Who is really Pro-Life?

Martinius · #1 5th July 2012, 12:23 PM

The words “pro-life” are triggers for all kinds of reactions and intense feelings. They are often contrasted with “pro-abortion” as if the only meaning, or the main meaning, of being “for life” is to be against aborting human fetuses. Although there are many different view points along the “for life” spectrum, here are the two that I encounter most frequently, including among Catholics:

Group A – Those who consider themselves “pro-life” by opposing abortion on demand. But quite often these same people favor the death penalty and have no problem with killing the enemy (however that may be defined) in a war related act.

Group B – Those who oppose capital punishment and often war as well yet don’t oppose taking the life of an unborn child.

My question is: Are either of these positions really “pro-life”?

It seems that for each group it is matter of which type of life is most important or valuable. For Group A it is unborn life, as they often have no problem with taking the life of an adult person in war or executing them for committing a capital crime. Group B favors protecting the lives of adults but not so much the lives of unborn humans, who are basically considered a part of another person’s body.

This has bothered me for a very long time. But some years ago I read in a Catholic publication about a group (or possibly several similar groups) who are truly pro-life, in that they followed the Gospel teaching that ALL human life was precious and that no other human had the right to end anyone’s life. At last, I thought, people who actually understand what Jesus emphatically taught and were applying it in their own lives. Those were the only kind of people I could honestly say were “pro-life”. The others were all clearly “pro-some life” or only pro-life under certain circumstances or conditions.

It also bothered me that the Catholic Church did not seem to be as “pro-life” as Jesus required us to be. Like us weak humans, they rationalized certain issues of life and death or deferred to secular authority, and at a minimum excused or allowed for the taking of some human life. There has been a general movement toward a stronger life ethic in the Church, and that is reflected in the Catechism and some pronouncements of the past few decades from popes and bishops’ conferences. Yet it is obvious from many threads and posts on these subjects that a fair number of Catholics themselves don’t buy into the idea that taking a human life is wrong.

So, who is really “pro-life” here? Does anyone accept a life ethic that really fits the criteria that Jesus left us and what that means?

zaida · #2 5th July 2012, 03:22 PM

These are very interesting points, and I need to think about them more but have my two little ones to get into their beds! (I am UK time....) I did want to throw this out there though - it seems to me groups like the amish and other anabaptists have lived out the pro life message more than other christians....more consistently....

FrancesJames09 · #3 5th July 2012, 04:31 PM

See, as a Quaker I was taught to see violence against other people as violence against God. Abortion, then, was something with which I was not in agreement. There was a separate issue in mind, and that was the question of whether abortion should be legal. Here, I'm making a distinction between the morality of the issue and the issue of a person's free will.

I came to the personal conclusion that I would rather have abortion legal than illegal and attempt to at least save the life of the mother rather than have her feel she has no options and go to a backalley doctor or throw herself down a flight of stairs.

I think you'll find that a lot of us prolife-prochoice Catholics tend to be thinking more along those lines. One way to drive abortion underground (rather than stopping it, which I'm assuming is our goal) is to make it illegal. Then you have hundreds to thousands of women driven underground to perform abortions in secret with no hope of seeking counseling for the shame and feelings of guilt that may follow.

I think that if the goal is to stop it and have an end put to it, rather than making it illegal which will simply push the market underground, what we need to focus on is winning hearts and minds, and more than anything focus increasing social programs to help un-wed mothers (or perhaps even wed mothers) keep their children and not feel as though there's no solution.

Martinius · #4 5th July 2012, 05:23 PM

Originally Posted by FrancesJames09

See, as a Quaker I was taught to see violence against other people as violence against God. Abortion, then, was something with which I was not in agreement. There was a separate issue in mind, and that was the question of whether abortion should be legal. Here, I'm making a distinction between the morality of the issue and the issue of a person's free will.

I came to the personal conclusion that I would rather have abortion legal than illegal and attempt to at least save the life of the mother rather than have her feel she has no options and go to a backalley doctor or throw herself down a flight of stairs.

I can see your point about the issue of morality versus what is legal under civil law. Also, at times the issue can be deciding between the life of the fetus and the life of the mother. In the history of the Church, it has been taught that it is better to sacrifice the mother if by doing so the infant will survive. Now, why would one life be considered more important than the other? For the Church, it is not simply a matter of human life, it is also a matter of souls. The mother is presumed to be baptized and could be "saved" if (when) she dies. But an unbaptized infant who dies in the womb won't be "saved". So the Church says it is okay, and perhaps necessary, to kill the mother if it will allow the infant to be born alive and then be baptized (even if it would probably die shortly after).

The case in Phoenix a few years ago is a good example of what the real thinking is here. The mother had close to a 100% chance of dying if the pregnancy went full term; so the ethics committee at the Catholic hospital allowed the abortion to save the mother. The nun administrator was ex-communicated. In the eyes of the Church, the life of the adult woman had less value than that of the unborn. Or was it that another soul could be "saved" through baptism? So a question for another thread may be the relative values of souls, not just human lives.

