How do abortion supporters reconcile their support for abortion . .

[vern_humphrey]

Why should we be surprised that Planned Parenthood made a profit? The Nazis made a profit off the concentration camps, didn’t they?

 

[BamaRider]

Deo- Been trying to sort out all your gobbly gook but gave up. So just answer me this- Is it your premise the 4 week old baby is a biological entity, but not a person?

 

[BamaRider]

Let me clarify, the 4 week baby I’m referring to is still in the womb.

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

How is that different from what I said? “The cancer is simply a slightly modified version of the orginal host’s DNA.”

So you’re agreeing that the DNA argument is flawed?

So tell us what “spiritual anthropology” is? What universities give graduate degrees in the field?

It’s not something you can get a degree in, but it’s covered in discussions of theology. The Roman Church slightly prefers the term “theological anthropology”, which contains a lovely paradox, but I think “spiritual anthropology” is a little clearer. At least to me. A course called “Introduction to Spiritual Direction” at General Theological Seminary (Anglican) describes spiritual anthropology as the study of “what it is to be human from a spiritual point of view.” Elsewhere (in the context of a review of Yves Congar’s book “Theology of the Holy Spirit”) it is described as “a theology of the Spirit’s indwelling of the human person.” Olivier Clement (an Orthodox theologian) wrote “On Being Human: Spiritual Anthropology”.

How do you “over-sementalize” death? Have you ever told a grieving relative they were “over-sementalizing” the death of a loved one?

I don’t think I need to tell you that the grief of the living is not death itself. Death itself is not sentimental. It’s the living that make it so in order to comprehend it or relate to it. And no, in the midst of someone’s grief, I would be loathe to tell them they were over-sentimentalizing, even if they were. But genuine grief is rarely, if ever, sentimental. Sentimentality enters the picture usually when genuine emotions cannot be found, or when a performance of emotion is desired to telegraph the presence of something which is absent. Sentimentality is the emotional consensus of those who find genuine emotion too difficult or painful.

I suspect we are seeing a defensive mechanism spring into action here.

Yep – a defensive mechanism.

If it is a defensive mechanism, it’s a defense against the unselfconscious deployment of a cliche, masquerading as some sort of profundity. Sorry.

I note you don’t discuss the moral – don’t abort a child unless you’re sure it isn’t human.

I didn’t discuss the moral because it’s not necessary to discuss it. I’m sure those who perform abortions are sure it’s not human. You and I both disagree with them, of course. Moreover, your moral doesn’t naturally or easily follow on from the story. It requires a little creative “tap-dancing” to go from a cardboard box to an abortion. It’s a bit of a leap. That’s all I’ve been saying.

Then why defend it?

You’ll notice that since post 124, I haven’t been. I would even argue that I wasn’t before post 124, given my understanding of things at that time–but I can see why you interpret that I was. But certainly after post 124, I was not defending anything of the sort. This is why I kept asking if you had read my posts. Because I agreed with your position (though not for the same reasons, perhaps) in posts 124-125 and have not wavered since.

In those extremely rare cases where both will die if nothing is done, and only the child will die if an attempt is made to save the mother, the Church applies the Principle of Double Effect. This same principle is used in other cases – such as provision of painkillers to terminal patients, self-defense, and so on.

Double effect! That’s right. Thank you! That’s very helpful.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

Deo Gratias!

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

Deo- Been trying to sort out all your gobbly gook but gave up. So just answer me this- Is it your premise the 4 week old baby is a biological entity, but not a person?

BamaRider, it *was *my contention, yes. But you’ll notice at posts 124-5, it ceased to be. Since then, I have believed and do currently believe that the 4 week old child is a human being and should not be aborted (unless in an extreme case in which the child proved a threat to the life of the mother–in which case, mother, doctor, father and priest need to have a chat and figure out the painful process of moving forward, whatever that unfortunate conversation and process may entail).

Under the Mercy,
Mark

Deo Gratias!

 

[mapleoak]

Since then, I have believed and do currently believe that the 4 week old child is a human being and should not be aborted

How about one 2 weeks old?

How about 1 week?

1 day?

Just conceived?

At what point can you say you are absolutely sure it is NOT a human being and therefore safe to abort? If one cannot be sure, it only makes sense to assume it IS so that one does not mistakely commit murder. That is why the children in the box analogy makes perfect sense. Why would someone take the chance and risk committing murder because one is unsure?
You don’t shoot your gun off without knowing what you are shooting at. You don’t take a knife to a baby without knowing what you are slaughtering.

 

[Grace_Angel]

Cool Green Tea!

