The regime of Roe v. Wade

[mlchance]

From First Things (October 2005):

The quandaries created by the regime of Roe v. Wade. In Lufkin, Texas, sixteen-year-old Erica had been trying by various measures to kill the twin babies with whom she was four-months pregnant. She finally asked her boyfriend Gerardo to stomp on her stomach, which he did, and the babies died. Gerardo, but not Erica, is charged with murder. The Associated Press reports, “The case has attorneys on both sides questioning the fairness of a statute that considers one person’s crime another person’s constitutional right.” According to Roe, Gerardo was helping Erica exercise her constitutional right to kill her babies. Unlike other abortionists, of course, he was practicing without a license, which is against the law in Texas.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[Digger71]

mlchance:

From First Things (October 2005):

The quandaries created by the regime of Roe v. Wade. In Lufkin, Texas, sixteen-year-old Erica had been trying by various measures to kill the twin babies with whom she was four-months pregnant. She finally asked her boyfriend Gerardo to stomp on her stomach, which he did, and the babies died. Gerardo, but not Erica, is charged with murder. The Associated Press reports, “The case has attorneys on both sides questioning the fairness of a statute that considers one person’s crime another person’s constitutional right.” According to Roe, Gerardo was helping Erica exercise her constitutional right to kill her babies. Unlike other abortionists, of course, he was practicing without a license, which is against the law in Texas.

– Mark L. Chance.

Firstly, a fetus is not a baby. We have different words which reflect the reality, which is a fetus is not a baby. The misapplication of the word ‘bab’y’ is a case of conflation. Seeking to use emotions evoked by one word (‘baby’) to modify the emotional reaction to a different subject (fetus. But other examples exist…‘iraq’ and ‘terrorism’ spring to mind. ‘gay’ and ‘peadophile’ is another). As I believe ensoulment occurs at the first breath ( a heresy, but Thomas Aquinas also believed this, I believe, so not an outrageous heresy), abortion is not murder.

Secondly, it is not a ‘regime’. No one (or very, very few) is forced to have abortions. There may be emotional pressure, but that is not the same as being frog-marched to an abortion clinic and being threatened with death for not having an abortion. Various states do force abortion, but it is not the united states. The word ‘regime’ is again a case of conflation, in this instance hoping to conflate onerous state instrusion with the excersize of freedoms.

I am against abortion myself, but my arguments are not aided by emotive and inaccurate word usage. I have also noticed in my other notice board, that the pro-abortionists also recognise these sorts of conflations and shoot down the guilty parties with impeccable logic and semantics.

 

[jediliz]

Defintion of fetus:

1. 
   *] In humans, the unborn young from the end of the eighth week after conception to the moment of birth, as distinguished from the earlier embryo.
   
   The unborn baby is a human being. It is from conceotion until Death.

 

[mlchance]

Way to completely ignore the point. But, onward:

Digger71:

Firstly, a fetus is not a baby.

Sophism.

Digger71:

As I believe ensoulment occurs at the first breath ( a heresy, but Thomas Aquinas also believed this, I believe, so not an outrageous heresy), abortion is not murder.

St. Thomas Aquinas believed no such thing, and the very existence of the soul is utterly irrelevant to the question. It is a scientific fact that a developing embryo/fetus/baby is alive. Abortion ends this life. QED.

Digger71:

Secondly, it is not a ‘regime’. No one (or very, very few) is forced to have abortions.

Dr. Marcella Colbert of the Galveston-Houston Archdiocese’s Respect Life Office has been involved for decades in counseling women who’ve had abortions. She’s never met a woman yet who wasn’t forced into the abortion.

Digger71:

There may be emotional pressure, but that is not the same as being frog-marched to an abortion clinic and being threatened with death for not having an abortion.

Sophism.

Digger71:

I have also noticed…that the pro-abortionists also recognise these sorts of conflations and shoot down the guilty parties with impeccable logic and semantics.

http://home.houston.rr.com/mchance3/rolleyes.gif

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[CatholicCid]

Digger71:

Firstly, a fetus is not a baby. We have different words which reflect the reality, which is a fetus is not a baby.

Would “child” work for you? Under Webster’s definition, it is a correct term.

