Catholics for Abortion
- Thread starter Ramon1
- Start date
- Status
- May 19, 2018
- 11,001
- 11,748
- Country
- United Kingdom
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Single
Calling it the will of God is totally wrong, i agree.
Upvote
0
RaymondG
Well-Known Member
- Nov 15, 2016
- 8,545
- 3,816
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
If you are unaware of the legal definition of common terms, you are not fit to fight for the unborn......you can only do them harm. You cannot tell a mother who drowned her three children, that she only had abortions. Likewise, you cannot tell a mother who aborted in the first trimester, because she was deathly ill, that she murdered children.
It is this type of muddying of the waters that does harm to the plight of the unborn.
Why would you tell the world to just add them to the list of other murders, when they never had a chance to breathe or see the world? How does this do them any justice. There is only one word use to describe their demise that no other situation can claim....... If you refuse to use it, you cannot say that you care about them.....you just want to group them in with everyone else who dies. you do not find them unique, therefore you refuse to use the word that it unique to them.
Upvote
0
- Feb 24, 2002
- 15,534
- 4,827
- 57
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
I think perhaps my point could be made much more eloquently than I am able.
Of course we shouldn't eliminate the defense department. I support the Defense department, and as such, I can be pro life and support a government policy and department that, by necessity, ends up killing the innocent.
Supporting a government policy that results in the killing of innocent people does not automatically negate my pro life position.
Upvote
0
RaymondG
Well-Known Member
- Nov 15, 2016
- 8,545
- 3,816
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
Would this, not be considered lying? Abortion is Abortion, Murder is Murder. If you say anything other than this, it is not the truth. And if we are allowed to change definitions in our head, to match something we have done or believe, then no one could ever be a liar or a sinner......because you prove that we can change meanings of words to conform our beliefs.
You do the unborn a disservice, to promote the sanctity of your own beliefs. Your ego is boosted, by walking over the misfortune of the unborn. Yet you believe you are caring for them in the process. Nothing more I can say.
You continue to fight for and promote your beliefs, by shaming those who believe differently than you, while we fight for the preservation of life and the unborn.....by showing all, through love, the alternatives to abortions.
Upvote
0
- Feb 5, 2002
- 166,520
- 56,190
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
Question:
How do I refute this article I saw called "The Catholic Case for Abortion Rights?"
Answer:
The Time magazine commentary you cite is from the notoriously misnamed group “Catholic For a Free Choice” (CFFC). Its longtime leader was Frances Kissling, and it has more recently been led by Jon O’Brien. It has never been and never will be recognized as an authentically Catholic entity, and its gets major support from groups that oppose the mission of the Catholic Church.
O’Brien commits several errors in his editorial. For example, he mixes truth with lies in saying the Church’s teaching that “a human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience” (CCC 1790) provides moral justification for an individual to choose abortion. In the process, he conveniently overlooks that a Catholic is obligated to form his conscience particularly with the teachings of the Church (CCC 1785) and including these basic moral rules:
In the depths of his conscience, man detects a law which he does not impose upon himself, but which holds him to obedience. Always summoning him to love good and avoid evil, the voice of conscience when necessary speaks to his heart: do this, shun that. For man has in his heart a law written by God; to obey it is the very dignity of man; according to it he will be judged (Gaudium et Spes 16).
In addition, the Church never based its teaching on alleged seventeenth-century scientific findings that purportedly saw “fully formed animal fetuses” through the lenses of “primitive microscopes.” O’Brien provides no citation for this spurious assertion.
Instead, precisely because of deficient science in previous centuries, the Church was not sure when ensoulment of an unborn child occurred. And yet, as O’Brien correctly notes, the Church has always taught that abortion is the gravely wrong destruction of human life (CCC 2271). In addition, because of advances in science, the Church can today confidently teach that “human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person, among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life” (CCC 2270). And Pope St. John Paul II definitively reaffirmed the Church’s teaching on abortion in his 1995 encyclical Evangelium Vitae (57).
