my neighbor's new bumper sticker re: abortion

[Bertha Venation]

Before I tell you what the sticker says, I ask that no one insult my neighbor or call him a freeper. He is a conservative Republican and a good man (those things are not mutually exclusive) and in many ways -- especially as regards this topic -- he puts his money where his mouth is.

The bumper sticker reads

"You can't be a Catholic and pro-abortion."

How do pro-choice Catholics among us answer this charge

[GumboYaYa]

1. You can't be a Christian and be Pro-War.

"blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the children of God" (Matthew 5:9 )

"love your enemies" (Matthew 5:44).

"if your enemies are hungry, feed them." Romans 12:20.
\
Luke 3:14
And the soldiers likewise demanded of him, saying, And what shall we do? And he said unto them, Do violence to no man

"And he shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people: and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more." Isaiah 2:4

[Bertha Venation]

5. true enough

I don't think he is. His son was in Kuwait, then Iraq when the shit first hit the fan. Thankfully he broke his ankle in a non-combat situation. He came home alive.

[Bridget Burke]

2. If the sticker said "Re-elect George Bush"

Would you challenge us all to prove him wrong?

There's no need to call him a Freeper. "Republican" says it all.

[Bertha Venation]

9. No, I wouldn't.

I'm not asking anyone tO "prove" anything, Bridget. I'm asking pro-choice Catholic DUers how they respond.

[Badger1]

3. John Paul ll

keeps telling the shrub that the war in Iraq is wrong. Tell him you can't be pro Bush/Iraq and be a catholic.

[ret5hd]

4. as an ex-catholic, i answer it...

i ain't

[bleedingheart]

6. I can be a Catholic and still think for myself!

The church is walking a fine line....American Catholics aren't the subservient types, we won't be held under a papal boot.

[Wind Dancer]

7. He also needs a bumper sticker

that says you can't be a Catholic and "for the death penalty".

That never seems to be an issue.

[drthais]

8. how about

"you can't be a Catholic and be pro-death penalty"

or

"you can't be a Catholic and be pro-war"

[Hunter_1253]

10. Just ask him...

How he can claim to be pro-life for a fetus, but be OK with supporting the death penalty president? I always thought the bible preached that only god can choose who lives and who dies. My other favorite one is "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God." Mark 10:17-31

[coltman]

11. Repub / good man...

not. No f***ing way.

[Bertha Venation]

13. Thank you for the most vehement, spittle-laced statement

of this sadly prevalent opinion that I've ever seen. :eyes:

[dr.strangelove]

68. I resent this - Republican does not equal BAD PERSON

Republicans and Democrats have different views on many issues, some social, some economic, some involving both. However, I know many people who are republican, or independents that lean to the republican side, who are good people. I believe they are just wrong in their opinions, but I would trust many republicans with my life, and the lives of those around me.

I going to harp about one issue, abortion (since it is such a "front page" distinction between the parties), there are many others and perhaps we can discuss them too.

Republicans believe that abortion is murder. While I disagree with the science that an abortion ends a human life, I certainly support the notion that killing a human being should be frowned upon. I don't think you should be able to kill babies after they are born. I have no doubt pro-lifers are wrong. Human life, and the extreme legal protections that are owed to human life, does not begin until birth. However, I do not think that someone who believes that human life starts at conception (and that the legal protections given to human life should be afforded a fetus at conception) is a bad person. They are simply incorrect in their understanding of science.

I think pro-life extremists who try to kill physicians, bomb clinics and block women from receiving medical treatment are terrorists. However, this is an extreme end of the right wing, not the average republican.

There are many republicans who are just an mind-opening discussion away from being liberal. I was raised in a republican household. I was once blinded by their simple views. It was Bill Clinton's first State of the Union address that got me thinking about my life and my political views. His SOTU address in 2000 got my mom and dad to vote for Gore. They were both good people (who did a great job raising their kids) who always voted republican.

If you were to say, you're a republican, no way you can be a good man, all you would have done was piss them off. My mom is going to vote for Kerry in the fall.

Republicans can be good people. My mom has always been a good person. Now her votes are good too.

[PhuLoi]

157. You'll never have to trust a repug with your life,

they never get near the shooting.

[Psst_Im_Not_Here]

158. Agreed

I have to agree with this. My parents are really good people, they are also republicans. They raised us kids to be socially conscience and actively involved in our government. The fact that all 3 of us kids are democrats and liberals doesn't seem to bother them as long as our arguments are sound. Of course, my father said his mistake was to have 3 of us, because now we cancel their votes + 1. He he. We debate, sometimes rather passionately, but, we all seem to be able to respect each others opinion.

My father will be solidly behind * but, my mother who is European is an environmentalist. She doesn't like Kerry but also doesn't like Bush. She's not going to vote this year, which is very unusual. Hopefully, there are plenty like her!

Not all republicans are ignorant, mean and evil. Much like the Christians, the "crazies" have spoiled the image.

[AntiCoup2K4]

88. Was Abe Lincoln a good man?

Teddy Roosevelt? Ike Eisenhower? I'd even include Barry Goldwater and John McCain, though I have disagreements with their positions on many issues.

Point is, even among those who think they should support Junior out of loyalty to the Republican party, there's a difference between political ignorance and actual evil.

[LiberalFighter]

155. Abe Lincoln not the same brand of today's Republican...

and Abe Lincoln at the same time was not as great of a President as made out.

Still better than most Republicans in our time.

[redqueen]

91. You can be gullible and foolish and still a good person

Selfish, though... I'm not so sure.

[truthspeaker]

12. "This Catholic follows Jesus Christ, not John Paul II"

[Monte Carlo]

14. "Yes, you can."

Too many Catholics busy themselves with being more Catholic than anybody else. The above is the retort I'D use.

God gave us free-will, and sometimes decisions to abort a baby are among the choices we make.

[NashVegas]

15. "Okay - I'm Not Catholic"

..

[outinforce]

16. I'm Not Catholic, BUT

I'm not Catholic, and I do not know that much, really, about what Christianity teaches in general, or what Roman Catholicisim teaches more sepcifically.

But my understanding of what Jesus said and did was the he had some pretty harsh words for those who tried to get the government to compel, by force, behavior that is good or moral.

My own guess is that Jesus would say that abortion is, at its root, a profoundly spiritual issue. My own guess is that he would not be in favor of it (I think one other poster here has pointed out that the Bible teaches that it is up to God to decided when life ends, altough I really don't know if the Bible actually teaches that or not.)

But I think that Jesus would suggest that those who look to the Government to cure a spiritual issue are missing the point.

[Kazak]

17. "Pro-abortion"...

is a misnomer. It's one of the many ways that pro-lifers mischaracterize the pro-choice position.

[outinforce]

18. So Does Being Pro-Choice Mean

being anti-abortion?

[Kazak]

28. Absolutely not...

that's the point.

[outinforce]

33. So, then,

if "Pro-abortion" is a misnomer and is one of the many ways that pro-lifers mischaracterize the pro-choice position, and if pro-choice does not mean "anti-abortion", what does being pro-choice mean regarding abortions -- for them or against them?

[Kazak]

35. Pro-choice means,...

pro-choice. I don't know how to put it any more clearly. :shrug:

[outinforce]

42. Maybe I Can Help

"pro-choice means pro-choice".

Being pro-choice means that a person takes no position regarding abortion at all is what I think I head you saying.

A position of complete and totally neutrality regarding abortion.

I do have a question, and the question is this -- how is it possible to square that notion of what it means to be pro-choice with what I think is still our Party's position regarding abortion -- namely, that it should be safe, legal, and rare?

It would seem to me that if our party thought that being pro-choice meant nothing with regard to abortion, we would say that abortion should be safe and legal.

Why do we, as a Party, hold that abortions should be rare?

Is that position regarding abortion, contrary to being pro-choice?

[bleedingheart]

53. Pro choice means that people make a choice for themselves

It means that the government doesn't have the right to tell people to do about reproductive decisions.

Pro Choice means that women can choose to become and remain pregnant or choose not to become or remain pregnant.

I think it is rather simple.

Safe, legal and rare is a fine statement. We live in the year 2004, not 1884. Today we have condom, viagra, and "the patch" commericals in abundance...we should all be better educated about sex and the risks associated with it. The fact that people do have unprotected sex is either due to lack of planning or laziness on the part of both parties involved.

Abortion is a surgical procedure, except for the RU-486, and it isn't something the majority of women would want to experience if we educate people and people make wise choices....there will be far less abortions which should make everyone happy.

[outinforce]

57. "Lack of Planning or Laziness"

I think I hear you saying that you think that the majority of women would not want to experience an abortion.

And I think I hear you saying that the need for abortions is usually the result of a lack of planning or laziness on the part of two people who have sex.

How about this then, as a way to encourage proper planning and to discourage laziness -- a steep tax on abortions?

It would pretty much parallel what the government does with regard to the use of tobacco products.

The government does not tell any adult that they cannot smoke -- it leave that choice up to each adult.

But it does actively use its power to tax in order to discourage people from smoking.

So what would be so awful about a tax on abortions? Women would still have the right to choose, but there would be a strong incentive for two people having sex to not be lazy and to plan properly.

[bleedingheart]

65. So you think its okay to just tax the women?

because of course its all her fault she got pregnant...

Equating a habit like smoking with an unwanted pregnancy is a big stretch.

You are also making a very big assumption that taxpayer dollars are paying for all the abortions...and you are wrong. Taxpayer/private donor funded abortions are for those who are too poor to pay for the procedure or those who use public family planning services. Those tax dollars also pay for birth control, gyne visits, and even surprise surprise...baby well visits! Why not tax those babies for being born too poor to pay for insurance too...!

There are many women whose medical insurance pays for the abortion. In fact my medical coverage states that it covers abortion along with birth control...etc

Also...an abortion is a medical procedure and creating a tax on a specific medical procedure means that you are exposing those women's private medical records to the public.

