Abortion (Cue Beethoven’s 5th)

Now that the appropriate mood is set….

I used to be pro-choice. (GASP!) As I’ve mentioned before, I don’t come from a highly-Catholic family, so my parents are kind of liberal. And so I was liberal for a long time.

But, as I explored the Catholic Church’s teachings and read up on abortion, I saw the light.

I believe there are two primary disconnects that cause such an acceptance of abortion.

1) It’s seen as human progress. You know, freeing the slaves, civil rights movement, abortion. SAY WHAT? Well, that’s how it’s taught in AP Gov. Those things are all taught as a part of civil rights and liberties. Doesn’t really sound like civil rights for the babies involved. 

2) People don’t actually know what happens in an abortion. When I read about it, I actually cried. It’s infuriating. In one method, the baby is killed by an injection of saline that burns him/her. In another method, the child is pretty much dismembered and taken out piece by piece. Gruesomely, his/her brains are literally sucked out of the head. For more on the procedures, see here. Even worse, it is likely that the baby can feel the pain. No one knows exactly how early on the baby can feel the pain, but apparently there have been studies that show the baby wriggling away from instruments. 

Why is Abortion Wrong?

I don’t care if you’re a Catholic, atheist, or anything in between. Your human reason and religious beliefs (if applicable) shouldn’t make this too hard to figure out. 

From a purely philosophical standpoint:

You are a functioning human being reading this blog post right now. Before that, you were a kid, before that you were a baby, before that you were in your mother’s womb, before that you were conceived. Based on the example of YOU, embryos are people. Destroying you as an embryo would have destroyed you as you know yourself today, a conventional human being. Killing an embryo kills a person. 

From a religious standpoint:

“Thou shalt not kill.” ‘Nuff said.

Also, as Catholics we believe that God has a plan for every person. These plans intertwine with the plans for others to form our beautiful lives. So, we’re at liberty to just remove a piece of the puzzle of humanity? (Clearly, God can adjust because He’s GOD, but seriously, who do we think we are?)

5 Things You Perhaps Had Never Considered Regarding Abortion

  1. Mary didn’t ask for an abortion. And Jesus was pretty much an unplanned pregnancy. Mary recognized that God’s will had to be done. After the angel Gabriel told her about her imminent pregnancy, she replied, “Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord; let it be to me according to your word” (Luke 1:38).
  2. Planned Parenthood, which commits most abortion-murders, is in it to make money. Of course they’re going to encourage abortion and act like it’s normal. They’re going to claim they are trying to HELP women (even though they hurt baby women). Cha-ching. Don’t fall for that.
  3. The early Church fathers condemned abortion. The “Didache,” aka “The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles” dates back to the late first or early second century. This work was pretty much a catechism, which you can read in its entirety here. In chapter 2, it reads: “You shall not murder a child by an abortion nor kill that which is begotten.”
  4. The pro-life world is bigger than the news makes it out to be. Remember, most new sources are liberal. There is an annual March for Life in Washington, D.C.,where pro-lifers from around the country gather in a rally against abortion. 650,000 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/March_for_Life_(Washington,_D.C.) people attended this year. How does that not make the news!!!???
  5. Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, was into eugenics. Eugenics is basically what Hitler was all about— the idea that certain groups of people, based on their physical features, are inferior to others. She was racist too, believing that those with light skin were superior to those with dark skin. She even spoke at Ku Klux Klan rallies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Sanger). And her organization sure has done a good job of killing black babies– it’s terrible. According to http://www.blackgenocide.org/black.html, black women are 5 times more likely to get an abortion than white women are. 

Bottom line: Abortion = bad

Loving God means loving what He creates. 

 

Advertisements

32 thoughts on “Abortion (Cue Beethoven’s 5th)

  1. Pingback: Abortion (Cue Beethoven’s 5th) - CATHOLIC FEAST - Every day is a Celebration

  2. Those things are all taught as a part of civil rights and liberties.

    Of the mother. You know, the one whose rights you are so desperately trying to erase.

    Doesn’t really sound like civil rights for the babies involved.

    When you see blastocysts and fetuses voting and paying taxes, let me know. So stop throwing women under the bus and trampling on their bodily autonomy.

    People don’t actually know what happens in an abortion.

    A pregnancy is terminated. If we start banning procedures on how gross they make you feel, should then bot-fly infestations go untreated?

    From a purely philosophical standpoint:

    Acorns are not oak trees. Fetuses are not people.

    From a religious standpoint:

    Like Women have gotten anything but a raw deal from religion in whatever BS form it chooses to take.

    After the angel Gabriel told her about her imminent pregnancy,

    Did you believe in the tooth fairy and Santa as well? Just checking because point #1 is nothing resembling an argument.

    Planned Parenthood, which commits most abortion-murders, is in it to make money.

    Really? Evidence please. PP seems to be about trying to make sure women have access to legal medical procedures despite the efforts forced birth advocates like your self.

