The violinist argument for abortion

  • Thread starter Thread starter AlNg
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Human life is human life and demands responsibility, love and charity regardless of origin.

It used to be an awful thing to be a . . . child of an unwed mother. . . . You were stigmatized for life for the sins of your parents. Hardly a pro-life position but that’s how people thought in those days. Fortunately, this is no longer the case. Now it’s an awful thing to be an unwanted foetus. The expedient thing is to kill it, and that’s become a non-event socially.

How do we create the same cultural sea-change with the unborn, making actually having the child the social norm?

I was adopted in 1958. Not because of the law (abortion was always possible through illegal sources or for spurious medical reasons), but because socially, and culturally, it was “just not done” by respectable people. Yet those same “respectable people” would stigmatize a child born to a single mother as a “b- - - - - -” if she dared raise it herself. Double-standard. Of course I was adopted into a “respectable” home and was not stigmatized because nobody knew better (I even looked a lot like my adoptive mother, even though I’m a male!).

Still, my point is: cultural attitude has a big part to play in the abortion issue; we get the governments that reflect the mores of the people. I think evangelization is a far better pro-life bet than electing a morally dubious president… the more Catholics there are, the less socially-acceptable abortion will become. Alas it is not for the impatient. Souls have to be won, one at a time.
 
TheIttyBitty said:
Rape isn’t a good enough reason to not go the adoption route instead of abortion.

The baby is still innocent, regardless of the circumstances.

God decides if life will result or not.
Click to expand...
Could you please explain this further to me? I understand that the Catholic belief is that God through a specific act creates? infuses? a human soul for each human conceived.

But I can’t see where the Church teaches that the actual coming into being of the ‘new individual life’ is a result of God’s specific decision. If this were so Did would decide on whether each conception happened whereas we know there are predictable entirely natural reasons this occurs.
 
Elf01 said:
40.png
AlNg:
Would the violinist argument kick in because no one should be forced to be connected to a violinist for 9 months in order to save the life of the violinist? Where would the violinist argument break down in the case of brutal forcible rape? In particular there are examples of very young girls who have been forcibly raped.
Click to expand...
To me it’s ordinary vs extraordinary care. The fetus receives ordinary care from his/her mother, the violinist receives extraordinary care.
Click to expand...
This is absolutely the key distinction that I have been looking for, to refute this argument (which is otherwise a very, very good one). Thanks for illustrating this point.
OraLabora said:
I was adopted in 1958. Not because of the law (abortion was always possible through illegal sources or for spurious medical reasons), but because socially, and culturally, it was “just not done” by respectable people. Yet those same “respectable people” would stigmatize a child born to a single mother as a “b- - - - - -” if she dared raise it herself. Double-standard. Of course I was adopted into a “respectable” home and was not stigmatized because nobody knew better (I even looked a lot like my adoptive mother, even though I’m a male!).
Click to expand...
Ah, yes, “social respectability”, the coin of the realm in the 1950s and thereabouts. No wonder Librium and Valium caught on like they did.

I’d bring back some things like older liturgies, certain fashions, and musical styles, but aside from that, in many ways I much prefer today’s world.
 
One of the natural functions of the uterus is the forcibly expel its contents when a threat to the woman occurs (even when not pregnant). I know this very well because I fought against it for months to bring my children into the world.

Even having a period each month (something tremendously costly) is to protect against non viable embryos. So it would seem that mothers do have some natural right to protect themselves.
 
Saying implantation is not a violation is not going to help the person actually go through with that pregnancy. Eat the right things don’t eat the wrong things, don’t take illicit drugs or even legal drugs that people take every day. Keep up prenatal appointments and tests, endure sickness and pain, possibly have to modify or quit a job. Find someone to care for existing children if she’s unable to care for them, all while having something she will see as a part of her attacker INSIDE her for nine months. I can see why some would commit suicide. Finding the strength to overcome that and give that life to another family or even welcome it as your own is a truly amazing thing but finger wagging and law making isn’t going to cut it.
 
Catechism 2270, reference 73
And
Catechism 2271, reference 76

Also, God works all things for the good of those who love Him. But without believing, there are some things that cannot be conveyed.

If you think by having free will on earth that God has no hand in anything that happens here, nothing is a miracle or of God. If you think that God works all things for the good of those who love Him, then many many things become miracles, and many things are of great importance and God saw reason to bring them into your life.

Further:
Catechism 278, also 268-278.
 
Thank you for the references but they do not answer the question.
 
You will have to be more specific, as you used plenty of words that I did not, and expect me to back up those words I did not use.
 
Thank you. I would like to know why you believe God intervenes in such a way that he is directly responsible for every conception, even in the case of rape. I am also interested in whether this is Catholic teaching. If I have misunderstood your point please let me know. Your words were: ‘God decides if life will result of not’.
 
Leek said:
One of the natural functions of the uterus is the forcibly expel its contents when a threat to the woman occurs (even when not pregnant). I know this very well because I fought against it for months to bring my children into the world.

Even having a period each month (something tremendously costly) is to protect against non viable embryos. So it would seem that mothers do have some natural right to protect themselves.
Click to expand...
I will definitely have to file this under the category “learn something new every day”. I never knew this. Thanks for bringing this up.

That said, I can never defend a woman deliberately aborting her child. Something that happens without deliberation, involuntarily, in accord with nature, that can’t be helped.
 
AlNg said:
40.png
HomeschoolDad:
I can never defend a woman deliberately aborting her child
Click to expand...
Would you ever defend a young girl who deliberately killed an unwanted intruder who was presenting a danger to her ?
Click to expand...
I’m not clear what you mean here. Are you referring to a child conceived in rape (“unwanted intruder”) who then goes on to threaten the life of its mother for some medical reason (“presenting a danger to her”)? And how would this be distinct from the child who was wanted and welcomed, but is nevertheless posing that same danger?
 
HomeschoolDad said:
And how would this be distinct from the child who was wanted and welcomed, but is nevertheless posing that same danger?
Click to expand...
This case you mention here i think would be different. That would not be the focus of my question.

i am thinking instead of a possible analogy between the case when a girl in danger kills the unwanted house intruder and the case where a brutally raped young girl in poor health is in danger of severe illness and does not have the strength to endure a 9 month pregnancy.
 
AlNg said:
40.png
HomeschoolDad:
And how would this be distinct from the child who was wanted and welcomed, but is nevertheless posing that same danger?
Click to expand...
This case you mention here i think would be different. That would not be the focus of my question.

i am thinking instead of a possible analogy between the case when a girl in danger kills the unwanted house intruder and the case where a brutally raped young girl in poor health is in danger of severe illness and does not have the strength to endure a 9 month pregnancy.
Click to expand...
I understand what you are saying, but I cannot condone directly taking the life of the unborn child.

If the unwilling mother were in circumstances that drastic, I would then advocate delivering the child as soon as possible, as soon as the child could be delivered without gravely deleterious effects upon its health.
 
HomeschoolDad said:
If the unwilling mother were in circumstances that drastic, I would then advocate delivering the child as soon as possible, as soon as the child could be delivered without gravely deleterious effects upon its health.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, this may not always be possible.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top