Cardinal Arinze on "personally opposed but pro-choice" abortion politics:
Cardinal Arinze is considered highly papable-- he is certainly near the top of the list of candidates to succeed Pope Benedict in the Conclave in March.
Cardinal Arinze is considered highly papable-- he is certainly near the top of the list of candidates to succeed Pope Benedict in the Conclave in March.
Who gives a stuff what Cardinal Arinze thinks about abortion? If you're opposed to abortion, then don't have one. You don't have the right to prevent a woman deciding whether she should have an abortion or not. A woman isn't someone else's property. She has the right to 'choice', within limits, no one else.ReplyDelete
My prediction; Cardinal Arinze has two chances of becoming pope - none and Buckley's.
A woman isn't someone else's property. She has the right to 'choice', within limits, no one else.Delete
We've had this discussion before, Bachfiend. When you say "within limits" you mean limits defined by you and imposed by the state. Yes, we've heard where you draw the line: 20 weeks. It's still her body after 20 weeks, genius. You are no different than we are. You want to tell a woman what to do with her body as well, at a slightly later date.
You don't have the right to prevent a woman deciding whether she should have an abortion or not.
You certainly think that you do.
Yes, we do have the right to tell a woman she can't kill her child. No apologies.
If you're opposed to slavery, don't own one.Delete
A woman isn't someone else's property.Delete
Neither is the child growing inside of her. Let me ask you this: Does a woman become property at the 20 week mark? You must think so. You can't spout this nonsense without taking it all the way, Bachfiend.
Yo, TRISH: Excellent analogy. This is the slavery issue of our time. We're the abolitionists and they're the defenders of a very peculiar institution. Remember, Democrats were pro-choice on owning human beings too.Delete
Hypocrite Bachfiend on the bombing of two cities: "To give Pope Pius XII credit, he was one of the first, if not first, public figure to condemn the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. As a crime against humanity. And it was."Delete
As crimes against humanity go, the bombing of those two cities was small. We kill more kids per year in this country alone than we were killed in Nagasaki and Hiroshima.
I adopt 20 weeks (or at least the state in which I live, Western Australia, adopts 20 weeks) at the cutoff point at which a woman loses the right of free choice. But abortion is still allowed, for reason of maternal illness or serious fetal abnormality, after 20 weeks, if approved by an expert committee.Delete
20 weeks is a compromise. A fetus 1 day before delivery is obviously a person with full legal rights. An unimplanted fertised ovum isn't a person, despite all the claims of the anti-abortion crowd. You have to set a boundary, even though it's arbitrary. 20 weeks is reasonable, since there's evidence that a fetus can't feel pain before 24 weeks.
It's certainly more reasonable than the stand taken by the lawyers representing a Catholic hospital in a recent case in Colorado who succeeded in having a malpractice suit dismissed because Colorado law doesn't regard unborn fetuses having rights as persons, even twins after 7 months gestation.
Abortion is legal. A woman has the right to choice. Murder of legally defined persons is illegal. Euthanasia and even assisted suicide are illegal in most jurisdictions. There's no recourse to choice possible. The same with slavery.
The video was about whether Catholic politicians who vote for abortion should be refused communion. My view is that since abortion is legal, the only legislation that politicians are being asked to vote on are those making abortion more difficult or restricted. Such as making statutory rape of women legal by requiring transvaginal ultrasound before an abortion.
Roe versus Wade made abortion legal, but left it up to the states to decide under which conditions it was permissible. It's up to the states to decide on the limits. If a politician wants to put up legislation restricting abortion, then that's acceptable. If it comes to a vote, a Catholic legislator has the right to vote for or against it, or abstain. There's no vote 'for' abortion; just one 'for' or 'against' restriction of abortion.
If a Catholic politician is threatened with refusal of communion, then that politician should either resign from the Catholic Church, and seek another one, or do what Barry Goldwater did - and tell church leaders that he (or she) isn't there to do the bidding of church leaders.
If the electorate is unhappy about the votes cast by a politician, then the electorate has the right to vote the politician out of office. That's what happens in democracies.
No, you don't kill more 'kids' (legally defined persons) per year than were killed in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Most abortions are early not late.
Considering the fact that even you have admitted that the line you draw between real people and the Untermnschen you feel like killing is an arbitrary one, I don't know why you define abortions prior to twenty weeks and non-murder and abortions after twenty as murder.Delete
Legally defined persons? Legally, slaves were 3/8 of a person in antebellum America. Sometimes legal definitions need to change.
There's so much other nonsense in your response I'd like to respond to if I had time.
This comment has been removed by the author.Delete
Personhood is a legal definition, Bach.Delete
You hide behind semantics.
A facile shell game of words.
Let's get to the denotata, shall we?
We DO, indeed, have the right to tell a woman not to kill another human being - regardless of what point of development they are at.
