Follow Patheos Catholic:
Gotta love abort73.com.
IKR! I love that website!
That was awesome!
It’s a very good point and I agree with the video, but as usual, Godwin’s law is at work…
Here’s the thing about Godwin’s law: It doesn’t make the comparison irrelevant. If a man started killing off Jews, the handicapped, the Catholic Priests, and anyone else he deemed “undesireable”, while executing a violent takeover of Europe, a Hitler comparison would be apt. (after we got rid of the man, of course) That technically is succumbing to Godwin’s law. When 54 million children have been killed by abortion in the United States, a comparison to the best-known mass-murder in history makes sense.
No, it’s a horrible and offensive comparison. I lose all respect for people’s arguments who then think that it is okay to compare the genocide of the Jewish people to the termination of pregnancies. There is a fundamental difference between killing independent adults and children and unformed humans that live inside of another person.
Comparing abortion to the Holocaust is the best way to lose respect from a pro-choicer. It’s a disgusting affront to everyone who died in the Holocaust. If you really honestly think that it is a good, and fair, comparison you are so out of touch with reality that there’s no use talking to you.
I won’t belabor the point too much, because there the Holocaust is such an emotionally charged event, and it’s rather hard to continue rational discussion once it’s brought up.
However, what makes you think that the life of a child is inherently less valuable than the life of an adult? That seems antithetical to the idea inherent dignity of the human person.
I’m an atheist, I don’t have the same ideas of the dignity of a human person that you do.
So would you agree with the statement that an adult has more worth than a child? Are you using a pragmatic argument?
I think most people, atheist or not, would not say that the life of an adult is worth the life of a child.
Oh yes, the life of all self aware humans that aren’t dependent on someone else’s body for existence are equally valuable and deserve protection. That’s where the pro-choicer differs from eugenicists, and if people can’t see that distinction, I have no interest in anything they have to say.
Which I see you just did. Conversation over.
And you should know that the Constitutional issue here is the establishment of personhood and recognition that it is a human life. Beyond that, equal protection is assured. You have already admitted to such. You are right. End of conversation.
That post was a reply to Paul and bringing up eugenics. But you know, the constitution also used to say that blacks are 3/5 of a person.
And the Supreme Court has ruled that abortion is legal until viability, so clearly it takes people who understand the Constitution better than us, like with your patriarchy and the Bible, to interpret what it means and how it should be applied.
And if you studied your Constitutional history you would be aware of the politics involved in the decisions. You can’t have an argument with someone who has not done their research.
And the Constitution never said anything of the sort. I suggest you read it. You are speaking of interpretations. Get it right.
Actually, Roe v. Wade leaves regulation after viability up to the individual states. In my state, abortion is legal until a woman goes into labor.
So when do you judge self-awareness to take place? Moreover, an infant relies on its mother’s body to produce milk for nourishment. You can argue that there is formula now, however, from an evolutionary standpoint infants are dependent on their mother’s body for at least two years post-birth.
AND the production of milk is what makes us all mammals. Nature absolutely intended for mammals to depend on their mother. The mammal that abandons its young is considered defective from a biological standpoint.
OK. I get it. So all of those who are dependent on another for existance are not equally valuable and deserving of protection…Oh, wait, but babies all need care. My 4 year old needs care. My dying mother and father needed care. My mentallly handicapped neighbor needs care…So none of these are deserving of equal protection???
Sorry, I guess I don’t get it.
Do both your 4 yr old and your mother live inside you? No? Then we’re not talking about the same thing.
The stress required to care for any and all life is great. Whether that is inside of me or inside of my house is irrelevant. I don’t believe address is a prerequisite of equal rights protection.
And that’s where we disagree then.
The comment of self awareness was more in reference to that I don’t believe that those in vegetive states deserve the same protections.
In terms of a fetus, when it is viable. That’s when it deserves protections. I know that’s a difficult point to determine, but the fact of the matter is that most abortions are done well before it becomes an issue and n the case that the pregnancy is that advanced I trust medical professionals to make the correct choice.
