Anybody out there "pro-choice"?

[royal_archer]

She doesn’t think the fetus is a person yet.

So what type of fetus does she think it is, a turkey?

If a woman does not understand that she is pregnant and what it means to be pregnant, she isnot in a state to consent to an abortion.

 

[WillieWonka]

So what type of fetus does she think it is, a turkey?

If a woman does not understand that she is pregnant and what it means to be pregnant, she isnot in a state to consent to an abortion.

She thinks it is of the human species, but it has not yet attained the level of being a person.

 

[ryecroft]

I don’t really see anything going on here but going around in circles. Some of you (many of you Catholics) believe that any type of pregnancy in a woman means she is carrying a baby from the second it is conceived - others (also many Catholics) do not believe that just because a woman is pregnant that she carries a baby - they believe that it is something that has the potential to become a human baby. I do not see one side convincing the other side to change their minds or beliefs - it doesn’t matter how long its argued people believe what they believe and it is beyond unlikely that any of you will change the mind of the other. I can’t believe this thread has gone on this long. Sometimes you just have to agree to disagree and move on to the next topic.

God Bless
Ryecroft

 

[royal_archer]

She thinks it is of the human species, but it has not yet attained the level of being a person.

I guess it is possible that someone is ignorant of the situation. This is where education needs to come in so the woman can have informed consent to the murder.

How about a law that on the paper work for a woman to get an abortion there is a read and innitial line that says something to the effect: I understand that I am pregnant with a human being and I am making a concious decision to have that person killed and I take full responsibility for this decision.

 

[Oreoracle]

If that’s true, then there should be dozens and dozens of other contradictions. Mind pointing them out?

This particular contradiction is sufficient for the discussion. We’re straying far enough from the topic as it is.

and that the one who dies is not a means to an end.

So are you telling me that killing someone is not a means to an end, or are you saying that killing does not include a person as a victim? If a person is what is being killed and it is done to achieve a goal, you’re wrong, as logic dictates (even if the Church does not-- the Church doesn’t trump logic).

What you quote from, you have to interpret to mean what you want it to mean. You can’t pull out one paragraph and use it as an absolute. You have to look at it in relation with the rest of the Catechism.

As I did. I pulled a passage, compared it to yours, and noted a contradiction, which is present whether you choose to acknowledge it or not.

You can’t take the Constitution, look at one Ammendment and take it for what it is, then pull out one of the ‘except for’ or ‘only if’ clauses and then say the Constitution contradicts itself. You have to look at it in its entirety.

If a document states that something can never be, and then states that it can be in another section, it contradicts itself. I know that people love to overlook the obvious flaws of the Catechism and the Constitution (the Constitution is vague enough to justify anything and the Catechism is extensive enough to justify anything), but you must realize that you don’t seem to dole out this priviledge in other cases. If I said that two always equals two and later said that two can sometimes equal three, you’d be quick to correct me.

 

[WillieWonka]

I guess it is possible that someone is ignorant of the situation. This is where education needs to come in so the woman can have informed consent to the murder.

How about a law that on the paper work for a woman to get an abortion there is a read and innitial line that says something to the effect: I understand that I am pregnant with a human being and I am making a concious decision to have that person killed and I take full responsibility for this decision.

1. It is quite possible she is very well informed and does not consider the fetus to be a person. In that case she would not be guilty of murder since the requisite conditions for murder are not present.
2. Someone who did not consider the fetus a person would not sign a statement saying it is a peron…

 

[ryecroft]

Originally Posted by royal archer
I guess it is possible that someone is ignorant of the situation. This is where education needs to come in so the woman can have informed consent to the murder.

How about a law that on the paper work for a woman to get an abortion there is a read and innitial line that says something to the effect: I understand that I am pregnant with a human being and I am making a concious decision to have that person killed and I take full responsibility for this decision.

