The Right to Choose

[allhers]

Yes. Sorry if I was not clear on that. It is a member of the universal Church. The unborn fetus is unquestionably human. The Church is at some level comprised of all humans. It is God’s covenant with mankind. None of us are perfectly joined to it, but many are sufficiently joined as to be in “communion” with the Church. Most are not joined at that level. We are each joined to it by the humanity of Christ.

Church doctrine states that all salvation comes through the Church, and at the same time it acknowledges that some who are not fomally and/or ritually “members” of the Church may attain salvation. There is a level of connection that lies in our common humanity, in our shared heritage of being created in the image and likeness of God that lies underneath the merely human apprehension of “member.” We are called to be as closely joined to the covenant as we can be, but the passage in Galatians reminds us that we are all one in Christ Jesus.

WW, I believe this answers you quite well too.

That passage they refer to is Gal 3:28

You can read it here:
usccb.org/nab/bible/

Galatians is the sixth book down on the far right side.

 

[fix]

1. I observe relativism has gained support, and I observe the unborn are not considered members of society.

I observe that you claim to simply observe.

1. Can you tell us how protection is extended to non-members of society all the time? We can see instances in foreign affairs, but that is done in a strategic effort to protect members of society. Did you have something else in mind?

If an alien is in this country we do not say the law allows them to be murdered.

1. Perhaps courts are abusing power. I am smply observing the phenomenon, not making a normative statement.

I am simply observing here that you claim to observe.

1. The Church may seek protection of all human beings.

She indeed does.

1. Is the unborn fetus a member of the Church? Is it a Catholic?

To be in full communion one needs, among other things, to be baptized. How is this relevant to the thread?

 

[WillieWonka]

Everyone, including the preborn is a child of God. What one chooses to claim themselves to be is their own free will choice. One can claim to be a satanists but still God considers them His child and any time that prodigal son returns God will accept them with open arms.

No one need fear God, He is pure love.

Dos that mean everyone is a Catholic?

 

[WillieWonka]

I observe that you claim to simply observe.

If an alien is in this country we do not say the law allows them to be murdered.

I am simply observing here that you claim to observe.

She indeed does.

To be in full communion one needs, among other things, to be baptized. How is this relevant to the thread?

1, You are correct. I observe.

1. The law extends to every one present in the country. So do many obligations. The fact that they are aliens does not mean they are not part of our society. I would agree they are not citizens.
2. You are correct. I observe.
3. You may want to expand the proective umbrella you say the Church extends. The Sacred Congregation makes it very clear the Church seeks to protect human beings, and even fetuses that do not yet have a soul.
4. Is the unborn fetus a Catholic?

 

[fix]

1, You are correct. I observe.

Yes, we observe each other.

1. The law extends to every one present in the country. So do many obligations. The fact that they are aliens does not mean they are not part of our society. I would agree they are not citizens.

So, you define being part of society how?

1. You are correct. I observe.

I observe you observe.

1. You may want to expand the proective umbrella you say the Church extends. The Sacred Congregation makes it very clear the Church seeks to protect human beings, and even fetuses that do not yet have a soul.

I did extend it. It is you who want to limit it. The Church seeks protection of the unborn and society does too. The problem is society is inconsistent because values are often based on hedonism and relativism.

1. Is the unborn fetus a Catholic?

Is the baby baptized?

 

[WillieWonka]

Yes, we observe each other.

So, you define being part of society how?

I observe you observe.

I did extend it. It is you who want to limit it. The Church seeks protection of the unborn and society does too. The problem is society is inconsistent because values are often based on hedonism and relativism.

Is the baby baptized?

1. I don’t define what being part of society is. I observe who is and who is not considered part of society. I observe the alien is considered part of society with limited rights. I observe the fetus is not considered part of society and has no rights. But, I acknowledge that there have been a very few cases where the fetus was recognized as a member of society by virtue of being judged a victim of a crime.
2. You said the Church extends protection to human beings. However, the Sacred Congregation allows for delayed ensoulment, and demands that even a fetus lacking a soul be protected. The Church also says a human being has a soul. So, a fetus lacking a soul is not a human being, but is nevertheless protected by the Church. The Church teachings here have nothing to do with hedonism and relativism.
3. The fetus in question has not been baptised.

 

[fix]

1. I don’t define what being part of society is. I observe who is and who is not considered part of society. I observe the alien is considered part of society with limited rights. I observe the fetus is not considered part of society and has no rights. But, I acknowledge that there have been a very few cases where the fetus was recognized as a member of society by virtue of being judged a victim of a crime.

I observe your refusal to answer is a type of answer itself.