People make mistakes, either from lack of planning, laziness or even because they fall in love with the wrong person....and unlike some I don't think its my business to push my morality upon them.

[outinforce]

69. Nope

Why do you assume that when I suggest a tx on abortion, I am talking about taxing only the woman?

And why in the world do you assume that I think that "of course it is all her fault that she got pregnant"?

I thought I was pretty clear that the purpose of a tax would be to encourage proper planning and to discourage what another poster called "laziness".

I think it is a stretch to assume that that means the only women are responsible for pregancies.

If there were to be a tax on abortions, I would suggest that both of the people who contributed to the pregnancy be taxed -- and, depending upon the circumstances, I would even suggest that the tax on the man be greater than the tax on the woman.

And just where is it that I make the assumption that taxpayer dollars pay for all abortions?

With regard to your concern that "an abortion is a medical procedure and creating a tax on a specific medical procedure means that you are exposing those women's private medical records to the public", I really do not see how that is the case. It seems to me that a doctor could be told that for each abortion s/he provides, s/he must collect a tax. The doctor could be provided with certain regulatory guidelines regarding how to allocate the tax to both the mother and the father, and would merely have to complete records to indicate that for each abortion, a tax was collected. They would be no need to breech confidentiality.

[redqueen]

92. That's absurd.

"If there were to be a tax on abortions, I would suggest that both of the people who contributed to the pregnancy be taxed -- and, depending upon the circumstances, I would even suggest that the tax on the man be greater than the tax on the woman."

Well ain't that just dandy! Tell us, what method do you use to assert your will on millions of other human beings? Or how else would you suggest that the government ensures that no men escape this tax?

[outinforce]

96. The Same Way

it goes after deadbeat dads.

They guys either contribute their fair share to a tax on aborting what they help to create, or they contribute their fair share to raising the child they help to create.

Is that so absurd?

[redqueen]

108. So the government also pays for DNA testing?

Or do you expect these deadbeat dads to magically be more honest than the ones with existing kids they neglect?

[outinforce]

110. Sure

If having the government pay for DNA testing would ensure an increase in responsible male behavior either before a child is conceived or after it is born, I'd certainly be in favor of that.

[sangha]

112. There is a simple way to discourage abortions

Sexual education. Funny you didn't think of that before taxes

[outinforce]

121. I Did

Why not have both?

[sangha]

123. Because taxes don't discourage abortions

Criminal penalties didn't, so what makes you think taxing it would?

[outinforce]

129. Prohibition Never Works

Whether it is prohibition of alcohol, or prohibition of abortion, it never works.

But taxes do discourage the behavior that is taxed.

Higher taxes on tobacco discourage people from exercising their choice to smoke.

I am suggesting that taxing abortions might encourage men to behave more responsibly when having sex so that women do not have to confront the terrible choice of whether or not to have an abortion.

[Name removed]

131. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

135. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[sangha]

140. So you won't defend you claims

about how taxing something discourages it

Smart move.

[outinforce]

So You Won'r Answer My Question About Your Identity

VERY smart move.

WHo knows what might happen.

[Pithlet]

172. Then why not a tax on sex?

All people of childbearing age should pay a tax every time they have sex. Less sex, less unwanted pregnancy. Voila! Problem solved.

[sangha]

174. I suggested that, but anti-choicers don't seem to like it

:shrug:

[outinforce]

190. Well, If That Floats Your Boat,

go for it.

I personally think that a tax on sex is terribly intrusive (it gets into a person's bedroom).

Besides, it would have all sorts of problems to sort out.

Would you tax masturbation, for instance? And then there's the whole problem of "what is sex?"

Is a BJ sex? Some would say yes, others no.

I do trust you see the problems that your proposal would entail.

[Pithlet]

193. It's no different than your proposal

I trust you see how both proposals are ludicrous and intrusive. Taxing on legal medical procedures doesn't get more intrusive, does it?

[outinforce]

194. It Doesn't Have To

I will certainly admit that my proposal would have some issue that would need to be worked out. We would want to work out a way to ensure the absolute privacy of the person receiving the abortion. That is why I suggested that it be the abortion provider who collects the tax. That way, there would be no breech in the confidentiality between a doctor and her/his patient.

And we would also want to make sure that the man always paid his fair share of the tax. After all, it it not just because of an action the woman that she finds herself with a crisis pregnancy. In the case of a rape, the man would have to pay the entire tax (in addition, of course, to any criminal fines or penalties for the rape itself).

I do think it would be much easier to tax abortions than it would be to tax sex. And why would you wish to tax sex? What possible social goal would that achieve?

[Pithlet]

196. If you really think

that I actually want to tax sex, you need to take a break from the boards. Seriously. But, I don't think you really think that. You're just trying to be funny, maybe? I'm not sure.

[Kipepeo]

204. tell me

Why do you feel that abortions need to be "discouraged?" I feel they need to be made less necessary, by improving sex ed and access to birth control.

Taxing what is already an expensive proceedure seems more like a desire to punish women who choose the option you disagree with.

[Pithlet]

170. It is one of the most absurd things

I've ever seen you say about this subject on this board. It would be an impossible restriction to enforce. It would merely serve as a roadblock to abortion.

Just another scheme that would actually create a problem that one advocating it would abhor, and probably didn't think of. Imagine the sharp increase in late term abortions going through all that red tape getting taxes and parentage cleared before an abortion takes place. That is exactly what would happen. Or, they would do it themselves, on the black market, or back ally. You still don't stop abortion, which is your goal, and don't try to pretend it isn't.

[outinforce]

191. Red Tape

You mention something I had not really considered, and I thank you for bringing it into the discussion.

It is the notion of whether a tax on abortion would have to be paid before an abortion could be performed.

My first reaction would be that it would not be necessary to pay the tax before it is performed.

In fact, I think it could work much like the sales tax does.

Theoretically, the state collects the sales tax you pay from the merchant. It is up to the merchant to collect the tax.

The same could be true of a tax on abortion. It would be up to the abortion provider to pay the tax on abortions. It would be up to the abortion provider to collect the tax, or pay it out of her/his profits.

You say that I want to stop abortions. You want them to continue, I suppose? Unless I miss my guess, I think you view my efforts to reduce the number of abortions as being something sinister.

I would never want to "stop" abortionss, because I realize that there are times when, unless an abortion is performed, a woman will die. And I have also said that I would never want to use the power of the state to ban abortions.

But I thought the Democratic Party was committed to making abortions safe, legal, and rare.

So I really have a difficult time reconciling that position of our Party with your apparent notion that there is something sinister about trying to reduce the number of abortions.

[Pithlet]

195. Where did I say that reducing abortions was sinister?

Point that out to me? This is where you go awry in your debate skills, and it is particularly ironic since you get so upset when people do the same thing to you. You know damn well that is not what I'm saying.

Yes, the Democratic Party is committed to making abortions safe and legal. That is the crux of the whole pro-choice argument. The rare part comes in with better sex education and a wider and less inhibited access to birth control. But, it is the keeping it safe and legal part that is key, and every time that is discussed, you come in with your pro-life arguments. For someone committed to making abortions rare, that makes NO sense to me.

If you're truly dedicated to making abortions more rare by way of discissions on message boards, it seems that your efforts would be better placed in threads arguing restricting birth control. You probably won't find a whole lot of those here, but I'm sure there are other more right leaning boards that have them. It seems you should be more angered and concerned with the right's trend towards further restriction of birth control, and cutting sex education from public schools, both of which would go a long way towards reducing unwanted pregnancies. Focusing on abortion itself, and advocating punitive measures will do nothing to reduce the amount of unwanted pregnancies and abortions.

edited for typo

[outinforce]

199. What?

I am sorry that I misinterpreted this statement of yours:

"You still don't stop abortion, which is your goal, and don't try to pretend it isn't."

It surely sounded to me as though you were suggesting that a goal of reducing the number of abortions was something sinister.

But since you didn't mean that, I apologize for thinking that you did.

Now, please indulge me some questions about what you have said.

"The rare part comes in with better sex education and a wider and less inhibited access to birth control."

That's the only way we Democrats think that abortions can be reduced -- through better sex education and wider and less inhibied access to birth control? There is truly -- truly? -- no other way? I had no idea that that was what was meant. But I do wonder why, then our plank on abortion reads as it does. I wonder why it says abortions should be safe, legal, and rare. I wonder why it just doesn't say that abortions should be safe and legal, and that there should be better sex education and wider and less inhibited access to birth control. That would seem to be a clearer statement of what you say our Party truly means.

I had thought that our Party was committed to using reasonable and legal efforts to keep abortion rare, but apparently you know more about what those words really mean than I do. Thanks for the clarification.

"every time that is discussed, you come in with your pro-life arguments"

My pro-life arguments? What, exactly, are those, and where have I advanced them in this thread?

"If you're truly dedicated to making abortions more rare by way of discissions on message boards, it seems that your efforts would be better placed in threads arguing restricting birth control."

I have no clue as to why you would think my efforts would be better placed in threads arguing restricting birth control. It makes no sense at all to me.

[Pithlet]

200. LOL

Outinforce: "Who, me? Pro-life?" That's hilarious. You're well known for your participation in most threads on this issue. I didn't just join DU yesterday.

This discussion is not about the Official Democratic Platform On Abortion For Now And All Time. The issue is whether or not the state should restrict or ban abortion. It's a tad clever to pull back the focus when arguing with, because it blurs the focus and shifts it back to the rest of us, who then are supposed to defend the Democratic Platform, rather than the issue at hand, which is legal access to abortion.

Let me make it a little easier: The word "Rare" does not officially exist in any Democratic manifesto that I know of. Sure, a lot of people will include that in their personal statement of opinion on abortion, including heads of the party. Because the two things are separate issues. This is the important part You cannot make abortion more rare by restricting and banning it. Your concern about making abortions rare is rather misplaced, then, isn't it?

