Subscribe via RSS Feed

Wendy Davis, Let\’s Talk

March 26, AD2014 75 Comments

\"Patti

Hey Wendy, that was some filibuster you did as a state senator, last summer. Wow! 11 hours of non-stop talking in an attempt to defeat a bill that would stop abortion on unborn babies capable of feeling pain. Yet, in spite of all that talking, the bill did pass. Don’t blame yourself though. There were surely a few prayer-filibusters going on at the same time.

In spite of your failure, you became a pro-abortion superstar. And thanks to some powerful friends, you are now the Democratic nomination for governor of Texas. One of those friends is Cecil Richards, the head of Planned Parenthood (PP) whose mother was the last Democratic governor in Texas. Richards wants to pull out all the stops to fight against what she describes as “an unprecedented attack on a woman’s right to make her own health care decisions, including whether to have an abortion.”  And you are now her new BFF in this venture. She thinks your determination to keep the suction machines operating is going to keep the wheels of PP rolling in Texas. I must admit, you\’ve got some great sound bites using your past struggle as a single mother, (even with the exaggerations exposed) as the reason for being passionate about a women’s legal right to abortion.

I read how you don’t think any woman should have to sacrifice her dreams, her education, her career…basically her anything…if having a baby would interfere with it.  Given that you attended Harvard Law School in Boston, while your husband paid the tuition and stayed home in Texas to care for your two daughters, I see that your ambition runs deep. I’m not opposed to ambition, but I can’t help but notice that your math skills are way off. Your comparisons don’t add up. For instance, a career has value as does an education. But a life has far greater value—infinite value. You\’ve been solving problems all wrong. Instead of realizing that a life is of absolute value which is more than all those other things added or even multiplied, you have incorrectly equated the life of a baby with zero. In that way, regardless of what else a woman wants to do, it is worth more than the life of her unborn child. Wendy, you are flunking this subject.

You\’ve been solving problems with the wrong answers for some time now. Your reason for going to Harvard Law School was to make a better life for you and your daughters. I\’ve never met children who thought it was a better idea for their mother to move away to go to school so that one day she could be more important or make more money. Children think being with their mother is more important than any of that other stuff. They instinctively know the value of things. “At that time Jesus said, ‘I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children’” (Matt 11:25). And if they could tell you, the youngest of children would say that they would rather be born than aborted.

Look at what you said to the press after your filibuster to make women’s desire for abortion more important than the pain a baby feels while getting killed. “I [once] needed family planning services. I needed to make sure that I didn\’t add to the incredible responsibility I already had so that I could take advantage of working, going to school and trying to go forward. I had this deeply personal understanding of why making sure that women have those opportunities was important.”

You are telling women that their personal opportunities are more important than giving their babies the opportunity to live. That is an exaggerated self-importance. A life is more important than an opportunity not the other way around. There will be other opportunities for the mother; there is only one opportunity for a baby to be born. If it was your life that had to end so someone else could go to school or work, would you donate it?

Making personal ambition more valuable than a life, is a falsehood you are spreading. Of what value is a degree or a job if you have to kill a baby to get it? “It is a poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish.” -Mother Teresa.

It is tragic that so many women have been brainwashed into thinking that they are doing the right thing to abort their baby in order to live as they wish. I know also that some women have been the victims of boyfriends, or husbands, or parents who wanted the baby aborted so as not to interfere with their own plans.

If you really care about women, work to support them during their pregnancy so they don’t feel that abortion is their only option. Wendy, you know there are other choices so stop all the drama and work to take better care of women so that they can take better care of their babies. It will go better on everyone when the greatest is valued above the lesser.

About the Author:

Patti Maguire Armstrong and her husband have ten children. She is an award-winning author and was managing editor and co-author of Ascension Press’s Amazing Grace Series. Her newest books are: Big Hearted: Inspiring Stories from Everyday Families, a collection of stories to inspire family love, and Dear God, I Don't Get It and the sequel, Dear God, You Can't Be Serious; children's fiction that feeds the soul through a fun and exciting story. Read more at Catholic News and Inspiration and follow her at Twitter. Please "Like" her Facebook pages: DearGodBooks, BigHeartedFamilies, and A GPS Guide to Heaven and Earth.

