Pope Francis: Abortion is evil, It is a crime, an absolute evil

cattolico

In case real Catholics have any doubt about who to vote for..

The 8th amendment is a fundamental human right for the Mother and her unborn child.

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/pope-francis-abortion-is-evil-not-the-solution-to-zika-virus-67368/

lazybones32

It looks like some journalists have interpreted that interview on the plane as the Pope saying it is acceptable for women to use contraception now, to fight the zika virus.

cattolico

lazybones32 wrote: »

It looks like some journalists have interpreted that interview on the plane as the Pope saying it is acceptable for women to use contraception now, to fight the zika virus.

Not getting pregnant and killing a child are two totally different things.

As usual the media took contraceptuon out of context.

lazygal

Does the morning after pill kill a child?

pauldla

Is it a crime that needs to be reported to the civil authorities?

topmanamillion

I had a dream about Philomena Begley last night, she was singing blanket on the ground just for me. It was great only when she got to the bit where she's inviting her husband to lay with her on the blanket, well, God be good it was too much for me. Without getting into details, which I'm sure no one wants to hear, I woke up and discovered that I had been a terrible man altogether.
Does anyone know did I abort millions of potential children?
Also, would I need to get in touch with Philomena, as she was a party to the sordid event and may not to go to confession?

Absolam

lazygal wrote: »

Does the morning after pill kill a child?

I could be wrong, but my understanding of the Catholic position is the morning after pill is not a contraceptive (as in prevents conception) but an abortifacient, (as in aborts an in-progress pregnancy) and is therefore morally equivalent (ie an absolute evil) to a medical abortion. Whether or not it kills a child depends on how you choose your words I suppose; it causes the expulsion and loss of a human embryo, and the Bible characterises being pregnant as being 'with child' so the argument could be made that yes it does. Whether or not the word 'child' is strictly applicable probably isn't very relevant to the Church's position, which is that abortion is the destruction of a sacred human life; whether it's a child, adult, or otherwise, doesn't seem to be a significant distinction in the context.

Absolam

pauldla wrote: »

Is it a crime that needs to be reported to the civil authorities?

Probably not; the Pope's more likely to make pronouncements on crimes against God rather than in civil jurisdictions. If he is saying it's a crime against God then it needs to be repented and confessed; what needs to be done about crimes under civil jurisdiction will vary from one civil authority to another.

tomasocarthaigh

lazygal wrote: »

Does the morning after pill kill a child?

Thats a contentius one. In theory yes, in practicality no.

A lot pregnancies disappear without the mother knowing it in the first week of pregnancy, and are reabsorbed into the body, so its well within the window of this happening naturally so I would say its OK regardless of whether it is or not...

o1s1n

cattolico wrote: »

Not getting pregnant and killing a child are two totally different things.
.

A clump of cells and a child are two totally different things.

Don't let that get in the way of your sensationalism though.

njs030

lazygal wrote: »

Does the morning after pill kill a child?

The morning after pill works by stopping ovulation and thinning the lining of the womb making it an inhospitable environment for a pregnancy to develop.

Once a pregnancy has started the morning after pill is ineffective which is why women are advised to take it as early as possible.

I always find it weird when people describe it as the same as an abortion, it's birth control not termination. Contraceptive pills work in the same way though with less strength as its over a longer period of time.

Absolam

notjustsweet wrote: »

The morning after pill works by stopping ovulation and thinning the lining of the womb making it an inhospitable environment for a pregnancy to develop.
Once a pregnancy has started the morning after pill is ineffective which is why women are advised to take it as early as possible.
I always find it weird when people describe it as the same as an abortion, it's birth control not termination. Contraceptive pills work in the same way though with less strength as its over a longer period of time.

Well, (as you'd expect) the theological position is more philosophical based on medical than medical, but it runs is like this;
1. The morning-after pill is a hormone-based preparation which, within and no later than 72 hours after a presumably fertile act of sexual intercourse, has a predominantly "anti-implantation" function. The final result will thus be the expulsion and loss of this embryo.
2. The decision to use the term "fertilized ovum" to indicate the earliest phases of embryonic development can in no way lead to an artificial value distinction between different moments in the development of the same human individual.
3. It is clear, therefore, that the proven "anti-implantation" action of the morning-after pill is really nothing other than a chemically induced abortion. It is neither intellectually consistent nor scientifically justifiable to say that we are not dealing with the same thing.
Moreover, it seems sufficiently clear that those who ask for or offer this pill are seeking the direct termination of a possible pregnancy already in progress, just as in the case of abortion.
4. Consequently, from the ethical standpoint the same absolute unlawfulness of abortifacient procedures also applies to distributing, prescribing and taking the morning-after pill. All who, whether sharing the intention or not, directly co-operate with this procedure are also morally responsible for it.

