Why do some Catholics support legal abortion?

[Lapey]

Because I don’t see it as a fallacy

This is where your conscience is ill formed. We are bound to follow our conscience, but the conscience must be properly formed by sound doctrine, not man made laws.

When I was much younger than I am now, I am 46, I was one who thought the same way you do. It’s not my choice to say no to another, that’s their choice. But as you do in your arguments, I de-humanized the little one developing in the womb. That soul needs us to protect it, sadly against its own mother. We are bound to protect the most vulnerable, not the mother’s choice as you are here; our responsibility is the small child within.

 

[Lapey]

I’m only asking does one person have to right to another persons body in order to live.

Do you see what you are doing to justify your belief? You are putting the child against its mother, like it is a tumor. This is a child of God, not a tumor of infection.

 

[vz71]

Correction. They are human beings.
Why do you keep falling for the fallacy that physical difference means difference in humanity?
Adolphus WC;9251042:

Because I don’t see it as a fallacy

It is. This has been gone over in this thread many times.

This line of reasoning reminds me of the skinheads that refuse to recognize the humanity in others because they are black.

It is repugnant.

 

[Bookcat]

I’m only asking does one person have to right to another persons body in order to live.

Such is a very odd way of phrasing such. Not one in keeping with the reality of Motherhood and babyhood.

But if one must…

Yes a Child has a right to be in the Mothers womb and to live.

 

[vz71]

I’m only asking does one person have to right to another persons body in order to live.

The precedent is already there.
Every infant is 100% dependent upon the parents.

They work throughout the day and through the night providing for the child.

If they do not, the state can and frequently does, punish them.

 

[Lapey]

Such is a very odd way of phrasing such. Not one in keeping with the reality of Motherhood and babyhood.

But if one must…

Yes a Child has a right to be in the Mothers womb and to live.

…and agin I say, AMEN!

 

[Bookcat]

Do you see what you are doing to justify your belief? You are putting the child against its mother, like it is a tumor. This is a child of God, not a tumor of infection.

Nor a “home invader”

or a new version of “invasion of the body snatchers”

rather a living child in the womb of their Mother.

 

[Adolphus_WC]

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.

I disagree that’s what biology shows. If you take a zygote and manually split it you can have twins, split them and you can have quadruplets. The zygote isn’t a human yet. Where we can make that determination is fuzzy, biologically but not in theology.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Adolphus

**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. **

Who said we are arguing for theocracy? We are arguing for human rights. That is a point you will never concede because it blows your whole argument right out of the water.

The Catholic view is “Thou shalt not kill.”

The civil law says the same thing.

But then the civil law says go ahead and kill if it’s a child in the womb who cannot scream for help and whom we can safely ignore because he cannot vote now or ever once he is vacuumed from his mother’s womb by the killer.

We are not just talking about God’s law. We are talking about natural law. The law of every nation has been against murder without even considering Catholic theology. But the nation’s law has been corrupted by the criminal mind, which does not see in the child in the womb the same right to live that a 100 year old has at the opposite end of life’s term.

 

[Adolphus_WC]

Do you see what you are doing to justify your belief? You are putting the child against its mother, like it is a tumor. This is a child of God, not a tumor of infection.

That is the debate in Secular law. The woman has the right to control her own body. If she doesn’t want to allow another life the use of it, how can we force it. If we can force her can we force organ donation? Blood transfusions?

The Church’s stance is clear.

 

[vz71]

I disagree that’s what biology shows. If you take a zygote and manually split it you can have twins, split them and you can have quadruplets. The zygote isn’t a human yet. Where we can make that determination is fuzzy, biologically but not in theology.

Yes it is. This too has been gone over many times in this thread.
The zygote is after conception, and as has been said many times, life begins at conception.
And further, it is a human being, it has a human genetic code.

Why do we have to keep gvoing over points that have already been established?

Some may look at this and believe that there is no more reasoning, just stubbornness.

 

[Lapey]

I disagree that’s what biology shows. If you take a zygote and manually split it you can have twins, split them and you can have quadruplets. The zygote isn’t a human yet. Where we can make that determination is fuzzy, biologically but not in theology.

Nothing too complicated, a fertilized egg is a life. That is called conception. That life is as valuable as the 25 year old mother who chooses to end that life. There is no right to end it, just like there is no right to end the life of the child already born.