If you enjoyed this essay, subscribe below to receive a daily digest of all our essays.

Thank you for supporting us!

  • KarenJo12

    So, should women get professional degrees?

    • Patti Maguire Armstrong

      I have two professional degrees; one a masters. I would have never, ever, ever, left my kids for 2 years to go to a prestigious law school. Nothing could have enticed me away from 2 years of motherhood. Given that is what Wendy chose to do, her insistence that women need abortion services so nothing gets in the way of their dreams…well, I guess it explains where she is coming from.

    • cminca

      Congrats–you made your choice. She made a different choice.

      What makes you qualified to decide for her–or anyone else for that matter?

      If you want to stop abortions Patti–what are you doing about making sure that teens are getting comprehensive sex education and access to birth control? Because that is actually PROVEN to lessen abortion.

    • Patti Maguire Armstrong

      Half the girls going in for abortions were on birth control. Birth control increases people’s willingness to have sex with someone they don’t want to parent with, nor want to become a parent themselves. I do a lot to support the pregnancy center in our area. Sounds like you and Wendy share some of the same views.

    • cminca

      No–the study you are quoting said that 54% of the woman used birth control (usually pill or condom) THE MONTH they got pregnant.
      Well Patti, using a condom on the first of the month doesn’t help when you have sex on the 2nd–31st without a condom.
      So nice try, but fail.
      I do share Wendy’s views. And guess what–in the US I am allowed to do so.
      Even though you and yours would like to take that freedom away.

    • Patti Maguire Armstrong

      And you want it to be legal to take a life away. Your freedom ends where it impede the life of another.

    • cminca

      LOOK IN THE MIRROR–you are constantly insisting that your freedom impedes the civil rights of others.

      HOW DARE YOU suggest you know better than any woman what she should, or shouldn’t, do with her own body.

      HOW DARE YOU suggest that those decisions should be decided by the state.

      You all talk about freedom and rights–but you really just mean when those “freedoms” and “rights” are determined by your church.

      The situation is this–you want to limit abortion? Fine. Insist on comprehensive sex education and access to birth control.

      Buy you don’t.

      This isn’t about “babies”. You want to control behavior and you, and your church, have their drawers in a knot because the majority aren’t listening.

      You want to have your church call the shots? Move to a Catholic Theocracy. This is a secular, democratic republic. Get used to it or feel free to get out.

    • Camila

      cminca,

      Sorry, but you are the one arguing babies aren’t children. Catholics argue they are. The one trying to protect life and defend its democracy are the Catholics. They are saying, the mom and the baby are humans. You for example say only the mother is a human and not the baby, so kill it. You are the one putting a limit on freedom, not the Catholics.

    • cminca

      Babies are children.
      Zygotes aren’t.

    • Camila

      Ok, so in your view when does a zygote stop being just a zygote and is now a human baby?

    • cminca

      I rely on Doctors for that.
      Since you don’t agree–why don’t you answer this question–
      Do you eat eggs for breakfast? Or do you call them chicks? (And yes, you can purchase fertilized eggs).

    • Camila

      I eat chicken eggs, since they are not human.

      I don’t kill my zygotes, since they are humans.

    • cminca

      Correct, because whether fertilized or not, eggs are NOT chickens.

    • Camila

      cminca,

      Regardless whether we conclude that fertilized eggs are chicken or not, I eat both eggs AND I eat dead chicken (someone else kills it for me for me to eat it). This is ok because it is an animal, not a human being.

    • Camila

      cminca,

      You see, here we run into a problem. A Catholic doctor will have a different diagnosis than an atheist doctor – who’s right?

    • D Hunnell

      This is not true. Please see my comment above. Any physician or scientist who is true to science has to agree that human life begins at conception. That is settled science and not a matter of religious beliefs. What is being argued is when does that new life have dignity. Drawing the line anywhere other than conception is arbitrary and employs utilitarian ethics, meaning that people are valued as long as they are seen as useful. The American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology (a very pro-abortion group) has not changed the definition of when life begins. They have just defined pregnancy as beginning with implantation. They do not deny that the zygote is human.

