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

[Erikaspirit16]

So we make assumptions then, and make them at the cost of human life.

Yes, I understand that position: admit we’re not sure when human life begins and then assume the extreme case (human life begins at conception). It’s a logical and defensible position. But what seems to be lost is the acknowledgement that people of good will can take other positions, and that they have a right to do so.

Once again I have problems with pro-life people who aren’t consistent. Let me give a few examples.

On the one hand (we have a recent example above from stpurl) we have an acknowledgement that the sperm and egg are two different entities, and not a new “human person.” Fine. I think we all agree. But then in the next breath the same person (generic, not stpurl) says “A new human person is created at conception.” And some people in this forum have mistakenly claimed that this “new human person” has distinct DNA. It doesn’t–for at least 24-36 hours. And if you give it a little thought, you can see why. The sperm penetrates the egg. The egg releases something to block other sperm. Then the nucleus of the egg and the sperm have a casing. That casing has to dissolve. Then the DNA has to unravel. Then it has to divide into much smaller bits. Then it has to re-unite. This all takes time–24-36 hours.

Or take another example of inconsistency. It’s known that 60-80% of pregnancies are terminated naturally because the zygote does not implant itself on the wall of the womb. They die. They die in numbers that make the number of abortions trivial. And, according to pro-life belief, they are all “human persons.” So two questions: first, if the goal is to preserve “human persons” from conception, why aren’t pro-life groups funding huge research projects to find ways to make the zygotes implant on the wall of the womb instead of dying? Second, if these millions upon millions of “human persons” are dying, where are the funeral Masses, prayers for the dead, etc. etc.? They are ignored (except in extremely general terms…“prayers for the dead”). Inconsistent? Yes.

A third case is pro-life supporters who say “The Church looked at the latest scientific evidence in 1867 and changed its teaching on abortion.” (It did. Before 1867 abortion was seen as evil, but not necessarily murder–it was murder only after movement was detected in the womb–the same standard almost all other world religions use. In 1867 they declared ALL abortion was murder and that “human life” began at the moment of conception.) OK, so they’re using science to defend a change in Church teaching. Great. But in 1867 we knew nothing about DNA, chromosomes, etc. Now we do. Now we know–just one example–that the new individual DNA isn’t formed for 24-36 hours after the sperm penetrates the egg. So…if Church teaching changed in 1867 because of new scientific information, why wouldn’t it change in 2020 because of new scientific information? Consistency? I don’t think so.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

A last thing to ponder. The Guttmacher Institute studies abortion, and in March 2018 released a report on the number of abortions worldwide. New Report Highlights Worldwide Variations in Abortion Incidence and Safety | Guttmacher Institute

For those who think making abortion illegal is the way to reduce abortions, read their conclusion:
“Notably, abortion rates are similar in countries where abortion is highly restricted and where it is broadly legal: The abortion rate is 37 per 1,000 women in countries where abortion is prohibited or permitted only to save the life of the pregnant woman, and 34 per 1,000 women in countries where abortion is not restricted as to reason. Legal restrictions do not eliminate abortion. Rather, they increase the likelihood that abortions will be done unsafely, as they compel women to seek clandestine procedures. Indeed, abortion tends to be safer in countries where it is broadly legal and in countries with a high gross national income.”

Finally, ending abortion or ending sin are both admirable goals. But impractical. Abortion has been around from the beginning of mankind. It’s not going to disappear. But it can be reduced. And that should be the goal. And to reduce it, you need to find the causes and eliminate (as far as possible) the causes. And yes, some causes you can’t eliminate or reduce. But you can affect a lot of them.

 

[stpurl]

Well from the posts I have read from you, you appear to be arguing that blastocysts and zygotes etc are no more ‘human’ than sperm is. So I think that the person who isn’t understanding might be you, actually. Blastocytes and zygotes developing in a human body are not simple sperm; they are a developmental stage of a human being just as much as embryo, fetus, infant, toddler, etc.

 

[Shakuhachi]

Of course that is only preaching to the choir ( and the pews). But it is a start. What we need is a universally respected Catholic voice out there speaking to everyone. Pope Francis is a good start but he needs reinforcement. Not people who come across as accusatory and condemning, but people who can communicate well with persuasive reason. That is where we are lacking.

 

[Randolph]

Admirable, but…practical? Isn’t this like saying “We need to eliminate sin”?

The battle to end abortion is worth fight for. Killing millions of innocent babies throughout the world every year is just pure evil. This is no less than a battle against Satan himself. As I have stated a few times on this thread but it’s worth mentioning again, we probably will fight against abortion until Christ comes again. You may feel that it’s not “practical” to fight it. But, along with the Church and pro-lifers, I know it’s worth it. We fight abortion with hope and with prayers. Have you ever seen, or even held, a beautiful baby, who was allowed to be born—who would have had otherwise been killed through abortion? Have you ever witnessed the sight of relief and joy for a mother who chose to keep her child? I can assure you if you had, you would sing a different tune on this forum right now.

