contreception

[bosonhiggs]

It is not acceptable to abort in cases of rape for the following reasons:

1. murder is worse than rape. Catholic believes abortion is murder and then the mother who aborts is worse than the father. A Catholic woman could aim for sainthood by carrying a rapist’s baby and then put the baby up for adoption. (I have personally been raped and this is one of the reasons I will be canonised)
2. The baby is not responsible for the father’s actions and the mother has delivered capital punishment to her baby because the dad did something wrong.
3. God said it’s nigh impossible to get pregnant from a rape that would be convicted as a woman needs to be turned on for full penetration. It’s more likely that she has has lied about being raped.
4. Some women could shout rape but the rape isn’t convicted so it wouldn’t stand up in a court of law. Therefore no doctor should refer abortions based on a woman’s claim that she had been raped as she could have lied.

You claim that you have been raped, yet you insist that women are most likely lying about being raped. That is some very…disturbing thinking.

As a rape victim I would expect you to understand the shame and guilt of rape, and the knowledge that people often blame the victim or accuse them of lying and how absolutely hurtful and harmful those reactions or statements are. It is the fear of being accused of such things that often keeps an individuals from reporting their experiences in the first place. Even if it is reported, about 50% of the time the rapist is never even arrested. Most rapists walk free - even if there happens to be enough evidence to convict them - because of these beliefs. Only 6% of rapists ever spend time in jail, 15 out of 16 are free. (you can look up these statistics at RAINN.org).

I’m honestly having a very hard time gathering my thoughts to respond to you, I am literally speechless.

 

[Rence]

Yes… and I agree that rape is intrinsically evil… but we are not talking about rape, we are talking about abortion. Suppose the egg is already fertilized by the time the woman takes Plan B? Then by taking Plan B the woman will have aborted her baby…

I’m not the one who is calling “plan b after rape” an “abortion”. It’s not an abortion. To equate it to abortion, IMOHO, is utter nonsense. Plan B after rape is intended to prevent conception and prevent pregnancy, not abort.

If someoneA throws a punch at personB, and personA is forced to block the punch or risk incurring a broken jaw, and the personB breaks his arm because personA had a tool in his hand when he was forced to block, PersonA is not responsible for breaking the assailants arm. It’s the assailant’s responsiblity. Person A was protecting himself, and had no intention of breaking anyone’s arm. But Person B hit the tool as well as the blocking arm. It’s his fault for throwing the punch in the first place.

When a rapist is raping a woman, his semen is part of the assault and is an assailant as it is part of the rapist. The rape victim can choose to take plan B to further hinder the assault on her body by her rapist, including his semen. If she attempts to hinder ovulation in order to not get pregnant as a result of her rapist’s act of violence, she is not sinning. If there happens to be a 10 minute zygote that gets flushed out, that’s the rapist’s fault. Not hers. Her intent was not to abort a zygote. Her intent was to prevent conception. Just like the broken bone example above. A woman cannot just roll over and play dead whenever a man decides to forcibly hold her down and rapes her. I don’t accept that she must accept the semen as a parting gift. If a woman chooses to not take plan B that’s her choice, but if she wants to fight back and take plan b, that’s her perogative.

 

[bosonhiggs]

Even if you suffer pain & suffering surely this pain & suffering is better to suffer to then to cave in to evil?

vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_academies/acdlife/documents/rc_pa_acdlife_doc_20001031_pillola-giorno-dopo_en.html on Plan B

There is a moral absolute regarding a rape victim’s choice in either taking or not taking plan B because there is the chance(if she did get pregnant) that Plan B will terminate the life of the newly formed human zygote which is which the church calls a “chemically induced abortion” (see document above).

Plan B does not cause abortions, it prevents fertilization and/or implantation. If the fertilized egg has implanted (implantation is the medically defined starting point of pregnancy) Plan B will NOT harm it. Only after the blastocyst has implanted can removal be considered abortion.

 

[Rence]

You claim that you have been raped, yet you insist that women are most likely lying about being raped. That is some very…disturbing thinking.

