Pro-choice Catholics

[exoflare]

He didn’t say to force unbelievers to believe, or to force them to comply.

You forgot the “…unless the subject is government handouts.”

 

[Rence]

By the time a woman found out that she’s pregnant, implantation have occurred.

**Week 1 of pregnancy **- starts on the last day of the previous menstrual cycle. There is no actual baby at this week. No ovum was released.

**Week 2 of pregnancy **- Ovum is usually released on the last day of week 2, or the first day of week 3 (plus or minus).
-Lifespan of an ovum is only about 24 hours, so conception usually happens less then a day after ovulation.

Excellent post Eric.

But I just wanted to mention some things. First of all, for those of us who are familiar with our signs of fertility and/or those who practice NFP, we know that what you mention about the first week and second week of pregnancy are only criteria for your doctor because if you are aware of your fertility signs and/or practice NFP, the first week of pregnancy does NOT start on the last day of the previous menstrual cycle. That’s just how your OB/GYN calculates your due date. They’re not doing this to be “sneaky”. They do this because they have no way of knowing whether one is pregnant or not, and therefore no way to positively diagnose a pregnancy, until HcG levels rise, which happens during implantation 5-7 days after conception.

For those of us who are aware of fertility signs and/or practice NFP, the day of ovulation is known. And the only reason why I mention this because of a rape victim’s right to take plan B in the emergency room. She would know if taking that plan B would prevent ovulation and therefore prevent a conception from taking place in the first place, which is why the US Bishops santion taking plan B in the ER for rape victims. they know this too

But it annoys me when doctors argue about the due date with a woman who practices NFP. She’d know better than he when she conceived, and that’s the truth of the matter

 

[guanophore]

There is no ambiguity. I think escargot is gross, but that doesn’t mean someone else can’t enjoy them.

I think the ambiguity has not to do with the personal detachment from the choice, but the moral disintegrity. We are nto talking about a food that might be considered by some as gross, and others not. I have never had the pleasure of escargot, but the idea to me is gross. When it comes to taking the life of the innocent, though it is not just a matter of personal food preferences, but of a grave moral evil that transcends personal preference.

It is like saying “I personally think raping a woman is gross, but that doesn’t mean I can’t support another persons’ right to enjoy it”.

 Not having the control to choose the options available in my own situation with my own body, as if a government or some other regulatory body owns it instead, is a repugnant thought to me. Absolutely gross. As if I were a slave. I'm sure that others will agree that how I feel about it is unimportant, but that's how I feel about it, and it's important to me.

Yes, I can see your point. You are also “enslaved” to pay your taxes, and “enslaved” because you can’t drink and drive, and “enslaved” because you cannot just take your pistol and shoot anyone who aggravates you on a given day.

Same as above

It is a disintegrated moral position. It fails to affirm that there are some acts that are, in and of themselves, intrinsically evil.

Do you think that babies born with congenital defects should be euthanized? Why, or why not?

When I say that I wish abortion to be rare, I mean, I hope people don’t choose them and choose other options instead.

Yes, I think all of us here are in agreement on this point.

As for a “rare abortion”, let’s face it folks, you can say whatever you want to the folks you see at Church, and the folks out there picketing at abortion clinics, but the fact is, abortion is as rare or common as folks want it to be.

Yes, and the Church teaches that it should be non-existent among her members.

I have more respect, and take seriously, those who spend the time with women in crisis and help them work through those choices instead of condemning them from the beginning and attempting to take away their choices. And the more women you get to choose life, the better.

Yes, it is equally disingenuous to claim to support a pro-life position but not do anything to enact that stance, like provide assistance to women in crisis pregnancies.

I support and agree with a woman's right to autonomy over her own person, and the right and autonomy to contol her reproductive functions and I want these rights to always be legal because her own person *is* her own and directly related to her reproductive functions.

It seems like this position denies that the child within the woman is also a person. Is that right?

My body does not belong to the government, nor does it belong to any regulatory body or committee or gathering of people.

This is consistent with the Catholic teaching, but the Church also says that the baby growing inside has the same status, and is not part of the woman’s body, and has a right to life for the same reason the woman has a right to her own reproductive functions.

Would you say that a person who is enraged and wants to put her abuser to death should not have her murderous rage regulated by any government or regulatory body or gathering of people?

 

[guanophore]

I want the patient to always have the right to consent or refuse treatment, and I want no patient to ever be turned away for legal and appropriate medical care just because the caregiver doesn’t agree with the the medical care or recognize that it is legal and appropriate.

