ProChoice Catholics: Who or what determines why some 'legal' behaviors are moral and some are immoral

[Tantum_ergo]

With the earlier thread going beyond the 1000 post limit I don’t think the question above had a chance to be discussed or answered.

I hear a lot of people who say that if an action is ‘legal’ it can therefore be defended as ‘moral’. (Abortion a case in point).

But other legal actions (in other countries, for example, it is legal to stone a woman found guilty of adultery) this legal action is condemned as **immoral. **

So I’m curious.

Why the double standard? Either there are some actions which (though legal) are not moral, and cannot be justified on moral grounds no matter how ‘legal’ they are held to be. . .or BAM! the act of ‘legislating’ can turn an action which was once both illegal and immoral (abortion in the U.S. prior to 1973) into a 180 degree turnaround where it is both legal and moral.

So. . .what ‘magic’ makes an action ‘moral’ or ‘immoral?’ and what authority can we know we have determined the action truly for all time? For morality is not something which is true at one time, or for one ‘group’, but not for other times or other groups.

 

[beafedor]

At some point in my life, I too was defending the woman’s right to destroy her unborn child. At that time, I was far away from God but that is no excuse. I was thinking of myself as of someone who had some moral standards. But if anyone challenged me on abortion, the arguments were lacking. My life had been a chain reaction of bad decisions after my own abortions. Deep down, I knew that it was wrong, immoral, violent and traumatizing. Thank God I was saved from my sins and misery some years later. I leave the Judgment to God Almighty but I have to say that some people make me sick to my stomach: all the noble political nonsense such as “I’m pro-choice”, “I’m pro life with exceptions”, I support “reproductive rights” and the “right to privacy”, those who place the “law of the land” above the law of the God that they say they serve. Surely they have not lived in a household with a woman who had an abortion and who as a result was drinking, using drugs, was detached from her family and neglecting them. But abortion is forever. People have to know what they defend. Real pregnant women are sacrificing unborn children on the altar of abortion every day. Each of these women are our sisters, not the random fruit of some rhetoric, not a statistic. Real human females carrying real tiny humans in their wombs and as Christians it is our duty to help them in their hour of distress.

Change the language, change the culture: “I’m not pro-abortion, I’m pro-choice”. From NARAL PRO-CHOICE’s website (emphasis added):
Quote: Anti-choice people want to outlaw abortion, regardless of the woman’s situation. They will stop at nothing to make it harder for women to access abortion. They even target the doctors who provide **abortion **care. Anti-choice people use many of the following tactics to reach their goals:

• Violent tactics that intimidate doctors and patients
• Bans on safe abortion methods that protect women’s health
• Restrictions on low-income women’s access to abortion and other health care
• Dangerous laws that jeopardize young women’s health and safety
• “Crisis pregnancy centers” that intentionally mislead women
• “Personhood” measures that would ban abortion
• Distortions of science to instill fear
• Restrictions on women’s access to RU 486 (=medical abortion)
• Refusal clauses that deny women basic health services

 

[catsrus]

As a logical extension of your question;
At what point does the “blob of tissue” become a baby?
If it is not a baby at, say, 91 days, is it a baby at 92 days? Ergo, okay and legal to abort on Wednesday, but not okay or “legal” to abort on Thursday.
I really. really want a pro-choicer to answer this question. None I have ever asked it of have answered me.

 

[RobbyS]

As a logical extension of your question;
At what point does the “blob of tissue” become a baby?
If it is not a baby at, say, 91 days, is it a baby at 92 days? Ergo, okay and legal to abort on Wednesday, but not okay or “legal” to abort on Thursday.
I really. really want a pro-choicer to answer this question. None I have ever asked it of have answered me.

I doubt that pro-choicers even accept the existence of such a point. The fetus becomes a baby only if it is “wanted.” That is. it is up to the woman to decide, depending on the result she wants. But of course, it is not that simple. A large group of people in high places must agree with her, or she cannot exercise this “right.” The same people who can tell us that Hitler was evil because he killed millions, but that we were not even though we also killed millions.

 

[RobbyS]

At some point in my life, I too was defending the woman’s right to destroy her unborn child. At that time, I was far away from God but that is no excuse. I was thinking of myself as of someone who had some moral standards. But if anyone challenged me on abortion, the arguments were lacking. My life had been a chain reaction of bad decisions after my own abortions. Deep down, I knew that it was wrong, immoral, violent and traumatizing. Thank God I was saved from my sins and misery some years later. I leave the Judgment to God Almighty but I have to say that some people make me sick to my stomach: all the noble political nonsense such as “I’m pro-choice”, “I’m pro life with exceptions”, I support “reproductive rights” and the “right to privacy”, those who place the “law of the land” above the law of the God that they say they serve. Surely they have not lived in a household with a woman who had an abortion and who as a result was drinking, using drugs, was detached from her family and neglecting them. But abortion is forever. People have to know what they defend. Real pregnant women are sacrificing unborn children on the altar of abortion every day. Each of these women are our sisters, not the random fruit of some rhetoric, not a statistic. Real human females carrying real tiny humans in their wombs and as Christians it is our duty to help them in their hour of distress.