If you think that the "rare" part of that statement means restricting abortions, taxing them, making people jump through flaming hoops for them, then I think you are mistaken. I'm thinking that maybe the Democratic party will be a huge let down for you.

[molly]

67. That would only hurt the women that really need help

the most. Women will always get abortions - always have - always will. The difference being that the procedure is now safe and easy for poor women to afford.

[outinforce]

70. Make the Guy

pay the tax, in the case of poor women.

It might encourage some responsible beahvior on the part of men.

[never_get_over_it]

95. And how are you going

to make the guy pay the tax...and what about a woman who chooses an abortion because she was raped - not poor planning or laziness - should her abortion be taxed too - and what about a woman like me who would only choose to have an abortion because a severe fetal abnomality - should we be taxed. The whole point of making abortion legal is to keep it safe and affordable so that desperate woman choose safely and not be forced to have a back alley unsafe and often deadly one....taxing abortion will not cause people to act more responsibility and would punish the women who do plan properly but still may find themselves with an unwanted pregnancy.

[outinforce]

99. I Think I Have Already Said

that in some cases, the guy should pay the entire tax.

Rape would be one of them.

I don't think I would support a tax on abortions required because of severe fetal abnormality, but Iwould want to be careful that "severe detal abnormailty" not include things like Downs Syndrome.

The point of the tax would be discourage the need for abortions, not to punish anyone. I'm not sure I agree with your observation that taxing abortion will not cause people to act more responsibly. It would seem to me that taxing abortion would do just that.

Money raised by the tax could be used to support further education on things like birth control and its proper use.

[never_get_over_it]

101. You see what you're doing

You're forcing your beliefs on others - Downs syndrome wouldn't count for you as a severe abnormality - and it probably wouldn't for me either - but imagine you are a poor family with three other children with very limited resources and you find yourself pregnant with a downs syndrome fetus - as a family you determine that this would be too big a burden and want to abort the prenancy.....

The whole point of pro-choice is that the woman who is pregnant has the right to make the decision - not you - not me - not the government.

I also agree with the person who wrote that abortion is a medical procedure - and therefore should not be taxed....should we tax cancer surgery for patients who got cancer because they smoked - or tax blood pressure treatment for obease people - or surgery on idiots who don't wear helmets and have a motorcycle accident - it could go on and on and on - and is undoable imho

[outinforce]

109. I See What I Am Doing

I think we are in agreement that a Downs Syndrome would not count, as least as far as you or I are concerned, as being a severe fetal abnormality.

And I think I hear you saying that the only reason that he hypothetical family with three other children and very limited resources would have for wanting to abort a fetus with Downs would be that family's inability to care for a Downs child properly.

It would appear from how you pose the situation that the family had planned to have a child -- just not a Downs child.

My own thought is that Downs children should not be aborted simply because they are Downs children. That, for me anyway, comes awfully close to eugenics. In the situation you describe, however, the woman would still have the option of having an abortion. But, if abortions were taxed, a tax -- perhaps a tax that takes into account the family's financial status -- would have to be paid.

I would, in such a situation, make sure that the alternative to abortion is offered -- giving birth to the child, and then ensuring that the government provides adequate resources to the family so that they can properly care for their child. Or, if the family wants to elect to give birth but does not feel that, despite the financial resources that the government might offer, they can provide adequate care, a suitable home could be found for the child.

I do not see how a tax on abortion -- a carefully drawn tax that ensures that the tax burden never falls exclusively on the woman and which takes into account a variety ofd circumstances -- in any way prevents a woman from exercising her right to choose, anymore than a tax on cigarettes prevents someone from exercising her/his right to smoke.

Someone earlier in this thread told me that no woman owuld ever want to go through an abortion if she could avoid it. If that is so, then I think ways ought to be found to encourage behavior that does not lead to abortions.

Of course, if the statement that women do not want to have abortions is not accurate, then I suppose I would have to re-think this.

[sangha]

114. Almost all women who have an abortion WANT an abortion

I know of only a very small number of cases where women have had abortions without giving their consent

[outinforce]

120. I've Never Had An Abortion,

So I wouldn't know.

I do point out, though, that another poster to this thread said this:

"Abortion is a surgical procedure, except for the RU-486, and it isn't something the majority of women would want to experience if we educate people and people make wise choices..

I can point to my own experiences regarding medical procedures. I have never ever had a medical procedure done for which I did not give my consent.

But that does not necessarily mean that I "wanted" those procedures done to me. If I could have avoided having those procedures done, I would certainly not have chosen them.

What I understood the other poster to be saying is that most women, if given the choice, would not want to have an abortion done. Fine, then if that is so, let's find ways in which women still have the option of having an abortion, but do not feel the need to have one.

By the way, did you know that there is another person who posts on DU whose "real" name is sangha, but who posts under the DU name of sangh0.

Is there any connection between the two of you?

[sangha]

125. So what?

What one poster claims is NOT necesarily true. Funny how you accept one poster's opinions while rejecting anothers. It couldn't be becuase one supports your argument, while the other does not, could it? That would be dishonest

[bleedingheart]

126. there are loads of alternatives to abortion already

and many women choose those options as well...

Some women give up the resulting babies for adoption...
some choose to raise those babies by themselves...
some choose to abort the pregnancy

to be honest taxing women for abortion is kind of pathetic because to the woman who is confronted with an unwanted pregnancy is already facing a very unpleasant situation...so why heap misfortune upon them?

You used the tax on cigarettes as an example of how to tax women for abortions...well we tax people for cigarettes to hopefully convince them to stop before they get cancer or some other hideous lung ailment....and that tax money is used to fund healthcare programs to help defray the costs of smoking....technically your tax on abortion would be like taxing those who have cancer as a result of smoking...once again heaping misfortune upon the afflicted.

Technically if we wanted to take the motivation out of bringing kids into the world then we should end all welfare, WIC and tax credits for kids....then only those who could really afford kids would want them...(granted I would hate to live in that kind of society...but there are a number of neocons who love this idea)

[sangha]

128. You can't tax someone for exercising their rights

And taxing tobacco doesn't do much to discourage people who smoke. It discourages children from starting.

[sangha]

132. Also, we don't want to discourage abortions

We want to discourage unplanned pregnancies. There's only one group of people who want to change the laws concerning abortions - the Gestational Gestapo

[outinforce]

136. Why, Mrs. Bush

I had no idea you were so pro-abortion.

"We don't want to discourage abortions"????

We want to encourage them, I suppose?

[sangha]

144. And here I'll explain your dishonesty

I am pro-choice. I support the rights of women to make that decision for themselves. If they decide to have an abortion, I support that decision. If they decide to NOT have an abortion, I support that just as strongly.

I am neither pro-abortion or anti-abortion. I support whichever decision a woman makes.

It's dishonest for you to promote the false dichotomy of "Either you're pro-abortion" or "anti-abortion". Particularly since I've explained this to you before.

[outinforce]

159. "Dishonesty"

It seems to me it is dishonest to claim to have spoken to someone before when in fact that has never happened.

It also seems to me that it is dishonest to say that someone promotes a false dischotomy of "either you are pro-abortion or anti-abortion, when in fact that person has made no such claim. In fact, if you would checkl some of my posts elsewhere, you would see that I make the specific point that it is quite possible to be completely neutral regarding abortion.

It also seems to me that it is dishonest for someone to say that she is neither pro-abortion nor anti-abortion when earlier she has said that she wants to do nothing to discourage abortions.

Finally, it seems to me the height of dishonesty when someone claims to be a poster that they are not.

[sangha]

175. Reagan didn't remember either

when he was deposed on Iran/Contra. It's a wonderful way to establish plausible deniability. You don't remember me acknowledging about sangh0's identity and you don't remember that one can be neither pro nor anti-abortion.

But I didn't expect much from someone who thinks abortions are wonderful.

In fact, if you would checkl some of my posts elsewhere, you would see that I make the specific point that it is quite possible to be completely neutral regarding abortion.

I never doubted that you would say one thing in one post, and another in another post. And while we're on the subject, do you still think abortions are wonderful?

[outinforce]

192. I Recall

I recall the poster who posts under the name sangh0 telling me recently that her real name is sangha.

I do not recall ever having a conversation with a poster (you) who posts under the name sangha about sangh0's identity.

Of course, if you are the same person as the one who posts under the name sangh0, then I am perfectly willing to admit that I had a recent exchange of posts with you about sangh0's identity.

But you have never said that you and sangh0 are the same person, so I cannot acknowledge that I ever had that conversation with you.

You must have been lurking in another thread -- a thread where sangh0 and I (among others) were having a discussion. It's too bad, really, that you have difficulty detecting sarcasm.

[outinforce]

134. My Tax Would Apply to Men as Well

It would not be a tax on women only.

The cigarette tax is on people who have already made the choice to smoke. I would argue that it can be pretty effective in deterring people from beginning to smoke.

Similarly, if we want to encourage people, when having sex, to do so responsibly so that women do not have to face the very unpleasant situation of having to confront an unwanted pregnancy, why would a tax on the outcome of behavior that leads to unwanted pregnancies not be effective?

[sangha]

145. Avoiding the point?

Taxes don't discourage behavior tha'ts driven by an addiction, as prohibition demonstrated.

Also, we don't want to discourage abortion. We want to discourage unplanned pregnancies.

[sangha]

148. So you want to also discourage men from having abortions?

:crazy:

[outinforce]

162. I Want To Discourage Men

from the type of behavior that causes women to find themselves with crisis and unplanned pregnancies.

Why is that so difficult to understand?

One More Time -- Are you in any way connected to the DU poster who posts under the screen name "sangh0" and whose real name is "sangha"?

And please do not tell me that it is inappropriate to ask personal questions. People ask me personal questions (like "what is your view?") on here all the time.

