Sanctity of Life (Abortion Megathread)

Peregrinus

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

If I masterbate this evening then a bunch of cells will die, if I sneeze hard then a bunch of calls will die, if I blow my nose then a bunch of cells will die. Does that make me a killer?

No, I wouldn't think so. But if you set out to kill cells, and succeed, that will make you a killer (of cells).

Timberrrrrrrr

Peregrinus wrote: »

No, I wouldn't think so. But if you set out to kill cells, and succeed, that will make you a killer (of cells).

And a 6 week old foetus is nothing but a bunch of cells.

eviltwin

Does the church see the morning after pill as being an abortion?

Peregrinus

eviltwin wrote: »

Does the church see the morning after pill as being an abortion?

I'm open to correction, but I don't think there's any magisterial pronouncements about this; the magisterium tends to pronounce on matters of principle, with the application of the principles to facts and situations being dealt with as it arises by those involved.

As I understand it, your typical morning-after pill can have (at least) two effects. It can prevent ovulation, in which case no conception or fertilisation will ever occur. That wouldn't be viewed by Catholic moralists as abortion. Or it can prevent implantation of the fertilised ovum. That probably would be viewed as abortion (but see below about the exact word to use here). But it doesn't do either of these things with 100% reliability. Typically, if someone takes the pill and does not become pregnant, there is no way of knowing whether it prevented ovulation, or prevented implantation, or pregnancy simply never occurred for reasons unrelated to taking the pill.

So, you could say that the pill can work as an abortifacient, but its very hard to say that on a particular occasion it did. And I don't think you can say that someone who took the pill "had an abortion".

Plus, if you want to split hairs still further, you can argue that neither preventing ovulation nor preventing implantation counts as an abortion. The medics reckon that abortion is the abortion of a pregnancy, and there is no pregnancy until implantation occurs. A fertilised ovum is not, in their view, enough for a pregnancy.

But I don't think arguing about the definition of "abortion" helps here. Whether a particular act is or is not morally problematic can never depend on what word you choose to name the act. If Catholic concerns about abortion are focussed on the fact that it intentionally ends the life of a distinct individual, then the fertilised ovum is a distinct individual (as in, genetically distinct from both its mother and its father), and it's alive, and preventing its implantation brings about its death, which is intended. And whatever moral concerns that gives you aren't really rebutted by saying that medics don't use the term "abortion" for this.

Peregrinus

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

And a 6 week old foetus is nothing but a bunch of cells.

Well, yes, but in the same way an adult human is also nothing but a bunch of cells. That doesn't dictate, in either case, what value we might attribute to the bunch of cells.

But, in the context of this discussion, all this is beside the point. We know that not everybody has the same scale of values on this point as the Catholic church does. It is trivial to criticise the Catholic church's position on reserved sins (or anything else) on the grounds that it is not consistent with your values. Why should it be consistent with your values? A cogent criticism would be that the Catholic church's position on some issue is not consistent with its own professed values.

Absolam

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

If I masterbate this evening then a bunch of cells will die, if I sneeze hard then a bunch of calls will die, if I blow my nose then a bunch of cells will die. Does that make me a killer?

The Didache (and Canon Law) doesn't mention a bunch of cells; so whilst you may well be a killer of bunches of cells, you probably won't be in line for excommunication as a result. If you were the killer of the bunch of cells that comprised a six week old foetus and satisfied the conditions of the canon law however, then you'd have to worry about excommunication.

volchitsa

Peregrinus wrote: »

But, in the context of this discussion, all this is beside the point. We know that not everybody has the same scale of values on this point as the Catholic church does. It is trivial to criticise the Catholic church's position on reserved sins (or anything else) on the grounds that it is not consistent with your values. Why should it be consistent with your values? A cogent criticism would be that the Catholic church's position on some issue is not consistent with its own professed values.

Which would be equally valid as a defence of ISIS' use of captured Yazidi women as sex slaves. Moral relativism, and all that.

Peregrinus

volchitsa wrote: »

Which would be equally valid as a defence of ISIS' use of captured Yazidi women as sex slaves . . .

Or as a defence of the practice of abortion, no?

volchitsa wrote: »

Moral relativism, and all that.