Whose criteria determines vegetative state? It’s a rather subjective criteria. Ambien has worked for people diagnosed as PVS – so they are obviously aware while on Ambien, and seem unaware when not on the drug. What about the minimally conscious state? As for viability, it is now around 23 weeks gestation. Do you only support first trimester and early second trimester abortions?
i’m epileptic, am i any less of a person because of my disability?
Seriously, did I say anything that would indicate that? If you think I did you might need to re read it.
Are you inside of someone’s body?
No? Then I didn’t say anything about your worth as a person.
How ca smeone’s value suddenly cange at birth? If a baby is left alone on a hilltop, it will die. If a baby gets aborted, it will die. Are you saying one murder is worse?
Alexandra – what is your basis for stating that “self aware humans that aren’t dependent on someone else’s body” are valuable and deserve protection? Why does anyone have value, besides one’s self?
Nice tailored definition of “people who matter.” I’m thinking about tailoring my own now. It seems fun.
You’re right: The unborn can’t run. The unborn can’t hide. A baby doesn’t have the chance to hide in the attic of the uterus. 54 million in the US. Over 100 million in China. These are people, and they are dying. Abortion has taken my friends from me. Abortion has taken my enemies. Abortion has taken the people I pass on the street. It’s taken the man who makes my food. It’s taken the little girl who brightens up my day. Who the hell are you to take that away from me?
Permit me to go off on a tangent (ive been arguing with pro-aborts all week and i just need to let off some steam). At the end of the day, pro-aborts dont give a lick about truth or facts, and i can imagine the majority of them just scoffing at this video (which by the way, is very powerful – thanks for sharing Marc). Logical application of facts, definitions, history, science, images, morals…it all flies in the face of a people who are blinded by the “right to choose”, which is essentially the right to choose the “good” for their own life (since life is, you know, precious and filled with potentially good things regardless of the challenges-funny how pro aborts only want to apply that philosophy to themselves and not to their own unborn children) at the expense and death of the smaller, weaker human beings. Woman’s right, woman’s body, woman’s choice…its what i like to call feminist totalitarianism – an ideology and agenda that would have no limits placed on it or questions asked and that would label anyone who disagrees with it as radical, extremist and anti-woman. Sigh* Now that i have finished my rant, i just want to say that i hope this video and more like it circulate to tons of young people. Ive come to realize, especially since seeing the whole Komen & Planned Parenthood disaster, that the only way abortion is going to be defeated in this country is when women stop believing that they need this bloody and violent procedure to be “free” or “equal” and when true compassion and choices are offered to women and the unborn The demand will change when hearts change, not simply laws and regulations, though, those help too.
AND when we actually address the social and economic issues that send women in search of an abortion. Poverty is still overwhelmingly used as a reason why a woman should be able to choose an abortion. I have seen this over and over. AND, when the woman goes home after the procedure, she is still poor and destitute and likely to make the same desperate choices.
Didn’t somebody once say “the poor will always be with you” or something like that? Poverty will always exist. We cannot just decide that we’ll “get around” to ending abortion once we’ve taken care of that poverty thing.
It’s not an either / or thing, Joe.
Changing the situations that lead to abortion is part of what will end abortion.
My point was you will never eliminate “the situations that lead to abortion” as long as you offer abortion as a legitimate way to deal with “situations”. Poverty wouldn’t lea to abortion in a society where abortion wasn’t allowed. And you will never end poverty.
That someone was Christ (John 12:8).
What people need to understand is this – it is the underlying social concerns that put women in a position to make poor choices for themselves. Here is an interesting report about poverty and birth control. Controlling popuation numbers DOES NOT reduce poverty. You need to address the underlying social concerns to go there.
We need to recognize the same is true in abortion. Of course, debating with those who a promoting an anti-life rhetoric for the sake of advancing the gains of their own poitical agenda is another issue and should be fought at the same time.
“The demand will change when hearts change, not simply laws and regulations, though, those help too.”
That’s why I like the Canadian site, ProWoman ProLife. Their motto is “Canada without abortion. By choice.”
And to enable those hearts to change, we need to always be sure we’re providing the help women need. We’re already doing that with very practical support, like with CRCs. But let’s not forget to listen to and help the women who have trouble with NFP, or to help women whose husbands pressure them to have too many children. No woman should feel forced to stay with a man who does that unless or until he changes, and every man should know that kind of behavior is totally unacceptable.
