Tags
Catholic Church, Catholicism, choices, Christianity, controversy, love, sin
The language in which the debate about abortion is often conducted is one which has tended to make this blog shy away from it; there is only so much one can take by way of abuse from those who see nothing morally wrong about killing babies in the womb. As we live in an age of ‘rights’ it is natural that those opposed to abortion on demand should have resorted to it for their arguments, thus opposing a ‘right to life’ against the ‘woman’s right to choose’. But do we have a ‘right’ to life, or a ‘right’ to ‘choose’? ‘Rights’ are constructed by legal systems and contain whatever it is the legal system concerned wishes to legalise or to make illegal. Legal systems have a relationship with moral codes, but as anyone who imagines there is a one on one correlation between ‘justice’ and what is legally correct will discover, that relationship is often a contested one.
In the world into which Jesus was born, abortion was not uncommon, neither was its (to the mother) safer option, exposing unwanted infants to the elements. But, as for most of history, abortion was a process fraught with danger for the mother, and so tended to be a last resort for the desperate; this changed with modern medicine, where it is now fatal for only one of the two people involved; since foetuses have no voting power, it has been the voice of those who do which has come to influence our legislatures. As the procedure has become closely identified by feminists and others as an essential ‘right’ for women, it has attracted a vociferous lobby, one which objects most especially to the other partner in a pregnancy, the man, daring to comment on it at all. As ever, in response to one hard line, the ‘right to life; lobby, hardened its rhetoric. Calling women who choose to take advantage of their legal right to have an abortion ‘murderers’ helps no one. I have never been sure, ‘virtue signalling’ apart, what such language was designed to achieve? It is all too obvious what it does achieve – which is to pour petrol on the flames.
From the beginning, Christians were to be distinguished from the society within which they lived by their attitude to life. Since no one in first century Judea used the language of ‘rights’, they did not construct their views in those terms. The argument then, and now, was much simpler. Life is a gift from God, each of us is a unique soul. Human life is valuable because of that; it should not be extinguished. We know early Christians argued over whether being a soldier was compatible with being a Christian, and that some early martyrs were soldiers whose consciences told them they could not kill others. The Church eventually evolved the doctrine of the ‘Just War’, which certainly made the Roman Empire less hostile to it and its teachings. Early Christians also fought shy of the death penalty – a natural development for a religion whose founded died on the Cross. Again, the Church found a way of reconciling its teaching with the death penalty, only recently returning to something closer to its earliest attitude – to the dismay of those who still want the death penalty in force. But the Church (as opposed to some modern Catholics) never found, or even tried to find, a way to justify or reconcile itself to abortion. The best (or worst?) some of its teachers have done is to argue over when a foetus becomes a person and whether abortion before that date is justifiable; but again, for most of our history, such a procedure has carried such high risks for the mother that the argument has been more theoretical than practical. It is only in our era, as that risk has lessened, that the argument, such as it is, has gained some purchase in liberal circles.
It is plain that in the UK, whatever the intentions of those who passed the original laws on abortion, that we have moved close to something like abortion on demand. But, as recent events have shown the view that the procedures are quite as safe for the mother as claimed is not quite accurate; that it can have (for many) adverse mental health effects has been stressed for some time. It is the only medical procedure guaranteed to end with a human life being terminated. Arguments over whether a foetus is a human life tend towards a place which has already been occupied by others seeking to dehumanise beings they intended to enslave or destroy. The only difference, and that is why it is emphasised, is that the foetus is incapable of independent life; but then so is the new-born unless someone looks after it. Those who wish to argue over when it is right to extinguish a life are already in a place from which argument will not dissuade them.
There are social media campaigns telling us black lives and women’s lives matter, and so they do, but, it seems, only once they emerge from the womb, which leaves only those opposed to abortion arguing in favour of black and females lives in the womb. But point that up to those otherwise campaigning for black lives and women’s lives, and you do so at your peril. At the moment, in Ireland, George Soros seems to be funding a vocal campaign to repeal the 8th amendment to the Irish Constitution. The motive is clear. If Ireland can be shifted from its legal position, other states with legal systems influenced by Catholic teaching may be persuaded to follow suite. Which takes us back to the legal side of all of this. We heard much, during the recent Referendum campaign in the UK about ‘taking back control’, which was shorthand for popular resentment at too many of our laws being enacted by those whom we could not throw out at elections. It will be interesting to see how the Irish respond to well-funded attempts by foreign organisations to change their laws.
