Pro life. Really?

[Sarah Palin]

Everyone has told me that Catholics are uber pro life. They are against wars and abortion equally. But I've seen an awful lot more catholics protesting abortion than war. . .

Just wanted to see what you all thought though.

[gorillafuck]

Everyone has told me that Catholics are uber pro life. They are against wars and abortion equally.
I have honestly never heard this.

[Invincible Summer]

I've never heard of this "Catholics being anti-war" thing, nor do I see how it's relevant.

[Demogorgon]

The church has a "just war" doctrine, but in practice it does tend to be quite anti-war. It very strongly opposes the Iraq War for instance and is critical of Israel.

But the views of the Church hierarchy are not the same as those of ordinary Catholics and there is a left/right split there the same as there is elsewhere. Right wing Catholics are focused on the abortion side, left wing catholics on the war side. But the crucial thing is that the more left they are, the less likely they are to thump their bibles and wear their religion on their sleeve. So when you see people making a big deal out of Catholicism informing their views they are more likely than not going to be on the right.

[Bud Struggle]

I'm Catholic--thought I don't speak for all Catholics. We are against abortion--the fetus is human life from the moment of conception. And we are against almost all war. Some exceptions for "someone wacked you first."

We're not for death at all. (Lately. We've made some mistakes in the past--as HAVE WE ALL. ;) )

[Nulono]

Catholics protest abortion more because

there are already lots of anti-war protesters and
abortion kills more.

[Bud Struggle]

Catholics protest abortion more because
there are already lots of anti-war protesters and
abortion kills more.

Was that a comment on my post--or were you just pontificating?

[mykittyhasaboner]

Who cares what crazy Catholic's think.

I don't care what religion or whatever you uphold, no one has any business telling other people that they cannot utilize medical technology, nor making people's decisions for them. If you are personally opposed to abortion, that's fine, don't have one. The people who go around carrying pictures of still born babies are vile and misleading, and anyone else opposing abortion is doing so on purely vague idealistic moral grounds. Its rubbish.

[couch13]

If this is true, then what were the Crusades for? Thats a series of wars started by Catholics without being attacked first.

[Bud Struggle]

Who cares what crazy Catholic's think.

I don't care what religion or whatever you uphold, no one has any business telling other people that they cannot utilize medical technology, nor making people's decisions for them. If you are personally opposed to abortion, that's fine, don't have one. The people who go around carrying pictures of still born babies are vile and misleading, and anyone else opposing abortion is doing so on purely vague idealistic moral grounds. Its rubbish.


As the Communists "used to say" in your publications--we are 1/6 th of the world!!!! :D Now we Catholics are. Sigh, just bringin' it all back home. Sigh.

And no. Personally, I oppose to the killing all human life form conception to grave. No human should have any advantage over any other human--ever. That's just Communism.

[Bud Struggle]

If this is true, then what were the Crusades for? Thats a series of wars started by Catholics without being attacked first.

Well they were Chrustian lands before they were Moslem lands. Right?

[Nulono]

Who cares what crazy Catholic's think.

I don't care what religion or whatever you uphold, no one has any business telling other people that they cannot utilize medical technology, nor making people's decisions for them. If you are personally opposed to abortion, that's fine, don't have one. The people who go around carrying pictures of still born babies are vile and misleading, and anyone else opposing abortion is doing so on purely vague idealistic moral grounds. Its rubbish.
Don't like slavery? Don't own a slave!

Would you rather have a leader who thinks the unborn have rights but defends killing them, or one that thinks they don't have rights and defends killing them? (http://www.l4l.org/library/persoppo.html)

And stillbirths don't result in mutilated fetuses. An image that shows severed fetus parts or a fetus burned from a saline abortion are not stillbirths.

[Bud Struggle]

Don't like slavery? Don't own a slave!



Bada, BING!

Good point, to negate personal ownership of issues is fine, but the point is that as humans we should try to negate all human inequality and suffering. It's the Communist thing to do.

[Decolonize The Left]

Catholics protest abortion more because
there are already lots of anti-war protesters and
abortion kills more.

Are you sure that abortions kill more than war?

- August

[Idealism]

We're not for death at all. (Lately. We've made some mistakes in the past--as HAVE WE ALL. ;) )

So are you also an environmentalist (doesn't count if its in the bourgeois sense)? a vegan? anti-gun? pacifist completely?

[Bud Struggle]

So are you also an environmentalist (doesn't count if its in the bourgeois sense)? a vegan? anti-gun? pacifist completely?

Excellent point--human death.

It's a damn good start, though. :)

Le's just not kill fellow human beings. In any state, in any way. Ever. No abortion, no death pealty, no war, no starvation. Let's do all we can for everything that smacks of humanity.

No killing of anything human. It's a good way to start a philosophy of a truly Human Communism.

[LOLseph Stalin]

Le's just not kill fellow human beings. In any state, in any way. Ever. No abortion, no death pealty, no war, no starvation. Let's do all we can for everything that smacks of humanity.

No killing of anything human. It's a good way to start a philosophy of a truly Human Communism.

I'm assuming you're against euthanasia then? That's killing another human being although it's their choice to die.

[Jazzratt]

Catholics protest abortion more because
there are already lots of anti-war protesters and
abortion kills more.

[Citation Needed]


Don't like slavery? Don't own a slave!

We're not the ones who want to enslave women, reducing them to little more than baby factories.


Would you rather have a leader who thinks the unborn have rights but defends killing them, or one that thinks they don't have rights and defends killing them? (http://www.l4l.org/library/persoppo.html)

I'd rather have a leader that keeps their archaic reality out of people's wombs. I started to read the linked article and would advise others not to make the same mistake; it was complete and utter crap.


And stillbirths don't result in mutilated fetuses.

Here is a really shocking picture of a mutilated, aborted foetus:

http://www.abortion.org.au/Gestation%20Sac%206-7%20weeks.jpg

Evil baby killers!


An image that shows severed fetus parts or a fetus burned from a saline abortion are not stillbirths.

They are still dishonest appeals to emotion.

[TC]

a fetus burned from a saline abortion

Do you know what saline is?

I'm guessing...not...

Why do you try to imagine non-existent visual horrors about abortion?

[pastradamus]

Excellent point--human death.

It's a damn good start, though. :)

Le's just not kill fellow human beings. In any state, in any way. Ever. No abortion, no death pealty, no war, no starvation. Let's do all we can for everything that smacks of humanity.

No killing of anything human. It's a good way to start a philosophy of a truly Human Communism.

Communism does not promote death. If anything communism is anti-death assumed up by the slogan "War is but a gun with a worker on either side".
Abortion is about promoting human-choice. A Mother who cannot see a future for her with a child has a right to terminate the pregnancy in my opinion though which trimester this occurs in is obviously a matter for further debate.
On other issues of abortion what considerations did you make to say rape?
To force a mother to groom, cater for and maintain and love a child without thinking of the ordeal of the rape throughout is a frightful thought in my mind. Though another topic of this is what if the mothers life is threatened?
Here we have one productive, mentally in-tune individual on her death bed if not for this fetus...so I believe we must save the life of what we have rather that what might be.

[Black Dagger]

Catholics protest abortion more because
there are already lots of anti-war protesters and
abortion kills more [people than war].

Source?

'War' is a perpetual phenomenon globally that claims millions of lives; abortion is not even easily accessible in most countries (and where it is, contraception is more widely used).

Also, do you have anything to contribute to the discussion in OI apart from your views on abortion? That's the only subject i've seen you post about since you joined. It's fine in threads like this or the one on prenatal rights, i'm just curious as to whether you joined the site specifically to debate this issue or not? If so, what did you hope to achieve? RL has clear guidelines on the issue.

[Rusty Shackleford]

Do you know what saline is?

I'm guessing...not...

Why do you try to imagine non-existent visual horrors about abortion?


Saline solution (for those of you who actually dont know) is a solution used for contact lenses to keep the lenses from getting dry and uncomfortable. its a salty water that is pretty much like a human tear.

