Catholicism and the Unborn

Kiwi in IE

Why does the Catholic Church get so het up about the 'rights of the unborn'? It's actions over the centuries have shown it dosn't give a fig for the rights, lives, safety or health of children who are born. This has lead me to conclude that the Vatican's position on the issue is actually driven by a desire to quash the rights of women, rather than any genuine concern for foetuses. Why would an institution that has continuously promoted the sexual, physical and psychological abuse of children be worried about the rights of the ones that are yet to be born?

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

Why does the Catholic Church get so het up about the 'rights of the unborn'?

I've no idea as to the history of the issue. But I think an analysis should be grounded in the facts of how the Church adopted such a position, and not just be a howl of derision. For whatever reason, the Church adopted a particular view on fertility control. Maybe it had something to do with celebacy, but I'm not even making any assumptions there. On the other hand, I don't recall the Church having any particular problem with evolution, where other denominations and faiths went a bit gaga.

robindch

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

Why does the Catholic Church get so het up about the 'rights of the unborn'

The Church's is interested, only, in its own survival and over the centuries has evolved a range of strategies to ensure this.

Some of the techniques include the breeding, then the indoctrination of children who are uniformly impressionable, gullible and trusting -- hence the church's damnation of abortion (which removes impressionable kids from the next-generation pool) and its control of schools (so it can mandate indoctrination) and its requirement that people married in the best buildings around (well, couples do like to arrive in style) must guarantee that any kids are indoctrinated (see above). Same for anybody who wants to be buried close to their family (you're not catholic? Well, get lost).

Somewhat in opposition to the above, btw, is the fact that the church only fully deprecated abortion in the mid-1860's. Prior to that, it had adopted Aristotle's position on the unborn up to the 1600's, then slowly evolved from that position to its current one over the course of several centuries.

Kiwi in IE

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

I've no idea as to the history of the issue. But I think an analysis should be grounded in the facts of how the Church adopted such a position, and not just be a howl of derision. For whatever reason, the Church adopted a particular view on fertility control. Maybe it had something to do with celebacy, but I'm not even making any assumptions there. On the other hand, I don't recall the Church having any particular problem with evolution, where other denominations and faiths went a bit gaga.

Sorry GCU, I think that howls of derision are entirely appropriate in the case of the Catholic church and it's bizarre beliefs. What is the point of trying to make a rational, factual analysis of that which is neither rational nor based on fact. I'll stick with howling.

Kiwi in IE

robindch wrote: »

The Church's is interested, only, in its own survival and over the centuries has evolved a range of strategies to ensure this.

Some of the techniques include the breeding, then the indoctrination of children who are uniformly impressionable, gullible and trusting -- hence the church's damnation of abortion (which removes impressionable kids from the next-generation pool) and its control of schools (so it can mandate indoctrination) and its requirement that people married in the best buildings around (well, couples do like to arrive in style) must guarantee that any kids are indoctrinated (see above). Same for anybody who wants to be buried close to their family (you're not catholic? Well, get lost).

Somewhat in opposition to the above, btw, is the fact that the church only fully deprecated abortion in the mid-1860's. Prior to that, it had adopted Aristotle's position on the unborn up to the 1600's, then slowly evolved from that position to its current one over the course of several centuries.

I agree there is certainly an element of putting people in a position where they have minimal control over their fertility. This resulted in large families and kept the indoctrination cycle going. It also kept women predominantly in a lowly position in society. I imagine that it is difficult to become educated or even have an idependent thought when obliged to spend the entirety of ones fertile years continuously breeding.

Tim Robbins

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

Why does the Catholic Church get so het up about the 'rights of the unborn'? It's actions over the centuries have shown it dosn't give a fig for the rights, lives, safety or health of children who are born. This has lead me to conclude that the Vatican's position on the issue is actually driven by a desire to quash the rights of women, rather than any genuine concern for foetuses. Why would an institution that has continuously promoted the sexual, physical and psychological abuse of children be worried about the rights of the ones that are yet to be born?

Evangelical Protestants behave the exact same.

My only reason is that they associate abortion with casual sex. Casual sex is something that every humans wants. It is in our genes. They abstain from it because of their holy book and hate people who engage in it because it reminds them what they are missing out on.

It is like the way they used to hate unmarried mothers and take their children. Again the associations with casual sex and hence the challenge to their believe system are too much.

They would prefer to dehumanise someone rather than let someone have a lifestyle which is probably more enjoyable than their's.

