Why do some Catholics support legal abortion?

[BenedictFTW]

It is interesting how Pro Life Issues are centered around the single issue of abortion. As Catholics, or, for that matter, Christians of ANY kind, we should be SERIOUSLY dealing with ALL life issues, including: Capital punishment, our own country’s Military/Economic acts of aggression (that have taken unknown numbers of lives in multiple theaters in every hemisphere over the past century), and, especially, Domestic Poverty (which, because of gross lack of pre-natal care results in shameful death rates of Infants and children, down there with any third world country).

By the way, I AM Pro Life, against abortion. I am against the taking of ANY life. I would NEVER want my family to seek another person’s life as restitution for my own. Murder is murder, for whatever reason. Yes, I understand that there are times when taking a life, such as in self defense, is necessary. (Our church has seven standards for a Just War, permitting the taking of other lives.) But, I also believe that, in extreme cases, therapeutic abortion should be a decision between a woman and God; such as the woman in Arizona who was early in a life-threatening pregnancy (with multiple children at home) and chose to terminate that pregnancy for the sake of her living children and husband. I will never forget the church’s response (from that diocese) that “we believe, in certain cases, that it is better for the mother and the child to both die.” I am old. I can easily say, now, that I would NEVER have had an abortion. But, back in my reproductive life, and put in the position of that woman, I’m not sure I would have decided differently. If faced with an act of aggression, and put in the position of defending myself or loved ones, I would pull a trigger. And, I would mourn for myself and for that person, for the rest of my life. Just as I am sure that mother in Arizona is mourning for herself and her fetus.

As a pro-life activist, I am much more concerned with abortion. 80 million have died so far!!! AND COUNTING! It is the single biggest killer in the entire world! Whilst I agree that those things you mention are also evils of this present age, to compare them to abortion is like comparing an Easter egg to Mount Kilimanjaro!

 

[Bookcat]

Legal rights are given solely by governments.

.

The Founders of America noted even …we hold these rights to be self evident.

Given by the creator…

Some rights are simply not given by Government. They are to be protected by Government but they exist prior to any Government.

 

[CatSci]

A blastocyst is an embryo.

That is scientifically false. A blastocyst is a single cell and an embryo is multicellular.

It (a blastocyst) is a human life.

If a single cell is a human life, then why don’t we all cry over the incredible loss of human life everytime we shave?

Just because it is legal to kill the helpless unborn does not make it moral.

Of course. I don’t think abortion is moral. I just don’t think it should be criminalized.

Of course it should be criminalised - if only!! Would you kill an infant? If not, why not?

An infant is a person, they have legal rights. I can empathize with people in a way that I cannot with single cells.

I don’t cry when I shave either.

As a pro-life activist, I am much more concerned with abortion. 80 million have died so far!!! AND COUNTING! It is the single biggest killer in the entire world!

Orders of magnitude more have died through natural abortions via misscarraige. That is what you really should be fighting if you care about the “human life”.

 

[sedonaman]

… It is the start of life. If not then, when does life start? At age 5? 10?
…

It depends on the will of its mother. Consider a woman pregnant. If she decides to give birth, then the baby is a person because its life has begun; if she later decides to abort, then it is not because its life has not yet begun. This is the way the law treats the matter. The inescapable conclusion is that a baby is the property of its mother, even after it is born.

 

[CatSci]

The Founders of America noted even …we hold these rights to be self evident.

Given by the creator…

Some rights are simply not given by Government. They are to be protected by Government but they exist prior to any Government.

Those aren’t legal rights though.

 

[BenedictFTW]

That is scientifically false. A blastocyst is a single cell and an embryo is multicellular.

If a single cell is a human life, then why don’t we all cry over the incredible loss of human life everytime we shave?

Of course. I don’t think abortion is moral. I just don’t think it should be criminalized.

An infant is a person, they have legal rights. I can empathize with people in a way that I cannot with single cells.

