Abortion

[Joe_Stocks]

Niner,

Uh no, according to catholic faith you SHOULDN'T accept abortion period with the exception of consequence to mother's health. But of course, like many many catholics I know (family included) you're a fair weather follower. So yes, please carry on with your fair weather "catholic" faith.:cover:

Your view of my Catholic faith is much appreciated.

 

[ninerbuff]

Most "liberals" also support embryonic stem cell research. Of course if a fundie uses any "cure" or "medical help" from the success of this research, it's OKAY. Lol, don't like the methods, but will reap the rewards. Then blame the one's who developed it for being ********.

 

[Acim]

Uh no, according to catholic faith you SHOULDN'T accept abortion period with the exception of consequence to mother's health. But of course, like many many catholics I know (family included) you're a fair weather follower. So yes, please carry on with your fair weather "catholic" faith.:cover:

Strawman?

"Fair weather" catholics cannot hold valid opinions on the abortion issue?

I am Pro Life in all circumstances regarding abortion but do not reference myself as Catholic, thus allusions to that (one's belief system as a whole) are, I believe, intended as a distraction from topic being discussed.

 

[Storm]

Joe, there's another thread going wherein I've actually presented my position. I'd like to discuss it with you, but I'm too lazy to repost, so I'll just give you links: here, here and here. The last two need to be taken together.

 

[ninerbuff]

Niner,



Your view of my Catholic faith is much appreciated.

Haha! It's not my view, it's your own admission! You're willing to disregard what is instituted by catholic faith on abortion, so yeah I do appreciate that I can call you on a double standard. Shows that you're NO BETTER than the "liberals" you speak of. Keep patting yourself on the back though.

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Storm,

Thanks for those links. I'll respond soon.

 

[ninerbuff]

Strawman?

"Fair weather" catholics cannot hold valid opinions on the abortion issue?

I am Pro Life in all circumstances regarding abortion but do not reference myself as Catholic, thus allusions to that (one's belief system as a whole) are, I believe, intended as a distraction from topic being discussed.

Valid opinions don't supercede what is instituted by the catholic faith.
That's not strawman...........that's calling out the facts on the faith on abortion, which is the issue.

 

[Storm]

storm,

thanks for those links. I'll respond soon.

ok.

 

[Acim]

Valid opinions don't supercede what is instituted by the catholic faith.
That's not strawman...........that's calling out the facts on the faith on abortion, which is the issue.

Really? Where in OP may I find that?

You are calling out one's own faith, and making that about credibility on this issue.

How is that different than recognizing I am apparently in complete alignment with Catholic position without myself identifying as a Catholic? Do you really wish to discuss Catholic tenets with someone like myself who is also engaged in this discussion? If not, why not? If yes, I'll be asking for relevance often.

 

[Koldo]

Of course the reason I made that point is because the executive office is the only major institution that can affect political change when it comes to abortion (by nominating justices to the high court). There is a reason you don't hear much about abortion in House and Senate elections, aside for voting for a justice (and the rare case something like a partial birth ban vote comes up) there is little you can do on the issue.

I assume pro-choicers know that and yet they still do not want a president that allows even modest curbs on abortion, thus making them dogmatic on the issue of abortion.

First of all, can you prove that pro-choicers do not want even modest curbs on abortion?

Also, I suppose you do realize there is more to the world than the USA. The USA is just one country on Earth, and there are many pro-choicers in several countries.

 

[ninerbuff]

Really? Where in OP may I find that?

We are talking abortion here right?

You are calling out one's own faith, and making that about credibility on this issue.

Of course, it's because of faith that pro lifers are against abortion. What are you trying to say?

How is that different than recognizing I am apparently in complete alignment with Catholic position without myself identifying as a Catholic? Do you really wish to discuss Catholic tenets with someone like myself who is also engaged in this discussion? If not, why not? If yes, I'll be asking for relevance often.

You don't have to be catholic to be against abortion. Let's see.......most christian faith denominations are against abortion.....you aren't affiliated with all of those faiths too yet hold the same view against abortion right?

