Abortion due to gender.

[Persuader]

Certainly the law has a right to define personhood. But that is applied in law in different ways; persons as applied to family members; persons as applied to contracts, persons as applied to liability; persons as applied to any number of things.

Where the law is in error is in thinking it can DEFINE a human life in terms of if it is or is not a person. No matter what criteria they apply, it will be a man-made concept. They don’t have a good history at doing this job either. Witness slavery.

Today, in the state of Florida, a woman can choose to kill her unborn baby on nothing more than her own desire. But if you hit that same woman with your car while she’s on the way to the abortion clinic, you face TWO charges of manslaughter. How can that be if the law knows what it is doing? In one hand, the baby is not human and be killed and discarded; on the other, it’s a human life that justice must stick up for and bring the killer to justice.

You can’t have it both ways and both are true.

Well, the law has to define personhood in the sense that it has to decide when and how to give legal rights via legal fiction. It is true that the criteria will be based on human understanding or concepts, but that is true of every legal concept (the law is made by people).

If what you are saying about Florida is the case, then that state seems to have inconsistent laws. I cannot speak to that specifically, as I am not familiar with the laws of that state or why they decided to make the law that way.

 

[JReducation]

I think you are muddling the issue by playing with words. If you, by saying human being, are simply referring to a collection of cells with human DNA, you are correct in saying that the State is allowing people to end this life-form.

I’m not playing with words, the courts are. A collection of celss with human DNA is not alive. The zygote, embryo and fetus is as alive as you are. No medical professional will deny that. None will deny that it is human life.

I can tell you from personal experience, at 12 weeks, it is a baby. I have held some in my hand. Unfortunately.

To base law on scientific and academic knowledge is not arbitrary, it is completely normal. To say something is arbitrary, suggests that it is unfounded. To base something on knowledge, is to establish a foundation for the position.

Of course it’s arbitrary. Everyone knows that the laws were created to pacify the Women’s Rights Movement. The courts and legislators scurried to find scientists to sustain abortion. Once they were challenged with the fact that this was a human embryo and that it is alive and growing, if it were not alive, it would not grow, then the courts had to protect themselves. They were had cornered themselves. Either they admitted that they had legalized the destruction of human life and then have to overturn themselve and face the rath of the Womens’ Movement or find some scientific hypothesis, not fact, behind which they could hide. That’s what they did. They chose based on preasure not morality or natural law. Morality and natural law were once the foundations of law. Today its lobby groups.

When you ask whether or not the State has the authority to deny human beings the right to be born, I think you’re implying that abortion is ending a person’s life. I don’t think you’re implying that it is ending the life of a collection of cells with human DNA.

You think correctly. It is ending a human being’s life. Find me the proof that it is not a growing human being. Find me where it is said that the law can authorize the destruction of the vulnerable.

If you truly believe that this is the right of the State, then why are you on a Catholic forum? Either you want to learn the truth about this or you want to entertain yourself. If it’s entertainment, I don’t want to play. If you want to learn the truth, I’d be happy to sit here until next year to help you understand, because this is what I do for a ministry and what I have consecrated my entire life to do, to serve the unborn, the chronically ill and the elderly who are threatened by a Culture of Death.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Persuader]

To add to what Doshea has said, most countries have programs that support the pregnant mother with proper nutrition, medical care and laws that grant her leave from work while protecting her job security.

Why are tax dollars being used to nurture a thing inside a woman? It’s either a thing or a baby. But it can’t be both. As Pope John Paul said, “Truth does not contradict itself.” Apparently law can.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

I am sorry, but I don’t understand your logic. There are medical terms for that which is growing inside the woman, so you do not need to call it a thing or a baby. You can call it an embryo or a fetus based on it’s development. Society has an interest in reproduction, so it shouldn’t come as a surprise that the woman receives benefits for taking on this responsibility. An embryo or fetus can have value in different ways without being a person or without having the legal rights of a person.

