Why do some Catholics support legal abortion?

[MichaelTDoyle]

What I think I am saying is: In order to be Catholic in the USA the laws of the Land don’t have to follow Catholic Doctrine. It is clear what the Church says about abortion. Not all self identifying Catholics hold true to Catholic Doctrine. We should follow our consciences, informed by our faith for those that have one, experience and study.

We should as citizens work to the betterment of society as we see fit. Religion in and of itself falls short for a reason why something should be adapted universally. It should inform the process if it part of your life. But you must recognize that “God says so” makes many close off to any further discourse. The value should be determined and shown at a societal level because we are not a Theocracy.

Freedom from religion is insufficient for defending the practice of killing the unborn. Abortion should be universally prohibited because the perpetrator(s) are killing ANOTHER human regardless of their particular religous beliefs.

That the fetus is a human is a scientific fact; therefore, killing that human premeditatively is wrong. It is not a question of religion but of what secular value do we put on human life?

That this country does not put a qualitative hands off on innocent human life is a grave immorality and should be a concern for every citizen. Every citizen should work against the taking of innocent life even if it is on the selfish grounds that your own life could be put in the abortive category without your consent.

In addition, the secular society that does not put an intrinsic value on human life, has no reason then to put an intrinsic value on human freedoms. At this point you are wholly at the mercy of the State. Since this is a republic, you are at the whim of the elected which passes things like healthcare without examination leading to a regulatory tyranny, because intrinsic values were not respected.

All citizens in the interest of a healthy democracy should adamantly as a non-negotiable issue oppose abortion in order to re establish the preeminent intrinsic values (rights to life and liberty) which have been subsumed by a regulatory tyranny.

 

[TEPO]

Perhaps it’s the right of all people to self-determination and independence that makes some Catholics pro-choice? Yes, Catholics choose to be Catholic and follow the rules of the Church. But non-Catholics made a different choice, mostly through no fault of their own, especially if they were born and raised in these other religons. And just as Catholics value their freedom, they extend that freedom to others who don’t agree with them. For example, Jewish and Muslims (though they are against abortion) allow (within the teachings of their faiths) abortion in the case of a woman’s health being in danger. Perhaps a Catholic who supports legal abortion is considering that as they have the right to follow the Catholic faith, muslims and jews have that same right as well. By taking away another person’s choice in religion, and in practicing that religion, consider that one day Catholics may not be able to practice their religion either. If one values being able to choose being Catholic, maybe one thinks to value another person’s choice in their religion as well.

By making abortion illegal, we are not taking anyone’s freedom of religion from them… We are not oppressing anyone any more than nature does… If nature is oppressive then what are we to think about anything…?

But on the contrary, there have been religions that have been oppressed to extinction, and it is a good thing. Think of how the conquistadors destroyed native American cannibalism as a form of worship… Now that was oppression of the Spirit.

Relativism is modern oppression of the Spirit.

 

[Bookcat]

“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.”

~ Pope Benedict XVI

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/homilies/2009/documents/hf_ben-xvi_hom_20090628_chius-anno-paolino_en.html

 

[Rence]

I was born into the family I was born into. I have my Father and my Mother and my brothers. I did not choose such.

So may I then act against my Father or my Mother of my Brothers in a way that gravely harms them (sinfully) and justify it by saying – I did not choose you to be may Family??

Well, some people do…not that it’s right. So, no you may not, though some do exactly that.

A child is given the gift of existence of life without their choice. If they are born into a Christian family -they are then given the gift of “true life” in Christ and his Church by the choice made in their name.

Are they free (morally) to act gravely against their natural life later on in life saying --I did not choose it!?

Morally, people always have a choice. It’s not moral to commit someone else to something (whether it’s religion, marriage, or anything else) and get angry later when they reject it. Catholics, of course, Baptize their children for their own good, and because that’s they way it’s done according to the teachings of the Church. But people are within their rights, morally and ethically, to reject that later as adults.

Nor are they to act against the supernatural life that has been given to them…and the Faith infused into their soul as the greatest gift their Parents could give them.

Instead they are to be thankful for the their life and the supernatural life and their being baptized into Christ and live that life!

Well I agree with you, but then I choose to remain Catholic. It’s not the greatest gift to one who rejects it, and they are within their rights, morally and ethically, to reject it. Being Catholic is a choice. One can’t be forced to be Catholic, and God wouldn’t want it that way anyway. That’s why Jesus said to his disciples: if they don’t listen, shake the dust of that town or house, and move on to the next. Because they must come to Him on their own.

