Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: A Fetus Is Not A Child [View all]happyslug
(14,779 posts)68. Some have, here is the Catholic Position on Fertility clinics:
I post this NOT to express that this is MY position but to show that some opponents of abortion HAVE thought about fertility clinics:
Guidelines for Catholics on the Evaluation and Treatment of Infertility
"On the part of the spouses, the desire for a child is natural: it expresses the vocation to fatherhood and motherhood inscribed in conjugal love. This desire can be even stronger if the couple is affected by sterility which appears incurable. Nevertheless, marriage does not confer upon the spouses the right to have a child, but only the right to perform those natural acts which are per se ordered to procreation. A true and proper right to a child would be contrary to the child's dignity and nature. The child is not an object to which one has a right, nor can he be considered as an object of ownership: rather, a child is a gift, "the supreme gift" and the most gratuitous gift of marriage, and is a living testimony of the mutual giving of his parents. For this reason, the child has the right, as already mentioned, to be the fruit of the specific act of the conjugal love of his parents; and he also has the right to be respected as a person from the moment of his conception." - Donum Vitae
"How do I know when a reproductive technology is morally right?"
Any procedure which assists marital intercourse in reaching its procreative potential is moral.
Any procedure which substitutes or suppresses a need for marital intercourse is immoral.
Reproductive Technologies in Disagreement with Catholic Teachings:
Obtaining a semen sample by means of masturbation
Artificial insemination using sperm from a donor (AID) or even the husband (AIH) if obtained by masturbation
In-vitro fertilization (IVF), zygote intra-fallopian transfer (ZIFT), and intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI), ovum donation, "surrogate" uterus
* excerpts from the Catechism of the Catholic Church explaining why these are immoral
** Articles further explaining the problems with in vitro fertilization and artificial fertilization
http://www.catholicinfertility.org/guidelines.html
"On the part of the spouses, the desire for a child is natural: it expresses the vocation to fatherhood and motherhood inscribed in conjugal love. This desire can be even stronger if the couple is affected by sterility which appears incurable. Nevertheless, marriage does not confer upon the spouses the right to have a child, but only the right to perform those natural acts which are per se ordered to procreation. A true and proper right to a child would be contrary to the child's dignity and nature. The child is not an object to which one has a right, nor can he be considered as an object of ownership: rather, a child is a gift, "the supreme gift" and the most gratuitous gift of marriage, and is a living testimony of the mutual giving of his parents. For this reason, the child has the right, as already mentioned, to be the fruit of the specific act of the conjugal love of his parents; and he also has the right to be respected as a person from the moment of his conception." - Donum Vitae
"How do I know when a reproductive technology is morally right?"
Any procedure which assists marital intercourse in reaching its procreative potential is moral.
Any procedure which substitutes or suppresses a need for marital intercourse is immoral.
Reproductive Technologies in Disagreement with Catholic Teachings:
Obtaining a semen sample by means of masturbation
Artificial insemination using sperm from a donor (AID) or even the husband (AIH) if obtained by masturbation
In-vitro fertilization (IVF), zygote intra-fallopian transfer (ZIFT), and intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI), ovum donation, "surrogate" uterus
* excerpts from the Catechism of the Catholic Church explaining why these are immoral
** Articles further explaining the problems with in vitro fertilization and artificial fertilization
http://www.catholicinfertility.org/guidelines.html
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
176 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Call it what you want. As a matter of law, when does it acquire its right to life?
badtoworse
Sep 2014
#2
It wasn't the court recognizing the fetus's right to life, it was how the state legislature defined
Shrike47
Sep 2014
#78
probably sound biological reasons for a mother to see a fetus as a child JUST as
KittyWampus
Sep 2014
#5
I understand where you are coming from and it's beautifully written/expressed.
KittyWampus
Sep 2014
#6
I think at the point where it is reasonably expected to survive independently, outside of the womb,
Nye Bevan
Sep 2014
#7
No, sorry. Can no longer support that. Because the far-right uses that to try and ban late term
KittyWampus
Sep 2014
#10
Women's Rights Advocates don't have the luxury of ignoring rightwing tactics or encouraging
KittyWampus
Sep 2014
#77
You do know that "synthetic wombs" (aka artificial uteruses) do not actually exist?
