Issues other than abortion

[laylow]

Only talked about by who? Us on this board? Catholics? The Right? I would disagree on all points. I would also say it’s high on the radar and passionately so on both sides of the debate. See Kavanaugh, Brett

Obviously the OP thought so enough to start a thread about it. I observe the same in my personal experience. Most likely due to politics. There is enough food for everyone in the world to have excess. There is just not the political will to make it happen.

 

[Kei]

Residue of history.

Historically, women - particularly pregnant women - were chattel.

Here it is. I suspect this is why you act this way. Instead of viewing the most innocent children, you view women as some sort of historically deligitimized group and thus this needs to be made up for.
This clouds the judgement and brings forth much foul thought.

 

[laylow]

I was not making a legal argument. I speak with those outside my “circle” (whatever that is) quite often.
I was not making any argument about abortion. I was trying to help someone out on a personal level.

That’s fine, but @vonsalza has already stated that his personal conviction is that he is against abortion but he doesn’t think it should be illegal (I share the same sentiment). I see nothing immoral about this.

 

[Victoria33]

Ultimately, this is a WWJD question and answer. In this situation, I don’t think Jesus would condone nor take the pro-choice side under any situation.

 

[Vonsalza]

Only a man would attempt to dismiss feminine prolapse as less than a big deal… Good God Almighty…

All sexual intercourse should be open to life, and you take upon yourself responsibility when you do something that inherently carries said responsibility. If you don’t want children, then don’t do the thing that brings forth children.

No, all intercourse should be open to climax. Procreation is either a secondary concern or a non-concern the vast, vast, vast majority of the time, including in Catholic marriages.

Are you really trying to make an argument…like, bud, it’s a right. You don’t get to take the right to life, the base of all rights, away from another. If someone can’t speak, hear, or see, do you get to kill the person because you assume they don’t wanna live? No, of course not.

If they’re physically attached to my body in a way I don’t want and my detaching them would kill them?

Yes. I absolutely have the right to kill them.

All this dancing around is to ignore the HARD FACT of the matter that A CHILD IN THE WOMB IS A SEPARATE, LIVING HUMAN BEING. Dependency on the mother, yes, a mere tumor or pimple? No

And all your dancing is an attempt to deny a woman the control over her most valuable possession - her body.

 

[Sbee0]

No it doesn’t. From the American College of Pediatricians Website;

“As far as human ‘life’ per se, it is, for the most part, uncontroversial among the scientific and philosophical community that life begins at the moment when the genetic information contained in the sperm and ovum combine to form a genetically unique cell.”

This process occurs about 12 hours in.

Yes I read the same article and it backs me up. Completely. You forgot to copy the quote that said: Every human embryologist, worldwide, states that the life of the new individual human being begins at fertilization (conception)

And once again the “12 hours” thing is utterly irrelevant to this debate about abortions.

“However, what is controversial is whether this genetically unique cell should be considered a human person.”

I say it’s a human person right from the beginning. Nobody has (and I suspect ever will) prove to me otherwise, so I think I’m good with what I got.

Science also says newborn infants, like unborn babies, have no self awareness.

Swing and a miss…
https://www.livescience.com/41398-baby-awareness.html

When Does Consciousness Arise in Human Babies?

Does sentience appear in the womb, at birth or during early childhood?

www.scientificamerican.com

First, second and top of the 3rd paragraph.
If you think that’s a swing and the miss then you didn’t hear the crack of the bat.

I agree with the articles that babies have the programmed and inherent ability to gain awareness. Programmed ability. Hmmm. Where have I heard that before when it comes to unborn children, proving that the unborn is life… oh yeah it was me!

Vonsalza:

…it literally follows the simplest argumentative from of A=B, B=C thus A=C…

The only choice you have is to attack the truth value of the premises. So which one is untrue?
P: women have control over their bodies
P: fetal development requires a woman’s body

Let me know

A=C is logically invalid because C is wrong.

As to soundness, you have to show me why my premises are untrue. Since they’re not, you’re just fumbling here…

Nope. Your premises are fine but your conclusion C is fallacious thus your entire argument is null and void.

Choice is simply the most logical outcome and your emotional attachment to the pro-life view makes it difficult for you to accept that - especially as evidenced by your calling me “dude” in combative frustration.

You say frustration, I say amusement. With a touch of BEmusement. To-may-to, To-mah-to…

And yes abortion is emotional. I would say prochoicers are far more so than prolifers.

 

[Vonsalza]

Ultimately, this is a WWJD question and answer. In this situation, I don’t think Jesus would condone nor take the pro-choice side under any situation.

I genuinely don’t think Jesus would force her against her will to carry it.

 

[goout]

Kei:

I was not making a legal argument. I speak with those outside my “circle” (whatever that is) quite often.
I was not making any argument about abortion. I was trying to help someone out on a personal level.

That’s fine, but @vonsalza has already stated that his personal conviction is that he is against abortion but he doesn’t think it should be illegal (I share the same sentiment). I see nothing immoral about this.

And yet we castigate anyone remotely implicated in watching Jews die in nazi Germany.
And we castigate anyone who give a nod of indifference to racial atrocities. You can’t even have a poker face about it, and you are guilty. (as it should be…indifference is not an option. Now with flavors of milk shake, yea, I don care. )

 

[Kei]

So a woman has to give up the right to her life so another has the chance to begin life?

No, as I have stated previously if a babe dies while attempting to save a mother it is licit. The goal should never be to kill the child, of course.

Or did you mean “right to her life” to mean something else?

