Abortion clinic uses extraordinary tactic to trap pro-lifers
Absolute craziness.
by Charlie Butts
The Foundation for Moral Law is defending two Montgomery, Alabama, pro-life sidewalk counselors in what has been dubbed “The Water Jet case.”
Reproductive Health Services has expressed their displeasure with the counselors who greet women on a public sidewalk in front of the building in hopes of convincing them not to have an abortion.
“They’ve also installed one single, very powerful sprinkler jet that sprays across the sidewalk and sweeps across the breadth of it and even shoots out into the street and they’ll turn this thing on and off,” says Foundation for Moral Law attorney Ben Dupre. “They’ll try to catch the pro-lifers as they’re walking in front of the building and turn it on and then turn it off.”
Dupre adds that the spray is even used in the winter and the water turns to ice.
The counselors, in order to talk with clients of the clinic, stepped off the sidewalk — walking behind the sprinkler — to avoid the jet.
“Well, this clinic owner setting this water trap, if you will, called the police and said that they were trespassing and swore out warrants for their arrest. They were arrested and charged with trespass,” Dupre explains. The two sidewalk counselors are set to go on trial September 21.
Dupree says it is a shame that the clinic owner is basically taking public property hostage by forcing the counselors and pedestrians onto private property to avoid the water jet.
Found here.
Loading ...
Has an anti-abortion person ever actually convinced someone not to have an abortion by accosting them on their way into an abortion clinic? If not, doesn’t this really just amount to harassment?
No person is entitled to run interference with a person’s legitimate access to HEALTH care or to get between them and their provider.
It is a private matter and of no business to the ‘counselors’.
They could well be exacerbating an already very stressful situation for the patients/clients
and this is something they should be mindful and sensitive to. To say nothing of not knowing why that person is seeking those services.
They are wrong, their presence is unwelcome, and they should respect that. Period.
So why don’t they?
They aren’t saving lives, but doing MORE harm than good.
If these ‘counselors’ don’t want to be sprayed, they shouldn’t be where they don’t belong.
Got that?
Sean, my thought, is probably, yes, I’m sure some side walk counselors have been successful. Otherwise, why would people keep doing it for so many years? Harassment is a strong word, and I’m surprised to see this coming from you, who, I thought, was against abortion. All your talk of killing “womb babies” and all.
Sean, is that a real question? Every sidewalk counselor I have ever met has saved numerous children. Go on any local pro-life website, they will likely have a count of how many children were saved. My local group, Operation Rescue Boston, has saved 75 people for the year 2011 alone. It is easy to claim it is “harassment” because you are not the one being killed. There are people as old as their late 30s walking around who were saved by sidewalk counselors; I am sure they and their mothers are very grateful that people were out “harassing” at abortion clinics.
The real problem with sidewalk counselors is, they “counsel” everyone, because really, how could you know who’s having an abortion? I would be rather upset if I were told how my baby loves me and god meant for me to be parent if I were going in for a pap smear (can you imagine the trauma a woman going in for a cancer screening or an infertile woman would feel at that?)
http://jezebel.com/5132091/former-abortion-clinic-escort-returns-to-confront-verbal-abusers
http://everysaturdaymorning.wordpress.com/
And, some counselors are fairly polite, others though are down rather abusive.
@Sean
“Has an anti-abortion person ever actually convinced someone not to have an abortion by accosting them on their way into an abortion clinic?”
Yes.
I recall one story in particular – it was a long time ago and I can’t find it anymore, but I was sure I’d followed the link from here at RI. A pro-life demonstrator asked a woman going into an abortion clinic to look at the ultrasound. The woman did and discovered she was pregant with twins. She left the abortion clinic and went straight into the arms of the pro-life demonstrator. She was taken to the crisis pregnancy centre across the street, where they helped her with medical care, aquiring supplies needed for two babies, helped her find a place to live, etc. She gave birth to healthy twins and the people at the centre continue to help her out. She spoke glowingly about how accepting and helpful the centre had been for her, what a joy her twins were, and how glad she was for listening to the demonstrator and asking to see the ultrasound.
I don’t know that anyone has actually sought out data as to how many people like this woman there are.
@Regan DuCasse
“If these ‘counselors’ don’t want to be sprayed, they shouldn’t be where they don’t belong.”
