Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

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. 

Link to post
13 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

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. 

Cool, then I don't understand why you think it is impossible to determine that human life begins at the creation of the zygote.  Does anyone disagree that the zygote is new life? 

Link to post
49 minutes ago, pogi said:

You mean "safe" for the mother...right?  There is no such thing as a "safe" abortion for the other human life involved. 

As abortion is not condemned in the OT as a moral sin,  I can't argue for criminal penalties.   Foeticide is compensable in dollars.  By contrast, negligent homicide is punishable by death unless one flees to the right city.

Edited by Bob Crockett
Link to post
8 minutes ago, pogi said:

Cool, then I don't understand why you think it is impossible to determine that human life begins at the creation of the zygote.  Does anyone disagree that the zygote is new life? 

I see what you mean. I was trying to say any attempt to assign an arbitrary moment at which a zygote becomes a human life is logically impossible, in my opinion, of course.

Edited by Bernard Gui
Link to post
10 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

As abortion is not condemned in the OT as a moral sin,  I can't argue for criminal penalties.   Foeticide is compensable in dollars.  By contrast, negligent homicide is punishable by death unless one flees to the right city.

I'm not sure what the OT has to do with my comment. 

Link to post
1 minute ago, pogi said:

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. 

Why can't a pregnant woman be executed?

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.  

That is what is in question.  When is that moment?  Are you going to listen to science or not?

 

 

I have long agreed that a fertilized egg is a human being. It is alive and it is human. However, there are clearly people who still have disagreement about it, as is demonstrated on this thread right now.

And so I have offered a way to deal with the varying beliefs about human life and personhood in a way that ensures advocacy for the unborn as a human being. And this is not partisan at all, it is at most erring on the side of the humanity of the unborn, not in a scientific sense (as that is already known) but in a philosophical and moral sense. Personally, I am in the pro-choice camp so this is not an attempt at gaining advantage for my position.

So let's go ahead and proceed with the discussion, shall we? 

 

Link to post
13 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

I don't understand what you mean. 

Laws and policies for society are not and should not be based solely on the result of your behaviour or any individuals or small groups’ behaviour, but by looking at the implications and results for society as a whole...which means including individual experiences, but many, not just one. 

Link to post
17 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

I have long agreed that a fertilized egg is a human being. It is alive and it is human. However, there are clearly people who still have disagreement about it, as is demonstrated on this thread right now.

And so I have offered a way to deal with the varying beliefs about human life and personhood in a way that ensures advocacy for the unborn as a human being. And this is not partisan at all, it is at most erring on the side of the humanity of the unborn, not in a scientific sense (as that is already known) but in a philosophical and moral sense. Personally, I am in the pro-choice camp so this is not an attempt at gaining advantage for my position.

So let's go ahead and proceed with the discussion, shall we? 

 

I'm sorry if I misunderstood your position.  I thought you were saying that relying on scientific consensus was an error because it would favor the political position that you disagree with.  I guess I don't understand what you are suggesting.  Sorry, it is probably my fault. 

Edited by pogi
Link to post
15 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

I don't understand what you mean. 

Which part do you not understand? Do you not understand that your personal experience does not reflect experiences of everyone in the world? Gabrielle Blair was talking about general societal behaviors, here's part of it again:: 

Quote

 

Let’s talk more about responsibility. Men often don’t know, and don’t ask, and don’t think to ask, if they’ve caused a pregnancy. They may never think of it, or associate sex with making babies at all. Why? Because there are 0 consequences for men who cause unwanted pregnancies.

If the woman decides to have an abortion, the man may never know he caused an unwanted pregnancy with his irresponsible ejaculation.

If the woman decides to have the baby, or put the baby up for adoption, the man may never know he caused an unwanted pregnancy with his irresponsible ejaculation, or that there’s now a child walking around with 50% of his DNA.

If the woman does tell him that he caused an unwanted pregnancy and that she’s having the baby, the closest thing to a consequence for him, is that he may need to pay child support. But our current child support system is well-known to be a joke.

61% of men (or women) who are legally required to pay it, simply don’t. With little or no repercussions. Their credit isn’t even affected. So, many men keep going as is, causing unwanted pregnancies with irresponsible ejaculations and never giving it thought.

 

She is talking about general behavior, and making claims that are not overturned by personal anecdote.

