W
- Status
W
Worthy5
Guest
:frighten:
I agree, you guys win!!!:clapping::dancing:
C
Caramel
Guest
First of all, I would like to welcome you to the forum. I was a member a long time ago and recently became active again.
I don’t think you can be too controversial or political, at least that is my opinion after seeing some of the topics that have been discussed.
I think, though, that the best thing to do would be to start a new thread with exactly the same words you are using in your post here. The current discussion is getting long and may be winding down. I’m glad you are prolife!! Me too!!
I may be completely wrong about this. I don’t know what other members would think…Did you read the OP (original post?) What we have been trying to debate is personhood. When does a person become a person?? And as your topic, important as it is (believe me, it IS important, you would probably get more responses if you start a new, fresh thread.
Do you know how to do that?? I started one not too long ago and if I can do it it can’t be too hard. If you have any problems I could try to help you or maybe someone else in this discussion.
If you decide to start a thread I would be interested in joining in. It’s very important and something that has confused me during the last two elections.
C
Caramel
Guest
I understand and I’m sorry there was some tension between us. I was trying so hard to keep the thread on the topic that the OP wanted it to be on. I was never trying to be sarcastic and it did hurt when you said that I wasn’t typing my post with a straight face. Because I was. It’s so important to me and I do wish someone would bring up the legalities of abortion in another thread. I’m just not ready to debate that but I felt capable of debating “personhood.”
And you are right about your not originally bringing up the legal issue today - I realized that another member brought it up and that you were attempting to clarify the Supreme Court decisions in Roe and Casey. I’ve actually looked up the decision in the Roe v. Wade case and it is full of terms that I don’t understand. So I guess I have some studying to do.
I was just trying to “nudge” it back to “personhood.”
C
Caramel
Guest
Absolutely true. Well said and well put!! :clapping::tiphat::bowdown:
S
Sailor_Kenshin
Guest
The war of words is a crucial battlefield that we must never abandon. When we use the terms of the enemy (the word ‘choice’ does not equal and is not synonymous to ‘abortion’), we give ground to the enemy, and have actually agreed with him.
Why do you think they have made such a powerful campaign to substitute that word, ‘choice’ for the true description of the act it seeks to hide?
Because it confuses the issue. No one is confused about the meaning of abortion. Choice can mean a million different things, and that is absolutely what the enemies of life intend.
Do not use the word ‘choice’ to indicate abortion. Never give away your battlefield by default.
C
Caramel
Guest
Of course “choice” was used on purpose - who could be against choice?? I’m certainly not. I want to be able to choose. It’s used again with FOCA and that one is even worse because it also contains the word “freedom.” Well, who would be against freedom? Not me!! “Pro-choice” is extremely misleading. And I suppose that some people who are proabotion would say the same thing about the term “pro-life.” But pro-lifers believe in the sanctity of all human life, not just the lives that are snuffed out, stamped out, ripped apart during abortions. We are also concerned with capital punishment, torture, child abuse, yes and even Christian Scientists not allowing their minor children to obtain needed medical care…which would make a very interesting thread!!
You are absolutely correct. But I have found myself typing that term “pro-choice” myself because those who are proabortion have succeeded in their attempt to take the emphasis off “abortion” and put in on “choice.” They’ve done very well. And it’s not “PC” to say proabort or proabortion. I think the more this issue is debated the clearer our position will be and then we won’t be making the mistake of calling those who are proabortion “pro-choice.” At least I hope so…
W
Worthy5
Guest
G
gakroeger
Guest
I don’t think the war of words is nearly as important as the subject of this thread, which is that ALL people must realize that the unborn are human just as we all are. To keep people talking we must not reduce this to a war of words. Pro Choice Pro Life, Anti Life, Anti abortion…
Its a human in the womb and deserves the same respect and protection as all of us. Please do not side track this discussion thread…
C
Caramel
Guest
You are, of course, correct. And I apologize for my last post as it was also off-topic. I think everyone needs to realize that there are many aspects of the abortion situation and that new threads should be started if someone wants to discuss a new topic. This thread specifically deals with the personhood of the human being who is in the womb.
I am sorry.
C
Caramel
Guest
I agree. I am very sorry for my last post, although I have never considered fellow citizens or any other human beings on the planet to be my “enemy.” I have two close friends who have had abortions. That wasn’t the intent of my reply to the post you are referring to.
So, please everyone accept my deep apology and let’s get back on topic…
W
wi11ow
Guest
Hi, new here 
So I started reading all the posts at the begining of the thread and then realized how many pages this has gone on for. Since I dont have the several hours it would take to read the 47 or so pages, I thought I would just weigh in with my 2 cents. My appologies for any already overly discussed points etc.