 

[JReducation]

I am sorry, but I don’t understand your logic. There are medical terms for that which is growing inside the woman, so you do not need to call it a thing or a baby. You can call it an embryo or a fetus based on it’s development. Society has an interest in reproduction, so it shouldn’t come as a surprise that the woman receives benefits for taking on this responsibility. An embryo or fetus can have value in different ways without being a person or without having the legal rights of a person.

Why can’t we call it a baby? We don’t call a 6-year old a latter child. That’s the proper developmental term. I understand what you’re saying. Each stage has a proper name. But we make no distinction between the term todler and baby. We use them interchangeably, unless we’re tyring to define the point of development. Those terms do not deny the humanity of the individual in the womb

My point is why is it that when the mother wants to the pregnancy, then it’s a baby and has rights to prenatal care even at the taxpayer’s expense. When she does not want the pregnancy, then it’s not a baby and has no rights. The legal system plays both ways.

I gather that you’re a law student. My question to you is not what does the law say, but what does your conscience tell you? The law does not make up your conscience for you.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF .

 

[Persuader]

I’m not playing with words, the courts are. A collection of celss with human DNA is not alive. The zygote, embryo and fetus is as alive as you are. No medical professional will deny that. None will deny that it is human life.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

I agree that it is a living organism, and that it has human DNA. It is also a collection of cells with human DNA. They are not alive in the same way I am alive. For instance, they are not able to sustain their own life, that is the womans job. They are lacking a lot of my attributes (both mental and physical). It is meaningless to say they are alive the same way I am alive simply by being alive. If being alive was all it took to be a legal person, everything living would be a legal person.

 

[flyingfish]

Alzheimers - no awareness that we know of- they don’t have rights?

I’m not an expert on Alzheimer’s, is it really so bad that the mind of the person doesn’t exist? Or is it more that they sometimes remember and sometimes not?

I am not going to comment on this specifically because I just don’t know much about the illness. But take a person who is brain dead, i.e. the brain has lost the ability to generate a mind, yes, I would say this is no longer a person and it makes no sense to grant it rights.

The logical conclusion of this argument is that it is perfectly fine to kill a sleeping person. They aren’t aware, and their thoughts are irrelevant. You cannot tell from the state of a sleeping person if they have a thinking mind, have Alzheimers, are a genius, or anything else. All you have in front of you is an unaware human.

I addressed the issue of sleep, fainting many times before. It’s a bit hard to keep track because I was participating in several of these types of threads.

I identify the mind with the brain, when I am asleep the brain that generates me is still intact. Were I to faint, the same thing would happen. So while the brain is there, I would say I am still a person with rights. However, should I have an injury so severe that I am judged brain-dead, I would say at that point I would be gone and there’d be no me to have rights.

Are they the same - i.e - a person, the same person before and after wrinkles, or did adding wrinkles change them from one thing into another?

I don’t think this is key to the discussion, but no I generally don’t think you’re the same person from moment to moment. The brain changes, your mind changes. The you from 10 years ago and the you now are different persons.

It always ends up placing arbitrary limits

“Arbitrary” implies random, without reason. The presence of a mind/the capacity of the brain to generate a mind is not arbitrary.

You might not think it’s a good way to define personhood, which is fine.

And you have offered not a shred of evidence to support your idea except to compare a fetus to an inanimate object. You may think that, but most do not, nor do the courts. You might note that in many states, a person who murders a pregnant woman faces TWO charges, not just one. Why is that if it’s an inanimate object? Also, how are you going to make that determination? Do you know a way to do that and never err and kill someone who WAS aware/thinking/a person?

Articles about the consciousness of the embryo/fetus/newborn have been linked to in this thread, as well as references to the mirror test for self awareness. This is hardly “not a shred of evidence.”

I do think it’s contradictory to charge someone who murders a pregnant woman with double murder, it seems to be an inconsistency in the law. I’m not talking about legal definitions here though.

