Bishops, Abortion, Pregnant Children That Have Been Raped and Sedition

How do you define viable though? Without intervention those cells do in all likelihood become viable during the period of pregnancy within the woman's body... if you cut the umbilical cord at 28 weeks without further medical intervention you'll find out that life isn't overly viable at that stage either. It is for that reason that the court's will not engage in making arbitrary decisions.

johnfás wrote:

How do you define viable though? Without intervention those cells do in all likelihood become viable during the period of pregnancy within the woman's body... if you cut the umbilical cord at 28 weeks without further medical intervention you'll find out that life isn't overly viable at that stage either. It is for that reason that the court's will not engage in making arbitrary decisions.

I am not defining viable, that is defined by science and experience - it is not my terminology it is medical terminology. There is nothing whatsoever arbitrary about it, and it clearly wasn't even considered by the courts. Nor would I ever suggest that it was an appropriate limit for abortion. I was horrified by the courts' finding that there was no upper limit to the stage at which abortion was permissable.

Quote :

Consequently, thinking along those lines, the judiciary has decided here that there is no difference between a small group of cells and a viable living baby.

If you're talking about babies and pain, then you are not talking about the same thing as the idea of the uniquely precious intrinsic potential of a small cluster of cells.

The case in Brazil is very tragic and once again highlights the inhumanity innate to the catholic church, an institution so outdated I find it remarkable so many educated people continue to want to be members even on the a la carte basis most of them employ. With regard to the argument that nonreligious people often consider abortion immoral from the point of conception I would suggest that such people have more than likely been brought up in a culture which because of religious conditioning believes in the concept of a soul and the "sanctity" of human life. With regard to the statement that abortion is either wrong from the beginning or OK throughout a pregnancy I would argue that it is perfectly feasible to suggest that one considers intermittent stages.

imokyrok wrote:

With regard to the argument that nonreligious people often consider abortion immoral from the point of conception I would suggest that such people have more than likely been brought up in a culture which because of religious conditioning believes in the concept of a soul and the "sanctity" of human life.

I will try to answer this if I might, poor old toxic is probably so trapped inside his "Catholic" skin that he doesn't even know it.

Your suggestion is utterly, totally and completely wide of the mark, however you must not worry over believing this nonsense, it is a common belief of those in favour of the "right" to choose abortion. I would suggest that they believe this because the alternative of facing the fact that there are those who for sound logical reasons believe abortion to be the same as murder, opens up an appalling vista they would rather not have to look at and so substitute a cry of religious mania for argument.

Yeah, I can't respond to it because it will automatically be written off as somehow being a subconscious leftover of Catholic indoctrination, no matter how hard I claim to have tried to avoid it. It's classic 'closed theory'. That's why I stated that it's a shame that Hattersley and Lawson didn't go ahead and set up their 'agnostics/atheists against abortion' campaign...

toxic avenger wrote:

Yeah, I can't respond to it because it will automatically be written off as somehow being a subconscious leftover of Catholic indoctrination, no matter how hard I claim to have tried to avoid it. It's classic 'closed theory'. That's why I stated that it's a shame that Hattersley and Lawson didn't go ahead and set up their 'agnostics/atheists against abortion' campaign...

It wouldn't have made any difference, they'd only have set it up because they were religious.

As to responding to the question of whether there is a qualitative difference between a small cluster of cells and a human being capable of independent life...that will continue to be evaded or skated over.

cactus flower wrote:

As to responding to the question of whether there is a qualitative difference between a small cluster of cells and a human being capable of independent life...that will continue to be evaded or skated over.

Is there a qualitative difference to me? No. Is the right to life any less? No.

cactus flower wrote:

As to responding to the question of whether there is a qualitative difference between a small cluster of cells and a human being capable of independent life...that will continue to be evaded or skated over.

A six month old baby is not capable of independent life, what has that got to do with whether or not it is acceptable to kill them.