    The early Church fathers condemned abortion.

    How else to keep a steady supply of alter boys to bugger. Early church ‘wisdom’ has no place in the 21st century.

    The pro-life world is bigger than the news makes it out to be.

    Argumentum ad populum

    Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, was into eugenics. Eugenics is basically what Hitler was all about.

    Oppenheimer and Enrico Fermi were key in discovering nuclear energy and the associated nuclear weapons. Shall we compare them to hitler as well?

    Poisoning the welldoes not make your argument any stronger, it only shows a lack argumentative prowess on your part.

    Bottom line: Abortion = bad

    Women’s personal decisions are none of your business. Ending a pregnancy is a decision to be made between a woman and her doctor.

  3. You have no idea how excited I am that you commented. Like, this literally just made my day. (And no, that is NOT sarcasm.)

    First thing I want to say: Often when debates like this break out, the parties assume: “They disagree with me, therefore they hate me.” But don’t worry, I don’t hate you. I think it’s awesome and courageous that you decided to comment, and I’m happy to have a civil discussion.

    “[Civil rights and liberties] Of the mother. You know, the one whose rights you are so desperately trying to erase.”
    Yes, I realize the textbooks refer to the mother. However, I believe (although you don’t) that the baby is a human being too, so I am referring to the rights of the baby. If you don’t buy the premise that a fetus is a human, then we are definitely not going to see eye-to-eye here.

    “When you see blastocysts and fetuses voting and paying taxes, let me know. So stop throwing women under the bus and trampling on their bodily autonomy.”
    Everyone who votes and pays taxes today was once a fetus. P.S. I’m a woman, and I don’t view being prolife as throwing women under the bus. Let’s not trample on the bodily autonomy of a little person-in-the-making.

    “A pregnancy is terminated [in an abortion]. If we start banning procedures on how gross they make you feel, should then bot-fly infestations go untreated?”
    I never said I oppose abortion procedures because they make me feel “gross.” I oppose them because they are INHUMANE, and the baby may very well be put in pain. There’s a massive difference between a bot-fly infestation and pregnancy. Bot-flies aren’t meant to be in humans. Babies are— that’s just simple biology.

    “Acorns are not oak trees. Fetuses are not people.”
    Literally, that is true. However: fetuses have the POTENTIAL to become people. Every person was once a fetus.

    “Like women have gotten anything but a raw deal from religion in whatever ** form it chooses to take.”
    Sooooo glad you brought this up! As a Catholic woman, I can say your assertion is incorrect. Catholicism, anyway, is NOT sexist. Did you know that the creation of Eve (whether or not you believe that story) is considered the “peak of creation”? Yeah womankind! Also, we view Mary as the Queen of Heaven and Earth (again, I understand you probably don’t believe this), higher than all the other saints (men included)! Mary’s kind of a big deal, and she’s a woman. Girls can be altar servers at Mass. Women can be lectors, Eucharistic ministers, directors of religious education, youth ministers, etc. Women can’t be priests, but hey, men can’t be nuns. According to the Bible, Eve was created from Adam’s rib (again, you probably don’t believe this [but the Catholic stance isn’t that this was necessarily literal anyway]). Symbolically, this shows us that Eve was not lesser than Adam (coming from his feet or somewhere low like that), nor was she greater than Adam (coming from somewhere up top, like his head). Man and woman are equal.

    “Did you still believe in the tooth fairy and Santa as well? Just checking because point #1 is nothing resembling an argument.”
    My blog isn’t intended purely for people who don’t believe Scripture. I include arguments that believers might be receptive to as well as arguments that atheists might be receptive to.

    “Really? Evidence please [regarding Planned Parenthood]. PP seems to be about trying to make sure women have access to legal medical procedures despite the efforts of forced birth advocates like yourself.”
    Planned Parenthood is a BUSINESS. Businesses want profit. Does your local grocery store really care about your family’s well-being?

    “How else to keep a steady supply of altar boys to bugger. Early church ‘wisdom’ has no place in the 21st century.”
    Well, there’s no way you can read the minds of the Church fathers of the second century, so we aren’t even going to go there. Unless you can find evidence of this. Additionally, altar servers aren’t even absolutely necessary to have at Mass. The priest can do it all himself if he has to.

    “Argumentum ad populum [regarding the fact that the pro-life world is bigger than it is made out to be].”
    That was not intended as an argument. It was intended as encouragement for pro-lifers reading my blog post. I wanted to make it clear to them that they aren’t alone.

    “Oppenheimer and Enrico Fermi were key in discovering nuclear energy and the associated nuclear weapons. Shall we compare them to Hitler as well?”
    The point is, Margaret Sanger was able to use abortion and birth and control to eliminate the races she deemed unworthy. On page 108 of her April 1932 Birth Control Review, she wrote, “Birth control must lead ultimately to a cleaner race.” I know I can’t get in her head, just as you couldn’t get in the head of the early Church fathers, so I don’t know for certain what she was thinking. That’s why it was under the heading of “5 Things You Perhaps Had Never CONSIDERED Regarding Abortion.”

