If life does not begin at conception why does Planned Parenthood hand out so many condoms?

[mapleoak]

Yes, the concept of personhood is not dependent on the idea of a soul.

So why mention it.

Human life, but not a person because it is not capable of thought during the early stages of life.

It is a human being, since the philospophical position of personhood is being rejected, it makes no difference whether it is considered a person or not. Therefore if you are embracing materialism, a human being is whether or not a person, is existent from the moment of conception. A good science textbook can illustrate this for you. Philosophically (and theologically for the matter, which introduces the concept of a soul) however, personhood is not dependent on rational thought. Illustrated by the fact that comatose people do not become non-persons and become persons again, when coming out of their comas. You also disagree with the other pro-abortionist here who claims that personhood is determined by someone granting personhood to them. But it is hard to say for sure, since the poster is desperetly searching for a definition as evidenced by the constant adjustment to the terms, but cannot find it. It can only be found if the truth is sought. Plain and simple.

I am quite aware that CAF is a conservative place. And I am familiar with the teachings of the Church. I know I am speaking into the wind, and that it is probably pointless.

Yes it is pointless, because you will not change our minds. Your goal must then be to self justify yourself for either past guilt, which is unnecessary, since the Church is open to all and welcomes all back, if they are willing to come back in humility seeking forgiveness. Or if that is not the case, you must have an interest in taking opression of people who are weaker and more vulnerable than you. Is that not what killing the unborn is? It is both sick and sadistic. They cannot help themselves, and people take advantage of that fact by mercilessly killing them and brushing it off as trivial.

I have lost my faith that the Church is guided by the Holy Spirit. Although I am not ready to walk away from 30 years of my life, I probably will eventually. And my postings here at CAF have been declining. I don’t doubt that eventually I will not visit here any more. I mention this all because when I had faith, I embraced the position that personhood begins at conception. But it is a position based on faith.

Know that you are in my prayers. Thank you for your discussion and God Bless you and help you find your way on your journey!

 

[estesbob]

Okay, we disagree.

Come on, you know Godwin arguments are not respectable. The examples you mention refer to attacks on people - human beings with mental processes. For the time being, we can use that as a working definition of a person. It is very rough, and no doubt needs modification, but in order to move the discussion past Godwin, why not give it a try.

Refusal(inability? ) to adress points about danger of using dehumanizing labels is duly noted.

I could not care less what your working definition of a person is as it is a nebulous label that can be attached to any stage of life. You can’t even define it (thus your desire to come up with a working definition ) yet you use this label to justify the slaughter of innocents Either human life is deserving of protection or it is not.

I think you look upon all this is some so intellectual exercise. Kind of like the debates you probably had your dorm room after a few beers. Since this thread started 16,000 children have been cut to pieces and thrown out with the garbage. This is a serious issue - we should not waste our time with silly discussions over what a "working " definition of person is.

 

[mapleoak]

This is a serious issue - we should not waste our time with silly discussions over what a "working " definition of person is.

Amen.

 

[marietta]

Who do you believe here is concerned with what the Torah says?

mapleoak, you made this disgraceful remark to a person whose signature specifically says, “Affiliation: Jewish”.

Nice going. It’s that good old open-minded, welcoming, Golden Rule Catholicism at work. Way to go!

marietta

 

[notsmart]

Is this thread even worth anything anymore?

Its killing me inside to see this, I am so pro-life, and I am still really sad that the person here who is clearly not, is being treated this way.

Has not the Holy Spirit, been able to fill your words with love?

How else should she see Christ>?

 

[estesbob]

Is this thread even worth anything anymore?

Its killing me inside to see this, I am so pro-life, and I am still really sad that the person here who is clearly not, is being treated this way.

Has not the Holy Spirit, been able to fill your words with love?

How else should she see Christ>?

. I’m sorry I don’t feel very touchy-feely about people who are advocating killing our children. You claim to be pro-life but are upset that someone who supports the killing of our children is forcefully confronted???

