Few questions

[Nickyjo]

I haven't participated in this discussion before, so forgive if this has been covered. I looked a bit and couldn't find the topic, may look some more. I am pro choice, but have a few questions for the pro-life movement, one of them personal, understanding that one person or group doesn't speak for all.

First, assuming abortion is outlawed, is there a consensus within the movement as to civil or criminal penalties and who gets prosecuted: doctor, mother, staff of the clinic, etc.

Second, a personal example. My wife was pregnant and tests showed the baby was deformed and would die in the womb. (Wife was not in any physical danger.) We wept, had the abortion and a service for the lost one, with friends and family, planted a tree and wild flowers in our yard. How would this have worked under one or the other of various legislative plans that might be proposed following the overturn of Roe? Would we have been able to act, what kind of hoops would we have had to jump through?, etc.

Third, a bit more arcane. What will be the main arguments likely to be used to overturn Roe: that there is no right to privacy that applies, overwhelming state interest, or others?

Finally, the Catholic Church's pro-life argument has been referred to as a "seamless garment," a rather moving reference to Christ's robe take from him when he was crucified. The phrase refers to its pro-life opposition to abortion, capital punishment, and nuclear war. Have parts of the anti-abortion movement taken this approach?

 

[year2late]

I haven't participated in this discussion before, so forgive if this has been covered. I looked a bit and couldn't find the topic, may look some more. I am pro choice, but have a few questions for the pro-life movement, one of them personal, understanding that one person or group doesn't speak for all.

First, assuming abortion is outlawed, is there a consensus within the movement as to civil or criminal penalties and who gets prosecuted: doctor, mother, staff of the clinic, etc.

Second, a personal example. My wife was pregnant and tests showed the baby was deformed and would die in the womb. (Wife was not in any physical danger.) We wept, had the abortion and a service for the lost one, with friends and family, planted a tree and wild flowers in our yard. How would this have worked under one or the other of various legislative plans that might be proposed following the overturn of Roe? Would we have been able to act, what kind of hoops would we have had to jump through?, etc.

Third, a bit more arcane. What will be the main arguments likely to be used to overturn Roe: that there is no right to privacy that applies, overwhelming state interest, or others?

Finally, the Catholic Church's pro-life argument has been referred to as a "seamless garment," a rather moving reference to Christ's robe take from him when he was crucified. The phrase refers to its pro-life opposition to abortion, capital punishment, and nuclear war. Have parts of the anti-abortion movement taken this approach?

I am pro-choice as well. Personally anti-abortion...but I firmly believe it is up to the individual to make their own health care choices,

I think you will find a lot of varied answers with pro-lifers. Some want it called first degree murder. Others would be happy letting the states decide.

What is really disturbing to me is that in a case like your wife's many pro-lifer's seem pretty clear. Since your wife's health at that time was not in danger - it is a clear NO. So she would likely need to gestate until there was clear fetal death, or she was seriously ill. On the flipside, there was a woman (Marlise Munoz)in Texas that was brain dead (her fetus was 14 weeks) They demanded that the dead woman be kept on life support against the expressed wishes of the husband.Even when it was discovered the fetus had multiple anomalies (heart and brain defects)they refused to comply. He was finally allowed to bury his wife a few months later. That is how intrenched many are.

It seems a major argument many are trying to make has to do with personhood. Giving the fetus the rights of the born. But of course the question is....how do you give full rights to the fetus without taking away rights from the pregnant woman?

 

[Nickyjo]

I am pro-choice as well. Personally anti-abortion...but I firmly believe it is up to the individual to make their own health care choices,

I think you will find a lot of varied answers with pro-lifers. Some want it called first degree murder. Others would be happy letting the states decide.

What is really disturbing to me is that in a case like your wife's many pro-lifer's seem pretty clear. Since your wife's health at that time was not in danger - it is a clear NO. So she would likely need to gestate until there was clear fetal death, or she was seriously ill. On the flipside, there was a woman (Marlise Munoz)in Texas that was brain dead (her fetus was 14 weeks) They demanded that the dead woman be kept on life support against the expressed wishes of the husband.Even when it was discovered the fetus had multiple anomalies (heart and brain defects)they refused to comply. He was finally allowed to bury his wife a few months later. That is how intrenched many are.

It seems a major argument many are trying to make has to do with personhood. Giving the fetus the rights of the born. But of course the question is....how do you give full rights to the fetus without taking away rights from the pregnant woman?

