Abortions and government regulations... where do you (catholics and others or religious faith) stand?

[PropertyDualist]

The main points I want to make before I want to ask me question(s):

1. Whether a small fetus is “human” is subjective. It varies on the individual. Actually, if we were to use the scientific definition, it is not alive… but let me give pro-life people the edge here and say that** it is subjective. **
2. The church and state should stay out of each other’s business (separation of church and state).

---

Even if you are strongly pro-life, you must admit that you do not have any “proof” that a fetus is alive. You have your arguments, but you have no proof. There is not definite, empirical, scientific answer.

So, this is a question to all pro-life people here:

Should there be government regulations on abortion?

I obviously think not, because the answer to whether fetuses are alive is subjective, and until proof that they are alive is produced, a religious view should not be imposed upon people by the government.

Are there any who disagree to this? Why?

Thanks!

 

[Trishie]

egg and sperm separate, two separate organisms that can produce no new life but die.
If egg and sperm fuse they create a new organism a human life.
Complicate it as people wish in order to cloud what is a very straightforward and simple fact, this is a human being who unless aborted with continue to develop.

 

[Fortiori]

The scientific definition, eh? Please cite. Webster’s Dictionary defines “alive” as having life : not dead or inanimate. And if a small fetus is not human, what is it? Let me retain the edge here and say that it’s not subjective at all.

Should there be government regulations on oil drilling? Oil’s DEFINITELY not alive, so I think not. And whether or not the effects of oil drilling may be “harmful” are subjective. Are there any to disagree of these?

You’re welcome

 

[katcecelia]

Separation of church and state was to keep gov’t out of religion, not faith out of gov’t…

 

[bzkoss236]

The main points I want to make before I want to ask me question(s):

1. Whether a small fetus is “human” is subjective. It varies on the individual. Actually, if we were to use the scientific definition, it is not alive… but let me give pro-life people the edge here and say that** it is subjective. **
2. The church and state should stay out of each other’s business (separation of church and state).

---

Even if you are strongly pro-life, you must admit that you do not have any “proof” that a fetus is alive. You have your arguments, but you have no proof. There is not definite, empirical, scientific answer.

So, this is a question to all pro-life people here:

Should there be government regulations on abortion?

I obviously think not, because the answer to whether fetuses are alive is subjective, and until proof that they are alive is produced, a religious view should not be imposed upon people by the government.

Are there any who disagree to this? Why?

Thanks!

A tree or other plant is considered alive and a growing fetus isn’t? I think your definition of alive is wrong. I think the real debate is rather when is it considered a person, since that is what people feel murder means. And if murder is regulated by the government, why not abortion, since abortion is killing a human life. From what I understand, murder is the killing of one human by another and does not use the term person. Also, if someone kills a pregnant woman, why is it considered a double homicide? Also, if you don’t know whether something is alive or not, human or not, person or not, why would you want to deal in the messy ethics of the unknown? If you and your wife had an abortion and later found out that science proves abortion to be unethical and murder, would you be able to live with yourself for having killed your own child?

Some of us like to err on the side of caution. Better safe than sorry.

 

[hieroglyph]

The main points I want to make before I want to ask me question(s):

1. Whether a small fetus is “human” is subjective. It varies on the individual. Actually, if we were to use the scientific definition, it is not alive… but let me give pro-life people the edge here and say that** it is subjective. **
2. The church and state should stay out of each other’s business (separation of church and state).

---

Even if you are strongly pro-life, you must admit that you do not have any “proof” that a fetus is alive. You have your arguments, but you have no proof. There is not definite, empirical, scientific answer.

So, this is a question to all pro-life people here:

Should there be government regulations on abortion?

I obviously think not, because the answer to whether fetuses are alive is subjective, and until proof that they are alive is produced, a religious view should not be imposed upon people by the government.

Are there any who disagree to this? Why?

Thanks!

A cell is alive, thus the reference in scientific texts to living cell. Thus, sperm and egg are alive, though each contains only half of the DNA that makes up a person until they meet and form an individual with a fully unique and separate DNA. By virtue of being a living human now, no matter how tiny, that person is entitled to certain inalienable natural rights.

Natural rights require the recognition and protection of the rule of Law. Thus the use of government intervention is proper in pro-life legislation.

 

[Tingo]

—Even if you are strongly pro-life, you must admit that you do not have any “proof” that a fetus is alive. You have your arguments, but you have no proof. There is not definite, empirical, scientific answer.

