C
Caramel
Guest
Caramel, why do you continue to misrepresent the meaning of the Pro-choice position?
- Status
F
fix
Guest
That an issue is simple does not mean the issue is weak or untrue. The foundational questions I ask get ignored, or misdirected, because to genuinely answer them is to expose that the âpro-choiceâ position as nothing but pro abortion.
You are not being specific at all, my friend. What does the âmanâs responsibilityâ mean in terms of the Church teaching regarding of this issue?
How can you make such a claim when the Church says the exact opposite? This is the point of the thread. You have not reconciled pro abort positions with Church teaching. I have linked to the CCC and other magisterial documents that say Catholics a moral imperative to oppose pro choice laws. Where does She say other issues trump abortion or are of the exact same magnitude?
How can you reconcile pro choice with Catholic teaching?
Z
zamboni
Guest
Since the concept of forgiveness for murder has not been raised in this thread (not to suggest that I think pro-lifers are incapable of forgiveness for murder), I offer a Catholic Church-approved example of how forgiveness for murder can happen, and how the highest authority in the Church once recognized an act of forgiveness for murder in a unusual way.
It is a true story that some members here may well already know about of a young Italian girl born in 1890, who died very young in 1902, three months before she turned only 12 years old, and after succumbing to stab wounds inflicted by a 20 year old man, who attempted but failed to rape her. She conveyed her forgiveness through medical staff on hand as she lay dying in hospital. As a result, she became one of the youngest persons ever to be canonized as a saint in the Catholic Church and that way became the patron saint of the Church parish and Catholic school I grew up in. Her name is St. Maria Goretti. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Maria_Goretti
Pardonnez moi if this will be considered slightly off topic but it seems relevant to me (perhaps only to me) that I used to often play an instrumental version of the following song during my early teenage years at St. Maria Goretti Holy Mass. Guitar and harmonica act < donât laugh please), plus another guitar playing friend. As it was (and still is) a Led Zeppelin song, we thought we were getting away with some harmless mischief whenever we played it in Church, which was usually during First Friday school Mass at offertory procession. Some members here will probably not agree that playing this song in Church was appropriate then or now, but I no longer think there was anything wrong with playing an instrumental version of âStairway to Heaven,â especially in a Catholic Church, where Mary mother of Jesus remains held in high regard, particularly compared to the regard she is held in by many Protestant Churches. The song is very reverential, in my opinion, even though it considered rock music, and I think it may even be prophetic in that it seems to echo or refer back to scary chapter 18 of the Book of Revelations, especially where both works refer to the âpiper.â
The âLady whoâs sureâ mentioned sounds like could be referring to Mary mother of Jesus, or maybe she the Catholic Church herself? Or why not St. Maria Goretti / or all three? It is also intriguing to me (probably only to me here again) that the songâs lyrics mention ârings of smoke (seen) through treesâ because that describes exactly how I first noticed the beginning of the tragic fire that burned down the original St. Maria Goretti Church building when I was 5 or 6 years old. âOoh, it makes me wonder.â listen.grooveshark.com/#/song/Stairway_to_Heaven/8575557
It is a true story that some members here may well already know about of a young Italian girl born in 1890, who died very young in 1902, three months before she turned only 12 years old, and after succumbing to stab wounds inflicted by a 20 year old man, who attempted but failed to rape her. She conveyed her forgiveness through medical staff on hand as she lay dying in hospital. As a result, she became one of the youngest persons ever to be canonized as a saint in the Catholic Church and that way became the patron saint of the Church parish and Catholic school I grew up in. Her name is St. Maria Goretti. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Maria_Goretti
Pardonnez moi if this will be considered slightly off topic but it seems relevant to me (perhaps only to me) that I used to often play an instrumental version of the following song during my early teenage years at St. Maria Goretti Holy Mass. Guitar and harmonica act < donât laugh please), plus another guitar playing friend. As it was (and still is) a Led Zeppelin song, we thought we were getting away with some harmless mischief whenever we played it in Church, which was usually during First Friday school Mass at offertory procession. Some members here will probably not agree that playing this song in Church was appropriate then or now, but I no longer think there was anything wrong with playing an instrumental version of âStairway to Heaven,â especially in a Catholic Church, where Mary mother of Jesus remains held in high regard, particularly compared to the regard she is held in by many Protestant Churches. The song is very reverential, in my opinion, even though it considered rock music, and I think it may even be prophetic in that it seems to echo or refer back to scary chapter 18 of the Book of Revelations, especially where both works refer to the âpiper.â
The âLady whoâs sureâ mentioned sounds like could be referring to Mary mother of Jesus, or maybe she the Catholic Church herself? Or why not St. Maria Goretti / or all three? It is also intriguing to me (probably only to me here again) that the songâs lyrics mention ârings of smoke (seen) through treesâ because that describes exactly how I first noticed the beginning of the tragic fire that burned down the original St. Maria Goretti Church building when I was 5 or 6 years old. âOoh, it makes me wonder.â listen.grooveshark.com/#/song/Stairway_to_Heaven/8575557
Z
zamboni
Guest
F
fix
Guest
How can I answer when your questions are so vague and unrelated to the OP?