Tim Robbins

robindch wrote: »

Somewhat in opposition to the above, btw, is the fact that the church only fully deprecated abortion in the mid-1860's. Prior to that, it had adopted Aristotle's position on the unborn up to the 1600's, then slowly evolved from that position to its current one over the course of several centuries.

Where did the reformed Churchs get theit notions from then? There is no reference in scripture the precise moment when life begins.

Peregrinus

robindch wrote: »

Somewhat in opposition to the above, btw, is the fact that the church only fully deprecated abortion in the mid-1860's. Prior to that, it had adopted Aristotle's position on the unborn up to the 1600's, then slowly evolved from that position to its current one over the course of several centuries.

It’s true that the church adopted Aristotle’s position on the unborn up to the 1600s, in the sense that it held that life (or “ensoulment”) occurred at a point some way into pregnancy. But a couple of points about that.

First, pretty well everybody adopted some variant on that position. It wasn’t until the invention of the microscope that a modern understanding of the human reproductive cycle was possible. It would be wrong to infer that the church was being in some way obscurantist by taking the Aristotelian view. They were accepting the scientific consensus, which was based on the best available empirical evidence (which was the common experience of the phenomenon of “quickening”).

Secondly, it would be even more wrong to infer that, when it held the Aristotelian view, the church was fine with early-term abortion. It was not. Christians in the past may not have classed abortion as murder, but they nevertheless condemned it in strong terms.

robindch wrote: »

Some of the techniques include the breeding, then the indoctrination of children who are uniformly impressionable, gullible and trusting -- hence the church's damnation of abortion (which removes impressionable kids from the next-generation pool) and its control of schools (so it can mandate indoctrination) and its requirement that people married in the best buildings around (well, couples do like to arrive in style) must guarantee that any kids are indoctrinated (see above). Same for anybody who wants to be buried close to their family (you're not catholic? Well, get lost).

Control may well play a part in the vehemence with which religious views on abortion are asserted by some. But it’s very far from the whole story.

Let’s be guided by the evidence, folks. And the first piece of relevant evidence that we should note is that trenchant opposition to abortion is one of the earliest characteristically Christian stances that we know of. At a time when Christianity was perceived as a radical sect of Judaism, condemned by mainstream Jews as apostasy and despised by the Romans as Judaism, at a time which Christianity was about as far from the levers of power as it was possible to be, at a time when Christianity was not claiming to validate marriages and was not running schools, Christianity was condemning abortion in a society which largely approved of it. Ancient Christian documents, some of them predating the later New Testament texts, condemn abortion in strong terms (usually bracketing it with infanticide, the rejection of which was another counter-cultural Christian stance).

It’s very hard to construe this as a power play. In the first place, for a marginal sect like Christianity to adopt a position which repudiates social convention and accepted morality is pretty much the opposite of a technique designed to win power. In the second place, the pagan Roman stance on abortion and infanticide clearly did not make for the empowerment of women. Women, in fact, joined the early church in comparatively large numbers precisely because they had an enhanced status in the (comparatively) egalitarian Christian community.

So, if it wasn’t a power play, what was it? I think there’s two answers to that.

First, it was something the Christians inherited from Judaism. The Jews, like the Christians, did not regard abortion as murder but they did condemn abortion, and they saw their rejection of abortion (and infanticide, and human sacrifice, and idolatry) as one of the things that set them apart from their pagan neighbours. The early Christian movement did rethink a good deal of its Jewish heritage, but not this aspect of it.

Secondly, even if abortion couldn’t be seen as murder by a people who did not have the microscope, a rejection of abortion fitted with their developing theology. One of the key understandings of Christianity - though I think this wasn’t fully articulated in the apostolic church - was that humanity is fallen; we are less than we could be, and we are called to become all that we can and should be, through the grace of God. The “perfect” human, therefore, is not who he (or she) is, but who he/she can be. This makes growth, and the potential for growth/development/flourishing of primary importance in terms of how we answer God’s call, both individually and collectively. Abortion is seen as wrong because it frustrates the natural growth and flourishing which is an aspect of God’s liberating plan for humanity.

A rejection of abortion (and infanticide, and contraception, and warfare) fits will with that idea, so as that idea takes root, grows and develops in Christian thinking - we can trace this through Augustine, Aquinas and so forth - it will tend to confirm and reinforce views of this kind. Of course, as institutional Christianity acquires and exercise power, and builds up wealth, this too will influence thinking, and it possibly explains why Christianity moved away from its opposition to warfare.

