In response to the leaking of Justice Alito’s draft majority opinion overturning Roe, I wrote a piece for Catholic Link, and did an episode yesterday of Catholic Answers Focus:
But since I’ve already started to see a whole series of terrible arguments from pro-choicers in the wake of the decision, I thought I would write something for anyone (but especially pro-choicers) involved in debating this topic. First and foremost, the single most important question in the abortion debate is simply this: is the fetus a human being? Science says “yes.”
Now, this isn’t the only important question – it’s possible to imagine some cases in which an action involves killing someone but it’s still viewed as justifiable (like self defense or just war, etc.). But what answering this question does is saves you from the dumbest and most popular pro-choice talking points, like:
- Pro-lifers don’t really care about children, because they don’t support X social policy! If things like poverty were easy to fix, they’d be fixed by now. Leaving aside the complicated policy questions (there are plenty of well-meaning social programs that have worked out disastrously for the poor), and the lazy way that this caricatures pro-lifers as a homogenous mass, this whole premise is paper thin. Georgetown’s Jason Brennan (who is pro-choice) puts it like this: “I am against Russians killing Ukrainians but I might for all sorts of reasons oppose US government aid to Ukraine. I don’t think my neighbor should murder his kids and yet that doesn’t mean I believe I’m obligated to feed his kids.” If someone is against murder but doesn’t support a social program I like, that doesn’t undermine their opposition to murder, or make murder defensible.
- Pro-lifers just want to control women’s bodies! This argument strikes me as weird. It’s assuming bad faith on behalf of all pro-lifers, but of a very specific kind: that pro-lifers are really meddlesome, and trying to control the lives and choices of women. But how does that square with the first argument/stereotype, that pro-lifers are indifferent to the lives and choices of women? I’m not saying the two positions can’t be harmonized (although the people making these claims tend to be too intellectually lazy to even try ), but on the surface, it at least sounds like criticizing pro-lifers for being under-involved and over-involved in the lives of new moms. In any case, this whole objection turns on the idea that abortion is just an issue of “women’s bodies,” so see my next reply.
- My body, my choice! The whole point is literally that it isn’t your body – it’s the body of another human being. And you don’t get to use your body in a way that intentionally kills another human being. That would violate their bodily autonomy.
Also, “my body, my choice” isn’t really a principle non-libertarians believe in, is it? Didn’t we just have a whole thing about vaccine mandates? I don’t mean that in a mocking or dismissive way, but just to say: isn’t there a generally-agreed upon sense that “bodily autonomy” isn’t a great excuse for actively endangering the lives of others? And directly killing someone is worse than merely endangering their lives, so this is a bad argument for pro-choicers. - No uterus, no opinion! Again, this assumes is something a woman simply does to her own body, and that is therefore purely a “woman’s issue” (although many advocates are now moving into clumsier “uterus-having” language for fear of offending people with the idea that women have uteri).
- Any argument framing abortion as a “reproductive health” decision. This euphemism is a falsehood.The process of reproduction is already over by the time abortion is a question. Putting it another way, preventing reproduction isn’t abortion. It may be contraception, but it’s not abortion. Giuseppe Fusco and Alessandro Minelli, in The Biology of Reproduction (Cambridge University Press, 2019), explain it this way:
- “In biology, reproduction is often defined as the process by which new individuals are produced from pre-existing individuals. This very concise definition is based on a couple of assumptions that, in the common-sense view again, are nearly always taken for granted. Namely, that these ‘new individuals’ (1) are materially generated by portions of the body of pre-existing individuals, which thus take the role of parents, and (ii) somehow qualify as entities of the same kind as their parents.
“This simple definition, with the accompanying specifications, allows us to delimit this process with respect to other types of production of biological material (or material of biological origin) that we would not count as reproduction, such as (i) the individual’s body growth, (ii) the production of metabolic waste products, (iii) the secretion of organic matter such as the silk used in the construction of cocoons and spider webs, and (iv) the emergence of new individuals directly from the abiotic world, so-called spontaneous generation.”
