Anybody out there "pro-choice"?

[elts1956]

Yes, throwing insults will make me understand you perfectly. Thank-you so much, my mind has been blown away by your superior intellect.

I’m sorry you can’t accept that perhaps when someone doesn’t understand what you’re trying to say, you should try to say it differently and have some understanding and compassion.

You posed the question of if a poster was trying to suggest that there is only one Truth. I asked for an example in which there are two truths. Offering a couple of terms doesn’t cut it for me, I was asking for an example in which there are two truths for one thing.

This was the OP by St. Francis.

Originally Posted by St Francis
Just quickly, for clarification, what I mean is that truth is outside of us, so what we experience does not affect it. For example, just because Joe is color-blind and experiences the world in black and white doesn’t mean there is no color. Naturally as one matures, hopefully one gets a fuller idea of the truth, but the truth was out there to have a fuller idea of it gotten.

All I asked is which truth he was talking about, Absolute or relative?

 

[FanChan]

So you don’t recognize the difference between issues that can be resolved through Prudential Judgement of individuals and Absolute Truth which is ALWAYS true and does not depend upon opinion of individuals? You still don’t know the difference?

Whether or not I know the difference is irrelevant. I asked before, so I’ll ask again, which ‘truth’ were you referring to when you first posed your question? Or was that just your opening to go into this whole thing about two different types of truth?

Not that this had anything to do with our particular conversation, but if you’re asking my opinion on who I’d consider a poster boy or spokesman of the Pro-life movement, then I’d point to either the Priests for Life or the 40 Days for Life people, or even the Silence No More group, of which my mother and my best friend are both a part of. These are people who carry out peaceful pro-life ‘demonstrations’, for lack of a better word, and who are quick to speak out against the violence taken against abortionists and clinics.

I still don’t see the need for your hostility. I’m beginning to get sick of that here on this forum. I was interested in what you had to say and wanted to take a closer look at it, there was no need to talk down to me just because I couldn’t understand what you were trying to say.

 

[elts1956]

Whether or not I know the difference is irrelevant. I asked before, so I’ll ask again, which ‘truth’ were you referring to when you first posed your question? Or was that just your opening to go into this whole thing about two different types of truth?

Not that this had anything to do with our particular conversation, but if you’re asking my opinion on who I’d consider a poster boy or spokesman of the Pro-life movement, then I’d point to either the Priests for Life or the 40 Days for Life people, or even the Silence No More group, of which my mother and my best friend are both a part of. These are people who carry out peaceful pro-life ‘demonstrations’, for lack of a better word, and who are quick to speak out against the violence taken against abortionists and clinics.

I still don’t see the need for your hostility. I’m beginning to get sick of that here on this forum. I was interested in what you had to say and wanted to take a closer look at it, there was no need to talk down to me just because I couldn’t understand what you were trying to say.

Ever hear of Chinese Water torture…? Once more, study Absolute truth and truth that allows prudential judgement. Read Evangelium Vitae by Pope John Paul II. I can’t print all the encyclicals for you here on CAF in which you might find some answers. You’re questions were very confusing to me. Maybe you should write “in context”.

 

[FanChan]

So you are saying there is only one truth?

You didn’t ask ‘which truth are you talking about’. This is what you said, with no clarification of what you were suggesting. The mud-slinging could have been avoided if you’d stated from the beginning, or after I asked for an example, that you were in fact asking if he was talking relative or absolute truth.

 

[FanChan]

Ever hear of Chinese Water torture…? Once more, study Absolute truth and truth that allows prudential judgement. Read Evangelium Vitae by Pope John Paul II. I can’t print all the encyclicals for you here on CAF in which you might find some answers. You’re questions were very confusing to me. Maybe you should write “in context”.

Yeah, okay, forget it.

 

[elts1956]

Yeah, okay, forget it.

Fine by me. A tempest in a teapot if you’re not going to try to understand I was telling you all I could without my going into extreme descriptions.

 

[elts1956]

Yeah, okay, forget it.

You didn’t ask ‘which truth are you talking about’. This is what you said, with no clarification of what you were suggesting. The mud-slinging could have been avoided if you’d stated from the beginning, or after I asked for an example, that you were in fact asking if he was talking relative or absolute truth.

