Most Americans Disagree With Church Teaching On Homosexuality, Abortion
-
one thing seems to be clear - it is not so much about the "choice" of the woman or what is best for her
as it is about making money for the abortion industry.Why would any doctor whose primary motivation is "making money" choose a field which makes them
the target of religious fanatics who would like to shoot them dead?Every woman I have discussed abortion with who has had one, adamantly insists she did the right thing.
Sure, not a scientific poll, but no regrets?That is one strange comment from someone with your beliefs.
You do know about Norma McCorvey, right?Norma Leah McCorvey … better known by the legal pseudonym "Jane Roe",
was the plaintiff in the landmark American lawsuit Roe v. Wade in 1973 ...
she married Woody McCorvey, but claimed he was abusive towards her.
Subsequently, McCorvey left him during the pregnancy with her first child,
Melissa (born 1965). The following year, McCorvey again became pregnant,
eventually giving birth to a baby that was placed for adoption.
She then returned to live with her mother, but when Norma intimated
that she was sexually attracted to women, her mother disowned her
and took custody of Norma's daughter, Melissa.
In 1969, at the age of 21, while working low-paying jobs and
living with her father, McCorvey became pregnant a third time ...
She attempted to obtain an illegal abortion, but the
respective clinics had been closed down by authorities.
Eventually, McCorvey was referred to attorneys Linda Coffee and Sarah Weddington.
The case took three years of trials to reach the United States Supreme Court.In her first book, the 1994 autobiography, I Am Roe, McCorvey wrote of her sexuality.
For many years, she had lived quietly in Dallas with her long-time partner, Connie Gonzales.
"We're not like other lesbians, going to bars," she explained in a New York Times interview.
"We're lesbians together. We're homers."
That same year, she converted to Christianity and expressed remorse
for her part in the Supreme Court decision.
McCorvey has worked as part of the pro-life movement, such as Operation Rescue.At a signing of I Am Roe, McCorvey was befriended by evangelical minister Flip Benham.
She was baptized on August 8, 1995, by Benham in a Dallas, Texas, backyard swimming pool,
an event that was filmed for national television.
Two days later she announced that she had become an advocate
of Operation Rescue's campaign to make abortion illegal.McCorvey's second book, Won by Love, was published in 1998 ...
Shortly thereafter, McCorvey released a statement that affirmed her entrance
into the Roman Catholic Church, and she has been confirmed
into the church as a full member.
She has also stated that she is no longer a lesbian.from hXXp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norma_McCorvey
-
The catholic church only allows sex that creates more catholics.
That is why it hates gay sex and abortions, because neither fills it's coffers and power base.That is also why it hates contraception
-
"We're not like other lesbians, going to bars," she explained in a New York Times interview.
"We're lesbians together. We're homers."That's a bigoted stereotype of the GLBT community, as most of our gay/lesbian friends don't go to bars.
A few weeks ago, we went to the bar for the first time in nearly 2 years.
-
My first thought was to not comment because I knew what would happen. But this is a forum to discuss ideas.
I never said a woman should carry a rapist's baby. That is why I said I'm not so adamant about it not being illegal. The fact is abortions due to rape are a tiny tiny percentage of all abortions. And it still murders a child. Or do two wrongs make a right? PS - I love how you completely ignore the overarching, carefully written concern for the unborn child and just JUMP down on my neck about rape….....
Twinkle - I have no idea what you're getting at with Norma McCorvey, yes I'm aware she was Jane Doe. I wasn't aware that she was and then later 'wasn't' a lesbian.
Re: 'no regrets' - I was very clear in my statement that I was relaying MY EXPERIENCES.
Re: making money - I have no idea why someone would choose to be an abortion doctor. It seems antithetical to the reasons most people go into the field of medicine. But we do know that many drugs, many procedures harm people and that money is the motivating factor there as well as in many areas of life. For example, before the advent of HMO's, or should I say before HMO's became as widespread, some hospitals put doctors on salary and AMAZINGLY surgeries were reduced by 50%. Did people all of sudden become healthier or was it because the surgeons couldn't send out big bills?
There have been many reports about HMO's restricting access to medical care and then giving bonuses to those who save the company the most money. Seems like that would be illegal.
