Pro-Life Catholics, how do you respond to this?

[Erikaspirit16]

part 2–

So when we get to complex subjects (ethics, morality, religion), especially when these subjects are translated and re-translated (for example I’m sure any encyclical is written in the author’s native language, then translated into Latin, then re-translated into English, French, etc.) it is, to quote one of my Jesuit theology professors “not so simple.” That’s why we have 50+ page encyclicals–which then people interpret different ways.

To give an example relevant to Bible translations, let’s say I write “I’m so hungry I could eat a horse.” And 2,000 years in the future, someone comes across what I wrote–in a now-dead language–and tries to make sense out of it. Is it literal? Am I really eager to eat a horse? Or is it an exaggeration? What are we to make of Jesus saying “Let the dead bury their dead…” or any number of sayings? What does he really mean? It’s not so simple.

I really struggle to understand what is ambiguous here. An abortion is act directed at terminating a pregnancy

So…what is ‘abortion’? What is ‘pregnancy’? What is ‘an act’? What is ‘terminating’? I’m not being flippant, I’m being serious. These are NOT ‘clear’ and ‘unambiguous’ (your words) concepts. How would a Buddhist in Tibet understand it? How would an aboriginal Indian in the rain forests of Brazil understand it? How would an Evangelical Lutheran understand it? And, as you can see, even those who speak English as a native language see ambiguity and would interpret it differently.

So is “What kind of engineer are you?” an irrelevant, inappropriate question? No, it’s an essential question. If you think the word ‘abortion’ is like a chemical formula, and you think everyone on earth thinks the same, we have a problem in communication.

 

[goout]

Your refusal to find even common linguistic ground

So…what is ‘abortion’? What is ‘pregnancy’? What is ‘an act’? What is ‘terminating’?

is rather terrifying to be honest. It speaks of the will to mold and shape reality and morality to your own liking, and subjects humanity to language parsing.

“What is human?”
It’s terrifying that after all the well publicized atrocities in recent history, people are still playing this game.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

is rather terrifying to be honest. It speaks of the will to mold and shape reality and morality to your own liking, and subjects humanity to language parsing.

I think it’s terrifying too–but in the opposite way. I think it’s terrifying that some people (no names…if the shoe fits…) think THEIR reality is absolute reality. And this, of course, leaves no room for the opinions of others who think reality is different. They don’t count. Terrifying. All people deserve respect. All people count.

Am I “molding and shaping reality to my own liking”? I’m afraid every human being does that. Even you. But the difference between us is that I am perfectly aware that other people can hold different versions of ‘reality’ and thus different, valid, opinions. You don’t seem to be able to do that: those who disagree are simply wrong. Terrifying, as you say.

 

[goout]

goout:

is rather terrifying to be honest. It speaks of the will to mold and shape reality and morality to your own liking, and subjects humanity to language parsing.

I think it’s terrifying too–but in the opposite way. I think it’s terrifying that some people (no names…if the shoe fits…) think THEIR reality is absolute reality. And this, of course, leaves no room for the opinions of others who think reality is different. They don’t count. Terrifying. All people deserve respect. All people count.

Am I “molding and shaping reality to my own liking”? I’m afraid every human being does that. Even you. But the difference between us is that I am perfectly aware that other people can hold different versions of ‘reality’ and thus different, valid, opinions. You don’t seem to be able to do that: those who disagree are simply wrong. Terrifying, as you say.

Yes of course, there can’t really be a wrong side to this, can there. We all just have our own equal opinions.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

Yes of course, there can’t really be a wrong side to this, can there. We all just have our own equal opinions.

See how easy it is to misinterpret? I didn’t write that ‘absolute reality’ doesn’t exist. I simply said we each have our own version of it. But to claim that my version is ‘right’ and anyone who disagrees with me is ‘wrong’ is, to my mind, arrogant. I’m perfectly willing to admit that other people (including you) have different points of view, and that you arrived at these logically through a different process of thinking. You are free to come to your own conclusions, just as I am. Am I CERTAIN I am right and you are not? No. I wouldn’t presume that.

To quote myself from an earlier post (#270): “What really bothers me is people that say “I KNOW the mind of God!!!” That’s just scary. People like that need to contemplate Isaiah 55, 8-9 and especially Isaiah 58.”

 

[Ender]

So…what is ‘abortion’? What is ‘pregnancy’? What is ‘an act’? What is ‘terminating’? I’m not being flippant, I’m being serious. These are NOT ‘clear’ and ‘unambiguous’ (your words) concepts. How would a Buddhist in Tibet understand it? How would an aboriginal Indian in the rain forests of Brazil understand it?

I gave a definition of abortion. The definition of pregnancy can be readily agreed on at least for the purpose of discussing a particular point. The concepts of Buddhists and aboriginals are irrelevant. It seems your position depends on maintaining the illusion that nothing can be concretely understood which justifies personal interpretation of everything.

So is “What kind of engineer are you?” an irrelevant, inappropriate question?

Words have the same meaning for engineers as they do for store clerks. That’s what allows dictionaries to be written.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

Words have the same meaning for engineers as they do for store clerks. That’s what allows dictionaries to be written.

