My problem with abortion

[prodigalson2011]

I’m not sure I would disagree with any of this. This doesn’t strike me as an argument against abortion though. If it’s intended to be, I think we’d need to do significant work on what the phrase ‘human life’ amounts to.

For instance, in attempting to use a more comprehensible notion of ‘human life’, it seems to me ‘human life’ ought to be, at least partially, defined in terms of death. This is because death is the cessation of life, so if we get a handle on the medical definition of ‘death’, we can get a pretty good idea of what exactly is thought to be ceasing. But, obviously we couldn’t include a zygote in there since even the outdated understanding of death as ‘no heart beat’ would exclude them.

Sorry if this has already been addressed; I’m still working my way through the thread.

But wouldn’t the cessation of all metabolic processes be considered death? It seems so to me; Sorry if the comparison seems crass, but is that not how we determine whether those forms of life that do not have heartbeats (i.e. plants) are alive or not?

 

[seekerz]

Sorry if this has already been addressed; I’m still working my way through the thread.

But wouldn’t the cessation of all metabolic processes be considered death? It seems so to me; Sorry if the comparison seems crass, but is that not how we determine whether those forms of life that do not have heartbeats (i.e. plants) are alive or not?

It’s not crass at all. The characteristics of living things have been well defined for sometime now, and a developing fetus meets them. (Reproduction obviously is a collective characteristic not possible at every stage of ANY life form).

So, scientifically, the fetus is alive. These scientific facts and the abilities listed in the OP are exactly the kind of information which I feel would be very convincing to our tech-minded young generation.

I can’t think for the life of me, why the main pro-life strategy is still geared toward eliciting emotions - something which seems more geared toward the middle-aged among us than to the age group which takes pride in acting ‘cool’.

My dream is to create programs geared toward teaching teens and tweens these facts of human development via the tech tools/apps that appeal to them.

 

[seekerz]

Are you actually serious right now? So, if a woman is about to die due to a complication in pregnancy and the only way to save her life is to abort, you would say what? Tough luck? I thought you said in your post that the right to life is non negotiable? Well, how would you deal with this situation? And I don’t man to offend but you sound like a fanatic with the phrase that it’s the states duty to protect its citizens even by force. I can tell you that not many women take the notion of abortion lightly. Do you think that they go down to the clinic three times a year to avoid pregnancy? Don’t get me wrong, I’m sure that there are women that decide to abort because it was an unwanted pregnancy. However, I’ve known a woman that would have died if she didn’t abort. There was also a good chance that the fetus would hae died as well. So, again I ask, how does your no tolerance stance answer this one? Those that abort will have to face their day in front of our Lord and explain themselves to Him. We have NO right to judge another. We have NO right to hate another based on actions that we don’t like or agree with. I’m not trying to vale my argument under the umbrella of tolerance. I just think that those that swing too far one way or another are not taking the time to see the grey area.

To address your question about life-threatening complications, it depends on what the complication is and what treatment is advised. As long as the aim or focus of treatment is not to take the life of the fetus, and only results in death as a tangential outcome, the Catholic Church allows us to weigh the options and make decisions based on conscience.

I’m oversimplifying in a sense, but my point is to illustrate that we don’t just dismiss the mother’s right to life. Catholic theologians have, over history, labored long and hard over this vexing question because all life is equally to be valued. There is also the caveat that in these situations we do everything to save both.

To be honest, that last condition is just not practically possible in all such cases, for the simple reason that no treatments have been developed which can sustain the life of pre-viable babies outside the womb and some of these conditions e.g. life-threatening hemorrhage, are simply not treatable (from the fetus’ point of view) within the womb.

Long and short of it, there aren’t always treatments available to save the baby but we are obliged to do whatever is morally acceptable to save the life of the mother. When both can be saved, they both should be.