1. You said the Church extends protection to human beings. However, the Sacred Congregation allows for delayed ensoulment, and demands that even a fetus lacking a soul be protected. The Church also says a human being has a soul. So, a fetus lacking a soul is not a human being, but is nevertheless protected by the Church. The Church teachings here have nothing to do with hedonism and relativism.

Are you using exact theological language or is this your attempt to paint the Church with your own brush while simultaneously claiming simply to observe?

1. The fetus in question has not been baptised.

My understanding is that to be in communion it is necessary to have some type of baptism.

 

[WillieWonka]

I observe your refusal to answer is a type of answer itself.

Are you using exact theological language or is this your attempt to paint the Church with your own brush while simultaneously claiming simply to observe?

My understanding is that to be in communion it is necessary to have some type of baptism.

It’s not a refusal to answer; it’s an explanation of how one determines who is a member of society. With any group, we can either ask what the definition of membership is, or we can observe behavior to determine membership. Some groups offer a definition, but subsequent observation reveals the definition is incorrect.

So, I am not aware of any standard definition of what constututes membership in our society. Nor am I suggesting any definition. So, I use observation to determine who is treated as a member, and who is not.

That observation indicates the unborn are not treated as members. That observation also indicates some very few unborn are treated as criminal victims, which does indicate membership. So, that poses a contradiction. Definitions are not amenable to such contradictions.

So, lacking a definition, I do not refuse to answer, I simply acknowledge I do not have a definition and indicate how I determine who is included as a member of society.

So, I agree, not providing a definition is an answer, and I hope this has expanded on that answer.

---

Do you have a definition of who is a member of society that meshes with our observations?

---

What is exact theological language? Is it the type of language common on these threads?

---

Does communion mean membership in the Church?

 

[SteveGC]

WW,

A few posts back, I had attempted to explain to you who is “Catholic”. Indeed it is by valid baptism and accompanying faith.

I explained my deduction, based on official Church teaching, of how a fetus may indeed be Catholic before being born (through baptism of desire).

I also tried to get you to tell us why the catholicity of an unborn fetus is relevant.

As I have mentioned to you in another thread…your conclusion that the Church allows for the possibility of a fetus not being human because of the possibility of delayed ensoulment is an erroneous one. The Church in it’s official teaching, and indeed in that specific Sacred Congregation document, affirms that human life begins at conception because either the fertlized ovum has a soul immediately at conception, or is inevitably destined for one at some point in the near future…hence, it is a human being at conception.

 

[budgie2]

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.

God did not give us the right to kill. The Ten Commandments say “Thou shalt not kill”. Abortion is murder in many peoples’ eyes including mine. I believe at conception the fertilised egg is given a soul. If you have personally chosen to have an abortion then you have committed mortal sin but can receive Confession and absolution. This means you can still go to heaven but will have temporal punishment which you may need to reduce if possible by standing up against abortion, joining pro-life groups, or helping deprived children in the Third World. Pro-life groups also offer counselling.

Here are the Catholic Ten Commandments:

I am the LORD your God. You shall worship the Lord your God and Him only shall you serve.
You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain.
Remember to keep holy the Sabbath day.
Honor your father and your mother.
You shall not kill.
You shall not commit adultery.
You shall not steal.
You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife.
You shall not covet your neighbor’s goods.

beginningcatholic.com/catholic-ten-commandments.html

 

[WillieWonka]

WW,

A few posts back, I had attempted to explain to you who is “Catholic”. Indeed it is by valid baptism and accompanying faith.

I explained my deduction, based on official Church teaching, of how a fetus may indeed be Catholic before being born (through baptism of desire).

I also tried to get you to tell us why the catholicity of an unborn fetus is relevant.

As I have mentioned to you in another thread…your conclusion that the Church allows for the possibility of a fetus not being human because of the possibility of delayed ensoulment is an erroneous one. The Church in it’s official teaching, and indeed in that specific Sacred Congregation document, affirms that human life begins at conception because either the fertlized ovum has a soul immediately at conception, or is inevitably destined for one at some point in the near future…hence, it is a human being at conception.

You did indeed provide an explanation of who is a Catholic. However, as I mentioned above, I am engaged in several conversations. Others have provided explanations that differ from yours. So, while I appreciate your explanation, I am conducting each individual conversation without reference to others.

I dispute your reading of the Sacred Congregation on ensoulment, and have responded in the referenced thread.

