Why do some Catholics support legal abortion?

[Catholic_Prime_1]

Tired of all the Traffic, and the over crowding, waiting in long lines, just to use the restroom. Afraid that our natural resources will be all consumed,
and either we will all starve to death or wage war on each other
in attempts to find food.

Cause you can’t stop 6 billion people from getting their jollies off.
Either allow masturbation or some form of sexual release or they
will commit abortions. Priests can commit to Celibacy but lay people cannot(they can, they just don’t want to) there is way too much sexual temptation out there.

The only way I see enforcing Sexual Purity is an all Catholic School that segregates the sexes and no cell phones or emailing whatsoever. Fun games for each of the sexes, raising them old school, make it seem like it’s the early 1900’s where in order to live, washing clothes via the scrub board and a bucket of water was done, farming the food. You have to keep them occupied lest they sway and fall into sin. Who’s going to want to supervise that? We’ve all become lazy.

Which is worse, masturbation or killing babies? I think masturbation is the lesser of two evils. Sure it’s a sin, but it can be forgiven, killing babies…I don’t think so(maybe, but not worth the emotional scars).

I’m just voicing my opinion, I can remain Celibate, so I’m not really supporting anything,
I don’t contribute money towards abortions.

 

[Bookcat]

Yeah, unevidence assertion.

Sir – I trust Pope John Paul II did his homework…

 

[CatSci]

Seeing a possible way to a goal (a possible “next step”) is a valid consideration in deciding how much effort should be made toward that goal.

But you have to actually look first. I’ve seen tons of Catholic anti-abortion material and practically nothing on any Catholic effort towards reducing miscarriages.

There is no satisfying you. No matter how much effort is expended to reduce miscarriages you can always say there should have been more.

Sure there is: fund medical research on the prevention of miscarriage somewhere, anywhere, near the amount spent advocating against abortion.

That, or stop pretending like you advocating against abortion in an effort to save human lives.

Have you tired jumping really high to see if you can reach the moon? If not, then how do you know that it can’t be done that way?

I’m not talking about individual effort, I’m talking about funding scientific research.

Quite a few. In times and places where abortion is illegal the number of abortions has been considerably less than in times and places where abortion is not only allowed but actually subsidized and accepted by society as normal.

And that’s still orders of magnitude less than the number of human lives that are lost to miscarriages. Think pragmatically here.

That would only be true if you actually could prevent miscarriages. So far it is just a gamble that may or may not pay off.

So is trying to criminalize abortion.

I mean, we’re supposedly talking about human lives here. How could they not be worth the gamble? Seriously, you’re all about how bad abortion is because its taking human life but when confronted with your lack of support for scientific research into saving those lives you’re all: “Meh, its not worth the gamble.”

Do you not see the hypocracy there? Are they human lives or not?

At least say “preventing immorality” and you will be closer to the truth, although not completely there.

Yeah, I know its not really about saving human life.

 

[PumpkinSeed]

That doesn’t make it moral. My point stands.

A blastocysts inability to consent because it doesn’t have a brain, furthers the case that it shouldn’t be legally classified as a person.

youtube.com/watch?v=WMlVNFpzKNI

This is a baby boy who was born without a brain. He could not see, think, hear, smell, taste, ect. But according to you, hes not legally classified as a person.

 

[CatSci]

CatSci

**A blastocysts inability to consent because it doesn’t have a brain, furthers the case that it shouldn’t be legally classified as a person. **

So as a Catholic you are saying that the position of the Catholic Church, that the fetus is a human being, is in error? That you are right and the Catholic Church is wrong?

No. I don’t think the church’s classification of a blastocyst as a human being is sufficient to justify the legal criminalization of abortion.

 

[PumpkinSeed]

Cat- you said they cant classify that its a person because there is no brain

What about this kid?

youtube.com/watch?v=WMlVNFpzKNI

 

[CatSci]

Cat- you said they cant classify that its a person because there is no brain

What about this kid?

youtube.com/watch?v=WMlVNFpzKNI

I said that it lacking a brain furthers the case that its not a person, not that you cannot classify it as a person because it lacks a brain.

But if I did, that kid would be the exception that proves the rule.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

CatSci

**No. I don’t think the church’s classification of a blastocyst as a human being is sufficient to justify the legal criminalization of abortion. **

Just curious. Are there other teachings of the Church you disagree with?

Would you call yourself a cafeteria Catholic because you can pick and choose which teachings you will accept or reject?

And why do you choose to use the word blastocyst when virtually every abortion is of a fetus?

Have you ever taken a course in biology?

