Why do some Catholics support legal abortion?

[Bookcat]

"Christians, like all people of good will, are called upon under grave obligation of conscience not to cooperate formally in practices which, even if permitted by civil legislation, are contrary to God’s law. Indeed, from the moral standpoint, it is never licit to cooperate formally in evil. Such cooperation occurs when an action, either by its very nature or by the form it takes in a concrete situation, can be defined as a direct participation in an act against innocent human life or a sharing in the immoral intention of the person committing it. This cooperation can never be justified either by invoking respect for the freedom of others or by appealing to the fact that civil law permits it or requires it. "

BL. Pope John Paul II EV

 

[Bookcat]

A Catholic who supports legal abortion is acting contrary to Christ. Acting contrary to their Catholic Faith. So too is one who thinks such ought to be legal.

 

[Bookcat]

Can a Catholic support legal abortion?

Certainly not.

 

[CatSci]

I understand that you are removing the question of legality from the question of legality.

What do you mean?

I still fail to see how you do not have a circular argument… I was in fact looking to that particular post when I firsst brought up the fact that your reasoning seems circular. Correct me if I am wrong, but you argue that Abortion should not be illegal. The reason why? because abortion does not break the law, ie, is not legally murder.

Oh, I see, you’re not looking at the whole argument. That’s just one part of it. Too, you’ve got the approach wrong. The default is that things are legal until they are made illegal. That it isn’t legally murder is a reason why it is not a criminal action and shouldn’t be illegal.

If the conseptus had the legal status of a person, then abortion would legally be murder and should be criminalized.

To me this sounds as though you are simply saying, the law allows for it, therefore it shouldn’t be illegal(prohibited by law). I don’t see how it could get any more circular.

Because “it” refers to two different things. The law allows for thing A, therefore thing B shouldn’t be illegal. Abortion isn’t legally murder, therefore it shouldn’t be illegal for that reason.

The reason I keep referring to some standard beyond what is currently legal is to try and get out of this circular reasoning. If you are going to argue either a should or a should not you need to have some standard by which to judge something which is not the very thing which you are trying to judge.

Well, law is judged with law. If a law is found to be illegal, then it can’t be a law anymore.

Trying to say that something should or should not be legal based off of what is legal is not a legitimate argument for the should or shouldn’t of it. I understand that you do not want to use religion as the standard by which to judge should and shouldn’t in this case, which is why I am asking you to clarify what the standard is that you look to?

The Supreme Court uses other laws and the Constitution to figure out which laws are legal.

 

[Bookcat]

Well, law is judged with law. If a law is found to be illegal, then it can’t be a law anymore.

“Laws which authorize and promote abortion and euthanasia are therefore radically opposed not only to the good of the individual but also to the common good; as such they are completely lacking in authentic juridical validity. Disregard for the right to life, precisely because it leads to the killing of the person whom society exists to serve, is what most directly conflicts with the possibility of achieving the common good. Consequently, a civil law authorizing abortion or euthanasia ceases by that very fact to be a true, morally binding civil law.”

–BL Pope John Paul II EV

 

[CatSci]

Oh it would be easy to count.

ONE

Oh, heh. Well I didn’t read any of your other copy pasta either. I just figured it was all the same one.

Read the above quote please

And please read the one you refer too as well (from Pope Benedict XVI)

Not interested. I can go look that stuff up myself. I’m interested in discussing directly with other people.

EDIT: yeah, I’m not reading the other ones you posted afterwards either. A quick glance just shows unevidenced assertions.

 

[Bookcat]

Oh, heh. Well I didn’t read any of your other copy pasta either. I just figured it was all the same one.

Not interested. I can go look that stuff up myself. I’m interested in discussing directly with other people.

Your discussing with ME and I am putting them as part of our discussion.

Read them please.

 

[CatSci]

Your discussing with ME and I am putting them as part of our discussion.

Read them please.

Alright, I read it. Its just unevidenced assertions that doesn’t justify the criminalization of abortion. I didn’t even see anything that pertains to this discussion that was worth commenting on.

 

[Bookcat]

EDIT: yeah, I’m not reading the other ones you posted afterwards either. A quick glance just shows unevidenced assertions.