So, this is a question to all pro-life people here:

Should there be government regulations on abortion?

I obviously think not, because the answer to whether fetuses are alive is subjective, and until proof that they are alive is produced, a religious view should not be imposed upon people by the government.

I do not support criminal sanctions against women who have abortions before viability or those who help them. I think there would be fewer abortions if they were freely available supported by appropriate counseling. So I guess I am not ‘pro-life’ in the sense that you mean. But there is no doubt that however you define ‘human being’ ‘human individual’ or human life’, the fetus is, or has, one. At least it is or has one in the same sense of you or me being humans. The question is not scientific. There is no doubt about the science. You are dealing with a human individual life. The question is whether the fetus is a person, and, if it is, if it is a person with the same right to life as born people, and the right to occupy the body in which it was conceived. These are philosophic and moral questions, not scientific questions. Most people answer ‘no’ to one or all of these questions in at least some circumstances. Very few uphold the Catholic position of opposition to any direct abortion, any time, for any reason.

 

[meltzerboy]

The main points I want to make before I want to ask me question(s):

1. Whether a small fetus is “human” is subjective. It varies on the individual. Actually, if we were to use the scientific definition, it is not alive… but let me give pro-life people the edge here and say that** it is subjective. **
2. The church and state should stay out of each other’s business (separation of church and state).

---

Even if you are strongly pro-life, you must admit that you do not have any “proof” that a fetus is alive. You have your arguments, but you have no proof. There is not definite, empirical, scientific answer.

So, this is a question to all pro-life people here:

Should there be government regulations on abortion?

I obviously think not, because the answer to whether fetuses are alive is subjective, and until proof that they are alive is produced, a religious view should not be imposed upon people by the government.

Are there any who disagree to this? Why?

Thanks!

What is the definition you are using of the word “alive”? In my religion (Judaism), abortion is allowed, and even required, in cases where the mother’s very life is in danger, and there are also leniencies in instances of rape and incest. But under other circumstances, abortion on demand for any reason is not permitted, at least not in Orthodox Judaism. I think government regulations should be applied especially to minors wishing to get an abortion without parental consent. Other than that, abortion should be strongly discouraged by physicians by presenting alternative solutions to the woman. Ultimately, however, the woman carrying the unborn child, together with her family, doctor, and pastor, if she has one, must make the final decision. While I personally frown on abortion except in the cases I referred to above, I realize other religions have different criteria–both stricter and more lenient–and so, to me, religious, as well as individual, liberties are the decisive factors. Having said that, I’m aware, painfully so due to previous discussions, that Catholics hold a much different view with regard to their religion’s firm belief concerning the intrinsic evil of all abortion, and they are, of course, entitled to follow their moral principles, including protesting against abortion and abortion clinics. There is, in addition, a scientific basis to their belief, although I don’t think that science is generally the main reason for the opposition. However, Catholicism’s teaching is precisely why I hold my own perspective on the issue, since tolerance toward one religion’s beliefs is inevitably linked to tolerance toward the beliefs of other religions which differ to some extent. Therefore it is my view that all religious beliefs and moral values that reflect an examination of one’s conscience with regard to abortion must be respected, and particularly so in a multicultural, multi-ethnic, multi-religious society such as the US.

 

[ApologiaSophia]

The main points I want to make before I want to ask me question(s):

1. Whether a small fetus is “human” is subjective. It varies on the individual. Actually, if we were to use the scientific definition, it is not alive… but let me give pro-life people the edge here and say that** it is subjective. **
2. The church and state should stay out of each other’s business (separation of church and state).

---

Even if you are strongly pro-life, you must admit that you do not have any “proof” that a fetus is alive. You have your arguments, but you have no proof. There is not definite, empirical, scientific answer.

So, this is a question to all pro-life people here:

Should there be government regulations on abortion?

I obviously think not, because the answer to whether fetuses are alive is subjective, and until proof that they are alive is produced, a religious view should not be imposed upon people by the government.

Are there any who disagree to this? Why?

Thanks!

1. Let’s say it is alive and you’re wrong, but there is no proof. would it not be better to not murder the unborn that MIGHT be alive? For if we are wrong, and it is dead (which it is not, but if it were not alive) there is no foul in not “killing” the “dead,” but there is something wrong with taking the life of the living. To take a life on an assumption or on ignorance is negligence at best.
2. Yes the government should put regulations on it because it is not just a religious question, it is an ethical question. Separation of Church and state is not the separation of Ethics and state. Otherwise the state should not regulate business affairs and enforcing business “ethics.” If the government does something unethical, like the holocaust, people should do the right thing and speak out. Just because are ethics may be strongly rooted in religious metaphysics does not mean we are wrong, nor does it mean that we should not speak out at what we believe is a moral travesty.