 

[insideitall]

short answer: some catholics support legal abortion because it’s legal, and also because they have been brought up to think that “the code is more what you’d call ‘guidelines’ than actual rules” (say in pirate-speak for maximum effect).

long, long answer: religion is the set of beliefs one holds. it is not necessary to believe in a higher power, nor is it necessary to believe in spirituality of some sort. if you were to have everyone in the world to plot their belief structure on a line stretching from “a-theistic” through “non-theistic” all the way over to “poly-theistic” there would be large groupings in some areas (corresponding to major world religions or philosophies) but overall it would be a continuum. (the supreme court has even upheld that both secular humanism and atheism are religions.)

it is impossible to separate religion from our everyday life because we make our choices based upon our own belief system. laws are passed because people think they are right. it just so happens that a large portion of people happen to believe a significant subset of the laws are right. those laws are misinterpreted as being created without religious influence, instead of being recognized as common beliefs.

oh, and of course there’s the “fact” that the church hates women, so that’s why it doesn’t like abortion or birth control.

the only remaining argument for abortion, since biologically, life begins at conception, is arguing that not all humans have “personhood” and is a huge cop out because the court has applied a philosophical question to a scientific one. anyone who argues that a woman should be free to do whatever she wants with her body is ignoring the fact that the fetus is not her body, it is a unique individual human with unique dna. if it was just a “blob of cells” that was “her body,” we’d say she has a tumor or cancer.

what defines “personhood,” then? the most ridiculous answer I’ve heard was “contributes to society” (which excludes the elderly, the disabled, the imprisoned, a whole lot of people under the age of 25 and nearly everyone under the age of 15), followed closely behind by “can survive on their own” (because anyone who’s ever been around a baby or toddler knows they’re little suicide machines).

I’m sort of confused as to why anyone would be confusing a natural miscarriage (which is usually due to a defect that does not allow for survival, or a hormone imbalance) with an intentional abortion. but I will admit that I only read a few pages, and may have missed something…

 

[CatSci]

Just curious. Are there other teachings of the Church you disagree with?

Would you call yourself a cafeteria Catholic because you can pick and choose which teachings you will accept or reject?

I don’t feel the need to share my personal details and beliefs and they’re not the topic of this thread. But there’s tons of Catholics that use contraception, or have sex before they’re married, and masturbate and all sorts of different things that go against the Church’s teachings.

And why do you choose to use the word blastocyst when virtually every abortion is of a fetus?

There’s actually an important point there: the blastocyst is the thing that goes through the implantation stage. The majority of fertilized eggs do not reach the implantations stage and are instead naturally aborted. If the human life begins at conception, then the blastocyst would be a human being (regardless of it just being a small clump of cells), and the majority of humans have been lost before they had a chance to implant.

It goes with the point that if saving human lives is the ultimate goal, then abortion is a drop in the bucket compared to number of lives that could be saved by preventing miscarriages.

 

[thewanderer]

No worries. But yeah, the legal argument and the moral argument can be kept seperate.

My position for legal abortion has to do with the legality of it, not the morality of it.

If you wanted to argue that divorce should be illegal because its immoral, I’d be taking the same approach. Our perceived immorality of divorce is irrelevant to its legality.

Somebody has to propse it as a bill; It has to have a secular purpose, and be constitutional.

Not quite, and this is only one part of it:

1. Things should be legal by default
2. There isn’t a good legal justification for criminalizing abortion
3. Abortion should remain legal

I agree.

Right, but that’s what needs to happen in order for it to be criminalized. Otherwise, it remains legal.

No, it was determined that they should be made illegal.

I suppose. What standard would you have us use?

I’m just curious, but what exactly do you mean in 2 by there’s no “good legal justfication”. Do you mean that the laws currently in place do not require/imply such a further law? or do you just mean that there is no argument showing that abortion fits the (still to be determined) standards for what should be legal/illegal? I suspect you mean the latter, but just want to make sure I’m not just making assumptions.

I hope you realize I didn’t mean to imply that you think slavery/racism is ok, I was just trying to make the point that a determination needs to be made, and the only way to do that is to have some sort of standard by which one can determine what should be legal/illegal. I would like to point out one more thing using this example though. It sounds to me as though you are arguing that* since the debate about abortion is ongoing, we should push to keep abortion legal*. However, if that were applied to those in the past debating the legality of slavery, that would be like saying that when the idea of slavery being legal/illegal was being debated, legal in some states illegal in others etc, the correct way for people to act is* actively promote *the keeping of slavery as legal, because there was not yeta *definitive conclusion *to the argument about whether or not it should be legal. While I agree with you that, by default, everything should remain unlegislated, and so legal, I also think that one can not use this as an argument in support of the legality of an issue that is controversial. If there are many people taking strong stances on different sides of a debate, then it becomes important to find out *why *each takes the side they do and not join up with either side until you have really looked at the issue in question. Maybe this is irrelevent, it is possible that you already agree with this idea, but it wasn’t clear from your posts, so I just wanted to bring it up to be sure.

