Reconciling Catholic Church teaching and "pro choice" Catholics

  • Thread starter Thread starter gakroeger
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
=jmcrae;5973890]
How it comes about that abortions are no longer available is not of material concern to the Church; however, supporting a government that accepts and even promotes abortion is not one of the ways of doing this; therefore, to support such a government goes against Catholic teaching.
Thank you my friend for the answer but note what you stated " How it comes about that abortions are no longer available is not of material concern to the Church;". Is using the secular govt police power the best means to this?

Abortion can be heavily regulated including strict counseling of the women to help her make the correct moral choice (and of course never actually promoted by govt)—but still allowing it to be, in the end, her choice–would that not be sufficient for society to meet its moral obligation? Does that not respect the notion of privacy/limited govt power while at the same time employing effective means to protect the early fetus? Is that not an approach that overall, provides the greatest policy benefit for society as a whole?

And pro-choice is not saying " its okay for other people to have abortions". It is saying that govt power needs to be wisely used, that the govt does not get to make all the choices in this society, and there are more effective means to help make abortions rare.
 
Okay, so let us ask again this way, do you or do you not support a secular law against abortion and if so do you believe the Church teaches, as part of the moral law, that one must support such law as the primary means to address the abortion problem, and if one does not, does that mean one cannot, according to the Church, participate in the sacraments?
Yes, I support a secular law against abortion, the Church teaches that as a good citizens Catholics should obey all civil laws which are consistant with moral law.

No, supporting a secular law against abortion is NOT the PRIMARY means to address the abortion problem. The primary means to address the abortion problem is to first of all agree with Church teaching that abortion is an intrinsic evil and must be fought against as such to the best of their ability, of which one portion maybe to work to restore abortion as murder as it once was in our society. Why is it murder if another person shoots a pregnant women in the stomach and kills the child, but not murder when a doctor crushes the babies head.

Your last question is more difficult to answer, there could be circumstances where one might not support a civil law for other reasons. However, most pro life people would tell you that since we believe (as the Church teaches) that life begins at conception. there is no difference between abortion and murder, so if a Catholic for some reason or another did not support a law against abortion they would also not support a law against murder. I however, cannot think of any circumstance where this would apply. Murder is always wrong, so if a Catholic did not support the law against murder it would be because the civil authority was not recognized as having moral authority.
 
Because apparently, but still have no clear explanation on this, the Church teaches that to be Catholic you must support the use of the secular govt’s police power as the main means to address the abortion problem. So there. 😃
Then Church doesnt say that at all. It does say you can not directly or remotely support an intrinsic evil. Voting for an abortion on demand canidate is remote co-operation with an intrinsic evil.
 
Because the question then follows who has the duty to prevent that murder, if possible and what means should be employed?
Worthy, when I read this, if applied to any one else but the child unseen in the womb, it becomes a question unecessary to ask. Of course everyone has a duty to do what ever they are able to do to prevent a murder from happening.

In the measure this question is difficult to answer, the child in the womb isn’t present.

Catholics are not free to deny the presence of the child in the womb.
 
Catholic Archbishop of Westminster, Vincent Nichols has said “We don’t want Cafeteria Catholics”. He is speaking of Anglicans coming into the Catholic Church but this futher clarifies the discussion we are having here with our own “Cafeteria Catholics”.

blogs.reuters.com/uknews/2009/11/22/rc-archbishop-to-anglicans-we-don’t-want-cafeteria-catholics/
Your article was interesting to read but for some reason does not mention abortion or contraception.

Here is an Associated Press article in which two Cardinals from Africa are quoted discussing abortion an contraception issues at a recent news conference: boston.com/news/world/europe/articles/2009/10/14/african_cardinals_denounce_cultural_imperialism/

Even though the Church has been widely criticized for opposing abortion and contraception in Africa, it appears to me that the African Church is just trying to be careful not to provide financial aid to agencies that may use some of the funds to pay for condom distribution and abortion services. Meanwhile, it certainly does not sound like the Cardinals quoted in this article would object or try to stop anyone outside of Church leadership (for example, the laity) from helping to resolve a desperately urgent situation in the name of truth.

