Based on conversation in this thread in the Pit, I’ve realized that fewer people understand this about the Catholic Church than I thought.
The Roman Catholic Church does not allow direct abortion, not even to save the life of the pregnant woman.
Did you know this?
Yes, I knew it. I do NOT have a very high opinion of the RCC, and I really have to wonder about most of its followers.
I voted No, because before it was mentioned in that thread, I assumed that no one could reject abortion when it would kill both mother and unborn child. That makes no sense.
I mean, I guessed it might have been the case in the far past, but I assumed it would have been fixed, maybe even as far back as Vatican II.
A distinction worth making here - directly and intentionally aborting is not allowed, but say, giving a pregnant woman with advanced uterine cancer a hysterectomy would be. I’m not sure if that particular example would ever occur. I think this is supposed to be a distinction based on intent - are you treating the woman or killing the fetus? It’s pretty fuzzy though.
To avoid a nasty trainwreck of a thread, I’ll just say, “ditto”.
Sure, but if, say, the hysterectomy would be much safer if the fetus were aborted first, the RCC would still not allow the abortion–just as they require more dangerous and destructive techniques for ending ectopic pregnancies than necessary.
I did know this, and while I find the RCC’s take on this to be entirely wrong-headed, it seems consistent with their views, and the only stand to take that would give their view on ‘regular’ abortions any weight.
If two people are likely going to die, would you condone shooting one of them to let the other live? What if it meant shooting the person who couldn’t object to being shot?*****
If you already believe abortion is murder, then even in a ‘save the life of the mother’ situation the morality is sticky.
***** - I actually am not 100% sure how I feel about that scenario, but let’s go with it
That’s a good point. In a way, I actually find this less objectionable (although still EXTREMELY objectionable) than, say, Brazil’s take on abortion: where abortion is allowed* to save a mother’s life or if the pregnancy was the result of rape. That, I find pretty disgusting. It makes the hidden message of a lot of anti-abortion organizations 100% clear–a lot of anti-abortions laws are not about the life of a fetus; they are about sexual control of women. This is pregnancy and childbirth as punishment.
*It’s allowed, but not actually legal (according to Wikipedia and the documentary I saw on the BBC…) To their credit (OK, probably not the right word) the Catholic Church in Brazil recently made waves by excommunicating doctors who carried out an abortion on a pregnancy that would have killed the mother and child (the mother in question being a NINE YEAR OLD raped by her stepfather.)
I never really thought about it because that religion is so far away from my own. Even when I was Christian it was not anywhere near Catholic!
It’s sad to me that they’d force a child to carry on a pregnancy when it could endanger her health. It’s sad that a woman who wants to terminate a pregnancy should feel obligated to consult her church in the first place. My best friend had an abortion for darn good reasons when she was a teen and even now in her forties she feel’s a murder’s guilt. It’s awful.
I have to say though it’s not really surprising.
What brand of church is it that occasionally sets up the yard of white crosses for “all the babies murdered by abortion in the past month”?
Your OP does not match your poll, or your thread topic, so I guess you are being deliberately provocative. The church does not allow abortion if it’s the primary intent. However, the RCC allows abortion if it’s a secondary effect. For example, removing a fallopian tube due to an ectopic pregnancy is allowed. The intent wasn’t to kill the baby, it was to remove the fallopian tube. Never the less, the pregnancy was ended and the mother’s life potentially saved. http://www.sspx.org/catholic_faqs/catholic_faqs__morality.htm#ectopicpregnancy
That directly refutes your thread topic and your poll question. The RCC allows abortion to save a woman’s life under certain circumstances.
It’s a problem for the rest of us, even if you’re not Catholic, because many women don’t realize how many hospitals are Catholic-owned and might therefore not give you the options you need in a crisis.
Word. I always found somewhat disgusting those abortion opponents who made exceptions for rape and incest. If it’s wrong, it’s wrong – all they’re trying to do is punish a girl who voluntarily screwed around. Although I disagree with it, I find the RCC position more defensible.
Its policy on kiddie-diddling priests, OTOH . . .
Isn’t it more likely to be simply a case of conflicting ideals? That is, they don’t like the idea of abortion, but they like the idea of forcing a rape victim to carry the resultant pregnancy to term even less.
[Moderator Note]Not here. Please take any debating about the Catholic Church and/or abortion to Great Debates.[/Moderator Note]
I voted “Never thought about it,” although I’d have guessed that the OP’s statement was accurate. However, I’m rather “meh” about the whole thing despite being pro-choice: the RCC (or any religion) is, in the US, anyway, unable to actually “forbid” anything, at least not with force of law.
It’s an organization whom folks voluntarily choose to me a member of, and if folks want to choose to impose restrictions on themselves, and hold onto those restrictions unto death based on their beliefs…well, more power to them.
It’s similar to my opinion of Muslim women not being allowed to work outside the home, drive, be seen in public without a burka, etc. Or less controversially, eating kosher/halal with the associated difficulties that causes in a non kosher/halal society. In the US, these are choices, and people choose various points along the spectrum depending on how important religion is to them. That’s the whole POINT of freedom of religion: it lets you choose any religion, and it’s associated restrictions, no matter how nutty those restrictions may seem to others. I take “pro choice” to mean exactly that: people get to choose. I’m not using it as a codeword for “pro abortion.”
Want to see my egalitarian attitude disappear in a big hurry? Change the topic to a country (or occasionally, state) where religious nonsense carries the force of law. Then we’ve got a problem. But since anyone can choose to leave the RCC at any time (and in IMHO, be better off for doing so), I don’t see an issue here.
Fair enough, but a point of clarification: what would be the appropriate way to present a different possible motive? Or were the comments I quoted also not germane to the forum?
But what if you don’t want your entire fallopian tube or uterus removed? And it’s still possible to just abort without doing anything else?
I’m not following. You say you find it objectionable & disgusting that Brazil allows abortion if the pregnancy is a result of rape, but then say that the hidden message of anti-abortion laws is pregnancy as punishment. So then why would you object to Brazil allowing abortion in those cases?
[Moderator Note]Again, this is not the place to debate abortion. If you must do so, take it to Great Debates, and provide a link to this thread.[/Moderator Note]
I was raised Catholic and was forcibly marched to church every Sunday and Feast Day until I left my parents’ house to live on my own, and I did not know this.