"Gasp" I finally agree with Kerry!

[Avder]

I know that, you know that, but I count at least one person who thinks thats immoral and one who thinks stem cell research leads to more abortions in the future.

[snoopy]

How will stem cell research leat to more abortions? Will people start offering up their unborn fetuses to scientific research corporations for money? Will Said corporations start up "fetus farms" where they get women pregnant and then harvest the created fetuses? Will they start publicly offering money for women to have abortions so they can collect fetuses? I'm pretty damn sure that there are almost no people in society that would stand for any of those possibilities, so I would like to know how you see yout prediction playing out.

Additionally, Kd, I am waiting for your responce to my previous post.

Donating your fetus to stem cell research is more easily justifiable than simply throwing it away.

If a woman can't quite decide what to do, the idea of having an abortion "for a good cause" would probably tip the balance in the favor of having the abortion. Believe me, having an abortion is a hard decision for alot of the women out there.

What is used for the research would depend on the limitations that are placed on what and can't be used. So, if they allow aborted [insert technical term here] to be used- do you think people won't?

[Topher]

What DCrazy said...again.

[Kd527]

Avder, It's ok if the side effect of the treatment kills the baby. BUT, it's not right to go in there and intentionally kill the baby. only if it happens by chance. Attempts should be made to try not to kill the baby.

DCrazy, that's great that you think that convenience abortions are wrong. HOWEVER, that doesn't cut it. You have to believe ALL the teachings of the Church.

The adult stem cells come from the placenta. So only females can donate them. Now here's something new: They're finding bone marrow works for the same uses. That would be even better, and everyone could skip this debate.

Is there anything I missed answering? I won't be back till tomorrow.

[Topher]

Now here's something new: They're finding bone marrow works for the same uses. That would be even better, and everyone could skip this debate.

That's nice, except you didn't post a source. For all we know, you could be lieing, which is definitely not one of the Church's teachings, am I right?

[DCrazy]

DCrazy, that's great that you think that convenience abortions are wrong. HOWEVER, that doesn't cut it. You have to believe ALL the teachings of the Church.

And who says that? The Church? Great logic there, huh? Note that I never said that I am still a practicing Catholic, and this is exactly why.

Bone marrow only produces blood cells. Yes, bone marrow is a stem cell, but it's a multipotent stem cell, meaning it can only differentiate into a few kinds of cells, whereas pluripotent stem cells can become anything in the human body (am I the only one who feels like a broken record?).

[Kyouryuu]

If you can't trust a woman to make a choice, how can you trust her with a child?

[Ferno]

Sol: you can't.

take a look at all the young single mothers out there.

[Kd527]

That's nice, except you didn't post a source. For all we know, you could be lieing, which is definitely not one of the Church's teachings, am I right?

I can assure you that I'm not lieing. I don't know off the top of my head, but I will see if I can find it.

Kyouryuu, who said anything about that?

[kurupt]

why do people call the murderer card when its a hypothetical situation, but when hypothetical turns into real people wont go near it?

[Kd527]

I'm not sure I understand what you mean.

[snoopy]

why do people call the murderer card when its a hypothetical situation, but when hypothetical turns into real people wont go near it?

I don't understand.

[Kd527]

OK guys, here.

[Dedman]

If you can't trust a woman to make a choice, how can you trust her with a child?

I don't trust anything that can bleed for a week and not die

[DCrazy]

ROFL @ Kd. It figures. That magazine's mission statement is to defy popular science! You have been had.

For Christ's sake, it cites LaRouche!!!

[Kd527]

Actually, I think this is the one, but either way, it goes to show you that more than one source has that in it. Look around at this one that I just posted.

OK, fine. It's to challenge popular science, but so what? The popular view is not the only one.

Maybe that wasn't the best source, but take a look at the more recent one.

[DCrazy]

You are in desperate need of some critical reading and thinking skills. You're posting stories from organizations with a set agenda against embryonic stem cell research (and in the case of 21st Century Magazine, against all logic in general) whereas everybody else in the world is following scientific journals.

[Gooberman]

masturbation is homicide

[kurupt]

what i'm talking about is the constant way this has been debated on this board for years. we have one group saying that there is always another option besides abortion and a group that believes in the woman's right to choose. it is common practice for the pro-lifers to call people who have abortions murderers, but how come when i presented a case where my potential child was aborted it was completely dodged and nobody called me a murderer? i presented all of my options and i chose to not take them, so by the logic previously presented i should be incarcerated.

stick to your guns or don't draw them, is what i'm getting at.

