A woman's right to control her body?

[ephesians4]

If I make a choice that binds me for a year to another person’s body, they will die if we separate, and they didn’t get a choice, am I within my rights to shoot that person to free myself of the situation?

I think you can certainly have killing without it being murder/wanton destruction/havoc in the tenth commandment sense, but pressing ahead while refusing to acknowledge that a person has died, going past the level of an evil that people must answer for upstairs (as with eg: a soldier killing the enemy), and calling the act itself inherently good or a right, is murderous in itself.

Enacting killings on that basis on a massive scale is such an unequivocal violation of the Law it could have been designed consciously to be so.

 

[Murmurs]

A 24 week old human being in the womb is not an embryo.

My mistake. Naturally, I meant foetus. Maybe I was being distracted by inanity.

This statement is like totally irrational.

No it ain’t. If one were to believe that until the baby can survive outside the womb by itself (“viability”, usually about the 24th week), the right of its mother to decide what to do with what is in essence a parasitical life in her abdomen, takes precedence over that life’s right to its own existence, then that belief is an entirely rational basis to support abortion.

So the newborn can feed him or herself?

Well no. Obviously. But it can certainly feed in the ‘normal’ way I suppose (rather than through a cord). Not that that means much because obviously no one would suggest that a sick person in hospital who needs to be fed through a tube for a few weeks (or even 9 months) isn’t alive. (They might not have a great quality of life, but they’re clearly alive). What is true to say is that before 23-24 weeks the likelihood of a prematurely-born baby surviving (especially surviving without serious damage and a significantly degraded quality of life - but all in all the survival rate is fairly small), is quite low.

A reason to kill that baby? Sick.

Ha! I should have you proofread everything I write for typos. “there can’t be a reason…” (of course). My error (sorry!) but I think the context makes it fairly clearly what I was saying…

You don’t agree with their argument but you don’t think it’s flawed. Do you read what you write? Pardon me for saying so, but I don’t think you know what you think.

Duly pardoned, not least because you’re right. Well I know what I support and what I want to think (and I can articulate pro-life arguments with the best of them). But do I agree with what I know I should think?

If there is a woman alive who at some point during a pregnancy says she hasn’t thought “I don’t know if I’m ready to be a mother”, even for a moment, even in the midst of the excitement and joy, then I am sorry one can deny it with bluster all one likes - that woman is a liar (same goes for fathers).

What the pro-life movement comes down to, is a movement which is against an adult woman having autonomy over what is going on in her body. With political beliefs which, were I living in the US, would undoubtedly lead me to the very-mildly-libertarian end of the Republican Party, I find it hard to square belief in individual liberty (we don’t give full liberty to children or minors as it is, remember), with the desire to entirely and absolutely deny the personal choice to use this facility (which no one ever wants to use in the first place, remember) to everyone.

At the very best, killing an unborn child is highly, highly morally tricky. Sometimes, if one is actually an empathetic human being, who cares about the two lives entangled in any abortion decision (one adult, one extremely tiny and un(der)developed), one has to conclude that maybe it’s better than an alternative.

By restricting options for pregnant women who are unwilling or unable to carry their baby to term, of course the anti-choice (everyone is pro life, they just disagree about what ‘life’ is or counts) are saving (potential) lives. That is wonderful. My disquiet about abortion has existed a long long time before I became a Catholic or gave any religion serious thought.

Now people don’t discredit a movement (thank God! or the Catholic Church would be in an even worse position!) - but the vehemency with which many of those who oppose abortion make their case is, frankly, disgusting. And worse than being disgusting, it is entirely unhelpful, except to help those they want to convince double down out of sheer stubbornness when confronted with an angry mob yelling about life that while existing isn’t viable. (So, for instance, it’s funny how at any anti-abortion protest or march I’ve ever seen, or been on, among the images of mangled foetuses (which to be honest don’t look very human at 12 weeks do they?), I have never seen the equally distressing images of women bled out in their own bathtubs after a botched home abortion, which is what happened before it was legal).

