"Pro-life" or really just "Pro Birth"

[Jack4]

10 hours ago, beatitude said:

I'm unsure if you were trying to use this line to argue against the provision of a full slate services by the government, but if you were then...

No, I'm not arguing against the provision of a full slate services by the government.

Happy to clarify! 

[Ash Wednesday]

Why have reference to rights for the unborn in quotation marks as if such rights aren't real? 

People that don't believe the government should be responsible for certain things should not be assumed to be uncaring. I probably have a more moderate fiscal stance than many Republicans and Libertarians, but I certainly won't label them as uncaring or un-Christian for wanting certain things to be a private matter and not handled by the government. It's reasonable to debate the efficacy of public vs. private charity in itself, but we shouldn't base the character of a certain populace because their viewpoints on how charity should be carried out. 

Posts with loaded questions that will likely generate debate should be posted on the Debate Table.

[Jack4]

14 hours ago, CatherineM said:

I am [pro-life] conception to natural death, but also believe in self defence and just war. 

As I see it, legitimate defense is not an exception to pro-life, but an integral part thereof. 

[Anomaly]

One problem with expecting the Government to provide the charity is many use that as an excuse to just give with their wallet, and not open their heart. 

[little2add]

pro-life is pro-birth

“Every time we kill a child, all of us suffer. We lose a little of ourselves and a whole lot of our future. We strip a child from their God-given potential when we, as a society, accept abortion as health care,” Love said. “My fellow Americans, we cannot accept what might have been. We won’t know what might have been if we allow an organization to convince our pregnant women that they have no choice but to abort the life and the potential within them.”

Rep. Mia Love (R., Utah)

[Papist]

This the same Sister Joan that said we need to listen to animals?  

[Socrates]

On 1/27/2017 at 11:24 AM, Jessicaane said:

As many of you know, today is the annual "Pro-life" March. But what are you really marching for? There seems to be so much hypocrisy when it comes to this topic; are you actually really "pro-life" or are you actually just "pro-birth"? This quote from Sister Joan Chittister is one to really listen to..

"I do not believe that just because you're opposed to abortion, that that makes you pro-life. In fact, I think in many cases, your morality is deeply lacking if all you want is a child born but not a child fed, not a child educated, not a child housed. And why would I think that you don't? Because you don't want any tax money to go there. That's not pro-life. That's pro-birth. We need a much broader conversation on what the morality of pro-life is."

It's a very true statement, I believe. People want to fight for the "rights" of an unborn child and believe that every child deserves to be born and a chance at life, and to choose adoption. However, that's all... When the same unborn child that you were fighting for rights for is born and ends up gay, will you still love that person and continue to fight for their rights..? I have always been against abortion, and growing up I've always knew that regardless of how many children I have, I WILL adopt one as well. After all, how can you be pro-life and support people putting their unborn baby up for a adoption but not be willing to adopt??

I know plenty of people who are pro-life, Catholic/Christian, and when I ask them weather they would adopt, every person and so called "Christian" comes up with some lame excuse. "I would but...(enter lame excuses here)" These same people are the ones who bash people on welfare, put down people working at McDonalds, don't want their tax money to go to healthcare, welfare etc.. All these "lives" that people are fighting for will most likely end up in foster care, adoption agencies, low income families, poverty, uneducated, drugs, crimes..etc... These so called "pro-life" supporters don't actually care what happens to these children after they are born. Some of these same people support the death penalty, they support war. Some of these exact people are in our Military killing people. How can you be "pro-life", a follower of Jesus, and support the killing of people but be "pro-life" for babies? Because being "pro-life" is believing in ALL life for their entire life.

 

I really wish that people would take the time to really understand what it means to be "pro-life" v "pro-birth".. I wish that people would fight just as hard to lower adoption fees to adopt, to fight for better education on sex and procreation. To fight just as hard for these babies to actually have a real chance at life! Not just to be born... 

