If Abortion Becomes Illegal

[HisChildForever]

[quote]later term abortions should have higher penalties up to capital murder.[/quote]

Why? Do you consider the baby to be "more human" at 7 months (in the womb) rather than at 2 months (in the womb)?

When sperm and egg collide, the life of a human being begins. That's my argument, at least. I believe that the soul is created when this occurs. Just because the baby looks more like a person at 7 months and not 2 months doesn't make the baby any less a person.

[dairygirl4u2c]

i mean, the block and cell arguments are the answer to the 1 and 7 month distinction. there's no resting on the mere fact that it looks human, only.
i think what you're doing... is what a lot of people do,, like if you look at that thread i bumped. they ask the question rhetorically,,, when does it become a life,,, and they think that by asking the question, they've answered it, that it must be continuous.
that's not the case though, it could be like the block analogy. i'm not saying it can't be continuous, i'm saying it's uncertain.

people point out that we might question whether someone on a ventilator is a person,,,, at certain points, when machines are attached maybe they're not. but when it's clearer,,, simply pointing out violations when it's clear the facts, doesn't prove the answers to the situation with abortion early on.

[dairygirl4u2c]

these are all things i put in that thread that i bumped. if you notice, everyone who commented after me, basically just rgued things i already addressed.
so i remained to the position that it's uncertain. personhood.

the essay is a little dense, you'll have that with philo essays. and a little chopper at times, you'll ahve that too. i have to balance effective communication with time managmeent.

[Deb]

For the sake of those who do not believe that the spark of life is not created at conception, a baby has a heartbeat at 18 days. Killing it is murder.

When abortion becomes illegal, those who have abortions should be charged as an accomplice to premeditated murder.

[dairygirl4u2c]

also... some important points.
what is the difference between a cell and the early cell as per an organism? i genunitely don't know. other than the idea that the early one is unique and separate, its own entity. it must be stem cells, that have hormones or something that direct it. but stem cells are not uncommon in a human either. basically,,, it seems like you could probably call it an organism by scientific definitions, but you could also call it a cell. there's no organisms that grow into greater ones, other than in the formation process, so there's no direct analogies.
and when its all said and done... if you formalistically, which is all it'd be, call it an organism... it's still a human organism at its unicellular state,,, not a human person at a significant state.
all you guys insisting its a person, are overlooking the common sense idea that, hey,,,, its a cell.
so at least before the heartbeat it's more debatable.
even at the heart beat though... it's a human organism at the the state of a heart,,,, it's basically a heart and a little exra stuff. a heart isn't a person, that's common sense.
now... wiht that said... the definitions are so random, and there's so many variables, that it could be truly and fully be considered a human person. common sense isn't so common. it's uncertain.

[dairygirl4u2c]

i can see people thinking the not certain, not person folks are conflating the person arguments with soul etc.

that's not the case. the reason i said we could call it person but at an insignificant stage,, is because i recoginze that formalistically you can call it an organism. if an organism, you culd conceivably call it a person. aside from the soul stuff... it's not necessarily a significant stage,,, because a cell is not signifcant like a full person, and a heart is not significant like a full person, in terms of murder, purely in the physical sense.


like i said in my convoluted essay in the first page, the purely biologically wihtout the sol stuff, looking at it with faith,,, you wouldn't think God would cause half the persons that are significant to die,,, you wouldn't think he'd allow a perosn that's significant to split into two persons. it harms their dignity.
the soul stuff only makes that case stronger, cause if there's a soul, their dignity means all the much more.

so really... you can call it a person by a formalistic reasoning,, but the leap of logic involved in putting women in jail for fifty years as if it's the same thing... is that,,, a heart isn't necessarily a person and a cell isn't either, not necessarily significant.
the people who say it's all the same, are relying on arbitrary distictions. you're going to treat someone the same as who killed a person full formed,,, as someone who killed a being that can only be classified by argibtrary disctionctions?
you're going to treat killing a cell the same as killing a fully formed person, as if they are necessarily the same?

[dairygirl4u2c]

a cell, a heart,,, isn't necessarily significant,,, yet people who want to put them away for murder, are treating them as if they are, necessarily.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1618240' date='Aug 5 2008, 01:04 PM']a cell, a heart,,, isn't necessarily significant,,, yet people who want to put them away for murder, are treating them as if they are, necessarily.[/quote]

A person is a soul if they have but a heart or a cell.

[dairygirl4u2c]

as per the soul stuff... even the catholic church doesn't necessarily agree with you that there's always a soul. it's an open question that even catholics debate, the soul point.

as i said in these threads... it dosn't seem like God would kill off half the cells that die post conception and preimplantation as he does, if they had soulds in them.
it doesn't seem like he'd caused cells that split into twins etc,,, as he does,, if there was a soul in the first. were there two souls in it, were there one?
anyways, the soul point... even the CC doesn't necessarily agree with you.


step back and think. is a cell significant like a person? is a heart significant like a person? maybe, maybe not. should we treat them the same, simply cause we can call it an organism or if it makes you happy a person by a formalistic definition?
really, step back and think. if the truth is that it's ambiguous, then that's the truth. swallow the truth pill. maybe in one's own little world a cell is a significant person, maybe a heart is signifantly a person,,,, but on the planet earth, a cell or a heart, is not a person.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1618245' date='Aug 5 2008, 01:15 PM']as per the soul stuff... even the catholic church doesn't necessarily agree with you that there's always a soul. it's an open question that even catholics debate, the soul point.[/quote]

Source?

