A
AmyS
Guest
Actually, science does agree life begins at conception.
- Status
T
Tlaloc
Guest
No, not human life. Cellular life? Sure. But killing a cell isn’t a crime. Killing a human is.
L
Lisa4Catholics
Guest
Killing an unborn child is a crime at conception and the rest of the nine months, your terminology,your rationalizations does not change it.Our Lady of Guadeloupe Pray for us.God Bless
T
Tlaloc
Guest
Well, no it’s not a crime (Roe vs Wade). Whether its right or wrong we can discuss but it is most assuredly not a crime in the US to get an abortion within the first trimester.
K
katherine2
Guest
Island Oak:
Ah…the rub in your otherwise noble, high-tech solution…who picks up the tab of several hundred thousand dollars for 15 weeks or so of neo-natal ICU care?
I know is was a bit of a set up on my part, but I am a little sad that after hearing during the presidential campaign that abortion was soooo important it trumped every other concern, that conservatives still can’t bring themselves to say “I would pay whatever it cost to end abortion ---- price is no object”.
I think you are right that such is for many the problem they coming over to the pro-life side. The burning building analogy is where some would see pregnancy. Many times its less threatening – that is why us seamless garment Catholics understand we have an obligation to pay taxes for social welfare and care for the unborn.
Ah…the rub in your otherwise noble, high-tech solution…who picks up the tab of several hundred thousand dollars for 15 weeks or so of neo-natal ICU care?
I know is was a bit of a set up on my part, but I am a little sad that after hearing during the presidential campaign that abortion was soooo important it trumped every other concern, that conservatives still can’t bring themselves to say “I would pay whatever it cost to end abortion ---- price is no object”.
C
chicago
Guest
Yes. Human Life. I can cite medical texbooks on embryology for you if you would like. In fact, I can cite pre-Roe V Wade texts where those who wanted to advocate in favor of abortion note that, in order to accomplish their goals, they needed to cover up this fact: one which they say, “everybody knows”. It’s not a “position” or “opinion”, then, it’s a scientific fact; nothing nebulous about it.
The only debate is from a philosophical viewpoint of what the criteria ought to be for considering this member of the human species a person with equal rights.
L
Lisa4Catholics
Guest
Roe v Wade is wrong and whether that so-called law says its a crime is irrelevant, most assuredly it will be exposed as the most barbaric and shameful thing that has ever happened in this country.It is an unjust law that targets the most vulnerable humans for extermination
It is a crime that is allowed by law to take place, a shameful reflection of how far detached from compassion and love we have gone:crying: God Bless
J
JHutch
Guest
This is CATHOLIC ANSWERS!!!, We don’t need “Tlaloc’s Answers” go start your own website!
This is sick!!!
Another “Tlaloc Answer” best left to your own site!
Let’s not
Let’s just use the Catholic one: Conception
Wrong!!! Life begins at: Conception
S
sbcoral
Guest
Sometimes the product of conception is pretty definitely not a person. Rarely, that product becomes what is called a molar pregnancy or gestational trophoblastic disease, which can be an actual cancer existing in the mother’s womb, +/- fetal parts. I don’t think there is much moral opposition to treatment of this condition, whether or not fetal components are present. Some fetuses are also formed anencephalic, with no brain and no chance of living outside the womb. Are they persons or just accidents of nature? Lots of other pregnancies miscarry early on because of chromosomal abnormalities that are not compatible with development and differentiation.
If God is responsible for every life created, and I’m not questioning that He is, why does He allow for these sorts of very messed-up pregnancies/fetuses/babies to occur? For a lot of pro-choice people, pregnancy is a biological process, not necessarily steeped with religious or mystical meaning. The zygote with 49 chromosomes and the molar pregnancy are examples of pregnancy as a biological phenomenon, prone to errors. For pro-choicers, the direction to which that biological process should be pointed is the decision of the mother, in whom the process is occurring. We Catholics take that process and its product as sacred and beyond human decision-making, but to assign sanctity to something automatically invokes religion or spirituality. We can’t demand that everyone share our religious ideas.
But I’m still pro-life, I think.
