Changing our culture of death

[Sarcelle]

Bodily Integrity may not be the correct term, the correct term maybe bodily autonomy. Pregnancy is a natural state, so it does not violate bodily integrity, but an unwanted, forced pregnancy does violate the bodily autonomy of the woman as long as it is in the woman’s womb against her wishes.

The rapist will be punished if he is caught and found guilty, but the woman is innocent and should not have to suffer this violation of her body for so many months. She should have a say in how her body is used and what she has to carry within her body.

The baby is not a hostile entity invading his/her mother’s womb.

 

[openmind77]

So, if asked whether such and such a course of action would be “moral”, we ought respond - “I’ve no idea”? How will we regulate our own life if that is our answer to all questions of morality?

If your position is that the child (“entity”?) within is not human until some particular time-point, then there you have a reason to say the act is not murder. But then you presumably also can say when the child switches to being human, and you can point to some basis for that?

I am not aware of any principal of morality that places the right to “control” another life - one within her mother - by virtue of location. Unless in this you revert to the idea that the life within is not human.

Is there ever a case when murder (intentionally killing - willing the death of - an innocent human) is moral?

Again there is no general agreement that the fetus in the mother’s womb is a human person. So the question of whether it is murder is debatable.

We can always say whether some act is moral or not. And in this case it is clearly the Church’s position that abortion is immoral. Saying that something is immoral is merely expressing an opinion, that does not give us the right to pass judgement and a sentence.

We have no authority to tell anyone what they should do with their body. As long as the fetus is inside the woman’s body, she speaks for both of them - so her choice and decision should be final - basically it is not our business to interfere.

As to the question whether the fetus is a human or at what point in its development does it become human, this is a question someone like the Christ can answer, all we can say is that as long as it is inside the woman, she speaks for them both.

 

[graciew]

Again there is no general agreement that the fetus in the mother’s womb is a human person. So the question of whether it is murder is debatable.

We can always say whether some act is moral or not. And in this case it is clearly the Church’s position that abortion is immoral. Saying that something is immoral is merely expressing an opinion, that does not give us the right to pass judgement and a sentence.

We have no authority to tell anyone what they should do with their body. As long as the fetus is inside the woman’s body, she speaks for both of them - so her choice and decision should be final - basically it is not our business to interfere.

As to the question whether the fetus is a human or at point in its development does it become human, this is a question someone like the Christ can answer, all we can say is that as long as it is inside the woman, she speaks for them both.

For both. Not for her alone… That a child’s voice cannot be heard,makes him/ her one of the voiceless.

 

[Rau]

Again there is no general agreement that the fetus in the mother’s womb is a human person. So the question of whether it is murder is debatable.

We can always say whether some act is moral or not. And in this case it is clearly the Church’s position that abortion is immoral. Saying that something is immoral is merely expressing an opinion, that does not give us the right to pass judgement and a sentence.

We have no authority to tell anyone what they should do with their body. As long as the fetus is inside the woman’s body, she speaks for both of them - so her choice and decision should be final - basically it is not our business to interfere.

As to the question whether the fetus is a human or at what point in its development does it become human, this is a question someone like the Christ can answer, all we can say is that as long as it is inside the woman, she speaks for them both.

Your philosophy of “inside the body” grants the woman the just right to nurture or terminate as suits her and her alone is not a principle I’ve heard before. Is it a position held by Hinduism, or a personal belief?

If one holds that the unborn child is not human, then there is little, if any, morality to debate.

Were it established that the unborn were human, would the right of mother to kill cease, or remain in force so long as the human were within her?

 

[openmind77]

Your philosophy of “inside the body” grants the woman the just right to nurture or terminate as suits her and her alone is not a principle I’ve heard before. Is it a position held by Hinduism, or a personal belief?

If one holds that the unborn child is not human, then there is little, if any, morality to debate.

Were it established that the unborn were human, would the right of mother to kill cease, or remain in force so long as the human were within her?

This is just my personal belief. I never said that the woman has a right to kill anyone. What I am saying is that a woman can always demand that anything inside her body be removed. No one else has the authority to tell a woman that she needs to keep something inside her body. Once removed from the woman’s body, if the fetus can survive by itself (whether in an incubator etc) that is of course great.

