tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post7718047883174709252..comments2024-03-21T04:02:46.799-07:00Comments on Little Catholic Bubble: Responding to ChristaLeila@LittleCatholicBubblehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09357573787143230160noreply@blogger.comBlogger96125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-32764362407576853742011-03-20T15:35:58.510-07:002011-03-20T15:35:58.510-07:00Myn, nope, Christa never responded. :( I always he...Myn, nope, Christa never responded. :( I always held out hope that she would.<br /><br />Yes, it's sad that Paul deleted everything. It still sort of baffles me, but he has his reasons.Leila@LittleCatholicBubblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09357573787143230160noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-73696647999698571212011-03-20T14:40:36.061-07:002011-03-20T14:40:36.061-07:00did Christa ever respond? and did you ever post on...did Christa ever respond? and did you ever post on her other points? =D<br /><br />It's too bad that all of Paul's comments are deleted by him...I think they would be interesting to read. ;)<br /><br />~MynAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-89574036789235303332010-10-12T11:56:12.849-07:002010-10-12T11:56:12.849-07:00Paul, yes, we have reached a point of clarity.
Yo...Paul, yes, we have reached a point of clarity.<br /><br />You see "personhood" as distinct from "human life" (which is not defined satisfactorily for you to be clear when it begins).<br /><br />We see "personhood" and "human life" as existing simultaneously, as being inseparable, and we believe that human life begins at conception, both biologically and morally.<br /><br />Tristan is a great name, by the way! I love the movie Tristan and Isolde. And, I have a son named Paul. :)Leila@LittleCatholicBubblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09357573787143230160noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-61684816987563392092010-10-12T11:19:03.653-07:002010-10-12T11:19:03.653-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Paul Rimmerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11212220645183007323noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-21070330150109269182010-10-12T11:15:05.285-07:002010-10-12T11:15:05.285-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Paul Rimmerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11212220645183007323noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-880480944529844612010-10-12T11:13:40.960-07:002010-10-12T11:13:40.960-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Paul Rimmerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11212220645183007323noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-54814881418580771812010-10-12T10:21:47.838-07:002010-10-12T10:21:47.838-07:00Paul-- my husband is the doctor, not me. But I'...Paul-- my husband is the doctor, not me. But I'm 99.9% positive that a sperm is not on it's way to becoming a baby. An embryo, on the other hand, is. <br /><br />When I make cookies, the flour is not on it's way to becoming a cookie. The prepared dough, on the other hand, is. It won't turn into a pizza, no matter how much I crave pizza that day. When the dough is in the oven, it's well on its way to becoming a cookie... and along the way, it's an unbaked cookie, a partially-baked cookie, and a completely-baked cookie (and sometimes a burnt cookie). But it's never NOT a cookie. :) Simple.Lisahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08594888849590296884noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-946712532506437632010-10-12T10:19:15.753-07:002010-10-12T10:19:15.753-07:00Actually, Paul, nothing but nutrition is added to ...Actually, Paul, nothing but nutrition is added to an embryo. A sperm cell (which is not human life -- only having 23 chromosomes -- can do nothing on its own. Same with an egg. Together, well then, there are 46 chromosomes, new DNA, and even a sex, eye color, height, hair color, etc. <br /><br />One day, science will find a way to gestate a baby in an artificial womb. If you put a sperm cell in an artificial womb, it will go nowhere. If you put an embryo in an artificial womb, it will keep growing (as humans are wont to do). <br /><br />I can't understand how you would think a sperm cell is similar to an embryo. Truly, scratching my head here.<br /><br />I used the Bible reference because you indicated your Christianity.<br /><br />More in a bit.Leila@LittleCatholicBubblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09357573787143230160noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-74570104984643885412010-10-12T10:13:23.925-07:002010-10-12T10:13:23.925-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Paul Rimmerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11212220645183007323noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-56871418822822569782010-10-12T10:03:11.238-07:002010-10-12T10:03:11.238-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Paul Rimmerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11212220645183007323noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-87850209143665115612010-10-11T15:08:55.723-07:002010-10-11T15:08:55.723-07:00Paul--
