I’m a Pro-choice Catholic

[Oleaster]

Like Joe Biden, I’m a pro-choice Catholic. Unlike Joe Biden, I’m not a Democrat. Thus, my reasons for being pro-choice likely differ from his.

Although I’m pro-choice, I don’t support abortion. I think it’s murder. But I hold a different view of government than pro-lifers who would outlaw abortion.

As a Catholic, I subscribe to “the principle of subsidiarity, according to which ‘a community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order, depriving the latter of its functions...’” (CCC #1883). Source: Catechism of the Catholic Church - IntraText

In my view, the primary responsibility for preventing sins and societal ills (including abortion) belongs to individuals and to families. Thus, most of what the U.S. government does is overreach. It’s that simple. If I don’t want mothers to abort their children, then I should teach my daughters about the value of human life, which begins at the moment of conception. If I do a good job, then my daughters shouldn’t abort their children.

I can try to persuade others not to abort their children, but that’s where the Kingdom of Christ ends, at persuasion. The Kingdom of Christ is entirely persuasive, never coercive. The devil’s empire is coercive.

“But you said yourself that abortion is murder. Surely the state is right to outlaw murder?” I grant that God’s law against murder, including abortion, is good. But God’s law is also powerless apart from Him. Witness the billions of murders committed since God gave the law. Witness especially the earthly keepers of God’s law (the Jews) in collusion with the ultimate keepers of man’s law (the Romans) committing the most heinous murder in history (the crucifixion of Christ).

The trouble with government is twofold. First, its laws are powerless. If God’s laws are powerless apart from Him, then man’s laws are more so. Second, government refuses to accept that its laws are powerless. More precisely, government pretends to have power to enforce its laws.

We know that government’s laws are powerless because it has made laws against speeding, yet writes speeding tickets daily. It has made laws against drunk driving, but arrests drunk drivers daily. It has made laws against murder, but arrests murderers daily. Its laws don’t work, but it claims that without its laws (and more crucially its enforcers), society would suffer more speeding, more drunk driving, more murder.

The test case for government’s argument is virtually nonexistent, because few societies in history have been able to rid themselves entirely of government for long. Government is fond of pointing to war-torn countries in states of “anarchy” as their test case, but such countries are not truly anarchical. Their ongoing wars are almost entirely concerned with establishing some form of government. They are not free from politics. They are engaged in politics at its ultimate level, the level of brute force.

What law “enforcement” mostly does is show up after a crime has been committed (murder, for instance) or during the commission of a crime (especially drunk driving and speeding, occasionally rape and theft though not usually), but always after a crime is initiated. So-called law “enforcement” then has mainly a punitive function, as its penalties supposedly discourage more crime. Again, there is hardly a test case for this. Maybe look at the thirteen colonies after the revolutionary war, just before they got their new government off the ground. Or study Native American tribal organization. There is still a form of government there, but it’s the sort of government that I prefer, which is to say minimal.

One way to get minimal government is to pass few laws. Few laws need few enforcers, administrators, and other bureaucrats. Trust the individual and the family to regulate their lives. Expect criminality to be ever-present. Yet, try to treat criminality persuasively, which is not to say by simply discouraging criminality. But when criminal acts occur, treat the criminal as a human being capable of redemption. Try to persuade the criminal to reform. In extreme cases, some criminals may need killing or lifetime incarceration, but what we have today throughout the world is a universal police state and prison planet. It’s too much. Off the rails. Globalist. Satanic.

This leads back to the Catholic principle of subsidiarity. Littleness. Localness. For more on the subject see Subsidiarity (Catholicism).