    • You have no idea how excited I am that you commented. Like, this literally just made my day. (And no, that is NOT sarcasm.)

      Ah, well that is good. For me it was yet another person having decided that women should not have all the rights we ascribe to human beings and that their role as incubators is more important than their role as human beings.

      First thing I want to say: Often when debates like this break out, the parties assume: “They disagree with me, therefore they hate me.”

      I’m not particularly worried about that, but rather the forced-birth views that you advocate.

      But don’t worry, I don’t hate you. I think it’s awesome and courageous that you decided to comment, and I’m happy to have a civil discussion.

      Arguments in themselves have no feelings, so I think we’re okay there. As far as commenting here, when I see arguments that hurt women and are detrimental to their health and status as human beings I am compelled to refute them.

      If you don’t buy the premise that a fetus is a human, then we are definitely not going to see eye-to-eye here.

      The fetus, of course is human, do feel free to assign it as many rights as you see fit. When those rights become supererogatory, that is beyond the rights we see fit to give adults then we will have a problem.

      In our society we value bodily autonomy. We cannot be forced to give blood, donate organs, tissue etc. The power of our consent follows us in death, as our permission is required for organ donation medical experimentation and the like. The key idea to take away from this is that consent is a requirement for bodily autonomy to be preserved.

      A woman that is pregnant consents to having her body and resources used by another. If, however, she does not consent to her body and resources being used by another, then it is within her rights to terminate the pregnancy.

      What many forced birth advocates argue is that somehow a fetus’s rights should overrule the mother’s wishes as to how she wants to use her body. This state of being would grant the fetus more rights than we give to fully formed, fully rights bearing adult members of society.

      I may need your kidney to survive, but you are under no obligation to give me one of your organs, even if it means my death. You have bodily autonomy. The fetus is using the uterus of a women to sustain itself. She has the right to refuse use of her organs to another being.

      Otherwise, she is a slave to that being, and as a historical note, the formal institution of slavery was abolished in the US in 1865 in the guise of the 13th Amendment.

      Everyone who votes and pays taxes today was once a fetus.

      Yes, but do note that these people are adult members of society with all the rights and responsibilities we assign to adult beings. The fetus is not the same as a adult in these terms.

      Let’s not trample on the bodily autonomy of a little person-in-the-making.

      The mother’s right to her body supersedes any demands placed on it by the fetus. Now when you say that this is *not* the case, then tell me why if I need your kidney to continue to live the State should not force you give me your kidney?

      I never said I oppose abortion procedures because they make me feel “gross.” I oppose them because they are INHUMANE

      Actually, you said this:

      “2) People don’t actually know what happens in an abortion. When I read about it, I actually cried. It’s infuriating. In one method, the baby is killed by an injection of saline that burns him/her. In another method, the child is pretty much dismembered and taken out piece by piece. Gruesomely, his/her brains are literally sucked out of the head. For more on the procedures, see here. Even worse, it is likely that the baby can feel the pain. No one knows exactly how early on the baby can feel the pain, but apparently there have been studies that show the baby wriggling away from instruments.

      Your wording and false equivalence (fetus does not equal baby or child) are intended to provoke an emotional response. There is no mention of the mother, her medical situation or the state her life is in. You erase the person that currently does possess full rights as a human being from the equation.

      This is why I oppose your point of view because it is unabashedly against the mother and her welfare. It elevates the fetus above all and relegates the mother to the status of a mere birthing vessel.

      Women are human beings and the assault on their personhood by the positions you advocate is not only regressive, but a highly unethical ground to argue from.

      Catholicism, anyway, is NOT sexist.

      Every major Western religion is patriarchal and thus levels different levels of hatred toward women. Catholic magic-rules against women include, no contraception, no abortion and as you mentioned no priesthood.

      Not being able to join the magic preisthood is no loss, but control of reproductive cycles and bodily autonomy are cornerstones of the rights of women, going against these ideas is inherently misogynistic.

      I include arguments that believers might be receptive to as well as arguments that atheists might be receptive to.

      Arguments based on facts are the only ones worth subscribing to. My case in point, I bet zeus could beat your god in an arm wrestling competition. Discussing mythology is fine, arguing as if it was somehow relevant in the 21st century, not so much.

      Planned Parenthood is a BUSINESS. Businesses want profit. Does your local grocery store really care about your family’s well-being?

      PP is necessary because of a lack of public healthcare system in the US. Of course they will be a private provider of reproductive services, within the US there is no other choice.

      Well, there’s no way you can read the minds of the Church fathers of the second century, so we aren’t even going to go there. Unless you can find evidence of this.

