Catholics Can Be Pro-Choice?

[Ender]

— The case of standard homicide and the case of abortion are very different. Only the most egregious form of convenient reductionism can equate the complex set of concerns and issues surrounding the two forms of killing.

Homicide and abortion both involve the deliberate killing of an innocent person. You support laws prohibiting the former but oppose prohibiting the latter. What set of concerns and issues makes it appropriate to legally prohibit one form of killing the innocent but not the other?

The law is not a teacher in the sense you indicated. I do not know anyone who believes that “legality” is equivalent to “morality.”

Nor did I equate the two. This statement by Sen. Gordon Smith explains the concept:

"The law is a teacher and we should teach our fellow citizens that all crime is hateful. But we can also teach that some crime is so odious that an extra measure of protection is demanded by us, so that it will never again be repeated among us. By changing this law we can change hearts and minds as well."

Ender

 

[vern_humphrey]

Homicide and abortion both involve the deliberate killing of an innocent person. You support laws prohibiting the former but oppose prohibiting the latter. What set of concerns and issues makes it appropriate to legally prohibit one form of killing the innocent but not the other?

Nor did I equate the two. This statement by Sen. Gordon Smith explains the concept:

"The law is a teacher and we should teach our fellow citizens that all crime is hateful. But we can also teach that some crime is so odious that an extra measure of protection is demanded by us, so that it will never again be repeated among us. By changing this law we can change hearts and minds as well."

Ender

And that is how we changed hearts and minds on the issue of racial prejudice.

 

[Ender]

It may be true that technically there is a category of pro-choice individuals who are some evil people who like to have abortions for fun, if you see what I mean, but on the contrary, I don’t think the term in reality actually means “I like abortion”. I actually would doubt many individuals who are pro-choice would say that they like people having them and want more of them to happen. In the same respect, pro-abortion is NOT the same as pro-choice.

You may perhaps be correct in saying that people who are pro-choice are not necessarily pro-abortion but this really seems like a distinction without a difference. I don’t really care to speculate on whether someone “likes” abortion or not; all that matters is whether they help or hinder the work to eliminate them. (“I don’t like slavery myself, Mr. Scott, but I strongly support people being able to choose for themselves whether they want to own one.”)

“Pro-choice” is a euphemism for pro-abortion just as “pro-life” is a euphemism for anti-abortion. Everyone is for choice just as everyone is for life. The argument is about which choices and whose lives. Those working for the continuation of the legal right to an abortion are on the pro-abortion side in every meaningful sense, regardless of their personal views.

Ender

 

[JRKH]

The term “pro-life” and the term “pro-choice” are not directly opposed; rather, they function in relation to two different sets of oppositions. One may be “pro-choice” and “pro-life” simultaneously.

For the sake of illustration, let us begin with the case of lying. Lying is a sin, and it hurts others. I am, of course, opposed to it. In this regard, let us say I am “pro-honesty.” At the same time, however, I do not presume (for any number of reasons) to use the full violent force of the law to coerce everyone into honesty. Rather, I believe people should have a choice whether to lie or not. In this respect, I am “pro-choice.” This does not mean that I think all of their choices are equally wise or righteous, and I pray that they make good choices.

As another illustration, let us consider the case of religious affiliation. In the basic sense, one should be a Christian, dedicated to Christ. In fact, the rejection of Christ is the cause of much hurt and suffering, not only for the rejector but also for those around them. In this respect, I am “pro-Christian.” However, I think it would be a bad idea to make a law saying that everyone had to convert to Christianity. People should be able to choose, even in this most serious of choices. In that respect, I am “pro-choice.”

Likewise, one can be opposed to abortion (“pro-life”) and opposed to violent categorical prohibition (“pro-choice”).

As I understand it, the Catholic Church demands that its adherents be “pro-life.”

My question is, does the Catholic Church demand its adherents be “anti-choice”? Let us say I am opposed to abortion, and am working actively to end abortions in this country. Does the Catholic Church demand that I also use “categorical prohibition by the U.S. Federal Government” as a means toward that end?

Thank you for this very clear exposition of the terms.
It is most annoying that in this debate both sides misuse the various terms to suit their own agenda.