 

[brumano]

Are you actually serious right now? So, if a woman is about to die due to a complication in pregnancy and the only way to save her life is to abort, you would say what? Tough luck? I thought you said in your post that the right to life is non negotiable? Well, how would you deal with this situation? And I don’t man to offend but you sound like a fanatic with the phrase that it’s the states duty to protect its citizens even by force. I can tell you that not many women take the notion of abortion lightly. Do you think that they go down to the clinic three times a year to avoid pregnancy? Don’t get me wrong, I’m sure that there are women that decide to abort because it was an unwanted pregnancy. However, I’ve known a woman that would have died if she didn’t abort. There was also a good chance that the fetus would hae died as well. So, again I ask, how does your no tolerance stance answer this one? Those that abort will have to face their day in front of our Lord and explain themselves to Him. We have NO right to judge another. We have NO right to hate another based on actions that we don’t like or agree with. I’m not trying to vale my argument under the umbrella of tolerance. I just think that those that swing too far one way or another are not taking the time to see the grey area.

There’s only one case and it is allowed by the Church for an abortion and that is when the birthing of the baby will present a direct physical risk to the life of the mother, the conditions when this happen are rare. the most common and well known of these few conditions is a condition known as caudal shoulder dystoccia, which is when the size of the baby’s head and shoulders is so much larger than the size of the mother’s pelvis that the baby cannot be birthed naturally without certain complications that carry lethal risks including massive hemorrhaging from the mother. Unfortunately for the abortion justifiers this problem is very effectively anticipated by good neo natal care and routinely averted by the procedure of Ceasarian birth, a C-Section.
So, your question about whether to abort if the mother is about to die from having the baby would be yes and in that one case only it was permitted by the medical profession, the state, and the church, but that just does not happen very much at all anymore. Now the problem for the tens and hundreds of millions of babies that have been killed by abortion and the mothers who have been injured and deeply scarred physically psychologically and emotionally from undergoing abortions is that this small risk in giving birth was enlarged to accomodate any possible adversity to child carrying and child bearing any woman might possibly have as a bonafide women’s health issue. This has brought the destruction of lives on a scale unprecedented in all of history, with all of it’s deep and future reaching consequences.What do you say posthumously to them? Tough luck? It wasn’t bad luck that killed them, it was people who killed them.
We cannot judge the soul of anyone, except maybe our own but how is it that pro abortionists have seen themselves as fit to judge the unborn as being unworthy to have the life that was given to them, that they cannot only be judged but also executed without rationale and without compunction. The only persons the pro death contingent succeed in deceiving are themselves.

 

[aragonjohn1]

A Finnish study concluded that the embryo can feel pain at 1. 1/2 weeks. I’ve seen pictures to b4 7 weeks that look like a baby.

 

[seekerz]

There’s only one case and it is allowed by the Church for an abortion and that is when the birthing of the baby will present a direct physical risk to the life of the mother, the conditions when this happen are rare. the most common and well known of these few conditions is a condition known as caudal shoulder dystoccia, which is when the size of the baby’s head and shoulders is so much larger than the size of the mother’s pelvis that the baby cannot be birthed naturally without certain complications that carry lethal risks including massive hemorrhaging from the mother. Unfortunately for the abortion justifiers this problem is very effectively anticipated by good neo natal care and routinely averted by the procedure of Ceasarian birth, a C-Section.
So, your question about whether to abort if the mother is about to die from having the baby would be yes and in that one case only it was permitted by the medical profession, the state, and the church, but that just does not happen very much at all anymore. Now the problem for the tens and hundreds of millions of babies that have been killed by abortion and the mothers who have been injured and deeply scarred physically psychologically and emotionally from undergoing abortions is that this small risk in giving birth was enlarged to accomodate any possible adversity to child carrying and child bearing any woman might possibly have as a bonafide women’s health issue. This has brought the destruction of lives on a scale unprecedented in all of history, with all of it’s deep and future reaching consequences.What do you say posthumously to them? Tough luck? It wasn’t bad luck that killed them, it was people who killed them.
We cannot judge the soul of anyone, except maybe our own but how is it that pro abortionists have seen themselves as fit to judge the unborn as being unworthy to have the life that was given to them, that they cannot only be judged but also executed without rationale and without compunction. The only persons the pro death contingent succeed in deceiving are themselves.

