B
BillP
Guest
You’re confusing the vernacular meaning of “established” with the technical medical term. Ask ANY healthcare professional when pregnancy begins he pr she will tell you “when the egg implants”.
- Status
D
davidv
Guest
What is the basis of disagreement?I see that we disagree.
C’est la vie! (geddit?)
Dieu vous aime!
T
tomarin
Guest
This is terrifying, like Gurney said.
I just read a biography of Frank Sinatra (which was a very good read, by the way) by Fred (?) Kaplan and it shocked me how both Nancy Sinatra (his wife and mother of his three children) and later Ava Gardner (his second wife) both had abortions without seemingly having it weigh too much on their consciences. It wasn’t convenient so they aborted their own children. In fact, Ava Gardner had two abortions within a short period of time, the first being Frank’s child but the second being somebody else’s. In neither case did they have to think about it too long or hard, if the book is to be believed.
I don’t want to trivialize the problems that these women faced that made them feel that they couldn’t give birth to these children but it all seems rather cold-blooded.
To answer the question more directly, all I can say is that the people I know who are pro- legalized abortion claim that they take this position out of concern for the health of the mother. In other words, they believe that if abortion were outlawed the procedure would become more dangerous for the woman undergoing it (of course undergirding this is the unstated belief that a woman is the ultimate master of her own reproductive destiny). I think the root of the problem is a certain callousness toward unborn life because it is out of sight – but perhaps that is stating the obvious.
I just read a biography of Frank Sinatra (which was a very good read, by the way) by Fred (?) Kaplan and it shocked me how both Nancy Sinatra (his wife and mother of his three children) and later Ava Gardner (his second wife) both had abortions without seemingly having it weigh too much on their consciences. It wasn’t convenient so they aborted their own children. In fact, Ava Gardner had two abortions within a short period of time, the first being Frank’s child but the second being somebody else’s. In neither case did they have to think about it too long or hard, if the book is to be believed.
I don’t want to trivialize the problems that these women faced that made them feel that they couldn’t give birth to these children but it all seems rather cold-blooded.
To answer the question more directly, all I can say is that the people I know who are pro- legalized abortion claim that they take this position out of concern for the health of the mother. In other words, they believe that if abortion were outlawed the procedure would become more dangerous for the woman undergoing it (of course undergirding this is the unstated belief that a woman is the ultimate master of her own reproductive destiny). I think the root of the problem is a certain callousness toward unborn life because it is out of sight – but perhaps that is stating the obvious.
Mary_Gail_36
New member
That’s a bit of a cheap shot. There might not be “massive mourning” but there is plenty of private mourning over miscarried babies.
As for finding a different way to determine the beginning of life, let’s look at the Romans. Fathers could kill their children until age 7.
That’s a nice arbitrary age. What would be wrong with that age as opposed to putting a limit somewhere before birth? Little kids don’t commit sins…might be a plausible cut off for saying when life begins.
Why is it ok to kill a pre-born child…but not ok to kill a 6 year old?
J
jilly4ski
Guest
Acorns are not the best example, because acorns are dormant until water penetrates the seed and it starts germinating. But we could compare it to say frozen embryos. So yes alive in a sense. If all you had was a DNA sample of a tree and an acorn you would say they were from the genus Quercus. Thus they are both oak, tree is more of a descriptive word, since I wouldn’t call an acorn an Acer, but I could call both the oak and the maple trees.
J
jilly4ski
Guest
You never answered the original question which was, why do those same “professionals” count a pregnancy from the first cycle day, when they don’t define that as a pregnancy until implantation? It seems like they have their definitions messed up somewhere.
B
Brywan
Guest
You say this:
But then say this from your side of the aisle:
]
But then say this from your side of the aisle:
Wait a minute! I’m supposed to feel sorry for your victims, but not feel sorry for the victims of abortion?!! How does your inflammatory rhetoric differ from your opponent’s?!
Mary_Gail_36
New member
You never answered the original question which was, why do those same “professionals” count a pregnancy from the first cycle day, when they don’t define that as a pregnancy until implantation? It seems like they have their definitions messed up somewhere.
Pregnancy is dated from the first day of your last period…(actually before conception) when conception and implantation happen are not completely known.
J
jmcrae
Guest
This is ridiculous. Having been alive when abortion was completely unthinkable no matter who you were, restaurants were serving meat on Fridays even then - although they also offered fish specials on Fridays, in order to attract Catholic customers. But hot dog Friday was around long before abortion became legal.
Abortion is wrong, not because of religion, but because it involves terminating the life of a human person.
That which you call “me” exists no matter what shape your body is - “me” was there when you were a child, and remains even now that you are no longer a child, and probably no longer look anything like how you looked when you were a child. “Me” began to exist when your father’s sperm met your mother’s egg, and cell division began.
When we abort an unborn child, we are causing another “me” to cease to exist - a “me” that was going to be someone’s son or daughter, friend, student, employee, employer, wife, husband, mother, or father.
J
jmcrae
Guest
A great many male teenagers die in car accidents; you’ll still go to jail if you try to run over one on purpose. “But he probably would have died in a car accident anyway,” doesn’t fly very well in a modern court of law.
