Welcome to Gaia! ::

Exactly. "us all" have actually LIVED. I don't consider sitting in a sac "living." I consider it "waiting to live."
I believe so. I don't see how you can understand the concept of God if you die before you can understand anything.

So why would He give souls to children He knew would never have a chance to live? I can't see that He would.

They do more than sit in a sac, though. Moving 50 times an hour is doing more than just sitting in a sac.

By 9 weeks they can hear loud noises. They've got brainwaves. They've got a preference for which hand they use. During the third trimester, they even DREAM. They also practice walk around the mother's womb. They can taste and they can see. They can hear. In fact, they have favorite sounds. During the second trimester, fetuses have even been known to have favorite stories, though it's not the story but the cadence in the voices that they respond to. They can smile and frown and suck their thumbs, they can hiccup and sleep, and feel pain.

If God only gives souls to those who can understand Him, then none of us has a soul, for He is too great for us to comprehend. If you are saying that he only grants souls to those with understanding, that means we don't get souls until we're toddlers at earliest. I don't think that God discriminates based on health or mental capacity. That's just me personally, I thought that God loved us despite our physical weaknesses, and he didn't reject people who are mentally retarded or too young or any other reason they don't understand. Is God's love dependant on time?

xd That is awesome. It reminds me of that simpsons episode where they're looking at the sonogram, bit earlier than your niece of course, with Bart and Dr. Hibert is like, "If I didn't know any better, I'd swear he was trying to moon us."

Of course he knows your lifetime. But if he loves us all, then surely he wouldn't deny eternal life to those who cannot understand simply because of their innocence.

The soul humans have is an eternal one as opposed to a temporary soul on earth; like how animals have personalities and character traits but do not have eternal souls. Why would God deny an eternal soul to someone He loves due to something they can't possibly help? Meaning, is His love dependant on time...however much time it takes you to understand? Are there humans on earth without eternal souls? This is against Church teaching. Jesus said to be like children. Those young children couldn't understand the choices they were making. Some of them would have died young. Were they without souls? Why would he love somone and hold that person as an example if that person did not have an eternal soul and was not loved by God the father?

Well. I'm excited to be the first (I think?) pro-choice Catholic on this thread.

That's right. Pro choice Catholic. No, not anti-life or pro-death. Pro-choice. I am not against bringing new life into the world, nor am I for killing babies. What I'm for is giving every man and woman a right to choose.

We aren't here to force our beliefs and doctrine onto the rest of the world. Jesus told us to go and spread his word, not to force others to follow us just because we say so. It simply isn't our prerogative to assume the belief that we can decide how other people should live their lives. We, as Catholics, can't make the rest of the world follow what the church says about contraception. It's that simple. We CAN'T do that. It simply won't happen.

That's why I'm pro-choice. While I, personally, pray I am never in the situation to even CONSIDER an abortion, I don't think my personal beliefs should affect anyone, unless they ask for my specific opinion. I have a button which I proudly display which says "Pro Choice, Pro Child" and I think it sums up my opinion nicely -- you should be able to choose, although I would suggest you choose a child. But I SUGGEST that, not FORCE you to follow my religious beliefs.

Now, on general birth control, from the pill to condoms: The church, yes, does condemn the use of all birth control other than natural birth control. The reason for this is that by using artificial birth control, it's like telling your mate, "Hey, I love you and want to be with you for the rest of my life and want to share everything that is me with you -- except my reproductive organs. You can't have those. Nope." In marriage, we are committing EVERY part of ourselves to our husband/wife and by using birth control, we're contradicting that sacred vow.

Natural birth control, therefore, is allowed because it's not restricting anything. It's just ... being smart. When using the natural birth control method, a couple is still being as close and as holy as possible together, but if they're simply not ready for kids, then they can control that possibility. It's not a hundred percent full proof, but with help and classes, it can be pretty close.

That said, I'm not sure what I personally believe about the usage of birth control. I haven't had to personally deal with it, seeing as I'm not married yet, and I think I won't really form my solid opinion until then, until I can discuss the issue with my husband.

Also, I fear having an abortion done on me against my will.

It's legal if the doctor feels it is necessary, even if I'm willing to die in childbirth rather than abort.

I'm afraid of my future 12 year old daughter dying from a botched abortion when I had no idea she was pregnant.

I'm afraid of an abusive man holding a gun to my head and making me go into a clinic.

Planned Parenthood even admits that a big reason women abort is that other people want them to. 30% of abortions are coerced. What kinda choice is that? Then there's PAS, which is really dangerous. Women who abort are also more likely to be abusive and develop substance dependancies. How exactly is this helping women? 10-20% have abortions with no negative impact on their lives. As much as I'd like to say, they killed their children, they deserve the pain, I can't. I feel for them and they deserve better. More women died from abortion after it became mandatorily on demand in all states than before it was.

And men have no choice in the abortion decision, legally. They must pay child support if women keep the children or lose their children if women decide not to, without having any say in it. The reproductive rights are only given to women. Men are stripped of their reproductive rights yet left with reproductive responsibility. Is it, "It takes two to make a baby," or, "My body, my choice?" Having both is unfair to men, and saying, "He shoulda thought about that before he had sex," well....she should've too then, shouldn't she? Or does she have more rights based on her gender?

Yes, but if we were truly prochoice in that sense, then there would be no laws.

Everyone has a choice.

Whether or not it is a legally condoned choice does not make it less than or more of a choice.

Any choice has consequences.

When I do the following, I run the risk of the negative affects:

drink milk with breakfast -> upset my stomach (ARD)
sleep in -> miss the bus
take a test -> fail it
steal car -> wind up in jail

The fact that those consequences are negative and imposed on me by things completely out of my control. The last two were by other people. If I slacked off and got an F, why did I? I chose to slack off, so why should I be frowned upon by people who don't agree with my choices? If I studied, and I worked, but I got the test wrong, why should I still get an F?

If I steal a car to get to work, and I"m caught, why should I be punished? I chose that car. I needed to get to work. I could have taken public transportation but it's really difficult to get around here. I took the option with the least hastle...taking a car.

I have the free will to do it, but it does not mean I am exempt from the consequences. God gave us free will to do things, but we can't get up to heaven, say, "Well I'm not sorry, I don't choose Jesus, but you gave me free will!" and expect anything other than hell. If the government imposed mind control devices that prevented women from choosing to abort, that'd be one thing, but that's not the case, it'd be allowing women to make the choice but enforcing consequences for them. Actually, it used to be directed at abortionists MUCH more then the women themselves. Few women were ever punished for having abortions, which is what it'd end up doing again.