As a rape victim I would expect you to understand the shame and guilt of rape, and the knowledge that people often blame the victim or accuse them of lying and how absolutely hurtful and harmful those reactions or statements are. It is the fear of being accused of such things that often keeps an individuals from reporting their experiences in the first place. Even if it is reported, about 50% of the time the rapist is never even arrested. Most rapists walk free - even if there happens to be enough evidence to convict them - because of these beliefs. Only 6% of rapists ever spend time in jail, 15 out of 16 are free. (you can look up these statistics at RAINN.org).

I’m honestly having a very hard time gathering my thoughts to respond to you, I am literally speechless.

I believe you. And you’re very important to me. You are the priority!!

But my suggestion to you is to not bother wasting your time and energy trying to come up with an answer to something that ridiculous. It’s not going to do any good anyway. The best reaction is to advocate for rape victims, and you’ll be responding way more effectively than trying to reason with someone who doesn’t place any value on a rape victim - and uh, doesn’t have any knowledge of the most basic biology to boot Your voice will be loud and clear to them, and it will mean the world to them.

 

[choose_to_love]

boson, since you framed your response in terms that admit of Plan B preventing implantation, what practical difference does it make if Plan B prevents implantation instead of causing an already implanted new person to be killed? Whether you call it an abortion or not, a new human person is killed either way. Let’s be clear, once the egg is fertilized, it’s not an egg anymore, it is a new, very young, at that point unicellular, human, no? By the time implantation would be prevented, he or she would be multicellular, chemically communicating with the mother, etc. I think the point here is that the new life is ended, not how we label the means.

Rence:I think I understand your position to be that drugs to prevent ovulation are morally permissible in defense of the continuing assault of the rapist, and I do agree with that. However, I also think it is mandatory that an ovulation test be given, if the woman is not aware of her cycle. Off the top of my head, I do not think taking an action which could possibly end a life can be reduced to, if a 10 minute old zygote gets flushed, too bad, it’s the rapist’s fault. However, perhaps you could develop that argument using the principle of double effect; again, off the top, I don’t think you can, because the consequence is so severe. Double effect criteria have been posted on CAF plenty of times. I am just not recalling them perfectly now.

 

[DanteAlighieri]

Pope Paul VI: “The Church, on the contrary, does not at all consider illicit the use of those therapeutic means truly necessary to cure diseases of the organism, even if an impediment to procreation, which may be foreseen, should result therefore, provided such impediment is not, for whatever motive, directly willed.” (Humanae Vitae, n. 15).

The above passage refers to indirect sterilization, such as when a woman has a hysterectomy in order to treat a medical disorder, with the result is that she is sterile. In such a case, the therapeutic means is not intrinsically evil, and so it is morally permissible, even when sterility is foreseen as an unintended consequence. But the same passage cannot be applied to contraception because the use of contraception is intrinsically evil. The moral teaching of the Church does not permit the use of an intrinsically evil means, even to achieve a good end. The end never justifies the means.

Notice that the last portion of the above quote excludes as immoral the choice of an “impediment to procreation,” if it is, “for whatever motive, directly willed.” So even when the motive (the purpose or intended end) is therapeutic, if the means is a directly willed act which impedes procreation (e.g. contraception, or direct sterilization), then the act is morally illicit. This distinction is important to a correct understanding of the Church’s teaching. Intrinsically evil acts are never moral for any motive whatsoever, even a therapeutic motive (or medical purpose). What is permissible is an act, such as a medical intervention (e.g. removing a cancerous uterus), which is in itself moral and therefore not intrinsically evil, and which has the unintended effect of sterilization.

The impeding of procreation is an evil moral object, and the deliberate choice of any act directed toward than end is an inherently immoral act. Intrinsically evil acts are always immoral.

Ron, correct me if I’m wrong, but it sounds like you’re saying the opposite of what Pope Paul VI was saying. I read his quote to say that it is permissible to use the pill, for example, for purely therapeutic reasons despite its contraceptive effect as long as BOTH of the following are true:

1. The reason one is using it is legitimately therapeutic, AND
2. The contraceptive effect of the pill is NOT directly willed by the user.

