Bringing you the "Good News" of Jesus Christ and His Church While PROMOTING CATHOLIC Apologetic Support groups loyal to the Holy Father and Church's magisterium
Home About
What's New? Resources The Church Family Life Mass and
Ask A Catholic
Knowledge base
My Favorites
Feature pages
Meet the first Christians
Holy Quotes
My Catechism of the Catholic Church Page
My Holy Rosary page for Newbies
SWHJ Brown Scapular Program for the Faithful
Helpers of the Holy Souls
Most Recent Newsletters
Catholic Humor
Catholic Converts
Catholic Blogs
Mike's Theology Corner
New from the Vatican
News and Information
Mike's Theology Corner: The Dialogue: Who is really Pro-Choice?
  [ Mike's Theology home ] [ A Commentary on the Crisis in the Church with a solution ] [ A Catholic Apologetics problem: Sincere hearts but terrible results ] [ Perspective: The Annunciation and Birth of Our Lord ]
  [ Romney's Faith in America Speech. ] [ The Da Vinci Code and Opus Dei ] [ The Dialogue:
Who is really Pro-Choice? ]
[ On the Death of my Father ]

The Dialogue: Who is really Pro-Choice?

The following is a fictional conversation I overheard between two teenagers Peter Pro-Life and Paula Pro-Choice. I'm using it as a platform to express some Pro-Life views I have.

Peter Pro-Life:

Hi, Paula, how are things going with you?

Paula Pro-Choice:

Hi, Peter, fine I guess.

Peter Pro-Life:

Do you have a few seconds to explain to me the reasoning behind the American woman's pro-choice position?

Paula Pro-Choice:

Sure. As women we want and demand our reproductive freedoms. We believe women are equal to men in all things in our great country. We believe that since freedom is the cornerstone of our democratic republic, women should be just as free as men in all things, including our own reproductive choices; they are our own bodies.

Peter Pro-Life:

Hmmm. Interesting position. Do I or the women you are speaking for have the freedom in America to go out, buy a gun and kill any one they wish to?

Paula Pro-Choice:

Of course not, you idiot! You'd be put in jail and sentenced to life with no parole.

Peter Pro-Life:

So my freedom and the freedom of American women have limitations on them; or, as you are implying, there would be chaos and complete disorder in our country with people shooting at other people.

Paula Pro-Choice:

I'm confused. All we want is our freedoms.

Peter Pro-Life:

There is a difference between freedom and license.

  • Freedom is the free will to do what we should do.
  • License is the formal permission to do something by a constituted authority for the common good of our country.

    • Police officers using guns
    • Firemen using axes, or
    • Soldiers using explosives

Paula Pro-Choice:

You are getting off the topic, Peter!

They’re our bodies and we have the right to do what ever we want with our own bodies!

Peter Pro-Life:

Who gave you that looney idea, the Democratic Party or Planned Parenthood?

Paula Pro-Choice:

  • What are you talking about?
  • Isn't that obvious?

Peter Pro-Life:

No, it isn't. If your body, is your body, jump off the end of a cliff or ravine.

Paula Pro-Choice:

Are you crazy! I would be killed!

Peter Pro-Life:

OK, If your body, is your body, please run into oncoming highway traffic at 80 MPH.

Paula Pro-Choice:

Again, are you crazy! I would be killed!

Peter Pro-Life:

But if your body, is yours, why can't you do these things?

The reason why is because your body, is not your body, just as my body, is not my body. If you do indeed possess your own body, try one of these things and just bring yourself back from the dead like Jesus did.

You are a Catholic Christian who believes in the Resurrection, don't you?

Paula Pro-Choice:

You don't understand Peter. American women believe such a private and personal decision like having an abortion should solely be make between the woman and her doctor.

Peter Pro-Life:

Which woman?

Paula Pro-Choice:

The women carried the baby you idiot!

  • Who else?

Peter Pro-Life:

What about the (fe)male baby in the mother's womb Paula!

  • Whose protecting the reproductive rights of the fetus in the womb of a pregnant mother?
  • Why aren't your woman's group standing up for the reproductive freedoms of these new born female fetus'?

Even our courts recognize this Paula. Remember the Laci Peterson case. Scott Peterson got try in a court of law for, not one murder, but two counts of murder: Laci and her unborn baby.

