Why It’s Hard to Dialogue With Secularists and Leftists

AMDG

Tenderized for Christ
May 24, 2004
25,362
1,286
74
Pacific Northwest, United States
✟47,022.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
It's hard for religious conservatives to dialogue with leftists and secularists because they don't understand the definition of the word "dialogue--" they think it means "interrogation" or "interrogatory debate."

Of course, it could be just like I said. Leila is simply trying to get the Liberals to think about what they are saying--to follow their statements to their logical conclusions. Since Leila already knows and embraces Catholic teaching (and it seems that the Liberals haven't a clue) it almost appears that she is simply "holding up a mirror" so that they can actually see what they are actually saying. (And seeing the illogic of their statements, they can return *of their own volition* to what the Church teaches.)

That *of their own volition* is important. People are not to be "talked down to" and they bristle at being told that something they hold dear is "wrong".

The article also just seems to list some of the usual arguments/statements concerning abortion and some of the "jaw-dropping" ones at that.
 
Upvote 0

Chany

Uncertain Absurdist
Nov 29, 2011
6,428
228
In bed
✟15,379.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
OK, I'll ask just a few questions on the subject of abortion.


1. A married mother of five other children, has gone into labor at 18 weeks and the doctors have determined that if the pregnancy is not terminated, both she and the fetus will die.

The doctors advise the mother to terminate the pregnancy, should she? Yes or No

3. Do you believe abortion is murder ? Yes or No


4. You are elected to Congress and you oppose abortion completely.
Will your first act be to write legislation to make all abortions illegal ? Yes or No

5. In your law, will be the penalty for those who violate it be the same as those who commit 1s Degree murder ? Yes or No

6. Answer the following;

If not treated the same as murder, will those who violate the law face
A. Fine and imprisonment of Mother and Doctor who performed the abortion ?
B. Fine and imprisonment for just the doctor?
C. None of the above. Please explain.

Jim

I will start by answering 3 (2). Is abortion murder?

First off, a technicality: murder is based upon law. Therefore, abortion is not murder in the United States as it is not illegal. :)

I know what you mean though. The answer depends entirely upon the answer to another question: "at what point in human development is a fetus considered a person?" The main problem is the way the fetus develops: it is a long path with small, continuous change as opposed to sudden, abrupt stages. This is what makes most decisions about a fetus' condition as a human arbitrary. Deciding that certain body parts or functions makes a human falls short when the change is often so small from day to day that it makes no sense. For example, let's say the decision is decided at the lungs functioning. Is there really a difference between the totality of fetus' status as a person whether it has fully developed, working lungs than the lungs as they were 24 hours before?

In order to determine personhood, we must find the point where there is a clear difference between what came before and what came after. The only non-arbitrary way of doing this is define it as such: we will consider a fetus a person the moment when it will, given the right environment, eventually become a functioning human being. The only clear cut case is at contraception. Sperm and eggs will stay the same indefinitely until the come together. At this point, the new cell will eventually grow into a person, given the right conditions.

Therefore, anything after the point of contraception is a person.

Therefore, abortion is an act of killing a human being.

As such, abortion should be considered illegal, as it is illegal to kill an innocent person. Laws should be passed to ensure that abortion is considered murder and punished as such. If both the woman and the doctor consent to the abortion, they should be punished as murderers, with conditions lessening the punishment as it is in other murder cases.

The first question is nothing more than a common philosophy question: can a person be sacrificed if the sacrifice will benefit more people? The answer is, of course, no, as every person has rights and conditions granted that cannot be crossed morally.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

GenetoJean

Veteran
Jun 25, 2012
2,807
140
Delaware
Visit site
✟18,940.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
OK, I'll ask just a few questions on the subject of abortion.


1. A married mother of five other children, has gone into labor at 18 weeks and the doctors have determined that if the pregnancy is not terminated, both she and the fetus will die.

The doctors advise the mother to terminate the pregnancy, should she? Yes or No

I have no problem if she does.

