How to answer this objection to abortion teachings

[carefullytread]

I’ve often heard this objection to Catholic teaching on abortion. It’s going something like:

If you really believe abortion is the equivalent of murder, how is it that you can stand by and not physically intervene? There have been 50 million abortions in the US since Roe v. Wade, many more deaths than in the Holocaust, and yet the Church doesn’t advocate taking serious measures to stop it. Just voting and praying rosaries outside clinics. It’s clear you think it’s bad, but also clear you don’t think it’s bad enough that you need to break the laws to stop, so you don’t really think it’s as a bad as mass murder.

What’s the best response?

 

[Lost_Sheep]

I’ve often heard this objection to Catholic teaching on abortion. It’s going something like:

If you really believe abortion is the equivalent of murder, how is it that you can stand by and not physically intervene? There have been 50 million abortions in the US since Roe v. Wade, many more deaths than in the Holocaust, and yet the Church doesn’t advocate taking serious measures to stop it. Just voting and praying rosaries outside clinics. It’s clear you think it’s bad, but also clear you don’t think it’s bad enough that you need to break the laws to stop, so you don’t really think it’s as a bad as mass murder.

What’s the best response?

I would ask them, “Well, what do you think we should be doing?” and see what they say. If their definition of “physically intervening” implies some sort of violence, tell them that’s not the way we do things.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

I’ve often heard this objection to Catholic teaching on abortion. It’s going something like:

If you really believe abortion is the equivalent of murder, how is it that you can stand by and not physically intervene? There have been 50 million abortions in the US since Roe v. Wade, many more deaths than in the Holocaust, and yet the Church doesn’t advocate taking serious measures to stop it. Just voting and praying rosaries outside clinics. It’s clear you think it’s bad, but also clear you don’t think it’s bad enough that you need to break the laws to stop, so you don’t really think it’s as a bad as mass murder.

What’s the Catholic response?

That’s not really an objection to the teaching, but anyway. How can we stand by and let this happen without gathering mobs of people with pitchforks?

It would still be the law until the law changes. So where would these mobs direct their defense of the victims? At the clinics, the women or the government?

Best to focus on peaceful efforts to change the culture and law. I think this strategy has been working!

 

[carefullytread]

I would ask them, “Well, what do you think we should be doing?” and see what they say. If their definition of “physically intervening” implies some sort of violence, tell them that’s not the way we do things.

This argument isn’t coming from people who want to stop abortions (though I guess it could), but from people who think that abortion isn’t murder and say pro-lifers don’t really think that either.

The argument is “Wouldn’t you should stop a mother who was about to shoot her child? What’s different here if you think it’s murder? Clearly you don’t.”

What’s the best argument for the distinction?

 

[mikekle]

I’ve often heard this objection to Catholic teaching on abortion. It’s going something like:

If you really believe abortion is the equivalent of murder, how is it that you can stand by and not physically intervene? There have been 50 million abortions in the US since Roe v. Wade, many more deaths than in the Holocaust, and yet the Church doesn’t advocate taking serious measures to stop it. Just voting and praying rosaries outside clinics. It’s clear you think it’s bad, but also clear you don’t think it’s bad enough that you need to break the laws to stop, so you don’t really think it’s as a bad as mass murder.

What’s the best response?

This is something I believe we will have to answer for when we stand before God (myself included).

Sadly, in our world, not many people are willing to stand up to that degree in protection of Gods laws, we are more concerned with the consequences (arrest, jail, quality of life). I have a feeling when God asks me why I did not do everything I could to stop such a thing and all I can say is that I was trying to avoid going to jail, and worried it would infringe upon my comfortable life, I doubt that would be an acceptable excuse.

It would show I was more concerned with violating mans laws versus Gods laws.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

The argument is “Wouldn’t you should stop a mother who was about to shoot her child? What’s different here if you think it’s murder? Clearly you don’t.”

What’s the best argument for the distinction?