Okay, I was vague. Sorry. But you did ask for an example of more than one truth about the same truth. This can be done with issues that allow Prudential Judgement, but NOT with Absolute Truths.

 

[SteveGC]

Okay, I was vague. Sorry. But you did ask for an example of more than one truth about the same truth. This can be done with issues that allow Prudential Judgement, but NOT with Absolute Truths.

Since when does “prudential judgment” infer that there can be more than one truth? Prudence is the capacity to determine good from evil, it does not allow for relativism, or the idea that their is one person’s “truth”, and a separate “truth” for someone else. Or am I misunderstanding what you mean, elts?

I think you’re using the term “truth” where it does not belong. Prudential judgment infers that there are separate and unique judgments of what truth is (the determination of good vs. evil), but the truth is still singular and invariable. So long as a judgment is inline with truth (sound morals), then prudence exists. As soon as judgment goes to the evil act, prudence ceases to exist.

 

[elts1956]

Since when does “prudential judgment” infer that there can be more than one truth? Prudence is the capacity to determine good from evil, it does not allow for relativism, or the idea that their is one person’s “truth”, and a separate “truth” for someone else. Or am I misunderstanding what you mean, elts?

I think you’re using the term “truth” where it does not belong. Prudential judgment infers that there are separate and unique judgments of what truth is (the determination of good vs. evil), but the truth is still singular and invariable. So long as a judgment is inline with truth (sound morals), then prudence exists. As soon as judgment goes to the evil act, prudence ceases to exist.

As I understand the difference, there are issues which are not intrinsically evil, such as war, environment, economy. With these, one can decide, according to one’s capacity, or have one’s opinion/s which may be at variance with others. ie. I can decide whether a war is just, or not. I can decide different ways I think the economy should be handled etc. Therefore each person has his/her own truth. The Absolute truths are those in which there can be no negotiation, such as issues regarding the sanctity of life.

Okay, maybe that isn’t any clearer, but that is the way I have been thinking of the difference between the two kinds of truth and Truth. Confusing isn’t it?

 

[Eddie_Mac]

Just in case anyone was counting, the score in the abortion battle is …40,000,000+ babies butchered and sucked out of the womb and 5 abortionists killed.

For those who have problems with higher math that equates to 8,000,000+:1 ratio.

Where is the violence?

I seem to recall a post that stated “violence is violence is violence”.

What a shame.

Eddie Mac

 

[SteveGC]

As I understand the difference, there are issues which are not intrinsically evil, such as war, environment, economy. With these, one can decide, according to one’s capacity, or have one’s opinion/s which may be at variance with others. ie. I can decide whether a war is just, or not. I can decide different ways I think the economy should be handled etc. Therefore each person has his/her own truth. The Absolute truths are those in which there can be no negotiation, such as issues regarding the sanctity of life.

Okay, maybe that isn’t any clearer, but that is the way I have been thinking of the difference between the two kinds of truth and Truth. Confusing isn’t it?

Hmm, well…I see where you’re going with this. But I think it becomes skewed when we introduce the term “truth” into prudence. I’ve not seen that term used like that. Perhaps I need to dig deeper. But I think it confuses the matter, because IMO, one’s use of prudential judgment does not equate to a subjective “truth”. It simply equates to a judgment, a decision on how to behave in certain situations. That judgment is still required to align with (and never stray from) sound moral teaching. Therefore no new truths are introduced through the use of this virtue.

My understanding of prudential judgment is that prudence is a cardinal virtue, developed through habit, potentially strengthened by grace, that exists because of the complexity and grayness of life experiences, where precise and direct moral guidance is absent, or minimal. The use of it does not allow one to choose freely whatever they want. Rather, it demands that one choose correctly through careful examination of facts, counseling and established morals.

Perhaps this is your understanding of it too, elts. It’s just that I don’t think “relative truth” is a proper way of defining what is manifested when one uses prudence to make decisions on various issues.

Blessings.

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

**Maybe you haven’t allowed it to sink in, but I do not argue in favor of abortion. I argue in favor of non-intervention. It’s none of my business whether or not a woman has chosen to have an abortion. And it’s none of your business, either.

I did not accuse the Church** of using violence. I asked a poster if he was advocating violence to the extreme of bombing. Check out the sequence of posts.

Limerick

Disingenuous, at best.

