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

[Freddy]

Freddy:

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”.

Those posts are set in concrete, vz. I have stated my position on very many ocassions and it has not moved. And I have explained my position on vey many ocassions. And those explanations have not changed in the slightest. I have been very specific about what I mean and how I use the terms I do and how they relate to my opinion. None of that has changed whatsoever.

You are obviously free to disagree with my position. But if you want to suggest that you don’t understand it or that I am changing it throughout the discussion then I’m at a loss as to how you can come to that conclusion.

 

[vz71]

Those posts are set in concrete, vz. I have stated my position on very many ocassions and it has not moved.

Perhaps you could point out to me, in this thread, where “human being” came from as it relates to a discussion on human life.

Seems to me that it just came up.

Previous to that, we were discussing human life.

Perhaps I misread. It is a very long thread.
Kindly point out the post I must have missed.

 

[pnewton]

Thank you for the readable reply. Obviously I believe life begins at conception, but that is a doctrinal argument, not a legal one. I do believe it a valid legal argument that we should always err on the side that does constitute the taking of human life, just as other activity that may or may not take an innocent life is considered illegal.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

Those posts are set in concrete, vz. I have stated my position on very many ocassions and it has not moved.

Perhaps you could point out to me, in this thread, where “human being” came from as it relates to a discussion on human life.

Seems to me that it just came up.

Previous to that, we were discussing human life.

Perhaps I misread. It is a very long thread.
Kindly point out the post I must have missed.

Without digging tbrough all the posts, I know I brought it up at one point myself. It was to emphasise that ‘human’ can be used adjectively (that blastocyst is human - as opposed to any other type of mammal) and as a noun (Bolt is the fastest human on the planet). The second example is using human as shorthand for human being. It’s interchangeable with person - Bolt is the fastest person on the planet.

If you have a human blastocyst in a test tube then it really makes no sense to say there’s a person in there. But that’s the argument being put forward.

 

[Freddy]

Thank you for the readable reply. Obviously I believe life begins at conception, but that is a doctrinal argument, not a legal one. I do believe it a valid legal argument that we should always err on the side that does constitute the taking of human life, just as other activity that may or may not take an innocent life is considered illegal.

Again, I agree with you that life begins at conception. I really have no problem with that. And it’s human life. I have no problem with that either. It’s undeniable. But I don’t agree with it being referred to as a person immediately after conception.

 

[Pattylt]

But I don’t agree with it being referred to as a person immediately after conception.

I know plenty of pro choice people. Answering when or what stage of development it becomes a moral issue for them is like nailing jello on a wall. I think, these days, (haven’t asked anyone lately) most are tending to go with brain development or the point it actually is capable of feeling pain…not just a reflex action. They really and truly don’t consider it immoral before then.

How we could go about changing these ideas are the million dollar question! It’s also a value judgment as many people have little to no value placed upon the life in the womb in the early stages at the least. I’ve heard women claim they don’t care if it’s a baby or not, they can just make more later…when they’re ready for a baby! I have no idea how to change that mindset. After all, for thousands of years many women and children were treated as replaceable property.

Theological arguments may work on those with faith but as more people become “Nones”, those arguments will get you nowhere. There are non theological arguments. Will they be listened to? Doubtful nowadays. Somehow, sometime, the value placed on child bearing and children will have to change to drastically reduce abortions. Until then all we can do is try to reduce some of them…with the goal of none.

I personally think Roe v Wade is a lost cause. Even striking it down, even making abortion illegal throughout the US is not going to help much. Today we have medication abortions…something we never had before except as uncertain herbs. These medications are known, safe and easily obtained and can be turned to in an instant. You can even get them online. Make abortion illegal and now we’ll have no idea who’s getting them. It’ll all just become a hidden crime and no doctors need be involved. We won’t have any opportunity to even help these women! I don’t like that idea at all!

 

[toddy]

Lose sense of sin is the scariest sin.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

But I don’t agree with it being referred to as a person immediately after conception.

I know plenty of pro choice people. Answering when or what stage of development it becomes a moral issue for them is like nailing jello on a wall. I think, these days, (haven’t asked anyone lately) most are tending to go with brain development or the point it actually is capable of feeling pain…not just a reflex action. They really and truly don’t consider it immoral before then.

I don’t think that there is a specific time when you can say ‘here is ok but not a moment longer’. To me, it’s perfectly acceptable two weeks after conception and totally unacceptable two weeks before birth. And there’s no bright line where it changes from one to the other.

How do we reduce it? Free and efficient birth control. But as that’s not acceptable to be used as an argument (although the vast majority of women of all faiths use it) then…I dunno. Throw more money at supporting women financially if they become pregnant?

 

[pnewton]

I don’t think that there is a specific time when you can say ‘here is ok but not a moment longer’. To me, it’s perfectly acceptable two weeks after conception and totally unacceptable two weeks before birth. And there’s no bright line where it changes from one to the other.

