“There should be no laws on abortion”

[fix]

fix, ‘the right to life’ (yes); and ‘life’ (yes).

Common terms refer to the ‘right to life’ of the unborn; and ‘life’ to those alive now. Legal definition, as in the Constitution, ‘Right’s to life…’ again refers to those alive now. This is where the definitions have to be changed for pro-life to become viable. Otherwise, it will be as Leon says, through education of the people.

The terms must reflect reality, not fabrications. If the law is not consistent with reality and moral reality then simply claiming “education” is enough would mean the law is arbitrary and not based in logic.

 

[Michael_David]

“The terms must reflect reality, not fabrications. If the law is not consistent with reality and moral reality then simply claiming “education” is enough would mean the law is arbitrary and not based in logic.”

fix, who does write the law’s, with legal terminology, for this country? And who says they have to have elements of “moral reality” included? And “education” is one Jesuit’s path (for now), through the frustration of having nothing else work.

Moral (laws) reality are for the Conscience and the Church; Social (laws) reality are for the country and the society.
If the Pope, Cardinals and Bishops made the Social laws for America what would this country be? One big Catholic Church with a land to dwell on. But they do not. So who does make the laws for this land we live in? And what “reality” do they use? (Can reality be different for different people? Oh Yes!) It’s a matter of perspective… and there are many differences here.

And the circle turns a few more degree’s.

Is law based on “logic”? And who’s form of logic, if so? Logic put’s out what is put into it logically. If some elements are not put in, logic still comes out logical with the elements of the equation. Mostly, known facts are put in for legal purposes… the prove it standard. And yes, definitions do have a play here. So, it is the lawyers that make the laws that the judges enforce. And even here, science can help change the definitions of things for legal purposes. Science comes up with facts; faith comes up with belief… who do the lawyers go with?

How different is ‘reality’ and ‘fact’? How different is ‘faith’ and ‘belief’?
And, how different is ‘reality’ and ‘faith’? How different is ‘fact’ and ‘belief’?

 

[fix]

fix, who does write the law’s, with legal terminology, for this country? And who says they have to have elements of “moral reality” included? And “education” is one Jesuit’s path (for now), through the frustration of having nothing else work.

The law, concerning protection of innocent life, is a natural law. That is self evident. The state may attempt to contradict that but that is not legitimate.

Moral (laws) reality are for the Conscience and the Church;

No, natural moral law binds us all no matter how formed or poorly formed our conscience may be. That is why we have laws against rape, robbery, and much more.

Social (laws) reality are for the country and the society.
If the Pope, Cardinals and Bishops made the Social laws for America what would this country be?

No one is asking the Church to mandate religious laws. The Church is asking the state mandate just laws.

One big Catholic Church with a land to dwell on. But they do not. So who does make the laws for this land we live in? And what “reality” do they use? (Can reality be different for different people? Oh Yes!) It’s a matter of perspective… and there are many differences here.

No, reality is objective. Some can misperceive reality but reality exists.

Is law based on “logic”? And who’s form of logic, if so?

Who’s logic? How is that a serious question? Is logic subjective?

How different is ‘reality’ and ‘fact’? How different is ‘faith’ and ‘belief’?
And, how different is ‘reality’ and ‘faith’? How different is ‘fact’ and ‘belief’?

Not sure what you are saying here? Reality exists. Humans have the ability to reason. Certain moral truths are self evident. The problem is not proving babies are really human persons. That is evident to any reasonable person. The problem is some are “confused” for various reasons.

 

[Michael_David]

The law, concerning protection of innocent life, is a natural law. That is self evident.

Fix, self-evident to who? And if so, that should be a ‘snap’ to prove to the law makers.

How long has abortion been legal? The snap is broken!

reality is objective. Some can misperceive reality but reality exists

It is reality that is subjective… each person has their own version of it. Ask any cop when he is asking witnesses of a crime what they saw… and 10 people will give 10 different ‘realities’? So who is right and who has misperceived? Or are they all right? As far as it goes? Here we come to the elements put into the equation and the logic that comes out.

Not sure what you are saying here? Reality exists. Humans have the ability to reason. Certain moral truths are self evident. The problem is not proving babies are really human persons. That is evident to any reasonable person. The problem is some are “confused” for various reasons.

I tend to take that as you saying that there are a lot of lawyers out there that are not reasonable people. How can they miss something that is so self-evident to a reasonable person?

