Are you pro-choice or pro-life?

This isn't an easy question for me. What exactly do you mean by pro-life? Are you simply interested in forcing a pregnant woman to give birth? What about women who are poor and need financial assistance to raise the child? Are you in favor of some sort of government or state program to help women out who can't financially afford to have a baby? What about women who have no health insurance? Are you for universal health care?

Are we not commanded to help the widow and orphan? I wonder why nobody backs their claims with Scripture. The only passage I know of that is on the topic of abortion is Jeremiah 20:14-18:
Cursed be the day when I was born; Let the day not be blessed when my mother bore me!
Cursed be the man who brought the news To my father, saying, "A baby boy has been born to you!" {And} made him very happy.
But let that man be like the cities Which the LORD overthrew without relenting, And let him hear an outcry in the morning And a shout of alarm at noon;
Because he did not kill me before birth, So that my mother would have been my grave, And her womb ever pregnant.
Why did I ever come forth from the womb To look on trouble and sorrow, So that my days have been spent in shame?
Now, I've used this passage to defend pro-life many a time. Notice how Jeremiah uses personal pronouns for an unborn child, "me" "my" and "I". This would suggest that the child is a person. Also notice how Jeremiah says an unborn child can be killed. My argument usually is: can you kill an appendix? (as pro-choicers usually say the fetus is part of the woman) This would put the unborn under the "thou shalt not kill" commandment. One might ask, why did Jeremiah curse his doctor then? Would he not be cursed for whatever he did? (as Deuteronomy 27:26 says Cursed is he who does not confirm the words of this law by doing them.) The answer to that is a resounding yes.

I voted pro-choice.

I think abortion is killing a human being, and I doubt I would be able to get one if, God forbids, I became pregnant.

However I can understand why one would choose to do so, would it be to save her own life, because she's not ready, because she's afraid of other's judgements or because she cant provide good care for the child. I dont say these are necessarily good reasons, only I understand and can support such a choice, even though I wouldnt make it myself.

As Adrian Rogers put it: You have the child the moment you concieve. You have it, its just not born yet. The question is whether or not you're going to kill it.

I'm pro-life,

I would like people to do all they possibly can to choose life before considering abortion. An then we realize that that baby could be born into the most harshest of environments and we take a country like China that is heavily overpopulated to the point that the government had to step in and say just one child a family.

I do think its murder, but it's sheer torture to allow a child born into such harsh environments. It's especially hard to give it up for adoption when orphanages are overcrowding.

AS morbid as it sounds, I would love to be murdered if the living conditions were horrid and there was absolutely no way out.

On the other hand, we, in America, are not really suffereing that much. And i'm HIGHLY against getting abortion for convenieance wich i have witnessed women getting abortions just because they didn't like the guy or even it was the result of an incest relationship. That child still deserves a GOOD FIGHTING chance no matter what, especially when alot can be doen for that child without you. Just because it's convienant doesn't give you the right to kill.

In the end my opinion is, Abortion is murder....but we have to understand and have compassion for those who made that very difficult choice. Because there are A LOT of woment that get abortions, that aren't happy making that decision at all. That guilt would follow and follow them, but then again, what if they really DID have no choice?

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.



To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.



To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


"Live long and prosper..."--some dude from Star Trek...
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

## I voted "Other". IMO, there are times when abortion, however undesirable in principle, is the least bad course of action - I don't believe it is always possible to "do the right thing": sometimes, there is only a choice of evils; that is what real life is like.

I think it's immoral, as well as imprudent, to make any single issue into one that disqualifies a political candidate from being voted for. Politics is just not that simple. As for refusing the Eucharist to politicians, that IMO is wicked & scandalous - to "play politics" with the sacraments is unconscionable; that it done in public rather than in private is even worse.

I hope that's not too vehement

I personally have a lot of problems with the 'pro-life' and 'pro-choice' dichotomy. I think overall, the abortion debate has become too polarised in emotional terms and also the rhetoric on either side is all too often based not on a rational analysis of the ethical issues but rather on a sort of World War I trench-style battlefield; either side fires everything it has at the other and always refuses to give an inch of ground to the other. In my view it is unfortunate the Catholic Church, particularly in the U.S., has gotten itself entangled in the political debate over the legality of abortion. I think this is unfortunate, not because I think the church is not entitled to take a strong stand on this moral issue, but because in doing so the church has gotten entangled and even 'into bed' with right wing politics in America, and has sided itself with rather questionable far-right wing Christian groups and political causes. Because the church and its leaders have tended to endorse the moral positions taken by the religious right in various countries, the church has to a degree identified itself and its core teachings with right wing conservative politics and politicians and religious lobby groups. This seems to have made traditionalists very happy in a lot of ways but in my view it somewhat corrupts and compromises the church, as entanglement in temporal matters has always done.

I think pro-lifers have often gone too far in their attempts to have abortion banned, to the point of even making appointments of judges a political affair. In my view, there are far more important considerations to the fitness of a political candidate for their office than their stance on legal abortion. It is perfectly possible for a conservative to swear they are pro-life and they get the votes, but in fact they are hopeless at everything else. A person's ethical views are important, but they should not be the primary basis on which they are elected to their office. A politician is supposed to be in office for the public good, which includes all in society, including those who may not hold pro-life views. A politician should be as good at protecting and advancing their interests as those of a pro-life person.

