Point taken, they are not as evil as the ones who actually did the molesting, but still, their continued support protects the leadership and thus enables them, and makes them VERY much a part of the problem, and yes, they share in the guilt for it.
An ectopic pregnancy is a fertilized egg that is threatening the life and health of a human being. Only you and the crazy group of sexist old men you adore so much believe that it is a human being. Worse, only you and said group of sexist crazies think that women everywhere should be forced to have surgery in the name of that belief.
You didn’t answer the rest of my questions because ultimately even you don’t think that way. No rational person counts a chemical pregnancy (a fertilized egg that does not implant) and results in an early miscarriage or a tubal pregnancy that poses a threat to the health and well being of a grown woman as a person.
It’s not a stillbirth. It’s not a human being. Chemicals and ectopics are just fertilized egg that never have and never will turn into a people. Only in the irrational cosmos of an organization with a deep hatred of woman is it seen as anything but a fertilized egg.
This is ridiculous. I’m the mother of two little girls, not the mother of an ectopic pregnancy and literally no one knows (not even me!) how many chemicals. I’m done arguing with you. This may be the single stupidest argument I’ve ever had with someone.
You are arguing on the wrong basis. Even if we grant full personhood to the embryo it would still be wrong to cause unnecessary harm to the mother without a chance of a better outcome for the child.
I cannot think of any other situation where it would be considered moral to cause unnecessary harm to an innocent in the name of salving your conscience regarding an unavoidable outcome.
Do you imagine there are no pro-life women?
And it’s not just activist groups. From here.
When you declare that a person isn’t a person, you are insisting that your opinion is fact. Now, claiming that only I and a crazy group old sexist old men share a belief in embryos being human, you commit a factual error. That means you’re definitively wrong. Not wrong “in my opinion.” Wrong as a matter of fact.
You’re wise to retreat.
Sure there are pro-life women. One of my best friends is a pro-life feminist lesbian.
But so what? I love her, but her position is still that, because of HER beliefs, other women should be obliged to endure pregnancies which they not only do not wish but which also endanger their lives. That is immoral in my view.
So what? So this statement is factually wrong:
Sez the guy with this on his wall.
Just out of curiosity, is this statement wrong as well or is there a non Catholic group that advocates removal of the fallopian tube to deal with ectopic pregnancy?
You wouldn’t recognize wisdom if it visited you in the night and showed you the errors of your ways.
Nobody’s retreating. You see yourself as some perverse Holy Crusader. Fortunately, this isn’t the dark ages and you’re not Charlemagne.
You’re a sad empty enraged creature who is so bitterly detached from real human interaction, real women, real life that you cannot imagine anyone who does not goose-step in formation with your twisted credo to be anything other than an evil animal.
Your steadfast insistence in protecting child rapists is reprehensible. You hide behind your keyboard attacking strangers with your lunacy.
You are a bully, a blow-hard, a coward and a spreader of the most loathesome belief structure I’ve ever read on the Straight Dope Message Board.
And, despite your earnest attempts to derail this thread, we are all watching with nauseated fascination as the Cardinals gather in private where nobody can hear them to discuss how the hell to extricate themselves from a sexual scandal 2,000 years in the making. Fat fuckin’ chance, L’il Bishops. Whoever is selected will need to be a devout masochist because they know that the second that white puff of smoke is seen they’ll have a philosophical and moral target on their back - metaphorically speaking of course.
It would be awful if they did, given that the surgery is a bad idea for a woman’s health and future fertility (and can cause further ectopic pregnancies), but there’s lots of crazy religious groups out there. Hard to rule it out.
I was, obviously, agreeing with your contention that there are women who agree with your stance on abortion. I do not believe being pro-life is indicative of a hatred of women. I would not be surprised if there are actual misogynists who would say that abortion should be legal but only if the [del]father[/del] sperm donor wants it to happen because he doesn’t wish to be liable for child support.
My point was that, though I do not believe you, Bricker, are motivated by a hatred of women or a desire to unduly control women in your opposition to abortion, I nonetheless feel that your moral calculus is incorrect. A newly-fertilized embryo is not yet a human being any more than the unfertilized egg was, or the millions of spermatozoa swimming around my testes are. It takes months for that embryo to become a human being, and for the majority of a woman’s pregnancy, the potential human she is baking should not be accorded rights that supersede her rights or her judgment.
Granted that there may be some fringe groups. I was looking more for groups as main stream as catholics. It was an honest question as I have only heard this view from catholics.
Sure. Because you look at that and see death. But I look at that and know that what I am seeing was a triumph over death. That’s on my wall because death DIDN’T win. That is, in other words, exactly the opposite of worshipping death.
And He’s gonna come back and prove it to all of us. Any day now …
Well… That is a very reasonable position to hold.
I simply disagree. I think you would, too, if I tried to apply it in other contexts. If I tried to craft some framework where convicted felons become involuntary organ donors, for example, I suspect you would recoil at the idea that one human being’s need for comfort or happiness could override another’s.
But I grant that there’s a distinction between what you said and that.
But you love moral hypotheticals. Suppose it was a profoundly retarded person, someone with effectively no personality, no interaction, who had the nice juicy organ. Suppose the organ recipient was a beloved entertainer who brings joy to millions?
Can we craft ANY hypothetical that gets you thinking maybe a born human being should give up his life to help out someone else’s medical care?
His moral calculus is incorrect even if we replace the embryo with a fully grown 45 year old. It is morally indefensible to cause more harm than necessary to an innocent when it is 100% certain it will make no difference in the outcome.
The person/embryo is going to die regardless of our actions. If removing the fallopian tube offered any chance of a different outcome then an argument could be made to take that option but with today’s medical technology that will not happen so you are harming the mother for no defensible reason.
I have never heard it from any other group, either.
I don’t know if it’s an official church policy, but I know Pentecostal minister (specifically Church of God in Christ) who oppose abortions to save the life of the mother.
Sure, but not the one you mean. I doubt I’d be allowed to, but if I had to give up my single kidney to save my baby’s life, or my entire liver or heart, I think I’d want to do it. My baby’s life is worth more than my own life to me. So’s my wife’s, for that matter.
You’re right that I’m not willing to extend that to the profoundly retarded.
Here’s the thing, though. An embryo prior to the development of its brain and nervous system, and probably prior to its ability to live outside the own, is not yet a human being. (Please note my use of the entire phrase. I’m not saying “is not human” because obviously it is, in the same way that my kidneys are human.) There is a somewhat nebulous point in its development in the womb that I would say it becomes a human being worthy of moral calculation, but that is not the case in the first trimester – maybe not the second. And giving the state the power to prohibit abortions during those times is to me an impermissible expansion of the state’s power.
How might Steven Weinberg put it? With or without religion, you would have sane people believing sane things, and insane people believing insane things. But to get sane people believing insane things… that takes religion. Or ideology. Or both.
I can understand how conservatives don’t believe you need a brain to be a person. They’re certainly doing their best to converge on brainlessness.