Jump to content

Catholic Bishop: Abortion Is the 'Preeminent Evil in Our Culture.


Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

And yet despite women being not "disproportionately affected in quantity" in terms of combat injuries and deaths, PTSD, military suicides, law enforcement injuries, and so on, nobody has said to them, in effect, "Shut up.  You are a woman, therefore you have a 'lesser voice.'"

Thanks,

-Smac

They don't have to, they only have to not include them in decision making. Just as it has always been done. And if you think that women don't suffer in equal proportions during war, you don't get around much. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
1 hour ago, juliann said:
Quote

Actually, I don't understand your position.  Fornication is "morally problematic" because God has imposed constraints sexual behavior, limiting it to between a husband and wife within the bonds of marriage.  

Why

Well, I think it has to do with the purposes of sex, which are 1) for procreation, and 2) for the strengthening of the relationship between husband and wife.

The second purpose is entire absent in instances of fornication.  As for the first, fornication may lead to that, but there are all sorts of attendant problems that can follow, including . . . abortion.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to post
28 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

um...the problem is of course this is inside another person. 

It is not a "problem" for the fetus.  It quite likes it there actually!  That is where it is supposed to be.  It doesn't matter where it is at, my advocacy matters.  Women can advocate for themselves, and their opinion does matter more in that regard - but there doesn't seem to be consensus there either.  But my advocacy is more for the fetus. 

28 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Are you suggesting the moment "human life begins" is the moment we define it as human? WHy?

"Human" life.  Think about it...

Quote

  Is not the egg inside someone?  Is it not seeded inside someone?  

So a chicken is a chicken, so long as the egg is not inside the hen, even though is still inside the egg?  Why does it matter where the heck the egg is or where it is seeded?  Some animals lay eggs before they are even seeded.  The whole process happens in the external environment.  These are distinctions without a difference in regards to life.  It doesn't matter where it happens. 

28 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

What purpose?  The purpose of human life according to religion?  Because religion is not a falsifiable notion.  It's simply belief without good reason to believe.  

I thought you were saying that life can have a purpose outside of religion.  I was agreeing with you. 

 

Edited by pogi
Link to post
3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

It generally is.  Very few women, I think, say to themselves "Within me is growing a human being.  A person.  It nevertheless has no right to life, and I am at liberty to kill her for any reason, or no reason at all."

 

You finally admit you actually think you know what women say to themselves in a situation you cannot even begin to imagine let alone know.  Oh. My. Gosh. 

  • Upvote 3
Link to post
1 minute ago, juliann said:
Quote

And yet despite women being not "disproportionately affected in quantity" in terms of combat injuries and deaths, PTSD, military suicides, law enforcement injuries, and so on, nobody has said to them, in effect, "Shut up.  You are a woman, therefore you have a 'lesser voice.'"

They don't have to, they only have to not include them in decision making.

What are you talking about here?  

1 minute ago, juliann said:

Just as it has always been done. And if you think that women don't suffer in equal proportions during war, you don't get around much. 

14% of the Armed Forces "suffer in equal proportions" to the other 86%?  I doubt it.

-Smac

Link to post
2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Well, I think it has to do with the purposes of sex, which are 1) for procreation, and 2) for the strengthening of the relationship between husband and wife.

 

Now see if you can put the bolded portion together with why fornication and abortion are both considered moral sins given the importance of creation in LDS theology.

  • Like 1
Link to post
34 minutes ago, california boy said:

Are you making the leap that 95% of Americans believe they are killing a human life when an abortion happens?  If not, then what is your point?

No, I am saying that 95% of biologists believe that.  I am saying that you should give more credence to them then to popular opinion.  The scientific consensus is that Covid is for real, and that human life begins at conception.  But for some reason, you are holding up the popular opinion of lay people as some kind of model that I should I aspire to - or that their opinion is more valuable because it is popular.  I am also asking for evidence that it is even the popular opinion.  You haven't provided anything yet. 

Edited by pogi
Link to post
Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, juliann said:
Quote

Well, I think it has to do with the purposes of sex, which are 1) for procreation, and 2) for the strengthening of the relationship between husband and wife.

Now see if you can put the bolded portion together with why fornication and abortion are both considered moral sins given the importance of creation in LDS theology.

Fornication is the immoral and damaging use of the God-given power to create life.

Elective abortion is the immoral and damaging termination of a life, or something "like unto it."