To be honest, though, I think power has a limited role to play in explaining the continued Christian opposition to abortion. We think of abortion as liberating to women, but it can just as easily be used as tool of oppression and control, and it’s not hard to find historical examples, from classical Rome to contemporary China. Even as the church was seduced by power and wealth, it’s not a given that that had to entrench opposition to abortion. It could just as easily have worked the other way.

mathepac

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

... Why would an institution that has continuously promoted the sexual, physical and psychological abuse of children ...

And the evidence for this behaviour is available from what sources?

Kiwi in IE

mathepac wrote: »

And the evidence for this behaviour is available from what sources?

I am unsure whether it is necessary to provide sources for information on the above. The attempts by church heirachy to cover up sexual abuse and move peadophiles to other areas, enabling them to continue to abuse. The Magdalene laundries. The abuse of children in schools by nuns and Christian brothers where they were beaten and psychologically abused with threats of sin and hell. The Church hierachy was well aware that these abuses took place and did nothing to change until they were forced by outside institutions. In my opinion that qualifies as promoting abuse without any shadow of a doubt.

Sarky

mathepac wrote: »

And the evidence for this behaviour is available from what sources?

mathepac

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

... The attempts by church heirachy to cover up sexual abuse and move peadophiles to other areas, enabling them to continue to abuse. The Magdalene laundries. The abuse of children in schools by nuns and Christian brothers where they were beaten and psychologically abused with threats of sin and hell. The Church hierachy was well aware that these abuses took place and did nothing to change until they were forced by outside institutions. In my opinion that qualifies as promoting abuse without any shadow of a doubt.

I am in no way condoning what happened to those poor children and the women who fell into the clutches of the nuns in the laundries, nor am I an apologist for the Catholic Church's wrong-doingss, but IMHO what was done, while evil. falls a long way short of "promoting abuse".

I use promoting in the sense of advertising or publicity in order to make the practices more wide-spread outside the church or within it. I don't believe that happened, but I do accept that church authorities lied, denied, obfuscated, prevaricated, acted incorrectly, failed to act at all, victimised and terrorised witnesses, etc.

Dades

"Promoting" is the wrong word. "Facilitated" is really the word you're looking for.

Ellis Dee

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

Why does the Catholic Church get so het up about the 'rights of the unborn'? It's actions over the centuries have shown it dosn't give a fig for the rights, lives, safety or health of children who are born. This has lead me to conclude that the Vatican's position on the issue is actually driven by a desire to quash the rights of women, rather than any genuine concern for foetuses. Why would an institution that has continuously promoted the sexual, physical and psychological abuse of children be worried about the rights of the ones that are yet to be born?

You ask some very good questions and others, especially Robindch, have given some good answers, so there is little left for me to add.

Part of it is, of course, that everything the church teaches is essentially nonsense. If people stopped to think about the creation stories and all that other stuff, and if they looked just a little at all the things we have learned about the universe in the past century or so, what role would the church as an organisation have?

So they have to come up with, for want of a better word, causes that have some bearing on actual life and existence as we know it. Procreation and sex are two examples. By spreading all kinds of propaganda, and creating the illusion that they are protecting the vulnerable "unborn" (what a horrible word, incidentally, because it tells us what something isn't rather than what it is), they are able to win a lot of people to their side and get them committed to the collective will of the flock.

Personally, I dislike abortion, which is a waste, and I would like to see the number of abortions reduced to the lowest possible figure. But that means good sex education from an early age, easy availability of contraceptives and a sense of individual responsibility that makes people use them (and which is actually not very compatible with the "let us do the thinking for you" crossdressers who run the church), but those same things are often vehemently opposed by the same people who are so keen to protect the "unborn". :rolleyes:

It is a pity to see abortion used as an alternative means of birth control by some women, but perhaps it is best, especially for the child, that they do not become parents.

That said, abortion should be an option on the same grounds - medical, social, psychological - as it is most other developed European countries. Let the zealots blather on about the sanctity of life and so on zum kotzen, but why don't they first give Ireland a universal health service, cost-free education of the highest standard, municipal day care for all small children and so many other things that show they care about the "born", and which people in countries like Sweden and Finland, both of which have abortion more or less on demand, have enjoyed for many decades?

Then maybe, just maybe, I'd be prepared to give them any heed. But I won't be holding my breath.:D:D

seamus

I'm continually perplexed about why the Catholic church so frequently gets worked up about things like abortion and contraception, which the bible makes little if any major proclamations about, but things like failing to keep the sabbath holy and taking the lord's name in vain - which are as serious as murder and theft, let's not forget - are generally forgotten about.

