Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

10 hours ago, cherryTreez said:

Many of these children are not available for adoption. I know a few years ago, there were none in our state that they would have allowed us to adopt. Many needed to be only children or couldn't be around younger children.  Many kids sit in foster care because their parents will not allow them to be adopted knowing they will not get the kids back. It's so sad.  I would love to adopt when my kids are grown. 

I am going to ask for a CFR on this.  Are you trying to claim that 442,000 children in foster care can not be adopted?  What percentage of the 442,000 are not eligible for adoption?

 

Link to post
10 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

I’m a bit confused. Are you saying more abortions are needed?

Can you set an example here?

I am saying this! Just who is going to take care of all of these unwanted pregnancies when we can't seem to take care of the unwanted children that are now currently brought to full term?  If you are going to force mothers who do not want or can't take care of a child to carry that child to full term,  shouldn't those forcing those mothers have a plan to take care of these increased unwanted children? Or do we just keep dumping them into the flawed foster care program.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
12 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Not avoiding the question, but pointing out the difficulty of making such a moral distinctions. Hence Sophie’s Choice.

In Sophie's Choice, she had to choose which child was going to die. Are you saying this situation is similarly difficult for you to choose? Really? 

I will point out that you continue to avoid the question. Why is that do you think?

How many blastocyst humans would it take for you to save them instead of the infant human? 1,000? 10,000? 1,000,000? Is there a number? If there isn't how is this a Sophie's choice? Why do you choose the way that you do? Why can't you seem to anwser the question? Again, if you truly believe that the life of a blastocyst is in any way equivalent to the life of an infant, surely you can answer?

Quote

Blastocyst -  a scientific term that in this context serves to dehumanize the potential lives of the unborn and diminish their right to life?

Nope. It's a word that biologists use to describe one of the earliest development stage of mammals. After the Zygote, before the embryo, before the fetus. Much before the infant, toddler, child, adolescent, adult. All stages of development of a human.

Quote

 

Do you mean the Supreme Court whose decisions have put us in the current situation, having to contend whether eliminating our offspring is good or bad?

With respect, the Supreme Court is balancing opposing rights. The rights of the mother vs the rights of a developing human. That you ignore the former is telling. I suggest you read the following article and get back to me: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/12/the-things-we-cant-face/600769/

From the article:

Quote

A picture of a 12-week fetus is a Rorschach test. Some people say that such an image doesn’t trouble them, that the fetus suggests the possibility of a developed baby but is far too removed from one to give them pause. I envy them. When I see that image, I have the opposite reaction. I think: Here is one of us; here is a baby. She has fingers and toes by now, eyelids and ears. She can hiccup—that tiny, chest-quaking motion that all parents know. Most fearfully, she is starting to get a distinct profile, her one and only face emerging. Each of these 12-week fetuses bears its own particular code: this one bound to be good at music; that one destined for a life of impatience, of tap, tap, tapping his pencil on the desk, waiting for recess.

What I can’t face about abortion is the reality of it: that these are human beings, the most vulnerable among us, and we have no care for them. How terrible to know that in the space of an hour, a baby could be alive—his heart beating, his kidneys creating the urine that becomes the amniotic fluid of his safe home—and then be dead, his heart stopped, his body soon to be discarded.

Quote

And here is one truth: No matter what the law says, women will continue to get abortions. How do I know? Because in the relatively recent past, women would allow strangers to brutalize them, to poke knitting needles and wire hangers into their wombs, to thread catheters through their cervices and fill them with Lysol, or scalding-hot water, or lye. Women have been willing to risk death to get an abortion. When we made abortion legal, we decided we weren’t going to let that happen anymore. We were not going to let one more woman arrive at a hospital with her organs rotting inside of her. We accepted that we might lose that growing baby, but we were not also going to lose that woman.

