Is Answering To Pro Abortion/choice Poster Taking You Away From What You Need To Do About The Issue Of Abortion

[wanner47]

Dear Friend,
It grieves me that you have a severe burden to bear, but I was not talking of disabilities that could be with a little effort, lived with.
I was talking of utter disability:
Deaf/blind comes to mind, or worse, combined with paralysis.

Yeah, Helen Keller should never have been allowed to live. What a drain on society!

 

[elts1956]

Dear Friend,
It grieves me that you have a severe burden to bear, but I was not talking of disabilities that could be with a little effort, lived with.
I was talking of utter disability:
Deaf/blind comes to mind, or worse, combined with paralysis.
There is, as the trek to Switzerland proves, a goodly number of people who honestly believe that there are many things worse than death.
As I said: Let him who denies me the right to die with dignity, PAY for the loving care that he insists that I have. And further, let him be responsible for the abuse of power which all too often takes place in asylums for the incompetent.
Know that your principles have a cost, and that cost is YOUR responsibility.

Hmmmmm, no Helen Keller huh?

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

Hmmmmm, no Helen Keller huh?

No, I was not familiar with your heroine.
Socialist even, and promoter of family planning!
I was more concerned with the commonest causes of deaf/blindness, which also cause dimness of mind, which quite clearly HK did not suffer from.
The cause of the terrible blight I was considering, is genetic, or more correctly, caused by a genetic error. This is Down’s syndrome.
Granted, most cases of this blight are not badly affected, and indeed, no early test can predict how badly affected the blighted one will be, so mass euthanasia of all bearers of the blight cannot be justified.
It was an example, but not a practical example.
Only in the case of a pre 16 week test revealing with absolute certainty, that the pregnancy would result in a non viable birth, or the birth of an infant who could not experience life, would I council termination, but again, that temination would need to be affected prior to 16 weeks.
In the case that one pregnancy was highly probable to be lethal tob a sharer of that pregnancy, or to the mother, then, terminating the endangering pregnancy is not the primary aim, but saving the secondary, or the mother is the primary aim, and the loss of the primary pregnancy is accidental, or collateral damage. Sometimes it is necessary to kill in order to nsave a life.
Not everything is cut and dried.

 

[wanner47]

No, I was not familiar with your heroine.
Socialist even, and promoter of family planning!
I was more concerned with the commonest causes of deaf/blindness, which also cause dimness of mind, which quite clearly HK did not suffer from.
The cause of the terrible blight I was considering, is genetic, or more correctly, caused by a genetic error. This is Down’s syndrome.
Granted, most cases of this blight are not badly affected, and indeed, no early test can predict how badly affected the blighted one will be, so mass euthanasia of all bearers of the blight cannot be justified.
It was an example, but not a practical example.
Only in the case of a pre 16 week test revealing with absolute certainty, that the pregnancy would result in a non viable birth, or the birth of an infant who could not experience life, would I council termination, but again, that temination would need to be affected prior to 16 weeks.
In the case that one pregnancy was highly probable to be lethal tob a sharer of that pregnancy, or to the mother, then, terminating the endangering pregnancy is not the primary aim, but saving the secondary, or the mother is the primary aim, and the loss of the primary pregnancy is accidental, or collateral damage. Sometimes it is necessary to kill in order to nsave a life.
Not everything is cut and dried.

Do you think that Helen Keller should have been euthanized after she became blind/deaf?

 

[elts1956]

No, I was not familiar with your heroine.
Socialist even, and promoter of family planning!
I was more concerned with the commonest causes of deaf/blindness, which also cause dimness of mind, which quite clearly HK did not suffer from.
The cause of the terrible blight I was considering, is genetic, or more correctly, caused by a genetic error. This is Down’s syndrome.
Granted, most cases of this blight are not badly affected, and indeed, no early test can predict how badly affected the blighted one will be, so mass euthanasia of all bearers of the blight cannot be justified.
It was an example, but not a practical example.
Only in the case of a pre 16 week test revealing with absolute certainty, that the pregnancy would result in a non viable birth, or the birth of an infant who could not experience life, would I council termination, but again, that temination would need to be affected prior to 16 weeks.
In the case that one pregnancy was highly probable to be lethal tob a sharer of that pregnancy, or to the mother, then, terminating the endangering pregnancy is not the primary aim, but saving the secondary, or the mother is the primary aim, and the loss of the primary pregnancy is accidental, or collateral damage. Sometimes it is necessary to kill in order to nsave a life.
Not everything is cut and dried.

