Pope: No Abortion for rape/incest victims or when health of mother is at risk

[grumbler]

What did the Pope run over your dog today?

The Popemobile.

[Sheilbh]

Kindly explain.

The Church believes life is sacred and starts at conception.  I don't see how the definite loss of one life can, from that position, be better than the possible loss of one, both or neither.  Starting from the Catholic Church's basic premises I don't see how any other view could be intellectually coherent.

Of course I don't think intellectual coherence isn't all it's cracked up to be.

[DontSayBanana]

The Church believes life is sacred and starts at conception.  I don't see how the definite loss of one life can, from that position, be better than the possible loss of one, both or neither.  Starting from the Catholic Church's basic premises I don't see how any other view could be intellectually coherent.

Of course I don't think intellectual coherence isn't all it's cracked up to be.

Except it's not intellectually coherent. Life is sacred, but starts at conception, so where's the damnable offense in preventing conception? As for the fetus's health versus the mother's health, you'd have to flip a coin... but if the view was intellectually coherent, the coin would be weighted by the fact that the mother's life and death already have material value, while the fetus only has that potential value. The church's argument is doctrinally coherent, but not logically coherent.

[Sheilbh]

Except it's not intellectually coherent. Life is sacred, but starts at conception, so where's the damnable offense in preventing conception? As for the fetus's health versus the mother's health, you'd have to flip a coin... but if the view was intellectually coherent, the coin would be weighted by the fact that the mother's life and death already have material value, while the fetus only has that potential value. The church's argument is doctrinally coherent, but not logically coherent.

We're discussing abortion here, not contraception.  The Church's position on contraception is to do with a whole different issue.

The Church doesn't view life in terms of material or potential value.  Life is life.  And, as I say, what we're talking about is one definite death agains only potential deaths or health risks.

[grumbler]

Except it's not intellectually coherent. Life is sacred, but starts at conception, so where's the damnable offense in preventing conception? As for the fetus's health versus the mother's health, you'd have to flip a coin... but if the view was intellectually coherent, the coin would be weighted by the fact that the mother's life and death already have material value, while the fetus only has that potential value. The church's argument is doctrinally coherent, but not logically coherent.

Two seperate issues:

1.  Sex is for procreation, according to the church.  Though it doesn't deny the pleasurable aspects of sex, the church maintains that sex for pleasure alone is sinful.

2.  According to the church, the value of a fetus isn't potential at all, but as real as that of the mother.

So, I find the church's position logically coherent, once one accepts their premises (which I don't, but that is a personal decision for each of us). 

What is not logically coherent is the assertion that abortion should be banned, except in the cases of rape or incest.  This position assumes that pregnancy is a punishment for sex, but that the punishment can be waived if the sex was involuntary on the woman's part.  No one holding the position will concede the true logic of their position, though.

[DontSayBanana]

Except it's not intellectually coherent. Life is sacred, but starts at conception, so where's the damnable offense in preventing conception? As for the fetus's health versus the mother's health, you'd have to flip a coin... but if the view was intellectually coherent, the coin would be weighted by the fact that the mother's life and death already have material value, while the fetus only has that potential value. The church's argument is doctrinally coherent, but not logically coherent.

We're discussing abortion here, not contraception.  The Church's position on contraception is to do with a whole different issue.

The Church doesn't view life in terms of material or potential value.  Life is life.  And, as I say, what we're talking about is one definite death agains only potential deaths or health risks.

Fair enough; sorry about the strawman. Anyway, I realize I need to switch my thinking of pregnancy as punishments to the church's position of pregnancy as a gift that you don't have the right to refuse. But looking at it this way would mean that in a case of health issues, the fetus is the recipient of the gift, not the mother, as the "gift" could, and in some cases will, take the mother's life. For rape victims, in cases where they are not capable of supporting a child, the one that benefits is the one who committed a double sin!

My problem is the church's position applies an absolute across-the-board value on human life without factoring the cost of human life.

[Martinus]

Except it's not intellectually coherent. Life is sacred, but starts at conception, so where's the damnable offense in preventing conception? As for the fetus's health versus the mother's health, you'd have to flip a coin... but if the view was intellectually coherent, the coin would be weighted by the fact that the mother's life and death already have material value, while the fetus only has that potential value. The church's argument is doctrinally coherent, but not logically coherent.

Two seperate issues:

1.  Sex is for procreation, according to the church.  Though it doesn't deny the pleasurable aspects of sex, the church maintains that sex for pleasure alone is sinful.

2.  According to the church, the value of a fetus isn't potential at all, but as real as that of the mother.

So, I find the church's position logically coherent, once one accepts their premises (which I don't, but that is a personal decision for each of us). 

What is not logically coherent is the assertion that abortion should be banned, except in the cases of rape or incest.  This position assumes that pregnancy is a punishment for sex, but that the punishment can be waived if the sex was involuntary on the woman's part.  No one holding the position will concede the true logic of their position, though.

Of course, the fact that the church's position is inherently cohrent doesn't mean it is not out of whack. This is a classic example why any religion-based reasoning so often exemplifies the G.I.G.O. principle.

[Neil]

Homosexuality is garbage.

[garbon]

Homosexuality is garbage.

I do love men and