We are not privy to the room where the procedure takes place and can’t assume that every woman who walks into an abortion clinic comes back out “by herself”

 

[Della]

I’ve often heard this objection to Catholic teaching on abortion. It’s going something like:

If you really believe abortion is the equivalent of murder, how is it that you can stand by and not physically intervene? There have been 50 million abortions in the US since Roe v. Wade, many more deaths than in the Holocaust, and yet the Church doesn’t advocate taking serious measures to stop it. Just voting and praying rosaries outside clinics. It’s clear you think it’s bad, but also clear you don’t think it’s bad enough that you need to break the laws to stop, so you don’t really think it’s as a bad as mass murder.

What’s the best response?

People have tried this and have paid a heavy price for it–imprisonment (one case solitary confinement for no other reason than turning off a piece of equipment when no procedure was taking place). Some have bombed clinics and murdered doctors–do they seriously believe we should do that?

This is a cop-out argument. It shows that they know it’s murder to kill the innocent, but they themselves cast the blame on others for what they themselves do not want to admit.

A person about to have this medical procedure cannot be judged as intending to commit murder until the point at which the abortion actually happens. If we were to invade clinics and demand they stop, what would happen? Would it really change pro-abortion people’s minds? Or would it only reinforce their claims that it’s a women’s choice and we are interfering with her rights?

This is one of those set-up “gotcha” kind of questions that are disingenuous and meant to make those who are pro-life look like the villains. It’s a very old tactic to place the blame on the wrong persons. They know it’s wrong, deep in their guts. And one day they will have to answer for that.

If they are so concerned, they should support clinics/organizations that help struggling mothers-to-be instead of encouraging them to kill their children.

 

[Lost_Sheep]

Not to hijack this thread, but I just had some jerk (a friend of a friend) on Facebook ask me in an abortion discussion “Which is more sacred, life or body sovereignty?” (Hidden meaning: My Body, my choice) I responded “Life.”

Then this persons says “Well then I guess you would support a law REQUIRING people to donate organs so that others may live, right?”

 

[Della]

Not to hijack this thread, but I just had some jerk (a friend of a friend) on Facebook ask me in an abortion discussion “Which is more sacred, life or body sovereignty?” (Hidden meaning: My Body, my choice) I responded “Life.”

Then this persons says “Well then I guess you would support a law REQUIRING people to donate organs so that others may live, right?”

Yeah, the same twisted logic meant to get them off the hook. Of course it doesn’t, but people love to be self-deluding.

The early Christians didn’t stop abortions through violence, either. Nor did they storm the arenas demanding gladiatorial spectacles cease. They set the example in their lives of love and holiness, and yes, by prayer. And guess what? In God’s good time prayer won an empire from barbarous practices such as these. And it will again.

 

[carefullytread]

Not to hijack this thread, but I just had some jerk (a friend of a friend) on Facebook ask me in an abortion discussion “Which is more sacred, life or body sovereignty?” (Hidden meaning: My Body, my choice) I responded “Life.”

Then this persons says “Well then I guess you would support a law REQUIRING people to donate organs so that others may live, right?”

Ha. You have to admit that’s pretty clever.

My understanding is that the Church allows for organ donation after death so long as the death isn’t sped up to facilitate the donation. Do you know what the Church would teach about a country that adopted a law that required organ donation?

 

[Della]

Ha. You have to admit that’s pretty clever.

My understanding is that the Church allows for organ donation after death so long as the death isn’t sped up to facilitate the donation. Do you know what the Church would teach about a country that adopted a law that required organ donation?

We cannot definitely say what the Church would teach about laws not yet introduced. Having said that, it would probably teach that no one can be coerced into donating anything, since donations are gifts. Our USSC might find a way to make it happen, though, after finding fines for not buying health insurance nothing more than a form of taxation. The laws in the West are becoming more and more insane, IMHO, especially when such decisions are made with a straight face.

 

[Wesrock]

Such action would hurt the cause. Society has shifted so far they would not understand, and they commit these acts truly not knowing what they do.

The Church’s ruling on abortion is more than just saving lives. It’s also about the proper dignity of the human person, of both the child and of the mother and father and society. By proceeding with this, it’s not just that a life is ended, but that they do great harm to themselves.

