Pro-choice Catholics

[RosaryFan]

Catholics for Choice

catholicsforchoice.org/actioncenter/CatholicsforaFreeChoice-SpeakOut.asp

Call to Action

cta-usa.org/

Catholics for a Free Choice

catholicsforchoice.org/about/default.asp

Yes, they should change their names to:
“I only think I’m Catholic” for Choice";
“I only think I’m Catholic” for a Free Choice; and
Call to Action by those who only think they are Catholic but really aren’t

If you are pro-choice, you go against Catholic teaching and have, therefore, excommunicated yourself from the Church. If you are actively pro-choice, you should not be receiving Holy Communion because you are living in a state of mortal sin.

 

[Iowa_Mike]

No, actually, the answer I have in the postings of the mods are sufficient for me. When I read the forum rules, it seems clear to me that calling people names is out of bounds. However, if you wish to discuss the broader liberty you have claimed for yourself to judge the souls of others in this matter, canadian has been kind enough to create a thread for that purpose. I thought we had agree that this did not belong on this thread?

Your the only person who thinks I’m judging a persons soul. Anybody has read my posts on this matter knows better. I’ll join the other thread (I think I already have actually). See you there.

God Bless,

Iowa Mike

 

[Raskolnikov]

Did you mean illegal?

Yes. typo.

This thread moves fast, too fast for me to keep up. A new page fills up like every 20 minutes.

 

[PRmerger]

Just wanted to share, I saw a pregnant woman with a T-shirt that said: “I can grow people. What is your super power?”

If this were Facebook, I’d click “like!”.

 

[PRmerger]

Your the only person who thinks I’m judging a persons soul. Anybody has read my posts on this matter knows better. I’ll join the other thread (I think I already have actually). See you there.

God Bless,

Iowa Mike

I think you’re judging a person’s soul, too, Mike.

I don’t like to call people heretics, unless someone bigger and smarter and more authoritative than I has called someone a heretic.

There’s a great, chasmic difference between saying someone is preaching heresy and calling him a heretic.

Just like I have no problem telling people here that their arguments are irrational. But I would never call the person irrational.

The distinction, while nuanced to be sure, is HUGE.

 

[catharina]

Your the only person who thinks I’m judging a persons soul. Anybody has read my posts on this matter knows better. I’ll join the other thread (I think I already have actually). See you there.

God Bless,

Iowa Mike

gauanophore, prmerger and I - that’s three people, so far.

 

[catharina]

I think you’re judging a person’s soul, too, Mike.

I don’t like to call people heretics, unless someone bigger and smarter and more authoritative than I has called someone a heretic.

There’s a great, chasmic difference between saying someone is preaching heresy and calling him a heretic.

Just like I have no problem telling people here that their arguments are irrational. But I would never call the person irrational.

The distinction, while nuanced to be sure, is HUGE.

huge, enormous, profound, reverberating, etc…

 

[JimG]

This thread caused me to dig out a letter that my wife had received from her physician, an OB/GYN, many years ago. He was leaving his practice due to having terminal cancer, and so provided a referral list of physicians along with a farewell letter. But what struck me was this paragraph:

“I have had the privilege of delivering approximately 10,000 infants and thank God, have willfully destroyed none.
I say this with satisfaction and pride because each generation of physicians is exposed to such issues, and for us who said ‘no’ in the ‘70’s, we would certainly have said ‘no’ to the final solutions of the 40’s.”

 

[PRmerger]

This thread caused me to dig out a letter that my wife had received from her physician, an OB/GYN, many years ago. He was leaving his practice due to having terminal cancer, and so provided a referral list of physicians along with a farewell letter. But what struck me was this paragraph:

“I have had the privilege of delivering approximately 10,000 infants and thank God, have willfully destroyed none.
I say this with satisfaction and pride because each generation of physicians is exposed to such issues, and for us who said ‘no’ in the ‘70’s, we would certainly have said ‘no’ to the final solutions of the 40’s.”

An eloquent, and morally sane, farewell it was indeed.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Guanophore,

I liked your analogy. You know … the various state governments and the IRS take a dim view anyone (citizen, legal alien … space alien … and anyone else…) NOT paying taxes. It is really what they do on a regular basis…

So, once someone is Baptized they not only become Children of God and Heirs to the Kingdom of Heaven - but, also subject to those applicable laws as a duitiful subject.

