Reconciling Catholic Church teaching and "pro choice" Catholics

[Caramel]

Yes, “OK” = OJ, not Bart or Homer Simpsons. It was in your post #386 on page 26 that you said I “believe it is OK to kill the unborn,” but I think people choose abortion as a lesser of two evils, not because anyone thinks it’s OK.

I believe OJ Simpson was often called things like “clinically bizarre,” which may have been true of him, but which I hope helps you see why the way you talk about pro-choice people makes it sound like you think we are all like OJ Simpson murderers with no conscience. It also sounds like you may think abortion is the only issue that has a bearing on world safety. As I am sure you must know, people choose abortions for a wide range of reasons like poverty, famine, war, volatile domestic situations, maternal death risk, etc. Apparently, just trying to make abortion illegal will solve nothing, so why not work on a solution? I am convinced that you agree with me that abortions should stop, so why not help stop?

How do you know that it will not help stop it? The idea of OJ Simpson never entered my mind until long after you had used that term so obviously I do not consider you or any other prochoicer to be “the OJ Simpson of abortion.” Do you have a reference for your assertion that he was called “clinically bizarre?”

If you had bothered to read my posts in this thread you would know that I have agreed that induced abortion in an ectopic pregnancy is not considered an abortion by the Catholic Church as it is the unintentional killing of one to save the mother. When I have stated that I am against “all abortion except in cases of probability of death of the mother” I have been told by many that it weakens the prolife argument. I agreed so I stopped. Now I am being told that I should go back to my original statement. I can’t win in this discussion because no matter what I say it is wrong to someone; therefore I am going back to my original position:

Abortion is wrong except in cases of high probability of death to the mother.

However, these cases are few and far between, so I still insist that abortion is wrong.

Of course I know that people choose abortion for many reasons. I have two close friends that have had abortions and I love both of them. I’m not stupid. I don’t think most women who have abortions get pregnant on purpose just to have one. But it doesn’t matter if the abortion is obtained because of unintended pregnancy through rape, low SES or whatever - in these cases an innocent human being is intentionally killed and in many cases the mother dies, too.

Some links that might be of interest…

Does making abortion illegal stop it from occurring?
*No. Abortion rates are much less related to legal status than they are to levels of unintended pregnancy. In many countries in which abortion is illegal but unintended pregnancy is widespread—for example, Chile, Peru, Nigeria and the Philippines—the abortion rate is higher than in the United States. Some of the world’s lowest abortion rates are in Western European countries, where abortion is legal and covered by national health insurance systems, but where levels of unintended pregnancy are very low. *
guttmacher.org/in-the-know/index.html

• this is from the Guttmacher Institute which is well known for being prochoice and twists its statistics in order to agree to its agenda. I have already emailed them regarding their misuse of data. Of course they didn’t respond.

20 million unsafe abortions each year
*Sharon L. Camp, president of the Guttmacher Institute, which studies sexual and reproductive health, said at a news conference in London. “Legal restrictions do not stop abortion from happening; they just make the procedure dangerous.” *
nytimes.com/2009/10/14/health/14briefs-abortionbf.html?_r=1&emc=tnt&tntemail0=y

• again, from the Guttmacher Institute which twists data to fit their agenda.

Homicide One of Leading Causes of Injury-Related Death Among Pregnant Women, New Mothers
medicalnewstoday.com/articles/20316.php

• has nothing on the surface dealing with abortion and the researchers do admit that the numbers are probably under-reported; why did you include this cite?

**529,000 maternal deaths each year **
medicalnewstoday.com/articles/166526.php

• uh, this takes us to Africa - what does this have to do with abortion in North America? Please don’t play games with data.

Half of all American pregnancies are unintended
guttmacher.org/in-the-know/index.html

• OK so what? I was an unintended pregnancy; so was my brother. My mother didn’t kill us. As a Catholic you are supposed to accept and rejoice in any pregnancy that is sent to you from God; no matter what the package looks like it still contains a precious gift. You should know this. Also, once again, this is from the Guttmacher Institute, an organization with a proabort stance.

