Pro-Choice Catholics

[LisaA]

Lisa, I think the slavery comparison is a strawperson. Which RELIGION, not adherents who distorted the meaning of the religion, believed in slavery at the time? Christianity or Judaism?

I can’t speak for Judaism’s beliefs at the time but some Christian denominations accepted slavery. Certainly it as a huge issue during the writing of our founding documents. Sadly the slaveholders won that battle (economics I am sure) and to my understanding they were mostly Christians, of the Protestent side I believe.

I don’t think you understand my analogy. I was not stating that a religion promoted or even accepted in slavery although at the time it was legal in the US. Clearly in the South, there was strong belief in a Biblical basis for slavery…in the New Testament there are a number of slaves mentioned although as Paul states there are no slaves or free in the eyes of God. Certainly there are MANY slaves in the Hebrew Bible. You tell me when Judaism decided this was not moral. I don’t know.

Back to the analogy, slavery is morally a reprehensible act. You do not have to be of one faith or no faith to hold that belief. It was legal at one time but the thought of slavery is truly sickening. I believe abortion is morally reprehensible, but it is also legal. I’ve said numerous times, my change of heart had nothing to do with religion. Thus in opposing abortion, I am opposing on a basic moral and human rights ground. This is no more inflicting my RELIGIOUS belief than in saying I also oppose murdering the two year old who was screaming in Mass last night although she was quite annoying.

It’s either right or wrong, and not simply because the CCC says so. It’s WRONG. Now had those opposed to slavery held the same stance, perhaps we would still have this evil practice. They could use the same argument, well I wouldn’t own a slave because of my moral code but how can I force this moral code on others? We look at this argument with respect to slavery and it’s laughable but many with a straight face use it with abortion.

There are many, some are Catholics, who skate on this issue by saying well I can’t inflict my religious standards on others (Joe Biden in the debates) even though I am opposed to abortion (I don’t believe him frankly but that’s another argument). What they are saying is that they accept a morally reprehensible act in others because the religious argument gives them cover. It’s both weak and inconsistent.

Lisa

 

[St_Francis]

Which religion of modern times believes that slavery is morally justifiable?

Depends on what you call modern.

Note this is not the same as TWISTING religion to justify slavery, as was done in the United States, for example, when biblical passages from the Hebrew Bible were taken out of (cultural) context by certain Protestant denominations to justify slavery.

And this too depends on what you mean by twisting religion. As Catholics, we believe that all Protestant groups have twisted religion.

Judaism does not distort biblical passages by disregarding the context in the Torah or Talmud to justify abortion; to the contrary, it carefully interprets passages and weighs the context.

The Talmud is not inspired as the Torah is; the Talmud is the oral tradition, which itself includes commentary, and the commentaries written later.

There is a significant difference. And, as I pointed out, Judaism does NOT take abortion lightly and is opposed to abortion on demand.

Yet many Jews advocate for abortion on demand, and most Jews in the US agree that abortion should be legal in many or all cases. Israel does not follow this strict policy that you describe either. This is the danger of relying and giving so much weight to what is in the end just interpretation.

Still, it does allow for abortion under very specific circumstances involving the life and death of the mother, as well as her psychological health due to rape and incest. And even the latter is not universally accepted by all rabbis, but the former is required to save the mother’s life, rare as this situation may be.
And is still reliant on interpretation… interpretations often made long before the advent of advanced medical techniques and a much improved knowledge of embryology.

 

[LisaA]

Yet many Jews advocate for abortion on demand, and most Jews in the US agree that abortion should be legal in many or all cases. Israel does not follow this strict policy that you describe either. This is the danger of relying and giving so much weight to what is in the end just interpretation.

.

I saw a survey indicating doctors’ religious beliefs and their willingness to perform abortions. Jewish doctors had the HIGHEST percentage. I have to presume they were more secular than practicing faithful Jews but it was still a real surprise to me.

As expected Evangelical had the lowest with Catholics also low. I suspect the latter was higher than Evangelical for the same reason as with Jewish doctors, that some are more cultural than practicing Catholics. Protestant (mainline) were higher than either Catholic or evangelical.

I guess it surprises me that a religion that has been so persecuted through the ages would not be the first to stand up for protecting the innocent.