OK, this all seems so simple to me, which ...Paul--<br /><br />OK, this all seems so simple to me, which perhaps reflects more on me than the situation...<br /><br />Once a sperm meets an egg, something begins. Unless the newly created "thing" (call it whatever you want) decides for itself that it is not viable, or the womb is unable to sustain it, or a traumatic injury or illness occurs to the woman, or an outside force interferes through abortion or the morning after pill, then that "thing" will, within 9 months, be a human baby living outside of the womb. At 1 second after conception life has been set in motion. <br /><br />After all of the IVF chatter, I think this would be obvious. If a sperm and egg are joined through IVF, a BABY has been created. I read just now online (American Pregnancy Association) that the "thing" can be implanted from 1-6 days from joining of the egg and sperm. <br /><br />It seems to me that we could reasonably say that a pregnant woman is pregnant with a baby. Thus, a pregnancy means that a woman has a baby inside her. Following that logic, a termination of a pregnancy means that a baby is being terminated, no matter how many days/weeks the baby is. <br /><br />I know from personal experience that you can be pregnant and that the baby can be so tiny (DAYS old!) that a vaginal ultrasound, if the doctor is not looking for a baby, cannot detect the baby. But guess what... I have an almost-one year old who can attest to the fact that, left undisturbed, that "thing" will most definitely grow into a baby (as opposed to a cow or a rock or a bicycle).Lisahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08594888849590296884noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-53623030273720049662010-10-11T13:51:10.195-07:002010-10-11T13:51:10.195-07:00We women can find out when we are pregnant now qui...We women can find out when we are pregnant now quite early. By six weeks, I knew every time. Usually I had a confirmation at 4 weeks (which is two weeks gestation). My question to Paul: When your wife was six weeks pregnant, who or what was she gestating? Was that your son? If not, what was it? And, was it the equivalent, morally, of medical waste? I'm just trying to wrap my mind around how you viewed your son in those first weeks.<br /><br />And I keep going back to the idea of, "Were 'you' ever conceived?" Is wrong to say that "I conceived a child"?<br /><br />Also, when Mary went up to the hill country and met her cousin Elizabeth, and when John the Baptist lept in Elizabeth's womb in the presence of Jesus (presumably then an embryo), what was that all about? Why did he leap?Leila@LittleCatholicBubblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09357573787143230160noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-32812604065771776682010-10-11T12:31:32.226-07:002010-10-11T12:31:32.226-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Paul Rimmerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11212220645183007323noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-66541754616854505422010-10-11T12:30:13.257-07:002010-10-11T12:30:13.257-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Paul Rimmerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11212220645183007323noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-74153281292881894852010-10-08T15:59:41.198-07:002010-10-08T15:59:41.198-07:00Hi Paul,
I just read this entire thread of commen...Hi Paul,<br /><br />I just read this entire thread of comments and can not possibly respond to everything. But I do see one common theme popping up in this discussion and the discussion going on at the suffering post. It's one that you've continually avoided and I think it's a very, very important question.<br /><br />You choose to classify life as having brain waves. You said "The earliest I've ever heard brain-waves being detectable is 6 weeks. If it's sooner, or depending on how likely it's sooner, I'd want to move the time up or down, depending. The more we know, the better we can do this."<br /><br />If there is even a REMOTE possibility that the time brain waves can be detected is earlier than 6 weeks (5 weeks, 6 days, and 23 hours-just for kicks)why would you EVER be ok with killing this little embryo? Several people have asked you: isn't it better to err on the side of caution? But I haven't seen your response.<br /><br />If you truly believe that someone in the womb is a person and worthy of life-and you admitted yourself that your own classification of life is brainwaves-and you admitted that's it's possible for science to make changes in what we know about brain waves-then why on earth are you NOT coming to the conclusion that we need to protect embryos because we can't be sure when their brainwaves start to exist?? I'm really really baffled (but respectful, just in case this response sounds like it isnt)Kaitlin @ More Like Maryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02260649249438520187noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-44982635942309382372010-10-08T08:39:37.507-07:002010-10-08T08:39:37.507-07:00Oh wow, I posted come comments on the wrong thread...Oh wow, I posted come comments on the wrong thread, ha! Hard to keep it straight late at night. Anyway, I agree with Monica here, that it's Paul's subjective opinion about personhood, not an objective fact.Leila@LittleCatholicBubblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09357573787143230160noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-76965446559154331722010-10-08T00:14:04.340-07:002010-10-08T00:14:04.340-07:00Hi Paul,
(I am really enjoying your discussion on...Hi Paul,<br /><br />(I am really enjoying your discussion on suffering, by the way)<br /><br />I think we have reached our point of mutual clarity, and will leave it there. I will say that your last sentence: "There's no question about 1 week" is your opinion, not mine. (Not regarding brain waves, but regarding personhood.)Monicahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11501575551066939483noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-918317677989812082010-10-07T16:16:36.742-07:002010-10-07T16:16:36.742-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Paul Rimmerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11212220645183007323noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-41617411262879094422010-10-03T23:31:30.942-07:002010-10-03T23:31:30.942-07:00Hi Paul,