I think that if the goal is to stop it and have an end put to it, rather than making it illegal which will simply push the market underground, what we need to focus on is winning hearts and minds, and more than anything focus increasing social programs to help un-wed mothers (or perhaps even wed mothers) keep their children and not feel as though there's no solution.

True, but even more, changing our culture and society so that we don't have un-wed mothers seeking abortions. Right now we mostly condemn, rather than offer a helping hand. I also question whether we want most women who seek abortions out of desperation or immaturity to instead become responsible for raising a child?

Thanks for your thoughtful input.

Martinius · #5 5th July 2012, 05:34 PM

Originally Posted by zaida

These are very interesting points, and I need to think about them more but have my two little ones to get into their beds! (I am UK time....) I did want to throw this out there though - it seems to me groups like the amish and other anabaptists have lived out the pro life message more than other christians....more consistently....

Yes, Christians in general do not have a very good track record in consistently being "for life". Some groups, like the Amish and the Friends (Quakers), seem to have a much better grasp of what Jesus taught and what it means to revere human life. Why is that? The words of the Gospel are right out there for all to see, yet many just seem to ignore them. Or they say they mean something other than what they clearly state. Some get it, but way too many, including those we look up to for guidance in these matters, don't.

Looking forward to hearing other thoughts you may have.

FrancesJames09 · #6 5th July 2012, 07:18 PM

Originally Posted by Martinius

I can see your point about the issue of morality versus what is legal under civil law. Also, at times the issue can be deciding between the life of the fetus and the life of the mother. In the history of the Church, it has been taught that it is better to sacrifice the mother if by doing so the infant will survive. Now, why would one life be considered more important than the other? For the Church, it is not simply a matter of human life, it is also a matter of souls. The mother is presumed to be baptized and could be "saved" if (when) she dies. But an unbaptized infant who dies in the womb won't be "saved". So the Church says it is okay, and perhaps necessary, to kill the mother if it will allow the infant to be born alive and then be baptized (even if it would probably die shortly after).

The case in Phoenix a few years ago is a good example of what the real thinking is here. The mother had close to a 100% chance of dying if the pregnancy went full term; so the ethics committee at the Catholic hospital allowed the abortion to save the mother. The nun administrator was ex-communicated. In the eyes of the Church, the life of the adult woman had less value than that of the unborn. Or was it that another soul could be "saved" through baptism? So a question for another thread may be the relative values of souls, not just human lives.

I don't think I ever thought that an unbaptised child could go to hell or be unsaved simply because they were never baptised. In catechism it was quite explicitly taught to us that the unbaptised could go to heaven--people from other faiths such as Islam or Hinduism; even atheists. So the idea that an unbaptised child, one who died before being born, never occurred to me.

Originally Posted by Martinius

True, but even more, changing our culture and society so that we don't have un-wed mothers seeking abortions. Right now we mostly condemn, rather than offer a helping hand. I also question whether we want most women who seek abortions out of desperation or immaturity to instead become responsible for raising a child?

Thanks for your thoughtful input.

I think I meant to say changing the culture along with hearts and minds. I mean, I figure it goes somewhat without saying that when hearts and minds change the culture will change. You're right in that many people ought to offer a helping hand rather than call these women murderers and other nasty things. Conducting yourself with gentleness is essential.

One of the questions that I had posed to me that really sort of helped me re consider my stance on the legality of abortion was the question asking that if abortion were made illegal, what would it be called?

If murder, that would give a woman a relatively long sentence in prison. Lots of people they were asking at this one protest said that they would call it murder, since an abortion is premeditated killing of a living being. Premeditated murder carries with it in some states the death penalty or life in prison. This didn't sound quite fair to me . . .

I happened to ask one of my own friends afterwards what the punishment for abortion should be, herself being an Evangelical, and she said to me, "Well, abortion is murder, so probably the death penalty," and I have to admit I was rather shocked.

Respect for human life means respect for human life--all of it.

That's one thing I think about the teachings of Jesus: you can boil them down to the two greatest commandments and the golden rule; I happen to think they can be reduced to something much simpler--to one word, even: Respect.

You can measure any action, any thought, any word or phrase uttered, any moment of inaction, by asking the question: Does it show respect? Is what I'm doing respectful?

The Golden rule and the Two Greatest Commandments get at this: Respect--Fundamental Respect for all things.

Martinius · #7 5th July 2012, 11:22 PM

Originally Posted by FrancesJames09

I don't think I ever thought that an unbaptised child could go to hell or be unsaved simply because they were never baptised. In catechism it was quite explicitly taught to us that the unbaptised could go to heaven--people from other faiths such as Islam or Hinduism; even atheists. So the idea that an unbaptised child, one who died before being born, never occurred to me.

