What About Abortion in Cases of Rape, Incest? Women and Sexual Assault

[Tantum_ergo]

1. Does a zygote or fetus have rights? I personally think no, they’re a clump of cells. Certainly the transition from a fetus with no rights to a baby with some rights is a tricky move. At this point I defer judgment to the land of the law and professionals in the field.
2. That is up to the person. One should adhere to the rule of law as long as it is just, as defined by the community within it. So if killing your husband worked for you, it is not against the law and just, then feel free to kill again.

Oh–kay. See, every time that atheists tell me that morality is something that is not ‘limited’ to Christians, I see a post like yours above that makes me wonder if those other atheists honestly don’t ‘know’ that their fellows have positions like yours, and if they would condemn your view as strongly as a Christian. . .or if they (like you apparently) would find this perfectly ‘reasonable’ and acceptable behavior.

“If it isn’t against the law and just (defined by the COMMUNITY) feel free to kill.”

And you have no idea how ludicrous this ‘view’ is?

So you have no problems with Muslim suicide bombers, right? It isn’t against their law and it is ‘just’ defined by their community. You’ll say, "well, it is against the law and unjust in other communities."

So which community ‘wins’ the ‘justice’ prize? Who determines which of the two totally contradictory positions is the ‘correct’ one?

and if a majority decides that murder is no longer against the law, and is just, does it suddenly become just? Because the majority 'say so?'

 

[St_Francis]

1. Does a zygote or fetus have rights? I personally think no, they’re a clump of cells. Certainly the transition from a fetus with no rights to a baby with some rights is a tricky move. At this point I defer judgment to the land of the law and professionals in the field.

In the issue of abortion, we are talking about humans, and I will stick to that. “Zygote” and “fetus” are simply words indicating the stage of the unborn child, analogous to infant, toddler, adolescent, adult. The same difference exists between a zygote and a baby as exists between a baby and an adult.

And yes, the “zygote” has rights: he or she has the same right *not *to be killed as anyone else. Of course, if you are talking about those “rights” granted by other humans, well, how valid are *those *“rights”? In the USA, it used to be that one human had the right to buy, sell, and own another human being. Human-generated “rights” are arbitrary and subject to any prevailing wind…

1. That is up to the person. One should adhere to the rule of law as long as it is just, as defined by the community within it. So if killing your husband worked for you, it is not against the law and just, then feel free to kill again.

So you think that what is or is not moral is defined by the community, and that anything the community thinks is all right is all right by you? There’s no connection to anything other than what a community thinks is all right?

 

[wanner47]

Lynx, do you understand the difference between legality and morality? Do you think the two are analogous?

 

[St_Francis]

Well, the Church allows the use of Plan B/Emergency Contraception to a rape victim immediately after the rape, in the emergency room, provided she 1) test negative to a pregnancy test and 2) test that she is not ovulating. Anything beyond that is considered an “abortion” by the Church. This is a teaching of the Church, but I disagree with point #2 personally, and I’m not alone. I think that Plan B should be offered to a rape victim who tests negative to a pregnancy test. Period. It takes a few hours up to 36 hours to conceive, and for me, the risk would be worth taking to avoid pregnancy in the case of rape. If one acts on it quickly, the primary intervention would be working towards preventing a preganancy from happening in the first place.

For myself, with regards to a rape, I myself would take the Plan B in the emergency room, regardless of any testing for ovulation. If I got pregnant anyway, I don’t think I’d take further action, and the ONLY reason why I wouldn’t take action is because I’d be afraid that if this was truly a sin, I’d be in sin. However, I cannot in good conscience deny another woman the right to make that descision. I believe it would be immoral of me to take away a rape victim’s right to defend herself against an forced pregnancy. We live (or are supposed to live) chaste lives, why should a woman not only be raped, but then be forced to become pregnant on top of it? If a woman decides that she would rather risk turning a really horrific bad thing into maybe a good thing by risking pregnancy, that is HER choice, it takes a very special woman, and everyone should support her choice. But if she decides she doesn’t want any part of a pregnancy resulting from rape, that is her choice as well. I thank God every day that this country provides that choice to rape victims (and most do anyway).