I thought about many women while I was writing this essay. The two girls my mother had watched die, all the women who endured Lysol abortions. But I also thought about a man: the husband of that 32-year-old woman who died in Arkansas, so long ago. It was an act of courage—a rare one—for him to bring her in himself, and to stay with her. Both of them had conspired in a criminal activity. How can we calculate that man’s misery? Imagine him sitting in the hospital waiting room, an obscene pantomime of the times he had likely sat in a very different kind of waiting room, as his children were being born. Imagine the disdain with which he would have been regarded by many of the nurses and doctors. It would have been impossible, during those wretched hours, to try to explain to them that his wife had said she just couldn’t face it again, and that he had tried to help her. At some point he would have been told that she was gone and also that there would have to be an autopsy. And then, when nothing else was left to do, no other form to sign and no other question to answer, imagine him getting in the car and making the terrible drive back to his house so that he could tell his children that their mother was never coming home again.

And Finally:

Quote

The truth is that the best argument on each side is a damn good one, and until you acknowledge that fact, you aren’t speaking or even thinking honestly about the issue. You certainly aren’t going to convince anybody. Only the truth has the power to move.

 

Edited by SeekingUnderstanding
Link to post
14 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Right but that tells us nothing about when it’s a person (deserving legal status and protection).

I am strictly talking about biology.  You are making this about philosophy, morality, etc. 

It is certainly a person.  I define "person" as an individual human being.  I think you will find that about all dictionaries agree.  Whether or not it is a person that deserves legal protection is not a question of biology.  That is a discussion for later.  My point is simply to establish a scientifically accepted biological foundation and terminology to build from - so we are not all talking past each other.  We can discuss the other stuff later. 

Link to post
7 minutes ago, pogi said:

I am strictly talking about biology.  You are making this about philosophy, morality, etc. 

Okay, but with respect, this is a thread about abortion which has everything to do with philosophy morality etc.

7 minutes ago, pogi said:

It is certainly a person.  I define "person" as an individual human being. 

And I'm using in the sense of personhood (see wiki: The beginning of human personhood is a concept long debated by religion and philosophy. With respect to abortion, 'personhood' is the status of a human being having individual human rights. The term was used by Justice Blackmun in Roe v. Wade.[25])

7 minutes ago, pogi said:

My point is simply to establish a scientifically accepted biological foundation and terminology to build from - so we are not all talking past each other.  We can discuss the other stuff later. 

And my point is that you are misusing the biological foundation. When did an individuals life begin? When sperm met egg for most of us, and when the blastocyst / embryo split for multiples, and when the gut cell was extracted for a clone. But you can also say that life began as one continuous process 3.7 billion years ago. None of this is remotely helpful for establishing how we weigh the rights of a developing fetus against the rights of the mother who is developing said fetus.

Link to post

On the title of the thread:  More abortions happen without human interference than with human interference.  They say somewhere around 10 to 25% of pregnancy end in spontaneous abortion.  Are they devil caused?  Or are they God caused?  Being naturally caused one must wonder if God is the God of this world, including nature, is it not He who is in charge of abortions that are not caused by humans?  That is, he can either stop them or start them.  It is on him.  If abortion is the great evil of our culture, then it must have been the greatest evil of our existence, since it turns out, most fetus' have died due to causes humans had no say in.  Only God could say.  Even if it was simply the devil who God gave power to to kill a bunch of fetus' then it seems to have been God's fault too.  

I would be curious because it seems to me many people's objections to abortion is that it is people playing God about when to end a pregnancy.  That apparently should be God's decision?  It seems like it can't be all that bad if God's its biggest advocate.  

Additionally if a woman prays to God and determines God has inspired her to decide to abort, how is that anyone's business?  It sounds like its possible that every single abortion could be inspired by God.  We would never know.  

Edited by stemelbow
Link to post
15 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

If you choose the baby, in what sense can you say blastocysts deserve the same rights and protection?

Individual and emotional choices in a state of panic tells us nothing about inalienable natural rights of human beings.  

