Reconciling Catholic Church teaching and "pro choice" Catholics

[Benadam]

By they I assume you mean the “pro choice” Catholics, if so, then I agree, they seem to write their own scripture.

Regarding your statement that Catholics believe that the US is a special divine work; if this was true at some point, I certainly don’t believe it true any longer. Our separation of Church and State (which was bogus in the first place) has been carried all the way to separation of morality and State.

I’m sorry. I do mean 'pro-choice Catholics. One way that our system is percieved as divine is in the way we treat the documents of origin and the mindset of the ‘fathers’ that wrote them. All made complete with a persecution experience.

 

[Caramel]

Well, it seems pretty obvious that if you conform to the Catechism that you cannot be pro-choice.

You cannot take away the biological argument and still have a debate. Those who are pro-choice fundamentally disagree with Catechism 2270.

“Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person - among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life.”

In addition, the CC also does not have any proof that an embryo is human from conception. The CC believes it and has very good reasons for believing it but there is no actual proof.

This is where the discuss would need to start, IMHO.

Do you have any idea of how it could be proven that an embryo is human from conception? You can’t prove it using biology so I would think that it would shift to a moral or philosophical proof but of course you can’t prove it in those fields, either. Can you? I don’t see how but I’m not clear on philosophy or morality.

Of course I believe the Catholic Church to be correct in their reasoning but then I’m not a prochoice Catholic. And now I’m not so sure about the Catechism. What exactly is the Catechism? Can a person be Catholic and disagree with statements made in the Catechism? I’ve had mine for only few months and I am wading through it. I read at the beginning that it is a way of explaining Catholic doctrine to everyone (doctrine being faith and morals) and to be a reference. Every word in it is supposed to be true and I accept that.

But the few religious posts that I have personally received have stated that the Bible makes no reference to abortion. I doubt that these posts were from Catholics; I believed them to be from members of Planned Parenthood who had been instructed in how to debunk any prolife argument. Maybe prochoice Catholics grab onto this sort of argument to justify abortion. I don’t know.

 

[survive]

Biology is as sure the mammal at conception is a live individual of the parents’ species as any science is of anything at all. To pretend there is doubt about that is like pretending no one knows whether there is hydrogen in a water molecule.
Viability is gradual and relative. Life is absolute. Life begins at conception. That’s science. If an embryo weren’t alive there would be no abortion. There would be nothing and no one to abort. Abortion is the killing of an embryo. There is no way to kill anyone or anything that is not alive to begin with. So the fact that an abortion kills a living individual human is as clear and solid as any scientific fact can ever be.
Viability begins when every organ is present, when the embryo becomes a fetus at six to eight weeks after conception. After that it’s a matter of neonatal ICU quality. So far the youngest in days ever born and saved was 18 weeks, five days in 1985; the most premature in development was an underdeveloped boy of 19 weeks, three days, in 1987. The boy, David Elgin Gill, was slightly less developed than the girl, Kenya King, though he was born almost a week older; they all develop differently. Equivalent efforts could probably save most premies at 19 weeks if every premature child were delivered in a state-of-the-art hospital, and that was in the '80’s, so let’s figure that if the medical profession had support for saving more babies, we would soon push viability to just under 18 weeks, at a modest estimate. Around half who are born at 24-25 weeks make it, including some who survived attempted abortions. At 32 weeks, some don’t even need neonatal care.
At birth, a premature baby is viable while in the incubator; a stronger newborn is viable while warm and fed. After birth, the placenta detaches. The cord is cut. The airway clears. The baby’s body becomes gradually more separate and independent. Then the child can hold her own bottle, and is independent of the mother’s body in one more way. That’s at several months after birth. Then the child can sleep through the night; then she can crawl away from danger; then she can run from danger. She no longer needs to be carried. Soon she can control her bladder and bowels and needs no one to set her on the toilet and hold her there. Finally her body is all her own. To question a child’s right to live just because the child’s body is attached to and depends upon the mother’s body is all the same thing whether the child is a zygote, embryo, unviable fetus, viable fetus, premie, full-term newborn, crawling infant, toddler or three-year-old girl or boy. The right to live is substantially different from the right not to be temporarily attached to a child who is already there. A government that ignores this has no right to teach a generation about sensitive topics.

 

[beafedor]

Do you have any idea of how it could be proven that an embryo is human from conception? You can’t prove it using biology so I would think that it would shift to a moral or philosophical proof but of course you can’t prove it in those fields, either. Can you? I don’t see how but I’m not clear on philosophy or morality.

