Pro-Abortion

[Peace]

I am really not a big fan of this term "pro-abortion" that "pro-life" folks like to toss around. I have probably used this term in the past, but just recently decided to stop using it after giving it some thought. The main reasons are:

1) It does not seem very logical. If you do not believe that adultery or masturbation should be criminalized, that does not mean that you are pro-adultery or pro-masturbation.  The same holds true for many of the folks who do not believe that abortion should be criminalized. They would not necessarily make the choice themselves, or they may even agree that it is immoral, but they would not go as far as to force that choice on other people.  One of the biggest "pro-choice" people I have ever met has 4 children of her own, one of whom was born with a serious illness.

2) It feels a bit slanderous to me, and I don't think it gives sufficient understanding to the difficult choices that (some) people have to make.  Someone might make a choice to abort because of young age, difficult financial / social circumstances, rape, incest, genetic disorders, etc. To me at least, the term "pro-abortion" runs a risk of characterizing people as just gleefully aborting or wanting to see abortions increase. I don't think that is very fair (although there may be some folks who fall in this category).

3) I actually think that "anti-abortion" is a more accurate description for many who call themselves "pro-life" than "pro-abortion" is for folks who call themselves "pro-choice".  Many folks who call themselves "pro-life" seem to be "pro-life" only in the sense that they are against abortion, but not in any other meaningful sense (for example, opposing paid maternity leave for pregnant women, being pro-death penalty, pro-war, etc.)

Sure, these are are arguments that are typically made by pro-choicers, but I think that they are legitimate arguments.  As some here may have guessed, I am a "consistent life ethic" person, and I do think that we are in the strongest position to make the pro-life argument because we are consistently pro-life at every stage.

[Anomaly]

I get it.   Pro abortion doesn't mean you hate babies, it just you're okay killing the inconvenient ones out of apathy, not hate.    I feel better about it now.  

[little2add]

92% of abortions in America are purely elective -- done on healthy women to end the lives of healthy children.  

you can sugarcoat anyway you like, abortion is murder 

[Benedictus]

There are more important things to worry about than the titles used or applied to the groups around this issue. It's a distraction as far as I'm concerned.

Words are words. You can neatly decide to attach a different name to something, but the substance is the same. The core substance and reality of the issue is all that matters. 

This reminds me of something.  In Hannah Arendt's book, Eichmann in Jerusalem, Eichmann was asked, “Was it difficult for you to send these tens of thousands of people to their death?” And Eichmann answered very candidly, “To tell you the truth, it was easy. Our language made it easy.” 

[KnightofChrist]

11 hours ago, Peace said:

2) It feels a bit slanderous to me, and I don't think it gives sufficient understanding to the difficult choices that (some) people have to make.  Someone might make a choice to abort because of young age, difficult financial / social circumstances, rape, incest, genetic disorders, etc. To me at least, the term "pro-abortion" runs a risk of characterizing people as just gleefully aborting or wanting to see abortions increase. I don't think that is very fair (although there may be some folks who fall in this category).

If someone makes a choice to kill their 3 year old toddler because of young age, difficult financial / social circumstances, or the child being a product of rape, incest, or the child has genetic disorders; would you object to the term "pro-murder" being applied to those that make that choice or support that choice?

[Peace]

5 hours ago, Anomaly said:

I get it.   Pro abortion doesn't mean you hate babies, it just you're okay killing the inconvenient ones out of apathy, not hate.    I feel better about it now.  

I don't know if most people who choose to abort are "okay" with it.  I think that many of them struggle with the decision, and many come to regret it:

https://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/letters/2015/documents/papa-francesco_20150901_lettera-indulgenza-giubileo-misericordia.html

