Arguement for Pro life

[ManRay]

Are you sure you aren’t just being hyper sensitive? Semantics aside - I’m glad that you 'know better"…yea that’s not offensive.

To attack is to take aggressive action against someone.

I am instead taking defensive action, for I am simply pointing out - and hopefully not breaking any rules in doing so - that I am disturbed by the tone you have adopted, even in your latest comment by claiming that “it’s clear to you where I was heading”, when the truth is that you have no idea whatsoever of where I was heading, because no creature can read someone else’s mind or know someone else’s intention.

You have elaborated your own definition for that term, which does not match the one I am aware of. A merchant is a businessperson who trades in commodities that were produced by others, in order to earn a profit. A death merchant is, consequently, a businessperson who profits from death. I have not called you this, inasmuch as I do not know you and I ignore whether or not this definition applies to you.

I do not consider it proper to extend this personal exchange any further. However, please be aware of the fact that your remarks, which are still a valuable contribution from the secular standpoint, completely disregard the basic Judeo-Christian belief on the human soul, something that comes into existence at the moment of conception and detaches from the flesh only after ascertained physical death. Abortion and euthanasia are indeed similar in that the secular world can justify them if it sets apart the existence of the soul. However, since we know a little better, we cannot, never have, and never will justify them.

 

[tuscany]

**ManRay,

The part you quoted that you said “gave you good information” was under the heading LIES Told About the Catholic Church. The lies are in blue…

“Although Catholic teaching on abortion has shifted through the centuries,** the current position is clear: abortion is murder. This position has been fixed since 1869, when Pope Pius IX reinstituted the doctrine that the soul enters the body at the moment of conception; from that moment on, the fetus is therefore a person. Furthermore, because the fetus has a soul, it must be baptized in order to remove original sin. Catholics therefore believe that not only is abortion murder, but it also condemns the unborn person to Hell.”
— Michael Carrera. Sex: The Facts, The Acts, and Your Feelings. New
York: Crown Books, 1981, page 290.

** Michael Carrera’s quote in Figure 9-1 is particularly significant. He calls himself ‘Catholic,’ yet makes at least nine major doctrinal errors in his short one-paragraph quote. In fact, this self-proclaimed “expert” does not make a single correct statement in this widely-circulated passage.
It is frightening to realize that uninformed people look to trash like this for clarification of the official teachings of the Catholic Church! ] **

 

[ManRay]

What you are stating is NOT TRUE. When you have THAT false an error, it makes one question everything you’ve said.

Decretum Gratiani

“he is not a murderer who brings about abortion before the soul is in the body.”
Frank K. Flinn, J. Gordon Melton, Encyclopedia of Catholicism (Facts on File Encyclopedia of World Religions 2007 ISBN 978-0-8160-5455-8), p. 4

Thomas Aquinas

This sin, although grave and to be reckoned among misdeeds and against nature…is something less than homicide… nor is such to be judged irregular

In 1588, Pope Sixtus V issued the Bull Effraenatam, which subjected those that carried out abortions at any stage of gestation with automatic excommunication and the punishment by civil authorities applied to murderers; but a mere three years later, finding that the results had not been as positive as was hoped, his successor Pope Gregory XIV limited the excommunication to abortion of a formed fetus.

 

[tuscany]

**Falsehoods have been bandied about by devious pro-abortionists for the last century, and the time has come to lay them to rest once and for all.

Most importantly, the Catholic Church has never “approved of” or “condoned” abortion in any part of its history. It has never taught that the time of ‘ensoulment’ of the unborn child depended on its sex, as stated above; this was merely the speculation of two theologians (who, by the way, both condemned abortion at all times).

And the Catholic Church has never accepted the theory of delayed animation. The only time that the Church has ever addressed this question is when Pope Innocent XI officially condemned the theory that animation took place at birth.

The teachings of the Catholic Church have been uniformly against abortion in any form, and have been stated and restated consistently through the centuries.

