Christian Democrat Ponders Morality of Abortion Decisions

Today we will learn and reflect on the morality and history of abortion.
Whether you are Catholic or not, the Catholic Catechism has carefully
reasoned and well thought out positions on many issues confronting the
modern believer, including abortion, and thus I believe that any Christian,
Catholic or not, should be reluctant to take a moral position contrary to
the Catechism.
Sometimes I get the impression that many who see themselves as devout
Christians believe that if you choose to judge those single women who
contemplate abortion, then that is virtue; but if to choose to show
compassion for anyone considering this horrible decision, then that
compassion is somehow contrary to Christian values.

Why do I say this? Because many of my Christian friends only want to see the short
memes, if they come across a serious and longish article that even suggests that we
should feel compassion towards any mother considering abortion for any reason,
many want to jump to a knee-jerk conclusion the author must somehow be saying
that it is OKAY TO KILL BABIES.
What any truly devout Christian Democrat should realize is they are not obligated to
totally accept every position in the party platform, including abortion, because the
Democratic Party is not a religion. But it is most certainly true that any Christian
should evaluate what their position on important political and moral issues like
abortion. This video is my personal attempt to ponder this important moral and
medical issue, humbly and thoughtfully. My position has evolved as I have become
better informed, and we pray you will seek to become better informed on this issue
as well.

YouTube Video:
Christian Democrat Ponders Abortion
https://youtu.be/XekOz29oWL0
NOTE: YouTube video corrections may not be reflected
on the slides, and the blog may differ somewhat in
content.
© Copyright 2021
Become a patron:
https://www.patreon.com/seekingvirtueandwisdom
YouTube Channel (please subscribe):
Reflections on Morality, Philosophy, and History:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCLqDkfFbWhXOnzdjp__YZtg
https://amzn.to/3C7E7Fo
https://amzn.to/3lnyz2N
https://amzn.to/3CbAmyF
https://amzn.to/3k8E5a6

YouTube Video:
Christian Democrat Ponders Abortion
https://youtu.be/XekOz29oWL0
NOTE: YouTube video corrections may not be reflected
on the slides, and the blog may differ somewhat in
content.
© Copyright 2021
Become a patron:
https://www.patreon.com/seekingvirtueandwisdom
YouTube Channel (please subscribe):
Reflections on Morality, Philosophy, and History:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCLqDkfFbWhXOnzdjp__YZtg
https://amzn.to/2W4cxK2
https://amzn.to/3kca1sT

Many people have the impression that Christians should be passionate
about their beliefs, that they need to SHOUT AND ATTACK those they
see as their spiritual enemies on the various internet forums. They do
not want to admit that their adversaries are real, live, emotional,
breathing human beings that deserve to be treated with respect and
dignity, they see everybody else as a tar baby that needs to be set
alight and ablaze.
What is so dangerous about internet memes, those dozen word
exhortations of what you think is truth? Internet memes ignore the
undeniable fact that life can be complicated and messy, that often in
real-life situations what is right and what is wrong can be difficult to
discern.

Trump[ at 2020 March For Life Rally

You show no respect when you judgmentally shout at someone who is
forced to make a really difficult life decision, whether it is a difficult
pregnancy, divorce, whether to place parents with dementia in a nursing
home, they do not need your shouts, they need you to listen and show
compassion. Compassion is what shows the world that we are truly
Christians. Demonizing ladies with problem pregnancies does not help.
There are some really heart-breaking situations involving
abortion. Should abortion be allowed if the mother’s and/or the baby’s
life is in danger? Should abortion be allowed in case of rape or
incest? Should abortion be permitted if it is likely the mother would
otherwise commit suicide? Should abortion be permitted to reduce the
number of deaths caused by botched abortions by coat hangers or Lysol?

PONDERING THE MORAL POSITION REGARDING ABORTION
This video is part of our series on the Ten Commandments, using as
sources the Catholic and Lutheran Catechisms, Eastern and Western
Church Fathers, rabbinic commentators, preachers, scholars, stoic
philosophers, and any other interesting credible sources.

SUMMARY OF MY PERSONAL BELIEFS
• I agree 100% (one hundred percent) with the Catholic teachings on abortion in the
catechism.
• The opposite of pro-life is pro-death, not pro-choice. I am uncomfortable with a radical,
in all cases, pro-choice position, but as a Christian I am always PRO-COMPASSION,
compassionate towards the unborn, the born, the mother, the doctors, the poor, the
sick, the family, and towards low-income workers.
• Pro-life concerns DO NOT end at birth, pro-life concerns are from cradle to grave,
not just from conception to birth
• Our Christian two-fold love of God and neighbor means we must be compassionate
towards those who face difficult decisions in their lives, even if we feel that they are
considering immoral actions.
• Abortion is always a personal moral decision. If the government permits mothers with
their doctors to make this decision when the mothers and/or children’s life is in danger,
this does not mean that the government seeks to kill babies.

