Pro Choice

[jmjtina]

[quote name='nvzbl' post='1718350' date='Dec 3 2008, 10:44 PM']I dont believe in abortion. [/quote]

The only personal beliefs that are dangerous are the ones that involve pure injustice; like the ones that crush innocent baby skulls and dismember the bodies of innocent babies. Those are unborn babies in the womb who will get their brains sucked out due to your lack of knowledge of what abortion is, what abortion does to the mother, and the killing of the unborn child. You'd keep in mind that love is more than warm fuzzies and sugar coating the reality of the "pro-choice" movement, but making them aware of what abortion truly entails. That means protecting the mother as much as the baby.

True love demands commitment, self-sacrifice and speaking up against injustice. An injustice you fail to see, acknowledge or speak up against.

You talk about love, but in reality, you have no idea what love is if it means watching a person be victimized because of a "choice" that involves murder.

BTW, having different "ideas" on any religion isn't the same as the objective truth about a religion. Misconceptions abound about the Catholic Church.

[reyb]

[quote name='nvzbl' post='1718290' date='Dec 3 2008, 10:12 PM']I dont think the issue is what is best for the couple. I think they have more options than they realize. I think those options should be made available. I dont think abortion is EVER whats best.[/quote]
[indent]Read it again. I said the issue is ---freedom to choose...as against Moral Theology. It means if this law passed in congress they have this 'option'.

Actually this kind of law is very hard to explain especially to religious circle because usually, governmental laws are created for those who break the rules of morality – meaning, religion and government are at the same side. But sometimes, morality issue is defeated because of ‘reality’ issues as in the case of ‘Divorce Law’. In Catholics this is not acceptable but because of the reality of relation between husband and wife that sometimes they cannot live together without a fight – therefore, their ‘freedom to choose for themselves’ was given by the government known as ‘Divorce Law’.

But this word of a priest in CNSNews.com (see [post="1706287"]Possible Ex-communication [/post]by cmotherofpril) is something he has to prove to these people who will voted or approved this bill to wit;

[indent]Fr. Frank Pavone of the Priests for Life told CNSNews.com: “Any legislator who would vote for such an extreme piece of pro-abortion legislation [FOCA], and any executive who would sign it or judge who would uphold it, or even a citizen who would lobby in any way in favor of it, would be committing a serious sin, objectively speaking. It is cooperation with evil in a totally unjustified way.”[/indent]

Is it a ‘serious sin and cooperation with evil’ against God if I am a pro-choice? Or it is a just serious sin and cooperation with evil only in the eyes of the Catholics (espcially priest and bishops). [/indent]

[Guest nvzbl]

(quote)and any executive who would sign it or judge who would uphold it, or even a citizen who would lobby in any way in favor of it, would be committing a serious sin, objectively speaking.(unquote)
I dont believe in abortion.

[Servus_Mariae]

Why do you not believe in abortion?

[Guest nvzbl]

Common sense.

[Didacus]

[quote name='nvzbl' post='1717466' date='Dec 3 2008, 02:42 PM']I dont think anybody who looks at abortion looks at it as a 'good' thing.[/quote]


[quote name='Paddington' post='1717473' date='Dec 3 2008, 02:46 PM']There are people who admit they like abortion and more who won't admit it.[/quote]


Everyone likes the idea of having a 'way out' but not everyone likes the means being provided.

for my part, I say let everyone live the consequences of their choices, and let not the innocent bare the brunt of our errors.

[rizz_loves_jesus]

[quote name='fidei defensor' post='1718182' date='Dec 3 2008, 09:04 PM']I know the point of your question, but it's still a red herring. You are trying to stir up emotion as means of making an argument, and the analogy doesn't fit in this case. You're trying to make me "question" my logic, because why would I be for killing a toddler? You can't prove an unborn fetus is a person without invoking the belief in a soul. If the fetus isn't a person but only has the potential, then it's not "killing," it would be ending a potential. I don't necessarily believe that, but there are multiple facets, besides your own beliefs, about personhood.[/quote]

Personhood isn't subjective, it's objective. That's my point. I'm not trying to stir emotion, I'm saying that someone shouldn't be able to kill a human being simply because THEY THEMSELVES don't believe their victim is a person. Conception is the only logical time personhood can be established, because nothing is created at birth- the newborn baby is exactly the same baby it was 9 month in the womb.

