What is really Pro-Life?

  • Thread starter Thread starter EvangelistVictor
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Ignatius64869 said:
Whether it is prudential or absolute does not affect whether it fundamentally preserves the life and dignity of human persons. Any issue that preserves the life and dignity of human persons is, in my opinion, a moral issue.
Click to expand...
You confuse the expected outcome of a choice with the moral nature of the choice itself. If you do something because you think it is a good thing to do - like buying that shirt from a fair trade company - it is a moral act, but it is moral because of the intention, not because of the action itself. I can come to the opposite conclusion, and my buying from Wal-Mart is an equally moral action.

We are always morally obligated to intend the good, but there is no moral obligation that we come to the same conclusion about what actions will lead to the most good for everyone. Those are prudential choices we are free to make, and those choices are morally indistinguishable…except in a small handful of cases.
 
10 days and 120 something posts later, I find it interesting that no one was referenced the Catechism on this subject!

The OP is talking about the Church’s Social Justice teaching. So, I think his question is ultimately: “Is Catholic Social Justice also a pro-life issue”?

The Church articulates it’s prolife position in the 5th commandment section of the Catechism (YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF). There are two fundamental truths that it is based on:
2319 Every human life, from the moment of conception until death, is sacred because the human person has been willed for its own sake in the image and likeness of the living and holy God.

2320 The murder of a human being is gravely contrary to the dignity of the person and the holiness of the Creator.
Click to expand...
The Social Justice doctrine is found in a different section about the Human Condition. It reads in part:
I. RESPECT FOR THE HUMAN PERSON

1929 Social justice can be obtained only in respecting the transcendent dignity of man. The person represents the ultimate end of society, which is ordered to him:

What is at stake is the dignity of the human person, whose defense and promotion have been entrusted to us by the Creator, and to whom the men and women at every moment of history are strictly and responsibly in debt.35

1930 Respect for the human person entails respect for the rights that flow from his dignity as a creature. These rights are prior to society and must be recognized by it. They are the basis of the moral legitimacy of every authority: by flouting them, or refusing to recognize them in its positive legislation, a society undermines its own moral legitimacy.36 If it does not respect them, authority can rely only on force or violence to obtain obedience from its subjects. It is the Church’s role to remind men of good will of these rights and to distinguish them from unwarranted or false claims.
Click to expand...
As you can see, while the two issues are related, they are quite different in that one deals with a grave evil and the other deals with how to show respect for your fellow man.
 
EvangelistVictor said:
So what your saying a person who says is Pro-Life is really just anti-obrtion only. I get it now. 🙂

For me, Pro-Life really means protecting all of Gods children, for we are created in the image of God.
Click to expand...
Yes, we must protect God’s children, but the means by which that is carried out can be open to subjective intetpretation on many of the issues you have mentioned.

However with abortion things are not open subjective interpretation, intentional abortion is absolutely wrong. The Church is absolutely clear on this, unlike issues such as gun-control. The Church does not say that it is wrong to own a gun, nor does it stipulate what level of control there ought to be. It is clear, absolutely clear, on abortion.
 
And clear also on euthanasia and assisted suicide. Are these not Pro-life issues?
 
Ender said:
it is a moral act, but it is moral because of the intention, not because of the action itself.
Click to expand...
I disagree. If I buy a shirt from Wal-Mart knowing that they exploit women in third world countries and that my shirt is a product of that exploitation, then that’s an objective moral wrong. It doesn’t matter what my intention was. My intention might have merely been that my kid needed a shirt. The intone does not matter; what does matter is the objective moral wrong committed. That does not mean my culpability might be mitigated. I might not be able to buy more expensive fair trade clothing, but the objective wrong of contributing to the exploitation of women is still there.
Ender said:
We are always morally obligated to intend the good, but there is no moral obligation that we come to the same conclusion about what actions will lead to the most good for everyone
Click to expand...
I completely agree! While abortion is objectively wrong, I do not think banning it is the best solution to the problem, especially since a ban is unrealistic in our modern culture. Providing economic opportunities to women, however, would result in less abortions and is realistic in our culture. I’d rather have 200,000 abortions every year by providing economic security to at-risk mothers and youth than have 600,000 abortions trying to ban it when banning it is not feasible.
 
