Catholic Online Forum

This thread has been running for a long time and has wandered off in various directions in that time. As a new member I confess not to having read every post but was drawn to the very first one, for it made a challenging opening statement.



For me being "pro" anything means being positively in favour of it. Being in favour of people having a choice does not mean that you are in favour of one or other of those choices. Being pro-choice means that you believe that you don't have the right to decide for others how they should think, or act.

Speaking personally, and as a non Catholic, I dislike the idea of abortion as much as most people but I respect that others might feel differently, especially when facing difficult circumstances. I don't feel I have the right to speak for them, or, most importantly, for the foetus they are carrying. The primary responsibility for that is with them, and them alone. As a believer in the democratic process I also believe that if something is lawful then no impediment should be placed between someone and their ability to act lawfully. I am therefore pro-choice but am most certainly not "pro-abortion". I find the suggestion that I am very unhelful in trying to find ways to reduce the number of abortions. I suspect it is actually counter productive as it creates divisions between people of good will who need to find the common ground and work together to reduce the number of abortions being being carried out. Forcing them into the dark again doesn't seem like progress to me. Reducing the need for them seems the much more sensible direction.

_________________
Vernon

I'm sorry, Vernon, but if a person is pro-choice, that means he or she thinks abortion should exist. That's positively in favor of abortion.



How do you feel about people who make the choice to kill family members they don't like or who are inconvenient? It's basically the same thing as abortion. According to your definition, that's included in pro-choice.

_________________
Rose West
"May God help us not to spoil His work" (Bl. Mother Theresa)

Vernon, you say above "I don't feel I have the right to speak for them, or, most importantly, for the foetus they are carrying. The primary responsibility for that is with them, and them alone."

So you believe that you have no right, then, to speak for their children...that should they choose to abuse, beat or starve their children, you should not intercede?

If that IS what you you believe, then certainly, there is no point in discussing "pro-choice" vs "pro-abortion". The right to choose what is legal is absolute. If an act is legal, whether it is morally right or not has no bearing.

But if you believe that children should be protected from adults, including parents, who are cruel or abusive, try to understand that those of us who believe that a fetus (sorry to use the common American spelling ) is a child have great difficulty with the idea that one supports the right to choose what we believe to be infanticide can be anti-abortion.

For us, it carries all the weight of saying "I am adamantly opposed to child abuse but I support a parent's right to choose whether or not to abuse their own child."

_________________
In Christ,

Jim B

I will consider your position if stated with firm, well-thought-out, quiet reasoning. Hateful diatribe, ad hominem attacks and shouted rhetoric don't impress.

Rose

I have read some of your posts on other subjects and I can see that you are a kind and thoughtful person. However I think you are mistaken on this. Let me explain why I think that way.



Abortion does exist, whether you or I want it or not, in just the same way that war, or famine, exists. Whilst it could be made illegal, it cannot be eradicated. Only unrealistic dreamers believe that is possible. What I seek are practical ways to lower the number carried out, rather than high minded stances which achieve very little. So I repeat. Whilst I am favour of choice, for the reasons I gave, I am not positvely in favour of abortion. I just accept the reality of its existence.



As I am sure you know people who are pro-choice do not accept that an unviable foetus is a "child". I respect that you do, but please respect that others don't and as a consequence killing "inconvenient" family members is an entirely different matter which would never be acceptable. Whilst we very clearly disagree about this, if we are to reach some common ground then we both need to really understand the basis of other position.

Retsinab



Of course not. I specifically referred to a foetus and not to a child. For further reasoning please read my responses to Rose.



I understand and respect that. I just don't believe it myself. I have had this debate with many Catholics in the past so I understand the strength of your beliefs. What I am urging is some reciprocal understanding by Catholics of the other viewpoint. Perhaps then some real progress could be made, rather than what we seem to have right now which for me seems to be rather pointless. What I observe from the pro-life lobby is strident, aggressive and pretty ineffective campaigning which inflames the situation rather than quietly improving it.

_________________
Vernon

There is nothing to understand. Killing an innocent is murder.



Real progress? Change we can believe in? Progress like the Nazi's envisioned? What do you suggest, that we call murder a choice and just shut up about it so you can feel good in your delusion?

You defend choice at the expense of another life. Your actions contribute to the promotion of murder. Your reasoning is severely flawed when you balance 'suffering' a 9 month pregnancy against ending a life and conclude either acceptable.

There are unalienable God given rights and life is one of them. Life is not compromised

_________________
Daniel

"Do you think that I have come to establish peace on the earth? No, I tell you, but rather division." -- Luke 12:51

Daniel



You demonstrate precisely what I am suggesting. I fear that without you being able to understand that there is another point of view which is sincerely and honestly held by others, who are as equally entitled to it as you are to yours, that no progress will ever be possible. These people are decent and moral too but they just don't agree with your faith based perceptions. We need to stop shouting and start showing mutual respect.



This is only true if your basic concept of a foetus being a child is true. For you it is, but for others it isn't. I have often heard claims by the pro-life lobby that the pro-choice lobby are no better than those who advocate euthanasia, or are closet Nazis. Such ridiculous, emotional nonsense just sharpens the divide and is truly counter productive.

Let me ask a question. If it could be demonstrated that the current stance taken by the pro-life lobby actually was increasing the number of abortions, rather than decreasing them, would you be prepared to modify that stance to a more practical one of trying to reduce the numbers, without having to give up your belief based moral objections?

_________________
Vernon

You posit a classic evil means for the sake of good ends argument. Of course, given a choice (which part and parcel premises the 'neutral' choice position) one can not choose evil to supposedly or even assuredly achieve good or better ends.

_________________
Daniel

"Do you think that I have come to establish peace on the earth? No, I tell you, but rather division." -- Luke 12:51

That would be because I'm pro-life, Vernon. Quite honestly, otherwise I wouldn't bother to be nice to people. I'm not kind and thoughtful toward others by nature, and certainly not by choice. It's because I know that each and every human being was made with a soul that's in God's own image. There's absolutely no logic that supports kindness unless you accept that God exists and created each of us out of a love that we should extend to each other to the best of our ability.


(bold is mine)

That's the point. It should be illegal. Whether abortion exits or not is immaterial. It's evil and it poisons society.

