Help in replying to a pro-abortion "classmate"

[vern_humphrey]

OK, lots of fertilized zygotes end up as uterine cysts. Living tissue, with DNA unique from the mother. Are you certain that these natural phenomena are human beings?

Yes. What do you say they are?

 

[SoCalRC]

1. The term “person” was never considered to be something different and above the term “human” until after Roe v. Wade. That particular useage is a neologism, invented to defend that indefensible ruling.

Vern, we are beating this to death. I am simply saying, #2 is wrong. Roe v. Wade reused the same dubious legalisms as the laws it overturned.

Further, even the Mother Church made such a legal distinction for its own purposes. Again, notice that Pope Pius IX, even as he altering Church law regarding the distinction directly asserted that a fetus is not an ensouled human being, but its destruction was still the grave because it was “anticipated murder” of a potential human being.

This makes some Catholic’s head explode. Anticipated murder? What the heck is that? But we cannot change what he said, or the Church’s on going refusal to clearly distance itself from it.

I think it is easier to deal with these seeming contradictions using further understanding, but we can agree to disagree.

Best Wishes

 

[vern_humphrey]

Vern, we are beating this to death. I am simply saying, #2 is wrong. Roe v. Wade reused the same dubious legalisms as the laws it overturned.

Then find a cite for that useage that pre-dates Roe v. Wade.

 

[sprout]

I think that awareness, consciousness would be a better measure. The fact that at 9 weeks a fetus responds to stimuli, wraps it’s fingers around an object, grabs it toes, etc shows that at 9 weeks the fetus is “aware” of itself, it’s environment and responds.

another excerpt from Fr. Tad:

…What are some examples of this evidence suggesting that fetuses feel pain early on? Those who work full-time in neonatal intensive care units dedicated to helping premature infants recognize how these “preemies” readily respond to painful stimuli. Surgeons routinely anaesthetize premature babies before they undergo operations. Children delivered as early as 21 weeks can have an audible cry. Some doctors believe that such distress can be felt even as early as 12 weeks. If you stick a pin into the palm of a baby in utero who is eight weeks old, she will withdraw from this painful stimulus. In fact, such a baby will open her mouth in utero as though she were crying and carry out initial exhalation movements and other breath-type movements. Recent imaging studies have corroborated this “fetal homologue” of infant crying in the womb following painful or noxious stimuli.

ncbcenter.org/FrTad_MSOOB_4.asp

Regardless, though, an embryo is still a human person in it’s earliest stage of development. Only human’s are ensouled by God,

 

[SoCalRC]

Yes. What do you say they are?

Failed pregnancies and living human tissue. Like the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith I believe my post conception obligations are wholly independant of the question of rather small cellular clusters are biologically and spiritually complete human beings.

I understand that this is not enough for some of the laity. In order to grasp the gravity they need to believe in tiny, single cell persons who will go to heaven. But the Church does not teach this, so I am free to follow my concience and side with Holy Tradition on the matter.

Sincerely, I think your belief is much more challenging. If these growths are, as you believe, human, then many common medical procedures potentially become direct abortion, even when a woman does not pass any accepted medical test for pregnancy.

And, of course, it places some serious burdens on you. If you have not done so you may wish to read Monsignor Francesco Cangiamila’s EMBRYOLOGIA SACRA, written in 1758. His concern for the unborn was so intense he advocated in utero baptism, using a syringe. This might seem shockingly extreme, but his arguments of some of the moral obligations placed on the laity because of simultaneous animation are obviously heartfelt and pretty compelling.

Best Regards

P.S. Vern, we have already quoted countless Church documents that make a legal distinction. I’ve pointed you to western abortion prohibition laws, whose history you can study yourself. I know that some people view psuedo certainty and intractibility as personal strengths, but I am not one of them. In my experience, it just leads to negative emotion and uncharitable thoughts.

 

[SoCalRC]

I think that awareness, consciousness would be a better measure. The fact that at 9 weeks a fetus responds to stimuli, wraps it’s fingers around an object, grabs it toes, etc shows that at 9 weeks the fetus is “aware” of itself, it’s environment and responds.

The fetus does show certain reflexive responses, but there is little biological evidence to suggest that it is at all aware. Again, we can now scan the brain in ways that we could not imagine just a few years ago. At 9 weeks, there are neurons, but no synapses.

So, when doctors scan, we see no corresponding brain activity to match the reflexive actions. No offense intended, but the best example might be a chicken. It’s body can perform fairly complex actions, like running, even after decapitation.

I happen to feel the Church has this right. Just as conciousness does not really match our moral obligations at end of life, I do not think it is a proper measure for conception to birth issues either.

Best Regards

 

[vern_humphrey]

Failed pregnancies and living human tissue. Like the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith I believe my post conception obligations are wholly independant of the question of rather small cellular clusters are biologically and spiritually complete human beings.