Not for anyone.
Not for women who want to kill their husbands, parents, or their offspring.
Nobody should be allowed to murder another HUMAN BEING - no matter how convenient or financially expedient the killing may prove.
Secular law invents terms and names to define at what point that human being is on the life cycle and what rights a specific age group, race, or sex has beyond the basic rights; and at which point they may be extended privileges.
How does that legal definition make a human teenager, embryo, adult, or foetus any less HUMAN?
Your trusted and beloved leaders could redefine senior citizens, teenagers, embryos, or infants as 'odbotlets', for all I care.
They are still people and thus PERSONS in the literal sense, regardless of the pathetic and pretentious legalisms.
Killing them is still murder.
We're not talking about who should be allowed to play games, drink beer, or even should be allowed to vote, Bach.
We're discussing about deciding who lives and who DIES. More over, we are deciding who lives of DIES while they are still defenceless innocents in the womb!
We are discussing allowing (promoting under the guise of a rights movement, actually) people to rut on a whim and then making available the mechanism to legally kill the unborn offspring when said offspring prove inconvenient or embarrassing.
We are discussing the legal slaughter of unborn HUMANS.
You argue in favour of allowing for this killing in the name of hedonistic CONVENIENCE and selfish ECONOMY!
You're just another bloodthirsty academic, Bach.
Another armchair general in an abstract war against humanity.
A legal definition is semantics? I don't think so.Delete
Very good comment, I approve 100%!
Slaves in antebellum America were regarded as 0.36 (or whatever) of a person by anti-slavers in the free states because it reduced the representation coming from the slave states.
It was a tactic to reduce the influence of the slave states in the Union and to eventually abolish slaving.
I know that, Bachfiend. That's not the point. The point is that the legal definition of human sometimes needs to change.Delete
The moment I heard about the murder of "Doctor" Tiller, that old chestnut went through my mind: I'm personally opposed to murdering abortionists because I think they are (barely) human. But if someone else thinks otherwise, far be it from me to force my morals on them. I'm pro-choice on killing abortionists.ReplyDelete
Are you sure you want to be on record saying that you approve of murder?
What part of "I'm personally opposed" don't you understand? I'll be delighted to explain it to you in small words.Delete
Admiral, go back to your crossword puzzle. Your brain ain't functioning yet this morning.Delete
If I am pro-choice on abortion (and I am), it means I approve of it. By being pro-choice on killing abortionists, Torch approves of their murder. There is no gray area here.
Are you saying that it is impossible to personally oppose abortion and simultaneously respect the views of those who approve of it?Delete
Close, but no cigar. Being pro-choice on abortion means approving abortion in general. Torch uses this very expression "pro-choice" in regards to killing doctors who perform abortion. So he approves of murder. There is no other way to read this.Delete
Close but no cigar on what? My question had nothing to do with Torch, or you. Permit me to repeat it...Delete
Is it impossible to personally oppose abortion and simultaneously respect the views of those who approve of it?
Throwing the Torch under the bus, admiral? That's the right thing to do.Delete
I haven't "thrown the Torch" anywhere. This is independent of the Torch. Are you having trouble with the question?Delete
Here, let's try again....
Is it impossible to personally oppose abortion and simultaneously respect the views of those who approve of it?
Yes or no will work. Then we can move on.
If your answers have nothing to do with the Torch, you should not have interjected in a dialogue between him and me.
Go back to your crossword puzzle and no one will bother you.
Oh my goodness! I'm so contrite, Mizz Manners!Delete
Here... let's try again....
Is it impossible to personally oppose abortion and simultaneously respect the views of those who approve of it?
No, Hoo. I told you: I'm personally opposed.Delete
"Being pro-choice on abortion means approving abortion in general."
Thank you. We are in agreement on that. So can we now agree that politicians who try to walk the "personally opposed" tightrope are actually full of shit? Pro-choice = pro-abortion.
"Are you sure you want to be on record saying that you approve of murder?"
You are, so what's the difference?
Oh, there is a difference, Torch, and I can explain it for you later. But let me get your take on killing abortion performers first.Delete
Although you are personally opposed to killing them, you think it would be OK if someone else killed them. Does that sum up your take on it?
I think you know I'm being fecitious, just as the Cardinal in the video was, to demonstrate the absurdity of people who think they can be "personally opposed" but still pro-choice. It's a nonsensical position. Every single "personally opposed" politician assumes the illogic you laid out above: Although [they] are personally opposed to killing them, [they] think it would be OK if someone else killed them. Our esteemed reporters don't bother to ask them why they're personally opposed, and if there are any other classes of people they'd like to legalize the killing of, despite firm personal opposition.Delete
I am not asking you to analyze other people's positions. I am asking you to express your own attitude. Can you give me a straight answer?
