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

[Voco_proTatiano]

Ok, well what you are saying is so far off the beaten track, I’m honestly left with no other conclusion. Seriously now, are you on drugs? Because if you actually believe what you are saying, then that is messed right up.

I’ll pray for you./

Thankyou for your prayers.
I make no secret of the fact that I see things differently.
Yes, I even use an Apple!
I tend not to accept the simple model of the universe, and try to set the system boundaries as far out as possible, for trying to examine a small system, inevitably results in a ‘leaky’ system.
Leaky systems have unexpected effects upon neighbouring systems.
For instance, If you outsource your agriculture, not only do you destroy your own rural economy, but you distort the rural economy of your trading partner, sometimes to the point that your trading partner becomes your virtual slave.
The hardest thing is to learn that you have to doubt those you have been taught to trust.
Do you know that when Monsanto, I believe it was, tried to foist GM rape seed on us, they wrote, saying that the safe isolation zone was 200m. When the fools in the British offices interpreted this as 200 metres, instead of the 200 miles it most obviously was, no-one from Monsanto flagged up the error. They rubbed their hands and laughed at another damned fool.

You probably do not see Monsanto as culpable for this error: I certainly do.
It is this difference of attitude that gains you few friends, and not a few enemies.

 

[HappyRevert]

Voco Pro Tatiano,

I am glad to report I just bought your embryo/fetus several more weeks of protection under your definition. Fetal movement is at 7 weeks and not 20 - since you earlier said that quickening doesn’t have to be felt by the mother. Since some mothers never feel it - that would mean partial birth abortion would be ok for those who never feel their babies move which you say is an abomination in previous posts.

cmj.hr/2005/46/5/16158470.pdf

“Innovations in ultrasonic technology
have created new possibilities in the study of fetal
behavior (4). Although the first fetal movements
are registered in the 7th week of gestation,”

I don’t buy your argument about the oocyte and spermatazoa because they are not human until they fuse together. Whether half the diploid is inhibited or not is a red herring. There are no people walking around with a haploid set of chromosomes - sorry - I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree on that.

You didn’t really answer my question about whether you are wrong - although thank you for responding to the part about my cousin. Since, by your own definition of quickening, no baby after 7 weeks should ever be aborted. Let’s supposed you had aborted 10 fetuses at 9 weeks, and now you discovered that I am right and they actually quicken at 7 weeks. You have just murdered - by your definition 10 babies. The question about you being wrong is to point out that we can exchange arguments back and forth, but if I am wrong and my arguments nonsensical, and I still protect unborn children - nothing has been lost. But if you are wrong, and your data imperfect (because science is always discovering new things), you have condoned the murder of babies.

I want to thank you for letting me respond in a rational way - I want to hone my arguments for when I take on someone face to face and this helps me immensely to get my ducks in a row when they provide similar arguments.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

Voco Pro Tatiano,

I am glad to report I just bought your embryo/fetus several more weeks of protection under your definition. Fetal movement is at 7 weeks and not 20 - since you earlier said that quickening doesn’t have to be felt by the mother. Since some mothers never feel it - that would mean partial birth abortion would be ok for those who never feel their babies move which you say is an abomination in previous posts.

cmj.hr/2005/46/5/16158470.pdf

“Innovations in ultrasonic technology
have created new possibilities in the study of fetal
behavior (4). Although the first fetal movements
are registered in the 7th week of gestation,”

I would press to warn you not to over-egg the argument.
The foetal movements at 7 weeks are not necessarily organised.
The quickening is proof that the movement is organised.
Since it is you who are making the argument, the burden of proof is upon you.
You can make a point if you can prove your point.
Be satisfied today that the criterion of quickening is proveable, and also traditional.
It is thus, a made arguement.

I don’t buy your argument about the oocyte and spermatazoa because they are not human until they fuse together. Whether half the diploid is inhibited or not is a red herring. There are no people walking around with a haploid set of chromosomes - sorry - I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree on that.

Well, are they not alive, and on the time scale appropriate to unicellular organisms, independent entities.
If so, then they are beings, which means no more than they are living entities.
And are they anything other than human?
I do not believe that there is any other criterion to answer.
They are beings, and they are human.
That is, they are human beings.
They are just as much human beings as the zygote they form on fusion.

You didn’t really answer my question about whether you are wrong - although thank you for responding to the part about my cousin. Since, by your own definition of quickening, no baby after 7 weeks should ever be aborted. Let’s supposed you had aborted 10 fetuses at 9 weeks, and now you discovered that I am right and they actually quicken at 7 weeks. You have just murdered - by your definition 10 babies. The question about you being wrong is to point out that we can exchange arguments back and forth, but if I am wrong and my arguments nonsensical, and I still protect unborn children - nothing has been lost. But if you are wrong, and your data imperfect (because science is always discovering new things), you have condoned the murder of babies.