I know you don’t believe in absolute truth or God, but for us who do, when it comes to sinning and ignoring the plight of the vulnerable and helpless, the sin is cut and dried.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

Do you think that Helen Keller should have been euthanized after she became blind/deaf?

Absolutely NOT
She clearly lay outside of my parameters for termination, ie, she was a born person.
You are suggesting that I might have advised involuntary euthanasia.
I have always reserved that course of action to cases where it is clear that the afflicted has no recoverable brain function, or where that brain function makes that person an incurably lethal hazard to the community, and where incarceration would be inhumane.
Voluntary euthanasia is a different matter, and each case should be judged on its own merits, as used to be the case in Roman law.
As I said previously, those who object must pay the cost of the alternative, and also the cost of ensuring it is a humane alternative. That is the meaning of responsibility.

 

[wanner47]

Absolutely NOT
She clearly lay outside of my parameters for termination, ie, she was a born person.

I don’t understand. Why is the virtue of being born so special? She had the exact same disability that an unborn child might in an era where there was little hope of her being anything but institutionalized. And she was only 18 months old, still dependent on her parents for her survival.

Why not kill her?

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

I don’t understand. Why is the virtue of being born so special? She had the exact same disability that an unborn child might in an era where there was little hope of her being anything but institutionalized. And she was only 18 months old, still dependent on her parents for her survival.

Why not kill her?

It is, universally, the law.
A born foetus is a baby, and a baby is a person.
However, I do understand your point.
It is clearly better to wait until the child has been born, and can thus be PROPERLY examined, before any judgement be made as to whether it be viable.
But the law says no.
Wise doctors will abstain from fighting for the hopeless, and that is acceptable, both to the law, and to Mother Church.
However, Mother Church does not accept euthanasia, and neither does the law.
sic est.

 

[wanner47]

It is, universally, the law.

So? If it was the law that abortion was illegal, would you agree with that?

A born foetus is a baby, and a baby is a person.

What is an unborn baby? A non-person? What constitutes a person?

It is clearly better to wait until the child has been born, and can thus be PROPERLY examined, before any judgement be made as to whether it be viable. But the law says no.

The law says we must euthanize babies who have disabilities? Well, not yet, but probably soon if the presidential election turns out in the favor of one particular candidate.

Wise doctors will abstain from fighting for the hopeless, and that is acceptable, both to the law, and to Mother Church.

No, the Church teaches we MUST fight to save the most vulnerable of our society. What happens when you or a loved one becomes “the hopeless”? Will your position be the same?

However, Mother Church does not accept euthanasia, and neither does the law.
sic est.

Yes it does, in Oregon for example.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

So? If it was the law that abortion was illegal, would you agree with that?

Not necessarily.
I do not agree with all laws, as indeed you do not.
I have laid down the conditions for which an abortion might be an acceptable course of action, and my conditions are very tight.
Much tighter than hold today.

What is an unborn baby? A non-person? What constitutes a person?

An unborn baby is a foetus.
In law, only a born human being is a person.
In my view, a foetus begins to be a person about the time of the quickening.
To call a glob of 32 cells a person is a gross misuse of language.

The law says we must euthanize babies who have disabilities? Well, not yet, but probably soon if the presidential election turns out in the favor of one particular candidate.

From what gutter did you dredge that misquote?
I said nothing of the sort, and to my knowledge, neither has anyone else, except you.

