Dear UN…

United Nations Calls Catholic Church’s Pro-Life Teachings “Promoting Torture”

Thanks for being God’s gift to every supporter of torture in the Church. From here on in, anytime somebody says “torture is wrong” torture supporters will be able to cry “Oh, I suppose you are one of those UN buffoons who thinks opposition to abortion is “promoting torture”.”

Here’s your Tina Fey Eyeroll, UN morons.

It’s amazing how something as uncomplicated as “Don’t torture and murder people” has become a huge conflicted moral conundrum for so many.  Opposition to abortion and opposition to torture are *obviously* two sides of the same coin.  How can this be opaque to so many people?

NOW Prez: Abortion prevents infant mortality
Some Remarks on the Outburst of Pro Death Penalty Cow-Having Yesterday
HubCatholic is on the air!
If you are a parent of a child with special needs
  • Joejoe

    How much Credibility Debt is the UN in anyway?

  • HornOrSilk

    Can you find a source beyond LifeSiteNews and the Examiner? I wouldn’t be surprised if some within the UN are pushing this, but is it some within or the UN, and to what extent? I need a better source, with more details, please. Notice what I saw was a “member” saying this, but was it approved by all?

    • Rachel

      I found an article about it from the Guardian. Apparently, only one representative made that comment. The hearing was about the Church’s response to the sex abuse scandals. Apparently the Holy See told the UN committee that they are only concerned with the affairs of the Holy See and no one more but the committee didn’t buy that argument. Then one of the representatives said that our doctrine on abortion was tantamount to torture because we refuse to allow even young, raped girls to get abortions, etc, etc. Its the same old thing. The life site news article hardly mentioned that this was at a hearing about the sex abuse scandals. Although no one likes this but the scandals have caused the Church’s moral credibility to crumble, especially the cover up that bishops did. It will take decades and decades to recover from it which means our public voice will probably diminish more and more. This means more penance for us I suppose.

      • HornOrSilk

        Yes, more penance and humility. Always a good thing. And yes, the sex abuse scandal is bad (no matter how much worse it is outside of the Church) because it hurts our witness, as well as it means people in authority have hurt people within the Church as well and that is always bad.

        If this was to do with sex abuse questions, while I think it would be invaluable to look at the question as it is found in the whole world and not limited to us, nonetheless, it also puts the comment (wrong that it is) in perspective. And that only one said this also puts things in perspective.

        This is something we Catholics should ask for from organizations like lifesite — perspective — instead of this quick assumption that the lifesite article wants to promote. There is a level of truth in the article, but the context and all, changes it quite a bit. However, I also know lifesite is very anti-UN in theory and so wants to suggest everything the UN does is bad, while the Church agrees with the UN in theory, even if it disagrees with particular actions. This, again, is important for people to remember as they engage the UN and what members within it say. So, thanks for pointing out more about this, and reaffirming my thought that there was more going on.

        • Rachel

          exactly. I get tired of these knee jerk reaction stories that life site news and others like to promote. It fails to give the full perspective and context to the story. That is why I take any story that lifesite news posts with a grain of salt since they like to engage in propaganda. Not everything is a conspiracy against the Church, life, etc.

      • Satori

        >e because we refuse to allow even young, raped girls to get abortions, etc, etc. Its the same old thing.

        That seems correct to me. Forcing a woman to carry her rapist’s child to term is a form of psychological torture no matter how you look at it.

        • HornOrSilk

          Forcing the child to be killed is also torture, to the child, as well as to the woman who will suffer with the consequences of the death on her hands. As well as what is done to her to abort the child, which is to more or less, molest her private parts more. Do you enjoy the further torture of women at the hands of doctors thrusting their hands and equipment into women’s bodies?

          • Satori

            I don’t think it’s fair to say that all woman regret getting abortions. I know from personal experience that is not the case, and I find the church’s position on this issue to be quite offensive. Assuming you know what will help a raped woman is absurd. You don’t know that and should not pretend like you do.