 

Link to post
1 minute ago, pogi said:

I'm sorry if I misunderstood your position.  I thought you were saying that relying on scientific consensus was an error that would favor the political position that you disagree with.  I guess I don't understand what you are suggesting.  Sorry, it is probably my fault. 

Thank you. 

Link to post
22 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?

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.

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.

My beautiful nephew was born to meth and heroin addicted mother. He is amazing. Yes, he had some problems from the drugs. I would hate to see a world where it was decided that he should be killed due to the choices his bio mother made. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
1 hour ago, pogi said:

Clearly, that is not the case.  Several here cannot get themselves to acknowledge that a human beings' life begins at fertilization.  We have to start with that foundation because that biological fact may have potential moral and philosophical implications and deserves a place in the debate. 

But the moral and philosophical implications are already present in your statements. The term "life" is often loaded with much more significance than a strict scientific description of anatomy and cell function. There are clearly philosophical and religious dimensions to that term, and that is where people generally disagree. 

Maybe I'm missing something, but are there people on this board who are actually arguing that human "life"--in a strictly scientific sense, with no philosophical or religious values attached to that term--doesn't begin at fertilization? Stated another way, are there people who are disagreeing with a strictly scientific explanation of human fertilization and development?

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
21 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Denial of the humanity of the fetus is not necessary for the decision. One can still accept that humanity and also agree that she has jurisdiction over her own uterus and gets to decide if a fetus may continue living there. Slavery does not compare, as slaves did not live inside people's bodies.

Evils which impact abortion rates:

Women are more likely to be murdered by their husbands or partners when they're pregnant.

Women are frequently denied the ability to access birth control or make decisions like sterilisation. 

Minimum wage is not a living wage for a family.

 

 

 

 

Or she could give the baby up for adoption or she could use multiple forms of birth control or just not have sex if she cannot handle a baby.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
2 minutes ago, Ryan Dahle said:

But the moral and philosophical implications are already present in your statements. The term "life" is often loaded with much more significance than a strict scientific description of anatomy and cell function. There are clearly philosophical and religious dimensions to that term, and that is where people generally disagree. 

Maybe I'm missing something, but are there people on this board who are actually arguing that human "life"--in a strictly scientific sense, with no philosophical or religious values attached to that term--doesn't begin at fertilization? Stated another way, are there people who are disagreeing with a strictly scientific explanation of human fertilization and development?

I think the more precise question is when does legal personhood begin?  When does an in utero baby become a "person" under the law?

Thanks,

-Smac

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
2 minutes ago, cherryTreez said:

My beautiful nephew was born to meth and heroin addicted mother. He is amazing. Yes, he had some problems from the drugs. I would hate to see a world where it was decided that he should be killed due to the choices his bio mother made. 

Someone I dearly love felt unusually, extremely tired in an unexplained way one evening. Fortunately, she had just taking a pregnancy test that morning which was positive, and she called her doctor, who then urged her to the ER. The doctors discovered that she had an ectopic pregnancy which had burst her fallopian tubes, causing her to bleed internally. I'm so glad she didn't just go to bed early, she might have bled to death. I would hate to see a world where a woman could face impossible legal mandates or accusations when she loses a pregnancy, or has worse health outcomes because abortion laws reduce access to medical care.

Link to post
9 minutes ago, cherryTreez said:

Or she could give the baby up for adoption or she could use multiple forms of birth control or just not have sex if she cannot handle a baby.

That's a lot of responsibility on her. What about the man who impregnated her?

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
43 minutes 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.

That is how it should be. Except you have no way of knowing how equal it is unless you have also been raised female in the church. And I don't think it is any great secret how unfairly women have been treated for chastity violations, they even have labels for it where men don't. 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
5 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Which part do you not understand? Do you not understand that your personal experience does not reflect experiences of everyone in the world? Gabrielle Blair was talking about general societal behaviors, here's part of it again:: 

She is talking about general behavior, and making claims that are not overturned by personal anecdote.

 

You should understand I am not talking about the experiences of everyone in the world, but of my experience with the practices and beliefs of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I can safely conclude that my experiences are those of most if not all the other men and boys in the Church. She said,

Quote

If you want to stop abortion, you need to prevent unwanted pregnancies. And men are 100% responsible for unwanted pregnancies. No for real, they are. Perhaps you are thinking: IT TAKES TWO! And yes, it does take two for _intentional_ pregnancies.

