Reconciling Catholic Church teaching and "pro choice" Catholics

[zamboni]

Okay, now you’ve totally lost me. You want abortion to remain legal because otherwise people will have back-alley abortions. But apparently making them legal hasn’t done that, and there are 20 million back alley abortions going on today? (That’s more than triple the actual pregnancy rate, you realize … )

The 20 million figure is worldwide not just made in America. I linked an article on an earlier page within this thread giving the 20 million number you question, which you are the first person to challenge… if that’s what it is.

I do not say that abortion should be kept legal just to be kept safe as possible for those hoping to survive the experience, but that is one important enough reason to me as a child of God. Apparently, I must not want to be Caesar or Lucifer if someone that ambitious is supposed to dress for the job they want and not the one they have.

“Controlling the lives of others” - that’s hilarious. At least I’m not the one snuffing them out for the sake of convenience, or out of embarrassment.

At least you don’t kill your enemies but your gross generalizations of their motives are killing me.

 

[Irish_Catholic_1]

…that is one important enough reason to me as a child of God…

As a “child of God” you should be more concerned about the slaughter of millions of innocent babies than you are about what some evil people choose to do in an alley.

Supporting the legality of such an evil makes you complicit in that evil

 

[jmcrae]

At least you don’t kill your enemies but your gross generalizations of their motives are killing me.

And just what noble motives do these noble doctors have, then, for dismembering innocent little children and then incinerating their broken bodies together with the toxic waste?

 

[zamboni]

That too was murder, so it was wrong.

But personally, I feel he got what he deserved. He was not your avarage abortionist, as vile as they are. He was one of the rare abortionsts who murdred late term, full grown babies who are mere days away from delivery. The man was a monster and a barbarian

Comparing the role of abortion doctors to Philistines (or barbarians) is crazy enough without comparing them to Goliath himself.

As a “child of God” you should be more concerned about the slaughter of millions of innocent babies than you are about what some evil people choose to do in an alley. Supporting the legality of such an evil makes you complicit in that evil

I don’t mind that last charge because my posts are full of charges like those. You must have missed my homespun Pharisee rebuke. Not nearly as intense as Jesus but I may have generated a “free Barabbas” whisper or two.

I say your attempt to apply the law selectively and unequally, along with your lack of a viable plan to stop the deaths you claim to be primarily interested in stopping makes you a bigger hypocrite than the worst Pharisee.

And just what noble motives do these noble doctors have, then, for dismembering innocent little children and then incinerating their broken bodies together with the toxic waste?

How about the “noble motive” of enabling women to choose to have an abortion in a fallen world where the sacred conception responsibilities entrusted to men by God have been so grievously squandered that it would be unconscionable not to allow women to choose? Do you accept any responsibility on behalf of all men for the failure of far too many men to live up to the sacred responsibility God has entrusted men with? Or are all abortions just a symptom of bloodthirsty, money-hungry medical service providers and their unwitting clients?

 

[jmcrae]

How about the “noble motive” of enabling women to choose to have an abortion in a fallen world where the sacred conception responsibilities entrusted to men by God have been so grievously squandered that it would be unconscionable not to allow women to choose? Do you accept any responsibility on behalf of all men for the failure of far too many men to live up to the sacred responsibility God has entrusted men with? Or are all abortions just a symptom of bloodthirsty, money-hungry medical service providers and their unwitting clients?

The latter, quite honestly. Two wrongs don’t make a right.

What’s up with all the man-bashing? The vast majority of women are willing partners for sex, and we all learned when we were 12 that sex is “Nature’s” way of ensuring the survival of the species, by means of reproduction (ie: babies).

When I was a teenager, my mother said to me, “You can have sex whenever you’re ready. You’ll know you’re ready when you’re no longer living under my roof, you have a husband, and he has a steady job.”

She was right on the money.

 

[Irish_Catholic_1]

…I say your attempt to apply the law selectively and unequally, along with your lack of a viable plan to stop the deaths you claim to be primarily interested in stopping makes you a bigger hypocrite than the worst Pharisee…

I am no hypocrite. I say all life is sacred, from conception to natural death.

The only hypocrisy here lies with the person who call himself a “child of God” and then justifies the murder of innocent children, all in the same post.

 

[zamboni]

The latter, quite honestly. Two wrongs don’t make a right.

What’s up with all the man-bashing? The vast majority of women are willing partners for sex, and we all learned when we were 12 that sex is “Nature’s” way of ensuring the survival of the species, by means of reproduction (ie: babies).

When I was a teenager, my mother said to me, “You can have sex whenever you’re ready. You’ll know you’re ready when you’re no longer living under my roof, you have a husband, and he has a steady job.”

She was right on the money.