  • What doctor, who has taken the Hippocratic Oath to do no harm to anyone, would support a decision to kill a baby woman in a mother's womb?
  • Do the women's organizations you are involved in support the reproductive rights of these (fe)male fetus'?
    • If so, how are they pro-woman? or
    • do they want to first test to see if the baby is a woman?
  • Why aren't they interested in protecting the reproductive rights of male fetus' before birth?
  • Where are your ethics Paula?

If you are against women killing any person, baby boy or baby girl, you wouldn't be
pro-choice because Pro-choice in our society is Anti-choice. That fetus in a mother's womb, male or female, has no chance to make choices in the future.

Paula Pro-Choice:

You're confusing me again. The point American women are trying to make is that, in the same way men control their bodies, women should have the right to govern their bodies when it comes to choice.

Peter Pro-Life:

What choice Paula?

One choice has already been made: the choice of hopping in the sack irresponsibly and treating sex like a recreational sport. The consequences of this activity end up in:

    • irresponsible motherhood, and
    • gutless, irresponsible fatherhood, and
    • if the woman is using birth control pill, serious damage to the woman's body.

Being given a body from above implies a responsibility to strive to control ones body, until one finds a life-time mate who they can bond and have babies together over a lifetime within the Sacrament of Marriage, the krazy glue of any Marriage.

Yeah, I know in today's culture it's not easy, but waiting until marriage is far better that taking on the burden of an irreversible action you can't take back and will regret later.

Plus your women's organizations never tell women about the tragic side effects the pill has on a female's anatomy and chemistry — it destroys it.

Paula Pro-Choice:

Peter, being a man, you obviously don't know anything about women and having babies. What you are calling a baby, is not a baby yet.

Peter Pro-Life:

  • Where did you get that crazy information, Paula, from a Planned Parenthood web site?

Medically, that's not what the American Medical Association states and that organization is made up of both men and women doctors.

Legally, that's not what the law has reflected in previous years where men who have shot pregnant women have been tried on two counts of murder.

I don't have to be a woman to understand Human Biology 101.

You, and the women who think along your same line, are Anti-Choice. You don't want the newborn baby in the mother's womb to make choices. Many times:

  • the young woman with an unexpected pregnancy
  • the daughter's father (and/or) mother, and
  • family members

want to kill the baby for temporal or worldly conveniences or not to embarrass the family name and tradition.

I've heard sad stories of woman who wish to carry their baby to term but their parents and family members pressure them to have an abortion against their wishes. If you know of women in these situation have them contact any of the organizations I've listed below.

Pro-Life people are the Real Pro-Choice people.

We are both Pro-Life and Pro-Choice, if you understand what we mean by being

We want the newborn baby in the mother's womb and the mother to live and both make choices.

  • Why?

Because the natural choice is Life, not death, which is the result of an abortion.

As my sister-in-law has told me: "Peace begins in the womb" and she is right!

You could also say, Terrorism begins in the womb.

Paula Pro-Choice:

  • Where in the world did you get this latter idea from?

If you ask any woman if she is pro-choice, she won't equate being pro-choice with being pro-life.

I am Pro-Choice and proud to be Pro-Choice!

Peter Pro-Life:

You and the rest of American women have bought into the phony verbal re-engineering of a Planned Parenthood-chosen-set-of-words in our culture over the past 50 or more years.

This was initiated by TV and Radio media executives both on a local and national level, many whom are either associated with Planned Parenthood or sympathized with them and similar baby-killing organizations. These same people sympathize with the homosexual lobby which pays them big bucks to promote a unnatural behavior among people of the same sex.

Paula Pro-Choice:

OK, Mister Smarty Pants, how are these sets of words re-defined?

Peter Pro-Life:

Planned Parenthood has re-framed the pro-life/pro-death argument to one based on choice.

  • Why?

Because any action that implies taking away any ones choice also implies taking away their freedom or free will: a God-given gift, if understood correctly as I explained earlier when talking about freedom and license.

Using their re-engineered vocabulary:

Someone who holds on to a Pro-Life view must always be called Anti-Choice.
Their views are never to be called Pro-Life.

Using their false language, someone who holds on to a (Pro Abortion/Pro Choice) view should always be called Pro Choice, even though the fetus in any mother's womb never gets to make any choices for themselves.

Pro Abortion organizations are using what God has given all men and women by nature:

free will — to destroy the very definition of freedom and free will itself.

