What is the fundamental reason a person defends abortion?

[lizaanne]

Contraception is the most responsible option for responsible, caring married couples to manage the one part of their vocation (procreation) while nuturing the rest of their vocation (total, physical and emotional commitment to one another).

You could not be more wrong about this. Contraception and abortion absolutely do go hand in hand. I have two short videos for you - about three minutes each. Please do watch these and think about what they have to say:

realcatholictv.com/share/watch.php?vidID=vort-2011-01-26

realcatholictv.com/share/watch.php?vidID=vort-2011-01-28

You can’t have it both ways. Contraception is evil, the Church teaches that it is evil, and no amount of soft peddling it is going to change that. This is not open to debate or opinion, it is clearly in opposition of the teaching of the Church to use contraception. It is not responsible, it is quite possibly one of the most irresponsible things a couple can do to their marriage.

~Liza

 

[jmcrae]

I wonder when I argue with someone about abortion if I am going towards the right direction. To state that the baby in the womb is a person who has a right to life and is no different than the baby who is going to loose his/her life from abortion. But I feel people who have gone through pregnancies and still support abortion have a different view. I wonder how much they value sex without responsibilities over an unknown person’s life? It seems reason and science can defend a baby from conception, but it seems that people are attached to a socially acceptable behavior no matter how destructive it is. With prayer how else are we to approach a discussion on abortion?

a) They’ve had one and think they will have to believe that they are going to go to Hell, if they admit that they murdered their own child.

b) They love someone who has had an abortion and think that they won’t be allowed to love that person any more, if they admit that their loved one murdered their own child.

c) They don’t think they would ever have an abortion, but there are certain inferior classes of people - “those kind” - who should be encouraged to have abortions so that there will be fewer of “those kind” to have to deal with in the world, and in order to improve the human breeding stock, over time.

d) They haven’t thought it through at all, and are going with what “everyone else” seems to be saying, in order to fit in with the crowd and to not seem too peculiar to their friends.

e) They see children as commodities - something you can “want” a certain number of, like buying apples or eggs at the supermarket. I’ll have, two children, five apples, and two dozen eggs, please. Make that a home delivery, please; I don’t want to carry them in from the car by myself.

 

[mark_a]

a) They’ve had one and think they will have to believe that they are going to go to Hell, if they admit that they murdered their own child.

b) They love someone who has had an abortion and think that they won’t be allowed to love that person any more, if they admit that their loved one murdered their own child.

c) They don’t think they would ever have an abortion, but there are certain inferior classes of people - “those kind” - who should be encouraged to have abortions so that there will be fewer of “those kind” to have to deal with in the world, and in order to improve the human breeding stock, over time.

d) They haven’t thought it through at all, and are going with what “everyone else” seems to be saying, in order to fit in with the crowd and to not seem too peculiar to their friends.

e) They see children as commodities - something you can “want” a certain number of, like buying apples or eggs at the supermarket. I’ll have, two children, five apples, and two dozen eggs, please. Make that a home delivery, please; I don’t want to carry them in from the car by myself.

Excellent observations!!

In addition, I have found that many contracepting couples claim that the Church is wrong about abortion; because if the Church can be wrong about abortion, the Church is most certainly wrong about contraception.

 

[CMatt25]

The fundamental reason may be because it is the law of the land. Where a woman has a right to privacy in making such a decision. I’m not certain the talking points of a human embryo/fetus being human life or any pictures are all that useful to the pro choice crowd either. They might argue a human embryo may or may not be any more a human person than say an acorn is an oak tree. No one I know of at least goes around saying an acorn on the ground is an oak tree. These points made by the anti choice side do not answer how society balances and assigns the rights of personhood. In other words as to when the unborn becomes a person entitiled to full civil rights at the expense of the woman no longer having hers. There are differing opinions and views and beliefs about this. Science has also not proven ensoulment on which differing beliefs also exist. So a law to govern the land had to be arrived at.

