To have a choice is to be human. A choice supposes free will, and a free will necessitates responsibility. Where there exists responsibility, there will be rewards. In that sense, this writer is absolutely pro-choice. Our free will–our humanity–is a gift from God. We are to be held accountable for our actions, and this means that, with God’s grace, we can merit the reward of everlasting life and eternal happiness. We should thank God every day for giving us the choice of Heaven or Hell.
All too often, however, many of us miserable men choose the latter. Perhaps no group is more striking in this regard than the supposed “pro-choice” abortion supporters. They rightly acknowledge that we, as humans, should possess the free will which enables us to choose between good and evil, but they throw this great gift back in God’s face by choosing the evil of abortion.
Yes, pro-choicers, you should have the right to choose what to do with your body. God Himself decreed that when He gave us all free will. But when you willingly choose wrongly to the devastating tune of 60,000,000 slaughtered innocents, you are a menace to society. We cannot support your evil choice in any way, shape, or form; and in fact we have a serious obligation before God to prevent you from multiplying your carnage.
We don’t harass you out of hate, but rather out of charity. Our only two options are good or evil; Heaven or Hell. Please choose wisely.
TomNaegeleBlogs 
I’d like to ask you a question out of curiosity, just to see your answer. I’m sure you’re not a complete idiot (though everyone’s a bit of an idiot) from reading the posts on this blog, so maybe you can find a reasonable reply.
Have you ever heard of the chicken egg argument? I mean, think about it. A chicken egg to you is like a fetus is to a pro-choicer. It’s not a chicken, anymore than a fetus is to them a human. It’s not regarded as meat, you can eat it on a Friday. A chicken egg, though it will one day grow into a chicken, is not currently one. When you crack a chicken egg you don’t think “Oh, I’ve just slaughtered a chicken” because it isn’t one to you yet.
So people could compare a fetus to a chicken egg. It’s not yet a human being, so in killing it one doesn’t necessarily think “oh, I’m killing a baby”.
That’s probably badly put since I’m not a frequent writer or debater, and I’m only fifteen. I am also a pro-life person, so I’m not usually arguing their side. But I’m sure you, since you apparently have more than half a brain, can figure out my meaning. If you ever see this and have an argument for it, I’d really like to hear it. I don’t intend to carry on an actual full debate, but I’d still enjoy reading whatever you have to say.
Thanks,
Tina L.
Hi Tina! Good questions–apparently you also have more than half a brain 😉
The fundamental problem with the chicken egg argument is that it attempts to equate animal life with human life. Ending an innocent human life has absolutely nothing in common with eating either a chicken or its eggs.
Honest persons who refrain from eating meat as a matter of principle do also refrain from eating eggs. The chicken egg is literally a chicken life. In the Catholic Church, eggs were actually not permitted on fast days for many years due to this line of reasoning. Perhaps the best definition of meat, as given by St. Thomas Aquinas, is the flesh of animals who take their rest upon earth. Notice that eggs really do not have flesh, and thus were eventually permitted by the Church.
Perhaps it could also be said that fetuses do not have flesh, but they certainly do have life. A soul is what constitutes life–not the body. So when we crack an egg we are very much ending a chicken life, just as if we were to tear a fetus from the womb we would be ending a human life. But when it comes to the moral realm, there is no comparison between the two actions. Animal life and human life are on entirely different levels.
Hm, good answer. I had come up with the same reply, but you put it into words very neatly. Thank you for your reply and time ☺
Thank you! Thanks for reading 🙂
Tom Naegele, despite the alleged immorality of homosexuality, who has the better arguments for legally recognizing a same-sex marriage-pro-gay marriage advocates or people who say it is none of society’s business? Also, from the standpoint of pro-choice, what are your views regarding people who claim that being pro-choice implies automatic approval of an activity? Personally, I oppose drinking alcohol, smoking cigarettes/cigars/chewing tobacco, however, I keep my views to myself instead of advocating laws that tell people what they can and cannot put into their bodies, with the exception of a pregnant woman, where the chemicals being ingested would harm the unborn baby.
Perhaps our differences arise from our generally different outlook on things. You seem to be most concerned with how man treats his fellow man. I tend to be more concerned with how man treats his God.
Tom Naegele, we are on the same page regarding how humans treat God. As far as how human beings treat each other, even though this can be a loaded concept, no person has the right to impose their values upon people whose values are different, violate another person’s rights just to make the person committing the violation feel comfortable. An example: Same-sex marriage. People who oppose same-sex marriage have an easy solution: Don’t marry a person of the same biological sex. You said that God does not hate gay people, nor does he create them. On that point, you and I clearly disagree. Same-sex marriage should not have a moratorium placed on it, nor should love be subjected to a legal definition or be monopolized. You never directly answered my question as to who has the better argument for legal recognition of same-sex marriage-pro-gay marriage groups or people who may support gay marriage but say that it is none of the business of society at large, nor the business of the government. Marriage should be seen as a private contract between consenting adults. When government inserts itself into matters that are private, that is an overstep. Government should not even be acknowledging marriage at all. They should only acknowledge civil unions.