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.
stpurl said:
Re the ‘convinced it is a clump of cells’ type argument.

Well that whole bogus argument is a product of the 1960s onward. I know, I was ‘there’. The thing is, prior to this ‘argument’, women believed that when they got pregnant, they were going to have a baby. There was no ‘clump of cells’ etc.
Click to expand...
But there is a small clump of cells. The pregnancy doesn’t even start when it’s formed. The egg goes through at least two separate stages before the pregnancy even starts. This is basic biology. No-one is being given bogus information. It’s how that information is interpreted is what you have a problem with.

A woman can take a morning after pill and declare ‘I am not ending a pregnancy. My pregnancy hasn’t even started!’

How you change her mind about that seems to me to be an impossible task.
 
BlessedYoungCatholic said:
Yea well people don’t get abortions 24-36 hrs after getting a pregnancy and that’s a fact. And not to mention instantly at the moment of conception the life of human being starts because they start to have a soul, and start individually growing.she had a choice before (not counting other circumstances) It’s not up to the mom anymore what she wants to do after the moment of conception takes place
Click to expand...
Perhaps you mean 24 - 36 hours after conception. The pregnancy doesn’t start until a few days after that. In which case a woman can take a morning-after pill to prevent the implantation of the blastocyst onto the uterine wall. By definition, that is not an abortion. Those are the facts.

But still against church teaching.
 
Donkey said:
Perhaps the Church has always been too soft on its stance against abortion.
Click to expand...
The Church is the standard. It is not too soft. You are too hard, based on your call for massive excommunication, 99% of Americans. You can learn from the Church, accept the Church, or try to teach the Church and be your own pope.

The Church is more than anti-abortion. She is pro-life. Society will not be changed with an hypocrisy of life that is more important in the womb than out of it. Until society becomes pro-life, fully and not just anti-abortion, we will have abortion. Ending abortion can only be a result of changing society, not the other way around.
 
Ah I see you’ve been inculcated.

What exactly do you mean by “the pregnancy doesn’t even start when it’s (sic) formed”?
I know ‘basic biology’. I also know what was said re the ‘clump of cells’ or ‘tissue’ and it was not ‘the morning after’, it was said of pregnancy even at 8 weeks along. “Clump of tissue”. “Rudimentary”. “Indistinguishable from tissue in cows or other mammals at the same development stage’. IOW, this was not applied to ‘the morning after pill’, it was applied to pregnancies —yes pregnancies—at 8 to even 12 weeks and further.
Since implantation needs to occur it is true that at 12 hours after intercourse even if the sperm and ova have ‘met’ they will not necessarily continue ‘on’; in fact, often a fertilised egg will develop some sort of defect and fail to implant and thus no pregnancy will occur, mostly just a slightly heavier period. But you’re moving the goal posts. Since intercourse can occur, even in ‘fertile times’ and a woman will not necessarily conceive, there is no way that a woman taking the morning after pill knows for a certainty she IS pregnant. Pregnancy test strips don’t ‘light up’ immediately upon conception.

That of course does not change the fact that IF a pregnancy has occurred, the pregnancy is not ‘a clump of cells’ any more than the woman herself is simply a ‘clump of cells’ that just happens to have developed for a longer period of time.
 
stpurl said:
What exactly do you mean by “the pregnancy doesn’t even start when it’s (sic) formed”?
I know ‘basic biology’.
Click to expand...
If you know basic biology then you will know that after the egg is fertilised it takes a few days before it is implanted. The moment it is implanted is when the pregnancy begins. When it implants, that’s the first hour of the first day. The clock starts at that point.

And there’s no need for (sic). The sentence is correct as it stands: ‘The pregnancy doesn’t even start when it is (it’s) formed’. ‘It’ refers to the small clump of cells aka a zygote. Which becomes a blastocyst prior to being implanted.

The morning-after pill doesn’t end a pregnancy. It works if taken after conception but before implantation (the point at which pregnancy starts). And no, a woman won’t know she’s conceived at that time. Some will have. Most will not. But those who have and have taken the pill will cause the zygote or the blastocyst to be ejected.

The majority of women who take these pills appear to have no problem in terminating the process. Without making any moral determination, I can see why. Most people posting don’t.
 
I don’t know that the title of this thread needs any comentary. It pretty much speaks for itself.
 
pnewton said:
40.png
Donkey:
Perhaps the Church has always been too soft on its stance against abortion.
Click to expand...
The Church is the standard. It is not too soft. You are too hard, based on your call for massive excommunication, 99% of Americans. You can learn from the Church, accept the Church, or try to teach the Church and be your own pope.

The Church is more than anti-abortion. She is pro-life. Society will not be changed with an hypocrisy of life that is more important in the womb than out of it. Until society becomes pro-life, fully and not just anti-abortion, we will have abortion. Ending abortion can only be a result of changing society, not the other way around.
Click to expand...
The Church’s moral rejection of abortion is certainly pursuant to the good of human life, and is the basis of a holistic pro life approach that is a seamless garment.

As part of that, the Church recognizes abortion as a crime against humanity, and as a slaughter of the least among us. The right to live and breathe gives every other right it’s source and meaning.

