WaPo Thinks Biden is ‘Very Catholic’ and Bishops in Line With the Church are ‘Right-Wing’
So are those bishops still “right-wing” when they speak out against gun violence and push for just immigration laws?
The person writing The Washington Post‘s tweets exposed his or her bias!
The person described President Joe Biden as “very Catholic” and the bishops upholding Catholic teaching on abortion as “right-wing.”
Here is the tweet. I took a screenshot in case they delete it. Read it slowly.
First off, the tweet gives us an opportunity to see who went beyond the tweet and read the article. It has nothing to do with him actively overturning Roe vs. Wade. It has everything to do with Biden receiving Communion.
You should not present yourself for Communion if you are not in communion with the Catholic Church.
Second, author Michelle Boorstein tries to make the argument a left-wing vs. right-wing argument as evidenced by the tweet. I doubt she wrote the tweet, but the article makes the point.
“Since his election, the increasingly loud right wing of the church made it clear that Biden cannot continue to expand abortion rights and call himself a Catholic and go unchallenged,” wrote Boorstein.
Listen, the Catholic Church does not have a political position. When we talk about the Church we talk about doctrine, which is known as the Catechism. The faith.
Those within the Church have political views. The Church herself does not have a political view.
The Catholic Church is against abortion:
The Catechism of the Catholic Church states: “Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law” (No. 2271).
The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) stated that “modern science has not changed the Church’s constant teaching against abortion.”
In other words, the Church has always been against abortion. Modern science has also upheld the Church’s stance on abortion since the first century!
I was baptized Catholic, but not raised in the Church. I went through RCIA to convert.
One class concentrated on social issues. The teacher said the one issue you cannot budge on is abortion. As stated above, the Church established its teaching on abortion in the first century. But also life. It is a moral evil and contradicts moral law.
“Will they [the bishops] press harder on abortion purity?” pondered Boorstein.
Abortion purity? No, it’s about sticking to the Church’s doctrine. It’s about upholding the Church’s teaching and moral law.
Boorstein seems to think Biden attending “Mass week after week” and talking “about his faith is powerful to millions of American Catholics.”
Biden’s Catholicism, my Catholicism, my friend’s Catholicism is about attending Mass and talking about our faith. It’s also more than that.
The Church’s teaching on abortion is more than condemning the murder of an unborn human being. It’s about actively saving these people. I am vocal with my pro-life stance and I donate to emergency pregnancy centers. When my church takes donations for women’s crisis centers I help out.
When a person has a pedestal like Biden has he or she better use it. Biden tries to back away saying he separates his faith and politics. He claims to be personally pro-life, but politically he’s pro-choice. He takes steps to expand abortion access in America and abroad!
Pro-choice vs. pro-abortion: are you fighting laws that would stop “choice”? Or are you creating laws that make it easier to procure an abortion?
The USCCB wrote after Biden’s November win (emphasis mine):
The Eucharist is the source and summit of Catholic life. Therefore, like every Catholic generation before us, we must be guided by the words of St. Paul, “Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the Body and Blood of the Lord” (1 Cor 11:27). This means that all must examine their consciences as to their worthiness to receive the Body and Blood of our Lord. This examination includes fidelity to the moral teaching of the Church in personal and public life.
But you know what? It really is simple: You should not present yourself for Communion if you are not in communion with the Catholic Church.
The bishops and priests and other people within the Church can try to make it complicated and nuanced. But it is not.
One more time: You should not present yourself for Communion if you are not in communion with the Catholic Church.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Abortion is a complex issue, people’s beliefs are there own.
Question what does this refer to/mean “Modern science has also upheld the Church’s stance on abortion since the first century!”
There’s nothing complex about it.
Suppose many people believed that black people are not human and it’s OK to kill them if you like, and the Supreme Court had upheld that belief, and further ruled that since the only possible objection to killing black people is religious, neither the USA nor any state or municipality may restrict in any way the killing of black people.
Now suppose you are the president in such a situation, and you personally believe that this is wrong. Of course you can’t defy the Supreme Court, but would you not be required to do everything that you can to minimize the impact of this ruling, and certainly to do nothing to further enable such killings? Suppose you did act to enable more such killings, beyond what you were compelled to do by law; could you still claim to be a Catholic, let alone a good one?!
Well first of your analogy isn’t good at all since it doesn’t represent the bodily autonomy issue not does it represent the person hood issue. This isn’t a case of some whimsical word play around if someone if a person it’s a question of when. What constitutes someone becoming a person. The religious perspective doesn’t really help either because a) religion shouldnt be imposed on people which currently in this instance it is b) the Bible is full of contradictions in terms of teachings, did you know for example that the Bible doesn’t consider anyone a person until a baby is one month old. If you take the more common place belief that Christians do about the moment of conception that means women have a severely restricted use of contraception too which is inherently wrong in its own right.
And all this is trumped by bodily autonomy you don’t get to dictate whether a women can or can’t decide having something grow inside of them. In other words it’s none of your damn business.
From Bidens point of view it’s very simple he has a personal view which be isn’t imposing on anyone else which seems entirely reasonable given the way the constitution is structured as a secular document
It certainly does represent the personhood issue. How do you know negroes are people? What if someone were to claim they aren’t? From where I sit such a person’s position would look exactly like yours.
What. Are you serious. Black people are clearly persons, there is no functional difference in regard to any race to make them not a person. That’s quite different to a foetus which is necessarily in a developmental stage slowing gaining attributes that might make up a definition of personhood. At what stages can be debated but to claim a whole category of people can be dismissed as not people without a justification seems odd to say the least.