An alarmingly high percentage of five year olds living in Haiti right now will probably die before they reach the age of 18; are we now to go around killing Haitian five year olds because they’re probably going to die, anyway?
If we define human life according to statistics, there are a lot of people out walking around there who are not “human” because of their statistical likelihood of not surviving to old age.
P
Ponyguy
Guest
Cliff’s notes:It is terrifying to try and get into the pro-abortion/pro-choice mindset and to analyze their rationale. What is the fundamental reason a person defends abortion? People in this thread have put out some good theories, most fairly plausible. But let me put forth another theory…
The radical Far Left sees women’s equality as a radically different thing than the Catholic sees it. They see it as an almost ontological equality in which men and women are totally the same essence and are biologically equal. Let me explain (mind you, this is their view, not mine)…a man and a woman shack up and cohabitate. The man gets the woman pregnant. After four months, he falls for another girl, gets tired of the pregnant mother of his child, and says “see ya later!” He leaves, moves out of state. Now she’s stuck with the pregnancy and he has no responsibility whatsoever. One is stuck, the other is free. The Left views this as a biological inequity that a woman has to bear the brunt of the situation and the man can be irresponsible. So, to make our society even-Steven and biologically just, we make it so the woman can kill her baby and be even with the man who bolted on her; now. Now that he left the scene, she can leave the scene. From their angle, if the woman has to bring the child to term against her will, it places some kind of inequality on her. It’s essentially another attempt to try to make a woman a man. It’s all about the women’s movement and a misunderstanding of the true nature of men and women. The same sad logic that leads to women’s ordination leads to child murder. Thank God the Catholic Church gets it right! :thumbsup:Too bad society doesn’t.
G
gurneyhalleck1
Guest
No disagreement here whatsoever, Pony. I’m simply describing their mindset, which I find terrifying. But this is how many of them think and rationalize and inhuman act.
I
ishii
Guest
I
ishii
Guest
How nice. Kill an unborn baby so someone can go to school.
Why stop at the unborn? There are lots of families with more children than they can afford. Should we take care of some of them to make it easier to clothe and feed some of them? Maybe take care of those under two years old? You could call it the final solution.
And what percentage of the millions of abortions over the years were to keep a pregant woman from dying? I am guessing very few. Yet you use that as a reason to justify the millions of abortions done for reasons of convenience.
No, the burning saline and the tearing of the little bodies is what really happens. It is sad that you apparently have no consideration for them. Abortion is unjust because 1) its the taking of an innocent human life. 2) That the unborn baby suffers during the procedure adds to the moral depravity of the act. I am frankly appalled that someone who calls themselves a Catholic would display such callousness to the suffering of the unborn and such a profound ignorance of basic Catholic moral teaching. Catholic moral teaching applies to both the sanctity of life and the necessity of participating in our American system to reform those abortion laws to recognize the basic value of every human life - not just the ones who are already born.
Ishii
G
gurneyhalleck1
Guest
Great post, ishii:thumbsup:
S
StrawberryJam
Guest
Frank’s daughter was Nancy. She even had a hit song you may not remember.
You really need to get better books with better facts in them.
G
gurneyhalleck1
Guest
J
JackQ
Guest
Free sex is one of the two chief gods in the pantheon of Western culture (the other being Mammon). Anything and everything must be sacrificed to it. To question its advisability is unthinkable. Hedonism is the tacit assumption in all discourse.
Human life is not valued as much as we like to think. The decision to go to war is a good example. What if during the debate about whether to go to war in Iraq, someone in Congress stood up and declared his opposition, not because it was bad policy, but on the simple ground that people would die as a result? Wouldn’t it be said that he had failed to state a reason for his opposition? After all, everyone knows that people die as a result of war.
For those who have not fully absorbed and accepted the teachings of Jesus, the question is not whether or not human life should be taken, but what the circumstances are under which human life should be taken.
G
gurneyhalleck1
Guest
Oh no you dih-ent! 
C
canadianguy1143
Guest
Let me point out the absurdity of the above post. I am going to revise where every word that applies to abortion and the abortion issue will be substituted for stealing.
Speaking only for myself:
I support our legal system providing the right to steal because I (and most other people in the US) do not believe that stealing involves taking something that isn’t mine but something that I am entitled to.
While I recognize that I personally am bound by my membership in the Catholic Church to respect its definition of stealing when evaluating my own conduct, 225 million of my countrymen aren’t Catholic and are therefore not bound to respect Catholic teaching in this area.
There is a reason why I experts who also steal define stealing as something that involves huge amounts without no definition of what a huge amount is. Once we reach that level where we steal that amount, then I believe the person who has been stolen from acquires rights that are in certain cases more compelling that the rights of the stealer.
In short, Catholics can’t steal, but not everyone is Catholic. If we try to force the 75% of the US population who aren’t Catholic to adhere to Catholic teaching on this what’s next? Are we going to try passing laws making it illegal for people to kill their own unborn baby?
[sarcasm off]
If abortion can’t be banned because its against the teachings of the Catholic Church then we have to overturn the entire criminal code as every criminal code offense is also a sin in Catholicism!
- Status