Defending the Right to Life

[stephie_venuto]

Hi everyone!

A while ago, I posted this on my blog:

“While many try to use the phrase of “a woman’s right to choose” to be justification to murdering thousands upon thousands of innocent babies every year, it is, in actuality, an incredibly weak argument. The question among many is when the human being is to be considered alive. Society portrays the Catholic view of “alive at the moment of conception” to be based purely on the Catholic moral code and teaching; however, what society tends to overlook is what science stays on this subject. By definition for something to be alive it must have cells, be able to pass on genes, respond to stimuli, and use energy, at the very least. A fetus is most definitely composed on cells, it passes on genes, it responds to stimuli, and is uses energy; therefore, by science’s definition, and not just Catholics’, a fetus is a living creature. Since this living creature is a human being, and abortion ends the life of this human being, abortion is murder. Just like no person has the right to murder any human being they see on the street, the argument of murdering a human being in the womb, passing it off as simply a “woman’s right to choose”, is invalid.”

Someone commented: “With that kind of logic, whenever a woman is on her period, she is committing murder.”

I’ve heard this “If abortion is murder, then menstruation is murder” argument many times, but I never know how to completely defend it.

As a young apologist, I’d really like to understand the best at to argue this point. Thank you!

 

[Kamaduck]

Hi everyone!

A while ago, I posted this on my blog:

“While many try to use the phrase of “a woman’s right to choose” to be justification to murdering thousands upon thousands of innocent babies every year, it is, in actuality, an incredibly weak argument. The question among many is when the human being is to be considered alive. Society portrays the Catholic view of “alive at the moment of conception” to be based purely on the Catholic moral code and teaching; however, what society tends to overlook is what science stays on this subject. By definition for something to be alive it must have cells, be able to pass on genes, respond to stimuli, and use energy, at the very least. A fetus is most definitely composed on cells, it passes on genes, it responds to stimuli, and is uses energy; therefore, by science’s definition, and not just Catholics’, a fetus is a living creature. Since this living creature is a human being, and abortion ends the life of this human being, abortion is murder. Just like no person has the right to murder any human being they see on the street, the argument of murdering a human being in the womb, passing it off as simply a “woman’s right to choose”, is invalid.”

Someone commented: “With that kind of logic, whenever a woman is on her period, she is committing murder.”

I’ve heard this “If abortion is murder, then menstruation is murder” argument many times, but I never know how to completely defend it.

As a young apologist, I’d really like to understand the best at to argue this point. Thank you!

This one’s easy: the woman normally menstruates out unfertilized eggs, which are not their own organisms. Unfertilized eggs are haploid cells with only half the genetic material of a fertilized egg, and won’t develop into their own organisms if they don’t encounter any sperm. Expelling them through menstruation is no more immoral than rubbing off bits of one’s skin.

Now, a more difficult objection is that most fertilized eggs fail to implant in the womb and are thus also destroyed during menstruation. Furthermore, most of these fertilized eggs have lethal mutations, such that saving them would have been impossible unless we altered the organism’s genetic code. I don’t have a source, but I’ve heard people bring it up a lot. Does anybody have an answer to that?

 

[edwest2]

Hi everyone!

A while ago, I posted this on my blog:

“While many try to use the phrase of “a woman’s right to choose” to be justification to murdering thousands upon thousands of innocent babies every year, it is, in actuality, an incredibly weak argument. The question among many is when the human being is to be considered alive. Society portrays the Catholic view of “alive at the moment of conception” to be based purely on the Catholic moral code and teaching; however, what society tends to overlook is what science stays on this subject. By definition for something to be alive it must have cells, be able to pass on genes, respond to stimuli, and use energy, at the very least. A fetus is most definitely composed on cells, it passes on genes, it responds to stimuli, and is uses energy; therefore, by science’s definition, and not just Catholics’, a fetus is a living creature. Since this living creature is a human being, and abortion ends the life of this human being, abortion is murder. Just like no person has the right to murder any human being they see on the street, the argument of murdering a human being in the womb, passing it off as simply a “woman’s right to choose”, is invalid.”

Someone commented: “With that kind of logic, whenever a woman is on her period, she is committing murder.”

