Reconciling Catholic Church teaching and "pro choice" Catholics

[fix]

It is interesting to see when a poster cannot accept a position that is different, but reasonable to have, from theirs, they like to invent phrases, make unexplained distinctions and impute suspect motives on their opponents.

Your position is not reasonable.

" prudential issues" (from the last prior thread on this subject by fix)–what is that?

I was referring to choosing the right course of action that may have multiple correct choices. What is not merely a prudential choice is wanting no legal proetection for innocent life as you and I have now.

Argument by analogy-----yet assserting that is proof when analogies can only lend support but never prove anything.

The pro life position has been shown, multiple times.

" political ideology"–so how is that a bad thing, and how are you claiming you do not have a political ideology yourself. How is “political ideology” necessarily opposite " value of the human person."

You have stated that your understanding of the phrase “limited government”
allows you to declare one class of human persons are not entitled to the same legal protection as you and I have now.

The truth is all persons deserve protection.

 

[fix]

In regard to the OP position here is more help from the Church:

It is often claimed that the life of an unborn child or a seriously disabled person is only a relative good: according to a proportionalist approach, or one of sheer calculation, this good should be compared with and balanced against other goods. It is even maintained that only someone present and personally involved in a concrete situation can correctly judge the goods at stake: consequently, only that person would be able to decide on the morality of his choice. The State therefore, in the interest of civil coexistence and social harmony, should respect this choice, even to the point of permitting abortion and euthanasia.

At other times, it is claimed that civil law cannot demand that all citizens should live according to moral standards higher than what all citizens themselves acknowledge and share. Hence the law should always express the opinion and will of the majority of citizens and recognize that they have, at least in certain extreme cases, the right even to abortion and euthanasia. Moreover the prohibition and the punishment of abortion and euthanasia in these cases would inevitably lead-so it is said-to an increase of illegal practices: and these would not be subject to necessary control by society and would be carried out in a medically unsafe way. The question is also raised whether supporting a law which in practice cannot be enforced would not ultimately undermine the authority of all laws.

At the basis of all these tendencies lies the ethical relativism which characterizes much of present-day culture. There are those who consider such relativism an essential condition of democ- racy, inasmuch as it alone is held to guarantee tolerance, mutual respect between people and acceptance of the decisions of the majority, whereas moral norms considered to be objective and binding are held to lead to authoritarianism and intolerance.

It is true that history has known cases where crimes have been committed in the name of “truth”. But equally grave crimes and radical denials of freedom have also been committed and are still being committed in the name of “ethical relativism”. When a parliamentary or social majority decrees that it is legal, at least under certain conditions, to kill unborn human life, is it not really making a “tyrannical” decision with regard to the weakest and most defenceless of human beings?

Democracy cannot be idolized to the point of making it a substitute for morality or a panacea for immorality. Fundamentally, democracy is a “system” and as such is a means and not an end. Its “moral” value is not automatic, but depends on conformity to the moral law to which it, like every other form of human behaviour, must be subject: in other words, its morality depends on the morality of the ends which it pursues and of the means which it employs…Evangelium vitae

 

[Caramel]

It is the same mentality as far as using government force to curb behavior that isn’t universally considered as wrong. The analogy is not comparing drug use to abortion - the analogy is comparing the government response to each.

Note: I don’t want to get off track on the OP’s thread by again getting involved in the governmental and legal aspects of the issue - we discussed that at length in another thread. However, the earlier poster I had responded to had taken the discussion in that direction.

Understood and I agree that to discuss this issue at length (and of course it is an important issue) would result in taking this discussion further off-topic. So let’s just end that part here and maybe take it up again in another thread.

 

[Caramel]

The truth is all persons deserve protection.

(emphasis added)

I believe this is what it all boils down to - that simple statement quoted above. If the unborn are persons then they deserve protection.

The only other alternative is that the unborn aren’t persons. Does anyone think that is true?

 

[mlchance]

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…

The inability to provide scientific proof that an embryo is human would certainly come as a surprise to an embyrologist.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[jmcrae]

You miss the point–not surprising—its called individual choice of the women–God gave it to her—why do you think you can usurp it?

We don’t give her the individual choice to kill her husband, or her mother-in-law, or her born children. The unborn child is just as human and just as important as the rest of her family, and killing him should result in the same penalties that killing anyone else would have.

 

[jmcrae]

And that is not effectively requiring her to have the child.

Of course - but not in a way that affects her privacy in any way. None of your fears of government interference in her life would come true.

 

[beafedor]

(emphasis added)

I believe this is what it all boils down to - that simple statement quoted above. If the unborn are persons then they deserve protection.

The only other alternative is that the unborn aren’t persons. Does anyone think that is true?

