That might grant one a LEGAL right, but certainly not a MORAL right. Technically speaking, many atrocities committed throughout history were done legally. Hence, why I made the slavery comparison. If your whole point was to simply state “abortion is legal in the US”, I think that’s fairly common knowledge.
The problem is, not everyone agrees that all moral laws are the same. To Catholics, the Catholic Church is the authority on moral laws. To Jews, the Jewish laws are the authority on moral laws. To Muslims, the Koran is the authority on moral laws. And so on… Some of these moral laws overlap. Some do not. When a country is home to many different peoples, one culture/religions “moral laws” cannot be imposed on others because those others have the right to live their lives in accordance with their religion within certain boundaries. With abortion as an example, other cultures/religions, though they are against abortion, allow it in cases of rape and when the woman’s life is in danger. Therefore, this “moral law” isn’t as absolute, such as “thou shalt not murder”, which is universal. I know that you don’t agree with this, but hope you can understand what I am trying to say.
True, but moral laws are not based on one’s agreement to them. Moral laws come from God, not the Catholic Church or any other religion. People have the faulty notion that the state grants rights, it doesn’t. It’s job is to simply enforce the rights already granted to mankind by God. As JFK stated: “the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state but from the hand of God”
Moral law is not dependent on culture. It is absolute. Some cultures confirm moral law, other cultures violate it. Simply because a culture is a culture does not give it the right to do as it pleases. All cultures must uphold the rights of man, and no culture has the right to violate it.
No, I don’t think I am understanding what you are trying to say. It seems to me, and perhaps I am misunderstanding, that you have adopted a version of moral relativism. But the Church as always clearly taught that morality is objective in nature. And abortion is a violation of the universal law of “thou shalt not murder” so I’m confused as to why you state that “thou shalt murder” is universal, but then try to state that abortion can be permissible under certain circumstances. Simply because a woman was wronged by rape does not give her permission to have an abortion.
That’s right, they’re not.
And every religion claims that their rules come from God, not from them and that they merely pass along the message from God to their followers. The only difference is, if one is Catholic, the Church has all the right rules straight from God and if you’re not Catholic, your religion has all the right rules straight from God.
And thus we presently have the State enforcing the right of a woman over her own body, the right to consent or refuse treatment.
And you do realize that others that don’t share the Catholic faith believe the same way, just from their perspective.
Yes, and it’s my burden to obey the rules of the Church despite not agreeing with them. And with this subject, though I obey the rules, I just don’t agree with them at all. However, I can completely understand when someone does not agree to obey the rules of the Church not wanting to have anything to do with them.
But the moral code put forth by the Catholic Church is objectively correct. It can be objectively evaluated to be so. Your profile states you are Catholic, so I made the assumption you agreed with this point. Was I incorrect?
No, we have the state presently denying the God-given right of life to the child by inventing a phony right of the mother to terminate her child’s life in the name of privacy. A woman’s right to her own body has nothing to do with abortion. In the case of abortion, the body being killed is that of the child’s, not the mother.
This doesn’t address the point I was making. Morality is objective, therefore, if one religion thinks something is okay, and another religion declares is wrong. Then one of those religions is right or niether. They can’t both be right.
Well it would probably be off topic to go through all the logic, etc of declaring abortion immoral, so I think it will suffice for this conversation to say that something cannot be both right and wrong at the same time. Therefore, if the Church is right on abortion, then abortion is immoral and should be legally outlawed. If the Church is wrong on abortion, than the Church’s teachings are wrong and therefore cannot be guided by the Holy Spirit. But why would you think that a Church teaching is incorrect but then follow it anyway?
You are incorrect to assume that all USA citizens are all Catholic. That was my point actually, one you keep ignoring and I don’t know why.
