Pro-choice Catholics

[Sailor_Kenshin]

What tasks me is that anyone other than an abortion-pusher DARES call abortion ‘choice.’

 

[Tigg]

Let’s see, I’m adjusting my Medivel Armor, and sitting aside my stallion ready to engage the extremists. OOOOPS, did I say extremists? Yep, sure did. Anytime, ANYONE OF US post anything with absolute assurity, we are ignoring 1. The uncomprehendable mysteries of our faith and 2. That we are told by our Church to travel down our own pathway of holiness with an ever evolving Open Consciousness.

Seems you missed it the first time:

Some Catholics will not assent to a particular teaching unless the Church has demonstrated to their satisfaction that the teaching is true. Some go so far to reserve the right to overrule any magisterial pronouncement with a judgment of conscience. In doing so, they erroneously apply the Church’s teaching on conscience, in essence arguing that every Church teaching is subject to their approval. Faith is not mere agreement, but a humble submission to God’s authority.

cuf.org/Faithfacts/details_view.asp?ffID=149

 

[estesbob]

I think you can summarize the views of pro-choice Catholics who *personally *oppose abortion in three words “I vote Democrat”

At the heart of almost all pro-choice Catholic dissent on abortion is an inability to reconcile their political beliefs with their faith. One must sincerely ask themselves the question: "Does my faith form my politics or does my politics form my faith. ? " Catholic teaching is that we should adhere to the former.

 

[Rence]

As you have rightly pointed out, each of us has a responsibility not to make it part of our personal lives.

What you have not accepted is the duty to be light and salt to the world in the turning over of unjust laws (those that go against divine law). Our present “way of life” in America with regard to abortion denies the personhood of the baby in the womb. This is a situation that we are all obligated to change. Saying that you won’t work for that is putting you in the same category as CMatt, who places secular law over divine law as a guide.

I strive to be the light and salt to the world in my person life as well as where I work as a nurse. Serving others in this capacity is a huge part of my personal life. However, I cannot participate in turning over an “unjust law” as it is called by the Church because I strongly believe it is not an unjust law. It’s not that I place secular law over “divine” law. It’s just that the secular law is favorable to my position. I agree with the secular law.

I believe women need to be protected, and their rights of autonomy and independence retained. As much as you disagree with me, I feel very strongly for the rights of women to consent or refuse treatment, prescribed for them by their doctor, for their own unique health condition, without any interference from someone outside of that relationship.

I also agree that it is immoral to force a woman against her will to become pregnant by force during a rape, or to continue being pregnant by a rape. To me these are immense travesties against women and I agree with the law that they should have the right to choose. So I can’t bring myself to work towards taking these rights away from them. My stomach turns at the thought of it.

Rape is evil, and has many horrific consequences. Punishing the innocent victim that is helpless in the womb is not the best solution.

Life being in peril is a matter of medical complications, and does not involve abortion.

Again, it’s the woman’s free choice.

Yes, of course. However, in such cases, the goal is always to address the complications, and never to slay the innocent life. This is a critical distinction that must be made. It must be made because most abortions are problem solving of other kinds,and do not result from medical problems.

I agree that the goal is the address the complications and to treat both, but when the woman cannot tolerate it anymore and her health and life are at risk, she has the right to either end or continue that pregnancy.

 

[Rence]

I think how you have set up your priorities here is what brings you into dissent with the Church. We are not allowed to make decisions for ourselves “despite the effects” to anyone. We are always to prefer the needs of others above our own. This does not mean that she is not responsible for, and must have consent over her own body, which is also the responsibility of the human person. It just means that she is not the only person involved in the decision, and to cut the other life out of the decision making is participating in the culture of death in which we now live.

My priority is with the patient, the rape victim, in othe words: the woman. That’s not putting the needs of myself over another. That’s putting another above the needs of others when they need advocacy for that person. I totally undestand your perspective, but I don’t agree with it.

No, but then, the vast majority of abortions have nothing to do with rape or endangerment. They have to do with convenience, and as we discussed above, feeling trapped. Supporting all this needless loss of life is not a moral choice for Catholics. We have an obligation to speak up for those who can’t speak for themselves. There are hardly more helpless persons than those lives in the womb.