    • Camila

      Dear D Hunnell,

      Thank you so much for your clarification. I stand corrected.

    • cminca

      D Hunnell–It isn’t that life have dignity or usefulness–it is when life is independent of that of the mother.
      It is amazing that you all want the government out of your lives, but in a woman’s uterus.

    • Patti Maguire Armstrong

      Cminca, Are you aware that there are many non-religious people who fight for the right to life for the unborn? There are atheists and humanist pro life groups. Are you also aware that when a women is pregnant there are two bodies? Sounds to me like you are angry at the Church. As far as the state making decisions, they decide that murder is illegal and abortion is murder. Living in a moral society is the business of both the Church, the state, and every citizen.

    • Camila

      cminca,

      You say “I do share Wendy’s views.” Ok, then please explain something, You wouldn’t consider a violation of the child’s freedom to live to kill him? right? why not?

      What if one day you become invalid, a drain to someone’s expense and time and well being, would you think it is a violation of your freedom to live to kill you?

    • cminca

      Camila–
      Simple. It isn’t a child. And it isn’t one until it is viable outside of the mother’s body.
      As for my being an invalid–already considered. I have a “do not resuscitate” directive already in place, my sister (power of attorney) already knows I want the plug pulled–sooner rather than later–and just to be clear I have absolutely no moral problem with suicide or assisted suicide for people who want are beyond the reach of modern science.
      That answer your question?

    • Camila

      You say “Simple. It isn’t a child.”

      How do you know it isn’t a child?

    • cminca

      Because science tells me so.

    • Camila

      Where?

    • cminca

      Camilla–next you will be asking me to “define science” and “define life”.
      I’ve seen all the disingenuous questions and the other games before.
      So sorry–I’m not going to play along.

    • Patti Maguire Armstrong

      Viability? That’s lame. Newborns can’t survive without outside support. Or any babies or toddlers and young children. The question is when does life begin? Cell growth and reproduction means there is life. If something is growing, it is living.

      Viability changes.

      “Madeline Mann, born in 1989 weighing 9.9 ounces, was at the time the world record. Seven-year-old Rumaisa Rahman, whose 9.2-ounce birth weight remains the world’s tiniest. Two other babies born since 1989 have weighed less than Madeline, and a German girl was born last year at her same birth weight.”

      Aiden McLaughlin was born at 24 weeks [weighing 1 .5 lbs ] and now he has caught up to children his age and started to walk and talk. His rapid improvement gives rise to questions about abortion and time limits — with many nations like the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom allowing the abortion of babies at his age.

      Cminca, you want to believe that abortion is okay but it is not. It matters if you end the life of a baby. It would have mattered if your life was ended before you were born.

      Ironically, it is the pro-life side that provides healing and love to women who are suffering from their abortions. You paint us as villains but we love women and babies.

    • cminca

      So enough tap dancing by both of you—answer my question.

      What positive steps are you taking to limit unwanted
      pregnancies? What are you doing to promote comprehensive sex education and access to affordable birth control?

      Because unless you are actually trying to prevent the need
      for abortion I’m going to have to believe what you are really interested in is controlling behavior. And feeling smug
      while you sit in self-satisfied judgment of those you deem less righteous.

      Since I’m certain you won’t answer the question—because you
      can’t answer the question—I’ll simply say “over and out”.

    • D Hunnell

      Please see my longer comment above. As a physician, college professor, and scientist, I can tell you the secular scientific world states that human life begins at conception. What is being argued is not when does human life begin, but when does that human life have dignity. When we decide that we can arbitrarily decide whether or not human beings deserve dignity based on their usefulness or desirability to others we open up a very dangerous line of thinking.

    • Salvelinus

      On the contrary. Just like contaception, when sex education is introduced into a population, the data is clear that promescuity and objectification of women increase.

      In African countries, when evil, racist, eugenics groups like planned parenthood or the UN Introduce their garbage (including their pervertef brand of “education”, rapes, homosexual activity, diseases including syphilis, HIV, and divorce increased.

      Your statement, like every progressive piece of gobblygook is based on emotion, and not the actual data

    • Camila

      Absolutely! We want smart and educated moms teaching their children, no?
      Who’s best to be home and care for and form babies, kids, teens? A brilliantly educated and well formed mom!

