Question to Catholics about Abortion

Abortion. First thing I think of is why. Why would this mother want her baby taken from her? Well, their are MANY reasons, some of which I doubt I’ll ever know, but I do support some reasons. I support Abortion if it was due to a Rape, or if the mother will die and the baby, during the pregnancy. Other then that, doubtful, well better yet, not at all, if its a teen pregnancy, then so be it, no abortion, cause both had consented sex, and knew the risk, I am a teen, and if I got a girl pregnant, I would take the responsibility and support her and the kid, until the day I die, and I do not mean child support.

My question unto you, ye faithful (lol love that little set of words) is this:

Would you be willing to give up Freedom of Religion, for Abortion to be out-lawed? Here is what I mean:

Let’s say, 51% of America, supported Abortion, but 49% didn’t, would you want Abortion out-lawed then, even though the majority of America, is ok with it? Cause if you do, then your willing to get rid of a piece of democracy, no I am not trying to bash you guys/gals who would, but I am making a statement of fact, that if your willing to make a law, even though the people (majority) don’t want it, then what’s next?

Good luck, please be courteous to all, no matter which stance you are, and please none of this “baby killers” ****, cause I am asking you to question yourself, whether your willing to sacrifice freedom, for a cause. I personally, would not, no, I do not like abortion, but I am not gonna destroy a piece of democracy to stop it.

1.Let’s say, 51% of America, supported wearing underwear on your head, but 49% didn’t, would you want wearing underwear on your head out-lawed then, even though the majority of America, is ok with it? Cause if you do, then your willing to get rid of a piece of democracy.

or

2.Let’s say, 51% of America, supported forced sex with women, but 49% didn’t, would you want forced sex with women out-lawed then, even though the majority of America, is ok with it? Cause if you do, then your willing to get rid of a piece of democracy.

  1. silly
  2. scary

just because the majority if the country wants some thing to be legal doesn’t mean that it
should be. plurality doesnt equal morality

51% against 49%? Okay, this is very close. To get a better margin you should consider the vote of those most affected by it: add up the votes of the babies who died under abortion since the 70’s. Or would you deny the vote of those who are really interested on this issue? Doesn’t seem that much democratic…

I am willing to admit that because it is 3:40 in the morning I am probably not smart enough to understand the question. I am having a problem following the logic of the question.

How does the question of majority rule - which, btw, is not in an of itself a reason to keep an unjust law in place - affect freedom of religion?

If there is a law or a ruling in place that is unjust, the fact that it is supported by the majority of the population does not mean that keeping it in place upholds freedom or the ideals of a republic or a democracy or a democratic-republic. If that were true, then the Dred Scott decision would be considered a just decision.

However, in keeping with your question - I guess I need you to clarify what you are asking…how does this tie into freedom of religion and why would I be asked to give it up if Roe v Wade was overturned?

How is the baby different in these circumstances? Why does the baby deserve to die in these situation? Why is it right to kill a baby in these circumstances and not in others?

Your statement does not make sense. In what way does freedom of religion have anything to do with abortion?

Since when is the willingness to make a law thay many people (even a majority) “don’t want” anti-American? Congress does it all the time.

Historically, I hope you realize that the scenario you describe above is similar to the position of Americans on slavery in the 1800s. And, yes, people were willing to stand up and say it is wrong even though the “majority” thought it was fine for hundreds of years. Slowly, people were made to see that it is wrong to deny some members of society the basic human right of life and freedom. It is wrong to treat some people as property that can be disposed of in any manner the owner sees fit.

Children in the womb are modern day slaves. They are considered property and denied their rights as human beings. We can never stop until these little ones are protected under the law. Every person has a right to live. The purpose of a government is to protect the rights of the people. Our government has failed to do so. So, we must work for change.

That does not transgress the ideals of democracy (although the US is NOT a democracy, it is a republic).

It puzzles me as to why you believe that working against the injustice of abortion and trying to change the law harms the ideals of the US Constitution.

Freedom and justice are not in opposition to each other. You have framed your premise in an entirely nonsensical way.

I did that, cause I figured it’d be a easier way to do it, cause right now isn’t it majority is against abortion? idk, might not be, no clue.

When your talking about denying those the right to vote, your talking about the fetus’s? Well, according for the requirments for citizenship of the U.S.:

“is born in the United States” so I guess they wouldn’t be legally able to vote, since their not born in the united states to become a citizen.

You’ve lost me.

If your willing to go against the majority of America, to get a law passed that isn’t actually supported by the majority, because of your religion, then other religions that are ok or neutral, on the subject, lose their equality.

Example please.

Slavery was wrong, but it was a foundation of America, and it was abolished, because some people realized it was wrong, but it was abolished democractically in July 9, 1868 (this is when it was made an amendment, the EP was passed in 1863)

When does the fetus become a child, to you? When it is formed, like the exact second, or when sperm enters the female, or a certain amount of time after the formation?

It does, when you do it, against the majority of Americans, cause of your religious beliefs.