Of course I believe the Catholic Church to be correct in their reasoning but then I’m not a prochoice Catholic. And now I’m not so sure about the Catechism. What exactly is the Catechism? Can a person be Catholic and disagree with statements made in the Catechism? I’ve had mine for only few months and I am wading through it. I read at the beginning that it is a way of explaining Catholic doctrine to everyone (doctrine being faith and morals) and to be a reference. Every word in it is supposed to be true and I accept that.

But the few religious posts that I have personally received have stated that the Bible makes no reference to abortion. I doubt that these posts were from Catholics; I believed them to be from members of Planned Parenthood who had been instructed in how to debunk any prolife argument. Maybe prochoice Catholics grab onto this sort of argument to justify abortion. I don’t know.

The Bible’s Teaching Against Abortion: Check out this page from the Priests for Life website priestsforlife.org/brochures/thebible.html

also, check out this simple verse: “If men strive, and hurt a women with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman’s husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life” (Ex.21:22-23).

 

[beafedor]

Also, let’s talk Pregnancy. This is a note I posted on my Facebook in September. It deals with implantation and contraceptives.

"On Saturday the 13th of September 2008, I was running around a high school track. I had been training for months and my goal was to run 9 miles, as a routine long run. I was feeling strangely tired after the 3rd mile. I remember that I wanted to quit and I gave up at mile 7. On that day, I had a bloody discharge and I thought that my period had started. Not so. What was causing my tiredness and bleeding was in fact a tiny human being who was implanting in my womb. The miracle of life had happened. Implantation in the uterine wall usually occurs 1 week after conception. Conception is when a unique human being is created.

A year later, we have a 3.5 month old baby girl who is laughing, kicking her legs, sucking at my breast and growing very fast. Had I been using contraception, there would be no kicking, no laughing, no milky mouth…

Most contraceptive pills and devices not only prevent ovulation but they can also keep a created human being from implanting in the uterine wall, hence causing an abortion. My little girl lives and I still remember the day when she started her 9 month journey in my womb." For more information about contraceptives vs. abortifacients, log on to pregnantpause.org/abort/untold.htm

To be clear, what I mean is that life begins at conception and the 9 months stay in the uterus starts at implantation.

 

[gakroeger]

Church needs healthy debates, conducted with caution, pope says

“The Catholic Church needs healthy debates between theologians to increase the understanding of faith, but the debate must always uphold official church teaching and must be conducted in a way that does not confuse the faithful”, Pope Benedict XVI said

This is the point I have been trying to make with the debates on this forum, the legal issues especially ignore Church teaching.

Link to complete article………….

More evidence that abortion has a greater negative affect on women than the proponents of abortion such as Planned Parenthood would admit or make known to their unsuspecting patients.

New Study Shows 85 Percent of Women Say Abortions Cause Mental Health Issues

A new report from researchers at a university in New Zealand indicates 85 percent of women who had abortions report negative mental health issues as a result. The report is the latest from professor David Fergusson and his team showing abortions cause problems for women.

Link to complete article………….

Abortion, breast cancer link confirmed again

The evidence is growing and science is beginning to confirm what the Church and the Pro Life movement have been stating all along. And to think one of the largest organizations fighting breast cancer is the Susan G. Komen organization who is arm and arm with Planned Parenthood. Fighting breast cancer and helping to cause it at the same time. This has been pointed out to the Susan G. Komen organization by numerous Pro Life groups, however, their ties to the radical feminist movement are stronger than their desire to beat breast cancer and save lives of both Mother and baby.

Link to complete article………….

I need to post this information on the health care debate thread also, what impact will abortion have on the proposed health care plan when it apparently will not only fund abortion but also the negative effects of abortion on the women who have them.

 

[Caramel]

I need to post this information on the health care debate thread also, what impact will abortion have on the proposed health care plan when it apparently will not only fund abortion but also the negative effects of abortion on the women who have them.

Yeah that sounds like a good way for the government to save money - not!!

Abortion is wrong - ethically, morally and now financially. It is just plan wrong. I think that some prochoice Catholics think it’s a womens’ rights issue. But it isn’t. Approximately half of the unborn babies aborted are female. Abortion is killing future women.

Is there anybody on this thread that is, or was once, a prochoice Catholic? People don’t seem to be afraid to post their views on other threads. Why aren’t prochoice Catholics speaking out here?

 

[Caramel]

The Bible’s Teaching Against Abortion: Check out this page from the Priests for Life website priestsforlife.org/brochures/thebible.html

also, check out this simple verse: “If men strive, and hurt a women with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman’s husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life” (Ex.21:22-23).