      Start here, and then here, and here and… well I hope you get the point. The RCC has been and continues to be rife with child abuse.

      That was not intended as an argument. It was intended as encouragement for pro-lifers reading my blog post.

      Ah, rallying the troops to more effectively oppress women. I misinterpreted your statement.

      so I don’t know for certain what she was thinking.

      The charge of Poisoning the Well remains. Planned Parenthood is not Margaret Sanger. Yet the way you phrased the argument, you would have her poor reputation besmirch an organization that here and now 2013 has nothing to do with Sanger or her ideals. This is dishonest arguing. This is like me saying that because Ratzinger said this:

      “HIV/Aids was, he argued, “a tragedy that cannot be overcome by money alone, that cannot be overcome through the distribution of condoms, which can even increase the problem”.

      That all Catholics are deluded anti-science fail-sauces because of his Popiness utter lack scientific literacy.

      My assertion, like yours about PP and Sanger, is dishonest as it is an attempt to sway the audience via guilt by association and not what the party in question may or may not stand for.

      5 Things You Perhaps Had Never CONSIDERED Regarding Abortion.”

      Check. Although from my survey of the forced birth presence on the net, nothing presented here was particularly new or shocking. I do commend you though for having the decency not to post any of the aborted fetus-porn that is so common among the anti-choice crowd.

      • “The fetus, of course is human, do feel free to assign it as many rights as you see fit. When those rights become supererogatory, that is beyond the rights we see fit to give adults then we will have a problem.”
        Are you suggesting that humans at different stages of development have different levels of rights? A person is a person. I view a fetus as a person. You don’t, so we’re not going to agree here.

        “In our society we value bodily autonomy. We cannot be forced to give blood, donate organs, tissue etc. The power of our consent follows us in death, as our permission is required for organ donation medical experimentation and the like. The key idea to take away from this is that consent is a requirement for bodily autonomy to be preserved.”
        There’s a big difference between donating organs and abortion.
        Abortion ACTIVELY takes a life. It’s akin to murder.
        Not donating organs PASSIVELY takes a life. This is akin to not running into a burning house to save someone.

        “A woman that is pregnant consents to having her body and resources used by another. If, however, she does not consent to her body and resources being used by another, then it is within her rights to terminate the pregnancy.”
        Again, we run into the same central issue— If a fetus is a person as I believe, the fetus has rights too.

        “What many forced birth advocates argue is that somehow a fetus’s rights should overrule the mother’s wishes as to how she wants to use her body. This state of being would grant the fetus more rights than we give to fully formed, fully rights bearing adult members of society.”
        Let’s say Adult A kills Adult B. We don’t say, “Well, A desired that B not be a part of her/his life. So it’s okay that A killed B. A wanted to use her body to kill B; it’s fine.” Instead we find A guilty of murder. Again, here we go with our central issue— because I view a fetus as a human, I give him/her the rights of a human.

        “I may need your kidney to survive, but you are under no obligation to give me one of your organs, even if it means my death. You have bodily autonomy. The fetus is using the uterus of a women to sustain itself. She has the right to refuse use of her organs to another being.”
        Again, passive vs active taking of one’s life. See above.

        “Otherwise, she is a slave to that being, and as a historical note, the formal institution of slavery was abolished in the US in 1865 in the guise of the 13th Amendment.”
        Pregnancy isn’t slavery. That’s an overblown extension of the definition of slavery.

        “Yes, but do note that these people are adult members of society with all the rights and responsibilities we assign to adult beings. The fetus is not the same as a adult in these terms.”
        I don’t care about a differentiation between fetus rights and adult rights. They are all the same– HUMAN RIGHTS — because adults and fetuses are both human to the same extent. Check the DNA if you don’t believe me.

        “The mother’s right to her body supersedes any demands placed on it by the fetus.”
        Why? They’re both human.

        “Now when you say that this is *not* the case, then tell me why if I need your kidney to continue to live the State should not force you give me your kidney?”
        Again see the passive-active difference outlined above.

        “Actually, you said this:
        ‘2) People don’t actually know what happens in an abortion. When I read about it, I actually cried. It’s infuriating. In one method, the baby is killed by an injection of saline that burns him/her. In another method, the child is pretty much dismembered and taken out piece by piece. Gruesomely, his/her brains are literally sucked out of the head. For more on the procedures, see here. Even worse, it is likely that the baby can feel the pain. No one knows exactly how early on the baby can feel the pain, but apparently there have been studies that show the baby wriggling away from instruments.’ ”
        I cried and was infuriated NOT because it was gross. It was because I felt bad for the fetus and the destruction of human life. As for dismemberment, I am simply stating the facts that show how inhumane abortion is. The word “gruesomely” again depicts the inhumane nature of the abortion process.

        “Your wording and false equivalence (fetus does not equal baby or child) are intended to provoke an emotional response.”
        Human=fetus, adult, child, baby
        My goodness, if a person has a heart, an emotional responses SHOULD be provoked by infanticide.