- “In biology, reproduction is often defined as the process by which new individuals are produced from pre-existing individuals. This very concise definition is based on a couple of assumptions that, in the common-sense view again, are nearly always taken for granted. Namely, that these ‘new individuals’ (1) are materially generated by portions of the body of pre-existing individuals, which thus take the role of parents, and (ii) somehow qualify as entities of the same kind as their parents.
- Pro-lifers are imposing their religion on us! The whole argument around abortion is (from the pro-life perspective) a scientific one, coupled with a belief that we shouldn’t kill innocent human beings. None of that requires any kind of religious belief, or any kind of beliefs about the soul, etc. That’s just a red herring.
- It’s wrong to impose your beliefs and values on others! Literally every law, from the speed limit or housing codes on up to laws against murder, is the product of a set of beliefs and values. We believe in and value something (the need for public safety, a desire to keep the city clean and beautiful, etc.) and create laws to further those beliefs and values. So this isn’t an argument for legalized abortion, it’s an argument against law itself. Unless the person saying it is an anarchist (and apparently, one ready to impose his anarchy on others), they don’t really believe it.
As I said, there are more nuanced and thoughtful pro-choice arguments out there, and those can’t be dismissed as easily. But the bulk of what I’ve seen lately are variations of these argumentative duds. Pro-choicers are logically left with the position of either arguing that human life doesn’t begin at conception, or biting the bullet and arguing that it’s okay to kill innocent humans sometimes, and that they get to decide when that “sometimes” is.
Those are important conversations to have, and I think I speak for most pro-lifers when I say that we would love to have those conversations. But can we at least be done with the seven talking points I outlined above?
And RAPE and INCEST are not exempt from the RADICAL Extremist position you want to force down the throats of American citizens??
So your idea of a solution to a crime (rape/incest) is to commit another crime – murder in the womb!
Mark, since when did it become radical and extremist to concur with the scientific fact that a fetus is a living human being in its earliest days of development? I would also ask, who’s doing the forcing? Have you forgotten that it was 7 unelected judges that forced this on America in 1973 without any precedent, without any Constitutional foundation, while completing usurping the authority of Congress to make laws?
What is murder?
Murder is the unlawful taking of human life.
So you are saying that if a country legalizes the killing of human beings of certain ethnicities, or kills in sacrificial offerings, as has happened in many countries throughout history, that it should not be considered murder?
I meant unlawful as God has established. People have laws in place already that come in conflict with His higher law. Abortion is one such area of law.
Mark,
The whole point I’m making in this piece is that the right question to start with is “is the fetus a human being?” If you DON’T start there, everybody just yells past one another and thinks the other side is horrible. Here’s why.
If the fetus ISN’T a human being, if it’s like removing an ulcer or a tumor, then none of us should care about abortion at all. There would be no reason to argue about it at all — no need to talk about hard cases of rape and incest, because there would be no hard cases.
But if the fetus IS a human being, then abortion (intentionally killing a fetus) is intentionally killing an innocent human being. The question of “how ought the law regulate that kind of killing” is a nuanced one — the law doesn’t treat every homicide as murder, but whatever the appropriate judicial/legal response, intentionally killing an innocent human is always wrong.
So the problem is that you’re jumping right into the kind of “hard cases” without answering the basic question I suggested was important to answer first. So let me turn the question back to you: is the fetus a human being?
In Christ,
Joe
This is disingenuous. Abortion isn’t about simply removing a fetus from the womb. It’s about killing the fetus.
Say that a pregnant rape victim is able to have the fetus removed from her body alive and it can be nourished and keep developing just like any other born infant. Can she then strangle it to death just because she was the victim of rape?
If not, then surely you can see why rape and incest don’t make sense as exceptions, even if you aren’t emotionally able to accept it (don’t let your emotions override your intellect).
If yes, then what stops a mother from killing any child at any time after birth?
If RAPE and INCEST (using your caps) were exempted from the position would you then support a pro life position?
mark, hell is a long time and yours is worse.
There are Four Natural Rights:
Life, Holiness, Property, Lethal Self-Defense against ANY who try to break the 4.
