Catholic politicians must be held accountable for pro-abortion views

[Akita Suggagaki]

So none of your links ever got around to refuting human life begins at conception (fertilization).

I am not denying that human life begins at conception. The debate is around when that life is considered a "baby" and entitled to full human rights. But we have digressed form the topic of holding Catholic politicians accountable. I admit that I lead the way for the digression because of the counterproductive language that is often used to shut down dialogue.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

“And so as bishops I think it’s our obligation to lovingly challenge people who are wandering from the fold and bring them back,” stated Strickland. “And if they refuse, then there does come a point where you say, “You’re out of Communion.”

I agree with the Bishop. But "lovingly challenge" must involve a respectful, tactful, diplomatic discussion.

 

[JacksBratt]

It's not pro- abortion. It is pro- choice.

Same thing... Saying "Pro Choice" is watering it down.....It's still Pro Abortion. Unless they stand up and say.... "I'm Pro Choice" the baby should have a choice".

 

[redleghunter]

I am not denying that human life begins at conception.

Ok, good.

The debate is around when that life is considered a "baby" and entitled to full human rights.

Yes the subjective philosophical "personhood" question some ask. I guess the question is "when does human life move from a sub-human status morally to a full human status morally?" I think your own church answers this nicely:

2270 Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person - among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life.72



Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you.73
My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately wrought in the depths of the earth.74

2271 Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law:



You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish.75
God, the Lord of life, has entrusted to men the noble mission of safeguarding life, and men must carry it out in a manner worthy of themselves. Life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception: abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes.76

2272 Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life. "A person who procures a completed abortion incurs excommunication latae sententiae,"77 "by the very commission of the offense,"78 and subject to the conditions provided by Canon Law.79 The Church does not thereby intend to restrict the scope of mercy. Rather, she makes clear the gravity of the crime committed, the irreparable harm done to the innocent who is put to death, as well as to the parents and the whole of society.

2273 The inalienable right to life of every innocent human individual is a constitutive element of a civil society and its legislation:

"The inalienable rights of the person must be recognized and respected by civil society and the political authority. These human rights depend neither on single individuals nor on parents; nor do they represent a concession made by society and the state; they belong to human nature and are inherent in the person by virtue of the creative act from which the person took his origin. Among such fundamental rights one should mention in this regard every human being's right to life and physical integrity from the moment of conception until death."80

"The moment a positive law deprives a category of human beings of the protection which civil legislation ought to accord them, the state is denying the equality of all before the law. When the state does not place its power at the service of the rights of each citizen, and in particular of the more vulnerable, the very foundations of a state based on law are undermined. . . . As a consequence of the respect and protection which must be ensured for the unborn child from the moment of conception, the law must provide appropriate penal sanctions for every deliberate violation of the child's rights."81

2274 Since it must be treated from conception as a person, the embryo must be defended in its integrity, cared for, and healed, as far as possible, like any other human being. ​

Catechism of the Catholic Church - PART 3 SECTION 2 CHAPTER 2 ARTICLE 5

• From earliest times, Christians sharply distinguished themselves from surrounding pagan cultures by rejecting abortion and infanticide. The earliest widely used documents of Christian teaching and practice after the New Testament in the 1st and 2nd centuries, the Didache (Teaching of the Twelve Apostles) and Letter of Barnabas, condemned both practices, as did early regional and particular Church councils.
  
  
• To be sure, knowledge of human embryology was very limited until recent times. Many Christian thinkers accepted the biological theories of their time, based on the writings of Aristotle (4th century BC) and other philosophers. Aristotle assumed a process was needed over time to turn the matter from a woman's womb into a being that could receive a specifically human form or soul. The active formative power for this process was thought to come entirely from the man – the existence of the human ovum (egg), like so much of basic biology, was unknown.
  
  
• However, such mistaken biological theories never changed the Church's common conviction that abortion is gravely wrong at every stage. At the very least, early abortion was seen as attacking a being with a human destiny, being prepared by God to receive an immortal soul (cf. Jeremiah 1:5: "Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you").
  
