Pro Choice/Abortion “Catholics”

[LeafByNiggle]

This sub-thread, quite off-topic, is about the Church being “pro-science”. The theory of evolution clearly states that no divine force is required to explain the diversity of life.

This is a mischaracterization of the theory of evolution.

The official statement from the Church is that you can believe in evolution, but you MUST believe God had a hand in it.

…which is not an unscientific position.

But the very fact that the Church (or someone speaking for it) uses the term “atheistic evolution” alone shows the an anti-science bias.

Not true. The adjective “atheistic” is a qualifier, not a general descriptor. The fact is there are some atheists who proclaim an unscientific philosophy loosely based on evolution. That is what is called “atheistic evolution.” The use of this term is by no means an affirmation that evolution as a theory is fundamentally atheistic.

If you claim evolution only works if God was involved, you are anti-science. It doesn’t mean you are wrong, but it certainly means you are against the scientific method.

I have used the following analogy in debates with anti-evolution creationist, but it seems to be applicable here too:
The rules of science are like the rules of baseball. When you are playing baseball, you play by the rules of baseball. When the game is over and you go home, you play by other rules. In science, the rules are the scientific method. In that method, we do not allow the use of divine intervention to be used scientific theories. That is why science only considers “natural” (i.e. observable and repeatable) causes in the construction of theories. It is not that God is denied. It is that appealing to divine intervention is not in the rules of this particular game. But when a scientist is done “doing science” and playing by those rules, he can go home to his family, take his family to Church, pray for blessings and give thanks to God for the gift of his mind that allows him to be successful in his science. There is no conflict. It is just a matter of knowing when to play the game of science and when to hang up the glove and live.

 

[HarryStotle]

[They get NO “funds” from the government directly. There is NO “line item” in the budget. If a patient needs a cancer screening, for example, and medicaid pays for it, the bill for that service is paid for by the federal government - just like it would for any other hospital. The total amount of funds coming to PP is determined by the services requested. If no one wants an STD test or a cancer screening, for example, they get no funds.

Of course, and baseball players get no money from their fans “directly.” Fans pay for seat rentals, hot dogs, beverages and merchandise, not baseball because fans don’t pay for baseball. There is no line item that has fans directly paying for “baseball.” They pay for seats, refreshments and merchandise, so the teams do not profit from baseball but from seat rentals, etc. Ergo, baseball teams get no funding from their fans for baseball.

 

[TULIPed]

From the article you posted:

“The sensitivities of our American society also contribute to our infant mortality numbers. In many countries around the world, babies younger than 26 weeks are not resuscitated and are considered a miscarriage or stillbirth. As our technology has improved, we will resuscitate babies on the cusp of viability, at 22 to 23 weeks gestation. The risk of mortality increases the younger the infant and the lower the weight. This practice could raise our infant mortality rates by as much as 30 to 40 percent.”

Thanks for posting that article. It was very eye opening. I would argue that you could find better support for your thesis, but it was a good article nonetheless.

Your thesis (I think) is that when poor women get pregnant, we shouldn’t prevent them from getting an abortion unless we’re willing to provide them and their families with healthcare. I’ll ask it again:

Would you be OK then with prohibiting rich women from getting abortions? How do you suggest we means test?

Another question - how do you square personal accountability with your thesis. (If I were you, I’d argue that a “mistake” for a poor person has a dramatically bigger effect on their lives than the same mistake does for a “rich” person. Still - I wonder - how many “mistakes” does one get to make? How many times in our lives do “mistakes” end up being blessings?)

 

[LateCatholic]

Of course, and baseball players get no money from their fans “directly.” Fans pay for seat rentals, hot dogs, beverages and merchandise, not baseball because fans don’t pay for baseball. There is no line item that has fans directly paying for “baseball.” They pay for seats, refreshments and merchandise, so the teams do not profit from baseball but from seat rentals, etc. Ergo, baseball teams get no funding from their fans for baseball.

Again, your analogy is completely false because Planned Parenthood is a NON-PROFIT. They are not allowed to charge more for services than the cost to provide them. They are ONLY being reimbursed. Your entire argument and comparison is based on the idea that the baseball team makes a PROFIT from the sale of beer, and then can use that money elsewhere. Planned Parenthood CANNOT do this.

 

[LateCatholic]

The theory of evolution clearly states that no divine force is required to explain the diversity of life.