I’ve heard this “If abortion is murder, then menstruation is murder” argument many times, but I never know how to completely defend it.

As a young apologist, I’d really like to understand the best at to argue this point. Thank you!

Here is the definition of menstruation: “the process in a woman of discharging blood and other materials from the lining of the uterus at intervals of about one lunar month from puberty until menopause, except during pregnancy.”

In other words, that argument is a lie.

Everyone reading this began life as not “a blob of tissue” but as a unique human embryo. Ask any Embryologist.

princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2.html

Peace,
Ed

 

[Least]

GOD made Man (Mankind) in HIS IMAGE and gave the divine-like ability to man to make the copies so that we might better understand HIS INFINITE LOVE of/for us.

The periodic nature of menstruation is just one of the ways that differ, but it is the source of a great deal of beauty in the successful product of human sexual interraction, while still showing the GREAT and GENTLE, SUBTLE HAND of THE LORD.

 

[Kamaduck]

GOD made Man (Mankind) in HIS IMAGE and gave the divine-like ability to man to make the copies so that we might better understand HIS INFINITE LOVE of/for us.

The periodic nature of menstruation is just one of the ways that differ, but it is the source of a great deal of beauty in the successful product of human sexual interraction, while still showing the GREAT and GENTLE, SUBTLE HAND of THE LORD.

I have no idea what you’re trying to say here. Can you clarify how this relates to menstruation and eggs that do not become children? :ehh:

Ed: your response was helpful, but I do think it’s worth noting that not every fertilized egg implants and causes a pregnancy. Are these fertilized eggs children, who then subsequently die? I’ve heard some say that these eggs/blastosists are simply not given souls, but that doesn’t sound right to me. Right now I think they are indeed children who die, although obviously the mother is not guilty of murder.

 

[edwest2]

I have no idea what you’re trying to say here. Can you clarify how this relates to menstruation and eggs that do not become children? :ehh:

Ed: your response was helpful, but I do think it’s worth noting that not every fertilized egg implants and causes a pregnancy. Are these fertilized eggs children, who then subsequently die? I’ve heard some say that these eggs/blastosists are simply not given souls, but that doesn’t sound right to me. Right now I think they are indeed children who die, although obviously the mother is not guilty of murder.

A fertilized egg that does not implant is not by the will of the mother or father. The Church has not defined exactly when ensoulment occurs.

ncregister.com/site/article/embryonic_ensoulment/

Peace,
Ed

 

[RoseMary131]

Someone commented: “With that kind of logic, whenever a woman is on her period, she is committing murder.”

I’ve heard this “If abortion is murder, then menstruation is murder” argument many times, but I never know how to completely defend it.

As a young apologist, I’d really like to understand the best at to argue this point.

Besides making the statements above, how does the person making the statement explain their statement as true? How do they defend their argument?

A woman’s body naturally doing something it is designed to do, slough off the lining of the uterus based on the flow of several hormones in a cycle is not the same as asking a person to use instruments to kill a baby or taking a chemical that will kill the baby.

ccli.org/nfp/stm-method/hormones.php

How does the person equate the two - cycle of nautally flowing hormones -vs- artificially induced changes in a woman’s body to remove her child?

 

[Viki63]

Someone commented: “With that kind of logic, whenever a woman is on her period, she is committing murder.”

I’ve heard this “If abortion is murder, then menstruation is murder” argument many times, but I never know how to completely defend it.

As a young apologist, I’d really like to understand the best at to argue this point. Thank you!

The answer is, the argument about menstruation is sheer ignorance.

The other question, that fertilized eggs may sometimes be lost, is a little more complex. That’s how God chose to make the world. He is a creator of amazing fecundity; He makes billions of people, billions of trees, billions of stars and galaxies. He will look after His creatures. He cares for His creation.
Our job is to respect the lives that are in our care.

 

[Kamaduck]

A fertilized egg that does not implant is not by the will of the mother or father. The Church has not defined exactly when ensoulment occurs.

ncregister.com/site/article/embryonic_ensoulment/

Peace,
Ed

Cool. That’s about what I figured. All we can do is trust Him and take care of the little ones who do survive.