Should Catholics always try to force pro-life laws, even if it could easily backfire and cost lives?

[Photon_Man62]

I’ve read a debate between two prominent Polish Catholic journalists recently regarding laws about abortion and in vitro.

One of them holds that no matter what, Catholics must fight for keeping both completely illegal in order to protect the lives of unborn children.

The other agrees that abortion is murder, but says that if one would try to force a law banning abortion in all circumstances, it could not only fail, but another party could counter it with one that makes abortion legal under any circumstance (at the moment abortion is legal in Poland only if the child has some genetic fault, e.g. Downs syndrome). This would of course be much worse than the current status quo. He also maintains that forcing opinions on people is not the Catholic way, and that Catholics should rather try to persuade others to the truth peacefully.

Which opinion is closer to Catholic doctrine? Should Catholics aggressively fight for such laws, forcing their opinions on people, yet risking much in the process; or should they be very careful and try not to risk any unnecessary lives?

If anyone knows an answer, could you please provide a source? I’ve read many articles and encyclicals, but they pretty much all regard abortion itself and not law-making or risking other people’s lives.

P.S. I would really appreciate any quick answer, even if it is very short or is just a link to some document. I need some tip on where to look ASAP, because I can’t waste any time at the moment.

 

[dmar198]

The answer is found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church paragraphs 2270-2275.

2270 Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person -among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life. …

2273 The inalienable right to life of every innocent human individual is a constitutive element of a civil society and its legislation: “The inalienable rights of the person must be recognized and respected by civil society and the political authority. These human rights depend neither on single individuals nor on parents; nor do they represent a concession made by society and the state; they belong to human nature and are inherent in the person by virtue of the creative act from which the person took his origin. Among such fundamental rights one should mention in this regard every human being’s right to life and physical integrity from the moment of conception until death.” “The moment a positive law deprives a category of human beings of the protection which civil legislation ought to accord them, the state is denying the equality of all before the law. When the state does not place its power at the service of the rights of each citizen, and in particular of the more vulnerable, the very foundations of a state based on law are undermined. . . . As a consequence of the respect and protection which must be ensured for the unborn child from the moment of conception, the law must provide appropriate penal sanctions for every deliberate violation of the child’s rights.”

vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a5.htm

 

[Monte_RCMS]

What you, as an individual and as a group, such as the Knights of Columbus, can do … and do it effectively … is to demonstrate how abortion kills a human baby …

So: fund and provide ultrasound machines for pro-life organizations so that mothers can see their babies and know that the babies are real people and become aware of the enormity and immensity of how abortion really does kill babies.

Work with the black and Hispanic communities, so that they are aware of these issues.

Work with the male population, so that they marry their girlfriends and take the responsibility for their children.

Work with your diocese to expand evangelization, re-evangelization and apologetics, so that every individual KNOWS what the Church teaches … about God, about life, about the sacraments.

 

[PaulfromIowa]

The Church’s position is, and has always been, that all innocent human life should be protected. The debate comes over how to apply Christianity politically in a hostile pagan world. As a political matter, it is often not possible to protect all unborn life and so we must do the best job possible to restrict and discourage abortion.

There are some hardline prolifers who will say that if we cannot protect all human life, we should not “compromise” by protecting any. I think that that position is foolish and dangerous.

 

[jediliz]

what do you mean by “force”?

Do you not believe a woman should be allowed to see the sonogram of the baby that is being killed? ~80-90% of women who see the sonogram/ultrasound before the abortion choose life. This is why the screen is usually turned away from the women - so they don’t see their baby!

Do you not believe a woman should have at least a 24 hour waiting period before the decision to make sure she REALLY wants this? Many women are TOLD to “abort or get out” Read the stories of regret at Silent No More

Do you not believe that abortuaries should have the same cleanliness standards as other outpatient surgical centers? And should be inspected regularly?

These are all common sense laws. Those who are pro abortion FIGHT the 1st and 3rd one - they don’t want women seeing their baby - most women who see the sonogram/ultrasound choose LIFE. #3 seeks to prevent horrors like Gosnell.