It IS my business, and yours. We are our brother’s keeper.

 

[royal_archer]

**
Can you explain the fine structure for the offenses? Can you describe the length of the sentences?

Please don’t think bombings are limited to the police. A bomb was left on the women’s healthcare property where my daughter works. A robot had to retrieve it. The local police, the sheriff’s department, the FBI and Homeland Security were all called to the scene. No one could drive their cars home. The defusing of this bomb went well into the night. The person who left it there was apprehended and sentenced to 40 years in prison. He was, and I suppose still is, a pro-life advocate.

Limerick**

Someone who endagers life in the fight against abortion is not “pro-life” instead this person seems “anti abortion”.

And since you disaprove of using force to enforce moral issues, I am surprised you approve of using force against this bomber for doing something that is clearly immoral. Why aren’t you out their advocating his right to choose? Or are you finally seeing the light and realizing that it is wrong to take human life and it is the resposible role of the secular government to protect innocent lives?

 

[royal_archer]

Would you say that the force you are referring to would be state-authorized force–police, courts, etc, rather than force on the part of regular people? (As this would be the Catholic position).

That as well as lawful force used by individuals such as security guards and individual civilians. Citizens arrest, not vigilanteism.

 

[royal_archer]

I didn’t ask anyone.** I asked royal archer. And as most pro-life people love to rely on the semantics argument when it comes to pro-choice vs. pro-abortion, I want to point out that the same shoe fits on your foot here with your wiggling around the bombing issue and dressing it up with rhetoric. Pro-life is anti-abortion. ** And violence is violence is violence; anyone using a bomb and thinking s/he is “just” in attempting to halt abortions is at best delusional.

Limerick**

"I asked royal archer. " sorry, I had things to do and could not get back to you sooner. Ditto what FanChan said.

“And as most pro-life people love to rely on the semantics argument when it comes to pro-choice vs. pro-abortion,” I would concur with you that on the semantics arguement in some aspects. On this board we sometimes have posters who come from different back grounds and have different interpretations of term and occasionally are not sensative to the finite differences between two terms. If someone uses a term inappropriately and gets chastized I do support them and feel they should have the opportunity to clarify their possition. What yo are doing is different. Pro life vs anti abbortion has been clearly spelled out here. what you are attempting to do is to merge these two differing groups into one so as to assign the sins of one group onto another.

“anyone using a bomb and thinking s/he is “just” in attempting to halt abortions is at best delusional.”
This is correct and you will not get any arguments from the pro life community on this.

 

[royal_archer]

**
I do not advocate the “killing of innocent children”. I advocate for a woman’s legal right to choose whether or not to continue with or terminate a pregnancy. Furthermore, I advocate for her right and responsibility to choose according to her own religion, her own moral code, her own conscience, and not** mine and not yours. And you are delusional if you believe rendering abortion illegal will cause “all of the violence to go away”. Coercion will escalate, beatings will escalate, rage will escalate, women will investigate all means of illicit abortion. If you have never been in this situation it’s easy for you to be an armchair critic. You cannot appreciate the secret violence if it has not been visited upon you.

Abortion is violent. Abortion is not without risk. Abortion is a pathetic ending to life, to possibilities, to dreams. It closes the casket on relationships, on what we think we know as love, on the potential for a fetus to come into this world and grow and thrive. I do not deny any of it. Although there are incredibly heart-wrenching cases where a fetus has no hope of life, the everyday demand for abortion is directly proportional to the ignorance and selfishness of men and women all over this country. I don’t deny that, either.

But I am not in a position to judge another woman’s situation or to try to persuade her to act against her own moral code. If she asks my opinion I will share my experience, strength and hope with her, because we share a common situation in that I aborted a 13-week-old fetus in June of 1971. I will share with her that I have learned not to repeat the experience, how it shaped my relationship with men, with God, with my daughter, with other women who have asked me about my abortion. I will not vomit this information all over her so that she may sort it out in times of trial and anxiety and fear and dread and worry and confusion. I will not intervene, I will not judge a woman’s situation or decision that comes from that situation. Nor will not advocate for abortion. I will advocate for her to consult whatever Higher Power she may have and decide for herself, with this Guidance, which way to go.

