Abortion

[God Conquers]

Ok. If someone is acting outside the bounds of rationality, they forfeit their right to choose.

If someone does not believe in gravity and wants to walk off a cliff, we MUST NOT allow them to make that choice. The same goes for irrational beliefs about the starting point of life.

[dairygirl4u2c]

If the government decided to start killing, say, blacks because the majority of the people didn't agree with it, what would you all do? Is it okay for Catholics to physically fight for them? And if it is, why don't you fight for the babies? I would imagine that either you don't feel the baby is human, you can at least understand the dispute, or you are too afraid to stand up for what you believe in.

If it is true that you are allowed to defend the black man even though other democratic means exist, such as a court rule, you may defend a black man because it is not understandable for someone to kill him. (again if it is allowed) But you still are not defending the babies. Why? I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say it must be because you understand the dispute. (and not the other reasons) I am trying by this hypothetical to show that you may indeed understand the dispute because of the people's perspectives/faith. At least to some extent, which with this realization may lead you to understand my point.

I believe the baby is a human early on in development. I make this judgement on "faith". I can not see how we should force other people to follow my faith.

Am I allowing murder? Yes my faith inclines me to believe it is murder. It is a sick fact we know exists but happens anyway. I take comfort that many people choose life at all costs. People have very strong understandable opininons on both sides, and as a civilized society, I do not see how we can constructively force our faith. But feasibility aside, also, as you may reason, I do value freedom and everything that constitutes freedom and understanding of other's beliefs in these uncertain areas above human life.

This is my rationale. Maybe it's irrational. But if it is, in no certain terms and by any mean necessary, tell me how? You will probably need to resort to some form of philosophy since this is the basis of every argument and examples. Cuz again if you don't show me I will have to continue saying about the same thing to you:

Ok. If someone is acting outside the bounds of rationality, they forfeit their right to choose. If someone does not believe in gravity and wants to walk off a cliff, we MUST NOT allow them to make that choice.

The same goes for irrational beliefs about imposing our will on the mother (when the dispute is understandable). Edited February 10, 2004 by dairygirl4u2c

[jmjtina]

"We shouldn't impose our beliefs on others." Do you really think that to say "killing is wrong" is imposing a belief? Would you want people around you who have the opposite belief?

A society cannot run if it tolerates the killing of the innocent. Nor can it run if it tolerates stealing. These are basic aspects of human life, and are not exclusively tied to the beliefs of any one religious denomination. You do not have to be Catholic or religious at all to understand that killing the innocent is wrong. To speak up against it is not "imposing beliefs"; it is basic human decency.

Pro-Life is rejection of all violence.

More Violence is not the answer to the abortion problem.

Inflicting harm on persons or property is not an acceptable way of resolving this problem or proclaiming the pro-life message. The lives we are called to respect include the lives of those who disagree with us and oppose us.

No person who carries out, intends to carry out, or justifies in theory such acts of violence has any part of the true pro-life movement. Furthermore, even if problems were solved by killing people, such killing would still be wrong. We may never do evil that good may come about (see Romans 3:8). The end does not justify the means.

But feasibility aside, also, as you may reason, I do value freedom and everything that constitutes freedom and understanding of other's beliefs in these uncertain areas above human life.

Awareness of man's freedom and dignity, together with the affirmation of the inalienable rights of individuals and peoples, is one of the major characteristics of our time. But freedom demands conditions of an economic, social, political and cultural kind which make possible its full exercise. A clear perception of the obstacles which hinder its development and which offend human dignity must be understood.

If you truly feel that it is a freedom, a choice and your faith cannot interfere with someone's freedom, examine the facts You will see that, in fact, abortion harms women, ignores their rights, and exploits and degrades them. Anyone concerned about women will do well to know these facts.

