It can't be assumed that supporters believe it is just medical prodecure. Many see the debate as a choice between lesser consequences of abortion and greater consequences of abortion. They may see the act itself as incredibly evil, and therefore -whether we're talking policy or not- wouldn't want to be labeled as supporters of an evil act. In fact, the term "pro-choice" doesn't really suit them either, as they may not support the choice to abort, but rather accept the reality that the choice cannot really be taken away (women are going to have them regardless). I don't suppose people who want to legalize prostitution would want to be called "pro-prostitution".

I don't know if they can solve it, but I prefer a Rogerian approach. Let's work together on those things we agree on - i.e. we want fewer abortions - while still continuing the debate on those things we don't. You've probably detected my anti-abortion stance. I believe that those who are not anti-abortion simply hold a different definition of when life begins - not that they are evil. I can disagree with their belief about when life begins without having to vilify them. I'd just ask the same courtesy from those on the other side of the fence. I'm not a crazed lunatic - I like to think I am a reasonable, educated person who, based on both scientific and logical evidence believes that life begins at the moment of conception. I used to be pro-abortion, but then I became pregnant. I have an ultrasound of my daughter Gypsyboots at 6 weeks. She is shaped like a little peanut, but it's her. It's not a potential her, it's not a piece of tissue, it's her. Having been on the other side may give me a little more understanding on how someone could believe that abortion is a simple medical procedure.

I guess you could make the case that most stereotypes may have an element of truth, but relying on them causes all sorts of problems. Of course, I think a big problem with most political debate these days is the eagerness of so many to simply try and yell louder than the other side. There's so little respect, and so little use of logic and intelligence.

They may not want it, but it would be accurate.

eta - ACK! How'd it get to be so late! Good night!

It wouldn't be accurate because prostitution itself is not what they support.

Now that you bring it up, I think it's a bit ridiculous that we need laws telling people that rape and murder aren't so good. I realize we have to have some mutually agreed upon code which is why we have laws, but it makes laws no less ridiculous to me. And, God will deal with them.

No reasonable person would think it's ok for priests (or anybody) to have sex with young children. Yet priests have sexually abused altar boys, and some of those priests were quietly moved to other parishes rather than being disciplined or defrocked.

I like the idea that a poster brought up that this is an issue for Catholics. The teachings of the Church are too complicated to be properly addressed in a GC thread, so the reactions are reflecting misunderstandings of those teachings. Basically, (and I hate to say basically, because none of it is basic,) no Catholic can receive Communion if they are not in a state of grace. That state is affected by any unforgiven mortal sin, not just those relating to abortion. Many people think that they individually determine what constitutes a sin. The Catholic Church doesn't harbor that view. If a Catholic intentionally violates the teachings of the Church, the Church views that as sin.

I hate talking religion online, but this is really a situation that opens one can of worms after another. Catholics know what is expected of them. If they choose to act differently, the Church teaches what the repercussions are.

It seems like the biggest issue with a lot of people is that the Church dares to clearly define sin. A lot of people don't want to be told that anything is wrong - everything is just a personal choice. The Catholic Church doesn't work that way. They're very upfront about it, and always have been. The strong stances of the Catholic Church frequently lead to attacks by outsiders AND insiders.

Yep. Or recognize that you can't expect to be in full communion with the church.


Although honestly this priest saying this surprised me because there's been no directive like this from above. Previously the discussion of withholding communion was for politicians who failed to support church doctrine.

So on some level what they are saying isn't you can't vote that way but instead, you can't vote that way and expect the church to treat you as if you are living up to your church's teaching.


And yeah, I do think it's kind of odd that they single out only abortion, but hey, they get to make the rules. If it bothers you, you may be happier as an Episcopalian. It's similar in a lot of ways, but less authoritarian.

What irishpipes said is true. The Catholic Church's view is "all or nothing" - accept everything the Church hands down, or don't be Catholic. You can't pick and choose. Miss Sunday Mass, eat meat on a Friday in Lent, vote for a pro-choice candidate, and you'd best head for the nearest confessional post-haste.

I personally couldn't deal with that. I didn't like the idea of some old guy in Rome telling me what I could and could not do with my body and my life. Hence my rejection of the Church. But if you choose to be Catholic and follow the rules, more power to you. You don't tell me what to do and I won't tell you what to do.

I'm also strongly pro-choice. If you're against abortion, fine - don't have one - but don't go telling me I can't have one.

For the record, Catholics do not believe that some old guy in Rome has that authority, either. It comes from someone higher than that.

But surely you wouldn't apply this same standard to murder of a 20 year old or even a two day old? If you don't believe in it, don't kill anyone, but don't tell me I can't?

Of course not and that's the reason why this argument won't work for people who think life begins in the womb.

Now, I think it's probably a minority of citizens who think life begins at conception or we wouldn't be so down with IVF, embryonic stem cell research, and some IUDs as we are. I think the debate ought to shift to when a fetus ought to have some rights.

But we don't typically have a standard of letting people do what they think it right when it comes to destroying others and I'm not sure why, if it's an area of uncertainly, that we'd err on the side of mother's wishes over offspring's life.

Nicely played.

Absolutely.

I completely agree.

This is where I'm coming from. You should know better. You shouldn't need a law to tell you and, if you don't know better, you can take it up with God. I think I'm an anarchist.

You're on the right track here. I believe that a number of other countries (including Canada if I'm not mistaken) have set an actual week date - 22 weeks for example - as the time when the baby has rights and can no longer be aborted.

I'd also like to see adoption become less stressful for all involved...however that could occur.

Girlfriend, you said it!
Yeah I read the article...and douchebags like this are one reason why I call myself a Recovering Catholic.

Fertility treatments are a no-no, and this hits too close to home. :rolleyes:
Another reason I call myself a recovering Catholic

Yeah that! And yes, I marched on Washington