Abortion,Catholic tip of spear? Why?

[portarica]

The one issue that seems to be most definitive here is abortion. Rightly so, but why rightly so?

Is it because it so clearly delineates what Jesus taught about treating the least like they may be Him? Or does it stand on its own merits?

Is the opposition to abortion like our love for our children in the respect that we can love all of them equally as much, yet reserve some favor for each of our kids at the appropriate time or is it like the love showered upon one of our kids at the expense of another ?

Is being pro life just a line in the sand ? Or is it one of our foot prints in the sand or perhaps a line that our foot prints won’t cross.

Does being pro-life entail more than being just concerned with the policies of sexual relationships or does being pro-life encompass all our relationships?

Peace

 

[4everjustjesus]

The one issue that seems to be most definitive here is abortion. Rightly so, but why rightly so?

Is it because it so clearly delineates what Jesus taught about treating the least like they may be Him? Or does it stand on its own merits?

Is the opposition to abortion like our love for our children in the respect that we can love all of them equally as much, yet reserve some favor for each of our kids at the appropriate time or is it like the love showered upon one of our kids at the expense of another ?

Is being pro life just a line in the sand ? Or is it one of our foot prints in the sand or perhaps a line that our foot prints won’t cross.

Does being pro-life entail more than being just concerned with the policies of sexual relationships or does being pro-life encompass all our relationships?

Peace

Hey, I hope this answers some of your questions:

Firstly, the Church is concerned with it quite simply because it is a moral issue.

It’s importance is determined by the fact that it deals with the basis of all things- life.

If we lose our respect for life, where will we go with the rest of our issues?

Not speaking against abortion would be like not speaking out against the Holocaust or any other mass genocides…

And yes, it encompasses ALL our relationships.

 

[Barbkw]

Because the Trinity is a family and we each are His adopted sons and daughters. We humans can reproduce life but He alone created life. Sanctity of life is foundational to all other human freedoms, a gift from God.

Sexual acts are a responsiblity, they are not a license.

Fr. Frank has said that a person running for office, needs to know the difference between serving the public and killing the public.

Safe, legal and rare was always a lie.

There have been 50 million (50,000,000) children killed through the use of surgical abortions in the United States since Roe v Wade.

 

[Lancer]

I think I understand what you are getting at/asking…and it is a good perspective question in my opinion. My answer: Yes…it is all of what you ask in your questions…and much, much more…critically much, much more…it is the defining element of us as a people.

How would you define in summation…the bottom line of the Jewish people/story of their relationship in covenant with God…the God of their Old Testament…in their relationship to…reverence to…obedience to…gratitude to…The God of Abraham, The God of Issac and The God of Jacob (Israel)…in sum…they missed God’s greatest Gift…His Word Made Flesh…His Incarnate Son…as their Messiah. Now look at us and all we have been given by God…through Christ…in the Holy Spirit (in His Church): legalized abortion is a definitive fact that we too are missing our greatest call as Christians. A baby in the womb…at any stage of development…is more protected and is safer in an Islamic nation than any Western (Christian) nation. Said another way…suppose you were just ordered to report for military duty in Afghanistan…and would be with the Marines in southern Kandahar…riding around dodging IEDs and sniper bullets…you are still light years"safer"…than a baby in the womb…who can be wiped off the face of the earth and out of this life without any chance of defending his or her life…or as (worldly theologian and gunfighter) William Munny (Cling Eastwood in*** Unforgiven***) said…its a terrible thing to kill a m n…you take away all that he has…and all that he is ever going to have"!

More precisely to your question…I believe the late Pope John Paul II in his theology of “personhood”…has to be one of the best in Church history…to answer your questions…here are two excerpts that are my favorites which are quite revealing about what kind of people we really are in the “good old” USA…(and actually quite ominous/scary when you look at the reality of where we actually are in facts/data on the evil of abortion in the USA…let alone in the whole family of nations in world).
*[my emphasis in red really pierced me…for your consideration only).

Pax Christi

**Pope John Paul II: Apostolic Exhortation *The Vocation and the ***

Mission*** of the Lay Faithful in the Church and in the World (Christifideles Laici), 1988*****:**
"The inviolability of the person, which is a reflection of the absolute inviolability of God, finds its primary and fundamental expression in the inviolability of human life.** Above all, the common outcry, which is justly made on behalf of human rights – for example, the right to health, to home, to work, to family, to culture – is false and illusory** if the right to life, the most basic and fundamental right and the condition of all other personal rights, is not defended with maximum determination“ (19).