Just because she "is a mother of six and a Mormon" does not make her positions unquestionable or infallible. 

I stated that according to the Gospel of Jesus Christ I (and all men in the Church and men in general) have equal and maybe more responsibility to observe the Law of Chastity. We should share in the consequences of its violation. As far as I can tell, this supports what she said. 

 

Link to post
14 minutes ago, juliann said:

That is how it should be. Except you have no way of knowing how equal it is unless you have also been raised female in the church. And I don't think it is any great secret how unfairly women have been treated for chastity violations, they even have labels for it where men don't. 

And you have no way of knowing how equal it is unless you have also been raised male in the Church. In this regard, there is only one standard for both men and women. "God is no respecter of persons...black and white, bond and free, male and female; … all are alike unto God." In my experience, men and women have been treated equally for chastity violations. If they haven't, that is not just. It is contrary to the law of God.

Edited by Bernard Gui
Link to post
6 minutes ago, Ginger Snaps said:

I'm going to preface this by saying that my personal beliefs with this issue align with the church.  But it's a nuanced issue.  It's easy to sit from a position of privilege and say "Well, women just shouldn't have abortions, full stop," and ignore the very real social issues and constructs we have that make this an ongoing problem. 

Cheap or free? The last time I bought birth control, it was a device that was going to cost me. . . wait for it . . . nearly $1000 out of pocket.  Luckily someone did some some wizardry with my pharmacy benefits and I was able to get it for about $40.  That did not include the doctor's appts (multiple) and insertion fees.  

And the key word in that paragraph above is INSURANCE.  I have good, private insurance through my husband's job.  Even still, I had to pay that $40 and all my co-pays and whatever portion of the doc fees that my insurance didn't cover.  That's not cheap or free.   What if you have private insurance that refuses to pay for birth control until you've had what they deem a minimum number of kids, or you work for an employer like Hobby Lobby who is actively doing everything they possibly can to avoid having to pay for birth control?  What if you have no insurance at all? 

Yes, there are some programs and clinics that offer some things cheaper or maybe even free.  For example, California has a program called FamilyPact.  There's Planned Parenthood.  But what if a participating doctor or a clinic doesn't happen to be nearby? What if you don't have the vehicle or gas money to get to where you need to go?  What if the only option is public transportation where you have to spend 45+ minutes on a bus with multiple transfers to get across town, perhaps with a small child or two in tow?  What if your parents or intimate partner would become abusive if they were asked for help?

So then you say, "Well then just don't have sex".  Well, it's an option for some people.  But what if you're raped? What if you're a women dating/living with/married to a man who holds all the money and the transportation hostage and refuses to take no for an answer?  What if you've already had a kid or two with him and you have no family/support system and he's going to hit you, or just force you anyway, if you try to refuse? What if he refuses to let you have birth control, or sabotages the birth control you have, because he knows that the more kids you have, the harder it will be for you to leave? 

And speaking of rape and assault, let's talk about that.  I keep seeing someone (can't remember who) say that the "majority" of abortions aren't a result of rape/assault/incest/etc.  I have my doubts about that statistic, if it can even be called that, because I don't think anyone has posted a source for it.  So many, SO SO SO MANY, rapes and assaults go unreported, because, guess what? When you're traumatized beyond by a violation so heinous, sometimes the last thing you can fathom doing is going to a hospital and letting someone probe the private parts that were just violated.  You can't fathom going to a police station and telling another human, male or female, in detail about what just happened to you because you literally may not even be able to admit to yourself that it happened.  You can't fathom telling anyone because there's a very real fear they may blame you, in some part for what happened:  What were you wearing? Why did you provoke him? How much did you drink? Why were you alone in that part of town? Why do you stay with him? Why did you go with him to his place or invite him back to yours? Why did you decide to say no at the very last minute?  So, when you finally can process and come to terms with what happened, you realize you're pregnant, then what? Yes, some women choose to carry those babies to term and either keep them or adopt them out.  Some, though, literally can't deal with being re-traumatized over and over again, and so they opt for an abortion and maybe when the clinic asks, they just can't talk about it, so they don't report it then either. 


Are there women who are careless and irresponsible and callously have abortions, maybe even serial abortions? Absolutely.  But on the flip side of that, there are women who have many nuanced situations where they feel they can't continue with a pregnancy.  And the very people who would force them to carry to term and have the baby anyway are the ones who are going to deride them for being single mothers and raising a baby with out a father and for using welfare and other types of public assistance when they do have a baby and can't afford to raise it.  