I forget you are "new" to the Catholic faith. Over the centuries the Church has clearly taught that Baptism is necessary for salvation. Until quite recently, that meant that unbaptized infants were consigned to "limbo", a status that meant they were not granted the salvation of heaven but also not damnation in hell. This in itself was a softening of the teaching of St. Augustine, who taught that the unbaptized infant was condemned to eternal torment (which is why in my grandparents' time babies were often baptized within hours of their birth by fearful parents). Some Catholics today still believe in what Augustine taught. However, the current teaching as evidenced in the Catechism moves away from such a harsh idea, but still won't say that unbaptized infants are "saved"; they only grant the possibility. The Catechism first emphasizes the necessity of baptism, then states this:

1261 As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus’ tenderness toward children which caused him to say: “Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,” allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church’s call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.

Do you notice that this is saying that the Church doesn't "know" what will happen, but can only "hope". Yet in many other moral situations where we see ambiguity and uncertainty, the Church appears to have no doubt whatsoever.

In the eyes of the Church, the life of the mother was at best equal to the life of the infant (or in reality, being able to baptize the infant). Pope Pius XII, in a famous letter to mid-wives in 1951, talked about choosing between aborting the fetus or the death of both. Protecting the life of the mother over the life of the fetus was not one of the options. The Church's position was that the death of the mother could be the necessary price for the baptism of the child. But what could an unborn infant ever do that he/she should not be allowed to be in the presence of God, ever? And would God ever say that the life of the unborn infant was always more important than the life of the mother, without exception?

This may be somewhat off the original question, but it is instructive of the attitude found in Church doctrines about life and death. If the Church is not clear in following the Gospel, how could the rest of us be expected to do any better? And this is where our other discussion about using our conscience comes in. If the Church is uncertain, then we must sometimes make ethical decisions and moral choices based on what our conscience, formed by the Holy Spirit and the Gospels, is telling us.

FrancesJames09 · #8 6th July 2012, 05:11 AM

Those notions of the Church requiring a physician or a midwife to spare the child's life over that of the mother's were notions that I was aware of, certainly. My mother was a pre-Vatican II Catholic and let me know about this.

However, I think it was around the fourth or fifth grade when I was shown pictures of the Holocaust of emaciated children, of mass graves, of the gaschambers and incinerators and I wondered whether God would really send the unbaptised to hell or to limbo, if that's more preferable.

I see children dying in Africa, their parents--their fathers and mothers also suffering from illnesses--and I wondered to myself whether a good God would send these people to suffer more. These people who had lived torturous lives having to watch their children starve or been the victims of war and humiliation would be condemned to an afterlife replete with suffering--a suffering so terrible that people would be begging for death yet find no end to the torment.

It doesn't sound just to me. Martianus, it wasn't that I hadn't heard of the teaching or that I was in any way unaware of it. I'm aware of at least that much of Church history. I'm only saying that it doesn't make sense to me.

I do find your post regarding the afterlife of children not baptised very interesting. I remember that I was once told that animals didn't go to heaven and that didn't make sense to me either. I know a lot of the priests that I've spoken to who do have pets will shudder at the thought that there is no such thing as kitty heaven.

Although, and I mention this only as an amusing anecdote, a priest once joked that kitty heaven and mouse hell were the same place.

Martinius · #9 6th July 2012, 01:58 PM

Originally Posted by FrancesJames09

It doesn't sound just to me. Martinius, it wasn't that I hadn't heard of the teaching or that I was in any way unaware of it. I'm aware of at least that much of Church history. I'm only saying that it doesn't make sense to me.

No, it doesn't make sense, but the Church has emphasized how critical baptism is, and in doing so must then address what happens to those who aren't baptized. The teaching appears to have "softened" somewhat, but as the Catechism says, everything revolves around baptism. Hmmm, that may be a good topic for another thread.

I remember that I was once told that animals didn't go to heaven and that didn't make sense to me either. I know a lot of the priests that I've spoken to who do have pets will shudder at the thought that there is no such thing as kitty heaven.

Although, and I mention this only as an amusing anecdote, a priest once joked that kitty heaven and mouse hell were the same place.

If it really is heaven, the cats and the mice will get along just fine together.

There is a nice Twilight Zone story about a backwoods guy and his hound who, after both die, encounter a "heaven" where the dog is not welcome. That place turns out to be the opposite of heaven, and the reason they wouldn't let the dog enter through the gate with the man is that the dog would sense that it was really hell. So the man and his hound take a pass on entering and continue along the path. The angel at the real heaven up the road lets them both in.

Martinius · #10 20th July 2012, 03:37 PM

This thread is one of those from the "Lord's Table - Liberal Catholic" forum that seems to have been moved. I think it is a topic that any Christian, not just Catholics, can and should contribute to.

Read the first post for the premise and the question, then the other posts, and then join in the discussion.