[Avder]

You didnt make that decision, she did. Behind your back, no less. You cant hold yourself accountable for someone elses decisions, and I dont think anyone else here will either.

[Vertigo 99]

masturbation is homicide

Congradulations, Goob. Amongst this train-wreck of a thread, you have won the "Post of the Thread" award.

Keep up the good work!

[kurupt]

You didnt make that decision, she did. Behind your back, no less. You cant hold yourself accountable for someone elses decisions, and I dont think anyone else here will either.

thats my stance too, but i'm wondering is it the stance of the pro-lifers? i'm pro-choice. the pro-lifers from what i understand are of the opinion that under no circumstance is abortion not murder and all those involved are equally to blame. i'm one of the parties, so am i a murderer?

[Kd527]

not necessarily. but abortion is always murder because it can always be avoided. I'm not talking about when the treatment to save a mother accidentally kills the baby.

[Avder]

I'd like to consider myself a Pro-Lifer when possible. Unfortunately, its fanatics like Kd that remind me that thats not always possible.

[kurupt]

but abortion is always murder because it can always be avoided. I'm not talking about when the treatment to save a mother accidentally kills the baby.

right, so by not quitting my job, typing her up in the closet and only letting her out to eat and use the bathroom, and not sleeping for 9 months, i am a murderer by your logic, correct? thats all i want to know.

[Kd527]

think about it. There is never a need for abortion. it's that simple.

kurupt, I don't get it. I probably missed a post of yours a while back. Please explain.

[kurupt]

i had a girlfriend who had an abortion without telling me. i could have stopped her by tying her up and making sure she never left my sight 24 hours a day. i wouldnt have slept for 9 months, but i could have stopped her. i would have to had quit my job to do this, thus i wouldnt have been able to support my baby, but i could have stopped her.

am i a murderer?

page 2 toward the middle

this is exactly what i want you to answer:

after knowing what happened (in a nutshell, at least) would you say i'm a murderer because i didn't take every step i could have taken to prevent that abortion?

[Ferno]

hey KD.. did ya ever think what the kid would go through when he figures out he's unwanted?

[Kd527]

Adoption guys. The kid could be adopted. No, I don't think you're a murderer, especially if you didn't know that it was going to happen.

[snoopy]

hey KD.. did ya ever think what the kid would go through when he figures out he's unwanted?

There are plenty of people out there that where "accidents." It's all a matter of perspective- parents can approach it as an unexpected blessing, or as an unwanted curse. A kid who figures out he's unwanted is one who has bad parents, not one who wasn't purposely conceived.

Kur- That's like saying you're responsible for rape because you knew a rapist. You're not responsible for preventing what *might* happen- you're responsible for not doing wrong yourself. The behind your back part indicates that you didn't *know* she was going to have abortion, or take part in that decision- that absolves you of responsibility for what she did. I would credit murder to her, though.

But, then, I'll show my hypocracy. I don't exactly want to be using a condom for the rest of my life, and I don't exactly want to be making another baby each time I have sex- so I kinda like the idea of the pill. How does that fit in? Well, I guess it just depends on when it goes from being just cells, to being another human being. If the egg is a human as soon as it is ensemenated, then tons of "natural abortions" happen because of the way biology works, and at the same time the pill would essentially be killing all those concieved people who never get a chance to implant. I guess that's just something I will have to figure out when I get to that point.

[kurupt]

then how can the abortion is murder stance be used in all cases if it is clearly not murder in all cases?

[Top Gun]

Kurupt, you're not a murderer since you had no part in the abortion. You yourself did not encourage your girlfriend to have one, and you did not aid her in any way. In fact, from what you say, you had no idea that your girlfriend even wanted an abortion. If you tied up any pregnant woman for nine months to make sure she did not have an abortion, you'd be arrested for kidnapping. Obviously, there is a limit as to how much you can prevent someone from having an abortion. Ultimately, the responsibility and the consequences lie on the woman who has an abortion. That being said, if you had actively encouraged and aided her, you would share her culpability. Note that I am not judging your girlfriend or calling her a murderer; such tactics do nothing against abortion and really cause more harm than good. That being said, she did end her pregnancy, and she is held responsible for that action.

I personally believe that any abortion is the conscious ending of a fully human life. By that definition, yes, abortion is a murder. However, I also realize that many women are in a very conflicted emotional state when they have an abortion, and many more undergo severe depression and distress after having an abortion. I think the key has to be understanding and forgiveness, not condemnation.