Intervention, coercion, persuasion, manipulation are all inappropriate. I will not participate on any of those levels in another woman’s pregnancy. If you choose to do so, that is your prerogative. But I stand behind free will as a gift from God. Sometimes we don’t use it wisely. No one is immune from foolishness or selfishness. But people should be free to make life decisions without hindrance from others. Anyone is free to disagree with this, as I’m certain most of you will. It does not change my position.

The main life decision in this case is not the one that relieves the pregnant woman or that saves the fetus. It is the one that led the woman into having intercourse in the first place. That’s where to start: the pre-pregnancy, pre-sexually-active place. The place where we are not afraid to give our children - our pre-adolescent children - the facts about their upcoming sexuality - beyond abstinence. They are entitled to the whole package, not just “don’t do it and God will be happy.”

Limerick

So do you think that that same pregnant woman instead of considering an abortion were not pregnant and considering doing drugs, committing prostitution, or engaging in binging and purging would you still advocate for her right to choose what to do with her “own” body?

NOTE: “Own” is in quotes because abortion impacts more than one body even though pro abortion people believe it does. I am framingthe question in terms used by the pro abortion crowd but not advocating that those terms are appropriate or accurate.

 

[royal_archer]

Well, that is a good place to start: the decision that led the woman into having intercourse in the first place.

And it’s a good thing to give our children all the facts. I’m not sure what you mean by “beyond abstinence.” The adolescent or young woman has pretty much just two choices here—to have intercourse or not. If they do, there is the distinct possibility that pregnancy will result. By all means, give them all the birth control information, including the negative side effects. But no birth control is 100% effective, and no condom can protect against a broken heart.

They also need to know how premarital sex impacts their ability to find a decent spouse and have a happy marriage. We may need to start including some not so sensative real discussions about how people feel about engaging in long term relationships with others who have slept around.

 

[royal_archer]

This was the OP by St. Francis.

Originally Posted by St Francis
Just quickly, for clarification, what I mean is that truth is outside of us, so what we experience does not affect it. For example, just because Joe is color-blind and experiences the world in black and white doesn’t mean there is no color. Naturally as one matures, hopefully one gets a fuller idea of the truth, but the truth was out there to have a fuller idea of it gotten.

All I asked is which truth he was talking about, Absolute or relative?

Perceptions of truth are individual in nature however absolute truth is singular in nature. It is also logical. If there is room for interpretation and perspective it is not absolute truth. We must each reflect on history, the teachings of the church, the laws of nature, and logic to determine if something is an absolute truth. if ones perspective of truth holds through all of the forms of interegation listed above it is likely alligned with absolute truth. but if a perspective does not withstand the test of logic it can not be an absolute truth.

 

[royal_archer]

As I understand the difference, there are issues which are not intrinsically evil, such as war, environment, economy. With these, one can decide, according to one’s capacity, or have one’s opinion/s which may be at variance with others. ie. I can decide whether a war is just, or not. I can decide different ways I think the economy should be handled etc. Therefore each person has his/her own truth. The Absolute truths are those in which there can be no negotiation, such as issues regarding the sanctity of life.

Okay, maybe that isn’t any clearer, but that is the way I have been thinking of the difference between the two kinds of truth and Truth. Confusing isn’t it?

These are not cases where we just get to decide for our selves if these issues are moral or get to decide for ourselves what the truth is. With war as an example there are an infinate number of factors impacting whether it is just for an individual to engage in a particular war. As such it is impossible for the church to provide one size fits all guidance. instead we are taught the logic to use to determine if the war is just and we apply the logic to the situation at hand. But for each scenario there is only one truth.

 

[royal_archer]

**Maybe you haven’t allowed it to sink in, but I do not argue in favor of abortion. I argue in favor of non-intervention. It’s none of my business whether or not a woman has chosen to have an abortion. And it’s none of your business, either.

I did not accuse the Church** of using violence. I asked a poster if he was advocating violence to the extreme of bombing. Check out the sequence of posts.

Limerick

If former President Bush had said let’s get rid of all of the legal penaties stopping people from committing hate crimes and legalize lynchings saying it is up to the assailants choice but he is against lynchings would you not come out and say he was actively supporting lynchings?

As for bombings I never said anything that lead you to go to such an extreme accusation. Nor have I ever advocated violence. Violence is not synonymous with force.