Trying to understand Catholic arguments for and against abortion

[Anonymous]

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)."

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.

There are no state laws restricting more restrictive than the Catholic Church.

[Anonymous]

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.

[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?

DP I watched the first few minutes and it appears to be about the history of abortion in the US. If it talks about moral theology, PP should flag the exact minutes in which this done.

I kind of question Alyssa Milano as an authoritative voice for the history or the moral theology for abortion as she cites no backup for her assertions.

And, along with many others, question the moral authority of the Bishops. They lack all moral authority.

[Anonymous]

There is no Catholic argument "for" abortion. Zero. Zilch. None.

[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?

DP I watched the first few minutes and it appears to be about the history of abortion in the US. If it talks about moral theology, PP should flag the exact minutes in which this done.

I kind of question Alyssa Milano as an authoritative voice for the history or the moral theology for abortion as she cites no backup for her assertions.

And, along with many others, question the moral authority of the Bishops. They lack all moral authority.

I think you misunderstood what authoritative voice meant in the context of the sentence above about Alyssa. She is neither a historian nor a moral theologian, nor even a good enough amateur one to speak as a knowledgeable source.

[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.

I posted that quote about licit abortion and I do worry that the official teaching is so poorly understood that we end up with situations where women who are miscarrying and have complications such as hemorrhage or infection face delayed care. Not only does delayed care endanger the life of the mother but it can also destroy her fertility, which is a horrible thing to lose a child and not have the possibility of having a child in the future.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

DP I watched the first few minutes and it appears to be about the history of abortion in the US. If it talks about moral theology, PP should flag the exact minutes in which this done.

I kind of question Alyssa Milano as an authoritative voice for the history or the moral theology for abortion as she cites no backup for her assertions.

And, along with many others, question the moral authority of the Bishops. They lack all moral authority.

I think you misunderstood what authoritative voice meant in the context of the sentence above about Alyssa. She is neither a historian nor a moral theologian, nor even a good enough amateur one to speak as a knowledgeable source.

And you are?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There is no Catholic argument "for" abortion. Zero. Zilch. None.

Nope. See upthread. For example, it's allowed to remove a fallopian tube that contains a pregnancy. Because "We didn't mean to kill the embryo, it just happened to come along with the "diseased" tube.

Such a bunch of double talk.

[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?

DP I watched the first few minutes and it appears to be about the history of abortion in the US. If it talks about moral theology, PP should flag the exact minutes in which this done.

I kind of question Alyssa Milano as an authoritative voice for the history or the moral theology for abortion as she cites no backup for her assertions.

And, along with many others, question the moral authority of the Bishops. They lack all moral authority.

That is separate form the Alyssa milano issue. Doesn’t make her an authoritative voice in the matter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

DP I watched the first few minutes and it appears to be about the history of abortion in the US. If it talks about moral theology, PP should flag the exact minutes in which this done.

I kind of question Alyssa Milano as an authoritative voice for the history or the moral theology for abortion as she cites no backup for her assertions.

And, along with many others, question the moral authority of the Bishops. They lack all moral authority.

I think you misunderstood what authoritative voice meant in the context of the sentence above about Alyssa. She is neither a historian nor a moral theologian, nor even a good enough amateur one to speak as a knowledgeable source.

And you are?

I freely admit I am not. That does make her an authority. Always good to know one's limitations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is no Catholic argument "for" abortion. Zero. Zilch. None.

Nope. See upthread. For example, it's allowed to remove a fallopian tube that contains a pregnancy. Because "We didn't mean to kill the embryo, it just happened to come along with the "diseased" tube.

Such a bunch of double talk.

Is a not diseased? You rather it not be and left there?

[Anonymous]

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)."

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

I posted that quote about licit abortion and I do worry that the official teaching is so poorly understood that we end up with situations where women who are miscarrying and have complications such as hemorrhage or infection face delayed care. Not only does delayed care endanger the life of the mother but it can also destroy her fertility, which is a horrible thing to lose a child and not have the possibility of having a child in the future.

Thank you for posting this with the cite. Over on the political thread there is wild talk of women being prosecuted for having early miscarriages or having to travel out of state if they have an ectopic pregnancy. Honestly, I think there was more common sense about these things pre-Roe.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

DP I watched the first few minutes and it appears to be about the history of abortion in the US. If it talks about moral theology, PP should flag the exact minutes in which this done.

I kind of question Alyssa Milano as an authoritative voice for the history or the moral theology for abortion as she cites no backup for her assertions.

And, along with many others, question the moral authority of the Bishops. They lack all moral authority.

I think you misunderstood what authoritative voice meant in the context of the sentence above about Alyssa. She is neither a historian nor a moral theologian, nor even a good enough amateur one to speak as a knowledgeable source.

And you are?

I don’t think the pp claimed to be.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

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?

lol. the Catholic view on condoms is so nonsensical; OP should not expect to find any coherent moral philosophy on any of this stuff. At the end of the day, relying on celibate men who will never have children or a wife to explain the morality of reproduction is doomed to failure. Depsite all the gobbeldygook in Humane Vitae, there is no possible sensible explanation for why the rythym method is Ok, and condoms are not.