Government in general today is too large, especially the US government. It’s tempting to think that when the Founding Fathers formed the government, they envisioned a smaller institution for a smaller population of the thirteen colonies rather than an imperial government reigning over the expansive territory and population of today. But that’s not true. The empire we have today is exactly what the dominant faction envisioned. Hamilton in the Federalist Papers envisions an empire, repeatedly referring to it by name, such as when he writes in Federalist #13, “The entire separation of the States into thirteen unconnected sovereignties is a project too extravagant and too replete with danger to have many advocates. The ideas of men who speculate upon the dismemberment of the empire seem generally turned toward three confederacies - one consisting of the four Northern, another of the four Middle, and a third of the five Southern States.”

Well, I’m for the confederacies that Hamilton was against. Actually, I’m for a division of the empire more along the left/right and libertarian/anarcho/centrist political lines of today - not necessarily separation into distinct nations, but at least a political division similar to what Diocletian did when he split the Roman Empire into East and West to make it more easily governable. We can all remain Americans with a common military to oppose Communist China, Recidivist Imperial Russia, etc. But ultra-leftists can be free to smoke legalized LGBTQ crack rocks in their own safe space version of empire called Libtardia, ultra-righties can be free to shoot bazookas at lawn jockeys on the public square in their version called Magatardia, and those of us who just want to be left alone to mind our own affairs can reside in Central Calmistan.

Anyway, it was not the Federalists but the Antifederalists who supported this concept of small government, which best reflects Catholic subsidiarity. In opposition to “subdivision of the empire into several partial confederacies,” Hamilton preferred “union under one government” (Federalist #1). It is precisely this Hamiltonian idea of empire that Abe Lincoln and the Northern army imposed on the South during the so-called Civil War. The lamentable fact that the South had a slave-based economy has muddied the waters.

Consider any other political issue in the same light. Say for instance, that the South supported a constitutional amendment to prohibit alcohol sales replete with a Volstead Prohibition Enforcement Act. Then the North conquered the Southern States, forcing them to accept alcohol sales. Or suppose that the South supported a law against abortion, while the North was pro-choice. Then the North conquered and forced abortion on the South.

Of course, it’s not entirely clear that alcohol consumption or abortion are good for society. The point is that the conquering force must end up on the political side approved by modernity. So long as this is the result, it makes it difficult for anyone to question the “might makes right” policy of the conquerors. “Oh what? You wanted the South to win so that a bunch of oppressed people couldn’t party with booze or abort the burdensome results of their sexual trysts?” No.

I wanted the South to win for the same reason I wanted the Antifederalists to win. I want small, local government with few laws, few enforcers, few administrators, and few other bureaucrats. I want a government localized and responsive enough so that individuals and families can actually influence the debate about laws rather than being dictated to by a distant imperial government substantially controlled by communist/fascist corporations and lobbying groups with little oversight.

Since that’s what I want, I encourage everyone not to abort their children, but I don’t insist that an imperial government enforce my views. That makes me pro-choice, I guess. That’s also why I’m probably a different sort of pro-choice Catholic from Joe Biden. If the “Ruth Sent Me” crowd shows up at my parish, I’ll discourage them from disrupting Mass with their mindless chanting, but I’ll also offer to schedule a meeting to talk with them respectfully about our concerns. They seem particularly concerned about abortion. I’m particularly concerned about tyranny… and I’ve had enough of it… frankly.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Would you oppose small communities outlawing abortion?

 

[Oleaster]

Would you oppose small communities outlawing abortion?

Community size is only part of the issue. Consent versus coercion is also key, as is enforcement. If I consent to join a community, regardless of size, and that community decides to forcefully coerce its members, I would opt to withdraw consent and seek another community.

One problem today is the loss of any frontier. 250 years ago, a man could wander into the wilderness and govern himself (and his family if he had one) freely, so long as they were willing to face the dangers of self-medical-care and being murdered or robbed by “savages,” etc. Today, if a man does not consent to be governed by the United States government, there is no real wilderness to escape to. I pretty much have to consent to some brand of government, and they're all substantially forcefully coercive.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Community size is only part of the issue. Consent versus coercion is also key, as is enforcement. If I consent to join a community, regardless of size, and that community decides to forcefully coerce its members, I would opt to withdraw consent and seek another community.

