The Ultimate Sacrifice/Cure for Abortion?

[Don John of Austria]

Well there is no doubt that the UN should be destroyed.

did you see my answer to you on distributism.

[Q the Ninja]

You and I agree.

[journeyman]

I'm not capable of multiple quoting as some others have done - so I'm going to respond to two specific issues - in one case with a question, and in the other with a proposal.


(and with a 56K modem and noisy telephone lines - I'm obviously incapable of telling when a post was released)

sorry for the double

Edited January 2, 2005 by journeyman

[journeyman]

I'm not capable of multiple quoting as some others have done - so I'm going to respond to two specific issues - in one case with a question, and in the other with a proposal.

There was discussion about where the babies go - bosom of Abraham, limbo, purgatory, Hell - with some agreement that Baptism changed the rules - the Church does recognize other forms of baptism - while the baptism of intention is probably not going to work for the unborn, the baptism of blood is still a possibility - they aren't willing, intentional martyrs, but they are dead. Are there ground rules for application of that concept, and would they apply?

The second point had to do with what else can we do before launching a "just" war? I haven't done enough. I haven't done as much as others who posted. But can I restate the question?

Are we against something . . . or are we for something? Popular support is far easier to obtain with a positive message.

I was foolish enough to post the following on another thread, and so I'll offer it up here as well.

QUOTE (crusader1234 @ Dec 24 2004, 12:55 AM)

Anyways, I think that most of the people that are up in arms about abortion haven't done too much. Most of the people that would support a war probably have not bothered to protest in front of clinics, that sort of thing. The Church calls us to work for the avoidance of war, so until you've picketed an abortion clinic, lets not throw around 'War' like its our only option.



"War" is not the only option . . . but as with the "downtrodden terrorists", it appears to be the only many can afford. Picketing has gotten a bad reputation, for reasons others have noted.

I'm only projecting, but I don't think most of the mothers want to kill a baby . . . they don't see an alternative, and so have to rationalize that it isn't a baby. They need help in finding a job, finding health insurance, finding housing, finishing school, to have the baby. No help, no hope. No hope, no choice.

Detour for a moment of drive by economics. How often have you driven down the highway and seen a McDonalds (or any other burger joint) and across the street/down the street/within sight also seen a Pizza Hut or Chick Fil A or Taco Bell (non burger joint). Basic economic premise: McDonalds found a good location to feed hungry people. But what if they don't want burgers? Let's put our choice near their location, and the hungry people who don't want burgers will turn into our store.

Imagine another scenario. Next door to, or across the street/down the street from every abortion clinic was an adoption clinic. Pro life counselling available. Adoption counselling available. Adoption placement available. Education opportunities that can continue during pregnancy. Job training referrals available. Housing referrals available. Shelter referral available. Support, love, hope - - a real opportunity for a different choice, with a different result.

Catholic Charities and the protestant groups already offer many, if not all, of these and a host of other services that make it "possible" for the mother to make a different choice. What an opportunity for an ecumenical movement. What an opportunity for the Church to take the lead in the anti-abortion movement with a
positive alternative.

Imagine that. If you can imagine it, you can make it real.


Don't fight "against" abortionists. Fight "FOR" the children.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote]I'm only projecting, but I don't think most of the mothers want to kill a baby . . . they don't see an alternative, and so have to rationalize that it isn't a baby. They need help in finding a job, finding health insurance, finding housing, finishing school, to have the baby. No help, no hope. No hope, no choice.
[/quote]

Numericly speaking most abortions in this country are among white midddle class women who simply do not want the baby, or perhaps they don't want the pregnancy. adoption is an age old very public solution, in houston almost every Catholic Church has a large sign in front of it explaining where to go incase of an unwanted pregnancy, who will help them with the child. No women know there are alternatives they simply don't like them they are not easy, abortion is, you go in and 2 hours later you go home and lo and behold your not pregnent anymore, now they don't even have to have surgery neccessarly they can just take a pill if they are early enough, it is easy and cheap, and that is why it is used.

[quote]Are there ground rules for application of that concept, and would they apply?
[/quote]

Aborted babies do not qualify for the baptism of blood we have an entire thread devoted to this issue, it is linked here twice already, but it is called " aborted babies and salvation.

