Trying to understand Catholic arguments for and against abortion

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry but the Catholic Church is explicit that there is no Catholic argument for abortion. Advocating for abortion is a grave sin.

Catholics Church can hold whatever view it wants on abortion. It has NO right to force those views on others.

Catholic Church is not holding a gun to your head.

Using specific religious dogma to make decisions on abortion for all Americans? Of course the Catholic Church is holding a gun to the rest of us who do not subscribe to their ideology. And of course the CC has influence on American lawmakers - to say it doesn't, is blatant dishonesty (which is also a sin).

Laws are alway made with moral understanding. If one gets that from a religion they are allowed to. You are allowed to seek your morals from whatever you want.

Uh, no. You are not allowed to use morals from your religion to create legislation. Are you insane?

You are twisting what PP said.

No, I'm not. PP is trying to word salad his way around saying it's ok to make laws from your personal religious ideologies.

You live in Lala land if you think that laws don’t come from morals with regard to aspects of religion.

DP.

Laws can come from religious morals, but they have to have separate secular justification in order to be established.

A lawmaker can be inspired by your religious morals, but they have to make the argument that it would be a good law based on secular reasoning, not religious. At least in the US.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Catholic here who favors overturning Roe to remand these determinations back to the states. Has nothing to do with my religious views but rather my view of those things that are the domain of the federal government and those that are the domain of state governments.

The proper way to do something like Roe at the national level is a constitutional amendment like people did a hundred years ago for prohibition.

What a load of bullshit.

Why? This is a view that was widely held immediately post-Roe and during the decades since then.

No it’s not. This is a distraction point to undermine women’s healthcare.

It is not a distraction point. It goes to whether Roe has a solid constitutional underpinning or not and, if not, was the Supreme Court going beyond its remit of determining the constitutionality of a law by making policy instead.

You may not care about the separation of powers, but it is the bedrock of our government.

No, the question is whether we have a system that protects fundamental rights and especially the rights of minorities that have historically or currently suffered from discrimination. That’s the crucial test we are facing as a nation. This case is about fundamental rights, not about federalism or separation of powers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Catholic here who favors overturning Roe to remand these determinations back to the states. Has nothing to do with my religious views but rather my view of those things that are the domain of the federal government and those that are the domain of state governments.

The proper way to do something like Roe at the national level is a constitutional amendment like people did a hundred years ago for prohibition.

What a load of bullshit.

Why? This is a view that was widely held immediately post-Roe and during the decades since then.

No it’s not. This is a distraction point to undermine women’s healthcare.

It is not a distraction point. It goes to whether Roe has a solid constitutional underpinning or not and, if not, was the Supreme Court going beyond its remit of determining the constitutionality of a law by making policy instead.

You may not care about the separation of powers, but it is the bedrock of our government.

No, the question is whether we have a system that protects fundamental rights and especially the rights of minorities that have historically or currently suffered from discrimination. That’s the crucial test we are facing as a nation. This case is about fundamental rights, not about federalism or separation of powers.

Actually Roe and this case are precisely about federalism and separation of powers. Minority rights are established through the 14th amendment. Properly, establishing a federal right to abortion should also be done through an amendment because it takes it out of state hands, where where laws about abortion and everything else not covered by the Constitution belong under the tenth amendment.

[Anonymous]

Here's another book on pro-choice Catholic thought. It calls out the wrong science paraded as fact by the Church and the Church's disregard for individual conscience:

"In his 2010 book, "Is Being Pro-Choice a Sin?" (published by iUniverse), author, retired lawyer and pro-choice Catholic Leonard Belter presents scientific, practical, and religious-based arguments challenging the Catholic Church's demand that Catholics must oppose legalized abortion.

"Is Being Pro-Choice a Sin?" examines the human reproductive process and the numerous official pronouncements of the Roman Catholic Church on abortion. Belter points out that the basis for the Church's position, namely the claim that every fertilized human egg necessarily will become a human person, is not met prior to successful implantation. He finds significant additional support for this same conclusion in two undisputed facts. First, far more fertilized human eggs are naturally shed in the reproductive process prior to implantation than are subjected to procured abortions. Second, for up to fourteen days of gestation, every developing human embryo has the potential to become more than one human person or to combine with another embryo and become less than one, thus belying any assertion that an individual human necessarily exists prior to that point.

Belter summarizes where he stands and why. He explains in detail the rational basis for seriously competing views, as well as the Church's own checkered history in its conclusions in the moral arena. "Is Being Pro-Choice a Sin?" details the evidence regarding the practical consequences of re-criminalizing abortion, including evidence respecting ineffectiveness and safety. He argues that the primacy of the individual conscience, particularly in the application of the principle of proportionality in weighing all these matters, undermines any conclusion that a Catholic citizen commits a sin by refusing to support re-criminalization of abortion.