One of the serious problems of our time is clearly the changed relationship with respect to life. A widespread and insensitive mentality has led to the loss of the proper personal and social sensitivity to welcome new life. The tragedy of abortion is experienced by some with a superficial awareness, as if not realizing the extreme harm that such an act entails. Many others, on the other hand, although experiencing this moment as a defeat, believe they they have no other option. I think in particular of all the women who have resorted to abortion. I am well aware of the pressure that has led them to this decision. I know that it is an existential and moral ordeal. I have met so many women who bear in their heart the scar of this agonizing and painful decision. What has happened is profoundly unjust; yet only understanding the truth of it can enable one not to lose hope. The forgiveness of God cannot be denied to one who has repented, especially when that person approaches the Sacrament of Confession with a sincere heart in order to obtain reconciliation with the Father. For this reason too, I have decided, notwithstanding anything to the contrary, to concede to all priests for the Jubilee Year the discretion to absolve of the sin of abortion those who have procured it and who, with contrite heart, seek forgiveness for it. May priests fulfill this great task by expressing words of genuine welcome combined with a reflection that explains the gravity of the sin committed, besides indicating a path of authentic conversion by which to obtain the true and generous forgiveness of the Father who renews all with his presence.

5 hours ago, little2add said:

92% of abortions in America are purely elective -- done on healthy women to end the lives of healthy children.  

you can sugarcoat anyway you like, abortion is murder 

Well. It is surely a violation of the 5th Commandment. It is not "murder" as far as our law is currently concerned. I am not sure if the Church classifies it as murder either (but please correct me if this is incorrect). If you read the Catechism you will notice that the term "murder" is not used in the discussion of abortion, while the term "murder" is used in the context of euthanasia and intentional homicide. But perhaps you have something to the contrary.

3 hours ago, Benedictus said:

There are more important things to worry about than the titles used or applied to the groups around this issue. It's a distraction as far as I'm concerned.

Words are words. You can neatly decide to attach a different name to something, but the substance is the same. The core substance and reality of the issue is all that matters. 

Sure, there are more important things than titles. But just because other things should be given attention first, does not mean that titles should also not be given attention. Words and rhetoric do matter. Just being correct is not enough to win. There are numerous examples of that throughout history. You have to shape your message in a way that resonates with people, and gets your point across in ways that people can understand. If you approach some people and start accusing them of being "pro-abortion" they might just shut you down and not listen to anything else that you have to say. Another approach might be more effective. I think these things do matter.

1 hour ago, KnightofChrist said:

If someone makes a choice to kill their 3 year old toddler because of young age, difficult financial / social circumstances, or the child being a product of rape, incest, or the child has genetic disorders; would you object to the term "pro-murder" being applied to those that make that choice or support that choice?

If you got tempted by a woman at a bar one night of your life and cheated on your wife, would you object to me calling you "pro-adultery"? How about any other sins you have committed? Are you pro-those sins as well?

As for your question, if someone said "I think that all 3 year old children who have genetic disorders should be put to death!" I would call him "pro-murder". I would not call a distressed 15 year old who throws her newborn infant in a dumpster out of shame or other fears as being "pro-murder".  I think that there is a difference between the two situations, and that the term should not be broadly applied to everyone who makes that choice.

It's easy to condemn people's actions, but I think that is also good to try to understand other people's situation. Certainly, we cannot accept abortion, but I don't think that condemnation without sympathy and understanding is something that is likely to encourage a person to reform, or to do much in changing the culture generally.

[KnightofChrist]

20 minutes ago, Peace said:

If you got tempted by a woman at a bar one night of your life and cheated on your wife, would you object to me calling you "pro-adultery"? How about any other sins you have committed? Are you pro-those sins as well?

If I am unfaithful to my wife I would in fact be an adulterer, if I supported my choice or others supported my choice to commit adultery we would correctly be called "pro-adultery." If I were to commit murder, I would be a murderer, if I support that choice to murder in anyway what-so-ever I would be pro-murder.

Quote

As for your question, if someone said "I think that all 3 year old children who have genetic disorders should be put to death!" I would call him "pro-murder". I would not call a distressed 15 year old who throws her newborn infant in a dumpster out of shame or other fears as being "pro-murder".  I think that there is a difference between the two situations, and that the term should not be broadly applied to everyone who makes that choice.

The problem here is that we're suppose to be comparing the killing of toddlers with killing of pre-born babies, using the same reasoning and logic for both the toddler and the baby. But you're using different reasons for each. So what of a distressed 15 year old mother who throws her 3 year old toddler in a dumpster out of shame or other fears as being "pro-murder"? Is she a murderer, if she chose to end the child's life, and if she supports her choice to kill her child is she a pro-murder? And what of those that support her choice to throw her 3 year old toddler in the dumpster, would they be pro-murder?