Paradoxically, many abortionists and abortion advocates are in agreement with pro-lifers on when does life begin:

“Is birth control an abortion? Definitely not; an abortion kills the life of a baby after it has begun.” Planned Parenthood pamphlet, (August, 1963)

“We – in the states – have dealt heavily, up to now, in euphemism. I think one of the reasons why the ‘good guys’ – the people in favor of abortion rights – lost a lot of ground is that we have been unwilling to talk to women about what it means to abort a baby. We don’t ever talk about babies, we don’t ever talk about what is being decided in abortion. We never talk about responsibility. The word ‘choice’ is the biggest euphemism. Some use the phrases ‘products of conception’ and ‘contents of the uterus,’ or exchange the word ‘pregnancy’ for the word ‘fetus.’ … It is morally and ethically wrong to do abortions without acknowledging what it means to do them. I performed abortions, I have had an abortion and I am in favor of women having abortions when we choose to do so. But we should never disregard the fact that being pregnant means there is a baby growing inside of a woman, a baby whose life is ended. We ought not to pretend this is not happening.” Judith Arcana, abortion activist, at a London seminar, October 1999

" I have the utmost respect for life; I appreciate that life starts early in the womb, but I also believe that I am ending it for good reasons." Anonymous Boston abortion doctor, “Confessions of an Abortion Doctor,” Cheryl Alkon, Boston Magazine, December 2004

“I do them [abortions] because I take the attitude that women are going to terminate babies and deserve the same kind of treatment as women who carry babies…I’ve done a couple thousand and it turned into a significant financial boon, but I also feel I’ve provided an important service. The only way I can do an abortion is to consider only the woman and block out the baby…”. Anonymous abortion doctor, M.D. Doctors Talk About Themselves by John Pekkanen (Delcorte Press: New York) 1988, p 90-91

“I do think abortion is murder—of a very special and necessary sort. What else would one call the deliberate stilling of a life? And no physician involved with the procedure ever kids himself about that…legalistic distinctions among ‘homicide,’ ‘justified homicide,’ ‘self-defense,’ and ‘murder’ appear to me a semantic game. What difference does it make what we call it? Those who do it and those who witness its doing know that abortion is the stilling of a life.” Magda Denes, abortion advocate, clinical psychologist and psychoanalyst, “Performing Abortions,” Commentary Magazine (October, 1976)

 

[fix]

(emphasis added)

I believe this is what it all boils down to - that simple statement quoted above. If the unborn are persons then they deserve protection.

The only other alternative is that the unborn aren’t persons. Does anyone think that is true?

The other poster will claim that he does want protection, just not the same protection you and I have. IOW, he substitutes a correct standard with an incorrect standard and bases such a substitution on his political ideology that does not give each person the same type of legal protection against direct killing.

 

[Caramel]

Paradoxically, many abortionists and abortion advocates are in agreement with pro-lifers on when does life begin:

“Is birth control an abortion? Definitely not; an abortion kills the life of a baby after it has begun.” Planned Parenthood pamphlet, (August, 1963)

“We – in the states – have dealt heavily, up to now, in euphemism. I think one of the reasons why the ‘good guys’ – the people in favor of abortion rights – lost a lot of ground is that we have been unwilling to talk to women about what it means to abort a baby. We don’t ever talk about babies, we don’t ever talk about what is being decided in abortion. We never talk about responsibility. The word ‘choice’ is the biggest euphemism. Some use the phrases ‘products of conception’ and ‘contents of the uterus,’ or exchange the word ‘pregnancy’ for the word ‘fetus.’ … It is morally and ethically wrong to do abortions without acknowledging what it means to do them. I performed abortions, I have had an abortion and I am in favor of women having abortions when we choose to do so. But we should never disregard the fact that being pregnant means there is a baby growing inside of a woman, a baby whose life is ended. We ought not to pretend this is not happening.” Judith Arcana, abortion activist, at a London seminar, October 1999

" I have the utmost respect for life; I appreciate that life starts early in the womb, but I also believe that I am ending it for good reasons." Anonymous Boston abortion doctor, “Confessions of an Abortion Doctor,” Cheryl Alkon, Boston Magazine, December 2004

“I do them [abortions] because I take the attitude that women are going to terminate babies and deserve the same kind of treatment as women who carry babies…I’ve done a couple thousand and it turned into a significant financial boon, but I also feel I’ve provided an important service. The only way I can do an abortion is to consider only the woman and block out the baby…”. Anonymous abortion doctor, M.D. Doctors Talk About Themselves by John Pekkanen (Delcorte Press: New York) 1988, p 90-91

“I do think abortion is murder—of a very special and necessary sort. What else would one call the deliberate stilling of a life? And no physician involved with the procedure ever kids himself about that…legalistic distinctions among ‘homicide,’ ‘justified homicide,’ ‘self-defense,’ and ‘murder’ appear to me a semantic game. What difference does it make what we call it? Those who do it and those who witness its doing know that abortion is the stilling of a life.” Magda Denes, abortion advocate, clinical psychologist and psychoanalyst, “Performing Abortions,” Commentary Magazine (October, 1976)

Here is a link I posted in a prior thread:

priestsforlife.org/procho…esoursouls.htm.

