Why do some Catholics support legal abortion?

[Adolphus_WC]

Correction.
The law recognizes the rights.

Remember, rights are given by God, not the court system.

So the right to vote is God given? What about the Divine Right of Kings?

In the USA children and adults have different legal rights. e.x. Adults can vote, children cannot.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Adolphus

**A adult has legal rights and privileges that an infant does not. **

The infant has legal rights that an adult does not have.

For example: the right to rely on his parents for food, clothing, education, protection from harm, etc.

Does that make him more human than his parents? No. It only means he has different rights.

But all of us have the right to live out our lives, and no mother has the right to take her child’s life.

Nor does an evil, money grubbing surgeon have that right.

Nor does a Supreme Court have the right to cancel the laws of the Supreme Being.

 

[thewanderer]

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.

No, it comes down to the fact of the matter that babies result from fertile sex, even sometimes when using artificial means to prevent them. Is the right to life going to become subordinate to the right to engage in consequence free sex? This is a question that belongs in the secular sphere and I am addressing it on that level. I do not want to live in a society that does not put life as the most important right and so subordinate all other rights of its members to the right to life because I do not want my right to life to become subordinate to some other right of someone else. How is this arguing from a religious basis?

 

[Adolphus_WC]

Adolphus

**A adult has legal rights and privileges that an infant does not. **

The infant has legal rights that an adult does not have.

For example: the right to rely on his parents for food, clothing, education, protection from harm, etc.

Does that make him more human than his parents? No. It only means he has different rights.

But all of us have the right to live out our lives, and no mother has the right to take her child’s life.

Nor does an evil, money grubbing surgeon have that right.

Nor does a Supreme Court have the right to cancel the laws of the Supreme Being.

I agree there are different rights and responsibilities between Adults and Children. We are talking about the Law of the Land, not divine law.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

wanderer
**
How is this arguing from a religious basis? **

Exactly!

This should not be a question of the Catholic Church versus secular society. It should be a question of every person’s right to live superseding every other right, and certainly superseding anyone’s right to their convenience.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Adolphus

The law of the land once permitted slavery, the right of adults to own other adults.

That was a lawful right, but it should not have been, should it?

At least the slave could flee from the whip.

Can the infant in the womb flee from the surgeon’s knife?

 

[Lapey]

I agree there are different rights and responsibilities between Adults and Children. We are talking about the Law of the Land, not divine law.

I am sorry, but when talking of life issues, the only law that matters is divine law. Life issues will be judged by God, not man.

You are conflicted between man made laws and God’s law. If you live your life by what man says is the way to be, you may find yourself saying “Lord, Lord…” and hear nothing but echoes.

I would ask this question, if God’s law and man’s law contradicts each other on the subject of life, which should we follow? Also, to address your implications of rights differences for infants and adults I ask this, does an embryo have less right to live than an adult in God’s eyes?

 

[Adolphus_WC]

No, it comes down to the fact of the matter that babies result from fertile sex, even sometimes when using artificial means to prevent them. Is the right to life going to become subordinate to the right to engage in consequence free sex? This is a question that belongs in the secular sphere and I am addressing it on that level. I do not want to live in a society that does not put life as the most important right and so subordinate all other rights of its members to the right to life because I do not want my right to life to become subordinate to some other right of someone else. How is this arguing from a religious basis?

If a non christian couple marries and chooses not to have children for whatever reason what are their options. Mechanical Birth Control, Chemical Birth Control and Sterilization. These are currently legal yet immoral by Catholic standards. Also legal but immoral is abortion. All the choices are immoral by Catholic standards. All are grave sins.

If Catholic sin isn’t a concern, they are agnostic / atheist, it’s very hard to argue against birth control. So if birth control fails, their only option is adoption. You are going against the woman’s right to self determination. She doesn’t want children.

