“My Body, My Choice” and Other Pro-Abortion Myths

Catholic moral teaching does actually take those situations in account, though they are exceedingly rare. In the case of an ectopic pregnancy, in which the fertilized egg implants outside the uterus, there is no chance for the unborn life to survive. This is also potentially life-threatening to the mother. Removing this unborn life in its embryonic stage would be considered an indirect abortion (a secondary effect of treating the mother) and thus morally permissible. Other cases in later stages of development in which there would be an actual threat to the life of the mother are almost non-existent. Other secondary effect situations which might result in the death of the unborn would include treatments (like radiation, chemotherapy, surgery, etc.) to life-threatening conditions or diseases that are unrelated to the pregnancy.

In fact, the commandment, Do not kill, does allow for lots of complexity. For instance, deaths that occurred in the act of legitimate self-defense against an aggressor or in the defense of other innocent lives, just war, or capital punishment would not violate the moral law.

The first question you raise, however, is a bit of a red herring, since it doesn't take into account the reason for about 98% of abortions, which is nothing more than the choice of the mother.
Yes it is. That is why Catholic moral teaching does not rely solely on the Bible, but also takes into account both reason and human experience. And I would be happy for the law to reflect this complexity. If abortion supporters were only concerned with 'life of the mother' situations, I would be glad to allow these in exchange for outlawing all other cases. Currently, though, the pro-choice position (and that of the Democratic Party) is to oppose any and all restrictions on abortion. This is an extremist position that discards complexity for a simple ideology: abortion on demand--for any reason whatsoever--and funded by government if necessary.

The real issue here - is this an honest debate / conversation, or simply another attack by ridicule? If it's the former, an atheist perspective on this is interesting regardless of agreement.

If it's the latter... it's simply boring.

I'm sure it does. I'm wondering why the US government should take its cue from Catholic moral teaching. No offense, but Catholic moral teaching vis-a-vis the whole child molestation question seems to have been a bit lacking, so I'm not sure they should be held up as an exemplar of good morals.

The Catholic Church has a long history of antagonism to reproductive rights for women. It's hard to imagine that now they can be viewed as an impartial arbiter of what those rights should be.



See, here's an example of a Catholic person spreading falsehoods in their quest to see all abortions stopped. Most pro-choice people and Democrats I'm aware of have no issue with the Roe v. Wade decision which in and of itself contains many restrictions on abortion. Your claim that they all want abortion on demand is just false.

The “women’s rights” argument HAS to render the unborn as not a life. That is the only way they can justify placing the liberty of the woman above the value of that unborn. They have to call it a zygote or an embryo or a fetus, or anything that does not recognize it as a life... a human life.

That was the only way the Supreme Court could rule as they did: If the court acknowledged the unborn is both living and human, the Roe v. Wade decision comes out quite different.

Recognition of the unborn as both living and human (against which NO ONE can argue) places the needs of that unborn life above the mothers need for liberty.

So, pro-Abortion advocates cannot recognize its life.

Would you agree this country was founded on Christian principles?

And abortion isn't "murder" either but I suspect you'd be ok with calling it that.

It's just a term we use to discuss the issue, don't get hung up on it.

Ok, Bye. Sorry you can't handle simple facts.