The problem is it isn't a purely qualitative issue. You are attempting to frame this in purely "rational" terms, seeking to set yourself up as avoiding any form of value judgment in order to rubbish the opinion of those who disagree with you. However, you are yourself making a value judgment. The argument you are presenting makes a value judgment that the beginnings of the evolution of a particular cell, which will in all likelihood evolve into a healthy child and within the natural confines of human development is viable to do so, is deserving of lesser protection than a more advanced cell. That is a value judgment, you are perfectly entitled to it as a value judgment, but is no more rational than anyone else's. Both are based on a rational interpretation of similar facts. The attempt to portray the opposing opinion as bereft of science is intellectually dishonest.

I'm not going to apologise for trying to be rational. A baby is not "a more advanced cell": it is a living complex of millions of cells, sensate and intelligent.

Do you not share my concern that the law here does not protect fully developed babies from "abortion" ?

No need to apologise but you might reconsider the attempt to portray all those who dissent from your point of view as irrational, which is the blatant policy you are pursuing.

Tonys and yourself both pursue a rational policy of examining the facts and then you both make a value judgment, one no more rationally based than the other. Your value judgment appears to be to protect the life of the unborn once it is viable for life outside of the womb whereas Tonys takes a step further back and makes a value judgment that the process which creates that advanced stage begins at fertilisation and thus the life should be protected from that stage. Both are value judgments based on rational study of scientific fact. An attempt by either to portray the other as irrational or unscientific is blatant intellectual dishonesty. This issue is quite plainly as much philosophical as it is scientific.

toxic avenger wrote:

Yeah, I can't respond to it because it will automatically be written off as somehow being a subconscious leftover of Catholic indoctrination, no matter how hard I claim to have tried to avoid it. It's classic 'closed theory'. That's why I stated that it's a shame that Hattersley and Lawson didn't go ahead and set up their 'agnostics/atheists against abortion' campaign...

Again I would suggest that whether agnostic or atheist, they have been brought up in societies which for generations have imbued microscopic cell clumps with a "soul" and that colours how they view such organisms.

What about fully formed humans imokyrok? There have also been societies in human history who have viewed ritual human sacrifice as entirely acceptable, torture until relatively recently was considered a normal form of interrogation and punishment. Would you consider an opinion against such methodology as valid? Most things in life are value judgments based on a multitude of factors, mainly philosophical.

imokyrok wrote:

toxic avenger wrote:

Yeah, I can't respond to it because it will automatically be written off as somehow being a subconscious leftover of Catholic indoctrination, no matter how hard I claim to have tried to avoid it. It's classic 'closed theory'. That's why I stated that it's a shame that Hattersley and Lawson didn't go ahead and set up their 'agnostics/atheists against abortion' campaign...

Again I would suggest that whether agnostic or atheist, they have been brought up in societies which for generations have imbued microscopic cell clumps with a "soul" and that colours how they view such organisms.

Perhaps they just think it is wrong to destroy human life once life has begun, no matter what form it takes? And couldn't the 'coloured by Catholic teaching' argument equally apply to all sorts of things prohibited by Catholicism, whether stealing, murder, rape, arson, whatever? Where is the line between what should be dismissed as 'religious' and what shouldn't?

I'm very clear about this. My opinion on, for example, re-marriage after divorce would be out the window if I became an atheist tomorrow. That is a clear example of a personal belief that I would never seek to impose on others. The opinion on abortion (and euthanasia) would remain unchanged. I believe that, even if I were to wrongly accept the contention that the collection of 'microscopic cell clumps' was qualitatively different from a full-grown adult, the denial of the ability to progress to equal qualitative status is not ours to make, particularly when our own was not denied by our mothers. As it is, I don't accept there is a qualitative difference, once human life has begun it is entitled to full protection, particularly in its earliest and most vulnerable form.

