please answer a poll about abortion

[LoisGriffin]

I am pro-choice and have no children.

This option was not on the poll so I couldn't vote.

 

[futbolfrk]

I object to this poll and will not vote because the options are inaccurate. The correct term is "pro-choice" not "pro-abortion". I don't know if a single person who is for abortion and would therefore be called pro-abortion.

False. If you were "pro-choice" you would actually allow the baby to make a choice.

 

[Trashionista]

False. If you were "pro-choice" you would actually allow the baby to make a choice.

It's status as a baby is up to opinion, for one.

Furthermore, the fetus is subject to the choice of the mother. So, "pro-choice" isn't that out of line. Whether that be adoption, abortion, or carrying the pregnancy to term to parent the eventual infant.

Your analysis of what it means to be pro-choice is completely off base.

 

[lux et lex]

False. If you were "pro-choice" you would actually allow the baby to make a choice.

This doesn't even make sense.

 

[Hentenza]

It's status as a baby is up to opinion, for one.

Furthermore, the fetus is subject to the choice of the mother. So, "pro-choice" isn't that out of line. Whether that be adoption, abortion, or carrying the pregnancy to term to parent the eventual infant.

Your analysis of what it means to be pro-choice is completely off base.

You teach contrary to the beliefs of your church which means that you are no longer in communion with the Catholic Church.

Abortion
2270 Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person - among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life.72

Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you.73 My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately wrought in the depths of the earth.74
2271 Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law:

You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish.75 God, the Lord of life, has entrusted to men the noble mission of safeguarding life, and men must carry it out in a manner worthy of themselves. Life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception: abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes.76
2272 Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life. "A person who procures a completed abortion incurs excommunication latae sententiae,"77 "by the very commission of the offense,"78 and subject to the conditions provided by Canon Law.79 The Church does not thereby intend to restrict the scope of mercy. Rather, she makes clear the gravity of the crime committed, the irreparable harm done to the innocent who is put to death, as well as to the parents and the whole of society.
2273 The inalienable right to life of every innocent human individual is a constitutive element of a civil society and its legislation:
"The inalienable rights of the person must be recognized and respected by civil society and the political authority. These human rights depend neither on single individuals nor on parents; nor do they represent a concession made by society and the state; they belong to human nature and are inherent in the person by virtue of the creative act from which the person took his origin. Among such fundamental rights one should mention in this regard every human being's right to life and physical integrity from the moment of conception until death."80 "The moment a positive law deprives a category of human beings of the protection which civil legislation ought to accord them, the state is denying the equality of all before the law. When the state does not place its power at the service of the rights of each citizen, and in particular of the more vulnerable, the very foundations of a state based on law are undermined. . . . As a consequence of the respect and protection which must be ensured for the unborn child from the moment of conception, the law must provide appropriate penal sanctions for every deliberate violation of the child's rights."81

2274 Since it must be treated from conception as a person, the embryo must be defended in its integrity, cared for, and healed, as far as possible, like any other human being.
Prenatal diagnosis is morally licit, "if it respects the life and integrity of the embryo and the human fetus and is directed toward its safe guarding or healing as an individual. . . . It is gravely opposed to the moral law when this is done with the thought of possibly inducing an abortion, depending upon the results: a diagnosis must not be the equivalent of a death sentence."82
2275 "One must hold as licit procedures carried out on the human embryo which respect the life and integrity of the embryo and do not involve disproportionate risks for it, but are directed toward its healing the improvement of its condition of health, or its individual survival."83 "It is immoral to produce human embryos intended for exploitation as disposable biological material."84
"Certain attempts to influence chromosomic or genetic inheritance are not therapeutic but are aimed at producing human beings selected according to sex or other predetermined qualities. Such manipulations are contrary to the personal dignity of the human being and his integrity and identity"85 which are unique and unrepeatable.


http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a5.htm




You have some reconciling to do.

 

[If Not For Grace]

pro-life with no children, but if the Mother can live with it so can I

 

[If Not For Grace]

I object to this poll and will not vote because the options are inaccurate. The correct term is "pro-choice" not "pro-abortion". I don't know if a single person who is for abortion and would therefore be called pro-abortion.