[Pithlet]

173. Then why not tax them

every time they have sex? They're doing the exact same thing whether or not a pregnancy happens. Less sex=less pregnancies. Gets more to the heart of the matter, and generates a hell of a lot of revenue, too. Win/win.

[sangha]

176. Nonsense is always difficult for me

How does taxing a man effect a woman's decision?

And please do not tell me that it is inappropriate to ask personal questions. People ask me personal questions (like "what is your view?") on here all the time.

To which you usually respond by acting offended

[noiretextatique]

164. oif doesn't grasp the "no birth control is 100% effective" concept

hence his belief that someone should be punished when a woman gets pregnant. a better plan would be just to outlaw sex :eyes:

[sangha]

177. He grasps it

He just chooses not to acknowledge it.

[TexasBushwhacker]

184. OIF can acknowlege this

1) There is no form of birth control that is 100% effective and safe for everyone. All women can't take birth control pills or other hormone type birth control (patches, shots, etc.), and even if they could, it's only about 99% effective. 1% of 1 million is 10,000. Do the math.

I have a friend who got pregnant while she was taking birth control pills. She was 42 and HAD TWINS! Fortunately her marriage was good and her little boys were healthy, but what if they weren't? The chances of having a child with Down's Syndrome after age 40 are 1%, and that's only one thing that can go wrong.

2) A woman who's been raped may not have her head together enough to think to get emergency birth control like PREVEN and take it within 72 hours of the rape.

3) A girl who's an incest victim is certainly not going to think about taking something like PREVEN.

4) Even though severe birth defects like Down's Syndrome can be diagnosed earlier than they used to be, a couple still has to make the decision about continuing the pregnancy. What if a woman has an unplanned pregnancy and she's been drinking or taking drugs during the first weeks of her pregnancy?

What other MEDICAL PROCEDURE do we legislate? There's already plenty of reasons to not get an abortion. It's a very difficult decision to make, even when it's legal.

[outinforce]

187. "Not the Only Thing That Can Go Wrong"

"The chances of having a child with Down's Syndrome after age 40 are 1%, and that's only one thing that can go wrong."

I think I hear you saying that having a child with Downs Syndrom is something that has "gone wrong".

What would you say to a child with Down's Syndrome -- that her/his birth was something that had "gone wrong"?

"What other medical procedures do we legislate?"

A certain type of breast implant, if I recall correctly. We ban silicon breast implants completely. A woman who wants to choose that particular medical procedure is prohibited from doing so, even though it would affect only her own body.

[TexasBushwhacker]

202. I couldn't agree less

I would not force parents to have a baby that they know has Down's Syndrome. Raising that child and dealing with their educational and medical difficulties is something that those parents will have to deal with for a lifetime, emotionally and financially. Very few Down's Syndrome children can grow up to be independent adults, and yes, I think that the parents should have the legal right to choose to terminate that pregnancy. It is not an easy choice, but again, the choice is THEIRS not the government's.

Knowing that you will be having a child with Down's Syndrome and continuing the pregnancy, not knowing how severe your child's handicap will be, if they will have the heart defects that Down's children often have, etc., is a very brave choice, and parents should be able to make that choice as well.

There are already thousands of less than perfect children that have been given up for adoption and most of them spend their lives in foster homes and institutions.

As for telling a child with Down's that something is wrong with them, of course I wouldn't. I wouldn't point out any child's defect or deformity. I wouldn't call an obese child fat either.

As for breast implants, the FDA withdrew its approval for silicone implants to be used for cosmetic reasons only. Women who are having breast reconstruction after a mastectomy can still opt for silicone if they wish, although most do not. Knowing the controversy about silicone breast implants, I doubt if many doctors would be willing to use them any more for fear of being sued if the woman develops an auto-immune disease and blames it on the implants.

[noiretextatique]

203. that would be a fetus with down's syndrome, in this case

and of course, it wouldn't be able to answer any questions...DUH. :eyes: there are other DEVICES AND IMPLANTS that are banned or regulated, but i don't know of any procedure that some seek to regulate as much as abortion.

[elfwitch]

48. I can answer this...

Pro-choice means you are in favor of a woman's right to choose how she feels about abortion. It means you fully support a woman's right to decide for herself if abortion is something she should or should not do. Pro choice means you are as committed to protecting a woman's right to choose abortion as you are to defending her right not to.

It is about Choice. Pro-Choice means that you have enough faith in the individual that you are willing to fight for their rights to be one. Pro-Choice means that even if you might never consider that option for yourself or your family, you do not want to make that decision for someone else by creating laws that eliminate that choice for them.

THAT IS WHAT PRO-CHOICE MEANS!!

[tandot]

31. Pro-Choice

means that as a woman I have the choice of either have an abortion or not have one. There are rare situations where I would have an abortion. But every woman has the right to make that decision for whatever reasons they have.

It is a LEGAL medical procedure and none of any one else's business.

[Norquist Nemesis]

23. My husband is Catholic

and I was asking him about his stance on the church's 'right' to the whole Kerry/communion/pro-choice thing. He's pro-choice but said that he thinks "it's in the purview of the church to do it." I asked him how he can be a Catholic and square with that. He said, "You don't see me going to church do you?"

He's not blind to exactly what you've said. Pro-choice does not equal Pro-abortion. It means choice. (period emphasized)

[Scout]

59. pro-abortion

means to me that if I held that view, I would be actively seeking out pregnant women that I did not feel were worthy of reproducing and forcing them into abortion against their will.

I would picket at the offices of ob/gyns, and clinics and shout at women I didn't know that they were selfishly breeding, that they were killing the planet and thus future generations of humans. I would show them posters of suffering, starving children and adults worldwide who can better use the resources. I would band with others and try to close down the clinics with blockades, threats and coercion. I'd plant lies and paranoia about pre-natal care, those vitamins cause cancer!! I'd picket at the schools with real and inflated statistics on death of pregnant women by murder and complications of pregnancy.

I'd keep birth control information away from people, men and women, boys and girls, because without pregnancies, where would I find pregnant women to coerce into abortion, hmmmm?

that's a mild start...

but then I'm not pro-abortion, I'm pro-choice.

[LiberalCat]

197. Exactly -- pro-choice is not the same as pro-abortion. nt

[tandot]

19. Well, I was raised Catholic and I am Pro-choice

If you'd listen to the doctrine of the Catholic church you shouldn't have sex outside the marriage, you wouldn't be able to use birth control in ANY form and only have sex to procreate. Furthermore, you can't have a divorce. If you have one and remarry, the Church will not recognize it and you are in their eyes a bigamist.

I got disillusioned with the Church after my priest told me that I cannot receive the Eucharist (may not take communion) after my divorce. I looked closer at my faith and decided to cut the cord.

Again, most people select only the issues from their religion that doesn't inconvenience their own lives. If they lecture me about stuff like that, they better get ready for me to ask them which of the rules THEY are breaking.


I saw a bumper sticker "abortion kills a beating heart" with an old, nasty looking woman inside. She had a cigarette in her mouth. I almost yelled at her "smoking kills a beating heart, too"

[redqueen]

94. I almost hate to say this, but... there is a difference.

In the case of smoking, she is making that choice for herself. In the case of abortion, an adult makes that choice for a fetus.

[tandot]

102. You are right, Redqueen

It has nothing to do with abortion. I guess I was just completely p*ssed off about that bumper sticker. She was driving about 60 mph in the left lane of an 70 mph highway preventing me from passing her car. So, that bumper sticker was right in my face.

[redqueen]

118. Yeah, well... technically there's a difference

but it's still horrible that these people care NOTHING about children after their born. If they did, they'd vote for Democrats. Republicans CUT funding for children- and family-oriented programs... they only fund the counterproductive idiotic crap programs that puff up the self-importance of their fundie theocrat base.

It's really hard not to consider them all morons, it really really really really really really is.

[gumby]

20. "pro-abortion?"

"pro-abortion" is NOT "pro-choice"

It seems that your neighbor wants to make reproductive choices for all women everywhere. Ain't he special?

[never_get_over_it]

21. A question

how many folks do you know who are Pro-CHOICE who are Pro-Abortion. There is a difference - I am pro-choice and was a Catholic but am no longer for many reasons. I am however not pro-abortion. I would not have an abortion except in the case of severe fetal abnormality - but I do support a woman to make her own choice

I have had the discussion with an anti-choice co-worker who believes pro-abortion and pro-choice is the same and when I say it isn't he claims it is just semantics - it is not....

[seabeyond]

22. raising hand, yes you can and here is why

you are not pro abortion. what you are is pro free will. and that god has given all man. and if it is what god gives man than it is the example he wants us to live. so we are to give free will too. it is not we the people to decide if abortion is illegal. it is up to the woman. it is her free will in play. i can hate abortion, not like it not want it not agree with it, be as against abortion as that man that proudly has that sticker. so i get communion with catholic church. i dont feel like the constitution gives us the power to decide a person who is raped incest or may die cause of preg can abort and all others arent allowed. i believe that is against the constitution. i believe that is hypocrisy. and it also says we have to follow our nation rule in bible. so we have to honor constitution.

[outinforce]

30. Something You Said

You said: "it is not we the people to decide if abortion is illegal."

If it is not up to "We the people" to decide if abortion is legal or illegal, then who is it up to?

[tandot]

38. As a woman, I will make the choice. PASTA.

I don't give a sh*t what "WE the PEOPLE" say about it because "WE the PEOPLE" will not carry MY child for 9 month, and "WE the PEOPLE" will not raise and take care of the child. It will be ME!

So, "WE the PEOPLE" stay the heck out of my life.