I'm sorry for what happened to you; it had to cause you trauma, regardless of your beliefs on abortion or the beginning of life. I'm also sorry that your girlfriend felt that this was the best option. I hope that she will eventaully come to terms about what she did and realize that she did end a life.

Snoopy, you're right in thinking that birth-control methods such as the Pill and hormonal injections do prevent implantation. In fact, they're often referred to as "abortifacients," since they are essentially preventing the development of the fertilized egg. Obviously, no woman is in any way responsible for a spontaneous abortion, or miscarriage; these things happen, and no one can really say why. However, I would consider a woman who uses the pill, while understanding exactly how it works, as being guilty of having an abortion. Also, artificial methods of birth control aren't the only way to prevent a pregnancy. The method known as natural family planning involves monitoring natural signs in a woman's menstrual cycle to determine when the time of least fertility is. This method, if used correctly, is highly effective. In fact, it can also be used to intentionally become pregnant by having sex at the most fertile time. There are many publications about this method out there; check one out if you're interested.

[SSX-Thunderbird]

Most birth control methods involving drugs given to the woman (Norplant, the pill) prevent ovulation by making her body think it is already pregnant. They do not stop implantation. The "morning after" pill does prevent implantation, but it's the only type of drug (that I know of) that does this.

[Topher]

Actually, if memory serves...

The modern day birth control pill does three things:
1. Prevents ovulation.
2. In the event of ovulation, it prevents the sperm from penetrating the egg.
3. In the event the sperm does penetrate the egg, it prevents the egg from implanting in the uterus.

The "morning after pill" is the same as the daily birth control pill or patch, but is a much higher dosage.

The method known as natural family planning involves monitoring natural signs in a woman's menstrual cycle to determine when the time of least fertility is. This method, if used correctly, is highly effective.

Define "highly effective"? I've heard withdrawl is around 70% effective, which in my book is way, way too low to be considered a viable option of birth control. The scenario above doesn't even involve withdrawing, so I'm led to believe that it would be less effective.

[Top Gun]

Thunderbird, if a woman on the Pill does manage to conceive, the hormonal changes that the Pill causes will prevent implantation of the fertilized egg. It's not the intended result, but it happens nontheless

Topher, I believe I've heard statictics above the 90% mark, but I can't be sure. Suffice it to say that it is much more effective than the withdrawl method. I do know that it is fairly complicated, including monitoring the woman's temperature, mucus flow (without getting disgusting ), and other bodily symptoms that are a normal part of the menstrual cycle. It fosters communication between husband and wife. As I said, there is always a slight chance of pregnancy, but it does not contain any of the potential moral implications of artificial means of birth control. Incidentally, the Catholic Church approves of natural family planning, since it is a form of spacing pregnancies that doesn' involve any artificial barriers, chemicals, or anything else that directly interferes with the sexual act.

[Topher]

Well I would say you need to have some research before you can justify 90%, but I'll give it to you.

Incidentally, the Catholic Church approves of natural family planning, since it is a form of spacing pregnancies that doesn' involve any artificial barriers, chemicals, or anything else that directly interferes with the sexual act.

Isn't planning to have sex when least likely to get pregnant interfering with the act of reproduction? I don't know what the Catholic Church's view on sex is, whether it is purely for reproduction or can be used for pleasure. If you can't use any materials or chemicals to prevent pregnancy, is it ok to use such methods to induce it? (Like drugs to drop more eggs, artificial insemination) Technically they would also be "interferes with the sexual act"?

(I'm not trying to prove a point, or pick a side, I'm just playing devil's advocate. )

[Avder]

I too seem to recall some Catholic hatred of Family Planning institutions. Lets have it, TopGun.

[snoopy]

Kur- Know that I'm not trying to condemn anyone, but at the same time that's where you are trying to corner me. I'm not into pointing fingers at people, I generally try to keep the finger pointed at actions. My point in bringing up "the pill" is that it's hard not to have a double standard when it comes to this topic. I mean, as long as sex is going to be not only for reproduction, but also for recreation, birth control is going to be an issue. And, that's where I have issues with abortion- when abortion is just another form of birth control. I understand medical issues, though I do think that the majority of the time there are ways other than abortion.

1) Partial birth abortions just shouldn't be. Cecerians exist for a reason.

2) Abortions shouldn't be birth control. (convinience)

3) Birth control should prevent conception, not implantation.

That's what I think- not there though areas- like rape pregnancies- that make opinions like mine look heartless, I guess that's part of having an opinion.