            >Do you enjoy the further torture of women at the hands of doctors thrusting their hands and equipment into women’s bodies?

            Having a doctor perform an operation on you while you are knocked out is not a form of torture. Forcing a woman who never consented to be pregnant to carry a fetus to term while she loses her sanity due to the fact it was created by rape is. See the difference?

            • HornOrSilk

              Did I say all women regret? No. Because I know a lot of people who don’t regret doing evil, look to the Koch Brothers as an example here. Nonetheless, I know quite a few are pained from the abortion experience, and it is another form of sexual assault done on them. Oh, and women are not “knocked out” when having abortions done, but if they were, so what, do you deny date-rape as an evil if they are knocked out?

              • Satori

                I don’t consider abortion wrong in the first place. In many cases I view it as morally good.

                • HornOrSilk

                  Everyone who does evil, sees their evil as good. It’s the trap of evil, to turn a lesser good against a greater good.

                • http://www.brianniemeier.com/ Brian Niemeier

                  Moral good is a proper response to the intrinsic value of a subject’s nature.
                  Murder violates the intrinsic value of human nature.
                  A human fetus is, by definition, in possession of a human nature.
                  Abortion is the murder of a human fetus.
                  Therefore, abortion violates the respect due to a human being.
                  Therefore, abortion can never be morally good.

                  • Satori

                    >Moral good is a proper response to the intrinsic value of a subject’s nature

                    I reject premise 1 because I do not think that humans operate in a teleological way.

                    • http://www.brianniemeier.com/ Brian Niemeier

                      Rejecting teleology leaves you with no coherent basis to condemn torture. If there is no ultimate good toward which human nature is ordered as its true final end, there are no inalienable rights, just conditional privileges.

                    • Satori

                      I hate to break it to you, but there are lots of moral philosophies that condemn torture. This post is so absurd I am not even going to respond to.

                    • Andy, Bad Person

                      You haven’t responded to a single challenging argument yet. Why start now?

                    • Satori

                      I have responded, you just want to pretend like I haven’t because your own position is driven by belief in a magical sky fairy. I don’t expect you to be an objective observer.

                    • Guest

                      It’s almost hard to believe people don’t take you more seriously when you can’t stop yourself from behaving like a dick.

                    • http://www.brianniemeier.com/ Brian Niemeier

                      You’re mistaken. Accusing us of believing in a “magical sky fairy” is an ontological error. We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, and in His only Son, Jesus Christ Our Lord, and in the Holy Spirit who with them is adored and glorified.
                      A magical sky fairy, if one existed, would be a mere creature–though a powerful one–within the confines of the universe. What classical theism means by the term God is the transcendent eternal, uncaused cause of all contingent being.
                      And it is precisely because we believe in a rational creator who gives us rational intellects and free will that we trust our objective observations.

                    • Satori

                      I don’t really draw a distinction between those two things because neither one exists. I was mocking your beliefs, not trying to make a serious theological point.

                    • http://www.brianniemeier.com/ Brian Niemeier

                      You’re not going to respond to my comment? Not even with the response you just gave?
                      Which moral philosophies are you referring to? Not utilitarianism, which would endorse torture for the sake of maximizing others’ pleasure. Not consequentialism, which declares torture not just acceptable, but praiseworthy if the sum of the “pro” column exceeds the sum of the “con” column by 1.
                      Some schools of humanism might reject torture, but if they also reject their Aristotelian and Christian roots, their arguments against torture suffer from the same internal contradictions as their arguments for abortion.
                      Buddhism would consider torture to be against right action, but it lacks a robust concept of personhood and individual rights.
                      I invite you to name an internally consistent moral philosophy that condemns torture while allowing abortion but also grounding human rights in anything other than popular consensus or the whim of the ruling class. If you will not or cannot, I graciously accept your resignation from this debate. Either way, thank you for a rousing discussion.