Surveys of women who have had abortions, (see, for example, David Reardon's book, Aborted Women, Silent No More), show that abortion is not a question of giving a woman a "choice." It is, tragically, a situation of women feeling they have NO CHOICE, feeling that nobody cares enough about them and their child to give them any alternative besides going to the abortionist. The woman feels rejected, confused, afraid, alone, unable to handle the pregnancy- - and behold, in the midst of all this, she is told by society, "We will eliminate your problem by eliminating your child. Go get an abortion. It's a safe, easy, and legal solution."

The fact is that though abortion is legal, it is NOT safe and easy, nor respectful of the woman.

Carol Everett used to run an abortion clinic. She is now pro-life, and she tells how women are not given the full truth about the abortion procedure. When they ask "Will it be painful?" they are told "No", even though serious pain is involved. When they ask, "Is it a baby?" they are told "No". Many women have found out only AFTER their abortion that their baby already had arms, legs, and sucked its thumb, before they aborted it. The clinic workers are told not to volunteer any other information if they are not asked. Why can't we respect women enough to tell them the whole truth?

Women are not told of the many harmful physical and psychological effects of abortion. It is NOT safe. There are, for example, fifteen psychological risk factors that need to be investigated before this procedure. They usually aren't. Women who have abortions are twice as likely to have a miscarriage if they get pregnant again. One of the reasons for this is "cervical incompetence". During an abortion the cervical muscle is hastily stretched open, and hence can be rendered too weak to stay closed for another pregnancy. Another complication is ectopic pregnancy, a life-threatening situation in which, due to scar tissue in the womb from the scraping of the abortion, a fertilized ovum is blocked from entering the uterus and so begins growing in the fallopian tube and eventually ruptures it. Since abortion was legalized, ectopic pregnancies have risen 300%. Many other physical complications can arise, as the chart below shows. It has also been proven that complications and deaths of women from abortions are UNDER-REPORTED, and recorded under different causes than abortion.

Psychological effects are also very real. Women suffer from PAS (Post-Abortion Syndrome). They experience "impacted grief"; that is, grief which festers within then like pus because they and others deny that a real death has occurred. Because of this denial, mourning cannot properly occur, yet the pain of loss is still there. Many have flashbacks to the abortion experience, nightmares about the baby, and even pain on the anniversary of the due date. One woman testified that she still suffers from her abortion of 50 years ago! Nobody concerned about women can responsibly dismiss these facts.

Effects of Abortion

(Prepared by WEBA. Women Exploited by Abortion, as a warning to other women to avoid the risks of abortion surgery)

Physical Effects Psychological Effects

-Sterility -Guilt

-Miscarriages -Suicidal impulses

-Ectopic pregnancies -Mourning/Withdrawal

-Stillbirths -Regret/Remorse

-Bleeding and infections -Loss of confidence

-Shock and comas -Low self-esteem

-Perforated uterus -Preoccupation with death

-Peritonitus -Hostility/Rage

-Fever/Cold sweat -Despair/Helplessness

-Intense pain -Desire to remember birth date

-Loss of body organs -Intense interest in babies

-Crying/Sighing -Thwarted maternal instincts

-Insomnia -Hatred for persons connected with abortion

-Loss of appetite -Desire to end relationship with partner

-Exhaustion -Loss of sexual interest/Frigidity

-Weight loss -Inability to forgive self

-Nervousness -Nightmares

-Decreased work capacity -Seizures and tremors

-Vomiting -Feeling of being exploited

-Gastro-intestinal disturbances -Horror of child abuse

What kind of freedom is that?

What kind of concern for women is shown when we put more stress on killing the child than helping the woman to bear her child? The abortion mentality looks on pregnancy as a disease. It does not take women seriously in their unique privilege and power of bearing new life! Some say that the pro-life movement is run by men trying to control women. But did you ever realize that the abortion industry is run primarily by men, who make a lot of money by performing this degrading operation on women? Abortion does not take sex seriously, either. Instead, it makes it easier for men to exploit women sexually. As Rosemary Bottcher, a Feminist for Life, has written, "Abortion reduces women to the status of sex machines which can be 'repaired' if necessary. Abortion helps ease his (the man's) anxiety about sex and relieves him of the last vestige of responsibility. At last sex is really free!"