In fact, I had a conversation with a man who made exactly that claim. I admit to being startled by it.
Mark finds it outrageous that anyone would think that black people are not clearly persons. Yet, that was precisely their legal and social status in the 17th and 18th centuries, so be careful when you assert what is “obvious” and what is not.
Who says functional differences are what matters in defining personhood? That’s just your say-so. Someone else may define it differently.
Tell me, is a brain-damaged human still a person? What about a person in a coma, or simply asleep? Are you a person when you’re asleep? Is it OK for someone to kill you in your sleep? If you think not, explain why it’s OK for them to kill an 8.5-month foetus, or even a 2-month foetus.
The issue is not person or personhood, but human life and evolution, which is a progressive process until natural or anthropogenic selection. The question is when does a religion (Pro-Choice) have the right to deem a life unworthy of life or profitable in parts. Also, when is there a legal and moral (“ethical”) right to abort a human life for causes other than self-defense, for light and casual causes (e.g. the euphemistic social progress, social justice). A woman and man, a couple, have four choices before they resort to the fifth choice, pro-choice, the wicked solution.
Personhood is a key question because that tells you whether it may be moral or not. If it’s not a person it cannot fundamentally be considered to be murder. That’s the starting point for whole abortion conversation
When is personhood? From the get-go.
From the very first cell the baby’s DNA is different and distinct from the mother’s DNA, and it will be the DNA that child has for the rest of the child’s life. Furthermore, that cell is merely the first of the human personhood, commencing a development process that goes on and continues well into the person’s teen years. 9-months merely marks natural viability of the person who has been developing that long, and will now continue development autonomously from the mother.
I’m sorry big thumbs that SO was a DOWN vote
Abortion is murder, it just simply is
Accidental thumbs down, friend. I apologize.
Elective abortion is premeditated, which is why they tried to normalize so-called “rape culture” (e.g. witch trials, warlock judgments) in order to socially and morally justify, calm conscience dysphoria, and force a democratic consensus, the wicked solution. But, to their chagrin, even feminists or feminists-adjacent questioned their progress.
Abortion is homicide, elective abortion is premeditated often for light and casual (e.g. social) causes. The criminal act has been renegotiated with passage of the Twilight Amendment or the “penumbras and emanations” that are perceived where there is a democratic/dictatorial political congruence (“=”), but no viable path to realize durable change, and normalized under the Progressive Church, Pro-Choice religion, and institutional aiding and abetting of Planned Parent/hood et al.
@mark311
“Abortion is a complex issue, people’s beliefs are there/(their) own.”
Abortion is a very simple issue: the deliberate taking of a human life. The deliberate taking of a human life is murder. Abortion is murder.
No it’s a lot more complex than that. Firstly a foetus isn’t a person, and it’s pretty debatable at what stage you can count personhood. The first heart beat maybe, or brain function. All these are pretty hard to tell. All of this is moot Inna sense since the mother has bodily autonomy, the mother can do whatever they want to themselves in terms of a foetus. It’s no unreasonable for women to make choices about there own body.
Says who? That is the whole point of this discussion; you don’t get to assert your opinion as a fact and impose it on the rest of us. To most of us here your statement is exactly the same as declaring that a negro is not a person, or a Jew is not a person.
(Of course to a PETA member our insistence that a chicken is not a person is equally unacceptable. The difference is merely that we’re right and they’re wrong. In our opinion, of course. The point is that this is not reconcilable. Our premises are different so there is no possibility of agreement. But we and the PETA person can agree to defend all humans, whom we both regard as people.)
No, they’re not. And almost all abortions are after those milestones.
It’s very unreasonable when those choices involve murdering another person. You might as well argue that since my trigger finger is part of my body, my bodily autonomy includes the right to shoot you.
I hate that I cannot like a post if it has a quote. Consider this a virtual like Millhouse.
I avoid the noid by starting a post with a single period if it would otherwise start with a blockquote.
Or, LI’s IT team could just fix the problem.
Again that’s not a good analogy since I’m not attached to you or in any way reliant on you for life.
What assertion that deciding personhood is hard? That’s not controversial. The claim I’m making is that it’s wrong to legislate against abortion and that’s a position taken by the western world with the USA as the exception and for no good reason as far as I can tell.
On the personhood question well that’s the thing isn’t it it’s hard question , which is why many countries frame abortion as acceptable before the foetus becomes viable which is circa 20 weeks depending on the medical care and knowledge. It’s a thorny difficult question with no right or wrong answers.
Actually you are wrong, if you are taking heartbeat then the stats are something like 25% of abortions have taken place before the heartbeat if you are talking about brain activity that’s not until week24 ish and therefore that covers most abortions
You can hear a heartbeat at 5 to 5 1/2 weeks with a vaginal ultrasound. Wait a week and you can hear it with an abdominal ultrasound(in a healthy baby).
If there is a problem then it might not be detected. I was a high risk pregancy with my child. I cannot tell you how thrilling it was to hear his heartbeat at 6 weeks(that was when I figured out that he was there.)
We saw the baby’s heartbeat at barely 5 weeks. And we saw its total absence at 6 weeks after it died.
Any person who tries to say (as has E Emanuel and his friends with the ‘complete lives’ theory) that a parent will feel the loss of a toddler less than that of a 12 yo child obviously never had a miscarriage of a wanted child, never mind the loss of one after its birth.
