Pro-choice Catholics

[catharina]

Here Ishii is the Trinity. 2Cor 2:13 The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ and the charity of God, and the communication of the Holy Ghost be with you all. Amen.

As a Catholic, I don’t know that translation.
Communication of the Holy Spirit? Never heard that one.
The translation that I know says this:

13 The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with all of you.

 

[CMatt25]

Safe, legal but rare beats the alternative women formally found themselves in. Faced with coat hangers and back alleys if they aborted. And protecting a woman’s health and life shows society we value their lives.

 

[Raskolnikov]

I

completely understand your perspective, I do. You fight hard for what you believe in, and you should do no less. But I have a different perspective, and that is that I feel there isn’t enough compassion for women, and I feel there isn’t enough respect for women as their own entities with control over their own bodies. Thankfully though, our great nation affords women the right to practice the religion of their choosing, and doesn’t force another person’s religion on her. She has the right to treatment prescribed by her physician despite what another’s religion dictates, and it’s truly between her and her physician to determine a course of action that affects her. She’s the one with consent, the decision lies with her.

Why is it that everyone who is pro-choice has to assume that the only possible reason one would believe that a fetus has rights is because the Roman Catholic Church told them such is the case? Does the fact that “Thou Shall not Kill” is a Christian (and Jewish) commandment mean that laws outlawing murder are “forcing the Christian religion” on others? No because one need not be a Christian or a religious person to support the outlawing of murder for reasons not conditional of one’s religious persuasion. I believe there is even a website out there for pro-life atheists, but I’m too tired to look for it.

As far as what the Catholic Church proclaims, I don’t believe Jesus meant for Christianity to be a complicated faith with man made rules. Jesus said to believe in Him for eternal life and He gave us Matthew 25:31-46 to provide us with an example of a righteous way to express our belief and love. Peace.

I agree with you that Christianity should be, in some respects, simple, rather than labyrinthine. However, life is complicated, and Jesus didn’t develop much theory on the minutiae of public policy and jurisprudence, so we must use our deductive faculties. Personally, I don’t think one need look in the Bible or in Catholic or Christian tradition to come to the logical conslusion that abortion should be legal. I went to a Jesuit school, so I was taught (perhaps misled to believe) that on issues like abortion or capital punishment the conclusion is simply logical (Jesuits of course pride themselves on their intellect). They are not logical because the church supports them, the church supports them because they are logical, and even any atheist would be pro-life as well, if he listened to the arguments dispassionately and logically. That’s my opinion. I may be the only person here who believes it.

 

[Newbie2]

I

Why is it that everyone who is pro-choice has to assume that the only possible reason one would believe that a fetus has rights is because the Roman Catholic Church told them such is the case? Does the fact that “Thou Shall not Kill” is a Christian (and Jewish) commandment mean that laws outlawing murder are “forcing the Christian religion” on others? No because one need not be a Christian or a religious person to support the outlawing of murder for reasons not conditional of one’s religious persuasion. I believe there is even a website out there for pro-life atheists, but I’m too tired to look for it.

I agree with you that Christianity should be, in some respects, simple, rather than labyrinthine. However, life is complicated, and Jesus didn’t develop much theory on the minutiae of public policy and jurisprudence, so we must use our deductive faculties.** Personally, I don’t think one need look in the Bible or in Catholic or Christian tradition to come to the logical conslusion that abortion should be legal. **I went to a Jesuit school, so I was taught (perhaps misled to believe) that on issues like abortion or capital punishment the conclusion is simply logical (Jesuits of course pride themselves on their intellect). They are not logical because the church supports them, the church supports them because they are logical, and even any atheist would be pro-life as well, if he listened to the arguments dispassionately and logically. That’s my opinion. I may be the only person here who believes it.

Did you mean illegal?

