Why are so many Catholics pro-choice?

[tifischer]

We can all agree on the fifth commandment, yes. What does not have universal consensus is whether a human being is that from day one of conception. We as Catholics *do *believe that to be true and would never have or advocate for abortion. But civil authorities and the laws that govern are primarily beholden to the common good… and that is more often a work in progress that needs to be respected as such.

No way…seriously? America is the same civil authority that allowed slavery and women not to vote and now babies don’t have the right of life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. You can’t just say well we have to respect that… or is that the reason why slavery was present for so long in this country and fought so hard against?

As an example of how fundamentalism brings negative results to civil society is Romania’s Ceausescu. As President, he banned abortion and contraception for the purpose of radically increasing the low population. The result was the unmitigated tragedy of the Romanian orphan crisis that followed. As a consequence of the illness and starvation experienced by these hoards of abandoned children who needed urgent blood transfusions… Romania had the highest rate of HIV related pediatric illness and death in Europe. His fundamentalist policies with noble intentions caused even greater evil in the society he was responsible for.

Obviously this was not the case before abortion. Meaning that was an incident that was most likely due to other extraneous factors such as serious depression that the country was already in because it never fully recovered from the great depression, WWII, communism. And killing babies is not the answer to unplanned pregnancies no matter how you run your country into or out of the dirt. Again we are pointing back to how to teach the right values because laws without moral values doesn’t really help…it just increase the number of people dead or in prison. It is what we TEACH that changes hearts to a greater society…so how do we improve the teaching? These stats show that Catholics are either not being taught at all moral values of the sanctity of life or they are accepting alternate teachings. Either way something needs to change…either we teach more about the sanctity of life or we need to teach better to combat erroneous teaching in our community.

 

[AnnieHall]

Seems to me we did not get total free will…there were the 10 commandments…Thou shalt not kill is #5 Exodus 20:13

As Christians we should all know when life begins…that is my point.

Does this mean that non-Christians may not know where life begins? Or may have differing opinions?

I believe there is certainly debate about when life or personhood begins/when a soul enters a body/etc, as I have talked to people and read statements from people who 100% without a doubt believes that the moment of conception is the point where things start to matter (forgive my lack of more eloquent wording) and people who 100% without a doubt believe that it’s not until implantation/after 1st trimester/after able to survive outside of womb/later in the pregnancy, with varying time frames. I’ve also read that a large large number of fertilized eggs fail to become a fetus - numbers in the 66%-70% range. This is due to not implanting, or early miscarriages, not abortions. For me that’s sort of hard to wrap my head around, that so many lives and people are lost on such a regular basis, through no fault of anyone at all. And that’s someone who has been taught that personhood starts at conception - if I didn’t have religion or didn’t grow up with that teaching, I can see how that would really make me think that it wouldn’t start until later in development.

I’m not saying I disagree with personhood at conception, but if I feel that way because I’m Christian, or because of what I’ve been taught in church or have read in the Bible or have been taught by my religion, and without my religion, I think maybe reading some studies would lead me to believe otherwise - I can see how some people would interpret “personhood at conception” as a religious belief. Life starts at fertilization, but I think people with different opinions on the issue mean different things by “life”.

If that is at all the case, then I think it’s understandable that people may be hesitant about trying to force that as the law of the land. As mentioned by several others, we wouldn’t try to make it the law to follow any one religion’s beliefs, as freedom of (and from) religion is a pretty important part of our country.

If all scientists agreed with 100% personhood at the moment of conception, then I don’t think it could be seen as anything related to religion, any more than the fact that it’s wrong to kill or steal is related to religion.