No, Torch, you didn't. You weaseled out. You don't have the courage.Delete
Speaking of weasels...Delete
It is impossible to personally oppose abortion and simultaneously respect the views of those who approve of it.
Oh, it's possible, admiral. But Torch's position seems a tad different. My impression is that he condones the murder of abortion performers. He wouldn't confirm or deny it, so we are left pondering what his position actually is.Delete
Ahhh. The notorious tad. Handy rhetorical devices, tads. They're often found hanging around the neck of a straw man.Delete
Oh, you don't do nuance, do you, admiral?Delete
There's a difference between "doing" nuance and "imagining" nuance.Delete
But anyway, on another topic, I noticed this in the first para of that article: Kennedy (cerebral), Nixon (suspicious), Carter ("homespun" [lol]), Reagan (artifice), Bush (a-nuanced).
What about Clinton? Does disbarred work?
No, "disbarred" is not a good one-word characterization of Bill Clinton. He was (and to a degree still is) a politician with tremendous intellectual power, strong charisma, and an ability to effectively reach across the aisle. Your attempt to reduce him to a story about a blow job and its clumsy coverup isn't particularly convincing.Delete
Hoo, I answered your question just fine. "I think you know I'm being fecitious, just as the Cardinal in the video was, to demonstrate the absurdity of people who think they can be 'personally opposed' but still pro-choice."Delete
So I wasn't being serious about killing a child murderer. You, on the other hand, are quite serious about killing children. I love how you lecture me, how you think you have me on the hot seat.
My apologies in advance. Totally, utterly off-topic... but a great image nevertheless.ReplyDelete
You a birther, admiral? That's so cute!Delete
Did I miss a word on that sign, or did you just make that up?Delete
I can read between the lines, admiral. But maybe I am wrong. What's your reading of it? What skeletons are you hoping to find in Obama's background?Delete
Read between the lines, eh. :-) Make shit up is more like it.Delete
My curiosity is more focused on why Obama's background is sealed. I could care less about his claim to be born in Kenya to sell a few books. That's a dead letter as far as Federal law is concerned.
Obama claimed to be born in Kenya? That's news to me.Delete
I don't think they're implying he was born outside the US. I think they're implying that his college records are sealed and that he was the protege of Frank Marshall Davis, both of which are true. Also, he was a family friend of Bill Ayers and his the church he attended for twenty years was a political religion based on hating white people, Jews, and America. But we aren't allowed to talk about that.Delete
From Acton & Dystel (Obama's agents), 1991, in a promotional flyer...Delete
"Barack Obama, the first African-American president of the Harvard Law Review, was born in Kenya and raised in Indonesia and Hawaii."
It's possible that he doesn't bother to read his own bios and his "former literary agent misidentified his birthplace". (ABC News)
On reflection, we do know for sure that The Lightworker is a fan of "composite persons". He even had a composite girlfriend. And this was after age 5.
So maybe it's even probable he doesn't bother reading his bios, all things considered.
So the claim was made by Obama's literary agent, not Obama himself. Surprise!Delete
Sure, we here on the "fringes" talk occasionally about the past of our esteemed President. But respectable people aren't supposed to discuss the president's terrorist friends, or his anti-Semite friends, or his communist friends. It's bad form and probably racist. All other criticism of our president is. Just walk into the faculty lounge at your college and start discussing it. G'head. Dare ya.Delete
Sorry. Fat finger above. What surprise?Delete
I am a professor, Joey. It has been a long time since I have been to a "faculty lounge," but I can tell you that you can criticize the president in conversations among faculty. A late colleague, who was a conservative, did not hesitate to make his views known.Delete
Granted, when one floats silly conspiracy theories, it tends to solicit stares. But we don't forbid anyone from making a fool of himself.
Tug your forelock, Joey. ;-)Delete
Admiral, you seem to suggest that being a professor is a sign of elitism or something. The charge applies equally well to you and our host. Hypocrite you are, aren't you?Delete
No, it's not that complicated. Nothing suggested, nothing implied. I was just laughing at you, Herr Doktor Perfesser, being a prig.Delete
I still haven't figured out the surprise, though. I don't find anything surprising about an adult male with composite girlfriends who also doesn't bother to vet his own bios. Seems to fit, actually. It's all fiction. Hence my curiosity about the reality.
Thanks for sharing. Really!Delete
You know, it's been a while since I've been physically threatened by a troll. My limited experience has been that they're usually Poindexter Pencilneck behind the anonymous moniker.
But maybe you're more like KW: a ninja love god?
