Could abortion ever be banned?

[Rence]

This is where it is important to define our terms. Removing an ectopic fallopian tube is not considered an abortion in Catholic moral theology; it is licit. But, many people would consider that an abortion.

I agree with you. That’s where part of education comes in. It’s important that women know that removing a fallopian tube in the case of eptopic pregnancy is not an abortion. By giving them the proper information, we enable them to make choices that are right for them.

 

[Lypher]

In Utah, they pretty much passed a law that makes illegal to have an abortion and even an accidental one (like where the girl falls down the stairs) can be on thin ice.

Do I think abortion will ever be banned? No, I don’t and I don’t think it should be.

If this is true then that is good news…

 

[Spirithound]

If this is true then that is good news…

Nebraska has also recently passed a law restricting abortion which seems hopeful to withstand the SCOTUS.

 

[catharina]

Could abortion be banned?

Of course it could -
and it was banned until very recent history.

How can people forget how NEW the laws of legal abortion are in this nation?

 

[Hanael]

If this is true then that is good news…

I don’t see how it is, because even if the person was raped or their life was in danger from carrying the child they would have a hell of a time trying to find a way around the law to let them get an abortion. There’s a very fine line in the law for how a person can get an abortion and carrying a child to full term is very dangerous for the female’s body, not to mention it’s emotionally difficult to give a child up for adoption if you should become accidentally pregnant and you know you can’t give the child a good life.

 

[catharina]

I don’t see how it is, because even if the person was raped or their life was in danger from carrying the child they would have a hell of a time trying to find a way around the law to let them get an abortion. There’s a very fine line in the law for how a person can get an abortion and carrying a child to full term is very dangerous for the female’s body, not to mention it’s emotionally difficult to give a child up for adoption if you should become accidentally pregnant and you know you can’t give the child a good life.

So you decide to kill the child???

 

[Spirithound]

…not to mention it’s emotionally difficult to give a child up for adoption if you should become accidentally pregnant and you know you can’t give the child a good life.

So it’s easier to just kill the child and not let anyone get close to her.

 

[dcs6f4]

I don’t see how it is, because even if the person was raped or their life was in danger from carrying the child they would have a hell of a time trying to find a way around the law to let them get an abortion. There’s a very fine line in the law for how a person can get an abortion and carrying a child to full term is very dangerous for the female’s body, not to mention it’s emotionally difficult to give a child up for adoption if you should become accidentally pregnant and you know you can’t give the child a good life.

The poster you replied to is saying that its good news because he is a Catholic on a Catholic Forum representing the Catholic position on pro-life issues.

Since you’re on a Catholic Forum you are going to have to be more specific when trying to pass off the idea that an abortion is morally permissible in the event of a pregnancy resulting from rape. You are also going to have to realize that when making a point like that 95% of the people here have already considered the point you are going to make and still see the negatives of the situation as tragic, but nonetheless much less tragic than the murder of an innocent human life. This also applies to your point on the “danger” of pregnancy and the emotional difficulty resulting from adoption.

Overall, I think you need to be challenged on your view of life. According to your comments you suggest that the personal, temporal suffering of one person can be justifiably alleviated by the death of another person without their choice or consideration. It is beautiful to have compassion for the suffering of other people, but to want support removing it at any cost twists that compassion. I am sure you feel pregnancy and new life are beautiful things, however, in order to make a point you are willing to present pregnancy as something “very dangerous” to a woman’s body. This makes pregnancy sound no different a disease or gun-shot wound… as if the situation under which a new life was created changes the very essence of what it is. Pregnancy can be accompanied by a number of complications that present a risk to the woman’s body, yes. However, carrying to full term is NOT “very dangerous” especially in the country we are considering.

Those who become co-creators with God and affirm the value of human life at any stage by carrying a pregnancy to full-term and giving birth should be affirmed themselves and be shown and told they truly have nothing to fear. An ectopic pregnancy and the conditions under which it is morally acceptable to remove the fallopian tube is much different than what you are presenting. The moral principle cannot be applied to dangers so generally. The law should reflect that moral truth.

I understand you don’t agree with me, but the way you presented your argument suggests that everyone here will just go along with your thinking. Which is that pregnancy resulting from rape, the removal of general danger to a woman’s body, and the avoidance of a situation causing severe emotional stress are by themselves or in combination a foregone conclusion in support of abortion.

 

[catharina]

The poster you replied to is saying that its good news because he is a Catholic on a Catholic Forum representing the Catholic position on pro-life issues.

Since you’re on a Catholic Forum you are going to have to be more specific when trying to pass off the idea that an abortion is morally permissible in the event of a pregnancy resulting from rape. You are also going to have to realize that when making a point like that 95% of the people here have already considered the point you are going to make and still see the negatives of the situation as tragic, but nonetheless much less tragic than the murder of an innocent human life. This also applies to your point on the “danger” of pregnancy and the emotional difficulty resulting from adoption.

Overall, I think you need to be challenged on your view of life. According to your comments you suggest that the personal, temporal suffering of one person can be justifiably alleviated by the death of another person without their choice or consideration. It is beautiful to have compassion for the suffering of other people, but to want support removing it at any cost twists that compassion. I am sure you feel pregnancy and new life are beautiful things, however, in order to make a point you are willing to present pregnancy as something “very dangerous” to a woman’s body. This makes pregnancy sound no different a disease or gun-shot wound… as if the situation under which a new life was created changes the very essence of what it is. Pregnancy can be accompanied by a number of complications that present a risk to the woman’s body, yes. However, carrying to full term is NOT “very dangerous” especially in the country we are considering.