No, the Church teaches we MUST fight to save the most vulnerable of our society. What happens when you or a loved one becomes “the hopeless”? Will your position be the same?

You had better go and re-read your catechism.
Mother Church does not demand of doctors that they struggle vainly to postpone the inevitable.
That was the meaning of my words.
That you read them differently shows a very distorted view of reality.

Yes it does, in Oregon for example.

Oregon is your problem, not mine.

 

[wanner47]

Not necessarily.
I do not agree with all laws, as indeed you do not.
I have laid down the conditions for which an abortion might be an acceptable course of action, and my conditions are very tight.
Much tighter than hold today.

But your standard seems to be if an action is legal or illegal. Why should laws be based on your morals instead of mine?

An unborn baby is a foetus.
In law, only a born human being is a person.
In my view, a foetus begins to be a person about the time of the quickening.
To call a glob of 32 cells a person is a gross misuse of language.

So you are saying that there is a point in your life when you were *not *a person, but you *were *alive?

Let me show you something.

This is my daughter at 9 weeks gestation, well before quickening:

img74.imageshack.us/img74/7320/9wkultrasoundqe6.th.jpg

As you can see, she has clearly discernible limbs, a rump, a brain, and a beating heart. Are you trying to tell me that the time I had this ultrasound, my daughter was not a human being or a person, despite the fact that she has all the qualities of a person?

From what gutter did you dredge that misquote?
I said nothing of the sort, and to my knowledge, neither has anyone else, except you.

That seems to be the implication you are giving.

You had better go and re-read your catechism.
Mother Church does not demand of doctors that they struggle vainly to postpone the inevitable.
That was the meaning of my words.
That you read them differently shows a very distorted view of reality.

Perhaps you’d better read yours. The Church says that we may not kill human life, from conception to natural death. The church says that we do not have to take extraordinary measures to save someone who is dying. Killing an unborn child in the womb is NOT an extraordinary measure. Moreover, 98% of abortions are on-demand, killing healthy children.

Oregon is your problem, not mine.

But it proved your assertion false, didn’t it?

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

But your standard seems to be if an action is legal or illegal. Why should laws be based on your morals instead of mine?

Hi Joanna,
Of course laws should not be based on my morality, neither should they be based on yours.
Nor even upon the morality of Mother Church.
Laws should be based upon sound logic.
You, I, and Mother Church should influence judgement of that logic, but not define it.
My judgement is based upon the most ancient traditions which go back to Roman times.
Yes, Roman science was primitive, but actually, modern science has not much improved upon the essence of what the Roman science was based upon.
That is, the unborn beginning to show signs of its individuality.

a person, but you *were *alive?

Let me show you something.

This is my daughter at 9 weeks gestation, well before quickening:
Lovely picture of a healthy infant, but, remember, 9 weeks gestation is not a guarantee of 9 weeks from conception.
Gestation is counted from the first missed period, so, it could equate to 13 weeks from conception.
Yes, this is before my line in the sand, but not by a ball-park.
Further, my line in the sand does not define what is before it, only what is after it.
That is, I assert, not that before quickening, that there is no person, only that after quickening, there is.

img74.imageshack.us/img74/7320/9wkultrasoundqe6.th.jpg

As you can see, she has clearly discernible limbs, a rump, a brain, and a beating heart. Are you trying to tell me that the time I had this ultrasound, my daughter was not a human being or a person, despite the fact that she has all the qualities of a person?
Not quite:
Remember my comments about the auto? How it does not receive its identity stamp plate until the engine has run, and it has moved under its own power?
Yes, the infant’s heart is beating, but that could still be under its own independent chemical control.
Yes the physical location of the brain and spinal column is marked out, and occupied by a mass which ‘looks’ like nerve tissue, but the presence of copper wire does not mean that it is carrying current.
There is no proof that the ‘computer’ has been switched on, and initialized.
It is this ‘switch on’,and ‘initialization’ which is the beginning of the person.
Until Gates’ or Jobs’ software is loaded, what you call a computer is just a box of electronic junk.