“abortion” is the worst sin That Cries To Heaven For Vengeance, worst satanic ritual of all, worst sin of all, worst evil of all. equal to cain for Martyring Abel, there is no greater evil and nothing incurs a greater p*nishment.
there have been 2,400,000,000+ (2.4 BILLION) worldwide since 1970 that I know of, and you are not only guilty of each and every one, but you are fully and totally paying for each and every one by your complicit support.
for each sin That Cries To Heaven For Vengeance you get special punishment in h*ll worse than all else before it combined, and a bl**d price to be paid on earth even if you Repent. paid in full, individually with no limit for all Eternity and on earth. also causes immediate demonic p*ss*ssion and invites upon you a demon whose whole “thing” is to push (or try to force) you towards s*c*de before you can Repent.
also the ONLY thing evil enough to get the devil’s attention which it does every time. this is why you panic as it goes away as your master has gone silent and no matter how many Babies you “sacrifice” he won’t show back up. your fear is noted, what comes next for you is even more noted.
I am Ready and waiting for you to be Judged. Are you?
Either all human life is precious and from the spark of a creator/divine or it’s not. This includes rape/incest. We do not know why such life is sparked from such evil acts of rape/incest but that doesn’t change the fact the spark existed from a creator/divine.
Man wants sex without consequence and life isn’t designed that way. Probably because sex was designed to be through marriage and a sacrament.
Why do you accept Satan’s terminology? That’s for losers. They are abortionist scum not pro-choicers. And if you say you’re pro-life rather than anti-abortion then you set yourself up for dumb arguments about the death penalty for murderers and stupid crap about not caring about the baby after its born. Plus how can you say abortionists should be executed? I’m pro-the-state-executing-abortionists. All life is not sacred; abortionists have forfeited any sacredness to theirs. Abortionists should be executed by being forced to drink poison so that they are forced to abort themselves.
“Abortionist scum” isn’t just unchristian language, it’s also inaccurate. Most pro-choicers don’t personally perform abortions, and therefore aren’t “abortionists.” That’s like demanding that I call everyone who supports PETA a “veterinarian.”
I simply wanted a decision from the court that left the woman in the picture, in consultation with her doctor. There are many different pregnancies that pose a threat to the life of the woman, and many pregnancies that would result in offspring in a vegetative state being birthed. Strict limitation of abortion was OK with me, but not this new situation in which certain states are enlisting bounty hunters in order to apprehend and prosecute women in desperate situations.
Also, I do think it’s relevant to criticize “fiscally conservative” pro-life militants who refuse to recognize the need to support enhanced neo-natal and post-natal care for poor women who are being required to bring pregnancies to term.
But your issues are the typical complaints of people who get all huffy about the “fiscally conservative” and social conservatives types in the first place. Your languages demonstrates this.
“pro-life militants”
This is a meaningless label. Either you’re against abortion or you’re not. Your exceptions that you’ve listed are technically the same tactic of those who support abortion in case of rape and incest. You are no different.
Robert,
You mentioned “pregnancies that pose a threat to the life of the woman.” It is helpful to distinguish between indirect abortion and direct abortion. An indirect abortion is one in which the death of the embryo or fetus is an unintended consequence of treatment of, for example, an ectopic (also tubal) pregnancy or uterine cancer during pregnancy. A direct abortion is an action that intentionally causes the death of the embryo or fetus. Most pro-lifers find that indirect abortion can be moral because if no intervention is made in the case of ectopic pregnancy or in some cases of pregnancy during uterine cancer, both the mother and her unborn offspring would likely die, and it is better to save one when two would otherwise perish. I think there are other qualifications on this including that all human parties involved should be treated with equal dignity.
You also mentioned “pregnancies that would result in offspring in a vegetative state being birthed.” Many find killing in such a case unjustified. Certainly in the Christian tradition it is considered unjust to do evil so that good may come from it, and killing an innocent human being, even one in a vegetative state, is thought to be an intrinsic evil. In Christian tradition – and this derives from the “Epistle to the Romans,” there must be a good means to a good end. The idea that it is just to do evil so that good may come from it is Machiavellianism – or, put differently, the idea that the ends justify the means or an evil means is OK as long as the end is good.