Furthermore, the above is true regardless of whether the woman using the pill is married.

This is what you are saying, right? If not, please look at this AAA response, which says that the above is true.

Peace,
Dante

EDIT: Just realized how old was the post I was answering – forgive me for dredging this up again if it’s already been addressed.

 

[DanteAlighieri]

Plan B does not cause abortions, it prevents fertilization and/or implantation. If the fertilized egg has implanted (implantation is the medically defined starting point of pregnancy) Plan B will NOT harm it. Only after the blastocyst has implanted can removal be considered abortion.

The “medically defined starting point of pregnancy” is irrelevant – we’re talking about morality. From a moral standpoint, killing an embryo that has not implanted is the same as killing one that has – it is the killing of an unborn human being, and therefore an abortion.

Peace,
Dante

 

[ThomasToo]

The “medically defined starting point of pregnancy” is irrelevant – we’re talking about morality. From a moral standpoint, killing an embryo that has not implanted is the same as killing one that has – it is the killing of an unborn human being, and therefore an abortion.

Peace,
Dante

Honest question: is it the same as killing to prevent that blastocyst from implanting? I think you and I discussed the famous violinist thought experiment elsewhere and I believe I outlined it above in here. Isn’t it at least possible to make a distinction between destroying those cells (as is, for example, done in embryonic stem cell research) and preventing it from implanting (i.e. depriving it of what is needed to sustain life)? Whether or not you grant this distinction there’s also the question that–if it were granted–whether it is morally significant but let’s take this one step at a time.

 

[Rence]

Rence:I think I understand your position to be that drugs to prevent ovulation are morally permissible in defense of the continuing assault of the rapist, and I do agree with that. However, I also think it is mandatory that an ovulation test be given, if the woman is not aware of her cycle. Off the top of my head, I do not think taking an action which could possibly end a life can be reduced to, if a 10 minute old zygote gets flushed, too bad, it’s the rapist’s fault. However, perhaps you could develop that argument using the principle of double effect; again, off the top, I don’t think you can, because the consequence is so severe. Double effect criteria have been posted on CAF plenty of times. I am just not recalling them perfectly now.

Well, if a woman feels the way you do, and she is raped and in the ER for treatment, she should request an ovulation test, and go from there. In fact, she doesn’t have to take plan b at all if she wishes not to.

However, if a woman doesn’t think it matters either way (like me) she can go ahead with plan b according to the law.

That’s the great thing about choice. You choose to either take it or not. I choose plan b in such an emergency. I’ll go as far as a pregnancy test, and that’s it. Just give me the plan B and a glass of water, and finish whatever you’re doing so I can go home. There really isn’t even any arguing about what I would do with my choice, as each one of us is free to make their own choice. And that’s the way it should be. . Everyone has to decide what is best for them. And all options should be available. Conversely, you wouldn’t tolerate it too well if it was a law that plan b was administered after every rape, would you? that would take away your choice. As immoral as one thinks it is to take plan b after a rape, that’s how immoral I believe it is to withhold plan b from a rape victim who wants it.

I really do not seek to change someone’s opinion or action. This is my view, and my choice. I do believe that choice will always be available.

 

[DanteAlighieri]

Honest question: is it the same as killing to prevent that blastocyst from implanting? I think you and I discussed the famous violinist thought experiment elsewhere and I believe I outlined it above in here. Isn’t it at least possible to make a distinction between destroying those cells (as is, for example, done in embryonic stem cell research) and preventing it from implanting (i.e. depriving it of what is needed to sustain life)? Whether or not you grant this distinction there’s also the question that–if it were granted–whether it is morally significant but let’s take this one step at a time.

Morally speaking, there is no distinction – both amount to taking steps to cause its death. You have to remember that we are approaching things from the perspective that, at the moment of conception, the new human being has a soul, and is thus far more precious than merely a mass of cells.

