Dealing with difficult deacon

[Bluegoat]

It looks to me like the problem here is two definitions of “pro-choice.”

If “pro-choice” means “pro free will” then I think we are all in favor of that. After all, free will is a gift from God, and without it we cannot choose to love Him.

However, that is not what the so-called “pro-choice” people mean by the term.

I have yet to meet any person claiming to be “pro-choice” who actually is. I usually ask such a person this question: A single mother of five living on welfare discovers she is pregnant. What should she do?

Every single time I have been told “She should get an abortion.” Not one supposedly “pro-choice” person has said “She should make a choice.”

This is when I point out that the dictionary definition of “pro” is “in favor of.” Such a person is actually “pro abortion,” not “pro-choice” for if he were, he would have said he was in favor of her making a choice, not in favor of her getting an abortion.

The OP and the deacon are both right, depending upon which definition is being used. However, since most supposedly “pro-choice” folks don’t mean “choice=free will” if the discussion is about abortion, it seems to me the most common term, that is “pro-abort,” should be the default one.

But when you ask people for their opinion, you are getting their opinion on what they think the best thing to do is in that situation - probably what that person would herself do is the answer you are getting. The form of your question is determining your answer. If you want a more relevant answer, you would have to change the form or ask it as a multiple choice question. “If a woman is on welfare, and gets pregnant, should she have the option of getting an abortion or having the baby?” or “Should a woman on welfare who is pregnant be obliged to have an abortion” If you used the latter, I suspect you would get very few yes answers. There are very few people who support mandatory abortion - I suspect that many pro-choice supporters would be absolutely horrified at the idea.

But asking if they personally think an abortion is a good idea in a particular situation is going to tell you only what they think would be best in that specific circumstance.

 

[Drawmack]

The Church says that a person who is attracted to people of the same gender suffers from a kind of disordered affection. So that it is not the same as a woman attracted to a man she should not be involved with, which is nature working as it is supposed to do, although she would have to respond appropriately to that attraction.

In the case of homosexual attraction, the church feels that it is, of itself, disordered, or goes against nature. That does not mean that it is the fault of the person who experiences the feeling, or really even say much about why it happens to some people. And the person who experiences it has the same responsibility for behavior as everyone else does.

A priest should not be a person who suffers from a malady that prompts him to act against nature, sexually or in some other way for that matter. It makes them less able to function as a priest.

FWIW, I don’t particularly support the CC position on this, but in any case it does not mean that homosexuals are considered somehow sub-human or outside God’s grace, or at fault for their feelings.

Okay, let’s look at something related. Alcohol, when imbibed in to excess, is a poison. It kills the liver and other internal organs. Therefore an alcoholic desiring a drink is a person seeking to kill themselves. Killing yourself is a sin, it is also a naturally disordered behavior. So, in order for the logic presented above to be consistently applied then an alcoholic, even one in recovery, would not be allowed to be a priest. Is this the case?

 

[Drawmack]

Maybe Jesus The Christ and the people he called “white washed tombs” (Pharisees) will agree with you.

Will you stand aside and be polite while millions of God’s babies are cut up, poisoned, or left to bleed or freeze to death if born alive during a botched abortion, just so you can “pursuade” the other side. Unless you are a prophet, time does’nt stand still, how many babies died while you were having a persuasive discussion with the other side.

Do you think these murbered/aborted babies went ot heaven?
To my knowledge there is NO infallible Catholic teaching on that.
These murdered/aborted babies might end up in LIMBO because they were not baptised.
Is LIMBO good enough for you?

So you consider that cheating?

Anyway, if you ever get to talk to the 50 million (and rising at a rate of about 5,000 per day) souls that have died, are you going to tell them you held back and while they were dying so you could try to get a victory you could “savour”?

When it is time to vote what name are they going to use on the ballot, the nice sounding name? After all “gay” means “merry”, sounds nice does’nt it? Could it be propaganda that homosexuals coopted that name?
Maybe they will have a “Gay” Pride Parade when they legalize “Gay” marriage in your area.

