"Well, I'm Catholic and I'm pro-choice..."

[blessedtoo]

How I wish you were right.

The numbers you cite are correct for the United States, but not for the world as a whole.

Thanks for the correction! I guess google only works correctly if you ask the right question!

 

[PapaSquash]

I like it when people say:

" I want to end abortion by eliminating the conditions and circumstances that cause women to feel they need an abortion."

(and i have heard this one)

My response:
“OK let’s start with selfishness. I know a great organization, headquartered in Rome, that has just the solution for that…”

 

[BlestOne]

I like it when people say:

" I want to end abortion by eliminating the conditions and circumstances that cause women to feel they need an abortion."

(and i have heard this one)

My response:
“OK let’s start with selfishness. I know a great organization, headquartered in Rome, that has just the solution for that…”

Oh I love this!!!And soooo true!!!

 

[Returnee]

I’m Catholic, but it’s not like its a rule you have to be against abortion.

Your friend is patently wrong here. You seemed to have done a fair job of rebutting this, but not in as strong terms as, IMO, what should have been done.

For Catholics, there is NO QUESTION. And in fact, it IS a “rule”. It’s a SIN to have an abortion, or to aid in one in any way, even through complacency. And the sin becomes MORTAL if one does not accept this teaching, and continues to aid/participate in abortion.

All aboritons are a sin, PERIOD.

The only “exception” (and this is not an exception at all, it’s merely putting the procedure in proper context) is if the fertilized egg becomes lodged in the fallopian tube before it can enter the uterus. In this case, it is not considered an “abortion” to have this removed, so even in this case, it’s not “permitting abortion”, its undergoing a life saving medical procedure. In this special case, there is ZERO chance of the egg developing into a fetus, and then a baby, AND the life of the mother is in jeopardy, so there is no sin here. (Since it was apparently God’s will that the egg be trapped in the tube in the first place This is the salient point; having this procedure done in no way violates or interferres with GOD’S WILL).

All other cases are sin, period. End of story. No discussion possible. This has been DOGMATICALLY DEFINED. One cannot be a Catholic and deny dogma.

 

[TheApologist]

The only “exception” (and this is not an exception at all, it’s merely putting the procedure in proper context) is if the fertilized egg becomes lodged in the fallopian tube before it can enter the uterus. In this case, it is not considered an “abortion” to have this removed, so even in this case, it’s not “permitting abortion”, its undergoing a life saving medical procedure. In this special case, there is ZERO chance of the egg developing into a fetus, and then a baby, AND the life of the mother is in jeopardy, so there is no sin here. (Since it was apparently God’s will that the egg be trapped in the tube in the first place This is the salient point; having this procedure done in no way violates or interferres with GOD’S WILL).

I was trying to remember that one circumstance. Thanks for reminding me. Yeah, there’s no chance for fetal development and it truly is a hazard to the woman. There’s no other near 100% sure way of saying aborting the baby will save the mother and there is no other option.

This has been DOGMATICALLY DEFINED. One cannot be a Catholic and deny dogma.

That’s what I was trying to say. I was saying that “Life starts at conception” is Catholic dogma and disagreeing with dogma is disagreeing with the Magisterium and the Magisterium is inspired so you are going against God. Those few of my Catholic friends who were saying “you don’t have to follow all of the Church teachings” are being so arrogant. Please pray for them.

 

[guanophore]

I feel like God is suddenly strongly calling me to stand up. Last night I studied vigorously the statistics for abortion and other info on it, and suddenly I’m defending the live of millions of future babies to my friends. I feel like I have to at least explain to them. If they won’t listen I might not be friends with them anymore, but I have to try to teach them the value of life. I want as much life as can be saved to be saved from abortion.

Good for you! Answer the call! Join Priests for Life, and start giving talks. The Lord is with you!

 

[TheApologist]

Good for you! Answer the call! Join Priests for Life, and start giving talks. The Lord is with you!

Uhhh…I’m not sure you understand how young I am. The only thing I’d probably be doing is going to the talks. I’m not sure many people would think it acceptable if I gave them. But going to talks works too! Yeah, I’ve just been learning so many things this last half-year about the faith. I’ve been reading so many Apologetic materials(most online) and trying to get more Apologetic classes in my parish. It’s actually become a large part of my life and helped me to become closer to God. I just wanna bring the Truth to others as well and defend life. This is the most life I can attempt to defend in one discussion.

 

[guanophore]

“A good catholic wouldn’t be telling another not to tell another how to be a good catholic.”

We all have a duty to stand up for the faith.

Absolutely! She did rightly.

Matt 18:15-17
5 “If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. 16 But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses. 17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.”