Though, I think the word “regime” is used more so in reference to the period since Roe vs. Wade was decided. Though, emotional pressure can be just as powerful as threatening one’s life.
Though, Forced abortions in themselves… Well, one should be more than enough to through up red flags…
lifesite.net/ldn/2004/mar/04030910.html

Though, I thought St. Thomas Aquinas, using the limited scientific knowledge of the 13th century, followed Aristotle that the conception of a male child was completed at day 40, and that of the female child at the 90th day, with replacement of the embryo’s “nutritive soul” by a human soul.

Though, St. Aquinas also said “Clearly the person who accepts the Church as an infallible guide will believe whatever the Church teaches.”

 

[Lonevoice]

Like my sig says, “If it’s not a baby, you’re not pregnant…”

 

[tamccrackine]

Digger71:

No one (or very, very few) is forced to have abortions. There may be emotional pressure, but that is not the same as being frog-marched to an abortion clinic and being threatened with death for not having an abortion. .

You’re right… you’re so right… so all the women that have had abortions under the dire threat of their own lives really should have just stood strong and said no? Right? Emotional pressure can be in many cases, much more powerful than physical pressure… good example… the Holocaust. Why didn’t many Germans stand up to the Reich when they knew what was happening was wrong? Because they saw what happened to the ones that did and just that thought alone was enough for them to remain silent.

Anyway… I personally believe the story in the original post itself to be abhorrent. I’m sorry the girl felt like she didn’t want to be pregnant anymore and would rather kill the babies than just place them up for adoption. I knew of a young girl that was pregnant for the second time (she aborted the first) and at four months went around her house slamming her stomach into sharp corners, had her borfriend punch her in the stomach to cause a miscarriage. She finally drank enough alcohol to make herself pass out. By the grace of God, the baby survived and the girl’s mother forced an adoption. The girl was only 14 at the time. It’s pretty sad actually.

 

[Digger71]

jediliz:

Defintion of fetus:

1. 
   *] In humans, the unborn young from the end of the eighth week after conception to the moment of birth, as distinguished from the earlier embryo.
   
   The unborn baby is a human being. It is from conceotion until Death.

1. 
   Indeed, before the 8th week other terminology is used because the potential offspring does not resemble the adult at all. Blastocyt I think is the word.
   
   Further, it isnt human until ensoulment occurs. Aquinas said ensoulment could not occur in a non-fully formed animal. Accepting ensoulment of a fertilised egg implies non-human forms can have souls. Welcome to the world of bacteria with souls.
   
   Other believe ensoulment happens at first breath (myslef included) they do not believe a fetus is human or abortion is murder.

 

[Digger71]

mlchance:

Sophism.

No. Logical and clear distinction. If A is not B then calling B is inaccurate.

mlchance:

St. Thomas Aquinas believed no such thing, and the very existence of the soul is utterly irrelevant to the question. It is a scientific fact that a developing embryo/fetus/baby is alive. Abortion ends this life. QED.

The question is about when ensoulment occurred. Aquinas believed that a human soul needed a human body.

Dr. Marcella Colbert of the Galveston-Houston Archdiocese’s Respect Life Office has been involved for decades in counseling women who’ve had abortions. She’s never met a woman yet who wasn’t forced into the abortion.

A survey with 100%? I would ask how big the sample was, if interviewer bias was involved, and if the rhetoric of the cousellor attracted a certain type “Forced To Abort? Get Counselling Here”.

And so on.

 

[Digger71]

Lonevoice:

Like my sig says, “If it’s not a baby, you’re not pregnant…”

Ever considered your .sig might be ahem wrong?

 

[snowman10]

Digger71:

Ever considered your .sig might be ahem wrong?

Ever considered Aquinas might be ahem wrong?

I do believe a human is human because
1.) It has a soul that will live on throughout eternity (religious reason)

2.) Genetics make a human. And it gets more specific. Males and females. A male dressed as a female is still male. A male that has a sex change is still a male. Hope that makes sense.

Ensoulment begins the second genetic material from the male and female join (conception). Even though a rabbit, donkey, and human RESEMBLE, not mirror or look exactly like, each other shortly after conception, they are not the same. Why? Genetics.

I know this was not the most scientific I could have gotten, but I just got back from Physics lab so…

Dxu

 

[Digger71]

snowman10:

Ever considered Aquinas might be ahem wrong?

