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

[Elf01]

This seems like hyperbole to me. Take a position that millions of people believe (that an embryo is fundamentally different from a one year old baby) and compare it to something that almost no one supports (ethnic cleansing, genocide, etc.). It’s the same tactic that gets used in so many other debates.

The fact is it has happened. Jews were sub human at one point. Black people were 3/5 human.

We are good at defining humanity based on convenience.

But I honestly have a hard time seeing an 8 cell embryo, for example, as yet being a true human being that deserves the same protections as a seven month old baby. I doubt that we will ever get to a point where most Americans support the Catholic view on this.

What makes something worthy of protection?

 

[Nicene]

Elf01

That’s because the 8 cell and zygote arguments are straw men. No baby has ever been aborted at those stages because a baby hast even become an embryo until it implants. At one month, a baby has a head, and women typically don’t find out they are pregnant til they miss one or two periods.

It is totally based on the artificial implantation information, not people who are likely to have an abortion.

Straight up they are killing a baby, but that has been the success the abortion side applying those terms, and wrongly, to disassociate the child from being a human being. Don’t get sucked into a straw man debate.

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

 

[Sbee0]

Thorolfr:

That 60 percent of Americans aren’t all evil people who believe in setting apart “an entire class of our species for elective killing.”

I don’t hear anybody here calling them or any other pro-choicers “evil.” I think that very good people with very good hearts can be misled into supporting or at least tacitly enabling evil acts, including human rights violations.

But I honestly have a hard time seeing an 8 cell embryo, for example, as yet being a true human being that deserves the same protections as a seven month old baby.

Well, lucky for you, that’s pretty moot because the women lying down on Planned Parenthood’s exam table aren’t carrying eight-celled embryos . . .

Yeah nobody is calling them evil. Wrong on this issue - yes. But not evil…

 

[Elf01]

That’s because the 8 cell and zygote arguments are straw men. No baby has ever been aborted at those stages because a baby hast even become an embryo until it implants. At one month, a baby has a head, and women typically don’t find out they are pregnant til they miss one or two periods.

Plan B could be used at that stage.

 

[Nicene]

Ahh. Still well past 8 cells as it rapidly multiplies cells within 24 hours. However since I am letting myself be bated into this absurd argument, the last organ to developer is the brain with non replaceable cells ( unlike other organs) at age 25. So by the cell determinant number, still not human, technically, given the latest bills not considering “fetuses” post birth to be human shouldn’t that actually extend until the post birth fetus is actually fully formed at 25 yrs?

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

 

[blackforest]

Considering how tribal American politics and society has become, I’m sure that some people just automatically adopt the position of their tribe whatever it is without really thinking the issue out on their own.

Perhaps, but ne careful. It would be illogical and uncharitable to make that a knee-jerk assumption about others . . . says the pro-life, pro-immigration, pro-single-payer-healthcare, independent-voting Catholic you’re addressing. :wink

Some people really have wrestled with this and other issues on their own and have reached a different conclusion.

Obviously. That’s why these threads become over 400 posts long.

Not everyone who doesn’t support all the teachings of the Catholic Church has been misled.

Ah, but the pro-life position isn’t unique to the Catholic Church! https://www.secularprolife.org/

And yes, I do argue that the lure of the pro-choice case is highly misleading.

 

[Thorolfr]

What makes something worthy of protection?

Good question. And I asked earlier why most of those who are insistent on protecting human life even at its very earliest non conscious stages don’t also insist on protecting other living things, especially those living thing that share many of our own qualities.

That’s because most of them probably believe, based on their religious convictions, that humans have a special position in God’s creation that elevates them above all other living things, and that human life is therefore more deserving of protection even at its earliest stages of development. But I’ve been reading a new book about emotions in animals by the Dutch primatologist Frans de Waal who has spent most of his life studying our closest primate relatives, especially chimpanzees, and don’t think we’re as special as we think we are. Even though humans and chimpanzees share a common ancestor about six million years ago and both species have evolved since then, humans certainly did gain some unique characteristics.

Nevertheless, I don’t see us as being separate and totally distinct from the rest of life on this planet and think that it was mostly our good luck that we evolved the way we did by gaining the ability to speak and by inventing writing, etc. So why is human life at every stage of development more deserving of protection than all other life on this planet?

 

[Elf01]

Good question. And I asked earlier why most of those who are insistent on protecting human life even at its very earliest non conscious stages don’t also insist on protecting other living things, especially those living thing that share many of our own qualities.

Are you vegan?

Do you believe that the right to life of born humans should be protected?

If so why?

 

[Bruised_Reed]

This is only one part of a faceted issue but I think if victims of rape were believed and supported rather than questioned or blamed more women might consider having a child conceived in rape.

Another aspect is how we treat rape survivors, especially if they are pregnant. People avoid them, can’t look them in the eye, people generally act like they know something “intimate” about her. It’s a subtle suggestion that she was complicit somehow. Some people come right out and blame them but others "suspect’ that and show it via their behavior.

