Reconciling Catholic Church teaching and "pro choice" Catholics

[SteveGC]

No, I think I picked out the most important point—the danger of concentrated power.

Worthy5, at the risk of both aggravating the heck out of you, and remaining off topic on this thread…I’ll ask you this…

Is the act of abortion equivalent to a mother taking an unwanted newborn to a garage dump, handing him over to the workers to be thrown into the incinerator?

To the pro-lifer, it is exactly equivalent…

If it isn’t to you, why isn’t it? What makes the difference in those two scenarios…other than the age of the person being killed, and the precise methodology of the killing?

If it is equivalent to you, should there be govt power invoked to prohibit the incineration of newborns?

…and no, I’m not trying to go after the emotional influence here…I’m trying to understand why, to you, abortion is not as evil as murder is, and as worthy of federal intervention.

 

[Whitacre_Girl]

No, I think I picked out the most important point—the danger of concentrated power.

I’m just going to say this, and leave it at that:

If you read my WHOLE post, and truly think that is the most important part of my entire post, then I am left feeling unsure that you read the whole thing. If you go back and read through the whole thing, and think that I truly feel that “consolidation of power” is truly more evil than what unfettered abortion does to families, then we can talk. As it is, this constitutes a failure to distill the main point of a piece of writing. (I guess this is the schoolteacher in me coming out )

 

[ishii]

Biology is as sure the mammal at conception is a live individual of the parents’ species as any science is of anything at all. To pretend there is doubt about that is like pretending no one knows whether there is hydrogen in a water molecule.
Viability is gradual and relative. Life is absolute. Life begins at conception. That’s science. If an embryo weren’t alive there would be no abortion. There would be nothing and no one to abort. Abortion is the killing of an embryo. There is no way to kill anyone or anything that is not alive to begin with. So the fact that an abortion kills a living individual human is as clear and solid as any scientific fact can ever be.
Viability begins when every organ is present, when the embryo becomes a fetus at six to eight weeks after conception. After that it’s a matter of neonatal ICU quality. So far the youngest in days ever born and saved was 18 weeks, five days in 1985; the most premature in development was an underdeveloped boy of 19 weeks, three days, in 1987. The boy, David Elgin Gill, was slightly less developed than the girl, Kenya King, though he was born almost a week older; they all develop differently. Equivalent efforts could probably save most premies at 19 weeks if every premature child were delivered in a state-of-the-art hospital, and that was in the '80’s, so let’s figure that if the medical profession had support for saving more babies, we would soon push viability to just under 18 weeks, at a modest estimate. Around half who are born at 24-25 weeks make it, including some who survived attempted abortions. At 32 weeks, some don’t even need neonatal care.
At birth, a premature baby is viable while in the incubator; a stronger newborn is viable while warm and fed. After birth, the placenta detaches. The cord is cut. The airway clears. The baby’s body becomes gradually more separate and independent. Then the child can hold her own bottle, and is independent of the mother’s body in one more way. That’s at several months after birth. Then the child can sleep through the night; then she can crawl away from danger; then she can run from danger. She no longer needs to be carried. Soon she can control her bladder and bowels and needs no one to set her on the toilet and hold her there. Finally her body is all her own. To question a child’s right to live just because the child’s body is attached to and depends upon the mother’s body is all the same thing whether the child is a zygote, embryo, unviable fetus, viable fetus, premie, full-term newborn, crawling infant, toddler or three-year-old girl or boy. The right to live is substantially different from the right not to be temporarily attached to a child who is already there. A government that ignores this has no right to teach a generation about sensitive topics.

Excellent post.

 

[Worthy5]

=SteveGC;5915180]Worthy5, at the risk of both aggravating the heck out of you, and remaining off topic on this thread…I’ll ask you this…

Steve you are not aggravating me, this poster is simply presenting alternative arguments. But you will notice that some pro-life people tend to charge up the tone—only lending support to the point of why govt power should be limited.