That child would be almost 18 now. I still think and wonder who he or she would have been.
@librarygriffon
I’m sorry for your loss,
Respectfully though what’s that got to do with abortion. This is about a mother’s choice to do what she thinks is right. Those are difficult choices depending on the circumstances and falsely characterising it as murder is immoral
Personhood is simple: it begins at the very first cell, with the DNA being unique, distinctly different from the mother’s DNA, and enduring for the remainder of the child’s life. Everything else is development – a development for which 9-months marks natural viability, and which development will now continue separately from the mother, and continue will into the teen years.
The person is that first cell: that first cell will never be anything but a person.
Under that argument sperm and the egg would be life in which case women commit murder everyone they have a period or everyone you ejaculate.
I can tell you as a nurse, I have NEVER heard ANY woman say,” I lost my fetus “
They always say, to the T, “ I lost my baby”, if it was 6 weeks or 6 months
Of course they are emotionally attached , that’s perfectly reasonable as a response. But as an accurate scientific term it’s not correct now is it.
Shame Biden’s mother was not in favor of birth control.
Agree paracelsus, abortion isn’t complex at all. There’s no justification in painfully murdering completely defenseless babies before they can take their first breath.
This is where it gets simple: It’s Murder in the First Degree.
Your entitled to your view but stating it’s simple is very disengenuous. If you can’t answer the bodily autonomy or personhood question then it’s best you don’t impose your views on others
I can answer both very easily: Your right to swing your fist stops where someone else’s nose begins. Your right to squeeze your index finger stops when that finger is on the trigger of a gun pointed at someone else. And a foetus old enough to be aborted is a person. You disagree, but what gives you the right to impose your view on us? What gives you the right to prevent legislators from rescuing the victims by banning abortion?
Well your analogy don’t work they bear no resemblance to a pregnant women.
And you are brushing over the fact that you don’t have an argument for personhood or bodily autonomy. You are the one imposing your view on others without basis.
It’s pretty hard to argue a foetus is a victim when its not got brain Activity.
The baby stage of development is not the end, but the beginning of human evolution. A human life is aborted through natural or anthropogenic selection (“choice”). The term “fetus” is a technical term of art to socially distance technicians and abortionists, the latter from their intended victim.
A human being is just as non-autonomous at three weeks after birth as at three weeks before birth. It can NOT do anything for itself and will die quickly if left alone and unattended.
So how does killing the child after it is born differ from killing it before birth? The only difference I can see is that the task of looking after it can be handed off to another person, but if the child is to live someone has to take care of it. And as I recall it was a heck of a lot easier being pregnant than looking after the kids during the first few years.
Only in terms of food and sustenance it does require the biological functions of a mother. It would be perfectly feasible for some other person to look after that baby if say tragedy struck and the mother died in child birth
The point here, Mark, is that you are not Catholic. Neither am I, and I would never dream of taking communion at a Catholic mass.
Indeed I would never attend one in the first place, since I believe it is an idolatrous ritual that violates the first two commandments, and I would allow myself to be murdered rather than take Catholic communion. But that’s by the by. You obviously don’t share my beliefs any more than you do Ms Chastain’s, and you may have no objection to attending a mass. That’s fine, the Catholics welcome you there. But they do not welcome you to take communion unless you are a Catholic, which by definition means you accept the Church’s teaching on abortion. Biden doesn’t, so he has no right to take communion.
You are conflating Bidens public policy and his personal opinions.
This is the crux of it, as a difficult issue it’s morally wrong for a law to restrict access when there are all sorts of good reasons to have an abortion, and given the difficulty in establishing that a foetus is a person AND the fact that a women has bodily autonomy in particular since you like using weird analogies, over what’s growing inside of them. I don’t see why laws should restrict access unless it’s for a good medical reason and criminalising is the height of stupidity.
Fetus us a technical term of art used by technicians and abortionists in order to socially distance themselves. The latter from their intended victim. The issue, however, is elective abortion of a human life for the sake of social progress and medical progress. Planned Parent/hood is the institutional normalization of elective abortion of a viable human life or wicked solution under religious oversight. Most recently, they have tried to normalize witch trials and warlock judgments through the declaration of a rape culture (while simultaneously embracing social liberalism) denying human rights and men their civil rights. Elective abortion is the fifth choice, the wicked solution (to a purported hard problem), or pro-choice, selective, opportunistic, relativistic (“ethical”) that serves feminist and masculinist ambitions to keep women and girls appointed, available, and taxable.
You are having a word salad moment. Not really sure you’ve actually said anything substantive.
You disagree with my argument, because it conflicts with your religious beliefs.
Says the murderer
@n.n I don’t have any religious beliefs I’m an atheist
@gonzotx you are entitled to your views on abortion but to describe someone who is pro women’s choice in abortion as a murder is not viable. On that basis I can claim you as a Catholic are responsible for deaths based on your beliefs such as those caused by aids because of the Catholic view on contraception. The question can be framed as as women’s rights Vs fetal rights, and that’s a hard question I take the view that a) it’s the women’s choice and b) a gradualist approach should be taken. In other words at an early stage (circa 20 weeks) it’s a relatively easy choice as in the rights of the fetus are limited because of the lack of brain activity and ability to understand pain etc, that becomes more complicated after this point and so necessarily there needs to be a better reason for an abortion . I don’t consider it black and white, it’s not a trivial decision at any stage for the mother and never should be. The reality is most women get abortions because they think it’s the right thing to do for a whole range of reasons and who are to advocate your general view on the specific circumstances of a person.