Fr. William Saunders’ article on rape sums it up for me. I find it completely reasonable and rational - AND moral.

catholiceducation.org/articles/religion/re0566.html

I posted what I believe, and that’s my life policy. I really have no problem with how others feel about how they live their lives. What’s important to me is that I have a choice. But thank you for sharing your thoughts, you have the right to them, like everyone else

It differs (and makes a difference for me ) here in this part, taken from the article written by Fr. Saunders:

A pregnancy test should be performed. If she is not pregnant but her medical history suggests the possibility that ovulation may have occurred, then health care providers ought to administer a Luteinizing Hormone urine dip test or a progesterone blood level test. These tests would indicate if ovulation has indeed occurred and thereby a child was possibly conceived. If these tests are not available in a timely way or at all, treatment should proceed as long as there is a reasonable doubt that ovulation has occurred.

Here again is a key point. If there is a reasonable doubt that ovulation has taken place, the right of the woman to prevent the pregnancy should be favored, even if this unknowingly and unintentionally expels a conceived ovum.

The Bishop’s article doesn’t include this last part. Right or wrong, according to some on this forum, this is also how I feel about it and I feel strongly about it. I agree with Fr. Saunders.

1. You seem to be differentiating the bishops’ statement from Fr Saunders’ on the basis of Fr Saunders’ having said that if there is a reasonable doubt that ovulation has occurred, Plan B may be administered. Is that correct?
2. You say that you would follow what Fr Saunders said, but you also said that you would take the Plan B “regardless” of any testing for ovulation. Your statements seem to contradict each other.
3. You also seem to not understand that it doesn’t matter what a person *chooses *to believe, it is a reality that abortion is always and everywhere wrong. Fr Saunders would not agree with your assertion that you cannot deny to another woman the option of killing her unborn child.

I just wanted to point these apparent contradictions out, because they are to me confusing.

 

[lynx]

“If it isn’t against the law and just (defined by the COMMUNITY) feel free to kill.”

And you have no idea how ludicrous this ‘view’ is?

Maybe that’s why you appear anti abortion because this is how that law is.

So you have no problems with Muslim suicide bombers, right?

Oh I do. Exploding yourself and harming others is against the law, even in Islamic society. You’re referring to radicals who act outside of the community.

It isn’t against their law and it is ‘just’ defined by their community.

LOL wut? Which communities? Who? Are you making this stuff up? I think you are. I have never read about an Islamic society that approves of suicide bombing.

You’ll say, "well, it is against the law and unjust in other communities."

No I don’t think I will. You see, if a society truly thought that way they would have eradicated themselves.

So which community ‘wins’ the ‘justice’ prize? Who determines which of the two totally contradictory positions is the ‘correct’ one?

Generally the one with more power, however you’d like to define power.

and if a majority decides that murder is no longer against the law, and is just, does it suddenly become just? Because the majority 'say so?'

Yes, that is what i’m implying. However, what are the real chances of that? People tend to not like being murdered, so I doubt it will become common place any time soon.

 

[lynx]

In the issue of abortion, we are talking about humans, and I will stick to that. “Zygote” and “fetus” are simply words indicating the stage of the unborn child, analogous to infant, toddler, adolescent, adult. The same difference exists between a zygote and a baby as exists between a baby and an adult.

And yes, the “zygote” has rights: he or she has the same right *not *to be killed as anyone else. Of course, if you are talking about those “rights” granted by other humans, well, how valid are *those *“rights”? In the USA, it used to be that one human had the right to buy, sell, and own another human being. Human-generated “rights” are arbitrary and subject to any prevailing wind…

As we see in US society today, the rights of a child vs the rights of an adult differ. So, it appears to me that age is a valid issue on where to begin partitioning rights, although perhaps not moral. This is my only reason for using the zygote / fetus terminology. Now, the rights generated by humans are exactly the rights we’re talking about. What you are trying to do is say that the rights imposed by the bible are the only rights one should be concerned about. But that is not how the US secular society is. We cater to the universal rights of everyone and not kowtow to a specific religion, as best we can.

So you think that what is or is not moral is defined by the community, and that anything the community thinks is all right is all right by you?

Yes and no. That which is moral is defined by a community; I do not always agree with what is moral. You can have your own sense of morality, but if what you think differs from society does it make your opinion moral? The answer is maybe. Bottom line, you can think whatever you like, it doesn’t make it always moral IMO.

There’s no connection to anything other than what a community thinks is all right?

Not necessarily. The connection is how the society came to a conclusion that something was immoral or moral. Religion has played a hand in that certainly.

 

[lynx]

Lynx, do you understand the difference between legality and morality?

I do

Do you think the two are analogous?