Thanks for your comments. There is another question I have for you and the group: From the recesses of my memory there is a notion that Catholics believed that personhood arrived with the “quickening” in the womb, with movement. Didn’t affect Church teaching on abortion. Does anyone remember this?

 

[prometeus]

Thanks for your comments. There is another question I have for you and the group: From the recesses of my memory there is a notion that Catholics believed that personhood arrived with the “quickening” in the womb, with movement. Didn’t affect Church teaching on abortion. Does anyone remember this?

That is because the Church does not rely on any legality or legal reasoning in their opposition. It is more important that more members be born.

 

[Nickyjo]

That is because the Church does not rely on any legality or legal reasoning in their opposition. It is more important that more members be born.

Pretty cynical, but no. They encouraged convents and monasteries, which, if the residents behaved themselves, produced no new members. As to birth control, they had a theory of natural law that the pill or condom violated. Ditto abortion. These days, their pro-life reasoning includes opposition to nuclear war and to capital punishment. True, that keeps more people alive, but no, that's not the reason.

 

[prometeus]

Pretty cynical, but no.

You can reason all you want, the bottom line is more members.

They encouraged convents and monasteries, which, if the residents behaved themselves, produced no new members.

The numbers of monks or nuns never rose to the point of making a difference.

As to birth control, they had a theory of natural law that the pill or condom violated. Ditto abortion.

Please elaborate on what you believe that to be.

These days, their pro-life reasoning includes opposition to nuclear war and to capital punishment.

Not the same thing.

 

[Nickyjo]

You can reason all you want, the bottom line is more members.

The numbers of monks or nuns never rose to the point of making a difference

++ There was a tradition, perhaps only in Ireland, that one son/daughter of several should become a nun/priest

Please elaborate on what you believe that to be.

++ The reasoning was that every act of intercourse should be open to conception, as that was the purpose of sex, pleasure being a fun by-product. Using artificial means to prevent that was wrong.

Not the same thing.

++ Actually heard an Archbishop and other authorities preach that opposition to abortion, death penalty, and nuclear war was a consistent pro life position in Catholic teaching. Obviously not the same things, but related to developing a “culture of life.”
The metaphor used was Christ’s “seamless garment.”

 

[nthasama]

I haven't participated in this discussion before, so forgive if this has been covered. I looked a bit and couldn't find the topic, may look some more. I am pro choice, but have a few questions for the pro-life movement, one of them personal, understanding that one person or group doesn't speak for all.

First, assuming abortion is outlawed, is there a consensus within the movement as to civil or criminal penalties and who gets prosecuted: doctor, mother, staff of the clinic, etc.

Second, a personal example. My wife was pregnant and tests showed the baby was deformed and would die in the womb. (Wife was not in any physical danger.) We wept, had the abortion and a service for the lost one, with friends and family, planted a tree and wild flowers in our yard. How would this have worked under one or the other of various legislative plans that might be proposed following the overturn of Roe? Would we have been able to act, what kind of hoops would we have had to jump through?, etc.

Third, a bit more arcane. What will be the main arguments likely to be used to overturn Roe: that there is no right to privacy that applies, overwhelming state interest, or others?

Finally, the Catholic Church's pro-life argument has been referred to as a "seamless garment," a rather moving reference to Christ's robe take from him when he was crucified. The phrase refers to its pro-life opposition to abortion, capital punishment, and nuclear war. Have parts of the anti-abortion movement taken this approach?

Personally, I think that doctors should be punished for performing abortions if it is outlawed, and others such as staff who were knowingly helping. I am undecided about the mother because, while I do believe that the unborn are just as valuable as those who are already born I also believe that part of a just law is intent. Mothers who abort their babies are not cold-hearted monsters. Often they are scared, desparate, or grieving. I don't think they should be treated the same as murderers because their intent is different. If they are punished I don't believe they should be charged with murder. As far as I know there is no consensus on this, though.

Second, I am so sorry for your loss. I can only imagine how difficult that must have been for you and your wife. How it would work would depend on what exactly the law was if abortion was made illegal. Personally, I don't believe aborting babies because they are sick is right. I know this may seem unfeeling and cold, but I believe that the unborn should be protected the same way those who are already born are. If my son got terminal cancer and I had to watch him slowly die over several months it would be agonizing, but I couldn't kill him just so I wouldn't have to have it drag out.

