Bernard Gui Posted October 8, 2020 Posted October 8, 2020 (edited) 1 hour ago, Meadowchik said: What Blair details here is the learned and perpetuated cultural focus on female responsibility for abortion without an equal, attendant focus on male responsibility. I think that, if men and women both focused on both equally, there would likely be much quicker and more universal agreement that emphasizes abortion prevention more and criminalization less. In my experience, the Church has made very clear to me that I have equal responsibility in keeping the Law of Chastity and facing the consequences for violating it. Perhaps even more responsibility. Edited October 8, 2020 by Bernard Gui 1
cherryTreez Posted October 8, 2020 Posted October 8, 2020 On 10/6/2020 at 1:13 PM, Duncan said: what if someone is raped? or incest? not everyone who has an abortion was going out and having relations with people. We had a GA here 18 months ago? his wife had 3 D&C's, she spoke on the subject and said it's so private and awful but sometimes medically you have no other option. I wouldn't condemn someone for having an abortion. I doubt they wanted one in the first place. D & Cs that are like are normally for a miscarriage that the body won't expell on it's own. It's not killing a viable baby like abortion is. They are very different things even if it's down the same way. Why is the baby conceived by rape not worth anything? Why do they get a death sentence because of who their father was? The baby is also half the mothers.
cherryTreez Posted October 8, 2020 Posted October 8, 2020 On 10/6/2020 at 1:04 PM, Calm said: I think poverty is a greater evil than abortion. You want to drop abortions significantly, work on poverty. 73% of those requesting abortions cited financial reasons. https://www.bmj.com/content/367/bmj.l6424/rr https://www.guttmacher.org/infographic/2016/us-abortion-patients Birth control is cheap or free from many places. If you can't afford a baby and don't want to use birth control, then don't have sex. Seems pretty simple to me. Oh and two forms of birth control if you don't want a baby. 2
pogi Posted October 8, 2020 Posted October 8, 2020 9 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said: I'm for lawful safe abortions You mean "safe" for the mother...right? There is no such thing as a "safe" abortion for the other human life involved. 2
SeekingUnderstanding Posted October 8, 2020 Posted October 8, 2020 (edited) 1 hour ago, pogi said: I am not talking about human rights or morals or anything like that at this point. I am strictly talking about when human life begins. It is astonishing to me how politics warps peoples brains on this issue. It is just like with Covid. They can't get themselves to simply acknowledge what science has overwhelming consensus on. Strip the politics from it. Strip the moral implications from it. What does science say? What is human life? As a dad to identical twin boys, did their life begin before or after the embryo split? If I have a five day old blastocyst in the lab, how many human lives are present? Edited October 8, 2020 by SeekingUnderstanding
pogi Posted October 8, 2020 Posted October 8, 2020 (edited) 15 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said: What is human life? As a dad to identical twin boys, did their life begin before or after the embryo split? If I have a five day old blastocyst in the lab, how many human lives are present? A biologist would say that human life began at fertilization. One human life became two human lives at the point of division. A biologist would say that a single human blastocyst is one human life in early development - just like a single organism (composed of trillions of individual cells) is still just one human life. Edited October 8, 2020 by pogi
Bernard Gui Posted October 8, 2020 Posted October 8, 2020 (edited) 33 minutes ago, pogi said: Exactly. That is one good example. We need to start at the foundation of life however. We need to see eye to eye on that fundamental point before we can discuss anything else. Otherwise we are just going to be talking past each other. I think it is impossible to decide "when a new life begins." By that I mean, if we start at the moment of birth and go backwards, does life begin when the baby takes its first breath? If yes, then terminating it at any time before that would not be objectionable. Is it when there motion is first detected? How about the day before motion is detected? Is it when a heart beat is first observed? How about the minute before? When "the soul enters the body?" Many people do not believe there is such a thing as a soul. Or any kind of arbitrary line beyond which we can assert that life has begun. It seems to me that the only logical conclusion is that the new life begins at conception. That would be the science of the matter, but I'm sure there are many who would disagree. The ideal answer is that we keep the Law of Chastity, but we all know at the present time, we are fallen beings who make bad decisions at times that have serious consequences for ourselves and the new life that has been created. Edited October 8, 2020 by Bernard Gui
MiserereNobis Posted October 8, 2020 Posted October 8, 2020 5 minutes ago, Islamormoyid said: Seems relevant generally to the matters Robert brought up.http://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/encyclicals/documents/papa-francesco_20201003_enciclica-fratelli-tutti.html I hadn't read this yet, since it just came out a couple of days ago. Thanks! I'm reading through it now.
SeekingUnderstanding Posted October 8, 2020 Posted October 8, 2020 15 minutes ago, pogi said: A biologist would say that human life began at fertilization. One human life became two human lives at the point of division. So the first human was killed to harvest two new lives? Is that ethical?
