Non-Catholic religions and abortion

[elvisman]

No, it depends on how you define what a person is.

An embryo has no personality, no ideas, hardly even thinks. It literally does not know anything, or even feel much, if at all. Yes, it is alive. But, at an embryotic stage, it simply is. It has no purpose as of yet. It is just alive, and that is it. So just because they are alive does not mean that they are really a real person. That is just my reasoning…I know some will agree and others won’t.

I think that women should be given a choice if they want a child or not. If you want to keep the baby, great! If you don’t, that is fine too! As I said, my opinion.

WAIT a second!!
Listen to what you just said.
You said that an embryo “hardly even thinks” or “or even feels much, if at all”!
You - just as AgnosTeist have FAILED to address the fact that infants don’t think much. In fact - up until 10 years ago, they were given a fraction of anesthesia they needed during operations because “modern science” was convinced that they felt almost NO PAIN during surgery.
**Neither YOU nor Agnos has addressed the matter of whether or not mentally retarded people or those in a late life dementia can “think” or feel much. **Until you can address these matters - your arguments have NO VALIDITY here.
You guys feel that the killing of an INNOCENT HUMAN should be left up to the mother- based simply on the notion of convenience.
I realize that Agnos and YOU are simply antagonists who come here MERELY to antagonize. I say that based on the fact that you CANNOT be as ignorant and utterly inane as your arguments.
**When you want to charitably and intellectually argue the matter, so be it. Until then, you’re speaking in statements that are devoid of any reason or intellect.

**

 

[kellie]

I’m sorry to say again, that yes, a fertilized egg is an embryo. “Fertilized egg” is a misnomer - the egg ceases to exist at point of conception, when egg and spem combine to create a unique human individual.

But my egg fertilised and didnt create an embryo, it stuck to wall of my womb, created a placenta, but no human

 

[Verisimilitude]

It’s interesting to see this debate, but unbelievable to a large degree. Faith should not be the determining factor regarding abortion. In fact, for the sake of the argument take God out of the equation all together to make a point.

Arguments range from what is Human life, when it begins, and when is it a person that has the protections of civil rights and natural law. Civil rights in the sense that a 6 month old baby will be protected by the state (my case the US Constitution) from being deliberately killed by a doctor or a stranger or own parents. Natural law in the sense that the act of procreation includes spirited protection of the young by often more than just the parents. This includes protecting the parent during the gestation period much less the self preservation all life shares.

The fertilized human egg is at that moment unique to any other cell. It is unique from either the father or the mother even before it is a zygote and is undoubtedly a new human life. The same is to be said for any animal species that have similar phases of creation.

Those who reason personhood is granted to a new born but not a blastocyst must qualify their position. What ever qualifier one uses to define when the new human life becomes a human being worth protecting; that should equally apply to the other living humans as a means of permitting life to continue or not.

Any qualifier I can think of goes against human nature to hasten death for any reason, but if you can; what then of human dignity when that life is deemed unworthy of living anymore? Should care and respect only be given to those that have made memories that will die with them and fade from those living who share them, or those who have yet to make them and those who would have shared in them?

It should be common sense and reasoned judgment that conclude all life especially that of human life should be protected in all its phases; from the very first moment to the very last. It is in our power and is our responsibility to do so.

 

[notself]

But my egg fertilised and didnt create an embryo, it stuck to wall of my womb, created a placenta, but no human

Your blastocyst was much more than an egg. It was human life capable of interacting with it’s environment and modifying it. The fact that the implanted into the uterine wall and produce chemical messengers to stimulate the uterus to produce the placenta proves that it was alive. Since every cell in the blastocyst contained human DNA, the blastocyst is by definition a living human. This human had a very short life.

About four days after fertilization, the morula enters the uterine cavity. Cell division continues, and a cavity known as a blastocele forms in the center of the morula. Cells flatten and compact on the inside of the cavity while the zona pellucida remains the same size. With the appearance of the cavity in the center, the entire structure is now called a blastocyst.

The presence of the blastocyst indicates that two cell types are forming: the embryoblast (inner cell mass on the inside of the blastocele), and the trophoblast (the cells on the outside of the blastocele).

At about 5 to 6 days,the pressure of the blastocele expanding in the middle of the blastocyst against the rigid wall of the zona pellucida, creates “hatching” of the blastocyst from the zona around the sixth day after fertilization.

As the blastocyst enters the uterus free from the zona, the outer layer of trophoblast cells secrete an enzyme to erode the epithelial lining of the uterus and allow the blastocyst to implant.