CWBetts:
Then of course there are embryos used in IVF pregnancies, where generally more then one embryo is produced and fertalized but only one is implanted and allowed to come to term. The remaining embryos are then destroyed, an action that constitutes murder from your perspective.
The genetic composition of a cluster of cells does not a make it a human being, it doesnt even make it a “being”. It is a living organisim and human tissue much like the rest of the cells that make up my body or yours, however to say that a collection of living liver tissue is a human being because of its genetic make up, or that a stem cell despite its capacity to develop into a human bieng is a being in itself is an over extension.
guttmacher.org/media/presskits/2005/06/28/abortionoverview.html
The question of when a fetus “becomes” a human being is a valid one and worthy of exploration. I feel the line must be somewhere in and around the time the fetus becomes able to support itself outside of the mother, which is in the 21-24 weeks range. Once a fetus has reached this stage and can develop on its own into a complete and functional human being I think it is fair to say it is a 'human being" and in truth I cant see a logical reason for aborting a fetus past that stage when it can be simply removed and allowed to develop.
gakroeger:
gakroeger:
I’m curious how many of the religiously inclined hold funerals for miscarrages? I have never been to one, nor do I know anyone who has, despite knowing several people who have had miscarrages themselves. They and I acknowledge the terrible loss that the miscarrage represents but still we as a society dont treat it the same as the loss of a born child. I’m curious as to what you (the board) would think is the reason why
I dont think there is any reason to need an abortion in a modern western society given proper sex education and the availibility of contraceptive devices. With proper availibility of both the rates for abortions would be reduced to just those medical emergencies that most people are willing to make allowances for. The steady decline of abortions amoung affluent women supports the notion.
So I started reading all the posts at the begining of the thread and then realized how many pages this has gone on for. Since I dont have the several hours it would take to read the 47 or so pages, I thought I would just weigh in with my 2 cents. My appologies for any already overly discussed points etc.
I’m sorry but the view that the embryo is a human being from the point of conception or fertalization is a flawed one. If we were to consider this the case then what do we make of the number of fertalized eggs that are evacuated from the system during a womans regular menstration because they havent had enough time for uptake into the uterine wall?
Then of course there are embryos used in IVF pregnancies, where generally more then one embryo is produced and fertalized but only one is implanted and allowed to come to term. The remaining embryos are then destroyed, an action that constitutes murder from your perspective.
The genetic composition of a cluster of cells does not a make it a human being, it doesnt even make it a “being”. It is a living organisim and human tissue much like the rest of the cells that make up my body or yours, however to say that a collection of living liver tissue is a human being because of its genetic make up, or that a stem cell despite its capacity to develop into a human bieng is a being in itself is an over extension.
guttmacher.org/media/presskits/2005/06/28/abortionoverview.html
The truth of the matter is that the vast majority of abortions in the US and Canada take place in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy long before the fetus is anything more then a cluster of cells, and most of the images used to shock and outrage are of late term abortions done out of medical neccessity rather then common practice.
The question of when a fetus “becomes” a human being is a valid one and worthy of exploration. I feel the line must be somewhere in and around the time the fetus becomes able to support itself outside of the mother, which is in the 21-24 weeks range. Once a fetus has reached this stage and can develop on its own into a complete and functional human being I think it is fair to say it is a 'human being" and in truth I cant see a logical reason for aborting a fetus past that stage when it can be simply removed and allowed to develop.
Hm, I suppose you havent looked at crime statistics in the last few years then, as the rates of crime in nearly all catagories has been on a steady downward trend for the last few years, here in Canada placing current levels close to what they were in the 1960-70’s part of those “better years” you long for. What drives the feelings of parinoia and fear that plague us today rather then in the past is subject for a different topic but largely to do with the 24 hour media circut and the comercialization and privatization of the news industry.
The lack of people, as well as need for immigration is a product of the nature of Canadian and American society and much larger then just the results of “abortion on demand” however it is a common trend amoung all western nations and a rising one in several developing nations that as adults reach greater levels of economic stability and wealth the number of children they have decreases, while those children they do have they tend to have later in life. This is true due to many reasons including the time it takes to get a post secondary education or climb the corperate ladder prior to beginning a family as well as improvements in medical care reducing rates of infant mortality in the first 5 years of life.
I’m curious how many of the religiously inclined hold funerals for miscarrages? I have never been to one, nor do I know anyone who has, despite knowing several people who have had miscarrages themselves. They and I acknowledge the terrible loss that the miscarrage represents but still we as a society dont treat it the same as the loss of a born child. I’m curious as to what you (the board) would think is the reason why
I dont think there is any reason to need an abortion in a modern western society given proper sex education and the availibility of contraceptive devices. With proper availibility of both the rates for abortions would be reduced to just those medical emergencies that most people are willing to make allowances for. The steady decline of abortions amoung affluent women supports the notion.
