Pro-abortion Or Pro-choice

[KnightofChrist]

Hey everybody Mother Church supports the death plenty is She not prolife?

[Autumn Dusk]

Saying that the catholic church supports the death penelty openly like that is like saying it supports abortion. The Catholic church allows in extreme cases, a procdure that causes the baby to die if it saves the life of the mother. In the same way the church sais the civil authorities can take the life of one man if there is no way to take him and keep him from society safely. Say, if the person could still be a danger to someone in maximim security solitary confinement.

Thats how I've always understood it.

[XIX]

Well to be fair, the Church has infallibly declared that abortion is immoral, and catholics are bound to that.

The Church says that the death penalty is licit, but has recently opined that it should be avoided if at all possible, and that it is possible in nearly every case. Indeed, saying the Church supports the death penalty is a very misleading statement, even if it's technically true. JP2 has given his opinion that cases where the death penalty is licit, are practically nonexistent. While this is a fallible opinion of the Pope and it *could* be wrong, we would be wise to acknowledge that when the Pope speaks about any issue, he is very, very likely correct.

But one is free to be pro-death penalty and still be Catholic. One can not be pro-abortion and still be Catholic.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='XIX' post='1616417' date='Aug 3 2008, 11:07 AM']Well to be fair, the Church has infallibly declared that abortion is immoral, and catholics are bound to that.

The Church says that the death penalty is licit, but has recently opined that it should be avoided if at all possible, and that it is possible in nearly every case. Indeed, saying the Church supports the death penalty is a very misleading statement, even if it's technically true. JP2 has given his opinion that cases where the death penalty is licit, are practically nonexistent. While this is a fallible opinion of the Pope and it *could* be wrong, we would be wise to acknowledge that when the Pope speaks about any issue, he is very, very likely correct.

But one is free to be pro-death penalty and still be Catholic. One can not be pro-abortion and still be Catholic.[/quote]

It is not misleading, it is true, direct and to the point. John Paul II's prudential judgment is not the teaching of the Church, if it were the Church would teach it and it would not be a prudential judgment. It is not a bad opinion, it is ok to personally hold, but it is not binding. The power of the sword, or the death plenty was trusted to the government of man by God, not the Church.

This is why the Church has never to my knowledge ever put anyone to death, but instead it was the State. Mother Church honors and thus supports what God has entrusted to the State. The prudential judgment of Pope John Paul II is not binding on the State. The ruling if a murderer receives capital punishment is alone the ruling of the State, so long that the accused is actually guilty, it is just.

Edited August 3, 2008 by KnightofChrist

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Farsight one' post='1615445' date='Aug 1 2008, 08:36 PM']The problem is that "pro-abortion" and "pro-death" already have their own followers and meanings.

All of these groups actually exist:
anti-abortion = those against abortion
pro-life = those against prematurely ending anyone's life. That means they're against abortion, euthanasia, the death penalty, etc.
pro-choice = the decision whether or not to keep the child is up to the mother
pro-abortion = believe that abortion should be mandatory past a certain point (like in China)
pro-death = believe that abortion and euthanasia, death penalty, etc. should be mandatory past a certain point.
True. But the point was that if you offend someone, they're going to be far less likely to listen to your argument. It's generally best not to offend someone if you want to bring them to your cause.[/quote]
I am pro-life and pro-capital punishment.

[XIX]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1616435' date='Aug 3 2008, 01:30 PM']It is not misleading, it is true, direct and to the point.[/quote]
But the way you put it, you make it sound like the state should put the criminals to death instead of looking for other options. And that is clearly not the case.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='XIX' post='1616619' date='Aug 3 2008, 05:19 PM']But the way you put it, you make it sound like the state should put the criminals to death instead of looking for other options. And that is clearly not the case.[/quote]

Well I did not state that. Perhaps it was the "Hey everybody" that caused the problem, but as for the rest of the question, "Mother Church supports the death plenty is She not prolife?" is true and not misleading.