 

[carefullytread]

Such action would hurt the cause. Society has shifted so far they would not understand, and they commit these acts truly not knowing what they do.

The Church’s ruling on abortion is more than just saving lives. It’s also about the proper dignity of the human person, of both the child and of the mother and father and society. By proceeding with this, it’s not just that a life is ended, but that they do great harm to themselves.

That’s a great response, thanks.

 

[Joe_5859]

It’s one of those loaded questions that is meant to be lose-lose however the pro-lifer responds. The answer they expect is either (a) "You’re right, we don’t really take the loss of life that seriously; or (b) “I think pro-lifers should physically intervene—violently if necessary.” This paints pro-lifers as either (a) inconsistent or (b) dangerous.

Ultimately, the pro-life response has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not abortion is the murder of a human being. If all pro-lifers were either spineless softies or dangerous lunatics, it wouldn’t change the reality of what an unborn person actually is and what abortion actually is. At most, it means pro-life people aren’t perfect. It doesn’t mean they are wrong.

As others have said, though, physical intervention isn’t necessarily the best tactic for ending abortion. For evidence of this, just look at the fringe people who actually do violently intervene (either bombing clinics or shooting abortionists). Have those people been successful at convincing people that the pro-life position is correct? Have they put a noticeable dent in decreasing the number of abortions? No. In fact, I’d venture to guess that stories of such people only make your friend more convinced that his pro-choice position is correct, not less convinced. You might turn it around and ask him that.

If all pro-lifers went around behaving that way, all we’d be doing is contributing to a culture of fear. We wouldn’t be effecting any lasting change.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

It’s one of those loaded questions that is meant to be lose-lose however the pro-lifer responds. The answer they expect is either (a) "You’re right, we don’t really take the loss of life that seriously; or (b) “I think pro-lifers should physically intervene—violently if necessary.” This paints pro-lifers as either (a) inconsistent or (b) dangerous.

Ultimately, the pro-life response has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not abortion is the murder of a human being. If all pro-lifers were either spineless softies or dangerous lunatics, it wouldn’t change the reality of what an unborn person actually is and what abortion actually is. At most, it means pro-life people aren’t perfect. It doesn’t mean they are wrong.

As others have said, though, physical intervention isn’t necessarily the best tactic for ending abortion. For evidence of this, just look at the fringe people who actually do violently intervene (either bombing clinics or shooting abortionists). Have those people been successful at convincing people that the pro-life position is correct? Have they put a noticeable dent in decreasing the number of abortions? No. In fact, I’d venture to guess that stories of such people only make your friend more convinced that his pro-choice position is correct, not less convinced. You might turn it around and ask him that.

If all pro-lifers went around behaving that way, all we’d be doing is contributing to a culture of fear. We wouldn’t be effecting any lasting change.

Basically, this is the question people pull out when they realize that all their other defenses of this atrocity have failed them. It’s the last little corner they can shove their consciences into.

 

[Lost_Sheep]

Such action would hurt the cause. Society has shifted so far they would not understand, and they commit these acts truly not knowing what they do.

The Church’s ruling on abortion is more than just saving lives. It’s also about the proper dignity of the human person, of both the child and of the mother and father and society. By proceeding with this, it’s not just that a life is ended, but that they do great harm to themselves.

This jerk is one of those people who does not view a fetus as a human, but as the proverbial “blob of cells” or something similar. And his implication was that these organs could be forcibly “donated” while the person was still living.

I told him “Tell you what. I’ll donate a kidney to someone who needs it if you donate your heart.”

 

[runningdude]

I’ve often heard this objection to Catholic teaching on abortion. It’s going something like:

If you really believe abortion is the equivalent of murder, how is it that you can stand by and not physically intervene? There have been 50 million abortions in the US since Roe v. Wade, many more deaths than in the Holocaust, and yet the Church doesn’t advocate taking serious measures to stop it. Just voting and praying rosaries outside clinics. It’s clear you think it’s bad, but also clear you don’t think it’s bad enough that you need to break the laws to stop, so you don’t really think it’s as a bad as mass murder.

