[TrashMan]

Well, there's no denying that the embryo IS a complete human (as in - everything that needs to come together for it to form, has...the only thing it needs is time), while the sperms by itself, or just the egg aren't.. or skin cells for that matter.

As for the embryo death rates - I don't know where you got the 99% death numbers but I'm HIGHLY sceptical of them.
Alternativly, this is the issue of CONTROL.
There is difference in just letting things go their natural way and activly trying to stop such procedures.

I have no influence on wether the embryo will implant or not. However, once it's implanted, I do have a influence on letting it stay there or not (a.k.a. - abortion)

when given an option, I'll always give life a chance - even a small one.

[Flipside]

Yes, it is an issue of control, and who exerts it on whom, and why.

That's the problem.

[karajorma]

There is a difference between choosing to end a pregnancy naturally and choosing to abort. No one is saying that there isn't. But if you truly believe that life begins at conception it's pretty callous to say "Well they are dying naturally so I don't care" Lots of people in the 3rd world are dying naturally of diseases. I guess since that's natural we don't need to lift a finger to stop it either.

If you truly believe that life begins at conception you shouldn't be willing to create life until you are ready to carry it to term. That means either using contraception or completely abstaining from sex even after marriage except when trying to have children.

To do otherwise is to display a very hypocritical level of insensitivity to the death of your own children.

EDIT : Just to qualify that, there is another option, just have as many kids as you happen to have without using any form of family planning/contraception.

[TrashMan]

Wrong. Family planing is OK.

There's nothing wrong with it, since the child always has a CHANCE to be born, at least. Abortion = no chance. at all.

[Flipside]

But family planning is a case of trying to make sure it doesn't get born, even if the egg is fertilised, whether that succeeds or not is irrelevant. The only difference is that Abortion is a medical procedure and has a <> 100% success rate, whereas family planning is not, however the intention behind both acts is to prevent the birth of a child.

[MP-Ryan]

Well, there's no denying that the embryo IS a complete human (as in - everything that needs to come together for it to form, has...the only thing it needs is time), while the sperms by itself, or just the egg aren't.. or skin cells for that matter.

I guess I have several complete humans sitting in both legs, all they have to do is be prompted with a little electrical shock.

"Time" is not the simple factor you make it out to be.  Timing is probably the most complicated factor in all of genetics.  That's why so many embryos do not development.

As for the embryo death rates - I don't know where you got the 99% death numbers but I'm HIGHLY sceptical of them.

You can be skeptical all you like, but until you disprove them you'd better respect them.  Consider that I have a 5-year education in molecular genetics, including focusses on immunology and developmental genetics.  Or, even better, look it up for yourself.

It's one thing for you to argue opinion, its quite another to outright deny biological fact merely because it doesn't fit your belief system.  Look it up if you think I'm making up numbers.

[TrashMan]

Just to get things into perspective here - we talking about abortion in general (as in, no matter how old the embryo/foetus is) or just the very early abortion/very late abortion.

I just want to know WHEN do you guys consider abortion a bad decision.


EDIT: If those numbers are correct then I have to re-think my position.

[karajorma]

Wrong. Family planing is OK.

There's nothing wrong with it, since the child always has a CHANCE to be born, at least. Abortion = no chance. at all.

Let me walk you though an example. We have two couples. Couple A use the combined contraceptive pill and a barrier method (condoms). If that fails and they woman gets pregnant they have decided to have an abortion. Couple B use traditional Christian family planning methods. Both couples have already had as many children as they want to have.

Since couple A are using the pill the wife doesn't ovulate (much). When she does the sperm find it hard to get past the cervix anyway. The chances of her actually getting an egg fertilised is low.

Couple B are using the Rhythm Method. They're using the most draconian version which means they abstain from sex from the end of the woman's period until the end of her fertile cycle. Despite this the couple will still get several more eggs successfully fertilised than couple A. They are counting on the failure of implantation or early miscarriage (within the first month) to prevent the women from ever getting noticeably pregnant.

Couple B will kill more embryos during the remainder of their marriage than Couple A will. Couple A have taken every step they can to prevent fertilisation short of abstaining. Couple B have taken every step a good Catholic can take but their efforts are still not as good as couple A. Hell Couple A could probably have a couple of abortions and STILL not kill as many embryos as couple B.

