• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Pro-life is not just opposing abortion, Vatican says after U.S. ruling

Vouthon

Dominus Deus tuus ignis consumens est
Staff member
Premium Member
He basically said that being pro-life is taking care about every life. And this is done through planning in advance.
Universal healthcare, prevention, efficient adoption system and do on.

Precisely, well-said Estro.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
This is what I was thinking as well. Abortion bans have an atrociously detrimental effect from a humanitarian and medical standpoint, but the Vatican's statement seems to beat around the bush and refuse to directly address that.
I assume that the Pope finds "murdering" fetuses
to be the greater detriment to humanity.
We must recognize that this is all based upon his
presumption that human life has a very specifically
defined beginning, one not shared by billions of
other people. This isn't even clear per Bible based
arguments I've yet heard. Yet he imposes this upon
believers & nons alike.
 

Debater Slayer

Vipassana
Staff member
Premium Member
I think in context, it is important to bear in mind that the Vatican speaks from an already assumed 'pro-life' (to use the American political jargon) perspective and starts from that as a presupposition.

In the OP, the Vatican editorial was critiquing the stance of American pro-lifers from its own pro-life standpoint - for their failure to apply a consistent ethic of life and for their preoccupation with the prohibition of abortion to the exclusion of the protection of life at all stages and in every form; as the appalling rise in mortality rates of mothers, support for firearms, the death penalty etc. which the Vatican cites, amply evidences.

The key is this line:


In a media editorial on the United States Supreme Court's ruling to end the constitutional right to abortion, Andrea Tornielli said those who oppose abortion could not pick and choose pro-life issues.

Thus, the Vatican editorial states:

For life, always - Vatican News

A serious and shared reflection on life and the protection of motherhood would require us to move away from the logic of opposing extremisms and the political polarization that often—unfortunately—accompanies discussion on this issue, preventing true dialogue.

A serious and shared reflection on life and the protection of motherhood would require us to move away from the logic of opposing extremisms and the political polarization that often—unfortunately—accompanies discussion on this issue, preventing true dialogue.

Being for life, always, for example, means being concerned if the mortality rates of women due to motherhood increase. In the United States, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the maternal mortality rate has gone from 20.1 deaths of women per 100,000 live births in 2019 to 23.8 per 100,000 in 2020. And, strikingly, the maternal mortality rate for black women in 2020 was 55.3 deaths per 100,000 live births, 2.9 times the rate for white women.

Being for life, always, means asking how to help women welcome new life. According to one statistic in the United States, about 75 per cent of women who have abortions live in poverty or have low wages. And only 16 per cent of employees in private industry have access to paid parental leave, according to a study published in the Harvard Review of Psychiatry on 9 March 2020. Almost one in four new mothers who are not entitled to paid leave are forced to return to work within ten days of giving birth.

Being for life, always, also means defending it against the threat of firearms, which unfortunately have become a leading cause of death of children and adolescents in the US.

We can hope, therefore, that the debate on the US Supreme Court ruling will not be reduced to an ideological confrontation, but will prompt all of us—on both sides of the ocean—to reflect on what it means to welcome life, to defend it, and to promote it with appropriate legislation.

I appreciate that the Vatican is at least encouraging a more comprehensive outlook on issues they deem "pro-life" instead of picking and choosing like many people do. It's just that I think that even if someone fully supported reasonable gun control, paid maternity leave, etc., they still wouldn't be right in supporting abortion bans.

That said, I believe it should be noted that the Vatican is being a lot more reasonable than before, at least within the confines of traditionalism that stop short of doctrinal reform.
 

Debater Slayer

Vipassana
Staff member
Premium Member
I assume that the Pope finds "murdering" fetuses
to be the greater detriment to humanity.
We must recognize that this is all based upon his
presumption that human life has a very specifically
defined beginning, one not shared by billions of
other people. This isn't even clear per Bible based
arguments I've yet heard. Yet he imposes this upon
believers & nons alike.

Exactly. It is one thing to hold such a view; it is quite another to embroil it in politics and political statements.
 

England my lionheart

Rockerjahili Rebel
Premium Member
There is an old Arabic saying I greatly appreciate: "If you cannot speak truth, do not speak falsehood." If the Vatican can't stand by the position that has demonstrable medical and life-saving benefits, it seems to me that it is better for them to stay silent and out of politics than be tacitly complicit in enabling the harms of abortion bans by not condemning them.