Either human life is precious or it's not. That's the only choice we need to make. If you truly think it's precious, if you truly respect and admire humanity, then you will not be "pro-choice," which accepts and even desires that people die.

_________________
Rose West
"May God help us not to spoil His work" (Bl. Mother Theresa)

Vernon,



I think the truth is closer to "people who are pro-choice often do not accept that any unborn fetus is a child".

First of all, and I realize this is strictly anecdotal, I don't personally know anyone who is pro-"choice" who is not also in favor of euthanasia or assisted suicide. I really don't and it makes sense...if you believe there are forms of life that are expendable than the form that is or is not expendable becomes a matter of opinion as it is not based on an overriding devotion to the sanctity of human life in all of it's forms.

Take a look at this site which pertains to US abortions:

http://www.prochoice.org/about_abortion ... weeks.html

Note that earlier abortions are promoted for the safety of the mother and not because the fetus is not viable. Viability of the fetus is not mentioned once on this informational site. They then go on to explain why an abortion might be delayed...all seem to primarily deal with an attempt in abortion law to control things like parental notification. It seems to be that underlying that is a tone of , "well we wouldn't have to do later term abortion is xyz were the law".

Further, though the website may be accurate (I have no idea) in terms of the percentage of abortion that are in the first trimester versus the last trimester it also still does not mention last trimester abortions as something that simply should not be done but rather, as something that is allegedly not done that often.

What is viability? My cousin has a child born at 5 months....not even the last trimester and she survived. She is normal cognitively, has normal fine motor skills and is a talkative and engaging child (not that she would be worth any less if she were not). She has a feeding tube at 3 years old and struggles with eating issues and because of the tube she is slightly off in development of her gross motor skills...her abdominal muscles are not as strong.

She is what is called a "micro preemie"...the percentage of survival is low but was non-existent at one time...the point of survival outside the womb continues to expand...so viability is not used in the United States at least, as something that ever enters the conversation about abortion law.

As to the argument that pro-life people are not taking into account that pro-choice people believe that the point at which life is worth saving is something they have a right to differ about, the same could be true about any threat against any life. It's the slippery slope theory to some extent, though not entirely. But, if you believe that not all forms of human life (and it is impossible to maintain that a fetus is not biologically human life) is not worth preserving than the question becomes...the what forms of life are worth saving? And, as I said, for the pro-choice people I know...the answers go further than fetal life.

Is a girl child's life worth saving in the womb? In countries with many abortions...such as India and China, sex selection is practiced widely and almost always targets female children. Should that be stopped and if so, why? There is no reason based upon your basic premise.

_________________
Valerie Garcia
vals1990@yahoo.com

"Listen, O my son, to the precepts of thy master, and incline the ear of thy heart, and cheerfully receive and faithfully execute the admonitions of thy loving Father, that by the toil of obedience thou mayest return to Him ....." St. Benedict

Vernon,



Go the Flat Earth Society!



Of course he's not a child. Everyone knows he's a horse, cow, sheep.... Whatever you say. We know it's all relative.

_________________
James Daly

"It is the Lord." (Jn 21:7)

Just came across this in the news.

Infanticide just a late, late abortion? According to one Canadian judge, pretty much

_________________
Grace

As to the past, let us entrust it to God's mercy, the future to Divine Providence. Our task is to live holy the present moment. - Saint Gianna Molla

Daniel



You give a typical "fudged" Catholic answer, which is no answer at all. In the real world difficult choices have to be made, by everyone, Catholics as well. Let me give you a specific example. If you faced a gunman about to murder a classroom of children and you held a gun yourself, would you shoot to kill? You would break a commandment if you did.

Rose



Now that is an interesting statement.

I am pro-choice and I am also kind and thoughtful. I am quite sure my attitude is because of my humanity and that this is within all of us, if we look for it. It has nothing whtasoever to do with being pro-life. That arrives because of your faith and the attitudes found within it. No doubt you believe that God is working within me, whether I know it or not, which only goes to emphasise the different way that folk reach their conclusions. Being pro-life, or pro-choice has nothing to do with it.



But it isn't the whole point is it? It is the point of your belief but in truth the situation is very much more complicated than that. Making abortion illegal won't irradicate it. It will drive it underground again, making it unsafe and unregulated. What is needed is an all round approach, and not one which looks at just one aspect.

Val



I think that maybe you should get out more. No-one I know who is pro-choice is also in favour of euthanasia or assisted suicide. Now you do know one too. Me!

A foetus at 5 months is certainly viable and should never be aborted. I am no expert and defer to those that are but my understanding is that the current limit of 22 weeks should be reduced to 20 given the advances in medical practice.

I strongly disapprove of the practices in China and elsewhere on sex selective abortion and indeed on the whole concept of any abortion for social reasons. I repeat, I am not pro-abortion. I am pro-choice, because of my respect for the opinions of others. My desire is for practical policies to reduce the number of abortions carried out to the lowest number possible, and then to see them carried out safely. I seek a "joined up" approach to the issue, and not taking just one element, in this case abortion, and dealing with it as if it was not affected by other considerations.

Seamas



Ah, that old chestnut! There are some things that all of us, other than the weird and mentally deranged amongst us, know are untrue. The earth being flat being one of them. Now if you feel that all those who take a pro-choice position are weird or deranged then OK. I am neither, but you are entitled to your view.

_________________
Vernon

Baloney. The only thought process behind being pro choice is a belief that people should be allowed to kill other people. End of story.

_________________
Rose West
"May God help us not to spoil His work" (Bl. Mother Theresa)

Rose



Do you truly believe that none of the billions of people who don't share your views are kind and thoughtful? If this is so I really feel sorry for you, for it must mean that you have a difficult relationship with lots of people. Of course there are many pro-choice folk who are decent, upright citizens, who care about their fellow man and are both kind and thoughtful. I hope I am one of them. It is pretty insulting to suggest otherwise. That we disagree about this issue does not mean that we have faulty characters. We just look at things differently, and it is this that I am arguing for. I don't expect, or seek, to change your views but you need to realise that people like me obviously don't believe anyone should be allowed to kill another person. We just don't believe that an unviable foetus is a person. I know you do, and respect that. All that is needed is for you to reciprocate and we can get somewhere by approaching the issue with goodwill and reason, to achieve some real, rather than theoretical progress.