Many “tools” are abused in life, and that doesn’t mean they have to be illegal so that those who would correctly use those “tools” are prevented from using them as well as those who are abusing such “tools”. I can come up with a few examples to illustrate my point, but someone will just say that it doesn’t compare to abortion. Fair enough. However, the legal and sanctioned medical procedures are available to all who freely consent to them.

Women need someone to speak for them and protect them too. A woman unable to help herself and is dependent on the staff of an emergency room or operating room is pretty vulnerable and in need of advocacy. We can argue that such a woman isn’t as helpless as an unborn. But I can tell you that they sure feel like it, and when their rights as patients are compromised, it sure seems like it as well.

 

[estesbob]

I am refering to US politics. I suspect there are very, very few pro-abortion catholics who vote Republcan . Becuase of the way US politics works it is difficult, if not impossible for a Catholic to find someone to vote for for national office if they are Liberal on everything but abortion.

 

[catharina]

Now this I copied from NARAL PRO-CHOICE’s website:

Quote: Anti-choice people want to outlaw abortion, regardless of the woman’s situation. They will stop at nothing to make it harder for women to access abortion. They even target the doctors who provide abortion care. Anti-choice people use many of the following tactics to reach their goals:

* Violent tactics that intimidate doctors and patients
* Bans on safe abortion methods that protect women's health
* Restrictions on low-income women's access to abortion and other health care
* Dangerous laws that jeopardize young women's health and safety
* "Crisis pregnancy centers" that intentionally mislead women
* "Personhood" measures that would ban abortion
* Distortions of science to instill fear
* Restrictions on women's access to RU 486
* Refusal clauses that deny women basic health services

b - thanks for re-printing this for all of us.

 

[atmmgraves]

Rence:

“I believe women need to be protected, and their rights of autonomy and independence retained. As much as you disagree with me, I feel very strongly for the rights of women to consent or refuse treatment, prescribed for them by their doctor, for their own unique health condition, without any interference from someone outside of that relationship.”

“Again, it’s the woman’s free choice.”

Let me quote Mother Teresa here:

“It is a poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish.”

With all due respect, Rence, every one of your statements are “me” and “I” centered. Too much of this is going on now. To put it bluntly, being a woman does not give you or any other woman a moral pass to do as you wish with your own body. Once conception occurs, it is no longer just a “me” or “I” situation at all. First, a child has been conceived. Second, there is - at least a potential - father involved here. Third, there is God. Fourth, there is his Church. Others are involved, as well, to a lesser extent - extended family, etc. Point being, the pregnat woman is not alone here, and to terminate this pregnancy is not “the woman’s free choice.” What hubris, what ego, goes into making such a statement.

So much of the Cathllic faith is about self-denial of the things we may want to do, but are not good for us or our souls; so much about self-sacrifice - putting others ahead of ourselves. All these things we are to do for the good of ourselves, the good of our fellow man, and in keeping with God’s word and that of his Church. To put a “woman’s free choice” on that same plane is an utter abomination and speaks plainly to the priorities of those who would make such bombastic statements - especially those claiming the mantle of Catholic.

I am a sinner like everyone else, and put myself above no one. However, to kill an unborn child - and more often than not, for the reason Mother Teresa cited, mere convenience - is the worst of the worst. Adoption is available, family members can help, the father may want the child (funny how the father - one half of this equation - has no rights at all in these matters), all brushed aside for the exercise of a “woman’s free choice.”

You state “I believe women need to be protected." Certainly. But the first line of protection is using that which lies between the ears of all human beings. Say no. Stop such behavior. Understand that engaging in Behavior A will result in Consequence B - whatever the behavior is. We all know this. But of course abstience only education is not the way to go, our elites tell us - the same elites which support abortion rights. Too often the woman in these scenarios does not want to change her ways, which results in the sad truth of Mother Teresa’s depressing commentary. Rather than changing her ways and/or rearing the child born of their own individual choice to have sexual intercourse, they do not want this burden - and they too often continue with the same behavior. And we, as a society, are left to ponder this bitter wisdom: “It is a poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish.”

