I'm a pro choice catholic, and this is why

[Tigg]

Pro choice is such a loaded term.

I like what this opinion piece says (emphasis mine)

…this is the challenge that faces America—political definitions that make no sense. They lead us away from the truth and toward a time when words have no value and values have no meaning…

The fundamental essence of the matter: Human life that can be debated as not endowed by the Creator, without rights or intrinsic value, bargains that all life is open to discount…

To say that you are pro-choice is little more than using a phrase that pretends to be noble by distancing itself from the reality of what is really chosen—the death of an innocent person. **To proclaim that you are pro-choice, not pro-abortion, is just plain asinine and cowardly. **Pro-choice what?

(And the big question)
Has there ever been a time when government defined certain people as less worthy than other people and it ended well? Ever?

 

[buffalo]

Hello everyone.
Before I begin, I will talk about the first trimester abortion, not the late term, I don’t know what to think about that. also some material here may offend some, I apologize if it does

I am here to say that I am a pro choice catholic. I’m also a teenager. Now probably many of you guys might not think that I am a catholic and although I still do consider myself as a catholic I would also like to know if there is something wrong with my views.

Now I felt I had to say this after watching this video, and I was disgusted by the pro life protesters ways of spreading their word. Contains graphic material, don’t watch if sensitive

youtube.com/watch?v=WMAZX6HRZT4

I was utterly disgusted how they would parade signs showing pictures of first trimester fetuses in front of kids and it is disgusting to everyone and it really does not give Catholics a good image. Its very humiliating. I also disagree with a few pro life arguments.

I do think abortion is definitely not good for anyone and its an extremely difficult decision but its not correct to have our politicians do pass laws that ban abortion completely. There are situations in which an abortion could be used to save a mother’s life. What about rape victims? Should they support a child they don’t want? I would not want to take care of a dog that I don’t want, let alone a child that requires many times more responsibility. Should I keep a child that I can’t afford, I don’t want to let it starve to death, since there are some parents who simply cannot, no matter what, provide food and shelter for kids.

I have a few rebuttals to other arguments, such as the one that every fetus has a potential for life. Every sperm cell has the ability to make a child once combined with an egg. Is it considered geonicide if millions of sperm cells die? they have potential to create a life. Is a chimera, which when two fertilized cells combine, the result of another child killing the other?

What do you think? I still believe and worship the same God you do and defend the faith as well. Thank you

First let’s look at fetal development:

“The process is astonishingly simple. In the embryo’s first moments, the Hox genes are dormant, packaged like a spool of wound yarn on the DNA. When the time is right, the strand begins to unwind. When the embryo begins to form the upper levels, the genes encoding the formation of cervical vertebrae come off the spool and become activated. Then it is the thoracic vertebrae’s turn, and so on down to the tailbone. The DNA strand acts a bit like an old-fashioned computer punchcard, delivering specific instructions as it progressively goes through the machine.” “A new gene comes out of the spool every ninety minutes, which corresponds to the time needed for a new layer of the embryo to be built,” explains Duboule. “It takes two days for the strand to completely unwind; this is the same time that’s needed for all the layers of the embryo to be completed.” This system is the first “mechanical” clock ever discovered in genetics. And it explains why the system is so remarkably precise." Source

---

Even science understands a distinct human life begins at conception. Pro-choice is the choice a woman wants to make to murder her unborn child who is denied choice and the right to life, liberty and pursuit of liberty.

---

How does committing a second crime mitigate the first crime? Why Can’t We Love THem Both?

 

[josh987654321]

I like what this opinion piece says (emphasis mine)

…this is the challenge that faces America—political definitions that make no sense. They lead us away from the truth and toward a time when words have no value and values have no meaning…

I was watching a youtube clip of Obama trying to defend Abortion, in which he says “In any case I think it is important to respect one another’s beliefs on this issue.” He thinks the fact that a child in the mothers womb is a “life” that this is somehow just a “belief.”

I can’t help but be shocked at that, moral subjectivism justifies all evil. I doubt anyone would be respecting the Nazi’s belief that all Jews were less than human.

It seems in todays society, everything is justifiable, everything is a belief, there is no longer any right or wrong in our western society, just moral subjectivism.

It seems when you point out wrong doing the reply is “You think it’s wrong and I respect your beliefs and because of that you should respect my beliefs that I think it’s right.” It’s madness I think, especially when it comes to things like abortion.