Is There a Catholic Case for Abortion?
How do I refute this article I saw called "The Catholic Case for Abortion Rights?"
Answer:
The Time magazine commentary you cite is from the notoriously misnamed group “Catholic For a Free Choice” (CFFC). Its longtime leader was Frances Kissling, and it has more recently been led by Jon O’Brien. It has never been and never will be recognized as an authentically Catholic entity, and its gets major support from groups that oppose the mission of the Catholic Church.
O’Brien commits several errors in his editorial. For example, he mixes truth with lies in saying the Church’s teaching that “a human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience” (CCC 1790) provides moral justification for an individual to choose abortion. In the process, he conveniently overlooks that a Catholic is obligated to form his conscience particularly with the teachings of the Church (CCC 1785) and including these basic moral rules:
- One may never do evil so that good may result from it
- The Golden Rule: “Whatever you wish that men would do to you, do so to them.”
- Charity always proceeds by way of respect for one’s neighbor and his conscience: “Thus sinning against your brethren and wounding their conscience . . . you sin against Christ.” Therefore “it is right not to . . . do anything that makes your brother stumble” (CCC 1789, footnotes omitted).
In the depths of his conscience, man detects a law which he does not impose upon himself, but which holds him to obedience. Always summoning him to love good and avoid evil, the voice of conscience when necessary speaks to his heart: do this, shun that. For man has in his heart a law written by God; to obey it is the very dignity of man; according to it he will be judged (Gaudium et Spes 16).
In addition, the Church never based its teaching on alleged seventeenth-century scientific findings that purportedly saw “fully formed animal fetuses” through the lenses of “primitive microscopes.” O’Brien provides no citation for this spurious assertion.
Instead, precisely because of deficient science in previous centuries, the Church was not sure when ensoulment of an unborn child occurred. And yet, as O’Brien correctly notes, the Church has always taught that abortion is the gravely wrong destruction of human life (CCC 2271). In addition, because of advances in science, the Church can today confidently teach that “human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person, among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life” (CCC 2270). And Pope St. John Paul II definitively reaffirmed the Church’s teaching on abortion in his 1995 encyclical Evangelium Vitae (57).
Is There a Catholic Case for Abortion?
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
- Feb 5, 2002
- 166,520
- 56,190
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
Is it plausible that candidates who support legal abortion are actually more "pro-life" because they favor welfare programs that reduce abortions?
Faith, Abortion, and Voting, Part 5
In this series leading up to Election Day, we will explain why abortion is the most serious and urgent social issue of our time and what this means for Catholic voters. Are we simply free to vote for whatever candidate we prefer, for any reason that’s in our conscience? Or does our right to vote come with objective moral responsibilities that we must consider before casting our ballot?
In the previous part of this series, we looked at the very narrow conditions in which it might be possible for a Catholic to vote for a pro-abortion candidate—as well as all the many conditions in which it is not. In this final installment, we examine the oft-heard claim that proponents of legal abortion can actually be more “pro-life” than opponents, as long as they support policies designed to make abortion “rare.”
If you want to get rid of abortion, should you vote for a candidate committed to keeping it legal? It would seem like the obvious answer is “No.” But some people argue that, even if abortion is the preeminent social issue of our time, Catholics could have a proportionate reason to vote for a pro-choice (or what we would more properly call a pro-abortion) candidate if they think his policies will reduce abortion by making it unnecessaryinstead of illegal.
The argument goes like this: pro-lifers have spent nearly fifty years trying to outlaw abortion and have failed. Maybe it would be better, they say, to support politicians and policies that try make abortion not illegal but less desirable—by reducing its “root causes.” For example, they say, generous social welfare policies will incentivize poor mothers not to abort their unborn children and do more to save babies than any anti-abortion law.
Here’s what’s wrong with this argument.
First, over those fifty years, pro-life advocates in the United States have succeeded in reducing the number of abortions that occur and in giving the unborn some legal protections. According to the Alan Guttmacher Institute, formerly the research arm of Planned Parenthood, abortion rates have steadily declined ever since the 1980s—during administrations that supported legal abortion and those that opposed it.
