< Previous: Light and Dark Up: Site Index Next: Daylight Atheism: Anniversary #2 >
The Catholic Church: An Immoral Organization

The Roman Catholic church is the oldest and largest Christian denomination on the planet. Although its influence in the Western world is declining, it still exercises great power over the lives of millions of people every day. All too often, that power is used in the service of superstition, of perpetuating irrational and dogmatic beliefs about how human liberty should be restricted in order to please God. Whatever charitable and humanitarian work the Catholic church performs must be balanced against the vast harm it has done and continues to do because of its obsession with controlling the sex lives and reproductive systems of all human beings. This post will detail some of the more notable harms.

Denying equal rights to gays and lesbians. The Catholic church's support for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage is well-known, and shows by itself how this church has placed itself on the wrong side of history by supporting irrational and superstitious prejudice against people who don't conform to its narrow and restrictive model of human sexual relations.

But a slightly lesser-known fact is that the Catholic church's adoption agencies flatly refuse to place children with gay parents - even if this means they will have no parents and will grow up in an orphanage. Evidently, the Catholic church considers this option preferable to a child growing up in a stable home with loving, caring parents who happen to be of the same gender. For example, in 2006, Catholic Charities announced its adoption services were shutting down in Massachusetts, rather than place children with gay families. This is but another example of how the church considers adherence to its own dogma more important than the lives and welfare of human beings.

Opposing vaccination for sexually transmitted diseases. Since the development of Gardasil, a highly effective vaccine against the common sexually transmitted disease HPV - which can cause lethal cervical cancer - numerous branches of the Catholic church have announced their opposition to giving this vaccine to children before they reach sexual maturity. The Catholic school board in Halton, Ontario has announced plans to ban school health units from giving the vaccine to students or even discussing it with them. The church in Scotland has also announced opposition to the vaccine, as did the California Catholic Conference (which said the vaccine "takes away the parental perogative for children to be chaste").

Regardless of a person's religious beliefs, there is no rational reason for them not to receive this vaccine. The only purpose a person could have for opposing it for their children would be to make them afraid of getting cervical cancer if they have unprotected sex - which has the logical inference that cervical cancer would be an appropriate punishment for such sex.

Opposing emergency contraceptive use, even for rape victims. If taken within 72 hours of unprotected sex, emergency contraception (the "morning-after pill") is highly effective at preventing fertilization. This is a tremendous boon to rape victims, who've already suffered enough without being forced to go through the further trauma of bearing their rapist's child. Yet many church ethicists, as well as the Pontifical Academy for Life, argue that Catholic physicians and Catholic hospitals should not administer EC to rape victims under any circumstance. This is a cruel and evil position that would inflict severe emotional and physical trauma on women and deny them the right to control their own bodies in the name of obedience to unprovable religious dogma. Dr. Marty Klein has more information in the appropriately titled Catholic Hospitals Should Stop Playing God.

Opposing abortion even when it is necessary to prevent death or grave harm to the woman. The most prominent example of this deadly dogma is in El Salvador, an officially Catholic country that bans abortion under all circumstances and jails women who obtain them illegally. The church intensely lobbied the government into passing this law, bussing in Catholic schoolchildren to stage demonstrations and using churches as political organizing centers. Pope John Paul II also issued statements in support of the law.

The result is a theocratic nation where the state exerts dictatorial control over women's bodies. Women who suffer miscarriages are forced to submit to invasive vaginal exams to ensure they did not obtain illegal abortions. Even in ectopic pregnancies, which have no possibility of producing a living child, abortion is forbidden until the mother's Fallopian tube has ruptured and the fetus is dead - a critical, life-threatening medical emergency for the woman.

Opposing condom use, even for married couples where one member has HIV. This particularly horrible example of the church's irrational opposition to condom use is most often seen in Africa, where the culture often does not permit women to turn down their husband's demands for sex. Yet even if they remain monogamous, that does not protect them if the husband cheats and acquires a deadly disease such as HIV. Since the Catholic church teaches that condom use is forbidden under all circumstances, this rules out the last remaining option and results in devastating tragedies like this one:

The typical patient is a young woman between eighteen and thirty years of age. She is wheeled into the examining room in a hospital chair or dragged in, supported by her sister, aunt, or brother. She is frequently delirious; her face is gaunt; her limbs look like desiccated twigs. Surprisingly, the young woman is already a mother many times over, yet she will not live to see her children grow up. More shocking still, she is married; her husband infected her with the deadly virus.

...To preach fidelity and abstinence assumes that a woman can determine with whom she sleeps and when — a grave misunderstanding of the relations between the sexes in places where women are sometimes betrothed at birth or sold for cattle. How can the Vatican continue to prohibit the use of a life-saving intervention amid a pandemic of unprecedented proportions?

Attempting to stifle stem cell research. The most notable example of this came in June 2006, when an influential Catholic cardinal, Alfonso López Trujillo, said that stem-cell researchers should be excommunicated. Although this threat is meaningless to non-Catholics, the important point is that it is a threat - as well as a symptom of the church's obvious desire to block this life-saving research by coercion and spiritual blackmail.

This story, like the others discussed here, shows why we should be glad that this irrational and medieval institution has lost the power it once had to force all people to obey its will. Now we need to diminish its influence still further, so that it can no longer stand in the way of wise and rational policies that improve people's well-being and happiness.

February 8, 2008, 7:42 am • Posted in: The RotundaCommentOptions

Bookmark This:   Del.icio.us del.icio.us   Digg Digg   Reddit Reddit   StumbleUpon StumbleUpon  

167 Comments

nothing like desperation to keep what control you have to make an organization even more irrational. The Vatican has also recently decided to stop supporting the Vatican observatory http://www.independent.co.uk/news/europe/science-bows-to-theology-as-the-pope-dismantles-vatican-observatory-768080.html . Can't have facts get in the way of willful ignorance, can we?

The Catholic church is also able to maintain control over its adherents due to the church's discouraging of its members from reading the bible. A good read through of all that crap will turn any reasonable person into a non-believer in no time (depending on how fast you read, that is).

There have been reports that the Catholic Church may ease up on its restrictions and allow condom use to prevent the spread of AIDS. I think the exception applies only to married couples (no surprise there) to prevent an infected partner passing on the disease to the partner.

I'm not sure how many people are aware of this:

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/01/29/america/NA-GEN-US-Cadaver-Exhibit-Archbishop.php

I volunteer at the Museum Center in Cincinnati, Ohio (where I live) on weekends, so I've gotten to see these protesters in person. Note, however, that it is only the Archdiocese of Cincinnati that is officially opposing this exhibition, but this demonstrates the herd mentality by which many Catholics still live. The Bishop says "no" and they obey.

I like to believe that the Church is slowly starting to open up after centuries of rigid thinking (due mostly to international pressure), but then I look at the score and realize they're still a far cry from a progressive organization.

Oh, I forgot something. For the record, there's still a line there every weekend coiled around the atrium to get into the exhibit. We're talking a two-hour wait for tickets. So it's nice to see that the non-Catholics are not taking the protest seriously.

Blogger “Daylight Atheism” calls the Catholic Church an immoral organization

And I’ve got to say, he puts forth a pretty comprehensive argument for it. While he acknowledges that they have certainly done charitable and humanitarian work, he points out that these efforts must be balanced against all of the suffering that i...

I don't think the city-wide contraceptive ban in Manila and the fact that the Philippines is a Catholic country is a mere coincidence. After all, the Catholic Church loves to force poor women to have babies they can't possibly care for.

The other thing about the Catholic Church is that it is incredibly creepy, what with all the reliquaries full of bits of dead people. I went to a church in Prague where they had a box that contained the desiccated hand of a long-dead saint. You could put a coin in and it would light up. Seriously, WTF?

All of your issues execpt condom use are also issues that most fundamentalists support. The catholic church may be losing some power, but the fundamentalists are gaining power. I don't see how it's going to do much good, when one tyrant leaves office to be replaced with another tyrant that does all the same things the former one did. We need to focus on more than just the Catholic Church.

Also from IHT:
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/02/08/europe/britain.php

The archbishop of Canterbury wants Britain to adopt aspects of sharia law.
Apparently to make it easier for british muslims to take part in the particular ideosyncrasies of 'their culture'.

How ecumenical of him.
...and patronizing.

If gay rights are so self-evident, why did even atheist psychologists identify homosexuality as a psychopathology for most of the twentieth century? It seems to me that your morals are not self-evident rational truths, but culturally contingent. You're just a creature of your time. I read your statement on ethics, and its just the arbitrary axioms of liberal political philosophy culturally inherited from Anglo-Saxon Protestantism. Interesting that many of the Anglo-Saxon Protestant myths ("Catholics don't read the Bible") persist among supposed atheists.

If there is no teleology in nature and nothing exists but nature, how can you speak of people having "rights", an essentially teleological concept, or say what people ought to do? From what Platonic realm of ideals do you draw these principles? Maybe I wish to promote my own happiness (or misery!) without regard for others. Who are you, a fellow lump of matter, to tell anyone what is "wrong" or "immoral" (whatever that means!). There is only what people do or don't do; "ought to do" is arbitrary teleology.

Lovely to see all your self congratulation there guys. Talk about only seeing one side of the story.

Taking your points very briefly one at a time... I can't answer the gay marriage one. Not because I don't think it makes sense, but because a reasonable explanation of why the Church teaches something that most people understandably think is unjust discrimination can't be done in a brief post, also I don't think you would listen if I tried.

Some of your other issues are more straight-forward.

Regarding promotion of Gardasil, the Catholic Church hasn't universally spoken against it, one (small) Bishops Conference and a couple of states have questioned if it may have an unintended side effect of making young people now think sex is safe. Although I can see their rationale I don't think this is actually sensible, as evidence suggests that young people don't give a great deal of thought to unintended consequences of sex, beyond HIV and pregnancy, and very little thought even to those The Catholic Medical Association in the USA (far more influential than the Bishops Conference in Scotland) recommends vaccination and I see no reason why the other states shouldn't see the sense in following their example. To say that the reason the vaccine has been disputed is that Catholics want to punish people for having underage sex is so far from the truth as to be almost laughable.