Change the language, change the culture: “I’m not pro-abortion, I’m pro-choice”. From NARAL PRO-CHOICE’s website (emphasis added):
Quote: Anti-choice people want to outlaw abortion, regardless of the woman’s situation. They will stop at nothing to make it harder for women to access abortion. They even target the doctors who provide **abortion **care. Anti-choice people use many of the following tactics to reach their goals:

• Violent tactics that intimidate doctors and patients
• Bans on safe abortion methods that protect women’s health
• Restrictions on low-income women’s access to abortion and other health care
• Dangerous laws that jeopardize young women’s health and safety
• “Crisis pregnancy centers” that intentionally mislead women
• “Personhood” measures that would ban abortion
• Distortions of science to instill fear
• Restrictions on women’s access to RU 486 (=medical abortion)
• Refusal clauses that deny women basic health services

-Confrontation is not the same as violence; pro-life people seldom resort to violence.
-abortion clinics operate freely in most states
-any true medical emergency during a pregnancy is usually taken care of
-Crisis pregnancy centers offer women options other than abortion
-“Personhood” simply wants the law to acknowledge the legal existence of the unborn child
-the “Pill” interferes with the normal menstrual cycle; an abortion, either chemical or surgical artificially shuts down a process that affects the woman’s who body and mind.

• Abortion seldom falls under the rubic of health care: a pregnancy is not a disease, a fetus is not a diseased kidney.

 

[migurl]

One of the problerms with confronting pro-abortion types is that a lot of them don’t have facts anyway so when you talk to them they repeat the same few soudbytes over and over. the other issue is that no one would want to admit that tehy committed or condoned murder, so they cover their eyes, ears and mouths and pretend that its all ok…
I have also myself wondered why ppl think that the first breath of air is so important. I mean, we get oxygen while in the womb, so it isn’t like we don’t get O2 until be are born. Also, with technology babies are surviving earlier than in the past so they become viable way sooner than they used to.

 

[vera_dicere]

As a logical extension of your question;
At what point does the “blob of tissue” become a baby?
If it is not a baby at, say, 91 days, is it a baby at 92 days? Ergo, okay and legal to abort on Wednesday, but not okay or “legal” to abort on Thursday.
I really. really want a pro-choicer to answer this question. None I have ever asked it of have answered me.

But thats just it, that so called “blob of tissue” is not a baby. She’s a zygote, or an embryo or a foetus, she does not become a baby until she is born.

However, she is a child, a tiny human being. The pro-abortion crowd have twisted the words like embryo and foetus to mean something that is not human. But she is fully human at 8 weeks, she is a fully human foetus. Just like each and everyone of us have been. Being a foetus doesn’t make anyone less human. It just means she is fully human at that stage of development.

I think the pro-life movement has failed dismally at reclaiming these words to humanise our brothers adn sisters in the womb.

The pro-abortion crowd, are a pack of semantically challenged individuals as there really is no such thing as “anti-choice”. Choice implies a plural, last I checked, being pro-life means I’m only against one choice, the choice to kill.

If they want me to call them pro-choice, I will, I’ll just make it more obvious:

Pro-choice to kill unborn human beings.

Or Pro-abortion, their pick.

As for the topic at hand, just because something is legal doesn’t mean its moral, slavery was once legal too.

The ironically funny thing is once it was illegal for a woman to vote, so if something is moral because it is legal, then something that is illegal must be immoral, so when those women voted they are doing something immoral that has simply been changed by the law to now be moral.

Also means that what Hitler did was moral, seeing as he made it legal.

The whole “It must be okay if its legal” is just a crutch for people who don’t want to ask themselves the big questions that make them feel uncomfortable.

 

[catsrus]

originally posted by vera dicere
The whole “It must be okay if its legal” is just a crutch for people who don’t want to ask themselves the big questions that make them feel uncomfortable.

This is an absolute truth.
And it applies to more than abortion.

Interesting. This topic has been up on the board for over 24 hours and still not attracted one “pro-choicer”.
They usually flock to subjects like this one to argue their point.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Perhaps they’re afraid of being ‘persecuted’ for simply ‘daring to be honest’.

