So God’s rules are just there to see if his people can display a little ingenuity in workarounds?
I don’t think so no matter how conveniently convenient it is.
Jewish belief reminds me a little of, say, a test with very particular rules. The point is to show you can follow instructions–that you’ll take the time and effort to read and understand the intricacies of the test.
That is different than the Christian viewpoint, where it’s allegedly the spirit of the law that matters (though all too often the spirit is thrown right out the window).
They are very different approaches to living the life God demands.
My point is that it isn’t a workaround.
To be fair, “person” is a philosophical, sociological term that is a lot mushier than differentiating between human and frog cells.
And it is true that a fertilized egg is substantially different from either an unfertilized egg or a sperm. Suddenly there is all the information and potential for a unique human life in there, and usually if left undisturbed it would become an individual human being.
Some people feel that this is included in the definition of “person.” I can respect that, kind of.
So let’s say there’s (magically) a fully independent adult living in a woman’s fallopian tube. He’s there through no fault of his own, and the only way to get him out is to kill him. But if he stays, both he and the woman would die. What is the moral thing to do? To people who believe a zygote is a person, this is the relevant hypothetical.
I happen to think it’s OK to kill him. So I support abortion on two grounds - I don’t think a fetus before about 20 weeks could possibly qualify as a person, and even if it did, it is OK to kill them in some circumstances.
That wit, razor sharp.
By gender you mean sex, right? You seem fixated on personhood depending on viability. Personhhod, and therefore rights, are are proper to the being not to the possible future, even if that future is 99.999% likely.
Of course it tells me something. It tells me that we need to save the life of the mother while trying (even if failure is almost certain) to save the baby.
I simply wanted to make sure I didn’t get a “gotcha” reply. The removal of the baby/foetus/embyo/hydatiform should be done preserving its integrity as far as possible.
You can kill a non-viable being. You can kill a dieing person.
It isn’t a workaround. It following the simple “don’t kill innocents” rule.
I’ll let Orthodox Jews explain themselves,
The one of the first Chistian writing not in the New Testament is possibly the Didache
You can choose to save a life without having to kill the other.
RCCC?
The zygote is not the same tyype of life a sperm or egg. Basic biology says so.
That doesn’t automatically put it into the category as baby, though. It’s like saying that because a fish isn’t a cat, it therefore must be a dog.
I think the point is not so much that the RCC has done nothing–since obviously they’ve done something–but how sincere they are about it and, more importantly, how much they truly comprehend how deeply they fucked up. To enact new, better regulations for reporting while at the same time wailing that you’re being persecuted in the same way as the Jews around the time of WWII… That’s a big fucking red flag that at least some elements of the Church still don’t get it. And where there is this staggering lack of comprehension, there is the possibility of recidivism.
Pope > Cardinals > Bishops. All male.
For someone who believes that personhood begins at the moment of conception, this wouldn’t be a valid analogy. Abortion to save a woman’s life isn’t snatching the baby back while the mother falls–it’s taking an opportunity to shove the mother off the roof so that you can get the baby from her instead of risking her jumping while still holding it.
[hijack]In my ICC10 run last Wednesday, I observed that since Icecrown Citadel is full of all of these constantly running elevators, the Lich King must be Jewish.[/hijack]
I think that was the point–that’s the general practice, but most non-Muslims are completely unaware of it.
I can’t help but think of the old *Onion *article “Eight-Pound Man Removed From Woman’s Vagina.”
It has a full and unique set of human genes.
It’s either a human being or it isn’t.
A) How is this relevant?
B) Did the Buddha even care about the survival of the species? He taught that our ultimate goal should be nibbana, the cessation of rebirth, did he not?
And of course, you are the best judge of what the actual purpose of the rules are, right?
Well, bad news: I can’t speak for the Jews, but we Catholics all got together last Tuesday and held a meeting, and we decided you didn’t really know enough to be considered a reliable source of information on the actual purpose of our rules.
So forgive us, please, if we listen to your pronouncements now with a bit of a distracted air.
