Pro-choice Catholics

[CMatt25]

Baptism, CMatt, is being incorporated into Him, and His One Body, the Church. Now you may have been young and uncatechized since you were confirmed, and agreed to take the fulfillment of your baptism on yourself, but since you have been at CAF, it has become clear to you that what the writer of this passage meant by baptism is not what you understand it to mean. For the Apostles, baptism means to follow all of His commandments, and to be in unity with the Apostolic authority.

I am not sure what you are trying to say here, but it sounds like you are claiming that the denial that there is One Truth does not equate to moral relativism. I agree. There might be many reasons to deny the One Truth, such as heresy, apostasy, impenitence, and more.

It would be more properly said that we walk by grace, through faith. What makes you a relativist are two things that a faithful Catholic does not claim. You claim that Truth has not been revealed to us, and that we have not been provided with everything we need in this life to gain heaven by His revelation. This is an anti-Catholic position. The other is that you decide for yourself what you think is moral apart from the authority appointed by Christ in the Church. This position is also anti-Catholic.

I continuously address this point for the lurkers, not because I think my feedback will have any appreciable difference upon you. There may be some out there reading, though, who are open to understanding that moral relativism is anti-Catholic.

Guan, you applaud I do not identify as a Catholic. You don’t want confusion. I don’t identify as a Catholic here any longer. Yet here you are talking again about my past baptism and confirmation as if it is relevant to the present. It would seem to me you could now be the one confusing people.

And I don’t know how it sounds to you but that is not what I have said. What I have said is a true relativist would say there will not be one truth in the end. I have not denied there is truth. This is why I am not a relativist. What I have said is we only have faith in what we believe is truth. In other words faith does not equal proof. That’s why it is called faith. But I can appreciate if a faithful Catholic admits that, their whole premise of knowing the truth with complete certainty can begin to falter.

Finally Guan while I was rather astonished another poster when I previously quoted 2Corinthians from the Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition, voiced as a Catholic unfamiliarity with the translation, I’m going to assume you are familiar Guan. Because prior to that point I had never heard of a Catholic unfamiliar with Douay-Rheims. So when you say it is more proper to say we walk by grace, are you saying St Paul got this wrong? 2Cor 5:7 For we walk by faith, and not by sight.

I see you have expressed other thoughts to me. I don’t have time right now to respond to all of your posts directed towards me. But perhaps later

 

[canadianguy1143]

Not canadianguy. We cannot determine the state of another’s heart and mind by using any writing whatsoever, including Holy Scripture.

There is no way that we can know the inner motives of another person. We can’t even know if the individual in question on this thread was even motivated by temporal profit or pride.

Yes, canadian, it is condemning them. It is accusing them of a mortal sin, which leads to death. Besides, the fact that we can see someone has embraced a heresy does NOT necessarily make that hapless person a heretic. The Catechism specifically states this.

You seem to be an expert on this matter. I want to know the following:

1. Where does it say that the Church Hierarchy (Bishop, Cardinal or Pope) have sole and exclusive authority to declare a person a heretic?
2. Where does it say that calling someone a heretic is accusing them of a mortal sin?

Please provide authentic Catholic teachings that substantiate your beliefs in the above questions.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

One has to wonder whether those who are abortion-minded create imaginary scenarios in which an abortion is performed when someone is in cardiogenic shock?Also, from the article you cited in Commonweal:

The chart also noted that “surgery is absolutely contraindicated.”

Isn’t abortion a, as you put it, medical-surgical procedure?

Of course they do.

When a doctor has it in his mind that abortion is in some way a necessary treatment, why go the extra mile to find another treatment?

It happened to me. I had been diagnosed with a rare inoperable ectopic. The doctor told me that the only thing to do was take methorexate. I was told if not, I could either die or lose my entire reproductive organs. My then 6 year old and 3 year old were in the room.

She did nothing to try to find an alternitive morally ethical procedure to help me, instead I was sent home trying to find out on my own what to do.

It turns out the diagnosis was incorrect!!! I was having a miscarriage, and what was thought to be an ectopic was an ovarian cyst.

Why not go the extra mile (or in my case maybe call for another sonogram)? Because the culture of death, the abortion mentality are too common.

