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

johnfás wrote:

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.

I don't equate the equivalent of what comes of  under my nail when I scratch the side of my nose with a sentient person Johnfas.

imokyrok wrote:

johnfás wrote:

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.

I don't equate the equivalent of what comes of under my nail when I scratch the side of my nose with a sentient person Johnfas.

But you do equate your opinions on whether people should be free from torture on personal judgments, based in morality, ethics, religion, or whatever, that are defined aside from science. Scientifically the world would be better off with alot less people on it, that doesn't mean that it would be right to cull a third of the world's population. But my last point is a philosophical judgment, the point before, is a scientific fact. One has to balance the two and come down on one side or another, a value judgment.

imokyrok wrote:

johnfás wrote:

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.

I don't equate the equivalent of what comes of under my nail when I scratch the side of my nose with a sentient person Johnfas.

How is that equivalent? Will your nose-scratchings become a walking, talking person within a period of time? If so, don't scratch your nose near me...

johnfás wrote:

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.

I note you are not quoting me johnfas. Nowhere have I talked about "where human life begins".

Quote :

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.

What judgement are you talking about? If you want me to reply in relation to a point you say I've made, it would be helpful if you would quote it in the normal way.

Quote :

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

.

This thread was started to discuss why the mother of a nine year old child who was raped and had an abortion was excommunicated. How are we supposed to keep religion out of it?

tonys wrote:

Who or what are you talking to or about?

Quote :

A conglomeration of different people, seemingly.[/

quote]

You, tonys and toxic.

Well it would be helpful if you addressed points individually rather than conglomerating us as if we had all made the same points, which clearly we had not.

You have talked about simple conglomeration of cells differentiated from viable human life. There is quite a clear implicit suggestion there that the level of protection owing to each is to be differentiated.

Your statements on religion above, equally, do not address the point I actually made in that paragraph. Furthermore, how is it that you are qualified to pontificate on religion but Toxic is not on atheism?

The fact that those in favour of the “right to choose abortion” insist on clinging to the “it’s only because of religion” argument when it’s as plain as day that this argument just doesn’t stand up, shows I think that they recognise the strength of the non religious anti abortion argument and the weakness of the purely self-interest based pro-abortion position.

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


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.

It seems we are in agreement on that, tonys.

cactus flower wrote:

You, tonys and toxic.

Huh? Which bit is aimed at me? I never called anyone a 'murderer'. My position is one of mens rea being all important. If someone believes it is a human life but carries out the abortion anyway, then that's murder. If someone believes it's not a human life, then possibly manslaughter, possibly nothing at all. It is quite possible for a mother who is immature or is greatly distressed to have no moral culpability at all having aborted her pregnancy. So I don't use the term 'murder' though I believe it is indeed applicable in an unquantifiable proportion of cases.

johnfás wrote:

imokyrok wrote:

johnfás wrote:

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.

I don't equate the equivalent of what comes of under my nail when I scratch the side of my nose with a sentient person Johnfas.

But you do equate your opinions on whether people should be free from torture on personal judgments, based in morality, ethics, religion, or whatever that are defined aside from science. Scientifically the world would be better off with alot less people on it, that doesn't mean that it would be right to cull a third of the world's population. But my last point is a philosophical judgment, the point before, is a scientific fact. One has to balance the two and come down on one side or another, a value judgment.

Science is rapidly approaching the time when it can explain at least our basic concepts of morality.What we know now is that a certain level of morality is innate and common to most if not all cultures. After that the culture we grow up in shapes many moral judgements and each of us has some latitude beyond that again in making moral judgements. It is my opinion that the issue of abortion should fall into the latter category. That each woman should be permitted to decide for herself whether or not it is moral to have an abortion especially in the early stages. The issue is not sufficiently black and white to allow others to dictate a womans actions.

I think the church's view in this case was that two wrongs don't make a right. In other words while the original rape was wrong this does not excuse abortion, which in their eyes is murder and therefore wrong.

johnfás wrote:

Well it would be helpful if you addressed points individually rather than conglomerating us as if we had all made the same points, which clearly we had not.

You have talked about simple conglomeration of cells differentiated from viable human life. There is quite a clear implicit suggestion there that the level of protection owing to each is to be differentiated.

Your statements on religion above, equally, do not address the point I actually made in that paragraph. Furthermore, how is it that you are qualified to pontificate on religion but Toxic is not on atheism?

That is a misundertanding of what I posted. I will not be responding to any more posts in which you inaccurately put words into my mouth, as it is a complete waste of time for all concerned. It would not be too difficult to quote.

imokyrok wrote:

johnfás wrote:

imokyrok wrote:

johnfás wrote:

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.

I don't equate the equivalent of what comes of under my nail when I scratch the side of my nose with a sentient person Johnfas.

But you do equate your opinions on whether people should be free from torture on personal judgments, based in morality, ethics, religion, or whatever that are defined aside from science. Scientifically the world would be better off with alot less people on it, that doesn't mean that it would be right to cull a third of the world's population. But my last point is a philosophical judgment, the point before, is a scientific fact. One has to balance the two and come down on one side or another, a value judgment.