Peace
James

 

[vern_humphrey]

Thank you for this very clear exposition of the terms.
It is most annoying that in this debate both sides misuse the various terms to suit their own agenda.

Peace
James

Does the Catholic Church require Catholics to support laws against murder, rape and robbery?

Of course!

 

[JRKH]

You are fiddling with the common use of the term and it’s not really helpful. If I understand you you oppose abortion but don’t want to see it made illegal, therefore you see yourself as both pro-life and pro-choice. If that’s the case then you need to come up with a new term rather than distort the common understanding of the terms pro-life and pro-choice … which I must admit are not particularly helpful terms to begin with. I can see there being three positions: people who oppose abortion and want it to be illegal, people who support abortion and want it to be legal, and people who oppose abortion but don’t want it to be illegal. That last one seems to be where you belong.

I have to catagorically take issue with the idea of Green-tea needing to comeup with another term. Thisis preposterous. I suggest that the people who mis-use the terms stop it.
For heaven’s sake look at the term:
Pro = in favor of
Choice = making a selection from several alternatives.

Making the term Pro-Choice the same as Pro-Abortion is blatantly political and argumentative. It serves no practical purpose. It is divisive and fails to allow real progress in any discussion, as is proved here on thsi board time and again.

I don’t think you really believe that people should be free to engage in whatever behavior they choose, and if that is so, how do you decide at what point the state should intervene to ban certain actions? I can’t believe that your position is that the government should never prohibit any choice an individual makes.

Ender

The main problem with this entire discussion, and the debate in general is that it mixes the moral questions which are personal with the legal questions which are societal.
Those who want abortions banned do so to protect thel lives of the developing person. It is their belief that human life begins at conception and to end it is wrong and sinful. To drive home their point the “murder” term is used. Morally and ethically I believe they are right.
The problem is that society and the law does not agree. Under the Law the child is not considered a person. It is not fully human. UNDER THE LAW!! Therefore the courts permit the termination of pregancy at anytime before birth and no murder has occurred, Under the Civil Law.

Green-Tea has presented this much better than I except that he/she did not make the distinction on the legal staus of the fetus.
Because this distinction was not made, the argument goes around in circles.

The ONLY and ultimate answer to the abortion question is to honestly and compassionately convince enough people that a fetus is worthy of protection. Once this is done, the societal pressure will force a change in the law.

As long as both sides feel justified in building cases against each other by the use of dirty tactics they will both get dirty. And quite frankly I want nothing to do with dirty politics. How many sins have been committed by people who feel any lie, distortion, or violent act is justified to save the unborn?

If you want the law changed, then change society. If you want to save the unborn, then love the mothers. If you want to protect new life, the Love the life already here.

 

[vern_humphrey]

The ONLY and ultimate answer to the abortion question is to honestly and compassionately convince enough people that a fetus is worthy of protection. Once this is done, the societal pressure will force a change in the law.

Just like we did with segregation?

There we quite successfully used the law to lead society to the positon that racial discrimination is wrong.

As long as both sides feel justified in building cases against each other by the use of dirty tactics they will both get dirty. And quite frankly I want nothing to do with dirty politics. How many sins have been committed by people who feel any lie, distortion, or violent act is justified to save the unborn?

So you draw moral equivalency between support for abortion and opposition to that grisly crime?

If you want the law changed, then change society. If you want to save the unborn, then love the mothers. If you want to protect new life, the Love the life already here.

That’s getting close to the pro-abortionist’s canard that those who oppose abortion don’t love the mothers and don’t love the life already here.

 

[JRKH]

Does the Catholic Church require Catholics to support laws against murder, rape and robbery?

Of course!

Since you answered your own question, what is your point.

You cannot draw others to your position with the kind of tactics you use. They are simply argumentative and give the impression of talking down to another.

It isn’t that I don’t respect your position, but people have to come to realize that we have to deal with a secular system of law here and that is based on societal demands.
Take your examples above. Do the Laws regarding murder, rape and robbery in your state directly corrospond to what the church teaches? maybe yes and maybe no.
The Commandment says Thou shalt not Kill. I see no exception here.
The Civil Law makes provisions for:
First degree murder
Second degree murder
Manslaughter
Aggravated Homicide
Vehicular Homicide
Conspiricy to Commit Homicide
…and so on.

