Pro-choice Catholics

  • Thread starter Thread starter century153
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Rence said:
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.
Click to expand...
This is interesting, in that you have repeatedly stated that it is the woman who has the right of consent.

With abortion, of course, consent means permission for the destruction of the child in utero.

But I’m just wondering at what point this ‘right of consent’ ends, or should end. Can it validly be given when the child is about to be, but is not yet, born? Can the child be held from exiting the womb in order to be killed first? It is after all, still in the womb. Even after birth, the child is still temporarily attached to the woman by the umbilical cord. Does she still have a right to consent to its destruction at that point? Or, since the child will be no less dependent in the first few months after birth, should her ability to consent to its termination not be extended to cover those first months ex-utero, as Professor Peter Singer suggests?

At what point, in order words, is the child safe from another’s legal ability to consent to its destruction?
 
catharina said:
**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.
Click to expand...
Rence is referring specifically there to paying taxes. I was bringing up the point that there are laws we must comply with whether we agree with them, or not. Paying taxes might be one (especially when those taxes are being used to fund the elimination of babies int the womb.

I think Rence does note feel bound by the Church’s instruction that we should not encourage others to sin. I was encouraged on this thread to lobby for euthanasia of the sick and elderly, which would be a grave sin.
 
JimG said:
This is interesting, in that you have repeatedly stated that it is the woman who has the right of consent.

With abortion, of course, consent means permission for the destruction of the child in utero.

But I’m just wondering at what point this ‘right of consent’ ends, or should end. Can it validly be given when the child is about to be, but is not yet, born? Can the child be held from exiting the womb in order to be killed first? It is after all, still in the womb. Even after birth, the child is still temporarily attached to the woman by the umbilical cord. Does she still have a right to consent to its destruction at that point? Or, since the child will be no less dependent in the first few months after birth, should her ability to consent to its termination not be extended to cover those first months ex-utero, as Professor Peter Singer suggests?

At what point, in order words, is the child safe from another’s legal ability to consent to its destruction?
Click to expand...
While in utero, in this nation today, the child is NEVER safe from intentional destruction.
 
Rence said:
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. 🙂
Click to expand...
I think you have provided some excellent grist for the discussion mill. I also am sure you are representing the views of the majority of American Catholics, who share your perspective on these mattters.
 
catharina said:
While in utero, in this nation today, the child is NEVER safe from intentional destruction.
Click to expand...
Yes, that’s been true since 1973. The argument today is about whether the child ought to be given some protection, as it had before 1973. And pro-choicers like Professor Singer can–and do–argue that the legal ability to destroy the child ought to extended even further–i.e. post-birth. Rence was simply repeating the abhorrent legal status quo as a mantra as though it ended any argument. But it doesn’t.
 
JimG said:
Yes, that’s been true since 1973. The argument today is about whether the child ought to be given some protection, as it had before 1973. And pro-choicers like Professor Singer can–and do–argue that the legal ability to destroy the child ought to extended even further–i.e. post-birth. Rence was simply repeating the abhorrent legal status quo as a mantra as though it ended any argument. But it doesn’t.
Click to expand...
Not only does it provide no end to the argument,
it ignores the long history of laws against abortion.

As if “law” reflects morality in this case -
and to quote Jesus in “rendering to Caesar.”

Completely off the wall - an abomination, IMO.

I’m quite familiar with Rence’s mindset
from encounters with her in numerous other threads.
 
guanophore said:
I think you have provided some excellent grist for the discussion mill. I also am sure you are representing the views of the majority of American Catholics, who share your perspective on these mattters.
Click to expand...
Or … representing (at least) a majority of Americans,
to date - and of so-called “American Catholic” politicians.
 
JimG said:
This is interesting, in that you have repeatedly stated that it is the woman who has the right of consent.

With abortion, of course, consent means permission for the destruction of the child in utero.