God bless

There are two aspects of the condition of being subject. Objectively, all validly baptized persons are subject to the Church. Jesus appointed authority over His One Flock.

Now that subjectivity is implied in the case of baptized infants, who take that agreement upon themselves during their confirmation. We also renew it yearly at the liturgy at Easter when we renew our baptismal vows.

The other aspect is the subjective one, and in that case I will agree with you, one who does not recognize the authority of the church over them may not be obedient to the laws that are designed to govern them. This disobedience could result from ignorance, or rebellion. Either way, it does not change the objective fact that they are subjects in the Kingdom of God.

I can compare it to being subject to the law of paying taxes in the US. I was born into this country, and never gave my consent. However, by virtue of my American citizenship it is assumed that I am subject;. When I come of age, if I wish to be exempted, I need to leave the country. Otherwise, be held accountable for paying my taxes, whether I like it or not, whether I want to or not.

 

[lil_flower_luv]

My response is that you can line up the same number of doctors who will attest that there are instances when a woman is unable to tolerate the physiological changes brought on by pregnancy and that though rare, may require the termination of that pregnancy to help her stabilize and regain her health and live.

What about the psychological issues having an abortion can bring on? I assure you, a woman suffers tremendously more by the effects of abortion whether mentally, emotionally, physically or spiritually. It’s not an option that doctors have simply crossed off - **it’s just no good. **

I still am pro-choice in the cases of rape or the health of the mother. And if there is no other way to save a woman, as deemed appropriate by her doctor, and as agreed to by her herself, then she should be given that choice, and given the medical care she requires. We always want to help both the mother and the child of course. But when that can’t be done, the woman is the one with the right to consent or refuse treatment. And if she gives consent to that treatment, it should be delivered, as it is her right to receive it.

Emphasis mine - Thank you for that, Rence.

Still, I feel as if you believe a woman’s choice to have her child removed from her womb is similar to choosing chemotherapy over no chemotherapy - a choice made for the betterment of one but not always for two (a life she now has inside of her). As much as our hearts go out to women suffering from a difficult pregnancy, we must always advocate for both mother and child. Her child may die while doctors try to save her; both may die while doctors are trying to save both. But always, always advocate for mother and child.

 

[ishii]

Yes, that’s true

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. .

Big difference between abortion and the examples you’re giving: abortion was once against the law in this country. The unborn child was considered to have value and rights independent from the mother. Not so with pork and blood transfusions.

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…

Part of trying to get the laws changed is helping to educate and persuade people who are for abortion rights that they are wrong and that abortion kills a living human being deserving of human rights. What I am doing now is trying to persuade you (and anyone reading these posts who might share your opinion) that you are wrong and that if you’re interested in human rights then you should be against abortion rights.

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.

So you think a woman should have the right to get the unborn baby inside her sucked out of her through a vacuum? Or have its head crushed with a forceps? In the name of “women’s rights” ? How about after the baby is born? Should the baby have a right to life then? Or should there be a period of time where the mother could change her mind and take the baby to a clinic for “removal” ? Please let me know what you think.

Ishii

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Sidbrown,

I am just wondering what your real point is here. For example, if you were that embryo - and someone was about to dismember you, piece by piece until you died and then threw your remains in the trash (or kept part of you in a jar on the shelf as that doctor did who is now under multiple murder indictments) - what would you be thinking?

Ultimately, these horror show type examples make people uncomfortable - but, focus on there being THREE victims if this abortion is performed. There is the 9-year old girl, the embryo - AND THEN this girl as she gets to be an adult. This is a terrible physical and psychological trauma she suffered at the hands of her uncle. Now, she will be re-traumatized mentally for having her baby killed.

Putting yourself in the embryo’s place resolves a lot of issues. We want to live … and so do those embryos! Watching them on ultrasound trying in vain to escape the tools of the abortionist is sickening - no where to go, and the mother sold this defenseless life to a butcher.

Think it over.

God bless

I was reading about the case of a nine year old girl who was raped by her uncle. Should a nine year old girl be required to go through the trauma of a pregnancy like that, especially if her life is in danger since she is too young and weak to endure it? Is it better to let both the girl and the baby die from natural causes than to have the doctor save the life of the girl by terminating the pregnancy?