The short answer to your own point is yes it prevents a pregnancy developing, but the pregnancy has already begun, hence the equivalence with abortion. Once the ovum has implanted the morning after pill is ineffective in preventing the pregnancy from continuing; but as far as the Church is concerned pregnancy begins at conception (fertilisation) rather than implantation.

njs030

Absolam wrote: »

Well, (as you'd expect) the theological position is more philosophical based on medical than medical, but it runs is like this;
1. The morning-after pill is a hormone-based preparation which, within and no later than 72 hours after a presumably fertile act of sexual intercourse, has a predominantly "anti-implantation" function. The final result will thus be the expulsion and loss of this embryo.
2. The decision to use the term "fertilized ovum" to indicate the earliest phases of embryonic development can in no way lead to an artificial value distinction between different moments in the development of the same human individual.
3. It is clear, therefore, that the proven "anti-implantation" action of the morning-after pill is really nothing other than a chemically induced abortion. It is neither intellectually consistent nor scientifically justifiable to say that we are not dealing with the same thing.
Moreover, it seems sufficiently clear that those who ask for or offer this pill are seeking the direct termination of a possible pregnancy already in progress, just as in the case of abortion.
4. Consequently, from the ethical standpoint the same absolute unlawfulness of abortifacient procedures also applies to distributing, prescribing and taking the morning-after pill. All who, whether sharing the intention or not, directly co-operate with this procedure are also morally responsible for it.

That's a very concise and well written explanation. Thank you!

Absolam

notjustsweet wrote: »

That's a very concise and well written explanation. Thank you!

I'd take credit, but I can't; it's shamelessly copied from vatican.va, I only edited it down.

Kiwi in IE

Absolam wrote: »

Probably not; the Pope's more likely to make pronouncements on crimes against God rather than in civil jurisdictions. If he is saying it's a crime against God then it needs to be repented and confessed; what needs to be done about crimes under civil jurisdiction will vary from one civil authority to another.

If it is a crime against the Catholic god then it only applies to Catholics surely? I have no need to repent or confess if I commit a crime against the Catholic god.

Absolam

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

If it is a crime against the Catholic god then it only applies to Catholics surely? I have no need to repent or confess if I commit a crime against the Catholic god.

Nope; it's a crime against God, not the Catholic god. If you accept that there is a Catholic god, then by definition you accept that He is God and there is no other. In which case, you need to repent and confess.

If you don't then it doesn't matter at all what the Pope says about it being a crime.

Kiwi in IE

Absolam wrote: »

If you don't then it doesn't matter at all what the Pope says about it being a crime.

It would be nice if all Catholics accepted that and stopped trying to enforce their doctrine on everyone via civil law. Catholic rules are for Catholic people.

sbsquarepants

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

Catholic rules are for Catholic people.

If only!

The only logical stance to take is to absolutely ignore any religious input into any law - the law is there for all citizens, from religious zealots to atheists and everyone in between. It's the lowest common denominator if you will - if your religion requires you don't have an abortion - then feel free not to. No one is asking for them to be made mandatory!
Freedom of religion, means freedom to practice AND freedom to ignore.

Or at least it should!

frostyjacks

The use of the word 'mafia' is entirely appropriate in this context, and I'm glad the Pope us calling them out for what they are. The way the #repealthe8th lobby operate is very sinister; shaming and emotionally blackmailing good, decent people into accepting their criminal beliefs.

Absolam

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

It would be nice if all Catholics accepted that and stopped trying to enforce their doctrine on everyone via civil law. Catholic rules are for Catholic people.

I didn't hear the Pope saying he wanted any civil authorities to enforce his pronouncement all the same.....

But more to what I think your point really is; civil law is a reflection of the civil populace. If the majority of civil opinion tends to Catholic doctrine the nature of democracy is that civil law will reflect that.

Kiwi in IE

Absolam wrote: »

I didn't hear the Pope saying he wanted any civil authorities to enforce his pronouncement all the same.....

But more to what I think your point really is; civil law is a reflection of the civil populace. If the majority of civil opinion tends to Catholic doctrine the nature of democracy is that civil law will reflect that.

So if there was a majority who thought that it should be law that one has to attend a Catholic Church on Sunday whether Catholic or not, or refrain from eating meat on certain days that should be applied?

Kiwi in IE

frostyjacks wrote: »

The way the #repealthe8th lobby operate is very sinister; shaming and emotionally blackmailing

That sentence sounds more like a description of 'pro lifers' who harass women going into clinics for medical treatment.

