Reconciling Catholic Church teaching and "pro choice" Catholics

[SteveGC]

Yes, Steve that is the pro-life position. But what if that power gets abused?:nunchuk:

Well, based on the fact that there’s no precedent for any threat specifically like that, I’m willing to take my chances. I think the pro-choice argument of limited govt is unfounded, alarmist and frankly a cop-out. In fact, it’s precisely positions and arguments like that which make prolifers believe prochoicers are pro-abortion…because the fear of govt power being abused using abortion prohibition as some sort of launching pad is based on no concrete, plausible or compelling evidence.

And frankly, even if a precedent for it did exist, I would still vote for full legislation against abortion. It’s THAT important of an issue. It’s the most critical issue in our morality, hence it must be that critical of an issue for our politics.

 

[Benadam]

The arguments are based on American civil law and its notions of restaining govt power. Such power needs to be restrained because power is always abused by those who have it.

 

[gakroeger]

I’m confused about this fear in regards of abortion. Lets say abortion was never legalized. When it was a violation of the law to abort a child were there incidents of abuse by the government or it’'s officials directly related to advantages made available because women couldn’t abort children? If not why is it a threat now?

 

[Benadam]

Benadam;5953379:

Its not, its a smoke screen just like all of the $$#%$% worthy if posting.

I wonder why the judges thought it would be an invasion of privacy when it had never been before. What country, group or movement desensitized the culture by making them available while they were illegal.

 

[Worthy5]

=gakroeger;5953399]

Its not, its a smoke screen just like all of the $$#%$% worthy if posting.

Now, gakroeger play nice. Abuse of Power is one aspect. A notion of privacy is the other. The notion that govt does not get to make all decisions in society. The need for society to allocate the duty to protect the life at different stages between govt and the women sharing the burden. You ve seen all this before. Is it a smoke screen? Well perhaps, this poster is just asking questions. Is this forum not for such questions?

But let me name a few people who did not see such concerns as “smoke screen”

     Roe v Wade
              Justice Lewis F. Powell 
              Justice Potter Stewart
              Chief Justice Warren Burger

All considered judically moderate judges.

     PPH v Casey
              Justice Sandra Day O Connor
              Justice David Souter
              Justice Anthony Kennedy (a Catholic)

All considered judicially moderate

Obviously Casey accepted Roe as precedent and the decisions should be read but the Court is a deliberate body.

If you want to debate the abortion issue, then debate it from all sides—that is how the best ideas come about.

 

[gakroeger]

Now, gakroeger play nice. Abuse of Power is one aspect. A notion of privacy is the other. The notion that govt does not get to make all decision in society. The need for society to allocate the duty to protect the life at different stages between govt and the women sharing the burden. You ve seen all this before. Is it a smoke screen? Well perhaps, this poster is just asking questions. Is this forum not for such questions?

But let me name a few people who did not see such concerns as “smoke screen”

     Roe v Wade
              Justice Lewis F. Powell 
              Justice Potter Stewart
              Chief Justice Warren Burger

All considered judically moderate judges.

     PPH v Casey
              Justice Sandra Day O Connor
              Justice David Souter
              Justice Anthony Kennedy (a Catholic)

All considered judicially moderate

Obviously Casey accepted Roe as precedent and the decision should be read but the Court is a deliberate body.

If you want to debate the abortion issue, then debate it from all sides—that is how the best ideas come about.

Totally irrelevant, they were not debating on Catholic theology, moral law, and “pro choice” Catholics. That is what we are trying to do here. Please stay on topic or start a thread of your own, why do you insist on pirating this thread?

 

[Benadam]

Now, gakroeger play nice. Abuse of Power is one aspect. A notion of privacy is the other. The notion that govt does not get to make all decisions in society. The need for society to allocate the duty to protect the life at different stages between govt and the women sharing the burden. You ve seen all this before. Is it a smoke screen? Well perhaps, this poster is just asking questions. Is this forum not for such questions?

But let me name a few people who did not see such concerns as “smoke screen”

Roe v Wade
Justice Lewis F. Powell
Justice Potter Stewart
Chief Justice Warren Burger
All considered judically moderate judges.

PPH v Casey
Justice Sandra Day O Connor
Justice David Souter
Justice Anthony Kennedy (a Catholic)
All considered judicially moderate

Obviously Casey accepted Roe as precedent and the decisions should be read but the Court is a deliberate body.

If you want to debate the abortion issue, then debate it from all sides—that is how the best ideas come about.

I just did a little research. Even though the intvasion of privacy was used as an excuse to legalize abortion I find it odd that that same invasion was worth it when abortion was a less safe practice. Dangerous to women was eneogh to invade privacy. Therin lies the smoke and mirrors from the get go from the highest court.:sad_yes:

 

[Worthy5]

=gakroeger;5953457]Totally irrelevant, they were not debating on Catholic theology, moral law, and “pro choice” Catholics. That is what we are trying to do here. Please stay on topic or start a thread of your own, why do you insist on pirating this thread?

Gakroeger, with all due respect you just do not want to deal with the entire issue. But that is fine my friend. God Bless :sad_bye::console:

 

[Worthy5]

=Benadam;5953470]I just did a little research. Even though the intvasion of privacy was used as an excuse to legalize abortion I find it odd that that same invasion was worth it when abortion was a less safe practice. Dangerous to women was eneogh to invade privacy. Therin lies the smoke and mirrors from the get go from the highest court.:sad_yes:

The fact that such laws were not challenged constitutionally earlier than 1973 does not mean the concepts announced by the Court did not hold true before that. Besides, your statement does not make any sense regarding " safe practice" If it is more safe now, then there is not as much of a need to invade privacy by the govt to insure safety.