As I said before, I am not making a case.
I am testing your case, which I find is not proven.
You have made an unproven assertion that the first movements of the foetus are organised. These first movements, like the beating of the foetal heart are independent unorganised nervous twitched, like the running of a headless chicken.
The movement of a quickened foetus is organised, and clearly purposeful. The movement observed in very early ultrasound are not.

I want to thank you for letting me respond in a rational way - I want to hone my arguments for when I take on someone face to face and this helps me immensely to get my ducks in a row when they provide similar arguments.

As I said before, and many times,
assert only what you can prove.
If you can be shot down on even the smallest point, your whole argument will be disregarded.
Might be is not good enough, it has to be Must be.

 

[JDaniel]

I would press to warn you not to over-egg the argument.
The foetal movements at 7 weeks are not necessarily organised.
The quickening is proof that the movement is organised.
Since it is you who are making the argument, the burden of proof is upon you.
You can make a point if you can prove your point.
Be satisfied today that the criterion of quickening is proveable, and also traditional.
It is thus, a made arguement.
Well, are they not alive, and on the time scale appropriate to unicellular organisms, independent entities.
If so, then they are beings, which means no more than they are living entities.
And are they anything other than human?
I do not believe that there is any other criterion to answer.
They are beings, and they are human.
That is, they are human beings.
They are just as much human beings as the zygote they form on fusion.

As I said before, I am not making a case.
I am testing your case, which I find is not proven.
You have made an unproven assertion that the first movements of the foetus are organised. These first movements, like the beating of the foetal heart are independent unorganised nervous twitched, like the running of a headless chicken.
The movement of a quickened foetus is organised, and clearly purposeful. The movement observed in very early ultrasound are not.
As I said before, and many times,
assert only what you can prove.
If you can be shot down on even the smallest point, your whole argument will be disregarded.
Might be is not good enough, it has to be Must be.

Your argument is wrong. Your argument is:

Anything that is human is a human being.
But, the zygote and the oocyte are human, therefore,
they are human beings.

Your argument has an incorrect major premise AND a lie for a minor premise. Your major premise is nothing more than a “postulate”, an assertion without proof, which, BTW, is purely inductive.

Your minor is wrong as you assert only (without proof) that the zygote and oocyte are"human." They are not “human”; they ARE part (explicitly, “half”) human. The majority of us think that it takes two halves to make a whole, or, “human being”.

Your conclusion is fallacious.

Interesting that you use inductive logic to prove your conclusion. Hmmm.

JD

 

[JDaniel]

I would press to warn you not to over-egg the argument.

Well, are they not alive, and on the time scale appropriate to unicellular organisms, independent entities.
If so, then they are beings, which means no more than they are living entities.
And are they anything other than human?
I do not believe that there is any other criterion to answer.
They are beings, and they are human.
That is, they are human beings.

Hmmm. Let’s see . . . let’s just use this argument and replace the words “sperm” and “oocyte” with the word “zygote”. OK, now let’s us go out a murder a few of them!

I appreciate that you are trying to present an unassailable case against certain abortions. I know that is what you are doing, deep down.

My point is that usually, when the back door is left open - even a little - things come in through it to form slippery slopes. Then, your gift of 16 weeks gets moved up to 18 weeks; then to 20 weeks; then to reasons which are less then adherent to your specified definitions of gross deformity.

Our Church has said for over 1900 years, human life begins at conception. Aristotelian and Thomistic arguments prove it. They are not “science”, but, science is not the alpha and omega.

I beg you not to over-egg the argument.

BTW, have a miracle-filled holiday!

JD

 

[RobbyS]

Voco Pro Tatiano,

I am glad to report I just bought your embryo/fetus several more weeks of protection under your definition. Fetal movement is at 7 weeks and not 20 - since you earlier said that quickening doesn’t have to be felt by the mother. Since some mothers never feel it - that would mean partial birth abortion would be ok for those who never feel their babies move which you say is an abomination in previous posts.

cmj.hr/2005/46/5/16158470.pdf

“Innovations in ultrasonic technology
have created new possibilities in the study of fetal
behavior (4). Although the first fetal movements
are registered in the 7th week of gestation,”

I don’t buy your argument about the oocyte and spermatazoa because they are not human until they fuse together. Whether half the diploid is inhibited or not is a red herring. There are no people walking around with a haploid set of chromosomes - sorry - I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree on that.

