Sister's abortion approval draws automatic excommunication

  • Thread starter Thread starter catharina
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Zatzat said:
***Hold on here…you’ve made a very strong assertion that the woman ***is going to have to answer some tough questions in heaven from the baby she aborted or at the very leastl she’ll have to explain herself…to the baby.

I’ve asked you to provide sources to back up your claim, proving that your belief is both Catholic and theologically sound.

You’ve not done that, you’ve completely avoided my challenge.
Click to expand...
A deliberate misunderstanding on your part.
Baiting us again.
At least two of us Catholics on this thread know your motive for being here.
 
SunnaB16 said:
A deliberate misunderstanding on your part.
Baiting us again.
At least two of us Catholics on this thread know your motive for being here.
Click to expand...
My motive for being here is that it is a very interesting discussion. If a Catholic makes a claim about the after life, a claim that I believe may be theologically unsound or not in line with Catholic belief…I will challenge it.

If you read through the thread, you will see that I wasn’t the only one who dealt with Ockams post.

As you well know, a fellow Catholic of yours had the same perception as me upon readings ockams post.

I’d ask you to please focus on my posts, instead of on my reasons for being here.
 
catharina said:
Still, I see no implication of this:

“Is it a Catholic belief that when people die, they go to heaven where they are questioned by the souls of all who they’ve sinned against while on earth?”

You do, I don’t.
Click to expand...
My point was that there was no implication of theological teaching on Ockham’s part but that I could understand why someone would take and run with it to bait us, since the question was phrased that they would meet in heaven, if only as a theoretical…
SunnaB16 said:
A deliberate misunderstanding on your part.
Baiting us again.
At least two of us Catholics on this thread know your motive for being here.
Click to expand...
Enlighten me please? I like to know things and learn stuff!👍
Zatzat said:
My motive for being here is that it is a very interesting discussion. If a Catholic makes a claim about the after life, a claim that I believe may be theologically unsound or not in line with Catholic belief…I will challenge it.

Again, noone maid any claim to theological teaching, only posed a theoretical question.

If you read through the thread, you will see that I wasn’t the only one who dealt with Ockams post.

As you well know, a fellow Catholic of yours had the same perception as me upon readings ockams post.

I hope this isnt meant to be me, since I did not read it the same way as you did. I can read the theoretical question in his post without taking it for Catholic Teaching. I do understand why you would take it as Catholic teaching, since it would seem to discredit the teachings of the CC, but that is pretty much the definition of a strawman argument.

I’d ask you to please focus on my posts, instead of on my reasons for being here.
Click to expand...
Your reasons for being on here have a large impact on how people read your posts. Trolls are worth less than the time it takes to read their posts, for instance. If you are here for genuine searching, then that is a good thing. If you are here to bait Catholics, that is bad.

What ARE your reasons for being on here, if you dont mind telling me?
 
Interesting discussion, exchanging of ideas and for learning how a lay Catholic views various issues. Just because I may not always agree with a Catholic view of the world, does not mean I am hostile to your Church or to Catholics.

Differences of opinion are not to be feared. Polite discourse is my aim.
 
Zatzat said:
Hold on here…you’ve made a very strong assertion that the woman is going to have to answer some tough questions in heaven from the baby she aborted or at the very leastl she’ll have to explain herself…to the baby.
Click to expand...
As much as this feeble straw man challenge does not merit a response, I will anyway.

Here’s exactly what I said: "What will this woman say to her child if by God’s mercy she meets him or her in Heaven?

St. Gianna pray for her."

Did you miss that little two letter word, ‘if’?
 
Ockham said:
As much as this feeble straw man challenge does not merit a response, I will anyway.

Here’s exactly what I said: "What will this woman say to her child if by God’s mercy she meets him or her in Heaven?

St. Gianna pray for her."

Did you miss that little two letter word, ‘if’?
Click to expand...
Probablyt something along the lines of;

’ I lived a good life, now let us enjoy eternity with God.’

I guess I did miss the word ‘if’. However, if this does happen, clearly for the woman to be speaking with her aborted baby in heaven, she would have already received forgiveness from God. How else could she be in heaven speaking to her aborted baby?
 
Zatzat said:
Hold on here…you’ve made a very strong assertion that the woman is going to have to answer some tough questions in heaven from the baby she aborted or at the very leastl she’ll have to explain herself…to the baby.

I’ve asked you to provide sources to back up your claim, proving that your belief is both Catholic and theologically sound.

You’ve not done that, you’ve completely avoided my challenge.

Is it a Catholic belief that when people die, they go to heaven where they are questioned by the souls of all who they’ve sinned against while on earth? Pleaser provide your source if yes.

You are forgetting one thing. This woman can repent and receive her reward, eternity in heaven with God.

Lastly, how is it you are certain that this baby is in heaven, when even your own Cathokic Church cannot make any such guarantee?
Click to expand...
Again, he never said it or implied it.
How/why would you infer such a thing?