My point is that “Gallup Finds “Pro-Choice” Americans Back Most Abortion Limits” because though no one in their right mind thinks abortion is a good thing, most agree that it may be a tragic option, one a woman has a right to choose, though not on demand. And this is because, being that not all USA citizens are Catholic, they don’t follow a religion that is as restrictive as the Catholic Church. That’s my point.I totally understand your perspective and beliefs regarding the above. But many don’t agree with you. I don’t agree with you. I agree that the power of consent to refuse or consent to any treatment at all regarding a woman’s own body, lies with her. She has that power to consent or refuse. What she chooses to do with that power of consent is up to her. I think it’s a given what a Catholic are bound to do. However, if one is not Catholic, they will have other guidelines. A Jewish or Muslim woman is not bound by the rules of the Church. As Catholics, the rules set forth by the Church are clear. However, if one is not Catholic, they do not recognize the authority of the Church and by rights they shouldn’t be subject to laws based on the Catholic Church’s laws. I wouldn’t want to be bound by laws that affect Muslim or Jewish women, so I would not impose my beliefs on another woman of another faith.
That’s right.
That’s right.
Notice, again, as I pointed out above: You’re talking about basing the laws in the US on Catholic rules and laws. That is what our forefathers decidedly were against. They were against, in black in white, basing any laws on one particular religion. Everyone has the right in this country to follow his/her own religion. I completely understand where you’re coming from, but your paragraph nailed it from the perspective of having the freedom to follow your own religion in this country.
Because I choose to remain Catholic. And that is the only reason. But given that I don’t agree with this particular teaching (it is a very difficult teaching for me), in this particular context, I wouldn’t impose it on someone else when in fact, it is my choice to follow the teaching “just because the Church says”.
Because presently the woman is the one with the right to consent or refuse treatment for her body. Her body is primary. Murder, by definition, is unlawful killing. Abortion, though the Church teaches it is murder, is not murder in all cases to other religions and cultures --even if it is abhorent to them.
I never said that all US citizens are Catholic. Only that the teachings of the Catholic Church are objectively true.
The Church is not restrictive at all. As a matter of fact, it is the most freeing of religions as it teaches the truth and the truth sets one free. Those who follow the teachings of the Catholic Church (whether self-proclaimed Catholic or not) are freer and happier than those who do not.
But again, it’s not her own body. It’s a separate body from hers that is destroyed in an abortion. And no one has the right to destroy another’s body.
They may not be bound by Canon law, but they are still morally bound to not have an abortion. It doesn’t matter what religion you are, abortion is still wrong and an offense against God. So everyone is bound to not have an abortion. No one gets a free pass at murder simply because their specific religious beliefs may allow it.
Let’s be clear here, we’re talking about moral laws. Moral laws bind EVERYONE, not just Catholics. Sure, a Muslim wouldn’t be bound to not eat meat on Fridays during Lent, but those are just canonical rules. The laws we are talking about here are universal.
I think you misunderstood my point. If I say “abortion in the case of rape is still immoral” and someone else says “abortion in the case of rape can be morally permissible” we can’t both be right. We can’t just say “we’re both right because we have different religions”. That was my point there.
No, EVERYONE is forbidden from procuring or participating in an abortion. Certain people choose to ignore that moral law, but the moral law is still there and binding on everyone. Again, remember the law is universal.
If non-Muslims are not forced to follow Muslim laws by incorporating them into civil law, and if non-Jews are not foced to follow Judaism laws by incorporating them into civil law, then non-Catholics should not be forced by law to obey Catholic rules and laws by incorporating them into civil law.
I find the Church very restrictive, and it’s truth does not set me free, but bind me. I follow the teachings of the Church, and that doesn’t make me free. I’m just free to do so.
A person outside of her body does not have the right to trump rights over her own body. She is the one with rights over her body. No one outside of herself has the right to supercede her wishes and do as they please with her body.
But…according to whom?
So what I am reading is that it’s okay for Catholics to practice their religion, and live within the confines of their religion, but not so for people of other religions — because they are bound to live by Catholic rules and laws despite what their own religion says. I’m sorry, I don’t agree with that.
Murder by definition is unlawful killing. Redefining legal procedures doesn’t make them so just beause you have changed their definitions.
We’re talking about laws established by the Catholic Church, and they bind Catholics. And not only that, they bind Catholics who subject themselves to the Catholic Church. Those who are not Catholic don’t subject themselves to Catholic rules and laws.
They’re obviously not as universal as you would like them to be, as the Catholic Church is the only establishment who is so restrictive in this matter. Remember, Jews and Muslims allow abortion when the woman’s life is in danger…so the teachings you refer to are not that universal, or everyone would be teaching the same rules as laws.