[Rusty Shackleford]

...
And stillbirths don't result in mutilated fetuses. An image that shows severed fetus parts or a fetus burned from a saline abortion are not stillbirths.

care to explain what a saline abortion is?

(sorry didnt know how to multi-quote until now)

[mikelepore]

I'm Catholic--thought I don't speak for all Catholics. We are against abortion--the fetus is human life from the moment of conception.

I wonder, during the fertilization, is the new soul created when the first nucleotide hydrogen bond is established, or when the last bond is established? Perhaps it's an incremental process, where 1/23 of a soul is created for each of the chromosomes in each gamete -- or perhaps I should say 1/46 of a soul for each of the chromosomes in the zygote. It could be that the soul is created all at once, but then there are 46 quantum steps, one for each chromosome, to transform it from a mortal soul to an immortal soul. Or an outline of the soul could be created at the moment of ejaculation (provided that the woman is ovulating), and then, at the moment of conception, the eternal aspect of the soul enters into the preexisting outline. There's a lot we still don't know about science.

[Havet]

Pro-lifers are anti-women. That's all you need to know. So ladies, say goodbye to your wombs, they're the property of GOD now

Also, a priest will tell you life begins at conception, but he'll also tell you it's ok for your son to suck his dick when he's only 5.

I would argue it would only be morally acceptable to abort until the fetus had achieved a state of brain development that enables him to feel pain.

[Havet]

I wonder, during the fertilization, is the new soul created when the first nucleotide hydrogen bond is established, or when the last bond is established? Perhaps it's an incremental process, where 1/23 of a soul is created for each of the chromosomes in each gamete -- or perhaps I should say 1/46 of a soul for each of the chromosomes in the zygote. It could be that the soul is created all at once, but then there are 46 quantum steps, one for each chromosome, to transform it from a mortal soul to an immortal soul. Or an outline of the soul could be created at the moment of ejaculation (provided that the woman is ovulating), and then, at the moment of conception, the eternal aspect of the soul enters into the preexisting outline. There's a lot we still don't know about science.

Very good point. I don't even think there is such a thing as a "soul", because that which people associate to a "soul" is merely the self-awareness we have of complex atoms and electrons associations in our brain.

[apathy maybe]

I'm Catholic--thought I don't speak for all Catholics. We are against abortion--the fetus is human life from the moment of conception. And we are against almost all war. Some exceptions for "someone wacked you first."

We're not for death at all. (Lately. We've made some mistakes in the past--as HAVE WE ALL. ;) )

Funny thing, a true Catholic who believes that they have lived a good life (and, if they want, confessed any outstanding sings), should not be afraid of death.

Death, after all, is just putting you back together with your god.

So, to say that Catholics are not for death is to say, in effect, that Catholics are opposed to people getting back together with god. Which, surely you don't believe?

There is a famous quote about this, but I can't just find it...

[Self-Owner]

I wonder, during the fertilization, is the new soul created when the first nucleotide hydrogen bond is established, or when the last bond is established? Perhaps it's an incremental process, where 1/23 of a soul is created for each of the chromosomes in each gamete -- or perhaps I should say 1/46 of a soul for each of the chromosomes in the zygote. It could be that the soul is created all at once, but then there are 46 quantum steps, one for each chromosome, to transform it from a mortal soul to an immortal soul. Or an outline of the soul could be created at the moment of ejaculation (provided that the woman is ovulating), and then, at the moment of conception, the eternal aspect of the soul enters into the preexisting outline. There's a lot we still don't know about science.

Fair enough, the idea of the existence of souls deserves ridicule, but I think this is absolutely the wrong argument to use. Vagueness saturates the vast majority of concepts that most people (including, I'm sure, you) use in your everyday life. For example a similar argument can be shown to demonstrate that 'baldness' is a meaningless concept - you agree, surely, that a man with a full head of hair is not bald. And you also agree, surely, that a not-bald man cannot become bald by losing a single hair (the removal of one hair clearly cannot be enough to make someone who is not bald bald). So the only reasonable conclusion is that a man with no hairs on his head is also not bald!

[Nulono]

A man would not be made bald by removing a single hair assuming he has at least two hairs.

The question of when during fertilization personhood begins is irrelevant, as there are no methods to stop fertilization half-way.

[apathy maybe]

A man would not be made bald by removing a single hair assuming he has at least two hairs.

The question of when during fertilization personhood begins is irrelevant, as there are no methods to stop fertilization half-way.

If a man only has two hairs left, he is already bald.

[Dejavu]

Bald?

[Nulono]

No, he is mostly or almost bald.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Are you sure that abortions kill more than war?

- August
I dunno how reliable it is but according to http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_IAW.html there are 42 million abortions per year worldwide as of 2008. According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War#List_of_wars_by_death_toll the only war which had more than 42 million deaths was WWII and the only others which came close happened centuries ago.

So abortion probably does kill more, though you obviously may not be of the opinion that it kills more human people, depending on how you view foetuses. But the Catholic Church, which views foetuses as being on par with people, would view abortion as killing considerably more than war.

[Bud Struggle]

I wonder, during the fertilization, is the new soul created when the first nucleotide hydrogen bond is established, or when the last bond is established? Perhaps it's an incremental process, where 1/23 of a soul is created for each of the chromosomes in each gamete -- or perhaps I should say 1/46 of a soul for each of the chromosomes in the zygote. It could be that the soul is created all at once, but then there are 46 quantum steps, one for each chromosome, to transform it from a mortal soul to an immortal soul. Or an outline of the soul could be created at the moment of ejaculation (provided that the woman is ovulating), and then, at the moment of conception, the eternal aspect of the soul enters into the preexisting outline. There's a lot we still don't know about science.

When the last bond is created. :)

[mikelepore]

Very good point. I don't even think there is such a thing as a "soul", because that which people associate to a "soul" is merely the self-awareness we have of complex atoms and electrons associations in our brain.

If there is no soul or spirit then the whole idea of discussing the point in time at which an embryo becomes a "human being" seems to me like semantics. The meanings of words are the thing that's under discussion. One person says that the fertilized egg is a human being and another person recommends that the name be applied only at a later time. People think they're arguing about a substantial point, but they're merely arguing about the choice of words that the editor of the dictionary should use.

[Nakidana]

I'm Catholic--thought I don't speak for all Catholics. We are against abortion--the fetus is human life from the moment of conception. And we are against almost all war. Some exceptions for "someone wacked you first."

We're not for death at all. (Lately. We've made some mistakes in the past--as HAVE WE ALL. ;) )

An early embryo is nothing but a collection of cells. It's not a person and therefore shouldn't have any rights other than those covering other pieces of tissue.

The line at which a fetus should be protected should be set according to considerations such as "When can a fetus feel pain?" and "When does a form of conscience develop?".

These are hardly valid questions when dealing with for example newly fertilised eggs that haven't shown any signs of cell differentiation.

[RGacky3]

Pro-lifers are anti-women.

Yeah and if your against the Iraq war you are for 911. Thats all you need to know ... Jackass.


but they're merely arguing about the choice of words that the editor of the dictionary should use.

But the meanings of those words have very deep moral implications, for a long time, people were not considered humans but property, so the meanings of those words had a lot of moral implications.


An early embryo is nothing but a collection of cells. It's not a person and therefore shouldn't have any rights other than those covering other pieces of tissue.

EVERYONE is nothing but a collection of cells (unless you believe in a soul, or metaphysical mind).


The line at which a fetus should be protected should be set according to considerations such as "When can a fetus feel pain?" and "When does a form of conscience develop?".

So a human being a human is conditional? If a human was in a coma and thus could'nt feel pain, no one would debate about whether or not it was still a human.

[h0m0revolutionary]

I knew this would degenerate into pro-life, pro-choice ramblings :/

It really doesn't need to, the answer to the initial question is painfully simple. The Catholic Church adheres to the 'consistent life ethic', that manifests itself as uniform opposition to events that cause untimely death, abortion, war and euthanasia being obvious examples.