Your question about man-bashing is fair enough and I would not dispute that the majority of women are willing sex partners. They’re not exactly lined up six-deep at my door these days but I’m sure that’s at least partly because women have never had to excavate with a backhoe to find men willing to have sex with them.

What you see as man-bashing may just be my disappointment with the failure of patriarchy, which I am willing to admit and accept my 3.5 billion to 1 share of the blame for.

 

[LittleSoldier]

Abortion doctors place their whole lives in jeopardy to work in some parts of America, as we see from the news headlines that echo around the world. I don’t hear about the same thing happening in other countries but there are probably a scant few cases outside America. What is going on in America? It was either the last doctor who was shot and killed or the one before that whose FBI bodyguard thought the doctor would be safe left unguarded at church one Sunday. Instead, the doctor was shot dead inside of his church.

May I ask how you feel about this murder of an abortion doctor while he was attending church?

Zamboni, I saw where you brought this up before about the murder of Dr. Tiller. I haven’t seen one person in this discussion, whether “pro-life” or “pro-choice” who condoned or sanctioned the murder of Dr. Tiller. Yet this doesn’t seem to be enough for you.

Do you honestly believe that the “pro-life” people in this discussion would condemn the murder of one abortion doctor and then make a 180 degree turn and agree the murder of the doctor you are describing above is justified?

“Pro-life” people believe that **all **human life is important. What is it about the sentence “The murder of abortion doctors is wrong!” don’t you get?

 

[LittleSoldier]

Apparently, I must not want to be Caesar or Lucifer if someone that ambitious is supposed to dress for the job they want and not the one they have.

Uh, yeah. Right. Does anyone here understand this sentence? If so, would you please explain it to me?

 

[LittleSoldier]

Please just mind your own business about interactions between other people and myself. This thread does not need any more extraneous posts.

Zamboni, I am a registered member of this forum. When you post, any other member of the forum can respond. If you want to keep me out of this you must PM the forum member with whom you wish to have a private discussion. Perhaps it would be a good idea for you to read the forum rules.

Once that post appears any member can respond to it. Your posts ** are** my business!

 

[LittleSoldier]

You are still on post-conception issues. I don’t want to cut fix out but I wonder if the few members like yourself who do not seem afraid of engaging in a meaningful dialogue would work together so that I don’t have so many responses to write in limited time. I recommend that jmmcrae, SteveGC and yourself, plus whoever may wish to chime in from a safe and anonymous distance in the background. Meanwhile I have to be careful not to become involved in more conversations than I can handle.

Zamboni, this is not your discussion. Unless this is some sort of personal message to yourself it is irrelevant. Other members can respond at any time in any way they wish, as long as it is not a violation of forum rules. Attempting to tell members who can overtly discuss your (vacuous IMHO) ideas, while “recommending” others to “chime in from a safe and anonymous distance in the background” is amazingly arrogant, even for you.

This discussion is open to all forum members, even those you do not wish to engage in debate.

 

[LittleSoldier]

Even the good guys are falling like dominoes now. Please see jmmcrae’s responses and rejoin the debate if it progresses passed this latest standstill you see in comparing mere immorality(?) to murder. Of course I see a big difference myself, but how much difference do you suppose your distinction between murder and the immorality that would have precluded the murder from happening in the first place? How much difference do you suppose God sees? You like to split hairs fix, I like save life.

“I like save life.” Okay, maybe this should read “I like to save life?” If that is the case, why do you condone abortion which involves the murder of unborn human beings?

But if you really mean “I like save life” then, uh, well, nothing.

 

[LittleSoldier]

Having read the various arguments presented regarding this topic leads me to conclude that most likely 90% of all of this could be prevented if people just avoid having pre-marital sex in the first place.

I’m aware that the church teaches that engaging in pre-marital sex is a sin and while I think most of us recognize that certain situations such as rape, incest, etc will continue to happen, the teachings of the church must be followed by all its members. The solution is so simple in most cases. Could it be that further reinforcement to those members is needed? Any thoughts on what the church can do to reitterate its position regarding pre-marital sex to its members?

I think that there must be some way to further reinforcement but honestly, right now I am at a loss for words. The Catholic Church has its Catechism and it really should be read by all Catholics. I’ve also noticed a ton of books on Catholicism; many specifically dealing with pre-marital sex. I’m not sure of any titles because that sort of behavior doesn’t apply to myself anymore . Maybe someone else would have some ideas. Gakroeger, isn’t this sort of thing right up your alley?

