A question for Catholics

[Yebra]

The Vatican recently urged Catholics not to donate to Amnesty International because they support abortions for victims of rape or if the mother's life is in risk.

Same article: The Vatican withdrew funding from the Unicef in 1996 after the international children’s charity distributed post-intercourse spermicide to young women in refugee camps who had been raped.

I mean, I understand that if it's morally wrong it's morally wrong, but does this really reflect how most Catholics feel about this? Honest question.

[Mich]

Well, I can't say that my opinions agree with most of the Catholic church, but I don't agree with this. Don't get me wrong; I don't agree with abortion in pretty much any situation, but I also am smart enough to know that virtually nothing will stop it from happening. Amnesty does a lot of great work in tons of other areas, and black-listing something because of one position you don't agree with is just bull-headed. I know too many Catholics whose votes hinge purely on that one topic, and the Church is only encouraging such blind decision-making with actions like this.

It is a good idea, when quick decisions are required, to put things into a black & white perspective. But not when you hold an enormous sway over a large percentage of the world's population.

...and that's my hastily concluded opinion on the matter.

[Rei]

The thing is, if you agree that life begins at conception, then what was done and is being encouraged is, by your standards, killing an innocent. And who can reasonably expect them to support an organisation which supports what the Church views as killing an innocent person?

[Boothby]

I guess it raises a number of questions, then:

1) Why did God allow an innocent to be brutally raped and impregnated?

To which the typical answer is, "We can never know God's plan...or God's will"

And then that leads to the often unasked question, "How do you know that life begins at conception? Because God somehow says so? Because the Bible, which is claimed to be God's word, says so, or can be interpreted to say so? But if God's will is so unknown, how can you trust that belief (that supposed "knowledge")? In other words, you make stuff up at your own convenience, or the upper echelons of your particular church do so.

[Mich]

The thing is, if you agree that life begins at conception, then what was done and is being encouraged is, by your standards, killing an innocent. And who can reasonably expect them to support an organisation which supports what the Church views as killing an innocent person?

I completely see your (and the Church's) point. But I still say that this is too black and white: for example, how many people who need help in the future will not receive it because the funds that the Church previously supplied were not there?

[Dr. Mobius]

Maybe the Church should allow priests to marry. They may change their stance when it's their own wives and daughters being raped.

[jotabe]

I don't agree.
But i don't agree either that HUMAN life begins with the conception.

Think about how often embryos in their initial stages are simply reabsorbed by the mother's body, or discarded if it hasn't managed to implant on the uterus walls before menstruation.
Actually, from that point of view, having sex in "safe days" would actually be killing a life.

Human life is a lot more than a mass of cells. Even a lot more than a heart beating. Every animal has that.
It's like people who thinks that manliness consists in fathering many children... something that rabbits can do more and better.

[Mich]

Maybe the Church should allow priests to marry. They may change their stance when it's their own wives and daughters being raped.

A commonly held enough argument, but one which I don't actually see happening. I've met, let's see, three Catholic families now whose daughters/wives have been raped (I'm from a big parish, around 5,000 people), one of the families being my own, and these families are also the most outspoken people against abortion that I know. When my sister was raped, after the fuss had died down, the first thing my mom asked her was if she was planning on having an abortion if she turned out to be pregnant (and, just so you know, my mother had already assumed she was pregnant, I found out later), and there was an enormous argument when my sister said she had considered it.

So, no, I don't believe that would change their opinions. At least, not most of them.

[Eaquae Legit]

When someone makes an exception for victims of rape, I'm always a little torn. On one hand, it's understandable.

On the other, it's contemptible. The underlying assumption is that banning abortion is about punishing the mother. Lady, you got yourself pregnant, now you have to deal with it. Oh, it wasn't your fault or choice? Okay then. It removes the concern for the life of the child, which to me is the single acceptable reason for banning abortions, and focuses on punitive treatment of the mother. If the child is enough of a non-entity that it can be aborted acceptably in one circumstance, then it can be aborted in any circumstance, and I would have no right to say otherwise.

[Yebra]

EL,

But can't a case for abortion be made even if we assume the foetus to be fully human? I found this thought experiment interesting.

You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist’s circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own. The director of the hospital now tells you, “Look, we’re sorry the Society of Music Lovers did this to you–we would never have permitted it if we had known. But still, they did it, and the violinist is now plugged into you. To unplug you would be to kill him. But never mind, it’s only for nine months. By then he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you.” Is it morally incumbent on you to accede to this situation? No doubt it would be very nice of you if you did, a great kindness. But do you have to accede to it? What if it were not nine months, but nine years? Or longer still? What if the director of the hospital says. “Tough luck. I agree. but now you’ve got to stay in bed, with the violinist plugged into you, for the rest of your life. Because remember this. All persons have a right to life, and violinists are persons. Granted you have a right to decide what happens in and to your body, but a person’s right to life outweighs your right to decide what happens in and to your body. So you cannot ever be unplugged from him.”

