Pro-choice Catholics

[Rence]

It didn’t seem that way.

I think you just missed it. Here’s what I said again:

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. **

 

[PRmerger]

Actually, once someone delivers a child, they make themselves parents.

Yes.

And the child has the same rights as the mother now that it’s a teenager, so you can’t just shoot a teenager.

Right. But now you’re forcing that woman to be a mother when she really, really, really doesn’t want to be, eh?

How curious it is that you advocate* this *enforcement of motherhood.

Nor can you shoot a 2 year old or a 2 hour old.

Indeed.

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.

'Tis true what you say!

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.

Again, this is true.

But your non-answers speak volumes.

You see the illogic in saying that you can’t force motherhood, but then again you can force motherhood, eh?

 

[Rence]

But your non-answers speak volumes.

You see the illogic in saying that you can’t force motherhood, but then again you can force motherhood, eh?

I have spent a lot of time answering all of your (and others’) questions in earnest, and with my heart. I’m sorry that my answers are not what you are looking for, but they represent my beliefs and values. I’m sorry that we don’t agree, but we are both entitled to our opinions, beliefs and thoughts. I have no interest in changing anyone’s beliefs or values, and I have no interest in influencing anyone. I’m just glad that I have the personal freedom to enjoy exercising my rights and freedoms. I have shared thoughts with you, and you have shared yours with me, and I’m glad for the exchange. I would have hoped we’d better understand each other, but it’s okay if we don’t. Truly all the answers to any questions you have of me are in my many posts on this thread. There is nothing hidden. It’s truly how I feel.

 

[PRmerger]

I have spent a lot of time

Yes.

answering all of your (and others’) questions in earnest, and with my heart. I’m sorry that my answers are not what you are looking for, but they represent my beliefs and values.

I was not stating you’ve NEVER provided an answer. Only that you had no answers to how you are consonant with forcing motherhood, but yet claim you don’t force motherhood. You provided no answers for that except to say, essentially, that it’s not your problem.

So if a woman is at wits’ end with her teenager, it has nothing to do with me or anyone else.

I’m just glad that I have the personal freedom to enjoy exercising my rights and freedoms.

Yes. But, clearly, you don’t have unlimited rights and freedoms. That’s what we’re discussing here.

 

[Iowa_Mike]

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.

Amen.

God Bless,

Iowa Mike

 

[Iowa_Mike]

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

Relative Moralism in action, what a great country!

God Bless,

Iowa Mike

 

[century153]

A quote from the Holy Bible;

Deut 30:19

This day I call the heavens and the earth as witnesses against you that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life, so that you and your children may live…

This is what we believe – and what the Lord has given us: Read Carefully the highlighted word. We need to imitate God no matter how much it hurts us – people have a CHOICE. Once you become a child of God you have chosen Life.

However you interpret choosing Life is between God and you. Jesus is our judge. Yes its true we are to judge each other – but this does not mean Condemn each other. Read the bible – the answers are all there.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Tigg,

Thank you for your kind words.

One of the key issue that is the 3,000 pound elephant in the room is that every right is coupled with responsibilities. Just like there is no such thing as an absolute right to freedom of speech (You can’t yell “Fire!” in a crowded theater if there is no fire) there is no absolute right to an abortion (now, the trouble is, none of the Justices that have had cases involving aboriton have been willing to recognize this reality - and this only compounds the problems.

And, while rights come with responsibilities - they all come bundled with consequences. Merely dispatching a tiny, innocent human life for the sake of convenience - or even rape or incest - has consequences for the woman involved. Most people shy away from talking about Mental Health problems - but, they are as real as hypertension, diabetes and heart disease. The most precious thing we have is our own life - why would the unborn think differently.

It is sheer nonsense to claim a woman’s right over her body takes precedence over life! Sorry, to say it girls, but you are hard-wired to not only bring about young and developing life within your bodies - and, then to nurture that life once born. Having been married to the same gal for 40 years (she is very patient… ) with two children of our own and four grandchildren - I know it is no picnic to be pregnant, give birth and recover and then begin the process of rearing children. But that is how we got from Eve to where we are today, biologically speaking. Having the infant torn apart INSIDE OF YOU has consequences - and no Judge has yet to have the courage to address that item.

Ultimately, the Catholic Church has pronouced that having anything to do with having or enabling or promoting an abortion is gravely wrong and the person who engages in this conduct can not be considered a practicing Catholic. This is not a matter of the Pope has his opinion and I have mine. This is the official teaching of the Church. It really is not someting that can be negotiated.

God bless

Wonderful post, Tom. Aaahhhh, yes……the “beating” heart which gives testament to life!

Doesn’t the biblical perception of “heart” include the entire man – our faculties of mental and moral perception, our reason, emotions and will? In this debate, how does one possibly separate the “head conviction” which to me would promote the superiority of the “law of the land” or “so-called rights” given only to the mother, from the “heart” conviction or divine law and fullness of life that Christ gives? There must be some denial of the inner self in order to place secular law over God’s law which should reign in our hearts.