Calm down, admiral. I am not physically threatening you. It's all friendly chat between academics! LOLDelete
Thanks, Poindexter. I was really scared.Delete
Hope there was no accident, admiral.Delete
Nope. It's the White House that gets all "wee-wee'd up".Delete
Good. I was worried. But keep those diapers ready.Delete
Herr Doktor Professor, you do yourself no honor with cheap scatological humor. Schoolkids do that. (And the White House.) Entertain us with more of your Fraudian insights. Steampunk psycho analysis is so much more... professorial. Bigger words, too.Delete
Unless you have a really good poo-poo joke you're dying to share.
I am here to humor my humble self, not to build my academic credentials. Big words don't make one a great scientist. Big ideas do.
Thanks for your concern, though.
Well, then, carry on! I grant that scatological humor is a sure way to establish one's humility creds, associated as it is with stump-toothed backwoodsmen.Delete
Can you hear the banjo music?
Lighten up, admiral! Ben Franklin was no slouch in science and he was fond of scatological humor.Delete
Apparently, Mozart was, too. (Of course, he spoke Austrian and everyone knows about their toilet designs) Therefore, I amend my comment...Delete
Can you hear the fiddle music?
Hoo, Nothing I mentioned is a silly conspiracy theory. People who don't want you talk about it will say that it is.Delete
Let me explain the sign to you. Gun control has been a hot issue in recent months. Universal background checks is one idea to curb gun violence. Some people are for them, some are against. I'm guessing that whoever made the sign is against them. What I think the sign was saying is that if the president likes background checks for gun owners so much, he should be a little more forthcoming about his own past. Not that he's Kenyan by birth, but that he's an International Man of Mystery who somehow became president. Every time we learn something new about his past, the liberals get all pissy and tell us to stop talking about it. They even go to great lengths to cover it up.
For example, in Obama's "Dreams From My Father" he mentions a certain close friend, "Frank." He doesn't mention "Frank's" last name. It turns out that "Frank" is Frank Marshall Davis, a member of the CPUSA and all around anti-American loon. Go figure. In the most recent version of the "Dreams" audiobook, Frank is not mentioned at all. He's simply scrubbed away, as if he never existed.
Obama's past should not be a forbidden subject. It's not a "conspiracy theory."
Let's take your claim about Frank in Obama's book. It has all of the signs of a conspiracy theory.
For starters, Frank is right there in the latest (2007 hardcover) edition of the book. You can check that on Amazon. The audiobook is an older edition (2005) and it is abridged. That means not everything is there.
You asserted that Frank Davis (suppose he was indeed Frank) was a communist. Do you have evidence for that? As far as I know, he was suspected of being a member of the Communist Party in the 1950s, but so were many people at that time, with or without grounds.
So don't be surprised when people don't take you seriously.
I followed the link and didn't see any reference to Frank Marshall Davis on the Amazon page. Can you point it out?Delete
"The audiobook is an older edition (2005) and it is abridged. That means not everything is there."
Yes, I know what abridged means. And Random House now only offers the abridged edition of the audiobook. The unabridged edition has 22 mentions of "Frank" by name, and more by pronoun. The abridged edition has zero, by name or pronoun.
Paul Kengor wrote a book on Frank Marshall Davis's communism.
And of course there are more examples. Obama denied during the 2008 campaign that communist terrorist Bill Ayers was a friend of his, saying that he was merely some guy who live in the neighborhood. A few conservative opinion commentators pushed the subject until it boomeranged around. Suddenly the scandal wasn't that Obama was friends with a communist terrorist, but that conservatives wouldn't stop talking about it. That was the scandal!
In a new foreword to Ayers' 2001 book, released just after the election by sheer coincidence, Ayers describes Obama as a "Family friend," which is exactly what conservatives had claimed and Obama had denied throughout the campaign. It still comes up from time to time, and liberals still claim that this chestnut has been "debunked," by which they mean denied. Obama has denied it, so that means it isn't true. Move along, move along.
Liberals have declared the president's past off-limits, unless, of course, you feel like discussing Obama's awesomeness. Some people transgress the social taboo and talk about it anyway, sure. But that doesn't mean that there isn't a taboo about discussing the man's past, or that liberals attempt to enforce it. It just means that some people--"crackpots" like me--refuse to be intimidated.
Now, if you will drop by the faculty lounge, or whatever you call it, and share with them the Huffington Post article, I think you will see my point. Ask your friends, if the president isn't friends with this communist terrorist, why does this communist terrorist claim Obama as a friend of his? See their reaction.
Also, I'm going to have to see some proof of this allegedly conservative colleague you have. I'm awfully skeptical. Academia is a very closed institution and political litmus tests are used to enforce orthodoxy.
I underwent a background check for a US government security clearance when I was in the Army. I don't believe that Obama could pass one. They ask, for example, if you associate with people who advocate the violent overthrow of the US government. Obama would have to answer yes, or else perjure himself.Delete
Background checks for president sound like a good idea to me.
A conspiracy theory, by Hoo's definition, is when a conservative won't stop talking about a subject that makes liberals uncomfortable, even after the phalanx of bullshit defense has been deployed.Delete
Thanks for your service, Joey.