I understand your point and I respect your opinion. I just don’t share it. Further, those who don’t share it should be able to make up their own mind when they are in that situation. And thankfully, they not only should, but they do have that freedom.
Obviously, it’s not a universal law or the law would be the same everywhere.
Hi Rence thanks for answering. Just for clarification, it is my understanding that this does not go against Church Teaching correct. We all have that Dignity given to us by our creator to choose what kind of treatment we want or did I miss something?
Got it.
I believe I understand what the Church Teaches.
Not correct. The Church teaches that abortion is always and forever evil and forbids the procuring of abortion, or the participating in abortion, or enabling procuring/participation in abortion. The Church would like to see abortion illegal everywhere and in every circumstance.
Yes, we all have that dignity given to us by our Creator to choose what kind of treatment we want - except for abortion, according to the Church. The Church forbids abortion. The Church teaches that a woman doesn’t have the right to terminate a pregnancy because that would affect a body other than her own (the fetus).
In the US, by law, abortion is not murder because murder, by definition, is unlawful killing. It was made legal to protect the rights of women over their own body, and to reduce harm to women due to procuring illegal abortions. I don’t know the history of how and why it was made illegal, I’m just glad no one else has more power over my own body than I do. Whatever decision I make, I want it to be my decision.
I* believe I am in agreement with you but the point I am trying to make is that the church teaches all murder is evil. So any action on our part that is used to commit murder is wrong. *
I understand that the Church forbids abortion and any form of murder and I am in total agreement with her. The point I am trying to clarify is that we still have the free will to listen and follow her correct. God does not force us to follow His Laws Does He? This is the dignity I am talking about. We all have the right to choose to follow God’s laws or not. Or am I missing something still?
I believe this is the part I am really wondering about. How exactly was it made legal. The way I understand it is that because it was found in a court of law that a woman had control of her treatment for her body others took it as saying she has the right to have an abortion. I understand and agree with woman having rights over her body…but I do not see how that makes abortion legal or gives one rights over the babies body. Just like I have no right over murdering someone for just walking down the street minding their own business. But if I wanted to murder them I could. We know if I murder just anyone walking down the street and I get caught I would be prosecuted by the law that protected the person I murdered. So I guess my question is how did abortion become legal and not unlawful like all other murders. Can you or someone else recommend how I can find out?
How is this different from woman’s rights or is it?
Yes, you’re correct: we still have the free will to listen and follow God’s commands. Yes, you’re right: God does not force us to follow His Laws. Yes, we all have the right to choose to follow God’s laws or not, or the Church’s laws or not.
Here is how it became legalized:
Because in the US, the unborn do not have rights over the rights of those already born. In the U.S. the right to consent or refuse treatment to one’s body lies with the woman (who is already born). The unborn, being not scentient, can’t consent or refuse treatment, and no one can represent those rights, in opposition of the woman and her rights, and make those decisions on behalf of the unborn. To do so would mean that someone outside of the woman can make decisions for her, regardless of her decision regarding her own person. And even if someone could be granted durable power of attorney over a fetus, who would that power go to other than the woman? And what are the ramifications of such an action? how would that evolve over time? And how far would it go? Women were already property/chattel at one point in time. I can think of quite a few who wouldn’t want to go back and would want to retain those rights over her own person.
Try those above websites.
To me, it’s not different from women’s rights at all. To someone who is against abortion in every circumstance, and includes artificial birth control, it has nothing to do with women’s rights.
Nor should they, we’re not talking about Catholic canonical law, but moral law. There’s a difference.
Jesus himself said the truth will set you free. And He himself founded the Church and guaranteed it’s guidance by the Holy Spirit. So either a) Jesus was a liar or b) The Church’s teachings set one free. That doesn’t mean that its always obvious, but it is always true.
Again, you did not answer my point. The woman’s body is not what is killed in an abortion. Why is it okay for a woman to kill a baby’s body?
God. He is the Author of the moral law we are all bound to.
No, that’s not at all what I said. It’s okay for anyone to practice their religion within reason. There are still universal laws we must all follow. If my religion says I can rape women, that doesn’t give me permission to rape women. Same with murder, theft, etc. If we were to truly follow the standard you are putting forward, everyone is justified in doing anything they want so long as it is claimed in the name of religion.
