I received a comment the other day from a Catholic who dropped by through an accident and found my post on the 5 non-negotiables. I decided, given abortion is being made such an issue of in this campaign, that I would post my response here rather than burying it in an old post. This is a contentious issue and I think one that is not well understood, given how the so-called Pro-Life movement misrepresents the facts. I was shocked by McCain’s stance that worrying about the health of the mother was an “extreme” position, or by how they attempt to characterize Obama as being an extremist because he supports Woe vs. Wade. The so-called Religious Right (and the Catholic Church too) speak in absolutes. This is no surprise to anyone familiar with Christian doctrine, which is built up around absolutes. But the rest of us know that the world is not made up of absolutes. It’s frustrating, but here is Proud to be a Catholic’s comments and my attempt at a response to this issue (and I’m not going to get into the issue of Federal law imposing itself on the States, etc):

I ended up on this website sort of by accident, searching for the 5 non-negotiobles. I am a serious Catholic, know and have studied my faith. Believe me, there is a very good reason for all of them. If you’re a heathen, then non of them matter to you. But let me give you one example: ABORTION: Definition: someone has to die so that you can live the way you want to. We all started out as an embryo. This is where life begins, and it is not a religious belief but a scientific fact. Also, women always give birth to babies, never anything else. So if a women is pregnant, it’s a baby. Fetus is a Latin term, meaning little one. Most people do not know this. Anyone– how would you have liked it if your mother decided that you came along at ann inconvenient time in her life? Would you have been glad that there were some pro-life people fighting for your life, when the government says it’s okay for your mother to give you the death sentence — not a good time for her. Most people have never seen and never will see an abortion. Body parts are pulled out; the baby is torn apart while alive. How would you like it if this one done to you? We don’t treat the worst criminals like that, and yet it’s perfectly legal to do it to the most innocent among us. Anyone here heard of partial-birth abortion? Well, you may not believe this, but the baby gets born just with the head out, then the “doctor” makes an incision into the babies scull with scissors, and then proceeds to suck the baby’s brains out. After that, the lifeless body gets delivered. True!!! Don’t believe it, research it. Don’t you think that the Catholic Church has a good reason to have this as a non-negotionable? I could go on about the rest of them; there are very serious moral reasons for these. If you’re interested, you can easily find out for yourselves…

Proud to be a Catholic, thanks for commenting.

First, where did you get this crazy definition of abortion? Here is what medical.net says, and note the caveat which flatly contradicts your own definition:

Abortion: In medicine, an abortion is the premature exit of the products of conception (the fetus, fetal membranes, and placenta) from the uterus. It is the loss of a pregnancy and does not refer to why that pregnancy was lost.

You’re generalizing. You approach the problem as though all women who get abortions do so as a form of birth-control. You therefore take the position that anyone who is pro Roe vs. Wade is arguing from that position as well. Here, however, is where speaking in absolutes gets you in trouble and demolishes your argument.

Nobody is saying that abortion is pretty. As Obama said (and he may be right or he may be wrong) nobody is FOR abortion. That is to mislabel what this struggle is about.

What we are talking about is the rights (and sometimes safety) of the mother. Abortion should not be used as a form of birth control.

BUT, to completely outlaw abortion, to overturn Roe vs. Wade, would not only cause mothers to die, but it would force women, even young girls, who are victims of rape and incest, to have babies they should not be forced to carry to term. Listen to what you are saying: You are reducing the heinous crime of rape to an “inconvenience” and the mother’s health to an “inconvenience.” I see nothing in your comments about the mother, her rights, her health.

Having a baby changes a woman’s physiology. Once you have a baby, nothing is the same. And I don’t mean just physically but in every other way as well. You’re saying it’s perfectly acceptable to submit a 12-year-old rape victim to this? Are you? Are you saying the life of the fetus is more important than the life of the mother who will die if the baby is carried to term? How is this a laudable position to take? I fail to see how it can give you the sense of moral superiority you seem to possess. Have you really thought about what you are saying?

I submit to you that a 12-year-old should not have to go through this because she was raped. You can’t call this a pro-life position because manifestly, it is not. You worry about the fetus and talk about how ugly abortion is, but have you seen a child die? A mother? Are you personally going to support the child that should never have been conceived, and that was indeed conceived against the will of the mother? This is supposed to be some form of justice? Are you going to explain to the mother’s other children why it’s right that their mother dies so a fetus can live? Are you personally going to support that family after they lose a wife and mother? You all claim to be pro-family but I fail to see anything pro-family in this position. If this is your morality, I want no part of it.

Let’s look at these morals: you see abortions as immoral. However, as I’ve said here before, there is no evidence that the Jews saw abortion as immoral. After all, those under a month old weren’t even counted as people. It would be hard to make a claim that if an actual child wasn’t a person that an unborn fetus had a higher status in law.

Here’s another problem. Ethics are by their very nature, ethnic. Each ethnic group has its own ethics and morals. You say yours are universal. You are free to believe that, but your thinking so does not make it true. What you are trying to do is foist the ethics of one small ethnic group on the rest of the world, which already had their own ethics and morals. (By the way, you may not realize (or care) but this is a form of cultural genocide.)

My ancestors, for example, did not believe a soul entered the body until the child was named. Can you prove they’re not right about that? No, you can’t. Your doctrine can insist that’s wrong but that’s not enough evidence for me.

I really don’t think the so-called Pro-Lifers, including the Catholic Church, have a very strong position. By demonizing your opponents, by speaking in absolutes, you create rather than solve the problem, and abortion is a problem. As I said, it should not be a form of birth control. At the same time, you folks are against birth control too, which further weakens your position from where I sit. I think it’s safe to say there would be fewer abortions if there was widespread use of birth control, but you don’t even want kids to know there is such a thing as birth control.

It’s funny to me that fetuses, even mindless sperm, is sacred to you, but mothers? Not so much. But you can’t be Pro-Life if some life is more sacred than others. Even your world of absolutes does not permit that. Your argument collapses under the weight of its own internal logic.

Abortion MUST be legal. There need to be limits imposed on what is and what is not permitted, but it must be legal. If you don’t like it, don’t do it. That’s how free exercise of religion works. Nobody in the Pro-Choice camp is asking you to do something you feel is morally repugnant. I don’t know why you can’t be satisfied with that.