I don’t cry when I shave either.

Your scientific knowledge is faulty. A blastocyst is an early embryo - in other words an early stage of development of a human child. You were once a blastocyst.

“Blastocyst formation begins at day 5 after fertilization in humans, when the blastocoele opens up in the morula, a process known as hatching.” (Wikipedia)

You sound very young and probably have not had children. You may learn how precious life is when you are older.

In the meantime, learn what your Church teaches. If you then choose to disobey the Church in its fundamental teachings on life being sacred from womb to grave, that is your choice. You choose your own damnation. I hope you do not do this.

Most people believe in abortion through ignorance. Try to remember when you look at a butchered child from an abortion that you could have been that child.

 

[Bookcat]

It depends on the will of its mother. Consider a woman pregnant. If she decides to give birth, then the baby is a person because its life has begun; if she later decides to abort, then it is not because its life has not yet begun. This is the way the law treats the matter. The inescapable conclusion is that a baby is the property of its mother, even after it is born.

Yes this is currently the horrible and incredibly sad situation in many places.

Let us hope that just as the horror of the Nazi’s false ideas about the status and worth of the Jewish person is now seen for what it is – this too will be seen for the horror of what it really is in the near future.

Let us build a culture of life.

 

[Bookcat]

Now can a Catholic support legal Abortion?

No.

Such is gravely sinful …gravely contrary to Christ…and is a choice by which they can choose to be eternally separated from God.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church

2322 From its conception, the child has the right to life. Direct abortion, that is, abortion willed as an end or as a means, is a “criminal” practice (GS 27 § 3), gravely contrary to the moral law. The Church imposes the canonical penalty of excommunication for this crime against human life.

2319 Every human life, from the moment of conception until death, is sacred because the human person has been willed for its own sake in the image and likeness of the living and holy God.

2270 Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person - among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life.

---

and: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=9277034&postcount=530

 

[fix]

I don’t cry when I shave either.

A skin cell is morally equal to a developing baby?

 

[fix]

It depends on the will of its mother. Consider a woman pregnant. If she decides to give birth, then the baby is a person because its life has begun; if she later decides to abort, then it is not because its life has not yet begun. This is the way the law treats the matter. The inescapable conclusion is that a baby is the property of its mother, even after it is born.

Yes, that is why the logic always fails. The law has become plastic based on who is wearing the black dress any particular day.

 

[CatSci]

Hey neat! We’ve already gotten to the point where you tell me I’m gonna go to hell if I don’t agree with you. That’s gotta be one of the most annoying things about Catholics.

Your scientific knowledge is faulty. A blastocyst is an early embryo - in other words an early stage of development of a human child. You were once a blastocyst.

You’re right, I was thinking zygote. Blastocysts are later. But the point remains that a single cell is not a legal person.

You sound very young and probably have not had children.

I’m 30, but no I don’t have children of my own. Nieces and nephews and young cousins tho.

In the meantime, learn what your Church teaches. If you then choose to disobey the Church in its fundamental teachings on life being sacred from womb to grave, that is your choice. You choose your own damnation. I hope you do not do this.

Most people believe in abortion through ignorance. Try to remember when you look at a butchered child from an abortion that you could have been that child.

Look, you’ve got this all wrong. I don’t “believe in abortion” and I don’t doubt that life is sacred. Too, I’m not in a position of ignorance on this topic. This thread is a question of legality.

From a legal standpoint, some abortions should not be criminalized. The only arguments I’ve seen for the criminalization of all abortions are religious in nature and lack the secular requirements to become law. It shouldn’t be criminalized because a single cell is not a distinct legal person so it doesn’t have any legal rights that supercede the mothers’ legal rights to their own bodies. Its as simple as that and appeals to emotion are unecessary.

 

[Bookcat]

Now can a Catholic support legal Abortion?

Well they can in the sense that anyone can choose all sorts of grave evils.