_________________
Vernon

Moderator Warning


Vernon


In reading your thoughts on this subject I see that you have neither read all the posts and the fact that you are not Catholic. While being catholic is not a requirement for membership in this Forum, respect for our views is a requirement.

Your condescending and rude comments to those members who are trying to engage you in dialogue is not acceptable.

While I cannot require you to accept our views I can and will require you to realize that they are Catholic teachings and are not open to debate on this Forum. You may discuss them with the intent to understand, you may NOT argue that they are wrong or unacceptable.


BobC

COL Staff

Bob

I cannot see where I have been either condescending or rude and I certainly don't believe I will change anyone's views, nor do I seek to. My hope is simple. I have not read all the posts for the accusation which caught my eye was made in the very first, that being pro-choice means that you are automatically pro-abortion and I want to re-assure folk this is not the case. My hope is that those of goodwill can try to find some common ground on which to build an understanding which would lead to a more productive route to reducing the number of abortions.

I would hope that this is an objective we could all agree to, without pause. If this is not a subject you wish to engage in just let me know. I already understand the Catholic teaching on this subject, but reading some of the comments made it seems to me that the opposing position is not really understood that well. I am trying to help build a respectful dialogue. Thats all. No offence intended. If this forum is not intended for debate with folk like me can you point me to where on this site it is acceptable.

_________________
Vernon

Vernon writes:



How shall there be reciprocation and compromise on this issue? One side believes at the moment of conception a human person exists and has the right to live. The other side either believes that a human person exists sometime in the future (when exactly they cannot say) and that it is ok to kill whatever it is before it becomes a human person, or it believes it is ok to kill innocent people who belong to certain classifications (e.g. they are unborn, or they are in vegetative states, or they are unable to take care of themselves). Where is the meet-in-the-middle, "reasonable" approach, other than that those who unequivocally oppose abortion move off of their position toward accepting it sometimes?

I also don't understand the motivation for your side's worrying about approaching the issue with "goodwill and reason." You do not believe a non-viable (whatever that is) fetus is a human person. The law of the land imposed by judicial fiat in the U.S. is behind you. So why is there a need to compromise? Why should you be interested in a common goal of reducing abortions, unless you somehow in the very back of your reasoning have the niggling feeling that abortion is wrong? If abortion is not wrong, then there should be no reason for you to seek compromise to bring down the number of abortions.

_________________
Dean
Most people's sense of history goes back to breakfast time - Benjamin Netanyahu

Vernon, in reading your posts here and in the other (now locked) thread, I can't help but wonder why you are here.

If you have read the rules for participation, you must realize that this is a Catholic forum in which all visitors are welcome who, as the index states, "(has a) goal in participating should not be always to be "right" at any cost, but rather humbly and honestly to seek the truth. In this, we will be guided by common sense, intellectual honesty, the Magisterium of the Catholic Church, her Tradition, her laws, and her duly appointed pastors. Since our common goal is to get to heaven, when disagreements result from our discussions our guide will be charity and our motto will be... 

FAITH SEEKING UNDERSTANDING!"

(Emphasis mine)

Since you obviously, by your own words, have no intention to be guided by the Magisteium of the Catholic Church nor her Tradition — in fact, you openly disagree with Church teaching — it seems to me that you either 1) have not read or have misinterpreted the Rules and Policies or that you simply want to dispute them.

I suspect that it is the latter motive that brings you here. If that is the case, your claim to be 'kind and thoughtful" is no more accurate that it would be if made by someone who barged into a devout religious service and starting disputing the tenants of that religion.

Certainly in a free world, you may loudly proclaim your values in any public forum and most who post here would vociferously defend your right to do so.

But this is not a public forum. This is a forum representing the teachings and values of the Catholic Church where, as stated, visitors are welcome so long as they don't argue against those teachings and values.

If your purpose on COL is not "Faith Seeking Understanding", I, then, would ask you to explain why you are here.

Understand that I am merely another participant in COL and have no authority or wish to exclude you from participation but I suspect should you continue to dispute Church teaching that you will not be allowed to continue.

_________________
In Christ,

Jim B

I will consider your position if stated with firm, well-thought-out, quiet reasoning. Hateful diatribe, ad hominem attacks and shouted rhetoric don't impress.

Baloney. I've yet to meet a pro-choice person who is kind and thoughtful toward everyone he or she meets or even the majority of people. Just ask a pro-choice person about Republicans. Kindness and thoughtfulness go straight out the window.

A "pro-choice" person might practice a limited form of kindness and thoughtfulness, but it's flawed and unfair.

Let's look at who is a human being.

Are Jews full human beings? Because the Nazi's didn't think so. Do you support the Nazis' "choice?"
Are other victims of ethic cleansing full human beings? Because their aggressors don't think so. Do you support their "choice?"
Were the victims of 9/11 full human beings? The terrorists who participated in that didn't think so. Do you support that "choice?"

What about the babies within the womb of mothers who want them? Are you going to get into an argument with a pregnant woman over whether her child is a human being? Trust me, that child is a person.

Why is the wanted child a human being but not the unwanted child? That's logically impossible. Unborn children are no different than Jews or tribes in Africa or the Balkans. Murdering those children is no less wrong.

Unless you make a definitive statement that all human life is precious, you are practicing a false kindness that only includes some people and is bigotted against the others.

_________________
Rose West
"May God help us not to spoil His work" (Bl. Mother Theresa)

Rose, that last message was masterful.

_________________
Jeff Stevens

Vernon,

There seems to have been quite a bit of bluster and posturing -- on both sides -- in this discussion.

I'm very interested in hearing your response to this very practical, very real question that Rose brought to the discussion:


Our legal system, too, practices this schizophrenic answer to the question of "is an unborn child a person?"... if a pregnant woman walking down a street is hit by a car and her baby is lost, then it's a homicide; if the pregnant woman walking next to her steps out of the way of the oncoming car, and then walks into a clinic and has an abortion, it's an exercise of reproductive choice. Rose's question remains -- how can one be a "child" protected by the law and the other simply an exercise of a "choice" to be killed by his mother?

_________________
Larry

When I found your words, I devoured them; they became my joy and the happiness of my heart, Because I bore your name, O LORD.

