Unjust war vs abortion

[cathoichelp]

Being pro-choice is not the same as being pro-abortion. Who in their right mind says that they are pro-abortion and let’s have more abortions? As I stated in one of my previous posts, there are valid religious differences compared to Catholicism (in Judaism, Quakerism, and so on) regarding when life begins and there is no social or moral consensus on this issue. However, there is a social, moral, and legal consensus that AFTER birth, the baby is entitled to all the rights of a human being. So, obviously, ripping someone’s heart out to save your own wife is legally, socially, and morally wrong. On a somewhat lighter note, I remember several years ago John Cardinal O’Connor of New York City, the Archbishop of St. Patrick’s Cathedral, whom most New Yorkers of every faith, including myself, loved and revered, made a comment that he thought it inappropriate that there was a baseball game scheduled on Good Friday. Most people protested his remark, including Catholics. Why? Although he had the right to free speech, it was inappropriate for him to wish to impose his religious beliefs on all of New York City, especially since NYC is such a multicultural, multiethnic and multireligious city. But even if it weren’t, it would still have been inappropriate. The same I believe is true of the abortion issue. Protest the current laws, yes, by all means; but impose one’s moral viewpoints on others, no.

agreed 100 percent!

Being pro choice is not about being or promoting abortion.
Most of us who have worked or do work in that field work to prevent abortions … The methods are different than your teachings - yes
We take a different approach with education and birth control that you are within your rights and welcome to disagree with -
however the GOAL of our work is to prevent abortions … not to encourage them.

 

[benidict]

Here is a solution to all our problems. we just get together in groups that agree 100% with us, and no deviation from the standard is allowed. And we can morally shun everyone else who does not hold to the exact same beliefs we in our little group do. Does this seem like a good idea to everyone here?

 

[benidict]

Wont work for me. I like the friends I have made. and some of their views I am diametrically opposed to. and they to mine. But for some odd reason, we LIKE eachother. :grouphug:

 

[benidict]

Who’s having abortions (religion)?
Women identifying themselves as Protestants obtain 37.4% of all abortions in the U.S.; Catholic women account for 31.3%, Jewish women account for 1.3%, and women with no religious affiliation obtain 23.7% of all abortions. 18% of all abortions are performed on women who identify themselves as “Born-again/Evangelical”

Maybe we should clean up our own house first, before telling others, what choices they should make. Im just sayin…

                                        Abortion Statistics.mht

Its from the center for Bio Ethical Reform. sorry, I can try some other things to get the link to work. but just for the record, its a pro life group that opposes all abortions.

 

[davidv]

Who’s having abortions (religion)?
Women identifying themselves as Protestants obtain 37.4% of all abortions in the U.S.; Catholic women account for 31.3%, Jewish women account for 1.3%, and women with no religious affiliation obtain 23.7% of all abortions. 18% of all abortions are performed on women who identify themselves as “Born-again/Evangelical”

Maybe we should clean up our own house first, before telling others, what choices they should make. Im just sayin…

Abortion Statistics.mht
Its from the center for Bio Ethical Reform. sorry, I can try some other things to get the link to work. but just for the record, its a pro life group that opposes all abortions.

How many these women would have died had they not had an abortion?

Nice misrepresentation of the data. According to the PEW forum’s lasted data 16.1% of US adults are unaffiliated religiously, and yet according to your data they accounted for 23.7%. This does not support the conclusion that you implied.

Perhaps you ought to stop presenting strawman and red herring arguments.

 

[benidict]

How many these women would have died had they not had an abortion?

Nice misrepresentation of the data. According to the PEW forum’s lasted data 16.1% of US adults are unaffiliated religiously, and yet according to your data they accounted for 23.7%. This does not support the conclusion that you implied.

Perhaps you ought to stop presenting strawman and red herring arguments.

Ok, your using a different statical report. thats fine. the one I pulled IS from a pro life site. I do however find it fascinating, that those on the far right, and those from the far left, argue in the exact same manner. Perhaps starting a group who thinks identical to you, would be in your best interest Dave. Im just sayin.

 

[Brendan]

what on earth does that have to do with anything?
Will the innocent bystander also die if your wife doesn’t have a heart transplant? Cuz if not this has nothing to do with anything

It has quite a lot do with abortion.

