Trying to understand Catholic arguments for and against abortion

[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?

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.

Huh? The “gripe” is that the Catholic church only permits the invasive, harmful removal of the fallopian tube, when in many cases the woman could just get an injection of methotrexate. This has nothing to do with my preferences - it’s about allowing women to receive the medical care that is safe and effective, as determined by her and her doctor. The Catholic position on this point is so transparently nonsensical that it is clearly working for some other goal than to actually suss out the morality of the situation.

[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).

The Catholic Church absolutely is holding a gun to many women’s head - Catholic hospitals impose these nonsensical views on women all the time.

[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.

The pro-life hysteria was only pushed as a wedge issue by RWNJs years after RvW.

It wasn’t a political issue back then, only medical.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Show, not claiming to be one, but certainly fit to judge whether others are or not. Makes perfect sense.

[Anonymous]

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).

The Catholic Church absolutely is holding a gun to many women’s head - Catholic hospitals impose these nonsensical views on women all the time.

+1

How many guns do you need to oppress half of the population?

[Anonymous]

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.

But in a secular democracy like the USA, No religion is allowed to enforce its beliefs on citizens.

[Anonymous]

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).

The Catholic Church absolutely is holding a gun to many women’s head - Catholic hospitals impose these nonsensical views on women all the time.

Last time I checked, I was able to get birth control pills, condoms, and abortion clinics are open.

[Anonymous]

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).

The Catholic Church absolutely is holding a gun to many women’s head - Catholic hospitals impose these nonsensical views on women all the time.

+1

How many guns do you need to oppress half of the population?

The Catholic Church took hold of all the condoms?

[Anonymous]

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.

But in a secular democracy like the USA, No religion is allowed to enforce its beliefs on citizens.

Neither are you allowed to enforce your beliefs into others.

[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.

The pro-life hysteria was only pushed as a wedge issue by RWNJs years after RvW.

It wasn’t a political issue back then, only medical.

Say you were not around then or you were a toddler at the time without saying so. The first Right to Life march was held on the first anniversary of Roe.

[Anonymous]

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.

DP. You can get them from wherever you want, but you have to argue for them on nonsecular grounds. You can't just rest the law on "because of my religion."

Law can be inspired by a lawmaker's religion, but it cannot be established on the grounds of it.

[Anonymous]

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.

DP. You can get them from wherever you want, but you have to argue for them on nonsecular grounds. You can't just rest the law on "because of my religion."

Law can be inspired by a lawmaker's religion, but it cannot be established on the grounds of it.

Who said they were established on the grounds of it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The pro-life hysteria was only pushed as a wedge issue by RWNJs years after RvW.

It wasn’t a political issue back then, only medical.

Say you were not around then or you were a toddler at the time without saying so. The first Right to Life march was held on the first anniversary of Roe.

Outside of a fringe group of religious fanatics it wasn’t a thing.

Not until the evangelicals got on board a few years later. For political purposes.

[Anonymous]

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).

The Catholic Church absolutely is holding a gun to many women’s head - Catholic hospitals impose these nonsensical views on women all the time.

+1

How many guns do you need to oppress half of the population?

The Catholic Church took hold of all the condoms?

They want to prevent legal access to proper healthcare.

[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)."

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.