Let’s call men to account. From the pulpit!
Watch out, in any momment, Edinburgh will come up and start giving out statistics about how many catholic women use contraception methods and how many women abort on the whole world while dying in the process.
My prediction is 99% guaranteed to succeed.
…I’m protestant and even I can give the more relevant statistic:
How many Catholics (and other people) ought to be supporting abortion?
You got a sh1tload of catholics who support abortion, maybe they can’t grasp the concept of how important human life is…
They buy into the rhetoric and marketing that has infused our society.
Huh, I thought that they were just able to think for themselves instead of following religious dogma.
Neat, I learned something new today.
No, they actually just buy into the idea that their life is more imortant than the one they helped create.
You have psychic abilities?!?! You can read people’s mind and see how they came to their conclusions? AWESOME!
Funny, I was just quoting you and the pro-choice/anti-life rhetoric. But that’s cool if you think I have psychic abilities.
Implying, of course, that those who listen to religious dogma don’t think. Maybe….just maybe…they listen to religious dogma because it is smart, logical, reasoned, intelligent, and they simply *agree*? How come others can disagree and it’s just disagreement, but the second you agree, holy socks, you are brainwashed?
Here’s another true statistic: 100% of people who support abortion die.
here’s another one: 100% of people who support abortion are already born
Were they singing Agnus Dei at the end there?
Clearly I disagree with the actual message of the video, but what is worse is how badly put together it is. What is with that music? And the amazon window in the back?
) : i feel bad now, i was jammin out to that music haha
I do have to admit that I found the music annoying. But I’m not into techno sounds.
That aside, it is an important point about the dehumanizing of whole groups of people before harming them. It can be seen over and over throughout history. In fact, it could probably be said to be a pre-requisite to killling another human being. Our natural inclinations to ethical behavior won’t let us do this unless we can justify it to ourselves. AND, “scientific” papers and books put out by respected publishers, universities, and journals have demonstrated why such groups could not be considered human and therefore justifying any number of atrocities. In my undergrad I did quite a bit of research on the history of the perception of the art of non-Western societies. The “science” of the times stated all sorts of cases for why why non-Western people (primitive people, as they were called) were not human.
And let us not forget that our very own Supreme Court ruled in the Dred Scott decision that the Bill of Rights did not apply to African Americans because those rights were never intended to extend to them at the time of their writing. This has obviously been overturned.
Again, I think this is an issue that comes down to whether or not you believe in God. I don’t think that it’s an issue to deem life that is inside a woman to have rights that supersede those of the woman. At least not until it can come out of her and live on it’s own. Not all life has equal worth. We rank it all the time, think organ donations.
People talk about all of the social ills that they think perceiving the unborn as less worthy of protection, but the pro-choice side doesn’t see it that way. You can’t say definitively that we’re wrong that abortion and the ‘culture of death’ is the cause of the social ills you see. You can say that you feel and that through your god you know it is wrong, but that doesn’t carry much weight to an atheist.
Everyone ends up going off on oooh this is just how the Holocaust started! Or you sound just like a eugenicist! But I just am not going to even debate someone that goes there. That’s not a rational argument because there is a huge difference between saying that the rights of humans that are not yet fully formed and capable of living without a woman for an incubator do not supersede that of a woman, and saying that we need to eliminate a specific group of people.
While I do agree that God plays a part in the understanding of personhood for most, I quite honestly don’t think that should be the motivator here. To claim that the inability of the newly formed life to live outside of the woman makes it not a person (or not human) is flawed. The growth of life inside of a woman is an absolute pre-requisite to existence outside of the woman. And even then, diligent care is absolutely necessary for that life to survive once it leaves the mother. Since is is required of new human life to start inside of the woman, you can’t suddenly remove that from the equation. You can’t say that the very thing which would allow it to be a person is the argument which defines it as not a person. This is faulty logic.
Now, you can say that you feel that this new life is less valuable than the life of the mother. This does not negate the life, simply shows how you value the life. The lack of value of life has been used over and over to justify the extermination of it. The question is this – is the determination of the new life as less worthy of protection an ethically justifiable position that should be protected. And again, while faith and religion are often important in the determination of one’s morals, they are certainly is not the only factors that determines ethics.