That would be a public sidewalk.
What I don’t understand is why the person who installed a sprinkler designed to spray a public walkway, especially in winter, was not charged. Icing a public walkway is dangerous. Spraying people on a public sidewalk is the harassement, if not actually assault under the circumstances.
And I’m sure those twins are quite grateful.
Maybe, Regan, the counselor’s presence is very welcome. It could the first person the pregnant woman encountered, since finding out she was pregnant, that wanted to help her through the pregnancy and afterward.
A question for Sean and Regan. If the hypothesized gay gene could be detected in utero, would you still be adamantly pro-choice?
[If the hypothesized gay gene could be detected in utero, would you still be adamantly pro-choice?]
I’ll answer that.
Yes I would, because no woman should be forced to bear a child against her will for any reason. The individual right to bodily intergity is absolute. The owner of the womb calls the shots. I may agree or disagree with any given individual’s choice but the decision is not mine to make.
Sprinkler spraying onto public property is an enforceable infraction. Call the city and tell the owner to move it.
@regan: abortion is not a form of healthcare.
@mont d law: Here’s an interesting implication of your principle. The individual right to bodily integrity being absolute actually renders abortion FORBIDDEN, not permissible. This is, of course, because it would apply to the unborn child, too.
Would you still be adamantly pro-life?
@Emma
Not to answer for Leo, but my answer would be a definite “Yes!”
A genetic link to alcoholism would never make me advocate killing a child in the womb, either.
[@mont d law: Here’s an interesting implication of your principle. The individual right to bodily integrity being absolute actually renders abortion FORBIDDEN, not permissible. This is, of course, because it would apply to the unborn child, too.]
No it wouldn’t because a fetus has no life independent of the mother. As long as you need to violate the integrity of another persons body to sustain your own you have no right. This is the reason I can’t force you to give me a kidney even if I will die without it.
@Emma
I’ll answer for Leo… a resounding YES, I would still be adamantly pro-life.
@Emma
A resounding Yes from me too.
@Mont D. Law
Mont, a newborn is completely dependent on his/her mother, too. Only she lactates with the milk intended for him/her. Or by your definition, do you consider lactating a “violation of the integrity” of the mother to sustain her child?
[Mont, a newborn is completely dependent on his/her mother, too. Only she lactates with the milk intended for him/her. Or by your definition, do you consider lactating a “violation of the integrity” of the mother to sustain her child?]
No. Because a newborn exists independently of his/her mother. A newborn needs care and is simply dependent. A newborn doesn’t violate the bodily integrity of anyone.
@Deb
Newborns can suckle any lactating woman or formula. If newborns were reliant only on their bio mothers milk, abortions would be nearly required if the pregnancy showed significant risk to the mother, what would the sense in both mother and child dying be?
@Deb and Emma et al.
Thank you. I would still be pro-life, of course.
Do Sean and Regan agree with Mont?
@Mont D. Law
[No it wouldn’t because a fetus has no life independent of the mother.]
Your first principle implied straightforwardly that abortion is immoral. You seem to recognize this implication though because your response adds an *amendment* to (or maybe a clarification of) your principle about bodily integrity so that it admits of exceptions. But there’s a new problem now: there isn’t any reason I can think of to think the principle true–and there seem to be good reasons for thinking it false. First, in general amending any view when the only motivation for doing so is to save the view from objections (such as the one I gave) starts making the whole business sound pretty ad hoc (and in all honesty, the principle that we ought not violate bodily integrity EXCEPT when it’s in utero sounds like something of a dog’s breakfast). Nevermind that, though. What’s worse is that the amended principle implies infanticide is permissible. I do hope that you won’t bite that bullet. Finally, there’s no context I can think of in which this principle would need to be true in order to preserve any (non-abortion related) moral judgments, including that of your forced kidney donation example. The reason forced kidney donation is immoral is because generally speaking, it’s wrong to violate other people’s bodies against their will. But there’s a big difference between kidneys and fetuses/embryos/zygotes. Kidneys are organs–they’re *parts* of persons. Zygotes/embryos/fetuses, unlike kidneys, are *themselves* persons, rather than parts of persons. Bottom line, then, not only should you be skeptical of that amended principle, but, it seems to me, you should reject it.
