The Church teaches that we should have a well developed conscience. Since in good conscience I cannot support the use of secular authority to force a women to remain in a state of pregnancy against her will - and thereby robbing her of her fundamental right to personal autonomy, I have no alternative but to oppose any politician or law that seeks to do just that. This is a position I came to through careful consideration and weighing of different arguments. It is not an opinion the Church teaches, it is a personal opinion.
On the other hand, I would also oppose any politician or law that seeks to encourage or facilitate abortion as a solution to social problems. I would also support actions by the state that would to reduce the likelihood that a woman would seek an abortion. I believe Church would support both of those positions.
Another contributor to this forum wanted to dismiss my argument as an example of âpluralismâ (i.e., âI personally donât agree with the evil but I donât feel I can prohibit you from that actionâ.) Actually, the issue is not whether I âcanâ or âcan notâ prohibit something, but rather whether I "shouldâ or âshould notâ prohibit it. Anyone with enough muscle or weapons can prohibit whatever they please. They may even believe they are justified in doing so, but that doesnât mean anything. I am certain that the militants in Iraq believe they are justified in what they are doing.
The whole problem with the abortion debate is that it is often set up in a way that forces a person to make a choice between two bad options: either violate a womanâs rights or allow a childâs rights to be violated. I see that as a false choice. There are many things a person can do that does not require him to violate anyone rights or sit idly by while another personâs rights are violated. Unfortunately, both Republicans and Democrats lack the political will to engage in the kind of discussion that could actually go beyond the false choice narrative in a constructive manner.
;