Pro-choice Catholics

[CMatt25]

It is curious that Jesus founded a Church and gave them authority in heaven and on earth to cope with the complicated matters of faith, since that is not what He wanted.

It doesn’t have to be complicated Guan to believe in Jesus as Lord and Savior. It can be done on faith.

 

[catharina]

That may be if **your faith turns out to be **completely the one truth.

fascinating disconnect.
it’s clearly known that faith can be cherished and it grows -
or faith can be derided, demeaned and it dies.

have to wonder if people think they can get it back -
since it’s NOT always possible.
on the contrary - lose it and it can be lost forever.

maybe it’s in the same category as imagining
oneself “explaining” one’s objections to Jesus at the judgment.

won’t be happening ever, IMO.

 

[CMatt25]

No, CMatt, you did not. I went back and looked through all the posts. It is understandible that you don’t feel like answering that question, because deep in your heart, you know there is nothing in divine law, or civil law, that allows a woman to take the life and limb of an innocent and defenseless baby.

Women have rights to their own bodies. Those rights do not extend over the bodies of other persons, even those for whom she has legal rights.

You say this, but that would have to be the case if your scenario were accurate. Either He kept His promises, and the Church has been led into “all Truth”, or He did not. Since you believe He did not, then what other options are there? If he did not leave, or fail?

You must have still missed it then Guan. Where do I see a woman gets abortion rights?

Originally Posted by CMatt25
I see a woman has rights as the majority of the SCOTUS did.

You’ll have to read about why the SCOTUS decided as they did if you need my answer in more detail Guan. I am not going to type the entire ruling here.

I believe Jesus can keep His promises and lead whoever believes in Him to all truth. Perhaps man left or failed Him.

 

[CMatt25]

Many Christian denominations do not teach what the Catholic Church does on choice.

 

[CMatt25]

JC, which member was that? I might have overlooked it if you were quoting one member.

 

[catharina]

Many Christian denominations do not teach what the Catholic Church does on choice.

That is not news to anybody.
It is a continuation of tragedy and slaughter.

 

[CMatt25]

Do you think that the obligations of the sacraments change because you do not list your affiliation publicly?

If you decide you wish to formally leave the Church by joining another church, do you think the obligations of the sacraments you received change?

You don’t have to answer that, of course, they are personal questions. I was just using your post as a muse to send a message to other Catholics reading the thread who may have a conscience about these things.

Not at all! The HS bears witness to the Truth in our hearts, so there is a part of our faith that is subjective (known from within ourselves). We access this as you say, by grace, through faith. There is a part of our faith that is objective. Jesus came as an historical person, and brought a message. This is a truth that exists outside of our personal faith. People may be faithless, and choose not to believe Him, but that does not change the Truth.

No, it is just that this verse does not include the whole story. We cannot walk in faith without grace. Faith is the means or avenue by which we access the grace in which we walk. Grace is the power of God within us that enables us to walk by faith, not by sight.

Furthermore, the Apostle is not trying to say, as you are, that objective Truth cannot be known or is not available to us.

Or not, as you wish. I mostly wrote them for the sake of the lurkers. If you look at the stats, you can see that this thread has ten times more readers than it does posters. There may be Catholics out there suffering from moral relativism but do not have the audacity you have to post on the forum.

Guan we can continue to believe by faith. I just still don’t understand why when you don’t want lurkers to think I am Catholic, you keep telling them that I am.

Audacity? Why should it take audacity to converse about various faiths and beliefs?

 

[CMatt25]

JC, Guan stated what is going to happen when I die and I simply responded to his post regarding that.

 

[PRmerger]

Of course she has that right, and women exercise that right every day.

Your husband may think he has the right to call you fat, and indeed, he legally has that right–(indeed, many, many men seem to have no problem exercising that right, anecdotal evidence seems to indicate)–but, he has NO RIGHT to call you that.

Yep, even if it’s legal to do so.
And even if men exercise that right every day.

 

[guanophore]

It should be easy for a Catholic, or rather a practicing Catholic, to refuse any treatment that requires terminating a pregnancy. And even if it’s not easy, it’s at least known and understood that there is no choice in the matter if one wants to remain in communion with the Church.

I don’t think this is true. I mean, I don’t think it is ever “easy” to be faced with such a difficult situation. Maybe intellectually it should be easy for a practicing Catholic to recognize that taking an innocent life is not an option, but the emotional pain of losing a pregnancy is often underplayed in our abortive culture. This is also true of unassisted miscarriages. She feels that she has lost a child, and often is not given the room to mourn.

But we can’t enforce the Church’s laws on someone who is not receptive to them.

Well, yes and no. We can enforce divine law, and indeed we do in the United States in many ways. We enforce the law that the taking of life is wrong after the child is born, for instance. Murderers are, by and large, “unreceptive” to the enforcement of these laws.

 

[CMatt25]

Or someone else might say slightly less problematic since Christ preached against tying heavy loads onto the backs of people and preached belief in Him and love to obtain eternal life.

 

[guanophore]

That may be if your faith turns out to be completely the one truth.

No, CMatt. That will be because God has said that is what will be. It has nothing to do with my faith. That was an objective fact before I ever came into existence, and would be even if I had never been born. My personal faith, or lack of it, does not change the Truth.

 

[PRmerger]

Yes, it is, you’re right. A medical-surgical procedure isn’t always a “surgery” with scalpels and retractors. It can be the removal of a cyst in a doctor’s office. They’re both considered medical procedures.