Like all analogies, it's not the same, but it got me thinking.

[Eaquae Legit]

I'm not out to debate the morality of abortion. I'm just saying that if you're going to oppose it, at least be clear about your reasons and be consistent.

[wigginboy]

Maybe the Church should allow priests to marry. They may change their stance when it's their own wives and daughters being raped.

Last time I checked, 'The Church' who makes the rules, and 'The Church' who follows the rules were two different things. The Magisterium, the principal dogmatic authority in the Catholic Church decides what is law and what is not. This would mean that none of these men would have families to have been raped. Unless of course it was a sister or a mother, but those were as yet unmentioned.

[Dr. Mobius]

I'm pretty sure priesthood is a prerequisite for becoming a bishop.

[wigginboy]

no ordained member of the catholic church clergy can marry. this applies to priests and bishops. but that only clarifies my point

[Dr. Mobius]

And what point would that be?

[eriador]

Last time I checked, 'The Church' who makes the rules, and 'The Church' who follows the rules were two different things.

... and they were both entirely different from the beliefs they were founded on, hence this confusion about so many different things

[Scott]

I mean, I understand that if it's morally wrong it's morally wrong, but does this really reflect how most Catholics feel about this? Honest question.

Yes, I am Catholic and this is how I think most Catholics feel.

[Locke_]

Jeeese it's been so long since I've been on Pweb that all these threads are new to me.

I think issues like these bring about a good question that goes unconsidered by many raised in a particular denomination (in this case, Catholicism): do I follow this line of thinking because I'm Catholic, or am I Catholic because I follow this line of thinking? Of course, I feel like people need to ask themselves the same questions about political parties.

I'm pro choice. And Christian. I'm not comfortable being both, but I feel like I'd be lying to myself if I said I was against circumstantial abortion. It's tough for me to figure out how to comfortably overlap my social and humane beliefs with my Christian beliefs in cases like this.

When it comes to "God's plan" and God's will" I feel stong enough to say that he doesn't plan abortion, he doesn't will abortion. It's an evil that we've created, and He's promised us free will and Jesus changed God from leaning toward wrathful punishment. The choice of a pregnant woman is her choice, and overall it's got to be worked out between she and God. I know that if I had a loved one who, for whatever reason, had an abortion, I would want to be there for them through the rough time, and that doesn't mean condemnation or fire and brimstone. It means love: consoling, comforting, serving, etc. I am at the will of someone in need physically, emotionally, etc.

This isn't to say that God can't help us work through an evil. This isn't to say that God won't do his best to help his children out. I believe that God helps us through the choices we make, good and bad, and puts them into a plan. This is very different from saying He planned them that way.

[Eaquae Legit]

no ordained member of the catholic church clergy can marry. this applies to priests and bishops. but that only clarifies my point

I've been paying great attention, too, Vic.

This is only partially true. An ordained clergyman cannot marry. However, a married man can, in some circumstances, be ordained. This I know for certain because my parish had a married priest for a few years.

[hive_king]

One example, for instance, is that an Episcopal priest is allowed to convert and become a Catholic priest, even though he may be married.

[Eaquae Legit]

Haha, exactly what happened.

[21BRAVO]

Another hypothetical (with all respect to all people, regardless of opinion):

If pro-life individuals (you don't necessarily have to be Catholic to be pro-life) who think that abortion is murder, under any circumstance, then they would not be willing to abort a pregnancy in order to save the mother's life. So the mother and child will die, and they think they are morally right.

In comparison, one of these same people is walking along the Grand Canyon one day and two people are hanging from a cliff. This person can save one person, but only one. The other person will fall and die. So, by the same governing moral philosophy, wouldn't they be content to let both people fall and die? Is it wrong to choose one life rather than two deaths? I'd assume not, but I'm not sure. What do people think about this? Where is the difference? Again, I say this with all respect and with earnest interest.

[Eddie Pinz]

I don't think many people will consider the first situation morally right. I mean if it likely that the baby and the mother will die during birth, it seems pretty silly that both should die. I don't think it would be murder, it is almost like a self-defense for the mother to protect herself. Now, if doctors are reasonably certain that the mother would die, but the child would live, I think that would be a harder decision to make.

And I am not exactly sure because I haven't been enrolled in a Catholic school or been practicing some time. (So, if you know more than me feel free to correct.) But, I remember having a conversation with a preist in high school about this very topic and from what I remember, it would not be a sin to have an abortion if the mother's life would be in considerable danger during birth. Again, I am not an expert so correct me if I am wrong, but that is what I remember.

