CAF poll on legalized abortion (Ireland all over again)

  • Thread starter Thread starter Roguish
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
1john418 said:
EDIT: figured I should post a source — http://www.pennlife.org/subject_bioethics.html
Click to expand...
“Pennsylvanians for Human Life” is not exactly a neutral source!
1john418 said:
I don’t see the debate. The baby becomes an individual organism at conception.

The baby already has its own DNA
Click to expand...
Nope. Here’s a nice scientific web site from Switzerland: The fertilization is complete. The formation of the zygote It goes on (with illustrations!) for three pages, so read it all. I’ll quote from the summary on p. 3:

“With the penetration of the sperm cell, the genetic information of the two parents are not instantly brought together in order that they are then duplicated together and distributed in the subsequent mitosis. In reality, the paternal and also the maternal genetic information are first duplicated in two independent pronuclei and also there condensed again into chromosomes so they can align themselves along the equator of the mitotic spindle.”

It takes roughly 24 hours after fertilization for the cells to create their own unique DNA from combining the DNA of the mother and the father.

So…what is it during the first 24 hours? Can you see where people could differ? (Again, leaving aside religious doctrine.)
 
1john418 said:
Trying to argue at which point a baby could be aborted is nonsensical in my opinion. Even if you dismiss that point, there is still no way you could make an ethical hardline. For example, if we said terminations can must be stopped, say 15 weeks, is that baby suddenly more human 15 weeks and 1 day in?
Click to expand...
Well, certainly you could cover all your bases, play it safe, and simply say ANY type of interference with the development of the sperm and egg is “abortion.” And that’s what the Catholic Church does.

But–yet again–that’s just the Catholic Church. Jews and Muslims don’t feel the fetus is a “human being” until you can feel movement in the womb. And of course there are all sorts of physical milestones you could use: does it have a beating heart? does it have a brain and spinal cord? And so on. You could make a good scientific argument for all of them. But you’re right–in practical terms, what are you going to do? Have the woman attached to an ultrasound machine during the entire pregnancy to determine when the zygote/fetus goes from one stage to another? So different groups have drawn lines that, while not arbitrary, are difficult to pin down. For example, you could say the fetus becomes a “human being” when you can detect a heart beat. OK. But exactly when did that happen? What hour of what day? But of course in practice it doesn’t matter: no heart beat? Abortion OK; heart beat? No abortion (as an example).

I am NOT arguing in favor of abortion. I’m simply trying to point out that on a pure scientific basis, there are various milestones in development that could reasonably be used to decide whether or not the fetus was a “human being.” My second point is simply that no matter how earnestly you believe ALL interference = abortion, you have to recognize that those are simply your personal beliefs (and yes, the beliefs of the Catholic Church). But other people (and NOT just Godless atheists!) have different beliefs. And what right do you have to impose your beliefs on them?
 
It takes roughly 24 hours after fertilization for the cells to create their own unique DNA from combining the DNA of the mother and the father.
Click to expand...
I should have been clearer. My apologies, I did my reply sloppily. The source I used states somewhere within the first 10 days of conception, which seems to be of no matter, because you state DNA uniqueness occurs at twenty four hours.

Actually, the site you linked was super interesting and went far more into detail than my experience in Anatomy & Biology. All it’s really saying though, is that in order for unique DNA to be formed, the sperm and oocyte need to exchange their respective (mother/father) DNA, which needs to occur naturally (via mitosis.)

But you’re missing out on something key, here. This mitosis occurs inside of the oocyte. It’s not as though the two cells join together, the sperm cell directly enters into the oocyte.

So, when you look at those pictures, and when you would consider terminating that pregnancy, you are not terminating an oocyte or a sperm cell. You are terminating something more. And we’re not only talking about potentially, were talking about a being that is constantly working to develop and change.
 
Referring to the developing baby as a fetus or zygote is purely a scientific indicator, comparable to using “baby” for 1-2 years old “toddler” for 2-5, and “child” for 6-12. IMO, the usage of the scientific term (outside the context of learning, etc.) only serves to dehumanize the baby. I mention this, because again, if the woman had the ultrasound as you suggested to see if her baby advanced to the next stage, I don’t believe that baby is any less human three days ago than it was today.

I bring up my point because it’s a slippery slope. There is no scientific answer as to when something becomes human. Scientists can look at traits of the development, like we did above, but it’s clear that individuals will have differing opinions. So, science is not and never will be an answer to that question, because we can’t define ourselves what constitutes life.