How often does that happen…I bet often enough.

 

[century153]

Dear Subscribers – just checkin in – it seems that this thread has totally runaway from me. I apologize that I have not been more participatory in it. I’ve had too much on my plate these past few days. I’m happy that the discussion is going so well as far as interest in the subject, however, I see now that or rather I believe that it is impossible or near impossible to come to some agreement on the subject of pro-choice vs pro-life. This is why in a secular country we have elected officials who write the laws for us – for ALL the people. Unfortunately, all the people do not share in our belief system – meaning the RC Church. But, I have to say that the fact that there is a law called “pro-choice” and not “pro-abortion” tells me that its about “choice” basically. The choice can go either way – no one can force anyone to have an abortion. Now, that doesn’t mean someone cannot be coerced into it-- that’s another moral issue altogether. The bottom line is that in America today not everyone has the same moral ideas as everyone else. There has to be a guideline. We, as Catholics who are pro-life have the moral duty to lobby for change in the law and to do whatever we can to prevent abortion under the law. As Catholics with a different view towards the law we need to respect each other because no one can get into anyone’s head to absolutely know for sure why he or she would choose to support the pro-choice law. And, BTW, as I said before, most of us we have not read and studied the law called “pro-choice” based on Roe vs Wade. We have elected officials who have sworn to do so according to the people of the US and to stand for ALL the people. Therefore, for now, I repeat what I said before: we need to do what we can under the law to fight for what we believe in. That is all we can do. And have respect for other human beings who believe differently and not put them down and curse them by calling them heretics. We are all here seeking the Truth, whether you believe that or not. :twocents:

 

[RWMorris]

… This is why in a secular country we have elected officials who write the laws for us – for ALL the people. …

In my opinion, you’ve highlighted the problem with this statement. We live in a country whose Constitution is built around inalienable rights - rights that are based on natural law, i.e., laws that are derived from God. One of those laws outlaws murder, and our right to life is derived from that law. When men write laws that contradict the natural law that our Constitution is based on we create a law that is not “for ALL the people.”

 

[Iowa_Mike]

Indeed, PR does express herself quite well, which is exactly why it is so clear that you are either not reading, or not understanding the posts.

Perhaps you might leave that between PR and I as I think it is you that does understand.

No, Mike. There is a world of difference between making discriminations about behavior, and making assumptions about the state of a person’s heart.

I find it more than a little odd that you cannot read and accept the words I wrote that accepting that there is a difference between judging actions/behaviors and judging souls. Perhaps you should go back and actually read what I wrote.

Yes, but we are not to be conformed to the world, but to Christ.

Here we agree and I am.

Yes, there is, MIke. It is wrong for you to judge the hearts of others, and condemn them because of what they have done.

No guan you are mischaractarizing me again. I can only conclude you are being deliberately obtuse. Yes, I condemn people for what they have done and so does Christ if they appear in front of him at the particular judgment without repenting. Now if you can’t bring more to the argument then empty repetition I think we must agree to disagree.

I am observing that your actions are problematic. I cannot make an assessment about the condition of your heart. I can speculate, since I know that the mouth speaks that which fills the heart. I can speculate that, since I know who the “accuser of the brethren” is, that your heart is contaminated with the fruit of the bad tree, so you engage in this fruitless behavior. But I can’t know for sure. And it does not help any for me to call you names.

O my goodness, you are judging my actions and speculating on the state of my soul…That is pretting interesting as you continue to condemn me for doing precisely the same thing.

Uncharitably attacking others does not accomplish the will of God.

You say potahto and I speak directly.

All we can do is go by your posts, which are lacking in sensitivity, and large on judgements toward others.

And what are your posts full of?

Well, Mike, it appears you have a lot to learn about evangelism. In fact, these are the people that I hang withm all day, every day. The fact that they have done many evil things does not mean God does not love them.

Never said he doesn’t, God is love. I think you could become a bit more effective yourself if you practiced a little humility.

When you affix labels to people, it comes across as judging souls.

It certainly isn’t and you’re being repetative…again.

