what is your belief about pro-life?

[deb216]

I am pro-life.

I do not believe in euthanasia. That means I believe a person can refuse life saving and life sustaining medical treatment and be allowed to die naturally. Anything that terminates life, such as poison, asphyxiation, starvation or intentionally stopping a functioning organ, is always wrong.

I do not believe in the death penalty. I would rather that the murderers who merit death (heinous premeditated murder) be given life without the possibility of parole and no contact with the world beyond the prison walls. To the world they would be dead and the world would be dead to them, but no more lives would be extinguished.

I believe that abortion is always murder and always wrong. Because I believe that sin can be forgiven, and each situation is unique, I leave that to the woman and her confessor. Nevertheless, I will continue to vote for those who will make abortion as restricted and limited as possible.

Life begins at conception. Birth control that terminates life is always wrong. I personally do not have a problem with birth control that prevents conception.

 

[cpayne]

What if the person does not have enough time to think about and repent? Get him killed?

God is mercy and patient. Why can’t we live and being patient with other sinners like us?

I agree that, in our personal lives, we are to be merciful and patient. On the other hand, in order for civil law to have its best effect, its penalties need to be first of all proportionate to the crime, and secondly carried out relatively quickly.

I do have a slightly different question, but related to the question of capital punishment. Is this a matter the Church has NOT pronounced on definitively? That is, is this a question over which different responses can be equally valid in the Church’s eyes, making one’s position on the death penalty NOT a binding matter of faith and morals? I have heard different answers to this, and would like to know others’ views.

 

[Mommyof02green]

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.

The only thing that comes to mind is an ectopic pregnancy (tubal pregnancy).

I am pro-life and I believe in life from conception to natural death. I also believe that I have the right to medical care. I believe that I have to do what is right for my health and the baby’s health.

Thank God that I have not been faced with an ectopic pregnancy.
Here is a Q and A about ectopic pregnancies.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=17307&highlight=ectopic

I have a feeling this is what RR was some what referring too.

There is also this:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=117599&highlight=ectopic

 

[Eireann]

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!

Sorry, answering from a Catholic point of view.

I’m pro-life, had to fight to have my first gran-child born when her other gran-parents were going through the net for mills in England, to have her aborted, I put my foot down.

She’s born now and 5 years old, and off-course they’ve taken over, I don’t mind, she’s born, so you could say I’m pro-life.

 

[charlye]

Sorry, answering from a Catholic point of view.

I’m pro-life, had to fight to have my first gran-child born when her other gran-parents were going through the net for mills in England, to have her aborted, I put my foot down.

She’s born now and 5 years old, and off-course they’ve taken over, I don’t mind, she’s born, so you could say I’m pro-life.

God bless you, Eireann, for taking your stand for your granddaughter!

Charlye

 

[charlye]

Yes.

Well, then,you realize that the baby is fully mature, able to live on its own outside of the womb. That the procedure involves actually repositioning the baby so that the feet come out first … a particularly painful and dangerous process for the mother. Doing it this way, they are able to puncture the baby’s brain, deflating it and declaring that it died before it was born.

No cat fight, mirdath, just wondering why anyone in the world would condone this evil and barbaric practice.

Charlye

 

[7Jesus7saves]

im against all of them becasue God tells us not to to judge other people and the longer theyre alive,the more chance they have 2 turn to Jesus for salvation and abortion and contraception send the message that sex outside marriage has no consequences. if someone does get pregnant or an STD then those are the consequences that God created for that action. the only time contraception(if ever )should be used is within marriage.legalizing abortion is even worse people used to abstain partly b/c they were afraid of getting pregnant and being a parent.abortion provides a seemingly easy way out

 

[Mirdath]

Well, then,you realize that the baby is fully mature, able to live on its own outside of the womb. That the procedure involves actually repositioning the baby so that the feet come out first … a particularly painful and dangerous process for the mother. Doing it this way, they are able to puncture the baby’s brain, deflating it and declaring that it died before it was born.

No cat fight, mirdath, just wondering why anyone in the world would condone this evil and barbaric practice.

Charlye

Yeah, I know.

 

[levi86]

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).

This would be the case if we were governed by the Church. However we are governed by a secular state, the state (at least were I’m from) does not claim to represent God or be an outlet for divine justice.

 

[happygal]

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.