 

[guanophore]

Say what…my post dealt with the complaint you registered about the use of graphic language and depictions. I encourage all to stop using pro-abortion lingo to describe abortion. Abortion is a horrible act and using clincal language just panders to pro-abortion forces who want to keep the language and images clinical in order mask the reality of what they support. My comment that it is ‘murder not choice’ is intended to shed light on obfuscating language used by pro-abortion people. Sorry you misunderstood.

God Bless,

Iowa Mike

Again you have confused me with another poster. I made no complaint about graphic language or depictions. I did misunderstand you, though, and for the record, I am in complete agreement that we need to avoid falling into the pro abortion lingo, such as calling the baby “the byproducts of conception”.

 

[guanophore]

Well, you can say ‘potahto’ and I’ll tell it like it is. It’s time to de-clinicalize the discussion by describing abortion in plain, non-PC language. Words like killing, murder, heresy, heretic need no explanation as the meaning of all are quite well documented and understood. The use of these words, graphic abortion video’s, descriptions of abortion procedures and pictures of aborted babies all have thier place and purpose in the debate. The language needs to be as ugly as the abortion procedures.

God Bless,

Iowa Mike

I think it is possible to use graphic and accurate language without the namecalling and falling into a debate about the state of a person’s soul.

As posted above, a person who embraces heresies is not necessarily a heretic.

A woman who has had an abortion is not necessarily a murderer.

Using these types of inflammatory personal accusations only raises defenses unnecessarily.

 

[guanophore]

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

You did not answer the question, CMatt. Where do you find that a woman has the right to deprive another innocent person of life and limb?

 

[CMatt25]

As a Catholic, I don’t know that translation.
Communication of the Holy Spirit? Never heard that one.
The translation that I know says this:

2 Cor 13:13 The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with all of you.

2Cor 13:13 “The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the charity of God, and the communication of the Holy Ghost be with you all. Amen.”

Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition unless my online source has it wrong.

BTW I think I may have typo’d earlier. And typed chap 2 instead of 13. I had the 2 in 2Cor on my mind when typing I suppose.

 

[CMatt25]

You did not answer the question, CMatt. Where do you find that a woman has the right to deprive another innocent person of life and limb?

I answered. You might not like how I stated my answer. But it doesn’t mean I didn’t answer. And I’m sorry but right now I don’t feel like answering the same questions again.

 

[canadianguy1143]

I think it is possible to use graphic and accurate language without the namecalling and falling into a debate about the state of a person’s soul.

As posted above, a person who embraces heresies is not necessarily a heretic.

A woman who has had an abortion is not necessarily a murderer.

Using these types of inflammatory personal accusations only raises defenses unnecessarily.

Actually we can determine that with the use of the Summa Theologica.

Objection 2. Further, vice takes its species chiefly from its end; hence the Philosopher says (Ethic. v, 2) that “he who commits adultery that he may steal, is a thief rather than an adulterer.” Now the end of heresy is temporal profit, especially lordship and glory, which belong to the vice of pride or covetousness: for Augustine says (De Util. Credendi i) that “a heretic is one who either devises or follows false and new opinions, for the sake of some temporal profit, especially that he may lord and be honored above others.” Therefore heresy is a species of pride rather than of unbelief.

newadvent.org/summa/3011.htm

So lets cut Iowa Mike some slack and use some common sense. If we as laity can say something is heresy and the person who says it, would become a heretic.

Identifying someone as a heretic isn’t condemning them.

 

[guanophore]

Hello Friends, a few comments about Women’s Reproductive Rights in light of my experience and my friends experience in the OB/Gyn office and at the hospital. We are Catholic women who don’t want to use contraception, are opposed to abortion and favor Natural Family Planning (charting our ovulation and abstaining from sex during fertile days if we have serious mental, physical or financial reasons to not get pregnant) and want a natural birth experience.

-OB/GYN professionals ridicule us when we dare to bring up the Natural Family Planning method. They are laughing at us, treating us like dummies.