As Africa Cardinal Theodore-Adrien Sarr of Dakar, Senegal puts it in the AP report linked above, “We want to be helped, but helped in the name of truth, with respect of what we are and what we want for ourselves.”

When he said “we” I believe he was speaking for the other African prelates at Church leadership meeting, not the laity who are obviously free to do many things the Church itself is not free to do. Unless the laity believes it is the Church itself now? Is everyone a Cardinal or Bishop in their own mind these days? If so, the Church may well have too many chiefs and not enough indians to operate as a functional tribe for much longer.

One thing I do not understand about the Associated Press report linked above is why the Cardinal from South Africa would be quoted as saying that in Africa “sexual activity is for bringing babies into the world… not so much for enjoyment.”

I suppose he was either misquoted or may not be aware of the following crises:

South Africa’s rape crisis
time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1906000,00.html

Rape in the Congo
glamour.com/magazine/2007/08/rape-in-the-congo

Silence is the Enemy: Rape in Africa
scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2009/06/silence_is_the_enemy_rape_in_a.php

The social construction of rape in Africa
africaworksgpz.com/2009/08/07/the-social-construction-of-rape-in-africa/
 
Your article was interesting to read but for some reason does not mention abortion or contraception.
What do you think Cafeteria Catholics refers to? It is not just abortion and contraception (although these are obviously two of the biggies); it refers to Catholics who pick and choose which teachings they will live by and which ones they choose to ignore.

You apparently do not agree with much of Catholic Church teaching which makes me wonder why you call yourself Catholic.

You refer to STD, Rape, etc as though they are caused by Church Teaching rather than the truth which is these are the result of NOT following Church teaching. If everyone followed Church teaching these things would not exist.
 
What do you think Cafeteria Catholics refers to? It is not just abortion and contraception (although these are obviously two of the biggies); it refers to Catholics who pick and choose which teachings they will live by and which ones they choose to ignore.

You apparently do not agree with much of Catholic Church teaching which makes me wonder why you call yourself Catholic.

You refer to STD, Rape, etc as though they are caused by Church Teaching rather than the truth which is these are the result of NOT following Church teaching. If everyone followed Church teaching these things would not exist.
Since you dare to ask, I think Cafeteria Catholics could just as easily be referring to OPs who start threads, invite opponents to post questions, then refuse to answer said questions. You have made a cafeteria out of your own thread.
 
Since you dare to ask, I think Cafeteria Catholics could just as easily be referring to OPs who start threads, invite opponents to post questions, then refuse to answer said questions. You have made a cafeteria out of your own thread.
Which would only solidify your lack of understanding.
 
=zamboni;5974571]Since you dare to ask, I think Cafeteria Catholics could just as easily be referring to OPs who start threads, invite opponents to post questions, then refuse to answer said questions. You have made a cafeteria out of your own thread
Now Gakroeger you have to admit that was funny. :rotfl::egyptian:
 
Thank you my friend for the answer but note what you stated " How it comes about that abortions are no longer available is not of material concern to the Church;". Is using the secular govt police power the best means to this?

Abortion can be heavily regulated including strict counseling of the women to help her make the correct moral choice (and of course never actually promoted by govt)—but still allowing it to be, in the end, her choice–would that not be sufficient for society to meet its moral obligation? Does that not respect the notion of privacy/limited govt power while at the same time employing effective means to protect the early fetus? Is that not an approach that overall, provides the greatest policy benefit for society as a whole?

And pro-choice is not saying " its okay for other people to have abortions". It is saying that govt power needs to be wisely used, that the govt does not get to make all the choices in this society, and there are more effective means to help make abortions rare.
Worthy, you are using the word “choice” as if we were discussing politics in a committee. I and others have shared painful abortion experiences and provided links to hundred of similar testimonies on the web but you are not listening.“The woman’s right to choose”=4000 highly hormonal, confused, misinformed, abandoned, coerced women who legally kill a human being each day in the US and have to live with the physical and mental consequences for the rest of their lives.

Also, I have read your posts on apologetic threads and I see that you are defending the primacy of Peter and Sacred Tradition with zeal. So I’m asking you Worthy, why not defending your Church’s position on legal child killing as well?