As to your third questions, for me I don't think the right to privacy applies. Yes, we should be able to expect privacy at our doctor's offices, but that is not unconditional. For example, if I took my baby girl into the doctor and said I wanted her circumcised no one would argue that I should be able to do it because I have a right to privacy. Why should I have a right to privacy to kill my baby but not harm her in a lesser way?

I am not Catholic, and I don't know about others in the pro-life movement, but I personally am opposed to war unless it is defending others who cannot defend themselves, or defending us as a country. I think everything should be done to avoid going to war except turning a blind eye to the suffering of those who need our help. As for the death penalty I am mostly opposed to it. The only time I think it may be justified is when someone continues to commit crimes from jail, such as a prisoner killing another prisoner or a guard. This is because I think we still need to protect prisoners, even if they have committed crimes. I am not sure if the death penalty is the answer to this either, though. Another possible answer would be permanent solitary confinement. I am not sure which would be more humane. Either way, I am against the death penalty with the possible exception of it being the only way to protect others from someone.

 

[Bucky]

That is because the Church does not rely on any legality or legal reasoning in their opposition. It is more important that more members be born.

Newflash. Not all people that are pro life are associated with the "church."

And btw not all Christians go to the same Church. Christianity has quite a few different denominations.

 

[prometeus]

Newflash. Not all people that are pro life are associated with the "church."

Newsflash, I did not say they were. Improve your reading comprehension.

And btw not all Christians go to the same Church. Christianity has quite a few different denominations.

No ****, really? And you came up with this all by yourself? Bravo.

 

[Lursa]

First, assuming abortion is outlawed, is there a consensus within the movement as to civil or criminal penalties and who gets prosecuted: doctor, mother, staff of the clinic, etc.

IMO likeliest scenario would be to make it illegal for Drs to perform the procedure.

 

[Lursa]

Second, a personal example. My wife was pregnant and tests showed the baby was deformed and would die in the womb. (Wife was not in any physical danger.) We wept, had the abortion and a service for the lost one, with friends and family, planted a tree and wild flowers in our yard. How would this have worked under one or the other of various legislative plans that might be proposed following the overturn of Roe? Would we have been able to act, what kind of hoops would we have had to jump through?, etc.

I'm very sorry for your loss.

Up until this year in Ireland, it would have been illegal to have that abortion and your wife's life would have been at serious risk. If the unborn had died or started to deteriorate, it could have made your wife septic. This happened in Ireland...by the time the fetal heartbeat stopped, the sepsis was too far along and the woman died.

It's unlikely laws would be passed to prevent this but it's possible.

Every pregnancy carries risks. Any delay in medical treatment can result in complications and death. These decisions should be made only between the woman/couple and their Dr.

 

[Lursa]

Third, a bit more arcane. What will be the main arguments likely to be used to overturn Roe: that there is no right to privacy that applies, overwhelming state interest, or others?

There are at least 4 threads running on that right now, my suggestion is to please look at the titles and read and participate there.

 

[Lursa]

Finally, the Catholic Church's pro-life argument has been referred to as a "seamless garment," a rather moving reference to Christ's robe take from him when he was crucified. The phrase refers to its pro-life opposition to abortion, capital punishment, and nuclear war. Have parts of the anti-abortion movement taken this approach?

Never heard of it. Can you explain how it specifically applies to abortion?

 

[soylentgreen]

Pretty cynical, but no. They encouraged convents and monasteries, which, if the residents behaved themselves, produced no new members.

This is either being ridiculous or a complete lack of understanding.
The church does not encourage abortion because they want more people born into religious families. They at least, understand that it is far easier to indoctrinate a person from an early age within a religious family than it is to convert an older person born outsie their influence.

They do not have a theory of natural law . That requires intelligent and logical thinking of which they lack. What they have is an ideology of converting as many to their faith as posssible. And the best way to do that is to get the already converted families to have as many children as possible.

 

[Lursa]

This is either being ridiculous or a complete lack of understanding.
The church does not encourage abortion because they want more people born into religious families. They at least, understand that it is far easier to indoctrinate a person from an early age within a religious family than it is to convert an older person born outsie their influence.

They do not have a theory of natural law . That requires intelligent and logical thinking of which they lack. What they have is an ideology of converting as many to their faith as posssible. And the best way to do that is to get the already converted families to have as many children as possible.

And more $$ in the church offering plates.

 

[Bucky]

Newsflash, I did not say they were. Improve your reading comprehension.