Their policy of 'just war' isn't particularly noteworthy, but simply states that their opposition to war isn't to be put on a pedestal above and beyond opposition to other forms of death induction. As war can be just (apparently)

[Havet]

If there is no soul or spirit then the whole idea of discussing the point in time at which an embryo becomes a "human being" seems to me like semantics. The meanings of words are the thing that's under discussion. One person says that the fertilized egg is a human being and another person recommends that the name be applied only at a later time. People think they're arguing about a substantial point, but they're merely arguing about the choice of words that the editor of the dictionary should use.

Good point. But in this case semantics is a substantial point. In any case, an impartial definition of human would be: "man, is a member of a species of bipedal primates in the family Hominidae (taxonomically Homo sapiens—Latin: "wise human" or "knowing human"). Humans have a highly developed brain, capable of abstract reasoning, language, introspection and problem solving. This mental capability, combined with an erect body carriage that frees the forelimbs (arms) for manipulating objects, has allowed humans to make far greater use of tools than any other species. "


Yeah and if your against the Iraq war you are for 911. Thats all you need to know ... Jackass.That's not an accurate implication. In fact, I am against the iraq war by the same reason i am against 911, because i am against people murdering others for any reason. I am not, however, against someone killing someone accidentally in self-defense.

Anyway, let's get on with definitions: "Pro-life is a term representing a variety of perspectives and activist movements in medical ethics. It is most commonly used to refer to opposition to abortion. More generally, the term describes a political and ethical view which maintains that human fetuses and embryos are persons and therefore have a right to live. Less commonly, it can be used to indicate opposition to practices such as euthanasia, the death penalty, human cloning, and research involving human embryonic stem cells."

Anti-woman, as i define it, is someone who has church-like assumptions of the role of a woman in society: in short, that she has less rights than a man.

Here's an interesting quote from comedian george carlin:

"Boy, these conservatives are really something, aren't they? They're all in favor of the unborn; they will do anything for the unborn. But once you're born, you're on your own. Pro-life conservatives are obsessed with the fetus from conception to nine months. After that they don't wanna know about you! They don't wanna hear from you. If you're preborn, you're fine...if you're preschool, you're fucked! Conservatives don't give a shit about you until you reach...Military Age! Then they think you are just fine, just what they've been lookin' for. Conservatives want live babies so they can raise 'em to be dead soldiers. (...)They don't like women. They believe a woman's primary role is to function as a brood-mare for the state. Pro-life...you don't see any of these white, anti-abortion women volunteering to have any black fetuses transplanted into their uteruses, do you? No, you don't see 'em adopting a whole lotta crack babies, do you? No...that might be something _Christ_ would do."

[Nakidana]

EVERYONE is nothing but a collection of cells (unless you believe in a soul, or metaphysical mind).

True, but that fact doesn't refute my point. A human is made up of numerous collections of cells. Those collections make up different tissues that can perform specific functions. The tissues grouped together make up organs and those organs in turn make up Organ systems. Group those systems together and you got a human body.

My point is that you can't take out a piece of tissue and then claim that it is a person and has the same rights. If I were to cut off a piece of my skin should I start treating it as a person?

In the same way an early embryo is simply tissue and shouldn't have the same rights as a human being.


So a human being a human is conditional?

I don't understand, please elaborate.


If a human was in a coma and thus could'nt feel pain, no one would debate about whether or not it was still a human.

A comatose patient might not feel pain, but all his unconscious mental states are still there.

EDIT: I see there is already a prenatal rights thread going on, we should probably take the discussion there.

[Nulono]

There a huge difference between a hunk of skin, a part of an organism, and a fetus, an organism.

[mikelepore]

A fetus is a peculiar kind of "organism" - its only channel of ingestion and egestion is that it has a network of blood vessels interwoven with a network of someone else's blood vessels, so that diffusion causes a swap of nutrients and waste between the two circulatory systems. It's a parasite within someone else's body.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Oh Jesus the parasite thing again. We've all heard this particular falsehood before.

[mikelepore]

Do you deny that the fetus can get its oxygen and nutrients only by removing them from someone's blood? If you don't like the word "parasite", you may make up a new word -- "bleem" would sound nice.

[Demogorgon]

A fetus is a peculiar kind of "organism" - its only channel of ingestion and egestion is that it has a network of blood vessels interwoven with a network of someone else's blood vessels, so that diffusion causes a swap of nutrients and waste between the two circulatory systems. It's a parasite within someone else's body.
A parasite is by definition of a different species to its host.

Arguments like that just look silly and hurt the pro-choice argument far more than they help it.

[Il Medico]

Communism does not promote death. If anything communism is anti-death assumed up by the slogan "War is but a gun with a worker on either side".
Abortion is about promoting human-choice. A Mother who cannot see a future for her with a child has a right to terminate the pregnancy in my opinion though which trimester this occurs in is obviously a matter for further debate.
On other issues of abortion what considerations did you make to say rape?
To force a mother to groom, cater for and maintain and love a child without thinking of the ordeal of the rape throughout is a frightful thought in my mind. Though another topic of this is what if the mothers life is threatened?
Here we have one productive, mentally in-tune individual on her death bed if not for this fetus...so I believe we must save the life of what we have rather that what might be.
Indeed, I happen to be Catholic and although not all my views line up with the Church (abortion for example) I find the doctrine actually quite liberal. The everyday Catholic however, has not come to grips with the idea that the repressive nature of the church in the past is dissipating. I am pro choice, not necessarily because I agree with abortion but because I agree with a woman's right to choose. Besides it is wrong to force your values on other people. My only thought on the subject that feminist yell at me about is that as a man I would at least like to be informed of the decision before hand if not have a role in making it. Just a thought.
This is a list of things that as a Marxist and a Catholic I want the Church to change.
1. Allow birth control, even support it. If you want abortions to go down then help prevent unwanted pregnancy in the first place.
2. Declare that though the church might disagree with abortion it will not force it's views on others.
3. Allow priest to marry.
4. Denounce all imperialistic wars, and wars over financial interest.
5. Allow women more of a role in the church.
6. State that the greed that modern capitalist economies are based on is morally wrong.
7. Allow gay marriage.

Keep on fighting Comrades, Captain Jack

[Sarah Palin]

Oh Jesus the parasite thing again. We've all heard this particular falsehood before.

It lives inside of the mother and takes nutrients, oxygen, and other things it needs to survive from her!

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Do you deny that the fetus can get its oxygen and nutrients only by removing them from someone's blood? If you don't like the word "parasite", you may make up a new word -- "bleem" would sound nice.


It lives inside of the mother and takes nutrients, oxygen, and other things it needs to survive from her!
I'll tell you guys the same thing I tell everyone who spouts this rubbish. If you are so confident, ask a biology expert if a foetus is a parasite. They will tell you it's not, for two main reasons. First, the foetus is the same species as the host; second, the foetus contributes genetic continuity.

Scientifically, biologically, a foetus is not a parasite. That is a fact.

[mikelepore]

A parasite is by definition of a different species to its host.

Thanks for the useful vocabulary lesson. I may use a bunch of incorrect words and phrases while developing my point, but everyone still knows what I meant.

I was pondering Nulono's explanation that the fetus is an "organism" because it is so unlike "a hunk of skin, a part of an organism". Considering the saprophytic way it gets nutrients and disposes of wastes, the fetus has some features in common with "a hunk of skin", highlighting a way in which it's unlike an organism.


Arguments like that just look silly and hurt the pro-choice argument far more than they help it.

I don't know about an urgency to assist a cause that already won its legal case 36 years ago.

[Demogorgon]

I don't know about an urgency to assist a cause that already won its legal case 36 years ago.
We are not All American. Where Ever Closer Union lives, for instance, abortion is still illegal except for health related reasons.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Thanks for the useful vocabulary lesson. I may use a bunch of incorrect words and phrases while developing my point, but everyone still knows what I meant.