It's almost as if the catholic church just picks and chooses the bits from the bible that it agrees with and then adds on a whole heap of its own stuff for no particular reason.

robindch

Peregrinus wrote: »

To be honest, though, I think power has a limited role to play in explaining the continued Christian opposition to abortion.

You have it backwards. The principal aim of religions is to derive strategies and tactics to help ensure their own propagation. But the religions don't need to recognize that these strategies and tactics exist, nor is there an onus upon them to explain them if they are recognized, nor is there an onus to be honest if they are explained.

In fact, it's an interesting exercise to note the things which the religious say are important, then reverse-engineer the religion by seeing how these things contribute to the religion's own propagatory success.

fisgon

Power has a lot to do with the abortion question at the moment.

The fact is that the church has simply lost the battle on many of the social positions that it maintains. There is little organised opposition to homosexuality, even within the church, the contraception argument is totally dead, and divorce has arrived and the sky has not fallen in. The Church - and more importantly, the wider members of the Theocratic Agenda - have failed and failed and failed in the last few decades to have their opposition to the above matters taken seriously.

Abortion is their last stand, so to speak. It's the last issue on which they have a significant shot at imposing their agenda on the populace. The church - and their holier-than-thou supporters - want nothing more than to appear morally superior. This is one of the main motivations for being religious, being able to feel that you have knowledge and morals that the unbelievers don't possess. You can see it if you look at anything that Youth Defence produces, the sense of self-righteousness, self-satisfaction, moral superiority is almost palpable.

Basically, to generalise, the religious like being able to tell people what to do. And they enjoy being in a position of power to do this. It makes them feel good about themselves. Opposition to abortion is less about some great concern about foetuses, and more about a desire to feel like you're better than those who disagree with you.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

robindch wrote: »

The principal aim of religions is to derive strategies and tactics to help ensure their own propagation.

Could I suggest a related thought? Religions will only be successful if they are socially relevant.

robindch

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Religions will only be successful if they are socially relevant.

No. Religions are only successful if they survive into the next generation -- relevance to anything is entirely coincidental.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

robindch wrote: »

No. Religions are only successful if they survive into the next generation -- relevance to anything is entirely coincidental.

Hmm. Sounds like wishful thinking. How does a completely useless social institution manage to cling on for millenia? I mean, if it was that easy, we'd all do it.

Zillah

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Could I suggest a related thought? Religions will only be successful if they are socially relevant.

How are you defining "relevant"? I smell a tautology here.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

fisgon wrote: »

You can see it if you look at anything that Youth Defence produces, the sense of self-righteousness, self-satisfaction, moral superiority is almost palpable.

Ah, give them a break. Its the Savita's Laws lot that are ostentatiously sitting in the front pew at the moment, and they haven't even a jaysus clue what exactly they're being sanctimonious about. They just have some vague idea that there's something or other about laws or something, and an expectation that no-one will call their bluff or enquire too closely as to what exactly it is that they think should be different.

eviltwin

I think its all about controlling the one thing they can't be directly involved in themselves. Or at least it was back in the day, now its become this terrible "sin". Its probably not a coincedence that you can be excommunicated for having an abortion when there are other crimes that don't have the same sanctions.

What I find is really ironic is that a lady was on the radio last week talking about her baby stillborn at 26 weeks. She was denied the chance to bury him or have a service for him in her catholic church because the priest said a stillborn child couldn't have the funeral rites.

I find it hard to understand how they can get so uptight over women aborting babies in the early weeks of pregnancy and then can deny a family a chance to give their child a catholic burial.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Zillah wrote: »

How are you defining "relevant"? I smell a tautology here.

What I'd have in mind is that people have to feel that religion is telling them something they need to know, in a very practical way, or they just won't subscribe. If the Church found it could get mileage out of prohibiting abortion (just to pick one element of the whole package), it must have meant that such a development appealed to people enough to help embed religion into their lives.

I don't find it credible that you could force a whole load of irrelevant and costly obligations on people, just because you introduced yourself as holding the master franchise from God. You'd have to be giving them something back that the public approved of. For the sake of argument, prohibiting divorce might be a value that simplified inheritance of land.

recedite

What is the essential ethical difference between an abortion a week before childbirth, and an infanticide a week afterwards?
If a church is against one, you would expect them to be against the other.

robindch

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

How does a completely useless social institution manage to cling on for millenia? I mean, if it was that easy, we'd all do it.

It's not easy. The religions are evolving all the time in order that "they" can continue. Some variants die out without managing to make it to the next generation, while others develop new strategies, tactics and appeals in order to make themselves sufficiently interesting to new believers that they continue, in some shape or form. And so it goes on.

