Abortion

[beleg]

Another thing, I forgot to point out - restrictions on abortion are, as OP pointed out at the beginning of the thread, really a poor woman’s problem. Rich or well off women can always drive or fly to one of the west coast states like California and get a safe abortion. Poor people have no such choice if they are living in a southern state like Georgia or Texas. Even if abortion is banned nationwide, rich women can fly to China or India and get a safe, legal abortion. This fight against abortion, is really a fight against poor women.

Also, this wishful thinking that the Holy Spirit somehow protects the Church against errors is quite risky. When the Christ returns and corrects many of these errors, there will be a great schism - there will be people who will follow the Christ and accept whatever he says and those who will reject him because he does not agree with them. This can happen quite soon.

Poor people easily have the choice to make a safe abortion in Texas - I go to school less than a mile away from one of the largest abortion clinics in the world, conveniently located in an historically underprivileged black neighborhood. Don’t tell me that poor people have limited access to abortion. Abortion is primarily marketed to poor people, in what I think is an insidious attempt to limit the number of poor and underprivileged people. It’s truly disgusting.

Even if abortion is banned, sure, some women will still seek out abortions. But that doesn’t make their decision right. Limiting their options will make it more difficult for them to have abortions, which is one of the goals of the anti-abortion movement. If they choose to have an abortion even then, that’s a problem. Our end goal is to have everyone understand and accept that abortion is an evil, and thus educate them and help them so that they won’t even come to the point of considering it as an option.

 

[Lucy107]

So a person is anyone who can survive on their own with or without medical assistance, but without relying on another’s body, even if that part was designed to be used by both organisms?

Per such a definition of personhood, no living, walking human is a person, because people rely on eachother (and other beings) all the time.

The modes of this reliance or dependence vary, but they are inevitable.

The dependence may be that of a child inside a uterus, or that of an employee to his boss, and so on.

 

[Lucy107]

Our end goal is to have everyone understand and accept that abortion is an evil, and thus educate them and help them so that they won’t even come to the point of considering it as an option.

I think that many abortion discussions are too narrow, taking into consideration a far too narrow scope of the situation, which also seems to be the reason that there is little success through them.

I would think that the end goal should be to have everyone understand and accept that engaging in sex when one doesn’t want to have children is an evil, and thus educate them and help them so that they won’t even come to the point of considering it as an option.

 

[beleg]

Actually, I think it’s not even necessary to try do define the personhood of the fetus based on the observed characteristics of the fetus.

We can conclude, based on the particular consequences that the prospective parent and others predict from the pregnancy, that they are talking about a person, and not merely about “cells” or “tissue”.

Because if people would really believe that what is inside a pregnant woman’s womb is merely “cells” or “tissue,” then they would not worry about having a child, not worry having to feed it, clean it, watch it grow up. Their worries show that they are sure they are talking about a person, even if they don’t use that word.

Heck, personhood doesn’t even have to come into the equation to show that those who promote abortion are probably holding a double standard. Because it’s easy to scientifically show that a fetus is a human being, only different in stages of development from those of us who have been born. And since we hold the killing of born humans as wrong, except in self defense, there’s a double standard in allowing the killing of a human being who’s still in the womb (and since the fetus isn’t attacking the mother, the mother can’t claim self defense as a justification).

On a secular level, if you claim you can have an abortion, you have to likewise claim that murder is perfectly okay in order to be consistent.

 

[beleg]

I think that many abortion discussions are too narrow, taking into consideration a far too narrow scope of the situation, which also seems to be the reason that there is little success through them.

I would think that the end goal should be to have everyone understand and accept that engaging in sex when one doesn’t want to have children is an evil, and thus educate them and help them so that they won’t even come to the point of considering it as an option.

That would be ideal, but it would also require us to teach them explicitly Catholic stuff, which can be harder to argue. When society already doesn’t accept the two points of sex - to be unitive and procreative - this can be difficult.

But even on a purely secular level, it can be easily argued that abortion is wrong, as the only pre-existing belief that people need to see this is that murder is wrong, which most people, thankfully, do believe.