I find killing a creature that would endure a wretched life of almost unendurable pain to be an act of mercy—and, therefore, “good.”
“robert,”
Now thing compares to what awaits you in hell, and no deflection onto Babies or Martyring them in effigy of God will absolve you.
“abortion” is the worst sin That Cries To Heaven For Vengeance, worst satanic ritual of all, worst sin of all, worst evil of all. equal to cain for Martyring Abel, there is no greater evil and nothing incurs a greater p*nishment.
there have been 2,400,000,000+ (2.4 BILLION) worldwide since 1970 that I know of, and you are not only guilty of each and every one, but you are fully and totally paying for each and every one by your complicit support.
for each sin That Cries To Heaven For Vengeance you get special punishment in h*ll worse than all else before it combined, and a bl**d price to be paid on earth even if you Repent. paid in full, individually with no limit for all Eternity and on earth. also causes immediate demonic p*ss*ssion and invites upon you a demon whose whole “thing” is to push (or try to force) you towards s*c*de before you can Repent.
also the ONLY thing evil enough to get the devil’s attention which it does every time. this is why you panic as it goes away as your master has gone silent and no matter how many Babies you “sacrifice” he won’t show back up. your fear is noted, what comes next for you is even more noted.
I am Ready and waiting for you to be Judged. Are you?
Joe,
Just War states:
– it is a grave sin and makes you fully complicit in evil to do nothing in the face of evil.
– it is a grave sin and makes you fully complicit in evil to not feel anger in the face of evil.
“abortion” is the worst sin That Cries To Heaven For Vengeance, worst satanic ritual of all, worst sin of all, worst evil of all. equal to cain for Martyring Abel, there is no greater evil and nothing incurs a greater p*nishment.
joe, even supporting this worst sin That Cries To Heaven For Vengeance, worst satanic ritual of all, worst sin of all, worst evil of all Excommunicates you Latae Senitentiae all possible ten times over.
your lack of anger in the face of evil also makes you totally complicit (which I assume is where your defense of them and lukewarm opposition comes from).
In other words, anything short of ending the problem violently is actually “unchristian,” which includes your “professional Catholic” (but functionally protestant) mewling.
In what other area do we try to persaude murderers with words to not murder, rather than punish them?
Ukraine? Lots of places in international law? Basically anywhere it would be difficult to stop the murder directly?
What’s wrong with persuading people not to commit murder?
Science does not say a fetus is a human.
You and I had this argument years ago here, there was no resolution. You’re extremely well versed in the pro-life and religious side. I’m knowledgeable about the science side if I do say so myself, I have a PhD in embryology, specifically about brain development. We’re both earnestly interested in this answer. If this were a productive debate based on facts, we should have been able to come to a consensus. Yet we weren’t.
I can conclusively say science has not examined when life begins because that’s not a scientific question. I can conclusively say science does not have the tools to establish sentience. I can also conclusively say there’s not much going on in the brain until the third trimester: https://sites.duke.edu/apep/files/2016/02/normal-brain-development.png
Saying “All these points are trivial compared to this central argument that is unresolvable” isn’t a fair conclusion even if you did acknowledge that science does not back you up on your core point.
Argument 1 is relevant because those social policies would reduce abortions more than a ban would. Also, if you’re going to claim a moral high ground to outlaw abortion, you need to actually have the moral high ground, which you don’t.
Argument 2 is relevant for the same reasons. Also see the FDNY guy from a few days ago telling women they’re going to have his baby. Many of the people you’re standing next to DO EXPLICITLY WANT TO UNDERMINE FEMINISM.
3 and 4 are repeats of your core argument, see above.
I’m disappointed in your take on 5. It’s disingenuous or at best lazy. Ectopic pregnancies are common. The church’s decree that you have to remove the fallopian tube is abortion just pretending it isn’t, and pointlessly imposes loss of fertility. There are two and only two outcomes of ectopic pregnancies: 1. Abortion 2. The woman dies along with the embryo.
6 also is relevant given the science is not conclusive and in order to claim life begins at conception requires religion.
