Real arguments for abortion?

[openmind77]

I have met pro-choice people in person and on the Internet, but I have never met someone who gave a real moral argument for abortion. When I witness debates (especially on the Internet) the pro-choicers I witness usually resort to straw-men, name-calling, ad-hominem attacks or even personal insults. Some of the typical responses I hear are, for example,

“you are a man, you have no say in the matter,”
“if you are against abortion, you hate women and are at war with women,”
“leave your religion out of women’s issues (even though the abortion is not a religious matter but a human rights matter),”
“you just want to control women’s sexual habits,”
etc.

I have also seen a lot of people accuse pro-life activists of having no confidence in science, even though they (the pro-choicers) offer nothing scientific to support their own view, nor do they offer examples of pro-lifers being anti-science.

When life issues are brought up, 90 percent of the time they are ignored or dismissed. On the rare occasion where pro-choicers are willing to address this matter, it usually amounts to “an undeveloped human of X weeks does not constitute a real person,” often with no explanation as to how he/she determined X (and X varies pretty wildly from person to person). When an explanation is given, a lot of times it has to do with the ability to feel pain or cognitive developments, which have obvious counter arguments (you can anesthetize an adult human before killing them and that still would be unethical, or you could kill an incapacitated adult human and that would also be unethical).

I wish I could hear just one solid argument for abortion. There must be some reason why so many people support it.

Your question itself is invalid. There are no arguments for abortion. Nobody supports abortion, nobody wants abortion, nobody likes abortion.

However, if there happens to be a woman with an unwanted pregnancy, then the decision is whether to allow her to have an abortion.

There are two issues here

1. The right of the fetus to be born as a human and
2. The right of the woman to remove the fetus from her body. The woman has a right to have autonomy and control over her own body. Nobody should be asked to host another being inside their bodies against their will.

Society then has to decide how they should balance these two rights. This is a very difficult issue to resolve and even to understand for many, because men will never be put into such situation where something is growing inside their body, but other people are preventing them from having it removed.

This issue will only be satisfactorily resolved when the Christ returns (that will happen soon) and tells us how to resolve the two rights. In the meantime I think it is best if everyone minds their own business and lets the woman decide what she wants to do.

 

[John1956]

Sometimes we hear that poverty is a “reason” for abortions. However, poverty **cannot **justify the direct killing of an innocent person, including an unborn baby.

Interestingly, the study linked below indicates that income and abortion are actually directly correlated, that is they tend to rise and fall together (more income, more abortions; less income, less abortions), which of course refutes the poverty “excuse”:

pdcnet.org/pdc/bvdb.nsf/purchase?openform&fp=cssr&id=cssr_2012_0017_0371_0376

 

[CuriousMike]

Only according to your definition of “immoral”. But let’s face it, even if it would be immoral, it is none of your business. They do not come into your home and force you to watch it, or participate it. If you don’t like it, turn the TV off.

There is no “obsession” with sex in the normal world. Only the ultra-conservatives are “obsessed” with sex - especially with other peoples’ sex life. Do you know the definition of “puritanism”?

Puritanism is the haunting fear that someone, somewhere might have fun.

It isn’t necessarily by my definition of immorality, either.
We are called to denounce evil, and that is exactly what the Pro-Life groups are doing. They aren’t invading people’s privacy. They are promoting sex as it were intended.
If you see someone doing something wrong, do you just stand there, or do you politely ask them to stop?

What makes it puritan for me to think the world is over-sexed?
If I was afraid of fun, or of sin, then I wouldn’t be Catholic. My parents would have committed me to an Institution of some sorts, because I would probably be a bag of misery. I wouldn’t have a job, or a life. And I certainly would not be posting anywhere on the internet.
Just because I have a more conservative view doesn’t make me “afraid” or “fearful” or anything else you might want to call me.

Ultra-Conservatives are not “obsessed with sex,” no, they are concerned about socieities own obsession with sex, and as I said above, they are denouncing it because they believe it is wrong. You believe our point of view is wrong, and you are denouncing it. So what gives you the right to do that?

I am not ultra-conservative, but I can see that we have a problem in society with sexualizing anything and everything. Its heavy prevalence in the media makes that obvious - even if you aren’t looking for it, it can find its way to you.

