Can we as Catholics **respect** the Pro-Choice view?

[Buks]

Some people haven’t found faith in the love God has for each individual unbounded by time. I think we can respect that like we respect any aspect of a person that reflects a point in life where faith still has a lot of growing to do. Faith in God- the Christian god, is simply not yet there.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

I can sit down and talk with anyone about anything. First of all, you start off by respecting the person. A few of them may be given over to evil — what I call “peccatophiles” (yes, they do exist) — or possibly even under the influence of demons. But I have to think that most of them are good people with good intentions, who proceed from false principles, or possibly are driven by emotion and “it has to be this way” rather than deep, logical thought.

I’m a hard one to shock or offend. I’ve just seen and heard too much, and I just turned 60. It takes a lot to get me rattled. Very often, when talking to someone whose views I find horrifying, I will take the gentle approach of “that’s a very interesting point of view, I’ve heard of that before, I imagine you have some really strong reasons for feeling that way, could you tell me more?”. Draw them out. Get them to explain. You might not change their mind — or you might! — but you’ve done no harm. Then I can come back and say something like “so you should be able to see it from my point of view, then, not that I expect you to agree with me, but you can see where I’m coming from, can’t you?”. Again, no harm done.

I think this is a good approach. Anything here I’m not seeing?

 

[Erikaspirit16]

If you start with the premise that abortion is an intrinsic evil, then it’s not a huge leap to believe that anyone who supports it is evil. Catholics also believe (at least they’re supposed to) in Transubstantiation. Do we think that those who do not are evil? The idea that all abortion = murder and that all abortion is an intrinsic evil is a belief of the Catholic Church. It is NOT a belief of other major world religions. Are adherents of those other religions “evil” because they believe the teachings of their own religions? You may firmly believe they are mistaken, wrong, etc. but are they obeying their own consciences? Would you deny them religious freedom? What about those who think abortion is wrong, but are more concerned with other issues? Are they also evil?

Pope Francis has something to say on the issue:
“Gaudete et Exsultate”, 2018–§101–(in full) “The other harmful ideological error is found in those who find suspect the social engagement of others, seeing it as superficial, worldly, secular, materialist, communist or populist. Or they relativize it, as if there are other more important matters, or the only thing that counts is one particular ethical issue or cause that they themselves defend. Our defence of the innocent unborn, for example, needs to be clear, firm and passionate, for at stake is the dignity of a human life, which is always sacred and demands love for each person, regardless of his or her stage of development. Equally sacred, however, are the lives of the poor, those already born, the destitute, the abandoned and the underprivileged, the vulnerable infirm and elderly exposed to covert euthanasia, the victims of human trafficking, new forms of slavery, and every form of rejection. We cannot uphold an ideal of holiness that would ignore injustice in a world where some revel, spend with abandon and live only for the latest consumer goods, even as others look on from afar, living their entire lives in abject poverty.”

And §102-- “We often hear it said that, with respect to relativism and the flaws of our present world, the situation of migrants, for example, is a lesser issue. Some Catholics consider it a secondary issue compared to the “grave” bioethical questions. That a politician looking for votes might say such a thing is understandable, but not a Christian…”

 

[FiveLinden]

Yep, I’m getting a little off track here but again, you’re arguing for what YOU ‘determine’ is ‘in accord with facts, did not harm, etc’

Of course. I can only reason in my own mind. I do not accept that facts or morality can be transmitted spiritually. This is the predominant view in most of the world in which pro-lifers work. Deciding to respect at least the consistency of situation ethicists will help you discuss matters with them and perhaps find common ground.

And what of the humans like me who, in determining that abortion, in scientific fact, destroys the life in the womb which certainly causes harm to the child?

Apart from the word ‘child’ in relation to pre-viable lives I agree with you. Who wouldn’t? Your judgement that a ‘child’ is there in the same sense that a born ‘child’ is there is not science but religious belief. I don’y have a problem with your belief, although I think it is open to challenge.

What I do have a problem with is the proposition that those of your belief should be able to use the power of the state to make all others act in accord with your belief especially given that the number of people who hold to the Catholic position on legal abortion, in its fullness, is tiny.

If you don’t think the full Catholic position should be imposed by law - please tell me why.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

Apart from the word ‘child’ in relation to pre-viable lives I agree with you. Who wouldn’t? Your judgement that a ‘child’ is there in the same sense that a born ‘child’ is there is not science but religious belief. I don’y have a problem with your belief, although I think it is open to challenge.

