Re: Re: [Now, Dan!

November 9, 2004

In a message dated 11/9/2004 11:02:36 AM Central Standard Time,

dwatkins5@... writes:

>Per pro-life pov, there is no

>essential difference between the fetus and the eight-year-old.

Has anybody discussed the level of self-consciousness as an issue in this

argument?

November 9, 2004

IonaDove@... wrote:

Dear Alice,

>In a message dated 11/8/04 2:36:29 PM Pacific Standard Time,

>dwatkins5@... writes:

>I don't know what birth control - condoms and what-not - has to do with it.

>

>Can't believe u wrote that! Abortions take place bec a baby is not

>wanted........birthcontrol is sposed to prevent such a sityation arising.

>

But abortion takes place after the fact - i.e., after prevention has failed.

To understand pro-life pov, use the " eight-year-old " test. If an

eight-year-old child were unwanted by its parents, would you kill it? Of

course not. If it were the product of rape or incest, would you kill it?

Of course not. If it were handicapped in some way - defective? No. If it

drove its mother to despair and suicide? No. If it were actively and

immediately a threat to your life? Maybe. Per pro-life pov, there is no

essential difference between the fetus and the eight-year-old.

> But the RC

>is against contraception.

>

RC is wrong on that point, imo. Contraception is unnatural use of

technology, but flying across the sky at 600 mph is perfectly OK? Makes

no sense. No, it is not logical.

>Logical?

>

>According to astrology, the individual is complete n independent at moment of

>first breath [spiritus], but life of the vehicle in utero is real, a work in

>progress.

>

Can hardly believe it is I saying this, but I think in this instance I

will trust biology over astrology.

All life is a work in progress, no? Well, except perhaps for a momentary

apex, if any.

>I am instinctively pro-life but agin government making decision for a woman

>[see poem to follow, written many years ago}

>

Ah... so your reason is opposed by your willfulness. A common problem.

Been there too ;-).

Best,

Dan

>love

>

>ao

>

November 9, 2004

all,

>>Per pro-life pov, there is no

>>essential difference between the fetus and the eight-year-old.

Not much to hang your hat on here. " No essential difference " is shorthand

for what?

If you take a fetus and place it on a sidewalk, and, take almost any eight

year old and put him or her on a sidewalk, and you then ask them to do

different things, what kinds of things would you ask them to do that could

demonstate that there is " no essential difference " ?

Of course the silly appropriation is a logical fallacy too. I always am

hopeful when I read pseudo-arguments like this.

regards,

in Clepheland

November 9, 2004

Hi Dan, in response to Alice you wrote:

>RC is wrong on that point, imo. Contraception is unnatural use of

>technology, but flying across the sky at 600 mph is perfectly OK? Makes

>no sense. No, it is not logical.

The RCC's response has nothing to do with accepting or rejecting technology

- foundationally, the prohibition on contraceptives comes from two

different precepts

- there must be complete unity between a husband and wife, and no barrier

should stand in the way of that unity (love it or leave it, that's the

reason behind a ban on condoms, IUD's, etc.)

and

- other contraceptive methods, such as the pill, are in fact abortifants -

ie, they prevent the fertilized egg from attaching to the uterine wall.

There are many places in the world where this Catholic teaching prevails,

and families regularly expect to bury 9 out of their 12 children. In such

cases, a little disunity in procreativity would not seem to be out of

order, to me at least :-)

Abortion is a different question altogether, although I have heard one

crusty, old (emeritus) Jesuit and delightful professor argue that the soul

is not " shot in " to the body at some point during it's fetal development,

but 'co-arises' with it, like yeast in bread. Abortion during the first

twelve weeks, then, for him is acceptable. (So far God has not struck him

down, the Vatican has not disrobed him, nor has the college fired him :-)

imo, contraceptives and first-term abortion have freed women from the

tyranny of their bodies, and allowed us the same sexual freedom(s) always

enjoyed by men.

I think that is the (unconscious) reason men so oppose it.

My 2 cents . . . (steadily climbing in value as the US dollar drops :-)

peace,

Maureen

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*

Your vision will become clear only when you look into your heart. Who looks

outside, dreams. Who looks inside awakens.

-- Carl Gustav Jung

November 10, 2004

Dear maureen,

I'll take your 2 cents anytime.!!

I also believe absolutely that men have an issue they refuse to see on the

subject of abortion, but with a patriarchal mind-set, in the open or behind

closed doors, they will never bring it to awareness.

Hail to your good Jesuit!. But as long as the Church cannot tear itself away

from looking at sex and everything connected with it as dangerous to the soul (

good old Augustine) women will never be equal, nor will any subject like birth

control be legitimate.( My G-d laughs at all this nonesense and thinks He

actually did a wonderful thing when he invented sex for human beings) (He also

knows that no human being is ever lost...so sorry He can't convince some of

those who say they believe in Him)

(Personalizing the great All is done here lightly, I worry about all our logos

bound males who will jump on me and say " See, I knew you were primitive and

unaware in your understanding of He Who Is)

If you cam't join them , leave them...that was my only recourse on many levels,

I am afraid.

Toni