-OB/GYN professionals push contraception and abortion on us. They especially push contraception on us 6 weeks after we have given birth to a baby and when we ask them why we should contracept, they are unable to give a rational or scientific reason. They push abortion on us especially when we are over 35 and at risk to have a genetically imperfect baby such as a Down Syndrome baby (by the way 90% of babies diagnosed with DS are aborted). Please note that the extermination of a genetically imperfect baby usually occurs in the second or third trimester because these disorders can’t be diagnosed for sure early in the pregnancy (this kind of abortion is very traumatic for both parents).

-We have to write a “birth plan” stating the procedures and meds that we refuse to receive during and after labor (I want a natural birth experience, no induced labor, no drugs). oh and yes if we go into labor early , we want them to resuscitate our baby if not breathing thank you (this is not to be taken for granted).

-I had to change OB/GYN doctors 3 times because they are all pro contraception/ pro aborts. The first one, 4 years ago, said he wanted to talk to me in his office without my husband. He said: “congratulations, you are 10 weeks pregnant. I want you to come back in 3 weeks to test you for such and such genetic disorder and if the tests are positive, then we will talk about an abortion”. Thanks but no thanks. (And one of his patients says that he is Catholic). Now I have to sign a waiver to refuse all prenatal screenings (let’s face it, the only goal of these tests is to give the option to terminate the pregnancy, not to cure a disease).

-The doc I have now is anti abortion but pro contraception (which I understand, it is such a lucrative business). I don’t trust him 100% because on my last pregnancy, he wanted to induce the labor before term against my will and for no medical reason. I was not sure if the vaginal exam wasn’t an inducing procedure (sweeping of the membranes as it is called). Please note that most induced labors end up in a C-section. Docs don’t cash much money with natural birth.

-In my area, there is one OB/GYN, faithful to Catholic Teachings who practices 100 miles away form my town, in a different State. Some of my friends go to her for yearly exams but she can’t follow up our pregnancies because of the distance.

A few questions:
Is there a silent population control agenda in this country? Is there an eugenic agenda? I am not the kind of “conspiracy theory” person but I have/know of so many experiences of this kind that I can’t help but wonder. Why do I feel discriminated against? Shouldn’t I be able to trust my doctor when I entrust him with my fertility, my health, the health of my babies?

I really appreciate you sharing your experience. We know these kinds of things happen, and are part of the pro-abortion agenda, but it really brings it home to hear personal testimony like yours. Keep it up!

 

[PRmerger]

Of course there is, in medical terms as I described in #699

Pulmonary disease? Asthma and COPD are not even close to the diagnosis of “death unless patient procures an abortion.” Perhaps giving the woman a nebulizer with albuterol would be more prudent than performing such an invasive procedure. At worst, intubating her would be all that’s required for a woman in respiratory distress.

Cardiogenic shock? I defy you to show me one abortion that was performed on a woman in cardiogenic shock. No abortionist, however mentally deficient, would ever insert a catheter and suck out “contents” of a woman’s uterus when she’s in cardiogenic shock.
Do you realize what that would do to a woman in shock?

To all folks here without any medical background: I assure you that an abortion performed on a woman in cardiogenic shock will not save her life. Rather, it would hasten her death. Horribly so.

I completely understand your perspective, I do.

Of course. It is the only tenable position. To proclaim otherwise is to make some very bizarre twists of logic and reason and to put blinders on.

and I feel there isn’t enough respect for women as their own entities with control over their own bodies.

Yes, but they have no right to control someone else’s body. And, it’s quite clear, especially if there’s a little **boy **baby in her womb that it’s a completely different body than hers.

Thankfully though, our great nation affords women the right to practice the religion of their choosing, and doesn’t force another person’s religion on her

True enough. Non-sequitor, but true.

She has the right to treatment prescribed by her physician despite what another’s religion dictates, and it’s truly between her and her physician to determine a course of action that affects her. She’s the one with consent, the decision lies with her.

Of course. Except when it involves aborting a child.

