Very Late Term Abortion V. Early Term

[Peter John]

We have put tremendous energy into ending late-term abortions, often to the exclusion of other efforts, when it is a hot button issue. The secular world, as indicated by legality, seems to put a higher weight on protecting a viable fetus than on a recently conceived embryo. Is this valid? I make no suggestion of what answer I support. I want to know what other people think, welcome understanding the bases of anyone's opinion when they care to express it. Stating that, "This nis what i understand the Church position to be" is equally as valid as any reasoning involved in the position for purposes of this discussion.

I am not voting at this moment to avoid biasing any answers.

Edited April 9, 2011 by Peter John

[add]

[quote name='Peter John' timestamp='1302342871' post='2227037']
We have put tremendous energy into ending late-term abortions, often to the exclusion of other efforts, when it is a hot button issue. The secular world, as indicated by legality, seems to put a higher weight on protecting a viable fetus than on a recently conceived embryo. Is this valid? I make no suggestion of what answer I support. I want to know what other people think, welcome understanding the bases of anyone's opinion when they care to express it. Stating that, "This nis what i understand the Church position to be" is equally as valid as any reasoning involved in the position for purposes of this discussion.

I am not voting at this moment to avoid biasing any answers.
[/quote]

[size="2"]That may depend on whether or not if you are, in fact, this recently[/size][size="2"] conceived embryo in question. [/size]

Edited April 9, 2011 by apparently

[MIKolbe]

whether done 1 second after conception or 1 second before birth, the end result of abortion is a person who was willfully killed.

[MIKolbe]

whether done 1 second after conception or 1 second before birth, the end result of abortion is a person who was willfully killed.

[Winchester]

When discussing procedures such as partial birth abortion, those who are simply pieces of poo are shown to be the pieces of poo they are by defending the procedure. It is useful in that regard.

[cmotherofpirl]

A persons a person no matter how small...

[Nihil Obstat]

Both are morally identical, however it is convenient to focus on late term abortions sometimes because they more clearly expose the evil that occurs.

[dairygirl4u2c]

i suppose if one is catholic, they have to say equally bad.
i say, given there's some uncertainties about the human life at most previability stages, it's more serious to kill late term babies, given they are clearly human life. that's comin from someone who see all as wrong, and should be illegal.
as even nihil said, it is more clear later on.

Edited April 10, 2011 by dairygirl4u2c

[havok579257]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' timestamp='1302394824' post='2227144']
i suppose if one is catholic, they have to say equally bad.
i say, given there's some uncertainties about the human life at most previability stages, it's more serious to kill late term babies, given they are clearly human life. that's comin from someone who see all as wrong, and should be illegal.
as even nihil said, it is more clear later on.
[/quote]


there is no uncertainties. there are only lies or misinformation from people who want to murder a baby. its absolutly certain from faith and science that life begins at conception.

[Winchester]

[quote name='havok579257' timestamp='1302395805' post='2227146']
there is no uncertainties. there are only lies or misinformation from people who want to murder a baby. its absolutly certain from faith and science that life begins at conception.
[/quote]
I'm pretty sure that every time your writing and dairy's appears together in a post, we inch that much closer to the Apocalypse.

[havok579257]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1302396264' post='2227148']
I'm pretty sure that every time your writing and dairy's appears together in a post, we inch that much closer to the Apocalypse.
[/quote]


so life doesn't begin at conception? huh?

[MagiDragon]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' timestamp='1302394824' post='2227144']
i suppose if one is catholic, they have to say equally bad.
i say, given there's some uncertainties about the human life at most previability stages, it's more serious to kill late term babies, given they are clearly human life. that's comin from someone who see all as wrong, and should be illegal.
as even nihil said, it is more clear later on.
[/quote]

When is someone 'viable'? Can you now claim that you can take care of yourself if we dumped you in the middle of the ocean with no food or water? If not, you're still 'non-viable' in certain environments. How about if we drop you on the moon?

Viability is a very silly argument and is only used as a last resort.

[Winchester]

[quote name='havok579257' timestamp='1302400048' post='2227159']
so life doesn't begin at conception? huh?
[/quote]
How would you get that out of my post?

[dairygirl4u2c]

folks are welcome to prove how it's the same from conception. is a snowball a snowman? is a lego a lego man? the points aren't to say that the earliest cells are not human but to ask what distinguishes them such that they are human life, and not just cells. if there's ambiguity about how many snowballs make a snow man, or legos a lego man, it could be argued as analogous that it's ambiguous about how many cells must exist to constitute a human. yes, you can probably find all kinds of ways to reduce regular folks less and less from whole, and it mighte even be gray. but it being gray doesn't mean rash statements are made just to put the gray under a rug.
is there something special about the cells that distinguish it? i suppose there must be some chemicals going on, that are not present in normal cells, directing them to form a person? i dont know. even this basic info is never established in all the debates i've seen on the issue. but, in any case, what are the indicators that distinguish them early on?
how is the lego and snowball example disanalogous?

[dairygirl4u2c]

nihil says it's more clear later.
the other guy says it's based on 'faith and science'.
if it were all so clear, people wouldn't be saying how it's clearer later on, or even mentioning faith to begin with. 'it's science. period' etc etc

i did a poll here, i asked if there was a burning building, with 100 test tube babies, many of which would be saved and grow up if it's removed from the e building, and a girl, all in the building.... and a person had the chance to save the tubes or the girl, almost everyone said the girl. there was never really a reason given why. it'd make more sense to say the tubes. people either were acting iirationally based on emotion that a girl would provoke v the tubes, or there's a certain weight gtiven to those who are born given the lack of clarity of humanity involved with the tubes.

Edited April 11, 2011 by dairygirl4u2c