Pointless pro-choice statements

[The_Reginator]

We’ve spent many pages here on this thread discussing abortion from a philosophical, secular point of view.
(Not being a philosopher this has been rather taxing on my cranial matter.)
After Mass today there was a presentation from some seminarians who had walked from Vancouver to Ottawa to raise awareness and money for the pro-life cause.
They reminded us of the most important struggle with this issue:
Above all, this is a spiritual battle.
There certainly are pointless pro-choice statements.
The argument against abortion and euthanasia does not require a religious world view. However, it is confirmed strengthened by Catholicism.
Remember that in fighting to save the right to life for ALL people, we are fighting a spiritual battle against Satan. He has even infiltrated the Church and used people who call themselves Catholic to support abortion.

Always keep in mind that this is a spiritual battle.

 

[ThomasToo]

We’ve spent many pages here on this thread discussing abortion from a philosophical, secular point of view.
(Not being a philosopher this has been rather taxing on my cranial matter.)
After Mass today there was a presentation from some seminarians who had walked from Vancouver to Ottawa to raise awareness and money for the pro-life cause.
They reminded us of the most important struggle with this issue:
Above all, this is a spiritual battle.
There certainly are pointless pro-choice statements.
The argument against abortion and euthanasia does not require a religious world view. However, it is confirmed strengthened by Catholicism.
Remember that in fighting to save the right to life for ALL people, we are fighting a spiritual battle against Satan. He has even infiltrated the Church and used people who call themselves Catholic to support abortion.

Always keep in mind that this is a spiritual battle.

Don’t you kind of contradict yourself when saying that this issue is not fundamentally religious (‘argument against abortion and euthanasia [do] not require a religious world view’) while not three sentences earlier say ‘this is a spiritual battle’?

It can’t be both. If this is fundamentally a religious issue then the legal question seems rather moot in that it would be solidifying one religious answer in exclusion of all others in violation of the nation’s core principles. If, on the other hand, it is a fundamentally legal or political one than it cannot be the case that ‘above all, this is a spiritual battle.’

 

[colmcille1]

Don’t you kind of contradict yourself when saying that this issue is not fundamentally religious (‘argument against abortion and euthanasia [do] not require a religious world view’) while not three sentences earlier say ‘this is a spiritual battle’?

It can’t be both. If this is fundamentally a religious issue then the legal question seems rather moot in that it would be solidifying one religious answer in exclusion of all others in violation of the nation’s core principles. If, on the other hand, it is a fundamentally legal or political one than it cannot be the case that ‘above all, this is a spiritual battle.’

I understood it to mean that the gentleman was referring to “a spiritual battle” in the sense that we are sentient beings who enjoy, at our most basic instinct of living, “keeping our spirits up”. It so happens that the leaders in this “spiritual battle” are religious but their appeal is to like minds and non-religious too.
There is indeed a spitual journey to be undertaken here viz we will see that God did create us and it is sinful for us to disfigure the Gift of Life through abortion, euthanasia etc.
God Bless,
Colmcille1.

 

[The_Reginator]

Don’t you kind of contradict yourself when saying that this issue is not fundamentally religious (‘argument against abortion and euthanasia [do] not require a religious world view’) while not three sentences earlier say ‘this is a spiritual battle’?

It can’t be both. If this is fundamentally a religious issue then the legal question seems rather moot in that it would be solidifying one religious answer in exclusion of all others in violation of the nation’s core principles. If, on the other hand, it is a fundamentally legal or political one than it cannot be the case that ‘above all, this is a spiritual battle.’

Near the start of this debate I stated that my reasons for originally rejecting abortion as being morally illegitimate were not based on my religious beliefs. As we have been discussing, there are strong arguments by many here supporting that view. In that way pro-life issues do not require a religious viewpoint, even though this is a battle against princes and principalities not of this world.

My last post was meant as a reminder that ABOVE ALL we are in a spiritual battle. Faith is not devoid of logic. (I think you realize that already.) I could put it this way: When in doubt, Faith trumps logic for those who have trusted God’s revealed truth in His Church. For those who reject God, we can still converse on a secular level.

How do we fight a spiritual battle? We start with prayer, especially asking for the intervention of Mary and all the saints and angels in heaven.

If I recall correctly, Thomas, you have chosen to reject God and His Church. I guess that is the only reason we haven’t been discussing the OP. (It’s been interesting!)

P.S. Thanks for making me think.

Reg.

 

[ThomasToo]

Near the start of this debate I stated that my reasons for originally rejecting abortion as being morally illegitimate were not based on my religious beliefs. As we have been discussing, there are strong arguments by many here supporting that view. In that way pro-life issues do not require a religious viewpoint, even though this is a battle against princes and principalities not of this world.

