May Catholics support 'compromise' abortion legislation?

[nahbios]

Salvete all…

From what I understand, some compromises in abortion legislation may be necessary to as stepping-stones to a complete end to abortion, with the exception of:

1. 
   *]Unequal treatment of preborn children by allowing for abortion below a certain gestational age, allowing abortion of infants with certain defects, etc.
   *]‘Life’ and ‘health’ exceptions.
   
   I found these exceptions in Chapter Three of a book called The Facts of Life by Dr Paul Clowes, which has the approval of the late Fr Paul Marx OSB.
   
   Does anyone know of other, ecclesiastic sources which state the same or otherwise?

 

[Sherry_G]

No compromise is acceptable. The deceased clergyman is mistaken.

 

[Hokomai]

No compromise is acceptable. The deceased clergyman is mistaken.

So nothing other than the criminalization of every woman who ever uses Plan B, or takes a pill which could interfere with implantation will do? And no exceptions for rape, or incest? And mothers to die when an abortion could save their lives? And a requirement that the whole fallopian tube be removed, complete with fetus when an ectopic pregnancy takes place? Birth and death certificates for the 50 percent of very early spontaneous miscarriages? Police/coroner investigations of all miscarriages? Inheritance rights for zygotes? Is this what you mean by no compromise? Politicians who do not support all of the above refused communion?

 

[po18guy]

So nothing other than the criminalization of every woman who ever uses Plan B, or takes a pill which could interfere with implantation will do? And no exceptions for rape, or incest? And mothers to die when an abortion could save their lives? And a requirement that the whole fallopian tube be removed, complete with fetus when an ectopic pregnancy takes place? Birth and death certificates for the 50 percent of very early spontaneous miscarriages? Police/coroner investigations of all miscarriages? Inheritance rights for zygotes? Is this what you mean by no compromise? Politicians who do not support all of the above refused communion?

You believe in the death penalty? For the innocent?

 

[FrDavid96]

Salvete all…

From what I understand, some compromises in abortion legislation may be necessary to as stepping-stones to a complete end to abortion, with the exception of:

1. 
   *]Unequal treatment of preborn children by allowing for abortion below a certain gestational age, allowing abortion of infants with certain defects, etc.
   *]‘Life’ and ‘health’ exceptions.
   
   I found these exceptions in Chapter Three of a book called The Facts of Life by Dr Paul Clowes, which has the approval of the late Fr Paul Marx OSB.
   
   Does anyone know of other, ecclesiastic sources which state the same or otherwise?

1. 
   Yes. Sometimes compromise can be a legitimate thing to do but with certain qualifications.
   
   If a person says “I am going to compromise because if two sides disagree, we can just find some middle ground that will make us both get something and both give something” that is NOT acceptable.
   
   However, compromise that has as it’s goal the final result of an end to abortion, but recognizes that this cannot be achieved immediately is legitimate. Example: a country has a law that allows for abortion on-demand with no restrictions. Someone proposes that abortions in the last trimester be banned as a sort of compromise. The person realizes that a full ban on abortion is just not realistic at the moment, and a ban on 3rd trimester abortions is at least better than nothing at all. If the person’s motivation is “let’s have 1st and 2nd trimester abortions” then that’s NOT legitimate. If the goal is an end to abortion and this is a step that at least makes thing better than they were before, that’s acceptable.
   
   The Holy See issued directives on this a few years ago. I can’t remember the sources, so I’m going to look them up and get back to you.

 

[_Abyssinia]

Salvete all…

From what I understand, some compromises in abortion legislation may be necessary to as stepping-stones to a complete end to abortion, with the exception of:

1. 
   *]Unequal treatment of preborn children by allowing for abortion below a certain gestational age, allowing abortion of infants with certain defects, etc.
   *]‘Life’ and ‘health’ exceptions.
   
   I found these exceptions in Chapter Three of a book called The Facts of Life by Dr Paul Clowes, which has the approval of the late Fr Paul Marx OSB.
   
   Does anyone know of other, ecclesiastic sources which state the same or otherwise?