Catholics believe that life begins at conception. It seems likely that the morning after pill can work to prevent the implantation of the newly conceived child. If you were a person who believed that life began at conception, and therefore that the morning after pill involved destruction of that life, wouldn't you oppose it too?

I really think that the idea that the Church should at least allow abortion or the use of the morning after pill for rape victims is unbelievable. Abortion isn't wrong because the Church is making any moral judgments on people who find themselves pregnant. It's not any more wrong if someone sleeps with every person they come across, or if they are raped by their uncle; it's not about being pregnant because it's a punishment, it's about protecting the most vulnerable people in our society. Surely it would be far worse if the Church, or anyone, started making value judgments as to if someone "deserved" an abortion. Either abortion kills a child or it doesn't, if the unborn child is a person it doesn't matter if his father was a rapist, he has a right to live.

The issue of condom use for HIV prevention is something that, as a Catholic nurse, I've felt compelled to investigate further, and actually wrote my dissertation on it during my degree. Researchers at the Cochrane Institute (an academically highly respected secular institution) conducted a literature review of all studies into condom effectiveness in preventing the spread of HIV that reached an acceptable academic standard (Condom effectiveness in reducing heterosexual HIV transmission). The study recommended the use of condoms in reducing the spread of HIV/AIDS based on the findings, those findings were that condoms are around 80% effective (when compared to no condoms) in preventing the spread of HIV. 80%.

Now, I think a big problem with pro-life Catholics is that they twist stats to suit them, which destroys our credibility, so I'm not going to suggest that this stat means that 1 in 5 acts of intercourse using a condom will result in Seroconversion (partner contracting HIV); every act of "unprotected" intercourse doesn't lead to this. I am also well aware that a proportion of the problems were due to people using condoms ineffectively, however, even when used correctly condoms can split, come off, etc.

Education doesn't eliminate risk. Perhaps if we were able to reach every single person in the world with education as to how to use a condom perfectly, and somehow provide the "cool dry conditions" necessary for the storing of condoms, plus a supply of good quality condoms, we'd be able to reduce that risk, but we can't eliminate it, and so a young HIV positive man with an active sex life with his wife is eventually likely to pass the virus on to her. And so kill her.

We don't live in an ideal world, and so if the Catholic Church says, "yes, condoms are fine if you're married to an HIV positive person" then actually she will be condemning far more people to death than if she promotes the very difficult truth, that if you are HIV positive you are called to be celibate, unless you marry another person who is also HIV positive (and I understand that there are different strains, so even then it's iffy.)

If she says, "yes, be safe, use a condom" to married people then she's also perpetuating this myth that condoms make sex safe. They don't, they make it less dangerous but not safe.

I think marriage is about love (not a particularly revolutionary statement) and if I were married and loved my husband, there's no way I'd want to put his life at such risk so I could have sex, no way. I would expect him to love me in the same way.

And as regards a situation where women are "sometimes betrothed at birth or sold for cattle", a sister I met in Ireland raised a similar question for me when she told me that the day Humanae Vitae (the Encyclical in which the Holy Father re-iterated the Church's teaching on birth control) came out was the worst day of her life. She told me that she was working in Brazil, and the women were coming and begging them for sterilizations because their husbands were raping them and they couldn't afford more children.

A question for you. Is the problem here:

a) the children, or
b) THAT THEIR HUSBANDS WERE RAPING THEM?!

If we said, "ok, let's sterilize them", it's the same as saying, "it's ok that you're being raped by your husband". Condoms aren't the solution to any problem, they're like trying to put a sticking plaster on big gaping wound. The more I learn about this the more crazy it seems to me, and not because I'm trying to pass judgments on peoples moral ideals, but because it seems so obvious that people are completely missing the point! Because I love people, and I want them to be well, and so even forgetting completely about why the Church has Her teaching on contraception I really find the idea of condoms as the solution to HIV a huge and horrible disaster.

I've really spent too much time on this already, but as someone who used to think just the same as you about incompassionate, judgmental, out of touch Catholics I felt that someone should at least point out that there is another side to your argument, things aren't quite as black and white as you seem to believe.

I'll pray for you, if God doesn't exist it's only my time I'm wasting, and if it makes me feel better I guess it shouldn't bother you should it?

I should try to find the article I saw a while ago about the Church excommunicating the family of, and the doctors who provided an abortion for, an 11-year-old who had been raped (there was, as I recall, another case involving a 9-year-old). This particular breed of atrocity hits particularly close to home for me...

Given the fact that we will in the next few decades be approaching our Malthusian crunch-time, Rome's resistance to birth control is not just evil on the personal level regarding the women in question -- it will be a big factor in infliciting an evil on the entire human race.

Very good post.

What about all of the sexual abuse that the catholic clergy has done on children? The church has not come out against such abuse and molestation, but has taken great effort to protect the abusing priests. The newspaper articles that appear when one of the churches lose a lawsuit are almost sympathetic. Instead, society should be glad that these churches become bankrupt for their crimes and misdeeds.

It is a shame that this church imposes these conditions on their own members, but it is an unforgiveable travesty that they attempt, and somtimes succeed, to impose their rules on society as a whole.

There's a bit of good news, however: Catholic Nuns Becoming "None" and Priests Joining them.

US and European nuns and priests are declining dramatically in numbers, to the point that some European parishes are hiring Polish priests. US nuns have declined 50% since the 1960's, and their average age is now 70.

The Church used to have no trouble finding enough nuns to teach in its schools; nowadays, it hires not only laypeople but also non-Catholics.

Not surprisingly, Church officials are worried; they have even recommended that Catholics pray for more men to become priests.

I wonder if when god impregnated Mary with the baby who would be Jesus, did he explain to her what he was about to do to her and ask for her consent? Would she be able to say no? Or did he just do her and tell her afterwards? Isn't this rape? She was married to Joseph, why would it be ok for god to knock up a married woman, isn't this a form of infidelity forced on Mary by god? Isn't marriage a sacred bond? Did he break one of his own commandments (Thou shalt not commit adultery) by coveting another man's wife?

javaman,
I suggest you look up Luke 1, where the angel of the lord comes to Mary and tells her that god is going to impregnate her. Now, I doubt that she could have said, "No." Further, it's weird that she would be a virgin considering she was already espoused, unless by that they mean she was promised to him but they had not yet tied the knot. Of course, god is really committing adultery here, isn't he? Also, this would break more than one commandment.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. The Catholic Church is one of the most fundamentally evil organizations on the planet. Individual Catholics are just fine. But the organization itself is entirely without merrit. I long for the day the Pope's palatial art museum becomes a real art museum, and the Church is relagated to, as some might say, the ash-heap of history.

Excellent post.

Does anyone remember a news story, I'm guessing about 10 years ago, about Pope John Paul II "beatifying" a number of people? (apparently it's one step below sainthood.) The list included one woman who had died of a high risk pregnancy rather than have an abortion, and another woman who stayed with an abusive husband until he beat her to death, because she didn't believe in divorce. So clearly they are laying this out as some ideal of womanhood that Catholics are supposed to aspire to. Hey, way to die for our dogma, ladies! Sick bastards.

Anyway, I'm trying to find the citation, so if Ebon or anyone remembers this story and where it originated, please let me know.

I wonder if they are against using condoms when they are molesting their parishioners?
Or are those "religious rules" meant for other people only???

Maybe they should quit trying to tell the world what to do and start trying to learn what morality really is about. What a disgraceful bunch of sociopaths.

"I think a celibate Italian weirdo knows a little more about matters of sex than you do!"

--Ned Flanders, as Sir Thomas More, to Homer, as King Henry VIII

Nurse Ingrid, I think the second case you mentioned was that of Elizabeth Canori Mora. The accomplishment that led to her beatification, as you said, was basically that she lived her entire life with an abusive, violent husband and didn't resist or seek divorce.

Mhari-
Women should not be forced to bear all of the burdens that come with Catholic "morality"! Women are the ones that suffer with these "rules". They don't seem to have any rights, and all forms of life (even the first cells of conception) have more value and protection than the women carrying them! How is this morally acceptable?

Women are the often the most vulnerable LIVING members of society, where is their protection? This is exacerbated by ANY rules that are not based on reality, whether they are church doctrine or governmental regulation. Church rules are more hurtful though, since they claim to be based on the "truth and loving word of God".

When these "moral rules" make a horrible situation worse- when rape victims are forced to bear their attackers children, and when women are being forced to bear many children because their men are out of control- who is harmed, WOMEN. And for what greater good? The abstract morality of idealism? To protect a notion of life while rendering another's life worthless? You are right- its NOT black and white...

Of course the men that rape- whether husbands or strangers- and perpetuate other crimes against women (and humanity)should be stopped by all means. But we cannot wait for this to happen- there needs to be solutions to stop suffering right now- they need to be practical and based on the best of given options, not what would be ideal.

I think that is the main issue with Catholic moral rules- they reside in the realm of ideal, not real. I understand that a church has to have moral absolutes, and have to take these positions, but they should realize that when their doctrine is causing added suffering it needs to be changed, or at least not pushed onto people.

This is the real world, and often times our choices have to be made between several bad options, all we can do is pick the one that causes the least negative consequences. i.e.-Birth control will not stop the rapes, but it will help lessen the burden faced by the women who are victimized. Banning birth control helps neither.

When we deny reality, and think that our choices actually include options that are NOT available, we create situations where everyone loses. Of course all life should be respected and protected, but not at the expense of others. Protecting life includes those already living on this earth!!!

StaceyJW

Ooh! Ooh! What about the time the Catholic-run hospital (the only hospital in a very large area - we're a very spread out province) refused to perform tubal ligations in the city of Humboldt, Saskatchewan?

Soon after writing this post, I came across a related (and shocking) story: the Catholic bishops of Spain are actively attempting to derail the candidacy of Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, who's running for re-election, because of his history of advocating gay marriage and campaign pledges to expand access to abortion and contraception. The explicit political language of the bishops is astonishing, and would probably trigger an IRS investigation if it happened in the US:

In December, the first church-organized protest in 30 years drew 1 million supporters in Madrid; Pope Benedict XVI spoke via video link. The capital's archbishop accused the premier of taking a ``step backward for human rights.''