Not at all. Let me give you an example. People can drink poisonous alcohol and smoke cancer causing cigarettes, but pain-easing marijuana is illegal? I disagree with the law, and find marijuana usage, in moderation, completely moral.

 

[St_Francis]

As we see in US society today, the rights of a child vs the rights of an adult differ. So, it appears to me that age is a valid issue on where to begin partitioning rights, although perhaps not moral. This is my only reason for using the zygote / fetus terminology. Now, the rights generated by humans are exactly the rights we’re talking about. What you are trying to do is say that the rights imposed by the bible are the only rights one should be concerned about. But that is not how the US secular society is. We cater to the universal rights of everyone and not kowtow to a specific religion, as best we can.

Can you see that we are *not *catering to the universal rights of everyone when we say that it is all right for one person to murder another? And can you see that in the specific case of abortion, that an innocent human life is being taken?

Can you see that morality comes from somewhere outside of us? In fact, it is usually *more *difficult to do the moral thing than to do the immoral thing, and yet we frequently force ourselves to do the moral thing, don’t we?

We in the USA theoretically believe in rights which have been endowed by our Creator (If that sounds familiar to you, it is because it comes from the US Declaration of Independence). There are some rights that cannot be reasonably endowed by other humans, because then they rely on the whim of other humans to maintain. It is wrong for others to kill me, and that is why I have a right to life. But why is it wrong for someone to kill me? What is it about me that makes that an immoral act? This has nothing to do with society, which cannot make killing me a moral act, even if killing me becomes legal.

Yes and no. That which is moral is defined by a community; I do not always agree with what is moral. You can have your own sense of morality, but if what you think differs from society does it make your opinion moral? The answer is maybe. Bottom line, you can think whatever you like, it doesn’t make it always moral IMO.

Sometimes you think that what the community is wrong in what it considers moral. Where would you get that idea?

Not necessarily. The connection is how the society came to a conclusion that something was immoral or moral. Religion has played a hand in that certainly.

How is it that so many communities have been so consistent in what they think is right and what they think is wrong? How is it that across many communities over the centuries the same virtues are celebrated, and the same vices looked down upon?

 

[wanner47]

I do

Good.

Not at all. Let me give you an example. People can drink poisonous alcohol and smoke cancer causing cigarettes, but pain-easing marijuana is illegal? I disagree with the law, and find marijuana usage, in moderation, completely moral.

Just so, it’s ridiculous that it’s considered murder to kill a newborn baby minutes after its birth, but is perfectly legal to do so minutes *before *its birth.

In this case, we disagree with the law, because the law allows for the killing of innocent life, which is morally wrong. We disagree with the law which does not yet ascribe rights to human beings at ALL stages of life. Just as the law was remiss in not giving African-Americans legal rights back in the Civil War era, it is remiss in not giving legal rights to unborn children.

 

[lynx]

Can you see that we are *not *catering to the universal rights of everyone when we say that it is all right for one person to murder another?

No. If everyone in Australia decided that murder is just, legal and acceptable, then for all intent and purposes it is if you’re part of that Australian community. I don’t care how despicable the act is, if society gives it the nod (figuratively) then it becomes moral. Now, if another group, say Asia, decided that they were immoral and invaded Australia to make sure people stopped killing each other then murder would become immoral if Asia was more powerful.

And can you see that in the specific case of abortion, that an innocent human life is being taken?

No. I can see a clump of cells have been taken. My appendix is not a human and I can remove it when I need to.

Can you see that morality comes from somewhere outside of us?

That I can see; and there’s nothing wrong with that, but it’s not for me.

In fact, it is usually *more *difficult to do the moral thing than to do the immoral thing, and yet we frequently force ourselves to do the moral thing, don’t we?

This is tough to answer. I might do many things that appear immoral to you but moral to myself. But, just based upon my own morality, I find it easy to stay moral. There are few temptations and actions I find immoral (murder is one of them though).

We in the USA theoretically believe in rights which have been endowed by our Creator (If that sounds familiar to you, it is because it comes from the US Declaration of Independence).

LOL Thanks for the history lesson. Now, define Creator. That has so much ambiguous meaning to sooo many people it can skew those rights you think you have.

There are some rights that cannot be reasonably endowed by other humans, because then they rely on the whim of other humans to maintain.

Are you saying some freedoms are too difficult to maintain outside of a Creator? I disagree. In fact, just about every atheist might disagree. A creator is not needed for morality. Man can determine morality just fine.