Quite!

But, in all seriousness, what I wrote was not a defence of the Catholic church's view, nor intended to be. It was just pointing out that a criticism of that view which boils down to "I don't agree with it!" is not, in itself, a very trenchant criticism. And it makes for a rather tired and sterile argument, off into which it would probably be better if this thread did not spin. We have plenty of other threads that have already died on those particular barricades.

volchitsa

Peregrinus wrote: »

Or as a defence of the practice of abortion, no?

Well of course. But only one possible defence of legal abortion, and certainly not the only one.

Peregrinus wrote: »

But, in all seriousness, what I wrote was not a defence of the Catholic church's view. It was just pointing out that a criticism of that view which boils down to "I don't agree with it!" is not, in itself, a very trenchant criticism.

Doesn't that depend? If I say I don't agree with rape, presumably that is because at that point in the conversation it's already clear what my reasons are and there's no need to set them all out.

Peregrinus

Peregrinus wrote: »

Well, I don't want this discussion to degenerate into the usual sterile shouting match. But there can be no doubt that in an abortion something dies, and the purpose of having an abortion is to bring that death about. Whether that which dies is a human person or not, we need not discuss. The issue here is not whether you or I think abortion is murder, but whether there is a reason why the Catholic church would treat abortion as a graver matter than adultery or other sexual sins. And, given Catholic beliefs, it's clearly not irrational to make that distinction of gravity.

Abortion does involve the extinction of life in an organism. The importance anyone attaches to that depends on the value they attribute to the organism.

Once again, extending this same logic, sperm dies when a male masturbates. Should masturbation be added to the list of the reserved sins?

Why the contrast?

Peregrinus

Are you following the thread, emmet02? I think we've already covered this when Timberrrr asked basically the same question here.

The Catholic church doesn't attribute the same moral value to a collection of cells as it does to an intrinsically complete cellular organism. There's no obvious reason why it should, and no obvious inconsistency in not doing so.

Peregrinus

Peregrinus wrote: »

Are you following the thread, emmet02? I think we've already covered this when Timberrrr asked basically the same question here.

The Catholic church doesn't attribute the same moral value to a collection of cells as it does to an intrinsically complete cellular organism. There's no obvious reason why it should, and no obvious inconsistency in not doing so.

yes, sorry, just replied to the post before reading down.

From a biological perspective, are you extraordinarily confident in these as adequate descriptors of the discussed, and also confident that there exists sufficiently absolute differences between them so as to render them mutually exclusive?

• collection of cells
• intrinsically complete cellular organism

For completeness, we're considering the following

• sperm
• foetus (of any post-implantation stage)

(also, I've addressed the question to you, but acknowledge that you are attempting to answer 'from the point of view of the Catholic Church' so this might not quite work. I'm just looking for some clarity on how the lines were drawn, and if there is any logic to it)

Peregrinus

I'm not a cellular biologist so, yeah, I could be getting some of the terminology, or the underlying concepts, wrong.

But I don't have any difficulty with the general notion that a developing human individual can reasonably be regarded as morally distinct from an emission of sperm, and I honestly don't think many other people have much difficulty with that notion either. (I'm not saying that most other people share this view; just that they can see how it could be held; it's not a mystery to them.)

The fact is that the development of the human individual is a continuum that takes decades to unfold. There are various milestones along the way, but there isn't really a clearly identifiable point at which there is any irrefutable case for saying "this is the point at which the human individual acquires the moral status of a person, with rights". We all have intuitions about this, and we sometimes try to dress them up with an air of objective validity through the language of science, but I think usually without success.

When Timberrrr says that a six-week old foetus is "nothing but a bunch of cells" that's true, but it doesn't distinguish the six-week old foetus from the woman carrying it; she is also "nothing but a bunch of cells". So as a justification for recognising her right to choose but not the foetus's right to life this falls over pretty quickly.

