Why almost half the Catholics not prolife?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Raafat
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
upant said:
anything that facilitates abortion expansion is a win for the industry and this marketing is a success as you can read on this forum.
Click to expand...
It doesn’t facilitate abortion expansion.
 
in general, the only way for abortion to be ended is if all Christians present their bodies as a living sacrifice to God in chastity. the members of the Church herself get abortions (and abortion is an act of lust and hate), masturbate, watch porn, support unchaste entertainment, entertain unchaste thoughts, defile marriage, get false annulments, get divorces and remarry, dont teach their kids chastity, etc. we can not expect more of those who don’t know God than of those who were redeemed in baptism by Him. right now, we as a unity, are not a speck more clean and blood-free than them, Lord have mercy on us all.

 
VanitasVanitatum said:
It doesn’t facilitate abortion expansion.
Click to expand...
your opinion.

the term has anti-abortion people voting for pro-abortion candidates,

there is no doubt that pro-abortion politicians are trying to expand the opportunities to have an abortion and have made it a national priority. the days of rare are gone.

expanding the time frame and who pays will increase abortions.

some not only want to expand it in the US but in other countries as well.
 
REPENT said:
You do realize that the upport to the “Big Bad Evil corporations” goes to making supplies and to pay for salaries of essential workers, right? Or are they just expected to do things for free?
Click to expand...
It’s more than that.

Something many do not realize is the fact that most industries, definitely including the food industry, engages in “just in time” production. In other words, there is almost no inventory of anything anywhere. Factories produce what the retailers want “just in time” to sell to the number of people expected within a very limited time frame.

It does not take much to disrupt that kind of chain in a very serious way. Yes, the medical people would want to keep everything shut down until there is a vaccine a year from now or some indisputably effective treatment six months from now. But “just in time” production doesn’t allow for that.

And the supply chain is far more complex for most things than people think. “Essential” work includes a vast array of things. Did you know chicken eggs are vaccinated as eggs against a number of poultry diseases? Interruption in the production of any of those things or the machinery used to manufacture those things, or the factories that produce the ingredients for the ingredients can cause “just in time” to turn into “just too late”.

I think our economy is running on fumes at the moment, and it wouldn’t take all that much for the grocery shelves to go bare or the lights to go out or the gas station tanks to go dry.
 
Last edited:
upant said:
your opinion.

the term has anti-abortion people voting for pro-abortion candidates,

there is no doubt that pro-abortion politicians are trying to expand the opportunities to have an abortion and have made it a national priority. the days of rare are gone.

expanding the time frame and who pays will increase abortions.

some not only want to expand it in the US but in other countries as well.
Click to expand...
They already do that. Expanding the meaning doesn’t change anything. Anti-abortion aren’t going to stop prioritizing abortion unless they already do.
 
Last edited:
upant said:
it already has been expanded from when it was used primarily to mean anti-abortion
Click to expand...
When pro-life is used to mean anti-abortion charges of hypocrisy usually follow suit.
 
Last edited:
upant said:
the US bishops just made abortion their priority issue. if we include everything a person thinks is pro-life, we wouldn’t be able to vote for anyone.
Click to expand...
The US bishops, however, would never suggest that life issues such as the death penalty and ignoring medical experts when setting public policy over COVID-19, don’t fall under the banner of pro-life.

They would never tolerate the arguments put forth in this thread that try to explain away how you can be pro-life and yet also think money can outweigh human life. Never.
 
If any issue can be “pro-life” then any politician can claim to be pro-life even if he supports unlimited abortion on demand and supports Planned Parenthood as the primary abortion provider, and supports exporting abortion to every nation. Every Democrat candidate can claim "Yes, I support the choice of abortion, but I’m pro-life!
 
JimG said:
If any issue can be “pro-life” then any politician can claim to be pro-life even if he supports unlimited abortion on demand and supports Planned Parenthood as the primary abortion provider, and supports exporting abortion to every nation. Every Democrat candidate can claim "Yes, I support the choice of abortion, but I’m pro-life!
Click to expand...
Anyone with a brain can see through that and it isn’t a tactic that is used. They already do that don’t be a single issue voter spiel that works exactly the same.
 
Last edited:
Well, if the thread title is to be believed, it works for half of Catholics.

If chattel slavery were still an issue today, I suppose that those supporting it would be urging others not to be single issue voters.
 
JimG said:
Well, if the thread title is to be believed, it works for half of Catholics.
Click to expand...
That’s because they don’t care about abortion which makes sense since most Catholics are of the cafeteria variety.
 
Last edited:
It’s what I suspected. These polls do not control for level of “religiosity,” i.e. religious devotion. This includes, (but isn’t limited to), how often people attend Mass.

A “Catholic” can be anyone from a priest or deacon on CAF to someone who was baptized Catholic 40 years ago and hasn’t been to church since.

My strongest hypothesis is that Catholics in good standing, or at least those attending Mass regularly, will be mostly, perhaps overwhelmingly, pro-life. This issue is too integral to our theology to take lightly.
 
JimG said:
f any issue can be “pro-life” then any politician can claim to be pro-life even if he supports unlimited abortion on demand and supports Planned Parenthood as the primary abortion provider, and supports exporting abortion to every nation.
Click to expand...
If pro-life is merely a political issue, the Church has lost.
 
for many it is, I fear that we have. the gospel is not meant to be abused for political gain, but God will save us
 
Last edited:
billsherman said:
If pro-life is merely a political issue, the Church has lost.
Click to expand...
It is a moral issue, but it has been turned into a political issue–which cannot be ignored precisely because it is a moral issue. Same sex unions, pornography, and other moral issues have also become politicized.
 
I completely disagree. You choose to rape someone, it’s an intended act towards someone else against their will. A baby - in the early stages of pregnancy - is nothing more than a clump of cells. This makes abortion no worse than the removal of a tumor.

Let’s talk science:
Bacteria is alive. Every single cell is a living being, but not every cell makes choices, like a rapist or a pregnant woman can.

If you believe every single egg cell that has been fertilized deserves to be born and grow into a human - without taking into account the impacts this might have on the mother (someone who is actually alive ) - then you are pro-life. But you are ignoring the fact that the birth of a child might ruin the parents’ lives, when, if the mother would have chosen to abort, the baby would not have been born, but she might go on to fulfill her dreams and live her life.

An example (which has probably been used by a lot of pro-choicers before, but idc):
Imagine a 19 year old girl who is raped. The man who raped her chose to do that. Imagine she ends up being pregnant, but doesn’t have the resources, time or isn’t mentally stable enough to raise a child. She didn’t choose to be raped, and she didn’t choose to get pregnant. Now, this child would have two possible outcomes if it were to live:
  1. The mother chooses to keep the baby: They are born into an unstable family, with scarce resources and a traumatized mother.
  2. The mother chooses to put the baby up for adoption: They will spend years in an unreliable, unsteady system without a guarantee that he will be adopted by loving, caring and stable parents.
In both cases, we would be damaging at least one life.

If the mother aborted the baby, she would have a better chance at getting over the traumatic experiences and eventually return to her plans and dreams.

So, even though the Bible supports the birth of all life from the moment it is conceived, it most importantly supports the concept of life. God would support the removal of a tumor to save a person’s life, which isn’t very different from abortion in the early stages of pregnancy.
 
  1. the child overcomes this (either one) and comes to Salvation, the highest Good
both of these scenarios ignore the spiritual realm, which factors into what moral actions are worth doing or not. maybe you arent meaning it in contradiction to the pro-life stance, are you Catholic? I dont know how to take this post, especially since you do recognize the biblical teaching
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top