How can pro-choice Catholics seriously call themselves practicing Catholics?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Benjinho
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Completely fallacious argument.
Why fallacious? I’m simply asking for consistency. If a “human being” begins at conception, why not celebrate the day of conception? According to pro-life supporters, a “birthday” is just one of many developmental phases. So why does everyone celebrate it? From a pro-life point of view, it doesn’t seem “scientific” (“scientific” as used by pro-life advocates, not reality).
 
40.png
Sbee0:
Personhood arguments are completely worthless, for reasons which you are aware of as I’ve stated them many times.
I confess ignorance. You and others keep using the word “personhood,” which obviously has some pro-life meaning. On the face of it, you seem to be saying a “human being” is not necessarily a “person” because a “person” has a long list of rights. Is that it?

If I’m right, I think you need to tell me what a “human being” is in your world. A toe nail clipping? A cluster of cells that fails to implant itself in the womb and is flushed out? What?
What you are calling a “Human being” - most people call a “person”. So to get our terminology straight:

Human life = biological and scientific. Science knows when human life begins. At conception.
What you call “Human being” = Person = a philosophical concept NOT scientific. Science CAN’T determine when personhood begins, it is arbitrary based on your own ideas of what a “person” is. And there will never be enough consensus to make it mean anything.

History has proven that it’s a bad idea to give rights to people based on this arbitrary label. Thus it has no place in a debate on the merits of abortion. Human life on the other hand does have a place, as we know when life begins.

As for your last question - see what i just said above and you will have your answer.
 
Last edited:
To implement abstinence you need sex ed?

Makes about as much sense as to implement teetotaling you need drinking education

Or to implement fasting you need eating education
Well education would include explaining the “why”. That would include sex education, I would think.
 
40.png
Sbee0:
Completely fallacious argument.
Why fallacious? I’m simply asking for consistency. If a “human being” begins at conception, why not celebrate the day of conception? According to pro-life supporters, a “birthday” is just one of many developmental phases. So why does everyone celebrate it? From a pro-life point of view, it doesn’t seem “scientific” (“scientific” as used by pro-life advocates, not reality).
Because it has no relevance to this debate.

Scientific is not reality? LOL. 😂
 
Nothing nebulous about it. Science says that human life begins at conception.
I wrote “…conception (a rather nebulous concept).”

“Conception” as used by pro-life supporters assumes (as far as I can see) an instantaneous event. it’s far from it.
  1. sperm contacts egg. Membranes of the two cells fuse creating 1 cell (zygote).
  2. The zygote changes its ionic composition, releasing zinc in a spark that induces “egg activation” --it modifies the surrounding zona pellucida to black any other sperm.
  3. DNA strands in the sperm and egg begin to unwind. This is NOT instantaneous!
  4. The DNA strands then break into chunks.
  5. The chunks then search out matching chunks and bid with them (meiotosis).
  6. Eventually (estimates vary–1-4 days) a single strand of unique DNA is formed in the zygote.
  7. The egg and sperm begin modifying each other chemically.
  8. The nuclear membranes of the pronuclei break down in the egg and sperm.
  9. Now the zygote can divide (mitosis) and the cell divides into two cells.
How long does all this take? Estimates vary. A day? Maybe more.

So…when does “conception” occur? You could, of course, take the extreme position (extreme = at one end of the continuum) that it occurs when a sperm first has any contact with the egg. But of course at that point their is no unique DNA, no changes have occurred in either the sperm or egg, etc. etc.

So yes, “conception” is a rather vague, nebulous term.
Scientific is not reality?
Not as it’s being used in this forum. It’s a fantasy. See my next post…
 
Last edited:
Exact date of conception is usually difficult if not impossible to know, whereas date of birth is a visible, easily identifiable date and time. The issue falls to pragmatism, not to whether a person prior to birth or at conception should be considered the same as a newborn or child.

As far as personhood arguments go, a toenail clipping or even most living human cells don’t have the capacity to form a baby and his/her placenta in the womb. And the blastocyst that fails to implant is essentially a person that died before having the chance the grow, the same as a miscarriage.
 
Last edited:
40.png
Sbee0:
Nothing nebulous about it. Science says that human life begins at conception.
I wrote “…conception (a rather nebulous concept).”
No I don’t see how that’s nebulous, we know from science it occurs, and we know from science that’s when life begins.
Scientific is not reality?
Not as it’s being used in this forum. It’s a fantasy. See my next post…
Science IS reality. Denying science makes a debate not worth participating.
 
Exact date of conception is usually difficult if not impossible to know, whereas date of birth is a visible, easily identifiable date and time. The issue falls to pragmatism, not to whether a person prior to birth or at conception should be considered the same as a newborn or child.

As far as personhood arguments go, a toenail clipping or even most living human cells don’t have the capacity to form a baby and his/her placenta in the womb. And the blastocyst that fails to implant is essentially a person that died before having the chance the grow, the same as a miscarriage.
Yup. I love the arguments about zygotes, etc as if that has anything to do with going to the clinic and getting an abortion. 🙂
 
The genetic information used for both is formed at conception.
Again, this is why such distinctions are silly. So I guess, then, that there are two souls attached to one clump of cells at conception?
So you want to end in-vitro because 80% of all fertilized cells are not viable, since that is technically murder?
 
any Catholic I know, most of which don’t really care at all about pregnant women.
On what do you base this?
Because you volunteer more time than they do?
You can’t read people’s minds, and when people pop off with self-righteous statements about how they themselves care so much more than other people do, they lose credibility with me. Sounds like you are very much tooting your own horn and not even trying to see the ways in which others might care about pregnant women.