 

[Rau]

Does this mean that non-Christians may not know where life begins? I believe there is certainly debate about when life or personhood begins/when a soul enters a body/etc, as I have talked to people and read statements from people who 100% without a doubt believes that the moment of conception is the point where things start to matter (forgive my lack of more eloquent wording) and people who 100% without a doubt believe that it’s not until implantation/after 1st trimester/after able to survive outside of womb/later in the pregnancy, with varying time frames. I’ve also read that a large large number of fertilized eggs fail to become a fetus - numbers in the 66%-70% range. This is due to not implanting, or early miscarriages, not abortions. For me that’s sort of hard to wrap my head around, that so many lives and people are lost on such a regular basis, through no fault of anyone at all. And that’s someone who has been taught that personhood starts at conception - if I didn’t have religion or didn’t grow up with that teaching, I can see how that would really make me think that it wouldn’t start until later in development.

I’m not saying I disagree with personhood at conception, but if I feel that way because I’m Christian, or because of what I’ve been taught in church or have read in the Bible or have been taught by my religion, and without my religion, I think maybe reading some studies would lead me to believe otherwise - I can see how some people would interpret “personhood at conception” as a religious belief. Life starts at fertilization, but I think people with different opinions on the issue mean different things by “life”.

If that is at all the case, then I think it’s understandable that people may be hesitant about trying to force that as the law of the land. As mentioned by several others, we wouldn’t try to make it the law to follow any one religion’s beliefs, as freedom of (and from) religion is a pretty important part of our country.

If all scientists agreed with 100% personhood at the moment of conception, then I don’t think it could be seen as anything related to religion, any more than the fact that it’s wrong to kill or steal is related to religion.

I’ve not seen a serious, coherent argument for why life begins at some point other than conception. That is the major step change in biological form. But for any person favoring the “right” of a woman to end a pregnancy, that becomes difficult to admit. Also bear in mind that the law addresses the pragmatic question of when a person is a “person before the law” rather than the more fundamental question. So absent a religious perspective, it is not difficult to see how the law arrives at its position on abortion.

And yes, the early stage of humanity is frail, with many natural and early deaths. In this case, we can take some comfort that these events do occur earlier rather than at a later time.

 

[tifischer]

Does this mean that non-Christians may not know where life begins? Or may have differing opinions?

I believe there is certainly debate about when life or personhood begins/when a soul enters a body/etc, as I have talked to people and read statements from people who 100% without a doubt believes that the moment of conception is the point where things start to matter (forgive my lack of more eloquent wording) and people who 100% without a doubt believe that it’s not until implantation/after 1st trimester/after able to survive outside of womb/later in the pregnancy, with varying time frames. I’ve also read that a large large number of fertilized eggs fail to become a fetus - numbers in the 66%-70% range. This is due to not implanting, or early miscarriages, not abortions. For me that’s sort of hard to wrap my head around, that so many lives and people are lost on such a regular basis, through no fault of anyone at all. And that’s someone who has been taught that personhood starts at conception - if I didn’t have religion or didn’t grow up with that teaching, I can see how that would really make me think that it wouldn’t start until later in development.

I’m not saying I disagree with personhood at conception, but if I feel that way because I’m Christian, or because of what I’ve been taught in church or have read in the Bible or have been taught by my religion, and without my religion, I think maybe reading some studies would lead me to believe otherwise - I can see how some people would interpret “personhood at conception” as a religious belief. Life starts at fertilization, but I think people with different opinions on the issue mean different things by “life”.

If that is at all the case, then I think it’s understandable that people may be hesitant about trying to force that as the law of the land. As mentioned by several others, we wouldn’t try to make it the law to follow any one religion’s beliefs, as freedom of (and from) religion is a pretty important part of our country.

If all scientists agreed with 100% personhood at the moment of conception, then I don’t think it could be seen as anything related to religion, any more than the fact that it’s wrong to kill or steal is related to religion.

As Christians we believe that life begins at conception. Scientist do agree 100% that genetically life begins at conception. At conception a person is instantaneously a newly formed individual person who is growing.

Many non-religious at least of the younger generation are not taught moral values pertaining to the sanctity of life. My upbringing was non-religious and all I remember is that abortion is a choice because the government says it is ok because it is the woman’s right. Children who are only taught that and they are never presented with an alternative, then it is what they will most likely accept unless by some miracle they spontaneously consider it themselves, but why challenge something that you have no control over? When one could instead play a video game, watch TV or go out with friends.

