They can say abstaining for the purpose of the couple trying to control pregnancy is a sin. After all, isn't that why contraception is considered a sin: trying to control pregnancy rather than leaving it up to God? I mean, to God, who presumably knows your intent, there doesn't seem to be any practical difference here.

No they can't because before their was NFP they already said that if couples truely do not want anymore children they can abstain from sex.

But in that case the couple no longer gets to have sex. The difference between that and contraception is that the couple still gets to have sex when using contraception but does not in the case of complete abstinence. The same can be said for only abstaining when the wife is ovulating.

The couple can always change thier mind so your statement that they can no longer have sex is false.

Sigh. They can no longer have sex while they are trying to control whether they get pregnant. If they decide to start having sex again, then they are right back where they started.

And the Catholic Church has long said that the only acceptable method of birth control is the abstainence of sex....which is the foundation of NFP. So once they allow couples to abstain from sex to control the size of their family they are kinda locked in to accepting NFP.

Are you arguing that if the Catholic Church is consistent then it should make abstaining from sex a sin?

If X was sufficiently large then it might be better to allow the abortion. The earth can only support so many souls.

Abstaining from sex (as in completely) is different to nfp. The church can endorse abstinence while maintaining that deliberately timed temporary abstinence purely for the purpose of preventing pregnancy is a sin. Endorsing or condemning one does not force doing the same to the other. They are in no way locked in.

How about the church just STFU and realize they have no authority in the sexual relations between a husband and wife?

Personally, I find great humor in grown adults accepting authority over their sex lives from celibate men.

What is the difference in deliberately timed temporary abstinence purely for the purpose of avoiding pregnancy and delibertate permanent abstinence purely for the purpose of avoiding pregancy?

By what rationale would one be a sin and not the other?

Interesting that at least one theist here spoke of the fetus supposedly having a soul as a reason to oppose abortion.

Most pro-lifers vehemently deny that their position has anything to do with religion.

There are both compelling religious and secular reasons to believe that abortion is a grave evil.

Pro-choice rest on a belief that it is okay to kill some human beings for the convience of others....that some human beings are not worth societal protection. Harsh words for sure..but hard to argue with.

When a theist talks about a fetus having a soul he or she is essentially saying a fetus has the right to protection society offers the same as any other human being.

easy to argue with, actually. It's just that you never bother to address the actual argument.

I support legalized abortion in some cases and yet I don't think it's okay to kill some human beings for the convenience of others. Bolt out of the blue, huh?

I mean, it's not like you don't know that you're mischaracterizing the position of pro-choicers since we've gone over this before. Which means you're just trolling.

What is the actual argument? Whether or not a fetus is a human being? Arguing that is like argueing over whether or not a rock is a rock.

I don't think I am mischaracterizing the position of pro-choicers at all.

Here is some research on why women have abortions.

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3711005.pdf

From the site:
Those look like convience issues to me and pro-choicers support a womans right to have an abortion for exactly these kinds of reasons. I think it is then fair to say that pro-choicers take a position that it is okay to kill one human being for the convience of another....that some human beings are not worth of societal protection.

Hmmm, ok, so let's see why pro-choicers support abortions: we don't believe the fetus is a person, so killing it isn't murder.

Now let's see if you capture this:

Nope, failed again. You missed the actual reasoning and went in for what you wanted.

We don't need to argue here is a fetus is a person or not, but clearly that is what the argument is about, and to claim otherwise is either ignorance or trolling. So which is it?

What are you saying here? That a fetus is not a human being or is not a person? The two words have different meanings but you seem to be using them interchangeably while I am not. I don't think I once used the word "person" to describe the pro choice position you say I am mischaracterizing.

Actually it appears you have mischaracterized my argument in order to then say I am mischaracterizing the prochoice position.

You get a big fat red "F".

Then go ahead and tell me how you are defining the words, or at least what makes them different. And then we'll take those definitions back to places where they were used and you'll see that I'm not mischaracterizing anything.

Or, if it helps save you the time, here's why I chose to use 'person' instead of 'human being.' We all agree that a fetus belongs to H. sapiens. However, so do all the cells in my body. Therefore, you could trivially point out that a fetus is human, just as my skin cells are human.

By calling the fetus a human being, you are identifying it as an individual being, separate from the mother that surrounds it. I am using the word person to indicate this very thing, an individual organism of the species H. sapiens. Only 'person' is much quicker to type.

And if you really care that much, substitute 'human being' in all my posts where I say 'person' and none of my message will change. You're just distracting from the actual argument.

I have said several times quite recently that a human being is a being of the human species so I don't know where your confusion comes in accept as an attempt to mischaracterize my position to defend your own.

Your skin cells cannot be called a human being because in and of themselves they are not an organism but merely part of one. However a fetus is most definetly and organism and if you tested it, the results would be obvious....that is an a organism or being of the human species.

Are you denying that a fetus is an organism or being of the human species?

Yes. This is the entire abortion debate. How this could possibly have escaped you for so long amazes me.

EDIT: Off topic, sinc my point is just that you are mischaracterizing the position, and not that the position is necessarily correct, but:

What tests do you think we could run to determine this?

It is so evidently clear to me that a fetus is an individual organism of the species human that I cannot concieve of any educated person denying this. Like I told bunny...arguing whether or not a fetus is a human being is like arguing whether or not a rock is a rock. The suggestion is so absolutley silly to me so pardon me for having ignored it. I honestly did not think you guys were making this claim.

Where do you want to start? A fetus is an individual life form capable of growing, metabolizing nutrients, and usually upon maturing will be able to reproduce. Even an embryo contributes to its own homeostasis. A fetus fullfills all the criteria necessary to be considered an individual organism by any reasonable sceintific interpetation. A fetus is of the species human. Since it is an individual being of the species human it is quite evident it is a human being.

We can discuss the merits of the position in another thread if you like. My only point in this thread was that you were mis-stating the pro-choice position, something we now seem to be in agreement on.

As for you claiming ignorance, I don't buy it. This very point has been central to the pro-choice position for at least many of us. I'd be willing to bet that it was presented to you in past threads, and without looking them up I'd even think you responded to them before. Should I look for evidence that you have in fact heard this position before? I could be wrong, but that would greatly surprise me (and I'm not a man that really likes surprises).

EDIT: unless it would be appropriate in this thread. In which case i will respond when given permission.

Actually, it's not. Many pro-choicers have evoked the fallacious violinist thought experiment as a way to acknowledge a fetus's humanity yet still justify abortion. The great philospher Phillippa Foot (famous for the "trolley problem") convincingly debunks this angle, however.