Because they know better

People choose whether to have sex. They have control over whether there is a chance they get pregnant or not, and should take responsibility for this. In the case of children, the parents should also take on a share of the responsibility.

To me it's insanity that people talk about 'rights' yet have no qualms about a baby being butchered to avoid the inconvenience of having to raise it. Mothers who kill their children once they're born are reviled, but if they do it before the baby's born it's something that many seem to think should be encouraged.

We were all at this stage once in our lives. What if the 14 year old girl was your mother? I really don't look at this as a religious issue at all (although that aspect certainly exists). It's more of a matter of the strong having say over the most vulnerable among us. If one is old enough, as Aerotar suggested, to have sex they should know the consequences of their actions. We all know the ages that boys and girls start to become sexually active. It is crucial they get the whole truth before that time comes. Problem is most parents aren't up for it...and it IS the parents responsibility ultimately.

Now I do realize there are times when it might be a medical necessity to abort. I'm fine with that. In the case of rape, I believe the woman should take the morning after pill (don't wait until she finds out she is pregnant).  This method shouldn't be the lazy persons primary form of birth control by any means (we just don't know the long term effect this will have). Until humans can procreate as needed, birth control should be available. I feel the selection these days is good.

What amazes me most is the number of the same people that will protest wars and the death penalty, yet have no problem killing for personal convenience. We should be so glad our mothers weren't too bothered. How many future doctors, scientists, or inventors will end up in bio-hazard garbage bag? We're never going to know.

While its true that there is a control decision element involved in having sex.  I think that the quality of the choice itself is different from lets say buying a magazine, or choosing to go to a bar.  When people are in intimate quarters the decision aspect can become muddled.  I think that a couple that has sex and does not want a child is doing the responsible thing by choosing to abort.  Preferentially a chemical abortion rather than a medical one.  If "life" begins once a sperm and egg is met, is it murder to not allow it to implant itself in the uterus?  I don't think so.

Speaking to your point about inconvenience.  I think every child has a right to be born to a mother who wants him or her, I think its better for society as a whole. It is not unreasonable to believe that children born to mothers that truly do not want them could suffer a terrible fate.  One that they would never know if they weren't born in the first place.

If that 14 year old girl was my mother, I wouldn't feel a thing anyway.  I feel that is a red herring.  If I was that 14 year old girl's father I would want to give her the choice to enjoy her childhood.  To not be burdened with motherhood at such a young age where she still has so much more maturity to reach.  

I do agree that it is the parents responsibility to teach their children about the consequences of sex.  I think the public schools sex ed classes also play a positive role in this.  Parents should give their children all the knowledge and tools to make sense of sex.  If these means getting your daughter on the pill, so be it.  

In terms of the morning after pill, there are less expensive ways to stop pregnancy from occurring.  However its ultimately up to the women to decide what she wants to utilize.  

To your point of personal convenience.  I don't think we can really judge the choice of a woman to abort as personal convenience, we don't have enough information about her own personal circumstances.  And even if it is, I feel that it's her choice, if she feels that way about aborting, I don't think she would be a good mother to her child anyway.  

As far as the inventors etc who will be never born, thats a good point, but what about all the criminals/sociopaths that could've been born instead?  Or maybe those with major disabilities.  And also, what about extending the potential person argument.  What about all the potential people who might have existed if John married Jane instead of Carol?  It could go on infinitely, not just in the immediate realm of the union of gametes.

Aeortar and Nitro Cruiser both gave you very good answers to your question.  And yet you either refuse to understand or cannot comprehend their answers.  Let me put it in simpler terms.

What gives YOU (or the 14 year old ) the right to decide who lives and dies?  We are not talking of a bio mass here, we are talking about individual human beings.  What right have you to decide that I live?  What right has Sharon Smith have to decide if her 6 and 8 year old sons live?  You can answer that last question easy enough.

And then you have the audacity to question the Church on answering that question?  Their belief, their faith believes that child is a unique human being.  And science has never proven them wrong (they only quibble about definitions, not facts).  So they are unequivocal in their defense of all Human life, no matter how defenseless.  That is why they do not nor ever will condone abortion. It is the taking of a human life. 

Now, you may not think it is a human life.  But then you were not asking why YOU do not understand YOUR total opposition to abortion.  You asked why the CHURCH was in total opposition.  Because to them, that child is not a bio mass or scientific experiment.  It is a unique defenseless human being who must be protected because the worth of a society is reflected in how it treats the most defenseless of its members.

I do understand and comprehend their answers, I just don't agree with them.

