Why the focus on abortion?

[Annie]

100% fail-safe methods to avoid pregnancy

There is no 100% perfect birth control method. The odds are even worse when imperfect people are using the method. Guttmacher reports the 54% of women obtaining abortion had used birth control the month they got pregnant, and there were even pregnancies among this using long-acting injected birth control.

As to your mention of tolerance, we can tolerate a lot of things. However, we do not tolerate rapes, theft, fraud, murder… some things ought not be tolerated.

By the way, only a small percentage of the zygotes gets implanted into the uterus, the rest simply get flushed out from the woman’s body. Somehow no one sheds a tear for those “babies”.

This is something we have known only for the past few years, and it is indeed difficult to feel sad about losing a baby one didn’t know existed.

However, women who know they are pregnant and who miscarry do indeed feel sad.

 

[Economist]

There is no 100% perfect birth control method.

I am sorry, but you need to update your knowledge base. This is not the platform to go into details, but sex is not restricted to "insert knob ‘A’ into hole ‘B’ " types of encounters.

As to your mention of tolerance, we can tolerate a lot of things. However, we do not tolerate rapes, theft, fraud, murder… some things ought not be tolerated.

No one advocated to tolerate these actions, so I don’t know why did you bring them up. However, I would urge you to tolerate those activities that do not concern you, those actions that people perform in the privacy of their homes. You are not requested to participate, but you are expected to allow them happen.

This is something we have known only for the past few years, and it is indeed difficult to feel sad about losing a baby one didn’t know existed.

Obviously. The point is that millions of alleged “babies” are lost due to have them expelled from the woman’s body, and even now (when we are aware of this possibility) they are not being mourned over. I doubt that a flushed out zygote evokes the same sentiment as an actual miscarriage. Most women do not consider a zygote to be a “baby”.

However, women who know they are pregnant and who miscarry do indeed feel sad.

Or being very happy about it. It all depends on the circumstances. Don’t forget that a pregnancy can be a wonderful and happy event, or a “curse”.

Let me be precise. Not everyone agrees that sex should only be performed if the couple wants to have a pregnancy. If you do, it is your business. But it is a bad idea to “badmouth” those who have a different opinion.

 

[JimG]

Except in cases of rape, a child in the womb is not an interloper but an invited guest. Abortionists will remove the child, for a fee, often by ripping it apart limb by limb. Should we not tolerate the child until it has a chance to be born?

 

[Annie]

Ten people were killed violently in Chicago over the weekend of June 3rd.

Do people in Australia mourn them? Wow, no, they don’t.

Does the lack of mourning on the part of most of the world make the victims any less human?

Consider really horrific criminals like Jeffrey Dahmer, who lured young men to his abode, then killed and cannibalized them.

Now we might not want him around, but would we decide not to prosecute an unauthorized person who killed him just because we had a low opinion of Dahmer and no one will mourn him? No. We would still prosecute.

The point is to protect the lives of innocent humans, to keep people from killing them.

So sure, we should each practice tolerance. I will tolerate the private sex practices of others and they can tolerate the presence of the natural and wel-known consequences for the few months it takes for them to be born. There are plenty of people who would be happy to adopt these babies; all that is needed is some tolerance for a short time.

 

[Annie]

but sex is not restricted to "insert knob ‘A’ into hole ‘B’ " types of encounters.

As to other practices which can not result in pregnancy, most of them can cause cancer, sometimes due to spreading HPV, but in other cases caused by substances being released in places not designed for them.

Do you honestly believe that people are happier and healthier now than they were before the sexual revolution? Consider the quote from St Augustine posted above, that a man has as many masters as he has vices. Think about the people addicted to porn and all the people involved in creating the product, who are also subject to oppression, etc.

Think about the child prostitutes in Thailand, the men and women with broken hearts, the people who have to deal with STDs, all those abused for the sake of sex, girls who are kidnapped and drugged into prostitution, and on and on.

Yeah, yeah, the sexual revolution was great, for those who figured out how to make money from it.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

But again, it is not your prerogative to force others to conform to your concept of “morality”.

You need that same prerogative to enforce tolerance. Oh wait…

Plus forcing morality is present in our laws so this isn’t even a valid argument.

 

[Brendan]

If only people would tolerate others, even if they disagree with them, the world would be a much better place.

Why not tolerate the child in the womb then?

 

[grotto]

Destruction of created, living infant human beings in the womb and born.

