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

  • Thread starter Thread starter RCIAGraduate
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
part 2…

But of course you are arguing against something I never wrote. I have written–over and over–that an absolute moral truth exists. The problem is, our interpretation of it is imperfect, or, as you wrote, “it is only “supreme” in the sense that when applying moral principles in specific situations…” How is what you wrote different from what I wrote?
 
It is settled law until it is overturned! Just like slavery! No justice worth his salt would agree before a case is presented how they will vote. Conservatives hold themselves to the constitution. Liberals use any argument they want to get the result they want.
 
The Republican Party is clear in their platform, they want this to go back to the States to decide.
 
That is definitely a step in the right direction. That is what will happen if Roe is overturned. How can Anyone justify being part of a country who makes killing unborn babies legal with a strenuous objection?
 
I can justify being part of our country because I was born here and I do not have the money nor the resources to become a citizen anywhere else.
 
No problem with that. We all should fight legal abortion with all our strength.
 
I was right with you in everything you said…right up until this paragraph. The individual business has no moral obligation to provide a living wage, however that is defined. The objection is often raised that a family of four cannot live on the minimum wage, but at no time has that ever been its objective.

Suppose a teenager gets a job at McDonald’s: what would a living wage for him look like? If his family situation is better (or worse) than another kid working there what is the argument that the owner of that particular franchise has a moral obligation to pay them different salaries even though they do exactly the same work? Why is it that businessman’s obligation alone to solve the financial problems of his workers?

The Magisterium interprets the moral law but does not (in most cases) apply it in specific situations, and when it does its applications are not doctrines, but judgments, which are to be respected, but they do not come with the obligation of assent.

Since the Christian revelation tells us nothing about the particulars of contemporary society, the Pope and the bishops have to rely on their personal judgment as qualified spiritual leaders in making practical applications. Their prudential judgment, while it is to be respected, is not a matter of binding Catholic doctrine. To differ from such a judgment, therefore, is not to dissent from Church teaching. (Cardinal Dulles)
 
Abortion is a terrible thing. But I refuse to vote for Donald Trump in 2020 based solely on this one issue.
Trump continues to sew his seeds of hate for latinos, blacks, women, and anyone who disagrees with him on anything.
We will never be able to solve any of the important issues of the day, including abortion, until we can communicate with others without trying to demonize them and their views. First we must learn to communicate with others and then to work toward solving problems.
Talking trash only needs our country to the garbage heap.
 
JoeShlabotnik said:
We will never be able to solve any of the important issues of the day, including abortion, until we can communicate with others without trying to demonize them and their views.
Click to expand...
My personal view is that the opinion that abortion should be legal needs to be demonized more, not less.
 
No dear they don’t . Look at their platforms .
Much as folks hate our president , second day in office ,he cut funding to foreign abortion ,only thing he could do by exec order

The Dems sadly push for later and later abortion ,some until the moment of birth . It’s sad .
Supporting ANY pro abort candidate was declared by Pope John Paul as a mortal sin.
Pushing funding for PP falls in that category . …
 
Agree, and the classifying in this day and age of those who disagree with POLICY as being racist etc is divisive .

In abortion, I fully empathize with a pregnant woman in dire straights . Been there at 16 BUT the baby did nothing to deserve death . And let’s not forget the societies of ages ago that sacrificed children . This is ,imo , a lie of the evil one. And I have known women seeing an ultrasound ,NOT required in abortion clinics , who realized the lie of the baby not being truly a human being . They had their babies
 
Roseszz said:
,he cut funding to foreign abortion ,only thing he could do by exec order
Click to expand...
He did the thing that every Republican President since Ronald Reagan has done, reinstated the Mexico City Policy.

This is a Policy that is fitted nicely with the standard Republican loopholes.

The policy has exceptions for abortions done in response to rape, incest, or life-threatening conditions.[16]

" The policy doesn’t prohibit international NGO’s from providing advice, a referral, or performing an abortion if the pregnancy causes a severe risk to the life of the mother or was a result of incest or rape. It is also possible for these international NGO’s to answer questions about an abortion if the woman makes it clear she has decided to have a safe, legal abortion. This only applies if the country the woman is living in has abortion rights laws and the information is given “passively” instead of providing the information as “medically appropriate”.[3]"

From Wikipedia, however you can go read the full text of the MCP online.

