Why do some Catholics support legal abortion?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Charlemagne_II
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Charlemagne_II said:
Roy

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.

No one here is for casting stones, except maybe the people who want to cast stones at the unborn.

I just wish our compassion for the unborn would exceed our compassion for those who are so inconvenienced by the unborn that they need to kill them.
Click to expand...
I could not agree with you more. The vast majority of abortions today are done for convenience and for profit - not for a health issue, rape or incest.

While I am strongly pro-life, I do not judge women who have had abortions. I’m sure most were very scared when they have gone to their clinic for help. My greater concern is were they provided with all information and options available to them? Did they get to see the ultra sound of their baby? Were they given the emotional support they needed?

Abortion is not a decision to be made lightly, and so many women who have gone through this procedure reach a point later on where they deeply regret their choice and suffer much emotional turmoil the rest of their lives.

We must never cease in praying for our unborn, and also for protection of these expectant mothers so that they recieve the truth, love and support they need prior to going through with this procedure.
 
Adolphus_WC said:
They are able to gestate because of the woman allowing it.
Click to expand...
If I had a gun, does that mean that I am allowing those within range to live? Or would I be denying their right to live if I shot them?
. Does the woman have a right to deny another being to inhabit her body?
Click to expand...
She has no more of a right to kill an innocent person with her body that I have a right to kill an innocent person in my home.
 
Keith_W_OR_USA said:
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.
Click to expand...
Such would be gravely contrary to God and to Christians down through the centuries…including Protestant Christians. God while he gives us free will wants us to choose the good and reject evil – including both the grave evils there.
 
Keith_W_OR_USA said:
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.
.
Click to expand...
Suggest you go here: pop.org/

You have some misconceptions.
 
Bookcat said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Adolphus_WC said:
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.
Click to expand...
She is NOT exercising the right to self-determination there. She is dealing with one who is NOT herself. But is other than herself.

The question at hand though is regarding Catholics supporting legal abortion.

They cannot -such is gravely sinful and contrary to Christ.
 
Keith_W_OR_USA said:
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.
Click to expand...
Necessary evil…? That’s another way of appeasing Relativism.
 
Adolphus WC and others - no one has yet addressed the first half of post #168, where I point out that our tax money is paying for abortions; thus as long as it’s legal, we ARE being forced to participate in an immoral act.

Curious if anyone has any sort of reply / rebuttal.
 
Bookcat said:
She is NOT exercising the right to self-determination there. She is dealing with one who is NOT herself. But is other than herself.

The question at hand though is regarding Catholics supporting legal abortion.

They cannot -such is gravely sinful and contrary to Christ.
Click to expand...
The fetus isn’t “not herself” until the 22 week. It isn’t viable (able to live without the womb). So until that point she is giving her body so another may live.

Would it be ok to force transfusions? Force adoptions? Organ donation?
 
Adolphus_WC said:
The fetus isn’t “not herself” until the 22 week. It isn’t viable (able to live without the womb). So until that point she is giving her body so another may live.
Click to expand...
Being able to live outside of the womb is not the measure of being another human. I refer you back to my posts above too about those who argue that we should be able to kill our children too who are already born and yet are not able to survive on their own.

“until that point she is giving her body so another may live”. --noting such is already recognizing that another is living within. The Mother is to be a Mother. Period. The other within must be protected. It is not a question of “self determination”. She would be determining out of life the innocent child within if she chose abortion.

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.
 
AthenaC said:
Adolphus WC and others - no one has yet addressed the first half of post #168, where I point out that our tax money is paying for abortions; thus as long as it’s legal, we ARE being forced to participate in an immoral act.

Curious if anyone has any sort of reply / rebuttal.
Click to expand...
The posts are flying fast and furious hard to catch them all. - All acts have unintentional consequences. Any purchase you make probably has a consequence somewhere along the line that you’d be uncomfortable with. We can’t determine where our funds go just our intent when we spend them. Our taxes support immoral wars. The gas I buy can fund terrorists. The clothes and food I buy may cause others to be exploited.

I personally think health care is a greater good than the evil of abortion. It comes under the doctrine of double effect. I am not intending abortions I am intending health care, which is a greater good.
 
Adolphus_WC said:
The posts are flying fast and furious hard to catch them all. - All acts have unintentional consequences. Any purchase you make probably has a consequence somewhere along the line that you’d be uncomfortable with. We can’t determine where our funds go just our intent when we spend them. Our taxes support immoral wars. The gas I buy can fund terrorists. The clothes and food I buy may cause others to be exploited.

I personally think health care is a greater good than the evil of abortion. It comes under the doctrine of double effect. I am not intending abortions I am intending health care, which is a greater good.
Click to expand...
Which does not excuse us from doing our best to make sure our money doesn’t go to support things we find abhorrent, through lobbying to change the law and the things our government funds.
 
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.
 
AthenaC said:
Which does not excuse us from doing our best to make sure our money doesn’t go to support things we find abhorrent, through lobbying to change the law and the things our government funds.
Click to expand...
Government by nature is compromise. It is a vehicle for the collective good. If the collective good is served some unintentional outcomes are permissible.

It is the basis of Just War theory. (A Catholic Doctrine)
 
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...
What?

The choosing of some arbitrary criteria is just that. An arbitrary criteria.

Why not set the line at some other point? As others have already done.

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

spensershope.org/chances_for_survival.htm
Click to expand...
In Roman times --the Pagans would lay the newborn at the feet of their Father.

If he picked him up – he lived.

If not --he was *exposed *(left outside on his own --to die).

The early Christians had a strange habit of picking up these little ones and raising them as their own.
 
Adolphus_WC said:
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.
Click to expand...
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?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top