Pro-choice Catholics

[guanophore]

Would it be okay with you?

You are basing your premise that a person has the right to abort the child on the notion of consent. You are saying that rape, murder, and me hitting someone with my car driving drunk are all wrong because the victims could not give consent.

According to your reasoning, abortion should be wrong because the child has not given consent.

We are obligated to render unto caesar because Christ told us to. You can defend whomever you like, but medical consent still lies with the woman.

Basically you are arguing that our duty to pay taxes is higher than our duty to defend the life of the unborn.

It’s not me saying it, it’s the law and the medical field.

You are giving your assent to a great evil.

Consent is with the woman.

You are saying that the law and the medical profession give her the right to hire someone to kill her baby. You are right.

Then don’t have an abortion.

And what if my "common sense’ tells me that all the babies in all the wombs are human beings that should not be killed?

That’s not a news flash. It’s the law that medical consent lies with the woman.

LOL You may not accept this “news” Rence, but the fact is that the law gives that woman the right to take an innocent life - to hire someone else to terminate that innocent life. You are championing the view that the woman has a “right” to protect herself if she is attacked, yet you don’t afford this same “right” to a defenseless baby!

The law can make it ok to lynch negroes, right? to keep slaves?

The law can give the homesteader the freedom to breed with his slaves, right?

You are defending a grave evil and immoral act based upon the idea that because it is the legal norm, and the medical practice, that it is ok.

In Germany, the law gave the Nazi’s the right to do horrible things to Jews, including using their bodies for medical experiements.

There is no law to punish someone who lacks common sense.

On the contrary, God commands us to study, and show ourselves approved. We are to form our conscience in accordance with his commandments. If we fail to do this, we will most definitely pay the price. In the case of abortion, as in other cases, divine law supercedes secular law.

I am saying that the Church determinines what is intrinsically evil and what constitutes an intrinstically evil act and that Catholics are required by the Church to not commit those acts.

This also means that we cannot support others in committing those acts, such as you and CMatt do, and the woman yesterday who escorts people at the PP. All these are forms of participating in grave evil.

However, if one is not Catholic, one does not recognize the Church's authority to define what is evil or not evil, and therefore has is not compelled to follow the Church's teaching.

So, since we cannot compulse moral behavior, why have any laws at all?

Our laws are not written to conform to the Catholic Church’s laws and rules. Our laws were put into place with the intention of not building them out of religious laws.

I would love to see some support for this assertion.

I think you will find that the framers of our country beleived the opposite.

  No one religion defines the laws of our nation. However, Catholics do have the right to follow Church teachings. So when a law does not coincide with the laws of the Church, Catholics, of course, are still free to follow Church laws, as long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others. That was never taken away from them.

Not yet, but taking away of rights usually begins with the weakest, and the most unable to defend themselves. Once they are removed from infants in the womb, the rest of us will not be far behind.

Hey, if that’s what you want, I encourage you to lobby for those views.

That is a mistake, Rence. Encouraging a Catholic to commit a grave evil is a grave evil in itself.

From the Catechism:

1868 Sin is a personal act. Moreover, we have a responsibility for the sins committed by others when we cooperate in them:

• by participating directly and voluntarily in them;
• by ordering, advising, praising, or approving them;
• by not disclosing or not hindering them when we have an obligation to do so;
• by protecting evil-doers.

1869 Thus sin makes men accomplices of one another and causes concupiscence, violence, and injustice to reign among them. Sins give rise to social situations and institutions that are contrary to the divine goodness. “Structures of sin” are the expression and effect of personal sins. They lead their victims to do evil in their turn. In an analogous sense, they constitute a "social sin."144

 

[catharina]

I completely understand what you’re saying and where you’re coming from. I do. But currently, the law states that the woman has medical consent, therefore she chooses. She has the medical consent for herself and her unborn.

Drug usage whether pregnant or not is illegal and punishable by law and being charged with abusing drugs and alcohol while pregnant can be used against her if there is ever a custody case later. It’s legal to drink alcohol in moderation when pregnant, though certainly not wise. Abusing alcohol while pregnant has the same legal ramifications as when not pregnant.

I’m sorry, I really have no idea where you’re coming from here. People have the right to consent or refuse treatment, and when they assign a person as their durable power of attorney, their wants should be outlined and followed. If they don’t have their wants outlined, then they have basically given their durable power of attorney the freedom to make the choices for them, as they see fit. I don’t get where any of this fits into abortion, since the woman has consent over her own person. And you are talking about people already born with their own consent or who have given power to consent or refuse treatment to another party. Maybe this euthanasia of others should be on another thread? It really has nothing to do with being pro-choice.

