Following is a forum post I made on January 9, 2007 as a rebuttal to another post.
I’m a bit surprised that none of you replied to this post of drifting_along. Before I begin, let me state that I did see drifting_along’s disclaimer that (s)he is not pro-choice.
(1) As only women can get pregnant, and therefore only women have abortions, a male legislator has no right to vote on an abortion-related law.
The Catholic Church, by virtue of its divinely appointed authority and moral infallibility, has every right (indeed, is obligated) to make pronouncements on moral matters as grave as abortion. A Catholic legislator, whether male or female, ought to be free to vote according to his or her conscience.
(2) If abortion is made illegal, some women will still try to obtain abortions illegally, and many are likely to end up at back-alley butchers or attempt to perform abortions on themselves and suffer serious injury.
Abortions are already unhealthy for women. Consider, for example, the causal link between abortion and breast cancer, and other damages done to the female body. Furthermore, arguments of this nature try to draw focus solely to the women, and, horrifically, ignore the grave matter of the murder of human beings.
(3) Opposition to abortion is based on religious beliefs. A fundamental principle of American democracy is that no one can impose their religious beliefs on others. Therefore, there should not be any laws against abortion.
First, consider the counterexample of the Athiest and Agnostic Pro-Life League. Wholly non-theist individuals — who are against abortion. From their site: “…life is all there is and all that matters, and abortion destroys the life of an innocent human being.” “…pro-choicers don’t wish to confront, that maybe, just maybe, those “fetuses” really are human beings.” Opposition to abortion is NOT solely based on religious beliefs.
Second: Where Church and state clash, it is the STATE that must give way. Too many people all too quickly assume that when the Church points out the moral error of the state, that it is the Church butting into the affairs of the state. On the contrary, it is the state which is trespassing onto the moral domain of the Church! The state must keep to its proper domain: administration of social programmes, taxation, military operations, economics, politics, and so on.
The laws of a democratic country ought to reflect, uphold and manifest the collective beliefs, morals and ethics of its citizens. If a nation is anti-life, then let there be anti-life laws. But if the nation is pro-life, then let the laws demonstrate and enforce this.
Ideally, of course, a nation’s laws should be in perfect harmony with God’s laws and commandments.
(4) Laws against abortion are an attempt to impose one particular theory, the theory that life begins at conception. But what about people who believe other ideas? Why should they be forced to forced to abide by this one theory?
This is a double-edged sword. We can easily state also: “Laws for abortion are an attempt to impose one particular theory, the theory that life begins at some point after conception… why should we be forced to abide by this one theory?” Those who have most power to shape the laws of the country are behooved to exercise the greatest responsibility in ensuring that the greatest good is achieved and protected. A healthy society can never flourish by accepting “murder out of convenience”.
(5) No one can be sure when human life really begins. As long as there is doubt, as long as we cannot be sure that abortion is killing a human being, it is a morally acceptable option.
I do not doubt, and have no uncertainty. I shall do what I can to stop the uncertain people from killing others. Furthermore, I believe morality is absolute, not [personally] relative. Therefore, a person’s uncertainty on an issue has zero bearing on the actual rightness or wrongness of an act.
(6) The question is not whether abortion is right or wrong, but, Who decides? The individual woman, or the government? If you’re opposed to abortion, don’t have one, but don’t try to impose your morality on others. Abortion is a personal choice between a woman and her doctor.
That’s about as sensible as saying the morality of a mugging is between the mugger and the old lady. Or the morality of theft is between the bank and the robber. Or: “If you’re opposed to beheading children, then don’t behead children. But don’t try to impose your morality on others. Beheading is a personal choice between a parent and his or her child.” Society is made up of a people in UNITY, that CARE for and about one another, it is not merely a geographic proximity of apathetic, egocentric individuals. And I happen to care about the children, about the infants, about the fetuses, even if the mothers do not.
(7) No one has a right to oppose abortion unless they are prepared to provide pre-natal care and other forms of support needed by woman with unwanted pregancies, including providing homes for pregnant
These forms of support do exist. As well, this argument seems to be stating that the hardships of pregnancy and child care trump the life of a human being. I fiercely disagree. Human life and its preservation is exceedingly more important than the difficulties of the mother and the trials of parenthood.
(8) Pro-lifers are hypocritical: They say they oppose abortion because they believe life is sacred, but then they support capital punishment.
