How Quickly Should We Overturn Roe?

[ConstantLearner]

There are a lot of things that came to mind reading this highly judgmental post. I do sort of wonder if CL prays to Jesus, but only in an advisory capacity. Or does CL walk around with a gavel wearing a robe all day. But that would be unkind so I won’t say it.

I reported your post because what you said is judgmental and inappropriate. I was pointing out Church teaching and NOTHING ELSE. I was NOT expressing MY personal opinion, and I STATED THAT.

CHURCH TEACHING DOES NOT ALLOW A WOMAN TO ABORT A FETUS EVEN IF IT IS ONLY ONE MINUTE OLD. (See the post above.)

We do NOT know each other. Your comments about my personality are inappropriate, uncharitable, and just plain wrong. The uncharitable comments you made about me are based on the stand taken by the Catholic Church of which you claim to be a faithful member.

 

[ConstantLearner]

I do agree with CL’s statement that support killing a fetus in any circumstance is certainly not pro life. But a woman sitting on a gurney in an emergency room with a split lip, swollen eye, broken nose, cracked ribs from having just been raped an hour ago by some drooling monster, doesn’t really know if conception or implantation has taken place, does she? Sorry to offend, but I think she should have to right to make a decision to avail herself of an option when the circumstance is not clear, or when no life, other than her own, would be harmed. Something to do with that free will thing mankind is imbued with by the Creator.

Ethical treatment means she can demand to be tested, and if no conception has taken place, she may be treated with certain drugs, not abortifacients, however, to prevent a subsequent conception. Testing, however, MUST take place before any drugs are given, according to the Church.

It may be your personal opinion that any woman who is raped should be allowed to abort. That is your choice, but such is NOT in line with Church teaching. The Catholic Church teaches that a woman may NOT abort, not even in cases of rape or incest, and not even if the fertilized ovum has not yet been implanted in the uterus. According to the Catholic Church, the destruction of ANY fertilized ovum represents abortion. Does this child not have an immortal soul? Is its right to life less than that of one conceived in affectionate circumstances? People cannot “pick and choose”; that leads to “cafeteria Catholicism.”

 

[joeybaggz]

Rape and incest, according to Catholic beliefs, are Crosses the woman must bear for the good of the child and its immortal soul.
No one can claim to be pro-life and support killing a fetus in any circumstances.

. We do not really know when the soul is acquired; we do not live in a theocracy, but in a democracy where there is separation of church and state.

Which side of the street are you on? I cite an instance where a woman is one hour removed from a rape and in a hospital emergency room is allowed to take a “morning after” pill (RU 486 I think it is called) as civil law allows; I defend that civil right, and you accuse me of not being pro life because I state I don’t have the right to override her God-given free will?? And since when in the medical treatment of rape on an emergency/civil/criminal situation, do they do a pregnancy test?

Why that doesn’t make more people extremely uncomfortable is something I have a difficult time understanding. The only sensible place to draw the line is at conception.

Except, the soil in which Catholicism is rooted, Judaism - our elder brothers in faith as JPII called them - doesn’t agree. Orthodox Judaism, and at Jesus’ time, all Jews were Orthodox, holds that what exists after conception for the first 40 days is only water and only becomes a human with a soul at birth. We catholics beg to differ, and I would offer any argument in support of the RCC position, but I do not have the ability to force a law (or a pregnancy test) on someone who doesn’t share the RCC position or faith.

Then you are not pro-life.

I reported your post because what you said is judgmental and inappropriate. I was pointing out Church teaching and NOTHING ELSE. I was NOT expressing MY personal opinion, and I STATED THAT.

Report away. Your statement that I am not pro life is a personal judgment on your part. Can’t be seen any other way.

 

[ConstantLearner]

Which side of the street are you on? I cite an instance where a woman is one hour removed from a rape and in a hospital emergency room is allowed to take a “morning after” pill (RU 486 I think it is called) as civil law allows; I defend that civil right, and you accuse me of not being pro life because I state I don’t have the right to override her God-given free will?? And since when in the medical treatment of rape on an emergency/civil/criminal situation, do they do a pregnancy test?

What I stated was the official stance of the Roman Catholic Church. See above. RU486 is NOT allowed according to the Church.

From the same document:

Also, as Christians, we bear the cross and suffer for the love of God. Consequently, a mother in such a case must love as Christ would truly love, and give life to the innocent child. For a mother who is the victim of the violence of an unjust aggressor to take the life of an innocent unborn child would make her now the unjust aggressor. As our Holy Father Pope John Paul II taught, whatever the reason for abortion, “however serious or tragic, can never justify the deliberate killing of an innocent human being.”(Evangelium Vitae, no. 58) Instead, the faithful must support the woman who is the tragic victim and, if she has conceived, her child.

This is what the Roman Catholic Church teaches.

 

[joeybaggz]

It may be your personal opinion that any woman who is raped should be allowed to abort. That is your choice, but such is NOT in line with Church teaching. The Catholic Church teaches that a woman may NOT abort, not even in cases of rape or incest, and not even if the fertilized ovum has not yet been implanted in the uterus.

