Why do some Catholics support legal abortion?

[drfye]

32 pages, phew… wow, I was busy and it has taken me two days or so to read this entire thread, hahaha, which seems to have flown off in an entirely different conversation about abortion in society, tolerance of the secular world, laws etc

but to answer the original post, "Why do some Catholics support legal abortion? "

-hmm, that is an interesting question, I suppose I would have to ask myself if it’s misrepresentation by going under the title of catholic then supporting something thats against catholic teaching. Hypothetically, sorry not an American but trying to use an American reference…hahaha, wouldn’t that be like me saying " as a member of the NRA I oppose people owning or using guns" or " as a practising catholic i don’t believe in jesus as the messiah or god " are not all these statements self-contradicting?

 

[BillP]

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.

And what if she didn’t decide to “take that action”? e.g. in cases of rape, or incest?

 

[livingwordunity]

“Guest appearance” on Catholic Answers Forum…

Q: Why do some Catholics support legal abortion?*

A: Pope Benedict XVI:

"It strikes me as significant that here in America, unlike many places in Europe, the secular mentality has not been intrinsically opposed to religion. Within the context of the separation of Church and State, American society has always been marked by a fundamental respect for religion and its public role, and, if polls are to be believed, the American people are deeply religious. But it is not enough to count on this traditional religiosity and go about business as usual, even as its foundations are being slowly undermined. A serious commitment to evangelization cannot prescind from a profound diagnosis of the real challenges the Gospel encounters in contemporary American culture.

Of course, what is essential is a correct understanding of the just autonomy of the secular order, an autonomy which cannot be divorced from God the Creator and his saving plan (cf. Gaudium et Spes, 36). Perhaps America’s brand of secularism poses a particular problem: it allows for professing belief in God, and respects the public role of religion and the Churches, but at the same time it can subtly reduce religious belief to a lowest common denominator. Faith becomes a passive acceptance that certain things “out there” are true, but without practical relevance for everyday life. The result is a growing separation of faith from life: living “as if God did not exist”. This is aggravated by an individualistic and eclectic approach to faith and religion: far from a Catholic approach to “thinking with the Church”, each person believes he or she has a right to pick and choose, maintaining external social bonds but without an integral, interior conversion to the law of Christ. Consequently, rather than being transformed and renewed in mind, Christians are easily tempted to conform themselves to the spirit of this age (cf. Rom 12:3). We have seen this emerge in an acute way in the scandal given by Catholics who promote an alleged right to abortion.

On a deeper level, secularism challenges the Church to reaffirm and to pursue more actively her mission in and to the world. As the Council made clear, the lay faithful have a particular responsibility in this regard. What is needed, I am convinced, is a greater sense of the intrinsic relationship between the Gospel and the natural law on the one hand, and, on the other, the pursuit of authentic human good, as embodied in civil law and in personal moral decisions. In a society that rightly values personal liberty, the Church needs to promote at every level of her teaching – in catechesis, preaching, seminary and university instruction – an apologetics aimed at affirming the truth of Christian revelation, the harmony of faith and reason, and a sound understanding of freedom, seen in positive terms as a liberation both from the limitations of sin and for an authentic and fulfilling life. In a word, the Gospel has to be preached and taught as an integral way of life, offering an attractive and true answer, intellectually and practically, to real human problems. The “dictatorship of relativism”, in the end, is nothing less than a threat to genuine human freedom, which only matures in generosity and fidelity to the truth."

(Such is really his words…make sure to read all of the above…you will see he answers the question I fictiously put to him in his real answer to a question posed to him)

*(real Q) The Holy Father is asked to give his assessment of the challenge of increasing secularism in public life and relativism in intellectual life, and his advice on how to confront these challenges pastorally and evangelize more effectively.

(more of his ansser vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2008/april/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20080416_response-bishops_en.html)

That quote from the Pope was before Obama took over and made the American government hostile to traditional Christian teachings on morality. The DNC has taken America to the left of Russia and, if Obama gets reelected, closer to the one child forced abortion policy of China.

 

[Bookcat]

“Guest appearance” on Catholic Answers Forum…

Q: Why do some Catholics support legal abortion?*

A: Pope Benedict XVI:

"It strikes me as significant that here in America, unlike many places in Europe, the secular mentality has not been intrinsically opposed to religion. Within the context of the separation of Church and State, American society has always been marked by a fundamental respect for religion and its public role, and, if polls are to be believed, the American people are deeply religious. But it is not enough to count on this traditional religiosity and go about business as usual, even as its foundations are being slowly undermined. A serious commitment to evangelization cannot prescind from a profound diagnosis of the real challenges the Gospel encounters in contemporary American culture.