Also, 3 is especially disingenuous given that Texas is already prosecuting women who miscarry.
Joe, you can just say “I’m okay with all these fair arguments about how what I want us wrong.” You can say “I don’t care that these laws are driven by evil people and will result in avoidable deaths.”
This whole post has been a way of softening the blow of “I don’t care.”
We know
phil,
If the “misscarriage” is done on purpose or through neglect, it is just the same as doing your satanic ritual through more established means.
In this case I will add to the list against you that covering up the crime, especially with misdirection of the crime, only enhances the guilty not absolves.
“abortion” is the worst evil possible. each involves you Martyring a Baby in effigy of God, so your satanic statement of “avoidable deaths” proves you know that you are murdering a Baby.
As Lila Rose said: if the Baby is not alive, why murder them?
your very actions prove the lie of your rhetoric.
As for your projection, when the capital sin of pride is threatened, it turns to despair. the mortal sin of despair has three forms:
1) hopelessness
2) trying to d*mn others in your place by projection.
3) trying to “normalize” your sin to claim all are guilty of your sin (and therefore are d*mned with you).
Luckily, the final stage of the reprobate happens right after you try to Martyr one of us, and that is your singular belief to try to Martyr us all.
science is retarded and its followers are demons
“The church’s decree that you have to remove the fallopian tube is abortion just pretending it isn’t, and pointlessly imposes loss of fertility.”
A woman seeking abortoon should have her fertility removed so she never murders another baby so I agree with them that this is the solution if not willing to execute these women.
Ectopic pregnancies kill both so I’m glad you’re honest about your intentions here.
phil, you admit that “abortion” kills a Baby.
your projection that we are “murderers” for being against your open acts of murder (MUCH worse than that, actually) is another.
Therefore your whole position is moot as you admit the Humanity AND Life of your Victim when flustered.
I assume you are just trolling (given the user name), but if not: I don’t think you know what an ectopic pregnancy is.
I cannot reply to your reply directly for whatever reason, but I can reply here.
Read what I said about Just War. You could also look up St Gianna Molla. Pope Pius XII is not a Saint, but you could easily find fault with his tepidity, though not for the reason people lie about him.
I will never apologize for being against this worst evil of all.
Nah, ectopic pregnancy is very likely to kill both the mother and her unborn child if left untreated, and it is better to save at least one life when two would otherwise very likely perish.
blasphemously named “iraneus,” to support “abortion” in ANY way is not permitted.
Stop trying to find “exceptions.”
Who is “iraneus?”
Anyway, indirect abortion is not direct abortion. It’s not an exceptional direct abortion. Perhaps soon we will have a way to save the unborn human being that grows in a Fallopian tube, but usually we are not there yet.
And I suspect that someone who can’t spell “Irenaeus” properly even though it is on the screen before him will also struggle with the principle of double effect.
I was talking to you. I care more about what is right than spelling, so you and I are opposites in that regard. you are blasphemously and satanically named as St Irenaeus is famous for his book “Against the heresies” and his defense of The Faith against gnostics like yourself. That point you very much glossed over in your defense of the worst sin That Cry To Heaven For Vengeance, worst satanic ritual of all, worst evil of all, worst sin of all; all while personally attacking me and calling me “stupid” just for being Catholic,
The “law of double effect” means that anything that would lead to the death of a Child, like cancer treatment, is equal to an “abortion.”
I see milquetoast little satanists like you often try to claim it’s the opposite, but the simple fact you are not and never will be Catholic and ALL the misfortune visited on your people over the past 100 years during the devil’s century shows what side God Is On, and it isn’t the side of gnostics like you.
You claim that you are Catholic and that I am not (that I am a “gnostic”), but it is I who accept the teaching of the Catholic Church on this point and you, NIGELTEAPOT, who reject it. Please change your name to “TROLLING, IGNORANT, FILIBUSTERING WHISTLING TEAKETTLE.” Or better, clean up your act.
https://jimmyakin.com/2006/03/ectopic_abortio.html
https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/251941/ectopic-pregnancies-miscarriage-abortion-never-necessary-these-doctors-say
https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/indirect-abortion-12081
You are wrong again. It is you, SHRIEKINGTEAKETTLE, who is against the teaching of the Catholic Church, not I. Read on.