Also, start young with boys and girls. Especially boys - if they aren’t taught to respect their mothers, sisters, aunts, etc…will they respect a girl they like or will they give into peer pressure and use the girl for sex? Same goes with girls - they are practically told that “virgin” is a dirty word!

It begins at home to prevent “unplanned pregnancies” by teaching young men and young women that sex before marriage is NOT a good idea. No, contraceptives should not be the solution. Neither should condoms. Condoms can not prevent a broken heart when a girl ends up pregnant and when the guy finds out, he abandons her instead of being RESPONSIBLE - you can prevent that from happening by NOT encouraging sexual promiscuity.

 

[St_Francis]

The problem is that one journalist is dealing with a current reality and the other is dealing with an* imaginary *future. We cannot predicate all our actions on all possible potential outcomes; we must do what is right in the present If in the future someone were (note the subjunctive) to try to legalize all abortions, then deal with that when it happens. In the meantime, one must do what is right in the present reality.

 

[livingwordunity]

Nothing has cost more lives than the millions upon millions of innocent babies murdered in cold blood as a direct result of legalizing abortion.

 

[aux1]

(at the moment abortion is legal in Poland only if the child has some genetic fault, e.g. Downs syndrome). .

Let me explain what the OP is saying.

Under the 1993 law, abortion in Poland is legal if:

(a) pregnancy is a result of an act forbidden by law (rape, statutory rape, incest)

(b) there is a direct threat to woman’s life

(c) there is a severe malformation of the fetus (the law does not define that – it is not at all sure if Down syndrome qualifies – in practice it depends on the hospital’s board of ethics)

Most importantly, elective abortion is illegal.

The Polish pro-life movement is currently trying to remove these exceptions. If they succeed, it may (and, in my opinion, will) spectacularly backfire and lead to legalizing elective abortion.

 

[CrossofChrist]

I’ve read a debate between two prominent Polish Catholic journalists recently regarding laws about abortion and in vitro.

One of them holds that no matter what, Catholics must fight for keeping both completely illegal in order to protect the lives of unborn children.

Correct. For anyone who doubts, look at the rest of the world.

The other agrees that abortion is murder, but says that if one would try to force a law banning abortion in all circumstances, it could not only fail, but another party could counter it with one that makes abortion legal under any circumstance (at the moment abortion is legal in Poland only if the child has some genetic fault, e.g. Downs syndrome). This would of course be much worse than the current status quo. He also maintains that forcing opinions on people is not the Catholic way, and that Catholics should rather try to persuade others to the truth peacefully.

The only “force” being used is to defend the life of the unborn child. Should we make murder illegal in only some circumstances? I think not.

Which opinion is closer to Catholic doctrine? Should Catholics aggressively fight for such laws, forcing their opinions on people, yet risking much in the process; or should they be very careful and try not to risk any unnecessary lives?

If anyone knows an answer, could you please provide a source? I’ve read many articles and encyclicals, but they pretty much all regard abortion itself and not law-making or risking other people’s lives.

P.S. I would really appreciate any quick answer, even if it is very short or is just a link to some document. I need some tip on where to look ASAP, because I can’t waste any time at the moment.

You risk much more supporting legal murder of an innocent child than supporting making murder illegal.

But responsibility likewise falls on the legislators who have promoted and approved abortion laws, and, to the extent that they have a say in the matter, on the administrators of the health-care centres where abortions are performed. A general and no less serious responsibility lies with those who have encouraged the spread of an attitude of sexual permissiveness and a lack of esteem for motherhood, and with those who should have ensured-but did not-effective family and social policies in support of families, especially larger families and those with particular financial and educational needs. Finally, one cannot overlook the network of complicity which reaches out to include international institutions, foundations and associations which systematically campaign* for the legalization and spread of abortion in the world**. In this sense abortion goes beyond the responsibility of individuals and beyond the harm done to them, and takes on a distinctly social dimension. It is a most serious wound inflicted on society and its culture by the very people who ought to be society’s promoters and defenders. As I wrote in my Letter to Families, “we are facing an immense threat to life: not only to the life of individuals but also to that of civilization itself”.56 We are facing what can be called a “structure of sin” which opposes human life not yet born.* - Evangelium Vitae 59

“A woman who has deliberately destroyed a fetus must pay the penalty for murder” - St. Basil

