I would say that as an ardent, practicing Catholic, this is an issue that I have studied for a long time. And what I know is, over the centuries, the doctors of the church have not been able to make that definition. And Senator–St. Augustine said at three months. We don’t know. The point is, is that it shouldn’t have an impact on the woman’s right to choose. Roe v. Wade talks about very clear definitions of when the child–first trimester, certain considerations; second trimester; not so third trimester. There’s very clear distinctions. This isn’t about abortion on demand, it’s about a careful, careful consideration of all factors and–to–that a woman has to make with her doctor and her god. And so I don’t think anybody can tell you when life begins, human life begins. As I say, the Catholic Church for centuries has been discussing this, and there are those who’ve decided…
This is a bald face lie that reminds me of something that Dr. Marc Lamont Hill said on the O'Reilly Factor. He made the outrageous point that it isn't clear how Jesus Christ would view the abortion debate of today.
Let's just make a couple obvious points. There is no debate about how the Catholic Church views the issue of when life begins. Not only that but this is not something the church has recently arrived at. The Catholic Chruch's position is the same as it has been since the beginning of its inception and that is the life begins at conceptions. Period. This is not a point to be debated, and Nancy Pelosi committed a shocking and bald face lie that shouldn't be tolerated.
Furthermore, it is even more ridiculous to proclaim, as Dr. Hill did, that Jesus Christ would have a position on the abortion debate that is itself up for debate. He wouldn't. He would not be in favor of abortion under any circumstances. That position is not up for debate and Dr. Hill also committed a shocking and unacceptable distortion of scripture.
Furthermore, the entire debate issue is not easy. Each side runs up against an inconvenient truth that they must face and deal with. For those, like me, that are pro life, we must recognize, acknowledge and explain why we believe the government should tell a woman how to treat her own body. This is not a frivilous point and it must not be diminished.
The way I see it is like this. Freedoms are freedoms as long as those freedoms don't inhibit the freedom of others. I believe the fetus is a life just like the mother, and a woman being able to kill a life growing inside her violates the freedom of the fetus. Just because everyone has the right to free speech doesn't mean someone is allowed to shoult another down when they are making a speech. Just because a woman has the right to her own body doesn't mean she is allowed to kill the life inside her body.
For abortion advocates, they must deal with the uncomfortable question of when life begins. Barack Obama showed just how uncomfortable that is when he proclaimed such a question "above my pay grade". Nancy Pelosi dealt with it by lying about its history. Anyone that has seen an ultra sound has a hard time believing that the fetus is NOT a life. That realization brings about other uncomfortable questions like when exactly in the womb that fetus is a life.
In fact, the pro abortion forces have a very illogical dynamic. It is the biggest zealots that believe abortions can happen at anytime while the fetus is in the womb (and some like Obama go even further) The mainstream of the pro abortion lobby stop at some point during the pregnancy. This means that for most abortion proponents life begins at some point in the womb though that is undetermined. This position has no logic. Either life begins at conception or once the fetus is out of the womb. If it is at conception, then you must be against abortion. If it is only out of the womb, then all abortions at all times should be allowed. Because the latter position belies what anyone sees on an ultrasound, the abortion proponents are forced into trivial and circular logical answers like that of Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Dr. Hill.
11 comments:
If you look at it from a biological perspective, you end up having to see it from one of two ways: that the zygote that is formed is indeed a life, or that since the zygote (and later the fetus) is not viable ex utero, it is not a human life. Personally, I tend to agree with the latter, since I can't see the one cell as a full human if we don't look at all human cells as full humans (the main differences between the zygote and the normal cell are basically size and upregulation of certain factors).
The only reason that the position seems illogical is because the fetus viability point is different in every case, and would have to be determined before any abortive action could take place. Also, just curious, what's your oppinion on embryonic stem cell research?
Well, that is your best comment so far. That is a good starting point for this debate.
I don't want to debate science. That is my worst subject.
I want to debate the philosophy. My biggest issue with your comment is that you equate viability with a life. Why does a fetus have to be viable to be a life? Just because a fetus has to stay in the mother's womb, why does that necessarily mean that it is not a life?
The reason I equate viability with life is because it is a human life we are talking about. If a cell is not viable as a living human ex utero, then destroying it is about as wrong as destroying a pig embryo. Thus far, scientists have not been able to grow a human outside of a uterus - the most it gets to is a 128-cell stage known as the blastocyst, at which point it stagnates without implantation into a uterine wall. The way I see it, if (at the time of the abortion) the fetus is unable to survive ex utero, then there is no hope for it as a life (even if you look to science), and the woman's right to choose trumps the rights of the non-viable embryo.
That's an interesting and in my opinion, dangerous opinion. If a fetus isn't a human, I don't know what it is. It will eventually if given a chance become a human. Viability isn't equal to life, but in your opinion, equal to human life. It seems to me you are almost playing God and making a definition firm, even though there is plenty of gray. The dangerous part is you are making a firm definition in order to destroy life.
It's simply that the fetus is a potential human. That potential is only reached when the viability is confirmed. Without the fetus being viable, you are simply destroying a cell. By that logic, drawing blood, taking DNA samples, and combating cancer cells would be tantamount to abortion of a non-viable embryo. Those cells are also classified as Homo sapiens, and similarly do not have the ability to form a complete, sentient human if removed from thir current environments.
Playing God is an awkward term. If abortion is seen as playing God, then similar lines must be drawn with respect to the death penalty. I believe firmly in the death penalty - so I don't see playing God as an issue here.
If you consider destruction of organic matter (I'm wary of referring to it as life), you need to have firm definitions in place. That's why certain criteria exist for the death penallty and must be met 100% in order to execute. That's why the Geneva Convention laid out specific terms to define combatants and non-combatants. Without firm definitions in this area, there's a lot that you can't do. It is necessary to define everything, since you want to try to eliminate the one case that seems to blur the definition.
First of all, be careful to say it is simple. Nothing about this issue is simple. I don't see how blood is the same as a fetus. Besides you aren't aborting the blood. I don't think they are the same. These are issues in which everyone has their own personal perspective.
My problem with your perspective is that is then used to destroy.
Good debate so far.
I retract the "simply." I agree, there are few things that can be less simple than life and death.
When you do a complete blood count, or isolate DNA from cells, many cells are destroyed in the process. The way I see it, if the embyro can be removed from the uterus, and will survive (even with medical care), then the termination of that mass of cells is a criminal action. But if removal of the embryo would result in its destruction, then I argue that it was not a human being at the time of termination, and the mother would therefore not be infringing on its rights, as its rights would be similar to that of a somatic (body) cell. That is, it would have none.
Basically, there is a part of the pregnancy where the mother's choice trumps the right of the embryo, but there is a point at which the mother's choice would be violating the viable embryo's right to life.
If it isn't a human life, isn't it a life?
sure it is a life, but it has little to no sentience and cognitive ability. The steak you eat was once more sentient than the non-viable embryo.
In order for that logic to hold up, you would have to be vegetarian, you would have to be anti-hunting, and you would have to staunchly oppose the death penalty.
It's an interesting argument. I certainly believe that animal life doesn't fall in equality to human life.
An embryo that will grow to be a human though I see differently. To me life begins at inception. An fetus will one day be a human and so I see it as human life.
Again, my main problem with your argument is that you use a gray area to destroy life. That is a dangerous idea.
That said, you have presented your position well and backed it up with evidence facts, and logic which is the way one is supposed to debate.
Post a Comment