The question being proposed is if an innocent person should be deliberatly targeted to die so that another’s wife can live.

It’s a simple yes or no question.

 

[benidict]

It has quite a lot do with abortion.

The question being proposed is if an innocent person should be deliberatly targeted to die so that another’s wife can live.

It’s a simple yes or no question.

Post 178 answers your question beautifully. Have any of you got a reply for my brother who holds to a Jewish perspective? I find it balanced. Either Dave or you can give it a shot. wanna try?

 

[Brendan]

Sure will, when people stop calling mothers who procure an abortion to save their own lives, Murderers.

Benidict,

You never answered my question from earlier.

If my wife needed a heart transplant and I found a person that would be a match, could I kill that person at take their heart to save my wife’s life?

If I did that, would I be a murderer?

Abortion is the killing of an innocent person, no different from the example I gave above.

 

[Brendan]

Post 178 answers your question beautifully. Have any of you got a reply for my brother who holds to a Jewish perspective? I find it balanced. Either Dave or you can give it a shot. wanna try?

Actuallly, no it does not. 178 only makes the erronous claim that human rights only exist after birth.

That is entirely arbitrary. Human rights are not dependant on time or location. They exist for all humans always.

Once it was legally (and even socially) acceptable to beat a slave. There was no moral consensus on the subject either.

Did that mean that slaves were not people? Did it mean that their human rights were not being violated, even if the law did not recognize those rights as actually existing?

One can even make the same claim about Jews in Nazi Germany. If the legal and social mores allowed them to be exterminated, did that mean that it was OK?

 

[cathoichelp]

Actuallly, no it does not. 178 only makes the erronous claim that human rights only exist after birth.

That is entirely arbitrary. Human rights are not dependant on time or location. They exist for all humans always.

Once it was legally (and even socially) acceptable to beat a slave. There was no moral consensus on the subject either.

Did that mean that slaves were not people? Did it mean that their human rights were not being violated, even if the law did not recognize those rights as actually existing?

One can even make the same claim about Jews in Nazi Germany. If the legal and social mores allowed them to be exterminated, did that mean that it was OK?

The situation of your wife needing a heart transplant and killing someone has nothing to do with anything …
Unless that person was already going to die regardless… in which case your wife would get the heart anyway -

The only abortion case we are making here as “just” is one in which the mother and child would die … both gone -
And the women has an abortion to save her own life.
They would either both die or she would live.

we were not justifying abortion in general.

 

[Corki]

I loved Pope John Paul II <3 what an incredibly kind man

It shocks me because this entire thread has seemed so harsh and cold towards a woman who was in the worst possible situation having to loss a child to save her own life - or die leaving her other children motherless… and still the life of that unborn child is lost -
how many times has this person been called a murderer -
and then we go to charity and if we put someone to death who is a danger to society the :“right” way we can send them straight to heaven…

No one is being cold to any woman here. We are being somewhat rigid when discussing a hypothetical situation. No one called the mother (who doesn’t even exist) a murderer.

You realize, don’t you, that these “the mother will die” situations are almost non-existant? Yet they get trotted out regularly in an attempt to dismantle Church teaching on the sanctity of life.

the treatment is either delivering the baby - or if it is too early for that ending the pregnancy
there is no other treatment in these cases we are talking about. If there was another option between both the mother and baby dying or just the baby dying I’d say yes do that! I totally agree

There are many, many treatments. The simplist is to try to support the pregnancy until viability and then to deliver early. Many gestational conditions are treatable with bed rest, medication, or surgery. While the risks to the mother and child are not guaranteed to pass, the same can be said for aborting the child. Some women have abortions and die anyway.

Being pro-choice is not the same as being pro-abortion.

This may be true in other faith traditions. But there is no room in Catholic thought for being against abortion but also for the choice to chose abortion. In Cathlic teaching, it’s like saying you are against wife beating but you support the choice of men to beat their wives sometimes. When someone self-identifies as “Catholic” and then takes a pro-choice stand, that’s the same as being pro-abortion.

 

[cathoichelp]

It has quite a lot do with abortion.

The question being proposed is if an innocent person should be deliberatly targeted to die so that another’s wife can live.

