The abortion debate

[Erikaspirit16]

Catholic Teachings on Catholic Forums - Are True by Default

Who said otherwise? Not me. I’m just spreading a few historical and scientific facts. Nothing to do with doctrines, teachings, etc.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

Erika has likely heard this before

You’ve got that right!

 

[Erikaspirit16]

Erika’s Pro-Abortion stance

What??? Please explain that one to me. Use any thread, any post whatsoever. That’s simply a total mis-statement. I await your apology.

And I’ll go again and again until the salient point that I’m making registers

I’m afraid it hasn’t. I have absolutely no idea what point you’re trying to make. Unless it’s “All abortion is murder.” OK, great. Anything else?

You already said you wouldn’t judge the action of killing a baby because its legal

Maybe I blacked out…please show me where I EVER said that. First, I have struggled (and obviously failed) to make it clear that you can be against something (abortion, for example) and yet simultaneously say “I can’t judge the woman who had an abortion–in the sense that while I may condemn her action, I cannot condemn her, simply because I can’t read her mind.” Catholicism (maybe you haven’t noticed this) is NOT a religion that says, “OK, you committed this act, therefore you go straight to Hell.” No. It’s all about intention and will.

The “was she selfish? We don’t know” is a red herring everyone should avoid in your posts .

I guess you haven’t read the earlier posts. I was responding to another person (pattyit) who was talking about abortion being a selfish act. Maybe, maybe not. I don’t know. Neither do you. We can’t read minds.

We’re talking about human rights here

People object to abortion because the action kills an unborn life.

But of course (!) you are simply side-stepping (ignoring if you will) the main issue. YOU believe the fetus has human rights. You believe a one-hour old fertilized egg is a “human being.” The Catholic Church believes the fetus has human rights and is a “human being.” No one is disputing that. What I keep pointing out is that this is a minority belief in the US. I’m not saying it’s right or wrong, I’m simply stating a fact. It’s like saying “It’s raining,” and you come along and say “No, I see the sun, it’s not raining.” But it’s raining nevertheless, no matter how much you believe it’s not raining! It’s like Trump saying he had the biggest crowd ever at his inauguration. He can say it over and over, but it’s still not true.

You (I would add “all,” but that would be an assumption I won’t make!) are assuming you can read my mind. You can’t. Don’t try. Instead, read what I wrote. I’m happy to defend that, not what you THINK I wrote.

 

[blackforest]

Anything else?

Yes. Human rights are not to be made relative according to when they’re convenient or desirable.

YOU believe the fetus has human rights.

Yes. I believe that humans have human rights.

You believe a one-hour old fertilized egg is a “human being.”

Elective, induced abortions aren’t performed on one-hour old “fertilized eggs,” more accurately termed zygotes. So it’s irrelevant to the debate. But yes, the name for that new organism is hopo sapien, or human being.

The Catholic Church believes the fetus has human rights and is a “human being.”

That s/he’s a human being is not a Catholic belief. It’s not even a “belief.” It’s science.

What I keep pointing out is that this is a minority belief in the US. I’m not saying it’s right or wrong, I’m simply stating a fact.

It’s a pretty narrow margin and depends on the poll that people cite. Regardless, since when are human rights up for popular vote? Popular majorities have historically favored all kinds of atrocities.

You (I would add “all,” but that would be an assumption I won’t make!) are assuming you can read my mind. You can’t. Don’t try. Instead, read what I wrote. I’m happy to defend that, not what you THINK I wrote.

I’m wishing I could read your mind right now because I have no idea what you’re referencing.

 

[Aquinas11]

Let’s say it together and mean it: We can’t know the mind of another person. Only God can.

Everyone notice the self-contradiction here that underlies all the posts?

If you can’t know the mind of Bob, you can’t know whether the mind of Bob knows the mind of John, thus above post completely self contradictory

 

[Aquinas11]

I guess you haven’t read the earlier posts. I was responding to another person (pattyit) who was talking about abortion being a selfish act.