You will find a LOT of non-Catholics, non-religious, left-leaning folks who share this same opinion as (Many of my schoolteachers did - despite many being women in their 30s to 50s, and almost always Pro-Equality/Women’s Rights and so on). These people, myself included, find it disturbing how people are dressing today.

At this junction, I am not posting to this thread any longer. Your discussion is simply plunging into attacks. The forums here have all the answers you might want at your fingertips, regarding Birth Control, Abortion and so on. You might use it, and accept that we have a different opinion, rather than trying to make us feel bad for what we believe in.

 

[Loly_Maria]

Ultra-Conservatives are not “obsessed with sex,” no, they are concerned about socieities own obsession with sex, and as I said above, they are denouncing it because they believe it is wrong. You believe our point of view is wrong, and you are denouncing it. So what gives you the right to do that?

The difference is that ‘ultra-conservatives’ seem obsessed with controlling other people’s sex lives while the ‘more liberal’ people are only asking to be allowed to make their own choices about their personal lives. I don’t care whether other people are having sex or how they dress or whether they are using contraception, but ‘ultra-conservatives’ come across as being obsessed with those things.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

We are called to denounce evil, and that is exactly what the Pro-Life groups are doing.

The problem is with YOUR definition of “evil”. When people genuinely love each other, even in the “agape” sense, who care about each other, who act in the best interest of the other - but who express their love in a non-procreative fashion (and I am not going into details) and “you” are called to denounce this as “evil”, then your interference (even it comes from benevolence) is rejected, because your value system is unacceptable. To call “love” to be “evil” is something that cannot be accepted.

Ultra-Conservatives are not “obsessed with sex,” no, they are concerned about socieities own obsession with sex, and as I said above, they are denouncing it because they believe it is wrong. You believe our point of view is wrong, and you are denouncing it. So what gives you the right to do that?

Reason and reality. There is nothing wrong with love, even if it is not expressed in a “Catholically accepted” manner. If you wish to be taken seriously, you need more than “we are called to denounce evil”… type of argument. You need to get God come to your “rescue”, you need God to affirm that he is really on your side. You cannot claim that God gave authority to the church.

 

[CuriousMike]

You need to get God come to your “rescue”, you need God to affirm that he is really on your side. You cannot claim that God gave authority to the church.

I don’t think you’re in that position, either. The Baptist Church was founded within the last 400 years, after the Reformation started by Martin Luther. Along with hundreds, perhaps even thousands of other Churches, with drastically different teachings to that of the Catholic Church.

The Catholic Church has a traceable lineage back to St. Peter, and does have God’s favor. Catholic members of this forum can tell you that, and provide evidence for that
catholic.com/magazine/articles/peter%E2%80%99s-authority
catholic.com/magazine/articles/how-do-we-know-it%E2%80%99s-the-true-church
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=39616

 

[utah_rose]

I’ve given my arguments and addressed what you were saying. I repeated myself because those are my main arguments and were still my answers to your questions. I don’t have to make up a new answer for every post when my point still stands.

Just because there can be sex without love doesn’t mean that sex cannot be positive even if it is not ‘open to life’. Sex can be a way for couples to strengthen their relationship, show love and affection, even reduce stress, ect. I don’t agree that my relationship is a ‘perversion’ just because I don’t want children.

Of course sex doesn’t have to be just for procreation. Even Catholics don’t believe this. However on carrying something in your body argument! Some of us have suffered cancer, in no way can we control always what grows in our body. Even you cant. In a healthy body, we have all kinds of potential deadly bacteria on our skin, in our guts, everywhere. So saying that you have the right to consent what you are carrying in your body is nonsense. This scenario can happen to women. They go to their gynecologist, and they find they may have signs of uterine cancer Even though they certainly didn’t invite those cells into their body, yet they’re carrying them. What about breast cancer? A woman finds a lump up in her breast and sadly turns out to be malignant. Does exactly either of these women have control of what they’re carrying in

As for not wanting children you may change in the future. I didn’t want any either, but we did have a baby when I was 24. Up to that time I too used the pill because 50 years ago the Church was uncertain of it, and we were in no shape to have one at that time, and yes I even considered abortion! But things did work out in the end, and we have a lovely smart daughter in her 40s who too doesn’t want kids but has plenty of animals.

