Why Abortion is Immoral

[redleghunter]

But, to address your confused and haphazard request:

David Malcolm Potts, MB, BChir, PhD, FRCOG, FREng[1] is a human reproductive scientist and Professor of Public Health at the School of Public Health at the University of California, Berkeley.

He contends that it is scientifically impossible to determine when life begins, but concedes that "I would rather destroy a five-week embryo than a 15-week embryo, and I accept there is some stage in pregnancy that you have to say no."

None of those links go to the quoted scientist. Please provide a source for the comments.

 

[katerinah1947]

Hi,

So it would appear, that brain activity and personhood are not related.

The Bible seems to talk of personhood existing before we are born, and also continuing after our earthly deaths.

Maybe the Caltech, Genesis 1:28, subdue the earth, boys and girls, will once again, tell us something about The Bible more clearly, like Galileo did.

LOVE,

 

[katerinah1947]

As Pope Francis says, it's your conscience.

What you advocate above is it matters not if there is a distinct human being at conception, which science confirms is fact, nor does it matter if said human life is considered a "person" that such could be disposed of at will.

Is that your personal opinion? I ask because it sure is not the teachings of your Church in which you must give moral assent to.

Hi,

The person in Roman Catholicism has the right to be theologically at odds with just about any non-ex-cathedral statement, as long as there is a strong and valid reason for it such as, "but, God says this..:"

I was not aware that all the Popes Statements are infallible. I know I am and do follow them, except when he is wrong or any church member is wrong, and I can prove it.

LOVE,

 

[katerinah1947]

As Pope Francis says, it's your conscience.

What you advocate above is it matters not if there is a distinct human being at conception, which science confirms is fact, nor does it matter if said human life is considered a "person" that such could be disposed of at will.

Is that your personal opinion? I ask because it sure is not the teachings of your Church in which you must give moral assent to.

Hi,

Also is what my personal opinion?

I re read my post. What do you propose I am advocating, that puts me in error?

And, if you were the Pooe in Galileo's time, would you have used those words on Galileo, only to found wrong later?

What is your specific, contention against me?

LOVE,

 

[redleghunter]

But, to address your confused and haphazard request:

David Malcolm Potts, MB, BChir, PhD, FRCOG, FREng[1] is a human reproductive scientist and Professor of Public Health at the School of Public Health at the University of California, Berkeley.

He contends that it is scientifically impossible to determine when life begins, but concedes that "I would rather destroy a five-week embryo than a 15-week embryo, and I accept there is some stage in pregnancy that you have to say no."

Potts seems to have a solid history in the eugenics movement not to mention a top position in International Planned Parenthood. He also developed a modern abortion procedure.

He became the first Medical Director of the International Planned Parenthood Federation in 1968. In 1972, he was the first physician to promote the technique of uterine manual vacuum aspiration. He then moved to the United States and became CEO of Family Health International (FHI) from 1978-1990. During this period, FHI became the largest global AIDS prevention programme outside of the World Health Organization.

He has published ten books and over 350 scientific papers and articles. His books include Abortion (co-written with Peter Diggory and John Peel, 1977),Textbook of Contraceptive Practice (1st edition co-written with John Peel, 1969; 2nd edition co-written with Peter Diggory, 1983; long the key textbook in the field), Queen Victoria’s Gene (written with his brother Prof. William Potts), Ever since Adam and Eve: The Evolution of Human Sexuality (written with Dr Roger Short, 1999)[4] and Sex and War: How Biology Explains Warfare and Terrorism and Offers a Path to a Safer World (co-written with Thomas Hayden, 2008).[5] He has worked as a consultant to the World Bank and the British, American, Canadianand Egyptian governments.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malcolm_Potts

 

[katerinah1947]

As Pope Francis says, it's your conscience.

What you advocate above is it matters not if there is a distinct human being at conception, which science confirms is fact, nor does it matter if said human life is considered a "person" that such could be disposed of at will.