And I’m sorry if I came off as imposing to you, I’ll be honest that stung. I come onto this site to strengthen my faith, and I happen to be adamantly pro-life as well. I am a big believer in individual evangelization via our actions, specifically not coming off as bigoted, rude, arrogant, or self-empowering. I don’t know your faith, as it’s not in your bio, but as a Catholic, I’m called to stand up for what I believe in when it contradicts secular law (Ephesians 6:12).

My experience with abortion terrifies me, quite frankly. I see a world that is becoming numb to what it’s doing, and I have a responsibility to defend my beliefs. I have no desire to be imposing, whatsoever. I am pro life because I recognize the dignity of all human life, out of love for my fellow woman and man. Not because I want to be self-righteous, or demanding.

One final thought: if I’m wrong about life, than abortion has no consequence. But if popular culture is wrong, well, we’ve been screwing up big time.

I’m sorry again, and I hope you can understand as to why I would write this post. All the best! 🙂
 
I have no quarrel with what you’re saying 1john4188m . But let’s go back to the OP and the original question. Almost immediately someone posted “It’s always wrong to take innocent human life.” No one would disagree. But there are two key issues, it seems to me:
  1. When does a fertilized egg become “innocent human life”?
  2. Since there is no consensus among major religions (let alone atheists…) when “human life” begins, it seems presumptuous for any group (including Catholics in Ireland) to claim the right to make all the other opinions illegal. They should have the choice to follow their own beliefs.
So I’ve simply been trying to point out that it’s not as black and white as some people think it is (reply #4, meltzerboy2 said the same). It’s nuanced, as he said. In other words, if the fertilized egg magically transformed itself into what EVERYONE agreed was a “human being” instantly, I don’t think there would be much debate. The problem is that it is a long process–months–and people disagree about when that transformation takes place. And they can base their beliefs not on some whim, but on science, since there are clear-cut events such as unique DNA, heart beat, movement, etc.
1john418 said:
There is no scientific answer as to when something becomes human. Scientists can look at traits of the development, like we did above, but it’s clear that individuals will have differing opinions. So, science is not and never will be an answer to that question, because we can’t define ourselves what constitutes life.
Click to expand...
That’s exactly what I’ve been saying! I couldn’t have said it better. And yes, I am a lifelong practicing Catholic, and yes, I believe abortion is an “intrinsic evil.” What I DON’T believe is that MY BELIEFS should be imposed on other people who hold different beliefs. So am I pro-choice? Yes. Am I pro-abortion? No.
 
Except it’s not really that nuanced because biologically speaking we know how exactly human beings develop. When “Life” begins might be a philosophical question, but when a unique human organism begins is not.
 
KJW5551 said:
Except it’s not really that nuanced because biologically speaking we know how exactly human beings develop. When “Life” begins might be a philosophical question, but when a unique human organism begins is not.
Click to expand...
You are doing exactly what all extreme (yes, I’ll use that word) pro-lifers do: You are confusing two separate things. Yes, we know exactly (sort of) how human beings develop. And yes, we know when a unique organism begins. But that’s not at ALL the same as saying that this develping whatever-you-want-to-call-it is a “human being” with all the rights of any other human being.
 
I am not arguing the relative morality of the Allied vs. Axis sides, i am well versed in the subject and I think it is quite obvious that the Axis side was far more malevolent. There is no doubt the Germans and Japanese (and Soviets) engaged in mass murder and acts of terror and horrific despotism against populations in areas under their control during the war and while there were atrocities committed by the Allies, there really is nothing that compares in scale and universality.

However, the Allied nations did engage in some very brutal practices (terror bombing population centers being a big one) that I find hard to justify on a moral basis. Deliberately attacking non-combatants is a grave evil, regardless of who does it.
 
If you are REALLY against abortion, and not simply giving the idea lip service, you should NOT be trying to make abortion illegal. That’s futile and simply ends up killing or injuring women.

What SHOULD you be doing? Researching WHY women have abortions. Here’s a start: Reasons U.S. Women Have Abortions: Quantitative and Qualitative Perspectives | Guttmacher Institute

Conclusions? (this was the US alone):
  1. 73% – having a child would interfere with a woman’s education, work or ability to care for dependents
  2. 74% – woman could not afford a baby now
  3. 48% – the woman did not want to be a single mother or was having relationship problems
  4. c. 40% – the women felt they had completed their childbearing years
  5. c. 33% – not ready to have a child.
  6. <1% parents’ or partners’ wanted them to have an abortion
And obviously (right?) most people would have multiple reasons, just as if I asked you “Why did you get married?” hopefully you would not come up with a single reason.