As I see it, this is the best argument for abortion being illegal. It is a clear line, and one that will not take any lives deserving of protection. Anything else, even from a secular view point, at least risks that.

 

[Pattylt]

I think there is certainly more we can do in the US to help women choose life but it’ll only reduce the numbers and possibly insignificantly at that.

When we give women such a short leave of absence for childbirth and no guarantee of holding their position within their company, what does that say about the value of motherhood?

When healthcare access is prohibitively expensive and childhood medical costs are also prohibitively expensive, what does that say about the value of children?

When daycare costs eat up your entire paycheck, if it’s even available, what message goes out?

These are all steps that could at the least say we value motherhood and children but instead, we hear how costly that would be to companies or government. At some point, if we really value motherhood and children, we may have to put our money where our mouths are. And this still won’t eliminate abortions, but it might reduce them. When are we going to show women that we value their child bearing abilities? Instead, we look like the forced birthers we’re accused of being. Much needs to change to deal with the abortion “problem”.

 

[Miketdobbs]

The USA is one of the only developed countries in the world that doesn’t offer parental leave. This is abhorrent in my opinion.

So many people that contemplate abortion, do not do so out of hatred or malice… but out of fear and anxiety. A country that does not support a pregnant women by offering maternity leave is a country full of hypocrisy. Expecting you to make the right moral choice without offering assistance isn’t Christian in my opinion.

Healthcare and daycare are other areas that seem to leave pregnant women out in the cold. I am not for socialism… but there are some ideas like healthcare, maternity leave that would make it less stressful for women who are contemplating abortion. They already feel tremendous pressure… and what are we doing to alleviate that?

 

[o_mlly]

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

Clearly you do not understand the correct interpretation of your own reference. Or the one I cited. I could help you out, if you like. Start a new thread.

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

You are very confused. Did you read Mat 14:26? Whatever are you trying to say?

Here is a scientific article where all three of these terms are used for something beyond human context.

You’re still missing the point. It’s not how science uses the terms, it’s how abortion advocates use them.

 

[o_mlly]

Again, I agree with you that life begins at conception. I really have no problem with that. And it’s human life. I have no problem with that either. It’s undeniable. But I don’t agree with it being referred to as a person immediately after conception.

Here’s your problem with this sophistry: it is moral to kill an innocent human being but immoral to kill an innocent person. You really want to make that your argument?

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

Again, I agree with you that life begins at conception. I really have no problem with that. And it’s human life. I have no problem with that either. It’s undeniable. But I don’t agree with it being referred to as a person immediately after conception.

Here’s your problem with this sophistry: it is moral to kill an innocent human being but immoral to kill an innocent person. You really want to make that your argument?

Some of you guys really don’t get the difference between something being human and someone being a human being. It’s been explained a number of times so I’m putting this down not so much as a lack of understanding of the difference but rather an unwillingness to accept it.

 

[goout]

The USA is one of the only developed countries in the world that doesn’t offer parental leave. This is abhorrent in my opinion.

So many people that contemplate abortion, do not do so out of hatred or malice… but out of fear and anxiety. A country that does not support a pregnant women by offering maternity leave is a country full of hypocrisy. Expecting you to make the right moral choice without offering assistance isn’t Christian in my opinion.

Healthcare and daycare are other areas that seem to leave pregnant women out in the cold. I am not for socialism… but there are some ideas like healthcare, maternity leave that would make it less stressful for women who are contemplating abortion. They already feel tremendous pressure… and what are we doing to alleviate that?

That “we” includes the responsibility all of us have. In this context I assume you are asking about the Church’s responsibility, or Christian responsibility in general. Hopefully the Church’s initiatives in the social arena that contribute to healthy and loving families are obvious.

Hospital systems.

Health care for the poorest of the poor.

Catholic Charities…etc (too may Catholic social agencies to mention, all around the globe)

Schools. From university level to preshools. (Although Catholic schools are now dangerously elitist and have strayed from their core mission to provide education and formation for everyone regardless of social status)

Adoption. My next door neighbors have adopted 5 children between them. Our deacon raised 2 adopted children.

Rescue operations. From the clinic parking lot to the crib pro life teams are involved in helping parents provide for a child. Our diocesan team recently filled an Amazon gift list very quickly for a mother who is keeping her child, rescued from the clinic parking lot.

These things are not congratulatory items. They are the tip of the iceberg in terms of needs. But that is where charity and love shine forth. No sense moaning that “we” are not doing enough. It doesn’t solve problems and it doesn’t excuse abortion.

Terminating life does not solve life’s problems or help provide for others.

 

[goout]

o_mlly:

Freddy:

Again, I agree with you that life begins at conception. I really have no problem with that. And it’s human life. I have no problem with that either. It’s undeniable. But I don’t agree with it being referred to as a person immediately after conception.