“Newborns can suckle any lactating woman or formula.”
Not every woman is lactating. Lactation starts after the placenta is removed. Actually lactating is a very special, small window of time in a mother’s life. And any ‘ol woman will do?
“abortions would be nearly required if the pregnancy showed significant risk to the mother, what would the sense in both mother and child dying be?”
I’m not following you here. Mont seemed to imply that only in the womb are children dependent on their mother’s body for survival. Not so, after birth, children are still dependent on their mother’s body for survival (formula is a very recent invention and a very WESTERN practice). Even if the child is formula, he/she is still completely dependent on his/her parents… more so than in the womb. Children in the womb are easier to care for than outside the womb. I was wondering where he stood on this. I am opposed to this thinking.
Correction: the principle in the previous post that I’m calling ad hoc should read: “…EXCEPT when the thing in question has no life independent of the mother.”
@Deb
But many women are lactating, and if the mother is unable to or dead, then yeah, any lactating woman would do. (smoking/drinking/other percautions blah blah blah).
Ok, so, baby can only suck bio-mommy milk. bio-mommy dies during high risk pregnancy/delivery. baby dies because mommy died and had no food. It’s mommy’s choice whether to risk her and her baby dying or abortion. If baby HAD to have ONLY mommy’s milk, and there was a high risk mommy would die during the pregnancy or in labor, chances are very high baby would die too. Few people would want to take THAT risk.
Luckily, babies can have any lactating woman, or formula. And yes, babies are dependent on caregivers/parents, but there’s a difference to tied to ones blood stream and breathing amniotic fluid and having an independent blood stream and breathing air. If mom got kicked hard in the stomach while pregnant, damage could happen to the fetus, as it’s dependent on mom’s body. If mom get’s kicked hard in the stomach after baby’s born, only mom is hurt.
[And yes, babies are dependent on caregivers/parents, but there’s a difference to tied to ones blood stream and breathing amniotic fluid and having an independent blood stream and breathing air.]
Hi nerdygirl. I’ve argued above in my reply to Mont D. Law that dependency considerations aren’t relevant to the abortion debate. I believe you’re arguing the same thing he is, and thus, my reply applies to you, too. Briefly, the reasons I gave were that it’s simply an ad hoc consideration (and this is only becoming more evident as your discussion with Deb unfolds here); that it will actually allow for something as unthinkable infanticide (Peter Singer agrees with me on this); and that dependency considerations aren’t needed to defend any of our commonsense moral judgments (such as that of judging forced tissue donation to be immoral). If those rebuttals are successful, I think they’re powerful reasons to *deny* that the dependency of a zygote/embryo/fetus is somehow relevant to their moral status.
“babies are dependent on caregivers/parents, but there’s a difference to tied to ones blood stream and breathing amniotic fluid and having an independent blood stream and breathing air.”
Babies in utero do have a different blood stream. A mother’s blood never crosses the placenta into her child’s. The child is his/her own person with his/her own blood type, which is often different than mom’s. The BABY grows the placenta, not the mother. It actually belongs to the baby.
I never said a baby HAD to have only his/her mother’s milk. But Mont seemed to dismiss the care (especially when breastfeeding) that a newborn requires… as if suddenly children are born and they deserve protection under the law because somehow they aren’t dependent on their mother for survival. That’s hogwash. My initial thought when I read that was: “Sounds like a man who has never seen (been married to) a lactating mother.”
” If baby HAD to have ONLY mommy’s milk, and there was a high risk mommy would die during the pregnancy or in labor, chances are very high baby would die too. Few people would want to take THAT risk.”
So better that just the baby die? And a baby doesn’t have to have only mother’s milk. But to say in the womb the baby “violates the integrity of another persons body” totally ignores lactation. How is that not a “violation of the integrity of another persons body”? Mont needs to explain.
The baby violated nothing. As I said before, he/she has his/her own blood, builds his/her own placenta, has his/her own tissue. He /she just relies on mommy for food and protection. HOW IS THAT DIFFERENT FROM OUTSIDE THE WOMB? Breathing air? Someone else can do the huge job of protecting and feeding? These are the grounds for protection under the law? Puh-leeeez.
“Mont, a newborn is completely dependent on his/her mother, too. Only she lactates with the milk intended for him/her”
You never said the baby HAD to have mothers milk, but you certainly implied it.