Guys with a shiner from a fight at the bar aren’t shunned after the act of violence toward him.

Let’s start listening to victims of sexual assault so that when victims see that others are believed and supported they might not feel shame and, if pregnant, won’t feel alone and carry the pregnancy.

 

[Thorolfr]

Thorolfr:

Good question. And I asked earlier why most of those who are insistent on protecting human life even at its very earliest non conscious stages don’t also insist on protecting other living things, especially those living thing that share many of our own qualities.

Are you vegan?

No, I’m not vegan, but then I don’t consider cows and chickens to be species that share many of our qualities and that therefore might deserve as many protections. Emotions in cows are certainly not as complex, for example, as emotions in chimpanzees. But even cows and chickens should be treated humanely. But for people such as the Jains in India who truly believe that all life is almost equally sacred, I can see why they might be vegan. According to Wikipedia:

Devout Jains practice lacto-vegetarianism, that is eat no eggs, but accept dairy products if there is no violence against animals during their production. Jain monks and nuns do not eat root vegetables such as potatoes, onions and garlic because tiny organisms are injured when the plant is pulled up, and because a bulb or tuber’s ability to sprout is seen as characteristic of a higher living being.

Do you believe that the right to life of born humans should be protected?

If so why?

Yes. And since I’m a born human, I’m probably just being a little selfish in thinking that my right to life is more deserving of protection than a cow’s life or a chicken’s life. And I think that it’s more deserving of protection than an embryo’s life. If there was some circumstance where someone had to make a life or death decision about whether to save my life or an embryo’s life because only one of them could be saved, I think that it would be more important to save my life than the embryo’s life.

 

[prayerrider]

The mother didn’t need to consider. She knew what was right, because she was right with God.

 

[Elf01]

Yes. And since I’m a born human, I’m probably just being a little selfish in thinking that my right to life is more deserving of protection than a cow’s life or a chicken’s life. And I think that it’s more deserving of protection than an embryo’s life. If there was some circumstance where someone had to make a life or death decision about whether to save my life or an embryo’s life because only one of them could be saved, I think that it would be more important to save my life than the embryo’s life.

Right now we won’t discuss whos life should be saved. More who it should be legal/illegal to kill and why.

If a pregnant woman is attacked and miscarries as a result but survives should the attacker be charged with murder?

 

[Thorolfr]

Thorolfr:

Yes. And since I’m a born human, I’m probably just being a little selfish in thinking that my right to life is more deserving of protection than a cow’s life or a chicken’s life. And I think that it’s more deserving of protection than an embryo’s life. If there was some circumstance where someone had to make a life or death decision about whether to save my life or an embryo’s life because only one of them could be saved, I think that it would be more important to save my life than the embryo’s life.

Right now we won’t discuss whos life should be saved. More who it should be legal/illegal to kill and why.

If a pregnant woman is attacked and miscarries as a result but survives should the attacker be charged with murder?

I wouldn’t consider an embryo or fetus to be covered by the pronoun “who” which is usually reserved for born humans. So, it should be illegal to kill all born humans. And that includes criminals since I’m against the death penalty. Even killing during war or to protect oneself bothers me, but I can see how this is sometimes necessary. The only other exception I can think of is assisted suicide. I can think of some situations of extreme illness where I might consider assisted suicide myself.

And as for the case of a woman who miscarries as the result of an attack, I’m not sure if I would support a murder charge for the attacker. It might depend on whether the attacker was intentionally trying to kill the woman’s fetus, how far along she was in her pregnancy and whether the attacker even knew that she was pregnant. I think that intent is important in deciding whether a murder charge is warranted.

 

[Elf01]

And as for the case of a woman who miscarries as the result of an attack, I’m not sure if I would support a murder charge for the attacker. It might depend on whether the attacker was intentionally trying to kill the woman’s fetus, how far along she was in her pregnancy and whether the attacker even knew that she was pregnant. I think that intent is important in deciding whether a murder charge is warranted.

Lets assume that the attacker is the father of the unborn who wanted the mother to get an abortion but she refused. Yes, he wanted to cause a miscarraige.

If the charges change depending on stage of pregnancy please specify at which point in pregnancy what charge should apply.

 

[goout]

I wouldn’t consider an embryo or fetus to be covered by the pronoun “who” which is usually reserved for born humans. So, it should be illegal to kill all born humans.

Real human experience tells us otherwise. You know this.
There have been many occasions when the word “who” has been denied to whole groups of human beings. And that evil requires the kind of language parsing that you are doing.
The list is pretty large.
The 3/5’s rule. Do you know what that is?
The killing of 6 million Jews happened because they were denied the same little pronoun that you want to deny to small human beings.

Likewise, the killing of elderly and infirm, who were denied your pronoun.

You say it “should be illegal to kill all born human beings”, but look around you. It’s not that way, it many times in the past it hasn’t been that way, because people don’t know what “who” means.

 

[Thorolfr]

Thorolfr:

I wouldn’t consider an embryo or fetus to be covered by the pronoun “who” which is usually reserved for born humans. So, it should be illegal to kill all born humans.