Quote

It's easy to condemn people's actions, but I think that is also good to try to understand other people's situation. Certainly, we cannot accept abortion, but I don't think that condemnation without sympathy and understanding is something that is likely to encourage a person to reform, or to do much in changing the culture generally.

I'm sorry but again if just change pre-born baby out with 3 year old toddler there wouldn't be the same kind of call for understanding and sympathy.

Edited May 11, 2016 by KnightofChrist

[Benedictus]

Peace - So you want a debate about the choice of words and language when there's bigger fish to fry? Or are you wanting to debate abortion but you don't want to declare you've some sympathy for elements of the pro-choice argument?

My personal feeling about the framing of the debate here is that it's not simply about language and a choice of words. There seems to me an undertone of apologetics for a pro-choice outcome. We all know the church gives forgiveness to the repentant after an abortion and that some women regret it. [Despite the fact a lot don't and even have more than one abortion]. Why restate the obvious as an anti abortionist?

Any label or title you use will bring connotations and baggage. I would suggest it doesn't matter so much because when people talk about the issues their specific attitudes and views become clear. That is a given by people across the spectrum and most people know this. The same goes that most people accept that two people can reach the same conclusion for different reasons.

The pro choice side, or whatever you term them, are invested in these slogans as much as anyone else. It's a politically motivated strategy in most cases and it isn't supposed to be all neat and tidy. All sides use slogans to be emotive and, like twitter, you have a limited amount of slogan space to hit with. But to frame an argument around this seems like debating the name of a food aid program whilst people are starving before your eyes.

[little2add]

3 hours ago, Peace said:

Well. It is surely a violation of the 5th Commandment. It is not "murder" as far as our law is currently concerned. I am not sure if the Church classifies it as murder either (but please correct me if this is incorrect). If you read the Catechism you will notice that the term "murder" is not used in the discussion of abortion, while the term "murder" is used in the context of euthanasia and intentional homicide. But perhaps you have something to the contrary.

 

who's law is our law?

2261 Scripture specifies the prohibition contained in  the fifth commandment : "Do not slay the innocent and the righteous."61 The deliberate murder of an ...

Abortion

2270 Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person - among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life.⁷²

 

Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you.⁷³

My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately wrought in the depths of the earth.⁷⁴

2271 Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law: 

 

You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish.⁷⁵

God, the Lord of life, has entrusted to men the noble mission of safeguarding life, and men must carry it out in a manner worthy of themselves. Life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception: abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes.⁷⁶

2272 Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life. "A person who procures a completed abortion incurs excommunication latae sententiae,"⁷⁷ "by the very commission of the offense,"⁷⁸ and subject to the conditions provided by Canon Law.⁷⁹ The Church does not thereby intend to restrict the scope of mercy. Rather, she makes clear the gravity of the crime committed, the irreparable harm done to the innocent who is put to death, as well as to the parents and the whole of society. 

2273 The inalienable right to life of every innocent human individual is a constitutive element of a civil society and its legislation: 

"The inalienable rights of the person must be recognized and respected by civil society and the political authority. These human rights depend neither on single individuals nor on parents; nor do they represent a concession made by society and the state; they belong to human nature and are inherent in the person by virtue of the creative act from which the person took his origin. Among such fundamental rights one should mention in this regard every human being's right to life and physical integrity from the moment of conception until death."⁸⁰

"The moment a positive law deprives a category of human beings of the protection which civil legislation ought to accord them, the state is denying the equality of all before the law. When the state does not place its power at the service of the rights of each citizen, and in particular of the more vulnerable, the very foundations of a state based on law are undermined. . . . As a consequence of the respect and protection which must be ensured for the unborn child from the moment of conception, the law must provide appropriate penal sanctions for every deliberate violation of the child's rights."⁸¹

2274 Since it must be treated from conception as a person, the embryo must be defended in its integrity, cared for, and healed, as far as possible, like any other human being. 

