Anybody out there "pro-choice"?

[St_Francis]

… I don’t believe we should ever call for ALL abortions to be illegal - the Church may say that it’s black and white and that there is never a reason for it but I know there are times when it is necessary to save a mother’s life.
God Bless
Rye

So if I needed a heart transplant, do you think it would be all right for me to murder someone to get the heart?

 

[morriec]

Using your ill idea of what is right and what is wrong, you are either pro-war, or anti-war! I seriously doubt that anyone is 100% on one side of the issue. The war stance kills innocent people as well. I think there is a gross oversimplification what is being stated.

You can classify me all you like. But it will be very difficult for someone to “fight” for their cause telling someone they are wrong and they will never be right. I know what I believe, and I feel that perhaps my intentions and beliefs are not properly being stated. I’ll sleep and pray for the right words.

Question:

If I say that I am pro-choice, and do not rally or tell people that it is wrong, unless they ask, am I really pro-choice?

Lastly, I truly hope there is not one more abortion.

God Bless,

Revert TSIEG

You want be call yourself pro-choice since that implies that you want the rights of women over their body to not be infringed upon by the government.

But calling yourself pro-choice is contrary to Catholic teaching. Be obedient to the Church if you are truly Catholic.

It is the sin of scandal. Every time you tell someone your are pro-choice even though you do not believe in abortion, you are leading them to believe that murdering the unborn is justifiable.

It is time revert to truly Revert and be a soldier of Christ. Don’t be lukewarm! Be firm in your convictions. You know what is right!

 

[WillieWonka]

Actually, this is not strictly speaking true.

From a legal standpoint there is the idea of reckless endangerment. If I am hunting and do not take the time to make sure that that’s a deer and not a human being then I am liable for murder charges. One should rather lose the deer than to risk a human life if there is any question.

It seems to me that those who argue against the humanity of the unborn child are committing a sort of deliberate act of reckless endangerment. Rather than say, well, we should wait to see if science backs me up before allowing abortion, they propose allowing abortion on their very flimsy definition.

Science is silent on the matter. It has nothing to offer regarding personhood. Look what the Sacred Congregation says about science in the 5th post above.

 

[SteveGC]

This was hashed out at length earlier in this thread or a parallel one. Para 19 is in the end notes of the document. It packs an awful lot into oneparagraph.

“19. This declaration expressly leaves aside the question of the moment when the spiritual soul is infused. There is not a unanimous tradition on this point and authors are as yet in disagreement. For some it dates from the first instant; for others it could not at least precede nidation. It is not within the competence of science to decide between these views, because the existence of an immortal soul is not a question in its field. **It is a philosophical problem from which our moral affirmation remains independent **for two reasons: (1) supposing a belated animation, there is still nothing less than a human life, preparing for and calling for a soul in which the nature received from parents is completed, (2) on the other hand, **it suffices that this presence of the soul be probable **(and one can never prove the contrary) in order that the taking of life involve accepting the risk of killing a man, not only waiting for, but already in possession of his soul.”

“The Supreme Pontiff Pope Paul VI, in an audience granted to the undersigned Secretary of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on June 28, 1974, has ratified this Declaration on Procured Abortion and has confirmed it and ordered it to be promulgated.”

DECLARATION ON PROCURED ABORTION
SACRED CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19741118_declaration-abortion_en.html

I admit I am not well-versed on this document

But it seems to me, that despite the lack of unanimity of precisely when the soul enters the fertlized egg, the Church makes clear here that this precise distinction is not pertinent to the moral affirmation (and infallible teaching) that at the instant of conception, life is to be presumed, and therefore fully protected. Do you agree, WW?

btw, would be interested in your response to mine in post 1103. As much as I understand you will disagree with my affirmation of God (and Church) authority regarding humanity, I value your opinion and would enjoy the dialogue. Hopefully they don’t close this thread…it’s well overdue

 

[St_Francis]

Science is silent on the matter. It has nothing to offer regarding personhood. Look what the Sacred Congregation says about science in the 5th post above.

I assume you are referring to this part of the statement? It is not within the competence of science to decide between these views, because the existence of an immortal soul is not a question in its field.

And what has this to do with personhood? They seem to be referring to the question of ensoulment.

 

[WillieWonka]

I admit I am not well-versed on this document

But it seems to me, that despite the lack of unanimity of precisely when the soul enters the fertlized egg, the Church makes clear here that this precise distinction is not pertinent to the moral affirmation (and infallible teaching) that at the instant of conception, life is to be presumed, and therefore fully protected. Do you agree, WW?

I agree that’s what it says. It actually says quite a lot and I suspect each word was very carefully chosen.