In my humble opinion, this wouldn’t work because much of the world believes the statement you would like signed to be YOUR OPINION. I believe you’re aware of this and I’m not trying to get some debate about what you or anyone else considers to be “truth” - because I’m sure you believe that your statement about the abortion being the killing of a person is what you truly believe to be a “absolute” truth - which is fine and your right to believe but at the same time the woman who wants this abortion truly believes that your “absolute truth” is just your opinion and she believes that the fetus she carries is not a person but just a jumble of cells and she believes this truth to be the “absolute” truth. But when we put it in this context someone standing back from the situation might say that both “truths” are relative to the person or indeed just an opinion. Truly if everyone believed that what you see as “truth” was the absolute truth then there wouldn 't be much debate left.
What I believe it comes down to is that pro choice people believe that the pro lifers are attempting to force their beliefs and way of life on them amd until those beliefs are changed it won’t matter if abortion is legal or illegal - it will continue one way or the other - and if we go back to unqualified people giving abortions there will be more than just fetuses dying unnecessarily.
Also if abortion is completely made illegal then women who have had problems before may become less likely to try again due to the knowledge that if their life was in danger that the doctor would not be able to necessarily save it if it involved terminating the pregnancy regardless of the age of the fetus. I don’t believe we should ever call for ALL abortions to be illegal - the Church may say that it’s black and white and that there is never a reason for it but I know there are times when it is necessary to save a mother’s life.
God Bless
Rye

 

[Eddie_Mac]

1. It is quite possible she is very well informed and does not consider the fetus to be a person. In that case she would not be guilty of murder since the requisite conditions for murder are not present.
2. Someone who did not consider the fetus a person would not sign a statement saying it is a peron…

This is so far beyond human reason that it is ridiculous and any sane individual would not truly believe this.

 

[SteveGC]

So, the principal doesn’t think the target is a human, the Catholic Church does, therefore the principal is guilty of murder?

Suppose the principal never heard of the Catholic Church, has no idea what it says, or simply sees it as another religion among many? Remember, there are a one billion Catholics in a world population of nearly seven billion.

Isn’t it ncessary to fully understand the action and its gravity before guilt can be assigned?

I see where you’re coming from, WW.

Here’s the deal.

Whether any of us believe it or not, a person fully deserving of the right to life comes into existence at the instant of conception, and the sanctity of their life remains with them until they breath their last. This means that God desires that no other human deliberately terminate that life, as it is a grave insult to Him, constituting a grave (mortal) sin. As is also being discussed on here, there are rare circumstances wherein striking a lethal blow to another may be permissible…but very stringent criteria must be met…primarily dealing with self-defense and life preservation intentions directly related to oppose another who possesses the clear, unprovoked intent to take a persons life.

Those who do so will be held accountable before God based on the level of knowledge of the sinful nature of that act, the level of freedom of their own consent to commit the act, and their deliberate intent to do so in the face of this knowledge and consent. Any given murder will have varying degrees of these three elements, and God will judge them based on their specific relationship to those elements. This is true not only of murder, but collectively of each and every sin we commit in our lives.

As for the mother who doesn’t believe the fetus is indeed a person, and has it aborted? I would speculate that the first and third elements, and even in rare cases the second, would give them some reprieve. But God also judges us according to our capacity and willingness to cooperate and behave in harmony with the inherent good nature with which we were created. In other words, I would imagine that it is plausible that most humans “should” instinctively be capable of discerning the fact that a human person exists within a woman at the moment of conception. This capability is not based on intelligence or logic per se…but rather on the inherent goodness written on their heart by God. So, even if they have never been exposed to proper teaching on the fact that life begins at conception, they may plausibly be held accountable for what they inherently “know”, and refuse to behave in accord with.

The Church simply reflects what God decrees. So it’s not the Church that condemns or judges a person in their sin…it is God who does this. The Church simply teaches us what I have just told you above. A person certainly is free to behave and believe what they will. The Church gives guidance on what beliefs and behaviors (called faith and morals) are in accord with God’s will…and which ones are not.

 

[Eddie_Mac]

Sometimes you just have to agree to disagree and move on to the next topic.

God Bless
Ryecroft

Agree to disagree while babies continue to die every second.

The only next topic you move on to is the next baby to abort.