A fetus is a technical term of art to describe a stage in human development, which is otherwise referred to as a baby when there is no natural selection or anthropogenic election. The issue has been conflated under the general term “abortion” (e.g. homicide) in order to obfuscate the practice and consequence of elective abortion, the fifth choice or pro-choice, the wicked solution, to what is purported to be a hard problem: keep women appointed, available, and taxable. Women do have autonomy. and conception does not happen in a vacuum, so men, too, with four choices. This is why the abortionists try to normalize so-called “rape culture” in order to deny women’s choices and both a woman and man’s personal, and shared, responsibility.
Mark you are conflating the argument not the other way around. This has nothing to do with laws and arguments about when a baby becomes a baby. This is all about what the CATHOLIC CHURCH teaches. Let me put it simply. Actions speak louder than words. Making legal arguments about abortion doesn’t change what the church teaches and like it or not when it comes to communion and belonging to the church their teachings are all that matter. If you disagree with the Catholic Church you can leave. Nothing says you need to stay. However trying to use the Catholic Church for your own misguided ends absolutely need to be pointed out.
What exactly have I conflated?
The argument has expanded beyond the scope of the article.
Nor have I made legal arguments I have made moral arguments.
I haven’t discussed the churches teachings at all, as I’ve said several times religious views shouldn’t inform public policy which is a substantive element of what the article discusses.
Last time I checked there was no requirement to be a Catholic to make a comment on a website. So respectfully I’ll decline.
I’m not entirely clear how I’m using the church as you put it. I’ve been straightforward with my arguments and presented them with good faith.
“Nor have I made legal arguments I have made moral arguments.”
UUHMM….What???
Okay you are a moron so let me break this down Barney style,
1. I do believe everyone agrees that MORALLY abortion is wrong…period. There can be legal/technical arguments made (which is what you have made) to muddy the waters and attempt to justify this stance but even then it is still MORALLY WRONG.
2. The article and my argument are from the Catholic view. Let’s put it simply in Jesus’s words: “People will know my followers not by what they say but by what they do” Quite simply stating you have personal and professional views that differ don’t work. His actions are against Catholic teachings, therefore he is not in good standing with the Catholic Church and SHOULD not be taking communion period.
3. The comment about using the Catholic Church was about what Biden is doing.
4. Now as to the churches teachings no you haven’t discussed them because you have attempted to make a legal/technical argument attempting to put that in place of the church’s teaching. To put it in simple terms you can understand. The Church teaches morality and public policy is whether it is legal or not.
@gmac124
Ok fuckwit let me break down for you. You don’t get to claim x is wrong by restating that x is wrong that’s not an argument. The technical arguments are in support of a philosophical position which are twofold none of which you seem capable of addressing or even acknowledging that is a) personhood and b) bodily autonomy
As for discussion about Catholic teachings that’s not my concern, my concern is when religion is imposing it’s view on others. Catholicism is not a good basis for moral arguments at all. Which is another reason is why religious argumentation should stay the hell out of policy and any legal framework.
With particular regard to Bidens views Vs the Catholic church that’s fine can respect that you might not appreciate the contradiction never the less his religious views can stay the hell out of policy.
You really should work on comprehension because you just confirmed what I stated.
“The technical arguments are in support of a philosophical position”
You are making technical arguments in favor of the law not MORAL arguments. That is exactly what I called you out for. I know reading is easy but the comprehension is hard. Have a great day.
@gmac124
Those are arguments for the morality of abortion. Those discussions around personhood and bodily autonomy form the basis of what’s important to determine whether it is or isn’t moral. I do g know how to explain it better so perhaps you should go and do some reading on the subject. It’s pretty clear you don’t have a clue what your talking about. How do you think moral arguments are formed? You seem to lack this basic understanding.
As this non-Catholic understands it, the Catechism doesn’t have public policy exceptions. Biden can have public opinions on abortion to go with his purported private ones, but if those public opinions contradict the Catechism, he can’t have Communion. Americans are so accustomed to “Cafeteria Catholicism” that they think they can defy or ignore the Church’s most fundamental teachings and remain in good standing. That’s not possible yet, but give Francis more time and it may well be.
Right. This argument doesn’t hinge on whether abortion is right or wrong. It hinges on whether an institution that teaches that abortion is always and everywhere wrong can approve of a politician’ stance that abortion is sometimes right without being obvious and damnable hypocrites.
Of course, the world that pays attention has long ago realized that the white robes Francis wears are fully lined in red.
Milhouse. You are awesome. I am Catholic. Rock on. I respect your integrity and search for truth. I would be willing to die if forced to deny the Church.
By the way, since we’re on the topic, while I agree with the Catholic position that a foetus is a person, I do not agree that a just-conceived embryo is also a person. I hold to the traditional view that a baby becomes a person at about six weeks from conception, which modern science tells us is when the first detectable brain activity occurs.
So I’m fine with embryologists’ rule that they can only mess around with embryos for the first 14 days. At that point there’s no foetus, just undifferentiated cells. To me that’s not a person. But by six weeks you have a baby with a definite form and organs that are beginning to function.
All this means that I am not a Catholic, but you already knew that.
That’s not quite right the first detected brain formation occurs around 6 weeks but brain activity for consciousness is more like 24
Indeed your religious views are your own and can respect that. It’s when those views are forced on others that I take issue.