Here is were I come from and why I may not be able to even picture that someone may be able to stand up for abortion.

I held my fourteen week old babies body in my hands. He died before I delivered him. Once I saw how beautiful he was even after death, I could never understand why anyone would ever abort.

I came to a crystal clear truth. Say that baby had lived and I decided to kill him at one week old. The only difference is age. I am his Mama even though he was born dead at an age when it is legal to abort him. Once you know a truth you can never go back to not knowing. I can’t even fathom that there is an argument that could justify abortion.

There is no argument for abortion. there cannot ever be an argument for abortion. It is the legalised killing of little babies, and the future of humanity. A mother is a mother from the moment that she conceives. That is why the Blessed Virgin Mary was freed from Original Sin from the instant of her conception, because she became a new human being at that instant. Not some time in the future. Not after birth. from the instant of conception. From then on it is just a matter of size.
Please keep speaking for life using your experience.
Blessings
GraceAn gel.

 

[mapleoak]

There is no argument for abortion. there cannot ever be an argument for abortion. It is the legalised killing of little babies, and the future of humanity. A mother is a mother from the moment that she conceives. That is why the Blessed Virgin Mary was freed from Original Sin from the instant of her conception, because she became a new human being at that instant. Not some time in the future. Not after birth. from the instant of conception. From then on it is just a matter of size.
Please keep speaking for life using your experience.
Blessings
GraceAn gel.

Good point!

What since would it be for the Blessed Virgin to be conceived free from original sin if she weren’t a human being? If she wasn’t a person when she was conceived, she wouldn’t have original sin anyway, since only human beings can have sin on their soul.

 

[vern_humphrey]

So you’re agreeing that the DNA argument is flawed?

No, it’s dead on. It’s the cancer argument that’s flawed – although “flawed” is too mild a word for it.

It’s not something you can get a degree in, but it’s covered in discussions of theology. The Roman Church slightly prefers the term “theological anthropology”, which contains a lovely paradox, but I think “spiritual anthropology” is a little clearer.

Clear as mud.

Show us the physical “stuff” that you study in “spiritual anthropology.” Show us how you measure the cephalix index of a spirit.

At least to me. A course called “Introduction to Spiritual Direction” at General Theological Seminary (Anglican) describes spiritual anthropology as the study of “what it is to be human from a spiritual point of view.” Elsewhere (in the context of a review of Yves Congar’s book “Theology of the Holy Spirit”) it is described as “a theology of the Spirit’s indwelling of the human person.” Olivier Clement (an Orthodox theologian) wrote “On Being Human: Spiritual Anthropology”.

A term that shows a lack of understanding of anthropology.

I don’t think I need to tell you that the grief of the living is not death itself. Death itself is not sentimental. It’s the living that make it so in order to comprehend it or relate to it.

Who said “death is semental?” And are not you and I living? Do we not feel sorrow and other emotions at the death of a loved one?

And no, in the midst of someone’s grief, I would be loathe to tell them they were over-sentimentalizing, even if they were.

Because that would be a false statement.

But genuine grief is rarely, if ever, sentimental.

Emotions are not sentiments?

Sentimentality enters the picture usually when genuine emotions cannot be found, or when a performance of emotion is desired to telegraph the presence of something which is absent. Sentimentality is the emotional consensus of those who find genuine emotion too difficult or painful.

You’re trying to re-define terms after the argument is made.

I didn’t discuss the moral because it’s not necessary to discuss it. I’m sure those who perform abortions are sure it’s not human. You and I both disagree with them, of course. Moreover, your moral doesn’t naturally or easily follow on from the story. It requires a little creative “tap-dancing” to go from a cardboard box to an abortion. It’s a bit of a leap. That’s all I’ve been saying.

Actually, what you mean is you can’t address the issue, and so prefer to play word games to escape it.

Double effect! That’s right. Thank you! That’s very helpful.
!

Note that in double effect the death of the child is inevatible, whether we intervene or not. Double effect doesn’t apply to “I can’t afford to raise a child right now.”

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

How about one 2 weeks old?

How about 1 week?

1 day?

Just conceived?

Hi mapleoak. I believe that from conception, the fetus is a human being. You will have realized this from reading what I wrote since post 124.

Is it so difficult for you people to believe that someone can change their mind? Is it that hard for you to comprehend? Do you normally treat your friends with this much suspicion?

