Where is the Catholic political anti-abortion mandate?

[Rau]

I no longer am advocating that the Catholic Church change.

However Rau,** I am relieved that we agree that there are no political mandates for Catholics**, and that “Catholic social teaching” provides a framework for thinking but leaves open the answers.

**Perhaps the door to Catholicism is open to me after all. ** It is something I prayed for.

And we no longer have to call the majority of Catholics who support abortion and SSM “cradle Catholics” because of their political views.

Because we live in a secular government, people have the right to abort their children, and date someone of the same sex. It is not the province of a secular government to regulate these things by denying these civil rights. Why? Because a secular government has no **moral **basis for doing so. So yes, the moral does intersect with the political after all; it’s just that a secular government has no moral basis.

As long as pregnancy is considered suffering, and abortion is considered a women’s right, it cannot be restricted fully. As long as homosexuality is considered normal and not a disease, gay marriages cannot be restricted. That is the reality.

If Christians want to change these people’s behavior, it needs to be through evangelism, and actually living out the Gospel.

Now that this thread is resolved, would the people that posted in my previous thread admit that they were wrong, and that it is possible to join the Catholic Church and support abortion and gay marriage rights?

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=866341

If the matter is entirely resolved in your mind Cali, I suspect you may be deluding yourself. Have you answered the following questions:

• is abortion a moral good or evil?
• do I want to see the occurrence reduced?
• how can I work to see the incidence reduced?

You do continue to confuse the source of “rights”. You say a woman has the “right” to abort her child, but this statement assumes a matter in debate. [We can only say there is a legal right in various jurisdictions.]. Your confusion on this point must mean that if the law granted parents the right to kill children up to 1 year old, then that would be fine with you because it would only be morality that stands in the way and governments have no business worrying about that. You would feel no urge (or at least no right) to argue against such a law. Do you see the absurdity?

There is no doubt that Christians have a duty to evangelise. But why do you assume that the natural ends of such evangelisation will have no implications for the law of the land, or must not influence the law? Whom is the law to serve? It is as though you think that the so-called “right” to abortion derives from some unassailable source, separate from the people.

I don’t understand how you will rationalise a Catholic faith, and Catholic moral principles with the “idea” that a parent, your daughter perhaps, should feel free to abort a child when pregnancy is not desired at the present time. It is the “idea” that abortion is a fine and proper thing that is the “enemy”. That idea is absolutely inconsistent with Catholicism. How the law should deal with the subject of abortion is a separate and much much more complex issue.

 

[CaliLobo]

If the matter is entirely resolved in your mind Cali, I suspect you may be deluding yourself. Have you answered the following questions:

• is abortion a moral good or evil?
• do I want to see the occurrence reduced?
• how can I work to see the incidence reduced?

Is abortion a moral good or evil? It’s a cruel practice and a tragic choice. I’m not fully sure that the Bible has anything to say on point regarding abortion, however.

Do I want to see the occurrence reduced? Yes because it is cruel and tragic.

How can I work to see the incidence reduced? Evangelism. Outreach. Love. Reasonable reforms that are not outright bans. One quick way to reduce it is by requiring an ultrasound before abortion. That will reduce most of the abortions that are done out of convenience. Why does the Catholic Church have to take no prisoners, and ban abortion even in cases of rape?

You do continue to confuse the source of “rights”. You say a woman has the “right” to abort her child, but this statement assumes a matter in debate. [We can only say there is a legal right in various jurisdictions.]. Your confusion on this point must mean that if the law granted parents the right to kill children up to 1 year old, then that would be fine with you because it would only be morality that stands in the way and governments have no business worrying about that. You would feel no urge (or at least no right) to argue against such a law. Do you see the absurdity?

Rights are nothing but a social construct. Those who submit to God have no rights with God. They are to follow God’s will. Rights only exist because people deem them to exist.

I would oppose such a law because my education has taught me that killing children that are already born is wrong. You don’t need morals, only empathy, to know that we should not have child victims of murder, and that victims must be compensated.

Perhaps this link will help you see it from another angle. This article explains that Christians have lost the gay marriage battle because gay marriage supporters have won over the hearts of people. They have done it not through laws, or discipline, or fearmongering, but through the arts–through shows like Glee which portray gays in a positive light. If you want to influence people, create art. Why doesn’t the Catholic Church create good art anymore?

There is no doubt that Christians have a duty to evangelise. But why do you assume that the natural ends of such evangelisation will have no implications for the law of the land, or must not influence the law? Whom is the law to serve? It is as though you think that the so-called “right” to abortion derives from some unassailable source, separate from the people.

