How Quickly Should We Overturn Roe?

[Elf01]

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.

You’re OK with abortion anyway or would you support banning it in other scenarios?

The Church acknowleges that the baby is also an innocent. After all the girl cannot legally kill her rapist after his release or if the rapist was her partner and they had already had children she could not kill them. A child who looked like the dad may be traumatic after all and older children are harder to get adoptive homes for.

Also I find it insulting to people who have been conceived as a result of rape, one of whom is a relative of mine.

 

[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?

I would say you are not totally in line with the Catholic Church since the Church expressly prohibits the giving of such medication, even in cases of rape or incest.

I have much sympathy for rape victims, but the child of a rapist is as much an innocent victim as the woman. Why should it be deprived of life? I also have much sympathy for the child.

 

[benjamin1973]

There are so many philosophical questions surrounding this kind of stuff that you could make a near-endless list. First of all, why would God bother to infuse a zygote with a soul, since He is omniscient and must surely know that it will be aborted?

Why, for that matter, wouldn’t God protect ALL infants at least until the development of language skills, so that each child would be guaranteed the chance to be presented with the Gospel?

The secular answer is very obvious: that little children suffer and die without ever having a chance to exercise their God-given free will isn’t a religious test for the parents-- it’s evidence against the idea that the Catholic God exists at all, at least as described in Biblical texts, and that Catholic doctrine on things like abortion can therefore be safely regarded.

 

[benjamin1973]

My personal feeling about abortion is one of disgust and aversion. However, I find myself willing to accept it on a sliding scale. If an embryo is a product of rape, or has severe genetic damage which will bring great suffering to the infant and the parents, I see it as unpleasant, but support the woman’s right to go through with it.

As a simple birth control method: “Well, I just really like sex, but condoms ruin the fun. But that’s okay, there’s a clinic like 5 minutes from me,” that’s pretty gross to me. But even then, I cannot see any basis on which I would accept legislation against a woman’s choice not to carry an unwanted baby to term.

In cases where the nervous system has developed enough for the fetus to experience pain, then I’m 100% against it, no matter what.

As for insult-- to be frank, my parents weren’t married, and my mother was only 17 when I was conceived. So I have to assume that she at least considered having an abortion. I’m quite glad that I exist, rather than never having existed. But if I hadn’t-- well, I wouldn’t have suffered.

I’m sure there are many poor or damaged people who feel they would much rather not have existed, due to genetic problems which have impaired their ability to enjoy life at all.

 

[ConstantLearner]

You’re right, we could debate till the end of time and not come up with any definitive answers.

As for God, I think God exists, but I have no idea what God is. (All of my professors at college have said the same thing, i.e., “We can know God exists, but we cannot know what God is.”)

Even many of the great saints of the Catholic Church have gone through greatly extended periods of doubt about an afterlife. e.g., St. John of the Cross, St. Therese of Lisieux, St. Teresa of Calcutta. Some Catholic theologians have become atheists.

The philosophical questions have gone on for millennia, and I expect they will continue to do so with no clear-cut answers.

I know Church teaching, but I have no clear answers myself, and I do not always agree with the Church.

 

[benjamin1973]

There’s a difference. Black people were justified as not human despite being visibly so-- and in many cases, using religious ideas as a justification.

A zygote is not considered a human being because it does not have the mental properties which we associate with being a human. It doesn’t think, experience pain and pleasure, or have a God-given free will by which it can establish its moral positions.

 

[benjamin1973]

How much suffering, especially of innocent children, must Teresa have seen. Surely, seeing little ones suffer so greatly must be a test of faith in an Omnibenevolent God.

 

[Elf01]

In cases where the nervous system has developed enough for the fetus to experience pain, then I’m 100% against it, no matter what.

Would you support the ‘right’ to kill a born person who could not experience pain?

 

[benjamin1973]

No, because although there’s no pain, I’d say that destruction of a lifetime of memories and social relationships would represent a serious loss to the world. If the person was NEVER going to be conscious again (like say a coma patient with permanent brain damage whose body is alive only due to life support), then yes, I might support it.

In the case of a fetus, because it cannot possibly have memories and social relationships established, then the only kinds of harm that I can see coming to it are:

1. pain-- which I think everyone including hardcore atheists would be unwilling to accept
2. a lack of ever existing-- which philosophically is quite hard to establish as “harm”
3. spiritual condemnation or limbo-- which is not a secular consideration and cannot be considered in issues of American law

 

[Elf01]

No, because although there’s no pain, I’d say that destruction of a lifetime of memories and social relationships would represent a serious loss to the world. If the person was NEVER going to be conscious again (like say a coma patient with permanent brain damage whose body is alive only due to life support), then yes, I might support it.

A newborn baby then who wouldn’t have social relationships formed yet and whose parents can’t cope?

 

[benjamin1973]

An infant, once it becomes sentient, definitely has a social relationship with the mother. I’m very sure that late-term fetuses are babies with feelings and primitive ideas, that they know and love their mothers’ voices, etc.