I am giving you some feedback, Mike. You will become a much more effective apologist if you can listen, and sometimes use some feedback. I am making tthe observation that you have improperly labelled people on this thread. Your motives, or the state of your soul when you did this I cannot know.

Thanks for your opinions but I’ll continue to call a spade a spade and you can continue to judge and criticize.

I agree. Your application of them to certain people is improper.

Opinion!

It would not matter which word it was, namecalling is unproductive.

Opinion!

Descriptions of such kind can easily lapse over into an act of condemnation. It is critical in these cases to separate the sin from the sinner. “Scoundrel” does not describe a behavior, but an attribute of character - one that seems disparaging.

An abortionist is a scoundrel and I roundly condemn them.

That is just my point. You are drawing conclusions about the state of his heart (or lack of heart). 'This is a step too far.

Repetative…you are not reading what I wrote.

You asked what I would “call them” (the people you believe are despicable) and I replied that it is best not to call them names at all.

Well then, how do you describe them?

It is unnecessary and unproductive to make pejorative and disparaging remarks about others.

Not if they are accruate and true.

It is a little beyond my likes or dislikes. It is forbidden by the Church, and by the forum rules.

No it is not forbidden by the Church.

Let’s talk about forum rules. One of the rules is to stay on topic which you seem unable to do. I believe you have threatened to report two of us to the moderators. If your so offended all you need do is hit your ignore button. I suggest you do so rather that restating your objections over and over and over again.

The subject of this thread is pro-choice Catholics. If you want to talk about anything else contact me by PM.

At least three people on this thread have tried to reach you on this point, apparently you are not reading the posts, or don’t care?

No I don’t care, they are entitled to their opinions as I am entitled to mine.

Judging actions is necessary. We need to be able to identify and avoid evil. Judgning the inner state of the person acting badly is not appropriate. We recognize that a person has embraced a heresy, we can make sure we avoid doing the same thing, we can pray for them, but we cannot label them a heretic.

This is another repetition of the same theme, unless you have some new information why don’t you let it go because we won’t agree.

I am asking you to confine your remarks to the thread topic. Contact me by PM if you want to discuss these other things as I will not respond on the thread.

God Bless,

Iowa Mike

 

[estesbob]

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.

This argument is bogus on many levels. In the first place is quite strange to contend that we should not have laws against something that people are going to do in spite of the law. The exact opposite is true-we don’t need to have laws against something that people are not going to do anyway. All laws are broken and it wasn’t for the fact that people want to break them there would not be would be a need for a law in the first place.

The second problem with this argument is the idea that allowing a woman to kill her child shows society that we value their lives. How killing somebody engenders respect for life is beyond me.

And finally we are faced with the usual pro-abortion myth of the back alley, coathanger abortion. The truth is that with the advent of the antibiotics death from abortions and for that matter childbirth became rare. In the years prior to Roe V Wade 93% of all abortions were performed by a licensed physician in a sterile environment The CDC reports that in the years prior to Roe V Wade there were under 400 maternal deaths a year from the 400,000 abortions performed in this country.(“Abortion then and now”, Germaine Grisez , copyright 1971) After the imposition of Roe V Wade we still have small number of maternal deaths from abortion but now at the price of 1.2 to 1.5 million dead children a year.

 

[guanophore]

Guan, you applaud I do not identify as a Catholic. You don't want confusion.  I don't identify as a Catholic here any longer.  Yet here you are talking again about my past baptism and confirmation as if it is relevant to the present.  It would seem to me you could now be the one confusing people.

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.

And I don’t know how it sounds to you but that is not what I have said. What I have said is a true relativist would say there will not be one truth in the end. I have not denied there is truth. This is why I am not a relativist.

I agree, a true relativist would say there is no truth in the end. However, what I said is that you are practicing moral relativism presently. Your belief that all will be cleared up “when He comes again” does not excuse your present practice of denying that Truth has been revealed to man by God, and that we are obligated to act within the boundaries of what He has revealed. We can no longer claim that we cannot know, or that it can’t be known. Jesus brought us Truth. And this applies to all of humanity, whether they claim to be Christian, or not.

What I have said is we only have faith in what we believe is truth. In other words faith does not equal proof.