So Lila, I respect your arguments, but I pray too that you will never have to face having an abortion. They’re are too many couples out there that can’t have kids, but want them. So I hope if you do get pregnant, you’ll think of that option.

I wish you all the best in the future.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

I don’t think you’re in that position, either. The Baptist Church was founded within the last 400 years, after the Reformation started by Martin Luther. Along with hundreds, perhaps even thousands of other Churches, with drastically different teachings to that of the Catholic Church.

The Catholic Church has a traceable lineage back to St. Peter, and does have God’s favor. Catholic members of this forum can tell you that, and provide evidence for that
catholic.com/magazine/articles/peter%E2%80%99s-authority
catholic.com/magazine/articles/how-do-we-know-it%E2%80%99s-the-true-church
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=39616

Those are just claims. No actual, hard evidence. It is called self-authentication.

But the real problem is refusing to acknowledge “love” if it does not conform with the opinion of the church.

There is a teaching, which says that you must follow your conscious. However, if someone’s conscious says that non-procreative sex is fine, then the teaching immediately changes, and now it says: “you must follow your conscious ONLY if it is well-formed”. And when one asks what is a well-formed conscious, then the answer is: “your conscious is well-formed if it follows what the church says”. So why worry about this “conscious”? It is superfluous. The teaching could be abbreviated to: “you must follow whatever the church says”.

Occam’s razor is a wonderful way of getting rid of unnecessary propositions.

 

[Loly_Maria]

Of course sex doesn’t have to be just for procreation. Even Catholics don’t believe this. However on carrying something in your body argument! Some of us have suffered cancer, in no way can we control always what grows in our body. Even you cant. In a healthy body, we have all kinds of potential deadly bacteria on our skin, in our guts, everywhere. So saying that you have the right to consent what you are carrying in your body is nonsense. This scenario can happen to women. They go to their gynecologist, and they find they may have signs of uterine cancer Even though they certainly didn’t invite those cells into their body, yet they’re carrying them. What about breast cancer? A woman finds a lump up in her breast and sadly turns out to be malignant. Does exactly either of these women have control of what they’re carrying in

People try to remove cancer from their body, they’re not expected to let it stay there. I never said that people control absolutely everything about their body, I said that we have the right to remove new things (such as cancer or a fetus) from our body.

 

[Stephen_says]

People try to remove cancer from their body, they’re not expected to let it stay there. I never said that people control absolutely everything about their body, I said that we have the right to remove new things (such as cancer or a fetus) from our body.

 

[Bspencer]

to me, if you remove God from the abortion equation, then, the pro-abortion argument is valid. to decide whether or not abortion is or is not morally acceptable is mental masturbation.

i believe that the marital act is way to renew a sacred marital covenant bond i entered with my wife when i married her.

When you renew a covenant, God releases grace, and grace is life, grace is power, grace is God’s own love. During the marital act, the two shall become one. And that child who may be conceived, embodies the oneness that God has made the two through the marital act.

to me, to deny this grace is to deny God and God’s will.

I feel that even NFP is a way to ‘skirt around’ the pregnanct issue, and attemts to avoid the possibility of new life ( I know the Church is ok with it)

With God in the equation, I have the same thoughts regarding abortion for rape, incest, severe medical issues with mom/baby. To deny the child is to deny God’s will.

My faith has never been tested with these issues. And for me to judge a person who, in good consciousness makes a different decision than I think I would is beyond my pay grade.

I pray that those that are faced with an unwanted/unplanned pregnancy open their hearts to God’s love.

 

[Theo520]

Sometimes we hear that poverty is a “reason” for abortions. However, poverty **cannot **justify the direct killing of an innocent person, including an unborn baby.

Interestingly, the study linked below indicates that income and abortion are actually directly correlated, that is they tend to rise and fall together (more income, more abortions; less income, less abortions), which of course refutes the poverty “excuse”:

pdcnet.org/pdc/bvdb.nsf/purchase?openform&fp=cssr&id=cssr_2012_0017_0371_0376

Thes limited study raises more qustions than it answers.

