Moral dilemma regarding abortion access

Status
Not open for further replies.
J

JohnStrachan

New member
What is preferable?
  1. An absolutist regime that oppresses opponents, limits free speech, prohibits freedom of assembly and property rights but outlaws abortion; or,
  2. An open system that permits a breadth if rights and freedoms, but is agnostic on abortion. That is to say there are no abortion laws that prohibit or limit abortion access.
 
How about an open system that permits a breadth of rights and freedoms but is agnostic on murder?
 
What about option #3 which DOES NOT oppress opponent, DOES NOT limit free speech, DOES NOT prohibit freedom of assembly and property rights but outlaws abortion?
 
Fauken said:
Exactly. I feel like what the OP has posted here is a false dilemma.
Click to expand...
I don’t think it’s a false dilemma. I think there are example of both scenarios in our midst. I’m just curious what people think is preferable.

When I am looking for an example of scenario #1, I think of Saudi Arabia. When I look for an example of scenario #2, I see my own country, Canada. Funny enough, you posted an option #3 and I can’t think of an example in the world today where this happens except in some very small European countries. Perhaps Malta, San Marino, Liechtenstein, the Vatican, Monaco and Andorra.
 
Last edited:
The title of this thread is wrong then. It should be What Type of Rights Should a Country Adopt?

Abortion access is a slogan. It only means the right to eliminate the unborn through abortion.
 
It is a false dilemma. The first option mixes together way too many differing positions and then says oh but abortion is illegal too. Who is advocating for that kind of state besides some dictatorships?
 
JohnStrachan said:
What is preferable?
  1. An absolutist regime that oppresses opponents, limits free speech, prohibits freedom of assembly and property rights but outlaws abortion; or,
  2. An open system that permits a breadth if rights and freedoms, but is agnostic on abortion. That is to say there are no abortion laws that prohibit or limit abortion access.
Click to expand...
First - your scenario is unrealistic as there is no way those are the only two choice available, so your thought experiment is invalid.

However, I will still answer your question.

Between the two, I would gladly have #1 if that meant no more abortion because all the oppression received could be sufferings that we can unite with Christ’s sufferings on the Cross. “The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the Church.”

Number two leads to nothing but more people going to hell and babies being murdered.

If the world was as black & white as your non-realistic question implies, I would gladly choose #1 over and over again.

God Bless.
 
Last edited:
I am old enough to remember when there were very few teen pregnancies and the young women gave birth, usually choosing the option of adoption, and then continuing on with their life.

It wasn’t that long ago.

The gasping of ‘what would we do without abortion access?’ was that a woman had a baby, and moved on with life. And so did the baby.
 
These are two extreme options and I’m not saying I’d be happy with either of them. But if it came down to it, as long as the regime isn’t going around murdering millions of people, option one has to be the lesser of two evils. The dead have no freedoms.
 
If I was sitting around with my non-Catholic liberal family and they posted this question, I would smell a trap.

It’s an arm twisting question where the Catholic answers geee, I don’t know. I guess #1, An absolutist regime that oppresses opponents… To save innocent lives from being lost.

They would go ah Huh! Gotcha! There is no reasoning with a Catholic because they would prefer a Stalin oppressor to impose their morality on the population.

I would reply that remove abortion from your options and put Jewish people, that the absolutist regime will remove all Jewish people from their population. Or how about black people? Or people who have green eyes.

Scripture says
Again the devil took Jesus to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendour, and he said to him, “All these I will give you, if you will fall down and worship me.” Jesus said to him, "Away with you Satan! for it is written , ‘Worship the Lord your God, and serve only Him.’ Matt 4 of the temptation of Jesus in the desert. First Sunday of Lent.
 
JohnStrachan said:
What is preferable?
  1. An absolutist regime that oppresses opponents, limits free speech, prohibits freedom of assembly and property rights but outlaws abortion; or,
  2. An open system that permits a breadth if rights and freedoms, but is agnostic on abortion. That is to say there are no abortion laws that prohibit or limit abortion access.
Click to expand...
How about a system that at least does not force anyone to underwrite the murderous acts of another?

How about an “open system that permits a breadth of rights and freedoms” for unborn children?
 
StudentMI said:
It is a false dilemma. The first option mixes together way too many differing positions and then says oh but abortion is illegal too. Who is advocating for that kind of state besides some dictatorships?
Click to expand...
True, China roughly fits into number one. I am sure if we overturned all the rocks we could find something close to number 3.
 
Here’s another scenario

Women are human beings have right to life and bodily autonomy.

Unborn are human beings and have right to life and bodily autonomy.

Woman aren’t forced to use their body to support another human just like no one else is and can end their pregnancy when they want, BUT the unborn child is not her property, she is their guardian and is expected to make decisions in their best interest. If she ends her pregnancy early for non medical reasons she can only do what harm is necessary to separate from the child. Then her parental rights should be taken away and someone else step in to make decisions in the best interest of the child (life saving interventions, comfort, palliative care, respectful burial etc…)
 
Fauken said:
Exactly. I feel like what the OP has posted here is a false dilemma.
Click to expand...
Yes, it’s a false dichotomy because, in the world we live in, those are not the only two options available. We are free to reject both of them and opt, instead, for one of the many other possibilities.
 
Democracy is less democratic than it seems. If it permits mass infanticide it is depriving the unborn of their future vote.

I have no hesitation in regarding option 1 as the morally superior.
 
What are the other possibilities aside from life or death for the unborn?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top