Also, politics is a secular matter. Religious matters and considerations should not be the main reason or the most important consideration. Unless you live in a theocracy, politicians have to make decisions based on the best evidence and policy available to them. A politician's faith should inform their values and ethos but they should never treat their office as one merely to ensure their religion becomes the religion of the people. To do so would abuse the constitutional arrangements in place in most Western countries.

Also, the office of the judge should not be decided on their views on abortion. The office of the Supreme Court in the U.S. has been politicised by the question of legal abortion. A judge should decide cases impartially and on established precedent and not on their subjective views. To do otherwise would seriously compromise the independence and impartiality of the judge and would undermine their office. Pro-lifers should then stay out of the judicial system.

On the other hand, I think the liberalisation of abortion has presented a lot of problems. Abortion seems to be often done 'on demand' and fetuses seem to be aborted very frequently, often because they appear to have some defect or disability. In other cases, abortion is all too often used as the 'contraceptive of last resort.' I think it is highly questionable that the unborn should be dispensed with so recklessly, and when a new human life comes into existence, it is all too often seen as just a 'burden' or as something 'inconvienient' and to be discarded if it interferes too much with one's own life. I also think the view that a fetus is just like an organ, like an appendix, and can be regarded morally as such is also not morally acceptable.

There are problems though with legally banning abortion. There may be situations where an abortion procedure is done to save the mother's life, and if criminal sanctions are placed on doctors who would otherwise perform such procedures, it may encourage doctors to let such patients die rather than face criminal charges. Also, as with criminalisating socially undesirable behaviours such as drug taking or prostitution has shown, making an activity criminal does not necessarily stamp it out, it just drives it underground into the hands of shady characters and criminals. Women may still seek out abortions but from 'backyard' abortionists who are not medically qualified. This quite often results in serious injury or even death for the mother, and as with past social experiments such as the criminalisation of drugs and prostitution, other unforseen harms may arise (such as creating a black 'market' that criminals will only too happily exploit for a huge profit, which in turn corrupts society generally). Criminalising abortion in my view should be the last resort in dealing with this social issue, reprehensible as it may be to many.

In addition, abortion is an issue which people in Western society do not agree upon. While many see it as wrong, many others don't. A law banning abortion is likely to be challenged to those who see it as an infringement on their rights, and it is likely to be successful. Such has already been the case in the U.S, where Roe v Wade was decided on the basis of a constitutional right of the individual to privacy and the right to make their own decisions regarding reproduction. Such a ruling has been challenged, but Catholics should also keep in mind the church teaches that decisions for procreating children and family size and marital intimacy are for the couple, and not the state to decide. Challenging the right to privacy would in an indirect way, also challenge the church's own teachings that Catholics have a right to manage their own procreation and reproductive choices as well (though not of course by using contraceptives or abortion).

I think the best way to proceed is to try and minimise and reduce the number of abortions. Like banning nuclear weapons, getting rid of abortion will take time and also an effort to change the entrenched cultures which convince politicians and others that abortion is something that is right in many situations.

I think this can be done in a number of ways, including offering better social and economic support to mothers tempted to abort their child for fear of poverty, recrimination or social discrimination, by trying to change the laws which permit abortion, and also changing social attitudes which often see relationships and sex as a casual and private matter and regard pregnancy as an unwanted burden. Better relationship frameworks for sexual relationships and procreation of children in those relationships need to be developed by all churches, and should be integrated into the life and liturgy of the church. I think it would help greatly if sex was celebrated more, as a great good, in the context and framework of Christian marriage, and young people were strongly inculcated in instruction in good sexual morality integrated with an intellectually and theologically sound and mature approach to their dignity and personality, with an emphasis on forming healthy and loving relationships with each other.

I think then the best way to deal with abortion is to try and restore the broken institution of marriage to society. I think by reducing the levels of divorce and by encouraging people not married to move out of that situation into wedlock, should help reduce the attraction of transient relationships and causal sex. Combined with counselling and outreach to pregnant women considering abortion, and a positive attempt to change the mindset of society and politicians generally through the democratic process, I think a lot of progress can be made to reduce the number of abortions to as low a number of possible.

Trying to totally ban abortion is a possibility but I think trying to get such a law passed would be very problematic, for the reasons I have outlined. I think it would be better to try to induce a culture in society which respects, celebrates and protects human life from the moment of conception to death, regardless of whether or not the person is disabled or the pregnancy was not wanted. This seems more helpful in my view than the endless energy wasted on the 'pro-life' and 'pro-choice' debates which seem so full of hate and hysteria.

I am now a liberal Catholic and am pro-choice.

__________________

If you don't mind me asking, what moved you to change your mind?

Well, I decided that it is not right for me to try and dictate my own moral choices upon other people. Also, if we go back to banning abortion, unsafe back alley abortions and coat hanger abortions will become common place again and I don't want that to happen.

__________________

I view things similarly. Abortions aren't the core problem. The circumstances that cause women to feel the need for abortions are the core problem. Banning abortion is not a good in itself. If it primarily leads to women seeking dangerous illegal abortions, it would be a net evil. The pro-life movement reminds me of the temperance movement at the beginning of the Twentieth Century. Seeing something evil, they seek a ban without regard of what the actual consequences. After forty years, a single-minded pursuit of banning abortion has left many so wedded to the Republican Party that they blind themselves to all other evils. Instead of resulting in a ban on abortion, this has produced an unjust war and open support for torture.