        “There is no mention of the mother, her medical situation or the state her life is in. You erase the person that currently does possess full rights as a human being from the equation.”
        The baby does not intend harm. Therefore killing the fetus can’t be justified. Say hello again to Persons A and B. Person A is in critical condition in an ambulance and person B is biking in the middle of the road and the ambulance can’t get by. (Person B is deaf and doesn’t know what he/she is doing.) Is it justifiable to kill B to save A?

        “This is why I oppose your point of view because it is unabashedly against the mother and her welfare. It elevates the fetus above all and relegates the mother to the status of a mere birthing vessel.”
        With great power (the ability to birth) comes great responsibility.

        “Every major Western religion is patriarchal and thus levels different levels of hatred toward women. Catholic magic-rules against women include, no contraception, no abortion and as you mentioned no priesthood. Not being able to join the magic preisthood is no loss, but control of reproductive cycles and bodily autonomy are cornerstones of the rights of women, going against these ideas is inherently misogynistic.”
        Okay. I have to say that my blood wasn’t boiling till I got here. I love my Church and stand by her. Be charitable in your choice of diction (i.e. “magic”).
        You really have a pretty messed up view of what Catholicism is all about– it leads me to believe that you’ve been ill-informed. You seem smart, so it can’t be your fault. Catholicism is about love, defined as “willing the good of the other” by St. Thomas Aquinas. It’s about striving to be holy. The Church’s so-called “rules” (but I don’t think of them that way) help women to be more loving and holy. Men have “rules” too to help them be more holy and loving (no masturbation, not being lustful (I hear men have more problems with this than women), no vasectomies.)

        “Arguments based on facts are the only ones worth subscribing to.”
        God = fact. I can elaborate if you so desire, but I don’t it would get us anywhere.

        “PP is necessary because of a lack of public healthcare system in the US. Of course they will be a private provider of reproductive services, within the US there is no other choice.”
        Still a business in it to make money.

        “Start here, and then here, and here and… well I hope you get the point. The RCC has been and continues to be rife with child abuse.”
        I don’t understand what this has to do with getting in the minds of the early Church fathers regarding the purpose for opposing abortion. Perhaps you misunderstood me when I said Church fathers. I wasn’t talking about priests (although we do address them as Father so-and-so). I was referring to early Church leaders from the second century and before. So I feel like we’ve changed the subject from early Church fathers prohibiting abortion in order to produce altar boys (which I still don’t buy) to the sex-abuse scandals. Okay, we can go there.
        Some of the most amazing people I’ve ever met in my life have been priests and seminarians (men studying to be priests). I have never known a crooked priest or seminarian personally. Only 4% of priests (http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/02/16/church.abuse/) have been found guilty of these terrible scandals. It’s also not just a problem in the Catholic Church. (The Catholic Church is high-profile, so it gets featured in the news.) Look at the Penn State case. It’s an unfortunate problem for humanity in general. Priests are human beings too; they sin. I can tell you first hand that the Church has taken careful measures to reduce abuse. For example: when I turned 18, in order to volunteer with youth, I had to complete an online class on how to recognize abuse. If I had been working more closely with youth, I would have also had to take an actual class called Virtus. Also, at least 2 adults must be present with children at all times, such as in religion classes to keep an eye out.

        “The charge of Poisoning the Well remains. Planned Parenthood is not Margaret Sanger. Yet the way you phrased the argument, you would have her poor reputation besmirch an organization that here and now 2013 has nothing to do with Sanger or her ideals. This is dishonest arguing.”
        Fine. Point taken. My sources weren’t great.
        I can, however, say that the fact is that blacks abort at a higher rate than whites. So, whether Sanger or PP intend(ed) it or not, blacks are being eliminated. According to http://bound4life.com/statistics/, “Black and Hispanic women have higher abortion rates than non-Hispanic white women. Black women’s abortion rates are 49 per 1,000, Hispanic women’s are 33 per 1,000 and non-Hispanic white women’s are 13 per 1,000.”

  4. Are you suggesting that humans at different stages of development have different levels of rights?

    Absolutely. I also do not treat acorns as if they were oak trees, that would be absurd.

    I view a fetus as a person. You don’t, so we’re not going to agree here.

    Actually you view the fetus as more of person, since you grant the fetus the power to enslave the mother for its benefit. This is where forced birth advocacy gets its name, because you are denying the woman the rights to her body.

    There’s a big difference between donating organs and abortion.
    Abortion ACTIVELY takes a life. It’s akin to murder.
    Not donating organs PASSIVELY takes a life. This is akin to not running into a burning house to save someone.

    That would be an exercise in semantics. Let’s try another, the use of kidneys or the use of a uterus constitutes the using of the organs of one person for the benefit of another. The owner of that organ has to consent to their organs being used, and has the right to defend themselves from unlawful use of their bodies.