More often than you imagine.

snowman10:

2.) Genetics make a human. And it gets more specific. Males and females. A male dressed as a female is still male. A male that has a sex change is still a male. Hope that makes sense.

Indeed it does. But my white blood cells have complete copies of my DNA, but that gives them human chemistry, not arms and legs. A blastocyst likewaise has human chemistry. but not form.

And, of course, you are saying simply having human DNA makes you human, by which I assume you mean that ensoulment is materially based in DNA. interesting, potentially true.

snowman10:

Ensoulment begins the second genetic material from the male and female join (conception). Even though a rabbit, donkey, and human RESEMBLE, not mirror or look exactly like, each other shortly after conception, they are not the same. Why? Genetics.

I know this was not the most scientific I could have gotten, but I just got back from Physics lab so…

Dxu

It’s OK, I respect that view, but I dont accept it. many fertilised eggs are washed out of the female sexual organs naturally, fertilised but without settling. The idea that all these have souls that never achieve full physical humanity has interesting implications abut the nature of god.

Does your god create souls to flush away?

 

[BlindSheep]

Digger, you seem to be a person who cares about human rights, and who feels it is important not to limit a person’s freedom without sufficient reason. Is this a fair assumption?

 

[snowman10]

Digger71:

Indeed it does. But my white blood cells have complete copies of my DNA, but that gives them human chemistry, not arms and legs. A blastocyst likewaise has human chemistry. but not form.

And, of course, you are saying simply having human DNA makes you human, by which I assume you mean that ensoulment is materially based in DNA. interesting, potentially true.

It’s OK, I respect that view, but I dont accept it. many fertilised eggs are washed out of the female sexual organs naturally, fertilised but without settling. The idea that all these have souls that never achieve full physical humanity has interesting implications abut the nature of god.

Does your god create souls to flush away?

DNA is a blueprint. We share 98% of our DNA with most other primates. But the fact that there are differences between our DNA and that of other primates indicates that humans are not chimps, and chimps are not humans. I know this is not answering what you said and that it is a “Duh Principle”, but I wanted to make sure this was out there.

I hold that DNA defines us as human. When an egg is fertilized by sperm, what we know as conception, the earliest form of human life has been created. The idea of maturation is prevalent in nature, and our lives our no exception. We go from zygote, fetus, newborn, toddler, child, teenager,young adult, adult, middle aged, old aged, deceased. It is maturation, with the final stage being death. After death, we reach our final maturity in heaven or hell. My point is that form is relative to where we are in our maturation and growth process. We grow and mature, when we are only a matter of cells, we still have human DNA, and a soul, and we are in an early FORM.

Does God create souls to be flushed away? I like this question because it invokes alot of thoughts and emotions. My answer may be simple, but I think it is an adequate answer:
Why does God allow children to be born to mothers with AIDS, or mothers that will abuse them, or mothers that are on crack? God has a purpose for everyone, even the preborn that die seconds after they are concieved. Maybe their purpose is too serve Him in heaven, or for something we don’t know but He does. Or maybe it is just the fact we live in a imperfect world.

I hope I have not offended anyone or leaked misinformation. Feel free to critique or correct.

Dxu

 

[tamccrackine]

snowman10:

DNA is a blueprint. We share 98% of our DNA with most other primates. But the fact that there are differences between our DNA and that of other primates indicates that humans are not chimps, and chimps are not humans. I know this is not answering what you said and that it is a “Duh Principle”, but I wanted to make sure this was out there.

I hold that DNA defines us as human. When an egg is fertilized by sperm, what we know as conception, the earliest form of human life has been created. The idea of maturation is prevalent in nature, and our lives our no exception. We go from zygote, fetus, newborn, toddler, child, teenager,young adult, adult, middle aged, old aged, deceased. It is maturation, with the final stage being death. After death, we reach our final maturity in heaven or hell. My point is that form is relative to where we are in our maturation and growth process. We grow and mature, when we are only a matter of cells, we still have human DNA, and a soul, and we are in an early FORM.

Does God create souls to be flushed away? I like this question because it invokes alot of thoughts and emotions. My answer may be simple, but I think it is an adequate answer:
Why does God allow children to be born to mothers with AIDS, or mothers that will abuse them, or mothers that are on crack? God has a purpose for everyone, even the preborn that die seconds after they are concieved. Maybe their purpose is too serve Him in heaven, or for something we don’t know but He does. Or maybe it is just the fact we live in a imperfect world.