Oh come on. It's one thing to make a throw-away comment that is inaccurate or wrong, but you actually went back to defend the truth and accuracy of what you were saying. Don't use words if you don't know what they mean, contrary to popular belief it doesn't make you look smarter than you are.


I don't know about an urgency to assist a cause that already won its legal case 36 years ago. Question: is this kind of xenocentrism not a restrictable offence on here? Just because we can have abortions in the good ol' US of A doesn't mean the struggle is over. You'd go down a treat with the Irish pro-choice activists. :rolleyes:

[#FF0000]

Yeah and if your against the Iraq war you are for 911. Thats all you need to know ... Jackass.

Actually, opposing a woman's right to control her own body is a sexist position. Don't know if you got that memo, brah. :mellow:

[Revy]

There a huge difference between a hunk of skin, a part of an organism, and a fetus, an organism.

so what if it's an organism? can it think, can it feel, is it conscious and aware? Ask any neuroscientist, and they will give you a clear NO.

Oh wait, we have to call it murder because it's a human parasite. Human cluster of cells and gunk? Murder. Animal? Not murder. Interesting how that logic works.

[trivas7]

Actually, opposing a woman's right to control her own body is a sexist position.

Yes.

[mikelepore]

but you actually went back to defend the truth and accuracy of what you were saying

No, not what happened. demogorgon said "this particular falsehood ..." without telling me why yet, and so I asked "do you deny ...", and then demogorgon clarified the word for me, then I said okay whatever, I think everyone knows what point I meant anyway.

Mea maxima culpa, so I used a wrong word. Why don't you scourge and crucify me.

The way the fetus gets its nutrition still reminds me of a mushroom on a tree stump. Remarkably unlike an animal organism. An animal organism shoves things into its mouth and eats them, breaks them down mechanically and chemically, etc.

[TC]

By definition, parasites must be of another species?

This has been the often smugly repeated line by reactionaries on this website over and over and over and over again. I'm sick of reading it, so lets look at some actual definitions of the term parasite, not made up by internet hacks, so we can settle this.

You'll notice none of these definitions include their idiosyncratic definitional requirement of parasitism on another species. Trans-species parasites are just one example of parasites, the general term 'parasite' includes both trans-species parasites and intra-species parasites.

Lets take a *medical* dictionary's definition to start off with:

---------------------------------------
" Main Entry: par·a·site
Pronunciation: 'par-&-"sIt
Function: noun
: an organism living in, with, or on another organism in parasitism
Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary, © 2002 Merriam-Webster"
----------------------------------------

Hmm, no mention of the interspecies requirement there. In fact, by that definition it would seem that a fetus is by definition a parasite since it lives in another organism.

Maybe a second medical dictionary will support the reactionary's preferred definition, the American Heritage Stedman's Medical Dictionary's definition:

----------------------------------------
" parasite par·a·site (pār'ə-sīt')
n.


An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host.
In conjoined twins, the usually incomplete twin that derives its support from the more nearly normal fetus.

The American Heritage® Stedman's Medical Dictionary
Copyright © 2002, 2001, 1995 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. "
----------------------------------------


The first definition, the general one, is the one that applies here, to fetuses in general. Seems this second *medical* dictionary calls fetus's parasites on other fetuses when they have a parallel relationship to their sibling as others have to the pregnant woman. Same species there, in fact they're the same organism, a fetus, just attached to a host within the larger host!

How about the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language:

----------------------------------------
"par·a·site (pār'ə-sīt')
n.


Biology An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host.


One who habitually takes advantage of the generosity of others without making any useful return.
One who lives off and flatters the rich; a sycophant.

A professional dinner guest, especially in ancient Greece.


[Latin parasītus, a person who lives by amusing the rich, from Greek parasītos, person who eats at someone else's table, parasite : para-, beside; see para-1 + sītos, grain, food.]
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2006 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved. "
----------------------------------------


Maybe those people at American Heritage just want to trick people into think that fetuses could be logically classified as parasites, by definition. Lets look at Websters!:


----------------------------------------
" Parasite
Par"a*site\, n. [F., fr. L. parasitus, Gr. ?, lit., eating beside, or at the table of, another; ? beside + ? to feed, from ? wheat, grain, food.]
1. One who frequents the tables of the rich, or who lives at another's expense, and earns his welcome by flattery; a hanger-on; a toady; a sycophant.
Thou, with trembling fear, Or like a fawning parasite, obey'st. --Milton.
Parasites were called such smell-feasts as would seek to be free guests at rich men's tables. --Udall.
2. (Bot.) (a) A plant obtaining nourishment immediately from other plants to which it attaches itself, and whose juices it absorbs; -- sometimes, but erroneously, called epiphyte. (b) A plant living on or within an animal, and supported at its expense, as many species of fungi of the genus Torrubia.
3. (Zo["o]l.) (a) An animal which lives during the whole or part of its existence on or in the body of some other animal, feeding upon its food, blood, or tissues, as lice, tapeworms, etc. (b) An animal which steals the food of another, as the parasitic jager. (c) An animal which habitually uses the nest of another, as the cowbird and the European cuckoo.
Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc. "
----------------------------------------


So Websters unabridged doesn't think that feeding off of another species is part of the definition, in fact none of their zoological definitions suggest that parasites must be trans-species parasites.

Lets see Princeton University WordNet's:

----------------------------------------
"Parasite

noun
1.
an animal or plant that lives in or on a host (another animal or plant); it obtains nourishment from the host without benefiting or killing the host [ant: host (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/host)]
2.
a follower who hangs around a host (without benefit to the host) in hope of gain or advantage [syn: leech (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/leech)]
WordNet® 3.0, © 2006 by Princeton University."
----------------------------------------


Same problem there for the reactionary's preferred definition.

How about a cultural dictionary's take:

----------------------------------------
"parasite
An organism that lives off or in another organism, obtaining nourishment and protection while offering no benefit in return. Human parasites are often harmful to the body and can cause diseases, such as trichinosis (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/trichinosis).
Note: The term parasite is often applied to a person who takes advantage of other people and fails to offer anything in return.
The American Heritage® New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition
Copyright © 2005 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved"
----------------------------------------

Oops, they think people can be parasites!

How about an Etymology dictionary?

----------------------------------------
"
parasite
1539, "a hanger-on, a toady, "person who lives on others," from M.Fr. parasite, from L. parasitus, from Gk. parasitos "person who eats at the table of another," from n. use of adj. meaning "feeding beside," from para- "beside" + sitos "food," of unknown origin. Scientific meaning "animal or plant that lives on others" is first recorded 1646 (implied in parasitical).
Online Etymology Dictionary, © 2001 Douglas Harper "
----------------------------------------


So the *origin* of the word parasite when it was first *coined* was meant to be in reference to people living off of other people, not interspecies parasitism.

Want to try a science dictionary?:

----------------------------------------
"parasite (pār'ə-sīt')
An organism that lives on or in a different kind of organism (the host) from which it gets some or all of its nourishment. Parasites are generally harmful to their hosts, although the damage they do ranges widely from minor inconvenience to debilitating or fatal disease. A parasite that lives or feeds on the outer surface of the host's body, such as a louse, tick, or leech, is called an ectoparasite. Ectoparasites do not usually cause disease themselves although they are frequently a vector of disease, as in the case of ticks, which can transmit the organisms that cause such diseases as Rocky Mountain spotted fever and Lyme disease. A parasite that lives inside the body of its host is called an endoparasite. Endoparasites include organisms such as tapeworms, hookworms, and trypanosomes that live within the host's organs or tissues, as well as organisms such as sporozoans that invade the host's cells.
The American Heritage® Science Dictionary
Copyright © 2002. Published by Houghton Mifflin. All rights reserved."
----------------------------------------

Here, you'll want to note the precise phrasing: " An organism that lives on or in a different kind of organism (the host) from which it gets some or all of its nourishment." A different kindof organism, not a different species of organism. Do you think that a Science dictionary would say "kind" when it means "species", those people at American Heritage Science just have shitty copy-editors? Um, no. It just means that once again the reactionaries are wrong.
There you have it, 8 major dictionaries say the term 'parasite' doesn't by definition mean the host must be of another species, and some people on the internet with fuzzy feelings about fetuses who say it does.



