I was ignorant on the extent of this view of abortion. Chile, El Salvador, and Nicaragua all ban all abortions with no exceptions. Nicaragua only passed its law last December. Women are prosecuted and imprisoned in El Salvador for getting abortions.

__________________
1977 300d 70k--sold 08
1985 300TD 185k+
1984 307d 126k--sold 8/03
1985 409d 65k--sold 06
1984 300SD 315k--daughter's car
1979 300SD 122k--sold 2/11
1999 Fuso FG Expedition Camper
1993 GMC Sierra 6.5 TD 4x4
1982 Bluebird Wanderlodge CAT 3208--Sold 2/13

Against all abortions on moral grounds, or just some?

For instance, as a reversal, I'm against some pregnancies on moral grounds. I don't think women should get pregnant in order to trap a man into marrying her. On the other hand, I'm not in favor of outlawing pregnancies, but I also would probably be in favor of some restrictions.

__________________
1977 300d 70k--sold 08
1985 300TD 185k+
1984 307d 126k--sold 8/03
1985 409d 65k--sold 06
1984 300SD 315k--daughter's car
1979 300SD 122k--sold 2/11
1999 Fuso FG Expedition Camper
1993 GMC Sierra 6.5 TD 4x4
1982 Bluebird Wanderlodge CAT 3208--Sold 2/13

I wouldn't presume to argue the Church's stance in the particulars. I believe that I have it right when I say that they believe that human life begins at conception and from that moment, the life of the zygote is equal to the life of any other human being. I know they addressed the "every sperm is sacred" argument by acknowledging that wiggly little sperm cells are created and die in the millions and nobody has any control over that. They also acknowledge the fact of menstruation and the shedding of the unfertilized egg. They also acknowledge spontaneous abortion as God's will just as the death of any other person is one of those God's will thingies.

The Roman Catholic Church says that preventing pregnancy is a sin because it is Man thwarting God's will for life. This is not murder of a human but it is a sin, since thwarting God's will is the definition of sin.

The church's view has been refined as scientific knowledge has demanded clarification. The church is and must always be reactionary in dealing with scientific discovery, unless God were to reveal future scientific discoveries to the church -- just for the hell of it.

Bot

But the issue isn't a scientific one at all. Can a scientist tell us when a thing has the qualities that make it necessary that it be respected as a human being? Those things have almost always been qualities of the soul, not the body. Can a scientist tell us when a zygote, embryo or fetus gets its soul? The old argument about 'quickening' was that the baby 'moved' and its motion is caused by its soul. What evidence is there that we get our souls when we get our DNA?
For instance, having a soul has a lot to do with having self-consciousness. There are tests which many people think show that it is quite a long time after birth that infants first gain any self-awareness. Why not say that they get their soul at that point of self-awareness?

__________________
1977 300d 70k--sold 08
1985 300TD 185k+
1984 307d 126k--sold 8/03
1985 409d 65k--sold 06
1984 300SD 315k--daughter's car
1979 300SD 122k--sold 2/11
1999 Fuso FG Expedition Camper
1993 GMC Sierra 6.5 TD 4x4
1982 Bluebird Wanderlodge CAT 3208--Sold 2/13

I can only imagine that over countless millennia, this issue was a no brainer for most humanoids struggling to survive. Of course, they usually didn't have much access to safe abortion but there have been various methods practiced for a long time:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_abortion

If given the choice between a healthy adult female and a fetus, unwanted for various reasons -- rape, defects, etc. -- it was clear that a child w/o a willing mother would be a short-term liability whereas the mature woman would contribute in various ways to the tribe/community. I think the Jewish position is eminently practical.

Over most of human history, a child with serious birth defects was humanely killed. Having such a liability to group welfare was simply out of the question. I read where the Vikings would just put the newborn out in the snow in such cases. They say freezing to death is about the easiest way to go.

__________________
Te futueo et caballum tuum

1986 300SDL, 362K
1984 300D, 138K

I'm being unclear in my thinking or expression.

When the church gets it exactly right (from the analytical eye of history), society takes little notices. When the church takes a position opposite the facts (as in Galileo) or contrary to public sentiment (as in abortion), then the church's role is noticed by everybody.

A 1st century A.D. understanding of embryogenesis is different from modern understanding of embryogenesis because of the advancement of science. Because of the increase in all aspects of knowledge concerning embryogenesis, Man has tools at hand, most of which are safe and reliable to the mother, for prevention of pregnancy or termination of pregnancy. Whenever science provides new insight and new tools it is a challenge to church dogma. Galileo comes to mind most easily.

The same is true for the church's understanding of organic evolution. Within the church, the arguments over Darwin's theory continued for several generations, largely unresolved, until the preponderance of evidence was so compelling that the church was forced to view natural selection as an attribute of God's creation rather than a theory of man. If we look at the church's view of evolution over time, argument-by-argument, generation-after-generation, we see a give and take. Sometimes the church anti-evolutionists held dominance, sometimes the evolutionists. But there was no dogma about evolution until very recently.