...The church-owned radio station Cadena Cope has branded the prime minister a ``traitor.'' Zapatero's government is ``shaking the foundations of the family with its wicked and unjust laws,'' Cardinal Antonio Canizares, the archbishop of Toledo, said at the December rally.

It warmed my heart to see that Zapatero is in no way intimidated by this outrageous bullying, and is actually fighting back against it and the church. I long for the day when an American politician says things like this on the campaign trail:

``I can't accept that they say laws made in this legislature are undermining democracy or are a reversal for human rights,'' Zapatero, who will have lunch with the Vatican's emissary in Madrid next week, said today in a radio interview. The church's attitude ``has to change.''

Even better, he's spoken publicly about ending the state subsidies given to the church if they're going to meddle in politics.

...under a January 2007 agreement, the Socialists actually raised the amount that taxpayers can opt to contribute to religious institutions, giving the church a total subsidy of about 152.4 million euros ($223 million) this year.

That deal may be reassessed after the elections, Socialist party secretary Jose Blanco said in a Feb. 4 interview. ``Nothing can be the same after March 9 now that the church hierarchy has shown such a belligerent attitude,'' he said.

Good for him, I say, and the sooner the better. It's about time we starve this medieval beast and show it that it can no longer stand in the way of advances in human rights without paying a cost for it.

For Mhari:

Regarding promotion of Gardasil, the Catholic Church hasn't universally spoken against it, one (small) Bishops Conference and a couple of states have questioned if it may have an unintended side effect of making young people now think sex is safe.

And that is what I said, so I don't see what your point is. If this situation were the other way around and it was an atheist organization that was opposing some life-saving medical intervention, would you still say that no blame attaches to atheists just because they weren't unanimous in their opposition?

To say that the reason the vaccine has been disputed is that Catholics want to punish people for having underage sex is so far from the truth as to be almost laughable.

Then please, explain why you think these Catholic groups are opposed to the HPV vaccine. The only reason I can see is that they fear it will encourage young people to have sex by taking away one potential reason to be afraid of sex. They've said as much themselves. That being the case, isn't it a logical conclusion that they want HPV to persist and cause cervical cancer among people who disregard their warnings? How else can you interpret their position?

Catholics believe that life begins at conception. It seems likely that the morning after pill can work to prevent the implantation of the newly conceived child.

No, it doesn't. No evidence has ever been offered showing that this is the morning-after pill's mechanism of action. It prevents conception by preventing the release of an egg from the ovary. (Contrast this with mifepristone, also known as RU-486, which does cause the abortion of a fertilized and implanted embryo. This is not the same drug that's used in the morning-after pill.)

If you were a person who believed that life began at conception, and therefore that the morning after pill involved destruction of that life, wouldn't you oppose it too?

This is a bizarre question. You're basically asking, "If you were irrational just like the Catholic church, wouldn't you support the same irrational positions as them?" I don't know what an answer to that would prove, so I'll address a different point: it makes no sense to say that "life begins at conception". Sperm and eggs are just as alive as an embryo is; nothing that was previously not alive has come to life when a conception occurs.

If you believe that a human being begins to exist at conception, this makes your position more comprehensible. But, again, this is completely irrational. A single-celled embryo is not a human being. Human beings are defined by their possession of a conscious, self-aware mind - their ability to think and feel. A microscopic embryo has nothing like this. It can no more be conscious of its own destruction than a skin cell that flakes off your hand. At worst, aborting an embryo means destroying a potential human life. While I don't believe that should be done lightly, it's absurd to speak of it as if it were in the same moral league with killing a conscious adult human.

The study recommended the use of condoms in reducing the spread of HIV/AIDS based on the findings, those findings were that condoms are around 80% effective (when compared to no condoms) in preventing the spread of HIV.

Fine - and why do you think that's a reason against using them? Condoms are still vastly more effective than doing nothing. Granted, we might prefer a method of contraception that has higher success rates. But even 80% protection against infection still equates to saving millions of lives when extrapolated to the scale of a continent. Besides, even if a 100% protective method of contraception were invented, wouldn't the church still oppose it?

I think marriage is about love (not a particularly revolutionary statement) and if I were married and loved my husband, there's no way I'd want to put his life at such risk so I could have sex, no way. I would expect him to love me in the same way.

You might "expect" that to be the case, but in reality, it often isn't. We each have a choice: to either sit around and wish for ideal conditions, or take what action we can in the imperfect world we actually live in.

A question for you. Is the problem here:

a) the children, or
b) THAT THEIR HUSBANDS WERE RAPING THEM?!

Both. Rape is awful enough by itself. The fact that female rape victims are sometimes forced to bear their rapists' children (with all the attendant dangers of pregnancy), or sometimes end up with deadly diseases, only adds even more trauma - especially for women who can't afford to care for additional children. By its cruel and superstitious opposition to the use of contraception, the Catholic church is taking a serious problem and making it even worse.

I'll pray for you, if God doesn't exist it's only my time I'm wasting, and if it makes me feel better I guess it shouldn't bother you should it?

It doesn't bother me at all. I forgive you.

Did you know that the Catholic Church had agreeable relations with not one but two evil dictators?

Read the text of the official Catholic concordats (the equivalent of a treaty) between the Church and the Third Reich, and the Church and Franco's Spain.

Third Reich: http://www.newadvent.org/library/docs_ss33co.htm

Franco's Spain: http://www.concordatwatch.eu/showkb.php?org_id=845&kb_header_id=828&order=kb_rank%20ASC&kb_id=1700

I had posted this in the Wolves in the Fold thread, but thought I would mention it again for anyone who hasn't read that thread.

Of course, Catholics will say that the Pope is only infallible on issues of "theology and morality." To which I would reply, I find it strange that someone who is supposedly infallible in morals abstractly, could be so inept in morals concretely. Furthermore, the distinction between "morals" and what I suppose they might say are "politics" is specious. Should not politics be moral?

And, per an earlier post, apparently the Catholic Church is still receiving subsidies in Spain. That is disgusting. Surely those subsidies started under Franco, when Catholicism became the official religion. If it could, the Catholic Church would set up the same arrangement in every country.

We are lucky they cannot.

Mhari,

Education doesn't eliminate risk. Perhaps if we were able to reach every single person in the world with education as to how to use a condom perfectly, and somehow provide the "cool dry conditions" necessary for the storing of condoms, plus a supply of good quality condoms, we'd be able to reduce that risk, but we can't eliminate it, and so a young HIV positive man with an active sex life with his wife is eventually likely to pass the virus on to her. And so kill her.

Your whole argument seems to boil down to one thing...if we can't completely eliminate risk, then we shouldn't take steps to at least lessen that risk. This is immoral and wrong.

A question for you. Is the problem here:

a) the children, or
b) THAT THEIR HUSBANDS WERE RAPING THEM?!

If we said, "ok, let's sterilize them", it's the same as saying, "it's ok that you're being raped by your husband".

As Ebon said, both. But, to expand a bit, the church - from the Bible - doesn't do anything to solve the problem of husbands raping their wives. Wives are basically the property of their husbands. So, your question is absurd on a couple counts. Not only is the church not doing anything to help these women avoid rape, but it's not doing anything to help them avoid the consequences of that rape. This is doubly disgusting.

Lovely to see all your self congratulation there guys. Talk about only seeing one side of the story.

Why do so many combative theists feel the need to start out with this kind of comment? Adam, maybe you could add a checkbox to the web form that would automatically prepend one of a random list of sneers like this to the post so they wouldn't have to waste energy typing it out long-form?

Taking your points very briefly one at a time... I can't answer the gay marriage one. Not because I don't think it makes sense, but because a reasonable explanation of why the Church teaches something that most people understandably think is unjust discrimination can't be done in a brief post, also I don't think you would listen if I tried.

"Because if the church admitted to being wrong on something - especially its fundamental idea that its authority trumps human rights and human needs - it would lose power over even the followers it still has cowed?" Seemed pretty brief.

Regarding promotion of Gardasil, the Catholic Church hasn't universally spoken against it, one (small) Bishops Conference and a couple of states have questioned if it may have an unintended side effect of making young people now think sex is safe.

If this isn't the official position of the Catholic Church, then why hasn't the rest of the hierarchy come out and unambiguously said so?

Catholics believe that life begins at conception. It seems likely that the morning after pill can work to prevent the implantation of the newly conceived child. If you were a person who believed that life began at conception, and therefore that the morning after pill involved destruction of that life, wouldn't you oppose it too?

Yes, and if I were a person who believed the government was controlling my mind with satellites I would be opposed to being told to remove my tinfoil hat. What's your point? The fact of the matter is that it does not matter how sincerely a person believes; if that belief can be demonstrated to be factually unsupported or outright contrary to facts, it is untrue, and if acting on it causes needless suffering, it is immoral. The issue begins and ends with this.

I really think that the idea that the Church should at least allow abortion or the use of the morning after pill for rape victims is unbelievable. Abortion isn't wrong because the Church is making any moral judgments on people who find themselves pregnant. It's not any more wrong if someone sleeps with every person they come across, or if they are raped by their uncle; it's not about being pregnant because it's a punishment, it's about protecting the most vulnerable people in our society. Surely it would be far worse if the Church, or anyone, started making value judgments as to if someone "deserved" an abortion. Either abortion kills a child or it doesn't, if the unborn child is a person it doesn't matter if his father was a rapist, he has a right to live.

It doesn't. And the fact that you and your church leaders are willing to destroy the lives of innocent women by forcing them to bear children they do not want, may not be able to care for, will be further traumatized by, and may well die giving birth to - and the lives of innocent children by condemning them to be born unwanted and to live their lives with the knowledge that they are the products of rape - because of your personal petty hangups on this issue is an abomination that, were the Bible truly the work of a moral god, would have been resoundingly condemned somewhere in the books of the law.