Prenatal diagnosis is morally licit, "if it respects the life and integrity of the embryo and the human fetus and is directed toward its safe guarding or healing as an individual. . . . It is gravely opposed to the moral law when this is done with the thought of possibly inducing an abortion, depending upon the results: a diagnosis must not be the equivalent of a death sentence."⁸²

2275 "One must hold as licit procedures carried out on the human embryo which respect the life and integrity of the embryo and do not involve disproportionate risks for it, but are directed toward its healing the improvement of its condition of health, or its individual survival."⁸³

"It is immoral to produce human embryos intended for exploitation as disposable biological material."⁸⁴

"Certain attempts to influence chromosomic or genetic inheritance are not therapeutic but are aimed at producing human beings selected according to sex or other predetermined qualities. Such manipulations are contrary to the personal dignity of the human being and his integrity and identity"⁸⁵ which are unique and unrepeatable.

[Peace]

Good responses. I will respond as soon as I can.

[Peace]

3 hours ago, Benedictus said:

Peace - So you want a debate about the choice of words and language when there's bigger fish to fry?

Yes. I desire to discuss the appropriateness of calling people "pro-abortion".

3 hours ago, Benedictus said:

Or are you wanting to debate abortion but you don't want to declare you've some sympathy for elements of the pro-choice argument?

I would not say that this is the case.

3 hours ago, Benedictus said:

My personal feeling about the framing of the debate here is that it's not simply about language and a choice of words. There seems to me an undertone of apologetics for a pro-choice outcome. We all know the church gives forgiveness to the repentant after an abortion and that some women regret it. [Despite the fact a lot don't and even have more than one abortion]. Why restate the obvious as an anti abortionist?

I don't quite understand what you are getting at here, to be honest. But the purpose of the thread was to discuss the appropriateness of calling people "pro-abortion, not to state obvious things per se.

3 hours ago, Benedictus said:

Any label or title you use will bring connotations and baggage.

Yes, but some labels and titles are better than others. That is what I wanted to discuss.

3 hours ago, Benedictus said:

 I would suggest it doesn't matter so much because when people talk about the issues their specific attitudes and views become clear. That is a given by people across the spectrum and most people know this. The same goes that most people accept that two people can reach the same conclusion for different reasons.

The pro choice side, or whatever you term them, are invested in these slogans as much as anyone else. It's a politically motivated strategy in most cases and it isn't supposed to be all neat and tidy. All sides use slogans to be emotive and, like twitter, you have a limited amount of slogan space to hit with. But to frame an argument around this seems like debating the name of a food aid program whilst people are starving before your eyes.

I believe that the topic is worthy of discussion, at least for the reasons that I have stated previously in this thread. If you do not believe that the topic is worthy for discussion, please feel free not to participate in the discussion, or to start a new discussion in a seperate thread on a topic that you believe is worthy of discussion. If your new thread is interesting to me I will participate. If it is not interesting to me I will not participate. But I will not enter the thread and say "I do not think that this topic is worth discussing at all, you should be discussing something else." I think that rather defeats the purpose of having an "Open Mic" forum.

[Peace]

3 hours ago, little2add said:

who's law is our law?

By "our law" in that particular context I generally meant criminal codes enacted by government.

If you equate the word "murder" with any violation of the 5th Commandment then I would agree that abortion is murder (I already stated that abortion is a violation of the 5th Commandment).  Whether the Church considers the various violations of the 5th Commandment (abortion, infanticide, homicide (commonly referred to as "murder"), assisted suicide, euthanisa, etc.) as equivalent crimes is an open question I think.  I would venture that the answer to this question is that the Church does not consider them as equivalent (the criminal codes enacted by our governments certainly do not). This is the point that I attempted to make in my previous post, but perhaps I did not make it clearly enough.

[Kateri89]

7 hours ago, Peace said:

Sure, there are more important things than titles. But just because other things should be given attention first, does not mean that titles should also not be given attention. Words and rhetoric do matter. Just being correct is not enough to win. There are numerous examples of that throughout history. You have to shape your message in a way that resonates with people, and gets your point across in ways that people can understand. If you approach some people and start accusing them of being "pro-abortion" they might just shut you down and not listen to anything else that you have to say. Another approach might be more effective. I think these things do matter.

 

It's easy to condemn people's actions, but I think that is also good to try to understand other people's situation. Certainly, we cannot accept abortion, but I don't think that condemnation without sympathy and understanding is something that is likely to encourage a person to reform, or to do much in changing the culture generally.