*2273 The inalienable right to life of every innocent human individual is a constitutive element of a civil society and its legislation :

“The inalienable rights of the person must be recognized and respected by civil society and the political authority. These human rights depend neither on single individuals nor on parents; nor do they represent a concession made by society and the state; they belong to human nature and are inherent in the person by virtue of the creative act from which the person took his origin. Among such fundamental rights one should mention in this regard every human being’s right to life and physical integrity from the moment of conception until death.” 80

“The moment a positive law deprives a category of human beings of the protection which civil legislation ought to accord them, the state is denying the equality of all before the law. When the state does not place its power at the service of the rights of each citizen, and in particular of the more vulnerable, the very foundations of a state based on law are undermined. . . . As a consequence of the respect and protection which must be ensured for the unborn child from the moment of conception, the law must provide appropriate penal sanctions for every deliberate violation of the child’s rights.” 81 * - Catechism of the Catholic Church

 

[St_Francis]

Let me explain what the OP is saying.

Under the 1993 law, abortion in Poland is legal if:

(a) pregnancy is a result of an act forbidden by law (rape, statutory rape, incest)

(b) there is a direct threat to woman’s life

(c) there is a severe malformation of the fetus (the law does not define that – it is not at all sure if Down syndrome qualifies – in practice it depends on the hospital’s board of ethics)

Most importantly, elective abortion is illegal.

The Polish pro-life movement is currently trying to remove these exceptions. If they succeed, it may (and, in my opinion, will) spectacularly backfire and lead to legalizing elective abortion.

OK, so right now, in Poland it is forbidden to kill most unborn babies, and those who are pro-life want to make it so that it is illegal to kill any unborn babies.

The fear is that if the government moves to forbid the killing of *all *unborn babies, something will occur which will suddenly cause the government to allow the killing of *all *unborn babies.

What is this fear based on?

 

[Photon_Man62]

Sorry for not giving a full picture of the situation, I did not have much time yesterday and had to do it as quickly as possible. Thanks to those who gave references to official Catholic documents (dmar198 and CrossofChrist), as those are what I needed. I personally found a statement by the Polish Episcopal Conference’s Commission on Bioethics which does not give a concrete answer either, but leans to the second journalist’s side. They say that political compromises are okay as long as they are not moral compromises and that “action is being taken” to go the whole way. They also said that “human lives cannot be risked, even when the so-called greater good needs so”.

Let me explain what the OP is saying.

(snip)

The Polish pro-life movement is currently trying to remove these exceptions. If they succeed, it may (and, in my opinion, will) spectacularly backfire and lead to legalizing elective abortion.

Thank you for elaborating, I had to laconically sum up the situation so didn’t mention the exact considerations. But don’t forget that the same thing might happen even if they don’t succeed. That’s why the situation is so risky.

The only “force” being used is to defend the life of the unborn child. Should we make murder illegal in only some circumstances? I think not.

The “force” I was referring to meant that people might not support such a proposed bill, and in turn some might counter it with a bill that legalizes abortion “on demand”.

OK, so right now, in Poland it is forbidden to kill most unborn babies, and those who are pro-life want to make it so that it is illegal to kill any unborn babies.

The fear is that if the government moves to forbid the killing of *all *unborn babies, something will occur which will suddenly cause the government to allow the killing of *all *unborn babies.

What is this fear based on?

See above. “The government” is not a uniform body and is composed of people with many different political opinions. If one camp (“pro-lifers”) would not succeed in pushing their agenda, the opposite camp (“pro-choicers”) might try to push theirs and win.

 

[aux1]

The fear is that if the government moves to forbid the killing of *all *unborn babies, something will occur which will suddenly cause the government to allow the killing of *all *unborn babies.

What is this fear based on?

For the exception for woman’s life, Savita Haleppanar (Ireland).

For the rape expcetion, Attorney General v. X (Ireland).

For the exception for fetal malformation, consider the following hypothetical: woman A delivers an ancephalic child who is put in intensive care, then in the same hospital woman B delivers a normal child, but due to protracted labor, the child needs to be put in the intensive care… except that it can’t be, because the bed is occupied by the anencephalic child, who is a lost case anyway.