The issue of condom use for HIV prevention is something that, as a Catholic nurse, I've felt compelled to investigate further, and actually wrote my dissertation on it during my degree. Researchers at the Cochrane Institute (an academically highly respected secular institution) conducted a literature review of all studies into condom effectiveness in preventing the spread of HIV that reached an acceptable academic standard (Condom effectiveness in reducing heterosexual HIV transmission). The study recommended the use of condoms in reducing the spread of HIV/AIDS based on the findings, those findings were that condoms are around 80% effective (when compared to no condoms) in preventing the spread of HIV. 80%.

Now, I think a big problem with pro-life Catholics is that they twist stats to suit them, which destroys our credibility, so I'm not going to suggest that this stat means that 1 in 5 acts of intercourse using a condom will result in Seroconversion (partner contracting HIV); every act of "unprotected" intercourse doesn't lead to this. I am also well aware that a proportion of the problems were due to people using condoms ineffectively, however, even when used correctly condoms can split, come off, etc.

Education doesn't eliminate risk. Perhaps if we were able to reach every single person in the world with education as to how to use a condom perfectly, and somehow provide the "cool dry conditions" necessary for the storing of condoms, plus a supply of good quality condoms, we'd be able to reduce that risk, but we can't eliminate it, and so a young HIV positive man with an active sex life with his wife is eventually likely to pass the virus on to her. And so kill her.

We don't live in an ideal world, and so if the Catholic Church says, "yes, condoms are fine if you're married to an HIV positive person" then actually she will be condemning far more people to death than if she promotes the very difficult truth, that if you are HIV positive you are called to be celibate, unless you marry another person who is also HIV positive (and I understand that there are different strains, so even then it's iffy.)

If she says, "yes, be safe, use a condom" to married people then she's also perpetuating this myth that condoms make sex safe. They don't, they make it less dangerous but not safe.

Tell me, do you oppose the manufacture and distribution of seat belts because people wearing them still die in accidents sometimes? Shouldn't car manufacturers instead be promoting the difficult truth that people are called not to drive?

I think marriage is about love (not a particularly revolutionary statement) and if I were married and loved my husband, there's no way I'd want to put his life at such risk so I could have sex, no way. I would expect him to love me in the same way.

Then don't, though I openly question how your resolve would hold up if you were really in that situation. Why should everyone else be required to abide by this unrealistic ideal, though?

And as regards a situation where women are "sometimes betrothed at birth or sold for cattle", a sister I met in Ireland raised a similar question for me when she told me that the day Humanae Vitae (the Encyclical in which the Holy Father re-iterated the Church's teaching on birth control) came out was the worst day of her life. She told me that she was working in Brazil, and the women were coming and begging them for sterilizations because their husbands were raping them and they couldn't afford more children.

A question for you. Is the problem here:

a) the children, or
b) THAT THEIR HUSBANDS WERE RAPING THEM?!

If we said, "ok, let's sterilize them", it's the same as saying, "it's ok that you're being raped by your husband". Condoms aren't the solution to any problem, they're like trying to put a sticking plaster on big gaping wound. The more I learn about this the more crazy it seems to me, and not because I'm trying to pass judgments on peoples moral ideals, but because it seems so obvious that people are completely missing the point! Because I love people, and I want them to be well, and so even forgetting completely about why the Church has Her teaching on contraception I really find the idea of condoms as the solution to HIV a huge and horrible disaster.

If they are denied sterilization will their husbands stop raping them?

If not, then what the hell are you trying to say here? Do you also support denying bandages to people who have been shot because preventing them from bleeding to death is "the same as saying 'it's ok that you've been shot?'"

I've really spent too much time on this already, but as someone who used to think just the same as you about incompassionate, judgmental, out of touch Catholics I felt that someone should at least point out that there is another side to your argument, things aren't quite as black and white as you seem to believe.

There is another side to this argument. That side is wrong, as we have argued. Their sincerity has absolutely no bearing on the conclusion.

I'll pray for you, if God doesn't exist it's only my time I'm wasting, and if it makes me feel better I guess it shouldn't bother you should it?

Given all the evil in the world, even if a god did exist and prayer worked, calling on it to try and convince us to ignore the proddings of our reason and consciences with regard to the church's ongoing contribution to said evil would indeed be a waste of time.

Many thanks, Ebon. I do think that is the case I was thinking of. I will see if I can track down other beatifications from 1994 to find the other one.

And to Alex Weaver, nice work on your point by point evisceration of Mhari's comments. I think someone missed the class in nursing school where they teach the importance of being nonjudgmental...

...even forgetting completely about why the Church has Her teaching on contraception...

I find it amusing that you chose to personify the Church using a female pronoun.

There's nothing "female" about it. The Roman Catholic Church is just like any other monotheistic religion: patriarchal and misogynistic.

I've got two points to contribute to this thread.

First, some atheists are worried that the decline in Catholicism is merely matched by an increase in Protestantism. I encourage everyone to read this article Why the Gods Aren't Winning

Second, I do wish that atheists would question their own assumptions more. The point that was made that even atheistic psychologists chose to view homosexuality as a mental disease should attest to that. This was in the APA for something like 30 years at least. Psychologists as a whole love to defend their lack of objectivity by saying what is considered a disease is merely based on cultural norms, which in reality we know is just a euphomism for unscientific bullshit. So should the point that was made about Catholics being discouraged from reading their Bibles. Apparently this is commonly held among atheists who were formerly Protestants. As a former Catholic myself, I am bewildered by Protestants who ask me what I used to believe before I became athesit and when I say Catholic, they say, "Oh, no wonder! You must have never read the Bible." As they say - same shit, different day. The worry for me is that even when atheism becomes the norm, it may take centuries more to drop the misconceptions that have truly made religion destructive.

So should the point that was made about Catholics being discouraged from reading their Bibles. Apparently this is commonly held among atheists who were formerly Protestants. As a former Catholic myself, I am bewildered by Protestants who ask me what I used to believe before I became athesit and when I say Catholic, they say, "Oh, no wonder! You must have never read the Bible."

This belief actually has its roots in historical truth, bbk. Most seventeeth- and eighteenth-century Protestant sects believed that literacy was integral to providence, as they emphasized literal translation of biblical texts and personal study thereof. Catholic faith, however, was based primarily on tradition and ceremony, as Masses were conducted in Latin and Bibles were printed in Latin. At that time, only the highly educated or the clergy were scholars of the language.

This is evident in the evangelization of the New World by Christian missionaries. Protestant missionaries (mostly English) insisted upon Indians learning reading and writing in tandem with Christianity, while Jesuit missionaries were content with teaching Native American tribes, such as the Montagnais and the Huron, basic things like making the sign of the cross and the cult of the Saints. For more on this, I recommend any of James Axtell's work on missionaries in colonial North America.

I could go on about indulgences and "sola scriptura," but I'll stop there, as I'm sure you already know what I'm talking about.

However, this fact has been reversed only recently. Now, it is the Roman Catholics who are encouraged to read their Bibles (as after Vatican II, Masses are conducted in modern languages), while Protestant sects are encouraged only to read specific passages selectively (if they are encouraged to read it at all). I'd imagine that strict Protestants are still perpetuating this myth about the "Papists." I myself am a former Catholic, and many Protestants are shocked that I know my Bible better than they do.

The point is simply this: these assumptions are obviously moot, as every individual case is unique, but it takes time to reverse the flow of opinion.

Patience is a virtue. ;)

Second, I do wish that atheists would question their own assumptions more. The point that was made that even atheistic psychologists chose to view homosexuality as a mental disease should attest to that. This was in the APA for something like 30 years at least.

And you think that by not questioning their assumptions that the view on homosexuality was changed? Either way, which assumptions would you ascribe to me that you feel I need to question?

bbk,

Second, I do wish that atheists would question their own assumptions more.

As far as I see it, the only thing unifying "atheists" as a field of people is their non-belief in god, so rightly that's the only assumption you could ask "atheists" to question. That is, unless you know of any other assumptions help by atheists as a group that would require singling them out.

I think everyone should question their assumptions to reasonable levels.

This belief actually has its roots in historical truth, bbk. Most seventeeth- and eighteenth-century Protestant sects believed that literacy was integral to providence, as they emphasized literal translation of biblical texts and personal study thereof.

You're right - at some point 300-400 years ago, Catholics were less likely to take it upon themselves to interpret the Bible any way they please, and this is still true today. But this doesn't have any real correlation with reading the Bible versus being rife with ceremonious rites and traditions. Protestants were just as bad, always interpreting things in whichever way it suited them. The last few witch burnings were carried out by Protestants, I believe.

Go into the religious section of any bookstore and you'll see what I mean. There are *stacks* of books written by Protestants for the sake of interpreting Christianity. Everything from Strobel's Case For books to the Purpose Driven Life to dream interpretation books. It's all 100% bullshit, and Protestants just eat this stuff up. They pick and choose what they want and shove it down everyone else's throats as they see fit. My favorite are the Jack Chick tracts.

It's ironic, isn't it, that people who think the Bible is inerrant and complete find it necessary to fill their shelves up with supplementary reading materials? I'm pretty damn sure that Catholics focus on the Bible itself just as little as Protestants do.

Everyone, I came off a little too vague maybe. Didn't know so many people would react to my post, which was really just minutiae.

That atheism only implies disbelief in god is a very good point that I agree with wholeheartedly. But it behooves the atheist, for his own happiness, to question even non-theistic ideas which nevertheless originated in the realms of theism. We have no problem questioning many ideas and attributing them to Christianity itself - from anti-abortion, anti - civil rights, marriage, abstinence, martyrdom, etc. We recognize that many of these stances were developed in an attempt to gain some level of consistency in theistic beliefs, so we question them as a general rule of thumb. All I'm saying is that there are probably a lot more of those where they come from and that atheists take some for granted, not realizing that they might be able to lead much happier lives if they drop concepts that are really only beneficial to theism.

Strong anecdotal evidence, true story: Many years ago I was sitting on a train when a gorgeous woman took the empty seat ahead of me. Shy creature that I am, I was just about ready to spring my best line when alas, another woman took the seat with her. Woman # 2 turned out to be a missionary type and struck up a conversation with woman # 1, inviting her to a meeting, which was politely declined, offering some tracts, also politely declined, and finally asking "Do you ever read the bible?"