You made an accusation and a demand - based on nothing.
 
Zatzat said:
Probablyt something along the lines of;

’ I lived a good life, now let us enjoy eternity with God.’

I guess I did miss the word ‘if’. However, if this does happen, clearly for the woman to be speaking with her aborted baby in heaven, she would have already received forgiveness from God. How else could she be in heaven speaking to her aborted baby?
Click to expand...
It appears the point went right over your head. What would you say to someone you murdered?
 
Ockham said:
It appears the point went right over your head. What would you say to someone you murdered?
Click to expand...
I would never murder someone. Hypothetically speaking, if I did and was in heaven…obviously the Lord forgave me ( Or I wouldn’t be in heaven now would I!) And heaven is paradise and heaven is not a place to dig up old sins that have already been forgiven.

So, my eternal soul would say nothing to the victim. We’d both be 100% occupied in praising God and enjoying the perfection of paradise.

Serious.
 
If you are a vocal proponent of abortion then you are breaking the Fifth Commandment.

Seriously.
 
catharina said:
Again, he never said it or implied it.
How/why would you infer such a thing?

You made an accusation and a demand - based on nothing.
Click to expand...
I missed the word ‘if’. I’ve already been corrected and I’m sorry.
 
Zatzat said:
Women should have the right to exercise control over their reproductive systems.
Click to expand...
They do, Abstinence. How should they be allowed to have the right to exercise homicide on a child?

I know I know, “Rhetoric” and all that, but the fact remains that it is a human child, unless you can prove otherwise, and must be given all rights we possess.

So, I suppose the question here is:

PROVE THAT IT IS NOT A CHILD. Use whatever resources you want.

That is the only leg you have to stand on with “reproductive rights” (Man, my skin crawls just typing that dirty phrase). If it is a child then you are SOL.

I think it was Dr. Carhart who said “Lets be honest here, we kill babies”. And he is an ABORTION doctor.

Just something to mull over.
 
read this here, and here. excerpt:
"When I was a little over 18 weeks pregnant with my now pre-school child, I did a second trimester abortion for a patient who was also a little over 18 weeks pregnant. As I reviewed her chart I realised that I was more interested than usual in seeing the fetal parts when I was done, since they would so closely resemble those of my own fetus.
Click to expand...
I went about doing the procedure as usual, removed the laminaria I had placed earlier and confirmed I had adequate dilation. I used electrical suction to remove the amniotic fluid, picked up my forceps and began to remove the fetus in parts, as I always did. I felt lucky that this one was already in the breech position – it would make grasping small parts (legs and arms) a little easier.
Click to expand...
With my first pass of the forceps, I grasped an extremity and began to pull it down. I could see a small foot hanging from the teeth of my forceps. With a quick tug, I separated the leg. Precisely at that moment, I felt a kick – a fluttery “thump, thump” in my own uterus. It was one of the first times I felt fetal movement. There was a leg and foot in my forceps, and a “thump, thump” in my abdomen.
Instantly, tears were streaming from my eyes – without me – meaning my conscious brain - even being aware of what was going on. I felt as if my response had come entirely from my body, bypassing my usual cognitive processing completely. A message seemed to travel from my hand and my uterus to my tear ducts. It was an overwhelming feeling – a brutally visceral response – heartfelt and unmediated by my training or my feminist pro-choice politics.
Click to expand...
It was one of the more raw moments in my life. Doing second trimester abortions did not get easier after my pregnancy; in fact, dealing with little infant parts of my born baby only made dealing with dismembered fetal parts sadder."
Click to expand...
Also, anecdotally, here is another story, often cited in the media.

Just more food for thought.

FSC
 
Women have the right to have sex. Women have the right to govern their own reproductive systems.

I would not want to live in a nation where abortion is outlawed and where women are maimed and killed while seeking out back alley abortions.
 
Zatzat said:
Women should have the right to exercise control over their reproductive systems.
Click to expand...
They sure do: abstinence and contraception. Once a baby has been conceived it is no longer a ‘reproductive system’ issue, it is a matter of life and death.
 
Zatzat said:
Women have the right to have sex. Women have the right to govern their own reproductive systems.

I would not want to live in a nation where abortion is outlawed and where women are maimed and killed while seeking out back alley abortions.
Click to expand...
Ignore the point all you want, it is still there. They may govern their own reproductive systems by not putting anything therein, to be blunt.

And really, how many women do you know who were maimed and killed while seeking out back alley abortions?

Yet another strawman. We are talking about MORALITY, not LEGALITY. two completely separate issues, although LAWS come from MORALS, not the other way round.

So again, prove to me that a foetus (Defined thus: The word fetus (plural fetuses) is from the Latin fetus, meaning offspring, bringing forth, hatching of young.) is not human, else the “Reproductive rights” argument falls to bits. And it is annoying to fight something all powdery and falling apart. So keep it whole and prove that a foetus is not human. I dare you.

FSC
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top