Medical consent is with the woman.

**Because at the moment,
that’s the very recent and new law.

In Germany in th 1930s-1940s, laws
supported capturing/killing Jews.
Ya’ know? Those were the laws.
Oh - maybe you would have fought those laws?
Who knows?

There are good reasons why the slaughter
by abortion is called a HOLOCAUST.
Who speaks for those being slaughtered?

**

 

[guanophore]

I completely understand what you’re saying and where you’re coming from. I do. But currently, the law states that the woman has medical consent, therefore she chooses. She has the medical consent for herself and her unborn.

You seem to be saying that, since the law allows this grave moral evil, we should support and affirm that.

Drug usage whether pregnant or not is illegal and punishable by law and being charged with abusing drugs and alcohol while pregnant can be used against her if there is ever a custody case later.

Curious, is it not? The mother can be held responsible for poisoning her child in the womb with mood altering substances, but not if she pays someone to take his life.

And what about alcohol? She has a legal right to use alcohol, and it is her body. What does it matter if it causes irreparable damage to the baby?

It's legal to drink alcohol in moderation when pregnant, though certainly not wise. Abusing alcohol while pregnant has the same legal ramifications as when not pregnant.

And what about the moral ramifications? How is your theory holding up that it is her body and she should have the rights over it? How is feeding the baby alcohol through the umbilical cord different than putting it in the baby bottle? Should a woman quiet her baby with alcohol?

I’m sorry, I really have no idea where you’re coming from here. People have the right to consent or refuse treatment, and when they assign a person as their durable power of attorney, their wants should be outlined and followed.

They should be. Why does not the baby in the womb afforded basic human rights?

The woman has the legal authority to NOT respect the impaired persons wishes. She can decide to pull the plug if she wants, because the legal consent lies with her.

If they don't have their wants outlined, then they have basically given their durable power of attorney the freedom to make the choices for them, as they see fit.

Even if they have outlined their wishes, the power of atty allows the one given it to make the choice. She can go against what they told her if she wants.

I don’t get where any of this fits into abortion, since the woman has consent over her own person.

I am trying to get you to understand that the life inside her is also a PERSON, and has rights.

And you are talking about people already born with their own consent or who have given power to consent or refuse treatment to another party.

Why should it matter which side of the vaginal canal the life lives on?

My point is that there are plenty of already born people that don’t have the abilitiy to consent.

Maybe this euthanasia of others should be on another thread? It really has nothing to do with being pro-choice.

Why not? If a person has the right to choose life and death for another, why should it matter whether they have already been born?

Medical consent is with the woman.

Indeed, and in cases of durable power of attorney, it is with her also. She can just eliminate any of her relatives that are giving her inconvenience, can she not?

Medical consent, which is based upon legal and societal practice, cannot hold a candle to God’s law. Excusing yourself from supporting grave sin because it is “legal” is very thin.

 

[peachy10]

I don’t think a pro-choice Catholic is a good Catholic. They could still be Catholic and support abortion if they go to Mass, pray, etc. However, simply supporting the pro-choice arguement is different than actually recieving an abortion. Now there’s a grave sin. If they have had an abortion, they need to go to confession and realize that abortion is evil. So I think that yes Catholics that are pro-choice are not properly following the Faith. Of course, everyone has their own opinion, and if they believe abortion is only allowed in a rape sitaution, I personally don’t agree, but that does not make them atheist. But I think we should discourage abortion by revealing the truth behind this cruelty and talking about abstinence more openly. I volunteer with my parish’s pro-life group, and we do all sorts of local speeches and work with pregnant teens and underpriveleged women.

 

[Rence]

You are basing your premise that a person has the right to abort the child on the notion of consent. You are saying that rape, murder, and me hitting someone with my car driving drunk are all wrong because the victims could not give consent.

According to your reasoning, abortion should be wrong because the child has not given consent.

The woman has consent by law.

Basically you are arguing that our duty to pay taxes is higher than our duty to defend the life of the unborn.

Not sure how you came to that conclusion. You don’t have to pay your taxes if you don’t want to, but you’ll spend time in jail that could otherwise be used to counsel women who are pregnant and contemplating abortion. It’s your choice.

And what if my "common sense’ tells me that all the babies in all the wombs are human beings that should not be killed?

