Why do some Catholics support legal abortion?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Charlemagne_II
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Adolphus_WC said:
Because they are American as well as Catholic. There can be separation of Church and state.

Just as with divorce, legal but immoral. No one is forcing Catholics to divorce. No one is forcing Catholics to have abortions. Catholics are able to live their religion. It is not a requirement for all the population to practice Catholicism for some to practice it. We don’t live in a theocracy.
Click to expand...
This does not answer the question at all. I watched as No-Fault Divorce ruined lives and tore up intergenerational ties. Before, it was Aunt this and Uncle that. And the kids? I can understand why some Catholic adults are afraid to marry or just living together instead. Am I condoning it? No. But it rips your heart out when “till death do us part” becomes (in the 1980s), pages of classified ads in the newspaper: “No kids? $75 and you’re out. Call 800-DIVORCE.” It’s nobody’s fault.

And abortion? Does anyone want to know the truth about the National Abortion Rights Action League in 1969?

catholicnewsagency.com/resource.php?n=402

A few words from Archbishop Chaput:

"Critics like to say that religion is divisive, or intellectually backward, or that it has no proper place in the public square. This kind of defective thinking is now so common that any religiously grounded political engagement can be portrayed as crossing the border between Church and state affairs.

“But this is nonsense. Democracy depends on people of conviction carrying their beliefs into public debate – respectfully, legally and non-violently, but vigorously and without apology. If we’re uncomfortable being Christians in a public debate, then we’ve already lost the war. In America the word “pluralism” is often conjured up like a kind of voodoo to get religious people to stop talking about right and wrong. In reality, our moral beliefs always shape social policy. Real pluralism actually demands that people with different beliefs should pursue their beliefs energetically in the public square. This is the only way a public debate can be honest and fruitful. We should never apologize for being Catholics, or for advancing our beliefs in private or in public.”

Peace,
Ed
 
Adolphus_WC said:
I’ve already addressed this - They are viable in their own bodies. They do not require another body to live. Any adult human can provide care for an infant, it need not be the mother. Only the womb can grow the fetus inside it. You can’t transfer wombs.
Click to expand...
Yes, but it is still your opinion that viability disqualifies an individual from being person.

Show me documentation stating your viability argument as fact… If you cannot, you would be better accepting the scientific proof that we do have -that proves that a fertilized egg has a complete DNA sequence capable of organizing cells for the rest of the individuals life.

If you cannot have scientific support for your claims then why continue assuming…? What is the basis of your claim…?
 
Bookcat said:
It is.

Why on earth should someone make that the measure of the worth of a human?

My two year old can not live on his own either.

Some argue I should have been able to kill him in his toddler-hood.
Click to expand...
No, he is an autonomous being that requires care. All humans are dependent on our social structure. If you die you toddler doesn’t share you fate. If a pregnant woman dies before the fetus reaches 22 weeks the fetus will also die. Your toddler’s survival isn’t bound to yours continuing. Others can take your place. That is not the case with pregnancy. One womb per pregnancy.
 
Adolphus_WC said:
No, he is an autonomous being that requires care. All humans are dependent on our social structure. If you die you toddler doesn’t share you fate. If a pregnant woman dies before the fetus reaches 22 weeks the fetus will also die. Your toddler’s survival isn’t bound to yours continuing. Others can take your place. That is not the case with pregnancy. One womb per pregnancy.
Click to expand...
Arbitrary line in the shifting sand*
 
Adolphus_WC said:
Not everyone agrees that it is murder, just like not everyone agrees that euthanasia is murder.

I can respect the law of the land and I can think both of these practices are immoral. I can choose not to participate in them. They are not compulsory acts. No one is forcing Catholics to have abortions or practice euthanasia.
Click to expand...
What about the Federal government of the United States forcing Catholic hospitals to perform abortions?

Peace,
Ed
 
Adolphus_WC said:
No, he is an autonomous being that requires care. All humans are dependent on our social structure. If you die you toddler doesn’t share you fate. If a pregnant woman dies before the fetus reaches 22 weeks the fetus will also die. Your toddler’s survival isn’t bound to yours continuing. Others can take your place. That is not the case with pregnancy. One womb per pregnancy.
Click to expand...
There is no rule in science that ones human status is based on viability.