It was asked because many seem to agree that one could not be prolife and support the death penalty. Or one who supports the death penalty is not fully or 100% prolife. In the end the Church does in fact support capital punishment, if someone who supports the death plenty is not fully prolife, Mother Church would not be prolife and that would be contradictory.

[Socrates]

It seems that very few people are responding to the points I've made in the post which Didymus initially quoted and linked to at the top of this thread. I'd suggest that all those arguing for using the term "pro-choice" go and read that post.

However, one wonders how many self-described "pro-choice" feminists (or those on here arguing for saying "pro-choice") would react to the following scenario:

What if some sicko were to propose that rape be legalized and universally protected by law?
"How can you possibly be pro-rape?" you exclaim in horror.
"Oh, don't get me wrong," the man answers, "I'm not pro-rape. Personally, I'm against rape. I think it's a terrible thing to do to a woman, and I'd certainly never rape a woman myself. However, whether to rape a woman is a man's choice to make, not the government's. A man has a right to choose what to do with his own body, and that decision is not the government's to make. I'm not pro-rape. I'm pro-choice."

Would you humor this guy by agreeing to refer to his position on rape as "pro-choice," or would you call it out for the offensive nonsense that it is?
(You can also substitute murder, theft, or any other serious crime here and get the same idea.)

Abortion is an even more serious evil than rape, so what is it that makes the term "pro-choice" acceptable in the case of abortion?

"Pro-choice" is nothing but a propaganda slogan to promote an evil agenda, and should not be used by pro-lifers. It's use does not help fight abortion, but couch the language in the enemy's deceitful terms, which merely continues to muddle the issue.

Most of the modern world's atrocities have been cloaked in the language of deceitful euphemisms, and the language of "pro-choice" is no different.
Do you think better progress would have been made against the Nazis if we insisted on agreeing to use the euphemistic term "final solution" to refer to the slaughter of Jewish persons?

[Socrates]

[quote name='Didymus' post='1615029' date='Aug 1 2008, 11:10 AM']Here is a few of the reasons why I do use the term 'pro-choice' more often than 'pro-abortion':

[i]Pro-abortion folks really do exist[/i] - It's a frightening, disgusting reality, but there are folks out there who believe that abortion should be around, seemingly even if 'unwanted' pregnancies vanished. There are folks out there that want it for environmental excuses ("overpopulation"), or racist reasons, etc. These folks care little of what the woman chooses, and merely want her to abort her child. It is easier to turn the public against these types of people, since their motives are so blatantly hateful. Currently though, they hide amongst the pro-choice crowd, as right now abortion is so widespread and legal.

[i]We must distinguish between the ignorant and those with the agenda.[/i] - I can understand why we would say that the masterminds behind Planned Parenthood can be called pro-abortion. They must at all costs remain pro-abortion, because without abortion, they do not make money and retain their monopoly on the abortion industry. They do not make money on a woman making a free choice, they make money on selling her their abortive 'services.' Most folks who fall for their marketing, however, are ignorant to what abortion really is, and what it does not only to the child, but also to the mother. These folks, since they have no personal interest involved in the pregnant woman's choice, are actually 'pro-choice.' They are trying to do the right thing, but are mislead. One of our roles as pro-lifers is to educate them.

[i]We need to move past the rhetoric[/i] - Once we can distinguish these folks from those who deceive them, then we can have honest dialog and we can soon see the vast amounts of common ground we have with these folks. We both see the crisis here - unwanted pregnancies - the main difference between us being that they are being deceived by the agenda makers into believe that abortion is a compassionate option for the woman. It is not difficult to move these folks into our favor. We only need honest, compassionate dialog. If the conversation is initiated without first showing them respect (understanding that they are actually pro-choice and not pro-abortion or anti-life) then the conversation does not move easily into the next levels, which is finding that common ground, discussing differences, and proceeding to solutions. We must acknowledge their willingness to do the right thing. We can easily do this by calling them what they call themselves. It's not compromising, as they actually believe a woman should have a choice, although they mistakenly believe one of those choices not to be as evil as it truly is.