What do “…and yet no mischief follow” and “…if any mischief follow” mean? Does “mischief” refer to death of the child?

I’ve heard references to these verses before but they were paraphrased and used as attempts by prolifers to defend the position of the sanctity of the unborn. And still the prochoicers came back and said, “Well, it doesn’t say “a b o r t i o n” does it? No, it doesn’t. If God didn’t want us to have abortion He would have said, “Don’t have abortions.” Which doesn’t make sense because God did say “Thou shalt not kill.” They prochoicers would say that the commandment doesn’t mean unborn children because we’re allowed to kill animals and unborn children aren’t even human and anyway you’re an idiot…”

One prochoicer actually wrote to me saying that if the unborn were considered people then the angels would have celebrated Jesus’ conception, not his birthday. Unbelievable. I asked him how he knew the angels didn’t celebrate Jesus’ conception and he said, “Well it isn’t in the Bible” and then the debate would turn into a discussion of sola scriptura and veer away from abortion. I’ve thought about that every once in awhile and one day I started imagining how strange it would be if an angel came to whoever was around and said, “Behold, I bring you tidings of great joy. For today is conceived unto Mary a saviour. And this shall be a sign to you, uh, well, Mary won’t be having her monthly cycle for awhile…” These debates always deteriorated into more ad hominem attacks, some of which would get you banned immediately from this forum.

 

[Caramel]

Also, let’s talk Pregnancy. This is a note I posted on my Facebook in September. It deals with implantation and contraceptives.

"On Saturday the 13th of September 2008, I was running around a high school track. I had been training for months and my goal was to run 9 miles, as a routine long run. I was feeling strangely tired after the 3rd mile. I remember that I wanted to quit and I gave up at mile 7. On that day, I had a bloody discharge and I thought that my period had started. Not so. What was causing my tiredness and bleeding was in fact a tiny human being who was implanting in my womb. The miracle of life had happened. Implantation in the uterine wall usually occurs 1 week after conception. Conception is when a unique human being is created.

A year later, we have a 3.5 month old baby girl who is laughing, kicking her legs, sucking at my breast and growing very fast. Had I been using contraception, there would be no kicking, no laughing, no milky mouth…

Most contraceptive pills and devices not only prevent ovulation but they can also keep a created human being from implanting in the uterine wall, hence causing an abortion. My little girl lives and I still remember the day when she started her 9 month journey in my womb." For more information about contraceptives vs. abortifacients, log on to pregnantpause.org/abort/untold.htm

To be clear, what I mean is that life begins at conception and the 9 months stay in the uterus starts at implantation.

First of all, congratulations on your little girl!! Secondly, thank you for the link. It is very informative and I also like that you left the references intact. I will be checking those out.

I was aware that the definition of “contraception” had somehow changed over the years. It was done covertly and I believe it was done intentionally. Women trusted their doctors and the doctors told them the Pill was a contraceptive even though it had been changed (by lowering the percentage of estrogen) until it had switched from being a means of contraception to an acutal abortifacient. I find it strange that anyone, Catholic or not, wouldn’t go with NFP. It’s been shown to be extremely effective (I can vouch for that myself ) and its failure risk when used correctly is extremely low. It’s also easy to do. It has no side effects; it doesn’t correlate significantly with developing cancer, uterine bleeding or fibroids, or any other disease; it is natural, and painless. But I guess it’s easier to pop a pill into your mouth and try not to worry about what damage is being done to your body. Sheesh

I’m noticing more and more that the teachings of the Catholic Church make sense even in ways that are not obvious when they first become known to lay people. For example, we are not supposed to use contraceptives. Why? Because it interferes with the moral and chaste relationship between a man and a woman and interferes with the reproduction part of marriage. But then years later I discover that it’s good for another reason - that the use of contraception presents serious health risks for the woman. So it makes sense from a moral and physical (biological) viewpoint. Weird, but maybe not so weird at all. God knows what He’s doing!!

 

[Caramel]

You guys are making great points, I hope that our Pro-choice brothers and sisters will read them. Just want to add, my Catholic cousin describes herself as “religiously Pro-life and politically Pro-choice”. This is a book that she suggested I should read to understand her position: “Pro-Choice and Anti-Abortion: Constitutional Theory and Public Policy” by James R. Bowers. amazon.com/Pro-Choice-Anti-Abortion-Constitutional-Theory-Public/dp/0275949648

in addition, I’d like to quote from an email my cousin sent me:
"my position has a to do with preserving the freedom of will that God gave each of us – we are left to struggle against sin and make our choices. When the government forces choice, there is no choice to follow God, it is imposed. Which is not, I think, what God intended. I would like to see vastly increased social programs to provide sex education and support for girls and women so that they can make the right choice to keep their pregnancies.