If you grant that premise, you’ll see why there is no distinction between killing “it” and letting “it” die.

Peace,
Dante

 

[ThomasToo]

Morally speaking, there is no distinction – both amount to taking steps to cause its death. You have to remember that we are approaching things from the perspective that, at the moment of conception, the new human being has a soul, and is thus far more precious than merely a mass of cells.

If you grant that premise, you’ll see why there is no distinction between killing “it” and letting “it” die.

Peace,
Dante

Even granting that premise surely there is a difference between direct killing and letting someone die. It’s the difference between, for example, euthanasia and the removal of all life support machines. Or do you see those as equivalent as well? (Again, honest question without irony or spite)

 

[bosonhiggs]

The “medically defined starting point of pregnancy” is irrelevant – we’re talking about morality. From a moral standpoint, killing an embryo that has not implanted is the same as killing one that has – it is the killing of an unborn human being, and therefore an abortion.

Peace,
Dante

It’s not irrelevant to morality at all.

People have different morals by the way, so while your “moral standpoint” is one thing, many people’s is another (morally, it is not killing a “human being” - which its not at this point, its just a clump of cells, shall I cite with passages from my biology textbook? - or ending a pregnancy because the pregnancy hasn’t even started yet, therefore it is not abortion and is fine).

By your moral standard everything that does not result in pregnancy is killing an unborn human.

boson, since you framed your response in terms that admit of Plan B preventing implantation, what practical difference does it make if Plan B prevents implantation instead of causing an already implanted new person to be killed? Whether you call it an abortion or not, a new human person is killed either way. Let’s be clear, once the egg is fertilized, it’s not an egg anymore, it is a new, very young, at that point unicellular, human, no? By the time implantation would be prevented, he or she would be multicellular, chemically communicating with the mother, etc. I think the point here is that the new life is ended, not how we label the means.

A fertilized egg is a human organism, not a human person (there is, believe it or not, a difference) - Yes, a zygote meets the 7 characteristics of life (one can argue Response to Stimuli, however), but so does Blue-Green Algae, protozoa, leaves etc. However, there is about a 24 hour time period before the completion of fertilization in which a zygote does not meet these characteristics. A zygote, despite this, is not a human being.

Here are some really helpful sites (I tried to find a good mix of studies based on religion. All are, as you will see, fairly unbiased) :

heres a site that has a simple breakdown of the different beliefs of when life begins, some are even cited with biblical passages to support the belief: religioustolerance.org/abo_when2.htm

Developmental Biology text, describing the different beliefs of the beginning of human life:
8e.devbio.com/article.php?id=162

This site discusses the difference between being a human being and a human person, it’s from a catholic university:
christendom-awake.org/pages/may/humanperson.htm

Study on when “life” beings:
westchesterinstitute.net/images/LargePRINT.pdf

Study on regarding a zygote as a full person:
muse.jhu.edu/journals/perspectives_in_biology_and_medicine/v049/49.4wall.html

Bioethics paper on definition of human life:
thenewatlantis.com/publications/bioethics-and-the-character-of-human-life

If you would like other studies or papers, please let me know!

 

[DanteAlighieri]

Even granting that premise surely there is a difference between direct killing and letting someone die. It’s the difference between, for example, euthanasia and the removal of all life support machines. Or do you see those as equivalent as well? (Again, honest question without irony or spite)

Yes, but taking steps to deprive someone of the necessities of life is not merely letting them die. If I prevent you from eating, you will die, and I have killed you. If I remove a ventilator from someone who cannot breathe, they will die, and I have killed them. If I prevent an embryo from implanting…

Peace,
Dante

 

[DanteAlighieri]

It’s not irrelevant to morality at all.

Yes, it is. We do not base morality on the opinions of doctors – we base it on truth. And the truth is that Christians have taught and believed for ages that ensoulment occurs at the moment of conception – whereas the notion that life begins at implantation is a fairly recent concession to the pro-abortion movement.