I find most interesting the ideas on the timing of ensoulment. They say it is probable the soul is present at conception. And they open the way for belated ensoulment. Now, I think a soul is necessary for a person. In fact, I think the Church says the soul is the form of the person. I would suggest a life of the human species lacking a soul is not a person.

So, maybe the notion some people have that the fetus is not a person is actually plausible and reasonable.

A very interesting question the document opens is why an embryo waitig for a soul has any right to life. They don’t answer that here.

 

[WillieWonka]

I see where you’re coming from, WW.

Here’s the deal.

Whether any of us believe it or not, a person fully deserving of the right to life comes into existence at the instant of conception, and the sanctity of their life remains with them until they breath their last. This means that God desires that no other human deliberately terminate that life, as it is a grave insult to Him, constituting a grave (mortal) sin. As is also being discussed on here, there are rare circumstances wherein striking a lethal blow to another may be permissible…but very stringent criteria must be met…primarily dealing with self-defense and life preservation intentions directly related to oppose another who possesses the clear, unprovoked intent to take a persons life.

Those who do so will be held accountable before God based on the level of knowledge of the sinful nature of that act, the level of freedom of their own consent to commit the act, and their deliberate intent to do so in the face of this knowledge and consent. Any given murder will have varying degrees of these three elements, and God will judge them based on their specific relationship to those elements. This is true not only of murder, but collectively of each and every sin we commit in our lives.

As for the mother who doesn’t believe the fetus is indeed a person, and has it aborted? I would speculate that the first and third elements, and even in rare cases the second, would give them some reprieve. But God also judges us according to our capacity and willingness to cooperate and behave in harmony with the inherent good nature with which we were created. In other words, I would imagine that it is plausible that most humans “should” instinctively be capable of discerning the fact that a human person exists within a woman at the moment of conception. This capability is not based on intelligence or logic per se…but rather on the inherent goodness written on their heart by God. So, even if they have never been exposed to proper teaching on the fact that life begins at conception, they may plausibly be held accountable for what they inherently “know”, and refuse to behave in accord with.

The Church simply reflects what God decrees. So it’s not the Church that condemns or judges a person in their sin…it is God who does this. The Church simply teaches us what I have just told you above. A person certainly is free to behave and believe what they will. The Church gives guidance on what beliefs and behaviors (called faith and morals) are in accord with God’s will…and which ones are not.

1. I think the document from the Sacred Congregation (posted after you wrote this) removes the certainty that “a person fully deserving of the right to life comes into existence at the instant of conception.” As to what God thinks and wants, I don’t know, so I have no comment.
2. Again, I don’t speak for God, but I do agree with your three levels of culpability: knowledge, freedom, and intent. I’d just say that if one doesn’t believe the fetus is a person, there is no knowledge. Hence freedom and intent are not even triggered.
3. Instinctive knowledge of a single cell in a womb? And instinctive knowledge it constitutes a person? I have no reason to think so… We only know about that cell because scietists tell us so, not from instinct.
4. I’m afraid I don’t agree with those things written on the heart. I can’t speak for what anyone inherently “knows.”
5. The Church reflecting God? I have no reason to think so. I can’t demnstrate it does, and I can’t demonstrate it doesn’t. I believe that would fall under what the Church calls faith.

 

[WillieWonka]

I assume you are referring to this part of the statement? It is not within the competence of science to decide between these views, because the existence of an immortal soul is not a question in its field.

And what has this to do with personhood? They seem to be referring to the question of ensoulment.

Yes, they are referring to ensoulment. But consider: Is a soul necessary for a person? If not, can there be a person with no soul? The Church says the soul is the form of the person. No soul, no person.

If there is belated ensoulment, how can that single cell be a person? It has no soul.

And how can science detect the soul to determine if a person is present?

 

[CMP2]

royal archer:

“If someone is not capable of understanding what they are doing when committing an abortion, they should not be allowed to do it.”

**Finally. At least educated, literate women should be allowed to have abortions.

Limerick **

That isn’t very pro choice. ONLY educated literate women should be able to kill their babies. Pro Choice says even uneducated women should and the more the merrier.

Finally a quote from Fr. Frank Pavone, Priests for Life:

In the thirteenth chapter of Ezekiel, we read these words, which the Lord told Ezekiel to speak to the people: “Will you ensnare the lives of my people but preserve your own? You have profaned me among my people for a few handfuls of barley and scraps of bread. By lying to my people, who listen to lies, you have killed those who should not have died.”

The ongoing tragedy of abortion is an example of how lies kill those who should not have died. **And the most fundamental lie behind abortion is not that the fetus isn’t a baby **– rather, the lie is that one has a right to kill that baby. The lie is that a few handfuls of barley – that is, economic reasons – can be balanced against the value of a life.