Science is rapidly approaching the time when it can explain at least our basic concepts of morality.What we know now is that a certain level of morality is innate and common to most if not all cultures. After that the culture we grow up in shapes many moral judgements and each of us has some latitude beyond that again in making moral judgements. It is my opinion that the issue of abortion should fall into the latter category. That each woman should be permitted to decide for herself whether or not it is moral to have an abortion especially in the early stages. The issue is not sufficiently black and white to allow others to dictate a womans actions.

But sufficiently black and white to decide that abortion is permissable? What if your opinion is, dare I suggest the possibility, wrong?...

Cactus, how is it you are qualified to discuss the logic of the religious, but toxic is not to discuss the logic of the atheist?

toxic avenger wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

You, tonys and toxic.

Huh? Which bit is aimed at me? I never called anyone a 'murderer'. My position is one of mens rea being all important. If someone believes it is a human life but carries out the abortion anyway, then that's murder. If someone believes it's not a human life, then possibly manslaughter, possibly nothing at all. It is quite possible for a mother who is immature or is greatly distressed to have no moral culpability at all having aborted her pregnancy. So I don't use the term 'murder' though I believe it is indeed applicable in an unquantifiable proportion of cases.

Your position is consistent and straightforward and while I disagree with it, I recognise that it is clear and consistent. My only disagreement with you Toxic (apart from the obvious fundamentals) is that personally, I think the "what if" of you being an atheist is too big at "what if" for anyone to know what you would think if you were one. It is not at all the same as saying that you can't describe atheism in other people, or as a phenomenon.

Art wrote:

I think the church's view in this case was that two wrongs don't make a right. In other words while the original rape was wrong this does not excuse abortion, which in their eyes is murder and therefore wrong.

In my view making a raped child go through with a pregnancy on grounds of religious doctrine is as abusive as the rape itself.

cactus flower wrote:

toxic avenger wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

You, tonys and toxic.

Huh? Which bit is aimed at me? I never called anyone a 'murderer'. My position is one of mens rea being all important. If someone believes it is a human life but carries out the abortion anyway, then that's murder. If someone believes it's not a human life, then possibly manslaughter, possibly nothing at all. It is quite possible for a mother who is immature or is greatly distressed to have no moral culpability at all having aborted her pregnancy. So I don't use the term 'murder' though I believe it is indeed applicable in an unquantifiable proportion of cases.

Your position is consistent and straightforward and while I disagree with it, I recognise that it is clear and consistent. My only disagreement with you Toxic (apart from the obvious fundamentals) is that personally, I think the "what if" of you being an atheist is too big at "what if" for anyone to know what you would think if you were one. It is not at all the same as saying that you can't describe atheism in other people, or as a phenomenon.

My mind is such that I am not an unsceptical Catholic, I constantly question it, I have the fabled 'dark nights of the soul' on occasion, and am able indeed to imagine the non-existence of God (though I don't accept it). But my position isn't purely a guess, it is an intellectually considered position (hence my being able to differentiate between the things that would indeed be jettisoned from my belief repertoire and those that would not). I'm quite certain about it. You are right that I would be a different person, but not that different.

cactus flower wrote:

Art wrote:

I think the church's view in this case was that two wrongs don't make a right. In other words while the original rape was wrong this does not excuse abortion, which in their eyes is murder and therefore wrong.

In my view making a raped child go through with a pregnancy on grounds of religious doctrine is as abusive as the rape itself.

Whereas making the child go through an abortion...?

The Church's position is morally and logically consistent, it says that there is a clash of rights taking place, a moral dilemma, and that it considers the evil done to the child mother by the rapist to be abominable but not to justify the committing of another abominable evil. It's a hard case, but it is in hard cases that you differentiate between the spineless bulsh1tters without the courage of their convictions and those who stand firm even when it is unpopular. The question of excommunication is another issue, and to be honest I don't know what I think about that (except I hope they also excommunicated the rapist), but the stance on abortion, even in this case, I applaud.

Fair does. We differ then, and I agree with Imokyrok on this one.

If we wanted to leave God out of it (when you are atheist) the disagreement would be between a materialist outlook and a idealist one, rather than materialst / religious.

toxic avenger wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

Art wrote:

I think the church's view in this case was that two wrongs don't make a right. In other words while the original rape was wrong this does not excuse abortion, which in their eyes is murder and therefore wrong.

In my view making a raped child go through with a pregnancy on grounds of religious doctrine is as abusive as the rape itself.

Whereas making the child go through an abortion...?

The Church's position is morally and logically consistent, it says that there is a clash of rights taking place, a moral dilemma, and that it considers the evil done to the child mother by the rapist to be abominable but not to justify the committing of another abominable evil. It's a hard case, but it is in hard cases that you differentiate between the spineless bulsh1tters without the courage of their convictions and those who stand firm even when it is unpopular. The question of excommunication is another issue, and to be honest I don't know what I think about that (except I hope they also excommunicated the rapist), but the stance on abortion, even in this case, I applaud.