When viewed from the memetic perspective, the essential meaninglessness of religion comes into sharp focus. Religion isn't "for" anything. It just "is", same as other life forms which are evolving in other environments using other substrates.

Kiwi in IE

mathepac wrote: »

I am in no way condoning what happened to those poor children and the women who fell into the clutches of the nuns in the laundries, nor am I an apologist for the Catholic Church's wrong-doingss, but IMHO what was done, while evil. falls a long way short of "promoting abuse".

I use promoting in the sense of advertising or publicity in order to make the practices more wide-spread outside the church or within it. I don't believe that happened, but I do accept that church authorities lied, denied, obfuscated, prevaricated, acted incorrectly, failed to act at all, victimised and terrorised witnesses,


Peadophile Priest A is known within the diocese to be abusing children. Church hierarchy come along and move him to another diocese to contain scandal. Peadophile Priest B who is working in the same diocese has been having disgusting thoughts but has not acted yet for fear of repercussions. He see that PPA is doing just fine in his new diocese and that there has been no legal action taken by Church hierarchy, in fact, they have sheltered PPA and protected him from the law of the state. PPB now looses his fear of repercussions because he has seen first hand that there are none, and acts. They may not have taken out advertisements but I do believe they promoted abuse.

mathepac

Originally you posted (bolding is mine)

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

... Why would an institution that has continuously promoted the sexual, physical and psychological abuse of children be worried about the rights of the ones that are yet to be born?

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

... but I do believe they promoted abuse.

I hope you can see that this more recent post is a very different position to adopt..

Kiwi in IE

No Mathepac it is the same position. The Catholic Church has promoted and facilitated the sexual, physical and psychological abuse of children. Hence why I wonder at their concern for the rights of foetuses. My second post is not a different position at all, I was explaining why I believe the use of the word 'promoted' was appropriate in this instance.

Kiwi in IE

I am a foreigner from a Secular country living in Ireland with my Irish partner. There are obviously complexities that I don't fully understand in the relationship between Ireland and the Catholic church. However I find it very hard to understand why the Irish people put up with this horrible, evil institution continuing to influence law, education and healthcare.

I love living here and am mostly very happy with our decision to relocate to Ireland. The only real exception being the prominence of religion in so many areas of public life. Clearly I was very naive before we shifted but, but although I knew Ireland was a Catholic country, I wrongly assumed it were Catholic like England is Anglican. In other words I didn't expect it to have any impact on our day to day life or influence publicly funded institutions like schools and hospitals. I suppose I expected it to be Catholic like France, the majority being of the Catholic religion but a secular government.

I am aware that I sound like a whining foreigner now. I believe abortion is nobody's business but that of the woman who is pregnant and those she chooses to consult. Personally abortion is not something I would consider for myself under normal circumstances, however on saying that an unviable pregnancy or a pregnancy as a result of sexual violence would certainly be exceptions. I don't understand why there is such opposition. In a secular countries where it is legal those of the Catholic religion continue to refrain from having one as a personal choice. I certainly don't understand why the Catholic church are so fiercely opposed based on the rights on the unborn. They have shown no regard for the rights of children who are born. I find their stance highly hypocritical.

Obliq

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Ah, give them a break. Its the Savita's Laws lot that are ostentatiously sitting in the front pew at the moment, and they haven't even a jaysus clue what exactly they're being sanctimonious about. They just have some vague idea that there's something or other about laws or something, and an expectation that no-one will call their bluff or enquire too closely as to what exactly it is that they think should be different.

Ooooow, touched a nerve much? You do realise you just said "Give Youth Defence a break" in front of everybody here, yes?

Whatever about "Savita's Laws" having a clue/not, they are the voice of a massive reaction to Savita's death. That was the last straw for literally EVERY woman and man I know. In that list are included grandmothers/fathers, medical professionals, teachers - really, Everyone. Youth Defence got me going on this last year with their outrageous spewing of hatred, plus the Bishops pro-life pushing, plus the f**king bus/train adverts. They haven't a leg to stand on this week and I'm glad.

As this is the FIRST F**KING TIME any one (of my generation anyway) has been able to have this debate in Ireland, there is actually quite a lot of PENT UP ANGER. My keyboard needs intensive care actually. How dare you say that part I've bolded? What is that? Could it be you meant to say "The little women are talking amongst themselves again - we'll let 'em off for a bit and then rip their arguments apart with our manly intellects? "
Certainly comes across that way.