"My body, my choice" only makes sense when someone else’s life isn’t at stake.
Fun fact: If my younger sister was in a car accident and desperately needed a blood transfusion to live, and I was the only person on Earth who could donate blood to save her, and even though donating blood is a relatively easy, safe, and quick procedure no one can force me to give blood. Yes, even to save the life of a fully grown person, it would be ILLEGAL to FORCE me to donate blood if I didn’t want to.
See, we have this concept called “bodily autonomy.” It’s this….cultural notion that a person’s control over their own body is above all important and must not be infringed upon.
Like, we can’t even take LIFE SAVING organs from CORPSES unless the person whose corpse it is gave consent before their death. Even corpses get bodily autonomy.
To tell people that they MUST sacrifice their bodily autonomy for 9 months against their will in an incredibly expensive, invasive, difficult process to save what YOU view as another human life (a debatable claim in the early stages of pregnancy when the VAST majority of abortions are performed) is desperately unethical. You can’t even ask people to sacrifice bodily autonomy to give up organs they aren’t using anymore after they have died.
You’re asking people who can become pregnant to accept less bodily autonomy than we grant to dead bodies.
reblogging for commentary
But, assuming the mother wasn’t raped, the choice to HAVE a baby and risk sacrificing their “bodily autonomy” is a choice that the mother made. YOu don’t have to have sex with someone. Cases of rape aside, it isn’t ethical to say abortion is justified. The unborn baby has rights, too.
First point: Bodily autonomy can be preserved, even if another life is dependent on it. See again the example about the blood donation.
And here’s another point: When you say that “rape is the exception” you betray something FUNDAMENTALLY BROKEN about your own argument.
Because a fetus produced from sexual assault is biologically NO DIFFERENT than a fetus produced from consensual sex. No difference at all.
If one is alive, so is the other. If one is a person, so is the other. If one has a soul, then so does the other. If one is a little blessing that happened for a reason and must be protected, then so is the other.
When you say that “Rape is the exception” what you betray is this: It isn’t about a life. This isn’t about the little soul sitting inside some person’s womb, because if it was you wouldn’t care about HOW it got there, only that it is a little life that needs protecting.
When you say “rape is the exception” what you say is this: You are treating pregnancy as a punishment. You are PUNISHING people who have had CONSENSUAL SEX but don’t want to go through a pregnancy. People who DARED to have consensual sex without the goal of procreation in mind, and this is their “consequence.”
And that is gross.
^ THIS. This is this this THIS THIS THIS. THIS!!!!!
That’s exactly why I don’t use the “consented to pregnancy” argument.
No one can force someone to give blood. However, there’s a few fundamental differences by refraining from giving blood and having an abortion.
1. Passive vs. Active. When you refuse to give blood, you are choosing not to act. Your failure to act may result in another person’s death. However, you are not actively and intentionally taking their life. With an abortion, you take an active step to end another person’s life.
2. Giving something up. In the blood donation case, you are giving up blood. Blood is necessary to survive, and some of it would be taken from your body. While you will generate more to replace it, you’ll never have that blood back. In the case of pregnancy, your uterus is not taken from you. You don’t lose the use of it. You don’t lose anything except your “bodily autonomy,” which in this case becomes little more than the “ability to do whatever I want even if it hurts or kills someone else.”
The child conceived in love is a human being with value. The child conceived in a one-night stand is a human being with value. And the child conceived in rape is a human being with value. Our value is not dependent on the choices of our parents.
There are only two cases where it is potentially justifiable to kill another human being: defense (self-defense or the defense of someone who cannot defend themselves) and the death penalty. Obviously the death penalty does not apply with abortion, because the unborn human has committed no crime and, even if he or she had, could not stand trial.
Self-defense seems to be the justification that those promoting the “bodily autonomy” argument are using.
If you’re being attacked or abducted, you have every right to use force to defend yourself and escape in the moment. You are expected to use force proportionate to the situation (shooting someone in the face for slapping your butt may not be the most defensible course of action). Once you are no longer in direct danger, you can no longer use force.
This doesn’t work with abortion. The unborn human being does not directly threaten your life* and he or she does not limit your freedom of movement (abduction). You are free to walk anywhere you like. Most pregnant women are able to work up until the baby is due. There is no direct threat requiring you to use force to escape.
* When the mother’s health or life is in danger, she should be treated for the illness/complication. An abortion will not directly solve her problem, and may add more issues to her health. An ethical doctor should attempt to preserve both lives. That means attempting to treat the underlying cause of the complication without harming the baby. If this is not possible, the doctor should save at least one life. Usually the mother is the easiest one to save in these cases.
Either way, the doctor’s goal should always be to save as many lives as possible, and never to intentionally end a life that could have been saved.
A human life is a human life.