  
• In the 5th century AD this rejection of abortion at every stage was affirmed by the great bishop-theologian St. Augustine. He knew of theories about the human soul not being present until some weeks into pregnancy. Because he used the Greek Septuagint translation of the Old Testament, he also thought the ancient Israelites had imposed a more severe penalty for accidentally causing a miscarriage if the fetus was "fully formed" (Exodus 21: 22-23), language not found in any known Hebrew version of this passage. But he also held that human knowledge of biology was very limited, and he wisely warned against misusing such theories to risk committing homicide. He added that God has the power to make up all human deficiencies or lack of development in the Resurrection, so we cannot assume that the earliest aborted children will be excluded from enjoying eternal life with God.
  
  
• In the 13th century, St. Thomas Aquinas made extensive use of Aristotle's thought, including his theory that the rational human soul is not present in the first few weeks of pregnancy. But he also rejected abortion as gravely wrong at every stage, observing that it is a sin "against nature" to reject God's gift of a new life.
  
  
• During these centuries, theories derived from Aristotle and others influenced the grading of penalties for abortion in Church law. Some canonical penalties were more severe for a direct abortion after the stage when the human soul was thought to be present. However, abortion at all stages continued to be seen as a grave moral evil.
  
  
• From the 13th to 19th centuries, some theologians speculated about rare and difficult cases where they thought an abortion before "formation" or "ensoulment" might be morally justified. But these theories were discussed and then always rejected, as the Church refined and reaffirmed its understanding of abortion as an intrinsically evil act that can never be morally right.
  
  
• In 1827, with the discovery of the human ovum, the mistaken biology of Aristotle was discredited. Scientists increasingly understood that the union of sperm and egg at conception produces a new living being that is distinct from both mother and father. Modern genetics demonstrated that this individual is, at the outset, distinctively human, with the inherent and active potential to mature into a human fetus, infant, child and adult. From 1869 onward the obsolete distinction between the "ensouled" and "unensouled" fetus was permanently removed from canon law on abortion.
  
  
• Secular laws against abortion were being reformed at the same time and in the same way, based on secular medical experts' realization that "no other doctrine appears to be consonant with reason or physiology but that which admits the embryo to possess vitality from the very moment of conception" (American Medical Association, Report on Criminal Abortion, 1871).
  
  
• Thus modern science has not changed the Church's constant teaching against abortion, but has underscored how important and reasonable it is, by confirming that the life of each individual of the human species begins with the earliest embryo.
  

• Given the scientific fact that a human life begins at conception, the only moral norm needed to understand the Church's opposition to abortion is the principle that each and every human life has inherent dignity, and thus must be treated with the respect due to a human person. This is the foundation for the Church's social doctrine, including its teachings on war, the use of capital punishment, euthanasia, health care, poverty and immigration. Conversely, to claim that some live human beings do not deserve respect or should not be treated as "persons" (based on changeable factors such as age, condition, location, or lack of mental or physical abilities) is to deny the very idea of inherent human rights. Such a claim undermines respect for the lives of many vulnerable people before and after birth.

Respect for Unborn Human Life: The Church's Constant Teaching

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Same thing... Saying "Pro Choice" is watering it down.....It's still Pro Abortion. Unless they stand up and say.... "I'm Pro Choice" the baby should have a choice".

No, there is a distinction. Not the same thing.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

And I'm not speaking of situations where the women's life is at risk.

Why not?

 

[Blade]

Does anything get past the lord? If what David.. or GOD said ..Against you, you only, have I sinned and done what is evil in your sight; so you are right in your verdict and justified when you judge.

Forgive me.. some of you REALLY dig into this.. AWESOME! But.. what MAN was given the right to say WHEN live starts? God.. is not going to listen to that.

And this below... must be taken into account. Sperm-egg.. holy JESUS.. just mind blowing..
"A bioengineer and geneticist at Harvard’s Wyss Institute have successfully stored 5.5 petabits of data — around 700 terabytes — in a single gram of DNA, smashing the previous DNA data density record by a thousand times."

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Does anything get past the lord? If what David.. or GOD said ..Against you, you only, have I sinned and done what is evil in your sight; so you are right in your verdict and justified when you judge.

Forgive me.. some of you REALLY dig into this.. AWESOME! But.. what MAN was given the right to say WHEN live starts? God.. is not going to listen to that.