No ****, really? And you came up with this all by yourself? Bravo.

The left/pro-choice groups like to lump all Christians together in one group. I find that dishonest.

 

[prometeus]

The left/pro-choice groups like to lump all Christians together in one group. I find that dishonest.

Good, complaint to them then.

 

[Nickyjo]

Never heard of it. Can you explain how it specifically applies to abortion?

The way I heard it from an Archbishop, he linked the church’s advocacy for the person on death row and those who would be victims in nuclear war to the fetus in a consistent pro-life position, with no “seams” in their argument.

 

[Lursa]

The way I heard it from an Archbishop, he linked the church’s advocacy for the person on death row and those who would be victims in nuclear war to the fetus in a consistent pro-life position, with no “seams” in their argument.

Still have no idea what it's referring to. Specifically about abortion. Can you explain it?

 

[Nickyjo]

This is either being ridiculous or a complete lack of understanding.
The church does not encourage abortion because they want more people born into religious families. They at least, understand that it is far easier to indoctrinate a person from an early age within a religious family than it is to convert an older person born outsie their influence.

They do not have a theory of natural law . That requires intelligent and logical thinking of which they lack. What they have is an ideology of converting as many to their faith as posssible. And the best way to do that is to get the already converted families to have as many children as possible.

As one who studied to be a priest and who has many priest or ex-priest friends, I have to differ. Official church teaching is/was that every sexual act needs to be potentially open to procreation based on some strange interpretation of natural law. That is why they supported the rhythm method of birth control as “natural.” More recent teaching has argued differently, though the “official” positions probably remain on some books somewhere. Most priests don’t worry about stuff like birth control any more than they worry about masturbation. And I saw no evidence, none, that it’s opposition to abortion is related to wanting more Catholics to indoctrinate. If you want to get into the philosophical weeds, their different arguments in play go back to Plato/Augustine vs Aristotle/Acquinas. Tho it’s been a while since my philosophy classes, IMHO the church has been leaning more to the latter pair’s thinking.

 

[Bucky]

I haven't participated in this discussion before, so forgive if this has been covered. I looked a bit and couldn't find the topic, may look some more. I am pro choice, but have a few questions for the pro-life movement, one of them personal, understanding that one person or group doesn't speak for all.

First, assuming abortion is outlawed, is there a consensus within the movement as to civil or criminal penalties and who gets prosecuted: doctor, mother, staff of the clinic, etc.

Second, a personal example. My wife was pregnant and tests showed the baby was deformed and would die in the womb. (Wife was not in any physical danger.) We wept, had the abortion and a service for the lost one, with friends and family, planted a tree and wild flowers in our yard. How would this have worked under one or the other of various legislative plans that might be proposed following the overturn of Roe? Would we have been able to act, what kind of hoops would we have had to jump through?, etc.

Third, a bit more arcane. What will be the main arguments likely to be used to overturn Roe: that there is no right to privacy that applies, overwhelming state interest, or others?

Finally, the Catholic Church's pro-life argument has been referred to as a "seamless garment," a rather moving reference to Christ's robe take from him when he was crucified. The phrase refers to its pro-life opposition to abortion, capital punishment, and nuclear war. Have parts of the anti-abortion movement taken this approach?

I think we all need to take a deep breath and calm down.

People I know only want to ban women from abortion for reasons of personal inconvenience, not medical necessity.

Thank you for sharing your story. If a baby imo has a 1% chance of surviving birth, I think it is worth the effort of child birth. God works in mysterious/miracolous ways. This is beyond what medical science can explain.

Life is well worth the risk. We cannot shun the most vulnerable in society!!!

 

[soylentgreen]

As one who studied to be a priest and who has many priest or ex-priest friends, I have to differ. Official church teaching is/was that every sexual act needs to be potentially open to procreation based on some strange interpretation of natural law. That is why they supported the rhythm method of birth control as “natural.” More recent teaching has argued differently, though the “official” positions probably remain on some books somewhere. Most priests don’t worry about stuff like birth control any more than they worry about masturbation. And I saw no evidence, none, that it’s opposition to abortion is related to wanting more Catholics to indoctrinate. If you want to get into the philosophical weeds, their different arguments in play go back to Plato/Augustine vs Aristotle/Acquinas. Tho it’s been a while since my philosophy classes, IMHO the church has been leaning more to the latter pair’s thinking.