Many women are coming to realize these facts, and have formed the National Women's Coalition for Life (703-960-4519). Let's stop fooling ourselves that abortion is a woman's "right". The pro-life movement offers women over 3,000 centers throughout the country where they can find compassion, assistance, and real alternatives and life-giving choices. The abortion movement offers them no choice except a wounded body, a scarred mind, and a dead baby. The choice is obvious.

Peace and God Bless.

[dairygirl4u2c]

Thank you for bearing with me jmjtina throughout my ordeal.

The main reason I lean toward the pro-choice movement (while personally against abortion) is out of compassion for the women especially considering respect for their freedom to be the chooser in a the gray issue. I can see why some pro-choice people think it is only men trying to impose their wills. But it does work both ways like you said. You also make a good argument that we are not really being compassionate to them. The abortionist mentality that you describe is terrible and is probably the main culprit.

But then pressures come from all sides of the matter. I guess I take a "what if abortion were illegal" stance. What would we do to the women if it were illegal? Would we give them 20+ years in jail? Even when it is understandable the situation they are going through and it is understandable that they don't think a 3 celled person (taken to the extreme) is someone with natural rights? If it were illegal, and I were pro-life, I would have pro-choice people telling me of similar pressures but from a different perspective. Since they have somewhat compelling biological arguments, and the women are going through a lot, are we going to deny them the choice to decide the gray issue and put them in jail for homicide? Shouldn't we be more democratic and allow the freedom on the gray issues? (if you insist it isn't gray that is your perogative and if you were right that it wasn't gray, you would be correct in my opinion) Maybe if we had somewhat less severe penalties, I could see banning abortion.

[cmotherofpirl]

Dairy there are no compelling arguments to kill a baby.

THere are no grey areas about chopping up or boiling a human being.

Why do you think there should be freedom to kill our children?

Why do you think your personal freedom is worth more than human life?

[dairygirl4u2c]

I think no matter what I say you will say it is not a gray issue, and that is your right. But I think it is so I will continue on.

I wish someone would answer my hypothetical about the government killing black people and us doing nothing about it.

Why do you think your personal freedom is worth more than human life?

We might be talking about a different kind of freedom. I am talking about democratic freedom. I wouldn't want someone imosing their beliefs on me, so I don't think I should impose my beliefs on others if the issue is disputed. If we take the mentality that we should impose our beliefs, and everyone else does too, we will end up having the public's moral imposed on us (while it wouldn't be sinful since we did not consent) instead of being able to practice our beliefs freely. If we became a large country like China (or for whatever reason became like China), would you want them to force you to abort your baby or whatever else just because that is the consensus?

THere are no grey areas about chopping up or boiling a human being.

We need to keep the democratic mentality for the faith issues. If you don't want to live in a democracy, we may end up like in China where people will be thinking there are no gray areas about chopping us and our babies up.

Democracy is a give and take, that is what kind of freedom I am talking about that is worth more than human life. That is what the revolutionary founding fathers died for. Apparently they thought that this type of freedom was worth more than life itself too.

Edited February 11, 2004 by dairygirl4u2c

[cmotherofpirl]

All societies limit freedom in some ways.

WE live in a democracy that says it is ok to chop up babies, because the majority thinks it ok.

Do you think morality should be decided by the majority?

or by what is right?

[dairygirl4u2c]

I assume that you would allow the black people in my hypothetical to die because the ends did not justify the means. And I guess you assume you think that the government is somehow immune to the ends justifies the means. I don't think the government is any different than an individual. Acting allows the lesser of two evils to exist.

Do you think morality should be decided by the majority?

or by what is right?

In your context, neither. If it were up to you, everyone would start voting what they think is moral/right in gray issues instead of what they think is democratic. If it were left up to you, the majority would be the deciding factor deciding on the issue of the baby's rights. And with that mindset, the majority would decide everything for everyone like communism. That is what it sounds to me what you are arguing for, communism. Pro-choice is anti-communism/socialism.

