Rational Abortion Support

[rjmporter]

Tlaloc:

By this definition we have a pretty clear demarcation of when it is human: when it could live on its own outside of the mother’s womb. As I said determining when precisely that happens would be left up to medical science.

First, thank you for attempting a rational discussion on such a volitale issues. I laud you attempt to be dispassionate and logical. I hope you will grant patience to those who respond with their heart and faith rather than with their reason.

The difference at had, at I read it, is when does a human life begin contra when does human personhood begin and if such a distinction is ethical. I have been passionate about moving the debate on the beginning of human life away from a theological argument and into a realm of discussion that is much more on the side of the pro-life argument. Namely, the scientific evidence that, at the moment of fertillization, a new human being is created and the ethical argument that the separation of the beginning of human life from the beginning of human personhood is unjustifiable. I would encourge you to examine the article at l4l.org/library/mythfact.html which has inspired much of my own opions on the issues of the beginnings of human life.

As a recent revert to the pro-life position, I was mostly converted by the overwhelming evidence that the beginning of an unique human life can not be scientifically defined as beginning at any other point than at the moment of fertillizaion. I was ethically converted by the argument that to define the beginning of a human person at a separate point than at the beginning of a human life is a subjective and therefore unreliable measure. To define a living human being as not a living human person has been the key component of justifing some the most gruesome human acts in history; most noteably servile slavary and genocide.

The reasons I am not moved by your arguments is that even the most liberal embryologists define the beinning of human life at 14 days after fertillization. So to say that a embryo is not a human being is simply not scientifically supportable.

Looking forward to a discussion.

Ross

 

[Lisa4Catholics]

michaelp:

Maybe he got suspended?

I think he got scared after he was exposed. His name was the name of an aztec demongod that just happened to have infant and human sacrifices made to it.In lieu of his other posts I’d suggest he see a priest asap!GOD BLESS Michael and as you can guess I will be praying for this guy

 

[Traditional_Ang]

marcadam:

Really? Peter Singer, call your office.

Marc:

The real problem with Tlaloc’s position is where it ends up:

Euthanasia: going Dutch? Twycross-RG
chninternational.com/dutch_and_scots.htm

Children euthanasia in Belgium

*"On Aug. 30, the media reported the agreement between the Dutch judicial authorities and the Groningen University Clinic, which authorizes a protocol of experimentation directed to extending the practice of euthanasia – already regulated by an April 2002 law – to children under age 12, to “liberate” them "from pain."î

ñUnder the Groningen protocol, if doctors at the hospital think a child is suffering unbearably from a terminal condition, they have the authority to end the child’s life. The protocol is likely to be used primarily for newborns, but it covers any child up to age 12.î

ItÍs not a bad joke, nor a science-fiction story. It is true.

This law enables doctors to kill a child, without asking the child for permission!
WhatÍs more, this new law came into life unnoticed by the media!

“But what does that mean? In many cases, as occurs now with adults, it will become an excuse not to provide proper pain control for children who are dying of potentially agonizing maladies such as cancer, and doing away with them instead. As for those deemed “incurable”–this term is merely a euphemism for killing babies and children who are seriously disabled…” Writes the lawyer and ethicist Wesley Smith in his article for ñThe Daily Standardî.

Imagine such a situation: You are 10 years old and you had a bad accident- you cannot move, nor speak. Everything you can do is look and whatÍs most important you are still CONSCIOUS! You know that your life wonÍt be the same any more, but you still have enough will to live. To make it easier: letÍs say you are Christian and you think that with the help of God everything will be ok. But than a doctor decides that you are such a ïsad caseÍ that does a so called ïmercy killingÍ. Well, he has the right to do it! *

unicef.org/voy/discussions/showthread.php?t=722

NIGHTENGALE ALLIENCE - Euthanasia Oppositon - Resources, End of Life Alternatives
nightingalealliance.org/cgi-bin/home.pl?section=4

Death by Committee
*What the Groningen Protocol says about our world, and where it might lead next. *
by Hugh Hewitt
12/02/2004 12:00:00 AM
weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/983ynlcv.asp

As you read these articles that all coincide with Tlaloc’s logic, please realize that we really have been here before.

In 1920, there was a book published in Germany that was a bestseller. Its title was The Release of the Destruction of the Life Devoid of Value, and it provided the Nazis with much of the JUSTIFICATION for the slaughter of the Holocaust.

The book really existed. It was once part of the reading list of a major Liberal Arts Program at a major Catholic University.