Pope John Paul II: Encyclical Letter The Gospel of Life

(Evangelium Vitae), 1995
“This view of freedom *leads to **a serious distortion of life in society. *****If the promotion of the self is understood in terms of absolute autonomy, people inevitably reach the point of rejecting one another … At that point, everything is negotiable, everything is open to bargaining:even the first of the fundamental rights, the right to life.
“[A]t the level of politics and government: the original and inalienable right to life is questioned or denied on the basis of a parliamentary vote or the will of one part of the people—even if it is the majority. This is the sinister result of a relativism which reigns unopposed: the “right” ceases to be such, because it is no longer firmly founded on the inviolable dignity of the person, but is made subject to the will of the stronger part. In this way democracy, contradicting its own principles, effectively moves towards a form of totalitarianism. The State is no longer the “common home” where all can live together on the basis of principles of fundamental equality, but is transformed into a tyrant State, which arrogates to itself the right to dispose of the life of the weakest and most defenseless members, from the unborn child to the elderly, in the name of a public interest which is really nothing but the interest of one part. … Really, what we have here is only the tragic caricature of legality; the democratic ideal, which is only truly such when it acknowledges and safeguards the dignity of every human person, *is betrayed in its very foundations: *“How is it still possible to speak of the dignity of every human person when the killing of the weakest and most innocent is permitted? In the name of what justice is the most unjust of discriminations practiced: some individuals are held to be deserving of defense and others are denied that dignity?” When this happens, the process leading to the breakdown of a genuinely human co-existence and the disintegration of the State itself has already begun.
“To claim the right to abortion, infanticide and euthanasia, and to recognize that right in law, means to attribute to human freedom a *perverse and evil significance: *that of an *absolute power over others and against others. *This is the death of true freedom” (n.20).
**

 

[manualman]

The things that get the most corrective attention by the Church are those things in which there are the most and loudest voices trying to attempt to declare something evil as something good.

It would be pretty silly to emphasize that we as a society should NEVER tolerate rape. Who’s going to disagree? There doesn’t need to be a large persuasive effort put into that message because the mission is so largely accomplished. There simply is NO organized effort out there attempting to legitimize rape.

Abortion, on the other hand is just as serious a matter and there IS a huge and well funded effort out there to “spin” it into a good and constructive option for women. It NEEDS the spotlight of truth thrown onto it.

Look at it another way. Every American ought to know who Jefferson Davis was (President of the Confederacy - Civil War). Who knows what his stance on tarrifs was? Did he drink or was he an early abolitionist? Where did he stand on western growth of the USA (pre civil war)? Nobody knows. History remebers him because he made his stand in favor of an abominable position (that states have a right to declare certain classes of human beings chattle property and that Federal Law has no jurisdiction to intervene). History today treats abolitionists as heros, but in their own day they were considered narrow minded single issue voters. Sound familiar?

Back to the original point, we hear massive emphasis on the immorality of abortion from the Church today because it is the most horrific abuse of human rights in our culture that has a culturally ‘respectable’ group of defenders. It is one thing to acknowledge ones weakness, but still fail to reform oneself. It is quite another to declare ones vices to actually be virtues. The latter is much more dangerous than the former.

 

[truthscout]

Because the Trinity is a family and we each are His adopted sons and daughters. We humans can reproduce life but He alone created life. Sanctity of life is foundational to all other human freedoms, a gift from God.

Sexual acts are a responsiblity, they are not a license.

Fr. Frank has said that a person running for office, needs to know the difference between serving the public and killing the public.

Safe, legal and rare was always a lie.

There have been 50 million (50,000,000) children killed through the use of surgical abortions in the United States since Roe v Wade.

It is reported (Guttmacher Institute) that 28 percent of women obtaining abortions identify themselves as Catholic. NPF is the cornerstone of Catholic teaching on reproductive management. Any thoughts as to how this method is failing Catholic women, and why?

Safe abortion can be procured in the United States. It is also a legal medical procedure. Rare? Not so much. How is it that you claim “safe, legal and rare was always a lie”?

truthscout

 

[edwest2]

In 1972, I watched on television as women told us to have compassion on poor young women dying from back-alley abortions. The metal wire coat hanger was the alleged instrument used by some back alley abortions. Some women, we were told, bled to death after some of these abortions. Our Christian compassion was being called on.