Here is an excerpt from the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith’s “Clarification on procured abortion” (“L’Osservatore Romano,”11 July 2009) which quotes Pope Pius XII in a speech delivered in 1951:
‘As for the problem of specific medical treatments intended to preserve the health of the mother, it is necessary to make a strong distinction between two different situations: on the one hand, a procedure that directly causes the death of the fetus, sometimes inappropriately called “therapeutic” abortion, which can never be licit in that it is the direct killing of an innocent human being; on the other hand, a procedure not abortive in itself that can have, as a collateral consequence, the death of the child: «If, for example, saving the life of the future mother, independently of her condition of pregnancy, urgently required a surgical procedure or another therapeutic application, which would have as an accessory consequence, in no way desired or intended, but inevitable, the death of the fetus, such an action could not be called a direct attack on the innocent life. In these conditions, the operation can be considered licit, as can other similar medical procedures, always provided that a good of high value, like life, is at stake, and that it is not possible to postpone it until after the birth of the child, or to use any other effective remedy» (Pius XII, Speech to the Fronte della Famiglia and the Associazione Famiglie numerose, November 27, 1951).’
https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20090711_aborto-procurato_en.html
Again, The “law of double effect” means that anything that would lead to the death of a Child, like cancer treatment, is equal to an “abortion.”
Truth cannot be changed, most unfortunate demon. Luckily with your support of the worst sin That Cry To Heaven For Vengeance, you are not Catholic ten times over. So while you may bleat and blaspheme until your time comes, Justice for the little ones comes with The Final Vengeance. Where God will momentarily bring them down to hell to face you, and then order them to commit on you The Final Venegeance.
Pope Pius XII can join you, I don’t care. At the end of time, I will be standing aside the little ones performing The Final Vengeance upon you as well; what you do to them you do to me and I am FAR less kind than they are.
your curses are returned back to whence they came with A St Michael Prayer and A St Benedict Prayer.
Nigel,
You’re right to be passionate about abortion, but the manner in which you’re proceeding is totally unhelpful. Damning strangers you don’t know – including a saintly pope! – is about the clearest biblical way to send YOURSELF to hell. As Jesus said, “for with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and the measure you give will be the measure you get” (Matt. 7:2).
You’re also totally wrong about double effect, and I would encourage you to read Aquinas or any number of other excellent authors who can explain the doctrine to you in greater clarity.
In Christ,
Joe
Phil,
It’s true that there are plenty of scientists who will debate when “human” life begins, but only because they dabble into questions of metaphysics and philosophy for which they’re woefully unprepared. My point is that there is no SCIENTIFIC question. If we want to know when a chicken’s life begins, it’s at conception, not birth. If we want to know when a cat’s life begins, same. And if we want to know when a human’s life begins, same.
It’s true, that there are extremely-precise questions about when the moment of conception is (particularly in contexts like IVF), but those are questions of a few moments, not a question of days or weeks, and irrelevant to the abortion debate. In any case, IVF is actually a clear example. After the egg is fertilized, there’s clearly a living organism (genetically distinct from both the mother and father), and it’s incoherent to say that it’s just “part of the mother,” particularly prior to implantation, when the embryo’s not even in his/her mother’s body yet.
As for the legal questions, (1) I don’t know what miscarriage prosecutions you’re referring to, and (2) it’s possible that Texas has a badly-written (or badly-enforced) law… which still wouldn’t defend Roe. Being pro-life doesn’t commit me to supporting every possible anti-abortion law. I mean, you and I are both against murder, but I bet you’d agree that some of our laws (like laws on “felony murder”) are often unjust in their application. But the solution isn’t “let’s legalize murder, then!” OR “who cares?”
Joe
Sorry, Phil, I missed half of your comment (I was reading on mobile and I think I skipped it by mistake). So to your other arguments:
“Argument 1 is relevant because those social policies would reduce abortions more than a ban would.”