It is wrong for others to kill me, and that is why I have a right to life. But why is it wrong for someone to kill me? What is it about me that makes that an immoral act? This has nothing to do with society, which cannot make killing me a moral act, even if killing me becomes legal.

I think it does. If I kill you and nobody cares is it moral? Well if I think so, and everyone else does then I think killing you is moral. Unless morality is completely dictated by God(s), I don’t think you have a valid argument.

Sometimes you think that what the community is wrong in what it considers moral. Where would you get that idea?

Personal vs group morality. There are many disagreements in politics and culture that skew morality and pit moralities against one another. Example, abortion.

How is it that so many communities have been so consistent in what they think is right and what they think is wrong? How is it that across many communities over the centuries the same virtues are celebrated, and the same vices looked down upon?

This is an interesting anthropological and sociological question. In general, most societies have a sense of fairness which dictates law. This fairness can be found in religious writings, personal observations, philosophic situations or the need for societal protections. Lets take murder for example. Lets pretend I see my mother who i’ve known for years get murdered. That’ll make me pretty upset. Now, I know from personal observation that murder is probably wrong. Let’s also say that I was now contemplating murdering my mother’s killer. Due to my empathy I can understand that if I kill this person, his loved ones could become upset. While I feel the need for justice I recognize that murder is not the path. This was discovered through a philosophic situation. That being said, there is no good answer to this question; and certainly no simple answer.

 

[lynx]

Good.

I know right?

Just so, it’s ridiculous that it’s considered murder to kill a newborn baby minutes after its birth, but is perfectly legal to do so minutes *before *its birth.

Do you mean about 131487 minutes before birth? If so, then yes this true.

In this case, we disagree with the law,

True. There will never be any concurrence until the law is changed.

because the law allows for the killing of innocent life, which is morally wrong.

Morally wrong to you and your faith, but not to everyone or the majority of leaders upholding the law.

We disagree with the law which does not yet ascribe rights to human beings at ALL stages of life. Just as the law was remiss in not giving African-Americans legal rights back in the Civil War era, it is remiss in not giving legal rights to unborn children.

Perhaps. I guess we’ll see what the courts have to say.

 

[wanner47]

Do you mean about 131487 minutes before birth? If so, then yes this true.

No, I mean 1+ minutes before birth. You are aware that’s perfectly legal to do so, aren’t you?

Morally wrong to you and your faith, but not to everyone or the majority of leaders upholding the law.

Ah, there you go, confusing legality and morality. I thought you knew the difference? (Incidentally, I am not opposed to abortion merely because I’m Catholic. I’m opposed to abortion also as a civil rights issue. I can argue against abortion without bringing religion into it at all.)

Abortion is objectively morally wrong, on a secular level as well as a religious one, and since the lawmakers don’t realize that it’s up to us to convince them otherwise. That’s the whole point of the pro-life movement.

Perhaps. I guess we’ll see what the courts have to say.

Courts have been wrong before, such as when they ruled that African-Americans were only 3/4 people. A court’s decision doesn’t make an action morally acceptable. It just makes it legal. Big difference.

 

[St_Francis]

No. If everyone in Australia decided that murder is just, legal and acceptable, then for all intent and purposes it is if you’re part of that Australian community. I don’t care how despicable the act is, if society gives it the nod (figuratively) then it becomes moral. Now, if another group, say Asia, decided that they were immoral and invaded Australia to make sure people stopped killing each other then murder would become immoral if Asia was more powerful.

So, might makes right?

If society’s giving it the nod makes it moral, how can you disagree?

No. I can see a clump of cells have been taken. My appendix is not a human and I can remove it when I need to.

The difference being that your appendix has your DNA and an unborn child has its own DNA from the moment of conception (BTW, the pro-abortion crowd has long admitted that the clump of cells argument is not valid–I haven’t heard it for years.).

That I can see; and there’s nothing wrong with that, but it’s not for me.

? You can see that it comes from outside of us, but it’s not for you? What about when you disagree with what society has decided? Where does that come from?

This is tough to answer. I might do many things that appear immoral to you but moral to myself. But, just based upon my own morality, I find it easy to stay moral. There are few temptations and actions I find immoral (murder is one of them though).

And you never get that sneaking feeling that it’s just a little too easy? that maybe you are taking some dangerous short-cuts? I know I used to…

LOL Thanks for the history lesson. Now, define Creator. That has so much ambiguous meaning to sooo many people it can skew those rights you think you have.