 

[TheApologist]

Absolutely! She did rightly.

…if you’re referring to me…I’m a guy.

 

[system]

Uhhh…I’m not sure you understand how young I am. The only thing I’d probably be doing is going to the talks. I’m not sure many people would think it acceptable if I gave them. But going to talks works too! Yeah, I’ve just been learning so many things this last half-year about the faith.

I found most of these talks center almost 100% on the woman; not the baby, and not the father. If you get the chance, ask one of them exactly what rights the father has in all of this. Contrary to lots of folks’ talking points, sometimes the men happen to believe it is a life, from the moment of conception, do not agree to an abortion (or worse, never know about it), and the woman goes ahead and makes “Her Choice”. Many men live damaged by that choice.

 

[dylanschrader]

Your friend is patently wrong here. You seemed to have done a fair job of rebutting this, but not in as strong terms as, IMO, what should have been done.

For Catholics, there is NO QUESTION. And in fact, it IS a “rule”. It’s a SIN to have an abortion, or to aid in one in any way, even through complacency. And the sin becomes MORTAL if one does not accept this teaching, and continues to aid/participate in abortion.

All aboritons are a sin, PERIOD.

The only “exception” (and this is not an exception at all, it’s merely putting the procedure in proper context) is if the fertilized egg becomes lodged in the fallopian tube before it can enter the uterus. In this case, it is not considered an “abortion” to have this removed, so even in this case, it’s not “permitting abortion”, its undergoing a life saving medical procedure. In this special case, there is ZERO chance of the egg developing into a fetus, and then a baby, AND the life of the mother is in jeopardy, so there is no sin here. (Since it was apparently God’s will that the egg be trapped in the tube in the first place This is the salient point; having this procedure done in no way violates or interferres with GOD’S WILL).

All other cases are sin, period. End of story. No discussion possible. This has been DOGMATICALLY DEFINED. One cannot be a Catholic and deny dogma.

I think you’re thinking of the principal of Double Effect, which is a moral principle that says it is moral to do something to achieve a good effect but which will also have an unintended evil effect in certain cases. The evil effect is foreseen but not intended.

In the case of a tubal pregnancy, the removal of a swollen/diseased organ to prevent the death of the woman is what is done. The death of the child is an unintended secondary effect.

The death of the child can never be allowed as a means or as an end.

The fact that the child began to develop in the fallopian tube is probably an example of God’s permissive will rather than his active will. It’s like saying that it’s God’s will that there are natural disasters. God permits them and in that sense it is his will, but they are not often objects of his active will.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I think you’re thinking of the principal of Double Effect, which is a moral principle that says it is moral to do something to achieve a good effect but which will also have an unintended evil effect in certain cases. The evil effect is foreseen but not intended.

In the case of a tubal pregnancy, the removal of a swollen/diseased organ to prevent the death of the woman is what is done. The death of the child is an unintended secondary effect.

The death of the child can never be allowed as a means or as an end.

The fact that the child began to develop in the fallopian tube is probably an example of God’s permissive will rather than his active will. It’s like saying that it’s God’s will that there are natural disasters. God permits them and in that sense it is his will, but they are not often objects of his active will.

I think we should point out that in the case of a tubal pregnancy, we do not have an either-or case. We are not chosing between the mother’s life and that of the child. If the condition is left untreated, they are both going to die.

Therefore, in saving the mother, we do not kill the child – we are merely unable to save it, regardless of what we do.

 

[dylanschrader]

I think we should point out that in the case of a tubal pregnancy, we do not have an either-or case. We are not chosing between the mother’s life and that of the child. If the condition is left untreated, they are both going to die.

Therefore, in saving the mother, we do not kill the child – we are merely unable to save it, regardless of what we do.

Even if both weren’t going to die, however, in some cases where a pregnant woman has uterine cancer, which would kill her, it could be licit to have the uterus removed. The point is not that the child’s death is inevitable, the point is that it is unintended even as a means.

So, if a pregnant woman is in some situation where both she and the child will die if she bears him to full term and the only way to prevent two deaths is an abortion, abortion is still morally illicit because the direct, intended killing of the child is never permitted.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Even if both weren’t going to die, however, in some cases where a pregnant woman has uterine cancer, which would kill her, it could be licit to have the uterus removed. The point is not that the child’s death is inevitable, the point is that it is unintended even as a means.

So, if a pregnant woman is in some situation where both she and the child will die if she bears him to full term and the only way to prevent two deaths is an abortion, abortion is still morally illicit because the direct, intended killing of the child is never permitted.

Have you got a cite for that?

It seems to say that sacrificing the child for the mother’s safety is morally acceptable.

