Women are hit unfairly by the Church teaching on Abortion?

[Journeyman]

This is part of a letter to the editor of a diocese newspaper:

In a world of potential nuclear annihilation, nearly perpetual war, famine, genocide, abject impoverishment beside unbelievable wealth, and impending fatal climate change, abortion is not the most important issue of our day!

Our culture has become expert at distorting difficult issues into simplistic either/or decisions. The Second Vatican Council and the USCCB remind us that it is possible for people of conscience and good will to legitimately disagree on issues of Catholic Social Teaching (“Leaders Guide to Sharing Catholic Social Teaching”, USCCB 2000, page 3). Unfortunately, it appears that many of us Catholics, both religious and lay, have forgotten these injunctions on avoiding ideological conflicts.

Polarizing a debate turns a discussion into an either/or argument over who is right and who is wrong. This leads to self-righteousness and intolerance, both starkly evident in the abortion debate. If I understand the Gospels correctly, through actions and words Jesus calls us to love. I believe that Jesus condemns the self-righteous intolerance exhibited by many on both sides.

The remainder of the letter is at this link (second letter): catholicvirginian.org/archive/2005vol81iss2/pages/letters.htm

How would you respond to this letter?

 

[fix]

As a Catholic, part of the dilemma about abortion is expressed within the seven themes of Catholic Social Teaching. The Church calls us to “Respect Life and the Dignity of the Human person.” It is from this “Respect Life “principle that the Church condemns abortion as an attack on human life. One problem is that in this very theme we are also called to respect “The Dignity of the Human Person.” Where is the dignity in depersonalizing and institutionalizing the choices about a woman’s pregnancy that so personally effect her?

Another relevant theme of Catholic Social Teaching is the “Preferential Option for the Poor and Vulnerable.” This theme, which calls for us to give a priority to the effect of our decisions on the poor and vulnerable, can be interpreted to apply to the vulnerability of the unborn.

It can also be applied to the vulnerability of a woman who is being challenged by an unwanted pregnancy, especially if that woman is impoverished. When we consider the question of abortion, it does us well to remember that Church policies transcend white U.S. middle and upper class society. The availability and affordability of health care and maternal childbirth survival rates are not the same everywhere or for everyone.

An obvious issue that also underlies the abortion debate is the sexual activity that leads to unwanted pregnancies. The Church’s official position is that the only acceptable forms of birth control are abstinence from sex and so-called “natural” birth control…

Men, and the Church as a male institution, have a long history of trying to control the sexual activity of women. To oppose women having access to effective means of birth control, and to condemn women to carrying unwanted pregnancies to birth, regardless of the consequences to the woman herself, is a bald attempt to control the sexual activity of women.

I would think such muddled, poorly informed thinking accounts for much of the dissent today.

Why do so many hold such views, when they have so much access to the truth?

 

[mosher]

From the positions that this person is taking it sounds like the author went to an american jesuit college.

But, on a serious note it is troubling to me when a person uses an argument from conscious or social justice to justify abortion. What the author leaves out deliberatelly is that the documents of the Church and the USCCB when speaking about personal choice and the freedom of conscious use the term “a well formed conscious” which de facto means that the conscious must be in accord with the Magesterium on grave matters of Faith and Morals. The Church does not provide for license of behavior based upon the decisions of the individual conscious as true freedom is found in truth and not in error.

The second issue of the so called “preferential option” is a spurious argument when it comes to the issues of life. The Church does not take into account the comfort level of a person who is born into poverty or luxary to determine their value as a person. Rather the surroundings in which they find themselvs are in some ways irrelavent when it comes to the issue of life. The intrinsic dignity of the human person profoundly surpasses their proximate surroundings and circumstances and to argue that the environment that they are to be born into somehow makes a case for abortion is a sick materialism and utilitarianism and is in fact an elitist view that does not understand the value of human suffering.

Another problem is that the author begins to discuss the issue of the so called “reproductive rights.” First, there is not any mention that NFP can only be used in the context of marriage (notice how that little aspect is missing). This is a serious issue because I am directly aware of some who are teaching NFP for use of couples that are not married . Another point is that the argument seems to go in the direction of an antiquated feminist theology which falsly asserts that the Church suppresses women and in this case the sexuality of women. However, it is not a relavent point because the Church restricts the sexual activity of all persons in accord with authentic morality and not one group over the other.

She seems to take the point of view that all moral issues are equal when in reality they are not.

 

[manualman]

Abortion is not a matter of catholic social teaching. It is a matter of catholic moral teaching. Big difference.

Most social teachings involve prudential judgement on the part of individual laity; who to give to, how much to give, what are my obligations to my employees, etc.

Moral teachings on matters clearly illuminated by Sacred Tradition are NOT subject to prudential judgement. Individual conscience cannot overrule the church, merely guide a person in the grey areas between clear teachings. Vatican II NEVER said anything like the author claims. (Challenge her to find a citation).

The moral acceptance of abortion in our culture is, quite simply, an indicator that this culture is descending rapidly into a culture of absolute, total license; anything goes.

