Why do some Catholics support legal abortion?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Charlemagne_II
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
CatSci:

I am really curious as to your understanding of the purpose of laws.

I had this discussion earlier in this thread with AdolphusWC.

His understanding of the purpose of human laws is for the protection of the lives and property of those in the society subject to such laws. Do you agree wth this assesment?
 
Could it just be because the Bible is not clear at all about abortion?
Look, if it really were THE moral issue, as it’s presented today by many Christians, wouldn’t God, in His omniscience, had made it clear cut, so that we would not be forced to quarrel over it? This seems pretty obvious to me. But what we have instead? Only an obscure verse in Exodus, some verses in Psalms (poetry), and no word from Christ at all. Nothing from Paul or Peter for that matter. IMHO, God didn’t consider it a big issue, so why should we?
 
Look, if it really were THE moral issue, as it’s presented today by many Christians, wouldn’t God, in His omniscience, had made it clear cut, so that we would not be forced to quarrel over it?
Lots of things that are extremely clear cut still get argued over!!! Think of the many things that are extremely clear even in Sacred Scripture – and still people argue over them. They are blinded by ill culture, by sin, but their will etc. etc.

It has been taught as a grave evil from the beginning. God in his wisdom also gave a Church to teach in name…
 
“Guest appearance” on Catholic Answers Forum…

Q: Why do some Catholics support legal abortion?*

A: Pope Benedict XVI:

"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)
 
Could it just be because the Bible is not clear at all about abortion?
Look, if it really were THE moral issue, as it’s presented today by many Christians, wouldn’t God, in His omniscience, had made it clear cut, so that we would not be forced to quarrel over it? This seems pretty obvious to me. But what we have instead? Only an obscure verse in Exodus, some verses in Psalms (poetry), and no word from Christ at all. Nothing from Paul or Peter for that matter. IMHO, God didn’t consider it a big issue, so why should we?
Be very careful about what you conclude from such an argument. The basis of this and similar arguments is “I don’t understand why God would do such and such, therefore…”. Imagine if Abraham had used that argument when God asked him to sacrifice his son Isaac. We don’t know why God lets bad things happen to good people. But that does not give us license to make up any reason we care to imagine. God is God. He is not just some slightly smarter and powerful supervisor whose thoughts can be fathomed on an equal basis with us. It would be well to remember that He is God and we aren’t.
 
“Lots of things that are extremely clear cut still get argued over!!! Think of the many things that are extremely clear even in Sacred Scripture – and still people argue over them”

Well, I haven’t heard a lot of arguing over killing, or stealing, or rendering false witness, or committing adultery, for example, so I don’t know what ‘clear cut’ things you are referring to. And also, if people argue over something, it’s obvious that the issue is not clear, otherwise it would be senseless. If half of the students leave the chemistry class convinced that water’s formula is O2H instead of H2O, there must have been something wrong with the teacher’s explanation, right?
I think this is inescapable. And when you compare the amount of suffering caused by abortion, to the amount of suffering caused by wars, even just wars supported historically by the Church, abortion looks like a very small evil.
Also did you forget that the great Aquinas considered the fetus to be a sentient being at ‘quickening’?
 
…And also, if people argue over something, it’s obvious that the issue is not clear, otherwise it would be senseless. If half of the students leave the chemistry class convinced that water’s formula is O2H instead of H2O, there must have been something wrong with the teacher’s explanation, right?
I think this is inescapable. And when you compare the amount of suffering caused by abortion, to the amount of suffering caused by wars, even just wars supported historically by the Church, abortion looks like a very small evil.
Also did you forget that the great Aquinas considered the fetus to be a sentient being at ‘quickening’?
You are seriously exaggerating the level of confusion over the fundamental morality of abortion. Humans, especially women, instinctively have a respect for and the desire to protect the life within them when they are pregnant. It is only under extraordinary circumstances that some women consider terminating their pregnancy, and even those do so with great anguish. It is nothing at all like students thinking water is O2H. What there is a lot of debate over is what our societal response to abortion should be. But this is a far different question than the basic question of “is abortion OK?”

And as far as Aquinas and quickening, it would be wrong to conclude that Aquinas therefore believed that terminating a fetus before quickening was morally neutral.
 