Hi Water

Good answer, we leave it to God to decide. Who shall go and who shall stay. In this case if God decide baby should go then, CC shall not say abortion is not allow under what ever situation… God is bigger then a church. Rules are foundation set for us to follow, but God will change it depending on situation. Thus don’t always believe rules are standard and never change. God is almighty he can do thing which we sometime don’t understand I will remembered what Sy Roger said. God is bigger then everything…

 

[DRIVING_BEAR]

Abortion should only be used in the very rare cases where both the life of the mother and the child would be lost if pregnancy continued.

I am also with great reluctance pro death penalty.
Our God is a God of Mercy true , but he is also a God of Justice. Because we are
uncomfortable carrying out the death penalty does not give man the right to disobey a commandment of God.

Gen 9:6 Whoso sheddeth8210 man’s120 blood,1818 by man120 shall his blood1818 be shed:8210 for3588 in the image6754 of God430 made6213 he (853) man.120

 

[Allweather]

im against all of them becasue God tells us not to to judge other people and the longer theyre alive,the more chance they have 2 turn to Jesus for salvation and abortion and contraception send the message that sex outside marriage has no consequences. if someone does get pregnant or an STD then those are the consequences that God created for that action. the only time contraception(if ever )should be used is within marriage.legalizing abortion is even worse people used to abstain partly b/c they were afraid of getting pregnant and being a parent.abortion provides a seemingly easy way out

HI, 7Jesus7saves. The interesting part of your post I made bold. I’ve never heard this argument before from anyone, and am curious where you get this from. Is this supported by some specific Scripture? Or, is it a teaching that you’ve been given apart from Scripture? Thanks.

 

[JMJ_coder]

Hello,

I am 100% pro-life.

Abortion is never justified under any circumstance.

Contraception is not to be allowed.

Euthanasia is unjustifiable.

Capitol Punishment, while being at one time necessary for the safety of others, is now no longer needed.

Life is a gift of God!

 

[Syele]

I am pro-life. Can I prove it? how does one prove it? I was raped and now have a 5 year old precocious and beautiful daughter, abortion never even crossed mind mind, though adoption did.

I’m against any contraception that could end already conceived life… other forms of Birth control don’t bother me. No to Euthenasia. The death penalty one has me torn between answers but I lean towards solitary confinement for life.

  			Originally Posted by **rr1213** 					[forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif](http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=1971883#post1971883) 				
  		*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 refuse abortion, pray A LOT and do everything in my power to try and help us both survive. God is a God of Miracles, He often works wonders through such things. If He does not save us… Being with Him in heaven will be nice.

 

[Kitty_Chan]

I am against abortion, but sorry in cases of medical problems, or rape (Gods blessing on you Syele, you are of a wonderful character) but there is special reasons for some abortions and that should be allowed. Im sure any woman in any of these circumstances takes the abortion quite seriously.

I wonder how many abortions after those exceptions, are preventable? or out of convienence ? or multiple? Thats where the true arguement lies. what are the stats on unplanned pregnancy before and after Roe??

As for the death penalty, for violent only crimes (ie the sweet soul in florida killing the 9yr old) could be a deterrant as long as they dont spend 20 yrs on death row.

While Im at it for the SECOND rape conviction, snip. Not the first, just go with 2nd then that will eliminate the ones wrongly accused. Not prolife but it may protect some lives.

 

[mozart-250]

There is a difference between what is morally wrong and what the state should criminalize.

I lean slightly towards contraception NOT being a part of God’s design; however at the same time I do not believe that it is a legitimate interest of the state to criminalize contraception.

However, until someone persuades me that abortion is not the killing of innocent human life, I do believe it is a valid interest of the state to protect innocent human life.

However, I realize there are issues when an activity goes from a previously legal state to an illegal state. Without a broad popular consensus on this with respect to abortion, I fear we would end up with prohibition 2.0. The end result would be that illegal abortion would be found to be unworkable and that it would wind up being permanently legal. Therefore, the hearts of the people must be changed before illegal abortion would work. There is precedence for this (see slavery).

However, I do favor a states rights (as an American citizen) approach with respect to the criminalization of abortion. First of all, Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided and must be overturned. Then, let the individual states deal with it according to the desires of their individual cultures. Mississippi therefore might criminalize abortion before California for example.