Is that your personal opinion? I ask because it sure is not the teachings of your Church in which you must give moral assent to.

Hi,

What are you accusing me of?

LOVE,

 

[redleghunter]

Hi,

The person in Roman Catholicism has the right to be theologically at odds with just about any non-ex-cathedral statement, as long as there is a strong and valid reason for it such as, "but, God says this..:"

I was not aware that all the Popes Statements are infallible. I know I am and do follow them, except when he is wrong or any church member is wrong, and I can prove it.

LOVE,

Perhaps you read your catechism closely. There's no wiggle room for life beginning at conception.

You as a Catholic must submit to this teaching.


Thus, in 1995 Pope John Paul II declared that the Church’s teaching on abortion "is unchanged and unchangeable. Therefore, by the authority which Christ conferred upon Peter and his successors . . . I declare that direct abortion, that is, abortion willed as an end or as a means, always constitutes a grave moral disorder, since it is the deliberate killing of an innocent human being. This doctrine is based upon the natural law and upon the written word of God, is transmitted by the Church’s tradition and taught by the ordinary and universal magisterium. No circumstance, no purpose, no law whatsoever can ever make licit an act which is intrinsically illicit, since it is contrary to the law of God which is written in every human heart, knowable by reason itself, and proclaimed by the Church" (Evangelium Vitae 62).

The early Church Fathers agreed. Fortunately, abortion, like all sins, is forgivable; and forgiveness is as close as the nearest confessional.

More here:

http://www.catholic.com/tracts/abortion

 

[redleghunter]

Even granting the argument, the question remains whether or not the fetus has a right to use someone eases body to obtain this VHF, or whether the state has the right to require a pregnant woman to maintain her pregnancy.

We have few if any other examples where the state will requisition someones very body and to give another person the right to use it to sustain their life so, the question of whether it is "wrong" to abort the unborn is a bit off the mark, if it is ALSO wrong to force a women to use their body to maintain the life of someone else against their will.

What you posit above would seem to be a valid postmodern case for subjective morals.

At what point do we become human beings?

 

[redleghunter]

Hi,

What are you accusing me of?

LOVE,

Your profile says "Catholic" so I am posing questions to a Catholic.

 

[redleghunter]

Brain dead people are routinely used for organ harvesting purposes and that's perfectly ethical. If someone is in denial about their death they will often keep the machines going that maintain the body life . . . this doesn't do any ethical good, but it is, of course, harmless.

Most people have advanced directives or the opportunity to deny such.

 

[katerinah1947]

Your profile says "Catholic" so I am posing questions to a Catholic.

Hi,

Why are you posing questions to me that I have already answered, if you are not accusing me of something???

Do you know my position on abortion as it is stated above somewhere?

Are you a Roman Catholic?

If so what kind of Roman Catholic are you in terms of knowledge and understanding?

Do you use The Bible or only The Catechism?


LOVE,

 

[katerinah1947]

Perhaps you read your catechism closely. There's no wiggle room for life beginning at conception.

You as a Catholic must submit to this teaching.


Thus, in 1995 Pope John Paul II declared that the Church’s teaching on abortion "is unchanged and unchangeable. Therefore, by the authority which Christ conferred upon Peter and his successors . . . I declare that direct abortion, that is, abortion willed as an end or as a means, always constitutes a grave moral disorder, since it is the deliberate killing of an innocent human being. This doctrine is based upon the natural law and upon the written word of God, is transmitted by the Church’s tradition and taught by the ordinary and universal magisterium. No circumstance, no purpose, no law whatsoever can ever make licit an act which is intrinsically illicit, since it is contrary to the law of God which is written in every human heart, knowable by reason itself, and proclaimed by the Church" (Evangelium Vitae 62).

The early Church Fathers agreed. Fortunately, abortion, like all sins, is forgivable; and forgiveness is as close as the nearest confessional.

More here:

http://www.catholic.com/tracts/abortion

Hi,

What are you talking about off topic?

