Reconciling Catholic Church teaching and "pro choice" Catholics

[zamboni]

If you have been following this thread I don’t think you could have any question about my position. If you do still have questions, then read the Catechism, it is exactly where I stand. However, you must read the entire statements and not try to parse the words you like and ignore the rest. The statements from the Catechism when taken in their entirely are very clear and difficult to misinterpret, you must force yourself to misinterpret what is stated there.

You seem to like most “pro choice” Catholics like to break things like abortion down into little pieces so you can find one piece that will support your politics. When I say you need to delve deeper into the tragedy of abortion, I mean you need to understand what it really is in its entirely; how it effects not only the baby whose life was taken, but also the social impact on the Mother, Father, family members, and society in general. Please read the quote from Mother Teresa below, this is the only reason abortion exists, for the convenience of others.

Although I have no idea what your point is about the father, the answer to your question is the father has equal responsibility with the mother.

I see no reason to disbelieve that answers of some kind to my questions can be found somewhere in your past responses. Meanwhile, I appreciate receiving the Mother Teresa quote, especially since her words look like they fit 2271-unworthy men, those who do not "carry out the noble mission entrusted to them by God of safeguarding life (from the 2270-time of conception). I think Mother Teresa saw equal poverty in those men who should decide a child must die so they may live as they wish.

 

[gakroeger]

I see no reason to disbelieve that answers of some kind to my questions can be found somewhere in your past responses. Meanwhile, I appreciate receiving the Mother Teresa quote, especially since her words look like they fit 2271-unworthy men, those who do not "carry out the noble mission entrusted to them by God of safeguarding life (from the 2270-time of conception). I think Mother Teresa saw equal poverty in those men who should decide a child must die so they may live as they wish.

So, why are you willing to accept the murder of the unborn?

 

[fix]

I see no conflict either with voting pro-choice while believing the Catholic Church should remain pro-life in order to show civilization how life would ideally be respected in a perfect world. Until such time as an adequately safe and secure world is created by men — according to 2271 of Church Catechism — I will support separation of Church and State so that the Church is not obliged to conform to a falling, unrepentant world. And I will quote John the Baptist who said bear fruit according to repentance.

2273 The inalienable right to life of every innocent human individual is a constitutive element of a civil society and its legislation:

"The inalienable rights of the person must be recognized and respected by civil society and the political authority. These human rights depend neither on single individuals nor on parents; nor do they represent a concession made by society and the state; they belong to human nature and are inherent in the person by virtue of the creative act from which the person took his origin. Among such fundamental rights one should mention in this regard every human being’s right to life and physical integrity from the moment of conception until death."80

"The moment a positive law deprives a category of human beings of the protection which civil legislation ought to accord them, the state is denying the equality of all before the law. When the state does not place its power at the service of the rights of each citizen, and in particular of the more vulnerable, the very foundations of a state based on law are undermined. . . . As a consequence of the respect and protection which must be ensured for the unborn child from the moment of conception, the law must provide appropriate penal sanctions for every deliberate violation of the child’s rights."81

 

[fix]

Okay guys, confession, this poster is pro-life. But to really understand the issue you have to be able to argue both sides. And the Pro-choice position based on limited govt and privacy has a legitimate argument. As far as the above, here is your hurdle. The U.S. Supreme Court in 1973:

“This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment’s concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment’s reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman’s decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.” (underline added)

Thus, the Court thought that the costs was too high—the cost to liberty and privacy. In its view, it is the women’s duty to protect that life, at least early on, and not society’s.

It was an unjust ruling and not reasonable. The child has rights regardless of any misuse of secular authority.

 

[estesbob]

Yes, where is the man? It takes two to produce a child (although neither could do it without God’s help.) Why doesn’t the father get to choose? Shouldn’t he at least have a say in what happens?

Very simple-per the law the man is irelevant unless the woman decides not to kill the child in which case he is responsible for supporting the child.Many men try and rationlaize not paying child support under the guise that he wanted the child killed and if the woman decided to keep the child she should be soley responsible for supporting the chilk.

Such is the way things are when a country in permeated with the culture of death.

 

[Worthy5]

E=fix;5943873]It was an unjust ruling and not reasonable. The child has rights regardless of any misuse of secular authority.

Hi Fix:wave:

 

[Benadam]

Very simple-per the law the man is irelevant unless the woman decides not to kill the child in which case he is responsible for supporting the child.Many men try and rationlaize not paying child support under the guise that he wanted the child killed and if the woman decided to keep the child she should be soley responsible for supporting the chilk.