                    • Satori

                      I don’t care if you accept my resignation from this debate because your understanding of philosophy is on a third grade level-at best. I put it in those terms because I considered your response both insulting and absurd. That said, here is a response.

                      1. There is no necessary reason to ground any sort of deontological ethics in teleology. Humans do not have to be ordered toward a “final” end in order for there to be moral laws constraining their behavior. That doesn’t follow and I don’t see why anyone would think it does. So your “argument”, such as it is, does not make sense.

                      2. Consequentialism can easily be consistent with abortion rights as long as you think they produce the best consequences. There is nothing “internally inconsistent” about that.

                      I could write a longer response, but your point didn’t merit it.

                    • http://www.brianniemeier.com/ Brian Niemeier

                      I meant no insult. Nor do I see a basis to take my comment as one. There was no ad hominem, only a challenge to your stated rejection of teleology. You have yet to explain why my objection is absurd. It’s conveniently laid out in a syllogism above. Show how it’s invalid/unsound.
                      1. Once again, when asked to explain your position, you simply rephrase my question as a statement–one which assumes what it claims to prove.
                      2. Consequentialism can indeed justify abortion. Internal consistency isn’t at issue in this case. You claimed that there are many moral philosophies that condemn torture, which Consequentialism does not.

                    • Satori

                      1. No, I am saying your argument is logically invalid. You asserted that other ethical systems cannot account for freedom using an argument. That argument does not make sense. Ergo, your position collapses. QED
                      2. That’s not true strictly speaking. Most consequentalists would allow torture if it produced more good than harm, but that doesn’t mean they don’t condemn it. I tend to lean toward that view myself. Would I torture 1 person to save a billion lives? You betcha

                    • http://www.brianniemeier.com/ Brian Niemeier

                      1. I didn’t argue that other ethical systems can’t account for freedom. I asked you to back up your claim by naming one that rejects teleology yet consistently condemns torture–as in rejects it as always and in every case wrong. You responded by strengthening my point that consequentialism can justify torture.
                      It is impossible to describe any living thing without reference to teleology. Even single-celled organisms are moved toward goods that enable them to fulfill their natures (e.g. food). These lesser goods are acquired in the service of a being’s ultimate good. Disproving teleology requires refuting this argument.
                      2. You began by attacking the Church for supporting what you claim to be torture. Now you admit that you support torture yourself. This is brazen special pleading.
                      Perhaps you thought to prove the Church guilty of hypocrisy. On the contrary, the Church reached her moral position by applying her doctrines consistently. Hypocrisy means adopting a double standard (e.g. torture is wrong for you but OK for me).

                    • Satori

                      You did actually make such an argument, but we can leave that aside. Virtue ethics can say that torture is bad in various ways, almost all forms of libertarian philosophy can, etc. It’s trivial to name philosophical systems that pass your “test” such as it is.

                      >It is impossible to describe any living thing without reference to
                      teleology. Even single-celled organisms are moved toward goods that
                      enable them to fulfill their natures (e.g. food

                      You are using the term “good” in a way that does not make sense to me. Creatures do what they have evolved to do, but that does not mean what they are doing is morally good or morally bad. I don’t grant that such a connection exists.

                      >You began by attacking the Church for supporting what you claim to be torture. Now you admit that you support torture yourself.

                      Supporting torture as a matter of course and not believing that it is wrong is very different from believing that it could be justified to prevent great evil. In the case of the Catholic Church it tortured people for unjustified reasons (eg they were “witches”).

            • http://www.brianniemeier.com/ Brian Niemeier

              Pregnancy resulting from rape is a difficult, agonizing issue. The victim’s well-being and dignity must be upheld; for the same reason that we must affirm the inherent dignity of the child whose death is proposed as a solution.
              Killing an innocent person to relieve the anguish of another undermines the principal reason for condemning torture in the first place.