I have to say I agree with you on both of these points.  To be honest, I feel like the other posters here are not being fair to you.  You've made it clear that you know abortion is wrong and I think we're all standing on common ground in that regard.  I believe that our culture has lost the art of conversation.  There seems to be no such thing as civilized, polite discussion anymore.  Everything is polarized, malicious diatribe that doesn't seem to get us anywhere.  Consequently, everyone is on the defensive.  So if someone comes at you, calling you pro-abortion, you may very well block out anything else they say and go into attack mode.

 

I do understand that the passion to defend unborn lives can provoke a righteous anger in us and when we hear "pro-choice" it sounds far too tame for the truth that it really masks.  Using the label "pro-choice" makes it sound as though someone is supportive of choosing whether to have chicken or fish for dinner instead of whether or not to kill an innocent child.  Yet I must say that if we really care about saving lives and saving souls at the same time, we should put our pride behind us and see Jesus in everyone.  It's no easy thing to do but then we would care less about winning arguments and more about winning souls for the Kingdom of Heaven.  This all brings to mind the approach of the Sisters of Life.  They don't label the women in crisis pregnancies "pro-abortion"; rather they tell these women how valuable they are in God's eyes and they show them love, compassion, and sympathy.  It's worth noting that their success rate of saving unborn lives is somewhere between 90-95%. 

[Gabriela]

Peace, I agree with you in everything you've said except the Catechism bit, which little2add has cleared up, I think. I have often found the moniker "pro-abortion" to be inappropriate and unfair to people who support women having a choice, but who themselves would never consider having an abortion. There certainly is a distinction to be made between one who supports an act and so is "pro"-that act, and one who performs an act, particularly under duress.

That being said, I think you're going to find it extremely difficult to have a rational discussion about this. So far no one (or almost no one) has responded to any of your actual claims, only to things they categorize in the same box as "your kind of talk". I'm sure you expected that. Good luck, I guess.

7 minutes ago, Kateri89 said:

I have to say I agree with you on both of these points.  To be honest, I feel like the other posters here are not being fair to you.  You've made it clear that you know abortion is wrong and I think we're all standing on common ground in that regard.  I believe that our culture has lost the art of conversation.  There seems to be no such thing as civilized, polite discussion anymore.  Everything is polarized, malicious diatribe that doesn't seem to get us anywhere.  Consequently, everyone is on the defensive.  So if someone comes at you, calling you pro-abortion, you may very well block out anything else they say and go into attack mode.

 

I do understand that the passion to defend unborn lives can provoke a righteous anger in us and when we hear "pro-choice" it sounds far too tame for the truth that it really masks.  Using the label "pro-choice" makes it sound as though someone is supportive of choosing whether to have chicken or fish for dinner instead of whether or not to kill an innocent child.  Yet I must say that if we really care about saving lives and saving souls at the same time, we should put our pride behind us and see Jesus in everyone.  It's no easy thing to do but then we would care less about winning arguments and more about winning souls for the Kingdom of Heaven.  This all brings to mind the approach of the Sisters of Life.  They don't label the women in crisis pregnancies "pro-abortion"; rather they tell these women how valuable they are in God's eyes and they show them love, compassion, and sympathy.  It's worth noting that their success rate of saving unborn lives is somewhere between 90-95%. 

Exactly, and very well said.

[little2add]

1 hour ago, Peace said:

By "our law" in that particular context I generally meant criminal codes enacted by government.

If you equate the word "murder" with any violation of the 5th Commandment then I would agree that abortion is murder (I already stated that abortion is a violation of the 5th Commandment).  Whether the Church considers the various violations of the 5th Commandment (abortion, infanticide, homicide (commonly referred to as "murder"), assisted suicide, euthanisa, etc.) as equivalent crimes is an open question I think.  I would venture that the answer to this question is that the Church does not consider them as equivalent (the criminal codes enacted by our governments certainly do not). This is the point that I attempted to make in my previous post, but perhaps I did not make it clearly enough.

government criminal codes are irrelevant.    abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law

by "our law" generally means (to me) "Moral Law"

Edited May 12, 2016 by little2add

[Peace]

18 minutes ago, little2add said:

government criminal codes are irrelevant.    abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law

by "our law" generally means (to me) "Moral Law"

Thank you for the clarification. I will keep all of these things in mind when discussing the issue with you in the future.