“Lots of things that are extremely clear cut still get argued over!!! Think of the many things that are extremely clear even in Sacred Scripture – and still people argue over them”

Well, I haven’t heard a lot of arguing over killing, or stealing, or rendering false witness, or committing adultery, for example, so I don’t know what ‘clear cut’ things you are referring to. And also, if people argue over something, it’s obvious that the issue is not clear, otherwise it would be senseless. If half of the students leave the chemistry class convinced that water’s formula is O2H instead of H2O, there must have been something wrong with the teacher’s explanation, right?
I think this is inescapable. And when you compare the amount of suffering caused by abortion, to the amount of suffering caused by wars, even just wars supported historically by the Church, abortion looks like a very small evil.
Also did you forget that the great Aquinas considered the fetus to be a sentient being at ‘quickening’?
Your analogy is flawed. The difference here is, well I’ll illustrate by adding to your fictitious classroom.

Let’s add some reality to your classroom. The view of the truth is the view of the teacher teaching that it is H2O. We know that to be truth, there is no other truth; it is absolute. However, the students in the class, lets say there are 20, have other forces working at them for their attention. There is little Johnny who says that he knows for a fact that it is 2HO. Then on the other side of the room there is little Sally, and she swears by the word from her mom that it is in fact H5O. Don’t forget about old George who says that there is no such thing as water at all because there is no God to create it. I think you get the picture.

There are so many voices screaming at the top of their lungs to lead us astray, in the name of tolerance, or some strange new virtue called relative truth, that sometimes we can’t see or hear the true teacher standing in front of the class teaching the authentic truth. Oh, and I forgot to mention this added portion of the confusion equation, some of the teachers of the authentic truth also subscribe to that new virtue of relative truth; this one does the most damage to the people who are trying to find the truth.

We have to look at the source, the Church, in everything. Not the minister standing before you, go to the source. I am one of the men in the garb preaching on Sundays, I see and hear many others who stand in front of the class teaching. Some times I get confused listening to the rhetoric of some. Don’t get me wrong, most of our priests, deacons, and bishops are right on, but there are a small minority who prescribe to this new age “enlightenment” called relative truth; and they do quite a bit of damage.

It’s time to learn for yourself what the truth is from the one true teacher, Jesus who is Head of His Church!

The simple truth is, there is no debate about abortion in the Church teachings or Sacred Scripture, and there is confusion in opinions of these. These are the wolves in sheep’s clothing which Jesus warned us about. The simple truth is, we are bound to search for the truth, authentic truth, then live it and preach it with our lives. We cannot preach truth with our lives by being tolerant of untruth for the sake of relativism. This will only add to the confusion which leads many away from the Church and truth; and therefore away from God.
 
If you are a member of the Catholic Church, some things are really not up for debate. We are taught that abortion is an intrinsic evil. That is it is evil in and of itself. We are also told that those who have anything to do with an actual abortion are automatically excommunicated.

For Catholics, this brings us face to face with the choice for salvation or not. Do you wish to be saved from hell’s fires from all eternity? Not whether you think you are clever enough to come up with a good reason for killing the innocent unborn. Our Church makes this starkly obvious - look to your soul before you consider your fitness to debate such an issue. Acknowledge your littleness and be grateful that you are alive instead of thrown in some rubbish dump behind an abortuary.

The very best thing you can do is to use your intelligence to defend the Faith and the rights of the unborn, rather than echo the reasoning of the culture of death.
 
You are not the arbiter of what is right or wrong. You cannot decide what is moral or not.
Sure you can, through empathy and reasoning. Its really quite easy to determine that some things are wrong.
It would be mature and intelligent of you to work out why your Church teaches what it does on abortion.
I’m familiar with the church’s position. But this isn’t about that, this is about why some of us think that abortion should remain legal.
If you have anything to do with abortion, you are automatically excommunicated.
I’m pretty sure I’m safe in an anonymous online discussion forum.
Just so long as you know the consequences of your support for abortion.
What do you mean “support for”? I’m just typing words into a text box. And I’m not even saying people should be getting abortions, I’m just saying that we shouldn’t criminalize it.
If you are a member of the Catholic Church, some things are really not up for debate.
Everything should always be up for debate. There’s nothing wrong with debating an issue. If you’re confident that your position is correct, then you should always welcome debate because if it leads to anything, it will lead to converting your opponent to your position.
We are taught that abortion is an intrinsic evil. That is it is evil in and of itself. We are also told that those who have anything to do with an actual abortion are automatically excommunicated.
That’s fine, I don’t doubt that we’re taught those things. This thread is about how Catholics can hold the position of having abortion be legal.

Here’s my original position from message #500:

"I don’t think that some abortions should be illegal because they aren’t murder. A blastocyst isn’t a person so it doesn’t have any legal rights. The mother is and does.