 

[madtom]

I’ve not seen a serious, coherent argument for why life begins at some point other than conception. That is the major step change in biological form. But for any person favoring the “right” of a woman to end a pregnancy, that becomes difficult to admit. Also bear in mind that the law addresses the pragmatic question of when a person is a “person before the law” rather than the more fundamental question. So absent a religious perspective, it is not difficult to see how the law arrives at its position on abortion.

And yes, the early stage of humanity is frail, with many natural and early deaths. In this case, we can take some comfort that these events do occur earlier rather than at a later time.

it doesn’t even matter. we can argue until we are blue in the face that life begins at conception. we can even make completely secular (scientific and legal) arguments for it, and it still won’t convince some (perhaps most) people. but again, it doesn’t even matter. The Constitution protects the liberty not only for those of us who are alive, but also for our “posterity.” In other words, the Constitution not only protects our right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, but also protects those same rights for our yet unborn descendents. BOOM, argument won.

 

[Rau]

…The Constitution protects the liberty not only for those of us who are alive, but also for our “posterity.” In other words, the Constitution not only protects our right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, but also protects those same rights for our yet unborn descendents. BOOM, argument won.

I’m not familiar with your Constitution, but I assume your Supreme Court is?

 

[AnnieHall]

I’ve not seen a serious, coherent argument for why life begins at some point other than conception. That is the major step change in biological form. But for any person favoring the “right” of a woman to end a pregnancy, that becomes difficult to admit. Also bear in mind that the law addresses the pragmatic question of when a person is a “person before the law” rather than the more fundamental question. So absent a religious perspective, it is not difficult to see how the law arrives at its position on abortion.

And yes, the early stage of humanity is frail, with many natural and early deaths. In this case, we can take some comfort that these events do occur earlier rather than at a later time.

Thank you so much for this wording, this is the idea that I was struggling to express in my post.

I believe that when people (in general, not necessarily on here) talk about the beginning of life, we aren’t all on the same page of what we’re talking about. I agree that no one thinks a fertilized egg is void of life/isn’t human, but I think there are some debates about when the point is that life becomes a person under the law (also phrased by some as when a soul enters the body/when personhood begins, etc) and I think this tends to vary some between people who are religious/Christian/Catholic and those who aren’t.

So then to swing back around to the OP’s question - if people who don’t have religion telling them when it begins, it can be more open to interpretation, and the belief that all should be protected under the law starting from conception can be seen and interpreted as a religious belief.

 

[Rau]

Thank you so much for this wording, this is the idea that I was struggling to express in my post.

I believe that when people (in general, not necessarily on here) talk about the beginning of life, we aren’t all on the same page of what we’re talking about. I agree that no one thinks a fertilized egg is void of life/isn’t human, but I think there are some debates about when the point is that life becomes a person under the law (also phrased by some as when a soul enters the body/when personhood begins, etc) and I think this tends to vary some between people who are religious/Christian/Catholic and those who aren’t.

So then to swing back around to the OP’s question - if people who don’t have religion telling them when it begins, it can be more open to interpretation, and the belief that all should be protected under the law starting from conception can be seen and interpreted as a religious belief.

For me, “person before the law” has nothing to do with “ensoulment”, though perhaps some people think of “humanness” as progressive. The latter is a religious idea, the former is the pragmatic notion I spoke of.

 

[esieffe]

Because they don’t know anything at all about their faith?

 

[AnnieHall]

For me, “person before the law” has nothing to do with “ensoulment”, though perhaps some people think of “humanness” as progressive. The latter is a religious idea, the former is the pragmatic notion I spoke of.

Hmm. I guess I was thinking that they were kind of the religious and secular equivalents of the same idea, but I think I was wrongly thinking that the Church teaches that ensoulment happens at the point of conception, when life begins. Wow, I am confusing even myself on this topic as I’m trying to sort through my thoughts. :doh2: Sorry guys!

