Why do some Catholics support legal abortion?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Charlemagne_II
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
So a fetus is a person because of complete DNA which is already programmed to control cell structure for the entirety of the individual’s life, but it’s not a person because it cannot survive independently…:confused:

Like I said, neither a newborn or even an adolescent can typically survive on their own without help. So they’re not “people” either then.

The personhood argument is a made-up argument.
Any human would have a hard time surviving without any societal support. We are social animals. That isn’t the point. A new born can be cared for by any other adult human on the planet. A fetus up to 22 weeks can only survive in the womb. After 22 weeks their chances for survival increases weekly. The body of the child isn’t independent from the body of the mother before that point.

spensershope.org/chances_for_survival.htm
 
Any human would have a hard time surviving without any societal support. We are social animals. That isn’t the point. A new born can be cared for by any other adult human on the planet. A fetus up to 22 weeks can only survive in the womb. After 22 weeks their chances for survival increases weekly. The body of the child isn’t independent from the body of the mother before that point.

spensershope.org/chances_for_survival.htm
It’s still a made-up argument… Science has proven that it can combine egg and sperm and grow a human in a laboratory -independent of the mothers womb. By “other adult humans”.
 
It’s still a made-up argument… Science has proven that it can combine egg and sperm and grow a human in a laboratory -independent of the mothers womb. By “other adult humans”.
You can fertilize an egg but you can’t grow a human in a lab. You still need a womb.
 
You can fertilize an egg but you can’t grow a human in a lab. You still need a womb.
If you drop off a 2 year old on his own. He too will die. He needs a home.

He can’t survive either. Can not grow on his own…

(I refer readers to what I noted above)
 
You’re argument must take the same course as most others on the pro-choice side get cornered into…

You’ll have to explain what determines the value of human life… A task not science, religion, or society as a whole have the capacity to answer.
 
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.
Hear, hear. Describes my feelings EXACTLY.
 
You’re argument must take the same course as most others on the pro-choice side get cornered into…

You’ll have to explain what determines the value of human life… A task not science, religion, or society as a whole have the capacity to answer.
No it’s not a question of value of human life at all. I think even the most ardent “pro-choice” people think that human life has value. They are mostly arguing for the right of determination of a woman’s life, which they see as valuable.

They see it as a question of: since the fetus isn’t an independent entity can it be given person-hood. Do the rights of the fetus supersede the rights of the mother, since the the fetus isn’t viable until 22 weeks.

We are veering way off course from the original topic. I don’t think debating the validity of abortion is what the OP had in mind. There are other threads for that.
 
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.
No one was forcing the Quakers to buy slaves either, so why were they trying to inforce their moral principles on the plantation owners.

Didn’t the Quakers know about the seperation of Church and State. Would you have corrected their error if you have been around then?
 
We are veering way off course from the original topic. I don’t think debating the validity of abortion is what the OP had in mind. There are other threads for that.
I don’t think so, it’s the very fact that some “Catholics” don’t believe that fetuses are “people” -is exactly the reason they support legal abortion… Which becomes the basis of their constitutionality dilemma involving seperation of church and state.

Isn’t it?
 
The point that the fetus is considered a person. It is not viable outside the womb before 22 weeks, so some consider this not Independant personhood.
Since human rights belong to humans ( by defintion), that should not be debateable at all, since science can readily determine what species a particular organism is.

Why should we not just rely on science to determine what is, and is not, human.

Sure, you might get some wackos who will make unscientific claims, such as a Klansman who states that a biologic human is not human because their is too much melanin in their skin, or some neo-Nazi who would deny that a biologic human is not human because their ancestors came from the eastern shore of the Mediterranean.

And there might even be some who would deny that a biological human is not really human because it is currently residing inside a uterus.

But we are all 21st century people here. We should be able to trust the science, the biology, and not some wacko subjective criteria.

Correct?
 
It’s still a made-up argument… Science has proven that it can combine egg and sperm and grow a human in a laboratory -independent of the mothers womb. By “other adult humans”.
No it hasn’t. Such a thing has never been done or even contemplated. Now who’s “making things up”?
 