Splitting hair's

 

[LoisGriffin]

nm read the post wrong.

 

[Trashionista]

You teach contrary to the beliefs of your church which means that you are no longer in communion with the Catholic Church.

-snip-


You have some reconciling to do.

I love how your response to anything that is in contradiction with the Church is to copy and paste. Honestly, if you've posted this spiel towards me several times, and my views have not changed, what are the odds doing it for the umpteenth time, will somehow change my point of view?

 

[Trashionista]

Splitting hair's

Clearly, it's not just "splitting hairs" if numerous pro-choicers in this thread so far have agreed with PaladinGirl's statement, or shared similar sentiments.

This is a varied, touchy subject. To reduce any opinion in this thread to splitting hairs is insulting. Obviously, sometimes it warrants it. But when numerous people have taken offense to the term "pro-abortion"?

 

[dies-l]

Splitting hair's

I am pro-life, but to me, there is a huge difference between "pro-choice" and "pro-abortion", and I have known people in both camps. A person who is pro-choice believes that the state is not the best authority to choose whether woman should have an abortion, regardless of what the "pro-choice" person believes about the morality of abortion. "Pro-abortion" means that a person believes that abortion is a morally viable option in all circumstances. There are many reasons why a person who believes abortion to be immoral would nonetheless oppose prohibition by the state, but I think that those who claim this mere hair-splitting know this and are being disingenuous.

My personal view is that preserving human life should always be our main priority as a human family. Thus, I oppose abortion, and I believe that we should explore ways of making abortion as rare as possible, whether that be through anti-abortion legislation, social welfare programs, education, etc. Obviously, I am not opposed to anti-abortion legislation, but I don't prioritize it either, as I think the evidence is quite strong that anti-abortion laws do very little to curtail abortion. Additionally, my pro-life stance affects my views on other issues, such as the warfare, the death penalty, and our obligation to care for the poor (26,000 children under 5, die everyday due to poverty related causes).

Although I believe that abortion is always immoral, I am not quite sure that I buy the notion that life begins at conception. I see no reason, based on science or Scripture to believe that a single human cell deserves the same moral and legal rights as a fully developed infant. This belief has implications to issues that go well beyond the abortion issue. By the same token, I can't accept the idea that life does not begin until birth. I don't know where exactly to draw the line, but both extremes strike me as terribly oversimplistic.

And, no I don't have children, but my wife and I are trying.

 

[lux et lex]

Splitting hair's

Then you should have no issue with me calling you anti-choice instead of pro life...right?

 

[Hentenza]

I love how your response to anything that is in contradiction with the Church is to copy and paste. Honestly, if you've posted this spiel towards me several times, and my views have not changed, what are the odds doing it for the umpteenth time, will somehow change my point of view?

The copy and paste happens to be from your church's catechism which you are supposed to be in agreement to be in communion with your church. I continue to post it to you because you are yet to answer how you can advocate the choice of killing a baby when your church so clearly and correctly says that life begins at conception.

 

[Trashionista]

The copy and paste happens to be from your church's catechism which you are supposed to be in agreement to be in communion with your church. I continue to post it to you because you are yet to answer how you can advocate the choice of killing a baby when your church so clearly and correctly says that life begins at conception.

Seperation of Church and state.

Maybe I would not personally choose abortion, but I still think it has to a be a viable, legal choice for women. Legal for the purpose of medical standards when the operation is being performed, and I will certainly not tell a woman she should or shouldn't have one.

It's a personal choice - and if I were to promote a pro-life in all circumstances view, I could not really be allowing a woman to make the choice for herself about when and if she becomes a mother.

It is about personal choice - whether it be abortion, adoption, choosing to carry the term the pregnancy to term and embracing motherhood. Maybe if I were to get pregnant right now, I personally wouldn't choose abortion. But I don't see why I should be allowed to choose for all women, or support only one or two options for all women, when not every pregnancy occurs under the same circumstances.