Of course, what is essential is a correct understanding of the just autonomy of the secular order, an autonomy which cannot be divorced from God the Creator and his saving plan (cf. Gaudium et Spes, 36). Perhaps America’s brand of secularism poses a particular problem: it allows for professing belief in God, and respects the public role of religion and the Churches, but at the same time it can subtly reduce religious belief to a lowest common denominator. Faith becomes a passive acceptance that certain things “out there” are true, but without practical relevance for everyday life. The result is a growing separation of faith from life: living “as if God did not exist”. This is aggravated by an individualistic and eclectic approach to faith and religion: far from a Catholic approach to “thinking with the Church”, each person believes he or she has a right to pick and choose, maintaining external social bonds but without an integral, interior conversion to the law of Christ. Consequently, rather than being transformed and renewed in mind, Christians are easily tempted to conform themselves to the spirit of this age (cf. Rom 12:3). We have seen this emerge in an acute way in the scandal given by Catholics who promote an alleged right to abortion.

On a deeper level, secularism challenges the Church to reaffirm and to pursue more actively her mission in and to the world. As the Council made clear, the lay faithful have a particular responsibility in this regard. What is needed, I am convinced, is a greater sense of the intrinsic relationship between the Gospel and the natural law on the one hand, and, on the other, the pursuit of authentic human good, as embodied in civil law and in personal moral decisions. In a society that rightly values personal liberty, the Church needs to promote at every level of her teaching – in catechesis, preaching, seminary and university instruction – an apologetics aimed at affirming the truth of Christian revelation, the harmony of faith and reason, and a sound understanding of freedom, seen in positive terms as a liberation both from the limitations of sin and for an authentic and fulfilling life. In a word, the Gospel has to be preached and taught as an integral way of life, offering an attractive and true answer, intellectually and practically, to real human problems. The “dictatorship of relativism”, in the end, is nothing less than a threat to genuine human freedom, which only matures in generosity and fidelity to the truth."

(Such is really his words…make sure to read all of the above…you will see he answers the question I fictiously put to him in his real answer to a question posed to him)

*(real Q) The Holy Father is asked to give his assessment of the challenge of increasing secularism in public life and relativism in intellectual life, and his advice on how to confront these challenges pastorally and evangelize more effectively.

(more of his ansser vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2008/april/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20080416_response-bishops_en.html)

 

[vz71]

And what if she didn’t decide to “take that action”? e.g. in cases of rape, or incest?

Then you have to ask why a complete innocent to the crime should be killed.

That someone violated her has no bearing at all on whether an innocent should be killed.

 

[fred_conty]

In our legal society why is there any debate at all about a soul? In law, all it should see is human life in the womb. In Ca. for instance, a man is convicted of double homicide when he murdered his pregnant wife. Just forget for the moment about religious beliefs of when the soul enters the fetus. Our law cannot prove or disprove a soul and in fact is not interested in this aspect, but only that a women is pregnant and the lawful human life in her womb. Being a good citizen, anyone who would support abortion according to this is acting contrary to the law and its view of human life.

In virtue of this, it would seem to me that all hospitals would be commiting legal murder, soul or not, if this new law forces them to become abortionists. So this is not only, or just, a religious matter or theocratic issue, but a healthy civil one.

Frankly I think this is the main reason why some catholics are indiferent to abortion, namely, they don’t think the fetus has a soul and is not a human being in the first months of life. It is a living thing, but not a human being.

But from what was observed above about the state, namely that the state law sees this as homicide of the fetus and apparently has more sense of justice than some "believing " christians .

Just a thought about, not souls, but unborn innocent children.

 

[BillP]

Then you have to ask why a complete innocent to the crime should be killed.

That someone violated her has no bearing at all on whether an innocent should be killed.

The the idea of denying access to abortion in order to “punish” women for having sex wouldn’t apply would it??

 

[TheRealJuliane]

Then you have to ask why a complete innocent to the crime should be killed.

That someone violated her has no bearing at all on whether an innocent should be killed.

Yeah, it’s akin to, if I get raped, some innocent child on a playground somewhere should be killed. Think about it, it’s absurd. Only it’s even worse because the child inside me is half my DNA, not a stranger.

 

[vz71]

The the idea of denying access to abortion in order to “punish” women for having sex wouldn’t apply would it??

It is not a punishment.
The idea that someone could at all consider pregnancy a punishment is repugnant

 

[TheRealJuliane]

The the idea of denying access to abortion in order to “punish” women for having sex wouldn’t apply would it??