It isn’t scary that a suspended (?) poster is spouting this dangerous nonsense on our board. What scares me is that a major University Hospital agrees with him, and goes even further than he does.

Pray for this world.

Blessings.

In Christ, Michael

 

[Lisa4Catholics]

Traditional Ang:

Marc:

The real problem with Tlaloc’s position is where it ends up:

Euthanasia: going Dutch? Twycross-RG
chninternational.com/dutch_and_scots.htm

Children euthanasia in Belgium

*"On Aug. 30, the media reported the agreement between the Dutch judicial authorities and the Groningen University Clinic, which authorizes a protocol of experimentation directed to extending the practice of euthanasia – already regulated by an April 2002 law – to children under age 12, to “liberate” them "from pain."î *

*ñUnder the Groningen protocol, if doctors at the hospital think a child is suffering unbearably from a terminal condition, they have the authority to end the child’s life. The protocol is likely to be used primarily for newborns, but it covers any child up to age 12.î *

*ItÍs not a bad joke, nor a science-fiction story. It is true. *

*This law enables doctors to kill a child, without asking the child for permission! *
*WhatÍs more, this new law came into life unnoticed by the media! *

*“But what does that mean? In many cases, as occurs now with adults, it will become an excuse not to provide proper pain control for children who are dying of potentially agonizing maladies such as cancer, and doing away with them instead. As for those deemed “incurable”–this term is merely a euphemism for killing babies and children who are seriously disabled…” Writes the lawyer and ethicist Wesley Smith in his article for ñThe Daily Standardî. *

*Imagine such a situation: You are 10 years old and you had a bad accident- you cannot move, nor speak. Everything you can do is look and whatÍs most important you are still CONSCIOUS! You know that your life wonÍt be the same any more, but you still have enough will to live. To make it easier: letÍs say you are Christian and you think that with the help of God everything will be ok. But than a doctor decides that you are such a ïsad caseÍ that does a so called ïmercy killingÍ. Well, he has the right to do it! *

unicef.org/voy/discussions/showthread.php?t=722

NIGHTENGALE ALLIENCE - Euthanasia Oppositon - Resources, End of Life Alternatives
nightingalealliance.org/cgi-bin/home.pl?section=4

Death by Committee
*What the Groningen Protocol says about our world, and where it might lead next. *
by Hugh Hewitt
12/02/2004 12:00:00 AM
weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/983ynlcv.asp

As you read these articles that all coincide with Tlaloc’s logic, please realize that we really have been here before.

In 1920, there was a book published in Germany that was a bestseller. Its title was The Release of the Destruction of the Life Devoid of Value, and it provided the Nazis with much of the JUSTIFICATION for the slaughter of the Holocaust.

The book really existed. It was once part of the reading list of a major Liberal Arts Program at a major Catholic University.

It isn’t scary that a suspended (?) poster is spouting this dangerous nonsense on our board. What scares me is that a major University Hospital agrees with him, and goes even further than he does.

Pray for this world.

Blessings.

In Christ, Michael

Traditional Ang.There is something scarier on this board tonight,May I PM you I could not get a mod?God Bless

 

[TheGarg]

Island Oak:

I think this, rather than the question of whether a fetus is a distinct human person, which it undeniably is, may be the real crux of the abortion debate. There is a great hesitancy to legally or even morally impose on individuals the obligation to “rescue” another–particularly where in doing so the rescuing party exposes him/her self to some peril or danger. We do not require people to run into burning buildings or to apprehend fleeing felons in order to protect other members of the public (all of whom are clearly recognized as human and viable.)

Question to be pondered:
This is an excellent point IO, but lets take it to the next level, which is commonly missed.
You are right, no matter how cowardly I may think not helping someone may be, we are not obligated to “rescue” others in dire straits.

{Your examples of people who CHOSE to help others: Fireman [implicates someone is in danger of burning], Cops [apprehending fleeing dangerous felons that might hurt someone else]}

I ask you this, what about when we PUT or CAUSE someone to be in harm’s way, even if we didn’t mean to?
[IE, a woman is promiscuous, or irresponsibly having sex and gets pregnant]

Then, since we have put someone [the baby] in harm’s way, due to a lack of responsible choices, or an epluthra of selfish choices, are we not obligated to help them [the person [baby] we put in harms way].

Should the baby be doomed for our lack of responsibility, morals, or whatever led them to be in the situation that initiated a creation?

My not so humple opinion:

The possible consequence of a woman having sex is that she could get pregnant.
Any one who is capable of having babies knows this [Don’t throw out wild extremes, like “Jungle girl get pregnant, cause no one told her she would if she had sex!!”]