Well of course religious issues are not the only thing, but I think it’s the thing that really separates people on this issue. It’s the central problem in the abortion debate.
I recognize it’s a human, but no I do not think it is worthy of the same protection. And a large part of that reason is because of what being forced to have multiple children does to women. Men control women all the time by keeping them pregnant, and if a woman is constantly dependent on a man for financial support because of the children she needs to take care of, she is stuck. I know many women, even wealthy and educated women, who get stuck in this cycle. Even a Catholic women that relied on NFP.
The ability to control your own body and chose when you will have children is important to keeping women from being controlled by men. Because I don’t believe in a god, I don’t believe that there is anything wrong with terminating a pregnancy because what I see is it brings greater good into the world to let women make choices about their own fertility. Bringing the child into the world would be detrimental to both the child and the woman in many cases, and because I don’t believe that children or pregnancies are gifts from god, I only see good coming out of the termination of an unwanted pregnancy.
It is an extremely dangerous precedent to start believing that some human beings are worth more than others. That is the sort of thinking that leads to eugenics and sometimes to various forms of genocide.
“I recognize it’s a human, but no I do not think it is worthy of the same protection.”
Okay, it’s good to have agreement there.
“And a large part of that reason is because of what being forced to have multiple children does to women.”
Which assumes that the only way to keep a woman from being forced to have multiple children is to give her access to abortion. Actually, all you are doing is forcing her to have multiple abortions instead.
“Men control women all the time by keeping them pregnant, and if a woman is constantly dependent on a man for financial support because of the children she needs to take care of, she is stuck.”
Then the answer is provide an “out” for women who are dependent for financial support for her and her children by such a man. Again, if such a man is controlling her by keeping her pregnant, the problem is the man controlling her and her lack of options. Giving her access to abortion doesn’t fix the problem. In fact, the whole situation looks like the man is using his financial power over her for habitual rape.
“Even a Catholic women that relied on NFP.” I would say that a husband who habitually gets his wife pregnant against her will would be grounds for separation.
“The ability to control your own body and chose when you will have children is important to keeping women from being controlled by men.”
Absolutely. But you provide no evidence that abortion, killing the child you already have (by your own admission that it is human) does that. In fact, abortion makes it easier for a man to keep abusing a woman because he never has children to worry about. You should know yourself that one of the factors that will often move a battered woman to actually leave is worry for her child / children. Many women put up with abuse for years but only do something about it when their children are threatened. The key is to provide her with a way out, not to make it easier for her to have an abortion.
Perhaps the greatest negative in justifying abortion is the idea that some humans have rights and some don’t. Aside from all morality and religion, that’s a very dangerous concept for anyone to have who isn’t at the top of the power pyramid and sure they’ll stay there.
The problem is with the whole idea of what it means to “control your fertility.” No woman should be forced to become pregnant. That’s why rape or pressure to have sex is always wrong. That’s why having sex without a provision to deal with a possible pregnancy is always wrong. And any man who has sex with a woman without accounting for this, in a way consented to by the woman, is doing something similar to rape. Contraception does not change this. It just makes it easier to ignore and justify. And easier to put the blame on the woman when it fails, for not ‘doing it right’ or having the kind of body where the chosen method fails.
By making “control your fertility” include abortion, you’ve just taken society in general and men in particular off the hook.
By the way, these were basically the views of the early American feminists on abortion, including, interestingly enough, Margaret Sanger, who opposed abortion from the moment of conception (and who is definitely not a hero of mine).
All that the intervening time has done is prove them right.
Oops. By agreement I meant on the “it’s a human” part, not on the “I do not think it is worthy of the same protection” part.
Of course. I assumed as much.
Good. We agree. It is a human. And, as I suspected, you feel it is a human unworthy of equal protection. Good thig we have the little equal protection thing in our Constitutional Rights. I know, bummer of a stumbling block when you are trying to assert your rights over those of another human being.