But look–I was careful not to even look on the thread for an entire day just so that I wouldn’t ‘scare’ people into thinking I would jump all over them.

So – be courageous, Pro-choice Catholics! Tantum is not going to leap down your throat or pull ad hominems or persecute you for ‘sharing’.

***Ok, seriously, here. I really am interested in a response and I promise I will not instantly fire back with, “how could you think something so wrong” but will actually try to consider the point and address it respectfully. So. . .anybody care to address my question? I’ll check back this evening if I am able!

 

[PRmerger]

As a logical extension of your question;
At what point does the “blob of tissue” become a baby?
If it is not a baby at, say, 91 days, is it a baby at 92 days? Ergo, okay and legal to abort on Wednesday, but not okay or “legal” to abort on Thursday.
I really. really want a pro-choicer to answer this question. None I have ever asked it of have answered me.

My experience is that over the past 20 years the pro-abort rhetoric has changed.

It was indeed their argument, say 20 years ago, that it wasn’t a baby, but only a “blob of tissue”, as you state.

However, with the advent of hi-tech pre-natal ultrasounds, there is no denying that it is a person inside the womb.

Thus, the pro-abort message has changed. Their argument is no longer "it’s not really a baby but a “blob of tissue”, but rather “It’s a woman’s right to reproductive choice over matters of her own body.”

This, IMHO, is the more sinister argument. It’s simply diabolical.

The old rhetoric, while a lie, at least acknowledged that it would be wrong to kill a human being.

Now, the rhetoric is, “it’s a human being, okay, okay, okay, BUT, so what?…” This acknowledgment that it’s a human life, but that doesn’t matter, is heinous indeed.

This devolution in reasoning is mind-boggling that our society actually has apologists for the above argument. As if it could be defended, ever, as being reasonable, moral or sane.

 

[canadianguy1143]

What I observed is that they also tried to make it a religious belief rather than a social justice one. CMatt would say “plurality of beliefs” and even said “ensoulment” with regard to the status of the unborn, thereby trying to make it a Catholic issue.

Abortion is NOT a Catholic issue. Its a human rights issue.

The problem that Rence had was the issue of rape and danger of death of the Mother. Dealing with rape, Rence had conjured up an image of a raped woman being forced to carry a baby to term was somehow another violent act. Yet by acknowledging that abortion could be wrong in other circumstances Rence has no trouble in encouraging REAL violence to an innocent unborn baby conceived as a result of rape. Carrying a baby to term hardly constitutes violence.

I’m glad in a way that the thread was closed. Guanaphore seemed to pick on Iowa Mike because of the Father Drinan thing.

 

[TeresaMarie24]

I’ve spent hours debating a good friend of mine and his fiancée on this topic. He’s an agnostic that leans towards atheism, she’s an inactive Catholic, though I don’t think her beliefs even remotely resemble Catholicism anymore.

One day, I gave them a sound, non-religious argument that killing unborn children was wrong. They both agreed that my logic was rock-solid, but remained firmly planted in their pro-abortion stance. Why? There was much discussion after that, but basically it came down to the belief that people are going to determine what is right and wrong for them personally based on their individual values, so while my argument was obviously correct, the pro-abortion argument could still be used because of what someone personally believed.

The bottom line? Relativism. I think our society has become so relativistic, that someone on that side of the fence can agree with pro-life arguments and still convince themselves that it’s ok to kill a child. I think that’s scary, not only because millions are dying now and others are being emotionally and physically scarred, but because eventually it doesn’t stop anybody from doing anything to anyone. Ooh, just thought of my next debate for them.

By the way, I was “pro-choice” at one time. Why? Well, partially because I’d completely fallen away from Christianity, but also simply because I never really thought it through. I was in college and just bought into the the pro-abortion rhetoric (women’s rights, yeah!). It was actually being pregnant with my daughter that brought me back to the pro-life side years before I came back to the Church. I realized I was carrying life within me, a child, my child, and knowing that was true for me, it was true for every woman, so how could any of us support the killing of a child?

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

My experience is that over the past 20 years the pro-abort rhetoric has changed.

It was indeed their argument, say 20 years ago, that it wasn’t a baby, but only a “blob of tissue”, as you state.

However, with the advent of hi-tech pre-natal ultrasounds, there is no denying that it is a person inside the womb.

Thus, the pro-abort message has changed. Their argument is no longer "it’s not really a baby but a “blob of tissue”, but rather “It’s a woman’s right to reproductive choice over matters of her own body.”

This, IMHO, is the more sinister argument. It’s simply diabolical.The old rhetoric, while a lie, at least acknowledged that it would be wrong to kill a human being.