To which woman # 1 replied, "Oh no, I'm Catholic!"

Here's another way in which the Church is immoral: allowing known child rapists (priests) to have continued access to children.

I know huge numbers of practicing Catholics who disagree with each of these policies of the Catholic Church yet who continue to attend Catholic Mass every week and who financially support the Catholic Church.

What if the many Catholics who oppose this insanity were to organize and stay away from their churches for one month? They'd then see that they constitute half the congretation in many communities. Maybe, seeing the local power they wield, they would have more courage to mutiny. Maybe they could, as a group, leave their Mother Church and say, in a loud voice, "We oppose the massive damage being done by this Church. This damage is not outweighed by the many good things done in the name fo the Church. Thus, we can no longer support this Church in good conscience."

This would never actually happen, of course. The power of fear is just too great. My scenario thus remains only compelling thought experiment.

In case MisterDomino is still listening: I used to work at the museum until early last year - I wonder if I already know you. What area are you in?

There is an interesting legal challenge going on in the Philapines.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7234291.stm

Just another example of the effects of Church policy.

Ebonmuse wrote:

[...]It doesn't bother me at all. I forgive you.

You do? Well, I don't. I am sick and tired of sanctimonous fools who lecture us all the while diplsaying their complete unadequacy as moral beings. In fact, if people like Mhari were all I had to go by, I would be entirely justified in thinking of all beleivers a bunch of amoral bungling idiots. Fortunately, that is not the case.

All,

Here is some factual information about abortion:

http://www.priestsforlife.org/images/index.htm#galleries

Look at these pictures.

For your next shock picture, why don't you post some images of women who've died of ectopic pregnancy because their Fallopian tubes ruptured and burst inside them? I suggest you start with El Salvador, where the loathsome and misogynist clergy of the Catholic church finally got their wish to pass a law making women's bodies the property of the state. You should be able to find plenty of examples.

Wow...thanks, "Adam" (talk about adding insult to injury) for bringing to my mind a rhetorical tactic lame enough to share an exhibit with "offering no rebuttal to your opponent's argument other than said opponent using Wikipedia as a source" in my "museum of unusually pathetic fallacies."

It looked lonely by itself. ;'(

Alex Weaver and Ebon,

I am sorry, but I do not have much else to say. Abortion is murdering children. These pictures prove it.

Regarding ectopic pregnancies, I know the Church allows a patient too clean out the fallopian tube if conception happen there. This results is the killing of the child. I believe the child dies anyway, so if a women needs to clean out her fallopian tubes to save her life, resulting in the death of the child, the Church would say that morally ok.

Adam,

I am sorry, but I do not have much else to say. Abortion is murdering children. These pictures prove it.

They do nothing of the sort. You've asserted that at conception a child is formed, and then all you did was post bloody pictures and you call that proof? Unfortunately for you, all you've done is make a fallacious emotional appeal. If someone dies in an accident, no matter how bloody it is, it does not constitute murder. If one kills an animal, no matter how bloody it is it does not constitute murder (although it should still probably be illegal in some cases). What you've failed to do is make an argument for the clump of cells that is an embryo being a human child. Considering that the embryo can not feel pain and has no sentience...well, you might wish to address those points. And, no, your religious teachings do not count as proof either unless you can back them up with real evidence (even then, the real evidence would count, not your religious teachings).

Adam, no doubt you have heard of Gerri Santoro and looked for her image. One among many who have suffered injury and death from restrictions to abortion.

OMGF,

http://www.priestsforlife.org/images/index.htm

Here is factual information about Abortion. I am not talking about embryo's. I have never heard a reasonable argument for abortion after looking at this website. These children are not embryo's.

Joffan,

I'm sorry tat Gerri died because abortion was restricted, but she was going to kill her child. It's not the child's fault she was born...I know you've heard that before but looking at this website is more the reasonable and factual evidence that abortion is murder.

Adam,

Here is factual information about Abortion. I am not talking about embryo's. I have never heard a reasonable argument for abortion after looking at this website. These children are not embryo's.

All I'm seeing at your site is a lot of "click here for propaganda on such and such," or "click here for horrific photos." Please point out the "devastating" "reasonable and factual" evidence that your website has. I even gave you a couple points to address as a clue to get you started.

And, if you aren't talking about embryos, then are you only against so-called partial birth abortions? If you intend to say that they are children and never embryos, then you don't understand what the word "embryo" means.

OMGF,

I know what embryo's are.

I can tell that you have not looked at the sight. The devasting reality is the dead child shown in the photo's. Please explain to me how that is not murder.

Do you know what a partial birth abortion is? It is when the baby is partially out of the womb and then they suck the childs brain out. You can listen to audio that discribes it.

The other type of abortion is the killing of the child inside the womb, the you can down load video of it if you do not believe me.

This murder is far from propaganda. Infact these pictures prove that what your idea of abortion is, is not reality.

On the website you can also see what a child looks like in the womb at different times, 7 week ....5 months...etc.

Facts:
How many? During the 1980s and 1990s total abortions stayed about 1,550,000 annually, slowly decreasing in the 1990s. Note that the Guttmacher Institute reported that 10% of known abortion providers did not report. Adding 10% to its 1,550,000 equals 1,700,000. The total reported slowly decreased in the 1990s. When the unreported abortions are added (income tax evasion, cover-up for privacy, etc.), a figure of 1,800,000 may be more realistic. Live births have hovered just under 4,000,000. Therefore: Almost every third baby conceived in America is killed by abortion. 112 Abortion Surveillance U.S. 1988 Morbidity & Mortality Weekly Report Centers for Disease Control, Atlanta, July 1991. S.K. Henshaw et al., "Abortion Services in the U.S., 1987-1988," Family Planning Perspectives, Vol. 22, No. 3 (May-June 1990), p. 103.

How far along in pregnancy were they?

Using a 1,500,000 figure, in 1992:

- 1.2% or 18,000 were 22 weeks or older

- 10.0% or 150,000 were 13-20 weeks

- 88.8% or 1,332,000 were 12 and under

Center for Disease Control, MWWR, Dec. ’94

In 1994 the CDC reported that in 1993, 1.3% were done after 22 weeks or about 20,000.

How many are repeaters?

Repeat abortions were 20% in 1973 but rose to 44% in 1987. In the U.S., by 1995, 45% of all abortions were repeats. S. Henshaw et al., Ab. Characteristics, 1994-95, Fam. Plan. Persp., Vol. 28, No. 4, July ’96, p. 143

info can be found at:http://abortionfacts.com/online_books/love_them_both/why_cant_we_love_them_both_17.asp#how%20many

I believe the child dies anyway, so if a women needs to clean out her fallopian tubes to save her life, resulting in the death of the child, the Church would say that morally ok.

As the old saying goes, actions speak louder than words. And when the Catholic church got its way, the law they passed outlawed abortion, even for ectopic pregnancies, unless the fetus was already dead of natural causes. This means that no operation can be done under this law unless the woman's Fallopain tubes have already burst. The evidence is plain that the Catholic church's embryo fetish causes it to value microscopic, non-sentient cell clusters, which are not human beings and never will be human beings, more highly than the adult human women who bear them.

Ebon,

This means that no operation can be done under this law unless the woman's Fallopain tubes have already burst.

I'm sorry, where is this law again? please show me the sight so I can read it?

Your comments still do not disprove the fact that Abortion is murder.
Abortion is murder yes or no?
If no, please prove it, and explain to me the pictures and the statistics I have given.

I'm sorry, where is this law again? please show me the sight so I can read it?

If my autistic toddler can do her own spoon-feeding, you damn well can too. Try googling "El Salvador abortion law" and see what comes up, for starters.

Your comments still do not disprove the fact that Abortion is murder.

It is scarcely necessary to disprove what has never been proved.

Also, please take the following under advisement:

fact [fakt]
–noun 1. something that actually exists; reality; truth: Your fears have no basis in fact.
2. something known to exist or to have happened: Space travel is now a fact.
3. a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true: Scientists gather facts about plant growth.
4. something said to be true or supposed to have happened: The facts given by the witness are highly questionable.
5. Law. Often, facts. an actual or alleged event or circumstance, as distinguished from its legal effect or consequence. Compare question of fact, question of law.

Compared with

as·ser·tion [uh-sur-shuhn]
–noun 1. a positive statement or declaration, often without support or reason: a mere assertion; an unwarranted assertion.
2. an act of asserting.

(Sources here and here)

Understand the difference now?

Abortion is murder yes or no?

No.

If no, please prove it,

You are the one who is making a positive claim. The burden of proof is on you, and you have utterly failed to meet it.

and explain to me the pictures and the statistics I have given.

The statistics show that abortions happen. What possible relevance do they have to the moral status of abortions?

As for the pictures, what is it you think they're supposed to prove? That the results of medical procedures often aren't pretty to look at? That genetically human embryos sort of vaguely resemble humans in their shapes? What is it about them that you think justifies robbing women of the right to control their own bodies and their own lives in order to force them to bear children that they don't want and, if you're like most anti-choicers, you won't lift a damn finger to help care for?

We understand that these images are disturbing. Do you understand anything else?

I'm sorry, where is this law again? please show me the sight so I can read it?

This is the second time you've clearly commented in a thread to push your religious views without reading the original post. This does not bode well for your continued participation on this site if it continues.

Abortion is murder yes or no?

No. Until a developing fetus has a functional brain, it is not a conscious human being, and only the termination of a conscious human being's existence can be considered murder.

Adam,

I can tell that you have not looked at the sight. The devasting reality is the dead child shown in the photo's. Please explain to me how that is not murder.

Admittedly, I didn't scour the sight, but I didn't expect you to deal with the rejection of your photos by simply plugging your photos again. Once again, they do not prove anything, except that abortion can be a messy procedure.

Do you know what a partial birth abortion is? It is when the baby is partially out of the womb and then they suck the childs brain out. You can listen to audio that discribes it.