1. 
   But there has been no ‘compromise.’
   
   As the USSCB says:
   

   The rule that created the uproar has not changed at all, but was finalized as is. Friday evening, after a day of touting meaningful changes in the mandate, HHS issued a regulation finalizing the rule first issued in August 2011, “without change.” So religious employers dedicated to serving people of other faiths are still not exempt as “religious employers.” Indeed, the rule describes them as “non-exempt.”

   The rule leaves open the possibility that even exempt “religious employers” will be forced to cover sterilization. In its August 2011 comments, USCCB warned that the narrow “religious employer” exemption appeared to provide no relief from the sterilization mandate—only the contraception mandate—and specifically sought clarification. (We also noted that a sterilization mandate exists in only one state, Vermont.) HHS provided no clarification, so the risk remains under the unchanged final rule.

   The new “accommodation” is not a current rule, but a promise that comes due beyond the point of public accountability. Also on Friday evening, HHS issued regulations describing the intention to develop more regulations that would apply the same mandate differently to “non-exempt, non-profit religious organizations”—the charities, schools, and hospitals that are still left out of the “religious employer” exemption. These policies will be developed over a one-year delay in enforcement, so if they turn out badly, their impact will not be felt until August 2013, well after the election.

   Even if the promises of “accommodation” are fulfilled entirely, religious charities, schools, and hospitals will still be forced to violate their beliefs. If an employee of these second-class-citizen religious institutions wants coverage of contraception or sterilization, the objecting employer is still forced to pay for it as a part of the employer’s insurance plan. There can be no additional cost to that employee, and the coverage is not a separate policy. By process of elimination, the funds to pay for that coverage must come from the premiums of the employer and fellow employees, even those who object in conscience.

   The “accommodation” does not even purport to help objecting insurers, for-profit religious employers, secular employers, or individuals. In its August 2011 comments, and many times since, USCCB identified all the stakeholders in the process whose religious freedom is threatened—all employers, insurers, and individuals, not just religious employers. Friday’s actions emphasize that all insurers, including self-insurers, must provide the coverage to any employee who wants it. In turn, all individuals who pay premiums have no escape from subsidizing that coverage. And only employers that are both non-profit and religious may qualify for the “accommodation.”

   usccbmedia.blogspot.com/2012/02/six-more-things-everyone-should-know.html

 

[buffalo]

So nothing other than the criminalization of every woman who ever uses Plan B, or takes a pill which could interfere with implantation will do? And no exceptions for rape, or incest? And mothers to die when an abortion could save their lives? And a requirement that the whole fallopian tube be removed, complete with fetus when an ectopic pregnancy takes place? Birth and death certificates for the 50 percent of very early spontaneous miscarriages? Police/coroner investigations of all miscarriages? Inheritance rights for zygotes? Is this what you mean by no compromise? Politicians who do not support all of the above refused communion?

Abortion was built on lies:

**CONFESSION OF AN EX-ABORTIONIST

****I am personally responsible for 75,000 abortions. This legitimises my credentials to speak to you with some authority on the issue. I was one of the founders of the National Association for the Repeal of the Abortion Laws (NARAL) in the U.S. in 1968. A truthful poll of opinion then would have found that most Americans were against permissive abortion. Yet within five years we had convinced the U.S. Supreme Court to issue the decision which legalised abortion throughout America in 1973 and produced virtual abortion on demand up to birth. How did we do this? It is important to understand the tactics involved because these tactics have been used throughout the western world with one permutation or another, in order to change abortion law. THE FIRST KEY TACTIC WAS TO CAPTURE THE MEDIA

We persuaded the media that the cause of permissive abortion was a liberal enlightened, sophisticated one. Knowing that if a true poll were taken, we would be soundly defeated, we simply fabricated the results of fictional polls. We announced to the media that we had taken polls and that 60% of Americans were in favour of permissive abortion. This is the tactic of the self-fulfilling lie. Few people care to be in the minority. We aroused enough sympathy to sell our program of permissive abortion by fabricating the number of illegal abortions done annually in the U.S. The actual figure was approaching 100,000 but the figure we gave to the media repeatedly was 1,000,000. Repeating the big lie often enough convinces the public. The number of women dying from illegal abortions was around 200-250 annually. The figure we constantly fed to the media was 10,000. These false figures took root in the consciousness of Americans convincing many that we needed to crack the abortion law. Another myth we fed to the public through the media was that legalising abortion would only mean that the abortions taking place illegally would then be done legally. In fact, of course, abortion is now being used as a primary method of birth control in the U.S. and the annual number of abortions has increased by 1500% since legalisation.

