CAF poll on legalized abortion (Ireland all over again)

[Mtdobbs]

Trying to eliminate/reduce abortions or making abortions completely illegal before we address and find solutions for the brokenness and fear that “most women have is doing things a bit backwards. Fear is a greater motivator, in most people’s lives, than the desire to always try to do what’ they think is “right”. Fear/anxiety/stress and worry can be paralyzing for some people and can make it nearly impossible to choose.

For years I would pray and hold life affirming(not fear enduring) signs outside of abortion clinics. I thought if you just convinced women to not have abortions, the problem would be solved. I never realized how complex emotions and people’s mental states could be. Later in life, I experienced a temporary psychotic breakdown which left me in a psychiatric facility, so I understand how debilitating fear actually can be. Real fear.

If we do not try to reduce the fear a woman feels, concerning birth, we will NEVER achieve the success that we are all striving for.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

Yup, he’s been trying every dodge he can to not admit that it’s a human organism.

First, “Erika” is not a “he.” I’m not undergoing a sex change. If you can’t distinguish between male and female, how can you tell me what a “human being” is?

Second, you’re not reading my posts either. So at this point I’m going to bow out of this thread–I’ve said what I’ve had to say, and I’m not going to waste my time repeating things over and over and over.

As I said (if you read my posts), I am a lifelong practicing Catholic. I believe abortion is wrong. I believe the Church’s teaching that abortion is an “intrinsic evil.” Terrific. But notice the verbs there–“BELIEVE.” It’s a belief. Other people–religious people included–have different beliefs. I have no right to impose my beliefs on other people. I think I’m right. They think they’re right. Shall we have a civil war, as an earlier poster suggested? There are better ways–read my earlier post today. Attack the causes of abortion to reduce the number of abortions.

It’s been fun, as always…

 

[ProdglArchitect]

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.

For the purposes of arguments regarding abortion or the humanity of the child, even if this is true, it is inconsequential to the question, as nobody knows they are pregnant within 24 hours. What’s more, even if it is true, that doesn’t change the fact that, if left to follow the natural course of it’s development, the genetic code will take its proper form shortly.

Is a fetilized egg a “human being”? You say “it is clearly a human being.” And yet most people in the world would disagree.

The number of people who agree or disagree with a proposition has no impact on the validity of that proposition. From a purely-scientific standpoint, it is a human being. It has human genetic code, it is developing as that genetic code dictates. The only difference between those cells at 1-day, and those cells at birth is the amount of time they’ve been given to develop.

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.

Yeah, once again, blatantly false. What makes a human being human is dictated by the same criteria that defines every other animal on the planet, genetics. Humans, as a species, are defined by a specific number of genetic markers which are common across all members of the species (granting leeway for mutation and faulty development, of course. This is not to say people with malformed genetic code are not human) You can try to argue against this all you like, but you are wrong, and no amount of denial is going to change that fact.

What you are actually arguing is the question of “personhood,” which is a subjective notion and therefore should not be considered a valid basis for the determination of law.

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.

No matter how many times you repeat yourself, it does not change the fact that there is no distinction. The “clump of cells” is just as human as your or me. The only difference is the amount of time that we’ve been allowed to develop.

 

[sko]

But again, that’s […] philosophy, not science.

Well, yes, we Catholics don’t tend to poke our left eye out by insisting that the scientific method is the be-all and end-all answer to everything and then parade ourselves around gloating how enlightened we are in not needing this obsolete and medieval thing called depth perception.

But other people (and NOT just Godless atheists!) have different beliefs. And what right do you have to impose your beliefs on them?

CCC, 2032: The Church, the “pillar and bulwark of the truth,” “has received this solemn command of Christ from the apostles to announce the saving truth.” “To the Church belongs the right always and everywhere to announce moral principles, including those pertaining to the social order, and to make judgments on any human affairs to the extent that they are required by the fundamental rights of the human person or the salvation of souls.”

You are required to believe this, you know.

What SHOULD you be doing? Researching WHY women have abortions.

That’s very true and in no way mutually exclusive with advocating for legislation prohibiting abortions.