OK. I give in. How about this. The Theory of Evolution IMPLIES that no divine force is required to explain the diversity if life. There. If you disagree with that, you are hopelessly ignorant of what evolution is or even what a scientific theory is in general.

The official statement from the Church is that you can believe in evolution, but you MUST believe God had a hand in it.

Wow. I rest my case on THAT. The scientific method is based on fact-theory-prediction-data-evidence. God, by definition, is NOT scientific. It’s a definition. You are hopelessly lost on what science is.

The adjective “atheistic” is a qualifier

Evolution requires NO qualifiers. You may as well say “non-UFO evolution” or “non-BigFoot evolution” or “non-Santa Clause evolution” or “non-tooth fairy evolution”. UFO’s may exist. BigFoot may exist. God may exist.
But none of them has ANYTHING to do with evolution. Get it?

The fact is there are some atheists who proclaim an unscientific philosophy loosely based on evolution. That is what is called “atheistic evolution.”

Are you getting confused with “Naturalism”? Naturalism is not evolution, nor is it “qualified” evolution. Stay on topic.

It is just a matter of knowing when to play the game of science and when to hang up the glove and live.

Sure - but here’s the problem. The Church is saying that those baseball rules you were using earlier? Yeah, if you want to be a Christian, you can’t use those rules anymore. You have to use OUR rules. We know appealing to divine intervention is not allowed. But we’re changing the game. We are not only saying divine intervention is now allowed, we are saying you MUST acknowledge it or you’re not a Christian. If the Church stayed out of science altogether, I’d agree with you. But they have to stick their noses in and then they look foolish.

 

[LateCatholic]

The theory of evolution says nothing about gravity and makes no claims about gravity, that does not mean the theory of evolution rules out gravity nor that it claims gravity does not exist. It also doesn’t mean gravity is not required for evolution to occur.

But that’s the whole point. The Church IS saying God is required for evolution. Your disproving your own point. If the Church said, “Evolution is true, but God also exists” or even “Evolution is true but does not disprove God”. That would be fine. But that’s not what they are saying. They are saying “Evolution may be true, but it is only true because God exists”. That’s the difference. Literally everything you are saying is proving my point.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

The theory of evolution clearly states that no divine force is required to explain the diversity of life.

OK. I give in. How about this. The Theory of Evolution IMPLIES that no divine force is required to explain the diversity if life. There. If you disagree with that, you are hopelessly ignorant of what evolution is or even what a scientific theory is in general.

It is not so much an implication of the theory of evolution as it is a postulate of the scientific method. As I said before, when you are playing the game of science, you play by the rules of science. One of those rules is “no fair relying on God to explain things.” In this respect, evolution is not unique. The non-reliance on God to explain things is the basis of all scientific theories. But it is a mistake to take this postulate of science and apply it to fields outside of science like philosophy for instance - just as you would not expect to follow the rules of baseball when you are playing hockey.

The official statement from the Church is that you can believe in evolution, but you MUST believe God had a hand in it.

Wow. I rest my case on THAT. The scientific method is based on fact-theory-prediction-data-evidence. God, by definition, is NOT scientific. It’s a definition. You are hopelessly lost on what science is.

When I said “not unscientific” I meant that it does not contradict science. I certainly did not mean to imply that God’s hand in creation in general and the origin of man in particular was “scientifically unnatural.” God’s hand in creation is a philosophical concept, not a scientific one. If you like, you can consider all of nature as created by God. In that sense, evolution and God’s hand in creation are two ways of describing exactly the same events. Believing that God created everything does not cause any difficulty for the scientist.

…continued…

 

[LeafByNiggle]

…continuing…

The adjective “atheistic” is a qualifier

Evolution requires NO qualifiers. You may as well say “non-UFO evolution” or “non-BigFoot evolution” or “non-Santa Clause evolution” or “non-tooth fairy evolution”. UFO’s may exist. BigFoot may exist. God may exist.
But none of them has ANYTHING to do with evolution. Get it?

Exactly my point! Belief in evolution does not (or should not) have anything to do belief in God. But the qualifier is meaningful because there are some people who falsely claim that it does have something to do with it. Those people falsely claim that evolution proves there is no God. The term “atheistic evolution” is properly used to describe the view held by those people. Because they have falsely extended the theory of evolution beyond the bounds of science, the term no longer refers strictly to a scientific theory. It now refers to a philosophy, and it is meaningful to draw a distinction between that use of the word “evolution” and the strictly scientific use of the word “evolution,” which does not make that false claim. Thus “atheistic evolution” is distinct from “evolution.”