"It has all of the signs of a conspiracy theory."Delete
Like being demonstrably true?
You're trying to tell me that the abridged edition eliminating twenty-two references to the same person doesn't sound a little suspicious?
You, guys, crack me up.Delete
An abridged book covers some threads of the original. Clearly Frank was not one of those threads.
To suggest a coverup in this case is ridiculous. Buy the fucking print edition (available from Amazon) and read about Frank till your heart's content.
Torch, you couldn't find your ass with both hands, I suppose. Go to the book's Amazon page, click on Look Inside and enter the name Frank in the Search Inside the Book field.
I think you mean that I can't find my ass with both hands since I'm the one who asked where you found the Frank Marshall Davis references, not the Torch.Delete
Let's see, a figure important to Obama's life who merited 22 mentions by name in the unabridged edition completely vanishes from the abridged edition. And you don't think that it's because it became a liability to his political career to be associated with him?
It ceases to be a "conspiracy" "theory" when in fact it's true.
You really don't need to explain the meaning of the word "abridged." It sounds very condescending. I can't believe that that's your only defense: hey, it's the abridged edition!
Yeah, very abridged. Whitewashed, some might say. Oops, racist dog whistle.
I noticed that you had nothing to say about Bill Ayers. The point, which I think I've made, is that Obama's got some skeletons in his closet. Americans should subject him to a background check, not the other way around.
If someone was "whitewashing" Obama's book in 2005, how come the 2007 edition of the print book has none of the whitewashing? People can read, can't they?
This is a conspiracy theory (by definition), and a silly one at that.
"If someone was "whitewashing" Obama's book in 2005, how come the 2007 edition of the print book has none of the whitewashing?"Delete
Because it's UNABRIDGED!!!!
Is this so hard to follow? The unabridged version is the original and complete book. The abridged version is shortened, yes. That's what abridged means. But the way in which it was shortened looks like a deliberate whitewash. A major figure vanishes completely? 22 references (by name) are reduced to none at all?
Actually, his problem is that he's fundamentally dishonest.
So, Joey, if an unabridged version of the book is, and has always been, readily available, why are you characterizing this as an attempt to hide the association between Obama and his friend Frank? The conspiracy theory makes no sense if any adult American has easy access to that information.Delete
@Joey: I know what you're getting at. This Hoo is just being obtuse.Delete
Enlighten me: what stops people from reading the readily available print version? Are we all illiterate or something?
And insisting on a vetting of Obama is never off-topic!
From a biological standpoint, what is a human embryo at, say, 4 weeks of gestation?
A member of the species homo sapiens, a different individual than the mother?Delete
A member of H. sapiens for sure, but not an individual.Delete
You got that a "tad" wrong (f**king tads). I was talking about perjury in a Federal Court (18 U.S.C. 1623). You can't be disbarred for getting a BJ. If you could, new law grads would be in paradise instead of purgatory.
A coverup is a damn shame. Clinton didn't get disbarred for a coverup.Delete
Perjury is a Federal crime under the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970 and carries a sentence of 5 years. He's damn lucky he didn't go to prison. Anybody else would have. And it is doubly damning he perjured himself after being deposed under newly-legislated rules of evidence he himself lobbied for and got passed under the [ahem] figleaf of "women's rights".
Yeah. He's an intellectual powerhouse, all right.
Be that as it may, admiral, Clinton isn't remembered for his perjury. If he were, he wouldn't have a 69-percent favorability rating last year.Delete
I understand that you don't like Bill Clinton. The US people largely disagree with you on that. And that's OK.
[A member of H. sapiens for sure, but not an individual.]
So what is it? A part of the mother's body? An organ? A piece of human tissue? What human is it a piece of?
Forget the moral issues for now. These are all simple biological questions. From the standpoint of taxonomy, what is an embryo?
If you want a definition of an embryo then look it up.Delete
You're a biological scientist, right?Delete
You don't know what an embryo is?
No, I am not a biological scientist.Delete
Of course it's "OK". The "US people" have a high favorability rating of Betty White and Oprah. And Dr Phil, I suppose.Delete
Hoo the celebrity maven. Hoo knew?
You read People? Or Tiger Beat?
All of a sudden, Admiral Boggs decides that being an elitist is a good thing, after all. LOLDelete
Elitist? Whence cometh that comment?Delete
[No, I am not a biological scientist.]
Neither is my 12 year old, but he knows what an embryo is.
Aren't you embarrassed by having to feign stupidity in order to defend your support of abortion?
I don't think the understanding of a 12-year-old is something we all should strive to attain.Delete
You offer a false dichotomy, e.g., an embryo is either a part of a woman's body or a human being. I refuse to follow your false dichotomy, Dr. Egnor.
