Pro Choice/Abortion “Catholics”

  • Thread starter Thread starter Sbee0
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Questioner13 said:
The assertion that “life” begins at conception and therefore a “person” with full human rights exists at that point doesn’t work in practice though.

Certain forms of cancer have unique DNA. They are not people. So “unique DNA” cannot be the determining factor.

After birth, some of the infant’s stem cells continue circulating in the mother. I have two siblings. Is my mother therefore four people? If some of my cells are still in my mother, am I a person apart from my mother?
Click to expand...
Its not an assertion it’s a proven scientific fact that human life begins at conception.

Cancers are not human, they do not have different DNA that defines a unique person as they share the same genetic background as other cells; unlike a human fetus cancers have no inherent capability to develop and grow as a unique human life stage by stage, they are just cells so the comparison is not valid. Ditto for single stem cells.

All arguments for abortion rights short of an admission that abortion causes the death of a human life are not on a sound foundation.
 
Last edited:
deMontfort said:
The arguments he’s been making in this thread indicate that he’s pretty much an atheist who’s completely apostate from any orthodox form of Christianity.
Click to expand...
Can’t deny that. The more I learn about institutional Christianity the harder it becomes to stay a Christian. Especially a Catholic.

Read scholarly articles about the veracity of the gospels. For example, not a single, contemporary historical mention of Jesus. Not one. (Josephus - the only one worth discussing - is widely thought to be an interpolation).

Read scholarly articles about the veracity of the Old Testament. We all know about Genesis, but read about Exodus and the true history of King David. The most damaging research being done by Jewish historians.

Read about the history of the virgin birth and the mistranslated prophecy, and how the earliest texts about Jesus don’t even mention a virgin birth.

This isn’t Catholic, but read about the disgraceful history of Mormonism and the blatant, exposed lie that is the Book of Abraham.

Read about the complete disgrace that is the sex abuse scandal. Read about the Vatican Bank and the Mafia. Read about the history of WW2, Hitler, Mussolini, and the Pope and the Slovakian SS priests that ran concentration camps.

I could go on and on. Like I said, i was raised a Catholic. But as I learned and was exposed to facts, and I researched more myself, it became very difficult to defend institutional Christianity. I wouldn’t say I’m an atheist. And I still believe in Christ’s message. But you better believe I am down on institutional Christianity. Way down.
 
Rahn said:
Abortion is murder. The fifth commandment is “Thou shall not kill”. You cannot be Catholic, or even Christian, if you condone abortion.

Please stop deceiving yourself.
Click to expand...
I would never have an abortion myself. I would never recommend one. And if someone I know was thinking of getting one, I would do everything I could to prevent it. And I am not advocating the Church change it’s base position on abortion (birth control being a related exception).

But as an American, I think politically, the right approach to maintain a free society and reducing abortions is to make abortion illegal after a certain time (up for discussion) and implement Democratic social policies. I think Republicans are making the problem worse, and I don’t think they care one bit about Catholic teaching about abortion - they just want your votes and are tricking you into voting for them.
 
I assume one of the things you are referring to is Cornwell’s book discussing the connection between Nazis and the pope. That is not an objective source of truth. The claims in that book have been completely debunked and the idea that there was any sort of alliance between the 3rd Reich and the church is a myth.
 
Well the church kind of had it coming don’t you think? Due to the extensive institutional malfeasance? Just because the church can’t shoulder the burden doesn’t mean the victims should just sit by uncompensated for the heinous crimes committed against it. The church will endure even if bankrupted, or so I’m told.
 
Sbee0 said:
We cannot nor do we have the authority to determine with certainty when personhood begins. Therefore, by simple logical reasoning, we must say personhood begins when life begins - at the place science says it begins. At conception.
Click to expand...
That argument is very dangerous because logically it could just as easily justify the Chinese aborting fetus up to 40 weeks or at 27 weeks (current independent viability) or any other absolute criteria. Saying “conception” is just as arbitrary as saying “heartbeat” or “brain waves”, “outside the womb”, etc.

The point is that it IS subjective. You are even saying this. We need to allow for abortion, but make it very rare, mostly unnecessary, and a last resort.
 
Last edited:
LateCatholic said:
40.png
Sbee0:
We cannot nor do we have the authority to determine with certainty when personhood begins. Therefore, by simple logical reasoning, we must say personhood begins when life begins - at the place science says it begins. At conception.
Click to expand...
That argument is very dangerous because logically it could just as easily justify the Chinese aborting fetus up to 40 weeks or at 27 weeks (current independent viability) or any other absolute criteria. Saying “conception” is just as arbitrary as saying “heartbeat” or “brain waves”, “outside the womb”, etc.