“Pro choice” is a lie! - it is “Pro killing”!

 

[bassmansteiny]

As much as it’s a terrible thing, I don’t see the same obsession over genocide, children starving and needy in our communities, or a million other ways that human beings are killed every day.

I wanted to address this statement. As a Knight in the Knights of Columbus, we very much are involved in these issues, along with pro life issues. The Knights have probably been doing more to help the Christian communities around the world, especially in Iraq and Syria who have been decimated by ISIS. We also raise funds and have programs to help Special Needs people, poor families and children. We are not the only group of Catholics doing this. Plus you have Catholic Charities and other Catholic groups that are assisting families in need rather it is because they are poor or victims of genocide. I ask you to just look a little deeper into what the Knights and other Catholic groups are doing and you will feel at ease.

P.S. not only with helping to rebuild and assisting Christian’s in Syria and Iraq, but we have also been strong advocates for them bringing attention to their plight along with the group The Church In Need. Also when Catholic Christians were being murdered and their freedom to practice their faith, in Mexico shortly after the revolution- was happening, it was the Knights that stood up for them. There are many other examples, those are just two off the top of my head.

 

[goout]

I’m still amazed that this vision of relativism is floating around. It’s patently absurd.
It’ simply a tactic to silence others who don’t agree with your version of the rules.

You can have rules and morals and ethics, and you want society to honor those, but when someone disagrees and demonstrates why, they are forcing their morality on you.

ok…

 

[Economist]

Except in cases of rape, a child in the womb is not an interloper but an invited guest.

No, not “invited”. More like a party-crasher. Even if we would leave our door unlocked, without an actual, explicit invitation no one is welcome to join the party - whether we speak literally or allegorically.

As to other practices which can not result in pregnancy, most of them can cause cancer, sometimes due to spreading HPV, but in other cases caused by substances being released in places not designed for them.

I suggest you keep on reading to get the correct information. Soixante-neuf is a perfectly reliable method, and has absolutely no “side-effects”. Of course, even if there would be side effects, it is none of our business. The participants can make those kinds of decisions themselves.

Do you honestly believe that people are happier and healthier now than they were before the sexual revolution?

What you or I believe is of no relevance. Most people want to separate the pleasure part from the procreative aspect. If you disagree with their attitude, don’t follow their practice. That is all.

You can have rules and morals and ethics, and you want society to honor those, but when someone disagrees and demonstrates why, they are forcing their morality on you.

Nonsense. I honor your rules for your own behavior, and do not try to force my rules unto you. I merely expect the same tolerance from those who disagree. What is so problematic about this?

Of course all these analogies are derail attempts. I am not talking about abortions, my responses are all directed to Annie’s suggestion namely: “if you don’t want children, a 100% abstinence is the only way to go”. It is one of the ways to go, and it you prefer it, practice it. But you are not in the position to declare that this is the one and only way for everyone else.

 

[Annie]

my responses are all directed to Annie’s suggestion namely: “ if you don’t want children, a 100% abstinence is the only way to go ”.

I apologize, I allowed my self to be sidetracked. It is obvious that the 100% abstinence is from the action which leads to pregnancy: normal heterosexual sex, not from actions which have no potential of leading to pregnancy.

 

[Economist]

I apologize, I allowed my self to be sidetracked. It is obvious that the 100% abstinence is from the action which leads to pregnancy: normal heterosexual sex, not from actions which have no potential of leading to pregnancy.

No need to apologize. We all make mistakes.

 

[grotto]

How do you imagine you will react when you ultimately learn that you refused to open your soul to love and protect a perfectly innocent child of God, of which you are, and one whom a mother and father did not discard he or she’s life?

You have the perfect time in your life, now, to reject your refusal to serve God by sharing His love with your neighbor. As long as one persists in defending the murder of infants, their thoughts, words and deeds are worthless.

No need to apologize to anyone but God and then “do whatever He tells you”.

 

[Annie]

Of course all these analogies are derail attempts. I am not talking about abortions, my responses are all directed to Annie’s suggestion namely: “ if you don’t want children, a 100% abstinence is the only way to go ”. It is one of the ways to go, and it you prefer it, practice it. But you are not in the position to declare that this is the one and only way for everyone else.

You are confusing different issues. There is the issue of abortion, the issue of fornication, and the issue of other types of activities which lead to sexual physical pleasure.