Laws against rape, robbery, etc, are for the citizens of the country, weather they have moral over-tones or not. The government is protecting it’s citizens from undue lack of ‘life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness’. It is this ‘reality’ the lawyers see, and the reality they use to make the laws.

And yes, the Church can ask the government to make ‘just laws’. But that request may not develop into a law. As is witnessed by our Supreme Court legalizing abortion. Who else is making requests to counter the requested law? Who’s voice will be heard? Who’s voice will have the most ‘factual proof’ for the law to stand with?

 

[fix]

Fix, self-evident to who? And if so, that should be a ‘snap’ to prove to the law makers.

Self evident to humans. That is those who have the ability to reason. Many who can reason refuse to see what is true, but the truth does not change.

How long has abortion been legal? The snap is broken!

How long was chattel slavery legal? Jim Crow laws? Were those things right simply because many refused to ackowledge what is true? Were those things good because many claimed they were good?

It is reality that is subjective… each person has their own version of it.

Really? Then I should be able to rob you as I desire.

Ask any cop when he is asking witnesses of a crime what they saw… and 10 people will give 10 different ‘realities’?

I said people can misperceive reality. Reality did not change.

So who is right and who has misperceived? Or are they all right? As far as it goes? Here we come to the elements put into the equation and the logic that comes out.

Who is right? That depends on what actually happend.

I tend to take that as you saying that there are a lot of lawyers out there that are not reasonable people. How can they miss something that is so self-evident to a reasonable person?

Oh, for many reasons. Self love, unrepented mortal sin, greed, hedonism, vincible ignorance, obstinate doubt, money, prestige, wanting to be accepted, poor example given by others, and many other reasons. Why do some very well educated people practice unjust discrimination?

Reason can be clouded by many factors.

Who else is making requests to counter the requested law? Who’s voice will be heard? Who’s voice will have the most ‘factual proof’ for the law to stand with?

Relativism and hedonism have so entered our culture that we now claim we need “factual proof” that murder is wrong. No my friend, reality exists the problem is we do not want to accept that reality because then we have to change the way we lead our lives.

 

[Michael_David]

Fix, we tend to agree more then disagree.

I am merely relating to Leon’s statement. I sorta look at it as a prayer to God and us Humans concerning the frustration’s being dealt with in fully comprehending the complexities of this countries legalizing of abortion. Like casting the bread on the water… to see what comes back. There is Hope in this process. This coming from a Law School at Catholic University, in which Leon Panetta teaches.

I agree with you fix, in the manner of our thoughts and beliefs… and the logic and realities that materialize. I am very pro-life… and I believe Leon is too, since he has tried so many ways to come up with a viable opposition to legalized abortion, only to be so frustrated that he sees education as the answer (for now).

It is not with most ‘common people’ that the problem exists, it’s more with the legal processes of this country. How they function and on what levels. Remember, Leon is in a Catholic Law School. Who better to know all the (gory) details with this ordeal?

Out here in the normal life, we have prayer (sometimes at the clinic’s)… let’s not so quickly condemn who God may be using to answer all these prayers we have been praying for so long. The bread may return with the right answers in the right places… and that is God’s doing!

 

[Lancer]

Michael, et al:

Please remember that what is in the mother’s womb is not a lump/clump of cells…(medical science tells us)…it is a person (surely, its not a dog or cat or anything else)…and if you test its DNA…it’s not the DNA of the mother or the DNA of the father…it is the unique DNA of a…unique (third) person.

Second, as an Black American who grew up in the deep south under segregation and some pretty harsh and demeaning Jim Crow laws…should the State or a Person’s Personal Choice dictate my fate as a human being? Your logic seems very flawed…good intentioned, but flawed. But even my fate (under those old laws) comes in a distant second relative to the intrinsic evil of abortion…I still had my life…with the hope that things would change…and guess what?..thanks be to God…and many incredible brave, moral and just men and women of good conscience…I live now in much better times/circumstances. But what about the boy or girl who is aborted? What chance or hope do they have (in this life)…none!