Ultimately, its the mother’s choice as to what happens to the conseptus. I’d rather those who don’t want to be pregnant have a medical option over the other termination alternatives. Too, society shouldn’t be forcing those women to do things with their own bodies."

I’d rather discuss any errors in my reasoning or facts than hear y’all tell me to worry about going to hell.
For Catholics, this brings us face to face with the choice for salvation or not. Do you wish to be saved from hell’s fires from all eternity? Not whether you think you are clever enough to come up with a good reason for killing the innocent unborn.
Let me reiterate that this isn’t a justification for the morality, or use, of abortion. Its about the reasoning behind it remaining legal, i.e. not criminalized.
 
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.
Right, and y’all should focus your time and money on that research. That is, if saving unborn lives, rather than punishing immorality, is your ultimate goal in all this.
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.
Wait, are you one of those research scientists or not? Its really easy to justify your position with stifling ignorance. There’s no obvious next step? Really? Have you honestly looked?
So your assumption that we don’t care about miscarriages is just false.
By their fruits you shall know them… I’m judging from your lack of action towards reducing miscarriages. When’s the last time you’ve ever heard of a Catholic fundraiser for scientific research into reducing miscarriage because we want to save unborn children? Why is it always, instead, combatting abortion?

Don’t you think I have somewhat of a point here that if it really was about saving, rather than just punishing, that we’d see more efforts towards the things that would do the most saving?
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.
Have you really honestly looked into this and made the comparison? Or is this just a gut feeling?
So that explains why the discussions are centered around reducing abortions.
As an unevidence post-hoc rationalization, I guess you’re correct. Shall we start a new topic about this and find out for real if one thing is closer to attainment than the other?
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.
No, I’m not. But here in the United States, our laws are supposed have a secular purpose. That doesn’t mean they can’t have something to do with morality.
I don’t know what secular purpose there could be that does not in some way relate to morality.
Well, there’s taxes for one.
 
CatSci:

I am really curious as to your understanding of the purpose of laws.

I had this discussion earlier in this thread with AdolphusWC.

His understanding of the purpose of human laws is for the protection of the lives and property of those in the society subject to such laws. Do you agree wth this assesment?
I’m not sure that getting into the purpose of laws in general, is necessary to discuss the justification for legal abortion. And honestly, its not something I’m particularly interested in discussing. But to answer your question, I agree that some laws have that purpose, but not all of them. Like I just said in the previous message: taxes. They’d be an exception to that purpose.
 
"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."

–Pope Benedict XVI

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2008/april/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20080416_response-bishops_en.html
 
I’m not sure that getting into the purpose of laws in general, is necessary to discuss the justification for legal abortion. And honestly, its not something I’m particularly interested in discussing. But to answer your question, I agree that some laws have that purpose, but not all of them. Like I just said in the previous message: taxes. They’d be an exception to that purpose.
Let me get this straight, even though we’re discussing whether or not something should be legal, ie, what the laws should say regarding it, you don’t want to bother clarifying what the point of having laws are? How are you going to determine what the law about abortion should be if you don’t have a clear understanding as to the purpose of law?

One o the main reasons I asked is because you have basically said that abortion is not “legally” killing a person because a person is no legally defined as from conception. In other words abortion should be legal because the laws allow it and do nit view it as murder.



Think about that one for a minute. So by the same reasoning you use to justify abortion, I could use for infanticide, if I can just get the courts to redefine what they mean legally by a person… But once they do that, would you have an issue with infanticide? According to the reasoning you gave for allowing abortion you must also support such infanticide.
 
Let me get this straight, even though we’re discussing whether or not something should be legal, ie, what the laws should say regarding it, you don’t want to bother clarifying what the point of having laws are? How are you going to determine what the law about abortion should be if you don’t have a clear understanding as to the purpose of law?
By following the rules of law. I’m comfortable discussing things within the law without getting into the actual purpose of law, itself. That would be more of a philisophical discussion rather than a legal one.

We don’t need to get into the purpose of math to have a discussion about the pythagorean theorem.
One o the main reasons I asked is because you have basically said that abortion is not “legally” killing a person because a person is no legally defined as from conception. In other words abortion should be legal because the laws allow it and do nit view it as murder.
Sort of. My reasoning isn’t that circular. One of the reasons that abortion should remain legal, though, does come from how a person is legally defined and gets their legal rights.
Think about that one for a minute. So by the same reasoning you use to justify abortion, I could use for infanticide, if I can just get the courts to redefine what they mean legally by a person…
That’s right. In ancient Greece, in the first few centuries before Christ, the Spartans performed legal infanticides.

