Pro-choice Catholics

[CMatt25]

It is not a difficult concept to grasp it all. Catholics trying to rationalize putting their politics ahead of their faith would much rather posture themselves as supporting the rule of law rather than admit the obvious-they have rejected Church teaching on abortion and believe a woman should have the right to kill her child.

I don’t presume to know what everyone admits or does not admit. Nor would I presume they put their politics ahead of faith. They seem to be trying to balance living in a democracy with their faith. We live in an imperfect world and whether we like it or not or think it is good or bad, that’s part of living in a democracy and not a theocracy. But despite any imperfections I would choose freedom and to live in a democracy. As President Obama said in his St of the U, he doubted anyone in the room would have chosen to live anywhere else.

 

[ishii]

I don’t presume to know what everyone admits or does not admit. Nor would I presume they put their politics ahead of faith. They seem to be trying to balance living in a democracy with their faith. And whether we like it or not or think it is good or bad, that’s part of living in a democracy and not a theocracy. I would choose freedom and to live in a democracy. As President Obama said in his St of the U, he doubts anyone in the room would have chosen to live anywhere else.

Hello CMatt. You say that we live in a democracy and not a theocracy, but in other posts you justify your support for Democrat liberal welfare programs by saying “my Christian faith requires it”. Yet when it comes to our Christian faith requiring us to protect unborn life, you say, “we don’t live in a theocracy”. How convenient. And blatantly contradictory.

Ishii

 

[estesbob]

I don’t presume to know what everyone admits or does not admit. Nor would I presume they put their politics ahead of faith. They seem to be trying to balance living in a democracy with their faith. And whether we like it or not or think it is good or bad, that’s part of living in a democracy and not a theocracy. I would choose freedom and to live in a democracy. As President Obama said in his St of the U, he doubts anyone in the room would have chosen to live anywhere else.

It has absolutely Nothing whatsoever to do with a theocracy. It’s a very simple question. Do you believe a woman should have the right to kill her child or not?. All this nonsense about theocracies, rule of law, right to choose, reproductive rights, is all just a smokescreen for people hide behind the fact they believe it is appropriate for a woman to kill her child. Any time someone starts complaining about a theocracy you know they cannot defend their position.

When Obama said he doubted anyone room would’ve chosen live anywhere else the key word is “live”. Due to his policies and the policies of his political party over 50 million children never had a chance to choose where they would live

 

[JimG]

While I understand many here do not understand this view, what I mean by it is Father Drinan, et al, the Bidens, Pelosises, Kennedys of the world are Catholics opposed to abortion, understand how a law of the land is forged, and merely may understand how the law of a democracy of plural beliefs might have to differ from Catholic Church law now and then. Again though I understand this may be a difficult concept for some to grasp. And I just think instead of some saying they are outside the Church when clearly the Church says they are Catholics that maybe a better way could be found to describe them so people are not led to think they are no longer Catholic according to the Church. Peace.

The laws of the land are forged by legislatures and voters. But pro-abortion politicians never agree to allow state legislatures or constituents to actually vote on abortion restrictions or abortion legislation. Giving the people a voice is not accepted in this matter, unless a favorable outcome for them can be certainly predicted, which is rare.

That’s why the pro-abortion lobby, after failing to overturn abortion restrictions in state legislatures, sought to nullify such laws through the courts. (NARAL originally stood for “National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws.”) The result, in 1973, was Roe v Wade, and Doe v Bolton, which together vitiated 50 state abortion laws and put in its place abortion on demand. That’s hardly the democratic process at work.

 

[CMatt25]

Hello CMatt. You say that we live in a democracy and not a theocracy, but in other posts you justify your support for Democrat liberal welfare programs by saying “my Christian faith requires it”. Yet when it comes to our Christian faith requiring us to protect unborn life, you say, “we don’t live in a theocracy”. How convenient. And blatantly contradictory.