Neural development begins around one month following conception. The 24 weeks figure for conscious development is an article of faith.
Sounds about right , the brain takes a long time to develop. That’s what I’ve read, as I understand it there are quite a few development stages to the brain during those 9 months. Which is why is complicated to determine personhood.
Personhood is a semantic construct used for the quasi-legal justification and empathetic apology for elective abortion. All of us begin life as a baby in our mother’s womb, the origin of all human life: mother and father, and evolve without natural or anthropogenic selection.
@ n.n personhood is not a semantic construction its an important definition on how we view rights . You seem rather prone to defining things as mere word play when it suits you when it’s nothing of the sort. These are important ideas that have debates around them that’s why they are difficult. Your hand wavey attitude doesn’t help.
Conception IS the MIRACLE, not 6 weeks later
Watch a video of when the sperm finally succeeds getting into the egg
There is an explosion of light, it is the moment of creation and the child’s soul
6 weeks
Please
That’s your religious view which is fine but don’t try and impose that view on others.
Milhouse: My apologies for the delay in replying.
“. I hold to the traditional view that a baby becomes a person at about six weeks from conception, which modern science tells us is when the first detectable brain activity occurs.
So I’m fine with embryologists’ rule that they can only mess around with embryos for the first 14 days. At that point there’s no foetus, just undifferentiated cells. To me that’s not a person. But by six weeks you have a baby with a definite form and organs that are beginning to function.”
The Catholic view is that the sexual act is one of procreation, the father with the sperm, the mother with the egg, and the Creator of the Universe provides a unique soul. To be sure the just fertilized egg is one cell, and will become undifferentiated cells, before becoming what we can recognize. But what is that cell lacking, other than time and nutrition, from what that will be in 9 months, a fully developed, but unborn baby? Brain cell activity is result of what is already there.
To be sure, we think the cells are undifferentiated. At one point, rearranging the cells doesn’t change the outcome. Wait too long, and rearranging the cells results in parts growing in the wrong places, which I what I remember from biology classes taken when President Carter was still in office. However, those cells must somehow “know” they need to form different parts, and have a means that those parts are covered. Usually people are born with two arms, two legs, one digestive tract, etc. So even in the “undifferentiated” stage, the cells have a scheme for working things out.
I have spent time at a regularly scheduled outdoor Mass a block from an abortion clinic. Now even Nancy Pelosi can be right, the Church doesn’t claim to know when the soul is placed in the embryo. What is the usual teaching of the Jewish faith on this matter? When does the fertilized egg get it’s soul? Is there a consensus on abortion? You would define person as having brainwave activity, but how soon before that activity would they not be a person?
Biden is not Catholic. He’s Pro-Choice of the Progressive Church, Clinic, etc.
The issue shouldn’t be framed as denying as a kind of punishment, but one of lovingly calling back an errant brother.
If it is the catholic position that wrongfully partaking of communion spiritually harms the person doing it, then the denial of communion is a caring act. It serves as a warning to the person to return to the faith. It serves as a warning to others to not stray in the same way lest they, too, fall away from the faith.
Medical experts agree that fetal pain begins at 14 weeks gestation, maybe even as early as 8 weeks. But perhaps the best source for firsthand experience with fetal pain is an abortionist.
As early as 1976, those performing abortions realized that the procedure is painful for the dying fetus. Abortionist John Szenes describes an unborn baby fighting for its life during a saline injection:
All of a sudden one noticed that at the time of the saline infusion there was a lot of activity in the uterus. That’s not fluid currents. That’s obviously the fetus being distressed by swallowing the concentrated salt solution and kicking violently and that’s, to all intents and purposes, the death trauma.1
Fetal pain is a reason to end abortion
Saline solution used in this type of abortion causes intense pain when injected under the skin. This solution is injected into the fetus’s sac, burning the fetus from the outside and poisoning him/her from the inside. During this slow death, which takes about two hours, the fetus thrashes around inside the womb. His/her heart rate more than doubles as a response to the solution, in spite of the fact that the heart is not physically touched by the solution.
He/she dies solely from the pain.
They certainly do not. There is actually quite limited evidence in terms of fetal pain and the ability of the fetus to actually have pain. It’s suggested that by 24 weeks this might be realistic. There is some debate depending on you define pain ie whether it’s got to be processed by the brain or whether having a response at all counts. Like I’ve said it’s a complex issue and that’s a complex part too.
So extremely premature babies (21-23 weeks) can’t feel pain? I think docs have changed their minds on that; I’m not sure. What I am sure of is this: A baby may be called a fetus until a certain gestational age, but it’s still a baby, much as a human from 13 to 18 is called a teenager but is still a person.
The literature I’ve read makes the point that the brain doesn’t develop enough until 24 weeks to be able to interpret pain. There is an argument that some ability to react to pain develops slightly earlier and the suggestion therefore is that the fetus is given pain management at roughly 18 weeks. The understanding of what we mean by Pain is somewhat complicated prior to the development of the brain it wouldnt be in the conventional sense at all.
No a foetus is not a baby. That’s kinda the point it’s a term defined by being in the womb and at that developmental stage.
Your analogy doesn’t really get to grips with the functional difference as to why a foetus would not be considered a person does it. Teenagers (for the most part) have brain activity, personalities , conscious thought etc
Never forget: the Washington Post is Jeff Bezos. Bezos is malignant on a level John Kerry can only dream of.
