[Vision2020] Sotomayor: US Supreme Court's Sixth Catholic?

Tue Jun 16 14:13:23 PDT 2009

The "morning after" pill can sometimes prevent implantation of a fertilized
egg, so some claim this is not "birth control" but a form of abortion (
http://www.morningafterpill.org/how-does-it-work.html ).  Birth control
pills usually prevent fertilization of an egg.

Regarding your reference to IUDs, I suppose it can be argued that IUD use is
not birth control.  This is a form of abortion of a fertilized egg.

Unless believing that at the moment of conception a soul exists, which then
raises theological issues regarding abortion at even one week, given some
may claim having a soul equates to personhood, there is no scientific basis
to believe a "person" with mental intentionality, awareness of others, or
consciousness, even of pain, exists in a one week blastocyst.  The objection
to abortion at this point is that the potential for a unique human person
exists, not that a person exists (except as a unique genetic code).
But, again, the potential for a unique human person also exists, and is
blocked, for example, when using a condom during sex.  Again, the ethical
issue regarding interfering with the creation of a unique human person,
applies to both birth control use and abortion, though of course in the case
of abortion a unique genetically coded human organism has already begun to
develop (which some will insist clearly distinguishes ethical use of birth
control from unethical abortion), while in the use of birth control, the
union of sperm and egg is prevented.  I might misunderstand, but I think
some sort of more theologically based reasoning along these lines is
involved in the Catholic objection to birth control.

I should clarify that I am merely discussing the ethical debates on these
issues, not stating I oppose birth control or legal abortion.

It's hard to parse through the Catholic Encyclicals on abortion and birth
control.  But, again, some sort of argument regarding ethical objections to
interfering with the process of creation of human life from sex is involved
in the Catholic church's opposition to birth control explained in the Papal
Encyclicals below:

http://www.emmerich1.com/PAPAL%20ENCYCLICALS%20ON%20LIFE.htm

Ted Moffett

On 6/15/09, keely emerinemix <kjajmix1 at msn.com> wrote:
>
> Thanks, Ted, for another provocative post.  I'm heading off to an
> appointment now, but let me just say that I agree that there is a moral
> consistency to the Catholic Church's insistence that, for example, the IUD
> is an abortifacient -- but I'm not sure science supports the designation of
> contraceptive pills as a means of ending the living existence (even I have a
> hard time using "life") of the uterine-implanted fertilized egg.  I could be
> wrong, though, but I could not support the banning of contraceptive pills;
> to do so would, in my mind, increase the likelihood of more abortions
> sought.  Further, that would be an intrusion into a woman's life that I
> cannot endorse.
>
> But the condom and other "barrier" methods, or coitus interruptus (the
> "withdrawal" method that virtually guarantees pregnancy) simply prevent one
> component of fertilization -- sperm -- from reaching the egg.  I don't see a
> moral issue there.  (Of course, I don't think that the Biblical story of
> Onan, often used to decry the alleged sinfulness of coitus interruptus, has
> anything to do with contraception or sex, just as it has nothing to do with
> masturbation).  I am heartily in favor of contraception, but I am
> uncomfortable with the IUD, as it expels from the uterus the fertilized
> egg.  I don't think contraceptive pills do that, but I could be wrong.
>
> As for babies whose extremely premature birth emperils their survival, I
> still have to fall on the side of doing whatever can be done to save the
> baby and give her some  hope.  On the other hand, when an infant, once born,
> clearly cannot survive -- anencephalic, for example -- then the most loving
> thing a parent can do is hold that child until death comes naturally.  There
> is no sin, condemnation, or shame in not trying to overrule what would seem
> to be the clear intent of God (for me) or biology (for those who are
> disinclined to think in religious terms).  Compassion sometimes doesn't
> interfere with natural death.
>
> Keely
> http://keely-prevailingwinds.blogspot.com/
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
> Date: Sun, 14 Jun 2009 21:54:32 -0700
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Sotomayor: US Supreme Court's Sixth Catholic?
> From: starbliss at gmail.com
> To: kjajmix1 at msn.com
> CC: philosopher.joe at gmail.com; vision2020 at moscow.com
>
>
> On 6/11/09, *keely emerinemix* <kjajmix1 at msn.com> wrote:
>
>
>   Advances in science demonstrate to us that even a week after conception,
> the fetus has systematic organic function that, if allowed to develop, will
> mature into a baby capable of living outside of the womb even at 22 weeks of
> a normal 40-week gestation.
>
>
> At the bottom I address the medical issues of very early premature birth.
> 22 weeks at birth means a very difficult life; survival rates are low, long
> term problems common, the infant suffers.
>
> But first: I think there is an ethical inconsistency in some of the
> arguments made by those who oppose most or all abortion on ethical grounds,
> yet support birth control, expressed in the argument I roughly outline lower
> down.  And I think there is an ethical consistency in the Catholic Church's
> official position opposing both birth control and abortion, and applying
> some of the same ethical principles involved, opposing the death penalty,
> though personally I favor birth control (6 billion and climbing!) and legal
> abortion during the first trimester, when 88% percent of abortions occur (
> http://www.ppacca.org/site/pp.asp?c=kuJYJeO4F&b=139486 ), despite the
> morally problematic issues.  I think the rights of an adult women to control
> her own biology and life trump any "rights" of the fetus, before viability.
> But I make this statement with serious misgivings.  Abortion is a morally
> complex issue that often does not lend itself to absolute right or wrong
> answers.
>
> Relating the ethical reasoning involved in abortion and the death penalty
> is common, and raised in this thread.  Catholics or Christians who support
> the death penalty might consider that there is theological reasoning against
> the death penalty because it involves humans interfering in the possibility
> for redemption of an eternal soul, ending life sometimes before a sinner has
> the chance to repent.  This is between the sinner and God (and maybe a
> priest), not a choice for humans who want to play God.  I oppose the death
> penalty primarily on the grounds that it is too much power accorded to
> the State, which should only be granted the minimum power over its citizens
> that is necessary to fulfill its functions.  The death penalty is an
> instrument of totalitarian governments; and it is naive to assume the
> US government could never utilize the death penalty as an instrument of
> oppression.  Indeed, the well documented unequal application of the death
> penalty in the US against African-Americans is an example (
> http://www.aclu.org/pdfs/capital/report_who_surviveson_deathrow.pdf ).
> That innocent people are sometimes put to death is not the primary reason I
> oppose the death penalty, though it is certainly one factor, especially
> considering the safeguards required to prevent this tremendously increase
> the costs of the death penalty (long multiple appeals, etc.).  Life in
> prison without parole protects public safety, and allows that mistakes may
> be corrected, as has happened (
> http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/innocence-and-death-penalty ). Anyone
> ethically justifying war using "Just War Theory" knows that innocent life
> being killed is sometimes unavoidable.  If the arguments for the death
> penalty were compelling enough overall, a few innocents unintentionally put
> to death might not create a strong enough argument against the death penalty
> based on these mistakes to justify banning the death penalty.  But the death
> penalty as a deterrent is a weak case (
> http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/facts-about-deterrence-and-death-penalty ).
> I understand the arguments that for those wronged by a death penalty
> criminal (the loved ones of someone murdered, for example), the only justice
> they may feel reasonable is "an eye for an eye."  But in a society striving
> for compassion, understanding and forgiveness, an "eye for an eye" can lead
> to endless demands for vengeance.  Thus the wisdom, if this applies, of the
> Oresteia:  http://us.penguingroup.com/static/rguides/us/oresteia.html
> "Aeschylus shaped his material into three dramas that depict the movement
> from primitive retaliatory vengeance to civilized justice."
>
> I am not claiming the argument below on abortion and birth control is the
> same argument as in the Papal Encyclicals on this issue (
> http://www.emmerich1.com/PAPAL%20ENCYCLICALS%20ON%20LIFE.htm ):
>
> A human egg that could be fertilized and grow to adulthood, yet is not, by
> whatever means (pill, condom, IUD) during sex, is denying the chance for a
> unique human being to be born and develop personhood.  A just fertilized
> egg, or a one week blastocyst just attached to the uterine wall, has no
> consciousness or mental intentionality or awareness of "otherness," any more
> than a living egg or sperm about to meet.  There is certainly no
> "personhood" except as in a unique genetic code.  And a unique genetic code
> alone does not define a "person."  There is the potential for the
> development of unique human individuality and personhood with an egg and
> sperm about to meet, just as the potential for personhood is present in a
> one week blastocyst.
>
> An argument can be made that birth control denies the creation of a unique
> human life, a person, just as well as aborting a one week blastocyst that
> has just implanted in the uterine wall.
>
> Of course it will be argued that a unique (genetically coded unique) life
> form capable of developing does not yet exist when an egg is not
> fertilized.  But knowing that a unique human life could be created, while
> deliberately preventing this during sex, still presents the same ethical
> question regarding denying a potential person to develop.
> -----------------
>
> I'm not sure why you write "even a week after conception."  Immediately
> after conception, under favorable conditions, an infant capable of living
> outside the womb will develop.  However, the survival rate at 22 weeks
> outside the womb is low (actually these figures are for 23 weeks), 11% or
> 30% (different studies), according to a 2002 article from the American
> Academy of Pediatrics sourced below.  Premature births before 28 weeks
> require extensive medical intervention to survive, and even then, sometimes
> face long term handicaps.  There is ethical debate about the aggressive
> medical care, suffering of the infant and long term handicaps, and long term
> costs associated with these very early premature births:
>
>
> http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/pediatrics;110/5/1024#R1
>
> From source above:
>
> In the United States, an increase in the number of births of extremely
> preterm infants and in their *survival* potential has occurred over the
> last decade. Determining the *survival* prognosis for the infant of a
> pregnancy with threatened preterm delivery between *22* and 25 completed *
> week*s of gestation remains problematic. Many physicians and families
> encounter the difficulty of making decisions regarding the institution and
> continuation of life support for an infant born within this thresh*old*period. This report
> addresses the process of counseling, assisting, and supporting families
> faced with the dilemma of an extremely preterm delivery.
> ------------------
>
> http://www.marchofdimes.com/professionals/14332_1157.asp
>
> From source above:
>
> What happens when babies are born at less than 28 weeks?
>
> Almost all require treatment with oxygen, surfactant and mechanical
> assistance to help them breathe. These babies are too immature to suck,
> swallow and breathe at the same time, so they must be fed through a vein
> (intravenously) until they develop these skills. They often cannot cry (or
> you cannot hear them due to the tube in their throat) and they sleep most of
> the day. These tiny babies have little muscle tone, and most move very
> little.
>
> --------------
> Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett
>
>
> ------------------------------
> Insert movie times and more without leaving Hotmail®. See how.<http://windowslive.com/Tutorial/Hotmail/QuickAdd?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_Tutorial_QuickAdd_062009>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20090616/b6af24e7/attachment-0001.html 