Real arguments for abortion?

[NovusFidem]

I do believe any reason for an abortion is fine. It wasn’t me that brought up throwing people out of boats. I was just pointing out why the argument didn’t make sense with Catholic beliefs.

The argument makes sense, as far as I can tell; the use of the boat is just to illustrate how inappropriate are the arguments pro-abortion. Please explain how it doesn’t make sense with Catholic beliefs, as Catholic teaching would consider wrong both aborting and pushing people out of the boat.

A boat is not a body.

You are missing the point. My boat or my body, it is morally wrong to refuse access to it if it will save a life. At least under Catholic teaching.

I think that these are very good reasons to have an abortion if it is the mother’s preference. I think that it would be very stressful to go through cancer while also being pregnant, for example.

Because our comfort trumps another’s life. Right.

I know of a woman who had pre-eclampsia and had an abortion because she was at serious risk if she continued the pregnancy. There have also been cases in Ireland where women have died after being denied abortions.

And yet, many women had pre-eclampsia, followed treatment, and are both alive and with a baby. The abortion, once again, did not SAVE the woman; it just killed the baby.

You also didn’t include mental illness.

Some women suffer from post-partum depression; we actually have to remove her contact with the baby, as some women have such severe cases that they throw the child out the window.

But, do we have to kill the baby in those cases? No? Then we also don’t have to kill the baby in her uterus.

 

[Rau]

A boat isn’t a body.

Does not matter, because it is you yourself who enabled creation of the child and the consequent dependence of the child on your BODY, in full knowledge that if these events came to pass, you would murder the child

 

[Loly_Maria]

The argument makes sense, as far as I can tell; the use of the boat is just to illustrate how inappropriate are the arguments pro-abortion. Please explain how it doesn’t make sense with Catholic beliefs, as Catholic teaching would consider wrong both aborting and pushing people out of the boat.

Because it would be legal for someone to throw another person out of a boat if they were being threatened, but Catholics don’t allow women who may be harmed by pregnancy to get an abortion.

You are missing the point. My boat or my body, it is morally wrong to refuse access to it if it will save a life. At least under Catholic teaching.

I don’t agree with Catholic teaching. However, the Catholic Church does not require you to allow anyone access to your body for anything other than pregnancy, so that’s not actually true.

Because our comfort trumps another’s life. Right.

Because having cancer treatment and being pregnant at the same time is just ‘uncomfortable’…

And yet, many women had pre-eclampsia, followed treatment, and are both alive and with a baby. The abortion, once again, did not SAVE the woman; it just killed the baby.

Just because some women and babies survive doesn’t mean all will. The woman I mentioned had another medical condition which was causing other complications, there is a very good chance that she could have died if she had continued the pregnancy.

Some women suffer from post-partum depression; we actually have to remove her contact with the baby, as some women have such severe cases that they throw the child out the window.

But, do we have to kill the baby in those cases? No? Then we also don’t have to kill the baby in her uterus.

So how are you going to remove the baby if its mother is only a few weeks pregnant?

 

[Rau]

…I don’t agree with Catholic teaching. However, the Catholic Church does not require you to allow anyone access to your body for anything other than pregnancy, so that’s not actually true.

Newsflash!! You enabled the access! The child did not force entry! You did that!! You wanted one thing without its potential and logical consequence!

Retribution is taken out on parties guilty of a wrong, not the children of the wrongdoers!

 

[Loly_Maria]

Newsflash!! You enabled the access! The child did not force entry! You did that!! You wanted one thing without its potential and logical consequence!

Retribution is taken out on parties guilty of a wrong, not the children of the wrongdoers!

I also invited them into the boat. I can still push them over if I’m threatened.

Since this is a body and not a boat though, it doesn’t matter.

Also, the ‘you had sex’ argument doesn’t make sense if you are against abortions for rape victims, as I’ve already pointed out.

 

[Rau]

I also invited them into the boat. I can still push them over if I’m threatened.

You’ve declared a right to murder the child as a matter of principle, even though your acts bring the child to you, and the child displays no surprising and threatening behaviour. Your claim about an adverse turn of events does not apply.

 

[Loly_Maria]

You’ve declared a right to murder the child as a matter of principle, even though your acts bring the child to you, and the child displays no surprising and threatening behaviour. Your claim about an adverse turn of events does not apply.

