Anybody out there "pro-choice"?

[CMP2]

Really? Seems like you do it all the time.

Fan Chan: You have never ‘beaten around the bush’, nor has anyone else but L. It seems that when challenged nothing like a straight answer is forthcoming from that end.

There are many to constuctively dialogue with. I have enjoyed the feedback from Fan Chan, and the rest. L. is another matter. Just rhetoric and challenge. Not reasonable challenge that stimulates dialogue but a merry go round of confusion and bitterness.

All have attempted to be charitable and helpful. It would have been nice to see that she appreciates the time that many have taken to ‘help’ with time spent in sending good solid resources and suggestions. Just once to say thank you, for trying and caring. Instead sarcasm, antagonistic and biting comments have issued forth.

I will finish by letting God speak, I suggest we continue to do so from now on. Maybe something He says will help. I know that nothing I have said has.

A few quotes: “Woe to the rebellious children, says the Lord,
Who carry out plans that are not mine,
who weave webs that are not inspired by me,
**adding sin upon sin.” ** Isaiah 30:1-4

“We know that we belong to God, and the whole world is under the power of the evil one. We also know that the Son of God has come and has given us discernment to know the one who is true. And we are in the one who is true, in his Son Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life. Children be on your guard against idols.” 1John:19-21

“My brothers, if anyone among you should stray from the truth and someone bring him back, he should know that whoever brings back a sinner from the error of his way will save his soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins.” James 5:19-20

“The message of the Cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.” 1 Cor.:18"

Taking a child and putting His arms around it He said to them, “Whoever receives one child such as this in my name, receives me…” Mark9:37

And finally: “Whoever will not receive you or listen to your words-go outside that house or town and shake the dust from your feet. Amen, I say to you, it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgement than for that town.” Matthew19:14-16

In the Name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Amen+

 

[Oreoracle]

No. FanChan didn’t say that the inherent value is dependent on innocence. But “innocent” is a descriptor used to emphasize defenseless humans, perhaps somewhat as an appeal to human emotion to protect it…

This is the case, I’m sure.

But there are rare circumstances, such as the self-defence against another intending to use lethal force, in which the taking of life is not similarly condemned. That area certainly isn’t black and white.

To the Church, however, it is black and white-- “I should not kill (humans)” is held as a moral absolute (meaning that it is true in all cases). This is because the Church believes humans have inherent value, and inherent value cannot be removed, mitigated, or disrespected in any way, no matter how dangerous the person is. In short, we cannot kill one to save many.

If, say, that person you ran over had had a gun out and was trying to shoot someone, he is no longer an ‘innocent bystander’, and you had culpable reason to do what you did. Granted, your actions would still be subject to trial, but it’s far from the same thing as gunning down someone who was just minding their own business.

The crime is not mitigated in the Church’s eyes, as I said above.

 

[FanChan]

To the Church, however, it is black and white-- “I should not kill (humans)” is held as a moral absolute (meaning that it is true in all cases). This is because the Church believes humans have inherent value, and inherent value cannot be removed, mitigated, or disrespected in any way, no matter how dangerous the person is. In short, we cannot kill one to save many.

The crime is not mitigated in the Church’s eyes, as I said above.

You’re wrong, actually. From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

2263
Legitimate Defense

The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. “The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one’s own life; and the killing of the aggressor…The one is intended, the other is not.” (St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae II-II, 64, 7)

2264
Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on repspect for one’s own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow:

“If a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repels force with moderation, his defence will be lawful…Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one’s own life than of another’s.” (Aquinas, same as above).

2265
Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.

2267
Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibilty have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.

2308, under Avoiding War
…However, “as long as the danger of war persists and there is no international authority with the necessary competence and power, governments cannot be denied the right of lawful self-defense, once all peace efforts have failed.” (Gaudium et Spes, 79)

As you can see, the Church does not dismiss the fact that there are times in which the taking of another’s life is absolutely necessary.

 

[limerick]

Fan Chan: You have never ‘beaten around the bush’, nor has anyone else but L. It seems that when challenged nothing like a straight answer is forthcoming from that end.

There are many to constuctively dialogue with. I have enjoyed the feedback from Fan Chan, and the rest. L. is another matter. Just rhetoric and challenge. Not reasonable challenge that stimulates dialogue but a merry go round of confusion and bitterness.

All have attempted to be charitable and helpful. It would have been nice to see that she appreciates the time that many have taken to ‘help’ with time spent in sending good solid resources and suggestions. Just once to say thank you, for trying and caring. Instead sarcasm, antagonistic and biting comments have issued forth.

I will finish by letting God speak, I suggest we continue to do so from now on. Maybe something He says will help. I know that nothing I have said has.