Are you saying some freedoms are too difficult to maintain outside of a Creator? I disagree. In fact, just about every atheist might disagree. A creator is not needed for morality. Man can determine morality just fine.

How?

I think it does. If I kill you and nobody cares is it moral? Well if I think so, and everyone else does then I think killing you is moral. Unless morality is completely dictated by God(s), I don’t think you have a valid argument.

Personal vs group morality. There are many disagreements in politics and culture that skew morality and pit moralities against one another. Example, abortion.

This is an interesting anthropological and sociological question. In general, most societies have a sense of fairness which dictates law. This fairness can be found in religious writings, personal observations, philosophic situations or the need for societal protections. Lets take murder for example. Lets pretend I see my mother who i’ve known for years get murdered. That’ll make me pretty upset. Now, I know from personal observation that murder is probably wrong. Let’s also say that I was now contemplating murdering my mother’s killer. Due to my empathy I can understand that if I kill this person, his loved ones could become upset. While I feel the need for justice I recognize that murder is not the path. This was discovered through a philosophic situation. That being said, there is no good answer to this question; and certainly no simple answer.

And do you not think that that sense of fairness, that idea that fairness is important, might have some bearing on the matter? Why would anyone big care about fairness? I mean, I can certainly understand 98-pound weaklings caring about fairness, but the Arnold Schwartzeneggers? Why would they care?

 

[lynx]

No, I mean 1+ minutes before birth. You are aware that’s perfectly legal to do so, aren’t you?

I did not. Tell me, how did you hear about it?

Ah, there you go, confusing legality and morality. I thought you knew the difference? (Incidentally, I am not opposed to abortion merely because I’m Catholic. I’m opposed to abortion also as a civil rights issue. I can argue against abortion without bringing religion into it at all.)

LOL. A leader upholding abortion can be as much a moral stance as a legal stance. Who’s civil rights? The unborn mindless clump of flesh? Then please, argue your stance on a purely physiological and civil perspective.

Abortion is objectively morally wrong, on a secular level as well as a religious one,

Apparently it’s not that cut and dry as there is still a majority, including myself, who supports the measure.

and since the lawmakers don’t realize that it’s up to us to convince them otherwise. That’s the whole point of the pro-life movement.

I understand and recognize that that is your goal. Best of luck to you.

Courts have been wrong before, such as when they ruled that African-Americans were only 3/4 people. A court’s decision doesn’t make an action morally acceptable. It just makes it legal. Big difference.

Indeed courts have been wrong. That is why our laws are fluid and adaptable. However, we need to have someone who is supposedly impartial to both sides making a ruling. That is why we have courts. They’re not always right but in this instance I feel that they are. You are welcome to disagree.

 

[kage_ar]

I did not. Tell me, how did you hear about it?

Take this quiz and see how much you know.

roeiqtest.com/ui/quiz.php

 

[wanner47]

I did not. Tell me, how did you hear about it?

I tend to keep up on current events, especially as they pertain to pro-life issues. I’m sorry you were unaware.

LOL. A leader upholding abortion can be as much a moral stance as a legal stance. Who’s civil rights? The unborn mindless clump of flesh? Then please, argue your stance on a purely physiological and civil perspective.

First of all, read this: The Apple Argument Against Abortion

Secondly, just so you know, it should be “whose” civil rights, and I’m referring to the baby who is never once a “mindless clump of flesh.” Did you know that a baby’s brain, as well as nervous system and other organs, starts forming three weeks after conception? (source) That’s about the time most women miss their period.

Thirdly, a human being is (or should be) entitled to human rights from the moment of its existence. The Constitution makes no provision otherwise; it just says that we are all entitled to the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It does not say, “Unless you aren’t born yet.” If you are a human being, you have rights. Period. Full stop.

Apparently it’s not that cut and dry as there is still a majority, including myself, who supports the measure.

People always find a way to justify killing or oppressing those who they consider substandard or otherwise inconvenient. We learned that much from Nazi Germany.

Incidentally, in Nazi Germany, Jews were not legally people. In your opinion, was it perfectly acceptable to kill them, given that it was legally possible to do so?

I understand and recognize that that is your goal. Best of luck to you.

Thank you.

