A woman's right to control her body?

[edwest2]

I’m not saying I actually disagree, but I am left with a question -

What is it that makes a human being a human being, and not “just” a largely hairless, fairly intelligent monkey?

I think this question is important because it is, really, what lies at the heart of the abortion debate - which is really about who counts who or what as a “person” who has rights which aren’t to be trampled on without just cause by someone else.

Now I am not saying that the unborn are not worth protecting. Of course they are. What I do question though is that ignoring that need to be protected - what is it, really, that makes a human life so especially human? Because this is what has to be presented to all those who support abortion, because when this argument is right, unanswerable…when we can say why is a human being a “person” not just another example of Homo sapiens, the abortion debate is won (either way, quite honestly). And I don’t think until this question can be answered - which I’ll grant will take more threads than CAF can probably host - we will be any further forward, just back and forth in a long process of extending and restricting abortion to a greater or lesser extent. Abortion is justified because until a point in their development, that growing human being is not considered a ‘person’, for all the DNA that shows to which species they belong. So, what makes a person?

P.S.

Presumably anyone who ever felt a need to justify slavery? But that’s a topic for somewhere else!

The mother is human. The father is human. The baby is human.

Monkeys aren’t humans.

Ed

 

[Crown_of_Stars]

We always have the “right” to “control” our own body. Keep your legs closed.
And if it’s rape, the only thing I can say is…Yes, that isn’t in our control, unfortunately, but just fight during it. Just fight it, and struggle against your attacker as strongly as you can.
There are two separate bodies involved in the decision of abortion, and, unfortunately, a more appropriate way of saying it is to admit that the body being the most “controlled” is the baby’s. And from there, his or her tiny, perfectly formed yet mutilated body ends up in the trash can.

 

[Mark121359]

To be fair, once the life has been extinguished, it is just a blob of matter that just happens to look more or less like a baby (depending on how developed). After an adult dies, it is equally just a (bigger) blob of matter. With all my heart I can wish and hope and pray and work that the number of abortions reduces and reduces…but once one has happened no amount of anguish can undo it (like capital punishment, IMO). In that circumstance, it would be the crowning act of depravity to then not at least find some way to profit from the evil act already and irrevocably committed.

The bolded, and especially the underlined above is one of, if not the most disturbing and chilling posts I’ve ever read here on CAF. Coming from a self described Catholic makes it even more so. Can someone please help me out here? How does one profit from such a horrific evil as partial birth abortion?

***Peace, Mark ***

 

[Murmurs]

The bolded, and especially the underlined above is one of, if not the most disturbing and chilling posts I’ve ever read here on CAF. Coming from a self described Catholic makes it even more so. Can someone please help me out here? How does one profit from such a horrific evil as partial birth abortion?

Well I’m sorry you feel that way. And I share some of what you (and plenty of others here) feel. And most definitely I would far rather see a world with no abortions at all (personally speaking, I think medical emergencies excepted), than one in which one can “profit” in any way from it. Of course I do. One thing however I won’t do is apologise for my remark.

I don’t think it’s remotely chilling at all. I won’t repeat what I already argued in detail. But essentially, the evil has already been committed. No amount of hand-wringing pearl-clutching condemnation can possibly, remotely change that.

So why on earth can’t a mother donate her child for medical research? It is not as if (and it is the most horrid and gross slander to suggest otherwise) any mother would choose to be pregnant and then choose an abortion just to kill the child in the name of research (and it is equally slanderous to suggest PP would encourage such behaviour. What kind of monsters are people who make such insinuations). If her child, tragically, died from illness or accident aged say 8, and she and/or the child’s father chose then to donate the child’s body for research purposes (plenty of parents do!), acting as the adults responsible for such decisions (as of course adults may make that bequest themselves), we would be, in the midst of their grief, be lauding such selfless behaviour.

All I am saying, is that using foetal tissue resulting from abortion for important research, isn’t anything about an act of killing. It certainly isn’t disturbing. It’s one of the most wonderfully altruistic things a woman might do using her tragedy (and yes she has played a part in making it worse perhaps), as the basis for a great benefit for many others. It alarms me that so many compassionate and intelligent people can be so guilty on some occasions of such horrific myopia.

