How can pro-choice Catholics seriously call themselves practicing Catholics?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Benjinho
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Government is terrible at it. But around here, and in much of the rest of the US, the alternative is mostly church-supported charities. Because Catholics are few in number, Catholic charities are few, underfunded, and are limited to larger cities. Many of the rest are funded by Evangelical Protestant churches, and they require you to join their church before they will help. This brings us back to the government. Government help is minimal, and getting it is difficult and dehumanizing, but it is help, which is more than charitable organizations offer.
 
Ridgerunner said:
40.png
LateCatholic:
Nearly every other political position by the Church is Democratic (health care, the environment, helping the poor, death penalty, racial equality, equality of women, etc).
Click to expand...
The Dem party has done nothing for the truly poor, for racial minorities, for women or the environment for decades. It is now the party of Goldman Sachs, Walmart, the anti-union open borders, open trade that robs people of jobs.

Where does the Church support any of that?
Click to expand...
That’s not true. I personally know some poor women who had no health insurance before the Medicaid expansion under Obamacare. And Democrats have passed quite a bit of legislation to protect the environment which the Trump administration is trying to roll back. Here’s some news from just a few days ago:
The EPA is following through on plans to reduce the number of deaths it counts as attributable to air pollution, reportedly in an effort to support the Trump Administration’s plans to shore up the coal industry.

The plans were first discussed at a meeting of a key EPA air-quality standards board in the end of March…

The new EPA rules would essentially throw out a wide range of studies that show correlation between increased levels of particulate air pollution and premature deaths, but don’t show direct causality.

Under the Trump administration, the EPA is also working to undermine California air quality standards that require automakers to build electric cars.
Click to expand...
www.greencarreports.com

Report: EPA model will count fewer deaths to help favor coal plants

As reported by the New York Times, sources familiar with the EPA's plans indicate the agency may use a new model that will count fewer premature deaths as caused by air pollution.
www.greencarreports.com www.greencarreports.com
 
Yes indeed. However, it has always struck me as funny (not in an amusing way) that once upon a time it was the left who supported the coal miners: working conditions, pay, health benefits, and so on; and nowadays, it’s the right that wants to bolster the coal industry and maintain jobs for coal miners and the left views the miners as almost satanic because of environmental pollution. How times have changed.
 
fj2020 said:
of course they do, it gets them off the hook from having a social conscience
Click to expand...
Please explain your line of reasoning.

It seems backwards to me.

Subsidiarity is an organizing principle that matters ought to be handled by the smallest, lowest or least centralized competent authority. Political decisions should be taken at a local level if possible, rather than by a central authority.

If they people believe the work should be done at the lowest level (the level closest to them) then doesn’t that make them more accountable? Asking big government to take care of social problems let’s someone off the hook. Asking the big impersonal entity, that’s funded by someone else (taxes), is used to alleviate the conscience without doing any work.
 
Last edited:
meltzerboy2 said:
Yes indeed. However, it has always struck me as funny (not in an amusing way) that once upon a time it was the left who supported the coal miners: working conditions, pay, health benefits, and so on; and nowadays, it’s the right that wants to bolster the coal industry and maintain jobs for coal miners and the left views the miners as almost satanic because of environmental pollution. How times have changed.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, protecting the environment will cause some people with certain jobs to lose them. We can’t continue to chop down all our trees so lumbermen can have a job or continue to fish our oceans until many fish species are on the brink of extinction so that fishermen can have a job. And we shouldn’t continue to use coal just so that coal miners can have a job.
 