Although I continue to believe what I believe–that the fetus is a human child from conception and should not be murdered–this whole thread has convinced me that pro-lifers are rabidly and single-mindedly disinterested in listening to anyone but themselves talk. In most circles, that’s a hallmark of insanity. It doesn’t matter that ultimately you’re right. You’re simply insane. You don’t actually want people to agree with you!! That much is clear from this thread! You would rather people continue to murder the unborn so you have something to rabidly rail against–because feeling self-righteous is a fantastic feeling! That’s the only conclusion I can come to.

Although I believe in the pro-life bottom line, I have not changed my mind with regard to the “pro-life” camp–it clearly leaves much to be desired, and I cannot in good conscience throw my weight behind it’s rabid polemic. This thread has confirmed me in that much as well. You may do good, but you do it in horrible ways.

That is why the children in the box analogy makes perfect sense. Why would someone take the chance and risk committing murder because one is unsure?
You don’t shoot your gun off without knowing what you are shooting at. You don’t take a knife to a baby without knowing what you are slaughtering.

Mapleoak, the children in the box story is so flawed as to be virtually meaningless in an abortion discussion. It is, in fact, reasonable to assume that a cardboard box in a dump of all places will be vacant of children. The likelihood of children habitually inhabiting cardboard boxes in city dumps is, I imagine, so small as to make it reasonable to assume that no children are present. Furthermore, the need to shoot cardboard boxes in a city dump is, I would imagine, such a rare compulsion, that should one have such a need, one could safely assume that one could do so with relative impunity. Would an extra measure of caution be prudent? Sure. But lacking precedent (i.e., is the city dump a usual haunt of children?) it is reasonable to assume that whatever cardboard box one encounters at a city dump (which is no playground) is absent children.

What all that has to do with abortion *directly or actually *remains a mystery to me. I know what you would like it to be–a fable on excessive use of force on innocent targets. But even here, when you examine the fable closely reaching that conclusion remains a stretch. The shooter wants to shoot a cardboard box, he doesn’t care what’s in the box. By analogy, the womb is the cardboard box, but the abortionist doesn’t really have anything to do with the womb–he’s interested in what’s inside.

A more apt fable would be this: A man wants to shoot a cardboard box. He goes to the city dump. He sees a cardboard box. He aims. He hears laughter somewhere. The laughter of children. He approaches the box. There is something moving under a blanket in the box. “Are there children in the box?” the man asks himself. “Well,” he thinks, “there could be. But it looks like it’s just a blanket with something moving beneath it. It could be anything.” He returns to his original position. He shoots the box. Why? Because he didn’t actually see what he recognized to be children in the box. After closer inspection, however, he discovers that he has killed two children. He should have made sure that what was moving beneath the blanket was not a child or two.

It’s winds up being a riff off the old Schroedinger’s Cat story.

I should stop, though. Vern will accuse me of being defensive and trying to dictate what stories, fables, or “parables” he should be telling. (Vern does not take criticism very well, particularly well-meaning criticism from someone he has convinced himself he has no use for.) But I will continue to maintain that the story as he’s told it is meaningless in the context of abortion. You, maple, can continue to like it and read into it whatever profundities you choose. Have fun.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

Deo Gratias!

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

No, it’s dead on. It’s the cancer argument that’s flawed – although “flawed” is too mild a word for it.

Given your three criteria, how is the cancer argument flawed?

Is the communicable cancer living? Check!
Does the communicable cancer have human DNA? Check!
Does the communicable cancer have human DNA different from its host? Check!
The communicable cancer must therefore be a human being, ACCORDING TO YOUR THREE CRITERIA!!

I maintain that your three criteria are so materialistic that they do not admit the existence of the subtleties of the soul, something which is central to the human being. As such, it cannot help when determining what is a human being and what is not. In theological terms, it addresses itself only to matter and has no room for form.

Show us the physical “stuff” that you study in “spiritual anthropology.” Show us how you measure the cephalix index of a spirit.

A term that shows a lack of understanding of anthropology.

I didn’t know you were such a materialist. Would you argue against the validity of theology because it does not measure “physical stuff”?

In a catholic sense, “spiritual anthropology” does not show a lack of understanding of anthropology as catholic theology assumes that there is a spiritual dimension to the human being–that spiritual dimension makes a human being a human being. In a theological sense, to address oneself to anthropology (the study of man) without reference to the spirit is to miss the plot entirely.

But. Ultimately, Vern. Believe whatever you like! You will anyway!

And are not you and I living? Do we not feel sorrow and other emotions at the death of a loved one?