Only a megalomaniac like Jeff Bezos could think that he is better qualified than Catholic bishops to define a “good Catholic.”
It’s really simple, although it appears beyond the grasp of some of the trolls. Abortion is against the church’s laws and the church is well within its rights to deny communion to anyone who advocates for child murder.
That’s a separate argument not one I’ve actually addressed. All I’ve argued is that a) abortion is a complex issue and b) it shouldn’t be criminalised and c) there is a difference between public policy and privately held views
Of course. It’s the one you’ve been avoiding, because it’s the one that this particular article is all about, and you, as an atheist, have no argument to make.
Avoid isnt the word I’d use. Catholics are entitled to believe whatever they want until they start imposing there views on others. The abortion debate is an example of that.Catholicism lost the monopoly on morality a long time ago.
Vatican II ruined the Catholic Church.
Before Vatican II, the rules were concise and well known.
Just read the Baltimore Catechism.
After Vatican II, some Bishops taught you veto long established rules if you concluded it was OK. Therefore, birth control and premarital sex is OK.
Biden is OK with baby killing.
Although it is well established that many murdered babies feel pain, the Democrats have voted down any pain medicine for the babies slaughtered.
Federal law requires humane slaughtering of animals killed for meat.
Getting back to the Catholic aspect, Cannon Law requires Communion to be withheld from public sinners who have not repented for their sins and continue their sinful ways.
The evil bishops that say its OK to give Biden communion, are telling their flock that it OK to kill to babies.
These evil bishops are more concerned with the millions of tax dollars ringing the bishops cash registers than the babies Biden says are OK to kill.
Well your characterisation of murdered babies is inaccurate. They aren’t babies they are fetus’s . Nor do fetus’s in reality feel pain and certainly not in the sense you suggest. From 24 weeks that would be true but prior to this it’s more like a reflex action, the brain hasn’t formed and therefore can’t interpret the response. There is some theoretical evidence that some kind of further pain response develops earlier so there is an argument for fetal pain relief after 18 weeks based on the literature I’ve read.
Can you be specific with your comments regarding Democrats? I’m not sure I’ve read anything about that, as far as I’m aware they have vetoed bills that relate to restricting access so if fetal pain management was part of the bill then that’s ancillary to the primary purpose of the bill I would opine.
The Catholic Church has always taught that human life begins at conception. Therefore, under the doctrine, abortion (at any stage) is the taking of a life.
A Catholic in good standing has to hold the same position both privately and publicly. It does not matter if the procedure is legal; for a Catholic, abortion is immoral.
The Catholic faith is not a cafeteria or buffet. It is a foundation on which a person builds life. Carrying a Rosary does not make you a Catholic any more than proclaiming loudly in front of Saint Patrick’s Cathedral.
Yeah some fair comments, but the US is fundamentally a secular nation. Religious views shouldn’t be superimposed on policy unless there is a good secular reason. Religion and politics don’t mix in my view but can respect that you think that the contradiction is unsustainable.
Well, as we all know, nobody understand the teachings of the Catholic church like a Jewish writer at WaPo. Imagine if they had sent Mary Anne Kowalski to comment on Judaism.
“WaPo Thinks Biden is ‘Very Catholic’ and Bishops in Line With the Church are ‘Right-Wing’”
Every once in a while I think to myself, OK, the WaPo can’t get any more stupid than this.
And then either the WaPo or the NYT asks me to hold their beer.
I especially enjoy it when those pagans and atheists try to explain religion.
“The religious perspective doesn’t really help either because a) religion shouldnt be imposed on people which currently in this instance it is b) the Bible is full of contradictions in terms of teachings, did you know for example that the Bible doesn’t consider anyone a person until a baby is one month old. If you take the more common place belief that Christians do about the moment of conception that means women have a severely restricted use of contraception too which is inherently wrong in its own right.”
See what I mean?
Joe Biden refuses to condemn the Chinese concentration camps. Apparently it’s OK to enslave Uighurs and rape and kill them. Because, no kidding, they have different cultural values.
Well, alrighty then.
But then Kali and NY dems can lecture us Texans about our gun laws.
Please tell me again how it’s wrong to impose one’s own religion on other people.
No not really , on one hand the Catholic claim is that personhood starts at conception when the Bible seems to state that personhood starts one month after a baby is born.
The other points aren’t dogmatic religious views and therefore subject to evidence as opposed to a religious doctrine which is generally immutable for the person holding that position.
https://www.news.com.au/finance/work/leaders/joe-biden-suggests-chinas-uighur-genocide-is-part-of-different-cultural-norms/news-story/86a85d79ca830f6b7601a3638798c5ab
Joe “Very Catholic” Biden is OK with this.
Funny how different cultural norms are always important when China is involved.
Never important when east or west coast leftists are talking about what to do about us bitter clingers in fly-over country. We apparently need to be reformed.
How is it wrong for me, Mark311, to impose my religion on others. But it’s OK for leftists to impose their pronouns on me.
Your going to need it be specific , I’m only aware of the Canadian law that was supposed to require recognition and enforcement of pronoun usage. That particular law was not supported by many on the left including myself.
Religious views are not a good way of forming policy, basing policy on belief is not good. As a point of principle religion should stay out of government
So only if i invoke my God I’m imposing religion. The the pagans like Pelosi and Schumer can to what they want. I want you to know something. Like Pelosi and Schumer. I don’t agree that it’s just the “decent thing” to do. You get to decide?