I don’t understand how you will rationalise a Catholic faith, and Catholic moral principles with the “idea” that a parent, your daughter perhaps, should feel free to abort a child when pregnancy is not desired at the present time. It is the “idea” that abortion is a fine and proper thing that is the “enemy”. That idea is absolutely inconsistent with Catholicism. How the law should deal with the subject of abortion is a separate and much much more complex issue.

We are deluding ourselves if we think that a majority of the earth is Christian. In every country, Christians are a minority. There are no Christian governments anymore, and the Church does not promote theocracy as a solution. As long as government remains secular, it is too much to ask our governments to follow Christian principles. Why? Because the government is secular; of course it won’t follow Christ.

We may oppose certain laws in our personal lives, but to say that we have to create a subclass of persons who are denied certain civil rights, and invoke our religions as a basis for doing so? I don’t think that’s what Jesus intended, and I don’t see how that will convert people to the Christian church. And I don’t think it will promote the common good. Not everyone is Christian, not everyone lives the same lifestyle, and not everyone should be forced or expected to live the way we do. To truly influence people, see my link above.

I would be very torn if my daughter had to abort a child, but like Obama said, I wouldn’t want her to continue to be victimized by her mistakes. I would want that option to be available. I cannot live perfectly; I have my selfish desires and I hope Jesus forgives both of us.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

How can I work to see the incidence reduced? Evangelism. Outreach. Love. Reasonable reforms that are not outright bans.

Perhaps you can explain if the incidence of murder should also be approached through Evangelism, outreach, and love? Or would you rather see murder banned through force of law like it is now? Until you can justify this distinction, you cannot seriously claim that abortion should be discouraged in this way.

I would oppose such a law because my education has taught me that killing children that are already born is wrong. You don’t need morals, only empathy, to know that we should not have child victims of murder, and that victims must be compensated.

With a proper understanding that a pre-born baby is just as much a human as a newborn, you would also have the same empathic response to abortion, so if empathy is what moves you to forcefully oppose the killing of children, then empathy would move you to oppose the killing of the pre-born too.

…will help you see it from another angle. This article explains that Christians have lost the gay marriage battle because gay marriage supporters have won over the hearts of people.

That may be, but it is irrelevant to the question of whether abortion is wrong. The truth is the truth, regardless of how popular or unpopular it might be.

We are deluding ourselves if we think that a majority of the earth is Christian.

Also irrelevant. What is bad is bad regardless of how many people subscribe to it. But as for that, Christians are not the only ones who seriously oppose abortion.

I would be very torn if my daughter had to abort a child, but like Obama said, I wouldn’t want her to continue to be victimized by her mistakes.

The extent to which a pregnant women is considered a victim is inconsequential compared to the extent to which an aborted baby becomes a victim.

 

[polki]

Why doesn’t the Catholic Church meet in the middle and allow abortion in cases of incest, rape, or abuse? Wouldn’t that be a better practical solution, and in turn, reduce most abortions?

Only about 5% of abortions are performed because of incest, rape, fetal abnormalities or danger to the mother. The rest, therefore, are done for birth control reasons. So “meeting in the middle” would not reduce most abortions.

 

[Rau]

Is abortion a moral good or evil? It’s a cruel practice and a tragic choice.

It is a catholic moral principle that every act is either moral or immoral before God. You are on the fence?

I’m not fully sure that the Bible has anything to say on point regarding abortion, however.

I provided a contrary position on this, which you seem to reject. Further, if you are considering the Catholic Church, you will need to get past this idea that the Bible is the complete and definitive statement on faith and morals - that is not the position of the Catholic Church, though there are other churches that take that position. Christ established a Church and gave it teaching authority. Perhaps there is a reason for that? What does the Bible tell you about IVF or embryonic stem cell research?

How can I work to see the incidence reduced? Evangelism. Outreach. Love.

Great! And if you were a budding politician, you might even want to seek election in order that you can pursue measures like the one you mention in the next quote below. And Catholics might be encouraged to vote for you for just that reason! Would that be OK, or is this a transgression into “politics” that for some bizarre reason is not permitted?

Reasonable reforms that are not outright bans. One quick way to reduce it is by requiring an ultrasound before abortion. That will reduce most of the abortions that are done out of convenience.

A good initiative. But I suppose you will defend the right of parents to refuse the ultrasound? Why should the State presume to add to their misery and deny them their “civil right” to refuse a procedure?