And *even this removal of a cyst *would have been contraindicated in the above scenario.

No surgeon–or anesthesiologist–would dare proceed with that minor procedure (necessity notwithstanding. We are talking about risk here).

And certainly, no abortionist–or anesthesiologist–would dare proceed with a major invasive procedure that involves sucking life and limb out of this poor woman’s uterus.

Clearly, you yourself believe it’s a surgery.

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

And, *your very own source *stated that:

[SIGN1]The chart also noted that “surgery is absolutely contraindicated.”[/SIGN1]

 

[guanophore]

Where do I see a woman gets abortion rights?

Where you put the secular law as your guide, above and against divine law.

I see a woman has rights as the majority of the SCOTUS did.

You’ll have to read about why the SCOTUS decided as they did if you need my answer in more detail Guan. I am not going to type the entire ruling here.

Did you really think I had not read it?

Just because there is a law does not mean we can assume that law is moral. We have a higher standard. We are obligated by our faith to fight against immorality, whether it is “legal” or not.

 

[CMatt25]

I’m unsure why you wanted me to comment about this. But I will if you want me to. I personally don’t advocate abortion for population control but I would love to hear more about other issues as well rather than so much on one issue.

 

[Rence]

I don’t think this is true. I mean, I don’t think it is ever “easy” to be faced with such a difficult situation. Maybe intellectually it should be easy for a practicing Catholic to recognize that taking an innocent life is not an option, but the emotional pain of losing a pregnancy is often underplayed in our abortive culture. This is also true of unassisted miscarriages. She feels that she has lost a child, and often is not given the room to mourn.

Well, yes and no. We can enforce divine law, and indeed we do in the United States in many ways. We enforce the law that the taking of life is wrong after the child is born, for instance. Murderers are, by and large, “unreceptive” to the enforcement of these laws.

The only way we can enforce divine law is when it is also civil law. When “divine” law conflicts with “civil” law, no, we can’t force others to follow the laws laid down by the Catholic Church. Of course the Church calls it divine law, and of course it is, but just like it’s divine law not to take artificial birth control, or utilize in vitro fertilization, that’s not something we can enforce on others who don’t recognize that the Church has any kind of authority over them. Taking the life of a child after the child is born is illegal civily, therefore we can enforce this “divine” law. Remember that no one is subject to the laws of the Church unless they subject themselves voluntarily.

 

[PRmerger]

The one I cited came after the one you cited. Therefore, more analysis was done.

Ok. Let’s go with your source.

It stated that abortion/surgery was absolutely contraindicated. Absolutely. Contraindicated.

It seems peculiar to me that you would cite this as an example of a woman requiring an abortion to save her life. The article states exactly the opposite. Surgery was NOT the answer.

Also, can you please tell me how a woman in cardiogenic shock can have a discussion with her abortionist about how she’s exercising very most personal and private “right to choose”?

And like I said, it’s between the patient and the physician. And the patient has the right to either consent to the prescribed treatment or refuse it, without interference from someone outside of that relationship.

 

[Rence]

And *even this removal of a cyst *would have been contraindicated in the above scenario.

No surgeon–or anesthesiologist–would dare proceed with that minor procedure (necessity notwithstanding. We are talking about risk here).

And certainly, no abortionist–or anesthesiologist–would dare proceed with a major invasive procedure that involves sucking life and limb out of this poor woman’s uterus.

I’m not really sure with what kind of medical knowledge or degree you have that you can make these claims, but obviously a woman with pulmonary hypertension and cardiogenic shock had the procedure she needed. She was in distress and had the procedure, so to say that no doctor, abortionist, or anesthesiologist wouldn’t do it is untrue, by virtue of the fact that it was done and documented

Clearly, you yourself believe it’s a surgery.

I do? Are you sure about that? I think I was very clear about what I believe And I very clearly stated it was a medical-surgical procedure. Many fall under this category, including abortion.

And, your very own source stated that:

[SIGN1]The chart also noted that “surgery is absolutely contraindicated.”[/SIGN1]

And yet, this woman required an abortion, a legal and sanctioned procedure, a procedure falling within the medical-surgical category, appropriate for her medical condition. As documented.

 

[guanophore]

Or someone else might say slightly less problematic since Christ preached against tying heavy loads onto the backs of people and preached belief in Him and love to obtain eternal life.

For those who are “in Christ”, His commandments are not burdensome. If a person is walking by grace, through faith, then God is at work within him to will and to do His good pleasure. Belief in Christ means walking in obedience to His commandments. If someone finds this a “heavy load”, it is an indication they are not “in Christ” and are not walking by grace.

 

[Rence]

Ok. Let’s go with your source.

It stated that abortion/surgery was absolutely contraindicated. Absolutely. Contraindicated.

It seems peculiar to me that you would cite this as an example of a woman requiring an abortion to save her life. The article states exactly the opposite. Surgery was NOT the answer.

I am SOOO sorry you are having such difficulty comprehending all this documentation. I’m not sure what in the world I can say to you to make it more clear. The document cited actually has all the information you need to understand. I’m wondering if you read it because it’s very clear to me. Maybe you should have someone go over it with you?

Also, can you please tell me how a woman in cardiogenic shock can have a discussion with her abortionist about how she’s exercising very most personal and private “right to choose”?

By signing consent forms upon admission, by saying “yes” to her doctor, by having her husband sign consent forms for her, by making her wishes known to a medical team that will honor her wishes.