Eddie Mac

 

[royal_archer]

1. It is quite possible she is very well informed and does not consider the fetus to be a person. In that case she would not be guilty of murder since the requisite conditions for murder are not present.
2. Someone who did not consider the fetus a person would not sign a statement saying it is a peron…

Scientifically it is a person. dennying him or her person hood as rationale to kill is no better than what was done by the nazis or any other hate group that denies the personhood of a group of people. Just because Arab terrorists do not consider Jews to be human does not mean that the killing of those Jews is not murder.

If someone is not capable of understanding what they are doing when committing an abortion, they should not be allowed to do it.

 

[WillieWonka]

This is so far beyond human reason that it is ridiculous and any sane individual would not truly believe this.

It’s a very common belief among many people who are very well informed.

Note the Catholic Church does not say with certainty when the fetus is united with a soul. I think a soul is necessary under Catholic teaching for a person to exist. So, if the Church is not certain, I hardly think it’s reasonable to say the notion the fetus is not a person is so ridiculous any sane person would reject it.

 

[limerick]

"This capability is not based on intelligence or logic per se…but rather on the inherent goodness written on their heart by God."

**Where does this come from, and why are 98% of the posters on this forum convinced that this is true? I mean when the phrase “the inherent goodness written on their heart by God” is used within any context. I have an intense aversion to this concept as I understand it. What does “goodness written on the heart” really mean?

Limerick **

 

[WillieWonka]

Scientifically it is a person. dennying him or her person hood as rationale to kill is no better than what was done by the nazis or any other hate group that denies the personhood of a group of people. Just because Arab terrorists do not consider Jews to be human does not mean that the killing of those Jews is not murder.

If someone is not capable of understanding what they are doing when committing an abortion, they should not be allowed to do it.

Science does not deal with the person. The Catholic Church says it is beyond the competence of science to deal with the immortal soul*. Since a soul is necessary for a person to exist, we can rule science out of determining personhood.

Science tells us nothing more about humans than it tells us about animals. It has no way of observing and testing personhood. Person is a legal, philosophical, and religious idea.

Your notions of the personhood of a fetus are your personal opinions. You are certainly entitled to them, but others hold opposite opinions with the same sincerity and conviction.

• Paragraph 19 endnotes
  vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19741118_declaration-abortion_en.html

 

[FanChan]

It’s a very common belief among many people who are very well informed.

Note the Catholic Church does not say with certainty when the fetus is united with a soul. I think a soul is necessary under Catholic teaching for a person to exist. So, if the Church is not certain, I hardly think it’s reasonable to say the notion the fetus is not a person is so ridiculous any sane person would reject it.

Could you cite where that uncertainty is? I know it was in debate during the early church of just when a fetus was united with a soul, but I’m not entirely sure that’s the case today.

Either way, the Church has always taught that from the moment of conception, the baby is a person and deserves protection until natural death.

 

[limerick]

royal archer:

“If someone is not capable of understanding what they are doing when committing an abortion, they should not be allowed to do it.”

**Finally. At least educated, literate women should be allowed to have abortions.

Limerick **

 

[WillieWonka]

Could you cite where that uncertainty is? I know it was in debate during the early church of just when a fetus was united with a soul, but I’m not entirely sure that’s the case today.

Either way, the Church has always taught that from the moment of conception, the baby is a person and deserves protection until natural death.

This was hashed out at length earlier in this thread or a parallel one. Para 19 is in the end notes of the document. It packs an awful lot into oneparagraph.

“19. This declaration expressly leaves aside the question of the moment when the spiritual soul is infused. There is not a unanimous tradition on this point and authors are as yet in disagreement. For some it dates from the first instant; for others it could not at least precede nidation. It is not within the competence of science to decide between these views, because the existence of an immortal soul is not a question in its field. It is a philosophical problem from which our moral affirmation remains independent for two reasons: (1) supposing a belated animation, there is still nothing less than a human life, preparing for and calling for a soul in which the nature received from parents is completed, (2) on the other hand, **it suffices that this presence of the soul be probable **(and one can never prove the contrary) in order that the taking of life involve accepting the risk of killing a man, not only waiting for, but already in possession of his soul.”

“The Supreme Pontiff Pope Paul VI, in an audience granted to the undersigned Secretary of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on June 28, 1974, has ratified this Declaration on Procured Abortion and has confirmed it and ordered it to be promulgated.”

