The Ethical, Spiritual, and Moral Foundation of the Abortion-Provider Community
by TrustingWomen, TrustingWomen.org
March 16, 2010 - 6:00am (Print)
Those who provide access to abortions have ethical, spiritual, and religious wisdom that this world needs.
I say this because of my own involvement with a part of this community and the absolutely incredible people that are involved in it. These people, mostly women, get something about life. They, in my experience, are more able than the average-joe to look at human suffering and remain engaged with it honestly. They don’t dismiss or trivialize human suffering, they don’t say “hey, it all happens for some mysterious reason.” Instead, they say “let me listen to you and do what you say you need me to do because I trust you…”
I do not mean to romanticize here. I was talking to somebody within the abortion-providing community, somebody who spends each day dealing with the realities of getting women abortion services. As she put it: “I’m not thinking ‘wahoo reproductive justice’ each day.” Because of lack of resources and the urgency to meet the needs of women, working in the abortion provision field is often hectic and stressful (like many other non-profit contexts). However, many who work in providing women access to abortions stick with it for awhile…there is something about it that draws them (and me). There is something special within these communities, something important and wise. Focusing on what these “something specials” are is I want to do.
I want to focus on these “something specials” because I think there is significant moral and theological wisdom within abortion-providing communities. Dr. Beverly Harrison wrote Our Right to Choose: Toward a New Ethic of Abortion, where she says:
When through courageous moral action, we anticipate an alternative, historically liberating mode of being in the world, a new sense of God’s living presence unfolds. Out of a moral struggle to embody deeper patterns of human community, freshly empowering visions of God are born.
Now, Harrison is a Christian social ethicist and she uses the word “God” more easily than I do. What she, you, or me understands the word "God" to mean is a tricky matter and there are bazillions of definitions. In my faith tradition, which is the spiritual home of many humanists and atheists, we just avoided the word altogether, preferring “Spirit of Life,” “Great Mystery”, “Source of being”, etc, etc. I personally like Gandhi’s definition: “God is Truth.”
But why that word "God" is important, particularly for the abortion-providing community, is that this word God invokes meanings of power, goodness, morality, and justice. Regardless of whether you “believe” or not, I do think the abortion-providing community does need to claim and celebrate its power, goodness, morality, and justice. I believe liberal religious and secular communities need to claim and celebrate the goodness, morality, and justice of the abortion providing community.
Harrison suggests that in broader culture (perhaps even within the abortion-providing community itself) there is a myth than anti-abortion advocates are somehow morally superior, that “religion” and “morality” are somehow on their side. According to Harrison:
Moral legitimacy seems to adhere to their [anti-choice/pro-life] position in part because traditionalists have an array of religio-moral terminology at their command that the sometimes more secular proponents of choice lack…We must do our homework if we are to dispel this myth of moral superiority.
I want to do this homework. For, if there is something like what I think we might mean when we use the word "God," then it’s working through the hands and hearts of those who get and give women abortions.
What could be more profoundly, morally, powerfully good than to take the hand of a woman who trusts you (and who you trust) on the righteous journey of determing what is best for an unplanned pregnancy? Taking that journey means dealing with all the biggies--sex, death, religion, familly--and the abortion care community knows that in the inner depths of their souls. It is with overwhelming compassion and deep respect for women that abortion care providers do their work today and every day. What could be more sacred in health care than this work?
I have to say you summed it up pretty well, Kate. This is why abortion has dominated politics for so long. It really is indicative of how our core value system works, and I agree that people who work in areas of birth, death, sex, family, and religion all have a unique perspective on morality/ethics/religion and life in general.
The people who insist that abortion providers are murderers blatantly ignore the fact that making abortion inaccessible is essentially murder. They attempt to enact public policy that has been shown, historically and modernly, to place women's lives at risk. The choice is clear: abortion is either legal and therefore safe, or illegal and therefore unsafe. When it's illegal and unsafe, women still have abortions. They use desperate measures, and often die. Abortion providers risk their own safety in order to save women's lives. I think that's pretty admirable.
An amazing piece on the reality of pre-Roe abortion:
Thanks for this, ack. We're fortunate to be alive in a time where women don't feel forced to go to the lengths this girl did. I want it to stay that way.
How about someone the woman trusts giving her wise counsel as to what is best for both her AND her unborn child? How about considering that there are resources at her local CPC who will help her plan the birth of her own precious child, with the support/supplies that she needs provided by the CPC?
There is always a way to avoid abortion. This blog would prefer you didn't get reminded of that!
Some fake clinics coerce and intimidate women out of considering abortion as an option, and prevent women from receiving neutral and comprehensive medical advice. They are typically run by anti-abortion volunteers who are not licensed medical professionals. CPC are not real pregnancy clinics.
Contrary to what they want you to believe, these fake clinics repeatedly make false medical claims to dissuade and delay women from obtaining comprehensive medical services, particularly abortion and birth control.
There is a petition at feminist campus to stop federal funding for CPCs.
http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/1400/t/1714/petition.jsp?petition_KEY=1714
CPC's listed in the phone book & Abortion Alternatives comes before abortion in the headings! These wonderful organizations give crisis pregnancies new hope & structure for their imminent needs, as well as support & encouragement these women need so badly. It just seems so obvious by Rebellious girl's post above that she really wants to eliminate all the "choices" to only ONE...abortion!!
It just seems so obvious by Rebellious girl's post above that she really wants to eliminate all the "choices" to only ONE...abortion!!
Sure, your right "I want every pregnant woman to have an abortion." (Obviously this is sarcasm)
Crisis Pregnancy Centers that are on the front lines to defend women in a critical quandry between the destruction of new life in their womb, or the information & free resources they need to save that life!
Check out this TRUTHFUL representation of these courageous CPCs: http//www.thefreelibrary.com/crisis+pregnancy+centers:+help+and+hope+for+women+and+their+babies.-a055354988
There is always a way to avoid abortion. This blog would prefer you didn't get reminded of that!
While this is true, the realities that some people would face in avoiding abortion are quite grim. At various points in my life, I've had physical health issues, mental health issues, and relationship issues that all would have made carrying to term dangerous for me.
So, yes, I would prefer not to be reminded of the fact that sometimes, for some women, the alternative to abortion is death. But you're absolutely right: that's a reality that needs to be faced.
Women know when they want to continue, thus obstetrician, and when they want to terminate a pregnancy, thus a gynecologist.
No one is avoiding anything except the fact tha CPCs are onerous places, at best.
And in case you don't know it, blogs like feti are not sentient. Saying "This blog would prefer you didn't get reminded of that! make it seem as if this blog has some animated agency. More fairy tales from ConcernedMom.
Being one who has visited/donated to CPC's, the only thing "onerus" would be how anti lifers such as yourself keep bashing them for competing with the abortion industry!!
Boo hoo hoo... How dare anyone try to persuade a woman she doesn't HAVE to resort to abortion, if the CPC can assist her with all the resources she needs, instead! Shame on those bad CPC's for helping save babies!
Women need more than resources to give birth. There's also loving supportive care network, lifelong educational and extra-curricular activity support, health care and nutrition, and childcare for the first twelve years how do CPC's help with that, except to refer to AFDC, foodstamps and WIC? A child requires a whole lot more than you can offer, and women should know that before they come into a biased bait-and-switch ("Oh! we'll HELP you have a child!! --Oops don't ask for too much now") CPC. It's no wonder that CPC's attract very young, gullible women and girls, BTW do you report to the Fed's when a girl is under 17? You work their dreams and can't help but dissappoint.
This is PRECISELY what the AZ legislature signed into law last year. They mandated that providers discuss what social programs may be available to mothers while simultaneously gutting every program meant to help mothers in budget bills. This year, they're kicking 50k kids off health care. The hypocrisy. It hurts.
so-called "unborn child," will you stfu, CM?
Whenever the idea is raised of directing those who are considering an abortion to ALSO investigate the services of Crisis Pregnancy Centers (CPC's) their posts are immediately eraced. My thinking is, if abortion is just an option (or "choice") as so many here exclaim, why aren't CPC's given a warm embrace, since they too, are a "choice"?
Wouldn't be cuz pro choice isn't really about SAVING the pregnancy, but about the right to terminate as the preferred "choice" in this blog?
Looks that way!
You've already gotten an answer to this, but you seem to need repetition.
CPC's are not reputable businesses. They use misleading advertising to lure in clients, and they lie about the effects of abortion to scare women away from that option. After convincing the woman that abortion would be highly detrimental, they immediately push adoption. They have been known to be quite verbally abusive with clients who want to raise their children, and they often try to convince women that they are not capable of parenting. Their adoption contracts and practices are often discriminatory towards the birth mother, and at times involve isolating the woman from her support network (such as having her travel to a different state with more lax adoption laws to give birth and sign the baby over.... diminishing her safety and her rights as a birth mom). In this vulnerable state, she is taken advantage of.
CPC's are terrible organizations, and this is why no one who is pro-choice supports them. We are fine with adoption, and support reputable adoption agencies. We are fine with parenting, and support social services to assist parents. We are not fine with misinformation and agencies that see pregnant women as opportunities for other people to get babies.
You heard about one rogue CPC that supposedly did these things you claim (I'd love to see a newswire story to back this up) ...so thus, that makes ALL CPC's disreputable?? That would be like me citing stories I've read (lately) bout botched legal abortions where the women died, & thus concluding that ALL abortion clinics are subject to averting the laws they are supposed to be liable to obey & are a great risk for harming the women who patronize them?
Anyway, I bring this all up cuz I highly support Abortion Alternative Organizations, who are valliantly serving women with crisis pregnancies & giving them resources & support as a BETTER choice to that one you anti lifers seem so keen on!
And by the way, if someone knows they have health problems that would be putting them at great risk if they became pregnant, what's wrong with having tubes tied, so getting pregnant isn't a risk, to begin with? I fully support using birth control, & giving teens information about it, along with abstainence being discussed, of course!
I've got something even better... the report presented in the House of Representatives after an investigation of federally-funded CPCs.
http://www.chsourcebook.com/articles/waxman2.pdf
Just for grins, here's a 39 page report on the underground investigation NARAL did of CPCs in VA (Lila Rose, eat your heart out). I doubt you'll read it, since it is by NARAL, but perhaps someone else will be interested.
http://www.naralva.org/assets/files/cpcsrevealed.pdf
As for opportunistic adoption policies, I will freely admit that is not as common as the misinformation, but it is still around. In fact, it has even been discussed here after an article was initially published by The Nation. Here's that article (it includes stories from several women coerced into giving up their babies, books those women have written, and names a couple of organizations they started in response to their experiences).