  • Lydia

    Women can get professional degrees. They just shouldn’t sacrifice their children’s lives to do it.

  • marie

    I think it would serve yourself better and God’s church, to hold onto your same values, but make your point with humility and grace. Snarky comments do not go with our values, as Catholics, and it becomes difficult to bring people to Christ while putting someone else down, because of the choices they made. Jesus meets us where we are, and aren’t we glad? We are all sinners. God is the church, Jesus is our life vest, so get in, put it on and don’t hit anyone with your oars!!!

    • cminca

      Are you kidding?
      What fun is feeling self-righteous if you can’t crow about it in a snarky way?

    • Patti Maguire Armstrong

      I am very cautious when I point things out about others, but we need to not go to the extreme of not saying anything in the face of wrong doing. Davis is very publicly and very aggressively promoting her message. She is going to great extremes not to limit abortion. Anyone so in favor of the killing of babies needs to be put in the spotlight with a pro-life view.

  • David Peters

    Patti this is a powerful article, and I do not consider it negative in anyway to point out the truth. I thank God for mothers that make the right choice (even when it is tough to do) and choose life. We all need the truth about what is more important, so thank you! God bless.

    • Patti Maguire Armstrong

      Thanks, David. We do our Catholic faith and the unborn a disservice when we don’t speak out. I had no intention of being snarky but wanted to clear up the distortions being used to promote abortion.

    • cminca

      NO ONE is “promoting” abortion. They are promoting the right of a woman to determine what she does with her body.

      They are promoting the right of citizen over those of the state.

      I’ll bet your a die hard teabagger who screams about government tyranny and sees no contradiction in wanting the state to be able to dictate what a doctor can, or cannot, say to his patient.

    • Camila

      cminca,

      Hitler didn’t think the Jews were humans, nor the kkk thought that black people were human, so their conclusion is coherent with their thinking, right? Kill them all.

      Who promotes freedom? Those that see babies, you, Jews, black and white as all humans and all deserving to be free to live OR those that decide some beings are not human so they can be killed at the whim and decision of those that are deemed to be human?

    • cminca

      Well coming from someone who probably doesn’t think I, as a gay man, am entitled to the same civil rights that is an interesting position.
      Except it really isn’t. You are comparing actual citizens to zygotes.

    • Camila

      cminca,

      Gay or not you are a human being, and deserves the freedom to live. My baby (zygote) is also a human being and deserves the freedom to live. Both you and my baby have the same dignity, both are to be respected, loved, cherished as humans with a human and eternal soul.

    • cminca

      I spoke of civil rights. You ducked the question.
      And you may consider your zygote a human being, but the law doesn’t.

    • Camila

      Nope, I didn’t duck the question. My point all along has been the freedom to live. (We can talk about other rights at another time or elsewhere – I’d be happy to.) This conversation is on 1 point – If we agree that we shouldn’t have the right to kill a human being, then it is paramount to define when is a human being a human being.

      You see, the Catholic church, teaches us, that a human being is a human being at the moment of conception. Thus, he has the right to the freedom to live. It really has nothing to do with the mom or dad. It is about that person’s own freedom. By killing him we are violating his freedom-to-live.

      The reason the United States Law (many other countries differ from the USA) is that civil law is now defining reality as though it had any power to do so.

      Metaphysically speaking, human life begins at conception. The civil law can decide anything they want, but they can’t change reality. We live in a time that civil law is changing the very definition of a human person.

      This is very very scary cminca. You know why? Because who will get to define who is a human being? What if one day the civil law decides that gay men are not humans – after all they can change definition at whim, no? Who will stand behind the gay men to defend their freedom to live? You bet the Catholic church will.

    • cminca

      Your position is you don’t agree with abortion. Got it.

      What are you doing to prevent unwanted pregnancy? Are you campaigning for comprehensive sex education and access to birth control?

      Because if you’re not–then I’d argue this isn’t about abortion–but about Catholicism defining “acceptable” behavior.