This isn’t directed at you, but the next person who hands me a squishy stress-ball like, vaguely-anatomically-correct foetus toy, will see me deliberately squash it under foot. Those things are the stuff of LSD nightmares and if I wasn’t commitedly Catholic would undoubtedly change my stance on abortion from “protect the innocent but with sympathy and compassion for the mother” to “kill it now.” (If squishy foetuses work for the cause, by the way, maybe the NRA could hand out squishy AR-15s at state fairs? just a thought). All the above is just a random aside, by the way…

More than anything else - I might not, as a Catholic, be very enamoured of contraception (to say the least - though I’m homosexual so sex doesn’t feature very heavily, as in at all, in my life!) - but for heavens sake…the best way to end abortion for good is to make sure every woman is in control of her own fertility. If no pregnancy is unwanted, then except for those unlikely (no less horrid) medical emergencies, there is no demand for abortion. You can’t end something by banning it (cocaine, alcohol during Prohibition, abortion before it was legal, etc) - you can only do it by reducing and eliminating demand.

While I’m extremely wary of “one rule for us, one for everyone else” attitudes, extending what is enjoined on Catholics with regards contraception (even if, reading humanae vitae, I actually not only agree with it but think in toto, it’s beautiful), to everyone, is monstrous. We might be right but that’s not really how the law should (or does) work.

 

[Murmurs]

The abortion debate is a philosophical question? Tell that to all the babies who have been killed in the womb. The abortion debate is about life and death.

But it is a philosophical question. You’ve just shown exactly that! Ok so life can begin at conception. I think several arguments can still be made against using that to determine outcomes, though. Firstly, human life, as opposed to pretty much all other life, is determined by consciousness as much as by physiological activity or competance (“brain death” even when the body is technically working). Does a cluster of 128 cells, 4 days after conception, have consciousness? I think that’s hard to argue for that.

Secondly, the most important argument in favour of abortion is that at least until a certain point (viability) the rights of the mother to control her own body are said to outweigh the rights of the developing baby. The point when one set of rights outweighs another I’m sorry IS a philosophical, moral, political, legal question. It’s not about life and death.

An illustration - in a “just” war, the rights of eg the defendent to take measures to defend him/herself, and their family, friends, country, etc, outweigh the normal right of their enemy to not be subject to death at the hands of someone else. It’s a philosophical question - when do one person’s rights become more important than another? For those who support abortion, it would seem the 23-24th week after conception is that time. That is precisely why it is a debate - where that line ought to be, is a philosophical matter.

If I make a choice that binds me for a year to another person’s body, they will die if we separate, and they didn’t get a choice, am I within my rights to shoot that person to free myself of the situation?

I think you can certainly have killing without it being murder/wanton destruction/havoc in the tenth commandment sense, but pressing ahead while refusing to acknowledge that a person has died, going past the level of an evil that people must answer for upstairs (as with eg: a soldier killing the enemy), and calling the act itself inherently good or a right, is murderous in itself.

Enacting killings on that basis on a massive scale is such an unequivocal violation of the Law it could have been designed consciously to be so.

Exactly… This reminds me of the “could God condone abortion?” thread I saw recently. I think it’s inherently possible (however unlikely), but we have no idea in what circumstances it might be (and that’s never the same as saying it’s the preferred option).

 

[josh987654321]

Again, not to disagree with the sentiment at all - but I think to be honest a heartbeat doesn’t mean very much. If you took an 18-day old baby (or fetus to be more correct), away from his/her mother, it wouldn’t last. Now a 24-week old embryo is a totally different matter.

You say you’re not disagreeing with my sentiment, but I believe you do (or at least somewhat insinuate) when you say, for starters, how can a heartbeat not mean much? and no I absolutely don’t understand those who are pro-choice.

If you took an 18-day old baby (or fetus) out of the mother’s womb, yes it would not survive, if you took a 24 week old embryo out of the mothers womb, it will also die, it needs food, nutrients etc etc, even a newly born child will die without someone to tender to it’s needs. It’s no different in either case, because whether in the womb or out, the child is completely dependent, they will not survive on their own.

I am not someone who agrees with the “abortion is ok until viability” idea,

I do, the problem is that the Child is ‘viable’ at the moment of conception!

Doesn’t life have to be self-sustaining to some degree?

No, we humans are always relying on one another. In fact God has set it up this way, “Freely you have received; freely give.” Matthew 10:8

Abortion is only advocated by those who have themselves been born.

A newly-born baby, long as it’s got food and warmth around, will survive by itself, autonomously.