 

[catharina]

This thread caused me to dig out a letter that my wife had received from her physician, an OB/GYN, many years ago. He was leaving his practice due to having terminal cancer, and so provided a referral list of physicians along with a farewell letter. But what struck me was this paragraph:

“I have had the privilege of delivering approximately 10,000 infants and thank God, have willfully destroyed none.
I say this with satisfaction and pride because each generation of physicians is exposed to such issues, and for us who said ‘no’ in the ‘70’s, we would certainly have said ‘no’ to the final solutions of the 40’s.”

amen to that dear doctor.
thanks for telling us!

 

[ishii]

I’m sorry that I appear to be frustrating you. That’s not my intent. I agree with the law that the woman deserves, does and should have rights of autonomy over her own body and has the right to make decisions regarding her body, especially in the cases of rape and when the woman’s life is in peril. That’s the answer to your questions. It should be self explanatory. There is nothing hidden in the reply. I hope that makes it more clear

I appreciate the candor and clarity you offer. You believe the woman has the right to make decisions regarding her body. But abortion also involves another body, that of the unborn child. What about the other body living and growing inside her? It is a different human being altogether and not a “growth” or an appendage, right? On what basis do you say that the woman should have final say in whether the unborn child should live or die? (and don’t answer: “its the law” “the woman has the right under the law” etc.). I want to know why you think the unborn baby does not have the right to life.

Ishii

 

[RosaryFan]

I was reading about the case of a nine year old girl who was raped by her uncle. Should a nine year old girl be required to go through the trauma of a pregnancy like that, especially if her life is in danger since she is too young and weak to endure it? Is it better to let both the girl and the baby die from natural causes than to have the doctor save the life of the girl by terminating the pregnancy?

I’m curious. When you read the case about the nine year old girl who was raped by her uncle, did the case state she got pregnant, or are you just adding that bit yourself to make a point? Becuase, although I’m sure it is possible, there aren’t many nine year olds who are physically mature enough to have a baby. Puberty usually occurs later than age nine.

If her body is mature enough for her to become pregnant, I’m sure she’s not too weak to endure it. God wouldn’t design our bodies to become pregnant at age nine, but not be able to endure pregnancy until age 16, say. That is a ridiculous argument.

 

[PRmerger]

If her body is mature enough for her to become pregnant, I’m sure she’s not too weak to endure it. God wouldn’t design our bodies to become pregnant at age nine, but not be able to endure pregnancy until age 16, say. That is a ridiculous argument.

This is a very important point, and one I had not considered.

 

[RosaryFan]

I’m sorry that I appear to be frustrating you. That’s not my intent. I agree with the law that the woman deserves, does and should have rights of autonomy over her own body and has the right to make decisions regarding her body, especially in the cases of rape and when the woman’s life is in peril. That’s the answer to your questions. It should be self explanatory. There is nothing hidden in the reply. I hope that makes it more clear

After the rape is over and the pregnancy is discovered, the woman’s life is not in peril. There is no danger in a pregnancy just because it happened as a result of a rape.

 

[guanophore]

Part of trying to get the laws changed is helping to educate and persuade people who are for abortion rights that they are wrong and that abortion kills a living human being deserving of human rights.

I do think that this, and prayer, are the keys. From my experiences giving presentations on the realities of what happens, it seems that most people really have no idea what happens. On young lady burst into tears and demanded “why don’t they tell you this first What kind of informed consent is that!?” All I could tell her was that, at this time, the fetus is not considered either a person, or a patient, so no one has to be informed about what happens to “it”.

 

[tqualey]

Hi Rence,

I am for women’s rights, too!

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.

But, I have this problem … in order to be true to supporting that principle, I have to endorse the brutal murder of young females - while violating THEIR RIGHTS! Honest, Rence, murdering someone for convenience or because you don’t like the Father is not only lame, it is something that cries out to heaven.

So, what do you say, that instead of just being for women’s rights, you chose to be for HUMAN RIGHTS - and the big one here is the right not to be butchered in the womb! Now, I know this is unpopular with Obama who, while in the IL Senate advocated infantacide should the abortion fail, and it isn’t popular with those in the multi-billion dollar abortion business

Trade places with the embryo - and imagine what it is like to have the tools of the abortionist twist off your limbs and crush your head while you try to in vain to escape such a death. And, when your body parts are all laid out, listen carefully for someone telling you that someone else’s right for convenience trumped your right to life!

God bless