Abortion

[aspeeder]

I think you have it backward. There are only a few days a month which there is an egg to fertilize. There's plenty of time to have sex without worrying about having a kid. And I'm almost certain that if you follow NFP the way you should, there is no chance of having an unwanted child. And you seem to be misinterpreting what I say a lot. When I said "They would not have to worry about abortion because they wouldn't have sex until marriage," I was referring to the majority of people who get abortions, aka under-aged, irresponsible kids. I did not mean for people to think that abortion would be completely solved if everyone just waited for marriage to have sex. And I figured people who did get married would actually be stable enough to want/provide for a kid. I did not mean for you to think I said waiting to have sex until after marriage would solve the abortion problem. And I think marriage does change the possibility of unwanted pregnancy, seeing as most people (given, less and less couples are having kids nowadays) plan to have 'keep' their kids after they get married.

 

Wrong, just plain wrong.

Medical textbooks say that an average woman is most fertile from 10 to 17 days after the first day of her menstrual cycle. But NIH researchers have shown what some women have long suspected: many women who think they can only become pregnant during this span become unexpectedly pregnant.

 

For some women with irregular cycles there is hardly a day in the menstrual cycle when they are NOT potentially fertile. The window of fertility is most unpredictable for teenagers and women approaching menopause. Thyroid disease, which frequently causes irregular cycles, can also cause unpredictable fertility.

 

Textbooks also usually say that women are fertile for several days after ovulation. Dr. Allen Wilcox of NIH's National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) has studied fertility extensively.

 

"The basic problem is that ovulation is so unpredictable," he says. His fertility research has shown that women are fertile only on the day they ovulate and the five days prior to ovulation, not at all after ovulation.

 

"On average it occurs around day 15," he says, "but it can happen anywhere from day 8 to day 60 or later."

 

Most women don't know when they ovulate, however, and that's where it gets tricky. While women are likely to be fertile between days 10 and 17 of their cycle, 70 percent of women have at least one of their fertile days outside that window, he explains.

http://thyroid.about.com/od/hormonepregnantmenopause1/a/fertility.htm

 

Oh, and I think you're taking my little ideal scenario a bit too seriously. I was hypothesizing that, though the current generations would be drastically affected if everyone all of the sudden began living their lives according to Church teach, eventually the effects wouldn't be so drastic as the coming generations would find themselves dealing less and less with problems of the previous generations; so, kinda like a slow process of getting used to the Church's teachings. And I think it's obvious the way I've been posting that I do think everyone would benefit if everyone followed Church teaching (the ultimate benefit being heaven). And when you say harmful from the beginning, I think you should understand that when I said harm, I meant difficult for those who are currently going against Church teaching. It will be harmful to them in their eyes.

 

Please enlighten me though, maybe with a citation from an actual Roman Catholic, Vatican approved document that shows that the Church strives to make life difficult for homosexuals and women. I can tell you now that, since the respect for human dignity lies at the center of Catholic Social Justice Teaching, the Catholic Church respects all people. I do suggest that, if you're caught up in the Church's view on homosexuals, you should look into that stuff yourself (make sure you look into Catholic Church Doctrine so you avoid people who argue incorrectly about the Church). I say this because I'm not extremely knowledgeable about the Church's view on homosexuals. I do know that the Church does not see women as lesser than men.

 

And lastly, my little ideal situation was in no way talking about making the Church the ruler of the world. I would never think of that. Especially in the form of a monarchy. I did say that I only meant a sudden change in obedience to the Church: everyone starts to follow it's moral teachings. I stated that perhaps the world would be better if we all adopted the Church's teachings; not if we made the Church the world central government. I know exactly why the Church became corrupt, and I'm sure the Church knows itself.

 

Phew. It was just a little dream scenario, that's all. :s

First off, the same would be true of atheism, or Hinduism, or Unitarian Universalism, or Islam; why is your religion so different, unique and special that it should be the one that everyone should follow besides "I just know it's the right one"? And no, going against church teachings doesn't just mean psychological adjustment, it can also mean physical pain. For example, the Vatican is against the birth control bill, and many women take it not to prevent pregnancy but to reduce the pain of menstruation; following church teachings would literally cause pain (And it's not a pain that would be reduced over time or can be overcome by reading bible verses).

 

As to finding a church document saying that they want to suppress women and homosexuals, that'd be like finding a document from the Guatemalan government that they were striving to kill thousands of villagers in order to achieve political domination(Yes, that happened).