It’s a potential human being.

That’s an entirely non-scientific and, dare I say it, very philosophical point of view. At which point does this potentiality become actuality? Can the actuality be lost again? Etc.

 

[Elf01]

First, “Erika” is not a “he.” I’m not undergoing a sex change. If you can’t distinguish between male and female, how can you tell me what a “human being” is?

Because I’m not able to tell sex across the internet

I am a lifelong practicing Catholic.

I have no right to impose my beliefs on other people.

Contradiction here. Being a Catholic and supporting legal abortion are NOT compatible beliefs.

Attack the causes of abortion to reduce the number of abortions.

Attack the causes of abortion to reduce the number of abortions.

I support that.

I think I’m right. They think they’re right

Even in a non religious society isn’t it reasonable to take the most conservative viewpoint that can be backed with non religious evidence? No religion mandates abortion, and if a religion mandated human sacrifice that wouldn’t be a good reason to make that legal either.

 

[brian_custer]

i guess i am glad that CAF is having this discussion for the sake of debate

but to me personally; there is nothing any pro-choice CAF member could post here that says abortion is morally permissible under any circumstances other than to protect the life of the mother

sorry, that’s my story; and i’m sticking to it

 

[Sophia]

Contradiction here. Being a Catholic and supporting legal abortion are NOT compatible beliefs.

Of course they can be. I am also a Catholic, and I also support legal abortion - even if I don’t like the practice. As Erika wisely observes the question of “at what point should the clump of cells considered to be a human BEING - as opposed to be a human TISSUE” is a philosophical / religious one. There are many different philosophies and religious beliefs, and most of them have a different answer to these questions.

One thing is pretty certain. Abortions are not “fun”. Women who choose to have one are frequently traumatized by the process. And I never heard of a woman who became pregnant JUST SO she can have an abortion. (Not that it is impossible, in a large enough population any kind of idiocy can happen.) So the only sensible approach is to make abortions as rare as possible. And the best solution for this is NOT to give an incentive to carry the fetus to term - sorry, Erika - but to make contraception as easy, cheap and effective as possible.

I think I need to give some actual argument to substantiate that giving incentives to have more children is a very bad idea. First of all, the population is already betting too large. Second, the actual attempts (like in France) showed that the women who wish to bring forth as many children as they can, do NOT do it for sake of having more “bay-bees”, rather to have the money. They become “breeding sacks”, collect the “dough”, and do not spend it on the children.

So everyone who is against abortion should rise up and fight for cheap, readily available and efficient contraceptives. Fat chance, eh?

 

[KJW5551]

So everyone who is against abortion should rise up and fight for cheap, readily available and efficient contraceptives. Fat chance, eh?

I encourage you to read this somewhat lengthy but very good article about why many of us here will not be fighting for that anytime soon.

The Vindication of Humanae Vitae | Mary Eberstadt

That Humanae Vitae and related Catholic teachings about sexual morality are laughingstocks in all . . . .

www.firstthings.com

 

[Melodeonist]

Of course an unborn baby is human life. Human life is infinitely precious. We have a demented society that gets more mad if I jumped up and down on some stupid endangered species eggs than if there is genocide on the unborn humans.

No Catholic can be pro abortion. You are either one or the other.

 

[Sophia]

I encourage you to read this somewhat lengthy but very good article about why many of us here will not be fighting for that anytime soon.

Following your advice, I did. I am not interested in presenting a detailed critique (it would be too long), just a short remark.

If contraceptive intercourse is permissible, then what objection could there be after all to mutual masturbation, or copulation in vase indebito, sodomy, buggery (I should perhaps remark that I am using a legal term here—not indulging in bad language), when normal copulation is impossible or inadvisable (or in any case, according to taste)? It can’t be the mere pattern of bodily behavior in which the stimulation is procured that makes all the difference! But if such things are all right, it becomes perfectly impossible to see anything wrong with homosexual intercourse, for example. I am not saying: if you think contraception all right you will do these other things; not at all. The habit of respectability persists and old prejudices die hard. But I am saying: you will have no solid reason against these things. You will have no answer to someone who proclaims as many do that they are good too. You cannot point to the known fact that Christianity drew people out of the pagan world, always saying no to these things. Because, if you are defending contraception, you will have rejected Christian tradition.

