Rational Abortion Support

  • Thread starter Thread starter Tlaloc
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
All4lifetoo:
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.
Click to expand...
Agree. Chesterton called this reasoning in the void.
 
Tlaloc, there are also some heafty theological arguments that can contribute to this debate if you would like to hear them. I am not going to post them though if one of your preconditions is to reject the theological and only accept the scientific.

In order for me to do so, you must be willing to struggle with these arguements.

Here are the terms:
  1. You accept that there is a God (I think that you already do)
  2. You accept that a “person” has an immaterial part (soul/spirit or whatever you want to call it).
  3. You accept that when the immaterial part is “joined” to the material part, it is a person and therefore terminating at this stage would be unjust.
If you do not accept these terms, then we seem to be on two philosophically different planets and we must first create common ground on other subjects. Otherwise, I don’t believe this thread is not going to be constructive.

Would you like to sharpen or are you just hear to sharpen us?

Michael
 
40.png
Tlaloc:
The DNA angle is handled above. But what the heck lets play with it a moment. So a fetus is a separate human being because it has different DNA? Okay lets look at an organ transplant. Thats tissue with a different set of DNA, is it also a separate human being? No because it is not a full biological system, only part of one, exactly like a fetus.
.
Click to expand...
This is probably answered before I read further but you’re wrong on so many points. A fetus has a full biological system but it is not fully developed. Therefore, it needs its mother to survive. Just as a healthy newborn baby has a full biological system but cannot survive without someone to feed and care for it. A disabled person with any type of disease, injury or disorder has a full biological system (although parts of that system may have never developed completely or may have died off) but may need assistance to survive (an example would be the late Christopher Reeve). An infirmed elderly person who cannot any longer care for him/herself has a full biological system needs assistance to survive. At any time in anyone’s life one may require assistance even though they have a full biological system.

This is why the acceptablilty of abortion has caused so much damage to our society. When we justify abortion, it is easier to justify killing anyone who is not “perfect”.
 
Tlaloc if you are interested in learning something rather than just using falsehoods to support a false premise, get a copy of “Symphony to the Unborn Child” which details a court case, not about abortion, but about the disposition of fertilized embryos when a couple could not decide what to do. The main witness, a French physician, who was the leading expert on certain genetic conditions, gave easily understood and extremely detailed testimony about the beginning of life, how the life develops and when life begins, or when personhood/humanness begins.

One of the interesting portions of the book dealt with your (false) premise that the unborn child is merely ‘part of a woman’s body.’ His analogy made a lot of sense to me. He said well if you are living in a house and you are totally dependent on the house to protect you from freezing to death, are you part of the house? No. Even though you are dependent upon the house for your very survival, it doesn’t mean you become the house.

Further and I found this fascinating, the sac in which the baby develops, can exist outside the uterus. IOW the baby “makes” his own environment. It is not part of the woman’s body although there is certainly a dependent situation during early development. As Katherine suggested, there is no reason (other than cost and practicality) that a baby couldn’t develop outside of the womb—sometimes they do in such cases as an ectopic pregnancy–even apparently completely outside of the uterus–although of course in such cases the area isn’t condusive to the growth of the baby nor its birth. But the baby isn’t ‘part of the woman’s body’ anymore than a comatose patient becomes part of his ventilator.

I really hope you are interested in learning something from this board rather than my fear you are an escapee from Beliefnet where this kind of rhetoric is applauded by the proabort/progay/prodowhateveryouwant crowd that infests that pestilence zone.

BTW isn’t your name some based on some hideous Aztec god that required child sacrifice? I really wonder about your motivation in posting here.

Lisa N
 
Lisa N:
Tlaloc if you are interested in learning something rather than just using falsehoods to support a false premise, get a copy of “Symphony to the Unborn Child” which details a court case, not about abortion, but about the disposition of fertilized embryos when a couple could not decide what to do. The main witness, a French physician, who was the leading expert on certain genetic conditions, gave easily understood and extremely detailed testimony about the beginning of life, how the life develops and when life begins, or when personhood/humanness begins.

One of the interesting portions of the book dealt with your (false) premise that the unborn child is merely ‘part of a woman’s body.’ His analogy made a lot of sense to me. He said well if you are living in a house and you are totally dependent on the house to protect you from freezing to death, are you part of the house? No. Even though you are dependent upon the house for your very survival, it doesn’t mean you become the house.

Further and I found this fascinating, the sac in which the baby develops, can exist outside the uterus. IOW the baby “makes” his own environment. It is not part of the woman’s body although there is certainly a dependent situation during early development. As Katherine suggested, there is no reason (other than cost and practicality) that a baby couldn’t develop outside of the womb—sometimes they do in such cases as an ectopic pregnancy–even apparently completely outside of the uterus–although of course in such cases the area isn’t condusive to the growth of the baby nor its birth. But the baby isn’t ‘part of the woman’s body’ anymore than a comatose patient becomes part of his ventilator.

