How I Am “Pro-Choice”

I am a Catholic.

As a result, I do my best to follow the teachings of the Catholic Church.

One of those teachings: No abortion:

“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.” ~ The Catechism of the Catholic Church (For further reading: The Catholic Church’s teaching on abortion)

I am against abortion, but I believe in a woman’s right to choose.


This is how:

I believe that every human being has free will.

Just like you can’t force someone to love you…

Harry Potter2

…God can’t force us to do what He says.


If a woman were to say to me “I’m getting an abortion,” I would do what I could to persuade her to not get one: 1) I would bring up stories of women who had an abortion and regretted it, 2) bring up stories of children who are thriving — either with their mother or in an adopted family — because they were allowed to be born, and 3) bring up all the data I could find that might persuade her.

But, in the end: Like God acknowledges my own free will…

Adam and Eve7

…I must acknowledge a woman’s free will.*

I must acknowledge that the choice to have or not have a baby is not mine to make.


I hope and pray that the day will come when no woman will have an abortion.

I want to do what I can to be the light in the darkness that Jesus wants me to be. (Matthew 5:14 — 16) And one of the ways I be that “light in the darkness” is by acknowledging the fact that I can’t force anyone to do anything.

Though I, personally, am against abortion, I am “pro-choice” in the sense that I acknowledge, and will respect, a woman’s God-given free will.

Why will I “…respect a woman’s God-given free will”? One of the reasons why is because the alternative is for me to try and force a woman to do what I want her to through horrifying means like, for example, shaming her, threatening to kill her, or threatening to leave her/kick her out of my house, if she has an abortion. That is not what Jesus would do. Jesus wants me to love others no matter what, and that’s what I’m going to do. (John 15:12)

*I’m not saying I’m Adam. What I’m saying is: Like Adam, I am a sinful, imperfect human being whose free will God nonetheless respects. When Adam ate the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, God didn’t blast him to ashes. God respected Adam’s free will. Part of that “respect” meant allowing Adam to experience the consequences of his free will. The “consequences of his free will” being, for example, the need to cover up: Adam was no longer naked without shame. (Genesis 2:25)


51 thoughts on “How I Am “Pro-Choice”

  1. So with this line of thinking I can use my free will to kill my husband. You should read the full section of the Catechism. It goes on to say: 2273 The inalienable right to life of every innocent human individual is a constitutive element of a civil society AND ITS LEGISLATION: (EMPHASIS MINE)

    “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.”

    “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.”

    As Christians we must not ever stop hungering and thirsting after justice. We as laity are to be renewing the temporal order. See the Decree on the Apostolate of the Laity (Apostolicam Actuositatem).

    1. “So with this line of thinking I can use my free will to kill my husband.”

      Yep. With free will, there is nothing you can’t do. But since you CAN do anything, that doesn’t mean you SHOULD do anything. Actions have consequences.

      As you know, we live in a society that, in terms of laws, does not respect the life of its citizens. For example: Abortion is legal, and the unborn are seen as “clumps of cells” — not human beings.

      Because people don’t acknowledge that “An unborn human is, in fact, an unborn human,” than, until the law regarding abortion changes, we, the laity, must speak in a language that pro-abortion people will understand.

      What language do I, personally, think pro-abortion people will understand? The language of free will. How do I “speak” that language?

      By pointing out that God has given every person the ability to do whatever they want. And, because of that, I can’t make a person’s choices for them — I can’t force anyone to do anything, or think anything.

      Abortion is a personal choice. If abortion were banned by the Supreme Court tomorrow, there’d still be women in America wanting one. In that case, since these women don’t care what the law says, how does a person convince these women not to have one? First: By saying “The choice is yours.” By letting these women know “I’m not out to try and make you do anything you don’t want to do.” By setting the minds of these women at ease. Then, these women will be more receptive to what you have to say.

      That was the point of my post: To put the minds of pro-abortion people at ease — to let such people know that I don’t consider them my enemy, I consider them my fellow human being.

    2. You’re right. You’ve figured out the contradiction of the post towards Catholic Teaching. The post is a complicit post. If the Author is Catholic, I’d suggest going to confession (if they do that) and ask the Priest of these thoughts for a better guidance.

      1. This is not a complicit post.

        This post is an acknowledgement of something I believe to be true.

        What is that “something I believe to be true”? This:

        That God gave mankind free will.

        And, thus, there is only so much that I can do before I have to respect a woman’s free will.

        I could say to that woman “Keep that baby or I’ll disown you,” but then I wouldn’t be respecting that woman’s free will.

        If she did choose not to have an abortion, it wouldn’t be because she chose of her own free will not to have it, it would be because she didn’t want to be disowned. It would be a choice made under duress. (i.e., Not a free choice.)

      2. You still haven’t address the Baby or the slave’s free will.

        What about the abolitionists who fought slave holders to for the free will of the innocent?