Yes, I do know what it is. I also know that it comprises about .17% of the abortions done in the US, and it's generally done for health reasons. Listening to a description of it does not evidence make BTW.

This murder is far from propaganda.

Considering that anti-choicers are as scrupulous as creationists, I do consider it to be propaganda. Nevertheless, your whole argument is based on one thing, and that is your belief. Your beliefs do not constitute evidence, however.

You wish to assert that abortion is murder because you believe that at the time of conception a soul enters the zygote and a human is thereby formed. This has many problems, however. Others have pointed out some problems already, so I'll add that you need to prove that souls exist and that they enter the zygote during conception. This will be a tall order since there is no evidence for souls even in human adults, and the evidence we do have points away from the idea of us having souls.

I do have some questions for you, if you wouldn't mind answering.

If abortion were outlawed, would you make an exception for rape and incest victims? How about when the health of the mother is at stake?

Let's say that some 18 year old woman, fresh out of high school is in love with her boyfriend who is shipping out to Iraq, and they decide to have sex. Because of the abstinence only education they received (which you probably support) they don't know how to use a condom and it breaks and she gets pregnant. He ships off and gets killed, and now she's faced with being a single mother with no way to provide for her child, especially since her parents tossed her out of the house for getting preggers. She decides to get an abortion. Luckily she finds a doctor willing to do it because he doesn't want her to get a back-alley abortion (which did and would continue to happen if abortion were outlawed) and he does the deed. They get busted. How much jail time should the doctor face? How about the young woman? If abortion is murder as you so claim, shouldn't they be facing some hefty jail time, if not the potential for capital punishment in some states?

Adam,

I'm sorry tat Gerri died because abortion was restricted, but she was going to kill her child. It's not the child's fault she was born...I know you've heard that before but looking at this website is more the reasonable and factual evidence that abortion is murder.

You love that line; Abortion is murder. I'd bet it would make a snappy bumpersticker. However, you might want to consider that abortion simply means the loss of a pregnancy, and why, according to that logic of yours, god is the biggest abortionist of them all.

Consider this:
http://www.allaboutlifechallenges.org/miscarriage-statistics.htm

Miscarriage statistics can be dramatic. Miscarriage reportedly occurs in 20 percent of all pregnancies. However, according to some sources, this may be an inaccurate number. Many women, before realizing a life has begun forming within them, may miscarry without knowing it-assuming their miscarriage is merely a heavier period. Therefore, the miscarriage rate may be closer to 40 or 50 percent. Of the number of women who miscarry, 20 percent will suffer recurring miscarriages.

Miscarriage refers to the loss of a developing pregnancy up until the twentieth week of gestation. Medical terminology labels this event as a spontaneous abortion. Many women who miscarry find this term offensive. However, it is important to note that the term "abortion" merely denotes the loss of a pregnancy. It does not, in the medical field, assume the pregnancy ended because of the woman's choice. The proper term for a chosen procedure is elective abortion. When a woman loses her pregnancy after the twentieth week of pregnancy, the loss is referred to as a stillbirth...

So, assuming those statistics have stayed relatively consistent across cultures for the pass little stretch of human existence, we can assume god has designed a system that aborts in between 1 in 5 to 1 in 2 pregnancies. Over thousands of years and billions of people, it seems like something else might be at play, huh? Of course, different factors are at work; for instance, the woman's familiarity with the male's semen reduces the risk of a miscarriage. I could certainly explain that one to you in evolutionary terms, but I'd love to hear god's side of it first.

Another little logical deduction of your "abortion is murder" standpoint is that any woman who has had a miscarriage is a murderer too, even if only an unwitting accomplice to the crime. Any woman who has had more than one miscarriage is a serial killer!

Which reminds me; if abortion is outlawed and is murder, according to you, what punishments would you recommend the law dish out to a woman who had an abortion? Life in jail? Maybe just 25 years with a chance of parole? If abortion is truly murder, than all women and doctors who have had any hand in it should suffer the punishment of someone who kills another person. Unfortunately, that would mean jailing more people than is possible, but I'll leave that answer to you.

Something else you fail to mention is that most women probably aren't thrilled to get an abortion; it's not as if they're weekend plans include getting knocked up and getting an abortion. It's an uncomfortable medical procedure, and I don't know anyone lined up to get one of those; does that make me weird?

Nice use of trying to shock me with those pictures though. I looked that them and I still approve of abortion. Got any more?

In all this discussion of abortion, no one has addressed: What happens to the people who were truly unwanted pregnancies; what happens to the life expectancy of women who have numerous children; the horrific world population explosion that will one day be untenable; and, the number of starving children world wide due to lack of contraception. This isn't just a moral issue. It is a huge social issue and the religeous right needs to get on board.

Another question for Adam,
Do aborted "babies" get to go to heaven? If so, why would abortion be a bad thing?

Ebon and Alex Weaver,

This is the second time you've clearly commented in a thread to push your religious views without reading the original post. This does not bode well for your continued participation on this site if it continues.

I did read your whole post. I'm sorry though, it was late when I made my post and was really asking the question, I forgot where you said it, sorry. I did look at the El Salvador article. And you're right it is a shame that:

Even in ectopic pregnancies, which have no possibility of producing a living child, abortion is forbidden until the mother's Fallopian tube has ruptured and the fetus is dead

I am no expert on this subject but that law needs to be revised, we're on the same page.

I also agree with what you said here:

Catholic church's embryo fetish

We definately do.

All,

I understand that we're not on the same page. If you would let me I would like to try and begin again, I am sorry if I hurt any feelings.

The main question is, when does life begin? I am not talking about the soul, that is a different issue. I am talking about the human person.

Ebon says that life begins when the brain begins to function:

Until a developing fetus has a functional brain, it is not a conscious human being

That is just fine.

I am wondering when the rest of you think that life begins?

Do aborted "babies" get to go to heaven? If so, why would abortion be a bad thing?

I am not God, but yes I would think they do get to heaven. Abortion is wrong on account of the mother or the father who wants the abortion, and the doctor who does the abortion

Adam,

I am sorry if I hurt any feelings.

Not to speak for anyone else, but I doubt that you've hurt anyone's feelings here.

The main question is, when does life begin? I am not talking about the soul, that is a different issue. I am talking about the human person.

Take care to differentiate life from human life. Life begins before conception really. Sperm cells and ovum are certainly "alive".

As for human life, I agree with Ebon. A zygote is not yet a human. It may have the requisite number of chromosomes (although, not in every case I suppose) but there's something that is fundamentally different about a cell or clump of cells that has no brain function versus a human.

I am not God, but yes I would think they do get to heaven. Abortion is wrong on account of the mother or the father who wants the abortion, and the doctor who does the abortion

So, if aborted "babies" go to heaven, why is abortion wrong? It seems to me like an abortion gives the "baby" an express pass to the pearly gates, versus being born and most likely going to hell.

I'd also like to hear your response to the questions and Mrnaglfar and I posed about what sentence you would impose on a woman who has had an abortion.

what sentence you would impose on a woman who has had an abortion.

I have no idea. What do you think should happen if abortion was illegal?

Adam,
Really? You have no idea? It's murder isn't it? I would say that it's a premeditated murder, so I would think that you'd have to push for first-degree murder. So, why aren't you? Shouldn't the doctor and the girl both be prosecuted for this? Most states probably have 20 to life as the punishment, although some have capital punishment as well. So, I guess the girl and the doctor should get 20 to life or the chair, right? Why are you being coy about this?

If I had to make the law I would put all the wrong in the doctor, and punish him. the woman I would give help to through an organization like rachel's vinyard.

Adam,
How condescending of you.

Why would you only go after the doctor? Don't you care about the babies? How will only punishing the doctor stop other women from seeking abortions? Do you really think that women are incapable of making the decision to have an abortion?

What you are really saying is that the woman is not at fault here for murder, and for what reason? Did she not decide to go get the abortion in the first place, or are women unable to make reasoned choices? Where are your convictions now? It's murder you claim, yet you don't want to treat it as such, do you?

The doctor's are the ones doing the killing.

It would be illegal to have an abortion and to seek an abortion.

Women can capable to making a decision, but the doctor kills the baby.

I think the women are misguided and regret there abortions more often than not.

I want to treat this as murder by the doctor. If it is illegal and they still do it, that would be murder then.

I'm sorry, but your logic is flawed. By your logic, if someone orders a murder, they should not be tried for it since they didn't pull the trigger themselves. The woman ordered the murder of her child, so she is guilty of murder, or at least conspiracy to murder, which carries the same sentence as the level of murder involved. And, it's the woman that puts the "baby" in the position to be murdered, or do you think that doctors run around aborting babies without women knowing about it? Why are you not willing to follow through on your convictions?

What would be the penalty for seeking an abortion? Shouldn't that be attempted murder?

Are all women that seek abortions "misguided"? Again, how condescending of you. Oh, those poor, hysterical women that can't make their own decisions.

My grandmother who is 90 was the same person as a zygote, fetus, at 30 weeks, new born, toddler, and grandmother. That is logical. You can see the pictures of a developing fetus, it is a person.

you say that she is not a human until her brain developes?

Who's job is it to define when the brain is developed. What does developed mean? What if the child has a disorder, this that brain developed?

There are hundreds of thousands of women who regret their abortions. I would say that they were misguided. Why not put the child up for adoption?

I think the women are misguided

You really don't see how patronizing that perspective is, do you?

and regret there abortions more often than not.

Do you have a single fact to back that up?

My grandmother who is 90 was the same person as a zygote, fetus, at 30 weeks, new born, toddler, and grandmother. That is logical. You can see the pictures of a developing fetus, it is a person.

By that "logic," identical twins who began life as a single zygote are still "one person" and therefore killing one of the two of them should only be counted as "assault and battery" (or whatever other crime covers maiming someone).

Additionally, you keep flogging those pictures, but all they show is that 1) medical procedures aren't pretty, 2) fetuses are sorta human-shaped, and 3) you, personally, seem to be living one long "moment of weakness where emotion overrides reason." Being shaped like a human does not mean that it's a "person," with the intellectual and moral qualities that term conveys. Do you get emotional over department-store mannequins that are thrown away? They look sorta human too, you know...