Meadowchik Posted October 8, 2020 Posted October 8, 2020 (edited) 47 minutes ago, pogi said: I still don't understand what you are suggesting. Are you suggesting that we should be science deniers when our politics don't align with science? This is equivalent to saying that, "if we just assume that masks work (who cares what science says!) and go from there..." It is kind of more than just an unestablished "assumption" at this point! Same with human life! You are reducing overwhelming scientific consensus to an assumption (like Covid deniers) that should be questioned when it has potential moral and political implications that don't align with yours. I'm not sure why you are being so argumentative here. We know that a human being's combined DNA begins at fertilization, and we grant personhood at birth, and so what we are trying to identify is a matter of a moment in that interval. I would think you would readily understand that scientific papers frequently acknowledge unknowns and, when presented with them, will examine models based on intervals instead of precise moments in those intervals. What I am saying is, if we concede from a scientific, philosophical, and moral perspective that a fertilized egg is a human being, we have at most erred on the side of protecting the unborn. And if we can construct arguments which are precisely the same wherever that moment of life begins on that interval, our argument is more robust, and does not depend upon opinions about when that precise moment occurs. Edited October 8, 2020 by Meadowchik
pogi Posted October 8, 2020 Posted October 8, 2020 9 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said: I think it is impossible to decide "when a new life begins." By that I mean, if we start at the moment of birth and go backwards, does life begin when the baby takes its first breath? If yes, then terminating it at any time before that would not be objectionable. Is it when there motion is first detected? How about the day before motion is detected? Is it when a heart beat is first observed? How about the minute before? Or any kind of arbitrary line beyond which we can assert that life has begun. It seems to me that the only logical conclusion is that the new life begins at conception, but I'm sure there are many who would disagree. The ideal answer is that we keep the Law of Chastity, but we all know at the present time, we are fallen beings who make bad decisions at times that have serious consequences for ourselves and the new life that has been created. It is not impossible to determine "when new life" begins. There is probably 100% consensus that a zygote is a new life. The question is, can it be called a biologically human life? Biologists have nearly unanimous consensus that yes, a zygote is a human being in the earliest stages of development. Biology is the science of life Bio (life) logos (study). These are the authorities we turn to when it comes to questions of life.
bluebell Posted October 8, 2020 Posted October 8, 2020 3 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said: I think it is impossible to decide "when a new life begins." By that I mean, if we start at the moment of birth and go backwards, does life begin when the baby takes its first breath? If yes, then terminating it at any time before that would not be objectionable. Is it when there motion is first detected? How about the day before motion is detected? Is it when a heart beat is first observed? How about the minute before? Or any kind of arbitrary line beyond which we can assert that life has begun. It seems to me that the only logical conclusion is that the new life begins at conception, but I'm sure there are many who would disagree. The ideal answer is that we keep the Law of Chastity, but we all know at the present time, we are fallen beings who make bad decisions at times that have serious consequences for ourselves and the new life that has been created. I think, and it's just my opinion, that life starts at different times depending on the person. I know of some mothers who have had later miscarriages who have felt that that spirit came to them through a different pregnancy, and other mothers who have felt that that spirit was a part of their family and they would be together after this life was over. I think both can be true and that it just depends. 3
Duncan Posted October 8, 2020 Posted October 8, 2020 27 minutes ago, cherryTreez said: D & Cs that are like are normally for a miscarriage that the body won't expell on it's own. It's not killing a viable baby like abortion is. They are very different things even if it's down the same way. Why is the baby conceived by rape not worth anything? Why do they get a death sentence because of who their father was? The baby is also half the mothers. you'd have to ask someone who had a baby conceived by rape, that isn't me. There was a girl in my parents ward she was raped at a school camping trip and got pregnant, but she kept it. Some people have it adopted out 1
pogi Posted October 8, 2020 Posted October 8, 2020 9 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said: So the first human was killed to harvest two new lives? Is that ethical? No, the first was not killed. It divided.
Bernard Gui Posted October 8, 2020 Posted October 8, 2020 6 minutes ago, bluebell said: I think, and it's just my opinion, that life starts at different times depending on the person. I know of some mothers who have had later miscarriages who have felt that that spirit came to them through a different pregnancy, and other mothers who have felt that that spirit was a part of their family and they would be together after this life was over. I think both can be true and that it just depends. Then you agree that it is impossible to determine when life begins?
