Moral questions regarding abortion

[GandalfTheWhite]

I was discussing the topic of abortion on some other site. My point was that abortion should not be practiced unless a woman is experiencing medical problems. One person however raised an interesting point. What about those single women who are living in poverty? To them a baby might cause certain starvation.

My second question is, is this possible in the US?

 

[Karin]

I was discussing the topic of abortion on some other site. My point was that abortion should not be practiced unless a woman is experiencing medical problems. One person however raised an interesting point. What about those single women who are living in poverty? To them a baby might cause certain starvation.

My second question is, is this possible in the US?

you are a catholic at least that is what is in your profile…how can you condone any abortions/genocides???
A single woman that is pregnant if she fears starvation can always give her child up for adoption…or do what so many americans do…go on welfare!
LET ME CLARIFY…ABORTION IS NEVER A PERMISSABLE…no matter what the reason!!!

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

I was discussing the topic of abortion on some other site. My point was that abortion should not be practiced unless a woman is experiencing medical problems. One person however raised an interesting point. What about those single women who are living in poverty? To them a baby might cause certain starvation.

My second question is, is this possible in the US?

Abortion is never moral.

Now, when a woman is experiencing medical problems, such as cancer, there can be the unintended second effect of the death of the child in the womb due to chemo thearpy but an abortion is not morally done here.

This is the ethical prinicple of Double Effect. The evil that is done can not be the intended effect so no abortion can be done.

So no, an abortion because one is single in poverty is not moral. One should never have gotten pregnant in the first place and there are other options such as putting the child up for adoption.

 

[GandalfTheWhite]

you are a catholic at least that is what is in your profile…how can you condone any abortions/genocides???

Am I?
I only condone it if a women has medical problems because as far as I know, Catholic Church agrees with that. If abortion means saving the mother’s life then it should be fine. This is especially logical since if the mother isn’t saved and she dies then the baby dies as well. So correct me if I’m wrong but right now I believe I’m not.

So no, an abortion because one is single in poverty is not moral. One should never have gotten pregnant in the first place and there are other options such as putting the child up for adoption.

Thank you. That is actually my opinion but the person (and atheist) was pushing the discussion to the point that it was almost like: they both die of poverty if she keeps the child. This confused me and while I don’t think this case is possible in the US I can’t really argue against it since I’m not American.

By the way, anyone knows a good way to discuss abortion with an atheist. This is particularly hard because many of them do not accept the idea of “life upon conception”.

 

[Ender]

By the way, anyone knows a good way to discuss abortion with an atheist. This is particularly hard because many of them do not accept the idea of “life upon conception”.

The question of when life begins is not religious but biological and on that point there really is no question. Life begins at conception. The only argument available is that while some kind of life begins then, human life begins at some other point. There is no valid biological support for such a position. Keep the argument tied to biology and embryology and the issue is yours … although your friend is still not likely to accept it because of the implications.

Ender

 

[martino]

the reason you are having difficulty in your position is because you have subsribed to the erroneous idea that an abortion is morally permissible in certain cases. The truth is that it is not ever morally permissible according to the natural moral law and the teaching of the Catholic Church.

 

[GandalfTheWhite]

the reason you are having difficulty in your position is because you have subsribed to the erroneous idea that an abortion is morally permissible in certain cases. The truth is that it is not ever morally permissible according to the natural moral law and the teaching of the Catholic Church.

Please, could you provide some sort of support for your statement? Thanks you.

The question of when life begins is not religious but biological and on that point there really is no question. Life begins at conception. The only argument available is that while some kind of life begins then, human life begins at some other point. There is no valid biological support for such a position. Keep the argument tied to biology and embryology and the issue is yours … although your friend is still not likely to accept it because of the implications.

Yes, that’s the problem. You really cannot use the argument that life begins at conception because to an atheist this is not valid. The only closest thing to that is that you may argue that since science cannot be certain about it’s claims of when life begins then the best response is to stop practicing abortion.

Apart from that you may try to argue that abortion isn’t the best option, which is what I’m trying to do.

God bless!