[Servus_Mariae]

[quote]Common sense[/quote]

What does your common sense tell you? Why is it wrong?

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote name='nvzbl' post='1718156' date='Dec 3 2008, 09:43 PM']I'm sorry, but I think you might be a little confused.[/quote]

if i were so confused, so is winchester and a whole lot of other smart people.

if we're so confused, you'd be engage us and point out how we're confused. not respond with short sentences that address nothing.

i think you know you're feigning ignorance andor you're a coward andor you are the one who is confused.

[dairygirl4u2c]

when everyone is pointing out your lack of debate, etc, and you're the one who is insisting that you're fine... who is more likely than not the one who is wrong?

even if you're position is right, you're totally wrong in your approach.
it makes you look foolish andor confused

[Sirklawd]

[quote name='rizz_loves_jesus' post='1718686' date='Dec 4 2008, 12:06 PM']Personhood isn't subjective, it's objective. That's my point. I'm not trying to stir emotion, I'm saying that someone shouldn't be able to kill a human being simply because THEY THEMSELVES don't believe their victim is a person. Conception is the only logical time personhood can be established, because nothing is created at birth- the newborn baby is exactly the same baby it was 9 month in the womb.[/quote]

right here is the key to the whole arguement.

for those who like to confuse the definition of the word "person", lets get rid of it and replace it with the entirely more appropriate word "human".

It is wrong to kill humans.

Humans are created at conception.

Feel free to disagree with the first one. I will be happy to make you an example of your belief.

But you cant disagree with the 2nd. Even science knows this one to be true.

we all clear now?

Edited December 4, 2008 by Sirklawd

[dairygirl4u2c]

no we're not clear.

if you mean, that your argument is necessarily right, scientifically, then you're wrong that it's necessarily right.
it's only plausible, reasonable.
if you think you're probably right, i don't mind that argument.
if yiou think it's absolutely right, i think it's a reasonable psoition, i just disagree.

scientifically, it could be merely a cell. is a block or a snowball a transformer or a snowman? no, it's not. at what point doesa bunch of snowballs or blocks become a transformer or a snowman? it's gray. is a cell then a person scientifically, and without regard to the question of a soul? maybe, maybe not. the block and snowball might be anaologous or it might not be. it's a mystery.
i think someone arguing that is is or isn't a person scientifically though, has a valid and reasonable argument.
merely asking rhetorically when does it become life, isn't answering thequestion. it'd be like arguing "when does the snowman ebcome a snowman? therefore, a snowball is a snowman."

if it's a reasonabel argument,and given that i value personal liberty, i'd argue that a person who thinks it's not a person or doesnt' know has a reasonabel position to say taht they'd value personal choice in the matter above reasonably disputed human life. should the gov decide if it's reasonably disputed?arguably not. each person has just as much merit as anyone else, as per libertarian ideology, to say what they think,and as per subsidiarity, the person closest to the problem should address it. and, we didn't go around checking out other people's caves or homes back when we were a more rudimentary society, to see if they had an aborotion. its arguably teh natural law. we don't ban all sins, either necessarily.
personally, i'd put the burden of doubt in favor of life and ban it all. irregardless of my respect for their position, and irregardless that they ahve a valid argument.

i dont' think killing a baby three seconds before it comes out is valid or reasonable. at what point does it become valid? who knows. that's why i'd defer to no abortion as a matter of law. or at least make a point that's clearly reasonably disputed and draw the line there with all the gray area banned. or at LEAST when it'sobviously a person later in pregnancy.

but just because you can ask a question rhetorically, doesn't mean it's answered.

and just because you can point out DNA and a liine between the cell and person later one, doesn't eman the cell isn't any different than anotehr cell in any *necessarily* meaningful way.