One problem today is the loss of any frontier. 250 years ago, a man could wander into the wilderness and govern himself (and his family if he had one) freely, so long as they were willing to face the dangers of self-medical-care and being murdered or robbed by “savages,” etc. Today, if a man does not consent to be governed by the United States government, there is no real wilderness to escape to. I pretty much have to consent to some brand of government, and they're all substantially forcefully coercive.

So you are against all state/community coercion?

 

[Oleaster]

So you are against all state/community coercion?

For myself alone, basically yes. I would not like to be coerced by most anyone, most anywhere, most anytime, unless perchance God wants to intervene and coerce me.

I would consent to being coerced by my elders back in childhood, rather than them allowing me do anything harmful to myself or others out of youthful ignorance or willfulness. Even then, I would prefer to be persuaded by my elders to do good and avoid evil rather than being forcefully coerced. Nevertheless, if I were a child intent on doing evil or in process of doing evil, I would be glad for an elder to interrupt me and set me straight.

Government is often cast in this mold of an elder. After all, most people are not-Christians and thus cannot be expected to do any good at all. Then too, even us Christians sin. So don’t we all need some sort of elder to govern us throughout our lives? Isn’t Uncle Sam perfectly legitimate?

Yes, and no. Yes, Uncle Sam and other governments can serve as authorities to curtail sin and evil in the general population, including among Christians. That is exactly St. Paul’s argument in Romans 13. It is a grand theme of the Old Testament. God uses human empire to punish sin.

Now, no. I personally do not need Uncle Sam or any human government. I submit to God Himself, through His Church. Christ’s Church has authority over me, to which I have freely consented. The Holy Spirit working in me, and the Church working for me, are sufficient to watch over me. I don’t need Uncle Sam or any human government. I tolerate bad human government as St. Paul said to do. I also advocate for better human government, which I am doing now. As I have said, better human government is smaller, more responsive to the will of individuals and families, with fewer laws, fewer enforcers, and fewer bureaucrats.

As for what happens when criminals want to defraud me, I do not need government to impose penalties on them. I follow Jesus and St. Paul and allow myself to be defrauded, even killed. Maybe check this out:

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

For myself alone, basically yes. I would not like to be coerced by most anyone, most anywhere, most anytime, unless perchance God wants to intervene and coerce me.

I would consent to being coerced by my elders back in childhood, rather than them allowing me do anything harmful to myself or others out of youthful ignorance or willfulness. Even then, I would prefer to be persuaded by my elders to do good and avoid evil rather than being forcefully coerced. Nevertheless, if I were a child intent on doing evil or in process of doing evil, I would be glad for an elder to interrupt me and set me straight.

Government is often cast in this mold of an elder. After all, most people are not-Christians and thus cannot be expected to do any good at all. Then too, even us Christians sin. So don’t we all need some sort of elder to govern us throughout our lives? Isn’t Uncle Sam perfectly legitimate?

Yes, and no. Yes, Uncle Sam and other governments can serve as authorities to curtail sin and evil in the general population, including among Christians. That is exactly St. Paul’s argument in Romans 13. It is a grand theme of the Old Testament. God uses human empire to punish sin.

Now, no. I personally do not need Uncle Sam or any human government. I submit to God Himself, through His Church. Christ’s Church has authority over me, to which I have freely consented. The Holy Spirit working in me, and the Church working for me, are sufficient to watch over me. I don’t need Uncle Sam or any human government. I tolerate bad human government as St. Paul said to do. I also advocate for better human government, which I am doing now. As I have said, better human government is smaller, more responsive to the will of individuals and families, with fewer laws, fewer enforcers, and fewer bureaucrats.