Who's job is it to define when the brain is developed. What does developed mean? What if the child has a disorder, this that brain developed?

I know all these words and I still can't parse this mess. WTF are you trying to say here?

By the most likely of 8-odd possible interpretations: The qualities, other than being human-shaped, that distinguish humans from, say, cuttlefish, are entirely dependent on the presence and proper functioning of certain structures in the brain, structures that do not develop and begin functioning until a certain point in the pregnancy. Your ignorance of these facts does not constitute evidence of their falsity.

Why not put the child up for adoption?

Because of the physical, emotional, and in many cases economic drain of pregnancy and childbirth, social stigma, risk of death and/or serious medical complications, and the fact that there are already hundreds of thousands of born, conscious children languishing in foster care as well as a serious overpopulation problem worldwide?

BTW:

My grandmother who is 90 was the same person as a zygote, fetus, at 30 weeks, new born, toddler, and grandmother. That is logical.

For the record, this line of argument has been tried at length by people considerably more erudite and articulated. It doesn't work.

(Hope the link will, though; the preview function doesn't seem to like it).

Err, I mean, "articulate."

(Great, now I'm doing it. x.x)

Alex and OMGF,

You guys are right. If abortion was illegal, both the doctor and woman should be charged with murder. Upon further review I have to agree. It's murder, charge them with murder.

Alex,

When do you say that human life begins?

Define "human life."

Adam,

My grandmother who is 90 was the same person as a zygote, fetus, at 30 weeks, new born, toddler, and grandmother. That is logical. You can see the pictures of a developing fetus, it is a person.

Same set of chromosomes? Yes. You can't deny that there are significant developmental issues that happen at different times during pregnancy. One of those is the ability to be conscious or feel pain, etc. Before these things happen, the zygote/fetus/embryo is not what we would consider to be human, in that it is a clump of unfeeling, unthinking cells. You claim that you are not talking about the soul, so what are you basing this on? On superficial resemblances based on pictures?

Who's job is it to define when the brain is developed. What does developed mean?

Scientific studies have shown when certain brain functions become viable. We should base our moral decisions on these real world data and not on our feelings or the emotions we might feel from looking at bloody pics.

There are hundreds of thousands of women who regret their abortions. I would say that they were misguided. Why not put the child up for adoption?

This I hear quite often. Anti-choicers are always touting adoption as if there were a dearth of babies to be adopted. Truth is, as Alex already pointed out, there is an over abundance of children already waiting for adoption. This just shows how much anti-choicers are really not about life, but about making sure that women who have sex pay the price for doing so. Once the kid is out, well then the kid is on its own.

(I ask because you seem to be working from a nebulous, emotional concept of what "human life" means, and that, depending on how the term is interpreted, there is more than one answer. I note that your argument, to any rational observer, seems to rest on an inappropriate conflation of "human life" meaning "human being" with "human life" meaning "genetically human entity satisfying the biological criteria for 'life'" and therefore attempting to confer the moral and emotional status of the former on the latter, though these two definitions by no means exhaust the possible interpretations of the phrase "human life.")

(Also, perhaps you might try responding to my point about identical twins, rather than constantly trying to pass the buck. In fact, why don't you cut to the chase and give me a factually sound, coherent definition of "human life" that includes born humans, fetuses, embryos, and zygotes, but excludes tumors in general, teratomas more specifically, and my daughter's "twin" (essentially a teratoma with an umbilical cord), corpses, scraped-off skin cells that have not yet experienced cell death, individual gametes, stillborn fetuses, the hypothetical science-fiction case of an organ being removed and kept alive separate from the body by machinery...)

Oh, right. Add to my stipulations above your own assertion that

I am not talking about the soul

One more thing:

I think the women [...] regret there [sic] abortions more often than not.

I suppose this is technically true; in fact, I'm willing to bet that virtually all women "regret their abortions" in the sense that they'd rather have never gotten pregnant than had one. No one sane would expect it to be a pleasant or enjoyable experinece, FFS. However, when it comes to having the abortion vs. giving birth to what will at that point be a child, individual reactions vary enormously. Your assumption smacks of projection; your personal preconceptions about what women "must" or "should" feel in such an event do not constitute evidence. And you still haven't explained how the number of abortions performed constitute evidence that abortion is murder.

(While I'm at it, are you in favor of capital punishment? I ask because if a fetus is equivalent to a born person, executing a convicted criminal would be equivalent to performing an abortion in the [(A/4)+3] trimester, where A is the convict's age in months.)

Follow up question:
Do you favor abstinence only sex education? Hopefully you realize that part of the problem is that anti-choicers are so hot on getting people not to have sex that they think even discussing ways to do so safely will encourage it. So, they push abstinence only, even though the scientific studies done have shown that abstinence only programs do not work. And, the added benefit is that more unwanted pregnancies will occur due to ignorance of how to use contraceptive methods, leading to more abortions. Again, those that push for abstinence only and are anti-choice I find are only interested in one thing, and that is controlling the sex lives of others and punishing women who do have sex with having to carry a child to term, because 'that'll show 'em.'

Adam,

I am not God, but yes I would think they do get to heaven. Abortion is wrong on account of the mother or the father who wants the abortion, and the doctor who does the abortion

So abortion is wrong not because the baby gets to go to heaven and totally avoid hell (even if born to parents of different faith?), but simply because the mother and father want one? The act of wanting an abortion (as opposed to wanting a child) is wrong enough to warrant the strictest punishment our society has to offer? I don't think there is enough room in the jails as it is, let alone with you putting away doctors and mothers who want abortions (who probably have families of their own to care for - what do you plan on doing about those people?).

My grandmother who is 90 was the same person as a zygote, fetus, at 30 weeks, new born, toddler, and grandmother. That is logical. You can see the pictures of a developing fetus, it is a person.

Your grandmother had the same genes, but was in no way the same person. You'll find throughout people's lives they are remarkably different people at different times. The change is gradual to the point were one can't notice it until looking back in retrospect, but no, she was not the same person.
I can see (and indeed saw) the pictures of a developing fetus and I still don't think it's a person. I suppose a fetus is a person in almost the same sense that a coma patient is a person. Only difference there is that a coma patient was already a person, a fetus has yet to be one.

When do you say that human life begins?

In my view, person-hood begins at birth; that's about the time any survey counts them as existing; for instance, when a family is pregnant they don't say "we have 3 kids", they say "we have 2 kids and one on the way", or perhaps the population surveys that don't count fetuses as people. Birth is also the time the infant starts to interact with it's world. Not as if this view of human life will suddenly make abortion rates jump for late term pregnancies; most any woman willing to carry the fetus that far along is more than likely to give birth to it; it's not like women and doctors and waiting, with a smile on their face, to abort another late term pregnancy.

There are hundreds of thousands of women who regret their abortions. I would say that they were misguided. Why not put the child up for adoption?

How many children have you adopted if you care so greatly about human life (and not just life, but actually making sure that life is a good one)? How many more do you plan on adopting? There are still millions of children out there who don't have a home; how can you say "I've done enough" when the toll is that great? If those opposed to abortion really think human life is that precious, why are there any unwanted children in this world?

I would also say there are millions of people who regret getting married, and stats will back me up on that. I would also say there are people who regret having children, or regret buying one pair of jeans over another. People who regret having the car they do, or perhaps regret not taking a big chance in their life. People regret all kinds of things, from the very big to the very small, yet I wouldn't say they're all misguided. What gives you the right to think that women getting abortions are the misguided ones rather than, I don't know, let's say you?

How many children have you adopted if you care so greatly about human life (and not just life, but actually making sure that life is a good one)? How many more do you plan on adopting? There are still millions of children out there who don't have a home; how can you say "I've done enough" when the toll is that great? If those opposed to abortion really think human life is that precious, why are there any unwanted children in this world?

I am an adoptive parent and I speak from experience when I say there are not alot of babies to adopt in the U.S., unfortunately we kill them all. Anyone who disagrees with this does not know the facts about U.S adoption.

We plan to adoptive many more. And every person I have met who has adopted is prolife, so we are doing our part.

PS, there are roughtly 1,600,000 abortions each year in the US, and about 2,000,000 families are waiting to adopt.

How many children have you adopted?

Miscarriage statistics can be dramatic: http://www.allaboutlifechallenges.org/miscarriage-statistics.htm

As far as these statistics, they are not even relevant to the conversation because we are talking about surgical abortions.

Here are somemore fact about surgical abortions:
Surgical abortions in the United States (1965-1996)

Since the first states decriminalized abortion in 1967, there have been over 38,000,000 reported surgical abortions* in the U. S. 1,878,990 were committed before Roe vs. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court case that lifted all restrictions. An average of 1,600,000 babies are killed annually.

* The surgical numbers are from the Alan Guttmacher Institute. The problem with these numbers is that there is no law requiring abortion clinics to report their numbers--all clinics may not be reporting all abortions. The abortion industry is not regulated!

Alan Guttmacher Institute is a research arm of Planned Parenthood.

PLANNED PARENTHOOD

This is the largest, most powerful, most effective pro-abortion,anti-life, anti-family, anti-Christian force in the U.S. and internationally.

The Planned Parenthood Federation of America is one of over 90 national affiliates of the International Planned Parenthood Federation (London). It gets about two-thirds of its U.S. financing through tax money, local, state, and national. It has five regional offices, about 160 statewide affiliates, over 900 local clinics in the U.S. Over 70 of its clinics do abortions. Its total annual cash flow is almost one-half billion dollars ($472 million in 1995). It concentrates its efforts on abortion, contraception, and sex education.

How many abortions does Planned Parenthood do?

The number increases each year as it converts more of its clinics to killing centers. In 1985 it had 51 chambers which killed 110,000. By 1994 it had 70 which killed 134,000. Every year, it refers to other facilities almost as many abortions as it does itself.

Was Planned Parenthood always pro-abortion?

