Reconciling Catholic Church teaching and "pro choice" Catholics

[gakroeger]

That is great to hear gakroeger, keep it up. Spend more time if you can, and let others worry about themselves.

Unfortunately, the unborn cannot speak for themselves, someone MUST do it for them.

 

[Worthy5]

=jmcrae;5967921]We do - which you then criticize as being “invasion of privacy,” when we rescue pregnant girls and help them with free medical treatments during their pregnancy, or picketing abortion clinics, or praying for the unborn, or sending cards in to our elected representatives, or setting up homes for unwed mothers (and then we get vilified because we don’t let the girls just sit around and eat bon-bons all day long - they are expected to contribute to the housework, and to be going to school or working) - can’t win for losing, as far as I can tell.

No that is great, but those are your private action—that is fine. Constitutional notions of privacy is about what the govt is doing with its police power.

 

[Worthy5]

estesbob;5967990]]

So moral truths are dependent on people defending them? Sounds like like relatavism to me.

No, that was not what was said. Listen next time.

 

[Benadam]

No that is great, but those are your private action—that is fine. Constitutional notions of privacy is about what the govt is doing with its police power.
Why wasn’t invasion of privacy a problem during the first campaign to make abortion illegal? Why wasn’t a woman’s right to make her own decision about the risks of abortion a factor then?

 

[Worthy5]

Why wasn’t invasion of privacy a problem during the first campaign to make abortion illegal? Why wasn’t a woman’s right to make her own decision about the risks of abortion a factor then?

Well because the issue was not brought before the Supreme Court and decided by it until 1973. Does not mean that notion of privacy in this country’s history did not exist until then. As Chief Justice Marshall stated " This is a constitution we are expounding."

The Church did not define the Immaculate Conception as doctrine until 1854 or so, but the Church is not saying that such a reality of the Blessed Virgin did not always exits. It existed but the Church finally came to understand it.

The law is made as its principles are applied to developing fact patterns.

 

[heathernoel]

If I read correctly, someone is actually excusing abortion in the case of rape!

Hm…talk about allowing a victim to be revictimized!

Yes, She’s pregnant. Why don’t we tell her that she’ll have to spread her legs open, have a machine inserted while on a u/s screen, the dr kills a piece of her?

Not pretty, is it? But coming from someone who has btdt and regrets EVERY single moment (not rape), abortion is NOT the answer, and in this day and age of instant answers and instant cures, this is NOT one of them.

There’s nothing pretty about rape. Neither is there anything pretty about abortion.

Stop. Love your sister as yourself. Stop using this as an excuse. Stop it! We CANNOT be pro Choice catholics. We are pro babies. We are FOR the Body of Christ.

Sorry. That hit a raw nerve.

 

[fix]

Well because the issue was not brought before the Supreme Court and decided by it until 1973. Does not mean that notion of privacy in this country’s history did not exist until then. As Chief Justice Marshall stated " This is a constitution we are expounding."

The Church did not define the Immaculate Conception as doctrine until 1854 or so, but the Church is not saying that such a reality of the Blessed Virgin did not always exits. It existed but the Church finally came to understand it.

The law is made as its principles are applied to developing fact patterns.

The Church always understood it. It was not elevated to a dogma until then. It was not an invention like the so called right to privacy.

 

[Worthy5]

=fix;5969325]The Church always understood it. It was not elevated to a dogma until then.

That is what was said.

It was not an invention like the so called right to privacy.

You can call it anything you want. The U.S. Supreme Court sees it differently----and it, not you, has the authority.

 

[zamboni]

Abortion is a complex issue only for those trying to justify it

An oversimplified approach to this issue does not equal the definition of simple issue.

 

[zamboni]

Please consider this article: **Respected Pro-Life Physician: International Abortion-Maternal Death Data Wrong
** quote: “There are several direct causes of maternal death in the developing world. A New York Times article, for example, listed the five leading ones in this order: bleeding, infection, high blood pressure, prolonged labor and botched abortions. Why single out abortion for analysis? Each of the other causes of maternal death has clear definitions, and is not in itself connected to a political agenda. However, the international politics pushing worldwide legalization of elective induced abortion does not foster clear thinking about the maternal deaths and injuries which accompany that legalization…” lifenews.com/int1245.html.

I don’t see where the link I provided singles out lack of abortion access as the lone cause of maternal deaths. Lack of available contraception and limited access to healthcare in general are other well known causes of countless, avoidable maternal deaths (from HIV, for example).

Also, this article **UN Data Shows Pro-Abortion Laws Lead to More Maternal Deaths for Women **
quote: “Maternal deaths increased by twenty percent in the period 2005-2007 in South Africa, a country that since 1996 has had one of the most permissive abortion laws on the African continent.” lifenews.com/int1293.html

I hope that you are not suggesting this article proves that abortion access leads to more maternal deaths. If South Africa has had the most permissive abortion laws since 1996 then why would Lifenews.com quote South African maternal death figures only from between 2005-2007? Since all of your links are from the same source, may I ask if you aware of Lifenews.com’s reputation for playing fast and loose with facts and figures, as identified in the following link provided?
theamericanview.com/index.php?id=324

and this article: **WHO Maternal Mortality Report Presents Skews Data to Advance Abortion Agenda **
quote: “A 2005 WHO Bulletin admitted that relatively very few countries provide reliable and complete data on mortality or cause of death. In fact, of the 46 African countries, which supposedly account for about 50% of maternal deaths, only one country had complete data available…” lifenews.com/int1256.html

Using lack of available data to dismiss or underestimate a known, serious and widespread problem amounts to moral failure, in my opinion.

one more article:Pro-Abortion Memo Reveals Focus on Illegal Abortion Death Myths lifenews.com/nat245.html

This article does not disprove any of the estimated numbers. It only argues that “The precision implied in such numbers is highly misleading.” That would be a fair charge if it more than estimate-level precision were implied or if the estimates themselves were proven to be grossly inaccurate or misleading as estimates. However, all Lifenews.com does here, again, is cite lack of available data to dismiss, underestimate or play down a known, serious and widespread problem, which amounts to moral failure, in my opinion.