I could expound on these for days, but I keep finding myself pressed for time. I look forward to continuing this conversation, as I really believe it is one we need to have.

btw, if any of you are interested, Steve Wagner (Stand to Reason) has a really good book about dialog on this issue. I believe it is hand's down the best tool we need in the movement:
[url="https://secure2.convio.net/str/site/Ecommerce/762704948?VIEW_PRODUCT=true&product_id=6481&store_id=1161"]https://secure2.convio.net/str/site/Ecommer...p;store_id=1161[/url][/quote]
[i]Pro-abortion folks really do exist[/i] - Yes, and these are the same folks that brought us the euphemism "pro-choice" into the language to help advance their agenda. The abortion lobby struggled for years to find a "nice-sounding" label to advance their cause, and eventually came up with "pro-choice."

Most "pro-choice" politicians, for instance, including Hillary or Obama, don't just believe in keeping the "right to choose" abortion, but wish to actively increase its funding with tax dollars, without we the taxpayers having any choice whatever in the matter. They oppose the right of the states to use democratic choice to decide what restrictions may be made on abortion. They are in fact, pro-abortion, despite their rhetoric of "pro-choice." And these pro-abortion pols give the same song-and-dance about no really liking abortion, and wishing it were less common, while opposing any and all restrictions on baby-killing.

[i]We must distinguish between the ignorant and those with the agenda.[/i] - Just because ignorant people have been duped by those with an agenda, doesn't mean we should adopt the language they have been duped with. Using the enemy's deceitful language does not help educate or enlighten, but helps perpetuate confusion. Rather than ourselves use the term "pro-choice," we should educate others in charity as to why killing an unborn baby is not a legitimate choice, but a crime.
And unfortunately, from what I've seen, much ignorance about abortion is willful ignorance. The facts of abortion are readily available - most of the "pro-choice" crowd just refuse to listen to them because they are (to shamelessly steal from Algore) an inconvenient truth. I've been told in a condescending manner by educated ""pro-choicers" that my pro-life views are "ignorant," while they refuse to discuss the facts.

[i]We need to move past the rhetoric[/i] - Exactly. And the language of "pro-choice" is just that - empty deceitful rhetoric. It is a rhetorical device to set the terms of the abortion debate to be about "choice" (something most Americans see as a positive good and human right), rather than being about protecting innocent human life. It replaces a vague, positive-sounding abstraction for discussion of the heinous act which is at the center of the debate.
As I've pointed out, most "pro-choicers" are not for "choice" on a general overarching principle, but specifically with regards to abortion.

I'm not saying we should attack those ignorant or unsure about abortion as "pro-abortion scum" or anything, but when referring to politicians, policies, or arguments that promote legalized abortion, I will insist on referring to them honestly as pro-abortion, rather than use the pc euphemism "pro-choice."
Control the language, and you control the terms of the debate and influence people's thought.
We mustn't concede the language to the enemy.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Farsight one' post='1615445' date='Aug 1 2008, 06:36 PM']The problem is that "pro-abortion" and "pro-death" already have their own followers and meanings.

All of these groups actually exist:
anti-abortion = those against abortion
pro-life = those against prematurely ending anyone's life. That means they're against abortion, euthanasia, the death penalty, etc.
pro-choice = the decision whether or not to keep the child is up to the mother
pro-abortion = believe that abortion should be mandatory past a certain point (like in China)
pro-death = believe that abortion and euthanasia, death penalty, etc. should be mandatory past a certain point.[/quote]
Hardly anyone argues seriously for making abortion and euthanasia.

Again, would you accept the term "pro-choice" for people who would want to legalize murder (of already-born persons), rape or theft?

"Pro-life" has always traditionally been used by those opposed to abortion, euthanasia, and other such taking of [i]innocent [/i]human life. There have always been people on both sides of the death penalty in the pro-life movement. Trying to insist that only those who oppose the death penalty are "pro-life" is a very recent move by those with a specific agenda.
Myself and most of the pro-lifers I know believe the death penalty has legitimate application.