“We must never forget that it is a constitution we are expounding”
Chief Justice John Marshall
American Founder
Chief Justice of the Supreme Court from 1801-1835

 

[Benadam]

I see the picture now. Abortion was made illegal because it was an unsafe medical practice. No invasion of privacy issues then? Interesting. During that time there were practitioners and inventors developing technology to provide abortions that were safe eneogh to not clog the judicial system with suits? Yes? So them poor women wouldn’t have to got get a dangerous and illegal abortiion? Not according to statistics not blown out of proportion by marketers who were advancing the technology to make a killing on killing. Pro-abortion Catholics are buying into a marketing scheme that uses arguments like 'invasion of privacy" and thousands of women dying getting illegal abortions which is also a lie. The courts thought the stats of women death’s due to ‘legal’ abortions were too high so they made it illegal. Now Catholics who are pro-choice have to ask themselves …why aren’t the death’s of millions more important than 'invasion of privacy today if a few humdred death’s were eneogh yesterday??

 

[Renko]

Pro choice Catholics I do not consider Catholic at all, or for that matter even Christian. If we do not follow the Bible, we’re simply not Christian and I do not know how these people can call themselves Christian in the first place. Unreal!

 

[Worthy5]

=Renko;5953539]Pro choice Catholics I do not consider Catholic at all, or for that matter even Christian. If we do not follow the Bible, we’re simply not Christian and I do not know how these people can call themselves Christian in the first place. Unreal!

For many Pro-choice it is not a question of morality but rather a question of law-----the use of govt power and who has the duty to protect the life and when.

 

[Benadam]

For many Pro-choice it is not a question of morality but rather a question of law-----the use of govt power and who has the duty to protect the life and when.

Catholics are called to protect life at conception if nobody else will.

 

[Worthy5]

Catholics are called to protect life at conception if nobody else will.

True, but is the US Government Catholic? And is that the only duty or concern a Catholic can have? And does that concern mean a Catholic has to support the expansive power of the police force of government as the only means?

 

[jmcrae]

I like this question because statistics are not an overriding concern to me either. I think it’s important to have an awareness of the numbers behind this issue, preferably an accurate picture of all numbers. Especially economic factors, which I see no one discussing here so far. But abortion is a large and complex issue, so I should not necessarily be surprised that I don’t hear anyone yet discussing that many parents and single women cannot afford to become pregnant, let alone give birth to a baby so that it can then be given up for adoption.

Actually, it is of greater benefit to poor people to have more children, since once they reach a certain age, they can help their parents. Poor families with lots of children usually end up much better off in the second and third generation, but those who don’t have very many children tend to perpetuate a cycle of poverty from generation to generation, until they finally die out.

A single mother is also better off in the long run to give birth to her child - she is more likely to finish her education, get a job, and establish a household earlier than a woman who aborts her child - she becomes an active contributor in society for a longer period of time in her life.

There is a great deal of documented mental illness in post-abortive women, especially depression, which has the effect of removing them from contributing positively to society.

 

[Benadam]

True, but is the US Government Catholic? And is that the only duty or concern a Catholic can have? And does that concern mean a Catholic has to support the expansive power of the police force of government as the only means?

If those are the give and takes of doing what ought to be done. Yes. Protecting life from conception to natural death. If life is conceived today threatened to day and killed today, any means to stop them today is a good.

 

[Caramel]

Totally irrelevant, they were not debating on Catholic theology, moral law, and “pro choice” Catholics. That is what we are trying to do here. Please stay on topic or start a thread of your own, why do you insist on pirating this thread?

He can’t stay on topic; he hijacks every abortion thread he is on with the same rather stale comments re law, law, law…ad nauseum.

 

[Caramel]

Gakroeger, with all due respect you just do not want to deal with the entire issue. But that is fine my friend. God Bless :sad_bye::console:

Why do you insist on hijacking every abortion thread you are on? Why can’t you stay on topic? Frankly, your (intentional?) misuse of the “QUOTE” function and your inability to discuss one aspect of the abortion issue is extremely rude to other posters.

I guess it is impossible for you to start another thread because you have been asked to do this before. Either you don’t know how or you are playing games here. I suspect the latter.

This is an important discussion. Why do you consistently ignore the OP and then tell him to “play nice?” It isn’t a game.

 

[Caramel]

Its not, its a smoke screen just like all of the $$#%$% worthy if posting.

Gakroeger, I am sorry but I am finding it impossible to wade through all the posts in order to find out who said what. It’s due to Worthy5’s misuse of the “QUOTE” function.

I honestly am at a point now where I am considering leaving this discussion because of my confusion. Worthy5 has hijacked the thread and muddled it to the point where I can no longer understand the position of the other contributors.

I apologize to you and to the other posters but I don’t know what else to do.

 

[Caramel]

Pro choice Catholics I do not consider Catholic at all, or for that matter even Christian. If we do not follow the Bible, we’re simply not Christian and I do not know how these people can call themselves Christian in the first place. Unreal!

Renko, this discussion isn’t about law. What you stated is entirely relevent to the OP and the discussion. I hope to hear more from you about your views on reconciling “prochoice Catholics” to Catholic Church teaching.