Also, remember that in all things dealing with faith and morals (abortion is a moral/justice issue…just like segregation/Jim Crow laws…they are not political issues or issues of a religious belief) – the Pope is infallible…and thus the Magisterium (all bishops in communion with the Pope) and Holy Mother Church. As a Catholic, his voice on faith and morals is always truth without error. So if the Pope/Magisterium/Bishops all teach us that abortion is intrinsically evil and that we can’t support it or anyone who performs or promotes it…even in a remote manner without proportionate reasons (something more evil than @ 1,200.000 abortion deaths per year)…we are simply listening to that same whisper in our ear that Eve listened to in the garden…“go ahead…eat the apple”…then you too will be like God and can decide what is good and what is evil. God has clearly spoken to us through Peter (Pope B-16). And for those who will vote for Obama…I am still waiting to hear their proportionate reason of an evil or combination of evils that’s greater than 1,200,000 abortions a year. As Blessed Mother Theresa said…we are one of the poorest nations on the face of the earth…and if you can murder and kill) the innocent life of a defenseless baby…then anything else is permissible…its the folks with power and strength who get to call the shots…which is why this Country still carries its legacy of slavery/segregation with justifiable shame!

Pax Christi

 

[Jade_Tiger]

Abortion kills a new human being: therefore abortion is murder. Period. Full stop. That is an objective reality, despite what some people may think.

 

[Shredderbeam]

Doc2be:

The zygote, at conception, is a brand new unique set of 46 chromosomes. 23 from the mother and 23 from the father. There has never been and never will be another genetic set identical to the set created at conception.

A culture of skin cells is just that…skin cells. The same exact chromosomal composition as the person they came from. There is nothing unique about the culture of skin cells except that they form skin and not some other organ or tissue.

I think the arguments from science hold no water…some people will try to say that twining can occur up to the 14th day after conception. That is great. I have also never seen a scientific study that said that identical twins are 100% exactly the same as far as their entire genome is concerned. There are different epigenetic changes which cause slight variation in expression of genes.

So, to answer your question, the very fact that conception happened and there is a unique genetic cell that will become a human grants that unique cell all the rights you have. But maybe you would be okay with having the same rights as that cell. If someone got tired of you and didn’t want you then they could just kill you…no questions asked. Just something to think about.

Well, an embryo has unique DNA, but then again, so does the skin culture. Say that I was destroyed, would my skin culture receive rights? Or say that it were possible to change the DNA of the skin culture to make it completely unique, would it then receive rights?

Also, I don’t understand why a certain order in the DNA of some cells grants rights. This grouping of A, T, G, C, receives rights, but the grouping of T, G, C, T does not because that order is expressed in another strand of DNA?

 

[Jennifer123]

Well, an embryo has unique DNA, but then again, so does the skin culture. Say that I was destroyed, would my skin culture receive rights? Or say that it were possible to change the DNA of the skin culture to make it completely unique, would it then receive rights?

Also, I don’t understand why a certain order in the DNA of some cells grants rights. This grouping of A, T, G, C, receives rights, but the grouping of T, G, C, T does not because that order is expressed in another strand of DNA?

An embryo is more than a cluster of cells. It is a whole being, whereas skin cells are only part of that whole.

 

[Mike_Dye]

Just curious: Why do embryos have a right to life?

For the same reason you had a right to life when you were an embryo.

 

[Mike_Dye]

It may not be my views on abortion, but he has some sense of the political turf and the legislative laws.

How hard is it to ‘legislate morality’ for everyone in the country with so many different religions and no religions. It is costly enough (for all of us) to legislate and enforce the laws ‘for the common good’, without getting into a specific religious morality.

Say, if abortion were illegal; then missing Sunday Mass became illegal; then not eating fish on Fridays during lent became illegal; then etc.; wouldn’t this be protested by the Protestants, Jews, Baptists, Mormons, atheists… What if the original founders, mostly Puritans, made laws for all of us based on there religious morals? All infractions would land you in jail and have fines. Where would us Catholics fit then? How would Catholic’s fight if drinking and smoking were illegal (it’s becoming that way already), according to the Mormon Religious Morality?

As I say, he makes sense for the Nation we live in. He is saying to let the Church/Religion ‘legislate’ abortion morality within their own members and the condemnation of such as well… while leaving the other religions practice their own religions according to their morals.

I do not necessarily agree with him, where a country has a Christian majority, but, Religion and Politics are not good bedfellows. This has been tried in times past without success, only wars and martyrs and fighting prevailed.

It’s a tough call, but educating the people, rather then legislate, about morals, is a more peaceful approach. To this end, no Catholic’s should be having abortions… and any other religion that has the same moral code.

It has taken me at least four times trying to respond to this post with charity and I still am not able to. Mr. Panetta is the unfortunate result of modern Jesuit education. It is sad that they couldn’t have taught him to think on his own rather than rely on a misinformed, non thinking, ultra liberal Jesuit that has his non thinking head stuck so far up his…OK the non kindness is starting to kick in again…I am sorry but when stupidity encourages the taking of innocent life it just riles me. …There, I can be nice when I force myself

 

[Highwayhound]

There but by the grace of God go I.

