The Right to Choose

[Sean_Boyle]

Call them what you will. Every group develops behavior guidelines. Some call them morals.Some say they come from god. Some say they come from nature. Some say they come from tradition. Some say they come from biology. Some say they are the product of natural selection.

But, they are all behavior guidelines. They may differ from each other, and each group will claim their behavior guidelines are better than the other guys’. Lots of opinions.

Do other peoples opinions prevent you from murdering other human being or owning other human beings?

… then what does?

 

[Elizabeth502]

The numbers of abortions in this country (and worldwide) have risen astronomically
since the days when abortion was held to be fully illegal around the world.

But have not legal abortions simply replaced illegal abortion so that today we have about the same number of induced abortions that we had prior to Roe v. Wade? The answer is most definitely “No”."

This aspect of the discussion has been aired on other threads. Correlation does not equal causation. The constellation of factors corresponding to the proliferation of abortion points to radically changing moral standards, combined with certain social and political movements independent of ‘Roe,’ between 1965 and 2009.

It wasn’t just that access to abortion was limited prior to ‘Roe.’ It also was that contraception was way less effective (& thus couples were often more careful, more chaste, more infrequent about premarital sex), premarital sex was more ‘dangerous’ socially (if it led to pregnancy), shotgun weddings were seen as a more frequent solution to premarital pregnancy (thus precluding abortion), and abortions were often dangerous when performed by unlicensed, untrained persons.

The Pill changed that. So did radically new social expectations, including ‘Women’s Lib’ (resulting in women’s financial liberation), including radically new sexual standards, including the postponement of marriage by a large portion of fertile women. Etc. Those and other factors were contemporaneous with the Roe decision.

 

[catharina]

This aspect of the discussion has been aired on other threads. Correlation does not equal causation. The constellation of factors corresponding to the proliferation of abortion points to radically changing moral standards, combined with certain social and political movements independent of ‘Roe,’ between 1965 and 2009.

It wasn’t just that access to abortion was limited prior to ‘Roe.’ It also was that contraception was way less effective (& thus couples were often more careful, more chaste, more infrequent about premarital sex), premarital sex was more ‘dangerous’ socially (if it led to pregnancy), shotgun weddings were seen as a more frequent solution to premarital pregnancy (thus precluding abortion), and abortions were often dangerous when performed by unlicensed, untrained persons.

The Pill changed that. So did radically new social expectations, including ‘Women’s Lib’ (resulting in women’s financial liberation), including radically new sexual standards, including the postponement of marriage by a large portion of fertile women. Etc. Those and other factors were contemporaneous with the Roe decision.

No doubt that the sexual revolution of th 60s ushered in many changes.

As for your “specifics,” you might want to direct them at the sites I posted - not at me.

 

[WillieWonka]

Do other peoples opinions prevent you from murdering other human being or owning other human beings?

… then what does?

Other people’s opinions may influence me to refrain from killing or enslaving people. If those other people have translated their opinion into action, they may physically restrain me.

 

[WillieWonka]

This aspect of the discussion has been aired on other threads. Correlation does not equal causation. The constellation of factors corresponding to the proliferation of abortion points to radically changing moral standards, combined with certain social and political movements independent of ‘Roe,’ between 1965 and 2009.

It wasn’t just that access to abortion was limited prior to ‘Roe.’ It also was that contraception was way less effective (& thus couples were often more careful, more chaste, more infrequent about premarital sex), premarital sex was more ‘dangerous’ socially (if it led to pregnancy), shotgun weddings were seen as a more frequent solution to premarital pregnancy (thus precluding abortion), and abortions were often dangerous when performed by unlicensed, untrained persons.

The Pill changed that. So did radically new social expectations, including ‘Women’s Lib’ (resulting in women’s financial liberation), including radically new sexual standards, including the postponement of marriage by a large portion of fertile women. Etc. Those and other factors were contemporaneous with the Roe decision.

The demographic movement off the farms also played a significant factor. In 1900 about 40% of the labor force was employed on the farm. Today it is 2%. The increase in service and industrial jobs opened opportunities for women that didn’t exist before. They could much more easily be self sufficient.

 

[djeter]

"When I conjure in my mind the objections that people I know make to Christianity, I am reminded of my friend on the couch, enervated by life’s manifold demands. Most of these people are not confident rationalists dismissing the supernatural or wanton hedonists rejecting moral constraint; they are not dogmatic about the universe being purely material, and most want to live according to some moral code.

Their real objections have to do with stretching and the fear of breaking. Faced with the Sermon on the Mount, they collapse on the couch, as it were, and protest that the degree of demand is just too much. Christianity promises new life in Christ, and our reaction is to shrink from the prospect. We think of our present lives, and we cannot imagine enduring the long commute. We hear St. Paul’s appeal — “present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God” — and we worry that we lack the inner resources to stretch so far. We fear breaking across the difference.