What wit? I included no humor in my post. You seem fixated on one sperm and one egg=human life. It doesn’t. It does often, but not always. Viability matters the first few months of any pregnancy–many a fertilized egg does not implant or the pregnancy proceed. In words you can understand: the baby doesn’t grow.
Riddle me this: if the fertilized egg (the ectopic pregnancy) is surgically removed from the Fallopian, how come the Church does not then insist on everything possible being done to nurture this “person”–petrie dish, artificial womb etc? Afterall, it has the same rights as dear old mom. The Church merely cavils at destroying the EP while it’s in the woman–it has no compunction about killing it once it’s been removed. They call its removal a secondary cause of demise or some such dry, distant phrase, all the while putting dear old mom at more risk. But she’s just a woman; her only value to the Church is as a vessel for more members. Sentient females certainly are not valued within the Church. If anything, the Church’s approach to this is even more evil than it first appears: instead of doing the safest thing, their “rules” put “mom” at risk AND then they go against their espoused principles and destroy the “person” they put mom at risk to save. Pontius Pilate could take lessons from the Church. :rolleyes:
Why? Why does the integrity of something that is incapable of surviving or growing into something that will survive matter? Are funerals for hydatiform moles and ectopic pregnancies common in the Church? First I’d heard of it. Does a priest come and perform whatever they now call Last Rites? I fully understand the parents grieving the loss of potential, but that is what is lost: the potential of a future baby, there was no baby. EP and HM are cruel tricks nature plays on people–unless you interpret them as God’s will, which adds another whole level of pain on hurting people. But that’s another thread.
He’s done a better job by far of offering an actual explanation than you have, Bricker. Try it.
I remember someone bringing this up, too–definitely not runner pat, though, since he’s a, well, he. **Guin **maybe?
A fetus is definitely human and definitely alive (so is a brain dead body hooked to life support). The question is, is it a person, entitled to the same rights as a fully developed human being? Many of us say no.
But they are not, at all, trying to save the baby. They are removing the fallopian tube with the egg inside. The egg will then die. There is no attempt to “save the baby”, because there is no way to do that.
Repeat: there is NO WAY WHATSOEVER to save this egg. It is going to die.
Now, given that - what is the purpose of requiring the removal of the fallopian tube, rather than just the removal of the egg?
Not when the “other life” is an ectopic pregnancy in a fallopian tube. That egg is going to die. You can kill it in the fallopian tube prior to removal or you can kill it by removing the fallopian tube, but you’re going to kill it one way or the other. The only other option is for the egg to die when it ruptures the fallopian tube and kills the mother.
What??? What the hell is the “integrity” of an egg or hydatiform mole?
So now, it’s acceptable to risk a woman’s life because the INTEGRITY of a non-viable pregnancy is more important than her life?
Yeah, I think “misogynist” is the correct label for you.
Maybe I wasn’t clear. I was positing a situation where I indeed had to choose between the life of the fetus and that of my wife - that, in all likelihood, at most one would survive.
Roman Catholic Criminal Conspiracy. That is to say, those fleecing the flock, as distinct from the flock itself.
Currently headed up by Joey the Rat.:eek:
The RCC hierarchy has some 'splaining to do. And a lot of amends to make.
And many of us say yes.
And your opnion takes precedence, to the point where you can call other views “wrong” with absolute dismissiveness, why? :dubious: Because you Believe, and anyone who disagrees therefore must not Believe and must give way? Is that pretty much it?
That’s the only basis you have for your continuing to try to rationalize away all the other repugnant, horrible stuff your church has done and continues to do, right? Your choice to Believe in them, facts notwithstanding.
It must be someone else, then. Not Guin. If I have time later, I’ll search through the thread. “Search” is turning up nothing.
Never mind. It’s aruqvan, post #289.
GottaLoveThatChurch!
Ok, so now I can’t open that link. Sorry, folks, but I have to do RL things now.
Equivocation.
But you have no evidence for your position, other than “the magical sky wizard told me so.” So, thank goodness, in this country a zygote currently has the same rights as the invisible untouchable non-heat-producing anaerobic floating dragon in my garage.