ARE ARGUMENTS OVER ROE V WADE AND ABORTION POINTLESS?
What most people do not realize about the endless debates surrounding abortion
is that they are somewhat pointless. The prosperous can travel to a jurisdiction
where abortion is legal. The Supreme Court has already substantially struck down
the provisions of the Hyde Amendment. The Hyde Amendment permits the use of
federal Medicaid funds to fund abortions in the case of rape or incest or where the
life of the mother or baby is threatened if they go to term. The number of
abortions performed were greatly reduced when the Supreme Court partially
struck down the Hyde Amendment.
Most of the court cases on the abortion issue for the past few decades argue the
five percent difficult and fringe cases where the parties argue whether the life of
the mother and child are truly in danger if the pregnancy goes to term. Roe v.
Wade has been effectively neutered by conservative Supreme Court justices
already. Also, overturning Roe v. Wade means overturning fifty years of case
law. The problems this would create means that Roe v. Wade is probably a
permanent fixture of our legal system.

When we recorded this video, the Supreme Court had a narrow ruling on the
punitive Texas abortion law that allows private citizens to earn bounties by
tormenting abortion providers. Liberal commentators are in full advocacy mode,
which is okay since the Supreme Court is listening to the controversy this decision
is kicking up, but what is lost is this was a narrow procedural ruling on whether the
people who appealed to the Court have standing to sue. The Texas law was
designed to make political points and get great press, it was not designed to be
constitutionally viable, the bounty provisions means it will likely be overtured. The
upcoming Mississippi abortion suit is the case to watch in the coming months.
Supreme Court justices are sensitive to the current political climate, they need a
degree of assent from the citizenry so the legal system will be respected. However,
these justices try to go slow when setting precedents in their cases. In medical
issues they likewise must take into account the ethical and practical concerns of
practicing physicians. This responsiveness to the concerns of the legal and medical
community means that Roe v. Wade may never be completely overturned.

The United States Supreme Court membership who decided Roe v Wade case in 1973

Although Pope Francis affirms that the Catholic position on abortion is important,
Pope Francis warns that abortion rights should not define Catholicism. Pope
Francis also warns that you should not be a single-issue voter, but if you insist on
being a single-issue voter, that single issue should be social justice, not
abortion. The right to life does not end at birth, and abortion is but a small part of
social justice. This declaration also warns against hatefully attacking the perceived
enemies of the faith on internet forums. As a general rule, before posting anything
on the internet, you should ask yourself if your post increases the two-fold Love of
God and your neighbor, and the answer is NO, do not post the hateful comment.
This slide shows many of the links available to credible articles on abortion in both
our SlideShare slides, and our blog, the links to these are in the YouTube
description.

Many Catholic magazines have similar articles, but this Vox article is well written and quotes
from his papal encyclical. Pope Francis also warns that attacking people on Twitter can be
spiritually dangerous.
https://www.vox.com/2018/4/11/17220108/pope-francis-catholics-conservative-abortion-
gaudete-exsultate-twitter-church-apostolic-exhortation
The editors of Christianity Today, a leading magazine for Protestant evangelical clerics, scholars,
and informed laymen, have a similar message:
https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2019/december-web-only/trump-should-be-removed-
from-office.html
The gentleman who wrote that editorial took some heat from other Trump loving evangelical
leaders, and from Trump’s tweets, so his boss wrote another editorial in his defense:
https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2019/december-web-only/trump-evangelicals-editorial-
christianity-today-president.html

We do not debate that there are too many girls who are young and
foolish and twenty and wanting to party, selfish girls who do not care
about their unborn child, foolish girls who do not want the responsibility
of motherhood. We agree, and any Christian should agree, that we
should do everything we can to encourage these young girls not to
abort.
There are six sections in the Catechism on abortion, 2270 – 2275.
The Catechism was published in 1994, long after the Supreme Court
decided the Roe v Wade case in 1973. Indeed, likely the responses of the
American bishops influenced the Catechism’s teachings on abortion.

(REPEAT) Section 2270 of the catechism states that human life begins
and must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of
conception, not from the quickening of the fetus several months into
the pregnancy. Both the born and the unborn have the right to life.

CCC 2270 Human life must be
respected and protected
absolutely from the moment
of conception. From the first
moment of his existence, a
human being must be
recognized as having the
rights of a person – among
which is the inviolable right of
every innocent being to life.
Before the advent of modern
medicine many thought that
abortion was morally
acceptable anytime before
the quickening of the fetus,
which happens from around
fifteen to twenty weeks after
conception. Now we know
that the fetus is alive from
the moment of conception.

(REPEAT) Section 2271 reaffirms that this has been the teaching of the
Church since ancient times, that we should protect the health of the
unborn, exercising utmost care.
And then it says in language borrowed from St Thomas Aquinas, that
Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a
means, is gravely contrary to moral law.

