what is your belief about pro-life?

[water]

As a Catholic, I am 100% pro-life - ie: I don’t believe in abortion, birth control, and other means that stop life?

I know some Protestants think the same, but what do your church and you, as a non-Catholic Christians, say about this?

If you are pro-choice? Do you support life? could you prove that?

I just wanted to learn your point of views on this matter.
Thanks!

 

[rr1213]

Pro-Life, ok on contraception, pro-death penalty.

 

[water]

Pro-Life, ok on contraception, pro-death penalty.

Thanks rr1213. I don’t support Capital purnishment. If someone can live another day, there is a chance that he/she turns to God.

 

[rr1213]

Thanks rr1213. I don’t support Capital purnishment. If someone can live another day, there is a chance that he/she turns to God.

True, but some crimes are so heinious that they deserve to be punished by death. Our governmental leaders are “God’s servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God’s servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.” (Romans 13:4 NIV).

 

[Mirdath]

The last thread I got into on this turned into a pretty incredible catfight, so let’s try not to let it happen again, okay? I’ll explain my positions further if asked, but I’d rather avoid arguments that go nowhere. I should probably note up front that I’m agnostic.

I believe abortion is an ugly necessity – that as long as childbearing depends on the use of a human being as a host for gestation it’s going to happen, whether for reasons of health, financial state, maturity, or readiness for parenthood. I believe that the rights and even the wants of the mother are more important than the rights of the fetus – after all, it’s sustaining itself on her body and is completely dependent on her. We don’t even grant children full rights once they’re out of the womb; to me, this follows naturally.

I don’t think adoption is the answer – were it, abortion would already be practiced only to save the life of the mother, and it isn’t. It is unfortunate, but short of moving childbirth entirely into test-tubes and sterilizing the general population, it’s not going away.

Obviously, I support contraception. I’d be ecstatic if abortion stopped – not because of anyone’s moral code becoming law, but because there was no more need or want for it. And legislating a particular moral stance won’t end abortion – it’ll just make it far more dangerous.

I am against the death penalty. While there’ve been a couple of cases that have rather shaken my stance on that, I don’t believe it is just to kill an independently living human being out of a desire for vengeance.

 

[Mannyfit75]

100% Pro-Life. Abortion is never allowed under any circumstances period.

I’m against euthanasia, death penalty, I believe life should be natural no one has the right to take life but the Author of Life, who is God.

 

[rr1213]

The last thread I got into on this turned into a pretty incredible catfight, so let’s try not to let it happen again, okay? I’ll explain my positions further if asked, but I’d rather avoid arguments that go nowhere. I should probably note up front that I’m agnostic.

I believe abortion is an ugly necessity – that as long as childbearing depends on the use of a human being as a host for gestation it’s going to happen, whether for reasons of health, financial state, maturity, or readiness for parenthood. I believe that the rights and even the wants of the mother are more important than the rights of the fetus – after all, it’s sustaining itself on her body and is completely dependent on her. We don’t even grant children full rights once they’re out of the womb; to me, this follows naturally.

I don’t think adoption is the answer – were it, abortion would already be practiced only to save the life of the mother, and it isn’t. It is unfortunate, but short of moving childbirth entirely into test-tubes and sterilizing the general population, it’s not going away.

Obviously, I support contraception. I’d be ecstatic if abortion stopped – not because of anyone’s moral code becoming law, but because there was no more need or want for it. And legislating a particular moral stance won’t end abortion – it’ll just make it far more dangerous.

I am against the death penalty. While there’ve been a couple of cases that have rather shaken my stance on that, I don’t believe it is just to kill an independently living human being out of a desire for vengeance.

Do you believe that the fetus is an unborn child or simply an appendage of the mother until birth?

 

[rr1213]

100% Pro-Life. Abortion is never allowed under any circumstances period.

Disagree with you there. In cases where the mother’s life is seriously…and honestly…threatened, then it is a case of choosing one life over another life. To choose the mother’s life would not be wrong (nor, for that matter, to choose the child’s life). Bear in mind though that this “loophole”–if honestly applied–would be miniscule, certainly less than 1% of all abortions.

 

[water]

The last thread I got into on this turned into a pretty incredible catfight, so let’s try not to let it happen again, okay? I’ll explain my positions further if asked, but I’d rather avoid arguments that go nowhere. I should probably note up front that I’m agnostic.

I believe abortion is an ugly necessity – that as long as childbearing depends on the use of a human being as a host for gestation it’s going to happen, whether for reasons of health, financial state, maturity, or readiness for parenthood. I believe that the rights and even the wants of the mother are more important than the rights of the fetus – after all, it’s sustaining itself on her body and is completely dependent on her. We don’t even grant children full rights once they’re out of the womb; to me, this follows naturally.