So is there a difference in "pro-life'' v "pro-birth"? Can you be "pro-life" but believe in abortions in cases of rape, incest, and health of the mother? Can you be "pro-life" but support the death penalty and war?  

 

Please let me know how you feel on this subject, I really would like to understand how others view this topic.

 

Thanks and God Bless

Frankly, that whole old line of rhetoric used by that leftist nun is nothing but a trick to try to convince Catholics/Christians to support pro-abortion liberal Democrat politicians.

It's a slanderous straw-man argument that conservative pro-lifers want "not a child fed, not a child educated, not a child housed."  That's pure bs.  Good people can and do have legitimate disagreements as to how much federal tax money should be spent on these things, as opposed to private and Church charities (and only a few of the most libertarian people want no public money at all spent).  But in reality, it is dubious that throwing ever more and more tax money at them will solve our social problems.  The huge increases in federal spending on social welfare programs since the 1960s has done very little to eliminate poverty, and some will argue has helped create a dependent underclass.  Likewise, spending more and more on public education has not paid off in better-educated students.  And "sex education" has done nothing to improve sexual morality or decrease abortion.

And if someone is homosexual, they deserve the same basic human rights as everyone else, but this doesn't mean we must give their sinful relationships the same status as marriage.

While you can always find hypocrites in any group of fallen, flawed human beings, I think it's unfair to categorize pro-lifers as not caring about anybody after birth.  I know plenty of pro-life persons who have adopted, who work in adoption agencies and crisis pregnancy centers, and who have done mission work among orphanages, etc.

Yes, we probably could all do more, but I don't think it's fair to bash pro-lifers as a group as uncaring.  I also think it's a bit judgmental to call everyone who won't personally adopt a hypocrite, without knowing all their circumstances.  Judge not lest ye be judged . . .

Deliberately killing innocent human beings (as in abortion or euthanasia) is always wrong, but the Church has always allowed for the death penalty for certain heinous crimes, for killing in just war, and using lethal force if necessary to defend one's self or others from an attacker.

From Cardinal Ratzinger (Benedict XVI): 

Quote

Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.

 

[polskieserce]

Well this is precisely why I am a very passionate socialist.  Being a socialist doesn't contradict Catholicism.  I am a firm believer in protecting life from conception until natural death.  It is absolutely ridiculous to call yourself pro-life except in the case of rape or medical complications.  It is just as ridiculous to support the death penalty when many industrialized countries do just fine without it.

As a person who is actually living in poverty, I am more qualified to speak on the matter than some bourgeois prick who has been insulated from the ugliness of capitalism his/her entire life and thinks there is nothing wrong with the system.  If some people in a Church want to run a charitable food pantry to feel good about themselves, then I don't have an issue with that itself.  But when people, especially these libertarian types, say that those efforts should substitute government action altogether, that infuriates me.  Charities are a sideshow.  They lack the resources, personal, and expertise to help people in truly horrendous situations.  The state should be the primary relief agency for marginalized people and many European governments are.  Yes, the taxes in those countries are higher (as they rightfully should be) but the poor in those countries have better lives than they do in the US.

Also, I can't stand capitalist lies about how the welfare state doesn't help the poor.  It certainly does!  If a poor person previously didn't have something and then the government gives it to them (food, housing, money, etc) that poor person is already in a much better place because of government intervention.  Poverty is defined as the state or condition of having little or no money, goods, or means of support oneself.  The welfare state, if aggressive enough, eliminates that resource deficit.  That type of help can be a lifeline for many people in desperate need.  However, it DOES NOT make a person self-sufficient (nor should that be its primary focus).  Simply put, many people will require lifelong assistance because they are unable to compete in the capitalist economy.  This trend will only get worse as more and more people are displaced from the workforce (see link below, I already started a thread on that exact issue):

Phatmass: How is the Church going to cope with the transition to a post-capitalist society?