Edited January 2, 2005 by Don John of Austria

[Don John of Austria]

[quote]
distributism is a differant system it is a flat rejection of socialism? Communism. [/quote]

That ? should be a /

[Guest Aluigi]

i was wondering about that

[cathqat]

[quote name='journeyman' date='Jan 2 2005, 01:22 PM'] I'm only projecting, but I don't think most of the mothers want to kill a baby . . . they don't see an alternative, and so have to rationalize that it isn't a baby. They need help in finding a job, finding health insurance, finding housing, finishing school, to have the baby. No help, no hope. No hope, no choice.

Don't fight "against" abortionists. Fight "FOR" the children. [/quote]
You're not "projecting." Surveys of women who have had abortions have been done. Abortion advocates have been telling us for decades that a "pro-choice" position is "liberating" to women, enabling their increased participation in the social and economic life of the nation. In reality, however, most women experience abortion as a [i]capitulation to outside pressures[/i] rather than a personal liberation. According to the Alan Guttmacher Institute, the majority of women procuring abortions give more than one reason for doing so:
[list]
[*]3/4 say that having a baby would interfere with work, school or other responsibilities
[*]2/3 say they cannot afford a child
[*]1/2 say they do not want to be a single parent or are having problems with their husband or partner
[*]etc.
[/list]
Women are [i]not[/i] having abortions because they think it will be a fun, fulfilling, or emotionally satisfying experience. Women are having abortions because their jobs and schools refuse to cooperate with the needs of pregnant women and mothers. A few threaten to oust pregnant women, while many pregnant women are made to feel quite unwelcome even without the overt threat. Women are having abortions because they do not know anyone who will share or give them practical resources, like food, housing, medical and legal services, clothing, baby supplies, etc. Women are having abortions because their parents, husbands, boyfriends, and/or friends do not provide them any emotional or material support, and in many cases actually ask or expect them to abort. ([i]The lack of social resources is usually a bigger factor than material resources.[/i]) Frederica Mathewes-Green listened to women who had procured abortions to find out their reasons for making that choice. Her conclusion? "No one wants an abortion as she wants an ice cream cone or a Porsche. She wants an abortion as an animal, caught in a trap, wants to gnaw off its own leg," (c.f. Mathewes-Green, [i]Real Choices: Listening to Women, Looking for Alternatives to Abortion[/i], Conciliar Press).

Where you say "Fight 'FOR' the children." I would add "Fight 'FOR' the women." No woman deserves to be subjected to abortion. I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy.

[b]Making abortion illegal [i]is not enough[/i].[/b] We also need to address abortion's root causes.

[cathqat]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' date='Jan 2 2005, 01:39 PM'] Numericly speaking most abortions in this country are among white midddle class women who simply do not want the baby, or perhaps they don't want the pregnancy.
[/quote]
Your "simply don't want the baby" is a decidedly false and ignorant statement. Women get abortions because they lack the practical and social resources that they believe they will need to carry the child to birth and/or raise the child. And while I do not believe that the reasons women procure abortions can morally justify them, they are certainly understandable, and I do believe that no one who refuses to work to eradicate the dearth of practical and social resources that women face really deserves the name "pro-life."

The age group most at risk of abortion are women ages 17-25. One in five abortions is performed on a college student. Why? Because these women feel forced to choose between sacrificing their education and sacrificing their children. I been to school with student parents, and it is a constant struggle, because most schools offer paltry assistance if any. Most of these schools, however, would be very happy to help students procure abortions. We can and must change this: not only stopping the abortion referrals and payments, but substantially improving the resources available to pregnant and parenting students.

[url="http://www.lifenews.com/nat1053.html"]Colleges Promote Abortion Over Pregnancy in Student Health Care Plans[/url]
[url="http://www.womendeservebetter.com/WDBrespectLifeProgramArticleFINALpdf.pdf"][i]Women Deserve Better than Abortion[/i] by Serrin Foster, published by the USCCB[/url]
[url="http://www.usccb.org/prolife/issues/women/wdbknights.htm"]USCCB and Knights of Columbus support Feminists for Life's Women Deserve Better campaign[/url]
[url="http://www.usccb.org/prolife/issues/women/index.htm"]USCCB participates in Feminists for Life's Women Deserve Better campaign[/url]
[url="http://www.christendom-awake.org/pages/may/feminismabortion.htm"][i]Feminism & Abortion[/i] by C.R.Clark, on Dr. William E. May's "Christendom Awake" website[/url]

Edited January 3, 2005 by cathqat

[journeyman]

[quote name='cathqat' date='Jan 2 2005, 08:52 PM']QUOTE (journeyman @ Jan 2 2005, 01:22 PM)
I'm only projecting, but I don't think most of the mothers want to kill a baby . . . they don't see an alternative, and so have to rationalize that it isn't a baby. They need help in finding a job, finding health insurance, finding housing, finishing school, to have the baby. No help, no hope. No hope, no choice.