And, anyone who wishes to use Catholic.com as a resource, needs to know they have unfairly, unjustifiably arbitrarily, hurt someone I know.

They are not a solid reference. They are possible reference only, as their purposeful mistake, has discredited them to me.

Catholics can be bums also. I know of two deacons, that should not be. I know of a few priests also.

I also know the ones I have had the job of teaching. Two were corrected. Three were improved, using me, but really by God.

Here you mention an error of mine, telling me that I should read the Catechism to correct that.

Again what error? Ask no more questions. State the error, as you may be right.

LOVE,

 

[AirPo]

Likewise a womans opinion should not determine the life of anyone else .

Tell that to my mother. Or my ex wife. Or my ex mother-in-law!

 

[AirPo]

Its debatable which person has more right to that uterus the fetus or the mother which one does the uterus serve what is its purpose ?

That debate has been settled for a long time. It starts with the mother and after a certain amount of time, it becomes the fetus's.

 

[patricius79]

As am I.
I wonder how many pro-life people are for the death penalty?
Or believe there are certain conditions wherein a woman can be permitted to abort?

When people argue adult women aren't entitled to choose for themselves and their reproductive future, insisting that all fetus' should be brought to term regardless of the woman's choice to otherwise opt not to allow that, they're arguing for the rights of the fetus only. And at the same time forewarning the female fetus that once they're born their choices will be subject to other peoples politics just like their mama's was.

That's an odd bit of life choice. We'll fight for you to be born against a woman's will but when you're a full grown woman we'll argue you have no right to exercise your free will because the fetus is more important than you are.

I think that having free will isn't an excuse to intentionally do bad things to other persons or to deprive them of life. I don't think anyone is saying that an unborn person is more important than the pregnant woman, though the unborn person is more vulnerable.

Abortion is profoundly wrong even in cases of rape, since the child is still a human person. But if a woman has freely chosen to engage in sex, and in doing so conceives a child, then she has already freely chosen to be pregnant with human life. Likewise the father, in freely choosing to engage in sex, has chosen to be a responsible for the life he conceived.

 

[redleghunter]

Hi,

Why are you posing questions to me that I have already answered, if you are not accusing me of something???

Your first response was not clear, therefore asked some follow up questions.

Do you know my position on abortion as it is stated above somewhere?

From what I read of your posts you do not believe abortion is a moral decision to make, but you would only hold such a view personally.

Are you a Roman Catholic?

Born, raised, practicing and educated Roman Catholic through college. I am now Evangelical. I still believe the Catholic church has the most Biblical stance on Life issues. So yes I still support the stance of the Catholic church on Life issues from womb to tomb.[/QUOTE]

Do you use The Bible or only The Catechism?

As I stated above I am now Evangelical. Any catechism, confession or church sacred tradition must be measured and tested with Sacred Scriptures as they are Divinely inspired of God. On the matter of abortion, the Catholic church has it right and their position is fully Biblical.

I started posting here regularly a few months ago. Since then, I have encountered a number of Catholics taking a pro-choice position on this forum. When I encounter such I become curious as to what they lean on for their pro-choice views.

 

[redleghunter]

Hi,

What are you talking about off topic?

And, anyone who wishes to use Catholic.com as a resource, needs to know they have unfairly, unjustifiably arbitrarily, hurt someone I know.

They are not a solid reference. They are possible reference only, as their purposeful mistake, has discredited them to me.

Catholics can be bums also. I know of two deacons, that should not be. I know of a few priests also.

I also know the ones I have had the job of teaching. Two were corrected. Three were improved, using me, but really by God.

Here you mention an error of mine, telling me that I should read the Catechism to correct that.

Again what error? Ask no more questions. State the error, as you may be right.

LOVE,

This may be a good time to enlighten those who do not know Catholic doctrine on abortion. As I have found maybe one or two Latin Rite Catholics who profess obedience to their church teachings.