In its early years of existence, Planned Parenthood limited itself to contraception and specifically opposed abortion. The following is a quote from an official Planned Parenthood pamphlet :

"Is birth control an abortion?" "Definitely not. An abortion kills the life of a baby after it has begun. It is dangerous to your life and health. It may make you sterile so that when you want a child you cannot have it. Birth control merely post-pones the beginning of life." Planned Parenthood, Aug. 1963 1 Available from Cincinnati Right to Life, P.O. Box 24073, Cinn., OH 45224, $3. pp.

One can see that abortion is real.

Until a developing fetus has a functional brain, it is not a conscious human being..............Scientific studies have shown when certain brain functions become viable. We should base our moral decisions on these real world data and not on our feelings or the emotions we might feel from looking at bloody pics.

When does the heart begin to beat?

At 18 days [when the mother is only four days late for her first menstrual period], and by 21 days it is pumping, through a closed circulatory system, blood whose type is different from that of the mother. J.M. Tanner, G. R. Taylor, and the Editors of Time-Life Books, Growth, New York: Life Science Library, 1965, p.

When is the brain functioning?

Brain waves have been recorded at 40 days on the Electroencephalogram (EEG). H. Hamlin, "Life or Death by EEG," JAMA, Oct. 12, 1964, p. 120

Brain function, as measured on the Electroencephalogram, "appears to be reliably present in the fetus at about eight weeks gestation," or six weeks after conception. J. Goldenring, "Development of the Fetal Brain," New England Jour. of Med., Aug. 26, 1982, p. 564

Only several generations ago, doctors used the ending of respiration to measure the end of human life.

This is no longer true, for the use of artificial ventilators is common. Only one generation ago, doctors were using the ending of the heartbeat to measure the end of human life. This is no longer true, for now the heart can be stopped and restarted for different operations. It also may stop during a heart attack and sometimes can be restarted.

Today, the definitive and final measure of the end of human life is brain death. This happens when there is irreversible cessation of total brain function. The final scientific measurement of this is the permanent ending of brain waves. Since all authorities accept that the end of an individual’s life is measured by the ending of his brain function (as measured by brain waves on the EEG).

Therefore according to your statement after 40 days every child killed in the womb is a person.

One of those is the ability to be conscious or feel pain, etc. Before these things happen, the zygote/fetus/embryo is not what we would consider to be human, in that it is a clump of unfeeling, unthinking cells. You claim that you are not talking about the soul, so what are you basing this on? On superficial resemblances based on pictures?

How early do some organs form?

The eye, ear and respiratory systems begin to form four weeks after fertilization. K. Moore, Before We Were Born, 3rd ed., 1989, p. 278

And function?

Very early, e.g., glucagon, a blood sugar hormone, has been demonstrated in the fetal pancreas 6 weeks after fertilization, and insulin by 7 to 8. F. Cunningham, "Pancreas," William’s Obstet., 19th ed., 1993, p. 183-4

Thumbsucking has been photographed at 7 weeks after fertilization. W. Liley, The Fetus As Personality, Fetal Therapy, 1986, p. 8-17

When does the developing baby first move?

"In the sixth to seventh weeks. . . . If the area of the lips is gently stroked, the child responds by bending the upper body to one side and making a quick backward motion with his arms. This is called a ‘total pattern response’ because it involves most of the body, rather than a local part." L. B. Arey, Developmental Anatomy (6th ed.), Philadelphia: W. B. Sanders Co., 1954

At eight weeks, "if we tickle the baby’s nose, he will flex his head backwards away from the stimulus." A. Hellgers, M.D., "Fetal Development, 31," Theological Studies, vol. 3, no. 7, 1970, p. 26

Another example is from a surgical technician whose letter said, "When we opened her abdomen (for a tubal pregnancy), the tube had expelled an inch-long fetus, about 4-6 weeks old. It was still alive in the sack. "That tiny baby was waving its little arms and kicking its little legs and even turned its whole body over." J. Dobson, Focus on the Family Mag., Aug. ’91, pg. 16

How is a "partial birth abortion" performed?

Misinformation has abounded. This, despite the fact that the truth about this procedure, often out of the mouths of partial-birth abortionists themselves, was available all along. Recently, however -- due to investigative reporting by newspapers not sympathetic to the pro-life movement, and to the confessions of Ron Fitzsimmons, a leader of a pro-abortion trade association, the National Coalition of Abortion Providers -- the facts as consistently stated by pro-life groups have been publicly confirmed.

What: As described by one of its inventors, a partial-birth abortion is performed by: forcibly turning the baby into the breech position; using forceps on the baby's leg to pull the entire baby, except the head, outside the mother; stabbing the child in the base of the skull; sucking out the brain; crushing the head; and then fully delivering the dead baby.

Who and Why: Partial-birth abortions are performed by a few doctors. In the vast majority of cases, they are performed upon women and children with no health problems whatever. Occasionally, they are performed on children with severe health problems.

When: Most are performed between 20 and 24 weeks' gestation. Some may be performed later, but the doctor best known for performing partial-birth abortions after the 24th week died in 1995.

How Many: Partial birth abortions occur at least several thousand times a year in the United States. Just one New Jersey clinic reported performing about 1,500 each year, most for purely "elective" reasons. Ron Fitzsimmons, lobbyist for a trade association of abortionists, the National Coalition of Abortion Providers, recently publicly acknowledged that there are as many as 5,000 per year in the United States.

Why a "health" exception is unacceptable?

The proposed bill would ban all third-trimester abortions except when continuation of the pregnancy may endanger a mother's life or "health." The bill would leave untouched the vast majority of partial-birth abortions, which occur in the second trimester. And it would not even restrict third trimester abortions significantly because of the expansive definition of "health" mandated by the Supreme Court in Roe's companion case Doe v. Bolton. Any abortion related to the mother's social or emotional concerns, or even her age, is a "health" abortion according to Doe. In any event, at this late stage of pregnancy any threat posed by continuation of the pregnancy can be resolved by simply delivering a live child; the Daschle bill would allow the child to be killed in all such situations instead.

Why a "life of the mother" exception is unnecessary?

Opponents of a ban on partial-birth abortions rely most heavily upon the widely publicized accounts of a few women whose doctor (the late James McMahon) told them that their children were gravely ill and that a partial-birth abortion was necessary to preserve the mother's life or future fertility.

The Physicians' Ad-Hoc Coalition for Truth (over 600 doctors, most ob-gyns and fetal/maternal experts), along with former Surgeon General Koop have publicly verified that there are no medical conditions, either maternal or fetal, that necessitate the use of partial-birth abortion to remove the baby, or to preserve the mother's health, life or future fertility. The American Medical Association decided to support a ban on partial-birth abortion, after a careful study failed to find "any identified circumstance" in which it is needed. Even the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), a pro-abortion organization, has issued this statement: "A select panel convened by ACOG could identify no circumstances under which this procedure would be the only option to save the life or preserve the health of the woman." Citing no specifics, ACOG continues to claim that it may be one way to serve a woman's health; this statement is disputed by hundreds of doctors in its own ranks, who point out that certain aspects of the partial-birth procedure actually pose a special threat to woman's health and fertility.

In fact, why don't you cut to the chase and give me a factually sound, coherent definition of "human life"

What is human life?

The controversy swirling about the first question can be explained by the fact that different people use different standards of measurement by which to define "human life." Some would define it through a theologic or religious faith belief. Some would define "human life" using certain philosophic theories and beliefs. Others define "human life" by using biologic, scientific facts. Let us briefly explore the three methods of measurement.

THEOLOGIC OR RELIGIOUS FAITH BELIEF

This is best explained by considering three people who might state their respective beliefs as follows: a) I believe in God. I believe He creates a soul. I believe the soul is created at conception. Therefore, I believe that human Life begins at conception.

b) I also believe in God and a soul but I don’t believe the soul is created until birth (or some other time). Therefore, I believe that human life begins at birth (or some other time).

c) I don’t believe in God or a soul.

Comment

- The above are statements of religious faith or its absence.

- None of the above religious faith beliefs can be factually proven.

- Each individual has a right to his or her own religious beliefs.

PHILOSOPHIC THEORIES

Human life can be defined by using a wide variety of philosophic beliefs and theories. These use social or psychological rationale which can involve biologic mileposts. Examples of philosophic definitions of when human life begins include the following: When there is consciousness; when there is movement; when there is brain function, or a heartbeat; when viable; at birth; when wanted; when there has been an exchange of love; when "humanized"; when this is a person (how-ever "person" is defined); if mentally or physically normal, etc.

Comment

While admittedly arrived at through a certain reasoning process, all of the above remain theories. None can be proven factually by science.

Each individual has a right to hold his own philosophic beliefs.

People of good will can and do differ completely on the correctness of any or all of the philosophic beliefs and theories mentioned.

BIOLOGIC FACTS

Biologic human life is defined by examining the scientific facts of human development. This is a field where there is no controversy, no disagreement. There is only one set of facts, only one embryology book is studied in medical school. The more scientific knowledge of fetal development that has been learned, the more science has confirmed that the beginning of any one human individual’s life, biologically speaking, begins at the completion of the union of his father’s sperm and his mother’s ovum, a process called "conception," "fertilization" or "fecundation." This is so be-cause this being, from fertilization, is alive, human, sexed, complete and growing.

Comment

- The above is not a religious faith belief.

- The above is not a philosophic theory.

- The above is not debatable, not questioned. It is a universally accepted scientific fact.

Note: Detailed biologic facts are in Chapters 11 and 12.

Must the question "when does human life begin" be answered?

If there is one absolutely essential function of a nation or state, it is to protect the lives of those who live within its boundaries. In order to carry out this solemn duty it must first ask and answer when the life of its people begins.

What intellectual discipline, what method of measurement can we (should we) use in making this fateful definition?

The question of when human life begins is a scientific question. Therefore, we should look to scientific facts rather than philosophic theories or religious beliefs for the answer. We must conclude then that each individual human life begins at the beginning, at fertilization, and that human life is a continuum from that time until death.

What simple measure would you use to define Human Life?

We would ask:

Is this being alive? Yes. He has the characteristics of life. That is, he can reproduce his own cells and develop them into a specific pattern of maturity and function. Or more simply, he is