I haven’t heard you called a homocidal sociopath;

MIght have been in the other abortion thread I participated in.

what I read is that some of your ideas, as they have actually been esposed in history, were situations where eugenics was used to deprive the handicapped of their rights. I don’t think that was brought up to denigrate you, but rather to demonstrate to you the weaknesses in some of your ideas, and how those very ideas have been exploited in the past.

Since the handicapped have minds, they would fit my definition of a person and so would have human rights. It would exclude those who are braindead, or those whose brains have not yet developed to the point of being able to give rise to a mind.

The aside discussion I had about who lives and who dies given limited resources was not a part of the main discussion, and would be an issue regardless of how personhood is defined.

 

[flyingfish]

The reason for debate is religious IMO. Catholics believe in souls, and that the soul enters at conception. It is pointless to discuss fetal development or child development when this metaphysical construct is at the crux of the issue.

I would tend to agree with you, I just don’t see how you could otherwise argue that a newly fertilized egg is a person.

If the soul is what makes one a person, and the embryo/fetus etc. has a soul, then it would make sense to call it a person.

 

[Persuader]

Why can’t we call it a baby? We don’t call a 6-year old a latter child. That’s the proper developmental term. I understand what you’re saying. Each stage has a proper name. But we make no distinction between the term todler and baby. We use them interchangeably, unless we’re tyring to define the point of development. Those terms do not deny the humanity of the individual in the womb

My point is why is it that when the mother wants to the pregnancy, then it’s a baby and has rights to prenatal care even at the taxpayer’s expense. When she does not want the pregnancy, then it’s not a baby and has no rights. The legal system plays both ways.

I gather that you’re a law student. My question to you is not what does the law say, but what does your conscience tell you? The law does not make up your conscience for you.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF .

The law has to decide when to give an entity status as legal person. You are suggesting that this status should be given to a human at the moment of conception, right? You have argued that it should be like this because this is the beginning of an organism with human DNA. I assume that you do not think any living organism should be a legal person, so therefore we can conclude that being a living organism is not sufficient to establish legal personhood.

What seems to clinch it for you is the fact that this living organism has human DNA. Am I right? So, if DNA-sequence x contains DNA capable of generating a human being, that is a legal person. A skin cell in your body has a DNA sequence containing human DNA, but is not capable of generating a human being. Why? Because it lacks the cell-properties of embryonic stem cells. Science has shown that you can manipulate a skin cell to change into an embryonic stem cell. An embryonic stem cell has the properties required to generate a human being. The manipulation required does not alter the DNA, therefore it is not altering what you seem to think of as a human being with rights.Thus a human skin cell is a legal person. You could say that an embryonic stem cell like this would only generate a clone, but it is not clear why this should devalue the skin cell. In case of an identical twin, you essentially have two organisms with the same DNA. You could generate a similar situation with a human skin cell. If the DNA is only valuable if it is unique, taking the life of one twin should be permissible. I am guessing you would not approve.

What the law does in most western countries, is to recognize that the living organism that eventually becomes a person, does so through stages of development. The laws mostly reflect this. For instance, it is normal to deny abortion (if the mother’s life is not in danger) after 22-23 weeks because the fetus could be viable ex utero. So the law is granting rights to the organism at this point, although it is not recognized as a legal person yet.

The limits of abortion will probably change as scientific knowledge of fetal development increases. This is a perfectly rational and secular approach. You could have an issue with it if you believed in the concept of souls, but you will not be able to establish that a human DNA-sequence automatically is a person simply by existing in an environment capable of generating a human being. You can claim it, but you cannot expect automatic agreement.

 

[shannyk]

Prior to birth I think the situation is very different, because the fetus draws resources from the mother’s body which I don’t believe she is obligated to provide regardless of whether the fetus is a person.