Whose word on the matter is more persuasive?



When we look for authority on what the definition of a word is, does it make more sense to rely on eight dictionaries, or a minority in this thread?


Mikelpore's description of a fetus as a parasite was indisputably accurate except by people who have political motives for disputing that general usage definition of the term.

[RGacky3]

Actually, opposing a woman's right to control her own body is a sexist position. Don't know if you got that memo, brah.

Abortion is'nt about a womans right to control her own body, it has to do with the definition of human life.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

EDIT: forget it I'm not getting into this shit.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

The Catholic Church is half correct:

Right - Anti-death penalty, Just War

Wrong - Abortion, Assisted Suicides

All opinion, of course. Discretionary.

[Jazzratt]

By definition, parasites must be of another species?

This has been the often smugly repeated line by reactionaries on this website over and over and over and over again. I'm sick of reading it, so lets look at some actual definitions of the term parasite, not made up by internet hacks, so we can settle this.

You'll notice none of these definitions include their idiosyncratic definitional requirement of parasitism on another species. Trans-species parasites are just one example of parasites, the general term 'parasite' includes both trans-species parasites and intra-species parasites.

Lets take a *medical* dictionary's definition to start off with:

---------------------------------------
" Main Entry: par·a·site
Pronunciation: 'par-&-"sIt
Function: noun
: an organism living in, with, or on another organism in parasitism
Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary, © 2002 Merriam-Webster"
----------------------------------------

Hmm, no mention of the interspecies requirement there. In fact, by that definition it would seem that a fetus is by definition a parasite since it lives in another organism.

Maybe a second medical dictionary will support the reactionary's preferred definition, the American Heritage Stedman's Medical Dictionary's definition:

----------------------------------------
" parasite par·a·site (pār'ə-sīt')
n.


An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host.
In conjoined twins, the usually incomplete twin that derives its support from the more nearly normal fetus.

The American Heritage® Stedman's Medical Dictionary
Copyright © 2002, 2001, 1995 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. "
----------------------------------------


The first definition, the general one, is the one that applies here, to fetuses in general. Seems this second *medical* dictionary calls fetus's parasites on other fetuses when they have a parallel relationship to their sibling as others have to the pregnant woman. Same species there, in fact they're the same organism, a fetus, just attached to a host within the larger host!

How about the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language:

----------------------------------------
"par·a·site (pār'ə-sīt')
n.


Biology An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host.


One who habitually takes advantage of the generosity of others without making any useful return.
One who lives off and flatters the rich; a sycophant.


A professional dinner guest, especially in ancient Greece.


[Latin parasītus, a person who lives by amusing the rich, from Greek parasītos, person who eats at someone else's table, parasite : para-, beside; see para-1 + sītos, grain, food.]
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2006 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved. "
----------------------------------------


Maybe those people at American Heritage just want to trick people into think that fetuses could be logically classified as parasites, by definition. Lets look at Websters!:


----------------------------------------
" Parasite
Par"a*site\, n. [F., fr. L. parasitus, Gr. ?, lit., eating beside, or at the table of, another; ? beside + ? to feed, from ? wheat, grain, food.]
1. One who frequents the tables of the rich, or who lives at another's expense, and earns his welcome by flattery; a hanger-on; a toady; a sycophant.
Thou, with trembling fear, Or like a fawning parasite, obey'st. --Milton.
Parasites were called such smell-feasts as would seek to be free guests at rich men's tables. --Udall.
2. (Bot.) (a) A plant obtaining nourishment immediately from other plants to which it attaches itself, and whose juices it absorbs; -- sometimes, but erroneously, called epiphyte. (b) A plant living on or within an animal, and supported at its expense, as many species of fungi of the genus Torrubia.
3. (Zo["o]l.) (a) An animal which lives during the whole or part of its existence on or in the body of some other animal, feeding upon its food, blood, or tissues, as lice, tapeworms, etc. (b) An animal which steals the food of another, as the parasitic jager. (c) An animal which habitually uses the nest of another, as the cowbird and the European cuckoo.
Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc. "
----------------------------------------


So Websters unabridged doesn't think that feeding off of another species is part of the definition, in fact none of their zoological definitions suggest that parasites must be trans-species parasites.

Lets see Princeton University WordNet's:

----------------------------------------
"Parasite

noun
1.
an animal or plant that lives in or on a host (another animal or plant); it obtains nourishment from the host without benefiting or killing the host [ant: host (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/host)]
2.
a follower who hangs around a host (without benefit to the host) in hope of gain or advantage [syn: leech (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/leech)]
WordNet® 3.0, © 2006 by Princeton University."
----------------------------------------


Same problem there for the reactionary's preferred definition.

How about a cultural dictionary's take:

----------------------------------------
"parasite
An organism that lives off or in another organism, obtaining nourishment and protection while offering no benefit in return. Human parasites are often harmful to the body and can cause diseases, such as trichinosis (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/trichinosis).
Note: The term parasite is often applied to a person who takes advantage of other people and fails to offer anything in return.
The American Heritage® New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition
Copyright © 2005 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved"
----------------------------------------

Oops, they think people can be parasites!

How about an Etymology dictionary?

----------------------------------------
"
parasite
1539, "a hanger-on, a toady, "person who lives on others," from M.Fr. parasite, from L. parasitus, from Gk. parasitos "person who eats at the table of another," from n. use of adj. meaning "feeding beside," from para- "beside" + sitos "food," of unknown origin. Scientific meaning "animal or plant that lives on others" is first recorded 1646 (implied in parasitical).
Online Etymology Dictionary, © 2001 Douglas Harper "
----------------------------------------


So the *origin* of the word parasite when it was first *coined* was meant to be in reference to people living off of other people, not interspecies parasitism.

Want to try a science dictionary?:

----------------------------------------
"parasite (pār'ə-sīt')
An organism that lives on or in a different kind of organism (the host) from which it gets some or all of its nourishment. Parasites are generally harmful to their hosts, although the damage they do ranges widely from minor inconvenience to debilitating or fatal disease. A parasite that lives or feeds on the outer surface of the host's body, such as a louse, tick, or leech, is called an ectoparasite. Ectoparasites do not usually cause disease themselves although they are frequently a vector of disease, as in the case of ticks, which can transmit the organisms that cause such diseases as Rocky Mountain spotted fever and Lyme disease. A parasite that lives inside the body of its host is called an endoparasite. Endoparasites include organisms such as tapeworms, hookworms, and trypanosomes that live within the host's organs or tissues, as well as organisms such as sporozoans that invade the host's cells.
The American Heritage® Science Dictionary
Copyright © 2002. Published by Houghton Mifflin. All rights reserved."
----------------------------------------

Here, you'll want to note the precise phrasing: " An organism that lives on or in a different kind of organism (the host) from which it gets some or all of its nourishment." A different kindof organism, not a different species of organism. Do you think that a Science dictionary would say "kind" when it means "species", those people at American Heritage Science just have shitty copy-editors? Um, no. It just means that once again the reactionaries are wrong.
There you have it, 8 major dictionaries say the term 'parasite' doesn't by definition mean the host must be of another species, and some people on the internet with fuzzy feelings about fetuses who say it does.



Whose word on the matter is more persuasive?



When we look for authority on what the definition of a word is, does it make more sense to rely on eight dictionaries, or a minority in this thread?


Mikelpore's description of a fetus as a parasite was indisputably accurate except by people who have political motives for disputing that general usage definition of the term.


I'm just going to go ahead and quote this post, everyone needs to read it.

[Black Dagger]

Right - Anti-death penalty, Just War


How is any religious or imperialist war (i.e. every war the catholic church has deemed 'just') 'just' and thus 'right' to support?

[Lynx]

Brigitte Bardot called it a tumor. Is she Catholic?

[Nulono]

No war is just.