 

[ishii]

The fundamental reason may be because it is the law of the land. Where a woman has a right to privacy in making such a decision. I’m not certain the talking points of a human embryo/fetus being human life or any pictures are all that useful to the pro choice crowd either. They might argue a human embryo may or may not be any more a human person than an acorn is an oak tree. No one I know of at least goes around saying an acorn on the ground is an oak tree. These points made by th anti choice side do not answer how society balances and assigns the rights of personhood. In other words as to when the unborn becomes a person entitiled to full civil rights at the expense of the woman no longer having hers. There are differing opinions and views and beliefs about this. Science has also not proven ensoulment on which differing beliefs also exist. So a law to govern the land had to be arrived at.

CMatt, its not “talking points” that the fetus is a human life. Its a biological fact. If its not a human life then what is it? Since “ensoulment” is something that we can’t really prove, should we not give the benefit of the doubt to the unborn baby? Also, what was St. Elizabeth meaning when she said, " when I heard your voice, the baby inside me leaped" ??? Notice she didn’t say, the “potential life” or “the unensouled fetus”. No one I know refers to their child inside the mother’s womb as the “fetus”. In fact, they refer to them as “he” or “she” or “the baby”. To compare the unborn baby to an acorn on the ground is callous and seeks to de-humanize the unborn child. And dehumanizing the baby also makes it easier to justify killing it right? Much easier to kill a thing comparable to an acorn than kill something that is merely an unborn child.

Ishii

 

[teachccd]

Can I try to rephrase what you both are trying to say? Some people will never choose abortion for themselves because deep down they feel that it’s bloody and traumatizing and there is something wrong with it. At the same time, if one of their unwed, unemployed friend’s birth control fails and she becomes pregnant, they’ll be the first to make the appointment at the closest abortion facility. Why? Because they don’t want to deal with their friends emotional/physical/monetary issues and especially not baby sitting the brat after it’s born. So the quick fix to the problem pregnancy is the good old “you don’t have to keep it” solution so they don’t have to deal with somebody else’s problems. Our society is making this so easy with all the lies and inaccurate information that the abortion industry provides: *“it” is just like a ball of cotton, imagine a cup of coleslaw, it won’t hurt, it’s going to make you “unpregnant”, it’s like nothing happened, you can resume a normal life after the procedure, it’s the best solution for you… *
Usually I tell these people:“If abortion is not good enough for you, why would it be good for someone else?”

Yup! That’s it!

 

[haroldcrews]

There is a common thread among those who support abortion whether it is from the ‘Left’ or ‘Right’. That common thread is a faulty concept of individual autonomy. This concept posits that radical self-definition is fundamental to liberty or human dignity. Those on the ‘Right’ say it is fundamental to ‘liberty’ and those on the ‘Left’ say it is fundamental to ‘human dignity’. Now self-definition to the extent is says that an individual is ultimately responsible for accepting the truth or accepting what is false is something that we can agree to. But the radicals say that right and wrong or true and false is itself definable by the individual. Since an unborn child is unable to exercise this autonomy then he or she is not a factor in the autonomy of the mother.

 

[jmcrae]

The fundamental reason may be because it is the law of the land. Where a woman has a right to privacy in making such a decision. I’m not certain the talking points of a human embryo/fetus being human life or any pictures are all that useful to the pro choice crowd either. They might argue a human embryo may or may not be any more a human person than say an acorn is an oak tree. No one I know of at least goes around saying an acorn on the ground is an oak tree. These points made by the anti choice side do not answer how society balances and assigns the rights of personhood.

Personhood is given by God.

Those who have deemed themselves worthy to redefine other people (Jews, Blacks, persons of Asian ancestry, women) as “not persons” have found themselves on the wrong end of public opinion, in the end - redefining the unborn child as “not a person” will likely end the same way.

Which side do you want to have been on, when the final chapter is written?