She’s obligated by her very nature. She was designed to become pregnant and carry an offspring from before her own birth. At the moment of conception a female humans development is set to be different from a males, physically, neurologically, psychologically, etc. No laws or manipulation of ‘rights’ are going to make that obligation go away.

If the soul is what makes one a person, and the embryo/fetus etc. has a soul, then it would make sense to call it a person.

And in the name of prudence and charity, since we can never know that an embryo doesn’t have a soul, we have to err on the side of caution that it does, and therefore has as much dignity as you and I.

 

[simple_soul]

I agree that it is a living organism, and that it has human DNA. It is also a collection of cells with human DNA. They are not alive in the same way I am alive. For instance, they are not able to sustain their own life, that is the womans job. They are lacking a lot of my attributes (both mental and physical). It is meaningless to say they are alive the same way I am alive simply by being alive. If being alive was all it took to be a legal person, everything living would be a legal person.

• Oh, But dear Persuader, Do you not see… they have the same human DNA that you have so they are NOT lacking a lot of your attributes(both mental and physical) they are just developing just like you have and still are developing. We are all at a different stage of development both physically and mentally.

 

[LittleSoldier]

The law has to decide when to give an entity status as legal person. You are suggesting that this status should be given to a human at the moment of conception, right? You have argued that it should be like this because this is the beginning of an organism with human DNA. I assume that you do not think any living organism should be a legal person, so therefore we can conclude that being a living organism is not sufficient to establish legal personhood.

It isn’t the beginning of an organism with human DNA; it is a human being with DNA.

Your conclusion is confusing. I’ve tried to re-write it:

At conception a beginning of an organism with human DNA is formed.
Not any (every) living organism should be a legal person.
Ergo, being a living organism is not sufficient to establish legal personhood.

Is this what you think pro-lifers believe? If it is, you are wrong. That argument is completely without logic.

Now, let me present one which actually represents the prolife stance:

At conception a new human being is formed, which contains human DNA.
Every human being should be a “legal” person.
Ergo, the human being formed at conception should be a “legal” person.

What seems to clinch it for you is the fact that this living organism has human DNA. Am I right?

No, that isn’t true. What clinches is for pro-lifers is that a new human being with human DNA is formed at conception by the combination of the sperm and the ovum. A liver cell in a human being contains human DNA. It’s not a person - it’s a liver cell.

So, if DNA-sequence x contains DNA capable of generating a human being, that is a legal person. A skin cell in your body has a DNA sequence containing human DNA, but is not capable of generating a human being. Why? Because it lacks the cell-properties of embryonic stem cells. Science has shown that you can manipulate a skin cell to change into an embryonic stem cell. An embryonic stem cell has the properties required to generate a human being. The manipulation required does not alter the DNA, therefore it is not altering what you seem to think of as a human being with rights.Thus a human skin cell is a legal person. You could say that an embryonic stem cell like this would only generate a clone, but it is not clear why this should devalue the skin cell. In case of an identical twin, you essentially have two organisms with the same DNA. You could generate a similar situation with a human skin cell. If the DNA is only valuable if it is unique, taking the life of one twin should be permissible. I am guessing you would not approve.

First of all I am asking you to back up your “facts” with scientific evidence, including links.
Thank you.

Again, you are confusing “sequence of human DNA” with “a human being that has human DNA.” There is a difference. It may very well be true that an epidermal cell can be manipulated so that a “clone” is formed but this does not devalue an epidermal cell. An epidermal cell is just an epidermal cell. It is used by a human being (in the case of human beings) for whatever the epidermis does (protection, release of heat, etc.) Simply because an epidermal cell contains a human DNA sequence does not make that cell a human being or a person. If that were true, we would all be masses of tiny persons, being produced en masse and dying in droves every day. * It is the combination of a sperm and an ovum (which both contain a sequence of human DNA) that makes a human being a human being and a person, not the strand of DNA.*

As far as clones are concerned, that really should be in another thread, as should most of what has been posted so far because this is really going off-topic, and as far as I know, no human being has been cloned at this point.