Z
zamboni
Guest
Unless the above single reason given by you (for not answering any questions) applies to the total number of questions Iâve asked in over 50 posts, then why not pick a back-catalogue question and answer it, or pick any statement and form a direct, responsive question. I already understand your position to the extent that you are willing to state it, and I have asked for but did not receive answers to many questions which may have helped me understand how your mind works when processing things like reconciling pro-life with the Catechism of male responsibility before, during and after conception, plus those questions I asked which were also left mostly unanswered concerning pro-life/choice reconciliation with Matthew chapter 3, bearing fruit according to repentance, and the rest of the tough language I see there for pro-life laity, which perhaps should explain the silence that followed the posting of those questions.
F
fix
Guest
Your interpretation of those CCC sections and the bible verse are so vague and unrelated to the OP issue that I was hoping you could frame your questions in a specific way as it related to the OP.
Let me try and help here.
Are you saying that your understanding of those particular CCC sections mean that the Church says unless the man involved has some civil legal sanction involving his role in the conception then pro life laws protecting the child are are useless or unfair?
I am trying hard to follow your arguement, but honestly I cannot see what your point is.
Z
zamboni
Guest
Your question shows understanding of something that is close to what Iâve been trying to say. Thank you. I donât see where changing the law either way would solve anything, but doesnât Fix wonder why the pro-life movement proposes no conception laws at all be applied to men?
I have previously asked the question on this thread of what responsibilities are supposed to belong to men before, during and after conception according to 2270 and 2271 or anywhere else in Church teaching? I think Fix can do that question.
J
jmcrae
Guest
Once there is a child in the womb, the male has one responsibility - to care for his girlfriend and child. If instead he recommends that she get an abortion (and even if he offers to pay for it) the woman still has a responsibility to protect her child, by whatever means possible.
If she is forced to have an abortion, or coerced by threats of financial harm to herself (ie: that she will be made homeless if she remains pregnant) then she cannot be found guilty of the abortion; however, those who pressure her into having it will certainly account to both God and the child for their actions.
That society winks at men who have sex out of wedlock and get women pregnant âby accidentâ is tragic, and obviously a lot of education is necessary to change social attitudes, so that men would understand that true manliness comes from chastity, marriage, and fidelity - but the children who are residing in the womb today donât have the luxury of the kind of time itâs going to take to change those attitudes - they need to be saved now.
If a man fails to take responsibility for his actions, then the woman (just as in every other case of dereliction of male duty) has to take up the slack. She canât use the manâs inability to take personal responsibility as an excuse for anything; especially not the murder of her own child.
C
Christopher68
Guest
Iâve been following this thread for a while, and it seems to have gone downhill quite dramatically over the past 4-5 days. 
