Any ex-pro-life staunchly pro-choicers out there?

[Abu]

Reality

A Deadly Climate
theinterim.com/category/editorials/

Excerpt:
“In a recent National Post column, Diane Frances, argued that the solution to climate change was simple – indeed, it always is: that the West adopt China’s infamous and brutal one-child policy. Of course, implementing the barbaric restrictions of Red China won’t make the first world green. But it will provide the demonic escape valve, required by a culture which has been convinced that the human being does not produce waste, but is itself detritus to be disposed of.
Although Frances’ position sounds extreme, she has merely followed the logic of climate change to its ineluctable end: the realization that people are the problem.
But just the opposite is true. Indeed, the human person is the only truly renewable resource in the world because it is the only one that is truly renewed.

“The real ecological disaster of our age is not material, but moral, for population is always a blessing, never a bomb.”

 

[MoonChild02]

And if someone held the belief that they were the only conscious entity, I would accept their view as intellectually defensible. Of course if they went around killing people, the rest of us would probably agree to lock that person up and throw away the key.

Coma is an interesting thing, I don’t know very much about it from the point of view of science. For me the deciding factor would be whether the person in a coma is brain dead, if they are, I would say it’s okay to cut life support.

If they are not brain dead, then it’s a different case from a baby in the womb. A person in a coma who is not brain dead is a person that was conscious, and is now (sleeping?) and may yet recover. A baby in the womb has never been conscious, so there was never a person there. So in my view, no one to attempt to protect.

Okay, so you have no problem with keeping someone alive who is not conscious, but has brainwaves, is that what you’re saying?

Because it’s been proven that a person develops brain waves in the first 6 weeks after conception. Most women don’t know that they’re pregnant for about 4-6 weeks. Therefore, if the pregnancy isn’t caught really early on, and the appointment for the abortion isn’t made immediately, your justification for abortion goes out the window.

abort73.com/abortion/personhood/
whyprolife.com/life-in-the-womb/
prolife.com/FETALDEV.html
prolifeaction.org/faq/unborn.php

Oh, and if babies aren’t aware, how come newborns cry in their native tongue?

And before you say that fetuses DON’T get a say in anything, talk to someone like Gianna Jessen and other abortion survivors. They are very insulted whenever people tell them that they have no rights, and that their mothers had every right to abort them.

joseromia.tripod.com/survivors.html
realchoice.0catch.com/dreadcomplication.htm
realchoice.0catch.com/library/weekly/aa020200b.htm

 

[flyingfish]

Okay, so you have no problem with keeping someone alive who is not conscious, but has brainwaves, is that what you’re saying?

Because it’s been proven that a person develops brain waves in the first 6 weeks after conception.

I don’t have a problem with keeping people alive period, abortion is an issue because it is a conflict between the mother, a grown human being who is definitely conscious, and the embryo/fetus.

Personally I side with the interests of the mother, I don’t think the fetus should get a voice in how the mother lives because it doesn’t even know it exists, it doesn’t think, it won’t even know if it’s killed.

Someone who is in a coma does not present the same dilemma, because there is not that choice. However, if for example we didn’t have the resources to both sustain the person in a coma and to treat a conscious person, I would say disconnect the person in a coma and treat the conscious individual. Otherwise whether life the person in a coma is kept on life support would depend on how treatment is provided in that particular country, whether the family is paying for it, whether the state is paying for it, what the laws of the land are.

If someone who is in a coma because their brain is irretrievably damaged is disconnected, I would not consider it murder because I believe the “person” would have been long gone.

 

[John21652]

Okay, so you have no problem with keeping someone alive who is not conscious, but has brainwaves, is that what you’re saying?

Because it’s been proven that a person develops brain waves in the first 6 weeks after conception. Most women don’t know that they’re pregnant for about 4-6 weeks. Therefore, if the pregnancy isn’t caught really early on, and the appointment for the abortion isn’t made immediately, your justification for abortion goes out the window.

abort73.com/abortion/personhood/
whyprolife.com/life-in-the-womb/
prolife.com/FETALDEV.html
prolifeaction.org/faq/unborn.php

Oh, and if babies aren’t aware, how come newborns cry in their native tongue?

