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

[Erikaspirit16]

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

Oh goodie! I love to quote the catechism! But first…being pro-choice is NOT “leading others to do wrong.” It’s simply allowing freedom of conscience and freedom of religion. Once again, just because you think it’s a good idea to allow everyone to make their own moral choices doesn’t mean you think abortion is a good idea. But let’s look at the catechism:

Are you familiar with section #1738 of the catechism? If not, here it is:

" Freedom is exercised in relationships between human beings. Every human person, created in the image of God, has the natural right to be recognized as a free and responsible being. All owe to each other this duty of respect. The right to the exercise of freedom , especially in moral and religious matters, is an inalienable requirement of the dignity of the human person. This right must be recognized and protected by civil authority within the limits of the common good and public order."

Please note the bit about “the right to the exercise of freedom esp. in moral and religious matters, is an inalienable requirement of the human person.”

And yet you are going against Church teachings by trying to take away “the right to exercise of freedom” which, as the Catechism rightly points out, should be “protected by civil authority.” Absolutely.

 

[LateCatholic]

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?

I’ve raised the same issue. If life begins at conception, why don’t you get tax breaks 9 months prior to a child’s birth? You think Republicans would go for that?

 

[graciew]

But it will succeed in killing and injuring women.

Let us be precise. Which is precisely what your group doesn t offer : numbers , when throwing around the “ killing and injuring”

Without meaning to prolongue this discussion eternally,because for now we have won our national debate and it was exhausting,I will pick 2016 where I live.

The number of women who die due to to abortions ( including provoked,spountaneous, hectopical pregnancies,and such) : 43.

It doesn t mean at all to despise even one person.
They represent the 0,025 % that year of feminine deaths.
Here the claim was a “ serious problem with Public Health”
A prayer for each and every woman and baby who died, and please do not use them and all those babies to argue Don Quixotes windmills…

0,025 %

 

[prayerrider]

If it’s not human, than what is it? A salamander? A bat? An amoeba?
If it is human (and it obviously must be), then killing it is homicide.
Basic biology, basic jurisprudence.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

I’ve raised the same issue. If life begins at conception, why don’t you get tax breaks 9 months prior to a child’s birth? You think Republicans would go for that?

This is actually a common pro-choice argument. There was a Washington Post article last Sunday about this: https://www.washingtonpost.com/outl...673edf2d127_story.html?utm_term=.f8fca24c1775

Now some of my good buddies start talking about “stages of development” and the drinking age at this point, but that is totally irrelevant. If a just-conceived cell = a human being, then clearly (right pro-lifers? We are aiming for consistency and logic here, right?) the just-conceived cell (assuming it was detectable!) should be:

1. counted in a census
2. an income tax deduction for the parent
3. entitled to child support payments if the father isn’t married to the mother
4. eligible for life insurance–if there is a miscarriage, the mother should be able to collect
5. a US citizen if it was conceived in the US
6. a protection against a pregnant woman going to jail–since the fetus (innocent!) would be imprisoned as well, and thus deprived of its due process
   7 given a Social Security number (for tax purposes, if nothing else…)

And please think if you are going to respond: NONE of these things has to do with a “specific age” or “stage of development.” They are simply rights given to any human being in the US. And if a single-celled fertilized egg = a human being…well, where are their rights? Or are you going to cherry pick rights: they get this right, but not that right? Really?

And if you want to say, “But that’s ridiculous!” I’m with you all the way–but to be consistent, I then have to say that the one-celled fertilized egg is not a human being, and thus does NOT have the rights of any human being in the US.

 

[Thorolfr]

If it’s not human, than what is it? A salamander? A bat? An amoeba?
If it is human (and it obviously must be), then killing it is homicide.
Basic biology, basic jurisprudence.

It’s not that simple because all stages of human life are not the same. I, for example, wouldn’t consider what I was when I was an embryo to be the same as when I was 1 year old or ten years old. An embryo, in my opinion, is different because it is not a conscious and sentient being like I was when I was 1 year old or like I am now. If something had happened to me when I was an embryo, I wouldn’t even know it. I might have been part of the two thirds of embryos that naturally don’t survive.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

If it’s not human, than what is it? A salamander? A bat? An amoeba?
If it is human (and it obviously must be), then killing it is homicide.
Basic biology, basic jurisprudence.

OK, I’ll match you cliche for cliche. Ready? Here we go: An acorn is not an oak tree. A tadpole is not a frog. A fertilized chicken egg is not a chicken.