You believe the unborn are human individuals. Do you believe that they have rights? Note, I didn’t say that their rights supersede the woman’s. I just asked if you believe if they have rights.
the only good coming from children is their termination? children are gifts from God and Catholic women using NFP should realize that (instead of by what you’re saying “stuck in the cycle”), when you say that the man is controlling the woman by getting her pregnant, it should be a mutual consent thing (two people love each other, they become one… you know the rest)…
Obviously it should be a mutual consent, but welcome to the real world, sometimes it’s not.
I really do know a woman who this happened to. Of course she loves her child, but she resents what her husband did to her. Marital rape happens. And now she’s stuck with him because she can’t afford to leave, she wants her daughter to have a father, and her faith makes her feel like she needs to forgive him and remain married. It’s up there on the list of the most tragic things I’ve heard. Don’t tell me that’s not a woman who isn’t in control of her own body. Her lack of control of her life is a direct result of her faith.
Alexandra, the Church does not condone marital rape! There is help for a woman in that situation if she seeks it. How is having an abortion helping her? You sound like life has dealt you some horrifically problematic relationships. Yes people are sinners, yes we are called to forgive – but we certainly aren’t called to be doormats!
Not so much abortion, but realization that the Church is fundamentally wrong and that it is no reason to use NFP, forgive him, stay with him, or any of the other things that are making her so vulnerable to this situation. Whether or not the Church condones marital rape, it praises a woman who can forgive and keep her family intact.
Without the idea of being a sinner or judgement she is liberated to take control of her life. This is a strong woman who is unfortunately tied up in the falsehoods that are her faith.
I grew up Catholic and went to Catholic schools, I know so so many of these kind of sad stories and it makes it so obvious to me that religion is more harmful than it is good. No one will ever convince me otherwise.
So you judge that a woman in a contraceptive relationship is better off, not because she is more respected, but because she will not have a child? I do agree that there are relationships that are not conducive to healthy parenting – we live in a broken world. However, if a couple is living according to the teachings of the Church, both of them are respected. Otherwise, the covenantal obligation isn’t being fulfilled. Statistically, couples who choose nfp report a more satisfying relationship. While you claim they stay together because they have no choice, my experience shows happy, fullfilled lives. I’m sorry you have yet to encounter couples like this. At any rate, the root of the problem that you depict is the failing of the husband to see his wife as someone created in the image and likeness of God and honoring and respecting her – in fact, being willing to lay down his life for her. That is the biblical teaching on marriage. Contraception doesn’t fix that.
it’s also been proven the NFP couples only have a divorce rate of 0.2% compared to couples who use contraception, whose divorce rate is 50%
No I mean there is no god.
Well, I guess than you have something in commonwiththe guy whotreats his wifelike a jerk
OK, let’s look at the reasons she’s staying.
First: she can’t afford to leave. Could she have afforded to leave if she had had an abortion? Even if she could have, why does she NOW think that she can’t afford to leave? Has she asked for help? Has anyone turned her down? Maybe she needs help getting help.
Second: she wants her daughter to have a father. That is both harder and easier because she didn’t have an abortion. It looks like she definitely needs to separate from him. If she had gotten an abortion, it would have been easier to leave, but there would also have been less urgency. Now, because she needs to think of her daughter, she needs to consider the impact of her husband not just on her but on her daughter. She may want her daughter to have a father, but she can’t afford to expose her daughter to a man who is a marital rapist, especially if he doesn’t see anything wrong.
The third one is the easiest: “Her faith makes her feel like she needs to forgive him and remain married” This would be true even in the case of an abortion. Being married, though, doesn’t rule out separation, which is probably what she needs to do immediately, preferably with the support of her priest, both for her safety and the safety of her daughter. In fact, it’s likely to be the only thing that will lead her husband to take her seriously.
All an abortion would have done in this situation would have been to cover up the underlying problem of marital rape.
Mary I think you’re greatly over simplifying the complexity of being in an abusive relationship, and the fact that access to abortion and hormonal birth control can be part of the equation of empowering a woman to be able to leave the situation. More than that, sometimes the women don’t actually want to leave. They want to work things out, but they don’t want to end up pregnant in the meantime.
Some women can’t get pregnant because the pregnancy would be seriously detrimental to their mental or physical health. And while ideally what she would do is prevent pregnancy, but we all know that accidents and bad choices happen. Instead of carrying through a potentially harmful pregnancy, abortion is often in the best choice for a woman.