 

[mapleoak]

mapleoak, you made this disgraceful remark to a person whose signature specifically says, “Affiliation: Jewish”.

Nice going. It’s that good old open-minded, welcoming, Golden Rule Catholicism at work. Way to go!

marietta

The statement was made “The Torah did not consider abortion to be murder, it was a different kind of killing” by someone who himself holds no regard for the Torah because it is a religious belief. He sees no merit in calling people persons based on religious reasons, therefore it is nonsensical to support ones case based on something the Torah says. In addition, since Catholics do not use the Torah, it is curious as to what is being accomplished. If you don’t believe in the Torah, and you know Catholics don’t hold on to the Torah, why would you think there should be concern?
Nice stab. How about a better argument as to why it is okay to brutally kill someone who is defenseless and powerless to your advances.

 

[mapleoak]

Is this thread even worth anything anymore?

Its killing me inside to see this, I am so pro-life, and I am still really sad that the person here who is clearly not, is being treated this way.

Has not the Holy Spirit, been able to fill your words with love?

How else should she see Christ>?

Sometimes the truth hurts. It is absolutely discusting when little innocent people are senselessly put to death and people strongly advocate their slaughter. Then brush it off with weasel words and semantics games. Sorry, but it is disgraceful and a heinous affront to our very humanity. Remember, admonishing the sinner is a spiritual work of mercy. Honestly how far do you believe love and understanding go when militant forces are trampling you down to spread the word that killing babies is a minor little knot rather than the plague on humanity that it is?

 

[marietta]

I’m sorry I don’t feel very touchy-feely about people who are advocating killing our children. You claim to be pro-life but are upset that someone who supports the killing of our children is forcefully confronted???

Our children?! My daughter belongs to God. She came through me but she doesn’t belong to me, and she certainly doesn’t belong to estesbob.

So it’s easier for you to vehemently, passionately defend feti that have not even been conceived yet than it is for you to extend the same loving hand and heart to a living, breathing Child of God who is already here - even though you will never agree on the subject at hand? Have everyone’s manners vaporized?

Why does anyone even raise the subject of abortion on an ultraconservative Roman Catholic website? Wouldn’t it be better to discuss the mystique of the tabernacle or the evolution of nuns’ habits over the centuries? That way everyone (presumably) would get to play nice, chit chat, have a couple of laughs and forget about it. Any subject of any significance which will certainly be met with heated debate is a waste. It does nothing but suck up time and energy which could be better spent working in the yard, changing the oil in the car, doing laundry. This business here is non-productive. If anything it has, again, driven me further away from Catholicism. I look around on this forum and I don’t see anything that inspires me. I just see intolerance and pettiness. I’ve observed that the posters here are baiting non-Catholics just to get up on that high horse with the One Truth rap and settle in for the games.

I think I’ll go play with the dogs.

marietta

 

[estesbob]

Our children?! My daughter belongs to God. She came through me but she doesn’t belong to me, and she certainly doesn’t belong to estesbob.

marietta

Well I guess it easier to attack me for things I didn’t say that it is to address the issues I raised. I believe you told me quite some time back that your daughter was with God and that you would prefer we not discuss her. I think we should leave it that way

 

[beeliner]

This thread is going way too fast for me - unlike some here, I have a life; my time online is limited.

I would, however, like to answer two recent posts addressed to me:

What’s your point - that if if Catholics are the only people defending this teaching it must be wrong?

No, that was NOT my point. Disagree with me all you want, but please don’t mischaracterize my words.

The other poster said that one did not have be a Catholic to see that they were right about contraception.

I then challenged him to name any other denomination (apart from Hasidic Judaism) that taught that responsible family planning using contraception was immoral, and he was unable to do so.

Maybe you can name one. I didn’t say that they weren’t any, but I don’t know of one, unless it is some bizarre cult.