Should we also oppose anything except one law against murder?
Thou shalt not Kill - - - and the only form of punishment be stoning?

I apologize for getting testy here, but I hope you can see from my fairly rediculous example that it is easy to derail these kinds of emotional discussions into avenues of no good purpose.

We cannot win our argument to get the laws changed by mean spirited attacks. We have to realize that politicians and some judges who are elected will only respond to the vote. Their job depends on that.
And the vote, like it or not, will tend to carry forward the morality of society at large. The first and most important campaign has to be to reduse the number of abortions, by law if society will support it, but if not then by means of education and loving intervention with the mothers and families of the unborn.

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

Just like we did with segregation?

There we quite successfully used the law to lead society to the positon that racial discrimination is wrong.

This is not a valid comparison but…
There were a number of politicians on both sides of the aisles, and for many decades who advocated privately an end to the race laws. They were thwarted by society. Yes there still was much vocal opposition to de-segregation, but the time was right and society supported the legislation being passed.

Originally Posted by JRKH
As long as both sides feel justified in building cases against each other by the use of dirty tactics they will both get dirty. And quite frankly I want nothing to do with dirty politics. How many sins have been committed by people who feel any lie, distortion, or violent act is justified to save the unborn?

So you draw moral equivalency between support for abortion and opposition to that grisly crime?

I will have to let you clarify this statement to this poor uneducated person.
I never said I support abortion. See already you are proving my point that you cannot have an unemotional discussion that will allow for progress to be made in understanding and furthering your own agenda.

Originally Posted by JRKH
If you want the law changed, then change society. If you want to save the unborn, then love the mothers. If you want to protect new life, the Love the life already here.

That’s getting close to the pro-abortionist’s canard that those who oppose abortion don’t love the mothers and don’t love the life already here.

I will be happy to discuss my statements and what they specifically mean. However, I will not discuss what others might mean when they make similar statements. Nor will I allow you to draw me into a urinating contest.
My statement is based on a Christian understanding of how to proceed. jesus said to love our neighbors. I advocate that and that is what I said. If you wish to infer anything else, that is entirely in your mind to do so.

Peace
James

 

[vern_humphrey]

This is not a valid comparison but…
There were a number of politicians on both sides of the aisles, and for many decades who advocated privately an end to the race laws. They were thwarted by society. Yes there still was much vocal opposition to de-segregation, but the time was right and society supported the legislation being passed.

Actually, it’s quite valid – the law led society. To the extent that there are significant differences with abortion, segregation was creaded by laws, and abortion by court fiat. And outlawing segretagion worked. It worked then, and it will work now.

I will have to let you clarify this statement to this poor uneducated person.
I never said I support abortion. See already you are proving my point that you cannot have an unemotional discussion that will allow for progress to be made in understanding and furthering your own agenda.

Yet you repeat most of the arguments in the pro-abortion playbook.

Here’s what the Church says:

2269 The fifth commandment forbids doing anything with the intention of indirectly bringing about a person’s death. **The moral law prohibits exposing someone to mortal danger without grave reason, as well as refusing assistance to a person in danger. **

(my emphasis)

We have a duty to protect those whose lives are in danger.

I will be happy to discuss my statements and what they specifically mean. However, I will not discuss what others might mean when they make similar statements. Nor will I allow you to draw me into a urinating contest.

Scatology, is it?

My statement is based on a Christian understanding of how to proceed. jesus said to love our neighbors. I advocate that and that is what I said. If you wish to infer anything else, that is entirely in your mind to do so.

As Christians, we must accept the Church’s requirement that we not refuse assistance to those in danger – which means spurious arguments that tend to justify or promote acceptance of abortion are prohibited.

 

[JRKH]

Actually, it’s quite valid – the law led society. To the extent that there are significant differences with abortion, segregation was creaded by laws, and abortion by court fiat. And outlawing segretagion worked. It worked then, and it will work now.

I will not argue that the Law did lead to better understanding between the races, but better understanding between the races also helped bring about the law.

Yet you repeat most of the arguments in the pro-abortion playbook.

Well I never read the “Pro-Abortion Playbook”.