I would think from a legal point of view, there is an attempt to line up the two - onto the same time frame. Once ensoulment has occurred, they should be protected under law, but then there’s debate as to when it happens, so there’s debate as to when the life is (/should be) protected under law.

 

[Rau]

…I would think from a legal point of view, there is an attempt to line up the two - onto the same time frame. Once ensoulment has occurred, they should be protected under law, but then there’s debate as to when it happens, so there’s debate as to when the life is (/should be) protected under law.

I can not imagine how a court would formulate a position on the timing of ensoulment.

The US federal position as I understand it is that abortion in general is legal, but the States may pass restrictions to that right (details unknown by me).

See the following (NY Times June 2013) which summarises the US legal restrictions on abortions in various states.
nytimes.com/interactive/2013/06/18/us/politics/abortion-restrictions.html?_r=0

Note the rationales given for the timepoint after which abortion is banned:

• when there is a heartbeat audible via intra-vaginal probe;
• when there is a heartbeat audible via adominal probe;
• when pain can be felt;
• when survival outside the womb is possible (*)
• etc.

(*) Given murdering of infants is prohibited everywhere, you can see how this restriction would seem reasonable to even the secular lawmakers. Though the legal rationale is to note that, at this point, the child’s “life” is considered to be “its own” and thus to earn legal protection as a human life.]

In several States, there is no restriction at all (ie. abortion anytime prior to birth is apparently OK).

Evidently, none of this has anything to do with ensoulement per se. Rather, the implication is that the child “earns” recognition and protection under the law by some measure of the level of physical development.

 

[AnnieHall]

I can not imagine how a court would formulate a position on the timing of ensoulment.

The US federal position as I understand it is that abortion in general is legal, but the States may pass restrictions to that right (details unknown by me).

See the following (NY Times June 2013) which summarises the US legal restrictions on abortions in various states.
nytimes.com/interactive/2013/06/18/us/politics/abortion-restrictions.html?_r=0

Note the rationales given for the timepoint after which abortion is banned:

• when there is a heartbeat audible via intra-vaginal probe;
• when there is a heartbeat audible via adominal probe;
• when pain can be felt;
• when survival outside the womb is possible (*)
• etc.

(*) Given murdering of infants is prohibited everywhere, you can see how this restriction would seem reasonable to even the secular lawmakers. Though the legal rationale is to note that, at this point, the child’s “life” is considered to be “its own” and thus to earn legal protection as a human life.]

In several States, there is no restriction at all (ie. abortion anytime prior to birth is apparently OK).

Evidently, none of this has anything to do with ensoulement per se. Rather, the implication is that the child “earns” recognition and protection under the law by some measure of the level of physical development.

I didn’t mean that should be the court’s goal, I was thinking more about the emotional goal of secularly thinking individuals who are trying to form their opinions regarding timing. Of course more physical/concrete timelines would be needed to set absolute rules and laws.

I must thank you again for having this conversation, it’s helped me understand Church teaching as well as the viewpoints of others in this.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

I believe the whole premise of this thread is BS.

One poll with a misleading question and everyone is on the defensive…

Who says Catholics are pro -choice?

“West Coast Walk for Life broke more than one record this year”

catholicnewsagency.com/news/west-coast-walk-for-life-broke-more-than-one-record-this-year-74035/

 

[tifischer]

I believe the whole premise of this thread is BS.

One poll with a misleading question and everyone is on the defensive…

Who says Catholics are pro -choice?

“West Coast Walk for Life broke more than one record this year”

catholicnewsagency.com/news/west-coast-walk-for-life-broke-more-than-one-record-this-year-74035/

The stats from the articles that I listed previously show that many Catholics are pro-choice, even the regular church goers and I have prayed in front of enough abortion clinics to see numerous people driving in with rosaries and crosses dangling from their rear view mirrors. I am a recent convert from agnosticism and I am wondering why don’t people teach the sanctity of life even at conception in church?