And before you say that fetuses DON’T get a say in anything, talk to someone like Gianna Jessen and other abortion survivors. They are very insulted whenever people tell them that they have no rights, and that their mothers had every right to abort them.

joseromia.tripod.com/survivors.html
realchoice.0catch.com/dreadcomplication.htm
realchoice.0catch.com/library/weekly/aa020200b.htm

That article about newborns crying in their native tongue struck a chord with me. My eldest daughter, when still inside her mother’s womb, would start to “throw a party” whenever my wife and I began a conversation in bed at night. The little tyke would roll around and bounce so much we were often nearly hysterical ourselves. From memory, she began these antics very very early and I think before three months, which amazed us. There was no doubt, that as soon as she heard our voices, she began to tumble and play with great enthusiasm.

 

[John21652]

I don’t have a problem with keeping people alive period, abortion is an issue because it is a conflict between the mother, a grown human being who is definitely conscious, and the embryo/fetus.

Why is it a conflict?
Pregnancy is a symbiotic relationship between two living organisms. One is dependent upon the other. In symbiosis, there is no conflict. There can’t be. So where does the conflict come from? It can only come from one source, the mother’s mental state and more specifically, her desires. The foetus cannot have desires for its own destruction. Therfore, the relationship is one of dependence and the foetus can only live while the future wishes of the mother coincide with the long term interests of the foetus. (barring accidents). I would say that the norm is that the mother would consider the future interests of the foetus. Someone who seeks otherwise is acting outside the norm. Surely? Therefore, the ‘conflict’ is not ‘normal’?

Personally I side with the interests of the mother, I don’t think the fetus should get a voice in how the mother lives because it doesn’t even know it exists, it doesn’t think, it won’t even know if it’s killed.

What about sentience? Even the most radical of Philosophers, Peter Singer, using his utilitarian arguments, says that sentience is the prime determinant in deciding whether something is “alive”. Is a foetus a sentient being? Well, if they react to pain and other stimulus, then they must pass the test. It has long been proven that unborn babies do indeed react to external stimuli and so they should be considered as sentient beings, capable of being aware of their own existence.

Floating around on the Internet is a film called “The Silent Scream”. It’s an old one now and was done by a doctor who used to practice abortion. He did a total about face on the issue and became a firm anti-abortion spokesman. The film has copped a lot of criticism from pro-abortionists, but the fact that it was put together by a doctor who came to the realisation that abortion was murder is a powerful one, I think. The film definently shows that foetuses react very powerfully to external stimuli.

 

[flyingfish]

Why is it a conflict?
Pregnancy is a symbiotic relationship between two living organisms. One is dependent upon the other. In symbiosis, there is no conflict. There can’t be. So where does the conflict come from? It can only come from one source, the mother’s mental state and more specifically, her desires. The foetus cannot have desires for its own destruction. Therfore, the relationship is one of dependence and the foetus can only live while the future wishes of the mother coincide with the long term interests of the foetus. (barring accidents). I would say that the norm is that the mother would consider the future interests of the foetus. Someone who seeks otherwise is acting outside the norm. Surely? Therefore, the ‘conflict’ is not ‘normal’?

If you’re interested in my views read my other points in this thread, but generally there are exceptions to this. Most notably when the pregnancy threatens the mothers health or even life (I posted an actual example of a woman who is nearly blind because Poland didn’t let her have an abortion despite specialists saying pregnancy would do this to her).

You might say these cases are not normal. But I am not pro-abortion, I think abortion is generally a very bad thing. I just think there are situations when having an abortion is the best decision.

What about sentience? Even the most radical of Philosophers, Peter Singer, using his utilitarian arguments, says that sentience is the prime determinant in deciding whether something is “alive”. Is a foetus a sentient being? Well, if they react to pain and other stimulus, then they must pass the test. It has long been proven that unborn babies do indeed react to external stimuli and so they should be considered as sentient beings, capable of being aware of their own existence.

