
…

Servus

I would like to see more people infront of those clinic with signs saying let me adopt your child.

You can also tell those people who are pro abortion that you met someone online (me) who was frustrated about how hard it was to adopt when there are evidently so many “unwanted” babies. We looked into addoption and were surprised by the cost ~$25,000. We can’t afford that and with just receiving notification I am loosing my job I can’t adopt period. But when I get a new job I would like to look into adoption and wish I could just go down to one of these places, sign up, get a background check and walk out with a new child.

 

[Drawmack]

There are some people who have a bitter hatred towards humans or a cold disposition to humans in general. A coworker stated support for abortion because of their belief that poor people shouldn’t have kids. I understand that hate groups are funneling money to abortion clinics in minority neighborhoods.

I’m going to leave the comment about hate groups alone until some evidence is provided. I could believe it is happening, I just don’t see the sense in talking about it when it hasn’t been supported.

As for you co-worker who believes that poor people shouldn’t have kids, you can approach this topic in a couple of ways. You could do research on people that were born impoverished but changed the world. At good place to start would be Alexander Hamilton, the bastard son of a cobbler and a prostitute. I would work through history right up to modern times – Sotomayor and Obama might be a good place to finish. You could also ask them to define poor. At what income level is someone poor? What about someone who is only temporarily poor like a college student? Who decides what poor is? What is the difference between someone $1 richer than poor and $1 poorer than poor?

There are some women who feel they are in someway disenfranchised. for some of these they see prenancy as symbolic of injustices they feel men have placed on them. For those of this mindset Abortion has become a symbolic issue of them fighting back against evil men who want to keep them barefoot and pregnant, in a way it is simmilar to the symbolic bra burnings of the 60s / 70s.

To these people I approach the issue like this. Let me get this straight. You think that men have been unjust towards women for far too long and it’s time for women to take a stand against men, right? Could you explain how a man being able to use a woman for his sexual pleasure with no thought of the consequences and then her being able to legally absolve him of any responsibility fixes this?

But, this post makes an excellent point about what I was saying in my first post. Before you can even begin to debate with someone you have to find out why they take the stance they take and then you can defend against that stance.

 

[royal_archer]

As for you co-worker who believes that poor people shouldn’t have kids, you can approach this topic in a couple of ways. You could do research on people that were born impoverished but changed the world. At good place to start would be Alexander Hamilton, the bastard son of a cobbler and a prostitute. I would work through history right up to modern times – Sotomayor and Obama might be a good place to finish. You could also ask them to define poor. At what income level is someone poor? What about someone who is only temporarily poor like a college student? Who decides what poor is? What is the difference between someone $1 richer than poor and $1 poorer than poor?

That person is very analytical and would consider probability over annecdotal evidence. For this person, bringing up Obama and Sotomayor may not be good examples. There criteria for poor was a general can’t afford the baby.

The line I used on this person that got them thinking and reconsidering their perspective was the father is held accountable and has no say in his financial liability with regards to the child but the mother can arbitrarily evade all responsibility by killing it. Isn’t this inherrently unfair? shouldn’t the mother be responsible if the father is responsible? This person is going to take some work.

 

[Drawmack]

That person is very analytical and would consider probability over annecdotal evidence. For this person, bringing up Obama and Sotomayor may not be good examples. There criteria for poor was a general can’t afford the baby.

I would ask them to define not being able to afford the baby. If you do research on the number of people in this country who were born poor and then became someone great it would not be annecdotal. It would actually include a significant number of our presidents. I dealt with someone like this. I never did make any headway, but I just kept asking them to define “unable to afford”. You can play on their analytical side to show that they are being illogical.

The line I used on this person that got them thinking and reconsidering their perspective was the father is held accountable and has no say in his financial liability with regards to the child but the mother can arbitrarily evade all responsibility by killing it. Isn’t this inherrently unfair? shouldn’t the mother be responsible if the father is responsible? This person is going to take some work.

This is the track I tend to take with those who are fighting from the women’s rights angle.