As for your equivalent argument to sins, we also know that sins such as rapes, murders, domestic violence, trafficking of children and women, etc… can not be “eliminated”. Do we then just give up fighting them because it would be “impractical” as you put it?

In a larger question, why do you think, through the Church, Christ instituted the Sacrament of Confession? Why do you think Christ was sent to the world and died on the Cross (Hint: salvation of souls and redemption of sins)?

 

[Elf01]

Not at all. Those are not the causes. The causes are socio-economic: some mothers need free pre-natal care, free health care until the child is 18, monthly subsidies until the child is 18, post-maternity leave, financial help with pre-school, a guarantee that they can return to a job they left to have a baby, etc. All other developed countries have these things. Somehow America, which in one breath people say “is the richest country in the world” can’t afford what every other country can. Does that make any sense?

I don’t know anyonw who would kill a born child if they lost their job and could no longer afford health care. While economics is a factor it’s not the real reason.

There are also higher risks and complications, including death of the mother, as a result of these illegal abortions.”

I have no sympathy for someone who dies in the process of committing murder.

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).

Every post you make on abortion says you are pro abortion. You just claim not to be to ease your conscience.

Once again I have problems with pro-life people who aren’t consistent. Let me give a few examples.

Such as claiming not to be pro abortion, but spends a lot of time justifying it.

 

[Shakuhachi]

Thumma pointed to a number of cultural reasons that may be speeding up the generational shift, including less social pressure to go to church; the clergy sexual abuse scandal, especially in the Catholic Church; and shifting attitudes toward sexuality and gender that clash with traditional Christian teachings.

Smith, the Pew researcher, said a dissatisfaction with conservative political ties to evangelical Christianity may also be fueling the growth of the nones.

“We know religious nones are among the most strongly and consistently Democratic and politically liberal groups in the population,” he said. “We know that in the 2016 election, 68% of nones voted for Hillary Clinton over Donald Trump. We also saw that two-thirds of religiously unaffiliated voters identify with or lean toward the Democratic Party.”

Hemant Mehta, the popular blogger behind the Friendly Atheist, said it’s not that the nones are embracing atheism necessarily. Instead, they may be rebelling against the link between conservative religion and politics.

“They had plenty of opportunity to take the ethical route: Do the nice, kind, decent thing,” Mehta said. “What do the most powerful voices do? They cover up sexual abuse. They became allies with Donald Trump. When you see what they’re doing and who they’re hanging out with, why would anyone want to be part of that club?”

Loading…

www.americamagazine.org

 

[Erikaspirit16]

Well, it’s been fun as always, and it’s always nice to cross paths with my ol’ buddies like elf01 and gout. Same conversations, same result.

So I’m signing off. I’ve said what I have to say, and I’m tired of people saying “You said the grass is blue” when I wrote “The grass is green.” Fantasy world… Anyone who happens along, please read what I wrote, NOT what most people say / think I wrote. They are two totally different things. “Do you have eyes but fail to see, and ears but fail to hear?”

 

[pnewton]

Erikaspirit16:

Why not go a step further and burn them at the stake?

Would that be worse than a “great millstone were put around his neck and he were thrown into the sea” (Mark 9:42)?

So are you pro burning, or millstoning? Do you also believe in hating your parents, as Jesus commanded?

. Instead, they invent words like blastocyst, zygote, and embryo to deny the human life that exists.

Again, I do not know who “they” are, but these are terms to allow greater scientific accuracy and apply to life beyond human. They were not “invented” for anyone’s political agendas.

No. No more than a sperm or an egg is. A zygote is not ‘a little person’.

Bad example. An unfertilized egg cannot become a human being, nor does it contain the genetic material to grow into a human being. A zygote does. The problem remains. Where do you draw the line between human, deserving of rights, and not human? Draw it too late, and there is a killing of a human being. Draw it too early, there is… inconvenience. Even from a secular point of view, abortion should be illegal without pretty good evidence that there is no right to human rights to that which is growing a growing human.

 

[pnewton]

I have no sympathy for someone who dies in the process of committing murder.

This is why the Church makes a distinction between being pro-life and anti-abortion.

 

[Rau]

You are conflating the noun ‘human’ (short for human being) with the adjective ‘human’.

I am talking about the noun Fred. A human. A human being. That nature does not change with stage of development. That’s continuous from conception. Unlike the names we give the stages.

 

[Elf01]

it’s always nice to cross paths with my ol’ buddies like elf01

We’re not buddies.

 

[Rau]

Yes, I understand that position: admit we’re not sure when human life begins and then assume the extreme case (human life begins at conception). It’s a logical and defensible position. But what seems to be lost is the acknowledgement that people of good will can take other positions, and that they have a right to do so.