What the law does in most western countries, is to recognize that the living organism that eventually becomes a person, does so through stages of development. The laws mostly reflect this. For instance, it is normal to deny abortion (if the mother’s life is not in danger) after 22-23 weeks because the fetus could be viable ex utero. So the law is granting rights to the organism at this point, although it is not recognized as a legal person yet.

As far as I know, the law doesn’t state anything about a “living organism that eventually becomes a person.” I am requesting that you provide a link to the law(s) that state this and laws that grant rights to organisms “at this point” although they aren’t recognized as legal persons. Just what is a “legal” person? I’m not clear on the law in any western country but what you’ve written just doesn’t look right to me.

…continued in next post…

 

[LittleSoldier]

…continuation of last post…

The limits of abortion will probably change as scientific knowledge of fetal development increases. This is a perfectly rational and secular approach. You could have an issue with it if you believed in the concept of souls, but you will not be able to establish that a human DNA-sequence automatically is a person simply by existing in an environment capable of generating a human being. You can claim it, but you cannot expect automatic agreement.

Oh yes, the limits of abortion will probably change but it will have nothing to do with increasing scientific and medical knowledge about embryo/fetal development. It will have to do with the increasing selfishness and moral immaturity of people in Western societies. It does not matter to many people that a child is murdered. As soon as I find it, I will provide a link to an article written by a “prochoice” woman which describes this very topic. It’s in another thread I was in and I’m the one who posted the link but it might be under my old username. I’ll have to find it.

As for your last statement (about human DNA-sequence automatically being a person…"), is this what you think pro-lifers believe? Because that just isn’t so. We don’t believe that strands of human DNA equal persons, or even human beings. We believe that organisms who carry this human genetic information are persons, not the strands of DNA themselves.

The argument of pro-lifers is not that a human DNA-sequence automatically becomes a person by simply existing in an environment capable of generating a human being. The argument is that a human being exists at conception. And a human being is not a sequence of DNA in any environment. A human being is an organism formed at conception which contains a human DNA sequence, and if allowed to live, will continue to develop and eventually will be able to produce another human being by either impregnating or being impregnated by another human being, depending on gender.

I’m not bringing in the concept of “souls” at all. This can be discussed without any references to religion, although as this is a Catholic forum, we really should be discussing souls and showing proper respect for the Catholic Faith.

 

[JReducation]

The law has to decide when to give an entity status as legal person. You are suggesting that this status should be given to a human at the moment of conception, right? You have argued that it should be like this because this is the beginning of an organism with human DNA. I assume that you do not think any living organism should be a legal person, so therefore we can conclude that being a living organism is not sufficient to establish legal personhood.

What seems to clinch it for you is the fact that this living organism has human DNA. Am I right? So, if DNA-sequence x contains DNA capable of generating a human being, that is a legal person. A skin cell in your body has a DNA sequence containing human DNA, but is not capable of generating a human being. Why? Because it lacks the cell-properties of embryonic stem cells. Science has shown that you can manipulate a skin cell to change into an embryonic stem cell. An embryonic stem cell has the properties required to generate a human being. The manipulation required does not alter the DNA, therefore it is not altering what you seem to think of as a human being with rights.Thus a human skin cell is a legal person. You could say that an embryonic stem cell like this would only generate a clone, but it is not clear why this should devalue the skin cell. In case of an identical twin, you essentially have two organisms with the same DNA. You could generate a similar situation with a human skin cell. If the DNA is only valuable if it is unique, taking the life of one twin should be permissible. I am guessing you would not approve.

What the law does in most western countries, is to recognize that the living organism that eventually becomes a person, does so through stages of development. The laws mostly reflect this. For instance, it is normal to deny abortion (if the mother’s life is not in danger) after 22-23 weeks because the fetus could be viable ex utero. So the law is granting rights to the organism at this point, although it is not recognized as a legal person yet.