And people wonder why I refuse to call myself Catholic.

 

[wanner47]

Tell him that “pro-choice” implies that each choice is morally valid, which is not a teaching of the Catholic Church.

Also, it’s a term derogatory to those of us who are pro-life, because it implies that we do not support choice. That’s not true of me. I’m pro-choice as long as each choice is morally valid. I am not pro-choice when it comes to murder, however. I don’t think people should have the ability to legally choose to murder a family member.

 

[Kay_Cee]

But when you ask people for their opinion, you are getting their opinion on what they think the best thing to do is in that situation - probably what that person would herself do is the answer you are getting.

Exactly. That is my point.

The form of your question is determining your answer. If you want a more relevant answer, you would have to change the form or ask it as a multiple choice question. “If a woman is on welfare, and gets pregnant, should she have the option of getting an abortion or having the baby?” or “Should a woman on welfare who is pregnant be obliged to have an abortion” If you used the latter, I suspect you would get very few yes answers. There are very few people who support mandatory abortion - I suspect that many pro-choice supporters would be absolutely horrified at the idea.

But asking if they personally think an abortion is a good idea in a particular situation is going to tell you only what they think would be best in that specific circumstance.

Anybody who is truly “pro-choice” would automatically say “She should make a choice” regardless of the question or how it is worded. After all, if one is “pro-choice” wouldn’t choice be the position one is “pro”?

“Pro-choice” means “in favor of making a choice.” But that is never, ever what I hear from those who claim to be pro-choice. They should say “Since I am pro-choice and ‘pro-choice’ means being in favor of making a choice, I am in favor of her making a choice.” Instead they always say “She should have an abortion.” To recommend an abortion means they are in favor of (that is “pro”) having an abortion.

“Pro” doesn’t mean the position is obligatory, as in someone being forced to have an abortion. According to the dictionary, “pro” means “in favor of.” Any time someone says “She should have an abortion” it demonstrates that person is “pro” (in favor of) an abortion.

To claim to be pro-choice but to instead be “pro” one of the options of a choice demonstrates that person is not truly pro-choice (which would mean being “pro” choosing between all options) but “pro” one particular option.

 

[Corki]

Okay, let’s look at something related. Alcohol, when imbibed in to excess, is a poison. It kills the liver and other internal organs. Therefore an alcoholic desiring a drink is a person seeking to kill themselves. Killing yourself is a sin, it is also a naturally disordered behavior. So, in order for the logic presented above to be consistently applied then an alcoholic, even one in recovery, would not be allowed to be a priest. Is this the case?

Two flaws in your logic.

1. An acoholic desiring a drink is NOT a person seeking to kill themselves any more that a person driving a car is “seeking” to die in a fiery crash. The alcholic is seeking to assuage a craving and is willing to risk his/her health to do so. Alcohol, even when consumed by an alcoholic, is not fatal. It is the quantity that can be fatal and you could kill yourself with an excess of nearly anything.
2. There is nothing about being a priest that would require a man to drink excessive amounts of alcohol. So there is nothing about being a priest that would be incompatible with being a recovered alcholic.

As for the single, small drink of wine that priests are required to consume when saying Mass, mustem is used by priests who cannot consume alcohol due to alcoholism or another health reason.

 

[Bluegoat]

Exactly. That is my point.

Anybody who is truly “pro-choice” would automatically say “She should make a choice” regardless of the question or how it is worded. After all, if one is “pro-choice” wouldn’t choice be the position one is “pro”?

“Pro-choice” means “in favor of making a choice.” But that is never, ever what I hear from those who claim to be pro-choice. They should say “Since I am pro-choice and ‘pro-choice’ means being in favor of making a choice, I am in favor of her making a choice.” Instead they always say “She should have an abortion.” To recommend an abortion means they are in favor of (that is “pro”) having an abortion.