 

[guanophore]

If you believe He shall come again PR, then no chaos or confusion when He does.

PR is right, CMatt. Your position requires that Jesus abandoned His One Body, the Church. He did not stay with her, as He promised, but left her orphaned “until He comes again”. He failed, though weakness or lack of interest to keep His Promise to guide her into “all Truth”.

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.

Yes. If a politician cannot understand who is a person, and is willing to defend the helpless, no other social concerns will be of much value. First, stop murdering the citizens, then we will talk about how to improve their lives.

Your verses only prove one of my points. At one point in the womb? That’s why our government formed a law to govern a nation of plural beliefs. And when I read the Exodus verses in Ch 21, I see something about the fetus not being quite on par with a woman. But I understand the Magesterium does not see it that way. Peace.

I think we are in agreement that we don’t know (scientifically) when the eternal soul is joined to the new life in the womb. As a result, we err on the side of safety, and presume that life is sacred from the moment of conception.

Catholics are not at liberty to have “plurality of beliefs” when it comes to doctrines of the faith. We are required to represent the Teaching of the Apostles in our everyday lives, politics,a nd private conduct. That means that we cannot support the taking of any innocent life.

 

[PRmerger]

. Identifying someone as a heretic isn’t condemning them.

Indeed. Otherwise, the Church would never declare anyone a heretic. That would mean that the Church had condemned someone, and she knows that is not within her purview to condemn. That, of course, is reserved for God alone.

However, when the Church declares someone a heretic, we will call him/her a heretic. Until then, since we don’t know if the person has repented, we assume nothing.

 

[catharina]

Actually we can determine that with the use of the Summa Theologica.

newadvent.org/summa/3011.htm

So lets cut Iowa Mike some slack and use some common sense. If we as laity can say something is heresy and the person who says it, would become a heretic.

Identifying someone as a heretic isn’t condemning them.

It’s not within our rights to name somone as a heretic.
If the term is used as a ‘naming,’ it takes a bishop to do so
(at the very least) and more likely takes a word from Rome.

 

[Rence]

Pulmonary disease? Asthma and COPD are not even close to the diagnosis of “death unless patient procures an abortion.” Perhaps giving the woman a nebulizer with albuterol would be more prudent than performing such an invasive procedure. At worst, intubating her would be all that’s required for a woman in respiratory distress.

Cardiogenic shock? I defy you to show me one abortion that was performed on a woman in cardiogenic shock. No abortionist, however mentally deficient, would ever insert a catheter and suck out “contents” of a woman’s uterus when she’s in cardiogenic shock.
Do you realize what that would do to a woman in shock?

To all folks here without any medical background: I assure you that an abortion performed on a woman in cardiogenic shock will not save her life. Rather, it would hasten her death. Horribly so.

This woman did:

A cardiac catheterization revealed that the woman now had “very severe pulmonary arterial hypertension with profoundly reduced cardiac output”; in another part of the record, a different physician confirmed “severe, life-threatening pulmonary hypertension,” “right heart failure,” and “cardiogenic shock.” The chart noted that she had been informed that her risk of mortality “approaches 100%,” is “near 100%,” and is “close to 100%” if she were to continue the pregnancy. The chart also noted that “surgery is absolutely contraindicated.”
commonwealmagazine.org/blog/?p=11494&cpage=11

The documentation is here:
commonwealmagazine.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/St.-Josephs-Cover-Letter.pdf

and here:
commonwealmagazine.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/St.-Josephs-Hospital-Analysis.pdf

Of course. It is the only tenable position. To proclaim otherwise is to make some very bizarre twists of logic and reason and to put blinders on.

Actually it’s the position of someone who understands that you feel as strongly about your beliefs as she does about hers
PRmerger;7513630:

Yes, but they have no right to control someone else’s body. And, it’s quite clear, especially if there’s a little **boy **

baby in her womb that it’s a completely different body than hers.