 

[Rau]

Well I’m sorry you feel that way. And I share some of what you (and plenty of others here) feel. And most definitely I would far rather see a world with no abortions at all (personally speaking, I think medical emergencies excepted), than one in which one can “profit” in any way from it. Of course I do. One thing however I won’t do is apologise for my remark.

I don’t think it’s remotely chilling at all. I won’t repeat what I already argued in detail. But essentially, the evil has already been committed. No amount of hand-wringing pearl-clutching condemnation can possibly, remotely change that.

So why on earth can’t a mother donate her child for medical research? It is not as if (and it is the most horrid and gross slander to suggest otherwise) any mother would choose to be pregnant and then choose an abortion just to kill the child in the name of research (and it is equally slanderous to suggest PP would encourage such behaviour. What kind of monsters are people who make such insinuations). If her child, tragically, died from illness or accident aged say 8, and she and/or the child’s father chose then to donate the child’s body for research purposes (plenty of parents do!), acting as the adults responsible for such decisions (as of course adults may make that bequest themselves), we would be, in the midst of their grief, be lauding such selfless behaviour.

All I am saying, is that using foetal tissue resulting from abortion for important research, isn’t anything about an act of killing. It certainly isn’t disturbing. It’s one of the most wonderfully altruistic things a woman might do using her tragedy (and yes she has played a part in making it worse perhaps), as the basis for a great benefit for many others. It alarms me that so many compassionate and intelligent people can be so guilty on some occasions of such horrific myopia.

Abortion is OK in a medical emergency? How do you reason that the innocent may be murdered in “an emergency”?

 

[Nitor]

Woman have the right to control their body this far: they have the right to refrain from gratuitous sexual intercourse, or to engage in gratuitious sexual intercourse. The right of a woman over her body does not include the right to abort an unwanted fetus. 'Nuff said.

My thoughts exactly!

 

[Peter_Plato]

So why on earth can’t a mother donate her child for medical research? It is not as if (and it is the most horrid and gross slander to suggest otherwise) any mother would choose to be pregnant and then choose an abortion just to kill the child in the name of research (and it is equally slanderous to suggest PP would encourage such behaviour. What kind of monsters are people who make such insinuations).

Uh huh. The monsters with moral myopia are those who are chilled and disturbed by PP staff gleefully and blithely picking through the parts of dismembered babies with thoughts of Lamborghinis in their heads and how they can bolster bottom line profits even while knowing that “It’s a boy!” whose “orbits” are staring back at them.

Yes, these are NOT the moral monsters, but anyone who insinuates that such people are callous and indifferent to human suffering is being slanderous in addition to being a myopic moral monster, however.

I suppose those beneficiaries of gold or art lifted from the people who were fated to become Holocaust victims ought to count themselves the fortunate beneficiaries of a most gracious and munificent precious metal and art redistribution program. The moral monsters, in fact, are those who would decry profiting in this way by advantaging oneself at the demise of another.

Uh huh, I now see your perspective AND genuinely have NO desire to share in any part of it.

 

[Mark121359]

All I am saying, is that using foetal tissue resulting from abortion for important research, isn’t anything about an act of killing. It certainly isn’t disturbing. It’s one of the most wonderfully altruistic things a woman might do using her tragedy (and yes she has played a part in making it worse perhaps), as the basis for a great benefit for many others. It alarms me that so many compassionate and intelligent people can be so guilty on some occasions of such horrific myopia.

Ooooooooooh, of course! Now I get it! How completely foolish and nearsighted of me…you think Our Lord’ll buy it?

Peace, Mark

 

[Mark121359]

Uh huh. The monsters with moral myopia are those who are chilled and disturbed by PP staff gleefully and blithely picking through the parts of dismembered babies with thoughts of Lamborghinis in their heads and how they can bolster bottom line profits even while knowing that “It’s a boy!” whose “orbits” are staring back at them.

Yes, these are NOT the moral monsters, but anyone who insinuates that such people are callous and indifferent to human suffering is being slanderous in addition to being a myopic moral monster, however.

I suppose those beneficiaries of gold or art lifted from the people who were fated to become Holocaust victims ought to count themselves the fortunate beneficiaries of a most gracious and munificent precious metal and art redistribution program. The moral monsters, in fact, are those who would decry profiting in this way by advantaging oneself at the demise of another.