I do agree that the way to abolish abort...Hi Paul,<br /><br />I do agree that the way to abolish abortion completely will start with limiting its use, step by step. I doubt that a flat-out ban will get enough support to make it illegal, unless that ban comes from the Supreme Court, which it probably won't based on the judges in that Court at this time.<br /><br />In addition to philosophical problems with your stance, there are some practical ones. I state these from the position of my profession, which is a childbirth educator and labor support coach (doula). Does EVERY single embryo start brain-wave action at 6 weeks, or do some of them start at 5 weeks and 5 days, and some at 6 weeks and 2 days? Can we accurately date a pregnancy down to the day? (the answer here is no, we can't- an early ultrasound can be off by as much as a week) So should we move the brain-wave cut-off date back a bit, to say, 5 weeks, just to be really, really, REALLY sure that the embryo is not yet a living human with brain-waves?<br /><br />You may not know this if you have not gone through a pregnancy with a loved one, but the earliest possible moment to detect a pregnancy is at around 4 weeks. Pregnancies are dated from the first day of the last menstrual period, NOT from ovulation, meaning that a woman who is *4 weeks pregnant*, if she is paying VERY close attention to her cycle, has *just* discovered she is pregnant. <br /><br />Because we cannot date pregnancies to the day through ultrasound, and because we cannot be absolutely sure that brain wave activity happens at 6 weeks and not 5 weeks 5 days or 6 weeks 2 days, how do we implement your suggested policy of no abortions after 6 weeks?<br /><br />Should each woman desiring an abortion get an MRI scan of her uterus, to check for brain waves? Is Universal Health Care going to cover this cost? I wonder how much 850,000 MRI scans per year would raise our taxes? <br /><br />There is no practical way to implement a brain-wave-is-a-person policy. So what should we do? Move the date later to a more easily defined moment in the pregnancy (you name it- quickening, viability, end of first trimester, ...) or should we do the common sense thing, and just make abortions illegal across the board? <br /><br />I tend to believe that the best way to end abortion will not be fought in the legislation, but will be changing the culture from one of sexual gratification and pleasure above all else, to one of Love. But because that is a change that takes time, we must ALSO fight to limit and then abolish abortion legally.Monicahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11501575551066939483noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-67680018835576196572010-10-03T16:14:27.302-07:002010-10-03T16:14:27.302-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Paul Rimmerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11212220645183007323noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-19897982119291493822010-10-03T16:05:32.613-07:002010-10-03T16:05:32.613-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Paul Rimmerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11212220645183007323noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-62935789465473708362010-10-03T08:00:03.409-07:002010-10-03T08:00:03.409-07:00Monica, thank you for the great contributions here...Monica, thank you for the great contributions here! I thought I would also point Paul to this post, by a woman who was a pro-choice atheist till recently. She discussed the issue of "personhood" quite cogently, and her thought process on that:<br /><br />http://www.conversiondiary.com/2008/01/how-i-became-pro-life.html<br /><br />I think you will enjoy it, Paul. It's stated better than I could have possibly stated it.Leila@LittleCatholicBubblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09357573787143230160noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-65064885711884257432010-10-03T01:33:50.048-07:002010-10-03T01:33:50.048-07:00Also, Paul you said, "But the issue of person...Also, Paul you said, "But the issue of personhood isn't science. It's just common sense."<br /><br />If so, why do you continually defend your definition of personhood (as opposed to "human" and "alive") with a scientific measure (brain waves)? You can't have it both ways. Either personhood is a philosophical question that cannot be clearly answered by science (and therefore the ultimate caution of assigning personhood at conception is required, in order to not unintentionally kill an innocent person) or it IS a scientific question, and a person with a degree in astrophysics should probably leave it to human embryologists to determine, rather than to his own common sense based on his admittedly limited understanding of the human mind and its workings. <br /><br />Susie might say that common sense tells her a human is a person when it is capable of independently sustaining its own life, at around 24 weeks, and so abortion should be permissible until this date based on this "common sense" that you or I, clearly human, are not attached to placentae which are still inside our mothers. Peter Singer might further point out that a baby is actually not capable of surviving without a caregiver for several years, meaning small children are not yet people, and can also be "aborted" (euthanized) according to the whims of society, and that this, too, is common sense, since obviously a small child is not capable of buying his own groceries, preparing his own food, and dressing himself in a warm coat in the winter. <br /><br />Now your common sense