” And a baby doesn’t have to have only mother’s milk. ”
Yeah, I kinda mentioned that other women or formula could feed a baby in my first post. My point was IF a baby HAD to have mothers milk and only mothers milk, mother dying would be a death sentence for the baby. Remember, your first post implied a baby needed only mothers milk.
“HOW IS THAT DIFFERENT FROM OUTSIDE THE WOMB? ”
Stab a 3 month pregnant woman till she dies. Fetus/baby dies too. Stab a mother of a 3 month old baby. Only mother dies. Thats a huge difference. If the baby is outside the womb, able to breath and has fully formed organs, someone can care for it, be it a bio-parent, relative or good Samaritan. If the baby is in the womb before the point of viability it can’t survive without the mother. Someone else can’t care for it if something happens to mom. So, yeah, the law is (and should be) more invested in the living, not the potentially living.
“Stab a 3 month pregnant woman till she dies. Fetus/baby dies too. Stab a mother of a 3 month old baby. Only mother dies.”
All you have shown in your argument is that while in the womb, a baby dies along with his/her mother if the mother is stabbed. So what? There is little difference between a random person stabbing a pregnant mother and killing both mother and her baby from the same mother willingly entering a clinic and allowing a doctor to forcibly dilate her cervix, use a rod to chop the baby to bits, and then suck the remains of the dismembered baby out with a vacuum. Only difference is that only one person dies in the latter scenario and some people have contorted reason to make it legal.
“So, yeah, the law is (and should be) more invested in the living, not the potentially living.”
Define “potentially living”.
“You never said the baby HAD to have mothers milk, but you certainly implied it”
What I implied is that mother’s milk is best for her particular baby. Mothers of micro preemies have very different milk than mothers of full term babies. The mother of the micro preemie makes milk with additional “growth factors” that help speed up maturation of lungs and digestive system. Also, it contains extra protein, calcium, and antibodies than a mother’s milk of a full term infant. By Mont’s argument, these babies are still dependent on their mother and therefore “violate the integrity of another person’s body”. As Reg indicated, this thinking leads to infanticide.
The only justification you’ve given for a baby’s protection under the law is that once born and breathing air it is possible for said child to be cared for by someone else than the mother. You are denying the humanity of the child in the womb by calling it “potentially alive” to support your position. He/she is the same person on the day of birth as the day before. He/she is the same person on the day before birth as he/she is 2 days before birth. He/she is the same person 3 days before birth as 2 days before birth. You can carry this all the way back to conception. The only difference is the number of human body cells- unique to that person- a once in a lifetime INDIVIDUAL- never to be created again. Yeah, he/she needs it’s mother for food in the womb, but he/she also depends on his/her mother for protection in the womb. Unfortunately many women are fooled into thinking he/she is only “potentially alive” and stop protecting their offspring. I pray for these women. I feel sorry for them for being fooled. Some, I guess, know deep down inside what they have done… I pray for them too.
“Mont’s argument, these babies are still dependent on their mother and therefore “violate the integrity of another person’s body”. As Reg indicated, this thinking leads to infanticide.”
Ah, no, because breast feeding is a choice, thus it does not violate a woman’s integrity, by anyones definition. Now, if women were forced to breast feed, then yeah, but they aren’t.
“you can carry this all the way back to conception. The only difference is the number of human body cells- unique to that person- a once in a lifetime INDIVIDUAL- never to be created again”
So, what about all those fertilized eggs that (naturally, not with the use of birth control) never attach? God’s mistakes? Rejects? Not human enough? Doesn’t count?
I am not convinced by the whole conception = life argument. You are, bravo, good for you. I do not claim to know at what point a fetus becomes human (heck, how does one even define human? what makes a man a man, a woman a woman, at what point do we become one, it gets obnoxiously philosophical) , and I won’t say abortion isn’t a sin. But, if it can’t breath outside the womb, its not much better then a parasite, and it shouldn’t be treated as a human by law (i.e, mothers legal rights are more important). I’m sorry you don’t see the difference between being able to exist outside a womb and being able to exist only within a womb.
“I am not convinced by the whole conception = life argument.”
