Trying to understand Catholic arguments for and against abortion

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Patients should absolutely be free to make their own medical decisions with their doctor without the interference of religious extremists.

You know there are those who are not religious who don’t believe in abortion. We all know and don’t argue that it’s stilling a life. Do only religious people condemn murder? Of course not, non religious people don’t believe in that either. Why do many assume non religious people are immune from being anti-abortinists?

SOME extremist religious people think it is "murder" based on their religious beliefs.

Why should they force their religious beliefs on EVERYONE ELSE?

No one should view abortion as murder based on their religious beliefs because murder (homicide) is a legal construct.

Abortion is a killing, but people disagree if it is killing of human life or of a clump of cells. Whether a killing of human life is classed as murder or not is determined by law, state law in the case of the US. In some states if you kill an intruder in your house it is not homicide; in other states it is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pro choice Catholics are making a political point: the U.S. government has no business telling citizens what to do with respect to their own health care, reproductive decisions, and bodies. Same argument if the government decided that religious circumcision was child abuse and started arresting mohels.

BTW, the "states right" argument is legally weak and utterly ridiculous.

How is the states rights argument weak and utterly ridiculous? It was how it worked in the country for hundreds of years until Roe.

The fact is that a zealous faction wanted to shortcut the legal process for enshrining an unenumerated right into the Constitution by using the Supreme Court for politics instead of doing the work required to do a Constitutional amendment. So fifty years later, we are still arguing about this.

Just like discriminating against blacks was legal until a constitutional amendment… oh, wait, the Supreme Court did that first too…. Those zealots demanding equal rights and not using the right process!

Whoa! Do you believe the 14th Amendment was done by the Supreme Court? Just FYI, in case you didn't know, the Supreme Court only made the pretty obvious interpretation of the 14th Amendment that racially discriminatory state laws violated the 14th amendment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Here's another perspective -- Sr. Joan Chittister "A Catholic Nun on What It Really Means to Be Pro-Life"

"We need a much broader conversation on what the morality of pro-life is."

https://billmoyers.com/story/what-pro-life-means/

Okay. She admits she’s opposed to abortion. She’s Catholic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pro choice Catholics are making a political point: the U.S. government has no business telling citizens what to do with respect to their own health care, reproductive decisions, and bodies. Same argument if the government decided that religious circumcision was child abuse and started arresting mohels.

BTW, the "states right" argument is legally weak and utterly ridiculous.

How is the states rights argument weak and utterly ridiculous? It was how it worked in the country for hundreds of years until Roe.

The fact is that a zealous faction wanted to shortcut the legal process for enshrining an unenumerated right into the Constitution by using the Supreme Court for politics instead of doing the work required to do a Constitutional amendment. So fifty years later, we are still arguing about this.

Just like discriminating against blacks was legal until a constitutional amendment… oh, wait, the Supreme Court did that first too…. Those zealots demanding equal rights and not using the right process!

Whoa! Do you believe the 14th Amendment was done by the Supreme Court? Just FYI, in case you didn't know, the Supreme Court only made the pretty obvious interpretation of the 14th Amendment that racially discriminatory state laws violated the 14th amendment.

And now the Supreme Court can make the equally obvious interpretation that the 14th amendment prohibits the deprivation of liberty and the denial of equal protection caused by abortion bans. No?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pro choice Catholics are making a political point: the U.S. government has no business telling citizens what to do with respect to their own health care, reproductive decisions, and bodies. Same argument if the government decided that religious circumcision was child abuse and started arresting mohels.

BTW, the "states right" argument is legally weak and utterly ridiculous.

How is the states rights argument weak and utterly ridiculous? It was how it worked in the country for hundreds of years until Roe.

The fact is that a zealous faction wanted to shortcut the legal process for enshrining an unenumerated right into the Constitution by using the Supreme Court for politics instead of doing the work required to do a Constitutional amendment. So fifty years later, we are still arguing about this.

Just like discriminating against blacks was legal until a constitutional amendment… oh, wait, the Supreme Court did that first too…. Those zealots demanding equal rights and not using the right process!

Whoa! Do you believe the 14th Amendment was done by the Supreme Court? Just FYI, in case you didn't know, the Supreme Court only made the pretty obvious interpretation of the 14th Amendment that racially discriminatory state laws violated the 14th amendment.

And now the Supreme Court can make the equally obvious interpretation that the 14th amendment prohibits the deprivation of liberty and the denial of equal protection caused by abortion bans. No?

I don't think the case can be made for a right to abortion based on liberty because under the 14th a state can deprive a person of liberty using the due process of law--"...nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;..."

Equal protection is more elusive in it meaning in relation to abortion, perhaps why Roe referred to emanations. At heart, equal protection refers to the idea that a governmental body may not deny people equal protection of its governing laws. The governing body state must treat an individual in the same manner as others in similar conditions and circumstances. The meaning of this, however, is clear in the context of racial discrimination.