That again is just being simplistic. Their reason for being against effctive birth control or abortion is because the more births then the more people indoctrinated. However their argument against abotion is that life is sacred, when it suites their ideology of course.
This has nothing to do with philosophy. It is about ideology and pragmatism. Pragmatic in that to grow as a religion then the more births by the religious the better. And ideology in that they argue abortion on faith based reasoning and not on philosophical or even logical reasons.

 

[Removable Mind]

This is either being ridiculous or a complete lack of understanding.
The church does not encourage abortion because they want more people born into religious families. They at least, understand that it is far easier to indoctrinate a person from an early age within a religious family than it is to convert an older person born outsie their influence.

They do not have a theory of natural law . That requires intelligent and logical thinking of which they lack. What they have is an ideology of converting as many to their faith as posssible. And the best way to do that is to get the already converted families to have as many children as possible.

Well said, and if one chooses to examine hundreds of years of history of the Catholic Church, their tenets, their teachings around the sin of abortion, homosexuality (an oxymoron), divorce, etc - isn’t hinged to their global sermons about how Natural Law compels the church to impose punitive actions (i.e. excommunication) on members for behaviors that goes against the church’s teachings.

Over the years I have said in numerous threads: Adopting and adhering to any religion’s tenets and teachings is 100% voluntary. There is no legal requirements that binds individuals to any given religious organization. Religious organizations don’t “OPENLY” employ enforcers to bird dog members and invasively roughshod over the private lives of their members in order maintain membership allegiance.

However...

The Catholic Church has been successful in imposing the Church’s IDEOLOGY on countries around the world by infiltrating governments with people who are profoundly indoctrinated with these tenets, and who have successfully metamorphosed those tenets into public law/policy.

Ireland, Malta, Chile and other Central/South American countries have, and still maintain laws that impose severe legal consequences for abortion all because of the Catholic Church’s influence over those governments. IMO, this is a modern day inquisition, which allows governments to continue to victimize women and significantly violates what should be their right to control their reproductive roles and health.

The Catholic Church’s only possible means to retain its power is to continue to grow its membership through “ideological” indoctrination, which ensures that the fuel (money filled collection plates) used to perpetuate its power - remains virtually inexhaustible. Evangelicals are now building their institutions via the same strategies employed by the Catholic Church.

 

[year2late]

I think we all need to take a deep breath and calm down.

People I know only want to ban women from abortion for reasons of personal inconvenience, not medical necessity.

Thank you for sharing your story. If a baby imo has a 1% chance of surviving birth, I think it is worth the effort of child birth. God works in mysterious/miracolous ways. This is beyond what medical science can explain.

Life is well worth the risk. We cannot shun the most vulnerable in society!!!

First and foremost...who is to decide medical necessity? For example, look at the Irish woman who they finally decided was sick enough to allow abortion, she was septic and died. She should have been allowed the abortion when she was "healthy enough" to survive. When I push on this question , most people who answer want the woman to push through major complications that are potentially deadly for the mother. Ignorant of the fact that waiting until a patient is in the throws of death is THE worst time to try to save them. Their point of view made them wait until she was too sick for it to matter.

Most women who chose abortion are not affluent women afraid that they may miss their nail appointments. Most are women who are poor or working poor and have substandard access to medical care. If they stay pregnant they will likely go to overburdened clinics that will have a higher likelihood of missing early signs of severe complications. That is assuming they have the "luxury" of making it to their prenatal appointments. She is likely dependent on shift work to make ends meet - and it is a very tough decision on whether to make a prenatal appointment or take a shift so you can pay your rent and utilities.

When I went to my OBGYN, I went to a nice office with and experienced MD a mile away from my house. An easy walk. When you are on Medicaid...you go where they tell you to go and it may not necessarily be in your city. She may need to take several buses to have the luxury of being on time and still having to wait hours for her appointment.

When I had my complications....it was MY decision to continue on with the pregnancy and risk my kidneys and my life. I made that decision KNOWING I had great resources - great insurance, decent income, and the likelihood if I stayed away from work too long (past FMLA 12 weeks)I would still likely have a job, a decent place to live, and social resources to carry me through (assuming I survived).

Because of pregnancy related illness and subsequent surgery....I was off work nearly 6 months. I emerged alive, but deeply in debt.

I would like to see these women have better access to long term contraception. Too rich for Medicaid, too poor for self pay equals poor access to the most reliable contraception. Long term contraception can cost twice the amount of an abortion. That is idiocy in my book.