3. Do you believe abortion is murder ? Yes or No

It can be.

4. You are elected to Congress and you oppose abortion completely.
Will your first act be to write legislation to make all abortions illegal ? Yes or No

5. In your law, will be the penalty for those who violate it be the same as those who commit 1s Degree murder ? Yes or No

Too far away from me to answer honestly.

6. Answer the following;

If not treated the same as murder, will those who violate the law face
A. Fine and imprisonment of Mother and Doctor who performed the abortion ?
B. Fine and imprisonment for just the doctor?
C. None of the above. Please explain.

Jim

Depends on circumstances. If not for rape or life of mother then I think abortion should be illegal. I think that circumstances and mental state should be taken into consideration for punishment though. To be honest, I would probably be harder on the doctor than the mother though.
 
Upvote 0

Fantine

Dona Quixote
Supporter
Jun 11, 2005
37,036
13,060
✟1,077,055.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
:)

I know what you mean though. The answer depends entirely upon the answer to another question: "at what point in human development is a fetus considered a person?" The main problem is the way the fetus develops: it is a long path with small, continuous change as opposed to sudden, abrupt stages. This is what makes most decisions about a fetus' condition as a human arbitrary. Deciding that certain body parts or functions makes a human falls short when the change is often so small from day to day that it makes no sense. For example, let's say the decision is decided at the lungs functioning. Is there really a difference between the totality of fetus' status as a person whether it has fully developed, working lungs than the lungs as they were 24 hours before?

In order to determine personhood, we must find the point where there is a clear difference between what came before and what came after. The only non-arbitrary way of doing this is define it as such: we will consider a fetus a person the moment when it will, given the right environment, will become a functioning human being. The only clear cut case is at contraception. Sperm and eggs will stay the same indefinitely until the come together. At this point, the new cell will eventually grow into a person, given the right conditions.

Therefore, anything after the point of contraception is a person.

Therefore, abortion is an act of killing a human being.

As such, abortion should be considered illegal, as it is illegal to kill an innocent person. Laws should be passed to ensure that abortion is considered murder and punished as such. If both the woman and the doctor consent to the abortion, they should be punished as murderers, with conditions lessening the punishment as it is in other murder cases.

The first question is nothing more than a common philosophy question: can a person be sacrificed if the sacrifice will benefit more people? The answer is, of course, no, as every person has rights and conditions granted that cannot be crossed morally.

One thing I learned that was really interesting is that identical twins don't occur at conception--but up to two weeks after conception (the further out the split occurs, the more likely it is that the twins will be conjoined).

Identical twins SOMETIMES have their own sac and placenta, but not always. It all depends on how soon after conception the zygote split into two separate embryos. If it happened very early, then each will have their own sac and placenta, similar to fraternal twins. If the splitting happened a little later, then they may share a placenta, but each will have its own amniotic sac. If the split occurred even later, they can share a placenta AND an amniotic sac, and if the split happened too late, the twins will be conjoined.

Fraternal versus Identical Twins

I find this confusing. So if a zygote separates into twins three days, or four days, or two weeks after conception, which one gets the original soul?

It doesn't excuse abortion, but it does make me wonder about when 'personhood' occurs if one 'person' who became a twin would suddenly become two 'half-persons.' Because I think we all agree that when we are talking about 'human life' we aren't talking about biology but about the je ne sais quois we call the spirit or soul.
 
Upvote 0

MikeK

Traditionalist Catholic
Feb 4, 2004
32,104
5,649
Wisconsin
✟90,821.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
AMDG, I find your position terrifying. That you consider abortion to be murder but do not favor prison terms for those who seek the help of Doctors to do the deed for them is troubling. If abortion is truly murder than the scared mother who seeks the abortion is no less guilty than the scared wife who hires a hit man to kill her husband.
 
Upvote 0

LoAmmi

Dispassionate
Mar 12, 2012
26,944
9,715
✟209,533.00
Faith
Judaism
Marital Status
Married
This wasn't directed at me, but I'd like to answer the questions if nobody minds.