The bottom line is that health care for the poor, therapeutic services for the disabled, legal help for impoverished defendants, etc is a million times more important than a stuck up person's desire to have 3 cars, a 5k sq ft house, the latest electronics and vacations every year.  Those who are well off have a God given obligation to give to the poor.  If a Catholic says he/she is against abortion but he/she doesn't support having services to care for those people, then that person is one pathetic excuse of a Catholic.

[Jack4]

2 hours ago, polskieserce said:

Being a socialist doesn't contradict Catholicism.

"Being a relativist doesn't contradict Catholicism."

"Being a nominalist doesn't contradict Catholicism."

"Being an atheist doesn't contradict Catholicism."

"Being pro-choice doesn't contradict Catholicism"

Tell that to the Magisterium. 

2 hours ago, polskieserce said:

Being a socialist doesn't contradict Catholicism.

Read Encyclical Quadragesimo Anno, May 15, 1931 

[Jack4]

117. But what if Socialism has really been so tempered and modified as to the class struggle and private ownership that there is in it no longer anything to be censured on these points? Has it thereby renounced its contradictory nature to the Christian religion? This is the question that holds many minds in suspense. And numerous are the Catholics who, although they clearly understand that Christian principles can never be abandoned or diminished seem to turn their eyes to the Holy See and earnestly beseech Us to decide whether this form of Socialism has so far recovered from false doctrines that it can be accepted without the sacrifice of any Christian principle and in a certain sense be baptized. That We, in keeping with Our fatherly solicitude, may answer their petitions, We make this pronouncement: Whether considered as a doctrine, or an historical fact, or a movement, Socialism, if it remains truly Socialism, even after it has yielded to truth and justice on the points which we have mentioned, cannot be reconciled with the teachings of the Catholic Church because its concept of society itself is utterly foreign to Christian truth. 

120. If Socialism, like all errors, contains some truth (which, moreover, the Supreme Pontiffs have never denied), it is based nevertheless on a theory of human society peculiar to itself and irreconcilable with true Christianity. Religious socialism, Christian socialism, are contradictory terms; no one can be at the same time a good Catholic and a true socialist.

[Socrates]

"No Catholic could subscribe even to moderate socialism." ~ John XXIII.

Here's a list of papal condemnations of socialism from Pius IX to Benedict XVI.

Of course, it's probably a waste of time to attempt to argue with a socialist True Believer from a standpoint of either faith or reason, as he cares neither about the Church's clear and repeated condemnations of this evil, nor will he about economic facts, nor the repeated and disastrous failure of socialism when actually applied in the real world.  ("But everything will be different in the future!")

A bit like trying to argue with a UFO cultist or someone brainwashed by the Church of Scientology.

[polskieserce]

On 2/1/2017 at 9:03 PM, Jack4 said:

117. But what if Socialism has really been so tempered and modified as to the class struggle and private ownership that there is in it no longer anything to be censured on these points? Has it thereby renounced its contradictory nature to the Christian religion? This is the question that holds many minds in suspense. And numerous are the Catholics who, although they clearly understand that Christian principles can never be abandoned or diminished seem to turn their eyes to the Holy See and earnestly beseech Us to decide whether this form of Socialism has so far recovered from false doctrines that it can be accepted without the sacrifice of any Christian principle and in a certain sense be baptized. That We, in keeping with Our fatherly solicitude, may answer their petitions, We make this pronouncement: Whether considered as a doctrine, or an historical fact, or a movement, Socialism, if it remains truly Socialism, even after it has yielded to truth and justice on the points which we have mentioned, cannot be reconciled with the teachings of the Catholic Church because its concept of society itself is utterly foreign to Christian truth. 

120. If Socialism, like all errors, contains some truth (which, moreover, the Supreme Pontiffs have never denied), it is based nevertheless on a theory of human society peculiar to itself and irreconcilable with true Christianity. Religious socialism, Christian socialism, are contradictory terms; no one can be at the same time a good Catholic and a true socialist.