May God help us all.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

Thank you for understanding me, even if you don’t agree with me. I appreciate you

No, I understand it, I just don’t agree with it. (Ok now, without opening up a big can of worms) To me, there is no difference in the morality of the treatment of tubal pregnancy if the whole tube is removed or methotrexate is used. The outcome, the intention is the same - however the interventions are quite different in being invasive and in salvaging a fallopian tube. Why should she have an invasive surgical procedure and remove a fallopian tube, when she can take methotrexate? It should be her choice. But it’s a rule of the Church to remove the whole tube and that’s the way it is…but that’s MY choice. I don’t believe if forcing that on another woman. She has to freely consent to that.

BECAUSE THE INITIAL DIAGNOSIS COULD BE ENTIRELY WRONG. If it seems like an ectopic, and the baby is actually where it should be (uterus) then taking methotrexate ends the pregnancy. Removing the tube wouldn’t end a viable pregnancy.

prolifephysicians.org/rarecases.htm

One patient was diagnosed with a tubal ectopic pregnancy by her obstetrician, and he informed her that they were fortunate to have made the diagnosis early and that she should have a methotrexate abortion. The patient was pro-life, and did not want to take the medicine, but the physician insisted. The baby was not going to survive, he argued, and a chemical abortion now could prevent the need for a surgical procedure later. The chemical abortion would lessen her chances of a rupture of her fallopian tube and subsequent life-threatening hemorrhage. The chemical abortion was also better at preserving future fertility than surgical removal of the ectopic pregnancy later. Feeling like she had no other reasonable alternative, she took the methotrexate.

However, there was a complication. Two weeks later, she still had vaginal bleeding and pelvic discomfort. A repeat ultrasound confirmed the physician’s worst fears: his patient was pregnant with twins – one in the fallopian tube, and one in the uterus! He missed the uterine pregnancy in his ultrasound examination, and that baby was dying from his prescription.Holding off surgery and watchful waiting in this case might have resulted in spontaneous resolution of the tubal pregnancy or would have required surgical removal of the tubal pregnancy when the embryo was likely to be dead, but in both cases the uterine pregnancy would probably have survived. Unfortunately, the chemical abortion killed both babies, much to the dismay of this young pro-life woman.

read this as well

Let us illustrate this principle further: if a rescuer is venturing into a burning vehicle to try to save its injured occupants, and is only able to save one of the two occupants, is it justifiable for him to then take out his gun and shoot the occupant he was unable to save? Of course not! Intentionally killing those you were not able to save is never justified in healthcare. We have the technology and expertise to provide quality healthcare to a pregnant woman without intentionally killing her unborn baby, regardless of the severity of her disease.

 

[beafedor]

What tasks me is that anyone other than an abortion-pusher DARES call abortion ‘choice.’

True, friend, I’ll call it my worst nightmare but I’ll never call it “my informed legal individual choice”.

 

[JimG]

I think that the reason for so many pro-choice Catholics is that they were first pro-contraception, and rejected the teaching of Humanae Vitae. The contraceptive mentality leads inevitably to abortion.

 

[catharina]

Rence:

“I believe women need to be protected, and their rights of autonomy and independence retained. As much as you disagree with me, I feel very strongly for the rights of women to consent or refuse treatment, prescribed for them by their doctor, for their own unique health condition, without any interference from someone outside of that relationship.”

“Again, it’s the woman’s free choice.”

**Let me quote Mother Teresa here:

“It is a poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish.” **

With all due respect, Rence, every one of your statements are “me” and “I” centered. Too much of this is going on now. To put it bluntly, being a woman does not give you or any other woman a moral pass to do as you wish with your own body. Once conception occurs, it is no longer just a “me” or “I” situation at all. First, a child has been conceived. Second, there is - at least a potential - father involved here. Third, there is God. Fourth, there is his Church. Others are involved, as well, to a lesser extent - extended family, etc. Point being, the pregnat woman is not alone here, and to terminate this pregnancy is not “the woman’s free choice.” What hubris, what ego, goes into making such a statement.

So much of the Cathllic faith is about self-denial of the things we may want to do, but are not good for us or our souls; so much about self-sacrifice - putting others ahead of ourselves. All these things we are to do for the good of ourselves, the good of our fellow man, and in keeping with God’s word and that of his Church. To put a “woman’s free choice” on that same plane is an utter abomination and speaks plainly to the priorities of those who would make such bombastic statements - especially those claiming the mantle of Catholic.

