Moral dilemma regarding abortion access

Status
Not open for further replies.
It’s not a false dilemma. It’s a very real dilemma.

We’re all against totalitarianism unless it’s in the name of our faith. Then totalitarianism becomes palatable to us.
 
JohnStrachan said:
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.
Click to expand...
I don’t know, the premise is almost specifically tailored so people will be discouraged to choose the country that is against abortion.
Hume said:
It’s not a false dilemma. It’s a very real dilemma.

We’re all against totalitarianism unless it’s in the name of our faith. Then totalitarianism becomes palatable to us.
Click to expand...
Yes, it is because it forces people to choose between two bad options when there are other superior ones that are much more preferable.
 
Last edited:
Leek said:
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.
Click to expand...
If she can do whatever she wants then it is not logically consistent for there to be any expectations.
 
Last edited:
How about this question? Who’s Righteousness is more important the Self-Righteousness of man or the Righteousness of God according to the Word of God which John chapter one says 'The Word was God…
 
2 is intrinsically less evil, but we do need some laws, like those preventing murder. Now abortion is more complex than the simplistic view I see on these forums. It’s NOT binary. There are cases when the mother’s life is in danger and to ban abortion there is to effectively promote the death of pregnant women…I’m totally against the way we treat abortion like a haircut in our society, but I’m not against it in the case when the mother’s life is in jeopardy. This should be the decision of the family in question, not the state or the church for that matter. The church can advise for sure… it’s complicated is my point.
 
The mother’s life being in danger is a tiny fraction of cases. After that, there are few ‘good reasons.’
 
webmasterpdx said:
2 is intrinsically less evil, but we do need some laws, like those preventing murder. Now abortion is more complex than the simplistic view I see on these forums. It’s NOT binary. There are cases when the mother’s life is in danger and to ban abortion there is to effectively promote the death of pregnant women…I’m totally against the way we treat abortion like a haircut in our society, but I’m not against it in the case when the mother’s life is in jeopardy. This should be the decision of the family in question, not the state or the church for that matter. The church can advise for sure… it’s complicated is my point.
Click to expand...
@webmasterpdx ~~

You have a wrong understanding of Catholic Church teaching! Please, please stop repeating it.

I recall your having stated the same inaccuracy on a different thread, using an ectopic pregnancy as your excuse for faulting the Catholic stance on abortion. As others told you then, I tell you now: if a pregnancy threatens the life of a mother, such as an ectopic pregnancy, the Catholic Church authorizes whatever is medically necessary to save the mother. We do not want the child to die, but if that happens in saving the mother, then it happens. The health of the mother is primary; everything else is secondary.

No extra hand-wringing or splitting of hairs is involved, no emotionally wrenching decisions must be endured by the family, and no guilty decisions weigh down the family members. Period! (Lol! With an exclamation point!) Yes, saving the mother from an ectopic pregnancy will result in eliminating life for the baby, but the baby’s death is a side-effect of the life-saving care given to the mother, not an abortion to end the life of the unborn child.

ONCE AGAIN! Whenever a health problem threatens the life of the mother, remedying that problem is primary. If the death of her unborn baby is a result of the remedy, that death of her unborn child is secondary, but it is not an abortion.
 
False contrast. Society is based, founded upon limits placed on human behavior - and get this - for those who cannot or will not limit their own activities.

Should premeditated murder be legalized?

Yes or no?
 
Those who claim they fear a totalitarian state should realize that we do pass laws to control the behaviors of others. For ourselves and those around us. There is no such thing as complete freedom, or Utopia. We are flawed and need laws to stop our worst behaviors. We protect women but we don’t protect the unborn. That makes no sense.
 
Whatever happened to equal rights for unborn women?

You cannot have the next generation of abortion activists if you slaughter them in the womb.
 
Last edited:
@gama232, your question shows that you missed my point. I’m sorry I failed to make my meaning clear. I was addressing the OP’s logic, not his ethics. It is logically possible to reject both alternatives and opt, instead, for some other combination of rights and freedoms.
 
The logical fallacy proposed in the choices given does not represent a dilemma. I think it represents moral confusion.
 
webmasterpdx said:
There are cases when the mother’s life is in danger and to ban abortion there is to effectively promote the death of pregnant women
Click to expand...
That’s less than one percent and is negligible for general discussion.
 
webmasterpdx said:
There are cases when the mother’s life is in danger and to ban abortion there is to effectively promote the death of pregnant women
Click to expand...
Indeed, there are. And I believe in these pastorally sensitive situations proper consideration is due. But you seem to be arguing in preserving abortion rights for any and all cases. A fetus with a cleft palate is not cause for abortion. A female fetus is not cause for abortion. Selective reduction is not cause for abortion.
 
What you are saying is no different than what I said. If you ban all abortions, that life saving operation to save the mother’s life will be illegal…and there are other cases…what about atypical pregnancy, when there is a 95% chance of the mother dying…what about the case of a raped teenager who wants to commit suicide? My point was that it’s more complicated than a binary decision…
 
I’m sorry that you do not understand Church teaching regarding abortion.

Again, I ask that you not pass off your faulty version as legitimate Church teaching.
 
I wasn’t really talking about church teaching, but was talking about the fact it’s a very complicated subject and doesn’t fall into the simplicity of a binary decision.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top