Ok, as to what standards should be used. This question of standards is why I brought up the purpose of law in the first place. Laws should be put in place if they are good, ie fulfill their purpose, and removed if they are bad, ie work against their purpose. So, in order to figure out the standard for whether or not something should be a law, one needs to figure out what the purpose of law itself is. As far as I can tell, pretty much everyone agrees that laws are for the good of the society. That much seems pretty clear, but this phrase is still vague enough that it can be interpreted many different ways. What is this elusive “good of the society” or “common good” as it is sometimes called? I would say that it is to attain, as best as possible, happiness both for people as individuals and for the society as a whole. Because the very first thing necessary for happiness is existence, ie, life, and because without this no form of happiness is possible, not even a weaker, compromised version, this is the most important factor in preserving or attaining the common good. Because of this I believe life must be given priority, even when a conflict of interest arises between individuals.

Now, I realize this is probably more philosophical than anything you wanted to talk about, and that you might not agree with what I’ve just put forward about the standard on which to base the laws of a society, I hope you see the importance of making such an inquiry before deciding to actively support abortion being legal.

 

[CatSci]

I’m just curious, but what exactly do you mean in 2 by there’s no “good legal justfication”. Do you mean that the laws currently in place do not require/imply such a further law? or do you just mean that there is no argument showing that abortion fits the (still to be determined) standards for what should be legal/illegal? I suspect you mean the latter, but just want to make sure I’m not just making assumptions.

Its kinda both, actually. The current laws as written doesn’t allow for abortion to be a criminal act. But that just means those laws would have to be changed.

Too, I haven’t seen a good legal justification for the criminalization of abortion.

I hope you realize I didn’t mean to imply that you think slavery/racism is ok,

I know.

It sounds to me as though you are arguing that since the debate about abortion is ongoing, we should push to keep abortion legal.

No, by all means, if you think abortion should be criminalized then do the things you think you should do to further your cause.

While I agree with you that, by default, everything should remain unlegislated, and so legal, I also think that one can not use this as an argument in support of the legality of an issue that is controversial.

Well, the onus is on those who want it criminalized. I don’t have to prove that abortion should be legal, its visa versa.

Ok, as to what standards should be used. This question of standards is why I brought up the purpose of law in the first place. Laws should be put in place if they are good, ie fulfill their purpose, and removed if they are bad, ie work against their purpose. So, in order to figure out the standard for whether or not something should be a law, one needs to figure out what the purpose of law itself is. As far as I can tell, pretty much everyone agrees that laws are for the good of the society.

Again, though, its up to those that are against abortion being legal to make the compelling case that it needs to be criminalized. Keep in mind that it must have a secular purpose and also be constitutional.

What is this elusive “good of the society” or “common good” as it is sometimes called? I would say that it is to attain, as best as possible, happiness both for people as individuals and for the society as a whole. Because the very first thing necessary for happiness is existence, ie, life, and because without this no form of happiness is possible, not even a weaker, compromised version, this is the most important factor in preserving or attaining the common good. Because of this I believe life must be given priority, even when a conflict of interest arises between individuals.

But you need to offer more than just your own credulity on the matter. You’d have to show how and why criminalizing abortion is better for society.

Too, you have to keep the mother’s rights in consideration. The Supreme Court ruled in Roe v. Wade that her rights outweighed those of the potential person, iirc.

Now, I realize this is probably more philosophical than anything you wanted to talk about,

Well, I am replying

and that you might not agree with what I’ve just put forward about the standard on which to base the laws of a society, I hope you see the importance of making such an inquiry before deciding to actively support abortion being legal.

What do you mean by “actively support”? Typing my opinions in response to the question on a discussion forum is hardly “actively supporting abortion being legal”, imho. Its not like I’m donating money, or picketing with signs, or anything really.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

CatSci
**
It goes with the point that if saving human lives is the ultimate goal, then abortion is a drop in the bucket compared to number of lives that could be saved by preventing miscarriages. **

Off topic. We are not talking about miscarriages. We are talking about the deliberate taking of human life at the fetus stage … where all of us have been … and praise God we all had mothers who did not try to destroy us in the womb.

The church does not condemn miscarriages. It does condemn abortion. You disagree, substituting your own wisdom for that of the Church by implying that all abortions are lawful because the blastocyst doesn’t have a brain and therefore does not qualify as a human being.

You were a blastocyst before you became a fetus and then a life birth with 70+ years to go God willing.