–Fr. Frank

 

[limerick]

Hi L

it essentially means that God’s moral laws are inherently available to the intellect and conscience of all humans, presumably perceived by us proportionately with our natural growth as human beings. It doesn’t mean, however, that all humans have the same capacity to perceive these proper morals of God.

There are indeed varying limitations placed on our consciences throughout our lives, primarily in the form of exposure to various evils. In short, wickedness or iniquities we encounter in our lives from others(abuse, neglect, etc) or from ourselves (lust, greed, etc) as we give in to temptations, which serve to alter our inherited knowledge of good and evil. IOW, often our inherent knowledge of good can be replaced with ignorance of good. It doesn’t mean we become evil. Rather, our capacity to understand (and do) the will of God, becomes limited.

**
Take a young man, say 15. He commits a sin. How do you explain his culpability for sin committed with full knowledge** of the inherent sinfulness of the act (at age 15) and the same sin committed at age 52, after his inherent knowledge of good has been replaced with"ignorance of good"? I have been reading here that once a person knows the moral impact of a sin he can’t later be held (say) less accountable for the same sin. This is complicated - should I try again or do you want to take a shot at it?

Limerick

 

[limerick]

That isn’t very pro choice. ONLY educated literate women should be able to kill their babies. Pro Choice says even uneducated women should and the more the merrier.

Finally a quote from Fr. Frank Pavone, Priests for Life:

In the thirteenth chapter of Ezekiel, we read these words, which the Lord told Ezekiel to speak to the people: “Will you ensnare the lives of my people but preserve your own? You have profaned me among my people for a few handfuls of barley and scraps of bread. By lying to my people, who listen to lies, you have killed those who should not have died.”

The ongoing tragedy of abortion is an example of how lies kill those who should not have died. **And the most fundamental lie behind abortion is not that the fetus isn’t a baby **– rather, the lie is that one has a right to kill that baby. The lie is that a few handfuls of barley – that is, economic reasons – can be balanced against the value of a life.

–Fr. Frank

**Have you never employed a device called “tongue-in-cheek”?

L**

 

[Timbothefiveth]

The ultra-right-wing approach of baring people

That’s a good approach when an action involves taking a life. For instance, in an instance where I want to burn your house down, you probably won’t be very pro-choice. According to the Britsh Journal of Medicine, the fetus can feel pain as early as 8-12 weeks. In addition, some theorise it might be worse because pain is new to the fetus. Due to the brutal methods of abortions, often literally ripping it limb-from-limb, being aborted would be extremely painful. Probably as painful. if not more painful, than even childbirth.

 

[lil_flower_luv]

You want be call yourself pro-choice since that implies that you want the rights of women over their body to not be infringed upon by the government.

But calling yourself pro-choice is contrary to Catholic teaching. Be obedient to the Church if you are truly Catholic.

It is the sin of scandal. Every time you tell someone your are pro-choice even though you do not believe in abortion, you are leading them to believe that murdering the unborn is justifiable.

It is time revert to truly Revert and be a soldier of Christ. Don’t be lukewarm! Be firm in your convictions. You know what is right!

[SIGN]Amen![/SIGN]

 

[St_Francis]

Yes, they are referring to ensoulment. But consider: Is a soul necessary for a person? If not, can there be a person with no soul? The Church says the soul is the form of the person. No soul, no person.

If there is belated ensoulment, how can that single cell be a person? It has no soul.

And how can science detect the soul to determine if a person is present?

See, you are relying on this to prove something to us… not sure what, but the document goes on to say: (1) supposing a belated animation, there is still nothing less than a human life, preparing for and calling for a soul in which the nature received from parents is completed, (2) on the other hand, **it suffices that this presence of the soul be probable… in order that the taking of life involve accepting the risk of killing a man, **not only waiting for, but already in possession of his soul.

So the document is saying 1. that we do not know and science cannot tell us when the baby is ensouled; and 2. that we do know that there is a good chance that there is a soul already and that therefore abortion is running the very high risk of killing a body which has a soul.

I would also like to point out that science has moved along since the time of Sts Aquinas and Augustine, and even this document. We now *know *that the unborn child is alive from the moment of conception; that the child is human, and that the child is individual. And we know all this from science. So from a *scientific *point of view, the act of abortion takes a human life.

And from the Church’s point of view, abortion is and always has been condemned as an intrinsically evil act, preceding even these speculations about ensoulment, which means that this is an argument with no merit whatsoever.

 

[elts1956]

**And if one has made a prompt and sincere confession, has been given absolution by a priest and has performed the assigned penance for having sinned, and if that person has never repeated the sin: how long does the Church require that this person carry the burden of sin as if it were still as fresh and vivid as it was nearly 14,000 days ago?

