Dialogue with a pro-choice women.
We believe no woman is going to ask a doctor to abort a healthy, almost-born baby (and no doctor would do it).
I don’t agree with this statement because: 1) by the very large number of abortions (60,000,000) since RvW the likelihood of a women and a doctor aborting a healthy almost-born baby is high. 2) not all states have a limit on late term abortions. 3) even states with a limit on late term abortions have caveats that will allow for late term abortions. 4) the medical standard of fetal viability since RvW has decreased from 24-28 weeks to 22 weeks. 5) a baby born at 16 weeks has made a miraculous recovery. 6) fetal viability as a standard for abortions was an RvW error that failed to recognize legal protection for human life at its earliest developmental stages. 7) the monetary benefit to perform an abortion for some doctors may outweigh their moral compass not to perform an abortion. 8) New York state senate just passed a bill authorizing abortion up to birth. 9) a presidential plank in the 2016 Democratic platform was support for late term abortions.
I, personally, don't believe life begins at conception or that fetuses in every stage of development are human beings (yes, we do know about human development).
I do believe that the life that begins at conception is a human being and this is why I believe it.
Human beings have certain characteristics that make them human beings: 1. At conception they begin to be a “ living” human being. 2. They have parents who are human beings. 3. Human beings value life. If these beings do not have these characteristics, then they are not human and who cares? These characteristics make them “living” human beings and if they are such, how can we justify abortion?
Many Catholics believe abortion is acceptable under some circumstances - a 12-year-old impregnated by her father, a woman brutally beaten and gang-raped, a woman with cancer who has to choose between chemotherapy and her recently-discovered pregnancy, a woman who's been in a coma for 10 years (did you read about that case recently?).
I’m not sure what many Catholics believe about abortion. I do know that the Catholic Church does not support abortion. It goes against the natural order of things. In the eyes of the Catholic Church abortion is intrinsically disordered because the natural order of the life cycle is for a human being to exist from a natural conception through natural old age to natural death. The right to life has always been a basic human right in the Catholic Church.
At what point in the life cycle of an unborn human being is it permissible to kill an unborn human being? What circumstances in the life cycle of an unborn human being would make it permissible to kill an unborn human being?
If we value human life and believe that human beings begin life at conception then we would have to believe that there is no point in the life cycle to kill an unborn human being. If we believe that there is no point in the life cycle of an unborn human that justifies killing an unborn human being then we would have to believe that there is no circumstance that would make it permissible. In the example given by the pro-choice women of a 12-year-old being impregnated by her father and permission is given by the state to terminate the pregnancy on the grounds of incest, then incest becomes a factor in sanctioning abortion. If incest is the sanctioning criteria, what happens to a 2 year old who was discovered to have been born as the result of an incestual incident. Should the 2-year-old be killed?
If a women is brutally beaten and gang raped and becomes pregnant. Is that a reason to terminate the unborn? If we believe in a No Point in the life cycle and in a No Circumstance (NPNC) ideology then we would have to say that killing the unborn in this situation is not permissible. It is not the fault of the unborn as to how he/she became a living human being. The fact is this unborn is a living human being and if you believe that all living human beings have value, regardless of their place in their life cycle, then abortion is not an option.
As for the women who has to decide between chemotherapy and carrying her recently discovered pregnancy. The medical community may want to force an either/or decision, but faith based pro-lifers would have the medical community do everything they possibly could to save the mother and save the unborn. Once again if we consider the unborn to be human beings and we value life as human beings then the option in this case is to save both human beings.
I did not read about the case of the women who had been in a coma for 10 years and became pregnant. Once again, I would have to say that the unborn human being in the comatose women is innocent in this situation and the NPNC ideology would also stand for this case. The medical community should make every effort to save both the comatose mother and the unborn human being.
Why then is it permissible to kill an unborn child? The only difference is in the value we as a society have placed on the unborn and of the fact that in the developmental life cycle of a human being the unwanted unborn is considered a liability. As human beings we need to be cautious of the erosion of human rights. The Right to Life is a most basic human right. Stalin, Hitler, Mao Zedong and Pol Pot didn’t value life and as a result millions were killed. I do not believe it is permissible to kill an unborn human being at any point in its life-cycle. The natural order of a human being is to start off very tiny as a zygote and live to old age. Just like the natural order of a tiny acorn is to live and become a giant oak tree.