Liberal friend and prolife issues

[Odell]

For your consideration (from Talmud)
“if a woman travails to give birth [and it is feared she may die], one may sever the fetus from her womb and extract it, member by member, for her life takes precedence over his” (Oho. 7:6). This is the case only as long as the fetus has not emerged into the world, when it is not a life at all and “it may be killed and the mother saved” (Rashi and Meiri, Sanh. 72b). But, from the moment that the greater part of the fetus has emerged into the world – either its head only, or its greater part – it may not be touched, even if it endangers the mother’s life: “ein doḥin nefesh mi-penei nefesh” (“one may not reject one life to save another” – Oho. and Sanh. ibid.).

 

[Odell]

And she says

For the record, I’m not a fan. I’m Catholic and I do think that life is precious. But I also think that it is necessary to keep it legal for medical necessity and that it’s important to respect that other religions hold different views on when life begins

 

[Lea101]

She does have a point-there are religions that allow abortion in certain cases so it does not seem “fair” for catholics to demand them to not follow their religion. Which is why I’m a little hesitant in issues like this…

But of course, some people forget that the church allows for the woman’s life to be saved (there’s threads like this-there are certain operations a woman can do to save her life-even if the baby dies, as long as it is not the direct killing of the baby)

I don’t feel like abortions would be completely banned-the “best” case scenario is abortions banned except for rape/when the mother’s life is in danger. Of course that’s even wishful thinking

You can ‘respect’ others but not agree with them. Or at least i think so. If someone I know wants an abortion, I would try to offer help so she won’t have to (bring her to a centre, look at adoption as an option etc) but if she still says no, I’m not going to force her to keep it. Sometimes we need to focus on changing the minds of women as opposed to changing the law, just my opinion

 

[exnihilo]

I’d ask her if a religion believes in slavery whether she then thinks slavery should be legal. I’d also point out that the Talmud itself doesn’t express respect for other religions. It says terrible things about Jesus and the Blessed Virgin.

 

[e_c]

First point: The Talmud is not revelatory. It is merely interesting human commentary on revelation and how we ought to live it out.

Second point: Once a Catholic adheres to the intrinsic nature of murder, he or she will be bound to confess that all abortion for whatever reason and in whatever place ought never be done.

Third point: It is not always wise to legislate against all immorality, like telling white lies.

Fourth point: Abortion is a WAY bigger deal than white lies.

To our incredibly warped post-modern intuitions, this sounds harsh. But to the Catholic intellect, it will ring true. For instance, one might replace “abortion” with “slavery” or “racism” or all kinds of things that we rich Westerners automatically hate.

Your friend’s position is not at all Catholic. Call her to account if you are able.

 

[JimG]

Even a physician who follows the Talmud has the ability now to save both mother and baby in such situations.

 

[goout]

Then she better have respect for slavery, euthanasia, mistreatment of animals.

etc…(etc because there is no end to the evil permitted when everything should be tolerated)

If she is like other progressives there will be a “but clause” to her tolerance. I think you will find her tolerance only extends to the currently fashionable causes. Which is not tolerance at all, but merely whim.

I truly believe this current generation would not be capable of abolishing slavery. We are so intellectually inconsistent and vacuous.

 

[Hilarion1021]

For your consideration (from Talmud)
This is the case only as long as the fetus has not emerged into the world, when it is not a life at all and “it may be killed and the mother saved” (Rashi and Meiri, Sanh. 72b).

How can something that’s not a life be killed? Can a rock be killed? Can a corpse? How absurd.

 

[johnnyc176]

Welcome to the dictatorship of relativism.

 

[DaveBj]

First point: The Talmud is not revelatory. It is merely interesting human commentary on revelation and how we ought to live it out.

Second point: Once a Catholic adheres to the intrinsic nature of murder, he or she will be bound to confess that all abortion for whatever reason and in whatever place ought never be done.