Kiwi in IE

Personally I find it evil and sinister that there are people who would put a foetus before my health and wellbeing, and my potential ability to continue to fully function in my roles as a mother to my existing child, a wife, daughter and sister. I say this as someone who is undergoing IVF and very much wants a foetus.

lazybones32

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

Personally I find it evil and sinister that there are people who would put a foetus before my health and wellbeing, and my potential ability to continue to fully function in my roles as a mother to my existing child, a wife, daughter and sister (and valued poster to Boards) I say this as someone who is undergoing IVF and very much wants a foetus.

Who exactly wants to put a foetus before your health? The Irish Law is that both mother and child have an equal right to life - that doesn't remove your rights.

Kiwi in IE

lazybones32 wrote: »

Who exactly wants to put a foetus before your health? The Irish Law is that both mother and child have an equal right to life - that doesn't remove your rights.

Life. Not health. The life the foetus is put before the health of the woman.

Absolam

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

So if there was a majority who thought that it should be law that one has to attend a Catholic Church on Sunday whether Catholic or not, or refrain from eating meat on certain days that should be applied?

Are you suggesting there's another way to run a democracy?

Kiwi in IE

Absolam wrote: »

Are you suggesting there's another way to run a democracy?

So you think that basic human rights should be removed if the majority agree?

Absolam

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

So you think that basic human rights should be removed if the majority agree?

I think that's the way democracies work; the majority get to decide what basic human rights are, and whether they want them.

Kiwi in IE

If a foetus has an 'equal right to life' to any other person, why do pregnancies not have to be registered? Surely if the foetus is a person from the moment of conception then this should be reflected officially. Why are miscarriages treated only as a matter between a woman and her medical team? There is no official recognition that there has been a death. Why is that? All miscarriages really should have to be reported to the coroner and a legal cause established. If an infant dies suddenly it's not just left as a matter between the GP and family, why then is this the case with foetuses? Why does the state not reflect its assertion that foetuses have an equal right to life in areas other than abortion? If they have an equal right to life and it can be proven that a miscarriage was caused by something the woman did, surely a manslaughter/murder charge should be persued? Taking medications, alcohol things that are contraindicated in pregnancy should result in the state pressing charges on behalf of the foetus? Or maybe if the woman is not a fit mother then the foetus should be removed from her care like a born child might be - now there is a dilemma, how would that work if it's not yet viable? To say that a foetus has any equal rights to born people is simply ridiculous and the law reflects this in every area except abortion.

Kiwi in IE

Absolam wrote: »

I think that's the way democracies work; the majority get to decide what basic human rights are, and whether they want them.

No the majority of a single country do not get to decide what basic human rights are. There is an international convention which agrees what human rights are.

Absolam

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

If a foetus has an 'equal right to life' to any other person, why do pregnancies not have to be registered? Surely if the foetus is a person from the moment of conception then this should be reflected officially. Why are miscarriages treated only as a matter between a woman and her medical team? There is no official recognition that there has been a death. Why is that? All miscarriages really should have to be reported to the coroner and a legal cause established. If an infant dies suddenly it's not just left as a matter between the GP and family, why then is this the case with foetuses? Why does the state not reflect its assertion that foetuses have an equal right to life in areas other than abortion? If they have an equal right to life and it can be proven that a miscarriage was caused by something the woman did, surely a manslaughter/murder charge should be persued? Taking medications, alcohol things that are contraindicated in pregnancy should result in the state pressing charges on behalf of the foetus? Or maybe if the woman is not a fit mother then the foetus should be removed from her care like a born child might be - now there is a dilemma, how would that work if it's not yet viable? To say that a foetus has any equal rights to born people is simply ridiculous and the law reflects this in every area except abortion.

Are you seriously trying to claim that because government doesn't comply with your ideas the foetus doesn't have a right to life? It does; it's set out in legislation, regardless of whether pregnancies are registered are not, regardless of whether miscarriages are registered as deaths etc etc. Spurious arguments for things you think should be if a foetus has a right to life are pretty pointless; these things are not, yet still a foetus has a right to life, laid out in the Constitution. If you want to campaign for your ancillary notions to be put in place fill your boots, but honestly, it doesn't make any difference to whether a foetus has a right to life.

Absolam

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

No the majority of a single country do not get to decide what basic human rights are. There is an international convention which agrees what human rights are.