-- Jeremiah 15:16

There is a lot to answer and explain, but it is late here so forgive me but I will try to do so tomorrow. In the meantime let me emphasise that I do not believe that being in favour of choice means that you are in favour of one of the options. For me it means that you accept that there are competing views, sincerely held by people looking at issues from different perspectives. This means that, for me anyway, it is perfectly possible to be both pro-choice and pro-life at the same time. My purpose in expressing this viewpoint here is to try to explain how people like me feel, and to learn your reaction. I often feel that the pro-life lobby really don't understand that those on the pro-choice side of the debate are not wicked people, but are facing the same problems and just reaching different conclusions. Without dialogue how is it possible for mutual understanding to grow? If this is not the right place, and you all just want to swop identical views, that is your preogative, but I would be grateful if you could point me to somewhere where I could engage in a respectful conversation.

_________________
Vernon

Vernon,



Yes, because actually, we're morons who live in caves and we've never grappled with these questions ourselves.

I know how you feel. You've made it quite clear actually. You feel that people who accept abortion as a reasonable and viable alternative are perfectly nice human beings who happen to differ with us. I agree that some of them are...they really do not see any contradiction between despising unborn life when it is inconvenient and somehow, in their heads also simultaneously, valuing the more convenient forms of life..those already here, those born after nine months, etc.

I know how these people feel...I grew up with them and I count them amongst my dearest friends.

Weird world isn't it?

Look, as far as getting out more...really??? I live in Los Angeles, I live in one of the most cosmopolitan cities on earth that happens to represent, through Hollywood, many of the prevailing mores of our times. The vast majority of my friends do not share my values, are not theists and at best are agnostics. When I say I don't know anyone who believes that abortion is a reasonable answer to the "problem" of unwanted pregnancy who doesn't also believe..when pressed for logical consistency, in infanticide, I'm speaking of people whom I have known for more than 25 years and who are intellectually honest. They recognize that one cannot hold that a 6 month old fetus is worthless but somehow, a born human being at birth is worth something. They're honest...if nothing else, they're honest. They recognize and admit to me that it is a lie to suggest that the child in the womb is other than a human being. They admit to a prejudice against certain human beings...those who are unborn. The more honest among them say that they do not recognize a difference between the 7 month old fetus and the 1 day old newborn.

Why viability? Exactly what is it about viability that makes you come to the conclusion that one should not kill (and kill it is whether you believe it to be the murder of a full human being...you are killing something right?) a viable fetus (though in your opinion as who is viable and who is not continues to shift)

Once you believe that something can be killed than it's just a matter of under what circumstances and when and that just comes down to a matter of convenience. I do not believe that those who believe in abortion are Nazi's, but clearly, they share a basic Nazi belief..one that Hitler made clear at the very beginning...some humans beings matter and some do not and it is the state that decides which is which, under the Nazis, that meant certain unborn human beings, certain born human beings..some based upon race and some based upon worth to the state..the retarded being an example of what is not worthy to live in Nazi eyes.

Do I believe that my next door neighbor with the two adorable little girls who seem to be great parents but who believe in abortion on demand are Nazi's? No...do I believe they possess the moral fortitude..the moral foundation to fight against a modern day Nazi...no..what leg do they have to stand on once the belief that some can be killed for the sake of convenience when it comes to the state deciding who should be killed...where is that line and by what moral grounds does it stand on besides your "opinion" and the "opinion" of others just like you who think that you are just as moral and pro-life as your next door neighbor who might be opposed to abortion.

Exactly what is your answer to those who would kill a 8 month old fetus who is found to be disabled? Where do you stand and what do you stand upon? You keep saying we don't understand those who differ...so, explain it to me please...what, other than your opinion, do you stand upon as your moral reasoning in the above statement about the murder of an 8 month old fetus who is disabled?

_________________
Valerie Garcia
vals1990@yahoo.com

"Listen, O my son, to the precepts of thy master, and incline the ear of thy heart, and cheerfully receive and faithfully execute the admonitions of thy loving Father, that by the toil of obedience thou mayest return to Him ....." St. Benedict

Vernon,

A right place for you to engage in a respectful discussion is one where:

1) You read and understand the house rules and honour them. You won’t find them if you don’t,

2) You don’t insinuate a place is not right and its members disrespectful just because they observe the rules that you have not,

3) You understand that respect is a two-way street. But so far I am getting the impression you want want to be treated so, but not willing to return the favour. Many of your comments of our members are simply just rude.

_________________
Ian DC
Blessed Ever Virgin Mary -- Sanctuary and resting-place of the Blessed Trinity where God dwells in greater and more divine splendour than anywhere else in the universe

Honey,

we all know there are differing viewpoints, but in this case, only one is right. Only one side is good. Only one side believes every life deserves to be lived. The other side is pure evil because it's based upon a belief that people should be allowed to murder other people. How is that belief not wicked? There's not a whole lot else to understand.

_________________
Rose West
"May God help us not to spoil His work" (Bl. Mother Theresa)

Chesterton wrote that the most sincere people are those in lunatic assylums. In other words, people can be sincerely and abjectly wrong. The truth (and morality) of a belief is not measured by the level of sincerity with which it is held. I can accept that wrong views are held by people. It doesn't mean I have to accept that their views should prevail in law or be shoved down the throats of our children to society's destruction.

If I'm in favor of choice for slavery, sexual use of boys, the slaughter of Muslims, because I accept that there are competing views, sincerely held by people looking at issues from different perspectives, is this an acceptable opinion for you? Should we allow those who sincerely want to do these things to do them? Why not, if we're in favor of choice?

_________________
Dean
Most people's sense of history goes back to breakfast time - Benjamin Netanyahu

If Vernon is still around:



What same problems are being faced? The pro-life lobby is facing the problem of babies being killed. The other side is facing the problem of a baby existing, and that baby's existence being in conflict with the desires of the mother. It's not even a common problem the two sides face. I often feel that the pro-choice lobby has its desired conclusion already in mind (i.e. the mother's desires win out) and the only question is how to dispose of the thing that says the mother must temper her desires.

