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

[steve-b]

VanitasVanitatum:

Apparently a fertilized egg doesn’t have gender, so care to explain?

Well, if the document says that one sign of being human is having gender, a fertilized egg has no gender. Logical conclusion: the fertilized egg cannot be human since it has no gender. QED.

From American College of Pediatricians

Life begins at conception / fertilization, https://www.acpeds.org/the-college-speaks/position-statements/life-issues/when-human-life-begins

And note: gender is not mentioned. THAT item doesn’t determine the subject of life.

 

[pnewton]

Erikaspirit16:

Well, you’re wrong. They are totally different. Pro-abortion means that I am personally in favor of abortion. I am not. Pro-choice means I think every woman should make her own decision as to the morality of abortion in her own situation

But pro-choice only refers to abortion does it not? Are there any other evils a person can visit upon another person that should be a matter of choice?

I noticed NPR does not use the term “pro-life”, but “anti-abortion-rights”. Sounds good. That is a better label, along with “pro-abortion-rights”. These are more accurate labels. Everyone is pro-choice about most things, and pro-life about most things.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

She’s using a theological definition.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

Per this logic [my claim that the Church has changed its position on abortion], we should support Slavery since Catholic Church used to support it but no longer does

As far as I’m concerned, personally, I have no problem with the Church changing its position on a range of issue including the ones I pointed out (human life begins at the moment of conception and abortion always = mruder). My problem is people in this form saying “the Church has never changed its position on abortion.” Sure it has. Read the documents! Denying it just makes you look (fill in your favorite word).

Ah, slavery. Persecution of the Jews. Here we go again…it never fails. Saying that you are “pro-choice” on these issues of course (!) means that includes YOU and YOUR moral choices. You are free to support or oppose slavery, persecution of the Jews, abortion, whatever you like. Your moral choice.

Now the real question comes down to this: (I hate to go down this road because I know from experience where it leads—people saying I said things I never did, total 100% misrepresentation, etc.) but it comes down to this question: When is it legitimate to impose–with the force of law–your view of morality on others? It has NOTHING to do with whether your opinion is right (“truth”) or not. It concerns the legitimacy of imposing your views on others. There are obvious cases (murder, as has already been brought up) where there is virtually unanimous agreement: it should be illegal and punished. But yes, there are footnotes about what constitute “murder” (1st degree, 2nd degree, manslaughter, self defense…the law recognizes some of these footnotes).

There are other cases where there is a small minority who thinks something is OK (polygamy, child marriage, etc.) but the vast majority thinks it’s immoral and makes it illegal.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

part 2…

Then there are issues where opinion is divided: slavery in the US until the Civil War; persecution of the Jews (advocated by the Nazi Party in Germany in the 1930s, and to a much lesser extent in other countries, including the US). And yes, abortion in the US in 2019. Should each person be free to make their own judgments about slavery, persecution of the Jews, and abortion? It depends. Again, it has NOTHING to do with the absolute “truth” of the issue. It has to do with the practicality of imposing your own beliefs. Could the Union impose its beliefs regarding slavery on South? Sure. After a Civil War with 610,000 dead. Worth it? Debatable. Slavery was declining anyway. Were there other ways to eliminate it? Yes. Persecution of the Jews? I think it’s safe to say that by the end of the 1930s most Germans had adopted the view of the Nazi Party, although perhaps they wouldn’t have approved of genocide. The rest of the world disagreed. Outcome? WW II. (Although there were of course more important reasons for war.) Tens of millions of deaths. Worth it? Probably. Although today there are similar situations (Rwanda springs to mind) and the world sits on its hands. Abortion: the two camps are pretty evenly divided in the US. Alabama, Georgia, and Missouri recently passed harsher pro-abortion laws. California, NY, and Virginia passed laws in the opposite direction. Would it be worth it to go to war–literally–over this issue? I hope not. But some probably would. What would be the result if an Alabama-type anti-abortion law were passed at the federal level? What was the result when they passed Prohibition?

 

[Erikaspirit16]

I noticed NPR does not use the term “pro-life”, but “anti-abortion-rights”. Sounds good. That is a better label, along with “pro-abortion-rights”. These are more accurate labels. Everyone is pro-choice about most things, and pro-life about most things.