That’s easy. If your “common sense” tells you that all the babies in all the wombs are human beings that shuld not be killed, then don’t have an abortion

LOL You may not accept this “news” Rence, but the fact is that the law gives that woman the right to take an innocent life - to hire someone else to terminate that innocent life. You are championing the view that the woman has a “right” to protect herself if she is attacked, yet you don’t afford this same “right” to a defenseless baby!

The law affords a woman autonomy and gives her the right to make decisions about her own body.

You are defending a grave evil and immoral act based upon the idea that because it is the legal norm, and the medical practice, that it is ok.

It is not evil to state a fact and the fact is, it is a legal medical procedure. That’s a factual statement. It is also stating a fact that the Catholic Church forbids abortion. That’s a factual statement. Therefore a Catholic would be prudent not to have one, under any circumstances, even if their life is in danger. But we can enforce those values or laws on others who do not recognize the Church as having any authority.

So, since we cannot compulse moral behavior, why have any laws at all?

Well, I recognize the fact that just because I don’t like a particular law or another that we don’t have to do away with any laws at all…

I would love to see some support for this assertion.
I think you will find that the framers of our country beleived the opposite.

I see no evidence to back up the assumption that the US constitution was written with the Catholic Church in mind. There were many reasons why people immigrated to the U.S. even when it was very young. And many people came to this country to avoid religious discrimination. They wanted to practice the religion of their choice without discrimination and even death.

 

[peachy10]

A pro-choice Catholic is a Catholic, but a very unfaithful one. True Catholics follow all the teachings of the Church. The thing is many pro-choicers don’t realize is how abortion works and the evil behind it. We need to step up as Catholics to reclaim the ones who have fallen away from the Church and fight for the innocent babies who are slaughtered daily! They go to Heaven, of course, but i don’t think we can say the same for the ones who aborted them. Please, pray for change and pray that the Lord can forgive their mortal sin.
go to silentscream.com

 

[guanophore]

The woman has consent by law.

Yes, just like the South had consent by law to keep slaves, and put them to death or use them for sex.

Just like the Nazi’s had consent by law to rip the Jewish children from their mothers arms and throw them into trucks for extermination.

The legality of immoral acts is not a defense for the Catholic.

Not sure how you came to that conclusion. You don’t have to pay your taxes if you don’t want to, but you’ll spend time in jail that could otherwise be used to counsel women who are pregnant and contemplating abortion. It’s your choice.

yes, it is my choice. But the baby in the womb has no “choice” as you have asserted. You keep defending the “right” of the woman to hire someone to kill her baby, because it is “legal”.

That’s easy. If your “common sense” tells you that all the babies in all the wombs are human beings that shuld not be killed, then don’t have an abortion

No, it is not easy, because I also have a God given imperative to speak for those who cannot speak for themselves. Making a good moral choice for myself is a good start, but it is not enough.

Proverbs 31:8-9
8 Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves,
for the rights of all who are destitute.
9 Speak up and judge fairly;
defend the rights of the poor and needy.

Who is more needy than the innocent babe in the womb, who cannot do anything to prodect himself? who needs someone to speak up for him more than the one who has no voice?

The law affords a woman autonomy and gives her the right to make decisions about her own body.

Yes, the law has allowed such autonomoy throughout human history in every culture. In the early centuries of the Church, the law allowed Christians to be put to death for their faith. Was it a moral law?

It is not evil to state a fact and the fact is, it is a legal medical procedure. That’s a factual statement.

I agree, it is not an intrinsic evil to state facts. But it is an intrinsic evil to support others who are committing immoral acts, whether they are “legal” or not.

That’s a factual statement. Therefore a Catholic would be prudent not to have one, under any circumstances, even if their life is in danger. But we can enforce those values or laws on others who do not recognize the Church as having any authority.

Why not? We enforce planty of other Laws that others dont’ agree with. For example, I work with gangsters. They believe they have the right to break into cars and take whatever they want. They blame the victims for leaving valuables in their cars. Why should I impose my values on them?

Well, I recognize the fact that just because I don’t like a particular law or another that we don’t have to do away with any laws at all…

Good, that is a start.

Now, if you can attain the knowledge of the Truth that not all laws are moral we will reallly get somewhere.

I see no evidence to back up the assumption that the US constitution was written with the Catholic Church in mind.

I never claimed that it was. You claimed that moral behavior was not what the original framers had in mind, and this is a false claim.

There were many reasons why people immigrated to the U.S. even when it was very young. And many people came to this country to avoid religious discrimination. They wanted to practice the religion of their choice without discrimination and even death.

Yes, and the key there is to PRACTICE RELIGION! There were no immigrants that did not have this as a foundation, and every single one of the framers expected the citizens of this country to act in accordance with religious moral values.