Such is the way things are when a country in permeated with the culture of death.

This speaks volumes about culpability. The generative power is given to men but their bloody hands prevent them from wielding it.

 

[zamboni]

So, why are you willing to accept the murder of the unborn?

To answer your question, may I refer you to my responses at #362 and #363, page 25? And would it be asking too much for you to reciprocate, this being your third or fourth response without offering any answers to my questions for you.

My question is, why do your talking points on this issue seem to be centered exclusively around how to deal with conception problems after the fact? There must plenty of teaching available that focusses on preemption of these problems, which I would welcome help to seek, find and discuss on this thread. That is, as long as it would not be off topic to discuss the responsibilities of men – before, during and after moments of possible conception.

 

[gakroeger]

To answer your question, may I refer you to my responses at #362 and #363, page 25? And would it be asking too much for you to reciprocate, this being your third or fourth response without offering any answers to my questions for you.

My question is, why do your talking points on this issue seem to be centered exclusively around how to deal with conception problems after the fact? There must plenty of teaching available that focusses on preemption of these problems, which I would welcome help to seek, find and discuss on this thread. That is, as long as it would not be off topic to discuss the responsibilities of men – before, during and after moments of possible conception.

Why would I want to go back and reread things I have already read, do you think that somehow between then and now they will all of the sudden make some sense? I answered all of your questions, you just choose to pick very clear things apart and confuse the issue to pacify your conscience. Again if you wonder what my position is on abortion or any other moral issue check the Catechism, my position is exactly the same. What part of this can’t you understand?

Since you did not answer the question of how you can agree with Mother Teresa’s quote and still be willing to accept the murder of the unborn, I must assume you (since you still profess to be “pro choice”) will accept abortion but cannot explain why. You obviously consider the unborn less than human because I don’t believe that you would take the same position about a 2 year old toddler. Maybe I am wrong.

 

[zamboni]

Why would I want to go back and reread things I have already read, do you think that somehow between then and now they will all of the sudden make some sense? I answered all of your questions, you just choose to pick very clear things apart and confuse the issue to pacify your conscience. Again if you wonder what my position is on abortion or any other moral issue check the Catechism, my position is exactly the same. What part of this can’t you understand?

Since you did not answer the question of how you can agree with Mother Teresa’s quote and still be willing to accept the murder of the unborn, I must assume you (since you still profess to be “pro choice”) will accept abortion but cannot explain why. You obviously consider the unborn less than human because I don’t believe that you would take the same position about a 2 year old toddler. Maybe I am wrong.

I would prefer not to be required to repeat myself and would hope not to be expected to answer rhetorical questions, especially in the absence of an answer to my one and only surviving, legitimate, direct question for you (at #379).

 

[zamboni]

Why would I want to go back and reread things I have already read, do you think that somehow between then and now they will all of the sudden make some sense? I answered all of your questions, you just choose to pick very clear things apart and confuse the issue to pacify your conscience. Again if you wonder what my position is on abortion or any other moral issue check the Catechism, my position is exactly the same. What part of this can’t you understand?

Since you did not answer the question of how you can agree with Mother Teresa’s quote and still be willing to accept the murder of the unborn, I must assume you (since you still profess to be “pro choice”) will accept abortion but cannot explain why. You obviously consider the unborn less than human because I don’t believe that you would take the same position about a 2 year old toddler. Maybe I am wrong.

As a postscript to my last response, it would be more convenient and expedient if the answers you said were provided to my questions (before I joined the thread) were accompanied by the post numbers where those answers can be found. I don’t mind reading what has been written a second time if it is suggested that I missed something the first time around. That can happen to me, and the same overwhelming odds suggest it could happen to you, too.

 

[gakroeger]

As a postscript to my last response, it would be more convenient and expedient if the answers you said were provided to my questions (before I joined the thread) were accompanied by the post numbers where those answers can be found. I don’t mind reading what has been written a second time if it is suggested that I missed something the first time around. That can happen to me, and the same overwhelming odds suggest it could happen to you, too.

Hello zamboni

Sorry, I have an aversion to beating my head against a wall. I don’t think after our short discussion anything meaningful can come from further bantering with you.

Hopefully you are young and will live long enough to see the error of your thinking. I on the other hand have lived a long time and I can no longer afford to go contrary to the word of Christ. I will follow Church teaching to the letter, meaning that I will not only continue to spread the good word but will love and pray for you and everyone who is having difficulty staying on the narrow path.