    Organ use, is organ use and without consent, it is immoral and unethical.

    If a fetus is a person as I believe, the fetus has rights too.

    And how does this not enslave women? If once pregnant, they must carry to term, despite her wishes. Pregnancy is dangerous condition with serious, possibly permanent side effects (including death). Dooming women like Savita Halappanavar because of some twisted commitment to life is an affront to women, not to mention ethical behaviour.

    I love my Church and stand by her.

    And if evidence that your doctrine was false was presented would you stop believing? I doubt it. Religion is insidious because it preys upon the young who can be indoctrinated with irrational beliefs.

    If you blood is boiling when I equate your beliefs with magic I would recommend not visiting my blog as the disrespect and animosity I harbour toward religion is unbounded and most decidedly uncivil.

    Catholicism is about love, defined as “willing the good of the other” by St. Thomas Aquinas. It’s about striving to be holy.

    Except if you happen to be homosexual. Or part of a rival christian sect. Belief in mythology has no rational basis, and I thank you for not trying to argue any points so far with the “cause god says so” ploy. God is a human made construct that was useful some 2000 years ago, progress and modernity have rendered religion redundant and irrelevant in this age.

    I can, however, say that the fact is that blacks abort at a higher rate than whites. So, whether Sanger or PP intend(ed) it or not, blacks are being eliminated.

    Because socioeconomic standing has nothing to do with the issue? People of colour in the US (and Canada) are less well off, have less privilege and have far fewer options available to them. They explicitly know the price of birthing and raising a child and more opt not to bring a child into impoverished circumstances. It is a prima facie example of women deciding what is best for them and their families. Good things happen when you trust women.

    Let’s not forget spirited religious objections to contraception being supplied by the employers in the US, heaven forbid poor women should be able to control their reproductive cycles. I think you will have tell me again about the “love” expressed toward them (let’s not forget those homosexuals either while were in the “church=love” zone).

    • “Absolutely. I also do not treat acorns as if they were oak trees, that would be absurd.”
      There is also a massive difference between trees and humans. Trees don’t have rights like humans anyway, so it’s not a parallel argument.

      “Actually you view the fetus as more of person, since you grant the fetus the power to enslave the mother for its benefit. This is where forced birth advocacy gets its name, because you are denying the woman the rights to her body.”
      Mother and fetus are equally people. It’s against natural law to kill a person, especially when that person isn’t consciously trying to hurt someone.
      Also: Approximately 93% of abortions are for social reasons (like having a teenage pregnancy, not wanting another child, etc.). These women got themselves into these situations– the baby shouldn’t suffer for the mothers choices. The courageous thing to do is own up to the life created. As for that 7% (rape, incest, mother’s health), those are very unfortunate situations. It is the job of a strong mother to be courageous.

      “That would be an exercise in semantics.”
      No, I disagree. My argument on passive/active taking of a life is entirely valid.

      “And how does this not enslave women? If once pregnant, they must carry to term, despite her wishes. Pregnancy is dangerous condition with serious, possibly permanent side effects (including death). Dooming women like Savita Halappanavar because of some twisted commitment to life is an affront to women, not to mention ethical behaviour.”
      Saint Gianna Beretta Molla – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gianna_Beretta_Molla
      Courageous, courageous woman.
      “The world offers you great comfort, but you were not made for comfort. You were made for greatness.” -Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI

      “And if evidence that your doctrine was false was presented would you stop believing? I doubt it. Religion is insidious because it preys upon the young who can be indoctrinated with irrational beliefs.”
      Wrong. I was a lukewarm Catholic until I was 16. Then I had an incredible experience that made me believe wholeheartedly. I then began to explore Catholic doctrines. I had a lot of trouble with them at first. But after I came to understand the “why’s” behind them, I came to believe in them.
      I was not “preyed upon” when I was young. My parents are not practicing Catholics. It was all me and God.

      “If you blood is boiling when I equate your beliefs with magic I would recommend not visiting my blog as the disrespect and animosity I harbour toward religion is unbounded and most decidedly uncivil.”
      Okay, I’ll be sure not to visit.

      “Except if you happen to be homosexual.”
      Just did a blog post on that under a week ago.

      “God is a human made construct that was useful some 2000 years ago, progress and modernity have rendered religion redundant and irrelevant in this age.”
      Some day you will see how ignorant this view is. God help us.
      http://web.mnstate.edu/gracyk/courses/web%20publishing/aquinasfiveways_argumentanalysis.htm The second is the best.

      “Because socioeconomic standing has nothing to do with the issue? People of colour in the US (and Canada) are less well off, have less privilege and have far fewer options available to them. They explicitly know the price of birthing and raising a child and more opt not to bring a child into impoverished circumstances. It is a prima facie example of women deciding what is best for them and their families. Good things happen when you trust women.”
      The result is still the same– black babies are killed more than white babies. Still sounds racist, whether or not intentional.