Edited December 4, 2008 by dairygirl4u2c

[Socrates]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1718773' date='Dec 4 2008, 02:56 PM']scientifically, it could be merely a cell. is a block or a snowball a transformer or a snowman? no, it's not. at what point doesa bunch of snowballs or blocks become a transformer or a snowman? it's gray. is a cell then a person scientifically, and without regard to the question of a soul? maybe, maybe not. the block and snowball might be anaologous or it might not be. it's a mystery.
i think someone arguing that is is or isn't a person scientifically though, has a valid and reasonable argument.
merely asking rhetorically when does it become life, isn't answering thequestion. it'd be like arguing "when does the snowman ebcome a snowman? therefore, a snowball is a snowman."[/quote]
We've been over this "snowman" nonsense before, and it still is indeed a poor example, and reflects sloppy philosophy.

The difference is a human being is a living being, while a snowman is not.
A human being begins its life at conception - that's a scientific fact.
Its substance does not change - it remains the same human being, though it grows and develops (a process which does not end at birth, incidentally).
The snowman, on the other hand, in essence, remains just a ball of snow. It does not become an actual living being (unless we're talking Frosty the Snowman).

To argue that an unborn human being is something other than a human being at some point, at some point what it was before would have to cease to exist, and the human being then suddenly exist in its place. That, of course, is nonsense.

A human being is a human being from the beginning of its life (conception) until its death.

[Guest]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1718773' date='Dec 4 2008, 02:56 PM']no we're not clear.

if you mean, that your argument is necessarily right, scientifically, then you're wrong that it's necessarily right.
it's only plausible, reasonable.
if you think you're probably right, i don't mind that argument.
if yiou think it's absolutely right, i think it's a reasonable psoition, i just disagree.

scientifically, it could be merely a cell. is a block or a snowball a transformer or a snowman? no, it's not. at what point doesa bunch of snowballs or blocks become a transformer or a snowman? it's gray. is a cell then a person scientifically, and without regard to the question of a soul? maybe, maybe not. the block and snowball might be anaologous or it might not be. it's a mystery.
i think someone arguing that is is or isn't a person scientifically though, has a valid and reasonable argument.
merely asking rhetorically when does it become life, isn't answering thequestion. it'd be like arguing "when does the snowman ebcome a snowman? therefore, a snowball is a snowman."

if it's a reasonabel argument,and given that i value personal liberty, i'd argue that a person who thinks it's not a person or doesnt' know has a reasonabel position to say taht they'd value personal choice in the matter above reasonably disputed human life. should the gov decide if it's reasonably disputed?arguably not. each person has just as much merit as anyone else, as per libertarian ideology, to say what they think,and as per subsidiarity, the person closest to the problem should address it. and, we didn't go around checking out other people's caves or homes back when we were a more rudimentary society, to see if they had an aborotion. its arguably teh natural law. we don't ban all sins, either necessarily.
personally, i'd put the burden of doubt in favor of life and ban it all. irregardless of my respect for their position, and irregardless that they ahve a valid argument.

i dont' think killing a baby three seconds before it comes out is valid or reasonable. at what point does it become valid? who knows. that's why i'd defer to no abortion as a matter of law. or at least make a point that's clearly reasonably disputed and draw the line there with all the gray area banned. or at LEAST when it'sobviously a person later in pregnancy.

but just because you can ask a question rhetorically, doesn't mean it's answered.

and just because you can point out DNA and a liine between the cell and person later one, doesn't eman the cell isn't any different than anotehr cell in any *necessarily* meaningful way.[/quote]


say what ?

[Socrates]

[quote name='fidei defensor' post='1718055' date='Dec 3 2008, 08:39 PM']Red herring. There is no disagreement about whether a born child is a person. There is much disagreement about whether or not a fetus is a person, however. It stems from differences in belief about what gives personhood. If someone doesn't believe in souls, its quite easy to believe a baby isnt a person until after it's born.[/quote]
A human fetus is most definitely a human being (whether one believes in immortal souls or not).
Any definition of "person" which would exclude an unborn human being would involve declaring only some human beings to be persons. (And to be logically consistent, any reason for excluding unborn babies from personhood would exclude some human beings already born.)