Lisa

 

[Elizabeth502]

I saw a survey indicating doctors’ religious beliefs and their willingness to perform abortions. Jewish doctors had the HIGHEST percentage.

Lisa, did the survey report Jewish doctors who performed abortions (and I assume, routinely, if that was the activity reported), or Jewish doctors who “indicated willingness”? Remember that the Jewish ethic considers and prioritizes Goods, applying certain principles to such choices. (I don’t mean convenience, popularity, that kind of thing, but standards of Good.) A Jewish approach includes consideration of life-and-death of the mother as a factor, so any Jewish doctor who subscribed to that consideration would not be inaccurate to state a high level of “willingness,” based on that factor alone.

“Willingness” might be a misleading term here. Just saying…

 

[LisaA]

Lisa, did the survey report Jewish doctors who performed abortions (and I assume, routinely, if that was the activity reported), or Jewish doctors who “indicated willingness”? Remember that the Jewish ethic considers and prioritizes Goods, applying certain principles to such choices. (I don’t mean convenience, popularity, that kind of thing, but standards of Good.) A Jewish approach includes consideration of life-and-death of the mother as a factor, so any Jewish doctor who subscribed to that consideration would not be inaccurate to state a high level of “willingness,” based on that factor alone.

“Willingness” might be a misleading term here. Just saying…

I will have to go back and look at how the question was framed. I suspect those performing abortions are more likely not to have ANY religious practice. But I was surprised at the percentages. The Jewish percentage was something like 40% whereas Evangelical and Catholic were less than half that. Protestant (mainline) was sort of in the middle of the pack.

OK here is one article that reports on the study:
deseretnews.com/article/700173843/Only-14-percent-of-doctors-willing-to-perform-abortions.html?pg=all

That being said, I think those designated as Jewish were more likely cultural or “ethnic” Jews rather than those in Synagogue every Saturday.

Lisa

 

[SugarMagnolia]

I had always been pro-choice —until recently. What is changing my mind? First I’ll tell you what isn’t changing my mind: pro-life rhetoric. Most pro-life rhetoric only made me more pro-choice. Why? Pro-life rhetoric tells me that women who have abortions are heartless baby-murderers. Pro-life rhetoric says that, with few exceptions, women have abortions for frivolous reasons: to avoid inconvenience, to afford luxuries, to indulge in more promiscuous sex. These are vicious lies. Women have abortions because they’re scared. Women have abortions because they can’t even make rent much less support a child. Women have abortions because they don’t know what to do and abortion seems like the lesser of two evils. Lately I’ve been leaning more and more on the pro-life side of this debate, but finding myself embarrassed of the pro-life rhetoric that blames women.

Now, why am I changing my mind? Because I see abortion as simply the last in a series of actions that harms women. First, our culture tells girls that they should have sex regularly and that they’re uptight if they don’t. Our culture tells them they should have sex before getting married, or with no intention of getting married, because men do this and the only way to be equal to men is to do all the same things men do. They’re taught to separate sex from love in the name of liberation. To make this feasible, women next have to separate sex from its consequences (i.e. pregnancy). I started becoming pro-life when I realized how much this whole process hurts women. The problem begins when women feel like they have to have sex because it’s expected of them, because they’ll be considered prudes if they don’t, because everyone else is doing it and if they don’t they’ll be old maids. And they have to pretend that they like giving themselves to men with ‘no strings attached.’

For women, sex always has strings attached. When contraception fails, it’s women who get pregnant. It’s women whose health and future children are harmed by sexually transmitted diseases. And it’s women who are devastated emotionally, psychologically, and financially by the fact that their boyfriends and baby-daddies have no obligation (i.e. strings) toward them. ‘No strings’ sex is for men only and only because women have been brainwashed into thinking they’re wrong to attach strings.

So, am I pro-choice or am I pro-life? I’m pro-strings.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

I had always been pro-choice —until recently. What is changing my mind? First I’ll tell you what isn’t changing my mind: pro-life rhetoric. Most pro-life rhetoric only made me more pro-choice. Why? Pro-life rhetoric tells me that women who have abortions are heartless baby-murderers. Pro-life rhetoric says that, with few exceptions, women have abortions for frivolous reasons: to avoid inconvenience, to afford luxuries, to indulge in more promiscuous sex. These are vicious lies. Women have abortions because they’re scared. Women have abortions because they can’t even make rent much less support a child. Women have abortions because they don’t know what to do and abortion seems like the lesser of two evils. Lately I’ve been leaning more and more on the pro-life side of this debate, but finding myself embarrassed of the pro-life rhetoric that blames women.

