pro choice Catholics-what is the point

[puggymom]

On to the 5 month limit you've set. Some years ago a baby could not survive outside the womb if it was born before, let's say, 32 weeks. Advances in medical technology have that down to about 23 weeks now. Will your five month limit change if advances in science and medicine make it possible for an 18 week preborn baby to survive? How many weeks along is your limit?

I am a viability person as well and the answer, IMO, is yes. Personally I think if a person chooses abortion it should be done in the first trimester but that is not my decision to make. I do not think our government should be involved in abortion issues at all but I do not have problems with post viability limits. And yes as medical science advances that viability age will be lower and lower. As long as the 'baby/fetus" no longer needs the woman's body, and her body alone, to survive it is no longer her choice to make. Again just my opinion.

 

[theArtistFormerlyKnownAs]

On to the 5 month limit you've set. Some years ago a baby could not survive outside the womb if it was born before, let's say, 32 weeks. Advances in medical technology have that down to about 23 weeks now. Will your five month limit change if advances in science and medicine make it possible for an 18 week preborn baby to survive? How many weeks along is your limit?

Certainly it will change if that occurs At least someone understands
5 months, as I was stating, is 20 weeks. I wouldn't give the OK beyond that, but as long as it's legal, to each their own.

 

[puggymom]

It's more like 9 and a half.

9 and a half months of actual pregnancy from date of conception.

 

[theArtistFormerlyKnownAs]

I don't even have to make a list. Bible Christianity does not have any "doctrines" per se, except that you accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior. From that point on you may be sanctified bit by bit, and your opinion may change, or maybe not. You read your Bible and the Holy Spirit will lead you to the right conclusion.
Now, I will say right up front that because I am not a Bible Christian, this might be an incomplete understanding, but in a nutshell, I think it is correct.

Yet you just said that abortion isn't up for differing opinions, did you not?

I am a viability person as well and the answer, IMO, is yes. Personally I think if a person chooses abortion it should be done in the first trimester but that is not my decision to make. I do not think our government should be involved in abortion issues at all but I do not have problems with post viability limits. And yes as medical science advances that viability age will be lower and lower. As long as the 'baby/fetus" no longer needs the woman's body, and her body alone, to survive it is no longer her choice to make. Again just my opinion.

:swoon:

 

[libby]

:lol

: Yet you just said that abortion isn't up for differing opinions, did you not?

FOR A CATHOLIC!!!!

 

[theArtistFormerlyKnownAs]

FOR A CATHOLIC!!!!

Oh. I was mixing catholic and christian together in your discussions...sorry

 

[This_person]

That's why 5 months is the "max", and I'm saying that everything less isn't viable and can be aborted, without question.

Human embryos are capable of splitting into identical twins as late as 12 days after fertilization resulting in the development of separate individuals with unique personalities. Therefore, properties governing individuality are not set until after gastrulation. This view is endorsed by a host of contemporary scientists such as Renfree (1982), Grobstein (1988) and McLaren. This view of when life begins has also been adopted as the official position of the British government.​

It is the single most logical, scientifically backed up view of when life begins.

And, unless someone yanks the baby out of the womb in some unnatural manner, "viable" would imply that the baby could naturally survive. "Naturally" would imply that it be allowed to continue in its natural place of gestation - the place where it was willingly, knowingly placed by mother and father.

So, before 12 days old, or in cases of rape, or in cases where the physical life of the mother is in specific jeopardy - it's just murder.

 

[theArtistFormerlyKnownAs]

Human embryos are capable of splitting into identical twins as late as 12 days after fertilization resulting in the development of separate individuals with unique personalities. Therefore, properties governing individuality are not set until after gastrulation. This view is endorsed by a host of contemporary scientists such as Renfree (1982), Grobstein (1988) and McLaren. This view of when life begins has also been adopted as the official position of the British government.​

It is the single most logical, scientifically backed up view of when life begins.

And, unless someone yanks the baby out of the womb in some unnatural manner, "viable" would imply that the baby could naturally survive. "Naturally" would imply that it be allowed to continue in its natural place of gestation - the place where it was willingly, knowingly placed by mother and father.

So, before 12 days old, or in cases of rape, or in cases where the physical life of the mother is in specific jeopardy - it's just murder.

Why wouldn't you force a woman to have a rape baby, if the 12 day period is your belief? It's still a baby, is it not? Why are you basing your view on where it came from? A baby is a baby...or isn't it?

 

[This_person]

Why wouldn't you force a woman to have a rape baby, if the 12 day period is your belief? It's still a baby, is it not? Why are you basing your view on where it came from? A baby is a baby...or isn't it?

It is, and I've repeatedly said that this comes down to a moral issue vs a legal issue.

Since this is the one you zero in on, I presume that we can now agree that the other 95% of abortions performed each year are murder, and then we can wrestle with the moral vs. legal vs. personal responsibility issues of JUST the rape victims (which comprise less than 1% of abortions)?

 

[puggymom]

Libby I am sorry this has gone off course from your original topic. I never argued because I thought you were right. The Catholic Church has the right to make it own decisions regarding members of the Catholic Church and if Catholics do not like those decisions they are free to leave and find another church.