As for what happens when criminals want to defraud me, I do not need government to impose penalties on them. I follow Jesus and St. Paul and allow myself to be defrauded, even killed. Maybe check this out:

Do you expect non-Christians and the pro-abortion crowd not to coerce people towards their side of things?

 

[boughtwithaprice]

Ezekiel 3:18

[18] If, when I say to the wicked, Thou shalt surely die: thou declare it not to him, nor speak to him, that he may be converted from his wicked way, and live: the same wicked man shall die in his iniquity, but I will require his blood at thy hand. [19] But if thou give warning to the wicked, and he be not converted from his wickedness, and from his evil way: he indeed shall die in his iniquity, but thou hast delivered thy soul.


There is no excuse for a Catholic to be in favor of laws that make it easier for others to sin. Prevention of sin is NOT tyranny. A tyrannical government makes is more difficult to worship God and live righteously.
Freedom is being free to do what we ought. Being able to do whatever we want is not freedom but license. Licentiousness is approving that which is evil.
You need to repent

 

[Oleaster]

Do you expect non-Christians and the pro-abortion crowd not to coerce people towards their side of things?

I have few expectations of anyone, other than I expect godless sinners to sin a lot. I hope Christians sin less.

 

[Oleaster]

If, when I say to the wicked, Thou shalt surely die: thou declare it not to him, nor speak to him, that he may be converted from his wicked way, and live: the same wicked man shall die in his iniquity, but I will require his blood at thy hand.

I have spoken and declared abortion to be murder and discouraged every mother from getting one. To “give warning” is a lot different from coercing someone.

Freedom is being free to do what we ought. Being able to do whatever we want is not freedom but license.

Agreed. But Christ makes us free to do what we ought, as per John 8:36. Unbelievers are not so free. I declare to unbelievers and speak to them and warn them. I don’t coerce them. Neither do I coerce you. You are free to coerce whomsoever ye will.

Licentiousness is approving that which is evil.

I have not approved any evil, as far as I know. Have you?

You need to repent

Indeed I do. Don’t we all?

 

[Michie]

Ezekiel 3:18

[18] If, when I say to the wicked, Thou shalt surely die: thou declare it not to him, nor speak to him, that he may be converted from his wicked way, and live: the same wicked man shall die in his iniquity, but I will require his blood at thy hand. [19] But if thou give warning to the wicked, and he be not converted from his wickedness, and from his evil way: he indeed shall die in his iniquity, but thou hast delivered thy soul.


There is no excuse for a Catholic to be in favor of laws that make it easier for others to sin. Prevention of sin is NOT tyranny. A tyrannical government makes is more difficult to worship God and live righteously.
Freedom is being free to do what we ought. Being able to do whatever we want is not freedom but license. Licentiousness is approving that which is evil.
You need to repent

Amen.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

I have few expectations of anyone, other than I expect godless sinners to sin a lot. I hope Christians sin less.

You didn't answer the question directly. Should we expect non-Christians and the pro-abortion crowd to not seek to coerce others through either law or indirect means? This is an important question that needs to be answered if we are going to test your strategy.

 

[Oleaster]

Should we expect non-Christians and the pro-abortion crowd to not seek to coerce others through either law or indirect means?

I thought I answered directly. When you ask “Should we expect,” I don’t know to whom you refer as we. I speak for myself, which is of course why I needn’t elect any so-called representative to “re-present” me somewhere that I have never been present, much less presume to speak for me there.

“Non-Christians and the pro-abortion crowd” are godless sinners as far as I can tell. If all of them are not godless, well, they are all sinners. I have no expectations of them but that they will continue to sin and sin boldly.

When you write of testing my strategy, do you mean to test my strategy of enjoying a smaller, more responsive government with fewer laws, fewer enforcers, etc.? Just participate in your own family and see how that goes. If/when you make a mess of things, apologize and keep working at it.

If you mean to test my strategy of not coercing people, you are looking right at it. I am not coercing you or anyone. Is there chaos all around? If so, what is the reason? Not enough coercion yet?