All sexual intercourse should be open to life. If one desperately cannot have children, then both the man and the woman should refrain from the activity that brings forth children.

 

[laylow]

That of course is irrelevant to this discussion as that is not a willfully procured abortion. But I think you knew that as well.

So when someone is dying of a disease, we shouldn’t try to save them because it wasn’t willful?

 

[Sbee0]

Sbee0:

That of course is irrelevant to this discussion as that is not a willfully procured abortion. But I think you knew that as well.

So when someone is dying of a disease, we shouldn’t try to save them because it wasn’t willful?

Don’t see the relevance. Ectopic pregnancies, natural non implantations and so on are completely out of the realm of the discussion of willful abortion.

 

[laylow]

And yet we castigate anyone remotely implicated in watching Jews die in nazi Germany.
And we castigate anyone who give a nod of indifference to racial atrocities.

That is very much debated. If someone is asked to risk their life to save the Jews in Germany, I think many would give them a pass for not making that sacrifice.

 

[Kei]

Trust me, we are already arguing. If he wishes to make a point he can make the point.
Legally we recognize the right to life, which is why abortion should be illegal, since the right to life is not tied to any particular trait in man but is an inalienable right that every man is endowed with by virtue of his being what he is. Even the woman whose case got abortion legalized (we now know more about pregnancy) became staunchly pro life.

Safe, legal, and rare has been shown to be utterly false.

 

[laylow]

Don’t see the relevance. Ectopic pregnancies, natural non implantations and so on are completely out of the realm of the discussion of willful abortion.

Maybe because it is uncomfortable to think that God aborts at a higher rate than humans. But the statistics won’t lie.

 

[laylow]

Trust me, we are already arguing. If he wishes to make a point he can make the point.
Legally we recognize the right to life, which is why abortion should be illegal, since the right to life is not tied to any particular trait in man but is an inalienable right that every man is endowed with by virtue of his being what he is. Even the woman whose case got abortion legalized (we now know more about pregnancy) became staunchly pro life.

Safe, legal, and rare has been shown to be utterly false.

And if the woman dies during the pregnancy then the hell with her right to life?

 

[Kei]

Only a man would attempt to dismiss feminine prolapse as less than a big deal

Did I say it was less than a big deal? No. I said it can also happen from lifting something heavy, and that it was a treatable condition, implying that living is worth much more than that.

If they’re physically attached to my body in a way I don’t want and my detaching them would kill them?

Yes. I absolutely have the right to kill them

Based on what? Because they get in your way? Is that a valid reason?

And all your dancing is an attempt to deny a woman the control over her most valuable possession - her body.

How many times do I have to say this? A BABY IS NOT THE MOTHER’S BODY. This is a CLEAR AND PLAIN FACT.

 

[Sbee0]

Sbee0:

Don’t see the relevance. Ectopic pregnancies, natural non implantations and so on are completely out of the realm of the discussion of willful abortion.

Maybe because it is uncomfortable to think that God aborts at a higher rate than humans. But the statistics won’t lie.

Guess i should add “what God does” to the list of those things irrelevant and out of the realm of the discussion of willful abortion.

 

[Kei]

And if the woman dies during the pregnancy then the hell with her right to life?

I have already stated multiple times that in attempting to save the woman’s life a loss of the life of the babe is licit.
This not cancer or a stroke. It’s pregnancy. It is relatively uncommon nowadays for that to lead to death. In the case of complications then saving the life of the woman at the cost of the babe is licit, as already stated.

 

[Vonsalza]

And once again the “12 hours” thing is utterly irrelevant to this debate about abortions.

I agree fully. Just letting you know that “Life begins at conception” murkier than you’d like to admit as far as the scientific community is concerned.

I say it’s a human person right from the beginning. Nobody has (and I suspect ever will) prove to me otherwise, so I think I’m good with what I got.

Sure. Fine with me.

Let’s just stop saying that yours is “The Scientific Position” because it clearly isn’t. Science doesn’t have one.

First, second and top of the 3rd paragraph.

Ok, good good good.
I posted research that indicates self-awareness.
-Then-
You posted research that supports your view they don’t have any.

Know what this means?

Lack of scientific consensus.

Again, I’m afraid we have to default to the mother on this :raising_hand_woman:

I already did. Your premises are fine but your conclusion C is fallacious thus your entire argument is null and void.

Oh dear.
Ok, you just don’t know what you’re talking about here because you’ve never formally studied it. This is fine. Most haven’t.

But the way it works is that you cannot directly attack conclusions. This is because conclusions are the natural products of the premises. So in order to reject a conclusion, you have to show that the argument is structurally built incorrectly (thus invalid) or that the premises contain truth claims that are dubious (thus unsound).

You’ve done neither of these things. So I’ll repeat;

P: Fetal development requires a woman’s body
P: Women have control over their bodies
C: Ergo, women have control over fetal development.

Where is the lack of validity and/or soundness?

I don’t think there are any problems. I think it’s an example of a solid textbook argument for Choice. Show me why I’m wrong.

 

[Sbee0]

If they’re physically attached to my body in a way I don’t want and my detaching them would kill them?

Yes. I absolutely have the right to kill them.

Ok, then you DO believe that the unborn child is a human life. Could have just said that a long time ago and saved both of us typing time. Also making your “12 hours” argument even more pointless than it already was.

Now this is a different argument. I do not believe we have the right at any time to kill persons, which the unborn child is - as nobody has proven otherwise to me… And I digress but the same is true as to why capital punishment is also morally repugnant.