It’s really the luxury of the insulated and comfortable… to be able to wait until society becomes pro life enough…to speak out against heinous evil. You and I can afford to wait until perfection arrives, because we are not at the point of a knife. The least among us don’t have that luxury. And we know that God does not see our complacency the same way, because the blood of the innocent “cries out to me from the ground”. God is not waiting for our societal perfection, God hears that voice now.
 
goout said:
It’s really the luxury of the insulated and comfortable… to be able to wait until society becomes pro life enough…to speak out against heinous evil.
Click to expand...
The real question is, “What is the most persuasive means of changing the opinion of society”?

IMHO, since most Pro-choice people seem to be on the liberal side and do have concern about the well being of people and social programs and structures to help the most vulnerable,we need to help them see life in the womb as deserving equal protection as a child.

So we are talking about a Consistent Life Ethic. the prime place for that is in the Democratic party. of course right now, Pro-life Democrats are not welcome in the party. We need to stay and do all we can to change that.
https://www.democratsforlife.org/
 
Thanks for the response but you conveniently went on with your ‘explanation’ ignoring the fact that I addressed implantation myself to show that I know ‘basic biology’.

Your post thus gives the impression that ‘you’ are informing ‘me’ of things I didn’t know. Since I did address implantation, the least you could have done was state something on the order of, “as you noted, implantation’ etc. Etc.

So instead of addressing that (and again, I was there) the whole ‘clump of cells’ was presented to women as ‘biology for pregnancies up to 12 weeks along, you hark back to ‘implantation’ and the morning after pill which I had already addressed.

And the true and main point is that once the egg and sperm meet (fertilisation) that starts the whole pregnancy process. Whether or not the pregnancy is viable, meaning that it continues on through all the steps which start at conception itself, NOT at implantation or at some point such as ‘embryo as opposed to zygote etc is the point. As I mentioned, a fertilised egg/sperm may naturally fail to continue on those steps at some point which is where one has a miscarriage of the pregnancy. And yes, at a few hours after intercourse and fertilisation the pregnancy may ‘fail to implant’ and thus fail the other later steps. It is the nature of whether the failure was ‘natural’ or not that we’re concerned with.

If an infant is deprived of a food supply and dies, there is a difference between whether the infant had, perhaps, a disorder or a defect in his or her own body which led to something like malabsorption which could not be surgically corrected and thus the infant would die —a sad but natural event. . .

OR whether the infant is put into a crib, the mother refuses to breast or bottle feed or to allow any other person to feed the child, or to allow the child to receive parenteral feedings, and the child starves to death. That is NOT a ‘natural event.’

Similarly, a pregnancy which fails due to ‘natural causes’ in the child or the mother is not a deliberate termination.

A pregnancy which is halted at any point by outside sources even if the source is initiated by the mother herself. . .IS deliberate, artificial, termination. At ANY point, and this includes ‘prior to implantation.’
 
goout said:
It’s really the luxury of the insulated and comfortable… to be able to wait until society becomes pro life enough…to speak out against heinous evil.
Click to expand...
I said nothing about waiting to condemn abortion. But speaking out with hypocrisy does no good. The Church condemns abortion with moral authority, but then the Church does so from a moral position that values all life. Humanae Vitae condemned abortion only after laying the foundation of the value of life.

There is not either/or when it comes to pro-life values.
 
Last edited:
pnewton said:
The Church is the standard. It is not too soft. You are too hard, based on your call for massive excommunication, 99% of Americans. You can learn from the Church, accept the Church, or try to teach the Church and be your own pope.
Click to expand...
I do tend to be hard.
Your estimated 99% excommunicated is way too high. My guess is closer to 50%. Just as Pope Francis magnanimously opened the door of extraordinary Mercy during the Year of Mercy, he can for one single day, in one fell swoop call for excommunication of all those that vote for abortion. Fortunately for many, I am not pope.
 
Last edited:
At no point from conception forward is the newly formed human a “clump of cells.” The ovum itself is highly organized. When one sperm penetrates the ovum, a barrier is created to prevent any further sperm entry. Fertiliztion proceeds and it also a highly organized process, working toward the end of full development of the new individual. The embryo cannot survive unless it implants in the womb. You can call that the start of pregnancy, but the new individual remains a geneticlly distinct new member of the human species even before that point.
 
Sorry if I was not clear but I was making a reference to somebody taking the ‘morning after pill’, in effect, literally the ‘morning after’.
 
pnewton said:
40.png
goout:
It’s really the luxury of the insulated and comfortable… to be able to wait until society becomes pro life enough…to speak out against heinous evil.
Click to expand...
I said nothing about waiting to condemn abortion. But speaking out with hypocrisy does no good. The Church condemns abortion with moral authority, but then the Church does so from a moral position that values all life. Humanae Vitae condemned abortion only after laying the foundation of the value of life.

There is not either/or when it comes to pro-life values.
Click to expand...
Who disagrees with any of the church’s position? What is the point you are trying to make? You are taking exception with something. What is it?

You seem to be crying hypocrisy very selectively for a one sided point of view rather than embracing the Church’s holistic view of life. Where is the hypocrisy that you see? If you are accusing the pro-life community of not doing their share, you are swimming against the factual tide, because the pro life community leads the way in human welfare, from Catholic social services to parish collections, hospitals, education, all the way down to the sidewalk where children and mothers are rescued and cribs are purchased for them.

Which hypocrisy are you defaulting to? Is it the hypocrisy of those who turn a tolerant eye to the killiing of children while talking about seamless garments of life? There are actual body counts for that hypocrisy.

So which hypocrisy, specifically?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top