Vern, I think you will find that there’s a difference between the expression of emotion and sentimentality. A hallmark card is sentimental. Wikipedia has a lovely an very decisive definition:

Sentimentality is…a literary device that is used to induce an emotional response disproportionate to the situation, and thus to substitute heightened and generally uncritical feeling for normal ethical and intellectual judgments…

This from a glossary of literary terms is also illuminating (bedfordstmartins.com/literature/bedlit/glossary_p.htm):

Sentimentality A pejorative term used to describe the effort by an author to induce emotional responses in the reader that exceed what the situation warrants. Sentimentality especially pertains to such emotions as pathos and sympathy…Clichés and stock responses are the key ingredients of sentimentality in literature.
A Princeton word search indicates that Sentamentality is “mawkishness, falsely emotional in a maudlin way, extravagant or affected feeling or emotion.”

Emotions are not sentiments?

You’re trying to re-define terms after the argument is made.

Emotions certainly are sentiments–but not all displays of emotion are sentimental.

And I’m not re-defining terms in the least!

Actually, what you mean is you can’t address the issue, and so prefer to play word games to escape it.

What I mean is that you’re under the impression that your argument and your moral are brilliant and unfailing proofs of whatever argument to which you apply them. They are not. That’s all. I’m perfectly happy to have you believe they are, however. It clearly does me no good to point out to you where they fail, and you’re less interested in having effective arguments than you are in believing that the arguments you have are sterling. Well, I suppose it doesn’t hurt anyone, so…whatever…here goes:

You’re right Vern. I’m just trying not to address the issue. Even though I believe that the unborn child is a human being from conception, I nonetheless can’t face the blinding brilliance of your cardboard box/womb parallelism and must retreat into defensive word games to hide from the truth I already accept. Your argument is perfect–all your arguments are perfect. Your diagnosis of my problems and my thought processes are perfect, as always.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

Deo Gratias!

 

[EsclavoDeCristo]

Has anyone on this thread really read Humane Vitae? It would give you the answers. If after reading it you still believe it is ok to murder babies in their Mother’s wombs, you have my sufferings and my hours of adoration.

GREAT encyclical! HIGHLY recommended! Plus its only 12 pages long.

 

[mapleoak]

Mapleoak, the children in the box story is so flawed as to be virtually meaningless in an abortion discussion. It is, in fact, reasonable to assume that a cardboard box in a dump of all places will be vacant of children.

But when somebody ends up dead just because of a reasonable assumption, reasonable won’t cut it.

The likelihood of children habitually inhabiting cardboard boxes in city dumps is, I imagine, so small as to make it reasonable to assume that no children are present.

Yes it is unlikely for there to be children in the box, but that doesn’t excuse being irresponsible enough to not make sure before shooting the box.

Furthermore, the need to shoot cardboard boxes in a city dump is, I would imagine, such a rare compulsion, that should one have such a need, one could safely assume that one could do so with relative impunity. Would an extra measure of caution be prudent? Sure. But lacking precedent (i.e., is the city dump a usual haunt of children?) it is reasonable to assume that whatever cardboard box one encounters at a city dump (which is no playground) is absent children.

Basically if you are going to be shooting your gun, you should always be sure of what is you are shooting at. Blindly shooting at a cardboard box is not excusable, especially if a child winds up dead. Legally, you would be responsible.

What all that has to do with abortion *directly or actually *remains a mystery to me. I know what you would like it to be–a fable on excessive use of force on innocent targets. But even here, when you examine the fable closely reaching that conclusion remains a stretch. The shooter wants to shoot a cardboard box, he doesn’t care what’s in the box. By analogy, the womb is the cardboard box, but the abortionist doesn’t really have anything to do with the womb–he’s interested in what’s inside.

The point is, don’t shoot at a box if you are not totally sure of the contents. Don’t abort a child on the basis that you are unsure if it is human. The problem is when trying to read more into it than that.

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

But when somebody ends up dead just because of a reasonable assumption, reasonable won’t cut it.

Mapleoak, what sort of a world would you have us live in? One in which it was impossible to make reasonable assumptions and act on them? You’re basically arguing for the abdication of the ability to make rational choices. Of course, we’re responsible for our choices, however they turn out.

For instance, the children in the story are responsible for making the choice to trespass on the dump. (It’s not a trespass worthy of death, of course, but it entails the assumption of risk.)

The parents of the children are responsible for inadequate supervision.

Mapleoak, you’re arguing for a dumbed-down society in which choices are made out of fear and in which any assumption of risk is eschewed on all sides. You’re arguing, ultimately, for an ultra-intrusive nanny state, in which reasonable assumptions are impossible because they involve a certain assumption of risk.

Yes it is unlikely for there to be children in the box, but that doesn’t excuse being irresponsible enough to not make sure before shooting the box.