Lets say you are controlling the rails for a train.  You can make the train turn on the left track or the right track.  Just as the train is coming, you notice at the last second that your child is on the left track, and two other unknown children are on the right track and there is no time to save them.  You have to make a decision that will kill one choice or the other.  Which do you choose?  Most people choose to save their own child.  We save that which we identify with and relate with the most.  It is an emotional decision, not one based on weighing inalienable natural rights.  Our choice says nothing about the natural rights of the other option.   One choice doesn't mean the other is not "the same thing".  It is understandable why someone would chose the baby that has feelings and thoughts, and has looked into your eyes and you can relate with, it looks like you and has a voice that melts your heart.  Of course most people would save the baby.  It is an emotional choice of connection.  We save what we identify with the most. That doesn't tell us that the other choice has no natural rights or that they are not human beings.  

14 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

For sure I would choose the baby every time. 

I don't believe it.  It depends on the context.

Lets say the baby was born with a serious congenital defect.  It is in a comma and can feel no pain. It has at max 1 year to live without hopes of ever coming out of the comma.  The mother dropped the baby off at the clinic because she doesn't want it.  The 1,000 blastocysts belong to 1,000 couples who have struggled with infertility for many, many years. You have developed a strong relationship with these couples and have emotionally bonded to them through their stories of hardship through infertility and cried in joy with them at the prospect of being able to have their own child through this new technology.   This is their last hope of having a biological child of their own.  They spent their life savings to have this procedure done which guarantees them a biological child.  Which would you save?

You would choose the baby "every time"?

What if you and 500 other male workers were the only humans left on planet earth.  You have the technology to incubate the blastocysts in an artificial womb to full term healthy babies.  Which do you save, the baby or the blastocysts?

Again, "every time?"  I think not.  If these blastocysts were not the "same kind" why would anybody choose to save them?  

These scenarios tell us nothing of natural rights.  It is a moral question of which there are rarely black and white answers.  Again, it is an emotional decision.  

14 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

they are of a different type. A different kind. They are not the same. 

This is categorically false.  They are the same type.  Same kind.   Aged adults and newborn infants are not "the same" either.  They are in different stages of development.  They are still of the same type and kind, however - aka human beings.

Edited by pogi
Link to post
39 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Okay, but with respect, this is a thread about abortion which has everything to do with philosophy morality etc.

We can't talk about philosophy and morality without a biological foundation and common language.  Or we will be talking past each other.   We have to start from the basic facts and build from there.  We can't talk about abortion until we know what we are dealing with.

39 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

 But you can also say that life began as one continuous process 3.7 billion years ago. None of this is remotely helpful for establishing how we weigh the rights of a developing fetus against the rights of the mother who is developing said fetus.

I am not talking about life in general.  I am talking about the individual life of a human being. 

Edited by pogi
Link to post
4 minutes ago, pogi said:

Individual and emotional choices in a state of panic tells us nothing about inalienable natural rights of human beings.  
 

There is no panic here, only imagined panic. Indeed take all the time you need. I notice that you to failed to answer the question. I wonder why that is. 

4 minutes ago, pogi said:

Lets say you are controlling the rails on a train.  You can make the train turn on the left track or the right track.  Just as the train is coming, you notice at the last second that your child is on the left track, and two other unknown children are on the right track and there is no time to save them.  You have to make a decision that will kill one choice or the other.  Which do you choose? 
 

I choose my child for sure. And watching the other two die would probably haunt me forever. Can you say the same about the blastocysts in the fridge? I wonder why I can answer your questions, but you and Bernard can’t seem to answer mine 🤔

4 minutes ago, pogi said:

It is an emotional decision, not one based on weighing inalienable natural rights. 
 

I will note that this isn’t a rushed decision for you. Given that it’s a hypothetical you can take all the time in the world to answer. I will also say that this emotional decision tells us what we really deep down believe. We all know that a human infant is more valuable than an infinite number of human blastocysts. Similarly it’s not like abortion is just about the developing human. It’s also about the mother. At some point that developing human’s rights out way the rights of her mother, but if you say that moment is conception, then you need to grab the fridge. Put up or shut up as they say. 

4 minutes ago, pogi said:

Our choice says nothing about the natural rights of the other option.   One choice doesn't mean the other is not "the same thing". 
 

You can intellectually say this, but I will state deep down if you beloved this you would choose the fridge. I once told my wife I believed that trans-women were the same as cis-women. She asked if I would marry a trans-woman. I said no. Can you see where my stated belief is counter to my actual belief?