There is nor rule in Law that states any fetus prior to birth is a citizen -as they have no social security number.

Even most newborns don’t get a social security number for about a month after birth, so why are’nt they killable?
 
BillP
**
Similarly, we go through stages of development ova, sperm, zygote, blastocyst, fetus, and some point become conscious self-aware human beings. It is most definitely NOT at conception. **

All the DNA that is uniquely yours you have at conception. Moreover, you are entitled toi live out your full 70 years plus. You nor anyone else has the right to judge this child to be inhuman.
 
Now can a Catholic support legal Abortion?

No.

Such is gravely sinful …gravely contrary to Christ…and is a choice by which they can choose to be eternally separated from God.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church

2322 From its conception, the child has the right to life. Direct abortion, that is, abortion willed as an end or as a means, is a “criminal” practice (GS 27 § 3), gravely contrary to the moral law. The Church imposes the canonical penalty of excommunication for this crime against human life.

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.

2270 Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person - among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life.
 
Adolphus_WC said:
Government by nature is compromise.
Click to expand...
Legislation by nature is compromise. Judicial decisions, like Roe v. Wade, are not. Rather, they are what a judge (or judges) have deemed to be correct.

It is also the nature of citizens to continually strive for a better government.
Adolphus_WC said:
If the collective good is served some unintentional outcomes are permissible.
Click to expand...
But there is no collective good here. The baby is dead (on purpose), and the mother has to deal with huge emotional and physical ramifications (the unintentional outcome). As I pointed out earlier, no where else in our legal structure is it permissible to take innocent life. In fact, our legal structure provides stronger punishments for prople that take innocent, vulnerable life. By that reasoning, everything in our legal structure says that the harshest punishments should be for those who provide abortions, i.e. the most vulnerable, innocent life. It’s as if we’re saying “We are endowed by our Creator with an inalienable right to life, except for when it’s not.”
Adolphus_WC said:
It is the basis of Just War theory. (A Catholic Doctrine)
Click to expand...
There are many other elements of the Just War theory that make it somewhat unhelpful for your position, but we could get into it if you like.
 
thewanderer said:
Well, see, the thing with a woman getting pregnant is that, except in the rare case of rape, she made the decision to act in a way that she knew could result in a pregnancy. 🤷 I think its a matter of accepting the consequences of ones actions. There are ways, both natural and artificial for a woman to have sex and most likely not get pregnant, but even with those there is the risk of pregnancy. So ultimately it comes back to the womans choice of having sex. Is the woman’s ‘right’ to have consequence free sex more important than anothers right to life? So the womans self-determination isn’t gotten rid of, it just needs to be recognized that it sits one step back in the chain of events.

It seems to me the question really just comes down to a matter of how importnat you see the right to life for a society. The way I see it, if a socieety doesn’t hold the right to life as the most fundamental right and so to always be upheld before any other right, then I would be very afraid that my own right to life would one day be infringed upon legally. I can’t enjoy any other right if I don’t have the right to life. 🤷 No one can. So if the right to life isn’t viewed as the most important in a society it will turn into a society in which some people’s lives are worth more than others, which leads to things such as the Holocaust. If life isn’t held up as always the most important whats to say that one day someone else’s right to self-determination will be judged to trump my right to life? You can argue that that isn’t how it works today, sure, but how long will it be before that is the way it works? If you already accept the principle that some people’s rights trump those of others, why can’t the same happen to you?
Click to expand...
Abstinence or Procreative marriage. Sounds like a doctrinal decision. Ok for Catholics but society as a whole? Our society says no. So it goes back to the whole world doesn’t have to be Catholic for some to be.
 
BillP

**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!! **

This is nonsense. Abortion is the taking away of another person’s life, which means taking away their free will as well. The old double whammy. Shame on you for thinking the free will of the mother has a right to take away the life and free will of her child.She may have the power, but she never has the right!
 
AthenaC said:
Legislation by nature is compromise. Judicial decisions, like Roe v. Wade, are not. Rather, they are what a judge (or judges) have deemed to be correct.

It is also the nature of citizens to continually strive for a better government.