Where in the Bible does it say you can't have a strong welfare state to help the poor?  I'm fully aware that prior Popes condemned socialism, but I'm not deterred by that for 3 reasons:

1. At the end of the day, Popes are still human beings who are products of their time.  If I had been alive during the late 19th/early 20th century I would also be strictly opposed to any kind of socialism because humanity was not ready for it.  If you traveled back in time and told Americans in the year 1776 that Blacks would eventually be liberated from slavery, given legal equality, and start interbreeding with white people on a wider scale, nobody would have believed you either.  But given enough time, it did happen.  I don't need a lecture on the past failures of communism.  Heck, my parents left Poland while it was a communist satellite state of the USSR.  The Leninist brand of socialism is indeed dangerous.  But writing off socialism because of Leninism is like writing off capitalism because of Nazism.
2. Popes have been wrong in the past, so why is it unrealistic to assume that they couldn't be wrong again?  Some of these Popes have allegedly fathered illegitimate children, killed other Catholics on the battlefield, had people tortured/executed for disagreeing with the Church, etc.  I'm not writing this post to rail against the Church.  The point I'm trying to make is that the Popes are human too.
3. Socialism is an economic system, not a religion.  I'm a socialist, but I believe that Jesus died on the cross for my sins.  I believe that abortion is 100% evil under every circumstance.  I accept the existence of a literal God.  Modern people, especially Westerners, are obsessed with acquiring more material possessions.  I believe that socialism can liberate people from the disease of materialism and allow people to live more emotionally and spiritually satisfying lives.  When God created us, he never intended for only a portion of the population that was born with genetically advantageous traits to enjoy prosperity.  He intended for all humans, regardless if they are able to contribute to the economic system or not, to enjoy prosperity.

[Jack4]

Quote

At the end of the day, Popes are still human beings who are products of their time.  If I had been alive during the late 19th/early 20th century I would also be strictly opposed to any kind of socialism because humanity was not ready for it.  If you traveled back in time and told Americans in the year 1776 that Blacks would eventually be liberated from slavery, given legal equality, and start interbreeding with white people on a wider scale, nobody would have believed you either.  But given enough time, it did happen.  I don't need a lecture on the past failures of communism.  Heck, my parents left Poland while it was a communist satellite state of the USSR.  The Leninist brand of socialism is indeed dangerous.  But writing off socialism because of Leninism is like writing off capitalism because of Nazism.

Please read n. 117 of QA which I have quoted. It clearly makes distinctions between Marx's Communism and softer Socialism. Popes Pius and John both made the distinction. Seriously, it was funny to read you say this just under the Papal words you quoted.

Quote

Popes have been wrong in the past, so why is it unrealistic to assume that they couldn't be wrong again?  Some of these Popes have allegedly fathered illegitimate children, killed other Catholics on the battlefield, had people tortured/executed for disagreeing with the Church, etc.  I'm not writing this post to rail against the Church.  The point I'm trying to make is that the Popes are human too.

That is a giant Ignoratio Elenchi you've set up. Personal sins of Popes take nothing away from their teaching office.

 

Quote

Socialism is an economic system, not a religion. 

Socialism is an economic system with a certain philosophy on man and society. These principles cannot be reconciled with Christianity. 

50 minutes ago, polskieserce said:

I'm a socialist, but I believe that Jesus died on the cross for my sins

If anyone says that Christ Jesus was given by God to men as a redeemer in whom to trust, and not also as a legislator whom to obey, let him be anathema. (Trent, Canon 21 concerning justification)

 

39 minutes ago, polskieserce said:

I'm fully aware that prior Popes condemned socialism, but I'm not deterred by that...

Prayers for your soul. 

[polskieserce]

On 2/10/2017 at 11:11 PM, Jack4 said:

Please read n. 117 of QA which I have quoted. It clearly makes distinctions between Marx's Communism and softer Socialism. Popes Pius and John both made the distinction. Seriously, it was funny to read you say this just under the Papal words you quoted.