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20090914/joyce/single
Have a good time reading.
As for "just get your tubes tied," I really shouldn't be suprised that you even mentioned that. First, not all women who know they would have risky pregnancies decide to never take that risk. Some of them do want to risk it because they really, really want to have children biologically. They may not always be in a position to be able to handle a difficult pregnancy, though, so they will still have periods of time in which they don't want to be pregnant. During those times, contraceptive practice is a grand thing.
Second, for women who never want to be pregnant (or never want to be pregnant again) for whatever reason, it is not always easy to obtain a tubal ligation. It can be near-impossible, depending on how old you are, how many children you have (if you have any), if you have children by your current sexual partner, what your marital status is, and how much money you have (if you are insured, if it is covered, etc). Doctors rarely (if ever) sterilize women who are under 30, are single, and/or do not have both a boy and a girl child by their current sexual partner (if they have one) already.
And by the way, if someone knows they have health problems that would be putting them at great risk if they became pregnant, what's wrong with having tubes tied, so getting pregnant isn't a risk, to begin with?
Well, first of all, not all health issues are permanent. It's certainly possible to temporarily have an illness or condition that puts one at risk but then to have their health improve. It's entirely possible -- and reasonable -- that such women may not wish to sterilize themselves for what they perceive (and maybe hope) to be a temporary situation.
It's also incredibly difficult for some women to undergo a sterilization procedure -- namely, young women who do not have children. Maybe the litigious medical atmosphere is to blame, but a fair number of doctors are worried that women will change their minds and then sue for their loss of fertility. Even for someone with a long-term medical concern, it can be next to impossible to find a provider who's willing to perform a tubal ligation or other sterilization procedure.
And of course, this assumes the woman can afford the procedure. With the number of people who are currently uninsured or underinsured -- and since some insurance providers consider tubal ligation elective surgery and do not cover it -- this isn't a given.
Additionally, even sterilization isn't 100% successful. According to this, from MedLine Plus, about 1 of every 200 women who undergo a tubal ligation will have a future pregnancy. With roughly 10 million U.S. women who rely on tubal ligation, that's still about 50,000 pregnancies. Tubal ligation (and all forms of permanent birth control, really) are among the most effective contraceptive methods in use, and they drastically lower the risk of pregnancy. However, it's not true that pregnancy "isn't a risk to begin with."
I really don't know if this'll do any good, since CM seems to have her blinders on, but cpcwatch.org details the problems with CPCs, lists known ones, and offers alternative resources for women looking for help with their pregnancies.
We don't want to reduce women to having one choice, we want them to be able to make a choice, and CPCs work against that. If we talk a lot about abortion, it's not because we think it's preferable, it's because no one is trying to limit a woman's right to give birth. If you know anyone trying to pass a law making childbirth illegal, let us know and we'll be right beside you in opposing it.
"Those who provide access to abortions have ethical, spiritual, and religious wisdom that this world needs."
Why aren't medical procedures spoken of in these terms? Spiritual and religious wisdom? For removing a gall bladder? Abortion is not a medical procedure. Abortion is not health care.
Jim Grant, Pro-lifer
Jim. I couldn't put it any better!
Jim, just because you say something, doesn't make it fact. In your fantasy land, abortion may not be healthcare or a medical procedure, but in the real world, it is. Get over it.
Why aren't medical procedures spoken of in these terms?
Some are, as are some other medical counseling situations. I've experienced them (or known others who've experienced them) in other areas of reproductive health care. Only, it's not always positive.
For example, at age 30, my mom was told she should be sterilized because it was immoral and irresponsible for someone with bipolar disorder to reproduce.
After I was raped, the person giving me emergency contraceptives wondered aloud to me if it wouldn't be better if I "just let God's will happen" and didn't take the pills.
There are, of course, the numerous health care providers who referred to my endometriosis and adenomyosis as the "curse of Eve" and counseled that I should "accept [my] fate as a woman" as a way of dismissing valid medical concerns. Also the doctor who refused my sterilization/ablation request with the reasoning that I wouldn't be able to do what God designed me to do and bear children.
And the nurse who admonished my close friend for going on birth control pills "just in case" -- as in, to plan ahead in the event she wanted to become sexually active. "Good girls," the nurse informed my friend, didn't think like that.
Female sexual and reproductive health care is frought with morality judgments. For some of us, merely the absence of condemnation reveals a world of wisdom.
Worldwide statistics make it clear that safe abortion is most definitely health care. 70,000 women die each year from unsafe abortions.The methods that women were using in the US pre-Roe are no different than the methods women in developing countries use today.
From: http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_IAW.html
Samples of Unsafe Abortion Methods Used• Drinking turpentine, bleach or tea made with livestock manure
• Inserting herbal preparations into the vagina or cervix
• Placing foreign bodies, such as a stick, coat hanger or chicken bone, into the uterus
• Jumping from the top of stairs or a roof
People who work in field of reproductive health are courageous and provide a very needed service. I admire those doctors, nurses, and clinic staff, who listen to women, to help women, to hear what's in their heart. Because there are many religions, as well as there are many different views of spirituality besides Christianity there are many ways to view reproductive healthcare for women. The Christian right focuses on solely on abortion outside the realm of the entire picture of a woman's reproductive health.
Kate Childs article, "I am a prochoice Catholic" is a great read in which explains her position. She said, "Where abortion is prohibited or stigmatized, women do not all of the sudden decide to carry pregnancies to term. Decisions pertaining to family are greater than law or custom. Instead, women seek out abortion where it is available. Where it is illegal, more often than not abortions are unsafe...........Even worse, in some countries where abortion is illegal and women come into hospitals to seek medical attention for a botched abortion, they aren’t treated with the care they need. Rather, they are treated as criminals, left to suffer on an examination table as the doctors and nurses are forced to call in a police examiner.
..............being prochoice does not end at supporting the right to safe and legal abortion; it extends to discovering the best methods to prevent unintended pregnancies. Contraception promotion, comprehensive sexuality education, and access to affordable child care and healthcare are just some of the methods that are paramount to reducing the need for abortion...........
Finally, I am a prochoice Catholic because my Catholic faith tells me I can be. The Catechism reads, “[Conscience] is man’s most secret core and his sanctuary. There he is alone with God whose voice echoes in his depths.” Even St. Thomas Aquinas said it would be better to be excommunicated than to neglect your individual conscience. So really, I am just following his lead. After years of research, discernment and prayer, my conscience has been well informed. Being a prochoice Catholic does not contradict my faith; rather, in following my well-informed conscience, I am adhering to the central tenet of Catholic teaching -- the primacy of conscience.
My hope is that together the hierarchy of the Catholic church, the antiabortion movement and the prochoice movement will help people of all faiths and no faith to develop well-informed consciences. However, this can only be done by talking about the whole picture -- from the dangers of unsafe abortion to the importance of preventing unintended pregnancy. By narrowing our focus to the legalization/illegalization of abortion, we are ignoring the realities which women and families face around the world. And that’s not serving anyone."
I think Kate Childs is a courageous and moral woman. Abortion is part of a full range of reproductive healthcare for women. It's healthcare not murder! It's an embryo not a baby, there is a big difference.
Thank and abortion provider today and everyday.
From the Catechism of the Catholic Church p. 547 - 549.
Read this and tell me: How can you be a Catholic if you don't believe what they teach?" Maybe you should start your own church, one that 'rebels' against the Catholic Church - "Oh wait!" - I found one... It's called The Protestant Church. Within the huge mass of Protestant Churches I know Unity Church allows you to believe whatever you would like to believe - they readily accept everyone including those who worship the Prince of this World - Satan, Lucifer, etc.
Abortion
2270 Human life must be respeted and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person - among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life.
Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you (Jer 1:5; cf. Job 10:8-12; Ps 22:10-11).
My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately wrought in the depths of the earth (Ps 139:15).
2271 Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, this is to say, abortion willed either as an end or means, is gravely contrary to the moral law:
You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish.
God, the Lord of life, has entrusted to men the noble mission of safeguarding life, and men must carry it out in a manner worthy of themselves. Life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception: abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes.
2272 Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life. "A person who procures a completed abortion incurs excommunication latae sententiae, by the very commission of the offense," and subject to the conditions provided by Canon Law. The Church does not thereby intend to restrict the scope of mercy. Rather, she makes clear the gravity of the crime committed, the irreparable harm done to the innocent who is put to death, as well as to the parents and the whole of society.
2273 The inalienable right to life of every innocent human individual is a consitutive element of a civil society and its legislation:
"The inalienable rights of the person must be recognized and respected by civil society and the political authority. These human rights depend neither on single individuals nor on parents; nor do they represent a concession made by society and the state; they belong to human nature and are inherent in the person by virtue of the creative act from which the person took his origin. Among such fundamental rights one should mention in this regard every human being's right to life and physical integrity from the moment of conception until death."
"The moment a positive law deprives a category of human beings of the protection which civil legislation ought to accord them , the state is denying the equality of all before the law. When the state does not place its power at the service of the rights of each citizen, and in particular of the more vulnerable, the very foundations of a state based on law are undermined....As a consequence of the respect and protection which must be ensured for the unborn child from the moment of conception, the law must provide appropriate penal sanctions for every deliberate violation of the child's rights."
2274 Since it must be treated from conception as a person, the embryo must be defended in its intergrity, cared for, and healed, as far as possible, like any other human being.
Prenatal diagnosis is morally licit, "if it respects the life and integrity of the embryo and the human fetus and is directed toward its safeguarding or healing as an individual....It is gravely opposed to the moral law when this is done with the thought of possibly inducing an abortion, depending upon the results: a diagnosis must not be the equivalent of a death sentence."
2275 "One must hold as licit precedures carried out on the human embryo which respect the life and integrity of the embryo and do not involve disproportionate risks for it, but are directed toward its healing, the improvement of its condition of health, or its individual survival."
"It is immoral to produce human embryos intended for exploitation as disposable biological material."
"Certain attempts to influence chromosomic or genetic inheritance are not therapeutic but are aimed at producing human beings selected according to sex or other predetermined qualities. Such manipulations are contrary to the personal dignity of the human being and his integrity and identity" which are unique and unrepeatable.
From the Catechism of the Catholic Church p. 547 - 549. Read this and tell me: How can you be a Catholic if you don't believe what they teach?"
You think that everything they teach is representative of Christ's teachings? I suppose you think molesting young boys is Catholic, too!
Christian = One who follows Christ
So yes, everything the Catholic Church teaches is directly related to Christ's teachings - it's His Church!
We are all tempted by sin - Priest's are no different.