      So answer the question–what are you and your church doing about making certain that people at risk–young men and especially women–have a clear understanding about their sexuality and how their bodies work? What are you doing about increasing access to birth control?

      Or are you just telling girls to take and aspirin–and hold it between their knees?

      “Metaphysically speaking, human life begins at conception.” You have every right to believe that. You don’t have the right to have that automatically become the law of the land simply because it is the teaching of the Catholic church.

      “Who will stand behind the gay men to defend their freedom to live? You bet the Catholic church will.”

      Don’t make me laugh.

      The only reason that the cc has changed from the “abomination” stance is because they know they can’t get away with it any more. Because the only real difference between the WBC and the USCCB is that the USCCB has better costumes and real estate.

      Do you know that at the end of WWII the concentration camps–except for the homosexuals jailed? They were left in the camps.
      So where was the CC before, during, or after…..

    • Camila

      cminca,

      You bring in so many fascinating points of discussion. I’ll stick to the one we have been talking about.

      You say

      You don’t have the right to have that automatically become the law of the land simply because it is the teaching of the Catholic church.

      Here’s the thing, the definition of a human person has been in place for thousands of years. Civil law change depending on who’s in power. Like in Germany, Hitler changed the definition, and then the current government changed it yet again. The Catholic definition has never changed. So it isn’t the Catholic church making it the law of the land. It has been the only one stable throughout thousands of years. It’s the civil law that’s unstable.

    • cminca

      “The Catholic definition has never changed…..:” Ah—there’s the problem. You see, I don’t listen to what the church says. I look at what they DO. Because their actions are far more enlightening than their words.

      You are deluding yourself if you think that the institution
      of the CC has any regard for the qualms about extinguishing human life. When its core concerns—money and power—are
      threatened the Catholic Church has a long and illustrious history of spilling innocent blood. Crusades, the
      inquisition, witch trials, heretic burnings—all used to keep the sheeple in line and to stifle anyone who would dare to question the authority of the church. Remember the first motto of the CC–Pray, pay, and obey.

      As for respect for the female gender–until 120 years ago
      the church viewed you as chattel. Owned by your father then by your husband. An abusive husband beat you? Pray for
      mercy. An abusive husband raped you? Lay back and close your eyes. Female life was completely expendable as your
      only real purpose was to manufacture more (tithing) Catholic men.

      They can prattle on all they want about life–when it starts, what is the meaning, how to live–their actions PROVE that, when the rubber hits the road, their “talk is cheap” and their bank account is king.

      You keep bringing up the Nazis—well where was the Pope
      during the 30s and early 40s? I’ll answer that question for you—he was safeguarding Catholic interests (real
      estate and art treasure) in the German and Austrian parishes. All that medieval and baroque art to keep out of Nazi hands. That’s why he didn’t declare until the outcome was clear.

    • Camila

      cminca,

      You are absolutely correct and right to look for action as a proof of what anyone is. This is a brilliant statement of yours and you should never – ever- let this go. Ever. And you are further right to expect the church to act accordingly to what she believes. I would agree with you.

      I don’t pretend nor defend sinful and erroneous actions preformed by those in power in the church. However, the fact that people are sinful does not prove that the church’s teachings are wrong. The fact that many (not all) in the church have made serious mistakes and sinned against her and against her own people does not prove that what she teaches is not the Truth.

      Just like the US Government, the church is made up of sinful man, and as such, they will sin and make mistakes. I concur with you, those in the church are expected to behave and uphold at a much higher moral standard, and many have failed. In both institutions.

      There are however a few stunning truths that one must not ignore:
      1) It was God Himself that instituted the Catholic church. He promised never to leave us orphan. He didn’t promise humans in it would never sin. HE will never leave us, but we can abandon Him and thus commit atrocious acts – whether one is a pope or not.

      2) The church has an AMAZING history of saints. Have you ever studied any of their lives. There is no way we learn about them and leave untouched by the degree of their love and kindness and holiness. Cimca, these are the people you want to look to in the church. The saints have blazed a stunning path for humanity. They have lived in real union with God and thus shine for as true examples of Christianity in ACTION.