The church is in a 2000 year old box,the borders of the box haven’t changed that much in that time but I completely agree.
 

England my lionheart

Rockerjahili Rebel
Premium Member
It is. They are noticing the cultist nature of current political climates. There's something else going on besides pro-life, in other words.

There is something else and it smells like farmyard material,the DOJ has done nothing to bring the orange bb to justice.
 

Viker

Your beloved eccentric Auntie Cristal
There is something else and it smells like farmyard material,the DOJ has done nothing to bring the orange bb to justice.
We have this phrase, "follow the money". This is the how and the why. And now they have the largest and most effective cult in American history behind them.
 

Mister Emu

Emu Extraordinaire
Staff member
Premium Member
So, we're upset that the Catholic position is consistently pro-life and not just anti-abortion?

We must recognize that this is all based upon his
presumption that human life has a very specifically
defined beginning
Not a presumption, but a basic biological fact.

Exactly. It is one thing to hold such a view; it is quite another to embroil it in politics and political statements.
I don't think you actually ever apply this logic. If people disagree, human rights violations aren't a problem? "Well, it's one thing to believe (Jews, Blacks, women, etc.) are human, but it's another to embroil it in politics"?
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
So, we're upset that the Catholic position is consistently pro-life and not just anti-abortion?
Oh, that's not a problem at all.
It's about their imposing their religious proscriptions upon others.
Not a presumption, but a basic biological fact.
It isn't a fact that a human life with all the rights of a person begin
when the Pope says. That is a religious belief, ie, not factual.
I don't think you actually ever apply this logic. If people disagree, human rights violations aren't a problem? "Well, it's one thing to believe (Jews, Blacks, women, etc.) are human, but it's another to embroil it in politics"?
That is illogical because it ignores the premises
that are in dispute. One cannot cull some form a
host of conflicting subjective premises, & then
argue as though there's no fundamental dispute.

Logic should be performed, not merely claimed.
I could construct a perfectly logical argument that
all religions should be made illegal. But I'm sure
that many would disagree with my premises.
 

Windwalker

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Ya know....the Catholic Church has such great wealth.
Yet "paid parental leave" to him means that employers
pay for it. How about the Pope letting loose his luscious
lucre for this purpose, eh. Or pay for pre natal care.
It would be so "pro life".
None of this would be nearly the issue it is, if we weren't actively syphoning off wealth from the middle class to feed the insatiable greed appetite at the top. Fill the coffers of the middle class again, and then maybe employers could afford to pay livable wages and maternity leaves? Systemic causation. What a concept! :)
 

Debater Slayer

Vipassana
Staff member
Premium Member
So, we're upset that the Catholic position is consistently pro-life and not just anti-abortion?

No, my criticism is that the Vatican's position, by not acknowledging the medical and humanitarian cost of abortion bans, is not consistently "pro-life": it is merely against abortion on doctrinal grounds, a position that is demonstrably far less pro-life than support for legalized abortion.

I don't think you actually ever apply this logic. If people disagree, human rights violations aren't a problem? "Well, it's one thing to believe (Jews, Blacks, women, etc.) are human, but it's another to embroil it in politics"?

We can't properly assess the value or justifiability of a premise in isolation of its practical outcomes. As a major religious organization, the Catholic Church's injection of specific beliefs into politics has a lot of detrimental effects. This is why I think it would be better for it to stay out of politics if its positions couldn't be reformed to minimize or remove their harmfulness.
 

England my lionheart

Rockerjahili Rebel
Premium Member
I think in context, it is important to bear in mind that the Vatican editorial speaks from an already assumed 'pro-life' (to use the American political jargon) perspective and starts from that as a presupposition.

In the OP, the Vatican editorial was critiquing the stance of American pro-lifers from its own pro-life standpoint - for their failure to apply a consistent ethic of life and for their preoccupation with the prohibition of abortion to the exclusion of the protection of life at all stages and in every form; as the appalling rise in mortality rates of mothers, support for firearms, the death penalty etc. which the Vatican cites, amply evidences.

The key is this line:


In a media editorial on the United States Supreme Court's ruling to end the constitutional right to abortion, Andrea Tornielli said those who oppose abortion could not pick and choose pro-life issues.

Thus, the Vatican editorial states:

For life, always - Vatican News

A serious and shared reflection on life and the protection of motherhood would require us to move away from the logic of opposing extremisms and the political polarization that often—unfortunately—accompanies discussion on this issue, preventing true dialogue.