      “Let’s not forget spirited religious objections to contraception being supplied by the employers in the US, heaven forbid poor women should be able to control their reproductive cycles. I think you will have tell me again about the “love” expressed toward them (let’s not forget those homosexuals either while were in the “church=love” zone).”
      Giving a woman contraceptive devices doesn’t will her good. Certainly as far as eternal salvation goes. But also as far as cancer goes. Gay acts do not will the good of the other spiritually or biologically.

      • “There is also a massive difference between trees and humans”

        Yes, there is… and there’s an equally massive difference between a clump of cells and a sentient human being.

      • Clearly you haven’t been reading my above arguments.

        If you want more details, read my above comments.

        The short version:
        Every “sentient” human being was once a “clump of cells.” We all start out that way. It doesn’t mean we aren’t human. Check the DNA.

      • No it doesn’t. The simple, logical, reasonable way to look at this is Life begins at the moment its twin, death, also springs into existence. One cannot have a defined ‘life’ without that life being able to ‘die.’ Without death there is no life. The former begets the latter. The latter assigns meaning to the former. One delineates the other, and fortunately the definition of death is not in dispute. Death is when electroencephalography (EEG) activity ceases. That’s it. That’s death. It follows quite naturally therefore that the onset of life is when foetal brain activity begins to exhibit regular and sustained wave patterns, and that occurs consistently around week 25 of pregnancy. Only after something can die can it be considered alive, and to argue anything to the contrary is patently absurd.

      • Creative. However, I still stand by the fact that at conception, the makings of a human are all in place. To destroy these makings would kill the life that could have been. By extension, it’s still killing. I mean, aren’t you kind of glad that your mom didn’t eliminate you as a “clump of cells”? Look at you today– you are alive. To destroy the “clump of cells” would have destroyed your life as you know it.

  5. You say you’re a Catholic so i’d challenge you to cite a single passage from the Bible which demonstrates your claim: abortion = bad.
    Now, I can of course save you the effort as there is none. Not a word. In fact, the only mention of a fetus and personhood is given anywhere in your religion is in the Jewish Talmud which resolutely asserts that life begins at birth: “[When the] greater part is already born, one may not touch it, for one may not set aside one person’s life for that of another.” In Jewish lore the act of birth, therefore, changes the status of the foetus from a nonperson to a person (nefesh). Therefore, if you follow the Jewish-Christian tradition then abortion is perfectly fine.
    Now, you make some outlandish claims about a loving god. I have to ask you, have you ever read the bible? In reference to children the Middle Eastern god you idolize is an outright criminal, killing babies at whim. In fact, your god performs/commands a number of abortions:

    Hosea 9:11-16 Hosea prays for God’s intervention. “Ephraim shall bring forth his children to the murderer. Give them, 0 Lord: what wilt thou give? Give them a miscarrying womb and dry breasts. . .Ephraim is smitten, their root is dried up, they shall bear no fruit: yea though they bring forth, yet will I slay even the beloved fruit of their womb.” Clearly Hosea desires that the people of Ephraim can no longer have children. God of course obeys by making all their unborn children miscarry. Is not terminating a pregnancy unnaturally “abortion”?

    Numbers 5:11-21 The description of a bizarre, brutal and abusive ritual to be performed on a wife SUSPECTED of adultery. This is considered to be an induced abortion to rid a woman of another man’s child.

    Numbers 31:17 (Moses) “Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every women that hath known man by lying with him.” In other words: women that might be pregnant, which clearly is abortion for the fetus.

    Hosea 13:16 God promises to dash to pieces the infants of Samaria and the “their women with child shall be ripped up”. Once again this god kills the unborn, including their pregnant mothers.

    2 Kings 15:16 God allows the pregnant women of Tappuah (aka Tiphsah) to be “ripped open”. And the Christians have the audacity to say god is pro-life. How and the hell is it that Christians can read passages where God allows pregnant women to be murdered, yet still claim abortion is wrong?

    And when not performing abortions the Middle Eastern god you idolize is performing Infanticide:

    1 Samuel 15:3 God commands the death of helpless “suckling” infants. This literally means that the children god killed were still nursing.
    Psalms 135:8 & 136:10 Here god is praised for slaughtering little babies.
    Psalms 137:9 Here god commands that infants should be “dashed upon the rocks”.

    On top of there are over 15 instances where your Middle Eastern god murders children, sometimes en masse, including (Exodus 12:29) where this tyrant murders every first-born child of every family in Egypt, simply because he was upset at the Pharaoh.

    I could cite every one of these passages, but I’d just we wasting space. The point being, your Middle Eastern god performs more abortions and murders more children than any moral person should be happy with. And yet through all this he makes no mention of abortion being illegal.

    So tell me… Where do you get this religious idea that abortion is bad? I’d honestly be interested to hear your answer.

    • I’m going to split my response into three parts.