Christian = One who follows Christ So yes, everything the Catholic Church teaches is directly related to Christ's teachings - it's His Church!
I dunno, I don't think Christ would have said "We have laws, we have a discipline, we have a doctrine of the faith ... This is not just theory. And you can't start backpedaling just because the real-life situation carries a certain human weight."
So yes, everything the Catholic Church teaches is directly related to Christ's teachings
Certainly would be interested to see any reference in Christ's teachings to purgatory, homosexuality, abortion, burning 'witches', priestly celibacy, anti-semitism, the idea of 'priests' itself, a 'princely heirarchy', a Pope, etc. You may be able to find some support for some of that in the later epistles from those who highjacked the faith, but you'd be hard put to dig up anything He said to justify any of it.
You should begin studying it. I don't have time to go over a lifetime of research here but I could provide you with some good sources if you're interested. A great resource is "The Catechism of the Catholic Church" itself because you can delve into exactly what the Catholic Church teaches on each individual topic. From there your journey begins...It has all the referenced documentation so you can branch off and prove to yourself where their conclusions were drawn.
As far as protecting life is concerned, this is really just good old common sense. You cannot murder innocent human life - period. It's too bad that not everyone has common sense.
I found it unconvincing and derivative. My journey begins and ends with the Gospels, not the grafted on patterns borrowed from the worship of Sol Invictus to keep the Roman Army from rebelling against Constantine.
I too oppose allowing innocent human lives to perish -- those of the pregnant women.
You think women perish for having a baby to come to term?? Where do you radicals come up with this stuff??
You cannot use another person's body as if it were your personal property--period. It's too bad that not everyone has common sense.
Oh wait, I forgot, "We don't need common sense, we have faith*."
(*shirt seen worn by Christians. I wish I was making it up. I really do.)
We are all tempted by sin - Priest's are no different.
you have missed several points.
1. The thing is, pedophilia isn't so much a 'sin' as it is a felony. Indeed, to dismiss pedophilia and the institutionalized cover-up of child abuse as a mere 'sin' we're all prone to is inaccurate and decidedly creepy.
2. The problem for you and your hierarchy is that you pretend to be above the law. Rather than call the police when they discovered that priests were molesting small children your hierarchy decided to cover it up, silence and sometimes punish the victims and reassign the 'problem' priests to a position where they were able to CONTINUE molesting children or adolescents. They did this time and time again in state after state, country after country and parish after parish. The rot is so deep and widespread that we haven't exposed half of it yet. And yes, I have links to mountains of evidence to substantiate this.
3. When confronted with illegal behavior that genuinely harms children a decent and responsible adult does not behave in this manner nor do they excuse those who do. If School Superintendents dealt with teachers who were raping children in this manner, those men and women would lose their jobs and be sent to jail along with the rapists. The fact that the Catholic church dealt (and continues to deal) with cases of pedophilia as if the real problem is that someone may find out is ample proof of a deeply corrupt institution and no amount babbling on about how zygotes are persons and how members of the GLTB community are 'disordered' and no amount of pretending that the sexual abuse of children is just another sin will change that.
To bring this up [like the true Accuser Satan is]...
No Institution of Man is immune to finding those within who may fall into temptation & a snare. Do you think becuz a man becomes a Priest, he ceases to be tempted? Those Priests that DO succumb to the sin of such a dispicable crime as child molestation are de-frocked, accordingly.
No Institution of Man is immune to finding those within who may fall into temptation & a snare. Do you think becuz a man becomes a Priest, he ceases to be tempted?
Oh, of course not. Lots of people who claim to be all righteous and pure and good turn out to be not very Christ-like after all.
Those Priests that DO succumb to the sin of such a dispicable crime as child molestation are de-frocked, accordingly.
Yeah, once their victims get around to accusing the Church in a court of law. Until then, they just get re-located, accordingly.
Well, no, actually what happens is the priest is 'counseled' about how his actions are 'naughty', and then he is moved to another parish where his prior history is kept a secret even from his supervisors, and he is allowed to move right into parish work with families. Meanwhile, the child who reported the incident and his parents are pressured to stay away from the police, 'forgive' the abuser, and keep the whole thing a secret.
What happened, over and over and over, was that the Church as an Institution knew that certain priests were child molestors or violently beat children or sexual abusers of women and KNOWINGLY enabled them to continue their abuse because the most important thing was not the children being abused, or the women being abused, or even the priests sinning, but instead avoiding bad publicity for the Church.
the most important thing was not the children being abused, or the women being abused, or even the priests sinning, but instead avoiding bad publicity for the Church.
So, how did that work out? Can you imagine a scenario that would have generated MORE bad publicity for the Church?
Astonishingly, even though cover-ups have historically been shown to have a disastrous effect and to make things worse every single time, the first instinct people have is to attempt to keep it all secret, muzzle the witnesses, pretend nothing has happened, and maybe nobody will find out.
The fact that the Church is STILL attempting to cover things up, to excuse those high in the heirarchy who were complicit, to hide the names and locations of the guilty, to deny the just claims of the victims, makes it pretty clear just how hard it is to get this lesson through to people or institutions.
No Institution of Man is immune to finding those within who may fall into temptation & a snare.
What's going on? You started out advocating for the rights of the very young and you ended up trying to defend pedophile priests. Yowza! You're not going to win many arguments that way.
The Culture of Death is a culture of despair. A woman aborts because she has despaired of being able to build a satisfactory life for both herself and her child. Who's fault is that? It's the fault of the culture itself. Instead of being dedicated to the principle of caring for others we have fallen into the trap of believing that life is the free pursuit of our own whims. That's not something young women dream up. That's imbedded into our culture.
You've heard it said that it takes a village to raise a child. I say that it takes a village to bear and deliver a child. There's no way to care about the unborn unless we start by caring about their mothers. Instead of talking about criminalizing abortion we should be talking about Universal Health Care -- particularly prenatal care. Instead of delivering lectures to unwed mothers we ought to be delivering child support demands to their partners.
And leave the Bible out of this. Except the part that says, "Love your neighbor".
I was quoting a woman who is Catholic and pro-choice. I left the Roman Catholic Church years ago. I was raised Catholic, attended Catholic school, attended a Methodist college, and have spent many years studying the bible and Christian theology. I feel I am "culturally Catholic" because that's how I grew up. At heart I have always been a pagan. I have always believed in a God but not a male or female God, not a patriarchal God, but a God/Goddess that understands the complexity of life and the decisions a woman has when it comes to her bodily autonomy.
From Catholics for Choice, "The morality and the legality of abortion is an important personal and political issue throughout the world. Catholic support for legal abortion is grounded in core principles of Catholic theology, which respect the moral agency of all women. It is bolstered by respect for the religious freedom and rights of people of all faiths and no religious faith, by respect for plural and tolerant democratic societies and, most importantly, by adherence to the Catholic principle of standing with the poor and marginalized of the world who are disproportionately women."
Now, I'm going to take a break and go outside to enjoy a warm semi-sunny day.
Thanks to RHReality Check for this awesome website, and a sincere thanks and shout out to ProChoiceFerret, ProChoiceGoth, crowepps, frolicnaked.
Peace everyone.
...so help you God!
Your wrote, "'The Catechism reads, “[Conscience] is man’s most secret core and his sanctuary. There he is alone with God whose voice echoes in his depths.'”
You cannot just take excerpts out of the Catechism using them outside overall context of what is being said.
If you bothered to ACTUALLY research what these ProChoice Catholics were saying and not just believing it because it suits your current lifestyle, philosophy, etc. you would find the following:
II. The Formation of Conscience
1783 Conscience must be informed and moral judgment enlightened. A well-formed conscience is upright and truthful. It formulates its judgments according to reason, in conformity with the true good willed by the wisdom of the Creator. The education of conscience is indispensable for human beings who are subjected to negative influences and tempted by sin to prefer their own judgment and to reject authoritative teachings.
1784 The education of the conscience is a lifelong task. From the earliest years, it awakens the child to the knowledge and practice of the interior law recognized by conscience. Prudent education teaches virtue; it prevents or cures fear, selfishness and pride, resentment arising from guilt, and feelings of complacency, born of human weakness and faults. The education of the conscience guarantees freedom and engenders peace of heart.
1785 In the formation of conscience the Word of God is the light for our path; we must assimilate it in faith and prayer and put it into practice. We must also examine our conscience before the Lord's Cross. We are assisted by the gifts of the Holy Spirit, aided by the witness or advice of others and guided by the authoritative teaching of the Church.
I shouldn't take things out of context like you do?
To refresh, I AM NOT CATHOLIC! (Or Christian) I quoted a pro-choice Catholic. I quoted the article because it was a beautiful article from a young woman who spent a lot of time contemplating her decision to change from being pro-life/anti-choice to pro-choice. I left the church because of people like you! And don't bitch at me about not studying catechism! After 12 years of Catholic school, a degree from a Methodist (Christian) college, and a lot of time spent reading the bible, studying Christian theology, studying other religions besides Christianity, and attending what could be thousands of masses, you have no flipping right to lash out at me! Hell, I grew up almost literally in the shadow of the church that was down the street. I don't believe in the authority of the bible. I don't believe in the patriarchal authority and leadership of the Roman Catholic Church. And what is your almighty claim to knowing all things biblical? Are you a biblical scholar? I kind of doubt it because I don't think you would act like such a jackass if you were.
I find it funny that you tell me,
"You cannot just take excerpts out of the Catechism using them outside overall context of what is being said"
when you and your cronies are constantly quoting scripture out of context. I, at least cite where my sources are from. And the fact that you are quoting the vatican's website like you are some church authority on the bible, please it's laughable.
in its entirety. You quoted it (making it yours), and I am pointing out to you that your quoting Kate Childs who is quoting The Catechism of the Catholic Church out of context. So I'm trying to help you by correctly filling in the "left out" context, which specifically states that Abortion is wrong and that the formation of one's conscience (especially if they claim to be Catholic) most certainly cannot disregard what Christ's Church teaches.
The term Pro-Choice Catholic is mutually exclusive. The two cannot share the same space - Oxymoronic.
As far as leaving the Church because of people like me, I don't understand... You left because there are people who want you to accurately portray what they stand for ACCURATELY? When you put forth an argument that is invalid - shall I leave you to wallow in your ignorance? I don't think this would be very loving - do you? I think you left the Catholic Church because what they/we teach is different than the way you've decided to live your life, right? I mean, do you want to belong to an organization where the individuals that make up the whole know not what they believe?