I don’t think adoption is the answer – were it, abortion would already be practiced only to save the life of the mother, and it isn’t. It is unfortunate, but short of moving childbirth entirely into test-tubes and sterilizing the general population, it’s not going away.

Obviously, I support contraception. I’d be ecstatic if abortion stopped – not because of anyone’s moral code becoming law, but because there was no more need or want for it. And legislating a particular moral stance won’t end abortion – it’ll just make it far more dangerous.

I am against the death penalty. While there’ve been a couple of cases that have rather shaken my stance on that, I don’t believe it is just to kill an independently living human being out of a desire for vengeance.

Thanks Mirdath! We’re discussing about moral issues, and if we turn this into a catfight, then it defeats our purpose of this thread.

Thank you for sharing your point of views. My intentions of this thread is to learn how other people think and believe and to share what I believe. It is not for much of arguments.

On your last note of death penalty, like rr1213, some crimes need to be purnished , and I believe it is not all about vengeance although some cases are. However, after I know Jesus has brought me back to His path, I pray that I won’t be lost again; therefore, I’ve longed for those who have lost their ways. This makes me not to support death peanlty either.

Thanks for sharing.

 

[water]

True, but some crimes are so heinious that they deserve to be punished by death. Our governmental leaders are “God’s servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God’s servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.” (Romans 13:4 NIV).

Thanks for the verse rr. I will spend sometime to reflect on this verse on my own time. There are so much to learn from the Bible.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Disagree with you there. In cases where the mother’s life is seriously…and honestly…threatened, then it is a case of choosing one life over another life. To choose the mother’s life would not be wrong (nor, for that matter, to choose the child’s life). Bear in mind though that this “loophole”–if honestly applied–would be miniscule, certainly less than 1% of all abortions.

you are free to believe that but abortion is never justified.

 

[rr1213]

you are free to believe that but abortion is never justified.

Explain why it wouldn’t be justified in the limited circumstance I described. Or, to make it more compelling, let me propose a different circumstance. Your wife is pregnant. You are told by the doctor, after numerous confirming tests, that to give birth will kill your wife and your unborn son. Yet, there is a short period of time–now–where you can abort the baby and save your wife. So, what’s the case?

 

[Mannyfit75]

Explain why it wouldn’t be justified in the limited circumstance I described. Or, to make it more compelling, let me propose a different circumstance. Your wife is pregnant. You are told by the doctor, after numerous confirming tests, that to give birth will kill your wife and your unborn son. Yet, there is a short period of time–now–where you can abort the baby and save your wife. So, what’s the case?

The wife will have to go for the sake of the child. Besides death is only the beginning.

If I were a woman, I would let the baby live. I would call for my priest and administer last rites.

If my wife is pro-life, I believe she would be willing to lose her own life for the sake of the child.

yes it sounds harsh but abortion cannot be justified.

 

[water]

You are told by the doctor, after numerous confirming tests, that to give birth will kill your wife and your unborn son. Yet, there is a short period of time–now–where you can abort the baby and save your wife. So, what’s the case?

Interesting and complicated situation, and I would like to join in. I would love my wife and of course, I wouldn’t want to endanger her life by any mean. On the other hand, I love my unborn baby, and I wouldn’t let her/him die. The test is still a test until it is proved to be true.

In this case, I leave it up to the mercy of God. He is the one to decide if both my wife and unborn to live, or my wife lives and the unborn dies, or both. It is not my decision to end life without knowing what the future holds.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Interesting and complicated situation, and I would like to join in. I would love my wife and of course, I wouldn’t want to endanger her life by any mean. On the other hand, I love my unborn baby, and I wouldn’t let her/him die. The test is still a test until it is proved to be true.

In this case, I leave it up to the mercy of God. He is the one to decide if both my wife and unborn to live, or my wife lives and the unborn dies, or both. It is not my decision to end life without knowing what the future holds.

Well said.

 

[Mirdath]

Do you believe that the fetus is an unborn child or simply an appendage of the mother until birth?

Both, in a way. Obviously the fetus is a proto-child; but it’s also part of the mother during gestation, attached through the umbilical cord. It wouldn’t survive outside the womb – and yes, I know, preemies… but I’m not advocating a 9-month cutoff The standard would seem to me to be external viability and the fact of actually being outside, not age.