It is important to understand this fear, for it is at the core of a great deal of contemporary American culture. The threatening force of moral demand haunts the modern and postmodern soul…"

An essay on freedom by R.R. Reno.

More:

"The Gospels report Jesus saying again and again, “He who finds his life will lose it, and he who loses his life for my sake will find it.” St. Augustine did not face martyrdom, but he felt the horror of loss. It was not as though Augustine was unable to imagine a human being living a celibate life, any more than the rich young man in the Gospels was unable to imagine selling all his possessions.

The world has plenty of examples which show that it is possible to be human and celibate or poor. Rather, the problem for Augustine and the rich young man was personal: How can I be celibate, how can I be poor, without dying to my current projects, loyalties, and commitments? And if I do so die, then will I even be myself anymore? Once again, this is a problem of atonement."

A right to choose? The freedom of obedience… It’s all here in this wonderful essay:

payingattentiontothesky.com/2009/06/30/annals-of-evangelization-fear-of-redemption/

dj

 

[Eddie_Mac]

For Abortionists:
Dear Lord, we pray that you continue to implore abortionists in their ears and in their hearts, to quickly make an about-face and turn from their gruesome work. “Open their eyes that they may turn from darkness to light.” Show them the true choice between your infinite forgiveness and the eternal imprisonment that is offered by evil. We pray this in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, amen

For Babies:
Lord, protect all babies, the unborn and the born. Protect them at every stage of development, from conception to infancy. You have said, dear Lord, that even if a woman forgets the infant of her womb, “I will never forget you…Upon the palms of my hands I have written your name.” Christ warned, “See that you do not despise one of these little ones,” whose “angels in heaven always look upon the face of my heavenly Father”, adding, “It is not the will of your heavenly Father that one of these little ones be lost.” Keep them, O Lord, “as the apple of your eye; hide them in the shadow of your wings.” We pray this in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, amen

 

[allhers]

For Abortionists:
Dear Lord, we pray that you continue to implore abortionists in their ears and in their hearts, to quickly make an about-face and turn from their gruesome work. “Open their eyes that they may turn from darkness to light.” Show them the true choice between your infinite forgiveness and the eternal imprisonment that is offered by evil. We pray this in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, amen

For Babies:
Lord, protect all babies, the unborn and the born. Protect them at every stage of development, from conception to infancy. You have said, dear Lord, that even if a woman forgets the infant of her womb, “I will never forget you…Upon the palms of my hands I have written your name.” Christ warned, “See that you do not despise one of these little ones,” whose “angels in heaven always look upon the face of my heavenly Father”, adding, “It is not the will of your heavenly Father that one of these little ones be lost.” Keep them, O Lord, “as the apple of your eye; hide them in the shadow of your wings.” We pray this in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, amen

…and for their Mother’s Lord, help them to choose LIFE…and for those who didn’t, Lord
have mercy.Amen!!

If people truly want to educate themselves on this, I suggest the following sites.​

As Fr. Corapi says, the Truth never changes, just keep telling them until it sinks in.​

When the life of the mother is truly threatened by her pregnancy, if both lives cannot
simultaneously be saved, then saving the mother’s life must be the primary aim. If through
our careful treatment of the mother’s illness the pre-born patient inadvertently dies or is
injured, this is tragic and, if unintentional, is not unethical and is consistent with the
pro-life ethic. **But the intentional killing of an unborn baby by abortion is never
necessary. **www.prolifephysicians.org/rarecases.htm

=======================================

…abortion is necessary to preserve the life and health of the mother. Is that ever true?

G: Actually it’s not. There is no such thing as an abortion to save the life of the mother.
As a matter of fact for a while… several years… I was very interested in that question in
my formative years and I would ask every obstetrician and gynecologist that I met anywhere.
And I said have you ever had a case where you had to do something to kill the baby to save
the life of the mother. I have not come across one case, you know. People think of in the
movie, the story the Cardinal, where the woman was delivering the child and got into
complications and they crushed the baby’s head. And that is just not a part of modern
medicine. That is not necessary to be done.
priestsforlife.org/media/interviewisajiw.htm

=======================================================
T. Murphy Goodwin, M.D., a distinguished professor of maternal-fetal medicine at the
University of Southern California, has written an eloquent article describing how women are
told they need abortions for their own health, when this is patently untrue. A major reason for unnecessary abortion referrals is ignorance, to put it bluntly, especially on the part of physicians in medical specialties inexperienced in treating women with high-risk pregnancies. According to Goodwin, there are only three very rare conditions that result in a maternal mortality greater than 20% in the setting of late pregnancy. Even in these three situations there is room for latitude in waiting for fetal viability if the mother chooses to accept that risk.