Can anything be stupider than that a man has the right to kill me because he lives on the other side of a river and his ruler has a quarrel with mine, though I have not quarrelled with him?

[Qwerty Dvorak]

No war is just.
Stupid doesn't mean unjust. The idea of just war, AFAIK, is based on war being the last resort to stop a horrendous injustice. The war itself may not be just but it may well be the lesser of two evils.

[mikelepore]

Clarification. The reason I made the point that a fetus shouldn't be visualized as an "organism" is because our pro-choice cause has sometimes expressed itself in a way that doesn't directly address the actual anti-choice argument. In a debate people need to understand what their advarsaries are saying.

A common form that the anti-choice argument takes is something like this:

"We agree that it wouldn't be all right to kill someone just because they were presently located in Madrid, London, Paris, Dar es Salaam, or Washington. People don't lose their right to live merely because of their location. Therefore, a person doesn't lose his or her right to live merely due to being located in a uterus."

This is where the debaters clash. While we pro-choice people say that a woman has the right to control her body, the anti-choice people deny the very fact that it is the woman's body at all. They say that the pregnant woman's body is only an enclosure within which is the baby's location, and that it has already been established that someone's right to live doesn't depend on location.

Given that this debate occurs, to call the fetus an "organism" or similar terms is sometimes an anti-choice gimmick to sneak in the assumption that the fetus is a separate person who happens to be located in a particular location.

Pro-choice people should be careful not to let that stand. We need to emphasize that the fetus isn't a separate anything. Until the moment when the umbilical cord has been severed and and the baby's lungs are inhaling, the fetus is a part of the pregnant woman's reproductive system, and that her reproductive system is still in the process of developing the potential to expel part of itself into the form of a separate organism, in the event that she chooses to do so. To say otherwise invites the pro-force or anti-choice movement to impose its religious dogmas on everyone else.

This is analogous to the way supporters of capitalism often begin, "Whereas the capitalist is the producer of the wealth...." No, we must not allow people to sneak claims into debates. We need to challenge false assumptions when they are first referenced.

[Havet]

Clarification. The reason I made the point that a fetus shouldn't be visualized as an "organism" is because our pro-choice cause has sometimes expressed itself in a way that doesn't directly address the actual anti-choice argument. In a debate people need to understand what their advarsaries are saying.

A common form that the anti-choice argument takes is something like this:

"We agree that it wouldn't be all right to kill someone just because they were presently located in Madrid, London, Paris, Dar es Salaam, or Washington. People don't lose their right to live merely because of their location. Therefore, a person doesn't lose his or her right to live merely due to being located in a uterus."

This is where the debaters clash. While we pro-choice people say that a woman has the right to control her body, the anti-choice people deny the very fact that it is the woman's body at all. They say that the pregnant woman's body is only an enclosure within which is the baby's location, and that it has already been established that someone's right to live doesn't depend on location.

Given that this debate occurs, to call the fetus an "organism" or similar terms is sometimes an anti-choice gimmick to sneak in the assumption that the fetus is a separate person who happens to be located in a particular location.

Pro-choice people should be careful not to let that stand. We need to emphasize that the fetus isn't a separate anything. Until the moment when the umbilical cord has been severed and and the baby's lungs are inhaling, the fetus is a part of the pregnant woman's reproductive system, and that her reproductive system is still in the process of developing the potential to expel part of itself into the form of a separate organism, in the event that she chooses to do so. To say otherwise invites the pro-force or anti-choice movement to impose its religious dogmas on everyone else.

This is analogous to the way supporters of capitalism often begin, "Whereas the capitalist is the producer of the wealth...." No, we must not allow people to sneak claims into debates. We need to challenge false assumptions when they are first referenced.

interesting, i had never looked at the issue from that angle. But makes sense to me anyway. I used to look at it from the perspective that even though the women had self-ownership of herself and her body, the moment the fetus had a sufficient developed brain to feel pain like we do, then it would be morally unjust to abort since we would be causing the fetus to suffer.

However, like you pointed out, by taking the self-ownership idea to its logical extreme, then it is only logical that it would never be imoral to abort, because until birth the child would be still part of the woman.

[Jazzratt]

Nulono. You have been warned to stop spamming, you just earned an infraction for the post I trashed.

[Nulono]

Nulono. You have been warned to stop spamming; you just earned an infraction for the post I trashed.He posted a lie.

[mikelepore]

Nulono, if you mean that I misrepresented the actual meaning of your May 8 post where you said, "a fetus, an organism" -- In my May 13 post I was careful to word it in a way that didn't refer to you. I said that the practice of making references to the fetus as a separate person is sometimes a gimmick used in debates, and I don't recommend such a description. That's as generally as I can say it. I make no assertion about you.

[Demogorgon]

Clarification. The reason I made the point that a fetus shouldn't be visualized as an "organism" is because our pro-choice cause has sometimes expressed itself in a way that doesn't directly address the actual anti-choice argument. In a debate people need to understand what their advarsaries are saying.

A common form that the anti-choice argument takes is something like this:

"We agree that it wouldn't be all right to kill someone just because they were presently located in Madrid, London, Paris, Dar es Salaam, or Washington. People don't lose their right to live merely because of their location. Therefore, a person doesn't lose his or her right to live merely due to being located in a uterus."

This is where the debaters clash. While we pro-choice people say that a woman has the right to control her body, the anti-choice people deny the very fact that it is the woman's body at all. They say that the pregnant woman's body is only an enclosure within which is the baby's location, and that it has already been established that someone's right to live doesn't depend on location.

Given that this debate occurs, to call the fetus an "organism" or similar terms is sometimes an anti-choice gimmick to sneak in the assumption that the fetus is a separate person who happens to be located in a particular location.

Pro-choice people should be careful not to let that stand. We need to emphasize that the fetus isn't a separate anything. Until the moment when the umbilical cord has been severed and and the baby's lungs are inhaling, the fetus is a part of the pregnant woman's reproductive system, and that her reproductive system is still in the process of developing the potential to expel part of itself into the form of a separate organism, in the event that she chooses to do so. To say otherwise invites the pro-force or anti-choice movement to impose its religious dogmas on everyone else.

This is analogous to the way supporters of capitalism often begin, "Whereas the capitalist is the producer of the wealth...." No, we must not allow people to sneak claims into debates. We need to challenge false assumptions when they are first referenced.There is merit to that, but firstly you cannot let the pro-life movement frame the debate along their terms. They want to talk about whether the fetus has personhood or not, not about gender equality. Certainly we need to address their argument, apart from anything else, it would be dishonest not to, but in doing so we cannot fall into either of two pitfalls that will hand the debate to our opponents on a silver platter. The first pitfall is the more obvious one and that is to get stuck on the subject, never getting the debate past what pro-lifers want to talk about. To someone like TC, that isn't necessarily a problem, because despite apparently not seeing it herself, her thinking has gradually moved from Communism to Libertarianism over the last few years and as a result she wants to stick to purely individualistic arguments.

But purely individualistic arguments do not work, as any Communist knows and in this case it is particularly clear as it keeps the debate squarely on what the pro-lifer wants to talk about. It is vital to move the debate onto what we want to talk about, gender equality and how reproductive freedom affects it. The equivalent in your analogy on arguing with the capitalist about wealth creation would be to stick solely to that subject which first of all would allow the capitalist to say "okay you have addressed argument x, but we still have y and z. Moreover, you have not given any alternative". I strongly believe we need to avoid doing this.

The other potential pitfall is giving bad counter arguments. Not only does that keep the debate where the pro-lifer wants it, but also allows them to win it. A bad counter argument would be to call the fetus a parasite. Not only is it a crass argument, but despite what TC says, any biologist will tell you that it is not a parasite, both because it is of the same species and because it is biologically advantageous as it passes on genetic material (that does not mean that it is a "good" thing, simply that in biological terms it does not meet either definition of parasite. Even if you want to ignore the species problem, the relationship would still be (in purely biological terms) symbiotic. It is a very bad argument to make and one that only huts the pro-choice side.