Now, the rhetoric is, “it’s a human being, okay, okay, okay, BUT, so what?…” This acknowledgment that it’s a human life, but that doesn’t matter, is heinous indeed.

This devolution in reasoning is mind-boggling that our society actually has apologists for the above argument. As if it could be defended, ever, as being reasonable, moral or sane.

Of course.

I guess maybe 10 years ago, I came across an article in a Fashion Magazine. It was about a chain of abortion clinics that realized that women had regrets after an abortion.

So they came up with a new way to have the abortion “experience” They would encourage the women to name their babies, write a note to them on a little heartshaped card. The women could have a “blessing” or a good bye before hand. After it was over, the women could choose a colored stone as a token to remember the baby

My Blood Ran Cold. They knew it was a child to mourn…but killed it the same.

DIABOLICAL

 

[PRmerger]

Of course.

I guess maybe 10 years ago, I came across an article in a Fashion Magazine. It was about a chain of abortion clinics that realized that women had regrets after an abortion.

So they came up with a new way to have the abortion “experience” They would encourage the women to name their babies, write a note to them on a little heartshaped card. The women could have a “blessing” or a good bye before hand. After it was over, the women could choose a colored stone as a token to remember the baby

My Blood Ran Cold. They knew it was a child to mourn…but killed it the same.

DIABOLICAL

Yes. I just heard a Catholic Answers Live broadcast of Abby Johnson, the former PP manager who converted to the ProLife movement (and is now in RCIA, praise be to God!).

She stated that originally the PP rhetoric was to call the baby a “fetus”, but then they realized that the women who came in kept calling it “my baby”–and the fact, of course, could not be denied–so the PP management decided the smartest thing to do would be to acknowledge this–it IS a baby. Otherwise, women would be too smart, esp after seeing the ultrasound at their OB’s office, to be fooled into “it’s just a blog of cells.”

 

[LCMS_No_More]

My experience is that over the past 20 years the pro-abort rhetoric has changed.

It was indeed their argument, say 20 years ago, that it wasn’t a baby, but only a “blob of tissue”, as you state.

However, with the advent of hi-tech pre-natal ultrasounds, there is no denying that it is a person inside the womb.

Thus, the pro-abort message has changed. Their argument is no longer "it’s not really a baby but a “blob of tissue”, but rather “It’s a woman’s right to reproductive choice over matters of her own body.”

This, IMHO, is the more sinister argument. It’s simply diabolical.

This rhetoric was used back in the early 90s we well. The “blob of tissue” argument was just used more. This being back when talk radio was interesting and had a lot of different ideas, one talk host (Tom Leykis, who was local in LA at the time) actually said, “fine! it’s a baby. It’s also a parasite.” Yah, he actually said that and argued this satanic position for a whole show segment and related back to it from time to time. Then again, it’s not surprising considering he mentioned on several occasions that he has conceived many children who never saw the light of day.

The arguments haven’t changed, they just change the cue cards.

 

[catsrus]

originally posted by** Mary Gail36**
They would encourage the women to name their babies, write a note to them on a little heartshaped card. The women could have a “blessing” or a good bye before hand. After it was over, the women could choose a colored stone as a token to remember the baby

As I read this I gagged on my pretzel.
Anyone here ever read a book called “The Giver” by Lois Lowry?
The theme of the book is different from this senario but runs parallel to it. Along with “The Great Divorce” by C.S. Lewis, I have given copies of “The Giver” as gifts also.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

As I read this I gagged on my pretzel.
Anyone here ever read a book called “The Giver” by Lois Lowry?
The theme of the book is different from this senario but runs parallel to it. Along with “The Great Divorce” by C.S. Lewis, I have given copies of “The Giver” as gifts also.

I can’t find the original article…but here is commentary about it.

townhall.com/columnists/brentbozell/2003/08/27/sex_and_the_glamour_girl/page/2

I hope, though, that the article disturbed others as well and shook them off the fence regarding abortion.

I had written a letter to them…was not published. No surprise.

 

[GodLovesTheSpek]

The Magisterium is the teaching section of The Church.

Guidelines are given in the Catechism:

CCC: 2238, 2239, 2240, 2242

vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P7W.HTM

For many people the “problem” is that these instructions do not appear to be specific (i.e. “just give us a detailed list of what and what not to do”). A specific list would be as long as humanity exists. Some people are deceived into believing that some immoral behavior is OK because it isn’t specifically (they think) written down. The Catholic Church is much, much more than a “laundry list”.

Read the sections of the Catechism concerning The Ten Commandments from which the above is part of. With understanding of these sections, Truth is revealed and the answers unveiled – for any situation – including that of the horror of abortion.