And then there’s the concept of motherhood and the psychological dimensions that surely must be deep within the heart of every woman to protect that life growing within. It is contrary to the very character of nurturing female. It’s staggering to me (as a woman) that your story above could cause such a heart-wrenching reaction for some, in contrast to the brutal reality of abortion today.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Rence,

I realize that you have clearly stated your thoughts, beliefs and opinions. In my view, some of them need a bit more clarification and let me tell you why. There is a material difference between rape resulting in an unplanned but other-wise uneventful pregnancy and a pregnancy that endangers the life of the mother.

As traumatic and distressing as a sexual assault is - the resulting life created is not at fault and should not be condemned to death as a result - especially such a horrific death through intentional dismemberment. The mother’s life, in this example is not an issue.

The life-threatening condition (e.g., ectopic pregnancy) is quite different. And, the mother’s life can probably be saved. The Catholic Church has long recognized that many acts have both good and bad outcomes at the same time. The moral considerations for such an event lend themselves to discussing the Doctrine of Double Effect - and here is a link you may find useful: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_double_effect

There are the four conditions:

1. The act must be good or indifferent in itself.
2. The good the agent intends must not be obtained by means of evil.
3. The evil effect must not be intended for itself but only permitted.
4. There must be a proportionately grave reason for permitting the evil effect to occur.

So, while the diseased or dysfunctional fallopian tube can be removed (with the embryo inside) the act is to save the mother’s life not abort the child. Looking at the first condition, the use of methotrexate to kill the child first would simply be a complex abortion procedure and not allowed by the Catholic Church.

In the first method, we are looking at a outcome that spares the mother’s life while incidentally has the consequence of killing the child. Note: under any circumstances left untreated the child would die because the developing life can not be sustained in the tube. But, by removing the tube the surgeon is removing the part that would soon rupture and that is what makes this morally acceptable.

Supplying the mother with a drug to kill the child is just another elective abortion followed by surgery to remove the tube and deceased child.

Now, I realize that this may sound like a tortured distinction - but, it separates those who are really interested in saving the mother’s life from those who wish to yet another pregnancy.

God bless

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.

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

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]

I was not stating you’ve NEVER provided an answer. Only that you had no answers to how you are consonant with forcing motherhood, but yet claim you don’t force motherhood. You provided no answers for that except to say, essentially, that it’s not your problem.

But I did answer, just not as you would like me to. I have answered all the questions, but given answers you don’t agree with or think I should have. And I’m sorry about that. I know you have different answers to those questions. Throughout this entire thread, I’ve poured my heart out. And I know you have too. We just don’t agree, and that’s okay, we’re not going to.

As to your question “you had no answers to how you are consonant with forcing motherhood, but yet claim you don’t force motherhood.”, I’m sorry but I have absolutely no idea how to answer that because the question itself doesn’t make sense to me. How I am constant with forcing motherhood? But I’m not constant with forcing motherhood. And I claim I don’t force motherhood, you’re right, I don’t. I’m not sure how I can answer and make myself understood other than how I have tried through all these posts. I’m sure you should have a picture of what I believe and value and why I hold them.

Yes. But, clearly, you don’t have unlimited rights and freedoms. That’s what we’re discussing here.

I never said we have unlimted rights and freedoms, nor have I been discussing unlimited rights and freedoms. Rather, I have been discussing the legal and moral right of a woman to make the medical and reproductive rights over her own body (especially in the case of rape and when her life is in danger), that she has the legal right to consent on matters of her own body, and I’ve been consistent throughout. I know they differ from your views and I have no goal to change you. I’m not claiming to be the “right” one. I have only communicated how I feel about it all.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, (name removed by moderator),

Long before the infamous Roe v Wade decision, Paul Paul VI in 7/25/1986 issued his Encyclical Letter: HUMANAE VITAE

Here is a link: ewtn.com/library/ENCYC/P6HUMANA.HTM

And, if you liked that link - here is treasure of more information on this encyclical: catholic-pages.com/dir/humanae_vitae.asp

What sets the stage for abortions is contraception. Sex is removed from cooperating with God in pro-creation and just viewed as a pleasurable way to spend some time. The only form of birth control that has a 0 failure rate is abstainance… all others will eventually fail The behavior most likely to follow (with 53,000,000+ abortions since Roe … and counting,) a contraceptive failure is to abort the “products of conception” (as the pathologist calls these human remains).

As long as we continue to promote sex as recreaton, contraception without consequences and abortion on demand for ANY imaginable reason you want - then there will only be more abortions until God acts on behalf of these butchered innocents.

God bless

 

[CMatt25]

Actually I think government should stay out of people’s bedrooms and leave choice pretty much where it stands right now in our country under the law. And I obviously was attempting no such thing. Part of the solution I believe would be for the 9 y old girl rape victim’s parents to pray and consult God for guidance. Therefore He is in their decision making process equation.

 

[CMatt25]

This is a discussion form, and I am discussing my views and beliefs. I’m not trying to pass them off as beliefs that a Catholic should have. You guys are making it quite clear what the Church wants it’s members to think So I don’t have to worry about improperly influencing someone, as you all are citing all the rules of the Church. The question went something like, can you be Catholic and pro-choice and why. And I have done my best to explain how I feel about my position. I am in no way trying to influence anyone at all.