If a position is based on dogma I’ve no respect for it. If it’s based on something substantive AND can be revised based on new evidence and better understanding than it can be considered to have a foundation and may well be agreeable. Bottom line religious views are dogmatic and in my eyes should stay out of policy
You tell me. Why are different norms OK for the Chinese.
I’ve never condoned Bidens comments on that issue nor will I do so. That’s a separate discussion one which we seem to agree on.
We probably agree about a lot of things.
Could well be, and I may revised my opinions if the arguments are convincing enough. So I wouldn’t say I’m entrenched. I know I can probably come across as an ass at times but that’s because I hate bad arguments. I’m not a sheep so won’t (generally) be led by poor arguments.
I personally don’t think its ok to rape women. But’s that’s just me.
If different cultural norms are OK., why can
t I keep my ARs.
Different cultural norms tell to buy the Lincoln Town Car, With the Kenne Belle supercharger.
There’s too much for me to reply to each thing individually, so I’m going to make a few point out of sequence.
First to get something out of the way:
That’s garbage. The Bible doesn’t say anything like that. I suspect I know which lines you’re torturing to get that result, but I’d like confirmation. Unless it’s something you read somewhere and took on faith, never bothering to look it up yourself.
Now. Mark says I haven’t addressed the issues of personhood and of bodily autonomy. I’ve addressed both.
Your assumptions about what defines personhood are no better than anyone else’s, including mine and the Church’s (which as I wrote earlier are not the same). While I don’t agree with the Church’s definition, it’s a perfectly reasonable one; no less reasonable than yours.
And I addressed the bodily autonomy question several times. Your right to bodily autonomy does not entitle you to squeeze your index finger if it happens to be on the trigger of a gun pointed at someone else. In exactly the same way, a mother’s right to bodily autonomy does not entitle her to take any action that will kill another person, including her baby.
Another thing Mark asserted without any foundation is that religion should not inform pubic policy. Why on earth not? What should inform public policy? Philosophy?! So-called “ethics”?! A legislator’s simple gut instincts?! None of these are any more valid than religion as a basis for deciding public policy.
Abolitionism was a religious movement, and a religious position. The Battle Hymn of the Republic is just that — a Christian hymn. And on the basis of that religious position the USA experienced a holy war that resulted in the end of slavery.
But none of these things are relevant to the topic of this post: the WaPo’s bizarre claim that Biden is a good Catholic, and that the idea that he isn’t is some sort of “right wing” position. The facts clearly show that Biden is not in communion with the Church, and not even the most left-wing bishop can say he is. At most they can say they will exercise their administrative discretion to let him take communion despite his distance from the Church. If canon law lets them do that, so be it.
Mark’s an unthinking stat-spitting robot parrot. Why spend so much time on him?
Incorrect I have arguments supported by stats, argumentation and facts, the occasional thought experiment.
Milhouse has a good faith position and presumably he assumes I do too. (Which for the record I do)
Maybe you are scared, you haven’t exactly done well when you’ve argued against me.
That’s hilarious. I am literally still giggling as I type this.
So nothing substantive to add I see. Nothing new there then.
Because if you scroll past Millhouse and Mark311 there are maybe four independent comments left.
Dealing with your points in turn
1) baby not a person according to the Bible
“Leviticus 27:6 And if it be a month old even unto five years old, then thy estimation shall be of the male five shekels of silver, and for the female thy estimation shall be of three shekels of silver.”
The Bible doesn’t provide a value to a baby prior to one month old
“Exodus 21:22-25 And if men struggle and strike a woman with child so that she has a miscarriage, yet there is no further injury, he shall be fined as the woman’s husband may demand of him, and he shall pay as the judges decide. But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise”
Equating a fine for causing a miscarriage when the Bible has clear rules on homicide is a strong indication that the Bible doesn’t consider a foetus a person.
2) personhood
I’ve addressed this a lot better than you have. I’ve discussed brain activity and the heart beat AND acknowledged that it’s a difficult subject which could be argued. This is why I argued (in a different comment) that I take the gradualist view.
3) your view on personhood
I pointed out that your analogies were no such thing. They bear no resemblance to the arguments of personhood. They literally had nothing to do with the question at hand. What your talking about is homicide , the right to life not bodily autonomy. If you were to provide a realistic analogy then that might form the basis of a discussion for example the Thompson’s violinist thought experiment.
No offence Milhouse but you haven’t provided anything close to something that forms a defence of personhood.
4) religion and policy
The US is a secular nation, well functioning democracies are overwhelmingly secular. Religion has been nothing but bad when it comes to public policy for centuries. Progress has been made in part by removing it from government.
Sure ethics , science , data, philosophy can form part of it because that has REASON as a foundation a genuine bases for discourse rather than the necessarily dogmatic views held by religion. Why the hell would anyone want to make policy decisions based on religion.
5) slavery
An interesting argument, I’d have to think about that one. Not an area I know much about at all. I think my view here is this religion can provide good reasons to do something but is not foundational. After all the south (and thus the dominant slave part of the trade) cite religion quite a bit as well.
6) Biden and communion
I’ve never actually commented on this so sure I can see your point of view on that. I’ve not got an opinion other than I can see both sides. I would point out that this argument started because I said something along the lines of ‘abortion is complex’ and you claimed it wasn’t.
You apparently don’t know that fetus means offspring in Latin.
It literally means your child.
Again, I love it when pagans like you try to explain things to me.