The Catholic Church states that
If non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.
Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity “are very rare, if not practically nonexistent.”
Meaning to say, it cannot be argued that the Catholic Church is even slightly in favour of capital punishment.
(9) If abortion is outlawed, more unwanted children will be born, and these children are likely to be abused or neglected. It is better for such children to never be born than to live such a miserable existence.
Miserable existence is bad, but murder is worse. Rather, let us reform society so that every child can be welcomed into the world by loving, capable parents.
(10) Even if abortion is not justified in most situations, it is justified in cases of rape. (11) What about girls who are victims of incest? How can you force such a girl to go through the ordeal of carrying such a pregnancy to term?
The child should not be punished for the sin or crime of her father. If a man commits a sin, should a woman have the legal right to murder his 5-year-old son? Of course not! And neither should she be permitted to murder her 8-week-old child in her womb. Of course rape and incest are horrible things which should not be condoned in the slightest. But both the child and the mother need as much support as possible from family, friends and community. They do not need to be attacked even further by attempts to murder the child.
Furthermore, rape and incest combine as the reason for less than 1.5% of all abortions. So, even if they were legitimate reasons (which they are not), for every 1 “legitimate” abortion, more than 66 horrors would be committed against humanity.
Share This
Comment by eikonoklastes — June 19, 2007 @ 04:51
(1) “The Catholic Church, by virtue of its divinely appointed authority and moral infallibility, has every right (indeed, is obligated) to make pronouncements on moral matters…”
If the Church does indeed have divinely appointed authority and moral infallibility as you suggest then the decisions of the Church must be absolute and unchanging. The decisions of the church have changed all throughout history — from the time of Galileo though to today ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/28/AR2007042800831.html ) as better knowledge (from Science) has been acquired. Note also that the Vatican-appointed panel’s report is quoted (in the linked article) as saying, “We emphasize that these are reasons for prayerful hope, rather than grounds for sure knowledge, ” and they are stating quite plainly that their decision is not based sure knowledge. How can they fail to have sure knowledge of what happens to unbaptized infants, but they can have absolute certainty when the soul enters the body (at conception).
Comment by eikonoklastes — June 19, 2007 @ 04:55
(2) If abortion is made illegal, some women will still try to obtain abortions illegally
“arguments of this nature try to draw focus solely to the women, and, horrifically, ignore the grave matter of the murder of human beings”
Arguments against abortion tend to focus solely on the rights of the newly-conceived and ignore the rights and needs of the woman. Really, if you’re going to say an argument is one-sided then be sure to consider both sides.
Comment by eikonoklastes — June 19, 2007 @ 04:57
(3) Opposition to abortion is based on religious beliefs. A fundamental principle of American democracy is that no one can impose their religious beliefs on others. Therefore, there should not be any laws against abortion.
“Where Church and state clash, it is the STATE that must give way. Too many people all too quickly assume that when the Church points out the moral error of the state, that it is the Church butting into the affairs of the state.”
Abortion is a medical procedure. Medicine is based on Science. Medicine affects all citizens of a country regardless of Religion and so should not be based on the teachings of one Religion.
Comment by eikonoklastes — June 19, 2007 @ 05:05
(4) Laws against abortion are an attempt to impose one particular theory
“This is a double-edged sword. We can easily state also: “Laws for abortion are an attempt to impose one particular theory”
You can say that, but it simply isn’t true. Laws allowing abortion do not mandate that anyone — whether they are religious or not — should or must have an abortion. Said another way, anyone is free to not have an abortion even if there is a law allowing abortion. Conversely, a law which prevents abortion does prevent those who choose to have an abortion. It has been said that the test for a just law is whether the law takes rights away from everyone equally. Those who do not want abortion (for religious reasons or non-religious reasons) were always free to not have an abortion, so if it were outlawed then only those who would chose to have an abortion have their rights restricted.
This is one of the biggest problems with anti-abortion legislation: there is no need for such legislation to prevent abortion because those who do not want it are completely free not to do it. Anyone who supports such legislation is transparently attempting to restrict the rights of others.
Comment by eikonoklastes — June 19, 2007 @ 05:11
The Catholic Church states that
“the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity “are very rare, if not practically nonexistent.”
Pistos: “Meaning to say, it cannot be argued that the Catholic Church is even slightly in favour of capital punishment.”