"Is Being Pro-Choice a Sin?" asserts that individual conscience must be respected in any pluralistic society on an issue on which reasonable minds can and do differ. Catholics, as informed citizens, have every right in good conscience to conclude that criminalizing abortion prior to the point of viability is not good public policy, regardless of their personal views and that of their Church.

"Is Being Pro-Choice a Sin?" concludes with a plea for deference to the exercise of individual conscience by millions of Catholic citizens in refusing to support re-criminalizing abortion, and for a respectful dialog in place of accusatory rhetoric and threats to deny communion."

https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/pro-choice-catholic-tackles-dogmatic-question-of-abortion-is-being-pro-choice-a-sin-81216172.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Catholic here who favors overturning Roe to remand these determinations back to the states. Has nothing to do with my religious views but rather my view of those things that are the domain of the federal government and those that are the domain of state governments.

The proper way to do something like Roe at the national level is a constitutional amendment like people did a hundred years ago for prohibition.

What a load of bullshit.

Why? This is a view that was widely held immediately post-Roe and during the decades since then.

No it’s not. This is a distraction point to undermine women’s healthcare.

It is not a distraction point. It goes to whether Roe has a solid constitutional underpinning or not and, if not, was the Supreme Court going beyond its remit of determining the constitutionality of a law by making policy instead.

You may not care about the separation of powers, but it is the bedrock of our government.

No, the question is whether we have a system that protects fundamental rights and especially the rights of minorities that have historically or currently suffered from discrimination. That’s the crucial test we are facing as a nation. This case is about fundamental rights, not about federalism or separation of powers.

Actually Roe and this case are precisely about federalism and separation of powers. Minority rights are established through the 14th amendment. Properly, establishing a federal right to abortion should also be done through an amendment because it takes it out of state hands, where where laws about abortion and everything else not covered by the Constitution belong under the tenth amendment.

Haha. We can't even get the freakin' ERA passed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Catholic here who favors overturning Roe to remand these determinations back to the states. Has nothing to do with my religious views but rather my view of those things that are the domain of the federal government and those that are the domain of state governments.

The proper way to do something like Roe at the national level is a constitutional amendment like people did a hundred years ago for prohibition.

What a load of bullshit.

Why? This is a view that was widely held immediately post-Roe and during the decades since then.

No it’s not. This is a distraction point to undermine women’s healthcare.

It is not a distraction point. It goes to whether Roe has a solid constitutional underpinning or not and, if not, was the Supreme Court going beyond its remit of determining the constitutionality of a law by making policy instead.

You may not care about the separation of powers, but it is the bedrock of our government.

No, the question is whether we have a system that protects fundamental rights and especially the rights of minorities that have historically or currently suffered from discrimination. That’s the crucial test we are facing as a nation. This case is about fundamental rights, not about federalism or separation of powers.

Abortion is not a fundamental right.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the interesting question for Catholic theologians are the edge cases. In a fire, do you save the 5 year old, or the 100 frozen embryos? If life begins the moment the sperm hits the egg, how do you explain twins that don’t split until day 6? Does the soul split in half, or were there two souls in one body? If abortion is acceptable to save the life of the mother, why?

It’s not. Either both manage to live or both die.

The Church says that medical procedures to save the life of the mother are licit as long as the death of the child is an unintended consequence and not the goal. So removing the septic uterus of a pregnant woman is permitted

"As for the problem of specific medical treatments intended to preserve the health of the mother, it is necessary to make a strong distinction between two different situations: on the one hand, a procedure that directly causes the death of the fetus, sometimes inappropriately called “therapeutic” abortion, which can never be licit in that it is the direct killing of an innocent human being; on the other hand, a procedure not abortive in itself that can have, as a collateral consequence, the death of the child: «If, for example, saving the life of the future mother, independently of her condition of pregnancy, urgently required a surgical procedure or another therapeutic application, which would have as an accessory consequence, in no way desired or intended, but inevitable, the death of the fetus, such an action could not be called a direct attack on the innocent life. In these conditions, the operation can be considered licit, as can other similar medical procedures, always provided that a good of high value, like life, is at stake, and that it is not possible to postpone it until after the birth of the child, or to use any other effective remedy» (Pius XII, Speech to the Fronte della Famiglia and the Associazione Famiglie numerose, November 27, 1951)."

ok … but the totally irrational part of this is a) why does saving the fetus matter if it can never live, eg ectopic? and b) why make a distinction between forms of medical care? removing the fallopian tube is ok; but using methotrexate to kill the embryo is not. Makes zero logical, moral, or intuitive sense. When I read stuff like this, my conclusion is that the Church’s actual interest is maintaining control through the imposition of rules, not actually helping humans navigate ethical dilemmas.