Yes. I know if you refer to the modern references it defines fetus as an unborn child. But I don’t rely on Merriam Webster for my Latin. Not for my classical. Not for my vulgar. And not for my ecclesiastical.
I’m not a pagan I’m an athiest.
I’m not familar with Latin but google seems to suggest it’s meaning is “bringing forth of young” ?
That aside this is a bit of a trivial argument as we are talking about definitions which we can agree on, I’m not massively bothered provided we know what we are talking about.
The key points here, as far as I can tell, is that it’s the unborn state. Ie it’s reliant on the mothers bodily functions for survival. That obviously becomes more of a complex issue as time goes on which is why I take the gradualist view. So basically the more developed the foetus the more compelling the reason required to abort. I see this as purely the mothers choice at circa 20 weeks and then afterwards more reasoning should be included. I don’t take a diffinitive view because it should be judged on a case by case basis.
Somehow this is what I thought you were going on about. Your argument is bloody stupid. Where on earth did you get the idea that this has anything whatsoever to do with personhood? What led you to such a notion?
The Bible assigns arbitrary “nominal values” to people, based on their sex and age, for the sole purpose of determining how much a person owes if he vows to donate a certain person’s “value”. Babies under a month old don’t have a value; if you vow to donate a newborn’s “value” you don’t owe anything. So what? I cannot fathom how anyone can imagine they can jump from that to a view on whether the newborn is a person! Do you seriously imagine that a person who killed a perfectly healthy 29-day-old would get off because it wasn’t murder?!
Here you have at least the basis for an argument, but of course it doesn’t say anything about a month. So it actually torpedoes your claim.
As for the passage itself, yes, this says that when judging a Jew who commits an abortion a Jewish court should not impose the death penalty. No reason is given; your guess that it means the aborted baby was not a person is nothing but a guess. And it’s belied by the fact that under the Noahide code, by which gentile are to be judged, the same offense does carry the death penalty.: Genesis 9:6, “He who spills the blood of a person in a person, his blood shall be spilled. Maimonides, Laws of Kings, 9:4: “A Noahide who kills a person, even a foetus in its mother’s womb, is killed for that. So also if he kills a mortally ill or wounded person, or if he ties a person up and puts him in front of a lion, or if he leaves him in hunger until he dies, since he killed him in some fashion he is to be killed. Likewise if he kills a would-be killer when he could have prevented that person from killing by striking him in one of his limbs, he is to be killed for that, whereas this is not so in the case of a Jew who commits the same offense.”
So aborting a foetus is treated the same as killing an already-born person by indirect action, or someone who was going to die anyway, or killing unnecessarily in defense of self or others. Nobody would argue that those victims are not people, or that killing them is not murder. It’s simply that such murders don’t carry the death penalty under one code, but do under the other. Why? God didn’t say why. He just said that’s how it should be, and that’s sufficient. But no conclusion can be drawn about the victim’s personhood.
As for the idea that religion should not inform public policy, that’s a completely arbitrary dictate on your part. It has no basis in the constitution, or in anything but your own dislike of religion.
The USA is “supposed to be a secular nation” only in the sense that it is not to have an Established Church as England does. All religions are supposed to be equal in the USA, at least on the federal level. But the idea that individual legislators, when determining whether something is right or wrong, should not vote based on their religious views, is unfounded and would have been completely alien to the founders. Of course legislators’ religions will and should inform their policy positions. Religion is how one knows right from wrong. This idea that it’s somehow less worthy than “philosophy” or what passes for “secular ethics” is ludicrous. It’s nothing but atheist supremacy, which is the exact opposite of what the USA was founded on.
You’re exactly right, Milhouse. I did a post about this very topic back in ’09. Our nation’s founders intended our Constitution, our Republic, for a “moral and religious people,” as John Adams states, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” Only a moral and religious people can self-govern, in other words. That is as true today as it was then.
And yet the constitution doesn’t refer to God once. I think perhaps you’ve made my mistake which was to overstate your case.
An interesting read btw, I enjoyed reading your blog link even if I disagree with some of the content.
I think it worth noting that there are plenty of ways an atheist could ground themselves. There are a number of philosophies that don’t require religion including from a moral perspective.
I think we need to be clear why I quoted those verses, the whole point of my comment was that the Bible is full of contradictions. We could quote scripture at eachother to prove almost anything. Which means that using the Bible and therefore religion isn’t a good bases for understanding or knowledge or indeed morality. I will briefly dwell on your points on scripture just because ha.
Value of a ‘person’ Because if the Bible gives a value to a person after a certain point logically it doesn’t before that point. That’s pretty uncontroversial. The exodus passage provides further evidence that the Bible doesn’t consider a foetus a person , though I’ll grant it doesn’t talk about that month gap.
I’m confused by your quote as the actual quote is “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in his own image.” which doesn’t refer to in a person at all
Maimonides was a philosopher who had his interpretation of the noahcodes and how they apply. My understanding is that specifically it refers to non Jews killing Jews and therefore is ambiguous in the sense that it doesn’t provide value to a non Jews feotus.
As outlined in the first para we could go back and forth for ages on that the principle point is that the Bible isn’t helpful for determining anything of moral value.
With regard to secular Vs religion for the US foundation I can see your point there , perhaps I overstated my case.
I would say that religion has never had a good case for providing a moral framework. It’s one of the reasons I’m an atheist. The problem of evil, and the euthyphro dilemna are two principle reasons why I’m an atheist. In other words people who are religious may be moral but that’s not due to there religious beliefs it’s inspite of it.