An embryo is an early stage of development of an animal or a human, according to popular definitions. That does not make a human embryo an individual.
What is an embryo a "stage" of?
I'll help you with the answer. A human embryo is an individual human being in a very early stage of life.
You make your disregard of science so clear. You will lie about biology, to protect your ideology.
It's laughable that you are trying to reduce a question of ethics to the science of biology. I have pointed that out many times, but you never learn.
To remind you why this is a silly mistake, let me point out that humans share ancestry with chimps, dogs, and mice. They are our cousins, biologically speaking. That does not mean that we should treat them like cousins.
I'm not 'reducing ethics to science'.Delete
I'm establishing rudimentary facts, on which discussion of ethics can proceed.
If you are wrong about the facts, you can't even begin to intelligently discuss the ethics about the facts.
You are trying to deny the facts (a human embryo is a human being, biologically) in order to defend your dubious ethics (it's ok to kill some human beings, if they're small, weak, and inconvenient).
If you have to explicitly admit your ethics-- 'it's ok to kill weak human beings', you will lose in the court of public opinion and you may not even want to face our own ideas. So you skew the facts-- 'human embryos aren't human beings anyway...', to avoid being honest about your ethics.
I don't deny biological facts. See this comment. It must have escaped your attention.Delete
How can you be a member of the species homo sapiens, without being an individual?Delete
What is a "non-individual" member of a species?
Now we need a definition of individual, don't we? I agree that an embryo is an individual in the sense 1a (a particular being or thing as distinguished from a class, species, or collection). That does not make it an individual in sense 1b (a particular person).Delete
Well, you know how it is -- one simply cannot expect honesty from leftists, nor frequently from their "liberal" sock-puppets.Delete
Why go to such extremes? Of course a human at any stage of gestation is an individual human being. Obviously.
Characteristics of that human being vary a lot, with age and other things. Embryos don't have much personality. If one did, he would be a very odd embryo.
We are different at different ages. But we are each human beings. With a right to life, irrespective of our "personality".
"Embryos don't have much personality. "Delete
I'm pretty sure that 'Hoo' isn't an embryo ... but he still doesn't have much personality to speak of.
My sisters were identical twins -- and they had distinct personalities at least from birth.
A HUMAN embryo is human, as you have already agreed.
It is a new human organism in the process of organizing and growing. It is a totally unique in it's coding.
Unique in it's potential.
It is an individual human organism.
It is not an infant, a teen, or a senior - it is an embryo.
A human embryo, as we both know, is a stage of human development.
Legalisms aside, we are discussing a unique human organism at a very early stage - an individual human being.
The operative term here is HUMAN and not embryo, Hoo.
I am not sure what you mean by your common ancestry argument.
Do you mean to suggest that because humans use animals as food and as industrial resources, that humans should also consider other humans not legally defined as 'persons' in a similar fashion to the way we (mis)treat animals?
I must have that wrong....right?
re: children readying for First CommunionReplyDelete
My great-nephew, who was maybe 11 or 12 at the time, -- who isn't Catholic and wasn't even raised in a religious home -- was appalled when he first understood what abortion is and that it is being done in our nation.
I've had the same experience with my kids. Regardless of whether they were raised Catholic (I'm a recent convert-- so the last two kind-of were, and the first two weren't), we didn't discuss life issues per se with them when they were young. As they got to middle school age, and they heard "abortion" talked about, they didn't really know what it meant.Delete
When I explained it to them, without emphasizing the moral issues, they were each incredulous for a bit. 'Mothers KILL their babies-- when they're really little and still inside?'
People naturally abhor abortion. You have to be trained to defy morality in such a shocking way. That training of the public is what obsesses the pro-abort movement.
It was much the same with my g-nephew. He asked me what the word meant, and I explained it in clinical terms, without any reference to the morality of it. He understood the moral horror of it without me needing to prompt it.Delete
Great, another fruitless abortion debate that will not change anybody's mind.ReplyDelete
My wife is 11 weeks pregnant, and on Tuesday she will undergo a chorionic villus sampling. If the fetus has trisomy 21 or something like that, she will have an abortion. Call it selfish, but we will not ruin our lives with having a severely handicapped child if we can avoid it. My wife's aunt had a child with Down's when she was 43 and it screwed up her life pretty badly.
Congratulations on your child, troy.Delete
I'll pass over the Down's syndrome stuff. All children are blessings, and burdens.
So you should pass over the Downs syndrome stuff. You're just wrong about it, as shown by your insistence that the Oregon health care system shouldn't have been required to pay $3 million damages for providing a normal result in a woman undergoing amniocentesis and chorionic villus sampling. Who later delivered a trisomy 21 baby.
And a 4 week human embryo is a 4 week human embryo. Not a human being, not a person. Obviously human, but not a human being. A spontaneous abortion at 4 weeks gestation doesn't require a legal enquiry or death certificate.