Your argument is to say well Couple A choose to have the abortion. My counter-argument is that it doesn't matter. If abortion is premeditated murder as some pro-life people like to claim then the Rhythm Method and other NFP methods are murder by reckless disregard.

The simple fact is that no matter what you like to claim Couple A are doing nothing that Couple B aren't doing. The only difference is that they know when they are doing it. (or at least know more often when they are doing it). Couple B know that their chosen method of contraception will kill several embryos. They ignore it. Couple A hope to never have to kill an embryo but when the woman does become pregnant they choose to terminate.


So it comes down to this. Lets assume that an embryo is alive, with all the rights you believe it should have. What number of babies are couple B allowed to kill by not caring that they die before what they are doing becomes more wrong than a single planned abortion?

Actually think about that question. I know you want to try to say it's different but is it really? Do a couple who will let several babies die by doing nothing really have less guilt than a couple who kill a single baby?

[Snail]

Haha. That is funny.

[MP-Ryan]

Just to get things into perspective here - we talking about abortion in general (as in, no matter how old the embryo/foetus is) or just the very early abortion/very late abortion.

I just want to know WHEN do you guys consider abortion a bad decision.

When do I personally feel that abortion should not be a parental consideration?  ~20 weeks gestation.

When do I feel abortion should no longer be a legal option?  When the baby is actually born.  Until that point, the parents have absolute right to decide, in particular the mother.

EDIT: If those numbers are correct then I have to re-think my position.

Y'think? =)

[Mustang19]

*SNIP*

Just FYI, as growing up in a Catholic family I can tell you that catholics consider all forms of contraception and... "nonprocreative sexual activity"  immoral. So Couple B shouldn't even be using rhythm.

Unless we're not talking about catholics, in which case you can define "christians" in whatever way you want.

[vyper]

Orthodox Catholics barely believe in going to the bog.

[karajorma]

Just FYI, as growing up in a Catholic family I can tell you that catholics consider all forms of contraception and... "nonprocreative sexual activity"  immoral. So Couple B shouldn't even be using rhythm.

You what?

1. You've just ruled out post menopausal women having sex. Ever. I've certainly never heard a priest say they can't.
2. Various popes have said that marital sex for non procreative reasons is just fine. There's a long article about the subject here.
3. At least two popes I can think of have said that Natural Family Planning is fine. Pope Pious XII actually referred to the Rhythm Method itself while John Paul II referred to several different forms of NFP.

On July 17, 1994, John Paul II clarified the Church's position during a meditation said prior an angelus recitation.

    Unfortunately, Catholic thought is often misunderstood ... as if the Church supported an ideology of fertility at all costs, urging married couples to procreate indiscriminately and without thought for the future. But one need only study the pronouncements of the Magisterium to know that this is not so.

    Truly, in begetting life the spouses fulfill one of the highest dimensions of their calling: they are God's co-workers. Precisely for this reason they must have an extremely responsible attitude. In deciding whether or not to have a child, they must not be motivated by selfishness or carelessness, but by a prudent, conscious generosity that weighs the possibilities and circumstances, and especially gives priority to the welfare of the unborn child.

    Therefore, when there is a reason not to procreate, this choice is permissible and may even be necessary. However, there remains the duty of carrying it out with criteria and methods that respect the total truth of the marital act in its unitive and procreative dimension, as wisely regulated by nature itself in its biological rhythms. One can comply with them and use them to advantage, but they cannot be "violated" by artificial interference.

EDIT : Oh **** it. Here's the paragraph from the Humanae Vitae. Don't argue I'm wrong. Take it up with the Vatican's webmaster now or Pope Paul VI after you die.

Recourse to Infertile Periods

16. Now as We noted earlier (no. 3), some people today raise the objection against this particular doctrine of the Church concerning the moral laws governing marriage, that human intelligence has both the right and responsibility to control those forces of irrational nature which come within its ambit and to direct them toward ends beneficial to man. Others ask on the same point whether it is not reasonable in so many cases to use artificial birth control if by so doing the harmony and peace of a family are better served and more suitable conditions are provided for the education of children already born. To this question We must give a clear reply. The Church is the first to praise and commend the application of human intelligence to an activity in which a rational creature such as man is so closely associated with his Creator. But she affirms that this must be done within the limits of the order of reality established by God.