Yes, I agree. However, you claim that there is no objective Truth, and that is not correct. Objective Truth exists, and we are responsibile to obey what God has revealed to man.

That’s why it is called faith. But I can appreciate if a faithful Catholic admits that, their whole premise of knowing the truth with complete certainty can begin to falter.

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.

Finally Guan while I was rather astonished another poster when I previously quoted 2Corinthians from the Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition, voiced as a Catholic unfamiliarity with the translation, I’m going to assume you are familiar Guan. Because prior to that point I had never heard of a Catholic unfamiliar with Douay-Rheims. So when you say it is more proper to say we walk by grace, are you saying St Paul got this wrong? 2Cor 5:7 For we walk by faith, and not by sight.

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.

I see you have expressed other thoughts to me.  I don't have time right now to respond to all of your posts directed towards me.  But perhaps later

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.

 

[guanophore]

You seem to be an expert on this matter. I want to know the following:

1. Where does it say that the Church Hierarchy (Bishop, Cardinal or Pope) have sole and exclusive authority to declare a person a heretic?
2. Where does it say that calling someone a heretic is accusing them of a mortal sin?

Please provide authentic Catholic teachings that substantiate your beliefs in the above questions.

These are good questions, canadianguy, but beyond the scope of this thread. Would you like to open a new one, or shall I do it? The point has already been appropriately made that this subject will draw us apart from the topic.

For the purpose of this thread, a person who commits or supports abortion cannot be labelled a heretic just because they do so. A person who has embraced a heresy is not necessarily a heretic. However, one who has (knowingly and willfully) embraced a heresy has committed a mortal sin.

A person who has had an abortion, or supported abortion may not have committed a mortal sin, either. It depends upon the circumstances of their participation in this great evil. The main point is that we are not in a position to judge the hearts of others on this matter.

 

[canadianguy1143]

These are good questions, canadianguy, but beyond the scope of this thread. Would you like to open a new one, or shall I do it? The point has already been appropriately made that this subject will draw us apart from the topic.

For the purpose of this thread, a person who commits or supports abortion cannot be labelled a heretic just because they do so. A person who has embraced a heresy is not necessarily a heretic. However, one who has (knowingly and willfully) embraced a heresy has committed a mortal sin.

A person who has had an abortion, or supported abortion may not have committed a mortal sin, either. It depends upon the circumstances of their participation in this great evil. The main point is that we are not in a position to judge the hearts of others on this matter.

I’ll do it. This needs to be resolved. Here is the thread link:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=7515123#post7515123

 

[guanophore]

 Dear Subscribers -- just checkin in -- it seems that this thread has totally runaway from me.  I apologize that I have not been more participatory in it.  I've had too much on my plate these past few days.

I noticed that.

    Unfortunately, all the people do not share in our belief system -- meaning the RC Church.

Yes, but we have an obligation to influence them toward life, and to be light and salt for the society.

   The choice can go either way -- no one can force anyone to have an abortion. Now, that doesn't mean someone cannot be coerced into it-- that's another moral issue altogether.

Yet.

In other countries they already are. It may come to that.

   We, as Catholics who are pro-life have the moral duty to lobby for change in the law and to do whatever we can to prevent abortion under the law.

This is well said, and the main area where our “Catholic” politicians have failed us.

That is all we can do.  And have respect for other human beings who believe differently and not put them down and curse them by calling them heretics.  We are all here seeking the Truth, whether you believe that or not.  :twocents:

While I don’t agree with you that everyone is seeking the Truth, you are right that we cannot assess the state of their soul, or affix such lables to them, because we cannot read their hearts.

 

[guanophore]

Perhaps you might leave that between PR and I as I think it is you that does understand.

You are on a public forum, Mike. Anyone is allowed to respond to the posts. Your assertion about what PR wrote misrepresented the facts. I am just observing that to be the case.

I find it more than a little odd that you cannot read and accept the words I wrote that accepting that there is a difference between judging actions/behaviors and judging souls. Perhaps you should go back and actually read what I wrote.

I have no problem accepting your words. I am observing that your behavior is inconsistent with them.

Here we agree and I am.