[seabeyond]

54. and then there is this perspective

lol lol

[seabeyond]

52. gods judgement

here is why. we cannot establish when life begins. when it is murder. if we cannot come to this decision in a scientific and real way, we cannot declare it murder. if it is not murder then we cannot outlaw it, with laws of man. it has to be gods to decide if the person has sinned, not mine.

if we declare that it is a being once egg is with sperm, then from that moment it has all rights all americans have. dont drink your oj, abuse, smoke, abuse, hot dogs or diet coke abuse. no exception with rape, incest, mothers health, if deformed horribly birth.

at 42 and thinking this for years, i cant conclude if it is life at conception or not, if it is murder or not. so i have to go to the side of prochoice, cause i see so many on both sides coming to abortion for this reason or that validating why necessary to abort this one instance. i come to the extremes where the mother would take her life rather than give birth, i come to all the more children in this world being raised by children.

i do believe, if we declare abortion is illegal, then it must be illegal for all people in all circumstance.

[outinforce]

61. You Do Realize, Of Course....

You do realize that there are some who suggest that we cannot really establish when "life" begins.

In fact, there is, within academia, some rather serious thought being given to the notion that "life" does not really begin until long after birth itself.

In other words, some argue that until a "child" is able to express itself in words -- or in a complete sentence, it is not really "alive" -- it is just a fetus living outside the womb.

And, these people would argue, since it is not really a "human being" yet, our laws should be changed in order to permit parents, if they think that their "happiness" would be enhaced by not having that child, to kill that child before it is able to say a sentence.

I think that that is gruesome.

But I do think that the people who think that way would say that we really cannot say -- scientifically or in any real way -- when life begins. And they would also say that it is not murder to kill a six-month-old child that cannot even utter a complete sentence.

They would say that it ought to be up to the gods -- and not man -- to call the killing of a six-month-old child murder.

How would you respond to them?

[seabeyond]

63. there is always the extreme isnt there

i think it is pretty easy, regardless of these peoples theory, that when a baby takes a breath, life has begun. an obvious one for me, regardless of what certain academia say. now the question of does life begin the moment egg meets with sperm is a little more challenging for my brain. or is it when baby has developed all parts needed to live outside of body. or when baby could function outside of body, or when baby takes its first breath outside of body.

but thanks for sharing

[outinforce]

75. What is Obvious for You

isn't at all obvious for others.

You say that it is obvious -- for you -- that when a baby takes it first breath, life has begun.

You don't say, but I wonder how you might react if someday the Supreme Court were to say that wha tis obvious for you is, in fact, an infringement on the Constitutional rights of every single parent in the USA -- namely the fundamental constitutional right of every parent to kill thier children before thier first birthday.

You, with your view that is obvious to you, would be the one labeled as being "extreme", especially if you voice the opinion that such a ruling from the Supreme Court is a monstrous travesty.

Some people fell that is is obvious to them that life begins long before birth. They feel that this is just as obvious to them as you feel that it is obvious that life begins with the first breath.

[seabeyond]

77. i think where you miss out here is the point of breath

physically and scientifically proof of life. this is what i would contend. now your theory and the theory of the moment of sperm/egg, is missing the physical evidence.

this is why it is a challenge for me to say, from time of egg and sperm union to first breath, is it murder, when is life.

i understnad i dont have the answer, and cause they believe with their heart, prior to speaking, some children dont talk til they are 5, some never. so is that the rule on when life begins. again, at a point i have to go to logic and physical and punt. take a guess.

see the difference in sayin i dont know. i dont. if i dont know, then how can i say something is murder.

i can only bring to the table, me.............

the catholic church goes all the way to egg and sperm both, we have obligation to make sure it produces. so in theory the catholic church takes it beyon even the union of egg/sperm

[outinforce]

83. I Think I Did See The Point

And the point you are making, I think, is this --

You are saying, I think, that you know with some high degree of certainty that life exists when the baby takes its first breath.

But you also say that before that time, life might exist. You just don't know.

And so, you conclude, I think, that since you cannot be sure whether there is life before the point of the first breath, there is no way you could call the destruction of anything that exists prior to the first breath murder. It might be murder -- you just don't know.

But that is pretty close to what those who advocate a change in our laws to allow parents to kill their children before their first birthday say.

They say that they know for sure that there is life at the first anniversary of birth. They just don't know if there is life before that point. They are sure that if you kill a baby one day after it's first anniversary of leaving the womb, then it is murder. But, since they cannot be sure that life really exists before that time, they cannot say -- and don't want to say -- whether it is murder to kill a child before one year after it leaves the womb.

They simply believe that such decisions -- such deeply personal decisions involving the life and death of what they consider to be "things" that they do not consider to possess "life" =-- "real life" -- should be left up to the parents involved. They consider it highly inappropriate for anyone to attempt to impose their own view of morality upon parents, who are truly the best people suited to make the difficult and deeply personal decision as to whether to allow a thing-which-is-not-yet-alive to continue or to be destroyed.

[sangha]

116. The law does not protect life, not even human life

The law protects "persons". According to the law, a fetus is not a person.

[outinforce]

122. I Stand Corrected

Some people feel that "personhood" should not be granted until one year following the point at which a fetus leaves the womb.

Before that, these folks would argue that a "child" is not -- and sh ould not be considered -- a "person".

[sangha]

127. So what?

Some people feel that "personhood" should not be granted until one year following the point at which a fetus leaves the womb.

SO what?

[outinforce]

130. Go Back And Re-Read This Entire Exchange of Posts

I'm still waiting for an answer to my question as to whether there is any connection between you and another poster whose "real" name is sangha but who posts under the name sangh0.

[sangha]

133. Personal questions are inappropriate

you can PM me, and I'll repeat what I've told you the last two times you asked

[outinforce]

137. Sorry, But I Do Not

recall ever asking anything of you, "sangha".

on edit -- I think you know how to "PM" me, if that is what you want to do.

[sangha]

149. Of course you don't remember

If you remembered, you wouldn't be able to keep asking me about it

[outinforce]

163. Once More

Are you connected in any way with the DU poster who posts under the name "snagh0" but whose real name is sangha, or not?

[sangha]

178. Once more

PM me, or is that unacceptable because it doesn't allow you to produce innuendo?

[outinforce]

188. Don't You Know

how to PM me?

[Kipepeo]

205. the woman

She already answered you. It is not up to the people to decide if abortion is illegal. To make abortion illegal is to deny women the right to make decisions for their own body. It is not a right that should ever be up to a 'vote.' Just like desegregation, gay marriage, women having the right to vote, etc. etc. The courts make sure the majority don't oppress the minority. Like what's going on with gay marriage right now with all of the Repubs yammering about 'let the people vote.' The rights of a minority group should never be left up to a majority vote. Ridiculous.

[Fleshdancer]

24. hmmm....

I'm not a Catholic, but isn't there something about not casting the first stone? Wouldn't claiming who can and can't be a Catholic be a bit too judgemental?

[cap]

25. show him the US Conference of Bishops web site...

and point out how few of the positions that USCB advocates are Republican ones (all the social programs are very Democratic issues: calls for health insurance, child care, etc). Then show him the statistics at Catholics for Free Choice: 66% of Catholics support federal funding of abortion, 88% use modern contraception. Ask him how the church would function financially if the pro-choice Catholics either withheld contributions (people are doing so now... the church lost a 100K contribution in NJ for a new church) or left the Church -- would he double his contribution to the church? Also, we, pro-choice Catholics, would be voting against any governmental funding for an organization that just kicked us out. Why do they want to shrink their base?

Also show him the Catholic standard which has been running a lot of articles lately on women who took chances with their pregnancy and didn't get abortions and got lucky and survived. There's one great article talking about showing a baby that didn't look too great during the ultrasound and how the mother carried it to term and found out that the baby had been dead for a week. Then show him some medical articles about how terribly risky it is for babies to die inside the mother (it is one of the leading causes of death during childhood). Many women do not want to die for their babies -- many men do not want their wives to die.

Finally, in regards to doctrine, abortion was never part of the catechism taught in my CCD 35 years ago. I learned about the sermon on the mount.

EWTN does not speak for all of us.

[monchie]

26. I'm surprised no one has mentioned this.

Pro-abortion is not the same thing as being pro-choice.

If I were a woman, I would never have an abortion, because I believe it's wrong. If I were heterosexual and my wife or girlfriend wanted to have an abortion, I'd do everything in my power to prevent it.

However, I also recognize that this belief that abortion is wrong is grounded in my religious beliefs, and that in this very pluralistic society other people with other beliefs disagree with my belief.

Or, as Mario Cuomo once put it, "If you believe that abortion is wrong, don't have an abortion."

[Redleg]

105. Excellent point.

The conservatives have gotten the media to use the term "pro-abortion" rather than "pro-choice." I resent the implication that they are one and the same.

[seabeyond]

27. i do want a question answered by neigbor that not one

anti choice person has answered for me. and i understand the respect thing,.....with you. cna be a good person and republican too. i want to know if they feel so strong about abortion, to allow the worst and stupidest president and most damaging president to be re elected cause they are one issue voters. they feel so strongly about murder of fetus. how can they validate rape incest and mother health. i have not had one person give a logical validation for exception. there cannot be any. if this man is anti abortion then there cannot be a single exception ever

[outinforce]

39. I'm Not Anti-Choice, But Here's a Question for You

You suggest that if someone is concerned about the life of fetus, then that person really cannot logically provide an answer to the question of why there should be an exception made to allow abortions in the case of incest or rape.

But how would you suggest that a pro-choice person, who believes that a woman should always maintain control over her own body, answer the question about whether or not that means that Roe v. Wade is inherently flawed. Some would argue that Roe v. Wade is falwed because it does not allow a perfectly healthy woman, in the eighth month of her pregnancy, to abort a perfectly healthy fetus that poses no risk to her health or life.