Being for life, always, for example, means being concerned if the mortality rates of women due to motherhood increase. In the United States, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the maternal mortality rate has gone from 20.1 deaths of women per 100,000 live births in 2019 to 23.8 per 100,000 in 2020. And, strikingly, the maternal mortality rate for black women in 2020 was 55.3 deaths per 100,000 live births, 2.9 times the rate for white women.

Being for life, always, means asking how to help women welcome new life. According to one statistic in the United States, about 75 per cent of women who have abortions live in poverty or have low wages. And only 16 per cent of employees in private industry have access to paid parental leave, according to a study published in the Harvard Review of Psychiatry on 9 March 2020. Almost one in four new mothers who are not entitled to paid leave are forced to return to work within ten days of giving birth.

Being for life, always, also means defending it against the threat of firearms, which unfortunately have become a leading cause of death of children and adolescents in the US.

We can hope, therefore, that the debate on the US Supreme Court ruling will not be reduced to an ideological confrontation, but will prompt all of us—on both sides of the ocean—to reflect on what it means to welcome life, to defend it, and to promote it with appropriate legislation.

A lot of words but it’s still a no no.
 

Sgt. Pepper

All you need is love.
So, we're upset that the Catholic position is consistently pro-life and not just anti-abortion?

I am curious to know how the Catholic position has been consistently "pro-life" when the hierarchy of the Catholic Church has spent decades protecting pedophile priests by silencing the priests' victims and relocating many of these priests to other parishes where they continued to rape more children. I can see how someone may view the Catholic Church as pro-birth, but I fail to see how it is pro-life since its church hierarchy has not protected the thousands of children who were raped by many of its own clergy. Speaking as a victim of sexual abuse, I consider the Catholic Church hierarchy's longstanding action to protect sexually predatory priests from being prosecuted immoral and criminal. As far as I'm concerned, the Catholic Church doesn't have the moral ground to talk about morality.
 
Last edited:

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
None of this would be nearly the issue it is, if we weren't actively syphoning off wealth from the middle class to feed the insatiable greed appetite at the top. Fill the coffers of the middle class again, and then maybe employers could afford to pay livable wages and maternity leaves? Systemic causation. What a concept! :)
No, it would still be an issue because of religion.
 

Mister Emu

Emu Extraordinaire
Staff member
Premium Member
It isn't a fact that a human life with all the rights of a person begin
when the Pope says.
The beginning of life is biological, denying their rights based on quasi-mystical non-empirical concepts like personhood is another thing entirely.

That is illogical because it ignores the premises
that are in dispute.
I suggested that @Debater Slayer never puts the principle 'if there is disagreement about which humans are deserving of rights, you should keep your belief that the controversial humans do deserve rights out of politics' into practice under any other premises. If the logic doesn't apply universally, then it really isn't a logic, but special pleading. Different premises don't get different logic.

No, my criticism is that the Vatican's position, by not acknowledging the medical and humanitarian cost of abortion bans, is not consistently "pro-life"
Do they not acknowledge the medical and humanitarian cost of abortion bans, or do they consider them a necessary part of ending a denial of human rights? Consider the cost extending human rights, if it is high don't offer rights?

We can't properly assess the value or justifiability of a premise in isolation of its practical outcomes.
So, no? You don't ever apply that logic that people should keep their mouth shut about human rights violations and stay out of rectifying it through political means. You use a completely different set of determinations.

As a major religious organization, the Catholic Church's injection of specific beliefs into politics has a lot of detrimental effects.
That's a subjective determination based on your, in my view, warped calculus. I think that denying human rights and allowing for the targeting killing of individuals while denying those individuals any recourse is a fundamental degradation of humanity. Such policies cannot be called humanitarian because they by nature deny a segment of the human population their very identity as humans.And so we're back, we disagree on who gets to identify as human, and in such an argument there is no place for sitting down and shutting up when you see human lives being arbitrarily snuffed out.
 

RestlessSoul

Well-Known Member
Maybe the church should pay for all the unwanted babies who will be mistreated and abused and abandoned. Babies cost money and most of the families who are denied abortions are poor and can not afford more nanies. Let the church put its money where it will help.


Yeah, let’s blame the Church of Rome for America’s appalling levels of child poverty.
 
Top