 

[vsedriver]

I do not support criminal sanctions against women who have abortions before viability or those who help them. I think there would be fewer abortions if they were freely available supported by appropriate counseling. So I guess I am not ‘pro-life’ in the sense that you mean. But there is no doubt that however you define ‘human being’ ‘human individual’ or human life’, the fetus is, or has, one. At least it is or has one in the same sense of you or me being humans. The question is not scientific. There is no doubt about the science. You are dealing with a human individual life. The question is whether the fetus is a person, and, if it is, if it is a person with the same right to life as born people, and the right to occupy the body in which it was conceived. These are philosophic and moral questions, not scientific questions. Most people answer ‘no’ to one or all of these questions in at least some circumstances. Very few uphold the Catholic position of opposition to any direct abortion, any time, for any reason.

All persons are human life.
A human fetus is human life.
therefore a human fetus is a person.

 

[carn]

The above posters showed the weakness of the opening posts positions, just one more:

Even if you are strongly pro-life, you must admit that you do not have any “proof” that a fetus is alive. You have your arguments, but you have no proof.

It its not alive, then its not even part of the body of the mother, more something like hair or fingernails, which the person is free to dispose as the person likes. That includes eating it, eating your hair is quite stupid, but legally fine, also selling your hair to others, so they can eat it.

So when you say fetus is not alive, you effictively allow for ebay offers like “Going to have an abortion in 5 days, auction for the non-human non-living material ends in 3 days, its week 16, so about about 100 gram to be expected, will be cooled and kept fresh and all, starting bid 100 dollars, anybody hungry?”.

If you now feel a slight tendency to throw up or run to the forum admin due to my insentive and nasty idea, thats not my idea, thats yours if you think fetuses are non-living non-human things, after all, government has no buisiness in forbidding people to eat non-living non-human things, if there is no health problem with the food (which would not be with fetuses, probably have nice amount of protein and little substances bad for the human body)

 

[JerryZ]

The main points I want to make before I want to ask me question(s):

1. Whether a small fetus is “human” is subjective. It varies on the individual. Actually, if we were to use the scientific definition, it is not alive… but let me give pro-life people the edge here and say that** it is subjective. **
2. The church and state should stay out of each other’s business (separation of church and state).

---

Even if you are strongly pro-life, you must admit that you do not have any “proof” that a fetus is alive. You have your arguments, but you have no proof. There is not definite, empirical, scientific answer.

So, this is a question to all pro-life people here:

Should there be government regulations on abortion?

I obviously think not, because the answer to whether fetuses are alive is subjective, and until proof that they are alive is produced, a religious view should not be imposed upon people by the government.

Are there any who disagree to this? Why?

Thanks!

So under that opaque interpretation of yours a baby comes alive after he is ejected from the mother’s womb?

What is his state prior to that event?

From the scientific point of view that is nonsense

You know what I am editing this post to clarify to you how it is done:
Once the mother finds out she is pregnant she goes to her OB and checks with him that the fetus is indeed alive, because complications can occur if the fetus is dead and is not expulsed it has to be removed or the mother can die.
Nowdays there is the ultrasound that allows to visualize and monitor the fetus development at every stage.
They can see the little heart beating and measure the size and development of the brain.
So this nonsense of the fetus not being alive is total hogwash.

 

[bzkoss236]

All persons are human life.
A human fetus is human life.
therefore a human fetus is a person.

Unfortunately, this isn’t logically sound. I could use a venn diagram to show you what I mean, but anyway. The thing is, a person has reason and thought. Think of God. God has 3 persons, but they aren’t all human, only Jesus. Part of the main issue is whether murder is the killing of one person by another, or is it the killing of one human by another. From my understanding, it has been the killing of one human by another. However, people seem to be trying to argue that it is the killing of one person by another. If that is the case then as I said in my first post, why is killing a pregnant woman, where the baby dies too, considered a double homicide? I could go on.