Here’s what the Church says:

2269 The fifth commandment forbids doing anything with the intention of indirectly bringing about a person’s death. The moral law prohibits exposing someone to mortal danger without grave reason, as well as refusing assistance to a person in danger.

(my emphasis)
We have a duty to protect those whose lives are in danger.

But by what methods?

Scatology, is it?

Apologies

As Christians, we must accept the Church’s requirement that we not refuse assistance to those in danger – which means spurious arguments that tend to justify or promote acceptance of abortion are prohibited.

Again it is a question of methods. You feel you are correct and I feel also correct. I feel that your rhetoric is too confrontational and counter-productive and you seem to feel that since I don’t agree with you I must be the enemy.

Never the twain shall meet till one side stops growling and extends a hand.

Peace
James

 

[vern_humphrey]

I will not argue that the Law did lead to better understanding between the races, but better understanding between the races also helped bring about the law.

The “better understanding” came after the law.

But by what methods?

The same methods we use in dealing with other forms of murder. Why should abortion be different? Is the unborn child any less human that you or I?

Again it is a question of methods. You feel you are correct and I feel also correct. I feel that your rhetoric is too confrontational and counter-productive and you seem to feel that since I don’t agree with you I must be the enemy.

No – I feel that you are, for reasons I will not attempt to guess, playing into the pro-abortionist’s hands. I have debated pro-abortionists for many years, and I see you using many of the same arguments.

Never the twain shall meet till one side stops growling and extends a hand.

How do you propose to do that, and still hold that somehow the killing of a completely innocent and helpless human being is less than a crime?

 

[JRKH]

Now there are a couple of things that can be discussed…

Originally Posted by JRKH
But by what methods?

In our view an unborn child is exactly the same as you and I.
The problem lies in the fact that According to the Law, the unborn is not a human child it remains a fetus until birth and Under the Law the destruction of the fetus is not murder.

It is a stupid definition but that is what has evolved in civil law.

So long as we, who believe abortion to be morally and ethically wrong, continue to use inflammatory language, such as murder, to make the case it will only serve to drive moderates into a defensive mode.
Regardless of the Fact that it is murder in the moral sense, it is not in the legal sense. Until that can be changed, the opposition can paint the “anti-abortion” camp as fanatics who don’t care about the law.

What works to our advantage is that there are many discrepencies in the law. For instance, a person who kills a pregnant woman in DUI accident can, in some places anyway, be charged with homicde for the death of the child as well as the mother.
What these descrepencies mean is that much of the population at least tacitly feels that the fetus is a human. This view must be fostered so that it can grow and build a larger base for changing the Law.

No – I feel that you are, for reasons I will not attempt to guess, playing into the pro-abortionist’s hands. I have debated pro-abortionists for many years, and I see you using many of the same arguments.

Well let me be perfectly clear. I believe abortion to be wrong. And I have faith that this country will eventually right this wrong. However so long as the laws remain written as they are, I cannot in good concsience call another person, who may not be of my faith, a murderer.

I have the same problem with the “murder” argument as I have with the use of Pro-Choice and Pro-abortion as if they are interchangable. They are not. Doing so is THE most counterproductive thing we can do.
There are a great many moderates who would not consider an abortion for themselves under any circumstances and would council others against having one. But they do not, at present, feel that the law should be changed.
I have spoken to any number of people who feel this way.
By lumping everyone not a "Pro-Lifer into one catagory and cal that “Pro-abortion” oversimplifies the issue and creates more problems than it solves.

How do you propose to do that, and still hold that somehow the killing of a completely innocent and helpless human being is less than a crime?

I’ll start by saying to you that, though we are very different in our views and that makes it difficult to communicate, that we are basically on the same side. I would rather work with you and others to change peoples minds rather than try to bully them by name calling and misrepresentation.

I would never give up my position that abortion is wrong. but the question is, do I work to draw people closer to my position and hopefully to God, or do I try to push people into doing what I believe is right regardless of their position, feelings ideas etc. and thus create an even more determined opposition.

Remember, In order to push someone toward God I have to get behind them and that puts me further away from God than they are. If I want to draw them towards God I must first be closer to Him than they are.