Product of Rape or Incest?
If I was a woman and I was raped, could I use that to justify KILLING, not just another human life, but MY BABY’s life?
I think not. I wouldn’t even be selfish enough to consider it.

Loss of the Mother’s Life?
I am a man, but don’t tell me that I wouldn’t die for my child, in the womb or not.
Anything less would be cowardly and damnable.

**Don’t want the responsibility. **
Killing just because you can, hmmmmm this is probably the worst. Deliberate cowardice and refusal to accept responsibility for your actions.

Not one of these is a good reason to MURDER another human Life.

**Feelings I wish to convey:

** **Peace of the Lord to you All!
**[Our Father, Hail Mary, Glory Be for all murdered babies, the souls of those that took part in the murder, and all those who are contemplating murdering a child, may they choose LIFE.]

 

[jimmy]

I find it tough to believe that you could say that it is not a seperate life when there have been cases where the baby has saved the womans life. There was a case where a woman had kidney failure and the baby’ kidneys took on the work of the mothers kidneys. She would have died without the baby. There was also a case where a woman had liver failure and the baby’ liver took on the work of the mothers liver. One of these two was on the Oprah Winfrey show.

I could probably say that aborting the woman is not murder, since she is completely dependant on the baby for her life. So killing the woman would be fine.

 

[jimmy]

LONDON, Aug. 29 (CWNews.com) - A pregnant woman with kidney failure was kept alive by her unborn baby who kidneys worked for both of them, a London newspaper reported on Friday.

Carol Davies, 42, has suffered kidney failure since 1978 and became pregnant last year. Twelve weeks into the pregnancy, her baby’s kidneys began cleaning both his blood and his mother’s, suspending her need for dialysis.

“I was terrified that the toxins in my body would be too much for him and I would lose him as I did my first child four years ago,” she was quoted as saying. “But the doctors monitored my dialysis and, despite being premature, Owen is perfect. We are so lucky.”

cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=13709

 

[jimmy]

Unborn Baby Keeps Mom Alive

http://www.oprah.com/tows/pastshows/images/tows_20001110_juanita.jpg When Juanita was six months pregnant with Kelly, she developed liver failure. Doctors thought she had only weeks to live, and Juanita was told that the pregnancy was making it worse. In the end, the opposite was true. The baby growing inside her wasn’t harming her, but actually helping her stay alive.

Kelly was born prematurely, weighing 2 pounds 9 ounces with an enlarged liver. It turns out baby Kelly’s liver was doing double duty: the baby’s liver had kept Juanita alive. Immediately after Kelly’s birth, they knew Juanita’s liver was not functioning and she was close to death.

Fortunately, a liver soon became available for donation. Juanita’s husband says “Not only did my wife give life to my daughter, but my daughter gave life to her mother.”

oprah.com/tows/pastshows/tows_2000/tows_past_20001110_c.jhtml

 

[mercygate]

TheGarg:

The possible consequence of a woman having sex is that she could get pregnant.
Any one who is capable of having babies knows this.

Garg and all,
Do not underestimate the extent to which our culture has placed a firewall between the idea of “having sex” and “having a baby.”

Thirty years ago, working with a therapy group of single people, the question of one-night stands came up. When one of the group members asked whether it had occurred to them that having sex was connected with procreation, they stared at him as if he had three heads. “Of course not!” they said. “This isn’t the middle ages!”

Although these people were in their 20s and 30s, the marketing of sex for its own sake in our society has isolated the very idea of sex from its natural consequences. I submit that while “anyone who is capable of having babies knows this,” that knowledge does not equate to a realistic apprehension of what it really means in practical terms.

 

[vera_dicere]

In regards to the legs:

Another point I forgot to make is that legs, cysts et al will only ever be such, they will never grow or develop beyond that, the uterine enitity however, will.

Unless of course of a nuclear accident, then the legs and cysts et al may mutate into some form of life.,

 

[Catholic4aReasn]

Tlaloc:

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.

The problem with this argument is that the newly created life has its own DNA, separate from that of it’s mother. That, in itself, make it separate and not simply an extension of its mother.

Moles, cyst and damaged kidneys have no potential for life. A fetus does therefore they cannot be compared.

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.

Following this line of logic a premie born prior to 28 weeks, placed immediately on life support in order to survive, would not be an actual person. Certainly even your would disagree with that.

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.

I disagree. God, who is the author of live, determines that. He has determined that life beings at conception.