As I said before, the point at which the fetus becomes human is something that only someone like the Christ can decide. Which brings me to this question - if abortion is such a horrendous crime, why is it that Jesus never mentioned it ? I understand that Bible can not mention every little thing that is prohibited and immoral, but according to you abortion is not a minor transgression, so it would be specifically mentioned. Surely a Son of God would know in advance if abortion was going to become so prevalent today and would have warned against it?

I believe that the Christ will return to the world soon - in less than a couple of years. Why are you so sure that when he returns he will agree with the persecution of this unfortunate woman with an unwanted pregnancy? Maybe he will just tell us to mind our on business - have you considered that possibility?

 

[TimothyH]

I am not a proponent of killing anyone at anytime, born or unborn.

Thank you for this.

The “culture of death” is about more than just abortion. If you support the death penalty then you support the culture of death.

-Tim-

 

[Rau]

This is just my personal belief. I never said that the woman has a right to kill anyone. What I am saying is that a woman can always demand that anything inside her body be removed. No one else has the authority to tell a woman that she needs to keep something inside her body. Once removed from the woman’s body, if the fetus can survive by itself (whether in an incubator etc) that is of course great.

I note that this is personal belief, not coming form the Hindu religion. You’ve asserted this right, but not established its basis. That a woman could serially become pregnant, and on each occasion exercise what you deem an absolute right to “seek removal” of the “entity”, certainly expresses a view about the lowly status of the “entity”.

As I said before, the point at which the fetus becomes human is something that only someone like the Christ can decide.

I’ve asked you a couple of times whether it would be wrong to kill the fetus were it determined that the fetus is in fact human. Will you answer? And given that all humans naturally begin their lives within their mother, and must do so to live, I marvel that you can view removal, at the very early stages, to be a moral act, let alone anything less than murder - unless, you hold the fetus to not be human.

Which brings me to this question - if abortion is such a horrendous crime, why is it that Jesus never mentioned it ? I understand that Bible can not mention every little thing that is prohibited and immoral, but according to you abortion is not a minor transgression, so it would be specifically mentioned. Surely a Son of God would know in advance if abortion was going to become so prevalent today and would have warned against it?

In asking this question - you infer I presume that perhaps even God finds no wrong in killing the child within if there is not mention of abortion in the Bible, and thus you find support in holding that view too? Here is some Biblical material to consider:
catholicnewsagency.com/resources/abortion/catholic-teaching/the-bibles-teaching-against-abortion/

I believe that the Christ will return to the world soon - in less than a couple of years. Why are you so sure that when he returns he will agree with the persecution of this unfortunate woman with an unwanted pregnancy? Maybe he will just tell us to mind our on business - have you considered that possibility?

I don’t have any insight into the timing of the next coming. I anticipate his attitude to abortion may differ from your personal view.

 

[openmind77]

…
I’ve asked you a couple of times whether it would be wrong to kill the fetus were it determined that the fetus is in fact human. Will you answer? And given that all humans naturally begin their lives within their mother, and must do so to live, I marvel that you can view removal, at the very early stages, to be a moral act, let alone anything less than murder - unless, you hold the fetus to not be human.

I don’t think a fetus is a human being to start with and many people agree with me. At exactly what point it can be considered human I can not say. I would not agree with killing a fetus if it can survive outside the woman’s womb by itself (including in an incubator or icu or whatever). But the woman should not be forced to carry it inside herself against her will.

In asking this question - you infer I presume that perhaps even God finds no wrong in killing the child within if there is not mention of abortion in the Bible, and thus you find support in holding that view too? Here is some Biblical material to consider:
catholicnewsagency.com/resources/abortion/catholic-teaching/the-bibles-teaching-against-abortion/

As I said before a fetus is not a child. This link assumes that the fetus is a child and a human being - that is the fallacy.

I don’t have any insight into the timing of the next coming. I anticipate his attitude to abortion may differ from your personal view.

I assure you the Return will be very soon. Many ‘pro-life’ people believe like you that the Christ agrees with their views on abortion. I would not count on it. There is no reward in heaven for intimidating, harassing or persecuting unfortunate women who have their own personal problems to deal with.

 

[Viki63]

Again there is no general agreement that the fetus in the mother’s womb is a human person. So the question of whether it is murder is debatable.

.