In other words as to when the unborn becomes a person entitiled to full civil rights at the expense of the woman no longer having hers.

No one ever has the right to kill - no matter how convenient it may seem, at the time, and even if it is legal to kill “that sort” at the time. In any other circumstance, you would never say that someone has a “civil right” to terminate someone else’s life.

There are differing opinions and views and beliefs about this. Science has also not proven ensoulment on which differing beliefs also exist.

Why would you expect science to prove “ensoulment”? Souls are not within the realm of scientific study. What science does show us, however, is that when the sperm and egg meet, a new human DNA sequence begins that is neither the mother nor the father, but a unique combination of them both, and that cell division (life) begins.

 

[JimG]

The only people who mention “ensoulment” are generally those in favor of abortion, looking for an excuse to support it. Many making that argument don’t even believe in souls. But biologically, there’s no doubt whatever about when a new human individual has its beginning. The only question is, at what point in the life of a new human, can it be protected from being arbitrarily killed? I don’t hear many on the pro-choice side giving a clear answer to that question.

 

[mark_a]

Science has also not proven ensoulment on which differing beliefs also exist.

Science has not disproven “ensoulment” either. Are all laws to come from science?

Anything that is alive and grows is ensouled, though not necessarily with an eternal soul such as the human soul.

 

[CMatt25]

CMatt, its not “talking points” that the fetus is a human life. Its a biological fact. If its not a human life then what is it? Since “ensoulment” is something that we can’t really prove, should we not give the benefit of the doubt to the unborn baby? Also, what was St. Elizabeth meaning when she said, " when I heard your voice, the baby inside me leaped" ??? Notice she didn’t say, the “potential life” or “the unensouled fetus”. No one I know refers to their child inside the mother’s womb as the “fetus”. In fact, they refer to them as “he” or “she” or “the baby”. To compare the unborn baby to an acorn on the ground is callous and seeks to de-humanize the unborn child. And dehumanizing the baby also makes it easier to justify killing it right? Much easier to kill a thing comparable to an acorn than kill something that is merely an unborn child.

Ishii

Ishii, but biologically I doubt St Elizabeth could feel a baby leap at the moment of conception.

The question was to give a fundamental reason why abortion choice might be defended and I did that. So I now leave this thread.

 

[jmcrae]

Ishii, but biologically I doubt St Elizabeth could feel a baby leap at the moment of conception.

Do you agree that St. John was already a human being, while still in his mother’s womb?

At what point did he become a human being, if not at conception?

Abortion is legal right up until the feet come out, at birth (in Canada, it is legal to kill the baby while it is being born, as long as the whole body is not yet out of the womb), so even at six months of gestation, in modern times, St. John could still be aborted.

 

[Ponyguy]

Begorra, you speak like an Irish orator, me lad…

And I certainly agree with you!

 

[edwest2]

The fundamental reason is a distortion of the words “inalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” Without the right to life, the other rights no longer matter.

This distortion was carefully marketed in 1972. I watched on TV as a woman begged for compassion for women who were dying in so-called “back alley” abortions. Please, she said, it will be used only in cases of emergency like rape, incest and to save the life of the mother. Statistics regarding the number of women dying in such abortions were also released. This was later shown to be a fabrication.

In 1972, in the United States, the federal government was held in high regard. We had heard it say that we should be proud of our Judeo-Christian heritage. In 1972, I also heard the following: “Abortion will be the hardest decision a women will have to make and is between her and her god.” God? I find that hard to believe, but it was good marketing.

So some people, not fully understanding what was to come, began to embrace this choice. It was the Law, which made it acceptable. In 1973, some semblance of the United States of America still lived on in the hearts of Americans everywhere. We were lied to. It’s as simple as that. Some of us made the wrong choice.