People have different morals by the way, so while your “moral standpoint” is one thing, many people’s is another (morally, it is not killing a “human being” - which its not at this point, its just a clump of cells, shall I cite with passages from my biology textbook? - or ending a pregnancy because the pregnancy hasn’t even started yet, therefore it is not abortion and is fine).

I believe you are aware that this is a Catholic forum, yes? Your indignation that I would dare to speak as though my moral views are true is a little uncalled for.

You can cite passages from your biology textbook all you like – it does not change the FACT that a human being exists the moment an egg is fertilized. How on EARTH anyone can delude themselves into thinking otherwise is beyond me, but it flies in the face of common sense.

By your moral standard everything that does not result in pregnancy is killing an unborn human.

This is absurd – in fact, it is completely false. I never said anything that a reasonable person could interpret that way.

With all due respect, I suggest that you remember the nature of this forum and observe our rules about courtesy.

A fertilized egg is a human organism, not a human person (there is, believe it or not, a difference) - Yes, a zygote meets the 7 characteristics of life (one can argue Response to Stimuli, however), but so does Blue-Green Algae, protozoa, leaves etc. However, there is about a 24 hour time period before the completion of fertilization in which a zygote does not meet these characteristics. A zygote, despite this, is not a human being.

Again, this is irrelevant. No amount of medical research or theory can account for the fact that the brand-new embryo has a soul. The soul cannot be detected by medical or any other kind of science. The soul is what makes it a human being – NOT its ability to do anything.

Peace,
Dante

 

[bosonhiggs]

Yes, it is. We do not base morality on the opinions of doctors – we base it on truth. And the truth is that Christians have taught and believed for ages that ensoulment occurs at the moment of conception – whereas the notion that life begins at implantation is a fairly recent concession to the pro-abortion movement.

I believe you are aware that this is a Catholic forum, yes? Your indignation that I would dare to speak as though my moral views are true is a little uncalled for.

You can cite passages from your biology textbook all you like – it does not change the FACT that a human being exists the moment an egg is fertilized. How on EARTH anyone can delude themselves into thinking otherwise is beyond me, but it flies in the face of common sense.

Again, this is irrelevant. No amount of medical research or theory can account for the fact that the brand-new embryo has a soul. The soul cannot be detected by medical or any other kind of science. The soul is what makes it a human being – NOT its ability to do anything.

Peace,
Dante

Dante, Dante, Dante,

My first reply was a bit waspish, for that I apologize. But it does not change my beliefs.

Truth? Obviously we have very different ideas as to what constitutes the truth. That is the main problem here.

Pro-abortion is a misnomer that I keep seeing, the correct term is Pro-Choice. The two are not mutually exclusive you see, Pro-choice individuals are for protecting the right for women to choose whether or not they want to get an abortion because they understand that not everyone has the same beliefs. That’s semantics though.

I am aware this is a Catholic forum. Are you aware that not every Catholic agrees with the Church on social issues? I know I’m not the only one, though it seems I am on the forum. Indignation? No. Not in the least, I’m sorry you read it that way. It was not my intention (I partially blame exhaustion from Finals Week )

Deluded? Not in the least. I simply have a different belief than you. That belief is that a zygote does not have a soul until is has blood - a belief which many others hold and can be backed up with religious argument. You can check out my links if you like a lot of them give religious arguments about souls and what makes a human, human. I was answering someone else’s question to the best of my ability, giving evidence as to why I believe what I do. The fact that I can back up my beliefs speaks a lot to the fact that I’m “deluded”. Those articles are actually pretty fascinating (it may be because I enjoy bioethics though, but there *is *a really great article written by a professor of Moral Theology that was very enlightening) and I would read them anyway. I doubt they will sway your beliefs, and that’s not what I’m trying to do, but maybe then you will be able to see where I am coming from. Plus, like I said before, they’re really good.

I was going to argue that there is no proof the embryo has a soul either, since it can’t be tested, but that, Dante, is a never ending argument you and I can get into at another date.

