Priests Told: Deny Communion to Politicians Who Support Abortion

[Cider]

No its an accurate term that can describe ones position. I don’t doubt there are people who are truly pro abortion. Pro Choice can also mean you want to leave it up to people to decide and not have it be decided for them. That doesn’t mean you’re pro abortion.

Leave it up to the people to decide what?

No matter how you try and avoid the facts, the truth of the matter is that you are supporting the rights of women to kill their children.

 

[fix]

No its an accurate term that can describe ones position. I don’t doubt there are people who are truly pro abortion. Pro Choice can also mean you want to leave it up to people to decide and not have it be decided for them. That doesn’t mean you’re pro abortion.

Sorry but that is totally false. If one supports the legal killing of innocents one is pro abortion. I gave several examples in the other post.

Pro choice on slavery? Rape? Arson?

 

[ProVobis]

No matter how you try and avoid the facts, the truth of the matter is that you are supporting the rights of women to kill their children.

I’m sure I’ll have people jumping on me for saying this but in BBC’s defense, I think you have to be more specific here. What can you do when you work alongside women who are determined to terminate their pregnancies and despite your attempts to talk them out of it, they wish for you to understand their positions? I’m sure a lot of parents, coworkers, and friends are put into such situations every day. I know I have.

 

[fix]

Given the true nature of what an abortion is it is no surprise that those who accept them would resort to word games to defend their position. What is surprising, however, is the degree of self delusion that accompanies those positions.

Ender

This is really the truth. Can one really believe that supporting legal abortion is not being in favor of abortion? What on earth is one supporting?

 

[fix]

I’m sure I’ll have people jumping on me for saying this but I think you have to be more specific here. What can you do when you work alongside women who are determined to terminate their pregnancies and despite your attempts to talk them out of it, they wish for you to understand their positions? I’m sure a lot of parents, coworkers, and friends are put into such situations every day. I know I have.

How is that related to the comment in question? A big part of how we form our consciences is the law and language. If we intentionally choose to obfuscate seriously evil acts by playing words games are we not just dulling our consciences to the horror of what we call “choice”?

 

[ProVobis]

How is that related to the comment in question? A big part of how we form our consciences is the law and language. If we intentionally choose to obfuscate seriously evil acts by playing words games are we not just dulling our consciences to the horror of what we call “choice”?

Never mind. Realizing I was playing into your games of semantics, I withdrew my comment.

 

[fix]

Never mind. Realizing I was playing into your games of semantics, I withdrew my comment.

If it were simply semantics the other poster would not use the term pro choice.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

It is time to separate the sheep from the goats. Support abortion which is MURDER of the innocent unborn and you are in MORTAL sin and should be excommunicated!

No politician who supports the MURDER of the innocent unborn should be allowed to take the Eucharist and SACRILEDGE it!

 

[PazzoGrande]

Quick question, is regular murder also grounds for Excommunication, or would it suffice to just go to Confession about it?

I’m wondering about the consistency in the law. Or perhaps the standard is that killing an unborn child is that much worse than murder.

 

[ProVobis]

If it were simply semantics the other poster would not use the term pro choice.

Still, semantics is a dangerous game to play when discussing morals. Otherwise you would be denying communion to people like Paul Ryan (abortion legal in cases of rape, etc.) or Todd Akin (“legitimate rape”). Good luck with that.

That said, I usually don’t go to communion unless I’ve been to confesssion. You think it doesn’t bother me when I go to an English Mass and I see virtually everyone there receiving? But, I’m told, who am I to judge?

 

[fix]

Still, semantics is a dangerous game to play when discussing morals. Otherwise you would be denying communion to people like Paul Ryan (abortion legal in cases of rape, etc.) or Todd Akin (“legitimate rape”). Good luck with that.

If they support abortion then the same rules apply.

 

[LisaA]

If they support abortion then the same rules apply.

My understanding is that Paul Ryan does not believe in abortion in case of rape or incest however I think it was part of the Republican platform. Ryan was demonized by the Left for supporting a personhood amendment…that allowed them to put him into the same category as Todd Akin.
Lisa

 

[BigBlueCane]

The term pro-choice is of course shorthand for “I support the right of a mother to abort her child.” It really has nothing whatever with any right to choose; choice is not the issue. The objection that most people are not really pro-abortion is another verbal dodge. I personally am not pro-root canals even while I recognize their benefit so the issue is not whether we like everything we would allow; it is precisely about those things we choose to permit. A person who is pro-abortion is a person who chooses to permit abortions.

Given the true nature of what an abortion is it is no surprise that those who accept them would resort to word games to defend their position. What is surprising, however, is the degree of self delusion that accompanies those positions.