Now, why am I changing my mind? Because I see abortion as simply the last in a series of actions that harms women. First, our culture tells girls that they should have sex regularly and that they’re uptight if they don’t. Our culture tells them they should have sex before getting married, or with no intention of getting married, because men do this and the only way to be equal to men is to do all the same things men do. They’re taught to separate sex from love in the name of liberation. To make this feasible, women next have to separate sex from its consequences (i.e. pregnancy). I started becoming pro-life when I realized how much this whole process hurts women. The problem begins when women feel like they have to have sex because it’s expected of them, because they’ll be considered prudes if they don’t, because everyone else is doing it and if they don’t they’ll be old maids. And they have to pretend that they like giving themselves to men with ‘no strings attached.’

For women, sex always has strings attached. When contraception fails, it’s women who get pregnant. It’s women whose health and future children are harmed by sexually transmitted diseases. And it’s women who are devastated emotionally, psychologically, and financially by the fact that their boyfriends and baby-daddies have no obligation (i.e. strings) toward them. ‘No strings’ sex is for men only and only because women have been brainwashed into thinking they’re wrong to attach strings.

So, am I pro-choice or am I pro-life? I’m pro-strings.

You mean, you are one of the pro-abortion Catholics who are completely fine with their stance against innocent life in the womb. Those supposed statements by people who are faithful pro-life, anti-abortion Catholics are straight out of the radical pro-abortion playbook. That is pure BS!

But your second paragraph is more truth than fiction.

I have to say, where is anything about the baby in all of your post? It is never the baby’s fault that any of this happens. So why should a baby ever be punished for the mistakes of the parents? That’s the part where the pro-abortion argument falls apart.

 

[meltzerboy]

Lisa, did the survey report Jewish doctors who performed abortions (and I assume, routinely, if that was the activity reported), or Jewish doctors who “indicated willingness”? Remember that the Jewish ethic considers and prioritizes Goods, applying certain principles to such choices. (I don’t mean convenience, popularity, that kind of thing, but standards of Good.) A Jewish approach includes consideration of life-and-death of the mother as a factor, so any Jewish doctor who subscribed to that consideration would not be inaccurate to state a high level of “willingness,” based on that factor alone.

“Willingness” might be a misleading term here. Just saying…

Yes, Elizabeth, even, or especially, an Orthodox Jewish doctor would have to say that s/he is WILLING to perform an abortion, knowing there are special circumstances according to Jewish Law in which an abortion would be required. Do they WISH to perform an abortion, NO; are they WILLING to do so, YES. As is so often the case with survey research, the phrasing of the question is a critical determinant regarding the response.

 

[meltzerboy]

Depends on what you call modern.

And this too depends on what you mean by twisting religion. As Catholics, we believe that all Protestant groups have twisted religion.

The Talmud is not inspired as the Torah is; the Talmud is the oral tradition, which itself includes commentary, and the commentaries written later.

Yet many Jews advocate for abortion on demand, and most Jews in the US agree that abortion should be legal in many or all cases. Israel does not follow this strict policy that you describe either. This is the danger of relying and giving so much weight to what is in the end just interpretation.

Still, it does allow for abortion under very specific circumstances involving the life and death of the mother, as well as her psychological health due to rape and incest. And even the latter is not universally accepted by all rabbis, but the former is required to save the mother’s life, rare as this situation may be.

And is still reliant on interpretation… interpretations often made long before the advent of advanced medical techniques and a much improved knowledge of embryology.

Two comments here. One is that for ORTHODOX Jews, BOTH the Written Law (Torah) and the Oral Law (codified later by the Talmud, minus the additional commentaries) are believed to be inspired by G-d. Second point is that interpretation based on rabbinical writings and decisions is an ongoing process that interprets the immutable Torah Law in light of modern scientific knowledge. IOW, Judaism incorporates modern findings in keeping with what the Law says. This is NOT an easy task, mind you, and that is why Orthodox rabbis will disagree, let alone non-Orthodox rabbis.