Remember, we discussing this from a moral perspective. Murder is the deliberate killing of an innocent person. If we use your definition, then things like the Salem Witch trials and the Holocaust weren’t murder because they were legal. If you want to use another word to describe it, fine, but its still immoral either way.
No, we are dealing with a universal moral law that is binding on everyone. No one is allowed to commit murder. No one is allowed to deliberately take an innocent life. A human fetus is an innocent life, therefore abortion is murder.
But as we both agreed here, moral laws are not subject to one’s agreement to them. When I say a moral law is universal, I do not mean universally accepted, but universally binding.
But again, their agreement or lack of agreement does not excuse them from being bound to follow the universal moral law. Abortion is a clear and obvious violation of that moral law. Regardless of their agreement to the law, they are still bound by it.
It’s moral law to a Catholic. It’s Catholic law to a Muslim, Jew, Atheist, Baptist, etc.
For Catholics, yes. But what the Catholic Church teaches is only binding to Catholics and that’s because Catholics choose to be bound by the Catholic Church. To those who do not follow Catholicism, no. Jews never subscribed to Catholicsm and neither did Muslims. Non-Catholic Chrisitans feel that somewhere along the way, the Church became corrupt and they separated from the Church. So this truth, is truth to Catholics. Non-Catholics would say it is not true.
I did answer your point, you just don’t like my answer, and I’m sorry about that. But those are my answers. And, First of all, it’s not “okay”. I never said it was okay. I said it was a woman’s choice. However, no one outside of herself should have the authority to trump the decisions she makes over her own body. In order to get to the unborn, you have to go through her. It’s her body. She should always have the right to consent or refuse treatment done on her body. No one else should trump those rights, regardless of the choices she makes. The unborn doesn’t have the right to consent or refuse treatment; the unborn isn’t in a position to consetn or refuse treatment to the woman. That power of consent lies with her. Someone outside of her should not have any legal rights to bind her body, and so they don’t.
Exactly. This is a teaching imposed on Catholics by the Catholic Church because “God says so”. Well, the other religions say the same, and their “moral laws” differ. And they should be allowed to practice their religion just as Catholics want to practice theirs.
Again, it’s not as universal as you would want it to be, otherwise all the religions and cultures would share it across that board. That’s what “universal” is. It’s all-inclusive.
Murder is unlawful killing. Labeling “murder” on abortion is not universal. And those religions and cultures who call it such, still make exception for the cases of rape and when the woman’s health is at risk.
No, we’re not dealing with a universal moral law that is binding on everyone. We are dealing with a Catholic law. If it were universal, it would be taught the same by every culture and religion across the board. The fact that in this issue, the Church stands alone, makes it a Catholic law, not a universal one. As a Catholic we know it to be true, but it still doesn’t make it a universal law.
That’s true. Labeling abortion as murder is false, by definition, because murder is unlawful killing.
According to the teachings of the Church, for which there is no exceptions, and is binding on all who hold themselves bound to it. According to “everyone else”, exceptions are made for rape and when the mother’s life is in danger. And everyone has the right to live their lives according to and within the confines of their religion, even non-Catholics.
No one can bind you to Catholicism if you don’t let them bind you to. Forcing one’s religious beliefs on another and “binding them” regardless of their consent, is also immoral. This was never a part of Catholic teaching. And according to the teachings of the Church, you can’t do ‘evil’ to do ‘good’. The CCC also states that submission to the Church is by choice, not by force. One has to come to the Church on their own and subject themselves to the Church. You can lobby to get the laws changed, you can council the pregnant considering abortion, but you cannot force them to choose according to the teachings of the Church.
Their lack of agreement reflects on their free will to make choices. No one is bound by another’s religion, even Catholicism, against their free will. You keep talking about the Church’s laws being binding universally. However binding you think they are, what it boils down to is another persons acceptance of these bonds that hold them to the rules of the Church. The US will not base laws based on any one religion, it would be unconstitutional.
ok now that we have that cleared up now maybe I can try to wrap my brain around the rest of this.