Last edited:
Yes, of course. The coal mining jobs and manufacturing jobs are not coming back. I was just remarking on how the left and the right seem to have reversed sides on this issue in comparing their positions in the 1960s and 70s with those today. Everything depends on one’s perspective as well: prepare for the future or tend to the needs of the present. Younger people would naturally support innovation and the fight against pollution since, after all, it is their future; whereas older people tend to want to maintain the status quo or even go back to the past when they were young. And these tendencies apply not only to the coal industry.
 
robertmidwest said:
If they people believe the work should be done at the lowest level (the level closest to them) then doesn’t that make them more accountable? Asking big government to take care of social problems let’s someone off the hook. Asking the big impersonal entity, that’s funded by someone else (taxes), is used to alleviate the conscience without doing any work.
Click to expand...
If all decisions were made at the local level, then people in one small town might decide that black people should continue to use separate bathrooms and drink from separate drinking fountains whereas that would not be true in some other town somewhere else where the people considered that unjust. And if everything is local, then the poor people in some states would be taken care of better than the poor people in some other states. As it is now, many blue states pay more in Federal taxes than what they get back whereas some poor red states like Mississippi get back quite a bit more than what they pay. But that’s OK because that means that the disparity between how well the poor are taken care of between states is not as big as it would be otherwise.
 
Aquinas11 said:
You don’t support that because it is a real solution.
Click to expand...
No, far from it. I DO support it. But to IMPLEMENT it, you need sex education in public education. The problem I have with the pro-life set is that it is all talk. I agree we should promote abstinence. But as soon as we try to do that, the religious right goes crazy. How dare we tell our 14 years olds not to have sex??? Then they will have sex. Wrong. Education will solve the problem, not exasperate it.
 
meltzerboy2 said:
it’s the right that wants to bolster the coal industry and maintain jobs for coal miners and the left views the miners as almost satanic because of environmental pollution.
Click to expand...
The right doesn’t care about coal miners. They care about the coal mine OWNERS. It has nothing to do with the miners. Coal miner jobs number around 50,000 and continue to shrink because of automation. If the right cared about the miners, they would support re-training and job placement like the left does.

Saying the Left doesn’t support coal miners is ridiculous. Does the Right not support doctors because they are against abortion? Does the Right hate doctors and nurses because they want to get rid of ObamaCare? Silly extrapolation that is obviously false in both cases.
 
Gtsuns said:
One can be pro life and pro choice at the same time.
Click to expand...
Many people fit this category. However, they are very limited in what they are pro-choice about. If you are going to use a euphemism like “pro-choice,” leaving the object of that choice, abortion, unspoken, then it must logically follow that the object is not what is important. After all, we do not want to force people to follow God’s law, as you say. So before the Civil War, being pro-choice, that is, personally against slavery, but it should be the individual’s choice if they wanted to own a few people, would have been just as logical. Or, since the line of crossing a birth canal is arbitrary, set only by convention, one could logically be pro-choice for infanticide, though personally against it.

The problem with the middle road is that it must assume a position. Is the person in the womb human, and deserving any rights? If he or she is, then the law should protect them. If he or she is not, then there really is nothing wrong with abortion, any more than removing an appendix.

I will go one step further in my own opinion. If it cannot be known, then the prudent thing would be not to allow abortion, just like we have other laws that prevent actions that may or may not take a life, like driving drunk or firing a gun in the city.
 
Last edited:
I know it’s a rhetorical question, but plenty of us in the medical field don’t like ObamaCare either.
 
Benjinho said:
I know it’s a rhetorical question, but plenty of us in the medical field don’t like ObamaCare either.
Click to expand...
There are certainly some things about Obamacare to dislike. On the other hand, there are millions of people who gained access to healthcare who didn’t have any before. I’ve been in a situation in the past where I could not get health insurance because of pre-existing conditions. I’m glad I don’t have to worry about that any more.
 
I see all my good buddies are here for round 2,345,456. Cool!

Let’s start with a reality check! You want to end abortion, right? So making it illegal solves the problem, right? Actually, no. Not even close. But it will succeed in killing and injuring women.