Again, why is abortion paired with homosexuality?
-
Yes, this is a forum to discuss ideas.
Maybe you should have clarified when you might find it acceptable for abortions to take place.
I didn't ignore your concern for the unborn. I mentioned the UK law about abortion and the reasoning behind it; ie under 24 weeks a fetus can't survive on it's own and in virtually every case won't survive even with the best medical care.
As to your question about why is homosexuality and abortion always linked? Maybe you should ask your church why that is. After all, this thread (see thread title) is about church teachings and whether or not people agree with it.
-
abortions due to rape are a tiny tiny percentage of all abortions.
And it still murders a child.Those of us who support a woman's right to choose, do NOT accept that a fetus is identical to a child.
Do you also accept your Church's teaching that a fertilized egg is identical to a child?The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in the 2008 Instruction Dignitas Personae stated that:
"Alongside methods of preventing pregnancy which are, properly speaking, contraceptive,
that is, which prevent conception following from a sexual act,
there are other technical means which act after fertilization,
when the embryo is already constituted, either before or after implantation in the uterine wall …
Therefore, the use of means of interception and contragestation fall within
the sin of abortion and are gravely immoral" -
I don't agree with the ban on contraception, because the term itself means that you are preventing inception. That means, the sperm doesn't reach the egg. No fetus, no fertilized egg. This is because the sperm and egg are simply the potential for life. Which is, in my opinion, a definitive statement, because the sperm and egg will not "multiply" and generate more of itself just by being there. But a fertilized egg will undergo cellular fission and become more cells, eventually becoming a child. So for me, the turning point of morality is precisely at the point of egg fertilization.
Abortion, in my opinion, means that the egg was fertilized then killed. and yes, i think abortion shouldn't be allowed, except for extreme cases:
- the life of the mother is in danger
- the mother is suffering from post traumatic stress disorder, and possibly depressed (as the case in rape). If the mother hates the unborn child, I'm no longer sure about what would be the correct thing to do.
My feelings about the matter aren't all that strong, but these are my opinions.
Going back to the original topic:
I don't understand why abortion and homosexuality are always lumped together. i mean, if we were really homosexuals, we will never worry about abortion, right? -
Abortion, in my opinion, means that the egg was fertilized then killed. and yes, i think abortion shouldn't be allowed, except for extreme cases:
- the life of the mother is in danger
- the mother is suffering from post traumatic stress disorder, and possibly depressed (as the case in rape). If the mother hates the unborn child, I'm no longer sure about what would be the correct thing to do.
I more or less share your opinion there. I have only ever taken a pregnant female to an abortion clinic on one particular occasion. Despite the fact that I do not believe it is the right thing to do because there are other options, in this particular case, I stood behind her as her doctor had told her that if she tried to carry to term, it would kill her. In cases like those, it's a much different story, especially when the person I took was already a mother of 2, both of which depend on her.
-
#10 "ask your church"…. I don't think the church issues statements joining abortion and homosexuality, the media does, for sensationalism. Adelle Banks, the writer, as far as could be inferred from the original post, is not a spokesman for any church.
#10 & 11 - The question is not "is a fertilized egg the equivalent of a child" but rather, when does life begin? How about at the beginning? It is very true that fetuses cannot survive at 24 weeks or less, but neither can a lot of other people, without drugs, machinery, or care. So the societal definition of when life begins is apparently determinate on which side of the womb you are on! And I will emphasize again, what about brain waves and heart beats? Feet and toes at 10 weeks? What is that? How about in vitro surgeries ever earlier?
As to rape - I contacted Right to Life in Michigan to get another point of view and they feel that every human being, at whatever stage of development, has dignity and worth. To kill the fetus does nothing to take away the awful pain and trauma of rape.
Another thought - when (and if it still does) China had its one-child policy, couples were aborting female fetuses and of course various women's groups decried this as sexist or whatever. So I find it interesting, that if you look enough, everyone is against abortion for some reason.
-
It's not sensationalism as you claim. Every catholic source bangs (excuse the pun) on and on about procreation/sex and that is the link between the 4 things {gay sex, abortion, contraception and masturbation). So there is your direct link by your church. The official church stance is that all sex is only for procreation, thus banning gay sex, abortion, contraception and masturbation. As a catholic, you should be able to see that link, so I'm confused why you don't get it.
