Can we as Catholics **respect** the Pro-Choice view?

  • Thread starter Thread starter michael1984
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Tis_Bearself said:
People have a right to think whatever they want to think.
Click to expand...
How so? Did God give them that right? If not, where does it come from?

I’ve always had a hard time getting my head around the concept of “we have a right to be wrong”, whether it’s an issue of theology, mathematics, understanding of the laws of the physical universe, what have you, anywhere that objective truth ultimately reigns supreme. I don’t see myself as having a “right” to believe that 2+2=5.

Will God allow us to continue being wrong in Heaven?
 
So what are you going to do about the person who believes 2+2 =5? Lock him up in a reeducation camp until he changes his mind? Coerce or brainwash him until he changes his mind?

We’re not God and what God does in Heaven has nothing to do with how we treat people on earth. If we think someone’s thoughts need correcting, then we can offer corrections commensurate with human dignity. If they choose to continue thinking in the way they prefer, we cannot force them to change.

I find it odd that you seem to think we can and should be monitoring and controlling people’s thoughts.
 
Last edited:
Raxus said:
Out of curiosity, why isn’t a zygote a human being when a different developmental stage, child, IS a human being? Isn’t that just simple (and lethal) bigotry based on age?
Click to expand...
I will start another thread to discuss this. 'Human being"; ‘human being with all human rights’; ‘potential human being’; ‘developing human being’; and just plan ‘zygote’ are all possible views of a zygote.
 
On some level, I do think we need to recognize that many who support abortion are not snarling beasts who want to kill every child. Many are misinformed or might not understand the pro life position or might have been taught incorrectly.

I’d also say that we need to respect those who have this view by treating them as Christ would. That means things like not using inflammatory language (like Baby Killer, or Murderer, as in my view that shuts down the conversation), and basically just trying to win an argument rather than state an opinion.

Its a bit simplistic but don’t be a jerk is a good rule.
 
Respecting the theory that murdering the unborn is okay because it’s a choice would be no different than respecting the theory that rape is okay because some people have strong sexual urges.

You can’t respect a theory that is built on an intrinsic evil.
 
michael1984 said:
I discussed this with my wife, and she asked me what respecting a view means. My answer would be: I respect a view X if when thinking about a person holding view X I don’t think there’s something deeply wrong with that person, going beyond the possible error, wrong, or evil contained in view X itself.

For example, I don’t respect racist or fascist views. If I meet someone with such views, I will think there’s something deeply wrong with that person - their personality, reason, etc, more than just that he or she has this erroneous and dangerous view. (Important: I’ll still try very hard to respect the person.)

So, given such a definition, for myself I’m inclined to respect the Pro-Choice views. I think for someone who doesn’t have the faith and is Pro-Choice, it doesn’t necessarily mean there’s something deeply wrong with their personality or reason. In my view, without the faith, it’s quite easy for the reason of an average person living in our times, sincerely trying to live well, and without harming others to arrive at the conclusion that abortion in the first trimester should be allowed.
Click to expand...
So, why the difference?

The way you described things, it looks like you merely have different feelings about those views.

And you should check if those feelings are reasonable.

The obvious difference is that in the society around you, especially “elite society” (mainstream media, universities etc.), “racist” and “fascist” views are seen as unacceptable, while “pro-choice” views are seen as acceptable, even desirable.

But, since you ask such a question, you clearly do not see the opinion of society around you as the one that has to be followed just because it is such.

So, do you have a different justification?

For if we compare the damage, “pro-choice” views are clearly far more destructive and evil than “racist” or “fascist” views: even real fascists and racists were not usually actively murdering as many people as are murdered in abortions. And many views described as “fascist” and “racist” are not really close to views of Hitler, they are even not that close to views of Mussolini. Of course, in practice those words often mean little more than “views I do not like”…

So, if the difference can’t be justified by view of society (or “elite society”) as such, and it can’t be justified by comparison of destructiveness, what can you use to justify it?
 
Tis_Bearself said:
So what are you going to do about the person who believes 2+2 =5? Lock him up in a reeducation camp until he changes his mind? Coerce or brainwash him until he changes his mind?

We’re not God and what God does in Heaven has nothing to do with how we treat people on earth. If we think someone’s thoughts need correcting, then we can offer corrections commensurate with human dignity. If they choose to continue thinking in the way they prefer, we cannot force them to change.

I find it odd that you seem to think we can and should be monitoring and controlling people’s thoughts.
Click to expand...
I will not acknowledge that anyone has the “right” to believe error. Father Vincent Miceli, whom I was privileged to call a friend during his life, once said “a right is a claim upon a moral good”, and this is the best definition I’ve ever heard. Is there a better definition, and if so, what is it? It can never be a “moral good”, in the objective order, to believe error.

We are given our minds by Almighty God to seek the truth, and to know and believe what is true. We have an obligation to do so. However, if in sincerely pursuing that obligation, we “get it wrong” through no fault of our own, God does not hold us responsible. I hope (but cannot prove) that He takes us as we are, not as we should be.

