Pro-choice Catholics

[beafedor]

I don’t know why but the only physicians, including OB/GYNs who really know NFP are the fertility doctors. It’s a shame really.

I know that a lot of people say this, and again, I don’t know why doctors do that. But I personally have never had doctors who have pushed contraception on me. I’ve had them offer for a medical reason, but they were totally fine with me not wanting contraceptives.

That has to do with malpractice and insurance issues. OB/GYNs have the HIGHEST malpractice insurance rates and they are the largest users of them. Many doctors have left their practice for other states, or even other areas of medicine due to the high malpraactice insurance. However, it’s a good idea anyway to do these things anyway. You want to always make your wishes known. However, when you do actually do these things (make your lists, make your needs known), I would have extremely high expectations of my caregivers. In other words, if they ask you to make these choices, they darned well honor your wishes and deliver what you choose.

It’s not unusual to doctor shop. Just keep doing it until you find what you’re looking for.

This is exactly why the woman’s right to consent or refuse treatment is soooo important and I fight for it. I don’t trust your doctor 2% if you in any way at all think he violated your rights. And I wouldn’t go back. And it’s always a good idea to bring someone with you to your doctor’s office especially when you’re pregnant and planning a birth.

Sorry, I know you’ll disagree with me and that’s okay. But I don’t give a rat’s petutie whether my doctor is pro-life or pro-choice, or whether or not they like contraceptives. What matters to me is if they honor MY wishes and do what I want in my case. If they are capable of being impartial and will do what I want, I don’t care what they think because I have to trust that they will honor my wishes. As healthcare providers they MUST be able to set aside their personal feelings and biases and deliver the care their patient requires. I won’t have a doctor that I can’t trust to do just that.

I don’t think those agendas exist. I think that there are insurance and malpractice issues that the doctors are dealing with. You need to sign waivers for those tests because the general public wants them, and requires them and the doctors can get in trouble if they don’t provide them. Doctor have to educate you about these tests and educate you about your options — this is different that pushing them. Doctors have to be very careful that they have disclosed all the information and have gotten consent or refusal from you.

Personally, I think you feel discriminated against because you’re unable to find a strong advocate for you. You need to find a doctor or a nurse that will fight for you to the death and honor your wishes whether they agree with your opinions or not. And yes, they exist. However, they are still responsible for full disclosure. So rather than get upset about what they’re trying to disclose, I’d just calmly say, “no, that’s not what I want, I want this” etc.

And yes, you absolutely have to trust your doctors and nurses. Keep looking until you do. But my advise to you is that it is more important to find someone who is willing to honor your wishes despite having a different opinion that you, rather than trying to find a match to your views. Sorry, but I’ve never found IRL the scrupulosity that I have found on online forums and you might find one if you look hard enough, but IMOHO it’s more important to find someone who understand your needs and who will comply with your wishes. They are out there. It’s their job.

Thank you Rence for your comments. Sorry I was venting here but I felt that I had to share my experience of “Reproductive Rights”.

 

[CMatt25]

Just as Catholics or any person of faith and belief might tell me about theirs.

What and Whom unites Christians is by far greater than any differences we might have. He will, I have faith, break down any walls when He comes again. Peace.

 

[estesbob]

If you’re refering to who compiled the Bible PR, I’ve had Protestant friends tell me God could use whoever He wanted for whatever purpose He deemed. Or that straying occurred and hense Christ needed to reform to keep the gates from prevailing.

When you you set yourself up as the sole authority of what Scripture means it should come as no surprise when your personal interpretation just happens to support your political views.

 

[Tigg]

And again trust me if continuously labeling me a relativist is meant to make me feel bad, it does not in anyway.

That is not the intent at all, and I think you truly know this. I’m merely having trouble understanding how those who claim to believe in Christ, can justify that the killing of life which HE created is acceptable because the state has said so. It always goes back to the heart and mind in understanding the gospel message. Which message is not ambiguous for that would be contrary to the very nature of God, nor is it open to interpretation by all and anyone. If so, how could there be any truth at all? Is the sky blue or the earth flat just because some claim it to be true based upon their own understanding?