Meadowchik Posted October 8, 2020 Posted October 8, 2020 38 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said: In my experience, the Church has made very clear to me that I have equal responsibility in keeping the Law of Chastity and facing the consequences for violating it. Perhaps even more responsibility. Look at the data, not just your own experience, if you want to know what happens generally.
bluebell Posted October 8, 2020 Posted October 8, 2020 33 minutes ago, cherryTreez said: Why is the baby conceived by rape not worth anything? Why do they get a death sentence because of who their father was? The baby is also half the mothers. I appreciate that in these cases, the church believes that the mother can seek God's will on the matter, who knows perfectly how to weigh the costs to both the spirit coming the mother who is already here and has been harmed and provide perfect advice. I also appreciate that God does not demand that mothers, pregnant through no choice of their own and through a violent and emotionally maiming act, sacrifice themselves at all costs. Some women would be able to have a baby under such conditions and be ok. Others would not. Thank goodness for mercy. 2
Bernard Gui Posted October 8, 2020 Posted October 8, 2020 8 minutes ago, pogi said: It is not impossible to determine "when new life" begins. There is probably 100% consensus that a zygote is a new life. The question is, can it be called a biologically human life? Biologists have nearly unanimous consensus that yes, a zygote is a human being in the earliest stages of development. Biology is the science of life Bio (life) logos (study). These are the authorities we turn to when it comes to questions of life. I agree. think that's what I said. I don't see any difference between "when new life begins" and when a "biologically human life" begins. IMO, they are synonymous.
bluebell Posted October 8, 2020 Posted October 8, 2020 2 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said: Then you agree that it is impossible to determine when life begins? I do, impossible for us unless God reveals it. 2
Meadowchik Posted October 8, 2020 Posted October 8, 2020 46 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said: Such as, how does the intentional destruction of an in vitro fetus differ from abortion of a fetus from a mother’s womb? The fetus in the latter case can cause the mother to die, the former can't.
Bernard Gui Posted October 8, 2020 Posted October 8, 2020 Just now, Meadowchik said: Look at the data, not just your own experience, if you want to know what happens generally. I'm looking at my own data, which is what I said. "In my experience...." I am entitled to that observation. Generally, in my experience the Church has taught me that I have equal if not greater obligation and responsibility to observe to the Law of Chastity and accept the consequences for its violation, which of course, is the fundamental remedy for abortion. I have never been taught that I have lesser or no responsibility with regard to the creation of new life.
pogi Posted October 8, 2020 Posted October 8, 2020 10 minutes ago, Meadowchik said: I would think you would readily understand that scientific papers frequently acknowledge unknowns and, when presented with them, will examine models based on intervals instead of precise moments in those intervals. Not in the case of when human life begins. There is consensus. There certainly are intervals to a human life. Those are discussed in biology class. But all those intervals of development are still human. 13 minutes ago, Meadowchik said: and we grant personhood at birth, Why can't a pregnant woman be executed? 15 minutes ago, Meadowchik said: What I am saying is, if we concede from a scientific...perspective that a fertilized egg is a human being, we have at most erred on the side of protecting the unborn. And if we become science deniers (when there is almost complete consensus in science) when it is politically inconvenient, then we error on the side of complete stupidity and recklessness! When it comes to erroring between what consensus in science thinks about something and what one one political party thinks about something...I think it is always best to error on the side of science. But that is just me. It would be hyppocritical to accuse the other party of being science deniers however, if you choose erroring on the side of politics. 22 minutes ago, Meadowchik said: And if we can construct arguments which are precisely the same wherever that moment of life begins of that interval, our argument is more robust, and does not depend upon opinions about when that precise moment occurs. That is what is in question. When is that moment? Are you going to listen to science or not?
Meadowchik Posted October 8, 2020 Posted October 8, 2020 1 minute ago, Bernard Gui said: I'm looking at my own data, which is what I said. "In my experience...." I am entitled to that observation. Generally, in my experience the Church has taught me that I have equal if not greater obligation and responsibility to observe to the Law of Chastity and accept the consequences for its violation, which of course, is the fundamental remedy for abortion. I have never been taught that I have lesser or no responsibility with regard to the creation of new life. If we were only talking about your behavior and its results, then that would be enough.
Bernard Gui Posted October 8, 2020 Posted October 8, 2020 (edited) 7 minutes ago, Meadowchik said: The fetus in the latter case can cause the mother to die, the former can't. From the point of view of the new life, there is no distinction. That is the difficulty. The Lord has made allowance with conditions to protect the life of the mother. Quote Church leaders have said that some exceptional circumstances may justify an abortion, such as when pregnancy is the result of incest or rape, when the life or health of the mother is judged by competent medical authority to be in serious jeopardy, or when the fetus is known by competent medical authority to have severe defects that will not allow the baby to survive beyond birth. But even these circumstances do not automatically justify an abortion. Those who face such circumstances should consider abortion only after consulting with their local Church leaders and receiving a confirmation through earnest prayer. Edited October 8, 2020 by Bernard Gui
Bernard Gui Posted October 8, 2020 Posted October 8, 2020 1 minute ago, Meadowchik said: If we were only talking about your behavior and its results, then that would be enough. I don't understand what you mean.
Recommended Posts