Defending Church teaching on abortion

[mikew262]

Anonymous_1:

How do you defend the pro-life cause in this extreme circumstance.

If the Mother will certainly die, or if the Mother and child both if she delivers the child is she justified in having an abortion to save her own life?

How do you defend against this type of situation?

As you have seen, almost everybody who has answered has given you the official church teaching on this, as they should.

Of the people who have answered you, I wonder how many have actually been in the situation you described. Its easy to regurgitate what the church teaches, but if one ever finds themself in a situation where they may lose their wife and/or child, could they make the church sanctioned call. I wonder. “Until you’ve walked a mile in my shoes…” On another similiar thread, a woman spoke up and said she was in that situation and thankfully, both her and the child survived. She chose to risk death rather than give up her child. God Bless her on that decision. Could all us be that strong?

I hope and pray nobody would ever find themselves in that situation.

 

[BillP]

mikew262:

I wonder how many have actually been in the situation you described. Its easy to regurgitate what the church teaches, but if one ever finds themself in a situation where they may lose their wife and/or child, could they make the church sanctioned call.

Which is **exactly **why Mortal Sin requries full consent. And why none of us is qualified to judge whether anyone has committed a mortal sin regardless of what nominally sinful acts they may have comitted.

 

[mikew262]

BillP:

Which is **exactly **why Mortal Sin requries full consent. And why none of us is qualified to judge whether anyone has committed a mortal sin regardless of what nominally sinful acts they may have comitted.

Agreed.

 

[BillP]

You know, when a non-Catholic, average person sees an entirely reasonable question like

Originally Posted by Anonymous_1
*How do you defend the pro-life cause in this extreme circumstance.

If the Mother will certainly die, or if the Mother and child both if she delivers the child is she justified in having an abortion to save her own life?

How do you defend against this type of situation?*

And then sees an answer like this:

1ke:

Well, first, this is a complete fallacy and lie manufactured by abortion doctors to lobby for legal abortion.

It really hurts the credibility of the pro-Life people.

Did the pro-Choice crowd exaggerate to make their point?

Of course they did…

But the fact that women died from “back-alley” abortions pre-Roe is most emphatically NOT a “complete fallacy and lie”.

The fact is that before Roe v Wade many, many, abortions took place in surroundings that weren’t as hygenic and otherwise in keeping with proper medical procedure because they were illegal. And because of these conditions women suffered ifections, complications and yes, some women died.

Does it make any difference how many women died? So what if Nathanson exaggerated the numbers by a factor of ten? Is it somehow “okay” if only 100’s (or even 10’s) of women to die annually? That just takes you to an argument about where the line gets drawn.

Because of their frustration with the existence of legal abortion many pro-Life people overreach and that overreaching destroys their crediblity and the credibilty of the entire pro-Life movement.

Besides, would it make any differnce if there were 10,000’s (or even millions!) of women dying from “back-alley” abortions. Would that make abortion permissible?

Answers like this are the reason I believe we should stop trying to logically “prove” Church teachings.

 

[uncleauberon]

Anonymous_1:

Another question…someone says “OK so we legalize abortion, so instead they will goto dirty illegal underground abortion mills where they are endangered.” what do you say to this?

We all need to help make safe and healthy alternative to abortion available. Lot’s of work can be done on this topic.

Back Alley and Underground Abortion Mills are illegal.
They are wrong. They are dangerous.

Those that would patronize and run them know this !
And they might still do it anyway - at their own risk.

If something goes terribly wrong why would they point fingers at the folks who said that these things are bad and dangerous.
{ For the sake of compassion and mercy it would certainly be a difficult to not say "We told you so" }

This is the logic that says.

OK, let’s make illegal things legal so that that people won’t be doing illegal things anymore.

Or my friend that tells me –

"I don’t want my son going to high school parties and drinking, getting drunk in an unsafe environment and then driving home drunk.

Instead, I’ll let him and his friends have a drinking party here where I can supervise their drunken antics safely and they can all stay over night ! "

What’s wrong with this picture ?

Would you rather an evil be committed under your supervision - or in secret ?

I say let evil lurk in the darkness because it should have no safe home in the light.

Anything else is an attempt at making “bad” look “good”.

 

[estesbob]

BillP:

But the fact that women died from “back-alley” abortions pre-Roe is most emphatically NOT a “complete fallacy and lie”.

The fact is that before Roe v Wade many, many, abortions took place in surroundings that weren’t as hygenic and otherwise in keeping with proper medical procedure because they were illegal. And because of these conditions women suffered ifections, complications and yes, some women died.

Answers like this are the reason I believe we should stop trying to logically “prove” Church teachings.

Not really-the death rate from illegal abortion plummeted in the late 40s with the development of pennicilin. By the time Roe came aroun 95% of illegal abortions were performed in a sterile clinic by a licensed pysician. Best esimate by the CDC that deaths from illegal abortions was around 400 per year.

The BIG lie that was perpetuated by the Pro-abortion crowd was that 10,000 women a year were dyng from botched abortions, they attempt to continue this lie today with the pushing of the myth of the back alley abortion. Its aint so and the ones who lose cerdibility when this is discussed is NOT the pro-life side.

 

[Rand_Al_Thor]

Peace be with you!

