A
Aquinas11
Guest
Right, which is why people need Catholicism to obtain a moral compass
How can pro-choice Catholics seriously call themselves practicing Catholics?
- Status
V
Vico
Guest
Note it is “within the limits of the common good and public order” not absolutely. A person should avoid their own personal sin, and than means not to be complicit through tacit approval. Civil laws should reflect divine and natural law.Vico:
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.
See that “the end does not justify the means” ( Catechism of the Catholic Church , nos. 1749-1761).
D
DisorientingSneeze
Guest
I didn’t read this thread in its entirely so apologies if this exact thing has been said.
I will preface this by saying I’m prolife and I vote prolife. They can call themselves Catholics because they were baptized Catholic and because we can disagree on the nature and purpose of a government.
The “camps” are a lot more varied. Someone could be unready to eradicate it completely but recognizes that Planned Parenthood is a monster.
Someone could be more interested in the movement on the ground level helping moms not to abort than whatever is going on with lawmakers.
The possibilities are endless.
I will preface this by saying I’m prolife and I vote prolife. They can call themselves Catholics because they were baptized Catholic and because we can disagree on the nature and purpose of a government.
The “camps” are a lot more varied. Someone could be unready to eradicate it completely but recognizes that Planned Parenthood is a monster.
Someone could be more interested in the movement on the ground level helping moms not to abort than whatever is going on with lawmakers.
The possibilities are endless.
Last edited:
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
Others, of course, assume moral superiority and throw rash judgments around.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
And lots of people have lost their insurance because they can’t afford to pay the higher Obamacare premiums. And lots of poor who are employed are now paying more for their contribution to the employment plan because of Obamacare. About the same number of people don’t have coverage now that didn’t have it before Obamacare. Obamacare just shifted who paid less and who paid more.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
So if the state decrees that whether or not to kill Jews is my personal decision, there’s no moral fault in failing to oppose such a decree? You can’t mean what you just said. You’re saying infringing on the most sacred rights of others is authorized by the Catechism as a matter of freedom of conscience.
J
jasonthechief
Guest
It is shocking to see so many on a Catholic forum trotting out the same old bastardization of language to justify the wholesale killing of the unborn. “Reproductive rights” “right to choose” “women’s health”. What a sick society when so many vehemently support mothers being able to kill their own offspring. I guess it’s political ideology before everything today. Sad.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
But virtually all laws are based on theological beliefs. There have been societies in which it was thought that children aren’t real persons until some time after birth. So you think your friend should be free to kill a two-month-old for example?
I’m kind of amazed your friend doesn’t know babies in the womb breathe amniotic fluid quite some time before birth.
Do you feel the same way about laws against rape; that we shouldn’t make it illegal, we should just try to persuade people not to do it?
V
Vico
Guest
Copy the poster: @Erikaspirit16Erikaspirit16:
So if the state decrees that whether or not to kill Jews is my personal decision, there’s no moral fault in failing to oppose such a decree? You can’t mean what you just said. You’re saying infringing on the most sacred rights of others is authorized by the Catechism as a matter of freedom of conscience.Vico:
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
Last edited:
G
Gtsuns
Guest
This is true. But what you are asking for is for people to see the Truth.
Pro choice Catholics want the same.
And then therefore to choose rightly.
Pro choice Catholics want the same.
And then therefore to choose rightly.
G
Gtsuns
Guest
Rape is universally accepted as amoral by the people who set up the laws.
Abortion is not.
Abortion is not.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
Actually, rape has been accepted in some societies. But look at what you just said. You said “amoral”. I think you meant “immoral”, but that’s not my point. If society decides something like rape is immoral, then where do such concepts come from legitimately in your view? General consensus? The decrees of lawmakers? Where?
If lawmakers or majorities can legitimately declare something immoral and impose that on everyone in a society, then there’s no reason why religions held by majorities cannot.
S
Sbee0
Guest
And yet nobody is aware of a new pregnancy and seeks an abortion hours or days after conception making this point completely moot.VanitasVanitatum:
The statement was that there is no logical position to consider human life originating other than conception.
Yet an identical twin is formed hours or even days after conception.
M
Moose
Guest
Stunning in the lack of intellectual depth and breadth.
So, along with all the other sjw’s, you foolishly buy in to the moral relativism
Of : “ my truth”, “ my life”, “my body”, “ my decision”…my…my…my
No self-absorption there, huh?
It’s MURDER - once and every. There can be no equivocation.
Laughable any other way…
So, along with all the other sjw’s, you foolishly buy in to the moral relativism
Of : “ my truth”, “ my life”, “my body”, “ my decision”…my…my…my
No self-absorption there, huh?
It’s MURDER - once and every. There can be no equivocation.
Laughable any other way…
S
Sbee0
Guest
Nothing nebulous about it. Science says that human life begins at conception. If you deny that then you deny science and thus there’s no point in discussing further. Once you’re on board with science and facts then the conversation can continue.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:
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)
S
Sbee0
Guest
Personhood arguments are completely worthless, for reasons which you are aware of as I’ve stated them many times. Feel free to keep banging this drum but it’s getting you nowhere.LateCatholic:
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:
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?
- counted in a census
- an income tax deduction for the parent
- entitled to child support payments if the father isn’t married to the mother
- eligible for life insurance–if there is a miscarriage, the mother should be able to collect
- a US citizen if it was conceived in the US
- 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 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.
Last edited:
E
Erikaspirit16
Guest
OK, let’s talk about non-legal things. Birthdays. Almost (there are probably exceptions somewhere) everyone celebrates the day they are born as their origin, not the day they were conceived. And yet it’s possible to be pretty accurate about the day someone was conceived. But virtually no one celebrates that day. Inconsistent if you hold pro-life views on when a human being was created.
S
Sbee0
Guest
Completely fallacious argument. Your side is full of them. But you knew that.Benjinho:
OK, let’s talk about non-legal things. Birthdays. Almost (there are probably exceptions somewhere) everyone celebrates the day they are born as their origin, not the day they were conceived. And yet it’s possible to be pretty accurate about the day someone was conceived. But virtually no one celebrates that day. Inconsistent if you hold pro-life views on when a human being was created.
J
JoeShlabotnik
Guest
I agree.
I think that people try to make so many complicated issues too simplistic.
For example, “Just say No to drugs.”
Great slogan.
If it were only as easy as just saying No.
I think that people try to make so many complicated issues too simplistic.
For example, “Just say No to drugs.”
Great slogan.
If it were only as easy as just saying No.
E
Erikaspirit16
Guest
I confess ignorance. You and others keep using the word “personhood,” which obviously has some pro-life meaning. On the face of it, you seem to be saying a “human being” is not necessarily a “person” because a “person” has a long list of rights. Is that it?
If I’m right, I think you need to tell me what a “human being” is in your world. A toe nail clipping? A cluster of cells that fails to implant itself in the womb and is flushed out? What?
- Status