[Snowflake3981]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1718773' date='Dec 4 2008, 01:56 PM']scientifically, it could be merely a cell. is a block or a snowball a transformer or a snowman? no, it's not. at what point doesa bunch of snowballs or blocks become a transformer or a snowman? it's gray. is a cell then a person scientifically, and without regard to the question of a soul? maybe, maybe not. the block and snowball might be anaologous or it might not be. it's a mystery.[/quote]

You seriously have to be kidding me you cannot compare the life of a being created by god to a snowman. I cannot believe we are having this debate on a Catholic forum. At what point does it become a soul? Or a human? Is there some sort of logical point, say when the cell count is over a million, or when the heart starts beating, or when it is birthed that a soul is created? There is only one logical point when they would become ALIVE and have a soul, and that is when their own cells start to grown an reproduce more cells, so that is..... hmm.... AT THE POINT OF CONCEPTION. Do you think God would wait to give true life to a baby (with its soul) until its born, or would wait until day 35, or any other "magical" time that pro-choice people decide (and I'm pretty sure with the FOCA there would be NO limitations on abortion timelines). Surely we've all heard of how babies about to be aborted shy away from the tube that is about to vacuum them to death. Or about those people who miraculously survived their abortions and were born with defects. Unborn babies can FEEL PAIN.

My cousin had recently had her baby 4 months premature. Many people choose to abort at that time, but her poor teeny tiny little baby was born. And is alive today, about a month and a half later. It breaks my heart to think that some mothers are desperately trying to kill those babies while my cousin is desperately praying that hers makes it through the night.

~Abby <-------Is praying for the unborn

Edited December 5, 2008 by Snowflake3981

[Fidei Defensor]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1719314' date='Dec 4 2008, 09:09 PM']A human being begins its life at conception - that's a scientific fact.[/quote]
Prove it.

[Fidei Defensor]

[quote name='Snowflake3981' post='1719329' date='Dec 4 2008, 09:27 PM']You seriously have to be kidding me you cannot compare the life of a being created by god to a snowman. I cannot believe we are having this debate on a Catholic forum. At what point does it become a soul? Or a human? Is there some sort of logical point, say when the cell count is over a million, or when the heart starts beating, or when it is birthed that a soul is created? There is only one logical point when they would become ALIVE and have a soul, and that is when their own cells start to grown an reproduce more cells, so that is..... hmm.... AT THE POINT OF CONCEPTION. Do you think God would wait to give true life to a baby (with its soul) until its born, or would wait until day 35, or any other "magical" time that pro-choice people decide (and I'm pretty sure with the FOCA there would be NO limitations on abortion timelines). Surely we've all heard of how babies about to be aborted shy away from the tube that is about to vacuum them to death. Or about those people who miraculously survived their abortions and were born with defects. Unborn babies can FEEL PAIN.

My cousin had recently had her baby 4 months premature. Many people choose to abort at that time, but her poor teeny tiny little baby was born. And is alive today, about a month and a half later. It breaks my heart to think that some mothers are desperately trying to kill those babies while my cousin is desperately praying that hers makes it through the night.

~Abby <-------Is praying for the unborn[/quote]
The reason why we are having this debate on a Catholic forum is because not everyone here is Catholic, and this forum has a debate table for that reason. We are allowed to debate things, and we're debating this. If what you believe is true, then it should be able to stand up against criticism and debate.

[Socrates]

[quote name='fidei defensor' post='1719334' date='Dec 4 2008, 11:34 PM']Prove it.[/quote]
How? Do you want me to conceive a child for you to observe?

But I suppose you know better than to believe that silly superstitious nonsense about human life beginning at conception; you must be a proponent of that enlightened and venerable scientific theory about the stork . . .

[Snowflake3981]

[quote name='fidei defensor' post='1719338' date='Dec 4 2008, 10:37 PM']The reason why we are having this debate on a Catholic forum is because not everyone here is Catholic, and this forum has a debate table for that reason. We are allowed to debate things, and we're debating this. If what you believe is true, then it should be able to stand up against criticism and debate.[/quote]


Very true, good point. This topic is very near and dear to my heart, and I tend to get a little emotional about it.



~Abby <--------Still praying for the unborn