Catholics faced with pro-euthanasia and pro-abortion strategies

Published: February 28, 1996
Abstract Views: 137
PDF (Italiano): 0
Publisher's note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Authors

Catholics often find themselves excluded from public political debates on abortion and euthanasia. This is because those who support legalized abortion and euthanasia in the present pluralistic and secular democracies have successfully defined the Catholic opposition as "founded on religion, and therefore, a risky basis fro politics". It is sustained that Catholics should not try to impose their opinion on others but should respect the individuals' autonomy in their choice of what they consider best for themselves.

In reality they are the supporters of abortion and euthanasia who try to attack the commonly shared values thanks to which people in civil societies are able to live in piece and justice. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other instruments for human rights are a witness to the inalienable and inviolable rights to the life and freedom of the foetus. These very documents prohibit the legalisation of voluntary euthanasia in that any concession to killing an innocent person and to slave trade (even when it is willingly accepted by the individuals) represent a threat to the life and freedom of innocent citizens. Catholics can take part in public political debates on questions regarding life on the basis of internationally accepted values which are in harmony with the Catholic moral tradition.

Dimensions

Altmetric

PlumX Metrics

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Citations

How to Cite

Fleming, J. I. (1996). Catholics faced with pro-euthanasia and pro-abortion strategies. Medicina E Morale, 45(1), 101–120. https://doi.org/10.4081/mem.1996.922