CCC 2271 Since the first century the Church
has affirmed the moral evil of every
procured abortion. This teaching has not
changed and remains unchangeable. Direct
abortion, that is to say, abortion willed
either as an end or a means, is gravely
contrary to the moral law:
•You shall not kill the embryo by abortion
and shall not cause the newborn to perish.
•God, the Lord of life, has entrusted to men
the noble mission of safeguarding life, and
men must carry it out in a manner worthy
of themselves. Life must be protected with
the utmost care from the moment of
conception: abortion and infanticide are
abominable crimes.

(REPEAT) Section 2272 again emphasizes this position, and furthermore, it states
that abortion is so serious an offense that it risks excommunication.
BUT, most important, the Catechism teaches us that we should show compassion,
as “the Church does not thereby intend to restrict the scope of mercy. Rather, she
makes clear the gravity of the crime committed, the irreparable harm done to the
innocent who is put to death, as well as to the parents” and all society.
Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. The Church
attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human
life.
And the technical term used here means this is an excommunication that
automatically occurs by the very act of abortion, which means that the offending
mother will not be hauled before an ecclesiastical court downtown to defend
herself, this is a matter between her and Jesus.

CCC 2272 Formal cooperation in an
abortion constitutes a grave offense.
The Church attaches the canonical
penalty of excommunication to this
crime against human life. “A person
who procures a completed abortion
incurs excommunication latae
sententiae, (which means) by the very
commission of the offense and is
subject to the conditions provided by
Canon Law. The Church does not
thereby intend to restrict the scope of
mercy. Rather, she makes clear the
gravity of the crime committed, the
irreparable harm done to the innocent
who is put to death, as well as to the
parents and the whole of society.

The Catechism says: “Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an
end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law.” Whenever church teachings
in recent centuries refer to people being used as ends or means, if refers to the
dignity of the person. In simple terms, we should not use people, we should love
our neighbor as ourselves. At the moment of conception, a living person with a
soul is formed.
Which abortions are not direct abortions? The US Bishops say this about this
important question:
https://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-
dignity/abortion/respect-for-unborn-human-life

https://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-
dignity/abortion/respect-for-unborn-human-life

(REPEAT) Of particular importance is the last paragraph of the US Bishop’s
statement: “Given the scientific fact that a human life begins at conception,
the only moral norm needed to understand the Church’s opposition to
abortion is that each and every human life has inherent dignity, and thus
must be treated with the respect due to a human person. This is the
foundation for the Church’s social doctrine, including its teachings on war,
the use of capital punishment, euthanasia, health care, poverty and
immigration.
Conversely, to claim that some people, born or unborn, should not be treated
as “persons” “is to deny the very idea of inherent human rights.” We must
respect for the lives of all vulnerable people both before and after birth.”

Of particular importance is the last paragraph of the US
Bishop’s statement: “Given the scientific fact that a
human life begins at conception, the only moral norm
needed to understand the Church’s opposition to
abortion is the principle that each and every human life
has inherent dignity, and thus must be treated with the
respect due to a human person. This is the foundation
for the Church’s social doctrine, including its teachings
on war, the use of capital punishment, euthanasia,
health care, poverty and immigration. Conversely, to
claim that some live human beings do not deserve
respect or should not be treated as “persons” (based on
changeable factors such as age, condition, location, or
lack of mental or physical abilities) is to deny the very
idea of inherent human rights. Such a claim undermines
respect for the lives of many vulnerable people before
and after birth.”
St Patrick’s Cathedral, New York City

The bishops do not provide examples of indirect
abortions. Indirect abortions include many of the difficult
exceptions we discuss in this blog. Exactly which of these
exceptions in any specific situation are indirect abortions can be
difficult to discern. But we should always repent when life has
been lost, and this includes miscarriages also.
Note that abortions performed due to rape or incest would be
forbidden according to this definition. However, we should be
compassionate in these cases, and certainly not be judgmental
for ladies making this terrible choice.

THE CATECHISM DISCUSSES LEGAL PHILOSOPHY OF
ABORTION
(REPEAT) Section 2273 emphasizes that this pro-life stance is both an
individual and a political issue, it states that the inalienable rights of
the person must be recognized and respected by civil
society and the political authority.
These human rights to life are part of natural law, are inherent
the act by which God creates us.

CCC 2273 The inalienable right to life of every
innocent human individual is a constitutive element of
a civil society and its legislation:
“The inalienable rights of the person must be
recognized and respected by civil society and the
political authority. These human rights depend
neither on single individuals nor on parents; nor do
they represent a concession made by society and the
state; they belong to human nature and are inherent
in the person by virtue of the creative act from which
the person took his origin. Among such fundamental
rights one should mention in this regard every human
being’s right to life and physical integrity from the
moment of conception until death.”

(REPEAT) To further emphasize this point, Section 2273 the restates this
position in the negative, that when a law deprives anyone of the right to
life, then the state is denying the equality of all before the
law. When the state does not place its power at the service of
the rights of each citizen, and in particular of the more
vulnerable, the very foundations of a state based on law are
undermined.
And the Catechism here goes further, stating that the law must
provide appropriate penal sanctions for every deliberate
violation of the child’s rights.”

