Anybody out there "pro-choice"?

  • Thread starter Thread starter NCSue
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
WillieWonka said:
The assumption that rights are a function of development has to do with the develppment from single cell fertilized egg to birth.
Click to expand...
ARe we talking about development or birth? The two are not the same and children can be born at various stages of development. And if you meant birth, not development why pic such an arbitrary point in time? Why not puberty? Why not when full height is reached? why not a point prior to birth?
 
royal_archer said:
ARe we talking about development or birth? The two are not the same and children can be born at various stages of development. And if you meant birth, not development why pic such an arbitrary point in time? Why not puberty? Why not when full height is reached? why not a point prior to birth?
Click to expand...
Develpment to birth. At birth almost everyone agrees on rights.

Why not puberty or full height? Because it’s an assumption. Each side can assume anything it wants.
 
WillieWonka said:
Develpment to birth. At birth almost everyone agrees on rights.

Why not puberty or full height? Because it’s an assumption. Each side can assume anything it wants.
Click to expand...
but babies are born adt a wide range of development points. Right now people advocate murdering babies well after they are developed past the point they could be born. Some like Obama advocate the option to kill babies during child birth.

So wouldn’t you agree that it is right to protect the rights of a child who is developed enough to be born regardless of whether the mother is in labor or not?
 
royal_archer said:
but babies are born adt a wide range of development points. Right now people advocate murdering babies well after they are developed past the point they could be born. Some like Obama advocate the option to kill babies during child birth.

So wouldn’t you agree that it is right to protect the rights of a child who is developed enough to be born regardless of whether the mother is in labor or not?
Click to expand...
Murder is always wrong and uncceptable by definition.
 
FanChan said:
But when is it murder, and who gets to decide that?
Click to expand...
According to the constitution that right is reserved to the states. Unfortunately a hand full of Supreme court justices decided to ignore the process of law and made up a rulling that in effect has stopped the state and local governments from enforcing those laws.
 
FanChan said:
Huh?
Click to expand...
Royal asked about rights after saying people were advocating murder.

I responded that murder is always wrong.

You asked who decided it was murder.

I responded that Royal made that a premise of his question.
 
WillieWonka said:
Royal asked about rights after saying people were advocating murder.

I responded that murder is always wrong.

You asked who decided it was murder.

I responded that Royal made that a premise of his question.
Click to expand...
Ah. You misunderstood my question. When, in the life of a person, is the killing of that person considered murder, and who makes that decision?
 
WillieWonka said:
I am not aware of anyone who has advocated murder.
Click to expand...
Anyone who advocates for abortion advocates murder. But there are those who will never accept nor humble themselves enough to see that a fertilized egg is a human being.

They have their president; you have to wonder why they are not happier.
 
FanChan said:
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.
Click to expand...
It would seem that self-defense, given homicide rates, has an awful lot to do with community living. 🤷

You simply fail to apply the rule and see its full implications. If my goal is to prevent harm to myself, and killing someone is the means of achieving that, they are effectively part of the means. The sequence is to be considered unjust, since it is an admirable end with evil means. Ends don’t mean squat in deontological systems.
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?
Click to expand...
Uh, gee, I don’t know…It contradicts itself? Are you really surprised? Any ethical system that has even 2 absolute rules will find times that it contradicts itself…yours has over 2000…
 
Oreoracle said:
It would seem that self-defense, given homicide rates, has an awful lot to do with community living. 🤷

You simply fail to apply the rule and see its full implications. If my goal is to prevent harm to myself, and killing someone is the means of achieving that, they are effectively part of the means. The sequence is to be considered unjust, since it is an admirable end with evil means. Ends don’t mean squat in deontological systems.

Uh, gee, I don’t know…It contradicts itself? Are you really surprised? Any ethical system that has even 2 absolute rules will find times that it contradicts itself…yours has over 2000…
Click to expand...
If that’s true, then there should be dozens and dozens of other contradictions. Mind pointing them out?

Let me quote from what I did before once again, and show you how the Church does NOT view the person killed in self defense part of the means:

2263 …“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.”

2264 …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 uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful.”

2265 Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others…

This speaks plainly, that to kill someone in self defense (be it on an individual basis or by one society in defense of the common good) is NOT murder, and that the one who dies is not a means to an end. 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.

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.
 
To add to that, I would emphasize that the distinction lies in the intent, or motivation, of the one “striking the blow”. In a just war, the motivation and intent is to preserve good, **to preserve life **by protecting it from those who actively seek to end life. In self-defense against an attacker with a lethal weapon, the motivation and intent is to preserve one’s own life. As soon as the intent and motivation becomes the termination of the lives of others who do not pose a clear, active threat to life in this manner, a war or self-defense becomes unjust, and condemnable. Captial punishment, therefore, is rarely seen by the Church as appropriate…it is predominantly condemned in most instances.

In abortion, the motivation and intent is to end the life of the child within the mother, a child who does not pose a deliberate intent himself to end anyone else’s life. Thus, it is always condemnable.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top