              • Satori

                Even if you grant that fetuses are “persons” that does not justify criminalizing abortion in the case of rape. Suppose you need a kidney transplant and I am the only person with a close enough match to save you. Do you have the right to take my kidney by force? No, right? A fetus, to the extent that it has rights, does not have more rights than a regular person. It has no claim over its mother if she was raped because she did not consent to the risk of pregnancy, and it would be profoundly unjust to force her to carry her pregnancy to term. You would basically be saying that she can be press ganged into being an incubator against her will, and their her desires are meaningless.

                • http://www.brianniemeier.com/ Brian Niemeier

                  The personhood of unborn children having been granted, we find ourselves deliberating a tragic case of conflicting rights. The kidney analogy fails to appreciate the stakes. It’s not a case of one person dying of natural causes so that another’s bodily integrity will be respected. It’s a matter of forcefully removing one party from an environment on which that person naturally depends for life by active dismemberment in order to spare the other party mental, physical, and emotional pain.
                  Saying only that denying a rape victim recourse to abortion is a profound injustice suffers from special pleading based on age and geographic discrimination. It overlooks the profound injustice done to the child whose only fault is the dependence on one’s mother that nature dictates.
                  Instances of pregnancy resulting from rape are among the most insidious moral dilemmas. This fallen world presents us with no end of difficult choices, but if we do grave evil to combat grave evil, what do we gain?

                  • Satori

                    >es. It’s not a case of one person dying of natural causes so that
                    another’s bodily integrity will be respected. It’s a matter of
                    forcefully removing one party from an environment on which that person
                    naturally depends for life by active dismemberment in order to spare the
                    other party mental, physical, and emotional pain.

                    I fail to see the relevance of your distinction. In both cases we are dealing with a party that needs to use the body of another to live. If anything *you* are the one guilty of making an arbitrary distinction based on location. Because the fetus is already in the woman it supposedly has greater rights over her, but the fact that you have no connection to me means you do not have the right to my kidney. The argument makes no sense.

                    >Instances of pregnancy resulting from rape are among the most insidious moral dilemmas. This fallen world presents us with no end of difficult choices, but if we do grave evil to combat grave evil, what do we gain?

                    Speak for yourself, I do not struggle with this question at all. To me it is obvious that women cannot be forced to carry a rape pregnancy to term. People do not have the right to use other people in that way without their consent. Period.

                    • JM1001

                      I will not deny that pregnancy in the case of rape is one of the “hard cases,” but I ultimately agree with Brian. While I am not prepared to say that a woman should be forced by the state to have her rapist’s baby, I will say that if she chose to have the baby, she would be performing a morally heroic act, which should at least be encouraged.

                      To kill an innocent unborn human would only add a second tragedy to the tragedy of rape. For a woman to decide not to commit that second tragedy, and keep the child, is the definition of moral heroism.

                    • Satori

                      >While I am not prepared to say that a woman should be forced by the state to have her rapist’s baby

                      Then you do not agree with Brian because that is exactly what he is saying, and it is in fact the official position of the Catholic Church.

                    • JM1001

                      I should have been more specific. I agree with Brian when he said this:

                      The victim’s well-being and dignity must be upheld; for the same reason that we must affirm the inherent dignity of the child whose death is proposed as a solution.

                      And this:

                      This fallen world presents us with no end of difficult choices, but if we do grave evil to combat grave evil, what do we gain?

                      Which is exactly my position. So I agree with Brian’s basic position that the unborn human is deserving of strong moral consideration (which you seem to not even acknowledge, let alone accept).

                      The only thing I am not willing to say (and I haven’t seen Brian say it either, actually) is that the state should force a woman to have her rapist’s baby.

                      However, what I will say (again) is that a woman who chooses to have the baby has performed a morally heroic action, and that such acts of moral heroism should be praised and encouraged in our society.

