Should Abortion be illegal?

[awantz]

I can understand very well why they trust the Supreme Court ruling on the matter. I simply don’t understand how they can be called murderers in the context of American secular society. They cannot, I think.

It seems to me that abortion is murder to a faithful Catholic, not a secular member of American society.

I don’t think so. I send emails to those in political offices telling them how I feel. Murderers? Science proved that a fetus is a human and science is secular. Therefore, how can you see abortion as not being murder? I’m not a Catholic and an abortion = murder to me.

 

[littletherese3]

What is the case if the pregnancy is a result of rape, and the woman lives in poverty and cannot look after the child?

I agree that abortion is sinful, but I am just curious on you ropinions on this.
Whenever I bring up the topic of abortion with my friends, thus always seems to be their argument for why it should be legal.

Please, someone find me something that proves this wrong!!!

Love Rachael

 

[awantz]

What is the case if the pregnancy is a result of rape, and the woman lives in poverty and cannot look after the child?

I agree that abortion is sinful, but I am just curious on you ropinions on this.
Whenever I bring up the topic of abortion with my friends, thus always seems to be their argument for why it should be legal.

Please, someone find me something that proves this wrong!!!

Love Rachael

The woman should carry the baby to term and if she doesn’t want to keep the baby she has a couple options. Put it up for adoption or foster care if she wants the baby back when she gets up on her feet. Also, she might have some family and or friends who could help out. Even the government has ways of helping out.

 

[Gamera]

What is the case if the pregnancy is a result of rape, and the woman lives in poverty and cannot look after the child?

I agree that abortion is sinful, but I am just curious on you ropinions on this.
Whenever I bring up the topic of abortion with my friends, thus always seems to be their argument for why it should be legal.

Please, someone find me something that proves this wrong!!!

Love Rachael

Each of those examples presents a serious situation, but none of them justify dismembering the baby with foreceps.

 

[SFTor]

With respect, you are wrong.

If something is wrong, it is wrong whether or not you say it is okay, I say it is okay, the Supreme Court says it is okay, even the entire WORLD says it is okay.

If something is wrong, it is not 'wrong for me because I am Catholic, but all right for others who are secular members of American society. ’ That, Tor, is relativism.

Abortion is not a Catholic issue.

It is a human rights issue.

Murder is murder. We do have ‘degrees’ of murder you know. Many of those who abort are not guilty of murder one; more like manslaughter. . .but it is still wrongful death even if they thought it was all right.

Hi again Tantum Ergo:

Please understand that I am not being flippant or dismissive.

I must however observe that calling abortion murder is based on Catholic teaching, which non-Catholics do not adhere to. (Of course many others regard abortion as murder as well.)

I am aware that you understand that a “human being” exists from the zygote onwards. There is disagreement on this point, and hence also on the point of whether it is a human rights issue. I frankly think it is fair to call it an unscientific claim. There is certainly ample evidence that there is differing medical, legal, and societal understanding and practice on the issue. To claim that it is “wrong” is in the end a value judgment made from a Catholic perspective.

Even the Catholic Church in earlier days did not consider the fetus a human being until “quickening” took place—I think this view was in effect until 1869. The Catholic Church has changed its view, presumably based on interpretations of faith. (It’s interesting to note that a liberal society like Norway more or less adheres to this principle today. Norway is very restrictive on abortions performed after the twelfth week.)

Aren’t Catholics living in a secular society in the end compelled to live under the laws of the secular society, as this society in particular is barred by law from adopting the views of a particular religion?

And is it productive to label women who have an abortion “murderers”, when they are acting within the law of their society? I would lean towards thinking it may alienate many people who would be better reached with less strident language.

Respectfully,

Tor

 

[Gamera]

Even the Catholic Church in earlier days did not consider the fetus a human being until “quickening” took place—I think this view was in effect until 1869.

No, that’s just a “pro-choice” myth. The Catholic Church has always opposed abortion. Even the Didache condemned abortion.

 

[bullfrog543]

humanity is strange it is illegal to kill baby animals so why this stuff about abortion

 

[josekjohn]

We make killing illegal in quite a few circumstances where a lot of people, not to say a majority, think it would be justified. (I’m sure a lot wouldn’t mind us going back to the old Celtic way, for example, of permitting someone to kill a cheating wife or husband - although only if they were killed within three days, of course )

We restrict marriage to two people and don’t (yet, and never will please God) allow polygamy, even though some, not to say a majority, probably think it should be legal.