And here, of course, we have the main point in the debate, such as it is: what do you mean by “human being”? To me there is a difference between saying “This cluster of cells is human.” and “This cluster of cells is a human being.” To me a “human being” necessarily has the characteristics of a human being: a lovely Vatican document, “Communion and Stewardship: Human Persons Created in the Image of God”
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c...th_doc_20040723_communion-stewardship_en.html has some interesting things to say. For example, that Augustine thought the three essential characteristics of the “image of God” [=human being] were “memory, intelligence, and will.” (section 15) I’m not sure our fertilized egg has a memory. Or intelligence. Or a will. Or let’s look at section 40: “Persons created in the image of God are bodily beings whose identity as male or female…” Whoops. A fertilized egg is neither male or female. Well, OK then, let’s move on to section 42: “The human being is truly human to the extent that he actualizes the essentially social element in his constitution as a person within familial, religious, civil, professional, and other groups…” Hmmm. The idea of our fertilized egg joining a “professional group” is a bit outlandish I think. And yet without that “social element,” the document clearly says a human being is not truly a human being.

And of course I’m sure my buddies here will immediately say “But…” Perhaps. But find me another definition of “human being” in a church document.

And for those of you who like a more literal interpretation of the Bible, check this out: Genesis 2:7 “Then the LORD God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.” Huh. Look at that. The guy had nostrils (!) BEFORE God breathed “the breath of life” (however you want to interpret that) into him. Clearly this was not a fertilized egg if it (he) had nostrils.

But one thing is certain: ANY human being has certain rights, whether you want to cite the US Constitution, UN declarations, common sense, natural law, or whatever. But–according to pro-lifers–the only “right” our fertilized egg seems to have is the “right to life.” Fair enough, but sadly not nearly good enough. If it is indeed a “human being” then it should have all the rights any other human being has. But it doesn’t. Even in the wildest pro-life dreams. Consistency? Nope. None.

I could go on, but it’s late.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

Let us be precise. Which is precisely what your group doesn t offer : numbers , when throwing around the “ killing and injuring”

I love to be precise. That’s why I give links and plenty of quotations. Funny, I don’t see any links or quotations in your post.

But here is " In a 1976 article, researchers from the Center for Disease Control examined national abortion data from the three years surrounding the rulings and estimated that the number of illegal procedures in the country plummeted from around 130,000 to 17,000 between 1972 and 1974. The number of deaths associated with illegal abortion decreased from 39 to five in that same time period; women who died as a result of illegal abortions typically were black, were more than 12 weeks pregnant and had self-induced in their own community. The researchers concluded that abortion services need to be improved and available more widely, especially for women at high risk for seeking illegal abortions, because “any actions which impede their access to legal abortion may increase their risk of death.” Abortion Before and After Legalization | Guttmacher Institute And yes, that’s the US. So the number went from 39 to 5 over three years. Sounds like 34 lives saved to me. Or are you saying that a single life doesn’t matter? That would be a strange position for someone who says they are pro-life. So you can’t mean that, right? Again, consistency. Logic.

But let’s turn to other countries, esp. ones where abortion is illegal. Take Argentina for example:
40-some women die each year from unsafe (and illegal) abortions. But let’s take a look at the bigger picture: " In parts of the world where abortion is illegal, botched abortions still cause about [8 to 11 percent] of all maternal deaths, or about 30,000 each year." How Many Women Die From Illegal Abortions - The Atlantic Now we’re talking! 30,000 women a year. Dead. I don’t know about you, but I’m appalled.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

I don’t see what the point of mentioning this [that pro-choice is NOT pro-abortion]. I’m sure the pro-life people here find it just as abhorrent.

Not quite sure what you’re saying here. WHAT is abhorrent? Both pro-choice and pro-abortion positions? Are you saying they’re “just as abhorrent”?

Why mention this here? Because that’s the original poster’s point: they are horrified that practicing Catholics identify themselves as pro-choice. Let me introduce myself: I am a life-long practicing Catholic. I go to Mass every Sunday. I take Communion. And I am pro-choice. And someone posted some statistics (I’m not sure if it was on this thread or another) that showed this is a common position. Virtually all Catholic politicians who are Democrats hold this position.

If you are horrified, then read some of the quotations from the catechism, Vatican documents, etc. that I have posted. Seems clear to me.

 

[Aquinas11]

I guess identical twins are a myth then

The genetic information used for both is formed at conception.

 

[Aquinas11]

But to IMPLEMENT it, you need sex education in public education.

To implement abstinence you need sex ed?

Makes about as much sense as to implement teetotaling you need drinking education

Or to implement fasting you need eating education

 

[Gtsuns]

Except in the cases of drunk driving or firing a gun in the city, there is an objectively bad thing being prevented and no justifiable consequence to its being forbidden.