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi Storm,

1) is not legally a person yet. Nor

(ETA: depending on point of gestation) morally, scientifically or religiously.

An embryology textbook will tell you that an embryo is a human person. That is a scientific fact.

I do. I just don't believe forcing a woman to have a child she doesn't want is good for anyone.

My father says the "pro-life" movement is taking this principle and using it as a club. Since he's not here, I'll present his argument with the caveat that I don't completely agree:

Pro-lifers don't give a damn about children. They believe that pregnancy is God's punishment for fornication, and they want to make sure that that little **** doesn't escape it.

I think he's overgeneralizing, but he does have a point.

I can say I have had a few conversations with some pro-life activists and I've never heard this point (that having a baby is a punishment). The pro-lifers I know (this could be just anecdotal) are driven by the belief that it is a human life that needs protection.

IMX for the most part, pro-lifers:
1) Are religious.
2) Don't support the education that would prevent unwanted pregnancies (and stds, but that's not the topic), and frequently fight against it.
3) Often oppose birth control on religious grounds.
4) Don't support child welfare. As Carlin put it, "Pre-birth? 'We're behind you 110%!' Pre-school? '**** you, you're on your own!'"
5) Don't object to "playing God" when it comes to the death penalty.

So, given that actions speak louder than words...
2 and 3 reveal that preventing unwanted pregnancies themselves is not the goal.
4 belies the fact that it's not about compassion so much as judgment.
5 is blatant hypocrisy.

I'm with you at number one. Number two we simply don't believe is true. Education on, basically, how to be promiscuous, does not lead to responsible sexual behavior and the so-called education on most pro-lifers opinion devalues the importance of sex. Number three, we oppose birth control for the same reasons as number two. Number four, the ultimate refutation of that is the state of the black family which has been specifically targeted by liberals with welfare and the outcome is 70% of black kids born out of wedlock. We simply believe it does more harm than good. And being Catholic, I oppose the death penalty.

 

[Father Heathen]

Education on, basically, how to be promiscuous,

People will have sex regardless of how many mindless voodoo incantations are tossed at the masses, so the sensible thing is to teach them how to do so responsibly. Humans aren't an insect colony, so suggesting sex simply for procreating and populating like fruit flies is laughably absurd and reckless. Repressing ones libido is unhealthy, and probably why so many of your priests love to rape children.

 

[Storm]

An embryology textbook will tell you that an embryo is a human person. That is a scientific fact.

I said "person," not "human."

Personhood is a complex idea, but one feature is sapience. A fertilized egg is not a person. A 35 week fetus is... arguable. I happen to think it is, but where the line is crossed, I honestly don't know.

Assuming you believe that a fertilized egg is endowed with a soul, that makes it simpler for you. I don't want to put words in your mouth, though, so let's get on the same page:

1) Define "person."
2) When is the flesh imbued with a soul?
2a) If at conception, how do you explain the high rate of lost pregnancies? From memory (which is never reliable in my case, lol) up to 75% pregnancies are miscarried before the woman even knows of them.
2b) If at a later point, when?

I can say I have had a few conversations with some pro-life activists and I've never heard this point (that having a baby is a punishment). The pro-lifers I know (this could be just anecdotal) are driven by the belief that it is a human life that needs protection.

Oh, I've only heard one admit it, and she backpedaled pretty damn quick.

The argument is based on the philosophy that actions speak louder than words. It's a position that would be stupid to admit, but you can see it in the combination of stances. Make sense?

Number two we simply don't believe is true. Education on, basically, how to be promiscuous, does not lead to responsible sexual behavior and the so-called education on most pro-lifers opinion devalues the importance of sex.

Every legitimate study done proves you wrong on the point of efficacy. As for the importance, it doesn't have to. If it does, work with us to make it better, and we all win.

"Just don't do it" doesn't work, either.

Number three, we oppose birth control for the same reasons as number two.