You didn’t really answer my question about whether you are wrong - although thank you for responding to the part about my cousin. Since, by your own definition of quickening, no baby after 7 weeks should ever be aborted. Let’s supposed you had aborted 10 fetuses at 9 weeks, and now you discovered that I am right and they actually quicken at 7 weeks. You have just murdered - by your definition 10 babies. The question about you being wrong is to point out that we can exchange arguments back and forth, but if I am wrong and my arguments nonsensical, and I still protect unborn children - nothing has been lost. But if you are wrong, and your data imperfect (because science is always discovering new things), you have condoned the murder of babies.

I want to thank you for letting me respond in a rational way - I want to hone my arguments for when I take on someone face to face and this helps me immensely to get my ducks in a row when they provide similar arguments.

Anyone who approaches biology does so armed with certain assumptions. one of which has to do wiyh his idea of
what it means to be human. Is the human being just another kind of animal, distinguished by degree from the apes, but not by kind? What is the distinguishing characteristic of man?

Aristotle said that he is a rational animal, so rationlity would then
be the distinguishing mark. A human lacking reason is therefore not human. But we then have to wonder about the source of rationality. Comparing ape with man, do we ascribe it simply to
the anatomical differences between ape and man? I don’t think that anyone can argue that. We would have to get down to the cellular level, and the differences in DNA is begin to have a go at it.

If DNA is primarily a storage of information that guides development, and if the mother’s body is the system that supports this development, and if the environment in which mother and child find thems supports them both, we have an enormously complicated set of things that have to occur before
rationality appears.

But the primary meaning of reason is not the
intellectual process, but as a basis or motive for action. To oversimplify, the basic motive for reason in a human being is the conception. It sets in motion that chain of events which, if not interrupted,necessarily results in a rational being called a human being. The end result of the process is an animal with a capacity for discovering the sort of information that gave rise to who he is. No ape will eve have this capapcity. The “reason” that began the ape results in a being whose "reasoning " is very different from a human being’s.

So what about humans who cannot demonstrate the sort of reasoning we observe even in slow-witted humans? What about looking at the time in the womb as a kind of sleep, or a state not unlike sleep. Some never wakeup or can never attain to fully being awake.

The more we learn about human development in the womb, the more we become aware of how aware the child is. We once thought of the unborn child is emerging from the womb as acomplete blank. Now we know he comes sensible at a very early age. he lives not in a void, but a room dimly lited but seldom totally dark. It is a noisy and sometimes turbulent room.
he is subject to being tossed about, stimilated or drugged by the food supplied to him. Exericised by the harmonal changes in the mother’s body. In short, the womb is not the calm and smooth see that we often think it is. The “swimmer” floats in a warm salt sea, but it not without peril, and a source of imformation from beginning to end, even though he may be conscious of only part of his experience.

 

[HappyRevert]

Voco Pro Tatiano,

You are infuriating in that you say I am making an argument “The quickening is proof that the movement is organised.
Since it is you who are making the argument, the burden of proof is upon you. You can make a point if you can prove your point.” when you are the one putting forth that the quickening is the proof that an embryo/fetus is human and not me. I am simply providing you with scientific fact for which I provided the citation that the embryo/fetus moves in an organized fashion long before the mother feels it. Since you want “organized movement” and don’t require that the mother feel it, I have disproved your case not the other way around. I can provide you other citations to support that fetuses are moving independently at 7 weeks, but we can argue all day about what “organized” means. That just leads up a blind alley so I won’t waste time on it. Suffice it to say you have seen the documentation but refuse to accept it because it doesn’t contain the word “organized”. I assert that organized means moving independently so therefore at 7 weeks they are moving in an organized fashion. If you disagree then you need to define what you mean by organized.

 

[HappyRevert]

I’ve got another citation for you baby2see.com/development/first_trimester.html which says at 8 weeks the baby “Inside the child swims and moves gracefully.”. That should definitely qualify as organized by anyone’s definition and not as “twitching” as you put it. I feel triumphant because I have bought that baby some more protection

 

[averheyen]

Thankyou for your prayers.
I make no secret of the fact that I see things differently.
Yes, I even use an Apple!
I tend not to accept the simple model of the universe, and try to set the system boundaries as far out as possible, for trying to examine a small system, inevitably results in a ‘leaky’ system.
Leaky systems have unexpected effects upon neighbouring systems.
For instance, If you outsource your agriculture, not only do you destroy your own rural economy, but you distort the rural economy of your trading partner, sometimes to the point that your trading partner becomes your virtual slave.
The hardest thing is to learn that you have to doubt those you have been taught to trust.
Do you know that when Monsanto, I believe it was, tried to foist GM rape seed on us, they wrote, saying that the safe isolation zone was 200m. When the fools in the British offices interpreted this as 200 metres, instead of the 200 miles it most obviously was, no-one from Monsanto flagged up the error. They rubbed their hands and laughed at another damned fool.