 

[Findingmyshoes]

No, it’s not well put; it’s well “miss-put.” Defaulting to one’s conscience is required by CCC, but not a uniformed and/or a misinformed conscience. It is a requirement for one to follow his/her conscience, but if you read on in the CCC, it plainly states where that conscience needs to be prepared for the decision in line with Church teaching.

I also know a woman who had to choose between death and life of her child as well, she chose life for her child as we all should; her name is Saint Gianna Beretta Molla.

saintgianna.org/

How can anyone presume to mandate that a woman sacrifice her own life? Have saints done it? Certainly. Do we all follow the example of all canonized saints? Shall we all live in the woods as John the Baptist? Shall we cut our faces as St Rose?
A woman who chooses between the life of her unborn child and her own life, as well as the life of her other children, and her husband, meets a unique discernment that can only be her own. The magisterium can inform, but not dictate her decision. I believe that abortion is the death of a child, but should being unborn give a child priority over so many other lives? The only one who can say is the child’s mother.should she choose to eliminate the life after true soul searching, it is of courses tragedy, but not for us to judge. If she believes she has no other choice, and is trying to do best to follow what God calls hero do, no one an mandate it otherwise.

 

[CatSci]

since biologically, life begins at conception,

The sperm and egg cells are alive before conception. What you have after conception is the potential for a new person. But even then, most of them don’t make it to personhood.

what defines “personhood,” then?

A good way to determine personhood that I’ve seen is to look at the other end of the specrum: the right to die versus artificial suscitation. Ya know, “pulling the plug” on people. The legality there gets into things like having a heartbeat and a functioning brain, and stuff like that. I’d have to look it up though and don’t have time right now.

I’m sort of confused as to why anyone would be confusing a natural miscarriage (which is usually due to a defect that does not allow for survival, or a hormone imbalance) with an intentional abortion. but I will admit that I only read a few pages, and may have missed something…

The point I was making there is that people hide behind the “saving human life” reasons for supporting the criminalization of abortion when they’re more insterested in preventing what they think is immoral behavior. Since most conceptions fail to implant, if you really cared about saving human lives, then you’d be doing a lot more by funding scientific research into the prevention of miscarriages than you would fighting abortion. But nobody ever talks about saving human life by fighting miscarriages and that goes to show that they’re not really so concerned about saving human lives, but instead want to prevent immorality, which weakens the case against legal abortion because its more of a religious matter than a secular one.

 

[CatSci]

Off topic. We are not talking about miscarriages.

Its tangential to the topic as the logical conclusion of the anti-abortion argument. If you want to save human lives then you should fight to stop miscarriages. And pragmatically, you’d be saving a lot more human lives that way.

You disagree, substituting your own wisdom for that of the Church by implying that all abortions are lawful because the blastocyst doesn’t have a brain and therefore does not qualify as a human being.

Wow, is that really what you think my position is? I guess I’ve failed to properly express myself because that’s not it at all.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

CatSci

**Wow, is that really what you think my position is? I guess I’ve failed to properly express myself because that’s not it at all. **

It’s what you’ve said. Read your own posts.

Do you or do you not agree with the position of the Church that abortion is evil because it is the taking of human life?

A simple yes or no will do. You don’t need to go encyclopedic about miscarriages.

 

[vz71]

And when it can no longer be denied that life begins at conception, the pro-death individuals will attempt to bring in a concept of ‘personhood’ into the argument.

After all, we are talking about people…right??

Of course, this is just a red herring.
You see, ‘personhood’ is not even defined in any concrete terms.
It effectively moves the goal posts and allows the pro-death individual to claim a given set of human beings are really sub-human, with no rights.

The real point that our pro-death friend here is trying to avoid is that it is a human life.
Human and unique. End of story, case closed.

And as a human life, unique and its own, it has a dignity and a right to life.

Our pro-death friend would llike to claim that there is some other quality to humanity then the fact of being human that provides us with the rights God provides us.

It is a lie.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Yeah, I know its not really about saving human life.

When I say “prevent immorality” I am referring to the immorality of taking an innocent human life.

 

[zalo]

“pro-death individuals will attempt…”

I really don’t see how one can be called ‘pro-death’ just for being in favor of a woman’s right to choose. This is just calling names, and the ‘pro-life’ and ‘pro-death’ labels are complete misnomers that have served the Church extremely well.
This allows the Church to support politicians who lie thru their teeth to start wars of choice, visiting ‘shock and awe’ bomb blasts to thousands of walking-and-talking human beings, while condemning and fighting tooth and nail against other politicians who merely want to leave the decision to the women. So:

• start wars of choice but be against abortion = pro-life
• be against wars and work all your life for peace, but be pro-choice = pro-death

I may be wrong here, but I fail to see the least shred of consistency in such reasoning!