Where is the Catholic political anti-abortion mandate?

[CaliLobo]

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.

Even if we conclude that abortion is completely immoral, why should we legislate against it?

Why should we legislate morality? We don’t ban divorce, contraception, pornography, and prostitution.

 

[Rau]

Even if we conclude that abortion is completely immoral, why should we legislate against it?

Why should we legislate morality? We don’t ban divorce, contraception, pornography, and prostitution.

What is it but morality that justifies the law against overworked parents murdering a newborn so that they need not be victimised by the obligation to care for another child?

But the point is, just what should be legislated and when have not been proposed in this thread. You just keeping talking about “bans”. Perhaps you’d like to outline exactly the proposal you oppose?

 

[crumblymunky]

From Heaven. Vote against abortion or go to hell.

 

[CaliLobo]

What is it but morality that justifies the law against overworked parents murdering a newborn so that they need not be victimised by the obligation to care for another child?

But the point is, just what should be legislated and when have not been proposed in this thread. You just keeping talking about “bans”. Perhaps you’d like to outline exactly the proposal you oppose?

Okay fine. Let’s refocus the thread since it was originally about Catholic authority.

Let me ask this question. Why is it that Catholics can strictly interpret 2 Timothy 3:16 and say that the language does not indicate that the Bible is the only authority, yet they cannot strictly interpret Jeremiah 1:5 and say that the language does not indicate that abortion is forbidden?

 

[Rau]

Okay fine. Let’s refocus the thread since it was originally about Catholic authority.

Let me ask this question. Why is it that Catholics can strictly interpret 2 Timothy 3:16 and say that the language does not indicate that the Bible is the only authority, yet they cannot strictly interpret Jeremiah 1:5 and say that the language does not indicate that abortion is forbidden?

Timothy says nothing about whether Gods revelation occurs through means other than Scripture. A casual reading can also safely conclude that.

What do you think Jeremiah suggests Cali?

What do you believe God considers murder to be?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

…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

Keeping the people alive is the ultimate in the common good. Pre-born babies are people.

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

Reasons 1-3 are arguments based on convenience. Catholic teaching would never rank mere convenience as comparable to the right of people to live. Besides, reasons 1-3 would apply equally to babies just after they are born too. So perhaps we should not have a ban on infanticide?
Reason 4 is factually inaccurate. Sure, some abortions will be done anyway, even with a ban. But many more abortions will not be done at all when society makes it clear what is expected of people. And although back alley abortions are more dangerous for those women who chose to go ahead, legal abortions, in the larger quantities that you have without a ban, are definitely more dangerous to the babies who fall victim to them.

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.

The Churches ban on abortion does not come out of thin air. It is consequence of the principle that a pre-born baby is a person. As such, a Christian who believes this is naturally going to advocate for secular laws that protect the right of this person, they same as one advocates for a secular ban on murder of adults.

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.

Catholic teaching only requires that we do what we reasonably can. Extraordinary and hopeless actions to combat a despotic regime are not mandated, but normal voting in a democratic government is quite another thing.

 

[CaliLobo]

Timothy says nothing about whether Gods revelation occurs through means other than Scripture. A casual reading can also safely conclude that.

What do you think Jeremiah suggests Cali?

What do you believe God considers murder to be?

In Jeremiah God is reiterating his omniscience but it says nothing on point about abortion. And murder requires some type of evil intent, which I’m not sure a woman has at that point.

 

[CaliLobo]

Catholic teaching only requires that we do what we reasonably can. Extraordinary and hopeless actions to combat a despotic regime are not mandated, but normal voting in a democratic government is quite another thing.

And that’s part of my contention, that there’s not much we can do about the abortion and gay rights issues, and that the policies proposed by conservative Catholics are not effective policies.

 

[Rau]

In Jeremiah God is reiterating his omniscience but it says nothing on point about abortion. And murder requires some type of evil intent, which I’m not sure a woman has at that point.

Murder does not require any particular kind of intention or circumstance. It simply wills death. Read the section in the catechism on the morality of human acts.

I cannot kill my newborn because of my desperate poverty, hard life or feeling of victimization. The unborn do not rate lesser respect.

