Why do some Catholics support legal abortion?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Charlemagne_II
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Bookcat said:
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.
Click to expand...
Declaration of Independence. It’s more than one sentence.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed
Click to expand...
Also the Pursuit of Happiness is listed with Life, Pursuit of Happiness and Liberty are self determination. The a right that you are are denying woman that don’t want to be pregnant. So…
 
Adolphus_WC said:
Also the Pursuit of Happiness is listed with Life, Pursuit of Happiness and Liberty are self determination. The a right that you are are denying woman that don’t want to be pregnant. So…
Click to expand...
Life comes first. As to self determination -she does not A. have the right to evil in seeking such. Does not have the right to kill her little baby. And B. Self determination has its limits. Killing ones child is certainly one of em.
 
Adolphus_WC said:
Declaration of Independence. It’s more than one sentence.

Also the Pursuit of Happiness is listed with Life, Pursuit of Happiness and Liberty are self determination. The a right that you are are denying woman that don’t want to be pregnant. So…
Click to expand...
Why is it that you cannot, or you will not, acknowledge the rights of the life living inside of the woman of whom you defend her choice to end? That little one has a right to be born not murdered. A woman has no right to kill her child, can’t you see this???

You speak for evil as the Church states, abortion is intrinsically evil. It is never a viable option.
 
Lapey said:
Why is it that you cannot, or you will not, acknowledge the rights of the life living inside of the woman of whom you defend her choice to end? That little one has a right to be born not murdered. A woman has no right to kill her child, can’t you see this???

You speak for evil as the Church states, abortion is intrinsically evil. It is never a viable option.
Click to expand...
Why will you not acknowledge the right of the woman? Does she not have rights to her own body? She doesn’t want the life inside her. The fact that it will not develop is an unintended consequence, per the law of double effect.
 
Two questions that always have troubled me.
Code: 
 1. Why miscarriages? They, after all, are the most frequent of all abortions. If Mother Nature - or is it God? - that produces these, why? Yes, I know. There was something wrong with the fetus. On the other hand, if God had intended for that baby to be born, why wasn't that fetus formed correctly?

  2. We make a lot out of abortions, and I agree. Except in very exceptional cases - like to save the life of the mother - I oppose them. But how many Christians get enraged by abortions but support the destruction of countless lives in wars, often unwise wars (e. g., Iraq). And how do we deal with God drowning all those people, including children and babies still in the womb, in the time of Noah, God ordering Joshua to slaughter all the inhabitants of Jericho, and God telling Saul to murder every remaining Amalekite? How does this fit the whole idea that God is merciful and forgiving and loves folks of every race, color and creed? 

  Just wondering.

  My guess is that many people are confused by scripture and/or by Mother Nature.
 
Adolphus_WC said:
If the mother and child are in equal jeopardy who has the right to life?
Click to expand...
Both have an equal right to live.

Let me re-word your scenario, if a mother and young child are walking down the street and a gunman approaches and starts shooting, if the mother takes her child and shields her own body with the body of her child, would you claim this would be the prudent thing to do?

How about this, lets say a couple have two kids, both girls, they want no more kids but find themselves pregnant with a son according to the ultrasound; they’ve always wanted a son. Their situation forbids them to have three children, housing, finances and other issues. What are their choices? Should they one, be forced to have the third child; two abort the third child even though it is the son they always wanted; or three, terminate one of the two girls to make room for the boy?

Can you see the idiocy of this discussion? Where do we stop? What about the euthanasia of mentally handicapped children talked about on Dr. Phil’s show recently? Is that a person’s choice too?
 
Adolphus_WC said:
Why will you not acknowledge the right of the woman? Does she not have rights to her own body? She doesn’t want the life inside her. The fact that it will not develop is an unintended consequence, per the law of double effect.
Click to expand...
No she does not have a right to kill her child. Period.

There is no “right to her body” here.

Such is a very very grave error in thinking.

She is now a Mother and must now Mother that Child and may not kill him.

And as to the principle of double effect – such is a DIRECT VIOLATION of the Principle of Double effect.

The means to the end can never be an evil. Such is an intrinsic evil and such would be a direct violation of the Principle of Double effect.
 
Bookcat said:
No she does not have a right to kill her child. Period.

There is not “right to her body” here.

Such is a very very grave error in thinking.

She is now a Mother and must now Mother that Child may not kill him.

And as to the principle of double effect – such is a DIRECT VIOLATION of the Principle of Double effect.

The means to the end can never be an evil. Such is an intrinsic evil and such would be a direct violation of the Principle of Double effect.
Click to expand...
Amen!

An example of double affect principle would be an ectopic pregnancy, a pregnancy outside of the womb. The operation to save the mother would remove the tube where the embryo is implanted and the end result would be that the fetus dies. The goal is to remove what endangers the mother, not kill the baby; this would be the double affect. The result would cause a loss of reproductive ability and the death of the fetus, but the mother would live.