Ishii

Hello Ishii, I justify my support by Christ speaking of the poor, the homeless, the hungry and the sick. Whereas the word abortion is no where to be found in Scripture. One of my favorite Biblical verses among many is Matt 25:36 (GNT) where our Lord commanded for righteousness the taking care of the sick for instance. He never said government could not fill a role to help pick up any slack. He said render to Caesar what is Caesars. I hope that helps clear up for you how this is not blatantly contradictory to my values and faith.

 

[CMatt25]

The laws of the land are forged by legislatures and voters. But pro-abortion politicians never agree to allow state legislatures or constituents to actually vote on abortion restrictions or abortion legislation. Giving the people a voice is not accepted in this matter, unless a favorable outcome for them can be certainly predicted, which is rare.

That’s why the pro-abortion lobby, after failing to overturn abortion restrictions in state legislatures, sought to nullify such laws through the courts. (NARAL originally stood for “National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws.”) The result, in 1973, was Roe v Wade, and Doe v Bolton, which together vitiated 50 state abortion laws and put in its place abortion on demand. That’s hardly the democratic process at work.

Not true. I voted in my state not too many yrs ago to restrict abortion on demend for those of a certain age by voting in favor of parental notification.

 

[catharina]

Hello Ishii, I justify my support by Christ speaking of the poor, the homeless, the hungry and the sick.

Whereas the word abortion is no where to be found in Scripture. One of my favorite Biblical verses among many is Matt 25:36 (GNT) where our Lord commanded for righteousness the taking care of the sick for instance. He never said government could not fill a role to help pick up any slack. He said render to Caesar what is Caesars. I hope that helps clear up for you how this is not blatantly contradictory to my values and faith.

What would make you feel a need to “justify” your “support” by Christ’s words?

 

[estesbob]

Hello Ishii, I justify my support by Christ speaking of the poor, the homeless, the hungry and the sick. Whereas the word abortion is no where to be found in Scripture. One of my favorite Biblical verses among many is Matt 25:36 (GNT) where our Lord commanded for righteousness the taking care of the sick for instance. He never said government could not fill a role to help pick up any slack. He said render to Caesar what is Caesars. I hope that helps clear up for you how this is not blatantly contradictory to my values and faith.

When one bases their theology on their personal interpretation of Scripture it is no surprise that such interpretation always agrees with their politics.

 

[CMatt25]

It has absolutely Nothing whatsoever to do with a theocracy. It’s a very simple question. Do you believe a woman should have the right to kill her child or not?. All this nonsense about theocracies, rule of law, right to choose, reproductive rights, is all just a smokescreen for people hide behind the fact they believe it is appropriate for a woman to kill her child. Any time someone starts complaining about a theocracy you know they cannot defend their position.

When Obama said he doubted anyone room would’ve chosen live anywhere else the key word is “live”. Due to his policies and the policies of his political party over 50 million children never had a chance to choose where they would live

Bob, I understand you have the need to state Catholic Church belief as to when an embryo/fetus is a child with full personhood rights surpassing a woman’s right of privacy to choose. The thing is not everyone in Amercia agrees with the position. So a law of the land was formed for us to live by.

 

[Tigg]

I justify my support by Christ speaking of the poor, the homeless, the hungry and the sick. Whereas the word abortion is no where to be found in Scripture.

How can one be poor, homeless, hungry or sick if they haven’t even been given the right to be born?

 

[CMatt25]

How can one be poor, homeless, hungry or sick if they haven’t even been given the right to be born?

Wow look around and you’ll see in the richest nation on earth we sadly have too many born who are those things.

 

[catharina]

Bob, I understand you have the need to state Catholic Church belief as to when an embryo/fetus is a child with full personhood rights surpassing a woman’s right of privacy to choose. The thing is not everyone in Amercia agrees with the position. So a law of the land was formed for us to live by.

Bob, I and many others remember when abortion was NOT the law of the land.
It became the law of the land through duplicity and outright lies -
and most especially through “SANITIZED LANGUAGE.”

