How do we defend being pro-lie against failure to maintain and other such conditions?

[DarkLight]

This is one point I’ve seen pro-abortion people make. Certain individuals have various conditions referred to as “failure to maintain.” Basically any time they get pregnant it means the resulting child is almost certain to die, because of some problem with the woman’s body. Now my understanding is that this couple is still permitted under Catholic moral teaching to have sex in the normal way, even though there’s a high chance of conceiving a child who will not live. What is our answer to this?

 

[ShrodingersCat]

Creating a child that dies naturally is not the same as killing a child.

 

[John_Martin]

People die at many ages all the time, every day, of ailments which are defects of their bodies, inherited defects in many cases.

Having a culture, and a political system, that condones one such reason for terminating a pregnancy is for that culture also grounds of extending the reach of that reasoning (or even mandating that reasoning).

“I had an exam, and the doctor said my child would die by 10 of an illness due to something wrong in us. We must allow this abortion”
“I had an exam, and the doctor said my child would die by 20 of an illness due to something wrong in us. We must allow this abortion”
“I had an exam, and the doctor said my child would die by 59 of an illness due to something wrong in us. We must allow this abortion”

As a Catholic, we know that this is the culture in which we are sojourning; we are in the world, but not OF the world; we are in the United States, but not OF the United States (or wherever we are sojourning).

All babies would die if not helped to live, at whatever age, from days old to decades old.
And finally all babies will die anyway, whether at 5 hours old or at 95 years, because of some bodily corruption.
“I had an exam, and the doctor said my child would die sometime during its life due to something wrong in physical human nature. We must allow this child to experience love, and provide love, until it dies, just as we experience love.”

 

[AveOTheotokos]

Every child belongs not to the parents, but to God. We exist so that we may come to know Him, love Him, and serve Him in this life, and to be eternally happy with Him in the next. Every life exists only through Him and by His will, and we as creations do not have the right to take it upon ourselves to end an innocent human life.

CCC 2258: “Human life is sacred because from its beginning it involves the creative action of God and it remains for ever in a special relationship with the Creator, who is its sole end. God alone is the Lord of life from its beginning until its end: no one can under any circumstance claim for himself the right directly to destroy an innocent human being.”

We are hylomorphic beings, a body/soul composite; distinct individual persons made in His image.

CCC 362: The human person, created in the image of God, is a being at once corporeal and spiritual. The biblical account expresses this reality in symbolic language when it affirms that “then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.” Man, whole and entire, is therefore willed by God.

This person-hood is conveyed to us at the moment of our conception. After conception, there is no gradual “becoming human” or “developing into a person” over time. At the moment of conception, we are fully human, and no disease, no deformity, no degradation, no amputation, not even death can cause us to cease to be human.

CCC 2270: Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person - among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life.7

No matter how brief a human life may be, it is still a human life, and is to be cherished.

CCC 2274: Since it must be treated from conception as a person, the embryo must be defended in its integrity, cared for, and healed, as far as possible, like any other human being.

Any abortion, no matter the reason or justification given, rejects the sanctity of life, rejects God’s will, and places more value on one human life and their desires over another human’s right to life.

A child who is conceived and who will die before birth has a right to live the entirety of their natural life, and parents have a duty to provide love, care, and prayers for that child. There is no such thing as a “mercy kill”, whether for the child, or to reduce the grief and suffering of the parents. Ending a life to ease inevitable human suffering is not a moral choice.

CCC 2276: Those whose lives are diminished or weakened deserve special respect. Sick or handicapped persons should be helped to lead lives as normal as possible.

CCC 2277: Whatever its motives and means, direct euthanasia consists in putting an end to the lives of handicapped, sick, or dying persons. It is morally unacceptable.

CCC 1756: It is therefore an error to judge the morality of human acts by considering only the intention that inspires them or the circumstances (environment, social pressure, duress or emergency, etc.) which supply their context. There are acts which, in and of themselves, independently of circumstances and intentions, are always gravely illicit by reason of their object; such as blasphemy and perjury, murder and adultery. One may not do evil so that good may result from it.

 

[DarkLight]

A child who is conceived and who will die before birth has a right to live the entirety of their natural life, and parents have a duty to provide love, care, and prayers for that child. There is no such thing as a “mercy kill”, whether for the child, or to reduce the grief and suffering of the parents. Ending a life to ease inevitable human suffering is not a moral choice.

