"Other leading physicists, including
Schrödinger and Einstein, maintained that this renunciation of
deterministic causality was physically incomplete."
I notice that both examples you give are physicists who were around in the early days of quantum mechanics before the theory was complete. I wonder what will happen if you ask modern physicists.

"Far more importantly,
this denial of causality at the subatomic level is metaphysically
impossible, since that would amount to having being come-to-be from
non-being."
You seem to be conflating material and efficient causation here. Quantum mechanics entails that particles can come into existence without a cause, but they don't come into existence from nothing - they are created from the energy of the vacuum or from other particles that decayed. Also, you can't refute a theory of physics by claiming that it's metaphysically impossible unless you have a better justification for this metaphysical impossible than, "It doesn't fit my intuitions." You haven't given any reason beyond intuition to think that everything has to have a cause in this article, and indeed, no reason for such a claim can be given - there is no logical reason why everything must have a cause, since events happening for no reason is perfectly logically consistent, and there is no evidential reason, since the evidence against such a principle is exactly what you are trying to use your metaphysical concerns to outweigh! I'll trust the weight of experimental evidence over intuitions that can't be justified any day.

"Metaphysically, if 'chance' means something happening without
an actual cause, then there are no such 'chance events' at all." So much for libertarian free will.

I am bowing out.

I do want to make it clear that this all began when I quoted, approvingly, paragraph 23 from the Declaration on Procured Abortion, and you (and Rob Abney) rejected my approval because you argued that "welcoming a child into the world" referred to conception, not birth. Then you introduced the topic of saline abortions and also posted a pro-life propaganda video. From my point of view, you have derailed the discussion of the Declaration on Procured Abortion to a pointless discussion on abortion techniques and their use and possibly abuse. We could have had a dialogue about how Catholics and people of other religions (or no religion) can find common ground even about Catholic teaching. But we didn't.

I still maintain people of goodwill, whether they oppose abortion or support it, can find common ground in paragraph 23 of DOPA by trying through government to reform society to reduce or eliminate conditions (such as poverty) that lead women to choose abortion. And I still maintain that is not the goal of the political pro-life movement. But for some reason that offends you.

Over and out.

Critique ideas, not people. For example:

You sound angry

I got it Dave. Thanks.

You've offered a solid analysis.

One web video has ?Jim Maren? of LifeSite interviewing Jill Stanek. He noted that saline instillation is the method often chosen when harvesting of fetal body parts--specifically the heart--is wanted since saline tends to more frequently deliver a living fetus. Stanek has many articles or videos of nurses and doctors testifying to their personal knowledge of post-abortive born-alive babies. Their accounts are truly heart-rending and, as you say, all rather look away stuff. But truth is true.

And...there it is.
I was watching this conversation and it ended exactly how I thought it would.

Doing rough math: The most recent CDC study that differentiated types of abortions procured was 2007 when instillation abortion was utilized at .5% of the abortions reported. If 1-1.2 million abortions are procured (Guttmacher) per year in the US, estimates would be 5-6k of these types of abortions are performed annually. "Success rates" of intrauteraine injections are measured by complete expulsion of the fetal and placental material within a prescribed time, usually 48 hours. Some abortions induce iatrogenic fetal death when medication is used in the instillation, but it's not required and more expensive. When it is not used feticide is not ensured pre-delivery unless it is done intrauterine or intravaginally during the D&E process. PGE's are typically used to soften the cervix for expedite the D & E sometimes effective to the point where the dilation is unnecessary and evacuation occurs mostly unassisted. Here's the definition of a life birth according to the CDC and WHO:

‘‘Live Birth’’ means the complete expulsion or extraction from its mother of a product of human conception, irrespective of the duration of pregnancy, which, after such expulsion or extraction, breathes,or shows any other evidence of life such as beating of the heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, whether or not the umbilical cord has been cut or the placenta is attached. Heartbeats are to be distinguished from transient cardiac contractions; respirations are to be distinguished from fleeting respiratory efforts or gasps.

I think it is rather mute to argue whether or not the fetus/child is evaluated by the abortionist to see if it has a heartbeat or voluntary muscle contraction and should be considered a live birth. It is unwanted, therefore no medical intervention required. I'm certainly unaware of any provider guidelines for medical intervention to aborted fetuses. It's all rather look away stuff, but it would be beyond conservative to think 1% of the .5% of abortions result in a fetus with a heartbeat, pulsing umbilical, or voluntary muscle contractions. And that would be roughly 5-600 babies per year born alive in an abortion clinic from instillation abortion procedures. The bottom line is unwanted live birth is still not a person, but it's illogical to rationalize how without utilitarian infanticide.

The number is truly unknown, so your statement is indeed very true. (Every day in the US an unknown number of children are born alive in abortion clinics with saline burns and are put in a bag or on a shelf...)

Do you know the LifeNews site? They have stats and testimony from doctors who've performed abortions and from nurses who've had post-abortive babies brought into their NICUs.

I have long thought that you are to be commended for researching and citing the actual documents and doctrines of the Church -- whether you quote them favorably or not.

I can see I'm dialoguing with a PP defense attorney.

From this site's Commenting Rules and Tips:

4. Critique ideas, not people.

The rhetorical assault known as ad hominem, Latin for "to the person," is one of the most common fallacies online. Instead of engaging actual arguments, the culprit criticizes, insults, belittles, judges, or mocks the person making the argument. He blasts the opponent's character, intelligence, education, background, motivations, or sometimes all of the above. Attacking persons is fallacious and uncharitable and will not be permitted here. If you are wondering why your comment was flagged or deleted, consider whether it was ad hominem. (Comments that are vulgar, mocking, or insubstantial will be deleted, too.)