That seems to be the implication you are giving.

No, what I was trying to say, was that if a decision was to be made, as to whether the pregnancy was viable, it should be made upon the best possible evidence, which in most cases, is not available until after birth.
It was actually a vote against abortion.

Perhaps you’d better read yours. The Church says that we may not kill human life, from conception to natural death. The church says that we do not have to take extraordinary measures

to save someone who is dying.
Why do you have difficulty in equating ‘vainly’ with ‘taking extraordinary measures’ and ‘hopeless’ with ‘dying’.
Do I have to quote verbatim?

Killing an unborn child in the womb is NOT an extraordinary measure. Moreover, 98% of abortions are on-demand, killing healthy children.

If you read my earlier posts, you will find that the use of abortion as a means of ex post facto contraception, is to me anathema.
The only possible acceptable reason for terminating a health pregnancy, is where that pregnancy presents a real and present lethal danger to the mother. I also insisted that such a termination should be, if at all possible, delayed until the infant is viable as a prem. That is, after 24 weeks minimum, the later the better. Every effort should be made to save the infant alive.
If, however, it is not possible to wait until the foetus is viable, then the reasoning to follow is that if the mother dies, then so does the foetus.
This is where I accept ‘choice’. This is a valid choice for the mother. Whether to sacrifice herself in a vain attempt to save the infant, or to accept the inevitable, and sacrifice the pregnancy for another day.
It is her choice.
It is her life.
You, indeed, I also, favour the first, but I insist that we have no right to impose our choice upon that mother.

But it proved your assertion false, didn’t it?

Well maybe.
Voluntary euthanasia is also legal in Holland and Switzerland.
Involuntary euthanasia is practiced commonly in Texas and Missouri. There they call it the death penalty.
The only difference apart from words, is that euthanasia is performed with mercy and compassion, whereas the death penalty, with vengeance.
Also, the death penalty is not reserved for incurably hopeless cases which are lethally dangerous to the community, such as a rabid dog.
There is indeed a long history of non dangerous, and fully reformed individuals having been terminated.
How does ‘pro-life’ tackle that?

[/QUOTE]

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

Correction Pregnancy is traditionally dated from the date of the last actual period, not missed period…so a 9 week preborn baby is actually only about 7 weeks from conception!

And Wanner’s little baby looks very human to me. And she only presented a 2 dimensional image of a pre-born baby. Please look at a 3 dimensional picture of a baby the same age.

 

[wanner47]

Of course laws should not be based on my morality, neither should they be based on yours.
Nor even upon the morality of Mother Church.
Laws should be based upon sound logic.

Whose logic?

My judgement is based upon the most ancient traditions which go back to Roman times.

And mine is based on actual scientific research, which Rome didn’t have.

Lovely picture of a healthy infant, but, remember, 9 weeks gestation is not a guarantee of 9 weeks from conception.
Gestation is counted from the first missed period, so, it could equate to 13 weeks from conception.

Um, no. I’ve used NFP to chart my cycles since 2003. I know the exact date my daughter was conceived. She was conceived May 3, 2004. The picture I posted was an ultrasound photo taken on June 26, 2004. If you look at the upper left of the picture, the ultrasound estimate is that she is 9 weeks, 6 days old. That is from the date from my last menstrual period; if they used conception dating, she’d only be about 7 weeks 6 days.

Here is a good explanation:

Pregnancies are conventionally dated in weeks, starting from the first day of the last menstrual period.

…]

Ovulation usually occurs about 2 weeks after a woman’s menstrual period starts, and fertilization usually occurs shortly after ovulation. Consequently, the embryo is about 2 weeks younger than the number of weeks traditionally assigned to the pregnancy. In other words, a woman who is 4 weeks pregnant is carrying a 2-week-old embryo. If a woman’s periods are irregular, the actual difference may be more or less than 2 weeks.

Yes, this is before my line in the sand, but not by a ball-park.
Further, my line in the sand does not define what is before it, only what is after it.
That is, I assert, not that before quickening, that there is no person, only that after quickening, there is.