Whatever the effect may be, it is not going to change Catholic teaching on abortion. Those groups calling themselves ‘Catholics for choice’ argue eloquently in the language of secular aid agencies that:
The Catholic hierarchy’s lobbying against contraception and abortion has disastrous effects on women’s lives both in the US and abroad and especially on the lives of poor women.
But such groups have less to say about the disastrous effects of abortion on the unborn. They argue that:
In Catholic theology there is room for the acceptance of policies that favor access to the full range of reproductive health options, including contraception and abortion
To which the only response is that this is not an option that has ever been taken by the Magisterium, and is favoured only by those with a DIY attitude towards what is authentic Catholic theology. There are, of course, many such, and as so often, they find it scarcely credible that their ‘insights’ continue to be be rejected by the Church. They tell us the Church may not impose its teaching on the unwilling faithful,but if you do not willingly accept Church teaching, in what sense can you be described as ‘faithful’? Such groups make much use of arguments about ‘conscience’, but the sign of a badly-formed conscience is it cannot align itself with what the Church teaches.
In all of these arguments we should never lose sight of the lives at stake, and however provoked someone might feel, it is wrong to make women who feel they have no alternative to abortion feel even worse about themselves and their decision. We are back here in a familiar place – whether love is better than seeming to judge others? Organisations such as the SPUC show the way here, by offering help and support to anyone considering an abortion. God alone can judge the heart – all we can do is to show love and support for those going through crises many of us cannot comprehend. In our secularised society, Christian arguments will have no traction with many, and we must recognise that, too. That it is so is a sign we have have failed in the past, and we may want to reflect on why that is, as well as how best to change it. Imitating the worst rhetorical excesses of the other side produces only a confrontation which helps no one. One of our greatest failures as Christians is the problem we find loving those who hate us; but we sometimes don’t even get to the point of loving those who merely fail to understand where we are coming from. We need to do better.
Annie said:
Plese pray for George Soros and others like him that they may see the error of their ways.
LikeLiked by 1 person
chalcedon451 said:
It is the best thing to do with them, Annie.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Scoop said:
Truth is truth even if it only causes more grief amongst those who can’t bear to hear it. The Christian truth is as old as the faith itself:
“You shall not kill an unborn child or murder a newborn infant.” __ The Teaching of the Twelve (Didache)
“A woman who deliberately destroys a foetus is answerable for murder. And any fine distinction as to its being completely formed or unformed is not admissible amongst us.” __ St. Basil
LikeLiked by 2 people
chalcedon451 said:
Have you ever found that helped a real person in the real world? It is our version of the left’s virtue signalling.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Scoop said:
It didn’t stop Christ or the rest of Christianity from revealing the hard truths even if they decided that they would no longer walk with Him or abide in the Faith. If nobody states the truth somewhere; how can one learn? What good is a truth if it is not revealed and kept hidden? How are we to make a moral decision without first hearing the consequence of our decisions?
LikeLiked by 2 people
chalcedon451 said:
Is our role to guilt-trip or to help others? Simple question, have you ever known this line to help a single person?
LikeLike
Scoop said:
Yes, I have. And it is a simple question with a very simple anser. In fact, I would say that anyone who makes a right decision, predicated in a moral framework, heard the truth somewhere, somehow. Few simply abide by a natural repulsion to an evil act. They first hear the truth, think on that truth and then develop principles that guide them in life’s decisions. Without truth being heard and incorporated into our moral foundation, how are you going to make a moral choice in life? You can’t. It is a simple fact of life. One must be taught what is true and what is false, waht is good and what is evil. Then you have a basis for your decision making. Without it . . . you simply go for what is expedient to your immediate happiness. For instance, if somebody irritates you, where did you come to understand that it is morally evil to eliminate them by whatever means is necessary? You learned it and you incorporated it into your moral conscience.