 

[djeter]

For a kind of where-we-stand-now-in-the-age-of-Obama, please read this:

payingattentiontothesky.com/2009/07/06/the-intellectual-chops-communication-skills-charisma-and-savvy/

It also has the links for a debate between Robert P. George and Doug Kmiec titled: “The Obama Administration and the Sanctity of Human Life: Is There a Common Ground on Life Issues? What is the Right Response by ‘Pro-Life” Citizens?” Much of the article summarizes Prof George’s position. If you are Catholic and pro-life this is a must read.

Also on the same site you will see a link under Pages for Prof George’s splendid book “The Clash of Orthodoxies” which is a basic handbook for Catholics on social issues such as abortion, euthanasia, homosexuality, gay marriage etc.

Regards

dj

 

[allhers]

Another good site to check out for all Pro-life people in the U.S.A. to check out is this:

www.stopabortionmandate

There you can make your voice heard to your Senators and Congressmen in your State, wherever you live in the U.S.

It says this on that site listed above:

The current health care reform proposals, if enacted, would result in the biggest expansion of abortion since the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision imposed abortion on America in 1973…

Washington D.C. bureaucrats and abortion industry lobbyists are trying to force YOU to pay for abortions through your tax dollars as part of their proposed trillion-dollar health care takeover – even though recent polls show that 71% of Americans oppose taxpayer-funded abortion…

This political power-grab is an effort to implement one of the cornerstones of the “Freedom of Choice Act” (FOCA), and could lead to a massive taxpayer-subsidized abortion industry bailout – something that American families do not support and cannot afford in these tough economic times…

Under the proposed health care takeover, virtually every American would be forced into a health plan that mandates abortion coverage; if the healthcare reform law does not clearly state that abortion is excluded, abortion automatically becomes a minimum required benefit…

It is imperative that our elected officials include language to explicitly exclude abortion from any health care reform proposal or bill.

Down at the bottom it lists action items each of us can do and for some of them, all it
takes is a simple click of your mouse to fill in the information right on that site.

We have the right to choose to make our voices heard this time, we didn’t back in 1973.

 

[peary]

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.

ilem

The dilemma for a Catholic and nonCatholic Christians is: is it choice or is it supporting a system that murders human beings? Social institutions can be evil and can even make evil laws. Case in point: slavery. The Supreme Court - the highest court in the land - had ruled overwhelmingly that slavery was a ‘right’ for those who owned slaves. Case in point: anti-Semitism. The German court system allowed the mass killing of Jews, the disabled, and other “non German” ethnic/social groups like gypsies and homosexuals during the Third Reich, just as our court system allows the mass killing of human beings in the womb and laws permitting euthanasia and assisted suicide.

For the Catholic Christian, the problem of ‘choice’ is irrelevent. It is a matter of life. It is a matter of social justice for all human beings and, enlightened in the message of the Gospel, we are to convince any society in which we live through a “change of hearts” that establishing laws permitting the dealing of problems with incorporated death labs is not good for that society or for its members. We do this through God’s grace, through prayer. If a Catholic Christian is so wrapped up in his or her personal political philosophy that it detracts from the Gospel message of salvation then his or her priorities are in the wrong place.

 

[allhers]

Another good site to check out for all Pro-life people in the U.S.A. to check out is this:

www.stopabortionmandate

There you can make your voice heard to your Senators and Congressmen in your State, wherever you live in the U.S.

It says this on that site listed above:

The current health care reform proposals, if enacted, would result in the biggest expansion of abortion since the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision imposed abortion on America in 1973…

Washington D.C. bureaucrats and abortion industry lobbyists are trying to force YOU to pay for abortions through your tax dollars as part of their proposed trillion-dollar health care takeover – even though recent polls show that 71% of Americans oppose taxpayer-funded abortion…

This political power-grab is an effort to implement one of the cornerstones of the “Freedom of Choice Act” (FOCA), and could lead to a massive taxpayer-subsidized abortion industry bailout – something that American families do not support and cannot afford in these tough economic times…

Under the proposed health care takeover, virtually every American would be forced into a health plan that mandates abortion coverage; if the healthcare reform law does not clearly state that abortion is excluded, abortion automatically becomes a minimum required benefit…

It is imperative that our elected officials include language to explicitly exclude abortion from any health care reform proposal or bill.

Down at the bottom it lists action items each of us can do and for some of them, all it
takes is a simple click of your mouse to fill in the information right on that site.

We have the right to choose to make our voices heard this time, we didn’t back in 1973.

Sorry, that should be this link:
www.stoptheabortionmandate.com

 

[Sugabee43]

I can respect this reply more than some others. I think the problem arises, Mary, when such a prediction cannot be made (always) at 4 months, AND when NFP fails. The problem is that the church puts some mothers, actually, in impossible no-win situations. Compared to ABC, NFP has a high failure rate. For most Catholic married couples, this should not be an issue – at least not where maternal health is concerned. But in a small minority of cases, this will be a problem, and again, a problem that the RCC refuses to acknowledge ever exists.