I really hope you are interested in learning something from this board rather than my fear you are an escapee from Beliefnet where this kind of rhetoric is applauded by the proabort/progay/prodowhateveryouwant crowd that infests that pestilence zone.

BTW isn’t your name some based on some hideous Aztec god that required child sacrifice? I really wonder about your motivation in posting here.

Lisa N
Click to expand...
Excellent, post LisaN and yes his name is what you suspect and what Our Lady of Guadeloupe interceded with God about and converted millions to Christianity.I have read some of his post and I am wondering the motivation is as well.God Bless
 
It is uncommon for a poster on the Catholic Answers Forum to choose the name of a Demon for a screen name. This has happened. The poster with the screen name of "Tlaloc " has chosen the name of an Aztec “God” who was known to be a Demon. It had living Babies sacrificed to it for rain. (I wonder how thaty stopped the rain?)
godchecker.com/pantheon/aztec-mythology.php?deity=TLALOC

Tlaloc is the name of a demon, an Aztec demon. Babies were sacrificed to this demon to make it rain.

Aztec Mythology : TLALOC

Also known as NUHUALPILLI, TLÀLOC

TLALOC: Fertility God. Not nice. His favourite incense is the fuming stench of burning rubber.

His priests killed and ate babies to promote rain, which only appeared if the babies cried before death. What was necessary to make it stop raining we won’t even try to imagine.

TLALOC is depicted in a mask with goggling frog eyes and outrageous buck teeth. He’s married to CHALCHIUHTLICUE, who obviously likes that kind of thing.
 
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?
Click to expand...
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”.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately the bottom line eventually factors into every decision we make because we are no longer living in the Garden of Eden and all our choices come at a cost. I think it might be worthwhile, however, as we see more and more significantly pre-term babies survive outside the womb and live normal lives, to encourage funding of research and technology that promotes their survival. It not only diminishes the viability arguments used by pro-Roe folks, but offers options to those who find themselves in such a situation by operation of nature, not choice. And just maybe, a time will come when such care could be an option to abortion without the prohibitive costs now involved. Think what a gift this could be to both the woman who finds herself with an unplanned pregnancy as well as all the infertile couples looking to adopt.
 
Oh Silly Tlaloc,

You posted this." It has the potential, with a little help from medicine, to be a fully separate human being. Logically then the anti-abortion position is then faced with a serious dilemma. Is it no longer okay to have a haircut?"

Don’t you know that Hair is not cellular, it is dead as a doornail.

Finger nails and hair are products of cells, and these products are DEAD.

The whiskers that I shave each day are d-e-a-d. (noncellular)
 
40.png
Tlaloc:
Abortion is the removal of a fetus from a woman thus ending a pregnancy.
Click to expand...
Cesarian section is the removal of a fetus from a woman thus ending a pregnancy.

Therefore, Caesarian sections are abortion.
40.png
Tlaloc:
Logically the argument hangs together. Its a matter of what premises we start with.
Click to expand...
Yea, sure…sure…
 
Gabriel Gale:
Cesarian section is the removal of a fetus from a woman thus ending a pregnancy.

Therefore, Caesarian sections are abortion.

Yea, sure…sure…
Click to expand...
Look:clapping: An abortion that doesn’t end in death:D I had three c-sections:D What a turn of events, Inever thought I would see live abortions thanks to the wisdom of this thread,I have realised I have them at home:rolleyes: God Bless
 
Dear Lisa,
We need to have an objective reference point - the Catechism.
A human being consists of a body and a soul. The uniqueness of the body begins at conception - with a DNA sequence unique to all other persons ever conceived. The soul is created by God at the instant of conception. Therefore, the human person begins their existence from the moment of conception onward.
But you said that personhood doesn’t begin until some vague point in time (I quote you here)
“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.”
Problem there Lisa. . .
Lisa you have always been a human person, and you have never been anything but a human person. To claim that you were once an ‘almost person’ or a potential person, would be an impossibility since such a claim is purely subjective.
As Dr. Seuss said, “A person’s a person no matter how small.”

God Love Ya!
Jim
 
Jim B:
Dear Lisa,
We need to have an objective reference point - the Catechism.
A human being consists of a body and a soul. The uniqueness of the body begins at conception - with a DNA sequence unique to all other persons ever conceived. The soul is created by God at the instant of conception. Therefore, the human person begins their existence from the moment of conception onward.
But you said that personhood doesn’t begin until some vague point in time (I quote you here)
“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.”
Problem there Lisa. . .
Lisa you have always been a human person, and you have never been anything but a human person. To claim that you were once an ‘almost person’ or a potential person, would be an impossibility since such a claim is purely subjective.
As Dr. Seuss said, “A person’s a person no matter how small.”