more…
**

 

[FrDavid96]

4…As John Paul II has taught in his Encyclical Letter Evangelium vitae regarding the situation in which it is not possible to overturn or completely repeal a law allowing abortion which is already in force or coming up for a vote, «an elected official, whose absolute personal opposition to procured abortion was well known, could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and public morality»

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20021124_politica_en.html

 

[FrDavid96]

see also

73…A particular problem of conscience can arise in cases where a legislative vote would be decisive for the passage of a more restrictive law, aimed at limiting the number of authorized abortions, in place of a more permissive law already passed or ready to be voted on. Such cases are not infrequent. It is a fact that while in some parts of the world there continue to be campaigns to introduce laws favouring abortion, often supported by powerful international organizations, in other nations-particularly those which have already experienced the bitter fruits of such permissive legislation-there are growing signs of a rethinking in this matter. In a case like the one just mentioned, when it is not possible to overturn or completely abrogate a pro-abortion law, an elected official, whose absolute personal opposition to procured abortion was well known, could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and public morality. This does not in fact represent an illicit cooperation with an unjust law, but rather a legitimate and proper attempt to limit its evil aspects.

Ioannes Paulus PP. II
Evangelium Vitae

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25031995_evangelium-vitae_en.html

 

[Hokomai]

You believe in the death penalty? For the innocent?

I have never seen any evidence that the death penalty is useful to society, no.

 

[Castello]

I have never seen any evidence that the death penalty is useful to society, no.

Except for pre-born babies, you are cool with executing them, right?

 

[BGorski]

Salvete all…

From what I understand, some compromises in abortion legislation may be necessary to as stepping-stones to a complete end to abortion, with the exception of:

1. 
   *]Unequal treatment of preborn children by allowing for abortion below a certain gestational age, allowing abortion of infants with certain defects, etc.
   *]‘Life’ and ‘health’ exceptions.
   
   I found these exceptions in Chapter Three of a book called The Facts of Life by Dr Paul Clowes, which has the approval of the late Fr Paul Marx OSB.
   
   Does anyone know of other, ecclesiastic sources which state the same or otherwise?

1. 
   The difficulty in compromise is believing that those on the opposite shore are really in favor of compromise or establishing a precedent (usable in Court-based issues) to point back to at a later point in time. Opponents of the pro-life stance have proven that they are untrustworthy in these matters (my opinion). So why would one accept a compromise in good faith?
   
   For example, a compromise now on birth control being provided by insurance companies to employees of Catholic Church and hospitals, etc can suggest later that the position of pro-life of the Church is legally illogical. That is, we can’t say that life begins at conception, then allow the prevention of conception according to personal choice and counter to the natural law of God.
   
   I’m no lawyer (obviously), but I do know that the narrow road to heaven has a slippery slope on each side.

 

[Hokomai]

Except for pre-born babies, you are cool with executing them, right?

Where did you get that idea?

 

[littlebum2002]

People claim “no compromise”, and say that anything less than 100% illegal abortions is unacceptable. If everyone takes that stance, know what the result would be? Legal abortions.

What would God prefer? Standing up against abortion completely, and keeping it legal, or compromising and at least reducing the number of abortions?

Our nation is built on compromise. Standing up for your moral values is nice, but in the end will cost millions of innocent lives. A compromise is the only way the abortion debate will be resolved. America will never allow abortions to be illegal if the woman was raped, or if her life is in danger. I think that our nation could compromise, and say no abortions are acceptable after the first trimester, unless the woman was raped or her life is in danger. No, it isn’t perfect, but it’s better than the current situation.

 

[Castello]

Where did you get that idea?

Are you pro abortion?

You listed a big bunch of situations where you imply abortion should be legal. Pro one single abortion you are pro all of them.

You cannot be a little pregnant and you cannot be a little pro abortion.

BTW- I work and am a mother and a volunteer and I do not live on the forums. I respond when I have time.

 

[Hokomai]

Are you pro abortion? .