For fatal birth defects, abortion is sometimes presented as the only option. But a better alternative is perinatal hospice. This involves continuing the pregnancy until labor begins and giving birth normally, in a setting of comfort and support until natural death occurs.
bluewavecanada.blogspot.com/2…necessary.html

=====================================================
Today it is possible for almost any patient to be brought through pregnancy alive, unless
she suffers from a fatal disease such as cancer or leukemia, and if so, **abortion would be unlikely to prolong, much less save the life of the mother. **-Alan Guttmacher, former Planned Parenthood president
all.org/article.php?id=10216​

my bold and underline

 

[PapaSquash]

In response, yes I have seen the pictures, the videos, etc. and yes, in certain cases, I am still PRO Choice, but still Catholic. If I wasn’t pro choice in some cicumstances, I wouldn’t be here right now.

It’s not where you are **right now ** that matters - it’s where you’ll end up.

 

[elts1956]

They know about the same as they know of the unborn abilities of chimps.

That’s a very good point about members of society. The unborn simply are not considered members of society until they are born. That’s when membership is extended. Members of society extend protection to other members of society.

Are baptisms perfomed on the unborn? If they are accepted members of society, why not?
I have heard of this being done. If not in uturo, then immediately after birth if there is immediate danger of death…
Are the unborn named? If they are accepted members of society, why not? Many parents name their stillborn, or miscarried children. If the sex of the baby is known before birth, some parents choose a name.

Do the unborn inherit? If they are accepted members of society, why not? That is a silly question.

Do the unborn accrue tax deductions? If they are accepted members of society, why not? C’mon, get real.

All the above are available at the moment of birth. Why not before? It’s simple. They are not considered members of society until birth.

Societies are known to change. Some become more humane, some less, take the US for instance. The one thing that does not change is once a human, always a human, before and after birth.

But they are considered members of the human race by those that care.

 

[elts1956]

They know about the same as they know of the unborn abilities of chimps.

So are you saying we need to learn a lot more about the abilities of the unborn before we can say they are negligible and can be discarded?

 

[WillieWonka]

Societies are known to change. Some become more humane, some less, take the US for instance. The one thing that does not change is once a human, always a human, before and after birth.

But they are considered members of the human race by those that care.

I think your formating did not work properly. As a result, you quote me saying things I did not say. So, I will not be responding to anything in the box.

However, I do agree societies change. Ours has not changed to consider unborn members of society.

Some ask, “If society protects 10-year-olds from murder, why doesn’t it protect the unborn form murder?” The answer is because society protects its own mebers and doesn’t consider the unborn to be members.

Note that protection is not extended by the human race. it is extended by individual societies.

Does the Church consider the unborn members of the Church?

 

[Lilyflower]

I’m really having a hard time with this abortion thing - I have read so many things regarding it on here, with the bioethics link - and gone back and seen where a fetus was not ensouled untile 40th day or 80th day and where there begins to be variations on Catholic belief. God gave each of us the right TO CHOOSE: Why is it that Catholics (and yes I am one - even though I’m pro-choice in most circumstances) - want to take the ability to choose freely away from someone. And please don’t give the argument that “the fetus doesn’t get to choose…” because we all know the fetus or baby has no ability to choose - that requires cognitive thinking - of which they are not capable. I am not trying to cause a storm of responses with this - I really just want to know, with most other things - we seem happy to let people choose - but as Catholics most seem to want to stop people from having that ability to choose. I suppose if abortion did ever become illegal, which I seriously doubt it ever will in all cases, people would still be making a choice - it would just be delegated to the richer people who could afford a private doctor to deal with it or take a plane to another country where it was legal - the poor would be left to back door shops where they could wind up getting sick from the proceedure and die. Is it that most people are out for there to be some kind of punishment on Earth for those that go ahead with an abortion instead of allowing God to judge at the end? And if somehow abortion does become legal what’s going to be next, trying to get contreception outlawed? I used to think, (when I was much younger) it would be neat if we were all Catholic, but now I’m glad we’re not because I could see our lives and sex lives becoming something that was studied to see if we were living according to a book of rules - and taking away even more choice. I hope it never becomes that way because it sounds much like China just to the other extreme.

Abortion is just one extreme.

Thinking ill, speaking ill and doing ill to a fellow human being is surely the other end of the continuum.

We as Christians, must oppose satan [small ‘s’ intended] at BOTH ends of the continuum.

Blessings and peace.

 

[fix]

Some ask, “If society protects 10-year-olds from murder, why doesn’t it protect the unborn form murder?” The answer is because society protects its own mebers and doesn’t consider the unborn to be members.