Obviously this is an issue where people have strong opinions. As such, most of the posters (on either side of the issue) are not really looking to engage in âdialogueâ as much as they are looking to change someones opinion. I would also suggest that many of the posters here are not really interested in what those on the other side have to say. Witness the number of times a poster has claimed that someone else has not answered their question, has taken something out of context, or has ignored the main point of their post. These are not the actions of those engaging in a legitimate discussion. Perhaps this thread has run itâs course.
Obviously this is an issue where people have strong opinions. As such, most of the posters (on either side of the issue) are not really looking to engage in âdialogueâ as much as they are looking to change someones opinion. I would also suggest that many of the posters here are not really interested in what those on the other side have to say. Witness the number of times a poster has claimed that someone else has not answered their question, has taken something out of context, or has ignored the main point of their post. These are not the actions of those engaging in a legitimate discussion. Perhaps this thread has run itâs course.
L
LittleSoldier
Guest
This is just another example of refusing to discuss this very important topic. I donât understand why the âpro-choiceâ people in this discussion just donât answer the basic question. It appears to me that the âpro-lifeâ people have defended their position admirably, while the âpro-choiceâ people put up walls to use as defense mechanisms which hide them from the truth. I donât think they want to see the truth and they certainly do not want to accept it.
I have noticed âzamboniâ attempting to take over the discussion, handing out meaningless tokens when any âpro-lifeâ person states anything that âzamboniâ grudgingly accepts and then goes on to dismiss those very same people as not worthy of his/her time. I have also noticed that people have asked âzamboniâ many questions which he/she does not answer yet âzamboniâ appears to get extremely angry when his/her questions are not answered. âZamboniâ has even refused to respond to an apology made by a âpro-lifeâ person which was offered in the spirit of Christianity. That smacks of hypocrisy.
Z
zamboni
Guest
Lots of shadow monster charges, no specifics once again, but no surprise either by this point. The only specific charge made that I can work with above is an apology said to have been made. If it was made by one of the posters who writes many long posts that I simply have no time to read, then I probably didnât see the apology or the thing done wrong to raise the perceived need for an apology to be offered. I have asked many questions on this thread. You are welcome to tackle one instead of whining, little soldier.
G
gakroeger
Guest
In one more attempt to bring this thread back to its intended purpose of Reconciling Catholic Church teaching and âpro choiceâ Catholics.
Lets have some discussion about how this reading applies to our subject.
Excerpt from todays Divine Office
The treatise of St Cyprian on mortality
The world hates Christians, so why give your love to it instead of following Christ, who loves you and has redeemed you? John is most urgent in his epistle when he tells us not to love the world by yielding to sensual desires. Never give your love to the world, he warns, or to anything in it. A man cannot love the Father and love the world at the same time. All that the world offers is the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes and earthly ambition. The world and its allurements will pass away, but the man who has done the will of God shall live for ever. Our part, my dear brothers, is to be single-minded, firm in faith, and steadfast in courage, ready for Godâs will, whatever it may be. Banish the fear of death and think of the eternal life that follows it. That will show people that we really live our faith.
I find the accusation we pro life people are often charged with (single issue voters) and the statement in bold above to be interesting.
Lets have some discussion about how this reading applies to our subject.
Excerpt from todays Divine Office
The treatise of St Cyprian on mortality
The world hates Christians, so why give your love to it instead of following Christ, who loves you and has redeemed you? John is most urgent in his epistle when he tells us not to love the world by yielding to sensual desires. Never give your love to the world, he warns, or to anything in it. A man cannot love the Father and love the world at the same time. All that the world offers is the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes and earthly ambition. The world and its allurements will pass away, but the man who has done the will of God shall live for ever. Our part, my dear brothers, is to be single-minded, firm in faith, and steadfast in courage, ready for Godâs will, whatever it may be. Banish the fear of death and think of the eternal life that follows it. That will show people that we really live our faith.
I find the accusation we pro life people are often charged with (single issue voters) and the statement in bold above to be interesting.
Z
zamboni
Guest
I appreciate the time taken to provide this information, which answers part of one of my previous questions. Your response focuses on post-conception responsibilities. Do men have any responsibilities according to Church teaching (that you may know of) leading up to or at potential moments of conception, or do their responsibilities only kick in after the deed is done?