In this site a prochoicer states basically what you have quoted above. I’m having problems with the link. I keep getting disconnected. But I think it’s a problem with my computer and not the link.

All of this leads me to believe what I have kind of suspected for a long time and it is that people know it is a human being (well at least most people believe it is a human being.) I had hoped I was wrong about this.

So this leads to a problem: If the unborn are persons and it is agreed that it is murder, why is it OK to murder? Why is it ever OK to take one class of persons and decide that it’s OK to kill them, but not other classes? How could murder be necessary? Ever?

Isn’t the murder of a class of persons genocide? How can we allow that?

Before I’ve brought up my belief that it is necessary when it comes down to saving the mother’s life. And I’ve been criticized (and maybe rightly so) for stating that. I am aware that the Catholic Catechism does not consider removal of an ectopic pregnancy to be an abortion because it is an unintended consequence of saving a life. I agree partially - I agree that it is done in order to save a human being who will die if the pregnancy is not stopped. I disagree that it is not an abortion (and please don’t jump all over me yet) because it still involves the killing of an unborn child. And it is a disaster and a shame that it ever has to happen and I know it leads to heartbreak and agony for all involved.

But as this thread is focused on prochoice Catholics I will abide by what the Catechism says and not refer to this as abortion again in this thread. I’m only saying this because if I don’t say it I know someone will say “well, what about ectopic pregnancies?? Don’t you think it’s OK then??” It seems that no matter what I say I get jumped on by someone and that is really OK because it helps me clarify my position in my own head and this is being done for the people who do not post but read the posts.

Am I missing something here?? I’ve read the above quotes and I’ve read the site that I have cited above and there is something wrong. If prochoicers really believe that they are killing a human being how could they ever do something like that? I know that some women who have abortions are barely women themselves - twelve and thirteen year olds who may not know any better and can be coerced and threatened and physically dragged to an abortion clinic. But what about the women who are older? Would any prochoice woman agree that to kill her born baby is OK? Would any prochoice woman agree that lifesaving methods shouldn’t be used on her newborn because it’s a waste of money and time??

I am truly confused here. I must be missing something. If we all agree that abortion is murder, how can we let it continue??

Please, if anyone can answer these questions, please do so because I can’t.

 

[jmcrae]

Before I’ve brought up my belief that it is necessary when it comes down to saving the mother’s life. And I’ve been criticized (and maybe rightly so) for stating that. I am aware that the Catholic Catechism does not consider removal of an ectopic pregnancy to be an abortion because it is an unintended consequence of saving a life. I agree partially - I agree that it is done in order to save a human being who will die if the pregnancy is not stopped. I disagree that it is not an abortion (and please don’t jump all over me yet) because it still involves the killing of an unborn child.

It’s not a direct killing though - it’s not the doctor dismembering the child, or doing anything at all to the child - it is simply that the portion of the tube where the child is, is removed from the mother’s body, and there is no way to re-insert the child into the mother’s body (yet … medical science may yet find a way, though ) so the child dies of exposure. But no one actually puts hands on the child to stop his life.

 

[Worthy5]

Of course - but not in a way that affects her privacy in any way. None of your fears of government interference in her life would come true.

It denies her a safe choice----the choice implicates the privacy issue and that is how the Court saw it in Roe. The Govt does not get to make all the choices in this society.

 

[Caramel]

It’s not a direct killing though - it’s not the doctor dismembering the child, or doing anything at all to the child - it is simply that the portion of the tube where the child is, is removed from the mother’s body, and there is no way to re-insert the child into the mother’s body (yet … medical science may yet find a way, though ) so the child dies of exposure. But no one actually puts hands on the child to stop his life.

I know that and it is a tragedy. But it still results in the death of an unborn human being. I understand the reasoning and I agree with it except that, well, what do you call it? An unborn human being (who is going to die unless a miracle occurs) is removed and even though it is better to do this than to allow both the child and his mother to die, the only way (at this point in time) to save the mother is to allow the child to die which it would do anyway because it hasn’t implanted in the uterus. It is horrible. If I were a physician and had to treat a woman with an ectopic pregnancy I think I would be devastated at the loss of life even though there is no way to save the child.

It comes down to terminology. I spent an hour on the phone with a friend yesterday trying to explain my view (we are both prolife) and I don’t think she understood me either. It isn’t the killing of a life on purpose and yet in a way it is.