LikeLiked by 1 person
chalcedon451 said:
If someone knows it is ‘murder’ they are going to do it any way. If they don’t and you call them a murderer, whose emotional needs are you satisfying except your own? I leave it to the left to grandstand about what is ‘right’, my job as a Christian is to help others, and I have never, in more than 30 years involvement, met a single woman who has said that being called a ‘murderer’ help her. That. for me is the only priority – helping mother and baby. Fair enough if you’ve known women who were helped by being called a murderer.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Scoop said:
No, they call themselves murderers, if they have acquired a conscience. But before they got in that situation they were ‘taught’ that abortion is a nice name for the murder of an infant. It is the conscience that is appealed to not a name calling or shouting match with someone who is heading into an abortion clinic. People do not, on the whole, start pointing fingers at individuals. But somebody certainly should have written a piece about what abortion is and given it to her to read . . . or her parents, pastor or teachers should have explained the reality of that collection of cells as a living baby . . . yes they need hear it, read it or think it. It is an unmistakable fact that those cells being destryoed are precisely the life of an actual ‘person’.
If someone never learned to add numbers together they will live a sub-optimal life. If they came to the conclusion that 2+2=5 then they are handicapped in life skills. So do you simply make no correction or attempt none or do you try as best you can to get them to understand the gravity of their error?
It is the same thing. They need to learn the underlying truth before they can make an informed choice. Otherwise you aid and abet the development of a personality that is solely informed by their own wants and needs and not on reality. You not only fail the person but all of society in doing so.
LikeLiked by 3 people
chalcedon451 said:
That is, I think, quite different. If conscience strikes and they think that, that is not the same as telling a pregnant woman that if she has an abortion she is a murderer. Some people do that, and it is not helpful to anyone. Of course I agree we need better moral education.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Scoop said:
That’s all I’m getting at. The truth needs to be taught before the people in any society make decisions regarding those truths. Some will still decide to murder their children just as some decided to murder one another. But the fact still remains with society at large the immensity of their moral choice. And that is what we have largely lost.
Our society would rather not speak of the underlying truth. It is a simple (moral-less) choice like deciding whether you want peas or carrots with your dinner. Nothing is further from the truth and the whole society has been trained to ignore the moral aspects of abortion. It must be taught from the earliest days of childhood, in every family and school.
LikeLiked by 1 person
chalcedon451 said:
I’m never sure whether they’ve been taught to ignore it, or whether they don’t see it. As I say in the piece, I think the linkage to feminism has dulled the sense that this is a moral issue in more sense than the one recognised by feminists. Whether we accept it or not, we have failed in as far as our society no longer accepts Christian norms in so many areas.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Annie said:
The motto of our consumerist society is ‘eat, drink and be merry’ and on the consumer the whole society stands. Unbrindled hedonism is the reward offered to our youth in place of a life. Thinking is for the elite not the plebs. No wonder conspiracy theories are rife.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Philip Augustine said:
It depends on the situation my friend, some people can be helped in different ways. However, it does help to be clear on what is truth and what is not the truth. We must make clear that there even many who will try to enter the narrow door and fail. A telling piece of information in the Gospel of Luke, a Gospel often preferred due to its “forgiveness” theme.
Notwithstanding, Luke does have its version of Matthew 10:34-39. “I have come to bring the sword.”
I agree with Scoop that we must make a distinction, and yes, the spirit of the sword will separate us from the world. Many will be inspired by a definitive and bold faith rather than a beige one.
LikeLiked by 2 people
chalcedon451 said:
That is easy to say, and makes us feel good – our version of virtue signalling. But the question has to be does it help the mother and the baby. I would require some evidence before I believed any woman being told she was about to murder her baby went: ‘Hey, yeah, you know what, never thought of that, thanks, I’m keeping it.’ I’d love to have examples of this, but have none from my own experience.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Philip Augustine said:
I think your proposal also begs the question is there any evidence to say that minds are changed through a softer approach. I think one can certainly make the assertion that the softer approach is one that simply “makes one feel better.”
To my point to Annie, did John the Baptist not make the sins of Herod and his wife very clear? Did Christ not make the sins of the woman at the well clear, albeit I’ll admit that he at least coaxed it out of her that she was committing adultery.