I understand that this is not enough for some of the laity. In order to grasp the gravity they need to believe in tiny, single cell persons who will go to heaven. But the Church does not teach this, so I am free to follow my concience and side with Holy Tradition on the matter.

Sincerely, I think your belief is much more challenging. If these growths are, as you believe, human, then many common medical procedures potentially become direct abortion, even when a woman does not pass any accepted medical test for pregnancy.

And, of course, it places some serious burdens on you. If you have not done so you may wish to read Monsignor Francesco Cangiamila’s EMBRYOLOGIA SACRA, written in 1758. His concern for the unborn was so intense he advocated in utero baptism, using a syringe. This might seem shockingly extreme, but his arguments of some of the moral obligations placed on the laity because of simultaneous animation are obviously heartfelt and pretty compelling.

Best Regards

You’re not making sense – you cite medical conditions that were unknown in 1758.

The Church does apply the Principle of Double Effect in some cases relating to the child in utero – but direct abortion is always wrong, and the child is human from the moment of conception.

 

[SoCalRC]

You’re not making sense – you cite medical conditions that were unknown in 1758.

Try reading it. His reasoning, as seemingly yours, was based on simultaneous animation.

The Church does apply the Principle of Double Effect in some cases relating to the child in utero – but direct abortion is always wrong, and the child is human from the moment of conception.

I’m sorry, this is false. Some theologians have proposed that double effect may apply, and many Catholic health care providers use it to justify some procedures, but even in something as extreme as extrauterine pregnancies, the Church has refused to officially take a stance on the application of double effect in fetal deaths.

Read Rome’s ruling from 1902 on the question of ectopic pregnancies. Next read Directive 48, which currently applies to Catholic health care providers. Then reconcile both to the application of double effect currently used for three common treatments by groups like CHA.

Secular society typically counts all three common treatments as medical (chemical) or surgical abortions. And you will not find a document from Rome which says otherwise.

Best Regards

 

[vern_humphrey]

Try reading it. His reasoning, as seemingly yours, was based on simultaneous animation.

An entirely different concept than mine.

I’m sorry, this is false. Some theologians have proposed that double effect may apply, and many Catholic health care providers use it to justify some procedures, but even in something as extreme as extrauterine pregnancies, the Church has refused to officially take a stance on the application of double effect in fetal deaths.

Go through Catholic Answers and you will find Double Effect cited and documented.

Read Rome’s ruling from 1902 on the question of ectopic pregnancies. Next read Directive 48, which currently applies to Catholic health care providers. Then reconcile both to the application of double effect currently used for three common treatments by groups like CHA.

Secular society typically counts all three common treatments as medical (chemical) or surgical abortions. And you will not find a document from Rome which says otherwise.

Best Regards

And your point is?

 

[sprout]

If these growths are, as you believe, human, then many common medical procedures potentially become direct abortion, even when a woman does not pass any accepted medical test for pregnancy.

Of course they are human and that’s not a “belief” it’s a matter of fact. As my original post stated “if it’s not a baby, then you’re not pregnant”.

we see no corresponding brain activity to match the reflexive actions.

I earlier posted from Fr. Tad:

If you stick a pin into the palm of a baby in utero who is eight weeks old, she will withdraw from this painful stimulus. In fact, such a baby will open her mouth in utero as though she were crying and carry out initial exhalation movements and other breath-type movements. Recent imaging studies have corroborated this “fetal homologue” of infant crying in the womb following painful or noxious stimuli.

ncbcenter.org/FrTad_MSOOB_4.asp

sure appears to be “a response to stimuli” to me, but then again I’m no scientist, but Fr. Tad IS.

Rev. Tadeusz Pacholczyk, Ph.D. earned his doctorate in neuroscience from Yale and did post-doctoral work at Harvard. He is a priest of the diocese of Fall River, MA, and serves as the Director of Education at The National Catholic Bioethics Center in Philadelphia.

he begins the article I quoted by saying:

Many neonatal specialists note that infants around this age do appear to feel pain and respond to noxious stimuli. Yet the authors of the JAMA article attempt to argue that because certain connections in the developing brain of the unborn infant have not yet been established by 20 weeks of age, pain perception by the infant may not be possible. The authors also make an concerted attempt to discount or discredit a number of the standard lines of evidence suggesting that infants in utero may feel pain quite early during a pregnancy

…In order to grasp the gravity they need to believe in tiny, single cell persons who will go to heaven.

Also they are not single cell. You seem to be intelligent enough about science and human development to know that we are discussing a fertilized “human” egg at different stages of cell growth.

I suggest you follow some of the links I’ve given for Fr. Tad

 

[SoCalRC]

Go through Catholic Answers and you will find Double Effect cited and documented.

Will I find an article like this?

cuf.org/faithfacts/details_view.asp?ffID=57

And your point is?

