Why do some Catholics support legal abortion?

[BillP]

They do not have the “right” to choose error or evil. But they have the capacity to do so. We have a right to choose what is true and good or to seek truth and hold to what we think we have discovered as truth.

A Catholic has the capacity to act against their Baptism but they do not have the “right” to do so. It is objectively a gravely sinful act against God and themselves.

But could it happen that someone is in invincible ignorance and hold what is evil to be good and what is untrue is true. Sure. And can it happen that they are not culpable for such? Sure. God judges each accordingly.

You are absolutely and irretrievably WRONG here. OF COURSE we have the “right” to choose error or evil!! That’s the entire point of free-will!! The entire point of Christianity is that everyone must CHOOSE whether or not to follow God!! And eahc of us has the “right” to decline to follow God and accept the ramifications of that

Adam and Eve had the “right” to choose to eat the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. They so chose, now the rest of us are suffering the consequences of that choice.

Similarly God ASKS each of us to freely choose to follow him but we have perfect freedom to accept or decline that invitation.

To assert otherwise is not only absurd, but it flies in the face of the most basic tenet of Christianity.

 

[vz71]

You are absolutely and irretrievably WRONG here. OF COURSE we have the “right” to choose error or evil!! That’s the entire point of free-will!! The entire point of Christianity is that everyone must CHOOSE whether or not to follow God!! And eahc of us has the “right” to decline to follow God and accept the ramifications of that

Adam and Eve had the “right” to choose to eat the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. They so chose, now the rest of us are suffering the consequences of that choice.

Similarly God ASKS each of us to freely choose to follow him but we have perfect freedom to accept or decline that invitation.

To assert otherwise is not only absurd, but it flies in the face of the most basic tenet of Christianity.

Do not mistake freedom for rights.

A right is given by God and cannot be taken away. The choice to do evil, while possible, is not a right provided by God.

It is an abuse of our freedom.

This may make it easier. I can rob a bank. That does not mean I have a right to do so.

 

[fix]

You are absolutely and irretrievably WRONG here. OF COURSE we have the “right” to choose error or evil!! That’s the entire point of free-will!! The entire point of Christianity is that everyone must CHOOSE whether or not to follow God!! And eahc of us has the “right” to decline to follow God and accept the ramifications of that

Adam and Eve had the “right” to choose to eat the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. They so chose, now the rest of us are suffering the consequences of that choice.

Similarly God ASKS each of us to freely choose to follow him but we have perfect freedom to accept or decline that invitation.

To assert otherwise is not only absurd, but it flies in the face of the most basic tenet of Christianity.

There is no right to abuse freedom. If I follow your logic than God is less free than we are as He cannot sin.

 

[Bookcat]

You are absolutely and irretrievably WRONG here. OF COURSE we have the “right” to choose error or evil!! That’s the entire point of free-will!! The entire point of Christianity is that everyone must CHOOSE whether or not to follow God!! And eahc of us has the “right” to decline to follow God and accept the ramifications of that

Adam and Eve had the “right” to choose to eat the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. They so chose, now the rest of us are suffering the consequences of that choice.

Similarly God ASKS each of us to freely choose to follow him but we have perfect freedom to accept or decline that invitation.

To assert otherwise is not only absurd, but it flies in the face of the most basic tenet of Christianity.

Nope.

Capacity does not equal right.

If it was a “right” it would be a good to choose.

 

[Rence]

My feelings where not the foundation of above (though they do coincide here). Feelings are not what is to determine such really.

They do not have the right to do evil. They have the capacity to do so by free will …there is a big difference.

I do not have a right to go shoot my wife but I have the capacity to do so.

You’re right: you do not have the right to shoot your wife, though you have the capacity to do so. However, people have the right and the capacity to choose their religion, or no religion at all. Even the Church recognizes freedom of religion, even if that religion is not Catholicism. Catholics have the right, and the capacity, to ignore the teachings of the Church from a moral standpoint, though it is agains the teachings of the Church. Breaking rules of the Church does not always equate to evil. For example, it is against the rules of the Church to not go to Mass on Sunday. However, it is hardly evil.

