Anybody out there "pro-choice"?

  • Thread starter Thread starter NCSue
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
elts1956 said:
But no matter which mode we use for “education”, we still “intervene”.
Click to expand...
**I have writtten many times on this forum about the responsibility of the parents to educate, so there is no “intervention” there. And anyone else who has asked for assistance or elucidation on the matters of sex and sexuality have opened the door with their request. There is no intervention here, either.

Limerick**
 
royal_archer said:
In the secular sense people are people with or with out the existence of a soul. This thread is about the “pro choice” movement which is a secular legal matter, not a moral one.

Whether someone has a soul, has been converted, is saved, has received the holy spirit or not is irrelevant.

Even if they don’t have any rythm they are still a human being. 😃

Instead of attacking the peripheral supplemental rationale, if you would like to defend the killing of babies, then state your case as to why you feel it is OK to kill them.

On the other hand I am starting to theorize that you know and agree that abortion is wrong but are just having fun in the challenge of trying to poke holes in the logic.
Click to expand...
Well, does a human being have a soul or not?
 
elts1956 said:
As I said above, I believe ensoulment happens at conception. Without a life force/soul. there is no life. Soul/life force, whatever you choose to call it, cannot be explained unless you believe it is given to all living things by God, their creator. Lower species also have a life force which cannot be explained in human terms.
Click to expand...
That’s an acceptable opinion under Church teaching. But they also acknowledge belated ensoulment may be the case. So, I’m asking about what we have before belated ensoulment.
 
Anybody out there pro-choice?

Didn’t 54% of the Catholic electorate vote the pro-choice position in the last election? Let’s not kid ourselves…

Are you familiar with Prof Robert George? Have you seen him debate Doug Kmiec, Obama’s chief apologist and enabler in the Church?

It’s all here:

payingattentiontothesky.com/2009/07/06/the-intellectual-chops-communication-skills-charisma-and-savvy/

It’s a lengthy piece but feel free to copy and paste from it and get the message out.

Regards

dj
 
WillieWonka said:
That’s an acceptable opinion under Church teaching. But they also acknowledge belated ensoulment may be the case. So, I’m asking about what we have before belated ensoulment.
Click to expand...
We don’t know at what stage ensoulment takes place.

However, whenever this happens, what we are sure of is that we are created by God “in his image”. Hence, we are part of God’s plan and we should help to further the plan God has made rather than hinder it. Just imagine if Mary had said; “I want an abortion. This foetus is too young to be ensouled yet”.

Ensoulment is a difficult issue and may lead us from the fact that God created us;
 
libbybeth said:
We don’t know at what stage ensoulment takes place.

However, whenever this happens, what we are sure of is that we are created by God “in his image”. Hence, we are part of God’s plan and we should help to further the plan God has made rather than hinder it. Just imagine if Mary had said; “I want an abortion. This foetus is too young to be ensouled yet”.

Ensoulment is a difficult issue and may lead us from the fact that God created us;
Click to expand...
You’re in good company. The Sacred Congregation agrees. They don’t know when ensoulment happens either.
 
fix said:
Can you prove who does not have a soul? If you cannot would you kill that person?
Click to expand...
I can prove nothing about the soul. Can you? But the Sacred Congregation allows for the possibility of belated ensoulment. If one thinks a soul is necessary for a human being, I would suggest a fetus lacking a soul is not a human being.
 
WillieWonka said:
I can prove nothing about the soul. Can you? But the Sacred Congregation allows for the possibility of belated ensoulment. If one thinks a soul is necessary for a human being, I would suggest a fetus lacking a soul is not a human being.
Click to expand...
I assume all living humans have a soul. I am gald you admit you cannot prove there is no soul. Should humans who cannot know for sure when the soul enters be protected by the law?

I mean perhaps the soul does not enter until you graduate from college? Who gets protection and who does not?
 
fix said:
I assume all living humans have a soul. I am gald you admit you cannot prove there is no soul. Should humans who cannot know for sure when the soul enters be protected by the law?

I mean perhaps the soul does not enter until you graduate from college? Who gets protection and who does not?
Click to expand...
That’s an opinion and assumption allowable under what the Sacred Congregation said. However, I am asking about belated ensoulment. This means the fetus exists for some time prior to being united with a soul. In that period, lacking a soul, is it a human being?

If college freshmen have no soul, are they human beings? Interesting thought experiment. Applying the Church teaching that a human being has a soul, I’d have to say they would not be human beings.
 
fix said:
Can you prove who does not have a soul? If you cannot would you kill that person?
Click to expand...
All that is human and created by God has a soul. The problem would enter into man creating clones etc. Would they have a soul. I would like to think that the cell is God created so the clone resulting from a part of a cell must be human. If one keeps everything as ordered as God does.

I have no idea just batting around a thought.🤷
 
CMP2 said:
All that is human and created by God has a soul. The problem would enter into man creating clones etc. Would they have a soul. I would like to think that the cell is God created so the clone resulting from a part of a cell must be human. If one keeps everything as ordered as God does.