The point is that it IS subjective. You are even saying this. We need to allow for abortion, but make it very rare, mostly unnecessary, and a last resort.
Click to expand...
I don’t follow. I’m not talking about a communist government forcing abortions set by their own criteria. I’m talking science.

Conception isn’t an arbitrary benchmark, it’s a scientific term to indicate the moment life begins. Conception starts human life just as much as the Big Bang started the universe.
 
“I would never axe murder my neighbor for playing his music too loud, but as an American I’d never dream of telling someone else they can’t make that choice.” :roll_eyes:
 
RCIAGraduate said:
40.png
deMontfort:
The arguments he’s been making in this thread indicate that he’s pretty much an atheist who’s completely apostate from any orthodox form of Christianity.
Click to expand...
To give him or her the benefit of the doubt, making presumptions might not be the best idea, perhaps he or she is still wandering and looking for answers here?
Click to expand...
You were saying?
 
I wonder what the debates were all the years of ‘legalized’ slavery;
the 100 years of more legal oppression?
Many Christian faith communities condoned even supported slavery, especially in the South.
I’m sure there were a lot of ‘straw man’ arguments; and heart sting honey speech rhetoric
regarding ‘prudential judgement’ relating other moral issues. I wonder how many consciences
suffered (souls) who needed sustained compassionate objective truth? I wonder if vague terms
like ‘social justice,’ were used?
Evangelium Vitae combined with things like ‘the child’s head is still inside the mother — it is
ok to painfully scramble their brains with a surgical instrument,’ led to “Living The Gospel of Life.”
There are many clear and uncertain terms in that document. Some directed at public figures.
Like in other times in history, with decades of seduction into grave moral atrocity in crimes against humanity;
directly related to the Salvation of souls — combined with decades of being anesthetized to the grave moral
evil — every institution bar none - becomes ambiguous - gradually acquiescing to a totalitarian regime -----
or the ‘peer’ pressure in surrounding society. History repeats and repeats.
Thank God for the prophets of Christ, like the prophets of old — who suffer greatly — but with Grace filled
courage, give the truth with clarity. Some recent ones, very relevant to our very day → John Paul ii, Mother Teresa, Bishop Fulton J. Sheen, and John Cardinal O’Conner. They are before the Thrown of God;
for the conscience of the parents (and anyone directly involved or complacent) to be informed
in a sustained compassionate vast sign - for the salvation of souls intimately hinged to the Sacredness of every human life. (ref. the end of Matthew 25) , John Paul ii Address at the Eucharistic Congress, Feb 2000,
and many others. 24 years after Cardinal Karol Wojtyla, the future John Paul ii, at another Eucharistic Congress gave this exhortation, " " We are now standing in the face of the greatest historical confrontation humanity has ever experienced. I do not think that the wide circle of the American Society, or the whole wide circle of the Christian Community realize this fully. We are now facing the final confrontation between the Church and the anti-church, between the gospel and the anti-gospel, between Christ and the antichrist. The confrontation lies within the plans of Divine Providence. It is, therefore, in God’s Plan, and it must be a trial which the Church must take up, and face courageously . " And he is extremely accurate.
The seducing rhetoric surrounding these tens of thousands of helpless children world wide in small
Auschwitz, Dachau, or other metaphors for death camps — is heartbreaking more because it harms consciences in this time of immense propaganda and ambiguity. (cont…)
 
God through Christ, with The Power of The Holy Spirit can ‘excommunicate’ anyone with Divine Impartiality.
Whether or not fallible human persons cajole those who condone atrocity and crimes against humanity;
the least among us. God knows the temporarily fooled, like Peter’s denial or the woman abused after
being purposely caught in adultery. Jesus Christ says to us, ‘go and sin no more.’ and ‘feed my sheep,’
and ‘tend my lambs.’ (paraphrase) ---- we can do so many things ‘right’ - worship, pray, fast, give alms;
but if we lack justice and mercy — it counts as worthless rags to we unprofitable servants.
God Bless you. Peace. The Light Shines in the darkness.
Life is Victorious.
 
Last edited:
Sbee0 said:
Conception isn’t an arbitrary benchmark, it’s a scientific term to indicate the moment life begins. Conception starts human life just as much as the Big Bang started the universe.
Click to expand...
My point is that from a political perspective, there is nothing special about conception. The Chinese say that life begins when the baby is born. Why is your definition any better than their’s? You’ve come up with an absolute. They’ve got an absolute.

In fact, why can’t I simply say abortion should be legal because according to the US tax code a person does not “exist” until they are born (no SS#, no tax code, etc). You think the Republicans want a mother to get tax breaks the instant she is pregnant? But technically that is what you are saying. This is NOT a simple problem. Making abortion illegal is not the answer.
 