[seabeyond]

60. this is the ugliness of abortion. good question

gotta understand, i dont like the idea of abortion and i am a believer that the female (cant say woman cause many girls are getting preg) has the moral responsibility at time of conception and birth. that her life is no longer hers. that is my personal belief and the way i walk life. i also know it is not mine to do anothers life. they have to make these choices.

so a woman goes 8 months preg and all of a sudden she decides right now gotta get baby out, this moment. cant go another month and give up for adoption. would be pretty ugly. i guess she will have to challenge the law. i would hope she had people in her life that could support and help her to come to conclusions to birth baby and put up for adoption.

i dont see how this answer the question of hypocrisy to rape and incest.

what about the girl that will kill herself before telling her parents. that is pretty extreme.

[Mandate My Ass]

64. you don't have to worry about that scenario

No doctor would perform elective abortion at 8 months because someone "can't go another month."

It would never happen.

[Warren DeMontague]

161. You can't be a good American

...and still be opposed to the Separation of Church and State.

[JerseygirlCT]

166. Because it's never that simple or that black and white

A pregnancy involves an existant life and a prospective life. There's no getting around that. They are intertwined and any decision about one affects the other.

Roe v. Wade took on that unique situation and decided that as the fetus develops, it also develops a bigger claim in that relationship. Whereas earlier in the pregnancy, the woman's needs take precedence, as the pregnancy continues, the balance tips a bit.

The thing the current PBA ban ignores is that the health of the woman must always be a key concern. At no point should the woman give up her health in favor of the fetus.

It's not perfect, but perfect most certainly doesn't exist in this situation. I'm extremely pro-choice, but I do understand what the law is attempting to mediate here.

[outinforce]

167. You May Be Missing The Point Of My Question

My question, posed in post #39, has to do with choice.

Here is the question I posed:

"But how would you suggest that a pro-choice person, who believes that a woman should always maintain control over her own body, answer the question about whether or not that means that Roe v. Wade is inherently flawed. Some would argue that Roe v. Wade is falwed because it does not allow a perfectly healthy woman, in the eighth month of her pregnancy, to abort a perfectly healthy fetus that poses no risk to her health or life."

You are suggesting, I think, that the woman's health overrides the life of the fetus.

But that has nothing to do with my question.

My question has to do with a hypothetical situation in which the woman, as a matter of simple choice, elects to have an abortion in the eighth month of her pregnancy.

In my hypothetical situation, the woman is perfectly healthy, and the fetus is likewise perfectly healthy. The fetus, in my hypothetical situation, poses no risk to the woman's life or to her health.

In such a hypothetical situation, would someone who is "extremely pro-choice" say that the woman ought to have the right to choose to have an abortion?

Simply as a matter of choice -- for no other reason that she simply wants to exercise her choice?

I am not suggesting that such a hypothetical situation would be at all common, or even that it has ever happened.

I am asking for an answer to a hypothetical question. I would think that someone who is extremely pro-choice would argue that it the condition of the woman (or the fetus) ought to have nothing to do with whether the woman ought to be permitted to exrecise her choice.

It would seem to me that as soon as one says "a woman may exercise her right to choose anb abortion during the eighth month of pregnancy only if her own life or health is in danger or only if the fetus has severe adbnormalities" is not really pro-choice. This is because a condition is imposed on the woman's right to have an abortion.

What do you think?

[JerseygirlCT]

168. I understand what you're saying -m

And, strictly speaking, I suppose you would be right.

But what I'm saying is that this is such a unique and difficult situation to assess that simple yes/no answers don't really work.

There would have been a day when I would have said that a very late-term abortion, absent health concerns for the mother or fetus, was still entirely the mother's decision and fine. I'm less persuaded now, to be honest. And yes, that's uncomfortable to admit on one level. But I think there are at that late point, competing interests...

On the other hand, it makes me itchy to have the government involved in a private medical decision. I don't like it. But it also makes me itchy to think about a healthy fetus being aborted when it could be delivered...

Fortunately these situations are extremely rare. If women had better and more accesible birth control, easily available "Plan B", and more accesible abortion early on, late term abortions would not be necessary. And by accesible I mean both phsyically and financially.

[outinforce]

169. Your Itchiness

Is the same itchiness, I think, that many (most?) Americans feel.

I certainly feel that way.

It is one reason I always prefer to ask someone what they mean when they say they are extremely pro-choice.

To my way of thinking, your post captures quite well the discomfort many Americans feel when talking about abortion.

And your post illustrates, I think, why it is never really terrbily healthy or useful to do what so many folks like to do -- and that is to paint someone whose view on abortion is slightly different from one's own as being ab "extremist" or a "zealot".

For all that does is to drive people apart. Thse has to be some common ground, I would submit, in the abortion discussion.

The trick is to find it.

[sangha]

179. The idea here being

to misportray abortion as something that everyone has moral reservations. That's why speculative situations are called for.

Real life is messy, so we know that the real life circumstances surrounding any particular situation needs to be considered, instead of adherence to some arbitrary and unbendable concept. The need to evaluate individual situations is not conducive to the anti-choicers arguments, so they must rely on speculative situations that are stripped down to a bare minimum of context. And unsurprisingly, this stripped-down context (coincidentally of course) always seems to lean towards the anti-choicers preference.

[outinforce]

189. Once More....

Do you, or don't you have any connection to a DU poster who posts under the name "sangh0" and whose real name is sangha?

And just so you know -- I have had many people whose views on abortion differ from mine pose hypotheticals (what you call "speculative situations") to me.

I do not really object to it, and I try to respond to them.

And I really defy you to point out where I have ever mentioned any moral reservations concerning abortion at all.

[Mandate My Ass]

29. Who's pro-abortion?

I couldn't even imagine such a person.

[He loved Big Brother]

32. I am

I think it, and information about it, should be completely subsidized by the government, along with every other type of family planning and birth control possible.

[outinforce]

34. Really?

Would you happen to regard abortion as something that is wonderful -- something that, because it is wonderful, should actually be encouraged?

[Fear]

40. c'mon, everyone knows that abortion is not something you just DO

It is a last resort, and for some people a choice they make. What frustrates me (AND ON EDIT, REALLY PISSES ME OFF) is that people are thinking that Abortion is an anti-conception method for people - and for that reason it should be banned, it's just not true. So it's THESE people's choice - let that be.

[tandot]

41. Let me guess

You are male?

[outinforce]

43. What

of it?

[tandot]

55. "What of it?"

"I am outraged that is viewed from the perspective of the woman—a femme-centric perspective that condones the self-indulgent conduct of the woman who was damn careless in the first place." —Dick Armey, Former U.S. House Majority Leader (R-Texas)

Well, I was just wondering of you a Dick Armey kinda guy...

Doesn't matter either way. Abortion is a LEGAL medical procedure and will stay that way. America is too advanced to go back into the Dark Ages.

[outinforce]

66. I Almost Said

How Dare YOu Even assume that I am a DIck Armey kinda guy.

But I restrained myself from saying that.

No. I am in no way a Dick Armey kinda guy.

THanks for asking me that, though.

There are lots of people who would have simply made that erroneous assumption.

[tandot]

73. That is why I said "I was wondering IF..."

There are enough people around who have that mindset, though.

I guess some people are making that assumption because of the way you are questioning their pro-choice (or pro-abortion) positions.

So, back at you: How dare you even assume that I assume that you ARE a Dick Armey kinda guy!
;-)

[outinforce]

85. That's Why I Said

"I almost said"

But I never said that I assumed that you assumed that I was a Dick Armey kind of guy.

So back at YOU: Why do you assume that I assumed that you assumed that I am a Dick Armey Kind of guy?

You mention what "some people" are assuming. Am I to assume that you are one of the people making that assumption?

;-)

[He loved Big Brother]

44. In some cases, yes I would encourage it.

[outinforce]

45. "In Some Cases"??

I think I hear you saying that your position as a person who is "pro-abortion" means that there are some times when you would encourage an abortion, but that there are other times when you might not actaully encourage one.

Is that right?

Is so, it is pretty close to my position.

But I would never call myself "pro-abortion".

[Protagoras]

78. are you familiar with the concept of a

false dichotomy? It doesn't seem so since you appear to only view things in the most absolutist terms. One can easily view any number of acts (including abortion) with a much greater degree of apathy than "WONDERFUL" or "TERRIBLE". And feeling one way about the act is not the same as feeling a different way about the RIGHT.

I can easily view the act of abortion with the same lack of extremity that I would view anything else on a HUGE spectrum of feelings. That is the act. The are also the needs/situations and most importantly the RIGHT to engage in the act, and I can view these in entirely different ways. Is that a distinction you understand?

Try and think outside of this issues box for a minute...It's possible to view someone's speech (the content) in one way, while viewing the RIGHT to make that speech very differently.

Is Abortion WONDERFUL? I have no reason to say it is...it's a medical procedure and in general I find those to be unpleasant and at times physically and emotionally painful. I don't find it (the act) Terrible or Wonderful. I get a huge spectrum of feelings to pick from and frankly since I don't have to share your particular religious dogma, I don't have to share your views of potential vs actual personhood. To me, the medical procedure isn't doing anything that challenges me morally. I can feel a socially induced distaste for the act or I can feel a numbed apathy or even a slight amazement at the marvels of modern medicine...but I'm not limited to only 2 extremes.

Additionally, I don't need to view the NEED (context/motivation) to have that medical procedure wonderful or terrible The NEED to have a wisdom tooth removed, or cancer treated, or an appendectomy can be judged in a number of ways depending on your situation. Most people NEED medical procedures for less than positive reasons...you don't LOVE going to the doctor under most circumstances...but most of us don't advocate avoiding it at all costs (though some do)...and that's their choice.

But the KEY question is do I believe the RIGHT TO CHOOSE to have an abortion WONDERFUL? Yes, yes it is imho.

Of course I realize that I'm speaking to the wall here...but I get to feel real great about my CHOICE and RIGHT to do that as well :D

[FizzFuzz]

207. oh here we go, with the "wonderful" shtick

yeah it IS wonderful when safe legal abortion is available so that childbirth or unsterile coat hangers aren't forced on a 12 year old girl raped by her father or a child gangbanged by a group of boys who lured her to a party or any one of thousands of other scenarios. Its wonderful when agencies like Planned Parenthood provide all the information that is out there to young women. Its wonderful when laws are passed requiring that abortifacients are provided to rape victims in hospital emergency rooms.