I am a sinner like everyone else, and put myself above no one. However, to kill an unborn child - and more often than not, for the reason Mother Teresa cited, mere convenience - is the worst of the worst. Adoption is available, family members can help, the father may want the child (funny how the father - one half of this equation - has no rights at all in these matters), all brushed aside for the exercise of a “woman’s free choice.”

You state “I believe women need to be protected." Certainly. But the first line of protection is using that which lies between the ears of all human beings. Say no. Stop such behavior. Understand that engaging in Behavior A will result in Consequence B - whatever the behavior is. We all know this. But of course abstience only education is not the way to go, our elites tell us - the same elites which support abortion rights. Too often the woman in these scenarios does not want to change her ways, which results in the sad truth of Mother Teresa’s depressing commentary. Rather than changing her ways and/or rearing the child born of their own individual choice to have sexual intercourse, they do not want this burden - and they too often continue with the same behavior. And we, as a society, are left to ponder this bitter wisdom: “It is a poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish.”

May God help us all.

particular instances presented by the poster are ‘in cases of rape and incest.’

re those, i have personal experience.
having run a pregnancy program in the 1980s, with 200 women in place,
(women not girls), at least six were pregnant as a result of rape or incest.

all delivered normal healthy beautiful babies.
all but one placed the babies in adoptive homes.

never would i have wanted these young women to bear the pregancies alone.
and they didn’t - help was avilable and supportive for each in her pregnancy.

such help can be available and given freely to mothers in such situations.
yet first, help must be OFFERED. offering abortion is not offering help.

 

[LCMS_No_More]

How sad that people are willing to slander others in order to enforce their either/or, protestant style thinking. Either you vote Republican (pro-life) or Democrat (pro-choice on abortion). Interestingly, I have no problem stating that I voted for Jerry Brown over Meg Whitman, and I feel definitely justified in doing so considering Whitman’s radical pro-abortion views compared to Brown’s. Otherwise, I left a lot of blank spaces on my ballot and focused on the initiatives…particularly voting down everything Schwarzenegger endorsed.

It’s not about getting Democrats elected, it’s about not voting for people that I perceive to be fake on the issue of abortion. That’s my perception. Like Christ said, “not everyone who says to Me ‘Lord, Lord’ will enter in.” I see Republican politicians say, “Pro-life, pro-life” during elections and make symbolic moves soon after getting into office, but after a couple months, abortion resumes its back-burner policy statement status until Christians are needed to ensure an electoral victory. Until I see consistent, effective action on the part of the Republicans, not symbolic moves, the I don’t buy Republican “pro-life” talk. It has NOTHING whatsoever to do with the Democrats and, unless I have a compelling reason to do so, I generally don’t vote for them.

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

The word CHOICE is a lie used by pro-abortion forces.

The fact that pro-lifers use it, means that the pro-abortion crowd has won the argument.

 

[Rence]

With all due respect, Rence, every one of your statements are “me” and “I” centered. Too much of this is going on now. To put it bluntly, being a woman does not give you or any other woman a moral pass to do as you wish with your own body. Once conception occurs, it is no longer just a “me” or “I” situation at all. First, a child has been conceived. Second, there is - at least a potential - father involved here. Third, there is God. Fourth, there is his Church. Others are involved, as well, to a lesser extent - extended family, etc. Point being, the pregnat woman is not alone here, and to terminate this pregnancy is not “the woman’s free choice.” What hubris, what ego, goes into making such a statement.

I understand what you’re saying, and I appreciate your perspective.

So much of the Cathllic faith is about self-denial of the things we may want to do, but are not good for us or our souls; so much about self-sacrifice - putting others ahead of ourselves. All these things we are to do for the good of ourselves, the good of our fellow man, and in keeping with God’s word and that of his Church.

Yes, I agree that much of the Catholic faith is about self-denial, and we have the freedom to choose that way, but you can’t force another person to choose that way. It has to come from the heart.

And remember that not all women are thinking of only themselves when they find themselves in medical crisis and pregnant. They could be thinking of others who depend on them, such as small children, or an aging parent(s) for whom they are responsible. It’s not all about the woman. I’m sure that if the woman was alone, or just her and her husband, the decision wouldn’t be as difficult as if she had others depending on her and needing her. So I agree with part of what you said…women are not alone, they have responisibilites outside of themselves, and their decisions can and do affect those around them.