        Pray for courage and mercy.

      3. “You still haven’t address the Baby or the slave’s free will.”

        Because that’s not the point of this post.

        I’m talking about apples, and you’re asking me to talk about oranges.

        “What about the abolitionists who fought slave holders to for the free will of the innocent?”

        What about them? I’m not talking about slave holders or abolitionists in this post. I’m talking about women and their free will.

      4. It’s exactly the point. The baby murdered by allowing choice. If you say a man being beaten to death would you stop it? If you say no, at least you’d be consistent. However, not with the RCC.

  2. Well, if you do your best to follow Catholic teachings, I’d suggest you need to read this:

    CC 2265 Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.

    1. If you’re suggesting what I think you’re suggesting — an uprising against the government — I’ll pass.

      I have better things to do than storm the gates, torch in hand. Like loving my neighbor, praying for those who persecute me, and turning the other cheek.

      1. Why did it sound like that to you? I only referred you to text of the RCC? I suppose that’s simply another teaching you just don’t believe.

        It appears more and more Catholic by Baptism, not by choice? Or perhaps I should give you the benefit of the doubt and think that you are actually Pro-life. What you meant to say is that I am attempting to change the hearts and minds of people. However, that’s not how your post read, should I presume you’re in favor of federal fundingPlanned Parenthood? Or rather would disagree with a defunding it into other health clinics that treat women?

        The Church views abortion as murder and naturally murder abridges the free will of those who are murdered. The above makes it explicit to stop those from committing harm to the lives of others.

        There’s certain avenues to support such acts like driving someone to the clinic, not telling them their wrong, or by writing this post of this nature.

        For example, if a person was going to physically beat someone to death, by what you’ve conceded, you cannot prevent them without being a hypocrite. They’ve decided to use their body and it’s their choice. This is the view of the Church, you have disagreed with it. At conception there is a soul, which makes the above scenario the same.

        You can certainly believe the child is not a person, but again, that would be choosing modernism and not Catholicism.

        So are you either complicit or not?

      2. “Why did it sound like that to you?”

        This is why:

        “…those who legitimately hold authority…have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility. (CC: 2265)

        Words like “right to use arms” and “repel aggressors” made me think one thing: Uprising.

        Do you assume that I’m not pro-life? Because, if you are, you know what they say about people who assume, right? (Look it up.)

        For the record: I am pro-life. And I am not in favor of federal funding for abortion.

        Until the law of the United States says otherwise, abortion is not murder. And because abortion is not considered murder, than people have no qualms about seeking out an abortion. Because not everyone believes what you and I believe: That an unborn child is not a “clump of cells,” but a human being.

        “For example, if a person was going to physically beat someone to death, by what you’ve conceded, you cannot prevent them without being a hypocrite.”

        I don’t have to prevent them. The law prevents them. Just like I don’t have to prevent anyone from yelling “Fire!” in a movie theater. The law against yelling “Fire!” in a movie theater does the “preventing” for me.

        “At conception there is a soul, which makes the above scenario the same.”

        But not everyone believes that. Hence, why abortion is legal in the United States: Because the child in the womb is not considered a human being, and thus is not granted the rights that human beings are granted under the law.

        I am not complicit in anything.

        What I *am* doing is allowing a woman to make a choice that, under the law of the land in which she lives, she is able to make. What I *am* doing is respecting this woman’s God-given free will. When trying to convince a person to do or not to do something, there is only so much I can do before I have to say “God, it’s in your hands now.” Why? Free will.

      3. By respecting the woman’s free will, how are you respecting the child’s?

        It would be like respecting the free will of a slave owner to abridge the free will of his ‘property’.

        It’s simply complicit. Go ask a Priest, any and multiple ones. They will ask you to confess.

      4. The point of this post is “Respect a woman’s free will.”

        Why? Because it is the woman who is doing the job of carrying the child for 9 months. Without the woman, there would be no child.

        As a result, when debating the subject of abortion, I believe that the woman’s free will needs to be taken into account.

        That was the point of this post: To say “Women have the free will to make choices that I don’t agree with.”

      5. This post isn’t about the free will of a child.

        It is about the free will of a woman.

        I’m talking about apples, and you’re asking me to talk about oranges.

      6. You’ve said are. I allow the free will to murder babies, but I’m Pro-life. I’m not assuming anything. You’re in heresy.

        If these are your beliefs, fine, but what I am saying, it’s impossible to claim to be Catholic and be against the Church’s doctrine. A single drop of heresy is like a single drop of poison in a cup of water.

      7. How am I against the Church’s doctrine?

        All that I have essentially said, in my blog post and my comments to you, is the following:

        “God created man with free will. Thus, women have free will to do what they want with their bodies. Even if that means taking a life.”

        What part of that is “heresy”?

        That God gave man free will? Nope.

        That women can do what they want to their bodies? Nope.