 

[dylanschrader]

Have you got a cite for that?

It seems to say that sacrificing the child for the mother’s safety is morally acceptable.

I tried to say the opposite of that: that abortion intended even as a means to accomplish some good is illicit.

Even if both weren’t going to die, however, in some cases where a pregnant woman has uterine cancer, which would kill her, it could be licit to have the uterus removed. The point is not that the child’s death is inevitable, the point is that it is unintended even as a means.

So, if a pregnant woman is in some situation where both she and the child will die if she bears him to full term and the only way to prevent two deaths is an abortion, abortion is still morally illicit because the direct, intended killing of the child is never permitted.

This is what I’m getting at:

From Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services, Fourth Edition:

1. Operations, treatments, and medications that have as their direct purpose the cure of a proportionately serious pathological condition of a pregnant woman are permitted when they cannot be safely postponed until the unborn child is viable, even if they will result in the death of the unborn child.
2. In case of extrauterine pregnancy, no intervention is morally licit which constitutes a direct abortion.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I tried to say the opposite of that: that abortion intended even as a means to accomplish some good is illicit.

This is what I’m getting at:

From Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services, Fourth Edition:

I was not aware we were allowed to make choices like that.

 

[guanophore]

Uhhh…I’m not sure you understand how young I am. The only thing I’d probably be doing is going to the talks. I’m not sure many people would think it acceptable if I gave them. But going to talks works too! Yeah, I’ve just been learning so many things this last half-year about the faith. I’ve been reading so many Apologetic materials(most online) and trying to get more Apologetic classes in my parish. It’s actually become a large part of my life and helped me to become closer to God. I just wanna bring the Truth to others as well and defend life. This is the most life I can attempt to defend in one discussion.

1 Tim 4:12-13
“Let no one despise your youth, but set the believers an example in speech and conduct, in love, in faith, in purity.”

Priests for Life has lay membership for folks like you.

 

[TheApologist]

You still don’t comprehend how young I am. I’m probably 20-35 years younger than the majority of those going to Priest for Life talks. They wouldn’t accept someone like me until I learned just a LITTTLE bit more. Or grew a LITTLE bit more.

 

[anamchara]

I like it when people say:

" I want to end abortion by eliminating the conditions and circumstances that cause women to feel they need an abortion."

(and i have heard this one)

My response:
“OK let’s start with selfishness. I know a great organization, headquartered in Rome, that has just the solution for that…”

This is my approach but what makes you assume people with this approach are not trying to work on conversation of the heart as well to our Catholic faith? Also, why not finding ways to teach our youth that are not in the faith how important Gods gift of life is? What would be wrong with programs that could do this?

We can catch more flies with honey my friend, by getting rid of conditions or cirrcumstances we can also bring people in.

I can assure you when I was between the ages of 16 to 20 I wouldn’t have listened to yells of “murder” or being called selfish.

If that is really your response to people who are not Catholic and have no understanding then you will never change hearts. It’s a very serious matter. And it’s not so black and white.

 

[Iowa_Mike]

This is my approach but what makes you assume people with this approach are not trying to work on conversation of the heart as well to our Catholic faith? Also, why not finding ways to teach our youth that are not in the faith how important Gods gift of life is? What would be wrong with programs that could do this?

We can catch more flies with honey my friend, by getting rid of conditions or cirrcumstances we can also bring people in.

I can assure you when I was between the ages of 16 to 20 I wouldn’t have listened to yells of “murder” or being called selfish.

If that is really your response to people who are not Catholic and have no understanding then you will never change hearts. It’s a very serious matter. And it’s not so black and white.

I certainly agree that we need to have a dialogue about abortion with pro-choice people…here comes the big BUT; but we don’t have to walk around on our verbal tiptoes to do so. A statement like, " I want to end abortion by eliminating the conditions and circumstances that cause women to feel they need an abortion" serves only to change the debate from abortion to prevention. What they are really saying is that abortion is OK and if you want to get rid of it you should concentrate on prevention. You will then find your self defending the Catholic position on contraception, the morning after pill, distribution of condoms in schools, etc. After all they will say, if your so against abortion why do you stand in the way of preventing pregnancies?

If there is to be an honest debate on abortion then we need to keep the discussion on abortion. When someone delivers one of these ‘feel good’ statements, we need to bring the discussion back to abortion by saying something like, “Of course, who wouldn’t want to stop unwanted pregnancies? However, we are not talking about prevention we are talking the killing of the most innocent and most vulnerable people in our society, using abortion as a contraceptive is morally reprehensible.”

The people who engage me in support of abortion are passionate, outspoken and agressively defend their position. We Pro-Life Christians need to exactly the same.

Iowa Mike