?????? Your main argument there was "it doesn't work." BC works, that's not really in contention. So, since you're not an idiot, I must be misreading you. Please clarify.

Number four, the ultimate refutation of that is the state of the black family which has been specifically targeted by liberals with welfare and the outcome is 70% of black kids born out of wedlock. We simply believe it does more harm than good.

1) How the hell does welfare "target" blacks?
2) How in the world do you think programs like Head Start are harmful?
3) Most bizarrely, how do social safety nets cause births out of wedlock?

And being Catholic, I oppose the death penalty.

Well at least YOU'RE consistent. Kudos.

Anyway, if I may illustrate with an anecdote...

My sex ed consisted of clinical descriptions of the organs, the basic mechanics of conception, and "CONDOMS DON'T WORK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" Shockingly enough, I had a baby homeless and out of wedlock at the age of 21. If I'd had a proper education and access to bc, that probably wouldn't have happened.

Not to say that I regret my beautiful boy, of course, but I wasn't prepared to have him, either

 

[ninerbuff]

An embryology textbook will tell you that an embryo is a human person. That is a scientific fact.

Well, an embryo is a living organism, not necessarily a human. You've heard of chicken embryos? If you use terminology, then use it in context with explanation. Also you can "freeze" embryos for later use. You can't "freeze" a human and expect them to live.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

An embryology textbook will tell you that an embryo is a human person. That is a scientific fact.

Which embryology textbook?

Please be specific: the exact title, author, and year of publication, and please quote the passage verbatim where it says that an embryo is a human person.

I'm with you at number one. Number two we simply don't believe is true. Education on, basically, how to be promiscuous, does not lead to responsible sexual behavior and the so-called education on most pro-lifers opinion devalues the importance of sex. Number three, we oppose birth control for the same reasons as number two.

The problem here is that sex education and availability of contraception both have a demonstrated significant effect on reducing unwanted pregnancy, while "abstinence only" education has a demonstrated significant effect on increasing unwanted pregnancy.

Regardless of your personal opinions about sexual morality, I think it's clear that there's a tradeoff here: more sex ed and contraception, fewer abortions. I understand that there are things you find distasteful on both sides of this balance, but you're going to have to decide which one you value more, because fighting against sex ed undermines your fight against abortion.

Number four, the ultimate refutation of that is the state of the black family which has been specifically targeted by liberals with welfare and the outcome is 70% of black kids born out of wedlock. We simply believe it does more harm than good.

I'm confused. How does this refute the claim that anti-abortion people are generally also against child welfare?

And being Catholic, I oppose the death penalty.

Yeah... that's more of an issue for the Protestants.

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi Storm,

1) Define "person."

I don't make the philosophical distinction between a human 'person' and a human being. For the very reason that it begs the question, when you define a human embryo is not a person and then argue that only 'persons' should be protected then you are already at your conclusion. Human embryos are human beings, just at an earlier stage of development. I believe human beings are to be protected from destruction. You have set the precedent that some human beings are worthy of destruction if they don't meet your qualifications for personhood. In this case, I'm proudly dogmatic; human beings are not to be destroyed.

2) When is the flesh imbued with a soul?
2a) If at conception, how do you explain the high rate of lost pregnancies? From memory (which is never reliable in my case, lol) up to 75% pregnancies are miscarried before the woman even knows of them.
2b) If at a later point, when?

There is no need to talk about the soul, we can keep this scientific. To quote The Developing Human (Keith L. Moore and T.V.N. Persaud):

Human development begins at fertilization when a male gamete or sperm (spermatozoon) unites with the female gamete or oocyte (ovum) to produce a single cell - a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marked the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.

As for a large number of pregnancies being lost, those are lost in a natural way. In our debate about abortion we are talking about the deliberate taking of a human life. Just as people die naturally when they get old we don't jump to the conclusion that we can end their lives through artificial means.

Every legitimate study done proves you wrong on the point of efficacy. As for the importance, it doesn't have to. If it does, work with us to make it better, and we all win.