Topher, I believe you are right. (I read up a tad on B.C. after posting) "The Pill" primarily prevents the sperm from reaching the egg. That, along with timed abstinence, (what TG is talking about) would not lead to any conception, I would think. (I.E. I would probably take it easy for a few days, to clear my conscious about preventing implantation.)

As for fertility stuff, I think the church would be equally opposed to that.

[Top Gun]

Topher, although people using NFP are waiting to have sex until the woman's least fertile times, they're still not actively doing anything to prevent conception. There is still that chance for pregnancy, and the couple knows that fact. This can be contrasted with something like the withdrawl method. Although that doesn't seem to be artificial, it's a conscious act to separate sex from the chance of pregnancy. NFP, while lessening the chance of pregnancy, does not involve that same sort of act. I guess you could say it's as much about the intentions or mindset of the couple as it is about the physical action. NFP almost implies a pregnancy at some later time, but other methods do not do so. It's a distinction that's a little difficult to put into words, but suffice it to say that, at least in the Church's eyes, that distinction is there. This all ties in with Church teaching on sex itself, as I'll describe next.

Topher, according to the Church, sex is not solely about having children vs. pleasure. In fact, the Church states that the sexual act involves both reproduction and pleasure. The actual terms most often used are "unitive" and "procreative." The former as a celebration of the love between a husband and wife, the latter as a sharing in God's act of creation by bringing new life into the world. From that statement, you can see that the Church places a great deal of importance on human sexuality; it is seen as acting with God to create new life, a very noble action. This also ties in with Church teachings on homosexuality, same-sex marriage, and other sexual issues. The Church is opposed to sexual activities, including such things as masturbation, voyeurism, and extramarital sex, since they take place outside the context of that dual purpose of sex, as the ultimate expression of love between a married couple and as an action of bringing of new life. As for same-sex marriage, obviously two men or two women are incapable of having a child through sex, so homosexual actions are also a violation of this ultimate purpose of human sexuality. Just as a side note, the Church is not prejudiced against homosexuals, recognizing that there are at least some aspects to homosexuality that cannot be freely decided upon by the person in question. What the Church is opposed to is homosexual actions.

I'm not exactly sure of the totality of Church teaching on fertility treatments, but I can give you some basics. The Church is opposed to artificial insemination, firstly because it represents that intervention in creating a pregnancy outside of the marital sexual act, secondly because, in most cases, the man must masturbate to produce the required semen for the procedure. These are also two of the reasons why the Church is opposed to in-vitro fertilization; the third, and perhaps most pressing, being that, during the procedure, extra embryos are created that wind up being discarded, an act of abortion. As for fertility drugs that would cause a woman to produce more eggs, I can honestly say that I'm not sure. Personally, I would think that this would be permissible, because the egg would be fertilized through the natural sexual act; however, I'm not sure of official Chruch doctrine concerning this. I do know, however, that the Church has no problems with male erectile dysfunction drugs such as Viagra, Levitra, or Cialis; they enable conception through overcoming a physical disability, not through artificial intervention. It is for this reason that I don't think the Church would oppose fertility drugs for women, as long as there was no effort to remove multiple embryos, of course. The key issue would be if the interference has any direct impact on how the child is conceived, namely through natural sexual intercourse. If this is affected, then the method would not be morally permissible. By the way, Topher, you're not playing the devil's advocate; you're actually asking some intelligent questions that I've done my best to answer .

Avder, or Vader, but not Vander , the Church is opposed to most international family planning organizations, including Planned Parenthood and UNICEF, since they promote artificial contraception as a method of family planning, which violates Church doctrine. Obviously, Planned Parenthood goes a lot farther in setting up abortion clinics across the United States and elsewhere. As a slight side note, whatever your beliefs on abortion is, it's not too hard to hate Planned Parenthood and what it stands for. I've heard many cases of ex-employees admitting to low medical standards, frequent lying to patients concerning abortion, and even cases of serious injuries or deaths being covered up. Another point to consider is that Planned Parenthood disproportionately targets African-Americans; 50% of African-American women's pregnancies end in abortion. The founder of Planned Parenthood promoted the idea of eugenics, which involves "purging" the human race of "bad" genes, namely those of non-white races. I state this not to convince you that abortion is wrong but to give you a clearer picture of how this organization operates. They're interested less in the well-being of women and more in the almighty dollar and in promoting their own agendas. So much for "women's health." While I don't have any sources off-hand, I'm sure Google will turn up some relevant results.

[kurupt]

my question was for all the die-hard, never under any circumstances is abortion ok people.