Jesus does not give us leave to judge the souls of others.

No guan you are mischaractarizing me again. I can only conclude you are being deliberately obtuse. Yes, I condemn people for what they have done

This is wrong of us to do, Mike. I am not being obtuse. Condemning a behavior, and condemning a person are two different things. We are called to condemn objectively evil actions. We are NOT called to condemn those who engage in them.

and so does Christ if they appear in front of him at the particular judgment without repenting. Now if you can’t bring more to the argument then empty repetition I think we must agree to disagree.

I guess, if He chooses to seat you next to Him at His right hand at the last judgement, and wants your opinon in His ruling, then I will have to concede that you have the right.
In the meantime, it is out of order.

O my goodness, you are judging my actions and speculating on the state of my soul…That is pretting interesting as you continue to condemn me for doing precisely the same thing.

Exactly. The best we can do is “speculate”, and classifying persons as condemned based upon our specualation is is inappropriate. I cannot condemn you, because I cannot read into your heart. Your actions may be the result of poor spiritual direction, lack of catechesis, mental illness, or a number of other factors about which I cannot have knowledge.

I say potahto and I speak directly.

It is possible to be direct without name calling.

And what are your posts full of?

Anti abortion polemics, I hope.

Criticism of moral relativism.

Criticism of the failure to follow the Teachings of the Church (and the forum rules).

Never said he doesn’t, God is love. I think you could become a bit more effective yourself if you practiced a little humility.

Indeed yes. May God bring me to the knowledge of myself as He sees me. Frightening though it may be, I would rather have it now than later, as it will surely come.

It certainly isn’t and you’re being repetative…again.

Yes. It appears that you have not read or incorporated some of the posts, so I want to make sure I get that point across.

An abortionist is a scoundrel and I roundly condemn them.

So be it.

Repetative…you are not reading what I wrote.

I think you wrote that you believe it is appropriate for you to condemn others.(roundly)

Well then, how do you describe them?

It is unnecessary and unproductive to describe them at all. It is sufficient to describe their actions.

Not if they are accruate and true.

That is my point, Mike. You can’t know another person’s heart. We are not qualified to judge, even ourselves. This is the teaching of the Apostles.

The subject of this thread is pro-choice Catholics.

It is inappropriate for us to condemn persons who are pro choice who call themselves Catholic.

No I don’t care, they are entitled to their opinions as I am entitled to mine.

Ok. I hope you can understand why you come across as uncharitable.

 

[PRmerger]

You appear to be evading the question a number of us were trying to ask you so I will re-word it so there can be no confusion: are there not unjust laws that we should work to reform if we are going to help our society better reflect right reason and justice? Given that our abortion laws are a great injustice in that they don’t recognize the sanctity of the unborn human life inside the womb, isn’t it good to work to change those laws? What about the unborn human being inside the mother’s womb? You’re right, they currently don’t have any rights - the mother can choose to kill them. Do you agree that we should reform our laws to give rights to those unborn babies?

Ishii

Great questions, ishii. Quite apropos.

Can’t wait for the answers from Rence!

 

[PRmerger]

What do you mean by calling ‘them’ anything. Isn’t ‘them’ a plural pronoun??? The only prejorative I used was to describe Fr. Drinan as a heretic…which he is by the CCC and classical definition. Sorry you don’t like it. Secondly is that the royal ‘we’ you are using?

In your vernacular please describe a suction curettage abortion?

To save timke let me help you:

1. A speculum is place in the vagina…a tenaculum is clamped to the lip of the cervix and a cannula is insertied into the uterus.
2. The amniotic flud, placenta and baby (fetus) are suctined throught he cannula into a collection jar. The baby (fetus) and placental are torn apart in the process.

Does this description offend you? This vile procedure cannot be sanitized through politically correct language. Would you like to see the aftermath…click on the link below and take a look at the procedure.

priestsforlife.org/resources/medical/suctionweb.jpg

If women could see vile abortion procedure they were signing up for how many would change their minds? If they could see an ultra-sound of a living, moving baby…how many would change their minds? If they could see pictures of aborted babies how would that affect their decisions? Why do you thing that pro-abortion organizations like Planned Parenthood do their level best to stop women from seeing and understanding these things?