4 minutes ago, pogi said:

It is understandable why someone would chose the baby that has feelings and thoughts, and has looked into your eyes and you can relate with, it looks like you and has a voice that melts your heart.  Of course most people would save the baby.  It is an emotional choice of connection.  We save what we identify with the most. That doesn't tell us that the other choice has no natural rights or that they are not human beings.  
 

No one said they have no natural rights. The question is do they have the same natural rights as an infant. The clear answer is no. 

4 minutes ago, pogi said:

 

Lets say the baby was born with a serious congenital defect.  It is in a comma and can feel no pain. It has at max 1 year to live without hopes of ever coming out of the comma.  The mother dropped the baby off at the clinic because she doesn't want it.  The 1,000 blastocysts belong to 1,000 couples who have struggled with infertility for many, many years. You have developed a strong relationship with these couples and have emotionally bonded to them through their stories of hardship through infertility and cried with them at the prospect of being able to have their own child through this new technology.   This is their last hope of having a biological child of their own.  They spent their life savings to have this procedure done which guarantees them a biological child.  Which would you save?

Well luckily my clinic is insured. I would still save the baby. 

4 minutes ago, pogi said:

You would choose the baby "every time"?

What if you and 500 other male workers were the only humans left on planet earth.  You have the technology to incubate the blastocysts in an artificial womb to full term healthy babies.  Which do you save, the baby or the blastocysts?

The blastocysts for sure. Not because they have rights above the infant, but because humanity is at stake. That was a very well thought out exception though. You notice how I’m able to answer though and you and Bernard can only dodge? Why is that I wonder 🤔

4 minutes ago, pogi said:

Again, "every time?"  I think not.

You got me! I’d choose the future of the human race over one baby (but not blastocysts over an infant) Although I will say if we have an artificial womb, it seems like we would have the tech to make women from two men. Just saying. 

4 minutes ago, pogi said:

This is categorically false.  They are the same type.  Same kind.   Aged adults and newborn infants are not "the same" either.  They are in different stages of development.  They are still of the same type and kind, however.

Then answer the question. How many healthy blastocysts in the fridge for one *healthy* infant. If you can’t choose a number, why not?

Link to post
11 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Is 10 months unusual? I’m sure the baby is in motion very early on, but it would not be  noticeable until a certain stage of development. In my opinion, that is a problem with equating baby motion with the entry of the spirit into the body. 

Weeks not months.  She was my third baby and I knew what to look for. I told my ob about it and he said he had heard of other women saying the same thing. He did an ultrasound to check.  

It all depends on the woman and her body, placement of the placenta, and her weight.

Link to post
11 minutes ago, pogi said:
32 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Okay, but with respect, this is a thread about abortion which has everything to do with philosophy morality etc.

We can't talk about philosophy and morality without a biological foundation and common language.  Or we will be talking past each other.   We have to start from the basic facts and build from there.  We can't talk about abortion until we know what we are talking about.

It seems to me that you are trying to leverage science simply to get people to say that "human life" starts at fertilization. Since I think everyone here agrees with this, in a strictly biological sense, I'm not sure what your goal is here, other than to try to later exploit their agreement about "human life" for some sort of philosophical or religious point you are trying to make. 

I just don't get it. What is the relevance, in your mind, of getting people to admit that "human life" begins at fertilization? How does that relate to the philosophical/religious debate which is obviously the crux of the issue? What sort of foundation does it provide that you think isn't already in place in the minds of those you disagree with?

  • Like 1
Link to post
45 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

On the title of the thread:  More abortions happen without human interference than with human interference.  They say somewhere around 10 to 25% of pregnancy end in spontaneous abortion.  Are they devil caused?  Or are they God caused?  Being naturally caused one must wonder if God is the God of this world, including nature, is it not He who is in charge of abortions that are not caused by humans?  That is, he can either stop them or start them.  It is on him.  If abortion is the great evil of our culture, then it must have been the greatest evil of our existence, since it turns out, most fetus' have died due to causes humans had no say in.  Only God could say.  Even if it was simply the devil who God gave power to to kill a bunch of fetus' then it seems to have been God's fault too.  