It is just a matter of knowing when to play the game of science and when to hang up the glove and live.

Sure - but here’s the problem. The Church is saying that those baseball rules you were using earlier? Yeah, if you want to be a Christian, you can’t use those rules anymore. You have to use OUR rules. We know appealing to divine intervention is not allowed. But we’re changing the game. We are not only saying divine intervention is now allowed, we are saying you MUST acknowledge it or you’re not a Christian. If the Church stayed out of science altogether, I’d agree with you. But they have to stick their noses in and then they look foolish.

There were some in Church in the past who did try to make Church doctrine out of scientific speculation (geocentrism for example.) None of that speculation has made it into the Church’s infallible doctrine. So today, I guess you do have to agree with me.

 

[Start]

But that’s the whole point. The Church IS saying God is required for evolution. Your disproving your own point. If the Church said, “Evolution is true, but God also exists” or even “Evolution is true but does not disprove God”. That would be fine. But that’s not what they are saying. They are saying “Evolution may be true, but it is only true because God exists”. That’s the difference. Literally everything you are saying is proving my point.

God is a fundamental part of the Catholic religion so this shouldn’t be a surprise. I don’t see how all of this supposed to be “anti-science.”

 

[yankeesouth]

If one truly believes that life begins at conception and that ending abortion is saving lives then there is no alternative for a Faithful Catholic than to vote for the Republican party. Otherwise one is placing more importance on their liberal political ideology than on the teachings of Jesus,

 

[HarryStotle]

Evolution requires NO qualifiers. You may as well say “non-UFO evolution” or “non-BigFoot evolution” or “non-Santa Clause evolution” or “non-tooth fairy evolution”. UFO’s may exist. BigFoot may exist. God may exist.
But none of them has ANYTHING to do with evolution. Get it?

Well, except for one big problem. No one would claim aliens, Bigfoot or Santa Claus created the universe from nothing, but that is exactly what is claimed about God. So, NOT. THE. SAME. THING.

It isn’t a mere matter of claiming the universe can and does exist but Santa Claus need not, or Bigfoot need not, or aliens need not.

There is still the little problem of explaining why the universe does exist and why there is something rather than nothing. Which is where God enters onto the stage as the author, producer, director and main actor, but Santa Claus remains in the dressing room as an extra.

The arguments for the existence of God such as the cosmological arguments in their various flavours, or Aquinas’ Five Ways, or Feser’s Five Proofs, make the philosophical argument that the existence of the universe itself DEPENDS upon, or is contingent upon, the existence of God, and is where God does have something to do with evolution because the universe itself and the preconditions for evolution wouldn’t exist without God.

Now you can legitimately claim that the universe exists but Santa Claus need not or Bigfoot need not, but in order to claim the universe exists but God need not, you have to first disprove all of those arguments.

Well…

…first you would have to understand them.

So to go from the universe exists to God need not exist, you must first address and refute those arguments, not just assume they don’t prove God’s existence.

And you certainly CANNOT go from ‘evolution occurs’ to ‘therefore God does not exist.’ That would miss a whole lot of steps and there is no escalator between those two claims.

In fact, you couldn’t even go from ‘evolution occurs’ to ‘Bigfoot doesn’t exist,’ without a lot of head scratching and mental scaffolding.

None of them have anything to do with evolution because no one claims Santa Claus, Bigfoot or Aliens created the universe.

But if God created the universe then he does have something to say about evolution.

Get it?

Now when you claim…

The Church says you cannot believe in evolution unless you acknowledge a ‘divine hand’ in it’s execution. That’s NOT science.

The problem is that evolution does not explain itself. The theory being true presumes a whole lot of givens or preconditions without which evolution itself could not occur. Perhaps the “divine hand” is to be found in those dependencies, which the theory itself merely assumes and does not even attempt to explain? A finely-tuned universe, for example. Abiogenesis, for another.