CCC 2273 continued
“The moment a positive law deprives a category of
human beings of the protection which civil legislation
ought to accord them, the state is denying the
equality of all before the law. When the state does
not place its power at the service of the rights of each
citizen, and in particular of the more vulnerable, the
very foundations of a state based on law are
undermined. . . . As a consequence of the respect and
protection which must be ensured for the unborn
child from the moment of conception, the law must
provide appropriate penal sanctions for every
deliberate violation of the child’s rights.”

A careful reading of these paragraphs reveals that the Church is
suggesting a philosophy of law regarding abortion, the Church is not
suggesting specific provisions that must be included in the law. For
example, the state could adopt a provision that abortion is acceptable if
the life of the baby and/or the mother is endangered without running
foul of the guidance in the Catechism.

Now we get to the TECHNICAL SECTIONS on ABORTION IN the CATHOLIC
CATECHISM. Many of these are lifted directly from “Donum Vitae”, issued by the
Catholic Church in 1987.
(REPEAT) Section 2274 of the catechism again reaffirms that the “embryo must be
defended in its integrity, cared for, and healed, as far as possible, like any other
human being.” NOTE: In the context below, the technical meaning of the Catholic
word “licit” is roughly equivalent to “permissible”.
Prenatal diagnosis is morally PERMISSIBLE, “if it respects the life and integrity of
the embryo and the human fetus and is directed toward” its health and well-
being. The catechism cautions against the moral hazards of using ultrasounds to
determine if an abortion should be induced. The diagnosis of possible mental of
physical disabilities that are not life threatening should be a death sentence.

CCC 2274 Since it must be treated
from conception as a person, the
embryo must be defended in its
integrity, cared for, and healed, as far
as possible, like any other human
being.
NOTE: In the context below, the
technical meaning of the Catholic
word “licit” is roughly equivalent to
“permissible”.
Prenatal diagnosis is morally licit, “if it
respects the life and integrity of the
embryo and the human fetus and is
directed toward its safe-guarding
or healing as an individual. . . . It is
gravely opposed to the moral law
when this is done with the thought of
possibly inducing an abortion,
depending upon the results: a
diagnosis must not be the equivalent
of a death sentence.”

(REPEAT) For emphasis, Section 2275 restates 2274 in a positive manner,
“One must hold as PERMISSIBLE procedures carried out on the human embryo
which respect the life and integrity of the embryo,” without undue risk, for “its
healing,” and to improve its health and its chances for survival.
Furthermore, this sections states “it is immoral to produce human embryos
intended for exploitation as disposable biological material,” and discourages
EUGENIC procedures that are primarily therapeutic, but rather seek to manipulate
the sex or tinker with inherited characteristics.
“Such manipulations are contrary to the personal dignity of the human being and
his integrity and identity” which are unique and unrepeatable.
In other words, no super baby mutants are allowed.

CCC 2275 “One must hold as licit
procedures carried out on the human
embryo which respect the life and
integrity of the embryo and do not
involve disproportionate risks for it, but
are directed toward its healing the
improvement of its condition of health,
or its individual survival.”
“It is immoral to produce human
embryos intended for exploitation as
disposable biological material.”
“Certain attempts to influence
chromosomic or genetic inheritance are
not therapeutic but are aimed at
producing human beings selected
according to sex or other
predetermined qualities. Such
manipulations are contrary to the
personal dignity of the human being
and his integrity and identity” which are
unique and unrepeatable.

As added commentary, it is very doubtful that Planned Parenthood or any other
medical office in America “produces human embryos intended for exploitation as
disposable biological material,” you may not agree with what they are doing, but for
the most part they are truly trying to help their patients, they are not bogeymen.
Way beyond the scope of my blog is the multitude of medical ethical issues
generated by stem cell research and the harvesting and resale of biological
materials both from corpses (and fetuses?) and other things modern medicine
makes possible. Pope Francis has already declared that vaccines are encouraged
although there are arguments there is minor use of stem cells in this research.
FYI, there are actually medical factories out there that handle this ghoulish stuff,
complete with cost accounting software and bio-medical waste disposal. However,
these medical factories save the lives and improve the health of countless patients.
Also, I have met several ladies who decided to conceive by in-vitro fertilization,
which the Catholic Church discourages. Where else will the knowledge in our
Pandora’s box of modern medicine lead us tomorrow?

DOES THE CHURCH PERMIT FLEXIBILITY?
Why doesn’t the Catholic Catechism include a paragraph that simply says that abortion is
permitted when the life of the baby and/or the mother is endangered? And what about the
and/or? Should we say baby, or baby and mother, or can we abort if only the mother’s life is
endangered? (Dear Gentle Reader, Dear Somewhat Gentle Mom, In this blog we will only ask
these questions, we will not answer them.)
We do know it is human nature to take advantage of loopholes when we can. Perhaps the Church
did not want to wave a flag about such loopholes, even if they exist. This is purely speculation on
my part.