On the legislative side, the gruesome practice of partial-birth abortion is now illegal, federal funds are not used to pay for abortions in hospitals, and federally appointed judges have upheld state laws putting restrictions on abortion. As the Washington Post has noted, states with more pro-life people tend to have more legal restrictions on abortion. And those restrictions save lives.
Sociologist Michael New has shown that even modest abortion restrictions, like waiting periods and informed consent laws, lead to a reduction in abortion rates. And those laws are a direct result of electing pro-life politicians.
Second, the evidence for whether economic improvement reduces abortion rates by itself is at best inconclusive. For example, a 2015 studyfound that women in extreme poverty are four times less likely to have an abortion than those in the lower middle class. Also, abortion rates have steadily declined even during economic downturns.
Moreover, if improved economic conditions reduced abortion rates, we would expect that the poorest states in the U.S. would have the highest abortion rates and the wealthiest states would have the lowest. But the highest rates are found in wealthier places such as Maryland, New York, New Jersey, and the District of Columbia (whose rate is more than twice the national average). Meanwhile, the lowest abortion rates are found in poorer states such as Wyoming, South Dakota, and Mississippi. What do these states with low abortion rates have in common? They have laws that restrict access to abortion and discourage the operation of abortion clinics.
Finally, abortion is not like an incurable disease—something we just want to reduce the severity of. It is a violent evil that must be foughtno matter what. We can’t always guarantee that politicians we elect will fulfill their promises to protect the unborn, but we can use our vote to hold all candidates accountable for how they respond to the preeminent social-justice issue of our age.
Regardless of the victories and setbacks the pro-life movement experiences, nothing can erase the moral duty we have to restore the legal right to life for unborn children. Just as our politicians’ failure to eradicate poverty doesn’t mean we should stop trying to help the poor, their failure to completely outlaw abortion up to now does not mean we should abandon the children who need us to be their voice.
Indeed, although our vote is most powerful when it is joined with thousands of others, our voice can be powerful on its own. It can help the friend who is considering abortion reject what would be the worst decision of her life. It can help the relative who is post-abortive find peace and healing in God’s grace. And it can empower others to continue to fight for the cause of life.
What About the ‘Root Causes’ of Abortion?
Faith, Abortion, and Voting, Part 5
In this series leading up to Election Day, we will explain why abortion is the most serious and urgent social issue of our time and what this means for Catholic voters. Are we simply free to vote for whatever candidate we prefer, for any reason that’s in our conscience? Or does our right to vote come with objective moral responsibilities that we must consider before casting our ballot?
In the previous part of this series, we looked at the very narrow conditions in which it might be possible for a Catholic to vote for a pro-abortion candidate—as well as all the many conditions in which it is not. In this final installment, we examine the oft-heard claim that proponents of legal abortion can actually be more “pro-life” than opponents, as long as they support policies designed to make abortion “rare.”
If you want to get rid of abortion, should you vote for a candidate committed to keeping it legal? It would seem like the obvious answer is “No.” But some people argue that, even if abortion is the preeminent social issue of our time, Catholics could have a proportionate reason to vote for a pro-choice (or what we would more properly call a pro-abortion) candidate if they think his policies will reduce abortion by making it unnecessaryinstead of illegal.
The argument goes like this: pro-lifers have spent nearly fifty years trying to outlaw abortion and have failed. Maybe it would be better, they say, to support politicians and policies that try make abortion not illegal but less desirable—by reducing its “root causes.” For example, they say, generous social welfare policies will incentivize poor mothers not to abort their unborn children and do more to save babies than any anti-abortion law.
Here’s what’s wrong with this argument.
First, over those fifty years, pro-life advocates in the United States have succeeded in reducing the number of abortions that occur and in giving the unborn some legal protections. According to the Alan Guttmacher Institute, formerly the research arm of Planned Parenthood, abortion rates have steadily declined ever since the 1980s—during administrations that supported legal abortion and those that opposed it.