We are both pro-life. Neither of us are pro-abortion. I just want to focus on helping women make the right choice for life, while preserving their right to make the choice (although it may be immoral and sinful). It’s the same free choice God gave each of us."

While reading what your cousin emailed you I got a funny feeling that something was just not right about her(?) position. She can’t be prolife. She wants to help women make the “right” choice - doesn’t that mean that she is kind of pushing her own choice onto them? And doesn’t that take their free will away from them, at least a little? I don’t know how she is trying to accomplish letting them keep their free will but making the “right choice” - it reminds me of some prochoice people I’ve read about in editorials criticizing the Catholic Church for lending support to pregnant women (providing baby furniture, baby and maternity clothing, food, etc.) even when the pregnant women approached the Church and not the other way around. In other words, the pregnant women made the * choice* to keep their babies and then approached the Church for help. The choice they made is not the choice that prochoicers wanted them to make. So she Church gets blamed for doing exactly what it should be doing.

No, it seems clear to me that your cousin is pushing her choice onto the women. What I think she should be focusing on is explaining why she considers herself prolife. Honestly, I think your cousin is prochoice; personally against abortion yet accepting the “wrong” choice that a pregnant women makes if she chooses to have an abortion. Her thinking isn’t clear. You just can’t be both.

 

[Worthy5]

=gakroeger;5910020]Church needs healthy debates, conducted with caution, pope says

“The Catholic Church needs healthy debates between theologians to increase the understanding of faith, but the debate must always uphold official church teaching and must be conducted in a way that does not confuse the faithful”, Pope Benedict XVI said

This is the point I have been trying to make with the debates on this forum, the legal issues especially ignore Church teaching.

There is nothing here regarding the policy of limited govt which is a center of the modern democratic state, and nothing otherwise speaking to the law.

]

 

[gakroeger]

Is there anybody on this thread that is, or was once, a prochoice Catholic? People don’t seem to be afraid to post their views on other threads. Why aren’t prochoice Catholics speaking out here?

Because we have taken away their cover subjects, kind of proves my point…

 

[Benadam]

There is nothing here regarding the policy of limited govt which is a center of the modern democratic state, and nothing otherwise speaking to the law.

]

That’s because the Pope is speaking to those engaged in study that doesn’t immediately pertain to policies of secular government. The results of the discussions refered to in the article will eventually be introduced into the secular realm officially and authoritatively. Whether or not secular governments accept or reject them they will have a binding force on conscience and will have changed the intellectual environment permanently. Whether rejected or accepted things are never the same once truth is understood.

 

[beafedor]

What do “…and yet no mischief follow” and “…if any mischief follow” mean? Does “mischief” refer to death of the child?

I’ve heard references to these verses before but they were paraphrased and used as attempts by prolifers to defend the position of the sanctity of the unborn. And still the prochoicers came back and said, “Well, it doesn’t say “a b o r t i o n” does it? No, it doesn’t. If God didn’t want us to have abortion He would have said, “Don’t have abortions.” Which doesn’t make sense because God did say “Thou shalt not kill.” They prochoicers would say that the commandment doesn’t mean unborn children because we’re allowed to kill animals and unborn children aren’t even human and anyway you’re an idiot…”

One prochoicer actually wrote to me saying that if the unborn were considered people then the angels would have celebrated Jesus’ conception, not his birthday. Unbelievable. I asked him how he knew the angels didn’t celebrate Jesus’ conception and he said, “Well it isn’t in the Bible” and then the debate would turn into a discussion of sola scriptura and veer away from abortion. I’ve thought about that every once in awhile and one day I started imagining how strange it would be if an angel came to whoever was around and said, “Behold, I bring you tidings of great joy. For today is conceived unto Mary a saviour. And this shall be a sign to you, uh, well, Mary won’t be having her monthly cycle for awhile…” These debates always deteriorated into more ad hominem attacks, some of which would get you banned immediately from this forum.

From the Priests for Life website: “The Bible clearly teaches that abortion is wrong. This teaching comes across in many ways and for many reasons. Some people point out that the word “abortion” is not in the Bible, and that is true. Nevertheless, the teaching about abortion is there. This is the case with many teachings. The word “Trinity” is not in the Bible, but the teaching about the Trinity is there. In any case, a person who wants to deny the teaching about abortion would deny it even if the word were there.”