But there is no collective good here. The baby is dead (on purpose), and the mother has to deal with huge emotional and physical ramifications (the unintentional outcome). As I pointed out earlier, no where else in our legal structure is it permissible to take innocent life. In fact, our legal structure provides stronger punishments for prople that take innocent, vulnerable life. By that reasoning, everything in our legal structure says that the harshest punishments should be for those who provide abortions, i.e. the most vulnerable, innocent life. It’s as if we’re saying “We are endowed by our Creator with an inalienable right to life, except for when it’s not.”

There are many other elements of the Just War theory that make it somewhat unhelpful for your position, but we could get into it if you like.
Click to expand...
I agree that we should all strive for a better government. The greater good is health care. Health Care is the intention not abortion. Abortion is the unintended consequence.

What parts of Just War do you see as problematic?
 
maryray said:
If there are catholics who do support legal abortion I guess it is because they figure that there will always be women who seek abortions and at least when it is legally available it is medically safer for the woman than ‘backstreet’ or DIY abortions. HOWEVER… I don’t think making it safer for the woman who seeks to murder her child is a valid reason for legalising this terrible act. Perhaps we should be working harder to provide good alternative choices for women who have unintended pregnancies ( like adoption) and giving them support and information- many don’t feel they have a real choice and suffer terrible regret later.
It may be legal but it will never be right… under any circumstances ever for anyone!
Click to expand...
Adoption has always existed, and young women know that. What is the root cause of “abortion is OK” thinking? My boyfriend/husband will leave me if I have this baby. My parents will throw me out of the house. So you add that trauma to the sin of abortion and the loss of a child. This would be traumatic for any woman of any age.

I heard Father Corapi talk about abortion on a youtube video. The word he emphasized most? Silence! We are too silent in a culture - a media culture - that is filled with the wrong messages.

Let’s spread the right ones.

priestsforlife.org/index.aspx

Peace,
Ed
 
Adolphus
**
It is immoral but that’s not the issue. It is a legal question, does the woman have rights of self determination. You believe that once a woman has sex she gives up all rights of self determination. Other people don’t. In a free society both can and do have a say in the legality.**

Why does a woman have a right to kill her child up until the day it is born but not the day after? If self-determination is paramount, why can she not self-determine to legally kill her child the day after?
 
Adolphus_WC said:
I am not debating whether abortion is immoral. I have stated many times that it is. What I am saying is there are other things that I find immoral that are legal. Like divorce, or gambling, prostitution etc. People have had a discourse and made laws that reflected that discourse. The discourse continues. The law may change.

I can insert my opinion into that discourse. Whether as a Catholic and/or as a citizen I think that is everyone’s duty.

Now abortion is currently framed as a woman’s right issue. A woman should have self determination in what happens to her body. I can say that the fetus should take precedence and state the immorality of the inverse. Our society has determined that woman’s rights superseded those of the fetus. I respect our democracy and know that everyone doesn’t share my morality. So I respect the law of the land as it stands.

I don’t want to live under another religions laws - Sharia law for example. So I understand that leeway must be given in a free society.

Free speech is an example. I can despise some speech but understand that for my free speech to be respected I must respect theirs. If my religious freedom is to be respected I have to respect that others don’t share it.
Click to expand...
Please don’t play the Muslim fear card here.

Ed
 
Adolphus

**It’s not arbitrary. A fetus cannot live outside the womb at 22 weeks. At 23 weeks it is possible. **

So it’s not a human being at 22 weeks but it is a human being at 23 weeks?

HA!_HA!
 
Adolphus_WC said:
Rightful freedom of religion - it cuts both ways. Our society has determined that the common good lies in the rights of woman over the rights of fetuses. Immoral as we may see it.
Click to expand...
This argument is biased and incomplete. Where is the responsibility of the man? She did not get pregnant by herself. In most cases, she chose the man. Is he not half responsible?

Peace,
Ed
 
Charlemagne_II said:
Why does a woman have a right to kill her child up until the day it is born but not the day after? If self-determination is paramount, why can she not self-determine to legally kill her child the day after?
Click to expand...
That’s not my position. I have stated many times about viability of the fetus as a bench mark. The fetus’s life is bound to the mother until the point of viability. As technology increases so does our ability to move that bench mark. Maybe in the future every woman with an unwanted pregnancy will be able to deposit it in a surrogate womb and the desire for abortion will be eliminated. Until that point we are left with gross solutions. Not unlike amputations. Hopefully we will be able to heal the body to eliminate that gross solution as well. We are bound to our technological ability.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top