Why does the Catholic Church have to take no prisoners, and ban abortion even in cases of rape?

How many times do I have to say it? The Church does not “ban” (other than in its own hospitals) abortion - it TEACHES that it is gravely immoral. It takes the view that the child is an innocent and enjoys the same life privilege as anyone else. The circumstances in which the child was conceived does not change anything about the morality of killing the child.

I would oppose such a law [making infanticide up to 1 year legal] because my education has taught me that killing children that are already born is wrong. You don’t need morals, only empathy, to know that we should not have child victims of murder, and that victims must be compensated.

Spoken like an atheist lawyer! Did you mean to say killing children is “wrong” or “illegal”, or are they the same thing to you? Why is it wrong? Only because it is illegal, or for another reason? You are considering joining the Catholic Church and yet your reason for opposing infanticide has nothing to do with the prohibition God gave “Thou shall not Murder”?

We may oppose certain laws in our personal lives, but to say that we have to create a subclass of persons who are denied certain civil rights, and invoke our religions as a basis for doing so?

What is the source of these “civil rights” to which you refer and reference as though they are unassailable? Aren’t they just “social constructs” (as you described “rights” to be a little earlier)?

I would be very torn if my daughter **had to abort **a child, but … I wouldn’t want her to continue to be victimized by her mistakes.

“Had to have an abortion” - you mean “chose to have” - all abortions are choices, and the vast majority are made for “convenience”. One wonders why parents ought not to have this “right” to stop the “victimisation” as you call it, after the child is born?

I would want that option to be available. I cannot live perfectly; I have my selfish desires…

It sounds as though you do actually know that abortion is immoral. A first step?

 

[CaliLobo]

Perhaps you can explain if the incidence of murder should also be approached through Evangelism, outreach, and love? Or would you rather see murder banned through force of law like it is now? Until you can justify this distinction, you cannot seriously claim that abortion should be discouraged in this way.

With a proper understanding that a pre-born baby is just as much a human as a newborn, you would also have the same empathic response to abortion, so if empathy is what moves you to forcefully oppose the killing of children, then empathy would move you to oppose the killing of the pre-born too.

I distinguish abortion from killing newborns in that the latter is a crime with a victim who must be compensated for. In the former, the victim is the mother.

That may be, but it is irrelevant to the question of whether abortion is wrong. The truth is the truth, regardless of how popular or unpopular it might be.

I mention the article about the arts because I am proposing much more effective solutions to change human behavior rather than politics.

Also irrelevant. What is bad is bad regardless of how many people subscribe to it. But as for that, Christians are not the only ones who seriously oppose abortion.

Christianity (certain sects only) is the only religion that proposes an absolute bar. Even Islam allows for leeway with abortion although it discourages it (“God knows best”).

The extent to which a pregnant women is considered a victim is inconsequential compared to the extent to which an aborted baby becomes a victim.

Why not? To say that God requires women to go through unwanted pregnancies is, in effect, making God a demon.

Let’s hear from women about this issue. Their opinions are more dispositive. Any women out there?

 

[CaliLobo]

It is a catholic moral principle that every act is either moral or immoral before God. You are on the fence?

I am on the fence because I am not sure whether abortion truly constitutes murder, because murder is a crime requiring criminal intent. Even if it is, if Cardinal Dolan is quoted as saying that we can no longer be sure that suicide is a sure ticket to hell because those who commit suicide are not always mentally competent, then we can say the same thing about those who abort.

I provided a contrary position on this, which you seem to reject. Further, if you are considering the Catholic Church, you will need to get past this idea that the Bible is the complete and definitive statement on faith and morals - that is not the position of the Catholic Church, though there are other churches that take that position. Christ established a Church and gave it teaching authority. Perhaps there is a reason for that? What does the Bible tell you about IVF or embryonic stem cell research?

If the Catholic Church has teaching authority, such authority naturally has to take into context the contemporary world. We are in an overpopulated world now. Our scientific knowledge has increased (especially our knowledge of psychiatry, which leads to Cardinal Dolan’s quote above). Abortion can now be made safer than ever.

Great! And if you were a budding politician, you might even want to seek election in order that you can pursue measures like the one you mention in the next quote below. And Catholics might be encouraged to vote for you for just that reason! Would that be OK, or is this a transgression into “politics” that for some bizarre reason is not permitted?