Just going to throw this out there, let’s suppose that there is a hypothetical religion that regards the male and female gametes, before conception, as being in some sense a “human life”. (This is not as loopy as it sounds — medieval people thought that the male element was what “made the baby”, and that the womb was just a “incubator” of sorts, in which the male element formed into an unborn child.) Let’s suppose that this religion — maybe call it “Fertilism” — mourns the accidental loss of these gametes (male emission or female period respectively) as being something akin to a miscarriage. Anyone deliberately provoking the male emission response outside of the marital act would be viewed as a murderer. Would we be speaking out against these people, saying “they’re going too far, how dare they impose this belief in Fertilism upon those of us who know better?”.

Many pro-choice people, if I’m understanding correctly, think of the just-conceived entity, and that entity before Point X in the pregnancy, as being “not quite separate gametes, some kind of union has taken place, but it’s not a human being, it might be a potential human being, if you leave it alone long enough, at Point X, it will become a human being with at least some rights, but at the outset, it is fair game for being aborted, if that is needed or even just desired, and it’s not murder or anything like murder, something we might mourn for what could have been, but not taking of a human life”. Am I correct in seeing their view this way? Or something close to it?

 

[FiveLinden]

Many pro-choice people, if I’m understanding correctly, think of the just-conceived entity, and that entity before Point X in the pregnancy, as being “not quite separate gametes, some kind of union has taken place, but it’s not a human being, it might be a potential human being, if you leave it alone long enough, at Point X, it will become a human being with at least some rights, but at the outset, it is fair game for being aborted, if that is needed or even just desired, and it’s not murder or anything like murder”, something we might mourn for what could have been, but not taking of a human life". Am I correct in seeing their view this way? Or something close to it?

There are a whole range of pro-choice views but I think your description is a mainstream position. I think too that the “murder” claim is rejected by most pro-choice people because 1) We are not talking about a human being and 2) Murder is something done to someone who is outside your body. Point 2) I think is felt rather more deeply by many than point 1). Point 1) to most pro-choice people is said only response to the claim that a human being is involved. To most pro-choice people it is obvious that a non-viable human being is not a human being with the same rights as a born human being. (There’s no need to remind me of the Catholic view on these things, I know it well. Just explaining another point of view).

 

[Lea101]

For example, I don’t respect racist or fascist views. If I meet someone with such views, I will think there’s something deeply wrong with that person - their personality, reason, etc, more than just that he or she has this erroneous and dangerous view. (Important: I’ll still try very hard to respect the person.)

So, given such a definition, for myself I’m inclined to respect the Pro-Choice views. I think for someone who doesn’t have the faith and is Pro-Choice, it doesn’t necessarily mean there’s something deeply wrong with their personality or reason. In my view, without the faith, it’s quite easy for the reason of an average person living in our times, sincerely trying to live well, and without harming others to arrive at the conclusion that abortion in the first trimester should be allowed.

I think i agree with you here.

For most pro choice people (aka the average Joe), their beliefs stem from a lack of diving into this issue logically/philosophically. Whereas for people like racism and such, it often comes from a place of malice.

There are some pro choicers who I don’t respect, like the crazy ones that agree with killing after birth or in the 3rd trimester by choice-because they are aware of the pain and lack of ethics, but they personally don’t care (yes they exist).

But like the rest said, what you’re describing is respecting the pro choice person, not their opinion, and not respecting the racist person and their opinion.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

I respect people.

I respect people’s right to hold a view even if it disagrees with mine. (I expect them to use reasonable prudence in expressing their view if such expression might cause harm.)

I don’t respect views that disagree with mine in a major moral way, or even in a major common-sense way. A view in and of itself does not command any respect, only the person behind it. We are not required to give credence to views that in our prudent opinion are morally wrong and/or just plain stupid. We are however required to be kind to the people who hold the views, and treat them with dignity as humans whom God loves.

 

[John9]

I honestly can’t see how it is possible to respect error. As Catholics we are taught (and as human creatures we are pre-disposed) to love truth.
So my answer would be ‘no’. I don’t think we can have any more respect for pro-choice views than we can for belief in a flat earth. They are both wrong in fact.

 

[whalljim1]

Sorry in all honesty I’m missing the irony, but it’s early as I read this.

By rabid atheist I mean Someone. Who is honestly anti-theist rather than someone who just doesn’t believe in God.

Those people I often wonder what happened to them, how maybe a
Theist hurt them, because they often seem willing to blame religion for all evils.

 

[Elf01]

I think I’ve been pretty clear on other threads. The view that the unborn do not have the right to life deserves the same amount of respect as the view that Jews don’t have the right to life, and the people who hold the view also deserve the same amount of respect.