 

[Bookcat]

Well, some people do…not that it’s right. So, no you may not, though some do exactly that.

Yes and some people take guns and walk into schools and blow everyone away.

 

[Rence]

Rence

**Being Catholic is a choice, and it’s a commitment. If someone were to make the choice, and make the commitment, then it’s understandible to hold them to it. Not so when the choice wasn’t theirs. **

The choice is always theirs. They made a very conscious choice when they received the Sacrament of Confirmation.They can leave the Church any time they want. Many do.I wish sometimes that more would, because they are doing more damage to the Church from within than they could do to it from without.

As you might say, they should follow their conscience. If they don’t feel they are really Catholic, they should stop pretending to be and disgracing the name Catholic. Catholicism is a universal Church, not an “I’ll believe what I damn well want to believe” Church.

The thing is, it’s a teaching of the Church that says that once Baptised, a Catholic is Catholic forever, due to the indelible mark left on their soul by Baptism. One can’t even formally defect from the Church. So if that’s the case, why bother actually leaving, when 1) they are no ramifications for staying and not complying and 2) according to the Church, it doesn’t matter anyway. And they do feel they are Catholic, and they are not pretending. They’re just sorting it out like everyone else and are in a different stage of development than those in communion with the Church.

 

[TEPO]

Right, I totally understand what you’re saying and acknowledge the teachings of the Church. But Jewish, Muslim, and other non-Catholic women (and their families) feel they have the right to live too.

None of these religions promote the right to abortion as their fundamental teachings… We don’t need to include that in the abortion debate.

Also, the illegalization of abortion is not a form of oppression on the non-religious anymore than any other material product or commercial service is a natural human right. Remember there is no right to “services”… Ever…

 

[Bookcat]

Morally, people always have a choice. It’s not moral to commit someone else to something (whether it’s religion, marriage, or anything else) and get angry later when they reject it. Catholics, of course, Baptize their children for their own good, and because that’s they way it’s done according to the teachings of the Church.

It is very moral to do so. Just as it is moral to give them natural life to begin with and it is moral send them to a good school etc without their choice.

 

[wendy_w]

In response to the OP’s question. When I loved myself more than God I tried to
justify all the things I did or believed, when I started to love God more than myself
I wanted to follow him and do his will. Maybe that’s a simplistic way to look at it but I have found this to be true in my own life.

 

[Bookcat]

. But people are within their rights, morally and ethically, to reject that later as adults.

There is free will so yes the possibility to sin by rejection of their Baptism …of Christ exists…just like the possibility for suicide exists in terms of natural life. But they do not do right to do so in either case.

 

[Rence]

Freedom from religion is insufficient for defending the practice of killing the unborn. Abortion should be universally prohibited because the perpetrator(s) are killing ANOTHER human regardless of their particular religous beliefs.

That’s ignoring the teachings of the Muslims and the Jews who allow abortion in the case of a woman’s health being at risk. In fact, according to Jewish teaching, it would be a travesty to not protect the health of the woman if her health is at risk. So you’re saying that the Catholic religion is the only one that should be followed, and non-Catholics (such as Muslims and Jewish) don’t have the right to their beliefs. It’s really not reasonable to demand religious freedom for Catholics and not extend the same rights to non-Catholics.

Part of living in a multicultural society is representation for all, not just one.

 

[Rence]

By making abortion illegal, we are not taking anyone’s freedom of religion from them… We are not oppressing anyone any more than nature does… If nature is oppressive then what are we to think about anything…?

But on the contrary, there have been religions that have been oppressed to extinction, and it is a good thing. Think of how the conquistadors destroyed native American cannibalism as a form of worship… Now that was oppression of the Spirit.

Relativism is modern oppression of the Spirit.

I’m sorry, I may have misunderstood your post above. Can you please clear this up for me? Are you in favor of, or in opposition of, how the conquistaors destroyed the native American cultures in the name of religion?

 

[Bookcat]

It’s not the greatest gift to one who rejects it, and they are within their rights, morally and ethically, to reject it. Being Catholic is a choice.

NO. They are not within their rights morally and ethically. It is objectively gravely sinful.

Yes there is free will so yes the possibility to sin by rejection of their Baptism …of Christ exists…just like the possibility for suicide exists in terms of natural life.