But such is gravely sinful …gravely contrary to Christ…and is a choice by which they can choose to be eternally separated from God. Such is the nature of that sort of sin. One chooses “death” (and if they die in that state the keep their choice of death). Just as choosing to walk off a cliff for or drinking arsenic is a choice (very wrong of course) by which a person can choose natural death.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church

2322 From its conception, the child has the right to life. Direct abortion, that is, abortion willed as an end or as a means, is a “criminal” practice (GS 27 § 3), gravely contrary to the moral law. The Church imposes the canonical penalty of excommunication for this crime against human life.

2319 Every human life, from the moment of conception until death, is sacred because the human person has been willed for its own sake in the image and likeness of the living and holy God.

2270 Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person - among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life.

---

and: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=9277034&postcount=530

 

[CatSci]

A skin cell is morally equal to a developing baby?

No, the point is that a single cell is not morally equivalent to a fully developed person.

People hardly flinch at the fact that most conceptuses are lost. If they really were morally equivalent to people, then all the effort put towards combatting abortion should instead be put towards finding a way to stop all the miscarriages.

There have been orders of magnitude more “human lives” lost to miscarriages than to abortions. In a pragmatic sense, abortion shouldn’t even be on the radar.

Since people seem to care more about stopping abortion than saving lives, it makes it look like this is more of an issue of punishing immorality than it is an issue of protecting unborn people.

 

[Bookcat]

What do Catholics who mistakenly think they can support legal abortion need?

They need a “renewal of their mind”…that Paul speaks of

"In the second verse we are given the answer: “Do not be conformed to this world but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that you may prove what is the will of God…” (12: 2). The two decisive words of this verse are “transformed” and “renewal”. We must become new people, transformed into a new mode of existence. The world is always in search of novelty because, rightly, it is always dissatisfied with concrete reality. Paul tells us: the world cannot be renewed without new people. Only if there are new people will there also be a new world, a renewed and better world. In the beginning is the renewal of the human being. This subsequently applies to every individual. Only if we ourselves become new does the world become new. This also means that it is not enough to adapt to the current situation. The Apostle exhorts us to non-conformism. In our Letter he says: we should not submit to the logic of our time. We shall return to this point, reflecting on the second text on which I wish to meditate with you this evening. The Apostle’s “no” is clear and also convincing for anyone who observes the “logic” of our world. But to become new how can this be done? Are we really capable of it? With his words on becoming new, Paul alludes to his own conversion: to his encounter with the Risen Christ, an encounter of which, in the Second Letter to the Corinthians he says: “if anyone is in Christ, he is in a new creation; the old has passed away, behold, the new has come” (5: 17). This encounter with Christ was so overwhelming for him that he said of it: “I… died…” (Gal 2: 19; cf. Rm 6). He became new, another, because he no longer lived for himself and by virtue of himself, but for Christ and in him. In the course of the years, however, he also saw that this process of renewal and transformation continues throughout life. We become new if we let ourselves be grasped and shaped by the new Man, Jesus Christ. He is the new Man par excellence. In him the new human existence became reality and we can truly become new if we deliver ourselves into his hands and let ourselves be moulded by him.

Paul makes this process of “recasting” even clearer by saying that we become new if we transform our way of thinking. What has been introduced here with “way of thinking” is the Greek term “nous”. It is a complex word. It may be translated as “spirit”, “sentiments”, “reason”, and precisely, also by “way of thinking”. Thus our reason must become new. This surprises us. We might have expected instead that this would have concerned some attitude: what we should change in our behaviour. But no: renewal must go to the very core. Our way of looking at the world, of understanding reality all our thought must change from its foundations. The reasoning of the former person, the common way of thinking is usually directed to possession, well-being, influence, success, fame and so forth. Yet in this way its scope is too limited. Thus, in the final analysis, one’s “self” remains the centre of the world. We must learn to think more profoundly. St Paul tells us what this means in the second part of the sentence: it is necessary to learn to understand God’s will, so that it may shape our own will. This is in order that we ourselves may desire what God desires, because we recognize that what God wants is the beautiful and the good. It is therefore a question of a turning point in our fundamental spiritual orientation. God must enter into the horizon of our thought: what he wants and the way in which he conceived of the world and of me. We must learn to share in the thinking and the will of Jesus Christ. It is then that we will be new people in whom a new world emerges."