 

[catharina]

The woman has consent by law.

:banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead:

Not sure how you came to that conclusion. You don’t have to pay your taxes if you don’t want to, but you’ll spend time in jail that could otherwise be used to counsel women who are pregnant and contemplating abortion. It’s your choice.

That’s easy. If your “common sense” tells you that all the babies in all the wombs are human beings that shuld not be killed, then don’t have an abortion

The law affords a woman autonomy and gives her the right to make decisions about her own body.

It is not evil to state a fact and the fact is, it is a legal medical procedure. That’s a factual statement. It is also stating a fact that the Catholic Church forbids abortion. That’s a factual statement. Therefore a Catholic would be prudent not to have one, under any circumstances, even if their life is in danger. But we can enforce those values or laws on others who do not recognize the Church as having any authority.

Well, I recognize the fact that just because I don’t like a particular law or another that we don’t have to do away with any laws at all…

I see no evidence to back up the assumption that the US constitution was written with the Catholic Church in mind. There were many reasons why people immigrated to the U.S. even when it was very young. And many people came to this country to avoid religious discrimination. They wanted to practice the religion of their choice without discrimination and even death.

**Rence - I see you’ve ignored my Post 530.
Do you not grasp the fact that there are some VERY bad,
destructive, inhumane, diabolical laws on the books?
Can you really sit back and say: “Well, that’s the law.”

Where is your own sense of moral outrage in regard to such a law?**

 

[estesbob]

The woman has consent by law.

Not sure how you came to that conclusion. You don’t have to pay your taxes if you don’t want to, but you’ll spend time in jail that could otherwise be used to counsel women who are pregnant and contemplating abortion. It’s your choice.

That’s easy. If your “common sense” tells you that all the babies in all the wombs are human beings that shuld not be killed, then don’t have an abortion

The law affords a woman autonomy and gives her the right to make decisions about her own body.

It is not evil to state a fact and the fact is, it is a legal medical procedure. That’s a factual statement. It is also stating a fact that the Catholic Church forbids abortion. That’s a factual statement. Therefore a Catholic would be prudent not to have one, under any circumstances, even if their life is in danger. But we can enforce those values or laws on others who do not recognize the Church as having any authority.

Well, I recognize the fact that just because I don’t like a particular law or another that we don’t have to do away with any laws at all…

I see no evidence to back up the assumption that the US constitution was written with the Catholic Church in mind. There were many reasons why people immigrated to the U.S. even when it was very young. And many people came to this country to avoid religious discrimination. They wanted to practice the religion of their choice without discrimination and even death.

I see we have progressed from hiding behind euphemisms to hidingbehind the law are you suggesting Catholics should remain silent on abortion because it is legal? Are you suggesting that legal and moral are the same thing? Why do you never adressthe rights of the victim of the “choice” you hold so dear

 

[Rence]

You seem to be saying that, since the law allows this grave moral evil, we should support and affirm that.

Actually I’m not saying that at all. I am saying why I support the woman’s right to choose and make decisions that affect her body as I was asked to do in the OP.

And what about the moral ramifications? How is your theory holding up that it is her body and she should have the rights over it?

It’s not my theory, it’s the law.

How is feeding the baby alcohol through the umbilical cord different than putting it in the baby bottle?

So, should a pregnant woman’s intake be regulated on everything? or just alcohol? Do we mandate what she can eat, how much she can eat, how little she can eat? Do we allot her a specified caloric intake? do we eliminate caffeine? What about sugar? What about exercise? Why not pass a Catholic law that requires pregnant women to use the stationary bike for 30 minutes a day, five days a week. After all isn’t sloth a sin? especially when pregnant? What about fluids? do we mandate a specific amount of fluid intake per day? How do we measure it? Do we catheterize her and measure her output to make sure it matches her required (name removed by moderator)ut? What about cars…do we pass a law that requires that pregnant women must ride in the back seat with a big balloon type belly-protector? What about working? shall we lobby for a law to prevent pregnant women from working until three months after their birth?

Let’s try to remember that a woman not a living breathing incubator. Perhaps a pregnant woman who has trouble not drinking needs a little bit of intervention, and a little less condemnation.

Should a woman quiet her baby with alcohol?

I personally don’t think so, no. But then I don’t think she should be doing so with Benadryl either, but that’s not illegal.

They should be. Why does not the baby in the womb afforded basic human rights?

Because the woman is the one with consent.

I am trying to get you to understand that the life inside her is also a PERSON, and has rights.