"Just don't do it" doesn't work, either.

Assuming we are also including abortion as a means of birth control as well, then it has been a double failure. And another assumption; if woman having children out of wedlock in astronomical numbers (not coincidentally with the advent of birth control) thus almost guaranteeing a cycle of poverty is birth control's success story then take credit by all means.

?????? Your main argument there was "it doesn't work." BC works, that's not really in contention. So, since you're not an idiot, I must be misreading you. Please clarify.

Well, first being Catholic, I am opposed to birth control on those grounds which include (among many others) the devaluation of women (Pope Paul VI's encyclical Humanae Vitae was prophetic on this and many other points). The way birth control has undermined the family as an institution that is the safest and stable environment for women and children. I would also argue the birth control revolution has created an environment where 70% of black children are born out of wedlock, around 40% of Hispanics and almost 25% of whites. Around 40% of all children in the US are born out of wedlock. Again, if this is the success story of birth control, then take all the credit in the world. I believe that is the failure of a false birth control reality that promises 'safe sex' without consequences.

1) How the hell does welfare "target" blacks?
2) How in the world do you think programs like Head Start are harmful?
3) Most bizarrely, how do social safety nets cause births out of wedlock?

Great book; Winning the Race by John McWhorter discusses how white liberals specifically targeted poor blacks with new great society programs. McWhorter, who is no conservative, discusses in detail how guilt-ridden white liberals encouraged poor blacks not to seek employment if it was manual labor because that should be seen as beneath them (Thomas Sowell also brings to light the redneck culture many blacks live under where a strong work ethic is not exactly promoted, i.e. McDonald's is "chump change"). McWhorter also points out a system where under the perverse incentives of welfare, you made more money as a single mother than as a married couple.

http://www.amazon.com/Winning-Race-Beyond-Crisis-America/dp/1592401880/ref=tmm_hrd_title_0?ie=UTF8&qid=1309879565&sr=8-2

 

[Storm]

I don't make the philosophical distinction between a human 'person' and a human being. For the very reason that it begs the question, when you define a human embryo is not a person and then argue that only 'persons' should be protected then you are already at your conclusion. Human embryos are human beings, just at an earlier stage of development. I believe human beings are to be protected from destruction. You have set the precedent that some human beings are worthy of destruction if they don't meet your qualifications for personhood. In this case, I'm proudly dogmatic; human beings are not to be destroyed.

I didn't say "embryo," I said "fertilized egg." A single cell is not a human being, either. It's a cell.

Furthermore, I didn't limit personhood to humans.

There is no need to talk about the soul, we can keep this scientific.

We can, but by doing so, we oversimplify to the point that discussion cannot proceed. Science cannot determine morality.

To quote The Developing Human (Keith L. Moore and T.V.N. Persaud):
Human development begins at fertilization when a male gamete or sperm (spermatozoon) unites with the female gamete or oocyte (ovum) to produce a single cell - a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marked the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.

The science isn't in dispute, the morality is. I don't believe a zygote is anymore "a human being/ person" than a peeling sunburn. You do, which is why I asked you to explain your reasoning.

As for a large number of pregnancies being lost, those are lost in a natural way. In our debate about abortion we are talking about the deliberate taking of a human life. Just as people die naturally when they get old we don't jump to the conclusion that we can end their lives through artificial means.

I support euthanasia, but that's another thread.

Assuming we are also including abortion as a means of birth control as well, then it has been a double failure. And another assumption; if woman having children out of wedlock in astronomical numbers (not coincidentally with the advent of birth control) thus almost guaranteeing a cycle of poverty is birth control's success story then take credit by all means.

Poverty and abortion rights are entirely separate issues. Let's not get sidetracked.

1) "Abortion as a means of birth control."
I don't see this as much of an issue. For one thing, I think it's overstated. I've known many women who've had abortions, and none took it lightly. Furthermore, if such women exist, their callousness shows they're not fit mothers in the first place.