 

[Worthy5]

gakroeger;5912383]Because we have taken away their cover subjects, kind of proves my point…

No, you are trying to shift the debate away from the legal issue–which makes absolutely no sense–because the word " Pro-Choice" is exactly about the legal issue. So, use the term “pro-abortion” and you can then avoid the legal issue. An issue you do not want to deal with because it is not as clear as the moral issue.

 

[Worthy5]

=Benadam;5912411]That’s because the Pope is speaking to those engaged in study that doesn’t immediately pertain to policies of secular government. The results of the discussions refered to in the article will eventually be introduced into the secular realm officially and authoritatively. Whether rejected or accepted things are never the same once truth is understood.

That is not what the OP said is it, he stated this " This is the point I have been trying to make with the debates on this forum, the legal issues especially ignore Church teaching." (underline added)

Whether or not secular governments accept or reject them they will have a binding force on conscience and will have changed the intellectual environment permanently

.

So are you suggesting, that a Catholic must accept whatever the Church tells them in terms of the way to vote in order for one to be a Catholic? Is it appropriate for the Church to demand, not advise mind you nothing wrong with that, what and how the U.S. govt should use its police power and every Catholic has to agree with those means? We are talking public action here, not private.

If you are going to play hardball with what is the " topic" of this thread, which this poster believes is mischaracterized anyway, then forget the above questions. But there does not seem to be much happening on this thread.

 

[Benadam]

No, you are trying to shift the debate away from the legal issue–which makes absolutely no sense–because the word " Pro-Choice" is exactly about the legal issue. So, use the terms “pro-abortion” and you can then avoid the legal issue. An issue you do not want to deal with because it is not as clear as the moral issue.

You have a point. I think the term is a poor choice though considering that everyone is fundamentally pro-choice and anti-choice depending on what is chosen. That mother who drove her car into a lake with her sons inside surely chose to do something that no one would be ‘pro-choice’ about. So the term ‘pro-choice’ is an innapropriate term that implies that those who are not pro-abortion are not pro-choice.
Conversely the term pro-life doesn’t impose a false judgement on people who are pro-abortion because abortion does put an end to life after it has begun living.

 

[Benadam]

That is not what the OP said is it, he stated this " This is the point I have been trying to make with the debates on this forum, the legal issues

 

[gakroeger]

I thought this thread was a call to Catholics who publicly treat an act as conditionally evil that their church teaches is intrinsicly evil.

Exactly, thank you…

I don’t really care if this thread gets lots of traffic, like the last one. If this thread opens the eyes of one “pro choice” Catholic it will have been a success…

 

[Worthy5]

=Benadam;5912677][My understanding of OP’s intent was to avoid the legal arguments since they become an obstacle to theological debate that ‘pro-choice’ Catholics are obligated to engage in as Catholics.

Okay, what does that have to do with the term " Pro-choice". That terms has nothing to do with Catholic theology. If you want a debate to be exclusively theological or morally on abortion than just say " This is thread is a debate those Catholics that are “Pro-choice” BUT ALSO believe that there are moral justifications for some if not all abortions. For we know, there is a position for Pro-Choice Catholics to agree that abortion is morally wrong but that the govt role regarding abortion implicates the policy of limited govt that is fundamental to a democratic-republic."

Okay a long title, but you get the point.

I am not a divided person. I am a Catholic whether I’m at home at work or in the voting booth. As a Catholic I am obligated to obedience to the Magisterial teaching presented to me. If I disagree I must do it with respect to that obedience. If I really thought that abortion was not intrinsicly evil I would not question Catholic teaching I would question my faith as a Catholic.

Okay, so are Pro-choice Catholics who accept abortion as wrong, but believe govt police power should be limited because it is the primary force in society that threatens individual liberty, " divided people"?

The Church has a rubric of authority (and infallibility in some instances) in *essential *matters of faith and morals----not prescribing the use of govt power, that which was constituted by a free people, in regards to social problems of any particular stripe.

I thought this thread was a call to Catholics who publicly treat an act as conditionally evil that their church teaches is intrinsicly evil

.

So if you are pro-choice because of the support of limited use of the police power of the state, you automatically treat, publically, abortions as a " conditional evil" and not an intrinsic evil. So how I vote about how govt power should be used indicates my moral standing. If so, and we all agree we want to be moral, then why is this not a Theocracy with the US Catholic Bishops running the government?

Hey, look at it this way guys, it is healthy debate. All ideas should be challenged.
[/quote]