But both are gravely sinful.

 

[Roy5]

Some Catholics support legal abortion because in certain extreme cases it would seem to be the lesser evil.

  One example - true story. A devoted couple had six children. They practiced 'Catholic birth control' but she became pregnant again. Her health was precarious and her doctors warned her that bearing another child could easily mean her death and that of the new baby. As a good Catholic, on the advice of her priest but against the wishes of her husband, also Catholic, she went forward. She and the baby died. The husband and the six children quickly left the Church to attend elsewhere (Episcopal). They blame the Church and even the priest. A grieving and bitter husband and six young motherless children, none over ten. 

 In such an instance, many Christians of all persuasions would follow their consciences and go along with an abortion - the lesser evil. To begin with, the position of the Church hasn't been constant. As I recall, Augustine and some other Church fathers believed that an embryo was not an actual baby until after the first two months following conception. Then, too, many believe the baby's soul, if one is already present, would spend eternity in. heaven.

  One friend added to this all the God-approved murders in the Old Testament. God drowned all humanity, including children and babies yet in the womb, in the story of Noah. He commanded Joshua to slaughter all the inhabitants of Jericho, order Saul to go and murder every living Amalekite, etc. There are verses in Exodus that call for the execution of witches and all who don't worship the Lord (see Ex. 22:18, 20), etc. As I recall, that great Doctor of the Church, Aquinas, proposed the execution of heretics. 

  A very complex issue. One might consider the 'judge not' words of Christ, who never addressed many such issues forthrightly.  

  I am generally against abortion except in a few rare cases. But I also have some sympathy for those women who are faced with heart-wrenching decisions. May God bless them and the rest of us treat them with compassion, even when we take issue with their decisions. Let those without sin cast the first stones.

.

 

[Rence]

None of these religions promote the right to abortion as their fundamental teachings… We don’t need to include that in the abortion debate.

Actually, it’s true: they both allow abortion in the case when a woman’s health is at risk. It’s false to deny it. I, of course, understand why one would not want to include that in the abortion debate, but actually, the health of the mother has always been a very big part of the debate.

 

[Rence]

It is very moral to do so. Just as it is moral to give them natural life to begin with and it is moral send them to a good school etc without their choice.

I completely understand your perspective on it, but know that many others won’t agree with you, and unforatunately, they prove it in the way they live their lives.

 

[Brendan]

That was my point way back in this thread. The tangible proof of authority actually goes to the State. They can put people in jail, even execute people. They have the authority, and if someone goes against their authority, they will get find and/or jailed. The Church can’t jail or fine people. The reality is, the Church only has as much authority over a person as they give the Church, and it is this that drives their actions. .

The Church can interdict, it can excommunicate, it can offer, or not offer the Sacraments.

It is true that the authority that people recognize only extends to the amount they care about such things.

But that is also true for the State. The actions of people are only controlled to the extent that they care about the punishments of the State. For a person who cares not about traffic fines, payment of taxes or even imprisonment or execution, in reality is not recognizing the authority of the State. The rights and punishments of the State will therefore not drive their actions. But that is different from claiming that the State has no authority.

The same holds true for the Church. Their might be some for whom the sanctions of the Church hold no meaning, but that is distinct from the Church having no authority.

 

[TEPO]

I’m sorry, I may have misunderstood your post above. Can you please clear this up for me? Are you in favor of, or in opposition of, how the conquistaors destroyed the native American cultures in the name of religion?

I didn’t say anything about culture, i was talking about immoral worship practices… Please re-read the post and stick to the point I was making.

 

[Rence]

There is free will so yes the possibility to sin by rejection of their Baptism …of Christ exists…just like the possibility for suicide exists in terms of natural life. But they do not do right to do so in either case.

Well, I can understand that you don’t think they have the right to reject their Baptism. We’re Catholic and that’s what the Church teaches. But to someone who has rejected their Baptism, or even just the teachings while still identifying culturally as Catholic, what the Church teaches really doesn’t matter. Maybe someday it will, but until it does, they’ve rejected the teachings and choose to live their lives without those teachings.

 

[Bookcat]

I completely understand your perspective on it, but know that many others won’t agree with you, and unforatunately, they prove it in the way they live their lives.

Yes people live in all sorts of ways contrary to how they ought to live. Such does not make it right or good for them to do so or make their “disagreement” correct.