We all know that before Confession we should examine our life and come up with a list of sins,
and it is good to come up with a list of sins, but if the priest asks you a general question like, Were
you unkind to anyone this week? Did you say anything hurtful or slanderous? Did you think any
impure thoughts? Possibly the two best answers are YES, and I DO NOT KNOW. How could you
know you were sinless? Not only should we confess the sins we remember, but also the sins we
do not remember, and we should confess our sinful nature, and our general schmuckiness.
Likewise, abortion for any reason is always horrible. Taking away the life of another human being
is always horrible. Right or wrong, justified or not justified, abortion is not only horrible, it is also
traumatic. A compassionate priest will console the trauma. Why torture yourself with
blame? Any time a life is taken, even when this is done to save life rather than to lose a life, you
should confess and do penance.

We can also be certain that anti-abortion activists who shoot doctors at abortion clinics
are certainly murderers:
https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2016/04/planned-parenthood-
shooter/477825/

SHOULD THE STATE MANDATE RELIGIOUS MORALS?
Can the state mandate religious morals? Should the state mandate religious morals?
How about murder, rape, theft, fraud, and slander? Most modern states forbid such behaviors,
with no push-back, and action can be taken in both criminal and civil courts. And priests and
preachers can scold at will.
How about adultery? Most lawyers today have only practiced under the no-fault divorce laws,
but nobody in the legal profession ever wants to go back to the days when accusations of
adultery were slung back and forth in divorce proceedings. But the priests and preachers are
free to scold at will.
How about drinking? The temperance movement a hundred years ago railed about demon
alcohol, mad hoop-skirt women took axes to barrels of liquor, so the Prohibition constitutional
amendment passed. For thirteen years there was no beer, no wine, no liquor, but instead there
were gangsters, shoot-outs, speak-easies, prostitution, deaths from alcohol poisoning, and
people just tired of the chaos and mayhem and longed for legal beer. So another constitutional
amendment repealed Prohibition, and then came the New Deal, happy times were here
again. But priests and preachers are free to scold anyone who will listen.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/12/the-things-we-cant-face/600769/
How about abortion? Should the
states allow abortion? Or should it
be mother’s choice? Regardless,
priests, preachers, and all
Christians should actively
discourage abortion.
The problem is when you close the
abortion clinics, many young
pregnant mothers will try to abort
on their own. If they try aborting
with a coat hanger, or with Lysol,
which was and is a common
practice, they can die a horrible
death.

This is not as much of a problem as in decades past. Dr Google knows everything,
and if the pregnant mother asks Dr Google what drug and dosage they should take
to abort their baby, Dr Google will tell them without a twinge of guilt. This is much
safer than using Lysol and coat hangers, but the question remains, should these
ladies be this immense risk on their own with no doctor in sight?

Certainly, when practical, the state can mandate that young mothers
considering abortion receive personal information from someone not
formally connected to the abortion clinic about the downsides of
abortion.
It certainly is highly hypocritical for a Deep South state to ban abortion
when their social safety net is shredded and threadbare, if they refuse to
integrate Medicaid with Obamacare, if they restrict food stamps and
nutritional counseling, if they have no child-care assistance for working
mothers, if they refuse to pay a living minimum wage and decent
unemployment benefits. Forcing the desperately poor to make
draconian decisions because nobody will help them definitely is not
compassionate.

SHOULD THE STATE MANDATE MEDICAL DECISIONS?
Many people argue that abortion should be permitted in those very rare cases
where the fetus will not be viable and will live for at best a day or two after they
are born. Ask any doctor, there are a few incredibly grotesque birth defects that
have been seen in any practice, the ancient sources refer to them as monsters.
Most of the time the body self-aborts these non-viable fetuses. Up to 20% of
pregnancies end in miscarriage.
Many doctors suggest abortion for the rare viruses like Zika and Rubella that are
absolutely devastating to the fetus.
Sometimes the mother’s life is in danger, sometimes both the baby’s life and the
mother’s life is in danger if there is no abortion. Sometimes you can predict such
mortality with near 100% accuracy. More often there is a continuum, the doctor
can only predict a high or higher certainty of mortality.

Whatever your opinion of Roe v Wade, an informed opinion is
preferable to ignorance, so we will review the history of this
decision.
Roe v Wade was decided in 1973, following the tumultuous
Sixties, a decade of political and cultural change. The birth
control pill had just been invented, soon one of five women
were on the pill, this was the decade of Woodstock and free
love. Betty Friedan’s book The Feminine Mystique was a
bestseller.

Many years later Friedan recalled that many
women called her out of the blue after
reading her book, telling her: “Your book
changed my whole life, I decided to go back
to school, I decided I would be more than a
secretary, I told my husband you’re not the
only one around here that counts. I’m a
person too.” Every person has dignity.