Don't fight "against" abortionists. Fight "FOR" the children.

You're not "projecting." [/quote]
Well, yes I was, because I will never face that particular question from that particular perspective . . . but thanks for the back up.



And after rummaging here and there, an insert in this morning's bulleting sends me to the place where I can ask the more militant posters how the "just war" definitions stack up in light of the specific condemnation of violence in
[url="http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25031995_evangelium-vitae_en.html"]Evangelium Vitae[/url] (1995)

The encyclical, based on my brief review, suggests a mobilization of conscience and ethical effort to activate a great campaign in support of life. My pipedream approach seems more in keeping with the encyclical than "going to war."

Or to be crass and cynical . . . you've got to "spin" this campaign in a positive light. You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.

If I were a woman facing this decision, I'd be as afraid of pro-life proponents like Don John as I would be to learn the obstetrician's name was Kevorkian.

[cathqat]

As I said over on the "Legitimate Government" thread, I work full-time in the pro-life movement. One of my friends from college is a Sister of Life who works at [url="http://www.nurturingnetwork.org/"]the Nurturing Network[/url]. She says they are in [b]continual need[/b], not only of donations and funding, but [b]of volunteers[/b]. They [b]desperately need[/b] more people who work in medical services and counseling, people who will open their homes to become nurturing homes, people who can offer employment and educational help, and people to coordinate services on the local level.

If the pro-life movement is big enough to actually [i]succeed[/i] in a violent "just war" scenario, then it should be big enough to [b]provide these services [color=red]first[/color][/b].

[url="http://www.nurturingnetwork.org/USCCB%20Final%20Article%20As%20Published%20Aug%202004.pdf"]Read the USCCB "Respect Life" article [i]When Being Right Is Not Enough[/i] by Mary Cunningham Agee.[/url]

Then go to [url="http://www.nurturingnetwork.org/"]the Nurturing Network (http://www.nurturingnetwork.org/)[/url] now and click "Offer to Help."

And I agree with journeyman about following [i]Evangelium Vitae[/i].

[Don John of Austria]

[quote]
Your "simply don't want the baby" is a decidedly false and ignorant statement[/quote]


No It is not, it is the simple truth, I assure you I am not ignorant of abortionist mothers motives, I am and have not been shelterd from such horrors. Lets take a look at your own posted reasons

[quote]3/4 say that having a baby would interfere with work, school or other responsibilities [/quote] Well haveing a baby always interferes whith your other responsabilities, that is a well know factm, what this means is that the women has prioritized her work or school or other " responsabilities higher than her responsability to her unborn child-- wow this is no reason this is a choice for what she WANTS to do. there is no cohersion here only selfishness. agian they simply don't wantthe baby.

[quote]2/3 say they cannot afford a child [/quote] Well this is utterly ludicrus in this society, if you are poor the state will pay for your child birth, care for the child, subsidize the childs eating etc. This means-- "having a child will force me to change my lifestyle, in a way which I do not WANT to change it" Agian -- they simply do not WANT the child.

[quote]1/2 say they do not want to be a single parent or are having problems with their husband or partner
etc.
[/quote]

Well heck, the word wnant is even in that one, "oh woe is me, I don't want to be a single mother," ( then don't have sex out of wedlock) or " oh my ' partner' may leave me, so I don't want to be burdened by a kid" -- wow low and behold this also breaks down to the simple statement -- The women doesn't want the child.


Abortion i snot about women eing victims of circumstance it is about women being selfish and about the men that do pressure them into it ( which is most certianly not most abortions) being selfish.


[quote]If I were a woman facing this decision, I'd be as afraid of pro-life proponents like Don John as I would be to learn the obstetrician's name was Kevorkian.[/quote]

Good! I am literally sickened by the attitude that women who murder their children are teh victims of abortion they are co-perpertrators-- they employ people to murder thier own Children, they should be afraid, but not of me, of God, and His Just punishment.