Well johnfas, religious was the term I used, it was yourself introduced the term rational.

tonys wrote

Quote :

A six month old baby is not capable of independent life, what has that got to do with whether or not it is acceptable to kill them.

cactus flower wrote

Quote :

I am not defining viable, that is defined by science and experience - it is not my terminology it is medical terminology. There is nothing whatsoever arbitrary about it, and it clearly wasn't even considered by the courts. Nor would I ever suggest that it was an appropriate limit for abortion. I was horrified by the courts' finding that there was no upper limit to the stage at which abortion was permissable.

No woman would ever "want" an abortion. There seems to be great upset here at the idea of someone disagreeing with you and making "value judgements", but you are very quick to throw terms like "murderer" at desperate women who you know nothing about.

If you want to call posters "intellectually dishonest" please make some attempt at substantiating it. The mere fact of disagreeing with you is not imo enough.

cactus flower wrote:

Well johnfas, religious was the term I used, it was yourself introduced the term rational.

tonys wrote

Quote :

A six month old baby is not capable of independent life, what has that got to do with whether or not it is acceptable to kill them.

cactus flower wrote

Quote :

I am not defining viable, that is defined by science and experience - it is not my terminology it is medical terminology. There is nothing whatsoever arbitrary about it, and it clearly wasn't even considered by the courts. Nor would I ever suggest that it was an appropriate limit for abortion. I was horrified by the courts' finding that there was no upper limit to the stage at which abortion was permissable.

No woman would ever "want" an abortion. There seems to be great upset here at the idea of someone disagreeing with you and making "value judgements", but you are very quick to throw terms like "murderer" at desperate women who you know nothing about.

If you want to call posters "intellectually dishonest" please make some attempt at substantiating it. The mere fact of disagreeing with you is not imo enough.

Who or what are you talking to or about?

toxic avenger wrote:

imokyrok wrote:

toxic avenger wrote:

Yeah, I can't respond to it because it will automatically be written off as somehow being a subconscious leftover of Catholic indoctrination, no matter how hard I claim to have tried to avoid it. It's classic 'closed theory'. That's why I stated that it's a shame that Hattersley and Lawson didn't go ahead and set up their 'agnostics/atheists against abortion' campaign...

Again I would suggest that whether agnostic or atheist, they have been brought up in societies which for generations have imbued microscopic cell clumps with a "soul" and that colours how they view such organisms.

Perhaps they just think it is wrong to destroy human life once life has begun, no matter what form it takes? And couldn't the 'coloured by Catholic teaching' argument equally apply to all sorts of things prohibited by Catholicism, whether stealing, murder, rape, arson, whatever? Where is the line between what should be dismissed as 'religious' and what shouldn't?

I'm very clear about this. My opinion on, for example, re-marriage after divorce would be out the window if I became an atheist tomorrow. That is a clear example of a personal belief that I would never seek to impose on others. The opinion on abortion (and euthanasia) would remain unchanged. I believe that, even if I were to wrongly accept the contention that the collection of 'microscopic cell clumps' was qualitatively different from a full-grown adult, the denial of the ability to progress to equal qualitative status is not ours to make, particularly when our own was not denied by our mothers. As it is, I don't accept there is a qualitative difference, once human life has begun it is entitled to full protection, particularly in its earliest and most vulnerable form.

You are very clear, but if you became an atheist tomorrow, you would be a different person with a completely different outlook. Guessing what that person might think is only a guess.

I have no problem with you disagreeing with anyone. However, your attempt to silence debate by sidetracking into pseudoscience as if it were absolutely defined when human life begins is at best dishonest, just as it would be for a anti-abortion person to imply a 4 week old foetus could live outside the womb. That is quite plainly a judgment which you have yourself come to, it is not an objectively quantified fact, as you attempt to portray above, perhaps you could adduce some evidence to substantiate that point of view.