Your logic is faulty. If you assert that personhood only occurs after quickening, then, logically, you are also asserting that before quickening personhood did not exist.

Not quite:
Remember my comments about the auto? How it does not receive its identity stamp plate until the engine has run, and it has moved under its own power?
Yes, the infant’s heart is beating, but that could still be under its own independent chemical control.
Yes the physical location of the brain and spinal column is marked out, and occupied by a mass which ‘looks’ like nerve tissue, but the presence of copper wire does not mean that it is carrying current.
There is no proof that the ‘computer’ has been switched on, and initialized.

I would say that the proof is that the heart is beating.

It is this ‘switch on’,and ‘initialization’ which is the beginning of the person.
Until Gates’ or Jobs’ software is loaded, what you call a computer is just a box of electronic junk.

Do organs develop due to a simple “chemical process” as well?

If, however, it is not possible to wait until the foetus is viable, then the reasoning to follow is that if the mother dies, then so does the foetus. This is where I accept ‘choice’. This is a valid choice for the mother. Whether to sacrifice herself in a vain attempt to save the infant, or to accept the inevitable, and sacrifice the pregnancy for another day.
It is her choice.
It is her life.

This isn’t necessarily against Church teaching, however. Read about the principle of double effect as it applies to the Church’s pro-life stance.

You, indeed, I also, favour the first, but I insist that we have no right to impose our choice upon that mother.

But it’s okay to impose our choice upon people in other situations. For example, a mother can’t kill her already-born infant child. She can’t kill her ex-husband. She can’t steal diapers from a grocery store if she’s in desperate need. And so forth. All laws are an imposition on someone’s choice.

Well maybe.
Voluntary euthanasia is also legal in Holland and Switzerland.
Involuntary euthanasia is practiced commonly in Texas and Missouri. There they call it the death penalty.
The only difference apart from words, is that euthanasia is performed with mercy and compassion, whereas the death penalty, with vengeance.
Also, the death penalty is not reserved for incurably hopeless cases which are lethally dangerous to the community, such as a rabid dog.
There is indeed a long history of non dangerous, and fully reformed individuals having been terminated.
How does ‘pro-life’ tackle that?

I, personally, am against the death penalty. But the Church has recognized that it is sometimes necessary to do in order to protect society. However, the Church does say that the death penalty should be used sparingly and only as a last resort – and only if there is incontrovertible proof of the person’s guilt. Past Popes have said that there is no need for the death penalty in the Western world since we have other ways to protect society, and I agree.

However, abortion is in a different ballpark, because abortion deals with *completely innocent *human life.

 

[Gamera]

I would say that the proof is that the heart is beating.

The other day I ordered two bumper stickers, “Heart starts beating 24 days after conception,” and “Abortion stops a beating heart.” They’ll go good together.

 

[marietta]

Voco Pro Tatiano comments:

“Lovely picture of a healthy infant, but, remember, 9 weeks gestation is not a guarantee of 9 weeks from conception.”

This is not a picture of an infant. This is an ultrasound image of an embryo.

“Infant” is a word used for the post-birth child.

marietta

 

[wanner47]

Voco Pro Tatiano comments:

“Lovely picture of a healthy infant, but, remember, 9 weeks gestation is not a guarantee of 9 weeks from conception.”

This is not a picture of an infant. This is an ultrasound image of an embryo.

“Infant” is a word used for the post-birth child.

marietta

I didn’t catch that Freudian slip. Thank you for pointing it out!

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

Whose logic?

And mine is based on actual scientific research, which Rome didn’t have.

Rome had quite good practical science.
What Rome lacked was the theory, but they had good medics, who could in many cases mend broken bones, and heal deep flesh wounds.
Modern science does not help your case, for modern science shows that life is a continuous process, and conception is just a cross-roads, where life takes a new form.
It has NOTHING to say about when the soul enters the body, or when a glob of cells becomes an unborn infant.
Even Roman law posited that a viable infant lived before actual quickening.
Quickening merely marked that that moment had passed.
It never said by how long.