The child may be causing me harm even if it doesn’t intend to.

I don’t think that it matters though. I think that my right to deny access to my body is reason enough. It’s just another reason why abortion is so important.

I don’t know what my claim was or why it doesn’t apply.

 

[Rau]

…Also, the ‘you had sex’ argument doesn’t make sense if you are against abortions for rape victims, as I’ve already pointed out.

To repeat myself, the “you had sex” fact is not what makes the murder of the innocent wrong. It is always wrong. The decision to have sex, knowing what you will do should you fall pregnant, just makes your act all the more heinous, more cold. It reflect an indifference, not typical in women considering abortion.

 

[Loly_Maria]

To repeat myself, the “you had sex” fact is not what makes the murder of the innocent wrong. It is always wrong. The decision to have sex, knowing what you will do should you fall pregnant, just makes your act all the more heinous, more cold. It reflect an indifference, not typical in women considering abortion.

Then why are we arguing about it? I don’t care if you think I’m heinous and indifferent - I think you’re heinous and indifferent - it’s a matter of opinion.

 

[NovusFidem]

Because it would be legal for someone to throw another person out of a boat if they were being threatened, but Catholics don’t allow women who may be harmed by pregnancy to get an abortion.

Neither of which is the best decision for the situation. One could get into a lifeboat (treat the illness), instead of killing the guests (aborting).

Because having cancer treatment and being pregnant at the same time is just ‘uncomfortable’…

As someone who actually dealt with cancer in the family… isn’t it? What is it, then, that warrants the death of someone? Will losing the baby make cancer treatment easier on the woman? I don’t think so.

The woman I mentioned had another medical condition which was causing other complications, there is a very good chance that she could have died if she had continued the pregnancy.

We’ll never know for sure now, if she wouldn’t have survived and have her baby…

So how are you going to remove the baby if its mother is only a few weeks pregnant?

Why would I want to remove any baby in any moment of its gestation?

In regards to mental health of a pregnant woman: we have safe means to protect her and her baby. Killing the baby won’t heal any wound she has, so I don’t see how abortion can be a solution to anything at all.

 

[Rau]

The child may be causing me harm even if it doesn’t intend to.

. You asserted the right to kill as a matter of principle. So what “harm” are you protecting yourself from? What harm that is grave enough to kill? As a matter of principle…

I don’t think that it matters though.

Right. So here you are saying that the “harm”'argument was really a red herring.

I think that my right to deny access to my body is reason enough.

It’s when you equate that with the right to murder your innocent child - the one you, your husband and God created - that you go astray.

 

[NovusFidem]

Then why are we arguing about it? I don’t care if you think I’m heinous and indifferent - I think you’re heinous and indifferent - it’s a matter of opinion.

I don’t think he meant to insult you He was saying the ACT is heinous, and the attitude of a person who “makes sex not caring if they will have to abort a baby later” is indifferent.

And we are all arguing to reach better understanding. That is what discussion should be about: you show me what you think, I show you what I think, he shows us what he thinks, and we all know something a bit better

 

[Rau]

Then why are we arguing about it? I don’t care if you think I’m heinous and indifferent - I think you’re heinous and indifferent - it’s a matter of opinion.

I referred to the murderous act, not to you.

 

[Loly_Maria]

Neither of which is the best decision for the situation. One could get into a lifeboat (treat the illness), instead of killing the guests (aborting).

There may not be any lifeboats. And unless treating the illness also gets the fetus out of the body, it isn’t a good solution.

As someone who actually dealt with cancer in the family… isn’t it? What is it, then, that warrants the death of someone? Will losing the baby make cancer treatment easier on the woman? I don’t think so.

I’ve also dealt with cancer. I’ve never heard cancer being called ‘uncomfortable’ before. I think that a lot of women would say that being pregnant would make dealing with cancer a lot more difficult.

We’ll never know for sure now, if she wouldn’t have survived and have her baby…

She’s glad that she’s alive and that doctors didn’t stop her from having an abortion when there was a risk that she might die.

Why would I want to remove any baby in any moment of its gestation?

In regards to mental health of a pregnant woman: we have safe means to protect her and her baby. Killing the baby won’t heal any wound she has, so I don’t see how abortion can be a solution to anything at all.