My last post was meant as a reminder that ABOVE ALL we are in a spiritual battle. Faith is not devoid of logic. (I think you realize that already.) I could put it this way: When in doubt, Faith trumps logic for those who have trusted God’s revealed truth in His Church. For those who reject God, we can still converse on a secular level.

How do we fight a spiritual battle? We start with prayer, especially asking for the intervention of Mary and all the saints and angels in heaven.

If I recall correctly, Thomas, you have chosen to reject God and His Church. I guess that is the only reason we haven’t been discussing the OP. (It’s been interesting!)

P.S. Thanks for making me think.

Reg.

That makes more sense. Thanks for clearing it up.

I’m glad you’ve enjoyed our talk and that I’ve made you think (more, I’m sure–I hope and trust there’s been thinking before now =P).

You mentioned that prayer should especially including asking for the intervention of Mary which reminded me of a survey done in Italy a few years back–JPII’s latinist discussed it in an interview so I don’t have citation information unfortunately–that on the list ordered by frequency of which Italians sought someone in prayer, Jesus came out third. Nothing wrong with veneration of the saints as it goes but surely Jesus of everyone (I wrote and erased ‘all people’ to avoid unnecessary and unintended atheistic meanings) should get top billing! Then again I supposes one way to get a good Jewish boy to do something is to get his mom to nag him about it…

 

[The_Reginator]

That makes more sense. Thanks for clearing it up.

I’m glad you’ve enjoyed our talk and that I’ve made you think (more, I’m sure–I hope and trust there’s been thinking before now =P).

You mentioned that prayer should especially including asking for the intervention of Mary which reminded me of a survey done in Italy a few years back–JPII’s latinist discussed it in an interview so I don’t have citation information unfortunately–that on the list ordered by frequency of which Italians sought someone in prayer, Jesus came out third. Nothing wrong with veneration of the saints as it goes but surely Jesus of everyone (I wrote and erased ‘all people’ to avoid unnecessary and unintended atheistic meanings) should get top billing! Then again I supposes one way to get a good Jewish boy to do something is to get his mom to nag him about it…

I’m not great a quoting the bible, but I recall a much read passage about how the prayer of a righteous man can move mountains. Every prayer is actually a prayer to God, but it is to our advantage to have the very person He created to be His earthly mother to relay our concerns. And other righteous folk too!

(You’re right about thinking. I’ve tried it a number of times and it can be kinda fun. Just so long as I don’t leave my brain in that jar beside the bed …)

 

[JReducation]

One must always exercise great caution when trying to separate faith and social life. It is true that one must respect religious freedom. But we must understand this concept correctly. Religious freedom is a civil right that all men have to follow their faith. It is not a license to live in and teach error. Abortion is not part of religious freedom. It is not a statement of faith. A statement of faith is a de fides statement or better known as a statement of fidelity. When one speaks pro-abortion, one must question what is the fidelity of which one speaks? There is no fidelity. Therefore, pro-abortion talk cannot be given the protection of religious freedom.

People will argue that those who are non-believers or people of other faiths should not be subject to the laws prohibiting abortion. There is a flaw in that argument. The denial of God and the transcendent is not an affirmation of the right to destroy life. It is what it is, a denial of God’s place and presence in the world, but we don’t have to support it. We have to show respect and charity for the non-believer. That is not the same as trying to separate God from the picture, because it offends the non-believer. We affirm faith. We do not affirm the denial of the same. We acknowledge the freedom to be wrong. We never affirm what is wrong, nor do we support the wrong choices that others make.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[SophieCharlotte]

If one is pleased with writing skills, then one would be pleased with this too.

I for one admire good writing skills. But good writing skills do not reflect good moral judgment. In addition, there is a flaw in this judgment. The central nervous system begins to develop from the moment of conception. But it is not the CNS that makes us sons and daughters of God. It is human life. Even a person who is brain dead remains a son of the Eternal Father.

From a purely humanistic perspective, society owes its protection to the vulnerable. A preborn child is very vulnerable and we have a moral duty to protect him. It is very easy to pretend to be academic and rational, while the whole time we’re proposing barbarism. We may not even realize that we’re doing it, because our words sound logical and intelligent. But the denial of human rights is just that, barbarism.

One can either go with the flow and accept what sounds good or stop and take note that it is a far better risk to take to protect human life, regardless of its stage of human development or its condition after birth. To err on the side of human dignity is a virtue. To err on the side of speculation is irresponsible.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

I was just appreciating the writing! I don’t feel that making abortion illegal will solve the problem (not that you said anything about that). I appreciate regulation of abortion (as with many things) but I am not in favour of pushing our moral/religious agenda on other people, even in the name of “protecting the vulnerable” and things like that. It sounds like a poor excuse for restricting the freedoms of others, and to me, allowing abortion in situations where otherwise the mother would die is protecting human life.