If “that point” is in question then all abortions should be denied until at which time there is no longer any doubt. If there’s the slighest chance that an actual human life MIGHT be taken then abortions are immoral and should be illegal.

In Christ,
Nancy

 

[Tlaloc]

I was away for a week or so. If anyone wants me to address the posts they wrote while I was away let me know and I will (although I’ll be away again in a few hours until tuesday).

 

[lje]

Well… I found this thread via another thread so that is where I put an appropriate post. I’ll make reference to that in a minute.

Doc,
I think you went terribly wrong this thread, in the second sentence, third para, of you’re first post, which was…

Whether this is seen as murder depends entirely on how we define a person.

I would disagree that we should be defining persons or murder as it’s associated with abortion. I believe that is way beyond God’s intention for us.

Before I had read any of this thread, I had read and posted in the other thread, here…
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=477744#post477744

I pray you will come around to a pro-life way of thinking, but I understand it’s usually not possible to rationalize with the irrational.

God bless,
Laura

 

[Brad]

Tlaloc:

From many of the comments I’ve read here I get the impression that at least some, if not most, of the posters feel that there is smply no possible way to rationally support abortion. Toward that end i thought I would write a short piece outlining one possible way of constructing a logical world view that indeed supported abortion rights.

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.

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.

Shooting a dead body isn’t murder because we define murder as taking a life. Removing a cyst isn’t murder because while individual cells die the host organism lives on. Abortion (again before a certain point) would again not be murder because the fetus has no life of its own and the mother (the host) lives on after the operation.

Logically the argument hangs together. Its a matter of what premises we start with. Obviously if you contend that a fetus is a separate living thing at conception then your conclusions will be different.

1. Your logic falls apart in comparing a living homo-sapien with a cyst. There is no logical comparison between the 2.
2. You may have some remaining logic but it is the logic of “survival of the fittest” which is contrary to human nature. Natural selection favors those organisms that can reproduce and keep themselves vibrant, alive, and healthy. You implicity favor natural selection by saying a person does not really exist until they can live indepedently but, at the same time, contradict the theory by reserving the right of the mother to kill their child as long as it is dependent
3. Your arbitary line has no bounds. A child depends on his/her parents for food for years after birth. At what point is this actually a person according to your defintion? If a person, at age 27, has a sudden throat injury and is unable to feed himself temporarily, does he temporarily become something other than a person?
   Arbitrary defintions of personhood eventually break down on logic as well.

 

[km112482]

Tlaloc:

From many of the comments I’ve read here I get the impression that at least some, if not most, of the posters feel that there is smply no possible way to rationally support abortion. Toward that end i thought I would write a short piece outlining one possible way of constructing a logical world view that indeed supported abortion rights.

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.

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.

Shooting a dead body isn’t murder because we define murder as taking a life. Removing a cyst isn’t murder because while individual cells die the host organism lives on. Abortion (again before a certain point) would again not be murder because the fetus has no life of its own and the mother (the host) lives on after the operation.

Logically the argument hangs together. Its a matter of what premises we start with. Obviously if you contend that a fetus is a separate living thing at conception then your conclusions will be different.

Here is the way I look at it. We believe that Jesus was concieved by the Holy Spirit so from that moment he had a soul. So he was most definitely a human being. We are all born with a soul, and I am sure it is there once we are concieved. At least that is how I look at it.

Also, I cannot believe that the government will arrest someone who kills a pregnant mother for the murder of her and her unborn child yet they justify abortion. Both are murder, so both should be considered as such. Isn’t the government contradicting themselves.

I just feel that when you have sex you know that there is always a possibility that you will get pregnant. The child in your womb is a person wether you see it that way or not. I guess because I am a mother I may see it differently then someone who never has been. But I just can never see justifying an abortion, especially just because you dont think you are ready to be a mother. Adoption is always an option. When I got pregnant I didnt know how I could afford or raise my little girl, but in the end it all worked out and I could never imagine having done such a horrible thing to her and after hearing the details of an abortion I just think it is sickening.

I am not judging anyone who has had one because I was not in their shoes. I just pray that one day people will open their eyes and see how morally wrong this is. Although I cant change everyones opinion I am going to state mine in hopes that it may help at least one person see how wrong this is.

God Bless , Kerri

 

[km112482]

Another argument I have is this. People who support abortion say it is a womans choice cause the baby needs them to survive in the womb. Well guess what does not a new born baby need someone to feed them their formula or breast milk. They are still dependent on their parents to survive so should we then be aloud to kill our child because we have the right because they are totally dependent on us. Ok of course not so why cant these proabortionist see that it is the same thing with the fetus.

And as for the person who talked about taking money we use on other government things that are unecessary and putting it towards extracting the fetus instead of killing it and helping them survive in say an artificial uterus, I dont understand why we need this. If they dont want to kill their baby then why not carry the child and give the child for adoption isnt that a much more sensible way of doing it. JMO

GOD BLESS KERRI

 

[Tlaloc]

lje:

I would disagree that we should be defining persons or murder as it’s associated with abortion. I believe that is way beyond God’s intention for us.

We have to define “murder” and “abortion” in a legal sense so that our laws can function. Or am I misunderstanding you here?

I pray you will come around to a pro-life way of thinking, but I understand it’s usually not possible to rationalize with the irrational.

Oh see, now you started off all nice but then you get mean at the end. The whole point of this thread is to show how a person can have a rational support for abortion. Of course if you simply assume I’m irrational in the first place it’ll make it hard for me to demonstrate that to you.

 

[Tlaloc]

1) Your logic falls apart in comparing a living homo-sapien with a cyst. There is no logical comparison between the 2.

I didn’t though. I compared one mass of tissue to another mass of tissue. Put that way the logical comparison is clear, I hope.

1. You may have some remaining logic but it is the logic of “survival of the fittest” which is contrary to human nature. Natural selection favors those organisms that can reproduce and keep themselves vibrant, alive, and healthy. You implicity favor natural selection by saying a person does not really exist until they can live indepedently but, at the same time, contradict the theory by reserving the right of the mother to kill their child as long as it is dependent

It has nothing to do with natural selection but with the definition of “human.” Is a human an organism by definition or not?

1. Your arbitary line has no bounds. A child depends on his/her parents for food for years after birth. At what point is this actually a person according to your defintion?

As before there is a difference between the fetus which cannot digest food on it’s own and the baby who can but must be provided with food. That’s an example of where the line can be drawn non-arbitrarily. One is a complete (albeit helpless) organism, and the other is merely a component of another organism.

If a person, at age 27, has a sudden throat injury and is unable to feed himself temporarily, does he temporarily become something other than a person?

I never claimed there was a mechanism from going from human to tissue only the reverse. Really all of these objections have already been dealt with in this thread.

 

[Lisa4Catholics]

http://www.prolifeamerica.com/4D-Ultrasound-pictures/images/photo2.jpg Ten weeks

 

[Tlaloc]

km112482:

Here is the way I look at it. We believe that Jesus was concieved by the Holy Spirit so from that moment he had a soul. So he was most definitely a human being. We are all born with a soul, and I am sure it is there once we are concieved. At least that is how I look at it.

And that’s fine. You can certainly hold that position. The point of this thread is not to convince you that my way is right and your way wrong but only to demonstrate that a person can hold a perfectly rational and consistent viewpoint that supports abortion.

To put it another way I can see the merits of your argument, can you see the merits of mine? If so then we can approach any discussion of the matter from a position of mutual respect rather than rhetoric and insults.

Also, I cannot believe that the government will arrest someone who kills a pregnant mother for the murder of her and her unborn child yet they justify abortion. Both are murder, so both should be considered as such. Isn’t the government contradicting themselves.

I would agree that someone who kills a pregnant mother during the period when she could legally abort the fetus shouldn’t get charged with the child’s murder only the mother’s.

I just feel that when you have sex you know that there is always a possibility that you will get pregnant. The child in your womb is a person wether you see it that way or not.

That’s your position, not mine. Can you understand that that position is a subjective one and not objective fact?

I guess because I am a mother I may see it differently then someone who never has been.

I’m a father, does that count?

But I just can never see justifying an abortion, especially just because you dont think you are ready to be a mother. Adoption is always an option.

There’s 100,000 kids awaiting adoption right now in the US.

When I got pregnant I didnt know how I could afford or raise my little girl, but in the end it all worked out and I could never imagine having done such a horrible thing to her and after hearing the details of an abortion I just think it is sickening.

It’s good that the choice you made worked out for you.

I am not judging anyone who has had one because I was not in their shoes. I just pray that one day people will open their eyes and see how morally wrong this is. Although I cant change everyones opinion I am going to state mine in hopes that it may help at least one person see how wrong this is.

I like you, you’re willing to state your opinion but not to thunder on in self righteous tones about how everyone else has to make the choice you made. I think you make your case in a language that is respectful and clear. Sadly I doubt we have much to discuss because you are precisely what I’m trying to encourage other posters to be more like.