Recently I heard the priest (bless him) pray for the kidnapped Christians in the middle east, and those martyred. That’s great and what about the thousands of innocent babies who were killed last week? By many Christians no doubt? Where’s the fire for those innocents?

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

The stats from the articles that I listed previously show that many Catholics are pro-choice, even the regular church goers and I have prayed in front of enough abortion clinics to see numerous people driving in with rosaries and crosses dangling from their rear view mirrors. I am a recent convert from agnosticism and I am wondering why don’t people teach the sanctity of life even at conception in church?

Recently I heard the priest (bless him) pray for the kidnapped Christians in the middle east, and those martyred. That’s great and what about the thousands of innocent babies who were killed last week? By many Christians no doubt? Where’s the fire for those innocents?

I would like to know what exactly was the question posed to Catholics in the article you mention.

I can post polls and surveys showing just the opposite…

Poll: New Yorkers reject abortion expansion
Published on February 13th, 2013

As pro-abortion advocates continue to push for the so-called “Reproductive Health Act,” a new statewide poll reveals that voters overwhelmingly oppose expanding the state’s abortion laws and, indeed, favor greater restrictions on abortion than what is already in law.

While a majority of respondents (55 percent) described themselves as “pro-choice,” two out of three (66 percent) said there is sufficient access to abortion in the state. When informed of the actual number of recorded abortions each year (111,000), the number of people who agreed there is sufficient access to abortion rose to 79 percent, with only 7 percent of respondents disagreeing that there is sufficient access to abortion in the state.

The survey, conducted January 27 through January 31, 2013, by McLaughlin and Associates, found that only 17 percent of likely voters approve of unlimited abortion on demand through the ninth month of pregnancy, which would be permissible under the “Reproductive Health Act.” Conversely 80 percent of voters disapprove of such a policy, 61percent of them strongly.

Among the survey respondents, 47 percent identified themselves as Democrats, 29 percent as Republicans and 22 percent as independents.

In other findings:

92 percent oppose abortion for selecting the sex of a baby;
89 percent oppose abortion for reducing triplets or twins to a single child;

Neither of these would be restricted if the Reproductive Health Act’s “fundamental right” to abortion is enshrined in state law.

Additionally:

75 percent oppose allowing non-doctors to perform abortions (permitted under the proposed abortion expansion plan); and
71 percent oppose forcing Catholic hospitals to allow abortions (permitted under the proposed abortion expansion plan).

With regard to regulating abortion:

87 percent support providing information about options and risks to pregnant women before they make an abortion decision;
78 percent support a 24-hour waiting period prior to an abortion; and
76 percent support parental notification for minors’ abortions.

 

[tifischer]

I would like to know what exactly was the question posed to Catholics in the article you mention.

I can post polls and surveys showing just the opposite…

Poll: New Yorkers reject abortion expansion
Published on February 13th, 2013

As pro-abortion advocates continue to push for the so-called “Reproductive Health Act,” a new statewide poll reveals that voters overwhelmingly oppose expanding the state’s abortion laws and, indeed, favor greater restrictions on abortion than what is already in law.

While a majority of respondents (55 percent) described themselves as “pro-choice,” two out of three (66 percent) said there is sufficient access to abortion in the state. When informed of the actual number of recorded abortions each year (111,000), the number of people who agreed there is sufficient access to abortion rose to 79 percent, with only 7 percent of respondents disagreeing that there is sufficient access to abortion in the state.

The survey, conducted January 27 through January 31, 2013, by McLaughlin and Associates, found that only 17 percent of likely voters approve of unlimited abortion on demand through the ninth month of pregnancy, which would be permissible under the “Reproductive Health Act.” Conversely 80 percent of voters disapprove of such a policy, 61percent of them strongly.

Among the survey respondents, 47 percent identified themselves as Democrats, 29 percent as Republicans and 22 percent as independents.

In other findings:

92 percent oppose abortion for selecting the sex of a baby;
89 percent oppose abortion for reducing triplets or twins to a single child;

Neither of these would be restricted if the Reproductive Health Act’s “fundamental right” to abortion is enshrined in state law.