What gives a person the right to decide in your words "who lives and dies" is within a woman's purview because it is her body and her life.  Not I don't think the joining together of a sperm and egg is necessarily life, and to me its beside the point.  But for the sake of argument Ill assume that it is.  And therefore if there is a hierarchy of who should or shouldn't exist, I choose the woman every time.  The woman's place is superior to that of the unborn within her own body.  To deny that to her, would be deny her the right of control over her own body.

I don't think its audacious for me to question the Church's position.  I am curious how I could question it without being audacious.  I disagree that they are unequivocal in the defense of all Human life, a quick look at the history of Western imperialism and the support of the Catholic Church is all the evidence one needs.  Its my understanding that the Church would oppose abortion even if the mother's health is at stake.  How are they choosing life then?  If I am incorrect on that point, and abortion is ok in that case, then how they are defending the life of the potential human?  More to the point, how can the Catholic Church claim to be such defenders of life when they don't support contraception?  Condoms if used correctly, would stop the need for an abortion in the first place in some cases.  

I did originally ask about the Church's position, but its fine by me for this to open up the scope of discussion of abortion generally.  As far as the point about most defenseless of its members, what about all the poor people in existence Right Now.  Why not sell off all the wealth of the Vatican to feed and clothe the millions of people living in poverty at this very moment?  Why not support the bringing together of cells (a microscopic sperm and a microscopic egg) for the purposes of healing and treating the worlds myriad of diseases and disabilities.  I take issue with the view point that "stem cell research is murder, you have to deal with your illnesses another way, its much worse to bring those cells together."

But you did not say that.  You asked why they had their viewpoint.  That is 2 different matters entirely.

but not the baby's body.  You say you understand, and then turn around and indicate you do not understand.  The baby is not the woman's body.  It is a separate life, so holds the Church and many others.

But you just asked what gives a person the right to decide?  And now you are deciding?  A bit hypocritical there.

Again it is not her body.  That is number 1.  And number 2, who is making the value judgment that her life is superior?  If you say the women, then go back to your previous answer and ask again - who gives anyone the right to decide?

if you agree with their belief (mind you that is not believe as they do, but agree their belief has validity), then you are being audacious.  You are basically asking them to betray their beliefs for your convenience.  Despite being supremely arrogant, do you know many people who would do that (betray their beliefs) for a complete stranger for no other reason than they were "asked" to?

Yes, and I am sure if you dig deep enough you can find ancestors of yours who were slave owners.  Does that make you a supporter or slavery?  or hypocritical for being against slavery?  You cannot hold the leaders of the Church any more guilty for sins in antiquity than you can be held responsible for the sins of your ancestors.  We are not Klingon.

Again, go back to one of your earliest statements.

No, we do not need to go there especially since you cannot seem to stay on the one issue or even remember what you wrote.

You are trying to impose your beliefs on the Church and then condemn them for not living up to your beliefs.  Until you understand what you are doing, there is no point in discussing it with you as you cannot see your own inconsistencies.

You asked a legitimate question.  You have been given lots of good answers.  My suggestion is to turn it around and trade places with your persecuted.  Then answer the questions from their side.  perhaps that will help you with understanding the answers you have received.

I did ask why the Church had their viewpoint and for interpretations of my reasoning against said Church's viewpoint.  To me it doesn't matter if the posters posted their own feelings against abortion, or what they feel is the Church's reasons against it.  For me, I felt that it was a good starting point for discussion, it matters little to me where we go with this conversation.  I like the abortion debate, including the specific reasoning of the Church or not.

I do understand that there is a belief that it is the baby's body as well, and I disagree with the conclusion of that reasoning i.e. its the baby's body as well, therefore a woman can't/shouldn't abort.

Let me clarifiy my point, on what gives the person the right to decide.  The woman has the right to decide because it's her body first and foremost, it doesn't matter that she shares it with the baby, her right is superior to that of the fetus, or zygote, or whatever stage the cells are at.  Basically its the woman's decision, not mine or yours.  Thats my point.

Speaking to your "again its not her body" point.  At what point is it not her body?  I can understand the idea that she's sharing her body with the unborn.  But to not allow her to choose abortion restricts her freedom, the woman is a being already in existence, the fetus etc is a potential being.  Therefore the rights of the being currently existing, should supersede the right of the potential being.

I am curious about the relevance of being audacious has to do with the discussion at hand.  You say that if you agree with their belief is valid then you are being audacious.  Well there are 2 problems with that statement.  

First definitional Merriam Webster defines Audacious as.

extremely bold or daring; recklessly brave; fearless: an audacious explorer.

2.extremely original; without restriction to prior ideas; highly inventive: an audacious vision of the city's bright future.