Third point: It is not always wise to legislate against all immorality, like telling white lies.

Fourth point: Abortion is a WAY bigger deal than white lies.

To our incredibly warped post-modern intuitions, this sounds harsh. But to the Catholic intellect, it will ring true. For instance, one might replace “abortion” with “slavery” or “racism” or all kinds of things that we rich Westerners automatically hate.

Your friend’s position is not at all Catholic. Call her to account if you are able.

I was going to comment on this thread, but ^^this^^ says what I was thinking a lot better than I would have.

 

[mommy_k]

Well, with this thinking you should also respect every radical Islam sect, wiccan, and so on…because it may be written down somewhere-your ftiend can’t make general sweeping statements like this without including all religions and practices, beliefs, and so on…if they are a liberal they should understand this flaw in thier argument.

Why are they singling out pro life issues would be my question. Do they only respect the parts of other religions they personally agree with?

 

[gus]

She does have a point-there are religions that allow abortion in certain cases so it does not seem “fair” for catholics to demand them to not follow their religion. Which is why I’m a little hesitant in issues like this…

But of course, some people forget that the church allows for the woman’s life to be saved (there’s threads like this-there are certain operations a woman can do to save her life-even if the baby dies, as long as it is not the direct killing of the baby)

I don’t feel like abortions would be completely banned-the “best” case scenario is abortions banned except for rape/when the mother’s life is in danger. Of course that’s even wishful thinking

You can ‘respect’ others but not agree with them. Or at least i think so. If someone I know wants an abortion, I would try to offer help so she won’t have to (bring her to a centre, look at adoption as an option etc) but if she still says no, I’m not going to force her to keep it. Sometimes we need to focus on changing the minds of women as opposed to changing the law, just my opinion

You do understand that if every child conceived in rape was aborted you probably wouldn’t be here…

 

[Michael_Mayo]

Welcome to the dictatorship of relativism.

Yes, so if we have two religions with contrary views I guess the majority rules, Even belief in an absolute truth is a “belief”.

 

[e_c]

Yes, so if we have two religions with contrary views I guess the majority rules, Even belief in an absolute truth is a “belief”.

This alludes to the underlying issue.

Religions or cultures that promote a principle that is contrary to natural law must be fought against inasmuch as they promote that principle (which would probably take precedence over other inter-religious issues in most situations). There is no room for “ecumenism” or “tolerance” on this front. God is the author of both reason and revelation… they must fit together, or else God is, as the Muslims say, “above reason,” which doesn’t make sense itself as an idea (read the Regensburg lecture).

There is a famous short story that has been habitually used to teach this principle called “The Lottery,” which is basically “The Hunger Games” but is religiously motivated rather than politically.

 

[e_c]

How can something that’s not a life be killed? Can a rock be killed? Can a corpse? How absurd.

What an insightful and worthy first post.

 

[Odell]

Thanks to you all! These are all good responses and I welcome more!

I truly believe this current generation would not be capable of abolishing slavery. We are so intellectually inconsistent and vacuous.

I really like this point. Could you elaborate or even build on it? Anyone else is welcome to also. I thought it was an interesting point.

 

[monie1952]