 

[Lucy107]

Exactly, we differ on whether a fetus is a human person or not. Such a question is impossible to resolve,

It’s not impossible to resolve. It’s clear from people’s intentions and from what they hope to achieve by abortion.

And what people typically want to achieve with an abortion is that there would be no child, no person.

 

[Lucy107]

That would be ideal, but it would also require us to teach them explicitly Catholic stuff, which can be harder to argue. When society already doesn’t accept the two points of sex - to be unitive and procreative - this can be difficult.

But if people are taught only that abortion is evil, then they are being betrayed by not being told “the whole story.”

I think those who only oppose abortion, but don’t focus on the true purpose of sex, are being unfair to the people they are teaching, and are setting them up for great suffering.

 

[openmind77]

So a person is anyone who can survive on their own with or without medical assistance, but without relying on another’s body, even if that part was designed to be used by both organisms? Well, by that definition, a fetus who has achieved 23 weeks of age are persons as they do not necessarily require the use of another’s body to live. (20+% survive at that age.) As you have already agreed with the statement that to kill a person is murder and should be illegal, you can now see how you have justified making abortion after the age of 23 weeks of gestation illegal.

Also, what about conjoined twins who share one or more vital organs? They require another’s body part to live, at least for a time. Should it be legal to kill them as, by your definition, they are not persons?

If a fetus is viable outside the body, the mother should be allowed to ask to have it removed. The government (or you) can not insist that she should carry it in her body against her will.

I am not sure why anything needs to be done to the twins - I said the decision is the person’s whose body is being used (in our case the mother). Are you suggesting one of the twins will demand that the other one be removed? That could be a question after they grow up perhaps.

 

[cena]

If a fetus is viable outside the body, the mother should be allowed to ask to have it removed. The government (or you) can not insist that she should carry it in her body against her will.

I am not sure why anything needs to be done to the twins - I said the decision is the person’s whose body is being used (in our case the mother). Are you suggesting one of the twins will demand that the other one be removed? That could be a question after they grow up perhaps.

Abortion kills the infant then removes it.
I can’t believe people think someone has the right to take away an innocent life because one is dependent on the other.

When does someone become a person? What are they before that? What are they during the transition?

 

[zz912]

Exactly, we differ on whether a fetus is a human person or not. Such a question is impossible to resolve,

No, it’s not.

List out how you define who is a human person and who is not.

 

[zz912]

( BTW those who agree with me are usually the better educated, more ‘logical’, more ‘thoughtful’ people or have you failed to notice that?)

That’s your opinion of those who hold similar views to yourself. Not surprising you would be a cheerleader for your team.

And insulting those that disagree with you shows a lack of intelligence and class.

 

[Secant]

Well, even if it ok for the mother to ask to have her child delivered, it would still have to be wrong for her to have an abortion. Otherwise you are putting someone’s right to choose what happens to their body above someone else’s right to live. By your own definition, that fetus is now a someone, a person, and you agreed that killing a person was murder.

As for the twins, if one said that about the other, you would want the one who wishes the other removed to wait until they were eighteen? That could be years! If it’s ok for one of them to kill the other at any point, why make them wait years? Why not just kill your twin now? And if they have to wait years while sharing an organ, why can’t a woman be asked to wait 40 weeks while sharing her uterus with another human organism, especially if that organism needs but 17 more weeks and is, by your own definition, a person?

 

[a_priori]

( BTW those who agree with me are usually the better educated, more ‘logical’, more ‘thoughtful’ people or have you failed to notice that?)“There is a way that seems right to a man, But its end is the way of death.” [Proverbs 14:12] “Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools…” [Romans 1:22]

 

[a_priori]

( BTW those who agree with me are usually the better educated, more ‘logical’, more ‘thoughtful’ people or have you failed to notice that?)

“There is a way that seems right to a man, But its end is the way of death.” [Proverbs 14:12] “Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools…” [Romans 1:22]

 

[openmind77]

Well, even if it ok for the mother to ask to have her child delivered, it would still have to be wrong for her to have an abortion. Otherwise you are putting someone’s right to choose what happens to their body above someone else’s right to live. By your own definition, that fetus is now a someone, a person, and you agreed that killing a person was murder.