I am a mere 42 years from the womb. If we as a society were still using the science of the 16th century I might be able to understand some of the thinking posted here. However, we have the benefit of 21st century science, and we should embrace it when it comes to life. It is eminently clear when a life begins. The only difference between Shredderbeam, Michael David, myself and a new life is time, some nourishment and care. If anyone of us did not receive the nourishment and care then we could have been 2,3,4 or more years out of the womb and not have survived.

Citizenship was mentioned as an equivalent of life. If we throw out all borders and goverments I could still live, but with out my life I cannot be a citizen, no matter where.

Laws against rape, robbery, etc, are for the citizens of the country, weather they have moral over-tones or not. The government is protecting some of it’s citizens from undue lack of ‘life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness’. It is this ‘reality’ the lawyers do not see, and the reality they use to make the laws.

 

[Doc2be]

Well, an embryo has unique DNA, but then again, so does the skin culture. Say that I was destroyed, would my skin culture receive rights? Or say that it were possible to change the DNA of the skin culture to make it completely unique, would it then receive rights?

Also, I don’t understand why a certain order in the DNA of some cells grants rights. This grouping of A, T, G, C, receives rights, but the grouping of T, G, C, T does not because that order is expressed in another strand of DNA?

You skin is a part of you…you who was created at conception. Your skin is not new and it has the exact same DNA as that first cell called the zygote had in your mother’s womb. The only change is that that some are now methylated or one of many other epigenetic changes. Your skin will never have the rights that you have because they are just skin.

The question you pose though leads into Embryonic Stem cells and Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells (IPS). IPS are not embryo’s because if you place an IPS cell into a mother’s womb nothing will grow…it would be like placing a skin cell into a mother’s womb. If you placed an embryo from IVF (which is what they use mostly for ES cell research that will obviously become a new person. The main reason IPS cells will not grow is because they do not express the needed extraembryonic tissues required for growth (placenta, villi for blood exchange and the like).

I only brought up genetics because it is the most basic (scientifically speaking) chemical that makes up the human body. It is what makes the human body and decides what will go where and when it will happen. The DNA is the blueprint. What I was getting at was that from this blueprint, which has never been seen before in the world (unique), a human is made. That is why an embryo has rights. Your skin, no matter what you do to it, unless you mutate it and it becomes cancerous (but is still yours), will always be a part of you. Even if you die your skin will be your skin…it will never be a new you. If your skin was grown into a “new” you then that is reproductive cloning and that is obviously against the natural order.

I am just trying to help people see that it isn’t just a cell, it is a unique creation, a human being, loved by God and should be loved by humans as well! We should not be so quick to “define out” life. Who knows when we might be “defined out” next.

 

[Michael_David]

Mr. Panetta is the unfortunate result of modern Jesuit education. It is sad that they couldn’t have taught him to think on his own rather than rely on a misinformed, non thinking, ultra liberal Jesuit

Mike Dye, thanks for being so charitable in your response.
As a Catholic I am to respect the Church leaders as authority. Even if my own thinking disagrees with their decree. It is then for me to try and understand why such ‘decrees’ were handed down… like abortion (the topic in this thread). Now, even if I can get to that understanding in my being, it is more so a matter of being able to convince/convert those that cannot go along with that ‘decree’. In this process, my own ‘bulking’ to comprehend it, is relative to why some others do not understand it, and say “chuck it, I’ll do as I will.” We see a lot of this in the Catholic Church today. Some using birth control still go the Mass, with them, they are still religious ‘except for’ that decree. They think they cannot raise any more then 2 kids well, why should they have 8 kids. Some just leave the Catholic Church and find one that ‘Agrees with their point of view’.

The anti-abortion is from the Pope on down… even to the Jesuit’s. If we are to become a new person as a Christian, we are then to turn our minds and thoughts to the mind and thoughts of the Church. The Pope, Bishop and Priest as well as the Parishioners (and us) are the Church. To turn one’s mind over is one thing, but to give an answer to a non-believer as to why you believe as you do… using only logic or reason comes up short. We have to get into the unseen area’s of the soul and the Theory of the religion in order to state our case effectively. However, the others do not go along with our brand of theory, even if the Pope has said so, he is not recognized by them the same way we see him.