The two are often connected together because engaging in the former frequently leads to the latter.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited by smac97
Link to post
32 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Are you suggesting the moment "human life begins" is the moment we define it as human?  WHy? 

Quote

 

Myth 4: "A single-cell human zygote, or embryo, or fetus are not human beings, because they do not look like human beings."

Fact 4: As all human embryologists know, a single-cell human zygote, or a more developed human embryo, or human fetus is a human being�and that that�s the way they are supposed to look at those particular periods of development.     https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/wdhbb.html#:~:text=A human zygote is a,not look like human beings."

 

 

 

Link to post
7 hours ago, bluebell said:

Do we teach that under certain conditions incest is ok?  No.

Do we teach that under certain conditions abortion is ok?  Yes.

Apples to oranges comparisons aren’t helpful or relevant.

My understanding of what the Church teaches is that exceptions may be made for abortion, but it is never thought of as "ok".  Treating it so nonchalantly does not help much either. 

Link to post
28 minutes ago, pogi said:

No, I am saying that 95% of biologists believe that.  I am saying that you should give more credence to them then to popular opinion.  The scientific consensus is that Covid is for real, and that human life begins at conception.  But for some reason, you are holding up the popular opinion of lay people as some kind of model that I should I aspire to - or that their opinion is more valuable because it is popular.  I am also asking for evidence that it is even the popular opinion.  You haven't provided anything yet. 

Believe what?  That a fertilized egg is a person at conception or that fertilization developed into a fetus?

Most everyone, even those that are not biologist, believes a fertilized egg becomes a fetus and can develop and eventually become a person.  That is not the issue.  

What I have provided is a poll showing that 75% of Americans support Roe v Wade which makes abortion legal.  Now it is up to you to show that those 75% support killing a human.  If you can't do that, then it is safe to assume those 75% do not consider taking fetus is the same as taking a human life.

Link to post
39 minutes ago, california boy said:

Most everyone, even those that are not biologist, believes a fertilized egg becomes a fetus and can develop and eventually become a person.  That is not the issue.  

That is not what I am saying, and I think you are wrong about "most everyone" believes that human life begins at birth.  

Your original comment:

Quote

Yet the MAJORITY of Americans do not believe a fetus is a person.

CFR. (because I just don't believe it - not that it changes my argument).  I have asked for evidence.  You provided me no direct evidence. 

My point is that it doesn't matter what the MAJORITY of Americans believe in this regard.  We should be looking to the biologists.  Not Americans.  The vast MAJORITY of biologists agree that a zygot is a human being.   It doesn't "become" one.  It is one.

39 minutes ago, california boy said:

What I have provided is a poll showing that 75% of Americans support Roe v Wade which makes abortion legal.  Now it is up to you to show that those 75% support killing a human.  

Your poll doesn't answer my CFR.  It requires making an assumption.   Honestly, I don't care what they believe they are killing.  I care what science believes they are killing.  This is why science goes to the way-side for so many - because it gets in the way of people's politics or moral sensibilities.  It is so much easier to swallow killing a human being if we don't call it a human being.  "Go away science, you are making me feel bad!!!"

39 minutes ago, california boy said:

If you can't do that, then it is safe to assume those 75% do not consider taking fetus is the same as taking a human life.

I don't think it is safe to say that.  Many acknowledge it and simply try to justify it.   95% of biologists agree that abortion is killing human life, yet a fair chunk of those are still pro-choice.  

Edited by pogi
  • Like 1
Link to post
3 hours ago, pogi said:

It is not a "problem" for the fetus.  It quite likes it there actually!  That is where it is supposed to be. 

 

Quote

It doesn't matter where it is at, my advocacy matters.  Women can advocate for themselves, and their opinion does matter more in that regard - but there doesn't seem to be consensus there either.  But my advocacy is more for the fetus. 

Another clarification from me.  I believe that nearly all, if not all, of the active women on this thread feel that they are an advocate for the fetus as well as the woman.  Women like me are not going to advocate for the fetus any less than you do, even if through revelation, we feel it best to have an abortion.

With couples who are doing their best to follow the Lord I think it is rarely going to happen that they disagree on the matter.  It is only with disagreement that the weight given to the woman's voice means anything. 

And really, there will probably be times when the woman is the one who feels right to stay pregnant, while the man doesn't.   So its not a 2 sided coin of woman advocating for self and man advocating for child. 

A good portion of this thread is just smac saying we should have equal voice and many disagreeing and saying women should have greater voice.  Like I said above, this will only be a problem with disagreements, so what does one do then?

