Anti-Abortion And Pro-Choice?

[southern california guy]

I was reading the newspaper today and in, the letters to the editor, one Catholic had written: [i]"I am anti-abortion, but pro-choice. I view that as part of the cost of living in a religiously pluralistic society such as the United States, rather than a theocracy."[/i]

It reminds me a little of a debate we set up in college. I was a member of a group called "Students For Life" and we decided to set up a debate between a "pro-lifer" and a "pro-choicer". So we contacted a woman who ran an abortion clinic, and a pastor of a popular local mega-church.

As it turned out the "debate" was a fiasco. The pastor took the position that he was personally anti-abortion, but he felt that there were cases in which abortion was acceptable -- such as rape, incest, or danger to the mothers life -- and he felt that abortion should stay legal and remain a decision that the mother made. The woman who ran the clinic took almost exactly the same position -- except she argued that abortion was acceptable in all cases and life should begin when the mother wants it to -- and that abortion gave her control over this "beginning of life".

Personally I don't think that you can be both anti-abortion and pro-choice. I think that if you view abortion as murder than you're not going to want it to be legal. And even if you're not religious you could still see abortion as hardening of your heart or a destroying your soul -- your conscience, your compassion for others -- when you decide to kill a human life that is "yours".

What do you guys think?

Edited December 16, 2011 by southern california guy

[AccountDeleted]

It's an old debate. I lost my best friend during the Obama elections because I told her I wouldn't vote for a pro-abortion candidate. She said he wasn't pro-abortion, that nobody was, that they were only pro-choice. They are the same thing in my mind. You can't give a person a choice to murder someone and then say that they aren't pro-murder.

I used to be pro-choice believe it or not. But when I realised that abortion is murder, that changed everything. Our society refuses to face the fact that abortion is murder, no matter what names or words you use to describe it. Now that I can see this very simple fact, the issue is so clear that there simply isn't room for debate in my mind. I pray that everyone 'wakes up' to the fact that abortion=murder.

[penguin31]

A gunman breaks into a home, where a paraplegic man is trying to relax. The gunman shoots the man and leaves. It comes out that in fact the gunman was hired by the man's wife, as she couldn't deal with the possibility of having to care for this person long-term. In the United States, both the actual killer and the person who paid the killer can be found guilty of murder. They both are. Open and shut.

The only difference between the above scenario and an abortion is that instead of a defenseless and helpless adult. the person is a defenseless and helpless unborn child. They're the *exact same crime*.

Even in the days I considered myself an atheist, I still considered abortion morally and biologically reprehensible. That hatred of the act has only grown with the understanding of the spiritual consequences in addition to the known physical ones. A person who abhors abortion yet still allows for it's existence is in denial of the act itself, as I once was.

[MissyP89]

[quote name='nunsense' timestamp='1323998700' post='2351878']
I used to be pro-choice believe it or not. But when I realised that abortion is murder, that changed everything. Our society refuses to face the fact that abortion is murder, no matter what names or words you use to describe it. Now that I can see this very simple fact, the issue is so clear that there simply isn't room for debate in my mind. I pray that everyone 'wakes up' to the fact that abortion=murder.
[/quote]

I was the exact same way, and became pro-life under similar circumstances. It is never, ever OK to end a life.

Now, regarding the issue of being "anti-abortion" and "pro-choice" ... semantics drive me crazy. It all depends on what meaning we choose to assign to those labels.
[list]
[*]"Pro-choice" is generally defined as those that believe abortion, however heinous, should remain an option.
[*]To be "anti-abortion" could refer to those who either believe 1) that abortion should never be an option; OR 2) that they, personally, would not abort.
[/list]
So, if you want to get really technical, it is possible to be both. It's a lousy argument that is both morally and logically unsound, but at a stretch, I could see it.

Faithful Catholics, then, are essentially "anti-choice" because they believe a woman should never have the choice to abort.

Let me make it crystal clear that I do [b]not[/b] believe the pro-abortion/pro-choice/anti-life position is a correct stance at all. All I'm saying is that words mean what we want them to.

That said, I think every single one of these labels have become inflammatory, ambiguous and essentially meaningless in the political sphere.

[AccountDeleted]

[quote name='penguin31' timestamp='1323999335' post='2351884']
A gunman breaks into a home, where a paraplegic man is trying to relax. The gunman shoots the man and leaves. It comes out that in fact the gunman was hired by the man's wife, as she couldn't deal with the possibility of having to care for this person long-term. In the United States, both the actual killer and the person who paid the killer can be found guilty of murder. They both are. Open and shut.

