Author Topic: The problem with the pro-life movement (Read 7031 times)

Telesphorus · « **on:** July 21, 2012, 10:24:10 AM »

Quote

I agree that abortion is killing a child, I have never had an abortion myself and I am totally against it. I just feel really sorry for any woman who has an abortion, whatever her reasons. We have all done things wrong in our lives and have no right to point the finger at others and call them sɛҳuąƖly immoral, acting as if we are perfect ourselves. I want more counselling and alternatives to abortion to be offered to women and less judgementalism. pro lifers who judge will not help anyone, they will just cause anger and hatred. Jesus would have shown compassion for women who abort their children - He would not have called them murderesses, He said he came here for sinners. Not having a go at you - I know you care and want to save the babies. I can understand how you feel.

What about a man who kicks a pregnant woman and causes her to miscarry? Would our Lord just feel really sorry for him, whatever his reasons? If we judge him will that just cause anger and hatred? Jesus would show compassion for him and not call him a murderer?

Now this woman says it's the killing of a child but she says the Lord wouldn't call women who do it murderesses. What does this say about her? Either - women can't be called murderesses even though they commit murder, or abortion isn't murder. Child murdering women get a pass. And this woman thinks she's seriously opposed to abortion! (And unless we're "perfect" ourselves, we shouldn't say such people who resort to it typically do so to avoid the consequences of their sɛҳuąƖ immorality.)

Telesphorus · « **Reply #1 on:** July 21, 2012, 10:35:42 AM »

The quote highlighted above was from a woman on facebook

PenitentWoman · « **Reply #2 on:** July 21, 2012, 10:47:49 AM »

Many in the "pro-life" movement believe in hippy, femenized version of Jesus who is apathetic towards sin. That attitude, when placed with a society that doesn't accept that life begins at conception is a recipe for disaster. The woman who aborts IS a murderer, but she has societical acceptance as her accomplice.
Many in the NO want the Vatican to allow abortion for ectopic pregnancies and rape.

Would anyone be surprised if in 20 years Humane Vitae is "lightened up" to allow for such horrors? There are already theologians at NO universities pushing for it.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #3 on:** July 21, 2012, 01:36:37 PM »

Quote from: Telesphorus

...
Now this woman says it's the killing of a child, but she says the Lord wouldn't call women who do it murderesses.

What does this say about her? Either - women can't be called murderesses even though they commit murder, or abortion isn't murder...

There is a third option, which a good Catholic like you, Tele, is wont to abhor and
stand clear from: that this woman's subjective concept of Jesus is her own, one who
would conform to her expectations, one who is "imanent," as St. Pius X defined,
ex cathedra, in Pascendi. Likewise, she seems traditional and even
Catholic one minute, and the next she is objectively heretical. This is typical of
Modernists, and it has become so commonplace that it is seen as normal by most
everyone alive today, if they don't know about Modernism, that is. And anyone who
has not studied Pascendi, not just "read" it, but studied it, doesn't really know what
Modernism is.

PenitentWoman, you have the right sense of this. Everything you say here is true.
I am merely inserting the dogmatic definition in its place, so as to have a firm point
of reference.

Quote

Child murdering women get a pass. And this woman thinks she's seriously opposed to abortion! (And unless we're "perfect" ourselves, we shouldn't say such people who resort to it typically do so to avoid the consequences of their sɛҳuąƖ immorality.)

This is a very important topic.

There are a lot of well-meaning people who are involved in the pro-life movement
and are doing objectively good works, but they do it not out of a knowledge of the
Church's teaching in completeness, but out of a sense of what is right and wrong.

There is nothing wrong with that. In fact, it is perhaps better than those who are
aware of the doctrine but do not protest at abortion clinics or join in marches, or
counsel the pregnant ladies as volunteers, or even contribute materially to the
counseling offices, one of which is probably nearby, wherever you are near a city.

It is good for us to discuss these things. We can all become better Catholics.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #4 on:** July 21, 2012, 02:57:52 PM »

Quote

There is nothing wrong with that.

There is something wrong with telling people they shouldn't call abortion murder and making excuses for women who do it.

It undercuts fundamentally the integrity of the pro-life movement.

John Grace · « **Reply #5 on:** July 21, 2012, 03:51:21 PM »

It's a good topic and what exactly is the "pro-life movement"? In Ireland there are groups like Family and Life and Human Life International. They identify themselves as Catholic. Youth Defence are Catholic but are secular. Precious Life based in the North of Ireland is ecuмenical. Mainly run by Catholics. Many are close to the likes of Youth 2000 and the Friars of the Renewal and the Dominicans in Ireland. The Legion of Mary and Pure in Heart (a pro chastity youth group) work closely with this pro-life movement. Pro-Life Campaign is non-denominational.

John Grace · « **Reply #6 on:** July 21, 2012, 04:03:55 PM »

Quote from: Telesphorus

Quote
There is nothing wrong with that.