Science tells us that once conception occurs, a human exists, thus we believe that abortion is the taking of a human life, which is totally wrong.

Now, you say the human is uninvited. When people do whatever constitutes an invitation, you can’t turn around and kill the person who shows up. Heterosexual sex constitutes an invitation to conceive.

 

[Economist]

You are confusing different issues. There is the issue of abortion, the issue of fornication, and the issue of other types of activities which lead to sexual physical pleasure.

I have no problem with separating the different issues. “Fornication” is just another word for indicating sexual activity when either one or both parties are not married. It is not relevant for the discussion. Can we agree on this? Marriage is not necessary for conception.

Science tells us that once conception occurs, a human exists, thus we believe that abortion is the taking of a human life, which is totally wrong.

That is simply incorrect. When a conception occurs, a new being STARTS to develop. That is all.

Now, you say the human is uninvited. When people do whatever constitutes an invitation, you can’t turn around and kill the person who shows up. Heterosexual sex constitutes an invitation to conceive.

No, it is NOT an “invitation”. The sexual act - under certain circumstances MIGHT lead to a conception. The partners may or may not want that conception to happen. The conception may or may not be welcomed.

But I am willing to use your example. Suppose that an unintended conception (party crash) occurs. Just like I am allowed to tell the intruder to get out of my house, I am allowed to use an RU486 tablet which will prevent the zygote from getting embedded into the uterus. It does “kill” the zygote, merely opens the door of the house, and indicates that the party crasher is not welcome. The party crasher (zygote) will not survive, that that is none of my concern.

A good analogy is to embark on a trip (maybe, but not necessarily involving a car, or some other means of transportation). The “aim of the game” is to get from one place to another (or having pleasure in the case of a sexual act). It is possible that there is an ACCIDENT (a car crash, or a conception as the case may be). There is no requirement that one is expected to live with the results of an accident. If one so desires, one can “get rid of” the consequences of the accident. I hope we can agree on this principle when we speak of transportation. I get into a car, I do NOT accede to having an accident. It is NOT an “invitation” to the accident. Just because something unintended happens there is no requirement that one MUST live with the consequences.

If we can agree so far, then the conversation can continue. I am not going to make that assumption. If you agree, please indicate it, and we can continue. If you disagree, I will thank you for your participation.

 

[Annie]

When a conception occurs, a new being STARTS to develop.

If something is developing, it must exist.

There is no requirement that one is expected to live with the results of an accident. If one so desires, one can “get rid of” the consequences of the accident.

No, that is not the case.

Say you and I are identical twin sisters, and say you accidentally stab me in the heart and the only way I can stay alive is on a machine or with a transplant.

Now i have to live with the consequences of your accident, by being on the heart machine. But I do not want to live with the consequences of your accident. Can I kill you to get your heart?

No. I am required to live with the consequences of this accident, because the “fix” comes at too high a cost.

Just like I am allowed to tell the intruder to get out of my house, I am allowed to use an RU486 tablet which will prevent the zygote from getting embedded into the uterus. It does “kill” the zygote, merely opens the door of the house, and indicates that the party crasher is not welcome. The party crasher (zygote) will not survive, that that is none of my concern.

If I were to come home in the middle of a blizzard and find a baby in my house, I would (and very properly, too!) be prosecuted were I to “show the baby the door.”

If we can agree so far, then the conversation can continue. I am not going to make that assumption. If you agree, please indicate it, and we can continue. If you disagree, I will thank you for your participation.

I think it is clear that you and I totally disagree! I will thank you for your participation also.

 

[Elf01]

Say you and I are identical twin sisters, and say you accidentally stab me in the heart and the only way I can stay alive is on a machine or with a transplant.

Now i have to live with the consequences of your accident, by being on the heart machine. But I do not want to live with the consequences of your accident. Can I kill you to get your heart?

I would go with conjoined twins sharing a vital organ. Assuming both will remain healthy conjoined and separated one would die and the other survive. Does the one who would survive have the right to evict their twin?

 

[Economist]

No, that is not the case.

The example was a (traffic) accident.

If I were to come home in the middle of a blizzard and find a baby in my house, I would (and very properly, too!) be prosecuted were I to “show the baby the door.”

You changed the parameters. The zygote is not a baby. Is it possible to conduct a mutually respectful and dispassionate conversation using the correct terms? No histrionics, just dry facts. Is that possible? I will make one more attempt.

To make things easier, I will make some huge concessions to make the analogy more precise.