I don’t think pro aborts are good but misguided people.

 

[blackforest]

Does your use of the word ‘rabid’ as an adjective here seem in any way ironic to you given the rest of your statement?

I get what you’re saying. But I think a better way to state it is that it’s difficult and sometimes impossible to hold any meaningful dialogue with anyone who is fanatical in their beliefs. And yes, I’ve met my share of “rabid” pro-life activists who refuse to hear out the pro-choice position. As a Catholic, I do try to uphold my faith’s teaching about basic charity. (I don’t always practice it, unfortunately . . . )

 

[ioannes_pius]

Frankly, I don’t respect the opinion that killing babies is okay. It’s abhorrent.

 

[Stephen_says]

I think it depends. I think there are a variety of views on abortion, and some may be more respectable than others. We live in a time where it seems the same exact argumentation could be used pro and anti anything! but at the same time I don’t think “respect” is the right word. I think you can try to “understand” and “empathize” with some pro-choice arguments, you know? Understand where they are coming from, why they feel that way, how they came to their conclusion. That will help us love them better, and maybe give an “in” to try and change their heart. I think that’s different than “respect”.

For example, I don’t respect racist or fascist views.

Well, some people would view your pro-life position as being fascist, so watch out!

 

[Maximian]

I do not respect the view, and I do not necessarily respect a person who kills people for their own gain.

 

[Gorgias]

I don’t think pro aborts are good but misguided people.

Back in the day, before Roe v Wade? I think you could have made that case back then.

Today, though? When kids are steeped in a contraceptive mentality and have been taught by the culture that “it’s not really a person”? No… today, we’ve warped our younger generations so thoroughly that “good but misguided” is precisely the correct description…

I like the way that @Stephen_says puts it: we can understand why they feel the way they do, and empathize with the perspective as they see it. However, that’s not where it ends. I can ‘understand’ and ‘empathize’ with someone who wants to shoot up heroin… but I can’t subsequently simply turn away and say “yeah, I get them”.

 

[Bluebright]

I think it’s the old story…love the sinner hate the sin. We can’t respect their views because they are quite simply lies (and so the property of Satan to put it very simply). We can respect them and we should love and respect them as they are God’s creatures made in his image and likeness. We remember that if it weren’t for the grace of God we could believe those same lies.

This of course bring us to the the difficulty of how to be loving to those who have these views without supporting the views. You are right communication is important as is openness and kindness…which believe me is often unexpected in prolife work. Also is a willingness to be rejected and reviled. But I don’t agree with you that this same approach wouldn’t help with those holding racist/fascist views. The goal is not to convert people to your or even the right viewpoint but to save souls and God does that not you. You don’t have to be successful just do your best. If that is be screamed at and abused then so be it. Who knows if that person goes on to have a conversion of soul later or not. God knows, it’s his business not yours. You just have the conversation, pray outside the abortion clinic, comment against racism etc. Or whatever you are called to do by the Holy spirit. Do it with love and gentleness and as best as you can.

 

[Raxus]

So I have no trouble respecting the view of someone who thinks a fertilised ovum (zygote) is a human being deserving of the same right to life as other human beings. I don’t agree, but can respect the view.

Out of curiosity, why isn’t a zygote a human being when a different developmental stage, child, IS a human being? Isn’t that just simple (and lethal) bigotry based on age?

 

[HomeschoolDad]

There are some pro choicers who I don’t respect, like the crazy ones that agree with killing after birth or in the 3rd trimester by choice-because they are aware of the pain and lack of ethics, but they personally don’t care (yes they exist).

And these are the kind of people I would sit down with and “go Dr Phil on” — “that’s a very interesting point of view, it’s kind of out of the mainstream (but you already know that), and I’d really, really like to understand how you have come to think that way, you’re a smart guy/gal, you’ve obviously given this a lot of thought, please help me out here”.

I respect people’s right to hold a view even if it disagrees with mine. (I expect them to use reasonable prudence in expressing their view if such expression might cause harm.)

Where does this “right” come from, where objective error is being held?

I don’t think of us so much having “rights” as we have “obligations”. One of those obligations is to seek truth. If we get it wrong, well, that’s been happening since the beginning of time. If the human race had “hive mind” on all things, there would never be any disagreements, nothing would ever be debated, and the whole world would pull in the same direction on everything.

I have a feeling that’s what the Kingdom of Heaven is going to be like. Anything before then would just be immanentizing the eschaton.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

Where does this “right” come from, where objective error is being held?

I can’t prosecute someone for their thoughts. People have a right to think whatever they want to think.

I think most people would object on principle to the idea of a “thought crime”.