I guess you haven’t read the earlier posts. You were responding to another person (pattyit) who said she did not want to continue discussing the term “selfish”, yet here several posts later you still are. Hence your discussion of “selfish” is a red herring people please ignore

 

[Aquinas11]

What I keep pointing out is that this is a minority belief in the US. I’m not saying it’s right or wrong, I’m simply stating a fact

You are at minimum implying it’s wrong or you wouldn’t go to the trouble to cite it. And for same reason you’re now necessarily implying it’s wrong for minority to oppose slavery in 19th century or to oppose feminism in early 20th century

You (I would add “all,” but that would be an assumption I won’t make!) are assuming you can read my mind. You can’t. Don’t try. Instead, read what I wrote. I’m happy to defend that, not what you THINK I wrote.

The irony is nuclear. You just assumed you can read my mind that I’m trying to read your mind.

 

[Viki63]

Thank you for all the comments. They’ve gotten off track a bit, as discussions tend to do, but that’s all right. I no longer feel discouraged about the discussion I had.
It’s clear that the right to life trumps the right to avoid inconvenience. I also don’t think arguments will help pro-choice people to see this.

I’ve noticed that they’re now calling us “anti-choicers,” which seems hostile and demeaning. Maybe that’s been going on for awhile, but it won’t do anything to heal the divisions in our country.

 

[Rau]

I’ve noticed that they’re now calling us “anti-choicers,” which seems hostile and demeaning. Maybe that’s been going on for awhile, but it won’t do anything to heal the divisions in our country.

Well, there are some choices we’re just not free to make. Everyone believes that I think. Pro-choice, anti-choice are all silly terms because them employ general language to mean something fairly specific. Pro-choice, “reproductive health” and various other terms are probably worse though - they tend to be euphemisms, clothing something quite serious, quite contentious in entirely “good-sounding” language. “Marriage equality” is another such euphemism.

 

[EndTimes]

“You and the other anti-choice people seem to create your own meanings when it suits you.”

And the label 'Pro-Choice" is OxyMoronic and Allows for Abortion aka Pro-Death
|
All of us have CHOICE aka Our FREE WILL !

Although living inside her Womb, My body was never my mother’s body …

God’s Laws supersede Man’s laws

Since this is a Catholic Forum Here’s Catholic Teaching on Abortion. .

There’s ZERO Allowance for Abortion… aka Murder of one’s child. .

No non-Catholic definition of terms can disprove Catholic Teachings…

You’re Free to accept or reject; Your CHOICE…

Abortion

2270 Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person - among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life.72

Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you.73
My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately wrought in the depths of the earth.74

2271 Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law:

You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish.

Life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception: abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes.

2272 Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense.

Rather, the Church makes clear the gravity of the crime committed, the irreparable harm done to the innocent who is put to death, as well as to the parents and the whole of society.

2273 The inalienable right to life of every innocent human individual is a constitutive element of a civil society and its legislation:

Among such fundamental rights one should mention in this regard every human being’s right to life and physical integrity from the moment of conception until death."80

2274 Since it must be treated from conception as a person, the embryo must be defended in its integrity, cared for, and healed, as far as possible, like any other human being.

Prenatal diagnosis is morally licit, “if it respects the life and integrity of the embryo and the human fetus and is directed toward its safe guarding or healing as an individual. . . . It is gravely opposed to the moral law when this is done with the thought of possibly inducing an abortion, depending upon the results: a diagnosis must not be the equivalent of a death sentence.”

 

[Erikaspirit16]

If you can’t know the mind of Bob, you can’t know whether the mind of Bob knows the mind of John, thus above post completely self contradictory

Sorry, you lost me.

You are at minimum implying it’s [belief that all abortion = murder] wrong or you wouldn’t go to the trouble to cite it.

That’s quite a leap of logic. And, dare I say, you are pretending to read my mind. You can’t. Sorry. I’m not–and never have–said your beliefs are “wrong.” I’m saying those who believe that are in a small minority (21%…). What I AM saying is that it is wrong for 21% to dictate to the other 79% what they may or may not do in a secular, democratic country (US) when their belief is a doctrine of a specific religion, and not believed by most of the other world religions (let alone members of their own religion). If everyone agreed, we’d be good to go. They don’t. And before you even go there, it’s not a question of a majority vote deciding what’s moral, it’s a question of majority vote deciding what’s legal. Two different things, as I carefully pointed out above.