The unborn are not members of society and do not deserve protection? Why does the society allow the charges of double murder in cases where both mother and child are slain?

Note that protection is not extended by the human race. it is extended by individual societies.

So, the Nazis were justified in their killing?

Does the Church consider the unborn members of the Church?

She defends all innocent people members and non members.

 

[allhers]

I think your formating did not work properly. As a result, you quote me saying things I did not say. So, I will not be responding to anything in the box.

However, I do agree societies change. Ours has not changed to consider unborn members of society.

Some ask, “If society protects 10-year-olds from murder, why doesn’t it protect the unborn form murder?” The answer is because society protects its own mebers and doesn’t consider the unborn to be members.

Note that protection is not extended by the human race. it is extended by individual societies.

Does the Church consider the unborn members of the Church?

Note that you leave God entirely out of this and we don’t and yes, the Church does consider a preborn a member of the Church, just ask anyone who has had a miscarriage and has had a funeral Mass for their baby and then buried by the Church.

Luke 1:39-45 – The baby leapt in my womb for joy.=Luke 1:39-45

 

[WillieWonka]

The unborn are not members of society and do not deserve protection? Why does the society allow the charges of double murder in cases where both mother and child are slain?

So, the Nazis were justified in their killing?

She defends all innocent people members and non members.

Interesting observation. We can see society allows a million abortions per year, and we can see it makes double charges in a few instances. The double charges are a victory by the anti-abortion forces. However, the vast difference in numbers allows us to say the unborn are not considered members of society.

I said nothing about justification. I said protection is extended to members of society. It is not extendd to non-members. We can observe it. That is not a normative statement.

However, we should note that smaller social units will protect the unborn. Take the immediate family. They may consider the unborn afamily member and protect it with the same ferocity they protect the born members of the immediate family. But our larger society does not consider te unborn a member.

Are the unborn members of the Church?

 

[WillieWonka]

Note that you leave God entirely out of this and we don’t and yes, the Church does consider a preborn a member of the Church, just ask anyone who has had a miscarriage and has had a funeral Mass for their baby and then buried by the Church.

Luke 1:39-45 – The baby leapt in my womb for joy.=Luke 1:39-45

How does one become a member of the Church?

 

[allhers]

How does one become a member of the Church?

First and foremost through their parents beliefs when they are babies (infants even in the womb.) There is even a blessing for Parents that the Church does when one is first found to be “with child”. It is by Baptism of an infant that the parents bring that child to God - by having their child Baptized by the Priest, they already know God has given them the gift of that child and they bring them to HIM to have them claimed by Jesus in Baptism, then, the Holy Spirit fills their souls and they are pronounced as a child of God. (Something that we first [already] know and believe.)

Imagine that, society use to say, “Look, she is with child.”

…and I think you are wrong about society accepting abortion, the Supreme Court (less than a dozen people) deceided it, not society, there wasn’t a vote or anything, if we put it to a vote then we’d know how society really felt about it though, wouldn’t we?

Recent polls conducted by the Knights of Columbus show that most people would reject abortion. I’ve linked to that in earlier posts of mine somewhere if you want to go back and search for it. You’ve probably already seen it though, I think you just need to be told over and over until it sinks in.

 

[Eddie_Mac]

How does one become a member of the Church?

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=871&highlight=baptism+desire

Baptism of desire.

Also, parents can desire for their stillborn and miscarried babies to be baptized.

The Church puts no limits on what God does to bring ALL of his creation to salvation. We do not know the state of any human’s soul at death. Only God can see your soul.

Why do you keep putting limits on God’s plan and abilities? When we limit God we do not allow Him to work.

Stop limiting God and increase your faith.

Eddie Mac

 

[WillieWonka]

First and foremost through their parents beliefs when they are babies (infants even in the womb.) There is even a blessing for Parents that the Church does when one is first found to be “with child”. It is by Baptism of an infant that the parents bring that child to God - by having their child Baptized by the Priest, they already know God has given them the gift of that child and they bring them to HIM to have them claimed by Jesus in Baptism, then, the Holy Spirit fills their souls and they are pronounced as a child of God. (Something that we first [already] know and believe.)

Imagine that, society use to say, “Look, she is with child.”

…and I think you are wrong about society accepting abortion, the Supreme Court (less than a dozen people) deceided it, not society, there wasn’t a vote or anything, if we put it to a vote then we’d know how society really felt about it though, wouldn’t we?

Recent polls conducted by the Knights of Columbus show that most people would reject abortion. I’ve linked to that in earlier posts of mine somewhere if you want to go back and search for it. You’ve probably already seen it though, I think you just need to be told over and over until it sinks in.

Well, are the unborn members of the Church or not?