what is your belief about pro-life?

[reneeville]

I am totally pro-life. I regret my two abortions… and am SILENT NO MORE (www.silentnomore.org) . I believe that “contra” ception is against God’s design for mankind. Man has changed the nature of intercourse from creational to recreational. Planned Parenthood",an agent of the evil one continues to take big tax dollars annually to commit fetacide. I am against the death penalty… I am a survivor of incest and before my biological dad passed away almost thirty years ago, I forgave him for the crimes he committed against me… as Jesus instructs.
If we live for Christ… we must also allow others the opportunity to do so as well.
Shalom~

 

[john_ennis]

Life is a gift too precious and bewildering to take, or condone others taking–even if it be their own.

There’s no way for me to believe otherwise unless I deny a Creator.

Exceptions for rape deny the right of a profoundly innocent party.

Exceptions for the life of the mother make it a cost/benefits exercise, and are acceptable only for those who would, say, shoot an innocent child if it would prevent a nuclear holocaust. Appreciation for God’s oversight does not allow for such practicality.

The Church’s wisdom has led me away from a conservative view of the death penalty to a loving one–as long as a criminal is alive he may return to Christ. At the same time, one who is a real threat to the innocent as long as he lives, the state has the right to execute.

Bottom line: the Church–the Word of God–got it right.

Imagine.

Peace.
John

 

[mozart-250]

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.

It may not be the moral equivalent since:

• executing the innocent is the accidental killing of innocent human life
• abortion is the intentional killing of innocent human life

However, the end result is the same. Innocent human life is killed.

 

[mark_a]

Hello-

I understand that I need to keep myself civil and I will. Can you answer a question about your statement below?

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.

How can we justify killing the most innocent of all, but be anti-capital punishment?

The thing is, abortion has always been around and will always be around. There have always been medical people willing to perform abortions and there will always be.

The real question in my opinion, is this: How can a society bless and fund the killing the most innocent of all?

 

[cpayne]

It may not be the moral equivalent since:

• executing the innocent is the accidental killing of innocent human life
• abortion is the intentional killing of innocent human life

However, the end result is the same. Innocent human life is killed.

Well, yes, of course. But I think the argument is trying to tend toward saying that capital punishment should be done away with. In order to make that case, you have to make the case that accidental execution of the innocent is the moral equivalent of intentional killing. If someone is accidentally killed by being hit by an automobile, does that make the driver equivalent to a murderer, since “the end result is the same. Innocent human life is killed”? (Of course, if the driver is driving while chemically impaired, that raises the driver’s culpability, since the driver “intends” reduced driving skills if he or she “intends” intoxication.)

At any rate, the majority’s intuitions on this matter seem morally correct to me: Some crimes are capital in nature and can only be proportionately and justly punished by a capital sentence.

I am as yet a non-Catholic and do not know the CCC as well as I should. Has the Church pronounced definitively on this subject? I would be willing to abide with that.

 

[cpayne]

P.S. to above: Way back in Post 36 I got out of this discussion. If anyone knows about the Church’s position on capital punishment (official position, that is), I’ll still be reading, but I think I’ve said my piece. God’s best to all. P.P.S. Not to suck up or anything, but one reason I somewhat compulsively write posts here is that this is an extraordinarily interesting, readable, and well-designed site. Kudos all around.

 

[mozart-250]

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.

Curious because your statement of being ecstatic if abortion stopped seems inconsistent with the rest of your post.

Imagine if abortion did stop because the hearts and minds of our society were converted. If you say that is impossible, you are leaving out a God who is perfectly able to perform this change. And He has in the past (see slavery).

Wouldn’t it be reasonable to expect that a society that has rejected abortion and has come to view it as what it is (the killing of innocent human life) to reflect this rejection somehow in its legal code?

Curious as to whether you would be supportive or resistive if our western society came to see abortion as to what it really is? If it were criminalized again as a result of society rejecting the practice, how would you react.

 

[gotriciago]

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.

I agree that abortion should never be used as a form of birth control but yes but there are some people who shouldnt be parents. ive work in a shelter and seen many children mistreated, abused, forced to do sex acts for money by their parents and it makes me sick. i believe in adoption. i believe in a womens right to choose. when a women is raped there is something taken away from her, to have that child could be horrible to that women and child. theres never a clear cut answer to things like this. there are always fine lines and twist. so i am pro-choice.

 

[Curious]

The most beatiful arguement I’ve ever heard for pro-life is simply, “This is My Body, which is given up for you.”

That’s awesome. And very meaningful for me as I’ve just had my first baby in August 2006. I can actually relate to that.

 

[water]

I agree that abortion should never be used as a form of birth control but yes but there are some people who shouldnt be parents. ive work in a shelter and seen many children mistreated, abused, forced to do sex acts for money by their parents and it makes me sick.

yes, it is heart-breaking to see these poor children becoming the victims.

i believe in adoption.

yes!

i believe in a womens right to choose. when a women is raped there is something taken away from her, to have that child could be horrible to that women and child. theres never a clear cut answer to things like this. there are always fine lines and twist. so i am pro-choice.

If we think the woman has the right to choose, then who would speak for the unborn baby’s right?