 

[DanteAlighieri]

Dante, Dante, Dante,

My first reply was a bit waspish, for that I apologize. But it does not change my beliefs.

Apology accepted – and I am sorry if I sounded condescending.

Truth? Obviously we have very different ideas as to what constitutes the truth. That is the main problem here.

If you are Catholic, this should not be the case. The Church was promised by Christ Himself that it would be protected from teaching error on faith and morals – this means that in matters like this, the Church teaches the truth, regardless of what science says.

If you look at it honestly, you will see that what the Church teaches about ensoulment does not contradict what we know to be true scientifically. It is merely the arbitrary designation that life begins at implantation that conflicts with the truth the Church teaches.

Pro-abortion is a misnomer that I keep seeing, the correct term is Pro-Choice. The two are not mutually exclusive you see, Pro-choice individuals are for protecting the right for women to choose whether or not they want to get an abortion because they understand that not everyone has the same beliefs. That’s semantics though.

It’s not merely semantics. If you support someone’s “right” to do something immoral, you support the immoral act by extension.

I am aware this is a Catholic forum. Are you aware that not every Catholic agrees with the Church on social issues? I know I’m not the only one, though it seems I am on the forum. Indignation? No. Not in the least, I’m sorry you read it that way. It was not my intention (I partially blame exhaustion from Finals Week )

I am fully aware of this. I know many Catholics whose views on abortion, gay “marriage”, euthanasia, and other issues are similarly misguided. What’s important to remember is, like I said above, that the Church teaches the truth because Christ promised that it would be guided by the Holy Spirit to do so. It’s not simply a man-made institution from which we are free to pick and choose our preferred morality; it is the Church founded by God to spread His truth through the world.

Deluded? Not in the least. I simply have a different belief than you. That belief is that a zygote does not have a soul until is has blood - a belief which many others hold and can be backed up with religious argument. You can check out my links if you like a lot of them give religious arguments about souls and what makes a human, human. I was answering someone else’s question to the best of my ability, giving evidence as to why I believe what I do. The fact that I can back up my beliefs speaks a lot to the fact that I’m “deluded”. Those articles are actually pretty fascinating (it may be because I enjoy bioethics though, but there *is *a really great article written by a professor of Moral Theology that was very enlightening) and I would read them anyway. I doubt they will sway your beliefs, and that’s not what I’m trying to do, but maybe then you will be able to see where I am coming from. Plus, like I said before, they’re really good.

With all due respect, reading these articles is a waste of my time. I believe what the Church teaches because it’s TRUE, not because there’s a convincing argument behind it (although there is).

Again, respectfully, the fact that you can back up your arguments does not mean they are true. Relying on misguided information as evidence does not validate your position. Perhaps “misguided” is a better word to describe your position; certainly, however, there are those who are deluded.

I was going to argue that there is no proof the embryo has a soul either, since it can’t be tested, but that, Dante, is a never ending argument you and I can get into at another date.

There’s also no proof that the Eucharist is really the body and blood of Christ. Is that open for debate? No – these are matters of faith.

If the Church has authority to teach in Christ’s name on one moral issue, how can it not have the same authority in other moral issues?

Peace,
Dante

 

[ThomasToo]

Yes, but taking steps to deprive someone of the necessities of life is not merely letting them die. If I prevent you from eating, you will die, and I have killed you. If I remove a ventilator from someone who cannot breathe, they will die, and I have killed them. If I prevent an embryo from implanting…

Peace,
Dante

Imagine you are kidnapped in the night and awake to find yourself laying on a hospital bed next to a person asleep on a similar bed. You both have numerous tubes and such coming out of various veins and such which run into a machine between your beds. A woman steps forward and explains that she is a member of the Association for the Protection of Music and you are the only person who matches this famous violinist’s physiology and unless you stay attached to this machine for the next nine months the violinist will die.

Do you have an absolute moral duty to stay?