LateCatholic said:
My point is that from a political perspective, there is nothing special about conception.
Click to expand...
Scientifically there is.
LateCatholic said:
Why is your definition any better than their’s?
Click to expand...
I think any point beyond conception is arbitrary and someone who decides that a baby can be killed in the womb because they are not a person may one day decide that I can be killed because I no longer fit whatever their definition of person is.
 
LateCatholic said:
40.png
Sbee0:
Conception isn’t an arbitrary benchmark, it’s a scientific term to indicate the moment life begins. Conception starts human life just as much as the Big Bang started the universe.
Click to expand...
My point is that from a political perspective, there is nothing special about conception. The Chinese say that life begins when the baby is born. Why is your definition any better than their’s? You’ve come up with an absolute. They’ve got an absolute.

In fact, why can’t I simply say abortion should be legal because according to the US tax code a person does not “exist” until they are born (no SS#, no tax code, etc). You think the Republicans want a mother to get tax breaks the instant she is pregnant? But technically that is what you are saying. This is NOT a simple problem. Making abortion illegal is not the answer.
Click to expand...
Its not “my” definition it’s a scientific definition. There’s nothing arbitrary about it. All other opinions are just that… opinions with no basis in science whatsoever so there’s no point equating them.

Life begins at conception. Science and scientific research says so. Faith agrees with science.
 
Last edited:
It is not a political question. God says “I have written my law on the hearts of My people.” If you belong to God, you know that abortion is wrong.

I say with all earnestness, stop deceiving yourself.
 
HarryStotle said:
The spread of AIDS is caused by indiscriminate and irresponsible sex. You don’t make evil morally right by slapping a latex covering on it and blaming the reality of moral truths for its existence.
Click to expand...
You are bypassing the issue. I claim being against the use of condoms is immoral. For decades, the Catholic Church’s position exacerbated the spread of AIDS in Africa. THAT IS THE ISSUE. You want to preach abstinence? Do it. You want to preach monogamy? Do it. You want to tell people to stop having indiscriminate sex? Absolutely.

But to declare use of a simple medical device as immoral when it is BY FAR the most cost-effective way to prevent the spread of a horrifying disease is not only unethical, but yes, evil.

Note that both the Holy Father and previous Pope (liberal and conservative, respectively) agree with me:

 
Last edited:
LateCatholic said:
Read scholarly articles about the veracity of the gospels. For example, not a single, contemporary historical mention of Jesus. Not one. (Josephus - the only one worth discussing - is widely thought to be an interpolation).
Click to expand...
Actually, it isn’t “widely thought to be an interpolation,” at least not completely. And there have been more recent versions discovered following Jewish and Islamic sources that still contain much the same meaning and terms. Some looks like interpolation, but not the mention of Jesus.

Secondly, Josephus makes two mentions of Jesus, and the other one isn’t doubted or disputed, at least not in the mainstream.

You are also forgetting about Pliny, Tacitus, and Suetonius, along with other near contemporary Christian writers. (Although you are likely aware that there are other references given your “the only one worth discussing,” comment)

There is much historical evidence - both internal and external - that points to the reliability of the New Testament that I doubt you are even aware of in your reading of “scholarly articles.”

As for how strong the argument from silence really is, go here…


Discussion of the Tacitus reference…


On Josephus’ two references…

 
LateCatholic said:
Note that both the Holy Father and previous Pope (liberal and conservative, respectively) agree with me:

The Pope drops Catholic ban on condoms in historic shift
Click to expand...
The title of the Telegraph article is misleading. Benedict said “could be in some cases,” which does not imply “is in all cases,” nor even, “is in some cases.”

Your use of logic, both in this post and in the one on the historical evidence for Jesus, is deficient.
 
LateCatholic said:
My point is that from a political perspective, there is nothing special about conception.
Click to expand...
But from a Catholic morality perspective, life does begin at conception. That explains how Catholics can acquire those morals. As for Catholics “imposing” those morals on others in a secular society, there is no good argument why a Catholic cannot reference his own particular morals when advocating for civil social policy. It happens all the time with all sorts of morals. People vote on all sorts of morals-based issues, such as: Should there be a social safety net? Should there be laws that enforce copyright and patents? Should there be mandatory conflict of interest rules for judges? What should the minimum wage be? Do we have an obligation to mitigate global warming? Should there be a statute of limitations on rape prosecution? Should a person be obligated to testify against himself? Should alcohol be banned at fraternities? And many many more. By and large (BnL™ 2057) people reference their own sense of right and wrong to decide how to vote on these and many other issues. And here is the really strange part: No one questions whether such an application of one’s personal morals is inappropriate when coming to a decision of how to vote on these various issues! So why make that criticism of Catholics when they do just what everyone else does, namely, reference their own sense of right and wrong when deciding civil policy? Therefore it is entirely appropriate for Catholics to advocate for the rights of the unborn, regardless of how they came to that position.,
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top