As has been stated, if an infant is left unattended and it dies from neglect, would the parent be charged? Yes they would. So in your way of thinking, after the baby is born it is most definitely dependant on another body to take care of it, so society does mandate that the parent care for the child or give the child’s care over to another who will.

 

[Bookcat]

That is the debate in Secular law. The woman has the right to control her own body. If she doesn’t want to allow another life the use of it, how can we force it. .

A child “the use of” his Mothers body??

Come on.

So what should the Mothers Day card look like this year --in a couple weeks?

“Thank you Mom for letting me use your body and not killing me”??

We are talking about a Mother and her little child.

 

[vz71]

That is the debate in Secular law. The woman has the right to control her own body.

And another point that has been gone over.

There is no valid debate. A valid debate requires valid but differing points of view.
In this case, there are no valid opposing points of view. There is simply right and wrong.

There are facts, and then there are people that want death and destruction, and there are people that do not know the facts.

Where do you fall?

 

[Lapey]

That is the debate in Secular law. The woman has the right to control her own body. If she doesn’t want to allow another life the use of it, how can we force it. If we can force her can we force organ donation? Blood transfusions?

The Church’s stance is clear.

There is a distinct difference, and you ignore it. Secular law doesn’t matter, it is unjust law; judicial law at that. The founders of this great nation had no intention of the privacy clause allowing mothers to kill their children.

Organ donation or blood transfusions are red herrings to solidify your argument.

 

[Adolphus_WC]

Nothing too complicated, a fertilized egg is a life. That is called conception. That life is as valuable as the 25 year old mother who chooses to end that life. There is no right to end it, just like there is no right to end the life of the child already born.

As has been stated, if an infant is left unattended and it dies from neglect, would the parent be charged? Yes they would. So in your way of thinking, after the baby is born it is most definitely dependant on another body to take care of it, so society does mandate that the parent care for the child or give the child’s care over to another who will.

I’ve addressed this before. A child that has been born can be cared for by any human adult. It need not be a parent. A fetus needs to be in the womb to develop. One pregnancy one womb. There is no womb swapping.

 

[Adolphus_WC]

There is a distinct difference, and you ignore it. Secular law doesn’t matter, it is unjust law; judicial law at that. The founders of this great nation had no intention of the privacy clause allowing mothers to kill their children.

Organ donation or blood transfusions are red herrings to solidify your argument.

They aren’t red herrings just another example of one person using another person’s body to live.

Secular law does matter in the secular world. There are more than Catholics living in the U.S.A.

 

[Bookcat]

A child “the use of” his Mothers body??

Come on.

So what should the Mothers Day card look like this year --in a couple weeks?

“Thank you Mom for letting me use your body and not killing me”??

We are talking about a Mother and her little child.

 

[Adolphus_WC]

A child “the use of” his Mothers body??

Come on.

So what should the Mothers Day card look like this year --in a couple weeks?

“Thank you Mom for letting me use your body and not killing me”??

We are talking about a Mother and her little child.

I do send a similar one to my birth mother. Not as crass though.

 

[thewanderer]

I disagree that’s what biology shows. If you take a zygote and manually split it you can have twins, split them and you can have quadruplets. The zygote isn’t a human yet. Where we can make that determination is fuzzy, biologically but not in theology.

Thats fine, I realize there are people who disagree about that, but my conclusion from looking at biology is, as I have stated. The point I was trying to make is that religious arguments are not the only arguments that can be made against abortion being legal. There are other reasoned arguments that are not solely based on ‘God told us so’. In other words, it is perfectly legitimate to question this law without being in danger of trying to “impose one’s beliefs” on others. This is something that it sounded like you were implying. maybe you did not mean to imply this. I hope we are in agreement on this, though, that there is room for debate on this topic and if someone argues against it that doesn’t automatically mean they are trying to “impose their beliefs” on others. Just so you know, before I actually decided that biology does show that the unborn child is a living human, I was still against abortion because of the very fact that it is unclear that it isn’t. I realize not everyone thinks this way, but I for one, don’t want to live ina society that will claim its ok to start killing things that mightbe living humans. Again, this is coming from my reasoning about the importance of the right to life in a society, not necessarily from religious beliefs as you put it.