Enter by the narrow gate…

 

[jmcrae]

To answer your question, may I refer you to my responses at #362 and #363, page 25? And would it be asking too much for you to reciprocate, this being your third or fourth response without offering any answers to my questions for you.

My question is, why do your talking points on this issue seem to be centered exclusively around how to deal with conception problems after the fact? There must plenty of teaching available that focusses on preemption of these problems, which I would welcome help to seek, find and discuss on this thread. That is, as long as it would not be off topic to discuss the responsibilities of men – before, during and after moments of possible conception.

The Church already teaches that sex is properly the activity of a married couple who intend to have children, or who would not refuse children if they happen to come along.

It is only when sex has occurred outside the bonds of wedlock and/or without the intention of having children that the question of abortion even comes up, which is why it is framed in those terms in that particular section of the Catechism.

 

[zamboni]

The Church already teaches that sex is properly the activity of a married couple who intend to have children, or who would not refuse children if they happen to come along.

It is only when sex has occurred outside the bonds of wedlock and/or without the intention of having children that the question of abortion even comes up, which is why it is framed in those terms in that particular section of the Catechism.

Thanks for the response. I have a basic understanding of the instruction you kindly mentioned that the Church is already proactive in teaching, but I would imagine there would be many other various and creative ways than I am currently aware of in which the Church is teaching an understanding of all conception responsibilities shared by both genders. Why not discuss on this thread, or would another thread be more suitable? Either way, I could use any information that I would be free to use elsewhere to better defend the “narrow path” (thanks “gakroeger”) of the Church. Or is this the wrong thread? If not, it would also be useful to know what some people here would say of this man who executed his responsibilities as a life-safeguarding (so-called Christian) man by executing an abortion doctor. Not that I am expecting anyone here to relate with how this man defines his own “narrow path.” thestar.blogs.com/broadsides/2009/11/defending-the-right-to-prelife.html

 

[Caramel]

While I did say that the “Catholic Church should remain pro-life in order to show civilization how life would ideally be respected in a perfect world,” I did not say utopia or bust, as you suggest. I said I will remain pro-choice “until such time as an adequately safe and secure world is created by men — according to 2271 of Church Catechism.”

OK, throw out the word “utopia” and replace it with “perfect world.” I will rephrase my question: How do you think men (and women) can create an “adequately safe and secure world” when people such as yourself believe it is OK to kill the unborn?

 

[Benadam]

paragraph 2271 is refering to the generative power entrusted to men. Adam wielded it and that’s why the next child after Cain and Abel is the first born in his father’s image. The way it would be wielded is that men do not have children unless they will be raised in the environment created by the maternal care of a mother who loves God and her husband and the order God established in the beginning.

You hav to make that happen you can’t wait. Our Lord expects us to participate with Him when He works.

 

[jmcrae]

You hav to make that happen you can’t wait. Our Lord expects us to participate with Him when He works.

Right, exactly. Our job is to be the change that we seek in this world. Andy Warhol (of all the people … ) put it very succinctly when he said, “They say that time changes things, but actually, you have to change them yourself.” I think he was talking about civil rights, but it certainly applies here, too.

 

[Benadam]

Right, exactly. Our job is to be the change that we seek in this world. Andy Warhol (of all the people … ) put it very succinctly when he said, “They say that time changes things, but actually, you have to change them yourself.” I think he was talking about civil rights, but it certainly applies here, too.

Absolutely. Truth is truth no matter where it is found.

 

[zamboni]

OK, throw out the word “utopia” and replace it with “perfect world.” I will rephrase my question: How do you think men (and women) can create an “adequately safe and secure world” when people such as yourself believe it is OK to kill the unborn?

Is it not seen as unreasonable here to automatically equate any and all pro-choice positions with believing “it is OK to kill the unborn.” My previous responses might explain more of my own opinions (not go back very far in this thread), but if you would be so kind as to ask a more accurately targeted question than why am I the “OK” Simpson of abortion, I would be happy to take it as seriously as possible.

Not sure if there is a difference between a “perfect world” and a “utopia” or what difference it would make to this thread topic.

 

[zamboni]

paragraph 2271 is refering to the generative power entrusted to men. Adam wielded it and that’s why the next child after Cain and Abel is the first born in his father’s image. The way it would be wielded is that men do not have children unless they will be raised in the environment created by the maternal care of a mother who loves God and her husband and the order God established in the beginning.

You hav to make that happen you can’t wait. Our Lord expects us to participate with Him when He works.

I don’t see anything to object to here. If I was expected to object to something then I might need help seeing what should make you look so unreasonable to me.