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[Fairwinds]

Yes, but in 2013, the age of supermax prisons, that argument is not relevant anymore. So let’s not be hypocritical here.

let’s not play games with this lamest of the hand wave arguments.

its not possible to use supermax facility for every killer who keeps killing from behind bars FBI report: 2011 National Gang Threat Assessment – Emerging Trends[ and its effectiveness is limited anyway, convicted WTC killer Abdel-Rahman used his attorney to pass messages that caused additional deaths.]( and its effectiveness is limited anyway, convicted WTC killer Abdel-Rahman used his attorney to pass messages that caused additional deaths.)

 

[Holly3278]

You need to repent and go to Confession. The Catholic Church has infallibly stated that abortion is intrinsically evil. It needs to be completely abolished. There is not a single reason why a woman should get an abortion. In fact, abortion is never needed for healthcare reasons. It is not even needed to save a woman’s life. Even former Surgeon General, Everett Koop M.D. said that abortion is not needed to save the life of the mother. You can read about that here:

nrlc.org/abortion/pba/HowOftenAbortionNecessarySaveMother.pdf

Note that you need Adobe Acrobat which is free to read this.

Also, read these sites for the facts on abortion:

nrlc.org/abortion/index.html

abortionfacts.com/

all.org/nav/index/heading/OQ/cat/MzQ/

bloodmoneyfilm.com/

overpopulationisamyth.com/

hli.org/

Here is the official Catholic teaching on abortion from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

Abortion
2270 Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person - among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life.72

Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you.73 My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately wrought in the depths of the earth.74
2271 Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law:

You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish.75 God, the Lord of life, has entrusted to men the noble mission of safeguarding life, and men must carry it out in a manner worthy of themselves. Life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception: abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes.76

2272 Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life. "A person who procures a completed abortion incurs excommunication latae sententiae,"77 "by the very commission of the offense,"78 and subject to the conditions provided by Canon Law.79 The Church does not thereby intend to restrict the scope of mercy. Rather, she makes clear the gravity of the crime committed, the irreparable harm done to the innocent who is put to death, as well as to the parents and the whole of society.

2273 The inalienable right to life of every innocent human individual is a constitutive element of a civil society and its legislation:
"The inalienable rights of the person must be recognized and respected by civil society and the political authority. These human rights depend neither on single individuals nor on parents; nor do they represent a concession made by society and the state; they belong to human nature and are inherent in the person by virtue of the creative act from which the person took his origin. Among such fundamental rights one should mention in this regard every human being’s right to life and physical integrity from the moment of conception until death."80

"The moment a positive law deprives a category of human beings of the protection which civil legislation ought to accord them, the state is denying the equality of all before the law. When the state does not place its power at the service of the rights of each citizen, and in particular of the more vulnerable, the very foundations of a state based on law are undermined. . . . As a consequence of the respect and protection which must be ensured for the unborn child from the moment of conception, the law must provide appropriate penal sanctions for every deliberate violation of the child’s rights."81

2274 Since it must be treated from conception as a person, the embryo must be defended in its integrity, cared for, and healed, as far as possible, like any other human being.

Prenatal diagnosis is morally licit, "if it respects the life and integrity of the embryo and the human fetus and is directed toward its safe guarding or healing as an individual. . . . It is gravely opposed to the moral law when this is done with the thought of possibly inducing an abortion, depending upon the results: a diagnosis must not be the equivalent of a death sentence."82

2275 "One must hold as licit procedures carried out on the human embryo which respect the life and integrity of the embryo and do not involve disproportionate risks for it, but are directed toward its healing the improvement of its condition of health, or its individual survival."83

"It is immoral to produce human embryos intended for exploitation as disposable biological material."84

"Certain attempts to *influence chromosomic or genetic inheritance *are not therapeutic but are aimed at producing human beings selected according to sex or other predetermined qualities. Such manipulations are contrary to the personal dignity of the human being and his integrity and identity"85 which are unique and unrepeatable.

scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a5.htm#2270

Continued in the next post…

 

[Holly3278]

Please also read this authoritative Papal Encyclicals:

vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_06081993_veritatis-splendor_en.html

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25031995_evangelium-vitae_en.html

 

[jmcrae]

Yes, but in 2013, the age of supermax prisons, that argument is not relevant anymore. So let’s not be hypocritical here.

Who is being hypocritical? I live in a country that has no death penalty.

It does, however, have the most relaxed abortion laws in the whole world - and there is talk of legalizing “assisted suicide” and euthanasia of human beings. This means we’ll be allowed to kill anyone who doesn’t work for their living - unless they happen to be in jail.

 

[Ender]

Who is being hypocritical? I live in a country that has no death penalty.

