If you're pro-life, how far do you take that?

[Angrboda]

Catholics want to put out the fire of abortion on the one hand, and pour gasoline on it with the other, by opposing the use of contraceptives.

They need to choose what they think is more important, human life, or their beliefs about what God wants.

[Catholic_Lady]

Depends.

If abortion became illegal tomorrow, the first step to enforcing it would be to very mildly prosecute the doctor who killed the unborn baby. Maybe pay a fine, or get his license to practice revoked for a time, etc.

Why such a "small" penalty for killing a human being? Because unfortunately we, as a society, are not at the stage yet where we fully see unborn humans as actual humans, deserving of the right to life just like all other humans. Making abortion illegal is a first step, but isn't, in and of itself, going to change people's hearts. Coming to that change of heart, that understanding and acceptance, takes time. It is a process towards building a culture of life and towards seeing ALL humans as having the inherent right to live, regardless of religion, race, sex, orientation, or age.

A doctor who performs an abortion isn't necessarily a bad person, because he probably hasn't reached the stage yet where he views an unborn human as the human being that he/she truly is. Therefore his culpability is greatly lessened, and so too, must his punishment.

In the future though, once it is fully understood and fully accepted that unborn humans are humans who deserve the right to life just like all other humans, the penalty should increase proportionally to that understanding.. as at that point it would take a truly evil person to kill an unborn baby, no differently from how it takes a truly evil person to kill a baby who was just born.

But right now, we are not at that point yet, and there are plenty of well meaning people doing abortions.

(With that being said, the mother herself should never be prosecuted. Only the abortionist. Again, due to a matter of culpability and taking into account the vulnerable and desperate position a woman is in when she finds herself unexpectedly pregnant. In that sense, she is also a victim.)

Thanks for your answer

This leads to the question of pragmatism versus idealism. Let's assume for the sake of argument that implementing a system of punishing doctors wouldn't reduce the number of abortions that actually happen, but would instead cause more dangerous backstreet/self administered abortions. Would you still go ahead following the ideal, even though the outcome would be worse?

So your hypothetical scenario is, what if there would be MORE abortions overall if abortion became illegal?

That doesn't make much sense, but out of principle, direct killing of an innocent human should never be legally permissable. By the same token, I assume if legalizing rape decreased the instance of rape, most people would still say rape should be illegal.

Because the right to life is an inherent right, just as the right to not be sexually violated is an inherent right, those human rights should always (even if purely by principle) be protected by the law.

[robvalue]

I was proposing a scenario where the number of abortions stayed about the same, but became more dangerous. Fair enough answer, thanks.

[Silver]

So your hypothetical scenario is, what if there would be MORE abortions overall if abortion became illegal?

That doesn't make much sense, but out of principle, direct killing of an innocent human should never be legally permissable. By the same token, I assume if legalizing rape decreased the instance of rape, most people would still say rape should be illegal.

Because the right to life is an inherent right, just as the right to not be sexually violated is an inherent right, those human rights should always (even if purely by principle) be protected by the law.

It makes perfect sense. Does making drugs illegal prevent drug trafficking? The same concept can be applied to abortions. If abortion is made illegal, women are going to find unsafe, back alley ways of getting the job done. Which is better; safe legal abortion or unsafe abortions due the procedure being illegal? And no, my argument is not in support of making one's "want" of snorting cocaine a potential legal issue. The metaphor still stands to reason for abortion.

A bundle of cells is not an innocent human being. I'm not going to argue this fact with you. I'm stating it, and that's that.

And your connection of rape to abortion fails. Yes, it does.

Now, if you want to debate logically, please do so.

[Catholic_Lady]

Catholics want to put out the fire of abortion on the one hand, and pour gasoline on it with the other, by opposing the use of contraceptives.

They need to choose what they think is more important, human life, or their beliefs about what God wants.

Some clarification needed here.

The opposition to contraception only applies to married couples. Contraception use outside of marriage is a moot point, since the church teaching on premarital sex is to not do it in the first place. There is no catholic teaching that says "do not contracept pre marital sex." It is simply "do not have pre marital sex," and "do not contracept the marital act." Married couples are expected to practice responsible parenthood using natural means of avoiding pregnancy, without altering the sex act itself. But this is a non issue if the people are unmarried, since they shouldn't be having sex in the first place.