Nye Bevan
Sep 2014
#75
Viability is still defined as the ability to live outside the womb. Real or artificial.
PeaceNikki
Sep 2014
#84
There's a good reason why Ruth Bader Ginsburg now rejects viability as a meaningful standard
Major Nikon
Sep 2014
#110
what was not considered at the time of the Roe decision was whether science would essentially
CTyankee
Sep 2014
#149
No matter how it's framed it still boils down to forcing a person to be an incubator
Major Nikon
Sep 2014
#152
Surviving outside the womb without millions of dollars worth of technology?
progressoid
Sep 2014
#74
"Why do mothers care more abou their born children than their unborn children?"
HockeyMom
Sep 2014
#14
With what would you specifically want to see a mugger charged with if say he punched
frankieallen
Sep 2014
#24
And if that same women needed a late term abortion, what specifically would you want to see her
uppityperson
Sep 2014
#32
"needed"..... apples and oranges as far as the scenario I posed. But to answer your
frankieallen
Sep 2014
#47
Thank you. Now, what if she wanted one, but not because her life was at risk?
uppityperson
Sep 2014
#58
I thought you people were against big government, so why are you forcing the government
valerief
Sep 2014
#142
Did you make your reply offensive on purpose or was it just badly worded?
uppityperson
Sep 2014
#159
Relax, the ugly comment was in response to your poorly worded reply. Let me ask you a question
frankieallen
Sep 2014
#166
An aggravated crime against the woman, which it is. This is a typical RW tactic.
PeaceNikki
Sep 2014
#38
Fighting for Women's Reproductive Rights necessitates not calling a fetus a baby.
KittyWampus
Sep 2014
#81
My position isn't stupid. I don't appreciate your calling it stupid. It's a necessity in the face
KittyWampus
Sep 2014
#86
12th week stage? not month. And yes, I have helped women who ran across those jerks also.
uppityperson
Sep 2014
#33
My position is that the far right and their escalating tactics make using that rhetoric
KittyWampus
Sep 2014
#83
I understand, I just don't want to ever offend someone accidentally, and i just know....
moriah
Sep 2014
#90
what I've been saying for ages is that the talking point from the start should have been
BlancheSplanchnik
Sep 2014
#30
That's such a typical anti-choice argument. Nobody is saying it's not a 'life'.
PeaceNikki
Sep 2014
#43
Because, what a woman does when pregnant is not "child abuse". That's what the difference is.
PeaceNikki
Sep 2014
#51
I think you and I may have had this discussion before, but I've got a weird issue on intellectual...
moriah
Sep 2014
#99
I remember being aghast reading Roe v Wade, very different than I thought it was
uppityperson
Sep 2014
#120
I went to my own personal archives on this one-I posted about it in 2006 while pregnant w/twins.
IdaBriggs
Sep 2014
#41
I think (for us) using the "medically correct" term would have been a way of "distancing"
IdaBriggs
Sep 2014
#61
I really don't think you're in a position to tell anyone here what they should post
theHandpuppet
Sep 2014
#71
I should write a book on what it's like to grow up an unwanted child!
Dont call me Shirley
Sep 2014
#85
I assumed they did not care about children. I assumed they know not of care at all.
Dont call me Shirley
Sep 2014
#101
many many women are happy and grateful for their abortions, so NOPE. not every fetus should
bettyellen
Sep 2014
#103
Nope- words are important and I agree with the OP. Maybe for some reason- given you think it is an
bettyellen
Sep 2014
#137
The trap not to fall into is believing the forced birthers give a shit about the fetus or the child
Major Nikon
Sep 2014
#132
pro life would be anti war. anti death penalty. pro life would be feeding our hungry children.
seabeyond
Sep 2014
#127
Common sense will always prevail. Once you veer too far off course when it comes
ecstatic
Sep 2014
#135
I think we should all start correcting anti-choicers when they talk about an "unborn child"
ehrnst
Sep 2014
#140
You know what semantics are? Calling a fetus a child but if a woman opts for a late term abortion
KittyWampus
Sep 2014
#160