Either you didn’t read my long post on word meanings and linguistics, or you did’t understand it. Either way, we are not communicating. Thanks for your time!

 

[Roseszz]

AMEN . AND it is their platform that all must be pro abortion . This includes NOT requiring mandatory ultrasounds in the abortion clinics. Which, imo, is bad health care and Not full medical disclosure for women . How equal is that .

 

[Roseszz]

Yet again St John Paul had definite advice regarding voting for Pro abortion candidates as being MORTAL SIN .

 

[thistle]

Yet again St John Paul had definite advice regarding voting for Pro abortion candidates as being MORTAL SIN .

If you vote because you support the candidates pro abortion position that would be correct otherwise it is not if you disagree with their position but vote based on other issues.

 

[TheLittleLady]

AND it is their platform that all must be pro abortion

You do realize that both major parties in the US work to protect legal abortion.

 

[vz71]

You do realize that both major parties in the US work to protect legal abortion.

Of course we expect everyone to uphold the law.
We also want abortion to be made illegal.
And at present only one party appears to be moving in that direction.

 

[1cthlctrth]

Roseszz: You are correct. Most women who see an ultrasound of their inborn baby decide NOT to have an abortion.
In addition to this, pro-abortion groups like Planned Parenthood consistently fight AGAINST safety standards in abortion clinics, and against requiring qualified doctors to perform abortions (eg. in Texas and New York). This does not sound “pro-woman” to me.

 

[1cthlctrth]

Please check the 2 Party Platforms. Quite a contrast! And, most importantly, please compare what both Parties DO.
As an aide, here was the October 3, 2017 Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act (to stop abortions after 20 weeks) vote in the House of Representatives: one Party voted 234 -to- 2 to stop abortions after 20 weeks, and only 3 members of the other Party voted to stop abortions after 20 weeks. Guess which Party?

 

[godisgood77]

Do you know that Republicans are far more charitable than democrats? Democrats want to do charity with other people’s money with government programs that don’t work!

Evidence? Would love to cite some sources for this.

 

[TheLittleLady]

You do know that the 2016 Republican Party Platform calls for restrictions on abortion, not for a complete ban on direct abortion? It is on page 13 of the PDF available on the GOP website.

Yeah, I know party platforms.

 

[goout]

You do know that the 2016 Republican Party Platform calls for restrictions on abortion, not for a complete ban on direct abortion? It is on page 13 of the PDF available on the GOP website.

Yeah, I know party platforms.

I am following this exchange from a distance but let me ask a question:
Can you acknowledge that a substantial difference exists between the parties on the issue of abortion? Do you know what the exact language is in the official platforms?

 

[TheLittleLady]

Can you acknowledge that a substantial difference exists between the parties on the issue of abortion?

I would not use the word “substantial”. Both of the main stream US parties allow abortion and provide funding to agencies (for example, one party will give a token and say they have cut funding to Planned Parenthood, when in actuality they have left half a Billion - with a capital “B” - of Title X funding untouched).

One party courts the pro-life voters by making symbolic gestures while skirting the hard choices. The other party is simply more open about their stand.

Do you know what the exact language is in the official platforms?

As I said, on the GOP website you can download the 2016 platform, pg 13 is where the stand begins. It is too lengthy to post here.

The 2016 Democratic party platform mentions abortion 6 times, may also be found in pdf format on their webpage.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

I’m not going to get involved in all this philosophical verbiage. But I think we both agree that evil exits. And anyone can choose it–using their free will. You see this in daily life–read a newspaper. You argue that the “fitting exercise” of liberty is to choose good. Great, but how about the “unfitting exercise” that chooses evil? There is no free will without choice. Choice means the ability to choose either good or evil. I don’t see any way around it, despite all the philosophical talk. Give me an F in philosophy, but it’s still a use of free will to choose evil. Your argument seems to be that it’s better to choose good; fine, but that doesn’t negate the possibility of choosing evil.

I’ve had a look, and I’m afraid I don’t read that there. It looks to me like that’s YOUR INTERPRETATION. What I read is:

“relying upon a false conscience” – is any conscience not in full agreement with the Church a false conscience? I don’t think so. That would negate conscience and free will altogether. Again, if you discount conscience that doesn’t follow the Church 100%, that turns mankind into robots.

“…And as this magisterium springs, in its last analysis, from the individual consciences…”
Sure sounds like supremacy of the individual conscience to me. But he’s talking about the formation of the “collective conscience,” below…

“What, then, is the Church? It is the product of the collective conscience, that is to say of the society of individual consciences…”
First I’ve heard of this “collective conscience” = Church. Interesting approach, but…not relevant to the discussion here. It doesn’t negate individual conscience; in fact, it’s composed of all the individual consciences (in theory).

Exactly.

Sounds good.

 

[PatK63]

I agree both parties are more pro abortion than I. However only one party will nominate and vote to approve conservative justices that may vote against Roe vs. Wade. Actions speak louder than words. Also Democrats that take any stand against abortion will not get elected or re-elected!