S
Scott_Lafrance
Guest
So, if I want to kill my ex-wife, because she makes my life inconvenient, would that be considered “pro-choice”?
- Status
R
Rich_Olszewski
Guest
Indeed. Some Catholics, I know, don’t go in for the Seemless Garment/Consistent Life/“womb to tomb” Ethic. Don’t know why not.
R
rlg94086
Guest
Sure. As I already said, I use it. I was just pointing out the absurdity in someone proudly proclaiming “pro-choice” as a virtue, when the choice they are talking about is murder of innocents. I’m sorry you don’t get it, but I’m glad you are mostly pro-life.
R
Rich_Olszewski
Guest
Maybe in parts of Pakistan, but I’d not want to be your attorney trying to convince an American jury of that. I’m afraid that I’d have to concede that it would put you already at the foot of the steps of a gallows.So, if I want to kill my ex-wife, because she makes my life inconvenient, would that be considered “pro-choice”?
R
rlg94086
Guest
You don’t? I thought you were a lawyer. You don’t believe in Just War, self defense, or the licitness of the death penalty to protect society?Indeed. Some Catholics, I know, don’t go in for the Seemless Garment/Consistent Life/“womb to tomb” Ethic. Don’t know why not.
(btw…I’m against the death penalty…a stance I changed due to these fora (special thanks to estesbob) despite claims by some that people on CAF don’t change their viewpoints.)
R
Rich_Olszewski
Guest
And thus a whore of sorts, right?
A whole different topic. The death penalty might be licit, but I don’t find it acceptable.
L
LisaA
Guest
Seamless garment is not the same as consistent life ethic. My understanding this is one of those social justice phrases that was promoted by a particular Bishop and has been discredited to some extent.Indeed. Some Catholics, I know, don’t go in for the Seemless Garment/Consistent Life/“womb to tomb” Ethic. Don’t know why not.
Lisa
R
rlg94086
Guest
Um…I was referring to lawyers’ abilities to reason things out. I was surprised at your inability to understand the opposition to the “seamless garment” approach. Some people take that approach to a level of absurdity…not unlike the use of the term “pro-choice” when referring to the decision over someone else’s life.Not a different topic…you were discussing “seamless garment, womb-to-tomb.” (side note… I typed ‘seemless’ and my auto-correct changed it to ‘see less’…‘see less garment’ would change the meaning entirely
)You asked why some Catholics wouldn’t support it, and I listed a few items. As far as broadening the pro-life movement to include government-funded social programs by using the “seamless garment” approach, that is just a convenient excuse liberals use to vote for “pro-choice” (aka “pro choice of mothers to murder their unborn, innocent children”) politicians and assuage their guilt in supporting evil.
M
Mickey
Guest
Exactly.
Loaded? A mother or couple decides to terminate the life of the child in the womb. The supporters of abortion decide to call this killing of ther baby, “pro-choice”, because they feel it is the mother’s right to choose to murder the baby. But the one being murdered does not have a choice at all in the matter. It is a killing…a murder…it is genocide of our most vulnerable children. And when the more appropriate terms of pro-death or pro-abortion are introduced, you called it loaded terminology.
I appreciate your opposition to abortion. But sadly, I cannot appreciate the usage of the sugar-coated terminolgy that is used by the pro-abortion side.
R
Rich_Olszewski
Guest
Don’t recall your or my including government-funded social programs as part of the “seamless garment” and using the same to vote pro-choice.
R
Rich_Olszewski
Guest
Because it is loaded.
Those who are truly **pro-**abortion don’t use sugar coatings as far as I know. Pro-choice doesn’t automatically mean pro-abortion.
R
rlg94086
Guest
You don’t know liberals who use the “seamless garment” argument to support their votes? I do. You probably should get to know more liberals.Don’t recall your or my including government-funded social programs as part of the “seamless garment” and using the same to vote pro-choice.
R
Rich_Olszewski
Guest
Sorry, I don’t.
R
rlg94086
Guest
Exactly. Just like “pro-choice” in slavery (i.e. the right of people to choose whether they own slaves or not) doesn’t automatically mean you are pro-slavery.
R
rlg94086
Guest
You must live in a very small bubble.
M
Mickey
Guest
Not at all. It is factually descriptive.
Of course they do. Lisa’s post was quite good with the explanation as to how they sugar-coat the brutality of abortion in order to justify their stance.
Of course it does.
L
LisaA
Guest
I am totally confused by your post. Maybe you can enlighten me. I did a little more digging and indeed the “seemless garment” theory was used by Cardinal Bernadin to ingratiate himself with the liberals by expanding “pro life” to include a number of “social justice” (HATE that term blech!) issues and sort of blur the edges. IOW if you claim to be pro life you must also be for all kinds of social programs that IMO are not that closely aligned with the consistent life ethic of protecting life. That doesn’t mean feeding the whole country, opening the borders, free health care, free housing for the homeless etc. Here are some quotes from the Cardinal. I don’t think it relates to our focus on abortion.Don’t recall your or my including government-funded social programs as part of the “seamless garment” and using the same to vote pro-choice.
**Those who defend the right to life of the weakest among us must be equally visible in support of the quality of life of the powerless among us: the old and the young, the hungry and the homeless, the undocumented immigrant and the unemployed worker.”
“Consistency means that we cannot have it both ways,” Bernardin argued. “We cannot urge a compassionate society and vigorous public policy to protect the rights of the unborn and then argue that compassion and significant public programs on behalf of the needy undermine the moral fiber of the society or are beyond the proper scope of governmental responsibility.”**
My understanding is that this has been determened to be rather thinly veiled socialism.
Definitely not something I would support.
Lisa
R
Rich_Olszewski
Guest
R
Rich_Olszewski
Guest
You though him to be that shallow?
His Eminence didn’t propose all those things across the board.
Your choice and a valid one. I myself are involved in a number of programs as a donor to feed the hungry, shelter the homeless, visit the imprisoned, etc. You know, some of the things Jesus asked us to do.
M
Mickey
Guest
No, no esquire…not opinion…fact.
Hmmmm? Perhaps you do live in a small bubble.
- Status