Uh huh, I now see your perspective AND genuinely have NO desire to share in any part of it.

From one of the most disturbing and chilling posts I’ve ever read here on CAF, to one of the better ones…as they usually are from Peter. Well said!.

***Peace, Mark ***

 

[lax16]

As I have said many times, the abortion debate is about the largely philosophical question of when life begins.

For those who support abortion rights, the simple matter is either, that life does not begin at conception, or it doesn’t but until a certain point (eg viability) the autonomy of the mother matters more.

I don’t think most pro-choice folks are particularly heartless or evil (they might accept this evil but that’s not the same as being it themselves), it is just that they and we disagree about something fundamental.

To be honest, I don’t think calling people with that position stupid makes any progress toward reducing the number of abortions at all - although it might make one feel a bit better some times.

Instead, look for where everyone agrees; we are all in favour of abortion restrictions (the most pro-choice senator, media figure, etc, is probably not in favour of sex-selective abortions for instance) - the difference is just what those restrictions are and how they’re applied.

I have had this discussion with pro choice women and the issue is not about when life begins, but that they don’t want the government (or anyone else) telling them what to do with their bodies.

When discussing this, I have always taken the position that these women are not evil or looking to do something evil that day. They have been lied to and the truth was hidden from them.

However, now they know (thanks to the videos) that it is truly a tiny human being that is being removed from their own bodies. If they choose to kill the life inside them, that will be their choice. They will have absolutely allowed the taking of a life growing inside them.

From now on, THIS will be the conversation. They know. They can make up their own mind regarding their own body. However, they ARE killing a tiny human baby.

 

[lax16]

Woman have the right to control their body this far: they have the right to refrain from gratuitous sexual intercourse, or to engage in gratuitious sexual intercourse. The right of a woman over her body does not include the right to abort an unwanted fetus. 'Nuff said.

Exactly! Why in the world are so many women left with UNWANTED pregnancies?!

Are they sleeping with losers? If he is so wonderful that one can’t resist becoming intimate with him, surely his child would be even more wonderful.

 

[John1956]

I agree with Mark and others, that it is a disgusting thing to try and justify harvesting organs from the evil act of abortion. Nazi scientists probably used similar justification in their “science.”

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

I agree with Mark and others, that it is a disgusting thing to try and justify harvesting organs from the evil act of abortion. Nazi scientists probably used similar justification in their “science.”

Actually the term “Ghoul” comes to mind.

 

[Murmurs]

I agree with Mark and others, that it is a disgusting thing to try and justify harvesting organs from the evil act of abortion. Nazi scientists probably used similar justification in their “science.”

Look all I’m saying is that these abortions have happened anyway. If any one (or preferably all of them really) can be stopped that’s wonderful. In fact that’s better than anything else at all on the subject - but since they can’t, it hardly perpetuates the evil to find some good in an evil situation!

 

[Murmurs]

Exactly! Why in the world are so many women left with UNWANTED pregnancies?!

Are they sleeping with losers? If he is so wonderful that one can’t resist becoming intimate with him, surely his child would be even more wonderful.

I think one forgets that women, just like men, might possibly some times want to have sex for the pleasure of it. Just like married Catholic couples do.

 

[Murmurs]

Uh huh. The monsters with moral myopia are those who are chilled and disturbed by PP staff gleefully and blithely picking through the parts of dismembered babies with thoughts of Lamborghinis in their heads and how they can bolster bottom line profits even while knowing that “It’s a boy!” whose “orbits” are staring back at them.

Yes, these are NOT the moral monsters, but anyone who insinuates that such people are callous and indifferent to human suffering is being slanderous in addition to being a myopic moral monster, however.

I suppose those beneficiaries of gold or art lifted from the people who were fated to become Holocaust victims ought to count themselves the fortunate beneficiaries of a most gracious and munificent precious metal and art redistribution program. The moral monsters, in fact, are those who would decry profiting in this way by advantaging oneself at the demise of another.

Uh huh, I now see your perspective AND genuinely have NO desire to share in any part of it.

One can by all means make as many comparisons to the Nazis or suggest that PP officials are buying sports cars and gold watches off the “profits” of abortion as often as one likes. It doesn’t make it any less ridiculous the 523rd time of repeating either.