There is something wrong with telling people they shouldn't call abortion murder and making excuses for women who do it.

It undercuts fundamentally the integrity of the pro-life movement.

To take an example again of Ireland. Youth Defence are regarded as the most militant of the pro-life groups. Personally, I believe they have gone too politically correct but still are effective, and will call abortion murder. Youth Defence usually display the 'graphic images' and this is a discussion in itself. I believe in showing the truth of abortion. When discussing abortion though, it's necessary to discuss all forms of abortion.

Whilst I did bash them over an attempt to vilify the German people, I regard Integrity and Action based in England as taking the correct approach. Without Catholicism, without the rosary, the action is a waste of time.

Whilst allowing for the fallen nature, I support the idea of having a place for women to go after giving birth. These would be women who have given birth outside of wedlock. These reception hostels should be available for women considering abortion also.

John Grace · « **Reply #7 on:** July 21, 2012, 04:10:46 PM »

Quote from: Neil Obstat

Quote from: Telesphorus
...
Now this woman says it's the killing of a child, but she says the Lord wouldn't call women who do it murderesses.

What does this say about her? Either - women can't be called murderesses even though they commit murder, or abortion isn't murder...

There is a third option, which a good Catholic like you, Tele, is wont to abhor and
stand clear from: that this woman's subjective concept of Jesus is her own, one who
would conform to her expectations, one who is "imanent," as St. Pius X defined,
ex cathedra, in Pascendi. Likewise, she seems traditional and even
Catholic one minute, and the next she is objectively heretical. This is typical of
Modernists, and it has become so commonplace that it is seen as normal by most
everyone alive today, if they don't know about Modernism, that is. And anyone who
has not studied Pascendi, not just "read" it, but studied it, doesn't really know what
Modernism is.

PenitentWoman, you have the right sense of this. Everything you say here is true.
I am merely inserting the dogmatic definition in its place, so as to have a firm point
of reference.

Quote
Child murdering women get a pass. And this woman thinks she's seriously opposed to abortion! (And unless we're "perfect" ourselves, we shouldn't say such people who resort to it typically do so to avoid the consequences of their sɛҳuąƖ immorality.)

This is a very important topic.

There are a lot of well-meaning people who are involved in the pro-life movement
and are doing objectively good works, but they do it not out of a knowledge of the
Church's teaching in completeness, but out of a sense of what is right and wrong.

There is nothing wrong with that. In fact, it is perhaps better than those who are
aware of the doctrine but do not protest at abortion clinics or join in marches, or
counsel the pregnant ladies as volunteers, or even contribute materially to the
counseling offices, one of which is probably nearby, wherever you are near a city.

It is good for us to discuss these things. We can all become better Catholics.

Well stated. A booklet I recommend is

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #8 on:** July 21, 2012, 11:47:06 PM »

Quote from: Telesphorus

Quote
There is nothing wrong with that.

There is something wrong with telling people they shouldn't call abortion murder and making excuses for women who do it.

It undercuts fundamentally the integrity of the pro-life movement.

Yes. It is hurtful to the movement to support a lie, because it is harmful to truth.

So a volunteer could be physically doing a lot of "good work" by helping a
counseling center, or praying the Rosary at an abortion mill, or walking with a
procession that promotes a pro-life message. But if that volunteer then goes
around saying that abortion is not murder, or such other lies, "it undercuts
fundamentally the integrity of the pro-life movement," as you say, and it also
renders the merits of her "good work" of no value, spiritually.

In other words, by lying she could be wasting her time as a volunteer.

In the old days, such as before Vatican II, anyone who applied for a job in the
Vatican, before they could be hired, had to take an oath. They had to pronounce
the Creed, and they had to make a profession of faith that they believe what the
Church teaches with her legitimate authority.

Now, if volunteers in the Pro-Life Movement had to do a similar thing, it might
help curb this trend of lying. On the other hand, the current "teachings" if you
will, from bishops and the Vatican itself, might not be of much aid in the problem.

So much for that theory!

Telesphorus · « **Reply #9 on:** July 22, 2012, 12:10:34 AM »

Quote

But if that volunteer then goes
around saying that abortion is not murder,

Saying that it shouldn't be called murder is not to say it is not murder.

However, refusing to call what it what it is out of fear - out of fear of being "judgmental" - that cuts the to the very bone of the principles behind the pro-life position.

Being against legal abortion isn't about how people feel about it. It's about justice.

PenitentWoman · « **Reply #10 on:** July 22, 2012, 01:07:35 AM »

Is there any proof that sugarcoating saves any lives?

I would want to convince someone it was a human life they would be taking. Not equating abortion with murder, in a way, justifies the choice. If it isn't killing, then why would someone suddenly decide it isn't wrong?

I wonder if we will see anymore personhood amendments come to vote here in the US or if that approach was too complicated.