[21BRAVO]

I'm certainly not an expert on Catholic dogma but I do know individuals (associated with the church or not) that think abortion is wrong, regardless of circumstance. To kill the infant to save the mother is like (in a manner of speaking) "playing God". If both die, then that is God's will (or at least you won't be concerned with knowing you have "murdered" an unborn child). In my view (personally) I think abortion does have a place, depending on circumstance. Certainly it shouldn't be used as a primary birth-control method (again, personal belief but I'm assuming all would agree).

As for my earlier scenario, it stems from an event in the life of a friend. He was climbing Denali solo and on his descent he came across two men with altitude sickness. One unconscious, the other one completly "drunk". So he had to put a rope around both men and served as the anchor as they pretty much sledded down the mountain. On a few occasions they almost went over a cliff, all three to their deaths. He told me, "There came a point when I thought, 'at what point do I cut the rope?'" What if he could have only taken one?

[Eaquae Legit]

Since you brought up Catholic doctrine*, I feel somewhat obliged to point out that the first situation you posted is absolutely not supported by the Church. In a situation where the life of the mother is clearly and immediately at risk, the medical procedures to save her life are permissible, even if the fetus dies as a result. The difference is in the intent.

As to the second situation. Do what you can. Save one, and try for the other. Work for the optimal solution, even if it's unlikely.

[Erondites]

I am Catholic, and I agree with the Church's position on this issue. While I'm not altogether certain whether we can or should force the mother to bring to term a child who was forced upon her against her will, I do know that killing an innocent is wrong. In the case of rape I understand the reasons for an abortion, but I don't think that, even in that situation, abortion would be justified.

[Boothby]

Interesting.

There are many natural spontaneous abortions occurring with women all the time. So God does (if you go for that sort of stuff--I don't) "plan abortions."

So the thinking was that since God doesn't plan abortions, we should not perform abortions? But if He plans them (and I've just shown that He does), and they occur (and they do), then He also wills them.

It's not an evil, and it's not an evil that we've created.

To force a woman who was raped to carry to term and deliver the baby that her rapist forced her to conceive is cruel and evil, and only reflects the overall misogynist leanings of the three major religions.

[zeroguy]

So the thinking was that since God doesn't plan abortions, we should not perform abortions? But if He plans them (and I've just shown that He does), and they occur (and they do), then He also wills them.

It's not an evil, and it's not an evil that we've created.

I can't argue the pro-life side, but I don't follow this well. God, in theory, plans/wills for everyday murder to occur, but I don't see that as an endorsement to go do it yourself.

To force a woman who was raped to carry to term and deliver the baby that her rapist forced her to conceive is cruel and evil, and only reflects the overall misogynist leanings of the three major religions.

I think you may mean "Abrahamic".

[Boothby]

Neither do I.

Locke_ had stated that "When it comes to "God's plan" and God's will" I feel stong enough to say that he doesn't plan abortion, he doesn't will abortion." I was simply following his statement to its illogical conclusion.

And re "Abrahamic"...wha??? Abraham, who was willing to slaughter his son to appease the voices in his head?

The Bible is misogynistic. Sacrifices of female virgins, a man throwing his daughters to the mob to be raped and killed to allegedly save some angels that were visiting him. Women being told not to teach, etc., etc.

To be honest, the Old Testament is a pretty nasty little piece of work. And since the New testament proudly builds upon it...

[zeroguy]

Locke_ had stated that "When it comes to "God's plan" and God's will" I feel stong enough to say that he doesn't plan abortion, he doesn't will abortion." I was simply following his statement to its illogical conclusion.

You seemed to be arguing pro-choice, weren't you? But his view in a way makes sense to me, as long as you define 'abortion' similarly to murder, and not similar to, say, death in general.

You could say 'abortion' as such doesn't exist naturally, without man. That is, without man, there isn't a conscious decision to end a pregnancy prematurely for the reasons modern abortions are performed. Sure, pregnancies can be ended by natural causes, but you could look at that as the same as a natural/accidental death.

Therefore, I don't find it all that unreasonable to categorize the advent of intentional termination as a human evil. Now, you could argue the triviality of the distinction between man and nature, or the importance of intention at all, or to what degree a fetus is "alive" etc etc, but given those answers as givens, the rest rather makes sense to me.

And re "Abrahamic"...wha??? Abraham, who was willing to slaughter his son to appease the voices in his head?

Sorry; "Abrahamic religions" (replacing the word "major", not "misogynist"). You said, "the three major religions"; I assume you mean Christianity, Islam, and Judaism, but only two of those are in the top four, as far as number of adherents go.

