Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, cherryTreez said:

 

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. 

 

And yet the fetus dies either way. Preventing a spontaneous abortion and a deliberate one each saves one life. Shouldn’t we be dedicating all the research money we can possibly gather to prevent the biggest killer of all time (spontaneous abortions). Some studies show over half the fertilized zygotes never make it. 

Link to post
1 hour 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.  

That's the problem - when humans are the cause of death. Most deaths in all history have been due to natural causes. One could attribute that to God if one is so inclined, perhaps, blaming him for the universal human condition. When the actions of human beings cause death we call that evil.

Link to post
2 minutes ago, cherryTreez said:

 

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. 

 

I understand your use of the words.  I'm using the standard uses of the terms:

Abortion, the expulsion of a fetus from the uterus before it has reached the stage of viability (in human beings, usually about the 20th week of gestation). An abortion may occur spontaneously, in which case it is also called a miscarriage, or it may be brought on purposefully, in which case it is often called an induced abortion.

Again, though. I"m not making a comparison.  I"m simply going by the accepted definition of terms.  A miscarriage is often called a spontaneous abortion vs an elective abortion, as some might call it.  But both are abortions.  

And as it is, most fetus' that have died have died without some human's choice.  It was all on God.  If we take the concept that abortion is evil, as true, then we have put on God that evil.  

On top of that, if a woman decides to abort based on her working with God and God confirming she should abort, then why would that be evil?  It can only be evil, it seems, if God is evil.  

Link to post
12 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. 

It really does depend on the mother and the placement of the baby/placenta.  A lot of first time moms don't feel the baby move until they are well into their second trimester (20 weeks or more) while repeat moms can sometimes feel it during the first trimester.  But yes, the baby begins moving very early on.

 

Link to post
Just now, Bernard Gui said:

That's the problem - when humans are the cause of death. Most deaths in all history have been due to natural causes. One could attribute that to God if one is so inclined, perhaps, blaming him for the universal human condition. When the actions of human beings cause death we call that evil.

REally?  So if humans kill people because God told them to, as many have claimed, we simply say that's evil?  But again, if abortion is inherently evil, and only God could have started or stopped an abortion, then what does that suggest?  We have quite a contradiction on our hands on such thinking.  Either God is evil, his actions are (or inactions if you will), or we have it all wrong again with our desire to condemn each other (as humans tend to do).  

Link to post
2 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

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?

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.

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:

And Finally:

 

You are asking a question that forces one to choose who will die and who will live. That is Sophie's Choice. You are free to think as you wish. In your scenario, if the child had a life-altering deformity or disability, would you choose it over 100,000,000,000 blastocysts? Would you condemn the child to a life of misery and pain or save the millions of potential humans? It is a very difficult choice that plumbs the depth of our humanity, not as easy as you seem to think, IMO. I have deep respect for human life, no matter what stage it is in. Once life has been created, it should be respected and protected. I prefer to think of a blastocyst as a human with great potential. I do not think we should willfully destroy anything that is human, whether is a blastocyst, a zygote, an embryo, a fetus, a new born, a toddler, a child, a teen-ager, an adult, a grandmother, someone on the death bed.  It is false that I have ignored the rights of the mother. I have endorsed the Church's position several times here. Having 7 children and 19 grand-children, I have witnessed the unfathomable miracle of creation and bow in humble awe at the sacrifice and suffering women experience to bring us into the world. I sorrow when I think this miracle may not be a wonderful blessing for so many of our sisters whatever the cause. I also believe we should agree to disagree.

Edited by Bernard Gui
Link to post
2 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Weeks, maybe?  ;):D (Or maybe we should ask what species you are? :D :rofl: :D )

Yep. Getting old is not for sissies.

Link to post
36 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Define “human being” and “person”. 

Here is a detailed explanation of what a human being is.  These are snippets from a larger paper written by a biologist at Princeton:

Quote

 

I. Introduction

The question as to when the physical material dimension of a human being begins is strictly a scientific question, and fundamentally should be answered by human embryologists�not by philosophers, bioethicists, theologians, politicians, x-ray technicians, movie stars, or obstetricians and gynecologists.


