Vatican accuses Amnesty of immorality

Originally posted by shavixmir
Yes. It could be my choice to murder you, but you're not physically 100% dependent on me, you're not growing inside me. Should I kill myself, I'm not automatically gonna take you down with me.

That is the difference.

You can't seem to make up your mind whether you're using "CHOICE" as a descriptive term regardless of moral permissibility or as one that indicates a morally permissible act.

In any case, your logic seems a little bizarre. You seem to be saying that, when one human being is "100% dependent" (including biologically) on another, it is alright for the latter to kill the former; but if he/she is less than 100% dependent, it is not alright. Following the logic here, you would think it less wrong for the mother of a 1-month old infant to starve her child to death than for the mother of a 2-yr old child to do so, correct? Does this extend to other crimes against children as well?


Consider another hypothetical: The mother of a month-old infant attempts suicide by taking an overdose of pills. Emergency services are able to get to her in time, but not before her child dies of dehydration. Is what she did morally permissible? After all, it was her body, it should be her "CHOICE", right?

Originally posted by shavixmir
4. If in so doing she destroys something that needs her to be sustained, is this her own choice?
Yes.

So you are saying that a baby that is born say 2 months prematurely cannot be killed even though it is virtually identical to a 7 month old fetus that is still in a mothers womb? (which can be killed).

Originally posted by whiterose
[b]How do you define 'capacity to feel pain'?"

Having a nervous system.

'Viability' is a biological term -- why should it be morally determinant?

Of course biology is morally determinant. You afford people different rights than other animals based on biology, why should this be any different?

Are you saying that they do not actua to the survival of its host.
I think that just about sums up what an embryo does.[/b]

Having a nervous system.

That's a condition, not a definition. Are you saying that, if we were to discover an intelligent species that did not have something we can recognise as a nervous system, it would have no rights?


Of course biology is morally determinant. You afford people different rights than other animals based on biology, why should this be any different?

[Mind-reader alert]. I don't afford people different rights based on biology; I base it on the fact that, as a group, they possess powers of intellect and will.


I am saying that a newborn baby does not possess the same rights as an adult.

You didn't answer the question. Why does a newborn baby not possess the same rights as an adult? Is it because 'rights' are essentially set by the State? If not, how, when and why do young adults magically get "new" rights?


So you do consider God to be male. What a horrible, misogynistic religion.

Just considering God to be male makes it a horrible, misogynistic religion, huh? As I said earlier, that's the usual radical feminist misanthropic plonk.


The catholic church

Prove it.


1. As I said before, a ball of cells does not equal a human being. You have yet to show otherwise.

"Ball of cells" = organism of species homo sapiens sapiens (also commonly called 'human beings'😉


2.Parasite - An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but a parasite must be phylogenetically unrelated to the host. You can read a bit more about parasitism here:

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

Oh, and I should also mention that allowing the embryo to develop and mature does, in fact, "contribute to the survival" of most mothers. Deliberately interrupting the hormonal changes a woman experiences during her pregnancy is a dangerous thing. Even if you don't believe the studies that show a link between abortion and breast cancer, there is plenty of other research that shows correlations between successful pregnancies and decreased heart disease, for instance.

Originally posted by whiterose
A mother can give her infant child to someone else to feed if she cannot/will not take care of it. The same cannot be said for the ball of cells growing inside her.

Regardless of whether she can or cannot do that, my question was -- is it or is it not her "CHOICE"?

You're not answering the question.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
There isn't. It's quite simple -- abortion is the deliberate killing of an innocent human being. No matter what other good an organisation does, if it supports such killing, it's off the list.

As I asked bbarr, would you support Amnesty Int'l if it, say, facilitated the killing of black people?

Just to add -- I am not at this point of time trying to convince you of my position or change your giving habits.

I am, however, simply pointing out that, given what the Church holds regarding abortion, how anything but what it has done in this case would be hypocrisy.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Regardless of whether she can or cannot do that, my question was -- is it or is it not her "CHOICE"?

You're not answering the question.

It is her choice not to care for her baby, yes. She can give it away if she chooses.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
[b]Having a nervous system.

That's a condition, not a definition. Are you saying that, if we were to discover an intelligent species that did not have something we can recognise as a nervous system, it would have no rights?


Of course biology is morally determinant. You afford people different rights than other animals based on biology, ns between successful pregnancies and decreased heart disease, for instance.

[b]That's a condition, not a definition. Are you saying that, if we were to discover an intelligent species that did not have something we can recognise as a nervous system, it would have no rights?

Since intelligence is measured by the abilities of your brain, which is part of your nervous system, I don't think that this is possible.

[Mind-reader alert]. I don't afford people different rights based on biology; I base it on the fact that, as a group, they possess powers of intellect and will.

Which are biological.

You didn't answer the question. Why does a newborn baby not possess the same rights as an adult? Is it because 'rights' are essentially set by the State? If not, how, when and why do young adults magically get "new" rights?