The simple fact is there is scientific evidence supporting both points of view, the difference being where one decides to emphasise. It is quite clear that a 4 week old foetus cannot sustain life outside of its defined environment. However, equally, it is quite clear that without those 4 weeks the more advanced stages of human development can never occur. The level of protection one wants to supply to each is a decision based on personal judgment. Your decision as much "religion" as that of Tonys and Toxic Avenger, it is merely the application of different criteria, both valid. It is the attempt at invalidating, rather than disagreeing, with these judgments which is antagonising.

tonys wrote:

Who or what are you talking to or about?

A conglomeration of different people, seemingly.

tonys wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

Well johnfas, religious was the term I used, it was yourself introduced the term rational.

tonys wrote

Quote :

A six month old baby is not capable of independent life, what has that got to do with whether or not it is acceptable to kill them.

cactus flower wrote

Quote :

I am not defining viable, that is defined by science and experience - it is not my terminology it is medical terminology. There is nothing whatsoever arbitrary about it, and it clearly wasn't even considered by the courts. Nor would I ever suggest that it was an appropriate limit for abortion. I was horrified by the courts' finding that there was no upper limit to the stage at which abortion was permissable.

No woman would ever "want" an abortion. There seems to be great upset here at the idea of someone disagreeing with you and making "value judgements", but you are very quick to throw terms like "murderer" at desperate women who you know nothing about.

If you want to call posters "intellectually dishonest" please make some attempt at substantiating it. The mere fact of disagreeing with you is not imo enough.

Who or what are you talking to or about?

You know who you are

cactus flower wrote:

toxic avenger wrote:

imokyrok wrote:

toxic avenger wrote:

Yeah, I can't respond to it because it will automatically be written off as somehow being a subconscious leftover of Catholic indoctrination, no matter how hard I claim to have tried to avoid it. It's classic 'closed theory'. That's why I stated that it's a shame that Hattersley and Lawson didn't go ahead and set up their 'agnostics/atheists against abortion' campaign...

Again I would suggest that whether agnostic or atheist, they have been brought up in societies which for generations have imbued microscopic cell clumps with a "soul" and that colours how they view such organisms.

Perhaps they just think it is wrong to destroy human life once life has begun, no matter what form it takes? And couldn't the 'coloured by Catholic teaching' argument equally apply to all sorts of things prohibited by Catholicism, whether stealing, murder, rape, arson, whatever? Where is the line between what should be dismissed as 'religious' and what shouldn't?

I'm very clear about this. My opinion on, for example, re-marriage after divorce would be out the window if I became an atheist tomorrow. That is a clear example of a personal belief that I would never seek to impose on others. The opinion on abortion (and euthanasia) would remain unchanged. I believe that, even if I were to wrongly accept the contention that the collection of 'microscopic cell clumps' was qualitatively different from a full-grown adult, the denial of the ability to progress to equal qualitative status is not ours to make, particularly when our own was not denied by our mothers. As it is, I don't accept there is a qualitative difference, once human life has begun it is entitled to full protection, particularly in its earliest and most vulnerable form.

You are very clear, but if you became an atheist tomorrow, you would be a different person with a completely different outlook. Guessing what that person might think is only a guess.

A well thought-out and pretty educated guess, if a guess it is...

cactus flower wrote:

toxic avenger wrote:

imokyrok wrote:

toxic avenger wrote:

Yeah, I can't respond to it because it will automatically be written off as somehow being a subconscious leftover of Catholic indoctrination, no matter how hard I claim to have tried to avoid it. It's classic 'closed theory'. That's why I stated that it's a shame that Hattersley and Lawson didn't go ahead and set up their 'agnostics/atheists against abortion' campaign...

Again I would suggest that whether agnostic or atheist, they have been brought up in societies which for generations have imbued microscopic cell clumps with a "soul" and that colours how they view such organisms.

Perhaps they just think it is wrong to destroy human life once life has begun, no matter what form it takes? And couldn't the 'coloured by Catholic teaching' argument equally apply to all sorts of things prohibited by Catholicism, whether stealing, murder, rape, arson, whatever? Where is the line between what should be dismissed as 'religious' and what shouldn't?