If God is responsible for every life created, and I’m not questioning that He is, why does He allow for these sorts of very messed-up pregnancies/fetuses/babies to occur? For a lot of pro-choice people, pregnancy is a biological process, not necessarily steeped with religious or mystical meaning. The zygote with 49 chromosomes and the molar pregnancy are examples of pregnancy as a biological phenomenon, prone to errors. For pro-choicers, the direction to which that biological process should be pointed is the decision of the mother, in whom the process is occurring. We Catholics take that process and its product as sacred and beyond human decision-making, but to assign sanctity to something automatically invokes religion or spirituality. We can’t demand that everyone share our religious ideas.
But I’m still pro-life, I think.
M
mlchance
Guest
Just because an argument logically hangs together doesn’t mean the conclusion is valid. For example:
A triangle is a three-sided polygon.
Tlaloc is a three-sided polygon.
Therefore, Tlaloc is a triangle.
See? Nice and logical and completely wrong. Just like your initial post’s main thrust, which is only further compounded by the subsequent nonsense like refusing to admit to scientific facts that a fertilized human ovum is a distinct, unique, developing, living entity of the human species.
– Mark L. Chance.
D
Didi
Guest
Having an abortion does not make a woman “un-pregnant,” it makes her the mother of a dead baby.
This fact is one she will wrestle with her entire life. Go to the website for Rachel’s Vineyard (post-abortion healing) rachelsvineyard.org/postabortion/stories.htm and read some of these women’s stories.
Abortion is not a reasonable or healthy option for either the mother or the child, ever.
God have mercy on all those who support and defend abortion!
This fact is one she will wrestle with her entire life. Go to the website for Rachel’s Vineyard (post-abortion healing) rachelsvineyard.org/postabortion/stories.htm and read some of these women’s stories.
Abortion is not a reasonable or healthy option for either the mother or the child, ever.
God have mercy on all those who support and defend abortion!
E
Exporter
Guest
Tlaloc posted the following:
"Abortion is the removal of a fetus from a woman thus ending a pregnancy. Whether this is seen as murder depends entirely on how we define a person. In this case i would not define a fetus before a scertain stage of pregnancy as a person for the simple reason that they are not a separate living organism. They are an extension of the mother’s body. And hence removing them is no more unethical than removing a mole, or a cyst, or a damaged kidney.
Once a fetus has developed to the point that it would survive removed from the mother it can be said to be an actual person. It is at that point a separate living thing (althought temporarily still located within the mother). Where that point comes i couldn’t say, thats up to medical science to determine.
.Logically the argument hangs together.
Tlaloc, so you want to be logical, huh? You loose your argument before you start. In the first paragraph you make two glaring errors. Twice you gave FALSE information in setting up your argument. Logic can only be valid if true apriori statements are made. By the way you don’t know how to spell foetus. You want to be technical? Well spell it correctly.
"Abortion is the removal of a fetus from a woman thus ending a pregnancy. Whether this is seen as murder depends entirely on how we define a person. In this case i would not define a fetus before a scertain stage of pregnancy as a person for the simple reason that they are not a separate living organism. They are an extension of the mother’s body. And hence removing them is no more unethical than removing a mole, or a cyst, or a damaged kidney.
Once a fetus has developed to the point that it would survive removed from the mother it can be said to be an actual person. It is at that point a separate living thing (althought temporarily still located within the mother). Where that point comes i couldn’t say, thats up to medical science to determine.
.Logically the argument hangs together.
Tlaloc, so you want to be logical, huh? You loose your argument before you start. In the first paragraph you make two glaring errors. Twice you gave FALSE information in setting up your argument. Logic can only be valid if true apriori statements are made. By the way you don’t know how to spell foetus. You want to be technical? Well spell it correctly.
G
Gabriel_Gale
Guest
Adoption is certainly the more humble choice. In our culture, to admit failure is tantamount to declaring youself mentally ill. I have met woman who have allowed a child to be adopted. Talk about a narrow and lonely road. Most of their families urged them to abort then fought these young women when they decided adoption for their child!
G
Gabriel_Gale
Guest
Killing Jews, gypsies and schizophrenics wasn’t a crime in Germany either.
