I think you are the one being tricked by the left. They always claim to support the poor, but they too are only after votes. They too will do everything they can to fill their own pockets with riches while using other people’s money to “help” the needy. And they never acknowledge that abortion is the taking of a human life, but just treat it as a woman’s health issue to minimize it.
You are looking at all these issues with secular glasses on. Also, just because Democrats always want the federal government to solve a problem, that doesn’t mean that the federal government is always (or ever) the best and first solution.
A lot of Democrats tend to confuse what they perceive as charity with their party’s ultimate identity- that bigger government can solve everyday issues and thus higher taxes are necessary. That’s not always true.
The idea that R’s hate the poor, hate (whatever ethnic group), stand with corporations over people, want to take away health care and gut education to line the pockets of the rich, want to poison our air and water for the same reason etc is a Democratic caricature of R’s and has no basis in truth.
I find that many people who claim to be pro choice really aren’t at all. At least not in modern times. The pro life side is often vilified and looked at as less than human for making a different “choice”. That’s not being pro choice at all.
A more apt name would pro abortion rights, not “choice”.
I think they are looked at that way for trying to make the choice for everyone instead of for themselves.
I wish people would not use the term heresy out of context and without the proper authority to do so.
The infidelity of Catholics is bad enough without complicating the matter.
Just speak directly to the problem in your sphere of competence and influence, without adding the confusion.
Right. Because it’s ok to kill innocent civilians in wars, and it’s ok for police to kill innocent people on the street.
It’s their choice and we shouldn’t make that choice for them, right?
Your logic is full of holes.
I wasn’t making a case for either side. I was just stating that what pro-choice people find wrong with pro-life people is that the pro-life people would like to make the choice for pro-choice people. Right? I mean,
the pro-choice people I know don’t care what pro-life people choose for themselves. In fact, they wouldn’t support a system where people were forced to terminate their pregnancies. That is all I was saying. Logic doesn’t play into this. Understanding what each side stands for does, though.
I am beyond shocked at this comment… how could anyone in their right mind allow a teen to procure a serious medical procedure without notifying their parents for consent … i’m flabbergasted
It’s a lot more than that. A real pro choice viewpoint means you believe that you have the choice and no law should prevent that.
But it seems that simply saying that you are pro life even without trying to force it on anyone makes you subject to ridicule, scorn and even genuine hatred. I know… I’ve seen it.
That’s not being pro choice at all. Clearly many people are not at all respectful of the right to choose the viewpoint that they don’t like.
As was mentioned, such a position neglects the right to lifeof the unborn. A society where all people are equal but some people are more equal than others is not equality at all. It opposes freedom.
Now for the next part, I’m in no way Republican. In fact I detest some of the R positions. I’m also not a democrat for they have positions I detest too. I would best identify politically as American Solidarity Party.
This violates Catholic morality. Contraception violates the natural law. It has also been shown that more contraception leads to more abortions. (People have more sex, resulting in more failures of birth control. If 10 couples have sex with a 10% for pregnancy there is about 1 pregnancy. If 60 couples have sex with a 5% chance of pregnancy, there are about 3 pregnancies.) And because those pregnancies were not wanted, there’s a much higher probability of abortion.
I’d be curious as to where you get that information. Mike Pence for example worked hard for adoption Indiana. (I tried finding sources for adoption support overall, hence my curiosity as it was hard to come by.)
I agree circumstances can change things mortal/denial-wise, but I’m not sure those factors you mentioned mitigate the taking of life enough to drop from mortal. Anyone in such a situation would have to speak to a priest about their exact situation.
Because there are bad parents in this world. Parents who would harm their child, throw her out in the street, simply for being sexually active.
You might be confusing grave matter with mortal sin…mortal sin requires ALL 3 of these things:
- Grave Matter: The act itself is intrinsically evil and immoral. …
- Full Knowledge: The person must know that what they’re doing or planning to do is evil and immoral. …
- Deliberate Consent: The person must freely choose to commit the act or plan to do it.
Deliberate Consent is the issue I put forward.
If Deliberate Consent was not a consideration, all suicides, drug induced sin, homicide in self defense would be cause for the loss of salvation to many people.
I apologize if my answer was too simple. I do realize that there are three conditions. I just would argue that it’s questionable as to what mitigating factors would actually reduce the free will enough that the free will requirement wouldn’t be met. But a priest who’d be able to get all necessary information on a particular circumstance would be able to make such a determination.
Are there true, pro-life people who are only pro-life in making choices for themselves and believe others should make their own choices? Because that would sort of make them pro-choice, then, wouldn’t it? I haven’t ever met someone who identifies as “pro-life” who thinks everyone should be able to choose for themselves. That would sort of make them pro-choice, right? Now I know many (actually all that I know of) pro-choice people who believe everyone should be able to choose for themselves, including those who want to keep their pregnancies.
Do we have a legal “choice” to shoot someone on the street because they are homeless and it’s inconvenient to have them around? Of course not! So how is taking the life of someone on the street any different than taking a human life from the womb? It’s not.
It’s not just the woman’s body anymore. When pregnant they now share it with another human.
Well jeez… solve for the ignorant and negligent parents… providing support for those minors (don’t forget that they are minors!) who are in those situations. Don’t usurp a good parents right to know and raise their children. If my daughter was allowed to make the decision to have an abortion without my knowing before she’s even an adult, I would come unhinged
If you deliberately intoxicate yourself, you are culpable for the sin of intoxication and for anything that foreseeably results from your being intoxicated.
Not always…addiction takes away the issue of deliberate consent…this is important, because otherwise, we have judged and condemned those with the illness of substance addiction.
I agree. I was just saying that the term “pro choice” is misleading when many on the pro abortion side of the argument are very hostile to a “choice” that they don’t like.