Catholic Position Extreme Case of Abortion

[QContinuum]

I couldn’t have stopped it. I do not have the ability to make rules or laws in another country, much less Nazi Germany. Had I been a citizen of Germany, I would have voted against the fascist candidate. (Just as I am doing in my country, at this time.)

Now, you are presupposing that recognizing another country’s ability to make laws, means there won’t be conflict between it and other nations. Recognizing that Germany was fascist and was, accordingly, making laws to send people to the gas chambers doesn’t mean I, personally, agreed with them. As a citizen of the U.S., I agree with its (rather late) decision to eventually oppose Germany, because it didn’t just pose a risk to people within her borders, but to to other countries as it was aggressively expanding.

North Korea has killed many, many thousands. We don’t even know how many. China has done the same. Iran has killed many. In the 90’s, Rwanda experienced its own Holocaust. Many people in other countries have disagree with the decisions made by the governments in these countries. Does the fact these things have happened mean that you, or the Church, or others didn’t oppose those countries?

So, again. Each society makes its own laws and rules. Unless and until it gets overly aggressive towards other nations, generally speaking, they are allowed to continue. Just like North Korea. The fact that these countries’ laws and practices are at odds with my personal moral system is frankly, irrelevant to them. Unless or until they are opposed by a greater force, they continue.

 

[CaptainPrudeman]

Say you did have the power to stop it. Would you have?

 

[QContinuum]

Say you did have the power to stop it. Would you have?

This is an interesting question. Because any such power would mean the ability to manipulate time, itself, and rewrite history, as well as having the ability to repel or defeat the world’s most powerful military at the time.

Such powers would be godlike, and if I were to accept the possibility that such a being can even exist, or that there’s already a God now, perhaps I might have some sort of divine insight or wisdom that might lead me to the same conclusion he apparently came to, and allowed it to happen.

So the question is nonsensical. As a human, I cannot stop it. If I was some sort of being with godlike powers, I would assume a similar decision to what the divine already determined should be allowed to happen.

If somehow science provided a way to do something, like travel back in time and change history? No, because I do not understand the repercussions for the present. (Even a Q is leery of changing the timestream.) I may end many more lives than I saved, and all through the hubris of thinking I could undo the past.

If I was someone living at the time, and assuming I was somehow aware of the camps as a non-German, non-Nazi (most Americans were not aware), and I was given the opportunity to take Hitler out, I would have done so, as a service to my country, and as a blow against an international menace and mass murderer. You’ll recall I recently stated a lack of remorse for such people being offed.

 

[CaptainPrudeman]

I suppose the main question is: Do you believe that there are any rights beyond those which a society affords to its members? Are any rights absolute and never able to be stripped, or is it up to a society to give and take rights away?

 

[Rau]

You may use “DM” (Direct Messages) to converse with a single forum user if you wish to conduct a private conversation.

Or he could simply ignore your posts till willing to engage with you.

 

[QContinuum]

I suppose the main question is: Do you believe that there are any rights beyond those which a society affords to its members? Are any rights absolute and never able to be stripped, or is it up to a society to give and take rights away?

No. I honestly do not see any evidence for such an absolute set of rights. Instead of a universal agreement on human rights, there is instead competing systems of morality that have gradually changed over time, generally in tandem with technological and scientific advancement, but not always.

So that means there’s a competition of ideas and values in societies like ours. I think people like you and I could come to agreement, or at least compromise, on many points, even though you’re a theist and I’m not. The only real issue is where we come to…well, the extreme cases, such as this thread is discussing. For me, I will always advocate for women to have the available medical options to save their lives. I wouldn’t strip them of lifesaving abortions, such as the one who saved my classmate when she had HELLP syndrome.

I consider myself reasonable, and I’m willing to concede that most abortions are a waste of human potential, and I would like to see that minimized. If Catholics came to the table and said, abortions outside of life-saving reasons, rape, and serious defects, I would consider such a platform. I realize that that is not satisfactory for devout Catholics, but it is also not satisfactory to me that such a law would doubtlessly lead to a black market for elective abortions, the criminalization of women in certain states overzealous in their crackdowns, etc.

Right now, I am probably one of many, many Americans who feels stuck in the middle of a highly polemical debate between extreme anti-abortion groups (some of which border, frankly, on misogyny, having seen their vitriolic discussions on other boards and blogs) and extreme pro-abortion groups bordering on infanticide.

 

[CaptainPrudeman]

I think, then, our moral systems are too different to find common ground. The inalienable “right to life” for innocents is the framework of US law and general morals. If that right is subjective, then there’s not much I can say.