Women have control over their own body…as long as the woman has the consent, she makes the decisions.

Of course. Except when it involves aborting a child.

Actually, it’s including having an abortion.

 

[guanophore]

Yes, we’re in agreement that just because something is legal doesn’t make it morally correct.

What does one do if there is a conflict?

But I’m sure you’ll disagree with me when I say that just because something is against Church teaching doesn’t always mean it’s immoral. But again, that’s how I feel about it.

That would probably depend upon what you mean by “teaching”. There are customs, practices, and disciplines the violation of which may not be immoral. For example, the Eastern and Western Churches had a big row over whether or not a priest was required to have a beard. One of the issues of the great schism was that the West used the tonsure, and the East did not.

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. She has the right to continue the pregnancy and risk her life. And she has the right to consent to any and all treatment prescribed by her doctor to live longer. A Catholic may not feel like they have a choice…and they don’t if they want to remain in communion with the Church. However, it’s still their choice as it is when the patient is not Catholic at all.

The Church recognizes and affirms that the treatment of certain conditions may result in the loss of the pregnancy. This is called “double effect”. It is distinguished morally from abortion, which is the removal of the fetus for the purpose of terminating the pregnancy. Treatment that may result in the loss of the baby is one thing, abortion another. This is what our hostile brother could not seem to grasp last night.

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

We don’t refer to it as an abortion because the purpose of the procedure is to treat a medical problem. In addition, there are some cases in which the pregnancy is terminated and the baby is able to survive (and this is the goal) rather than killing the child being the goal.

It is the same in the case of a tubal pregnancy. The goal is not to kill the baby, but to treat the problem.

 

[catharina]

Rence[/B]

;7513659]This woman did:

A cardiac catheterization revealed that the woman now had “very severe pulmonary arterial hypertension with profoundly reduced cardiac output”; in another part of the record, a different physician confirmed “severe, life-threatening pulmonary hypertension,” “right heart failure,” and “cardiogenic shock.” The chart noted that she had been informed that her risk of mortality “approaches 100%,” is “near 100%,” and is “close to 100%” if she were to continue the pregnancy. The chart also noted that “surgery is absolutely contraindicated.”
commonwealmagazine.org/blog/?p=11494&cpage=11

The documentation is here:
commonwealmagazine.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/St.-Josephs-Cover-Letter.pdf

and here:
commonwealmagazine.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/St.-Josephs-Hospital-Analysis.pdf

Actually it’s the position of someone who understands that you feel as strongly about your beliefs as she does about hers

Women have control over their own body…as long as the woman has the consent, she makes the decisions.

Actually, it’s including having an abortion.

rence, again …
you are speaking of current law in the USA.
Others are speaking of God’s Law.
God’s Law is the more relevant law for all Catholics
in the matter of "abortion rights."

 

[guanophore]

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

Yes, all of us who have known CMatt know and accept this. We begged him not to affiliate publicly as Catholic because his positions are non-Catholic, and sometimes anti-Catholic. It causes a grievious public scandal when people come here looking for Catholic answers, and get the opposite under a 'Catholic" label.

He is our brother, and many of us pray for him daily.

 

[Rence]

What does one do if there is a conflict?

The best they can along their journey of understanding and trying to figure it all out.

The Church recognizes and affirms that the treatment of certain conditions may result in the loss of the pregnancy. This is called “double effect”. It is distinguished morally from abortion, which is the removal of the fetus for the purpose of terminating the pregnancy. Treatment that may result in the loss of the baby is one thing, abortion another. This is what our hostile brother could not seem to grasp last night.

We don’t refer to it as an abortion because the purpose of the procedure is to treat a medical problem. In addition, there are some cases in which the pregnancy is terminated and the baby is able to survive (and this is the goal) rather than killing the child being the goal.

It is the same in the case of a tubal pregnancy. The goal is not to kill the baby, but to treat the problem.

Yes, I understand all that, thank you Guanophore