Usually the argument I’ve heard is not that a “mercy kill” is acceptable. It’s that they say, in order to be consistent, a couple who cannot carry a child to term ought to refrain from sex, if they know that sex will result in a child who will die before being born. That otherwise we’re being inconsistent if it’s not ok to abort but it is ok to create a child doomed to die so early.

 

[AveOTheotokos]

Usually the argument I’ve heard is not that a “mercy kill” is acceptable. It’s that they say, in order to be consistent, a couple who cannot carry a child to term ought to refrain from sex, if they know that sex will result in a child who will die before being born. That otherwise we’re being inconsistent if it’s not ok to abort but it is ok to create a child doomed to die so early.

While the parents are free to carry out the marital act, they are also called to prudence. Through the use of NFP, parents can regulate the birth of children based on the needs of the family.

2367 Called to give life, spouses share in the creative power and fatherhood of God.153 "Married couples should regard it as their proper mission to transmit human life and to educate their children; they should realize that they are thereby cooperating with the love of God the Creator and are, in a certain sense, its interpreters. They will fulfill this duty with a sense of human and Christian responsibility."154

2368 A particular aspect of this responsibility concerns the regulation of procreation. For just reasons, spouses may wish to space the births of their children. It is their duty to make certain that their desire is not motivated by selfishness but is in conformity with the generosity appropriate to responsible parenthood. Moreover, they should conform their behavior to the objective criteria of morality:

When it is a question of harmonizing married love with the responsible transmission of life, the morality of the behavior does not depend on sincere intention and evaluation of motives alone; but it must be determined by objective criteria, criteria drawn from the nature of the person and his acts criteria that respect the total meaning of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love; this is possible only if the virtue of married chastity is practiced with sincerity of heart.155

2369 "By safeguarding both these essential aspects, the unitive and the procreative, the conjugal act preserves in its fullness the sense of true mutual love and its orientation toward man’s exalted vocation to parenthood."156

2370 Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality.157 These methods respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favor the education of an authentic freedom. In contrast, “every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible” is intrinsically evil:158

Thus the innate language that expresses the total reciprocal self-giving of husband and wife is overlaid, through contraception, by an objectively contradictory language, namely, that of not giving oneself totally to the other. This leads not only to a positive refusal to be open to life but also to a falsification of the inner truth of conjugal love, which is called upon to give itself in personal totality… the difference, both anthropological and moral, between contraception and recourse to the rhythm of the cycle . . . involves in the final analysis two irreconcilable concepts of the human person and of human sexuality.159

The efficiency of NFP enables couples to regulate birth while still participating in the conjugal act in a way that is still open to life should it arise. There is no hostility towards the possibility of life, and it is understood that should a life be created (however unlikely), that it would be respected, loved, cared for, and cherished.

Also, I would suggest that whoever is arguing a pro-choice stance should not be trying to interfere or judge with what a pro-life couple does with their bodies. That is judgemental of them and kind of hypocritically defeats their own relativistic way of thinking.

How can one say “it’s my body, I can do what I want” and then criticize someone else for doing with their body what they want? In doing so, they acknowledge that the decisions of parents DO affect someone other than themselves and their own bodies, and that the child is indeed a person.

If they argue that conceiving a child who is destined to suffer or die young is cruel, then they must acknowledge that the child is a separate person worthy of dignity and the right to life, and that parents must be cognizant of this fact in their discernment.

 

[DarkLight]

How can one say “it’s my body, I can do what I want” and then criticize someone else for doing with their body what they want? In doing so, they acknowledge that the decisions of parents DO affect someone other than themselves and their own bodies, and that the child is indeed a person.

If they argue that conceiving a child who is destined to suffer or die young is cruel, then they must acknowledge that the child is a separate person worthy of dignity and the right to life, and that parents must be cognizant of this fact in their discernment.

It is more that they accuse of us inconsistency. They say “You believe in the sanctity of life, yet you say it is morally ok to have sex and create a child doomed to die. That shows you don’t really believe that the fetus is a person at all, because if you did you would tell that couple not to have sex so the fetus doesn’t have to die. You only think it’s ok because you acknowledge that fetal death isn’t really a big deal after all.”