A good initiative. But I suppose you will defend the right of parents to refuse the ultrasound? Why should the State presume to add to their misery and deny them their “civil right” to refuse a procedure?

That is, unfortunately, a hurdle that this initiative has to overcome. Can one truly be forced to undergo a procedure? And there’s the gender discrimination aspect to it (intermediate scrutiny)…

How many times do I have to say it? The Church does not “ban” (other than in its own hospitals) abortion - it TEACHES that it is gravely immoral. It takes the view that the child is an innocent and enjoys the same life privilege as anyone else. The circumstances in which the child was conceived does not change anything about the morality of killing the child.

It does not itself ban, but it supports bans, which is the same logic as saying that those who support abortion are committing the sin of abortion.

Spoken like an atheist lawyer! Did you mean to say killing children is “wrong” or “illegal”, or are they the same thing to you? Why is it wrong? Only because it is illegal, or for another reason? You are considering joining the Catholic Church and yet your reason for opposing infanticide has nothing to do with the prohibition God gave “Thou shall not Murder”?

What is the source of these “civil rights” to which you refer and reference as though they are unassailable? Aren’t they just “social constructs” (as you described “rights” to be a little earlier)?

“Had to have an abortion” - you mean “chose to have” - all abortions are choices, and the vast majority are made for “convenience”. One wonders why parents ought not to have this “right” to stop the “victimisation” as you call it, after the child is born?

It sounds as though you do actually know that abortion is immoral. A first step?

I just said that civil rights merely are social constructs. My point is that because they are merely social constructs, I don’t think God even cares what humans do about them.

I said that abortion is a tragic choice and a cruel practice. It may even constitute murder, and it may even be morally wrong. If the Catholic Church teaches that it is a grave evil, I can comply with that. But I see nowhere that Jesus teaches that we have to make women a permanent legal subclass by forcing them to undergo unwanted pregnancies, and making them suffer. That is making God a demon.

Likewise, with gay marriage, I see nowhere that Jesus teaches that we make to make gays a permanent subclass, and deny them the privileges and opportunities of life. I don’t think that Jesus himself even envisioned this idea when he was a human on earth. He couldn’t have, for Rome was not a democracy at that time.

I see nowhere that Jesus forbids us from allowing the civil right to exist, and letting humans make their own choices.

As I said repeatedly on CAF, killing humans already born should be criminalized because only common sense is required to know that victims must be recompensed. However, for fetuses, the true victim is the mother. You may not see a distinction there, but I do.

Once again, I am not fully sure that abortion is murder because I am not sure that the woman’s criminal intent can be proven.

 

[Rau]

I am on the fence because I am not sure whether abortion truly constitutes murder, because murder is a crime requiring criminal intent.

Cali - criminal intent is a legal notion. You will not find the term in the 10 Commandments, nor in the Catechism. Now if a woman (let’s say, not a Catholic) truly believes her unborn child is not a person, then “Thou Shall not Murder” is not *knowingly *violated by abortion. You can’t sin “by accident”. The Act remains immoral, but the person’s culpability is diminished, or nil.

If the Catholic Church has teaching authority, such authority naturally has to take into context the contemporary world. We are in an overpopulated world now.

Irrelevant. Murder is an “always and everywhere wrong” act - it does not become OK given particular circumstances. From the CCC: "1761 There are concrete acts that it is always wrong to choose, because their choice entails a disorder of the will, i.e., a moral evil. One may not do evil so that good may result from it. "

It does not itself ban, but it supports bans, which is the same logic as saying that those who support abortion are committing the sin of abortion.

Frankly, I don’t know what the Church believes the law should be at this time. Certainly, the Church teaches the immorality of the act, and advocates that steps should be taken to reduce the evil.

I said that abortion is a tragic choice and a cruel practice. It may even constitute murder, and it may even be morally wrong. If the Catholic Church teaches that it is a grave evil, I can comply with that.

You can “comply” - what does that mean?

But I see nowhere that Jesus teaches that we have to make women a permanent legal subclass by forcing them to undergo unwanted pregnancies, and making them suffer.

Nor does the Church teach this. It teaches abortion is immoral. It teaches that killing newborn babies is wrong too. It teaches that doing what is right may involve sacrifice.

Likewise, with gay marriage, I see nowhere that Jesus teaches that we make to make gays a permanent subclass, and deny them the privileges and opportunities of life.

Nor does the Church teach this. It teaches that sex belongs in marriage between a man and a woman. It teaches that homosexual persons “must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.”