[dairygirl4u2c]

well, i only say it, given that i've been around a long time,,, and that's the concensus around these parts, here at phatmass and the interent, that it's not definitely taught. even amoung the good catholics. if you notice winchester or whatever,,, he said that it's an open question too.

as for sources, it'd be easier for you to prove the positive than for me to prove the negative.
plus you're the one who made the claim that the CC teaches it, before i claimed it didn't, so. i think you should be the source finder.

i'm mostly just content on speculative theorlogy irregardless of what it teaches. curious as to what it teaches, but it doesn't concern me as much. if you can show it, i'd be happy to consider their teaching as they are a respctable body, the CC.

[dairygirl4u2c]

the historic idea is that abortion is a sin, not necessarily murder. that would indicate that it's probably not necessarily ensouled yet, the historic view.
from this, you'd think the modern view is the same, i've heard ithat it is explicitly. maybe i'll look it up cant be too hard to find.

In the fifth century a.d., St. Augustine expressed the mainstream view that early abortion required penance only for sexual sin. Eight centuries later, St. Thomas Aquinas agreed, saying abortion was not homicide unless the fetus was "ensouled," and ensoulment, he was sure, occurred well after conception. The position that abortion is a serious sin akin to murder and is grounds for excommunication only became established 150 years ago.

[dairygirl4u2c]

that's another good point too..

if it's possibly not ensouled... are we going to treat it the same as someone who's surely ensouled?


[quote]1588: Abortion's Penalty Becomes Excommunication

Concerned about prostitution in Rome, Pope Sixtus V issued the bull Effraenatam (Without Restraint) and applied to both contraception and abortion, at any stage of pregnancy, the penalty designated for homicide: excommunication. There was no exception for therapeutic abortion.6

1591: Rules Quickly Relaxed

Only three years after Pope Sixtus V issued Effraenatam, he died. His successor, Gregory XIV, felt Sixtus's stand was too harsh and was in conflict with penitential practices and theological views on ensoulment. He issuedSedes Apostolica, which advised church officials, "where no homicide or no animated fetus is involved, not to punish more strictly than the sacred canons or civil legislation does."7 This papal pronouncement lasted until 1869.[/quote]

[dairygirl4u2c]

i could be wrong:
from catholic encyclo

[quote]The embryonic child, as seen above, has a human soul; and therefore is a man from the time of its conception; therefore it has an equal right to its life with its mother; therefore neither the mother, nor medical practitioner, nor any human being whatever can lawfully take that life away.[/quote]

a lot of peple here are wrong too apaprently.

[HisChildForever]

[quote]it's basically a heart and a little exra stuff. a heart isn't a person, that's common sense.[/quote]

Perhaps "a heart and a little extra stuff" isn't a full-bodied person like you and me, but it's [b]going to be[/b] a full-bodied person, the egg has been fertilized, the ball is rolling, the development is happening. You're [b]stopping[/b] this natural growth, this development into a full-bodied person, from occuring when you have an abortion. (Note: I'm using the general "you" here, just to make sure there's no confusion.) You are murdering a human being.

I'm just really curious, but what is your stance on abortion? I'm not sure if you're simply playing the devil's advocate simply for discussion purposes, or if you're "pro-choice."

[dairygirl4u2c]

i'm prolife.

i'm playing the devil's advocate.

but i'm also making the case that i don't think having an abortion the day after conception deserves the same punishment as first degree murder.

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1618304' date='Aug 5 2008, 03:27 PM']but i'm also making the case that i don't think having an abortion the day after conception deserves the same punishment as first degree murder.[/quote]

Which is why there would be a trial, an investigation, etc.

[MissScripture]

Interesting fact to throw in: If you disturb (not even destory, just disturb) sea turtle eggs, you can be punished by law.

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='MissScripture' post='1618338' date='Aug 5 2008, 04:11 PM']Interesting fact to throw in: If you disturb (not even destory, just disturb) sea turtle eggs, you can be punished by law.[/quote]

I did that once when I was younger, but by complete accident. I think they were regular turtle eggs, though.

[MissScripture]

[quote name='HisChildForever' post='1618339' date='Aug 5 2008, 03:12 PM']I did that once when I was younger, but by complete accident. I think they were regular turtle eggs, though.[/quote]
Well, the only sea turtle eggs I've "seen" (I really just saw the nest) had caution tape around them and the little notice that disturbing them was punishable by law (hence how I knew that).

I just find it interesting that the eggs of a sea turtle are protected (baby sea turtles that aren't born yet), but a baby that hasn't been born yet isn't protected...