What are you talking about? Saving a fetus that is ectopic?

i’m talking about how Catholic doctrine on ectopic pregnancy considers the life of the ectopic pregnancy to be a factor to consider - that’s why they say removing the fallopian tube is ok (because you’re apparently not intending to kill the embryo) but a methotrexate injection is not ok. And in other scenarios where the fetus has no chance of life — like the fetus is inevitably dying and the mother has an infection— they won’t allow an abortion until the fetal heart stops, placing the woman at grave risk.

None of what you said is true. Not at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Catholic here who favors overturning Roe to remand these determinations back to the states. Has nothing to do with my religious views but rather my view of those things that are the domain of the federal government and those that are the domain of state governments.

The proper way to do something like Roe at the national level is a constitutional amendment like people did a hundred years ago for prohibition.

What a load of bullshit.

Why? This is a view that was widely held immediately post-Roe and during the decades since then.

No it’s not. This is a distraction point to undermine women’s healthcare.

It is not a distraction point. It goes to whether Roe has a solid constitutional underpinning or not and, if not, was the Supreme Court going beyond its remit of determining the constitutionality of a law by making policy instead.

You may not care about the separation of powers, but it is the bedrock of our government.

No, the question is whether we have a system that protects fundamental rights and especially the rights of minorities that have historically or currently suffered from discrimination. That’s the crucial test we are facing as a nation. This case is about fundamental rights, not about federalism or separation of powers.

Abortion is not a fundamental right.

I don't believe the pp is saying abortion is a fundamental right but rather the right to privacy. The Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment provides a fundamental "right to privacy" that protects a pregnant woman's liberty to choose whether to have an abortion. The right to privacy corresponds well with Catholic social thought.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Catholic here who favors overturning Roe to remand these determinations back to the states. Has nothing to do with my religious views but rather my view of those things that are the domain of the federal government and those that are the domain of state governments.

The proper way to do something like Roe at the national level is a constitutional amendment like people did a hundred years ago for prohibition.

What a load of bullshit.

Why? This is a view that was widely held immediately post-Roe and during the decades since then.

No it’s not. This is a distraction point to undermine women’s healthcare.

It is not a distraction point. It goes to whether Roe has a solid constitutional underpinning or not and, if not, was the Supreme Court going beyond its remit of determining the constitutionality of a law by making policy instead.

You may not care about the separation of powers, but it is the bedrock of our government.

No, the question is whether we have a system that protects fundamental rights and especially the rights of minorities that have historically or currently suffered from discrimination. That’s the crucial test we are facing as a nation. This case is about fundamental rights, not about federalism or separation of powers.

Actually Roe and this case are precisely about federalism and separation of powers. Minority rights are established through the 14th amendment. Properly, establishing a federal right to abortion should also be done through an amendment because it takes it out of state hands, where where laws about abortion and everything else not covered by the Constitution belong under the tenth amendment.

No, this is about the right to equal protection under the law and fundamental rights to bodily integrity. Unless you also think the states should decide you can be forced to donate a kidney, forced to take medication, forced to have a c-section, thrown in jail for using condoms, forced to give up your children because they know better….

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Here's another book on pro-choice Catholic thought. It calls out the wrong science paraded as fact by the Church and the Church's disregard for individual conscience:

"In his 2010 book, "Is Being Pro-Choice a Sin?" (published by iUniverse), author, retired lawyer and pro-choice Catholic Leonard Belter presents scientific, practical, and religious-based arguments challenging the Catholic Church's demand that Catholics must oppose legalized abortion.

"Is Being Pro-Choice a Sin?" examines the human reproductive process and the numerous official pronouncements of the Roman Catholic Church on abortion. Belter points out that the basis for the Church's position, namely the claim that every fertilized human egg necessarily will become a human person, is not met prior to successful implantation. He finds significant additional support for this same conclusion in two undisputed facts. First, far more fertilized human eggs are naturally shed in the reproductive process prior to implantation than are subjected to procured abortions. Second, for up to fourteen days of gestation, every developing human embryo has the potential to become more than one human person or to combine with another embryo and become less than one, thus belying any assertion that an individual human necessarily exists prior to that point.