I keep going back to 4th Nephi 1:16, where it talks about how there were no "whoredoms" among the people.  And surely, that is the ideal and if we could build that kind of a zion-esque society, then so many of these problems would disappear and cease to be issues among us.  But the fact is that we don't live in that kind of a society yet.  

Many places has county health departments. Birth control pills are free or cheap there.   Heck you can get pills are pharmacies for pretty cheap too in a lot of states.  

As for rape, you should report it to try and get the male off the streets. Morning after pills are over the counter in most states. 

Why stay with an abusive man? There are many places and people that help you get away.  

 

Link to post
10 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

That's a lot of responsibility on her. What about the man who impregnated her?

What about him? Women know we are the ones to get pregnant, we need to be the ones to know it's our responsibility to not have sex or use multiple forms of birth control.  It's not that hard.

Or don't have sex with some loser that will walk away. Wait for marriage. Wait for a good man who will be a good father. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
52 minutes ago, Ryan Dahle said:

But the moral and philosophical implications are already present in your statements. The term "life" is often loaded with much more significance than a strict scientific description of anatomy and cell function. There are clearly philosophical and religious dimensions to that term, and that is where people generally disagree. 

There are certainly moral questions surrounding "life". But the statement that human life begins at the zygote is not a moral statement - it is a scientific one.  Let philosophy and religion do with that fact what it will.  But we have to start with that biological foundation - then build our morals from it.    

52 minutes ago, Ryan Dahle said:

Maybe I'm missing something, but are there people on this board who are actually arguing that human "life"--in a strictly scientific sense, with no philosophical or religious values attached to that term--doesn't begin at fertilization? 

See for yourself:

21 hours ago, california boy said:

Do you have a reference to show that 95% [of biologists] think human life begins at conception?  They may believe that cell division begins, but a human life?  I think not.

Then there is a second take which acknowledges that human life may begin at conception, but they can't get themselves to concede (against scientific consensus) that such life is a "human" being, simply in early development.

21 hours ago, stemelbow said:

um...the problem is of course this is inside another person.  Are you suggesting the moment "human life begins" is the moment we define it as human?  WHy?  Is not the egg inside someone?  Is it not seeded inside someone?  

More from caliboy.  It appears he just can't stomach the biological fact that abortion is killing another human life: 

21 hours ago, california boy said:

Are you making the leap that 95% of Americans believe they are killing a human life when an abortion happens?  [Which is of course not what I said at all, but that is besides the point]

Cali believes that most Americans, in fact, don't believe that a fetus is a human life or human being:

20 hours ago, california boy said:

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.

So, yes, there does seem to be some inability to accept scientific consensus. 

Edited by pogi
Link to post
37 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Someone I dearly love felt unusually, extremely tired in an unexplained way one evening. Fortunately, she had just taking a pregnancy test that morning which was positive, and she called her doctor, who then urged her to the ER. The doctors discovered that she had an ectopic pregnancy which had burst her fallopian tubes, causing her to bleed internally. I'm so glad she didn't just go to bed early, she might have bled to death. I would hate to see a world where a woman could face impossible legal mandates or accusations when she loses a pregnancy, or has worse health outcomes because abortion laws reduce access to medical care.

Ectopic pregnancies are  not viable.  They shouldn't be counted as abortions. Both mother and baby will die when it happens without medical help. 

I was talking about people saying abort due to drug use by the mother. 

Edited by cherryTreez
Missed a word.
Link to post
4 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

You should understand I am not talking about the experiences of everyone in the world, but of my experience with the practices and beliefs of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I can safely conclude that my experiences are those of most if not all the other men and boys in the Church. She said,

Just because she "is a mother of six and a Mormon" does not make her positions unquestionable or infallible. 

I stated that according to the Gospel of Jesus Christ I (and all men in the Church and men in general) have equal and maybe more responsibility to observe the Law of Chastity. We should share in the consequences of its violation. As far as I can tell, this supports what she said. 

 

Oh yes, I understand as I already acknowledged that you're talking only about yourself.

I don't think she is claiming infallibility based on her maternal status or her Mormonness. She is using arguments and data to further her claims.

She made an important point regarding child support. How does the church ensure that a man who is ordered to pay child support pays it?

 

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

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...