II. When does a human being begin?

Getting a handle on just a few basic human embryological terms accurately can considerably clarify the drastic difference between the "scientific" myths that are currently circulating, and the actual objective scientific facts. This would include such basic terms as: "gametogenesis," "oogenesis," "spermatogenesis," "fertilization," "zygote," "embryo," and "blastocyst." Only brief scientific descriptions will be given here for these terms. Further, more complicated, details can be obtained by investigating any well-established human embryology textbook in the library, such as some of those referenced below. Please note that the scientific facts presented here are not simply a matter of my own opinion. They are direct quotes and references from some of the most highly respected human embryology textbooks, and represent a consensus of human embryologists internationally.

A. Basic human embryological facts

To begin with, scientifically something very radical occurs between the processes of gametogenesis and fertilization�the change from a simple part of one human being (i.e., a sperm) and a simple part of another human being (i.e., an oocyte�usually referred to as an "ovum" or "egg"), which simply possess "human life", to a new, genetically unique, newly existing, individual, whole living human being (a single-cell embryonic human zygote). That is, upon fertilization, parts of human beings have actually been transformed into something very different from what they were before; they have been changed into a single, whole human being. During the process of fertilization, the sperm and the oocyte cease to exist as such, and a new human being is produced.

To understand this, it should be remembered that each kind of living organism has a specific number and quality of chromosomes that are characteristic for each member of a species. (The number can vary only slightly if the organism is to survive.) For example, the characteristic number of chromosomes for a member of the human species is 46 (plus or minus, e.g., in human beings with Down�s or Turner�s syndromes). Every somatic (or, body) cell in a human being has this characteristic number of chromosomes. Even the early germ cells contain 46 chromosomes; it is only their mature forms - the sex gametes, or sperms and oocytes - which will later contain only 23 chromosomes each..1 Sperms and oocytes are derived from primitive germ cells in the developing fetus by means of the process known as "gametogenesis." Because each germ cell normally has 46 chromosomes, the process of "fertilization" can not take place until the total number of chromosomes in each germ cell are cut in half. This is necessary so that after their fusion at fertilization the characteristic number of chromosomes in a single individual member of the human species (46) can be maintained�otherwise we would end up with a monster of some sort.

To accurately see why a sperm or an oocyte are considered as only possessing human life, and not as living human beings themselves, one needs to look at the basic scientific facts involved in the processes of gametogenesis and of fertilization. It may help to keep in mind that the products of gametogenesis and fertilization are very different. The products of gametogenesis are mature sex gametes with only 23 instead of 46 chromosomes. The product of fertilization is a living human being with 46 chromosomes. Gametogenesis refers to the maturation of germ cells, resulting in gametes. Fertilization refers to the initiation of a new human being.

"Zygote: This cell results from the union of an oocyte and a sperm. A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo). The expression fertilized ovum refers to a secondary oocyte that is impregnated by a sperm; when fertilization is complete, the oocyte becomes a zygote."10 (Emphasis added.)

This new single-cell human being immediately produces specifically human proteins and enzymes11 (not carrot or frog enzymes and proteins), and genetically directs his/her own growth and development. (In fact, this genetic growth and development has been proven not to be directed by the mother.)12 Finally, this new human being�the single-cell human zygote�is biologically an individual, a living organism�an individual member of the human species. 

Myth 1: "Prolifers claim that the abortion of a human embryo or a human fetus is wrong because it destroys human life. But human sperms and human ova are human life, too. So prolifers would also have to agree that the destruction of human sperms and human ova are no different from abortions�and that is ridiculous!"

Fact 1: As pointed out above in the background section, there is a radical difference, scientifically, between parts of a human being that only possess "human life" and a human embryo or human fetus that is an actual "human being." Abortion is the destruction of a human being. Destroying a human sperm or a human oocyte would not constitute abortion, since neither are human beings. The issue is not when does human life begin, but rather when does the life of every human being begin. A human kidney or liver, a human skin cell, a sperm or an oocyte all possess human life, but they are not human beings�they are only parts of a human being. If a single sperm or a single oocyte were implanted into a woman�s uterus, they would not grow; they would simply disintegrate.