Real human experience tells us otherwise. You know this.
There have been many occasions when the word “who” has been denied to whole groups of human beings. And that evil requires the kind of language parsing that you are doing.
The list is pretty large.
The 3/5’s rule. Do you know what that is?
The killing of 6 million Jews happened because they were denied the same little pronoun that you want to deny to small human beings.

Likewise, the killing of elderly and infirm, who were denied your pronoun.

You say it “should be illegal to kill all born human beings”, but look around you. It’s not that way, it many times in the past it hasn’t been that way, because people don’t know what “who” means.

I’ve never seen any examples in print of an embryo being called “who”. Someone might say, “This is a picture of an embryo which is at the 8 cell stage.” We normally wouldn’t say, “This is a picture of an embryo who is at the eight cell stage”. We even talk about a small child as “it” sometimes. “It’s such a beautiful child!”

And give me some online references if they exist to how Jews or black people were denied the pronoun “who”. I’m not saying it didn’t happen, only that I haven’t read about it before.

 

[Dobby]

Do you have one of these websites that I can send to non black women who obtain their “d&c’s” in the comfort of their doctor’s offices? Or the ones who can afford as many “morning after” pills they can purchase? You will never see them walking into PP. How do you counsel them about their “blob of cells”.

 

[gracepoole]

I’ve never seen any examples in print of an embryo being called “who”. Someone might say, “This is a picture of an embryo which is at the 8 cell stage.” We normally wouldn’t say, “This is a picture of an embryo who is at the eight cell stage”. We even talk about a small child as “it” sometimes. “It’s such a beautiful child!”

Each time I’ve been pregnant, I’ve referred to “the thing” in my uterus as a baby/“who” consistently from the beginning of the pregnancy. I’ve never referred to the baby as an embryo. In fact, I don’t know any woman who has.

 

[Sbee0]

goout:

Thorolfr:

I wouldn’t consider an embryo or fetus to be covered by the pronoun “who” which is usually reserved for born humans. So, it should be illegal to kill all born humans.

Real human experience tells us otherwise. You know this.
There have been many occasions when the word “who” has been denied to whole groups of human beings. And that evil requires the kind of language parsing that you are doing.
The list is pretty large.
The 3/5’s rule. Do you know what that is?
The killing of 6 million Jews happened because they were denied the same little pronoun that you want to deny to small human beings.

Likewise, the killing of elderly and infirm, who were denied your pronoun.

You say it “should be illegal to kill all born human beings”, but look around you. It’s not that way, it many times in the past it hasn’t been that way, because people don’t know what “who” means.

I’ve never seen any examples in print of an embryo being called “who”. Someone might say, “This is a picture of an embryo which is at the 8 cell stage.” We normally wouldn’t say, “This is a picture of an embryo who is at the eight cell stage”. We even talk about a small child as “it” sometimes. “It’s such a beautiful child!”

And give me some online references if they exist to how Jews or black people were denied the pronoun “who”. I’m not saying it didn’t happen, only that I haven’t read about it before.

Perhaps for a third party that may be so.

I suspect the number of mothers and/or fathers who would say that (like a generic “there’s the embryo”) about their own unborn child is pretty close to zero.

 

[Sbee0]

goout:

Thorolfr:

I wouldn’t consider an embryo or fetus to be covered by the pronoun “who” which is usually reserved for born humans. So, it should be illegal to kill all born humans.

Real human experience tells us otherwise. You know this.
There have been many occasions when the word “who” has been denied to whole groups of human beings. And that evil requires the kind of language parsing that you are doing.
The list is pretty large.
The 3/5’s rule. Do you know what that is?
The killing of 6 million Jews happened because they were denied the same little pronoun that you want to deny to small human beings.

Likewise, the killing of elderly and infirm, who were denied your pronoun.

You say it “should be illegal to kill all born human beings”, but look around you. It’s not that way, it many times in the past it hasn’t been that way, because people don’t know what “who” means.

I’ve never seen any examples in print of an embryo being called “who”. Someone might say, “This is a picture of an embryo which is at the 8 cell stage.” We normally wouldn’t say, “This is a picture of an embryo who is at the eight cell stage”. We even talk about a small child as “it” sometimes. “It’s such a beautiful child!”

And give me some online references if they exist to how Jews or black people were denied the pronoun “who”. I’m not saying it didn’t happen, only that I haven’t read about it before.

It’s not necessarily about the label “who”… it was that they were denied personhood and this their rights. That actually happened.

And thats because the personhood label- defining what is a “person” is not reliant on anything physical- it’s completely philosophical and an arbitrary label based on a human-based opinion and not anything tangible. As history has shown (Three Fifths) it is used as an excuse for tyrants to deny people their rights. Like the right to life.

Which I suspect is why the pro choice movement is all-in on this argument now that we have proof that the unborn child is a living human. Which we didn’t have at the time of Roe.

It’s a very problematic label to use in this debate.