Is the act of abortion equivalent to a mother taking an unwanted newborn to a garage dump, handing him over to the workers to be thrown into the incinerator?

Two different set of facts. The law makes classifications all the time to promote the multiple policies needed for a society to flourish. The ealy fetus is not a new born. A reasonable pro-choice position is that govt can only go so far to protect life using the govt police power, but any further use actually creates a situation that threatens the very policy (protecting individual rights) that the pro-life position is about. Govt power can be dangerous, and autocratically used, not to mention the realilty of limited resources that a society has.

As a pro-life person you do not have to agree—that is reasonable, but you have to acknowledge the trade-offs. And it is also reasonable to hold the position that one can believe abortion is wrong but simply does not support that much use of the govt police power–esp when govt can use other means to help women make better decisions.

To the pro-lifer, it is exactly equivalent…

Yes, but a pro-choice person sees it differently but not necessarily because they support abortion but rather is more concerned about the use of govt police power. This country values individual freedom despite the costs it often means. And again, govt can use other types of “soft” power to work on the abortion problem.

Western history shows, and our founding fathers talk about this in varying ways, that power corrupts and absolute power,absolutely corrupts. Some of the " zeal" of the pro-life people on this and other threads is admirable. No one discounts the horror of abortion and its effects on people. But no matter how noble their aim, their zeal, especially with the full use of govt police power, can quickly turn to “rage”.

What is interesting is that many of pro-life people want expansive use of govt power on abortion but are the same ones who believe govt has no place passing laws regulating the workplace or the economy.

If govt is so powerful as to stop all abortions (it is not of course) then why should not the govt pass a law that guarantees a $ 100.00 minimum wage or that everyone has a two story house and two cars. This are extreme examples. The point is that any use of govt power can always be opposed by a reasonable argument not to use such power. Its an ongoing debate, shifting from one context and facts to another.

Upshot, pro-life people catholics should not hold in contempt pro-choice catholic whose postion is such based on the concern of govt power.

The OP does not like " legalities"— okay fine, then do not use the word " Pro-choice" for that is the legal issue. This poster has nothing to say on biology or theology of abortion other than it agrees all abortion is morally wrong.

 

[Worthy5]

=Whitacre_Girl;5915284]I’m just going to say this, and leave it at that:

If you read my WHOLE post, and truly think that is the most important part of my entire post, then I am left feeling unsure that you read the whole thing. If you go back and read through the whole thing, and think that I truly feel that “consolidation of power” is truly more evil than what unfettered abortion does to families, then we can talk. As it is, this constitutes a failure to distill the main point of a piece of writing. (I guess this is the schoolteacher in me coming out )

Well, it was the point that struck this poster. This poster has nothing to comment on the rest of your statement. God Bless

 

[SteveGC]

Steve you are not aggravating me, this poster is simply presenting alternative arguments. But you will notice that some pro-life people tend to charge up the tone—only lending support to the point of why govt power should be limited.

Two different set of facts. The law makes classifications all the time to promote the multiple policies needed for a society to flourish. The ealy fetus is not a new born. A reasonable pro-choice position is that govt can only go so far to protect life using the govt police power, but any further use actually creates a situation that threatens the very policy (protecting individual rights) that the pro-life position is about. Govt power can be dangerous, and autocratically used, not to mention the realilty of limited resources that a society has.

As a pro-life person you do not have to agree—that is reasonable, but you have to acknowledge the trade-offs. And it is also reasonable to hold the position that one can believe abortion is wrong but simply does not support that much use of the govt police power–esp when govt can use other means to help women make better decisions.

Yes, but a pro-choice person sees it differently but not necessarily because they support abortion but rather is more concerned about the use of govt police power. This country values individual freedom despite the costs it often means. And again, govt can use other types of “soft” power to work on the abortion problem.

Western history shows, and our founding fathers talk about this in varying ways, that power corrupts and absolute power,absolutely corrupts. Some of the " zeal" of the pro-life people on this and other threads is admirable. No one discounts the horror of abortion and its effects on people. But no matter how noble their aim, their zeal, especially with the full use of govt police power, can quickly turn to “rage”.