I explained this on the first page. I've explained it multiple times in previous threads. So, clearly, you've missed such posts where I rationalize or "ok" my pro-choice views.

 

[Hentenza]

Seperation of Church and state.

Maybe I would not personally choose abortion, but I still think it has to a be a viable, legal choice for women. Legal for the purpose of medical standards when the operation is being performed, and I will certainly not tell a woman she should or shouldn't have one.

It's a personal choice - and if I were to promote a pro-life in all circumstances view, I could not really be allowing a woman to make the choice for herself about when and if she becomes a mother.

It is about personal choice - whether it be abortion, adoption, choosing to carry the term the pregnancy to term and embracing motherhood. Maybe if I were to get pregnant right now, I personally wouldn't choose abortion. But I don't see why I should be allowed to choose for all women, or support only one or two options for all women, when not every pregnancy occurs under the same circumstances.

I explained this on the first page. I've explained it multiple times in previous threads. So, clearly, you've missed such posts where I rationalize or "ok" my pro-choice views.

Actually you keep dancing around it. Please address the fact that you proclaim to be in communion with your church, which requires adherence to its teachings, but argue pro-choice. In simple terms, your church is pro-life but you are pro-choice. You church teaches that life begins at conception but you support that life begins at birth. Your stance violates the teachings of your church.

BTW- Historically your church has not been a proponent of separation of church ans state.

 

[Trashionista]

Actually you keep dancing around it. Please address the fact that you proclaim to be in communion with your church, which requires adherence to its teachings, but argue pro-choice. In simple terms, your church is pro-life but you are pro-choice. You church teaches that life begins at conception but you support that life begins at birth. Your stance violates the teachings of your church.

Because I'm sure you've never disagreed with the Baptist church, hmm?

Furthermore, there's been at least 1 poster in this thread who's pro-choice and Baptist. Why not question her as well, then? If I'm not giving you a satisfactory answer, why not question her then? I'm sure you can apply your copy and paste skills to doing that as well.

BTW- Historically your church has not been a proponent of separation of church ans state.

And times change. I'm not a proponent of theocracies, so it would be hypocritical of me to support a purely Catholic view in policy.

 

[Servant of Jesus]

I've made these points several times before, but it seems appropriate to make them once more.

If you support the pro-choice position, and that life doesn't begin at conception, then it follows that you must:

1. Support a woman who wishes to abort her fetus solely on the basis of gender.

2. Support a woman who wishes to abort her fetus at any time before it is born; that is, even a day before it is actually scheduled to be delivered.

There are countries in the world where both positions are recognized- for example, in China and India, females are less valued than males, so female fetuses are more commonly aborted. Similarly, in rural parts of China where there is poor access to health services, new-born infants, usually females, are sometimes abandoned and left to die even after they are born- the excuse being that a new-born infant is not yet a viable human being.

If there is any question about when life begins, do we not need to err on the conservative side and assume it is fully-formed at conception? Just because we can't recognize a fetus as being a human being because we can't "see" its human attributes once it is conceived doesn't mean it isn't real. Imagine if we applied that test to a glass of untreated water- believe it is clean because it looks clean.

The 10 Commandments make it very clear that we are not to kill, and abortion, by virtue of the fact that it ends a viable life, is therefore murder.

And if that isn't enough- what about the Holy Spirit working within us? My guess is that every woman who professes to be a Christian goes through an incredible guilt trip if she has an abortion- convicted by the Holy Spirit into realizing that she has acted contrary to God's way.

But having said all that, abortion is still only a sin- and like every sin, every error we make, fully forgiven when we acknowledge our wrong-doing before Jesus Christ, repent, and promise to follow him and try to sin no more.

That is the wonderful thing about our faith- its cornerstone is love.

 

[wildboar]

The idea that life begins at conception should not even be debated. It is a scientific fact that life begins at conception. The real debate is over when that life has human rights. The Declaration of Independence states that all men are created equal. The creation of that life occurs at conception and so it seems to be a simple logical deduction that those lives which occur at conception have guaranteed rights.