It’s a simple yes or no question.

yes … if both mother and child are going to die anyway -
then I feel it is just to save the mother if there is no way the baby would live or is old enough to survive outside the mother (hence an abortion for medical reasons)
That is the only kind of abortion we were saying could be seen as just.

They would both die otherwise - if the mother can be saved then only one dies …
No one was trying to justify any other reasons for abortion

 

[Lapey]

yes … if both mother and child are going to die anyway -
then I feel it is just to save the mother if there is no way the baby would live or is old enough to survive outside the mother (hence an abortion for medical reasons)
That is the only kind of abortion we were saying could be seen as just.

They would both die otherwise - if the mother can be saved then only one dies …
No one was trying to justify any other reasons for abortion

Then they die as saints!

St. Gianna Beretta Molla is a Roman Catholic Saint, canonized on May 16th, 2004 by his Holiness Pope John Paul II. Gianna was an Italian physician, a wife and a loving mother. She is best known for refusing both an abortion and a hysterectomy when she was pregnant with her fourth child, despite knowing that continuing with the pregnancy could result in her death.The canonization of Saint Gianna is the first of its kind. Many mothers have been beatified for their heroic virtues but they entered religious life after becoming widowed. In St Gianna’s case, she was a spouse and mother when she died. St. Gianna is the first canonized woman physician and professional who was also a “working mom”. St. Gianna is a patron saint for mothers, physicians, and unborn children.

 

[Lapey]

How many these women would have died had they not had an abortion?

Nice misrepresentation of the data. According to the PEW forum’s lasted data 16.1% of US adults are unaffiliated religiously, and yet according to your data they accounted for 23.7%. This does not support the conclusion that you implied.

Perhaps you ought to stop presenting strawman and red herring arguments.

The Church teaches that abortion is intrinsically evil; there is no justification to kill the unborn. This is not data we are talking about, it is human life.

 

[Brendan]

yes … if both mother and child are going to die anyway -
then I feel it is just to save the mother if there is no way the baby would live or is old enough to survive outside the mother (hence an abortion for medical reasons)
That is the only kind of abortion we were saying could be seen as just.

They would both die otherwise - if the mother can be saved then only one dies …
No one was trying to justify any other reasons for abortion

Actually no.

There are virtually no instances where the mother could not remain until a viable age for the child.

Here is a great example.

kitv.com/r/11535130/detail.html

 

[davidv]

The Church teaches that abortion is intrinsically evil; there is no justification to kill the unborn. This is not data we are talking about, it is human life.

I agree with you whole-heartedly.

I was responding to another poster who was trying use the distribution of abortions among those professing a religion to argue a point. I was pointing out the error in the way the data was presented as an excuse to limit the teaching against abortion. Essentially they were resorting to misrepresentation to make their case.

 

[meltzerboy]

How many these women would have died had they not had an abortion?

Nice misrepresentation of the data. According to the PEW forum’s lasted data 16.1% of US adults are unaffiliated religiously, and yet according to your data they accounted for 23.7%. This does not support the conclusion that you implied.

Perhaps you ought to stop presenting strawman and red herring arguments.

The 23.7% in the study quoted is the percentage of abortions for the unaffiliated group compared to the total number of abortions, not the percentage of adults who are unaffiliated. There is no inconsistency; in fact, given their rather low percentage of the total population, they have a comparatively high percentage of abortions.

 

[davidv]

The 23.7% in the study quoted is the percentage of abortions for the unaffiliated group compared to the total number of abortions, not the percentage of adults who are unaffiliated. There is no inconsistency; in fact, given their rather low percentage of the total population, they have a comparatively high percentage of abortions.

Those having abortions are a sample of the whole population, therefore the proportions unaffiliated having abortions can be compared directly to the proportion of unaffiliated in the whole population.

Be that as it may, it is not really relevant to the OP.

 

[benidict]

Benidict,

You never answered my question from earlier.

If my wife needed a heart transplant and I found a person that would be a match, could I kill that person at take their heart to save my wife’s life?

If I did that, would I be a murderer?

Abortion is the killing of an innocent person, no different from the example I gave above.

Cathoichelp, and Meltzerboy answered you just fine. Their answers should suffice since I agree with them, and I stated that.