[Anonymous]

We’ll, the problem is when 5 right wing Catholics on the Supreme Court force the rest of us to adhere to their beliefs.
[Report Post]

[Post New]05/10/2022 15:06 Subject: Trying to understand Catholic arguments for and against abortion [Up]
Anonymous



Anonymous wrote:
We’ll, the problem is when 5 right wing Catholics on the Supreme Court force the rest of us to adhere to their beliefs.


You condone discrimination? Wow!

We don’t have these judges by chance. They were hand picked by Leonard Leo of the Federalist Society, a rightwing Catholic himself who controls judge selection by Republican presidents. Republicans want mainly to entrench control by the wealthy, but to do this they must give their base of evangelicals and hardline Catholics the anti abortion red meat they want. Since Leonard Leo is a devout Catholic he has made sure that in doing this, he always picks those with his beliefs. They are there to strike down abortion, to support dark money and to facilitate every advantage for the extremely wealthy and corporations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We’ll, the problem is when 5 right wing Catholics on the Supreme Court force the rest of us to adhere to their beliefs.
[Report Post]

[Post New]05/10/2022 15:06 Subject: Trying to understand Catholic arguments for and against abortion [Up]
Anonymous



Anonymous wrote:
We’ll, the problem is when 5 right wing Catholics on the Supreme Court force the rest of us to adhere to their beliefs.


You condone discrimination? Wow!

We don’t have these judges by chance. They were hand picked by Leonard Leo of the Federalist Society, a rightwing Catholic himself who controls judge selection by Republican presidents. Republicans want mainly to entrench control by the wealthy, but to do this they must give their base of evangelicals and hardline Catholics the anti abortion red meat they want. Since Leonard Leo is a devout Catholic he has made sure that in doing this, he always picks those with his beliefs. They are there to strike down abortion, to support dark money and to facilitate every advantage for the extremely wealthy and corporations.

And the wealthy can always find a way to get an abortion if they need one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Patients should absolutely be free to make their own medical decisions with their doctor without the interference of religious extremists.

You know there are those who are not religious who don’t believe in abortion. We all know and don’t argue that it’s stilling a life. Do only religious people condemn murder? Of course not, non religious people don’t believe in that either. Why do many assume non religious people are immune from being anti-abortinists?

SOME extremist religious people think it is "murder" based on their religious beliefs.

Why should they force their religious beliefs on EVERYONE ELSE?

Please stop with the “extremist” nonsense and being over dramatic. They are following their religion with fidelity rather than a la carte.
I am not religious but will not tell someone to pick and choose what their faith says just because I don’t believe I’m it.
Anyway, it is stopping a life so in essence it’s not a reach to say it’s murder.
I’m neutral on the matter, and again, it’s not compulsory to be religious to be against abortion.

Valid concerns about religious extremism in our society isn't being "overdramatic." And your pathetically transparent attempt at being measured and logical is ridiculous on its face. I don't know anyone, nor do you, who "follows their religion with fidelity." Every single person on earth who's religious is picking and choosing based on what they want to do. They're having sex before marriage, they're getting divorced and remarried, they're failing to love their neighbor as themselves, they're anti-immigration, they worship false idols, and so on and so on. You can also stop trying to please the religious crowd, you know. They're going to hate and be scornful of you no matter how nice you try to make, hon, and this doormat attitude is just going to lead to them kicking you more.

And it's all very nice for you to say that you won't tell someone to pick and choose what their faith says, but when their "faith" starts telling them they have the right to choose what *I* do, you better believe I'll tell them they are wrongheaded and push back. Sure, if you want to just sit in your church and keep your religious talk there, if you want to live your life in your own house such that the woman is subservient to the men, if you choose to "believe" that aborting an 8 week old embryo is "killing a human," go for it. No one is forcing you to stop baptizing your kids, to have a self-sustaining career, to have an abortion even if your own life is at stake; it's yours to do with as you please. Mine isn't, though.

The one thing I agree with you on is it's not necessary to be religious to be anti-abortion. Sure, I know some atheist libertarian dudes who think they have the right to control women's bodies (what was the phrase? Oh, yes, “Your body is mine and you’re having my baby"). I mean, misogyny might be considered a religion in some respects but I grant you that it's not a recognized one (though it's a part of plenty of recognized ones).

