Trying to understand Catholic arguments for and against abortion

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The #1 tenet of Catholicism is life, so anything that prevents that is against Catholic teaching essentially. That's also why they have been against barrier birth control (prevents creation of life) like condoms, but rhythm method is OK since it's not stopping life creation.

Where things get dicey I think is the stance on gay marriage. The purpose of marriage is to create life, so that's been the reasons against gay marriage as I understand it. But if that's the reason, shouldn't they also prevent marriage between people too old to conceive? Or infertile people?

Considering how much death God is responsible for, the obsession with "life" just seems nonsensical if not hypocritical. But sense and religion are different circles with little overlap.

You’re missing the “why”. Life is so important to the church because they want to create as many followers as possible.

That is no different from any other religion.

[Anonymous]

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.

That is not Christian teaching.

[Anonymous]

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.

That is not Christian teaching.

Because it’s not true.

[Anonymous]

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)."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The #1 tenet of Catholicism is life, so anything that prevents that is against Catholic teaching essentially. That's also why they have been against barrier birth control (prevents creation of life) like condoms, but rhythm method is OK since it's not stopping life creation.

Where things get dicey I think is the stance on gay marriage. The purpose of marriage is to create life, so that's been the reasons against gay marriage as I understand it. But if that's the reason, shouldn't they also prevent marriage between people too old to conceive? Or infertile people?

Considering how much death God is responsible for, the obsession with "life" just seems nonsensical if not hypocritical. But sense and religion are different circles with little overlap.

You’re missing the “why”. Life is so important to the church because they want to create as many followers as possible.

That is no different from any other religion.

Other religions have a lot more wiggle room regarding abortion and aren't so black or white. In Islam, God breaths life into a fetus at 120 days. Yes some people still say you shouldn't abortion before then, but it's more "ok" since a fetus does not have a soul before 16 weeks, Islamically speaking.

Fairly certain there are veins of Judaism that are similar.

[Anonymous]

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?

That is erroneous. Catholic Church does allow the removal of a fetus such as ectopic pregnancy or cancerous uterus. Neither are viewed as abortion to the church.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The #1 tenet of Catholicism is life, so anything that prevents that is against Catholic teaching essentially. That's also why they have been against barrier birth control (prevents creation of life) like condoms, but rhythm method is OK since it's not stopping life creation.

Where things get dicey I think is the stance on gay marriage. The purpose of marriage is to create life, so that's been the reasons against gay marriage as I understand it. But if that's the reason, shouldn't they also prevent marriage between people too old to conceive? Or infertile people?

Considering how much death God is responsible for, the obsession with "life" just seems nonsensical if not hypocritical. But sense and religion are different circles with little overlap.

You’re missing the “why”. Life is so important to the church because they want to create as many followers as possible.

That is no different from any other religion.

Other religions have a lot more wiggle room regarding abortion and aren't so black or white. In Islam, God breaths life into a fetus at 120 days. Yes some people still say you shouldn't abortion before then, but it's more "ok" since a fetus does not have a soul before 16 weeks, Islamically speaking.

Fairly certain there are veins of Judaism that are similar.

They all want more followers. Shut up.

[Anonymous]

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)."

Thank you! People just spouting out stuff they have no idea about and don’t even practice.

[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.

Did you watch the video?

Alyssa Milano is who you look to for this issue?

No I prefer to get all my information from anonymous people on forums, and not from a well researched video with citations and historical facts

[Anonymous]

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?

That is erroneous. Catholic Church does allow the removal of a fetus such as ectopic pregnancy or cancerous uterus. Neither are viewed as abortion to the church.

Thank you too. Upthread someone send this information also.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Did you watch the video?

Alyssa Milano is who you look to for this issue?

No I prefer to get all my information from anonymous people on forums, and not from a well researched video with citations and historical facts

Oh, you rather post Alyssa Milano videos as gospel but you don’t take it as such.

[Anonymous]

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.

Use it to decide if you want to repair bridges with tolls or a gas tax. When you use it to justify slavery or oppress women, it is outrageous garbage.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Did you watch the video?

Alyssa Milano is who you look to for this issue?

No I prefer to get all my information from anonymous people on forums, and not from a well researched video with citations and historical facts

Then you are on the wrong forum. Read the title and if you did reread it.

[Anonymous]

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)."

Thank you! People just spouting out stuff they have no idea about and don’t even practice.

So it's pretty awful that some state laws are even more restrictive than the Catholic church. More Catholics should be fighting against these laws.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Did you watch the video?

Alyssa Milano is who you look to for this issue?

No I prefer to get all my information from anonymous people on forums, and not from a well researched video with citations and historical facts

The fact that you out this video up on a pedestal this much is even more embarrassing for you.