My reply: You have quoted the Church as saying that “execution is necessary in rare cases” and then you turn around and say that the Church does not even slightly favour capital punishment. Maybe you should go back and read what you quoted again, because I’ve paraphrased it as, “execution is necessary in rare cases,” and that is undeniably in favour of capital punishment, albeit in rare cases.
Comment by eikonoklastes — June 19, 2007 @ 05:14
(9) If abortion is outlawed, more unwanted children will be born, and these children are likely to be abused or neglected. It is better for such children to never be born than to live such a miserable existence.
“let us reform society so that every child can be welcomed into the world by loving, capable parents.”
The energy you spend fighting against abortion would be far better spent creating a world of loving capable parents. I would support such actions warmly, and would even consider giving my own money to help.
Comment by eikonoklastes — June 19, 2007 @ 05:35
(10) Even if abortion is not justified in most situations, it is justified in cases of rape.
“But both the child and the mother need as much support as possible from family, friends and community. They do not need to be attacked even further by attempts to murder the child.”
I hate to stoop to demagoguery because I think it weakens my argument, but the debate has already jumped into this territory and so I’ll respond in kind: if you could stop looking at the mother as a simple vessel for the bearing of children and start looking at her as a woman who is allowed to control her own life then you would see how awful it is to compound the horror of rape by forcing her to bear her rapist’s child. I suspect you don’t really want to support rape in this way, but you’re forced to have an absolute view on abortion by your Church so you are unable to make an exception where one is clearly justified.
“Furthermore, rape and incest combine as the reason for less than 1.5% of all abortions. So, even if they were legitimate reasons (which they are not), for every 1 “legitimate” abortion, more than 66 horrors would be committed against humanity.”
Even if some mothers are making a mistake by having an abortion how would that mean a victim of rape is also making the same mistake?
Comment by eikonoklastes — June 19, 2007 @ 05:45
“I’m a bit surprised that none of you replied to this post of drifting_along. Before I begin, let me state that I did see drifting_along’s disclaimer that (s)he is not pro-choice.”
After reading her (I get the distinct impression that she is female) post I conclude that she either fully supports the right to choose abortion or supports it in her heart, but can’t reconcile it with her belief in a church (a perfect example of Cognitive Dissonance). I’m sure you got the same impression and that you responded accordingly, but I wonder why you stopped short of saying you don’t believe she is pro-choice?
Comment by Pistos — June 25, 2007 @ 12:51
eikonos: Thanks for stopping by. My apologies for the much-delayed responses to follow.
Catholic apologists have constantly stressed that only dogma and doctrine are not subject to change. What can change are disciplines and practices, as well as theological opinions and theories about topics upon which there have not been formal pronouncements.
Although biased jeerers might get a tickle about such things as recent announcements about limbo, Catholic apologists are quick to point out the non-dogmatic character of these. In the very article you cited (emphasis mine):
As I mentioned in my comments elsewhere, the Church was not intended to be inerrant in scientific understanding. Neither does it declare itself to be so. Scientific blunders on the part of clergy or devoted laity have no bearing on the authority and infallibility of the Church in matters of faith and morals.
The Church was never intended to have omniscience from start to finish. Truths are revealed over time, and the Church’s understanding of various things also matures.
So, yes, doctrine and dogma are absolute and unchanging once formally defined. Other churches and religions might reverse decisions or go back on themselves in dogmatic contradiction, but the Catholic Church never has, and I believe it never will.
Comment by Pistos — June 25, 2007 @ 13:04
I completely agree. That’s why there are such things as crisis pregnancy centres. Such centres are there to help BOTH the mother and the child. Mothers are given love, support, and in some cases even money, lodging and employment search education and assistance.
Comment by Pistos — June 25, 2007 @ 13:18
Since medicine deals with life, health and death, it will have occasion to set foot into the domains of morality and ethics. The Church is not justified in making declarations purely for scientific argumentation, backed by purely scientific reasons. It can only address the ethicality of scientific endeavours made by people.
Whatever the religion or beliefs of each individual, I think it is only fitting for the citizens of a country to enter into peaceful dialogue about crucial issues that affect society, so that everyone interested can make maximally-informed decisions on what legislation and government initiatives to support.
Comment by Pistos — June 25, 2007 @ 13:24
Your argument about laws for and laws against being an imposition or not on the aborters or non-aborters is logical. However, the fetuses have a right to life, and laws allowing abortion brazenly strip these children of that right. I do not have any more right to abort my unborn child than I do to kill my young daughter.