We were also led to believe that legal abortion was meant to be a ‘use in case of emergency only’ procedure. That meant in cases of rape or incest or to save the life of the mother.

We were told that 5 to 10,000 women died per year from illegal abortions. Later, Bernard Nathanson, co-founder of the Natonal Abortion Rights Action League, admitted this number was false. It was also admitted that it was decided not to correct this number since promotting the cause and changing the law was more important.

priestsforlife.org/lte/lte27.html

WE WERE LIED TO. And Christians were given the following message: "Abortion is the most difficult decision a woman will ever have to make and is between her and her God.
" This at a time when most Christians actually had a greater concern of what God might think.

What we got was not just an emergency procedure but abortion on demand.

guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html

In the late 1970s, a little girl told my mom: “My mom was going to have a little brother or a little sister but she’s not going to have one anymore.”

God bless,
Ed

 

[Kropotkin]

The one issue that seems to be most definitive here is abortion. Rightly so, but why rightly so?

Is it because it so clearly delineates what Jesus taught about treating the least like they may be Him? Or does it stand on its own merits?

Is the opposition to abortion like our love for our children in the respect that we can love all of them equally as much, yet reserve some favor for each of our kids at the appropriate time or is it like the love showered upon one of our kids at the expense of another ?

Is being pro life just a line in the sand ? Or is it one of our foot prints in the sand or perhaps a line that our foot prints won’t cross.

Does being pro-life entail more than being just concerned with the policies of sexual relationships or does being pro-life encompass all our relationships?

Peace

Having lived in a number of predominantly Catholic countries, namely Poland and Italy and spending a lot of time in other countries around the world I can honestly say that the obsession with abortion in America is unique. I am certain that this is due to America’s reluctance to tackle other social issues which generally involve the redistribution of wealth.

 

[Brendan]

As Pope John Paul II said (see Lancer’s post), the right to life is the fundamental right upon which all other human rights are based.

If it does not exist, then we can make no progress in advancing any other human rights.

And to deny the right to life is to deny all other human rights, pretty much by definition.

 

[Tom_8_0_0]

It is reported (Guttmacher Institute) that 28 percent of women obtaining abortions identify themselves as Catholic. NPF is the cornerstone of Catholic teaching on reproductive management. Any thoughts as to how this method is failing Catholic women, and why?

Safe abortion can be procured in the United States. It is also a legal medical procedure. Rare? Not so much. How is it that you claim “safe, legal and rare was always a lie”?

truthscout

It’s not at all a safe procedure. You see, in every abortion, the child dies. That seems like quite an unsafe procedure to me.

So if it’s neither safe nor rare, our morality should surpass its legality.

 

[bridesmaid]

It’s not at all a safe procedure. You see, in every abortion, the child dies. That seems like quite an unsafe procedure to me.

So if it’s neither safe nor rare, our morality should surpass its legality.

“Our morality”? Or Catholic morality? Or Jewish morality? Or Hindu morality?

Or my morality?

bridesmaid

 

[Black_Rose]

Look at it another way. Every American ought to know who Jefferson Davis was (President of the Confederacy - Civil War). Who knows what his stance on tarrifs was? Did he drink or was he an early abolitionist? Where did he stand on western growth of the USA (pre civil war)? Nobody knows. History remebers him because he made his stand in favor of an abominable position (that states have a right to declare certain classes of human beings chattle property and that Federal Law has no jurisdiction to intervene). History today treats abolitionists as heros, but in their own day they were considered narrow minded single issue voters. Sound familiar?

One can infer Jefferson Davis’ political positions:

He probably oppose tariffs, given that they were an example of the principle of federalism (in this case the supremacy of federal law over state and local law) trumping “state’s rights” which opposed tariffs. One would remember the Tariff of 1828, which favored the manufacturing interests of the North at the expense of the agrarian interests of the South. Senator John C. Calhoun, vehemently opposed the tariff, urged South Carolina to nullify the tariff within its jurisdiction.

I would also suppose that he was opposed to the Freeport Doctrine, famously advocated by Stephen Douglas when opposed by Abraham Lincoln during his unsuccessful campaign for US Senator of Illinois, of letting the issue of slavery in new territories be decided through popular sovereignty.