 

[carn]

With aruging around whether its human, one ends with contradictions and will logically, at least if abortion is favored as a right, end up with another position, nicely spelled out by Peter Singer, one thing he got correctly:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Singer#Abortion.2C_euthanasia_and_infanticide
" Be that as it may, in his view, the central argument against abortion may be stated as the following syllogism:

It is wrong to kill an innocent human being.
A human fetus is an innocent human being.
Therefore it is wrong to kill a human fetus.[23]"

In his book Rethinking Life and Death, as well as in Practical Ethics, Singer asserts that, if we take the premises at face value, the argument is deductively valid. Singer comments that defenders of abortion attack the second premise, suggesting that the fetus becomes a “human” or “alive” at some point after conception; however, Singer finds this argument flawed in that that human development is a gradual process, and it is nearly impossible to mark a particular moment in time as the moment at which human life begins.

Singer at MIT.Singer’s argument for abortion differs from many other proponents of abortion, then; rather than attacking the second premise of the anti-abortion argument, Singer attacks the first premise, denying that it is necessarily wrong to take innocent human life:

[The argument that a fetus is not alive] is a resort to a convenient fiction that turns an evidently living being into one that legally is not alive. Instead of accepting such fictions, we should recognise that the fact that a being is human, and alive, does not in itself tell us whether it is wrong to take that being’s life.[24]"

When one is in favor of abortion, one ends up in doubt about whether its wrong to kill humans, just because they are humans.

 

[Giggly_Giraffe]

It’s always been the government who is afraid of babies and creates what is “subjective” based upon their beliefs. IDK why governments are afraid of babies.

Moses was exiling baby death sentanced by the government. St Joseph was told by an angel in a dream to take his family & flee because of the Kings comandment to kill all under the age of two. Even Hitler played his part in defining what is and what is not life by appointing himself and hiring people to agree with him. However, Hitlers biggest ally and Sucessor to his Eugenics ideology became an American by the name of Margaret Sanger.

Religion is about family. We hold God (creator) as Our Father, Jesus Christ as our brother, and the Holy Spirit the giver of life. Together they give us boundaries to safeguard our physical, mental, & spiritual wellbeing; morals & our family. We are called to speak for those who cannot speak for themselves as advocates to protect our family. If we cannot protect our family, then how is the government serving us? We are back to a government that is hierarcal, dictating, and fascist.

Who is your family?

 

[_Abyssinia]

Ronan O’Rahilly and Fabiola Müller in Human Embryology and Teratology, 3rd edition say

“Although life is a continuous process, fertilization (which, incidentally, is not a ‘moment’) is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new genetically distinct human organism is formed when the chromosomes of the male and female pronuclei blend in the oocyte”

April 1981 Congress did hearings on answering when does life begins. 57 witnesses, internationally known scientists have testimony. 1 scientist disagreed philosophically, but all the other scientists tesified that life began at conception

Here are what some of the experts said

Dr. Alfred M. Bongioanni, professor of pediatrics and obstetrics at the University of Pennsylvania, stated:

“I have learned from my earliest medical education that human life begins at the time of conception…. I submit that human life is present throughout this entire sequence from conception to adulthood and that any interruption at any point throughout this time constitutes a termination of human life….

I am no more prepared to say that these early stages [of development in the womb] represent an incomplete human being than I would be to say that the child prior to the dramatic effects of puberty…is not a human being. This is human life at every stage.”

Dr. Jerome LeJeune, professor of genetics at the University of Descartes in Paris, was the discoverer of the chromosome pattern of Down syndrome. Dr. LeJeune testified to the Judiciary Subcommittee, “after fertilization has taken place a new human being has come into being.” He stated that this “is no longer a matter of taste or opinion,” and “not a metaphysical contention, it is plain experimental evidence.” He added, “Each individual has a very neat beginning, at conception.”

Professor Hymie Gordon, Mayo Clinic: “By all the criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception.”

Professor Micheline Matthews-Roth, Harvard University Medical School: “It is incorrect to say that biological data cannot be decisive…. It is scientifically correct to say that an individual human life begins at conception…. Our laws, one function of which is to help preserve the lives of our people, should be based on accurate scientific data.”

Dr. Watson A. Bowes, University of Colorado Medical School: “The beginning of a single human life is from a biological point of view a simple and straightforward matter—the beginning is conception. This straightforward biological fact should not be distorted to serve sociological, political, or economic goals.”