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

I thought I answered directly. When you ask “Should we expect,” I don’t know to whom you refer as we. I speak for myself, which is of course why I needn’t elect any so-called representative to “re-present” me somewhere that I have never been present, much less presume to speak for me there.

“Non-Christians and the pro-abortion crowd” are godless sinners as far as I can tell. If all of them are not godless, well, they are all sinners. I have no expectations of them but that they will continue to sin and sin boldly.

When you write of testing my strategy, do you mean to test my strategy of enjoying a smaller, more responsive government with fewer laws, fewer enforcers, etc.? Just participate in your own family and see how that goes. If/when you make a mess of things, apologize and keep working at it.

If you mean to test my strategy of not coercing people, you are looking right at it. I am not coercing you or anyone. Is there chaos all around? If so, what is the reason? Not enough coercion yet?

We do need to test the practicality of your libertarian anarchism being actually useful for it to mean anything. if one side disarms and doesn't utilize a method, say government, but the other side does utilize a method which involves the government you put yourself a tremendous disadvantage. You are of the opinion that we as Christians have no right to resist or coerce others for any reason. Individuals are completely autonomous and their individual decisions must be respected at all costs. This means, if a woman wants to procure an abortion in the third trimester we must tolerate her doing so.

I have serious problems with this logic because it doesn't work. Abandoning top down authority, abandoning using governmental institutions or anything with a coercive power won't result in less abortion. It would in fact ensure abortion was a liberalized as possible within American society. Even more so than it is now.

On a broader level I think the idea of individualism, a complete individualism of the type you are advocating for is simply not Christian. Christians have not been above using coercion, either of their direct family members or rules within a Church which are designed to orientate us towards certain Godly behaviors. Even the secular government classically has been understood within Christianity to have a good Christian influence on people.

Your strategy would just result in the pro-life side losing. There being more abortion and either fewer standards within society.

 

[Oleaster]

you put yourself a tremendous disadvantage

Indeed, I make myself vulnerable. That is something Christ has done for me, convinced me to abandon myself entirely.

You are of the opinion that we as Christians have no right to resist or coerce others for any reason.

That is an assumption. I have not opined on your rights nor on those of Christians in the main. When it comes to politics, I myself am more interested in duties than in rights. But I leave Christians and non-Christians free to assert all the rights they want. Look around. Everybody everywhere is asserting all sorts of so-called rights.

Individuals are completely autonomous and their individual decisions must be respected at all costs.

I do think individual decisions should be respected - not necessarily approved or endorsed, but respected. Not at all costs.

This means, if a woman wants to procure an abortion in the third trimester we must tolerate her doing so.

You and all people are free to respond to a woman procuring an abortion in whatever manner you see fit. If your response runs contrary to current laws, you may suffer, but I am not coercing you on how to respond. I myself encourage all women to honor God, their bodies, and their children.

I do not routinely encounter women seeking abortions, but if I do encounter one, I will try to persuade her to carry her child to term and raise it, or at least put it up for adoption. In my town we have a women’s clinic that does the same, and I support that clinic.

I will not forcibly restrain a woman from aborting her child. But if you want to forcibly restrain a woman from aborting her child, that’s your prerogative. If you want the US congress or Supreme Court to make it a crime for a woman to abort her child, that is also your prerogative. You may indeed prevent many children from being murdered that way.

If you secure the passage of that or any law, however, you must also increase the amount of coercive force in the system. It is inevitable. Cause and effect. I would’t be surprised to see an entire bureau created to enforce a law preventing pregnant women from aborting their children. Someone will have to shut down all those abortion clinics and keep a close eye on pregnant women in the coat hanger section of Wal-mart and whatnot. (Personally I do not anticipate the US ever outlawing abortion because it is an area of Big Business, serves the Malthusian interests of the global elite, and so forth, but that is beside the point.)