You probably do not see Monsanto as culpable for this error: I certainly do.
It is this difference of attitude that gains you few friends, and not a few enemies.

backs away slowly

 

[elts1956]

No, No, No!
That is NOT what I said.
My words were precise, and repeated many times.
The foetus is not PROVED to be an individual person until the quickening.
Prior to that, its status is unknown.
At some time prior to the quickening, maybe as early as 8 weeks, the CNS is quite highly developed. It may even be quite functional in its components, however, only after the quickening, do we have proof that it is functioning as an integrated system.[sign]
So, the DAY before they deliver, that baby STILL isn’t a person?
Adn what if my baby only kicks at night and I didn’t feel it? My husband was always shocked in the morning when I was pregnant that, though HE could feel the babies kicking in me, I was sound asleep, didn’t feel a thing. For nearly three days, HE could feel the babies kick and I couldn’t. Were they still not people?[/sign]
Do you still, in view of the above, require an answer to this point?[sign]And if we’re not sure when life begins, how come when we study organisms’ life cycles in biology class (frogs, birds, whatever) it ALWAYS starts with ‘The egg is fertilized’?
Even when we study human biology, the life cycle chapter always starts with the fertilized egg. What happened to science in all of this? [/sign]
Well, the day begins at midnight.
But we all know that this is an arbitrary point.
Some cultures said sunset, some sunrise, some at the end of twilight.
Science does not say that LIFE begins with conception, only that the newly defined DNA sequence begins with conception.
You said yourself “life cycle” implying that you understand, in the back of your mind, that, like day following day, life is cyclical, and so the actual start point in the story is arbitrary.
You see, both the sperm and the oocite are in themselves alive, and so are living forms of humanity. You might like to think of them as spores of humanity, or even a larval form of humanity.
These larval forms mate by combining, one, with the other.
This is a form of mating, still found in some single celled creatures.
We do not consider that a new life is formed at this instant, only that a new and different pathway has been taken in the reproductive pathway. The commonest form of reproduction, even found among those that undergo this primitive form of mating, is still vegetative binary fission.[sign]
biologyreference.com/La-Ma/Life-Cycle-Human.html
sciencemuseum.org.uk/on-line/lifecycle/

And…in pictures…
gtchild.co.uk/content/images/stories/human_body/lifecycle.jpg[/sign]
This very interesting data is only relevant if the assumption is made that neither sperm, nor oocite are in themselves alive.

The point I am making here is that the newly defined DNA form does not require a new animal soul to enliven it, for the animal soul that enlivened the oocite and the sperm, present at conception, are still present in the embryo.

As for the divine, immortal, rational soul: when and how that arises, is still an open question.
Whether that is cogent to this thread is another question.

What is in a Condor egg before it is hatched? What is in an White Owl egg before it is hatched?
What is in a female whale when she is pregnant?
What is in a female fox when she is pregnant?

How many of these are protected by law because they are near extinction? How do we know a Condor will have a Condor? A White Owl etc.?
Prove it.

Why are they protected before they are hatched, born etc.? Why?

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

What is in a Condor egg before it is hatched? What is in an White Owl egg before it is hatched?
What is in a female whale when she is pregnant?
What is in a female fox when she is pregnant?

How many of these are protected by law because they are near extinction? How do we know a Condor will have a Condor? A White Owl etc.?
Prove it.

Why are they protected before they are hatched, born etc.? Why?

If we get back to YellowBicycle’s posting, which we have both quoted, then look at the first item: [sign]The human life cycle begins at fertilization, when an egg cell inside a woman and a sperm cell from a man fuse to form a one-celled zygote. Over the next few days, the single, large cell divides many times to form a hollow ball of smaller cells. On the sixth day after fertilization, this hollow ball burrows into the wall of the mother’s uterus, or womb. The cells then form three layers that fold and bend into the more complex shape of an early embryo. Gradually, the cells begin to become different from one another, forming, for example, the nervous system and the circulatory system.

On the twenty-second day after fertilization, a simple tubelike heart begins to beat. **The embryo has no other working organs: the first brain activity will not begin for five more months. **But in just one more month, all the major organs will have formed in miniature, including tiny eyes and ears, liver, and kidneys. **These organs do not work, but they are there. **Once all the organs have formed, the individual is called a fetus. During the fetal period, all the organs begin to mature. Cells from the embryo and its mother also combine to form a placenta, an organ in the uterus that connects the embryo to the mother’s blood supply.