So how do we, using only the secular methods of logic and reason persuade them with our own belief? Not getting into Faith or Morals, or even worse, into the infallibility of the Pope? When half of Why we believe is off-limit’s, and cannot be used in the debate because it is not believed by the opponent, our case is brought to it’s knees.
Even worse, try to state our case in legal terms, with the law (only)… and it becomes near impossible. Otherwise, Roe vs Wade would of been overturned within a year of when it happened. If abortion was not legal nor illegal (according to the country), it would then be a matter of conscience (morals and religion), with the one’s in that situation. And that very woman receiving much more TLC then she is now to have the baby, whether she keeps it or not. Birth control is a reaction to the abortion decree… no baby to have to worry about. But here too, that is also against Church teaching, but not looked at by those using it as is bad as an abortion… or heaven forbid, an unwanted pregnancy, that would only upset one’s own plans for how they want to live (Liberty).

 

[fix]

Fix, we tend to agree more then disagree.

I am merely relating to Leon’s statement. I sorta look at it as a prayer to God and us Humans concerning the frustration’s being dealt with in fully comprehending the complexities of this countries legalizing of abortion. Like casting the bread on the water… to see what comes back. There is Hope in this process. This coming from a Law School at Catholic University, in which Leon Panetta teaches.

I agree with you fix, in the manner of our thoughts and beliefs… and the logic and realities that materialize. I am very pro-life… and I believe Leon is too, since he has tried so many ways to come up with a viable opposition to legalized abortion, only to be so frustrated that he sees education as the answer (for now).

It is not with most ‘common people’ that the problem exists, it’s more with the legal processes of this country. How they function and on what levels. Remember, Leon is in a Catholic Law School. Who better to know all the (gory) details with this ordeal?

Out here in the normal life, we have prayer (sometimes at the clinic’s)… let’s not so quickly condemn who God may be using to answer all these prayers we have been praying for so long. The bread may return with the right answers in the right places… and that is God’s doing!

There are several links here recently to the statement from the USCCB yesterday which says explicitly Catholics have a moral imperative to reverse Roe. That is because the law is a teacher. It also mentions we have an obligation to help mothers and others in these situations.

The problem is recently many high profile folks, like Panetta, are contradicting Church teaching and claiming the law does not matter or it is a lost cause. That type of reasoning not only is contrary to what the Church binds us to do but is contrary to reason.

 

[Michael_David]

There are several links here recently to the statement from the USCCB yesterday which says explicitly Catholics have a moral imperative to reverse Roe. That is because the law is a teacher. It also mentions we have an obligation to help mothers and others in these situations.

The problem is recently many high profile folks, like Panetta, are contradicting Church teaching and claiming the law does not matter or it is a lost cause. That type of reasoning not only is contrary to what the Church binds us to do but is contrary to reason.

Yes fix, this only means we are now in the underground, against the countries legal judgments, looking for a way to overthrow the existing law.

And there is a little Lifecare Center our Church and others sponsor that assists pregnant women with pro-life resources for the term and birth of the babies. This is a local grass-roots center that catches most those in our area network, and leads them through the process, plus helps with the costs. I am sure there are more of these in other areas.

The reasoning of Leon is up in the air, since he seems to have two personalities, one personal and one public (political). He is still at war with himself… which one will overtake the other is also a matter of prayer. In any case, he is showing us just how deep and bad this whole thing is, and this in itself may help turn many on the fence to the more proper and moral thing.

 

[Shredderbeam]

Jennifer123:

An embryo is more than a cluster of cells. It is a whole being, whereas skin cells are only part of that whole.

It depends on the stage of the embryo. If it’s less than 5 days old, then it’s still just a few stem cells, none of which have specialized yet.
MikeDye:

For the same reason you had a right to life when you were an embryo.

That presumes that I did have a right to life as an embryo - which is sort of what I’m trying to figure out.

Doc2be:

You skin is a part of you…you who was created at conception. Your skin is not new and it has the exact same DNA as that first cell called the zygote had in your mother’s womb. The only change is that that some are now methylated or one of many other epigenetic changes. Your skin will never have the rights that you have because they are just skin.

So because the order of its DNA has already appeared in other cells, these cells are denied rights?

Doc2be:

I am just trying to help people see that it isn’t just a cell, it is a unique creation, a human being, loved by God and should be loved by humans as well! We should not be so quick to “define out” life. Who knows when we might be “defined out” next.

I just don’t see how the uniqueness of a particular strand of DNA explodes out to universal importance, granting all sorts of rights to the container that houses it.