No, women are not “punished” for having sex. The punishment would be getting pregnant, as our current President stated, “…I wouldn’t want them (his daughters) punished with a baby…” (as in, we are going to try and teach our daughters morals, but if they make a “mistake” - have premarital sex - the baby would be considered a punishment.)

 

[thewanderer]

And what if she didn’t decide to “take that action”? e.g. in cases of rape, or incest?

In such a case, look to what the whole situation boils down to.

The laws are for the sake of protecting the life and property of the members of the society. In the case of rape a horrible atrocity has occured, and the people involved are left in a horrific stiuation. A conflict of interests arises. The woman doesn’t want to be reminded of the horror she experienced. The child wants to live. While in this case no one had a choice in the matter, the conflict of interests still comes down to preferences/property of the mother vs the entire life and so also preferences/property of the infant.

Again, I ask how this is even a question. If you look at it objectively while keeping in mind the purpose of the laws there really is no question as to which is the correct course of action. The main reason there is such debate is that one party in the conflict is able to present their side of the debate and emphasize the difficulty they are experiencing and so win peoples sympathy to their side while the other cannot and so is forgotten and pushed aside. Look at it objectively and there is no question about what the correct thing to do, and again, this is without bringing religion into it at all, this is purely looking at it from the prupose of law.

 

[thewanderer]

The the idea of denying access to abortion in order to “punish” women for having sex wouldn’t apply would it??

Why would that ever apply? That has absolutely nothing to do with why abortion should be illegal. The debate comes down to what the laws should mandate in this particular conflict of interests between the individuals in the society. Seeing as there is no perfect solution, no matter which way you turn someone will lose out at least to some extent, the state and laws must find the best solution, ie the one that causes the least damage to the members of its society. Lets look at the damage caused in each case. In one case the preferences of one is ignored and perhaps some bodily damage occurs. In the other case bodily damage always occurs, the preferences are always ignored and the very life of the individual is done away with.

Again, why is this even a question? Boil it down to the objective prinicples.

 

[Infiltrator]

As a Catholic that supports Legal abortions (kind of, you will have to read the whole thing to understand), I can’t see how any Catholic can’t support it!

I will try and put it as simply as I can.

The Catholic Faith is very clear about the commandment “thou shalt not kill” (notice that I did not say thou shalt not murder – the Vatican still has it as kill). This definitely includes the unborn.

Think of it this way. Some states allow capital punishment, even though no modern Catholic can because it goes directly against the commandment “thou shalt not kill”
vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P7Z.HTM 2267

2267 The traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude, presupposing full ascertainment of the identity and responsibility of the offender, recourse to the death penalty, when this is the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor.
If, instead, bloodless means are sufficient to defend against the aggressor and to protect the safety of persons, public authority should limit itself to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.
"Today, in fact, given the means at the State’s disposal to effectively repress crime by rendering inoffensive the one who has committed it, without depriving him definitively of the possibility of redeeming himself, cases of absolute necessity for suppression of the offender 'today … are very rare, if not practically non-existent.’[John Paul II, Evangelium vitae 56.]

It is exactly the same with abortion. With modern medicine it is almost non-existent for there to be a time when an abortion is needed to save another’s life, however those rare times do exist. Abortion therefore must be legal, as with Capital punishment, for those “very rare, if not practically non-existent” times when it is the only means left to save a life.

That is not the issue for us Catholics. The true issue is that people are using abortion (and Capital Punishment) as a means to end an "inconvenient” life. The use of medical science in this way is totally abhorrent and that is what we fight against. It is not the abortion itself that must not be allowed, it is the inappropriate use of any procedure that should only be used in extremely rare situations, only to save a life, and only ever requested by competent medical professionals in the service of saving a life.

That comes down to "whose life do they choose to save?” That is answered too

*2264 Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one’s own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow:

If a man in self-defence uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repels force with moderation, his defence will be lawful… Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defence to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one’s own life than of another’s.

2265 Legitimate defence can be not only a right but a grave duty for someone responsible for another’s life. Preserving the common good requires rendering the unjust aggressor unable to inflict harm. To this end, those holding legitimate authority have the right to repel by armed force aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their charge*

In other words - choosing to save your own life is not immoral but if you abort and your life is not in imminent danger, then it is. Abortion being legal and sometimes neseccary is not the issue, Abortions inappropriate use as a fashion accessory is.

 

[Findingmyshoes]

As a Catholic that supports Legal abortions (kind of, you will have to read the whole thing to understand), I can’t see how any Catholic can’t support it!

I will try and put it as simply as I can.