62% of women who have abortions are already mothers. They’re women who know what it takes to raise a child and know that they can’t manage to raise another one. That having another one would be bad for her, her other children, and a new child. Terminating the pregnancy is a good choice for her.
It all stems from the idea that a pregnancy is a gift. Sometimes it really isn’t. Not all pregnancies are wanted or will cause good things for people. The ability to use a combination of birth control and abortion to control when to have children ultimately only leads to good things.
There are mental health consequences sometimes, of course, but I really believe that these wouldn’t exist if we didn’t look at an embryo or an early term fetus as a baby, which it isn’t. If we stopped shaming women for taking control of when they will have children, it wouldn’t be the hurtful horrible experience that it is for some women. I’m sure that most people reading this would disagree with that because they do believe that it is a horrible act, but I think that’s the theist vs atheistic view of what contributes to the better good clashing again.
So does the woman who finds it bad for her health have the right to kill the baby after it’s born (when it is still fully dependent and not self-aware)? How about when it is two years old it is just discovered that the child is mentally handicapped and will never reach metal maturity? Does someone have the right to kill their spouse when they are in a car accident and now disabled? Does the wife have the right to kill an abusive husband? Does the father have the right to kill the man who raped his child? All terrible things. Still not defensable under equal rights protection.
There are huge problems going on that abortion does not address. Abuse. Poverty. Addiction. Mental Illness. Irresponsibility. Abortion does nothing to solve any of these problems.
You’re just running with a strawman argument here.
I have simply taken your justification for the death of a human life inside the womb and applied it to other human lives. You sited abuse, strain, difficulties, mental health. NONE of these justifications can be applied to other human lives.
“Mary I think you’re greatly over simplifying the complexity of being in an abusive relationship”
Actually, I don’t think I am. What a woman does depends on the choices she believes she has.
If she believes abortion is a choice, but leaving her abuser is not, guess which one she’ll pick?
If she thinks she has to choose between taking contraceptives to avoid pregnancy while she tries to save the relationship, or not saving the relationship at all, what will she pick? In the latter case, another possible option would be temporary separation, but she has to believe that IS an option.
“It all stems from the idea that a pregnancy is a gift.” That’s a Christian perspective, sure. But what it actually stems from is the idea that people have human rights solely because they’re human.
“The ability to use a combination of birth control and abortion to control when to have children ultimately only leads to good things.” No, abortion doesn’t control when to have children – it just controls whether the child you already have is killed or not. And contraception just increases the possibility that a woman will become pregnant when she is physically, financially and / or psychologically unable to deal with it. And it also increases the possibility that the father will feel no responsibility toward the mother or the child. I would say “The ability for a woman to control when she gets pregnant is a good thing. The ability for a woman not to be penalized for getting pregnant is a good thing.”
Haven’t you noticed that the more widespread contraception and abortion are, the more likely women are to abandoned by the fathers and the more likely they are to be forced to leave their children to support them?
“There are mental health consequences sometimes, of course, but I really believe that these wouldn’t exist if we didn’t look at an embryo or an early term fetus as a baby, which it isn’t.”
We have to call it a baby, because thanks to the pro-choice side, fetus and embryo no longer automatically mean “human” in normal speech. I’d have no trouble referring to the unborn as “embryo” or “fetus” – it’s more precise as long as it also assumes “human”, as it used to do when spoken of the embryo or fetus of a woman.
I can understand you thinking the mental health problems are a response to religion, especially Christian religion, because so many pro-life sites have Christian stories. But there are lots of reasons for this. A big one is that when a woman has an abortion and then sees, afterward, what her fetus at that stage of development looks like, it doesn’t take any religion to come to the conclusion that it’s human. Once she does that, she’s going to become very distrustful of all the people who told her it wasn’t. And then, when she goes looking for help, she won’t go to feminists because they’ve made it abundantly clear that she shouldn’t be feeling this way, and anyway, they lied to her about it not being human. So she ends up with the Christians and the other religious people.
Read through some of those stories. You’d be surprised at how many start out with ‘I wasn’t a Christian’.