      So, if you want to know what is really the Catholic church look at and study the lives of her saints. Many dealt with very corrupt church at their time and struggled, just like you. But they saw past the human sinfulness, some like St. Catherine of Siena, was VERY outspoken about the problems within the church.

      Are you aware of the infallibility teaching?

    • cminca

      Camila–

      Two points.

      First–No matter how much you argue it–the CC is NOT God. And God is not the CC. You’re worshiping the institution instead of the deity.

      Second–you and Patti still haven’t answered my question about what you are doing to PREVENT unintended pregnancy.

    • Camila

      I worship God. I belong to the Church He found, and where He promised He will always be. He being God can’t deceive nor be deceived.

      On your second point, the only reason I would ever say anything is to try to pursuade you to see in my actions the truth. But, there is no amount of good works that will ever pursuade you.

      The fact that I walk the talk means nothing to you, no amount of words from me will ever convince you. How I know this? Because of your unwillingness to use reason. If this wasn’t the case then you have been given many rational positions wrt the right to life of a baby, yet you have not declared your stance on abortion any different. This is a much simpler and easier move than if I were to parrot all my good works in the hopes your heart be moved to confess the Truth about the Catholic faith.

      Those that can be trusted with little can also be trusted with much. First show me you are a truly reasonable person, and THEN I will entrust more.

      Further, I have a much more severe judge. God tells me to be perfect as my Heavenly Father is perfect, I don’t need to prove nor fear man’s judgement. It is the day I die, when I will face God Himself (and you will too whether you believe this or not) face to face and give an account of everything I have done or failed to do. That is the day of truth, where really all things will matter, and to Whom I owe any and all account of my actions and thoughts.

    • cminca

      In other words–you are railing against abortion but not doing the two things actually proven to prevent it.
      This is about wanting control, not about abortion.

    • Camila

      cimca,

      If we can’t agree that a baby in the womb must be allowed to live, we certainly won’t agree on matters of contraception.

    • cminca

      OK–don’t want gay marriage? Don’t get gay married.

      Simple–right?

    • Camila

      Our conversation is about abortion and the right to life of the baby in the womb.

      (We’ll both be kicked out of the blog if we start talking about gay marriage…interesting topic nonetheless, but off the current subject. Plus I suspect we’ll end up in stalemate with no real progress in the conversation. Just like the current one.)

    • cminca

      No–I was just using it to illustrate your double standard.

    • Patti Maguire Armstrong

      cminca, unintended pregnancy occurs when two people who don’t want to become parents engage in sex. The prevention is simple and clear. Contraception is not full-proof as I said, half the people having abortions were using some form of contraception. Why do you think I have the responsibility to, in any way, do something to promote life-less sex outside of marriage? Why do you lower sex to merely a recreational activity with no responsibilities? Abstinence is not easy but why would you think people should not be expected to meet challenges? Along with sex and contraception comes skyrocketing STD’s many of which or incurable and render a person sterile. It is the height of ignorance to encourage behavior that leads to permanent health problems and death of babies.

    • cminca

      In other words you are doing nothing…..

      You rail against abortion but you’re not actually doing anything to prevent the need for abortion in the first place.

      Thanks for confirming that this is really about imposing your so-called morality and feeling smug and self-righteous.

    • D Hunnell

      Actually, it is not the Catholic Church defining life at conception. It is science. I am a physician and a college professor and I teach anatomy and physiology. The secular textbooks I use define what criteria are necessary for life and clearly define that human zygote meets every one of the criteria at the moment of conception. In the recent HHS mandate Supreme Court arguments when the government tried to say that the zygote was not a human life, the plaintiffs brought in a stack of secular textbooks used at many prestigious institutions including Princeton that also clearly define the beginning of life as the fusion of the sperm and ova to form a zygote. It is an ill informed argument to claim that life begins at any point other than conception.

      What the argument is actually about is whether or not that newly formed life has the same human dignity as human life that is more developed. Drawing a line anywhere other than conception is arbitrary. Such a judgment says life prior to this arbitrary point of development doesn’t count if this new life is inconvenient or undesirable to another person. This thinking deprives humans of intrinsic dignity and declares human dignity is acquired based on a person’s value to others. Once we make one class of human beings subject to such judgment we are all liable to such judgment. If human dignity must be acquired, it can also be lost so from this utilitarian view, once others no longer see value in us, then we are disposable. The weak and the vulnerable become subject to the whims of the strong and powerful.