The pragmatist in me recognizes that if abortion is criminalized again, it would be with exceptions on the life of the mother and rape/incest at the least (and possibly more health exception). Given there is a difference between what is morally wrong and what the state should criminalize, I suppose I could live with that.

As far as capital punishment I used to be for it, but now am against it based on the following reasoning:

• With abortion, until it can be definitely shown that the fetus is NOT human life, I believe that in the case of any uncertainty we should err on the side of protecting innocent human life.
• With capital punishment, until it can be definitely shown we have a 100% error free process (we don’t fry the innocent), we should err on the side of protecting innocent human life

 

[rr1213]

As far as capital punishment I used to be for it, but now am against it based on the following reasoning:

• With abortion, until it can be definitely shown that the fetus is NOT human life, I believe that in the case of any uncertainty we should err on the side of protecting innocent human life.
• With capital punishment, until it can be definitely shown we have a 100% error free process (we don’t fry the innocent), we should err on the side of protecting innocent human life

Of course, there has never been a 100% error free process and there never will be. What are you going to require?

A man rapes a child and then kills her in front of 20 witnesses. It is caught on videotape. DNA evidence links him to both the rape and murder. His fingerprints are all over the victim and the crime scene. He confesses. In my opinion, if he is tried and his guilt established --beyond a reasonable doubt mind you-- the State should put the man to death. Nonetheless, even in this case, there is not ***100% ***certainty…and never will be.

The difference in the situation between an unborn child and someone lawfully sentenced to death by the State is more than a difference in degree, it is a difference in nature and kind. The child has done no crime, yet is killed by a private actor for the sake of convenience. The murderer is a vicious criminal, convicted beyond a reasonable doubt by a jury of his peers, and put to death by the State, not a private actor, decades after his crime after all appeals are exhausted and a pardon denied by the executive. Big difference.

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).

 

[mozart-250]

Of course, there has never been a 100% error free process and there never will be. What are you going to require?

A man rapes a child and then kills her in front of 20 witnesses. It is caught on videotape. DNA evidence links him to both the rape and murder. His fingerprints are all over the victim and the crime scene. He confesses. In my opinion, if he is tried and his guilt established --beyond a reasonable doubt mind you-- the State should put the man to death. Nonetheless, even in this case, there is not ***100% ***certainty…and never will be.

Emotionally I would want to see the man hung by the neck until dead and would praise God when it is carried out. That is how I reacted when Timothy McVeigh was put to death.

However, unless our judicial process is error free the choice in reality is
(a) Frying the obviously guilty with the risk of frying the innocent.
(b) Protecting the possibly innocent by having a maximum penalty of life imprisonment.

There have been enough cases of those who were sentenced to death and later released (before being executed) having been found innocent, to convince me the risk of frying the innocent is above trivial. Therefore I would err on the side of protecting the possible innocent by choosing (b).

The difference in the situation between an unborn child and someone lawfully sentenced to death by the State is more than a difference in degree, it is a difference in nature and kind. The child has done no crime, yet is killed by a private actor for the sake of convenience. The murderer is a vicious criminal, convicted beyond a reasonable doubt by a jury of his peers, and put to death by the State, not a private actor, decades after his crime after all appeals are exhausted and a pardon denied by the executive. Big difference.

There is a difference when the guilty are executed. One case is innocent human life, the second is guilty human life.

If a mistake in the judicial process is made, however, both are the killing of innocent human life.

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).

True…which is why I would NOT argue that the death penalty is unscriptural. At the same time, I would not argue that it is scripturally mandated.

 

[Jerusha]

I am 100% pro-life.

That includes social welfare programs, war, capital punishment in most cases, ecological issues, abortion, euthanasia, tolerance of racial, cultural, religious differences. Moderate tolerance of sexual differences. Supporting the Mexican economy and work permits.

There is no politician that I know of who is consistently pro-life. Therefore, I generally vote Democratic.

 

[cpayne]

I also am 100% pro-life. This means that I am in favor of the death penalty for those who take innocent life.

Regarding mistaken executions: These are not equivalent to abortion. Abortion intends the death of an innocent human; a mistaken execution is just that, a mistake. It does not intend the death of the innocent; rather, it attempts to protect the innocent. Therefore, EVEN IF an execution of an innocent human takes place, that action is not the moral equivalent of the intended killing of an innocent human.