I'm very clear about this. My opinion on, for example, re-marriage after divorce would be out the window if I became an atheist tomorrow. That is a clear example of a personal belief that I would never seek to impose on others. The opinion on abortion (and euthanasia) would remain unchanged. I believe that, even if I were to wrongly accept the contention that the collection of 'microscopic cell clumps' was qualitatively different from a full-grown adult, the denial of the ability to progress to equal qualitative status is not ours to make, particularly when our own was not denied by our mothers. As it is, I don't accept there is a qualitative difference, once human life has begun it is entitled to full protection, particularly in its earliest and most vulnerable form.

You are very clear, but if you became an atheist tomorrow, you would be a different person with a completely different outlook. Guessing what that person might think is only a guess.

So there you are Toxic, it's not about right or wrong, it's about you being a Catholic and as such you're not in a position to know the difference.

toxic avenger wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

toxic avenger wrote:

imokyrok wrote:

toxic avenger wrote:

Yeah, I can't respond to it because it will automatically be written off as somehow being a subconscious leftover of Catholic indoctrination, no matter how hard I claim to have tried to avoid it. It's classic 'closed theory'. That's why I stated that it's a shame that Hattersley and Lawson didn't go ahead and set up their 'agnostics/atheists against abortion' campaign...

Again I would suggest that whether agnostic or atheist, they have been brought up in societies which for generations have imbued microscopic cell clumps with a "soul" and that colours how they view such organisms.

Perhaps they just think it is wrong to destroy human life once life has begun, no matter what form it takes? And couldn't the 'coloured by Catholic teaching' argument equally apply to all sorts of things prohibited by Catholicism, whether stealing, murder, rape, arson, whatever? Where is the line between what should be dismissed as 'religious' and what shouldn't?

I'm very clear about this. My opinion on, for example, re-marriage after divorce would be out the window if I became an atheist tomorrow. That is a clear example of a personal belief that I would never seek to impose on others. The opinion on abortion (and euthanasia) would remain unchanged. I believe that, even if I were to wrongly accept the contention that the collection of 'microscopic cell clumps' was qualitatively different from a full-grown adult, the denial of the ability to progress to equal qualitative status is not ours to make, particularly when our own was not denied by our mothers. As it is, I don't accept there is a qualitative difference, once human life has begun it is entitled to full protection, particularly in its earliest and most vulnerable form.

You are very clear, but if you became an atheist tomorrow, you would be a different person with a completely different outlook. Guessing what that person might think is only a guess.

A well thought-out and pretty educated guess, if a guess it is...

Can you really envisage yourself as atheist ? tbh, I can't

I do find it a bit rich that people who are not religious feel comfortable defining what, how and why religious people come to a point of view but then cry foul when religious people hypothesise outside of their own situation.

cactus flower wrote:

tonys wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

Well johnfas, religious was the term I used, it was yourself introduced the term rational.

tonys wrote

Quote :

A six month old baby is not capable of independent life, what has that got to do with whether or not it is acceptable to kill them.

cactus flower wrote

Quote :

I am not defining viable, that is defined by science and experience - it is not my terminology it is medical terminology. There is nothing whatsoever arbitrary about it, and it clearly wasn't even considered by the courts. Nor would I ever suggest that it was an appropriate limit for abortion. I was horrified by the courts' finding that there was no upper limit to the stage at which abortion was permissable.

No woman would ever "want" an abortion. There seems to be great upset here at the idea of someone disagreeing with you and making "value judgements", but you are very quick to throw terms like "murderer" at desperate women who you know nothing about.

If you want to call posters "intellectually dishonest" please make some attempt at substantiating it. The mere fact of disagreeing with you is not imo enough.

Who or what are you talking to or about?

You know who you are

In this case I can honestly say I don't know who you are talking to or what you are talking about.