The limits of abortion will probably change as scientific knowledge of fetal development increases. This is a perfectly rational and secular approach. You could have an issue with it if you believed in the concept of souls, but you will not be able to establish that a human DNA-sequence automatically is a person simply by existing in an environment capable of generating a human being. You can claim it, but you cannot expect automatic agreement.

You completely avoided my question. I’ll break it down for you.

1. What does your conscience tell you about abortion?
2. Why are you in a Catholic forum discussing this, if you’re not in favor of the life of the unborn?
3. What do you get out of it?

I’ll close by saying, again. If you want to learn the moral law, I will help you. If you want to tease just to feed your ego or have fun, I don’t want to play. I did not consecrate my life to play mind games. Therefore, I would like an answer to my questions, at least out of respect.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JReducation]

The problems with arguing this from a legal point of view are several.

1. 
   *]State laws are created by human beings and can be flawed. History tells us this. There was a time when the law allowed slavery, husbands could physically punish their wives, parents could physically punish their children, and women had no financial rights when they entered a marriage. Today the law says that those things are unjust.
   
   *]There were no scientific discoveries to prove that the Negro was a person. The truth had always been there. It had to be recognized by the State. There was no scientific discovery that the white sex slave of the Greeks was a person. That truth was there.
   
   *]In Greek history pedophilia was legal. Boys were trained in the art of love by older males. There was no scientific discovery necessary to understand that this is immoral.
   
   *]The law uses language such as a collection of tissue with human DNA or a collection of cells with human DNA. What the European and North American governments have failed to tell their citizens is that this description of the newly fertilized egg was adopted by the courts when the Pro-Life Movement challenged the morality of the law permitting abortion. The law was in place first, and then they did the research to justify the law. They found these phrases, used by pro-abortion physicians and included it into their language.
   
   *]The European and North American governments have not told their people that they receive millions of dollars in campaign donations from the women’s movement.
   
   *]These governments have not told their citizens that they have abrogated the rights of the father. Whether you call it a baby or matter with human DNA, it would not be there if it did not have a father. It was not produced by a human’s body independent of the male sperm cell, which we know is very much alive. Suddenly, the courts ignore the rights of the father.
   
   *]What the laws in Europe and North America have not explained to their people is that a infant that is extracted from the uterus, legs first, the head left inside, punctured and the brain is suctions. This infant is as intact as the infant in the nursery and as viable.
   
   *]The law does not tell its citizens that it has legalized the selling of body parts from the corpses of aborted fetuses. If these were not human, what use would they have? If they are not human, why do they look like hands, feet, heart, brain, fingers and so forth?
   
   *]The law insists that a partial-birth abortion is still a collection of human tissue. It looks like a real baby’s body to me. Babies do feel pain, cold, hunger, loneliness and comfort. Look at a newborn who is just a few hours old.
   
   *]Finally, those who work in law: lawyers, barristers, judges, parliamentarians, and congress persons, have forgotten to explain to their conscience how they justify the above lies behind which this particular law is built.
   
   As moral citizens, we should be more interested in what does the conscience of the lawyer, the judge and the politician say, rather than what the law says. The laws regarding the rights of persons have been changed over and over again to accommodate the citizens. We know that law has been wrong and unjust in the past. We know that it is wrong today. But what do the people who post of this thread believe, based on their conscience.
   
   If your conscience is determined by civil law, God help you. Civil law is probably the second most fluid thing after water. We cannot allow civil law to shape conscience. Our Forefathers fought for the rights of conscience and founded this country on thos rights. They acknowledge the immorality of a system and proved it, then challenged it. Finally they legislated a Constitution that guarrantees the right to life.
   
   Fraternally,
   
   Br. JR, OSF

 

[kimmielittle]

The problems with arguing this from a legal point of view are several.