[PHATMike]

The Catechism does say that if there was a good possibility that if an aborted baby where born that it would have been batpized then it would be okay and go to heaven. I'm not exactly speculating about anything here. Out God is a just god and I don't need a Catholic doctrine to tell me that he will be mercifull to his innocent babies. I'm sick of hearing of some uprising or something that we are going to take over the state to end abortion and kill all the "bad guys" or something. I never said Jesus was a pacifist. But he never said "kill the sinners". This whole "just war" stuff is rediculous too. A just war is not a small gerilla* warfare thing where we run around "justly" killing abortionists because they are killing babies. And if you are right and this is okay...then why aren't we doing it now? Because in our hearts we know its wrong. Jesus is about forgiveness and if we believe so little in God's power to change peoples hearts and make things better and the power of prayer...so that we have to turn to violence...its a darn shame.

[cathqat]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' date='Jan 3 2005, 11:14 AM']Well haveing a baby always interferes whith your other responsabilities, that is a well know factm, what this means is that the women has prioritized her work or school or other " responsabilities higher than her responsability to her unborn child-- wow this is no reason this is a choice for what she WANTS to do. there is no cohersion here only selfishness. agian they simply don't wantthe baby.[/quote]

It is not simply "selfish" to desire an education or employment. In fact, the Church considers these basic human rights (c.f. [i]Pacem in Terris[/i], [i]Gaudium et Spes[/i], etc.), "necessary for living a genuinely human life," just as life itself is a basic human right. Do the mother and child's rights "conflict"? They won't if we actually do what the Pope has been telling us to do: "[W]omen have a full right to become actively involved in all areas of public life, and this right must be affirmed and guaranteed, also, where necessary, through appropriate legislation.... Profound changes are needed in the attitudes and organization of society in order to facilitate the participation of women in public life, while [i]at the same time[/i] providing for the special obligations of [i]women and of men[/i] with regard to their families.... Nor should the special difficulties and problems faced by single women living alone or those who head families be neglected."

The feminization of poverty is becoming a much bigger and bigger problem around the world, including this country, every day. The majority of the 1.5 billion people in the world living on 1 dollar a day or less are women. The gap between women and men caught in the cycle of poverty has continued to widen in the past decade. There is no question that women lack sufficient access to education and support services.

[quote]Well this is utterly ludicrus in this society, if you are poor the state will pay for your child birth, care for the child, subsidize the childs eating etc.[/quote]

Families account for almost 40 percent of the nation’s homeless. On any given night, 1.2 million children are homeless. Homeless children are hungry more than twice as often as other children, and two-thirds worry that they won’t have enough to eat. The average homeless family is composed of a young, single mother and two children under the age of six. You tell them that it's not a problem.

[quote]Abortion i snot about women eing victims of circumstance it is about women being selfish and about the men that do pressure them into it ( which is most certianly not most abortions) being selfish. [/quote]

You're ignorant of reality.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote]You're ignorant of reality.
[/quote]


No I am not, I simply am not blinded by the lie that one is not selfish because one chooses to kill their child because they are going to have to suffer for their children. I have been poor I mean really, really poor, my mother was on the verge of starvation when I was young, the IRS audited us and accused my parents of lying because it was " not possible to live on that amount of money" please don't tell me about what it is like to be poor--- so these women are poor, SO WHAT, if you choose to kill your children rather than be poor you are a monster, a selfish monster who deserves nothing more than the quick death all monsters deserve.

[quote]It is not simply "selfish" to desire an education or employment. In fact, the Church considers these basic human rights (c.f. Pacem in Terris, Gaudium et Spes, etc.), "necessary for living a genuinely human life," just as life itself is a basic human right. [/quote]

Actually the Idea that there is a right to an education or even that universal education is best has been condemned infallibly as a heresy, so no the Church does not consider it a basic human right- liberation theology considers it a basic human right, but the Church has condemned that as heretical and did so years before the first liberation theologian ever wrote.


[quote]Families account for almost 40 percent of the nation’s homeless. On any given night, 1.2 million children are homeless. Homeless children are hungry more than twice as often as other children, and two-thirds worry that they won’t have enough to eat. The average homeless family is composed of a young, single mother and two children under the age of six. You tell them that it's not a problem.

[/quote]


Well there are about 3 million homeless people in the United States (that was the highest number I could find anywhere) this includes a very large number of mentally ill people. So say 40% are homeless Families that means that only 1.2 million are families at all so are you saying there are no adults in these families? But lets say that your figure is correct, out of the population of the United States that is 1/2 a percent of the population of the United states. This is not even the percentage of women of childbearing age who have abortions every year. No this is a very weak argument it has little to do with abortion at all.