And for same reason you’re now necessarily implying it’s wrong for minority to oppose slavery in 19th century or to oppose feminism in early 20th century

Interesting comment. Directly the opposite of what I have written.

The irony is nuclear. You just assumed you can read my mind that I’m trying to read your mind.

But please read what I said: “I would add “all,” but that would be an assumption I won’t make.” In other words, I can only understand what you write, not what you think. Since you are constantly accusing me of exactly the opposite of what I write, I think I am justified in assuming you are responding not to my words, but to what you THINK are my thoughts. The other alternative is that you are just writing down random thoughts. Either way, not good.

Elective, induced abortions aren’t performed on one-hour old “fertilized eggs,”

I guess you never heard of the “morning after” pill. Or if you have, you think it’s irrelevant to the debate. Better check that with your local bishop.

It’s a pretty narrow margin and depends on the poll that people cite.

Here’s the latest Gallup Poll–last June. Majority in U.S. Still Want Abortion Legal, With Limits What do you see? Your position (abortion should be illegal in all circumstances) = 21%; 53% say “legal under certain circumstances”; 25% “legal under ALL circumstances”. The other 2% have no opinion. So, just to get this straight, what you are saying is that 78% vs. 21% is a “narrow margin”? If so, please explain what you think is a “large” margin.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

I’ve noticed that they’re now calling us “anti-choicers,” which seems hostile and demeaning. Maybe that’s been going on for awhile, but it won’t do anything to heal the divisions in our country.

Have you also noticed that somehow “pro-choice” has changed magically into something it’s not, “pro-abortion”? Isn’t it “hostile and demeaning” to accuse people of being in favor of an immortal act they have repeatedly condemned? I don’t know about others, but I am offended.

It’s clear that the right to life trumps the right to avoid inconvenience.

“Inconvenience” is quite a stretch. Again, you are assuming you can read the minds of women who have abortion. You don’t need to speculate! There are numerous polls out there of women who have had abortion, and the reasons they have given. Please read a few.

 

[nfinke]

They say that a woman cannot be “forced” to carry a fetus to term.

Noone is forcing a woman to carry a fetus. But it is reasonable to try and force her not to murder her child. Ex: it is illegal to hit someone with your car. If you are driving fast through a school zone, the law didn’t “force” you to swerve and damage your car when that child jumped in the road. The law just said what ought to be illegal.

Not a perfect parallel, but the point is just because the consequences would be inconvenient does not mean the intent of the law is to cause those consequences, just to prevent a worse action.

 

[nfinke]

Have you also noticed that somehow “pro-choice” has changed magically into something it’s not, “pro-abortion”?

This has always been the dumbest argument. Anti-abortion people support a woman’s right to choose many things. Cornflakes for breakfast. A Ferrari. We also support her right to put her child up for adoption. The ONLY issue up for debate, the ONE issue where if you change your mind you have to switch sides, is whether she should be allowed to choose to get an abortion. So it is 100% accurate to define the sides as anti and pro abortion. I mean it’s totally understandable they don’t enjoy being labeled pro abortion, but the label is accurate.

 

[blackforest]

I guess you never heard of the “morning after” pill. Or if you have, you think it’s irrelevant to the debate. Better check that with your local bishop.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.) blackforest:

The “morning-after” pill is not an elective, induced abortion. The research on it is murky, and I’ve heard that some studies suggest that the contra-implantative effect may or may not happen. This isn’t the same thing as a surgical or chemical abortion, which results in death 100% of the time. I agree that opposition to MAP is a pro-life issue, but it’s more of a gray area than what’s being discussed in the thread.

As to polls, I’m afraid you missed my point entirely . . . .

Have you also noticed that somehow “pro-choice” has changed magically into something it’s not, “pro-abortion”?

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.) Viki63:

Pro-abortion rights is more accurate. On the other hand, the “pro-choice” movement can get pretty pro-abortion. Case in point: California law now requires that all university student health centers cover abortions. Remarkably, there’s no requirement to cover prenatal care. Ditto Oregon law, which requires abortion coverage but not prenatal coverage.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

but the label [pro-abortion] is accurate.