You need to learn to read carefully.

From the article:

“[T]he Church has not spoken officially about the morality of specific treatment options”

My original point was that what, exactly, the Church teaches (as opposed to what you want to believe) is explicitly spelled out. I think Catholics would do well to actually read it, but that is just my opininon.

 

[vern_humphrey]

A mention has been made on this thread of “Directive 48.”

For those who may not be familiar with the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops’ “Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services, Fourth Edition” it can be found at usccb.org/bishops/directives.shtml#partfour.

Directive 48 reads in its entirity:

1. In case of extrauterine pregnancy, no intervention is morally licit which constitutes a direct abortion.

A footnote on that directive cites Directive 45:

1. Abortion (that is, the directly intended termination of pregnancy before viability or the directly intended destruction of a viable fetus) is never permitted. Every procedure whose sole immediate effect is the termination of pregnancy before viability is an abortion, which, in its moral context, includes the interval between conception and implantation of the embryo. Catholic health care institutions are not to provide abortion services, even based upon the principle of material cooperation. In this context, Catholic health care institutions need to be concerned about the danger of scandal in any association with abortion providers.

It is permissible, in the case of a child deverloping inside the fallopian tube, for example, to remove the diseased fallopian tube – failing to do that will result in the death of mother and child. Removable of the fallopian tube will result in the death of the child – but in such conditions it is not possible to save the child. The child’s death is seen as an unwanted and unwilled effect which cannot be prevented. That’s the Principle of Double Effect.

 

[SoCalRC]

Of course they are human and that’s not a “belief” it’s a matter of fact. As my original post stated “if it’s not a baby, then you’re not pregnant”.

Sprout, please do not make the same mistake as Vern and engage me in a debate I have not even broached.

I can talk, with some good knowledge, about the science. And I can report, with some good knowledge what the Church has actually written and done. But I cannot answer for the debates of others.

Please, with a Christian heart, reread what I posted. I am worried about the scientific defintion of conciousness because it does not go far enough. Stepping away from abortion, let’s look at end of life. Medical science can determine with considerable accuracy a perm. veg. state. But even if a person’s brain has deteriorated to the point where concious thought will never again occur, I agree with Pope John Paul II’s moving speech on the subject. I cannot, as a good Catholic, remove simple hydration and nutrients.

As far as Rev. Pacholczyk, I have a problem with some of his work because of a high reliance on observational measurements. This is simply a normal concern about repeatability and scientific method, nothing more. The Fr.'s work is also primarily of concern with regards to ‘convincing’ secular society. Again, I have no need. I accept the Church’s arguments. Pain, and even the presence of a mortal soul, are of no relevance.

Best Regards

 

[vern_humphrey]

Sprout, please do not make the same mistake as Vern and engage me in a debate I have not even broached.

Yeah, he wouldn’t want to make the mistake someone else made when he claimed I was debating law when I pointed out the distinction between “person” and “human” is a neo-logism.

 

[SoCalRC]

It is permissible, in the case of a child deverloping inside the fallopian tube, for example, to remove the diseased fallopian tube – failing to do that will result in the death of mother and child. Removable of the fallopian tube will result in the death of the child – but in such conditions it is not possible to save the child. The child’s death is seen as an unwanted and unwilled effect which cannot be prevented. That’s the Principle of Double Effect.

You’ve said that. I’ve said you won’t find a Church document to support it. I know that will have no effect on you, but for others following look again to the Abortion entry of the Catholic Encyclopedia:

The teachings of the Catholic Church admit of no doubt on the subject. Such moral questions, when they are submitted, are decided by the Tribunal of the Holy Office. Now this authority decreed, 28 May, 1884, and again, 18 August, 1889, that “it cannot be safely taught in Catholic schools that it is lawful to perform . . . any surgical operation which is directly destructive of the life of the fetus or the mother.” Abortion was condemned by name, 24 July, 1895, in answer to the question whether when the mother is in immediate danger of death and there is no other means of saving her life, a physician can with a safe conscience cause abortion not by destroying the child in the womb (which was explicitly condemned in the former decree), but by giving it a chance to be born alive, though not being yet viable, it would soon expire. The answer was that he cannot. After these and other similar decisions had been given, some moralists thought they saw reasons to doubt whether an exception might not be allowed in the case of ectopic gestations. Therefore the question was submitted: “Is it ever allowed to extract from the body of the mother ectopic embryos still immature, before the sixth month after conception is completed?” The answer given, 20 March, 1902, was: "No; according to the decree of 4 May, 1898; according to which, as far as possible, earnest and opportune provision is to be made to safeguard the life of the child and of the mother. As to the time, let the questioner remember that no acceleration of birth is licit unless it be done at a time, and in ways in which, according to the usual course of things, the life of the mother and the child be provided for". Ethics, then, and the Church agree in teaching that no action is lawful which directly destroys fetal life. It is also clear that extracting the living fetus before it is viable, is destroying its life as directly as it would be killing a grown man directly to plunge him into a medium in which he cannot live, and hold him there till he expires.