I see nowhere that Jesus forbids us from allowing the civil right to exist, and letting humans make their own choices.

And don’t we all get to decide what really are civil rights? That’s why they are “civil”. Were it not so - I could argue that my civil rights are unlimited. I suppose “evangelising” is itself an assault on (some) “civil rights”, and so should be outlawed?

As I said repeatedly on CAF, killing humans already born should be criminalized because only common sense is required to know that victims must be recompensed. However, for fetuses, the true victim is the mother.

You again speak of the law, rather than morality. Criminal sanctions for murder do not constitute compensation. They constitute two things: Punishment of the wrong-doer, and a means to protect others from the wrong-doer.

If a woman’s unborn baby is killed by a third party - the baby is evidently victim and in most cases so is the mother, father and other family members (and perhaps more). Does all this change when the parents organise the killing (abortion)?

Once again, I am not fully sure that abortion is murder because I am not sure that the woman’s criminal intent can be proven.

Once again, you confuse the law and morality. There are countless statements in the Catechism, in Papal Encyclicals and elsewhere on the intrinsically evil nature of abortion (murder) - stating unambiguously that it is always and everywhere wrong (regardless of circumstances).

 

[CaliLobo]

Cali - criminal intent is a legal notion. You will not find the term in the 10 Commandments, nor in the Catechism. Now if a woman (let’s say, not a Catholic) truly believes her unborn child is not a person, then “Thou Shall not Murder” is not *knowingly *violated by abortion. You can’t sin “by accident”. The Act remains immoral, but the person’s culpability is diminished, or nil.

Irrelevant. Murder is an “always and everywhere wrong” act - it does not become OK given particular circumstances. From the CCC: "1761 There are concrete acts that it is always wrong to choose, because their choice entails a disorder of the will, i.e., a moral evil. One may not do evil so that good may result from it. "

**Frankly, I don’t know what the Church believes the law should be at this time. ** Certainly, the Church teaches the immorality of the act, and advocates that steps should be taken to reduce the evil.

You can “comply” - what does that mean?

**Nor does the Church teach this. ** It teaches abortion is immoral. It teaches that killing newborn babies is wrong too. It teaches that doing what is right may involve sacrifice.

Nor does the Church teach this. It teaches that sex belongs in marriage between a man and a woman. It teaches that homosexual persons “must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.”

And don’t we all get to decide what really are civil rights? That’s why they are “civil”. Were it not so - I could argue that my civil rights are unlimited. I suppose “evangelising” is itself an assault on (some) “civil rights”, and so should be outlawed?

You again speak of the law, rather than morality. Criminal sanctions for murder do not constitute compensation. They constitute two things: Punishment of the wrong-doer, and a means to protect others from the wrong-doer.

If a woman’s unborn baby is killed by a third party - the baby is evidently victim and in most cases so is the mother, father and other family members (and perhaps more). Does all this change when the parents organise the killing (abortion)?

Once again, you confuse the law and morality. There are countless statements in the Catechism, in Papal Encyclicals and elsewhere on the intrinsically evil nature of abortion (murder) - stating unambiguously that it is always and everywhere wrong (regardless of circumstances).

“Comply” means to follow the teaching despite my reservations.

From your language in bold, am I correct that I can be Catholic and that my political views won’t hold me back from the Eucharist?

 

[Rau]

“Comply” means to follow the teaching despite my reservations.

From your language in bold, am I correct that I can be Catholic and that my political views won’t hold me back from the Eucharist?

You are not a woman, so by “follow the teaching” you mean you would…what ? Believe it? Advocate and defend it to others? I think that is what is required.

To answer your question, you ought to accept and try to live by the principles of catholic morality. Many of your statements suggest strongly that you do not.

 

[jimmy]

Where in Catholic teaching is the Catholic mandate to oppose abortion politically? Let’s discuss.

Why doesn’t the Catholic Church meet in the middle and allow abortion in cases of incest, rape, or abuse? Wouldn’t that be a better practical solution, and in turn, reduce most abortions?

Why does it have to oppose all abortion at all costs, alienating all of society?

Let’s not bring up political parties this time; let’s keep the thread open.

Since when is there a division between a persons religious life and their political life? Assuming that we accept your division between the religious and political lives of people; does that mean that a man can rape and pillage as long as he’s not in a church?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

I distinguish abortion from killing newborns in that the latter is a crime with a victim who must be compensated for. In the former, the victim is the mother.