 

[AveOTheotokos]

It is more that they accuse of us inconsistency. They say “You believe in the sanctity of life, yet you say it is morally ok to have sex and create a child doomed to die. That shows you don’t really believe that the fetus is a person at all, because if you did you would tell that couple not to have sex so the fetus doesn’t have to die. You only think it’s ok because you acknowledge that fetal death isn’t really a big deal after all.”

Not all people who are “pro-life” are Catholic, but the Catholic church teaches that parents have a responsibility and have a “duty to make certain that their desire” (whether to have a child or not) “is not motivated by selfishness but is in conformity with the generosity appropriate to responsible parenthood.”

Catholics (and all people) are called to make responsible decisions in regards to procreating.

In Humanae Vitae, Pope Paul VI says the following:

1. Married love, therefore, requires of husband and wife the full awareness of their obligations in the matter of responsible parenthood, which today, rightly enough, is much insisted upon, but which at the same time should be rightly understood. Thus, we do well to consider responsible parenthood in the light of its varied legitimate and interrelated aspects.

With regard to the biological processes, responsible parenthood means an awareness of, and respect for, their proper functions. In the procreative faculty the human mind discerns biological laws that apply to the human person. (9)
**
With regard to man’s innate drives and emotions, responsible parenthood means that man’s reason and will must exert control over them.**

With regard to physical, economic, psychological and social conditions,** responsible parenthood is exercised by those who prudently and generously decide to have more children, and by those who, for serious reasons and with due respect to moral precepts, decide not to have additional children for either a certain or an indefinite period of time.**

Responsible parenthood, as we use the term here, has one further essential aspect of paramount importance. It concerns the objective moral order which was established by God, and of which a right conscience is the true interpreter. In a word, the exercise of responsible parenthood requires that husband and wife, keeping a right order of priorities, recognize their own duties toward God, themselves, their families and human society.
**
From this it follows that they are not free to act as they choose in the service of transmitting life, as if it were wholly up to them to decide what is the right course to follow. On the contrary, they are bound to ensure that what they do corresponds to the will of God the Creator**. The very nature of marriage and its use makes His will clear, while the constant teaching of the Church spells it out. (10)

1. Now as We noted earlier (no. 3), some people today raise the objection against this particular doctrine of the Church concerning the moral laws governing marriage, that human intelligence has both the right and responsibility to control those forces of irrational nature which come within its ambit and to direct them toward ends beneficial to man. Others ask on the same point whether it is not reasonable in so many cases to use artificial birth control if by so doing the harmony and peace of a family are better served and more suitable conditions are provided for the education of children already born. To this question We must give a clear reply. The Church is the first to praise and commend the application of human intelligence to an activity in which a rational creature such as man is so closely associated with his Creator. But she affirms that this must be done within the limits of the order of reality established by God.

If therefore there are well-grounded reasons for spacing births, arising from the physical or psychological condition of husband or wife, or from external circumstances, the Church teaches that married people may then take advantage of the natural cycles immanent in the reproductive system and engage in marital intercourse only during those times that are infertile, thus controlling birth in a way which does not in the least offend the moral principles which We have just explained. (20)

Neither the Church nor her doctrine is inconsistent when she considers it lawful for married people to take advantage of the infertile period but condemns as always unlawful the use of means which directly prevent conception, even when the reasons given for the later practice may appear to be upright and serious. In reality, these two cases are completely different. In the former the married couple rightly use a faculty provided them by nature. In the later they obstruct the natural development of the generative process. It cannot be denied that in each case the married couple, for acceptable reasons, are both perfectly clear in their intention to avoid children and wish to make sure that none will result. But it is equally true that it is exclusively in the former case that husband and wife are ready to abstain from intercourse during the fertile period as often as for reasonable motives the birth of another child is not desirable. And when the infertile period recurs, they use their married intimacy to express their mutual love and safeguard their fidelity toward one another. In doing this they certainly give proof of a true and authentic love.