Bot

What I was arguing, was that the mere existence of human DNA in a being is no warrant to treat that being according to the typical set of moral rules we follow. For instance, suppose you have human DNA and are in a coma. The rule that we not lie to others, which is based on the fact that other people have the capability to understand and make their own judgments about the truth, no longer applies. You can tell lies to that person all day long and you are doing them no harm.
My point being, that the existence of human DNA in two cells, is no requirement that the being be treated in the same way as an adult normal functioning human being. So, with a typical adult, it's wrong to kill that person because they actually know they have a future and want to live it. They are self-aware and can express their wishes. Similarly, if that same adult asked to be killed, the normal rules against killing are suspended and different rules come into play.
Same thing with the zygote. It doesn't conceptualize its future, it has no brain, it has no will, therefore different moral rules apply. You simply can't treat a zygote like it is an adult, despite the fact that it has human DNA because it just isn't an adult. You are not violating any moral rule if you lie to a zygote, even though it has human DNA.
So, to state that just because a fertlized egg has human DNA requires that we treat it like a normal adult, doesn't make any sense. The rules are different because the being is different.
This says nothing about whether any particular abortion is right or wrong. I'm simply arguing that to say it's wrong to kill an adult because she has human DNA therefore it's wrong to kill a zygote because it has human DNA is deeply flawed reasoning.
To use another example. Suppose we come across a species similar to us which thinks about its future and doesn't want to be killed. Would it be reasonable to claim, that since it doesn't have human DNA, the rule against killing doesn't apply. I don't think so. The DNA is irrelevant to the rule.
So, the RC may be consistent with their current choice of when a being gets moral equality (even though they aren't historically consistent), their choice of what makes a being worthy of moral respect is almost completely irrelevant to what actually produces our moral values.

__________________
1977 300d 70k--sold 08
1985 300TD 185k+
1984 307d 126k--sold 8/03
1985 409d 65k--sold 06
1984 300SD 315k--daughter's car
1979 300SD 122k--sold 2/11
1999 Fuso FG Expedition Camper
1993 GMC Sierra 6.5 TD 4x4
1982 Bluebird Wanderlodge CAT 3208--Sold 2/13

I can see a lot of room for the church to accept evolution as merely one of God's tools because even if you accept all of the compelling evidence of the evolutionary model, the question remains: what drives organisms to reproduce? I mean even if a chemical soup happens to produce some amino acids after a lightning strike, what moved collections of amino acids to raise up a family?

__________________
Te futueo et caballum tuum

1986 300SDL, 362K
1984 300D, 138K

1. As a biologist, I would argue that there is a huge difference between somatic cells and generative cells. At a rudimentary level, somatic cells are overwhelmingly of the diploid variety while generative cells are haploid, if properly produced. In nature it is damned-near impossible for "higher" animals to produce offspring without generative cells. In lower animals and most plants, somatic cell reproduction is not unknown and in some cases, the rule rather than the exception.

In order to make a new animal out of a somatic cell one must steal the nuclear material from a cell, inject it into the "yolk" of a generative cell and remove the nucleus from the generative cell, and then biochemically trick it into differentiation. At this time it is hugely complex and usually fails. I have no doubt that in the near future this complexity will give way to simple technology. Just not yet. Therefore (at this time), I have no problem differentiating in my mind the death of somatic tissue from death of generative tissue. More, I have no doubt that the zygote is such an extremely unusual form of somatic cell that I have no difficulty distinguishing it from any other cell mass.

Moving on to a comatose human. I'm all for pulling the plug but not for much more than pragmatic reasons: comatose people are an expensive luxury that are not useful for more than spare parts. Keep them alive for a while to see if they revive then humanely disassemble them and dispose of the unusable portions.

However, I believe that the argument presented by the RCC is consistent with the comatose and unborn as it is with capital punishment.

I would argue that (at least for me) the prohibition against lying has nothing to do with other people and it has everything to do with me. I strive for honesty because of how my own dishonesty affects me: I don't like it. In fact, I hate my own dishonesty and I feel badly for each time I have weakened and taken the easy path. I wish to believe I am a better man than that and it is my goal to live into my wish.

2. I like that argument and accept it.

No problem with the zygote being highly unusual. It's a distinctive moment in human reproduction. But it still doesn't have the qualities that are relevant to the reasons we have moral concerns for adults. Those qualities develop over time but virtually none of them are found in a zygote.

I thought you might take that tactic on the lying question. I agree that telling the truth, even to yourself, is an important value. But it also has to have some social function in our species. That's the part I was arguing was irrelevant with the comatose person. It's also irrelevant with the zygote.

__________________
1977 300d 70k--sold 08
1985 300TD 185k+
1984 307d 126k--sold 8/03
1985 409d 65k--sold 06
1984 300SD 315k--daughter's car
1979 300SD 122k--sold 2/11
1999 Fuso FG Expedition Camper
1993 GMC Sierra 6.5 TD 4x4
1982 Bluebird Wanderlodge CAT 3208--Sold 2/13

Oh that's a good argument. I have no glib (or any other kind of) response. I'll have to let that one sink in.

Thanks.

Bot

Say when did you get back? - I thought you were over at Berkeley riding your bike in traffic?

?????

__________________
1977 300d 70k--sold 08
1985 300TD 185k+
1984 307d 126k--sold 8/03
1985 409d 65k--sold 06
1984 300SD 315k--daughter's car
1979 300SD 122k--sold 2/11
1999 Fuso FG Expedition Camper
1993 GMC Sierra 6.5 TD 4x4
1982 Bluebird Wanderlodge CAT 3208--Sold 2/13

????

1) Enroll at Berkely (gov't will pay)
2) Buy $5,000 bicycle
3) Flip old man the bird, stick bike under wheels of his car
4) Traumatic interview's with Wolf Blitzer and Catie Currik
5) Protest that credits won't transfer from UCB to West Lafayette, buy old farm house in Otterbein, get old and fat, post on MB site in lower case

Control

Keep your laws off my body.

__________________
"It's normal for these things to empty your wallet and break your heart in the process."
2012 SLK 350
1987 420 SEL