_________________
Dean
Most people's sense of history goes back to breakfast time - Benjamin Netanyahu

I am taking some time to decide whether to reply to the various statements which have been made in response to my questions and postings because I have been quite genuinely shocked to read some of them. I stand accused of many things, including being rude, condescending and evil. Never in my life have such things been said to me before and I reject them all. I am a kind and considerate guy who merely seeks engagement.
You will have realised that I am not a Catholic, but my wife is, and I attend her Church with her on occasions, know many of the congregation and participate with them in various charitable schemes. They are ordinary folk, as mixed a bunch as you will find anywhere else. I can discuss the issue of abortion with many of them without receiving the kind of reaction I have here. There are one or two for whom it is an over-riding matter and who cannot bring themselves to discuss the subject with anyone holding an alternative view, but they are in the minority. The most reasonable of all is the Priest, who holds a completely pragmatic viewpoint. We share much more than we disagree about.
Hence my real shock and dismay at the re-action here. I remain puzzled and disturbed by it and am unsure whether to continue. Yes, I did read the rules, and have re-read them. I see no conflict in trying to improve mutual understanding.

_________________
Vernon

Vernon,




That is the problem there is NO mutual understanding. Abortion is evil it is that simple. To give credence to a Pro-Choice position would be to support that evil. There is no member here who is so unsophisticated who doesn't realize that Pro-Choice is the mindset of many and that Abortion is prevalent around the world. Are we to give up and say therefore it is okay? or Do we do what little we can to change a mind even if we stop just one Abortion we have made progress.

_________________
Bob C

Vernon,

I have the same issue with "understanding" that I do with "acceptance"; people seem to use it without defining it.

Do I understand the pro-choice position? Absolutely I do.

It all has to do with axioms.

They believe that the child is part of the mother, in the same way my kidney is part of me. They also believe in personal sovereignty over their bodies. It is theirs, and like any property, they can do with as they think best. We may not agree with those decisions, and some of those decisions are wiser, and possibly more moral than others, but on at the very least a civic basis, they have the right to decide what to do with their bodies. They may not have a MORAL right to do that, but government cannot be in the business of legislating morality. Or, if it can, it cannot be in the business of legislating theology, and it is only Judeo-Christian theology which can make the case that a zygote/embryo/fetus is a child with rights.

So yeah, I understand it. I was pro-choice. It makes intuitive sense. It was the first position I came to on my own.

Honestly, I can understand the position of suiciding bombing Muslim fundamentalist terrorists. Their axioms are different, they believe that self-martyrdom is a worthwhile pursuit, that God condones it and sees it as a legitimate tactic in the advancement of his Kingdom on earth. That it is better for all involved, including victims, because it might save their souls and those of their families and countrymen.

I could make the point for Nazis. Even for Timothy McVeigh.

We can understand just fine. So clearly "understanding" is not the objective here.

So I ask you outright, Vernon, what are you really seeking here? Are you seeking for us to admit that abortion is a legitimate option? We won't. No more than we will that the Holocaust was legitimate, that suicide bombing is legitimate, or walking up to you on the street and putting a bullet n your brain is legitimate. Because it's not. Are you seeking for us to understand that we differ on axioms, and that given those different axioms, abortion is a legitimate option? I think we already understand that.

So what is your objective? I'm not saying I think I know what your objective is. I'm just trying to clarify it.

_________________
Jeff Stevens

Bob



I don't suggest for one moment that you could change your opinion. What I am suggesting is that you try to understand that there are others who don't who are not evil or ignorant folk. The root of the problem lies deep. If you are a non believer, not just a non Catholic but an atheist, then you do not believe in the concept of a person having a soul. For such folk humans have evolved to be as they are. I don't expect you to agree with that position, but for those who believe it everything is looked at differently. That doesn't make them evil. It doesn't even make them pro-abortion, for I have truly never met such a person. It can though make them pro-choice.

Jeff

I could not make a case for the Nazis, or for McVeigh for I think they were really evil, and probably mentally disturbed. Muslim fundamentalists are a different case for they have been brainwashed into their way of thinking and most given no opportunity for come to another view. That cannot be said about those in the western democracies. We all have plenty of opportunity to learn and evaluate. So I think it is disingenious to try to make an association between such people and those who hold a pro-choice position, who are not either evil or mentally disturbed. They just come to a different view.

You ask why I am here. I see much good being done by Catholics, but I also see some of the positions being taken as being counter productive. Alienating people like me doesn't help. I loath the way abortion has become almost another means of contraception and want to see it's use considerably reduced, but that it should remain legal, so when it is permitted it is done safely. I want to see the need for women to seek an abortion as low as possible by not becoming unintentionally pregnant in the first place. How that is achieved is for another discussion, though I suspect our respective approaches will vary. I was hoping to find some common ground upon which we could build because I fear that unless that happens things will get worse, and not better.

_________________
Vernon

Vernon,



Why do you loathe the way abortion has become another means of contraception? Why is it something that needs to be reduced?

_________________
Dean
Most people's sense of history goes back to breakfast time - Benjamin Netanyahu

Vernon,



Just as a point of fact (and we should not change the discussion but I'm merely correcting your misunderstanding).

Catholics do not believe we would be breaking a commandment if we kill someone under those circumstances.

Again this isn't a place to discuss that....just that I thought you'd want to know. If you search the forum there have been many discussions about pacifism, self defense, just war, etc.

_________________
Valerie Garcia
vals1990@yahoo.com

"Listen, O my son, to the precepts of thy master, and incline the ear of thy heart, and cheerfully receive and faithfully execute the admonitions of thy loving Father, that by the toil of obedience thou mayest return to Him ....." St. Benedict

Vernon,

Forgive me, I did not see an actual answer to my question there. What do you mean by "understand"?

Perhaps I can find it in your message to Bob.


So what you want us to agree with is that people who are pro-choice are not evil or ignorant. I'm seriously asking, is that what you want us to agree with?

Abortion is the slaughter of a million innocent human children every year. How can that NOT be a result of evil or ignorance? Please give me another explanation for how one can believe that someone should have the legitimate choice to murder an innocent human child and that's NOT a result of evil or ignorance?


Their soul has nothing to do with the legality of abortion. Abortion is murder. Murder is not illegal because of the existence or non-existence of the soul. It can be understood from pure human reason that both murder and abortion are evil.

I understand that you're trying to show us that pro-choice people are not evil, and that this is so because they come from another perspective. I call that "they have different axioms", above. It's the same thing. What we are trying to explain to you is that we are fully aware that they have different axioms. Those axioms lead them to a conclusion which is logically necessary given those axioms. But that conclusion is so abhorrent, so mind-bogglingly catastrophically evil, that it only points out how wrong their axioms are, and has no impact whatsoever on the fact that the conclusion is abhorrent and mind-bogglingly catastrophically evil.