Human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) is also secreted by the trophoblast cells stimulating the corpus luteum to continue progesterone production. Progesterone maintains the blood rich lining of the uterus. Endometrial glands in the uterus had already begun to enlarge in response to the progesterone stimulated to release by the corpus luteum (“yellow body”) which once surrounded the egg as it grew in the ovary almost six days prior.

The uterus is therefore swollen with new blood capillaries and the circulation between mother and blastocyst begins, a process needed for the continuation of pregnancy.

 

[notself]

It’s interesting to see this debate, but unbelievable to a large degree. Faith should not be the determining factor regarding abortion. In fact, for the sake of the argument take God out of the equation all together to make a point.

Arguments range from what is Human life, when it begins, and when is it a person that has the protections of civil rights and natural law. Civil rights in the sense that a 6 month old baby will be protected by the state (my case the US Constitution) from being deliberately killed by a doctor or a stranger or own parents. Natural law in the sense that the act of procreation includes spirited protection of the young by often more than just the parents. This includes protecting the parent during the gestation period much less the self preservation all life shares.

The fertilized human egg is at that moment unique to any other cell. It is unique from either the father or the mother even before it is a zygote and is undoubtedly a new human life. The same is to be said for any animal species that have similar phases of creation.

Those who reason personhood is granted to a new born but not a blastocyst must qualify their position. What ever qualifier one uses to define when the new human life becomes a human being worth protecting; that should equally apply to the other living humans as a means of permitting life to continue or not.

Any qualifier I can think of goes against human nature to hasten death for any reason, but if you can; what then of human dignity when that life is deemed unworthy of living anymore? Should care and respect only be given to those that have made memories that will die with them and fade from those living who share them, or those who have yet to make them and those who would have shared in them?

It should be common sense and reasoned judgment that conclude all life especially that of human life should be protected in all its phases; from the very first moment to the very last. It is in our power and is our responsibility to do so.

How Buddhist of you. Great post.

 

[ncgolf]

How Buddhist of you. Great post.

Does Buddhism actually condemn abortion, publically? Is there an official position comparable to what the Catholic Church does? JPII called it the Culture of Death … this debate has not made Catholics more popular in the US but less.

Has Buddhism stuck it’s neck out?

 

[notself]

Does Buddhism actually condemn abortion, publically? Is there an official position comparable to what the Catholic Church does? JPII called it the Culture of Death … this debate has not made Catholics more popular in the US but less.

Has Buddhism stuck it’s neck out?

Buddhism doesn’t have a neck to stick out. There is no Pope of Buddhism. Various Buddhist organizations have signed statements against abortion. But there is no over-riding organization to make an anti abortion statement.

The Pali Canon specifically speaks against killing of any kind. Buddhist in general are against abortion, capital punishment and war. Individual Buddhists have marched and demonstrated against all three. But just as with the Catholic religion there are some Buddhists who believe that abortion is OK under certain circumstances. This stance is against the teaching of the Buddha just as this stance on the part of Catholics is against the teachings of the Church.

 

[Jennifer123]

But my egg fertilised and didnt create an embryo, it stuck to wall of my womb, created a placenta, but no human

all.org/abac/dni003.htm

"To begin with, scientifically something very dramatic occurs between the processes of gametogenesis and fertilization - the change from two simple PARTS of a human being, i.e., a sperm and an oocyte (usually referred to as an “ovum” or “egg”), which simply possess “human life” into a new, genetically unique, newly existing, individual, live human BEING, an embryonic single-cell human zygote. That is, parts of a human being have actually been transformed into something very different from what they were before; they have been changed into a single, whole human being. During this process, the sperm and the oocyte cease to exist, and a new human being is produced. "

I’m sorry for your loss.

 

[Jennifer123]

Sources please.

Note that the Guttmacher Institute is the PP policy think-tank:

“Fifty-four percent of women having abortions used a contraceptive method during the month they became pregnant. Among those women, 76% of pill users and 49% of condom users reported using their method inconsistently, while 13% of pill users and 14% of condom users reported correct use.[13]”
guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html

For info on how the use of contraception leads to more abortion, not less:
miraclerosarymission.org/ev061495n8.htm
prolifeaction.org/cinta/case.htm:
“At the risk of being repetitious, I would remind the group that we have found the highest frequency of induced abortions in the group which, in general, most frequently uses contraception.”
—Notorious “sexologist” Alfred Kinsey, 1955

Coincidence that PP’s provided condoms are poorly rated??? Abortion is a big money business where a lot of the financial dealings are done “under the table”.