A few quotes: “Woe to the rebellious children, says the Lord,
Who carry out plans that are not mine,
who weave webs that are not inspired by me,
**adding sin upon sin.” ** Isaiah 30:1-4

“We know that we belong to God, and the whole world is under the power of the evil one. We also know that the Son of God has come and has given us discernment to know the one who is true. And we are in the one who is true, in his Son Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life. Children be on your guard against idols.” 1John:19-21

“My brothers, if anyone among you should stray from the truth and someone bring him back, he should know that whoever brings back a sinner from the error of his way will save his soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins.” James 5:19-20

“The message of the Cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.” 1 Cor.:18"

Taking a child and putting His arms around it He said to them, “Whoever receives one child such as this in my name, receives me…” Mark9:37

And finally: “Whoever will not receive you or listen to your words-go outside that house or town and shake the dust from your feet. Amen, I say to you, it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgement than for that town.” Matthew19:14-16

In the Name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Amen+

**No one has forced you to sit down at your computer and hammer out responses to my posts. If you find it frustrating or painful, just put me on Ignore. That should remove the burrs from under your saddle and you can live happy, happy, happy.

Limerick**

 

[FanChan]

**No one has forced you to sit down at your computer and hammer out responses to my posts. If you find it frustrating or painful, just put me on Ignore. That should remove the burrs from under your saddle and you can live happy, happy, happy.

Limerick**

Hey, look, another sarcastic and snide remark! No, we can never expect anything more from her at this point. Even when we are civil and kind in our remarks, she is unable to respond in kind.

But hey, I won’t put her on ignore. Who knows if she’ll make a remark that deserves a response - not for her, but for anyone else who stumbles upon this thread and reads it.

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

Hey, look, another sarcastic and snide remark! No, we can never expect anything more from her at this point. Even when we are civil and kind in our remarks, she is unable to respond in kind.

But hey, I won’t put her on ignore. Who knows if she’ll make a remark that deserves a response - not for her, but for anyone else who stumbles upon this thread and reads it.

 

[Eddie_Mac]

Free will has not been bestowed upon us to allow us to choose only sin or to choose only obedience. Free will is in place to allow us to choose. **Only in this way do we become architects of our afterlife. Otherwise, “free” will is a misnomer.

Limerick**

Architect?

Interesting choice of a word.

Exactly what kind of afterlife are you constructing using your free will?

Eddie Mac

 

[Oreoracle]

You’re wrong, actually. From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

Alright, then. However, the Catholic apologists I’ve read insist that Catholic ethics are deontological (based on moral absolutes that do not heed the ends of actions). I’m no apologist, but I think I found a part of the Catechism which rejects heeding ends (and thus disapproves of killing no matter what results are yielded):

"1887 The inversion of means and ends, which results in giving the value of ultimate end to what is only a means for attaining it, or in viewing persons as mere means to that end, engenders unjust structures which “make Christian conduct in keeping with the commandments of the divine Law-giver difficult and almost impossible.”

According to Catholicism, God says it’s wrong to kill, not “It’s wrong to kill unless…”

In short, you either follow a rule all of the time or you don’t. You can’t have your cake and eat it too.

 

[royal_archer]

No. You have to convince government that protection extends to the single cell fertilized egg.

Why did you reference size? Does body mass relate to a person’s right to live?

 

[royal_archer]

“will continue to run this conversation around in circles.”

Royal Archer: You hit the nail on the head here. This is the point I tried to make ages ago. That the rather simple technique of keeping it all very confusing and muddled offers distraction to those who are truly seeking answers. L. is not. She knows it all and does not need ours. Period.

There is a mindset that believes you should keep putting bogus arguements in slightly refreshed packaging and keep changing the topic slowly till you wear out the other side then declare victory. There are others who come into these discussions late and do not read the hundreds of proceding comments. As such when ever they lay out a bogus arguement someone needs to call them on it.

 

[royal_archer]

Not only that, but a more “liberal” solution to the problem of abortion would be harder for the generally pro-abortion Democrats to pass up. It’s easy for politicians to write off “ban” legislation. Also if the “pro-life” Republicans would be less anti-choice and more pro-life, we might actually get something done with both sides of the isle.

I don’t think that abortion is ever OK nor should it be tolerated, but if all pro-lifers do is complain and rally for an abortion embargo, a) there would be an increase in illegal abortions and the advent of the “safe and legal” argument, b) nothing would happen.
Prayer always works though (and lots of it!)

This thread went down that road several hundred posts ago. There was significant support of the concept of incremental enforecement. The biggest drawback is the fear it may provide the impression that we feel any abortion is ok.

 

[WillieWonka]

Why did you reference size? Does body mass relate to a person’s right to live?

I reference size because that’s how the government determines where to extend its protection. It is extended today from birth until death, so everything but the fetus is covered. So, the task for the anti-abortion folks is not one of convincing government that the human species needs protection, but convincing it the fetus needs protection. Why worry about the last eighty years when the problem is only with the first nine months?