 

[zamboni]

Actually, it is of greater benefit to poor people to have more children, since once they reach a certain age, they can help their parents. Poor families with lots of children usually end up much better off in the second and third generation, but those who don’t have very many children tend to perpetuate a cycle of poverty from generation to generation, until they finally die out.

How does it help poor families to have an unlimited number of children in places where there is very little if any employment available, or where drought precludes even subsistence agriculture?

A single mother is also better off in the long run to give birth to her child - she is more likely to finish her education, get a job, and establish a household earlier than a woman who aborts her child - she becomes an active contributor in society for a longer period of time in her life.

You did not provide any sources for this info but I would like to believe it’s all true anyway.

There is a great deal of documented mental illness in post-abortive women, especially depression, which has the effect of removing them from contributing positively to society.

This very recent article from the Psychiatric Times calls post-abortion trauma syndrome “a fabricated mental disorder conceived by anti-abortion activists to advance their cause, not a scientifically based psychiatric disorder.” psychiatrictimes.com/display/article/10168/1442899?pageNumber=1&verify=0

 

[zamboni]

May I ask why the pro-life movement thinks God needs them to protect unborn children when the Gospel of Matthew 3:8-9 says, “Produce fruit in keeping with repentance. And do not think you can say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father.’ I tell you that out of these stones God can raise up children for Abraham.” biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+3&version=NIV

 

[zamboni]

Is it not fair to say that pro-lifers are demanding the head of John the Baptist?
youtube.com/watch?v=Xc1Tr_XhjdI

 

[fix]

That is what was said.

There is no ananlogy between that truth and the one invented by some judges.

You can call it anything you want. The U.S. Supreme Court sees it differently----and it, not you, has the authority.

They abused their authority.

 

[fix]

May I ask why the pro-life movement thinks God needs them to protect unborn children when the Gospel of Matthew 3:8-9 says, “Produce fruit in keeping with repentance. And do not think you can say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father.’ I tell you that out of these stones God can raise up children for Abraham.” biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+3&version=NIV

Here is the answer:

To defend and promote life, to show reverence and love for it, is a task which God entrusts to every man, calling him as his living image to share in his own lordship over the world: "God blessed them, and God said to them, ?Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth’ " (Gen 1:28)…

The deliberate decision to deprive an innocent human being of his life is always morally evil and can never be licit either as an end in itself or as a means to a good end. It is in fact a grave act of disobedience to the moral law, and indeed to God himself, the author and guarantor of that law; it contradicts the fundamental virtues of justice and charity. “Nothing and no one can in any way permit the killing of an innocent human being, whether a fetus or an embryo, an infant or an adult, an old person, or one suffering from an incurable disease, or a person who is dying. Furthermore, no one is permitted to ask for this act of killing, either for himself or herself or for another person entrusted to his or her care, nor can he or she consent to it, either explicitly or implicitly. Nor can any authority legitimately recommend or permit such an action”.52
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/j...f_jp-ii_enc_25031995_evangelium-vitae_en.html
Evangelium vitae

 

[Worthy5]

=fix;5971824]There is no ananlogy between that truth and the one invented by some judges.

Your characterization.

They abused their authority

.

Your opinion, but the Court has the authority—you lose.

 

[fix]

Your characterization.

Correct one, yes.

.

Your opinion, but the Court has the authority—you lose.

Not an opinion and it is the babies that lose.

When did the SC find this so-called right to kill babies before the 1970s? The Church certainly claimed the Immaculate Conception before the 1800s.

 

[fix]

An oversimplified approach to this issue does not equal the definition of simple issue.

What is oversimplified about supporting the right to life for innocent persons?

 

[zamboni]

Here is the answer:To defend and promote life, to show reverence and love for it, is a task which God entrusts to every man, calling him as his living image to share in his own lordship over the world: "God blessed them, and God said to them, ?Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth’ " (Gen 1:28)…

The deliberate decision to deprive an innocent human being of his life is always morally evil and can never be licit either as an end in itself or as a means to a good end. It is in fact a grave act of disobedience to the moral law, and indeed to God himself, the author and guarantor of that law; it contradicts the fundamental virtues of justice and charity. “Nothing and no one can in any way permit the killing of an innocent human being, whether a fetus or an embryo, an infant or an adult, an old person, or one suffering from an incurable disease, or a person who is dying. Furthermore, no one is permitted to ask for this act of killing, either for himself or herself or for another person entrusted to his or her care, nor can he or she consent to it, either explicitly or implicitly. Nor can any authority legitimately recommend or permit such an action”.52

I appreciate this response but do not see where it answers the questions asked about John the Baptist, Matthew 3:8-9, or why the pro-life movement believes God needs them to protect unborn life in view of Matthew 3:8-9.

 

[estesbob]

I appreciate this response but do not see where it answers the questions asked about John the Baptist, Matthew 3:8-9, or why the pro-life movement believes God needs them to protect unborn life in view of Matthew 3:8-9.

Probably becuase, as with 99% of your posts to this thread, Mathew 3:8-9 has aboslutely no relevance to the teachings of the Church on abortion. As a self identified catholic I would suggest you spend less time reading medical journals and law reviews and more time reading the Cathceism of the Church-the latter will show that one can not reconcile being "pro-choice’ with Catholic Ceachng-the former leads you astray and by your posts may very well lead other Catholics astray.