Another mistake is to claim that the fetus is not a legitimate organism, rather to any pro-life claim on the subject the best response is "So what? Sure the fetus is an organism, but so are plants, insects, bacteria and fungus." Not only is saying it is not an organism technically incorrect, but it gives ground to the pro-life movement by implicitly conceding that it is remotely relevant whether it is an organism or not.

Throwing every counter argument you can find at an opponent and hoping one sticks, isn't a very effective debating target. Rather we need to select the best arguments we can find and demolish the pro-life arguments that way. This is particularly important as what we need to remember is that we probably are not going to convince the committed pro-lifers we are arguing with, if we do, so much the better, but that's not really the point. Rather we need to appeal to those observing the debate, those on the fence. We need to make our arguments clearly better than those of our opponents if we are going to win them over.

That's why I play Devil's Advocate here and try to take apart bad arguments. We need to weed out the bad arguments so as to give the good arguments room to breath. Some people don't like me doing that of course ad would either prefer to throw everything they can and hope it sticks or else stick to Libertarian individualism and make ridiculous claims about my position on abortion. That's what I was thrown out of the CC over after all. But I think any thinking person can see merit to finding the best possible arguments and aiming to win over as yet undecided observers.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

How is any religious or imperialist war (i.e. every war the catholic church has deemed 'just') 'just' and thus 'right' to support?

Unless I'm mistaking it for something else, "Just War" is the belief that you have the right to defend yourself when the other side bops you over the head first. The Catholic Church's application of such philosophy is a different matter. I'm sure we could find quite a few communists in history whose actions were hypocritical, no?

[Demogorgon]

Unless I'm mistaking it for something else, "Just War" is the belief that you have the right to defend yourself when the other side bops you over the head first. The Catholic Church's application of such philosophy is a different matter. I'm sure we could find quite a few communists in history whose actions were hypocritical, no?

Traditionally the Catholic Church supported just about any war that suited it as "Just War". In recent years it has become more anti-war, which along with its newfound opposition to the Death penalty can only be seen as a good thing. On the other hand its opposition to abortion has increased, so they haven't entirely improved to say the least.

[Nulono]

There is merit to that, but firstly you cannot let the pro-life movement frame the debate along their terms. They want to talk about whether the fetus has personhood or not, not about gender equality. Certainly we need to address their argument, apart from anything else, it would be dishonest not to, but in doing so we cannot fall into either of two pitfalls that will hand the debate to our opponents on a silver platter. The first pitfall is the more obvious one and that is to get stuck on the subject, never getting the debate past what pro-lifers want to talk about. To someone like TC, that isn't necessarily a problem, because despite apparently not seeing it herself, her thinking has gradually moved from Communism to Libertarianism over the last few years and as a result she wants to stick to purely individualistic arguments.

But purely individualistic arguments do not work, as any Communist knows and in this case it is particularly clear as it keeps the debate squarely on what the pro-lifer wants to talk about. It is vital to move the debate onto what we want to talk about, gender equality and how reproductive freedom affects it. The equivalent in your analogy on arguing with the capitalist about wealth creation would be to stick solely to that subject which first of all would allow the capitalist to say "okay you have addressed argument x, but we still have y and z. Moreover, you have not given any alternative". I strongly believe we need to avoid doing this.

The other potential pitfall is giving bad counter arguments. Not only does that keep the debate where the pro-lifer wants it, but also allows them to win it. A bad counter argument would be to call the fetus a parasite. Not only is it a crass argument, but despite what TC says, any biologist will tell you that it is not a parasite, both because it is of the same species and because it is biologically advantageous as it passes on genetic material (that does not mean that it is a "good" thing, simply that in biological terms it does not meet either definition of parasite. Even if you want to ignore the species problem, the relationship would still be (in purely biological terms) symbiotic. It is a very bad argument to make and one that only huts the pro-choice side.

Another mistake is to claim that the fetus is not a legitimate organism, rather to any pro-life claim on the subject the best response is "So what? Sure the fetus is an organism, but so are plants, insects, bacteria and fungus." Not only is saying it is not an organism technically incorrect, but it gives ground to the pro-life movement by implicitly conceding that it is remotely relevant whether it is an organism or not.

Throwing every counter argument you can find at an opponent and hoping one sticks, isn't a very effective debating target. Rather we need to select the best arguments we can find and demolish the pro-life arguments that way. This is particularly important as what we need to remember is that we probably are not going to convince the committed pro-lifers we are arguing with, if we do, so much the better, but that's not really the point. Rather we need to appeal to those observing the debate, those on the fence. We need to make our arguments clearly better than those of our opponents if we are going to win them over.

That's why I play Devil's Advocate here and try to take apart bad arguments. We need to weed out the bad arguments so as to give the good arguments room to breath. Some people don't like me doing that of course ad would either prefer to throw everything they can and hope it sticks or else stick to Libertarian individualism and make ridiculous claims about my position on abortion. That's what I was thrown out of the CC over after all. But I think any thinking person can see merit to finding the best possible arguments and aiming to win over as yet undecided observers.At least you recognize some of the bad arguments. However, gender equality is irrelevant. Gender equality is a noble goal, but not one that may be achieved by any means necessary. Banning infanticide contributes to discriminatory pay for mothers, but most of us agree infanticide is murder.

[Lynx]

Accepting that the fetus is a living human being doesn't tip the 'scales of justice' in favor of the pro-life position.

[Nulono]

Yes it does. Maybe not much, but it does perceptibly.

[mikelepore]

Another mistake is to claim that the fetus is not a legitimate organism, rather to any pro-life claim on the subject the best response is "So what? Sure the fetus is an organism, but so are plants, insects, bacteria and fungus."

Although I zoomed in on the word "organism" in this thread, I think what they actually say most often is that it's a "young person", "human being", "individual", "a citizen with civil rights." So I couldn't apply your "so are plants, insects, bacteria and fungus" challenge.

[mikelepore]

I too don't see the relevance of gender equality to this question. It's not a policy decision of civilization that women are the ones who get stuck with the job of child bearing. That fact was prior to anything that society decided on. To me the issue is that the opponents yell that "she killed her baby" and I say "no, she didn't." That -- plus the fact that I just don't want government to be so powerful that it overrides a doctor-patient relationship. But gender equality, specifically, I don't see that principle as the source of an answer in this case.

[Demogorgon]

I too don't see the relevance of gender equality to this question. It's not a policy decision of civilization that women are the ones who get stuck with the job of child bearing. That fact was prior to anything that society decided on. To me the issue is that the opponents yell that "she killed her baby" and I say "no, she didn't." That -- plus the fact that I just don't want government to be so powerful that it overrides a doctor-patient relationship. But gender equality, specifically, I don't see that principle as the source of an answer in this case.The problem with this position is that it puts you on the defensive. Not to mention you are ignoring the best argument.

To ignore gender equality here is akin to ignore the scientific merits of evolution when you argue against creationism. It can be done, but it is leaving out the key point. Society obviously didn't sit down and say that women are going to be the ones who have to bare children. With the exception of the seahorse, that is just how biology has it right across the animal kingdom. However what this means is that owing to the lesser degree of control women have in the matter, added to the fact that they will have to expend far greater amounts of energy on reproduction, they will be put in an inferior position. This also leads to the manner in which women are expected to be primary carers long after the period of breastfeeding is over.

That isn't to say there was malice in the way society put women into a second class role due to this, far from it, but there is no doubt that it did and that the only way to stop it is to give women full control over reproduction and the ability to decide if and when to have children. Without birth control gender equality is impossible and for better or for worse abortion is one aspect of birth control.

Of course I agree with you that abortion cannot be seen as the act of killing a child and I certainly agree that these kind of doctor-patient matters have no place for Government, but that is not half of the issue.

[swampfox]

Whenever a Catholic tells me how wrong it is to take life for research/abortion, I quickly point out the Crusades, the Pope's agreement with Hitler, and the constant attack the Church has performed against other nations and peoples, and the fact they turn a blind eye to genocide in the Balkans.