We know from American history that the rights of certain people that fall under this phrase have not actually been recognized. We have treated certain people groups despicably--such as those with darker skin. We bear a collective guilt because of our failure to recognize their rights. There is still disparity that exists between darker skinned people and lighter skinned people in this country.

Today the rights of those in the womb are denied and are treated far more horribly than black slaves ever were. And even the same people groups are targeted for abortions as were targeted for slavery. Margaret Sanger was the founder of Planned Parenthood and was also a eugenicist. She wrote a paper called the Negro Project in which outlined plans to diminish what she considered to be the sub-human black population. She planned to work with black leaders to set up and promote Planned Parenthood clinics in black neighborhoods. Planned Parenthood has a much higher number of clinics in black neighborhoods than they do in white. More black babies are aborted than are born. It's a civil rights atrocity. African-Americans are being treated like animals--it is assumed that they are completely incapable of having any control over their desires. If it were not for Planned Parenthood, I bet African-Americans would not even be minorities in the United States anymore.

Notice that all of the above is simply argued from the concept of natural law. I didn't appeal to any Bible verse. Of course when we turn to the Scriptures, if we believe what they say, we find even more problems with the concept of abortion. We are told to be fruitful and multiply and that children are a great blessing from the Lord. David says that He trusted in God from His mother's womb which assumes that he was a person and not some chunk of cells. Job says that God knit him together in the womb--Job even describes his own conception, he was poured out like milk and curdled like cheese. He doesn't say that he sprang forth and some point out of this mixture but that this was something God did when he created him which also assumes personhood.

We get to passages such as that found in Luke where John the Baptist leaps in faith in the womb and is filled with the Holy Spirit when he hears Jesus also assuming personhood on the part of this unborn baby.

And then there is Jesus Himself. It would seem that a pro-choice position would do terrible things to a person's Christology. Historic Christians have always confessed that Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit in the womb of the Virgin Mary. He assumed a human nature. He was always fully God but now He was fully man as well. He didn't become a potential man. The Planned Parenthood folks would have urged Mary in her poverty to have an abortion--she would be an outcast and it would totally ruin any career plans she might have. Maybe she could even have it done before Joseph found out and not have to worry about being stoned.

 

[Texas Lynn]

I am pro-life, but to me, there is a huge difference between "pro-choice" and "pro-abortion", and I have known people in both camps. A person who is pro-choice believes that the state is not the best authority to choose whether woman should have an abortion, regardless of what the "pro-choice" person believes about the morality of abortion. "Pro-abortion" means that a person believes that abortion is a morally viable option in all circumstances.

I think you make a wrong distinction. "Pro-Abortion" would reflect a position that abortion is a desirable thing. I have only seen such a position among very radical population reduction people, a distinct minority. What you describe as "pro-abortion" I would call a variant of the pro-choice position.

 

[Texas Lynn]

If you support the pro-choice position, and that life doesn't begin at conception, then it follows that you must:

1. Support a woman who wishes to abort her fetus solely on the basis of gender.

That does not follow. It would if you worded it "support the right of a woman..."

2. Support a woman who wishes to abort her fetus at any time before it is born; that is, even a day before it is actually scheduled to be delivered.

Again the addition of "the right of" a woman... would suffice in some cases. Some favor proscriptions on the later trimesters. As long as exceptions are made for the health of the woman I have no problem with such limitations.

If there is any question about when life begins, do we not need to err on the conservative side and assume it is fully-formed at conception?

As individuals this is reasonable to ask others. As a society, it is not. If you don't believe in abortion, don't get one. Problem solved.

The 10 Commandments make it very clear that we are not to kill, and abortion, by virtue of the fact that it ends a viable life, is therefore murder.

That is certainly not evident by any measure.

My guess is that every woman who professes to be a Christian goes through an incredible guilt trip if she has an abortion- convicted by the Holy Spirit into realizing that she has acted contrary to God's way.

You'd be wrong about that. The "guilt trip" of the woman is entirely imposed on her by cruel anti-abortion partisans.

...abortion is still only a sin...

There is no evidence of this.