I do agree, a bit controversially, that Catholics should be willing to accept rape as a legal exemption to abortion bans. America wouldn’t accept anything more restrictive. We shouldn’t concentrate on saving everyone if that means that we end up saving nobody.

 

[QContinuum]

Perhaps. Thank you for the very interesting discussion. You ask good questions. Apologies for my verbose posts, they were somewhat a stream of consciousness.

 

[Anesti33]

I think, then, our moral systems are too different to find common ground. The inalienable “right to life” for innocents is the framework of US law and general morals. If that right is subjective, then there’s not much I can say.

I do agree, a bit controversially, that Catholics should be willing to accept rape as a legal exemption to abortion bans. America wouldn’t accept anything more restrictive. We shouldn’t concentrate on saving everyone if that means that we end up saving nobody.

There is a significant sect of anti-abortion groups who denounce any law short of complete abolition. They are “abortion abolitionists” such as “Abolish Human Abortion (AHA)”. I and others believe they are actually false-flag pro-abortionists, because they work against the pro-life movement when we try to pass reasonable restrictions on abortion. They shout us down at abortion mills and carry graphically violent imagery designed to nauseate and frighten vulnerable mothers.

There is something to be said about working for complete abolition of abortion, and yeah, I want it too, but I recognize that Rome wasn’t built in a day, and we kinda work with the tools we have at hand.

 

[runningdude]

In other words, it would be something in the nature of a caesarean to deliver a baby that we know will be premature, and we will try to save if we can, but we go into the procedure knowing that may not be possible. How could that be called a “direct abortion”?

The word “abortion” in a literal medical sense, refers to removing a child before it can survive outside the womb, and thus its death is a direct result.

Catholic teaching hedges right along this line. Inducing a high risk pregnancy a few early would be morally acceptable, as limited advanced neonatal care needed and mother and child would have a very good chance escaping crippling injury. Performing a Cesarean several months early however, putting the child well into preemie territory, could not be done flippantly. There would have to be a good faith belief that the child had a better chance of survival post-birth with advance care than if the pregnancy continued.

Removing a child with no realistic chance of survival would be a direct abortion in the medical and moral sense.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

HomeschoolDad:

In other words, it would be something in the nature of a caesarean to deliver a baby that we know will be premature, and we will try to save if we can, but we go into the procedure knowing that may not be possible. How could that be called a “direct abortion”?

The word “abortion” in a literal medical sense, refers to removing a child before it can survive outside the womb, and thus its death is a direct result.

Catholic teaching hedges right along this line. Inducing a high risk pregnancy a few early would be morally acceptable, as limited advanced neonatal care needed and mother and child would have a very good chance escaping crippling injury. Performing a Cesarean several months early however, putting the child well into preemie territory, could not be done flippantly. There would have to be a good faith belief that the child had a better chance of survival post-birth with advance care than if the pregnancy continued.

Removing a child with no realistic chance of survival would be a direct abortion in the medical and moral sense.

I see what you are saying, but where I was going, is that you would remove the child, being careful to do so while ensuring no harm to the child other than being removed from its natural environment before it is really ready to be out of that environment. Abortion, as it is commonly performed, makes absolutely no effort to preserve the life of the child, indeed, most methods ensure the child’s death in the process (graphic details can be spared here, we all know what kinds of things are done to the child), and nobody wants a live birth because, well, that creates massive ethical dilemmas.

As a practical matter, I would think most women would want to carry the child as close to full-term as they could, being willing to risk their own life for that of the child, and only induce early delivery when the risk to the child would be minimal.

 

[Gorgias]

What is government, ultimately, but a monopoly on violence in a discrete area?

Seriously? Gee, I would’ve thought we’d want to characterize it as a body which is tasked with upholding the common good of its citizens. (Clearly, some do it well, some do it poorly, and some don’t even attempt it to any significant degree.)

But… “the monopoly holder on regional violence”?

I see what you are saying, but where I was going, is that you would remove the child, being careful to do so while ensuring no harm to the child other than being removed from its natural environment before it is really ready to be out of that environment.

OK… so, what you’re suggesting is an early delivery. Inasmuch as such are possible, and afford good chances for the child’s survival? Sure! But not merely removing it carefully so that it can be set aside to die outside the womb, right?

 

[QContinuum]

Seriously? Gee, I would’ve thought we’d want to characterize it as a body which is tasked with upholding the common good of its citizens. (Clearly, some do it well, some do it poorly, and some don’t even attempt it to any significant degree.)