Hm, I noticed I was missing one item in my original post… euthanasia. People should not be condemned to a life of pain and suffering if they do not want it. So I support euthanasia, although I believe it should be an informed personal choice – the one choosing it should be capable of giving consent, and then give it. I forget which Scandinavian country it was that just instituted euthanasia for the mentally ill, but that’s more than a little iffy to me.

rr1213:

Or, to make it more compelling, let me propose a different circumstance. Your wife is pregnant. You are told by the doctor, after numerous confirming tests, that to give birth will kill your wife and your unborn son. Yet, there is a short period of time–now–where you can abort the baby and save your wife. So, what’s the case?

I actually know someone to whom this happened. I’m very glad she chose to save her own life instead of letting both herself and the fetus die.

 

[rr1213]

The wife will have to go for the sake of the child. Besides death is only the beginning.

If I were a woman, I would let the baby live. I would call for my priest and administer last rites.

If my wife is pro-life, I believe she would be willing to lose her own life for the sake of the child.

yes it sounds harsh but abortion cannot be justified.

Except in my hypothetical, you lose both your wife and your child if the child is left to term. Makes a harder choice…

In the long run, this sort of exception does not matter much because it would apply to a miniscue number of the abortions taking place.

 

[Verita]

The last thread I got into on this turned into a pretty incredible catfight, so let’s try not to let it happen again, okay? I’ll explain my positions further if asked, but I’d rather avoid arguments that go nowhere. I should probably note up front that I’m agnostic.

I believe abortion is an ugly necessity – that as long as childbearing depends on the use of a human being as a host for gestation it’s going to happen, whether for reasons of health, financial state, maturity, or readiness for parenthood. I believe that the rights and even the wants of the mother are more important than the rights of the fetus – after all, it’s sustaining itself on her body and is completely dependent on her. We don’t even grant children full rights once they’re out of the womb; to me, this follows naturally.

I don’t think adoption is the answer – were it, abortion would already be practiced only to save the life of the mother, and it isn’t. It is unfortunate, but short of moving childbirth entirely into test-tubes and sterilizing the general population, it’s not going away.

Obviously, I support contraception. I’d be ecstatic if abortion stopped – not because of anyone’s moral code becoming law, but because there was no more need or want for it. And legislating a particular moral stance won’t end abortion – it’ll just make it far more dangerous.

I am against the death penalty. While there’ve been a couple of cases that have rather shaken my stance on that, I don’t believe it is just to kill an independently living human being out of a desire for vengeance.

So, just to clarify, it seems you do not believe that people are responsible for their actions and their choices?

I am 99% anti abortion. I think that it is possible to excuse in a situation where the mother’s life is in grave danger, as in she will almost certainly die if she has the baby. I don’t know if the Church has made an authoritative teaching of whether or not it is ok in those circumstances. If it has then I agree with the Church.

I am anti-contraception. I wasn’t as a protestant and did take birth control for a few years. I stopped when I decided to become a Catholic.

Before deciding to become Catholic I was decidedly for the death penalty. Since then I’ve done alot of thinking about it. I am still for the death penalty. I think it is clear that the government has the God given authority to utilize it and that there are times when it is necessary. The wages of sin are death. If we did away with it completely I think crime would become even worse.

 

[Joseph_Mary]

I am what you would consider an “anarchist-out-of-necessity” and a Catholic.

As a Catholic, I submit to the authority of my local bishop. My local bishop, that is the Church Herself, tells me abortion is wrong, so I don’t support it.

What is an “anarchist-out-of-necessity”? I don’t support this government of Freemasons, by Freemasons, for Freemasons that control the United States. Therefore, I am obliged to be an “anarchist”. Preferably, my local bishop would be in charge of appointed some sort of “deputy” to administer the secular government of my archdiocese, and, being a good Catholic, appointed by the pope, the bishop would appoint a Catholic governor, as well as judges, etc., and abortion would be outlawed.

I’m sure most people are AGHAST at my wanting to live in a theocratic state controlled by the Catholic Church. Then again, most people want a group of murders and confidence-men (the Masonic politicians that control America) to end something like abortion, and they continue to fool themselves into thinking it will happen.

 

[rr1213]

Obviously the fetus is a proto-child; but it’s also part of the mother during gestation, attached through the umbilical cord. It wouldn’t survive outside the womb – and yes, I know, preemies… but I’m not advocating a 9-month cutoff The standard would seem to me to be external viability and the fact of actually being outside, not age.

But isn’t this the important question? If the fetus is merely a fleshy appendage, then what business is it of the State to forbid the woman an abortion? On the other hand, if the fetus is a child–a human being living in her mother’s womb–then the State certainly has a right to protect that life, just as it acts to protect other lives. It seems that even under your understanding of the matter the State would have the right (and some, including me, would argue the obligation) to protect the fetus ***at least ***at the point it reaches viability outside of the womb.