Indeed courts have been wrong. That is why our laws are fluid and adaptable. However, we need to have someone who is supposedly impartial to both sides making a ruling. That is why we have courts. They’re not always right but in this instance I feel that they are. You are welcome to disagree.

And I do. Thankfully I don’t rely on the courts as a basis for my morality; I look to a higher power for that. But that doesn’t stop me from advocating that ALL human beings receive the rights they are entitled to regardless of their location in or out of the womb.

 

[choy]

you don’t right a wrong with another wrong

rape is wrong
incest is wrong

how can abortion make it any less wrong? it only makes it more wrong

and, the baby is totally innocent. maybe the woman had some participation in the crime (got drunk, dressed to provocatively, etc.), so guaranteed the only totally innocent party here is the baby. why does he/she gets to be the one to die? you’re worried about how unfair is it to the mom to have been sexually assulted and impregnated, how unfair is it for the baby to be killed?

 

[Rence]

1. You seem to be differentiating the bishops’ statement from Fr Saunders’ on the basis of Fr Saunders’ having said that if there is a reasonable doubt that ovulation has occurred, Plan B may be administered. Is that correct?
2. You say that you would follow what Fr Saunders said, but you also said that you would take the Plan B “regardless” of any testing for ovulation. Your statements seem to contradict each other.

**I’m sorry for the confusion. Let me clear it up for you, and keep it simple. If I were raped, I’d take plan B in the emergency room and prevent the likelihood of getting pregnant due to a rape. **

1. You also seem to not understand that it doesn’t matter what a person *chooses *to believe, it is a reality that abortion is always and everywhere wrong. Fr Saunders would not agree with your assertion that you cannot deny to another woman the option of killing her unborn child.

**Actually, it does matter. What I believe matters to me just as much as what you believe matters to you. It’s not different at all. **

I just wanted to point these apparent contradictions out, because they are to me confusing.

Well I hope it’s not confusing anymore

 

[rcjksu]

Sorry for the delayed reply; I’ve been away a bit.

I agree; that is the rub. I don’t expect much from the politicians; my “thought experiment” comparing the 7yo to the zygote is one I’ve used to challenge myself before. Physiologically, they are much different. But morally, objectively; is “life” (and the human rights that “life” implies) defined by a level of physiological development?

My point is that if a thinking person sees the coercive power of the state as justified in preventing the termination of a 7yo and has concerns with using it to interfere with a pregnant woman who wishes to terminate the zygote there must be reason why. If that same person believes that life begins at conception, what allows the 7yo protections the zygote does not have? Location? They fact that they don’t “look” the same?

I can sort of follow the tortuous logic that life begins sometime after conception and therefore abortion before that point is not murder. But I’m baffled by the argument that I hear from Catholics saying that they believe life begins at conception but they feel the state using its power to protect the zygote is an abuse of power they cannot condone. However, the state using its power to protect 7 year olds is a moral imperative.

 

[St_Francis]

When you put your responses within the quotes, then we can’t quote you. If you put / quote ] without the spaces where you want to comment, and then quote ] (without spaces) where you want to resume quoting, then others can quote your comments.

Originally Posted by St Francis

1. You seem to be differentiating the bishops’ statement from Fr Saunders’ on the basis of Fr Saunders’ having said that if there is a reasonable doubt that ovulation has occurred, Plan B may be administered. Is that correct?
2. You say that you would follow what Fr Saunders said, but you also said that you would take the Plan B “regardless” of any testing for ovulation. Your statements seem to contradict each other.

I’m sorry for the confusion. Let me clear it up for you, and keep it simple. If I were raped, I’d take plan B in the emergency room and prevent the likelihood of getting pregnant due to a rape.

So you *don’t *agree with Fr Saunders.

1. You also seem to not understand that it doesn’t matter what a person chooses to believe, it is a reality that abortion is always and everywhere wrong. Fr Saunders would not agree with your assertion that you cannot deny to another woman the option of killing her unborn child.

Actually, it does matter. What I believe matters to me just as much as what you believe matters to you. It’s not different at all.

If I believe I don’t have diabetes when I do, will that belief prevent me from getting sick?

If a doctor believes I have one disease but I have another, will his treatment work because he believes I have the other disease?

As you can see, reality trumps our beliefs. It doesn’t matter what I believe, what matters is the *reality. *

I just wanted to point these apparent contradictions out, because they are to me confusing.

Well I hope it’s not confusing anymore

Yes, I now understand that contrary to what you said, you do not agree with Fr Saunders.