                    • Satori

                      It seems like Brian did say that, and that is the official Catholic position.

                      If fetuses were people I think I would agree with you on most of these issues, for whatever that’s worth. Many things that are morally praiseworthy even if they should not be compulsory.

                    • http://www.brianniemeier.com/ Brian Niemeier

                      The positions you’ve put forward rely on a nihilistic worldview that considers pregnancy a disease, children unbearable burdens, and personal desire to be sovereign over reason.
                      I’ll extend you the credit of agreeing that infants are people. If killing a child in the womb is justified by its dependence on the mother for nourishment and shelter; no coherent objection can be made to killing an infant who is equally dependent on her.

                    • Satori

                      My view is that women should decide these things for themselves. If a raped women chooses to see her pregnancy as a blessing she can. That’s her right. If another woman feels differently…

                      >I’ll extend you the credit of agreeing that infants are people.

                      Oh, I don’t agree with that. Our discussion of rape was merely for the sake of argument. In reality I am closer to Peter Singer than I am to the Catholic church.

                    • http://www.brianniemeier.com/ Brian Niemeier

                      And when his moment of testing came, Singer failed to follow his own rules by caring for his terminally ill mother.
                      Regarding your view on abortion, the issue isn’t whether a woman perceives her pregnancy as beneficial or detrimental. It’s about whether the act of killing her own child is objectively moral or immoral, which is not subject to personal fiat on an individual basis. Moral truth either exists beyond and above the individual, or it doesn’t exist at all. To Singer’s credit, his act of eupocrisy demonstrated at least an intuitive acknowledgement of this fact.

                    • http://www.brianniemeier.com/ Brian Niemeier

                      First, Church teaching is primarily concerned with objective moral norms; not civil policy. Though human law that contradicts the natural law does not bind in conscience.

                      Second, Church teaching does not force a rape victim to have her attacker’s baby. The Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services states that a woman has a moral right to prevent pregnancy resulting from rape, including taking anti-fertilization drugs.

                      However, as St. John Paul the Great taught, any given reason for abortion, “however serious or tragic, can never justify the deliberate killing of an innocent human being.”(Evangelium Vitae, no. 58)
                      JM1001 echoes the voice of the Church in affirming that victims of such tragedies who accept the innocent lives made dependent on them by violence truly live Christ-like love.

                    • Satori

                      > states that a woman has a moral right to prevent pregnancy resulting from rape, including taking anti-fertilization drugs.

                      But only if they test her to see if she has already conceived. You know very well that they want to force women to care rape pregnancies to term and are being intellectual dishonest. Well, I suppose it is possible you don’t even know the church’s position……

                    • http://www.brianniemeier.com/ Brian Niemeier

                      I responded to the accusation that the Church wants governments to force rape victims to have their attackers’ babies. The Church affirms that a woman has a right to prevent pregnancy in such cases. A woman who takes these measures will not have to have her rapist’s baby. The accusation is therefore false.
                      Your attempt to claim the moral high ground by goading me into saying that the Church wants the state to force victims to have children conceived by rape begs the question and contradicts itself.
                      One can only claim that outlawing abortion in cases of rape immorally violates a woman’s right to personal autonomy if we first recognize that there are such things as “morality”, “rights”, and “persons”.
                      A person is a being made in God’s image and likeness whose true final end is God. Rights have their source in this divine origin because rights protect people’s ability to pursue the good, and God is the ultimate good. As I demonstrated before, morality is nothing more or less than proper regard for these realities.
                      A woman (or anyone else) has a right to personal freedom, and the purpose of this right is to pursue the good. Abortion, which is the murder of a human being who possesses the right to live, pursues an intrinsic evil; not a good. Therefore a woman’s personal freedom does not entail a right to commit abortion.
                      In sum, we cannot logically deny a child’s right to live without simultaneously denying the mother’s right to personal freedom.