I direct intervention that would intentionally take the life of the baby, save the mother and save the ability to reproduce is an abortion and intrinsically evil.
 
Lapey said:
Both have an equal right to live.

Let me re-word your scenario, if a mother and young child are walking down the street and a gunman approaches and starts shooting, if the mother takes her child and shields her own body with the body of her child, would you claim this would be the prudent thing to do?

How about this, lets say a couple have two kids, both girls, they want no more kids but find themselves pregnant with a son according to the ultrasound; they’ve always wanted a son. Their situation forbids them to have three children, housing, finances and other issues. What are their choices? Should they one, be forced to have the third child; two abort the third child even though it is the son they always wanted; or three, terminate one of the two girls to make room for the boy?

Can you see the idiocy of this discussion? Where do we stop? What about the euthanasia of mentally handicapped children talked about on Dr. Phil’s show recently? Is that a person’s choice too?
Click to expand...
No, because in the other scenarios you are talking about full formed and born human beings.

How about a child that is the only organ donor match for an adult do you force the child to donate the organ, if they will both live? Doesn’t the adult have the right to live?

Or if that is too ridiculous, siblings? Do you force one sibling to save the other.
 
Lapey said:
Amen!

An example of double affect principle would be an ectopic pregnancy, a pregnancy outside of the womb. The operation to save the mother would remove the tube where the embryo is implanted and the end result would be that the fetus dies. The goal is to remove what endangers the mother, not kill the baby; this would be the double affect. The result would cause a loss of reproductive ability and the death of the fetus, but the mother would live.

I direct intervention that would intentionally take the life of the baby, save the mother and save the ability to reproduce is an abortion and intrinsically evil.
Click to expand...
Yes …when the tube becomes a danger to the mother the tube can be thus be potentially removed. The do not intend and do not want the death of the child but the accept such as the unintended side effect.

Many cases though the child dies and the tube does not become problematic for the Mother. So it is wait and see for a while.

Very sad loss for the Parents either way.
 
Adolphus_WC said:
No, because in the other scenarios you are talking about full formed and born human beings.

How about a child that is the only organ donor match for an adult do you force the child to donate the organ, if they will both live? Doesn’t the adult have the right to live?

Or if that is too ridiculous, siblings? Do you force one sibling to save the other.
Click to expand...
So you are equating a natural death to abortion?
 
Adolphus_WC said:
Why will you not acknowledge the right of the woman? Does she not have rights to her own body? She doesn’t want the life inside her. The fact that it will not develop is an unintended consequence, per the law of double effect.
Click to expand...
Her ‘right to not be pregnant’ (assuming there ever was such a thing) ended when she decided to take action that could end in pregnancy.
 
Lapey said:
So you are equating a natural death to abortion?
Click to expand...
If the organ donation (the use of another body) isn’t made the other will die.

The fetus is dependent on another body, the mother, without it, the fetus will die.
 
Adolphus_WC said:
If the organ donation (the use of another body) isn’t made the other will die.

The fetus is dependent on another body, the mother, without it, the fetus will die.
Click to expand...
If the fetus is left to develop where God put it, it will develop as God intended, and be born as God intended.

If a medical issue arises naturally, and left alone the person will die, isn’t this as natural as a man and woman having sex and conception takes place then a baby comes? Where does the natural death by the hands of the doctor come in?

This is a stretch! A human mind can come up with anything to justify its actions and desires.
 
Lapey said:
If the fetus is left to develop where God put it, it will develop as God intended, and be born as God intended.

If a medical issue arises naturally, and left alone the person will die, isn’t this as natural as a man and woman having sex and conception takes place then a baby comes? Where does the natural death by the hands of the doctor come in?

This is a stretch! A human mind can come up with anything to justify its actions and desires.
Click to expand...
I’m only asking does one person have to right to another persons body in order to live.
 
Adolphus_WC said:
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?
Click to expand...
Let me explain what I meant. Biology shows us that an unborn child is a unique, living, human. And because I want my right to life protected I want every unique living humans life protected. Because of this I want the law to protect life before other things.

The fact that I see the human at every stage of development as a full human being comes from biology. That I believe they should therefore have the right to life protected by law comes from my desire to live in a society whose first priority is to protect the lives of those who live in it. I assure you that while these coincide with the views of the catholic church, they are not based upon it. I have much less of a problem with contraception being legal than abortion. I recognize that many do not view sex the way that I do. But the right to life is fundamental to a society so I don’t see how it can be good for a society to allow many innocent members to be killed because of the preferences of others.
 
Adolphus_WC said:
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?
Click to expand...
Both.

You cannot murder either for the life of the other.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top