Disclaimer: These answers are the opinion of LoAmmi and are in no way an attempt to subvert Catholic teaching nor stating this is how Catholics should believe.

1. A married mother of five other children, has gone into labor at 18 weeks and the doctors have determined that if the pregnancy is not terminated, both she and the fetus will die.

The doctors advise the mother to terminate the pregnancy, should she? Yes or No

I am assuming for this question we know with certainty that her life is in jeopardy. My answer is then yes, she should have the pregnancy terminated.

My answer would also apply to a first-time mother who has no husband and the baby is the result of a one-night stand.
3. Do you believe abortion is murder ? Yes or No

No. My reason is that Jewish tradition has held that the Torah does not consider it murder. That does not mean it is ok or something authorized. This question was specific about the word "murder".
4. You are elected to Congress and you oppose abortion completely.
Will your first act be to write legislation to make all abortions illegal ? Yes or No
Accepting your premise, my first step would be to work with others to determine what type of legislation will pass and work toward that. In order to ban abortion completely, one would need to pass an amendment which I find highly unlikely. One would need to work toward limiting abortion, not eliminating them based upon Roe v. Wade.
5. In your law, will be the penalty for those who violate it be the same as those who commit 1s Degree murder ? Yes or No
No.
6. Answer the following;

If not treated the same as murder, will those who violate the law face
A. Fine and imprisonment of Mother and Doctor who performed the abortion ?
B. Fine and imprisonment for just the doctor?
C. None of the above. Please explain.

The doctor would face the penalties.
 
Upvote 0

AMDG

Tenderized for Christ
May 24, 2004
25,362
1,286
74
Pacific Northwest, United States
✟47,022.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
One thing I learned that was really interesting is that identical twins don't occur at conception--but up to two weeks after conception (the further out the split occurs, the more likely it is that the twins will be conjoined).

But science indicates that with the fertilization of the egg, a *separate* entity is brought into being--*separate* from the mother. And it's not going to turn out to be a giraffe or some other critter--it's going to be a baby--another human!

Besides, I noticed just with Kate Middleton, when she first started "showing", people were all talking about her "baby bump" and not her "inconvenience bump" and already decided that she was going to have a baby. And when we bring gifts to baby showers (before baby is born) we wrap them up pretty to give them in joy--not put them in black bags given accompanied to a funeral dirge for the "inconvenience".

Roe vs. Wade was "given" to us on a lie--according to "Jane Roe". And together with Doe there was legalized killing up to the moment of birth (and some "bright lights" want it to be even after birth!) The Supreme Court said that they didn't know, at the time, when life began (it was in the 1970s). Well it's known now. According to science, life begins at conception. (And you know, the Supreme Court was not vested in any power to make laws and yet for over thirty years we've wantonly slaughtered babies because nine men on the Supreme Court said that because they didn't know when life began, it was okay to destroy that life. (That excuse couldn't even be used in hunting--people that hunt are to know what they will hit beforehand or they shouldn't let that rock, arrow, or bullet fly!)

Talk about being inconsistent!
 
Upvote 0

Chany

Uncertain Absurdist
Nov 29, 2011
6,428
228
In bed
✟15,379.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
One thing I learned that was really interesting is that identical twins don't occur at conception--but up to two weeks after conception (the further out the split occurs, the more likely it is that the twins will be conjoined).

Fraternal versus Identical Twins

I find this confusing. So if a zygote separates into twins three days, or four days, or two weeks after conception, which one gets the original soul?

It doesn't excuse abortion, but it does make me wonder about when 'personhood' occurs if one 'person' who became a twin would suddenly become two 'half-persons.' Because I think we all agree that when we are talking about 'human life' we aren't talking about biology but about the je ne sais quois we call the spirit or soul.

One, I never brought in the condition of a soul. To do so is pointless in a secular argument, as a religious belief will never gain admission in the world's secular politics. If the soul was allowed as evidence, the pro-life argument would win everytime, as there is no longer any way to deny personhood.

