S
Schn
Guest
I get this mixed up all the time! I meant sapience. A capacity for judgement, self awareness.
- Status
S
Schn
Guest
Thanks for admitting there is a problem. Once the problem is solved, you may have some sort of argument. One group is not solved.
Really, I giggled.
Call me again when the population actually begins to decline. Even then you would have to have a catastrophic drop before your argument against abortion for population has any merit.
That’s nice.
If they’re not sapient, that’s still fine.
Yeah, realchoice. Nice bias you got there. No surprise they handpicked.
You want a proportion, not a number. Percentages percentages percentages percentages. Thousands of people win the lottery!
The problem then (if those numbers are correct) is forced or coerced abortions, not abortion itself.
All medical procedures have risks.
Wonderful bias. Here’s my own biased website:
imnotsorry.net/
E
elts1956
Guest
I think it fundamentally wrong to boast what one does in the name of charity. But to answer, as much as I can.
I disagree with the “good old time” paradigm, because it wasn’t. Prostitution was rampant during this time, I grew up in a the Pocono mountains in eastern PA, throughout the mountains were these large “mansions”, which were basically brothels for men from NYC, they would come out and have a “good-time” while explaining to their families that they were going on a hunting, fishing, or medical retreat. These brothels were run by seedy men who basically shanghaied the girls into the industry. Where there is sex and booze, there is going to be abortions.
“I disagree with the “good old time” paradigm, because it wasn’t.” Apparently you didn’t grow up during this time. I did and I can personally tell you morality was at a greater level during those years than the years after 1960.
So what do you suggest to end all this, just sit back and do nothing? Your attitude is very negative. We must believe in the mercy of God, the love of His Son and the Inspiration and Grace of the Holy Spirit. We must pray for their guidance in actions we do, or not do. But to do nothing expresses a lack of Faith in what God will help us to do.
J
Jermosh
Guest
Because you and most of the rest of the world lived oblivious to the sins of the World, morality was just as bad or even worse, it was just hidden. Back in the 50s you could leave your child roam around your neighborhood, heck I used to be outside from the sun up to sun down when I was a kid. That’s not the case today, not because there are more “stranger dangers” then yesteryear’s, just that we hear about a child abduction from across the country of a everyday normal family within minutes now, where before it would have never even been mentioned. So we act in fear, think that today must be more evil then before, its all hogwash and the Bible states its all hogwash. I am under the impression that we have a better chance today to help then before, how can you heal a hidden wound?
Where did I state to sit back and do nothing?
E
elts1956
Guest
“Where did I state to sit back and do nothing?”
Where did I say you did? Do you have sources for these many abductions that occurred in the 50s?. If they were so terrible, what were you doing outside with no supervision? Morals were stronger during those days, being oustracised from the community was the punishment for any “unmarried woman” who incurred pregnancy then. Some of my cousins made a couple of “little” mistakes, one, more than once. Fortunately they had loving families who didn’t declare war on their daughters and grandchildren, took them in and kept them safe and loved.
I am well aware of that.
And the question still applies, because in truth, you cannot prove or disprove this.
So what is the real justification?
J
Jermosh
Guest
Nice morals.
As for time lines, there are plenty. I am not a big Wiki person persa, but they usually have sound references. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_young_people’s_rights_in_the_United_States
According to the false “Good ole day morals”, there would have not been a need for all this pro-child anti-abuse legislation. Heck we do not even need to go outside of our very own Church to see that abuse was rampant in the “yesteryear”.
F
fix
Guest
T
tafan
Guest
Frst of all, war is not intrisicly evil, abortion is.
Your argument is the classic “you can’t legislate morality”. It is a very flawed argument. Thomas Aquinas also said that not all vices should be made illegal. But you do make laws to protect indivual liberty.
Your last statement that a government legislating morality becomes a tyranny could not be further off track. All legitimate laws, at their core, are about legislating morality. Think about it. Why do we have speed limits? Because it is wrong (ie immoral) to endanger others through reckless driving. A government which legislates amorally will become a tyranny.
I don’t know where you come from, but every parish in my area has Project Gabriel signs prominently displayed in front of them advertising these very services. They are open, and they need support, which obviously you are not doing. Since it is so high on your list of a “new approach”, it seems like you would have checked them out and started supporting them.
With all due respect, as a Catholic you have an obligation to better inform yourself on an issue ( the practical, theological, and philisophical aspects of the issue) before you take a stance at odds with the church’s teaching. It is obvious you have not done so. In particular startout with two simple paragraphs CCC 2266 and CCC 2273.
S
Schn
Guest
It may be difficult to prove, but it’s pretty easy to place the foetus on a continuum of sapience from humans down to bacteria. It is surely less sapient than, say, a dog, and so killing it with the minimum of pain is acceptable.
J
Jermosh
Guest
So are infants though,
I think the argument is entirely silly, either its a Human Life or not. From their you need to apply justification.
S
Schn
Guest
There is no exact point sapience occurs, in the same way there is no exact age that people suddenly develop the ability to drive motor vehicles. As the nervous system develops, the level of sapience increases steadily, not suddenly, so there is no litmus test we can do to show whether something is or is not sapient.
However, uncertainty is not equivalent to invalidity. With similar justification to a point cut-off for driving, we can place the level of rights to terminate foetal life at certain points, usually corresponding to trimester. For driving, it is the age at which society thinks there is a good certainty that people are able to control a motor vehicle responsibly. For abortion, it should be the level of development at which there is a good certainty that the level of sentience is below a cut-off point deemed to be acceptable for termination.
Whether an infant is more or less sapient than is much more debatable than whether a foetus is more sapient than .
