Pro-abortion arguments...those who are pro-choice, what do/did you really believe?

[Imryl]

I have seen those pictures before, and they do not move me in the slightest. And yes, I did know when the heart starts beating.

 

[church_mouse]

I have seen those pictures before, and they do not move me in the slightest. And yes, I did know when the heart starts beating.

How sad.

 

[mapleoak]

A cluster of cells may be ‘living’ in the organic sense, but that does not constitute a living breathing, thinking, feeling thing.

A cluster of cells may not constitue a “breathing, thinking, feeling thing.” This is no way means it is not a human being with a rational soul.

In Christ - J.M.J.
Mapleoak

 

[Imryl]

Comes with the territory Mouse.

 

[church_mouse]

Comes with the territory Mouse.

I suspected that.

 

[mapleoak]

I personally don’t care if the baby/fetus is considered ‘alive’ or not.

Myself and others do care.

It is not your place, my place, or anyone elses place to tell someone what they should do in this matter. It is a personal choice, a private matter.

Sorry, but murder, whether of the born or unborn, young or old, is not a personal matter. It is an obligation to stand in the unborn’s defense.

In Christ - J.M.J.
Mapleoak

 

[st_lucy]

So what you’re saying here, is only your opinion matters when we start defining what life actually is. You get to define it? If this were all so scientific, we wouldn’t even be having this conversation. There is a grey area… I imagine, because of religion mostly.

But again, that is just my opinion.

lets see what the scientist think:

Definition of life from Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life

Conventional definition: Often scientists say that life is a characteristic of organisms that exhibit the following phenomena:

Homeostasis: Regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state; for example, sweating to reduce temperature.
Organization: Being composed of one or more cells, which are the basic units of life.
Metabolism: Consumption of energy by converting nonliving material into cellular components (anabolism) and decomposing organic matter (catabolism). Living things require energy to maintain internal organization (homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life.
Growth: Maintenance of a higher rate of synthesis than catalysis. A growing organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply accumulating matter. The particular species begins to multiply and expand as the evolution continues to flourish.
Adaptation: The ability to change over a period of time in response to the environment. This ability is fundamental to the process of evolution and is determined by the organism’s heredity as well as the composition of metabolized substances, and external factors present.
Response to stimuli: A response can take many forms, from the contraction of a unicellular organism when touched to complex reactions involving all the senses of higher animals. A response is often expressed by motion, for example, the leaves of a plant turning toward the sun or an animal chasing its prey.
Reproduction: The ability to produce new organisms. Reproduction can be the division of one cell to form two new cells. Usually the term is applied to the production of a new individual (either asexually, from a single parent organism, or sexually, from at least two differing parent organisms), although strictly speaking it also describes the production of new cells in the process of growth.

I didn’t find a definition for non-living, so I would guess that is a new term that you made up. Maybe you can care to explain to us what it means.

As for the definition for life I think that the fetus fits everyone of them.

 

[estesbob]

I have seen those pictures before, and they do not move me in the slightest. And yes, I did know when the heart starts beating.

So how much of the childs body has to be deilivered beforeyou think its wrong to kill it?

 

[st_lucy]

A cluster of cells may be ‘living’ in the organic sense, but that does not constitute a living breathing, thinking, feeling thing. You better go turn yourself into the justice department, all those trees you’ve killed, bacteria you’ve decimated with your cleaners, all the insects that you have plastered on your windshield.

How do you know this. Scientist have found the fetus does happent to feel pain. So something is happening. Or do live by the rule that if you can’t hear them, than it is not happening? The fact is you cannot be sure if they are doing any of these things. Wouldn’t you rather error on the safe side.

 

[jack_hawkins]

My point is, if you saw first hand how pregnant women were treated by those who care for both mother and baby you wouldn’t make such allegations

well they are not allegations church mouse, they are observations
please note my comments - some Christians
I never said all or most, and I have stated that the Catholic Church does a lot to support people in the situation where they are considering an abortion, and I admire and respect the people that help them - I do
it would be wrong to deny there is hypocrisy - that is all part of human nature after all
I just think awareness of that fact helps us tackle the problem more holistically

 

[jack_hawkins]

Yes, in one post you said an ectopic pregnancy does not consist of a living human being and then you refer to it as a living human being

did I? where exactly? and what exactly is your point?

Is that the best you can do? Sorry, not convinced. Did not make the point

there’s no telling some people - oif you don’t want to see the point…

That is most certainly correct. No action that is going to result in the death of a human being can be acceptable for the purposes of preventative surgery, nor can it be adequately rationalized

Treatment for ectopic pregnancy can perfectly well be rationalised. Do you leave all women with ectopic pregnancy to die? If not, then you have rationalised killing an embryo to save a life. It is that simple.

 

[mapleoak]

did I? where exactly? and what exactly is your point?