[Anonymous]

An atheist dude like this?

https://www.americamagazine.org/politics-society/2017/10/19/atheists-case-against-abortion-respect-human-rights

[Anonymous]

IMO all of the religious arguments are about the moral question of abortion, which isn’t relevant to whether or not it should be legal. You can start “personhood” whenever you want and that doesn’t justify forcing another person, the mother, to carry the baby. At most it would mean a right to induction, maybe, if you’re at the point where you could safely try.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
We don’t have these judges by chance. They were hand picked by Leonard Leo of the Federalist Society, a rightwing Catholic himself who controls judge selection by Republican presidents. Republicans want mainly to entrench control by the wealthy, but to do this they must give their base of evangelicals and hardline Catholics the anti abortion red meat they want. Since Leonard Leo is a devout Catholic he has made sure that in doing this, he always picks those with his beliefs. They are there to strike down abortion, to support dark money and to facilitate every advantage for the extremely wealthy and corporations.

Exactly. It's not like they just are all coincidentally extremist Catholics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Patients should absolutely be free to make their own medical decisions with their doctor without the interference of religious extremists.

You know there are those who are not religious who don’t believe in abortion. We all know and don’t argue that it’s stilling a life. Do only religious people condemn murder? Of course not, non religious people don’t believe in that either. Why do many assume non religious people are immune from being anti-abortinists?

SOME extremist religious people think it is "murder" based on their religious beliefs.

Why should they force their religious beliefs on EVERYONE ELSE?

Please stop with the “extremist” nonsense and being over dramatic. They are following their religion with fidelity rather than a la carte.
I am not religious but will not tell someone to pick and choose what their faith says just because I don’t believe I’m it.
Anyway, it is stopping a life so in essence it’s not a reach to say it’s murder.
I’m neutral on the matter, and again, it’s not compulsory to be religious to be against abortion.

It's extremist if you are trying to force your beliefs onto others. Or maybe fanatical is a better word?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I know there are other Catholics like me: 56% of U.S. Catholics believe abortion should be legal in all or most cases, and 68% believe that Roe v. Wade should not be overturned. Those stats come from the Pew Research Center https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/10/20/8-key-findings-about-catholics-and-abortion/

I'm interested in learning more about the moral arguments made by both sides because I am getting closer to leaving the Catholic Church over this issue. I have always been able to avoid and ignore the anti-abortion organizing by the Church while I have participated in other Catholic social justice ministries and regular parish life and rituals. But I can't ignore it any longer.

In case others are interested, here are the sources I have found helpful.

Catholic positions against abortion

The Catechism #2270--2275: human life begins at conception and the embryo should be given the rights of a person https://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P7Z.HTM#-2C6

Fact sheet from the USCCB: "Scientists increasingly understood that the union of sperm and egg at conception produces a new living being that is distinct from both mother and father. Modern genetics demonstrated that this individual is, at the outset, distinctively human, with the inherent and active potential to mature into a human fetus, infant, child and adult ... Given the scientific fact that a human life begins at conception, the only moral norm needed to understand the Church's opposition to abortion is the principle that each and every human life has inherent dignity, and thus must be treated with the respect due to a human person." https://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/abortion/respect-for-unborn-human-life

Catholic positions for abortion

Video: "The Value of Life: Scientific and Moral Reflections on Abortion" -- One compelling argument is made that "the autonomy of the pregnant woman is a frame that circumscribes all other framing of early life by biological landmarks." https://www.catholicsforchoice.org/resource-library/the-value-of-life-scientific-and-moral-reflections-on-abortion/

Article: "The history of Catholic teaching on abortion isn’t as clear cut as you think" -- "Even though Catholicism is a religion with a strict and prominent hierarchy, it has a deep respect for individual reason and choice. When navigating complex moral questions, a person must first look to their own conscience to find the correct answer — not Church leaders. This principle is known as the “primacy of conscience,” and the Catechism goes further to say, “A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience ... For some, the primacy of conscience gives sufficient room within the Catholic Church for individuals to make up their own minds on abortion." https://theoutline.com/post/8536/catholic-history-abortion-brigid

Two books I have ordered but not read yet:
"A Brief, Liberal, Catholic Defense of Abortion" by Daniel Dombrowski
"Our Right to Choose: Toward a New Ethic of Abortion" by Beverly Wildung Harrison

To conclude, the differences seem to be about fetal development, when life begins, and the autonomy and dignity of the person, in this case the pregnant woman. On all three of these issues, I feel myself landing squarely on the pro-choice side. Could someone attempt to talk me out of it? I'm hoping for a respectful conversation here. I don't feel safe discussing this with family and friends. I live in a very Catholic world.

As a Catholic I do agree that abortion is a sin because it’s the taking an innocent human life. I do think there is a difference between an embryo and say a 15 week old baby. I also think abortion is justified in cases of threats to a mothers life and rape. My suggestion is to read as much as you can and then seriously pray on the matter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know there are other Catholics like me: 56% of U.S. Catholics believe abortion should be legal in all or most cases, and 68% believe that Roe v. Wade should not be overturned. Those stats come from the Pew Research Center https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/10/20/8-key-findings-about-catholics-and-abortion/

I'm interested in learning more about the moral arguments made by both sides because I am getting closer to leaving the Catholic Church over this issue. I have always been able to avoid and ignore the anti-abortion organizing by the Church while I have participated in other Catholic social justice ministries and regular parish life and rituals. But I can't ignore it any longer.

