Why do some Catholics support legal abortion?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Charlemagne_II
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Adolphus_WC said:
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.
Click to expand...
Okay, so let’s see if I get it, pregnancy is a disease. If a person is forced to carry to term a baby they do not want, it is equivalent to forcing a person to suffer a 9 month period of cancer, right? Only difference is, in cancer the one who is sick dies, and in pregnancy the one who has done absolutely nothing but be conceived by the choice of the mother and father by having sex is put to death. Oh, yea I see your point now.:rolleyes:

Pregnancy is not a sickness, contraceptives are not preventative care. A baby is not a tumor to be removed because it is not wanted. How about this choice, don’t have sex if you do not want a child? Wouldn’t that work? If you choose to have sex, then expect that you may end up pregnant; and when that happens do what it right, DON”T KILL YOUR BABY!👍
 
thewanderer said:
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.
Click to expand...
Understood. What I was trying to convey is that the theology is clear and absolute the biology is not. I do understand trying to err on the side of caution.
 
Adolphus_WC said:
People debate when the life is considered a Human Being rather than a potential human being
Click to expand...
Adolphus_WC said:
I do understand trying to err on the side of caution.
Click to expand...
If I were a hunter (which I am not) and I and my friend Sam was out in the woods hunting.

And we saw something stir up a head but could not tell if it was a person or if it was a deer.

And we even quietly debated back and forth …he thought it was a person but I thought it was maybe a deer …

And I decided to go ahead and shoot.

Well even if it turned out to be a deer – I would have done very wrong.

For I shot what was a “potential person”.

One must not shoot in such a situation.
 
Lapey said:
Okay, so let’s see if I get it, pregnancy is a disease. If a person is forced to carry to term a baby they do not want, it is equivalent to forcing a person to suffer a 9 month period of cancer, right? Only difference is, in cancer the one who is sick dies, and in pregnancy the one who has done absolutely nothing but be conceived by the choice of the mother and father by having sex is put to death. Oh, yea I see your point now.:rolleyes:

Pregnancy is not a sickness, contraceptives are not preventative care. A baby is not a tumor to be removed because it is not wanted. How about this choice, don’t have sex if you do not want a child? Wouldn’t that work? If you choose to have sex, then expect that you may end up pregnant; and when that happens do what it right, DON”T KILL YOUR BABY!👍
Click to expand...
Most people are overjoyed at the news of a pregnancy, there are some that aren’t. Your rhetoric still doesn’t answer the question. Does one person have the right to use another person’s body against their will?
 
Adolphus_WC said:
Does one person have the right to use another person’s body against their will?
Click to expand...
Such is rather “1984” speech.

What the child is now the “home invader”?

or a new version of “invasion of the body snatchers” ?
 
Adolphus_WC said:
Most people are overjoyed at the news of a pregnancy, there are some that aren’t. Your rhetoric still doesn’t answer the question. Does one person have the right to use another person’s body against their will?
Click to expand...
I have to wonder about phrasing the question this way… It seems to leave out a part of the picture. I believe the full question is "Does anyone have the right to kill those that interfere with them using their body as they please?"

It is misleading to ask about the right of the child to use the mother for its development. The child has no rational choice in this. It is what the child naturally does. You only punish people for doing something when they choose to do it.
 
Adolphus_WC said:
Most people are overjoyed at the news of a pregnancy, there are some that aren’t. Your rhetoric still doesn’t answer the question. Does one person have the right to use another person’s body against their will?
Click to expand...
If you will be disappointed with a pregnancy then refrain from sex. My words are not rhetoric; they are the words of truth proclaimed by the Church. If you mistakenly believe that my pro-life stance and work is driven by partisan politics then you are sorely mistaken. You can accuse me of being w partisan republican who doesn’t feel for the mother, but you purposely fail to represent the right and safety of the child.

To answer you foolishly worded question again, yes if a child is conceived by the choice of the parent or parents, that child has the right to force the mother to allow her body to be used until born. The constitution does not give a mother a right that says otherwise, a court mistakenly does. The same court that one day will set that ruling straight, we pray!

In nature, the mother would not see the child as forcing anything, only us humans can convince us of this moral superiority. We are so smart that God doesn’t compare to our knowledge. We are so smart at times we appear quite dumb.
 
thewanderer said:
I have to wonder about phrasing the question this way… It seems to leave out a part of the picture. I believe the full question is "Does anyone have the right to kill those that interfere with them using their body as they please?"

It is misleading to ask about the right of the child to use the mother for its development. The child has no rational choice in this. It is what the child naturally does. You only punish people for doing something when they choose to do it.
Click to expand...
I think is the basis of self defense.

I realize the child has no choice but the mother does.
 
Lapey said:
If you will be disappointed with a pregnancy then refrain from sex. My words are not rhetoric; they are the words of truth proclaimed by the Church. If you mistakenly believe that my pro-life stance and work is driven by partisan politics then you are sorely mistaken. You can accuse me of being w partisan republican who doesn’t feel for the mother, but you purposely fail to represent the right and safety of the child.

To answer you foolishly worded question again, yes if a child is conceived by the choice of the parent or parents, that child has the right to force the mother to allow her body to be used until born. The constitution does not give a mother a right that says otherwise, a court mistakenly does. The same court that one day will set that ruling straight, we pray!

In nature, the mother would not see the child as forcing anything, only us humans can convince us of this moral superiority. We are so smart that God doesn’t compare to our knowledge. We are so smart at times we appear quite dumb.
Click to expand...
I understand you are stating the position of the Church. I never said otherwise.

So by stating you support the fetus’ right I can rightly assume that you support forced organ donation and blood transfusions? That is what I asked. Does one person have the right to use another person’s body.