Comment by Pistos — June 25, 2007 @ 13:43
If you wish to argue about shades of grey, I will not resist. I rephrase myself to:
The Catholic Church is so against capital punishment in this modern age that the cases in which it would favour it would be microscopic in number compared to those in which it would oppose it.
Comment by Pistos — June 25, 2007 @ 13:47
I think the two are advances in the same direction.
Comment by Pistos — June 25, 2007 @ 13:58
The rape is indeed a horror, and I would even agree that being reminded about being raped is terrible too, but that horrific action is not the child’s fault. If the lady would like to give the child up for adoption, that’s also an option for her. That way, she wouldn’t have to “be reminded” after delivery.
If two parents are fighting about something, neither one has a right to take it out on their child (yelling, beating), because the child has had no hand in the problem.
The child is in need of love from the instant it is alive (conception), and if anyone has a responsibility to love the child, it’s the parents. It would be an act of love at least to carry the child to term, if not also to continue to care for it beyond that.
Comment by Pistos — June 25, 2007 @ 14:01
Well, to be perfectly honest, I simply took her words at face value. If she says that she isn’t, then that’s what I believe. I believe people until I find reason to begin to diminish my trust.
The simple solution would be to straight out ask her.
Comment by eikonoklastes — June 25, 2007 @ 14:39
In your responses you conflate the killing of children with the aborting of fetuses. You won’t find a sane person among people who believe that woman can choose to have an abortion who also believes that killing children is acceptable. Also, killing a baby that is nearly due to be born is not acceptable. The point of this discussion is not the killing of children since we all can agree that is murder. However, while aborting a fetus that has not yet developed is certainly not something to be done lightly, in certain circumstances — such as rape, medical complications and so on — it is a choice that a woman can make. You must agree that from a purely medical, scientific point of view, a recently-conceived fetus is not a person.
I recognize that you subscribe to the religious perspective and you think that the soul enters the egg at the instant of conception. (Is that a part of absolute dogma, or merely a theological hypothesis?) In this story, Sanju Bhagat’s brother was conceived and thus possessed a soul, so his death was a murder. Was his murderer his brother, the doctor or do they share an equal burden? http://abcnews.go.com/Primetime/story?id=2346476&page=1
Comment by Pistos — June 28, 2007 @ 19:49
As we have discussed in IRC, the crux of the matter between us is just when is a person a person. I do not see how “a purely medical and scientific point of view” can show me that a recently conceived fetus is not a person. Can you walk me through the line of reasoning there? I have actually begun researching a bit more on this matter, and will be making another blog post in the near future on scientific reasons for the humanity of the embryo.
I’ve done some brief research, but have been unable to determine what the official teaching of the Church is on the point of ensoulment. However, the Catechism of the Catholic Church has a number of clear statements to make in its section on the fifth commandment, “Thou shall not kill” (emphasis mine):
(from p 2270)
(from p 2274)
We may be able to conclude by implication that the Church teaches that ensoulment occurs at conception.
I am in no position to make a definitive moral judgement on the nature of the actions of the parties involved in the case of Sanju Bhagat’s brother. However, my own personal musings are thus: If the brother’s presence in Sanju’s body were life threatening to Sanju, I might guess that it is morally licit for them to have excised the brother or whatever parts of him were threatening Sanju’s life. This probably falls under the same principle of double effect which permits the side effect of the death of the fetus in the case of an ectopic pregnancy which endangers the mother’s life.
If, however, the brother’s presence were not life threatening, and did not pose a serious threat to the health of Sanju, then we might suppose that the surgeon is responsible for the death of the brother. If Sanju were conscious, fully informed of the nature of the situation, and had given consent to the excision, then he too would be guilty.
Certainly, a bizarre case. I’d be interested to hear what Catholic ethicists would have to say about it.
Comment by eikonoklastes — June 29, 2007 @ 04:06
Sanju’s case is quite bizarre, but I think that any worldview (Religous or otherwise) must have a reasonable answer for the edge cases as it does for the mainstream cases. I basically agree with your assessment of it, with one difference which I’ll get to.
As a brief aside, I’ve not actually heard of the principle of double effect before, but I’ve thought about the idea and having a name for it is like an epiphany. I think it’s key here.