If you are going to back up your position with data I suggest you stay away from institutions that are prochoice; it would be a better idea to use data from nonpartial researchers, not those with a predetermined stand on abortion. In science you must be impartial and the Guttmacher Institute is not - that makes anything it reports to be suspect.

 

[Worthy5]

No one said it was, but outlawing abortion is about the use of U.S. law. So the Surpeme Court does have something to say about that.

 

[fix]

I do not see how legal issues have anything to do with Church teaching on abortion.

They do not, nor does faulty legal reasoning.

The Church does teach:

The doctrine on the necessary conformity of civil law with the moral law is in continuity with the whole tradition of the Church. This is clear once more from John XXIII’s Encyclical: “Authority is a postulate of the moral order and derives from God. Consequently, laws and decrees enacted in contravention of the moral order, and hence of the divine will, can have no binding force in conscience…; indeed, the passing of such laws undermines the very nature of authority and results in shameful abuse”…

And again: “Every law made by man can be called a law insofar as it derives from the natural law. But if it is somehow opposed to the natural law, then it is not really a law but rather a corruption of the law”.97

 

[Caramel]

I don’t think any prolifer denies the absolute necessity to help educate and “moralize” society, and that abortions would not cease if they are made illegal. But I believe these comparisons are apples and oranges. They rightly identify unintended pregnancies as the principle cause of abortions, but then falsely merge that fact with the legality issue, and seek to conclude that making them illegal will do nothing to help the problem. Yes, the lack of desire to be pregnant is the primary catalyst for abortions, no argument from me there. But the inference is that making U.S. abortion illegal will either do nothing to help, or it will in fact serve to bring the abortion rate up to levels on par with these other countries where abortion is illegal.

Nonsense!

Flip it around…if these other countries legalize abortion, would the abortion rate go down? If you can’t see that the obvious answer is a resounding “no”, and in fact that abortions would likely increase, then you are duped by these cleverly worded analyses and substandard comparisons.

And by the way, here’s a little news flash for pro-choice Catholics that find encouragement in some of these statistical reports about a declining abortion rate…contraception is** not **an acceptable means to reduce this genocide - alot of these reports seek to instill encouragement for the direction the U.S. is heading with it’s supposed abortion rate decline, but it champions contraception as the catalyst for this success. Unacceptable. What is needed is robust, on-going education and spirtual/moral formation focusing primarily on our next generations…AND immediate illegalization. We need both of these things…not just one of them. It’s gotten far too out of hand.

Most of the data that Zamboni uses is provided by the Guttmacher Institute. This is a very well known organization that takes data and twists it to fit their agenda. Unfortunately a lot of people are duped by them and it appears that Zamboni is one of them.

I found out about the Guttmacher Institute while reading an article that cited their conclusions. It was obvious that the article was prochoice so I checked out the Guttmacher Institute and yes, it is prochoice and messes with peoples’ minds by providing data and conclusions that fit the prochoice agenda.

 

[Caramel]

No one said it was, but outlawing abortion is about the use of U.S. law. So the Surpeme Court does have something to say about that.

Why don’t we drop the “Surpeme Court” and get back to the topic of this thread?

 

[beafedor]

As I am sure you must know, people choose abortions for a wide range of reasons like poverty, famine, war, volatile domestic situations, maternal death risk, etc. Apparently, just trying to make abortion illegal will solve nothing, so why not work on a solution? I am convinced that you agree with me that abortions should stop, so why not help stop? Some links that might be of interest…

Dear Zamboni, thank you for making your position clear and providing data from Planned Parenthood’s statistic institute. As you may know, PP is the number 1abortion provider in the US and in the world. Obviously, they want people to believe that the rates of maternal death are high and that abortion is helping to lower them. The abortion business is very lucrative and the end justify the means.

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

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

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

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

I hope this helps and sorry for all the reading… God Bless You*

 

[zamboni]

I don’t think any prolifer denies the absolute necessity to help educate and “moralize” society, and that abortions would not cease if they are made illegal. But I believe these comparisons are apples and oranges. They rightly identify unintended pregnancies as the principle cause of abortions, but then falsely merge that fact with the legality issue, and seek to conclude that making them illegal will do nothing to help the problem.