_________________
Jeff Stevens

Vernon,

With all the responses so far -- whether you deem them as inappropriate to you as a non-Catholic or not -- it should be very clear that the Catholic position on abortion cannot change. Any proposal to act on abortion that does not ultimately lead to the end of it, legal or not in civil law, immediately kills all hope for any group wanting to find a common ground to work with Catholics on this issue.

By our baptismal vows, we are forever bound to upholding the Law of God and bringing all people to His Truth about life. If you now only know this, I am not too sure where you want this discussion to lead us to. But if I were a non-Catholic I would like to know why Catholics have stubbornly dug in their heels in on abortion and refuse to budge. You might want to consider this avenue to move this thread forward.

_________________
Ian DC
Blessed Ever Virgin Mary -- Sanctuary and resting-place of the Blessed Trinity where God dwells in greater and more divine splendour than anywhere else in the universe

Rose,



Thanks.

_________________
James Daly

"It is the Lord." (Jn 21:7)

Bob,



Thanks.

_________________
James Daly

"It is the Lord." (Jn 21:7)

Jeff



I don't know that I am asking that you agree with anything. What I am suggesting is that there is a recognition that there is another, sincerely held, point of view and that it is better to try to work with people than against them.



For an atheist that is easily done because the abortion of an unviable foetus is not the "slaughter of an innocent child". That does not make abortion a desirable or pleasant experience, but it is not "murder" because what has been lost is not a child. It has the potential to become a child, but that is, to their way of thinking, quite different. Now I fully understand that is not your opinion, but holding an opinion does not mean it is either a fact, or that those who don't share it are evil or ignorant. They just have another opinion, to which they are as entitled as you are to yours.

Ian



I don't think anyone who has engaged with Catholics on this issue would expect them to change their position on abortion. However, to write off any hope of trying to find some common ground, upon which to construct an agenda which could be used to make progress, seems very regrettable. There would be no need to set aside your ultimate objectives, or any reason to hide them, but sometimes disparate groups can have aims which overlap, even if they are not identical. It happens all the time, in many different circumstances and I recommend it here too. Without it I fear that your arguments will not be heard by many, and regarded by those who do as out of touch and controlling. Taking the moral high ground might appear to be the only place you can occupy, but if it gets you no-where is it a sensible place to be? If you truly believe that you will achieve more by refusing to budge then I will certainly be interested to hear why you believe that for it seems to me to be a self defeating policy.

_________________
Vernon

Vernon,

A couple of things stand out from all your posts here.

1) You tell us you are not anti-pro-choice and you dislike abortion, implying you don't abhor it.

2) Your goal is to reduce the necessity of abortion and it is in this particular area, you think that probably Catholics -- without compromising their beliefs and working towards our own goal to see the end of the killing of babies -- can work with people similar to your way of thinking.

I'll leave other points aside for the moment because I am interested to know from you in what areas you believe we can possibly find common ground and work towards both our respective ends.

_________________
Ian DC
Blessed Ever Virgin Mary -- Sanctuary and resting-place of the Blessed Trinity where God dwells in greater and more divine splendour than anywhere else in the universe

Ian



The first thing I think we should do is to try to not only understand the alternative view, but to accept that those who hold it do so for perfectly respectable reasons. If we can agree that a desirable outcome, which would only be a first step for you, would be to steadily reduce the number of abortions then the question must be how. If we can accept that Catholics have different expectations of marriage, and the use of artificial birth control methods, and that no-one will ever seek to change them, then we ought also to accept that there are others who have different expectations and are prepared to use ABC. However, within the latter group there remains a huge amount of ignorance and a lack of discipline over the consequences of irresponsible sexual behaviour. If this could be improved then unwanted pregancy levels would fall and the demand for abortion would fall with it. With lower numbers the opportunities to counsel those who did still fall pregnant, and provide adoption alternatives would be greater.
No-one would expect a Catholic to become an advocate for ABC but helping with the counselling and adoption, whilst not campaigning against ABC for those who seek it, could produce a partnership approach, rather than the confrontational one which exists currently. I want to see a much more comprehensive approach to relationship and sex education than we have today. The Catholic Church appears to resist attempts at "reproductive health" education, not just for their own members, but for the population at large and I believe this policy needs to be reviewed.
It would help if we could avoid emotional language, such as "the killing of babies", for this is bound to divide, rather than heal.
This won't eliminate abortion, or make it illegal, but it would produce a much better situation than that which we have right now. Setting achievable goals seems to me to be better than aiming for something which you might feel passionate about but which, in your heart of hearts, you know is unreachable.

_________________
Vernon

Vernon,

I'll let others answer more in detail what you posted but I will give you a quick run down.

1) You are right on the Catholic Church stand on marriage and the use of contraceptives, it can never change.

2) The Church has always work with non-Catholics on improving the lives of the masses, especially the poor, and our aid and counselling to mothers -- married or single -- with unwanted pregnancies and helping them out with the adoption of their babies is already an institution globally, we have been doing this for centuries. It is left to you and those with the same aspirations as you who want to reduce abortions to plug into our system to see how you can work with us.

3) We cannot keep silent on contraceptives, it is in the Church's DNA to speak the truth and against those who interfere in the giving of new life.

4) Reproductive health education will never get the Church's nod when it does not educate what the Church teaches about marriage and God's gift of life as a result of the union of men and women as one in that marriage.

5) The central problem with abortion is that many do not see it as the killing of life and the Church will never allow herself to be shut up in driving home this point. Just as the people of goodwill in the Second World War could not keep silent that the extermination of the Jews by the Nazis was the murder of innocent men, women and children, the Church cannot keep silent and must witness abortion as the killing of babies. So no compromise here.

What can possible be an avenue of cooperation between Catholics and non-Catholics, including the men and women of goodwill among atheists, is to promote education on the meaning of marriage between a man and a woman, that any kind of sexual encounters outside of it is wrong because this is where the problem of unwanted pregnancies start.