Would you agree that abortion is acceptable in the case of ectopic pregnancy? I have assumed that you would accept abortion under absolutely no circumstances. That’s the whole reason I bring up rape; to find a case where the woman’s right to terminate her pregnancy supersedes the rights of the fetus and thus prove that it isn’t an absolute issue, but an issue where there are some shades of grey.
The reason I don’t see the Sanju case as murder is that I consider the ‘brother’ to be living, but not conscious and not able to survive on his own. When I said “purely medical and scientific point of view” that’s what I meant: conscious and able to survive. The ability to survive is a simple, empirical test. Consciousness isn’t so simple, but I propose that being able to act in response to stimulus is a reasonable test. In short, I do not consider the brother to be a human and thus his death is not murder.
I apply the same criteria to a fetus. I do not consider a fertilized egg to be a human, but I do consider a fetus that can kick or move on its own to be human and I would consider abortion at that time to be murder. I don’t know at what exact point the fetus becomes a human, but we should err on the side of caution and abortion should not be allowed when we’re not sure.
I don’t actually like abortion because I think it is killing a living entity, however I think there are cases where the principle of double effect allows it shortly after conception. Killing a non-conscious living fetus is acceptable when the mother’s life is in danger, when the fetus will have serious medical problems, when the mother has been raped and perhaps in other cases. The question becomes: when both choices are bad, which one is not quite as bad?
Comment by Pistos — June 29, 2007 @ 14:20
I did a brief google the other night for “catholic fetus in fetu” and this gives some links. I didn’t bother reading any of them in depth. You might look into it, if you’re interested.
My understanding is that abortion as a direct, intended goal is never morally acceptable. The death of the fetus in the case of an ectopic pregnancy is permissible on account of the goal of the action being saving of the mother’s life via excision of the fetus, but it is not a “direct” abortion. Some might say the argument is further strengthened because the fetus cannot survive in the ectopic location anyway, but I’m not sure it’s necessary to bring that fact to bear on the moral considerations.
Pro-lifers argue that this isn’t a strong argument because infants cannot survive without adult human care, either. Thus, they argue, this cannot be used as a criterion to determine humanity (assuming we consider infants human).
I am pleasantly surprised by this statement, and I applaud you on having this stance.
As I’ve attempted to bring out, assuming an embryo is human from the instant of conception, protection of its life is of great importance. We also seem to agree that once an embryo or fetus is considered human, it is wrong in all cases to directly abort its life. For you, the “choices” only come up for the timespan during which you are certain the embryo or fetus is not a human being.
Comment by eikonoklastes — June 29, 2007 @ 15:47
Abortion in the case of ectopic pregnancy is still abortion; claiming otherwise is semantics. It is an abortion because the mother and/or doctor has chosen to end the life of the fetus.
Pro-lifers argue that [being able to survive] isn’t a strong argument because infants cannot survive without adult human care, either.
The difference is that infants can survive with care, but a fetus may not even survive when hooked up to advanced life support machines.
assuming an embryo is human from the instant of conception
On what basis do you assume this? A fetus has the potential to become a human, but it isn’t yet. A walnut has the potential to become a tree, but eating a walnut isn’t cutting down a tree.
Comment by Pistos — July 2, 2007 @ 20:30
Regardless of what you call it, the fetus dies when excised from its ectopic position. I’ve already gone over why this is considered permissible.
The problem I see there is that we’re defining human life based on the level of our technology. That seems askew. Would the self-same fetus have been inhuman in 600 AD, but human in 2000 AD?
For me personally, it seems to be the more obvious thing to assume. As you said, where we’re not sure, it would be wrong to be reckless with the possibilities. It would be like a SWAT team tossing a fragmentation grenade into a room to attack a terrorist while being unsure whether there is a hostage in the same room.
I also take it on the word of the Church. I am investigating other reasons, but I will discuss these in greater detail in a distinct, future blog post.
I see your point with the walnut and tree. At the same time, I don’t think we can compare a walnut/tree organism with a human.
You argue that the embryo is merely a biological aggregation of cells with potential to become a human. But a 2-year-old child is someone with the potential to be a 30-year-old woman. This potentiality doesn’t seem to me to be a strong argument against the humanity of the embryo.
Comment by eikonoklastes — July 3, 2007 @ 19:58
Regardless of what you call it, the fetus dies when excised from its ectopic position.