No one person can speak for the diverse pro-choice movement, of course, but I am not aware of anyone who follows thinking pattern you describe. Who, may I ask, is falsely merging a legal issue, and what false legal issue is being merged? I think most pro-choice people believe unintended pregnancies are a symptom of the problem, not the problem itself, and it has been said before that knowing the name of a problem is essential to understanding the problem. Actually, that is the moral of the Rumpelstiltskin fable, and I think it fits like a glove here.

, the lack of desire to be pregnant is the primary catalyst for abortions, no argument from me there. But the inference is that making U.S. abortion illegal will either do nothing to help, or it will in fact serve to bring the abortion rate up to levels on par with these other countries where abortion is illegal.

Nonsense!

Flip it around…if these other countries legalize abortion, would the abortion rate go down? If you can’t see that the obvious answer is a resounding “no”, and in fact that abortions would likely increase, then you are duped by these cleverly worded analyses and substandard comparisons.

Where is your counter-evidence to undupe the duped? Dismissing facts and figures by simply saying, “Nonsense, flip it around and if you can’t see the obvious then you are duped” does not show me the err of my ways.

by the way, here’s a little news flash for pro-choice Catholics that find encouragement in some of these statistical reports about a declining abortion rate…contraception is** not **an acceptable means to reduce this genocide - alot of these reports seek to instill encouragement for the direction the U.S. is heading with it’s supposed abortion rate decline, but it champions contraception as the catalyst for this success. Unacceptable.

I think of contraception as a baindaid to save life on a sinking ship. I think contraception should available to all people right now for the same reason you cannot take alcohol away from an alcoholic instantly, or at least not very smoothly, without help from a detox center. And what about the enormous HIV death toll in places like Africa? I do not expect Church leadership to stop defending the faith, I just expect laity to help bring a growing fire under control. Why would you not want to allow contraception at this time to save millions of lives if you are pro-life?

What is needed is robust, on-going education and spirtual/moral formation focusing primarily on our next generations

I agree and think this is well put.

…AND immediate illegalization.

Any evidence to show to show said benefit of making abortion illegal?

 

[gakroeger]

Not really their strongest argument though, as the Court indicated in Roe:

" 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. "

Not really, but you immediately respond with a legal argument?

 

[Worthy5]

The thread does say " Pro-choice" is that not what that implies----who makes the choice—the women or the government?

 

[Worthy5]

QUOTE=Caramel;5951296]Why don’t we drop the “Surpeme Court” and get back to the topic of this thread?

So you think the Supreme Court has nothing to say about " Pro-choice". The thread does say " Pro-choice" is that not what that implies----who makes the choice—the women or the government?

 

[fix]

Any evidence to show to show said benefit of making abortion illegal?

How about common sense? It would benefit any child whose life would be saved.

 

[gakroeger]

i don’t think any prolifer denies the absolute necessity to help educate and “moralize” society, and that abortions would not cease if they are made illegal. But i believe these comparisons are apples and oranges. They rightly identify unintended pregnancies as the principle cause of abortions, but then falsely merge that fact with the legality issue, and seek to conclude that making them illegal will do nothing to help the problem. Yes, the lack of desire to be pregnant is the primary catalyst for abortions, no argument from me there. But the inference is that making u.s. Abortion illegal will either do nothing to help, or it will in fact serve to bring the abortion rate up to levels on par with these other countries where abortion is illegal.

Nonsense!

Flip it around…if these other countries legalize abortion, would the abortion rate go down? If you can’t see that the obvious answer is a resounding “no”, and in fact that abortions would likely increase, then you are duped by these cleverly worded analyses and substandard comparisons.