To answer some of your previous posts, I’m going to start a new thread for people to share about pro-life activism in ‘social justice’.
 
This very recent article from the Psychiatric Times calls post-abortion trauma syndrome “a fabricated mental disorder conceived by anti-abortion activists to advance their cause, not a scientifically based psychiatric disorder.” psychiatrictimes.com/display/article/10168/1442899?pageNumber=1&verify=0
Hello zamboni!! It’s good to see you back!!

I clicked on the link you provided. It took me to an article in Psychiatric Times written by A. Kaplan. It contained the following quote from former APA (American Psychiatric Association) president, Nada Stotland:

“Abortion does not cause psychiatric damage, but the claim that it does is a prime strategy of the anti-abortion movement, which has convinced many people in the US.”

The first hint that there is just something “not right” about this article is the term “anti-abortion movement.” In research using a pejorative term like that is frowned upon. The article is obviously written by a pro-choice advocate.

Did you read any of the comments about the above mentioned article? If you didn’t, you should. Here is the link:

psychiatrictimes.com/display/article/10168/1481089.

As the article is so recent I am sure that more psychologists and psychiatrists will be responding to it.

If you really want me to, I could present a paper, citations and all, to either support or negate the article you provided the link to. I hope you don’t expect me to do that, although I probably will have to, sooner or later. I’ve done it before when I wrote my Master’s thesis. It is a lot of work and I am now typing with carpal tunnel syndrome in my right hand, my left index finger had to be amputated because of a dog bite, and I have trigger fingers in both hands (which require surgery.) Also, I don’t have my printer hooked up yet.

Please take the following into consideration: Just because two psychiatrists say something and it is printed in a journal such as Psychiatric Times does not mean that it is true or even that it is based on good research methods. Psychiatrists and psychologists are people who are trying to discover the Truth. They make mistakes in their research, often their “n” (number of subjects) is too small, their statistical methodology is incorrect, they leave out factors, they don’t provide operational definitions correctly, their research is confounded by factors they just haven’t thought of yet, etc.

Research following the initial research is discussed and hopefully the research results are substantiated by future research. There are always problems to point out and improvements are discussed. It is a never-ending process. I thought I had looked up just about everything written on tryptophan when I started writing my thesis and I probably missed about 90 percent of what actually had been written.

My point here is that it is very, very dangerous to cite scientific research unless you know exactly what is being studied, the previous research, and the research which follows your cited research.

When I cite research I read the entire research paper, looking carefully at the methodology and then I check out every reference cited, if I can (sometimes they are in another language like German).

Anyway, your citation is basically an article which should have been in an editorial section, not where it was placed. And one of the persons who reacted to that article stated the same thing.
 
40.png
Worthy5:
Yes it does matter, if you want to talk the talk, then walk the walk.

(1) Please check post #498.

(2) Will you puhleeze correct your quote function?? The moderator has already stated this and yet you continue to quote improperly.
 
Worthy, you are using the word “choice” as if we were discussing politics in a committee. I and others have shared painful abortion experiences and provided links to hundred of similar testimonies on the web but you are not listening.“The woman’s right to choose”=4000 highly hormonal, confused, misinformed, abandoned, coerced women who legally kill a human being each day in the US and have to live with the physical and mental consequences for the rest of their lives.

This poster never indicated that abortion was not immoral and a tragedy nor that govt should not do much to help counsel women. The question is what is the proper use of the secular govt’s police power and is Catholic teaching requiring one to support such power at the ballot box in order to be a Catholic?
Also, I have read your posts on apologetic threads and I see that you are defending the primacy of Peter and Sacred Tradition with zeal. So I’m asking you Worthy, why not defending your Church’s position on legal child killing as well?
 
She’s not “a piece” of anything - she’s a whole and complete, brand new, innocent child.

Well, let’s apply the Golden Rule, here. Say your father commits a crime that you know nothing about - he committed it, let’s say, nine months before you were born. Furthermore, it was something terrible that he did to your mother, to the point that she was hospitalized and needed counseling to overcome it. Would you agree to be immersed in acid until you dissolve, or else have your limbs torn off of you piece by piece until finally you bleed to death, as expiation for his crime?