A relative in my family consistently developed high-risk pregnancies because of her high blood pressure which ramped up to a fatal degree in pregnancy. She has tried to carry several to term, two without huge risk to her life, but the others brought her near death, and I hate to say that there were apparently decisions made for late-term abortions because of it. But the RCC forbids ABC or sterilization, yet in doing so it creates situations where such extreme decisions even come into play. She had two healthy children, several aborted pregnancies. Eventually she apparently decided to get her tubes tied.

I only got this far in the thread, so please forgive me if this has been responded to, or the point is moot. However, study after study has proven that NFP is indeed as successful (if not more) than artificial birth control in preventing pregnancy - even among poor, illiterate, or people in developing countries. Prevention rate for NFP is at near 99% - IF it is done properly and diligently. To say otherwise is untrue. Not to mention that ABC is in itself abortificient a percentage of the time. It irks me to no end to have this type of misinformation bandied about. NFP has been used for decades in developing countries, using extremely inexpensive materials, with much success.

 

[limerick]

**“Prevention and Contraception: Contraceptive Use in the United States” (Guttmacher Institute):

“% of women who will become pregnant in their first year of use:” [see table]

guttmacher.org/in-the-know/index.html**

Limerick

 

[Sugabee43]

Although I appreciate your research, please remember the organization whose link you are citing - The Guttmacher Institute is the research arm of Planned Parenthood. It is in their very best interests to defame anything other than their prescribed forms of birth control. If NFP were to be as heavily marketed at ABC, they’d lose lots of income.

Here is the link to the September 18, 1993 British Medical Journal article which cites the studies that affirm that NFP is as effective as artificial birth control. Beside that particularly important point, NFP contains no harmful chemicals and will not put women at risk for blood clots, cancer, and the like. It is also not abortificient, unlike the Pill and the IUD, so one doesn’t have to worry about aborting a young fetus while in the process of applying the contraception. I hope the link works. If not, it’s vol. 307, page 723.

bmj.com/cgi/search?sendit=Search&pubdate_year=1993&volume=307&firstpage=723&DOI=&author1=&author2=&title=&andorexacttitle=and&titleabstract=&andorexacttitleabs=and&fulltext=&andorexactfulltext=and&fmonth=Jan&fyear=1981&tmonth=Jul&tyear=2009&fdatedef=3+October+1840&tdatedef=24+July+2009&resourcetype=1&RESULTFORMAT=1&hits=10&hitsbrief=25&sortspec=date&sortspecbrief=date

 

[limerick]

“Although I appreciate your research, please remember the organization whose link you are citing - The Guttmacher Institute is the research arm of Planned Parenthood. It is in their very best interests to defame anything other than their prescribed forms of birth control. If NFP were to be as heavily marketed at ABC, they’d lose lots of income.”

**According to Catholic press, Catholic lobbyists, right-to-life organizations … anybody who might actually be UNbiased?

And just why is NFP NOT marketed as heavily as artificial birth control? Who dropped the ball there?

L**

 

[SteveGC]

“Although I appreciate your research, please remember the organization whose link you are citing - The Guttmacher Institute is the research arm of Planned Parenthood. It is in their very best interests to defame anything other than their prescribed forms of birth control. If NFP were to be as heavily marketed at ABC, they’d lose lots of income.”

**According to Catholic press, Catholic lobbyists, right-to-life organizations … anybody who might actually be UNbiased?

And just why is NFP NOT marketed as heavily as artificial birth control? Who dropped the ball there?

L**

I’m jumping into this…forgive me…

I don’t think anyone dropped the ball, per se. ABC represents the core morality of secular society. It is the champion of the one-night stand. NFP, and it’s counterparts, i.e. rhythm method, predominantly presume marriages (or atleast a committed relationship) as opposed to “hook ups”. So it really wouldn’t matter how much money you poured into the promotion of NFP…society demands an “easy out” to their pregnancy prevention, and won’t bother with a method demanding a committed relationship over time with a partner (spouse). It needs to be quick and easy, and allow for multiple partners.

Of course, ABC pharmaceuticals have the capital to make large promotions work…the Church does not, and so She really can only promulgate it within the Body of the Church, and relies on the faithful to take it into all corners of society. I think that’s why, even for validly married couples, NFP is not marketed like ABC is able to be marketed. I do think, however, that some arm of the Church should make a more vocal and noticeable effort to promote NFP and compete with the predominant ABC culture.