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

[Catholic_Lady]

And not to be disrespectful, but I imagine their quality of life and financial situations are generally considerably lower; and such people expect them not to do probably the most enjoyable and natural thing they have available, which is also free.

Yeah, it always comes back to that for me too.  Why design sex to feel the way that it does in the first place if it’s going to lead to so many problems?  Talk about setting people up to fail.  Why not design sex to feel uncomfortable, like a trip to the dentist?  That way only people who really want babies would be doing it, and god wouldn’t have to be upstairs suffering all this moral angst over our disobedience? Plus, way less AIDS.

I actually used to wonder the same when I was little. Well, little as in like in my very early teens.

Now a days I imagine sex feeling good is a result of evolution, and if it was uncomfortable, evolution would probably have happened very differently. Maybe our species wouldn't even exist today?

That would be my guess anyway. Hard for us to answer that question when we can't really see the whole picture, but trust me, I've thought it too.

[JairCrawford]

No, obviously we don't want that either, Min. Which is why I said the goal of all this is to build a culture of life. That requires more than just banning abortion.

We need better care and support for women who find themselves in difficult pregnancies. Both during their pregnancy and after - whether they choose to keep the baby or turn them over to adoptive families, they should have financial help, medical care, and support every step of the way.

I suspect if these women dont feel so alone and dont feel like their pregnancy is an impossible situation, and if they think of their unborn babies as true human beings, the urge to abort them would greatly decrease.

It would be a process, but one worth striving for, and that should be the goal.

---

@CL, I totes saw you kudos, then unkudos my post! Don’t mess with my fragil ego like that! 😛

Jk, you know I love you. Glad you’re finding some spare time to be with us again. ❤️

Sorry... it's an extremely sensitive and personal issue for me and my family. I shouldn't be on this thread, but couldn't help it.

I appreciate that it gives you pause, which is why I kudos it.. but I guess felt discouraged when I saw another post after that. Please dont take it personally. ❤

I agree with your sentiments. But I'm not sure if making all abortions illegal would be a good first step, because that -would- bring back the coat hangars. I think, the change of heart would need to precede the legal issues, and not the other way around.

[Natachan]

I find the idea of confining or restraining women monstrous. A woman says she’s going to abort, so she’s restrained. In captivity, she still doesn’t want the child, so she goes on a water fast. Do you force a tube down her throat? Physically strap her down and force feed her? Traumatize and physically torture a woman, stripping her of her personhood so she can act as an incubator?

Likewise simply shrugging off the women who WILL die as simply a casualty strikes me as beyond callous.

Now as a disclaimer I don’t see pre-viability fetuses as people. My opinion on this cannot be changed, because my definition of personhood excludes them just as it excludes the brain dead.

[Aroura]

That's a fair one. If it's between a child and a pregnant adult, since many naturally seem to value children over adults. Which would you choose? What if it's one 90 year old lady or 1000 fetuses?

Would you really choose one child over 1000 adults? That seems crazy to me. Why are 1000 adults with less than one child?

The point isn't too dehumanize them, the point is that those who claim fetuses are people with rights the same as born people, don't in reality really see them as such. They are attempting to argue a point they themselves don't even truly believe.

Similar to the trolley dilemma there is the issue between saving, and actively killing.  Or the similar argument, if one should be forced to give up a kidney to save another.

I would be uncomfortable in assigning worth as a human being, to any that you chose not to save.  If you choose a child over an older person (to save), I don't think that the older person is less human, or able to be discarded.  Similarly I might choose someone to save, who makes great contributions to society, over one who is little more than a leech on others resources;  but, it wouldn't follow that I would condone the euthanasia of the person who is a drain on his community.

I don't think that everyone is equal (in many ways).  Yet they are equal as human beings. And  I'm leery of assigning value as human beings, the way you seem to be seeking here.  In all these scenarios, there is a choice.  And one where many people are going to pick one side based on a number of different reasons (logical or personal).  I think that it's kind of scary when you start making this into a math problem, and start talking about value.  I also don't think that ethics is just based on logic, science, or doing the math either.  And sometimes I think that's the point of mental exercises such as the trolley problem.  It's not in getting the correct answer, as much as if we don't struggle with the dilemma.

And try in the real world, such choices need to be made. You say you are not comfortable assigning value, yet you do, and you are attempting to get others to assign the same value you are claiming. You are just dodging answering. It's not as simple as a math problem, no, which is why I'm saying you can rewrite it any way you choose.