That’s just not true. I have seen literally no data that supports this, and quite a bit that directly contradicts it. Even the Guttmacher folks admit as much. We’ve actually discussed this before (see https://shamelesspopery.com/does-limiting-abortion-access-or-expanding-the-social-net-better-reduce-abortion/ and your comments beneath).
That to one side, it’s not an either/or. Saying “we should have better social programs” as an answer to “abortion should be legal” is like imagining that “we should drink water” rebuts the idea that “we should eat food.” It’s both/and. If there are good social programs, let’s do them! But it’s easy to say “we should have better social policies” and much harder to design ones that actually work well and without a bunch of unintended consequences (see, e.g., the War on Poverty). So it is a lot easier to demonize pro-lifers than to actually design effective social programs.
Argument #2: There are gross and sexist pro-lifers, sure. But there are also a lot of gross and sexist pro-choicers who like abortion precisely because it gives them more control over women’s and girl’s bodies (e.g., sexual abusers). But it’s stupid and immature to focus on those bad apples (on either side) as a way of avoiding the other side’s actual arguments.
Argument #5: Your objection really misunderstands double effect. Attacking a military institution in war might result in unintended civilian deaths, but that doesn’t mean it’s the same as murdering civilians and “just pretending it isn’t.” There’s an enormous difference between intentionally doing X, and doing Y with the unintended side effect of X. Some form of double effect is used all the time in medicine: it’s literally where the phrase “side effects” comes from. So it’s strange to pretend double effect isn’t a thing when you get to ectopic pregnancies.
Argument #6: Do you think it takes religion to say that an animal’s life begins at conception? And are you denying the existence of pro-life atheists?
Phil,
A poll of over 5000 biologists show 95% of them, even though most of them a pro-choice, agree that human life begins are fertilization.
To say its not a scientific question is generally correct, but it is a philosophy of science and metaphysics question. The sciences work from philosophical assumptions about what things are and what they are not. To do biology, we must recognize the distinction between, say, a bunch of single-celled organisms and a single multi-celled organism, between an organism itself and the parts of an organism. Biologists can and do recognize this and make conclusions built upon such distinctions. Biology simply cannot proceed without these distinctions. By your reasoning, science can’t tell us when an organism is healthy or disordered because that relies on certain philosophical assumptions. Really, it seems like your position would amount to sciences not really being able to tell us anything about anything if we pushed it to its logical end, but that is obviously absurd.
What we need to know is when does a unique organism appear, not just parts of another organism, and while there are questions about twins, about the unity between cells at the very beginning of divisions, these don’t really seem relevant to the primary question. A worm that is cut in half and becomes two separate living worms doesn’t mean biologists can’t know if the worm prior was a distinct organism or not. Same with a zygote splitting in to two separate twin organisms.
I don’t agree.
The very fact that a living haploid cell from the mother & a living haploid cell from the father unite – DNA recombines – & a cell results that begins to form more cells to ultimately form another fully developed baby human being is a scientific fact. It is basic Biology.
Pray tell how this undermines feminism when today’s feminists can’t even tell me what a woman is anymore. They have lost their identity.
phil, Life Begins At Conception.
Everything that makes you as you is there. There is no other possibility.
nominalism is mental illness, not an argument. voluntarism, specifically the demand that “if my victims are human then I am a murderer, so my victims are not human because I don’t want to be a murderer,” is similarly a mental illness and not an argument.
Life Begins At Conception.
Life Is Up To God, not you who pretends to be “like gods” despairs failing ridiculously to even be Human.
this level of satanic inversion is reaching points of even you waking yourself up.
As I said:
“abortion” is the worst sin That Cries To Heaven For Vengeance, worst satanic ritual of all, worst sin of all, worst evil of all. equal to cain for Martyring Abel, there is no greater evil and nothing incurs a greater p*nishment. the ONLY thing evil enoufh to get the devil’s personal attention, which is why you panic losing it.