                    • http://www.brianniemeier.com/ Brian Niemeier

                      You don’t see any difference between declining to donate a kidney and chopping someone up with a knife? The distinction is that a positive, evil act (murder) is being done in one case and not in the other.
                      Arbitrary means random. A fetus doesn’t gestate in a womb instead of in a box due to blind chance. It’s right where biology dictates it should be.
                      I submit that you don’t struggle with this question because you haven’t consistently examined all of the relevant principles and implications. Why does the mother’s consent trump her child’s right to live?

                    • Satori

                      I see it as a matter of obligation. I have a right to kill anyone that uses my body against my will because I am a free person and deserve to have my autonomy. My point is that I would be justified in killing you if you tried to take my kidney, and I think a raped women is justified in killing her fetus even if fetuses are persons.

                      >Why does the mother’s consent trump her child’s right to live?

                      Because it’s her body and the fetus has no right to use it. Why do you think it does have a right to use her body?

                    • JM1001

                      I have a right to kill anyone that uses my body against my will because I am a free person and deserve to have my autonomy.

                      The problem is, this argument can be used to support abortion all the way up to the moment of delivery, unless you’re fine with that. No court in the world — including our own — has ever upheld such a sweeping view of bodily autonomy.

                    • Satori

                      I am fine with it actually

                      I don’t see how that has a connection with rape per se because your argument doesn’t make sense, but I a fine with it

                    • JM1001

                      I am fine with it actually

                      Yeah, I suspected you would be. And I have no reservations about calling that a morally monstrous position to hold. In that case, you are not just opposed to the Catholic Church on this, but most of the civilized world.

                      I would assume, then, that you would have no problem with infanticide (as Brian has already suggested), since a newborn also infringes upon a mother’s bodily autonomy. If, in your view, a baby may be killed up until the moment of delivery, then you must allow that infanticide is also morally permissible.

                      Again, you’re against most of the civilized world on this, not just the Catholic Church (which you have called your “enemy”). So why not declare most of the civilized world to be your “enemy”?

                    • Satori

                      I don’t think infants are people because they are not sapient, but given that there are people willing to take care of them there is no reason to let them be killed. Abortion should be allowed because it involves the bodily autonomy of the woman in question. That said, I do believe it is more human to euthanize infants with severe birth defects. Being born without limbs for example.

                      >Again, you’re against most of the civilized world on this, not just the
                      Catholic Church (which you have called your “enemy”). So why not declare
                      most of the civilized world to be your “enemy”?

                      Most of them don’t want to ban abortion the way the Church does.

                    • http://www.brianniemeier.com/ Brian Niemeier

                      Making sapience alone the measure of humanity is an unscientific categorical error. All you need to identify which species a given subject belongs to is its DNA. All human infants, even those with severe mental/physical birth defects, have distinct sets of human DNA that identify them as human individuals.
                      Sapience is a quality that humans possess by nature. That some humans lack the ability to actualize this power doesn’t negate their humanity any more than it would a child born without a sense of smell. The change in accidents doesn’t produce a change in essence.

                    • Satori

                      I didn’t say it was a measure of “humanity.” I don’t care about humanity per se.

                    • http://www.brianniemeier.com/ Brian Niemeier

                      You’ve simply rephrased my questions as statements. This does not explain why we should hold a child’s right to live in lower regard than the mother’s personal autonomy.
                      I, however, have no reservations about answering your question.
                      A woman has no more right to kill her child in utero than she does after giving birth. The child is dependent upon her, and thus her body, at both stages of development.
                      Your argument for abortion on the grounds that a fetus has “no right to use” the mother’s body is an equivocation that substitutes a theoretical, bloodless “eviction” from the womb in place of the brutal scalding or dismemberment of the fetus that abortion actually entails. My argument is that nothing justifies treating another human being this way because doing so is a grievous violation of the dignity deriving from human nature.
                      You can attempt to deny that human nature exists, or assert that, while human nature does exist, it points toward no ultimate end. But by doing so, you refute your own claims to personhood and autonomy.