 

[LittleSoldier]

“Following [the doctor’s] directions, I took the collection bottle and poured its contents into a shallow pan. Then I used water to rinse off the blood and smaller particles which clouded the bottom of the pan. ‘Now look closely,’ the doctor said. ‘It is important that we have got all the stuff out.’ I looked in the pan to find that the stuff consisted of the remains of what had been, a few minutes before, a thirteen week old fetus. I could make out the remains of arms and legs and a trunk and a skull. I tried to piece them back together in my mind, to see if there were any missing parts. Most of the pieces were so battered and bloody they were not recognizably human. Then my eyes locked upon a perfect little hand, less than half a centimeter long. I stared at four tiny fingers and a tiny opposed thumb, complete with tiny translucent fingers. And I knew what I had done.”

–former abortionist “Chi An” quoted in Stephen Mosher’s “A Mother’s Ordeal: One Woman’s Fight Against China’s One Child Policy” pgs 60-61

I think this speaks for itself.

 

[vera_dicere]

I know its been said, but how the heck can anyone, anywhere, think that Church can accept a pro-abortion mindset? I mean, how many of our Popes have said its’ counter-cannon?

Seesh.

 

[Benadam]

Maybe what the Democrat party stands for is not reconcileable with Church teaching. Maybe the Bishops are teaching that we should be voting Republican.

catholicculture.org/commentary/otn.cfm?id=543

 

[LittleSoldier]

I know its been said, but how the heck can anyone, anywhere, think that Church can accept a pro-abortion mindset? I mean, how many of our Popes have said its’ counter-cannon?

Seesh.

I agree with you. I know that many people were upset when Vatican II was over and the Catholic Church had not condoned artificial contraception. Some people became angry when the Church didn’t put its stamp of approval on the practice of abortion. They expected the Church to change doctrine, which is akin to changing the truth. And, of course, truth can’t be changed.

If a Catholic is so upset about the teachings of the Church why doesn’t that Catholic just leave the Church? It makes no sense.

It absolutely makes no sense at all.

 

[LittleSoldier]

Having read the various arguments presented regarding this topic leads me to conclude that most likely 90% of all of this could be prevented if people just avoid having pre-marital sex in the first place.

I’m aware that the church teaches that engaging in pre-marital sex is a sin and while I think most of us recognize that certain situations such as rape, incest, etc will continue to happen, the teachings of the church must be followed by all its members. The solution is so simple in most cases. Could it be that further reinforcement to those members is needed? Any thoughts on what the church can do to reitterate its position regarding pre-marital sex to its members?

I’ve been thinking about what you have stated here and I have tried to come up with some ideas as to how the Church can reiterate its position. I guess many Catholics won’t read the Catechism or even many of the books that cover the subject of premarital sex.

Maybe it would be a good idea if priests spoke about the subject more openly. It is such an important issue. Do you think that Catholics are aware of official Church teachings on premarital sex? I think they are, but they don’t want to accept it, so they just don’t.

It’s obvious that priests need to discuss this issue with their congregations. Maybe priests should be pointing out how premarital sex leads to more problems, such as the use of artificial contraception and the practice of abortion. I know it’s a subject that is difficult to discuss in church where there are children present who might become confused and even frightened. But it’s just so important. Perhaps priests could recommend books such as the Catholic Church’s Catechism and make the Catechism more easily accessible. But really the Catechism is so readily available already!

I’m going to ask my parish priest if he has any ideas. Maybe he can come up with something I haven’t thought about.

 

[LittleSoldier]

Having read the various arguments presented regarding this topic leads me to conclude that most likely 90% of all of this could be prevented if people just avoid having pre-marital sex in the first place.

I’m aware that the church teaches that engaging in pre-marital sex is a sin and while I think most of us recognize that certain situations such as rape, incest, etc will continue to happen, the teachings of the church must be followed by all its members. The solution is so simple in most cases. Could it be that further reinforcement to those members is needed? Any thoughts on what the church can do to reitterate its position regarding pre-marital sex to its members?

I have thought of something else, but it was too late to edit my reply to you. I was thinking that perhaps a pamphlet prepared by the Church could be made available (at no cost) to parishioners after Mass. That way children at too young an age to understand would not be negatively affected and their parents could make the decision about exposing them to such a sensitive subject.

 

[LittleSoldier]

It sounds like you stopped taking the question seriously, which is what I am finding can happen when the subject turns to men taking equal responsibility or accept some kind of equal legal restraint just so that it does not all fall to the woman in the end, who you want to deprive of choice.

OK, let’s discuss men. Let’s discuss fathers. Let’s discuss fathers of unborn children who are left out of the “choice” to procure an abortion. Let’s discuss how emotionally devastating it can be for a father to sit back helplessly while the mother of the child he helped to conceive makes the choice to kill their baby.

Why is it that the perceived “right of privacy” only extends to the mother, not to the father or to the child that may be murdered? Why is it that just because a human being is inside another human being it is somehow OK for one of those human beings to murder the other?

You write of equal responsibility and equal legal restraint - how about equal rights?