God Love Ya!
Jim
Click to expand...
Thanks Jim:D I was being sarcastic,sorry I guess I didn’t do a good job:crying: I know we are human at the moment of conception,I am very active in pro-life,I was being sarcastic with the attempt at rationalising abortion,the argument presented is no more than the planned parenthood agenda God Bless and thankyou for responding,I certainly don’t want anyone to think I was serious.I think you are quoting Tlaloc not me:confused: I have five children,and I knew before converting to Catholicism that they were persons from the moment of conception on.Read the thread and you will see what I said.God Bless
 
Where did Tlaloc go?

Bring back that Aztec influence and see how well it stands up.
 
Since Lisa4Catholics and others blew the cover on his name, he has not posted in any threads.

Perhaps its the holiday. Perhaps its the discovery that he has chosen to identify himself with the name of an Aztec demon to whom infants are sacrificed.
 
Elizabeth B.:
Since Lisa4Catholics and others blew the cover on his name, he has not posted in any threads.

Perhaps its the holiday. Perhaps its the discovery that he has chosen to identify himself with the name of an Aztec demon to whom infants are sacrificed.
Click to expand...
😃 God is not mocked.We need to pray for this guy.God Bless
 
40.png
Tlaloc:
The goal is not to convince anyone but simply to provide an opportunity for some here to see that it is possible to reasonably accept abortion. Once both sides recognize that the other has reasonable positions some attempt at finding a compromise can be sought.
Click to expand...
There is no “reasonable” pro-abortion position. None. Sorry. Sometimes, a large group of people are flat-out wrong. (i.e.: Nazi Germany, socialist Russia, the racists in America, etc.) Would it be write to have compromized with Hitler? Only kill Jews on German holidays or only kill Jews who were “inferior.” The same analogy goes for abortion. There is no rational pro-choice America.
 
Island Oak:
Unfortunately the bottom line eventually factors into every decision we make because we are no longer living in the Garden of Eden and all our choices come at a cost. I think it might be worthwhile, however, as we see more and more significantly pre-term babies survive outside the womb and live normal lives, to encourage funding of research and technology that promotes their survival. It not only diminishes the viability arguments used by pro-Roe folks, but offers options to those who find themselves in such a situation by operation of nature, not choice. And just maybe, a time will come when such care could be an option to abortion without the prohibitive costs now involved. Think what a gift this could be to both the woman who finds herself with an unplanned pregnancy as well as all the infertile couples looking to adopt.
Click to expand...
Going in the right direction here. But take it out 3 months. We still have the adoption option. Isn’t that what you are talking about here. How devastating would it be for a woman to carry for 9 months instead of 6? And it is my understanding that St. Jude’s Ranch in Boulder, Nevada will take ANY baby a mother cannot raise.
 
Thanks to the many pro-life supporters who wrote! I read this earlier and didn’t know how to respond. The best thing I could come up with was to pray. (The BEST thing I ever do is pray!) St Juan Diego and Our Lady of Guadalupe, R: Pray for us.

I appreciate the effort to find common ground. (I know some of you susupect I different agenda, but I assume the best.) We agree at some point human beings are persons. You desire to leave that up to “Medical Science”, (incidently, one of the common modern “gods” our culture worships.) You place your faith there. Loyal Catholics place our faith in a different God. But, see, we each let our faith have a say in our understanding of personhood.

Christians take our name from a God who sacrificed Himself for us. You, Tlaloc, take your name from a different god. In imitation of Him, my God asks me to sacrifice myself for my children. But in sharp contrast, the modern goddess “Choice” asks that children be sacrificed for the mother.

More common ground: many pro-choicers and pro-lifers want what’s best for women. Honest studies point to this nagging fact that most women aren’t really happy after abortions. They commit suicide and abuse drugs at higher rates. Some studies link breast cancer and infertility with abortion too.

So, we have found common ground! Once a human is a person, it shouldn’t be killed. Our faith in something tells us when a human becomes a person. And the mother’s best interest should be considered. Now the questions remain. At what point does a human become a person? Whose faith decides the answer to the previous question? What’s best for women?
 
Geez, today I stumbled onto an episode of Book TV featuring Alan Derschowitz (sp?). He was asked about Roe v Wade and said it was a mistake for the proaborts to be so dependent upon the court systems because court decisions could be overturned more easily than legislation could be changed on a national basis. He said it was essential for the proaborts to organize now because Roe v Wade might be overturned (we can hope!). Further he kept reiterating that America supports ‘a woman’s choice’ of course he never finishes the sentence…‘to kill her baby.’

The irony? He was shilling his new book on HUMAN RIGHTS. I just cannot believe these people with a straight face can talk about the right not to have a nativity scene in the town square as being some kind of really important issue. Yet he can completely ignore the rights of millions of souls destroyed through ‘choice.’ Excuse me while I hurl…the comments were accompanied by a smug and supercilious grin. This man is so insufferable.

Lisa N
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top