Speaking of ‘very very wrong’, the Aus medical system requires ANY surgical event to be referred by a GP. In other words, if you need a knee-replacement, want a nose-job or require an abortion, you visit your GP for a referral to the specialist surgeon who will then perform the necessary surgery.
And regards the ‘doctor’s opinion’, if you happen to be unfortunate enough to go to a doc who doesn’t approve of abortions, you make an appointment to see ANOTHER doc, probably at the same medical centre.
IOW, anyone needing an abortion in Australia will get a referral on the same day, and an appointment at either a clinic or a major public hospital within a few weeks.
Most abortions are performed before the 12 week mark. Late-term abortions are only performed in cases where the fetus is a threat to the mother’s life, or has such life-limiting disabilities that it will either die before or shortly after birth.
Minor physical contact can result in the loss of epidermal cells. Each such cell contains 23 homologous chromosome pairs from two human parents making it human. Should athletes and lovers be charged with homicide when they destroy such a cell?
The skin cell cannot develop into a new individual? How about wearing a condom during sex? That leads to the eventual deaths of the spermatozoon and ovum that would otherwise have formed a new human — indeed, such deaths are often the primary purpose of the condom. Should that couple be charged with murder? Oh, I forgot: some of your Ilk does view contraception in that light. :smack:
My mom’s side of the family prefers “every baby is a gift” and “babies are fearfully and wonderfully made by the Lord” (substituting “knit” for “made” seems popular now for some reason).
And don’t forget the ever-popular “she was asking for it”. That attitude alone tells you the basis for so many anti-abortion sentiments. There are people who are genuinely “pro-life” – those who still care what happens after the baby is born – and then there are those who just think women need to be kept in line by fulfilling their duty to reproduce.
Not at all. Such lost skin cells contain 23 pairs of chromosomes, yes, but that’s not the only thing I said was in play. Why did you fail to quote the remainder of my words when you asked your question?
I spoke of a cell created as the result of the combination of the two gametes into one diploid cell. The skin cells you mention are formed by mitosis, and are chromosone copies of the cells that created them.
I’m not sure who my ilk is. The Catholic church does indeed teach that contraception barriers like condoms are a moral wrong when used in the sex act between husband and wife, but they do not teach that the act is murder, or akin to murder.
My best understanding is that it’s one soul each. A person that is a chimera has one soul. A person that is a monozygotic twin has one soul; his or her twin also has a soul. Uncontroversially, given my beliefs, a dizygotic twin pair each have souls as well.
Again, though, I am emphasizing that this is merely my opinion – I was asked what I believe, not what I can prove.
You’re right, in a sense. I am not offering any objective, verifiable evidence here. In debate, this is essentially the same as my saying, “My post is my cite.”
And although the law does not discuss souls, there’s no question that it currently supports a general right to abortion, so the burden clearly falls to me to convince you – not you specifically, but you in the more general sense of the pronoun.
I find your position to be the result of genuine material error about the state of the universe. I don’t find it detestable.
But right now, from a public policy perspective, I should concede to you: we have a process to create law. That process has generated law that largely favors your view.
I remain free to advocate for a change to the law, but certainly must acknowledge that at the present time, on the issue of abortion, you’ve won.
But the discussion had a more limited purpose, and that was to show the basis for my beliefs did not arise from a postulate that women were stupid.
If there existed nearly fool proof birth control, which prevented fertilization, and evidence that government support for it greatly reduces abortion, would you support this government policy for subsidizing this form of birth control?
I think you know the answer. Some old pervs in funny robes in Rome tell him no, so no. That would even be “genuine material error about the state of the universe”.
OK, although from my perspective this shoe horning of definitions to try to make current scientific discoveries match with earlier church doctrine, is reminiscent of young earth “geologists” trying find evidence that 40 days and 40 nights of rain explain the grand canyon. Based on our knowledge of science and biology it seems clear that whatever sentience there is that is associated with traditional notions of the soul is related to independent neurological development of the individual. But hey you can believe what you want to, but trying post hoc to develop science based models and definitions for what is an entirely unscientific conclusion, is going to lead to more and more holes that are going to be harder and harder to fill.
TLDR: if your going to use faith as a foundation for your world view you are probably better off not bringing zygotes and chromosomes into the discussion.
I once told a Catholic pro-lifer about the mother and doctor who were thrown out of the Catholic church for permitting an abortion on a nine year old pregnant with twins. When I said “or she would have died,” the person responded “You don’t know that.”
Right. She chose to have her birth control fail or to get pregnant by raped or to become a pregnant lesbian who should be forced to give birth and then give up her child because being raised by a gay parent is “child abuse.”
Well, now you’ve told another Catholic pro-lifer about that situation!
Here is my reaction: the operation there should be done. It has the intention of saving the life of the nine-year-old. The operation will have the secondary effect of the fetuses dying, but that’s not what’s motivating the operation. The motive is saving the life.
So in the future, when you tell this story of sharing it with Catholic pro-lifers, which reaction will you share? Mine, or the first one?
As an aside, an excommunication is not an act that “throws one out of the church.” It is an order that forbids the subject from approaching any of the sacraments except for penance. It is intended to encourage reception of the sacrament of penance and reconnection with the church. But the subjects of an excommunication are still members of the Church. They can’t take Communion. They are exCommunicated.
Church law imposes this state automatically upon anyone who participates in an abortion, even if the facts ultimately support a finding that the act was just. If it helps, you might imagine it as similar to a decision to subject every self-defense killing to an inquiry, even if the facts ultimately exonerate the shooter.
Again, when you re-tell this anecdote, how will you frame it, having been made aware of these facts?
Absolutely. I can’t think of a better way to reduce abortion. I have no concerns whatsoever about teaching contraception. Ideally, of course, students would also be admonished that the use of contraceptives are like having car insurance; the better choice is not have an accident. But since experience is crystal clear that some high schoolers will have sex regardless of what admonishments are sent their way, a strong education component is the best way to prevent pregnancy. I’m completely in favor.
Bricker is right. What he said, is the Catholic Church official stance on abortion.
As for excommunication, he is right again. but the version with the black candles, Cardinals, stentorian chants, and demons rising up from the ground to “get” the bad guy plays better in the movies. It’s more exciting
I appreciate the insight, but I don’t associate a soul with sentience. I associate a soul with a set of genetic information that can develop to house sentience, but doesn’t have to. I make room for the possibility that we may discover or encounter non-human life that is ensouled, for example.