Additionally:

75 percent oppose allowing non-doctors to perform abortions (permitted under the proposed abortion expansion plan); and
71 percent oppose forcing Catholic hospitals to allow abortions (permitted under the proposed abortion expansion plan).

With regard to regulating abortion:

87 percent support providing information about options and risks to pregnant women before they make an abortion decision;
78 percent support a 24-hour waiting period prior to an abortion; and
76 percent support parental notification for minors’ abortions.

The source that I posted was a gallop poll that is a very large poll by a non-partisan group that is well known. Also, I was able to find other polls that said about the same results and their results show trends over many years of taking polls. No one is questioning the results of the poll being biased. If you have a specific reason that you believe the poll is biased such as a small dataset or they get paid to create the polls specifically by interests groups then please let us know. World wide would be very interested if you were to fine a statistical bias in the Gallup poll.

Thanks to God a deacon that was discussing the 10 commandments at mass on Sunday did mention briefly and I pray effectively the sinful nature of abortion.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

The source that I posted was a gallop poll that is a very large poll by a non-partisan group that is well known. Also, I was able to find other polls that said about the same results and their results show trends over many years of taking polls. No one is questioning the results of the poll being biased. If you have a specific reason that you believe the poll is biased such as a small dataset or they get paid to create the polls specifically by interests groups then please let us know. World wide would be very interested if you were to fine a statistical bias in the Gallup poll.

Thanks to God a deacon that was discussing the 10 commandments at mass on Sunday did mention briefly and I pray effectively the sinful nature of abortion.

So to answer my own question, I looked up the question asked by Gallup.

**“Next, I’m going to read you a list of issues. Regardless of whether or not you think it should be legal, for each one, please tell me whether you personally believe that in general it is morally acceptable or morally wrong. How about…Birth Control, abortion etc.???”
**

Birth Control…89% said morally acceptable (Including the majority of Catholics)
Abortion…38% said morally acceptable and 51% said morally wrong.

Based on the responses Gallup implied:

Although Catholic leaders have protested the portion of the Affordable Care Act mandating that health insurance plans include payment for birth control, the average rank-and-file Catholic in the U.S. finds the use of birth control morally acceptable. Catholic leaders are no doubt aware that many of their parishioners use birth control, but these data underscore the divide between official church teaching and Catholics’ day-by-day behaviors.

Let’s look at the question…had Gallup asked about ARTIFICIAL birth control I think the Catholic answers would have been different. I would expect most of the Catholics questioned use or had used NFP as a form of birth control…and that **is morally acceptable **.

Maybe Gallup will re-phrase the question next time before they imply that Catholics are pro birth control.

 

[Ignatius]

I read a poll today where Catholics and Protestants (2013) where each only 54% are pro-life. Conservative and Republicans were 66% and 68% pro-life. I read in a Spirituality for Catholics book the other day that Morality is the practice of behavioral principles for conduct that further the common good. If you were to consider these statistics and the common good pro-life, then would Conservatives and Republicans have a higher moral standard for life than Catholics and Protestants?

No, the Catholic for choice just have a different morality. For them, Loyalty to The Party is paramount. You can see by the things they do that, for them, The Party is above The Faith or their Country. The Liberal Agenda must be advanced no matter what the cost, consideration of Right and Wrong don’t enter into it. Or, more correctly, right and wrong are just tools to manipulate anyone who considers them important.

 

[Crown_of_Stars]

Any Catholic who is pro-choice (I’m sick of that word, it’s pro-murder and I will just say it bluntly) is only fooling themselves. If you are Catholic, you ought to know the Catechism enough to know that this evil is a grave wrong.

 

[brian_custer]

progressive secular humanism has gotten such a hold on the catholic laity

so few catholics go to mass or confession (lol) regularly

our priests NEVER speak about abortion in their homilies and if they did they would just be preaching to the choir

the states with the largest catholic populations overwhelmingly voted for obama and would do it again if they could

it is a sad situation