Not sure where to start without writing an entire thesis on the subject. I used the quote by Ms. Childs to illustrate that many Catholics are pro-choice without going into listing survey results. But if you want facts, here you go,
* Catholic women have abortions at the same rate as women in the population as a whole. In a study of more than 10,000 women over the age of 17 obtaining abortions, 27% were Catholic. Catholics make up almost 25% of the population. (Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 2002)
* Less than one-quarter (22%) of Catholics in the US agree with the bishops’ position that abortion should be illegal in all circumstances. (Belden Russonello & Stewart, 2004)
* Only 25% of Catholics believe that church leaders should have the final say on abortion.(Life Cycle Institute/National Catholic Reporter poll, 2005).
* 58% of Catholics believe you can be a good Catholic without following the bishops’ teaching on abortion. (National Catholic Reporter poll, September 2005)
During my catechism classes, I was taught to have a deep regard to obey my conscience. Church teachings have been flawed in the past, for example The Inquisition. The church is a living body. This is why scholarly study of church teachings along with one's life experiences inform new teachings and new thought.
Although the Catholic catechism contains only six paragraphs on abortion as a moral evil the reasons for judging abortion sinful have changed over time. St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas did not believe the fetus in the early stages of pregnancy a person. Early prohibition on abortion was not based on concern for the fetus but on a view that an abortion would hide "forbidden sexual activity." Being that church teachings have been influenced mainly by men over the centuries and women have been excluded from this process I question the accuracy and validity of church teachings.
What the majority of Catholics do, and what the Catholic Church actually teaches are two very different things. There are many people, like Ms. Childs, who label themselves Catholic and they are not. We know this by their actions. The Catholic Church is very precise on what it believes, it has to be becuase it's attacked regularly from people like Ms. Childs. So there should be no excuse for not knowing where the church stands on almost any subject.
As far as Church teaching regarding The Spanish Inquisition are concerned, the Church didn't teach anything about this officially. Like the indulgences during Martin Luther's time, this was some "group think" going on within the Catholic Church that was severely misguided. It has since been corrected and amended where possible.
Look, the Catholic Church is made up of humans and therefore has its problems (like any human institution). It is guided by the Holy Spirit in matters regarding Faith and Morals. The Pope is able to speak about Faith and Morals without fail.
Papal infallibility is the dogma in Roman Catholic theology that, by action of the Holy Spirit, the Pope is preserved from even the possibility of error[1] when he solemnly declares or promulgates to the universal Church a dogmatic teaching on faith or morals as being contained in divine revelation, or at least being intimately connected to divine revelation.
Just look back at the last 2010yrs since Christ's death. Of the 264 Popes since St. Peter not one has faltered in this duty. And believe me there have been some Popes that did not live according to what the Catholic Church teaches - look up Pope John XII. This guy turned the Papacy into an all out orgy fest.
The point is that you have to research what the Church actually teaches, and not just assume that we are all misogynists. Afterall, what other Christian Religion are you aware of that extols a Woman like Our Mother Mary?
The major difference I see here is that one of you defines a religion by what it's members actually do, and the other defines a religion by what church leaders teach.
Personally, I think that what people do is more indicative of their belief system than what they say.
I wonder just how much variation there is among Catholics worldwide in contraceptive and abortive practices. I hypothesize that Catholics in any given area don't do things much differently from the rest of the local population.
Here's a link to Letter to Women of John Paul II (& some excerpts) http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_let_29061995_women_en.html
The creation of woman is thus marked from the outset by the principle of help: a help which is not one-sided but mutual. Woman complements man, just as man complements woman: men and women are complementary. Womanhood expresses the "human" as much as manhood does, but in a different and complementary way.
Putting herself at God's service, she also put herself at the service of others: a service of love. Precisely through this service Mary was able to experience in her life a mysterious, but authentic "reign". It is not by chance that she is invoked as "Queen of heaven and earth". The entire community of believers thus invokes her; many nations and peoples call upon her as their "Queen". For her, "to reign" is to serve! Her service is "to reign"!
In this perspective of "service"-which, when it is carried out with freedom, reciprocity and love, expresses the truly "royal" nature of mankind-one can also appreciate that the presence of a certain diversity of roles is in no way prejudicial to women, provided that this diversity is not the result of an arbitrary imposition, but is rather an expression of what is specific to being male and female. This issue also has a particular application within the Church. If Christ-by his free and sovereign choice, clearly attested to by the Gospel and by the Church's constant Tradition-entrusted only to men the task of being an "icon" of his countenance as "shepherd" and "bridegroom" of the Church through the exercise of the ministerial priesthood, this in no way detracts from the role of women, or for that matter from the role of the other members of the Church who are not ordained to the sacred ministry, since all share equally in the dignity proper to the "common priesthood" based on Baptism. These role distinctions should not be viewed in accordance with the criteria of functionality typical in human societies. Rather they must be understood according to the particular criteria of the sacramental economy, i.e. the economy of "signs" which God freely chooses in order to become present in the midst of humanity.
.
emphasis added.
.
Being a woman raised Catholic, I disagree with this kind of attitude (& the vatican teachings about homosexuality). I used to say I was "lapsed", but now I label myself "former", & not even "culturally Catholic". I think another principle behind this stress of "sex roles" is that things happen for a reason. If one believes that being born man or woman is a sign of what god want you to be, it's OK to expect certain things of pregnant women, or women who might be pregnant.
.
Unfortuately, that is systemic discrimination of women (because they are expected to give of themselves more than men) and poor people (because unwanted pregnancies affect poor more than rich).
I live for absurdity. Just kidding, Seriously, once again this is why I am an ex-Catholic! Are you Catholic? Are you a biblical scholar?
And for you to belittle me by saying
The point is that you have to research what the Church actually teaches, and not just assume that we are all misogynists.......So there should be no excuse for not knowing where the church stands on almost any subject.
That is a ridiculous claim. Even biblical scholars and Catholic theologians can't claim to know EVERY teaching of the church.
BTW, I spent many years in college studying Christian theology.
I'm guessing you are Catholic? If you are, then follow the teaching on the Declaration on Religious Freedom, The Second Vatican Council’s. This reinforced the call for Catholics to respect the positions of people of other faiths. And yes, I was taught this when I was a Catholic.
"10. It is one of the major tenets of Catholic doctrine that man's response to God in faith must be free: no one therefore is to be forced to embrace the Christian faith against his own will.(8) This doctrine is contained in the word of God and it was constantly proclaimed by the Fathers of the Church.(7) http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decl_19651207_dignitatis-humanae_en.html"
Thank you, grrl, for being so honest. You have rejected the Church and say so. So much better than rejecting the Church and still claiming to be a Catholic.
Jim Grant, Pro-lifer
That is one of the major points that I am trying to get across to these so-called Catholics for Pro-Choice, etc. Just say that you disagree wholeheartedly with the Catholic Church instead of trying to fit your opinions/beliefs into it. It's not a big deal, just go find another church or whatever...
For those people who only look at statistics and say that because a large majority of Catholics don't follow the Catholic teachings, and therefore the Catholic Church should change doesn't follow. I think this is because most of us come from the Westernized World View of a Democracy and we insert our perceptions of "having a voice" into what is The Kingdom of God. You don't question the King; however, you are free to leave the Kingdom. Not sure why you would even want to stay. Martin Luther didn't. Henry the VIII started his own Church - The Church of England.
The Pro-Choicers could start The Church of Choice or something...
You want "truth and facts" but dismiss science and statistics.
This is so timely, Yesterday a coalition representing 59,000 sisters from Catholic religious orders sent a statement in support of health care reform to Capitol Hill. The nuns took a stand against their own church hierarchy, as represented by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, which opposes the bill.
I would love to see it if all of the pro-choice, pro-contraception, feminist Christians left the church. How would the church sustain itself financially and otherwise?
Truth, I think we will have to agree to disagree. I will keep fighting for the rights of women to have access to a safe and legal abortion. I will fight on for reproductive justice!
Those supposed "59,000" nuns, in LifeNews.com. Seems there was a BIT of an exageration there. It was really only 59!!
A coalition of Catholic nuns took a very brave stand this week by defying church hierarchy in support of the Senate's health care reform bill. In a letter to Congress, the leaders of more than fifty Catholic women's orders and organizations, including the Leadership Conference of Women Religious, which represents over 53,000 American Catholic nuns, urged lawmakers to pass the measure.
...
Kudos to Sister Campbell and the 53,000+ other nuns for focusing on the millions of uninsured Americans, and those who die each year as result of poor or no health care, and for considering what their lives are worth.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andy-ostroy/what-pro-life-emreallyem_b_504259.html
PLCC also supports the Senate's health care bill. Among the many arguments in favor of the bill is the fact that abortions will decrease when all women have access to pre-natal care and when every child is guaranteed pediatric care.
Is it brave to simply do what you're supposed to do? Catholics are required to stand in solidarity with the poor. The bishops' objections to the bill are all based upon a overblown fear of committing the sin of 'material cooperation with evil' by supporting a plan that will enable a woman's access to abortion. The bishops are on the wrong side of this one.
I liken the abortion problem to a tea kettle on a stove. The steam coming up from the kettle represents abortion. The water in the kettle is human life. The fire under the kettle is the pressure to abort. How do you stop the steam from forming? Do you plug up the spout of the kettle or do you turn down the heat. The bishops are attempting the first strategy. The nuns are attempting the second.
That's right, cuz someone aborted it before he/she could be born! Not against PREVENTING fertilization, as long as sperm & egg don't join. I would certainly advocate teaching kids about birth control in public school, as long as abstainence is one of those options. Some kids will always experiment with sex, so they need to know how to protect against STD's/pregnancy. But they sure don't need self serving money making organizations like Planned Parenthood coming into their classroom since P.P.also happens to benefit from providing abortions for those who STILL get pregnant. When my child is old enough to receive Sex Ed, I'm going to be very aware of exactly what is being tought on this subject.
Tell me, ConcernedMom, during what part of fertilization does "personhood" begin? "Fertilization" is an arbitrary name given to a certain stages of rather complex, multistage process. Do you become a human when the spermatozoa binds to the zona pellucida of the oocyte? During the subsequent acrosomal reaction? Do you start being a person when the zona pellucida is penetrated? Does is happen after the spermatozoa and oocyte fuse their membranes? What about after the sperm is engulfed by the oocyte but before the decondensation of the sperm nucleus? Can you be a person before the cortical reaction and the formation of the zona block and vitelline block? Formation of the male pronucleus? Syngamy? Is an ootid a person?
2274 Since it must be treated from conception as a person, the embryo must be defended in its intergrity, cared for, and healed, as far as possible, like any other human being.