 

[Rau]

And that’s part of my contention, that there’s not much we can do about the abortion and gay rights issues, and that the policies proposed by conservative Catholics are not effective policies.

So is it the “policies” of conservative Catholics you oppose, rather than the teaching of the Church? That could be seen as a step forward Cali.

In respect of gay marriage, the Catholic church declares that same sex couples are not eligible to marry. It would wish the law concerning marriage to remain as it was, and that’s a position shared by “conservative” Catholics. You may feel that position is not “effective”…what would you suggest would be an effective position for the Church to take, and what goal would that better serve?

In respect of abortion, exactly what “proposal” of conservative Catholics is it that you oppose. You merely speak of “bans”.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

And that’s part of my contention, that there’s not much we can do about the abortion and gay rights issues, and that the policies proposed by conservative Catholics are not effective policies.

We are not living in a despotic regime where taking a stand against abortion or gay marriage will get you killed. We are living in a democratic society where we are periodically asked for our opinion on certain public matters. It is called voting. Taking such action is neither extraordinary or ineffective.

 

[CaliLobo]

So is it the “policies” of conservative Catholics you oppose, rather than the teaching of the Church? That could be seen as a step forward Cali.

In respect of gay marriage, the Catholic church declares that same sex couples are not eligible to marry. It would wish the law concerning marriage to remain as it was, and that’s a position shared by “conservative” Catholics. You may feel that position is not “effective”…what would you suggest would be an effective position for the Church to take, and what goal would that better serve?

In respect of abortion, exactly what “proposal” of conservative Catholics is it that you oppose. You merely speak of “bans”.

Regarding same-sex marriage, it is clear that banning same-sex marriage is not effective policy, because it fails to address the reality that some people are naturally gay, and gay couples and their children still need the legal protections that only marriage offers.

How do you address the fact that some people always have had same-sex attraction, and that they feel that God made them that way, and that they cannot possibly get themselves to be attracted to the opposite sex? The only possible explanation is that it is scientifically normal.

Therefore, conservative Catholics should reframe themselves. Rather than seek SSM bans, they should reframe themselves as a persecuted religious minority group (like Muslims do in Europe) and seek religious protections such that Catholic priests are not compelled to marry gay couples. They should seek religious protections such that preaching that homosexuality is a sin does not constitute a hate crime.

Regarding abortion, it is clear that banning abortion outright is not good policy, because all it will do is push abortions underground, placing women in even greater danger.

Therefore, conservative Catholics should meet more in the middle. One possible policy is to mandate ultrasound as part of informed consent. (I understand abortion providers will weasel around this and make them initial a convoluted paragraph that says the ultrasound is available upon request, and that request must follow convoluted policy and be written and mailed out to an obscure address, but I digress.)

Do you see how the policies advocated by conservative Catholics are placing women and children in danger? Populations that Catholics seek to protect?

 

[Rau]

Regarding same-sex marriage, it is clear that banning same-sex marriage is not effective policy, because it fails to address the reality that some people are naturally gay, and gay couples and their children still need the legal protections that only marriage offers.

There is no fundamental requirement for gay people to marry, nor to acquire/procure a child.

How do you address the fact that some people always have had same-sex attraction, and that they feel that God made them that way, and that they cannot possibly get themselves to be attracted to the opposite sex? The only possible explanation is that it is scientifically normal.

In what way does this need to be addressed, other than ensuring such persons are not the object of unjust discrimination? You are assuming the necessity of the very thing you are arguing for.

Therefore, conservative Catholics should reframe themselves. Rather than seek SSM bans, they should reframe themselves as a persecuted religious minority group (like Muslims do in Europe) and seek religious protections such that Catholic priests are not compelled to marry gay couples. They should seek religious protections such that preaching that homosexuality is a sin does not constitute a hate crime.

Why bother with that. Priests can readily surrender their civil authority if it ever came to that.

Regarding abortion, it is clear that banning abortion outright is not good policy, because all it will do is push abortions underground, placing women in even greater danger.

What legal statute and associated penalty do you understood is proposed by “Catholics”, and with implementation in what time-frame? Frankly, I’m not aware of exactly what secular policy/legislation is proposed. Can you provide details so we can make sensible comments on it?

