Friday, May 20, 2011

WHAT'S WRONG WITH BEING PRO-CHOICE?



Maria Shriver Schwarzenegger and many of the Catholic Kennedy clan are pro-choice when it comes to abortion. That doesn't mean that they advocate for abortion or believe it is morally right, but they do not want to foist their religious belief, morality or "ethics" onto anyone else in a political or legal way. They want those who want to have an abortion to have the right to kill their unborn child.

When it comes to adultery, I wonder how "pro-choice" Maria is? She seems to have had second thoughts about it when it comes to marital infidelity. Given the logic of her reason and that of the pro-choice political community, shouldn't Arnold have had the right to choose to have an affair without any resultant negative ramifications, such as his wife separating from him and contemplating divorce?

Keep in mind, pro-choice politicians don't want those who provide abortions or have them to face any penalties. Their choice to have an abortion is private, between them and their provider.

Is not adultery a private affair between Arnold and his provider? Why can't he choose to live a double life right under the nose of his wife and family, have a second family and choose not to tell anyone about it?

Joe Pompeo who writes an article for "The Cutline" on Yahoo writes the following:

Former California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's whopping breach of marital ethics has touched off a curious ethical dilemma in the media world: In reporting the ongoing fallout from Schwarzenegger's affair with the former housekeeper who gave birth to his child, has the press unduly invaded the privacy of Schwarzenegger's one-time paramour?

Indeed, hasn't Maria and the press invaded the privacy not only of Arnold's "one-time paramour" but his also, since his right to choose is now being called "a whopping breach of marital ethics" by the press no less! This is all about choice and the privacy that one needs to do it and not be held accountable!
http://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gif
In closing, I think that when the Sacrament of Matrimony is damaged by infidelity this is tragic and I do believe that married couples have a right to privacy when these sorts of mortal sins enter their Sacrament.

However, I would oppose a spouse who does not believe what the Church teaches about adultery or abortion and in a public way promotes immorality and being a choice that is neutral morally, ethically and politically, not to mention criminally.

With that said, I hope Maria and Arnold work out their differences, go to Retrouvaille, repent of their pro-choice immorality, go to confession and be reconciled to God, Church and each other.

8 comments:

Robert Kumpel said...

For a second I thought you were talking about a Catholic married couple, but then I noticed the post was about Arnold and Maria Shriver...

Anonymous said...

Lots of things should not happen. Dogs should not bite, Waves should not knock you down. But when you wander into situations where you can be bitten or knocked down you have to assume responsibility for it. And if the dog bites you family or the wave knock you family into the ocean because you brought them there, guess who is to blame for that fate?

As Christians we should not join in on the attacks just for the fun, or even the schadenfreude, but there is a good use to be made of an example.

We are told that things like Ahnold did are bad. What people mean is that you get hurt by the embarrassment and damage to your career and relations with friends and family. This is a child's understanding of why you should not do it. When a Christian says it is 'bad' it means it is an offense to God and injures you relationship with Him. This is something you tend to, as they say, even when no one else will ever know what you did.

rcg

Anonymous said...

If this post makes it no farther than file 13, I will at least know that you read it.
FrAJM said “That doesn't mean that they advocate for abortion or believe it is morally right, but they do not want to foist their religious belief, morality or "ethics" onto anyone else in a political or legal way.” How does the Church view such dualism – a dichotomy between one’s faith life and one’s vocation, etc?
Did you really mean what you said? If you did , does that mean you are a JFK “Catholic?” Democrat? Please tell me that you didn’t use such logic to personally justify your vote for Obama. I have held you so much higher than and apart from the schizoid vagaries of Father Ignotus. A beautiful mind is a terrible thing to warp.
Shouldn’t moral law be at least as strict as the secular criminal law? A particular crime is illegal, and it is illegal to aid and abet those who commit that crime. I hope you are not suggesting that being pro-choice is somehow morally neutral.
Are you inadvertently explaining the mystery of the 54% “pro-choice – abortion neutral” Catholic” vote for Obama?

Frajm said...

I think my post tries to show how stupid the pro-choice agenda is. Catholics cannot in good conscience be pro-choice, it opens the door to everything including adultery. So I'm chastising Maria for her pro-choice position and showing her where it leads in her own personal life, but in a different way than abortion, which is a greater moral evil than adultery and divorce.

Dave said...

Anonymous -- No way is Father pro-choice; he's 100% pro-life! What he meant is that that's what Maria and Arnold claim -- they claim that they don't want to "impose their morality on others," so, according to their twisted way of thinking, women should be able to "choose" to kill their baby.

Templar said...

Rumor has it that Maria's first reaction was "Just one? You really aren't fit for the Kennedy clan."

And that's why she's really getting divorced.

Anonymous said...

Retrovaille cannot fix a die-hard egomaniac narcissist like Arnold. What does it say about Maria that she put up with his groping of other women for so long?
They need seious individual therapy.

Anonymous said...

FrAJM. Thanks for the clarification. On its face the quoted words appearaed to be yours - not Maria's.