Again, there have been 2,400,000,000+ (2.4 BILLION) worldwide since 1970 that I know of, and you are not only guilty of each and every one, but you are fully and totally paying for each and every one by your complicit support.
for each sin That Cries To Heaven For Vengeance you get special punishment in h*ll worse than all else before it combined, and a bl**d price to be paid on earth even if you Repent. paid in full, individually with no limit for all Eternity and on earth. also causes immediate demonic p*ss*ssion and invites upon you a demon whose whole “thing” is to push (or try to force) you towards s*c*de before you can Repent.
Woe Eternal Unto you who calls Good as “evil” and evil as “temporal good.”
I am Ready and waiting for you to be Judged. Are you?
Joe, have you read David Boonin’s, Defense of Abortion? The Real Atheology Podcast really loves to share it around and thinks its one of the best defenses there are.
From my reading, he basically argues that there are no such things as human organisms. He seems to defend a kind of substance dualism where our bodies are not us, but we are the conscious being, so killing a fetus before there is any consciousness isn’t killing a human person, but just another organism that the human person is attached to at some point. Personally, I find this distinction to be almost purely ad hoc and runs in to all the philosophical problems such a division generates.
I just thought I’d share it with you 🙂
That’s Hinduism. Krishna says in Bhagavad Gita that you are only the soul so killing the body is not actual killing. This is why Indians were savages before the British tamed us with Anglicanism.
If Catholics want to abort their babies, all the better for the world. Let the Mary worshipers wipe their filthy idolatring piece of feces religion from the earth.
Where is in the Bible?
How does this fulfill the greatest commandments?
I have long known many Catholics but have never known any to worship Mary.
Also, I’m confident that “idolatring” is not recognized as a word in most or perhaps even any dictionary.
charles, there exists a Latae Senitentiae Excommunication.
For sins That Cry To Heaven For Vengeance, which means the acts are so evil just even supporting them Excommunicates you Automatically. There are ten ways that one can be Automatically Excommunicated.
“abortion” is the worst sin That Cry To Heaven For Vengeance, even support qualifies for all 10 possible ways at once.
So no Catholics are getting “abortions.” PERIOD.
Surely an at least equally important question is that of the soul of the unborn child? The tragedy of abortion, infanticide and miscarriage does not include perdition for the victims; that is reserved for the unrepentant.
I simply wanted a decision from the court that left the woman in the picture, in consultation with her doctor. There are many different pregnancies that pose a threat to the life of the woman, and many pregnancies that would result in offspring in a vegetative state being birthed. Strict limitation of abortion was OK with me, but not this new situation in which certain states are enlisting bounty hunters in order to apprehend and prosecute women in desperate situations.
Also, I do think it’s relevant to criticize “fiscally conservative” pro-life militants who refuse to recognize the need to support enhanced neo-natal and post-natal care for poor women who are being required to bring pregnancies to term.
“robert,” you simply wanted a means by which you could be “absolved” of your support and committing the worst sin That Cries To Heaven For Vengeance, worst satanic ritual of all, worst sin of all, worst evil of all without Contrition, Conversion, Confession, Penance, Repentance.
NO.
death, Judgement, Heaven, or hell. PERIOD. END OF.
Yes, because none of us will be. When you are dead you are dead. There is no aftelife. Every other belief is just that, a belief, based on no evidence and contrary to everything that had actually been observed. But don’t ratilonalism from interfering with religious prejudice. You already control the Supreme Court and espouse Trump, the most dangerous demagogue in 100 years.
you were allowed to be born here instead of directly in h*ll to give you this one chance to Repent.
when the capital sin of pride is threatened, it turns to despair. the mortal sin of despair has three forms:
1) hopelessness
2) trying to d*mn others in your place by projection.
3) trying to “normalize” your sin to claim all are guilty of your sin (and therefore are d*mned with you).
The five steps of the reprobate are:
1) giving yourself over to so because you were brainw*shed into thinking you had usurped Divine Will.
2) realizing that was a mistake, you erroneously think denying God will make your shame over sin go away.
3) realizing that doesn’t work, you erroneously think attacking Christians will make your shame over sin go away.
4) realizing that doesn’t work, you erroneously think Martyring Christians will make your shame over sin go away.
5) realizing that doesn’t work, s*c*de.