3.recklessly bold in defiance of convention, propriety, law, or the like; insolent; brazen.

4.lively; unrestrained; uninhibited: an audacious interpretation of her role.

Among these definitions, I don't think my questioning of Catholic doctrine fits, but even if it did, I fail to see how it matters.

Secondly,

If one agrees that a belief has validity, how can you question/challenge it/think its incorrect and should change, without being audacious?

You have a point regarding arrogance, however if its arrogant to question others view points and to believe that they are incorrect and they should change, then I welcome the charge of being arrogant.  Even though I still fail to see how that matters to discussion of this issue.

I think its appropriate and within the scope of this thread to discuss abortion and the church, or abortion generally, it makes it more interesting for me, and its a great spring board for discussion.  I welcome anyone else to join us in this lively debate.

I have re-read what I've posted and I don't believe that I've gotten too far a field from it.  

I also think that we can open up the scope of this discussion, I find it acceptable.

As far as imposing my believes on the Church and then condemning them for not living up to my own beliefs is not my goal or mission here.  I am just pointing out how I believe they are wrong, and I want to see others take on my belief, the Church's belief etc.  

I feel that I haven't been inconstant at all during this, but I would be happy to discuss each point by point that you believe is inconsistent.

"You asked a legitimate question.  You have been given lots of good answers.  My suggestion is to turn it around and trade places with your persecuted.  Then answer the questions from their side.  perhaps that will help you with understanding the answers you have received."  I think thats excellent, I look forward to reading your responses.

Chaos, first of all, I'm not offended by you or anyone else having a difference of opinion.

Let's take it one step further. Since you believe it is the woman's choice over life and death. Why shouldn't the woman be allowed to kill her children anytime, during or after birth? Maybe she realizes she can't handle it after the baby is born. Why should it matter, the life is lost regardless? That is how your argument sounds to me... at what time frame do you consider it to be killing? How many abortions, which is really just a nicer word for taking a life, is too many for one woman? How can we punish murders for something a mother could do with, in some cases, state funding?

You say if you or I were aborted we wouldn't be cognizant of it. Fair enough. If a criminal kills a sleeping or unconscious victim, does that make it OK. Do you believe the severely handicaps should be euthanized, after all they are a burden, will never become anything, or may not even cognizant of their surroundings? Just a little retroactive abortion?

IMO blood on ones hands is irrelevant. How can one trust such a person in other life or death situations? They have demonstrated their propensity to kill, how can they accuse anyone else of doing the same?

If you're looking for a religious angle, perhaps Lula or KFC will chime in and provide some insight from that perspective for you.

BTW I do commend you for bringing up the topic. It really does need to be discussed, although I'm a bit of a pessimist on this subject, as I believe most people have made up their minds one way or the other. I have heard of abortion clinic workers changing their minds after witnessing the practice. Maybe that's what is needed, show kids what happens during the process. Pro-abortionists don't want that though, too messy. I believe everyone should get the whole story - the good and bad at the very minimum. Too much insulation from the truth is never good.

It's a pity sea turtles, polar bears, and whales receive more of an out pouring of concern than the least protected among us.

To this point, I believe that without abortion rights the least protected among us would be the 14 year old girl who is pregnant and is being forced to have a child she doesn't want.  I do find it striking that both of us find the "protecting the least protected among us" argument compelling even if its applied differently.

Did she "want" the sex? Do "wants" trump consequences? There is a term that goes something like this "Ignorance is no excuse for breaking the law". I say the 14 year old does bear some responsibility for her actions, so is NOT the least protected in this case. Does youthful age deserve a pass to take another life? I can't speak for you, but I'd say I had a very good grasp of right and wrong by age 14. We learn consequences from the time we are able to crawl. "I didn't know" seems like a cheap cop out, don't you think? Sound like something a lawyer would say. I very much doubt there are many 14 year olds today that don't know how babies are made. Now I am sympathetic to the girl, but there are alternatives like adoption. Too many adoption restrictions in the US, that forces couples want a child to go overseas. That makes no sense. Make sure the people are good, but cut the BS red tape. As for the 14 year old, parents and schools need to explain the consequences of spreading her legs.

Abstinence works for some, not all. One has to be cognizant of the consequences for that to work. Instant gratification seems to be the norm.

Well, I've taken this conversation as far as I can. My opinion has been laid out. I'm not looking to convert anyone else's opinion, nor is mine likely to change so I will yield to someone else that can comment further.