A child in it’s mothers womb will survive normally so long as someone doesn’t kill them!

Three weeks out from conception, it’s a different story.

No, it’s really not.

Now in neither case can there be a reason to kill that baby, but the quality of life (I mean, what that life constitutes) at each stage is very different.

Like say, Baby, Toddler, Child, Teenager, Adult, Elderly? Which ones should we legally be allowed to kill?

For someone who supports “a woman’s right to control her body”, at 3 weeks, that baby is, heartbreaking as it might be, truly in biological terms basically a parasite as much as her offspring. Therefore, if a woman has a right to flush a nefarious bacteria from her system (which is equally alive) she has similarly a right to decide to remove this nearly-human being from her body.

Well, if someone can seriously believe this, than alas my conversation is at an end with them. It’s sickening and terrifying that people could have such views. No a bacteria is not ‘equally’ as alive, it’s insanity to believe such things, what foolish and devastatingly harmful blindness.

God bless you

You too.

I hope this has helped

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[josh987654321]

.

Just so you know, I don’t normally write on the forums like this, but when it comes to Abortion, it’s not a grey area, this **** has got to stop!

Please don’t ever vote or support anyone in power who is pro-choice or even has leanings towards it.

 

[Rau]

Murmurs, the sanctity of human life does not lie in the advanced and developed biology of the human species nor in a person’s consciousness. It lies in the relationship that exists between that person and God. And that relationship begins well before “viability”. As a Catholic, I assume you concur, and thus recognize the flaw in arguments that lean on viability or autonomy or similar measures.

No person has a right to murder an innocent in order to secure “property rights” over their body.

 

[John1956]

Good analogy, but I think one of the issues here is whether human life (in the form of an embryo or a fetus) is the equivalent of a human person. .

Standard embryology textbooks say that fertilization marks the beginning of a human being.

 

[Murmurs]

Just so you know, I don’t normally write on the forums like this, but when it comes to Abortion, it’s not a grey area, this **** has got to stop!

Please don’t ever vote or support anyone in power who is pro-choice or even has leanings towards it.

When such a person presents themselves in the UK with an even miniscule chance of standing with success, they can be assured of my vote. Our Conservatives are not your Republicans (in fact in general terms they are actually close to the Democrats on most issues), and they’ve done a lot in the last 20 years or so to stall conceptions of them as the “nasty, misogynist” party - with clear electoral success I suppose justifying it. In fact in my constituency in the election last May, literally every candidate came from a pro-choice party (I didn’t vote for the Greens who I suppose are the ‘most pro choice’, though.).

It’s a sad truth that no politician in the UK is going to stand a chance by advocating a ‘pro-life’ position as a policy idea (they might vote against widening access etc, but it will be on the hush-hush). They might as well advocate making French the national language. Here, one can pretty much discount a position on abortion as having any bearing on making an electoral decision.

I think given that, frankly, rather distressing situation, consciously or not I clutch at straws to help mitigate this affront, because while there is (with a hope and a prayer) a possibility in the United States, it’s even less likely here. So I maybe find ways to feel like I can almost support it, while fighting that internally. It’s very confusing, which is why I don’t let it influence voting!

God bless, and thanks for your replies

xx

 

[Brendan]

But it is a philosophical question. You’ve just shown exactly that! Ok so life can begin at conception. I think several arguments can still be made against using that to determine outcomes, though. Firstly, human life, as opposed to pretty much all other life, is determined by consciousness as much as by physiological activity or competance ).

I would disagree with that assessment. Life beginning at conception is a biological fact. There is no biologist, Catholic, atheist, or otherwise, who would claim differently.

Secondly, the fact that the life is human is also a biological fact. I presume that you would agree that biological science can make a determination of species? And that biology can correctly distinguish between one individual member of a species and another one?

Again, I don’t think that there is a biologist anywhere on the planet who would claim that a fetus is anything other than a human, or that is not a distinct individual member of the human species.

It’s a philosophical question - when do one person’s rights become more important than another? For those who support abortion, it would seem the 23-24th week after conception is that time. That is precisely why it is a debate - where that line ought to be, is a philosophical matter.

In that part, you are correct. We are entering into the philosophical realm of ethics.

Is there a hierarchy of rights, in your opinion. Is a right to life superior to a right to property.