Do you have any concept of how many premature babies survive if they are born before the 24 week mark in a country with good medical care? Extremely few survive and of those that do, extremely few make it into adulthood and of those, extremely few make it into adulthood semi-functional (meaning they don't have to be fully cared for).
A study that started in 2005 and ended last year said it cost the US $50 Billion (YES, that's with a B) to raise all the 2005 premies to the age of 5, well of those that survived that long. That's just over $142 for every man, woman and child in the US just for the 2005 premies for those 5 years. Of course the costs keep building up because many of them have life long health issues that go along with being a premy. That doesn't even count the cost to businesses due to lost work, etc, etc. For some reason, I haven't found out what yet, the number of premature babies are increasing by 20% a decade since the 1950s.
In ancient times, kids weren't counted as human until they reached 1yo and not fully human until they reached 7yo. This was due to the high death rates. In fact, these people wrote most of your holy text.
So you (you support their stance, despite saying you don't always) and "Right to Life" want to continue to force the woman to suffer the trauma of the rape for another 9 months. WOW, you people are truly heartless. Ironically enough, extremely high percentages of "right to life" people also support the death penalty.
Who are the sexists in China?! It's not the government, but the individual people that decided they didn't want girls. Even with this personal choice of the people involved, women still make up, on average year to year, 52.8% of the world's population. Imagine what the number would be like if the Chinese didn't want only boys.
Like MrMazda, I also took a friend to have an abortion and I would do it again for anyone that asked. Though the circumstances were very different. She was already disowned by her family for wanting to continue to go to school, her boyfriend dumped her when she told him she was pregnant, etc, etc, etc. She could barely make ends meet as it was and a baby would have destroyed everything she had struggled for.
-
I have half a thought now that if a woman hates the baby in her womb, and she won't be allowed abortion, will she not eventually commit suicide or another rash act just to "do" it? This is what post traumatic stress does to people.
I will say that there should be some kind of therapy the government will give IF they will insist that rape victims carry their children to term. And then, if the girl isn't ready to be a mother, take care of both of them, as well. Don't ban something if you can't provide a better alternative.
-
I can't say that I disagree with abortion in every case, since there are some cases where it is necessary (such as trying to carry to term will kill the mother). That being said, I do agree with notquiteme in that there are other alternatives to killing an unborn child if your reasoning isn't "valid" so to speak. In such cases as not being able to afford the upkeep of a child, or cases where it was an accident such as a condom break that neither parent was planning on, there are options such as adoption that would be more humane in the end.
At least with adoption as an alternative, rather than murder an unborn child, you can still give them the option of having a loving family that can take care of them, and provide for them the things they need to have the life that a child deserves. This is just one such alternative that I can think of that in many cases would be a more humane thing to do, rather than kill an unborn child.
-
Who is going to pay the medical bills and the maternity leave to bring the child to full term?
-
I don't know about in other countries, but here in Canada, the adopting parents are the ones who pay such bills in the process of agreeing to adopt the unborn child. As for the maternity leave, some of that here in Canada there are laws to regulate so that the mother doesn't get totally screwed in the process.
On that topic, it would be interesting to know the way that such things work in other countries.
-
The US and UK allow for contractual adoptions (ie surrogates, etc), which would allow for the adopting parents to pay. However, if you go through the state's adoption process, then that's not an option.
Besides forcing a rape victim to carry the baby (extremely cruel), why should a business have to pay maternity leave so the woman can be forced to give birth to the rape baby?
-
That remains at the choice of the mother. I'm not saying that in a case of rape it's "wrong" to get an abortion, because that steps into a whole new world of things to consider. Should the mother choose to carry through, it is treated the same as having had the baby through consensual means.
-
As it is now, the system works the same if the mother wants to put the baby up for adoption or keep it.
Anyway, bringing a baby to full term is a lot more expensive than an abortion, so based on sheer economics, the choice is clear. Not to mention that a child born into poverty will die in poverty. Class mobility is extremely rare.
-
I wouldn't throw economics into it. It turns people into statistics.
-
To deny the economics of the situation is to deny reality.
We don't live in a moneyless utopia.
-
so is a baby a choice?
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login