Does anyone seriously believe that one can know 60 minutes after a rape, if fertilization has occurred? Not knowing, a woman has the civil right to immediate t"treatment." It is her choice, and, as I have said, though I am pro-life and anti-abortion, she should be allowed her free will to make that choice.

 

[joeybaggz]

What I stated was the official stance of the Roman Catholic Church. See above.

Infallibly taught, but not an infallible teaching !

 

[ConstantLearner]

Infallibly taught, but not an infallible teaching !

But it IS the official stance of the Church, and I don’t see it ever changing.

If one is pro-life, it doesn’t matter how an innocent child was conceived.

That is the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church.

 

[ConstantLearner]

Infallibly taught, but not an infallible teaching !

Also, as Christians, we bear the cross and suffer for the love of God. Consequently, a mother in such a case must love as Christ would truly love, and give life to the innocent child. For a mother who is the victim of the violence of an unjust aggressor to take the life of an innocent unborn child would make her now the unjust aggressor. As our Holy Father Pope John Paul II taught, whatever the reason for abortion, “however serious or tragic, can never justify the deliberate killing of an innocent human being.”(Evangelium Vitae, no. 58) Instead, the faithful must support the woman who is the tragic victim and, if she has conceived, her child.

So you actually believe YOU should prevail against the holy bishops of the Catholic Church and even St. Pope JPII?

That appears quite pompous of you.

 

[joeybaggz]

So you actually believe YOU should prevail against the holy bishops of the Catholic Church and even St. Pope JPII?
That appears quite pompous of you.

Since you use the word appear, I’ll assume that isn’t a judgmental statement.

Actually, it is not a question of prevailing against anyone. (I know you cannot possible understand that, but I’ll try anyway) I see the fact that it is not an Infallible Teaching as a honest and inspired position that there may be room for interpretation, continued revelation, and the allowance of one’s right to conscience. It is the intellectual humility of the Catholic Magesterium in action. Doctrine, teaching, and articles of faith have always been open to further understanding and revelation as to truth. Will the RCC change its pro life foundation, I pray not. But with generosity and charity, the Magesterium recognizes that its people are not, in the words of a noted non-Catholic speaker, mind numbed robots. Or old world, Pharisees, with exceptions of course.

 

[benjamin1973]

I think the Catholic position is quite clear, and I see no reason why in a Catholic forum, someone wouldn’t just state that doctrine as you have. You are quite right to do so.

That being said, this particular position would probably make it impossible for me to become Catholic, no matter what life changes or experiences might bring me closer to God. The idea that a single zygote would take precedence over the physical well-being and right to self-determination accorded by the free will imbued in us by God, is already hard to swallow. But that an innocent girl should not only be expected to carry a rapist’s offspring to term-- but also enforced in this expectation by legislation-- is so absolutely abhorrent to me that I cannot even believe it to represent the will of a compassionate God.

Not all humanity fell under the umbrella of God’s love and protection, if I’m to believe in the Bible, and sometimes offspring were punished for the sins of their parents. Surely, if there’s any case in the world in which this is justified, it is the refusal to reward rape with reproduction.

 

[ProVobis]

Maybe science has proved otherwise but I recall reading somewhere that it takes about 24 hours AFTER penetration of one of the sperm into the egg for conception to occur. That means another few hours after intercourse.

I guess that’s why they call it the “morning-after” pill.

 

[benjamin1973]

Considering that contraception is not allowed either, then it’s just a degree of sin that we’re quibbling about in this case, I think.

 

[joeybaggz]

I think the Catholic position is quite clear, and I see no reason why in a Catholic forum, someone wouldn’t just state that doctrine as you have. You are quite right to do so.

That being said, this particular position would probably make it impossible for me to become Catholic, no matter what life changes or experiences might bring me closer to God. The idea that a single zygote would take precedence over the physical well-being and right to self-determination accorded by the free will imbued in us by God, is already hard to swallow. But that an innocent girl should not only be expected to carry a rapist’s offspring to term-- but also enforced in this expectation by legislation-- is so absolutely abhorrent to me that I cannot even believe it to represent the will of a compassionate God.

In defense of the RCC, making moral law or teaching positions, is a little like determining the speed limit on the Pennsylvania Turnpike. You have to have one standard. You can not write a law for each and every individual circumstance or ability. When it comes to individual cases, the application of that law/teaching is the purview of the local judge. Setting standards that vary with each individual case, invites total chaos, moral or otherwise.

 

[Arwing]

“morning after” pill (RU 486 I think it is called)

I think RU-486 is an actual abortion pill whereas the “morning-after pill” is an emergency contraceptive (although from what I’ve read can also have an anti-implantation effect, which in moral terms is still abortion since life begins at conception).

Not going to comment on when (if ever) it [morning-after pill] can morally be used post-rape since I see so many conflicting reports with respect to how it works, but I just wanted to clarify that point.