 

[Brandall]

I had always been pro-choice —until recently. What is changing my mind? First I’ll tell you what isn’t changing my mind: pro-life rhetoric. Most pro-life rhetoric only made me more pro-choice. Why? Pro-life rhetoric tells me that women who have abortions are heartless baby-murderers. Pro-life rhetoric says that, with few exceptions, women have abortions for frivolous reasons: to avoid inconvenience, to afford luxuries, to indulge in more promiscuous sex. These are vicious lies. Women have abortions because they’re scared. Women have abortions because they can’t even make rent much less support a child. Women have abortions because they don’t know what to do and abortion seems like the lesser of two evils. Lately I’ve been leaning more and more on the pro-life side of this debate, but finding myself embarrassed of the pro-life rhetoric that blames women.

Now, why am I changing my mind? Because I see abortion as simply the last in a series of actions that harms women. First, our culture tells girls that they should have sex regularly and that they’re uptight if they don’t. Our culture tells them they should have sex before getting married, or with no intention of getting married, because men do this and the only way to be equal to men is to do all the same things men do. They’re taught to separate sex from love in the name of liberation. To make this feasible, women next have to separate sex from its consequences (i.e. pregnancy). I started becoming pro-life when I realized how much this whole process hurts women. The problem begins when women feel like they have to have sex because it’s expected of them, because they’ll be considered prudes if they don’t, because everyone else is doing it and if they don’t they’ll be old maids. And they have to pretend that they like giving themselves to men with ‘no strings attached.’

For women, sex always has strings attached. When contraception fails, it’s women who get pregnant. It’s women whose health and future children are harmed by sexually transmitted diseases. And it’s women who are devastated emotionally, psychologically, and financially by the fact that their boyfriends and baby-daddies have no obligation (i.e. strings) toward them. ‘No strings’ sex is for men only and only because women have been brainwashed into thinking they’re wrong to attach strings.

So, am I pro-choice or am I pro-life? I’m pro-strings.

I had a sister that made a mistake at the age of 16 back in 1975. Her decision wasn’t easy and the options open to her then are the same ones open now. She had that child because she thought it wrong to end it’s life. There was no help from the father, she had to quit school and get an equivalency diploma, got a job and did the best she could.

We, her family, helped as much as we could. She got married to another good man when her son was a teen and I’d like to say they all lived happily ever after. Her and the husband produced three daughters. He was a good man but due to an unfortunate accident, he is no longer with us. The son is grown and the daughters are close. She has done the best she could and it has been no less than admirable.

Oddly enough, that young man is 37 years old today. He is dedicated to helping his mother as much as he can and it seems appropriate that his birthday falls on Mother’s Day this year. He is married to a lovely woman and they have two charming boys.

My sister’s life has been a lot of hardship since she made that mistake in 1975. However, she felt then that ending a life because it would be easier was not the right thing to do.

There are some without family support that my sister had. There are some without the wits and determination she had. Regardless of how hard all of it is there just is no excuse to stop that beating heart of the unborn.

I’m not meaning to negate your points because I do think your feelings about the situation are valid. Life can be very hard and sometimes cruel but I still can’t find a good excuse to stop a beating heart.

 

[LisaA]

I had always been pro-choice —until recently. What is changing my mind? First I’ll tell you what isn’t changing my mind: pro-life rhetoric. Most pro-life rhetoric only made me more pro-choice. Why? Pro-life rhetoric tells me that women who have abortions are heartless baby-murderers…

Wow I’m quite involved with the ProLife movement and I have never heard the comment about "heartless baby murderers. Please provide sources for this, I suspect either you heard wrong or took something out of context. For example I believe abortion is murder. I guess you could conflate that statement to claim I believe women who abort are “heartless baby murderers” but that would be wrong.

Pro-life rhetoric says that, with few exceptions, women have abortions for frivolous reasons: to avoid inconvenience, to afford luxuries, to indulge in more promiscuous sex. These are vicious lies. Women have abortions because they’re scared. Women have abortions because they can’t even make rent much less support a child. Women have abortions because they don’t know what to do and abortion seems like the lesser of two evils.
.