Belter summarizes where he stands and why. He explains in detail the rational basis for seriously competing views, as well as the Church's own checkered history in its conclusions in the moral arena. "Is Being Pro-Choice a Sin?" details the evidence regarding the practical consequences of re-criminalizing abortion, including evidence respecting ineffectiveness and safety. He argues that the primacy of the individual conscience, particularly in the application of the principle of proportionality in weighing all these matters, undermines any conclusion that a Catholic citizen commits a sin by refusing to support re-criminalization of abortion.

"Is Being Pro-Choice a Sin?" asserts that individual conscience must be respected in any pluralistic society on an issue on which reasonable minds can and do differ. Catholics, as informed citizens, have every right in good conscience to conclude that criminalizing abortion prior to the point of viability is not good public policy, regardless of their personal views and that of their Church.

"Is Being Pro-Choice a Sin?" concludes with a plea for deference to the exercise of individual conscience by millions of Catholic citizens in refusing to support re-criminalizing abortion, and for a respectful dialog in place of accusatory rhetoric and threats to deny communion."

https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/pro-choice-catholic-tackles-dogmatic-question-of-abortion-is-being-pro-choice-a-sin-81216172.html

I recall reading an article like this years ago; must have been the same person. His arguments for an individual human being (or potential human being depending on the view one takes) not existing before implantation were pretty compelling, but I am not familiar with any possible critiques of the biological basis of his argument.

Assuming one accepts his argument, that would support pretty strongly not viewing Plan B as an abortifacient. I don't think it would support a view, however, that an abortion after implantation is not a taking of an individual human life (or potential human life).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the interesting question for Catholic theologians are the edge cases. In a fire, do you save the 5 year old, or the 100 frozen embryos? If life begins the moment the sperm hits the egg, how do you explain twins that don’t split until day 6? Does the soul split in half, or were there two souls in one body? If abortion is acceptable to save the life of the mother, why?

It’s not. Either both manage to live or both die.

The Church says that medical procedures to save the life of the mother are licit as long as the death of the child is an unintended consequence and not the goal. So removing the septic uterus of a pregnant woman is permitted

"As for the problem of specific medical treatments intended to preserve the health of the mother, it is necessary to make a strong distinction between two different situations: on the one hand, a procedure that directly causes the death of the fetus, sometimes inappropriately called “therapeutic” abortion, which can never be licit in that it is the direct killing of an innocent human being; on the other hand, a procedure not abortive in itself that can have, as a collateral consequence, the death of the child: «If, for example, saving the life of the future mother, independently of her condition of pregnancy, urgently required a surgical procedure or another therapeutic application, which would have as an accessory consequence, in no way desired or intended, but inevitable, the death of the fetus, such an action could not be called a direct attack on the innocent life. In these conditions, the operation can be considered licit, as can other similar medical procedures, always provided that a good of high value, like life, is at stake, and that it is not possible to postpone it until after the birth of the child, or to use any other effective remedy» (Pius XII, Speech to the Fronte della Famiglia and the Associazione Famiglie numerose, November 27, 1951)."

ok … but the totally irrational part of this is a) why does saving the fetus matter if it can never live, eg ectopic? and b) why make a distinction between forms of medical care? removing the fallopian tube is ok; but using methotrexate to kill the embryo is not. Makes zero logical, moral, or intuitive sense. When I read stuff like this, my conclusion is that the Church’s actual interest is maintaining control through the imposition of rules, not actually helping humans navigate ethical dilemmas.

What are you talking about? Saving a fetus that is ectopic?

i’m talking about how Catholic doctrine on ectopic pregnancy considers the life of the ectopic pregnancy to be a factor to consider - that’s why they say removing the fallopian tube is ok (because you’re apparently not intending to kill the embryo) but a methotrexate injection is not ok. And in other scenarios where the fetus has no chance of life — like the fetus is inevitably dying and the mother has an infection— they won’t allow an abortion until the fetal heart stops, placing the woman at grave risk.

None of what you said is true. Not at all.

Yes it is true. That is Catholic doctrine on abortion, as practiced in Catholic hospitals.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Catholic here who favors overturning Roe to remand these determinations back to the states. Has nothing to do with my religious views but rather my view of those things that are the domain of the federal government and those that are the domain of state governments.

The proper way to do something like Roe at the national level is a constitutional amendment like people did a hundred years ago for prohibition.

What a load of bullshit.

Why? This is a view that was widely held immediately post-Roe and during the decades since then.

No it’s not. This is a distraction point to undermine women’s healthcare.

It is not a distraction point. It goes to whether Roe has a solid constitutional underpinning or not and, if not, was the Supreme Court going beyond its remit of determining the constitutionality of a law by making policy instead.