At least I recognize a fetus of 7 months gestation as being a person, unlike the state of Colorado.
A fetus at 7 months is a person, but not a baby?Delete
Why can you say that a fetus is a person and I can't?
Trust you to miss the point I was making. You need to have read the previous comments. A Catholic hospital in Colorado was sued for malpractice because a woman carrying twins of 7 months gestation presented to the emergency department very unwell due to a massive pulmonary embolus from which she unfortunately died 1 hour later.
The hospital was sued for malpractice because the obstetrician on call was not contactable and the husband thought that an emergency caesarean section should have been done to save the lives of at least the fetuses. The lawyers for the Catholic hospital managed to have the suit dismissed because according to Colorado law an unborn fetus isn't a person.
Michael regards an unimplanted fertilized ovum as a person. I don't, until 20 weeks gestation, and that's being conservative. The state of Colorado is even more extreme.
Calling a fetus of 7 months gestation a 'baby' is just semantics.
The Colorado case has noting to do with the Church's moral teaching. It is a legal issue regarding liability at tort. The hospital lawyers made a legal point, and they were correct.Delete
The Catholic hospital system isn't in the business of giving away huge cash awards to plantiffs who are not entitled to the money under law.
The lawyers would have been guilty of legal malpractice if they hadn't made the legal case they did.
mregnor: "The Colorado case has noting to do with the Church's moral teaching. It is a legal issue regarding liability at tort. The hospital lawyers made a legal point, and they were correct."Delete
Is it moral and just to use an immoral and unjust law as a means to achieve one's presumably moral and just legal ends?
"The Colorado case has noting to do with the Church's moral teaching."
Then how is it that the embarrassment from public knowledge of a legal argument being made on behalf of an institution of the Roman demonination, which argument was so utterly at odds with the official moral teaching of the Roman demonination, could have an impact upon the legal case/argument going forward?
Please, brother, don't allow yourself to fall/dive into sin in response to 'bachfiend's' to quo quo taunting. Getting you to sin is, after all, his whole purpose.
You points are appreciated and well taken, and the issues you raise do trouble me.
But it is not the teaching of the Church or of any Christian denomination that for purposes of tort law plantiffs should be able to collect massive sums of money from hospitals based on the death of unborn children.
The ontological status of children in the womb is not the same issue as the legal opportunities for plantiff bar enrichment.
The lawyers for the Catholic hospital were merely making a correct legal point. To misrepresent the law-- even to make a moral point-- would actually be a sin against the Eighth Commandment.
The Church had two genuinely moral and legal options: do what it did, or offer to give the guy and his lawyer the money outside of the legal process, to emphasize that although the law did not recognize the fetus as a human being, the Church did.
That would have been an interesting and perhaps laudable approach, but giving money away does impair the mission of the Church in healthcare, which is not a trivial issue.
Ilion and Michael,Delete
You both miss the point. The lawyers acting for the Catholic hospital could have, under instruction from the Catholic hospital, agreed that for this case the 7 month gestation twins would be regarded as 'persons' perhaps establishing a precedent.
And then preceded to defend themselves against the charge of malpractice, which I think they would have won. It's not necessary for a perfect result to be achieved from medical care, it's just necessary for the care to meet accepted standards of the time.
It was a tragic case. The woman had a massive pulmonary embolus which killed her within an hour. The doctors in the hospital were almost certainly doing everything they could to diagnose, treat and hopefully save the woman. Having to make a decision to abandon the third aim of saving the woman by doing an emergency caesarean section would be a terrible one.
Imagine if instead of a pulmonary embolus, she had a ruptured berry aneurysm and a massive subarachnoid hemorrhage. Could the same course of events happen? Would you recommend a caesarean section at any time?
It's a different situation to a case in which a pregnant woman is having eclamptic fits. Delivery of the fetus, even if non-viable, is mandatory. There's definite benefit to the mother, with a live mother instead of a dead mother and a dead fetus.
The last I heard about this case (in a report in the Melbourne 'Age', it's created such interest), was that 3 American Catholic bishops expressed disquiet that the hospital's lawyers were able to get the case dismissed on a legal technicality. I think they're right.
And even if the father had won his case, it's extremely unlikely that massive amounts of money would have been awarded in damages. Because there's no living 'damaged' individual requiring the cost of ongoing care.Delete
Unlike the case in Oregon, in which antenatal screening failed to diagnose trisomy 21, because the cells examined came from the mother (according to the plaintiffs) or because it was a mosaic trisomy 21 - with a normal placenta (according to the defendants, in which case they should have won the case).