As for the twins, if one said that about the other, you would want the one who wishes the other removed to wait until they were eighteen? That could be years! If it’s ok for one of them to kill the other at any point, why make them wait years? Why not just kill your twin now? And if they have to wait years while sharing an organ, why can’t a woman be asked to wait 40 weeks while sharing her uterus with another human organism, especially if that organism needs but 17 more weeks and is, by your own definition, a person?

If that is the only way to remove the fetus than it is not the mother’s fault. The fetus is only a person after it is outside the mother’s body.

I am not sure why we are talking about twins - they are codependent, not hosted in each other’s body. And why should you kill either of them? Only the person who is the host has any right, nobody else - not you nor the government. In any case we are not talking about killing someone, the conjoined twin needs to see a surgeon.

 

[beleg]

If that is the only way to remove the fetus than it is not the mother’s fault. The fetus is only a person after it is outside the mother’s body.

I am not sure why we are talking about twins - they are codependent, not hosted in each other’s body. And why should you kill either of them? Only the person who is the host has any right, nobody else - not you nor the government. In any case we are not talking about killing someone, the conjoined twin needs to see a surgeon.

If the only way to remove a fetus is by killing it, it is still not justified. In scientific terms, an abortion is the killing of a fetal member of the species Homo sapiens, or in other words killing a human being. It is no different than killing a human adult, scientifically. So why should we say killing an adult is wrong, while killing a fetus is alright? That’s ageism!

 

[Secant]

According to you, there is nothing stated about being in the mother’s womb, which is simply an appropriate environment for a short while. Everyone needs an appropriate environment.

In strictly logical terms, I would say a person is anyone who can survive on their own (perhaps even with medical assistance if needed). But someone who needs a somebody else’s host body in order to survive can not be called a separate human person in their own right.

However, you do say that a person who needs something from someone else’s body is not a person. This, you do not deny the personhood of some fetuses, as they do not require another’s body to live, it is just the healthiest environment for them to be in. Killing them would be murder and by your own statement, wrong. As such, it would need to be illegal to have an abortion after the point of viability, since one person is being murdered. This is your own statement.

However, a conjoined twin with shared organs requires something from another’s body to live. That, by your definition, excludes them from being persons. As such, I am legally able, if your definition is correct, to kill them without it being murder. It would be no different from killing the flies that buzz around my house. If that is wrong (and I hope you think it is) then your definition of personhood is wrong.

 

[openmind77]

According to you, there is nothing stated about being in the mother’s womb, which is simply an appropriate environment for a short while. Everyone needs an appropriate environment.

However, you do say that a person who needs something from someone else’s body is not a person. This, you do not deny the personhood of some fetuses, as they do not require another’s body to live, it is just the healthiest environment for them to be in. Killing them would be murder and by your own statement, wrong. As such, it would need to be illegal to have an abortion after the point of viability, since one person is being murdered. This is your own statement.

However, a conjoined twin with shared organs requires something from another’s body to live. That, by your definition, excludes them from being persons. As such, I am legally able, if your definition is correct, to kill them without it being murder. It would be no different from killing the flies that buzz around my house. If that is wrong (and I hope you think it is) then your definition of personhood is wrong.

I did not say needing something from anyone’s body. I said needing someone as a host body ( perhaps you don’t understand the term host). Anyway there is no point in talking in circles, it is best to let the Christ explain it to us. He will be here soon, not long to wait.

.I am sorry, I am afraid we need to stop this conversation now, it is going in circles. Thanks

 

[flufflepuff]

There is a perfect way already created not to get pregnant; it’s called abstinence. It’s even free! And doesn’t harm your health, and doesn’t kill anyone.

Just so you know, those things happen in every economic ‘class’. I’m sorry you had to live with that. And I’d like to correct you: SOME people are horrible to the poor. Too many, yes, but not all; if you put yourself around the right people, you’ll see that.