I have no idea just batting around a thought.🤷
Click to expand...
Here’s similar idea to bat. The skin cell is human, too. If it could be implanted in a womb, coaxed into dividing, growing, and expressing its DNA, would it have a soul? When would it have one? And because of its DNA it wouldn’t be unique. What would it be before it had a soul? What would it be when I form the intention to coax it into becoming a fetus?
 
40.png
elts1956:
There are moral reasons to be against abortion and their are secular reasons. You can not pass a law in the United States for the sole reason of enforcing morality (go to church, etc) Laws can only be rightfuly passe if necesary for secular reasons. The self proclaimed “pro choice” movement is not trying to address the morality of abortion, they are trying to address the secular legality of abortion. Discussions of morality are not admissible as rationale for ending abortions. The rationale has to be sufficient based on secular issues other wise it would violate the 1st ammendment. Ensoulment is a moral and religious issue.

Because of this I addressed rationale for banning abortions that was sufficent with out having to rely on moral implications. The other poster keeps trying to bring in an issue where there is still debate on the exact point of ensoulment and is trying to use that as reason to undermine my arguement. However my arguement is not dependent on that rationale. And therefore his challenge to solidity of that rationale is irrelevant to my case.

Please don’t think that I feel babies don’t have souls at conception or that I do not feel it is important. It is just a matter that is out of the scope of my rationale for correcting the laws.
 
WillieWonka said:
I can prove nothing about the soul. Can you? But the Sacred Congregation allows for the possibility of belated ensoulment. If one thinks a soul is necessary for a human being, I would suggest a fetus lacking a soul is not a human being.
Click to expand...
Sort of like the theory of the firing squad blank? For you younger members, in the old days, firing sqads would sometimes have one rifle with a blank. no one knew which rifle it was so all members of the firing squad would be able to think there was a chance they didn’t really participate in the killing. The fact is they all aimed and pulled the trigger. This concept of maybe there is a chance the baby didn’t have a soul yet and therefore it is OK to murder it is a very poor rationalization.
 
WillieWonka said:
Here’s similar idea to bat. The skin cell is human, too. If it could be implanted in a womb, coaxed into dividing, growing, and expressing its DNA, would it have a soul? When would it have one? And because of its DNA it wouldn’t be unique. What would it be before it had a soul? What would it be when I form the intention to coax it into becoming a fetus?
Click to expand...
except skin cells are part of humans they are not complete humans.
 
royal_archer said:
There are moral reasons to be against abortion and their are secular reasons. You can not pass a law in the United States for the sole reason of enforcing morality (go to church, etc) Laws can only be rightfuly passe if necesary for secular reasons. The self proclaimed “pro choice” movement is not trying to address the morality of abortion, they are trying to address the secular legality of abortion. Discussions of morality are not admissible as rationale for ending abortions. The rationale has to be sufficient based on secular issues other wise it would violate the 1st ammendment. Ensoulment is a moral and religious issue.

Because of this I addressed rationale for banning abortions that was sufficent with out having to rely on moral implications. The other poster keeps trying to bring in an issue where there is still debate on the exact point of ensoulment and is trying to use that as reason to undermine my arguement. However my arguement is not dependent on that rationale. And therefore his challenge to solidity of that rationale is irrelevant to my case.

Please don’t think that I feel babies don’t have souls at conception or that I do not feel it is important. It is just a matter that is out of the scope of my rationale for correcting the laws.
Click to expand...
In discussing legislation or proposed legislation, morality is obviously allowed. There is no standard of admission. Look at the current discussion of torture. People are standing up and saying, “Its just wrong.” People have said legalized abortion is wrong for thirty-six years. They have agitated for legislation and Constitutional amendments using morality as a justification.

Saying something is wrong has nothing to do with the First Amendment. What stops a legislator from saying a law should be passed because “it’s the right thing to do?” Nothing. He can say whatever he wants. What stops editorial writers from saying the same thing? Nothing. What stops 64 million Catholics from vocally supporting or opposing legislation on moral grounds? Nothing. We can all say anything we want in support or opposition to legislation.

Is there one single example of someone being stopped from saying anything about legislation in the US? Congressmen are even exempt from prosecution for anything they say on the floor of the Congress. Every session of Congress opens with a prayer.

Does a human being have a soul?
 
royal_archer said:
Sort of like the theory of the firing squad blank? For you younger members, in the old days, firing sqads would sometimes have one rifle with a blank. no one knew which rifle it was so all members of the firing squad would be able to think there was a chance they didn’t really participate in the killing. The fact is they all aimed and pulled the trigger. This concept of maybe there is a chance the baby didn’t have a soul yet and therefore it is OK to murder it is a very poor rationalization.
Click to expand...
The Sacred Congregation and Pope Paul VI allow for belated ensoulment. Poor rationality?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top