 

[Rau]

Look all I’m saying is that these abortions have happened anyway. If any one (or preferably all of them really) can be stopped that’s wonderful. In fact that’s better than anything else at all on the subject - but since they can’t, it hardly perpetuates the evil to find some good in an evil situation!

Actually, it does. What you propose adds momentum to perpetuate / maintain the abortion process. You’ve now linked it as an (name removed by moderator)ut to another activity.

 

[Peter_Plato]

One can by all means make as many comparisons to the Nazis or suggest that PP officials are buying sports cars and gold watches off the “profits” of abortion as often as one likes. It doesn’t make it any less ridiculous the 523rd time of repeating either.

It wasn’t ridiculous the first time and calling it so 523 times STILL doesn’t make it ridiculous no matter how many more times you repeat the word. You must live in a reality where repeating the thought to yourself X number of times makes it come true. That isn’t my reality - incantations have no place.

In my world, truth is truth. In this case, it was evil when done in the past by Josef Mengele and is still evil today. It won’t become less so just because progressives are now doing it nor because some can find feeble excuses to “justify” it to themselves after the fact.

 

[Murmurs]

It wasn’t ridiculous the first time and calling it so 523 times STILL doesn’t make it ridiculous no matter how many more times you repeat the word. You must live in a reality where repeating the thought to yourself X number of times makes it come true. That isn’t my reality - incantations have no place.

In my world, truth is truth. In this case, it was evil when done in the past by Josef Mengele and is still evil today. It won’t become less so just because progressives are now doing it nor because some can find feeble excuses to “justify” it to themselves after the fact.

Truth is, a lot of things need a teeny bit of perspective in order to avoid kneejerk reactions. And thanks for swinging this into a personal condemnation which I have been (I think) very careful to avoid in my replies.

PP isn’t selling body parts to Mengele, nor making selections based on crude misguided and unscientific rationale. One can be disgusted all one likes but it’s an entirely different thing. The lack of subtlety on this issues is astounding. I’m done.

God bless,

 

[Peter_Plato]

Truth is, a lot of things need a teeny bit of perspective in order to avoid kneejerk reactions. And thanks for swinging this into a personal condemnation which I have been (I think) very careful to avoid in my replies.

PP isn’t selling body parts to Mengele, nor making selections based on crude misguided and unscientific rationale. One can be disgusted all one likes but it’s an entirely different thing. The lack of subtlety on this issues is astounding. I’m done.

God bless,

Apparently, the sixth video released today by CMP provides a glimpse into what you call “a teeny bit of perspective” into both PP and StemExpress. That “perspective” can no longer provide the scaffolding behind which to build a facade of moral legitimacy.

The former StemExpress technician, Holly O’Donnell, is pretty clear what the two companies are prone to do.

An anti-abortion group has released its latest video in its campaign against Planned Parenthood, this one featuring an interview with a former StemExpress technician who claims she saw people illegally collect fetal tissue and organs without patients’ permission at a clinic.
In the sixth video — which is not as graphic as previously released tapes — former technician Holly O’Donnell describes how she and colleagues obtained patient consent for fetal tissue samples.

O’Donnell said she saw people working in the clinic collect tissue or organ samples even when a patient refused to sign a consent form — an allegation, if proven, that would violate federal law. She also said she was told to encourage patients to sign the forms.

O’Donnell, who has appeared in previous videos released by the Center for Medical Progress, appears to be referring to StemExpress technicians working at a Planned Parenthood clinic.
“I’m not going to tell a girl to kill her baby so I can get money. And that’s what this company does,” she said in the video. No one else is interviewed in the video, and the group making the videos didn’t provide any evidence to support her claims.

Read more: politico.com/story/2015/08/planned-parenthood-video-patient-permission-fetal-tissue-121292.html#ixzz3ieda5VUb

Your point…

Look all I’m saying is that these abortions have happened anyway. If any one (or preferably all of them really) can be stopped that’s wonderful. In fact that’s better than anything else at all on the subject - but since they can’t, it hardly perpetuates the evil to find some good in an evil situation!

…has lost any force it may have originally had, since it isn’t that the personnel involved are merely “making the best of a bad situation,” they are intentionally manipulating the situation in order to make the “best” profit of it.