Ender

Actually no its not. Its giving the woman the choice to choose or not to choose to abort her unborn child. You know…free will. People always forget the “not to choose” part. If the goal is to reduce the amount of abortions then the more effective way isn’t trying to ban abortions altogether, which will never happen, but in trying to change hearts and minds, creating options for people who find themselves in a position where they are considering abortion.

 

[BigBlueCane]

My understanding is that Paul Ryan does not believe in abortion in case of rape or incest however I think it was part of the Republican platform. Ryan was demonized by the Left for supporting a personhood amendment…that allowed them to put him into the same category as Todd Akin.
Lisa

Yeah because its ridiculous.

 

[BigBlueCane]

Sorry but that is totally false. If one supports the legal killing of innocents one is pro abortion. I gave several examples in the other post.

Pro choice on slavery? Rape? Arson?

And you were wrong in your examples. Sorry but to say that I give you the choice to choose or not to choose doesn’t mean you support one of those choices over the other.

 

[LisaA]

Actually no its not. Its giving the woman the choice to choose or not to choose to abort her unborn child. You know…free will. People always forget the “not to choose” part. If the goal is to reduce the amount of abortions then the more effective way isn’t trying to ban abortions altogether, which will never happen, but in trying to change hearts and minds, creating options for people who find themselves in a position where they are considering abortion.

Unfortunately that is just breaded air. The “right to choose” supports the right of one person to have the child killed, it doesn’t in any way support the rights of the child. It’s a one sided argument where might makes right. Even the abortion rights advocates realize the speciousness of this argument. One even admitted well yes it’s a human being but the life of an unborn child isn’t as important as the convenience of the mother.

That being said I completely agree that the best way to reduce if not prevent abortion is to EDUCATE people that an unborn baby is just that, an unborn baby. Planned Parenthood has gotten away with the “blob of tissue” argument far too long. One of the best ways to convince a woman that abortion is not the right “choice” is to show her an ultrasound. Thus Planned Parenthood and the abortion lobby fights tooth and nail to prevent women from being fully informed about the procedure…which includes looking at the unborn baby.

I find it totally ironic that before my appendix was removed,the doctor showed me the scan that demonstrated it was necessary. I was told all about the procedure, what would happen, all potential consequences and alternatives to surgery. Yet based on many testimonies, women are barely informed about abortion, what they are doing, alternatives to aborting. It’s sadly a matter of money since this is by far the most lucrative activity of PP and its ilk.

Lisa

 

[fix]

Actually no its not. Its giving the woman the choice to choose or not to choose to abort her unborn child. You know…free will. People always forget the “not to choose” part. If the goal is to reduce the amount of abortions then the more effective way isn’t trying to ban abortions altogether, which will never happen, but in trying to change hearts and minds, creating options for people who find themselves in a position where they are considering abortion.

The law is a teacher. Teach that murder is licit and people form their consciences that way.

Should rape be a choice? We have free will.

 

[fix]

And you were wrong in your examples. Sorry but to say that I give you the choice to choose or not to choose doesn’t mean you support one of those choices over the other.

Sorry but that makes no sense. If you are in support of legal rape you are pro rape. If you support legal murder you are pro murder. Ask the baby about to be murdered or the woman about to be raped.

 

[Ender]

Actually no its not. Its giving the woman the choice to choose or not to choose to abort her unborn child. You know…free will. People always forget the “not to choose” part.

If the overriding concern was simply choice then we would have no laws at all. Surely if we can justify giving women the choice of aborting their children we ought to be willing to let people choose the speed at which to drive their cars. If the greater decision is justifiable then surely lesser ones are equally so.

But of course this is not about free will or freedom to choose, it is about whether it is appropriate for a society to set limits on the kinds of actions that will or will not be permitted - a concept accepted at the moment one grants the necessity of a government. Claiming abortion is about choice is simply nonsense. If I can choose to kill the unborn child why am I not free to kill … I mean choose to kill … one that has been born? How do those choices differ? How do you justify allowing choice in one case but not the other?

Ender

 

[Ender]

Still, semantics is a dangerous game to play when discussing morals. Otherwise you would be denying communion to people like Paul Ryan (abortion legal in cases of rape, etc.)…

I think this is a misconception (but at least it might get the discussion back on topic). The church does not demand the impossible and it would be acceptable for a politician to push for a less than perfect law that is still an improvement over existing law.
32. Sometimes morally flawed laws already exist. In this situation, the process of framing legislation to protect life is subject to prudential judgment and “the art of the possible.” At times this process may restore justice only partially or gradually. (USCCB)
Ender