If you haven’t read it before, it truly is a wonderful encyclical and is relatively short and easy to read. For the full text of the Encyclical, see the link below:

Humanae Vitae

 

[BornInMarch]

This is one point I’ve seen pro-abortion people make. Certain individuals have various conditions referred to as “failure to maintain.” Basically any time they get pregnant it means the resulting child is almost certain to die, because of some problem with the woman’s body. Now my understanding is that this couple is still permitted under Catholic moral teaching to have sex in the normal way, even though there’s a high chance of conceiving a child who will not live. What is our answer to this?

There’s a solution out there that doesn’t involve murdering children. For every health problem, there is an ethical cure that we just need to look for harder.

Even if there wasn’t, natural child deaths (failure to maintain, miscarriage, sudden infant death syndrome) are nobody’s fault. Using the prevalence of miscarriages to justify abortion is like using the prevalence of car accidents to justify driving drunk.

 

[DarkLight]

There’s a solution out there that doesn’t involve murdering children. For every health problem, there is an ethical cure that we just need to look for harder.

Even if there wasn’t, natural child deaths (failure to maintain, miscarriage, sudden infant death syndrome) are nobody’s fault. Using the prevalence of miscarriages to justify abortion is like using the prevalence of car accidents to justify driving drunk.

It’s the “nobody’s fault” they’re disagreeing with. What they’ll say is that “If you willingly conceive a child that you know won’t make it to term, it’s your fault when that child dies. The only way you could be not guilty here is if you don’t really believe that fetal death is a problem.”

 

[AveOTheotokos]

It’s the “nobody’s fault” they’re disagreeing with. What they’ll say is that “If you willingly conceive a child that you know won’t make it to term, it’s your fault when that child dies. The only way you could be not guilty here is if you don’t really believe that fetal death is a problem.”

As I posted before in post 8, parents are called to be responsible in their decisions to conceive. You as an individual are not responsible for explaining or justifying the actions of the people in your opponent’s scenario. You can explain to them the churches teachings (such as in Humanae Vitae) but beyond that, you do not have to defend or condemn these “what if” scenarios put forth by your opponent.

If your argument with a pro-choice person gets hung up here, then you should try to guide it back to the true topic at hand: a person is a person from the moment of conception until death. What other people think or how they act in a specific situation is somewhat irrelevant, as the discussion is between you and the person you are talking to.

The primary goal should be to determine when your opponent thinks that a human being becomes human, and to help lead them to understand that it is from the moment of conception.

By using Socratic questioning, you can help your opponent to see the holes and/or assumptions they may have in their position, and to fully see the implications and ramifications of the position they hold. By doing this, you put the ball in the other person’s court and force them to defend their position on it’s own instead of defending their position by tearing down yours. This helps you to control the conversation and keep it on the topic at hand.

Your goal when defending a pro-life stance should be to show the flaws and pitfalls that come about when you define human life in any way other than from conception to death.

I suggest looking at some of Trent Horn’s videos on YouTube, as he is quite skilled at using this style of questioning to help people to see the flaws in their beliefs and assumptions. His DVD “The Three Secrets To Sharing The Faith” is a good introduction to these methods, and is available from the Catholic Answers online shop and is also available on formed.org if you have a subscription.

 

[DarkLight]

As I posted before in post 8, parents are called to be responsible in their decisions to conceive. You as an individual are not responsible for explaining or justifying the actions of the people in your opponent’s scenario. You can explain to them the churches teachings (such as in Humanae Vitae) but beyond that, you do not have to defend or condemn these “what if” scenarios put forth by your opponent.

If your argument with a pro-choice person gets hung up here, then you should try to guide it back to the true topic at hand: a person is a person from the moment of conception until death. What other people think or how they act in a specific situation is somewhat irrelevant, as the discussion is between you and the person you are talking to…

I never found that sort of argumentation to be particularly effective, honestly. I get the point, but if someone used something like that on me I’d say “you’re obviously trying to avoid the question, which suggests you don’t have an answer to it at all.” That’s pretty much the response I’d expect from a pro-choice person if you tried to use that strategy. (Honestly, I don’t like socratic questioning outside of fairly regulated environments in the first place - it’s just not a good strategy out in the wild.)

Again, the argument the pro-choice person is using is that the pro-life person doesn’t really believe that a fetus is a person, because if they did they’d be more concerned about fetal death.

 

[Wesrock]

Again, the argument the pro-choice person is using is that the pro-life person doesn’t really believe that a fetus is a person, because if they did they’d be more concerned about fetal death.