 

[CMatt25]

At the point where new life is present. And of course we dont need Scriprute to tell us that seperate, distinct human life is present from the moment the egg is fertilized.

Maybe we don’t need Scripture to tell us that. But in a country of various beliefs as to full personhood and ensoulment, we need a govt to form its laws as to who has what rights and when full civil rights are given to the unborn and the woman no longer has hers. So that we have a law to live by as citizens of that nation. And we’ve had that law now in my country for nearly 40 yrs whether we like the results or not.

 

[estesbob]

Maybe we don’t need Scripture to tell us that. But in a country of various beliefs as to full personhood and ensoulment, we need a govt to form its laws as to who has what rights and when full civil rights are given to the unborn and the woman no longer has hers. So that we have a law to live by as citizens of that nation. And we’ve had that law now in my country for nearly 40 yrs whether we like the results or not.

If one wants to have a discussion solely on what the law is then there is no reason to have a discussion. So far the only rationale you have given to support this evil is that it is legal and that your personal interpretation of Scripture tells you it is okay, not much basis for discussion there, is there?

 

[CMatt25]

The sense:

JharekCamelian asked: “A reformation by Christ you would think would lead to unity rather than division.”

CMatt25’s answer: What and Whom unites Christians is by far greater than any differences we might have. He will, I have faith, break down any walls when He comes again."

 

[estesbob]

The sense:

JharekCamelian asked: “A reformation by Christ you would think would lead to unity rather than division.”

CMatt25’s answer: What and Whom unites Christians is by far greater than any differences we might have. He will, I have faith, break down any walls when He comes again."

And ask you, I am sure, why you thought the death of 50 million children was justified by a desire for “social justice”

 

[catharina]

The sense:

JharekCamelian asked: “A reformation by Christ you would think would lead to unity rather than division.”

CMatt25’s answer: What and Whom unites Christians is by far greater than any differences we might have. He will, I have faith, break down any walls when He comes again."

Setting self in opposition to the Author of life, regarding the very issue of life,
makes one not Christian but a self-inflated idol. If you find unity with such as
those, it speaks only to your own set of values, NOT to any Christian unity.

 

[JimG]

Maybe we don’t need Scripture to tell us that. But in a country of various beliefs as to full personhood and ensoulment, we need a govt to form its laws as to who has what rights and when full civil rights are given to the unborn and the woman no longer has hers. So that we have a law to live by as citizens of that nation. And we’ve had that law now in my country for nearly 40 yrs whether we like the results or not.

Well, the results have been 50 million dead, not something to inspire confidence in the law.

When slavery was legal there were also differing beliefs as to its wrongfulness. Slavery had its ardent supporters. That didn’t keep the abolitionists from working to reverse it. And abolitionists were rightfully, one-issue voters.

 

[CMatt25]

That is not the intent at all, and I think you truly know this. I’m merely having trouble understanding how those who claim to believe in Christ, can justify that the killing of life which HE created is acceptable because the state has said so. It always goes back to the heart and mind in understanding the gospel message. Which message is not ambiguous for that would be contrary to the very nature of God, nor is it open to interpretation by all and anyone. If so, how could there be any truth at all? Is the sky blue or the earth flat just because some claim it to be true based upon their own understanding?

Tigg, I didn’t know that. But thanks. That way when I am labeled such at least by you I know not to consider it a put down. Nor to consider you are meaning me to be any less of a person by such a label. The way I understand it is you and others might be having difficulty with the truth that faith is faith and is not knowing with 100% absolute certainty. All of our discussions begin and end in faith. We walk by faith. Not by sight. This is why people sometimes will say they don’t talk about religion or politics. Because the debate nearly always ends circular. When it all begins and ends with faith and beliefs about something, that’s what often occurs. Or you and others might be having difficulty with how to separate faith with living in a democracy of plural beliefs and faiths. Someone had to decide if my teal and aqua shirts lean more blue or green. A nation must decide a law for its land as well. Peace.