“62% of women who have abortions are already mothers. They’re women who know what it takes to raise a child and know that they can’t manage to raise another one.” Now that’s an interesting statistic. Is it 62% of women who have abortions are already mothers, or is it 62% of abortions are done on women who are already mothers? I wouldn’t be at all surprised that women who don’t have control over their sex lives, due to pressure from men who insist on sex but won’t provide support, have both children and repeat abortions. If you have links on details of the statistics, I’d love to see them.
But even if it isn’t due to repeat abortions, it still means the woman is in the position where she feels she has to choose between the child she has in her womb and the children she has outside it. Either way, abortion doesn’t fix how she got there in the first place.
Let me ask you – what would do differently if you knew absolutely that no woman could survive an abortion, legal or not? What would you do then to get women out of abusive situations? How would you keep women from suffering from accidents and bad choices? Or do you think that in such a case, women will necessarily be abused and/or second class citizens, and will necessarily not be in control of their fertility?
“Not all life has equal worth.” *shudder* Who decides? You? Me? The president? You might not like my answer. I know I don’t like yours. All human beings, whatever color, whatever age, whatever state in life, whatever their abilities or disabilities, are equal in dignity in worth. You are equal to me, and I am equal to the comatose patient in the hospital, who is equal to the tubercular child dying in the inner city, who is equal to the President, who is equal to the unborn child of the poorest mother in the poorest country on the face of this Earth, who is equal to the nicest, middle-class, tax paying matron of 2.5 children in Idaho.
“We rank it all the time, think organ donations.” Think triage. First come, first served. Making organs available to some people because their life is more ‘worthy’ is intrinsically evil. Yes, I know it happens. It’s wrong.
i love this video, the part with the two twins playing together in the womb is so cute!
If a fetus is a person then why don’t we hold a funeral every time a woman has a miscarriage? If a fetus is a person, why does a woman who is preggers but already has children say she has “one on the way”? I guess I shouldn’t be shocked that you are prof-life since you are Catholic or whatever. No one should EVER have the right to tell a woman what she should do WITH HER OWN BODY. The fetus has to grow in a woman’s body, therefore it is HER decision. And honestly, as a man you have NO SAY in what goes on in a woman’s body. No woman ever tries to tell you what to do with your body, so you should definitely stop trying to dictate what a woman does with her uterus.
Some planned parenthood food for thought: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Tl1BhDXRoJo
actually when my aunt had her miscarriage (the aminotic fluid was drained out when she had an amniocentesis) and the baby was born and died a few hours after birth, they had a funeral for him (the baby was a boy)
I am very sorry to hear that happened to your family. But a miscarriage is is the spontaneous loss of a fetus before the 20th week of pregnancy. No one (or hardly anyone) holds a funeral for miscarriages.
I lost my brother and my sister, and ten cousins, long before 20 weeks. We had to do DNA tests to tell their sex. We had a funeral for every one of them. But even if we hadn’t had a funeral… So what? Since when is the value of one human person dictated by the price tag another sticks upon them? Is a person a person just because someone happens to care?
People do. People mourn the loss of children lost before the 20th week of pregnancy all the time. Some people have funerals, others memorial services for their miscarried children. The fact that there is no casket doesn’t mean this wasn’t a human being. Some people who had the good fortune to be born (because, since 1973, it is a piece of good luck,) don’t get funerals, either… the very poor, the homeless, those who have no family and friends, those who go missing and are never found… Are you really judging a persons worth and dignity on whether or not they got a casket??
That’s not what I am saying. My basic argument is that a fetus is not a person. Sorry, but it’s not.
“Person” by definition, is synonymous with “Human Being” and “Human Individual” Please explain how the embryo/fetus is not a human individual. You will either have to prove that they are not human (ie, that they are zebra) Or you will have to prove that they are not individuals (ie, that they aren’t organisms) It is one thing to say that someone isn’t a person and doesn’t matter, quite another to prove it.
Thanks for that link!
I like how you keep coming back to edit your name and posts, but continue to ignore certain questions posed toward you. Nice video. But the unborn are people. Abortion doesn’t prevent kids, it kills them. None of that woman’s arguments about not being able to feed kids and not being able to go to school herself would be considered valid “food for thought” if the child she was speaking of killing was three years old. You have it in your head that the unborn are different, but you have certainly failed to factually prove how and why.