is more conservative than Susie's, and hers is more conservative than Peter's, but they are all utterly non-scientific ways of attributing to an entity the Right to Live, which is really what this is all about. <br /><br />Whose common sense is really correct? I have an opinion on that, and so do you, but should we be deciding life and the right to life based on opinion? Or should we, as you mentioned once yourself, be conservative on this question considering the gravity and what is at stake? Is it not more prudent to be as conservative as possible? Isn't conception the earliest and therefore most conservative moment at which to assign the qualities of life, humanity, and personhood?Monicahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11501575551066939483noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-6426975772367297912010-10-03T00:42:47.199-07:002010-10-03T00:42:47.199-07:00Hi Paul, hi Leila,
Wow, I missed a lot while I wa...Hi Paul, hi Leila,<br /><br />Wow, I missed a lot while I was sleeping! I'm sorry I'm coming into this so late...<br />First- Is it really common sense that an embryo is not a human life? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Societal_attitudes_towards_abortion It's not really clear-cut according to this article, which finds that large portions (though not always the majority) feel abortion is morally wrong. <br />Second, does it matter what common sense says? I sure hope not. Common sense, in our recent history, *proved* that blacks were not human, that women were unequal intellectually to men, that Jews were unequal to Germans, and so on, and so on. Common sense is most definitely NOT a valid criteria on which to hang a moral decision. So let's take it out of the equation.<br /><br />Now we have two choices. We can trust what science has shown (that new human life begins at conception) or we can each have our own opinion on it. <br /><br />A human embryo is distinctly human, and distinctly alive. These are provable points. A human embryo, subjected to tests, is objectively different than a chicken or pig embryo. A human embryo is also objectively alive, bearing qualities of "lifeness", vs not alive (inanimate) For life, I am using this dictionary definition: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life, specifically, "Living organisms undergo metabolism, maintain homeostasis, possess a capacity to grow, respond to stimuli, reproduce" as opposed to inanimate objects (rocks, books) which do not. Is an embryo more like a live thing to you, or more like a book or a shoe? <br /><br />I think the scientific evidence is overwhelming that an embryo, from conception, is both alive and human- do you agree with both of these things?<br /><br />Next, personhood. Absolutely, this is a philosophical question that science cannot answer. You seem to be saying that since science cannot answer it, you will assign your own definition of personhood by brainwaves based on (your own definition of) common sense. Is this correct? <br /><br />Are you willing to either kill or not kill (or condone the killing of) a living human being, based on your opinion, based on (your own personal definition of) common sense of whether or not the living human qualifies as a person (a decision you admit is not based in any science)? <br /><br />Would it not be more prudent to err on the side of caution here, since we are talking about LIFE and DEATH? <br /><br />50 years ago, we had no idea of knowing when an embryo began to emit brainwaves. 100 years ago, we had no way to save a baby born before about 35 weeks gestation. In 100 years, we might have a clearer answer to the question of personhood, though I doubt it. Our ability to observe the developing fetus will get more and more exact, and if the trend continues, we will be able to attribute more and more person-like qualities to younger and younger embryos. What a shame to choose an arbitrary thing like brain-waves simply because it is the newest discovery we've made about human embryonic development. <br /><br />I have little doubt that science will continue to reinforce the pro-life position, as it already does. However, if science were to one day prove (I cannot imagine right now that this is possible) that human life and personhood begain at X days of age of an embryo, then I will change my opinion. Until science clearly PROVES to me that a newly conceived embryo is NOT alive and human, however, I will continue to defend it, because when dealing with a matter of life or death, we should always err on the side of caution.Monicahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11501575551066939483noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-8236200767685025232010-10-02T23:21:36.047-07:002010-10-02T23:21:36.047-07:00"I know some basic things all people have, li..."I know some basic things all people have, like brain waves"<br /><br />Sorry to keep pressing, but how do you "know" this? I think some people (embryos) don't have brain waves. There are many scientists who think a human life has begun before brain waves have. So, is this simply your opinion? <br /><br />I guess I'm just trying to get you to say that this "brain wave" definition of "personhood" is as arbitrary as the "viability" definition of "personhood." <br /><br />I hear people say all the time, "Well, we have to draw the line somewhere." My question is "Why do we have to draw the line at all?"<br /><br />Let's grant personhood at the beginning of a new human life. To draw any "line" after the point of conception is arbitrary. It's simply opinion. Am I totally wrong?<br /><br />Thanks Paul, and I'm going to sleep now. :)Leila@LittleCatholicBubblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09357573787143230160noreply@blogger.com