 

[martino]

Please, could you provide some sort of support for your statement? Thanks you.

sure i can do that…dont have the time right now to look up the references but do you doubt that killing people is against the moral law?

 

[Malcolm_McLean]

I was discussing the topic of abortion on some other site. My point was that abortion should not be practiced unless a woman is experiencing medical problems. One person however raised an interesting point. What about those single women who are living in poverty? To them a baby might cause certain starvation.

My second question is, is this possible in the US?

As Mother Theresa said, there is no deeper poverty than being obliged to abort your own baby because you cannot afford to continue the pregnancy.

In the case of starving women, normally nature intervenes and prevents them from becoming pregnant. But where abortions are carried out for lack of resources, we do need to say “what is causing such poverty?”.

 

[GandalfTheWhite]

sure i can do that…dont have the time right now to look up the references but do you doubt that killing people is against the moral law?

Thank you and no.

 

[puzzleannie]

I
My second question is, is this possible in the US?

in the US abortion is permissible up to and during the actual birth process of a full term baby. This is because our Constitution, which protects the God-given right to life, was effectively overturned by Supreme court rulings in 1973 which allowed abortion during the full 9 months of pregnancy. the logic the SC majority used to make these decisions was based on so-called rights they invented, which are no where found in our constitution.

 

[kage_ar]

Please, could you provide some sort of support for your statement? Thanks you.

Today, I left my copy of the CCC at home (I always carry it in my bag, and today I NEED IT).

There are on-line sources for the CCC, including www.usccb.org - look up abortion in the Cathecism. A second place is the www.vatican.va - this is the official web site of the Vatican. Search there for “abortion”.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Gandalf, from the CCC:

2271 Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law:

You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish.

God, the Lord of life, has entrusted to men the noble mission of safeguarding life, and men must carry it out in a manner worthy of themselves. Life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception: abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes.

Note that this references not just abortion willed as an end, but *as a means as well. *
That means that an abortion may not be willed as the “means” to which a mother, or indeed any ‘other’ may procure a good.

One may never–repeat NEVER–do evil so that ‘good’ may result.

 

[mercygate]

Yes, that’s the problem. You really cannot use the argument that life begins at conception because to an atheist this is not valid. The only closest thing to that is that you may argue that since science cannot be certain about it’s claims of when life begins then the best response is to stop practicing abortion.

There is no question that human life begins as a human life at conception. That is a biological fact. Your atheist friend who does not accept that is asking you not to confuse him with the facts.

An atheist may decide that **personhood **should be the governing criterion, rather than the biological condition of “human life,” and may believe that personhood does not begin until some arbitrary point in development. Then they would be the ones to decide what point that is. What’s-his-name at Yale – or is it Princeton – believes infanticide is OK because a baby isn’t a full person.

 

[BlestOne]

Gandalf…
I am not trying to be hostile or agressive so please don’t take it that way. If a poverty stricken (or any person) engages in sexual relations, they know there is always a chance for a child to be created of this union. If we all followed our Fathers plan and did not engage in extra or premarital sexual relations this would not be a problem. If a person were to engage in a sexual relationship, they HAVE to accept the possibility and responsibility of a new life being created. The possibility that in the future the mother could starve to death and therefore the mother should have an abortion is anagolous to saying that we can kill any person because they may cause us harm in the future. That isn’t right is it? A fetus (Lord, I hate that term) is a person and is worthy of full protection of the law, infact, I believe they are more worthy because they are the ones most in need of that protection.

To deny the personhood of a child within the womb, is where we went wrong. That is a person. To say that a woman has the right to do what she wants with her body does not apply to a person that took the responsibility for conceiving a child when she had sex. We know it is a possibility when we consent to sexual relations, therefore, we waive the rights to our own body when we shared our body with someone else and that union produced another person.

With great power comes great responsibility…I love that line from Spiderman! We have the power to choose when and with whom we have sex…we have the responsibility to accept the outcome of that union.

 

[GandalfTheWhite]

Gandalf, from the CCC:

2271 Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law:

You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish.