The only difference between the above scenario and an abortion is that instead of a defenseless and helpless adult. the person is a defenseless and helpless unborn child. They're the *exact same crime*.

Even in the days I considered myself an atheist, I still considered abortion morally and biologically reprehensible. That hatred of the act has only grown with the understanding of the spiritual consequences in addition to the known physical ones. A person who abhors abortion yet still allows for it's existence is in denial of the act itself, as I once was.
[/quote]



I like the word 'denial' here. I was in denial of the fact that abortion is murder because I believed, as many people do, that the unborn baby was no such thing - IT was simply tissues and organs that had yet to become a baby, so it was not 'murder' of a human being.

I think that education of the reality of the 'pre-born- life is important. People hate to see images of babies in utero because it confronts them with the reality that this is a human life - a human being. When denial stops, then abortion=murder makes sense. Education really makes a difference.

Back to the pro-choice issue - well if pro-choice means the choice to commit murder, then I am anti-choice definitely. Semantics are what defines a person's view of reality. No one should have the choice to murder the pre-born (this was the word we used at the shelt because it stresses that the baby exists already and was just waiting to be born!

[Vincent Vega]

Well, I [i]personally [/i]am against the systematic rape and torture of the elderly and mentally handicapped, but I think it would be presumptuous of me to try and impose that view on [i]everyone.[/i]

[Papist]

Someone being pro-choice[or one-choice] and anti-abortion is a spineless cop-out.

How would you counsel your daughter if she came to you pregnant and said she was choosing abortion.

[AccountDeleted]

[quote name='Papist' timestamp='1324146508' post='2352824']
Someone being pro-choice[or one-choice] and anti-abortion is a spineless cop-out.

How would you counsel your daughter if she came to you pregnant and said she was choosing abortion.
[/quote]

I went through this. If I could have taken her choice away from her I would have. Pro-choice gives the person the choice to choose to murder a baby. No one should have this choice.

[Anastasia13]

I'm pro-abortion in like 0.002% of times. How should I define my stance with things like pro-choice and anti-abortion?

Edited December 18, 2011 by Light and Truth

[AccountDeleted]

[quote name='Light and Truth' timestamp='1324179733' post='2353073']
I'm pro-abortion in like 0.002% of times. How should I define my stance with things like pro-choice and anti-abortion?
[/quote]

What do you think would justify murdering a baby? I'm curious because you are anti-abortion in 99.998% of times only??

[BigJon16]

One of the history teachers at my school claims to be "anti-abortion and pro-choice". He thinks it is pretty logical. He also thinks that all of our presidents have been aliens sent to cause the downfall of humanity. He also thinks that this is pretty logical.


I'd assume most who agree with the logic of the first, would agree with the logic of the the second, and vice versa. It says a lot about their intellectual states...

Edited December 19, 2011 by BigJon16

[Anastasia13]

[quote name='nunsense' timestamp='1324181485' post='2353112']
What do you think would justify murdering a baby? I'm curious because you are anti-abortion in 99.998% of times only??
[/quote]
I'm not a medical expert (and I doubt most people here are medical experts to that degree either or have a lot of experience with midwife/obgyn experience outside of themselves/their family), so this is a semi-theoretical example. Suppose something happens that makes it pretty indisputably clear that we have to choose between one life OR the other (and assuming medically reliable survival expectations for the chosen life). (I know this is rare, so you will notice that the percent I aim to use to describe my view is very very tiny.) Now the husband who makes minimum wage must choose between the mother of his other three kids and his early in formation unborn child. Right now, I can't say that I would not fault either choice. Other example, same thing except that the choice is between we can pretty safely predict that the choice is between the mother only and neither living. (Please forgive my lack of detail as to how the situations would form. Again, I said this was semi-theoretical as I lack much medical knowledge but am aiming to include to the best of my ability the variety of circumstances that a mother could find herself in.) Either way. it is a choice that aims to preserve life.


Now this is rare. Yes.

Isn't this playing God by choosing who lives and dies? When we kill in defense of life (self-defense or defense of others), is it killing to stop an attacker or is it killing to protect a life?

Ok, but in self-defense/defense-of-others killing, the person who is killed is doing something, but an unborn baby is not. True, but either way, it protects from harm. My belief is that the maximum amount of life should be preserved.

