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

[steve-b]

steve-b:

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?

Hang on a minute as well.

My response to you covered multiple posts. Starting with THIS If you kept reading the link I gave you’d have come across Church history going back to the 1st century.

As in you would have seen this

SUMMARY OF THE MOST SIGNIFICANT EARLY CHURCH TEACHINGS AGAINST ABORTION

• The Apocalypse of Peter.
• Hippolytus, Bishop of Pontius and theologian (died 236), Refutation of All
Heresies , 9.7.
• Origen, theologian of Alexandria (185-254), Against Heresies , page 9.
• Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage (c. 200-258), Letters , page 48.
• Methodius, Bishop of Olympus (died 311).
• Council of Elvira in Granada, Spain (305), Canons , 63 and 68.
• Council of Ancyra in Galatia, Asia Minor (314), Canon , 21.
• Ephraem the Syrian, theologian (306-373), De Timore Dei , page 10.
• Ephipanius, Bishop of Salamis (c. 315-403).
• St. Basil the Great, priest (c. 329-379), Letters , 188.2, 8.
• St. Ambrose, Bishop of Milan (c. 339-397), Hexameron , 5.18.58.
Apostolic Constitutions (late Fourth Century)
• St. Augustine, Bishop of Hippo (354-430), Enchiridion , page 86.
• St. John Chrysostom, Bishop of Constantinople (c. 347-407), Homily 24 (“On
The Book of Romans”)
• St. Jerome (died in 420)
• Council of Chalcedon (451)
• Caesarius, Bishop of Arles (470-543), Sermons , 1.12.
• Council of Lerida (524).
• Second Council of Braga (527), Canons , 77.
• St. Martin of Braga (580)
• Consillium Quinisextum (692).

I see the post you refer to, as completing the thought I was making. HERE

 

[Aquinas11]

tell me when I wrote that there was “no such thing as absolute truth.”

putting truth in quotes…try and keep up with your own posts

it has NOTHING to do with the absolute “truth” of the issue

Is it a good idea? Not if it’s a large minority

So it would be a good idea for 10 guys in a boat voted to legalize rape with only 1 woman in the boat? But not a good idea if it was 6 guys in boat voting to legalize rape with 4 women in boat? Please keep posting. The thread is getting great insight on where you’re coming from.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

You directly distort the Church"s teaching with deception. As I posted directly above.
You don’t seem to like information. Let me waste more bandwidth by reposting the material.

Not at all. You are linking a 1995 encyclical. I don’t think anyone here (including me) is arguing about what the Church is currently teaching about abortion. It’s perfectly clear. But that’s not the issue.

What NOT clear is that in two areas:
when does human life begin?
and Is all abortion = murder?

the Church changed positions on these two issues in 1869.

And the EWTN article–which we have both cited–gives a lot of bullet point information but also sets up a straw man argument. It says: “The most common pro-abortion lie about Catholic Church teaching claims that the Church has not always condemned abortion.” Maybe SOME pro-abortion advocates tell those lies, but a) I am not pro-abortion and b) I have never said the Church has not always condemned abortion. It has. But that’s not the issue!!!

And please don’t start quoting St. Basil, et al. Basil is NOT “the Church.”

 

[Ridgerunner]

may not develop self-consciousness until they are at least 2 months old, which is one of three aspects of the human soul

I have to differ, as I am one of seemingly no few people who remember being born; actually right before birth and then birth. I hasten to add that my mother was borderline diabetic, and I was born more mature than most as a result. But I’m certainly not unique in this.

But I’ll also add that to the unborn there isn’t much with which to measure time. There’s light, there’s dark, there’s color with very little variation and there’s sound. So while I wouldn’t contest what the neuroscientists proclaim generally, I certainly would in particular.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

So it would be a good idea for 10 guys in a boat voted to legalize rape with only 1 woman in the boat? But not a good idea if it was 6 guys in boat voting to legalize rape with 4 women in boat? Please keep posting. The thread is getting great insight on where you’re coming from.

Sure, I’ll take the bait. Why not?

If 10 guys in a boat voted to rape the 1 woman, it would be morally wrong, but they could do it–practically. They outnumber the woman 10 to 1. Unless she is Wonder Woman, she is toast.

If it were 6 guys vs. 4 women? From a moral standpoint, no difference: it’s still wrong. From a practical point of view? A little bit dicey. Those feisty women could fight back and inflict some real damage. Maybe they know martial arts, who knows.

But you are (didn’t we have this conversation back in Feb.?) missing the point. The point has nothing to do with the morality of the action. It’s the practicality of it. Prohibition passed. But a large minority opposed it. How did that work out? Huge number ignored the law, there was corruption and crime, and within 15 (?) years it was repealed. Not a big success.

If you outlawed abortion on a national scale, would that reduce abortions? I’ve cited evidence above that it would not alter the abortion rate one little bit. It would create a new criminal class. It would make hitherto honest citizens into criminals. It would endanger the lives and health of women. Shall I go on? Does outlawing abortion in these circumstances (a majority actually supports it) make any sense from a practical point of view? No. Would it be morally right? You think so, but the vast majority of the US and world population would strongly disagree. What if only 5% supported abortion, and 95% wanted to make it illegal? Then it would work, but of course there would still be problems with that pesky 5%.

 

[Sundiver]

As Americans we are sick of our tax dollars going to support abortion. Also, just about anything you buy, on the market, supports abortion.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

Argumentum ad populum. Another logical fallacy.

