I
Ignats75
Guest
I reject almost every one of those statements.
Abortion is an abomination before God. Drinking too much is undesirable.
There are no positive outcomes to abortion.
- Status
Abortion is an abomination before God. Drinking too much is undesirable.
There are no positive outcomes to abortion.
H
Hokomai
Guest
Abominations are a subset of the group 'undesirable things". You should start discussion where you can, not where you can’t.
The whole Catholic objection to abortion is predicated on the assumption that abortion can have positive outcomes: hence the argument about the (good) end not justifying a (bad) means. An example would be a 12-year-old being able to grow up without being a mother at that age. Most parents would say that was good, even if they opposed an abortion to achieve it.
H
Hokomai
Guest
Generally speaking, pro-aborters on these forums would not agree with most of your list.
Why? In the views of pro-choice people, because it is a major surgical or chemical intervention which could have been avoided through other, less intrusive means.
why? In the view of many pro-choice people, because viability marks a change in the status of the fetus, because the danger to the mother is greater, and because it can be distressing for the people performing the abortions.
why? All medical interventions can have bad consequences. Changing views on the morality of abortion can have psychological impacts.
Code:
Quote:
1) abortion is undesirable
Code:
Quote:
2) late abortion should be avoided
Code:
Quote:
3) abortion can have bad consequences for the woman
J
jwinch2
Guest
No. Neither the Catechism of the Catholic Church or the Compendium for the Social Doctrine of the Church use “ends not justifying the means” argument in their discussion of abortion. Rather, the Church approaches the discussion of abortion in three main ways and in this order: 1) the absolute right to life of all innocent humans from the first moment of conception; 2) the intrinsic evil of the act; and 3) denial of equality of all persons before the law. Catholic objection to abortion is predicated on those things.
In Humanae Vitae, Paul VI does address the “ends justifying the means” argument in relation to contraception, but not abortion.
The “end not justifying the means” argument stems from an attempt to counter persons who are pro abortion seeking to rationalize their position.
H
Hokomai
Guest
Ummm = I read the repeated references to ‘direct’ abortion as raising the ends/means argument, since the Church accepts, for proportionate reasons, ‘indirect’ abortion, where the end sought is not the abortion, but, say, the removal of a fallopian tube.
I
Ignats75
Guest
Huh? Now you are just talking jibberish.
BTW Abomination is NOT “just a subset”!! I am not trying to win an argument/debate. There is no argument. But your attempts a moral relatIvism are just wrong,
H
Hokomai
Guest
The main point I am raising, that pro-lifers are often unable to get past their rage and engage constructively with their critics, and therefore make progress towards their goal is well illustrated here.
I
Ignats75
Guest
H
Hokomai
Guest
If you speak it in that way to pro-choicers they are unlikely to change their views.
B
Brendan
Guest
No, the whole Catholic objection to abortion is that it is an offense against God.
It would be kind of like saying that the objection ot nuking Australia is predicated on the assumption that is can have a positive outcome, like India having a chance to win the Crickett Ashes.
That is about the level of good vs bad that abortion entails, and the oburdidity of claiming that it’s an end vs means thing.
J
jwinch2
Guest
There is no “ends justify the means” argument to be made there either. In an ectopic pregnancy, doing nothing means death for both the mother and the child. Removal of the Fallopian tube is an effort to save the only person there who can be saved.
At the end of the day however, this is beside the point of this thread. The article in question is not referring to these types of situations, it is referring to abortion as a means of birth control which is always, always, gravely immoral. The fact that the so called priest in the article claims that it is a blessing and at the same time claims to be a Christian would be ludicrous if it were not so sad and outrageous. Christians have, from the earliest days of the Faith, always been against abortion. This woman may claim to follow Christ, but she does not. Whether she truly believes she is a Christian or not I have no idea, but who she is truly following sure as heck is not Jesus Christ.
There is no way to follow Christ and believe that the killing of innocents is a blessing; and there is no way to sugar coat that truth. Having the “ends justify the means” argument is a complete waste 99% of the time. Trying to have that discussion with someone who does not believe that the child is an actual person will get you absolutely nowhere. A person who believes that the child is a child could never make the statements made in that article. The rest of this talk about how we engage pro-abortion persons to prevent turning them off is just bloviating.
Either way, it is time to stop calling these people Christian because they are not. And frankly, I do not care in the slightest whether that sort of talk turns off pro abortion persons or not, so you can save that argument for someone else.
D
Dirt
Guest
From the Didache,
“Chapter 2. The Second Commandment: Grave Sin Forbidden. And the second commandment of the Teaching; You shall not commit murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not commit pederasty, you shall not commit fornication, you shall not steal, you shall not practice magic, you shall not practice witchcraft, you shall not murder a child by abortion nor kill that which is born. You shall not covet the things of your neighbor, you shall not swear, you shall not bear false witness, you shall not speak evil, you shall bear no grudge. You shall not be double-minded nor double-tongued, for to be double-tongued is a snare of death. Your speech shall not be false, nor empty, but fulfilled by deed. You shall not be covetous, nor rapacious, nor a hypocrite, nor evil disposed, nor haughty. You shall not take evil counsel against your neighbor. You shall not hate any man; but some you shall reprove, and concerning some you shall pray, and some you shall love more than your own life.” earlychristianwritings.com/text/didache-roberts.html
From the earliest days of Our Church, this has been taught. The murder of a child is Sin, no matter how one tries to parse and bend the truth to fit an argument. You may debate till the end of time, but one cannot change the Truth.
M
mark_a
Guest
why?
H
Hokomai
Guest
I am sure someone more knowledgeable will correct me if i am wrong, but does not the Church, for the very reason that the end does not justify the means, require that the fallopian tube be removed, fetus and all, rather than that the fetus be removed from the tube? And if neither can be saved, other than by a direct abortion, does not the Church teach that neither should be saved?
H
Hokomai
Guest
http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon1.gif Re: From our Episcopal Brethren
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hokomai forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
and because it can be distressing for the people performing the abortions.
why?
_____
Because, for example, some people performing abortions do consider the fetus to be a human being, albeit with lesser rights than the mother. And even those who do not will have a hard time avoiding the fact that a fetus looks like a human being. And sometimes the circumstances and distress of the mother will itself induce distress in others. This is common ground between pro-choice people and pro-lifers. They just don’t tell each other.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hokomai forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
and because it can be distressing for the people performing the abortions.
why?
_____
Because, for example, some people performing abortions do consider the fetus to be a human being, albeit with lesser rights than the mother. And even those who do not will have a hard time avoiding the fact that a fetus looks like a human being. And sometimes the circumstances and distress of the mother will itself induce distress in others. This is common ground between pro-choice people and pro-lifers. They just don’t tell each other.
H
Hokomai
Guest
You are assuming you know my views on abortion. I have not expressed them in this thread.
H
Hokomai
Guest
I’m glad you think there is at least some some merit in what I say.
D
Dirt
Guest
I, personally, see no merit to your point of view whatsoever. It is relativistic and modernist. It smells of the same brimstone as that preached by Sebelious, Obama, Sanger, Peters and all those who attempt to justify the murder of innocent children and, as we now see in Europe, the elderly and infirm.
I
Ignats75
Guest
That’s like saying that instead of going to war to stop the insidious spread of the third reich, we negotiate with Hitler and ask him to stop taking over countries and killing Jews and Catholics in the Holocaust.
D
Dirt
Guest
Trust me when i say that i am not singling out Europe. We will have traveling euthanasia teams here quite soon. The USA is leading the way in the culture of death.
I just could not remember the exact country as i posted.
I just could not remember the exact country as i posted.
- Status