2) Births out of wedlock.
Again, I don't see the issue. So long as a woman (or unmarried couple) is a fit and stable parent, she/ they have every right to pass on marriage.

If the parents are not fit and stable, and the pregnancies accidental, well... that's why we heathens think sex ed is important. Preventing unwanted pregnancies reduces abortion far more effectively than outlawing it.

Well, first being Catholic, I am opposed to birth control on those grounds which include (among many others) the devaluation of women (Pope Paul VI's encyclical Humanae Vitae was prophetic on this and many other points). The way birth control has undermined the family as an institution that is the safest and stable environment for women and children. I would also argue the birth control revolution has created an environment where 70% of black children are born out of wedlock, around 40% of Hispanics and almost 25% of whites. Around 40% of all children in the US are born out of wedlock. Again, if this is the success story of birth control, then take all the credit in the world. I believe that is the failure of a false birth control reality that promises 'safe sex' without consequences.

This is just silly. Preventing pregnancy in the first place cannot cause a birth, in or out of wedlock.

Great book; Winning the Race by John McWhorter discusses how white liberals specifically targeted poor blacks with new great society programs. McWhorter, who is no conservative, discusses in detail how guilt-ridden white liberals encouraged poor blacks not to seek employment if it was manual labor because that should be seen as beneath them (Thomas Sowell also brings to light the redneck culture many blacks live under where a strong work ethic is not exactly promoted, i.e. McDonald's is "chump change"). McWhorter also points out a system where under the perverse incentives of welfare, you made more money as a single mother than as a married couple.

Sounds like propaganda to me.....

The flaws in the welfare system are deep, no question. The answer is reform, not abolition. A stupid safety net is better than none at all.

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi 9-10ths,

Which embryology textbook?

Please be specific: the exact title, author, and year of publication, and please quote the passage verbatim where it says that an embryo is a human person.

In this text, we begin our description of the developing human with the formation and differentiation of the male and female sex cells or gametes, which will unite at fertilization to initiate the embryonic development of a new individual. William J. Larson, Human Embryology, 3rd edition (Philadelphia: Churchill Livingston, 2001), p. 1.

Human development begins at fertilization when a male gamete or sperm (spermatozoon) unites with the female gamete or oocyte (ovum) to produce a single cell - a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marked the beginning of each of us as a unique individual. Keith Moore and T.V.N. Persaud, The Developing Human (6th edition, 1998) p. 18.

It needs to be emphasized that life is continuous, as is also human life, so that the question , 'When does (human) life begin?' is meaningless in terms of otogeny. Although life is a continuous process, fertilization (which, incidentally, is not a 'moment') is a critical landmark bacause, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is formed when the chromosomes of the male and female pronuclei blend in the oocyte. Ronan O'Rahilly and Fabiola Mueller, Human Embryology and Teratology, 3rd edition (New York: Wiley-Liss, 2000), p. 8.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Hi 9-10ths,



In this text, we begin our description of the developing human with the formation and differentiation of the male and female sex cells or gametes, which will unite at fertilization to initiate the embryonic development of a new individual. William J. Larson, Human Embryology, 3rd edition (Philadelphia: Churchill Livingston, 2001), p. 1.

Human development begins at fertilization when a male gamete or sperm (spermatozoon) unites with the female gamete or oocyte (ovum) to produce a single cell - a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marked the beginning of each of us as a unique individual. Keith Moore and T.V.N. Persaud, The Developing Human (6th edition, 1998) p. 18.

It needs to be emphasized that life is continuous, as is also human life, so that the question , 'When does (human) life begin?' is meaningless in terms of otogeny. Although life is a continuous process, fertilization (which, incidentally, is not a 'moment') is a critical landmark bacause, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is formed when the chromosomes of the male and female pronuclei blend in the oocyte. Ronan O'Rahilly and Fabiola Mueller, Human Embryology and Teratology, 3rd edition (New York: Wiley-Liss, 2000), p. 8.

None of those passages declare an embryo to be a person.