The Equal Rights Amendment was passed by Congress with an overwhelming
majority, but was never ratified by the necessary number of states, since it was
challenged by many evangelical activists.
New York surprised the nation by passing a liberal abortion law. State Senator
Albert Lewis later revealed why he had voted for the bill. Recently he Had been in
the emergency room and watched a sixteen year-old daughter of a constituent die
from a botched illegal abortion. While she was delirious and dying in her mother’s
arms the police were badgering her to give up the name of the abortionist. Senator
Lewis chased the police from the hospital room so she could die in peace.

ROE V WADE SUPREME COURT DECISION
Jane Roe was a pseudonym to protect the privacy of Norma McCorvey. Norma met two young
attorneys, Linda Coffee and Sarah Weddington, at an Italian restaurant. They told Norma it was
unlikely that her case would be heard in time for her abortion, so she gave up the child for
adoption, but agreed to allow them to argue her case. Weddington sympathized, while
attending law school she and her boyfriend had driven to Mexico for a secret abortion.
Norma was not exactly a paradigm of virtue. She was already six months pregnant; she could not
work so she drank and smoked dope. She had already given up two prior children for
adoption. She was dead broke and did not feel any attachment to the thing growing inside of
her. After giving birth she drank and became more depressed, swallowing dozens of pills to end
it all.
Years later Norma was saved and became an ardent pro-life anti-abortion activist, later
converting to Catholicism, and received many honorarium speaking fees while she traveled the
country as a pro-life activist. Shortly before her death she recanted, claiming her conversion was
an act, that she was paid for her activism. What we can learn from this is Norma was just an
ordinary person with little education trying to keep her head above water who may have been
overwhelmed by the notoriety swirling around her.

Jane Roe’s attorney Weddington
answered, “We do not ask the
court to rule that abortion is
good, or desirable in any
particular situation. We are
here to advocate that the
decision as to whether or not a
particular woman will continue
to carry or will terminate a
pregnancy is a decision that
should be made by that
individual.” Weddington argued
the other extreme, that women
should have the right to choose
up until the time of birth.
When Roe v Wade was being argued before the Supreme Court, the attorney
representing Texas argued that personhood began at conception. The justices asked
if abortion should always be legal, no matter how advanced the pregnancy.

REVIEWING THE ACTUAL ROE V. WADE SUPREME COURT OPINION
Harry Blackmun first reviewed the history of abortion in his opinion, which is not difficult to read:
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/410/113/
Supreme Court Justice Harry Blackmun

Blackmun was well aware of how sensitive the abortion issue
was to believers:
“We acknowledge our awareness of the sensitive and
emotional nature of the abortion controversy, of the vigorous
opposing views, even among physicians, and of the deep and
seemingly absolute convictions that the subject inspires.
One’s philosophy, one’s experiences, one’s exposure to the
raw edges of human existence, one’s religious training, one’s
attitudes toward life and family and their values, and the
moral standards one establishes and seeks to observe, are all
likely to influence and to color one’s thinking and conclusions
about abortion.” (2)
Blackmun resolves that:
“Our task, of course, is to resolve the issue by constitutional
measurement, free of emotion and of predilection.” (4)

(REPEAT)
Blackmun reviewed the ancient and modern history of abortion. Although abortion, and also
exposure of unwanted infants to the wolves and wild animals, was commonly practiced by many
Greeks and Romans, abortion was expressly forbidden by the Hippocratic Medical Oath, and was
forbidden by both the Pythagoreans and the Christians, they both believed that life began at
conception. However, many Stoics and Rabbis believed that life begins at birth. (35-36,92, and
footnotes) (Please note that Roe v. Wade was decided before the issuance by the Catholic
Church of Donum Vitae, 1987, and the Catholic Catechism, 1990.)
Under common law abortion was generally permitted before the quickening of the fetus through
the middle of the nineteenth century. Due to the risks of abortion procedures, after this the
intent of the laws forbidding abortions was to protect the health of the mother. (45-46)
Blackmun notes that while modern medicine has made abortions performed by physicians as
safe as childbirth itself, illegal abortion mills have a high mortality rate.(72) The unborn is not
considered a person under the Fourteenth Amendment.(88) – I wish to emphasize, this is a
statement of legal precedent, as was not by Blackmun to be a moral statement.

HISTORY OF ABORTION
• Abortion was forbidden by the
Hippocratic Medical Oath.
• Pythagorean philosophers and
Christians believed that life began at
conception.
• Many Stoic philosophers and Rabbis
believed that life begins at birth.
• Under common law, abortion was
permitted before the quickening of
the fetus through the 1800’s.
• Historically, laws forbidding
abortions intended to protect the
health of the mother.
• Illegal abortion mills have a high
mortality rate. The unborn is not
considered a person under the
Fourteenth Amendment precedents.
Hippocrates Visiting Democritus, an early Greek
scientific philosopher who proposed the atomic
theory of matter, by Nicolaes Moeyaert,
painted 1636. His patients are on the hill above.