By stating that the only victim in an abortion is the mother, you are implicitly assuming that the thing that was killed in the abortion was not a human person. So let me follow up with this question: How does merely moving 14 inches in the process of being born change a non-person into a person? And if it were possible to put the baby back in the womb, would it cease being a person again? I would hate to think that I could lose my right to be considered a human person just because of being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

I mention the article about the arts because I am proposing much more effective solutions to change human behavior rather than politics.

Yet you do not seem to be willing to advocate the use of this “more effective solution” for all problems of human behavior. Obviously you don’t believe it is that effective, because if you did, you would be advocating its use to prevent murder too.

To say that God requires women to go through unwanted pregnancies is, in effect, making God a demon.

That doesn’t make any sense. The inconveniences of bearing a child is of finite duration and shared by all mothers. But the inconvenience of finding your life terminated before you could take your first breath is a bit more permanent. The only way you could possibly justify paying more attention to the mother’s brief ordeal is by assuming that the fetus is not a human person.

 

[CaliLobo]

You are not a woman, so by “follow the teaching” you mean you would…what ? Believe it? Advocate and defend it to others? I think that is what is required.

To answer your question, you ought to accept and try to live by the principles of catholic morality. Many of your statements suggest strongly that you do not.

I can personally agree, with reservation, that abortion is a sin without interfering with another woman’s choice to abort. It is obvious that a woman who is faced with the decision to abort is not exactly thinking about Jesus’ message at that moment. The reptile brain is at play at that moment. “I must, regrettably, abort this baby, for my own survival.”

Are Christians always trying to proselytize? Of course not, it would backfire. In practice, 99% of evangelization occurs with people who are already open to the message. Shoving the message down their throats while they are not interested is a major reason why the world does not welcome Christianity.

jimmy:

Since when is there a division between a persons religious life and their political life? Assuming that we accept your division between the religious and political lives of people; does that mean that a man can rape and pillage as long as he’s not in a church?

No. You don’t have to be religious to understand that victims of crime must be recompensed, and that those who cause the victimization of others should be penalized.

LeafByNiggle:

By stating that the only victim in an abortion is the mother, you are implicitly assuming that the thing that was killed in the abortion was not a human person. So let me follow up with this question: How does merely moving 14 inches in the process of being born change a non-person into a person? And if it were possible to put the baby back in the womb, would it cease being a person again? I would hate to think that I could lose my right to be considered a human person just because of being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Yet you do not seem to be willing to advocate the use of this “more effective solution” for all problems of human behavior. Obviously you don’t believe it is that effective, because if you did, you would be advocating its use to prevent murder too.

That doesn’t make any sense. The inconveniences of bearing a child is of finite duration and shared by all mothers. But the inconvenience of finding your life terminated before you could take your first breath is a bit more permanent. The only way you could possibly justify paying more attention to the mother’s brief ordeal is by assuming that the fetus is not a human person.

We have already determined that a fetus is not a person by way of the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution. One must be born to have rights.

Regarding the more effective solution, I support Christians using the arts to communicate their message to the world, instead of oppressing others through legal bans and the ballot box. Like I said, the reason more and more people support gay rights is because Hollywood shows like Glee have won them over, by portraying gays as likable, normal human beings. The coming out of several celebrities, who have millions of fans, has also played a role.

Happy US Thanksgiving!

 

[Rau]

I can personally agree, with reservation, that abortion is a sin without interfering with another woman’s choice to abort. It is obvious that a woman who is faced with the decision to abort is not exactly thinking about Jesus’ message at that moment. The reptile brain is at play at that moment. “I must, regrettably, abort this baby, for my own survival.”

Are Christians always trying to proselytize? Of course not, it would backfire. In practice, 99% of evangelization occurs with people who are already open to the message. Shoving the message down their throats while they are not interested is a major reason why the world does not welcome Christianity.

No. You don’t have to be religious to understand that victims of crime must be recompensed, and that those who cause the victimization of others should be penalized.

We have already determined that a fetus is not a person by way of the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution. One must be born to have rights.

Regarding the more effective solution, I support Christians using the arts to communicate their message to the world, instead of oppressing others through legal bans and the ballot box. Like I said, the reason more and more people support gay rights is because Hollywood shows like Glee have won them over, by portraying gays as likable, normal human beings. The coming out of several celebrities, who have millions of fans, has also played a role.

Happy US Thanksgiving!

Oh dear. Your heart does not seem to be in line with Catholic morality Cali.