Does that mean we can wholesale kill the unborn? No. But it does put false the claim that a fetus is equal to a born person. You are attempting to skip step 2 and jump to the conclusion. Stop. Do step 2. It matters.

1st, do you believe, is a fetus a person?

You just spent time listing a number of situations where one is worth more than a thousand. Why will you not give me a single situation where 1000 is worth more than one, suddenly claiming morality isn't math, when you were happy to do the math if it made your particular point?

You seemed fine to save the one person. You still have not answered, under any circumstances, any at all, would you save the fetuses and let one born person die?

[Catholic_Lady]

Just an FYI, the second thing you said (bolded) is not true. You can certainly have sex with your spouse without the purpose/intent of conception lol. I did it for years (though bitterly regretting it now, it wasn't immoral). That is why NFP is widely taught and advocated in Catholic circles. So that married couples can learn their infertile weeks of the month and enjoy intimacy during that time when they are trying to avoid pregnancy.

The actual philosophy behind it implies that the purpose of sex is for procreation alone, with pleasure being a means of encouraging that procreation. It is from this philosophy that church morality comes.
It is true that the Church will turn a blind eye (and even encourage) such family planning methods, for it is well known that humans mostly have sex for the pleasure it provides, not thinking so much about the procreation part.

There is no blind eye lol. The belief is that the purpose of sex is for both procreation AND unity between spouses. This means the act itself must not be artificially altered as to render it sterile, AND that it must be an act of self giving love between spouses. But couples may absolutely skip sex on their fertile days and have sex on their infertile days as to avoid pregnancy.

[The Grand Nudger]

I think, the change of heart would need to precede the legal issues, and not the other way around.

"Change of heart" sounds an awful lot like a choice, which women have now..no need for any legal issues.  

Don't want an abortion.  Don't have one.  Don't want some other person to have an abortion?  Pound sand.

God will be fine with you either way..even if the Church won't. Magic book recommend abortions as a test of fidelity....so, you know..just get your man to think you cheated and voila.

[Minimalist]

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.

Fortunately the church is such a hypocritical anachronism that even catholicks do not pay much attention to it.... as the Jesuits here lament!

https://www.americamagazine.org/faith/20...n-and-lgbt

Most American Catholics, including those who go to church on a regular basis, have no moral problem with contraception, the survey found.

Just 8 percent said contraception is morally wrong, with 89 percent saying it was either morally acceptable or not a moral issue at all.

[Catholic_Lady]

I understand that unfortunately many people will keep sleeping around despite having aids, or knowing that aids is widespread in their area. But that doesn't change the fact that abstinence in these circumstances would still give the best outcomes and is also the more moral thing to do. The Church has a duty to advocate morality, and it just wouldn't be within the realm of our understanding of morality to tell these people to "keep having sex, just wear a condom!", when we know it doesn't 100% protect against aids and other things.
Of course, people have the a right to their own free will and will either follow the advice or not.

Yes, abstinence would indeed lead to the best outcome.
But here is where they fail to account for human nature.
How much worse would it be for the church to stick to their morality, while acknowledging that, under different circumstances, it would be best for people to use protection both against diseases and unwanted pregnancies?
One can always tell the people "Look, guys, this is the ideal case. Do it. But, if you can't stick with that ideal case, do take precautions."

Yeah, I'd be for that type of approach. Teach and encourage abstinence as the only 100% safe means, but mention as well the facts regarding condom use, rather than just pretending they dont exist... or lying about the facts.

I think they're just very careful about taking that approach as not to seem like they are advocating for something immoral and with a failure rate. If I had to guess, I would assume many of them (the clergy doing mission/charity work in Africa that is), probably feel pretty conflicted about trying to do the right thing and what the best way is to handle the situation.

[Angrboda]

“It is now quite lawful for a Catholic woman to avoid pregnancy by a resort to mathematics, though she is still forbidden to resort to physics and chemistry.”

― H.L. Mencken

[The Grand Nudger]

I think they're just very careful about taking that approach as not to seem like they are advocating for something immoral and with a failure rate. 

That doesn't seem to bother them as they preach the immoral and -failed- notion of abstinence.

No reason to dance around it. The catholic church is putting their own dogma before the lives of their congregants in contradiction to fact. They are a church, after all...it's not surprising, it's just shitty.