The birth of the priesthood, the institution of the Eucharist, the night Our Lord first surrendered Himself for us under the disguise of bread and wine, and the night before He would surrender His very body and soul to a most torturous death for our sake… The reason I am a Catholic, the reason I am ALIVE, is because of what took place on Holy Thursday.
And whilst they were at supper, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke: and gave to his disciples, and said: Take ye, and eat. This is my body.
And taking the chalice, he gave thanks, and gave to them, saying: Drink ye all of this.
For this is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins.
As someone who wants to study the human consciousness I found this very interesting.
Scott Routley was a “vegetable”. A car accident seriously injured both sides of his brain, and for 12 years, he was completely unresponsive.
Unable to speak or track people with his eyes, it seemed that Routley was unaware of his surroundings, and doctors assumed he was lost in limbo. They were wrong.
In 2012, Professor Adrian Owen decided to run tests on comatose patients like Scott Routley. Curious if some “vegetables” were actually conscious, Owen put Routley in an fMRI and told him to imagine walking through his home. Suddenly, the brain scan showed activity. Routley not only heard Owen, he was responding.
Next, the two worked out a code. Owen asked a series of “yes or no” questions, and if the answer was “yes,” Routley thought about walking around his house. If the answer was “no,” Routley thought about playing tennis.
These different actions showed activity different parts of the brain. Owen started off with easy questions like, “Is the sky blue?” However, they changed medical science when Owen asked, “Are you in pain?” and Routley answered, “No.” It was the first time a comatose patient with serious brain damage had let doctors know about his condition.
While Scott Routley is still trapped in his body, he finally has a way to reach out to the people around him. This finding has huge implications.
That’s terrifying. I’d rather die than be stuck in my head, unable to move.
Hi Fr! Just saw your question about marrying a Lutheran. My friend is caught up in whether it's 'ok' for a devout Catholic to marry someone who isn't practicing any religion... believes in God but not serious about Him. Therefore he would be fine with raising the kids Catholic because he has no serious opinion. I don't think this is the best idea. She thinks its a good way to serve a non-Catholic. I want her to know it's important for her to be served in a Godly way by her husband. Am I wrong?
I would not use the word “served.” It sounds subservient, although I know that is not what you meant.
The problem with marriage is that it is so hard being married. And that is when both of you are the same religion and agree on most things. Add disagreements and more and more different outlooks on life, and marriage can be a not-so-amusing life, before you finally call it quits and say, “What the heck was I thinking?”
It is not a sin for a Catholic to want to marry a non-Catholic. You can’t help who you fall in love with. It is not wrong to say, “Let’s work on this, and see if we can’t make a go of it and be a happy couple.”
It can work. It does work, for many couples of “mixed” backgrounds.
But it is a huge gamble. And a lot of it comes down to: “Does my partner love me enough to make sacrifices for me? Does my partner understand, really get it, how important my Catholic Faith is? Does my partner think that my Catholicism will mean nothing to me after we are married? Does my partner expect me to sideline and ignore my Catholic faith when I am a mom or dad, as if the children have to be “protected” from my religion?”
It is not enough for a non-Catholic guy to have “no serious opinion” about Catholicism. For marriage to work, the non-Catholic has to be cooperative. He has to back you up. He has to understand and tell the kids, “No ifs, ands, or buts. This religion is important to your mom, and while you are under my roof, you will not disobey, disrespect, or dismiss her. I will back her up and whether I am Catholic or not is irrelevant. She is my wife, and I do not accept, and I will not tolerate, that you use me, the non-Catholic dad, as an excuse to shirk your religious duties.”
You would be surprised how many devout Catholics were raised in homes where the father was either non-Catholic or even non-religious. What he was, however, was his wife’s partner and soul mate, and what he never did, as a husband and dad, was undermine her as a Catholic.
But marrying a non-Catholic, simply out of love, is foolish, for a devout Catholic. There HAS TO BE other qualities which recommend that man as a good candidate for being a husband—mostly that he is great “partner” material to back the woman up in what is important to her.
God bless and take care! Fr. Angel
I sought you out and now you come to me. Thank you.
The Pope John Paul II’s last audible words, on hearing tens of thousands of young people singing in St. Peter’s Square as he lay in his deathbed, Friday, April 1, 2005 (via lovepatientandkind)
My part I of a two part series on Pope Francis and why I think he rocks! There has been a backlash against religiosity lately with all that is going on in the world and folks like him definitely help restore your faith!
I’m agnostic bordering on atheist and this man warms my heart. He is what we should all strive to be.
I’m not religious, but I love this guy!
It’s kinda sad that some of these gestures shouldn’t be considered all that significant imo.. It’s just Pope Francis challenging the widely held misconceptions of what the Catholic Church is all about.