What is interesting is that many of pro-life people want expansive use of govt power on abortion but are the same ones who believe govt has no place passing laws regulating the workplace or the economy.

If govt is so powerful as to stop all abortions (it is not of course) then why should not the govt pass a law that guarantees a $ 100.00 minimum wage or that everyone has a two story house and two cars. This are extreme examples. The point is that any use of govt power can always be opposed by a reasonable argument not to use such power. Its an ongoing debate, shifting from one context and facts to another.

Upshot, pro-life people catholics should not hold in contempt pro-choice catholic whose postion is such based on the concern of govt power.

The OP does not like " legalities"— okay fine, then do not use the word " Pro-choice" for that is the legal issue. This poster has nothing to say on biology or theology of abortion other than it agrees all abortion is morally wrong.

Worthy, thanks for your response. I understand your concern about govt power. But I’m trying to understand why abortion prohibition would threaten limited govt, when murder prohibition currently does not, nor has it ever. Why can’t abortion simply be a sub-category of murder, and included in the same law bracket? That’s why I asked some of those questions above. I’m trying to determine what Worthy5 thinks about abortion. You implied that you acknowledge the “horror of abortion”. What is this “horror”, to you? I agree it is a horror, but I’m starting to believe that you think it’s a horror for different reasons. You don’t seem to equate it with murder. I asked if it’s equivalent to incinerating a newborn, but you didn’t seem to want to give me your feelings about that, but rather discuss it from a legal law-making standpoint. That’s not what I was going after. I want Worthy5’s personal opinion, if he’s willing to share it.

And if they’re not equivalent in “horror” to you, I want to know why not?

And if they ARE equivalent in “horror” to you, I wanted to know if you think the federal govt having current laws against incinerating newborns is a threat to the notion of limited govt?

In short…all of your concerns about limited govt are fine, but when it comes to the sanctity and protection of human life…I couldn’t care less about how much govt power is invoked for that purpose. Minimum wage and houses/cars are minor league issues, compared to human life and protection against murder. No?

 

[Worthy5]

Worthy, thanks for your response. I understand your concern about govt power. But I’m trying to understand why abortion prohibition would threaten limited govt, when murder prohibition currently does not, nor has it ever. Why can’t abortion simply be a sub-category of murder, and included in the same law bracket? That’s why I asked some of those questions above. I’m trying to determine what Worthy5 thinks about abortion. You implied that you acknowledge the “horror of abortion”. What is this “horror”, to you? I agree it is a horror, but I’m starting to believe that you think it’s a horror for different reasons. You don’t seem to equate it with murder. I asked if it’s equivalent to incinerating a newborn, but you didn’t seem to want to give me your feelings about that, but rather discuss it from a legal law-making standpoint. That’s not what I was going after. I want Worthy5’s personal opinion, if he’s willing to share it.

And if they’re not equivalent in “horror” to you, I want to know why not?

Steve this poster did discuss all the above and more on the prior thread. I believe you were part of that were you not? This poster accepts abortion as murder. But the early fetus is intrinsically attached and dependent on the women in a way that a new born is not. The legal issue is how to allocate the duty to protect the life of the early fetus and what is the nature of that duty?

Govt has a role no question, but the early fetus responsibility falls primarily on the women–God entrusted her. Govt should heavily regulate to help her make the correct moral decision but the notion of limited govt and individual freedom is that govt does not get to make all the decisions in society----freedom means the right to get it wrong as well as right.

The concern of govt power goes to the nature of the situation. The fetus is intrinsically connected to the women----the idea that govt would have complete power to compel her to have the child just is too much power over the individual. This poster would not dispute that the women’s choice likely should not extend past 4 weeks-----anything later is just too much for society to bear.