On the legislative side, the gruesome practice of partial-birth abortion is now illegal, federal funds are not used to pay for abortions in hospitals, and federally appointed judges have upheld state laws putting restrictions on abortion. As the Washington Post has noted, states with more pro-life people tend to have more legal restrictions on abortion. And those restrictions save lives.
Sociologist Michael New has shown that even modest abortion restrictions, like waiting periods and informed consent laws, lead to a reduction in abortion rates. And those laws are a direct result of electing pro-life politicians.
Second, the evidence for whether economic improvement reduces abortion rates by itself is at best inconclusive. For example, a 2015 studyfound that women in extreme poverty are four times less likely to have an abortion than those in the lower middle class. Also, abortion rates have steadily declined even during economic downturns.
Moreover, if improved economic conditions reduced abortion rates, we would expect that the poorest states in the U.S. would have the highest abortion rates and the wealthiest states would have the lowest. But the highest rates are found in wealthier places such as Maryland, New York, New Jersey, and the District of Columbia (whose rate is more than twice the national average). Meanwhile, the lowest abortion rates are found in poorer states such as Wyoming, South Dakota, and Mississippi. What do these states with low abortion rates have in common? They have laws that restrict access to abortion and discourage the operation of abortion clinics.
Finally, abortion is not like an incurable disease—something we just want to reduce the severity of. It is a violent evil that must be foughtno matter what. We can’t always guarantee that politicians we elect will fulfill their promises to protect the unborn, but we can use our vote to hold all candidates accountable for how they respond to the preeminent social-justice issue of our age.
Regardless of the victories and setbacks the pro-life movement experiences, nothing can erase the moral duty we have to restore the legal right to life for unborn children. Just as our politicians’ failure to eradicate poverty doesn’t mean we should stop trying to help the poor, their failure to completely outlaw abortion up to now does not mean we should abandon the children who need us to be their voice.
Indeed, although our vote is most powerful when it is joined with thousands of others, our voice can be powerful on its own. It can help the friend who is considering abortion reject what would be the worst decision of her life. It can help the relative who is post-abortive find peace and healing in God’s grace. And it can empower others to continue to fight for the cause of life.
What About the ‘Root Causes’ of Abortion?
Upvote
0
RaymondG
Well-Known Member
- Nov 15, 2016
- 8,545
- 3,816
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
Everyone agrees that murder is wrong and there is no right to murder. This Thread, however, is about Abortion.....the termination of pregnancy. Why is it hard to stay focus on them without going into those murdered by cops, or children drowned by parents?
It seems like everytime we try to talk about abortion, there are those to, instead, want us to believe they are just like any other murder.....as if this helps their cause.
I believe they have a special name given for this act, because they are unique. I don't see how removing this uniqueness, helps them.
Upvote
0
- Feb 24, 2002
- 15,534
- 4,827
- 57
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
Upvote
0
Correct. Does this mean we can say anything? So, I can say that NOT HAVING ABORTIONS SAVES LIVES.
You can, but people will probably argue. The country is saving life by defending itself from enemies that will likely intrude on us. I feel that love doesn't really win; power does. Whoever is strongest imposes their will on others and gets to act like they are the good ones.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
It depends on what news you watch. It depends on how the news shapes the story. Trump never did such a thing according to Republican news. If you go by Liberal news then Trump is basically a Nazi. Is he a saint, a Nazi, or something else?
I'll try to not keep repeating this point....Maybe. Have a great rest of your day > everyone.
Upvote
0
Why can't there be both? I'm talking about outlawing abortion and having incentives not to abort.
Again, this whole idea/argument doesn't make sense. If we outlaw abortion, that shouldn't have anything to do with preventing us from implementing economic strategies.
There are many factors you are leaving out about "wealth". New York has 92,000 homeless people. Perhaps there are a few wealthy people in these areas, but it could be the middle class (people who worry about money) who are getting the abortions.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
- Feb 5, 2002
- 166,520
- 56,190
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