Its awful when people create simplistic, misleading purposefully incendiary "arguments" and refuse to listen to anything but the voices in their heads, solely to further their own narrow views of who has more of a right to agency over their own life; a woman or a mass of cells. (The 8-month pregnancy question is a red-herring and you know it. Roe v Wade is a ruling concerning embryos not viable outside the woman's body)

Check out the actual histories of what happens to women when abortion is illegal.

Oh yeah and the rapist pays the tax idea--WONDERFUL! Especially in a world where rape is the LEAST reported and MOST underprosecuted of all crimes. Where court cases linger for months and years. Uh Huh. Perhaps abortion to protect the girl's life and health could be retroactive in that case? Wonderful!!

But why am I even wasting my time here? Outinforce is just doing what he ALWAYS does here.

You're right out, I AM awesome. ;)

[Mandate My Ass]

51. That just means you're pro-woman

Thank you. :D

[truthspeaker]

37. In some cases, I think it should be retroactive

[DaveSZ]

46. I was raised Catholic

I left after the church turned into a PAC for the GOP.

Most freepers don't seem to think this issue through logically.

Let this individual know that Kerry's policies will reduce the abortion rate much more than *'s.

Check it out:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=1656115

[ChavezSpeakstheTruth]

36. I say "who in the whole world is pro-abortion?"

It's pro-choice - jerk!

[outinforce]

47. Look on This Thread

at least one person who has posted here describes themself as beiong "pro-abortion".

And just what would be so awful about being pro-abortion, anyway??

[ChavezSpeakstheTruth]

56. I guess nothing. But what exactly does it mean?

Seriously.

[outinforce]

58. Well,

for me it would mean doing nothing to discourage, through sensible steps, people from having abortions.

I compare it to smoking.

I am "pro-choice" when it comes to the question of whether adult should be allowed to choose to smoke or not.

But I am very much "anti-smoking". I favor the use of things like taxes, restrictions on where and when tobacco may be sold, things like that -- as a means to discourgae people from smoking.

Some might call those things an infringement on the right of adults to smoke. I don't.

Similarly, it seems to me that if someone is "pro-abortion", they are really not in favor of any meaningful steps to reduce abortions or to diescourage them in any way.

[ChavezSpeakstheTruth]

74. Ok - I see - that's my stance too - and I am Catholic so

There ya go!

[troublemaker]

79. Being 'pro-abortion' is like being 'pro-amputation.'

There are circumstances where amputation is the best thing and of course amputation should be legally available and optional for the patient, but that doesn't make it attractive.

[outinforce]

111. I'm A Little Unclear Here

It seems to me that there is a difference between being "pro-amputation" as a matter of choice and being "pro-amputation" as a matter of necessity.

I would certainly be in favor of anyone having an amputation if it were medically necessary in order to save their own life.

But if by "pro-amputation" you mean that someone is "in favor" of the notion that someone ought -- as a matter of choice -- be able to have an amputation, then I'm not so sure.

I guess that I am of the view that people should always be free to do whatever they want to with their own bodies, because there is really no way to stop them from doing it anyway. If someone really wants to chop of a foot or a hand, then there is no law that will prevent them from doing so.

But I also think that such behavior should not be encouraged. That is why I would characterize myself as being "anti-amputation as a matter of choice".

But I wold most definitely characterize myself as being "pro-amputation" in those cases where someone said that without an amputation, a person would die.

[randr]

49. You can't be a Christian and be pro-death penalty

[DaveSZ]

50. "In some cases, I think it should be retroactive"

Can you imagine what the world would be like if Bush had not been born?

There would be thousands more people alive today.

[lojasmo]

62. well...

you can't be a catholic and support war
you can't be a catholic and support the death penalty
you can't be a catholic and commit adultry
you can't be a catholic and get divorced
you cant be a catholic and use birth control
you can't be a catholic etc, etc, etc.

No catholics left?

[napi21]

71. NOT Pro-abortion! Pro Choice!!!

It's a freeper thing to re-name this position from pro-choice to pro-abortion! If I am against divorce, does that mean people who disagree with me are pro-divorce? No, and it doesn't mean I would fight to repeal all the laws that permit a marriage from being dissolved.

It seems to me that there are a lot of "Christian beliefs" that are being conveniently ignored these days. Like...the death penalty, divorce, greed, adultery (how many people on Cap Hill are guilty of that one!).

Most of these issues involve keeping the secular laws separate from religious ones. Just because something is "legal" doesn't mean you as an individual HAVE to do it!

[Killarney]

72. You're also not supposed to use birth control.

I bet that guy has.

[troublemaker]

76. The bumper sticker is correct. Pick a new religion.

Why do Catholics who don't want to think whatever the church says to think persist in this kind of thing? You have already decided not to be a Catholic, so accept that and move on. Millions have.

[seabeyond]

81. so your interpretation of right and wrong wins

then you are exclusive and in exclusive is the ultimate in miss step of christianity and jesus. you are allowing your interpretation to taint relationship with jesus, i suggest, lol, because you sit in judgement and ultimately jesus' death was in the asking not to do that with your fellow man, not to seperate. understand and know we all hold the lite of christ conscious, and allow that lite to shine. in reducing your lite, to the world, you dont follow christs words. and we all suffer.

bow and embrace

[troublemaker]

89. It's hardly MY interpretation

Obedience to the church's moral authority is a central pillar of Catholicism. It's definitive... no scheme without such hierarchical moral dictation can be called Catholicism. Since there are a bazillion Christian sects why not pick one that doesn't tell you you're going to Hell for your convictions. Either that or start stocking up on ice water.

[seabeyond]

93. Obedience to the church's

got shivers. kinda goes to bush doctorine, or our police doctorine, or male doctorine. lol lol bah ha hah a. ya that is gonna work.

nope i respect and love the beauty of the catholic church. for whatever reason catholics are the only people that come into my life, forever. first had the calif catholics, all my friends as they went out on weekends and screwed, drank, or did everything but penetration so they could call self virgin by church doctrine, and then they would tell me i was going to hell cause i didnt confess my sin of sittin at home on the weekends, playing games with mom............loved them so

sittin in texas 42 old, i married a catholic and my only two friends are catholics, (about the only two, lol, in fundie territory)

i love the catholic religion the purity of love and lite that they are, but no, i dont follow their rules. i follow no mans rules. i follow christs, and i have found a comfort living in that. i am not in fear. i have peace and stillness and lite and love in life. after 42 years and what i experience, i am comfortable in my choices. i have also found living christ conscious, i follow mans rules pretty close, so thumbs up

but again i reiterate, have a passion and love for catholic traditions.

went to a catholic funeral recently. a friend lost her mother. she was in such pain and grace and love. saw beauty of the priest and the fellow participants. beauty

[truthspeaker]

82. Women in the Catholic Church are like black people in the KKK

I don't understand it either.

[FizzFuzz]

208. right on

same goes for women in the RightWing camp...only Catholicism is less hateful and dogmatic

[goddess40]

80. Bush and abortion

Tell him if Bush were truly pro-life he would have gotten rid of abortion by now. The Repukes hold the presidency, Senate, Congress and Supreme Court so why haven't they made abortion illegal? The reason is it is a good wedge issue. Ask your neighbor how many "babies" are killed just to give Bush this wedge issue to use politically.

[seabeyond]

84. totally out there talking death, ultimately

and a religions interpretation of death. my mother committed suicide at 59. the most god loving pixie type energy of love. giving all her life. she is going to hell, i think not, lol lol

i believe to this point of life, the ending the pain and inevitable death by the soul who inhabits body, because i dont believe we can end self, only the vehicle. so i am not so opposed or outraged when an 80 year old persons say i am done.

we humanely and in love do it with our animals and out of respect do it with animals that arent our pets/family.

catholics to pick just one of these many contradiction in their religion, and to hold high to all, and say you choice of president should be represented in all you are as a catholic.

bottom line, they are missing something here.

[ibegurpard]

86. You don't have to be PRO-ABORTION to be PRO-CHOICE.

Don't let them make that link.

[redqueen]

87. I don't know of any way to, actually.

:shrug:

[ElsewheresDaughter]

90. "pro-abortion"??? WTF is that? pro-choice does NOT equal "pro-abortion"

i am a pro-choice Catholic and i choose for myself not to have an abortion but i choose also NOT to tell others what to do with their bodies .....it is their choice....and let me reiterate pro-choice is NOT equal to abortion!

[Oddman]

97. You can't be a Catholic priest and be a pedophile!

[1gobluedem]

98. Pro-choice does not mean pro-abortion

It means keeping the government out of personal health choices and issues. And churches have no business trying to influence public policy.

"Pro-life" is just as bad. It should be "anti-choice." Pro-lifers want everyone to believe that womean are using abortion as a form of birth control -- that they abort healthy seven month fetuses because they suddenly decide they don't want to have a baby after all. It's such garbage.

I'm Catholic, and my parish is pretty liberal, but I refuse to go to church until the election is over because of this issue.

[slutticus]

100. I saw a great bumper sticker....

...the other day. It said

"Keep your rosaries off my ovaries!"

Put that on your car

[mmonk]

103. A good quote

from Jesus about judging others would be in order from me. Nobody's told me I'm not a Catholic yet (I guess those of us not in political office get left alone?)

[Az]

104. Its sad but this really does bring to the front the Vaticans Agenda

Started in the 70s the Vatican spearheaded a campaign to change the course of politics in the US. After Roe V Wade the Church realised that their pronouncement in Humanae Vitae was at risk. It could call into question issues of Papal Infallibility. To this end they sought to create a grass roots campaign to undermine the US law and assert their desires on our nation.