I would be curious because it seems to me many people's objections to abortion is that it is people playing God about when to end a pregnancy.  That apparently should be God's decision?  It seems like it can't be all that bad if God's its biggest advocate.  

Additionally if a woman prays to God and determines God has inspired her to decide to abort, how is that anyone's business?  It sounds like its possible that every single abortion could be inspired by God.  We would never know.  

As a women who has miscarriages there is a huge difference between a miscarriage and an abortion. Many miscarriages happen because something is wrong with either the mother or the baby. It feels so wrong to compare a miscarriage to a woman chosing to kill her baby. 

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
12 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

 I wonder why that is. 

I thought I did answer.  I stated that it is understandable why most people would probably choose the baby (that includes me).  It is an emotional decision.  Humans tend to bond with those things that they identify with the most.  If something doesn't look like you, and can't talk, feel, think, etc. it is not easy to bond with.  There is no emotional connection for me.  It is also probably an animal instinct to save that which has the greatest chance of survival.  It is not a natural state for a blastocyst to be in a fridge.    I don't think humans are built with any natural instincts to save blastocysts in the fridge, because it is not a natural state that we have evolved an emotional response to.  No natural instincts would kick in to save them. 

19 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Well luckily my clinic is insured. I would still save the baby. 

Did you read the scenario?  You are making this about the money???  You would choose the child with no hope of survival for more than a year, is on life support, in a comma, and cannot experience well-being or pain?  You would be willing to break the hearts and hopes of a thousand couples who desperately want a child and this was their last hope.  All of these children would experience life and well-being and pain and joy.  They have their whole lives ahead of them.  You would choose to destroy those families to save the one child?  I don't understand your decision.  I certainly would choose the blastocysts, even if I somehow lost money for doing so.   

25 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

The blastocysts for sure. Not because they have rights above the infant, but because humanity is at stake.

Good choice.  Good thing they are the same "type" and "kind" after all, or else humanity would be lost. 

Link to post
17 minutes ago, Ryan Dahle said:

It seems to me that you are trying to leverage science simply to get people to say that "human life" starts at fertilization. Since I think everyone here agrees with this, in a strictly biological sense, I'm not sure what your goal is here, other than to try to later exploit their agreement about "human life" for some sort of philosophical or religious point you are trying to make. 

I just don't get it. What is the relevance, in your mind, of getting people to admit that "human life" begins at fertilization? How does that relate to the philosophical/religious debate which is obviously the crux of the issue? What sort of foundation does it provide that you think isn't already in place in the minds of those you disagree with?

I am yet to hear seeking understanding (and several others) admit that a zygote is a human being.  He seems very resistant to that idea.  He says it is not the same kind or type.  It is something else.  As if to dehumanize it somehow.  Does being different make us less then human, somehow?  A child is different form an adult, less developed...therefore, not human?  Again, the point (as I have pointed out a million times) is to have a basic understanding of what exactly it is we are dealing with.

Link to post
Just now, pogi said:

I am yet to hear seeking understanding (and several others) admit that a zygote is a human being.  He seems very resistant to that idea.  He says it is not the same kind or type.  It is something else.  As if to dehumanize it somehow.  Does being different make us less then human, somehow?  A child is different form an adult, less developed...therefore, not human?  Again, the point (as I have pointed out a million times) is to have a basic understanding of what exactly it is we are dealing with.

A zygote is a human at the very earliest stage of development. (Happy?)

Link to post
22 minutes ago, Ryan Dahle said:

It seems to me that you are trying to leverage science simply to get people to say that "human life" starts at fertilization.

If stating the biological fact is a lever one way or the other, so be it. 

Link to post
1 hour ago, california boy said:

I am going to ask for a CFR on this.  Are you trying to claim that 442,000 children in foster care can not be adopted?  What percentage of the 442,000 are not eligible for adoption?

 

How many children are awaiting adoption in the United States? Of the 400,000 children in foster care, more than 100,000 of them are waiting to be adopted. 