So, there is no contradiction between the importance of human life and the Church's teaching on sexuality. In this country alone, 40% of children are born to unwed mothers. If Church teaching on sexuality was followed, it would greatly decrease pregnancy rates universally, not increase them. Because no one would be having sex until they were married, and responsible parenthood would be expected by those who were.

[LadyForCamus]

Telling human beings not to have sex unless they are married is completely unrealistic. That is NEVER going to happen. Ever. Full stop. For as long as humans walk the earth, they’re going to be fucking each other.

[Catholic_Lady]

Telling human beings not to have sex unless they are married is completely unrealistic. That is NEVER going to happen. Ever. Full stop. For as long as humans walk the earth, they’re going to be fucking each other.

Well, there are plenty of people who do wait. We did. But it is true that most don't, and that humanity will never behave perfectly. You are right on that.

Remember also, that we do not advocate for contraception to be illegal or anything. Just that, if you are a catholic and you WANT to practice the moral teachings of the faith, wait until you are married to have sex, and when you do get married, avoid pregnancy as necessary using natural methods.

All I'm saying is that contrary to what has been stated here, IF this ideal was universally practiced, pregnancy rates would drastically decrease, not increase. But yeah, no one is trying to force this ideal or make it a legal thing.

[pocaracas]

Married couples are expected to practice responsible parenthood using natural means of avoiding pregnancy, without altering the sex act itself.

What if you were presented with a couple on whom those natural means of avoiding pregnancy failed 4 times?
Would you still advocate using them as a means of avoiding pregnancy?
Not everyone wants to support 4 kids, not everyone *can* support 4 kids. What is the church teaching on that? How to avoid having more kids when the natural way... the one that god turns a blind eye upon, it seems... when it fails systematically?

[Aegon]

So your hypothetical scenario is, what if there would be MORE abortions overall if abortion became illegal?

That doesn't make much sense, but out of principle, direct killing of an innocent human should never be legally permissable. By the same token, I assume if legalizing rape decreased the instance of rape, most people would still say rape should be illegal.

Because the right to life is an inherent right, just as the right to not be sexually violated is an inherent right, those human rights should always (even if purely by principle) be protected by the law.

It's about safety. The point is: making abortion illegal does nothing to decrease the amount of them. They won't increase substantially because of making it illegal, it's just the difference between safe vs unsafe abortions. If putting an end to abortion is your end goal (a good one I'd support) then you should be against making it illegal, because it doesn't work.

I've said this in another thread. In an ideal world, I'd be pro-life. I don't agree with pro-choice logic, to be honest. I want abortions to stop. But making it illegal just puts those who get them in danger. There's no point to it. Just like I don't want anybody to shoot heroin, but making it illegal and throwing addicts in prison hasn't helped the problem; it's exasperated it. I believe the same logic applies here. . I don't know what to do in order to convince others to respect the life of the unborn child like you mentioned earlier, but making it illegal "on principle" doesn't make sense because one's principles can't outrank the observable results of actions. This is coming from someone who agrees with you on the moral level.

[Catholic_Lady]

Married couples are expected to practice responsible parenthood using natural means of avoiding pregnancy, without altering the sex act itself.

What if you were presented with a couple on whom those natural means of avoiding pregnancy failed 4 times?
Would you still advocate using them as a means of avoiding pregnancy?
Not everyone wants to support 4 kids, not everyone *can* support 4 kids. What is the church teaching on that? How to avoid having more kids when the natural way... the one that god turns a blind eye upon, it seems... when it fails systematically?

The official Catholic stance is to always use natural methods. There is no official teaching on what to do if these methods consitently don't work and the couple can't handle more kids. At that point it becomes a matter between them and God. Personally I wouldn't expect them to keep trying natural methods, and wouldn't fault them at all if they didn't. I know of instances where priests have even told the couple to go ahead and use condoms, given their extreme circumstances.