 

[DanteAlighieri]

Imagine you are kidnapped in the night and awake to find yourself laying on a hospital bed next to a person asleep on a similar bed. You both have numerous tubes and such coming out of various veins and such which run into a machine between your beds. A woman steps forward and explains that she is a member of the Association for the Protection of Music and you are the only person who matches this famous violinist’s physiology and unless you stay attached to this machine for the next nine months the violinist will die.

Do you have an absolute moral duty to stay?

With respect, I reject the premise of this question as absurd.

Without doing too much thinking about it, however, my gut response is no. One is under no moral obligation to risk one’s own life to save another, particularly against one’s own will – such as giving a kidney or rushing into a burning building. Moreover, in the absurd situation you described, there is no guarantee that what one is being told is the truth.

If your next question is to compare this to a woman who has been told she must have an abortion or she will die, I’ll save you the trouble: the abortion would an intrisically evil act taken for a good end, which is never permitted, while disconnecting oneself from the imagined machine is not an evil act, though its consequence allegedly will lead to someone else’s death.

Peace,
Dante

 

[ThomasToo]

With respect, I reject the premise of this question as absurd.

Without doing too much thinking about it, however, my gut response is no. One is under no moral obligation to risk one’s own life to save another, particularly against one’s own will – such as giving a kidney or rushing into a burning building. Moreover, in the absurd situation you described, there is no guarantee that what one is being told is the truth.

If your next question is to compare this to a woman who has been told she must have an abortion or she will die, I’ll save you the trouble: the abortion would an intrisically evil act taken for a good end, which is never permitted, while disconnecting oneself from the imagined machine is not an evil act, though its consequence allegedly will lead to someone else’s death.

Peace,
Dante

I’m sorry for the confusion. Please, if possible, accept the fact that you are being told the truth and that your life is not at risk from this procedure. This thought experiment was created by Judith Jarvis Thompson, professor of philosophy at M.I.T. so I’m not trying to blow smoke.

My next question was going to be nothing of the kind. If we assume that the violinist can get off the table and go about his or her life after nine months and so can you I want to know how you distinguish this case–with the two provisos I included above–from the case of a woman whose rapist gets her pregnant. Especially when she wants to use Plan B and keep the embryo from implanting in the first place. While both the embryo and the violinist can be said to have the right to life (though I do not grant this in the first case I am for this example) they do not, as you have implied, have the right to what is necessary for the continuation of life (e.g. use of someone else’s body for the better part of a year).

 

[Podo2005]

You realize that wasn’t actually an argument it was just a question followed by the assertion that I’m wrong. Traditionally there’s a middle part where you outline why you think my assertion is manifestly wrong. Here’s mine:

I assert that a fetus is indeed an assailant because a woman who did nothing to open herself to the possibility of children (as separate from cases in which a woman chooses to have sex) now has an entity that is attempting to forcibly attach itself to her and not let go for nine months.

Imagine the following scenario for a moment. You awake from a night of uneasy dreams to find yourself in a hospital bed with numerous tubes and things attaching you to a machine that is in turn attached to someone laying on a hospital bed next to you. You begin to try to get up and someone explains to you that she is a member of the Society for the Appreciation of Classical Music and the person to whom you are attached is a famous violinist who has a rare blood disorder and only a nine month procedure involving you and these machines will save the violinists life because you are the only match the Society has been able to find. Are you morally obliged to remain in the bed because of the violinist’s right to life or do you have the right to disconnect the tubes and walk out the door? Do you see the parallel I’m making? Do you think it’s apt?

I find it hard to believe that a newly concieved zygote has the power to debate whether or not it wants to be in the womans womb… but this is what you seem to be implying. How is the zygote “forcibly” attaching itself to the woman? It seems to me that the zygote doesn’t really have a choice in the matter…

And no I don’t see the parallel…in the first case the innocent zygote is murdered, in the 2nd case the person chooses not to help the dying violinist…a few questions come to my mind… 1) how is it that the person almost “magically” finds himself in this scenario 2) would there be anything wrong with the person giving his time to save the violinist? (John 15:13) 3) how do you know that that person is the ONLY person who can donate his blood? suppose this society hasn’t looked hard enough?