Sounds good to me.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

Saying that you are “pro-choice” on these issues of course (!) means that includes YOU and YOUR moral choices. You are free to support or oppose slavery, persecution of the Jews, abortion, whatever you like. Your moral choice.

Would I be correct in saying that people are free to do whatever or are you saying something else?

 

[Erikaspirit16]

And note: gender is not mentioned. THAT item doesn’t determine the subject of life.

Hang on a minute. You’re comparing apples and oranges. I get discouraged when people don’t actually read my posts but latch onto a phrase here and there. Please read my posts.

What I wrote was: I went to the Vatican document “Communion and Stewardship” trying to find out if the Church defines “human being.” I tried searches of other documents without any luck. But this document WAS concerned with the definition of “human being,” although its concern was “human being” in the usual sense–people who had been born–and not in the sense of a fetus.

I’m not talking about science, genetics, etc. here–I’m talking about the opinion of the Church: What is a human being?

 

[Sbee0]

Aquinas11:

Per this logic [my claim that the Church has changed its position on abortion], we should support Slavery since Catholic Church used to support it but no longer does

As far as I’m concerned, personally, I have no problem with the Church changing its position on a range of issue including the ones I pointed out (human life begins at the moment of conception and abortion always = mruder). My problem is people in this form saying “the Church has never changed its position on abortion.” Sure it has. Read the documents! Denying it just makes you look (fill in your favorite word).

Ah, slavery. Persecution of the Jews. Here we go again…it never fails. Saying that you are “pro-choice” on these issues of course (!) means that includes YOU and YOUR moral choices. You are free to support or oppose slavery, persecution of the Jews, abortion, whatever you like. Your moral choice.

Now the real question comes down to this: (I hate to go down this road because I know from experience where it leads—people saying I said things I never did, total 100% misrepresentation, etc.) but it comes down to this question: When is it legitimate to impose–with the force of law–your view of morality on others? It has NOTHING to do with whether your opinion is right (“truth”) or not. It concerns the legitimacy of imposing your views on others. There are obvious cases (murder, as has already been brought up) where there is virtually unanimous agreement: it should be illegal and punished. But yes, there are footnotes about what constitute “murder” (1st degree, 2nd degree, manslaughter, self defense…the law recognizes some of these footnotes).

There are other cases where there is a small minority who thinks something is OK (polygamy, child marriage, etc.) but the vast majority thinks it’s immoral and makes it illegal.

The Church didn’t change its position at all. I’m afraid saying it ad nauseum and repeating it doesn’t make it so.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

Would I be correct in saying that people are free to do whatever or are you saying something else?

You are indeed correct. But–a big but–although people are free to make their own moral choices, they should be aware that other people are making completely different choices. And that if they go ahead with their own personal choice, there may be unpleasant consequences.

For example each person can make a moral choice: Should I rob a bank? You can try, but society and the government are going to try and stop you. And if you succeed and get caught, you will be punished.

To take away the ability to make moral choices is to take away free will. No one is saying that all choices are somehow morally equal. They’re not.

The question under discussion here is “Should we make abortion illegal in the US?” and, as far as the government and society are able, to eliminate the moral choice of women on this matter? As I’ve said before (I’m sure you’re aware!), in the case of abortion, the two sides are pretty evenly split. In the case of the “Catholic” position on abortion (life begins at conception, all abortion = murder), this position is only currently held by 18% of the population. (For the millionth time: this has nothing to do with the absolute rightness or “truth” of the position.) As a matter of good government, imposing the will of 18% on all of the population does not strike me as a great idea. It strikes me as tyranny.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

That’s just a wordier “no u” comeback.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

The Church didn’t change its position at all. I’m afraid saying it ad nauseum and repeating it doesn’t make it so.

Wow. And you were the one saying how wonderful science was a little while ago!

Two questions:
Did the Church (as an institution, not an odd theolgian here and there) ALWAYS believe human life began at conception?
Did the Church (as an institution…) ALWAYS believe that all abortion = murder?

And of course the answer to both questions is “No.” It’s in the documents, it’s not a debatable issue.

 

[Sbee0]

VanitasVanitatum:

Would I be correct in saying that people are free to do whatever or are you saying something else?

You are indeed correct. But–a big but–although people are free to make their own moral choices, they should be aware that other people are making completely different choices. And that if they go ahead with their own personal choice, there may be unpleasant consequences.