Abortion is filth. It is the worst kind of death.
Perhaps you could learn how to defend the teachings of the Church
more fully than you can defend political/govenmental double-speak.

It is actually painful to hear anyone oppose the Church to defend abortion -
then I do recall that you changed your profile to declare you are not Catholic.

 

[CMatt25]

Bob, I and many others remember when abortion was NOT the law of the land.
It became the law of the land through duplicity and outright lies -
and most especially through “SANITIZED LANGUAGE.”

Abortion is filth. It is the worst kind of death.
Perhaps you could learn how to defend the teachings of the Church
more fully than you can defend political/govenmental double-speak.

Yes as I remember as well. And I do not identify Catholic here so why would I defend a Catholic Church teaching if I disagree with it? I would be going against my informed conscience if I were to do so. An erroneous conscience yes you would say but it is my conscience with which to make moral decisions freely with respect to religious matters. I am here to discuss our various faiths and beliefs. Hopefully in a cordial, charitable, respectful and understanding manner where we can each perhaps learn a little more about others. As we strive to live together in a world of many faiths and beliefs and with some of even questioning, doubting or non belief. It’s a big world.

 

[catharina]

Yes as I remember as well. And I do not identify Catholic here so why would I defend a Catholic Church teaching if I disagree with it? I would be going against my informed conscience if I were to do so. An erroneous conscience yes you would say but it is my conscience with which to make moral decisions freely with respect to religious matters. ** I am here to discuss our various faiths and beliefs. **Hopefully in a cordial, charitable, respectful and understanding manner where we can each perhaps learn a little more about others.

Why would you say that?
You refuse to name your faith or belief system -
that makes it almost impossible to discuss anything with you.
No one knows your current frame of reference.

 

[LemonAndLime]

Why would you say that?
You refuse to name your faith or belief system -
that makes it almost impossible to discuss anything with you.
No one knows your current frame of reference.

I think he meant “our” as referring to a collective term for people/humanity, instead of referring to you and him. By the way, your posts remind me of haiku’s or poems because of how you structure them.

 

[catharina]

I think he meant **“our” as referring to a collective term **for people/humanity, instead of referring to you and him. By the way, your posts remind me of haiku’s or poems because of how you structure them.

Huh - you could be correct.
Still how can one discuss anything with a ‘hidden’ other?
Coming to a faith-site and refusing to name your faith
while expecting to be engaged in real discussion is illogical, imo.

Haiku, huh? I like haiku.

 

[estesbob]

Why would you say that?
You refuse to name your faith or belief system -
that makes it almost impossible to discuss anything with you.
No one knows your current frame of reference.

I beleive you are looking at a belief system based on the Democrat party Platform. At any rate discussing pro-choice Catholic with a non-catholic seems to be an excercise in futility.

 

[catharina]

1. I beleive you are looking at a belief system based on the Democrat party Platform. 2. At any rate discussing pro-choice Catholic with a non-catholic seems to be an excercise in futility.

1. Ahhhhhhhh.
2. At least with certain non-Catholics.

 

[CMatt25]

Why would you say that?
You refuse to name your faith or belief system -
that makes it almost impossible to discuss anything with you.
No one knows your current frame of reference.

You posted before I edited and added more. But I do not name so everyone knows I do not speak for the Catholic Church on all things. I could name something but higher powers than I suggested I not name anything. I would send a private measage with a better frame of reference for you to start with. But as I recall you gave me other instructions because you do not care about my opinions.

 

[catharina]

You posted before I edited and added more. But I do not name so everyone knows I do not speak for the Catholic Church on all things. I could name something but higher powers than I suggested I not name anything. I would send a private measage with a better frame of reference for you to start with. But as I recall you gave me other instructions because you do not care about my opinions.

Clearly, as I stated in the past, you’re correct -
I do not care to recieve any private messages from you.