Translating their language, choice equals death:

e.g. Pro-Choice is Pro-Death (of a live baby in a mother's womb.)

As my colleague Paul said to a questioner asking if they should leave the Church over this, he replied:

[So what you are telling us is that you ] believe it is morally okay for women to have their innocent children killed before they are born.

[And you're asking us] should [you] leave the Church because [you] believe in this kind of murder?

I believe graduates of colleges and universities that have received degrees in Mass Communication and Broadcast Media have been indoctrinated by godless teachers with these type of Planned Parenthood ideas. The college (and/or) university presidents stand by cowardly because they fear getting sued by the ACLU, the most dangerous organization in America today.

Paula Pro-Choice:

Hmmm. Let me think about what you have said. I do know some lady friends of mine that agree with some of what you have said.

Peter Pro-Life:

In what way?

Paula Pro-Choice:

They are personally opposed to abortion, but don't believe they have the right to personally impose their view on their other girl friend's lifestyle.

Peter Pro-Life:

With friends like that, who needs enemies?

  • Is that the real reason Paula, or could it be they are too afraid to tell their friends what is best for them?

I wouldn't be having this discussion with you if I didn't care about you as a friend and person. Plus the after effects of an abortion on the mother and father have been documented as being very painful and long lasting.

I'm not recommending that young, pro-life Catholic women be judgmental toward their friends in difficult situations, but rather compassionate, understanding, and helpful.

If a young pro-life woman knows of a friend who is thinking about an abortion, she should encourage her not to have one. A newborn baby is a gift from God Himself and has a specific purpose in life. Unexpected pregnancies are only unexpected in our eyes, not Our Lord's Eyes.

If a pregnant woman cannot find anyone to help her care for her baby, she should go to the local Catholic diocese where she lives. They will be happy to help her in any difficult situation she is in, whether she is a Catholic or not.

If a pregnant woman doesn't feel feel capable of raising an unplanned child there are numerous families who are more the eager to adopt a child. In many, if not in all, cases a strong relationship develops between the family that adopts the newborn child and the mother (and father, if he is interested) of the newborn child.

Paula Pro-Choice:

All right Peter, that's good information to know, but one situation where I'm sure you will agree with me that abortion is a necessary evil, in cases when young women are victims of rape or incest.

Surely, you wouldn't be against abortions for young women who have gone through such a terrible experience.

Peter Pro-Life:

Let me see if I understand the Pro-Choice logic correctly in this instance:

Because a young woman has had a terrible experience of being raped or is a victim of incest, you want her to undergo another terrible experience of having a new life in her womb killed.

  • Is this the Pro-Choice view?

Just because a family member or stranger outside the family commits a criminal act doesn't mean the innocent, unborn child deserves a death penalty for their criminal act and once again, Paula, when you bring up the issue of women and abortion, you never talk about the lack of choice for the (fe)male fetus in the mother's womb.

We don't feel with our brain's Paula, we think with our brains.

Paula Pro-Choice:

Peter, you are not listening. The mother of a rape:

  • has no father
  • has no money
  • has no support
  • has no hope
  • and has no one to look over and take care of her and her newborn child!

Peter Pro-Life:

This is the argument from Planned Parenthood. It is a message of despair.

The Pro-Life message is one of hope, Paula! Life is still life. There are many families that would be more than willing to care and assist such a young lady in this given situation, even in liberal cities like Boston, Massachusetts!

Yes, there are conservatives in Massachusetts, believe it or not!

Also there have been studies done on women who are victims of rape and incest. These studies show that most, if not all the time, women who have opted not to have an abortion will, with time, get over the traumatic experience of the rape or incest and bond with their child.

This is in contrast to those who have chosen to have an abortion after a rape or unwanted incest encounter and never get over the terrible abortion procedure done to them.

Paula Pro-Choice:

  • What about women who have had abortions?
  • Why has the Pro-Life side been so harsh on these people who have found themselves in very difficult situations?

Peter Pro-Life:

It's my personal opinion that at the beginning we did have problems meeting the pastoral needs of women who have had abortions but that has changed dramatically.

I can only speak for the Catholic Church which has established Project Rachel ministries in many, if not all, Catholic dioceses as an outreach to women who, for whatever reason, chose to have an abortion but now regret it and wish to be reconciled with the Church and Our Lord Jesus Himself, The Author of All Life.