J
jmcrae
Guest
The Church teaches that sex is for a man and woman who are married to each other and open to the possibility that they could have children. Sex outside of marriage and contracepted sex are forbidden by the Church.
It seems clear enough, then, what the responsibility of the man is. He is to marry the woman, and the two of them are to welcome their children into their home.
If a married couple is choosing not to have children for a space of time, they can use Natural Family Planning, which is a system whereby they can discern the fertile and non-fertile times in the womanâs cycle, and abstain from sex at the times when it is most likely that the woman could become pregnant.
L
LittleSoldier
Guest
Thank you for pointing this out. It is indeed true that society often âwinksâ at men who engage in inappropriate sexual behavior; they are many times actually looked upon as âheroesâ and their actions are justified because they are just âsowing their wild oats.â At the same time, women who do the same thing are called whos and sl*s.
But when it comes to pregnancy, it is the woman who is carrying the child. Somebody has to do it! It may be looked upon as being unfair but life is often unfair. I actually believe that women are very blessed to be able to nurture an unborn child - this is a gift from God Himself! Men canât even begin to comprehend what that must feel like; to know that a brand spankinâ new human being, created by God, is held within you. It is a honor to carry a creation of God. With that honor comes responsibility. The responsibility of the mother is to protect and nurture Godâs creation within her. That is part of her role in Godâs plan. This is the way God set things up.
To discard a precious human life because the man who helped aid in the conception of the new child has refused to shoulder his responsibility just does not make sense. Why let the abandonment of the father of a womanâs child turn the woman into a murderer? Why let men have that much power over women?
The same thing is true in instances of rape. Why does it seem OK to murder an unborn child because the rapist committed a grevious sin? Why do women, again, let men turn them into murderers?
It is a âwomenâs rightsâ issue. Women are allowing themselved to be dominated by men so much that they allow men to turn them into murderers. Not only that, but many of the babies that are aborted are female and are not even allowed to live, much less develop into women.
F
fix
Guest
Here is the situation. The OP has asked how to reconcile âpro-choiceâ postions with the teachings of the Catholic Church. Evidence has been provided it cannot be reconciled. No counter evidence has been offered. What has been offered as counter evidence is personal opinion, not any reference to magisterial teaching.Iâve been following this thread for a while, and it seems to have gone downhill quite dramatically over the past 4-5 days.
Obviously this is an issue where people have strong opinions. As such, most of the posters (on either side of the issue) are not really looking to engage in âdialogueâ as much as they are looking to change someones opinion. I would also suggest that many of the posters here are not really interested in what those on the other side have to say. Witness the number of times a poster has claimed that someone else has not answered their question, has taken something out of context, or has ignored the main point of their post. These are not the actions of those engaging in a legitimate discussion. Perhaps this thread has run itâs course.
Now, perhaps we are talking past each other. Honestly, I think that the issue is not one of opinion versus opinion. It seems to be an issue of accepting what the Church teaches on the issue or not.
G
gakroeger
Guest
Are you really this uninformed about Church teaching? The fathers responsibility is as husband and father. The child should be conceived only when the man (and the women) are married and ready to accept FULL responsibility for raising the child to adulthood.
In the event that this couple conceived this child outside of wedlock, the responsiblity is the same, however, for the benefit of the child if they are unprepared to raise this child, adoption should be a consideration.
L
LittleSoldier
Guest
If I may, I would like to add that, according to Church teaching, even if a couple conceives a child while they are using Natural Family Planning, they must still protect and nurture that child. It goes against Church teaching to abort a child that has been conceived while using Natural Family Planning.
Z
zamboni
Guest
I call this traction. Now I have an outline of post-conception responsibilities for men, which you gave in your last post, and a list of pre-conception responsibilities for men that looks like it is probably in line with Church teaching. Thank you.
Now may I ask if you would be willing to consider proposing equal legal constraints of some kind on men like those proposed for women by pro-lifers, following the same methodology and Church teaching sources that the pro-life movement uses to validate proposing laws to restrict womenâs choice?
- Status