I agree that conception happens before life. They are separate things. Fertilization is a third thing. They are all different things and have different names for that reason.
Conception is literally conceptual. A couple can conceive a child just by believing that they have started the process off and a baby could conceivably result. It happens every time a couple has sex, though it’s often muted by a belief in contraception. Fertilization is the next step, that is the scientific term for a sperm entering an egg and creating a diploid zygote. That sometimes happens without conception, if the couple has been stupidly oblivious to the potential for fertilization and life. Life then, is the next stage, which happens if the zygote implants and differentiates and forms a heart and blood. Life begins when the blood is formed and the heart starts pumping it around. The Bible (OT and NT) say life is in the blood, and the blood appears at about two weeks. The life is in the blood, but I believe the heartbeat, which passes the life through the body, is when the embryo is ensouled and becomes conscious. I think the blood and the heartbeat happen essentially at the same time, because life and consciousness are essentially the same things.
This distinction is important because I think we should destroy all the frozen embryos in IVF clinic freezers and I don’t want to hear any mindless idiots saying that would be murder and we have to implant them in people. No, check your Bible, the life is in the blood, and where there is no blood, there is no life.
“Ah, no, because breast feeding is a choice, thus it does not violate a woman’s integrity, by anyones definition.”
In 99% of pregnancies, having sex was a CHOICE, too. And if you want to talk about the pregnancies caused by rape, fine, but first we need to talk about the majority of pregnancies.
“So, what about all those fertilized eggs that (naturally, not with the use of birth control) never attach? God’s mistakes? Rejects? Not human enough? Doesn’t count?”
Humans. They are humans. Could they be miscarried in a menstrual period and not be known about, sure. Can we as adult humans do anything to stop natural miscarriage, no. But they are still humans. Does that make them rejects… let me ask you this.. when a person breathing air dies, are they rejects? Death is death, nerdygirl, whether it happens right after conception or at 90 years of age. I have a friend who miscarried at 8 weeks. Usually at 8 weeks gestation, the mother’s body absorbs the remains of the baby before she bleeds out (I have first hand experience here). Not in the case of my friend. She miscarried a perfectly formed- hands, arms, legs, feet, head- human child. They had this child buried. Reject? No. Human? yes.
“naturally, not with the use of birth control”
There is something you should know, NG. Many women get pregnant while on the pill. That means that there are “break-trough” ovulations while on the pill. Doctors don’t know how many of these “break-through” ovulations occur with pill use. Doesn’t matter, though, because one of the functions of the pill is to thin the blood lining of the uterus to make attachment of the conceived child harder and therefore continued pregnancy less possible. So, for those of us conception=human folks, women using the pills are aborting, purposefully, untold numbers of children.
“I do not claim to know at what point a fetus becomes human”
So what is it then, a puppy, a monkey, a doorknob? If you say “potentially human” you need to specifically define what is a “potential human”. What are it’s equivalencies? Are potential humans equivalent to a mouse, a puppy, (both of these you can kill for convenience) a doorknob? Explain.
@Deb
Sex is a choice, but I don’t think having sex means you MUST carry any pregnancy full term. (And given that many rapes go unreported, it’s probably more then 1% of all pregnancies.) And it doesn’t acknowledge abortion in the case of medical risk, or removal of still-born/dead fetuses. (which, as I pointed out in my first post, anti-abortion protestors heckle all the women who go into the facility, and there are accounts of the pain and trauma they cause women who are infertile or are going to have the already dead fetus removed. But I suppose they don’t count since they can’t give birth)
Also.
“Humans. They are humans.”
Except not quite? I’m not entirely sure I even agree with John Howards stance above, but even that seems more logical, and has more scripture basis then life beginning at conception.
I’m sorry for your friends loss, but I object to your language. At 8 weeks nothing is “perfectly formed” hands and feet are webbed. the head and back and chest have no real separation. Legs are proportioned like a T-rex’s arms. there’s no butt or thigh. It may have been perfect in it’s example of loss to them, but it was in no way perfect. It wouldn’t even have had lungs.