Do you know what percentage of Federal funding for abortions has been left in place by President Trump?

Half a Billion dollars in Title X money to Planned Parenthood alone!

I’m not cynical, I am realistic. The things that have been done are tokens instead of real change.
 
TheLittleLady said:
Half a B illion dollars in Title X money to Planned Parenthood alone!
Click to expand...
Do you not remember all the outrage from earlier this spring, when they were working on changing that? From a random article—
Several weeks ago, the Department of Health and Human Services announced the finalization of its “Protect Life” rule, which bars abortion providers from receiving family-planning funds under the federal Title X program. The rule prohibits the use of Title X money “to perform, promote, refer for, or support abortion as a method of family planning.”

Even though the statute governing Title X has, for most of the program’s history, stated that “none of the funds appropriated under this title shall be used in programs where abortion is a method of family planning,” that language effectively has been ignored. No longer.

Since the program was established in 1970, it has provided federal funding to Planned Parenthood, which today is the nation’s largest abortion provider. According to the group’s most recent annual report, Planned Parenthood facilities performed more than 332,000 abortions last fiscal year alone, over one-third of the estimated annual abortions in the U.S.

Because of the new Trump-administration rule, abortion providers such as Planned Parenthood now stand to lose Title X funding unless they financially and physically separate their provision of abortion from the rest of their business operations. Planned Parenthood executives rarely acknowledge that the policy only requires separation, and their refusal to do so suggests that they wish to conceal the centrality of abortion to their bottom line.

Predictably, abortion-rights supporters are outraged by this policy, and earlier this week California became the first state to sue the Trump administration over it. Xavier Becerra, the state’s progressive attorney general, said California is suing to “stand up for a woman’s right to make her own health-care decision about her own body” and claimed that the policy will “result in clinics going out of business due to financial strain.”
Click to expand...
…
In an attempt to fundraise off their resistance to the new policy, Planned Parenthood and its most vocal defenders are now characterizing it as a “gag rule,” an assessment that has been echoed by public officials such as Becerra. Abortion-rights supporters say, too, that the rule will result in millions of American women losing access to necessary health care. They conveniently ignore that the federal government won’t reduce overall Title X funding at all but that it will merely redirect it from groups that commit abortions to health-care providers that don’t.
Click to expand...
 
LeafByNiggle said:
This is factually untrue - by a long shot!
Click to expand...
I do not know what you are reading, but a quick read of your link yielded this as the first sentence of the conclusion:
"This law caused an increase in viewing rates and a statistically significant but small increase in continuing pregnancy rates. "
 
That’s right. A small increase in the number of women continuing their pregnancy. (Actually it was something like 11%). But what was claimed was that most women, after seeing the ultrasound, decide to continue their pregnancy. Most means 50% or more. 11% is a long way from 50%.

(Actually, the effect of the law about ultrasounds was even less. Before the law was enacted, 8.7% of women coming to a clinic for an abortion decided to continue their pregnacies. That’s without the ultrasound law. When the ultrasound law was enacted, this number went up to 11.2%. That’s better than 8.7% for sure. Apparently 2.5% of the women changed their mind because of seeing the ultrasound. That’s good, but it is nowhere near “most” women changing their mind.)

P.P.S: This is not to say the ultrasound law was a bad law. I think it was actually good. Not because it accomplished a great deal of good, but because it accomplished some good, and that is a good thing. One does not need to employ false statements to justify the law like @1cthlctrth did.
 
Last edited:
Actually, no, there was a threat, a small percentage of funds to PP were stopped, the courts stepped in, Planned Parenthood decided to stop accepting some funds, and one side of the media, National Review being part of that side, declared a win for President Trump. It is far, far more complicated (intentionally) than that.

I will draw it out over my lunch hour.
 
Last edited:
Cool beans. I stopped paying attention to it after all my FB friends’ hair caught fire because they were convinced a million women were going to die because the funds were redirected to non-abortion providers. So I haven’t paid attention to it since, like, March, and I didn’t hear how things played out.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top