An eradication of abortion would seem obviously to be the desired end-point, but I am not aware that the Catholic Church advocates a specific concrete action to get there.

One possible policy is to mandate ultrasound as part of informed consent. (I understand abortion providers will weasel around this and make them initial a convoluted paragraph that says the ultrasound is available upon request, and that request must follow convoluted policy and be written and mailed out to an obscure address, but I digress.)

Great. I suspect the Catholic Church would support such a move, and that “civil rights” lawyers will reject any suggestion of a “mandatory” ultrasound.

Do you see how the policies advocated by conservative Catholics are placing women and children in danger? Populations that Catholics seek to protect?

Cali - when you get around to nominating the actual, specific policies in terms of legal statutes, penalties, time-frame to implement, etc., I can give you an opinion. You speak merely of “bans”. Perhaps you confuse the desirable end-state with public policy means to achieve it?

 

[CaliLobo]

There is no fundamental requirement for gay people to marry, nor to acquire/procure a child.

Neither is there for straights.

In what way does this need to be addressed, other than ensuring such persons are not the object of unjust discrimination? You are assuming the necessity of the very thing you are arguing for.

Why bother with that. Priests can readily surrender their civil authority if it ever came to that.

In my previous post I am advocating that marriage equality is necessary. And if you say priests can surrender their civil authority, are you then admitting that you are okay with civil marriage equality?

What legal statute and associated penalty do you understood is proposed by “Catholics”, and with implementation in what time-frame? Frankly, I’m not aware of exactly what secular policy/legislation is proposed. Can you provide details so we can make sensible comments on it?

An eradication of abortion would seem obviously to be the desired end-point, but I am not aware that the Catholic Church advocates a specific concrete action to get there.

Great. I suspect the Catholic Church would support such a move, and that “civil rights” lawyers will reject any suggestion of a “mandatory” ultrasound.

Cali - when you get around to nominating the actual, specific policies in terms of legal statutes, penalties, time-frame to implement, etc., I can give you an opinion. You speak merely of “bans”. Perhaps you confuse the desirable end-state with public policy means to achieve it?

You’re overthinking this. Policy, policy goals, maybe I’m confusing myself. But I do know that conservative Catholics passionately support making abortion illegal and reversing Roe v. Wade in the US. They support that policy because their policy goal is to eradicate abortion.

My position is that making abortion illegal and reversing Roe v. Wade will not be effective in achieving that policy goal. My other position is that nothing in Catholic teaching necessitates that we support making abortion illegal and reversing Roe v. Wade.

 

[Rau]

Neither is there for straights.

Certainly noone “needs” to acquire children! But marriage provides an essential environment for the conception and raising of children

…if you say priests can surrender their civil authority, are you then admitting that you are okay with civil marriage -]equality/-] between homosexual persons?

No. It is the wrong form of union.

You’re overthinking this. Policy, policy goals, maybe I’m confusing myself. But I do know that conservative Catholics passionately support making abortion illegal and reversing Roe v. Wade in the US. They support that policy because their policy goal is to eradicate abortion.

Eradicating abortion would be a wonderful end. The end should not be abandoned because it can’t be accomplished immediately. The first step taken toward the end need not be the last.

My position is that making abortion illegal and reversing Roe v. Wade will not be effective in achieving that policy goal.

As a first step, you may be quite right.
But State sanctioned killing of the innocent also does not sit well.

My other position is that nothing in Catholic teaching necessitates that we support making abortion illegal and reversing Roe v. Wade.

Certainly we are bound to uphold the sanctity of life, which includes the unborn. We are bound to seek to reduce the evil. Catholic teaching (moral principles) is inherently general, but every act of ours is specific. Consequently, the merits of specific steps to be taken, their order and timeframe are matters for prudential judgement. Voting “prolife” representatives into the legislature seems an entirely reasonable thing to do. Voting pro-abortion candidates into the legislature seems unlikely to bolster our effort to reduce the evil.