Such cases can be easily used to engineer a media outcry to advocate for abortion without limits.

Also, I should mention that the existing law has over 70% public support. Number of abortions is between 1 and 2 thousand per year (35 million people), most of these under the exception for fetal malformations.

 

[aux1]

But don’t forget that the same thing might happen even if they don’t succeed. That’s why the situation is so risky.

Actually, I think that’s unlikely. The attempt to liberalize the law in 1997 was reverted after 6 months. The truth is, the matter is so volatile that professional politicians do not want to touch that law.

The push is coming solely from NGOs, and even Polish bishops distance themselves from it.

 

[SamH]

For the exception for woman’s life, Savita Haleppanar (Ireland).

.

No one has shown how aborting Savita Haleppanar’s baby would have “saved” her life. She and her baby were dying of septic shock - no medical professional has proved that her live baby was the source of her sepsis infection. Sepsis is possible when dealing with a dead fetus, or an infection caused during an abortion or birth - but not during an otherwise healthy pregnancy. In fact an abortion probably would have killed her faster considering her sepsis infection was not diagnosed until she went into shock.

 

[St_Francis]

For the exception for woman’s life, Savita Haleppanar (Ireland).

For the rape expcetion, Attorney General v. X (Ireland).

For the exception for fetal malformation, consider the following hypothetical: woman A delivers an ancephalic child who is put in intensive care, then in the same hospital woman B delivers a normal child, but due to protracted labor, the child needs to be put in the intensive care… except that it can’t be, because the bed is occupied by the anencephalic child, who is a lost case anyway.

The necessity is to refrain from murdering babies. To remove extraordinary medical care is allowing nature to take its course, not murdering. In the unlikely event of a situation such as you describe arising, there would be no moral problem with withdrawing treatment from the anacephalic baby in order to treat the baby without an intrinsically fatal problem.

Such cases can be easily used to engineer a media outcry to advocate for abortion without limits.

Also, I should mention that the existing law has over 70% public support. Number of abortions is between 1 and 2 thousand per year (35 million people), most of these under the exception for fetal malformations.

 

[St_Francis]

For the exception for woman’s life, Savita Haleppanar (Ireland).

Would we kill a mother so that her baby could live, I wonder?

For the rape expcetion, Attorney General v. X (Ireland).

Poland has outlawed the death penalty for the rapist-father, but still allows the killing of an innocent product of the rapist’s crime…

For the exception for fetal malformation, consider the following hypothetical: woman A delivers an ancephalic child who is put in intensive care, then in the same hospital woman B delivers a normal child, but due to protracted labor, the child needs to be put in the intensive care… except that it can’t be, because the bed is occupied by the anencephalic child, who is a lost case anyway.

The necessity is to refrain from murdering babies. To remove extraordinary medical care is allowing nature to take its course, not murdering. In the unlikely event of a situation such as you describe arising, there would be no moral problem with withdrawing treatment from the anacephalic baby in order to treat the baby without an intrinsically fatal problem.

Such cases can be easily used to engineer a media outcry to advocate for abortion without limits.

Yes, this is true, and why I always suggest a heavy dose of education is also needed.

 

[St_Francis]

I’ve read a debate between two prominent Polish Catholic journalists recently regarding laws about abortion and in vitro.

One of them holds that no matter what, Catholics must fight for keeping both completely illegal in order to protect the lives of unborn children.

The other agrees that abortion is murder, but says that if one would try to force a law banning abortion in all circumstances, it could not only fail, but another party could counter it with one that makes abortion legal under any circumstance (at the moment abortion is legal in Poland only if the child has some genetic fault, e.g. Downs syndrome). This would of course be much worse than the current status quo. He also maintains that forcing opinions on people is not the Catholic way, and that Catholics should rather try to persuade others to the truth peacefully.

Which opinion is closer to Catholic doctrine? Should Catholics aggressively fight for such laws, forcing their opinions on people, yet risking much in the process; or should they be very careful and try not to risk any unnecessary lives?

If anyone knows an answer, could you please provide a source? I’ve read many articles and encyclicals, but they pretty much all regard abortion itself and not law-making or risking other people’s lives.