*I still do not really understand how Roe v Wade made abortion legal. I keep hearing something my father told me back when he was learning how the judicial system works. He had read the court documents on Roe v Wade and ran a few questions by a few of his attorney/lawyer or legal friends. Anyway what he said after where his thoughts on it and it struck me. He said the question before the Federal Court in the case of Roe v Wade was not about whether or not abortion was legal but about whether or not the woman has rights to choose her own medical treatment for her body. I believe he correlated this to the woman’s right to vote. It used to not be legal for woman to vote. So the question that came before the Federal Court in this case was does it go against the woman’s constitutional rights. The Federal Court ruled that it did and now woman can vote. I believe what my father was seeing was that Roe v Wade was basically the same thing only regarding her right to choose her medical treatment. The court was not deciding what the baby’s rights were…just the womans. Was it unconstitutional for a woman to not be allowed to choose her coarse of medical treatment. The court ruled that it was. So now we have to look at what are her options to choose from? Then we have to look at those options to see if they are legal and if they are legal then the woman has the right to choose it. Unfortunately for the unborn person abortion is considered a legal option. Just like slavery was a legal option at one time even though it violated a person’s rights. But I wonder if my father missed something …and this brings me to the next part of your post… *
Do you know how this was decided? Was there a case that put the question of the rights of the unborn person before the Federal Court and did the Federal Court rule that abortion to an unborn person did not violate their constitutional rights? Or is it just an assumption that because abortion is legal and a woman has her rights to legal treatment then her rights take over the unborn rights. Much like the way mens rights took over womans rights regarding the right to vote until woman got legal representation to take the question before the Federal Court and much like slavery was legal at one time and now it is not?
*Those desicions would not be for her, they would be for the unborn person. I do not believe taking into consideration an unborn person’s rights goes against a womans rights regarding her body. Just because the unborn person is in the woman does not make them the woman. They are two individual persons. I understand that abortion is legal. But is it a law that violates a persons rights? I believe it does but what I am wondering about has this question ever been taken to the Federal Court and has the Federal Court ruled that abortion does not violate the unborn person’s rights? *
Thank you I will.
*Well I am against abortion in every circumstance but I still believe in a womans’s right to choose regarding the treatment of her body. But what I believe I see not being adressed is the choices. Do the legal choices woman has violate other’s rights? If they do then I believe those rights need to be protected and the laws need to reflect all persons rights. *
Roe v. Wade was advertised as limited abortion rights. Blackmun’s “trimester scheme” supposedly allowed unlimited abortion up to three months. Thereafter, especially the child could live outside the womb, the states were supposed to be able to regulate abortions. During the last trimester, the state was supposedly able to ban it altogether.
well, maybe if you read the whole document, and the details of the case, you’ll understand it better. Some have commentaries, some don’t. The last one’s a PDF file, if that’s better for you:
Ok, well consider this senario: A Jewish woman is in significant physical distress due to some underlying condition she has, which is aggravated by the physiological demands of prengnacy on her body. Her doctor tells her that her health is at grave risk due to this pregnancy, and her best option is to terminate the pregnancy so that her body can recover and return to health, otherwise she is at risk of dying as the pregnancy progresses. Her religion allows it in this case, and so she consents to this treatment ordered by her phsyician. Her husband agrees to it as well. No one, outside of herself, has the authority to discount her rights to make this medical decision, done to her own body. She, afterall, has the power to consent or refuse treatment. In order to prevent the termination of this pregnancy, someone would have to strip her of this right to consent or refuse treatment, and bind her to their will, disregarding her right to determine medical action on her own body, denying her of a medical treatment prescribed by her doctor.
I don’t believe that the legal choices a woman has over her own body violate any other’s rights, especially in the case of rape or when her life is in danger. I value the rights I have over my own personhood. I don’t want anyone to have the power to veto a decision I make regarding my own body, especially if my life is in danger. I don’t want someone else to decide over my decision whether or not to get a tooth pulled, let alone decide on the next 9 months of my physiology. Whatever decision I make, it’s mine to make. If you do think someone else’s rights are violated by women having absolute power to consent or refuse medical treatments and procedures, and you think the current laws are unfair, and you want to do something about it, then you should lobby for a change so that you and your values are represented.
womenshistory.about.com/library/etext/gov/bl_roe_a.htm
I will agree it can be a very scary place to be…
*Sounds like something I will have to do some researching and educating of myself to understand better and see if that is the correct route to take. Thank you again for the links it should be a start. *.