Depending upon what’s included Race is a greater predictor
Party affiliation is a strong predictor

The income data is too limited to draw broad conclusions. If the income shift is focused on people in poverty just getting their head above water and not at higher income levels, other factors could be at play. I’ve read that poor women without career prospects choose single motherhood as a sort of career path.

 

[Rau]

…Yes, I have the right to end a temporary condition for my own well-being. Thanks to abortion, a fetus does not have more rights than I do.

Your “condition” will end in due course. All pregnancies do. If, in the meantime, you are suffering unduly, you should seek treatment for yourself. How you get from that uncontested observation to the view that you may kill another innocent person – is still to be explained.

 

[Rau]

We won’t agree on this, because you think that consent to sex equals consent to pregnancy, and I think that they are separate.

Sex is ordered to pregnancy, so consent to sex is most certainly consent to becoming pregnant. At that point, another question arises:

• do I consent to continuing the course of this pregnancy; or
• do I choose to murder the child and thus to end the pregnancy.

Although, it still doesn’t make sense why a rape victim shouldn’t be allowed to have an abortion, since they didn’t consent to sex or pregnancy.

The sense of it is that the innocent child within is innocent and does not deserve death. Likewise, the mother did not deserve to be raped. But the child is now an innocent 3rd party in the situation. Sometime, we just have to cope with what life throws up.

I think that any reason is a good enough reason for an abortion because of unauthorised use of the body.

Were you to be landlord, and to discover a baby occupying the living room of your unlet investment property, would you feel entitled to dispose of the child in the trash can in light of her unauthorised use of your property. Or would you feel an obligation to make arrangements for the child’s care?

 

[Rau]

…if abortions were immoral because of the weight of the sacrifice, then Catholics would allow abortions in cases where it was clear that both mother and child would die, but they don’t allow that. Isn’t it less sacrifice to abort the baby and let the mother live?

Catholic theology abhors the idea of “weighing” up the consequences of alternative acts and concluding, solely on that basis, that the one having the least unfavourable outcome must be the “right” and “moral” act. That is a philosophy that empowers us to do anything - kill, torture, rape, and so on… No - Catholic theology teaches that some acts are simply unacceptable under any circumstances. The murder of the innocent is one such act.

 

[Rau]

… A pregnant woman can morally kill a fetus while it is using her body.

Whose system of morality concludes that? The Baptist Church, from what I’ve read, does not countenance the wide access to “abortion whenever wanted” which you advocate.

 

[Rau]

Also, I believe that Catholics do consider sex a must within marriage. Not being ‘open to life’ or ever ‘consummating the marriage’ is reason for annulment.

That’s approximately correct. In general, if two persons marry and never consummate the marriage, and one of them objects to this situation but the other will not consent, then the first does have grounds to have the marriage declared null. Why? Because the refusal to consummate reveals they came to the marriage with some mistaken understanding of the nature of marriage. Perhaps they thought it was mere companionship. And by the way, “contracepted” sex does not consummate the marriage - which says something further about our understanding of the nature of marriage.

 

[Rau]

The difference is that ‘ultra-conservatives’ seem obsessed with controlling other people’s sex lives

Lola, “pro life” persons are not obsessed with controlling other people’s sex lives, but they may well be obsessed with standing up for the rights of their children, unable to defend themselves, not to be murdered.

You, on the other hand, are quite obsessed with protecting what you consider to be your bodily ‘property rights’, to the point of murdering your own child. A child that has - predictably - come to exist as a consequence of actions you yourself took, knowing the potential consequences.

 

[Rau]

I don’t think you’re in that position, either. The Baptist Church was founded within the last 400 years, after the Reformation started by Martin Luther.

Interestingly, those influential leaders who initiated the breakaway Churches and/developed their theology, Martin Luther, John Calvin, John Wesley etc. all wrote in strenuous opposition to the practice of “non-procreative” sex.

 

[lileli]

The way to prevent abortions is by having multiple contraceptive options. Humans are designed to have sex for pleasure and have much more sex than most other animal species.I agree that abortion is something that must be avoided but people have to be given other choices and education. Abstinent only education is proven to be a failure.