We can, of course, point to characteristics that she has but the foetus doesn't share - sentience, viability, consciousness, the ability to play the mandolin - but we still need to make a case for why viability, or the ability to play the mandolin, or whichever one of these we have chosen is the characteristic which carries with it human personhood, and the acquisition of rights that others are bound to respect. And that's really difficult because, basically, rights and duties are moral concepts which cannot be empirically observed. You can't prove the existence of any "right" - in this context, neither the right to life nor the right to choose. And equally you can't demonstrate that anyone who asserts any right is incorrect. All you can do is say that you don't agree. But he can say exactly the same thing to you.

You might not share the Catholic church's position here, and I am not attempting to persuade you that you should. But on this issue it does seem to me to be internally consistent.

And if I'm right, from the Catholic Church's perspective, implantation is where the line is drawn between 'clump of cells' and 'human thing'?

The question I'm asking is how the Catholic Church has chosen that line.

Interestingly, has implantation always been the 'line'?

Timberrrrrrrr

Peregrinus wrote: »

Well, yes, but in the same way an adult human is also nothing but a bunch of cells. That doesn't dictate, in either case, what value we might attribute to the bunch of cells.

But, in the context of this discussion, all this is beside the point. We know that not everybody has the same scale of values on this point as the Catholic church does. It is trivial to criticise the Catholic church's position on reserved sins (or anything else) on the grounds that it is not consistent with your values. Why should it be consistent with your values? A cogent criticism would be that the Catholic church's position on some issue is not consistent with its own professed values.

Words that should never be seen in the same sentence imo.

Peregrinus

Deleted User wrote: »

And if I'm right, from the Catholic Church's perspective, implantation is where the line is drawn between 'clump of cells' and 'human thing'?

No, fertilisation.

Deleted User wrote: »

The question I'm asking is how the Catholic Church has chosen that line.

It's influenced by the insights of science. At the point of fertilisation we have an intrinsically complete human individual, genetically unique and genetically distinct from both its parents. This is the starting point of the continuum of development of the human organism that I mentioned earlier. From this there's a continuous development to maturity (unless interrupted by earlier death).

Deleted User wrote: »

Interestingly, has implantation always been the 'line'?

No, since this understanding of human growth and development can't be arrived at until the microscope has been invented, etc. Pre-modern understandings of human development saw it as a different kind of continuum. The male sperm contained a tiny "homunculus" which did not, however, grow into a human person until placed in the nurturing environment of the female womb. (There was no notion that the female contributed any genetic material to the child; she just nurtured it.) At some point after implantation the homunculus would grow and, in time, "quicken" into human life. Prior to that point it was alive (because it was growing) but it was a lower condition of life.

On this view, while terminating a pregnancy was never a morally good or permissible act, it became more gravely wrong as the pregnancy progressed. As a crude and oversimplified generalisation, once quickening had been experienced, typically between 15 and 20 weeks along, abortion was seen as not morally distinguishable from infanticide (as bracketed in the passage from the Didache that Absolam quoted). Prior to that it was seen as less grave, but still wrong.

Timberrrrrrrr

Absolam wrote: »

The Didache (and Canon Law) doesn't mention a bunch of cells; so whilst you may well be a killer of bunches of cells, you probably won't be in line for excommunication as a result. If you were the killer of the bunch of cells that comprised a six week old foetus and satisfied the conditions of the canon law however, then you'd have to worry about excommunication.

I wouldn't lose any sleep to be honest.

Absolam

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

I wouldn't lose any sleep to be honest.

There you go then, nothing to worry about.

Two Sheds

Ninth Video released -

This latest video catches a Planned Parenthood medical director discussing how the abortion company sells fully intact aborted babies — including one who “just fell out” of the womb.

Absolam

I haven't been following this but...
My understanding is that some units of a chain of abortion/family planning/reproductive health care clinics which receive federal funding have allegedly been illegally selling the body parts of aborted foetuses.
Based on this, some States have withdrawn federal funding from the chain, which might in itself be illegal.
Is that about it?

Overheal

Yep, no solid evidence, so far if at all.

Timberrrrrrrr

Absolam wrote: »

I haven't been following this but...
My understanding is that some units of a chain of abortion/family planning/reproductive health care clinics which receive federal funding have allegedly been illegally selling the body parts of aborted foetuses.
Based on this, some States have withdrawn federal funding from the chain, which might in itself be illegal.
Is that about it?