---

The month of July is traditionally dedicated to the Precious Blood of Jesus
‘Blessed be His Most Precious Blood…’

What is the case if the pregnancy is a result of rape, and the woman lives in poverty and cannot look after the child?

I agree that abortion is sinful, but I am just curious on you ropinions on this.
Whenever I bring up the topic of abortion with my friends, thus always seems to be their argument for why it should be legal.

Please, someone find me something that proves this wrong!!!

 

[bullfrog543]

there are many people in society that wish to have kids but cant so they have the oportunity to adopt babies, one doesnt out way the other at least not in many eyes

 

[marietta]

Deacon Ed B writes:

“To put an end to this kind of question here is your answer. I and my wife have offered several pregnant teenagers to pay for all their medical expenses and to adopt their babies if they did not want them. None accepted. They were more concerned what it would look like with them being pregnant. Even their parents were forcing the abortions. It was like going up against a brick wall. We are no longer able to do this because of our age and the fact that my wife has been 100% disabled since 1992. We do know of others who have also made this same offer. Those accepted are very few, less than 2-3%. There are your facts. Don’t judge others when you don’t have the facts.”

These are the facts of *your *attempts and the attempts of others you may or may not know, Deacon Ed B. I respect your willingness to assist pregnant teens in order that they might not opt for abortion. Your experiences in this arena are certainly legitimate and lend color to the entire picture of solving the abortion problem. But these are not all the facts. This is not the whole picture. And your efforts certainly do not, and should not, “put an end to this kind of question.”

marietta

 

[LilyM]

We make killing illegal in quite a few circumstances where a lot of people, not to say a majority, think it would be justified. (I’m sure a lot wouldn’t mind us going back to the old Celtic way, for example, of permitting someone to kill a cheating wife or husband - although only if they were killed within three days, of course )

We restrict marriage to two people and don’t (yet, and never will please God) allow polygamy, even though some, not to say a majority, probably think it should be legal.

---

The month of July is traditionally dedicated to the Precious Blood of Jesus
‘Blessed be His Most Precious Blood…’

What is the case if the pregnancy is a result of rape, and the woman lives in poverty and cannot look after the child?

I agree that abortion is sinful, but I am just curious on you ropinions on this.
Whenever I bring up the topic of abortion with my friends, thus always seems to be their argument for why it should be legal.

Please, someone find me something that proves this wrong!!!

If the baby is a result of rape then the woman doesn’t add one crime (moral crime if not crime in law) and sin to another by killing the innocent (as if that child is responsible for the crime of its father, and as if its death will undo the horror and trauma of the rape instead of adding to it!).

Instead she takes the pregnancy to term and, if unable to financially support the child herself, gives it up for adoption so that it can be the answer to the prayers of a family who want and can afford a child. And there’s no lack of families wanting and waiting to adopt - there are far more families than children available to them.

 

[Spirithound]

I am aware that you understand that a “human being” exists from the zygote onwards. There is disagreement on this point, and hence also on the point of whether it is a human rights issue. I frankly think it is fair to call it an unscientific claim. There is certainly ample evidence that there is differing medical, legal, and societal understanding and practice on the issue. To claim that it is “wrong” is in the end a value judgment made from a Catholic perspective.

Aren’t Catholics living in a secular society in the end compelled to live under the laws of the secular society, as this society in particular is barred by law from adopting the views of a particular religion?

I’d say it’s actually a highly scientific claim. It is a scientific fact that inside a pregnant woman is growing a member of the species Homo sapiens. It is only when we get into politics that anybody tries to say that any members of Homo sapiens are not actually “persons”.

So is there actual valid differing medical understanding and practice? Or do some people simply wish to skirt the issue of “personhood”? I’m going to ignore the “legal” and “societal” parts of that sentence, since those things can and do change all the time, and so they are not good reference points.

Finally, yes we are in a secular society, however we certainly have the right (by virtue of the democratic process) to influence our laws, and it is my hope that we, on this forum have shown why we should do that, even without reference to our own religion, since we are not the only ones of this belief, and certainly there are even pro-life atheists.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Please understand that I am not being flippant or dismissive.

**Good morning Tor. Yes, I understand that.
**
I must however observe that calling abortion murder is based on Catholic teaching, which non-Catholics do not adhere to. (Of course many others regard abortion as murder as well.)