Biologists count the days of development starting from fertilization, but medical doctors count from the first day from the last menstrual period, which is about two weeks before fertilization. So, where a biologist would say the embryo’s heart begins beating at three weeks, a medical doctor would say the heart begins beating at five weeks. The total time from fertilization to birth is about thirty-eight weeks. At the end of the embryonic period (eight weeks), the embryo is about 30 millimeters (just over 1 inch) long. Between three months and nine months the fetus grows until it is about twenty times as long.[/sign]
I have added the points of emphasis.
Note that your science actually backs up the traditional time of quickening, to be at twenty weeks = five months.
I offer a whole month of grace.
Medical science tries to pretend that since the ex utero survival of a 24 week gestation, or 22 week from fertilization, is vanishingly small, and that what do survive are severely brain damaged, the foetus is non-viable, hence not protected.
I find this arguement to be spurious, and reprehensible.
Hence I personally would like to see an absolute cut-off date of 16 weeks from fertilization, or 18 weeks gestation, for all terminations, except in the case of absolute medical necessity, and that followed by a moratorium up to 24 weeks from fertilization, or 26 weeks gestation, after which, if need be, a premature delivery might be attempted.

I think, what we are all agreed on, is that the zygote, and the embryo that follows is in at least some sense, a human being.
I press that in the same restricted sense, the sperm and the oocite are also forms of human beings, but that is by the bye.
Destruction of any form of human being is to be avoided.
What kind of label you fix to such an act depends upon your religious outlook.
To Catholics of course it is sinful.
Calling it murder is stretching a point.
Until recent history, procuring a termination post quickening was considered, both by the Church, and by law in most countries, homicide.
My view is that getting back to this universally respected principle should be our first target.
Everything else is icing on the cake.

 

[elts1956]

If we get back to YellowBicycle’s posting, which we have both quoted, then look at the first item: [sign]The human life cycle begins at fertilization, when an egg cell inside a woman and a sperm cell from a man fuse to form a one-celled zygote. Over the next few days, the single, large cell divides many times to form a hollow ball of smaller cells. On the sixth day after fertilization, this hollow ball burrows into the wall of the mother’s uterus, or womb. The cells then form three layers that fold and bend into the more complex shape of an early embryo. Gradually, the cells begin to become different from one another, forming, for example, the nervous system and the circulatory system.

On the twenty-second day after fertilization, a simple tubelike heart begins to beat. **The embryo has no other working organs: the first brain activity will not begin for five more months. **But in just one more month, all the major organs will have formed in miniature, including tiny eyes and ears, liver, and kidneys. **These organs do not work, but they are there. **Once all the organs have formed, the individual is called a fetus. During the fetal period, all the organs begin to mature. Cells from the embryo and its mother also combine to form a placenta, an organ in the uterus that connects the embryo to the mother’s blood supply.

Biologists count the days of development starting from fertilization, but medical doctors count from the first day from the last menstrual period, which is about two weeks before fertilization. So, where a biologist would say the embryo’s heart begins beating at three weeks, a medical doctor would say the heart begins beating at five weeks. The total time from fertilization to birth is about thirty-eight weeks. At the end of the embryonic period (eight weeks), the embryo is about 30 millimeters (just over 1 inch) long. Between three months and nine months the fetus grows until it is about twenty times as long.[/sign]
I have added the points of emphasis.
Note that your science actually backs up the traditional time of quickening, to be at twenty weeks = five months.
I offer a whole month of grace.
Medical science tries to pretend that since the ex utero survival of a 24 week gestation, or 22 week from fertilization, is vanishingly small, and that what do survive are severely brain damaged, the foetus is non-viable, hence not protected.
I find this arguement to be spurious, and reprehensible.
Hence I personally would like to see an absolute cut-off date of 16 weeks from fertilization, or 18 weeks gestation, for all terminations, except in the case of absolute medical necessity, and that followed by a moratorium up to 24 weeks from fertilization, or 26 weeks gestation, after which, if need be, a premature delivery might be attempted.

I think, what we are all agreed on, is that the zygote, and the embryo that follows is in at least some sense, a human being.
I press that in the same restricted sense, the sperm and the oocite are also forms of human beings, but that is by the bye.
Destruction of any form of human being is to be avoided.
What kind of label you fix to such an act depends upon your religious outlook.
To Catholics of course it is sinful.
Calling it murder is stretching a point.
Until recent history, procuring a termination post quickening was considered, both by the Church, and by law in most countries, homicide.
My view is that getting back to this universally respected principle should be our first target.
Everything else is icing on the cake.

I really could give a flip about your “quickening postulation”. Why do we protect wildlife before it has quickened? Seems a bit insane to me when we don’t protect a human being before it “quickens”.