The other part of it was the heavily marketed “there are too many people in the world” argument. See The Population Bomb by Paul Ehrlich:

amazon.com/population-bomb-Paul-R-Ehrlich/dp/0345021711/ref=tmm_mmp_title_0

He was wrong in his predictions, but his first edition, published in 1968, was expanded in 1971. The timing could not have been better to distract and create fear.

Peace,
Ed

 

[PAboy57]

First off I am so thankful that God granted me the grace to find my way back to the Catholic Church.

It makes me so sad, disgusted and angry that individuals will call themselves Catholic and then try to justify contraception and killing a baby on this website. These people truly believe that this behavior is acceptable and then get upset when they are told the truth regarding these destructive acts.

I want to thank those who have defended our faith in no uncertain terms. I came in late and do not have any better words to offer on this subject. I feel that our society is sinking so low that it is going to take a miracle to lift us out of the firey pit. I will continue to go to Mass, pray daily and remain active in my parish affairs while hoping for a peaceful solution. At least we have the satisfaction of knowing who wins at the end of the war that will eventually be fought.

Thank you for setting some people straight on Church teaching. I hope those seeds take root and brings some others back to our faith. God Bless.

 

[Pug]

Maybe it is the lack of a personal connection to tiny unborn babies? Most people have no experience of playing with or interacting with or being friends with one.

Also, I think there is no real sense of support for women who are pregnant unless they are in very particular circumstances, like have many good friends, or are married to an upright man, etc. Our culture is *severely *lacking in this way.

Perhaps also there is the idea that certain lives aren’t worth living. Suffering has no value for them, so if the life is filled with too much suffering, it is better to be dead, especially if the person has no consciousness. Like it is better to shoot a horse with a broken leg type thing. Or like who cares if a junkie/whore dies in the gutter? (that is rhetorical…obviously we care, but the world doesn’t)

Maybe the woman is left alone, culturally knowing there is nothing but her. She must be in control. She is responsible (BC has not helped, here). That is her cultural burden. She is solely responsible and required to do whatever it takes to salvage the situation. And there is a very narrow cultural understanding of what constitutes “salvage”. Anything else would be to require too much of others. She would exceed what she is allowed to do and be, she would being “wasting” things, herself, resources meant for other people, and be a burden, which she has been taught is evil.

I think women live in a strange world for women, that clearly doesn’t recognize their value. Maybe it is the same for men; I don’t know. WE NEED TO MAKE A WORLD FIT FOR WOMEN, that much I do know.

And no, I do not support abortion, lest the turn of this thread fall on me.

 

[ishii]

Ishii, but biologically I doubt St Elizabeth could feel a baby leap at the moment of conception.

The question was to give a fundamental reason why abortion choice might be defended and I did that. So I now leave this thread.

So then if you can feel a baby leap inside the womb then it should be protected? I raised the bible quote with you because you so often list the bible as the reason why you vote the way you do. Now we have found a bible quote that is implicitly pro-life and your response is to leave the thread. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander right? If you can use the bible to support welfare, certainly I can cite a bible verse to show how the unborn are sacred.

Ishii

 

[edwest2]

Jeremiah 1:5

bible.cc/jeremiah/1-5.htm

Surgery in the womb:

[childrenshospital.org/az/Site891/ma(name removed by moderator)ageS891P0.html](http://www.childrenshospital.org/az/Site891/ma(name removed by moderator)ageS891P0.html)

It’s just hard for some to let go of the idea that a fetus is not a human being.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

Ishii, but biologically I doubt St Elizabeth could feel a baby leap at the moment of conception.

The question was to give a fundamental reason why abortion choice might be defended and I did that. So I now leave this thread.

St Elizabeth was about six months along. John the Baptist leaped because he sensed a Newly Conceived Baby Jesus.

 

[edwest2]

Grasping at straws? Pope Benedict recently stated that each one of us is cared for by God. The person who is born, wherever he is born, was willed by God. Those who support abortion are grasping at straws by ignoring the fact that each one of them began life as an embryo.

Peace,
Ed