Of course I wouldn’t take any of the actions you describe, against a person who believes error (the example here being the obvious error of 2+2=5). But I would never cease to prove to them, in every way I could, that they are wrong. In our world, the way people are nowadays, everyone persuaded in their own mind that they are right, no matter what they think or believe — basically Protestant private interpretation, possibly the most horrible error that has ever arisen in Christendom — to lead people from error to truth is as difficult as it is futile in everyday, in-person real life. I’ve never had that gift — some do, but I don’t. Anonymous forums, put out there for the whole world to read (and to take or leave as they see fit), where neither appearance, nor tone of voice, nor extrinsic things such as race, nationality, accent, what have you, come into play, are a very efficient way to defend truth and refute error. I just offer a prayer that whatever I write, meant for the good of the Church and for the cause of Christ, His way, truth, and life, will be read by the people who need to read it, when they need to read it.
 
I don’t “respect” their views, just as I don’t respect murderers. I cannot respect the view of someone who believes in ripping a developing human from the womb. Life is sacred. I am not rude to pro-abortion people, however. But I do not respect the pro-choice view.
 
Gorgias said:
Today, though? When kids are steeped in a contraceptive mentality and have been taught by the culture that “it’s not really a person”? No… today, we’ve warped our younger generations so thoroughly that “good but misguided” is precisely the correct description…
Click to expand...
I have had one pro abort say a rat has the same right to life as a newborn and another justify exposure.

There are also those who claim to be personally opposed but, which is a way of saying that they know it’s evil but support it anyway.

These people are far from good but misguided, and I think we pro lifers need to recognize that.
 
Last edited:
FiveLinden said:
Does your use of the word ‘rabid’ as an adjective here seem in any way ironic to you given the rest of your statement?
Click to expand...
Do you understand that his use of the word rabid limited the group of people he was describing?

It seems like a lot of people think adjectives describe all those mentioned rather than limiting the group being mentioned, so if I talk about “rabid feminists,” they think I mean all feminists are rabid, rather than my true meaning which is, out of all the feminists who exist, I am talking about those few who are rabid about feminism.
 
JerryZ said:
Sometimes we struggle with the meaning of words.
Click to expand...
The OP cannot be answered without clearer definitions. I mean, every one is pro-choice about most things, and not pro-choice about others. So the idea of being pro-choice would have to first be limited to abortion. Second, by respecting a position, is more of an idea of honor, or of understanding.

I do see a great value of understanding the various positions that justify legalized abortion, so in that since, it is probably good to respect the position.
 
I can respect the person, but I won’t agree with their beliefs.
However, I won’t ever be rude or judgemental to a woman who’s made the decision to terminate. For some, the decision wasn’t easy and they most likely don’t realise the gravity of the situation (due to lack of understanding).
 
My bishop recently wrote:

‘We know that Governments and international institutions have promoted abortion and euthanasia as marks of progress and freedom. This is a false and perverse understanding in which freedom is equated with absolute individualism.’

Is it possible to respect ‘opinions’ that are false and perverse?
 
It’s more about the attitude. Me me my mine I feel, I want, I need etc.

No matter how “polite” the “pro-choice” people are, they are still advocating to destroy another human beings life because allowing the child to live would be too inconvenient & wouldn’t allow them to reach their goals. They don’t even consider the goals & dreams of the person they just killed.

Once you accept that every human being has value you can no longer be ‘pro-choice’, you must be pro life. If every human being has value, that means every human being deserves to be protected no matter how small, no matter how early. I don’t understand how you can be OK with abortion in the first trimester but not past that? What’s the difference? The baby at 2 weeks gestation still has all of the DNA & chromosomes as you do. It’s still a human. With a soul and a life to live.

There are no valid pro-choice arguments. They all come down to inconvenience or unwillingness of the parents to take responsibility for the child they created. Rape? Very rarely results in pregnancy & doesn’t explain why someone has to die because their father is a rapist. Health of the mother? There are no life threatening health conditions that are the result of pregnancy that can’t be resolved by simply delivering the child, but only through abortion. Abortion at that late stage is a painful, dangerous, 3-day process. The child will die after birth. That’s really awful. But why would you choose to have it dismembered & thrown away instead of delivering them & letting them, even if it’s just a brief moment, feel the love and tenderness you have for them while they pass peacefully in your arms?

No, I can’t see anything from the point of view of someone who is OK with killing someone because they are inconvenient, unwanted or unhealthy.
 
While I have sympathy for the sentiment, please know that there will be some to whom you cannot talk about abortion without doing more harm than good. Right now, the United States has legalized abortion, and this will continue until the people of the United States become more convinced that abortion is something which must be illegal. More people will not become more convinced that abortion is something that must be illegal until those that oppose abortion reach and understanding of why legalized abortion is supported by most Americans.

Peter Kreeft tells of how he divides the room in his class (or was it a teacher of his?) into theists and atheists and has them debate. But, he makes the atheists debate the existence of God and the theists debate atheism. For Catholics, for us to combat abortion, we need to understand in a way that is genuine why people want abortion to be legal.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top