The question here is: what is the rationalization for the legalization?
But once they do that, would you have an issue with infanticide? According to the reasoning you gave for allowing abortion you must also support such infanticide.
I would oppose legal infanticide, unlike abortion, because I can empathize with a baby unlike I can for a small clump of cells. Too, the baby is no longer a part of the woman’s body after birth.
 
Its really easy to justify your position with stifling ignorance. There’s no obvious next step? Really? Have you honestly looked?
I think the burden is on you to point the way. You are the one who said we are not doing enough to prevent miscarriages. If you think there is an obvious next step we should be pursuing then by all means enlighten us.
By their fruits you shall know them… I’m judging from your lack of action towards reducing miscarriages. When’s the last time you’ve ever heard of a Catholic fundraiser for scientific research into reducing miscarriage because we want to save unborn children? Why is it always, instead, combatting abortion?
There are Catholic efforts aimed at improving pre-natal care. What more do you want?
Don’t you think I have somewhat of a point here that if it really was about saving, rather than just punishing, that we’d see more efforts towards the things that would do the most saving?
No I don’t think you have any point at all in saying that we don’t care as much about miscarriages as we do about abortion. The difference in attention is completely understandable just by considering that by and large miscarriages are natural events that we don’t really know how to prevent much more than we are already doing. On the other hand stopping a willful behavior seems much more under our control. We don’t want to punish those who get abortions. They are punished enough by the abortion itself. We want to prevent those abortions in the first place. It is silly to say that we care about abortions because we want to punish bad behavior.
Have you really honestly looked into this and made the comparison? Or is this just a gut feeling?
Again I think the ball is in your court. You are the one who is claiming that a reduction in miscarriages is more doable. I am only reporting on what the common perception is to explain the motives of those who oppose abortion. And it is those motives that you were criticizing.
Regarding my: “So that explains why the discussions are centered around reducing abortions.” you wrote:
As an unevidence post-hoc rationalization, I guess you’re correct. Shall we start a new topic about this and find out for real if one thing is closer to attainment than the other?
My statement was no more post-hoc rationalization than your statement giving your reason why discussions are centered around reducing abortions. You say it is because we care about punishing rather than saving lives. I say it is because it seems we can do more to prevent abortions than we can to reduce miscarriages. How is one explanation of the facts any more post-hoc rationalization than the other?
… But here in the United States, our laws are supposed have a secular purpose. That doesn’t mean they can’t have something to do with morality.
Exactly. That was my point. Laws about abortion can have something to do with morality. That can be their secular purpose.
Well, there’s taxes for one.
That is not a purpose. It is a means.
 
“we do not want to get the word out that we want to exterminate the negro population and other undesirables”
Margaret Sanger
Letter to Clarence J. Gamble, M.D December 10 1939

Planned Parenthood is the largest abortion provider in America. 78% of their clinics are in minority communities. Blacks make up 12% of the population, but 35% of the abortions in America. Are we being targeted? Isn’t that genocide? We are the only minority in America that is on the decline in population. If the current trend continues, by 2038 the black vote will be insignificant. Did you know that the founder of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger, was a devout racist who created the Negro Project designed to sterilize unknowing black women and others she deemed as undesirables of society? The founder of Planned Parenthood said, “Colored people are like human weeds and are to be exterminated.” How is her vision being fulfilled today?

Minority women constitute only about 26% of the female population (age 15-44) in the United States, but they underwent approximately 36% of the abortions.* According to the Alan Guttmacher Institute, black women are more than 3 times as likely as white women to have an abortion. On average, 1,452 black babies are aborted every day in the United States.

This incidence of abortion has resulted in a tremendous loss of life. It has been estimated that since 1973 Black women have had over 13 million abortions. Michael Novak had calculated “Since the number of current living Blacks (in the U.S.) is 31 million, the missing 10 million represents an enormous loss, for without abortion, America’s Black community would now number 41 million persons. It would be 35% larger than it is. Abortion has swept through the Black community like a scythe, cutting down every fourth member.”

A highly significant 1993 Howard University study showed that African American women over age 50 were 4.7 times more likely to get breast cancer if they had had any abortions compared to women who had not had any abortions.

-http://www.priestsforlife.org/africanamerican/
Shalom
 
Show me one who does. Ive never known of any Catholic who supports abortion.
 
Show me one who does. Ive never known of any Catholic who supports abortion.
Well not one who is living according to the Teachings of the Church.
You are certainly correct that such is very contrary to Christ.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top