And this below... must be taken into account. Sperm-egg.. holy JESUS.. just mind blowing..
"A bioengineer and geneticist at Harvard’s Wyss Institute have successfully stored 5.5 petabits of data — around 700 terabytes — in a single gram of DNA, smashing the previous DNA data density record by a thousand times."

well by the way, is DNA a living thing, life, or just a big molecule?

I am no biologist.

 

[redleghunter]

Why not?

Because a doctor will try to save both mother and child.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Because a doctor will try to save both mother and child.

It depends on the Doctor, doesn't it.

 

[JacksBratt]

No, there is a distinction. Not the same thing.

Tell me the difference... let me guess.

Pro choice means that the woman... without the mans consent... can "CHOSE" to abort.. or not.

Tell me.... know any Pro choice that are Anti abortion? Huh?

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

It's not pro- abortion. It is pro- choice.

Pro-abortion seems more appropriate to me given how much 'pro-choice' people desire the right of mothers to kill their unborn children.

But I agree with the Bishop here though I would extend it to not only Catholics but all Christians who take Christian morality seriously. All Churches should hold their members accountable and bar them from communion and other Church rites until they adopt a Christian position in the public.

It seems disconcerting when we are told by Christian politicians that their faith doesn't impact them when they want to pass certain laws.

 

[tryphena rose]

No, there is a distinction. Not the same thing.

Pro-choice is most definitely watering down what abortion really is, which is the murder of unborn babies in the womb. In abortion clinics, they use the term "fetus" as the word baby becomes taboo. Choice sounds like a much nicer word than abortion just as fetus takes away from the humanity of the word baby, which works in favor of those wanting to kill the baby. It's why we have a whole generation deceived into thinking a fetus is nothing but a clump of cells.

It's especially great when you see feminists coming out and calling abortion what it really is instead of beating around the bush:

 

[Noscentia]

The subject of life is fairly settled at conception, and it most certainly deserves protection.

The subject of personhood is a bit trickier (from a secular standpoint), but I think it can at least be narrowed down. Viability is often cited as a potential criteria, but that is untenable. Viability varies widely between individual children and can be effected by genetics, by technology, by economic status (if you can afford/have access to better hospitals/health care.) So should personhood be determined in part by these things? Are poor people or the genetically afflicted somehow less than other people? I can't imagine anyone would say so.

Could it be the formation of certain internal structures? The heart? The brain? Humans are sometimes born with half a heart, some with half a brain, some have parts of their brains or hearts removed or their heart replaced in whole or in part with an artificial one. Heart/lung machines can keep someone without a working heart alive, or their heartbeats maintained by technology because their own hearts lack that function, and some with minimal brain function live their lives from beginning to end and no one would ever call any of them non-persons or less than a full person (or they shouldn't, anyway.)

The fact is that what should ultimately be paramount is the protection of life. It is far more important than trauma, it is more important than convenience or the looming dread of responsibility. That's why doctors won't hesitate to amputate a limb to save an individual if they can. If having to endure trauma was more important than life, then it would be better to let it go gangrenous and die so that the patient need not go through that.

But the part that baffles me the most are those who freely admit they aren't sure when they think life/personhood begins (which means to me that they admit they may very well be committing/condoning murder with abortion), but still hold that allowing it is still the safer option. I simply can't understand that kind of reasoning. For those who wish to take a position, the evidence is that life begins at the beginning, and to those sitting on the fence, it is far and above the safer option to take that position as well. If you're right, you have protected millions of lives from a ghastly, murderous fate. You have ensured their chances at a future. If you're somehow wrong, you've inconvenienced and perhaps traumatized millions of new mothers. Some may even die, which is a tragedy, without a doubt. However, while both are unfortunate, there really shouldn't be any question which is the more heinous.

 

[Jonathan Walkerin]

For those who wish to take a position, the evidence is that life begins at the beginning, and to those sitting on the fence, it is far and above the safer option to take that position as well. If you're right, you have protected millions of lives from a ghastly, murderous fate. You have ensured their chances at a future. If you're somehow wrong, you've inconvenienced and perhaps traumatized millions of new mothers. Some may even die, which is a tragedy, without a doubt. However, while both are unfortunate, there really shouldn't be any question which is the more heinous.