So again viability rears it’s ugly head. If we are going to force her to carry the child, how long to we have to force her. We are making her sacrifice some of her rights. Are we going to have to confine her for 5 months to make sure she keeps the well being of the child at the forefront? Not abusing alcohol, drugs etc Keep her away from dangerous situations that might harm the fetus.

Even Judaism the root of Catholicism says the embryo is a life in development, not a human life. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judaism_and_abortion

 

[Adolphus_WC]

I am sorry, but when talking of life issues, the only law that matters is divine law. Life issues will be judged by God, not man.

You are conflicted between man made laws and God’s law. If you live your life by what man says is the way to be, you may find yourself saying “Lord, Lord…” and hear nothing but echoes.

I would ask this question, if God’s law and man’s law contradicts each other on the subject of life, which should we follow? Also, to address your implications of rights differences for infants and adults I ask this, does an embryo have less right to live than an adult in God’s eyes?

Deacon you are jumping in late, but to recap. There are people other than Catholics in America. Not all share Catholic religious views. So in speaking about the laws of the land, Catholics should take divine law seriously but in Democracy secular view points are as valid as we are not a Theocracy. The people make laws. We aren’t a Catholic Nation.

 

[thewanderer]

If a non christian couple marries and chooses not to have children for whatever reason what are their options. Mechanical Birth Control, Chemical Birth Control and Sterilization. These are currently legal yet immoral by Catholic standards. Also legal but immoral is abortion. All the choices are immoral by Catholic standards. All are grave sins.

If Catholic sin isn’t a concern, they are agnostic / atheist, it’s very hard to argue against birth control. So if birth control fails, their only option is adoption. You are going against the woman’s right to self determination. She doesn’t want children.

So again viability rears it’s ugly head. If we are going to force her to carry the child, how long to we have to force her. We are making her sacrifice some of her rights. Are we going to have to confine her for 5 months to make sure she keeps the well being of the child at the forefront? Not abusing alcohol, drugs etc Keep her away from dangerous situations that might harm the fetus.

Even Judaism the root of Catholicism says the embryo is a life in development, not a human life. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judaism_and_abortion

Ok, but like I said, I am not basing any arguments off of religion. When I think about the kind of society I want to live in, I wan to live in a society that values life above every other right because I think it is extremely important for the functioning of a society, how can it protect its members and thier rights if it allows their right to life to become subordinate to someone else’s preferences? This makes me believe that a society must always put the right to life as the most important right. Then, through what I have learned through biology I have come to the conclusion that the child in utero is actually a living human individual. I don’t see how one can claim anything else, biologically speaking. In other words, putting these two things together, neither of which come from religious principles I get the conclusion that it is bad for society to allow abortion and that I do not want to live in such a society as there is the possibility that it will eventually decide to put someone else’s preferences before my right to life.

Again, I ask, How in the world is this a religious argument or even specifically a religious question?

 

[Adolphus_WC]

Adolphus

The law of the land once permitted slavery, the right of adults to own other adults.

That was a lawful right, but it should not have been, should it?

At least the slave could flee from the whip.

Can the infant in the womb flee from the surgeon’s knife?

The bible condones Slavery so I find this argument very confusing.

 

[Adolphus_WC]

Ok, but like I said, I am not basing any arguments off of religion. When I think about the kind of society I want to live in, I wan to live in a society that values life above every other right because I think it is extremely important for the functioning of a society, how can it protect its members and thier rights if it allows their right to life to become subordinate to someone else’s preferences? This makes me believe that a society must always put the right to life as the most important right. Then, through what I have learned through biology I have come to the conclusion that the child in utero is actually a living human individual. I don’t see how one can claim anything else, biologically speaking. In other words, putting these two things together, neither of which come from religious principles I get the conclusion that it is bad for society to allow abortion and that I do not want to live in such a society as there is the possibility that it will eventually decide to put someone else’s preferences before my right to life.

Again, I ask, How in the world is this a religious argument or even specifically a religious question?

Because you have given the emerging life personhood and citizenship from conception. Not everyone take that view.