With abortion, there is no objective evil being prevented and the list of objective consequences to bringing and unwanted child into the world is a mile long. Poverty, stigma, compounding disadvantage, burden to the system, etc.

Our position that the soul is born at conception is a religious position. Period.

People that do not hold our religious beliefs don’t think “maybe.” They think it’s not true.
They ARE erring in the safe side of what they can see in the earthly world.

To them, it is the Pro-Life movement that restricts their choice that is causing objective consequence and suffering for the sake of a maybe.

 

[Aquinas11]

You’re kidding, right?

Pretty much crystallizes the strongest pro abortion retort

 

[Gtsuns]

Pro-Life (the movement; not the position) is not perceived as pro-life, but as anti-choice in exactly the same way that pro-choice is seen by many as “pro-abortion.” (No one is excited to get an abortion)
Neither of those things are true, but as long pro-life people continue to fight the right to choose and not to fight the reasons to make the choice, pro-choice people will defend the ability to make the choice as they see fit.

 

[Aquinas11]

as long pro-life people continue to fight the right to choose

Pro life people support right to choose
(1) Abstinence
(2) Birth Control
(3) Motherhood
(4) Adoption

They just don’t support a fifth choice of Murder.

 

[Nicky777]

The answer is a simple one. Pro abortion Catholics call themselves Catholic in the same way satan disguises himself as an angel of light.

 

[Benjinho]

pnewton:

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.

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.

1. I’m not a Republican, but rather a Libertarian, so this answer won’t really address your rhetorical question, but I believe that a crime is not a crime if there is no victim. There are victims in abortion, around a million annually.
2. As you’ve pointed out, women will not stop getting abortions if they’re made illegal, and they’ll just end up hurting/killing themselves more. In principle, I’m of the opinion that no action that harms another human should be legal, so…doesn’t make a difference to me.
3. You do understand you’re on a Catholic forum, correct? Why would it even matter what Buddhists, Muslims, Hindus, Mormons or Jews think when the title of my thread is “how can pro-choice Catholics seriously call themselves practicing Catholics?” They’re not even part of the discussion.

 

[Gtsuns]

Non-Catholic answer:

“It’s not murder.”

 

[Benjinho]

LateCatholic:

I’ve raised the same issue. If life begins at conception, why don’t you get tax breaks 9 months prior to a child’s birth? You think Republicans would go for that?

This is actually a common pro-choice argument. There was a Washington Post article last Sunday about this: https://www.washingtonpost.com/outl...673edf2d127_story.html?utm_term=.f8fca24c1775

Now some of my good buddies start talking about “stages of development” and the drinking age at this point, but that is totally irrelevant. If a just-conceived cell = a human being, then clearly (right pro-lifers? We are aiming for consistency and logic here, right?) the just-conceived cell (assuming it was detectable!) should be:

1. counted in a census
2. an income tax deduction for the parent
3. entitled to child support payments if the father isn’t married to the mother
4. eligible for life insurance–if there is a miscarriage, the mother should be able to collect
5. a US citizen if it was conceived in the US
6. a protection against a pregnant woman going to jail–since the fetus (innocent!) would be imprisoned as well, and thus deprived of its due process
   7 given a Social Security number (for tax purposes, if nothing else…)

And please think if you are going to respond: NONE of these things has to do with a “specific age” or “stage of development.” They are simply rights given to any human being in the US. And if a single-celled fertilized egg = a human being…well, where are their rights? Or are you going to cherry pick rights: they get this right, but not that right? Really?

And if you want to say, “But that’s ridiculous!” I’m with you all the way–but to be consistent, I then have to say that the one-celled fertilized egg is not a human being, and thus does NOT have the rights of any human being in the US.

These legal things are not counted for embryos or fetuses because the demographics of such humans are difficult if not impossible to ascertain, and there is a lot of uncertainty with pregnancy/birth, particularly with embryos. These points also imply that practical concerns inform moral concerns, a completely wrong concept.

 

[Benjinho]

With abortion, there is no objective evil being prevented and the list of objective consequences to bringing and unwanted child into the world is a mile long. Poverty, stigma, compounding disadvantage, burden to the system, etc.

To them, it is the Pro-Life movement that restricts their choice that is causing objective consequence and suffering for the sake of a maybe.

This world is finite. Its resources, finite. If the lives of unborn children are left unchecked, the world and its resources, along with born children, will cease to exist. The birth of children needs correction.
- Thanos, c. 2019

Concern with pragmatism in the matter of morality (i.e. murder) is not a valid argument.