One more thought on this line - The best and quickest way to make your enemy strong is to oppress them. They will close ranks, refuse to trust, and build bigger and more powerful weapons to strike you with.
If you refuse to oppress them, even while you oppose them, there ability to resist will diminish.

Peace
James

 

[vern_humphrey]

In our view an unborn child is exactly the same as you and I.
The problem lies in the fact that According to the Law, the unborn is not a human child it remains a fetus until birth and Under the Lawthe destruction of the fetus is not murder.

It is a stupid definition but that is what has evolved in civil law.

Now you see the problem – it was a change in the law (by judicial fiat) that got us where we are. The fix must be to change that by making abortion a crime in law as it is in fact. In the process, we show official social disapproval, which is the key to turning people’s attitudes.

So long as we, who believe abortion to be morally and ethically wrong, continue to use inflammatory language, such as murder, to make the case it will only serve to drive moderates into a defensive mode.

What evidence do you have of that?

Regardless of the Fact that it is murder in the moral sense, it is not in the legal sense. Until that can be changed, the opposition can paint the “anti-abortion” camp as fanatics who don’t care about the law.

Which is why we can make no significant headway until the law is changed.

What works to our advantage is that there are many discrepencies in the law. For instance, a person who kills a pregnant woman in DUI accident can, in some places anyway, be charged with homicde for the death of the child as well as the mother.

What these descrepencies mean is that much of the population at least tacitly feels that the fetus is a human. This view must be fostered so that it can grow and build a larger base for changing the Law.

And I have no objection to that – I don’t believe “perfection” is the only standard we can accept.

But let us keep in mind that abortion is murder – and pretty sordid, gruesome murder at that.

Well let me be perfectly clear. I believe abortion to be wrong. And I have faith that this country will eventually right this wrong. However so long as the laws remain written as they are I cannot in good concsience call another person, who may not be of my faith, a murderer.

You are mistaking debate for tactics. It is one thing to treat a person with respect and compassion, regardless of what they have done. It is another thing to provide cover and justification for the act.

I have the same problem with the murder argument as I have with the use of Pro-Choice and Pro-abortion as if they are interchangable. They are not. Doing so is THE most counterproductive thing we can do.

What evidence do you have for that?

There are a great many moderates who would not consider an abortion for themselves under any circumstances and would council others against having one but they do not, at present, feel that the law should be changed.

That’s the holocaust syndrome. Millions of Germans saw the boxcars full of Jews, tut-tutted about it and did nothing.

I have spoken to any number of people who feel this way.
By lumping everyone not a "Pro-Lifer into one catagory and cal that “Pro-abortion” oversimplifies the issue and creates more problems than it solves.

Have you ever spoken to someone who lived in Nazi Germany? They feel the same way – they were not guilty.

I’ll start by saying to you that, though we are very different in our views and that makes it difficult to communicate, that we are basically on the same side. I would rather work with you and others to change peoples minds rather than try and bully them by name calling and misrepresentation of either side.
I would never give up my position that abortion is wrong. but the question is, do work to draw people closer to my position and hopefully to God, or do I try to push people into doing what I believe is right regardless of their position, feelings ideas etc.

Does it strike you that on this forum, we debate, and in the real world we act?

Remember, In order to push someone toward God I have to get behind them and that puts me further away from God than they are. If I want to draw them towards God I must first be closer to Him than they are.

But is it possible to do that by giving approval and absolution to those who support abortion, even though they say they wouldn’t choose to have one?

 

[JRKH]

this is unrelated to my discussion with Mr Humphrey so I wanted to put it in a seperate post.

I read that, according to Islam, a fetus does not recieve a soul until it is 3 months and so an abortion up to that time is acceptable. Is that correct?

If it is, then there is another factor, a religious one involved in the abortion debate. For if abortion were to be catagorically outlawed, then it could be seen as an interference in a religious practice or belief system.

As If we don’t have enough to argue about.

Peace
James

 

[vern_humphrey]

this is unrelated to my discussion with Mr Humphrey so I wanted to put it in a seperate post.

I read that, according to Islam, a fetus does not recieve a soul until it is 3 months and so an abortion up to that time is acceptable. Is that correct?