Myth 2: "The product of fertilization is simply a �blob,� a �bunch of cells�, a �piece of the mother�s tissues�."

Fact 2: As demonstrated above, the human embryonic organism formed at fertilization is a whole human being, and therefore it is not just a "blob" or a "bunch of cells." This new human individual also has a mixture of both the mother�s and the father�s chromosomes, and therefore it is not just a "piece of the mother�s tissues". Quoting Carlson:

"... [T]hrough the mingling of maternal and paternal chromosomes, the zygote is a genetically unique product of chromosomal reassortment, which is important for the viability of any species."15 (Emphasis added.)

Myth 3: "The immediate product of fertilization is just a �potential� or a �possible� human being�not a real existing human being."

Fact 3: As demonstrated above, scientifically there is absolutely no question whatsoever that the immediate product of fertilization is a newly existing human being. A human zygote is a human being. It is not a "potential" or a "possible" human being. It�s an actual human being�with the potential to grow bigger and develop its capacities.

https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/wdhbb.html#:~:text=A human zygote is a,bigger and develop its capacities.

 

This establishes a zygote as a "human being" an "individual".

"Person" is not scientific word.  We have to turn to the dictionary for that.  I can't find a definition that doesn't state "A human being" or "individual human being".

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to post
51 minutes ago, 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.

I still don't understand your point. You are saying that the physiological differences between a zygote and an adult human are irrelevant because scientifically speaking they are both human, just at different stages of development. So what? How does that have any relevance to the philosophical/religious debate? What do you think is added to the discussion by ensuring that everyone agrees with the science of human development?

Edited by Ryan Dahle
Link to post
2 minutes ago, pogi said:

Here is a detailed explanation of what a human being is.  These are snippets from a larger paper written by a biologist at Princeton:

This establishes a zygote as a "human being" an "individual".

"Person" is not scientific word.  We have to turn to the dictionary for that.  I can't find a definition that doesn't state "A human being" or "individual human being".

 

 

 

 

 

 

I don’t think the science is defined by a single catholic anti abortion biologist. I’m not sure that it makes sense to call a single cell a “being” (defined as “the nature or essence of a person.” That doesn’t sound very science-y to me and I will note We are getting circular here) regardless of species. If you can point to the scientific consensus here I’ll be happy to take a look. 

Link to post
8 minutes ago, Ryan Dahle said:

I still don't understand your point. You are saying that the physiological differences between a zygote and a child or adult human doesn't make difference because scientifically speaking they are both human, just at different stages of development. So what? How does that have any relevance to the philosophical/religious debate? What do you think is added to the discussion by ensuring that everyone agrees with the science of human development?

If we can establish the fact that a zygote is an individual human being, it can have an impact on how philosophers think about and address natural or inalienable human rights.  Locke believed that the most basic human law of nature is the preservation of mankind.   Definitions matter.  Proper biological understanding can affect philosophical thought.  We need to establish the facts first.  Why are you pushing back against it so hard?  Clearly there is semantical differences that need to be ironed out before we can have a productive discussion.  Most disagreements are on semantics.  That is why I am starting from the foundation. 

Link to post
11 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I don’t think the science is defined by a single catholic anti abortion biologist. I’m not sure that it makes sense to call a single cell a “being” (defined as “the nature or essence of a person.” That doesn’t sound very science-y to me and I will note We are getting circular here) regardless of species. If you can point to the scientific consensus here I’ll be happy to take a look. 

 

Quote

Please note that the scientific facts presented here are not simply a matter of my own opinion. They are direct quotes and references from some of the most highly respected human embryology textbooks, and represent a consensus of human embryologists internationally.

 

Link to post
13 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

 I’m not sure that it makes sense to call a single cell a “being” (defined as “the nature or essence of a person.” 