Um, no. I’ve used NFP to chart my cycles since 2003. I know the exact date my daughter was conceived. She was conceived May 3, 2004. The picture I posted was an ultrasound photo taken on June 26, 2004. If you look at the upper left of the picture, the ultrasound estimate is that she is 9 weeks, 6 days old. That is from the date from my last menstrual period; if they used conception dating, she’d only be about 7 weeks 6 days.

Here is a good explanation:

I stand corrected.

Your logic is faulty. If you assert that personhood only occurs after quickening, then, logically, you are also asserting that before quickening personhood did not exist.

Actually, no.
That is not, and never was my assertion.
All I said was that after the quickening, the foetus had definitely become an infant.
Before the quickening, the status of the foetus is uncertain.

I would say that the proof is that the heart is beating.

A beating heart is no proof of a functioning CNS.
Nor is it proof of the existence of the CNS.
Study heart transplant surgery.
No attempt is made to connect nerve structure in the operation.
A completely nerve-disconnected heart will function absolutely perfectly.

Do organs develop due to a simple “chemical process” as well?

Science tells us that all living functions are controlled by ‘simple’ chemical processes.

This isn’t necessarily against Church teaching, however. Read about the principle of double effect as it applies to the Church’s pro-life stance.

So neither you nor Mother Church find fault with the one instance where a healthy foetus might be aborted.
Good.
We are agreed on that one.
That leave the other two cases:
1/ There is a multiple pregnancy, and it is not feasible that all the foetii can come to term, for lack of space or other resources, and by reducing the pregnancy, some of the foetii can be saved instead of all lost, and possibly the mother damaged.
2/ the foetus is clearly lacking essential organs, and so cannot come to viable term.

But it’s okay to impose our choice upon people in other situations. For example, a mother can’t kill her already-born infant child. She can’t kill her ex-husband. She can’t steal diapers from a grocery store if she’s in desperate need. And so forth. All laws are an imposition on someone’s choice.

There is a world of difference between imposing what cannot be done, and what must be done.
You will notice the profound shortage of 'thou shalt’s in the decalogue. 8 out of ten are 'thou shalt not’s.

I, personally, am against the death penalty. But the Church has recognized that it is sometimes necessary to do in order to protect society. However, the Church does say that the death penalty should be used sparingly and only as a last resort – and only if there is incontrovertible proof of the person’s guilt. Past Popes have said that there is no need for the death penalty in the Western world since we have other ways to protect society, and I agree.

However, abortion is in a different ballpark, because abortion deals with *completely innocent *human life.

I find an amazing lack of clear blue water between us.
I do not say when a glob of cells becomes a person, though I say that it does.
I specify the degree of functionality the foetus must have, that it might be a person, and that is, it must have a functional CNS. A beating heart is NOT a witness of a functional CNS. Signs of organised movement are.
The claim is being made that personhood initiates with conception.
That is contrary to logic, in common usage of language.
Hence proof is required for that claim.
That is, proof is required that the person exists, not that it does not.
The Quickening is an obvious proof.
There is no definite better proof.
That is the top, and the bottom of my position.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

I didn’t catch that Freudian slip. Thank you for pointing it out!

Hi Joanna,
Yes, we can all misuse words.
actually, there is a difference between a foetus and an embryo.
the embryo comprises the foetus AND the placenta.

I was allowing that a quickened foetus be an infant, using a similar misuse that pro-lifers make in asserting that a glob of cells is a person.

Person is a much misused word.
people often refer to dead persons, meaning corpses.
There is no such thing as a dead person.
There is no person in a corpse.

 

[Another_Mary]

Go to Frank Pavone National Director Priests for Life at www.priestsforlife.org to download a copy of WHAT TO DO BEFORE THE END OF ELECTION DAY.

There is a lot of information there but I did not see anything specific about What to do Before the End of Election Day. Do you have a more specific link?