The (various) conventions certainly do; but no country has to agree with them. It's up to the countries to decide whether they want to do that. Countries like ours do it democratically
Which is why neither the UN nor the EU conventions have decided to say the unborn have a right to life, yet Ireland (and all the other countries in the world) can still decide for themselves whether the unborn do or don't have a right to life.

lazybones32

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

Life. Not health. The life the foetus is put before the health of the woman.

Health isn't a right. Healthcare is. Were you denied healthcare? No, you weren't. Was your child's life given preference over yours in Ireland? No, it wasn't.

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

No the majority of a single country do not get to decide what basic human rights are. There is an international convention which agrees what human rights are.

Yeah, that beautiful body included in their recent Children's Rights papers, that every child has the right not to go to bed hungry. They didn't do much in order to provide practical assistance for the child to not be hungry but dammit, they made it Law.

Kiwi in IE

Absolam wrote: »

The (various) conventions certainly do; but no country has to agree with them. It's up to the countries to decide whether they want to do that. Countries like ours do it democratically
Which is why neither the UN nor the EU conventions have decided to say the unborn have a right to life, yet Ireland (and all the other countries in the world) can still decide for themselves whether the unborn do or don't have a right to life.

The UN Human Rights Council are not in agreement with Ireland's stance on abortion are they? Breaching the human rights of woman, even if agreed by the majority is not really something to be proud of.

https://www.ifpa.ie/Hot-Topics/Abortion/International-Human-Rights-Observations-on-Abortion-in-Ireland

Absolam

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

The UN Human Rights Council are not in agreement with Ireland's stance on abortion are they? Breaching the human rights of woman, even if agreed by the majority is not really something to be proud of.

There you go then; the UN can have an opinion and countries still get to make their own decisions about human rights. I guess you proved yourself wrong

Kiwi in IE

Absolam wrote: »

Are you seriously trying to claim that because government doesn't comply with your ideas the foetus doesn't have a right to life? It does; it's set out in legislation, regardless of whether pregnancies are registered are not, regardless of whether miscarriages are registered as deaths etc etc. Spurious arguments for things you think should be if a foetus has a right to life are pretty pointless; these things are not, yet still a foetus has a right to life, laid out in the Constitution. If you want to campaign for your ancillary notions to be put in place fill your boots, but honestly, it doesn't make any difference to whether a foetus has a right to life.

The foetus has an 'equal right to life' to the woman carrying it. Yet a foetal death is not treated equally is it? In fact the manner in which the spontaneous death of a foetus is managed, you could almost be led to believe that it's life is considered by the law, to be less important than the life of a born person. If it has an equal right to life, then a miscarriage should be officially treated the same as the death of any born person. The law does not protect foetuses from anything other than abortion. Pregnant women can engage in many behaviours which pose a risk to the life of the foetus, but none of them are illegal, only abortion.

Kiwi in IE

Absolam wrote: »

There you go then; the UN can have an opinion and countries still get to make their own decisions about human rights. I guess you proved yourself wrong

I'm not sure how I'm wrong. Human rights are not something that should ever be put to popular vote. Because Ireland does this, and has a constitution which causes the breach of people's human rights in areas or education and health, due to a culture of excessive religious indoctrination and influence, is not anything to be proud of.

Just because a country implements a popular vote that is not compliant with Human Rights, does not mean that they have decided for themselves what Human Rights are, it simply means that they are non compliant with Human Rights.

FishOnABike

Absolam wrote: »

I think that's the way democracies work; the majority get to decide what basic human rights are, and whether they want them.

I would see that as being a tyranny of the majority rather than a democratic republic.

endacl

cattolico wrote: »

In case real Catholics have any doubt about who to vote for..

Is Frank running as an independent then?

I'll be voting for whoever repeals that amendment. Won't vote for whoever won't. There's lots of me. There used to be more of you, but you're dwindling.

endacl

Absolam wrote: »

Nope; it's a crime against God, not the Catholic god. If you accept that there is a Catholic god, then by definition you accept that He is God and there is no other. In which case, you need to repent and confess.

If you don't then it doesn't matter at all what the Pope says about it being a crime.

Doesn't matter a damn what the Pope says about it being a crime. Criminal law ain't his bailiwick. As such, if he left it as a sin, and observant Catholics could opt out of abortion, we wouldn't need to have these pointless debates.

I never once in my life committed a sin. There's no such thing.

endacl

frostyjacks wrote: »

The use of the word 'mafia' is entirely appropriate in this context, and I'm glad the Pope us calling them out for what they are. The way the #repealthe8th lobby operate is very sinister; shaming and emotionally blackmailing good, decent people into accepting their criminal beliefs.