 

[Tigg]

Maybe we don’t need Scripture to tell us that. But in a country of various beliefs as to full personhood and ensoulment, we need a govt to form its laws as to who has what rights and when full civil rights are given to the unborn and the woman no longer has hers. So that we have a law to live by as citizens of that nation. And we’ve had that law now in my country for nearly 40 yrs whether we like the results or not.

I think I’m beginning to understand. Based upon the above comment, apparently you also reject the principle that all authority and even morality itself ultimately is derived from God!

 

[CMatt25]

I think I’m beginning to understand. Based upon the above comment, apparently you also reject the principle that all authority and even morality itself ultimately is derived from God!

Not quite Tigg. I believe it is from God from Whom ultimately we shall know the truth. Until then we walk by faith. Not by sight.

 

[CMatt25]

And ask you, I am sure, why you thought the death of 50 million children was justified by a desire for “social justice”

And I will explain my conscience to Him at that time. And have faith and trust He has the ability to understand. And knows my heart and how I lived. And will judge me accordingly. Where I may have failed Him, I can only place faith in His mercy and love. We shall all truly know soon enough.

 

[CMatt25]

When you you set yourself up as the sole authority of what Scripture means it should come as no surprise when your personal interpretation just happens to support your political views.

I don’t set myself up of anything of the sort. I do not proclaim infallibilty. Only that I inform, reason and pray. Opening my heart to God’s Spirit trying to discern what He is speaking to my conscience.

 

[CMatt25]

Setting self in opposition to the Author of life, regarding the very issue of life,
makes one not Christian but a self-inflated idol. If you find unity with such as
those, it speaks only to your own set of values, NOT to any Christian unity.

There are Christian denominations which do not subscribe to your faith in the interpretations of the Catholic Church about the Author of life or who do not subscribe to your faith in what the Catholic Church interprets Herself to be or in ECFs. There are Christian denominations that are pro choice. So then if you are suggesting these are not Christians, you must disagree with your CCC that these baptized Christians in fact are.

 

[PRmerger]

I guess in emphasizing a single issue though that’s why politically conservative Catholics don’t vote for candidates who support a stronger govt role in social justice then.

If there were many Catholic politicians who proposed that white people (or men…or those who attended ivy league schools…or those who make more than 5 million/year…or those who exercise daily, etc etc etc) were superior, then you can bet that these would be an issues as well.

Fortunately, we have not too many of those folks these days, so the talk remains about the current one that so viciously attacks the most basic concept of the inherent dignity of the human person: abortion.

 

[Iowa_Mike]

And, as has been quite astutely predicted by estesbob, the conversation degenerates into exactly what the pro-aborts want. Instead of their getting rational, thought-provoking arguments that make them go, “Huh. I don’t have an answer to that…let me think about it more.” The discussion segues into an irrelevant discussion about semantics.

Just what the devil ordered, eh? Let’s not provide rational arguments but get sidetracked.

To be sure.

But, just as Catholics believe that the Bible is the Word of God, we don’t use it to provide proof texts to Muslims, for that is not their frame of reference. Once they come to understand Christ and Christianity, then it serves you better to use the Scriptures.

You must meet your “opponent” on the arena he belongs.

Otherwise, your apologia is ineffective.

I accept your opinion…science is sufficient for most debates. This however is a Catholic forum. Our Protestant and Muslim brothers and sisters are welcome here but should expect to hear Scripture that condemns abortion. I suspect Muslims are in the minority on the forum anyway.

This particular exchange is a good one because it is a good example of debate. I simply don’t share your point of view and I believe that efforts to use PC language as done little good as evidence by 38 years and 53,000,000 million dead babies. It’s time to take a stronger approach. So I’m all for blunt language, graphic video’s, graphic testimony, graphic pictures and plain speak.