 

But fine, we can make some fairly logical connections, here's the general (American) Catholic view of homosexuality:

U.S. Bishops Urge Constitutional

Amendment to Protect Marriage

 

The Catholic Church opposes gay marriage and the social acceptance of homosexuality and same-sex relationships, but teaches that homosexual persons deserve respect, justice and pastoral care. The Vatican and Pope John Paul II are speaking out against the growing number of places that recognize same-sex marriages.

And that is directly harmful to homosexuals because:

 

And yes they do treat women as second class citizens, they do not allow women into certain seats of power based solely on the fact that they are women, and your argument against them is simply saying "No they don't" with absolutely no evidence to bring it up. And from the supposed original source of the Church, the Bible, suppression of women is still abundant: http://files.meetup.com/317379/WomenReligion.pdf

 

And responding to your last point, I called the church a monarchy based on its similar power structure not on the fact that it's a literal monarchy. And wouldn't a sudden obedience to the church be considered a kind of political rule? I am quite capable of reading the bible myself and deciding which passages contain a legitimate moral lesson and which ones are best left to the fire pits of 4000 year old farmers.

 

EDIT:

I was referring to the majority of people who get abortions, aka under-aged, irresponsible kids.

More stereotyping! Horray!

 

• Eighteen percent of U.S. women obtaining abortions are teenagers; those aged 15–17 obtain 6% of all abortions, teens aged 18–19 obtain 11%, and teens younger than age 15 obtain 0.4%.

 

• Women in their 20s account for more than half of all abortions; women aged 20–24 obtain 33% of all abortions, and women aged 25–29 obtain 24%.

 

• About 61% of abortions are obtained by women who have one or more children.

 

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/US-Abortion-Patients.pdf

[Randox]

I do not like the idea that the Catholic Church feels it has any right whatsoever to manage anyone who is not a part of their faith. I belong to my own denomination of Christianity myself, and what the Catholic Church would essentially be doing is saying that what I believe is wrong. They have no right to criticise my beliefs. In general, I dislike any faith that would tell you what to think. Part of this probably comes from my own faith (United Church of Canada), which is very much against telling anyone how they should live their life (beyond following the ten commandments). We are very much for finding your own faith, and your own answers, rather than have the Church provide them for you (though the Church does naturally take an official stance on a variety of issues).

 

In terms of the law's involvement, the USA has separation of church and state, which means the law has no business accommodating any religion. It should be left up to the scientific community to determine at what point a fetus becomes a sentient human being (and therefore would be murder), or whatever other criteria the law chooses to use as its "this is wrong" line.

 

I have also taken a look at my own faiths official stance on this, and it falls pretty much in line with how I feel (which is essentially that while I don't think abortion is a great thing, I do feel it is sometimes the best choice). They say it a lot better than I do, so here are a couple quotes:

 

Each of us is called upon in a freedom that is given by God and within the context of the community of faith to make responsible personal decisions, even when choosing between two wrongs.

...

We affirm the inherent value of human life, both as immature in the foetus and as expressed in the life of the mother and related persons. The foetus is a unique though immature form of human life and, as such, has inherent value. Christians should witness to that value by stressing that abortion is always a moral issue and can only be accepted as the lesser of two evils. Therefore, abortion is acceptable only when, after careful consideration, the medical, social, and/or economic situation makes it the most responsible alternative.

...

1. We URGE the government of Canada to:

NOT use the provisions in the Criminal Code to regulate abortion.

The long and the short of it, is that abortion shouldn't be taken lightly, but that sometimes it can be the best (not good, but best) solution to a problem, for the people involved.

[Noxx]

I do not like the idea that the Catholic Church feels it has any right whatsoever to manage anyone who is not a part of their faith. I belong to my own denomination of Christianity myself, and what the Catholic Church would essentially be doing is saying that what I believe is wrong. They have no right to criticise my beliefs. In general, I dislike any faith that would tell you what to think. Part of this probably comes from my own faith (United Church of Canada), which is very much against telling anyone how they should live their life (beyond following the ten commandments). We are very much for finding your own faith, and your own answers, rather than have the Church provide them for you (though the Church does naturally take an official stance on a variety of issues).