That other position is based on what? An awareness of what is convenient and self-serving? Plainly those prepared to go along with late term abortion are not acting on a belief that we have no human life at hand.

o_mlly:

The science cannot know when God infuses a soul. Science admits their ignorance and is of no help.

Exactly.

Those defending “abortion rights” do not do so on the basis that God has not provided a soul. They assert their right is the overriding right.

 

[o_mlly]

So are you pro burning, or millstoning? Do you also believe in hating your parents, as Jesus commanded?

Are you baiting? The forum frowns on that tactic.

Again, I do not know who “they” are, but these are terms to allow greater scientific accuracy and apply to life beyond human.

Life beyond human? You are quite mistaken. And you miss the point entirely. The terms are used by direct abortion advocates to erroneously describe life that is not a human being.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

We’re not buddies.

Aw shucks. I thought we had something special going.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

So are you pro burning, or millstoning? Do you also believe in hating your parents, as Jesus commanded?

Unlike o_mlly, I don’t think you’re baiting. I think you’re being funny. Nothing the matter with a little humor. I think, given the choice, I would be for millstoning…esp. in the context of child abuse. Somehow that verse never seems to come up when it’s discussed, but I think of it every time.

 

[pnewton]

Are you baiting? The forum frowns on that tactic.

Not at all. If you do not understand, the reference, never mind.

Unlike o_mlly, I don’t think you’re baiting. I think you’re being funny.

Okay, it was a reference to the way Jesus taught. He is the one who said that one must hate his father and mother. Read Matthew 14:26. It is a way of teaching. Likewise, he is neither commanding we tie millstones around the neck of anyone, or burn them at the stake. The use of the millstone to justify the latter simply misses the way Jesus taught.

For the record, the one to whom Jesus said would be better off with that millstone had nothing to do with abortion. It was a reference to cause the young to stumble spiritually. When Scripture is used, it should be used more carefully than it was above.

Life beyond human? You are quite mistaken

Then I will prove my point.

Loading…

www.intechopen.com

Here is a scientific article where all three of these terms are used for something beyond human context. They are not political inventions.

 

[Freddy]

Bad example. An unfertilized egg cannot become a human being, nor does it contain the genetic material to grow into a human being. A zygote does. The problem remains. Where do you draw the line between human, deserving of rights, and not human? Draw it too late, and there is a killing of a human being. Draw it too early, there is… inconvenience. Even from a secular point of view, abortion should be illegal without pretty good evidence that there is no right to human rights to that which is growing a growing human.

That a zygote is human is my point. Which is that it’s nonsensical to deny it. But it is not a human being. It is not a person. It is not just a tiny version of the parent. It’s a group of cells that contain the genetic makeup of both parents. Whereas a baby the day before it’s born obviously is a smaller version of the parents.

And therein lies a problem in deciding at what point it has become enough of an individual person in it’s own right that abortion becomes an immoral act. Obviously immoral the day before birth. And in very many people’s view, definitely not immoral shortly after conception.

And there is no definitive answer. It’s like asking when your son becomes a man. He’s not when he’s ten but certainly is when he’s thirty. So you can’t send him off to join the navy when he’s ten but you can when he’s thirty. And the specific date at which that changes is entirely arbitrary. As it is when some states declare ‘no abortions after this point’. Which, when you look at it from a moral point of view is nonsensical. Something cannot be moral at 11:30pm but immoral at 12:30am the following day.

So some say we should therefore ban abortions at all stages. Which is akin to saying that as we can’t send the ten year old to sea, we shouldn’t send the thirty year old either.

Then again, if we need to determine the lower end at which it’s acceptable, then all those who state that it shouldn’t happen at all have obviously excused themselves from the discussion.

 

[Freddy]

Well from the posts I have read from you, you appear to be arguing that blastocysts and zygotes etc are no more ‘human’ than sperm is.

No. You are still missing the point. They are all human. They are all from the same species. They are identifiable as being human as compared to a chimp or any other mammal.

And yes, as you rightly said, they are stages in development. Exactly right. That’s why we have these terms - to describe those stages. But the noun ‘person’ is simply not applicable. A blastocyst or a zygote is not a tiny person. You can argue every day and twice on Sunday that it is but you will only be expressing your opinion on the matter.

I appreciate your opinion. That is, I understand it. I simply don’t agree with it. I wish you could appreciate my opinion as well. Whilst still disagreeing with it.

But what a lot of people are doing, and always do in threads like this, is refuse to understand. And I mean actively refuse to do so. As if admitting that they understand someone’s view is somehow acceding to it in some way.

 

[vz71]

That a zygote is human is my point. Which is that it’s nonsensical to deny it. But it is not a human being.

Shifting the goal posts.
We are talking about human lives.
And in that, there is no denying the human life from the moment of conception.

Everyone knows this, hence the effort to shift into some undefined term as “human being”.