The beginning is a that exact moment when the sperm enters the egg and this is commonly known as fertilization. This newly formed zygote is the beginning of what can be nothing else than a human being.
Trying to confuse people doesn't make the fertilized egg any less human.
No one denies a fertilized ovum in a human female is human. To deny that would be be ludicrous. However, that does not make the zygote a PERSON. Even if it did, that STILL does not give it the right to remain in the woman's body against that woman's will. You CANNOT give a z/e/f a right that NO OTHER HUMAN(person or not) has.
Her point was that fertilization is not instantaneous, it is a process. There are many different things that happen during fertilization, and she wants to know what the criteria are for establishing the instant at which personhood begins.
Example: When the sperm fuses cell membranes with the egg, the two nuclei are still separate and contained within their nuclear membranes. So, at this point while there are two nuclei, there is not a fully integrated set of genetic material. Is the fertilized egg a person yet, or do the two sets of DNA need to combine before you'd consider it a person?
To trap us?? When egg & sperm join, the tail falls off, the cells devide. This is NEW LIFE beginning. What is your point? We consider that life DOES have personhood, as it is forming into a new human being from the moment those 2 cells devide.
It isn't a real life to you, however, unless its WANTED, correct?
Why do we care about what criteria you have for determining the beginning of a new life? Speaking for myself, I want to understand your position better so that I can argue against it more effectively. You could say I want to know what your logic is so that I can poke holes in it. Oh, and also I like doing this kind of thing because it illustrates that pro-choicers (on a whole) tend to understand what actually happens during embryonic development a lot better than pro-lifers typically do. I find that amusing, because pro-lifers should know more about this stuff if they care about it so much. That should be obvious.
So for you, it's a new life/person following the first mitotic division of the zygote. That would mean that you do not consider the single-celled zygote ("fertilized eggs" to you) a person. Which begs the question of, "What does a blastocyst have that a zygote doesn't have?" However, based on your usual responses, I'd be willing to bet you actually messed up in the previous comment, because you DO actually think zygotes are people... which would bring us back to our initial question...
"At what point in the process of fertilization do you consider the new life to begin?" Personally, if I thought life began "at conception" I would go for the moment the two nuclei (paternal and maternal 1n nuclei) integrated and the zygote was in interphase just prior to the first mitotic division... but that's just me, and I don't actually think that "life begins" at that time.
"When egg & sperm join, the tail falls off, the cells devide. This is NEW LIFE beginning. What is your point? We consider that life DOES have personhood, as it is forming into a new human being from the moment those 2 cells devide."
If I write that on my Reproduction test next week, I'm going to fail. Fertilization, like every other biological process, is not an on/ off switch (read: person/ not-person). You are describing a simplified cartoon version of reproduction appropriate for children, and then accusing us us trying to confuse you when we ask to have a meaningful and precise conversation about it.
It is not simply "an egg and sperm joining and the tail falling off." You would tell kids that because, frankly, the details would bore them. However, if you are writing legislation (or Catechisms) about this and making decisions that actually effect other people, you need to be more precise than that.
Is it the fact that the spermatozao has entered the oocyte? If so, why is that particular moment so significant?
Is it the fusion of genetic material? If so, why? What does a zygote (nuclei have fused) have that an ootid (male and female nuclei are present but unfused) doesn't have as far as personhood?
Is it the ability to divide? Would a zygote with a chromosome abnormality rendering it incapable of division (as I think 12% of them are, but I'd need to check that figure) still be a person? Is a zygote that cannot divide not a person while a zygote that is capable of division and hasn't gotten around to it yet is? What's the difference?
Once the zygote has started dividing, up until the 8-cell or 16-cell stage, each cell is totipotent. That means that if placed individually in the correct environment, each cell can become its own individual. Therefore, during in vitro fertilization when cells from a zygote are removed to check for hereditary diseases, is that test the equivalent of shooting a 4-year old child in the face simply because that totipotent cells are capable of growing into an individual?
More disturbingly, since each of us went through the 16-cell stage, we could have become that many individuals instead of just one. All of those potential siblings, just selfishly absorbed into our bodies! This isn't just about potential siblings--according to one study I read, researcher think that as many as 1 in 8 human pregnancies start out as multiples. One twin just dies and gets reabsorbed.
Knowing this, how do you act morally? How do you come to terms with how little regard biology has for your sacred fertilized egg? What action do we take to prevent our bodies from murdering the vanishing twins? All zygotes are people, right? So you can't do nothing and just let our bodies get away with this, right?
I apologize for being abrasive, but your position gets absurder the more I think about it.
So now that you've done your research on the Internet, what does this have to do with the fact that a woman doesn't even find out she's pregnant til at least 6 weeks after conception? As far as I'm concerned, there's no trace of doubt that embryo is developed into a recognizably human & thriving new being. So all your medicalese is wasted on this point, isn't it?
2 weeks dear, not 6 weeks. The embyro implants on the uterus after about two weeks, and then home pregnancy tests can detect the hGC (a hormone secreted by the developing placenta) in her urine and the woman knows she is pregnant.
You're the one that said it matters. You said that it matters because (I'm paraphrasing) life begins when an egg and sperm meet and the tail falls off. Since that is a uselessly-childish way to phrase what occurs in the biological process, I asked you what precise event is the start of personhood. You accuse me of talking to you in medicalese and said it didn't matter.
Now you are saying that personhood does not start until the woman knows that she is pregnant? Or it doesn't start until the woman can know she is pregnant? Or personhood doesn't start until the embryo is thriving and recognizably human? An embryo is recognizably a mammal at 6-weeks, but human, not so much.
With you, honey. As long as you've decided you advocate abortion, this angle you're teasing me with is a moot debate. Nice try, tho.
Just cant reason...With you, honey. As long as you've decided you advocate abortion, this angle you're teasing me with is a moot debate.
Ah, so you're copping out. If she doesn't believe the same things you do, she's automatically wrong and doesn't deserve an answer to her intelligent and reasonable questions. Yeah, right... more like you haven't got an answer, so you're going to evade answering because you can't be bothered to learn about anything or even listen, and you really haven't thought this through beyond "I like babies and so should everyone else".
She isn't asking you to support abortion, she's asking you to logically back up your repetitive claims that life "begins" at conception and why you think that this widely varying and spectacularly (naturally) wasteful process duly trumps a born person's right to determine the course of their lives, and how exactly you can divorce the complexities of real life, oppression and politics from reproduction.
I would just like to state, for the record, how much I'm enjoying the thoroughness of your posts on this entry and how frustrating I'm finding it that none of your questions are getting answered. Curiosity! You mentioned that you're a scholar-- what field? (Or what sort of field, if you don't feel like giving out identifying information.)
The point at which you think life begins doesn't have anything to do with how long it takes women to find out they are pregnant. So... why did you bring it up?
Are you trying to ask why defining the begining of life is important to the abortion debate? I would think that's a no-brainer.
Mechashiva. It doesn't matter WHEN the exact second a fusion of DNA takes place becuz its ALREADY HAPPENED by the time a woman detects she's pregnant! So that's after she missea a period, & the ovum has implanted into the wall of the uterus by then, and is a new individual creation starting to grow. UNLESS of course, Mom says oops! And runs to make an appointment to get that innocent being's life scraped out of her uterus. As long as people choose to be their own god, the most helpless & vulnerable so unfortunate to be conceived in their wombs, will pay the price.
Some of us belong to religions in which women are, in fact, expected to have the responsibility, honor, and power of choosing whether or not to bring life into the world. So those appointments are, in fact, part of what our gods expect of us.
I find it immoral to place the rights of potential people, who can't feel or think or even care about their fate, above the rights and interests of those already in the world. The mistreatment of fully alive chickens who can feel pain and fear and are subjected to both in the process of producing our morning eggs and chicken nugget dinners moves me more. (and for the record, I still eat eggs. I just try to make purchases from folks who aren't enormous factory farms when that option is available.)
She exercised her freedom of choice!
"It doesn't matter WHEN the exact second a fusion of DNA takes place becuz its ALREADY HAPPENED by the time a woman detects she's pregnant!"
Okay, so syngamy (your DNA fusion) is the start of personhood. That's all you needed to say. Since we are all adults here and we are having a civil conversation, I actually want to know your reasoning. I must ask why is that moment any more magical than say, when both sets of chromosomes are present in the oocyte but haven't combined? Surely that has almost as much potential to be a person as an egg cell with the fused DNA does. Is it a person halfway through the DNA fusion, or only when the fusion is complete? What if there is something wrong with the chromosomes (as there often is) and the zygote in incapable of division? Is it still a person? A person doomed to never grow larger than a single cell?
Also, you act like the exact timing doesn't matter because you think is never comes up. Every hear of embryonic stem cells? How about in vitro fertilization? Your precious start of personhood matters very much to some people in those contexts.
"So that's after she missea a period, & the ovum has implanted into the wall of the uterus by then, and is a new individual creation starting to grow."
Well, no. IUDs and the morning-after pill catch it before it implants.
"UNLESS of course, Mom says oops! And runs to make an appointment to get that innocent being's life scraped out of her uterus. As long as people choose to be their own god, the most helpless & vulnerable so unfortunate to be conceived in their wombs, will pay the price. "
That early in the pregnancy, most women get the pill, not the procedure. Anyway, how is that in anyway different from a natural miscarriage? Disregarding the many, many embryos that fail to implant due to natural causes, nature aborts an astounding quantity of already-implanted embryos for the slightest provocation (stress, temperature, hormone levels, nutrition).
If you people really cared about saving embryos rather than controlling women you would be working to reduce the number of embryos that just die naturally. If an abortion is the equivalent off cutting up a three-year old with a chainsaw, how come letting an embryo die naturally isn't the equivalent of callously watching that same child die of malnutrition or small pox or some other "natural" means and not doing anything to stop it?
How can anti-choicers say they want to save every embryo, but you never hear them lobbying for funding to research to reduce spontaneous abortion? You never hear them calling for programs to improve the nutrition of poor women to lower their risk of miscarriage. How can you be in favor of natural abortion but not man-made ones?
Where do you find the time to dream up all this crap?? I'd have to spend a 1/2 hour alone just writing down your talking points BEFORE actually writing the responses!
What about IVF? Have a problem with that, whenever it involves "selective reduction" of too many fertilized eggs produced. Exception would be if they are donated to another mom who carries them to term.
The issue is not about how many natural miscarriges happen, cuz that isn't a conccious choice by the mother. Abortion, of course, is. It just comes down to how you like telling yourself nothing's wrong with abortion.