With all due respect, you should stick to talking about things you know. There are several conditions which would place the lives of mother and baby at risk and make life-saving decisions necessary. Considered together, you can safely estimate that such decisions are being made on a daily basis (if not more often) somewhere in the US.

Calling people “abortion justifiers” is one thing. Making statements about the capabilities of modern medicine is quite another.

 

[Viki63]

I can’t think for the life of me, why the main pro-life strategy is still geared toward eliciting emotions - something which seems more geared toward the middle-aged among us than to the age group which takes pride in acting ‘cool’.

My dream is to create programs geared toward teaching teens and tweens these facts of human development via the tech tools/apps that appeal to them.

I hope that works. But I suspect that pro-life strategy is geared toward emotional arguments because that is what moves most people. When people make a decision for an abortion they are acting out of fear, they are thinking that their lives are in jeopardy, and not considering the consequences for the unborn child at all. I remember how I used to think.
The way to approach this, in my opinion, is to allay those fears: to offer support and encouragement and protection to pregnant women, instead of isolating, threatening and punishing them which is basically what happens now.

 

[Perplexity]

Sorry if this has already been addressed; I’m still working my way through the thread.

But wouldn’t the cessation of all metabolic processes be considered death? It seems so to me; Sorry if the comparison seems crass, but is that not how we determine whether those forms of life that do not have heartbeats (i.e. plants) are alive or not?

No, you’re right. The cessation of all metabolic processes does constitute the cessation of ‘life’ in its broadest sense. But, if you say we shouldn’t perform abortions because it take the fetuses ‘life’ in this sense, then we couldn’t take the ‘life’ of anything that lives in this broadest of senses. Thus, we couldn’t cut down trees for any number of our purposes. We couldn’t harvest any fruits or vegetables etc. ad infinitum.

Further, this broad sense of life doesn’t tell us anything distinctive about human life, which is what we’re trying to understand.

Finally, doctors employ medical definitions of death which are very specific to humans. They need to for a number of reasons, just one of which is organ harvesting. The organs of a donar need to be acquired as fast as possible for the sake of those in desperate need. But, if doctors waited for all metabolic processes to cease, organ donation would be pointless.

 

[Bulldog76center]

Our nation has been deceived… According to Me, deception is the greatest sin of all…

Jesus said "If anyone cause one of these little ones to stumble and fall, it would be better for him to have a millstone tied around his neck and tossed into the sea… " Well our nation has been deceived… Our youth of today believe that human life begins well after birth. After all is some areas of the world, if a baby survives an abortion that baby must be left unattended so it can die.

In the late 50s and early 60s homosexual activity was considered a perversion… Now it is accepted as an alternate life style… Even the children in public schools are being taught that it OK for two men or two women to get married…

“We the People” have been deceived … Who get to wear the millstone??

Amen .

 

[seekerz]

I hope that works. But I suspect that pro-life strategy is geared toward emotional arguments because that is what moves most people. When people make a decision for an abortion they are acting out of fear, they are thinking that their lives are in jeopardy, and not considering the consequences for the unborn child at all. I remember how I used to think.
The way to approach this, in my opinion, is to allay those fears: to offer support and encouragement and protection to pregnant women, instead of isolating, threatening and punishing them which is basically what happens now.

I agree wholeheartedly and the stories which sometimes come out out Latin American countries (of which it is hard to get unbiased accounts) make me even more wary about this new, militant, legalistic approach to defending life.

Just recently I read of a woman in El Salvador jailed for having a miscarriage because it appeared that all was not ‘normal’ with the way she presented to hospital. Apparently, only after she developed overt signs of cancer in prison (where she reportedly died), did the realization arise that the ‘suspicious’ picture could simply have been due to her disease. How accurate this account is, I have no idea because the sites it appeared on were obviously pro-choice. (The case is supposedly being taken to some sort of international commission.)

I am not in favor of the ‘big stick’ approach, particularly because it is disproportionately oriented toward punishing poor, desperate women with weak social supports as opposed to the educated, well-off ones who have access to multiple ‘options’ and resources and for whom an unplanned pregnancy is simply an inconvenience.