Floating around on the Internet is a film called “The Silent Scream”. It’s an old one now and was done by a doctor who used to practice abortion. He did a total about face on the issue and became a firm anti-abortion spokesman. The film has copped a lot of criticism from pro-abortionists, but the fact that it was put together by a doctor who came to the realisation that abortion was murder is a powerful one, I think. The film definently shows that foetuses react very powerfully to external stimuli.

Animals are also sentient in this way, and most of us have no issue with eating meat. My “test” for personhood is the capacity of the brain to generate a conscious/self-aware being. Reacting to stimuli doesn’t say much, even plants react to stimuli (like it will bend toward the source of light).

 

[LilyM]

I don’t think that the me that wakes up is the same me that went to sleep. I think it’s nearly identical because brain conditions probably didn’t change significantly during sleep, but not quite identical, because the brain did change.

I also included brain in the body, I think the mind is created by the brain.

Nearly but not actually identical is another way of saying different - in fact as different as two clones are from each other. You wouldn’t hesitate to call clones different persons, so what makes the pre-sleep (pre-loss of consciousness and personhood) flyingfish anything other than a different person from the post-sleep (post-loss of consciousness and personhood) flyingfish?

Yes, they share memories and mental attributes, but I share many many memories with close family and friends, and may share plenty of attributes even with total strangers.

How can you say that the ‘you’ of last night is anything other than a different person to the ‘you’ of today. A different person who happens to have the same DNA (as a clone or an identical twin would). And has a bundle of various mental and non-physical attributes as well - many similar or identical ones to the ‘you of last night’ (again, just as an identical twin may have), but at least some significantly different?

Put it this way - by your logic if you kill someone tonight, then go to sleep, losing consciousness and personhood by your reckoning and not waking up as the same person that went to sleep, then why should a judge lock up that nearly but not exactly the same (ie different) person for the crime tomorrow? How do I know that the ‘bit/s’ (for want of a better word) of you that did the crime won’t be irretrivably lost in your sleep, that it/they won’t be among all the ‘bit/s’ that will be different tomorrow?

 

[laura_kathleen]

Sad that you call yourself Catholic and your informed conscience…turns out, really isn’t all that informed.

You are the reason I am Catholic, you are the reason I study Theology and you are the what spurs me to know my faith, because if I didnt I would allow you to hurt my feelings, and to make me question my faith but instead you inspire me so thank you so much.

P.S. Dont judge me, you are not God and so why dont you take a second and think twice before you presume to know me or to be in a position to judge me or my faith. And it is my informed conscience that allows me to be pro-choice.

 

[stringbeanduck]

You are the reason I am Catholic, you are the reason I study Theology and you are the what spurs me to know my faith, because if I didnt I would allow you to hurt my feelings, and to make me question my faith but instead you inspire me so thank you so much.

P.S. Dont judge me, you are not God and so why dont you take a second and think twice before you presume to know me or to be in a position to judge me or my faith. And it is my informed conscience that allows me to be pro-choice.

Uhm. Nobody is judging you. We’re just pointing out how misinformed you are. Last thing we want is uninformed Catholics coming on here trying to inform themselves with these false beliefs. What if they think, “Gee a Catholic on a Catholic forum says it’s okay to kill an unborn baby in certain circumstances” and then goes and has an abortion? Therefore it is only right to point out how wrong they(false statements) are.
Nothing about the Catholic faith says it’s okay to be pro-choice for ANY reason. As a matter of fact a person who thinks it’s okay to be pro-choice is in error. And to continue in that error is a sin.

This last statement is not directed particularly towards you, but in general. This is no light matter and I for one will not tolerate a Catholic saying it’s okay to kill babies.