Truth. While at any moment we represent any number of groups of people (Catholic, women, white, middle aged, overweight, mother of boys, someone who lives in an apartment instead of a house, dog owner, cat owner, fish owner, etc etc etc), we are representing those groups. The least of these groups does not represent the whole of the group. Should the whole ‘group’ be condemned for the actions of its lowest which are not in its control?

Part of submitting our own self to God is not to worry about what our neighbors around us in Mass or in the Church, think. It isn’t easy, because this world teaches us to worry about the Jones family next door in order to ‘win’. Life isn’t a competition, therefore judging based on circumstances or appearances is not needed. We can’t change others, but we can change our reactions to them.

I’m sorry that you have turned to the cynical side of things, and for the things that happened in your life that makes you feel that way. I encourage you to continue to increase your prayer life with our Lord and Savior; turn to Mary, the Saints and the angels for even more prayers. You haven’t seen the same images I have, apparently, or I keep that kind of filth out of my life more than others do. It’s real, not video games or a movie.

I will pray for those suffering in their lives, due to their childhood and adult issues, especially those that have things that keep them from being at peace with both themselves and God. It isn’t easy, but reconciling with the Lord is the best way to reconcile yourself completely on this earth.

Hai there,

Hmm, yeah I’m going to guess that perhaps you have not had to go through some of the life situations Lucy has, nor really understand where she’s coming from. That’s the reason I picked the parish I did so carefully, anytime I see the McMansion look a lot of American Churches have I do a 180 and go the other way. I figure if they spend that much on a building like that their financial priorities are in the wrong place. Think Jesus had something to say about that…

Oh, and you judge! I’m not cynical! Any idea how much effort that is? I tend to keep my mouth shut IRL for a reason, cynical people tend to make enemies and in a society like the USA that does have incredible discrimination thats a great way to ruin your carrier. Old phrase I live by, nail that sticks up gets hammered down. Know more that a few people here would disagree, but considering I’m fending for myself I will continue as I’ve always have to look out for number one until I can live in a place that has more legal protections.
If anything i’m just really apathetic. That takes waaaaay less energy and that time is better invested in someone more valuable, me! Considering I’m trying to heal I think it’s a good way to spend my personal energy, rather than wasting it on needless cynicism and hate. Pathetic waste really. And to be fair I do a pretty good job of keeping bad things out of my head, I had to be my own keeper at an early age. What can I say, after seeing my own mother killed by my father and then having to serve a restraining order on him in addition to all the legal hastle the monster tried to inflict on me I’m quite a bit on edge, hence the outpatient mental care.

 

[ChurchSuffering]

Hai there,

Hmm, yeah I’m going to guess that perhaps you have not had to go through some of the life situations Lucy has, nor really understand where she’s coming from. That’s the reason I picked the parish I did so carefully, anytime I see the McMansion look a lot of American Churches have I do a 180 and go the other way. I figure if they spend that much on a building like that their financial priorities are in the wrong place. Think Jesus had something to say about that…

Oh, and you judge! I’m not cynical! Any idea how much effort that is? I tend to keep my mouth shut IRL for a reason, cynical people tend to make enemies and in a society like the USA that does have incredible discrimination thats a great way to ruin your carrier. Old phrase I live by, nail that sticks up gets hammered down. Know more that a few people here would disagree, but considering I’m fending for myself I will continue as I’ve always have to look out for number one until I can live in a place that has more legal protections.
If anything i’m just really apathetic. That takes waaaaay less energy and that time is better invested in someone more valuable, me! Considering I’m trying to heal I think it’s a good way to spend my personal energy, rather than wasting it on needless cynicism and hate. Pathetic waste really. And to be fair I do a pretty good job of keeping bad things out of my head, I had to be my own keeper at an early age. What can I say, after seeing my own mother killed by my father and then having to serve a restraining order on him in addition to all the legal hastle the monster tried to inflict on me I’m quite a bit on edge, hence the outpatient mental care.

Just gonna jump in here and say that this thread is supposed to be about the Church’s stance on abortion. Not pity or sympathy on family/friend matters and mental health, unless you are trying to get this thread closed. Although I am very sorry to hear what you had to go through. You will be in my prayers

God Bless,
ChurchSuffering