Until born, the woman has the rights of consent.

Why should it matter which side of the vaginal canal the life lives on?

A woman has the right to her own body. She is not a slave that requires the authorization of her master to consent procedures to be done to her own body, or the authorization of her master to refuse procedures not to be done to her own body. She retains that autonomy, and has the right to consent or refuse procedures that pertain to her health and to her body, especially when her life is in danger.

Medical consent, which is based upon legal and societal practice, cannot hold a candle to God’s law. Excusing yourself from supporting grave sin because it is “legal” is very thin.

But these laws do protect women in medical crisis and it does protect rape victims from unwanted and forced pregnancies. I’m not making excuses. I don’t need excuses. I was asked for my position and I gave it. Not everyone will share the same positions and reasons for their positions. But hopefully we can try to understand each other

 

[Rence]

I see we have progressed from hiding behind euphemisms to hidingbehind the law are you suggesting Catholics should remain silent on abortion because it is legal? Are you suggesting that legal and moral are the same thing? Why do you never adressthe rights of the victim of the “choice” you hold so dear

No, I am only speaking for myself and what I do and what my views are. I am not trying to convince anyone that I am “right”. I am only communicating my views and thoughts. We all know what the teachings of the Church are. I’ve never denied the teachings of the Church. In fact, I’ve said over and over that Catholics should remain true the the Church and follow it’s directives by choosing as the Church directs. No, I am not suggesting legal and moral are the same thing. And, I am addressing the rights of the woman because she has the rights to medical consent and refusal. I hope I’ve answered your questions.

 

[catharina]

Would it be okay with you?

We are obligated to render unto caesar because Christ told us to. You can defend whomever you like, but medical consent still lies with the woman.

**Rence, re above, the bottom of the barrel and WRONG.
Please don’t quote/blame Jesus for your errors of conscience.

It happens that our version of Caesar allows us,
expects us to OPPOSE unjust laws. The Caesar of today
in this nation says we are to do that.

Yet you cling to the mode of “who cares?
cuz, ya’ know, it’s the law…” **

God have mercy on us.

 

[catharina]

I see we have progressed from hiding behind euphemisms to hidingbehind the law are you suggesting Catholics should remain silent on abortion because it is legal? Are you suggesting that legal and moral are the same thing? Why do you never adressthe rights of the victim of the “choice” you hold so dear

Indeed. Simply staggering to ignore the rights of the victims.

 

[estesbob]

No, I am only speaking for myself and what I do and what my views are. I am not trying to convince anyone that I am “right”. I am only communicating my views and thoughts. We all know what the teachings of the Church are. I’ve never denied the teachings of the Church. In fact, I’ve said over and over that Catholics should remain true the the Church and follow it’s directives by choosing as the Church directs. No, I am not suggesting legal and moral are the same thing. And, I am addressing the rights of the woman because she has the rights to medical consent and refusal. I hope I’ve answered your questions.

What about the child?

 

[Rence]

What about the child?

The woman is the one with the right to consent or refuse treatment.

 

[estesbob]

The woman is the one with the right to consent or refuse treatment.

What about the child?

 

[Rence]

What about the child?

The woman is the one with the right to consent or refuse treatment.

 

[estesbob]

The woman is the one with the right to consent or refuse treatment.

Treatment? What treatment???

 

[guanophore]

No, I am only speaking for myself and what I do and what my views are. I am not trying to convince anyone that I am “right”. I am only communicating my views and thoughts. We all know what the teachings of the Church are. I’ve never denied the teachings of the Church.

Perhaps you believe that you don’t, but by supporting an unjust law that allows the right to take innocent life, you do.

You also encourage others to sin, which is also a disobedience.

 In fact, I've said over and over that Catholics should remain true the the Church and follow it's directives by choosing as the Church directs. No, I am not suggesting legal and moral are the same thing. And, I am addressing the rights of the woman because she has the rights to medical consent and refusal.  I hope I've answered your questions.

Yes, you answered them. The answers just don’t hang together with integrity, or morality.

 

[Rence]

Perhaps you believe that you don’t, but by supporting an unjust law that allows the right to take innocent life, you do.

You also encourage others to sin, which is also a disobedience.

Yes, you answered them. The answers just don’t hang together with integrity, or morality.

Well hopefully the OP will have a better understanding of where I am coming from. I’ve done my best to relate that in this thread. The problem with asking for peoples views, thoughts, or opinions is that you will get them, whether you like them or not. Hopefully people will try and might come to understand each other along the way.