And while we’re at it, let’s not forget the significant percentage of Catholics who love the Lord (who makes no such proscription) and love their Church but regard this particular teaching as so ridiculous and out of touch with reality and common sense that it is simply ignored.

That is not to denigrate natural methods of family planning, which work well for some.

estesbob:

You made absurd assertion that Sarah Palin’s daughter is pregnant because her parents didn’t set her down and teach her about birth control. And yet when John Edwards fathered an illegitimate child we didn’t hear any of this nonsense even though he he supported doing exactly what you suggested her mother should have done.

So if you claim that Sarah Palin’s daughter is an example of how abstinence education doesn’t work then we likewise have to claim that John Edwards illegitimate child is an example about how comprehensive sex education doesn’t work. Is this is it is a good example of hypocrisy?

I made no such statement, nor would it have been absurd if I had.

I said that if the boyfriend would have stopped by PP and asked for some of those condoms that you claim are so defective, and was instructed how to use them properly, they might not be in this situation.

Of course, the couple could have - excuse me, SHOULD have agreed to remain chaste until marriage. We’re talking about two children here.

Hardly the same situation as the adulterous affairs of the two ADULTS in the other example.

The hypocrisy is calling something ‘absurd’ just because you disagree with it.

 

[a_cermak]

The statement was made “The Torah did not consider abortion to be murder, it was a different kind of killing” by someone who himself holds no regard for the Torah because it is a religious belief. He sees no merit in calling people persons based on religious reasons, therefore it is nonsensical to support ones case based on something the Torah says. In addition, since Catholics do not use the Torah, it is curious as to what is being accomplished. If you don’t believe in the Torah, and you know Catholics don’t hold on to the Torah, why would you think there should be concern?
Nice stab. How about a better argument as to why it is okay to brutally kill someone who is defenseless and powerless to your advances.

I do hold the Torah in great esteem, I just don’t see that religious beliefs should ever, ever be imposed on others. The reason I brought up the Torah is because you used the word murder. The fifth commandment specifically outlaws murder so I went to that text.

CAF has many non-Catholic members, so I don’t think it’s a useless argument. I do think, however, that we’re never going to agree with each other, and that’s OK. I was trying to explain where I come from on this argument. In fact, I used to be Pro-life (and Catholic) and my position has evolved over the years.

 

[estesbob]

I said that if the boyfriend would have stopped by PP and asked for some of those condoms that you claim are so defective, and was instructed how to use them properly, they might not be in this situation.

.

How do you know he didn’t .?

 

[mapleoak]

Our children?! My daughter belongs to God.

Yes she does, and her soul will exist for all eternity being an unextinguishable gift from God. We are certainly praying for God’s mercy on her and entrust our hope in God for her eternal salvation since she never had the opportunity on this earth. You are in our prayers as well and have been all along (whether you like it or not).

 

[beeliner]

How do you know he didn’t .?

Good point. I don’t. Do you?

If so, I guess he wasn’t paying attention.

 

[a_cermak]

Good point. I don’t. Do you?

If so, I guess he wasn’t paying attention.

yeah, no kidding, that’s a frequent problem. Improper birth control usage (either inconsistent pill taking or fumbling with the condom) is the most frequent cause of unplanned pregnancy.

You take a lady who works in a brothel in Nevada, and she knows how to use a condom and uses it very, very well due to her frequent usage of them. It’s why the HIV rate is so low amongst legal sex workers, because they use condoms consistently (every sex act every time) and are skilled in their usage.

 

[Spirithound]

The Catholic Church’s teachings on artificial birth control place every single Catholic couple, married or not, in a Catch 22 position. Sexual intercourse is supposed to be reserved for married couples only, and then should be used only in the spirit of procreation (the participants must be open to the possibility that conception may occur). Sexual activity is not for the exclusive pursuit of pleasure. The extremely narrow window for caring at all is called “The Marital Embrace”. Of course, unmarried couples cannot enter into “The Marital Embrace” because, well, they are not married. This makes their sexual activity, no matter how loving, no matter how committed, no matter what their plans for the immediate or long-term future, *and even no matter if they are attempting to conceive outside of *matrimonial bonds, sinful and unacceptable to God.