So if you have an idea WHY women get abortions, what next? Remove those reasons.

Another child would interfere with education, work, or ability to care for a dependent? Then make sure that didn’t happen. Make free child care available. Make medical care for the child free. And so on. Almost all developed countries do this. (And guess what? Their abortion rates are lower! Magic!)

74% say they “can’t afford” another baby. So reverse this: make having a baby a profitable activity. Pay a monthly reward for every baby. What a stupid idea, right? How could we possibly afford that? And yet almost every developed country does just this. Why can’t we? (For example, take Canada: You are paid $6,400 a year for every child up to age 6. Then you get paid $5,400 for each child from 6-18. France does the same thing. Most developed countries do.)

I could go on, but you should get the point. Remove the REASONS for having an abortion, and you reduce the number of abortions. It’s that simple.

And of course the #1 form of birth control (and reducing abortions because women who don’t get pregnant don’t have abortions) is educating women. So devote yourself to educating women. I do. My favorite (only) charity is the Sisters of Notre Dame. http://www.sndbangalore.org They operate girls’ schools and clinics in India. And it’s not Westerners going off to ‘save’ the poor benighted Indians. Indians are the nuns, Indians run the schools and clinics. So please don’t just sit back and vote for some idiot because he/she says he wants to make abortion illegal. Do something positive. You can help.
 
Last edited:
As others have pointed out already though no one aborts a 12 hour old zygote anyway. It takes weeks to even realize you’re pregnant. And development goes pretty quickly during those weeks, too.

Let me ask you this: do you support the so called “heartbeat bills” that have been gaining traction here in the U.S.? Because something with a heartbeat surely must be human, and alive, right?
 
Erikaspirit16 said:
That’s exactly what I’ve been saying! I couldn’t have said it better. And yes, I am a lifelong practicing Catholic, and yes, I believe abortion is an “intrinsic evil.” What I DON’T believe is that MY BELIEFS should be imposed on other people who hold different beliefs. So am I pro-choice? Yes. Am I pro-abortion? No.
Click to expand...
Rewriting slightly:

That’s exactly what I’ve been saying! I couldn’t have said it better. And yes, I am a lifelong practicing Catholic, and yes, I believe SLAVERY is an “intrinsic evil.” What I DON’T believe is that MY BELIEFS should be imposed on other people who hold different beliefs. So am I pro-choice? Yes. Am I pro-SLAVERY? No.

Chilling how little I had to change.
Erikaspirit16 said:
And yes, we know when a unique organism begins.
Click to expand...
So you’re finally admitting that we do know when a unique organism begins. Now, what species is that organism?
 
Though I disagree with some of your points, I don’t necessarily think I need to agree with you to see that you have good ideas at reducing abortions. I don’t think people need to agree on when life begins to be able to come up with good ideas at reducing abortions or reducing the reasons why women abort. It’s a terrible error (in my opinion) to not try to reduce abortions just because of the whole “1 abortion is too many” argument. Offering incentives to those who have children, to try to eliminate the real fear and worry that women have being that they don’t think they can afford a baby, is probably a great idea.
 
KJW5551 said:
As others have pointed out already though no one aborts a 12 hour old zygote anyway. It takes weeks to even realize you’re pregnant. And development goes pretty quickly during those weeks, too.

Let me ask you this: do you support the so called “heartbeat bills” that have been gaining traction here in the U.S.? Because something with a heartbeat surely must be human, and alive, right?
Click to expand...
I hate to quote Fox News, but I think it gives more credibility for pro-lifers than if I quote Planned Parenthood or something. So, here are the statistics from Fox News (2003): http://www.foxnews.com/story/2003/06/17/fast-facts-us-abortion-statistics.html

91% of abortions are in the first trimester.
9% in the 2nd trimester.
Only about 100 (out of 1.6 million) are in the 3rd trimester.

But first, let’s deal with “no one aborts a 12-hour old zygote.” Really? You know about the “morning after” pill, right? 5.8 million people have used it according to USA Today (2013)-- 5.8M women have used 'morning after' pill

Now let’s go back to those Fox News statistics. For those up in arms about 3rd trimester abortions, chill out. 100 out of 1.6 million is not significant. If you are concerned with abortion, your main concern should be the 1st trimester abortions–91%.