G
gearhead
Guest
I don’t know, but I’ve noticed the same thing. My wife and I have been trying for kids for some time now; we’ve had several miscarriages and nobody from my wife’s (predominantly Catholic) family or her church has ever suggested anything like a funeral for them.
Even more telling, despite the fact that there does seem to be some underlying issue causing these miscarriages, we’ve never been counselled to stop trying to have kids by anyone. In fact, our fertility specialist, who works through a Catholic hospital, has specifically encouraged us to keep trying while she tries different alternative approaches. This is despite the fact that everything indicates that if my wife gets pregnant again, the odds are apparently quite high (though not 100%) that another miscarriage will result.
And even a pregnancy where the couple has no special issues has a 1-in-4 (IIRC) risk of ending in a miscarriage. I personally can’t think of any situation where I would willingly choose to follow a course of action that had a 25% chance of killing a child if I could possibly avoid it.
I’ve seen a lot of behaviour from Catholics that I can’t reconcile with the notion that they consider an embryo to be a person from the moment of conception.
Under normal circumstances, I would agree… however, the rise of “abstinence only” sex education seems to be kicking the legs out from under this trend in many areas.
And personally, I can’t see as anything other than hypocritical anyone who considers abortion to be murder but still opposes contraception.
S
SteveGC
Guest
What this essentially is saying is that at 20 weeks or earlier, you can justify abortion because…why?..because the baby can’t live on it’s own? This is a problem I find with the pro-choice crowd…they argue that a fetus is the “property” of the mother, that despite it being a distinct life of it’s own, because it is dependent on the mother’s biology to survive and develop, that the mother is somehow able to be responsible in determining if that life should cease, or continue…and if it reaches a stage (such as 21 weeks) wherein the baby could potentially be born and somehow survive, then abortion is wrong. So let’s play that scenario out…a woman has a growing fetus…round about the 20th week (assuming we declare it immoral and illegal from 21 weeks on), she decides to abort. Had she waited one more week, the baby could’ve potentially survived outside the womb. Do you see the problem? She’s just ended a life, which one week later (according to your theory), would’ve been a human being…she’s done this because the fetus was excluded from being labeled a “human being”, but the fact remains that she’s destroyed the natural, inevitable development of it into one. That reality can be backed up all the way to the very instant of conception. One nanosecond old is no different than 20 weeks old, in terms of the natural course of that life.
Speaking from personal experience, I would say that there is definitely grieving and a periods of mourning, to various degrees. Some do hold informal funerals, but typically because there is no tangible remains, there is no practical burial. It is difficult, despite the understanding and connection with the reality that familial human life has ended, to fully absorb the loss due to miscarriage…for much the same reason that some people are able to justify in their minds that a miscarried ovum was never a human life, other’s who believe it was find it difficult to connect that reality with the loss of a child (like a 1 year old infant, for instance). This should be fairly understandable…but all pro-life people I know have signficant grief and sorrow over miscarriages…because they’re not public displays of it, like in funerals, it’s difficult for others on the outside to see this grief…but it’s very real.
S
SteveGC
Guest
Welcome to CAF, thanks for joining.Hi, new here
The OP [original poster] has stated he’d like to focus on the moral realm of the debate, as opposed to the political realm, but it has actually turned out to be various discussions about all facets…moral (religious), political, scientific, etc.
The problem is that there is no universal (widely agreed upon) definition of “human being”. That’s stating the obvious, of course, but it speaks the clearest about why we can’t resolve this issue. Being a devout Catholic, admittedly I am not as focused on the scientific data which supports the arguments that a bonafide human being exists at conception, opting rather to rest my belief on when the Church declares life begins. But I do know that the gist of the scientific data points us to a reality which should be understandable by people of all beliefs…that there is nothing in this world that a fertilized ovum (from the instant of conception) will develop into except a human being. It won’t be a monkey, a dog, or any sort of lump of unorganized cells. It can only develop into a human being. So, how one actually defines “human being”, to me, is irrelevant. Because if you abort a zygote even a nanosecond after conception, you have terminated the life of a human being, even if you don’t believe that it presently IS a human being…you have destroyed it’s natural, inevitable progression and development into one. I know you’ve essentially said that a zygote’s capacity to develop into a human being is insignificant, but is it really? Think about it for a minute…except for your intervention, this organism will be a person. You get to play creator and destroyer of life…regardless of your definition of human being. Is that how it’s supposed to be? We decide who comes into the world or not? It’s up to us? As an atheist, your answer is one that I probably can already figure out. And this is why the issue ultimately is one of objective morality.