But the key is that the individual choice (duty of the women) exist somewhere in this equation—and govt can use all kinds of soft power to influence her decision—but not the coercive power of the police force----throwing women into jail—that is too much and it is not even certain it would actually reduce the number of abortions anyway.

 

[fix]

Is the act of abortion equivalent to a mother taking an unwanted newborn to a garage dump, handing him over to the workers to be thrown into the incinerator?

There is no difference. The pro abort crowd, as we see here, offers no good reason other than aribitrary ones.

The magical divide they claim to see is not based on the value of the human person. It is based on a political ideology.

As for the OP I would say there is no way to reconcile claiming “pro choice” with the teaching of the Church.

 

[gakroeger]

Director of Planned Parenthood Resigns after Watching Abortion Ultrasound

One down and millions to go.

Kind of supports my thoughts that if “pro choice” people knew what abortion was, they would not be “pro-choice”.

Entire article click here

 

[Caramel]

You are likely correct in that your two friends who have had abortions would no longer consider you a friend if you called them a ‘pro-abort’. So if you are engaging someone in a serious and legitimate discussion on this topic, why would you want to use language that immediately puts them on the defensive? Calling someone ‘pro abortion’ instead of ‘pro choice’ is an immediate way for them to tune out everything further that you have to say. You may feel better about yourself (and you may feel that the language is representative of their position), but you aren’t going to convert anyone with that kind of tact. What if the other side used similar language? What if they asked you - why do you hate women? Or - why are you a religious nutjob? You would rightly feel they were distorting your position, and that this was perhaps someone unable to engage in a serious discussion. Look at the bigger picture here - in your discussions with people on this topic, are you merely trying to win an argument, or are you trying to gain a convert?

I am very sorry but I don’t understand what you are telling me here. What I have been saying is that I don’t use the term “proabort” or “proabortion” for exactly the reasons you have stated here; although I personally believe that those terms are correct. I don’t use them when I talk to people and I wouldn’t normally even use them in a thread. I did use them here in response to another post. The farthest I have ever gone is to ask someone if they were “for abortion,” which didn’t upset that person in the least. She was prochoice. You seem to have labeled me as someone who would run up to people at an abortion clinic and call the women “proaborts.” Nothing could be farther from the truth. In fact, I have never even gone to an abortion clinic and now that I know where one is I honestly think that all I could do is sit in the parking lot in my car and cry.

I agree with you!! I thought I had made it clear that calling prochoicers anything but prochoice cuts off communication with them and ends any chance of a constructive discussion. I would never call anyone a “proabort.” If they wish to be called “prochoice” that is fine with me, although in my mind they are “proabortion.” I don’t tell them what is in my mind. These are people and I care about them.

I can’t help what pops up in my mind. I try to keep it there and show proper respect for fellow human beings. I care deeply about all people; I care deeply about women who have gone through abortion. I know it is a horrible tragedy; I know that women who have abortions bleed in more places than one; I know what it is like to be in a situation where there just doesn’t seem to be any other way out. I know they hurt because of the loss and heartbreak. As somebody in this thread said (and I am paraphrasing), “It’s like an animal chewing its own leg off to get out of a trap.” I* know* all this.

Again, my use of those terms on this thread were in response to another post. I have been using the term “prochoice.” You have me utterly confused at this point. Obviously I am not getting my position across not only to you but other posters as well.

I’m not trying to “win” a debate. Nobody can “win” a debate that deals with the topic of abortion. This may be a game to other posters but it is not a game to me. From my own experiences of losing a child before her birth to my looking up a few days ago and seeing a brand new Planned Parenthoold clinic in front of me I have learned how horrible this whole thing is. Loss of human life (except through natural death) is terrible; genocide, slavery, holocaust, abortion - I see so much suffering around me and I’m trying to put my own suffering aside a bit and try to help someone else; not because I’m noble or holy or better or smarter than anyone else but because I want to stop the practice of abortion. I still hurt from my own experiences, especially the loss of my daughter Elysia Catherine. I know she is in heaven but she is not with me and that wounds my heart so bad that I can never heal. If God ever grants me the ability to help someone who is hurting I pray that I do it correctly this time. I’ve already failed once. I don’t want to fail again.