But the mother is not as innocent as a young child who has never had occasion to sin? While we can at least take comfort in the fact that the fetus level baby has not yet reach the age of judgement or whatever it is called, has the mother done anything more worthy of death than any of us?

That is something of a view into how I see it. I know you may disagree with me. I don't mean to debate a lot on this. I just don't know what my "label" is.

[Papist]

[quote name='Light and Truth' timestamp='1324300951' post='2353656']
I'm not a medical expert (and I doubt most people here are medical experts to that degree either or have a lot of experience with midwife/obgyn experience outside of themselves/their family), so this is a semi-theoretical example. Suppose something happens that makes it pretty indisputably clear that we have to choose between one life OR the other (and assuming medically reliable survival expectations for the chosen life). (I know this is rare, so you will notice that the percent I aim to use to describe my view is very very tiny.) Now the husband who makes minimum wage must choose between the mother of his other three kids and his early in formation unborn child. Right now, I can't say that I would not fault either choice. Other example, same thing except that the choice is between we can pretty safely predict that the choice is between the mother only and neither living. (Please forgive my lack of detail as to how the situations would form. Again, I said this was semi-theoretical as I lack much medical knowledge but am aiming to include to the best of my ability the variety of circumstances that a mother could find herself in.) Either way. it is a choice that aims to preserve life.


Now this is rare. Yes.

Isn't this playing God by choosing who lives and dies? When we kill in defense of life (self-defense or defense of others), is it killing to stop an attacker or is it killing to protect a life?

Ok, but in self-defense/defense-of-others killing, the person who is killed is doing something, but an unborn baby is not. True, but either way, it protects from harm. My belief is that the maximum amount of life should be preserved.

But the mother is not as innocent as a young child who has never had occasion to sin? While we can at least take comfort in the fact that the fetus level baby has not yet reach the age of judgement or whatever it is called, has the mother done anything more worthy of death than any of us?

That is something of a view into how I see it. I know you may disagree with me. I don't mean to debate a lot on this. I just don't know what my "label" is.
[/quote]

You can treat the mother to save her life, and the baby may die, unintentionally, as a result. However, the treatment to save the mother's life cannot be the intentional killing of her baby.

[url="http://www.cuf.org/faithfacts/details_view.asp?ffid=56"]http://www.cuf.org/faithfacts/details_view.asp?ffid=56[/url]

Edited December 19, 2011 by Papist

[AccountDeleted]

[quote name='Papist' timestamp='1324301289' post='2353659']
You can treat the mother to save her life, and the baby may die, unintentionally, as a result. However, the treatment to save the mother's life cannot be the intentional killing of her baby.

[url="http://www.cuf.org/faithfacts/details_view.asp?ffid=56"]http://www.cuf.org/f...iew.asp?ffid=56[/url]
[/quote]

Yes, this was covered in another thread as well. Saving the life of the mother is okay, but the intention must not be to kill the baby, rahter the unfortunate result of it. It is a technicality, yes, but a very good one to remember to prevent an abuse of this. The baby may die as a result of the intervention but this is not the intention.

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

May the peace of the lord and saviour jesus christ be with you all...
surely pro choice has to be pro life or pro choice is pro destruction if so am worried that murder will be the hottest thing on the block, like i choose to not listen to you and kill you right, or iz it already,i rekon as soon as the sperm enters the egg there is a sub sonic sound kinda like radiation waves or radio waves,thats a voice right?. i am for abortion if the womens life is in danger but not her lifestyle, i know of one example only and that is the epitopical pregnancy where the life starts growing in the phelopeum tube instead of descending to the womb and the women is assured death, untill we figure out how to with the grace of god descend the new life into the womb. Also i heard some pro life groups in the u.s.a. have been switching there stance from pro unborn to pro women and pro unborn and are having better success than previous pro-life stances. I like the picture of the lonely women in the window sill looking longingly outside it is a simple picture for a complicated situation same as simple pictures with mothers and children in the park and also that one with a man with a really big hand and a premature baby(i assume) in the palm of his hand, any mixture of clay works in this picture and same clay too, i'm not saying to remove the aborted baby pictures as such but a splash of color would be nice too i guess but aye i'm not so smart, i reccomend praying about it and talking to a few elders and a priest about it.

God bless you all.
Onward christian souls.
God is good god is love god saves.
Jesus iz lord.
Alleluia.