                • Barbara

                  Satori, no one here is ever going to be convinced by the “violinist” argument. Please stop using it. We’ve heard and refuted it before. Abortion is not time travel, it does not make a woman unpregnant. The fetus is tortured as it is being killed, usually dismembered or sliced up.

                  • Satori

                    Perhaps you would like to make an argument against it then. Or maybe you do thing it would be moral to force me to donate my kidney?

                    • Mariana Baca

                      It might be more akin to looking at the morality of separating conjoined twins. When both have a good chance of living separated or they will might definitely die conjoined, the separation normally has no ethical objections (such as late term induction or ectopic pregnancies). If both can live conjoined but one will die if separated, separation is normally not indicated. The risks and benefits of the life of both are considered even though they might be sharing organs.

                      Basically, the analogy is two people sharing life support through no choice of their own.

                      For a less medical example, if you are stuck in a closed environment with a person (such as a boat, or a spaceship), you can’t kill the other person or throw them overboard for no reason other than they annoy you, use part of the ship’s resources, and you are both there against your will. Even if it is your boat.

                    • Satori

                      How did the person get on my boat? I don’t grant that I wouldn’t have the right to kill someone using my property if their use of it endangered my life. I don’t agree with that at all. I also don’t think that the direct use of another person’s body is comparable to consumption of material goods. I can agree with you that we should share material wealth and disagree that you have a right to use my body and torture my psychologically during your use of it.

                      >Basically, the analogy is two people sharing life support through no choice of their own.

                      That’s not what is going on. The fetus is using the woman, they are not “sharing” life support.

                    • Mariana Baca

                      The boat isn’t a perfect, thus why i provided two. I stated the other person is on the boat against their will, e.g. kidnapped and placed there without the owner’s knowledge until they were in open water. Consumption of material resources when those resources are limited is relevant since it is the closest analogy can get us.

                      Risk of death ot death/endagering the mother’s life is not the situation we are taking about. We are talking about two healthy individuals. The baby is not “torturing the mother psychologically” — not voluntarily, at least. The situation might be torturous for the mother, but it is not the same as saying the baby is doing that action through will.

                      I would argue you shouldn’t kill a minor/mentally incapacitated person on your boat unless they are actively threateing your life. Even if their cries are annoying, they act like kids, or they remind you of an attacker.

                      Yes, using your body is different. The only close to analogous situation is conjoined twins. In most other situations humans are independent biological organisms.

                      I was trying to create more analogous situations than donating a kidney. Donation is a positive (i.e. not passive) action and rather extreme health saving measure that is not compulsory ethically even if a person is dead and not available for most people. Pregnancy is a state one is in and doesn’t have to take action to maintain and is a necessary process in the life of every human being. Medically and ethically they are not congruent. Doing and allowing are distinct medical situations.

                      “The fetus is using the woman, they are not “sharing” life support.”

                      “Sharing” means both are using, doesn’t imply anything about who is the provider — thus irrelevant to the poin or the validity of the analogies. I might have bought all the food in my boat. If I feed the kid in my boat, I’m sharing with him, even if he is using me. A pair of conjoined twins might only have one set of of some organs so one twin is feeding the other. They are “sharing” life support, even though the relationship is one-sided.