And the answer is: “Looks like that FINALLY they got it!”. Anything and everything is permissible between consenting adults. If you do not wish to participate then, don’t. As the article says (correctly!): “you will have no solid reason against these things”. Exactly!

Now I want to say out loud: “There are many wonderful teachings of the church, which are very much worthy to accept and follow”. But the sexual teachings do not belong to that category. There is no rational, secular argument against contraception or masturbation or non-vaginal intercourse.

It might be a good idea for you to read the book by Allan Sherman: “The Rape of the A* P* E*” (where A* P* E* stands for the American Puritan Ethics). Not only it is hilariously funny, but you can learn a LOT about the different sexual and marriage arrangement all around the world.

And an old joke:
Q: What is the definition of Puritanism?
A: Puritanism is the haunting fear that someone, somewhere might have fun.

 

[KJW5551]

There is no rational, secular argument against contraception or masturbation or non-vaginal intercourse.

There are many rational, secular arguments against contraception in the very article you purport to have read. Increase in STDs, loss of respect towards women, and breakdown of the family (which statistically causes verifiable economic/social issues) to name just a few.

Edit: actually I realize now that the article didn’t say much on STDs, but the point stands.

 

[Sophia]

There are many rational, secular arguments against contraception in the very article you purport to have read. Increase in STDs, loss of respect towards women, and breakdown of the family (which statistically causes verifiable economic/social issues) to name just a few.

It is impossible to quantify the combined value of such a wide-reaching practice by taking only the alleged “negative” effects into consideration. Let’s use a non-controversial practice: “smoking” or “taking certain illegal drugs”. If you only consider the objectively negative effects in health risks, it is “obvious” that smoking is “bad” and taking certain drugs can have negative side effects. But this kind of analysis is incorrect and misleading.

It does not take into consideration the subjective part. I am not going to into a detailed analysis, since that would take a whole, thick book. But I can suggest to read the book “Licit and illicit drugs” to get a good picture. Just one example: “smoking decreases the health cost for the whole population, because usually smokers die sooner than non-smokers”. Economically speaking this is net gain for the population.

Smoking increases the subjective well-being. Every current and past smoker will attest to this.

The point is that there are direct and positive results of contraception. Smaller family size, which results in higher standard of living. More possibility to really “give oneself” to your partner - less anxiety due to unwanted pregnancy. Non-vaginal sex is much more pleasurable than the other one. (Many people, who have never experienced it do not know what they are talking about.) And zillions of other effects. Read the books “The joy of sex” for details. For every negative effect you present, we can present many positive effects.

 

[Aulef]

Saint Patrick, pray for Ireland…

 

[Monica83]

12345678910

 

[Brendan_64]

But I’ll play along. If I define “individual organism” (for example…) as something that could survive if you removed it from the mother and without using all sorts of medical equipment it would live, then what is it?

Does this mean that any child who is born, but needs medical intervention to survive is not actually a person until such time as they can survive without medical intervention?

 

[Sophia]

“Non-vaginal” sex. Anal? I took care of a gay man who was dying from HPV-caused cancer due to that.

You mean that every instance of anal sex leads invariably to some cancer? BJ, or HJ works just fine. Or simply tying someone up and teasing them to orgasm. Sex is so much more than “bam, bam, thank you ma’am”.

 

[deMontfort]

Boy, this thread has degenerated

 

[Monica83]

Yes I’m sorry. I shouldn’t have fed the troll.

 

[deMontfort]

Honestly, not your fault. Someone else took the ball and ran with it…

 

[Servant31]

Thread bump.

Also, Ms Sophia, you sound like an independent and intelligent woman. As Catholics we believe that life begins at the moment of conception. At that point whatever the scientific specification, consequence societally or otherwise, that there is God given dignity. This contradicts abortion completely, as well as contraception. Given our culture I’m not surprised there are many conflicting beliefs. The doctrine is quite clear in this matter though. All the best. Servant.