I’m sorry if it doesnt sound nice but this IS true, most abortions are not for reasons of the mother’s life or even her health…such as a pregnant woman diagnosed with cancer. Study after study after study indicates that preganancies are terminated because of “bad timing.”

Now I really do not blame the women for making this choice because society has pushed abortion FOR convenience, for “unwanted babies” or for financial reasons. Abortion is easy to access, low in cost, and seems the easier of the options. Also because we have promoted abortion, it has allowed IRRESPONSIBLE MEN to fail to protect their woman or their unborn baby. Studies also show that often the women are pushed into abortion by the father of the baby.

Further I blame society and the abortion providers for not educating women as to fetal development. Many women think they are aborting a “blob of tissue” not a tiny baby with fingers and toes and a beating heart. Further because abortion providers make MONEY for providing abortions, there is the incentive to push abortion rather than adoption if the mother is unable to care for her baby or for the mother to keep and raise her child. There have been literally dozens and dozens of recorded conversations with abortion providers who clearly push abortion, fail to discuss the risks involved or the subsequent consequences. It has become blood money for Planned Parenthood and others of that ilk.

Lately I’ve been leaning more and more on the pro-life side of this debate, but finding myself embarrassed of the pro-life rhetoric that blames women. .

I disagree and think you are more likely to be getting this attitude from pro aborts who are trying to discourage a pro life stance. Again I am involved in a number of pro life organizations. They don’t BLAME the woman, they try to HELP her, hopefully before but also after an abortion.

Again where are you hearing all of this vitriol? I suspect not from Priests for Life or Rachel’s Vineyard or any of the other national or local organizations. This weekend our Parish has “Mother and Child” raising money through selling carnations. They offer counselling and assistance for pregnant women, for mothers and for post abortive women.

Now, why am I changing my mind? Because I see abortion as simply the last in a series of actions that harms women. First, our culture tells girls that they should have sex regularly and that they’re uptight if they don’t. Our culture tells them they should have sex before getting married, or with no intention of getting married, because men do this and the only way to be equal to men is to do all the same things men do. They’re taught to separate sex from love in the name of liberation. To make this feasible, women next have to separate sex from its consequences (i.e. pregnancy). I started becoming pro-life when I realized how much this whole process hurts women. The problem begins when women feel like they have to have sex because it’s expected of them, because they’ll be considered prudes if they don’t, because everyone else is doing it and if they don’t they’ll be old maids. And they have to pretend that they like giving themselves to men with ‘no strings attached.’

For women, sex always has strings attached. When contraception fails, it’s women who get pregnant. It’s women whose health and future children are harmed by sexually transmitted diseases. And it’s women who are devastated emotionally, psychologically, and financially by the fact that their boyfriends and baby-daddies have no obligation (i.e. strings) toward them. ‘No strings’ sex is for men only and only because women have been brainwashed into thinking they’re wrong to attach strings.

So, am I pro-choice or am I pro-life? I’m pro-strings.

I agree with the above, although your last sentence is confusing. If you mean that the men must step up and take responsibility, I’m all for it. I’m all for women having enough self respect to treasure their bodies and their power to create and nurture new life. I think a societal change is in order and I hope that more hearts and minds are changed.

Lisa

 

[SugarMagnolia]

You mean, you are one of the pro-abortion Catholics who are completely fine with their stance against innocent life in the womb. Those supposed statements by people who are faithful pro-life, anti-abortion Catholics are straight out of the radical pro-abortion playbook. That is pure BS!

But your second paragraph is more truth than fiction.

I have to say, where is anything about the baby in all of your post? It is never the baby’s fault that any of this happens. So why should a baby ever be punished for the mistakes of the parents? That’s the part where the pro-abortion argument falls apart.

Perhaps a lesson in English grammar is in order here. I said (and you even bolded):** “I had always been pro-choice —until recently.” **HAD is a past tense verb. In English, the past tense is used for events that occurred—wait for it—in the PAST.

 

[SugarMagnolia]

Thank you Brandall, LisaA, and most of all TheReal Juliane for showing me what happens when a pro-choice person changes their mind: instead of welcome and encouragement, you attack the person for what they used to believe.

This is an appropriate reaction because the Catholic Church teaches that if someone sins and then repents, they should never be forgiven and welcomed back.