Perhaps if a word different than “abortion” were used it would be better. Spontaneous abortions are abortions, too. But there is that word “spontaneous” in front. Maybe there is a medical term that eludes me. “Ectopic” abortion or something like that perhaps??

I know it isn’t the same thing as when a woman goes into an abortion clinic and procures an abortion. But still a human life is snuffed out.

I hope that medical science progresses to the point when these unborn children can be placed safely into the uterus and they implant. That would be wonderful!!

I’m sorry. I can’t communicate what I mean. I don’t have the words to use.

 

[jmcrae]

It denies her a safe choice----the choice implicates the privacy issue and that is how the Court saw it in Roe.

She has a safe choice. She can give birth.

The Govt does not get to make all the choices in this society.

We are not talking here about flavors of ice cream. The government gets to make laws about taxes, and about life and death issues like war, murder, etc.

Abortion is a life or death issue; do you not agree?

 

[jmcrae]

I hope that medical science progresses to the point when these unborn children can be placed safely into the uterus and they implant. That would be wonderful!!

I agree - that would solve a lot of problems!

 

[Caramel]

The other poster will claim that he does want protection, just not the same protection you and I have. IOW, he substitutes a correct standard with an incorrect standard and bases such a substitution on his political ideology that does not give each person the same type of legal protection against direct killing.

I know and that saddens me. Protection of human beings is protection of human beings. Period. We can’t have classes that deserve protection and classes that well, kind of deserve protection but not from the government, and classes that deserve protection from the government but not as much protection from the government than other classes.

We currently have a government that protects endangered, nonhuman species more than it protects unborn children. I am an environmentalist and I believe that these nonhuman species should be protected. But why is it OK to protect a type of snail but not OK for government to protect unborn children? If I ever saw a baby lying on the floor in a room filled with endangered snails and filling with CO, I wouldn’t hesitate one second. I would stomp on every snail I had to in order to get to the baby and get her out safely.

 

[Worthy5]

I know and that saddens me. Protection of human beings is protection of human beings. Period. We can’t have classes that deserve protection and classes that well, kind of deserve protection but not from the government, and classes that deserve protection from the government but not as much protection from the government than other classes.

We currently have a government that protects endangered, nonhuman species more than it protects unborn children. I am an environmentalist and I believe that these nonhuman species should be protected. But why is it OK to protect a type of snail but not OK for government to protect unborn children? If I ever saw a baby lying on the floor in a room filled with endangered snails and filling with CO, I wouldn’t hesitate one second. I would stomp on every snail I had to in order to get to the baby and get her out safely.

Because…and how many times does this have to be said. The early fetus is intrinsically part of and dependent on the women—it is her duty to protect the life and govt does not have to use its police power to fulfill its moral obligation to help her make the correct moral decision.

And the fact that you pro-life people on here-----and your position is reasonable to have------cannot recognize how reasonable people can disagree on this---- in some ways shows the very concern of the problem of govt power if it is in your hands.

If you make all abortions illegal the govt is asserting its power of the body of the women— that is simply too much. It does not matter that your goal is noble------heck the current health care law has noble aims—but the reality is govt is not really that good at reaching its objectives, it overruns on costs, overreaches in power and it attempts to make decisions that are better left for individuals to make–even if those decisions end up wrong.

In a free society, the women has an intuitive expectation that, at least for some period of time of her pregnancy, that the decision is hers----for good or ill. Our govt is not designed to solve all human problems—that is why our country has succeeded in other areas as a nation because of not over-reaching in other areas with excessive govt force.

***It is too much govt power over the individual. ***

 

[Worthy5]

She has

a safe choice. She can give birth.
No answer

We are not talking here about flavors of ice cream. The government gets to make laws about taxes, and about life and death issues like war, murder, etc.

 

[jmcrae]

In a free society, the women has an intuitive expectation that, at least for some period of time of her pregnancy, that the decision is hers----for good or ill.

Abortion was illegal from the time of the Creation of the World, until 1973. For millions upon millions of years, women were never allowed to terminate their pregnancies, and yet, somehow, they managed.

 

[Worthy5]

Abortion was illegal from the time of the Creation of the World, until 1973. For millions upon millions of years, women were never allowed to terminate their pregnancies, and yet, somehow, they managed.

Really? Interesting. That is not what the Court observed in 1973 when deciding the Roe case. Justice Blackmun delivered the opinion of the Court, and noted the following:

"It perhaps is not generally appreciated that the restrictive criminal abortion laws in effect in a majority of States today are of relatively recent vintage. Those laws, generally proscribing abortion or its attempt at any time during pregnancy except when necessary to preserve the pregnant woman’s life, are not of ancient or even of common-law origin. Instead, they derive from statutory changes effected, for the most part, in the latter half of the 19th century. "

You Come on guys, you hardline Pro-lifers make it too easy.