DECLARATION ON PROCURED ABORTION
SACRED CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19741118_declaration-abortion_en.html

 

[St_Francis]

"This capability is not based on intelligence or logic per se…but rather on the inherent goodness written on their heart by God."

**Where does this come from, and why are 98% of the posters on this forum convinced that this is true? I mean when the phrase “the inherent goodness written on their heart by God” is used within any context. I have an intense aversion to this concept as I understand it. What does “goodness written on the heart” really mean?

Limerick **

We live in a fallen world–we are not “perfect.”

Consider that there is certain information written which God wrote on our hearts, as it says in the Bible. In order to fully be able to use that information, we have to learn to use the sense which allows us to perceive that information, our conscience.

Consider it like a physical sense, say that of sight. One thing that really amazed me when my oldest was very little was that she spent some time checking out patterns on material. She felt them with her fingers. She *saw *variations, and she *felt *that they were inherent in the material. She had to learn that just because she saw a variation didn’t mean that there existed some difference, that the item could be smooth. And children go through a lot of that.

Consider too, that a person who is born blind but whose sight is restored at a much later age, say as an adult, has to “learn” to see. He has to learn about perspective so that he can pick up a glass. The same thing happens to me when I get new glasses: they say my eyes have to adjust to the new glasses, but this is a process of my learning to see with the new glasses.

In the same way, we have to learn how to use our consciences. Those of us who are lucky have parents and others around us who help us learn this. They say things like, That’s wrong; how would you feel if…; etc.

Sadly, some of us do not have as much help, and that causes some to have badly formed consciences. Sin also clouds the conscience, just as doing something dangerous with one’s eyes like staring at the sun clouds our ability to see.

I have used the sense of sight to illustrate this, but one might object to the imperfection of this analogy. I used sight because it is commonly understood. The imperfection in the analogy can be answered with the idea that grammars are written in our minds, but this is a less-known and less-understood phenomenon. However, facts like that a pidgin language becomes a true language when the children learn and use it at a very young age and impose grammar on it, and various grammatical features are always linked, show that we are born with a sort of reservoir of grammar. So we are born with morality “written on our hearts.”

For when the Gentiles, who have not the law, do by nature those things that are of the law; these having not the law are a law to themselves: Who shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness to them, and their thoughts between themselves accusing, or also defending one another,

 

[SteveGC]

"This capability is not based on intelligence or logic per se…but rather on the inherent goodness written on their heart by God."

**Where does this come from, and why are 98% of the posters on this forum convinced that this is true? I mean when the phrase “the inherent goodness written on their heart by God” is used within any context. I have an intense aversion to this concept as I understand it. What does “goodness written on the heart” really mean?

Limerick **

Hi L

it essentially means that God’s moral laws are inherently available to the intellect and conscience of all humans, presumably perceived by us proportionately with our natural growth as human beings. It doesn’t mean, however, that all humans have the same capacity to perceive these proper morals of God.

There are indeed varying limitations placed on our consciences throughout our lives, primarily in the form of exposure to various evils. In short, wickedness or iniquities we encounter in our lives from others(abuse, neglect, etc) or from ourselves (lust, greed, etc) as we give in to temptations, which serve to alter our inherited knowledge of good and evil. IOW, often our inherent knowledge of good can be replaced with ignorance of good. It doesn’t mean we become evil. Rather, our capacity to understand (and do) the will of God, becomes limited.

 

[St_Francis]

1. It is quite possible she is very well informed and does not consider the fetus to be a person. In that case she would not be guilty of murder since the requisite conditions for murder are not present. …

Actually, this is not strictly speaking true.

From a legal standpoint there is the idea of reckless endangerment. If I am hunting and do not take the time to make sure that that’s a deer and not a human being then I am liable for murder charges. One should rather lose the deer than to risk a human life if there is any question.

It seems to me that those who argue against the humanity of the unborn child are committing a sort of deliberate act of reckless endangerment. Rather than say, well, we should wait to see if science backs me up before allowing abortion, they propose allowing abortion on their very flimsy definition.