A
All4lifetoo
Guest
There can be no meaningful discussion until agreement of terms is arrived at. Birth is the removal of a fetus from a woman thus ending a pregnancy. Your definition of abortion fails to distinguish it from birth. All pregnancies terminate if left to proceed on their course. The natural termination being the delivery of a living child or perhaps a stillborn child.
Abortion is a noun that signifies something other than mere termination of the pregnancy because if it did not, then it would be a mere synonym for birth. Abortion is the intended killing of the unborn child. Your definition of abortion is simply unacceptable. It is irrational.
L
Lisa4Catholics
Guest
What question were you refering to?
A
All4lifetoo
Guest
I don’t care how you or the SC define a person, that is not the issue. The offspring of any two parents is a member of the species of the parents. The offspring comes into existence at conception. The offspring is its own entity with its own metabolic processes. The offspring is a distinct entity (organism) from its parents. The location of the offspring, whether in an egg external to the mother or in an embryo internal to the mother has no bearing upon the distinctness and individuality of the offspring. The need for a specific environment to survive (the mother’s womb) has no bearing upon the distinctness of the offspring.
Your claim that the offspring is not a separate living organism is false. The scientific facts prove that it is false. In Vitro ferterlization depends upon the fact that the offspring is a distinct individual organism capable of living outside the mother for a short period of time, but then needing the mother’s womb (a specific environment) to continue to survive. The embryo does not lose its distinct identity when it is implanted into the mother. To repeat, your claim that the offspring is not a separate living organism is false.
G
Gabriel_Gale
Guest
OK. I’ll play.
Premise One:
Tlaloc:
The problem with the extension argument is that you compare pregnancy to a disease. Pregnancy is not a disease. If a woman asked a doctor to cut off her healthy hand, I would consider the doctor’s participation unethical and malpractice.
The problem with the viability argument is that personhood becomes dependent on medical technology. Personhood is medical care. If you like viability then I guess you could argue that fetuses in poor countries become a person at a later time than fetuses in rich countries with advanced care.
Here’s where you logic really gets twisted up:
So, the few seconds before the declaration of viability was the (growing, assimilating) fetus not alive, not separate or both. You admit that the fetus is not separate. Logic does require precise language. I would substitute independent for separate. Yet, even infants aren’t independent. Well, I guess we need to go back to the drawing board.
Premise One:
Premise Two:
Logic usually means sticking to a premise. You give two different premises for personhood, attachment and later viability.
The problem with the extension argument is that you compare pregnancy to a disease. Pregnancy is not a disease. If a woman asked a doctor to cut off her healthy hand, I would consider the doctor’s participation unethical and malpractice.
The problem with the viability argument is that personhood becomes dependent on medical technology. Personhood is medical care. If you like viability then I guess you could argue that fetuses in poor countries become a person at a later time than fetuses in rich countries with advanced care.
Here’s where you logic really gets twisted up:
(althought temporarily still located within the mother).
So, the few seconds before the declaration of viability was the (growing, assimilating) fetus not alive, not separate or both. You admit that the fetus is not separate. Logic does require precise language. I would substitute independent for separate. Yet, even infants aren’t independent. Well, I guess we need to go back to the drawing board.
L
Lisa4Catholics
Guest
Gabriel Gale said:
All4Life and GabrielGale excellent posts
you have more patience than I do, I was irritated when I read this thread and his other posts and when his call name gave me the creeps and I looked it up search engine,I was more irritated and in respect of God and Our Lady of Guadeloupe,I think the posters intentions are one of mockery and blasphemy God Bless and I will pray for the thread starter
A
All4lifetoo
Guest
Nonsense. I can’t jump off a skyscraper and float in the air merely because I hold the premise that there is no such thing as gravity. My premise has to be based upon reality and upon observable physical laws. As I stated in another post, In Vitro fertilization depends upon the scientific and biological reality that the new living individual organism can survive for a limited time outside the womb. To hold to the premise that the embryo is not a separate living individual in spite of the scientific facts is an example of insanity not rationality. Your conclusion is not merely “different” because of a different premise, it is wrong because of an incorrect premise.
- Status