If I have read your post correctly I agree with you. If you see that I haven’t read your post completely please re-word it so that I can understand what you are trying to tell me.

 

[Worthy5]

There is no difference. The pro abort crowd, as we see here, offers no good reason other than aribitrary ones.

The magical divide they claim to see is not based on the value of the human person. It is based on a political ideology.

As for the OP I would say there is no way to reconcile claiming “pro choice” with the teaching of the Church.

Hi Fix, welcome back.

It is interesting to see when a poster cannot accept a position that is different, but reasonable to have, from theirs, they like to invent phrases, make unexplained distinctions and impute suspect motives on their opponents.

" prudential issues" (from the last prior thread on this subject by fix)–what is that?

Argument by analogy-----yet assserting that is proof when analogies can only lend support but never prove anything.

" political ideology"–so how is that a bad thing, and how are you claiming you do not have a political ideology yourself. How is “political ideology” necessarily opposite " value of the human person."

 

[Caramel]

Director of Planned Parenthood Resigns after Watching Abortion Ultrasound

One down and millions to go.

Kind of supports my thoughts that if “pro choice” people knew what abortion was, they would not be “pro-choice”.

Entire article click here

Oh Wow!! Thank you so much for posting this link! It is such good news!! I read the whole article and I am so impressed with that director and so proud of her!! I also like the last paragraph where the article announces the closure of another abortion clinic due to loss of clients.

This has made my day so happy!!

I keep running across references to Planned Parenthood’s emphasis on abortion rather than family planning. It’s for a simple reason: they make more money off abortions than family planning. It’s a business; it’s not a nonprofit organization and it is full of greedy doctors who want only to line their pockets. It needs to be stopped!!

 

[Caramel]

beafedor;5913406:

See the paradox here:
Those who call themselves “pro-choice” are really pro abort in denial, most likely will never choose abortion for themselves. They are seduced by some political ideas of some sort like Bill Clinton’s statement “making abortion rare” in the nineties.

Your two friends, on the other hand, are post-abortive not pro abortion. Abortion is always a tragedy, and nobody chooses abortion because of some political ideas.

“No woman wants an abortion as she wants an ice cream cone or a Porsche. She wants an abortion as an animal caught in a trap wants to gnaw off its own leg." (Frederica Mathewes-Green)

I tried to edit my post but missed the deadline. I never meant to leave the impression that I don’t have compassion for women who have had abortions; on the contrary, I really do feel for them. It’s like the bumper sticker: “Abortion: One Dead, One Maimed.” I don’t believe that most women make a conscious choice to “murder” their own child; I put the blame on greedy doctors and a very bad decision by a (highly divided) Supreme Court. If I left that impression I apologize. Because I know how difficult it is.

This is extremely personal but I’m going to post it anyway. When I was four months pregnant with my son I went through an absolutely terrible experience. The only thing I can think of that would have been worse would have been for my child and me to have been shot and killed. I don’t want to go into more detail about the tragedy. I was hospitalized because I was in shock.

When I was in the hospital I refused to eat. I knew I was pregnant and I didn’t want my child to die but I would not eat or drink anything. After a few days I was put on IV and was told that if I pulled the IV out I would be restrained and the IV put back in. I lost weight. Lots of weight. This behavior put my unborn child at great risk and I don’t know why I was not eating, even to this day when my son is 26 years old. In my eighth month I gained 22 lbs and that sort of made up for the weight loss but my son almost died at birth and although there were factors that I couldn’t control, my refusal to eat put him at risk of dying before birth. Believe me, I know that it is a hard decision.

I apologize for any confusion caused by my inability to correct my “QUOTE” error. We are in the middle of a storm here and I was thrown off the internet and my computer shut down. By the time I managed to get back online and into the thread I couldn’t correct the “QUOTE” error. I eventually unplugged it my computer. There was a lot of lightning and thunder and that’s probably why I got disconnected.