The unborn child is a victim too if we kill him/her.
We don’t kill the unborn child because of his father’s guilt.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

P.S. to above: Way back in Post 36 I got out of this discussion. If anyone knows about the Church’s position on capital punishment (official position, that is), I’ll still be reading, but I think I’ve said my piece. God’s best to all. P.P.S. Not to suck up or anything, but one reason I somewhat compulsively write posts here is that this is an extraordinarily interesting, readable, and well-designed site. Kudos all around.

Try here -​

scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a5.htm#2266

[2266](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/2266.htm’) The efforts of the state to curb the spread of behavior harmful to people’s rights and to the basic rules of civil society correspond to the requirement of safeguarding the common good. Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict punishment proportionate to the gravity of the offense. Punishment has the primary aim of redressing the disorder introduced by the offense. When it is willingly accepted by the guilty party, it assumes the value of expiation. Punishment then, in addition to defending public order and protecting people’s safety, has a medicinal purpose: as far as possible, it must contribute to the correction of the guilty party.67

[2267](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/2267.htm’) Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.
If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity to the dignity of the human person. Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity "are very rare, if not practically nonexistent."68

=============

ISTM that this does not quite decide the matter - though the DP is clearly not favoured.

Some crimes are so horrific that it is almost immoral not to execute those who commit them. As for the dignity of the person - what is undignified in paying for one’s crimes with one’s life ? The indignity is to be treated as though one is not a responsible being; execution implies that that criminal is a morally free agent who was capable of doing other than commit a crime; the use of the DP is a compliment to human nature. ##

 

[Sixtus]

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

Amen

I would go as far as saying that to speak cruelly to another, or to injure them intentionally and to damage their reputation is also wilful murder and therefore not pro-life.

Ori-life is also in my view 'making people feel good about themselves, empowering and enabling people towards self-determination. Respecting each person’s differences and rights to be different. I think these are also pro-life issues.

 

[water]

Amen

I would go as far as saying that to speak cruelly to another, or to injure them intentionally and to damage their reputation is also wilful murder and therefore not pro-life.

Ori-life is also in my view 'making people feel good about themselves, empowering and enabling people towards self-determination. Respecting each person’s differences and rights to be different. I think these are also pro-life issues.

Very good point Sixtus, and thank you. I didn’t think of it.

 

[jack_hawkins]

My issue with pro-life campaigners is that some of them take indefensible positions by extending the defence of life to ridiculous extremes. Anything can be taken to extremes, and especially something which emotionally it seems difficult to oppose.
I oppose abortion except when the mother’s life is at serious risk.
I don’t see how contraception is anything to do with being pro-life in anyway - but I think contraception has a place in certain situations personally.
Death penalty - well it’s Biblical for one thing. Justice is a civil matter but I believe for the worst offenders it should be an option.
Physician-assisted suicide/euthanasia - opposed.

 

[Chancellare]

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 life of an unborn child is as precious as that of the mother. The mission of medical science is to save both. If in the process one or both dies, you still uphold sanctity of life. The medical procedure to save both lives is the starting point. If you start by eliminating the right to life of either one, in your heart you have already killed him right from the start.

 

[jack_hawkins]

The life of an unborn child is as precious as that of the mother. The mission of medical science is to save both. If in the process one or both dies, you still uphold sanctity of life. The medical procedure to save both lives is the starting point. If you start by eliminating the right to life of either one, in your heart you have already killed him right from the start.

You would let both die instead of save one? Doesn’t sound very pro-life to me. This is what I meant in my previous post.
If a pregnancy threatens the mother’s life, then morally it is the right thing to do to save her life rather than let two lives be lost. It’s all very well to say both lives should be saved but in the real world that is not always possible. So going back to the scenario, which is realistic I should add, you would let two lives be lost instead of just one?

 

[john_ennis]

You would let both die instead of save one? Doesn’t sound very pro-life to me. This is what I meant in my previous post.
If a pregnancy threatens the mother’s life, then morally it is the right thing to do to save her life rather than let two lives be lost. It’s all very well to say both lives should be saved but in the real world that is not always possible. So going back to the scenario, which is realistic I should add, you would let two lives be lost instead of just one?

Would you shoot an innocent child to save an entire city from destruction?

Peace.
john

 

[JMJ_coder]

Hello,

You would let both die instead of save one? Doesn’t sound very pro-life to me. This is what I meant in my previous post.
If a pregnancy threatens the mother’s life, then morally it is the right thing to do to save her life rather than let two lives be lost. It’s all very well to say both lives should be saved but in the real world that is not always possible. So going back to the scenario, which is realistic I should add, you would let two lives be lost instead of just one?

You must attempt to save both. Let God decide who shall live or die. That is His rightful decision to make, not ours.

 

[jack_hawkins]

Hello,
You must attempt to save both. Let God decide who shall live or die. That is His rightful decision to make, not ours.

Right, that’s either totally misunderstanding the situation or just being fatalistic. Neither are acceptable to me.
Trust me for a minute, and accept there are situations where it is futile to try and save both? Does that sound reasonable? We can’t pretend these situations don’t arise.

 

[jack_hawkins]

Would you shoot an innocent child to save an entire city from destruction?

Peace.
john

what does that have to do with the situation at hand? absolutely nothing