I already told you straight up that I want to know specifically where in the Bible it explicitly says that socialism is evil.

 

On 2/10/2017 at 11:11 PM, Jack4 said:

That is a giant Ignoratio Elenchi you've set up. Personal sins of Popes take nothing away from their teaching office.

The Pope is the head Priest/theologian of the Catholic Church.  The Pope is not a computer programmer, robotics expert, astronomer (oops, sorry Galileo), heart surgeon, or environmental expert.  The Popes have been wrong in the past, not only in areas of personal sin, but in terms of facts.  For quite some time, the Church believed that the Earth was the center of the solar system.  Nowadays, even Catholics are embarrassed that the Church threatened to kill a guy over that.  The past 10 popes could have just as easily been wrong about moderate socialism.

 

On 2/10/2017 at 11:11 PM, Jack4 said:

Socialism is an economic system with a certain philosophy on man and society. These principles cannot be reconciled with Christianity.

And how exactly do you reconcile capitalism with Christianity?  Capitalism is basically economic Darwinism: the strong prosper and the weak perish.  Those who can't contribute to the capitalist economy are essentially worthless under that system.  Do you really think that God would agree with that?  I don't think so.

On the other hand, socialism dictates that it is every human being's birth-rite to have access to basic resources, regardless of his/her ability to contribute to society.  It also dictates that democracy should be expanded into the economic realm and that people should not be at the mercy of some rich scumbag who hoards wealth for himself while those around him suffer.

 

On 2/10/2017 at 11:11 PM, Jack4 said:

If anyone says that Christ Jesus was given by God to men as a redeemer in whom to trust, and not also as a legislator whom to obey, let him be anathema. (Trent, Canon 21 concerning justification)

Not sure what you mean by this.

[Peace]

1 hour ago, polskieserce said:

I already told you straight up that I want to know specifically where in the Bible it explicitly says that socialism is evil.

 Why is it that you want to know where the Bible explicitly says that socialism is evil? A Catholic is bound to assent to what the Church teaches, regardless of whether or not it is taught in the Bible.

1 hour ago, polskieserce said:

The Pope is the head Priest/theologian of the Catholic Church.  The Pope is not a computer programmer, robotics expert, astronomer (oops, sorry Galileo), heart surgeon, or environmental expert.  The Popes have been wrong in the past, not only in areas of personal sin, but in terms of facts.  For quite some time, the Church believed that the Earth was the center of the solar system.  Nowadays, even Catholics are embarrassed that the Church threatened to kill a guy over that.  The past 10 popes could have just as easily been wrong about moderate socialism.

From what I understand there are no infallible statements concerning socialism, so yes, it is theoretically possible that their teaching on socialism could be wrong and corrected by a later pope. But you are not free to simply just believe and advocate for whatever you want in contradiction to the current teaching of the Magisterium. You are bound to assent to the teaching until if and when the teaching changes.

And the Pope has authority to speak with respect to computer programming, robotics, astronomy, heart surgery, and the environment, at least insofar as these things relate to matters of faith and morals (and they may very well).

1 hour ago, polskieserce said:

And how exactly do you reconcile capitalism with Christianity?  Capitalism is basically economic Darwinism: the strong prosper and the weak perish.  Those who can't contribute to the capitalist economy are essentially worthless under that system.  Do you really think that God would agree with that?  I don't think so.

 I do not think that the Church approves of pure forms of Capitalism. As for socialism, instead of just outright rejecting what the Magisterium has taught, I suggest that you sit down and study what it has taught.  The word "socialism" can be used in a very broad sense, but if you take a look at the prior encyclicals I think you will see that "socialism" is generally discussed in a narrow sense. Things like welfare, universal-health care, minimum wage laws, etc. are forms of "socialism" and the Church does not condemn these things. I would focus on operating within the space in which you are allowed to operate for the moment. I would guess that a good deal of the type of programs that you would like are allowed.