 

[WillieWonka]

There is a mindset that believes you should keep putting bogus arguements in slightly refreshed packaging and keep changing the topic slowly till you wear out the other side then declare victory. There are others who come into these discussions late and do not read the hundreds of proceding comments. As such when ever they lay out a bogus arguement someone needs to call them on it.

The arguments don’t matter. They can go on forever. The conflict is with the assumptions upon which the arguments are built.

One side assumes the single cell fertilized egg has an absulote right to life.

The other side assumes rights are a function of develpment.

Each side bases its arguments on its own assumptions. Lacking a common assumption, the arguments of each side are guaranteed to fail to convince the other sde.

 

[FanChan]

Alright, then. However, the Catholic apologists I’ve read insist that Catholic ethics are deontological (based on moral absolutes that do not heed the ends of actions). I’m no apologist, but I think I found a part of the Catechism which rejects heeding ends (and thus disapproves of killing no matter what results are yielded):

"1887 The inversion of means and ends, which results in giving the value of ultimate end to what is only a means for attaining it, or in viewing persons as mere means to that end, engenders unjust structures which “make Christian conduct in keeping with the commandments of the divine Law-giver difficult and almost impossible.”

According to Catholicism, God says it’s wrong to kill, not “It’s wrong to kill unless…”

In short, you either follow a rule all of the time or you don’t. You can’t have your cake and eat it too.

The section from which you pulled that paragraph has nothing to do with killing and when it may or may not be just. This section is talking about how to live life in a community, and that you cannot use other people as a means to an end. The action of self-defense or self-preservation do not fall under this.

Are you suggesting that in one tiny paragraph (which doesn’t at all say that killing someone is absolutely wrong in every single possible situation) condemns killing, when a whole different section of the Catechism lists the situations in which it’s acceptable - and even our duty?

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

The arguments don’t matter. They can go on forever. The conflict is with the assumptions upon which the arguments are built.

One side assumes the single cell fertilized egg has an absulote right to life.

The other side assumes rights are a function of develpment.

Each side bases its arguments on its own assumptions. Lacking a common assumption, the arguments of each side are guaranteed to fail to convince the other sde.

It’s no assumption, but fact, that a fertilized egg is a human being. There is no assumption, but fact, that it has a right to live.

And we also do have a right to defend ourselves even unto striking a mortal blow—but this does NOT apply to unborn babies.

 

[royal_archer]

I reference size because that’s how the government determines where to extend its protection. It is extended today from birth until death, so everything but the fetus is covered. So, the task for the anti-abortion folks is not one of convincing government that the human species needs protection, but convincing it the fetus needs protection. Why worry about the last eighty years when the problem is only with the first nine months?

So what species is it if not human?

I am woried about the entire 80 years and 9 months.

 

[royal_archer]

The arguments don’t matter. They can go on forever. The conflict is with the assumptions upon which the arguments are built.

One side assumes the single cell fertilized egg has an absulote right to life.

The other side assumes rights are a function of develpment.

Each side bases its arguments on its own assumptions. Lacking a common assumption, the arguments of each side are guaranteed to fail to convince the other sde.

if the pro abortion side believes that rights are dependent on development should those with downs syndrom have fewer rights than those who do not? should those with tripple digit IQs have more rights than those with only double digit IQs? should it be a more sever crime to kill an adult than to kill a teenager? In all of these cases obviously not. And I don’t envision that you would have many pro abortion people arguing in support of any of those examples. As such the assumption of “rights are a function of develpment” is inherantly flawed.

So I disagree that it is an issue of arguing past each other based on a different set of assumptions. I believe that instead it is a matter of one side not applying assumptions in a logical consistent way.

 

[WillieWonka]

It’s no assumption, but fact, that a fertilized egg is a human being. There is no assumption, but fact, that it has a right to live.

And we also do have a right to defend ourselves even unto striking a mortal blow—but this does NOT apply to unborn babies.

You are stating your assumption.

The opposition says the fertilized egg gains rights as it develops. It says that’s a fact, not an assumption.

Like I said. Since there are no common assumptions, and no reasonto expect the arguments of either side to convince the other.

 

[WillieWonka]

So what species is it if not human?

I am woried about the entire 80 years and 9 months.

Egg, sperm, and fertilized egg are of the human species.

Feel free to agitate for the government to protect the rights of people from birth to death.

 

[WillieWonka]

if the pro abortion side believes that rights are dependent on development should those with downs syndrom have fewer rights than those who do not? should those with tripple digit IQs have more rights than those with only double digit IQs? should it be a more sever crime to kill an adult than to kill a teenager? In all of these cases obviously not. And I don’t envision that you would have many pro abortion people arguing in support of any of those examples. As such the assumption of “rights are a function of develpment” is inherantly flawed.

So I disagree that it is an issue of arguing past each other based on a different set of assumptions. I believe that instead it is a matter of one side not applying assumptions in a logical consistent way.

The assumption that rights are a function of development has to do with the develppment from single cell fertilized egg to birth.