In the case of Herod and his wife they had already gone too far in their acceptance of hedonism. However, let’s make sin clear for those who may not be led astray. Many of my fellow classmates who had children in less than ideal situations did so because it was made clear what was moral and what was not.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
For me the question is do we spook people in delicate situations by the language we use? If so, we need to find a way of not spooking them but helping them. Too often it seems to me that the language we use satisfies our need to be thought to be virtuous – our merits are not the issue.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Philip Augustine said:
Personally, I tend to think of myself as not virtuous, in the aspect that I hope through God’s Grace that I can be made good.
The easiest way to talk about sin to others in my experience is to discuss my own recognition of my own sins, and my own struggle with them.
LikeLiked by 1 person
thoughtfullydetached said:
My favourite modern philosopher Simone Weil identified problems with the rights-based discourse which is always predicated on demanding something, usually from a collective unit, which is appropriated and enjoyed by an individual. A contrary discourse based on duty is also problematic since, again, it is individualistic and singularly devoid of the notion of enjoyment. One grimly and sometimes resentfully carries out ones duties for no earthly reward.
As an alternative she proposed a discourse which balances the notions of obligations and rights, in that order. Obligations emerge from and sustain a web of social relationships beginning from the family and extending outwards. They produce rights, every right only comes into existence after someone else has discharged an obligation, and enjoyments, since social processes are their own reward when seen as ends rather than means. In this context we, all of us, possess obligations towards the unborn, the pregnant and the newborn. If we fulfilled these then the existential despair that leads women to consider abortion would, at the least, be greatly alleviated.
LikeLiked by 5 people
Annie said:
Exactly.
LikeLiked by 2 people
mrsmeadowsweet said:
Very good read. I have two thoughts:
1. I support the Good Counsel Network – I do this because they seek to offer women practical and emotional help
2. Here is a very good article – J Budziszewski, The Furies of Conscience (it’s less nasty than it sounds): http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=16-07-027-f
LikeLiked by 3 people
chalcedon451 said:
Thank you – great link.
LikeLiked by 1 person
NEO said:
Wow, Annie, that is a terrific link! Thank you so much for bringing it to or attention. Explains so many things, in my view, even beyond its focus on abortion.
LikeLiked by 1 person
NEO said:
And now I’ll apologize for miscrediting that link. Sorry, mrsmeadowsweet! Some days!
LikeLiked by 1 person
mrsmeadowsweet said:
No problem, Brother Neo 🙂
LikeLiked by 2 people
NEO said:
Thanks, it was careless of me, though. 🙂
LikeLike
shieldsheafson said:
After decades of attempted rationalizations, you’d be hard-pressed to find a serious moral philosopher who defends abortion without also justifying infanticide.
If the choice is killing newborns up to age two or protecting life in the womb, the pro-life side wins, hands down. “Pro-choicers” can’t even bring themselves to say which choice it is that they affirm.
Frances Kissling, the former president of Catholics for Choice, took to the pages of the Washington Post:
. . . . [Our] arguments may have worked in the 1970s, but today, they are failing us . . . The “pro-choice” brand has eroded considerably. . . . We can no longer pretend the foetus is invisible. . . . It may not have a right to life, and its value may not be equal to that of the pregnant woman, but ending the life of a foetus is not a morally insignificant event.
Indeed.
This is the greatest human-rights struggle of our time – and all times.
(from an article by R.T. Anderson)
LikeLiked by 4 people
Nicholas said:
I’d be interested in your thoughts, C, on this deductive argument I found on a Protestant website.
P1 Killing another human being for personal reasons is wrong.
P2 A fetus is a human being.
C: Therefore, killing a fetus for personal reasons is wrong.
LikeLiked by 2 people
chalcedon451 said:
I would concur entirely – but one needs, of course, to accept the initial premiss.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Nicholas said:
Yes, and in my experience this argument tends to produce more heat than light. It cuts people to the quick which makes them feel very uncomfortable.