Right here:

it seems intuitively incorrect that it is at conception because of the phenomenon of monozygotic twins
I have found the idea that all zygotes have souls can lead to some bizarre practices (yes the notion is not confined to the Catholic Church), but that is digressing
so we can’t say that an ectopic pregnancy has a soul

and then…

all forms of treatment for ectopic pregnancy directly kill the embryo - so you would not treat ectopic pregnancy then?
that is murder also

inferring that killing the embryo is murder and allowing a woman with an ectopic pregnancy to die is murder. A non human embryo cannot be murdered. After which I responded with the question of how you can choose to use murder as a preventative treatment. If it truly is not a human being, there would be absolutely no problem in performing preventative treatment.

further…

the issue of abortion to save the mother’s life is slightly different
again I think that it should be allowed in certain circumstances, but only where there is a grave threat to the mother’s health
that is because I am pro-life in the non-fanatical sense of the word

Why would you say is should only be allowed when there is a grave threat. If it is not a person, what difference does it make?

there’s no telling some people - oif you don’t want to see the point…

I asked for an example, but haven’t received one other than an attempt at AAA which is not something that I had commented on prior to asking the question. I did however point out that preventative surgery in the case of AAA is not at all comparable to preventative surgery in ectopic pregnancy due to the fact that with AAA there is no threat of killing an embryo.

Treatment for ectopic pregnancy can perfectly well be rationalised. Do you leave all women with ectopic pregnancy to die? If not, then you have rationalised killing an embryo to save a life. It is that simple.

it is morally licit to save a woman’s life rather than let her die futilely
because the purpose of salpingectomy is to remove the pregnancy, since the tube is not the immediate problem at all and can be preserved

HOW is it morally licit to kill someone to save the life of someone else. Again, this is likened to my analogy of the gunman and two brothers.

In Christ - J.M.J.
Mapleoak

 

[jack_hawkins]

mapleoak, I think you have managed to confuse even yourself with your word games
you seem that accepting one of your premises for the sake of making my argument is accepting your premise full stop
this clearly is not the case
thereafter your post becomes more and more nonsensical
I have made my points clearly several times, and at no time have had you had a satisfactory answer or even shown any sign of understanding
since this is getting nowhere I won’t be wasting my time trying to explain what is quite a simple situation

 

[jack_hawkins]

mapleoak, I think you have managed to confuse even yourself with your word games
you seem to think that accepting one of your premises for the sake of making my argument is accepting your premise full stop
this clearly is not the case
thereafter your post becomes more and more nonsensical
I have made my points clearly several times, and at no time have had you had a satisfactory answer or even shown any sign of understanding
since this is getting nowhere I won’t be wasting my time trying to explain what is quite a simple situation
PS you confuse inferring with implying

 

[estesbob]

mapleoak, I think you have managed to confuse even yourself with your word games
you seem to think that accepting one of your premises for the sake of making my argument is accepting your premise full stop
this clearly is not the case
thereafter your post becomes more and more nonsensical
I have made my points clearly several times, and at no time have had you had a satisfactory answer or even shown any sign of understanding
since this is getting nowhere I won’t be wasting my time trying to explain what is quite a simple situation
PS you confuse inferring with implying

Under what circumstances do you consider abortion acceptable?

 

[jack_hawkins]

Under what circumstances do you consider abortion acceptable?

someone else asked me this earlier in the thread - probably several pages back by now
have a look there, post #184

 

[estesbob]

someone else asked me this earlier in the thread - probably several pages back by now
have a look there, post #184

It was me . So you favor abortion only when there is grave danger to the Mothers Life? I think that is preety mainstream pro-life. Makes me wonder what all the fuss is about.

 

[jack_hawkins]

It was me . So you favor abortion only when there is grave danger to the Mothers Life? I think that is preety mainstream pro-life. Makes me wonder what all the fuss is about.

It was you? I thought it was Catholic Buckeye???
I would say that is pretty fundamentally pro-life - but then there are always people who take everything to extremes. Maybe they need a cause to fight for?
Then the extremists start bullying everyone else saying that they are not properly pro-life if they don’t agree with the extremists’ views.

 

[jack_hawkins]

the position that all products of conception should be treated as souls has several problems
what about monozygotic twins? how can ensoulment occur at conception?
what about the large number of zygotes that never implant?
what about cases of fetus in feto - how should this be treated under this paradigm?

 

[vern_humphrey]

the position that all products of conception should be treated as souls has several problems
what about monozygotic twins? how can ensoulment occur at conception?

Simple – the soul is not a material object as you seem to believe.

The soul is the spirit and not bould by the rules of the material world.

Just as each twin is wholly human, so it’s soul is a wholly human soul.

what about the large number of zygotes that never implant?

What about the large number of zygotes that do implant, and die later (maybe a hundred years later)?

See how silly this line of argument is?

what about cases of fetus in feto - how should this be treated under this paradigm?

Do you mean “treated” in the medical sense? Of do you mean “regarded” in the philosophical or theological sense.

If the latter, it should be regarded the same as any other human being. Why should it be different?