If it were up to me, the right thing decided by the majority is to minimize infringing on others when the argument is disputed within understandablity. Not voting our morals, because I value democratic freedom above everything, as did the founding fathers.

Anyway, we can play this majority and morals thing but the only thing I can see where we differ is that I think it is a gray issue as far as a democracy goes and you do not. You think your view of morality should be the deciding factor in the gray issue, ie communism/socialism. Unless you insist it is not a gray issue to begin with, you would not be communist, but since many people don't agree **and their argument is somewhat understandable**, I don't see how you can say it's not a gray issue.

The only thing I can see is that you dont think it's gray and don't think it's understandable, otherwise I would have to think that you are a communist. And, no, I don't think it is understandable to kill people, generally speaking. But since the very question is personhood itself, and since I personally (where we must disagree) feel it is understandable, I value democratic freedom above my personal perspective.

Edited February 11, 2004 by dairygirl4u2c

[jmjtina]

And with that mindset, the majority would decide everything for everyone like communism. That is what it sounds to me what you are arguing for, communism. Pro-choice is anti-communism/socialism.

:mellow:

Communism? Where did you get that? Communism is where the ppl have no freedom...no freedom to share ideas, vote against the government....etc. FEW decide what the "laws" are. Surely you have read some history cause I could go more in depth, but.....

May I ask dairygirl, your age?

If it were up to you, everyone would start voting what they think is moral/right in gray issues instead of what they think is democratic

With your logic, we need to change the Ten Commandments to be more democratic.....not based on morals. You can't have freedom without responsibilty. It is a black and white issue. No one can become God and decide who lives and dies, who gets the "choice" of deciding who dies. Pro-Life is upholding everyones freedom.....to live.

From the CCC:

1732 As long as freedom has not bound itself definitively to its ultimate good which is God, there is the possibility of choosing between good and evil, and thus of growing in perfection or of failing and sinning. This freedom characterizes properly human acts. It is the basis of praise or blame, merit or reproach.

1733 The more one does what is good, the freer one becomes. There is no true freedom except in the service of what is good and just. The choice to disobey and do evil is an abuse of freedom and leads to "the slavery of sin."28

1738 Freedom is exercised in relationships between human beings. Every human person, created in the image of God, has the natural right to be recognized as a free and responsible being. All owe to each other this duty of respect. The right to the exercise of freedom, especially in moral and religious matters, is an inalienable requirement of the dignity of the human person. This right must recognized and protected by civil authority within the limits of the common good and public order.32

1740 Threats to freedom. The exercise of freedom does not imply a right to say or do everything. It is false to maintain that man, "the subject of this freedom," is "an individual who is fully self-sufficient and whose finality is the satisfaction of his own interests in the enjoyment of earthly goods."33 Moreover, the economic, social, political, and cultural conditions that are needed for a just exercise of freedom are too often disregarded or violated. Such situations of blindness and injustice injure the moral life and involve the strong as well as the weak in the temptation to sin against charity. By deviating from the moral law man violates his own freedom, becomes imprisoned within himself, disrupts neighborly fellowship, and rebels against divine truth.

[jasJis]

Dairy,

You are confused because you are not using reason and logic to evaluate the balance of what is good for the Greater Society, and your personal perspective in both the small and the large. You claim that you will sacrifice your personal view for the greater view for the sake of Democracy, but Democracy can be tyrannical just as easily as a dictatorship.

You are willing to quell your opinion for the sake of Democracy. "I value democratic freedom above my personal perspective."

Use the standard 'for the greater good of society' to consider the validity of establishing personhood for the unborn. It is such fundamental a standard, that any erosion of personhood undermines the value of people in any society and empowers efforts to impose tyranny.

Being able to choose to subject your opinion to the majority is one thing. It's quite another to have your 'personhood' subject to definition by others.