_________________
Ian DC
Blessed Ever Virgin Mary -- Sanctuary and resting-place of the Blessed Trinity where God dwells in greater and more divine splendour than anywhere else in the universe

JMJ

Nonsense. Abortion rates (and STDs) skyrocket precisely where contraceptives are more easily available and moral relativism reigns unchallenged. Both contraceptives and abortion are born of the same utilitarian approach to life. Because contraception fails more often than advertised and greatly reduces the moral sensitivity of those who make use of it, people resort to baby-killing anyway. Abortion is in most cases the result of failed contraception and is sought by educated women just as uneducated ones as "plan b" after failed contraception.

To posit that the Church today has such a strong influence over people's behavior as to reduce the efectiveness of contraception on a planetary scale with its preaching is also the fruit of absolute ignorance of the facts as fueled by the mainstream media and of having never spent five seconds to think logically. The Church is in most places an absolute minority, even in nations formerly of Catholic culture. People who follow the Church's teaching on sexuality and contraception are a an absolute minority on this planet, and certainly the availbaility of contraceptives is in no way reduced by our presence anywhere. But I have bad news for you, Vernon: we cannot compromise on abortion and contraception because they are intrinsically evil, contrary to reason and to natural law: in other words it is not just the Bible, it is not Revelation that obliges us to stand up against barbaric customs, but reason. To say that we want to impose religious beliefs on society because we are against baby-killing or contraception is to say that murder and theft should be legalized since they are forbidden by the Ten Commandments and we can't have religion-based legislation. And of course private property should be abolished, since it is protected by the same moral law and we want "separation of Church and State" don't we. Wait, I can think of an ideology or two that actually support these examples of madness as their founding principles. Because reality is one, what is contrary reason, to human dignity and natural law is therefore also against the faith and God's law. On things that pertain to the functioning of society people do not have to be all Catholics to be against murder, theft and slavery or what have you. They only need to be civil.

So, abortion should be outlawed even in non-Catholic countries. What it takes is some brains and some heart, not necessarily our faith. And because abortion is murder, once people are exposed to the reality of what abortion is they become anti-abortion, because murder is unacceptable for any society that intends to survive. Catholic or not. Of course the world is far from our positions these days. Well, that can change. Don't we have a right to propose our views? What if we can convince enough people? What if these people voted accordingly and we managed to have just and humane legislations and representatives who rejected and repealed the law of the jungle and treated human beings as human beings? Our position would become "legal" then, no? According to you, it is all it takes for it to be right and undisputable, so I don't see your problem with us. Parliaments could even forbid schools, adoptive or biological parents, gtoups, media and so forth to "confuse children" (your words) with views of sexuality we don't agree with. We would be the majority no? So no problem there. I mean, if all truth is relative and thus doesn't exist at all, what would be wrong with us "legally" building a system different from that desired by secularists who are content with 50M innocents killed every year, a WWII-scale death toll every 12 months (it took WWII 6 years to kill as many people and not all of them innocents)?

No we will not compromise, for there is no halfway between murder and respect of life, between life and death, between freedom and slavery, between racism, eugenics and love of humanity, between selfishness and generosity, between right and wrong, between civilization and barbarity.

Ask her, burned alive with a saline solution in the very womb of her mother after 3-4 months if she would support a "comprehensive approach" to her own execution and cooperate with the doctor, the culture and the "legal" system that did this to her:

Compromise with me for a minute and visit our Sanctity of Life Library or google "aborted babies" for images of "non persons" that were "not killed" because they never were in the first place. . Blob of cells, extra tissue, nothing more. Those killed in other ways might be less pleasant to watch, so be warned, reality knows no "comprehensive approach" to facts.

_________________
FabrizioParty like it's 1773

No one can be at the same time a good Catholic and a true socialist (Pius XI)

Fabrizio

I won't attempt a detailed reply to your post for I am familiar with your arguments and the use of provocative images. I also cannot imagine that folk who take such a line will find a way to approach the compromises I am suggesting. That is of course your choice, although I regret it and believe that it is self defeating. You are of course right in your suggestion that your influence is limited in many places, but not in all, and I think you could gain much more in some if you adopted the strategy I am recommending. That you cannot personally is clear, but I wonder if everyone will see it that way. I can only tell you that I have already met a number of Catholics who take a more conciliatory line and was hoping to meet some more here. Maybe they don't use this site but I retain my hope.

Ian



Can I ask. Do you think you have the right to interfere in the decisions of those who do not share your views? No-one would propose stopping you speaking what you perceive as the truth to your own membership but surely it should stop there. If we accept that non Catholics are not going to accept your teaching would it not be better to ensure that they behave in the best way possible? If they currently regard abortion as an alternative to contraception would it not be better to have them educated about effective contraception? I know you have a problem with accepting the concept of a "lesser evil" and that you should never accept a "sin" to avoid a greater one, but here is a classic opportunity of trying to find a "least worse" option. What I am seeking are results and not idealism.

_________________
Vernon

Vernon,





Do you think that emotions have no place in informing the conscience of people? You know, the allies forced residents of a town close to one of the concentration camps to walk through the camp and see the bodies of the dead for themselves...to confront them with what they, collectively, ignored. Do you believe that to be wrong because it was "provocative".

The pictures of the camps remain today in museums, in various books and textbooks and so on and they are there precisely to provoke in people revulsion, disgust, pain, sadness, anger and every emotion that human beings possess that naturally propel them to fight against the thing that causes those emotions.

It is easy to distance oneself from the humanity of the suffering of others if you can just turn a blind eye to it. How many people are moved to donate to areas where there is starvation precisely because of the pictures of starving human beings, how many pictures of bald, sick children are used to promote cancer research and how are pictures of aborted babies any different?

_________________
Valerie Garcia
vals1990@yahoo.com

"Listen, O my son, to the precepts of thy master, and incline the ear of thy heart, and cheerfully receive and faithfully execute the admonitions of thy loving Father, that by the toil of obedience thou mayest return to Him ....." St. Benedict

Vernon, I find it interesting that in an earlier post you wrote:

Then later...

and finally...

Do you not believe that Hitler "sincerely and honestly" believed that extermination of Jews was a necessity for the progression of the Aryan people?

Given the opportunity, would you have interfered with his decision?

Now I am aware that you posted that you said you..."could not make a case for the Nazis because (you believe) they were really evil and probably mentally disturbed." so I assume that you would have interceded, given the opportunity.

Can I ask you...do you expect people who sincerely and honestly hold the opinion that to kill a fetus is to kill an unborn child not to do their utmost to prevent the perpetration of such evil?