Even the right to life given our current technology gets gross and distorted if taken to an extreme, keeping brain dead people “Alive” just because we can. It’s a mockery of life imo.

 

[Lapey]

I agree there are different rights and responsibilities between Adults and Children. We are talking about the Law of the Land, not divine law.

CCC

2242 The citizen is obliged in conscience not to follow the directives of civil authorities when they are contrary to the demands of the moral order, to the fundamental rights of persons or the teachings of the Gospel. Refusing obedience to civil authorities, when their demands are contrary to those of an upright conscience, finds its justification in the distinction between serving God and serving the political community. “Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” Matt. 22:21 “We must obey God rather than men” Acts 5:29

 

[Adolphus_WC]

CCC

2242 The citizen is obliged in conscience not to follow the directives of civil authorities when they are contrary to the demands of the moral order, to the fundamental rights of persons or the teachings of the Gospel. Refusing obedience to civil authorities, when their demands are contrary to those of an upright conscience, finds its justification in the distinction between serving God and serving the political community. “Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” Matt. 22:21 “We must obey God rather than men” Acts 5:29

No one is making Catholics have abortions, use contraception or get a divorce. You can be self prohibitive and still be in compliance with the law.

 

[Lapey]

Deacon you are jumping in late, but to recap. There are people other than Catholics in America. Not all share Catholic religious views. So in speaking about the laws of the land, Catholics should take divine law seriously but in Democracy secular view points are as valid as we are not a Theocracy. The people make laws. We aren’t a Catholic Nation.

Oh, I’m so sorry I jumped in late. But my timing changes no truth. We are a Christian nation, no matter what Obama says. It is not a theocracy to honor the constitution by protecting life. The way RvW was decided was a manipulation of the constitution, not a translation of it.

A Catholic must take the teachings of the Church over unjust law. There is no other option for a Catholic if one wants to stay in good graces with God and His Church.

 

[thewanderer]

Because you have given the emerging life personhood and citizenship from conception. Not everyone take that view.

Even the right to life given our current technology gets gross and distorted if taken to an extreme, keeping brain dead people “Alive” just because we can. It’s a mockery of life imo.

No, I have come to two different conclusions, neither of which is based on religion in anyway, and realized that the conclusion of holding both of them is that unborn children should be given the right to life and not have it supercede by others preferences.

Again, How is this a religious argument?

 

[Lapey]

No one is making Catholics have abortions, use contraception or get a divorce. You can be self prohibitive and still be in compliance with the law.

You can choose whatever angle you like, but an unjust law is just that, unjust. It is our duty to protect the most vulnerable among us. You and I are bound by our Catholic identity to protect the unborn. To sit quietly because nothing is being forced upon us is participating. Inaction is action, no statement is a very loud statement; we must speak out and work to end this scourge on the world.

 

[Adolphus_WC]

You can choose whatever angle you like, but an unjust law is just that, unjust. It is our duty to protect the most vulnerable among us. You and I are bound by our Catholic identity to protect the unborn. To sit quietly because nothing is being forced upon us is participating. Inaction is action, no statement is a very loud statement; we must speak out and work to end this scourge on the world.

It’s not an angle. No one is forcing Catholics to have an abortion. Nor to use contraception nor get a Divorce.

You don’t have to violate any Law, human or divine to be in compliance.

 

[Adolphus_WC]

No, I have come to two different conclusions, neither of which is based on religion in anyway, and realized that the conclusion of holding both of them is that unborn children should be given the right to life and not have it supercede by others preferences.

Again, How is this a religious argument?

That every stage of human development is a full human being worthy of the rights of the born.

If the mother and child are in equal jeopardy who has the right to life?

 

[Bookcat]

And life is the most fundamental of rights!

Gee…now wasn’t there some document from 1776 in America that recognized such God given fundamental self evident rights…

Not that it gave the rights …no. That was clear. Rather it simply acknowledged them as having been given by the Creator.