“There is something you should know, NG. Many women get pregnant while on the pill. ”
Yes, because I’ve never heard of anyone ever getting pregnant on the pill before. But I think this gets into why even if you believe conception=life, why it’s ridiculous to try and put it into law. In the early stages of pregnancy/fertilization, any number of things could cause a spontaneous abortion. Any woman who’s sexually active could become pregnant, she’d have to avoid any strenuous activity to ensure she doesn’t accidentally abort. It’s also just a bad stance politically, as the majority of the nation doesn’t feel birth control is abortion.
I don’t think a fertilized egg has a soul. While one can not scientifically identify what a soul is, or when it forms. It might form as John suggest above when the blood flows, it might not occur until the second trimester. I don’t think it’s at conception, because i think that, how common it is and how unlikely one egg is to reach a viability, cheapens life. Life is not the womb. Life is outside the womb.
You have a very long post without answer this:
NG:“I do not claim to know at what point a fetus becomes human”
Deb: “So what is it then, a puppy, a monkey, a doorknob? If you say “potentially human” you need to specifically define what is a “potential human”. What are it’s equivalencies? Are potential humans equivalent to a mouse, a puppy, (both of these you can kill for convenience) a doorknob? Explain.”
Please answer instead of just saying you disagree with me.
@Deb
“What are it’s equivalencies? Are potential humans equivalent to a mouse, a puppy, (both of these you can kill for convenience) a doorknob? Explain.”
Please answer instead of just saying you disagree with me.”
“But, if it can’t breath outside the womb, its not much better then a parasite,” – post 30
I’d like to comment Deb, but I’m speechless.
And praying.
@Deb
It’s a fertilized egg with prospects of humanity. I don’t see what is wrong with potential human (sounds nicer and easier to say). It certainly isn’t a mouse or doorknob. But if it doesn’t have a soul, is it human? It it doesn’t have blood is it human? Existential limbo. I don’t think it has to definitely “be” something before it’s human or gets a soul or blood or whatever.
I’m slightly bothered that you included puppy as something you can kill for convenience. Fond of asian cuisine or from an area where they bag the puppies and drown them instead of getting the dog fixed?
” But if it doesn’t have a soul, is it human? It it doesn’t have blood is it human? ”
Prove that it doesn’t have a soul. Prove that it doesn’t have blood. John Howard says there isn’t blood, but how does he know? Couldn’t blood cells be present at the first splitting of the zygote? Come on, NG, you need proof. If you stand by the assertion it is only a “potential human” you should be certain, have proof, and be ready to show me proof of my error.
“I’m slightly bothered that you included puppy as something you can kill for convenience. Fond of asian cuisine or from an area where they bag the puppies and drown them instead of getting the dog fixed?”
No, but I assumed (and seemingly rightly so) that you would more support saving a puppy than a child in the womb. Typical pro-abort types seem to value puppies and kittens more than human children in the womb. You have not disproved my assumption.
For the record, I happen to really like dogs as pets and have a really nice rescue dog in my home. But my dog is just that -a dog, not a child. I do not invest the time, love, attention, basically my whole person into my dog… no I save that devotion for humans, my husband and my children (even or especially when they are in my womb). I did buy my dog a nice bed to sleep in our room, though. And she’s fixed.
@Anne
Like you, I have had to step back from this blog. I found myself despairing (and I am not prone to despair) from arguments such as this one. I have to step back to no longer sin against hope.
I, too, an speechless. But I think the wheels fell of the bus a long while ago. Maybe a better place to start is in our own Church. We should have more couples of childbearing age embracing the teachings of Humane Vitae. What do you think?
Thank you for your prayers, Anne. I will be praying for you, too.
@Deb
It is not possible for me to prove that (and I admitted that in my post, I wasn’t pushing you for burden of proof, not much sense in you pushing me, but hey if it makes you feel better). Nor is it possible for you. If there were proof, I’d be inclined to change my mind. But there isn’t, and until so I maintain reasonable doubt. Previous debates on this topic has shown I do not support abortions after the point of viability, so no, I’m not advocating pushing abortion as a frequent card members thing (I’d also rather combat it through education, but we’d disagree there too)
Duh. Puppies and kittens are cuter then fetuses.
(that was a joke by the way.)
Funnily enough, I’ve known anti-abortion types who think nothing of shooting or drowning dogs because they’re in the way or burdensome.