I know my husband would totally say I should have more say on it (like he felt with me getting pregnant), just as I would say he has more say in his employment.  Luckily, we have never had to worry about that as we have always agreed on the major things. Other couples are not so blessed.

 

Quote

"Human" life.  Think about it...

So a chicken is a chicken, so long as the egg is not inside the hen, even though is still inside the egg?  Why does it matter where the heck the egg is or where it is seeded?  Some animals lay eggs before they are even seeded.  The whole process happens in the external environment.  These are distinctions without a difference in regards to life.  It doesn't matter where it happens. 

I thought you were saying that life can have a purpose outside of religion.  I was agreeing with you. 

 

 

Edited by Rain
  • Like 2
Link to post
2 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

My understanding of what the Church teaches is that exceptions may be made for abortion, but it is never thought of as "ok".  Treating it so nonchalantly does not help much either. 

I don't think you could point out any part of my post that implied I was being nonchalant.  I was repeating our teachings on the matter, which is that under certain conditions, abortion is not a sin.

  • Like 1
Link to post
4 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

Wouldn't this mean that abortion is a minor transgression then? If there isn't a soul (no human life) and no one is harmed by it, and if the soul that would have come to earth can now go to another body (as mentioned in other people's posts), then what's the big deal about abortion?

As I understand it, the sin would be from what it does to the people involved, and their usurping of God's exclusive authority over life and death, and not so much what it does to the spirit involved (though perhaps it could impact the spirit if they were meant to go to earth through that mother and were denied that.  I make no claim to know how all of that works). 

Quote

Let's posit a situation where a woman is addicted to heroic, crack, meth, whatever. She has no job and lives in a meth house, prostituting herself for drugs. She becomes pregnant. Wouldn't it be better for her child for her to have an abortion? There is no harm done to the soul of her child, and that soul could go to another much better family. In fact, it would seem that abortion would be the moral reasonable thing to do. Spare the child a terrible life and let the child go to a better situation.

There  are so many issues wrapped up in that situation to think about:  

  • Does God spare children from pain, or neglect, or deprivation, or illness?  He doesn't.  Knowing that, can we argue that it is always the moral and reasonable and merciful thing to do?  I don't believe so.
  • Does God love the baby more than the mother?  Again, I would say no.  He cares about the mother and her soul, her worth and potential are as great as the worth and potential of the baby.  Can we say with any degree of surety that He would choose to sacrifice the mother, to have her spiritually harm herself, to save the child from pain?  I don't think we can.
  • Are we capable of deciding who lives and who dies, who shouldn't or shouldn't be born to what mother in what place and at one time, especially knowing that we see "through a glass darkly"?  Another no.

From our human perspective, mercy can look like evil, the reasonable can look unreasonable, and worst can look a lot like best.  Sparing the child pain might also spare the mother and the child countless blessings and good experiences that otherwise would have been there's during their mortal lives.  

Quote

 

Honestly, I'm not sure of the specifics of miscarriages. I assume it would be similar to a child who dies without baptism. I did a little research and it appears that is the case, but I could have missed something. The Church declares that baptism is required for salvation. Here is the teaching from the catechism concerning unbaptized children:

This also comes from the catechism:

That last quote is an important one. We must do all that we can to ensure that all are baptized, but God is not beholden to what He has commanded us to do.

 

Interesting, thanks!

  • Like 3
Link to post
6 hours ago, smac97 said:

I've also never been a slave, and I have also never been a slaveholder.  But I reject the notion that this means I have "less of a voice" on this issue.

Thanks,

-Smac

Hopefully you recognize that your voice should certainly be less than someone who actually has been either of those things.

  • Like 1
Link to post
20 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Hopefully you recognize that your voice should certainly be less than someone who actually has been either of those things.

I will think on it.

  • Like 1
Link to post
4 hours ago, smac97 said:

Of course, if a woman was told her opinion was "of lesser value" solely because she is a woman, I would still have some real heartburn about it.

Even if the conversation was about ED or prostate cancer?

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

No, it doesn't mean that.  I've never indicated that I'm not "willing to listen."

I disagree.

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

It's not my idea.  It was an idea widely held in antebellum America.  In retrospect, we are all horrified at the notion that many of our ancestors thought "a slave is not really a person."  The humanity, the personhood, of these slaves was not acknowledged or recognized by many, largely because of a need to protect / rationalize / justify the practice of slavery.