The Catholic Faith is very clear about the commandment “thou shalt not kill” (notice that I did not say thou shalt not murder – the Vatican still has it as kill). This definitely includes the unborn.

Think of it this way. Some states allow capital punishment, even though no modern Catholic can because it goes directly against the commandment “thou shalt not kill”
vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P7Z.HTM 2267

2267 The traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude, presupposing full ascertainment of the identity and responsibility of the offender, recourse to the death penalty, when this is the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor.
If, instead, bloodless means are sufficient to defend against the aggressor and to protect the safety of persons, public authority should limit itself to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.
"Today, in fact, given the means at the State’s disposal to effectively repress crime by rendering inoffensive the one who has committed it, without depriving him definitively of the possibility of redeeming himself, cases of absolute necessity for suppression of the offender 'today … are very rare, if not practically non-existent.’[John Paul II, Evangelium vitae 56.]

It is exactly the same with abortion. With modern medicine it is almost non-existent for there to be a time when an abortion is needed to save another’s life, however those rare times do exist. Abortion therefore must be legal, as with Capital punishment, for those “very rare, if not practically non-existent” times when it is the only means left to save a life.

That is not the issue for us Catholics. The true issue is that people are using abortion (and Capital Punishment) as a means to end an "inconvenient” life. The use of medical science in this way is totally abhorrent and that is what we fight against. It is not the abortion itself that must not be allowed, it is the inappropriate use of any procedure that should only be used in extremely rare situations, only to save a life, and only ever requested by competent medical professionals in the service of saving a life.

That comes down to "whose life do they choose to save?” That is answered too

2264 Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one’s own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow:

If a man in self-defence uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repels force with moderation, his defence will be lawful… Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defence to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one’s own life than of another’s.

2265 Legitimate defence can be not only a right but a grave duty for someone responsible for another’s life. Preserving the common good requires rendering the unjust aggressor unable to inflict harm. To this end, those holding legitimate authority have the right to repel by armed force aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their charge

In other words - choosing to save your own life is not immoral but if you abort and your life is not in imminent danger, then it is. Abortion being legal and sometimes neseccary is not the issue, Abortions inappropriate use as a fashion accessory is.

Really well put! When dealing with abortion, I have to go to the default priority of conscience. I know a woman who had to choose between her life and the life of her children, and she decided not leave her other four children orphans. I would not begrudge her that choice, and would hate to think that she would need to save herself and her other children with a coat hanger. Abortion as birth control is wrong, but there are cases where I can understand the need for abortion as an option.

 

[brimon]

It amazes me how people confuse this point. As a Catholic, we are all called to believe the truth. The truth is that humanity starts at conception. Therefore, abortion is a mother murdering her child. Of course we need laws against this. Thank God that presently it is illegal for a mother to murder her child. Hence, abortion should be illegal.

 

[Holly3278]

I have no idea. I don’t see how a Catholic could ever support legal abortion. Personally I think that abortion should be illegal and that those who get abortions and those who perform abortions should be charged with murder and imprisoned.

 

[gcharles]

Very simply they don’t fear God.

 

[Lapey]

As a Catholic that supports Legal abortions (kind of, you will have to read the whole thing to understand), I can’t see how any Catholic can’t support it!

I will try and put it as simply as I can.

The Catholic Faith is very clear about the commandment “thou shalt not kill” (notice that I did not say thou shalt not murder – the Vatican still has it as kill). This definitely includes the unborn.

Think of it this way. Some states allow capital punishment, even though no modern Catholic can because it goes directly against the commandment “thou shalt not kill”
vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P7Z.HTM 2267

2267 The traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude, presupposing full ascertainment of the identity and responsibility of the offender, recourse to the death penalty, when this is the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor.
If, instead, bloodless means are sufficient to defend against the aggressor and to protect the safety of persons, public authority should limit itself to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.
"Today, in fact, given the means at the State’s disposal to effectively repress crime by rendering inoffensive the one who has committed it, without depriving him definitively of the possibility of redeeming himself, cases of absolute necessity for suppression of the offender 'today … are very rare, if not practically non-existent.’[John Paul II, Evangelium vitae 56.]

It is exactly the same with abortion. With modern medicine it is almost non-existent for there to be a time when an abortion is needed to save another’s life, however those rare times do exist. Abortion therefore must be legal, as with Capital punishment, for those “very rare, if not practically non-existent” times when it is the only means left to save a life.

That is not the issue for us Catholics. The true issue is that people are using abortion (and Capital Punishment) as a means to end an "inconvenient” life. The use of medical science in this way is totally abhorrent and that is what we fight against. It is not the abortion itself that must not be allowed, it is the inappropriate use of any procedure that should only be used in extremely rare situations, only to save a life, and only ever requested by competent medical professionals in the service of saving a life.