 

[Bookcat]

Catechism of the Catholic Church

1733 The more one does what is good, the freer one becomes. There is no true freedom except in the service of what is good and just. The choice to disobey and do evil is an abuse of freedom and leads to “the slavery of sin.”

 

[Rence]

Ironic isn’t it. The consequences of ignoring God’s laws are the most dire but considered the least.
I guess it may have to do with a denial that we will all die and face judgement before God.

Now, you’re right about that: we all die and we will all face God when we do. But if you don’t have that knowledge, or don’t acknowledge it, it won’t matter when it comes to making choices about the lives we live today. If everyone believed it, we’d all be Catholic. And if everyone would believe that this or that was a sin, we’d all be practicing Catholics as well.

 

[Adolphus_WC]

Yeah, I guess that’s where my problem with it comes in, is morality really based off of whatever our government happens to say is ok? I mean viability will change because of an advance in technology, not because of any change to the developmental process of the fetus. The argument against abortion is that it is the intentional killing of an innocent human. If it’s an innocent human at 22 weeks right now it was also an innocent human at 22 weeks in the past when viability came much later. So by presently admitting it is a person you would by extension have to admit that it was a person back then even when it wasn’t viable. Once you realize that, you can see that the definition of personhood cannot rely on something extrinsic to the fetus such as viability. Personhood is intrinsic, viability extrinsic. How is viability in any way suitable for judging personhood?

This thread has grown wings, not sure I can keep up -

It is suitable because it isn’t just the developing life that is the only life involved. The the mother’s right to self determination is also a factor. It is her life that makes the other life possible. No womb, no new life.

Just as an infant can be adopted and parental responsibility is transferred, if a fetus could be transferred the responsibility for the life can be transferred. That isn’t an option now.

How just would it be if the state forced adoption? Someone showed up at your house and dropped a child off and said you’re responsible now. Are you for forced adoption?

Self determination for the woman has to factor into the discourse. I don’t generally see that when religion justification is the dominate argument against legal abortion.

 

[Rence]

Who said anything about force?

They do not have the “right” to choose error or evil. But they have the capacity to do so. We have a right to choose what is true and good or to seek truth and hold to what we think we have discovered as truth.

A Catholic has the capacity to act against their Baptism but they do not have the “right” to do so. It is objectively a gravely sinful act against God and themselves.

But could it happen that someone is in invincible ignorance and hold what is evil to be good and what is untrue is true. Sure. And can it happen that they are not culpable for such? Sure. God judges each accordingly.

Of course people have the right to act against their Baptism. It goes along with freedom of religion and freedom of choice. They have both the right and the capacity. With all due respect it’s kind of hard to take someone seriously when they claim that people don’t have the right to choose or not choose Catholicism, because they do.

 

[followingtheway]

Same reason why Non-Catholics do.

Would these same Catholics also support legal bank robbing, or legal lynching, or even legal perjury?

I’m not one of them, but no :nope: What does perjury, lynching, and robbing have to do with abortion?

 

[Bookcat]

You’re right: you do not have the right to shoot your wife, though you have the capacity to do so. However, people have the right and the capacity to choose their religion, or no religion at all.

I am speaking of the ontological reality of the person who is Baptized into Christ…that the person is now a Christian --a Catholic. Indeed the* sacramental character* is indelibly on their soul. They cannot remove it. They are marked for eternity. It is objectively a grave sin for him to choose against Christ. He has the capacity to do so but not the “right” though yes some are as I noted very confused etc and not fully responsible for their actions etc.

 

[fix]

This thread has grown wings, not sure I can keep up -

It is suitable because it isn’t just the developing life that is the only life involved. The the mother’s right to self determination is also a factor. It is her life that makes the other life possible. No womb, no new life.