                    • Barbara

                      Because, it’s a bad argument founded on a sloppy analogy. The hilarious part is pro-choicers actually think it’s a good argument which only goes to show how poor their arguments actually are. I mean, only twisty pro-choice logic would equate not allowing the mother to kill her child with “forcing her to give birth”. That’s like equating the criminalization of spousal murder with forced marriage.
                      The analogy is sloppy for two reasons, one because you have no filial obligation to a random kidney-using violinist and two because abortion is not passive. In terms of the first, there is a socially and legally recognized relationship of filial obligation between parents and children. If you have a child, you are both legally and morally bound to ensure its safety and provide for its needs. If you are incapable of doing that, then you are called to find someone else to do it in your stead. Secondly, abortion is not the equivalent of disconnecting the violinist from your body and leaving him to his fate, its the equivalent of shooting the violinist first, then disconnecting him. Your not passively allowing the fetus to die, you are actively destroying it in a most brutal and painful manner.
                      Frankly, on a purely emotional level the violinist argument is very cold. I would like to live in a world where the obligation to help someone, even bodily, is so obvious and ingrained that if that freakshow scenario did occur the only reasonable response would be to offer up the use of your body so that another may live. Pro-Choice logic is quite reptilian at its heart. It doesn’t jive at all with the foundational principles of most Leftist ideologies, in which the vulnerable are protected from the powerful. It’s closer to an icy, bloodless Randian libertarianism.

                • Nordog6561

                  You’re a ghoul.

            • LFM

              ‘Knocked out’? Abortions are usually performed under local rather than general anesthetics. (In the old USSR, they didn’t use anesthetics at all.) What I’ve read on the subject – written by pro-choice abortion patients – indicates that it’s quite painful. Abortion providers want to make money, and anesthesiologists and their equipment are expensive.

              p.s. Abortions via RU 486 are horrifyingly bloody, according to a male friend of mine who witnessed his girlfriend’s abortion by that means.

            • Gail Finke

              What makes you think that a woman who is pregnant from rape will go mad because of it? What evidence do you have?

              Before abortion became available, all women who became pregnant because of rape or incest had their babies. Did they all go insane? This is a nonsensical thing people say because they think it makes them sound compassionate, but it has nothing at all to to with real life.

              You don’t know how anyone around you was conceived. For all you know, people you went to school with, live down the street from, and work with every day were conceived in a rape. They are no different from anyone else — should they have been killed?

              If you’re going to imagine women losing their sanity because of pregnancy, you ought to at least also imagine women who suffer from depression and substance abuse for the rest of their lives because they killed their own children on purpose. These women actually exist, you can find out all about them.

              • Satori

                I don’t think all raped women would go mad, but I do think some would. My point is that they should get to make that decision for themselves based on how they are impacted by the pregnancy.

                >Before abortion became available, all women who became pregnant because
                of rape or incest had their babies. Did they all go insane?

                I’m sure some did

                >You don’t know how anyone around you was conceived. For all you know,
                people you went to school with, live down the street from, and work with
                every day were conceived in a rape. They are no different from anyone
                else — should they have been killed?

                I don’t see the relevance. I am talking about the right to have an abortion. If fetuses are people they still do not have the right to use a raped woman against her will. I might think it is heroic for such a woman to bear her child, but I don’t think the state should force her to do it.

                • Andy, Bad Person

                  I don’t think all raped women would go mad, but I do think some would.

                  You should have no trouble naming a single one, then.

                  • Satori

                    That actually doesn’t follow, but I don’t trust anecdotal evidence either way.

                    https://www.musc.edu/vawprevention/research/mentalimpact.shtml

                    As you can see from these statistics, rape itself is enough to cause significant mental trauma, and getting pregnant because of a rape just makes it worse. If you really think that women never go made for such reasons you should reconsider your position.

    • Francisco J Castellanos

      This is nothing new Horn. And it is not coming from one stray “member.” The United Nations Committee Against Torture has in the past called opposition to abortion “a form of torture” and has chastised some Latin American governments for their anti-abortion laws calling it akin to torture
      e.g.:
      http://www.ipsnoticias.net/2009/05/nicaragua-penalizar-el-aborto-es-tortura-advierte-la-onu/

  • jroberts548

    One UN questioner said something might amount to psychological torture. This isn’t nothing, but it’s also not unlike taking some random statement in L’Osservatore Romano as proof that The Vatican disapproves of Harry Potter.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X