Two, I think God, the supreme infinite Creator of everything, has the foresight to see when twins will happen and adjust accordingly. Souls aren't hats; you can't put my soul in another person's body.
 
Upvote 0

LoAmmi

Dispassionate
Mar 12, 2012
26,944
9,715
✟209,533.00
Faith
Judaism
Marital Status
Married
The Supreme Court said that they didn't know, at the time, when life began (it was in the 1970s). Well it's known now. According to science, life begins at conception.

That is not what the Court said and it harms the Pro-Life movement for people to say things that are untrue.

The question is not when does life begin but when is personhood bestowed upon a person. Now, by all means, you can argue that personhood begins at conception. That's a fine position to hold. But, when people say it's about when does life begin that is not what the argument is about. I could argue that life begins far before that because both the sperm and the egg are life. But personhood? That is a legal argument.
 
Upvote 0

AMDG

Tenderized for Christ
May 24, 2004
25,362
1,286
74
Pacific Northwest, United States
✟47,022.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
That is not what the Court said and it harms the Pro-Life movement for people to say things that are untrue.

Go check it out--I know, I lived through the time. In fact, I was expecting at the time of the Supreme Court ruling. It *was* what the Court said and it was further backed up by Jane Roe (who later converted to Catholicism).

I can't help it if later on you have been told something different.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

LoAmmi

Dispassionate
Mar 12, 2012
26,944
9,715
✟209,533.00
Faith
Judaism
Marital Status
Married
Go check it out--I know, I lived through the time. In fact, I was expecting at the time of the Supreme Court ruling. It *was* what the Court said and it was further backed up by Jane Roe (who later converted to Catholicism).

I can't help it if later on you have been told something different.

I've read the entire court opinion and the dissenting opinion and wrote a report on it for my Constitutional Law class with citations from the case.

A. The appellee and certain amici argue that the fetus is a "person" within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. In support of this, they outline at length and in detail the well-known facts of fetal development. If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, [410 U.S. 113, 157] for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment. The appellant conceded as much on reargument. 51 On the other hand, the appellee conceded on reargument 52 that no case could be cited that holds that a fetus is a person within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The Constitution does not define "person" in so many words. Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment contains three references to "person." The first, in defining "citizens," speaks of "persons born or naturalized in the United States." The word also appears both in the Due Process Clause and in the Equal Protection Clause. "Person" is used in other places in the Constitution: in the listing of qualifications for Representatives and Senators, Art. I, 2, cl. 2, and 3, cl. 3; in the Apportionment Clause, Art. I, 2, cl. 3; 53 in the Migration and Importation provision, Art. I, 9, cl. 1; in the Emolument Clause, Art. I, 9, cl. 8; in the Electors provisions, Art. II, 1, cl. 2, and the superseded cl. 3; in the provision outlining qualifications for the office of President, Art. II, 1, cl. 5; in the Extradition provisions, Art. IV, 2, cl. 2, and the superseded Fugitive Slave Clause 3; and in the Fifth, Twelfth, and Twenty-second Amendments, as well as in 2 and 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. But in nearly all these instances, the use of the word is such that it has application only postnatally. None indicates, with any assurance, that it has any possible pre-natal application. 54 [410 U.S. 113, 158]