LikeLike
Annie said:
Good – their conscience isn’t completely dead so 🙂
LikeLiked by 3 people
Philip Augustine said:
Indeed, After all, isn’t the shame from being called out in accordance to their sins the reason Herodias told her daughter to ask for the Baptist’s head?
LikeLiked by 1 person
chalcedon451 said:
It is, but not sure it is an example which inspires us to think it’s the way to go.
LikeLike
NEO said:
That is a good bit of the problem. Many do not admit the initial premise, and so we have the various causes being advanced again for euthanasia, of various groups. Utilitarianism, as I understand it, has simply gone mad, taking a fair share of our populations with it.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Bosco the Great said:
Bernard Nathanson was an American medical doctor from New York who helped to found the National Abortion Rights Action League, but then later became an acclaimed pro-life activist. He gained national attention by becoming one of the founding members of the National Abortion Rights Action League, now known as NARAL Pro-Choice America. He worked with Betty Friedan and others for the legalization of abortion in the United States. He was also for a time the director of the Center for Reproductive and Sexual Health New York’s largest abortion clinic. Nathanson has written that he was responsible for more than 75,000 abortions throughout his pro-choice career.
https://www.lighthousecatholicmedia.org/store/title/aborting-america-the-story-of-an-ex-abortionist-and-ex-atheist
I know this mans story. He was a prominent OBGYN. The best. Abortion was illegal in the US. He saw how hospital beds were filled with girls who were being treated for illness from these hack jobs and half of them died. Thos hospital beds were needed for the sick and accident victims, not a bunch a females who didn’t want the responsibilities. He teamed up with young female journalists and got the laws hanged in many states and he ran the largest abortion mill in the world. To be honest, I didn’t know that many girls were having abortions. The line is never ending at every clinic. One day Nathanson watched an abortion with ultrasound. He got to see the baby being torn apart. They suck their thumbs at this age. He showd this to med students but still it didn’t stop him. Some experts claimed he doctored the film. These are desperately wicked people who claim ripping babies apart is fine and dandy. Slowly but surely med students pledged never to kill babies. But that wasn’t Natansons goal. He still ran the clinic. He had many doctors in the clinic and noted that they were drug addicts, thieves, criminals, perverts, child molesters and one was a fugitive that was arrested at the clinic. But they were MDs. He was teaching abortion in his spare time. Late term procedure involved bringing the babys head out enough to punch scissors into the head and cut the brain up. Ouch….that’s gotta hurt. Well, one day he saw protestsors who had love in their hearts for the unborn. He wanted to find the source of this love. He was jewish but really didn’t care mush about it. He met some catholic priest or another who shared Christian faith with him. He was always getting divorced and was sick of life, even though he was rich. One day it hit him that these babies could feel this and that they were humans, not protoplasm. So he took his films on the road to show them to anyone interested.
Planned Parenthood
That means the mother gets clothes ready and a nice crib and learns how to care for the bundle of joy. But its a title given to a killing center where they reach in and tear up the chil. Now, companies are paying money for body parts, so they don’t stick and egg beater up there and blend them like they used to do.
Planned Parenthood. A smiley face that the Devil wears. Just like the Holy Office. Another cruel joke on humanity.
LikeLiked by 3 people
chalcedon451 said:
An instructive story, Bosco, which I thank you for sharing with us. The selling of ‘baby parts’ seems to me beyond depraved; I have no words for it or those who make money doing it. I can only pray for them.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Annie said:
Drugs companies and colleges have been given a free hand by the current US administration to use baby parts for research. Many sufferers of diseases such as Parkinsons are pinning their hopes on them turning up a cure by these methods.
Sometimes evil attaches to us through associating with evildoers unless we take care to pray for them and for ourselves and never think that we have immunity from evil.
George Soros evaded the Nazi and communist death squads in his youth yet was prepared to assist his mother (who was a member of the Hemlock Society) to commit suicide. Progress, regardless of who is hurt, is a false god.
LikeLiked by 2 people
chalcedon451 said:
It is indeed the falsest of false gods.
LikeLiked by 2 people
NEO said:
And further, there are studies that adult stem cells, obtained without harm to the donors are more effective in medical research. Say what you will about President Bush (I have plenty bad to say) he was completely right on this issue.
LikeLiked by 3 people