2 questions for Pro-Choicers

  • Thread starter Thread starter jochoa
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

jochoa

Guest
2 Questions for Pro-Choicers
  1. Do you recognize aborted cells are human persons?
2a. If not, why do you think some vaccine researchers use aborted fetal tissue to test their vaccine, rather than using other cells, such as saliva?

2b. If yes, why do you find killing an innocent person as acceptable?
 
  1. No
2a. Can’t do the same things with saliva.

2b. See my response to #1.

Just my beliefs. Not really interested in debating them here.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for sharing.

I understand your point regarding fetal tissue being different from cells such as saliva or skin or muscular (essentially any cells that could be safely removed with permission from a person born). Would you please share what you believe or think scientists find is different with fetal tissue?
 
Last edited:
I am no scientist. I would recommend just googling it if you are interested in learning more.
 
Saliva is not a cell. It is water and enzymes. Fetal stem cells are part of the production and development for some vaccines because they can be replicated in the lab and they will generally be more compatible with human pathogens than cells from other animals. The fetal cells are used for cultivating vaccines.
 
Last edited:
  1. no
2.a I’m not a scientist and therefore have no idea.

As Catholics, we do not engage in the practice of abortion because our Church tells us not to.
Jesus gave the keys of authority to St. Peter, and these have been passed down through the ages.
Jesus did not tell us to impose by force our values on others.
We could take some simple actions to reduce the incidence of abortion, but choose not to, perhaps because such actions might cost us money. I think that this situation is an indication of hypocrisy.
 
That’s ridiculous to think many Christian values are not forced upon a secular society today. They have been for quite some time. Natural law popularized by St.Thomas Aquinas was the foundation for the western judicial system. If you do not find a fetus growing on the continuum of human development a human being that’s simply unscientific. And where morality and reason coincide a new law can be made according to natural law.
 
Even though I’m not pro abortion, I can easily answer the questions in a devils advocate type way…

Pro choice recognize the fetal cells as human but not yet a human being. Until a functional brain has developed, they aren’t a being in our usual sense of the word.

Fetal cells are used because they are still self replicating. @ThinkingSapien gave the rest of the answer

They do not give credence to the fetus as an “innocent person”. That’s a theological argument and not applicable to laws and regulations.

Because fetal cells are self replicating, what scientists are using are the cloned cells from a product of a legal abortion performed years and years ago. Because it is human tissue, it’s an excellent medium for testing protein activity. It’s a useful tool. Because these self replicating cells have been distributed all over the world and isn’t a single blob of cells anymore, it has little relationship to its origin. Many vaccine makers are aware of conflict in using fetal cells and avoid them if they can. Some vaccines still can’t be manufactured without using them and Catholics may decide to still take these specific vaccines since there aren’t alternatives. Individual choices may vary.
 
jochoa said:
2 Questions for Pro-Choicers
  1. Do you recognize aborted cells are human persons?
2a. If not, why do you think some vaccine researchers use aborted fetal tissue to test their vaccine, rather than using other cells, such as saliva?

2b. If yes, why do you find killing an innocent person as acceptable?
Click to expand...
You can test cells to determine if they are human (as opposed to, for example, avian). So all the material prior to conception (sperm and egg) and after conception (a fertilised egg) is human. No-one denies that. I’m really not sure why that question keeps getting asked.

There are some that determine that immediately after conception you have - a person. So the egg becomes a person/human being immediately upon fertilisation. And that’s before the pregnancy has even occurred (which is when it implants).

Notwithstanding that in about 15% of cases the egg doesn’t develop (blighted ovum) and the body reabsorbs the material so you have an empty sac. In other words there is nothing there. So if you hold to the position that we have a person at fertilisation, in quite a few cases that ‘person’ literally doesn’t exist.

A better question might be: At what point does the fertilised egg become a person? A child obviously is and a zygote obviously isn’t.

I would suggest that just as there is no point at which a baby becomes a woman then there is no point at which what a woman is carrying becomes a person.
 
Thank you for your explanation!