But I’m just wondering at what point this ‘right of consent’ ends, or should end. Can it validly be given when the child is about to be, but is not yet, born? Can the child be held from exiting the womb in order to be killed first? It is after all, still in the womb.
Click to expand...
I always thought what you are describing above is illegal. I’ve never heard of people actually doing what you are describing above. I wouldn’t be supportive of it if it were legal.
JimG said:
Even after birth, the child is still temporarily attached to the woman by the umbilical cord. Does she still have a right to consent to its destruction at that point?
Click to expand...
I’m pretty sure that’s not legal either … and I wouldn’t be supportive of it even if it was.
JimG said:
Or, since the child will be no less dependent in the first few months after birth, should her ability to consent to its termination not be extended to cover those first months ex-utero, as Professor Peter Singer suggests?
Click to expand...
Well, I don’t think so, and I know it’s not supported by any laws.
 
guanophore said:
Rence is referring specifically there to paying taxes. I was bringing up the point that there are laws we must comply with whether we agree with them, or not. Paying taxes might be one (especially when those taxes are being used to fund the elimination of babies int the womb.

I think Rence does note feel bound by the Church’s instruction that we should not encourage others to sin. I was encouraged on this thread to lobby for euthanasia of the sick and elderly, which would be a grave sin.
Click to expand...
Rence was being sarcastic when she told you to lobby for euthanasia of the sick and elderly because you kept comparing pro-choice to being pro-euthanasia. 😃

And yes, I was referring specifically there to paying taxes. And I do not encourage others to sin and I was specific about that in very two first posts on this thread. The reason why I do not work in OB-GYN is to remove myself from having to work in that situation, so I don’t have to worry about working with high-risk pregnancies.
 
Thank you so much Rence for taking the time to answer the questions that i asked, I appreciate it. I would like to comment/respond but don’t have much time right now. Since some people have talked about Reproductive Rights, I have researched what it means. I went on the Center for Reproductive Rights website and found these key points:

Twelve Human Rights Key to Reproductive Rights
  1. The Right to Life
  2. The Right to Liberty and Security of Person
  3. The Right to Health, including Sexual and Reproductive Health
  4. The Right to Decide the Number and Spacing of Children
  5. The Right to Consent to Marriage and to Equality in Marriage
  6. The Right to Privacy
  7. The Right to Equality and Non-Discrimination
  8. The Right to be Free from Practices that Harm Women and Girls
  9. The Right to Not be Subjected to Torture or Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment
  10. The Right to be Free from Sexual and Gender-Based Violence
  11. The Right to Access Sexual and Reproductive Health Education and Family Planning Information
  12. The Right to Enjoy Scientific Progress
reproductiverights.org/sites/crr.civicactions.net/files/documents/V4Repro%20Rights%20Are%20Human%20Rights%20-%20FINAL.pdf
 
guanophore said:
I think you have provided some excellent grist for the discussion mill. I also am sure you are representing the views of the majority of American Catholics, who share your perspective on these mattters.
Click to expand...
Most people I know, Catholic or not, are opposed to abortion except for the cases of rape, and when the woman’s life is in danger. I’ve never encountered people IRL, like I’ve met on online forums, who would be in favor of ignoring a woman’s right to consent to treatment if her life is in danger.
 
Rence said:
I always thought what you are describing above is illegal. I’ve never heard of people actually doing what you are describing above. I wouldn’t be supportive of it if it were legal.

I’m pretty sure that’s not legal either … and I wouldn’t be supportive of it even if it was.

Well, I don’t think so, and I know it’s not supported by any laws.
Click to expand...
Get educated, rence. It’s legal.

from priests for life:

The partial birth abortion has been performed legally in the United States for years. It is neither a “rare” procedure, nor is it done only for babies who are severely deformed or dying. It is, essentially, a variant of the even more common and equally gruesome Dilation and Evacuation (D&E) procedure.

The Partial Birth Abortion Procedure

Guided by ultrasound, the abortionist grabs the baby’s leg with forceps.

The baby’s leg is pulled out into the birth canal.