“Pro” doesn’t mean the position is obligatory, as in someone being forced to have an abortion. According to the dictionary, “pro” means “in favor of.” Any time someone says “She should have an abortion” it demonstrates that person is “pro” (in favor of) an abortion.

To claim to be pro-choice but to instead be “pro” one of the options of a choice demonstrates that person is not truly pro-choice (which would mean being “pro” choosing between all options) but “pro” one particular option.

No, if you are asking them what would be best in a given situation, they are going to give you what they think the best answer is. That they would have to make a choice would almost be a ridiculous answer to give - anyone in such a position clearly has a large number of choices to make.

Why would you ask people questions designed to get the answer you want them to give in order to “prove” that they are being inconsistent? If you are going to claim that people think a certain way, you need to go out of your way to make sure they are really giving their honest answer to the question you are actually asking - to make sure they understand what you are trying to get at and so can really tell you what they mean.

Otherwise you are deliberately misrepresenting their position for your own ends. Not only is that a lie, and slander, I don’t know what the point would be. You won’t convince them to change their mind by deliberately twisting their words - they will just think you are a hypocrite.

 

[Kay_Cee]

No, if you are asking them what would be best in a given situation, they are going to give you what they think the best answer is. That they would have to make a choice would almost be a ridiculous answer to give - anyone in such a position clearly has a large number of choices to make.

Why would you ask people questions designed to get the answer you want them to give in order to “prove” that they are being inconsistent? If you are going to claim that people think a certain way, you need to go out of your way to make sure they are really giving their honest answer to the question you are actually asking - to make sure they understand what you are trying to get at and so can really tell you what they mean.

Otherwise you are deliberately misrepresenting their position for your own ends. Not only is that a lie, and slander, I don’t know what the point would be. You won’t convince them to change their mind by deliberately twisting their words - they will just think you are a hypocrite.

I fail to see how I am a liar and a hypocrite just for asking a question, and a legitimate question at that.

My point is that people who call themselves pro-choice often have a different definition than the dictionary does of what that means.

Somehow this makes me a liar and a hypocrite? I’m not misrepresenting their position at all–they themselves have told me what their position is. I merely point out that what they have said doesn’t follow the dictionary definition of “pro.”

Go back and read my post. I am arguing definitions of words. Calling me a liar and a hypocrite for doing that is extremely offensive.

 

[Bluegoat]

I fail to see how I am a liar and a hypocrite just for asking a question, and a legitimate question at that.

My point is that people who call themselves pro-choice often have a different definition than the dictionary does of what that means.

Somehow this makes me a liar and a hypocrite? I’m not misrepresenting their position at all–they themselves have told me what their position is. I merely point out that what they have said doesn’t follow the dictionary definition of “pro.”

Go back and read my post. I am arguing definitions of words. Calling me a liar and a hypocrite for doing that is extremely offensive.

Because you are misrepresenting the answers they are giving you.

If someone asked me in my town if they should vote in the next election for Jim, and I said, yes, I think so, and they claimed on that basis that I was against democracy and for tyranny, that would be a misrepresentation - a blatant one. The fact that I think that the best candidate is Jim, or even if I think anyone who doesn’t vote for Jim is a twit, doesn’t mean I don’t think people should vote at all, or for whomever they want. The question you are asking is the same, it doesn’t give any answer about whether they think abortion is always the right answer, or the person should have a choice, or if people on welfare should be legally obliged to have abortions.

Perhaps you didn’t realize that if you had asked them a more direct question they might have answered differently or more specifically, in which case it’s a mistake and not a misrepresentation. But did you really think that if you had asked if they thought abortion should be mandatory in some situations they would have said yes?

 

[Answersplease]

Basic Propaganda (Why words are important):

1.) Tell a lie long enough and people will believe it, especially if you brainwash the next generation while they are in the public school system.
(“It’s” not a “baby”, “it’s” just a conglomeration of cells, just think about something else when the abortionist cuts into “it” without benefit of anesthesia, better yet he will do a partial birth with the head still in so you won’t hear the “it” scream.)