At any rate, it is exactly that sort of system - the system of human government ever expanding with more and more laws and more and more coercive forces - that equates to the beast of Antichrist. So, for the passage of every law you manage to secure, you can also thank yourself for immanentizing the eschaton.

I think the idea of individualism, a complete individualism of the type you are advocating for is simply not Christian.

I am advocating the Kingdom of God, which must be Christian. It comes not by force but by persuasion. The kingdom of Satan comes by force. According to prophecy, I cannot prevent the establishment of either kingdom, and neither can you. But all of us can contribute to the establishment of both. I prefer to contribute to the establishment of only Christ’s.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Indeed, I make myself vulnerable. That is something Christ has done for me, convinced me to abandon myself entirely.



That is an assumption. I have not opined on your rights nor on those of Christians in the main. When it comes to politics, I myself am more interested in duties than in rights. But I leave Christians and non-Christians free to assert all the rights they want. Look around. Everybody everywhere is asserting all sorts of so-called rights.



I do think individual decisions should be respected - not necessarily approved or endorsed, but respected. Not at all costs.



You and all people are free to respond to a woman procuring an abortion in whatever manner you see fit. If your response runs contrary to current laws, you may suffer, but I am not coercing you on how to respond. I myself encourage all women to honor God, their bodies, and their children.

I do not routinely encounter women seeking abortions, but if I do encounter one, I will try to persuade her to carry her child to term and raise it, or at least put it up for adoption. In my town we have a women’s clinic that does the same, and I support that clinic.

I will not forcibly restrain a woman from aborting her child. But if you want to forcibly restrain a woman from aborting her child, that’s your prerogative. If you want the US congress or Supreme Court to make it a crime for a woman to abort her child, that is also your prerogative. You may indeed prevent many children from being murdered that way.

If you secure the passage of that or any law, however, you must also increase the amount of coercive force in the system. It is inevitable. Cause and effect. I would’t be surprised to see an entire bureau created to enforce a law preventing pregnant women from aborting their children. Someone will have to shut down all those abortion clinics and keep a close eye on pregnant women in the coat hanger section of Wal-mart and whatnot. (Personally I do not anticipate the US ever outlawing abortion because it is an area of Big Business, serves the Malthusian interests of the global elite, and so forth, but that is beside the point.)

At any rate, it is exactly that sort of system - the system of human government ever expanding with more and more laws and more and more coercive forces - that equates to the beast of Antichrist. So, for the passage of every law you manage to secure, you can also thank yourself for immanentizing the eschaton.



I am advocating the Kingdom of God, which must be Christian. It comes not by force but by persuasion. The kingdom of Satan comes by force. According to prophecy, I cannot prevent the establishment of either kingdom, and neither can you. But all of us can contribute to the establishment of both. I prefer to contribute to the establishment of only Christ’s.

I get the feeling throughout all of this individualism, the only one you are offended at using force is the Christian. If for instance a Christian community were to forbid an abortion provider from setting up shop or not even a Christian community but a state were to outlaw planned parenthood. I presume you would also defend any behavior so long as it was determined by the individual and didn't harm others (except children in the womb).

You would argue in favour of the planned parenthood, knowing full well it would lead to abortion. Something you consider evil, but desire to protect, cherish and defend. Your words alone are not going to stop abortion, in fact your words will encourage abortion insofar as you advocate in the interests of abortion and the right to procure one for any reason at any stage of the pregnancy. You a pro-abortion Christian, insofar as you take a stance against those who seek to limit the influence of abortion.

Your perspective isn't so much Christian, as it is radically individualist. It refuses to acknowledge the idea that society does have a claim on us and influences us. By putting the individual first in all cases you necessarily break down all communities. For no community can be held together on this basis. On your logic a mother owes nothing to her born child, let alone the child in her womb. The father as well owes nothing to their child as individuals we may do whatever we want and no one should coerce us.