If being pregnant is causing a woman distress and she wants the fetus removed then it needs to be removed.

Killing the baby may help her a lot, or may cure her (if she has a phobia of pregnancy, for example).

Again though, I don’t think that it matters. I support abortion for any reason.

 

[Loly_Maria]

. You asserted the right to kill as a matter of principle. So what “harm” are you protecting yourself from? What harm that is grave enough to kill? As a matter of principle…

Right. So here you are saying that the “harm”'argument was really a red herring.

It’s when you equate that with the right to murder your innocent child - the one you, your husband and God created - that you go astray.

I think that the ‘harm’ issue came up because of the whole ‘boat’ discussion.

 

[NovusFidem]

There may not be any lifeboats. And unless treating the illness also gets the fetus out of the body, it isn’t a good solution.

Why not? You save the mother by treating the illness! Why kill the baby when both are safe and sound?

I think that a lot of women would say that being pregnant would make dealing with cancer a lot more difficult.

A lot more difficult, certainly. And yet, is making our lives “less difficult” more important than one life?

If being pregnant is causing a woman distress and she wants the fetus removed then it needs to be removed.

Killing the baby may help her a lot, or may cure her (if she has a phobia of pregnancy, for example).

Some people have phobia of their own bodies. Should we simply let them kill themselves OOOOR, and this is just a suggestion, should we MAYBE help them **deal with their difficulties **and treat them until they are better and may even feel glad they are alive/they have a baby?

We can’t keep looking for the easy way out without concern for the one life that is lost in the process…

I feel this discussion won’t go anywhere, so I’m stopping here. If you don’t believe a baby right before birth has a right to live, and a life worth protecting… if you don’t believe in the sacredness of that life (Jeremiah 1:5, Psalm 139:13-16, Exodus 21:22-25 in the Bible I suppose you read, as you are a Baptist), then nothing I tell you will make any sense to you.

First thing we would need to do, in order to at least get into the same page in this argument, is to define the grounds for it: either life is sacred or not; and: either a baby in the womb has a life or not.

Until that is out of the way, I don’t think discussing situations will make any difference for our understandings.

Fare well!

 

[Loly_Maria]

Why not? You save the mother by treating the illness! Why kill the baby when both are safe and sound?

If there is a higher risk to the mother if she continues the pregnancy or if she just wants the pregnancy ended.

A lot more difficult, certainly. And yet, is making our lives “less difficult” more important than one life?

If it’s in her body, she has the right to remove it. If her reason for doing that is to make her illness easier to deal with, then that is fine.

Some people have phobia of their own bodies. Should we simply let them kill themselves OOOOR, and this is just a suggestion, should we MAYBE help them **deal with their difficulties **and treat them until they are better and may even feel glad they are alive/they have a baby?

We can’t keep looking for the easy way out without concern for the one life that is lost in the process…

I feel this discussion won’t go anywhere, so I’m stopping here. If you don’t believe a baby right before birth has a right to live, and a life worth protecting… if you don’t believe in the sacredness of that life (Jeremiah 1:5, Psalm 139:13-16, Exodus 21:22-25 in the Bible I suppose you read, as you are a Baptist), then nothing I tell you will make any sense to you.

First thing we would need to do, in order to at least get into the same page in this argument, is to define the grounds for it: either life is sacred or not; and: either a baby in the womb has a life or not.

Until that is out of the way, I don’t think discussing situations will make any difference for our understandings.

Fare well!

If someone has a phobia of their own body then I think they have the right to die. They may choose treatment instead but I support their right to end their life if they choose to do so.

I don’t believe that life is sacred and I’m not a Christian. I believe that bodily autonomy is more important than any right to life.

I agree that discussing different scenarios will not get us anywhere, especially since neither of us think that the situations that we’re arguing have anything to do with having a right to abortion.

 

[Crown_of_Stars]

If I weren’t Catholic, or Christian at all, I wouldn’t even waste my time posting on a Catholic Forum, of all things.

 

[Loly_Maria]

If I weren’t Catholic, or Christian at all, I wouldn’t even waste my time posting on a Catholic Forum, of all things.

I used to be Christian and I like to study Catholicism.

 

[Rau]

I don’t believe that life is sacred and I’m not a Christian. I believe that bodily autonomy is more important than any right to life. .

Why do you label your religion as “Baptist”?