 

[CaliLobo]

Certainly we are bound to uphold the sanctity of life, which includes the unborn. We are bound to seek to reduce the evil. Catholic teaching (moral principles) is inherently general, but every act of ours is specific. Consequently, the merits of specific steps to be taken, their order and timeframe are matters for prudential judgement. Voting “prolife” representatives into the legislature seems an entirely reasonable thing to do. Voting pro-abortion candidates into the legislature seems unlikely to bolster our effort to reduce the evil.

So just to clarify…

It looks like we’re not as apart as we thought.

We are required to take steps to reduce the evil, but the specific steps that we take are up to our wise judgement.

To me this makes perfect sense. The Catholic Church is a global church, and therefore of course it cannot proscribe specific steps. What is wise in the USA is not possible in the Third World. Are the Catholics of Cuba in sin for not opposing Castro enough?

So it is NOT required to oppose Roe v Wade and vote for abortion bans, if we believe such policies will yield negative, instead of positive, results.

So it is NOT required to vote to keep marriage between a man and a woman, if we believe such a policy will yield negative, instead of positive, results.

If this is so, I want an apology from the conservative members of CAF for misleading me for the last few years.

P.S. I heard from a parish deacon once that if neither candidate is totally pro-life, then we can vote the relatively pro-abortion candidate if there are compelling other reasons to do so. Since no mainstream candidate is ever totally pro-life (all support abortion in limited circumstances), is this then a loophole?

 

[Rau]

…If this is so, I want an apology from the conservative members of CAF for misleading me for the last few years.

Cali- perhaps you ought to first reflect on the pro-abortion, “it’s not murder” claims that you have repeatedly made. Perhaps you need to review your own moral compass? That is the first step.

 

[cena]

So just to clarify…

It looks like we’re not as apart as we thought.

We are required to take steps to reduce the evil, but the specific steps that we take are up to our wise judgement.

To me this makes perfect sense. The Catholic Church is a global church, and therefore of course it cannot proscribe specific steps. What is wise in the USA is not possible in the Third World. Are the Catholics of Cuba in sin for not opposing Castro enough?

So it is NOT required to oppose Roe v Wade and vote for abortion bans, if we believe such policies will yield negative, instead of positive, results.

So it is NOT required to vote to keep marriage between a man and a woman, if we believe such a policy will yield negative, instead of positive, results.

If this is so, I want an apology from the conservative members of CAF for misleading me for the last few years.

P.S. I heard from a parish deacon once that if neither candidate is totally pro-life, then we can vote the relatively pro-abortion candidate if there are compelling other reasons to do so. Since no mainstream candidate is ever totally pro-life (all support abortion in limited circumstances), is this then a loophole?

The results do not necessarily determine the morality of the object (like abortion). The end does not justify the means.

You can be excommunicated from the Catholic Church for procuring an abortion, directly paying for one, advising one, etc. if the action is carried out. Why do you think abortion would have positive results?

In that case you can vote for the candidate that is less evil.

 

[cena]

Regarding same-sex marriage, it is clear that banning same-sex marriage is not effective policy, because it fails to address the reality that some people are naturally gay, and gay couples and their children still need the legal protections that only marriage offers.

How do you address the fact that some people always have had same-sex attraction, and that they feel that God made them that way, and that they cannot possibly get themselves to be attracted to the opposite sex? The only possible explanation is that it is scientifically normal.

Therefore, conservative Catholics should reframe themselves. Rather than seek SSM bans, they should reframe themselves as a persecuted religious minority group (like Muslims do in Europe) and seek religious protections such that Catholic priests are not compelled to marry gay couples. They should seek religious protections such that preaching that homosexuality is a sin does not constitute a hate crime.

Regarding abortion, it is clear that banning abortion outright is not good policy, because all it will do is push abortions underground, placing women in even greater danger.

Therefore, conservative Catholics should meet more in the middle. One possible policy is to mandate ultrasound as part of informed consent. (I understand abortion providers will weasel around this and make them initial a convoluted paragraph that says the ultrasound is available upon request, and that request must follow convoluted policy and be written and mailed out to an obscure address, but I digress.)

Do you see how the policies advocated by conservative Catholics are placing women and children in danger? Populations that Catholics seek to protect?