What’s the best response?

Abortion is not morally equivalent to murder. It is actually a much, much graver sin due to its special circumstances. Its special circumstances also preclude any possible violent intervention.

Few mothers believe they are destroying a unique, innocent soul, condemning it to an uncertain fate. They are simply not morally culpable to murder; “Forgive them Father, for they know not what they do”, begs Christ from the cross at Calvary.

 

[womanatwell]

Sometimes fiction helps to change minds about reality. I have written a medical thriller called Biotech Swirl. The description on my web page:

Biotech Swirl is a medical mystery thriller set in the current explosion of biotechnology. The Catholic Chaplain Jan Pace is pulled into the dark side of scientific research when Dr. Hunter Balik suspects dangerous genetically engineered bacteria in several of his patients and asks her to help him investigate. Though she is not a medical expert, he feels she is trustworthy and he frankly needs a friend. As they proceed, they fear bioterrorism but the crimes seem personal and murder can’t be discounted.

Dr. Balik, who practices at Fenwood Hospital in West Michigan, has a harsh bedside manner and has made no time for relationships. Though he resents the workaholic habits of his physician parents, he is repeating their mistakes. As Hunt and Jan work together, she attends to his spirituality as much as investigating the mystery.

Though the story starts with a medical crisis, the plot leads to persons with the tools and know-how to manipulate genes and with disturbing disregard for life. The suspects include a biotechnology business director who desires her company to embrace human embryonic stem cell research, a professor who wants to develop made-to-order genetically enhanced babies and an in-vitro fertilization clinic manager with questionable motives for disposal of the unborn. The reader encounters today’s culturally misguided sense of “bioethics” through these and other characters.

Dr. Hunt Balik starts on this dangerous investigation without friends or faith. Jan Pace must confront potential terror. Somehow the two of them must summon the courage to overcome the deadly threat.

Through developments of these subjects it is hoped the reader comes to realize that life starts from the moment of conception.

You can download and/or read this FREE BOOK from this link:

womanatwell.blogspot.com/p/biotech-swirl.html .

Perhaps you can convince people to read this or any other books that make the case for when human life really begins.

 

[Graceful_Lamb]

I’ve often heard this objection to Catholic teaching on abortion. It’s going something like:

If you really believe abortion is the equivalent of murder, how is it that you can stand by and not physically intervene? There have been 50 million abortions in the US since Roe v. Wade, many more deaths than in the Holocaust, and yet the Church doesn’t advocate taking serious measures to stop it. Just voting and praying rosaries outside clinics. It’s clear you think it’s bad, but also clear you don’t think it’s bad enough that you need to break the laws to stop, so you don’t really think it’s as a bad as mass murder.

What’s the best response?

Humans have free will.

A woman who is wanting to have an abortion goes to the clinic and someone may try to talk her out of it. Pray for her and her baby, etc. Done in a peaceful manner. Someone going in and trying to stop her abortion would be considered violence, I would think.

Not physically stopping the abortion does not equal not wanting abortions to end.

 

[Rau]

I’ve often heard this objection to Catholic teaching on abortion. It’s going something like:

If you really believe abortion is the equivalent of murder, how is it that you can stand by and not physically intervene? There have been 50 million abortions in the US since Roe v. Wade, many more deaths than in the Holocaust, and yet the Church doesn’t advocate taking serious measures to stop it. Just voting and praying rosaries outside clinics. It’s clear you think it’s bad, but also clear you don’t think it’s bad enough that you need to break the laws to stop, so you don’t really think it’s as a bad as mass murder.

What’s the best response?

An act which is anticipated to have more bad consequences than good consequences is not a moral act. I cannot imagine which laws you imagine breaking would see the law overturned on account of that activity. I believe the majority support abortion - at least some form of it with limitations etc. The minds of the masses need to be changed, and it won’t happen through lawlessness. The cause would only be set back further.