And the fact that the nine year old girl would be at serious risk of her life, or at least permanent internal damage that would make her unable to have children in future ? Very courageous for all making that decision for her - and don't pretend that what she wanted came into it at any stage, either for the rapist or the Church.

cactus flower wrote:

toxic avenger wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

Art wrote:

I think the church's view in this case was that two wrongs don't make a right. In other words while the original rape was wrong this does not excuse abortion, which in their eyes is murder and therefore wrong.

In my view making a raped child go through with a pregnancy on grounds of religious doctrine is as abusive as the rape itself.

Whereas making the child go through an abortion...?

The Church's position is morally and logically consistent, it says that there is a clash of rights taking place, a moral dilemma, and that it considers the evil done to the child mother by the rapist to be abominable but not to justify the committing of another abominable evil. It's a hard case, but it is in hard cases that you differentiate between the spineless bulsh1tters without the courage of their convictions and those who stand firm even when it is unpopular. The question of excommunication is another issue, and to be honest I don't know what I think about that (except I hope they also excommunicated the rapist), but the stance on abortion, even in this case, I applaud.

And the fact that the nine year old girl would be at serious risk of her life, or at least permanent internal damage that would make her unable to have children in future ? Very courageous for all making that decision for her - and don't pretend that what she wanted came into it at any stage, either for the rapist or the Church.

I'm so angry at that statement that I'm not going to respond, lest I say something I regret.

I seem to have mislaid a post somehow so I'll repeat that I agree entirely with CF on the matter of the child being forced to go through with the pregnancy being the equivalent of abuse. It is remarkable that the catholic church see fit to excommunicte those who saved the life and psychological wellbeing of this child but not her rapist. Is it self interest I wonder - afterall think of the number of priests they would have to excommunicate.

Apologies for antagonising you cactus, was only providing a countervailing opinion to your own. Bit much when I didn't even provide my own opinion .

tonys wrote:

The fact that those in favour of the “right to choose abortion” insist on clinging to the “it’s only because of religion” argument when it’s as plain as day that this argument just doesn’t stand up, shows I think that they recognise the strength of the non religious anti abortion argument and the weakness of the purely self-interest based pro-abortion position.

As against that though I find it odd that the anti-abortion crowd seem to think the onus is on the pro-choice groups to prove that a foetus is not a human person and that killing one is not murder; historically murder never extended to the killing of foetuses, foetuses instead were protected by a separate prohibition of abortion which was more morally based. It was always the case that you cannot murder a foetus. If the pro-life lobby think this should be changed that's fine and I welcome debate but the ball is in their court and it is they who should be proving their case, they should not be leaving it up to those who favour the age-old distinction to prove their case.

Logically and scientifically it is difficult to justify extending the right to life all the way back to conception because at that point the... whatever it is, is so far from what we would consider a person that to give it the same status as one would be downright ludicrous. But where, then, to draw the line? Obviously there is no one significant leap within the pregnancy... an n-day-old foetus is not sufficiently different to an (n-1)-day-old foetus to justify categorising the two as completely different legal entities. But we have to draw a line somewhere. So where?

There is one point at which a major change occurs in the child - at birth. The change is not biological, but social. In the eyes of society, a baby in the womb is competely different to a baby outside the womb; or, at least, the difference is much greater than that between a baby in the womb for n days and a baby in the womb for n-1 days. The line is not moral or scientific, but social and practical. I contend that, if the religious baggage surrounding this issue were to be removed, the line would be relatively in keeping with society's views on pregnancy. A foetus is never really viewed as a separate person, but rather as an extension of the mother. A woman has a baby and becomes a mother when she goes into labour and the baby pops out of her, not nine months before.

evercloserunion wrote:

[...]

There is one point at which a major change occurs in the child - at birth.

[...]

A foetus is never really viewed as a separate person, but rather as an extension of the mother. A woman has a baby and becomes a mother when she goes into labour and the baby pops out of her, not nine months before.

Abortion at 39 weeks, evercloserunion? You can have a caesarean, or induced labour, at that stage in most cases. Even most people who support abortion support limitations. It isn't quite as clear cut as you have stated it.

johnfás wrote:

evercloserunion wrote:

A foetus is never really viewed as a separate
person, but rather as an extension of the mother. A woman has a baby
and becomes a mother when she goes into labour and the baby pops out of
her, not nine months before.

Abortion at 39 weeks, evercloserunion? You can have a caesarean at that stage in most cases. Even most people who support abortion support limitations. It isn't quite as clear cut as you have stated it.

A woman might have a C-section at that stage, yes. But my point wasn't that the mother has no other options, I thought that was clear. My point is about when we should classify a foetus as being socially and legally equal to the rest of us. To say that birth is not a good line to draw for that purpose because the mother has other options available to her is to use the options available to the mother as the yardstick by which the foetus' rights are measured. I don't think that is a satisfactory measure, and I don't think it's logical unless you consider the foetus's rights to come about as a result of the duty of the mother not to abort. That assumes that abortion is wrong without ever addressing the issues of the foetus's rights, so the only other way in which you could actually come to that conclusion is on religious or similar grounds.