(no subject)

[novapsyche]

Yes, we see here that the Roman Catholic Church conflates fertilization of an egg with pregnancy. But as I posted some months ago, that's just not medically true. Pregnancy doesn't happen until after implantation, which is what emergency contraception aims to prevent.

Of course, you won't hear many Catholics conceding that point. And no, it's not merely semantic.

Comments

[guttaperk.livejournal.com]

Er, actually, speaking medically, you're on less firm ground than you think you are.

I actually am on your side, in that I believe that no arguments yet produced by the anti-abortion folks should trump the right of a woman over her own womb.

However, it seems to me that you might be indulging in the temptation to bastardise your opponent's position in order to more clearly refute it.

Catholicism does not necessarily claim that there is no distinction between fertilisation and fertilisation + implantation; they rather claim that the product of fertilisation is a morally significant entity, whether or not implantation has yet occurred.

That opinion remains arguable, but it is certainly not nearly as silly as the claim that there is no biological difference between (fertiliation) and (fertilisation + implantation).


My own views on abortion can be found here.

[novapsyche.livejournal.com]

No, what I said was that the Catholic church (or, at least in this case, a Roman Catholic official) conflated fertilization and conception. He said that getting rid of a fertilized egg, even one that had not implanted, "amounted to abortion."

I'm not trying to be disingenuous. I'm just using what the article said.

[guttaperk.livejournal.com]

I didn't think you were trying to be disingenuous.

Saying that getting rid of a fertilised egg was tantamount to abortion does not necessarily imply overall conflation of fertilization and implantation.

If I say that killing a man and a woman are both murder, that does not imply that I think that gender does not exist- just that it is irrelevant to the question of murder.

Mind you, some Catholics may certainly conflate the two- conflation is simply not necessary to the Catholic position, just as it is not necessary to consider the two genders to be identical in order to consider both murder.

[guttaperk.livejournal.com]

Addendum: if I say that the gender of the victim is irrelevant to the question of whether murder is wrong, that does not mean that I am "conflating the genders", does it?

[novapsyche.livejournal.com]

I am finding it hard to respond to this, because I can't really see how your analogy applies.

[guttaperk.livejournal.com]

Do you understand anything else that I was saying?

[novapsyche.livejournal.com]

Yes, but as it was a simple refutation of what I posited, your analogy didn't clarify anything.

Saying that getting rid of a fertilised egg was tantamount to abortion does not necessarily imply overall conflation of fertilization and implantation.

I assume that "not necessarily" and "overall" are the key words here. I think the statement does imply that. I think the statement meant, "A woman with a fertilized egg in her is pregnant." Otherwise, how could an abortion occur?

[guttaperk.livejournal.com]

I think that perhaps the most helpful way to approach this might simply be to repeat my question, even though you don't see how it applies.

If I say that the gender of the victim is irrelevant to the question of whether murder is wrong, that does not mean that I am "conflating the genders", does it?

[novapsyche.livejournal.com]

I'm not talking about whether something is right or wrong; I'm talking about whether one thing is so similar to something else as to constitute the same thing.

The difference I see in your analogy and what the official said is that fertilization and pregnancy are part of the same process, though distinct stages in that process. To reduce them to being equivalent--as though there were no steps between them--is to conflate.

Your analogy doesn't hold, because you are not engaging in reduction.

[novapsyche.livejournal.com]

Your analogy doesn't hold, because you are not engaging in reduction.

Also, the statement you provide has nothing in common structurally with that of the official's. This is why I cannot reconcile the two.

[guttaperk.livejournal.com]

I'm not talking about whether something is right or wrong; I'm talking about whether one thing is so similar to something else as to constitute the same thing.

And that fundamentally is the problem here. Really, the Catholic Church is not talking about whether or not the two constitute the same thing in any general or biological sense; the Church is concerned with whether they are right or wrong.

You are overlaying your preoccupations on to other people's words, and are thus distorting their meaning.


The difference I see in your analogy and what the official said is that fertilization and pregnancy are part of the same process, though distinct stages in that process. To reduce them to being equivalent--as though there were no steps between them--is to conflate.

No Catholic official has, to my knowledge, denied the existence or biological importance of implantation, which is the reason that I question your accusation of conflation. What is rather being asserted is that implantation is not morally significant, an assertion which you have yet to comment on. I might disagree with that assertion, but that assertion is not dismissible as being simply ridiculous.


Your analogy doesn't hold, because you are not engaging in reduction.

Analogies do not necessarily depend on reduction or simplification, though they often usefully employ them. I can employ an analogy of similar complexity to the original question for the purpose of eliminating an emotive red flag that was hampering the analysis.


Let me explain:

(1) murder of a male => 'abortion' pre-implantation
(2) murder of a female => abortion, post-implantation

I am noting via my analogy that one can dismiss the moral difference between (1) and (2) without claiming that there are no differences at all.


Is my analogy clearer?

[droid-1.livejournal.com]

Historically speaking, the Roman Catholic Church has always been wrong in matters of science.
And often in matters of morality.
Weren't they behind the slaughter of so many Central Americans?

Like - I don't really think they have a leg to stand on.

Just for the record, I do not conflate the Catholic Church with any form of authority, either in this world or the next.

[guttaperk.livejournal.com]

I don't think that the Roman Catholic Church is an authority on scientific matters or religious.

With regard to the slaughter of Central Americans: are you prepared to hold the American government as culpable for slaughter as you do the Catholic Church? The American government, after all, has slaughtered far more people, and far more recently.


Regardless, were the very devil himself to speak truth, I would defend it; and were the devil to stand unfairly accused, I would defend him. My many grievances with what I see as tragic flaws in standard Catholic theology as well as ghastly Catholic misbehaviors over the centuries do not lead to my being prepared to accept what I see as misrepresentation of Catholic views.

[droid-1.livejournal.com]

Yes, of course!
The US government is beyond comprehension, their beliefs unshaken by mere facts.

[guttaperk.livejournal.com]

That is the nature of humankind.