 

[Bookcat]

Alright, I read it. Its just unevidenced assertions that doesn’t justify the criminalization of abortion. I didn’t even see anything that pertains to this discussion that was worth commenting on.

Then your glasses need cleaning. Or if you do not have glasses – a trip to the eye doctor is due.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

CatSci

**Of course not. I’ve already explicitly stated that I think abortion is immoral. But a perceived immorality is not, in itself, a justificiation for illegality. For example, divorce is immoral but should remain legal. **

With divorce both parties consent.
With abortion one party cannot consent, and is by death deprived of all future consents as well.

 

[CatSci]

Then your glasses need cleaning. Or if you do not have glasses – a trip to the eye doctor is due.

I don’t believe you.

 

[CatSci]

CatSci

**Of course not. I’ve already explicitly stated that I think abortion is immoral. But a perceived immorality is not, in itself, a justificiation for illegality. For example, divorce is immoral but should remain legal. **

With divorce both parties consent.

That doesn’t make it moral. My point stands.

With abortion one party cannot consent, and is by death deprived of all future consents as well.

A blastocysts inability to consent because it doesn’t have a brain, furthers the case that it shouldn’t be legally classified as a person.

 

[Bookcat]

"Some people try to justify abortion by claiming that the result of conception, at least up to a certain number of days, cannot yet be considered a personal human life. But in fact, "from the time that the ovum is fertilized, a life is begun which is neither that of the father nor the mother; it is rather the life of a new human being with his own growth. It would never be made human if it were not human already. This has always been clear, and … modern genetic science offers clear confirmation. … -Bl. Pope John Paul II EV

 

[vz71]

So why do some Catholics support legal abortion?

Because they do not wish to follow their church.

I have seen a number of examples on this thread of people that wish to suipport abortion, but also wish to claim to be serving the Catholic church.
Each time, they believe they have some insight that everyone else lacks that makes their particular point of view correct.
And in each case, they are wrong.

In the latest case, there is a defense to keeping abortion legal being mounted on the idea that there is no justification for making it illegal.

Of course, this conveniently leaves out the fact that the unborn child is a human life, and as such has the right to life.

In actuality, it is not a deeper understanding. It isn’t wiser, more compassionate, more understanding, empathetic, or open minded.
It is just plain rebellion.
The same old tired sin that so many of us are familiar with.

There truly is nothing new under the sun.
Just more and more rebellion.

 

[thewanderer]

What do you mean?

Oh, I see, you’re not looking at the whole argument. That’s just one part of it. Too, you’ve got the approach wrong. The default is that things are legal until they are made illegal. That it isn’t legally murder is a reason why it is not a criminal action and shouldn’t be illegal.

If the conseptus had the legal status of a person, then abortion would legally be murder and should be criminalized.

Because “it” refers to two different things. The law allows for thing A, therefore thing B shouldn’t be illegal. Abortion isn’t legally murder, therefore it shouldn’t be illegal for that reason.

Well, law is judged with law. If a law is found to be illegal, then it can’t be a law anymore.

The Supreme Court uses other laws and the Constitution to figure out which laws are legal.

I meant to say seperating legality from morality… I went back and edited it when I realized my mistake… sorry.

I see what you are saying about laws needing to be checked against others to ensure that they do not contradict each other, but this is all in the negative. How does one determine whether or not a knew law should be put in place? Surely it is not *only *the case that we can, or should, only make something a law if it is already in the constitution… if that were the case what would be the point of making any new laws beyond those originally set up in a country?

Let me see if I have your argument correctly so far.

1. Abortian is currently legal
2. Things should be legal by default
   Therefore abortion should be legal.

Ok, my problem with this is that 1) is irrelevant, and 2) has not made the determination of when something should be made illegal. It is possible to justify all sorts of atrocities if the above argument were complete. Slavery and racism used to be legal, and things should be legal by default, so according to this argument shouldn’t slavery and racism have remained legal?

Do you see where I’m coming from in saying that it is important to determine what standards are to be used in determining what should and should not be legal?