That comes down to "whose life do they choose to save?” That is answered too

2264 Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one’s own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow:

If a man in self-defence uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repels force with moderation, his defence will be lawful… Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defence to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one’s own life than of another’s.

2265 Legitimate defence can be not only a right but a grave duty for someone responsible for another’s life. Preserving the common good requires rendering the unjust aggressor unable to inflict harm. To this end, those holding legitimate authority have the right to repel by armed force aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their charge

In other words - choosing to save your own life is not immoral but if you abort and your life is not in imminent danger, then it is. Abortion being legal and sometimes neseccary is not the issue, Abortions inappropriate use as a fashion accessory is.

Your error in thinking is comparing capital punishment to abortion. The CCC’s used for abortion and capital punishment have very large differences in their foundations, abortion is intrinsically evil, capital punishment is not. Why does this matter? Because the Church has stated throughout Her history that abortion is always evil and wrong and mortal sin. CP on the other hand is acceptable in rare cases; in today’s society I agree with the left that it should be illegal because there is nowhere in the US or world for that matter where we do not have the means to punish with a non bloody punishment.

Just like the bible must be taken in its full context to see the truth of it, so does the CCC. You cannot find abortion logic in CP statements, apples and oranges.

 

[fix]

As a Catholic that supports Legal abortions (kind of, you will have to read the whole thing to understand), I can’t see how any Catholic can’t support it!

I will try and put it as simply as I can.

The Catholic Faith is very clear about the commandment “thou shalt not kill” (notice that I did not say thou shalt not murder – the Vatican still has it as kill). This definitely includes the unborn.

Think of it this way. Some states allow capital punishment, even though no modern Catholic can because it goes directly against the commandment “thou shalt not kill”
vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P7Z.HTM 2267

2267 The traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude, presupposing full ascertainment of the identity and responsibility of the offender, recourse to the death penalty, when this is the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor.
If, instead, bloodless means are sufficient to defend against the aggressor and to protect the safety of persons, public authority should limit itself to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.
"Today, in fact, given the means at the State’s disposal to effectively repress crime by rendering inoffensive the one who has committed it, without depriving him definitively of the possibility of redeeming himself, cases of absolute necessity for suppression of the offender 'today … are very rare, if not practically non-existent.’[John Paul II, Evangelium vitae 56.]

It is exactly the same with abortion. With modern medicine it is almost non-existent for there to be a time when an abortion is needed to save another’s life, however those rare times do exist. Abortion therefore must be legal, as with Capital punishment, for those “very rare, if not practically non-existent” times when it is the only means left to save a life.

That is not the issue for us Catholics. The true issue is that people are using abortion (and Capital Punishment) as a means to end an "inconvenient” life. The use of medical science in this way is totally abhorrent and that is what we fight against. It is not the abortion itself that must not be allowed, it is the inappropriate use of any procedure that should only be used in extremely rare situations, only to save a life, and only ever requested by competent medical professionals in the service of saving a life.

That comes down to "whose life do they choose to save?” That is answered too

2264 Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one’s own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow:

If a man in self-defence uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repels force with moderation, his defence will be lawful… Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defence to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one’s own life than of another’s.

2265 Legitimate defence can be not only a right but a grave duty for someone responsible for another’s life. Preserving the common good requires rendering the unjust aggressor unable to inflict harm. To this end, those holding legitimate authority have the right to repel by armed force aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their charge

In other words - choosing to save your own life is not immoral but if you abort and your life is not in imminent danger, then it is. Abortion being legal and sometimes neseccary is not the issue, Abortions inappropriate use as a fashion accessory is.

The Church disagrees with your understanding here.

 

[Lapey]

Really well put! When dealing with abortion, I have to go to the default priority of conscience. I know a woman who had to choose between her life and the life of her children, and she decided not leave her other four children orphans. I would not begrudge her that choice, and would hate to think that she would need to save herself and her other children with a coat hanger. Abortion as birth control is wrong, but there are cases where I can understand the need for abortion as an option.

No, it’s not well put; it’s well “miss-put.” Defaulting to one’s conscience is required by CCC, but not a uniformed and/or a misinformed conscience. It is a requirement for one to follow his/her conscience, but if you read on in the CCC, it plainly states where that conscience needs to be prepared for the decision in line with Church teaching.

I also know a woman who had to choose between death and life of her child as well, she chose life for her child as we all should; her name is Saint Gianna Beretta Molla.

saintgianna.org/