And I will NEVER agree with you.
a woman doesn't even find out she's pregnant til at least 6 weeks after conception
Come again?
"More disturbingly, since each of us went through the 16-cell stage, we could have become that many individuals instead of just one. All of those potential siblings, just selfishly absorbed into our bodies! This isn't just about potential siblings--according to one study I read, researcher think that as many as 1 in 8 human pregnancies start out as multiples. One twin just dies and gets reabsorbed."
If all cells with the potential to become babies are people, and the cell that became me may have eaten another cell that could have become a person, does that make me a cannibal?
Mind = Blown
If you really want your mind blown, consider the ethical question involved with "fetus in fetu", a rare congenital abnormality in which a nonviable, parasitic fetus grows within the body of its twin.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4624307.stm
Since removing this malformed 'growth' and saving the life of the healthier twin means the "fetus" will die, are the doctors who perform such an operation 'murderers'? Does the healthy twin survive by 'killing his brother'?
And what are we to think when what is believed to be a 'tumor' turns out instead to be miscellaneous body parts? Should that doctor have been charged with murder for 'killing an innocent child'?
"A doctor in Colorado found a surprise when removing what he thought was a benign growth from a newborn's brain. Instead of a microscopic tumor, out popped a tiny foot, partially formed hand, a thigh and another partially formed foot."
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/SecondOpinion/story?id=6488655&page=1
Apparently, there's a theory that lefties in this world MAY have been twins in utero who absorbed their siblings.....So it's possible I was a twin who ate my sibling......now that's hardcore and disturbing. lol
Assuming the blastocyst gets to the zygote stage, there is then a long journey to implant in the uterine wall, where we both know this is where many fail. Reproduction itself is naturally wasteful, and it is often fails for no apparent reason, making the cynic in me think that the natalist bill in Utah are just covers to excuse the persecution of pregnant "undesirables". We know who will be targeted and why - it'll have a lot to do with age, wealth, immigration status, skin color, politics and religion.
Even for the antis who are not religious, I have found that there is a strong prediliction among them to believe in what Amanda Marcotte who blogs here calls "sperm magic" - basically, the belief that shoring up male pride in virility trumps the bodily autonomy of women. Entitling the fetus to special rights is a by-proxy way of ensuring females and their reproduction remains under patriarchal control, evidenced by the fact that mainstream pro-life groups tend not to give a damn about anybody outside the womb.
I have always thought that trying to justify calling a zygote, embryo or fetus a person and a separate individual is beyond ridiculous and cannot be justified in scientific terms. It is an argument so poor it needs belief in the will of invisible beings to shore it up, mainly because the "will" of that omnipotent being can be construed to suit anything the person claiming to speak for that being wants it to be. To define something that requires another to survive for months until it can stand a chance by itself as a unique individual requires a lot of magical thinking, primarily that reproduction can be divorced from the systematic oppression of women. Historically, the personal and the political, at least for women, have been separated, and their issues shoved quietly into the private sphere where they are expected to suffer alone with the consequences and reponsibility for what the powerful thought was best for them.
It always funny to me how, like children playing in a sandbox, scientists examine down to each tiny granular of sand - maybe even start to rearrange the sand here are there or add H20 to the sand or other elements to "create" other "things." They never seem to take the time giving credit to the creator of the sand. Instead of giving credit where credit is due they would rather just say, "It just appeared here by chance - not really sure - just showed up here." "We don't bother explaining that part of the equation because it takes away from us analyzing each granular and rearranging the sand to make sandcastles, etc." Like little ungrateful brats who after awhile think they created the sand.
The essence of a fertilized ovum -- the sperm / egg combination -- is that unique set of chromosomes making up the individual, unless interfered with fatally by miscarriage or abortion, it will become a born human baby. That is its nature -- the same nature that gives you a right to life. To purposely terminate is Murder. Not to mention; extremly ungrateful and self-serving.
1. You do know there are religious scientists, right? Hell, my university used to have symposiums on the intersection of spirituality/religion and scientific endeavors. My freshman chemistry professor held a seminar on the topic of intelligent design, and I was the only non-Christian in a group of 50 students. By the way... this was in California, not exactly the Bible Belt.
2. Are you mocking science while using a computer? *laughing* I don't need to say anything about that one.
3. In order to learn something, you have to acknowledge that there is something you don't know. Perhaps you are suggesting that religious people know everything? We all know that's coddswallop and poppycock, so it's ludicrous to mock scientists (while using a computer *snicker*) for seeking answers to things they don't know.
4. 60-80% of fertilized eggs do not implant in the uteran lining (meaning... the zygote/blastocyst was flushed without a pregnancy ever occuring). So, there's a slight chink in your argument that fertilized eggs just naturally will become babies. I have actual proof to back up my arguments... all you have is belief that there is some "essence" of a zygote that makes it a person.
5. Rights are a human social construct. 'Nuff said.
6. People don't have to be grateful for a pregnancy. Sometimes, it just isn't a joyful thing. Also, if you are shaming people for being self-serving, then you must think that we should be serving someone other than ourselves. Gee, I wonder who/what you that should be? Oh, right... that thing that not everyone believes in and you don't have any proof for.
The Good Egg
Discover Magazine of May, 2004. Think link starts you off on the 3rd page, as this is where our topic is addressed. I encourage you to read the whole thing. Discover is reputable and easy to read... and it just so happens they address the quandary of how to view the beginning of life.
http://discovermagazine.com/2004/may/cover/article_view?b_start:int=2&-C
STATISTICS TIME!
The article states at least 60% of fertilized eggs never implant, and 33% of the ones that do are miscarried (13.33% of all fertilized eggs). That leaves only 26.67% of fertilized eggs that lead to a viable pregnancy.
AGI's 2008 report indicates that around 50% of all US pregnancies are unintended, and around 40% of those are aborted (we'll ignore the intended pregnancies that are aborted, because they are statistically insignificant).
So, we can extrapolate from this information that around 5% of fertilized eggs result in an unintended pregnancy and are aborted (half of all pregnancies = 13% of all fertilized eggs result in unintended pregnancies, 40% of unintended pregnancies = 5% of all fertilized eggs result in abortion).
So, by conservative estimation using the lowest numbers and rounding down) 6o% of fertilized eggs don't implant, 13% miscarry spontaneously, and 5% are electively aborted. That means that 78% of fertilized eggs do not result in a baby.
In case you don't like me mixing stats from two sources, those figures actually do match the ones given to us in my college embryology class a few years ago (the professor broke it all down by category like I did above and showed us that 80% of all fertilized eggs result in no baby). I just wanted to provide some sources and math rather than just telling you what I learned in class. More concrete that way.
Plus, I like wasting time here and soundly whipping you in debate. So much for your claim that zygotes are people because they naturally result in babies. I claim they aren't people because they naturally result in nothing a vast majority of the time, and I have numbers to back it up. All you have is some vague notion of "essence."
MechaShiva, excellent post! Thanks! Glad you are on my side I would hate to debate you.
Yours in pro-choice solidarity, rebellious grrl.
Thanks! I genuinely like reproductive physiology and embryology, so I make a point of educating myself. I keep related articles in a favorites folder so I can pull them up at will. If I learned anything in college, it is that sources are everything when it comes to making a point.
It's shocking, shocking I tell you, that pro-lifers don't deliver squat when it comes to debate. I mean, it would almost lead you to think they don't have anything to back up their arguments.
Reaches far enough around to pat yourself on the back! PRIDE is one of Satan's favorite traits!
"What may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world, God's invisible qualities- His Eternal Power & devine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made... So man is without excuse."
Romans 1:18
Let me ask all you smug pro "choicers" something. Do you believe you have a soul?
Yeah, and one of Ganesha's favorite things is candy. So remember that every time you eat sweets, you are indulging in something that is associated with a Hindu diety. I bet it will mean about as much to you as Satan's association with pride does to me.
Your quote is interesting. So... God has invisible qualities that have been clearly seen, huh? And people just know about them because your god told them? Riiiight. I've got a bridge in Brooklyn I'm willing to let go for a reasonable price. Did you have a point you were trying to make with that quote?
As for souls and what I think of them, that depends on what you think a soul is. The short answer is a simple "no" because I don't think souls (as most Christians think of them) exist. A long answer would be "yes, but" or "maybe, however" with lots of talking about Ghost Hunters (yes, the tv show) and Eastern religions. I'll forego further explanation for now because I doubt that you have a genuine interest in what an agnostic-ish atheist thinks about your religion's concept of souls and the afterlife.
So sweetie, what do you think happens between "sperm/egg combination" and "will become a born human baby"? Do you think it's like mixing cake batter and shoving it in an oven for a few hours? I notice no mention of a woman required to build that, ahem, individual into a actual individual, nor an acknowlegment of the provable fact that a lot of time zygotes result in nothing, yet we now have a bill that effectively criminalizes women who fail to produce a live birth as battery hens sorry, women, should.
So glad you take the time to post here, where the Jackals are feeding!
The reason we don't understand each other is that we have completely different worldviews. To me (and the rest of the scientific community), nature is entirely amoral. There is no over-arching plan for us. In nature, there is no purpose except continuing life by any means necessary--it isn't magical or supernatural at all.
In my world, the earthquake in Haiti didn't happen because Haitians made a pact with the devil--it happened because of the interactions between two tetonic plates. In my world, women don't give birth to disabled children because they previously had abortions--nature doesn't care and nature isn't going to punish you. In my world, it is perfectly consistent for nature to design (via natural selection: the word "design" does not imply any conciousness or purposefulness) a reproductive system in which the vast majority of fertilized eggs die without become chubby-cheeked little babies.
Biology doesn't care about our feelings and our perceptions of right and wrong. It is also, eventually, completely comprehendable. There are no mysteries (no mind of god) that humans will not understand, provided we don't wipe ourselves out before the technology advances far enough.
Humans created right and wrong. This is based on a system of behaviors that everyone must practice to stop society from collapsing. There is evidence that some of our morality comes from biological imperatives (ei altruism), but there is no supernatural absolute truth. There is no permanent good and evil--only useful conventions.
Those are not just my beliefs--those are facts and science falls apart if you do not accept them as facts.
Truth and ConcernedMom, you seem to be living in a world where some arbitrary system of justice is imposed on us by supernatural means. It is a very clean world and everything is black and white. All choices are easy. The supernatural regularly intervenes and tells you what to do. He rewards you for being good and punishes us for being bad. Us non-believers will be tortured for all eternity after we die, and our suffering will be a very good thing because your magical friend is completely just and fair, and we should have known better.