Those who become co-creators with God and affirm the value of human life at any stage by carrying a pregnancy to full-term and giving birth should be affirmed themselves and be shown and told they truly have nothing to fear. An ectopic pregnancy and the conditions under which it is morally acceptable to remove the fallopian tube is much different than what you are presenting. The moral principle cannot be applied to dangers so generally. The law should reflect that moral truth.

I understand you don’t agree with me, but the way you presented your argument suggests that everyone here will just go along with your thinking. Which is that pregnancy resulting from rape, the removal of general danger to a woman’s body, and the avoidance of a situation causing severe emotional stress are by themselves or in combination a foregone conclusion in support of abortion.

Absolutely beautiful and truthful post.
Also it’s extremely charitable.

I agree with every word
and personally, I applaud you.

 

[Rence]

I don’t see how it is, because even if the person was raped or their life was in danger from carrying the child they would have a hell of a time trying to find a way around the law to let them get an abortion. There’s a very fine line in the law for how a person can get an abortion and carrying a child to full term is very dangerous for the female’s body, not to mention it’s emotionally difficult to give a child up for adoption if you should become accidentally pregnant and you know you can’t give the child a good life.

Well, unless I’m missing something, the bill proposed in utah was in reaction to a teenager who felt her only option was to pay someone to beat her in order to induce a miscarriage. abcnews.go.com/Health/utah-abortion-bill-punishing-miscarriages-preventing-crime/story?id=9955517 From what I understand the bill, "includes a new state definition of abortion as “only to a medical procedure carried out by a physician, or through a substance used under the direction of a physician.” Another article regarding this bill specifically states the legal abortions are still allowed. nytimes.com/2010/03/01/us/01abortion.html

This is kind of a stupid law because it could be construed as make riding a horse, climbing a latter, or getting hurt in a car accident during pregnancy possible violations. Which, of course, is more ammunition for pro-choicers to use, because this law truly does look like it can be interpreted as trying to penalize women specifically. They would be wise to change the wording to make sure that are protected in accidents that result in a miscarriage. This law really was made to punish those other than the mother who cause harm to a fetus. I’m sure it will be added to and subtracted from before it is made into law. And really, abortions should be illegal if not done by a properly licenced physician anyway.

Though, the article mentioned, and I heartily agree, the reaction to this girl’s hiring of a man to beat her ignores her underlying mental and emotional issues. Abortion is legal and obtainable, therefore, one might consider what made her do this and get her the help she needs because whether or not your thoughts are uncharitable towards her, one has to admit she’s got some problems besides not wanting to be pregnant.

Nebraska passed a law that states that a woman can’t get an abortion after 20 weeks gestation, except that "The bill contains a health exception for the mother if “in reasonable medical judgment, she has a condition which so complicates her medical condition as to necessitate the abortion of her pregnancy to avert her death or to avert serious risk of substantial and irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function.” " Which leaves much to interpretation and leaves women with a lot of freedom still.
abcnews.go.com/WN/Supreme_Court/nebraska-passes-controversial-abortion-ban/story?id=10361705&page=2

As to abortion being banned in the cases of rape, incest and “threat to the woman’s life”, it will probably never happen. Even if the ‘after 20 weeks gestation’ applies to instances of rape, a rape victim will know well before 20 weeks if she is pregnant.

 

[Lypher]

The poster you replied to is saying that its good news because he is a Catholic on a Catholic Forum representing the Catholic position on pro-life issues.

Since you’re on a Catholic Forum you are going to have to be more specific when trying to pass off the idea that an abortion is morally permissible in the event of a pregnancy resulting from rape. You are also going to have to realize that when making a point like that 95% of the people here have already considered the point you are going to make and still see the negatives of the situation as tragic, but nonetheless much less tragic than the murder of an innocent human life. This also applies to your point on the “danger” of pregnancy and the emotional difficulty resulting from adoption.

Overall, I think you need to be challenged on your view of life. According to your comments you suggest that the personal, temporal suffering of one person can be justifiably alleviated by the death of another person without their choice or consideration. It is beautiful to have compassion for the suffering of other people, but to want support removing it at any cost twists that compassion. I am sure you feel pregnancy and new life are beautiful things, however, in order to make a point you are willing to present pregnancy as something “very dangerous” to a woman’s body. This makes pregnancy sound no different a disease or gun-shot wound… as if the situation under which a new life was created changes the very essence of what it is. Pregnancy can be accompanied by a number of complications that present a risk to the woman’s body, yes. However, carrying to full term is NOT “very dangerous” especially in the country we are considering.

Those who become co-creators with God and affirm the value of human life at any stage by carrying a pregnancy to full-term and giving birth should be affirmed themselves and be shown and told they truly have nothing to fear. An ectopic pregnancy and the conditions under which it is morally acceptable to remove the fallopian tube is much different than what you are presenting. The moral principle cannot be applied to dangers so generally. The law should reflect that moral truth.

I understand you don’t agree with me, but the way you presented your argument suggests that everyone here will just go along with your thinking. Which is that pregnancy resulting from rape, the removal of general danger to a woman’s body, and the avoidance of a situation causing severe emotional stress are by themselves or in combination a foregone conclusion in support of abortion.

Well said… and like Catrina said very kind…:clapping: