Pew: 77% of Catholics who are Democrats say abortion should be legal

  • Thread starter Thread starter mercyalways
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Freddy said:
So you have no examples of someone using this rather ridiculous argument? Certainly not in this forum.
Click to expand...
Is a blastocyst a human being in the full sense, that is, just as you are a human being?
 
o_mlly said:
40.png
Freddy:
So you have no examples of someone using this rather ridiculous argument? Certainly not in this forum.
Click to expand...
Is a blastocyst a human being in the full sense, that is, just as you are a human being?
Click to expand...
No. No more than a sperm or an egg is. A zygote is not ‘a little person’. It’s what might become such. But is not at that stage.

And do you have anyone at all that suggests that it is not human?
 
Last edited:
Freddy said:
No. No more than a sperm or an egg is. A zygote is not ‘a little person’. It’s what might become such. But is not at that stage.
Click to expand...
In the sense a toddler is not an adult - sure. A zygote is not a toddler. But all these are humans. As is a baby. And as are all your stages back to just this side of conception. Unless you see a transition from human being to…?
 
Last edited:
Rau said:
40.png
Freddy:
No. No more than a sperm or an egg is. A zygote is not ‘a little person’. It’s what might become such. But is not at that stage.
Click to expand...
In the sense a toddler is not an adult - sure. A zygote is not a toddler. But all these are humans. As is a baby. And as are all your stages back to just this side of conception. Unless you see a transition from human being to…?
Click to expand...
You are conflating the noun ‘human’ (short for human being) with the adjective ‘human’. A zygote can be described as human just as a sperm can be described as human - as opposed to non-human, such as a chimp sperm. But it cannot be classed as a human. Just as a sperm from a monkey cannot be described as a monkey.
 
Last edited:
o_mlly said:
40.png
Freddy:
No more than a sperm or an egg is. A zygote is not ‘a little person’.
Click to expand...
There you go. It was you who denied the baby was a human being!
Freddy said:
You are conflating the noun ‘human’ (short for human being) with the adjective ‘human’.
Click to expand...
More sophistry. What species is a blastocyst?
Click to expand...
It’s unusual to have you claim that I did something and then immediately quote me explaining how that couldn’t have occured.

You’ll need to come up with someone else who actually has denied that a zygote is human. Which I never have. As opposed to not being a little human being. Which I just did.

Edit: And what species is a blastocyst? It depends which animal it came from. If it’s from a chimp then it would be P. troglodytes. But it wouldn’t be a tiny little chimp. If from a human then Homo sapien. But it wouldn’t be a tiny little person.
 
Last edited:
Sperm and egg are separate entities from separate people, but when they come together they form something different. If sperm from a human and an egg from a human come together, that creature which is then formed is human. And that, my friend, is how we all started. Nobody human came about in any different matter (even in vitro the same matter was used).

Once life starts with sperm and egg together, barring any outside effects (defects in the ‘parts’ themselves OR interference with saline, scalpels, etc), that human creature is going to continue to develop just as you yourself did.

You are a human. You were formed the same way every human has been formed. You grew and developed the same way every human being has grown and developed.

It may make it easier for you to swallow the idea of abortion to think of the life being snuffed out as ‘not really human’ but the idea is neither scientific (life begins at conception, and science says so) nor morally just or true.
 
stpurl said:
Sperm and egg are separate entities from separate people, but when they come together they form something different. If sperm from a human and an egg from a human come together, that creature which is then formed is human. And that, my friend, is how we all started. Nobody human came about in any different matter (even in vitro the same matter was used).

Once life starts with sperm and egg together, barring any outside effects (defects in the ‘parts’ themselves OR interference with saline, scalpels, etc), that human creature is going to continue to develop just as you yourself did.

You are a human. You were formed the same way every human has been formed. You grew and developed the same way every human being has grown and developed.

It may make it easier for you to swallow the idea of abortion to think of the life being snuffed out as ‘not really human’ but the idea is neither scientific (life begins at conception, and science says so) nor morally just or true.
Click to expand...
Why would I disagree with anything you just said? You seem to think that I would. Which makes me think that you either haven’t read what I have been posting or are completely ignoring it.

I don’t expect you to agree with my position but, gee…it’s quite frustrating that you don’t even understand it.
 
In another thread the question was asked: “Does the church have a plan to eliminate abortions?” The fact that 3/4 of Catholic Democrats believe abortion should be legal pretty much answers that question: no. US bishops once had the opportunity of influencing Catholics on this topic, but that time is long gone. If every bishop openly and roundly denounced any politician who supported abortion it would do nothing at this point other than antagonize (at least) half of their flock. Even condemning abortion itself as unambiguously immoral might be a bridge too far at this point.

Catholics represent about 20-25% of voters and could well have made support of abortion political suicide had they been united on the issue. Unfortunately that ship has sailed.
 
The Church already condemns abortion as unambiguously immoral.

Our pastors however do not spend a lot of time talking about it, as it is a divisive issue. I think those pastors are putting worldly success ahead of the Gospel. Our shiny Catholic School is turning out moral and religious indifference at an unprecedented rate. Denouncing serious evils would get in the way of that mission. Collections would surely drop, and people would be upset. Can you imagine? People actually getting upset about the deaths of millions of children? (sarcasm alert)
 
Last edited:
Anticipating the usual response:
yes our pastors talk a lot about social justice, and that is a worthy topic and an integral part of a holistic pro life approach.

But you have to consider, our people are almost choking on a glut of resources. We are wildly prosperous by any measurement, and despite that (or partially cause by?), we still have an epidemic of addiction, depression, anxiety, suicide, and of course, abortion. So it doesn’t seem clear to me that preaching social justice at the expense of clarifying the obvious evils is a good pastoral strategy.
 
Last edited:
goout said:
The Church already condemns abortion as unambiguously immoral.
Click to expand...
More needs to be done than simply condemning. Like more homilies on the dignity of each human being, theology of the body, etc. In other words, the fundamental principles rather than specific politicians.
 
Randolph said:
The end goal is to end abortion. Yes, it sounds impossible right now, but we need to keep on hoping and to protect innocent babies from certain death. This battle against abortion may very well be raging until Christ comes again.
Click to expand...
Admirable, but…practical? Isn’t this like saying “We need to eliminate sin”? If someone (yes, this is hypothetical!) said, “We have 1,000 murders a year in this city. I know how to reduce it to 500 a year.” Would you just ignore him? Wouldn’t it be worthwhile to give it a try? One murder is bad, but would you be indifferent whether it were 1 murder or 1,000 murders?
Rau said:
May as well abandon all analytical thinking and discussion if that’s your basis for abandons ideas.
Click to expand...
I was criticizing posters who say “I think…” You could take any subject–let’s say colonizing Mars–and you could have a debate among one group who thinks it’s a great idea and another group that thinks it’s stupid. But if neither group is well informed, what’s the point?

Again, I invite anyone to go back to any of my posts (here or elsewhere) and see how often I say “I think…” It’s extremely rare for me to give my opinion, and when I do it’s almost always to defend against people who accuse me of believing something I don’t (for example that I am pro-abortion. I am not).

So what do my posts consist of?
  1. quotations with links to religious authorities–Catechism, encyclicals, theologians
  2. polls, usually from Pew or Gallup with links
  3. quotations from authorities who are experts in the subject with links
  4. statistics from reputable sources (UN, WHO, OECD, CDC, etc.) with links
o_mlly said:
Instead, they invent words like blastocyst, zygote, and embryo to deny the human life that exists.
Click to expand...
These words weren’t invented by pro-choice activists, they were invented by scientists. And, yet again, the point of the entire argument isn’t about “life” it’s about “human life.” “Human life” carries with it a set of assumptions (or claims) about legal and moral rights. That’s an entirely different thing than “life,” and beyond the scope of science. It’s a theological / philosophical belief. (See the series of posts above by Freddy and o_mlly…it’s typical of all these debates. The pro-life side always starts by stating their belief–that a human person is created at the instant of conception–as if it is a scientific fact and a Truth (with a capital ‘T’ ) that everyone has to acknowledge. But it’s a belief that few people actually believe. They assume away the entire point of the debate!)
o_mlly said:
The science cannot know when God infuses a soul. Science admits their ignorance and is of no help.
Click to expand...
Exactly.
 
Shakuhachi said:
40.png
goout:
The Church already condemns abortion as unambiguously immoral.
Click to expand...
More needs to be done than simply condemning. Like more homilies on the dignity of each human being, theology of the body, etc. In other words, the fundamental principles rather than specific politicians.
Click to expand...
yes I agree with that.
 
Last edited:
That ship has long ago sailed re the Dems and their approach to running roughshod over the constitution and this Nation as a whole.
What else it new?
 
Last edited:
Erikaspirit16 said:
40.png
o_mlly:
The science cannot know when God infuses a soul. Science admits their ignorance and is of no help.
Click to expand...
Exactly.
Click to expand...
So we make assumptions then, and make them at the cost of human life.
Doesn’t a small child, the most helpless among us, deserve your benefit of the doubt, rather than minimalist skepticism?
 
Even hunters give random movements in the woods the benefit of their doubt, their “good faith” assumption of humanity in the balance.
The don’t assume God’s role in perfect perception and perfect knowledge.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top