And by the way, here’s a little news flash for pro-choice catholics that find encouragement in some of these statistical reports about a declining abortion rate…contraception is** not **an acceptable means to reduce this genocide - alot of these reports seek to instill encouragement for the direction the u.s. Is heading with it’s supposed abortion rate decline, but it champions contraception as the catalyst for this success. Unacceptable. What is needed is robust, on-going education and spirtual/moral formation focusing primarily on our next generations…and immediate illegalization. We need both of these things…not just one of them. It’s gotten far too out of hand.

amen amen amen

 

[Worthy5]

Not really, but you immediately respond with a legal argument?

You indicated " This article blows holes in most of the legal arguments."

 

[fix]

So you think the Supreme Court has nothing to say about " Pro-choice". The thread does say " Pro-choice" is that not what that implies----who makes the choice—the women or the government?

I note that the false phrase “pro choice” nevers gives the baby any rights or choice.

 

[gakroeger]

I do not see any legal issues raised in your document. It mentions Roe v Wade often but otherwise only questions the accuracy of abortion statistics before and after Roe v Wade. I don’t think public opinion polls can be entered as evidence in courtrooms either, but I’m just guessing about that.

Hello, Roe V Wade is a legal argument…

 

[Worthy5]

I note that the false phrase “pro choice” nevers gives the baby any rights or choice.

Well rights and duties are tricky things are they not. God seemed to be okay with giving the women that choice by giving her control over the fetus. This is what you guys do not want to have to look at: it is not about right or wrong, it is about who makes the decision----that is the strongest argument pro-choice people tend to rely on.

Ahhhh,you see first lesson in legal reasoning: How you frame the issue sets up often what answer you come to.

 

[fix]

Well rights and duties are tricky things are they not.

No, the right to life is not tricky at all.

God seemed to be okay with giving the women that choice by giving her control over the fetus.

If that is your standard than we all have a “choice” to kill or not. Really not much proof it should be legal though.

This is what you guys do not want to have to look at: it is not about right or wrong, it is about who makes the decision----that is the strongest argument pro-choice people tend to rely on.

Finally, you state the pro abort argument correctly. It is never about right or wrong. It is about convenience and devaluing life.

Ahhhh,you see first lesson in legal reasoning: How you frame the issue sets up often what answer you come to.

Framing the issue incorrectly only gives us a false answer. The law, like all else, ought not be severed from Truth.

 

[Worthy5]

=fix;5951472]No, the right to life is not tricky at all.

Ahh, but it is when you when you want to use govt police power to protect that right—who annoited you to decide whether govt police power should be used in such a way?

If that is your standard than we all have a “choice” to kill or not.

Well we all do have free will.

Really not much proof it should be legal though

.

You are the one who want to take away that natural choice the women already has----your job it to provide the justification for it to be illegal–using govt power to usurp that choice.

Finally, you state the pro abort argument correctly.

There you go again with that terms " proabort" assuming that is the same as " pro-choice"

It is never about right or wrong. It is about convenience and devaluing life.

No its about who makes the choice.

Framing the issue incorrectly only gives us a false answer. The law, like all else, ought not be severed from Truth.

And what is the truth?

 

[Worthy5]

=(name removed by moderator);5951473]To borrow from the Lord,“Satan, get thee behind me”. Your profile says you are Catholic, as a Catholic you accept that abortion is inherently evil, murderous and wrong. There is no discussion over this - it is what the Church teaches, if you wish to be ‘pro-choice’ you have set yourself at odds with your faith and your Church.

So the belief in the policy of restraints on govt power makes one at odds with the Church?

 

[SteveGC]

Worthy, what makes you think God granted women the choice? That’s an erroneous assertion. He does not grant anyone to be arbiter of who dies and when. He does not look at the dependent life of a fetus in the woman and decree that it’s her choice. He says “thou shalt not kill”. period.

you recently revealed you are pro-life and are making all these arguments to exercise your capacity to argue against them…like we are arguing against you as you play devil’s advocate. I think you’ve worn out that exercise, no? How about giving us a straight-forward pro-life argument, based on what you’ve learned is weak an uncompelling about the pro-choice arguments you’re making here? Because continuing on in this exercise at this point is non-productive. Unless, you were joking before, and you really believe in all these arguments you are making?