Yes, life begins at conception. I am not even going to argue that anymore...not that I am sure I ever did.
But the fact remains we have two lives here. And it is my personal belief that as long as there is a parasitic relationship (negative connotation aside it is technically this no matter the intentions of the woman) between those two lives the host's wishes take precedence. That is why viability is important. At the point of viability the parasitic relationship no longer exists as the baby can survive without the host (woman).

 

[theArtistFormerlyKnownAs]

It is, and I've repeatedly said that this comes down to a moral issue vs a legal issue.

Since this is the one you zero in on, I presume that we can now agree that the other 95% of abortions performed each year are murder, and then we can wrestle with the moral vs. legal vs. personal responsibility issues of JUST the rape victims (which comprise less than 1% of abortions)?

I love how you put words in people's mouths.
No, in America, the abortions aren't murder...they're considered murder in another country. I don't live there, they aren't murder.

 

[This_person]

Libby I am sorry this has gone off course from your original topic. I never argued because I thought you were right. The Catholic Church has the right to make it own decisions regarding members of the Catholic Church and if Catholics do not like those decisions they are free to leave and find another church.


Yes, life begins at conception. I am not even going to argue that anymore...not that I am sure I ever did.
But the fact remains we have two lives here. And it is my personal belief that as long as their is a parasitic relationship (negative connotation aside it is technically this no matter the intentions of the woman) between those two lives the host's wishes take precedence. That is why viability is important. At the point of viability the parasitic relationship no longer exists as the baby can survive without the host (woman).

If a two day old's mother walked away from her baby, leaving that baby on the road, or on a picnic table at a rest stop, or wherever it would be unlikely to make it for long on it's own - would that be okay, since someone could take care of the baby? Or, do we have an implied sense of responsibility of an adult in the voluntary care of an infant until that infant is safely in another's care?

Isn't it, when voluntarily placed in the care of the mother, the mother's moral (if not legal) responsibility to care for the child until it can be safely placed in another person's care?

 

[This_person]

I love how you put words in people's mouths.
No, in America, the abortions aren't murder...they're considered murder in another country. I don't live there, they aren't murder.

So, other than the less than 1% of abortions that come from rape, with what do you disagree on the beginnings of life from the college biology text from which I got this definition, or the numerous doctors and "other" (western civilization) countries definitions?

You weren't just zeroing in on the rape portion to be argumentative, were you? You mean to have a real discussion, not a "gotcha"-fest, right?

 

[theArtistFormerlyKnownAs]

So, other than the less than 1% of abortions that come from rape, with what do you disagree on the beginnings of life from the college biology text from which I got this definition, or the numerous doctors and "other" (western civilization) countries definitions?

You weren't just zeroing in on the rape portion to be argumentative, were you? You mean to have a real discussion, not a "gotcha"-fest, right?

I didn't say the fetus wasn't a living thing.
It is a parasite that relies on another for nurishment, per definition.
"life" does not equal "viability"

 

[sockgirl77]

I didn't say the fetus wasn't a living thing.
It is a parasite that relies on another for nurishment, per definition.
"life" does not equal "viability"

You disgust me right now.

 

[puggymom]

If a two day old's mother walked away from her baby, leaving that baby on the road, or on a picnic table at a rest stop, or wherever it would be unlikely to make it for long on it's own - would that be okay, since someone could take care of the baby? Or, do we have an implied sense of responsibility of an adult in the voluntary care of an infant until that infant is safely in another's care?

Isn't it, when voluntarily placed in the care of the mother, the mother's moral (if not legal) responsibility to care for the child until it can be safely placed in another person's care?

Errrr.....thoughts interrupted on the hunt for 'Squeeze' (my son's toy pliers from the cartoon 'Handy Manny')

Apples and oranges here. Once born a child is a legal person and granted rights. That is why there are safe haven laws...to allow a woman to easily and without any consequence relinquish her child to a responsible person.

 

[This_person]

I didn't say the fetus wasn't a living thing.
It is a parasite that relies on another for nurishment, per definition.
"life" does not equal "viability"

So, if you kill a living human, what is that called?

What was Scott Peterson convicted of, other than murdering his wife?

Is a two week old, being breast fed, and equal "parasite"? Can we kill it as a lifestyle enhancement, too?

 

[This_person]

Errrr.....thoughts interrupted on the hunt for 'Squeeze' (my son's toy pliers from the cartoon 'Handy Manny')

Apples and oranges here. Once born a child is a legal person and granted rights. That is why there are safe haven laws...to allow a woman to easily and without any consequence relinquish her child to a responsible person.

Apples and oranges regarding what the law currently is vs. what it should be.

You avoided the question. Isn't she morally responsible to care for the life she knowingly, willingly helped create, at least until it can SAFELY (without expectation of harm or death) be placed in someone else's care?

 

[theArtistFormerlyKnownAs]

So, if you kill a living human, what is that called?

What was Scott Peterson convicted of, other than murdering his wife?

Is a two week old, being breast fed, and equal "parasite"? Can we kill it as a lifestyle enhancement, too?

Is it murder if someone is sentenced to the death penalty? Not all killing is murder.

9 month old baby (as I recall), doesn't apply here

No, No.

 

[This_person]

Is it murder if someone is sentenced to the death penalty? Not all killing is murder.

So, we're getting somewhere here, maybe.

Are you acknowleging that this is killing a human life?