From a scientific standpoint, I believe you are incorrect. Here is a link to multiple statements by scientists.
One of them reads:
“The development of a human being begins with fertilization, a process by which two highly specialized cells, the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female, unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote.”
[Langman, Jan. Medical Embryology. 3rd edition. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1975, p. 3]

Now you can say that the earth and the planets don’t go around the sun. or that monkeys are the ancestors of men, or that the Holocaust never occurred, but most people will disagree with you. Some things are accepted by intelligent people.
Really, there is no longer any argument that life begins at conception.

.

 

[openmind77]

From a scientific standpoint, I believe you are incorrect. Here is a link to multiple statements by scientists.
One of them reads:
“The development of a human being begins with fertilization, a process by which two highly specialized cells, the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female, unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote.”
[Langman, Jan. Medical Embryology. 3rd edition. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1975, p. 3]

Now you can say that the earth and the planets don’t go around the sun. or that monkeys are the ancestors of men, or that the Holocaust never occurred, but most people will disagree with you. Some things are accepted by intelligent people.
Really, there is no longer any argument that life begins at conception.

.

Life exists even before conception. The two cells that join at conception are always alive. The question is not when life begins or when the fetus starts developing. It is of course developing from the very beginning. But a human being is not a bunch of living cells. A human being is body and soul. When that happens and the fetus becomes an real human being, only someone like the Christ can say. And he will be here soon, and we will know for sure.

 

[Rau]

…I would not agree with killing a fetus if it can survive outside the woman’s womb by itself (including in an incubator or icu or whatever). But the woman should not be forced to carry it inside herself against her will.

So the entity’s right to not be wilfully killed commences when he is capable of survival in an incubator or similar and not before? Of course, we assume someone cares sufficiently to keep the power to the incubator supplied, to feed the child, and so on. In fact, that would be an obligation right? On the parents, right? After all - the “survival capacity” of a baby (only about 24 weeks or so since conception) is really quite limited - the child remains entirely dependent on others for quite some time to come.

Nevertheless, you appear to accept the entity is a human being at this point, and thus find killing the entity wrong. But not prior. Prior - you say removal is permissible with is morally the same as killing. So prior to the point in question, removal or killing would be morally acceptable to you. Afterwards, killing is not permissible, but removal (with reasonable expectation of survival) would be. I think I follow…

I do find it strange that you hold no child (or should I say embryo, foetus, unborn child) has any right to experience the ideal of 40 weeks in womb prior to birth, should the mother prefer something different after 24 weeks?

As I said before a fetus is not a child. This link assumes that the fetus is a child and a human being - that is the fallacy.

Then surely all your other points are irrelevant to the question of whether the fetus may be killed? And if the fetus from 24 weeks deserves sufficient respect not be killed - what is he? Surely human, but you say no? Not a child - so…what is an “unborn child”? When does the human in womb (that those biblical quotes spoke about) become child in the womb? An unborn child… [Maybe for you the word child is reserved to one who is not unborn?]

There is no reward in heaven for intimidating, harassing or persecuting unfortunate women who have their own personal problems to deal with.

On this we agree. Where we differ is that you go beyond not intimidating others to the point of positively holding that it is OK to kill (or do I need to say “remove”) the unborn. Charity to women should not be confused with endorsing aggression toward the unborn. Denying their humanity. Those are entirely different things.

 

[openmind77]

… And if the fetus from 24 weeks deserves sufficient respect not be killed - what is he? Surely human, but you say no? Not a child - so…what is an “unborn child”? When does the human in womb (that those biblical quotes spoke about) become child in the womb? An unborn child… [Maybe for you the word child is reserved to one who is not unborn?]

Actually I am not sure at what point the fetus becomes capable of living outside the woman’s womb, 24 weeks seems rather short. Whatever it is, if it is possible we should try to save it, but the woman should not be forced to carry it.

As far as when the fetus can be called a child, only someone like the Christ can say that definitively and he will here soon to tell us.

On this we agree. Where we differ is that you go beyond not intimidating others to the point of positively holding that it is OK to kill (or do I need to say “remove”) the unborn. Charity to women should not be confused with endorsing aggression toward the unborn. Denying their humanity. Those are entirely different things.

Again, only the Christ can resolve such a difference. But like I said before, it is best not to be too sure of ourselves beforehand.

 

[Rau]

Life exists even before conception. The two cells that join at conception are always alive.

Neither is human life and neither can be found (neither exists) again after conception. The lifespan of a sperm cell is some days only. Its development from its beginnings to its end does not resemble the development of human life. The zygote is distinct from each of the sperm and ovum that brought it to existence. It is not the continuation of either, for, biologically speaking, it is radically different with a distinct DNA. Every cell post conception has a unique DNA distinct from that of the sperm and that of the ovum. It is new life which then develops continuously, is born, continues to develop, and ultimately dies generally many years later.