What if the “patient” is an unborn child?

I don’t want any patient, or any family member of a patient, to feel helpless, alone and not in control as they are being told that they just have to deal with a death that can be avoided because it is not compatible with a particular caregiver’s religious values because their medical treatment, sanctioned by the medical community, legal and appropriate for her particular case, won’t be delivered because she wound up in the wrong hospital at the wrong time.

Actually it is the feelings of helpless, alone,and not in control is one of the main drivers for euthanasia. Those who support the “right to die” don’t appear to see the redemptive value of these states of being.

I don't want any woman to end up in the wrong emergency room after being raped, with the wrong staff "caring" for her, and refuses the morning after pill to avoid conception and prevent a forced pregnancy.

I am curious where God is in such a situation. Have you ever considered that teh woman may have ended up there because God wanted her to keep the baby?

At the same time, I don’t want any woman to end up in the wrong emergency room, with the wrong staff “caring” for her after having been raped, and given medications without being told what they are and what they are for and any other pertininent information that woman needs to make a conscience decision as to take them or not take them.

I don’t want this either…but this happens 4000 times a day with abortions in our nation. Very few women are informed about what happens to the fetus during the procedure,and in many cases, they are given misinformation.

I want people to be treated like autonomous human beings with ownership over their own selves with the right to work through their situation with counsel, and make their choices with the help of that counsel.

It is interesting you want this so strongly for yourself, but are unwilling to extend this passion to the one who has no voice.

 

[Rence]

How about the living breathing human being inside the womb? Does he/she have any rights? Or is it all about “my body my choice” ??

Ishii

Currently, the legal right to consent or refuse treatment lies with the woman.

 

[guanophore]

No one should castigate at all because of you how you voted. You voted with your conscience after carefully studying all sides, and that’s what you’re supposed to do. You’re not supposed to vote the way your neighbor did just because your neighbor did, you’re supposed to vote how you think is best.

Yes, but a well informed conscience will act consistently with the Teaching of Jesus preserved infallibly in the Church.

 

[Raskolnikov]

CMatt25:

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.

It’s rather condescending to assume that we’re all just not smart enough to grasp such a complex idea. I grasp it entirely. I just happen to believe that rights do not exist conditionally depepending on how many people believe them. Many people in the deep south at one point simply did not believe that African Americans were people, or that they had the same rights; however, they do, regardles of what the confederates or the KK or the segregationists thought, and we *forced *them to acknowledge this truth, and the existence of the absolute, inalentable rights of African Americans. They had no choice. Nobody forced them to believe in those rights, but it was certainly right not to permit their false beliefs to infringe on the rights of others.

So when you say “democracy is about a plurality of beliefs” indeed, it is. But that plurality has limits. Some people think spousal rape is not wrong, and that a man has a right to his wife’s body. He is wrong regardless of the fact that he believes, and the belief his supposed “right” simply does not exist, no matter how many people think it does.

One can apply the same logic to abortion. You’re practically saying we should tolerate a certain kind of manslaughter simply because many people don’t think it’s manslaughter. If it is, ifit is killing a living human being, which would be considered a legal person if the law of the land were consistent, then why abortion on demand be illegal? A great many laws have been passed without the explicit consent of the people (often in explicit contradiction to the will of the people) to protect the rights of others. Ultimately, of course, I think you still fail to grasp that pro-lifers are not merely theocrats trying to impose their morality on others (though a few may be), but that most actually really believe that fetuses (or feti? a latin word?) are human beings, in a juristic sense of the word. And in a democracy, a person’s freedom of choice reaches its limits where their choices infringe on the rights and freedoms of others; I think abortion is one such circumstance. Consensus (or a lack of consensus) does should not dictate whether or not we acknowledge people’s *inalienable *rights.

One of my favorite quotes was by the German poet Friedrich Schiller, “Live in your age, but do not be its creature.”

 

[Rence]

So the presence of hyprocrites changes the morality of something? Because someone says, “adultery is wrong!” and then goes and committs adultery, then adultery is ok? Please explain.

Ishii

There is nothing to explain the presence of hyprocrites changes nothing. My views remain the same.

 

[catharina]

Currently, the legal right to consent or refuse treatment lies with the woman.

Uh-huh and that’s a new circumstance in human history -
esp in the USA and within a Judeao-Christian heritage.

Forty years of this right: against all of Judeao-Christian history.