I’m done…not interested in what else you might have to say.
 
Last edited:
Exact date of conception is usually difficult if not impossible to know, whereas date of birth is a visible, easily identifiable date and time. The issue falls to pragmatism, not to whether a person prior to birth or at conception should be considered the same as a newborn or child.
Unless you’re having sex constantly, it’s not hard to pin down the day of conception. At least for most people. And in some cultures, no one really knows what day they were born because it’s not seen as a significant event. So there’s no reason not to celebrate “conception day.”
As far as personhood arguments go, a toenail clipping or even most living human cells don’t have the capacity to form a baby and his/her placenta in the womb.
Oooo…sciency stuff. Actually, you can pretty much take any cell (they all contain the same DNA!) and clone a human being. So sure, a toenail clipping will do just fine. And if you reply that it hasn’t been done, that’s irrelevant–it COULD be done, if not now, in the future.
And the blastocyst that fails to implant is essentially a person that died before having the chance the grow, the same as a miscarriage.
I’m going to go back to this point, because it shows the inconsistency of the pro-life position. It’s estimated that 50-80% of fertilized cells fail to implant themselves on the wall of the womb. They are flushed out. “miscarriage” if you like. But the pro-life position is that these cells are “human beings” complete with rights (although I’m at a loss to find any) and a soul. And yet where are the funeral Masses, the burials, etc.? I’ve made this point multiple times before, and some of my good buddies here have just dismissed it with a wave of the hand…impractical, etc.

But, not matter what you say about him, our beloved VP Pence is consistent (which is why he is so dangerous!). As governor of Indiana, he signed HEA 1337 on 24 March 2016. This new law provided that:

" A health care facility having possession of a miscarried fetus shall provide for the final disposition of the miscarried fetus.

The burial transit permit requirements under IC 16-37-3 apply to the final disposition of the miscarried fetus, which must be cremated or interred. However:

(1) a person is not required to designate a name for the miscarried fetus on the burial transit permit and the space for a name may remain blank; and

(2) any information submitted under this section that may be used to identify the parent or parents is confidential and must be redacted from any public records maintained under IC 16-37-3."

In other words, the remains are not just treated as medical waste. This law is admirable in the sense that it is consistent with what the pro-life supporters SAY they believe. I’m not saying it makes practical sense, I’m simply saying it’s consistent with their beliefs.
 
Last edited:
Because it [birthday vs. conception day] has no relevance to this debate.

Scientific is not reality? LOL. 😂
No relevance? I’m simply saying that as soon as you say “A human being begins at conception” you have a whole host of logical consequences that flow from that statement. You (and others…) are acting as if you can make that statement in isolation, with no regard for logical consequences. In other words, you are not being consistent.

If you truly being the beginning of each human life begins at conception, that should be an event worth celebrating. And a birthday is just one of a long series of “developmental” events and relatively inconsequential.

As for science, I’m all for it. But I’m not for taking bits and pieces because I agree with those and rejecting other bits and pieces because I disagree (on religious grounds–not scientific). You can’t pick and choose your scientific facts. And pro-life advocates do just that.
 
An acorn is not an oak tree. A tadpole is not a frog. A fertilized chicken egg is not a chicken.
But they’re all part of the same species so you’re wrong there. A Child isn’t an adult so now that we have that cleared up…
 
Last edited:
I am a life-long practicing Catholic. I go to Mass every Sunday. I take Communion. And I am pro-choice.
Am I supposed to be impressed? You should be aware of the counter examples used against people who are personally against something.
 
And yet nobody is aware of a new pregnancy and seeks an abortion hours or days after conception making this point completely moot.
And yet there is the “morning after” pill. Abortion or not? Catholic hospitals and doctors who said “No, it’s not” have been reprimanded, suspended, etc. etc. Again–consistency. The consistent pro-life position should be that it’s abortion.
It’s MURDER - once and every. There can be no equivocation.
Great! Consistent! And you’re absolutely right–if abortion = murder, and if the fertilized egg = human being and mother = human being, then logically fertilized egg = mother (in terms of human worth). So NO exceptions for rape, incest, life of the mother, etc. This is the consistent position. Not many people would agree with it, but at least it’s consistent!
 
But they’re all part of the same species so you’re wrong there. A Child isn’t an adult so now that we have that cleared up…
We’ve fought this battle before, as I’m sure you’re aware. Simply being “the same species” does not make it an oak tree, a frog, or a chicken. Or a human being. And everyone would agree that a “child” and an “adult” are both human beings with the same rights (although not the same privileges, as you like to point out). But the vast majority of people would disagree with the idea that a human fertilized egg = human being.
 
Am I supposed to be impressed? You should be aware of the counter examples used against people who are personally against something.
I’m simply responding to the original poster who couldn’t conceive that a practicing Catholic could be pro-choice.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top