P.S. I would really appreciate any quick answer, even if it is very short or is just a link to some document. I need some tip on where to look ASAP, because I can’t waste any time at the moment.

Every once in a while, the US media comes out with the “news” that our military has a plan for invading nation X, say Canada, which we actually did formulate a plan to attack hack in the 1930s, in case England ever decided to attack us, under the assumption that they would use Canada as a launching point, since Canada is so much closer to the US than is England.

The Church is not like that. The Vatican does not lay out a moral planof action for every possible contingency, taking all possible scenaios into account. Instead, there is a collection of moral considerations which those who have authority (ie, the government involved) need to take into account.

Thus, there is no document or set of documents about what should be done in such-and-such a situation.

On the one hand, it is important to continue to fight for laws outlawing the killing of *all *innocent humans, so it is important to continue to work for the outlawing of abortion in all cases.

On the other, there may be times when those involved must acknowledge that attaining part of the goal is preferable to holding out for the entire goal, which is what the bishops were referring to.

How great the threat is of a backlash is something that needs to be carefully discerned by those involved. If there threat is great and has a high likelihood of success, it seems that a case could be made for the morality of avoiding a frontal attack, altho some may argue the other way, that one must do what is right, since one is responsible only for one’s own actions.

It may be that those involved might decide that to attain their goal, a period of laying the groundwork would make the action more effective, and decide to spend some time doing something different. This is not an avoidance of working to attain the goal as work is continued; it is simply a change in tactics.

And it is of course important to consolidate one’s position.

 

[livingwordunity]

The OP question is loaded with error and contains a straw man. Catholics aren’t trying to force any law. In America, Catholics are going about trying to affect the laws using means that are totally within the law. We haven’t been advocating any kind of violent take over of the government.

The function of law is to impose someone’s morality on people. And religious liberty is a right guaranteed in the US Constitution. That means that in the U.S.A. we Catholics have the same Constitutional right to act in accordance with our morality to affect the laws of the land as any amoral hedonist does.

 

[edwest2]

I’ve read a debate between two prominent Polish Catholic journalists recently regarding laws about abortion and in vitro.

One of them holds that no matter what, Catholics must fight for keeping both completely illegal in order to protect the lives of unborn children.

The other agrees that abortion is murder, but says that if one would try to force a law banning abortion in all circumstances, it could not only fail, but another party could counter it with one that makes abortion legal under any circumstance (at the moment abortion is legal in Poland only if the child has some genetic fault, e.g. Downs syndrome). This would of course be much worse than the current status quo. He also maintains that forcing opinions on people is not the Catholic way, and that Catholics should rather try to persuade others to the truth peacefully.

Which opinion is closer to Catholic doctrine? Should Catholics aggressively fight for such laws, forcing their opinions on people, yet risking much in the process; or should they be very careful and try not to risk any unnecessary lives?

If anyone knows an answer, could you please provide a source? I’ve read many articles and encyclicals, but they pretty much all regard abortion itself and not law-making or risking other people’s lives.

P.S. I would really appreciate any quick answer, even if it is very short or is just a link to some document. I need some tip on where to look ASAP, because I can’t waste any time at the moment.

I am Polish and can get newspapers and magazines from Poland. Who are these Catholic Journalists, and what connections do they have to any organization, inside or outside the Church?

Peace,
Ed

 

[Photon_Man62]

I am Polish and can get newspapers and magazines from Poland. Who are these Catholic Journalists, and what connections do they have to any organization, inside or outside the Church?

Peace,
Ed

The article in question:

Szymon Hołownia i Tomasz Terlikowski: “Jestem nowicjuszem w talibanie” (artykuł numeru); z czasopisma “Uważam Rze”, nr. 13-14/2013
dorzeczy.pl/nowicjusz-w-talibanie/

Neither of them are directly connected to the Catholic Church, both are laymen. Hołownia was a novice in the Dominican Order twice. Neither have a degree in theology (though I’ve heard Hołownia is studying it ATM), but Terlikowski has a degree in philosophy. Terlikowski is also the editor of the largest conservative/Catholic website in Poland, “fronda.pl”.

Terlikowski holds the position that Catholics must fight for completely banning abortion no matter the cost, while Hołownia was the careful one.