The abortionist delivers the baby’s entire body, except for the head.

The abortionist jams scissors into the baby’s skull.
The scissors are then opened to enlarge the hole…

The scissors are removed and a suction catheter is inserted.
The child’s brains are sucked out, causing the skull to collapse.
The dead baby is then removed.
Code: 
Before going to the White House, obama opposed 
a ban on this (while in Illinois).  He is infamous for that vote.
It’s hard to imagine that a Catholic nurse could not know this!
 
ishii said:
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
Click to expand...
If you are missing something it’s that I would support a very active govt social justice role even if I did not find Christ’s words about social justice in the Bible. And He did not say He would refuse a govt role if govt offered to help. I believe Christ would welcome any help for the poor and the sick He could get. I also don’t find the word abortion among the words of Jesus or anywhere in Scripture so unlike you I couldn’t tie it to theocratic reasoning even if I wanted to. What I do find in Scripture related to the fetus compared to a human born person I find in Ex 21:22, 23 which tells they are not on equal footing. But those are my beliefs and I don’t think I am alone in these beliefs among more liberal Christians. You are welcome to have yours too. Peace.
 
When African American leaders, many Christians among them,
claimed that abortion is planned genocide on their population,
I agreed with them at once. (First claim was about 30 yrs ago.)
Figures on abortion today: 40%+ in AfAm community,
although Af-Am population in USA is only 14%.
The claim makes perfect sense to me.

Go to poor neighborhoods and kill the children …
sure, why not. As rence says, it’s perfectly legal, right?
 
CMatt25 said:
If you are missing something it’s that I would support a very active govt social justice role even if I did not find Christ’s words about social justice in the Bible. And He did not say He would refuse a govt role if govt offered to help. I believe Christ would welcome any help for the poor and the sick He could get. I also don’t find the word abortion among the words of Jesus or anywhere in Scripture so unlike you I couldn’t tie it to theocratic reasoning even if I wanted to. What I do find in Scripture related to the fetus compared to a human born person I find in Ex 21:22, 23 which tells they are not on equal footing. But those are my beliefs and I don’t think I am alone in these beliefs among more liberal Christians. You are welcome to have yours too. Peace.
Click to expand...
Didn’t realize you are now calling yourself Christian.
It’s news to me. Thanks for the update - I guess.
 
ishii said:
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
Click to expand...
Ishii, I support what I consider settled law of the land after nearly 40 yrs. We have conversed. I understood your beliefs long before either of us appeared on CAF. I’m not sure I can converse much more about this if you haven’t understood mine up until this point. I’m sorry if you have been unable to do so. But I’ve conversed about my beliefs on abortion law about as well I as can. It seems to me you might not understand no matter how much longer we conversed.
 
Rence said:
Rence was being sarcastic when she told you to lobby for euthanasia of the sick and elderly because you kept comparing pro-choice to being pro-euthanasia. 😃
Click to expand...
The concept of respect for life is a seamless garment, that runs from the moment of conception to the time of natural death. The immoral justification of setting aside the right to life at any given point can be revealed by applying the principles of doing so to the other stages of life.
Rence said:
Code: 
 And I do not encourage others to sin and I was specific about that in very two first posts on this thread. The reason why I do not work in OB-GYN is to remove myself from having to work in that situation, so I don't have to worry about working with high-risk pregnancies.
Click to expand...
I am glad that you are trying to avoid contributing to other’s sins when you are at work. If you can get this principle into your politics you will really be a shining lamp in a dark place.
Rence said:
I always thought what you are describing above is illegal. I’ve never heard of people actually doing what you are describing above. I wouldn’t be supportive of it if it were legal.

I’m pretty sure that’s not legal either … and I wouldn’t be supportive of it even if it was.

Well, I don’t think so, and I know it’s not supported by any laws.
Click to expand...
This is very important to pay attention to, Rence. If there is something legal that you know is immoral, you have a duty not to support it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top