In case others are interested, here are the sources I have found helpful.

Catholic positions against abortion

The Catechism #2270--2275: human life begins at conception and the embryo should be given the rights of a person https://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P7Z.HTM#-2C6

Fact sheet from the USCCB: "Scientists increasingly understood that the union of sperm and egg at conception produces a new living being that is distinct from both mother and father. Modern genetics demonstrated that this individual is, at the outset, distinctively human, with the inherent and active potential to mature into a human fetus, infant, child and adult ... Given the scientific fact that a human life begins at conception, the only moral norm needed to understand the Church's opposition to abortion is the principle that each and every human life has inherent dignity, and thus must be treated with the respect due to a human person." https://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/abortion/respect-for-unborn-human-life

Catholic positions for abortion

Video: "The Value of Life: Scientific and Moral Reflections on Abortion" -- One compelling argument is made that "the autonomy of the pregnant woman is a frame that circumscribes all other framing of early life by biological landmarks." https://www.catholicsforchoice.org/resource-library/the-value-of-life-scientific-and-moral-reflections-on-abortion/

Article: "The history of Catholic teaching on abortion isn’t as clear cut as you think" -- "Even though Catholicism is a religion with a strict and prominent hierarchy, it has a deep respect for individual reason and choice. When navigating complex moral questions, a person must first look to their own conscience to find the correct answer — not Church leaders. This principle is known as the “primacy of conscience,” and the Catechism goes further to say, “A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience ... For some, the primacy of conscience gives sufficient room within the Catholic Church for individuals to make up their own minds on abortion." https://theoutline.com/post/8536/catholic-history-abortion-brigid

Two books I have ordered but not read yet:
"A Brief, Liberal, Catholic Defense of Abortion" by Daniel Dombrowski
"Our Right to Choose: Toward a New Ethic of Abortion" by Beverly Wildung Harrison

To conclude, the differences seem to be about fetal development, when life begins, and the autonomy and dignity of the person, in this case the pregnant woman. On all three of these issues, I feel myself landing squarely on the pro-choice side. Could someone attempt to talk me out of it? I'm hoping for a respectful conversation here. I don't feel safe discussing this with family and friends. I live in a very Catholic world.

As a Catholic I do agree that abortion is a sin because it’s the taking an innocent human life. I do think there is a difference between an embryo and say a 15 week old baby. I also think abortion is justified in cases of threats to a mothers life and rape. My suggestion is to read as much as you can and then seriously pray on the matter.

Okay but “as a Catholic” you need to know your faith is not based in Jesus’s teaching but decisions made by fallible popes along the way.

In the early Roman Catholic church, abortion was permitted up until ensoulment for male fetuses in the first 40 days of pregnancy and for female fetuses in the first 80-90 days. Not until 1588 did Pope Sixtus V declare all abortion murder. But he also allowed Bishops to give dispensation (permission) for abortions rather freely.

In 1591 the new Pope Gregory XIV Reversed the decision declaring abortion a sin if it took place after ensoulment, which he determined took place 166 days.

Pope Pius IX reversed the decision yet again in 1869 and made abortion after conception a sin.

To put things in perspective Sixtus V was not infallible and he believed adulatory should be punishable with the death penalty. Obviously the men of the church did not give him support on that so it never became Catholic law”.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We’ll, the problem is when 5 right wing Catholics on the Supreme Court force the rest of us to adhere to their beliefs.
[Report Post]

[Post New]05/10/2022 15:06 Subject: Trying to understand Catholic arguments for and against abortion [Up]
Anonymous



Anonymous wrote:
We’ll, the problem is when 5 right wing Catholics on the Supreme Court force the rest of us to adhere to their beliefs.


You condone discrimination? Wow!

We don’t have these judges by chance. They were hand picked by Leonard Leo of the Federalist Society, a rightwing Catholic himself who controls judge selection by Republican presidents. Republicans want mainly to entrench control by the wealthy, but to do this they must give their base of evangelicals and hardline Catholics the anti abortion red meat they want. Since Leonard Leo is a devout Catholic he has made sure that in doing this, he always picks those with his beliefs. They are there to strike down abortion, to support dark money and to facilitate every advantage for the extremely wealthy and corporations.

Justice Brennan, the so-called “liberal lion” of the Supreme Court and who Justice Scalia described as the most influential Supreme Court Justice of the 20th Century, was Catholic. So is Justice Sotomayor. So is Joe Biden. The current conservative majority was elevated to the Supreme Court because of their judicial philosophy and their politics, not because of their religion. There are plenty of non-Catholics whose approach to the constitution is no different than these five, including the majority of the Senators who voted to confirm them.