Knight - I haven't forgotten about your post. It will take me a little bit longer to respond to because of the substance.

[Nihil Obstat]

Putting aside whether or not "pro-abortion" is an appropriate label, I think "pro-choice" is even more problematic. By allowing the abortion debate to be framed as simply a matter of choice, we are conceding too much. The language we use does impact how the question is perceived.

Simply framing it as one choice against another implies that both choices are more or less comparable, even if one or the other is preferable. This describes the people who describe who may want abortion decriminalized even if they do not themselves wish to have one. But it is not simply a choice in the sense of two options with pros and cons. It is a 'choice' between absolute evil on the one hand, and good on the other. One choice is simply wrong. This is the distinction that we absolutely have to maintain. We are not being objective by not recognizing this distinction; rather we are promoting continued ignorance.

[Gabriela]

40 minutes ago, Nihil Obstat said:

Putting aside whether or not "pro-abortion" is an appropriate label, I think "pro-choice" is even more problematic. By allowing the abortion debate to be framed as simply a matter of choice, we are conceding too much. The language we use does impact how the question is perceived.

Simply framing it as one choice against another implies that both choices are more or less comparable, even if one or the other is preferable. This describes the people who describe who may want abortion decriminalized even if they do not themselves wish to have one. But it is not simply a choice in the sense of two options with pros and cons. It is a 'choice' between absolute evil on the one hand, and good on the other. One choice is simply wrong. This is the distinction that we absolutely have to maintain. We are not being objective by not recognizing this distinction; rather we are promoting continued ignorance.

I agree with this, too.

So, if we can't properly call them "pro-abortion" and we can't properly call them "pro-choice", what should we call them? Any ideas? Anyone?

[Peace]

8 hours ago, KnightofChrist said:

If I am unfaithful to my wife I would in fact be an adulterer,

Agreed. No argument from me here.

But being an an adulterer does not make one "pro-adultery" as I am sure you would agree.

8 hours ago, KnightofChrist said:

if I supported my choice or others supported my choice to commit adultery we would correctly be called "pro-adultery." If I were to commit murder, I would be a murderer, if I support that choice to murder in anyway what-so-ever I would be pro-murder.

What is "support" in your opinion?

Here is what I would say:

1)  If you or one of your friends said "I cheated on my wife yesterday and I have no problem with it. I think it is totally fine and moral. In fact, I plan to cheat on my wife again tomorrow and advise that you do the same. If your wife asks where you were when you decide to cheat, just tell her that you were out drinking with me and I will lie to cover you", then you would be "pro-adultery".

2) If you or one of your friends said "I cheated on my wife yesterday. Even though I knew it was wrong, I got drunk at a bar and one thing led to another. I completely regret what I did and I do not want to do it again", then you would not be "pro-adultery".

3)  If you said "I would never cheat on my wife, and I think it is immoral for anyone else to cheat on his wife. However, if someone cheats on his wife, I do not think that he should be thrown in jail or be forced to pay a fine for it."  You would not be "pro-adultery".

I believe that each of the situations above is different and that lumping them all together under the same label is unwarranted. I do not believe that the situations are logically or morally equivalent.

Now, if you believe that situation 3 would consitute "support" such that the person in #3 should be considered "pro-adultery", logially would that not also make you, and virtually every other person "pro-adultery" as well?  This is because the only seeming rationale under which #3 can be considered "support" is a principle that leniency (in this case, not putting the person in jail or imposing a fine) constitutes support. But you, I, and virtually everyone else exhibits some degree of leniency when it comes to abortion.  For example, would you support a law that says "Any woman who has an abortion at any stage should be subjected to the death penalty"?  Such a law would almost certainly reduce the number of abortions, but you would not support it, right? 

I think you can see where I am going with this. The fact that you exhibit leniency and would not accept such a law does not mean that you support abortion.  But the very same thing is true for many people who do not believe that abortion should be criminalized at all.  Just because they exhibit leniency does not mean that they support abortion. It does not mean that they desire for it to occur. But the principle in the two situations is exactly the same I think. The only thing that differs is the degree of leniency (not imposing the death penalty v. not imposing a jail sentence or a fine), but the principle (leniency in criminal sentencing = support) is the same.