Actually they haven't been selling anything they have been charging for transportation of the foetuses to cover those costs. The pro life crowd have taken the standard e that PP are "selling" dead babies for research because it gets much more of an emotional response. 9 videos in and still not a single shred of evidence of any wrong doing or illegality by PP.

eviltwin

Even if it was true I don't see the big deal provided the woman has given consent.

Peregrinus

eviltwin wrote: »

Even if it was true I don't see the big deal provided the woman has given consent.

I gather that opinions differ as to whether the women concerned have given consent.

And you can probably predict with reasonable accuracy who says that the women haven't consented, and who says they have.

robdonn

eviltwin wrote: »

Even if it was true I don't see the big deal provided the woman has given consent.

The big deal is that it is illegal, even if the woman gives consent. If your husband/wife/child dies you cannot sell their body to medical science, it can only be donated. Once within the medical/science community, they also cannot sell it, but they can recoup costs of handling and transportation which is what PP appear to be doing, despite the best efforts of some people to add a sinister spin to it all.

Peregrinus

Obviously the law varies from place to place but, in general, you cannot sell human remains or human tissue. So the allegations are

(a) PP is selling human remains/human tissue, and this is illegal; or

(b) PP is claiming to donate human remains/human tissue but is levying cost recovery charges which generate a profit for PP or are intended to do so, and so is in substance selling them; and this is illegal

and in either case

(c) whatever it is that PP is doing, they are doing it without the consent, or the informed consent, of some, or all, or any of the women concerned, and this is illegal or unethical or both.

robdonn

Absolam wrote: »

I haven't been following this but...
My understanding is that some units of a chain of abortion/family planning/reproductive health care clinics which receive federal funding have allegedly been illegally selling the body parts of aborted foetuses.
Based on this, some States have withdrawn federal funding from the chain, which might in itself be illegal.
Is that about it?

To expand on Timberrrrrrrr's explanation, Planned Parenthood are being accused of selling body parts or entire bodies of aborted foetuses. The only evidence that has been provided to support this are the (as of this post) 9 undercover videos recorded by CMP (Center for Medical Progress), an organisation set up to try remove legal access to abortions.

So far the videos have shown little to support the claims. There are some very unsavoury comments made by some Planned Parenthood staff members, including a dark joke by one Director about wanting a Lamborghini during discussions of recouping costs, but the conversations were casual and over lunch and most of us would say things and make jokes that we normally wouldn't if we knew we were being recorded. None of the comments made in the videos so far actually indicate any illegal activity.

As for states de-funding PP, this has happened in a handful of states without waiting for the results of any investigations (all results so far have shown no evidence for the accused activity). Some of the states that have de-funded PP do not actually have PP clinics that perform abortions at all, meaning that they couldn't be selling aborted foetus parts even if they wanted to.

The accusations are serious and everyone supports an investigation, if they turn out to be true then there should be serious consequences for all involved, but the situation has turned political and is being amplified by the current election climate, so certain politicians are acting prematurly in an effort to garner political support or simply to act on their own distaste for abortion services.

As for the investigation, so far nothing has been found to support the claims made in the videos.

volchitsa

Peregrinus wrote: »

whatever it is that PP is doing, they are doing it without the consent, or the informed consent, of some, or all, or any of the women concerned, and this is illegal or unethical or both.

The OP alleges, presumably based on the early videos, that the women were being paid for the body parts. Has that allegation now been dropped?

am946745 wrote: »

http://www.lifenews.com/2015/07/14/planned-parenthood-defends-selling-body-parts-of-aborted-babies-calls-body-parts-tissue/

Its worth noting that mothers are being paid for the "donated" body parts of their children.

Peregrinus

No SFAIK. That would be an alternative allegation to the "no consent" allegation and, if true, would again be illegal. PP can't sell human tissue, and neither can the women.

volchitsa

Peregrinus wrote: »

No SFAIK. That would be an alternative allegation to the "no consent" allegation and, if true, would again be illegal. PP can't sell human tissue, and neither can the women.

But I though you said that in either case there was no consent given. Unless you meant the fetus' consent - but presumably if there was any question of requiring fetal consent that would be essential for an abortion in the first place? Which we know isn't the case!