Good response, (and I hate the "100 quote" answers) so I highlighted this statement to begin my response (and most will revolve around it anyway).  I believe you went beyond disagreeing with them on their belief.  You stated your disagreement and then proceeded to condemn them for not believing as you.  Clearly if they believed as you, there would be no disagreement.  That was what I was and am trying to get you to understand.  You do not have to agree with them to accept their premise as valid for them.  You can, as you appear to be doing, condemn them for having it, and not being enlightened.  But you stated:

That implies a desire to understand and an open admission you do not understand.  Then in the comments you go on to say you do understand, which you clearly do not.  Or you would not still be at the stage quoted above.  You do not understand.

I will segue-way a bit on this "mythical freedom of choice" that many use (most ignorantly) when it comes to a person's body (note I did not use Woman for a reason).  The courts have ruled countless times that you do not have that freedom with your body.  IN almost any other regard.  Just in this one very bad ruling, Roe v. Wade, was that used, and has never been used again.  So clearly that court found a "right to abortion" that does not exist in any material they are constitutionally mandated to use in their rulings.

Now your statement about pre-existing is at least a sound one (more sound than Roe V. Wade), and that you believe it is not my area of contention.  But it does touch on the core of the issue.  You have made your editorial choice on how to value life.  The Church has made its editorial choice on how to value life.  And they value a human child over a hang nail (if the mother's life is not in danger, the equivalency is appropriate).  So if you just switch your editorial position to theirs, (for the sake of understanding), you can answer your own question.

Correct, that is at the core of the issue, how you value life, but more to the point, how you define what life is.

For this threat I really wanted to make this more about a point counter point discussion of abortion, not if I understand or do not understand what the Church’s position is and why.  But if you want to continue down that path, I am all ears.

read your piece again.  You are not putting forth arguments, you are condemning (insanity? A group of cells?).  And pushing your viewpoint as it is a fact (it is not, it is an opinion not shared by the Church).  You have gone beyond criticism to persecution for a difference of opinion.  You are not required to honestly debate the issue, but do not issue pejoratives and then say you are putting forth arguments.  You are debating both sides of the issue based upon your opinion being facts.  It is not.

Here are 2 facts you can start with. 

1. A baby (fetus, xygote, whatever) is a bio mass of cells until it leaves the womb - your belief.

2. A baby is a distinct individual imbued with its own rights to life from the moment of conception. - The Church's belief.

Now going from those 2 facts - both opinions- you can start the debate.  But to do so , you have to argue that killing a baby, with its own rights to life (that is if you accept the premise that all people have an inherent right to life that transcends man's laws - in other words is either god given or part of natural law) is fine.  Ok, so argue that point, and give us the reasoning behind it. 

You have not done that.  You have argued that you think the woman's right to her body is a greater right than the existence of the cells.  You have not argued that a woman's right to her body is greater than the life of another human being.  In other words, my right to live is not as great as your right to convenience. 

Argue that point.  Or if you say that is unfair (it is not, it is accepting that their beliefs are just as important as your beliefs), then just state you do not agree with the beliefs of the church, but will not argue it since there is no common ground on which to base an argument.

Now that I have asked you to argue from the Church's standpoint, let's do a role reversal, and make the Church argue from your standpoint.

If the Church accepts your premise that the zygote, fetus, bio mass of cells is just that, and not a baby, then you have to ask them the question if they would be against the removal of the cells for the mother.  Ok, I am not the Church, but let me offer some anecdotal evidence of what their view would be should they accept your belief. 

Is the Church against surgery to remove cancerous cells from people?  To my knowledge the Church has never been against the advancement of medicine either in the surgery field or in the medication field.  So my conclusion would be that if the Church was to accept your belief, they would not be against abortion.

Does that make them insane?  That accepting your beliefs they would agree with you then?

OK, so you have 2 polar conclusions that have been drawn (by me, you have to answer the key question above).  If you accept the Church's belief, then you have only 2 conclusions to reach.

1. No one person is imbued with a greater natural right than any others. Therefore, if neither life is in danger, the answer must be to allow both to live.

2. Some people are imbued with greater natural rights than others (as far as determining how that evaluation would be made, that is another debate entirely).  So we can arbitrarily designate who has the greater natural rights.  IN that case, you play god and determine who lives and dies.

The other position is that the fetus/zygote is just a bio mass, and therefore, like a cancer can be exorcised from the body of anyone.  Arguing based upon anecdotal evidence, I see no difference between your position and the Church's on this outcome.

That is why there is no middle ground in the debate.  Clearly the first conclusion has no proponents arguing for categorizing people so that some have greater natural rights (except perhaps some tyrants and of course Napoleon and Snowball), so the answer is abortion is wrong.