 

[joeybaggz]

joeybaggz:

“morning after” pill (RU 486 I think it is called) as civil law allows

I think RU-486 is an actual abortion pill whereas the “morning-after pill” is an emergency contraceptive (although from what I’ve read can also have an anti-implantation effect, which in moral terms is still abortion since life begins at conception).

Not going to comment on when (if ever) it [morning-after pill] can morally be used post-rape since I see so many conflicting reports with respect to how it works, but I just wanted to clarify that point.

Thank you. Then I guess what I am questioning is the availability of a “Pill” that prevents conception on an emergency basis. Contraception is an allowable process in the RCC, it is the means that is in question. If there is such an emergency contraception pill, should a woman an hour or two after rape in an emergency room be allowed to exercise her conscience in using it, considered she has no idea whether conception has occurred or not. And I guess my question is only pertinent to Catholic women. Current civil law would certainly allow it, and such things as RU 486 if you correct about its use.

 

[ProVobis]

True that contraception is not allowed but it is entirely a different moral issue IF there has been no conception.

Interestingly enough the person who invented the pill (John Rock) was a Catholic who designed it so that it would NEVER abort a conception. Of course since Roe vs Wade, the since developers have not been so cautious.

 

[ConstantLearner]

That being said, this particular position would probably make it impossible for me to become Catholic, no matter what life changes or experiences might bring me closer to God. The idea that a single zygote would take precedence over the physical well-being and right to self-determination accorded by the free will imbued in us by God, is already hard to swallow. But that an innocent girl should not only be expected to carry a rapist’s offspring to term-- but also enforced in this expectation by legislation-- is so absolutely abhorrent to me that I cannot even believe it to represent the will of a compassionate God.

Thank you for your courtesy. It is greatly appreciated, as are your opinions.

Yes, I think the abortion and contraception issues keep a lot of people away from Catholicism.

As I think you know, I, myself, don’t believe the Constitution of the US supports the prohibition of abortion. To prohibit abortion would interfere with the religious beliefs of some Orthodox Jews (and others), and it would clearly violate a woman’s right to privacy as outlined in the Fourth Amendment. I think abortion is here to stay.

As far as the philosophical argument goes, I’m not sufficiently educated in philosophy to argue the point as you have done… I can see both sides of the argument, though, and find it quite interesting. I do think it’s a secular, legal problem, as I think you’ve stated (apologies if I’m wrong), and must be settled by the SC in a secular manner should they elect to hear an appropriate case.

As I said, I was stating the opinion of the Catholic Church only, not my own. I think the Constitution guarantees a woman the right to seek an abortion. It’s certainly a divisive issue.

 

[ConstantLearner]

Maybe science has proved otherwise but I recall reading somewhere that it takes about 24 hours AFTER penetration of one of the sperm into the egg for conception to occur. That means another few hours after intercourse.

It can occur within a few hours, which is why the Church prohibits it. The Church does not allow the abortion of a fertilized egg even if implantation has not occurred.

Implantation is the process by which a fertilized ovum (egg) implants into the uterine wall to obtain oxygen and nutrients from the mother. This usually occurs between 6 and 8 days after conception. Conception itself can occur anywhere between a few hours and 5 days after intercourse.

https://www.zocdoc.com/answers/7844/how-soon-after-sex-can-implantation-occur

 

[benjamin1973]

Thank you for your understanding.

With regard to the OP, it is certainly my position that defining life and morality in secular times while also upholding Church doctrine is very hard. To my ears, a lot of the “philosophical” arguments are really attempts to redefine terms such that religious ideas can be transferred to a secular world view, and then acted on.

I also find the particular emphasis on love of life to be quite selective given the history of Christians and Catholics through the years. “Kill them all and let God sort them out” with regard to other Catholics, and those with lifetimes of toil and hope, love and fear, and all the trappings of full Catholic lives, seems pretty incompatible with the idea of making a rape victim keep the baby. Entire cities have been put to the sword in the name of God, but a fertilized egg, absent the capacity for thought or even basic feeling, is apparently the be-all, end-all of our moral lives.

It seems to me that we should understand a rape victim, allow her to carry out the abortion, and keep faith in the Lord that he’ll show mercy to her, sympathy for the soul of the unborn, and perhaps even compassion for the rapist who might already be in a kind of mental hell.

At the risk of going too far, it seems to me that people’s constant need to monitor, enforce and judge each other’s thoughts and actions show a lack of faith-- faith that God will guide all as they need to be guided, reward and punish faithful and sinners based on their hearts, minds and actions, and settle all accounts perfectly at the end of days.

 

[ConstantLearner]

Yes, I agree with you.

God’s compassion can be very difficult to understand in this life. Ir is difficult even to understand why a loving and compassionate God would allow a rape victim to be impregnated by her rapist.

I’m also reminded of the recent Branson duck boat accident. I cannot fathom the pain the woman who lost seven relatives, including her three small children must feel. Your last paragraph, above,sums things up very well, I think. We need ro have faith, in God and one another. Well put.