But… “the monopoly holder on regional violence”?

It’s a rather bald and reductive definition, isn’t it? I was taken aback when I first came upon the definition years ago. But then upon further reflection, I had to agree. You’re right that a better government would seem to be one that upholds the good of its citizens. The record shows it’s not a requisite for government, however.

At its most distilled essence, a government, any government, in order to be able to assert its authority and to establish sovereignty, must have the monopoly on violence within its borders. Even St. Paul referenced this truism: did he not point out that the state doesn’t wield the sword for nothing?

If a government does not have a clear monopoly, you get nasty insurrections, war lords, and dangerous gangs and cartels that threaten the legitimacy or ability of the government to carry out its will, such as what’s been going on in Mexico for years.

So while there may be other additional features that we prefer for governments to have, this one seems to be standard.

 

[Anesti33]

I think that’s a symptom, and symptoms are not useful definitions. A government has sovereignty within its borders to establish and enforce the rule of law. A government has a vested interest in minimizing violence of all kinds, including police brutality, militia revolts, incursions etc. But the government establishes laws for peace and efficient operation. When there is peace and efficient operation of the state, violence naturally declines. Likewise, by fostering an equitable market and economy, the government can prevent black markets and larceny crimes from growing.

Violence is one small facet of governance, and it really isn’t a factor in stable nations. I would say your definition is deficient and cynical.

 

[QContinuum]

to establish and enforce the rule of law.

In order to do this, it must have the biggest guns on the block. If it attempts to establish its authority over a territory where other groups or gangs have a more powerful militia than the government, that government is in danger of imminent demise. If said groups overpowered and defeat the government’s own military, then that government becomes extinct. The new group, by virtue of its superior force, then asserts its own government.

 

[QContinuum]

I would say your definition is deficient and cynical.

I can’t take credit for it. I came across it years ago in a discussion on the legitimacy of government. I don’t claim it is a comprehensive definition, merely one that is a foundational one for pretty much every government in history.

 

[Anesti33]

Anesti33:

to establish and enforce the rule of law.

In order to do this, it must have the biggest guns on the block. If it attempts to establish its authority over a territory where other groups or gangs have a more powerful militia than the government, that government is in danger of imminent demise. If said groups overpowered and defeat the government’s own military, then that government becomes extinct. The new group, by virtue of its superior force, then asserts its own government.

This is an oversimplification and excludes diplomacy.

Europe is composed of many small nations who lack big guns, yet they have known long stretches of peaceful coexistence. Perhaps these USA need big guns proportional to the size of the empire, but I would say that your axiom is manifestly untrue in practice.

 

[CaptainPrudeman]

The ideal government is empowered by the consent of those they govern, who give up their absolute freedom for protection from those who seek to harm them. The government gets the guns to enforce laws from those who want those laws enforced.

And, just to ensure that the government always works for the people, not the other way around, we should carry sticks too. Big ones.

It’s an idealist form of government but one that the Founders believed to be the greatest. As someone who admires them and what they did for mankind, I’m inclined to agree.

 

[QContinuum]

This is an oversimplification and excludes diplomacy.

Europe is composed of many small nations who lack big guns, yet they have known long stretches of peaceful coexistence. Perhaps these USA need big guns proportional to the size of the empire, but I would say that your axiom is manifestly untrue in practice.

It’s a basic definition, as stated. Many small nations may lack big guns, but if the government doesn’t have access to militia and weapons at least superior to that of any other interior groups, its tenure has no guarantee. In order to enforce its rules, a government needs to have the ability to “wield the sword” as St. Paul put it. Otherwise, what can it do to enforce its laws, if its ability to punish, for lack of a better word, is thwarted by more powerful forces within the country? It cannot. Human nature is such that if you can’t make people abide by the law, and the threat of that dissipates, other violence quickly breaks out and escalates. We are seeing that in many cities across the U.S. right now.

Here in Minneapolis, the police couldn’t control the rioters (partly because their legitimacy is considered suspect by the populace). The peace wasn’t reestablished until the National Guard swooped in with their helicopters, troops, tanks, drones, and military grade weapons. There was no contest. Once they established their zones and shut down highways and bridges, they had established a monopoly of violence within those territories.

 

[Anesti33]

So Vatican City, Andorra, Monaco must have fearsome arsenals somewhere to prevent incursion by those nasty bullies completely surrounding them for centuries. I get it.

Might makes right. Feh.