For example, if there is an infant on my front lawn, does my right to control my property justify my killing the child? Or does the infant’s right to life trump my control of property?

 

[Faithdancer]

Good analogy, but I think one of the issues here is whether human life (in the form of an embryo or a fetus) is the equivalent of a human person. Judaism, including Orthodox Judaism, does not believe this is the case. Thus, a woman’s life or health, when threatened (unintentionally, of course) by her unborn baby, takes precedence. Abortion in this instance is not only permitted, but it is required to maintain the life or health of the mother, who is regarded as a human person.

That is a rather different issue than “abortion as post hoc birth control” though, isn’t it?

 

[Faithdancer]

I
For example, if there is an infant on my front lawn, does my right to control my property justify my killing the child? Or does the infant’s right to life trump my control of property?

:clapping:

 

[Peter_Plato]

For example, if there is an infant on my front lawn, does my right to control my property justify my killing the child? Or does the infant’s right to life trump my control of property?

Even more so when by a willful act you and a “consenting” compatriot put the child on your front lawn to begin with.

 

[meltzerboy]

I’m unclear if you are addressing 2 issues here;

• the point in time at which an unborn becomes a person;
• if/when one innocent person (unborn) may be murdered for the benefit of another person.

I believe the Jewish position on the first point admits a relatively short period of time after conception when the unborn is not yet a person.

Are you saying there is a further Jewish principle that says an unborn person may be murdered should that be in the interests of the mother’s health?

I would not say that the unborn child is “murdered” but rather “sacrificed” and, further, returned to G-d, for the purpose of saving the physical life or health of the mother. The unborn child is not considered a fully human person until birth, at which point neither the mother nor the child may be given preferential treatment. It is at this specific point, according to Jewish theology, that the soul is breathed by G-d into the body of the human being, who subsequently draws their first breath. This belief is based on Genesis, in which the soul enters the body only after the latter is fully formed. Before that split second, human life is still in the process of being formed but it is not yet a human person.

An often-raised objection to the above belief is that it is contrary to modern science since the heart, lungs, brain, and other organs of the unborn child are being shaped before the child’s actual emergence from the womb. This objection, however, is not relevant to Jewish teaching. For one thing, the body is still being formed and thus is not yet complete. Of course, one may argue that the process of change and development continues throughout life so this rationale is not entirely valid. Therefore, there is a second reason for the irrelevance of science concerning the issue of personhood, based on the presence of the soul, the breath of life, which, as stated according to Genesis, does not enter the body until the precise moment of birth. On the contrary, Catholicism believes that the soul is present at the moment of conception, also supported by Scripture. But the point is that neither religion bases its view on abortion mainly on biological evidence since, by its very nature, belief in the soul is not a scientific concept in the first place (some would say not even a rational concept), but it is very much a religious, faith-based idea.

All of the above does not mean Judaism agrees that abortion on demand is permissible for any frivolous reason whatsoever. Abortion must always be a serious and emotional decision on the part of the mother, her family, her physician, and her pastor. Even in cases of rape, incest, and severely congenital disorders, while Judaism makes allowances for these, based on the mother’s psychological trauma, some rabbis contest such allowances. In sum, with regard to abortion, Judaism, unlike most other religions, takes the middle course, but is always ultimately based on and guided by the interpretation of the Written and Oral Law.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Even military conflicts and wars eventually end in peace treaties by means of negotation, so why not cultural wars?

That would be true if you said …“some military conflicts and wars”…

Military conflicts and wars that produced lasting peace were those in which one side was annihilated or surrendered unconditionally.

In a civilized society, that values life, there can be no compromise with an evil procedure that kills innocents.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Good analogy, but I think one of the issues here is whether human life (in the form of an embryo or a fetus) is the equivalent of a human person. Judaism, including Orthodox Judaism, does not believe this is the case. Thus, a woman’s life or health, when threatened (unintentionally, of course) by her unborn baby, takes precedence. Abortion in this instance is not only permitted, but it is required to maintain the life or health of the mother, who is regarded as a human person.

That could possibly be acceptable IF the embryo or fetus had the potential to be anything other than a human person.

 

[edwest2]

Wars that are fought over mere cultural differences can end in compromise. Whether or not a social group ends up eating sushi, speaking a particular language, wearing certain colours or inhabiting a unique style of abode are not, ultimately, critical matters that couldn’t be negotiated.