Nonetheless, this is why abortion is wrong at all stages of development. This is also why IVF is wrong (of course, IVF is also an issue of a corruption of the natural order of procreation. By natural, of course, I mean the Christian belief of God’s decree of the procreative act…a physical, conjugal act…so even if no embryo’s are destroyed in the process, IVF is wrong - atleast to Catholics).
True enough, but human life is snuffed out in either situation.
S
SteveGC
Guest
What this essentially is saying is that at 20 weeks or earlier, you can justify abortion because…why?..because the baby can’t live on it’s own? This is a problem I find with the pro-choice crowd…they argue that a fetus is the “property” of the mother, that despite it being a distinct life of it’s own, because it is dependent on the mother’s biology to survive and develop, that the mother is somehow able to be responsible in determining if that life should cease, or continue…and if it reaches a stage (such as 21 weeks) wherein the baby could potentially be born and somehow survive, then abortion is wrong. So let’s play that scenario out…a woman has a growing fetus…round about the 20th week (assuming we declare it immoral and illegal from 21 weeks on), she decides to abort. Had she waited one more week, the baby could’ve potentially survived outside the womb. Do you see the problem? She’s just ended a life, which one week later (according to your theory), would’ve been a human being…she’s done this because the fetus was excluded from being labeled a “human being”, but the fact remains that she’s destroyed the natural, inevitable development of it into one. That reality can be backed up all the way to the very instant of conception. One nanosecond old is no different than 20 weeks old, in terms of the natural course of that life.
Speaking from personal experience, I would say that there is definitely grieving and a periods of mourning, to various degrees. Some do hold informal funerals, but typically because there is no tangible remains, there is no practical burial. It is difficult, despite the understanding and connection with the reality that familial human life has ended, to fully absorb the loss due to miscarriage…for much the same reason that some people are able to justify in their minds that a miscarried ovum was never a human life, other’s who believe it was find it difficult to connect that reality with the loss of a child (like a 1 year old infant, for instance). This should be fairly understandable…but all pro-life people I know have signficant grief and sorrow over miscarriages…because they’re not public displays of it, like in funerals, it’s difficult for others on the outside to see this grief…but it’s very real.
Interesting that you acknowledge the “terrible loss”. I’m curious, what’s terrible about it to you? Is it terrible because of the parents sense of loss due to not being able to have a child? Or is it terrible because a human life was lost? Or both?
S
SteveGC
Guest
While I can’t speak for every circumstance, the Church teaches that married couples are to remain open to life, allowing God, and God alone, to be the determiner of whether or not life will be created. There may be instances wherein a couple can exercise more prudence, in their family planning, given concrete medical prognoses of high potentiality of miscarriage, but I’m not sure how the Church views those rare situations. I do know that this prudence is to be exercised through non-contraceptive means, however.
A miscarriage is not “killing a child”. Miscarriages are part of the natural biological process.
Because frankly you don’t understand the sanctity of procreation anymore than you understand the sanctity of human life from the Church’s perspective.
B
bigfootbob
Guest
Well, you are just a bigger cluster of cells then.
Let’s say ol’ Grampa here is on oxygen (he can’t breathe on his own). He’s gettin a little old, and he can sure get in the way sometimes! So, since he can’t function on his own, were gonna’ kill him(It’s not like he human anymore) I mean, what’s the big deal? He can’t function by himself, so he’s not human, he’s just a blob of tissue!
C
CWBetts
Guest
Some forms of contraception are abortifacient (IUD, Pill). They work by preventing the implantation of the fertilized egg, causing an abortion. Both artificial contraception and abortion are self centered. Sexuality is a gift. In is enjoyable, but that is not the purpose, however tat is exactly what contraception perverts the purpose to. The marital act is an act of deep love drawing two people together with the potential of making a new life. Birth control turns it into an act of self love with the goal of achieving the greatest amount of pleasure. Add to this that the majority of abortions are influenced by the inconvenience of pregnancy. It is wholly consistent to be pro-life and anti-Birth control. Both exemplify an openness to the creation of life.
G
gearhead
Guest
Those particular methods, I can understand the rationale. But all birth control? For example, condoms are incapable of aborting a pregnancy; they work by preventing the pregnancy in the first place.
I disagree strongly, and I think it’s inherently harmful and short-sighted to call sexuality without procreation to be “an act of self love”.
Hence why greater use of methods to prevent pregnancy would reduce the number of abortions.
The only way I can see the two positions as consistent is that they can both be held by someone who consistently adheres to the teachings of the Catholic Church. Fundamentally, though, they’re still in conflict: opposing abortion says that the life of a person (or what the Church deems to be the life of a person) is sacrosanct. Opposing birth control (i.e. a means to reduce the number of abortions) says that the life of a person (or, again, what the Church deems so) is secondary to furtherance of doctrine.
- Status