I have a hard time when people use the “don’t impose your religion on others” argument when discussing abortion. If the argument against abortion had only to do with God and religion, then there wouldn’t be any atheists who oppose abortion, and there are indeed atheists who oppose abortion (or at least one! godlessprolifers.org/home.html)
So the question need not be centered on religion, but on basic human rights and dignity. Here is an example of what our current society says: a woman who is pregnant and doesn’t want to have the child may state: “it’s not a baby, it’s only a clump of cells or tissue”; a woman who is pregnant and does want to have the child typically states: “I’m with child, or I’m having a baby”. I have yet to hear a pregnant woman state that she is “with a clump of cells” or that she is “having a clump of cells”. That would be ridiculous. The content of a pregnant woman’s uterus is a human being, with a unique DNA. That is scientific fact. So doesn’t that human being deserve to have his/her basic human rights defended and protected? I believe Hillary Clinton made the argument (maybe in the first debate? not sure) that the unborn child does not have rights and so basically abortion is okay. But that argument falls flat since it is only a legal argument and doesn’t get at the bottom line of whether it is right to take the life of an innocent human being. Remember, blacks didn’t have legal human rights granted in our constitution for way too many years. So would Hillary argue that it was okay that blacks had been denied their basic human rights and dignity because there wasn’t a law or constitutional amendment to guarantee those rights back then? I don’t think so. And if she did argue that it was okay to deny those rights back then because it wasn’t in the constitution or legally guaranteed, I suspect she would lose almost all of her black supporters (and maybe more). I think that perhaps the greatest effort that needs to be taken now is to get an amendment to our constitution recognizing the unborn as a human being entitled to the same basic human rights as any other human being. I think that is the way to end legalized abortion.

 

[johnnyc176]

This alludes to the underlying issue.

Religions or cultures that promote a principle that is contrary to natural law must be fought against inasmuch as they promote that principle (which would probably take precedence over other inter-religious issues in most situations). There is no room for “ecumenism” or “tolerance” on this front. God is the author of both reason and revelation… they must fit together, or else God is, as the Muslims say, “above reason,” which doesn’t make sense itself as an idea (read the Regensburg lecture).

Yes…something else from Pope Benedict…

“The risen Lord instructed his apostles, and through them his disciples in all ages, to take his word to the ends of the earth and to make disciples of all people,” retired Pope Benedict wrote. "‘But does that still apply?’ many inside and outside the church ask themselves today. ‘Is mission still something for today? Would it not be more appropriate to meet in dialogue among religions and serve together the cause of world peace?’ The counter-question is: ‘Can dialogue substitute for mission?’

“In fact, many today think religions should respect each other and, in their dialogue, become a common force for peace. According to this way of thinking, it is usually taken for granted that different religions are variants of one and the same reality,” the retired pope wrote. "The question of truth, that which originally motivated Christians more than any other, is here put inside parentheses. It is assumed that the authentic truth about God is in the last analysis unreachable and that at best one can represent the ineffable with a variety of symbols. This renunciation of truth seems realistic and useful for peace among religions in the world.

“It is nevertheless lethal to faith. In fact, faith loses its binding character and its seriousness, everything is reduced to interchangeable symbols, capable of referring only distantly to the inaccessible mystery of the divine,” he wrote.

 

[gus]

Thanks to you all! These are all good responses and I welcome more!

I really like this point. Could you elaborate or even build on it? Anyone else is welcome to also. I thought it was an interesting point.

It’s an interesting point since slavery was abolished largely on moral and religious principals it certainly would not have that opposition today.
The dialogue for the acceptance of the 13th Amendment ,'in the Connecticut Legislature is all based on religion
PT. Barnum said
“A human soul is not to be trifled with. It may inhabit the body of a Chinaman, a Turk, an Arab, or a Hotentot - it is still an immortal spirit!”

 

[goout]

Thanks to you all! These are all good responses and I welcome more!

I really like this point. Could you elaborate or even build on it? Anyone else is welcome to also. I thought it was an interesting point.

Summarizing quickly, relativism has blunted moral evaluation. If a person can’t morally evaluate a situation, well then we have no imperative to change an injustice. Our social policies reinforce whatever happens to be popular, rather than pursuing what is moral.

As an example, we live in a culture that has a supposedly well defined sense of ethics. We have institutionalized care for the physical needs of the poor.
And at the same time, we have institutionalized murder of 50+ million small human beings.
What is wrong with this picture?

We are either deceived, or callous.
In either case, we wouldn’t have the moral rectitude, patience, or determination to shake off slavery in this age. We pat ourselves on the back that we are a virtuous and ethical people when in reality we are the most barbaric society every to inhabit the earth.