 

In terms of the law's involvement, the USA has separation of church and state, which means the law has no business accommodating any religion. It should be left up to the scientific community to determine at what point a fetus becomes a sentient human being (and therefore would be murder), or whatever other criteria the law chooses to use as its "this is wrong" line.

 

I have also taken a look at my own faiths official stance on this, and it falls pretty much in line with how I feel (which is essentially that while I don't think abortion is a great thing, I do feel it is sometimes the best choice). They say it a lot better than I do, so here are a couple quotes:

 

Each of us is called upon in a freedom that is given by God and within the context of the community of faith to make responsible personal decisions, even when choosing between two wrongs.

...

We affirm the inherent value of human life, both as immature in the foetus and as expressed in the life of the mother and related persons. The foetus is a unique though immature form of human life and, as such, has inherent value. Christians should witness to that value by stressing that abortion is always a moral issue and can only be accepted as the lesser of two evils. Therefore, abortion is acceptable only when, after careful consideration, the medical, social, and/or economic situation makes it the most responsible alternative.

...

1. We URGE the government of Canada to:

NOT use the provisions in the Criminal Code to regulate abortion.

The long and the short of it, is that abortion shouldn't be taken lightly, but that sometimes it can be the best (not good, but best) solution to a problem, for the people involved.

I like this a lot.

[Assume Nothing]

Why does this seem awfully familiar...

 

"My friends, I had not intended to discuss this controversial subject at this particular time. However, I want you to know that I do not shun controversy. On the contrary, I will take a stand on any issue at any time, regardless of how fraught with controversy it might be. You have asked me how I feel about whiskey. All right, here is how I feel about whiskey:

 

If when you say whiskey you mean the devil's brew, the poison scourge, the bloody monster, that defiles innocence, dethrones reason, destroys the home, creates misery and poverty, yea, literally takes the bread from the mouths of little children; if you mean the evil drink that topples the Christian man and woman from the pinnacle of righteous, gracious living into the bottomless pit of degradation, and despair, and shame and helplessness, and hopelessness, then certainly I am against it.

 

But, if when you say whiskey you mean the oil of conversation, the philosophic wine, the ale that is consumed when good fellows get together, that puts a song in their hearts and laughter on their lips, and the warm glow of contentment in their eyes; if you mean Christmas cheer; if you mean the stimulating drink that puts the spring in the old gentleman's step on a frosty, crispy morning; if you mean the drink which enables a man to magnify his joy, and his happiness, and to forget, if only for a little while, life's great tragedies, and heartaches, and sorrows; if you mean that drink, the sale of which pours into our treasuries untold millions of dollars, which are used to provide tender care for our little crippled children, our blind, our deaf, our dumb, our pitiful aged and infirm; to build highways and hospitals and schools, then certainly I am for it.

 

This is my stand. I will not retreat from it. I will not compromise."

[Assume Nothing]

I'd consider dating an atheist. I definitely wouldn't date someone who's pro-choice.

 

I'm quoting this here for the same reason that I've quoted the interracial marriage post.

 

I don't see why one must so hasty to refuse to accept the idea and notion that an abortion may be a better choice than to allow a fetus to continue developing. Would you care to explain your line of reasoning?

[Zierro]

Why does this seem awfully familiar...

 

"My friends, I had not intended to discuss this controversial subject at this particular time. However, I want you to know that I do not shun controversy. On the contrary, I will take a stand on any issue at any time, regardless of how fraught with controversy it might be. You have asked me how I feel about whiskey. All right, here is how I feel about whiskey:

 

If when you say whiskey you mean the devil's brew, the poison scourge, the bloody monster, that defiles innocence, dethrones reason, destroys the home, creates misery and poverty, yea, literally takes the bread from the mouths of little children; if you mean the evil drink that topples the Christian man and woman from the pinnacle of righteous, gracious living into the bottomless pit of degradation, and despair, and shame and helplessness, and hopelessness, then certainly I am against it.

 

But, if when you say whiskey you mean the oil of conversation, the philosophic wine, the ale that is consumed when good fellows get together, that puts a song in their hearts and laughter on their lips, and the warm glow of contentment in their eyes; if you mean Christmas cheer; if you mean the stimulating drink that puts the spring in the old gentleman's step on a frosty, crispy morning; if you mean the drink which enables a man to magnify his joy, and his happiness, and to forget, if only for a little while, life's great tragedies, and heartaches, and sorrows; if you mean that drink, the sale of which pours into our treasuries untold millions of dollars, which are used to provide tender care for our little crippled children, our blind, our deaf, our dumb, our pitiful aged and infirm; to build highways and hospitals and schools, then certainly I am for it.

