Pro Choice/Abortion “Catholics”

[Sbee0]

QwertyGirl:

You say another person, others say a clump of cells with the potential to become a person. Therein lies the philosophy.

The established fact is that this is a human being we are discussing here.

The fact remains that you seem to defend the killing of another human being on the basis on a subjective philosophical position for which there is no objective evidence.

The ancient Greeks used to leave unwanted newborn babies outside on the street to die. I guess this was done based on a subjective philosophical view that this human had no inherent right to life.

If you are going to kill another human being on the grounds that they are not a person, then would it not be reasonable to provide (at the very least) evidence that was beyond all reasonable doubt?

The pro abortion rights argument must try to justify supporting the practice by trying to dehumanize the unborn child. Hence you hear the arguments like “clump of cells” which is completely disingenuous.

Otherwise even they understand that it’s not justifiable.

 

[Theo520]

Yes, it is an ectopic pregnancy. If anyone can clarify how this would be handled I would appreciate it as the moment of conception is different from the moment of implantation in the uterus. Banning abortion at the moment of conception would “technically” ban the treatment of an ectopic pregnancy.

This is a life threatening condition, for both mother and child. The issue is treated but the method is not to target the embryo as would a drug or scrapping the tube.

When an ectopic pregnancy does not resolve by itself, a morally
acceptable approach would involve removal of the whole section of the
tube on the side of the woman’s body where the unborn child is lodged.
Although this results in reduced fertility for the woman, the section of
tube around the growing child has clearly become pathological, and constitutes
a mounting threat with time. This threat is addressed by removal
of the tube, with the secondary, and unintended, effect that the child
within will then die.

 

[Theo520]

Lets see: Ireland overwhelmingly votes to legalize it and while Argentina went the right way it was close. I’d like to see your evidence.

I think polls show a more nuanced shift. People are much more supportive of stopping late term abortions.

 

[thistle]

Does even just having pro choice views also incur excommunication?

Rejecting an infallible teaching is heresy which is not only a mortal sin but carries the penalty of automatic excommunication.
If a Catholic is in favour of abortion and they know that such a stance is of grave matter but they continue with their view which contradicts Church teaching then they put themselves in a state of mortal sin. If they additionally know it carries the penalty of automatic excommunication then they are excommunicated.
If they knew their view denied Church teaching but did not know it carried the penalty of automatic excommunication then they would be in a state of mortal sin but would not incur then penalty of excommunication.

 

[TULIPed]

If a Catholic is in favour of abortion and they know that such a stance is of grave matter but they continue with their view which contradicts Church teaching then they put themselves in a state of mortal sin. If they additionally know it carries the penalty of automatic excommunication then they are excommunicated.

I’ve always been curious about what Nancy Pelosi (and her pastor) think about this…

 

[LateCatholic]

Stop hiding under the Republican banner to support YOUR personal decision to support legal abortion.

As an American, freedom is essential. It is a core component of our society. A free society cannot exists if one cannot defend themselves. Hence the second amendment. A free society cannot exist if one’s rights are restricted based on race, sex, or sexual persuasion. Hence our laws against bigotry.

Similarly, a free society cannot exists if one group can mandate what other citizens must do with their bodies. The question, of course, is then when are we talking about TWO people, not one. And when does that second person’s rights trump the first’s? Now, most people’s personal position on this forum is is that it begins at conception. This is a logical concept, but it is NOT realistic today to hold that view from a political standpoint. If you do, you are restricting the rights of the individual.

Specifically, we do not have the infrastructure in place to support a ban on abortion. You are simply ignorant if you think that. Would you be willing to assign social security numbers at conception, or give pregnant women full child benefits, or declare a fetus a citizen? The objective is to make abortion unnecessary, NOT throw doctors and women into prison. I don’t understand how anyone can even argue this. Yet, that’s what people here seem to want.

if the goal is to make abortion unnecessary, what must be done? I don’t want to rehash this entire thread, but if you look at the statistics, facts, and evidence, the Republican platform has ZERO desire to accomplish this. They just want votes. Period. How can this be argued when one core position of the GOP is to repeal ObamaCare, which would allow insurance companies to deny pregnant women coverage based on clerical errors, or - worse - deny them coverage if they have a history of miscarriages. The Republicans want to cut social programs like foster care and adoptive assistance. I KNOW - I’ve been there. There are people on this forum that say why should the government get “my hard-earned money”. Let the charities handle it. Well, I’ve BEEN THERE. I have worked directly with the Catholic charities and the states regarding adopting children. The Catholic charities is a JOKE compared to the state. I will never go back to the Catholic charity to deal with foster children. It’s not that they don’t mean well, they just don’t have the infrastructure to deal with this very real problem.