I don't know how it makes sense not to.  If a zygote is not the fundamental and essential nature or essence of a person, then what organ is?  The kidney?  The liver? The heart? The lungs?  The brain?  Where did the "nature" or "essence" of all these organs come from if not the zygote?  It holds the absolute fundamental nature and essence of mankind.  

Link to post
9 minutes ago, pogi said:

 

 

Well in my brief read of the first few paragraphs and scan of the rest, I must have missed the reference to the scientifically accepted fact that a zygote is a human “being”. Could you please provide it?

Link to post
8 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Well in my brief read of the first few paragraphs and scan of the rest, I must have missed the reference to the scientifically accepted fact that a zygote is a human “being”. Could you please provide it?

You must have missed the "notes" section, or bibliography.  

Link to post
22 minutes ago, pogi said:

If we can establish the fact that a zygote is an individual human being, it can have an impact on how philosophers think about and address natural or inalienable human rights.  Locke believed that the most basic human law of nature is the preservation of mankind.   Definitions matter.  Proper biological understanding can affect philosophical thought.  We need to establish the facts first.

And what specifically is the impact, philosophically/religious speaking, of accepting the scientific fact that a zygote is a human life?  

Link to post
16 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Perfect. Which note exactly contains this crucial information. 

I am confused.  So a zygote is being a human but it is not a human being??? Seriously?

Human being:

 
Quote

 

any individual of the genus Homo, especially a member of the species Homo sapiens.

 

 

Quote

 

Definition of human being

 

: HUMAN

 

 
 
Edited by pogi
Link to post
1 minute ago, pogi said:

I am confused.  So a zygote is being a human but it is not a human being??? Seriously?

So are you retracting? You admit the article does not establish this? Yet you just spent how many posts implying I just wasn’t reading carefully enough??? Seriously?

1 minute ago, pogi said:

Human being:

 
 

You keep switching here. In what sense are we talking? Morally, scientifically? In the vernacular? You need to choose one please. 

Link to post
47 minutes ago, pogi said:

Here is a detailed explanation of what a human being is.  These are snippets from a larger paper written by a biologist at Princeton:

This establishes a zygote as a "human being" an "individual".

"Person" is not scientific word.  We have to turn to the dictionary for that.  I can't find a definition that doesn't state "A human being" or "individual human being".

Thanks for posting this article. Being a fiddler, I'm no expert in such things. This is fascinating reading. Maybe I should have stuck with my original college major....microbiology. 

This is interesting:

Quote

The entire blastocyst, (including both the inner and the outer cell layers) is the human embryo, the human being, the human individual.

 

 

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

And what specifically is the impact, philosophically/religious speaking, of accepting the scientific fact that a zygote is a human life?  

It depends on who you ask, I guess.  For some, apparently the impact is on the term  "being".  That seems to be the philosophical hinge point for seekingunderstanding.  If it is not a being, it can be denied the philosophical unalienable natural rights innate to all human beings.   I guess you could ask the same question to seekingunderstanding.  Why does it matter philosophically?  Apparently it matters to him too, so why are you asking me only?  

Link to post
8 minutes ago, Ryan Dahle said:

And what specifically is the impact, philosophically/religious speaking, of accepting the scientific fact that a zygote is a human life?  

And I will state emphatically for the record that there is no doubt a zygote is a human life scientifically speaking. 

Link to post
10 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

So are you retracting? You admit the article does not establish this? Yet you just spent how many posts implying I just wasn’t reading carefully enough??? Seriously?

You keep switching here. In what sense are we talking? Morally, scientifically? In the vernacular? You need to choose one please. 

I am not retracting anything.  You are just as capable as I am to research the bibliography.  I have already provided the reference where she claims that these are not her opinions and that it is all referenced.  If you don't believe her, then prove her wrong.  I have no reason to doubt that she is telling the truth.  

I'm not swithching anything.  I don't know what you are talking about.  I have always been using scientific vernacular.  Homo sapien would be the most scientific term I guess for human being.  They are equivalent terms in science.  

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

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...