The second one again has only one logical conclusion.  Babies occur upon leaving the womb, and not before.  And so it is just another operation.

But the key is merging the initial beliefs.  Now try that.  The debate has been on abortion, but not on the initial premises.  And that is the fly in the ointment.

Wrong again.  it is not a potential right to exist.  You have to frame your thoughts into that of the Church.  Both of you EXIST, and both are fully human (a fetus will not become a dog or a cat).  Your belief is that it is a person, not one that has a potential to exist, but one that does exist. 

Then we take it a step further.  Who decides my life has more worth than your life and how is the decision made?

No, we are arguing from the Church's standpoint.  So forget the rest.  I have already ruled out health (by qualifying the original scenario).  We have not gotten to making judgment calls on the father yet.  That can come after we settle the basic issue, which you are still dodging.

No it is not.  But if you realize that, then you must realize also realize that there is no unified solution.  Nor is there reason to say one side or the other is insane or idiotic.

I respect people who believe that the fetus/zygote/biomass/baby is not a human being until it exits the womb and who then advocate abortion.  It is an honest stand and one I will never change.  I can then discuss the issue with them, as we have done, knowing that you will never agree with my belief that a human is created at conception (it will either die, or grow fingers and toes - it will not be a monkey or cat). 

I have no respect for or tolerance for those who profess as I do, and yet also advocate abortion.  They are murderers by their own beliefs, not by any condemnation by an outside authority.

Doc, have you considered taking on Roe v. Wade?

The quality of someones life is highly subjective. It is not the person themself making the decision over whether their life is one worth living, but someone else deciding for them that their life isn't worth living and taking it regardless of what they might feel. If you extended this to living people, it could suggest we should have a government killing program for anyone who suffers from a number of ailments+disabilities, since their quality of life wouldn't be as good as it could be. Why try and send children around various poor foster homes if we could just deny them the pain of living and kill them? To me it's morally repugnant to make such decisions, since unlike suicide the person being killed has no say in the matter.

Technically it depends on the law of the country (since murder is just the unlawful killing of someone). In this case for me it'd depend on the method used - whether the fertilised egg is prevented from implanting, or whether it is killed to stop it implanting/remove it. However (for me) it's clear cut when the fertilised egg has implanted - it's a life, an unborn baby, that if left alone should grow into a healthy child, and killing that baby to avoid the inconvenience of having to raise it (/taking responsibility for your actions) is wrong.

I'd have no problem with that stance in principle. However the choice isn't one of whether the woman has a right to life or the baby, but whether the baby and woman have a right to life, or just the woman. Having the baby will not kill the woman (rare medical exceptions aside), which means we are no longer comparing one persons life to another and determining which is more valuable. It is instead about whether a baby's life is worth more than someone being inconvenienced. It may be the woman's body, but it's also the baby's body, and the woman is responsible for causing that baby to be there.

Re the body discussion

It's not a potential being, it is a very real one. It just hasn't been born yet. It's quite simple - it's a baby's body that is inside a woman's body. By allowing abortion you are supporting the right of someone to control another's body, since they are killing that other person. The baby and woman's bodies aren't one and the same, they are separate.

Indeed.  Gene Roddenberry would be considered by many to be a screaming liberal, and in many ways he was (besides being an extraordinary visionary).  But I remember the one episode where Geordi is helping a genetically engineered "perfect" society save itself.  And the solution turns out to be with his visor, which would never have existed in that society since he would have been aborted as not being able to live a "good" life due to his handicap.

There is an email floating around the Internet.  I have been sent it several times (as each family member gets on, the same old things are recycled it seems).  It lists the traits of 4 individuals and their childhood, mothers, and handicaps.  It then asks the reader to choose which to terminate (to spare the child from a life of misery).  It turns out that the 3 "deprived" and persecuted children grew up to be Winston Churchill, FDR and Ben Franklin.  While the one child that seemed to have all the potential to be the perfect person happy in every way was Adolph Schicklegruber.

You might know him better by his adopted name.  Adolph Hitler. 

It is nice to play god, and of course the living always know what is best.  But in the final analysis, the smartest among us are those that know they know not.  For they do not pretend to judge what a person should feel or be based upon our vision of misfortune.

Given the stupidity of the ruling itself, I doubt any amount of sanity and intelligence can change what is the biggest abortion of a ruling in the history (excuse me:  Dred Scott ranks up there as well) of SCOTUS.

I'd look forward to a point by point debate on that case!  I think we should do it!

That would be fine.  But I warn you, I am talking from a legal (not ethical, moral or fairness) standpoint.