        It is wrong to take a life. If the law of the land doesn’t say so, than the moral law says so.

        But. Not everyone believes in the moral law. And the law of the land says “Abortion? Go ahead!”

        Thus: How do you reach a person then?

        First, I believe, by acknowledging that person’s free will. By, for example, letting a woman who is considering abortion know that you’re not going to try and make her do something she doesn’t want to do (keep the baby). Thus, a woman’s mind is set at ease, and she is this more receptive to what you’re trying to do — save the baby. Why? Because this woman knows that you respect her.

      8. Pro-Choice: The woman’s right to choose to murder.

        Pro-Choice: The slave owner’s right to own slaves.

        “I’m anti-slavery! However, those southerners, they have free will to choose to keep their slaves in bondage. I won’t stop them.”

        “I’m Pro-life, However, those women can just murder all of their babies, it’s their free will. I won’t stop them.”

        “Those babies murdered by those Jewish Nazis were fine. It’s their free will, I won’t stop them.”

        If you don’t think that’s heresy, you’re far gone. I implore you to ask a priest and see what his words say. Do you honestly think he’d agree with you or me?

      9. I’ll tell you what it means:

        This post is called “How I Am Pro-Choice.”

        At the very end of my post, I say that I am “pro-choice” in the sense that I acknowledge, and respect, that a woman has free will.

        My point being: I am not “pro-choice” in the sense that I think abortion should be legal.

      10. You could not be more wrong, you could try, but you would not succeed.

        Again, double quotes don’t mean anything or at least not what you think that they mean and most people.

        You defended others from being able to murder children out of their “free will” You are pro-abortion, sorry but you’re absolutely complicit in their actions with that stance.

      11. “…double quotes don’t mean anything…”

        They don’t mean anything to you.

        I have not defended anyone. All I have done is state what I believe to be true: God gave man free will.

        I don’t agree with a person’s choice to have an abortion, but it is a choice that I have to respect. Why? Free will. I can’t make a person do, or think, anything.

      12. When did I ever say anything about a man beating another man to death?

        And, it’s not the same as abortion. Why? One reason is: One man can fight another man. A child in the womb can’t fight its mother.

      13. The Catechism states that if one is defenseless, you must come to their defense. So it’s even graver in the Child’s sense as they are completely defenseless. Thanks for admitting your heresy, finally.

      14. I will gladly go to a child’s defense.

        But, because that child is dwelling within the body of a woman (in a woman’s womb) there is only so much that I can do to defend the child before I start infringing on the woman’s free will.

      15. “The heresy of not defending the defenseless.”

        There is only so much a person can do to “defend the defenseless.”

        I could threaten a woman, saying I will disown her if she goes through with her abortion. I could put a gun to her head and say that if she has an abortion, I’ll kill her.

        Otherwise, I can’t “make” a woman not have an abortion.

        There is nothing that I myself can do to make a woman, who doesn’t want to keep her child, keep her child.

        When a woman is set on having an abortion — when all the arguments, facts, and statistics have failed to persuade her — it’s at that point where you’ve got to respect the woman’s free will — where you’ve got to not try and make her to do something she doesn’t want to do — and say “God, it’s in your hands now.”

      16. I think ultimately we’re talking on different levels. No, I wouldn’t suggest physically making her. However, I wouldn’t be openly tolerate to baby murdering either. Perhaps, this has been lost in the translation. Perhaps, you do defend life as much as need be and that message wasn’t received.

        However, we are all sinners, most have been guilty of rejecting the Catechism of the Church at one point or another. Let us just pray for forgiveness of our sins.

      17. I, personally, wouldn’t trouble a priest with this.

        To me, there’s nothing to trouble a priest with.

        Why? Because nothing I have said so far — 1) God created man with free will, 2) I can’t make a person do anything, 3) There’s only so much I can do when trying to convince a person of something — goes against the teachings of the Catholic Church.

      18. You wouldn’t trouble him because you know the answer. He’d tell you to confess because you’ve against doctrine, the one particular piece I cited to you, although your myopic modernism prevents you from seeing.

        You’re not Catholic, sorry but you’re not.

      19. “…you know the answer.”

        I know the answer? Wow. How do you know that I know that? You can see inside my mind? The only way you could do that is if you were a mind-reader.

        The Bible frowns on mind-reading.

        “You’re not Catholic…”

        Don’t assume things.

      20. Also:

        When I used the term “pro-choice” it was in quotes — the implication being that I call myself pro-choice (for reasons I explain in my post) but that I don’t agree with people who are pro-choice (I don’t support abortion).

      21. Also note that the Church instructs you to prevent the person from beating another person to death. It also instructs you to prevent the death of unborn children in anyway. However, the excuse of not abridging “free will” again is an excuse of complicity by the words of RCC.

        If you were to stop the man and still followed the message of your post. You’d be in contradiction of the Church’s teachings.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s