SO: new and appalling.

 

[Rence]

Yes, but a well informed conscience will act consistently with the Teaching of Jesus preserved infallibly in the Church.

Yes But those of different religions will not form the same concience based on their own religions and upbrinings. For example, the most devout of Jewish would allow for an abortion in the case of a woman’s life being in peril. What the Church says is probably not important to them, but they have still carefully formed their conscience. They have the right to consent or refuse treatment just like a Catholic

 

[guanophore]

… it’s part of life in any situation to allow that individual to make their choice. You can’t force people to choose your choice.

In principle I agree. However, our society has defined certain actions as improper, or illegal,a nd there are consequences to my choice. If I choose to drink and drive, I will pay the penalties when I get stopped.

If I choose to end the life of another human being, I will bay both the temporal and eternal consequences.

I want the patient to always have the right to consent or refuse treatment, and I want no patient to ever be turned away for legal and appropriate medical care just because the caregiver doesn’t agree with the the medical care or recognize that it is legal and appropriate.

What if the “patient” is an unborn child?

I don’t want any patient, or any family member of a patient, to feel helpless, alone and not in control as they are being told that they just have to deal with a death that can be avoided because it is not compatible with a particular caregiver’s religious values because their medical treatment, sanctioned by the medical community, legal and appropriate for her particular case, won’t be delivered because she wound up in the wrong hospital at the wrong time.

Actually it is the feelings of helpless, alone,and not in control is one of the main drivers for euthanasia. Those who support the “right to die” don’t appear to see the redemptive value of these states of being.

I don't want any woman to end up in the wrong emergency room after being raped, with the wrong staff "caring" for her, and refuses the morning after pill to avoid conception and prevent a forced pregnancy.

I am curious where God is in such a situation. Have you ever considered that teh woman may have ended up there because God wanted her to keep the baby?

At the same time, I don’t want any woman to end up in the wrong emergency room, with the wrong staff “caring” for her after having been raped, and given medications without being told what they are and what they are for and any other pertininent information that woman needs to make a conscience decision as to take them or not take them.

I don’t want this either…but this happens 4000 times a day with abortions in our nation. Very few women are informed about what happens to the fetus during the procedure,and in many cases, they are given misinformation.

I want people to be treated like autonomous human beings with ownership over their own selves with the right to work through their situation with counsel, and make their choices with the help of that counsel.

It is interesting you want this so strongly for yourself, but are unwilling to extend this passion to the one who has no voice. And you can’t compare what you perceive to be their situation with what you would choose in the same situation, because it’s not the same. At least we do have the law on our side because if we didn’t there would be a whole more lot of forced abortions. And I say this because if men, parents, other parties can pressure a girl or woman into having an abortion, imagine what they could do if they actually had the legal right to impose those views on her. Imagine a hospital who got a woman to sign a consent upon entry into a hospital having an abortion forced on her because her conditioned wostened while in the ER and she didn’t have the right to consent to or refuse treatment. It makes me shutter to think of what may happen if rights were stripped from us. They were given to us for a reason in the first place…what people do with it is a testimony of their own faith and speaks for itself. But I pray that we never see the say that someone else speaks for us when we can speak for ourselves.

 

[Iowa_Mike]

Abortion has nothing whatsoever to do with reproduction. The right to kill one’s child has absolutely nothing to do with privacy

. By the way you’re dealing with adults here so there is no need to use baby talk in describing the evil you support. We’re talking about a woman’s right to pay someone to have her child killed. There is no need to tie it up with a pretty bow of “reproductive rights” or" privacy".

Estesbob,

You rock! It’s time people to speak up about abortion…it is murder not choice. Keep up the good work.

God Bless,

Iowa Mike

 

[guanophore]

Christ Himself said, when He instructed the Apostles to preach to the nations. He said that if people didn’t listen to them, they were to shake the dust from their homes and towns, and go on to the next ones. He didn’t say to force unbelievers to believe, or to force them to comply.

I agree. One cannot legislate morality. So, we should just quit trying! When corporations fleece the investors, why charge them with fraud? They took whatever they could get, right? So what if thousands of people lost their retirement nest egg.

We should not prosecute a rapist, because he was just exercising what he felt he needed.

I think you will see that one must make a distinction between legislating morality, and legislating behavior. The civil rights of people are based upon morality, sure, but we apply the laws to all those who live in the society, whether they agree with those morals, or not.