Given that you would support the ability of abortion to be everywhere provided so long as the individual desires it, you must acknowledge your methods won't work right? You won't reverse abortion by convincing others.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Like Joe Biden, I’m a pro-choice Catholic. Unlike Joe Biden, I’m not a Democrat. Thus, my reasons for being pro-choice likely differ from his.

Although I’m pro-choice, I don’t support abortion. I think it’s murder. But I hold a different view of government than pro-lifers who would outlaw abortion.

Would you also hold a different view of government in regards to murder or grand theft? Most of us would think that laws are for the restraint of people who are pro-choice about this or that felony.

 

[boughtwithaprice]

Oleaster, you are in error. I understand why you think as you do because I used to think that way. Governments are in place to use force as the word of God says they bare not the sword in vain.
On Earth, we are Church Militant as we are in constant battle against evil. Your proposal seems to say that we should lay down our arms and let the devil run free. That is not a Christian position. It looks like you are trying to win the favor of sinners by saying look at me, I am not bad or mean, I am for freedom, but my life is better than yours, live like me and be happy. Jesus is good. The Lord warns us not to cast our pearls before swine, they will turn and rend you. That is exactly what will happen if your strategy is adopted. It will persuade no one. The force of law restrains murder, not all murders as those bent on sin will still attempt to do so, but the law does not tell them that it is freedom to sin and commit evil. I cannot stop all abortions, but neither am I going to tell them they are righteous for doing so.
The abortion debate is actually a distraction. The worst Supreme Court decision was not Roe v Wade, it was Griswold v Connecticut that legalized contraception
In 1963, a Catholic Cardinal adopted your position. He had the opportunity to say on air that he would oppose legalization of contraception with the full authority of the Catholic Church, but he caved and said that anti contraception was a religious position and he could not justify restraining others that did not share his faith.
This neutralized the restraining force against contraception and instead of the view that it was for prostitutes and evil men, it became mainstream and the country adopted a contraceptive mind set. It was legalized in 1965 and no law could any longer restrain it. It was inevitable that Roe would follow as contraception necessitates abortion. Contraceptive sex implies by definition that a baby is unwanted and inconvenient and should be killed.
In the early 1960s America was generally moral, but with establishing contraception as a right we went from morality to depravity. Over 60,000,000 babies slaughtered for so called freedom. The marital act is now used with more depravity than in Sodom and Gomorrah
Your strategy fails and only brings blood and death. We have 60 years of evidence to see the fruits to come to the conclusion that yours is a false position, and has no basis in Church teaching or rule of law. The blood of innocents cries out against you
I would like to see contraception, inappropriate contentography and prostitution illegal. They will still happen, but calling them rights is worse. Those so called rights are the reason we have so many murdered children. It is sick to see the debates in Congress fighting for those so called rights. I have no problem opposing them with the force of law

 

[JimR-OCDS]

If you believe abortion is murder, how can you allow it to be legal?

It's like saying you don't believe in murder, but you don't want the
government to make it illegal.

It's either murder or it's not, but if you believe it is, your moral
support in being "pro-choice," gives society the motivation to keep
it legal and fight against those who oppose it, as we're seeing
today with Churches being vandalized and Masses interrupted.

 

[chevyontheriver]

If you believe abortion is murder, how can you allow it to be legal?

It's like saying you don't believe in murder, but you don't want the
government to make it illegal.

It's either murder or it's not, but if you believe it is, your moral
support in being "pro-choice," gives society the motivation to keep
it legal and fight against those who oppose it, as we're seeing
today with Churches being vandalized and Masses interrupted.

The other, also wrong, position would be to legalize murder. To say that I am pro-choice about murder. Or pro-choice about rape, or grand theft, or whatever.

Now I have yet to murder anyone. And it isn't because murder is illegal. But making it legal MIGHT make me think twice about doing it.