**I must point out that again you have made a fundamental error. “We’” do not ‘call abortion murder’ --something is murder whether or not any given person or group calls it that. Murder is not murder by “Catholic teaching” --murder is murder is murder. Murder does not become murder ‘only if someone thinks it is’. That is a huge error on your part and it indeed is the major error you have, in thinking that abortion is ‘only a Catholic teaching in regard to its being murder or not’, ‘only a religious teaching’, ‘something that individuals can say is or isn’t murder.’ **

I am aware that you understand that a “human being” exists from the zygote onwards. There is disagreement on this point, and hence also on the point of whether it is a human rights issue. Again, same point. Disagreement is disagreement, but if something ‘is’, then it ‘is’ whether I say it is not, you say it is not, etc. Disagreement also implies there there are 2 claims, “IT is, and it isn’t”. Since something cannot simultaneously be one thing, and its opposite, then in the disagreement someone is right and someone is wrong. I frankly think it is fair to call it an unscientific claim. “Unscientific claim”. . .but you still are not saying whether it is true. Consider the bumblebee. By all scientific standards, there is no WAY it can fly. But. . . it does. Not very ‘scientific’–but very true. The ‘science’ of the middle ages regarding the four bodily humors was held unquestioningly for hundreds of years, going back to the Greeks. Was it correct? No. But by the standards of the times, it was as ‘scientifically correct’ as many 'scientific pronouncements today. There is certainly ample evidence that there is differing medical, legal, and societal understanding and practice on the issue. To claim that it is “wrong” is in the end a value judgment made from a Catholic perspective. **No, no, no. Value judgments are not TRUTHS. You are stuck blindly in the relativistic FALSEHOOD that something can be ‘true’ as ‘valued’ by one person, and ‘not true’ as valued by another.

TRUTH IS TRUTH. **
Even the Catholic Church in earlier days did not consider the fetus a human being until “quickening” took place—I think this view was in effect until 1869. Your information is incorrect. The Church has always considered the unborn as a person. The Church has always taught that abortion was a grave evil whether it was practiced at 4 weeks, 8 weeks, 12 weeks, etc. Because the ‘science’ of the times regarding more ‘viability’ issues, and the culture of the times viewed men and women’s ‘worth’ based on criteria including what they could contribute to society, the closer to viability a child was at abortion, the more potential ‘use’ he would have been, and therefore, the fine (levied for ALL ABORTIONS) would have been HIGHER than for a first trimester abortion–but the fundamental principle that abortion was wrong at ANY STAGE was there, from the beginning. Read The Didache–traditionally held to have been written by the APOSTLES, part of our early Church history, to see that abortion at/ any age was roundly condemned. The Catholic Church has changed its view, presumably based on interpretations of faith. (It’s interesting to note that a liberal society like Norway more or less adheres to this principle today. Norway is very restrictive on abortions performed after the twelfth week.) The Catholic Church has not changed its view. Again, you need to read what the Church teaches, consistently. Read the Catechism on the subject.

Aren’t Catholics living in a secular society in the end compelled to live under the laws of the secular society, as this society in particular is barred by law from adopting the views of a particular religion? We are compelled to live under all JUST laws. We are not compelled to live under unjust laws. We cannot subordinate the DIVINE LAW to mere human law when human law contradicts divine law.

And is it productive to label women who have an abortion “murderers”, when they are acting within the law of their society? I would lean towards thinking it may alienate many people who would be better reached with less strident language.

**I have not ‘labeled’ the women as murderers. I have pitied them for being deceived, and well understand that most do not know what they are doing.

Less ‘strident’ language? How have I been ‘strident?’ Abortion is murder, whether people ‘believe’ it is, whether they ‘knew’ it was, etc. Abortion is murder–but those involved may have less culpability.

If a man is convicted of manslaughter, you know that means that he killed somebody. . .though he is not guilty of ‘malice aforethought’. But you cannot say that the person is not just as DEAD regardless of what the intention of the person who was responsible for the death was. I’m sorry if that comes across as strident–to insist that abortion ‘is what it is’ despite how somebody might’ view’ or ‘value’ it. I have deep sympathy for those who have chosen wrongly, intentionally or not. But that sympathy cannot negate the fact that millions of children have been done to death against their will.**

 

[SFTor]

**I have not ‘labeled’ the women as murderers. I have pitied them for being deceived, and well understand that most do not know what they are doing.

Less ‘strident’ language? How have I been ‘strident?’ Abortion is murder, whether people ‘believe’ it is, whether they ‘knew’ it was, etc. Abortion is murder–but those involved may have less culpability.