 

The same site said 61,000 kids were adopted from foster care in 2018. 

Link to post
9 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

A zygote is a human at the very earliest stage of development. (Happy?)

An individual human being?  aka, A person?  Just want to make sure we are using the same foundational language. 

Edited by pogi
Link to post
11 minutes ago, cherryTreez said:

As a women who has miscarriages there is a huge difference between a miscarriage and an abortion. Many miscarriages happen because something is wrong with either the mother or the baby. It feels so wrong to compare a miscarriage to a woman chosing to kill her baby. 

It's not a comparison, it's simply a matter of definition.  Abortion is not limited to a choice to end a pregnancy.  Its definition includes all miscarriages.  A miscarriage is an abortion too.  If abortion is the preeminent evil, then why is it assumed that the evil is in people allowing women to pray to God and let God decide to abort a baby?  Most abortions are in God's control.  He can stop them or start them.  

On this point it's interesting that abortion is the great evil of our culture, but it's the very culture that has led to advances in limiting abortion.  Today a woman who gets pregnant has a much higher chance of seeing the baby born, then was the case 100 years ago, or 1,000 years ago.  It used to be all completely on whether God decides to kill the fetus, have it killed, or allow it to live.  

Link to post
8 minutes ago, pogi said:

I thought I did answer.  I stated that it is understandable why most people would probably choose the baby (that includes me).  It is an emotional decision.  Humans tend to bond with those things that they identify with the most.  If something doesn't look like you, and can't talk, feel, think, etc. it is not easy to bond with.  There is no emotional connection for me.  It is also probably an animal instinct to save that which has the greatest chance of survival.  It is not a natural state for a blastocyst to be in a fridge.    I don't think humans are built with any natural instincts to save blastocysts in the fridge, because it is not a natural state that we have evolved an emotional response to.  No natural instincts would kick in to save them.

You call it emotional, and I will just state that you are revealing what you deep down believe. You may wish you believed different, but You would save one human infant over 1000 human blastocysts in a fridge. And yet in the same breath you want to claim that those blastocysts should have the same rights and protections as an infant. And you see no disconnect. Balancing the rights of a pregnant woman against the rights of a yet to be born human is difficult. You blithely choose the infant because of emotion but seem to feel justified in telling the woman she has no right to an abortion at any stage of healthy human development? Can you help me understand? 

Link to post
34 minutes ago, cherryTreez said:

Weeks not months.  She was my third baby and I knew what to look for. I told my ob about it and he said he had heard of other women saying the same thing. He did an ultrasound to check.  

It all depends on the woman and her body, placement of the placenta, and her weight.

Thanks for the response...very interesting.

Yes, I meant weeks but typed months. 

Link to post
8 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

It's not a comparison, it's simply a matter of definition.  Abortion is not limited to a choice to end a pregnancy.  Its definition includes all miscarriages.  A miscarriage is an abortion too.  If abortion is the preeminent evil, then why is it assumed that the evil is in people allowing women to pray to God and let God decide to abort a baby?  Most abortions are in God's control.  He can stop them or start them.  

On this point it's interesting that abortion is the great evil of our culture, but it's the very culture that has led to advances in limiting abortion.  Today a woman who gets pregnant has a much higher chance of seeing the baby born, then was the case 100 years ago, or 1,000 years ago.  It used to be all completely on whether God decides to kill the fetus, have it killed, or allow it to live.  

 

An abortion is a woman choosing to have her baby killed. A miscarriage has no choice involved. I had no choice in my miscarriages and to compare it to a woman willingly have her baby killed is wrong. 

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
13 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

You call it emotional, and I will just state that you are revealing what you deep down believe. You may wish you believed different, but You would save one human infant over 1000 human blastocysts in a fridge. And yet in the same breath you want to claim that those blastocysts should have the same rights and protections as an infant. And you see no disconnect. Balancing the rights of a pregnant woman against the rights of a yet to be born human is difficult. You blithely choose the infant because of emotion but seem to feel justified in telling the woman she has no right to an abortion at any stage of healthy human development? Can you help me understand? 

You are making a lot of assumptions here about what I believe. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...