I want the patient to always have the right to consent or refuse treatment, and I want no patient to ever be turned away for legal and appropriate medical care just because the caregiver doesn’t agree with the the medical care or recognize that it is legal and appropriate.

What if the “patient” is an unborn child?

I don’t want any patient, or any family member of a patient, to feel helpless, alone and not in control as they are being told that they just have to deal with a death that can be avoided because it is not compatible with a particular caregiver’s religious values because their medical treatment, sanctioned by the medical community, legal and appropriate for her particular case, won’t be delivered because she wound up in the wrong hospital at the wrong time.

Actually it is the feelings of helpless, alone,and not in control is one of the main drivers for euthanasia. Those who support the “right to die” don’t appear to see the redemptive value of these states of being.

I don't want any woman to end up in the wrong emergency room after being raped, with the wrong staff "caring" for her, and refuses the morning after pill to avoid conception and prevent a forced pregnancy.

I am curious where God is in such a situation. Have you ever considered that teh woman may have ended up there because God wanted her to keep the baby?

At the same time, I don’t want any woman to end up in the wrong emergency room, with the wrong staff “caring” for her after having been raped, and given medications without being told what they are and what they are for and any other pertininent information that woman needs to make a conscience decision as to take them or not take them.

I don’t want this either…but this happens 4000 times a day with abortions in our nation. Very few women are informed about what happens to the fetus during the procedure,and in many cases, they are given misinformation.

I want people to be treated like autonomous human beings with ownership over their own selves with the right to work through their situation with counsel, and make their choices with the help of that counsel.

He said to move on and continue teaching to those who were receptive to The Word, and to teach to those who wanted to be taught. By Christ’s own words, our Christian faith requires we not force others to believe what we believe, or to comply with the rules and laws of our religion. By Christ’s own words we’re to teach without condemnation and without an iron fist, and without shackles. People have to come to God on their own, not be dragged. That doesn’t work.

I agree with you that evangelization, starting with people who think like you and CMatt, is the best solution to the problem of abortion. In the meantime, however, if I cannot pursude those gangsters that live around the corner not to break into my car, should I just hand them the keys to save my windows?

 

[estesbob]

I think it’s always hard to grasp why someone else would not choose what you yourself may choose (and I don’t mean you, Matt, but everyone, I mean us everyone), but it’s part of life in any situation to allow that individual to make their choice. You can’t force people to choose your choice. And you can’t compare what you perceive to be their situation with what you would choose in the same situation, because it’s not the same. At least we do have the law on our side because if we didn’t there would be a whole more lot of forced abortions. And I say this because if men, parents, other parties can pressure a girl or woman into having an abortion, imagine what they could do if they actually had the legal right to impose those views on her. Imagine a hospital who got a woman to sign a consent upon entry into a hospital having an abortion forced on her because her conditioned wostened while in the ER and she didn’t have the right to consent to or refuse treatment. It makes me shutter to think of what may happen if rights were stripped from us. They were given to us for a reason in the first place…what people do with it is a testimony of their own faith and speaks for itself. But I pray that we never see the say that someone else speaks for us when we can speak for ourselves.

You appear to be ignoring exactly what this choice you defend entails.
We are discussing whether a woman should have the right to pay someone to kill her child. It has nothing to do with the autonomy of a woman’s body, reproductive rights, choice, or any other euphemism one might want to use to cover up exactly what we’re talking about.

 

[Iowa_Mike]

Yes But those of different religions will not form the same concience based on their own religions and upbrinings. For example, the most devout of Jewish would allow for an abortion in the case of a woman’s life being in peril. What the Church says is probably not important to them, but they have still carefully formed their conscience. They have the right to consent or refuse treatment just like a Catholic

Rence is correct. A well formed conscience is in communion with Catholic teaching. If it isn’t then it is not a well formed conscience. Since the Catholic Church is the One Holy and Aposolic Church the consciences of other faiths are not well formed.

Did you see the Jews speaking out against abortion at the March For Life in WA.? Like our Protestant brothers and sisters it would seem the opinions within the Jewish communities are not in harmony either.

God Bless,

Iowa Mike

 

[estesbob]

Estesbob,

You rock! Bt’s time people to speak up about abortion…it is murder not choice. Keep up the good work.

God Bless,

Iowa Mike

Thanks for the kind words.

Once we can move the debate to exactly what we are talking about-that is should a woman have the right to pay someone to kill her child, the pro-abortion argument collapses like a house of cards.

 

[Iowa_Mike]

Thanks for the kind words.