It depends on the right. Should a newborn have the right to vote? I personally think not, and the state I live in agrees. There are certain rights that do not change throughout life, and some that do. Young adults "magically" get new rights when they are old enough to handle the responsibility of having them (e.g. voting).

Originally posted by lucifershammer
[b]Having a nervous system.

That's a condition, not a definition. Are you saying that, if we were to discover an intelligent species that did not have something we can recognise as a nervous system, it would have no rights?


Of course biology is morally determinant. You afford people different rights than other animals based on biology, ...[text shortened]... lations between successful pregnancies and decreased heart disease, for instance.

Just considering God to be male makes it a horrible, misogynistic religion, huh?

yes. Especially when use use this belief as an excuse for why women should be second class citizens.

Prove it.

Ever heard of the crusades?Inquisition?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholic_Church

"Ball of cells" = organism of species

Physiologically speaking no, it does not.

from my veterinary dictionary )which I personally trust over wiki, but I guess it's really just semantics)
Parasite: a plant or animal that lives upon or within another living organism at whose expense it obtains some advantage.

Oh, and I should also mention that allowing the embryo to develop and mature does, in fact, "contribute to the survival" of most mothers.

Hmm, you mean the ones who don't die as a result of pregnancy complications. I think the distinct possibility of death outweighs all of the minor possible benefits to make it a highly detrimental endevour overall.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Just to add -- I am not at this point of time trying to convince you of my position or change your giving habits.

I am, however, simply pointing out that, given what the Church holds regarding abortion, how anything but what it has done in this case would be hypocrisy.

And I'm just trying to point out that the churche's position on abortion is hypocritical given its history, and is in fact simply another way to attempt to subjugate women.

Originally posted by whiterose
Parasite: a plant or animal that lives upon or within another living organism at whose expense it obtains some advantage.

Although not specifically stated in that definition, I think offspring are normally excluded. We could call all offspring 'parasitic' for some portion of their life but it is not normal to refer to all offspring (including seeds by the way) as parasites.

Originally posted by whiterose
It is her choice not to care for her baby, yes. She can give it away if she chooses.

Do you think it should be her choice neither to give the baby away nor to care for it?

Originally posted by twhitehead
Although not specifically stated in that definition, I think offspring are normally excluded. We could call all offspring 'parasitic' for some portion of their life but it is not normal to refer to all offspring (including seeds by the way) as parasites.

While not a normal usage, it fits the definition. I supose it is all really a question of semantics, though, and not really worth arguing about.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Do you think it should be her choice neither to give the baby away nor to care for it?

no

Originally posted by whiterose
That's a condition, not a definition. Are you saying that, if we were to discover an intelligent species that did not have something we can recognise as a nervous system, it would have no rights?

Since intelligence is measured by the abilities of your brain, which is part of your nervous system, I don't think that this is possible.

[Mind ts when they are old enough to handle the responsibility of having them (e.g. voting).

Since intelligence is measured by the abilities of your brain, which is part of your nervous system, I don't think that this is possible.

What constitutes intelligence is a very separate question from how it is facilitated in a particular instance. With humans it involves a biological nervous system, sure. With other species/life-forms it simply needn't. So you still have to answer my question:

Are you saying that, if we were to discover an intelligent species that did not have something we can recognise as a nervous system, it would have no rights?


[powers of intellect and will] are biological.

No, they aren't. They may be based on biological structures in humans, but that needn't be the case universally.


It depends on the right... There are certain rights that do not change throughout life, and some that do. Young adults "magically" get new rights when they are old enough to handle the responsibility of having them (e.g. voting).

So, an 18-yr old citizen of a state that has a minimum voting age of 21 is not old enough to handle the responsibility of the right to vote while the 18-yr old citizen of a state with a minimum voting age of 18 is?

Originally posted by whiterose
Just considering God to be male makes it a horrible, misogynistic religion, huh?

yes. Especially when use use this belief as an excuse for why women should be second class citizens.

Prove it.

Ever heard of the crusades?Inquisition?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholic_Church

"Ball of cells" = organism of species

P ...[text shortened]... eighs all of the minor possible benefits to make it a highly detrimental endevour overall.[/b]

yes. Especially when use use this belief as an excuse for why women should be second class citizens.

Exactly how is the Christian use of masculine language for God used as an excuse for women being second class citizens?


Ever heard of the crusades?Inquisition?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholic_Church

The Inquisition wasn't a war.

The Crusades were wars (in a sense), but defending your territory and civilisation against armed aggression and annexation is not "starting a war". Bad example; try again.


Physiologically speaking no, it does not.

In this case, it does. Or are you going to tell me that organisms do not exist with undifferentiated cells?


Hmm, you mean the ones who don't die as a result of pregnancy complications. I think the distinct possibility of death outweighs all of the minor possible benefits to make it a highly detrimental endevour overall.

There is a distinct possibility of death when having sex -- do you propose humans stop doing that as well?

For all the accusations of misogyny you level at Christianity, your views above (and previously, in referring to the child growing in the womb as a "parasite"😉 render those accusations rather hollow.