I do not believe so.

I would rather have something legal or illegal, according to the majority, then to one man, or one group’s morals.

So if the government decided tomorrow that if a grown man decided he should be able to have an intimate relationship with boys anywhere from the age 5 and up and the rest of the country voted 51% to 49% for this new law you would be okay with that? Keep in mind that these boys cannot vote for themselves.

The idea of going along with something just because the government says it is okay and because the majority of the population says it is okay seems a little scary doesn’t?

If you are going to go by numbers, polls indicate that most Americans would disapprove of most abortions that are actually done. When asked under what circumstances and conditions abortion should be allowed, a great many say only in the first trimester, even more say not after 6 months, a small minority support abortion through nine months of pregnancy, yet that is the current law.

If you are serious about letting the people decide, leave the matter to state legislatures, as was the case before 1973, when 7 men overruled the laws of 50 state legislatures.

The question is a nonsequitur. It assumes that the opposition to abortion is a “religiously” motivated opposition. Not true.

It is based on science and natural law. Medically (scientifically) ALL texts on embryology recognize that human life begins at conception. Even the majority of the so-called “pro-choice” people admit this fact.

princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2.html

[LEFT]Consider the following quotations from medical experts in the field of embryology. [/LEFT]

[LEFT]“It is the penetration of the ovum by a spermatozoan and resultant mingling of the nuclear material that each brings to the union that constitutes the culmination of the process of fertilization and marks the initiation of the life of a new individual.” (Bradley M. Patten, Human Embryology, 3rd ed., New York: McGraw Hill, 1968, page 43.)[/LEFT]

[LEFT]“Every time a sperm cell and ovum unite a new being is created which is alive and will continue to live unless its death is brought about by some specific condition.” (E. L. Potter and J. M. Craig, Pathology of the Fetus and the Infant, 3rd ed., Chicago: Year Book Medical Publishers, 1975, page vii.)[/LEFT]

[LEFT]Dr. Watson A. Bowes of the University of Colorado Medical School speaks clearly, when he says, “The beginning of a single human life is from a biological point of view a simple and straightforward matter - the beginning is conception.” (Subcommittee on Separation of Powers to Senate Judiciary Committee S-158, Report, 97th Congress, 1st Session, 1981.)[/LEFT]

[LEFT]A 1981 U.S. Senate report states, “Physicians, biologists, and other scientists agree that conception marks the beginning of the life of a human being - a being that is alive and is a member of the human species. There is overwhelming agreement on this point in countless medical, biological, and scientific writings.” (Subcommittee on Separation of Powers, Ibid.) [/LEFT]

[LEFT][FONT=Arial]Prior to advocating abortion, former Planned Parenthood President Dr. Alan Guttmacher was perplexed that anyone would question these basic scientific facts. “This all seems so simple and evident that it is difficult to picture a time when it wasn’t part of the common knowledge,” he wrote in his book* Life in the Making. (*A. Guttmacher, Life in the Making: The Story of Human Procreation, New York: Viking Press, 1933, p. 3.)[/FONT][/LEFT]

[LEFT]In short, a *human *life begins at the completion of the conception process. Abortion therefore terminates an innocent human life - an act which all civilized societies condemn, well at least all civilized societies up until about 40 years ago.

Accordingly the attempt to posit this as a choice between freedom of religion and outlawing abortion is a false choice. There is no conflict.[/LEFT]

I think that your should re-think your moral priorities by (“not”) basing your rational on the moral justice system of mankind in any country verses God’s moral justice in the Ten Commandments. (“Thou shalt not Kill”). And that applies to anyone who supports abortion no matter what the circumstances including (“Rape”). I have read material about women who made the wrong choice to abort their babies inside their wombs. Even though many of these women did not have a history of rape they were and are still painfully haunted inside their heart after realizing inside their conscious the moral implications of their choice to destroy and murder the human life-soul within them. Rape is no doubt a horrid life-time affliction.
I could not imagine wrestling with the painful stigma of knowing what it would be like for any woman who chose to abort their child, to fully comprehend the gravity of their moral indignation, Even if God did grant them merciful forgiveness they would still carry a heavy cross.

Then we could still have slavery. If most people want it and the government agrees then it must be ok to have slavery? Do the slaves get a say in it?

The law is needed because objectively it is wrong to murder.

Slavery was wrong

Says who?

When does the fetus become a child, to you?

It becomes a child when it becomes a child. It does not become a child to you and to me on differing days. Any time you decide, other than conception, is arbitrary.

** I support Abortion if it was due to a Rape,**

**Are you saying the unborn baby should be executed because the father was a rapist?

**
or if the mother will die and the baby, during the pregnancy.

This is very rare.

Two year olds cannot vote. Do they get treated as you want the unborn treated? I mean they cannot vote either.

The problem with your entire argument is that it doesn’t consider the humanity of the aborted baby. The argument against abortion isn’t that it violates someone’s delicate sensibilities–it’s that it exterminates a human being.