Given those understandings, would you please tell me your non-devil’s advocate counter?
 
tootle_toot said:
As Catholics, we do not engage in the practice of abortion because our Church tells us not to.
Click to expand...
Actually, I have never once used Church teaching to argue for pro life.

The science is sufficient.
 
Freddy said:
You can test cells to determine if they are human (as opposed to, for example, avian). So all the material prior to conception (sperm and egg) and after conception (a fertilised egg) is human. No-one denies that. I’m really not sure why that question keeps getting asked.
Click to expand...
I’ve heard some pro-choice people casually conflate ‘human’ and ‘person’. It’s always clear in context that they mean person but might say human. I think some folks will take that literally as a growing fetus isn’t human which may explain at least some instances.
 
The “right” to obtain an abortion falls into two categories…
The right to life or the right to body authority. In order to even have any body authority means that you must first be allowed to live…the right to life, plain and simple. To claim I have authority over my own body is true and logical, unless and until there is another body involved…the fetus. Ones own body authority should never override another’s same right. The fetus should be granted the right to its own body authority as well.

Helpful? It’s the most clear cut and secular argument…no religious reasons involved. The problem is that many still won’t consider the fetus as having any rights, including its right to exist, over the mother’s rights. That’s why I’m a big proponent of changing societies view of children…which not only our society but also our government and businesses do not. Motherhood has some of the lowest values in our society. It holds no honor and businesses see no value to promoting it. That needs to change!
 
Pattylt said:
The right to life or the right to body authority. In order to even have any body authority means that you must first be allowed to live…the right to life, plain and simple. To claim I have authority over my own body is true and logical, unless and until there is another body involved…the fetus. Ones own body authority should never override another’s same right. The fetus should be granted the right to its own body authority as well.
Click to expand...
So pregnancy is really a rather unique element of humanity and it’s hard to create analogies without resorting to some fairly unusual circumstances, but you provided a good secular argument and I just want to look at it a bit more.

So lets look to the near future where medical science has advanced a bit, probably not even much further than today. Imagine a pregnant woman is in a car accident and tragically passes, but the unborn child is saved though can’t survive outside the womb for long. You happen to be in the hospital for unrelated reasons, some minor surgery requiring general anesthesia. You wake up to find the doctors transplanted the unborn child into you. You ask how they could do that without permission, without asking, and they politely inform you that they would normally need your permission but in this case there’s another body involved, and your bodily authority shouldn’t outweigh another’s same right.

Are the actions of the doctors okay using the criteria you provided? If the pregnancy puts you at severe risk of complications such as a stroke or possible death is there any recourse?
 
My response is that this is not my biological child. I did not consent to sex to create it…which is the only natural way to do so. If I was refusing to implant one of my own in vitro fetuses, I’d probably have to think about that some more…it’s a good question!

Not being religious, while I am anti abortion, I’m not necessarily willing to overturn RvW. I think the answer to the abortion issue has to come from within society. We have to show women how valuable their reproductive capacity is first.

I’d be in favor of mandated time off for a minimum of six months with retention of position, fully paid medical care pre and post birth, low to no cost childcare, easier ability for adoption and more financial benefits from taxation. None of these will be looked at seriously until birth rates become so low that panic sets in. Until babies are a priority instead of a hindrance, abortion will stay…legal or not.

From my point of view, overturning RvW not only won’t happen, it’s pointless anyway other than a feel good move. With the availability of medication abortion and being able to obtain it by mail, there is no way to regulate it unless it remains legal and safe. Obviously, this doesn’t gel for Catholics but I have no theology driving my opinions.

If first world nations continue on its current path of fewer and fewer births, my propositions will become more and more acceptable. We may get to a point that we give monetary rewards for having children. Abortion will still probably exist but it will truly become rare and undesirable! Thoughts?
 
Pattylt said:
If first world nations continue on its current path of fewer and fewer births, my propositions will become more and more acceptable.
Click to expand...
Many of your suggestions are already done by first world nations, so yes I think that’s reasonable. Paid parental leave is something I thought this outgoing administration might deliver on as there were rumblings about it early on, but it seemed to fall to the wayside.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top