And, once again, the Church has always taught that abortion is always wrong, while the death penalty for criminals is not.
From Cardinal Ratzinger:[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.[/quote]

Again, let's try to keep this thread on topic folks. The topic is about using the term "pro-choice," not the death penalty. Plenty of other threads to debate that. (Sees this turning into 37-page thread on the death penalty and homosexuals)

[quote]True. But the point was that if you offend someone, they're going to be far less likely to listen to your argument. It's generally best not to offend someone if you want to bring them to your cause.[/quote]
One should not use deceitful and false language out of concern for "offending" others though.
There are ways to speak charitably without adopting false and euphemistic language.

Edited August 4, 2008 by Socrates

[Fidei Defensor]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1616496' date='Aug 3 2008, 12:35 PM']I am pro-life and pro-capital punishment.[/quote]
But isn't that contradictory seeing as at some point, you'd be for death of a human being which would be against life, or in other words, anti-life?

The point is, making out people to be evil because they disagree with your belief only leaves you looking foolish. Not everyone shares your viewpoint and even if you would delcare yourself to be absolutely correct, even at gunpoint, that still doesnt take away differing viewpoints. Call it deceitful wording or whatever carp you people want to use to make yourselves feel better, no one wants to discuss with someone who is only there to tell you that you're wrong.

[Majella]

I personally only use the term"pro-choice" when I want to pretend to be a pro-abort,i.e. checking out doctors,etc.
The term is totally inappropriate for pro-aborts, as the babies have no choice at all;their choice was "terminated"!
We should never adopt their terminology; let's call a spade a spade,and a pro-abort a pro-abort!

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote]"Pro-choice" is nothing but a propaganda slogan to promote an evil agenda, and should not be used by pro-lifers. It's use does not help fight abortion, but couch the language in the enemy's deceitful terms, which merely continues to muddle the issue.[/quote]

my problem with soc's newest responses is their ambiguity.
he essentially says, we shouldn't compromise by using their language. the ambiguous part, is he also says using their language isn't going to help. there appears to be, though it's not necessarily the case, a logical inconsistency here.... you can't say, we shouldn't compromise no matter what, and then act as if whether their change in position matters. if it matters, then the no matter what statement is contradictory. if it does matter, their change in position, the potential,,,, then soc should have thrown in to be clearer,,, "it doesn't matter anyway" and made clear he's just making the point, emphasising.
i can give him the benefit of the doubt, that it was probably an "anyway" type statement and not contradictory.
whatver the case though, while acknowledging he wasn't necessarily referring to my posts,,,, he never discussed how it matters whether they change explicitly, what he'd do if it mattered. he just avoided the issue. this way, he can appear tough, and not have to deal with what very well could be reality. at anyway, it's a plausible hypothetical, that would show his true colors if he'd simply address it.
is he willing to keep people form changing for what i consider blind adherence to principles? or, is he willing to compromise a little, to get the result that he and the prolife cause acutally seeks.
even if he wasn't contradictory in his thought process, as is typical... he was evasive.

[dairygirl4u2c]

also it's inaccurate to say no one has really responded to soc's initial posts. a lot of people simply believe that using proabortion etc can or does sometimes end dialouge. it's a plausible position.
the only real responses besides this that's been given, aren't that great,,, "they're not proabortion like proactive baby murdereres are". that's a weak position, and soc's point isn't validated by knocking it down.
no one is arguing that they use the terms simply to be respectful to the prochoice position. that's not their final argument. their argument is that being respectful is done bc it ensures and prolongs dialogue. so to knock down the "being respectful argument" is a strawman.
so soc basically attacked strawmen, and weak arguments, and didn't address the plausible situation of what one wold do were the use of word proabortion going to prevent dialouge/change etc

[Deb]

If you are pro-choice your are pro-abortion. You cannot support a persons right to murder the unborn and then pretend you do not have blood on your hands just because you did not murder or cause someone else to murder.
Pro-choice is a term used solely so that people can pretend they are not talking about murder of an unborn child. It is used to pacify their conscience, nothing else.