Once again I don’t think you understand what I wrote. See my reply to Aquinas above.

 

[Aquinas11]

If 10 guys in a boat voted to rape the 1 woman, it would be morally wrong,

No, you already said it would be a “good idea”

Is it a good idea? Not if it’s a large minority. If the minority is insignificant, sure

You also said overwhelming majority should impose their morality on minority

the majority should NOT impose its morality on a minority–unless there is an overwhelming (you can debate what % that is) majority.

 

[phil19034]

phil19034:

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.

1. Erika - I say “God Bless” at the end of almost every single one of my posts. I’m sorry if I forget that you don’t like or want honest prayers & blessings from me.
2. I still don’t know what you are talking about. Even WebMD clearly states “At the moment of fertilization, the baby’s genetic makeup is complete, including whether it’s a boy or girl.”

• Slide 5 - Conception Pictures: From Egg to Embryo

I pray God Blesses us all.

 

[Trishie]

Lisa, what you wrote encapsulates the issue perfectly.
Your post is well-reasoned and deeply compassionate, and true.
God bless you.

 

[phil19034]

I love Cardinal Arinze!

 

[prayerrider]

If someone doesn’t like reading “God bless” from a devout Catholic on a Catholic forum, perhaps they should troll on over to the atheist forums where such insulting closings won’t occur.

 

[prayerrider]

His ability to answer such questions directly, with humor and humility, is doubly refreshing considering the way some others waffle and obfuscate.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

putting truth in quotes…try and keep up with your own posts

Your assertion that I wrote there was “no such thing as absolute truth.” Your “truth” may not be my “truth.” We can both claim we know the absolute “truth.” Absolute truth exists, sure. The problem is, how do you know what it is? And if I say it’s X, and you say it’s Y, who is right? (let me guess–you are!)

You also said overwhelming majority should impose their morality on minority

Sorry, I can’t find that, (I did a search on the word ‘should’). I think you are referring to when I wrote “The majority should NOT impose its morality on a minority–unless there is an overwhelming…majority.” Once again, I’m not talking right and wrong here, I’m talking governmental possibility. Should we have 100% unanimity on every law? That would ensure there would be no laws. It would be the height of impracticality. So yes, an overwhelming (whatever that might be) majority HAS to impose its will on the minority if you want any laws at all.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

Erika - I say “God Bless” at the end of almost every single one of my posts. I’m sorry if I forget that you don’t like or want honest prayers & blessings from me.

We’ve gone over this in the past. If someone says they don’t like something, why do you continue doing it? To me “God bless” = an obscene expletive (different words, of course). Communication is a two-way street: you can send a message, but if the receiver thinks it different than the message you intended to send, there is no communication.

I still don’t know what you are talking about. Even WebMD clearly states “At the moment of fertilization, the baby’s genetic makeup is complete, including whether it’s a boy or girl.”

Then Web MD is wrong. The “genetic makeup” is NOT complete until a unique strand of DNA is formed and cells begin to multiply. That takes 1-4 days.

This is all a red herring. You’re a utilitarian. You believe majority vote dictates what is right. This means rape is ok or infanticide or cannibalism, all of which achieved “majority” approval in different cultures.

How many times (I’m sure I’m at over a million…) do I have to write that this has NOTHING (always in caps!) to do with moral right and wrong. Being in the overwhelming majority simply gives you the power to make your own rules. That’s simply a fact. Nothing to do with right and wrong.

Instead, why don’t you show me RC sources that say MURDER is not MURDER!

Obviously I cant’ show you a quotation saying that “murder is not murder.” But I am taking a wild guess that that is not what you mean. You probably mean: “Show me a RC source that says abortion is not murder.”

Not a problem! Decretam of Gratian (Canon law collection not repealed until 1917): “He is not a murderer who brings about abortion before the soul is in the body” (Concordia discordantium canonum, Decretum, Ad. c8, c. XXXII, q. 2). And he believed the soul entered the body at the “quickening” (as I’ve said, about 18 weeks of pregnancy). So before that time, abortion was not murder. After that point, it was. And earlier I quoted Pope Innocent III. There’s also Augustine…the list goes on.

 

[phil19034]

We’ve gone over this in the past. If someone says they don’t like something, why do you continue doing it? To me “God bless” = an obscene expletive (different words, of course). Communication is a two-way street: you can send a message, but if the receiver thinks it different than the message you intended to send, there is no communication.

Erika - I didn’t remember. If you honestly think I remember what every single poster says… well I can tell you that I don’t.

However, I’m honestly confused. I cannot understand how a Catholic or theist (I’m assuming you are Catholic or atleast a theist - if you are not, I’m sorry) can honestly consider “‘God bless’ = an obscene expletive” I can’t even begin to guess what obscene expletive it means.

If I ever wish you God’s blessing in the future, it will be because I forgot to refrain from asking God for blessings for you.

 

[prayerrider]

I wouldn’t even worry about it. Catholic forums. God and God bless you are gonna happen. Who cares?

 

[prayerrider]

And he believed the soul entered the body at the “quickening” (as I’ve said, about 18 weeks of pregnancy)

And he was wrong. So what?

 

[Benjinho]

Even back when I was an atheist I found this saying very soothing and sweet. The lady who took offense to it is apparently a Catholic who takes communion despite being pro-choice. This thread is full of contradictions.

 

[prayerrider]

If Catholic, why the outrage? Mass must be a real trial, especially the final blessing.