God, the Lord of life, has entrusted to men the noble mission of safeguarding life, and men must carry it out in a manner worthy of themselves. Life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception: abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes.

Note that this references not just abortion willed as an end, but as a means as well.
That means that an abortion may not be willed as the “means” to which a mother, or indeed any ‘other’ may procure a good.

One may never–repeat NEVER–do evil so that ‘good’ may result.

Thanks, I’m glad to know how things really are now.

There is no question that human life begins as a human life at conception. That is a biological fact. Your atheist friend who does not accept that is asking you not to confuse him with the facts.

An atheist may decide that personhood should be the governing criterion, rather than the biological condition of “human life,” and may believe that personhood does not begin until some arbitrary point in development. Then they would be the ones to decide what point that is. What’s-his-name at Yale – or is it Princeton – believes infanticide is OK because a baby isn’t a full person.

Well, as far as I know, mostly the scientific consensus is that life begins when brain activity begins. The reasoning is pretty logical given certain assumptions. Now, one of these assumptions is for example that there is no such thing as soul.

I therefore have to disagree. In ‘atheistic science’ the idea that human life begins at conception is mostly disputed.

Gandalf…
I am not trying to be hostile or agressive so please don’t take it that way. If a poverty stricken (or any person) engages in sexual relations, they know there is always a chance for a child to be created of this union. If we all followed our Fathers plan and did not engage in extra or premarital sexual relations this would not be a problem. If a person were to engage in a sexual relationship, they HAVE to accept the possibility and responsibility of a new life being created. The possibility that in the future the mother could starve to death and therefore the mother should have an abortion is anagolous to saying that we can kill any person because they may cause us harm in the future. That isn’t right is it? A fetus (Lord, I hate that term) is a person and is worthy of full protection of the law, infact, I believe they are more worthy because they are the ones most in need of that protection.

To deny the personhood of a child within the womb, is where we went wrong. That is a person. To say that a woman has the right to do what she wants with her body does not apply to a person that took the responsibility for conceiving a child when she had sex. We know it is a possibility when we consent to sexual relations, therefore, we waive the rights to our own body when we shared our body with someone else and that union produced another person.

With great power comes great responsibility…I love that line from Spiderman! We have the power to choose when and with whom we have sex…we have the responsibility to accept the outcome of that union.

I agree with you fully!

Unfortunately those who believe that life doesn’t begin at conception won’t

 

[mercygate]

I therefore have to disagree. In ‘atheistic science’ the idea that human life begins at conception is mostly disputed.

Well, the conceptus meets all the scientific criteria of life, although it is not freestanding. Unmolested, the conceptus will become nothing else but a human being. It is not something other than human.

If ‘atheistic science’ disputes that, then atheism is a religion and not objective science.

 

[GandalfTheWhite]

Well, the conceptus meets all the scientific criteria of life, although it is not freestanding. Unmolested, the conceptus will become nothing else but a human being. It is not something other than human.

If ‘atheistic science’ disputes that, then atheism is a religion and not objective science.

What I mean by ‘atheistic science’ is using science and atheistic believes at the same time. So for example in this case one uses the latest scientific findings combined with assumptions that there is nothing out there - but that scientific finding - that should be taken into account.

Whether it is a religion or simply denial of anything else other than that which is arrived to by scientific method probably depends on how you define religion.

shrug

 

[mercygate]

What I mean by ‘atheistic science’ is using science and atheistic believes at the same time. So for example in this case one uses the latest scientific findings combined with assumptions that there is nothing out there - but that scientific finding - that should be taken into account.

Whether it is a religion or simply denial of anything else other than that which is arrived to by scientific method probably depends on how you define religion.

shrug

I believe most pro-abortion advocates today DO acknowledge that the conceptus/fetus is “human.” They deny that it is a “person.” I’ll bet the Priests for Life web site would information you could use.

 

[GandalfTheWhite]

I believe most pro-abortion advocates today DO acknowledge that the conceptus/fetus is “human.” They deny that it is a “person.” I’ll bet the Priests for Life web site would information you could use.

Yes, in that you’re probably right. I believe they would also claim that a dead person is human as well.