Limerick**

**
I support a woman’s legal AND moral right to decide how to proceed when she discovers that she is pregnant, without interference or persuasion or manipulation from “loved ones”, friends, acquaintances, her neighborhood, her community, and everyone else in the wider range of humanity.** Her legal rights have been afforded her by the Supreme Court of this country. Her moral right has been given her by God in the form of free will, the ability to deliberate, to pray, to worry, to examine all alternatives and to decide what she will do in the coming months. I don’t have to tell you what her options are; you know everything. Abortion, birth and putting the baby up for adoption, birth and keeping the baby to raise. Of course, there is also birth and willingness to sell the baby, birth and willingness to kill the baby afterward, birth and abandonment.

Abortion ends the life and growth of an embryo or a fetus, one that has potential to develop into a neonate, an infant, a toddler, a child, a teenager, an adult, a senior, a geriatric, and a corpse once it is born.

You seem not to consider the “finishing clause … unspeakable”. You try to take my moral inventory every time you scream “murderer!” on the computer screen. That doesn’t mean you are accurate. It simply means you have an opinion.

Limerick

Do you support pro life education? I think in one of your posts you mentioned this. Or would this be “intervention”?

 

[elts1956]

Interesting. Under Catholic teaching, does one commit murder if one does not think the target is a person?

So it is right and just for anyone to kill anyone as long as they do not recognize that person as a human worthy of life. Hmmmmmm.:newidea:? Or insanity?

 

[St_Francis]

**
… moral right to decide …
Limerick**

Something I read clarified this issue of free will: you claim that because we have “free will” we have the “right” to do whatever we want.

But we don’t. Free will is a *capacity, *not a right.

So do please stop saying we have the *right *to this or that.

 

[St_Francis]

**
… You try to take my moral inventory every time you scream “murderer!” on the computer screen. That doesn’t mean you are accurate. It simply means you have an opinion.

Limerick**

This is one of the problems with using one’s own experience of immorality as an example in a discussion about morality. It is *not *“taking your inventory” when someone else says that doing X, which you have said you have done, is wrong, but you experience it that way because you have put your experience in the discussion.

This is not a 12-step meeting, it is a discussion about a moral issue. A 12-Step meeting is *completely *different, being as it is a *support *group. In a 12-Step meeting, the experiences of the participants *are *germane and useful to the others. If a person tells about seeing aspects of his life falling apart over the years until he could stand it no longer, then those whose lives have not fallen apart that much but have somewhat can learn from that other person’s experience. In a 12-Step meeting it would of course be absurd to comment on the morality or other extraneous aspect of a person’s story, simply because the point is to show how (problem) can lead one to doing those things.

I have said to you that we do not condemn people who made wrong decisions. All of us have made wrong decisions! We all understand the making of wrong decisions!

However, part of absolution is accepting that what one did is indeed wrong. I returned to the Church when I was in my thirties. You think I didn’t commit some immoral acts before I returned? But the difference is that I have renounced those decisions. Instead of trying to persuade those who believe those decisions to be immoral that they are not really that bad, I have accepted that those decisions I made were immoral, and that that means that I committed immoral acts.

You told us that you have been to Confession about your abortion, and yet you still do not feel absolved. You ask how long will you have to (I’m paraphrasing because I don’t remember your exact words) feel like the bad guy.

You are carrying around this burden, Limerick, *but you don’t have to. *Let me propose an experiment. Go elsewhere on the internet, not here, and argue on the pro-life side. Seriously. You will not be committing yourself in any way, because you can be totally anonymous and it won’t be here. Take a break from arguing your current point of view and just do that.

I suspect that if you do this seriously for 3 or 4 weeks that you will feel a burden lifting from your heart, because from what I see you saying, the burden is caused not by God or us but by yourself in your continuing to hang on to rationalizing what you have done. The conflict is within yourself.

Try my experiment and see how it works. I’m praying for you, as I am sure that all the rest of us are.

 

[fix]

Their acceptance or rejection of me has no effect on what I am. However, if they do not consider me to be a person, advocating killing me is not advocating murder. Murder demands one know the target is a person. If one does not know that, it’s not advocacy of murder.

No, objectively, it is murder regardless of what the subjective perception may be.

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

Anyone can indeed decide what murder is. Nothing stops him from doing that. Neither Satan nor failed plicies stop him.

Good point. Think that small child would recognize a single cell as a human being?

Militant sinfulness has become stock-in-trade these days, a flip answer to every moral question raised by people of good will.

Doesn’t stand against the Eternal Word, never has, never will.

You have no ‘right’ to go against the Ten Commandments.

For those who seek more than mere surface replies and/or teachings, Father Mitch Pacwa has a great series here:

Threshold of Hope

The page contains many links. Father speaks of many life issues, not just abortion; we would all do well to pay attention. The next Terri Schiavo could be you.