2.) Confuse and/or redirect the issue, it’s nice to get people talking about a subject that is apart from the real issue.
(Abortion is not the issue, the issue is the right to choose, everyone likes freedom, you’re denying our rights!)

The Words:
A.) Pro-Choice (Easiest to vote for - Everyone likes freedom!)
B.) Pro-Abortion (Harder to vote for - Abortion? Is’nt that killing a baby?)
C.) Pro-Death (Hardest to vote for - Death? I like life!)
D.) Pro-Baby Murder (No decent human being would vote for this.)

Hmmm, I wonder why the Abortionists want everyone to call them “Pro-Choice”?

The Results:
A.) Pro-Choice (Dead babies thrown into the garbage.)
B.) Pro-Abortion (Dead babies thrown into the garbage.)
C.) Pro-Death (Dead babies thrown into the garbage.)
D.) Pro-Baby Murder (Dead babies thrown into the garbage.)

If there is NOTHING WRONG with ABORTION, then WEAR THE NAME PROUDLY!

What was that? You say abortion is wrong but you are for the right to choose?
The right to choose what exactly? The right to murder an unborn child?

What was that? You say that “it’s” not a “child”, “it’s” just a conglomeration of cells?
So you mean there is nothing wrong with abortion and so you should’nt mind the name “pro-abortion”.

There is an “artist” in Taiwan who either actually eats a dead human fetus or just eats a prop that looks like a dead human fetus.
I hope he goes to America and does his performance art there. If the dead fetus is not a real baby, then no one should object.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=359663&highlight=artist+eats+fetus

If “it” is not a real baby then why can’t an enterprising company buy these aborted fetuses and grind them up to make fertelizer for your lawn?

Some “wanted” babies are born with heart defects, why can’t doctors use the hearts of these “unwanted” fetuses (they are not real babies afterall) to transplant into the “wanted” babies? Why can’t all the useable organs be harvested?

 

[Kay_Cee]

Because you are misrepresenting the answers they are giving you.

If someone asked me in my town if they should vote in the next election for Jim, and I said, yes, I think so, and they claimed on that basis that I was against democracy and for tyranny, that would be a misrepresentation - a blatant one. The fact that I think that the best candidate is Jim, or even if I think anyone who doesn’t vote for Jim is a twit, doesn’t mean I don’t think people should vote at all, or for whomever they want. The question you are asking is the same, it doesn’t give any answer about whether they think abortion is always the right answer, or the person should have a choice, or if people on welfare should be legally obliged to have abortions.

Perhaps you didn’t realize that if you had asked them a more direct question they might have answered differently or more specifically, in which case it’s a mistake and not a misrepresentation. But did you really think that if you had asked if they thought abortion should be mandatory in some situations they would have said yes?

If this is what you think I’m doing, you totally misunderstand my point.

My point is that when a person uses words, those words have meaning. If what that person is saying does not correspond to the dictionary definition of those words, he is ascribing a new and different meaning to those words, a meaning completely unsupported by the traditional understanding of those words.

The dictionary has a precise definition of “pro” and a precise definition of “choice.” Pro" means “in favor of” and “choice” means “the act of choosing.” However, when I ask my question, nobody who claims to actually be pro-choice answers the question using those terms. In other words, they have hyjacked a great sounding term–choice–and are using it for a different purpose by ascribing a different definition to it. To say one is pro-choice should always mean in favor of making a choice. That’s what the dictionary says!!! But they mean being in favor of the option of an abortion. Does the dictionary define “choice” as “the option of having an abortion”? No!

Only once have I seen a person who was truly pro-choice. She believed in the option of an abortion, but she was also participating in a jog-a-thon for the local Pregnancy Counciling Center to help women who chose to keep their babies. While I disagree with her about abortion, I admire her honesty.

So my point is that when a person claims to be pro-choice, he means something other than how the dictionary defines those terms. My question is meant to show him that. And if you can’t understand that, I suggest you quit arguing with me and go argue with your dictionary. I’m done.

 

[Michael_Francis]

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)