 

[CatSci]

"Some people try to justify abortion by claiming that the result of conception, at least up to a certain number of days, cannot yet be considered a personal human life. But in fact, "from the time that the ovum is fertilized, a life is begun which is neither that of the father nor the mother; it is rather the life of a new human being with his own growth. It would never be made human if it were not human already. This has always been clear, and … modern genetic science offers clear confirmation. … -Bl. Pope John Paul II EV

Yeah, unevidence assertion.

You’d have done just as well with:

“Nuh-uh! A blastocyst is to a person!”

 

[LeafByNiggle]

I’m not sure if there’s an obvious next step {to prevent miscarriages} or not, but that’s beside the point. The point is that if people really cared about saving unborn lives then there would be more effort towards preventing miscarriage than criminalizing abortion.

No it is not beside the point. Seeing a possible way to a goal (a possible “next step”) is a valid consideration in deciding how much effort should be made toward that goal. Otherwise we could all start jumping up and down to see if maybe one of us jumps high enough to reach to moon. Only when the possibility of actually getting there was conceived did the massive effort to reach the moon begin. Getting back to miscarriages, you say not enough is being done. I say how do you determine how much effort is enough? You have yet to prove that the comparison between concern for miscarriages and abortions is sufficient to justify your claim about the motives of those who want to reduce abortion.

Either put more effort towards actually saving more lives or stop pretending that saving lives is the actual justification for criminalizing abortion.

There is no satisfying you. No matter how much effort is expended to reduce miscarriages you can always say there should have been more.

See, there you go again; you’re claiming that there’s nothing more we can do. Really? Have you really looked into that?

Have you tired jumping really high to see if you can reach the moon? If not, then how do you know that it can’t be done that way?

Take a step back and really look at it though… how many abortions have actually been stopped by the effort to criminalize it?

Quite a few. In times and places where abortion is illegal the number of abortions has been considerably less than in times and places where abortion is not only allowed but actually subsidized and accepted by society as normal.

…The fact that you’re spending way more effort on criminalizing abortion makes it look like you’re more interesting in punishing immorality than saving lives.

At least say “preventing immorality” and you will be closer to the truth, although not completely there.

Its just the logical conclusion of the arguments for the criminalization of abortion. If a small clump of cells is a human being that needs to be saved, then you’d be saving orders of magnitude more lives by preventing miscarriages than you would from trying to criminalize abortion.

That would only be true if you actually could prevent miscarriages. So far it is just a gamble that may or may not pay off.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

CatSci

**A blastocysts inability to consent because it doesn’t have a brain, furthers the case that it shouldn’t be legally classified as a person. **

So as a Catholic you are saying that the position of the Catholic Church, that the fetus is a human being, is in error? That you are right and the Catholic Church is wrong?

 

[CatSci]

I meant to say seperating legality from morality… I went back and edited it when I realized my mistake… sorry.

No worries. But yeah, the legal argument and the moral argument can be kept seperate.

My position for legal abortion has to do with the legality of it, not the morality of it.

If you wanted to argue that divorce should be illegal because its immoral, I’d be taking the same approach. Our perceived immorality of divorce is irrelevant to its legality.

I see what you are saying about laws needing to be checked against others to ensure that they do not contradict each other, but this is all in the negative. How does one determine whether or not a knew law should be put in place?

Somebody has to propse it as a bill; It has to have a secular purpose, and be constitutional.

Let me see if I have your argument correctly so far.

1. Abortian is currently legal
2. Things should be legal by default
   Therefore abortion should be legal.

Not quite, and this is only one part of it:

1. Things should be legal by default
2. There isn’t a good legal justification for criminalizing abortion
3. Abortion should remain legal

Ok, my problem with this is that 1) is irrelevant,

I agree.

and 2) has not made the determination of when something should be made illegal.

Right, but that’s what needs to happen in order for it to be criminalized. Otherwise, it remains legal.

It is possible to justify all sorts of atrocities if the above argument were complete. Slavery and racism used to be legal, and things should be legal by default, so according to this argument shouldn’t slavery and racism have remained legal?

No, it was determined that they should be made illegal.

Do you see where I’m coming from in saying that it is important to determine what standards are to be used in determining what should and should not be legal?

I suppose. What standard would you have us use?