For example, I care for my mother. She is dependent on me for her care and welfare. I have a young girl come in to care for her while I am at work - only. When I’m not working, I’m caring for mom. She depends on me. Without me, she would be alone in this world, with no one to care for her. And sure, death is a part of life, and things happen, and there are no guarantees in life. However, if I were in danger of losing my life and had a way to preserve it, I’d take that chance for my mother’s sake, so that she is not abandoned. Mind you, I am an unmarried chaste person, so when I say I’d take a chance on a medical procedure to live longer to take care of my mom, it wouldn’t include abortion However, I could understand a woman in a high risk/crisis pregnancy who would have to consider her husband, children or parents in the equation. I just can’t deny these are important things to consider.

To put a “woman’s free choice” on that same plane is an utter abomination and speaks plainly to the priorities of those who would make such bombastic statements - especially those claiming the mantle of Catholic.

I am a sinner like everyone else, and put myself above no one. However, to kill an unborn child - and more often than not, for the reason Mother Teresa cited, mere convenience - is the worst of the worst. Adoption is available, family members can help, the father may want the child (funny how the father - one half of this equation - has no rights at all in these matters), all brushed aside for the exercise of a “woman’s free choice.”

I understand that perspective and that you feel strongly about it. Please understand that I feel strongly about my own as well.

You state “I believe women need to be protected." Certainly. But the first line of protection is using that which lies between the ears of all human beings. Say no. Stop such behavior. Understand that engaging in Behavior A will result in Consequence B - whatever the behavior is. We all know this. But of course abstience only education is not the way to go, our elites tell us - the same elites which support abortion rights. Too often the woman in these scenarios does not want to change her ways, which results in the sad truth of Mother Teresa’s depressing commentary. Rather than changing her ways and/or rearing the child born of their own individual choice to have sexual intercourse, they do not want this burden - and they too often continue with the same behavior. And we, as a society, are left to ponder this bitter wisdom: “It is a poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish.”

Well, I actually agree with you on that. It’s a tragedy when women choose to abort when they should have chosen to be more moral in their actions that led to a pregnancy. However, their rights as individuals and their autonomy, and their rights over their own bodies, their right to consent or refuse medical treatment is their right to retain.

 

[beafedor]

*“For the question remains, do women want abortion? Not like she wants a Porsche or an ice cream cone. Like an animal caught in a trap, trying to gnaw off its own leg, a woman who seeks abortion is trying to escape a desperate situation by an act of violence and self-loss. Abortion is not a sign that women are free, but a sign that they are desperate.”
*
Truer words were never spoken. Please take time to read this article by a Catholic woman who used to be “Pro-choice” and explains why she has changed her mind.

ABORTION: WOMEN’S RIGHTS AND WRONGS by Frederica Mathewes-Green
ewtn.com/library/PROLIFE/RTWRG.TXT

 

[Tigg]

Until I see consistent, effective action on the part of the Republicans, not symbolic moves, the I don’t buy Republican “pro-life” talk. It has NOTHING whatsoever to do with the Democrats and, unless I have a compelling reason to do so, I generally don’t vote for them.

Yanno…I agree that most generally, just as Republicans are no longer synonymous with conservatives, neither are we guaranteed their support in the pro-life cause, however, I will always distance myself from a party whose platform insists on abortion as a right.

 

[LCMS_No_More]

Agreed, but let’s look at the general political tone on this board. In terms of the political ideology enforced around here by the membership, the perception could be that if you’re not a right-wing, tea partying, gun-toting Republican, you’re an apostate socialist, liberal communist who wants to kill babies with your bare hands and drink their blood. Yes, that’s hyperbole, but that’s how it can be perceived.

When one is up against that, it makes one rather defensive, especially when I never, ever claimed fealty to the Democratic Party. I’ve been registered Republican since I was 18 and have only recently seen the Republican Party in a different light…and what I’ve seen, I can’t agree with.