There was no perception that they were "not really a person". They were "less of a person". It is a key distinction and makes your analogy not work. When the evangelizers converted most of the slaves in the South why were they baptizing them if they were not people? Your analogy does not work. No one is debating whether Africans or women have souls. That is a discussion about a developing human in utero. You are trying to make a fetus an oppressed class for some reason. It does let someone dodge the unanswerable (at present) question of when a spirit enters a body but it doesn't clarify anything.

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

And yet despite women being not "disproportionately affected in quantity" in terms of combat injuries and deaths, PTSD, military suicides, law enforcement injuries, and so on, nobody has said to them, in effect, "Shut up.  You are a woman, therefore you have a 'lesser voice.'"

Nor have I noticed them trying to monopolize those conversations. Have you noticed women doing that? That is also a lesser degree of difference. Women do endure those things. No man has endured an abortion......I guess Arnold Schwarzeneger had that option in that old movie but it never came up.

 

  • Like 3
Link to post
4 hours ago, smac97 said:

Well, I think it has to do with the purposes of sex, which are 1) for procreation, and 2) for the strengthening of the relationship between husband and wife.

The second purpose is entire absent in instances of fornication.  As for the first, fornication may lead to that, but there are all sorts of attendant problems that can follow, including . . . abortion.

Thanks,

-Smac

You missed "3) fun" on there.

Link to post
4 hours ago, smac97 said:

It generally is.  Very few women, I think, say to themselves "Within me is growing a human being.  A person.  It nevertheless has no right to life, and I am at liberty to kill her for any reason, or no reason at all."

I am now convinced you have never encountered someone dealing with an unexpected or unwanted pregnancy if you think THAT is their thought process. Have you never seen anyone is that kind of emotional pain? If so I envy you.

  • Like 2
Link to post
4 hours ago, pogi said:

My point is that it doesn't matter what the MAJORITY of Americans believe in this regard.  We should be looking to the biologists.  Not Americans.  The vast MAJORITY of biologists agree that a zygot is a human being.   It doesn't "become" one.  It is one.

I disagree. If anyone is an expert it is philosophers and theologians and moralists.

If you argue that every zygote is an individual human worth preserving at any reasonable cost we have a SERIOUS PROBLEM. A substantial number of zygotes (numbers are hard to pin down but possibly equal to or more than we have live births) end in a miscarriage. Most of them happen before the woman would even know she is pregnant, a few weeks or even a few days after conception. If we seriously believe that these are all humans why have we done nothing about it? Why would we worry about the piddly problem of abortions which is a drop in the bucket compared to the number of unnoticed miscarriages. Why have we not turned medical science on this? At least half of the population that should be born are DYING and have been since the beginning. Why are we working on cancer and heart disease and even covid while this genocide is taking place? The idea that every zygote must be preserved creates a horrible philosophical problem. You can argue that it is due to God's will but we do not accept "God's will" as the only modifier. We turn our resources to prevent disease and injury and death but no one cares about these zygotes.

I can only come to the conclusion that virtually no one honestly believes life begins at conception.

  • Like 2
Link to post
1 hour ago, bluebell said:

From our human perspective, mercy can look like evil, the reasonable can look unreasonable, and worst can look a lot like best.  Sparing the child pain might also spare the mother and the child countless blessings and good experiences that otherwise would have been there's during their mortal lives.  

This is quite true. I reread my post and thought I was being too adversarial. Thank you for responding the way you did. I agree -- our human view so limited. We do the best we can and in faith leave it to God, who is perfectly just and perfectly merciful.

Edited by MiserereNobis
  • Like 3
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
1 minute ago, MiserereNobis said:

This is quite true. I reread my post and thought I was probably being too adversarial. Thank you for responding the way you did. I agree -- our human view so limited. We do the best we can and in faith leave it to God, who is perfectly just and perfectly merciful.

Agreed, I have found that many of the doctrines I thought most cruel were, after a long examination and a lot of what I hope was divine insight, the most kind. I recently reread the book "A Severe Mercy" where someone has to accept that the death of their spouse was the only way to save the relationship and them. It is a true story and it has some horrifying conclusions but they might be right.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
7 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

This is quite true. I reread my post and thought I was being too adversarial. Thank you for responding the way you did. I agree -- our human view so limited. We do the best we can and in faith leave it to God, who is perfectly just and perfectly merciful.

I have never once seen you as adversarial.  I appreciate your presence here.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...