 

[michaeldaniels]

You must not be studying Catholic Theology books…I am not judging you…just pointing out you are WRONG. It is an oxymoron to say that you study Catholic faith and Theology and you derive your beliefs from it…yet you are blatantly ignoring Church teaching. Either your conscience is not formed because you choose to remain igorant to the Church’s teaching or either your conscience is not properly formed because you choose choose to ignore the Church teachings…either way, it is wrong. I am not judging…just trying to give you an FYI. Just like if I had a friend that engaging in some type of harmful behavior, I wouldn’t judge him, but I would be a good enough friend to let him know he is messing up and needs to change. The Truth is the Truth regardless if your “informed conscience” tells you otherwise

You are the reason I am Catholic, you are the reason I study Theology and you are the what spurs me to know my faith, because if I didnt I would allow you to hurt my feelings, and to make me question my faith but instead you inspire me so thank you so much.

P.S. Dont judge me, you are not God and so why dont you take a second and think twice before you presume to know me or to be in a position to judge me or my faith. And it is my informed conscience that allows me to be pro-choice.

 

[Luke_K]

I don’t have a problem with keeping people alive period, abortion is an issue because it is a conflict between the mother, a grown human being who is definitely conscious, and the embryo/fetus.

Personally I side with the interests of the mother, I don’t think the fetus should get a voice in how the mother lives because it doesn’t even know it exists, it doesn’t think, it won’t even know if it’s killed.

Do you believe that it would have been okay for Mary to have aborted Jesus if she wanted? Look at the picture at the top left of this page when you think about that.

 

[flyingfish]

Nearly but not actually identical is another way of saying different - in fact as different as two clones are from each other. You wouldn’t hesitate to call clones different persons, so what makes the pre-sleep (pre-loss of consciousness and personhood) flyingfish anything other than a different person from the post-sleep (post-loss of consciousness and personhood) flyingfish?

Right, I don’t think there is a continuous I. I don’t think the I right now is the same I as the I of a minute ago.

I don’t think we disagree, the me that goes to sleep is not the same me that wakes up. (But unless I have a stroke or something like that in my sleep, the person that wakes up will be nearly the same as the one that went to sleep.)

I’m also assuming that consciousness ceases during sleep, I don’t know the science of sleep well enough so it could well be that it doesn’t cease. But I don’t think there is continuity during wakefulness either, from instant of time to instant of time, the brain changes and so does the mind it generates.

Put it this way - by your logic if you kill someone tonight, then go to sleep, losing consciousness and personhood by your reckoning and not waking up as the same person that went to sleep, then why should a judge lock up that nearly but not exactly the same (ie different) person for the crime tomorrow? How do I know that the ‘bit/s’ (for want of a better word) of you that did the crime won’t be irretrivably lost in your sleep, that it/they won’t be among all the ‘bit/s’ that will be different tomorrow?

You lock that person up because in all likelihood they are still of a similar disposition, even if changed, probably are still capable of more killings. You lock them up to protect others. You lock them up to deter others from thinking of committing the same crime. You lock them up to satisfy the desire for vengeance.

 

[flyingfish]

Do you believe that it would have been okay for Mary to have aborted Jesus if she wanted? Look at the picture at the top left of this page when you think about that.

Honestly, if being pregnant threatened to make Mary go blind or otherwise harm her life I think it would have been okay. I don’t understand why this question is supposed to move me to change. I think it’s worse to abort a human than to abort Jesus, Jesus can’t actually be harmed by an abortion, and could always decide to become another human child. It’s not like you can do damage to God!

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

Honestly, if being pregnant threatened to make Mary go blind or otherwise harm her life I think it would have been okay. I don’t understand why this question is supposed to move me to change. I think it’s worse to abort a human than to abort Jesus, Jesus can’t actually be harmed by an abortion, and could always decide to become another human child. It’s not like you can do damage to God!

Sigh… I have a headache.

Yes Jesus can suffer and be harmed. Good Friday? The most innocent being God made man sufferred and died for us to atone for OUR sins. Of course he felt tremendous pain and actually died. Is that something you didn’t know about our faith?

 

[Luke_K]

Honestly, if being pregnant threatened to make Mary go blind or otherwise harm her life I think it would have been okay. I don’t understand why this question is supposed to move me to change. I think it’s worse to abort a human than to abort Jesus, Jesus can’t actually be harmed by an abortion, and could always decide to become another human child. It’s not like you can do damage to God!