 

This is my stand. I will not retreat from it. I will not compromise."

 

Beautiful.

[Nomrombom]

http://www.elroy.net/ehr/abortionanswers.html

 

Herped and posted this on the Beliefs thread :wall:

 

Any anti-abortionists care to respond to this? It's not mine, it was posted a page or two back but not brought to general attention.

[sees_all1]

http://www.elroy.net/ehr/abortionanswers.html

 

Herped and posted this on the Beliefs thread :wall:

 

Any anti-abortionists care to respond to this? It's not mine, it was posted a page or two back but not brought to general attention.

 

On point 3

The defining mark between something that is human and someone who is a person is 'consciousness.' It is the self-aware quality of consciousness that makes us uniquely different from others.

Going by that definition, as soon as someone isn't conscious (self aware), they're no longer a person. I don't agree with their definition of "person" as it means someone who is drugged, knocked out, in a coma, or in a loose sense asleep, is no longer a person.

[obfuscator]

That's one of the major problems with what they're saying.

 

They're also stating that one right must take preference when two beings inhabit the same body; and I agree, but only when the rights are equal.

 

For example, most people wouldn't say the mother's right to binge drink should take preference over the baby's right to health.

 

Hence my position that abortion is only acceptable when the mother's life is in direct danger because:

 

Mother's right to life > baby's right to life

mother's right to happiness > baby's right to happiness

mother's right to comfort > baby's right to comfort

 

But you can't take a lesser right of the mother's and make it supersede a higher right of the child's; which is what 95% of abortion does.

[obfuscator]

I'd consider dating an atheist. I definitely wouldn't date someone who's pro-choice.

 

I'm quoting this here for the same reason that I've quoted the interracial marriage post.

 

I don't see why one must so hasty to refuse to accept the idea and notion that an abortion may be a better choice than to allow a fetus to continue developing. Would you care to explain your line of reasoning?

Well, I feel abortion is immoral.

 

Because I feel abortion is immoral, I do not want my child subjected to it. Since I legally have no say in the future of my own unborn child, I get around this by refusing to date or have sexual contact with anyone who would possibly abort it.

[Nomrombom]

Is it illegal to binge drink while pregnant?

[Kimberly]

They're also stating that one right must take preference when two beings inhabit the same body; and I agree, but only when the rights are equal.

 

Why aren't they equal? Because one is older than the other? I'm not sure I understand your point of view.

[obfuscator]

They're also stating that one right must take preference when two beings inhabit the same body; and I agree, but only when the rights are equal.

 

Why aren't they equal? Because one is older than the other? I'm not sure I understand your point of view.

 

Sorry, by equal I mean "the same".

 

The right to life supersedes the right to comfort, for instance.

 

So the argument in the article posted is that ALL rights of the woman supersede ALL rights of the child in ALL situations. I think this is only the case when you're talking about the same right. So, for example, I'd make the following listing of rights (a composite list).

 

1. Mother's right to life.

2. Child's right to life.

3. Mother's right to comfort.

4. Child's right to comfort.

5. Mother's right to pleasure.

6. Child's right to pleasure.

 

This is the way rights are categorized in all facets of our society except when dealing with the unborn. For example, I have a right to drive my car, and you have a right to life. If you are standing in front of my car, my right is superseded by your right because your right is more important.

 

I just think this standard should apply to unborn humans as well.

[Nomrombom]

The problem is that any unborn child presents a potential threat to the physical wellbeing of the mother. The mother has the right to control her own body and what happens with it. If she chooses to bring the baby to term, she voluntarily gives up her right for the fetus. If she chooses not to bring it to full term, she is exercising the right to control her own body and prevent her potential death or serious harming. Thus, abortion is neither immoral nor illegal.

[Duff]

Well, technically raising a child isn't a parasitic relationship. :P

 

EDIT: At least not in all cases. :s So many women out there find having a child one of the greatest pleasures ever (not physically giving birth, lol; actually who knows, some women might find joy in that actual act, too).

[Nomrombom]

Well, technically raising a child isn't a parasitic relationship. :P

 

EDIT: At least not in all cases. :s So many women out there find having a child one of the greatest pleasures ever (not physically giving birth, lol; actually who knows, some women might find joy in that actual act, too).