SUPREME COURT DECISIONS AFTER ROW V. WADE
Many, many cases on abortion have been appealed to the Supreme
Court in the decades following Roe v. Wade. The trimester distinctions
are no longer in effect, states are permitted to enact regulations
restricting abortion, as long as these regulations “do not place an undue
burden on the right to abortion” as previously decided. In particular, the
Hyde Amendment, prohibiting Medicaid from reimbursing the cost of
abortions unless there is rape or incest or the health of the mother is in
danger, has been upheld by the Supreme Court.

PLANNED PARENTHOOD
Yes, Planned Parenthood is politically dedicated to making abortion affordable and
available to every lady regardless of their situation. No, most their budget is spent
not on abortion but on general pre-natal care, because currently federal funds
cannot be used for abortions unless the mother’s or baby’s life is in danger.
There is much misinformation about Planned Parenthood, but this is most certainly
true: people who work at Planned Parenthood are not bogeymen. And no, just
because I am so bold as to suggest that compassion is in order, I can also affirm
that KILLING BABIES IS IMMORAL.

This is a good article if you want to learn about the internal moral conflicts that divide the
Planned Parenthood movement, and NO, they are not bogeywomen:
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/05/cecile-richards-legacy/559781/

WHAT ARE MY PERSONAL BELIEFS ABOUT ABORTION?
As Justice Blackmun notes, abortion is an issue that blooms extreme positions by both pro-life and
pro-choice advocates. Abortion is truly a moral tar baby. If you do not touch the tar baby and
only glance at its outward appearances from twenty feet away, you can yell and scream and shout
and maybe even shoot at those who do the evil deed on Facebook and Twitter and on the
abortion picket lines.
But if you dare to ponder this moral tar baby called abortion, and one arm then another, then one
leg then another, and educating yourself and pondering and praying about all the sticky morass of
moral issues, you will never get free of this moral tar baby, it will be harder to condemn, but easier
to feel and show compassion towards those unfortunate mothers who must make this awful
decision, and then who must live with their decision.
However, if any of my pro-choice friends invite me to participate in an abortion clinic picket line, I
will politely find something else better to do, I think I will pass. I do not enjoy tormenting people.

SUMMARY OF MY PERSONAL BELIEFS
• I agree 100% (one hundred percent) with the Catholic teachings on abortion in the
catechism.
• The opposite of pro-life is pro-death, not pro-choice. I am uncomfortable with a radical,
in all cases, pro-choice position, but as a Christian I am always PRO-COMPASSION,
compassionate towards the unborn, the born, the mother, the doctors, the poor, the
sick, the family, and the low-income workers.
• Pro-life concerns DO NOT end at birth.
• Our Christian two-fold love of God and neighbor means we must be compassionate
towards those who face difficult decisions in their lives, even if we feel that they are
considering immoral actions.
• Abortion is always a personal moral decision. If the government permits mothers with
their doctors to make this decision when the mothers and/or children’s life is in danger,
this does not mean that the government seeks to kill babies.

SUMMARY OF MY PERSONAL BELIEFS (continued)
There are basically three scenarios:
1. The minority of the cases, less than 5%, where the life of the mother and/or the child is
DEFINITIVELY in danger if no abortion is performed.
My personal belief is that the doctors should be allowed to make professional judgements
without political and irrational interference, that this should be a JOINT choice between the
doctor and the mother. (Note: I do not address the implications of this and/or clause.)
2. A large minority of cases where the life of the mother and/or the child is PROBABLY in danger
if no abortion is performed.
My personal belief is that this should still be a JOINT choice between the doctor and the
mother, without any political interference into what is a medical decision, and if this is abused
by a liberal doctor, then that is a matter between him and Jesus.
3. The overwhelming majority of cases where the mother simply wants an abortion:
The Catechism clearly states that the state should be discouraged from enacting sweeping
pro-choice legislation when there are minimal health issues involved.
Some states may legislate radical pro-choice initiatives, as Christians have lost influence
politically, but Christians should always show COMPASSION, and ENCOURAGE DEMOCRACY.

The problem of abolishing abortion in the cases where there are no medical issues involved has
three scenarios:
1. WEALTHY WOMEN will always be able to choose abortion.
Just like it is always five o’clock somewhere, so also there will be somewhere where abortion is
legal, and wealthy women will always fly there to abort at will.
2. MIDDLE CLASS AND POOR WOMEN who know that Dr Google knows most everything, can ask
Dr Google how they can RELATIVELY safely self-abort. This was not true decades ago.
(But NOBODY should attempt an abortion on their own with no doctors around.)
3. MIDDLE CLASS AND POOR WOMEN who do not know about Dr Google will often endanger
their lives, and the lives of the unborn, using Lysol and coat hangers in efforts to abort.
When the mother is poor, perhaps black, she lives in a Bible-belt state with a social safety net
that is thin and shredded, this is highly hypocritical; in this scenario I would also be friendlier
to a pro-choice stance. The Lord would not favor anyone who would throw the first stone in
this scenario.