 

[Rence]

BECAUSE THE INITIAL DIAGNOSIS COULD BE ENTIRELY WRONG. If it seems like an ectopic, and the baby is actually where it should be (uterus) then taking methotrexate ends the pregnancy. Removing the tube wouldn’t end a viable pregnancy.

prolifephysicians.org/rarecases.htm

read this as well

If a patient is examined by a doctor and the doctor confirms by ultrasound that there is a tubal pregnancy and explains to the patient her options, and he should explain all options, and the patient chooses to take the methotrexate, that right to be involved in her treatment and be involved in the course of action to take. She still retains the right to consent or to refuse treatment and that cannot be taken away from her. Mind you, the patient reserves the right to have a second opinion…she also can choose to wait until she hemorrhages. And if she is Catholic, she knows she only has one option, which is to have the tube removed. But if a patient refuses surgery because she wants to 1) retain her fallopian tube and 2) doesn’t want an invasive procedure when a less invasive procedure is available, that’s her right.

Keep in mind that when a diagosis is made, and removal of the fallopian tube is chosen, the Church does not require the woman to wait until the tube ruptures. She can have treatment when the diagnosis is made. In othe words, even the Church allows for treatment when a diagnosis is made, rather than waiting until the woman is in dire straits. It would be her choice to wait, if she wants to wait. The Church assumes that it is a given that a correct diagnosis is made, just like any other diagnosis is made. When an incorrect diagnosis is made, the fault is with the physician, not with the patient who chose treatment based on that faulty diagnosis.

We should always make sure that the diagnosis is correct, whether it’s a tubal pregnancy or lung cancer. The Church doesn’t say: wait before you choose your action, an action sanctioned by the Church, until you make sure that there is no mistake in the diagnosis because a correct diagnosis is a given.

I understand you found an exception to what is very common. But that doesn’t mean we can take away the patient’s rights and impose on her treatments she doesn’t consent to, and refuse her a sanctioned and legal medical procedure that is appropriate for her medical senario. A medical error is the same for a woman who is pregnant as it is for anyone else. Perhaps something should be done to make sure physicians take steps to lessen mistakes in diagnosis, rather than deny women sanctioned treatments when a diagnosis is made.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

If a patient is examined by a doctor and the doctor confirms by ultrasound that there is a tubal pregnancy and explains to the patient her options, and he should explain all options, and the patient chooses to take the methotrexate, that right to be involved in her treatment and be involved in the course of action to take. She still retains the right to consent or to refuse treatment and that cannot be taken away from her. Mind you, the patient reserves the right to have a second opinion…she also can choose to wait until she hemorrhages. And if she is Catholic, she knows she only has one option, which is to have the tube removed. But if a patient refuses surgery because she wants to 1) retain her fallopian tube and 2) doesn’t want an invasive procedure when a less invasive procedure is available, that’s her right.

Keep in mind that when a diagosis is made, and removal of the fallopian tube is chosen, the Church does not require the woman to wait until the tube ruptures. She can have treatment when the diagnosis is made. In othe words, even the Church allows for treatment when a diagnosis is made, rather than waiting until the woman is in dire straits. It would be her choice to wait, if she wants to wait. The Church assumes that it is a given that a correct diagnosis is made, just like any other diagnosis is made. When an incorrect diagnosis is made, the fault is with the physician, not with the patient who chose treatment based on that faulty diagnosis.

We should always make sure that the diagnosis is correct, whether it’s a tubal pregnancy or lung cancer. The Church doesn’t say: wait before you choose your action, an action sanctioned by the Church, until you make sure that there is no mistake in the diagnosis because a correct diagnosis is a given.

I understand you found an exception to what is very common. But that doesn’t mean we can take away the patient’s rights and impose on her treatments she doesn’t consent to, and refuse her a sanctioned and legal medical procedure that is appropriate for her medical senario. A medical error is the same for a woman who is pregnant as it is for anyone else. Perhaps something should be done to make sure physicians take steps to lessen mistakes in diagnosis, rather than deny women sanctioned treatments when a diagnosis is made.

Rence misdiagnosis of ectopic is actually common. It happened to me twice…TWICE. I actually was looking up another case where methotrexate was given to a completely misdiagnosed ectopic and the baby was lost.

Why would you advocate a pro-life doctor giving an abortificient? What about the rights of a pro-life physician to not participate in an abortion?

Do you not understand we are talking about human life?