That is the question which should have been asked before anyone said I was ‘cool with executing’ unborn children. The answer is no, that is not how I would describe myself. My views on abortion are not fixed, and my efforts in these discussions is to promote understanding of the ‘other side’. I do the same elsewhere in the opposite direction. I think that unplanned conception should be avoided, and should result from parental decision to have a child. That to my mind will eliminate most abortions. I do not believe in criminalizing women who have abortions, and I am opposed to the private provision of abortion services for profit. I see a significant distinction between abortions pre- and post- viability. When I read these forums I get the impression that many posters think people who do not oppose all abortion must support abortion or think it is a good thing. In my experience, this is wrong.

 

[hannajomar]

Yes, we can support comprise legislation as a stepping-stone towards irradiating new abortions. If there are only two candidates running for a political position. One favors abortion on-demand throughout the entire pregnancy, while candidate # 2 favors abortion on-demand during only the first trimester. I could in good conscience vote for # 2, even though it is only voting to reduce abortions, not get rid of them altogether.

I’ve also seen this discussed in regards to politicians who hold office. Suppose the government currently pays for a million abortions per year (God-forbid), and a bill is introduced which would fund only 1/2 million abortions. The politician could vote for that bill in good conscience. Even though they appear to be voting in favor of 1/2 million abortions, they are voting against 1/2 million abortions.

 

[FrDavid96]

Yes, we can support comprise legislation as a stepping-stone towards irradiating new abortions. If there are only two candidates running for a political position. One favors abortion on-demand throughout the entire pregnancy, while candidate # 2 favors abortion on-demand during only the first trimester. I could in good conscience vote for # 2, even though it is only voting to reduce abortions, not get rid of them altogether.

I’ve also seen this discussed in regards to politicians who hold office. Suppose the government currently pays for a million abortions per year (God-forbid), and a bill is introduced which would fund only 1/2 million abortions. The politician could vote for that bill in good conscience. Even though they appear to be voting in favor of 1/2 million abortions, they are voting against 1/2 million abortions.

Yes.

At the same time though, we have to keep things in perspective.

Supporting even limited abortions is still immoral–there’s no two ways about it. This comes down the the individual’s motivation.

If the motive is to eliminate those half million abortions, AND the ultimate (but unachievable at the moment) goal is a total end to all abortions, then it’s the moral thing to do.
However, if one actually supports those abortions that remain, it’s still immoral.

 

[Hokomai]

Yes.

At the same time though, we have to keep things in perspective.

Supporting even limited abortions is still immoral–there’s no two ways about it. This comes down the the individual’s motivation.

If the motive is to eliminate those half million abortions, AND the ultimate (but unachievable at the moment) goal is a total end to all abortions, then it’s the moral thing to do.
However, if one actually supports those abortions that remain, it’s still immoral.

Fr David, do people in your experience actually ‘support’ abortion? Or do they think on average, rather, that it is a necessary evil, that women who have abortions should not be criminalised, and that abortions that are done should be done only after appropriate counseling and in safe facilities?

 

[FrDavid96]

Fr David, do people in your experience actually ‘support’ abortion? Or do they think on average, rather, that it is a necessary evil, that women who have abortions should not be criminalised, and that abortions that are done should be done only after appropriate counseling and in safe facilities?

There is really no one answer to that question. People “in my experience” have expressed a wide range of views, from one extreme to the other of this issue.

The Church doesn’t advocate criminalizing women who have abortions. In fact, the Church recognizes that the mothers are victims as well as the babies. (and at the risk of taking us off topic, excommunication is not the same as criminalizing).

Making it illegal for medical staff to perform an immoral procedure is not necessarily the same thing as making it a crime for the victim. Not everything that is illegal is necessarily criminal.

I find it interesting that you bring up “after appropriate counseling” because the Church has in fact long supported laws that require “appropriate counseling” but the pro-abortion organizations are the ones who oppose it because it might lead to a mother deciding not to have abortions.

The “safe facilities” is a non-starter. If something should not be happening in the first place, the fact that it’s happening in a “safe facility” makes it no better. It’s also ironic that some people use the term “safe facility” to describe a place specifically designed for the killing of human persons. How in the world anyone can call that “safe” is beyond me.