I was trying to get you to realize that babies in the womb have identities, too. If you can recognize that it would be wrong to kill the baby boy in Mary’s womb because he was the Son of God, then you should be able to recognize that it is wrong for a mother to kill her child who may grow up to become a saint. God has vocations for all human beings, and it is a grave sin for us to prevent him from working them.

"When Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the infant leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth, filled with the holy Spirit, cried out in a loud voice and said, “Most blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb. And how does this happen to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? For at the moment the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the infant in my womb leaped for joy. Blessed are you who believed that what was spoken to you by the Lord would be fulfilled.” -Luke 1:41-45

Jesus was Jesus before he became self-aware in his humanity.

 

[Abu]

Judge actions, speech, writing against truth

We are commanded to judge everything against truth – it’s great to see so many Catholics who now know this. For those who don’t:

“Stop judging by appearances, but judge justly.” (Jn 7:24).

“Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but underneath are ravenous wolves. By their fruits you will know them” (Mt 7:15, 16).

“Every tree that does not bear good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire. So by their fruits you will know them.” (Mt 7:19-20).

“Test everything: retain what is good.” (1Thess 5:21).

“The spiritual person, however, can judge everything but is not subject to judgement by anyone.” (1 Cor 2:15).

“I, for my part, although absent in body but present in spirit, have already, as if present, pronounced judgement on the one who has committed this deed…” (1 Cor 5:3; read 1-13).

“I am speaking as to sensible people; judge for yourselves what I am saying.” (1 Cor 10:15).

“Beloved, do not trust every spirit but test the spirits to see whether they belong to God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.” (1 Jn 4:1).

“I know your works; I know that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either cold or hot. So, because you are lukewarm, neither cold nor hot, I will spit you out of my mouth.” (Rev 3:16).

 

[flyingfish]

Sigh… I have a headache.

Yes Jesus can suffer and be harmed. Good Friday? The most innocent being God made man sufferred and died for us to atone for OUR sins. Of course he felt tremendous pain and actually died. Is that something you didn’t know about our faith?

I was trying to get you to realize that babies in the womb have identities, too. If you can recognize that it would be wrong to kill the baby boy in Mary’s womb because he was the Son of God, then you should be able to recognize that it is wrong for a mother to kill her child who may grow up to become a saint. God has vocations for all human beings, and it is a grave sin for us to prevent him from working them.

Jesus was Jesus before he became self-aware in his humanity.

I know these things, but Jesus is God! He could have stopped the pain any time he wanted, he could have chosen not to die and forgiven our sins in another way! God can do anything.

I don’t think Jesus can be compared to an ordinary child.

 

[Luke_K]

I know these things, but Jesus is God! He could have stopped the pain any time he wanted, he could have chosen not to die and forgiven our sins in another way! God can do anything.

I don’t think Jesus can be compared to an ordinary child.

Jesus is the perfect human. He is fully human. He is what every human should be compared to.

People were bringing even infants to him that he might touch them, and when the disciples saw this, they rebuked them. Jesus, however, called the children to himself and said, “Let the children come to me and do not prevent them; for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these.” -Luke 18:15-16

Taking a child he placed it in their midst, and putting his arms around it he said to them, “Whoever receives one child such as this in my name, receives me; and whoever receives me, receives not me but the One who sent me.” -Mark 10: 36-37

“Amen, I say to you, whatever you did for one of these least brothers of mine, you did for me.” -Matthew 25: 40

Could you really stand before the Man who said these things and assert that it’s moral for a mother to kill her own child?

 

[flyingfish]

Jesus is the perfect human. He is fully human. He is what every human should be compared to.

Jesus is also fully God, fully omnipotent and omniscient. It just doesn’t make sense to me that any finite human beings would ever be able to do anything to Jesus that he did not allow to be done.

Could you really stand before the Man who said these things and assert that it’s moral for a mother to kill her own child?

Yes, I think it would have been moral for the Polish woman in the earlier example to have an abortion and save her eyesight.