Last edited:
Ignatius64869 said:
especially when a ban is unrealistic in our modern culture.
Click to expand...
There has never been a time in human history when a ban on abortion was fully realized. There have always been herbs and various other items that can be used for the purpose of clandestine abortions. The only difference between then and now is the mortality rate associated with taking such risks.

This, however, does not affect the morality of the issue of abortion.
 
Last edited:
mrsdizzyd said:
There has never been a time in human history when a ban on abortion was fully realized. There have always been herbs and various other items that can be used for the purpose of clandestine abortions.
Click to expand...
I know. Abortion is safer now. That’s a good thing even though abortion is not. I cannot tell if you are agreeing with me or if I am missing the point.
mrsdizzyd said:
This, however, does not affect the morality of the issue of abortion.
Click to expand...
I agree again. I still do not know if you are agreeing with me.
 
Last edited:
Pope Francis also includes this and many other issues in Laudato Si.
  1. Fresh drinking water is an issue of primary importance, since it is indispensable for human life and for supporting terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. Sources of fresh water are necessary for health care, agriculture and industry. Water supplies used to be relatively constant, but now in many places demand exceeds the sustainable supply, with dramatic consequences in the short and long term. Large cities dependent on significant supplies of water have experienced periods of shortage, and at critical moments these have not always been administered with sufficient oversight and impartiality. Water poverty especially affects Africa where large sectors of the population have no access to safe drinking water or experience droughts which impede agricultural production. Some countries have areas rich in water while others endure drastic scarcity.
  2. One particularly serious problem is the quality of water available to the poor. Every day, unsafe water results in many deaths and the spread of water-related diseases, including those caused by microorganisms and chemical substances.
Click to expand...
I don’t understand how issues like safe and clean drinking water are not also pro-life issues. It’s not merely about treating our common man with dignity and respect. It’s about preserving lives.
 
No, I do not agree with you. The fact that clandestine abortions will continue is not a justification for the continued legalization of abortion.
 
It’s not, but the fact that clandestine abortions have always existed does indicate that we ought to approach this issue from far more than a legalistic perspective since it is likely that woman will still have abortions even if it were made illegal. Woman would just suffer trying to obtain them. I would rather abortion be obsolete than illegal. I care more about lives than looking principled.
 
Last edited:
Clean water is certainly an issue related to the pro-life issue, but the church puts the taking of innocent life in a separate category.

This does not mean that we are absolved from any responsibility for ensuring the accessibility of clean water. It simply means that the issue of murder is in a different class.
 
I never said it was. I would rather a woman who is seeking an abortion obtain it safely than obtain it under dangerous circumstances. I would rather the unborn child die than the unborn child and the mother.
 
Ignatius64869 said:
It’s not, but the fact that clandestine abortions have always existed does indicate that we ought to approach this issue from far more than a legalistic perspective since it is likely that woman will still have abortions even if it were made illegal. Woman would just suffer trying to obtain them. I would rather abortion be obsolete than illegal. I care more about lives than looking principled.
Click to expand...
We certainly have a responsibility to address the social factors that lead to women seeking abortions; however, this is an issue that is separate from murder.
 
mrsdizzyd said:
This does not mean that we are absolved from any responsibility for ensuring the accessibility of clean water. It simply means that the issue of murder is in a different class.
Click to expand...
Certainly. I understand what you were getting at now! I have never said all of the issues above are of equal importance. In fact, I said the opposite! But I would then go back to the necessity of prioritizing the issues I can actually change over the issues that I stand against and cannot actually change.
 
Last edited:
It’s a political label created as an alternative of “against abortion” because the campaigns against abortion (and some of them actually worked) were considered too violent and too shocking and too negative by the psychologists working on the other side the now so called “pro-choice”. Both sides changed labels as a result of the clash between them. So when I read pro life I think against abortion, and when I read pro choice I think pro abortion. That’s really all that is.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top