Just as an infant can be adopted and parental responsibility is transferred, if a fetus could be transferred the responsibility for the life can be transferred. That isn’t an option now.

How just would it be if the state forced adoption? Someone showed up at your house and dropped a child off and said you’re responsible now. Are you for forced adoption?

Self determination for the woman has to factor into the discourse. I don’t generally see that when religion justification is the dominate argument against legal abortion.

A baby gestates as intended by nature. The baby does nothing wrong that would call for murder.

 

[Bookcat]

Even the Church recognizes freedom of religion, even if that religion is not Catholicism. Catholics have the right, and the capacity, to ignore the teachings of the Church from a moral standpoint, though it is agains the teachings of the Church.

They have the capacity yes. The right no. They do not have the “right” to act against their faith. Such is called a sin.

Freedom of religion is a very different matter than what I am speaking to.

 

[BillP]

Nope.

Capacity does not equal right.

If it was a “right” it would be a good to choose.

Nonsense. People have the “right” to do all sorts of morally objectionable things…

You need a better definition.

 

[fix]

He has the capacity to do so but not the “right” though yes some are as I noted very confused etc and not fully responsible for their actions etc.

People use the words “rights” and "freedom " in such a loose way that they can justify any action simply by slapping on the words right or freedom. It is a type of absurdity.

 

[Bookcat]

Nonsense. People have the “right” to do all sorts of morally objectionable things…

You need a better definition.

Nope

This is a Forum of Catholic Theology. So we thus are to use the terms proper to the Science. Hence I will continue to do so.

If you wish to discuss something else I would suggest another forum.

 

[Adolphus_WC]

A baby gestates as intended by nature. The baby does nothing wrong that would call for murder.

They are able to gestate because of the woman allowing it. She could act contrary to the well being of the child if it is an unwelcome guest. Drinking alcohol, smoking tobacco, or taking other drugs. I’m not saying it’s moral but it is a factor. A woman has to accept her new inhabitant. So that is the legal not moral question. Does the woman have a right to deny another being to inhabit her body?

 

[Bookcat]

They are able to gestate because of the woman allowing it. She could act contrary to the well being of the child if it is an unwelcome guest. Drinking alcohol, smoking tobacco, or taking other drugs. I’m not saying it’s moral but it is a factor. A woman has to accept her new inhabitant. So that is the legal not moral question. Does the woman have a right to deny another being to inhabit her body?

To act in a away that would harm the child is yes immoral.

The woman chose to engage in the act that can bring about new human life (part of the very nature of the act) so now they have a great moral obligation towards the new human life --the baby within.

Such is called motherhood. One is a mother by fact of being pregnant. They need to live this and not kill their child. That child has right to his life.

 

[Keith_W_OR_USA]

Would these same Catholics also support legal bank robbing, or legal lynching, or even legal perjury?

Birth Control and Abortion are a necessary evil in our society. For example, China’s strong birth control policy has reduced it’s population by about 400 Million people. With 7 Billion humans on the planet we can not afford to keep just overpopulating the world. On top of the overpopulation in the world about 25,000 young people die every day due to disease and malnutrition.
I believe that God in his wisdom gave the woman the final choice on whether she is going to give birth or not. I’m for birth control rather then abortion, but it is the woman’s individual choice about how to handle her pregnancy.

 

[Brendan]

That limitation of Freedom renders it self-contradictory…

If you make specific requirements for usage then it isn’t a “gift” it is a “tool” and you are retaining the right to specify its employment.".

That is actually the Catholic understanding of “Freedom”, it is the ability to choose to do good. The ability to choose evil is not a freedom but a license.

For example, we have a Freedom of Speech in this country. What that means is that the authority cannot penalize you for the content or mode of your speech.

God, however, can and will penalize one for making choices to commit evil. One is not Free to do that, He granted no Freedom to commit acts of evil.

There is licence to do so, a license in that it is within the framework of temporal existance for us to choose evil or commit evil, but no freedom to do so.

Any other understanding of the word is a false one.