[dairygirl4u2c]

With your logic, we need to change the Ten Commandments to be more democratic.....not based on morals.

The ten commandments are your moral perogative to hold. It is religion. What I am arguing against is requiring others to follow the ten commandments, so to speak.

[dairygirl4u2c]

That came out wrong. I had made a full length reply but it was cut off cuza computer malfunction. But my main point is that we should not impose our morals in thorny situations because that would be the true tryanny.

[dairygirl4u2c]

Here's what I'll do. I'll just post what I posted for the homosexual marriage thread. It's harder for me to debate in this thread since I am personally against the even much more terrible act of abortion. I'll just replace civil marriage with abortion:

Without a foundational philosophical ethics there can be no meaningful ground for our laws. They would become something like an arbitrary expression of the majority's opinion, or the opinion of those who assert the most power.

Someone who wants to prevent abortion etc. are the ones trying to exert their opinions by majority rule. Instead of voting what you think is moral and not moral, why not vote for what is democratic? The pro-choice people do not think they are hurting anyone, they just have different faiths. What's wrong with society catering to all faiths instead of whichever one has the majority vote, like preventing abortion would cause?

Many people on both sides try to appeal to tradition saying that this country was founded upon certain values that must not be compromised (for example fundamental human equality) but disagree on what these uncompromisable values are. Some would say God is included (one nation under God, etc) while others say that God is contrary to these values (you can't impose God or God-based principles on the masses because of freedom of belief).

You are right that this is what it comes down to, I agree. And I believe the majority should realize they have to consider other people's morals. What's wrong with society catering to all faiths instead of whichever one has the majority moral vote, like preventing abortion would cause?

Basing it on the majority's moral vote would itself be immoral when you could base it on the moral majority vote to be democratic and considerate of other faiths.

Edited February 12, 2004 by dairygirl4u2c

[jasJis]

The ten commandments are your moral perogative to hold. It is religion. What I am arguing against is requiring others to follow the ten commandments, so to speak.

What the heck are you babbling about??

9, of the 10 commandments are sound philosophical and sociological guidelines. They are recognized as being "right and moral" in religion, as well as secualar philosophy. Are they to be abandoned becuase they can be accepted on religious belief? Are philosophical and sociological evaluations to be dismissed because they are tainted with "religion". Even the first commandmant can be argued from the psychological benefits. (ie, Alchoholics Anonymous and other "step" programs")

You are espousing half thoughts and are not maintining a train of logic. Natural Law (morality) is relevant, wether it's recognized by religion, or science, or philosophy. It's asnine to dismiss what religion recognizes as morality because it forces moral views on others. "Right morals" is the action of the self-sacrifice of the individual for the greater good. There is no such thing as a morally abstract society, that's anarchy, so it's not a real society.

[dairygirl4u2c]

"Right morals" is the action of the self-sacrifice of the individual for the greater good. There is no such thing as a morally abstract society, that's anarchy, so it's not a real society.

That commandments thing came out wrong because it does involve many that involve how you treat other people. The only thing we should be holding is how we treat other people. I can have complete freedom as long as it doesn't infringe on anyone else. That is the only moral we should hold to in a democracy. That seems pretty moral to me. And in abortion, the very question of person is disputed.

Natural Law (morality)

Nothing you said in your whole post do I disagree with. You kept it pretty vaque and made your point. But the very premise of natural law can be disputed at times and as long as it isn't hurting anyone, (or if "anyone" is disputed though I can see some limitations on abortion) I don't think we should base things on majority rule.

Homosexuals are biologically this way. That is natural. (just a side argument)

Women feel that a 3 celled baby is not a person. The Catholic Church even used to teach that babies were not persons until quickening. (when the baby kicks)

Since I too can find it somewhat understandable, I would have to hold to the moral of democratic freedom over my belief.