This forum is a debate forum…not a counseling forum. I appreciate the pain a woman or man goes through when they get involved in procuring an abortion. I want to be sensitive to them but not at the expense of watering down what is going on:

A woman’s right to choose really means that a woman can kill the baby in her womb if she wants.

It’s a matter of choice is designed to take the high road but means a woman can kill the baby in the womb if she wants.

A woman has the right to control her own body simply means a woman can kill the baby in her womb if she wants.

Abortion is a Constitutional right (no so) only means that a woman can kill the baby in her womb it she wants.

All of the examples used to legitimize abortion made using extreme circumstances are simply trying to justify why a woman can kill the baby in her womb if she wants.

**The end result of all these clinical descriptions is a dead baby not an aborted fetus or a mass of oblivious cells or some other inert glob of flesh.**To legitimize the murder of babies in the womb we hear about rape victims, incest victims, desperatly poor victims, cripple victims, homeless women, or other more inventive circumstances. But the truth is the vast, vast, vast majority of babies are aborted for convenience. It has become for many another birth control technique.

But no-one mentions the other stuff…how about the women (and thier mates) who get an abortion because it will interfere with their lifestyle whether it is buying a house, car, going on vacation, going to school or because they got drunk and acted irresponsibly, the woman didn’t want to ruin her figure and on and on.

I described Fr. Drinan as a heretic because he lived in heresy by publicly supporting abortion. Two people the forum vigorously disagreed to the point that I had to take the disagreement off the thread into the PM format to avoid hijacking the topic. In a later post I described Catholics for Choice as a heretical organization which means 'characterized by heresy. One person sent me a post stating that I finally used the term correctly. That fact is I always used the term heresy correctly because it is defined in CCC 2089 by the Church. It is the word heretic that seems to drive everyone to distraction. OK…so if Catholic for Choice is a heretical organization…what do you call it’s members? If a Catholic persistently supports abortion or rejects other doctrines of the Church they have
entered heresy. What do you want to call them?

After 53,000,000 dead babies in the United States alone it is time to change tactics or in another 38 years well have accumulated 150,000,000 dead babies or more to account for.

God Bless,

Iowa Mike

 

[PRmerger]

You’re right, a pregnancy is not some sort of disease that needs treatment. However, it makes physiological changes in a woman’s body that can sometimes cause problems for her, such as hypertension and diabetes. And can sometimes exaserbate underlying problems such as pulmonary hypertension or heart disease. These are realities. And the reality is, there are many ways to treat these problems, and it’s just as much a reality that sometimes they cannot be treated and the woman is at dire risk if the pregnancy is continued. One can say that it’s the “sacrifice of lifetime” for a woman to risk her life to continue that pregnancy, and of course it is, but it is also her choice.

There are simply no medical circumstances in which an abortion would be required to save the life of a woman.

A Catholic may not feel like they have a choice…and they don’t if they want to remain in communion with the -]Church/-] Christ. However, it’s still their choice as it is when the patient is not Catholic at all.

Abortion, like it or not, is a sanctioned medical-surgical procedure, and sometimes is prescribed for the cases above.

This is the most irrelevant of arguments.

 

[PRmerger]

Though we’re supposed to talk about the subject at hand, not supposed to talk about members, I feel like I should chime in here. CMatt is a baptized Roman Catholic, therefore he is always and forever Catholic due to that indelible mark made by Baptism in the Trinity. I have no clue why he removed it from his profile, but God and the Vatican didn’t remove it from his soul.

Indeed. He is Catholic and part of the Body of Christ, to be sure.

He is simply not part of the Heart of Christ in his dissent.

No one is mistaking him for a Catholic, that’s not a mistake

Where the mistake lies, as guanophore so eloquently put it, is in others who are seeking answers to Catholicism here on the CAFs and mistake that which Matt professes to be Catholic. This causes great harm to the Body of Christ. :sad_yes:

Truth in advertising is merely what we’re requiring here.