1. The new, improved scenario is as follows. I am the captain of a boat, towing a barge. I do not invite you to come along, but you sneak into the barge, and now you are a stowaway. In the barge there is food, etc. and you keep consuming those provisions without my permission.
2. At this point the scenario “forks”, into two possible continuations.
3. Sub-scenario #1. I catch your attempt to break into the barge, and prevent it. What happens to you is none of my concern. This is the result of using the pill RU486 or something similar. (No pregnancy occurs, the zygote just joins to the other millions of failed implantations, which are flushed out of the system, and die due to lack of proper circumstances.)
4. Sub-scenario #2. You successfully get into the barge. The boat I am driving gets into a storm, which is no one’s fault. You suffer some serious, life threatening injury. To help you to survive, I need to give up my bodily integrity, must share my bodily resources (blood, oxygen, food, etc.) for the next 9 months. Then I have to go through a painful process of separation, and still be responsible for your life for the next 14-18 years. No rational court would say that this is the “proper” way to solve the problem.

But it looks like that you assert that the stowaway has more “rights” than the owner / captain of the ship.

Of course this analogy is still not 100% accurate. It is incorrect to speak of the pregnancy as if every moment should be considered equal. There are very significant changes happening, some quantitative, most qualitative. At the beginning we have a zygote, then a blastocyst, then fetus… etc. Approximately at the beginning of the second trimester the brain develops.

My position is simple. Up until the brain develops, we have a blob of cells. When the brain’s activity starts, the blob of cells starts to become a human being.

At the end - before the birth we have a fully grown human being, or a baby. The only difference is that at the moment of cutting the umbilical cord, the separation is complete, and from that moment onward there is no biological dependence on the mother. That is the moment when the new entity becomes a fully grown human being.

The habit of calling a zygote or a blastocyst or the fetus - a “baby” serves no other purpose than to wash away the differences and use some emotionally charged terminology.

If you wish to continue, I am here. If not, then thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut.

 

[Elf01]

Annie:

No, that is not the case.

The example was a (traffic) accident.

If I were to come home in the middle of a blizzard and find a baby in my house, I would (and very properly, too!) be prosecuted were I to “show the baby the door.”

You changed the parameters. The zygote is not a baby. Is it possible to conduct a mutually respectful and dispassionate conversation using the correct terms? No histrionics, just dry facts. Is that possible? I will make one more attempt.

To make things easier, I will make some huge concessions to make the analogy more precise.

1. The new, improved scenario is as follows. I am the captain of a boat, towing a barge. I do not invite you to come along, but you sneak into the barge, and now you are a stowaway. In the barge there is food, etc. and you keep consuming those provisions without my permission.
2. At this point the scenario “forks”, into two possible continuations.
3. Sub-scenario #1. I catch your attempt to break into the barge, and prevent it. What happens to you is none of my concern. This is the result of using the pill RU486 or something similar. (No pregnancy occurs, the zygote just joins to the other millions of failed implantations, which are flushed out of the system, and die due to lack of proper circumstances.)
4. Sub-scenario #2. You successfully get into the barge. The boat I am driving gets into a storm, which is no one’s fault. You suffer some serious, life threatening injury. To help you to survive, I need to give up my bodily integrity, must share my bodily resources (blood, oxygen, food, etc.) for the next 9 months. Then I have to go through a painful process of separation, and still be responsible for your life for the next 14-18 years. No rational court would say that this is the “proper” way to solve the problem.

But it looks like that you assert that the stowaway has more “rights” than the owner / captain of the ship.

Of course this analogy is still not 100% accurate. It is incorrect to speak of the pregnancy as if every moment should be considered equal. There are very significant changes happening, some quantitative, most qualitative. At the beginning we have a zygote, then a blastocyst, then fetus… etc. Approximately at the beginning of the second trimester the brain develops.

My position is simple. Up until the brain develops, we have a blob of cells. When the brain’s activity starts, the blob of cells starts to become a human being.

At the end - before the birth we have a fully grown human being, or a baby. The only difference is that at the moment of cutting the umbilical cord, the separation is complete, and from that moment onward there is no biological dependence on the mother. That is the moment when the new entity becomes a fully grown human being.

The habit of calling a zygote or a blastocyst or the fetus - a “baby” serves no other purpose than to wash away the differences and use some emotionally charged terminology.

How do you respond to my conjoined twins analogy?