What you are asking of us is to betray our conviction that abortion is murder and murder is wrong; to respect the beliefs of those who don't believe abortion is murder.

How is that different from asking someone that though they disagree with the extermination of the Jews, while working to reduce the number of Jews killed, they should respect that a number of Germans believe that Jews should be exterminated?

Now, your response will most likely be — because you've already said it — that what HItler did was evil and not at all like abortion.

You seem not to be able to understand (or at least, not to accept) that to most people on this forum, abortion, like the Holocaust, is mass murder.

I don't see the difference between asking we who view abortion as murder to work with those who perpetrate the act or asking those who opposed the Holocaust to respect the view of the Nazis, while working to save as many Jews as possible.

(corrected by mod as per post below.rw)

_________________
In Christ,

Jim B

I will consider your position if stated with firm, well-thought-out, quiet reasoning. Hateful diatribe, ad hominem attacks and shouted rhetoric don't impress.

JMJ

Oh I know you are, since you've been here before under different aliases playing mr. candy-coated venom. And you won't attempt a detailed reply because you haven't a shred of a logical point to hang on to and every reply would be torn to even finer pieces by me or someone else, followed by you going elsewhere for a while to vent over at hate-filled "humanist" sites, telling them how we violated your human rights by disagreeing with you. This is one reason why I don't buy your hodgepodge of stale mantras by which you wish to blame the Church and her stance on condoms for suicide rates and all sorts of disasters in the third world. I know also that you are sooner offended by straight talk than by the picture of a dead baby killed in the name of "comprehensive approach", according to the new name hypocrisy gave callousness.

Sure, because the first thougth in the morning of a guy like you is to give good "strategic" advice to a guy like me so that I can attain my objectives. Sorry, not buying this one either. I know how much you hate the Church, so don't tell me you want to help us. You only wish to change us and to fish for gullible people hoping to help them stray away from common sense. But you came to the wrong place as you should have learned a long time ago. The reality is just that you have a lot of time in your hands and an obsession with the Catholic Church, and for personal reasons. So it's a "feeling" thing, it's grudge, not disagreement. Reasoned opinions have nothing to do with this. So I'll answer to you only if I deem it useful to illustrate the contradictions of your reasoning, like when you say with a straight face that parents who educate children to ordered sexuality actually "confuse" them so it is right to take them away from those who love them and want to give them a family. And then it is we who "interfere" with everybody else's life when we profess that innocent life is sacred. That enormity alone illustrates all there is to know about your lack of charity and of any desire for a real dialogue, forget reasoning.

"Common ground" for you is that we renounce our principles and shut up lest we "interfere" with your oh so "legal" inhumane survival of the fittest. Sorry comrade, this isn't a respectful basis for dialogue of any kind a man can accept. Doesn't mean I won't reply, only that I'll do it on my terms.

_________________
FabrizioParty like it's 1773

No one can be at the same time a good Catholic and a true socialist (Pius XI)

like

_________________
In Christ,

Jim B

I will consider your position if stated with firm, well-thought-out, quiet reasoning. Hateful diatribe, ad hominem attacks and shouted rhetoric don't impress.

Val

We are a little off thread here but:-



I think Hitler was almost certainly mentally ill and those at the top, who followed him willingly, were evil. Such people exist today in many societies. They may take different causes as their primary objectives but they exist. I sense their presence everywhere. Would I have interceded? Given the greater access to information we have now I hope I would today, but then? I am not sure. Many folk were seriously misled and then intimidated. That includes lots of Catholics too. It was a different time and genuine comparisons hard to make.



Of course they do and in the case of the Allies they were clearly right to do so. If it is correct to equate what the Nazis did in their death camps to abortion then so would you be now. There is though a big difference. No-one in the civilised world would argue that what the Nazis did was acceptable. It was abhorrent to all. Abortion clearly does not fit into the same category. It is abhorrent to you, but not to everyone. To use disturbing images as an emotional blackmail might be seen for what they are by people like me but are not a reasonable action to take when they might be seen by vulnerable people, who need help. The pictures look like a baby, but they are not of a baby. They are of foetus. You see no difference, and so might the vulnerable. I do.

Fabizio



No sir, although it is re-assuring to learn that others have tried before me. I have no venom in me, although reading some of the replies causes me to wonder if there is not quite a lot lying about. I have had "baloney" said to me several times. As I sure you are aware there are many people who would categorise your whole belief system in such, or even stronger terms. I don't use them, for I think we should all show respect, but those who do are perfectly sane and reasonable people who simply view the world from a different perspective.
All I am trying to do is find a way to have some dialogue. It seems unlikely this will be with you personally. Thats OK. You cannot win them all. Maybe this site is used only by the conservative wing of the Catholic faith so I will find no-one with a willingness to engage. Maybe the more liberal amongst the Catholics get frightened off the site by the rhetoric. I cannot force you and don't intend to try.

I will now bide my time for a while for I have no more to add to this particular subject and we are going to go around in circles.

_________________
Vernon

Vernon


I have two words to describe you in your description of the real evidence given to you in that photograph: You are sick and evil.

This is the agenda of the pro-choice camp. They want to pull wool over the eyes of people of goodwill, after they have succeeded in pulling them over their own eyes. They commit murder and then lie to themselves it is not.


So are those who today follow the abortionists and willfully kill babies for their own convenience.


You are certainly right, they do exist and this time they kill babies and are called abortionists.

Vernon,

You come here and put on a show with your sweet talk that Catholics and people like you should find a common ground in tackling abortion. But like the previous times you were here it is all condescending nonsense. From your replies and especially that of the aborted baby shown to you in the photo above, you have shown your true colours and your real intentions to be evil.


Catholics don’t do evil, not in any degree. Period.


Let’s see what you called our members and what you thought of their replies:

“unrealistic dreamers”
“Such ridiculous, emotional nonsense” (when we equate abortion, euthanasia to Nazi killing)
“a typical "fudged" Catholic answer”
“you should get out more”
“you have a difficult relationship with lots of people”
“idealism”


You are welcome if you want to learn more of the Catholic faith, but don’t bother coming back if you are going to give us more of your rubbish.

_________________
Ian DC
Blessed Ever Virgin Mary -- Sanctuary and resting-place of the Blessed Trinity where God dwells in greater and more divine splendour than anywhere else in the universe