Okay. I think we can agree on this–if one is conscious of the possibility of children being present, however remote that possibility is, one should take the necessary precautions. Or, if one fears an accident and/or a manslaughter conviction, perhaps it’s best to bring your own box. Or give up shooting boxes entirely.

But I would argue that the story *still *doesn’t pertain, because I would imagine that an abortionist *is *sure that what they’re aborting is *not *human. You and I may disagree with him or her. But one of the many fallacies of the story/fable/“parable” whatever is that it assumes (in order to make its point), that there is any sort of doubt in the abortionist’s mind. Even in the best possible situation, the story has limited applications–it is not universally applicable to the abortion issue.

Basically if you are going to be shooting your gun, you should always be sure of what is you are shooting at. Blindly shooting at a cardboard box is not excusable, especially if a child winds up dead. Legally, you would be responsible.

One would be culpable to a limited extent. The incident is an accident. One intended to shoot at a box. One was sure it was a box at which one was shooting. One shot the box. That people happened to be inside is a very sad accident. Avoidable? Perhaps–hindsight is always 20-20. But it’s an accident nonetheless.

Anyway, maple. If you’d like to continue discussing this, we can. But I’ve a feeling our opinions are too intractably held where the merits of this story are concerned. I hope you profit by the story’s use, if you find any occasion in which it’s useful. Which I doubt you will. But who knows?

Re: reading more into things–I believe its important to read as much into things as one can. Pretend that every story is a box filled with stuff–we should unpack the box as much as we can in order to figure out what’s in it. In doing so, we find out a lot more than just peering idly inside, or merely admiring the shape of the box.

It could be full of children, after all.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

Deo Gratias!

 

[mapleoak]

But I would argue that the story *still *doesn’t pertain, because I would imagine that an abortionist *is *sure that what they’re aborting is *not *human.

I would disagree in that the abortionists do know full well that they are aborting human beings.

You and I may disagree with him or her. But one of the many fallacies of the story/fable/“parable” whatever is that it assumes (in order to make its point), that there is any sort of doubt in the abortionist’s mind.

I would agree with you that in most cases there is no doubt in the abortionist’s mind.

 

[st_lucy]

I would disagree in that the abortionists do know full well that they are aborting human beings.

I would agree with you that in most cases there is no doubt in the abortionist’s mind.

Obviously they do know that it is a human after all it is the in abortionist who is pulling body parts out of the women. As seen
in these pictures: WARNING GRAPHIC

Its like saying Jeffrey Dahmer had no idea he was murdering a human every time he chopped up one of his many victims. Any sensible being would say well what the ____ did you think it was?

 

[mapleoak]

Obviously they do know that it is a human after all it is the in abortionist who is pulling body parts out of the women. As seen
in these pictures: WARNING GRAPHIC

Its like saying Jeffrey Dahmer had no idea he was murdering a human every time he chopped up one of his many victims. Any sensible being would say well what the ____ did you think it was?

The excuse of ignorance, especially on the butcher’s (err doctor’s) part, can only go so far.

 

[st_lucy]

The excuse of ignorance, especially on the butcher’s (err doctor’s) part, can only go so far.

I totally agree. This is what really boogles my mind, how can anyone say after looking at these pictures that they don’t believe that this is a human.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Mapleoak, the children in the box story is so flawed as to be virtually meaningless in an abortion discussion. It is, in fact, reasonable to assume that a cardboard box in a dump of all places will be vacant of children. The likelihood of children habitually inhabiting cardboard boxes in city dumps is, I imagine, so small as to make it reasonable to assume that no children are present.

In rural and semi-rural areas, children frequently play in dumps – my mother used to take me and my brother and our wagons to a dump in Lake Charles, LA, where we would gather off-cuts and discarded boards, sticks, and so on and bring them home in the wagon. She used them to build a fire under the was boiler.

Furthermore, the need to shoot cardboard boxes in a city dump is, I would imagine, such a rare compulsion, that should one have such a need, one could safely assume that one could do so with relative impunity.

Dumps, landfills and so on are commonly used as shooting ranges in rural and semi-rural areas.

 

[st_lucy]

In rural and semi-rural areas, children frequently play in dumps – my mother used to take me and my brother and our wagons to a dump in Lake Charles, LA, where we would gather off-cuts and discarded boards, sticks, and so on and bring them home in the wagon. She used them to build a fire under the was boiler.

Dumps, landfills and so on are commonly used as shooting ranges in rural and semi-rural areas.

I agree the shooting range in my hometown is right by the city dump many of the patrons will gather some of the junk there for target practice.

It always seemed like common sense to look before you shoot. After all it is still murder even if you claim you had no idea.