So by your logic, if a man gets married and no matter how hard he tries he is attracted to other women but not his wife. It would be natural for him to date other women because he feels in his heart God wouldn’t make him attracted to other women if it wasn’t right. The only explanation is that it’s scientifically normal. That’s a big assumption to make on pure feelings alone.

What danger are women in from not having abortions? If the mother’s life is in danger there are other procedures that are not considered abortions.

 

[CaliLobo]

Merry Christmas!

Cali- perhaps you ought to first reflect on the pro-abortion, “it’s not murder” claims that you have repeatedly made. Perhaps you need to review your own moral compass? That is the first step.

You defined murder differently from its legal definition in an earlier post. However, the exact definition is irrelevant. In an earlier thread from March (Is it possible to join the Catholic Church and support gay marriage and abortion rights?), people on CAF categorically, unequivocally told me no, that it is not possible to be a Catholic and support gay marriage and abortion rights. They alluded that I would be a Catholic in bad standing, and possibly in mortal sin, if I supported those things.

If their absolute, unqualified “no” is wrong, and what I stated on my previous post is a possibility, then I want an apology.

If it IS possible to be Catholic and “not oppose” abortion and gay marriage rights because opposition of those things is bad, ineffective policy, then I want an apology.

cena:

The results do not necessarily determine the morality of the object (like abortion). The end does not justify the means.

You can be excommunicated from the Catholic Church for procuring an abortion, directly paying for one, advising one, etc. if the action is carried out. Why do you think abortion would have positive results?

In that case you can vote for the candidate that is less evil.

Then we are all excommunicated. Almost all governments on earth fund abortion to some extent, usually through their state healthcare systems. What are we gonna do, overthrow all our governments? Or is the US correct to have government healthcare only for the poor? (Take that, non-Americans!)

cena:

So by your logic, if a man gets married and no matter how hard he tries he is attracted to other women but not his wife. It would be natural for him to date other women because he feels in his heart God wouldn’t make him attracted to other women if it wasn’t right. The only explanation is that it’s scientifically normal. That’s a big assumption to make on pure feelings alone.

No. Because in a marriage, the two have expressed their commitment.

Now regarding gay relationships (which your paragraph could allude to), the world now understands that in the same way blacks are born black and whites are born white, gays are born gay. You may not like this analogy, but in the same way we cannot discriminate against race as it’s a born trait, we cannot discriminate against sexual orientation.

We just can’t deny people civil rights based on sexual orientation, especially since gay relationships are between consenting parties. There are no victims at all, unlike in abortion.

cena:

What danger are women in from not having abortions? If the mother’s life is in danger there are other procedures that are not considered abortions.

Danger from not having abortions? The very post of mine you quoted. That it will only lead to abortions being done underground, putting women further into danger.

We have tried prohibiting alcohol. It may have reduced alcohol sales, but it was a bad policy as it led to rising crime, and alcohol sales underground.

Today we are revisiting whether marijuana should be criminalized, for the same reason.

In general, the Catholic Church is a global, universal church. Logically, it cannot be possible for the Catholic Church to proscribe a formula for how to act politically, because every political system is different. What works in America does not work in Cuba.

Combined with the fact that Catholic social teaching is all about promoting the public good, it logically follows that there is no requirement for Catholics to overturn Roe v. Wade, defund Planned Parenthood, or vote yes on gay marriage bans. Especially if we can prove that those policies are ineffective or lead to unintended bad consequences.

In the end, this issue doesn’t matter. Politics does not save us. Only a relationship with Christ as Lord and Savior does. With this point, Protestant Evangelicals are correct to de-emphasize the importance of politics in their ministries.

No one should be denied salvation because of his political views.

In the same way that Muslim Americans are not politically advocating for every county to be dry, we should not politically advocate for abortion and gay marriage bans.

In the same way that Christian Americans do not push for divorce and pornography bans, they should not push for abortion and gay marriage bans.

In the same way that Muslim Europeans are wrong for pushing for sharia law in Europe which would impose Islam on the population, we should not push for the political imposition of Christianity on the population.

Evangelism, not politics, is the key.