As the last post illustrated, the meaning of words can be elusive from a purely academic standpoint. I do not deny that they have meaning, but that meaning is mysterious. And, being mysterious, one must acknowledge one's own extreme ability to be in error regarding what a word's meaning can or cannot be. We will use "pro-choice" and "pro-life" as examples. I will tell you that I am both pro-choice AND pro-life. We all are: though perhaps not so much in varying circumstances. In regards to flies on your food, some may not be pro-life. In regards what flavor ice-cream your sister may eat, we are probably all pro-choice. The problem may be that we are looking at the world through lenses that do not allow for gradation, on both sides of the aisle. The very fact that I have to say "on both sides of the aisle" should be indication enough that we are having trouble finding middle ground. There is no need for an "aisle" at all. Why can we not be like brothers and sisters sitting around a table, free to express our honest opinions genuinely and without fear?
Pro-Life advocates may say it is because the other side is evil. Pro-choice advocates will say it is because the other side is stupid and morally bankrupt. There can be no progress if we take these views. I will put forward a controversial thesis for some: There is no need to have the same opinion regarding the morality or legality of pregnancy termination from the moment of conception all the way to the birth of the child. This goes for both sides: Abortion need not be legal throughout the entirety of pregnancy, and it need not be illegal throughout its' entirety. This will be an abhorent opinion for the average conservative Catholic. To such a person I will say this: the definition of human life's beginning has never been defined infallibly by the Catholic Church. No council or papal pronouncement has ever addressed this issue. In fact, many conservative theologians argue that it cannot make such a pronouncment because this question is outside the realm of faith and morals. I happen to disaree with such a view, as the Church has never had an issue addressing such oddities as the movement of the planets and stars, or how biological evolution began (See Paul VI's Humani Generis I believe)
Moreover (and as many educated conservative Catholics are already aware), Thomas Aquinas and Aristotle both argued that in the first stages of pregnancy the fetus could not be considered a human. Thomas believed that it began with a vegetable soul, progressed to animal, and then became (or was given) a human soul. The quick and easy response to this that we are trained to give in the pro-life movement is that these philosophers did not have the benefit of modern science to tell us that human life begins at conception. The silly thing about this is that modern science does not tell us that human life begins at conception. And, as my last post pointed out, all this ultimately depends upon what one's definition of life is in the first place, something that is demonstrably elusive. The trained pro-lifer will continue to bluster about sperm and egg and DNA without actually knowing or understanding what they are talking about or why it proves their point.
Don't get me wrong: we can all, no matter what our background, religion, or ideology, be guilty of spouting out opinions about which we have not adequately reflected. Regardless, the point about modern science not being available to show Thomas Aquinas how "human" the life happened to be is further rendered moot by the fact that the prevaling opinion of Thomas's day (and to which he may have ascribed in writing -I am not sure) was that there was a tiny, fully developed human in the head of every sperm. So it is clear that the midieval view of human reproduction would render more, not less, credence to the belief that human life begins at conception than what we know today: that the first stages of human development look nothing like a full grown human.
The point is that there may be room for discussing compromises without feeling as if we are betraying the truth. In fact, from my current vantage point, I consider the discussion of compromise to be necessitated by the truth as I see it. If we can stop calling the use of the morning-after pill "murder" (because it isn't) then perhaps others will be willing to admit that partial birth abortion is the same as infanticide. This will be difficult, if not impossible for many conservative Catholics to accept. This post is really only an introduction to my thoughts on this issue and I do not currently have the time to flesh them out. I may not get that time, and so I leave conservative Catholics with two articles I found recently regarding various saints who performed miraculous abortions for rape victims and fornicators. They also speak of Church recommended punishments for abortions which were much less severe than those punishments reserved for fornication or oral sex. Here are the articles:
https://rewirenewsgroup.com/religion-dispatches/2019/05/06/st-antoninus-the-patron-saint-of-pro-choice-catholics/
https://www.irishtimes.com/culture/books/saints-once-did-abortions-it-was-a-lesser-sin-than-oral-sex-1.3466881
Before I close, I will point out that infanticide was incredibly common among the Greeks and Romans of Jesus's day, and yet he does not speak out against it once; I daresay he never even hints at it. The wikipedia article on infanticide is worth a read and will give you a picture of just how widespread this practice was. It is not a stretch to say that infanticide in Jesus's day was more widespread than abortion is today. As an interesting side note, pro-lifers will be pleased to know that abortions have been on a steady statistical decline in the United States since the eighties. There is also no discernible difference in abortion rates under pro-life or pro-choice presidents; I have looked at the charts myself.