 

[Oleaster]

I get the feeling... the only one you are offended at using force is the Christian

I’m not offended by anyone... ever. From my perspective, truth is an offense, but truth is not an offense to me. I love truth. Anything besides truth is not my concern. As far as force, everyone is free to use all the force they want. Forceful people don’t offend me in the least. I’m dead actually. Hard to be offended when you’re dead.

You would argue in favour of the planned parenthood... Something you consider evil, but desire to protect, cherish and defend

Nope. I am not in favor of Planned Parenthood. So I don’t wish to protect, cherish, or defend it.

Your words alone are not going to stop abortion

I think you’re right. If the prayers of the faithful over all these years have not stopped abortion, then I don’t think my words will stop it. I do think my words and prayers can persuade some people not to abort their children, as can the words and prayers of others. The women’s clinic in my town that I talked about supporting keeps statistics and has shown success at counseling mothers not to abort. They do not provide abortions or refer women to abortion clinics. They simply try to dissuade women from aborting. We helped them buy some ultrasound machines that have been useful too.

Often when women see their baby, they can be convinced to carry to term for adoption. Then once they actually birth their child and hold their child, they may even decide to keep it. It’s pretty amazing. So I know that counseling, which is to say persuasion, works for some women. But I don’t think all the laws or police or armies in the world can stop all abortion. Sinners have a way of sinning, despite all attempts to stop them. Funny how that works.

insofar as you advocate in the interests of abortion and the right to procure one for any reason at any stage of the pregnancy

I advocate nothing of the sort.

Your perspective isn't so much Christian, as it is radically individualist

You misunderstand me and my perspective.

By putting the individual first in all cases you necessarily break down all communities

I do not put the individual first in all cases. I have been talking about families and small, voluntary communities here. The family obviously comes before the individual, except in the case of Adam I suppose.

On your logic a mother owes nothing to her born child

Not my logic.

The father as well owes nothing to their child

Nope.

Given that you would support the ability of abortion to be everywhere provided so long as the individual desires it, you must acknowledge your methods won't work right?

I don’t support the ability of abortion to be everywhere provided. I support using God’s methods rather than man’s. Prayer and persuasion work. Not always everywhere, but often here and there, and in some mystical sense that’s okay with God.

God was okay with Christ being crucified, right? Of course, God was not okay with it either, but Christ’s murder saved us, so He was okay with it. It’s a mystery, yes? It can be difficult to understand a Christian speaking of God’s mysteries.

God hates sin, but He tolerates it and brings good from it. I am trying to be like God, which is what He told me to do, to imitate Christ. So I hate abortion and encourage every mother to see it for the murder that it is and hate it too. But I’m not using armed goons to force anything on anyone. I’m also not telling you or your “Christian community” not to use all the force or laws or armed goons you want to accomplish whatever you want. I’m doubtful such methods will produce anything truly Christian in the end, but that’s for you to work out with fear and trembling.

I can only think of one instance of Christ using force in all the gospels, and it was to drive out the money changers from the temple. I definitely endorse the Church excommunicating heretics and schismatics, which I think is the modern equivalent of what Christ did. But I have said nothing heretical here. My views fall perfectly within the Church’s teaching. They are uncommon now, it is true, but they are not heretical.

Christ said “let him who has no sword sell his outer garment and buy one” (Lk 22:36) but Haydock citing Theophylactus says, “Wishing also to insinuate the violence of the assaults they themselves will have to sustain, he mentions a sword.” Haydock goes on to cite Saints Cyril and Chrysostom two verses later at 38: “The disciples not understanding the hidden meaning of the words in the preceding verse, and thinking they should have need of swords against the attack of the traitor Judas, say, behold here two swords. But if he had wished them to rely upon human aid, not even a hundred swords would have sufficed; but, if the power of man was unnecessary in their regard, even two swords are sufficient, and more than are wanted.” Amen. I have no sword. You, my friend, may buy all the swords you wish and do with them whatever you will.