Reality and biology don't need to make sense, because the supernatural will hand-wave away any inconsistencies. You can yell at us scientists who insist on complicating your clean world, and it can make feel all warm and satisfied inside, because your magic friend knows you did a very good thing. You can band together and hurt women very, very badly, and still feel full of the love of your imaginary friend. You can do all sorts of things that us logical sorts decided are bad, such as taking away women's bodily autonomy and making them suffer and sometimes killing them, and feel that it is good and you are right and your magical friend will surely see what good little people you are.
Truth, you accused me of not acknowledging the nature and the essense of things. You're right, I don't believe in your arbitrary system of magic, with natures and and essenses, just like I don't believe in the theory of the four humors or that gravity works because it is the nature of things to fall to the earth.
I never addressed the issue of abortion in this post, because we disagree on a much, much larger issue. Until we work past that, we will never be able to even begin having a rational conversation.
Also, sand plus H20 makes wet sand. I hope you didn't need a scientist to tell you that.
I have just prayed for you. By the way, I guess you don't believe you have a soul, from all you've said? How could you, if you reject God. Well, my prayer is one day very soon, in an encounter in one of your typical days, you will meet a genuine Christian, that can catch your attention with how different they look at life, treat people, values they have, etc. I pray God sends someone to show you the love of Jesus Christ. It isn't too late for you, Elizabeth. God loves you! If you could just believe this, and come to Him, surrender your heart to Him one day, your soul will be spared a horrendous Eternity. What happens, the minute you die?
I'm not going to take any chances with MY soul. How bout you?
Stop representing your own peculiar blend of sanctimoniousness and hostility as typical of Christians. It's MY prayer that one day very soon, YOU can meet a genuine Christian, who will redirect your efforts from haranguing others to charity and perfect love by helping you learn some much needed humility.
Is THAT what praying for someone is?? Well I guess I should pray for each one of you even more, since only God will be able to open your eyes.
I live in Texas, where Christianity is composed entirely of building the biggest, flashiest church possible to show off the size of your Jesus-penis. You Christians need to get your act together before you come after us.
I am passingly familiar with the Gospels. Jesus said many wise and subtle things that are especially pertinent to this conversation. Case in point: we have an obligation to protect those that would be hurt by a self-righteous pharisee class.
I never saw the part where Jesus claimed that "having faith" and other intangible mysticisms were more important than the concrete realities of how we treat other people in this life time. In fact, I'm convinced that your 2nd century counterparts made it all up to feel good about themselves without doing any actual good work.
As Gandhi said (and I'm paraphrasing), " I like your Christ, but I do not like your Christians, for they are so unlike your Christ."
Elizabeth! Really bugs you that there are people who defend their faith in God & opposes the bloodthirsty abortionists you keep in business? If we didn't come on here to counter your OWN self righteous vindications, you might get the rediculous idea that what you believe is shared by everyone else?
NOT!!
Elyzabeth, I think I have a big fat feminist nerd-crush on you.
Go, science geeks! Uh, uh science rocks, go science uhhuhuhhuhhuh--
Wow, that really sounds like a MIT cheer doesn't it? Man, I am such a nerd.... *L*
I'm guessing the CC is digging through the pages of her holy book, finding nothing relevant (not that she ever does find anything relevant) and has moved on to the internet to figure out all those big words. My favorite, thanks for the biology refresher, has long been the zona pellucida. It almost sounds almost cosmopolitan...
Like Fox News and their commentators (like Rush, Glen Beck, etc.) and right wing Christian fundamentalist organizations (Focus on the Family, etc. etc.) that make money off oppressing women and using this issue to polarize people and make money.
Planned Parenthood (PP) is not "getting rich off abortion." That's a bogus claim, being that 3% of PP services are abortions. If you can make a profit from 3% of your business than you are a financial genius. PP has it's annual report online at http://www.plannedparenthood.org/about-us/annual-report-4661.htm.
Abortion is part of reproductive healthcare. Other facets of reproductive healthcare are, contraceptives (birth control); emergency contraception; screening for breast, cervical and testicular cancers; pregnancy testing and pregnancy counseling.
Makes their big bucks from abortion. DUH. Their business is based on its founder Margaret Sanger's keen distaste for the "breeding" of poor minority races. That's why they're moving into that 6 story bank bldg in Dallas, to open the Super Walmart of all Abortion/late term abortions mega centers. Oh, & what a co-incidence, its in a majority black/hispanic neighborhood! But that wouldn't convince you of the truth to P/P's motives a bit, would it??
Sigh.
If you did even cursory research, CM...you might avoid these idiotic and demonstrably false assertions.
rebellious grrl already refuted your claim. I guess you don't like reading comments that prove you wrong. Abortion is barely a blip on the radar of profits they receive. Here's the link again for you to read, but you probably will ignore it again because you're a child who thinks ignoring the truth will make it no longer a truth. *rolls eyes*
http://www.plannedparenthood.org/about-us/annual-report-4661.htm
Hey antis, why don't you go to your own websites to preach to each other? We aren't interested in your misinterpretations of the Bible. This blog entry is about respect and trust, not about embryos.
And I've said much the same to this fool 'Truth' in the past. Too bad we can't give the antis' the 'bums rush' out of here.
A place where the radical left wants to 'preach' their views, preferably unchallenged. What's wrong with a little challenge if you're so secure in your beliefs?
You know what your problem is, CM? You aren't actually difficult to argue against. I haven't struggled with a single one of our arguments, because your positions and debate style are just too easy. You come in here spouting your religion, and then when people argue with you about it, you get all butthurt (as my brother likes to say) and run away like you did above. Heck, with this last one, you brought in a "point" we hadn't even been discussing to question us on how it was related, then when we gave you answers you threw your hands in the air and flounced off claiming moral superiority as the be-all end-all of the abortion debate. No wonder we don't take you seriously.
Give us a challenge. Come on. Do it. A pro-lifer hasn't actually posed a challenge to me in around 8 years.
"Flounce off" as you put it. Just wasn't here yesterday to answer.
I was reading my Bible the other night, & this Verse kinda jumped out:
"...When Jesus left there, the Pharisees & teachers of the Law began to oppose Him fiercely, & to besiege Him with questions, waiting to catch Him in something He might say."
Luke 11:53
Now me being a follower of Jesus and all, I find it amusing how the same spirit of the Pharisees has transcended over the past 2000+ years, virtually unchanged... Indeed.
Sorry lady, but you're as challenging as a game of duck-duck-goose. I've seen no "challenges" spewed from you because everything that you have typed here has been refuted or it's based on religious OPINIONS. Give us a real challenge already.....or can you not?
I've really had enough of your crap. You are constantly commenting on this website. Do you have a life? Listen to yourself, read what you post. You sound like a child. I feel sorry for you that you have nothing to do but try to manage a rebuttal to women who are much smarter and wiser than you. Nothing you have said has been a challenge to my beliefs. Nothing you have said has been accurate or truthful.
"In the last times, there will be scoffers who will follow their own ungodly desires. These ar the men who devide you, who follow mere natural instincts, & do not have the Spirit."
Jude: v.17-19.
I question the accuracy and validity of church teachings.
Since the majority of the population isn't Catholic, the accuracy and validity of church teachings isn't anything most people care much about anyway. I have no more interest in those "church teachings" than I do in the "teachings" of the Church of Latter Day Saints, the Seventh Day Adventists, the Christian Scientists, or the Fundamentalist Baptists with their modern invention of the 'Rapture'.
This is a country whose founders enshrined religious freedom in its founding documents because of their experience with the problems caused by entangling religion and government in Europe, to the detriment of both, but also to the detriment of the conscience of individual citizens. Anybody who tries to argue that secular law should enshrine the "church teachings" of ANY religion is a threat to the freedom of both those who don't believe in any God and those who have deep and sincere beliefs in a particular faith.
Theological arguments have NO PLACE in discussions about secular laws. The 'faith' needs to survive on its merits, without coopting the power and threat inherent in government intervention to an attempt to force its own laity to give up 'sin'.
"The 'faith' needs to survive on its merits, without coopting the power and threat inherent in government intervention..."
YES. You really hit the nail on the head with this statement. Too bad ConcernedMom and Truth probably won't read or respond to it. Just like they probably won't have anything to say about your fetus-in-fetu information.
As if there's anything I COULD say that you wouldn't eagerly deny & discredit!
I truly pray for you to somehow see that abortion takes a LIFE, and if a woman CHOOSES to abort her baby, that is MURDER.
That is my position, just like y'all have yours. Deal with it!
Well, I'm sure you are capable of saying you think separating church and state is a good idea. In fact, I'm sure that when it comes to religions other than your own, you'd even agree. You wouldn't like the idea of Sharia law, would you? Well, that's how those of us who are not fundamentalist Christians feel about incorporating your religion into our government.
When you bring me something backed by the scientific and medical community, then I will give you credit where credit is due.
I don't deny that abortion takes the life of an embryo or fetus. That still does not make abortion murder, as murder is a legal term when one PERSON UNLAWFULLY kills another PERSON. The fetus is not legally a person yet and abortion is not unlawful. It's your OPINION that abortion is murder, NOT fact. So YOU deal with it.
Absolutely! *claps*
That is just too funny, how your post went under mine!
CM you don't have the IQ of a head of cabbage, do you? The only thing I would thank you and Truth for is sodding off this planet you f-ing lying hypocrite. If you had more than two brain cells to rub together you'd know that the majority of the the crap you spout is just that-- crap.
Wendy. So your insults have no impact on me whatsoever. If you didn't hate God for His Holy Soverenty, you wouldn't lash out at those who defend the unborn, like you do.
I am praying for you, by name.
God loves me? He/she never calls, never writes...
Pray for me? Who cares! As the next thing to a Atheist I do not hate god I simply denigh that he/she/it exits. If you really want to waste your time "praying" for me it's up to you--It's a free country. But, I do warn you it's futile.
I prefer science and rationality to iron-age goat-herds' foolishness any day of the week. Yeah, yeah going to hell-- Really dear, how can you go somewhere that doesn't exist? Hopefully one day humanity will grow beyond the need for crutches like religion, drugs, and fear of death-- But untill then kiss my lilly-white. So sod off, eh?
I am praying for you, by name.
I have run into this phrase used in this way before, but it always makes me sad.
Please believe that not all Christians announce they are praying for someone when obviously it's a gesture of contempt or a way to insult someone or to threaten them - "I'm going to tell GOD on you and HE'll see I'm right and HE'll make you sorry!" This is actually the antithesis of Christianity.