Ms. Marietta, this is not a Catch22. What you’ve just described is the Straight and Narrow.

So even the Cirque de Soleil’s premier performer Anthony Gatto couldn’t juggle all the criteria for holiness required and still come up happy, joyous and free with relationships intact and grace abounding.

I fail to see how this could be true, unless M. Gatto’s relationships are of such a nature that they cannot survive without sexual activity.

So. We preach abstinence only. We squeeze into The Marital Embrace only when called upon by God to “go forth and multiply”. If we don’t choose to multiply, only NFP is acceptable. If we choose to take the wheel of our own reproductive lives, we may not bring unwanted children into the world (good) but we have sinned against God and will pay for it in -]Purgatory/-] Hell (very bad). Complete and adequate sex education is “nothing but an invitation to sin”. So we live our lives in the dark, marry without sexual experience, hope we learn how and when to “embrace” our partners, then touch them with forced spontaneity, and pass all this malarkey on to our kids.

In the World’s reasoning, this makes total sense. But when did sexual activity become a right? When did it become ok to separate sexual intercourse with its natural consequents? You try to discredit NFP by distinguishing it from “taking the wheel of our own reproductive lives”. Have you talked to the women of this forum who use it? Check out their threads. Even as a man, I find it fascinating.
Complete and adequate sexual education is imperative, but I have a feeling that “complete and adequate” is not a bit like you think it should be.

 

[Janet_S]

There are atheists who are pro-life, so it’s not a matter of religious belief for them.

Here’s the website of the Atheist and Agnostic Pro-Life League. This article is interesting. I never understood why defending the unborn was either seen as “conservative” or “right-wing,” since it has nothing to do with either. It just so happened that the more conservative political party in America took up the cause for the unborn, but it just as easily could have gone the other way and been taken up by the more progressive party.
godlessprolifers.org/library/trageser4.html

 

[haruka372sss]

whats realy intorsting is at my school ( back in the day) our school gave out condoms. however I never had sex so I thought it was dumb . take into the cosideration schools say that one out of ten teens have std’s that’s messed up… I was lucky to wait . my husbend is the only person ive been with ( though he still cant belive it) there are few teens these days that wait and that’s the big prob. however we use church approved methods of family planing ( i use cycle beads) look it up if you want . I still dont see how condom’s realy help becouse they can break or slip. there are female condom’s I remember they sold then at my old job ( dont ask)

 

[Chris_LaRock]

No, you misunderstand me. I don’t believe the fetus is property I believe it is a separate being from its mother. What I believe is that the womb is property and that the child has no legal claim to that womb because it is the property of another. So a woman decides she does not wish to carry a child at 10 weeks, at that point, the fetus will not survive outside her body, not with current medical technology. So, in that case, because she can decide what her uterus is used for, she has the right to an eviction of the fetus, because the fetus cannot survive anyway, whatever technique will be the least painful and dangerous for the woman should be used.

This is why I do not support abortion in the 3rd trimester, because at this point in time, the fetus can live outside the mother’s uterus so the property claim argument is not valid, since the fetus can be delivered (barring medical reasons why it can’t) via C-section and no conflict of rights occur.

Now right now, I put viability with modern science at 6 months, as I already stated, as science improves, and it becomes a norm for 5 month gestation fetuses to survive, I would move that up earlier. Also, if an artificial womb were to become widely available, I would support changing abortion to become a procedure where the aim is to extract the live fetus and place it in a mechanical womb, anonymously by the woman and adopted out or placed in care of the state at gestational maturity.

That’s a pretty cold blooded thing to say about a child!