 

[SallyMargie]

Perhaps this will clear up confusion:

This is a Catholic forum, yet I’m seeing many, many posts by those opposing Catholic teachings. Anyone is certainly welcome to post, but could you do others the favor of saying the first time you post that you are not Catholic? Please do not pretend to be!
And if you are Catholic, but disagree with Church teaching, why not simply go to the Cathechism and see what/why the Church teaches, and then let the matter drop rather than post? Catholic Answers has tons of books and other material which clearly explain Catholic beliefs. God is not going to change His mind!! The Church is clear on many issues, and it seems silly and rather a waste of time to argue repeatedly against what the Church and Our Lord teach, not to forget it is disrespectful and irreverant.

This is why I have questions about those who post who are not Catholic. We warmly welcome you to post with questions or concerns, but if your sole intent is to attempt to attack or undermine Catholic beliefs, why post on a Catholic forum? There are many other forums available.
I know there is a big attempt by the far Left to attempt to demonize Catholics and other Christians, going so far as to compare them to Hitler, the Taliban, etc. One would think people would be smart enough to see through these attempts, but there will always be the gullible satan will lead further and further from the truth.

So–yes, let’s chat charitably about the issues, but let’s remember first and foremost that this is a Catholic forum, and that even subtle attacks against the Faith are off bounds, and also the Cathechism, Catholic Answers, etc. will clearly provide answers for those who either disagree with teachings, or are curious.

God bless!

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

Perhaps this will clear up confusion:

This is a Catholic forum, yet I’m seeing many, many posts by those opposing Catholic teachings. Anyone is certainly welcome to post, but could you do others the favor of saying the first time you post that you are not Catholic? Please do not pretend to be!
And if you are Catholic, but disagree with Church teaching, why not simply go to the Cathechism and see what/why the Church teaches, and then let the matter drop rather than post? Catholic Answers has tons of books and other material which clearly explain Catholic beliefs. God is not going to change His mind!! The Church is clear on many issues, and it seems silly and rather a waste of time to argue repeatedly against what the Church and Our Lord teach, not to forget it is disrespectful and irreverant.

This is why I have questions about those who post who are not Catholic. We warmly welcome you to post with questions or concerns, but if your sole intent is to attempt to attack or undermine Catholic beliefs, why post on a Catholic forum? There are many other forums available.
I know there is a big attempt by the far Left to attempt to demonize Catholics and other Christians, going so far as to compare them to Hitler, the Taliban, etc. One would think people would be smart enough to see through these attempts, but there will always be the gullible satan will lead further and further from the truth.

So–yes, let’s chat charitably about the issues, but let’s remember first and foremost that this is a Catholic forum, and that even subtle attacks against the Faith are off bounds, and also the Cathechism, Catholic Answers, etc. will clearly provide answers for those who either disagree with teachings, or are curious.

God bless!

Dear Sally,
I am not opposed to Catholic teaching, I am not even arguing against that.
What I am trying to do, is to present, at least, a partial case, which can be supported by science and tradition.
The problem with the extreme pro-life position is that they push their case beyond what can be scientifically supported.
You cannot call a zygote a person, neither can you call preventing the implantation of a blastocyst murder.
You can call a zygote a potential human being, or even a human being under construction.
Further, by pushing your definitions beyond normal usage, you might even call a zygote simply a human being, because it is alive, hence a being, and it is certainly human.
However, under that extended definition, also human beings are the spermatazoan and the oocite.
I do not deny that a new life form begins with conception, but that is very different from saying that there is a new life where there was none. This is NOT a case of life formed from the unliving, it is life formed from life, so the life is not new, it is only in a new form. That is simple science.
As science, it is NOT contrary to Church teaching, since the Church does not teach in matters of science.
I do not argue that abortion is not a sin.
I do not argue that contraception is not a sin.
What I argue is that prior to some evidence of quickening, there is no case of homicide to answer, as there is no proof that the foetus is a person, hence no proof of the fact of homicide. Even here I do not believe I am contradicting INFALLIBLE Church teaching.
I accept that I am arguing against some opinions expressed in Evangelium Vitae, but though extracts thereoff are included in the Catechism, Evangelium Vitae is NOT per se infallible teaching, and is freely denied by right-wing ‘Christians’ who support the death penalty, as prudential.
It is by over-presenting your case, that you destroy your own case.
It may be that Satan is at your own elbow urging you into this unconscious sabotage.
As for my religious background, I have been completely open in my profile.
Any may look and judge.

 

[JDaniel]

Your argument is wrong. Your argument is:

Anything that is human is a human being.
But, the zygote and the oocyte are human, therefore,
they are human beings.

Your argument has an incorrect major premise AND a lie for a minor premise. Your major premise is nothing more than a “postulate”, an assertion without proof, which, BTW, is purely inductive.

Your minor is wrong as you assert only (without proof) that the zygote and oocyte are"human." They are not “human”; they ARE part (explicitly, “half”) human. The majority of us think that it takes two halves to make a whole, or, “human being”.

Your conclusion is fallacious.