As opposed to the likes of youth defence emotionally blackmailing people into accepting their dogmatic superstition?

eviltwin

The Pope can say what he wants and think what he wants. I take it all with a pinch of salt. He has the right to an opinion on it but that's all he has.

I'm not a Catholic, its no odds to me what the Pope or anyone else thinks of the choices I have made that go against Catholic teaching. Catholic rules are for Catholic people if they choose to follow them. Abortion is not an evil imo, its a very important aspect of a women's health and should be available. There is no shame in having an abortion or helping make it more accessible.

Absolam

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

The foetus has an 'equal right to life' to the woman carrying it. Yet a foetal death is not treated equally is it?

It doesn't follow that a foetal death must be treated equally though? I mean it's not as if all born peoples deaths are treated equally, is it?

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

In fact the manner in which the spontaneous death of a foetus is managed, you could almost be led to believe that it's life is considered by the law, to be less important than the life of a born person.

If you were led to believe that, surely you could correct your belief by reading the Constitutional provision that states the unborn does have an equal right to life?

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

If it has an equal right to life, then a miscarriage should be officially treated the same as the death of any born person.

Why? Like I said, the deaths of all born persons are treated the same anyway; some have inquests, some have murder investigations, most have none of those. It's pretty obvious deaths in some circumstances are treated differently to deaths in others, and deaths in utero seem distinctly different from other circumstances.

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

The law does not protect foetuses from anything other than abortion. Pregnant women can engage in many behaviours which pose a risk to the life of the foetus, but none of them are illegal, only abortion.

Not entirely; if they do so with the intent of destroying the life of the foetus and achieve their aim, they can be charged with the intentional destruction of unborn human life. It remains to be seen if the AG would attempt to prosecute an inchoate offense based on that. But similarly, if someone engages in behaviours which place born peoples lives at risk, without intending to kill them and without killing them, they're not going to be charged with murder.
Still, the law is limited to protecting the right to life of the unborn; which means it can't actually go any further than dealing with people intentionally killing them, can it? Whereas once born, there's far more scope based on the plethora of other rights that become available.

Absolam

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

I'm not sure how I'm wrong. Human rights are not something that should ever be put to popular vote. Because Ireland does this, and has a constitution which causes the breach of people's human rights in areas or education and health, due to a culture of excessive religious indoctrination and influence, is not anything to be proud of.

Should is a matter of opinion. My opinion is a democratic republic derives it's authority from the people, so it's up to the people to decide what authority it should have, including what rights it asserts on their behalf.

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

Just because a country implements a popular vote that is not compliant with Human Rights, does not mean that they have decided for themselves what Human Rights are, it simply means that they are non compliant with Human Rights.

Nope, it means that the Human Rights that pertain in that country are those they have decided should pertain. A country is under no obligation to comply with any other bodies definition of Human Rights unless it chooses to be.

Absolam

FishOnABike wrote: »

I would see that as being a tyranny of the majority rather than a democratic republic.

Yes, that's often the way people on the losing side of a democratic decision see it, it gets mentioned a lot on A&A

endacl

A sure, once the amendment is repealed, abortion won't be mandatory.

We can all get on with living our lives. Just like after the marriage equality referendum, the divorce referendum, the introduction of freely available contraception....

Funny. I know plenty of women who have had abortions. All 'Catholic'. Lots of people who are divorced. 'Catholic' too. I don't think I know a single 'Catholic' in my peer group and beyond who hasn't used contraception. In their pre-marital sex.

Perhaps Francis is pi55ing into the wind?

Absolam

endacl wrote: »

Doesn't matter a damn what the Pope says about it being a crime. Criminal law ain't his bailiwick. As such, if he left it as a sin, and observant Catholics could opt out of abortion, we wouldn't need to have these pointless debates. I never once in my life committed a sin. There's no such thing.

There are such things as crimes in Canon Law I'm afraid; the term is not exclusive to civil legislation.

endacl

Absolam wrote: »

There are such things as crimes in Canon Law I'm afraid; the term is not exclusive to civil legislation.

It is exclusive to Catholics though. Canon law doesn't apply to me.

eviltwin

Absolam wrote: »

Yes, that's often the way people on the losing side of a democratic decision see it, it gets mentioned a lot on A&A

What democratic decision would that be?

Absolam

endacl wrote: »

It is exclusive to Catholics though. Canon law doesn't apply to me.

I don't think anyone claimed it did? As I said quite early on, the Pope wasn't making any pronouncement about civil jurisdictions........

Absolam

eviltwin wrote: »

What democratic decision would that be?

Pick any one you like, I'm sure you can find someone somewhere to complain about it.