Think about it and practice what you preach…stop judging my actions or … are you judging my soul???.

God Bless and Keep You,

Iowa Mike

Mike, could you please not nest your responses? Please see this thread in order to learn how to post so that others can respond to your comments conveniently.

So you see in the above your comments about me are not included because they were nested.

It is to that whichI am responding (although, sadly, it does not appear when I hit "quote): it is the culture in the CAFs that all members are invited to dialogue. They can interject even in an apparent 2-poster discussion. It’s just the way it works here.

 

[PRmerger]

Of course they do.

When a doctor has it in his mind that abortion is in some way a necessary treatment, why go the extra mile to find another treatment?

It happened to me. I had been diagnosed with a rare inoperable ectopic. The doctor told me that the only thing to do was take methorexate. I was told if not, I could either die or lose my entire reproductive organs. My then 6 year old and 3 year old were in the room.

She did nothing to try to find an alternitive morally ethical procedure to help me, instead I was sent home trying to find out on my own what to do.

It turns out the diagnosis was incorrect!!! I was having a miscarriage, and what was thought to be an ectopic was an ovarian cyst.

Why not go the extra mile (or in my case maybe call for another sonogram)? Because the culture of death, the abortion mentality are too common.

How often does that happen…I bet often enough.

Thanks for sharing your story, MaryGail. Sadly, this happens not in isolation, but in droves it seems.

 

[Rence]

To be sure no one is disagreeing about the degree of passion of either side.

Yes. She makes the decisions. Just not about anyone else’s body.

And, can anyone doubt that a little baby boy in her womb is a different corpus altogether than hers?

Really, to deny that there’s a totally separate body inside a pregnant woman requires a logic and reasoning that’s quite distorted.

No, she does not have that right.

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

 

[Rence]

Rence;7513659:

This woman did:

The article in Commonweal seems to have some very different facts

than that which I read here.

Quite different indeed!

One has to wonder whether those who are abortion-minded create imaginary scenarios in which an abortion is performed when someone is in cardiogenic shock?

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

Also, from the article you cited in Commonweal:

The chart also noted that “surgery is absolutely contraindicated.”

Isn’t abortion a, as you put it, medical-surgical procedure?

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.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

PRmerger;7513857:

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

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.

An abortion on a 12 week baby is not the same as removing a cyst in the doctor’s office.

 

[catharina]

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

horribly sad that yo keep repeating this!

again, rence, the “right” exists under current USA laws.
there is NO such right under the law of God - as you must KNOW.

at least acknowledge that much!

 

[Rence]

Oh really? I noticed that whenever someone asks you “what about the rights of the unborn baby?” you responded “the legal rights belong to the woman”. Another asked: “who speaks for the life within, who cannot speak for itself?” to which you answered: “Legally, the one with consent does. Legal consent lies with the woman.”

Yes, that’s true

You appear to be evading the question a number of us were trying to ask you so I will re-word it so there can be no confusion: are there not unjust laws that we should work to reform if we are going to help our society better reflect right reason and justice? Given that our abortion laws are a great injustice in that they don’t recognize the sanctity of the unborn human life inside the womb, isn’t it good to work to change those laws? What about the unborn human being inside the mother’s womb? You’re right, they currently don’t have any rights - the mother can choose to kill them. Do you agree that we should reform our laws to give rights to those unborn babies?

Ishii

If one thinks that laws are unjust and feel compelled to try and get those laws changed, sure, they should try to get those laws changed, and they probably will be changed if they don’t interfere with the personal liberty of someone else. For example, I’m sure there are some Jews and Muslims out there who believe that for the good of all, pork should be eliminated from our diets. And I’m sure there are JWs out there who think for the good of all, blood transfusions should be made illegal, no matter what the circumstances of need. However, those laws won’t be passed, at least not in the U.S.

If you feel that our abortion laws are a great injustice then yes, you should do what your conscience tells you and try to get them changed.

No, I don’t agree that we should reform our laws to take away reproductive and autonomy rights from women. That’s something I could never bring myself to do. However, if someone feels compelled to so, then they should follow their conscience and try to do so.