Trying to understand Catholic arguments for and against abortion

[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.

why is it moral to let both die when you could kill one and save the other? especially if the fetus will die anyway (ectopic).

[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)."

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.

How was it better for women managing their reproductive health prior to Roe vs. Wade?

[Anonymous]

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?

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.

The pp already explained it.

[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.

why is it moral to let both die when you could kill one and save the other? especially if the fetus will die anyway (ectopic).

It’s not, there is nothing that says let both die. Follow along.

[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)."

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.

[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.

the church only allows removal of the fallopian tube. it does not allow an injection of methotrexate, which kills the embryo non-invasively. it only allows the more harmful, invasive method that makes the woman suffer more and undergo permanent harm. It is a savage and cruel position that deserves zero respect.

[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)."

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?

[Anonymous]

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).

[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)."

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.

How was it better for women managing their reproductive health prior to Roe vs. Wade?

There weren’t ridiculous restrictions on birth control use and there were more lenient opinions about abortion for the mother’s health (at the state level).

[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)."

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.

um, what?

[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?

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.

the church only allows removal of the fallopian tube. it does not allow an injection of methotrexate, which kills the embryo non-invasively. it only allows the more harmful, invasive method that makes the woman suffer more and undergo permanent harm. It is a savage and cruel position that deserves zero respect.

Now you are reaching. You gripe that they won’t allow removal and then when you learn otherwise, you gripe that it’s done not to your preference.
You don’t even know if it’s true and you are not a physician.

[Anonymous]

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).

Why should you push your beliefs on everyone else?

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

the embryo is blocking the fallopian tube. the fallopian tube is not diseased. an injection of methotrexate will kill the embryo and the fallopian tube will be fine.

[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?

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.

The pp already explained it.

the PP quoted the nonsensical catholic explanation, yes.