Pro-choice Catholics

[RosaryFan]

the logic of circular thinking.
i will not “impose” my morals on any one else.
if they are immoral - that’s their right!

It’s scary that people think that way, isn’t it?

 

[catharina]

It’s scary that people think that way, isn’t it?

it’s very scary if a people or nation hopes to survive.
it’s utterly deadly if an individual soul hopes to survive without damnation.

 

[PRmerger]

But really, would you rather I retain my beliefs but act in accordance to the Church, or would you rather I retain my beliefs and actively support women’s right to choose?

Of course the former.

But then there’s the other option which is to conform your beliefs to Christ’s.

I just won’t force another person to do the same because it has to be their free choice to do so as well.

Actually, you do “force” another person to do the same because I am certain that you would “force” a mother to remain a mother, even if she is at her wits’ end with her teenager. You “force” her to remain a mother by telling her she can’t shoot the surly child, and you “force” her to remain a mother by telling her she can’t simply run away to Tahiti and leave him with his father, even if it is legal to do so.

 

[Rence]

So if someone doesn’t share my belief that it is wrong to murder a bank teller in order to get the money, then we should not impose our belief on that person, so it should be okay for him to murder the bank teller to get money?

Murdering a bank teller for money is illegal. Choosing an abortion, especially after one has been raped, or when their life is in danger, is not.

 

[PRmerger]

1. That we are told by our Church to travel down our own pathway of holiness with an ever evolving Open Consciousness.

Can you cite a Church document that declares this, bjryman?

What happened with the priest scandal…especially in Boston and the resultant protection of Cardinal Law from secular prosecution.

Ah. So here we have it. What I call the CAFs version of Godwin’s Law.

Godwin’s law (also known as Godwin’s Rule of Nazi Analogies or Godwin’s law of Nazi Analogies) is a humorous observation made by Mike Godwin in 1990 which has become an Internet adage. It states: “As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1.” In other words, Godwin put forth the sarcastic observation that, given enough time, all discussions —regardless of topic or scope —inevitably wind up being about Hitler and the Nazis. Also the poster who mentioned Nazis loses all debates/discussions they had in said topic, and their insults are nullified.

Here’s the CAF version of Godwin’s Law I’m proposing: "As an online discussion about the CC grows longer, the probability of a reference to sexual abuse by priests approaches 1"

However, the poster who mentions the abuse loses all debates/discussions said in topic, and his insults are nullified.



And with just 42 posts here, you definitely, bjryman, are in the running for the quickest-on-the-gun Catholic poster here who invokes the CAFs Godwin’s Law!

 

[Rence]

A “forced pregnancy”? How is that different from preventing “forced” motherhood?

It’s not. A rape victim should not be forced to be a mother by a rapist. And a woman, whose health and life may be in danger in a rare case, due to the physiological stresses brought on by the pregnancy, who perhaps may be a mother to other small children already, can’t by law be forced to continue that pregnancy.

Your reasoning should logically promote that women who don’t want to be mothers anymore can kill their toddlers or teenagers, eh?

My logic doesn’t come to that conclusion at all.

No one is advocating forcing them to believe in the Church’s authority. Have you read me appeal to the Church’s authority for non-Catholics in this?

The thing is, some religions, for example the Jewish faith, allow for abortion when the life of the woman being in danger despite the fact that the Jewish people are very opposed to abortion. If a Jewish woman is not able to tolerate the physiological stresses that pregnancy brought on, and is allowed to have an abortion within her faith, she shouldn’t be subjected to the Church’s laws, because she doesn’t subject herself to them. She’s allowed, according to the teachings of her religion, to consent to the treatment prescribed by her physician, which may include terminating that pregnancy.

 

[Rence]

:banghead:
But a dead baby Rence, come on, have you never heard of malpractice…giving methotrexate to a viable pregnancy, just for convenience of not having surgery.

Yes, misdiagnosing a patient, resulting in either surgery or methotrexate to remove a tubal pregnancy that was misdiagnosed, are both reasons for being sued for malpractice. Your’e right. Choosing methotrexate over surgery is not just for convenience. Choosing methotrexate over surgically removing a fallopian tube saves the tube for later pregnancies and is less invasive.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

Murdering a bank teller for money is illegal. Choosing an abortion, especially after one has been raped, or when their life is in danger, is not.

Rence, in the past in Afganistan a woman could be lashed for wearing nail polish. It was legal, was it moral?

In Iran woman are stoned for adultery. It is legal, is it moral?

Imagine saying, I don’t agree with stoning a woman, but it’s legal, I’ll have to protect that right.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

yes, misdiagnosing a patient, resulting in either surgery or methotrexate to remove a tubal pregnancy that was misdiagnosed, are both reasons for being sued for malpractice. Your’e right. Choosing methotrexate over surgery is not just for convenience. Choosing methotrexate over surgically removing a fallopian tube saves the tube for later pregnancies and is less invasive.

rence, the surgery results in a missing tube.

The methotrexate results in a dead baby.

I would lose my heart to save my children.

 

[PRmerger]

There may just be the dirty little secret of it all folks…Pro-Choice does not necessarily mean pro-abortion.

Dirty, or little or secret nothwithstanding…does pro-choice *ever *mean anti-abortion?