Imagine you are a police officer testing your new state-issued weapon at the firing range and you are hitting the target and doing a great job... Then someone taps you on the shoulder and says, "Hey...there is a 50/50 chance that there is a human being directly behind that target your shooting at!" What do you think that police officer has a duty to do?
Then someone taps you on the shoulder and says, "Hey...there is a 50/50 chance that there is a human being directly behind that target your shooting at!" What do you think that police officer has a duty to do?
"How old is this human being, sir?"
"Six days since conception!"
"Are you a member of the range staff?"
"Well, no, but I---"
"Hands where I can see them, sir. SECURITY!!"
1. First and foremost, what does this have to do with the separation of church and state that Crowepps was talking about?
2. Are you seriously making a Schrodinger's Fetus argument? It was ridiculous enough when it was a cat, but it was more acceptable because it was being used to illustrate the absurdity of quantum superpositions.
Stop diverting. You're telling ConcernedMom that you don't like her arguments because they are religious. This question is not religious - answer the question.
You replied to a comment about the separation of church and state with something about whether or not to fire a gun if there might be a person in the target range. If anyone is diverting, it's you. Stop getting so pissy for being called out on it and your ludicrous Schrodinger's Person Behind Target scenario.
As for what anyone (including an off-duty police officer) should do if someone breaks the rules at a shooting range... sure, I'll humor you. Inform the staff so they can remove the individual from the premisis.
Alternatively, you must mathematically model the situation such that there is both a person behind the target and there is not a person behind the target.
Now, mind telling me what in samhill that has to do with abortion, which is the greater topic at hand?
1. I took religion out of it. In fact, I am not the one who brought religion into it - Rebelliousgirl began this entire string by quoting a Pro-Choice Catholic who was quoting (out of context) from the Catechism of the Catholic Church. I corrected her by quoting all of the text having to do with the "formation of conscience."
2. I don't know or care who Schrodinger is. This was an analogy I formulated many years ago - I'm sure I wasn't the first.
3. MechaShiva - you talk a big game but you haven't actually formulated any arguments that I can see here. Do you have an argument to put forth? You can start by answering my question regarding the police officer shooting at the target... Any thoughts?
Allow me to quote myself:
"As for what anyone (including an off-duty police officer) should do if someone breaks the rules at a shooting range... sure, I'll humor you. Inform the staff so they can remove the individual from the premisis."
That's from the middle of my previous comment. Now, stop saying no one has answered your question.
If you don't see any arguments I've made (I assume by "here" you mean in the comments section, not just this thread), then you are obviously reading with the same level of comprehension that lead you to think your question hadn't been answered yet.
Are you claiming that the "target" is a metaphor for a born, living woman behind whose abdomen resides a precious zygote? And "she" is being shot at by a man (metaphor for abortion doctor?) using his government-sanctioned weapon (birth control device)? Is this a particularly twisted version of the old canard that silly women are tricked by evil "abortionists" into aborting their pregnancies, because women are stupid and will always happy being/doing anything anyone else tells them to? She's an inanimate object who doesn't even figure into anything except as a mindless vessel, and it's everyone else's (powerful men) responsibility and "duty" to ensure that the vessel comes to no harm and produces a real person correctly?
Wow, strong on the woman-hate today, Truth.
Can anyone just answer this very simple (i.e. Not Complex) question?
You just don't want to listen to it.
...and so the answer must be that you don't want to answer. You don't want to be challenged. Listen, those of us who seek the truth don't have a predetermined conclusion to what the truth is. It's a journey. One that can only be authentic if you are not already "locked-in" to your conclusion. You need logic in life to navigate through decisions that need to be made daily and so on...
The answer to the question is that you must, immediatly upon the knowledge that there is a chance of a human life being in the line of fire, stop shooting. Then you may investigate what is behind the target.
The analogy is a perfect one as it relates to the chance that abortion may be the killing of an innocent human being. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at consensus as to when life begins - it is our duty to assume that it is a human life until proven otherwise.
But I think you all know this - it's like Frances Kissling always states that abortion is an ugly business and we all know what it is. We shouldn't try and call it something that it isn't - we're killing a human life - period. I'm not sure why the pro-aborts here don't just call a spade a spade. It's kind of cowardly. You're in favor of killing a new life for the sake of your own.
It's reminds me of the movie Shutter Island a bit... It is better to create the delusion that your doing something good for humanity than to admit that you're a monster. The nazis thought they were helping humanity too.
For real? So far Concerned Mom has told me I'm a jackal and I'm speaking from the pit of hell. And now you compare me with Nazis? Wow that is rich. I guess I should just throw up my hands and say "To hell with the right to decide what happens to my body, I'll just be pleased as punch to see abortion outlawed, and watch my sisters go through forced pregnancies."
As long as we are being silly, let's sing this little song by Monty Python,
(You can listen along athttp://popup.lala.com/popup/576742274765878343)
I'm a Roman Catholic
And have been since before I were born
And the one thing they say about Catholics is
They'll take you as soon as you're warm
You don't have to be a six footer
You don't have to have a great brain
You don't have to have any clothes on
You're a Catholic the moment Dad came
Because
Every sperm is sacred
Every sperm is great
If a sperm is wasted
God gets quite irate
The abortion debate is not about what an embryo is. An embryo in a human womb can only be human. An embryo has to be alive, or else it would miscarry (eventually). So, there isn't any question as to whether something that is alive and human dies during an abortion. There's no 50/50 chance of killing a person (like rights, personhood is a social construct... a mater of cultural opinion rather than a fact). There is a 100% guarantee of destroying an embryo, and the disagreement is whether or not that should be a legal choice for women.
I say yes because it is better for society to have legal abortion than illegal abortion and because our culture values individual freedom above all else, even human life. I've gotten pretty deep into this with Concerned Mom before, and she just slunk away without anything to say. If you want to read my arguments (because I'm not going to do it all over again in this thread), go here:
http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/node/12644
Also, I suggest you look up Godwin's Law. Might as well look into Schrodinger's Cat while you're at it, since it might make you think twice about offering an argument based on a 50/50 chance of something, but Schrodinger was a physicist, so it might go over your head or make it explode. Be careful.
I may not be able to post all the time like you radical libs do... But I am glad your reasoning gives you such comfort.
Wonder what God will think, on your Judgement Day??
I'm looking forward to mine.
Are you...?
Honey, darling, baby, schnookums, boo-boo kitty-fuck...
There's no such thing as "Judgement Day." When I die, my body and all its vital energies will be broken down (I plan on a green burial) and redistributed into other living things. That is the way in which I gain the sense of immortality that you rely on your religion for. I don't require delusions to be comfortable with death.
it is our duty to assume that it is a human life until proven otherwise. ... You're in favor of killing a new life for the sake of your own.
It would be equally logical to say that it is our duty to assume that it is NOT a human life until proven otherwise because if 'human life' is the thing with tremendous value, that of the woman herself is self-evident and would deserve all the protection possible before giving any to a merely speculative 'human life'.
The nazis thought they were helping humanity too.
No, the Nazis clearly were focused on helping their 'tribe' as defined by 'racial purity' and promoting their own beliefs. Kind of like ProLifers, who insist that they are the only ones who are 'moral' and that everyone who doesn't conform should be punished.
Amen, & High Five!!!
The answer to the question is that you must, immediatly upon the knowledge that there is a chance of a human life being in the line of fire, stop shooting. Then you may investigate what is behind the target.
The analogy is a perfect one as it relates to the chance that abortion may be the killing of an innocent human being.
We are not doing a philosophical exercise. We are talking about beings that exist inside the bodies of others, so logically the "target" is a woman behind whose abdomen resides a fetus, the "human being" behind the "target". In the real world, we don't compare living women to targets for policemen to shoot. We also do not assume that "innocent" only applies to fetuses, and that "innocent" is the single trait on must have in order to "deserve" full autonomy, and that autonomy can be removed from you when you become fertile, since your position assumes women are not really people and that their sovereignity can be subjugated at whim.
There are no other ways to translate this analogy into anything resembling sense unless you take for granted that women are stupid, mindless vessels who are threatened by evil doctors into aborting their pregnancies, because they are stupid and will do anything anyone tells them. Even so, that doesn't really make much more sense because it doesn't explain what a fucking tester at a shooting-range has to do with abortion. Your analogy is stupid and nonsensical, to give it any meaning at all one has to plumb such depths of cynical misogyny, illogic and dehumanization it is unbelievable.
Starting with the assumption that the police officer is at a range that is approved for use by police officers, one that has the normal safety protocols and supervision, then in that case I'd say his duty would be to arrest the person who tapped him on the shoulder for attempted murder. The only way the person could believe there was a 50% chance of someone being behind the target would be if that person had put someone there.
I think it really bugs you that somebody has the guts to come on this blog & remind you that one day you are going to have to stand before your own Holy God & Creator, & give an account for the "choices" you've made...but for here we'll just focus on your claim that women can take the fruit of their wombs & discard it as just so much medical waste, so long as she doesn't want to accept responsibilty for giving birth.
My heart breaks at your incorrigably hardened hearts- I pray each one of you, so convinced of being justified to advocate the "choice" to kill, can one day come to turn back to God, to see His love is waiting to take you out of the clutches of the Enemy.
In your blindness, you mock, you boast intellectual superiority. For what? Does it make you feel self vindicated for spewing such venemous hatred towards those who DEFEND the unborn?
"They gather themselves against the soul of the Righteous, & condemn the innocent blood."
Psalm 94:21
I never did understand how religious people can call agnostics, atheists, or people of a different faith "blind." You don't have any proof of your god, you only have... blind faith. Want some more stones to throw around your glass house?
Yes, I feel vindicated. Winning every single argument with you does make me feel good.
Does it make you feel vindicated to spew such venomous hatred toward people attempting to protect women from what we KNOW will happen if abortion is made illegal?
The pro-choicers have just been pointing out the gaping holes in your poorly knitted argument. (To be fair: If I were on the other side of a debate with Mech or Elyzabeth, I might resort to prayer, too. More realistically, I might cry a little.)
I'm honestly a bit confused as to why you continue to post here. You're not changing minds; you're not even challenging people's beliefs or honing your debate skills. The "arguments" you post have no weight with most of us, as we don't believe in your version of religion.
I love a good debate. This isn't good debate, however. The article basically stated that anti-choicers don't have the moral high ground, even if they'd like to think so. You answered, "Believe what I believe or you're going to hell." Then you repeated it. Then you repeated it again. And again.
If someone prompted, "Discuss vegetarian diets," and you repeatedly responded, "I like hot dogs," we'd be in basically the same place.
If you want that type of "discussion," I suggest you frequent a religious board where your posts will be accepted at face value with no real examination.