All this, together with our observation, supra, that throughout the major portion of the 19th century prevailing legal abortion practices were far freer than they are today, persuades us that the word "person," as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn. 55 This is in accord with the results reached in those few cases where the issue has been squarely presented. McGarvey v. Magee-Womens Hospital, 340 F. Supp. 751 (WD Pa. 1972); Byrn v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp., 31 N. Y. 2d 194, 286 N. E. 2d 887 (1972), appeal docketed, No. 72-434; Abele v. Markle, 351 F. Supp. 224 (Conn. 1972), appeal docketed, No. 72-730. Cf. Cheaney v. State, ___ Ind., at ___, 285 N. E. 2d, at 270; Montana v. Rogers, 278 F.2d 68, 72 (CA7 1960), aff'd sub nom. Montana v. Kennedy, 366 U.S. 308 (1961); Keeler v. Superior Court, 2 Cal. 3d 619, 470 P.2d 617 (1970); State v. Dickinson, 28 [410 U.S. 113, 159] Ohio St. 2d 65, 275 N. E. 2d 599 (1971). Indeed, our decision in United States v. Vuitch, 402 U.S. 62 (1971), inferentially is to the same effect, for we there would not have indulged in statutory interpretation favorable to abortion in specified circumstances if the necessary consequence was the termination of life entitled to Fourteenth Amendment protection.


There is some parts earlier that talk about when life begins, but it comes down to the question of personhood in the actual ruling.
 
Upvote 0

JimR-OCDS

God Cannot Be Grasped, Except Through Love
Oct 28, 2008
18,341
3,284
The Kingdom of Heaven
Visit site
✟185,132.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
=AMDG;









N/A because with todays medical advances *both* mother and babe can be saved.

Babies at 18 weeks can not be saved. Also, there are cases where the mother could not be saved if the pregnancy was not terminated.

The case of the mother at St. Joseph's in Arizona is one case of many.

So using your lack of medical expertise you fail to answer the question.




I couldn't figure out the answers to the rest of the questions. :confused:


Jim
 
Upvote 0

JimR-OCDS

God Cannot Be Grasped, Except Through Love
Oct 28, 2008
18,341
3,284
The Kingdom of Heaven
Visit site
✟185,132.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
I will start by answering 3 (2). Is abortion murder?

First off, a technicality: murder is based upon law. Therefore, abortion is not murder in the United States as it is not illegal. :)

I know what you mean though. The answer depends entirely upon the answer to another question: "at what point in human development is a fetus considered a person?" The main problem is the way the fetus develops: it is a long path with small, continuous change as opposed to sudden, abrupt stages. This is what makes most decisions about a fetus' condition as a human arbitrary. Deciding that certain body parts or functions makes a human falls short when the change is often so small from day to day that it makes no sense. For example, let's say the decision is decided at the lungs functioning. Is there really a difference between the totality of fetus' status as a person whether it has fully developed, working lungs than the lungs as they were 24 hours before?

In order to determine personhood, we must find the point where there is a clear difference between what came before and what came after. The only non-arbitrary way of doing this is define it as such: we will consider a fetus a person the moment when it will, given the right environment, eventually become a functioning human being. The only clear cut case is at contraception. Sperm and eggs will stay the same indefinitely until the come together. At this point, the new cell will eventually grow into a person, given the right conditions.

Therefore, anything after the point of contraception is a person.

Therefore, abortion is an act of killing a human being.

As such, abortion should be considered illegal, as it is illegal to kill an innocent person. Laws should be passed to ensure that abortion is considered murder and punished as such. If both the woman and the doctor consent to the abortion, they should be punished as murderers, with conditions lessening the punishment as it is in other murder cases.

The first question is nothing more than a common philosophy question: can a person be sacrificed if the sacrifice will benefit more people? The answer is, of course, no, as every person has rights and conditions granted that cannot be crossed morally.


I appreciate your thoughtful answer.

Now, consider answering the question in the context of being able to pass laws prohibiting abortion?

I believe that abortion after viability, 20 weeks, could be made illegal as it has in Tennessee. We may even get such a law passed on the federal level.

The fact is, most people oppose abortion after viability, unless it's required to save the mother's life. But on that clause, a medical panel would have to review the case, which in actuality, takes place in many states where abortions after 24 weeks are considered necessary.

But I think we move further ahead, with thoughtful discussions as you've presented, than a more rigid fundamentalists answer.