    • Camila

      Dr. Hunnell,

      Thank you so much for your response. I was approaching the reality of man from a metaphysical perspective where at the moment of conception God creates a brand new human soul. We know this because it is a human and humans are composed of body and soul. Immediately upon conception the ‘zygote’ is a human person. Who deserves to be allowed to live.

    • bill b

      Camilla,
      If the Catholic overstates the reality though, such overstatements work against the Catholic cause by undermining the Church in the eyes of many readers. Here’s what I mean. The Church infallibly condemns abortion in section 62 of Evangelium Vitae by John Paul II now even for those who thought it not infallibly condemned in the universal ordinary magisterium. What he did was new in that he polled all the world’s bishops by mail and email as to several questions and abortion was one. They unanimously condemned abortion with him which saved him from the long research months that would have been necessary had he sought to do an ex cathedra encyclical. But while abortion is condemned now clearly in a manner that satisfies canon 749-3, what is not infallibly defined is when a person begins. Human life begins at conception but a human person does not unless the field of embryology is on a very mistaken course which is not likely. The cell mass is human life genetically but the cells are totipotential for around 14 days as to how many humans will be the result of this mass of human life….ie the cells might become one person or eg four identical quadruplets. The cell mass can be teased scientifically into so dividing even though multiple identicals are rare statistically. There is human life at conception but not one person at conception because the cells in the early period are totipotential and can be teased into being multiples rather than one person. Another problem for early ensoulment is the chimeric individual who has the DNA of two people as in a British case of the twentieth century. In their case, two fraternal twin eggs are fertilized by sperm but lay too close to each other just afterward and fuse together into one person rather than producing fraternal twins had they not fused. Did two persons become one? No. Two human cell masses became one cell mass.

    • Camila

      Dear bill b,

      I respectfully disagree with you that stating or overstating reality can cause harm. Our ‘enemies’ are stating and overstating their atrocious ideas – should we not defend?

      Further, what you bring up is very interesting but if I understand you correctly (please correct me if I’m wrong) is that the question you raise is whether the cell mass is one or many humans. Now, this doesn’t prove it isn’t a person, it only shows that it could, potentially, be more than one person.

      Further, if it is a human life then why isn’t it necessarily a person (perhaps potentially more than one) but at least 1 nonetheless?

      If however you are arguing (if I misunderstood you) that human life at the early states is not person, then are you suggesting that abortion be acceptable? After all, it is not a person until….. well, that leads us to my next question. So when is the “mass” a person then, at a point that it may not be aborted.

      It seems to me we ought to apply the principle of not acting when in doubt of some harmful/sinful outcome. In other words, if we were to cast doubt on whether the early ‘mass of living cells’ (Dr. Hunnells has clearly explained that even the honest atheist will agree that life begins at conception) is a person, then the correct action must be not to kill it. To save, protect, spare it’s life so that it may naturally become as many persons God has created him/her or they to be.

    • bill b

      Camilla,
      There cannot be one or several persons as long as there is totipotentiality in the cells…there is human life matter. But there are cells which have not committed to a role yet whether in one person or several. Read in this area of embryology as time goes by. At what time is a person present…or several? Rome should be working on that question around the clock in my opinion but I certainly don’t know. Jerome, Augustine, and Aquinas put it way late but those first two were largely influenced by a mistake in the Septuagint and Aquinas was influenced by Aristotle so none of them shed real light but their delayed ensoulment lasted until St. Alphonsus’ time so delayed had a longer time within the Church but longer isn’t always right.
      Section 62 of Evangelium Vitae condemns abortion which word is used for surgical abortion. The pro-life groups and clergy gradually extended that to the preimplantation zygote but Evangelium Vitae had the opportunity to explitcitly do the same in the infallible paragraph but did not stretch the word “abortion” to include the preimplantation zygote in that paragraph which is outside the common definition of abortion in the Western language.
      The result was that you had prolife people accuse those using the birth control pill of murder but choosing to eat too much also inhibits implantation yet not a word was said against women who make that choice…many of whom could be in the prolife movement. Thus overstating an accusation can come back to haunt a group.