For example each person can make a moral choice: Should I rob a bank? You can try, but society and the government are going to try and stop you. And if you succeed and get caught, you will be punished.

To take away the ability to make moral choices is to take away free will. No one is saying that all choices are somehow morally equal. They’re not.

The question under discussion here is “Should we make abortion illegal in the US?” and, as far as the government and society are able, to eliminate the moral choice of women on this matter? As I’ve said before (I’m sure you’re aware!), in the case of abortion, the two sides are pretty evenly split. In the case of the “Catholic” position on abortion (life begins at conception, all abortion = murder), this position is only currently held by 18% of the population. (For the millionth time: this has nothing to do with the absolute rightness or “truth” of the position.) As a matter of good government, imposing the will of 18% on all of the population does not strike me as a great idea. It strikes me as tyranny.

Argumentum ad populum. Another logical fallacy.

Your side is full of these! Sounds like your side really needs to brush up on their debating skills methinks.

 

[Sbee0]

Sbee0:

The Church didn’t change its position at all. I’m afraid saying it ad nauseum and repeating it doesn’t make it so.

Wow. And you were the one saying how wonderful science was a little while ago!

Two questions:
Did the Church (as an institution, not an odd theolgian here and there) ALWAYS believe human life began at conception?
Did the Church (as an institution…) ALWAYS believe that all abortion = murder?

And of course the answer to both questions is “No.” It’s in the documents, it’s not a debatable issue.

Read my post you quoted above again. Maybe read it a little slower this time.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

So now Transgender people who don’t identify with any gender aren’t human and can be killed? Not very strong PR message for 2019

Again, don’t talk to me, talk to the guys at the Vatican who wrote the document! I’m just quoting!

And why am I doing that? Because pro-lifers here are concerned with what the Church says about abortion. Great. But when you dig down and try to get at the underlying assumptions, details, etc. they are pretty sparse. So I am just presenting what the Church said about “human beings” in one document.

 

[TrueRomanCatholic]

Filthy supposed followers of her Holiness Mother Church, need a lesson in cathecisis

 

[Erikaspirit16]

Read my post you quoted above again. Maybe read it a little slower this time.

Well, I quoted your post in full. It was very short: “The Church didn’t change its position at all. I’m afraid saying it ad nauseum and repeating it doesn’t make it so.”

Unless I am hallucinating, you are saying the Church has not changed its position (although you don’t specify what that is) on abortion. I am saying it has (and I specified exactly which positions: human life begins at conception and all abortion = murder).

Maybe you mean (but didn’t specify) that the Church has never changed its position that abortion is wrong. I explicitly agreed with that earlier. That’s not the question.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

As a matter of good government, imposing the will of 18% on all of the population does not strike me as a great idea. It strikes me as tyranny.

If that’s the only consequence then I do not mind.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Yes, I know what you mean. There is quite a bit of that here, especially by Conservatives and Trump supporters

Oh? As you know, I was talking about the post condemning prolifers by those who may or may not be conservatives or Trump supporters, but are doubtfully so.

Just citing them by number should suffice.
But I am interested to see you cite those posts in which conservatives and trump supporters issued rash judgments, or at least those in which they were also “smug” to the point of being laughable.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

This is scientifically not true.

The sex of a child is determined by the sperm cell. If a Y sperm fertilizes the egg, it will be a male. If a X sperm cell fertilizing the egg, it will be a female.

Now - if you are referring to the pseudoscience of gender fluidity, well the Church doesn’t accept that as science.

God bless

Once again I’ll ask you politely to stop saying “God bless” at the end of each post. I find it annoying. And I KNOW you don’t want to intentionally annoy me, right?

I think you answered your own question, and clearly you didn’t read my post carefully. So let’s try again: Yes, you’re right, if the sperm carries a Y chromosome “it will be a male” as you wrote. Please note the tense: “WILL be a male.” Future. And yes, if it survives, it WILL BE (future) a male. I am talking about a fertilized egg, BEFORE the DNA splits and re-forms. At that point, there IS (present tense) no gender. Gender appears later. And that’s the whole point–if you argue that a “human being” is present from the moment of conception (again, a nebulous term…) and if the Church says (as it did) that gender is one of the characteristics of a human being, then…well then a fertilized egg–before its unique DNA is created–is not, in fact, a human being. I’m just quoting here. Argue with the Vatican.