If "pro-choicers" are really so "pro-choice" then why are they against the choice to be pro-life?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Holly3278
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Doc_Keele said:
I realise that, but I’m glad that you’ve been explicit about your agenda. It certainly explains a lot that I’ve seen and heard.
Click to expand...
Yes, the agenda of Catholics should be clear. Both in word and deed.
 
Elizabeth502 said:
The only way to “succeed” beyond just rhetoric is to communicate with your opposition in terms that opposers can agree upon. Otherwise, you just enjoy listening to yourself repeat yourself. That is true whether you define success by persuasion to your position, or by action.

Thus, if you want change in the civil arena you have to both speak and act in ways that the civil arena understands. I believe it was BillP who brought up an excellent point about definitions. Mostly, the civil arena is not persuaded to change through equations made between abortion and murder, because murder is defined legally in society, not morally. (Even though the basis of civil law is, yes, a common morality. Note that that common morality is not one in which secular law accepts the Catholic Church’s definition of murder.)

Therefore, again, if you actually care about achieving “success,” as in “results,” your actions and words will accord with those ends. So if you believe that the legal definition of murder should be broadened, that is where your battle should be. It makes no sense to call all those who engage in any kind, stage, reason for abortion “murderers,” because legally they are not. It would be no more persuasive than my standing outside public schools, holding a sign that parents are engaginig in child abuse (or neglect) by allowing their children to attend there. Now, personally, as an educator myself I may have one heck of a lot of objections about what is being taught (and not taught) inside public schools these days, and know that not much of a moral compass is being offered to those attending, but my opinion will fall on deaf ears – and offended ears – if I call public school attendance a form of child abuse, no matter how strongly I feel, and many other citizens feel, about public education today. It doesn’t matter what I “know,” and what my church “knows” about that.

If you believe that you’re getting anywhere except arguing in circles, then you’re not following the arguments of your debaters. Your debaters are engaged in opposition to your assumptions about the civil realm.
Click to expand...
No one says one may not tailor their words to any particular audience. No one has said walk up to a stranger and say you are a murderer. No one has refused to explain the relationship of the civil law to moral truth.

All this is explained here on and on.

The issue is not that Catholics misread the arguments. The issue is that the arguments are answered and the answers are unwelcome for various reasons.
 
The issue is that the arguments are answered and the answers are unwelcome for various reasons
Click to expand...
Ditto for those responding to “Pro-Life” arguments.
 
fix said:
I even paste papal documents, yet the answers given are not wanted.
Click to expand...
Well papal documents are not necessarily formal arguments. They tend to be quite thin as to proving their argument. It all depends on what you present and how.
 
Doc_Keele said:
Well papal documents are not necessarily formal arguments. They tend to be quite thin as to proving their argument. It all depends on what you present and how.
Click to expand...
No, not thin. In fact, they are very deep . But, my statement was to show what the Catholic position is.
 
fix said:
No, not thin. In fact, they are very deep . But, my statement was to show what the Catholic position is.
Click to expand...
Well academic philosophers disagree with you, as I found when I tried using papal documents.
 
Elizabeth502 said:
Thus, if you want change in the civil arena you have to both speak and act in ways that the civil arena understands. I believe it was BillP who brought up an excellent point about definitions. Mostly, the civil arena is not persuaded to change through equations made between abortion and murder, because murder is defined legally in society, not morally. (Even though the basis of civil law is, yes, a common morality. Note that that common morality is not one in which secular law accepts the Catholic Church’s definition of murder.)
Click to expand...
I want to pick this one aspect up again. Like many moral issues that are rejected by people there is no one argument that will automatically change someone immediately in most cases. Catholics are called to speak the truth. That does not mean every person who hears will accept. That does not mean we stop stating what is true. It does not mean we will succeed.

As has been said many times the truth will only be received to the degree one is open to what is true.

The main problem is that Catholics do not live as Catholics. If we did we could change the law.
 
fix said:
Academic philosophers support all types of immoral things. How is that helpful?
Click to expand...
Do they?
How much academic philosophy have you read?
This includes practising Catholic philosophers as well of course?
 
fix said:
If they did they would not support direct killing of innocent people. Or, they accept some distorted understanding of absolute truth.
Click to expand...
That’s your perspective. The Pro-Choice lobby believe the exact same thing but the other way round, they believe the Pro-Life lobby are immoral and accept some distorted understanding of truth.
 
Doc_Keele said:
Do they?
How much academic philosophy have you read?
This includes practising Catholic philosophers as well of course?
Click to expand...
There are dissident Catholic philosophers, sure. Are you claiming there are no academics who support direct abortion? Homosexual acts?

I asked you who your authority was and you said academics who write papers. I want to know by what authority you claim your position is correct?
 
Doc_Keele said:
That’s your perspective. The Pro-Choice lobby believe the exact same thing but the other way round, they believe the Pro-Life lobby are immoral and accept some distorted understanding of truth.
Click to expand...
We are going in circles. I agree people can believe all types of errors. That does not prove they are right. The Catholic position is based on the ultimate Truth. That may be known through reason and faith.
 
fix said:
There are dissident Catholic philosophers, sure. Are you claiming there are no academics who support direct abortion? Homosexual acts?

I asked you who your authority was and you said academics who write papers. I want to know by what authority you claim your position is correct?
Click to expand...
These aren’t dissidents, fix.
What position are you on about fix?
 
fix said:
We are going in circles. I agree people can believe all types of errors. That does not prove they are right. The Catholic position is based on the ultimate Truth. That may be known through reason and faith.
Click to expand...
I’m trying to break through and get you to realise that other people can hold their position for reasons that seem good to them. Simply saying they are wrong because the Catholic position is based on the ultimate Truth clearly isn’t going to work.
Try appealing to reason, yes. This involves not treating them as inherently intellectually dishonest.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top