 

[Rau]

…Again, only the Christ can resolve…

This seems to be your stock response - “only Christ knows…” But in the meantime, you’ll assert the woman can kill the unborn (up to a point at least…)

 

[openmind77]

This seems to be your stock response - “only Christ knows…” But in the meantime, you’ll assert the woman can kill the unborn (up to a point at least…)

Yes, only the Christ can resolve this issue - no ordinary human person or agency is qualified to judge this woman and her actions.

As to the woman being allowed to have anything inside her body removed if she so wishes, a majority of the world governments and a majority of their populations agree with my opinion.

Those who have a different opinion should (in my opinion) mind their own business until the Christ gets here and clarifies the issue (it will not be that long a wait).

However, in the meantime, any attempt to make this unfortunate woman’s life even more miserable than it already is, will be taken into account by the judge who is come.

 

[Rau]

… any attempt to make this unfortunate woman’s life even more miserable than it already is, will be taken into account by the judge who is come.

Why do you presume women pursuing abortion are unfortunate or miserable? Statistical surveys reveal that the majority of abortions are not prompted by miserable circumstances.

But the assumed misery of the woman was in fact not a factor in your argument - you assert the woman’s right to be rid of her unborn off-spring is reliant on nothing other than the woman’s right to remove anything unwanted from her body (her off-spring included).

I am quite content to accept the judgement of Christ on this point. In less than 2 years you said? Can you be any more prescriptive as regards that timing?

 

[openmind77]

Why do you presume women pursuing abortion are unfortunate or miserable? Statistical surveys reveal that the majority of abortions are not prompted by miserable circumstances.

A woman with an unwanted pregnancy can not but be miserable. By miserable, I mean her emotional state, not that she is necessarily deprived in anyway, but that may also be true, especially in case of poverty or even worse case of rape or incest. I don’t know where you get your statistics.

But the assumed misery of the woman was in fact not a factor in your argument - you assert the woman’s right to be rid of her unborn off-spring is reliant on nothing other than the woman’s right to remove anything unwanted from her body (her off-spring included).

You are correct, the misery of the woman was not a factor in her fundamental right of autonomy over her own body.

I am quite content to accept the judgement of Christ on this point. In less than 2 years you said? Can you be any more prescriptive as regards that timing?

I too am willing to accept the judgement of the Christ whichever way it may go. We should all be prepared to do that and not make any assumption that our own dogmas will be supported by him.

As for the timing, there is a whole separate thread discussing the endtimes - but they seem obsessed with apocalyptic prophecies - I personally would not worry about such possibilities. The Return of the Christ is a event that should be eagerly anticipated with joy, not with apprehension.

 

[Rau]

A woman with an unwanted pregnancy can not but be miserable. By miserable, I mean her emotional state, not that she is necessarily deprived in anyway, but that may also be true, especially in case of poverty or even worse case of rape or incest. I don’t know where you get your statistics.

Reports of studies are readily available online. Rape and incest account for about 1% of abortions. A much higher % of cases arise from the “emotional upset” arising from the anticipated inconvenience of interrupting the parents’ lifestyle with a baby. Let’s be glad the parents of born children don’t feel a right to overcome any emotional upset they may be feeling from the burdens of parenthood by removing their children from their home.

The Return of the Christ is a event that should be eagerly anticipated with joy, not with apprehension.

Right. But briefly, why do you say it will happen in less than 2 years?

 

[Viki63]

Hogwash, with respect.
I am sure Christ will come again, but I doubt it will be soon, And he gave us brains to use, not just to hang our hats on. Deferring all judgments to him is a cop-out.
An unborn child is a human being from the moment of fertilization, and Christ did not take kindly to people who hurt children.

By the way, studies show that victims of rape who carry their babies to term are happier and healthier psychologically than those who choose abortion.

.

 

[openmind77]

…

Right. But briefly, why do you say it will happen in less than 2 years?

There are many signs, not any single specific reason. The other thread speculates Oct 2017 because of some Fatima prophecy . It is not just Christian prophecy, Islamic prophecy also agrees with the timing. I think it could be even earlier. I personally think the separation between goats and sheep is already taking place - but all that would be way off topic.