 

[Caramel]

You are likely correct in that your two friends who have had abortions would no longer consider you a friend if you called them a ‘pro-abort’. So if you are engaging someone in a serious and legitimate discussion on this topic, why would you want to use language that immediately puts them on the defensive? Calling someone ‘pro abortion’ instead of ‘pro choice’ is an immediate way for them to tune out everything further that you have to say. You may feel better about yourself (and you may feel that the language is representative of their position), but you aren’t going to convert anyone with that kind of tact. What if the other side used similar language? What if they asked you - why do you hate women? Or - why are you a religious nutjob? You would rightly feel they were distorting your position, and that this was perhaps someone unable to engage in a serious discussion. Look at the bigger picture here - in your discussions with people on this topic, are you merely trying to win an argument, or are you trying to gain a convert?

I’ve read my original post that you are responding to and I think you are making a reference to my last paragraph where I said that perhaps the OP made a mistake in not using the terms “proabort” and “proabortion.” I can understand why that could have been taken in a way that I didn’'t intend. What I was trying to say was that using the term “prochoice” may not have resulted in prochoice Catholics entering into the debate and perhaps if the OP had used the term “proabort” some prochoice Catholics would have been angry enough to join the discussion. I haven’t seen a stream of prochoice Catholics in this debate yet and my scientific background led me to think that it might be more productive to use the term “proabort.” I never stated that the OPs use of the term “prochoice” was wrong. And I never meant to imply that the use of “proabort” would be any better or any worse. As I stated in my post, I didn’t know. I threw it in as a possibility, nothing more.

If that is why you responded to my post I can see why you misunderstood me. Sometimes the “scientist” in me makes me question factors and correlations and things like that and that’s just the way my mind has always operated. If something doesn’t work, maybe something else would. I’m trying to keep science out of the debate in respect to the OP but I can’t help but think as a scientist because that is such a strong part of me. Sometimes I forget that other people are not scientist but view the truth in different ways. I’m slowly learning how to do that but I know I’m going to slip back into my lab coat sometimes and make comments that only other people trained in the life sciences would understand.

I hope this clears up any confusion. And even if this isn’t what you were replying to I can still see that I have to take that lab coat off and put it away, at least for this debate.

I apologize for not being clear.

 

[jmcrae]

Steve this poster did discuss all the above and more on the prior thread. I believe you were part of that were you not? This poster accepts abortion as murder. But the early fetus is intrinsically attached and dependent on the women in a way that a new born is not. The legal issue is how to allocate the duty to protect the life of the early fetus and what is the nature of that duty?

How is it different than the duty to protect the mother herself? By protecting the mother, you protect her unborn child.

The concern of govt power goes to the nature of the situation. The fetus is intrinsically connected to the women----the idea that govt would have complete power to compel her to have the child just is too much power over the individual.

The government would not “compel her to have the child” - it would simply forbid her to kill him by means of surgical dismemberment, and by declaring “poisonous” those drugs that have the effect of poisoning the womb so as to kill the child inside it.

This poster would not dispute that the women’s choice likely should not extend past 4 weeks-----anything later is just too much for society to bear.

Actually, anything society can’t see, it can pretty much bear, as we see with partial-birth abortion. This does not mean that we should allow it, however.

But the key is that the individual choice (duty of the women) exist somewhere in this equation—and govt can use all kinds of soft power to influence her decision—but not the coercive power of the police force----throwing women into jail—that is too much and it is not even certain it would actually reduce the number of abortions anyway.

We would not be throwing the women in jail - just anyone who operates or works in an abortion clinic, and anyone who sells “morning after” drugs. The law would act by making abortion unavailable, and by jailing anyone who performs abortions on women. The women themselves would be considered victims and dupes; not criminals.

 

[Worthy5]

How is it different than the duty to protect the mother herself? By protecting the mother, you protect her unborn child.