As Pope John Paul II said (see Lancer’s post), the right to life is the fundamental right upon which all other human rights are based.

If it does not exist, then we can make no progress in advancing any other human rights.

And to deny the right to life is to deny all other human rights, pretty much by definition.

From this conversation:

The “right not to be killed” can exist without a “right to life”.

Black Rose: Even if abortion is permissible, wouldn’t people still have the right to life after they born? Again, I do not see any necessary correlation between the treatment of fetuses and embryos and those already born. Why does the termination of life in the womb automatically mandate a lack of concern for the homeless and hungry?

To answer the question about what good would feeding the hungry and sheltering the homeless would accomplish, I will post a simple answer. Their hunger and their needs for shelter would be satisfied, and they would have at least immediate protection from material privation, if they are feed and sheltered, regardless whether they are regarded as “morally insignificant” in their mother’s womb

Suudy: Absolutely they have a right to life after they are born. Nobody has suggested otherwise. But perhaps the wording loses some of the real nuance of meaning in such a short phrase like “right to life”. Perhaps, instead, we should say “right to not be killed”.

You seem to be missing the point. The point is not whether any good comes from feeding the homeless, even if they have no right to life. Of course there is good in that act, independent of their “right not to be killed.” The point is more subtle. The very act of eating is contingent upon being alive. The very act of being sheltered is contingent upon being alive. The very act of being comforted while in prison is contingent upon being alive. Thus the right for the hungry to be fed is contingent upon their right to be alive. The right for the homeless to be sheltered is contingent upon their right to be alive. The right for the imprisoned to be comforted is contingent upon their right to be alive.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

HUMAN morality.

 

[manualman]

Black Rose, in spite of your fine logical analysis (with which I agree), you miss the point. The reason you know who Jefferson Davis was in the first place is because of the battle over state vs Federal jurisdiction of slavery. That is why he appears in every high school US history textbook and why he generally wears a black hat (figuratively, of course).

History will remember abortion’s enablers the same way it does slavery’s enablers.

 

[elts1956]

Having lived in a number of predominantly Catholic countries, namely Poland and Italy and spending a lot of time in other countries around the world I can honestly say that the obsession with abortion in America is unique. I am certain that this is due to America’s reluctance to tackle other social issues which generally involve the redistribution of wealth.

Could it just possibly be the fact socialism, relativism resulting from the spread of Communism may have had a “bit” of an impact on these countries?

 

[Reuben_J]

My heart goes to all those women who undergone abortion. It will be never the same again for them. :sad_yes:

Even how bad they are they still love their children, more more to say the Father in heaven.

 

[Black_Rose]

Black Rose, in spite of your fine logical analysis (with which I agree), you miss the point. The reason you know who Jefferson Davis was in the first place is because of the battle over state vs Federal jurisdiction of slavery. That is why he appears in every high school US history textbook and why he generally wears a black hat (figuratively, of course).

History will remember abortion’s enablers the same way it does slavery’s enablers.

Abortion and slavery are two different issues. It is easy for one to demonstrate the harm inflicted by slavery, but much harder to assail abortion. You do have to remember the abortion is not defended by mediocre intellects; the best ethical minds have come to the conclusion that it is morally acceptable in some ethical frameworks. For example, Peter Singer has some overpowering stuff that he uses to defend abortion and he can delivery it to the corners of the plate quite accurately. In contrast, pro-lifers cannot make solid contact with his offerings and just fail to address his points.

 

[edwest2]

Abortion and slavery are two different issues. It is easy for one to demonstrate the harm inflicted by slavery, but much harder to assail abortion. You do have to remember the abortion is not defended by mediocre intellects; the best ethical minds have come to the conclusion that it is morally acceptable in some ethical frameworks. For example, Peter Singer has some overpowering stuff that he uses to defend abortion and he can delivery it to the corners of the plate quite accurately. In contrast, pro-lifers cannot make solid contact with his offerings and just fail to address his points.

The truth is not a math problem: unwanted preganancy + woman’s body = abortion OK. Pro-life supporters have always supported the scientific fact that a human embryo is a unique human being. It contains DNA from the mother and the father. I was there in 1972 when Abortion was sold like a product to a nation that was practicing its faith to a greater degree. Lies were added to the mix. That is also a fact. Selling the product - population reduction - was job one. By hook or by crook, or fictional statistics, women had to be convinced, while men mysteriously disappeared from the equation. Fact: She did not get pregnant by herself.