Here’s your problem with this sophistry: it is moral to kill an innocent human being but immoral to kill an innocent person. You really want to make that your argument?

Some of you guys really don’t get the difference between something being human and someone being a human being. It’s been explained a number of times so I’m putting this down not so much as a lack of understanding of the difference but rather an unwillingness to accept it.

I find it interesting that an atheist materialist is hinging an argument on the difference between
a thing that can be clearly and scientifically classified as human
and a being that somehow passes an un-provable threshold to your satisfaction

It puts you of all people in the realm of personal, subjective, superstitions that are anti science.
How do you handle that sort of contradiction?

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

o_mlly:

Freddy:

Again, I agree with you that life begins at conception. I really have no problem with that. And it’s human life. I have no problem with that either. It’s undeniable. But I don’t agree with it being referred to as a person immediately after conception.

Here’s your problem with this sophistry: it is moral to kill an innocent human being but immoral to kill an innocent person. You really want to make that your argument?

Some of you guys really don’t get the difference between something being human and someone being a human being. It’s been explained a number of times so I’m putting this down not so much as a lack of understanding of the difference but rather an unwillingness to accept it.

I find it interesting that an atheist materialist is hinging an argument on the difference between
a thing that can be clearly and scientifically classified as human
and a being that somehow passes an un-provable threshold to your satisfaction

It puts you of all people in the realm of personal, subjective, superstitions that are anti science.
How do you handle that sort of contradiction?

Did anyone say it wasn’t personal and subjective? But it’s certainly not anti science. Unless you can find a scientific article that describes a zygote as a person. And I don’t think that you’re going to be able to do that.

Which won’t prove you wrong by the way.

 

[Randolph]

Some of you guys really don’t get the difference between some thing being human and some one being a human being. It’s been explained a number of times so I’m putting this down not so much as a lack of understanding of the difference but rather an unwillingness to accept it.

Freddy, perhaps this simple experiment would help you to understand human life:

Why don’t you go ask your own mother (or any mothers) what it was like carrying you (or anyone) in her womb? I can assure you that your mother would say something like; “When I was pregnant with “you” (Freddy the person)—NOT when I was pregnant with “something” like you…

Don’t make light of the early process of human life development by referring human life as “something”. This is a pathetic argument laid out by abortionists to label early human life development as “something” so that they could justify abortion.

Human life begins at conception. This means that at conception a human soul is also formed—although not yet a fully developed person.

 

[Freddy]

Miketdobbs:

The USA is one of the only developed countries in the world that doesn’t offer parental leave. This is abhorrent in my opinion.

So many people that contemplate abortion, do not do so out of hatred or malice… but out of fear and anxiety. A country that does not support a pregnant women by offering maternity leave is a country full of hypocrisy. Expecting you to make the right moral choice without offering assistance isn’t Christian in my opinion.

Healthcare and daycare are other areas that seem to leave pregnant women out in the cold. I am not for socialism… but there are some ideas like healthcare, maternity leave that would make it less stressful for women who are contemplating abortion. They already feel tremendous pressure… and what are we doing to alleviate that?

That “we” includes the responsibility all of us have.

I think it’s a federal responsibility. I think that it was in this thread that benefits available to pregnant women were listed for Canada and Australia. Way ahead of anything that the US provides. And the abortion rate is significantly lower in each of those countries.

It would seem to me that the benefits have a direct impact on the problem.

 

[goout]

goout:

Freddy:

o_mlly:

Freddy:

Again, I agree with you that life begins at conception. I really have no problem with that. And it’s human life. I have no problem with that either. It’s undeniable. But I don’t agree with it being referred to as a person immediately after conception.

Here’s your problem with this sophistry: it is moral to kill an innocent human being but immoral to kill an innocent person. You really want to make that your argument?

Some of you guys really don’t get the difference between something being human and someone being a human being. It’s been explained a number of times so I’m putting this down not so much as a lack of understanding of the difference but rather an unwillingness to accept it.

I find it interesting that an atheist materialist is hinging an argument on the difference between
a thing that can be clearly and scientifically classified as human
and a being that somehow passes an un-provable threshold to your satisfaction

It puts you of all people in the realm of personal, subjective, superstitions that are anti science.
How do you handle that sort of contradiction?

Did anyone say it wasn’t personal and subjective? But it’s certainly not anti science. Unless you can find a scientific article that describes a zygote as a person. And I don’t think that you’re going to be able to do that.

Which won’t prove you wrong by the way.

You yourself are choosing the value of “human-ness”, based on personal and subjective criteria that are anti science.
At the same time you are a materialist.
How do you handle the contradiction?

It seems you handle it by simply denying humanity, other than what is ascribed by your personal and subjective determinations.
That’s not reason, it’s arrogance. A materialist ought to have better grounds, especially when it comes to something as weighty as the value of humanity.