@Deb
“Recourse to God
For this reason husbands and wives should take up the burden appointed to them, willingly, in the strength of faith and of that hope which “does not disappoint us, because God’s love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit who has been given to us ~}36 Then let them implore the help of God with unremitting prayer and, most of all, let them draw grace and charity from that unfailing fount which is the Eucharist.” – Humanae Vitae
There is tremendous wisdom in the words of Humanae Vitae and especially in the words of Blessed Pope John Paul II in “Theology of the Body”. But there is much work to be done by both the faithful and the Authority of the Church with regard to this issue. I believe it is the single most important issue of our day, and that sadly, it has not been given the attention it deserves and requires.
The marital embrace is inherent in and to our very beings and existence. We are designed from the beginning of time for it. It is our essence, and must be revered for the beauty and purpose it embodies. To deny the truth of the marital embrace is to deny our own purpose in existence and will lead to destruction.
The disregard for the obvious beauty and purpose of gender and life in general by the people posting here and by society at large is disturbing to say the least.
But Faith Hope and Love are eternal Deb. And so are the purpose and beauty of marriage. He will not forsake us.
May God Bless you always for your most beautiful efforts and committment to His precious Gift of Marriage Deb!
Thank you for your prayers!!!
I’m coming late to this discussion, but I think you are talking about proof of whether a fetus is truly human, or truly has a soul, or truly has the right to life. I am reminded of this analogy:
Suppose that you and a friend are in the woods hunting deer. Your friend went off in another direction a little while ago, and you are sitting quietly, waiting for a deer to come along. Suddenly, you hear a sound in the nearby bushes, but you can’t see what is making the sound. Do you shoot? It might be a deer. It might be a rabbit. It might be some other animal. It also might be your friend. In that moment, you can’t prove that it is your friend, but does that make it OK to shoot into the bushes?
In other words, shouldn’t human life get the benefit of the doubt? If we don’t know for sure whether a fetus is human or whether it has a soul, but we think that it might or it might not, then aren’t we obligated to err on the side of caution, and make sure NOT to kill the fetus?
This also reminded me of something that I read recently on the “Bad Catholic” blog (badcatholicblog.blogspot.com). The blog author quoted the following conversation with a female acquaintance, which took place upon his learning that she is a vegetarian:
nerdygirl,
I may have used the hunting analogy in a previous conversation with you on another post on this blog. If I have, then I apologize for repeating myself.
I do have proof. The child when born is the same child the day before it is born. It is the same child two days before it is born from a day before it is born. You can carry that back to conception, when a once-in-an-eternity event takes place: the formation of that unique set of DNA, never to be formed again- even if that child can’t breathe air. Remember, if the same two people get together, they don’t make the same person, they make a sibling.
I should have added that the only difference is the number of cells of that unique individual.
Wow. I thought that conversation was just hilarious until I read up a ways and saw that it actually happened!
@Deb
Thats, not *actually* proof though. Thats you working out what you find to be a logical explanation for your beliefs. Which, isn’t that it’s a bad line of reasoning, just that I don’t find conception super-magical, and it doesn’t prove that conception is super-magical.
@Paul H
” Do you shoot? ”
No. Because shooting before you can see what you’re shooting at is a waste of bullets, and you’ll scare off the animal. If the friend had any sense he wouldn’t be coming through thick bushes where he’s practically invisible.
Also, it would have been ruled a hunting accident and no charges would be pressed. Thats a personal guilt situation, not an actually guilty of wrong-doing or legal wrong-doing.
As for the err on the side of life, well, is that for you to decide? If woman A doesn’t believe in life at conception, is it cool for her to tell woman preggers woman B at 6 weeks that she should abort cause it isn’t alive? Most people here would be upset at that. Why is it cool to tell preggers at 6 weeks A that she’s killing her baby? Shouldn’t pregnancy, and how to go about it be the choice of the woman carrying the child and her partner if applicable?
So here are the reasons why you should not shoot:
– It wastes bullets.
– You will scare off the animal.
And here are the reasons why it would be OK to shoot anyway if you want to:
– The friend should have enough sense not to come back through thick bushes. (But some people don’t have sense, even when they should. I guess it is OK to risk shooting at such people?)
– Even if you shoot your friend, it will be ruled a hunting accident and you will not be prosecuted.
In other words, wasting bullets is not OK, but it is OK to shoot a friend who has no sense — as long as you won’t get prosecuted for it. Is that a fair summary?