Jim
 
Upvote 0

JimR-OCDS

God Cannot Be Grasped, Except Through Love
Oct 28, 2008
18,341
3,284
The Kingdom of Heaven
Visit site
✟185,132.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
AMDG, I find your position terrifying. That you consider abortion to be murder but do not favor prison terms for those who seek the help of Doctors to do the deed for them is troubling. If abortion is truly murder than the scared mother who seeks the abortion is no less guilty than the scared wife who hires a hit man to kill her husband.

And the reality is, without women seeking abortions, abortion doctors aren't needed. So, the culpability of the mother is as great as the doctor who performs the abortion, except that she does it. because she's scared and thinks she has no choice, where the doctor is doing it for money, especially in cases where abortion is illegal.


Jim
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Chany

Uncertain Absurdist
Nov 29, 2011
6,428
228
In bed
✟15,379.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
I've read the entire court opinion and the dissenting opinion and wrote a report on it for my Constitutional Law class with citations from the case.

There is some parts earlier that talk about when life begins, but it comes down to the question of personhood in the actual ruling.

You went to college? Pfft. College people act like they know everything. :p

I have not read the court decision. I am arguing based upon morality, not civil law.
 
Upvote 0

freezerman2000

Living and dying in 3/4 time
Feb 24, 2011
9,523
1,221
South Carolina
✟39,130.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I'm with Fantine here..dialog is a conversation,statements being made by each party,not a one sided Q&A session..not a grilling.
It is a meaningful conversation,not a surreptitious way to be able to say"GOTCHA!"
That being said,when all of legal arguments were being presented,were there any research M.D.s who were versed in the biological side of the issue testifying or was it just lawyers?
If not,how could those sitting on the bench make a truly informed ruling?
I'for one would like the law to allow for only if the mother's life were in danger or if the unborn will not survive to full term.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

LoAmmi

Dispassionate
Mar 12, 2012
26,944
9,715
✟209,533.00
Faith
Judaism
Marital Status
Married
You went to college? Pfft. College people act like they know everything. :p

I have not read the court decision. I am arguing based upon morality, not civil law.

I'm not opposing anybody here, to be honest. I merely pointed out that if someone is going to try to argue "life begins", they are using the wrong terms. It hurts the movement to frame the argument in that way.

The argument needs to be personhood. Personhood is when a person is granted the rights of the constitution. If someone can successfully argue that personhood begins at conception, abortion falls apart immediately. Privacy wouldn't enter into it because my privacy cannot deprive another person (key word, person) from the right to life.

The problem is that life is nebulous. Bacteria is life. Dogs are life. Neither of which have Constitutional rights. So even saying "the fetus is life" doesn't really mean anything to a lot of people. "The fetus is granted Constitutional rights" does mean something.
 
Upvote 0

JimR-OCDS

God Cannot Be Grasped, Except Through Love
Oct 28, 2008
18,341
3,284
The Kingdom of Heaven
Visit site
✟185,132.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
LoAmmi;

If someone can successfully argue that personhood begins at conception, abortion falls apart immediately.

Well, the argument could be, when we were conceived in our mother's womb, was it us, or something else there ?

If something else, what ?

Now we can't prove that a embryo is a person, but we can argue that it's better to error on the side of life, could we not ?

Of course getting a legislative body to go along with this, with all the complexities of a pluralistic society is improbable.

Jim
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

LoAmmi

Dispassionate
Mar 12, 2012
26,944
9,715
✟209,533.00
Faith
Judaism
Marital Status
Married
Well, the argument could be, when we were conceived in our mother's womb, was it us, or something else there ?

If something else, what ?
It depends on what we define as us. Am I my body? Am I my mind? Am I both? What makes me "me"?
Now we can't prove that a embryo is a person, but we can argue that it's better to error on the side of life, could we not ?
Certainly could argue that way.
Of course getting a legislative body to go along with this, with all the complexities of a pluralistic society is improbable.

Yeah. If someone defines a person as a being with a human soul, then ensoulment becomes an issue and one that can't be argued before a court.

I think the best bet anybody has is to limit abortions. I just don't see it ever reaching the point where it can be eliminated from the country.
 
Upvote 0