Another point is that you have often railed against the Law as being an ass. Taking the moral position that a 7 month gestation fetus is a person isn't bearing false witness against your neighbor. It's actually being a 'true' witness and making the point that in this case the Law is definitely an ass.Delete
Giving a plaintiff and his lawyers money to which they are not entitled under the law is not a moral act. It's foolishness, lack of legal professionalism, and possible illegal (the hospital involved has fiduciary responsibilities that likely preclude giving money to plaintiffs despite that lack of a legal basis for doing so).Delete
The issue here is not the ontology of the fetus-- the Church always acts to protect the unborn.
The issue is the legal responsibility of the hospital, which was properly adjudicated.
Perhaps the Church or hospital could offer to compensate the father privately for the loss of his daughter, outside of the legal system, out of respect for her personhood. The prudence of that decision would depend on such things as the legal fiducial responsibilities of the hospital (it's not clear that an organization such as a hospital can simply give money away) and on a thoughtful balance considering the ways the money could be used to help indigent patients, etc. The Church and Catholic hospitals are massively involved in charity, and they may believe that a "payoff" of the father was a less prudent and just use of their money than the ends already in place.
Again, you've missed the point. It wasn't the father of the woman who died who was bringing the malpractice suit. It was the father of the 7 month gestation twins who was bringing the malpractice suit.
The father of a woman doesn't own her, regardless of whether she's married or not. If a father is entitled to damages for the death of an offspring then he has to demonstrate an injury, and the damages are compensation for that.
The case should have been decided as a malpractice suit. Was there negligence involved? I don't think that there was. Having the case dismissed on the basis of a legal technicality leaves a bad taste. And 3 Catholic bishops agree with me when they expressed disquiet.
I don't think that the hospital would have lost its case, so it would not have had to pay damages. If it had, then I think damages would have been extremely modest, and would have been useful in establishing what sort of care is necessary.
I've just had another thought. Are hospitals in America insured by independent insurance companies? If so, perhaps the hands of the hospital were tied by an insurance company, not concerned with ethics, who insisted that these tactics were employed? Although, I haven't read anything about this being the case.
I've just done a Google search. I found an article from February 4 stating that the 3 Catholic bishops in Colorado have said that the tactics employed by the hospital's lawyers was morally wrong. I agree with them.Delete
Anyway, you and Ilion missed my point. I was noting that personhood of a fetus is a legal definition, not a biological one. You reckon an unimplanted fertilized ovum is a person. I don't. I think it should be at least 20 weeks gestation as a compromise. The state of Colorado goes even further not giving unborn fetuses the right to legal protection, which I'd disagree with.
A human embry is human, but not a person, legally.
I wasn't having a go at the Catholic church in this case. I was having a go at lawyers. (Reminds me of a joke. A couple on the night before their wedding day were killed in a road traffic crash. They appear together before the Pearly Gates and ask St Peter if they can marry in Heaven, since they missed their wedding day on Earth. St Peter says he would have to think about it... 3 months later, he comes back to the couple and tells them, fine you can get married. The couple have also thought about it - eternity is a very long time, they might find themselves incompatible; if so, can they also get divorced? St Peter is angry, and says; listen - it took us 3 months to find a priest in Heaven. Do you realize how long it will take us to find a lawyer?)
"Great, another fruitless abortion debate that will not change anybody's mind."ReplyDelete
Translation: we leftists will never stop lying about what abortion is and what it does, so the rest of you might as well stop telling the fence-sitters what it is and what it does.
"My wife is 11 weeks pregnant, and on Tuesday she will undergo a chorionic villus sampling. If the fetus has trisomy 21 or something like that, she will have an abortion. Call it selfish, ..."ReplyDelete
No, it's not selfish to hire someone to kill one’s defective baby, not at all. Selfish is when people like me object to people like ‘troy’ using the compulsive power of the State to force us to pay for the hiring of someone to kill his defective baby.
But, it's still murder to kill your defective baby, whether you do it yourself or whether you hire a “doctor” to do the dirty deed.
At the same time, we all know how he’d freak, and make moral condemnations, out were someone to say to ‘troy’ something along the lines of: “If you go through with murdering your child, I hope the “routine medical procedure” renders your wife sterile.”
I don't know how much an abortion costs in America. In Australia, it's around $400, so it's no big amount. It doesn't add much to the health budget. And it's not so much that most people couldn't pay it on their own, particularly since it's usually a one-off.
Compared to the cost of raising a trisomy-21 child, it's negligible, particularly since a trisomy 21 individual will need some extra care all his or her life, despite being able to live a semi-independent life, coping with public transport, unsupervised.
Compared to the ongoing costs of statins, it's a trivial amount - the cost of abortions following an abnormal antenatal test. If you're talking about moral hazard - isn't someone with hypercholestelemia a selfish burden on the rest of the community in going immediately on statin therapy, paid by insurance, instead of trying lifestyle changes first, such as regular exercise, weight reduction and dietary changes?