“Abortion rates are similar in countries where abortion is highly restricted and where it is broadly legal. The abortion rate is 37 per 1,000 women in countries that prohibit abortion altogether or allow it only to save a woman’s life, and 34 per 1,000 in countries that allow abortion without restriction as to reason—a difference that is not significant.” Unintended Pregnancy and Abortion Worldwide | Guttmacher Institute

If you don’t trust the Guttmacher Institute, feel free to compile your own statistics. They’ll come out the same. Facts are facts, despite the present insanity. (And no, the Chinese are not going to pay for the US tariffs, nor is Mexico going to pay for the wall.)
pnewton said:
I can also see where a person could see this as a matter of separation of Church and State. Also, it might be seen as a matter of prudence, that is, it is easier to stop abortion without the force of law. While I do not agree with this, I think the next decade may show that there is something to be said for not allowing the law to outstrip what people are willing to accept.
Click to expand...
I always find it fascinating. On the one hand, the right wingers are against government interference. On the other hand, they want the government to interfere in the private lives of all citizens (by making abortion illegal). Hello contradiction! Aren’t your heads spinning?

And one person mentioned it, but I’ll second the mention: being “pro-choice” does not mean you are “pro-abortion.” It means exactly what it says: You are in favor of allowing each woman to make her own decision, not depriving her of that right. It doesn’t mean you think abortion is a great idea. You can simultaneously be against abortion but for allowing each woman to make her own decision.

Just for funsies, let’s take a quick look at other religions who do NOT agree with the Catholic Church’s position on abortion ( = human life begins at conception (a rather nebulous concept, which I’d be happy to go into) + abortion = murder)

Judaism
Islam
Buddhism
Hinduism
Confucianism
Anglican
Episcopal
Evangelical Lutheran
Methodist
Presbyterian
Quakers
Latter-Day Saints (Mormons)

Clearly all godless, evil people, right? And yes, I know, I know…only YOU know “Truth.” But guess what? You’re not making very convincing arguments. Why not? Gallup polls have asked the same question in the US since 1976: “Are you in favor of making abortion illegal under any circumstance?” Abortion | Gallup Historical Trends That’s you guys, right? I thought so. In 1976, 21% agreed. In the latest poll, 2018, that fell to 18%. Oh–and the numbers who thought the opposite–that abortion should be LEGAL under ANY circumstance? That rose from 22% in 1976 to 29% in 2018. Looks like you’ve got some work to do. Go for it. But whatever you’ve been doing for 43 years has been totally ineffective.
 
Last edited:
Erikaspirit16 said:
And one person mentioned it, but I’ll second the mention: being “pro-choice” does not mean you are “pro-abortion.” It means exactly what it says: You are in favor of allowing each woman to make her own decision, not depriving her of that right. It doesn’t mean you think abortion is a great idea. You can simultaneously be against abortion but for allowing each woman to make her own decision.
Click to expand...
I don’t see what the point of mentioning this. I’m sure the pro-life people here find it just as abhorrent.
 
LateCatholic said:
…
“Pro-life” doesn’t solve anything. Until Catholics realize this isn’t a perfect world, and start proposing and implementing practical and effective solutions, we won’t solve the problem.
Click to expand...
Taking the pro-life position is the anti-abortion position, which does solve a problem of giving scandal. The correct action is to avoid personal sin, which includes being complicit.

Catechism
2284 Scandal is an attitude or behavior which leads another to do evil. the person who gives scandal becomes his neighbor’s tempter …

2286 Scandal can be provoked by laws or institutions, by fashion or opinion.

2287 Anyone who uses the power at his disposal in such a way that it leads others to do wrong becomes guilty of scandal and responsible for the evil that he has directly or indirectly encouraged. “Temptations to sin are sure to come; but woe to him by whom they come!” 89
  • 89 Lk 17:1.
Click to expand...
 
VanitasVanitatum said:
When would they become a human life?
Click to expand...
The question I have (and I don’t know the answer) is whether an embryo and a baby that has just been born should have the same rights and be treated as if they are equal in all ways under the law? According to research, up to two thirds of embryos fail to develop successfully. So, only about a third of embryos survive to develop into a baby. I have a hard time looking at a just conceived embryo which already has a somewhat slim chance of survival as being equivalent to a baby that is at seven months or eight months, etc.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top