1. 
   *]State laws are created by human beings and can be flawed. History tells us this. There was a time when the law allowed slavery, husbands could physically punish their wives, parents could physically punish their children, and women had no financial rights when they entered a marriage. Today the law says that those things are unjust.
   *]There were no scientific discoveries to prove that the Negro was a person. The truth had always been there. It had to be recognized by the State. There was no scientific discovery that the white sex slave of the Greeks was a person. That truth was there.
   *]In Greek history pedophilia was legal. Boys were trained in the art of love by older males. There was no scientific discovery necessary to understand that this is immoral.
   *]The law uses language such as a collection of tissue with human DNA or a collection of cells with human DNA. What the European and North American governments have failed to tell their citizens is that this description of the newly fertilized egg was adopted by the courts when the Pro-Life Movement challenged the morality of the law permitting abortion. The law was in place first, and then they did the research to justify the law. They found these phrases, used by pro-abortion physicians and included it into their language.
   *]The European and North American governments have not told their people that they receive millions of dollars in campaign donations from the women’s movement.
   *]These governments have not told their citizens that they have abrogated the rights of the father. Whether you call it a baby or matter with human DNA, it would not be there if it did not have a father. It was not produced by a human’s body independent of the male sperm cell, which we know is very much alive. Suddenly, the courts ignore the rights of the father.
   *]What the laws in Europe and North America have not explained to their people is that a infant that is extracted from the uterus, legs first, the head left inside, punctured and the brain is suctions. This infant is as intact as the infant in the nursery and as viable.
   *]The law does not tell its citizens that it has legalized the selling of body parts from the corpses of aborted fetuses. If these were not human, what use would they have? If they are not human, why do they look like hands, feet, heart, brain, fingers and so forth?
   *]The law insists that a partial-birth abortion is still a collection of human tissue. It looks like a real baby’s body to me. Babies do feel pain, cold, hunger, loneliness and comfort. Look at a newborn who is just a few hours old.
   *]Finally, those who work in law: lawyers, barristers, judges, parliamentarians, and congress persons, have forgotten to explain to their conscience how they justify the above lies behind which this particular law is built.
   
   As moral citizens, we should be more interested in what does the conscience of the lawyer, the judge and the politician say, rather than what the law says. The laws regarding the rights of persons have been changed over and over again to accommodate the citizens. We know that law has been wrong and unjust in the past. We know that it is wrong today. But what do the people who post of this thread believe, based on their conscience.
   
   If your conscience is determined by civil law, God help you. Civil law is probably the second most fluid thing after water. We cannot allow civil law to shape conscience. Our Forefathers fought for the rights of conscience and founded this country on thos rights. They acknowledge the immorality of a system and proved it, then challenged it. Finally they legislated a Constitution that guarrantees the right to life.
   
   Fraternally,
   
   Br. JR, OSF

1. 
   :clapping::clapping::clapping::clapping:
   
   No law - can broker moral consciousness

 

[JReducation]

:clapping::clapping::clapping::clapping:

No law - can broker moral consciousness

Kim, be careful. Consciousness and conscience are not the same thing. Consciousness is a biological state of awareness. Conscience is the voice of God inscribed into the human mind, which informs the mind of right and wrong.

The law must be built upon conscience. Conscience can never yield to law, unless the law passes the test of right and wrong and is proven to be morally right. And no, morality is not relative. Only opinions are relative.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[kimmielittle]

Kim, be careful. Consciousness and conscience are not the same thing. Consciousness is a biological state of awareness. Conscience is the voice of God inscribed into the human mind, which informs the mind of right and wrong.

The law must be built upon conscience. Conscience can never yield to law, unless the law passes the test of right and wrong and is proven to be morally right. And no, morality is not relative. Only opinions are relative.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Hiyas Brother JR

No law - can broker moral conscience

Thank you

 

[flyingfish]

shannyk:

She’s obligated by her very nature. She was designed to become pregnant and carry an offspring from before her own birth. At the moment of conception a female humans development is set to be different from a males, physically, neurologically, psychologically, etc. No laws or manipulation of ‘rights’ are going to make that obligation go away.