If a man is convicted of manslaughter, you know that means that he killed somebody. . .though he is not guilty of ‘malice aforethought’. But you cannot say that the person is not just as DEAD regardless of what the intention of the person who was responsible for the death was. I’m sorry if that comes across as strident–to insist that abortion ‘is what it is’ despite how somebody might’ view’ or ‘value’ it. I have deep sympathy for those who have chosen wrongly, intentionally or not. But that sympathy cannot negate the fact that millions of children have been done to death against their will.**

Hi Tantum Ergo,

you, or all Catholics, saying that abortion is murder does not make it so. The lawgivers and courts of the country we live in decide that.

You are claiming authority for the Church in an area where it frankly has none. (I am not saying that the Church doesn’t have moral authority, I am saying that the Church does not have authority to pass or interpret laws.) The laws of the United States provide strong protection against murder, but do not count a zygote, embryo, or fetus as a natural person. Only natural persons can be murdered. Therefore the term “murder” does not apply to an abortion as far as American jurisprudence is concerned.

Any cursory review of available materials reflect a lack of agreement of when a human being comes into existence. Some say conception. Some say birth. Others are somewhere in between. To deny is to claim exclusivity for one’s own belief or philosophical stance. To say that it is the TRUTH does not change these facts.

I don’t see how it gets us anywhere.

Respectfully,

Tor

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

Abortion is a grave sin (potentially mortal); but should it be illegal?

Here we have the case of two human beings, one of which is incapable of surviving without the body of another - should the State intervene and force the mother to abdicate rights over her own body in favour of the fetus’ right to life? Isn’t this a conflict of inalienable rights?

I’m not a biology or legal expert, but I’ve thought about this question a lot lately. Abortion is horrifying to me, but in a secular, democratic, pluralistic society the majority rules and most people do not adhere to Catholic morality. Certainly masturbation is gravely sinful (not to the same degree as Abortion), but do any of us think it should be a criminal offense? So where should the government draw the line in legislating morality for the public?

Pax Christi

Even if there is a conflict of inalienable rights, that doesn’t justify saying, “Oh, well” and just throwing one person’s rights completely out the window. And any solution in which any kind of abortion is legal - except of course if the goal is simply to save the mother from death and the unborn child simply dies as an unintended result - does just that.

When such a conflict arises, we must fall on the side of protecting life.

You, or all Catholics, saying that abortion is murder does not make it so.

True. What makes it so is the scientific fact (care to argue with science?) that abortion ends the life of a living human organism.

The lawgivers and courts of the country we live in decide that.

No, they don’t. The lawgivers and courts can legally recognize it or not recognize it, but they don’t choose what is or is not reality.

Stop equivocating.

The laws of the United States provide strong protection against murder, but do not count a zygote, embryo, or fetus as a natural person. Only natural persons can be murdered. Therefore the term “murder” does not apply to an abortion as far as American jurisprudence is concerned.

True. No one is claiming that it’s legally murder, but morally, it is. Laws do not decide or determine moral or scientific reality.

Any cursory review of available materials reflect a lack of agreement of when a human being comes into existence. Some say conception. Some say birth. Others are somewhere in between. To deny is to claim exclusivity for one’s own belief or philosophical stance.

Any cursory review of available materials will immediately show that no one denies that a human zygote, embryo, or fetus is made of living cells and has human DNA.

When a “human being” comes into existence is not what is being disputed in the abortion debate. No person’s “own belief” or “philosophical stance” is involved here; it’s pure science.

To say that it is the TRUTH does not change these facts.

Nor does the boldness of your proclamations change the facts.

 

[SFTor]

Tantum Ergo:

one more thing:

new research has been done on the bumblebee. They understand how it works now.

Isn’t that good to know?

Best,

Tor

 

[marietta]

Here’s an interesting little piece that has just crossed my desk, courtesy of my own sweet daughter:

“If they’re defining life as starting at conception, then God is the world’s biggest abortion provider, considering only one out of every six fertilized eggs manages to sort itself out enough to implant and, after that, about a quarter of those implantations wind up miscarrying. That means God himself personally takes out 87.5%of precious conceived human souls.”

Thoughts?

marietta

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

** These are the facts of *your ***attempts and the attempts of others you may or may not know, Deacon Ed B. I respect your willingness to assist pregnant teens in order that they might not opt for abortion. Your experiences in this arena are certainly legitimate and lend color to the entire picture of solving the abortion problem. But these are not all the facts. This is not the whole picture. And your efforts certainly do not, and should not, “put an end to this kind of question.”

marietta

No, this is not the whole picture. It does however answer the question of people trying to adopt in order to prevent the slaughter of innocents. The position was put forth that no one was trying to do this. My post answered that question. Those who are not involved with any pro life activities, do not know the extent of the activity there is to try to prevent this slaughter. My post answered that question.
In time, many will find out whether it is right or wrong. civil law, does not determine morality. Always remember that. If it did, than there would be no separation of Church and State. As it is, people think freedom of religion means freedom from religion. I am sure you would disagree with this also. In time everyone will know the truth, which is One.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

 

[maria_rose]

Abortion is not a ‘religious’ issue.