[mikelepore]

Not to mention you are ignoring the best argument.

I still don't see the good argument. Do you consider it unjust if we have unequal rights and opportunties among people even if natural limitation rather than unnecessary social policy is the cause? If so, it would be unjust when blind people are not licensed to fly airplanes, deaf people are not invited to tune pianos, etc. It's true that women are the ones who get stuck with the burdens of pregnancy and breastfeeding, but I don't see those facts leading to an argument that is directly related to the present subject.

[Demogorgon]

I still don't see the good argument. Do you consider it unjust if we have unequal rights and opportunties among people even if natural limitation rather than unnecessary social policy is the cause? If so, it would be unjust when blind people are not licensed to fly airplanes, deaf people are not invited to tune pianos, etc. It's true that women are the ones who get stuck with the burdens of pregnancy and breastfeeding, but I don't see those facts leading to an argument that is directly related to the present subject.
Obviously blind people cannot fly aeroplanes, but how can it be said that women cannot live on equal footing with men? Having to bear children is not a natural limit on ability in the way blindness is, but it is a practical one. To put it another way, a better analogy would be someone in a wheelchair wanting to pursue a career, there is absolutely nothing about being in a wheelchair that remotely prevents this, but if the buildings where such job opportunities lack disabled access it is going to be very difficult. Therefore disabled access is vital for equality for disabled people (and speaking as someone who is a bit disabled because of my ankle, I can tell you the difference between buildings with disabled access and the old fashioned ones lacking it is night and day).

Similarly while childbearing is irrelevant to a woman's ability to do what she might wish, it can act as a hindrance to her ability to act upon that ability. Moreover, as I explained many pages back, in a society where women in general cannot take control over their own reproduction, it will create a patriarchal atmosphere that will affect even those women who never have children for whatever reason. For this reason birth control, including abortion, is vital to gender equality.

[Bud Struggle]

Similarly while childbearing is irrelevant to a woman's ability to do what she might wish, it can act as a hindrance to her ability to act upon that ability. Moreover, as I explained many pages back, in a society where women in general cannot take control over their own reproduction, it will create a patriarchal atmosphere that will affect even those women who never have children for whatever reason. For this reason birth control, including abortion, is vital to gender equality.

That's all fine--but it's a matter of timing...why can't a woman be in charge of her own reproduction up to the point of insemination instead of birth? Women can be as free as they want till the egg is fertilized--after that she bears responsibility for her actions (rape not withstanding.) She had gender equality, but with responsibility.

Secondly, why can't an aborted viable fetus be aborted in a way that it can be put on life support. Maybe the procedures aren't quite yet developed, but surely they could be. If the fetus is viable--why not let it actually have a chance at life? Surely that wouldn't hurt anyone--especially if the procedure cold be made safe as abortion.

[Demogorgon]

That's all fine--but it's a matter of timing...why can't a woman be in charge of her own reproduction up to the point of insemination instead of birth? Women can be as free as they want till the egg is fertilized--after that she bears responsibility for her actions (rape not withstanding.) She had gender equality, but with responsibility.

Secondly, why can't an aborted viable fetus be aborted in a way that it can be put on life support. Maybe the procedures aren't quite yet developed, but surely they could be. If the fetus is viable--why not let it actually have a chance at life? Surely that wouldn't hurt anyone--especially if the procedure cold be made safe as abortion.
Allowing contraception without abortion will get us part of the way to gender equality of course. The issue is birth control in general, abortion is just part of it, but it is an important part. Certainly limited birth control is better than no birth control, but complete birth control is also better than limited birth control.

As for your second question, the technology absolutely does not exist. For one thing most abortions happen early in pregnancy where we really are talking about "a bundle of cells". Also you have to realise that late term abortions are actually quite different from birth. We talked about so called "partial birth abortion" a while ago, but the truth is it is not like birth at all, extracting it live would be a quite different thing and has not been pursued for the reason that it is less desirable. That is what you need to remember about late term abortions, sometimes women only realise they are pregnant later on, but that is very rare, generally they happen because circumstances change and an earlier decision to give birth has to be reversed, whether it be for health or for social reasons.

Now were it possible for the fetus to be magically extracted and placed in the womb of a woman who wanted a child then that would be great, but it isn't possible so we need abortion.

[Robert]

why can't a woman be in charge of her own reproduction up to the point of insemination instead of birth? Women can be as free as they want till the egg is fertilized--after that she bears responsibility for her actions (rape not withstanding.)

So did you by chance mean rape excepted?

[Robert]

Now were it possible for the fetus to be magically extracted and placed in the womb of a woman who wanted a child then that would be great

Right. But if it were, could it be morally required?

[Bud Struggle]

So did you by chance mean rape excepted?


Yea, yea--sure. :crying:

[mikelepore]

Similarly while childbearing is irrelevant to a woman's ability to do what she might wish, it can act as a hindrance to her ability to act upon that ability. Moreover, as I explained many pages back, in a society where women in general cannot take control over their own reproduction, it will create a patriarchal atmosphere that will affect even those women who never have children for whatever reason. For this reason birth control, including abortion, is vital to gender equality.

It could also be the case that a woman is stuck with a six month old baby, and this hinders her opportunities and freedom, but most people would say that she still shouldn't kill the baby whose age is birth-plus-six-months. The abortion opponent says, likewise, just because it hinders her opportunities and freedom, she shouldn't kill the baby whose age is birth-MINUS-six-months. I don't see any way to deny their point except to use the fact that a fetus isn't a baby.

[Demogorgon]

It could also be the case that a woman is stuck with a six month old baby, and this hinders her opportunities and freedom, but most people would say that she still shouldn't kill the baby whose age is birth-plus-six-months. The abortion opponent says, likewise, just because it hinders her opportunities and freedom, she shouldn't kill the baby whose age is birth-MINUS-six-months. I don't see any way to deny their point except to use the fact that a fetus isn't a baby.
Because it is about control over childbearing. A six month old baby is a separate human being with its own set of rights. The mother however needs to be given the choice over whether to have such a child in the first place.

Again I must emphasise, this is not about abortion in isolation, it is about birth control in general, of which abortion is an essential part. Think about other forms of birth control. Would you deny that the pill has done a lot for female equality for instance?

[mikelepore]

There too, the social advantages of the birth control pill wouldn't be a sufficient justification for its use if it were any truth to the supposed evil that some people claim for it. For example, some religious people say that use of the morning-after pill (levonorgestrel) is the act of bringing a new immortal soul into existence, only to immediately condemn it to an eternity in hell. If they were right, the sex partners' conveniences wouldn't be sufficient to justify the use of that pill. So instead of listing the social advantages, I prefer to deny their assertion about the evil that is supposedly performed.

[Demogorgon]

There too, the social advantages of the birth control pill wouldn't be a sufficient justification for its use if it were any truth to the supposed evil that some people claim for it. For example, some religious people say that use of the morning-after pill (levonorgestrel) is the act of bringing a new immortal soul into existence, only to immediately condemn it to an eternity in hell. If they were right, the sex partners' conveniences wouldn't be sufficient to justify the use of that pill. So instead of listing the social advantages, I prefer to deny their assertion about the evil that is supposedly performed.Okay-but you still have the problem that you have to present an alternative perspective as to why birth control is a good thing rather than not merely a bad thing. Remember what I said earlier about not trying to convince hard line pro-lifers but rather appeal to the undecided. The nutter who believes that the souls of the unborn burn in hell for eternity (and to be fair very few people do believe that) isn't going to be convinced to change his or her mind by anything. Rather someone who is as yet unsure as to their position or is only mildly pro-life needs to be won over and to do that we need to point out the positive social effects of birth control.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Whenever a Catholic tells me how wrong it is to take life for research/abortion, I quickly point out the Crusades, the Pope's agreement with Hitler, and the constant attack the Church has performed against other nations and peoples, and the fact they turn a blind eye to genocide in the Balkans.
Right. Two wrongs don't make a right, but five do. Outstanding logic.