Moral issues, however, are not merely “cultural” matters. It would be impossible to argue on moral grounds that rape or child molestation, for example, ought to be permitted as a matter of a peace settlement. These, like all distinctively moral matters, are NOT negotiable.

If abortion is the premeditated killing of an innocent human being without just cause, to argue that a compromise can be reached on the matter simply abdicates moral agency as part of striking that bargain.

One of the disturbing insights that the PP undercover videos have enabled is how inured people become to heinous acts because they have accustomed themselves to the moral view that these babies are not human, not persons or, in the case of one poster on CAF, not alive. Really?

One startling fact about human beings attempting to be passable moral agents is that exclusion from one’s “inner circle” functions to cauterize moral sensitivities regarding those we choose to exclude. Human beings are very good at rationalizing all kinds of questionable behaviours provided we can distance ourselves in time, space or familiarity from those we choose not to be concerned about.

This is not really a culture war; it is, distinctively, a moral war, one where deeply moral repercussions are at stake.

You are right. Life begins at conception. Over the years, the dialogue has not improved. It takes two people for the woman to become pregnant. As a practical matter, one of the quickest roads to poverty is being an unwed mother. Fathers should be responsible members of society, not ‘sperm donors’ only.

I hope people find the following instructive:

catholicnewsagency.com/resources/abortion/articles-and-addresses/an-ex-abortionist-speaks/

Ed

 

[Murmurs]

You are right. Life begins at conception. Over the years, the dialogue has not improved. It takes two people for the woman to become pregnant. As a practical matter, one of the quickest roads to poverty is being an unwed mother. Fathers should be responsible members of society, not ‘sperm donors’ only.

I hope people find the following instructive:

catholicnewsagency.com/resources/abortion/articles-and-addresses/an-ex-abortionist-speaks/

Ed

For the bold: while true, it’s a dodgy thing to say, because it is the most fertile ground for “well if the woman had access to abortion…” For the other thing, fathers, could not agree more on this. I don’t think I can remotely approve of a couple marrying just because there is suddenly a baby in the picture, but we need more sensible (but realistic) role models for fathers, or rather for boys and young men before they are fathers. They need to be secular as well as religious because this problem is currently systemic. It’s an all-hands-on-deck situation.

 

[edwest2]

For the bold: while true, it’s a dodgy thing to say, because it is the most fertile ground for “well if the woman had access to abortion…” For the other thing, fathers, could not agree more on this. I don’t think I can remotely approve of a couple marrying just because there is suddenly a baby in the picture, but we need more sensible (but realistic) role models for fathers, or rather for boys and young men before they are fathers. They need to be secular as well as religious because this problem is currently systemic. It’s an all-hands-on-deck situation.

Yes. The problem is systemic and we need to find out why and change it. Too often, the father disappears or they live apart and work out visitation, and if he can, helps her out financially. There is also adoption. Too many black teens are getting pregnant, go on assistance or their mother or grandmother or aunt raises the baby while they go to work. In Detroit, for example, the number of black males who drop out of high school is somebody’s fault. But it seems too many parents aren’t able, willing or taught how to parent. The men know where to get guns, form gangs and shoot each other. One former Mayor of Detroit called on Black Ministers to help.

Bottom line: Morality is: “Yeah. Whatever.” for too many people.

Role models - good role models - used to be common. Good luck finding some today. Christians do sometimes get together. I saw a billboard in the ‘bad’ part of Detroit. It showed a number of young black people. The words were: “We will wait to get married.”
It was sponsored by a local Church.

Ed

 

[Brendan]

Good analogy, but I think one of the issues here is whether human life (in the form of an embryo or a fetus) is the equivalent of a human person. .

How about science then. Biologically, it is human.

The question then becomes, do ALL humans get human rights, or just a subset?

What is your position on that.

Would you deny the science, deny human rights to subsets of humans, or grant human rights to all humans?

 

[meltzerboy]

How about science then. Biologically, it is human.

The question then becomes, do ALL humans get human rights, or just a subset?

What is your position on that.

Would you deny the science, deny human rights to subsets of humans, or grant human rights to all humans?

Please read my prior post #53, which I think answers some of your questions.