 

[JReducation]

I was just appreciating the writing! I don’t feel that making abortion illegal will solve the problem (not that you said anything about that). I appreciate regulation of abortion (as with many things) but I am not in favour of pushing our moral/religious agenda on other people, even in the name of “protecting the vulnerable” and things like that. It sounds like a poor excuse for restricting the freedoms of others, and to me, allowing abortion in situations where otherwise the mother would die is protecting human life.

John Paul II infallibly declared that abortion is NEVER justifiable, not even to protect the life of the mother. Read Evangelium Vitae. We must be very careful never to make this statement.

 

[ThomasToo]

I was just appreciating the writing! I don’t feel that making abortion illegal will solve the problem (not that you said anything about that). I appreciate regulation of abortion (as with many things) but I am not in favour of pushing our moral/religious agenda on other people, even in the name of “protecting the vulnerable” and things like that. It sounds like a poor excuse for restricting the freedoms of others, and to me, allowing abortion in situations where otherwise the mother would die is protecting human life.

John Paul II infallibly declared that abortion is NEVER justifiable, not even to protect the life of the mother. Read Evangelium Vitae. We must be very careful never to make this statement.

Isn’t the only case in which the situation that Sophie set up (absolutely certain death without a procedure the intent of which is to end the life of the developing embryo) ectopic pregnancy which is very explicitly allowed by Catholic moral theology although under the rubric of removing a damaged organ? Other cases, such as a woman needing chemotherapy, would not be abortive as such though to my (very not Catholic) eyes it seems a lesser ill to abort the fetus than to kill it slowly with chemo and radiation. Admittedly my take on this is less relevant than the fact that unless it is an actual abortion as opposed to the case where the loss of a developing embryo/fetus is a foreseen but unintended consequence of a necessary medical intervention to save the life of the mother, Catholic moral theology is–at best–accepting and–at worst–begrudgingly willing to accept the possible licitness (is that even a word?) of the action on double effect grounds.

Please correct me if I am wrong on this either biologically (the uniqueness of ectopic pregnancy to fulfill the case Sophie presented) or theologically (all the other stuff I said)…

 

[JReducation]

Isn’t the only case in which the situation that Sophie set up (absolutely certain death without a procedure the intent of which is to end the life of the developing embryo) ectopic pregnancy which is very explicitly allowed by Catholic moral theology although under the rubric of removing a damaged organ? Other cases, such as a woman needing chemotherapy, would not be abortive as such though to my (very not Catholic) eyes it seems a lesser ill to abort the fetus than to kill it slowly with chemo and radiation. Admittedly my take on this is less relevant than the fact that unless it is an actual abortion as opposed to the case where the loss of a developing embryo/fetus is a foreseen but unintended consequence of a necessary medical intervention to save the life of the mother, Catholic moral theology is–at best–accepting and–at worst–begrudgingly willing to accept the possible licitness (is that even a word?) of the action on double effect grounds.

Please correct me if I am wrong on this either biologically (the uniqueness of ectopic pregnancy to fulfill the case Sophie presented) or theologically (all the other stuff I said)…

I think I undestand the question. I will refer you to something that I wrote on this question www.respectlifemiami.org . Click on abortion vs legitimate medical care on the left side.

In brief, the rule is that if the mother needs a medical procedure and cannot wait until the child is viable, the procedure can be performed provided that certain conditions be met:

1. The purpose is to fix a medical problem
2. The procedure is not a direct attack on the child

You can go in and remove a tube that is inflamed. But you must wait for the tube to be inflamed. You cannot take the child out of the tube. The precedure is removing the dangerous tube. It is not a direct attack on the child. It is understood that the child will die, because the tube has been removed. But the death of the child is a result of a removal of the tube, not the result of an attack on the child. It’s a very fine line; I know. But it’s an important one. One can never take the life of one person for the sake of another.

You can remove a tumor and it may kill the baby, but you did not go in with the intent to kill the baby, even though you knew that 99.9% of the time the baby dies.

The moral law is that the procedure must be to repair not to extinguish a life.

For example, if you decide that the child must be aborted, because the mother will have a heart attack if the pregnancy goes foward . . . that is not allowed. That is choosing to kill one person to save another. No person is above another. In that case, you do what you can to save both. You pray that God will provide a natural solution. Trust me, he always does.

I have seen my fair share of women come out risky pregnancies and healthy babies. Before I was a monk, I was married. We had three children. During my wife’s last pregnancy we were told that she would not make it and she should terminate the pregnancy. We were also told that the child had brain damage. I said that I would not consent to an abortion. My wife went ahead with the pregnancy. She had very serious complications. She almost died at labor, just as predicted. She had the baby and both survived. She died four years later in an auto accident. Our son was born with brain damage, but it is very minimal. Today he’s an adult and a graphic designer. He can’t speak, that’s all.

God always provides a natural solution.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF