Pro-choice Catholics

[CMatt25]

Fair enough.

Not at all, Matt.

But if this ex-Catholic were to continue to be puzzled as to why posters identified him with the Catholic faith, it would make one wonder.

It would seem prudent for the ex-Catholic to say, “Oh, yes, I can see why you would say that, as I did post here quite recently identifying myself as a Catholic, but I have, in the interest of “truth in advertising” changed my religious affiliation to a TEC” (whatever that is).

PR, in the post you are referring to I said “If someone once identified Catholic and then was received into TEC”. I’ve seen TEC commonly used even here on CAF to stand for The Episcopal Church. I’ve even seen Episcopalians use TEC. And no I haven’t been incase you’re wondering why I don’t ID Episcopalian or some other denomination. I haven’t even attended a non Catholic service yet.

 

[CMatt25]

Ok, we know, but just don’t spread it around here, ok?

Guan it is others who keep bringing it up. But see this is what I meant by it could depend on who I ask or where I am. If I ask a bishop, he says I am. But others including you and PR applaud I no longer call myself a Catholic. In the Church I am but not somewhere else.

 

[ishii]

Ishii, reread my post for my explanation. In it I spoke of non religious reasons as well. I would support an active govt role in helping the poor and sick even if I were a non believer.

But you give ***as your reason for your support for active govt role ***your faith in Jesus as reported in the bible! So, according to your own reasoning, you are a theocrat. Or am I missing something?

Ishii

 

[ishii]

Privacy in personal reproductive decisions without government interfering in such decisions.

Privacy in “personal reproductive decisions” ?? So you would respect a woman’s personal privacy in her decision to, say, kill her 5 month old baby? Answer that question and let’s have a conversation to better understand each other.

Ishii

 

[guanophore]

Guan it is others who keep bringing it up. But see this is what I meant by it could depend on who I ask or where I am. If I ask a bishop, he says I am. But others including you and PR applaud I no longer call myself a Catholic. In the Church I am but not somewhere else.

Yes, I understand. I know you identify yourself as Catholic, and from previous discussion of it on these threads, you have demonstrated that you meet the objective criteria of Catholic (being baptized as such).

The reason I am glad that you don’t claim your affiliation on these threads is because you espouse anti-Catholic positions on a great many topics, and it causes confusion and scandal to the Church having someone who claims he is Catholic yet rejects the Teachings of the Church. Your personal beliefs are not consistent with Catholicity. I dont’ know that they ever have been, but that is irrelevant. What is relevant is that people come here looking for Catholic Answers, and they will often not find them in your posts.

 

[PRmerger]

PR, I am puzzled because if people look they will see I no longer identify as such. Yet you keep bringing up a former identification. I’m even puzzled as to all this discussion about me. I thought we weren’t supposed to discuss other members.

Ok. I’m going to play this puzzled game, too.

Where do I “keep bringing up a former identification”? Doesn’t “keep” mean more than once?

 

[PRmerger]

PR, in the post you are referring to I said “If someone once identified Catholic and then was received into TEC”. I’ve seen TEC commonly used even here on CAF to stand for The Episcopal Church. I’ve even seen Episcopalians use TEC. And no I haven’t been incase you’re wondering why I don’t ID Episcopalian or some other denomination. I haven’t even attended a non Catholic service yet.

That’s fine.

I want to emphasize that it’s important to conform one’s beliefs to the Truth, and not try to find some church where its beliefs conform to one’s own.

That would be creating a god and a religion in one’s own image, would it not?

For those who are truly seeking Him (and, truly, they *will *find Him!) logic dictates that it will be the seeker who must change his views, and not Him and His Body.

 

[PRmerger]

I’m even puzzled as to all this discussion about me. I thought we weren’t supposed to discuss other members.

Huh.

Were you discussing *me *here, just 2 posts after you wrote the above?

But others including you and PR applaud I no longer call myself a Catholic

 

[estesbob]

Privacy in personal reproductive decisions without government interfering in such decisions.

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".

 

[guanophore]

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".

On the contrary, your blunt and crass use of language demonstrates why it is absolutely necessary to clean up the language to make it sound more palatable. The way you talk about it is horrifying!

 

[Rence]

I identify several politically correct statements here. I really want to understand your views expressed in clear words. Please translate for me the “choice” word

Choice involves the mental process of thinking, involved with the process of judging the merits of multiple options, and deciding on one or more of them for action or inaction. When some people say that “pro-choice” involves no choice, I can’t take those people seriously because of course there is a choice. When one is pro-choice the following options exist: continue the pregnancy, keep the baby, adopt out the baby, in the case of medical crisis the choice can include various treatments, and of course abortion. There are many choices available. Choice involves being able to look at various options and being able to think your way through them. Each option comes with it’s own list of variables. For example, the woman in pregnancy crisis may have a parent she is caring for, may have small children at home, a husband who needs her, etc.

the ambiguity of not participating in abortions but willing to have the right to abort,

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

explain how one can be morally opposed to abortion while being a defender of abortion rights and

Same as above

what is a safe abortion and rare abortion.

A safe abortion is one NOT done without the medical controls available, where the physicians involved are accountable and where witnesses are available. Just like any other medical procedure. I wouldn’t have a triple bypass in someone’s basement, and I wouldn’t buy my Adderall online or off the street.

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

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.

So seeing someone adamantly bang their hands on a table at a meeting and shout that abortion is wrong wrong wrong, and then finding out that same person cheated on her husband, got pregnant, panicked and had an abortion…well, I just don’t take those people seriously anymore. You know why? When the chips are down (when their daughter is in crisis, when they are in crisis, the same standards don’t apply), people know they have a choice and will make their choices, without worrying about what anyone else thinks. 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.

Please clarify, share exactly what it is that you are supporting/agree with/want to keep legal and why.

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

I don’t know of anyone who would support the right of a JW nurse allowing a patient to incur further injury or die during a medical crisis because that JW nurse refused to administer a blood transfusion and found no one else to take her place…or better yet, completely dropped the ball because even finding a replacement was too much for her conscience to bear. That same standard should be applied for every legal and appropriate medical treatment in a crisis senario. If the patient is “Catholic” then the patient can refuse any treatment that is not sanctioned by the Church. It’s the patient’s job to do that.

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. 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 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.

 

[Rence]

I know the argument well, but I try not to let my politics be influenced by others. Yes, I was castigated soundly on this forum for voting for a 100% pro-life third party candidate. But that’s for another thread and another election.

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.

 

[ishii]

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

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.

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

 

[Rence]

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.

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.

 

[ishii]

So seeing someone adamantly bang their hands on a table at a meeting and shout that abortion is wrong wrong wrong, and then finding out that same person cheated on her husband, got pregnant, panicked and had an abortion…well, I just don’t take those people seriously anymore. You know why? When the chips are down (when their daughter is in crisis, when they are in crisis, the same standards don’t apply), people know they have a choice and will make their choices, without worrying about what anyone else thinks. 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.
.

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

 

[catharina]

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

That’s the point of abortion “law.”
The youngest among us, still unborn, have NO rights.
No right to live, to grow, to love, to learn, to teach.

Yep - you nailed it.

 

[ishii]

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.

Your concern about rights is misplaced. The rights currently being trampled on are the unborn. Please explain how someone has a “right” to kill an unborn child? As Mother Theresa said, “if a mother can kill her unborn child, then I can kill you and you can kill me.”

Ishii

 

[Rence]

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

Well I kind of understand Matt though. He’s going by what 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. 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.

 

[exoflare]

When we can compromise and work on common ground toward rarer abortions, then embryos and fetuses will be safer.

My question was how you planned to make it safe for the actual baby being murdered during one of these abortions you promote. Not how it might… in theory… prevent some other baby in the future from being murdered as a result of your present human sacrifice.

 

[estesbob]

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.

As a Catholic we are supposed to vote based on a conscience formed by the teachings of the Church. Although Catholics are free to vote for anyone they want when they vote for a pro-abortion canidate they are doing so contrary to the teachings of their Church.Pointing that out to them is not castigating-its telling them the truth.