What really intrigues me with all of this is that how can people who believe abortion is murder totally equivalent of killing a born child still happily live in a society where this is allowed.

US has rougly 3000 abortions a day. People still live with that statistic apparently just fine. Would you live in a society where 3000 childrens were dragged from kindergarten a day and shot against the wall ? Would there be civil disobedience or a civil war because of that.

Yes, there would be. Especially in freedom loving gun happy US with traditions for freedom and abhorrance of tyrants.

But none of that is happening now is it ? That is because even if people loudly proclaim their stance that abortion is murder they do not really believe it themselves. Or if they do , they place their own comfort and security before that of those children they so heartily claim to defend.

What does that say about those people of God ? What will be their defence when facing the judgement of their nonaction ?

 

[Thir7ySev3n]

No. They are for a woman's right to choose abortion or not rather than have the government decide for her.

This has always been one of the greatest arguments against feminism. When given the right to choose, many women choose death, and worst of all the death of they that are most vulnerable in their own wombs.

I remember when I was very young hearing about cultures that engaged in child sacrifice and thinking how barbaric they were. It seemed so bizarre it was almost unbelievable. Now I live in a time where not only is it practiced in an allegedly advanced society, but is just as encouraged and even celebrated as a woman's right. Any human being that does this will give account as a murderer.

 

[Jonathan Walkerin]

Any human being that does this will give account as a murderer.

And those that stand by and do nothing ? God shows mercy on forum warriors ?

 

[Thir7ySev3n]

And those that stand by and do nothing ? God shows mercy on forum warriors ?

You may seem like a witty person to yourself when you type inept garbage like this, but it is nothing more than worthless presumption. To be honest, if it were legal, I would happily go to every abortion clinic near me and physically prevent it myself.

Til then, convicting the guilty of their murders is the only practical thing one can do without political influence. But I'm sure you already know how stupid your comment was all by yourself.

 

[Jonathan Walkerin]

You may seem like a witty person to yourself when you type inept garbage like this, but it is nothing more than worthless presumption. To be honest, if it were legal, I would happily go to every abortion clinic near me and physically prevent it myself.

I bet you would.....

Other fine thing I see on these forums is the endless yappering how we must obey the authorities unless they go against God`s word.

So killing innocent babies is not against God`s word ? Or we again have bit of trouble stepping out from our comfort zone ?

Til then, convicting the guilty of their murders is the only practical thing one can do without political influence.

Right, convicting the guilty on these forums is all you can do. That will surely make the difference.

And getting educated and inventing practical fertility control measure ? Guiding people on family planning ?
Giving money to prolife causes and politicians ? Marching for the cause ? Being willing to adopt children so their mothers feel they have more options ? Things like that ?

There is plenty of legal things you could do if you opt for it, but most of us just can not be bothered.

 

[Thir7ySev3n]

I bet you would.....

Other fine thing I see on these forums is the endless yappering how we must obey the authorities unless they go against God`s word.

So killing innocent babies is not against God`s word ? Or we again have bit of trouble stepping out from our comfort zone ?



Right, convicting the guilty on these forums is all you can do. That will surely make the difference.

And getting educated and inventing practical fertility control measure ? Guiding people on family planning ?
Giving money to prolife causes and politicians ? Marching for the cause ? Being willing to adopt children so their mothers feel they have more options ? Things like that ?

There is plenty of legal things you could do if you opt for it, but most of us just can not be bothered.

This logic is just as stupid as saying if I protest against theft, I have to become a police officer. If I detest people dying in house-fires, I must become a fireman. If I'm against gluttony, I need to become a dietitian. If I'm against ungodly music, I need to become an author of hymns. If I abhor lies, I must become an investigator.

What you suggest is humanly impossible as I would have to occupy myself against everything I am against to be "consistent" by this embarrassingly inept view you espouse. Murderers are required not to murder and liars not to lie. I am not empowered to be a vigilante against every injustice I recognize as such, but I am enabled to convict and rebuke those who insist on engaging and promoting it. To say anything more is not only absurd but would render Jesus and the apostles inconsistent and incompetent, as they did not physically overthrow systematic sins they opposed, but did regularly speak against it whenever presented the opportunity.