Just because the woman has a uterus doesn’t mean she is obligated to use it. There is no obligation to procreate, even in the context of Catholicism (just look at nuns, or singles).

The uterus is obviously for the purpose of procreation, but it still belongs to the woman, and it is up to her to decide when to use it or whether to use it at all. (Just like the rest of her bodily resources that are required to sustain the fetus.)

And in the name of prudence and charity, since we can never know that an embryo doesn’t have a soul, we have to err on the side of caution that it does, and therefore has as much dignity as you and I.

This argument would work if embryos were developing inside artificial wombs, that had nothing to do with women, and that weren’t drawing resources needed to sustain people.

As it stands, abortion is a consideration for when there is a conflict between the woman and the fetus. Sometimes it can be as severe as a threat to the woman’s health and life, sometimes less so and can threaten her ability to work or study.

I am not prepared to demand those women make such severe sacrifices (including possibly their lives), on the off chance that there is such a thing as a soul and that an embryo has it.

 

[JReducation]

Just because the woman has a uterus doesn’t mean she is obligated to use it. There is no obligation to procreate, even in the context of Catholicism (just look at nuns, or singles).

The uterus is obviously for the purpose of procreation, but it still belongs to the woman, and it is up to her to decide when to use it or whether to use it at all. (Just like the rest of her bodily resources that are required to sustain the fetus.)

This argument would work if embryos were developing inside artificial wombs, that had nothing to do with women, and that weren’t drawing resources needed to sustain people.

As it stands, abortion is a consideration for when there is a conflict between the woman and the fetus. Sometimes it can be as severe as a threat to the woman’s health and life, sometimes less so and can threaten her ability to work or study.

I am not prepared to demand those women make such severe sacrifices (including possibly their lives), on the off chance that there is such a thing as a soul and that an embryo has it.

This position promotes the killing of a human being for the convenience of the mother. We do not ask the mother to stop working or going to school, to use your examples. But we deny someone else the right to ever be born and work or go to school.

It does not work We know that it does not work. But we allow society to lie to us and tell us that it does. We have allowed the same society that allowed slavery, the beating of children and women, the stealing of land from the indigenous peoples of the Americas, Asia, and Africa, to dictate morality to us. They have been wrong before.

At least the Church has been consistent on its moral teachings. Individuals have violated the moral law, but the moral law never changed. Human life is sacred and cannot be violated. Those who violate it are commiting a grave against justice. This is very consistent.

For others who may be reading this, remember this. The current support for pro-choice laws comes from the same movement that denies fathers their right to speak out on abortion. It is also the same movement that forced the courts to find a justification for their abortion rulings.

This same movement says that a 40 week old child in his mother’s womb can be pulled out by his legs and have his brains sucked out of his head, because he is only partially born. This same movement also approves of infanticide. This is when the abortion fails and the fetus comes out alive. The doctor or nuse drowns him.

This same movement supports the sale of body part of aborted children.

This is the movement that has supported these laws and that has convinced people that women have rights over their unborn children and over the fathers of those children.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[flyingfish]

This position promotes the killing of a human being for the convenience of the mother. We do not ask the mother to stop working or going to school, to use your examples. But we deny someone else the right to ever be born and work or go to school.

What about my more severe examples of threat to health and even life? That is hardly a matter of “convenience”. You would require that a woman be prepared to die for a fetus that has no mind.

For others who may be reading this, remember this. The current support for pro-choice laws comes from the same movement that denies fathers their right to speak out on abortion. It is also the same movement that forced the courts to find a justification for their abortion rulings.

I find it interesting that you think fathers should have a say in abortion. I guess you think men should have a right to require that women be prepared to die so that the fetus gets to be born?

To me this kind of thinking seems a throwback to the times when a woman was considered the property of her husband.

IMO men should get a say in abortion when they are the ones pregnant.