My mother is pro-abortion--advice please?

[ConallCernach]

I’m pro choice and the reason the above doesn’t work for me is that the fetus must be able to do these things at the time of the abortion, not just some time in the future. For example, if there is no consciousness and no ability to feel pain at the time of the abortion, the fact that there would be in the future is moot, IMO. I realize you don’t agree but thought I’d tell you why I and probably most pro-choice folks would have a problem with your argument.

As for the folks in PVS, comas, etc., the reason the sentientcy issue does not apply to them IMO is that they have/had the capacity for such in that their brains and consciousness are in the “operating” stage at birth. IOW, these things take affect at birth.

Actually I would suggest reading through the works of a Mr. Peter Singer, he’s a pro-choice philosopher who points out that a child doesn’t magically gain this characteristics mentioned to receive personhood when it slides out of the womb as opposed to being within the womb only moments prior. As I understand he is content with the idea of infanticide as opposed to relinquishing his pro-choice views.

-Conall Cernach.

 

[rpp]

For the sake of 3/4 types of abortion not permitted by the church I’ll try to establish a point.

While I really liked the other parts of this post, I am confused by this statement. Could you clarify it please? Specifically, what types or circumstances of abortion are you asserting the Church supports?

 

[ConallCernach]

Yes, I think next time it comes up I will mention this idea of the embryo either possessing, or having the potential to possess all of these traits. Thank you.

I wasn’t sure what you meant by “3/4 types of abortion not permitted by the church”. I thought the Church prohibited virtually all abortion?

Regarding the list put out by pro-choice movement: If the pro-abortion people truly follow this list, they would have to think that it is OK to kill severly retarded children.

I’ll elaborate to what I mean bu the acceptable type of abortion.
Firstly these three are out:

Direct abortion for non-grave matters (the direct killing of the embryo while the mother’s life is not a risk, the most common type of abortion performed).

Indirect abortion for non-grave matters

Direct abortion for grave matters.

The type that is morally permissable is the following

Indirect abortion for grave matters (imagine a mother who was diagnosed with a severe type of cancer for which she was at immediate risk and needed immediate chemotherapy although she is pregnant. If she does go on the chemotherapy, the child will very likely die, but the death of the young is not willed as a means or an end, but comes as a likely effect).

I hope this clears it up.

-Conall Cernach

 

[ConallCernach]

While I really liked the other parts of this post, I am confused by this statement. Could you clarify it please? Specifically, what types or circumstances of abortion are you asserting the Church supports?

I hope I just did in my just prior post.

-Conall Cernach

 

[rpp]

I’ll elaborate to what I mean bu the acceptable type of abortion.
Firstly these three are out:

Direct abortion for non-grave matters (the direct killing of the embryo while the mother’s life is not a risk, the most common type of abortion performed).

Indirect abortion for non-grave matters

Direct abortion for grave matters.

The type that is morally permissable is the following

Indirect abortion for grave matters (imagine a mother who was diagnosed with a severe type of cancer for which she was at immediate risk and needed immediate chemotherapy although she is pregnant. If she does go on the chemotherapy, the child will very likely die, but the death of the young is not willed as a means or an end, but comes as a likely effect).

I hope this clears it up.

-Conall Cernach

Hmm…

Not so sure about the example you chose in the last post. If you are saying she had an abortion in order to start chemo, I do not think that is permitted. That is because she may survive long enough for the baby to be born. If she started chemo and baby died as a result, that may be permissible.

The classic, and really only, example I have seen is the case of an ectopic pregnancy, when both the woman and child will die. The surgery is not intended to kill the child, but rather save the mother’s life, the death of the child and impairment of fertility are an undesired side effects which current medical technology cannot prevent.

 

[ConallCernach]

Hmm…

Not so sure about the example you chose in the last post. If you are saying she had an abortion in order to start chemo, I do not think that is permitted. That is because she may survive long enough for the baby to be born. If she started chemo and baby died as a result, that may be permissible.

The classic, and really only, example I have seen is the case of an ectopic pregnancy, when both the woman and child will die. The surgery is not intended to kill the child, but rather save the mother’s life, the death of the child and impairment of fertility are an undesired side effects which current medical technology cannot prevent.

In the class I’m just about to complete this was the example used since it isn’t a direct abortion and it is to save the mother’s life. So she didn’t have an abortion via a clinic, but undergoing chemo resulted in the child’s death. If she could go to term without severe risk of death without the chemotherapy it would be a different issue than the example I outlined.