I’m not interested in playing semantic games with names — the procedure and the result is the same: the fetus has been aborted. We have now established that abortion is permissible when it is a medical necessity.
The problem I see there is that we’re defining human life based on the level of our technology. That seems askew.
Indeed it would be strange if I was defining human life based on our current level of technology but I am not. At first I said that a fetus becomes a human when it is able to survive on its own (and when it is able to react to stimulus). You replied that my survival test was invalid because a baby also requires care to survive. I replied that a fetus would not be able to survive even with the aid of advanced medical equipment. I should have clarified my original point by saying that a baby can survive with the normal amount of care that any organism might provide for its offspring, but a fetus cannot and thus my original test is valid.
For me personally, it seems to be the more obvious thing to assume.
Unfortunately, “obvious assumptions” are no way to support your position, especially when your assumptions are not obvious to me at all.
I also take it on the word of the Church.
The word of the church should be based on the word of God and/or the word of Jesus. Prostitutes existed in Jesus’ time and they either used contraceptives (which the RCC forbids) or abortions (which the RCC forbids) or they carried their child for nine months then gave it away (this seems extremely unlikely). Regardless of which option they chose, Jesus would certainly have had some specific guidance on the subject for Mary Magdelene and yet I’ve never heard it, perhaps you have. If not, maybe Jesus never said anything specific on the subject and the earthly church has decided on their own.
But a 2-year-old child is someone with the potential to be a 30-year-old woman. This potentiality doesn’t seem to me to be a strong argument against the humanity of the embryo.
I agree. Potentiality doesn’t prove the case one way or the other.
Comment by Apistos — July 9, 2007 @ 03:16
How can you start a conversetion about abortion with someone who believes in a whatever religion when his religion’s “father” (who also is enjoying his infalibility) wonders if people should wearing condoms.
It nice to believe Pistos in sth, whatever this sth is( for your case this sth can be a spirit you probably have seen or heard of, for me can be just my wife) but don’t became a diakonos(i see you r enjoying greek words) of organised bastards who have blooded the whole earth for so many yars in past(and still). That’s not nice.
Comment by Pistos — July 16, 2007 @ 13:45
(apologies for the late reply)
Perhaps valid for you, but I would not use viability as a test for humanity. I further observe that, under various conditions, already-born people cannot survive either, such as when injured or ill.
Please permit me to clarify that my intentions are never to attempt to argue that my positions are logically inescapable conclusions. On many matters, there are certain variables which afford everyone a leeway to choose one way or another, to believe one thing or another. It is my desire to expound on two things: The reasons for my own beliefs; the position and teaching of the Catholic Church. I do not assert that these have sufficient force that all other people “must” believe the same.
It is the Church’s mission and duty to care for the flock of Christ. It does so by exercising its divinely-endowed Magisterium both to unfold doctrines explicitly revealed by Jesus, as well as operate under the guidance of the Holy Spirit to come to greater understanding of all matters of faith and morals. Doctrinal development seems to me to be entirely reasonable, especially considering that definitive pronouncements cannot always be made on medical or scientific technologies and procedures which do not yet exist or have not yet been discovered, developed, or adequately understood at a given point in human history.
I think that the Church is not only permitted to decide, but obligated to do so when an issue begins to tangibly manifest itself in society. Ultimately, I believe that the doctrine originates from God, and not solely from Man.
Comment by eikonoklastes — July 24, 2007 @ 14:43
Seriously ill people are still people. A fetus which has not yet reached the stage of development where it is able to survive is not a person. It’s a potential person, but until it is able to survive it is a fetus.
I completely agree with your statement here and in fact this is one of the major reasons I am against the church dictating to the world how the rest of us should act in the case of abortion or contraception or any other issues: everyone should have the right to choose for themselves. Repeat: everyone has the right to choose for themselves. If you choose not to have an abortion then that’s your right. If you choose that another individual cannot have an abortion then you are taking away that person’s rights. The church that wants to dictate the rules to the entire world is the church that wants to take the rights of the people away.
Finally, here’s an interesting piece I just happened to read about anti-abortion protesters who themselves end up having abortions. It’s fascinating and bizarre how they reconcile the dogma of the church with the personal lives, or as one doctor said: “I saw this as an opportunity for dialogue, and in the end, my hope was that I had planted a ‘healing seed’ to help resolve the conflict between their beliefs and their realities.” (Physician, Washington State) - http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/7/22/9334/83825