Is this the Peter Singer you’re talking about?

wnd.com/?pageId=37903

Does the term mass murder mean anything to you?

God bless,
Ed

 

[Black_Rose]

The truth is not a math problem: unwanted preganancy + woman’s body = abortion OK. Pro-life supporters have always supported the scientific fact that a human embryo is a unique human being. It contains DNA from the mother and the father. I was there in 1972 when Abortion was sold like a product to a nation that was practicing its faith to a greater degree. Lies were added to the mix. That is also a fact. Selling the product - population reduction - was job one. By hook or by crook, or fictional statistics, women had to be convinced, while men mysteriously disappeared from the equation. Fact: She did not get pregnant by herself.

Is this the Peter Singer you’re talking about?

wnd.com/?pageId=37903

Does the term mass murder mean anything to you?

God bless,
Ed

No, I did not imply that the ethical debate on abortion is entirely about unequivocal logical truths; indeed, a large proportion of the debate is about the exposition of arguments, elegance in the composition and presentation of those arguments, and the ability to anticipate and counter the arguments of the opposition.

I have a weakness for baseball and I do believe my analogy of Peter Singer as a dominant pitcher is accurate. Argumentation is much like pitching, where one can succeed by overpowering their opponent with the sheer speed of one’s pitches (using intellectually complex arguments), pitching the ball accurately and exhibiting command of the strikezone (having mastery of the subject that endows one with a reservoir of relevant facts that enable the presentation of nuanced arguments), and/or deceiving the opponent. The intellectual force of Singer manifested in his logically consistent arguments and his thorough knowledge of bioethics makes it frustrating for pro-lifers (batters) to rebut (hit/ make contact) his arguments (pitches). Singer’s arguments (pitches) are often relevant to the debate and address his opponent’s positions (so he does not throw many balls and give up walks.

I posted this earlier:

Yes, I admire Singer’s intellect, since he uses it to elegantly delineate his ethical positions and to criticize opposing ethical positions. Using a baseball analogy, he is intellectually equivalent to an ace pitcher who has excellent “stuff” because of his superior power (velocity), movement, and the control over the pitches in his repertoire. His control enables him to locate his pitches in the corners consistently, so he can get ahead in the count without having to risk pitching over the middle of the plate which would leave him vulnerable to home runs, and prevents walks. Excellent velocity and movement make it more difficult for hitters to make contact with the ball which generates more swinging strikes, and consequently a high strikeout rate. Likewise, many pro-life apologists simply swing and miss when they are unable to understand or address his primary argument: that ethical consideration should not be determined by membership in the human species. Simply stating that a fetus is a “human” is ineffective because he readily acknowledges that and it does not address his contention that a fetus does not merit ethical consideration because it does not have consciousness or the capacity to suffer.

I no longer completely agree with Singer’s “preference utilitarianism” but I do love his dominant arguments. He reminds of Tim Lincecum dominant performance in game one of the 2010 NLDS against the Atlanta Braves.

|___________________ | IP | H | R | ER | BB | K | HR | ERA | BF | Pit
Tim Lincecum, W (1-0) __9__2__0__0___1 __14__0___0.00 __30__119

 

[stephe1987]

So, humans who are unconscious or cannot feel pain for whatever reason don’t deserve human dignity (ethical considerations). Is this for real? What a sad state this world is in if people believe what he says to be true.

If you can pick and choose who deserves ethical considerations (creating a hierarchy among humans who are all equal and are all children of God), then nothing is wrong. Kill whomever you want, especially those who do not benefit society. This is similar to Nazi Germany or the 20th century socialists where they killed those who don’t contribute much or anything: the elderly retired people, people with disabilities, the chronically ill, etc.

If a paraplegic falls asleep or goes into a coma, is it okay to chop his/her legs off and give them to someone else or to science, murdering the part of the body that cannot feel anything? What if the person has mental handicaps and cannot give consent, just as an unborn child is not able to give consent to his or her murder? People use similar arguments to support stem cell research. Murder the unborn child and then give the cells to someone who needs them more.

I am having visions of people with disabilities, intellectual capacities of children, being forced to donate organs to people who “need them more.” Maybe I heard too many science fiction stories (island of clones where people get organs harvested).

Lord have mercy on the souls of those who are or allow themselves to be brainwashed by the “pro-choice” individuals, or believe the arguments have merit.