I hope I have not offended anyone or leaked misinformation. Feel free to critique or correct.

Dxu

Dxu, this is probably the best answer in the most simplistic form I have ever read. I have a degree in Bio so explaining my stance without using huge words gets my tongue tied and you were very succinct without offending.

And I agree that God creates a life only to be flushed away mere moments (seconds or even weeks) after conception occurs. Explain this to every woman that had a miscarriage but thought she just had a heavy period, which is more than most even know. Most women will have a miscarriage at some point during their reproductive years without even realizing they were pregnant.
theresa

 

[mlchance]

Digger71:

Further, it isnt human until ensoulment occurs. Aquinas said ensoulment could not occur in a non-fully formed animal.

Aquinas was wrong, and the Church has said so in this particular matter. That point aside, the existence of the soul is irrelevant. The developing embryo/fetus/baby is alive and it is human. These are scientific facts. Therefore, it has a right to life. This is a moral fact.

Facts are much better than yet more sophistry.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[Lonevoice]

Digger71:

Ever considered your .sig might be ahem wrong?

No.

Just ask yourself what that writhing mound of cells is; alive or dead. Any honesty of any amount has to admit that it’s alive.

It’s a baby, no amount of sophistry or lame excuses can change that. When you’re pregnant, you’re HAVING A BABY!!! Deal with it. No amount of toying with it or making excuses makes a difference. It’s a baby, a complete person with separate DNA and all the rest…

And arguing the point won’t change anything…

God bless us all if we can’t see the the truth.

 

[snowman10]

tamccrackine:

Dxu, this is probably the best answer in the most simplistic form I have ever read. I have a degree in Bio so explaining my stance without using huge words gets my tongue tied and you were very succinct without offending.

And I agree that God creates a life only to be flushed away mere moments (seconds or even weeks) after conception occurs. Explain this to every woman that had a miscarriage but thought she just had a heavy period, which is more than most even know. Most women will have a miscarriage at some point during their reproductive years without even realizing they were pregnant.
theresa

Thank you very much. Science, bio specifically, has always been my strong subject. The human body just fascinates me.

dxu

 

[estesbob]

Digger71:

Firstly, a fetus is not a baby. We have different words which reflect the reality, which is a fetus is not a baby. The misapplication of the word ‘bab’y’ is a case of conflation. Seeking to use emotions evoked by one word (‘baby’) to modify the emotional reaction to a different subject (fetus. But other examples exist…‘iraq’ and ‘terrorism’ spring to mind. ‘gay’ and ‘peadophile’ is another). As I believe ensoulment occurs at the first breath ( a heresy, but Thomas Aquinas also believed this, I believe, so not an outrageous heresy), abortion is not murder.

Secondly, it is not a ‘regime’. No one (or very, very few) is forced to have abortions. There may be emotional pressure, but that is not the same as being frog-marched to an abortion clinic and being threatened with death for not having an abortion. Various states do force abortion, but it is not the united states. The word ‘regime’ is again a case of conflation, in this instance hoping to conflate onerous state instrusion with the excersize of freedoms.

I am against abortion myself, but my arguments are not aided by emotive and inaccurate word usage. I have also noticed in my other notice board, that the pro-abortionists also recognise these sorts of conflations and shoot down the guilty parties with impeccable logic and semantics.

We are talking about the brutal death of two unborn children and you want to argue about semantics. You may very well be pro-life but in my years in the pro-life movement it has been my experience whenever one start arguing about the terminology to describe the fetus/baby/child/embryo they are trying to change the subject.

 

[estesbob]

Digger71:

Indeed, before the 8th week other terminology is used because the potential offspring does not resemble the adult at all. Blastocyt I think is the word.

Further, it isnt human until ensoulment occurs. Aquinas said ensoulment could not occur in a non-fully formed animal. Accepting ensoulment of a fertilised egg implies non-human forms can have souls. Welcome to the world of bacteria with souls.

Other believe ensoulment happens at first breath (myslef included) they do not believe a fetus is human or abortion is murder.

Aquinas does not speak for the Catholic Church. The Church’s teachings are that life begins an conception. Period,

I wlll pray that the Lord will open you eyes to the abject horror you support.