Your comment on use of emotions make sense when dealing with women faced with an unplanned pregnancy. My ideas are more preventive in nature and would aim to capture the attention of young people for whom pregnancy is the furthest thing from their minds.

The problem with relying on emotion-based appeals for the general population, is that when faced with the real quandary of what to do about a pregnancy, those fears may overcome the emotions evoked by a pro-life ad. In my experience, values based on rational information stand stronger and last longer than those based simply on feelings.

 

[LostChemist]

We cannot judge the soul of anyone, except maybe our own but how is it that pro abortionists have seen themselves as fit to judge the unborn as being unworthy to have the life that was given to them, that they cannot only be judged but also executed without rationale and without compunction. The only persons the pro death contingent succeed in deceiving are themselves.

I agree that we shoudn’t judge the souls for anyone but I also don’t think that the “pro-abortionists” judge the soul of anyone in this situation either. They don’t see that the fetus as unworthy. They haven’t put a price on the fetus.

Also, I have seen much more judgement on the side of Christians that don’t agree with a mothers decision to keep her child regardless of her reasons. It’s not our job to push our brand of morality on others. It’s even worse to think that the state should have the right to. What ever happened to leading by example? I’m personally sick of walking to my cafeteria and seeing pro-life groups standing outside holding signs that are meant to do nothing but shock and terrorize. Do I think that we should do nothing? Of course not. I’m of the opinion that the mother should be given all the options available and the FACTS and then allow her to make her own decision. Like I said in a previous post, I don’t think that any mother took the decision lightly to abort.

Not that I want to debate this in this post right now, but I have known Catholics that say on one hand that abortion is an abomination while at the same time agreeing with state executions as a punishment. Shoudn’t you be pro-life all the way?

Should we not be more caring and understanding of a person going through this kind of strife? Shouldn’t we offer counsel, comfort, and company?

 

[brumano]

With all due respect, you should stick to talking about things you know. There are several conditions which would place the lives of mother and baby at risk and make life-saving decisions necessary. Considered together, you can safely estimate that such decisions are being made on a daily basis (if not more often) somewhere in the US.

Calling people “abortion justifiers” is one thing. Making statements about the capabilities of modern medicine is quite another.

I just don’t want to have it , I just don’t want you to have it, abortion’s just another kind of birth control, it’s just a growth of some kind in the womb, it’s just cheaper and easier for us to abort your baby than it is to have you give birth and help support you and the baby in the future, it’s just that it comes down to a woman’s freedom of choice being more important than the right of the baby to live, it’s just that we don’t want anything interfering with our sexual freedom, it’s just, it’s just, it’s just. These aren’t medical conditions, and everyone knows what they are.
Sure there are other conditions that carry elevated risks but you’ve really got alot of explaining to do to show me how an abortion maybe needed to save, the baby’s life? (it’s your own wording).
Gloat while you can I guess about how many are being killed somewhere in the US without anything near a medical reasoning being made or given; but remember when something like this happens to you or one your loved ones that it’s just the way things happen to go.

 

[vz71]

They haven’t put a price on the fetus.

That is a statement of worth.

Also, I have seen much more judgement on the side of Christians that don’t agree with a mothers decision to keep her child regardless of her reasons. It’s not our job to push our brand of morality on others.

Pray tell what morality is pushed upon the unborn child?
surely the judgement of ‘not worthy to live’ is much harsher then any judgement you claim Christians have made upon the sins of another.

It’s even worse to think that the state should have the right to. What ever happened to leading by example? I’m personally sick of walking to my cafeteria and seeing pro-life groups standing outside holding signs that are meant to do nothing but shock and terrorize.

I too have been on the fence concerning these types of signs.
I have often felt that all it does is cause scandal upon others and hurt the pro-life cause.
But I also recognize that the reality of abortion must be realized before people will do anything to stop it.

Do I think that we should do nothing? Of course not. I’m of the opinion that the mother should be given all the options available and the FACTS and then allow her to make her own decision.

Decision to what?
Take an innocent life?
Why should the mother be provided choices that I am not.
There are many people around me that I feel I would be better off without. Why shouldn’t I be provided a safe, legal, and rare method of dispatching these annoyances?