Look - The Democrats aren’t perfect. I know they have bad apples as well. But at least their PLATFORM is about helping people. Their (moderate) platform makes more progress to ending abortion than does the Republican platform. Just look at the data. If you are a good person, I think the Republicans are taking advantage of you. And if you are a bad person, you are using Catholicism as a cover - you really only care about money. I’m sorry - but that’s what I see.

 

[Brendan_64]

Now, most people’s personal position on this forum is is that it begins at conception. This is a logical concept, but it is NOT realistic today to hold that view from a political standpoint. If you do, you are restricting the rights of the individual.

If science determines that human life begins at conception, then how is this not a realistic viewpoint? How more realistic can one be than reality? Reality is not determined by political views.

As for restricting the rights of the individual, should a human being have the right to kill another innocent human being?

 

[thistle]

I’ve always been curious about what Nancy Pelosi (and her pastor) think about this…

Me too. Persisting in a pro abortion stance means she is in a state of mortal sin.

 

[HarryStotle]

Look - The Democrats aren’t perfect. I know they have bad apples as well. But at least their PLATFORM is about helping people.

Their platform is about helping some people at the expense of other people, if it helps them to get elected. And they reserve the right to determine who will be helped and who will be charged the expense.

It is a coalition of the supposed “victimized” and they make no bones about drumming up the victimization in a way to marshal the troops by constantly pointing out the injustices.

Yet, if you look at Dem controlled areas, their track record for actually doing good is quite poor.

Anyone can promise “goods” to some even at the cost of killing others and then justify it with claims about the “rights” of some and who does and does not count as “persons” worthy of help.

It is all a big sham, and apparently they have caught you in the web of deception.

YOU were once a fetus in YOUR mother’s womb and if YOUR mother had killed YOU when YOU were a fetus YOU would not be here to claim YOUR personhood status that now deprives other human beings of their very life.

It is as simple as that.

 

[undead_rat]

I would like. if I may, to add one more item to your list of things to put in place to reduce the incidence of abortion and that is:

1. Repeal child support laws as these motivate men to seek abortions for their pregnant girlfriends. I have mentioned this issue before, and it always amazes me how virulently the so-called “pro-life” crowd opposes it.

 

[Rubee]

I would oppose it too. You are saying men should not have to provide for their offspring.

 

[Rubee]

Would you be willing to assign social security numbers at conception, or give pregnant women full child benefits, or declare a fetus a citizen?

I agree with you in that part of the problem is that pregnancy truly is a unique phenomenon. The only other possibly comparable phenomenon is conjoined twins.

The question, of course, is then when are we talking about TWO people, not one. And when does that second person’s rights trump the first’s?

I see it more like when does this category of rights trump this other category? It’s not when does ALL of person X’s rights trump ALL of person Y’s right? This kind of thinking is wrong. A just society cannot allow for a situation like that, but that’s what the ‘woman’s body’ argument says.

My position, and I believe it to be the Catholic Church’s, is that Life trumps liberty, as a basic rule. That’s why we only allow for the right to take life in situations that involve a threat or danger to another life or other lives. The thing about abortion is that this gets inverted. Suddenly, liberty is more fundamental than Life, but only when it comes to abortion: In no other circumstances do we allow this inversion. Suddenly, ALL of a woman’s rights trump ALL of an unborn child’s rights, including the basic one that allows for any other right. That tells you something.

Look - The Democrats aren’t perfect. I know they have bad apples as well. But at least their PLATFORM is about helping people

If you are a good person, I think the Republicans are taking advantage of you. And if you are a bad person, you are using Catholicism as a cover - you really only care about money. I’m sorry - but that’s what I see.

You are making so many assumptions.

First, what makes you think I’m Republican? What even makes you think I’m American? What makes you think I’m Libertarian at all? I think abortion is part of the Libertarian world-view, myself! What makes you think I’m partial to any Republican platform besides the protection of the unborn?

Let me just tell you straight. I think the Republican platform is wicked. I don’t believe that paying taxes or even more taxes is immoral. I think it’s very bad thinking to think of taxes that way. I think a strictly individualist view of society like a lot of Republicans believe in is clearly wrong. No person is an island. No person succeeds on their own. Everyone is part of a society that offers invisible supports that a person cannot possibly track and exclude from their ‘success’. I think paying taxes for things like universal healthcare and education is just part of one’s responsibility to maintain the society they are a member of that provides so much support in terms of security, education, formation, success and all sorts of things. I think countries with such systems have low crimes precisely because such systems leave as few people on the “absolute bottom”
(people who look to crime as a viable life path) as possible. I think the fear-mongering around such social systems to scare their voters by many Republicans is wicked.