 

[1cthlctrth]

Amazingly, some commenters act as there’s not much difference between the 2 political parties.
The following is the House of Representatives vote to ban abortion after 20 weeks (Pain-Capable):
Democrats: 3 “yes”, and 187 “no”
Republicans: 234 “yes”, and 2 “no”
Senate vote to ban 20-week abortions:
Democrats: 3 “yes” and 44 “no”
Republicans 48 “yes”,and 2 “no”
In addition, the following great pro-life things have happened since President Trump and the Republicans were elected to small majorities:

• appointed dozens of Constitutional and pro-life Judges
• enacted the “Right to Try”, in which those with terminal illness have the right to attempt experimental drugs, hoping for a cure
• eliminated the forced abortifacient coverage that existed in Obamacare for churches and other Christian businesses
• eliminated President Obama’s fornication-promoting $100 million per year sex-education program
• granted our veterans the right to avoid long wait times in the VA, and go to another health care provider
• executive order allowing churches’ free speech and religious liberty
• prevented tax dollars from being given to abortion providers throughout the world by reinstating the Mexico City Policy.
• Title X removes $60 million of funding for Planned Parenthood
• refused to defend Obama’s transgender bathroom financial blackmail against schools
• withdrew U.S. funding from the abortion-promoting U.N. Population Fund
• got out of the sneakily pro-abortion Paris climate agreement
• exited pro-abortion UNESCO
• appointed a cabinet of many pro-life leaders
• expressed support for the 2017 and 2018 Marches For Life, which resulted in far more news coverage; sent VP Pence and Kellyanne Conway to the March

 

[Start]

The news does have terrible coverage on these types of things.

 

[yankeesouth]

Amazingly, some commenters act as there’s not much difference between the 2 political parties.

Well it’s the old seamless garment nonsense otherwise known as ‘how ‘catholic’ liberals justify voting for pro abortion politicians’. Hey that spotted green iguana? We gotta save them. So I’m voting for candidate climate change even though they support the planned parenthood of the selling baby parts video.

 

[Italy49]

Cannot be real catholic and approve of abortion.Abortion is nothing else but killing of human being.Cannot add anything more to the subject.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

If one truly believes that life begins at conception and that ending abortion is saving lives then there is no alternative for a Faithful Catholic than to vote for the Republican party. Otherwise one is placing more importance on their liberal political ideology than on the teachings of Jesus,

Not entirely true. Some of those “liberal ideologies” are also based on teachings of Jesus.

Also, one may reasonably take into account the likely effect of their vote on furthering the Kingdom of God. Different people can arrive at different assessments of this probability.

Cannot be real catholic and approve of abortion.Abortion is nothing else but killing of human being.Cannot add anything more to the subject.

Voting for a candidate who does not make abortion illegal is not the same thing as approving of abortion. For an example, consider homosexual acts. They are clearly contrary to the teachings of the Church. Yet voting for a candidate who refuses to criminalize homosexual acts is not the same thing as approving of those acts. That is clear from the fact that almost everyone agrees those acts, as sinful as they are, should not be criminalized.

 

[1cthlctrth]

The 5 non-negotiables that Catholic voters cannot support are: Abortion, same-sex so-called marriage, EMBRYONIC stem-cell research, cloning, and euthanasia.

 

[glorybe]

The Church’s teaching is completely ineffective, immoral, and in many cases, evil. Consider how the spread of AIDS has exploded in Africa where the Church’s teaching against condom usage is considered a key if not primary factor.

People who remain faithful to one person only, specifically a spouse and do not use illegal needle drugs, do not get AIDS. Even blood transfusions are free of HIV now. You can’t seriously believe that people who could care less about following Church teaching on sexual matters or illegal drugs would actually not use condoms because the Church say’s it’s a sin? Haha I just love how people want to blame the Church for all their own sins.

 

[QwertyGirl]

The 5 non-negotiables that Catholic voters cannot support are: Abortion, same-sex so-called marriage, EMBRYONIC stem-cell research, cloning, and euthanasia.

To clarify, I believe the Church teaches you can vote for candidates who have positions on these issues that oppose Church teaching. You just aren’t allowed to vote for a candidate BECAUSE they support these issues.

So if a candidate is pro-choice but you agree with there stance on all other issues, it is acceptable, as a Catholic to vote for that candidate. It is not acceptable to vote for the same candidate BECAUSE they are pro-choice, though.

 

[QwertyGirl]

People who remain faithful to one person only, specifically a spouse and do not use illegal needle drugs, do not get AIDS

It can and does happen. No matter how faithful one spouse is to another, if the other spouse is not faithful then there is a risk of all kinds of disease, including AIDs.