As far as I know the Church used to teach that the unborn got their souls when they moved for the first time.

 

[Luke_K]

Yes, I think it would have been moral for the Polish woman in the earlier example to have an abortion and save her eyesight.

As far as I know the Church used to teach that the unborn got their souls when they moved for the first time.

From This Rock Quick Questions:

Q: Did Aquinas say a baby has no soul until 40 days (for a boy) or 80 days (for a girl) after conception, so abortion is okay before those times?

A: This is only half true. Aquinas did say an unborn baby receives a soul 40 or 80 days after conception, depending on gender. But he also said abortion is a violation of natural law and is always wrong, no matter when a soul may be infused into the developing child’s body.

The 40/80-day view is based on the writings of Aristotle, who said a child becomes human at “formation,” the point at which it first “has a human form”–that is, when it looks human. He said this was 40 days for boys and 80 days for girls. Probably this distinction was based on the point at which genitals could be observed on miscarried children. Keep in mind that fetal embryology was then a restricted science; all observations could be made only by the naked eye, the microscope being in the distant future.

Aquinas accepted the idea of formation, which he said occurs when a child receives a soul. But since abortion violates natural law whether or not the child has a soul, Aquinas taught that abortion is always gravely wrong.

Today we have better scientific tools than did Aristotle or Aquinas. We know unborn males and females look human at the same time, and we know they are human long before they look human. Modern science verifies that the unborn have a human genetic code from conception, and this is when their humanity begins.

The ancients did not know about the genetic code, of course–we had to wait for Gregor Mendel, a 19th-century monk for that–and relied on outward appearances to identify species and gender. Appearance was the best test available to them, but it was hardly reliable.

Aquinas overlooked the fact that the biblical view of the soul cannot be squared with Aristotle’s. In Psalm 51:5 David says he was a sinner from conception, but sinfulness is a spiritual quality, so David must have had a spirit, a soul, from conception.

This one is also germane:

Q:“
Some people feel that because the Church has no definitive statement on when ensoulment takes place, it is okay to allow abortion and to use early embryos for research. What does the Church say about this?

A: The Declaration on Procured Abortion states the following:

In the course of history, the Fathers of the Church, her pastors, and her Doctors have taught the same doctrine—the various opinions on the infusion of the spiritual soul did not introduce any doubt about the illicitness of abortion. It is true that in the Middle Ages, when the opinion was generally held that the spiritual soul was not present until after the first few weeks, a distinction was made in the evaluation of the sin and the gravity of penal sanctions. Excellent authors allowed for this first period more lenient case solutions which they rejected for following periods. But it was never denied at that time that procured abortion, even during the first days, was objectively grave fault. This condemnation was in fact unanimous . . . Most recently, the Second Vatican Council, presided over by Paul VI, has most severely condemned abortion: "Life must be safeguarded with extreme care from conception; abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes." The same Paul VI, speaking on this subject on many occasions, has not been afraid to declare that this teaching of the Church "has not changed and is unchangeable." (7)

Concerning the issue of ensoulment and embryonic stem cell research, Evangelium Vitae teaches that

Even if the presence of a spiritual soul cannot be ascertained by empirical data, the results themselves of scientific research on the human embryo provide a valuable indication for discerning by the use of reason a personal presence at the moment of the first appearance of a human life: How could a human individual not be a human person? (EV 60)

Furthermore, what is at stake is so important that, from the standpoint of moral obligation, the mere probability that a human person is involved would suffice to justify an absolutely clear prohibition of any intervention aimed at killing a human embryo. Precisely for this reason, over and above all scientific debates and those philosophical affirmations to which the Magisterium has not expressly committed itself, the Church has always taught and continues to teach that the result of human procreation, from the first moment of its existence, must be guaranteed that unconditional respect which is morally due to the human being in his or her totality and unity as body and spirit:

The human being is to be respected and treated as a person from the moment of conception; and therefore from that same moment his rights as a person must be recognized, among which in the first place is the inviolable right of every innocent human being to life. (EV 60)