• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi had priests come to her San Francisco home to preform an "exorcism

We Never Know

No Slack
Then by your poor definition a human being is not a person. All of those are only potential persons. And are they "innocent"? They clearly do not intend to, but they do harm the host. There is no doubt about that.

Lastly can the government order you to be surgically attached to another so that they could use your kidneys or other organs for a limited amount of time. Say nine months?

"Lastly can the government order you to be surgically attached to another so that they could use your kidneys or other organs for a limited amount of time. Say nine months?

False equivalence. They aren't forced to get pregnant.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
The brain dead person is, for practical purposes, dead. They're already gone. Hopefully they are only being let off of life support when there's no realistic chance of recovery. But that's not the case with a healthy pregnancy.
Until a person is born for all practical purposes they are brain dead. A functioning brain consumes a significant amount of oxygen. That is not available to a fetus in the womb. It is never conscious until birth.

By the way, I am open to reasonable limits to abortion. The problem for you is that those limits would hardly touch the numbers of abortions at all.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
"Lastly can the government order you to be surgically attached to another so that they could use your kidneys or other organs for a limited amount of time. Say nine months?

False equivalence. They aren't forced to get pregnant.

So what? The cause does not matter.

That means it is not a false equivalence.
 

We Never Know

No Slack
Until a person is born for all practical purposes they are brain dead. A functioning brain consumes a significant amount of oxygen. That is not available to a fetus in the womb. It is never conscious until birth.

By the way, I am open to reasonable limits to abortion. The problem for you is that those limits would hardly touch the numbers of abortions at all.

Are making a claim that oxygen isn't used/needed in the womb?
 

Saint Frankenstein

Wanderer From Afar
Premium Member
Then by your poor definition a human being is not a person. All of those are only potential persons. And are they "innocent"? They clearly do not intend to, but they do harm the host. There is no doubt about that.

Lastly can the government order you to be surgically attached to another so that they could use your kidneys or other organs for a limited amount of time. Say nine months?
I made it simple. I'm not playing the "personhood" game, as that's an arbitrary philosophical concept that has no definitive answer, and you're not getting anywhere with me by calling an expectant mother a "host" (mammals in the womb developing normally aren't parasites and it's dumb that some abortion supporters think that's a good argument - they're just offspring forming in the womb as we all did).

It's not about the government but basic ethics. It's not right to kill your child because you find them
inconvenient. That's really what it comes down to.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
I made it simple. I'm not playing the "personhood" game, as that's an arbitrary philosophical concept that has no definitive answer, and you're not getting anywhere with me by calling an expectant mother a "host" (mammals in the womb developing normally aren't parasites and it's dumb that some abortion supporters think that's a good argument - they're just offspring forming in the womb as we all did).

It's not about the government but basic ethics. It's not right to kill your child because you find them
inconvenient. That's really what it comes down to.

I was not making the parasite argument, but why doesn't it apply?

And there you go with an emotional argument again. They are not children until after they are born.
 

Saint Frankenstein

Wanderer From Afar
Premium Member
Until a person is born for all practical purposes they are brain dead. A functioning brain consumes a significant amount of oxygen. That is not available to a fetus in the womb. It is never conscious until birth.

By the way, I am open to reasonable limits to abortion. The problem for you is that those limits would hardly touch the numbers of abortions at all.
Premature babies are not brain dead. What a dumb argument. You don't just start registering brain function when you're born. That happens around 7 weeks.
 

Saint Frankenstein

Wanderer From Afar
Premium Member
I was not making the parasite argument, but why doesn't it apply?

And there you go with an emotional argument again. They are not children until after they are born.
You implied it by calling the mother a "host". They're the young of a species undergoing normal development.

I said I don't play the pro-abortion crowd's dumb rhetorical arguments. I've noticed that side playing games with semantics since I was a teen. So you might as well drop the word policing with me, because I see through it. I'm not going to stop calling them babies and children, just as I'm sure you won't stop seeing them as brain dead and parasites.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Premature babies are not brain dead. What a dumb argument. You don't just start registering brain function when you're born. That happens around 7 weeks.
Citation needed. A reliable source is a must. Plus my claim was practically brain dead. They were never conscious. Do not conflate the brain firing at very low levels with being conscious.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
You implied it by calling the mother a "host". They're the young of a species undergoing normal development.

I said I don't play the pro-abortion crowd's dumb rhetorical arguments. I've noticed that side playing games with semantics since I was a teen. So you might as well drop the word policing with me, because I see through it. I'm not going to stop calling them babies and children, just as I'm sure you won't stop seeing them as brain dead and parasites.
Really? I don't think so. I guess all of those mothers involved in surrogate pregnancy only have parasites in them by your definition since calling them the " host mother" is the generally accepted term.
 

Saint Frankenstein

Wanderer From Afar
Premium Member
Really? I don't think so. I guess all of those mothers involved in surrogate pregnancy only have parasites in them by your definition since calling them the " host mother" is the generally accepted term.
You know we're not talking about surrogates, so why use that word unless you're trying to imply they're parasites? Sounds like I'm being trolled here.
 

Saint Frankenstein

Wanderer From Afar
Premium Member
Nope. You tried to do that. Go back and reread the post. It has not been edited.
We weren't talking about consciousness, although an unborn baby is certainly more conscious and aware than a brain dead person before they're born. They respond to their environment, consciously move, dream, etc. before birth. My mom saw me on ultrasound "swimming" around months before I was born, and I was also born a month premature. That's not how it is with brain dead people. This is basic stuff you don't seem to get.
 

Debater Slayer

Vipassana
Staff member
Premium Member
It's wrong to kill unborn babies in the womb, just as it's wrong to cause the death of any innocent human being. There's none more innocent than a baby. We're all unique creations made in the image of God and it is wicked to treat fellow humans as refuse to be disposed of. It's pretty simple.

I have a couple of close friends who have each had an abortion as soon as they found out they were pregnant, not even a month into pregnancy. I have known both of them for years, and the idea that they're equivalent to murderers because they had an abortion strikes me as so dangerous and demonizing. What that argument implies is that people like them who are empathetic, helpful, and hard-working are no different from a school shooter or other homicidal maniac. This logic has been used to justify all manner of abuse against women who have had an abortion.
 

Saint Frankenstein

Wanderer From Afar
Premium Member
I have a couple of close friends who have each had an abortion as soon as they found out they were pregnant, not even a month into pregnancy. I have known both of them for years, and the idea that they're equivalent to murderers because they had an abortion strikes me as so dangerous and demonizing. What that argument implies is that people like them who are empathetic, helpful, and hard-working are no different from a school shooter because or other homicidal maniac. This logic has been used to justify all manner of abuse against women who have had an abortion.
Yeah, I've known a bunch of people who have had abortions. Most were teen girls who were forced into it by their family or circumstances. My mom had an appointment to abort me but changed her mind, and my oldest sister had at least one abortion. All of those were sketchy situations. In Catholicism, personal circumstances are factored into culpability. You have to be making the decision freely, without undue pressure, and know it was wrong to do so to be judged to the full extent for it. We're not actually heartless, you know. It doesn't change the teaching that abortion is still a sin, but things can be complicated on the individual level. We're called to compassion.
 
Top