Once we can move the debate to exactly what we are talking about-that is should a woman have the right to pay someone to kill her child, the pro-abortion argument collapses like a house of cards.

Amen to that. We all should support the Personhood Laws that are now being proposed in 15 - 20 states, if they pass babies in the womb will have some rights. What do you think that will do to Planned Parenthood?

Gob Bless,

Iowa Mike

 

[guanophore]

Currently, the legal right to consent or refuse treatment lies with the woman.

Exactly, so who speaks for the life within, who cannot speak for itself?

 

[estesbob]

I agree. One cannot legislate morality. So, we should just quit trying! ?

Good point ! All laws legislate morality. Without legislation the only morality would be the strong taking from the weak. Which of course is exactly what abortion does. The most weak and vulnerable among our sacrificed on the altar of “choice.”

 

[Rence]

I think the ambiguity has not to do with the personal detachment from the choice, but the moral disintegrity. We are nto talking about a food that might be considered by some as gross, and others not. I have never had the pleasure of escargot, but the idea to me is gross. When it comes to taking the life of the innocent, though it is not just a matter of personal food preferences, but of a grave moral evil that transcends personal preference.

No, you’re right. We’re talking about extending the same rights we have to others, even though their choices may not be the same as ours. I’m sorry that you didn’t understand my comparison though.

It is like saying “I personally think raping a woman is gross, but that doesn’t mean I can’t support another persons’ right to enjoy it”.

Again, it has to do with consent. A man doesn’t have the right to rape a woman because that woman has the autonomy to refuse. Whatever a man enjoys doing with that woman, she still has to consent in order for it to be legal.

Yes, I can see your point. You are also “enslaved” to pay your taxes, and “enslaved” because you can’t drink and drive, and “enslaved” because you cannot just take your pistol and shoot anyone who aggravates you on a given day.

We must pay our taxes to support our economy and community, and Christ said to render to Caesar what is Caesar’s. You do have the freedom to move to a place with lower taxes. When I lived in Chicago, my property taxes were $6000/year…I moved to a place with considerably less “perks” such as garbage pick up for example, and now I pay $1000/year. We have the freedom to move where taxes are less burdensome in exchange for less community services …You are not “enslaved” because you can’t drink and drive because you again remove consent from the person you harm or kill because you yourself don’t have the right of consent to drive while mentally impaired. No one should have the freedom to operate heavy machinery while intoxicated if they can cause harm to another individual while doing so, that’s common sense not a right to have…you cannot take a pistol to shoot anyone who aggravates you for the same reason, however you do have the right to shoot someone who is trying to harm or trying to kill you…at least I do where I live. But that goes hand-in-hand with the taxes thing because it would take the Police 20+ minutes to reach me if an intruder broke in.

It is a disintegrated moral position. It fails to affirm that there are some acts that are, in and of themselves, intrinsically evil.

But it doesn’t fail to convey that some acts considered intristically evil are done so by the Church, and should be enough to make Catholics comply. But they still aren’t recognized as such by those who don’t follow the rules of the Church. Of course, we as Catholics know the Church is correct, but that doesn’t mean we can take the rights of others away when they don’t believe in the Church or what it teaches to be correct.

Do you think that babies born with congenital defects should be euthanized? Why, or why not?

No…why would I?

Yes, and the Church teaches that it should be non-existent among her members.

And members have the right to follow such teachings. We Catholics have the right to refuse such treatments.

Yes, it is equally disingenuous to claim to support a pro-life position but not do anything to enact that stance, like provide assistance to women in crisis pregnancies.

Right, we should always try to convey all choices to women who are in crisis pregnancies.

It seems like this position denies that the child within the woman is also a person. Is that right?

Legal medical consent is with the woman.

This is consistent with the Catholic teaching, but the Church also says that the baby growing inside has the same status, and is not part of the woman’s body, and has a right to life for the same reason the woman has a right to her own reproductive functions.

Yes, this is a Church teaching, but by law, medical consent is with the woman.

Would you say that a person who is enraged and wants to put her abuser to death should not have her murderous rage regulated by any government or regulatory body or gathering of people?

A person who is enraged and wants to put her abuser to death should have her murderous rage regulated … again, that abuser has legal rights and rights of consent as an individual. And so does she. She has many choices, including leaving her abuser and going to a Church for assistance if there is no other assistance. Now, she does have the right to protect herself. If her abuser is trying to kill her she can kill him in self defense.