So if you think that the person in #3 is pro-abortion, then I think you are left with a situation where you either 1) have to support draconian laws such as those that I mentioned above or 2) admit that you also are a "pro-abortion" because you also would exhibit some degree of leniency towards women who have had an abortion.

Is there any flaw in my logic?

8 hours ago, KnightofChrist said:

The problem here is that we're suppose to be comparing the killing of toddlers with killing of pre-born babies, using the same reasoning and logic for both the toddler and the baby. But you're using different reasons for each. So what of a distressed 15 year old mother who throws her 3 year old toddler in a dumpster out of shame or other fears as being "pro-murder"? Is she a murderer, if she chose to end the child's life, and if she supports her choice to kill her child is she a pro-murder? And what of those that support her choice to throw her 3 year old toddler in the dumpster, would they be pro-murder?

1) This is kind of an aside, but I don't think that, although a human being worthy of equal protection, the the killing of a 2 day old zygote (or whatever stage along the course of fetal development that you desire to pick) and the killing of a 3 year old toddler are morally equivalent.  I think if you read the Summa, Aquinas indicates that the penalties should be different for each situation. Also, for various other reasons the situations are different.  A woman likely has much greater attachment to a 3 year old toddler than a zygote. A woman is likely much more cognizant of the wrongness of killing a 3 year old toddler than a zygote. A woman has many more options for a 3 year old toddler than a zygote. The pregnant woman is also likely under much more societal pressure to kill than the mother of a 3 year old toddler.

2)  But even though I do not think the situations are analogous, I will assume, for the sake of discussion, that the killing of a 2 day old zygote is morally equivalent to the killing of a 3 year old toddler. You want me to use the same reasoning and logic for each situation. OK. I will try.

In my hypothetical I have an 18 year old woman who is a rape victim.  In situation A she has an abortion 2 days after conception.  In situation B she waits until the toddler is 3 and kills her toddler.  In both cases she has violated the 5th Commandment, and in that sense she is properly considered a murderer.

But is she "pro-murder" in either case? Again, I think it depends on the circumstances and her particular mindset at the times that she committed the crimes.  In situation A perhaps she is under the understandable durress at having to raise a child that she did not desire and who might be a constant reminder of her being raped. In situation B perhaps she is under the same form of durress, although at a later period of time.  Perhaps at one point she thought that she would be OK with it, but the constant reminder or the shame becomes too much for her to bear, at which point she decides to kill her toddler.  In both of these situations, even though she has committed a grave moral wrong, I don't think it is fair just to label her "pro-murder" and lump her in the same category with mass-murderers and so forth who see no moral wrong with, have no qualms about, or even enjoy killing people. The situations are just not the same.

8 hours ago, KnightofChrist said:

I'm sorry but again if just change pre-born baby out with 3 year old toddler there wouldn't be the same kind of call for understanding and sympathy.

Maybe not the same call for sympathy, because the situations are not analagous as I noted above, but you do see a lot of sympathy when these types of stories hit the news. Some people are like "She is a monster!"  But many other people often ask questions like "what kind of circumstances could have driven her to do such a thing?" You see that quite often, even in these types of circumstances. The article below discusses it.

http://tanadineen.com/COLUMNIST/Columns/KillerMoms-VS.htm

[Peace]

51 minutes ago, Nihil Obstat said:

Putting aside whether or not "pro-abortion" is an appropriate label, I think "pro-choice" is even more problematic. By allowing the abortion debate to be framed as simply a matter of choice, we are conceding too much. The language we use does impact how the question is perceived.

Simply framing it as one choice against another implies that both choices are more or less comparable, even if one or the other is preferable. This describes the people who describe who may want abortion decriminalized even if they do not themselves wish to have one. But it is not simply a choice in the sense of two options with pros and cons. It is a 'choice' between absolute evil on the one hand, and good on the other. One choice is simply wrong. This is the distinction that we absolutely have to maintain. We are not being objective by not recognizing this distinction; rather we are promoting continued ignorance.

I agree that it concedes, but maybe I don't think it concedes as much as you do. I wonder if it is better just to let them have their word for the sake of allowing discussion to happen. With someone who calls himself "pro-choice" you can use that as a point to discuss various things. For example, if having freedom of choice is important, why does the unborn child not have a choice in whether he lives or dies?