These are some interesting conclusions. I could be wrong, but it seems to me that either you have a strange moral sense, or you are trying to find every loophole in the scenario so that you don’t have to answer the moral dilemma that it poses.
Let’s put it another way: There is a large box. You are told that there may be a person in the box, or it may be empty. You are also told that if you fire a gun at the middle of the box, then whatever is the most pressing problem in your life will be solved (and you are given good reason to believe that this is true). Is it morally acceptable to shoot?
I contend that the answer is no, because it is not morally right to take a chance on killing an innocent person, no matter what we may gain. And by the same logic, I believe that it is morally wrong to abort a fetus, even if we don’t know for sure if it is truly human.
Because there is a truth, even if we don’t know it. The baby either is human and has human rights, or it is not human and does not have human rights. What the mother thinks does not change that reality, even if we claim not to know for sure what the reality is. And unless we know, with certainty, that the fetus is not human and does not have human rights, then it is not morally acceptable to kill it.
Considering the amount of scientific evidence in favor of the fetus being human, and considering the number of people who claim that the fetus is human and has human rights, it is hard to argue that anyone can be certain that the fetus is not human and does not have human rights.
NG, ignore thinking about conception for just a moment, OK? If it is a human when it can breathe air, what is it a day before it breaths air? Two days before? If you say at some point not a human, then what is it? A monkey that becomes a human? A tumor that becomes a human?
Either it is a human when it starts growing or it isn’t. If it isn’t human when it starts developing, then it can’t suddenly become human.
Never has a puppy in the womb been born a human. Never has a caterpillar turned into a human. Never has a tumor in the uterus turned into a baby.
Something is something or it isn’t, there is no “middle ground” here, philosophically.
I know it can make one’s life easier to think the way you do about life in the womb, but don’t let ease cloud something that is rather simple and obvious.
@Paul H
No, I’m sorry I didn’t make it clear, but the reason you don’t shot (in both cases) is because YOU CAN’T SEE WHAT YOU’RE SHOOTING AT. There’s a difference between shooting at what looks like a deer and ends up being a person, and shooting a person. There’s a difference between aborting an 8 week old fetus and killing a 5 year old. Is a moral crime committed if you don’t know you’re commiting it? If you shoot at what you think, what you believe is a deer, and it ends up being a human, is that a moral crime? A stupid moment, but is it a sin? You’ve ended up not presenting the moral dilemma you thought you did.
Do you hunt? I don’t think you do.
“considering the number of people who claim that the fetus is human and has human rights, ”
Oh, screw that. Thats poor reasoning and you know it.
Scientific evidence contributes to both sides
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/03/the_fertilized_egg_is_not_a_hu.php
It’s hard to argue because you have a religious belief that says it’s a sin.
The baby doesn’t have rights until it’s viable. And even then the mothers health and will should be taken into account first.
@Deb
” If it is a human when it can breathe air, what is it a day before it breaths air? ”
Not alive.
Nerdygirl, seriously? You don’t think you were alive a minute before you were born?
Wow, how can you say it is not alive? It’s not only alive but it’s conscious and aware. It’s been alive since its own heart started pumping its own blood through its body.
@John Howard
No, not seriously. I don’t appreciate the logic-trap is all.
I have admitted that I am not sure when “life” begins. I don’t believe it begins at conception, but I believe it starts sometime before birth. Legally I think it makes most sense to keep it “life” at somewhere around the point of viability. Morally I am not sure, but I am certainly not comfortable foisting that dilemma (anymore then it already is) on other women, particularly those who do not share my religious beliefs.
Well, a life is certainly conceived of at conception, which is when a couple imagine that they’ve gone and maybe gotten pregnant, and they conceive of the idea of a baby. And that’s when all sorts of moral obligations start, regardless of whether she gets pregnant, which means regardless of whether a fertilized egg becomes a zygote and an embryo and implants and becomes ensouled and alive. I think life begins way way way before viability, it begins at pregnancy, and “viability” never really begins, because we continue to be dependent on other people our whole lives.
You are giving yourself an important glimpse into your own heart when you use the words “mother” and “baby”.
“The baby doesn’t have rights until it’s viable. And even then the mothers health and will should be taken into account first.”