Nishant · « **Reply #11 on:** July 22, 2012, 01:55:59 AM »

So would we take it up a notch and speak of civil sanctions for women who procure abortions and/or doctors who perform them? Should they receive the same legal penalties as those who commit homicide?

I think there are two issues here. The first, though abortion is undoubtedly murder, it may be possible to make allowance for the relative culpability of those involved. The second, in the name of waiting for an ideal solution, what can actually be practically enforced in the meanwhile should not be overlooked. I am all for diagnosing the root causes of the recourse to abortion in the present day and therefore ensuring this madness will not happen again, but all of this is theoretical if abortion is not first made illegal. I say this because insistence on treating those involved as criminals without any clemency whatsoever will surely delay the process of outlawing abortion.

I'm reasonably sure I've read that, when countries of Europe were being evangelized, some of the pagan customs were allowed to them for a period of time, and not immediately abolished. Pagan European tribes frequently practiced exposure of newborn children. And in antiquity, all manner of philosophers had defended the practice of killing children, whether inside or for a while outside their mother's womb, including Plato, Aristotle, Seneca and Cicero, before the advent of Christ while the earliest Christians and the Fathers staunchly opposed it.

The Church however has punished this crime with extreme severity, so far as ecclesiastical measures are concerned, some local councils even decreeing the ancient discipline that a woman who killed the child in her womb should be refused the Holy Eucharist ever again.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #12 on:** July 22, 2012, 02:09:35 AM »

Quote from: Nishant2011

So would we take it up a notch and speak of civil sanctions for women who procure abortions and/or doctors who perform them? Should they receive the same legal penalties as those who commit homicide?

What is necessary is to speak of the matter as being one of justice. Right now the pro-life movement has a kind of symbiotic relationship to legal abortion. We even have masses being said outside of clinics. Yet at the same time there is only talk about sympathy and forgiveness and talk of babies dying, there is no talk at all about crime and justice. This is a severe problem. When I hear pro-life women talk about "counseling" these women what I hear gives me the impression they are not talking about this crime from the standpoint of justice. And in doing so they are really minimizing the severity. They are treating it as a tragedy in which the woman is no longer really a conscious agent. And that becomes an excuse and a rationalization that enables abortion and presumption about abortion.

We have to get off the track of talking about how "poor helpless women" can't handle the pressure so they succuмb to the temptation, and start talking about justice.

Prudence is necessary in talking about justice, but if pro-life advocates do not talk about it, who can take them seriously? That is to say, how can it really be called murder, how can those who protest it being legal really be serious about using the law to help stop it, if they are not interested in seeing the crime punished? If they are afraid to speak of it as a crime that demands punishment?

If protest against abortion is protest against it being sanctioned by the courts and not stopped by the police, then the issue is one of injustice, and if injustice is not spoken of, if exaction of justice by the laws is not invoked as being necessary, then there is a real problem in first principles.

As I said above, it leads to the pro-life movement having a symbiotic, attention-seeking relationship to the abortion providers.

stevusmagnus · « **Reply #13 on:** July 22, 2012, 03:01:55 AM »

If we had a truly pro-life President he could overturn Roe tomorrow by following Obama's example. Simply refuse to enforce the law! Thus, states could outlaw the practice entirely and the President would refuse to stop them in any way. Also congress and the President could pass a law defining the unborn as "persons" under the Constitution and gut Roe. Or the congress and President could force anyone who has an abortion or any entity that provides one to pay a "tax" so ridiculously high that they would not be profitable. Congress can also divest the Supreme Court of jurisdiction to hear abortion cases. All of this is well known.

Where Obama believes in his causes and is willing to use any means necessary to fight for them, our supposedly "pro-life" Presidents simply defund Planned Parenthood (until the next Dem president re-funds it) and maybe (if we are lucky) appoints a justice willing to overturn Roe. If we are going to wait for the Supreme Court to overturn Roe, good luck. Then they can simply reverse themselves when the majority changes if they do.

The worst evil in all of this are the US Bishops whose charities support contraception and morning after pills. The bishops supported Obamacare except for the abortion provision, which passed anyway. The very Obamacare that threatens to shut down all Catholic hospitals over contraception insurance coverage. But worst of all these bishops refused to support legislation in the states to outlaw abortion! The "conservative" Chaput is one of them. Sickening.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #14 on:** July 22, 2012, 03:06:35 AM »

Quote

But worst of all these bishops refused to support legislation in the states to outlaw abortion! The "conservative" Chaput is one of them.

The "right to life" depends on believing in just punishments to protect that right.

The Novus Ordites are agnostics, so of course they do not believe that justice is anything real, and they are not pro-life. The pro-life cause is used as a hook to keep Catholics who have some sort of Faith in the fold.

If a bishop refuses to support a law banning abortion, that can only mean he is indifferent to legal abortion. What do you expect from a modernist agnostic?