If therefore there are well-grounded reasons for spacing births, arising from the physical or psychological condition of husband or wife, or from external circumstances, the Church teaches that married people may then take advantage of the natural cycles immanent in the reproductive system and engage in marital intercourse only during those times that are infertile, thus controlling birth in a way which does not in the least offend the moral principles which We have just explained. (20)

Neither the Church nor her doctrine is inconsistent when she considers it lawful for married people to take advantage of the infertile period but condemns as always unlawful the use of means which directly prevent conception, even when the reasons given for the later practice may appear to be upright and serious. In reality, these two cases are completely different. In the former the married couple rightly use a faculty provided them by nature. In the latter they obstruct the natural development of the generative process. It cannot be denied that in each case the married couple, for acceptable reasons, are both perfectly clear in their intention to avoid children and wish to make sure that none will result. But it is equally true that it is exclusively in the former case that husband and wife are ready to abstain from intercourse during the fertile period as often as for reasonable motives the birth of another child is not desirable. And when the infertile period recurs, they use their married intimacy to express their mutual love and safeguard their fidelity toward one another. In doing this they certainly give proof of a true and authentic love.

[vyper]

Root of the problem in cartoon form: http://www.snafu-comics.com/?strip_id=217

[Fearless Leader]

Root of the problem in cartoon form: http://www.snafu-comics.com/?strip_id=217

 
wow


Not quite it, but I like this guys idea.

^sarcasm

[Mustang19]

1. You've just ruled out post menopausal women having sex. Ever. I've certainly never heard a priest say they can't.
2. Various popes have said that marital sex for non procreative reasons is just fine. There's a long article about the subject here.
3. At least two popes I can think of have said that Natural Family Planning is fine. Pope Pious XII actually referred to the Rhythm Method itself while John Paul II referred to several different forms of NFP.

  Talk about research! Thanks KJ, you taught me what I "should have" learned in Sunday School. Maybe if you taught it I'd have paid attention. But thanks, I didn't know what I was talking about.

[karajorma]

Not a problem. I do find it funny that Catholics don't seem to actually listen to the pope that much though.

I spent years arguing with Catholics about evolution before noticing that Pope John Paul II had actually come out and said that Darwin was correct years earlier but no one had actually paid attention.

[Mustang19]

Like anything pertaining to religion or philosophy opinions tend to go back and forth. Also, there are many things that the church "frowns upon" but doesn't exactly rule out, such as cremation. So all that really matters (if you want to be technical about it) is what the church most recently says, which Wikipedia, interestingly enough, has an entire page devoted to the topic. And yes, it hardly mentions John Paul II's comment. I mean, you can't take everything a politician says as fact; one statement is more likely a screwup than a reasoned decision.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_and_the_Roman_Catholic_Church

Apparent conclusion: Vatican still hasn't made up its mind. Not trying to make any points here, just FYI.

[karajorma]

Actually the position of the Vatican seems to be that they have made up their mind on evolution (It's virtually the same as the science version) but they haven't decided on abiogenesis yet.

To be honest they're actually taking a more sensible position on the subject than most of the other Abrahamic religions. Their point of view seems to based around the premise that science can't explain the soul, that's up to religion. Given that the existence or non-existence of the soul is a philosophical point and not a scientific one I tend to agree with them.


In the case of the earlier arguments with Catholics I'd been arguing with Catholics who espoused the Young Earth view. And in that case it's obvious that not only were they disagreeing with me, they were disagreeing with the pope.

[NGTM-1R]

Just FYI, as growing up in a Catholic family I can tell you that catholics consider all forms of contraception and... "nonprocreative sexual activity"  immoral. So Couple B shouldn't even be using rhythm.

Unless we're not talking about catholics, in which case you can define "christians" in whatever way you want.

You need to talk to the pastor at Saint Gregory the Great here, like right now. I don't think Father Jim's heard about this yet.

Or things have changed since then. Former =! Current, beware of using experiences more than a year old or so on controversial topics.