Raising the question of capital punishment in a pro-choice discussion is something that ought to be resisted. The church has always recognized a state’s right to employ capital punishment even as she has never recognized a state’s right to sanction abortions. The two topics are in no way comparable.

Ender

 

[PoorKnight]

Raising the question of capital punishment in a pro-choice discussion is something that ought to be resisted. The church has always recognized a state’s right to employ capital punishment even as she has never recognized a state’s right to sanction abortions. The two topics are in no way comparable.

Ender

Absolutely correct. It’s called a distraction technique. When you can’t argue the point, you distract with another equally flammable point that you think you can defend better.

And it seems to have worked here quite well as many are now arguing death penalty.

To the O.P. who has completely disappeared from this discussion: I too, at one point, thought that abortion could be O.K. in certain situations, however, I was putting MYSELF in place of God.

Only God should say when an innocent person dies. Yes that doesn’t always happen, however, in those cases it is a sin.

Ask yourself these questions: In all the situations you brought up that you believe the killing of a pre-born child is ok, would you be O.K. with killing my 2 year old? If you answered No, then why not?

Most people answer: development. The pre-born child is not as developed as the two year old. Ok, hypothetically my 2 year old has developmental disabilities and will never any mental capabilities. Are you ok with killing them? Most people, if they were honest, would say No.

Why not? If you’re consistent with your beliefs then anyone who has developmental disabilities, is too poor, is starving, etc etc. can be killed.

Several people throughout history have applied your belief consistently through out all developmental stages of life… they were people like Stalin, Pol Pot, Nietzsche, Hitler etc.

We don’t tell you this to be mean. We tell you this because we love you and want to see you the most happy fulfilled person in your adult life. The only way you’re going to be that is by following Christ and His Church. Not, “I’m Catholic but…” Just “I’m Catholic.”

God Bless you and your faith journey.

 

[Miss_Felicity]

The pictures were not deliberately shown to children but their own** parents did expose them to this risk by allowing them to be in a place they should never have been**. You are correct that parental obligation dictates that we protect our children, for example, from harmful influences such as TV shows or video games that display inordinate violence and gore. Instead, these parents had their children accompany them to a place of death.

I saw these pictures as a child because the protesters were on the street in front of the clinic, my mother’s only “indiscretion” was not having a car. The clinic was located across the street from a busy bus transfer point. Everything is NOT black and white and every child who sees these things don’t see them because of a neglectful parent.

If your pro-choice your not Catholic - because it is not what the church teaches or we believe.

If you are baptized and confirmed Catholic, you are Catholic. Period.

Raising the question of capital punishment in a pro-choice discussion is something that ought to be resisted. The church has always recognized a state’s right to employ capital punishment even as she has never recognized a state’s right to sanction abortions. The two topics are in no way comparable.

Ender

I was taught that The Church supports life from natural beginning (conception) to natural death so abortion and capitol punishment in that vein are two sides of the same coin IMO.

 

[livingwordunity]

Who is being hypocritical? I live in a country that has no death penalty.

It does, however, have the most relaxed abortion laws in the whole world - and there is talk of legalizing “assisted suicide” and euthanasia of human beings. This means we’ll be allowed to kill anyone who doesn’t work for their living - unless they happen to be in jail.

It seems that with liberalism the safest place to be is in jail.

 

[universityprof]

Yes, but in 2013, the age of supermax prisons, that argument is not relevant anymore. So let’s not be hypocritical here.

You are incorrect here. It’s all about retributioin, at least in the US.

 

[universityprof]

Raising the question of capital punishment in a pro-choice discussion is something that ought to be resisted. The church has always recognized a state’s right to employ capital punishment even as she has never recognized a state’s right to sanction abortions. The two topics are in no way comparable.

Ender

Yes, but even the church now recognizes that the death penalty is wrong and has changed its teaching. Life - from natural birth to natural death.

 

[Brendan]

Yes, but even the church now recognizes that the death penalty is wrong and has changed its teaching. Life - from natural birth to natural death.

Actually, no it hasn’t it simply said that the State should restrain from using it if their are viable alternatives.

That is quite a distance from stating that capital punishment is wrong in all cases.

 

[andrewstx]

To tell the truth the rhetoric on both sides really turns me off. First the pro choice people with their insistence that there is no life present.

But the pro life people upset me as well. The fertilized ovum becomes a baby first, then a child (that tome at least implies one past infancy). How much older will these people become in the propaganda? Will they next be teens, graduate students?

I don’t mean to be disrespectful or mean. But why not try and meet somewhere between those two extremes?