So you say, great your Pro-Life. We told our son that we would back his decision regardless of what it was.

That is most definitely not Pro-Life.

We believe that Jesus also wants families to be fiscally responsible and emotionally responsible…not ONLY physically responsible. So again, Pro-Choice was the stance,

Actually, this stance is Catholic, not Pro-Choice.

 

[Rence]

Actually, you do “force” another person to do the same because I am certain that you would “force” a mother to remain a mother, even if she is at her wits’ end with her teenager. You “force” her to remain a mother by telling her she can’t shoot the surly child, and you “force” her to remain a mother by telling her she can’t simply run away to Tahiti and leave him with his father, even if it is legal to do so.

Actually, once someone delivers a child, they make themselves parents. And the child has the same rights as the mother now that it’s a teenager, so you can’t just shoot a teenager. Nor can you shoot a 2 year old or a 2 hour old. And actually telling someone that they can’t run to tahiti isn’t the same thing as holding the person down, taking away their passport and physically restraining them. The mother still has the freedom to go to Tahiti actually. So if a woman is at wits’ end with her teenager, it has nothing to do with me or anyone else.

 

[PRmerger]

Imagine saying, I don’t agree with stoning a woman, but it’s legal, I’ll have to protect that right.

Very trenchant point, Mary Gail!

There are a multitude of examples that one could give of things that are legal but sooooo egregiously immoral, eh?

 

[Rence]

Rence, in the past in Afganistan a woman could be lashed for wearing nail polish. It was legal, was it moral?

In Iran woman are stoned for adultery. It is legal, is it moral?

Imagine saying, I don’t agree with stoning a woman, but it’s legal, I’ll have to protect that right.

Nope, neither situation is moral. And there are many men in Afghanistan and Iran who fought and still fight for those immoral laws. That’s why I’m glad to be living here in the good old U.S. of A.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

Nope, neither situation is moral. And there are many men in Afghanistan and Iran who fought and still fight for those immoral laws. That’s why I’m glad to be living here in the good old U.S. of A.

So a law can be immoral…but abortion, although immoral should be a right because it is legal.

 

[Rence]

rence, the surgery results in a missing tube.

The methotrexate results in a dead baby.

I would lose my heart to save my children.

When I talk about methotrexate being a legal and sanctioned treatment for tubal pregnancy, that’s what I mean. I mean for a tubal pregnancy that is correctly diagnosed. In the case of a tubal pregnancy, a baby cannot grow in a fallopian tube. It will die, and the woman’s tube will rupture, and she will hemorrhage. That’s why the Church allows the removal of the tube, once a diagnosis is made, rather than waiting until rupture and hemorrhage result. When I talk about methotrexate and tubal pregnancy, I’m not talking about a misdiagnosis. I am talking about a correct diagnosis.

 

[Rence]

So a law can be immoral…but abortion, although immoral should be a right because it is legal.

Not everyone thinks all abortions are immoral, such as in the cases of rape and when the woman’s life is in danger. It is legal right because the law recognizes that a woman is her own independent person, and medical decisions regarding her own body belong to her.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

Yes, misdiagnosing a patient, resulting in either surgery or methotrexate to remove a tubal pregnancy that was misdiagnosed, are both reasons for being sued for malpractice. Your’e right. Choosing methotrexate over surgery is not just for convenience. Choosing methotrexate over surgically removing a fallopian tube saves the tube for later pregnancies and is less invasive.

When I talk about methotrexate being a legal and sanctioned treatment for tubal pregnancy, that’s what I mean. I mean for a tubal pregnancy that is correctly diagnosed. In the case of a tubal pregnancy, a baby cannot grow in a fallopian tube. It will die, and the woman’s tube will rupture, and she will hemorrhage. That’s why the Church allows the removal of the tube, once a diagnosis is made, rather than waiting until rupture and hemorrhage result. When I talk about methotrexate and tubal pregnancy, I’m not talking about a misdiagnosis. I am talking about a correct diagnosis.

It didn’t seem that way.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

Not everyone thinks all abortions are immoral, such as in the cases of rape and when the woman’s life is in danger. It is legal right because the law recognizes that a woman is her own independent person, and medical decisions regarding her own body belong to her.

Not everyone thinks lashing a woman is immoral either.

 

[PRmerger]

It’s not.A rape victim should not be forced to be a mother by a rapist. And a woman, whose health and life may be in danger in a rare case, due to the physiological stresses brought on by the pregnancy, who perhaps may be a mother to other small children already, can’t by law be forced to continue that pregnancy.

Yet you agree that it wouldn’t be immoral to force a mother to remain a mother? Or do you think if she chooses to not be a mom anymore she has that right?

Why or why not?

My logic doesn’t come to that conclusion at all.

Then, sadly, the conclusion is that your logic is, well, illogical.

And, that’s really the point of this entire discussion, isn’t it? One must really not be able to apply logic and come to its logical end in order to support abortion. Blinders must be put on in the name of compassion and a woman’s right to choose.

But if one is using logic, one cannot conclude in good conscience that abortion is moral.

 

[PRmerger]

She’s allowed, according to the teachings of her religion, to consent to the treatment prescribed by her physician, which may include terminating that pregnancy.

And this is why Catholics must reject religious syncretism.