You see, this thread is the very reason that I love Janet Folger’s approach to this topic. She argues against abortion from a rational, secular, and scientific point of view (though sometimes she mentions God, but not as a proof, perse). If you do it that way it is not only easier to defend the pro-life position, but then you don’t have to try to defend the CHURCH’S position, which won’t necessarily carry a lot of weight with most people. I think simply arguing against abortion is better than arguing for the Church’s position against abortion. Much easier, IMHO.

In Christ,
Rand

 

[1ke]

BillP:

You know, when a non-Catholic, average person sees an entirely reasonable question like

And then sees an answer like this:

It really hurts the credibility of the pro-Life people.

Did the pro-Choice crowd exaggerate to make their point?

Of course they did…

But the fact that women died from “back-alley” abortions pre-Roe is most emphatically NOT a “complete fallacy and lie”.

The fact is that before Roe v Wade many, many, abortions took place in surroundings that weren’t as hygenic and otherwise in keeping with proper medical procedure because they were illegal. And because of these conditions women suffered ifections, complications and yes, some women died.

Does it make any difference how many women died? So what if Nathanson exaggerated the numbers by a factor of ten? Is it somehow “okay” if only 100’s (or even 10’s) of women to die annually? That just takes you to an argument about where the line gets drawn.

Because of their frustration with the existence of legal abortion many pro-Life people overreach and that overreaching destroys their crediblity and the credibilty of the entire pro-Life movement.

Besides, would it make any differnce if there were 10,000’s (or even millions!) of women dying from “back-alley” abortions. Would that make abortion permissible?

Answers like this are the reason I believe we should stop trying to logically “prove” Church teachings.

Clearly you did not understand my post at all.

 

[JimG]

Rand Al'Thor:

You see, this thread is the very reason that I love Janet Folger’s approach to this topic. She argues against abortion from a rational, secular, and scientific point of view (though sometimes she mentions God, but not as a proof, perse).

I agree we should argue public policy issues, including abortion, from a public policy, not a religious, standpoint. For abortion, I would also add the scientific standpoint. Biologically, a new human individual has its beginning at conception, so I think abortion ought to be argued as a human rights issue.

Is it OK to kill the mother to save the child? Is it OK to kill the child to save the mother? I would argue that direct killing of either is unacceptable. One could argue a right to “self-defense” if the child is truly threatening the mother’s life. Discussing any of these points as a matter of public policy would certainly be an improvement over the current situation, which essentially allows abortion on demand.

(With respect to hysterectomy, without looking it up, I think that the Church’s position is that hysterectomy is allowable if required for a medical condition such as to cure a cancer, even though she might be pregnant. In that case, as someone noted, the intent is to cure the cancer, not kill the child.)

nrlc.org/abortion/index.html

all.org/issues_abortion.php

 

[Anonymous_1]

see…there are reasonable answers to the situations presented…im Catholic(albeit struggling please pray for me.) I 100% stand behind the Churches teaching…i just want to learn how to better defend the teaching, and these are the types of arguments I have encountered…

 

[Jasny]

Anonymous_1:

why isnt that consdered abortion? the egg has been fertilized it is a growing embryo. the onyl difference is that ithas implanted in the wall of the fillopian tube rather than the uteran wall…

but besides that instance…
there are certain situations where if a mother delivers it jeapordizes her life and sometimes even hers and the childs…

becasue abortion is intrinsically evil it is never justified, so how would you defend against the Catholic position? I am asking in case i ever find myself in this situation…

There is a book put out through HLI, I don’t remember the title but it was written by an Australian Doctor.(Title? ?“Doctor and Nurse’s Ethics”??)
If my memory serves me correctly, internal bleeding is the problem which causes the complication and the baby would already be dead, if needed to opperate;so it would be only a medical opperation.

 

[Philthy]

BillP:

But the fact that women died from “back-alley” abortions pre-Roe is most emphatically NOT a “complete fallacy and lie”.

People die every day, Bill - its just a fact. When you want to make an association between an event (back alley abortions) and the death of people from the event, it is most helpful to use something reasonable like statistics rather than conjecture. Only then can we make reasonable conclusions about the risk of a “back alley abortion” versus, say, the risk of death from non-aborted pregnancies. You seem to be of the opinion that even if ONE person died in a back alley abortion then ALL abortions are therefore justified and a distortion of the facts to further that end is justified. All I can say is “Good luck with that effort”.

BillP:

The fact is that before Roe v Wade many, many, abortions took place in surroundings that weren’t as hygenic and otherwise in keeping with proper medical procedure because they were illegal.

When you say “many, many” it means absolutely nothing to me. I have no reference point. For example, the “many, many” that you refer to are undoubtedly infinitesimal compared to the “many many” abortions that are performed today. Produce some numbers if you want to generate useful information.

BillP:

And because of these conditions women suffered ifections, complications and yes, some women died. Does it make any difference how many women died?

Of course it does! We always weigh benefits vs costs in such circumstances. The fact that the numbers were distorted by the doctors consulted is PROOF POSITIVE that it matters how many died. Why else would they distort the numbers? You are either incredibly naive or motivated by an agenda .

BillP:

So what if Nathanson exaggerated the numbers by a factor of ten? Is it somehow “okay” if only 100’s (or even 10’s) of women to die annually? That just takes you to an argument about where the line gets drawn.

In addition to forgetting that some of these women would have died during pregnancy anyhow, you seem to be forgetting the other half of the equation: a child is being killed. Where, exactly, does that fit into your analysis?

BillP:

Answers like this are the reason I believe we should stop trying to logically “prove” Church teachings.

It requires balance in an appeal to the human heart as well as the intellect, thats all.