My friend you can shrug all you want. But you might want to actually make an intelligent point first. " protect the mother herself" from what?—botched abortions—putting abortions underground would certaintly stop botched abortions. Make your argument clear so it can be undermined.

The government would not “compel her to have the child” - it would simply forbid her to kill him by means of surgical dismemberment, and by declaring “poisonous” those drugs that have the effect of poisoning the womb so as to kill the child inside it.

 

[Caramel]

Biology is as sure the mammal at conception is a live individual of the parents’ species as any science is of anything at all. To pretend there is doubt about that is like pretending no one knows whether there is hydrogen in a water molecule.
Viability is gradual and relative. Life is absolute. Life begins at conception. That’s science. If an embryo weren’t alive there would be no abortion. There would be nothing and no one to abort. Abortion is the killing of an embryo. There is no way to kill anyone or anything that is not alive to begin with. So the fact that an abortion kills a living individual human is as clear and solid as any scientific fact can ever be.
Viability begins when every organ is present, when the embryo becomes a fetus at six to eight weeks after conception. After that it’s a matter of neonatal ICU quality. So far the youngest in days ever born and saved was 18 weeks, five days in 1985; the most premature in development was an underdeveloped boy of 19 weeks, three days, in 1987. The boy, David Elgin Gill, was slightly less developed than the girl, Kenya King, though he was born almost a week older; they all develop differently. Equivalent efforts could probably save most premies at 19 weeks if every premature child were delivered in a state-of-the-art hospital, and that was in the '80’s, so let’s figure that if the medical profession had support for saving more babies, we would soon push viability to just under 18 weeks, at a modest estimate. Around half who are born at 24-25 weeks make it, including some who survived attempted abortions. At 32 weeks, some don’t even need neonatal care.
At birth, a premature baby is viable while in the incubator; a stronger newborn is viable while warm and fed. After birth, the placenta detaches. The cord is cut. The airway clears. The baby’s body becomes gradually more separate and independent. Then the child can hold her own bottle, and is independent of the mother’s body in one more way. That’s at several months after birth. Then the child can sleep through the night; then she can crawl away from danger; then she can run from danger. She no longer needs to be carried. Soon she can control her bladder and bowels and needs no one to set her on the toilet and hold her there. Finally her body is all her own. To question a child’s right to live just because the child’s body is attached to and depends upon the mother’s body is all the same thing whether the child is a zygote, embryo, unviable fetus, viable fetus, premie, full-term newborn, crawling infant, toddler or three-year-old girl or boy. The right to live is substantially different from the right not to be temporarily attached to a child who is already there. A government that ignores this has no right to teach a generation about sensitive topics.

I remember when premature babies were able to survive (albeit in ICU) at 24 weeks, then 21 weeks, and now 18 1/2 weeks. Your post demonstrates the remarkable development that begins at conception and continues on through birth and beyond. Thank you for putting it so clearly!!

 

[Christopher68]

We would not be throwing the women in jail - just anyone who operates or works in an abortion clinic, and anyone who sells “morning after” drugs. The law would act by making abortion unavailable, and by jailing anyone who performs abortions on women. The women themselves would be considered victims and dupes; not criminals.

And this same mentality has worked perfectly in the governments war on drugs, right?

 

[Caramel]

And this same mentality has worked perfectly in the governments war on drugs, right?

It isn’t the same mentality. Your analogy is extremely weak. We are not discussing drug use here - we are discussing abortion.

 

[Christopher68]

It isn’t the same mentality. Your analogy is extremely weak. We are not discussing drug use here - we are discussing abortion.

It is the same mentality as far as using government force to curb behavior that isn’t universally considered as wrong. The analogy is not comparing drug use to abortion - the analogy is comparing the government response to each.

Note: I don’t want to get off track on the OP’s thread by again getting involved in the governmental and legal aspects of the issue - we discussed that at length in another thread. However, the earlier poster I had responded to had taken the discussion in that direction.