So I am confused, just what is Catholic teaching on abortion?

 

[patricius79]

This may be a good time to enlighten those who do not know Catholic doctrine on abortion. As I have found maybe one or two Latin Rite Catholics who profess obedience to their church teachings.

So I am confused, just what is Catholic teaching on abortion?

That intentional abortion is always wrong, without exception, because of the great value of every single human person.

 

[redleghunter]

That intentional abortion is always wrong, without exception, because of the great value of every single human person.

Thank you.

 

[Blondepudding]

I think that having free will isn't an excuse to intentionally do bad things to other persons or to deprive them of life. I don't think anyone is saying that an unborn person is more important than the pregnant woman, though the unborn person is more vulnerable.

Abortion is profoundly wrong even in cases of rape, since the child is still a human person. But if a woman has freely chosen to engage in sex, and in doing so conceives a child, then she has already freely chosen to be pregnant with human life. Likewise the father, in freely choosing to engage in sex, has chosen to be a responsible for the life he conceived.

I don't think a man has any idea of the profound violation that rape causes a woman to feel. Much less when that rape causes a pregnancy. No, that zygote isn't responsible for the rape however, that woman that survived the rape has every right not to want to carry that seeded reminder of her rapist inside her body for nearly a year.

It is a choice. We will argue this issue till the cows come home and no one will change anyone elses mind on the issue.
The point is, women will always choose. They chose when birth control and abortion both were unlawful in America. And women who sought abortions that weren't medically safe often died as a result.
I've met men who said that was good! That those women deserved to die and that right there vacated their argument as someone who was proactive in the name of life. They were sadists and misogynists but they sure as all get out weren't about life or the quality of life.

Abortion is legal now and women have the right to choose that for themselves. That people are opposed is a given. However, their opposition shouldn't get in the way of medically safe elective surgery so that a woman's life continues after she's decided for her own self to make a choice others don't agree with.
If people who were so adamantly opposed to women's choices worked to give homes to those homeless children women chose to give birth to and then abandon to the system, they would certainly do more than give lip service to being opposed to women's personal sovereignty. They'd give a life and hope to babies looking for both.

How many here who are adamantly opposed to a woman's right to choose, even when she's been raped, have done that?
I'm not asking for a written answer I'm asking for a personal accounting that walks the talk that says more babies should be born even when it is against a woman's will. That the law should force a woman to remain pregnant against her will.
Women in that way are expendable because sperm has more rights in her body than she has as the one with the body.
That's not proactive life advocacy. That's relegating women to less than second class citizenship and instead trumpeting them as having no other use but to be an incubator. Because they're at fault for letting sperm enter them in the first place.
When the responsibility of that unprotected man is never given a second thought.
Women will never go back to the dark ages when our choices risked our lives. And for those who think a raped woman must have her rapists seed and carry it to term, I dare you , dare you, to volunteer at a rape crisis center and learn what rape is. And what it does to a woman. It isn't sex! It's violation and physical abuse using the male organ as a weapon in a vile violent sexual assault.
Walk your talk. Don't preach to a woman when you have a penis. Walk your talk. It is our body it is our choice. Your rights as a man stop where our body begins.

And please please don't use the religious argument. I'm very familiar with the bibles words and when god wasn't pro-life it is impossible to invoke his word , when there are no scriptures prohibiting abortion, to argue against a woman's right to choose. Especially given the less than status women held and hold in the religion dedicated to father god.

Real world, not spiritual ideology, is the issue here. Women are people! And our choice is none of your business. If you don't want a woman to have to choose, get a vasectomy or wear a condom. If you believe every pregnancy should come to term, adopt those who did come to term and were then thrown into the government system waiting to have a life after they were given life.

It's easy to say, "HAVE THAT BABY NO MATTER WHAT WOMAN!"
It's harder to give a life to that baby that one demanded come into a world where not even their mother wanted them.

Proactive for life?
Prove it.