How Quickly Should We Overturn Roe?

  • Thread starter Thread starter kkerwin1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
benjamin1973 said:
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.
Click to expand...
But we are to judge actions, especially actions that lead to death of an innocent person. We are not being compassionate by guiding her to kill a person. We should do all we can to encourage her to keep her child, even if it means giving up for adoption, instead of holding her hands to the abortion center.

Abortion is justified because “The unborn human is not a person.” Thus, murder has not been committed. With that line of reasoning, would someone be inclined to ask for forgiveness? There is no guarantee that those involved in abortion will repent, which is a terrible risk we play with another person’s soul.

If the abortion has already happened, of course we should pray for God’s mercy. But we shouldn’t encourage someone to have an abortion (or rob a bank because they needed money for medicine).

Where is compassion for the unborn in all of this talk about compassion? Do they not deserve it because they can’t communicate verbally?
 
Last edited:
NuclearReceptor said:
Abortion is justified because “The unborn human is not a person.” Thus, murder has not been committed. With that line of reasoning, would someone be inclined to ask for forgiveness? There is no guarantee that those involved in abortion will repent, which is a terrible risk we play with another person’s soul.
Click to expand...
This is the essence of this argument, to me. For Catholics, the consequences of abortion amount to (more or less) murder; and there are real spiritual consequences for this kind of act, potentially even torment in Hell. From your perspective, if you allowed someone to do this, then you might to some degree feel you had blood on your hands as well, by not intervening. This is perfectly understandable.

But for atheists, there’s a corollary, and it’s not baby hating. If you don’t believe that a person’s suffering will be rewarded with Heaven, and if you think the entirety of a person’s existence is only that which is carried out as a single human life, then things look very different. If you bring in a child with severe disabilities, or into a broken household, or into extreme poverty, then you are knowingly creating a human being who will suffer more than enjoy, in essence, bringing that person into a kind of Hell on Earth, when they could have been spared.

They will ask you the exact same question: Why are you selfishly following beliefs that make YOU feel good, at the cost of the avoidable deep suffering of a new little person? Do they not deserve to be spared?

It’s hard for Catholics to understand, perhaps, but many non-religious people think that NOT bringing a baby into very horrible circumstances is an act of mercy and compassion, because in some cases there’s no light apparent at the end of the tunnel.
 
Last edited:
Perhaps, Monte, you can invent a machine that can check this precise moment?
 
It’s very hard to say. But it’s easy to say when it’s not one-- when it doesn’t have a brain.
 
MonteRCMS said:
Catholic teaching is … at the moment of conception … but you knew that.
Click to expand...
So, according to Catholic teaching a rape victim cannot take a “morning after” pill because she might be destroying a fertilized ovum that has not yet implanted. The Catholic Church considers fertilized, but yet-to-be-implanted ova human beings, and there is no exception for abortion due to rape.
 
I don’t know where these doctrines come from. I’m pretty sure Jesus didn’t express any view on abortion. Is it just stuff that people made up politically, or what is the theological background, actually?

(Meant as a real question, not an insult or anything)
 
mythbuster1 said:
You outlaw abortion immediately and follow up appropriately. It was the same with slavery- it was outlawed as soon as the political will to outlaw it was mustered. Alas, the follow-up was deficient, and so blacks, though free, continued to be oppressed for generations.
Click to expand...
You do know the SC does not make laws, right? They just interpret them. To overturn Roe v, Wade, they would first have to be presented with an appropriate case for decision.
 
benjamin1973 said:
They will ask you the exact same question: Why are you selfishly following beliefs that make YOU feel good, at the cost of the avoidable deep suffering of a new little person? Do they not deserve to be spared?
Click to expand...
When the abolitionists were fighting to end slavery, was it to make them feel good, or was it because they believed slavery was inhumane and evil?

Suffering should not be spared by getting rid of the sufferer. That’s a cheap, dirty shortcut involving taking the life of an innocent person instead of improving the cause of suffering.
 
NuclearReceptor said:
When the abolitionists were fighting to end slavery, was it to make them feel good, or was it because they believed slavery was inhumane and evil?
Click to expand...
Probably both. However, slaves were not zygotes.
Suffering should not be spared by getting rid of the sufferer. That’s a cheap, dirty shortcut involving taking the life of an innocent person instead of improving the cause of suffering.
Click to expand...
Preventing someone from being brought into existence is different than “getting rid of” them. The embryo experiences nothing. If it is aborted before it develops a brain, it’s just one of quadrillions of potential DNA combinations among two parents that will not after all see the light of day.
 
Last edited:
benjamin1973 said:
However, slaves were not zygotes.
Click to expand...
Both slaves and zygotes were/are considered “not quite human” or “sub-human”, with lesser worth and dignity.
benjamin1973 said:
Preventing someone from being brought into existence is different than “getting rid of” them. The embryo experiences nothing. If it is aborted before it develops a brain, it’s just one of quadrillions of potential DNA combinations among two parents that will not after all see the light of day.
Click to expand...
Gassing someone in their sleep with poison would qualify as murder but they experience no pain. Anesthetic gas to cause sensory deprivation and then stabbing someone to death would qualify as murder even without painful sensation.

Physical senses are nothing but chemical relays between neurons, and chemical reactions are nothing but molecules that break and form bonds. And molecules are nothing but atoms held together.

I guess there’s no such thing as “life”. Just a combination of atoms.
 
benjamin1973 said:
Preventing someone from being brought into existence is different than “getting rid of” them. The embryo experiences nothing. If it is aborted before it develops a brain, it’s just one of quadrillions of potential DNA combinations among two parents that will not after all see the light of day.
Click to expand...
I had six years of theology training at a Catholic college, and I cannot answer the following question: Does the Catholic Church believe naturally miscarried fetuses have an immortal soul and are in heaven?

Shame on me, but I have no idea. It was never discussed in any of our classes. However, you’d think they would since they believe the immortal soul is infused at conception. If they don’t, they seem to be contradicting themselves. I, myself, have not the slightest idea when a fetus acquires a soul.
 
Last edited:
Arwing said:
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).
Click to expand...
I think you’re right:

RU486 is a synthetic steroid which works by blocking the effects of progesterone, the natural hormone which is required to maintain the lining of the uterus during pregnancy. RU486 starves the womb of progesterone, the lining of the womb breaks down, and it is lost along with the developing embryo or foetus.

So RU486 causes an abortion. I don’t think the “morning after” pill does, so a Catholic woman could take that with Church approval:

The morning-after pill will not work if you’re already pregnant. The morning-after pill, also known as emergency contraception (EC) helps prevent pregnancy; medication abortion terminates pregnancy. EC is effective when started within 120 hours (five days) of unprotected sex. The sooner it’s started, the better.

The sticking point for Catholic women is that I believe it causes loss of a fertilized, but not implanted, ovum, which is against the dictates of the Church.
 
Last edited:
Arwing said:
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).
Click to expand...
Yes, therein lies the problem for Catholic women who want to follow the Church, or any woman who does not believe in abortion.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top