E
elts1956
Guest
“Nice morals”. Are you judging, or commenting? I’d would take those “Good ole day morals” back for society in a heartbeat.
At least at that time there weren’t over a million babies aborted per year here in the US.
J
Jermosh
Guest
There is little debate that a human infant has less skills and intelligence then many different animals, it also has little to no survivability abilities as well. Your point of self awareness is quite the slippery slope as well. Either its a Human Life or not.
Now if you argue that a fetus has less social equity then an infant, you may have a logical argument, and one that is also a mystery.
F
fix
Guest
This is untrue. The Church has not bound anyone’s conscience in this matter claiming one must oppose the war. In fact, the exact opposite is true. Catholics are free to hold opinions on the war.
The last presidential election had two pro aborts running, either one would win. One was more pro abort than the other. Limiting evil is good.
S
Schn
Guest
Skills and survivability are not under discussion at all. What I am talking about is intelligence, self awareness, consciousness. That a foetus has less social equity than an infant is exactly what I am arguing. It isn’t even conscious! These qualities increase with brain development, and we draw the line at when it is acceptable to terminate a pregnancy at X trimesters, on the basis that there is a high chance that the foetus, not being aware of it’s own existence, would never notice.
And slippery slopes are better when you explain them a little bit. If it were self evident to me as it were to you, surely I would not be debating.
B
benedictus2
Guest
What has that got to do with anything? Does it mean that just because it seems unlikely at the moment we should stop pushing for its abolition? Do you really think that Christ would be happy with that? Do you really think that we should just sit and bemoan the state of affairs and do nothing to overturn the evil law?
We are supposed to move against the grain just as He did.
As I have mentioned before what you advocate for is really secular thinking and to tied up with results. There are things that take time. A looooonnnnng time.
As I said before, God is not asking results from us. All He is asking of us is to follow His will. And I doubt very much that it is His will that we do nothing about a law that ensure the mass slaughter of children.
And why should we keep out of politics? That would please the devil mightily I am sure.
That reasoning is so completely absurd. Are you also saying that God killed all the Jews because He put Hitler there?
God DID NOT put Obama in office. God allowed the people to choose him. Evil generations choose their kindred. This really only goes to show how heavily the nation has bought into the devil’s lies.
BTW why are so you so dead set against working at overturning the law?
B
benedictus2
Guest
Actually it is your arguments that have been demolished left right and centre. That you keep bringing that same argument up even when it has been answered before just proves this.
So let me ride along with your reasoning. If there should be a law that say every first born child should be killed we should just sit and allow it to continue? If there is a law that says if you mother is old and unable to care for herself anymore, she should be put to death, we should just sit and do nothing about getting that law repealed.
Unjust laws will never be repealed if people accept these laws and do nothing about them.
As a matter of fact you could even extend that line of reasoning to just letting all those babies be killed since God has decided to kill them any way. So really there is no reason to work for justice, help the poor, etc, etc, because what people got was what they had coming to them. So let us dismantle Amnesties International, Medicines San Frontier, the Red Cross or just simply quit being Christian because it does not make any difference any way.
Your reasoning is getting more and more ridiculous.
Have you not thought that one possible reason why God has allowed the likes of Stalin, Hitler and Obama is precisely to see what we supposedly Christian people will do about it? Will we cave in or will we fight?
B
benedictus2
Guest
And I have shown that your analogy is completely way off the track.
First, the additional rights are given precisely to ensure that you do not endanger someone else’s right to life. Hence you are are not allowed to drive until there is a fair bit of certainty that you will not injure or kill someone and you are not given the right to practice medicine unless you cannot do harm. So therefore your analogy does not apply.
Secondly, discriminating between fetuses and human beings is discriminating between human beings and human beings.
A toddler is only a term for the stage of development of the human being. Foetus is only the term we use to define the stage of development not the being.
I mean check out even a secular site as wiki.
It goes: Physical Stages of Human Life:
Code:
Stages in prenatal development.
* Prenatal (fertilization - birth)
o Embryo - (fertilization - 8 weeks of gestational phase)
+ Zygote, the point of conception, fertilization
+ Blastocyst the period between conception and embryonic stages
+ Embryo; the embryonic period starts at three weeks and continues until the end of the 8th week of pregnancy
o Fetus (8 weeks of gestational phase - birth)
Code:
* Child (birth - puberty)
o Neonate (newborn) (0-30 days)
o Infant (baby) (1 month-1 year)
o Toddler (1-4)
o Play age (3 - 6 years)
o Primary school age (also called prepubescence) (4-12)
+ Elementary school age (also called middle childhood) (4-8)
+ Preadolescence (preteen, or late childhood. The child in this and the previous phase are called schoolchild (schoolboy or schoolgirl), when still of primary school age.) (10-12)
* Adolescence and puberty (12-20)
o Peripuberty (8[1]-10[2] until 15[2]-17[3])
* Adult (21-death)
o Early adulthood (21-39)
o Middle adulthood (40-59)
o Advanced adult/Senior citizen (60+)
* Death (occurs at various ages, depending on person)
o Decomposition (breakdown of the body after death)If you didn’t get that then there is no point explaining.
Hah! This is your and someone else’s invention. Sapiency does not define human rights.
A new born infant is hardly sapient. So does that mean he/she is not human and has therefore no right to life?
Okay here it is slowly.
You said that we do discriminate when we give rights. And that is true.
But we discriminate when granting additional rights precisely to protect the universal right to life. Your right to drive will only be granted if we know that you will not endanger someone else’s life. If you a condition that will impair your driving to the extent that it will cause someone’s death, then that right will be revoked. Why? Precisely because the right to life is universal and paramount.
As someone said: Your right to swing your arms end where my nose begins.
I have made that simple enough to understand I think.
- Status