 

[snarflemike]

I would not agree since I know of no such moral issues, which, to me, mean issues that people of different faiths may legitimately and in good conscience disagree on, that Quakers believe others who are non-Quakers should be bound to follow.

So Quakers do not believe that laws against murder should apply to all?

 

[LisaA]

Thank you Brandall, LisaA, and most of all TheReal Juliane for showing me what happens when a pro-choice person changes their mind: instead of welcome and encouragement, you attack the person for what they used to believe.

This is an appropriate reaction because the Catholic Church teaches that if someone sins and then repents, they should never be forgiven and welcomed back.

Apparently you also need to brush up on your Catholicism. Your last statement is completely erroneous.

Now how about engaging in a dialogue instead of making accusations? I’m quite curious where you heard the hateful rhetoric you reported. It doesn’t comport with my experience with pro life groups.

You simply made specious claims to support your former position apparently and then get mad when those claims are questioned. This is a discussion forum, not so much an opinion blog.

How about discussing instead of accusing?

Lisa

 

[Christian_Soul]

You can’t get any ground with them because you’re not speaking the truth from the beginning - which is bound to make any further argument ineffective. Once you have a poor beginning you can’t go forward. Saying that you can’t call yourself Catholic if you’re pro-choice (or in any opinion that varies with a Church teaching) is simply false and in itself is against Church teaching. The Church teaches: Once someone is Baptised Catholic, their souls is indelibly marked and they are forever Catholic regardless of what others, or of what they, think. That’s why your argument is ineffective: you’re spewing off something that is contrary to Church teaching in an effort to fight something that is also contrary to Church teaching. Try the truth to teach the Truth and go from there.

Amen

 

[TheRealJuliane]

Perhaps a lesson in English grammar is in order here. I said (and you even bolded):** “I had always been pro-choice —until recently.” **HAD is a past tense verb. In English, the past tense is used for events that occurred—wait for it—in the PAST.

Did you have a revelation that being pro-abortion is wrong? Because, you see, madam, being “pro-choice” would imply that the women you are concerned about really have that choice, when the abortion-rights advocates do not advocate for true choice, but for 100% abortions because it’s a profit-making business.

As I asked you before, where did you consider the baby in all of your rationalizations?

And please, if you really have changed your mind, then stop using the specious term “pro-choice.”

 

[Christian_Soul]

Catholic membership cannot be removed by another person. (And of course, even excommunication does not remove Catholic identity.)

Formerly, an unfaithful Catholic identified himself thus:

“I was raised Catholic, but lately [or, for a long time] I have not been a practicing Catholic.”

What that Catholic meant by “not practicing” was:

(a) serious doubts about, or opposition to, Church teachings, which the individual was not making an effort to resolve;
(b) absenting himself from Mass and the sacraments without such doubt, but due to lifestyle choices which prevented reception of Eucharist and increased the lukewarmness factor

IOW, he didn’t call himself “a non-Catholic” or “an ex-Catholic.” He was very clear that the baptismal identity remained, but that he was without ambiguity not in communion with the Church.

Unless the person is an administrator of an internet forum and denies a Baptized Catholic the right to use the word “Catholic” in any way to describe themselves which rules out “non practicing Catholic” as well. That can not only lead the person further away but since it is against Catholic teaching, I’d question from that point on such a forum.

 

[SugarMagnolia]

Apparently you also need to brush up on your Catholicism. Your last statement is completely erroneous.

Now how about engaging in a dialogue instead of making accusations? I’m quite curious where you heard the hateful rhetoric you reported. It doesn’t comport with my experience with pro life groups.

You simply made specious claims to support your former position apparently and then get mad when those claims are questioned. This is a discussion forum, not so much an opinion blog.

How about discussing instead of accusing?

Lisa

In English, people sometimes make a point by employing facetious language, i.e. making a statement that is obviously the opposite of what they really mean. If you do not understand that my sentence was facetious and intended to demonstrate that the attacks on me are against Catholic teaching, then I don’t see how we can possibly have a discussion.

 

[meltzerboy]

So Quakers do not believe that laws against murder should apply to all?

Ahha! Notice I said moral issues which, to me, are those which people of good conscience may legitimately disagree with. I don’t think laws against murder fit in that category; but abortion, based on divergent religious beliefs, can.