Other species eat their young or let them starve and or abandon them when resources are low - are you condoning that as well?
 
Adolphus

**So by stating you support the fetus’ right I can rightly assume that you support forced organ donation and blood transfusions? That is what I asked. Does one person have the right to use another person’s body. **

At last you are making some progress. This is the first time I have heard you refer to the child in the womb as a person! 👍

So I reverse the question:

Does one **person **who is an adult have the right to kill an infant person in the womb?
 
Charlemagne_II said:
Adolphus

**So by stating you support the fetus’ right I can rightly assume that you support forced organ donation and blood transfusions? That is what I asked. Does one person **have the right to use another person’s body.

At last you are making some progress. This is the first time I have heard you refer to the child in the womb as a person! 👍

So I reverse the question:

Does one **person **who is an adult have the right to kill an infant person in the womb?
Click to expand...
What is a person doing in their womb? :eek: 😉

I used person deliberately but it doesn’t mean that I conciser person-hood begins at conception. I’m not sure where the line is, that’s why I’ve been pointing to viability. Also if the pregnancy is a threat to the mother. Things like late term abortion I find horrid. Early on I don’t think the delineation is as clear. It’s not a black and white issue for me.
 
Adolphus_WC said:
I think is the basis of self defense.
Click to expand...
Isn’t self-defense only a justifiable reason to kill another when one’s life is threatened?
I realize the child has no choice but the mother does.
Click to expand...
Which is why I think you should phrase the question the way that I did, because then it is focusing on the choice of the mother.
 
thewanderer said:
Isn’t self-defense only a justifiable reason to kill another when one’s life is threatened?
Click to expand...
Bodily harm as well.

It usually stated that you can use no more force than what you are threatened with. Meaning you can’t shoot someone for punching you. At this level only a pregnancy that threatened the mother’s life would be justified.

There are other self defense laws like Florida’s that say if you feel threatened you are justified using deadly force. Which would justify any abortion. I find this position extreme in both cases.

I phrased it because one side focuses on the Mother and the Other on the fetus. I am addressing the latter. I personally feel both sides need to be considered.
 
Adolphus_WC said:
Bodily harm as well.

It usually stated that you can use no more force than what you are threatened with. Meaning you can’t shoot someone for punching you. At this level only a pregnancy that threatened the mother’s life would be justified.

There are other self defense laws like Florida’s that say if you feel threatened you are justified using deadly force. Which would justify any abortion. I find this position extreme in both cases.

I phrased it because one side focuses on the Mother and the Other on the fetus. I am addressing the latter. I personally feel both sides need to be considered.
Click to expand...
Ok, admittedly the law allows the plea of self-defense in other cases as well, with qualifications.

I feel like you are still skirting around the question of how a society determines what is morally just. The only criterion you have so far put forward seems to be that the society as a whole, or the majority of a society thinks it is just. To a certain extent I can understand this reasoning, but if left solely to this then there would be no problem, on the level of the society, with the holocaust. Most of the people thought it was fine, the government allowed, and even mandated it. So how does one determine what is ok for a society and what isn’t? If it is left entirely up to the people than any atrocity can theoretically become legal and be considered reasonable. There must be some sort of limit (and I am still not bringing in religion) to the desire of the majority being the arbitrator of morality. So where is that limit? How is it defined?
 
Adolphus

Well, this thread has spent a great deal of time and energy exploring why you support abortion.

But since you are no longer a Catholic, this thread really shouldn’t be about you.

It should be about why some Catholics support legal abortion when they know it is condemned by the Church.
 
thewanderer said:
Ok, admittedly the law allows the plea of self-defense in other cases as well, with qualifications.

I feel like you are still skirting around the question of how a society determines what is morally just. The only criterion you have so far put forward seems to be that the society as a whole, or the majority of a society thinks it is just. To a certain extent I can understand this reasoning, but if left solely to this then there would be no problem, on the level of the society, with the holocaust. Most of the people thought it was fine, the government allowed, and even mandated it. So how does one determine what is ok for a society and what isn’t? If it is left entirely up to the people than any atrocity can theoretically become legal and be considered reasonable. There must be some sort of limit (and I am still not bringing in religion) to the desire of the majority being the arbitrator of morality. So where is that limit? How is it defined?
Click to expand...
Traditionally Religion fit that role. As our society get more secular, philosophy, ethics and public discourse. Any endeavor by man can go astray. Even the Church has had missteps done in it’s name.
 
Adolphus_WC said:
Traditionally Religion fit that role. As our society get more secular, philosophy, ethics and public discourse. Any endeavor by man can go astray. Even the Church has had missteps done in it’s name.
Click to expand...
Yes, any effort can go astray. The question is how to ensure a society doesn’t. One way is by not starting down slippery slopes that can lead to more and more obviously wrong practices being introduced.
 
Charlemagne_II said:
Adolphus

Well, this thread has spent a great deal of time and energy exploring why you support abortion.

But since you are no longer a Catholic, this thread really shouldn’t be about you.

It should be about why some Catholics support legal abortion when they know it is condemned by the Church.
Click to expand...
I was self identifying Catholic until somewhat recently, my opinions haven’t changed just my honestly on how good of a Catholic I’ve become. 😃 My opinions do match other self identifying Catholics, as witnessed earlier in this thread.

As I stated earlier many self identifying Catholics take a live and let live attitude. They are not being forced to commit immorality so they let others live as they wish. Divorce, contraception and homosexuality are other examples outside of abortion. We recognize that there are people in society outside the faith. If they allow us to live as we wish, we will allow them to live as they wish.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top