A prominent physician points out that at these Senate hearings, “Pro-abortionists, though invited to do so, failed to produce even a single expert witness who would specifically testify that life begins at any point other than conception or implantation. Only one witness said no one can tell when life begins.”2

Many other prominent scientists and physicians have likewise affirmed with certainty that human life begins at conception:

Ashley Montague, a geneticist and professor at Harvard and Rutgers, is unsympathetic to the prolife cause. Nevertheless, he affirms unequivocally, “The basic fact is simple: life begins not at birth, but conception.”3

Senate reported concluded

Physicians, biologists, and other scientists agree that conception marks the beginning of the life of a human being - a being that is alive and is a member of the human species. There is overwhelming agreement on this point in countless medical, biological, and scientific writings

(Report, Subcommittee on Separation of Powers to Senate Judiciary Committee S-158, 97th Congress, 1st Session 1981 p. 7)

Dr Robert George in Embryo says

That is, in human reproduction, when sperm joins ovum, these two individual cells cease to be, and their union generates a new and distinct organism. This organism is a whole, though in the beginning developmentally immature, member of the human species. Readers need not take our word for this: They can consult any of the standard human-embryology texts, such as Moore and Persaud’s The Developing Human, Larsen’s Human Embryology, Carlson’s Human Embryology & Developmental Biology, and O’Rahilly and Mueller’s Human Embryology & Teratology

…

Human embryos, whether they are formed by fertilization (natural or in vitro) or by successful somatic-cell nuclear transfer (SCNT — i.e., cloning), do have the internal resources and active disposition to develop themselves to the mature stage of a human organism, requiring only a suitable environment and nutrition. In fact, scientists distinguish embryos from other cells or clusters of cells precisely by their self-directed, integral functioning — their organismal behavior. Thus, human embryos are what the embryology textbooks say they are, namely, human organisms — living individuals of the human species — at the earliest developmental stage

Keith L Moore and T. v n Persuad in The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, page 16 say

Human development begins at fertilization when a male gamete or sperm (spermatozoon) unites with a 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

 

[_Abyssinia]

The Biology of Prenatal Develpment, National Geographic says

Biologically speaking, human development begins at fertilization

Geraldine Lux Flanagan in Beginning Life says

Every baby begins life within the tiny globe of the mother’s egg… It is beautifully translucent and fragile and it encompasses the vital links in which life is carried from one generation to the next. Within this tiny sphere great events take place. When one of the father’s sperm cells, like the ones gathered here around the egg, succeeds in penetrating the egg and becomes united with it, a new life can begin

E L Potter and J M Craig in Pathology of the Fetus and the Infant, 3rd edition say

Every time a sperm cell and ovum unite a new being is created which is alive and will continue to live unless its death is brought about by some specific condition

Clark Eward Corliss in Patten’s Human Embryology: Elements of Clinical Development says

“It is the penetration of the ovum by a spermatozoan and resultant mingling of the nuclear material each brings to the union that constitues the culmination of the process of fertilization and marks the initiation of the life of a new individual”

Beginning of human life is not subjective, the science says human life begins at conception

 

[Tingo]

Beginning of human life is not subjective, the science says human life begins at conception

This is clearly not correct, although you often hear Catholics say this. Both sperm and egg are alive. Both are human cells. Their life continues. It does not start at conception. You might be able to argue that a human person begins at conception, but you cannot correctly say that life, or human life, begins at conception. part of the confusion comes from the fact that ‘human life’ in English means ‘the quality of being alive’, while ‘a human life’ means an individual’s existence or history. You might argue that a human life begins at each conception, but you cannot correctly say that ‘human life’ begins at conception, because the things that get together to form a concection are already alive.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

The main points I want to make before I want to ask me question(s):

1. Whether a small fetus is “human” is subjective. It varies on the individual. Actually, if we were to use the scientific definition, it is not alive… but let me give pro-life people the edge here and say that** it is subjective. **
2. The church and state should stay out of each other’s business (separation of church and state).

---

Even if you are strongly pro-life, you must admit that you do not have any “proof” that a fetus is alive. You have your arguments, but you have no proof. There is not definite, empirical, scientific answer.

So, this is a question to all pro-life people here:

Should there be government regulations on abortion?

I obviously think not, because the answer to whether fetuses are alive is subjective, and until proof that they are alive is produced, a religious view should not be imposed upon people by the government.

Are there any who disagree to this? Why?

Thanks!

Um, I don’t know how to tell you this, but the status of a fetus being alive was settled a rather long time ago. I suggest you go back to your college and ask for a refund for any biology or science classes you took. They obviously didn’t teach you much.