–Pope Benedict XVI (continued in next)

 

[Bookcat]

“Paul illustrates the same idea of a necessary renewal of our way of being human in two passages of his Letter to the Ephesians; let us therefore reflect on them briefly. In the Letter’s fourth chapter, the Apostle tells us that with Christ we must attain adulthood, a mature faith. We can no longer be “children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine…” (4: 14). Paul wants Christians to have a “responsible” and “adult faith”. The words “adult faith” in recent decades have formed a widespread slogan. It is often meant in the sense of the attitude of those who no longer listen to the Church and her Pastors but autonomously choose what they want to believe and not to believe hence a do-it-yourself faith. And it is presented as a “courageous” form of self-expression against the Magisterium of the Church. In fact, however, no courage is needed for this because one may always be certain of public applause. Rather, courage is needed to adhere to the Church’s faith, even if this contradicts the “logic” of the contemporary world. This is the non-conformism of faith which Paul calls an “adult faith”. It is the faith that he desires. On the other hand, he describes chasing the winds and trends of the time as infantile. Thus, being committed to the inviolability of human life from its first instant, thereby radically opposing the principle of violence also precisely in the defence of the most defenceless human creatures is part of an adult faith. It is part of an adult faith to recognize marriage between a man and a woman for the whole of life as the Creator’s ordering, newly re-established by Christ. Adult faith does not let itself be carried about here and there by any trend. It opposes the winds of fashion. It knows that these winds are not the breath of the Holy Spirit; it knows that the Spirit of God is expressed and manifested in communion with Jesus Christ. However, here too Paul does not stop at saying “no”, but rather leads us to the great “yes”. He describes the mature, truly adult faith positively with the words: “speaking the truth in love” (cf. Eph 4: 15). The new way of thinking, given to us by faith, is first and foremost a turning towards the truth. The power of evil is falsehood. The power of faith, the power of God, is the truth. The truth about the world and about ourselves becomes visible when we look to God. And God makes himself visible to us in the Face of Jesus Christ. In looking at Christ, we recognize something else: truth and love are inseparable. In God both are inseparably one; it is precisely this that is the essence of God. For Christians, therefore, truth and love go together. Love is the test of truth. We should always measure ourselves anew against this criterion, so that truth may become love and love may make us truthful.”

–Pope Benedict XVI

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/homilies/2009/documents/hf_ben-xvi_hom_20090628_chius-anno-paolino_en.html

 

[fix]

No, the point is that a single cell is not morally equivalent to a fully developed person.

People hardly flinch at the fact that most conceptuses are lost. If they really were morally equivalent to people, then all the effort put towards combatting abortion should instead be put towards finding a way to stop all the miscarriages.

Again a physical evil is not a moral evil. One is an act of nature and one is a willed act of man.

There have been orders of magnitude more “human lives” lost to miscarriages than to abortions. In a pragmatic sense, abortion shouldn’t even be on the radar.

Since people seem to care more about stopping abortion than saving lives, it makes it look like this is more of an issue of punishing immorality than it is an issue of protecting unborn people.

So, murder is not is not as important as car accidents?

 

[aragonjohn1]

Ignorance and they probably want to be “hip” or they want to encourage “diversity” and "tolerance"

 

[CatSci]

Again a physical evil is not a moral evil. One is an act of nature and one is a willed act of man.

Right, so, for you, its not as much about protecting human life as it is about punishing immorality.

So, murder is not is not as important as car accidents?