Just because a person is pro-life doesn’t mean any of the things you’re lumping on to me.

Please don’t assume. Ask.

 

[TK421]

I know having or being involved in any way with an abortion is an automatic latae sententae excommunication for Catholics.

Does even just having pro choice views also incur excommunication? I do not have such views but I know “Catholics” who do, and of course there are many Catholic (mostly Democrat but some Republican) politicians who do as well. Can they really call themselves Catholic?

Yes because being Catholic is tied to a person’s baptism and God is faithful even when we are not.

They will stand in front of Jesus at judgment and we must pray for them while they are here in this life.

 

[MountCarmel]

I think that Jesus had something to say about those who harm the least of His little ones. Those torn up aborted ‘babies’, given souls at their conception, are welcomed into the Heavenly realm, as innocent victims, IMHO.

 

[LateCatholic]

Their platform is about helping some people at the expense of other people, if it helps them to get elected. And they reserve the right to determine who will be helped and who will be charged the expense.

All I said is that the Democratic platform is better than the Republican one if you are a Christian that truly cares about helping people. I’m directly involved with foster care and adoption in my state. In general, the Republican platform doesn’t give a rat’s behind about children. I’m not saying there are not good Republicans. I’m not saying there aren’t bad Democrats. I’m saying that the Republican platform of cutting government support for the poor and less fortunate IS immoral. I’ve seen it. I laugh at people that say “Let the charities handle it”, cut the government programs. Please. These people don’t care. Don’t believe me? Try adopting a down-syndrome baby from Catholic Family Services, and then try adopting one from the state. Come back and tell me what you find out. I’ll give you a hint - low demand=low profit.
You really want to stop abortions? SOLVE THE PROBLEM. Sending mothers and doctors to jail is not the answer.

 

[LateCatholic]

I think that Jesus had something to say about those who harm the least of His little ones. Those torn up aborted ‘babies’, given souls at their conception, are welcomed into the Heavenly realm, as innocent victims, IMHO.

Yeah, well - technically you are incorrect because they aren’t baptized. Yet another reason why I think our religion is messed up. Some people in this forum literally have posted that those babies go to hell. But that’s a discussion for another thread.

Regardless, making emotional comments like yours doesn’t help solve the problem. As I said, I’m personally against abortion. And, with all due respect, I have lived it, unlike most people that just give lip service. I’m trying to fix it. As an American, in our current state and with our current infrastructure, making abortion illegal will not solve the problem. Until you realize this, we won;t make any progress.

 

[LateCatholic]

Does even just having pro choice views also incur excommunication?

I literally couldn’t care less about my “official” status as a Catholic. I know the kind of person I am. I know how I lived my life. I simply believe that as an American, given the state of our country and our foundation principles, making abortion illegal is not a viable solution. We must end abortion in other ways. Yes, there should be restrictions on it. But we also need to provide free birth control, healthcare, sex education, and social programs to help the less fortunate, and help women in the workforce. Among other things.

I want to solve the problem. That’s all.

 

[LateCatholic]

Would you be willing to assign social security numbers at conception, or give pregnant women full child benefits, or declare a fetus a citizen?

But this is why I see Republicans as hypocrites. Why isn’t a fetus a citizen at the moment of conception? Why is not the family entitled to tax breaks that the moment of conception? Why not give free healthcare to all children and mothers? Or welfare so no child/baby goes hungry? Because it would cost a ton of money and the Republicans don’t care.

 

[LateCatholic]

1. Repeal child support laws as these motivate men to seek abortions for their pregnant girlfriends. I have mentioned this issue before, and it always amazes me how virulently the so-called “pro-life” crowd opposes it.

I think the better answer is that the biological father must pay a minimum of $10,000 to the mother regardless of if she has an abortion or not.
Or maybe two years worth of child care, abortion or not.

 

[HarryStotle]

You really want to stop abortions? SOLVE THE PROBLEM. Sending mothers and doctors to jail is not the answer.

I call straw man. Making abortions illegal does not necessarily mean sending mothers and doctors to jail.

I have a suggestion: let’s stop funding PP completely and put that $580 million per year towards helping mothers keep their babies.

In favour?