 

par·a·site Noun/ˈparəˌsīt/

1. An organism that lives in or on another organism (its host) and benefits by deriving nutrients at the host's expense.

 

A fetus is an organism that lives in another organism (the mother) and benefits by deriving nutrients at the mother's expense. Parasitism has nothing to do with enjoyment.

[Guest Rob]

Well, technically raising a child isn't a parasitic relationship. :P

 

EDIT: At least not in all cases. :s So many women out there find having a child one of the greatest pleasures ever (not physically giving birth, lol; actually who knows, some women might find joy in that actual act, too).

 

par·a·site Noun/ˈparəˌsīt/

1. An organism that lives in or on another organism (its host) and benefits by deriving nutrients at the host's expense.

 

A fetus is an organism that lives in another organism (the mother) and benefits by deriving nutrients at the mother's expense. Parasitism has nothing to do with enjoyment.

 

Raising a child, not developing a fetus.

[Nomrombom]

I know, but Ring was talking solely about a fetus so I assumed Duff made a mistake in his post.

[Duff]

You're automatically assuming the woman does not benefit from having a child. I guess the woman benefits maybe not physically, but psychologically (again, maybe not in all cases).

 

And sorry, I was considering the benefits the woman will experience in the future.

 

Actually, just forget I ever posted anything. :P

[Nomrombom]

It doesn't matter if she benefits from having a child, as she is the one who chooses whether or not to abort. If she does, she accepts the loss of the benefits in exchange for the loss of the massive detriments. If she doesn't, the other way around. Doesn't matter what we think.

[Duff]

Not all births are going to produce 'massive detriments'.

 

I just get this vibe that your assuming women aren't supposed to feel pain when they give birth.

 

If she chooses not to bring it to full term, she is exercising the right to control her own body and prevent her potential death or serious harming.

 

It just catches me off guard, because more abortions are had not due to the threat to the mother's life, but because the parents aren't ready to handle the responsibility. Few are the cases in which giving birth would prove fatal to the woman.

 

Just something I noticed.

 

EDIT:

 

The problem is that any unborn child presents a potential threat to the physical wellbeing of the mother.

All birth, no matter what the situation is, presents a potential threat to the physical well being of the mother. Birth is painful, and potentially harmful, regardless of the situation.

[Nomrombom]

It does not matter what the abortions are for. It matters that a woman has the right to control her body and that there IS a possibility (note the use of potential, not guaranteed) of death or serious harm due to bringing a fetus full term. A pregnancy that appears normal can result in death/harm to the mother. I'm not saying it's likely (in a first world country probably not, but in a third world country e.g. Kenya, Chad, Congo, etc. it is much more likely) but because it can happen and the mother has said right, abortion is not immoral. And all births will produce massive detriments. A child is a major financial drain. It also creates a major logistical headache. It is also almost always a cause of major stress, loss of sleep and anxiety. (This is all assuming the child will be kept, if it is put up for adoption then all the benefits go away immediately and there are still possible detriments, like the child finding and wanting to be with the parents when the parents do not want to be with the child, not to mention the high chance of depression/regret/sadness for the parents).

[Kimberly]

I guess the woman benefits maybe not physically, but psychologically

 

Most women suffer from depression after giving birth, and the medication they have to take to keep it in control does have its dangers. Not to mention you're not supposed to take anti-depressants during pregnancy, so if you were depressed and treating it beforehand you run the risks of increasing birth defects in the child.

 

On the other hand, my mother was almost assured that with all her health problems I was likely to have something wrong with me. Premature, or some other defect. Who knows what can happen until it happens.

[Duff]

Geez...

 

Of course there will be hardships in raising a child, but seeing your child grow into a person and all that seems to outweigh it by a lot... I just can't really see how you can talk about a child as just a financial drain, a stressful 'thing' that's around all the time, etc. Seeing something you raised become successful, learn, all that - the joy from that should be more important to you than money and stress/loss of sleep.

 

But hey, I guess some people just don't like kids.

[sees_all1]

Not sure if this was posted elsewhere, but I'd hate to be this kid:

http://www.aboutlawsuits.com/wrongful-birth-malpractice-lawsuit-award-21037/

 

Imagine the discussion 13 years later, after the child finds out from googling himself...

"Son, we would have killed you had we known you'd be like this. Hope the 4.5 million cheers you up."