Freedom uncoupled from truth will always become license. License results in chaos. Cultures in chaos usually turn to tyranny to save them.

Abortion is the killing of a human being. That is as clear cut as moral issues get. And still people want to waffle it? Madness.

 

[markinohio]

What part of an abortion does God look down upon and smile?

 

[lifeisbeautiful]

Women and men are being treated unfairly (actually being killed) by the act of abortion.

 

[genealogist]

Women are different then men.

Child bearing and all that comes with it are “unfair” to women; having to start your menses when you ar 11 or so, bleeding every month even when you are not yet married and having relations with your husband, getting pregnant and all the changes that occur to the body(swollen breasts, morning sickness, child birth itself). That is all a small price to pay when you feel a kick inside your womb and know that is your child that you and your husband co-produced with God. When you get to hold him in the delivery room it is a feeling I am sure never going to experience the same as my wife. Yes, abortion hits women differently than men but so does the rest of sexuality so what is the writer’s point?

“If men could get pregnant abortion would be a sacrament” said one evil person I once heard. How sad that their world view is so screwed up.

I like Mother Teresa better, “It is a very great poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish.”

 

[gardenswithkids]

One interesting point I noticed is the author of that letter has a MAN’s name.

The author writes, “Men, and the Church as a male institution, have a long history of trying to control the sexual activity of women.”

Many men do have a long history of trying to control the sexual activity of women. Wide spread contraception and abortion are ways that some men today try to control the sexual activity of women. Men who advocate for contraception and abortion usually support those sins so they can treat women as sexual objects rather than as the mothers of their children.

The Church, on the other hand, has a history of placing women (such as the mother of Jesus) on pedelstals. Rather that attempting to “control” the sexual activity of women, it seeks to direct all sexual activity to give glory to God and dignity to womanhood.

 

[JimG]

I read the letter. More mushy thinking.

 

[Dorothy]

The letter is a perfect example of twisted thinking.

Yes, we are to love people, but we are not to agree with them when they are obviously wrong. It is not love to be tolerant to what is blatantly false.

The Lord commands us to “instruct the ignorant” and “admonish the sinner”.

 

[Seeks_God]

What a truly interesting topic…

The other day on EWTN, I listened to a deacon explain the social harms, crimes and sins that affect women are a direct result of Satan’s attack on Eve - i.e. “Why did the serpent tempt Eve first and not Adam?” He then went on to explain that Satan was aware of God’s plan to “plant the seed of salvation in a WOMAN” - i.e. she was going to bear the greatest responsibility (mankind - or womankind - is a result of a woman’s ability to bear children). He then went on to explain that the purpose of Satan’s attack was to attack the very being that would bear Jesus - a woman.

He then followed up with something else “Where was man, or Adam?” Adam was right there next to Eve watching, or allowing, the temptation/attack to happen. Then man did something else - he willing participated in the sin/crime that was affecting his partner.

I wonder if the Church recognizes this AWESOME responsibility women have and truly wants women to understand the truly unique gift God has given them…

I wouldn’t know though, I’m just a man…

SG

 

[vern_humphrey]

fix:

I would think such muddled, poorly informed thinking accounts for much of the dissent today.

Why do so many hold such views, when they have so much access to the truth?

They hold those views out of self-interest. Many such people have had abortions themselves, and are unwilling to face the horror of what they have done.

 

[jman507]

Unborn are hit unfairly by the planned parenthoods teaching on abortion.

 

[jman507]

genealogist:

Women are different then men.

Child bearing and all that comes with it are “unfair” to women; having to start your menses when you ar 11 or so, bleeding every month even when you are not yet married and having relations with your husband, getting pregnant and all the changes that occur to the body(swollen breasts, morning sickness, child birth itself). That is all a small price to pay when you feel a kick inside your womb and know that is your child that you and your husband co-produced with God. When you get to hold him in the delivery room it is a feeling I am sure never going to experience the same as my wife. Yes, abortion hits women differently than men but so does the rest of sexuality so what is the writer’s point?

“If men could get pregnant abortion would be a sacrament” said one evil person I once heard. How sad that their world view is so screwed up.

If no one gave birth there would be NO sacraments.

To all my sisters who may have a heavier burden cause they can get pregnant, remember, “heart on the cross, heart on the cross.” May you be given extra blessings, for a heavier cross. Of course where ever there is much suffering, usually great joy is there too.

 

[Aaron_I]

“Women are hit unfairly by the Church teaching on Abortion?”

I agree. It’s almost as unfair as the 13th Amendment was for Southern plantation owners.

 

[tamccrackine]

genealogist:

I like Mother Teresa better, “It is a very great poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish.”

I used that very line in a debate on a natural mama’s discussion board and wow did I get such a heap of hatred heaped upon me for being so disassociated with modern society, Mother Teresa was accused of being short sighted (I laughed my rearend off on that one), for being such a prude and they went so far to state my children will fear me if they get pregnant at an early age because they’ll fear I won’t support them for abortion. (gee, they got the second part right, but the first part I hope to not have to worry about as I will teach them abstinance).

Anyway…