If I shouldn’t be allowed to express my feelings, then wouldn’t it be fair that the question not be allowed to be asked? I mean, I didn’t post a thread entitled: “hey guys! I’m catholic and I’m prochoice!” did I? If the question is allowed to be asked, then we should be able to answer truthfully without being called names or being told we’re less Catholic than anyone else. Otherwise, why ask? Honestly, I don’t mean to be rude, I respect all of you, you all fight hard for your beliefs, but why are you all asking me a bunch of questions for me to answer, when you don’t think I have the right to my feelings about the subject?

Rence

 

[RosaryFan]

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.

You missed my point, Rence. You said we shouldn’t impose our beliefs on others. However, when it comes to killing bank tellers for money, SOME people think that is okay. So why are we imposing our beliefs on them in THAT regard, but not with respect to killing an unborn human being?

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Century153,

Choose LIFE, indeed!

God bless

A quote from the Holy Bible;

Deut 30:19

This day I call the heavens and the earth as witnesses against you that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life, so that you and your children may live…

This is what we believe – and what the Lord has given us: Read Carefully the highlighted word. We need to imitate God no matter how much it hurts us – people have a CHOICE. Once you become a child of God you have chosen Life.

However you interpret choosing Life is between God and you. Jesus is our judge. Yes its true we are to judge each other – but this does not mean Condemn each other. Read the bible – the answers are all there.

 

[Rence]

You missed my point, Rence. You said we shouldn’t impose our beliefs on others. However, when it comes to killing bank tellers for money, SOME people think that is okay. So why are we imposing our beliefs on them in THAT regard, but not with respect to killing an unborn human being?

I didn’t miss your point. I answered your question directly. It’s just not the answer you wanted me to write. So you asked again, and I’ll answer again: 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]

I didn’t miss your point. I answered your question directly. It’s just not the answer you wanted me to write. So you asked again, and I’ll answer again: 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.

What is not being addressed by you, Rence, is how you reconcile other legal but immoral things (like the relatively benign husband calling his wife fat to the very heinous but legal stoning of a woman via adultery.)

You have evaded this over and over again.

Do you think, since it is legal, we should protect the Muslim man’s right to stone his adulterous wife?

Now, we’re talking philosophically here, and talking about principles, not the fact that we live in the US and not Saudi Arabia.

 

[PRmerger]

But I did answer, just not as you would like me to.

Saying “it’s not my problem” is not an answer. Well, it’s an* answer*, but not an elegant and enlightening answer that furthers the discussion.

Throughout this entire thread, I’ve poured my heart out. And I know you have too. We just don’t agree, and that’s okay, we’re not going to.

I am sorry that you feel the discussion has become otiose. :sad_yes:

Again, there are many lurkers here who may benefit from seeing the evolution of the discussion.

As to your question “you had no answers to how you are consonant with forcing motherhood, but yet claim you don’t force motherhood.”, I’m sorry but I have absolutely no idea how to answer that because the question itself doesn’t make sense to me.

Huh. I thought I was correct in discerning that you hadn’t answered!

And now, it seems, you are acknowledging this?

 

[PRmerger]

As to your question “you had no answers to how you are consonant with forcing motherhood, but yet claim you don’t force motherhood.”, I’m sorry but I have absolutely no idea how to answer that because the question itself doesn’t make sense to me. How I am **constant **with forcing motherhood? But I’m not constant with forcing motherhood. And I claim I don’t force motherhood, you’re right, I don’t.

Firstly, I used the term “consonant”, not “constant”.

Secondly, you force motherhood when you make a woman be a mom when she doesn’t want to be a mom. She wants to get rid of her teenager but you tell her it’s immoral to kill the smug little guy. How dare you! She has a right not to have motherhood forced on her should her mind change, eh?

I never said we have unlimted rights and freedoms, nor have I been discussing unlimited rights and freedoms.

Good. Because it certainly sounds like you’re saying that the right of a woman to make choices in her body is “unlimited”; even carrying a human life insider her does not put limits on her rights. That sounds unlimited to me.

Rather, I have been discussing the legal and moral right of a woman to make the medical and reproductive rights over her own body (especially in the case of rape and when her life is in danger), that she has the legal right to consent on matters of her own body, and I’ve been consistent throughout.

Actually, you’ve been quite adamantine about appealing to the “legal”-- not really the “moral” aspect of this discussion.

I know they differ from your views and I have no goal to change you. I’m not claiming to be the “right” one. I have only communicated how I feel about it all.

Oh! How I wish I could remember this wonderful quote that my 13 year old daughter said! It went something like this, “Mom! If you really believe what you’re saying is true, doesn’t it mean that you believe that the person who says the opposite of you is false?”

It sounds quite wise from a 13 yr old, eh?

 

[Iowa_Mike]

I didn’t miss your point. I answered your question directly. It’s just not the answer you wanted me to write. So you asked again, and I’ll answer again: 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.

O…so the law is the arbitrator of right and wrong? Both actions…killing a bank teller or a baby in the womb are immoral. They both are against Natural Law. Both kill a human person. Why is that OK?

God Bless,

Iowa Mike