I don’t think that any mother took the decision lightly to abort.

Irrelevent.
The law allows the choice, and does not take into account the reasons.

Not that I want to debate this in this post right now, but I have known Catholics that say on one hand that abortion is an abomination while at the same time agreeing with state executions as a punishment. Shoudn’t you be pro-life all the way?

It is true that there is an inconsistancy to be perceived there.
But it would make more sense if we somehow could connect these unborn children with actual guilt in a crime.
So what crime have they committed that deserves death?

Should we not be more caring and understanding of a person going through this kind of strife? Shouldn’t we offer counsel, comfort, and company?

Yes, we should.
But we should not be enabling people to kill an innocent life.
It is a far better thing to find a solution that benefits all rather than a solution that kills one and wounds the other.

 

[JDFatalist]

I learned in science class that doctors can detect heart beats around 18 days after conception. Brain waves can be detected around 40 days. Abortions are performed on average between 7 and 11 weeks. Let’s do some 1st grade math. 7 weeks = 49 days. If a heart beat, a sign of LIFE, can be heard around 18, and brain waves, the second sign of LIFE, around 40, doesn’t that make abortion murder?

This troubles me, because in a world where we lose so many souls to abortion with so little guilt ( if any at all ) for this, people still deny it as murder. What is your opinion?

You are still equating what is qualified as a fetus to murder, regardless of the development of brain waves and heart beats. The issue for most is whether it is moral to abort the fetus, I’m sure you have killed many things with hearts and brainwaves, that doesn’t make you a murderer.

 

[seekerz]

I just don’t want to have it , I just don’t want you to have it, abortion’s just another kind of birth control, it’s just a growth of some kind in the womb, it’s just cheaper and easier for us to abort your baby than it is to have you give birth and help support you and the baby in the future, it’s just that it comes down to a woman’s freedom of choice being more important than the right of the baby to live, it’s just that we don’t want anything interfering with our sexual freedom, it’s just, it’s just, it’s just. These aren’t medical conditions, and everyone knows what they are.
Sure there are other conditions that carry elevated risks but you’ve really got alot of explaining to do to show me how an abortion maybe needed to save, the baby’s life? (it’s your own wording).
Gloat while you can I guess about how many are being killed somewhere in the US without anything near a medical reasoning being made or given; but remember when something like this happens to you or one your loved ones that it’s just the way things happen to go.

An indirect abortion may be needed to save the woman’s life in cases where nothing medically can be done to save the baby. Those are common, everyday occurrences such as ectopic pregnancies or life-threatening miscarriage with a baby still alive.

I consider it an insult to accuse me of gloating, but I will overlook your obvious bias against me for…what reason again?

 

[vz71]

I’m sure you have killed many things with hearts and brainwaves, that doesn’t make you a murderer.

It does if the ‘thing’ in question is human.

 

[vz71]

An indirect abortion may be needed to save the woman’s life in cases where nothing medically can be done to save the baby.

In all cases that you describe, the procedure is not abortion.

The name of the procedure has to do with the primary purpose, not the secondary effects.

It is aggrevating to see people mixing definitions up.
It gives pro-death proponents plenty of wiggle room to claim medical necessity for murder.

 

[seekerz]

In all cases that you describe, the procedure is not abortion.

The name of the procedure has to do with the primary purpose, not the secondary effects.

It is aggrevating to see people mixing definitions up.
It gives pro-death proponents plenty of wiggle room to claim medical necessity for murder.

It is aggravating to see people respond to posts without reading what the poster was originally responding to. Oh, and excuse me for using terminology accepted the world over - by science and the Church. The only ones I know of who reject such terminology are politicians looking to satisfy their electorate with promises of ‘no-exceptions abortion’.

 

[vz71]

An indirect abortion may be needed…

So what exactly is this?
Perhaps you can clarify for us.

 

[seekerz]

So what exactly is this?
Perhaps you can clarify for us.

What exactly is an “indirect abortion”? Just search CAF or Google (be sure to leave the quotes in place).