 

[Elizium23]

I can personally agree, with reservation, that abortion is a sin without interfering with another woman’s choice to abort. It is obvious that a woman who is faced with the decision to abort is not exactly thinking about Jesus’ message at that moment. The reptile brain is at play at that moment. “I must, regrettably, abort this baby, for my own survival.”

As a Christian, I must actively oppose abortion, indeed by vigorously interfering with other women’s choices to abort. As a Christian, I am duty bound to defend innocent life. The dignity of life and the respect for other human beings is paramount to the Christian life. Therefore it is an affront to God that unborn children should be murdered. It is an affront to my faith and an affront to the dignity of the unborn that they are routinely slaughtered. Therefore we oppose it by any means necessary. As a Christian, there can be no difference in what I personally believe vs. what I allow other people to do. Sin can be committed through counsel, encouragement, or silence. I can commit sin by failing to oppose a woman’s decision to abort. Therefore, I always, always raise my voice against the injustice being done in any form. In this place and time, it is frequently against the evil of abortion that I must speak and act. My Christian duty demands it.

 

[CaliLobo]

As a Christian, I must actively oppose abortion, indeed by vigorously interfering with other women’s choices to abort. As a Christian, I am duty bound to defend innocent life. The dignity of life and the respect for other human beings is paramount to the Christian life. Therefore it is an affront to God that unborn children should be murdered. It is an affront to my faith and an affront to the dignity of the unborn that they are routinely slaughtered. Therefore we oppose it by any means necessary. As a Christian, there can be no difference in what I personally believe vs. what I allow other people to do. Sin can be committed through counsel, encouragement, or silence. I can commit sin by failing to oppose a woman’s decision to abort. Therefore, I always, always raise my voice against the injustice being done in any form. In this place and time, it is frequently against the evil of abortion that I must speak and act. My Christian duty demands it.

Just don’t commit any crimes as you do this.

My contention all along has been that the best way to convert people is by preaching the Gospel and reaching out personally to others. In what ways are you vigorously opposing a woman’s decision? You said “any means necessary.” You make it seem like grotesque techniques such as showing bloody fetuses and vandalizing abortion clinics seem okay to you.

But they are not to me.

You’re basically summing it up as, you do this to evangelize. Everything Christians do is theoretically part of evangelization. However, I don’t see one single woman converting with the “any means necessary” technique. All I foresee is hate and resentment towards Christians with this technique.

 

[Rau]

I can personally agree, with reservation, that abortion is a sin without interfering with another woman’s choice to abort. It is obvious that a woman who is faced with the decision to abort is not exactly thinking about Jesus’ message at that moment. The reptile brain is at play at that moment. “I must, regrettably, abort this baby, for my own survival.”

What sin do you think it might be Cali?
Which message of Jesus are you referring to here?
The “reptile brain”? Survival instinct? Most abortions are not motivated by survival concerns, but by convenience.
Your reasoning must surely provide MORAL latitude (if not legal) for a mother in similar circumstances to kill a newborn, for the sake of her “survival”. Surely the law that prevents that is oppressive for the mother?

We have already determined that a fetus is not a person by way of the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution. One must be born to have rights.

Really? Does this mean that the morality of abortion is determined by US Law, or merely the legality? I go back to my question above…what sin might abortion be…if the unborn are not persons?

Regarding the more effective solution, I support Christians using the arts to communicate their message to the world, instead of oppressing others through legal bans and the ballot box.

I see you speak of “their” message - and this seems appropriate as it does not yet seem to be “your” message. For every word you have written suggesting that abortion might possibly be morally wrong, you have written 100 loudly asserting the freedoms that must be afforded mothers to kill unborn babies. So-called “civil rights” appear to be supreme for you Cali.

The issue is not about whether we should:

1. Evangelise the Christian message; OR
2. Make Abortion illegal, punishable as murder, immediately.

This is a false dichotomy. Change in the civil order, if it comes, will be slow and by degrees, and in response to the weight of public opinion. And all public opinion has a right to seek a voice in the legislature.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

We have already determined that a fetus is not a person by way of the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution. One must be born to have rights.

We already know what is legal in the US. That was not the question. The question is about what is morally right. There have been lots of examples in history of governments taking a stand that is later seen by many people as immoral. If you really did believe that the fetus is a human person, you would not be convinced to believe otherwise by the laws of the civil government. So the fact that you recommend no use of force to defend the life of the fetus can only mean that you personally do not believe the fetus is a person. No one can abdicate their responsibility to make moral decisions just because their government has taken a particular stand on the question.