You have to understand the gist of Humae Vitae and the Church’s teachings on human sexuality to see how the marital act divorced from the natural consequence can lead to the idea that humanity is only as precious as what it provides us materially. Contraception leads to selfishness and sex used only as hedonistic pleasure, even among married couples.

 

[johnlal]

Wow, rebecca, thanks for that insightful line of posts!

I think abortion debates founded on religion are some of the toughest, and that those people who believe in abortion for religious reasons are almost impossible to convince otherwise.

It is easier to collapse the flaky arguments such as choice, blobs of tissue, etc etc then to change someone’s culture and idea of God and man.

Your posts were very helpful in showing how someone can form a conscious to accept or even choose abortion.

I agree. When someone plays the religion card, there’s no longer any room for argument.

 

[estesbob]

I agree. When someone plays the religion card, there’s no longer any room for argument.

Depends on the context. If one is for , instance discussing Catholic support for pro-abortion candidates you can’t leave religion out of it.In additionas a Catholic iit impossible for meto participate in a discussion like this without religion effectng it since I cannot uncouple my religion from my life.

 

[johnlal]

Depends on the context. If one is for , instance discussing Catholic support for pro-abortion candidates you can’t leave religion out of it.In additionas a Catholic iit impossible for meto participate in a discussion like this without religion effectng it since I cannot uncouple my religion from my life.

My point is that when your position is based upon your religion, no amount of argument is likely to sway your opinion. Correct?

 

[Jennifer123]

My point is that when your position is based upon your religion, no amount of argument is likely to sway your opinion. Correct?

But like most things that hurt society, there is enough of an argument from a Natural Law perspective that religion doesn’t even need to come up. Stray from the Natural Law and consequences always follow.
The effects of abortion are apparent regardless of belief system and can be known objectively and empirically, if the abortion industry would be honest and forthcoming.

 

[ncgolf]

My point is that when your position is based upon your religion, no amount of argument is likely to sway your opinion. Correct?

They are based on the teachings of the Church. The Church provides coherent, logical and insightful reasons behind its argument … read Human Vitae. The Church does not divource sex, marriage or abortion from each other rather they are all part of the same equation.

So the argument goes back to the Natural Law … that is the root of the debate and the Natural Law shapes the Catholic debate in all areas concerning human life. How can the Natural Law change ?? I don’t believe it can so goes the reasons the Church cannot change … the basis for it’s argument is unchanging. It is not an opinion and the Church does not teach it as opinion.

IMO the overwhelming reason why abortions are done is economic due to the circumstances the child is conceived. Why?? Because the overwhelming majority of abortions are done for the purpose of terminating unwanted babies from women or couples who conceive a child outside of marriage. The support structure is not present because the commitment to the results of marriage are not there. The numbers of abortions based on rape, incest even including those done for genetic reasons constitute a much smaller percentage of the total.

 

[johnlal]

They are based on the teachings of the Church. The Church provides coherent, logical and insightful reasons behind its argument.

I never said it didn’t.

 

[estesbob]

My point is that when your position is based upon your religion, no amount of argument is likely to sway your opinion. Correct?

Not me .But then my postion is affirmed by my religion-it was not the basis of it.

 

[AgnosTheist]

Either a wrong was done, or it was not. We can’t have it both ways.

Of course. For me that depends on the stage of pregnancy when an abortion took place. for very early pregnancies, no feelings were hurt and no wrong was done. for advanced pregnancies, a fetus already has a mind and abortion hurts them. a wrong was done.

 

[AgnosTheist]

**
I’m sure in the large amount of posts mine got lost.
Before you can argue on a scientific level you need to define your use of the word “mind” then you must prove that it can be accurately used in a scientific application of the abortion debate.

i did.

Also, if your argument is purely scientific, your opinion that the pregnant mother must choose is irrelevant to your argument.

its not purely scientific.

 

[AgnosTheist]

There are children born without brains. Rarely, they live - a few years ago, I was made aware of a seven year old girl who was born without a brain. She does, however, have a mind - she behaves quite normally - speaking, walking, interacting with others in a very ordinary way. How this comes to be is unknown. It is also unknown how long she will live - it is not expected that she will live to become an adult.

But her case shows that it is not true that one requires a brain, in order to have a mind.

babies are sometimes born without a brain…

query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=940DE6DB1330F931A15751C0A96E948260&sec=health&spon=

but the motor functions alone does not define a mind.

 

[st_lucy]

babies are sometimes born without a brain…

query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=940DE6DB1330F931A15751C0A96E948260&sec=health&spon=

but the motor functions alone does not define a mind.

I guess I am confussed Agnos, how do you define a mind? And can you see it? Can you touch it?