      1) Accounting for infanticide in the Bible:
      God is infinitely greater than us. If He sees reason to end the life of a baby, we have to trust that He, in His infinite wisdom, will bring about a greater good through this. We, however, are not at liberty to take the lives of babies. Who do we think we are? Not God.

      2) Pro-life Support in the Bible
      “Thou shalt not kill” (Exodus 20:13). Catholics do not use the Talmud, so your definition of life from that isn’t applicable in this argument.
      “Now the word of the LORD came to me, saying, ‘Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to the nations’” (Jeremiah 1:4-5). “Personhood” occurs before physical birth. Therefore, abortion takes a life and is therefore murder, breaking the above commandment.
      “Listen to me, O coastlands, and give attention, you peoples from afar. The LORD called me from the womb, from the body of my mother he named my name…” (Isaiah 49:1, 5). Proves similar concept as above passage.
      Deuteronomy 27:25 ‘Cursed be anyone who takes a bribe to shed innocent blood.’ And all the people shall say, ‘Amen.’
      Proverbs 6:16-19 There are six things that the Lord hates, seven that are an abomination to him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked plans, feet that make haste to run to evil, a false witness who breathes out lies, and one who sows discord among brothers.
      Matthew 18:1-2, 10 At that time the disciples came to Jesus, saying, “Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?” And calling to him a child, he put him in the midst of them…See that you do not despise one of these little ones. For I tell you that in heaven their angels always see the face of my Father who is in heaven.
      “Truly children are a gift from the Lord; the fruit of the womb is a reward” (Psalm 127:3).
      “Be fertile and multiply” (Genesis 1:28).
      “They mutilated their sons and daughters by fire…till the Lord, in his great anger against Israel, put them away out of his sight” (2 Kings 17:17-18).
      I got some of these from http://www.priestsforlife.org/brochures/thebible.html — For more details, visit; it’s excellent.

      3) Tradition counts too:
      While Protestant churches adhere to Sola Scriptura (the idea that Scripture is the only authority), the Catholic Church believes in a combo of Scripture and Tradition. So, although I did find various pro-life Bible passages above, the Bible isn’t the only important source to consider.
      How about the Didache, which I mentioned in my post? (I said: The early Church fathers condemned abortion. The “Didache,” aka “The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles” dates back to the late first or early second century. This work was pretty much a catechism, which you can read in its entirety here. In chapter 2, it reads: “You shall not murder a child by an abortion nor kill that which is begotten.”)
      Seems pretty explicit here about prohibiting abortion— it even uses the word abortion! How much clearer can we get?

      • All you said was your god can do what it pleases. That’s about as pathetic an answer imaginable.

        Actions speak louder than words. Your god performs numerous abortions. Fact.

      • No– You only see what you want to see when you read my responses.

        God is supreme. He is in control of everything. Time isn’t an issue for Him; He can see past, present, future all at once. Only He knows what is best. If He needs to eliminate human life, He may. We, however, are not at liberty to do this.

      • Precisely: All you’re saying is your god can do what it pleases. I don’t accept that as an answer as it DIRECTLY contradicts your stance on abortion.

        Your god performs abortions. It’s there in black and white! Abortion = god sanctioned. Your Middle Eastern god loves abortions. If he didn’t he would never have performed so many!

      • No, God’s acts do not contradict my stance on abortion. As you can see from the Bible verses I cited, God also speaks out against abortion.

        PS Why didn’t you respond to my portion on the Didache?

      • Yes, your gods acts do contradict your stance. Your god is a baby killing machine… ripping the unborn from wombs with consummate ease!

        Why would I bother with the Didache ? You claim your Middle Eastern god is the harbinger of all so we’ll deal only with that, not the nonsense discussed by men.

      • You just don’t know how to respond to the Didache. It’s a good argument. If you cited the Talmud, this is just as legit, just the Catholic version.

      • I wouldn’t play the scripture game, if i were you.

        “Thou shalt not kill” (Exodus 20:13)…. And yet you are commanded to kill disobedient children (Leviticus 20:9)

      • Jesus clarified the Old Testament:

        The 2 greatest commandments, as spoken by Jesus, are:

        “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with thy whole heart, and with thy whole soul, and with thy whole mind, and with thy whole strength;
        Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.”

        Loving your neighbor as yourself… i.e. Don’t kill your neighbor.

      • Sorry, but your Jesus said obey the OT: “Do not think that I [Jesus] have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke or a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. (Matthew 5:17-18)”

        Therefore, Jesus orders you to murder disobedient children!

      • Jesus came to forgive sins by His death and resurrection. There was no longer any need for God to punish the Israelites via taking life.

        Also, Acts makes it pretty clear that not all Old Testament laws need to be followed. As I recall, there is quite the debate on circumcision. The conclusion is that it’s fine either way. If Jewish Christians want it, fine. But if the Gentiles don’t, then fine.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s