Nobody contests the fact that a woman can do whatever she wants with her body. We contest the fact that it is morally permissible to do whatever she wants to the embryo. Whether another human being or not, the question is whether it is right or just to terminate the pregnancy, not whether she can or cannot.
I am going to need you all to be a little more open to the fact that a person can be Catholic, pro-choice, and anti-abortion all at the same time. I am Catholic, but I support a woman’s right to CHOOSE to what she does with her body. Yet, I am anti-abortion, which means I would never have an abortion. If you don’t like abortion….DON”T GET ONE!
Dear Liberty, if you had lived before the Civil War in the United States, would you have said, “I would never own a slave, but it is okay for you to own a slave. If you don’t like slavery, don’t get a slave!”?
You can’t compare slavery to abortion. Slavery affects the lives of the living. Abortion affects just the woman who is voluntarily getting the procedure. Definitely not the same thing. Good try, though.
“Slavery affects the lives of the living.” You say that as if the unborn aren’t living. The unborn are alive, they are human, and they are individuals. That is science. You cannot argue with fact. And blatanty ignoring the existence and/or rights of one human being in favor of another is just like slavery. Good try though, but facts aren’t that easy to ignore.
If you think stealing is unfair, don’t steal! If you think cheating on your spouse is wrong, don’t cheat! If you think dog fighting is wrong, don’t watch it! If you think hitting you child as a form of discipline is wrong, don’t hit them! If you think paying less than minimum wage is wrong, pay your workers a fair wage! If you think hitting a car in a parking lot and driving off without leaving a note is wrong, leave a note!
Terrible argument. Popular, but terrible.
I also support a woman’s right to do what she wishes with her own body. It’s the *other* body that is the issue. Your rights, and this apocryphal woman’s rights, and my rights, and everyone’s rights, go just as far as the next persons rights. There, they stop.
The fetus has to grow in the woman’s body. That means the fetus is part of the woman’s body. It is the woman’s choice as to what she does to HER body. The fetus is IN her body. She can do whatever the eff she wants to it. If she wants to remove the growth of cells that are in her body, she can. It’s the law. It’s her choice. I will not judge her. No one should judge her. All I am saying is, if you don’t like the idea of abortion, u don’t have to get one. I don’t like the idea of wearing socks with sandles….so I don’t wear socks and sandles. These things affect no one. I see abortion the same way. It’s a choice.
“That means the fetus is part of the woman’s body.” This statement is scientifically inaccurate. Completely and utterly wrong. The embryo/fetus is an organism. Therefore, not simply a part of the mother. Please learn biology before you begin stating things as facts.
the baby is not part of a woman’s body, if the baby is a boy, it has a penis, women don’t have penises, so it can’t be a part of her body…
So if I have a marble in my mouth it’s part of my body? No. And who says we’re judging her? Idon’t know about everyone who’s prolife, but I try to follow the Church’s teachings about not judging anybody.
You are correct in saying that she can do whatever she wants with it. That is a simple fact of human nature. But the fact that she can choose is unrelated to the question that we are discussing—whether it is morally permissible or not.
I know many people who take this stance, and I think it’s an incredibly wise and compassionate one. It recognizes that you don’t necessarily know what’s best for everyone else, and you respect their right to decide what is right for them. Abortion isn’t a black and white issue the way that some people seem to think it is. Refusing to recognize that other people see the shades of grey and you respect their right to see and act on that. It comes down to trusting women to make their own choices.
You are all crazy!!!!!!!!!!!! I suppose you think it is okay for governement to intervene in peoples’ personal lives and then you don’t want a nanny state _ =====you are all a bunch of hippocrates. You only want gov to intervene when YOUU want them to. then Obamacare is okay or you are a hypocrite
Tharis, Halting the killing of 1.37 million human individuals a year is not “intervening in people’s personal lives.” Killing human individuals is never a personal matter because there is more than one person involved in it. And if you actually think women should be able to privately kill human individuals, then I can’t imagine to what length you disagree with the nonsensical law that minors can’t drink, and kids must go to school, and everyone must wear seatbelts.
All death threats will be disregarded unless written in iambic pentameter.
Follow Patheos on