Just the opposite. I think (as most people here have written) that abortion is always morally wrong. Do I think that abortion should be illegal? No. I believe what the catechism tells us–1782-- “Man has the right to act in conscience and in freedom so as personally to make moral decisions. He must not be forced to act contrary to his conscience. Nor must he be prevented from acting according to his conscience, especially in religious matters.” The belief that a fetus is a “human being” is a purely religious matter. It is not science, and science has nothing to say on the matter (despite what some of you think). If your religious belief is different from mine, I have no right to make your belief illegal. (There are exceptions of course–if you believe that polygamy, sex with a child, etc. are OK, you are free to believe that; but the vast majority will make it illegal. This is not putting morality up for a vote, it’s putting the legality of an action up for a vote. In the case of abortion, as I pointed out above, 78% of the US population think it should be always or sometimes legal. Only 21% believe it should be illegal.)

Yes, I agree that “pro-life” and “pro-choice” are not the best or most accurate terms. But they’re the ones in use. “Pro-abortion rights” seems like a better term to use, I agree.

The “morning-after” pill is not an elective, induced abortion. The research on it is murky, and I’ve heard that some studies suggest that the contra-implantative effect may or may not happen.

Where do you get this stuff? It’s not “elective”? You mean it’s forced on the woman? New to me. Surely the woman chooses to take it. “Some studies suggest…” is paraphrasing Trump: “Some people say…” Surely you’re better than that. Take 10 seconds–as I just did–to Google it. Web MD: " If you take it within 72 hours after you’ve had unprotected sex, levonorgestrel can reduce the risk of pregnancy by up to 89%. If you take Plan B One-Step within 24 hours, it is about 95% effective ." When you write “may or may not” it sounds to me like it’s 50-50; it’s 95-5. Again, let’s stick to facts, particularly if you can find the facts in 10 seconds.

As to polls, I’m afraid you missed my point entirely . . . .

It’s a pretty narrow margin and depends on the poll that people cite.

How did I miss your point? You wrote “it’s [referring to pro-life vs. pro-choice] a pretty narrow margin and depends on the poll that people cite.” I respond to what you WRITE, not what you WISH you wrote. I addressed what you wrote: “pretty narrow margin.” It’s not. It’s a yawning chasm. Wishing it were not so, or claiming it were not so does not change the facts.

 

[Elf01]

There are exceptions of course–if you believe that polygamy, sex with a child, etc. are OK, you are free to believe that; but the vast majority will make it illegal.

If the vast majority supported them would you defend them as quickly ss you do baby murder?

 

[Erikaspirit16]

If the vast majority supported them would you defend them as quickly ss you do baby murder?

Here we go again. One LAST TIME: morality is NOT necessarily the same as legality.

If 78% of the population voted to make polygamy legal, they could. It’s a fact. Does that force the other 22% of the population to agree that it’s moral? Of course not. Could they try to change the law? Of course.

If 78% of the population voted to make polygamy legal, would I support them? Of course not. Just as I do not support “baby murder.” But that does not mean that I don’t think the 78% shouldn’t have a right to vote for what they believed in.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

I’m done here. As always, when I find myself simply repeating what I’ve already written multiple times, I bow out. I see the same people on similar threads, denying facts and making false accusations. So go to it, and have fun.

But in closing, I would like all you good Catholics to think long and hard about charity. Remember Paul? Nice guy. He once said this: “Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal…[if I] have not charity, I am nothing.” We won’t even bring in that nasty business about casting the first stone.

But maybe I’m wrong–maybe all you mind readers out there know exactly the extent of free will and intention in every single action you condemn, and are totally accurate in labeling people selfish or atheists or pro-abortion…Maybe. But I doubt it. God have mercy on your souls, whatever your intentions. You see, I can’t read your minds…

 

[Elf01]

If 78% of the population voted to make polygamy legal, would I support them?

If this topic was about polygamy, and 78% of people supported it would your posts here be similar?