So if you personally hold this view, please explain how the seemingly small change involved in being born confers this huge distinction between being a person and not being a person.

As a thought experiment, consider how you would assess the following situation: A full-term baby is removed from the womb, but is immediately transferred to a tank that duplicates the mother’s amniotic fluid, and nutrients continue to be pumped in through the umbilical cord. The baby is now located outside of the mother, but is every other way, still as it was in the womb. Would you consider that a person or not? If not, then it appears that breathing air instead of amniotic fluid is the thing that makes one a person.

So if I were to take an adult and fill his lungs with that same fluid until he drowns, would I be guilty of murder? Or would the thing I have just killed not be a person because his lungs are full of amniotic fluid?

As you consider these very hypothetical thought experiments, try to identify exactly what in your mind makes someone qualify as being a person.

 

[CaliLobo]

The issue is not about whether we should:

1. Evangelise the Christian message; OR
2. Make Abortion illegal, punishable as murder, immediately.

This is a false dichotomy. Change in the civil order, if it comes, will be slow and by degrees, and in response to the weight of public opinion. And all public opinion has a right to seek a voice in the legislature.

But it’s not a false dichotomy. Everything a Christian does in this life is evangelism. True Christians are transformed by Christ such that they reflect Jesus in their lives. To paraphrase St. Francis, every action a Christian takes is evangelism, because it is unknown what could inspire a nonbeliever to come to belief.

So if a legal ban and restriction on what a nonbeliever considers a civil right will create hostility and resentment towards Christians, and jeopardize the chances that nonbelievers will turn to Christ, then we must wonder, are Christians being misguided here? Especially when there is no teaching of Christ on point on this issue?

I don’t see why we have to continue to insist on this kind of politics when it will cause people to turn away from Christ and his church. Rather, I see this as misguided hypocrisy, and an adulteration of Christ’s message.

Ask yourself, do you see Jesus in anti-abortion politicking?

LeafByNiggle:

As a thought experiment, consider how you would assess the following situation: A full-term baby is removed from the womb, but is immediately transferred to a tank that duplicates the mother’s amniotic fluid, and nutrients continue to be pumped in through the umbilical cord. The baby is now located outside of the mother, but is every other way, still as it was in the womb. Would you consider that a person or not? If not, then it appears that breathing air instead of amniotic fluid is the thing that makes one a person.

So if I were to take an adult and fill his lungs with that same fluid until he drowns, would I be guilty of murder? Or would the thing I have just killed not be a person because his lungs are full of amniotic fluid?

As you consider these very hypothetical thought experiments, try to identify exactly what in your mind makes someone qualify as being a person.

Fine. You got me. But I counter by saying that abortion bans do not provide for the common good, which is the goal of Catholic social teaching. They don’t provide for the common good because, among other things:

1. They are a drain on the social safety net
2. They are a drain on women’s lives, and the productivity of women
3. Women should not be forced to raise children against their will, and foster services are woeful and create even more social problems (like juvenile crime)
4. Most importantly, they will only cause abortions to be done underground, making them even more unsafe for women

If the Catechism teaches that abortion must always be opposed, that’s fine. But I just don’t see how it’s possible or necessary for Christians to advocate that a secular government impose Christianity on the whole population. That is not what Jesus advocated for or effected while he was on earth.

I don’t see where Jesus taught that we have to do that. By logic, it would mean that Catholics in despotic regimes are in sin because they are not doing enough to change their governments.

 

[Rau]

But it’s not a false dichotomy. Everything a Christian does in this life is evangelism. True Christians are transformed by Christ such that they reflect Jesus in their lives. To paraphrase St. Francis, every action a Christian takes is evangelism, because it is unknown what could inspire a nonbeliever to come to belief.

So if a legal ban and restriction on what a nonbeliever considers a civil right will create hostility and resentment towards Christians, and jeopardize the chances that nonbelievers will turn to Christ, then we must wonder, are Christians being misguided here? Especially when there is no teaching of Christ on point on this issue?

I don’t see why we have to continue to insist on this kind of politics when it will cause people to turn away from Christ and his church. Rather, I see this as misguided hypocrisy, and an adulteration of Christ’s message.

It is a false dichotomy. It is you who characterise the choices in that way.

Cali - I continue to see your thinking as hopelessly confused. And I think a driver of that is you have not resolved in your own mind the morality question - including the questions I asked you in my post. Perhaps if you did that (and came to the right answers), you could then turn your mind to the societal questions.