 

[AnotherChance]

I hate to say this, but consider that she could possibly be concealing an abortion in her past. What else would provide the impetus for such a strong position? She might be attempting to justify herself out of unresolved guilt.

Anyway, ask her why she thinks she has the right, after creating you in the marital act, to kill you for the sake of convenience. Bet she’s against the death penalty, too, huh? How does she reconcile those two?

Christ’s peace and healing.

Christ’s peace.

That is interesting that you mention this. The last time she brought up the issue, that is what occured to me for this first time. Could she have had an abortion in the past? I mentioned it to my husband and he was shocked, because she is your stereotypical “good girl” from the 1950’s. But how else do you explain a woman in her late sixties getting more and more radically pro-abortion? Apparently she is also arguing with people from her church about abortion. I think you might have something there.

In general, I suspect that might be true for many “pro-choice” women. They might have a sense that abortion is wrong, but if they admitted this they would have to face their guilt.

 

[po18guy]

That is interesting that you mention this. The last time she brought up the issue, that is what occured to me for this first time. Could she have had an abortion in the past? I mentioned it to my husband and he was shocked, because she is your stereotypical “good girl” from the 1950’s. But how else do you explain a woman in her late sixties getting more and more radically pro-abortion? Apparently she is also arguing with people from her church about abortion. I think you might have something there.

In general, I suspect that might be true for many “pro-choice” women. They might have a sense that abortion is wrong, but if they admitted this they would have to face their guilt.

Sad to say, but someone had to have those millions of abortions. However, her increasing stridence may just be the Lord at work. He might be allowing her to build up her defenses past the point of sustainability, and she will end up facing the horrible truth about abortion. That is the nature of God’s grace, and the beginning of a new beginning.

I will say a prayer for her.

Christ’s peace.

 

[redrosetea]

She might have some health issues, such as a menatl problem…she could be very depressed…it’s hard to say

 

[Joe_5859]

Everyone should own this book:

Pro-life Answers to Pro-Choice Arguments by Randy Alcorn

It tears apart the most common pro-choice arguments we all come across (which isn’t really that hard to do, as the author abundantly illustrates).

I once took a morality of abortion class at a secular college taught by an atheist, pro-abortion philosophy professor. He spent the first three weeks demolishing all the traditional pro-choice arguments and pointing out why they are illogical and don’t work. It was great! (Of course, the rest of the semester was spent with him building his convoluted argument in favor of abortion on the premise that we have no soul.:whacky: Not so great!) The point being, most pro-choice arguments are based on media sound bites and easily fall apart under scrutiny.

Now, how you use this information with your mother is another matter. You certainly want to make sure your daughter is clear on the issue (which it seems you have done if she is joining a pro-life group). Other than that, I suppose I would make the point that Grandma deserves respect, but that doesn’t mean she’s always right.

 

[toekneemac]

AnotherChance;3710599

Anyway, my daughter is joining the pro-life group at her Catholic high school next year. I know the issue will keep coming up. I also don’t want my daughter to feel conflicted between her beliefs and Grandma. Does anyone have any advice on how to deal with close family members who are polar opposites to you on this issue?

Ignore it. You won’t change them. Just don’t ever discuss it with them. Period. If they bring it up then walk away.

 

[Ruthie]

In my gradual change from pro-abortion to pro-life, the defining argument was DNA.

I was researching modes of inheritance because of a problem my dog has. You can’t do that without learning about DNA.

Briefly, an egg carries 1/2 of the genome (the complete pattern of DNA); the sperm carries the other half.

Think of the two halves of a zipper. When sperm meets egg, the two halves unite and the DNA is “zipped up.” At that moment - even before the cell splits for the first time - the complete human genome is present. All the things determined by DNA are present - such as at what age you begin to go gray or go bald.

It is wrong to kill a teenager (who has also not yet reached the full expression of his/her genome) when they become obnoxious, or need expensive medical care, or will injure your lifestyle by needing money for college. Why is it OK, then, to kill this embryonic human who has not yet reached the full expression of his/her genome?

It fits right in with the argument that it’s just as wrong to kill an unconscious pre-born baby as it is to kill an unconscious adult.

Good luck. I’ll pray for you.

Ruthie