    • Camila

      There is no such thing as human life matter. It is either a human or not.

      For example animals: technically there is not such thing as a dead dog. The matter (after it ceases to be animated by a soul, that is the form) is no longer a dog, but a substantially different thing. A bunch of cells decomposing that may no longer be called a dog.

      In humans, it is the human soul that animates the body and gives it both form and substance. The soul is a subsistent form and insofar as the body is living, it is a human body, and if it is a human body humans aren’t a what a day and a ‘who’ the next. They ARE human, a human person.

      Humans are both body and soul. The instant a human is – so it is too a body and soul. Once the soul no longer animates the body, then we can call it matter – a substantially different thing. It is not a human body. The subsistent soul is complete in substantiality but incomplete in specific perfection. This means that even though it continues to exist, it is not a man per se, since a man is both body and soul.

    • bill b

      Camilla,
      Above you up here. The reply on your box was not working. The last word is yours. I answered you at Dan Burke’s as Cordeliafan on Teresa of Jesus but Dan blocked my answer to you and my answer to him. Be careful of that man.

    • Camila

      bill b,
      You can email your reply to whatever I said:
      camila.de.fuentes@gmail.com

    • bill b

      Briefly….saints are not infallible even doctors of the Church…read me on the nearby Aquinas thread. You’re an asset to the Church…keep on trucking.

    • Camila

      Aha! I see you changed your profile name.

    • Salvelinus

      Hmmm really? Then why do most states charclge one with double murder when a pregnant mother is murdered?
      Yes, even in the zygotic stage of development.
      See the hypocrisy?

    • David Conger

      Has anyone else noticed that the minute the physican/scientist (D Hunnell) gives his educated opinion, cminca falls of the thread and onto another until the scientist comments again?

    • cminca

      My response–clearly listed above–from two days ago.

      “D Hunnell–It isn’t that life have dignity or usefulness–it is when life is independent of that of the mother.
      It is amazing that you all want the government out of your lives, but in a woman’s uterus.”

      A point, I might add, that was consistent with my remark about fetus viability.

      A point, I might also add, that none of the “Christians” bothered to respond to–unless you count Patti’s tap dance around it. For two days.

    • Salvelinus

      For the tenth time, it’s not just “her body” when it has a separate DNA make-up. Incidentally, half of it is the father’s which is troubling considering dad is virtually never partof the argument.
      Imagine if a mother kills her infant and the father isnt isnt consulted because the infant isnt “his”.
      Why do proaborts notoriously cut the father out of the equation when abortion is considered?

      Also, great job with the pejorative “teabagger” reference. Standing up for the unborn isnt a left or right issue.
      It’s a natural law issue.

  • David Peters

    By the way I know of one crisis pregnancy center operated by loving Christian women, where 75% of the women that go, decide to give their babies a chance for life. It is amazing what some accurate information, loving care, and a sonogram can do to help save lives. People matter, mother and child.

  • Pingback: THURSDAY EDITION | God & Caesar

  • Camila

    Patti, Great article.

    • Patti Maguire Armstrong

      Thanks very much, Camila. I appreciate your very thoughtful and charitable contributions to this discussion.

  • Salvelinus

    As one that was present at the capitol during the debate, I can be confident in saying the proabortion zealots are truly influenced by the devil.
    Sadly, the number of Wendy Davis for governor bumper stickers in the parish parking lots are astounding.
    Hispanics appear to be voting democrat by auto.
    The “church of nice”, complete with 45-minute per week sacrament of pennance (yet all “taking” communion in the hand… from a “Eucharistic minister”.

    The “spirit” of Vatican II goes WAY beyond liturgical rupture from the 2000 years of the faith prior.

    Supposed “catholics” supporting proabort Wendy Davis, voting baby-killer-in-chief, obama into office twice, and support of sodomite “marrige” more tgan any religion or protestant eclesial denomination.

    PrY foriur bishops (especially the bishop of Rome) that they behave like men, not feminized overly influenced cowards.

    Dominus vobiscum!

  • somnipod

    Yikes