pro choice Catholics-what is the point

puggymom

puggymom

Active Member
This_person said:
Apples and oranges regarding what the law currently is vs. what it should be.

You avoided the question. Isn't she morally responsible to care for the life she knowingly, willingly helped create, at least until it can SAFELY (without expectation of harm or death) be placed in someone else's care?
Click to expand...

I know what you are trying to get from me but the fact remains I will never agree that it is OK to grant a pre-viable baby person hood. I will not agree that it is OK for our government to allow all pregnant women to be treated as second class citizens (whether the baby is wanted or not) all in the name of fetal rights.
I personally do not like elective abortions at all. I wish there was not a need for elective abortions but I do not agree with our government defining abortion as neglect or murder.

I know I have said this before but we need to find out why there is a need for elective abortions and fix the problem from that end instead of just making abortion illegal or restricting it as much as possible. Because that will not end elective abortions. They will still happen and as long as they still happen the problem has not be solved.
 
Last edited:
This_person

This_person

Well-Known Member
puggymom said:
I know what you are trying to get from me but the fact remains I will never agree that it is OK to grant a pre-viable baby person hood. I will not agree that it is OK for our government to allow all pregnant women to be treated as second class citizens (whether the baby is wanted or not) all in the name of fetal rights.
Click to expand...
On this, we agree. The mother has rights, too. But, from a personal responsibility point of view, she had the right to not get pregnant - and accepted the responsibilities of the child she chose to create by exercising her right to get pregnant. It may not have been her intention, but she risked it by having sex. She accepted the resopnsibility by having sex, as did the father.

Now, the things we've discussed before (eating certain foods, c-section vs. natural, etc., etc.) should not be specifically demanded by "the government" any more than they are today - maybe less (I'm sure there's anecdotal evidence out there of government run amok).
I personally do not like elective abortions at all. I wish there was not a need for elective abortions but I do not agree with our government defining abortion as neglect or murder.

I know I have said this before but we need to find out why there is a need for elective abortions and fix the problem from that end instead of just making abortion illegal or restricting it as much as possible. Because that will not end elective abortions. They will still happen and as long as they still happen the problem has not be solved.
Click to expand...
This argument, while flowery and nice, is unrealistic. Were this same logic applied, there would be no law against robbing someone of their goods, because we just haven't gotten to the root of why people rob (etc., etc).
 
Beta84

Beta84

They're out to get us
libby said:
I don't even have to make a list. Bible Christianity does not have any "doctrines" per se, except that you accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior. From that point on you may be sanctified bit by bit, and your opinion may change, or maybe not. You read your Bible and the Holy Spirit will lead you to the right conclusion.
Now, I will say right up front that because I am not a Bible Christian, this might be an incomplete understanding, but in a nutshell, I think it is correct.
Click to expand...

you were saying there were a core set of beliefs strictly set aside for catholicism. then you said if they don't believe in any of those, they need to find another religion. you were so adament about it before but now you back down and offer me some bs? come on, you can do better than that.
 
This_person

This_person

Well-Known Member
pcjohnnyb said:
Correct.
Click to expand...
That's a good step forward for you, I'm proud of you.

So, if one person takes another person's life - not in the context of war, or by state order (notice "order" - specifically stating who, how, and why someone is to be put to death), what do we call that? What was it called when Scott Peterson murdered his unborn child?



Why is it different for mom to pay Dr. So-and-so to intentionally kill her child than for Scott Peterson to do it himself?
 
theArtistFormerlyKnownAs

theArtistFormerlyKnownAs

Well-Known Member
This_person said:
That's a good step forward for you, I'm proud of you.

So, if one person takes another person's life - not in the context of war, or by state order (notice "order" - specifically stating who, how, and why someone is to be put to death), what do we call that? What was it called when Scott Peterson murdered his unborn child?
Why is it different for mom to pay Dr. So-and-so to intentionally kill her child than for Scott Peterson to do it himself?
Click to expand...

You cannot apply stipulations, like "war", state order, etc because the stipulation is also in place for a certain age "baby", as not being murder.
Same as you can kill someone in self defense, and it isn't murder.

You CAN call it homicide, but not all homocide is illegal.
Killing a certain age fetus, is not illegal, for a doctor.
 
theArtistFormerlyKnownAs

theArtistFormerlyKnownAs

Well-Known Member
DallasRed said:
I thought the earliest a baby could survive was 24 weeks but that is even a stretch..24 weeks is the beginning of the 6th month.
Click to expand...

I've learned, that per some people's statements, babies have been born as early as 20 weeks of age.
I do not know the truth behind this, but the earliest I found on record is just over 21 weeks old.
 
D

DallasRed

Member
pcjohnnyb said:
Why wouldn't you force a woman to have a rape baby, if the 12 day period is your belief? It's still a baby, is it not? Why are you basing your view on where it came from? A baby is a baby...or isn't it?
Click to expand...

If she was raped I would hope she would go to the ER and get a morning after pill..And not even have to deal with a pregnancy to begin with.

But I have the opinion..You are only Pro-Life if you have the baby regardless..Even if that means you might die...

Which makes 99.9 % of us PRO-CHOICE :buddies:
 
This_person

This_person

Well-Known Member
pcjohnnyb said:
You cannot apply stipulations, like "war", state order, etc because the stipulation is also in place for a certain age "baby", as not being murder.
Same as you can kill someone in self defense, and it isn't murder.

You CAN call it homicide, but not all homocide is illegal.
Killing a certain age fetus, is not illegal, for a doctor.
Click to expand...
The question is why is there a difference between Scott Peterson and the doctor.
 
This_person

This_person

Well-Known Member
DallasRed said:
If she was raped I would hope she would go to the ER and get a morning after pill..And not even have to deal with a pregnancy to begin with.

But I have the opinion..You are only Pro-Life if you have the baby regardless..Even if that means you might die...

Which makes 99.9 % of us PRO-CHOICE :buddies:
Click to expand...
How could one be Pro-Life and suggest that someone should not take actions to protect life?

That doesn't make any sense.
 
This_person

This_person

Well-Known Member
pcjohnnyb said:
Thank you.
People like to throw in stipulations to make them feel better :lol:
Click to expand...
Stipulations (like war, state ordered actions punishing someone for their actions) take into account the differing nature of motives for killing someone.

There are huge differences, and to deny that is intellectually dishonest.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top