Interesting that you use inductive logic to prove your conclusion. Hmmm.

JD

Correction: The argument should have stated,

“Anything that is human is a human being;
but, the ‘sperm’ and the oocyte are human, therefore,
they are human beings.”

JD

 

[JDaniel]

Dear Sally,
I am not opposed to Catholic teaching, I am not even arguing against that.
What I am trying to do, is to present, at least, a partial case, which can be supported by science and tradition.
The problem with the extreme pro-life position is that they push their case beyond what can be scientifically supported.
You cannot call a zygote a person, neither can you call preventing the implantation of a blastocyst murder.
You can call a zygote a potential human being, or even a human being under construction.
Further, by pushing your definitions beyond normal usage, you might even call a zygote simply a human being, because it is alive, hence a being, and it is certainly human.
However, under that extended definition, also human beings are the spermatazoan and the oocite.
I do not deny that a new life form begins with conception, but that is very different from saying that there is a new life where there was none. This is NOT a case of life formed from the unliving, it is life formed from life, so the life is not new, it is only in a new form. That is simple science.
As science, it is NOT contrary to Church teaching, since the Church does not teach in matters of science.
I do not argue that abortion is not a sin.
I do not argue that contraception is not a sin.
What I argue is that prior to some evidence of quickening, there is no case of homicide to answer, as there is no proof that the foetus is a person, hence no proof of the fact of homicide. Even here I do not believe I am contradicting INFALLIBLE Church teaching.
I accept that I am arguing against some opinions expressed in Evangelium Vitae, but though extracts thereoff are included in the Catechism, Evangelium Vitae is NOT per se infallible teaching, and is freely denied by right-wing ‘Christians’ who support the death penalty, as prudential.
It is by over-presenting your case, that you destroy your own case.
It may be that Satan is at your own elbow urging you into this unconscious sabotage.
As for my religious background, I have been completely open in my profile.
Any may look and judge.

But, you are wrong.

The Church, St. Thomas, Aristotle: all have defined “coming to be” as the “movement” of the same “static” from potential to act (actualization). The soul is immediately created and placed, at the instant of conception, on the resultant zygote and IS, not “represents”, that static entity, or being, that undergoes “coming-to-be”, i.e., maturing (a form of motion) from potential to act. That it does not look exactly like me, or even a baby, is appearence only, an accidental attribute of the newly created child.

It is this understanding that separates your beliefs from Catholic beliefs. Your approach is scientistic, ours is from our General Science of Nature. You give no creedence to the seen and known process of coming-to-be.

JD

 

[SallyMargie]

Dear Sally,
I am not opposed to Catholic teaching, I am not even arguing against that.
What I am trying to do, is to present, at least, a partial case, which can be supported by science and tradition.
The problem with the extreme pro-life position is that they push their case beyond what can be scientifically supported.
You cannot call a zygote a person, neither can you call preventing the implantation of a blastocyst murder.
You can call a zygote a potential human being, or even a human being under construction.
Further, by pushing your definitions beyond normal usage, you might even call a zygote simply a human being, because it is alive, hence a being, and it is certainly human.
However, under that extended definition, also human beings are the spermatazoan and the oocite.
I do not deny that a new life form begins with conception, but that is very different from saying that there is a new life where there was none. This is NOT a case of life formed from the unliving, it is life formed from life, so the life is not new, it is only in a new form. That is simple science.
As science, it is NOT contrary to Church teaching, since the Church does not teach in matters of science.
I do not argue that abortion is not a sin.
I do not argue that contraception is not a sin.
What I argue is that prior to some evidence of quickening, there is no case of homicide to answer, as there is no proof that the foetus is a person, hence no proof of the fact of homicide. Even here I do not believe I am contradicting INFALLIBLE Church teaching.
I accept that I am arguing against some opinions expressed in Evangelium Vitae, but though extracts thereoff are included in the Catechism, Evangelium Vitae is NOT per se infallible teaching, and is freely denied by right-wing ‘Christians’ who support the death penalty, as prudential.
It is by over-presenting your case, that you destroy your own case.
It may be that Satan is at your own elbow urging you into this unconscious sabotage.
As for my religious background, I have been completely open in my profile.
Any may look and judge.