You may not care about the separation of powers, but it is the bedrock of our government.

No, the question is whether we have a system that protects fundamental rights and especially the rights of minorities that have historically or currently suffered from discrimination. That’s the crucial test we are facing as a nation. This case is about fundamental rights, not about federalism or separation of powers.

Abortion is not a fundamental right.

I don't believe the pp is saying abortion is a fundamental right but rather the right to privacy. The Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment provides a fundamental "right to privacy" that protects a pregnant woman's liberty to choose whether to have an abortion. The right to privacy corresponds well with Catholic social thought.

No, I also think abortion is a fundamental right. If the constitution cannot protect women’s fundamental rights then it’s not worth the paper it is written on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Here's another book on pro-choice Catholic thought. It calls out the wrong science paraded as fact by the Church and the Church's disregard for individual conscience:

"In his 2010 book, "Is Being Pro-Choice a Sin?" (published by iUniverse), author, retired lawyer and pro-choice Catholic Leonard Belter presents scientific, practical, and religious-based arguments challenging the Catholic Church's demand that Catholics must oppose legalized abortion.

"Is Being Pro-Choice a Sin?" examines the human reproductive process and the numerous official pronouncements of the Roman Catholic Church on abortion. Belter points out that the basis for the Church's position, namely the claim that every fertilized human egg necessarily will become a human person, is not met prior to successful implantation. He finds significant additional support for this same conclusion in two undisputed facts. First, far more fertilized human eggs are naturally shed in the reproductive process prior to implantation than are subjected to procured abortions. Second, for up to fourteen days of gestation, every developing human embryo has the potential to become more than one human person or to combine with another embryo and become less than one, thus belying any assertion that an individual human necessarily exists prior to that point.

Belter summarizes where he stands and why. He explains in detail the rational basis for seriously competing views, as well as the Church's own checkered history in its conclusions in the moral arena. "Is Being Pro-Choice a Sin?" details the evidence regarding the practical consequences of re-criminalizing abortion, including evidence respecting ineffectiveness and safety. He argues that the primacy of the individual conscience, particularly in the application of the principle of proportionality in weighing all these matters, undermines any conclusion that a Catholic citizen commits a sin by refusing to support re-criminalization of abortion.

"Is Being Pro-Choice a Sin?" asserts that individual conscience must be respected in any pluralistic society on an issue on which reasonable minds can and do differ. Catholics, as informed citizens, have every right in good conscience to conclude that criminalizing abortion prior to the point of viability is not good public policy, regardless of their personal views and that of their Church.

"Is Being Pro-Choice a Sin?" concludes with a plea for deference to the exercise of individual conscience by millions of Catholic citizens in refusing to support re-criminalizing abortion, and for a respectful dialog in place of accusatory rhetoric and threats to deny communion."

https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/pro-choice-catholic-tackles-dogmatic-question-of-abortion-is-being-pro-choice-a-sin-81216172.html

Belter ignores the concept of natural law inherent in the Church’s doctrine on abortion. His argument does not put one dent in the catechism, which, like it or not, is consistent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Catholic here who favors overturning Roe to remand these determinations back to the states. Has nothing to do with my religious views but rather my view of those things that are the domain of the federal government and those that are the domain of state governments.

The proper way to do something like Roe at the national level is a constitutional amendment like people did a hundred years ago for prohibition.

What a load of bullshit.

Why? This is a view that was widely held immediately post-Roe and during the decades since then.

No it’s not. This is a distraction point to undermine women’s healthcare.

It is not a distraction point. It goes to whether Roe has a solid constitutional underpinning or not and, if not, was the Supreme Court going beyond its remit of determining the constitutionality of a law by making policy instead.

You may not care about the separation of powers, but it is the bedrock of our government.

No, the question is whether we have a system that protects fundamental rights and especially the rights of minorities that have historically or currently suffered from discrimination. That’s the crucial test we are facing as a nation. This case is about fundamental rights, not about federalism or separation of powers.

Abortion is not a fundamental right.

I don't believe the pp is saying abortion is a fundamental right but rather the right to privacy. The Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment provides a fundamental "right to privacy" that protects a pregnant woman's liberty to choose whether to have an abortion. The right to privacy corresponds well with Catholic social thought.

The fourteenth amendment says this: "No State shall... deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."

Truly, it is debatable whether this language establishes a fundamental "right to privacy," a term which appears nowhere in the Constitution.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does Alyssa Milano talk about moral theology/Christian ethics in this video? That is what we are talking about here.

np then you shouldn't have an abortion. but, MYOB for other women and their families

Again, read the title.

What is your point pp?