If your ultimate goal is the prevention of death, then car accidents would be much more important than murder because so many more people die in car accidents than are murdered. On the other hand, if your more interested in punishing immorality then you would focus entirely on the murders at the expense of the car crashes.

And what do we see with regard to saving unborn lives? All the effort is put towards combatting abortion rather than ending miscarriages. This implies that the issue is more about fighting immorality than it is about saving unborn lives.

But that brings up another issue. Fighting a perceived immorality that stems from religious beliefs is not a sufficient basis for the criminalization of abortion. There must also be a secular purpose. This is why the debate gets focused onto the point at which human life begins and legal personal rights are bestowed up the individual. We end up getting to the point of protecting unborn lives, but if the arguments are correct, given that so many more lives have been lost to miscarriages than to abortions, it doesn’t make sense that nobody really fights to stop miscarriages like they do to stop abortions.

I’d be like you saying that you fight murders to protect lives all the while failing to do anything to protect all the lives that are lost to car accidents. It goes to show that you’re not really in it for protecting lives, but instead want to punish a religious immorality. The problem with that is that it is an insufficient basis to legally criminalize abortion.

 

[BenedictFTW]

Hey neat! We’ve already gotten to the point where you tell me I’m gonna go to hell if I don’t agree with you. That’s gotta be one of the most annoying things about Catholics.

You’re right, I was thinking zygote. Blastocysts are later. But the point remains that a single cell is not a legal person.

I’m 30, but no I don’t have children of my own. Nieces and nephews and young cousins tho.

Look, you’ve got this all wrong. I don’t “believe in abortion” and I don’t doubt that life is sacred. Too, I’m not in a position of ignorance on this topic. This thread is a question of legality.

From a legal standpoint, some abortions should not be criminalized. The only arguments I’ve seen for the criminalization of all abortions are religious in nature and lack the secular requirements to become law. It shouldn’t be criminalized because a single cell is not a distinct legal person so it doesn’t have any legal rights that supercede the mothers’ legal rights to their own bodies. Its as simple as that and appeals to emotion are unecessary.

You are not the arbiter of what is right or wrong. You cannot decide what is moral or not. Your Church does that for you. It would be mature and intelligent of you to work out why your Church teaches what it does on abortion. However, yours is the argument of the culture of death. Are you a practising, believing Catholic?

If you have anything to do with abortion, you are automatically excommunicated. Not my law, the Church’s. Jesus said to the Apostles “Whatever you bind on earth is bound in Heaven…” Our Pope has the authority from Jesus through St Peter. But you know all of that.

Just so long as you know the consequences of your support for abortion.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

If your ultimate goal is the prevention of death, then car accidents would be much more important than murder because so many more people die in car accidents than are murdered. On the other hand, if your more interested in punishing immorality then you would focus entirely on the murders at the expense of the car crashes.

And what do we see with regard to saving unborn lives? All the effort is put towards combatting abortion rather than ending miscarriages. This implies that the issue is more about fighting immorality than it is about saving unborn lives.

Your conclusion does not follow. There already are efforts to reduce miscarriages. Those efforts are being made by those most qualified to make them: research scientists. And those efforts that can be made by the average person, like avoiding excessively strenuous activities during pregnancy, are already being made too. There is no obvious next step that we can do to reduce miscarriages. So your assumption that we don’t care about miscarriages is just false. On the other hand there are obvious things we can do to reduce abortions, like don’t do them. Convincing people not to have abortions, by persuasion or by law, seems a lot closer to attainment than finding something that will reduce miscarriages. So that explains why the discussions are centered around reducing abortions.

But that brings up another issue. Fighting a perceived immorality that stems from religious beliefs is not a sufficient basis for the criminalization of abortion. There must also be a secular purpose…

You are laboring under the misconception that secular law has nothing to do with morality, when in fact it is the basis for secular law. I don’t know what secular purpose there could be that does not in some way relate to morality.