So, my personal belief is this: I am morally distressed about a pro-choice position where there are
minimal medical risks, but the reality is that there is room in our federal system for each state to
choose a position on the issue of when to permit abortions.
But, as a Christian, these steps are morally defensible. We should encourage mothers to continue
their pregnancies but refrain from beating them over the head with our judgmental attitudes.
• The government can require that mothers be informed about the consequences of their
actions; and be assured that it is their personal decision, by mandating education, sponsoring
support groups, and, in general, slowing the process down when there are no medical issues.
• Everyone, especially the poor and disadvantaged, should be guaranteed medical and pre-natal
care, and Medicaid should be integrated with Obamacare in all states.
• Everyone who works for a living should be ENTITLED to a living wage, a living minimum wage,
where they can afford to provide food, clothes and shelter to their families, living with dignity.
• College should be made affordable once again, students should not have to acquire massive
debt to pay off college tuition, nobody should be shut out of earning an education.
• Even when a democratic government permits a radical pro-choice policy, a true democracy is
always preferable to a totalitarian regime under a dictator.

If you were a Frenchman in the late 1930’s and voted solely on the issue of abortion, you would
have supported Vichy France. Vichy France was also rabidly pro-life and pro-Catholic. Vichy
France also collaborated with Hitler’s Nazi regime and helped send many French Jews to their
death in the concentration camps. After the war most French bishops were deposed.

Many Christians seem to believe that Democrats are evil if they are pro-
choice, and that our American Democracy should be overthrown and
replaced with a more totalitarian evangelical Christian regime that
would guarantee that the government would adopt the right position on
abortion, as can be seen by the tacit support of many white Christians of
the attempted insurrection of January 6th. This was an issue that has
been addressed by the Second Vatican Council, which warned that in
the long run the Church is safer under a democracy even when a secular
democracy may not always support the moral positions of the church.
Even when in the short run a totalitarian fascist regime is friendly to the
church, it cannot be trusted, and can turn on church without any
recourse.

SOURCES: If you wish to read some histories of abortion, Abortion Rites, a standard
history, and Abortion in America are good choices. We did not use them for this
video because the opinion of Roe v Wade offers such a succinct history that we did
not need to consult these sources. Abortion in America basically used the same
sources as the first book, but added additional Christian sources for a more balanced
perspective. We learn in these books that the early history of abortion is difficult to
summarize since there are fifty state legal histories involved. And they documented
the early acceptance in the first century of American history of the position that
abortion was acceptable only before the quickening of the fetus.

The book Abortion in America documented the hypocritical position of many
Christians that wanted to deny abortion to young single mothers, but then
persecute and not support these fallen women and their children for the poor moral
choice of the mother. This is analogous to our modern hypocrisy, where the Bible
belt states who want to abolish abortion are also the states that offer the least
amount of medical care, the lowest wages, and fewest benefits to indigent mothers
and their children.
The Catholic Catechism is my primary source for this video, you can also access it
online, and the affordable Compendium, which provide many of the Bible verses
and more excerpts and sometimes the complete works that are referenced in the
Catechism.
This book on the history of Roe v Wade, and the Roe v Wade opinion itself are also
excellent sources. And also the Great Courses and Wondrium courses include many
excellent lectures on the history of the major Supreme Court decisions.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/410/113/
Supreme Court Justice Harry Blackmun

https://amzn.to/3CbAmyF

STORIES ABOUT WOMEN OR DOCTORS ABOUT ABORTIONS
In this final section of my blog I sifted through some of the women’s and doctor’s
personal stories on the internet. My purpose is not to support any pro-life or pro-
choice political arguments, there are stories on both sides, and I tried to weed out
the polemic and manufactured stories.
My purpose is not to judge anyone about the correctness of their choices. My
purpose is to provoke compassion over these very difficult and heart-rendering
situations. In some stories the women regretted their choices, in some stories the
women grieved their difficult choices, in some stories the doctors tell us of the
conundrums they face, and some stories you may not like. But there is one fact in
common in all these stories: they are all about real, live, breathing, sensitive human
beings who have suffered much. People we know or encounter who suffer through
similar trials need to be treated with dignity and compassion.

Link to blog: https://wp.me/pachSU-qn

The YouTube description links to the video script and our blog.
Please support our channel by sharing this video with your friends, and
by clicking the LIKE and subscribe buttons, and by clicking on the
Amazon links to purchase any of the books we discussed, and please
consider becoming a patron of our channel.
And please click on the links for interesting videos on other topics
that will broaden your knowledge and improve your soul.

To find the source of any direct
quotes in this blog, please type in
the phrase to the search box in
my blog to see the referenced
footnote.
YouTube Description has links for:
• Script PDF file
• Blog
• Amazon Bookstore
© Copyright 2021
Blog and YouTube Description
include links for Amazon books
and lectures mentioned, please
support our channel with these
affiliate commissions.
Link to blog: https://wp.me/pachSU-qn

Christian Democrat Ponders Morality of Abortion Decisions

More Related Content

More from Reflections on Morality, Philosophy, and History (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Christian Democrat Ponders Morality of Abortion Decisions