 

[josh987654321]

To tell the truth the rhetoric on both sides really turns me off. First the pro choice people with their insistence that there is no life present.

But the pro life people upset me as well. The fertilized ovum becomes a baby first, then a child (that tome at least implies one past infancy). How much older will these people become in the propaganda? Will they next be teens, graduate students?

I don’t mean to be disrespectful or mean. But why not try and meet somewhere between those two extremes?

Are you suggesting that we should try and achieve a middle ground on abortion?

Because I tell you most solemnly, there is no middle ground when it comes to Abortion, when it comes to the dignity and worth of an innocent’s life, there is no middle ground.

Just like when the Nazi’s persecuted the Jew’s, there was no middle ground to be achieved in such persecution, I can assure you.

Thanks for reading
Josh

 

[andrewstx]

Are you suggesting that we should try and achieve a middle ground on abortion?

Of course not, that would be impossible. What I am suggesting is a middle ground on the extreme rhetoric coming from both sides. Sorry not to be more clear.

 

[josh987654321]

Of course not, that would be impossible. What I am suggesting is a middle ground on the extreme rhetoric coming from both sides. Sorry not to be more clear.

Okay, I apologise for my misunderstanding.

 

[Tarpeian]

Hello everyone.
Before I begin, I will talk about the first trimester abortion, not the late term, I don’t know what to think about that. also some material here may offend some, I apologize if it does

I am here to say that I am a pro choice catholic. I’m also a teenager. Now probably many of you guys might not think that I am a catholic and although I still do consider myself as a catholic I would also like to know if there is something wrong with my views.

Now I felt I had to say this after watching this video, and I was disgusted by the pro life protesters ways of spreading their word. Contains graphic material, don’t watch if sensitive

youtube.com/watch?v=WMAZX6HRZT4

I was utterly disgusted how they would parade signs showing pictures of first trimester fetuses in front of kids and it is disgusting to everyone and it really does not give Catholics a good image. Its very humiliating. I also disagree with a few pro life arguments.

I do think abortion is definitely not good for anyone and its an extremely difficult decision but its not correct to have our politicians do pass laws that ban abortion completely. There are situations in which an abortion could be used to save a mother’s life. What about rape victims? Should they support a child they don’t want? I would not want to take care of a dog that I don’t want, let alone a child that requires many times more responsibility. Should I keep a child that I can’t afford, I don’t want to let it starve to death, since there are some parents who simply cannot, no matter what, provide food and shelter for kids.

I have a few rebuttals to other arguments, such as the one that every fetus has a potential for life. Every sperm cell has the ability to make a child once combined with an egg. Is it considered geonicide if millions of sperm cells die? they have potential to create a life. Is a chimera, which when two fertilized cells combine, the result of another child killing the other?

What do you think? I still believe and worship the same God you do and defend the faith as well. Thank you

I see NOTHING wrong with the signs. Are kids traumatized by the signs? The same kids that play Modern Warfare, watch television, the news, youtube, go to the movies, and have unrestricted access to the internet?

It always amazes me the reaction from the Pro Death camp, when they see the reality of infanticide. I guess history should not show the death camps from the Holocaust? The slaughter of baby’s in the womb will cease when the world sees the slaughter!

“Should I keep a child that I can’t afford?” That is a straw man argument. But you have your car, your iPhone, iPod, iPad, etc. ad nauseam. “What about rape victims?” What about them? Your entire fallacy of an argument is based on might makes right. Trust me you don’t want to live in that world. You really want to justify your actions, because you have the choice and ability to snuff out a helpless baby in the womb because its an inconvenience? What if someone thinks you are an inconvenience? Should they snuff you out? After all this is what you are advocating?

 

[sweetpetunia]

To tell the truth the rhetoric on both sides really turns me off. First the pro choice people with their insistence that there is no life present.

But the pro life people upset me as well. The fertilized ovum becomes a baby first, then a child (that tome at least implies one past infancy). How much older will these people become in the propaganda? Will they next be teens, graduate students?

I don’t mean to be disrespectful or mean. But why not try and meet somewhere between those two extremes?

It is not in any way extremist or propaganda to say that an unborn child is a child. The very first entry for child in the Merriam-Webster Dictionary (owned by the Encyclopedia Britannica) defines child as follows:

“an unborn or recently born person” (merriam-webster.com/dictionary/with%20child)

A pregnant woman is rightfully called “with child”. Of course it’s a child. Just because you wish to use the term in a very narrow sense to mean a stage of human development beyond infancy does not change the fact that an unborn human being is still a child.