Edited February 13, 2004 by dairygirl4u2c

[IcePrincessKRS]

Women feel that a 3 celled baby is not a person. The Catholic Church even used to teach that babies were not persons until quickening. (when the baby kicks)

Actually, I don't think this was an official Church position. I know some saints held this position, but as for the Church... Idunthinkso. If you could find a source on that, that'd be cool, because I'm not 100% sure, but I'm fairly certain.

[PatrickRitaMichael]

Yeah, I think Aquinas made the argument that ensoulment happened after 40 days but if you think about how little they knew about the human body then compared to today, I'm sure Aquinas would agree with the Church's stance if he had any medical training I'll take the Church's opinion over Aquinas' (no offense St. Thomas!!! it's not your fault, you didn't know!)

Dairygirl, I think you're minimizing what democracy is way too much. We could have a dictatorship (form of government doesn't hurt anyone, govt's actions do) and that wouldn't be hurting anyone -- yet it is contradictory to what democracy is about. There are certain things in the law that are based on more than just 'don't hurt' -- including the idea that everyone is entitled to basic freedoms. This makes sense in my head, I apologize if it doesn't on this forum :)

[PatrickRitaMichael]

Women feel that a 3 celled baby is not a person. The Catholic Church even used to teach that babies were not persons until quickening. (when the baby kicks)

Since I too can find it somewhat understandable, I would have to hold to the moral of democratic freedom over my belief.

Actually, it's really hard to detect a pregnancy before 1 week and by that time the baby is more than just 3 cells. What number of cells is required in order to be considered a human being? What does it have to look like in order to be considered a human? If you look at people with really bad leprosy, they look like huge embryos b/c their bodies are just eaten away -- yet under the law they are accorded full rights and it would be murder to kill one. If the law says that there is a minimum number of cells or a certain appearance that a human organism must have in order to be considered human, what would that be? and who would decide that? To put that kind of power into the hands of humans who are inclined to prejudice and to step on those weaker than themselves is a scary idea. I think that the part of democracy is to ensure that no government or group of people would have that kind of power.

[Dave]

Something to add . . .

Although it was commonly believed by many saints and others that the baby wasn't really a baby right at conception and that abortion wouldn't be considered murder at that point, they nevertheless still considered abortion unacceptable at all times.

[jasJis]

I can have complete freedom as long as it doesn't infringe on anyone else. That is the only moral we should hold to in a democracy. That seems pretty moral to me. And in abortion, the very question of person is disputed.

DING, DING, DING, DING!

But are you willing to consider how Abortion infringes upon another person? Are you going to superficially limit infringemnt to what you personally can know and understand? For example: "So what if a woman or man choose to be a prostitute? That doesn't mean I will visit them, and they're both willing participants." Do you not consider the ramifications of 'pimps' profiting off prostitution and manipulating people to become prostitutes? Do you not consider the psychological effects on the prostitute? Do you not consider the tempatation put upon another person who might otherwise be chaste in marriage or singlehood? Do you not consider the long term and larger effects on society, such as increase in crime, quality of living, quality of neighborhood, etc., etc., that are KNOWN effects and consequences of societies that allow prostitution?

But the very premise of natural law can be disputed at times and as long as it isn't hurting anyone, (or if "anyone" is disputed though I can see some limitations on abortion) I don't think we should base things on majority rule.

Again, infringement or damage might not be superficially apparent. And I can't imagine any dispute for the very premise of natural law. There is none. Different pholosophies may evaluate consequences of actions differently, but Natual Law is basically recognition of probable and reasonable consequences of human action.

homosexuals are biologically this way. That is natural. (just a side argument)

That's a poor statement. I addressed it in the marriage thread. Some homosexuals may be biologically this way, but it's the exception. Some people are biologically pre-disposed to alcholholism. Being an alcoholic is not natural. You have to find a different arguement that it being 'biological'.

I would have to hold to the moral of democratic freedom over my belief.

You need to explain that, it doesn't make sense. Do you mean that the greater good is better decided by majority rule, and one individual doesn't matter? That is just 'might makes right' and is a simple form of democratic tyranny.