I don’t think many pro-life people would say that a child has all of the same rights as an adult. Neither does an unborn child. However, they are all still humans. They are all still persons. But it really isn’t simple black and white, either.

So, that said, there is a difference between intending to murder someone and natural death. If someone is dying and it’s too painful to eat, it’s okay to allow death to take its course and not force feed them. But it’s not okay to just go ahead and smother the person with a pillow. Going back to the unborn: Giving someone a life, however brief, is not immoral, in itself.

 

[AveOTheotokos]

I never found that sort of argumentation to be particularly effective, honestly. I get the point, but if someone used something like that on me I’d say “you’re obviously trying to avoid the question, which suggests you don’t have an answer to it at all.” That’s pretty much the response I’d expect from a pro-choice person if you tried to use that strategy. (Honestly, I don’t like socratic questioning outside of fairly regulated environments in the first place - it’s just not a good strategy out in the wild.)

Again, the argument the pro-choice person is using is that the pro-life person doesn’t really believe that a fetus is a person, because if they did they’d be more concerned about fetal death.

Again, refer them to Humanae Vitae to see that the Catholic Church teaches that parents are to discern procreating responsibly. If a couple knew for a fact that they could not conceive a child that would survive and decided to do so anyways because they felt they had a right to a child, then they would not be procreating in a selfless way and would be doing so for imprudent and selfish reasons.

Refer to the teachings and tell them that you are not in a position to judge the persons in their scenario because you cannot possibly know the state of their soul, their knowledge of the faith, or the formation of their conscience.

This is not avoiding the question, it is giving them church teaching and refusing to play their absurd game of “gotcha!”. Also, bringing the conversation back to what your opponent believes is the only way to have a fruitful discussion about pro-life issues.

You are never going to convince someone to be pro-life by just responding to the criticism that they hurl at the periphery of the pro-life camp. You need to address the root problem, which is that the pro-choice position holds that an unborn child is not a human person and does not have an inalienable right to life from the moment of conception.

If you don’t like Socratic questioning, then you can use whatever method you like to determine what exactly their position is and why they hold that position, and then use whatever method you prefer to lead them to to truth.

 

[DarkLight]

This is not avoiding the question, it is giving them church teaching and refusing to play their absurd game of “gotcha!”. Also, bringing the conversation back to what your opponent believes is the only way to have a fruitful discussion about pro-life issues.

I think part of the difficulty is that in my experience and studies, this is exactly how philosophy plays out - by exploring all the corner cases and seeing what the results are in them. If you ignore cases that aren’t just the standard you’ve already lost the argument.

 

[AveOTheotokos]

I think part of the difficulty is that in my experience and studies, this is exactly how philosophy plays out - by exploring all the corner cases and seeing what the results are in them. If you ignore cases that aren’t just the standard you’ve already lost the argument.

Unfortunately this is often true indeed. I’m not saying to ignore the case of the failure to maintain scenario, but the only thing you can do is to inform them of Church teaching and the call to responsible and selfless parenting decisions. Also, your opponents have no right to back you in a corner of having to pass judgement on someone to “prove” your point.

Conceiving a child who you know will die could be compared to IVF, where several human beings will be created, yet will never be given a chance to live. The Church teaches that there is not an absolute right to biological offspring at any cost, and to selfishly pursue it at any cost is morally wrong.

A couple who is in a situation where the viability and/or well being of their offspring is extremely unlikely, then they have a duty to discern whether or not it is appropriate to continue to try to conceive a child, or if doing so is truly out of a selfless or selfish desire.

Regardless of the discernment – or lack thereof – before hand, once a child has been conceived, parents and medical workers have the duty to care for, nurture, and protect the life of the unborn child in a dignified way with the same dedication that they would for a child that has already been born.

While the pro-choice opponent can argue a lack of prudence on the part of the pro-life parents in their scenario, this does not automatically mean that the parents do not believe that the unborn child is really a person. This is a non-sequitur.

Ultimately, when you are speaking with those who hold a pro-choice position, it can be helpful to remember the words of St. Bernadette: “My job is to inform, not to convince.”

Inform them of Church teaching, and apply it the best you can to their endless “what if” scenarios, but remember you cannot judge the conscience or soul of another.