“Paul illustrates the same idea of a necessary renewal of our way of being human in two passages of his Letter to the Ephesians; let us therefore reflect on them briefly. In the Letter’s fourth chapter, the Apostle tells us that with Christ we must attain adulthood, a mature faith. We can no longer be “children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine…” (4: 14). Paul wants Christians to have a “responsible” and “adult faith”. The words “adult faith” in recent decades have formed a widespread slogan. It is often meant in the sense of the attitude of those who no longer listen to the Church and her Pastors but autonomously choose what they want to believe and not to believe hence a do-it-yourself faith. And it is presented as a “courageous” form of self-expression against the Magisterium of the Church. In fact, however, no courage is needed for this because one may always be certain of public applause. Rather, courage is needed to adhere to the Church’s faith, even if this contradicts the “logic” of the contemporary world. This is the non-conformism of faith which Paul calls an “adult faith”. It is the faith that he desires. On the other hand, he describes chasing the winds and trends of the time as infantile. Thus, being committed to the inviolability of human life from its first instant, thereby radically opposing the principle of violence also precisely in the defence of the most defenceless human creatures is part of an adult faith. It is part of an adult faith to recognize marriage between a man and a woman for the whole of life as the Creator’s ordering, newly re-established by Christ. Adult faith does not let itself be carried about here and there by any trend. It opposes the winds of fashion. It knows that these winds are not the breath of the Holy Spirit; it knows that the Spirit of God is expressed and manifested in communion with Jesus Christ. However, here too Paul does not stop at saying “no”, but rather leads us to the great “yes”. He describes the mature, truly adult faith positively with the words: “speaking the truth in love” (cf. Eph 4: 15). The new way of thinking, given to us by faith, is first and foremost a turning towards the truth. The power of evil is falsehood. The power of faith, the power of God, is the truth. The truth about the world and about ourselves becomes visible when we look to God. And God makes himself visible to us in the Face of Jesus Christ. In looking at Christ, we recognize something else: truth and love are inseparable. In God both are inseparably one; it is precisely this that is the essence of God. For Christians, therefore, truth and love go together. Love is the test of truth. We should always measure ourselves anew against this criterion, so that truth may become love and love may make us truthful.”

–Pope Benedict XVI

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/homilies/2009/documents/hf_ben-xvi_hom_20090628_chius-anno-paolino_en.html
 
I don’t think so, it’s the very fact that some “Catholics” don’t believe that fetuses are “people” -is exactly the reason they support legal abortion… Which becomes the basis of their constitutionality dilemma involving seperation of church and state.

Isn’t it?
yep.
 
Any human would have a hard time surviving without any societal support. We are social animals. That isn’t the point. A new born can be cared for by any other adult human on the planet. A fetus up to 22 weeks can only survive in the womb. After 22 weeks their chances for survival increases weekly. The body of the child isn’t independent from the body of the mother before that point.

spensershope.org/chances_for_survival.htm
Why does it make a difference which human they rely on for survival? Also, the age of viability has already changed due to increases in technology, so it is likely to decrease in the future with further increases. Do you really want to allow people to kill a fetus today that in 10 years will be viable and so fit under your definition of personhood? Why is he one worth being killed but the other not?
 
Since human rights belong to humans ( by defintion), that should not be debateable at all, since science can readily determine what species a particular organism is.

Why should we not just rely on science to determine what is, and is not, human.

Sure, you might get some wackos who will make unscientific claims, such as a Klansman who states that a biologic human is not human because their is too much melanin in their skin, or some neo-Nazi who would deny that a biologic human is not human because their ancestors came from the eastern shore of the Mediterranean.

And there might even be some who would deny that a biological human is not really human because it is currently residing inside a uterus.

But we are all 21st century people here. We should be able to trust the science, the biology, and not some wacko subjective criteria.

Correct?
Not really. A fertilized egg isn’t a “human” in the same way that an acorn (a fertilized egg) is not an “oak tree”. In my view (and science’s view) a fertilized egg has the potential to become a human being, but only the potential.

Even the Church has in previous times been unclear on this matter for instance when the early Church fathers wrote of the importance of whether “ensoulement” had occurred.
 
"Why do some Catholics support legal abortion? "

Because they have fallen for the lie society has provided them that they can seperate their morality from their life.

Catholicism is more then just going to Mass on sundays and saying prayers.
It is a specific morality.

Society would have us believe that our religion can simply be put on and taken off like a coat on a cold day. That we must respect immoral laws because that is ‘the law of the land.’
It is a lie.
A seductive one, and a very difficult one to resist, but a lie just the same.
 
Why does it make a difference which human they rely on for survival? Also, the age of viability has already changed due to increases in technology, so it is likely to decrease in the future with further increases. Do you really want to allow people to kill a fetus today that in 10 years will be viable and so fit under your definition of personhood? Why is he one worth being killed but the other not?
That’s the issue. It is the woman who is sustaining the fetus. Does she have the right of self determination on how her body is to be used. Right now the line is 22 weeks. Technology will get better. Maybe a artificial womb is in our future. Right now it’s not. Maybe in the future instead of an abortion we will have fetus transfers. Right now it’s not possible. Our laws deal with what is possible now.
 
it’s the very fact that some “Catholics” don’t believe that fetuses are “people” -is exactly the reason they support legal abortion… Which becomes the basis of their constitutionality dilemma involving seperation of church and state.

Isn’t it?
Right. Sadly they do not live their Catholic Faith…though perhaps via ignorance or being overwhelmed by the surrounding culture of death.

And to boot they misunderstand what was even meant by the founders of America.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top