Catholic organisers brought the idea of antiabortion campaigning to notable protestants such as Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell who recognised it for the fund raising device it has become. As part of their plan they instituted the Pastoral Plan for Pro-Life Activities in 1975. This plan detailed how to manipulate the American political process in order to foster the Catholic position as law.

It is worth noting that this movement ties into the rights desire to take over the media and the issue became part of the focus that delivered the radical religious component of America into the hands of the right. The desire to dismantle core components of rights and laws tied into the same agenda that the corporate right had at the time.

The fact that the Vatican is taking such an open challenge to our society suggests that they no longer fear the impression of tampering. There is no such movement within the Catholic church to end the use of the Death Penalty despite their position being absolute in regards to its use as well. Meaning this boils down to a naked play for power focusing on an issue that they can make use of.

[maggrwaggr]

106. I'd say "who made this guy the Pope?"

that is all

[The Backlash Cometh]

107. That's easy. I'm a reformed Catholic, a recovering Catholic, an

American Catholic, more spiritual than Catholic...

[ElaineinIN]

117. It's hard...

I am also one of the former Catholics. I had lots of issues with the Catholic Church in which I was raised, but stuck with it out of loyalty/heritage/tradition. The final straw was when I was in St. Patricks in NYC, and the sermon was all about how you were going to hell if you weren't chaining yourself to gates of your local planned parenthood.

The Church says what it believes, and that's that... it isn't a democracy, and I'm not sure it should be. After all, the Pope is infallible, so how can you disagree and be correct, and if you disagree with that fundamental assumption, how can you call yourself Catholic? I suppose you can disagree with the Church on an issue, and still call yourself a Catholic and be resigned to the fact that the Church thinks you are wrong and will call you on it. For me, it got to the point where I disagreed with the Church on so many things that I couldn't call myself Catholic anymore. So I left, and found a home elsewhere, and are much happier for it.

[The Backlash Cometh]

156. Welcome ElaineinIN

My father has walked out on a sermon when the priest told the parish that they had to vote for so-and-so if they were good Catholics. So, though I was raised to identify with Catholicism, my father allowed me to make up my own mind as I grew up and began to see the major contradictions in the religion. However, although they do support my skeptism, they would never support atheism. And interestingly, they don't support my other sister for changing her religion to another Christian faith. Maybe they would have, if she hadn't preached down to them.

[ElaineinIN]

181. Thanks for the Welcome

My parents were none too thrilled when I told them I was getting married in an Episcopal church, and less so when I was confirmed, but its one of those subjects we've agreed not to discuss! and we are all happier that way...

And on the topic of Kerry getting the Catholic vote... my dad passed away, but Mom is still around. As far as I know, she's never voted for a democrat for president, and thinks that Reagan was pretty close to the second coming. When Mom is thinking she isn't going to vote for our current moron in chief, he's in trouble.. which is great news, as she retired to FLORIDA (actually, I think it will be as much a vote againt Jebby as it is Georgie!)

[OnionPatch]

113. I agree with troublemaker

why would you want to stubbornly insist you belong to a certain religion when you don't even believe in their teachings? I used to be a Methodist but realized I disagreed with much of what they teach. Rather than argue with them and try to make them change, I moved on .....to the Unitarian Universalist Church where I have found a happy home.

edited to correct spelling

[chimpy the poopthrower]

115. This thread has really veered off topic, hasn't it?

Nevertheless, I will give it a shot, although I am not Catholic.

1. If you are a Catholic, who adheres 100% to the teachings of the Church, which is governed by the Vatican, you must agree that abortion is a sin, correct? (Catholics, please correct me if any part of that statement is incorrect.)

2. However, you can believe that something is a sin without believing that it should be criminalized. For example, you can believe it is a sin to worship a graven image but still think the government should not make a law against worshiping graven images.

Simple, isn't it? And that is the distinction between the terms "pro-abortion" and "pro-choice." I would define "pro-choice" as being someone who believes that the government should generally not interfere in a person's right to have an abortion. Of course, there may be degrees of interference or regulation: some people may be pro-choice but oppose abortions after a certain number of months or oppose specific types of procedures. Some people may favor requiring parental approval for teens having abortions.

I think it is possible to be "pro-choice" and "anti-abortion" (meaning you feel abortion is a sin). And I also think you can be "pro-choice" and not feel abortion is a sin, although I think the vast majority of "pro-choice" people would like to see the number of abortions reduced, mainly through better family plannning.

[redqueen]

119. Nope,

have to be anti-birth control, too. Any kind of birth control at all, because sex is supposed to be only for procreation.

Good ideas re: the law, but these people (pro-lifers) are off the deep end, philosophically speaking. Funding sex education (the best way to reduce the need for abortions) is even anathema to them.

[chimpy the poopthrower]

124. I don't understand what you're saying

Who has to be anti-birth control? Catholics? Pro-choicers? Pro-choice Catholics? Can you clarify what you're trying to say?

[redqueen]

147. Sorry... yes I meant Catholics

So that tactic wouldn't work on that guy, because he's looking at it from that angle. I'm not sure if he's a die-hard pro-lifer (I suspect some are soft and would support sex ed, birth control, etc.), but if so then those kinds of measures wouldn't be acceptable in his belief system either.

[chimpy the poopthrower]

151. Still don't get what you're saying...

:shrug:

Someone could believe that abortion is a sin and that birth control is a sin, but still feel the government should not criminalize either one. Just as someone could believe that eating pork is a sin but not support a law that would make eating pork a crime.

[Sparkle]

139. If sex is only for procreation then why does it feel so good

that it makes us humans want to do it more than necessary?

[redqueen]

150. Not my opinion, the church's :-)

Check out the Song of Solomon... I think the church may be just trying to keep their coffers full and labor cheap. The church is always tight with whatever government is in power. To me it's not a stretch to imagine that the wrongheaded opposition to BC and sex ed is just a way to fulfill the needs of both corrupt organizations.

[Sparkle]

138. Is your neighbor a Catholic?

If he is, ask him if he is a practicing catholic to the fullest? If he says yes, then he is probably lying.

[Roaming]

141. This is a tricky one; can you pick and choose what you want to

believe? If the Catholic Church itself says, "you cannot be a Catholic if you believe in abortion," and then you choose to believe in abortion, who gets to make the decision that you are / are not a Catholic? But does the Catholic church explicitly say this somewhere, in writing? I don't know...

[TankLV]

142. Being Pro-Choice" is not equal to being "pro-abortion".

Nothing could be further from the truth.

One can be both Pro-Choice and Anti-Abortion. It's up to the individual's CHOICE - get it?!

However - a better name for "pro-life" would be "Anti-Choice" - these people want to force on others what their beliefs may be.

And, lastly, since I am a man, and it involves solely a woman's own body, I am not in a just place to make that decision. It is up to women to decide, not men. No men should be allowed in this debate as far as I'm concerned. Period.

[spanone]

143. The "pro-abortion" label is WRONG . It's "Pro-Choice"

So these are some ignorant rethugs. Nobody is pro abortion.

[Justice]

146. If We Allow Bush Supporters To Define Parameters of Debate

we lose. Not we will lose, but we lose as a democracy.

It is not just about abortion or no abortion. If we allow the discussion to only be about what Bush* tells us is the topic of discussion - we all lose.

[Cleita]

152. Pro-choice in my mind isn't pro-abortion.

It's about not meddling in another woman's reproductive choices. You can be Catholic and choose not to have an abortion, but it doesn't give you the right to tell your neighbor she can't have a safe therapeutic abortion because you are right and she is wrong. IMHO

[sangha]

153. The response is "That's why I'm pro-choice"

I am neither for or against abortions. I support whatever decision a person makes.

[JNelson6563]

154. you can't be Catholic and pro-birth control

or pro-death penalty or pro-war. In fact, I kinda wonder what Jesus would have to say about capitalism.

Julie

[Cleita]

160. Actually, you can be Catholic and pro-birth control.

It's the method you choose to limit your reproduction that the Church is specific about. You can practice abstinence or the rythm method of BC, if you choose to stop having children after a certain number. The problem is neither method is very successful.

[sandnsea]

165. I'm pro-life, pro women's lives

Abortion is a necessary treatment for the health or life of a woman and I'm not about to support any laws that might interfere with that. I don't want a doctor worrying about going to jail when recommending an abortion. It's a medical decision between a woman and her doctor.

[Ripley]

171. One question.

Why is that "certain person" allowed to DISRUPT DU every so often with his "pro-life" propaganda?

We are mostly adults here; we know the debate. He repeats his shit.

If this is cool on DU, why isn't the anti-homosexual crowd allowed their turn here?

Enough.

[sangha]

180. I can answer that

It's because DU does nothing about it.

[FizzFuzz]

209. thats a really good question

After just having responded to one of his posts, I vow to make no more replies to that person. Waste of my time, he doesn't deserve the attention.

By responding, I see I am letting my own anger take hold of me and getting into my own negativity, which is what people like that want.

[REP]

182. "A Good Man"?

Anyone who thinks women are nothing more than breeding stock is not a "good man."

[kiahzero]

183. That may be true

But you can be Catholic and pro-choice. It's called "letting other people make their own religious decisions" or "respecting the Establishment Clause" or "not shoving your religious ideas down other people's throats."

[gauguin57]

185. how about getting your own bumper sticker ...

"If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament"!

[Langis]

186. Can you be Pro- Death penalty and me Catholic?

[kentuck]

198. You can't be American and be against "pro-choice"...

:)

[dawn]

201. I hate those stupid bumper stickers.

I see them all over the place in OC. First of all, they get it wrong: people are PRO CHOICE, not pro-abortion.

Second of all, how fascist of them to say what does and doesn't make someone Catholic.

I am SO glad I left that church!!!

[mountainvue]

206. I don't know.

I had to end a friendship over that bs though.:grr: