Abortion question to me

[Arkansan]

“Given such unanimity in the doctrinal and disciplinary tradition of the Church, Paul VI was able to declare that this tradition is unchanged and unchangeable. Therefore, by the authority which Christ conferred upon Peter and his Successors, in communion with the Bishops-who on various occasions have condemned abortion and who in the aforementioned consultation, albeit dispersed throughout the world, have shown unanimous agreement concerning this doctrine-I declare that direct abortion, that is, abortion willed as an end or as a means, always constitutes a grave moral disorder, since it is the deliberate killing of an innocent human being. This doctrine is based upon the natural law and upon the written Word of God, is transmitted by the Church’s Tradition and taught by the ordinary and universal Magisterium.” - Evangelium Vitae #62

 

[billcu1]

So does this mean ex cathedra ?

 

[Arkansan]

He invoked his Apostolic authority and used strictly declarative language in an encyclical addressed to the universal Church. So yes.

Though as he noted, this was already infallible by virtue of being taught always and everywhere by the Church.

 

[Sy_Noe]

They don’t have to try to save both, though. If the mother’s life is on the line, she may very well choose to go ahead with an abortion. As long as it is legal in the jurisdiction, the doctor may proceed with the abortion. Of course this isn’t aligned with church teaching. Just clarifying.

In the United States, as long as a woman or her next of kin refuses an abortion, the physicians must respect her wishes.

TheLittleLady, but I don’t see where QwertyGirl implied anything differently. She said the woman may choose under the law and you said a woman may choose not to abort. In both cases women have the choice to follow the dictates of their own consciences and faith beliefs. Or another way of putting it, Catholic women for instance have the liberty to follow the dictates of their faith, as do women of other faiths whose faith communities may view the issue differently. The debate over the rights of the unborn vs the rights of women is one however that I have little doubt will continue to rage on into the future.

 

[roselane]

The problem with this argument is the people arguing lack an understanding of the biology here.

One must understand the nature of abortion is actually a lot slower than a c-section. (In the case of the baby being viable or near viable) With an abortion the woman must be dilated a considerable amount for any instruments to be used and that takes a lot of time, with a c-section its much quicker as c-sections are routinely done with short windows of time in emergency birth situations. Abortions are not as quick, it takes time for the woman to dilate. So an abortion in an emergency situation would not even be the best option to save the life of the mother, not to mention how rarely a womans life is threatened by her pregnancy.