[Boothby]

You want natural?

When a new silverback gorilla takes on a mate, he typically slaughters all her offspring from previous mates. That's the natural world for you.

Monkeys also engage in homosexual sex. Many animals have sex outside of their mating pairs (if such pairing even exists).

This is interesting:

http://www.answers.com/topic/miscarriag ... er_animals

Spontaneous abortion occurs in pregnant Prairie Voles when their mate is removed and they are exposed to a new male, [45] an example of the Bruce effect, although this effect is seen less in wild populations than in the laboratory.[46] Female mice that had spontaneous abortions showed a sharp rise in the time spent with unfamiliar males preceding the abortion. [47]


And, yes--Abrahamic

[Azarel]

You want natural?

When a new silverback gorilla takes on a mate, he typically slaughters all her offspring from previous mates. That's the natural world for you.

Monkeys also engage in homosexual sex. Many animals have sex outside of their mating pairs (if such pairing even exists).

The difficulty with these examples is that the theologians will explain this behaviour as a clear example of 'fallen nature'. An unintended effect of the fall of Adam and Eve once they gave up the birthright to rule over animals and disobeyed God's only proviso, "Don't eat from that other tree..".

Of course if you don't believe that happened one way or another, then it seems like perfectly acceptable behaviour and might lead you to wonder why step-fathers don't ordinarily kill the children of their wives. If it's unacceptable for us, then should it not go without saying that animals technically don't have to behave like that? Surely it would help endangered species survive if they didn't help hunters and poachers by topping themselves off, yes?

[Boothby]

...and might lead you to wonder why step-fathers don't ordinarily kill the children of their wives

There are times they DO! Being civilized apes, we look down on that sort of behavior. But it's still "natural" behavior.

If it's unacceptable for us, then should it not go without saying that animals technically don't have to behave like that

Your term "animals technically don't have to behave like that" has no meaning (not to me, at least. Not yet, perhaps). Where does the term "have to" come in with them?


And going back to the original question--why would one look toward the RC Church for guidelines on sexual behavior to begin with? There's a "Divide by Zero" error in there, somewhere in there...

[Erondites]

You want natural?

When a new silverback gorilla takes on a mate, he typically slaughters all her offspring from previous mates. That's the natural world for you.

Monkeys also engage in homosexual sex. Many animals have sex outside of their mating pairs (if such pairing even exists).

This is interesting:

http://www.answers.com/topic/miscarriag ... er_animals

Spontaneous abortion occurs in pregnant Prairie Voles when their mate is removed and they are exposed to a new male, [45] an example of the Bruce effect, although this effect is seen less in wild populations than in the laboratory.[46] Female mice that had spontaneous abortions showed a sharp rise in the time spent with unfamiliar males preceding the abortion. [47]

What is natural to animals of lower intelligence, such as apes, is completely immaterial to ethics. While such a comparison may be used to show that some behaviors are "natural" to primates, and thus to humans, it has nothing whatever to do with what is right or wrong.

So while a silverback gorilla may kill all the previous offspring of his new mate, this does not make it ok for humans to do, any more than animal homexuality makes it ok for humans. Natural and right are two different things. While a human may be genetically/evolutionarily inclined to kill another human, he/she is expected to curb that impulse, for the sake of the community, and because it is not right.

The example of the prairie vole, while interesting, is also irrelevant. Abortion may be spontaneous, but for the purposes of this discussion we are chiefly concerned with induced abortion, "the expulsion or removal from the womb of a developing embryo or fetus, in the period before it is capable of independent survival, occurring as a result of a deliberate act." The spontaneous abortion of the prairie voles is not the intended result of a deliberate act, and certainly not carried out by intelligent beings. I'm not quite sure why you included that, since the article it appeared in was "Miscarriage."

Also, your comment to the effect that forcing a woman who was raped to carry to term and deliver the baby only reflects the misogynist leanings of the three [Abrahamic] religions is false as well. Rather, it reflects the quite reasonable aversion on the part of those religions to murder, coupled with the unfortunate misogynistic leanings of biology and evolution.

[Azarel]

Why would be more likely to look anywhere else for guidance?

The TV shows and adverts tell me to sleep with whoever I want, whenever I want and if there's a hiccup, dump them, move on and leave a trail of abortions or child support behind me. There ever decreasing amounts of censorship on that sort of message as we sink more and more into 'natural' bestial behaviour.

..You're right, I'm sorry I generalised and forgot about all the step-fathers who killed their wives children from previous men. Does that really mean it's acceptable? Why is anyone ever put on trial for murder if we're 'working as intended'?

And I suppose if the monkeys are doing it, let's all fling poo at each other too.