There are also other numerous Pro-Life organizations to assist and aid pregnant women who don't feel capable of raising an unplanned child.

Paula Pro-Choice:

How do I find these numerous ministries?

Peter Pro-Life:

The best site for information on the aftermath of abortion is:

Project Rachel -

For any woman contemplating having an abortion, here are some pre-abortion web sites:

Here are some post-Abortion web sites:

When a woman is resolved in having an abortion, one of the best ways to stop it is to encourage them to consider the questions asked on this page:

Abortion Safety Checklist

You have to appeal to the self interest of the woman, who is sort of in the position of a hostage taker. It is akin to bills to improve standards and require hospital admitting privileges. There are two victims, and when we can't save one, we try to save the other. The Church has said we can take incremental approaches as long as we keep the ultimate pro-life goal in view and are not intending abortion.

Do you mind if I follow-up on one of your initial statements?

Paula Pro-Choice:

Sure, go ahead.

Peter Pro-Life:

You said:

As women we want and demand our reproductive freedoms. We believe women are equal to men in all things in our great country. We believe that since freedom is the cornerstone of our democratic republic, women should be just as free as men in all things, including our own reproductive choices; they are our own bodies.
  • Can a woman become pregnant without having sexual relations with a man?

Paula Pro-Choice:

Peter, Have you been drinking? Of course not!

Peter Pro-Life:

So at least one, if not two, reproductive choices have already been made, no matter what state of mind both parties allowed themselves to be in and you now appear to be referring to a desired second choice.

  • If American women chooses to have sexual relations with a man, why does the woman alone determine the consequences of a mutual choice made between one man and one woman to have sexual relations?
  • What say does the man have, in what you call, your second reproductive choice?
  • What say does the man have if he wants to support and take care of his newborn child?

Paula Pro-Choice:

But it's our bodies, Peter!!

Peter Pro-Life:

So instead of mutual responsibility between immature, sexually-active men and women, the philosophy of your American women is a juvenile statement along the lines of:

Possession is 100% of the law.

  • If the state legalized slavery as it did in the past against African American people, and religious people objected, would you say the same thing: That slavery is acceptable (since, after all, from the perspective of the slave owners, they bought the slaves and they belong to them, like your argument that it's the woman's body?

That is sad, Paula, and manifests shallow, irresponsible maturity, just as much, if not more than, the (man/father) involved in the situation.

If you care for the rights of American women, why don't you care equally for the rights of American men and male fetus' or are you a female chauvinist?

Paula Pro-Choice:

Sorry, Peter, my cell phone is ringing and I have to go.

Peter Pro-Life:

Don't forget to vote on election day!

Paula Pro-Choice:

I won't. How will you be voting?

Peter Pro-Life:

Well, despite the many sins and shortcomings of the party, there is only one party whose platform is generally:

  • both Pro-Life and Pro-Traditional Marriage
  • is striving to put Supreme Court Justices on the Court who are not political ideologues but will interpret the constitution strictly, and
  • appear to be protecting our country from planes flying into our buildings since 9/11.

The Republican party.

If I thought the Democratic party as a whole was striving to promote Christian values,
I would vote for them, but I don't see it.

It appears they see abortion and so-called gay marriage as family values.

As a faithful Catholic, neither I nor my Church see it that way!

Two men nor two women can bring forth new life. New life within the family is the reason why, for centuries our government, founded on Judeo-Christian values, has given the traditional family with one man and one woman special prerogatives.

That said, any concept of a Democratic Catholic is an oxymoron. They are a contraction in terms. The word Catholic, besides meaning universal, means the faith according to its totality. Meaning we don't pick and choose what we wish to believe.

The Democratic party on the important key moral issues the Church stands up for, takes an anti-Catholic, or opposing view while justifying it on secondary issues like the poor and peace and social justice issues. These are code words for liberal morals.

Sadly, there are many politicians, who claim to be Catholic, but deny the very core teachings of the Church, they say, they believe in.

Take care and talk to you later!


Paula Pro-Choice:


Please report any and all typos or grammatical errors.
Suggestions for this web page and the web site can be sent to Mike Humphrey
© 2012 Panoramic Sites
The Early Church Fathers Church Fathers on the Primacy of Peter. The Early Church Fathers on the Catholic Church and the term Catholic. The Early Church Fathers on the importance of the Roman Catholic Church centered in Rome.