If abortion isn’t killing anyone, then the pro-life argument is moot. It abortion is killing someone, then any justification you try to give for abortion should start with something like, “I think it’s okay to eviscerate a human being if…”

Your argument that banning abortion chips away at freedom and democracy is, with all due respect, laughable. The Constitution is built on the idea that there are inalienable rights, the right to life necessarily being one of them. If the majority of America decides that you would serve the collective better as pet food, the Constitution stands in the way. As the Founding Fathers recognized, you can’t base your government entirely on the whims of the populace at any particular moment. You have to start with fundamental rights and principles that cannot be voted away.

As for your desire not to deal with accusations of baby-killing, you’re avoiding the only significant part of the debate. The Constitution (in theory, at least) protects the right to life. Is an innocent human being killed in an abortion? That’s the relevant question. Answer that, and there’s no need for all the sophistry.

They are citizens, they have rights, but a unborn is not a citizen, cause you have to born to be a citizen, unless they modify the requirments to be a U.S. Citizen.

No, but the mother might not want the child, and I believe the rapist should be executed, I’d support the execution of him.

It happens, even if its rare, it does happen.

Who is to say it is Murder if you kill a thing that is not yet born?

If the baby is born, as in, it is out of the mother and alive, then it is a US Citizen, because it was born in the United States of America, then it has rights.

No we wouldn’t slavery was very in-efficient. What would we use slaves for? Servants? Only the very wealthy could afford that, and I doubt their morality would be so cold to allow them to have slaves. We would not use slaves for manual labor on farms, cause people like me, use that as a job, and we fill up the ranks of it pretty good.

I would guess so, that was the way it was for a long time, idk, if their considered citizens I guess they would.

I do not care about God’s moral justice, that is his, not mine, and I am not gonna base mine on his, I make mine out of others. To you it is a wrong choice, but your morals are not the laws of this nation, and when one man’s morality becomes the basis of all our nation’s laws, is the day our nation becomes a dictatorship.

The boys have rights, and that law would conflict with the laws, and they would have to first get rid of the laws giving the boys rights.

Better then following morals of one man, or one people for the government.

Originally Posted by BareKnuckler
You’ve lost me.

If your willing to go against the majority of America, to get a law passed that isn’t actually supported by the majority, because of your religion, then other religions that are ok or neutral, on the subject, lose their equality.

You do understand that murdering another is not just a religious issue right. There are many atheists for example who are against abortion and recognize it as what it is murder.
Example please.

Slavery was wrong, but it was a foundation of America, and it was abolished, because some people realized it was wrong, but it was abolished democractically in July 9, 1868 (this is when it was made an amendment, the EP was passed in 1863)

When does the fetus become a child, to you? When it is formed, like the exact second, or when sperm enters the female, or a certain amount of time after the formation?

While obviously when it is a sperm entering the female is a sperm but when the sperm and the egg unit it beomes much more, a unique never before made human being and nothing else. so just as science has proven time and time again a person becomes a person at conception, not before and not after.

It does, when you do it, against the majority of Americans, cause of your religious beliefs.

Again stopping someone from murdering someone else is not necessary a religious belief, it is a compassionate human belief.
I do not believe so.

That is their opinoin. Murder is part of religion, Christians (I believe all do) follow the Ten Commandments, that stops them (or should anyways) from killing people, that is religion stopping someone from breaking a law, or trying to in any case.

Ok, thank you for telling me when you consider a baby, a baby.

It is a religious belief for many, including Christians.

When is the baby a human being? Does abortion, only a few weeks after conception murder to you?

It is very civil to laugh at people’s arguments, thanks for showing it :rolleyes:.

A man’s rights can be trampeled, by anyone, it happens everyday. Yes, our laws gurantee your rights, but their not always enforced. The Geneva Convention’s Rights for soldiers was broken thousands of times during wars.

Oh I am? If that is the only part of the debate you consider significant, then well, sorry. The problem with that is, people have differing opinoins when the child is a child. Is it a child when its born (I think so) or when it is un-born. When the child becomes a US Citizen (birth) it is a child.

I do not care about God’s moral justice, that is his, not mine, and I am not gonna base mine on his, I make mine out of others. To you it is a wrong choice, but your morals are not the laws of this nation, and when one man’s morality becomes the basis of all our nation’s laws, is the day our nation becomes a dictatorship.

I can see Bareknuckler; that you borrow your philosophical rational from a Buddhist or Hindu point of view, since you hold to your personal belief in (“Karma”). Christians and in particular Catholics do not subscribe to the philosophy that natural laws of causation are sufficient to explain the effects of life in relation to morality. The fallacies of the human intellect are too primitive and riddled in personal human pride to appreciate what ((“true”)) moral justice really is.
God’s moral justice is (“nothing”) comparatively close to the laws of human moral justice which is most often inordinately flawed. The fact that (“You”) “Bareknuckler” do not care about God’s Moral Justice and rely on your own prideful sense of what is right and wrong speaks clear that you have no idea what God’s Moral Justice really is.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.