The so-called heartbeat bills, etc. are a red herring. The heart begins to beat at about 6 weeks, halfway through the 1st trimester. Fetal development: The 1st trimester - Mayo Clinic But that is simply one of a long list of turning points in development. Is it human if it has a heartbeat? Maybe. Does it have a brain? Does it move?

There is some point at which almost everyone would agree that a fetus is a “human being.” Jews and Muslims, for example, believe it’s when you can feel movement in the womb. So when is that?
Between 16-25 weeks, depending on your own individual situation. 16 weeks is a month into the 2nd trimester; 25 weeks would be just after the end of the 2nd trimester. Fetal Movement - WebMD: When You Feel Baby Kick

So you might make abortions in the 3rd trimester illegal. That would account for 100 abortions. Worth the effort to solve a problem that doesn’t exist? I don’t think so.
 
Elf01 said:
Rewriting slightly:

That’s exactly what I’ve been saying! I couldn’t have said it better. And yes, I am a lifelong practicing Catholic, and yes, I believe SLAVERY is an “intrinsic evil.” What I DON’T believe is that MY BELIEFS should be imposed on other people who hold different beliefs. So am I pro-choice? Yes. Am I pro- SLAVERY ? No.

Chilling how little I had to change.
Click to expand...
And we had a Civil War with 610,000 dead to decide who was right and who was wrong. Shall we have a 2nd civil war to end abortion? Abortions are declining, just as slavery was declining. Go back to my earlier post about finding the causes of abortions and eliminating them. Could the abolitionists have ended slavery? Sure–they could simply have bought slaves from the masters and freed them, moving them to the North if necessary. Would it have been expensive? Sure. Was the Civil War expensive? See?
Elf01 said:
So you’re finally admitting that we do know when a unique organism begins. Now, what species is that organism?
Click to expand...
Sure. It’s “an organism.” That doesn’t necessarily mean it’s a “human being.” To quote myself in answer to your question “What species is that organism?” it’s obviously not a fish or an elephant. It’s a potential human being. Just as an egg is a potential chicken. But no one looks at an egg and says “What a healthy looking chicken!”
 
Last edited:
Mtdobbs said:
I don’t think people need to agree on when life begins to be able to come up with good ideas at reducing abortions or reducing the reasons why women abort.
Click to expand...
Exactly. We should all agree on that–I don’t think anyone anywhere says “Gee, I wish there were more abortions!” So we should all work together to REDUCE the number of abortions. And that’s doable.
 
Erikaspirit16 said:
Sure. It’s “an organism.” That doesn’t necessarily mean it’s a “human being.” To quote myself in answer to your question “What species is that organism?” it’s obviously not a fish or an elephant. It’s a potential human being. Just as an egg is a potential chicken. But no one looks at an egg and says “What a healthy looking chicken!”
Click to expand...
Genetically, it contains all the markers and patterns which define what makes a human human in the physical sense. It is clearly a human being.

An egg or a sperm are not individually human beings, but when they combine they immediately form a new member of the human species with it’s own distinct strand of genetic code.

Your argument is just, blatantly, false. There is no question about this in the scientific community. It is only pro-abortion people continually telling lies like this that have lead so many people to think that the issue is undecided.
 
Last edited:
Yup, he’s been trying every dodge he can to not admit that it’s a human organism.
 
ProdglArchitect said:
It is clearly a human being.

An egg or a sperm are not individually human beings, but when they combine they immediately form a new member of the human species with it’s own, distinct strand of genetic code.

Your argument is just, blatantly, false. There is not question about this in the scientific community.
Click to expand...
You haven’t read any of my posts, right? Please go back and read them, complete with links. The egg and sperm do NOT “immediately form a new member of the human species with its own, distinct strand of genetic code.” If you think that, you don’t know embryology. It takes about 24 hours to form a new DNA.

Is a fetilized egg a “human being”? You say “it is clearly a human being.” And yet most people in the world would disagree. And–I get tired of repeating myself–the decision whether something is a “human being” or not is not a scientific one, it’s a religious / philosophical one. Again, please distinguish between a “human being” and a group of cells at some stage of development that could potentially BECOME a human being. You may believe these cells ARE a human being, but that’s a belief.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top