It is a human rights issue.

We’re not talking about whether some person ‘feels’ that abortion is ‘okay’ for them, and another that it is not ‘okay’ for them.

We are talking about the brutal murder of a person who has done no wrong, committed no crime, has no representation or say in his/her death, being chopped into pieces, or burned alive or poisoned.

Because some may not ‘believe’ in a moral truth does not make the truth somehow ‘not true.’

straight and clear to the point, Tantum Ergo!
Couldn’t have said it better.

 

[CarlisleMLH]

nannygirl:

You’re sorry? This is your empathetic best?

I have one child with the aforementioned man. The child is now nearly 22 years old. Immediately after her birth, her father deliberately retreated into a self-imposed exile where he could not be reached. I did my level best to involve him to the extent that the court outlined. He failed time and again to step up to the plate.

Your attitude is exactly reflective of the aloof self-absorption facing single and divorced mothers (and some single fathers as well) on a daily basis. The embryo isn’t a blob, it’s God’s highest work. The fetus isn’t a development of cells, it’s a baby, with feeling and perception, even at 4 weeks, I’ve read. Precious. Precious. Precious.

Until it arrives.

I wanted to see who on this forum would adopt a baby saved from abortion, and those who responded in the affirmative did so with gladness and generosity. Those who did so in the negative never said they would not adopt, they just told me my question was stupid and unscientific. It’s clear to me that there is no unity among devout Catholics regarding how to help the pregnant woman in crisis, how to transition her into motherhood, how to educate her regarding her legal rights, how to help her to put food on her table and a shelter over their heads. The unborn is a gift from God; when the baby gets here, it’s, “Hey, chick, you’re on your own. You’re the one who got knocked up, not me.”

If you ever want the abortion laws reduced or repealed, you might put a little shoulder into developing an idea that works.

Caesar517 and mapleoak:

Change the text to suit yourselves all you want. We still don’t, and won’t, live in a perfect world.

marietta

This is the main quote that I was ref. in my comment Post #116, item # 5! and in that same #5 I go on to counter Marietta’s assertion “when the baby gets here, it’s, 'Hey, chick, you’re on your own.” (see above).

I don’t question that you’ve had a bad experience; I am saying your quote *implies *devout Catholics *in general *don’t care or help just because there’s not perfect unity, and I don’t accept that as an established fact. My experience would prove the opposite: Catholics care and provide tangible, practical help.

As for clarifying my point # 2, it’s a matter of logic and deduction. If I say I believe apples should be red. It’s not logical to deduce that I also mean any fruit that isn’t an apple should not be red!
Does that help?

Also, this way that I’m writing at the moment, is not at all how I normally talk! I’m trying my hardest to be very clear, and as non-offensive, non-reactionary as possible, but in doing so,I’m also restraining nearly all emotion, and I think that makes me “sound” much “colder” than I really am!

One reason I’ve stuck w/ this thread so long is because I care not only about the topic but also about the people I’m getting a little acquainted w/ as we discuss. Which I think again demonstrates another level or sphere of caring…

It’s quite evident that most of the people in this discussion are already Pro-Life and against “Pro-Choice” politics, so it’s not as though we’re going to convert each other’s thinking. A couple of posters’ positions are slightly more ambiguous to me, but they haven’t made strong enough arguments one way or another for me to notice them as much as one particular poster!

Marietta, is holding her own on a position that is clearly Pro-Choice, but beyond that it’s hard for me to tell why she’s/you’re arguing so much; it looks more like she/you tend to **agree w/ **Pro-Lifers about all the surrounding care that needs to be given men, women, and babies who are voluntary or involuntary participants of an unwanted pregnancy.

And by now it seems like the discussion has really become as much about Marietta’s experience as it is about the original topic. And because I’m not comfortable w/ that*, I want to quit my participation is this thread. But before I do,

I repeat my offer of friendship via email.

*“that” meaning I think we should keep topical threads on topic, and anything that becomes so pointedly personal is better served via email.

so, Marietta! email me!
Anyone else may also!
Christ’s Peace to everyone!