If it is, then there is another factor, a religious one involved in the abortion debate. For if abortion were to be catagorically outlawed, then it could be seen as an interference in a religious practice or belief system.

Would outlawing human sacrifice be “interference in a religious practice or belief system?”

Is prosecuting certain people who practice polygamy with underage girls amount to “interference in a religious practice or belief system?”

If some extremist Muslims believe they must kill a Christian to go to heaven, and we prevent them, would that be “interference in a religious practice or belief system?”

 

[mmortal03]

Then what is their argument when they say “abortion is a choice?”

They aren’t saying abortion IS a choice. That would be a pointless argument. Anything you do “is a choice”. They are saying it should ultimately BE the choice of the woman.

Murder is a choice. Rape is a choice. Bank robbery is a choice. Should people be allowed to make those choices as they wish, with no consequences?

Trying to equate those crimes to abortion is pointless. They are each a different issue to consider.

 

[mmortal03]

So, can a man under anethesia be said to “want” anything, including to live? Can a person with Alzheimer’s be said to “want” to live?

There is no way to know for sure, as maybe they wanted to commit suicide or something, so hopefully they left instructions, but then there is also demonstrable evidence from the rest of their lives that they are, in fact, equal human beings to everyone else. What I am saying is that at certain points in the development of the fetus, there is no practical difference between them and another animal species’ fetus. Therefore, at these stages they could be treated as such, and not treated as being on the same level, with the same conscious desires and rights as a fully developed human mother.

I know that you may not like the comparison, but you would kill an animal if there was a chance that it could attack you and maim you for the rest of your life, right? Following the same logic, a mother may feel that the rest of their life could be irreparably harmed if they took the fetus through to conception. Yes, I don’t like the idea either, because it sounds like they were careless to get pregnant in the first place, and are doing this out of convenience, but I also don’t think that there is a direct argument, based on evidence, to say what they are doing is definitively wrong.

The “err on the side of caution” argument only works if you hold the fetus, at all stages, to be of equal importance as the mother.

 

[mmortal03]

I wonder if you have any conception of where this argument would be taken if it was accepted by society. Do you seriously want to give one person the right to decide whether another person lives or dies based on assumptions of what the victim might prefer? Do you really want a person to lose his rights to the protection of the law when he is no longer capable of rational thought? You may wish to open that door to allow abortions but once you have opened it you cannot close it again against those who would wish to expand the list of victims beyond the unborn.

No, I get it. However, we make assumptions like this every day when we kill animals to eat, just as one example. Shouldn’t those animals, who obviously wanted to get away from you and not die, have a say in the matter? Your slippery slope argument does not hold. The door IS open for abortion, and the arguments to expand the list of victims beyond the unborn have NO wings because of that fact.

Yes, I do support the idea of a human being having a direct choice about everything that they do with their life, including living it, however, I don’t think we can definitively say that the fetus, depending on the stage, is of equal importance as the mother, though I would personally like these people to not be so irresponsible with their decisions to the point where they get pregnant, and would rather they take the “punishment” in some cases, often times, the burden is placed on society to pay for the child to be raised, individuals that had no choice in the matter, and the child’s life is subpar because of his unfortunate circumstances. Don’t infer that this is an argument for forced limitations to be instituted by society on child bearing. It completely isn’t.

Along the same lines, I don’t think it is right for our tax money to be used to keep terminally ill patients alive when the families of the individuals cannot pay for it, regardless of those patients’ right to live.

 

[mmortal03]

(“I don’t like slavery myself, Mr. Scott, but I strongly support people being able to choose for themselves whether they want to own one.”)

Again, you are making inaccurate analogies, and your unstated major premise is that the fetus deserves equal rights at all stages of development. I don’t buy into that, and even if I did, not all individuals in society do, and it comes down to what is legal.

“Pro-choice” is a euphemism for pro-abortion just as “pro-life” is a euphemism for anti-abortion.

No, that is what you want it to be, because it is convenient for you.

Everyone is for choice just as everyone is for life.

It isn’t about some arbitrary right to choose. You are again missing the point.

The argument is about which choices and whose lives. Those working for the continuation of the legal right to an abortion are on the pro-abortion side in every meaningful sense, regardless of their personal views.

If you say so, it must be true.