The problem is that anti and/or nonCatholics are presenting their views as if they were equal to God’s (and the Church) and taking many, many liberties. Unfortunately, even some who call themselves Catholic are taken in by the blurring of fact vs. wishful thinking, and ‘creating’ “evidence” to the contrary whose arguments, when dissected, fall apart.
You likely mean well, but again, you are really doubting God’s teachings. Again, read the Cathechism, and ask yourself how you find ‘truth’ in questioning when life begins.
The moment Jesus was conceived He was God. He did not become God at 2 weeks, 3 months gestation, etc. Clearly that should be a lesson and a strong witness to us.
We need to ask ourselves, “what if I had been aborted at 8 weeks?” Can anyone justify that?? We need to put ourselves into the picture. What if proaborts like Obama, Biden, Kennedy, etc. had been aborted? Of course this is beyond their comprehension.
I’m afraid your argument holds no water when dissected.
I find the term ‘extreme pro life position’ frankly quite silly. We can’t run away from the truth if we are honest: life begins at conception. You, in the end, either choose life or death. There is no inbetween.
You, yourself need to ask yourself if satan is ‘at your own elbow’ as you seem to have no problem with seeing the truth twisted on this issue and seem to want to make up your own (or your Leftwing sources) ‘truth’… But if we are honest with ourselves as sincere followers of God, we follow Him and His Church.He is afteralll, the Creator of Life! No one else is or ever will be!
Please don’t be misled by lengthy but empty diatribes which seek to rationalize killing the innocent.
Best wishes.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

Correction: The argument should have stated,

“Anything that is human is a human being;
but, the ‘sperm’ and the oocyte are human, therefore,
they are human beings.”

JD

I did notice, but considered it to be a typo.

 

[HappyRevert]

I’m lost again - I though we threw out that quickening required a woman feeling it in her womb because some women never feel it at all and therefore quickening was actually coordinated movements by the embryo/fetus which is definitely existent at 8 weeks - why do people keep saying 16 weeks when it is scientifically proven to be 8 weeks?

I also object to people calling oocytes and spermatazoa humans. They are haploid - half human genetic material and incapable of turning into a human without fusing with another haploid. I have yet to see an argument that makes them equal to a human being. Fertilization is obviously the first time something exists that is separate human tissue completely unique from all other people on the planet (they can’t be identical twins right at fertilization so don’t bring that up). Does someone know of a haploid human walking around? If so I’d really like to see the evidence. Otherwise please stop saying they are human. You can make arguments, but it is all conjecture since there is no evidence of a haploid human and therefore not a person.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

The problem is that anti and/or nonCatholics are presenting their views as if they were equal to God’s (and the Church) and taking many, many liberties. Unfortunately, even some who call themselves Catholic are taken in by the blurring of fact vs. wishful thinking, and ‘creating’ “evidence” to the contrary whose arguments, when dissected, fall apart.
You likely mean well, but again, you are really doubting God’s teachings. Again, read the Catechism, and ask yourself how you find ‘truth’ in questioning when life begins.

I have said, and repeated over again.
The way you either misunderstand me borders on misquoting me.
LIFE does not begin with conception.
LIFE takes a new form with conception.
The new living form is NOT created from non-living matter, but from living human matter, in the form of living human entities, namely, the spermatazoa and the oocites.
This is the plain science.
Mother Church does not argue cases of science.
His Holiness Pope John Paul II expressed opinions in Evangelium Vitae, but these were not infallible teachings, but prudential opinions.

The moment Jesus was conceived He was God. He did not become God at 2 weeks, 3 months gestation, etc. Clearly that should be a lesson and a strong witness to us.

This is a matter of FAITH.
I have no argument with this.
I may have doubts, but I have no arguments.

We need to ask ourselves, “what if I had been aborted at 8 weeks?” Can anyone justify that?? We need to put ourselves into the picture. What if proaborts like Obama, Biden, Kennedy, etc. had been aborted? Of course this is beyond their comprehension.
I’m afraid your argument holds no water when dissected.
I find the term ‘extreme pro life position’ frankly quite silly. We can’t run away from the truth if we are honest: life begins at conception. You, in the end, either choose life or death. There is no inbetween.

Again you misrepresent what I said.
I never said that killing a human being was not involved.
Neither did I say it was not an act of evil.
I said, PLAINLY, that it was a SIN.
What I said was that there was, until there was some evidence of quickening, that there was no evidence that the foetus was a person.
In LAW, in the majority of countries, homicide is the killing of a person, not the destruction of a glob of cells.
Because of this, there is THEREFORE, no case of homicide to be answered, as there is no proof that the foetus is a person.

You, yourself need to ask yourself if satan is ‘at your own elbow’ as you seem to have no problem with seeing the truth twisted on this issue and seem to want to make up your own

Again, it is not me who is twisting words, but by misrepresenting what I have posted, it is you who are twisting words.

(or your Leftwing sources) ‘truth’… But if we are honest with ourselves as sincere followers of God, we follow Him and His Church.He is after all, the Creator of Life! No one else is or ever will be!
Please don’t be misled by lengthy but empty diatribes which seek to rationalize killing the innocent.
Best wishes.

And where have I rationalized killing the innocent?
By these false accusations, you destroy your own case.