Now, read this article by CHA: chausa.org/Pub/MainNav/News/HP/Archive/1998/07JulyAug/Articles/Features/hp9807e.htm

In addition to Church teaching, you have missed the growth in scope of the double effect argument. The old argument runs afoul of laws regarding medical ethics and insurance companies (in many cases the only reason to remove the tube is to elliminate future threat represented by the fetus). Considering the ‘argument’ now includes even chemical abortions, is it any wonder the Church will not take a moral position on these treatments?

 

[DanB]

Very good reading and solid stuff from the majority. Fr. Pavone’s Priests for Life is a great web site and if you forward graphic pictures of aborted human beings to those who think it’s a blob of tissue, they’ll wonder why that blob has arms and legs and other human features.
The easy thing about abortion is “out of sight, out of mind.”
I certainly don’t condone the killing of animals like Michael Vick is guilty of, but even that outrage gets more attention than the million plus human abortions here per year!
Where’s the OUTRAGE!!???

 

[vern_humphrey]

You’ve said that. I’ve said you won’t find a Church document to support it. I know that will have no effect on you, but for others following look again to the Abortion entry of the Catholic Encyclopedia:

Now, read this article by CHA: chausa.org/Pub/MainNav/News/HP/Archive/1998/07JulyAug/Articles/Features/hp9807e.htm

In addition to Church teaching, you have missed the growth in scope of the double effect argument. The old argument runs afoul of laws regarding medical ethics and insurance companies (in many cases the only reason to remove the tube is to elliminate future threat represented by the fetus). Considering the ‘argument’ now includes even chemical abortions, is it any wonder the Church will not take a moral position on these treatments?

What are you doing down there among the weeds? Have you lost sight of the discussion?

 

[DanB]

The fetus does show certain reflexive responses, but there is little biological evidence to suggest that it is at all aware. Again, we can now scan the brain in ways that we could not imagine just a few years ago. At 9 weeks, there are neurons, but no synapses.

So, when doctors scan, we see no corresponding brain activity to match the reflexive actions. No offense intended, but the best example might be a chicken. It’s body can perform fairly complex actions, like running, even after decapitation.

I happen to feel the Church has this right. Just as conciousness does not really match our moral obligations at end of life, I do not think it is a proper measure for conception to birth issues either.

Best Regards

You kids and consciousness…why argue about something that is beyond the scope of this discussion.
If the Jolly Green Giant stepped on you right now, you wouldn’t be consciously aware of it either!

 

[seekerz]

SoCalRC, despite some of the responses you have heard here, let me assure you that your solid contribution to this discussion is finding appreciation.

It has always seemed to me that abortion is wrong not because of what the baby looks like or when it starts to feel but because the power to interrupt life (from conception to death) belongs to God alone.

I understand why some people use various other reasons to try to convince the secular against abortions, but ultimately many such arguments have unintended negative consequences . E.g. If measures are enforced to mandate women see ultrasounds of their fetuses before abortions, might that not signify (unintentionally) that it’s okay to abort a fetus before it is too small to be seen on ultrasound. So what if technology made earlier detection of pregnancy (and hence earlier abortion) possible, what argument would we then use?

My fervent opinion is that any strategy that does not have at it’s center, God’s sovereignity over life, is - at best - hit and miss.

I recently read some comments posted by prolifers during an online discussion and the astounding callousness, self-centredness and shrewd manipulation of medical facts convinced me beyond any further doubt that there is no “secular argument” that will win over this new generation of prochoicers.

The point that you brought up about the various possible fates of the fertilized ovum was also raised at the discussion mentioned above. One of the posters sarcastically asked about moles and choriocarcinomas which can result from fertilization gone awry and wondered whether those were to be considered human beings also since they have DNA distinct from the mother!

So I think over-simplified arguments are not ever going to impact those people - they’ll just look at us like we’re from the stone age if we offer those.

Incidentally, thanks for that bit on ectopic pregnancies. I’ve understood the application of the principle of double-effect to the condition, but that doesn’t seem to cover present standard of care required of doctors which is to remove tube/suction tube/give drug from the moment the condition is detected which is often BEFORE the woman has started having ill-effects from the pregnancy i.e. before the tube can be described as “diseased”. The articles and discussions I’ve read seem to provide inadequate guidelines for the quandary (between medical ethics and faith) that Catholic medical providers surely find themselves caught up in from time to time…

 

[sprout]

You kids and consciousness…why argue about something that is beyond the scope of this discussion.
If the Jolly Green Giant stepped on you right now, you wouldn’t be consciously aware of it either!