You’re probably about to say, “But the kid doesn’t actually feel anything, or know what’s going on.” Actually, we have no way of knowing what the child feels, or what emotions she experiences during an abortion.

Have you ever seen the movie “The Silent Scream” where footage of an abortion shows the baby fighting off the forceps and dodging around them for her life, and then the final scene where the little mouth opens in terror, as her head is pulled off?
That “film” is extremely misleading - let’s look at some of the facts about pain in a 12 week old fetus and some of the “claims” that are made on that film:

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists
Statement on Pain of the Fetus

We know of no legitimate scientific information that supports the statement that a fetus experiences pain early in pregnancy.

We do know that the cerebellum attains its final configuration in the seventh month and that mylenization (or covering) of the spinal cord and the brain begins between the 20th and 40th weeks of pregnancy. These, as well as other neurological developments, would have to be in place for the fetus to receive pain.

To feel pain, a fetus needs neurotransmitted hormones. In animals, these complex chemicals develop in the last third of gestation. We know of no evidence that humans are different.

CLAIM: The 12-week fetus makes purposeful movements (e.g., agitated movement in an attempt to avoid suction cannula).
FACTS: At this stage of pregnancy, all fetal movement is reflexive in nature rather than purposeful, since the latter requires cognition, which is the ability to perceive and know. For cognition to occur, the cortex (gray matter covering the brain) must be present, as well as myelinization (covering sheath) of the spinal cord and attached nerves, which is not the case.
An example of the reflex withdrawal without pain occurs in an anencephalic (absent brain) newborn. Another known example of the reflex movement at this stage of human pregnancy is thumb sucking in utero.

What is termed “frantic activity” by the fetus is a reflex response of the fetus resulting from movement of the uterus and its contents induced by operator manipulation of the suction curette or the ultrasound transducer on the abdomen. This same type of response would likely occur with any external stimulus. A one-cell organism such as an amoeba will reflexively move or display a withdrawal reaction when touched.

In addition, experts in ultrasonography and film technology have concluded that the videotape of the abortion was deliberately slowed down and subsequently speeded up to create an impression of hyperactivity.

CLAIM: Ultrasonogram depicts the open mouth of the fetus.
FACTS: The mouth of the fetus cannot be identified in the ultrasound image with certainty. The statement that the screen identifies the open mouth of the fetus is a subjective and misleading interpretation by Dr. Nathanson. His conclusion is not supportable.
CLAIM: The fetus emits “the silent scream.”
FACTS: A scream cannot occur without air in the lungs. Although primitive respiratory movements do occur in the later stages of gestation, crying or screaming cannot occur even then. In fact, a child born prematurely at 26 - 27 weeks’ gestation (24 - 25 weeks’ fetal age) cannot scream but occasionally emits weak cries.
CLAIM: A fetus is indistinguishable from any of the rest of us.
FACTS: A fetus of 12 weeks cannot in any way be compared to a fully formed functioning person. At this stage only rudiments of the organ systems are present. The fetus is unable to sustain life outside the woman’s womb, it is incapable of conscious thought; it is incapable of essential breathing. It is instead an in utero fetus with the potential of becoming a child.
CLAIM: Fetal head at 12 weeks requires the use of “crushing instruments” for extraction.
FACTS: At 12 weeks’ gestation (10 weeks’ fetal age) and even 1 - 2 weeks beyond, instrumentation other than a suction cannula is not required when abortion is properly performed. Cannulas for aspiration abortion come in varying sizes, and the larger sizes are adequate for withdrawing the contents of the uterus.

I understand that both sides of the abortion issue have valid arguments- I just wish BOTH sides would stick to the facts and not insinuate things that are not true. This is very much like the whole assertion of birth control and abortions causing breast cancer- this has never been proven - there was one study which claimed that “all” of the participants the had an abortion got breast cancer - they only looked at 12 women!- Ask any statistician and he/she will let you know that isn’t a valid representation of women. Don’t get me wrong, I know PPH does it too some I’m not just ragging on the anti choice people.
God Bless
Rye
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top