Those who believe otherwise are hereby challenged to produce a statement by any Pope, cardinal or bishop supporting abortion from any period in history (declarations by Modernist priests with suspended teaching authority don’t count).

Early Teachings of the Church.

Some quotes from the early history of the Church delineating its true teachings regarding abortion. This figure depicts passages from only a few of the many early Church documents that explicitly condemned abortion.

Other early Church theologians examined the methods, motives, morality and metaphysics of abortion. They all described abortion as a heinous sin, and their writings are listed in the second half.**

 

[tuscany]

**
EARLY PRONOUNCEMENTS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH AGAINST ABORTION

You shall not kill an unborn child or murder a newborn infant.

The Didache (“The Lord’s Instruction to the Gentiles through the Twelve Apostles”). II, 2, translated by J.A. Kleist, S.J., Ancient Christian Writers, Volume 6. Westminster, 1948, page 16.

You shall love your neighbor more than your own life. You shall not slay the child by abortion.

Barnabas (c. 70-138), Epistle, Volume II, page 19.

For us [Christians], murder is once and for all forbidden; so even the child in the womb, while yet the mother’s blood is still being drawn on to form the human being, it is not lawful for us to destroy. To forbid birth is only quicker murder. It makes no difference whether one takes away the life once born or destroys it as it comes to birth. He is a man, who is to be a man; the fruit is always present in the seed.

Tertullian, 197, Apologeticus, page 9.

Those women who use drugs to bring about an abortion commit murder and will have to give an account to God for their abortion.

Athenagoras of Athens, letter to Marcus Aurelius in 177, Legatio pro Christianis (“Supplication for the Christians”), page 35.

It is among you that I see newly-begotten sons at times exposed to wild beasts and birds, or dispatched by the violent death of strangulation; and there are women who, by the use of medicinal potions, destroy the unborn life in their wombs, and murder the child before they bring it forth. These practices undoubtedly are derived from a custom established by your gods; Saturn, though he did not expose his sons, certainly devoured them.

Minucius Felix, theologian (c. 200-225), Octavius, p. 30.

… if we would not kill off the human race born and developing according to God’s plan, then our whole lives would be lived according to nature. Women who make use of some sort of deadly abortion drug kill not only the embryo but, together with it, all human kindness.

Clement of Alexandria, priest and the “Father of Theologians” (c. 150-220), Christ the Educator, Volume II, page 10. Also see Octavius, c.30, nn. 2-3.

Sometimes this lustful cruelty or cruel lust goes so far as to seek to procure a baneful sterility, and if this fails the fetus conceived in the womb is in one way or another smothered or evacuated, in the desire to destroy the offspring before it has life, or if it already lives in the womb, to kill it before it is born. If both man and woman are party to such practices they are not spouses at all; and if from the first they have carried on thus they have come together not for honest wedlock, but for impure gratification; if both are not party to these deeds, I make bold to say that either the one makes herself a mistress of the husband, or the other simply the paramour of his wife.

St. Augustine, Bishop of Hippo (354-430), De Nuptius et Concupiscus (“On Marriage and Concupiscence”), 1.17.

Some virgins [unmarried women], when they learn they are with child through sin, practice abortion by the use of drugs. Frequently they die themselves and are brought before the ruler of the lower world guilty of three crimes; suicide, adultery against Christ, and murder of an unborn child.

St. Jerome, Bible Scholar and translator (c. 340-420), Letter to Eustochium, 22.13.

The hairsplitting difference between formed and unformed makes no difference to us. Whoever deliberately commits abortion is subject to the penalty for homicide.

St. Basil the Great, priest (c. 329-379), First Canonical Letter, from the work Three Canonical Letters. Loeb Classical Library, Volume III, pages 20 to 23.

Accordingly, among surgeon’s tools, there is a certain instrument, which is formed with a nicely-adjusted flexible frame for opening the uterus first of all, and keeping it open; it is further furnished with an annular blade, by means of which the limbs within the womb are dissected with anxious but unfaltering care; its last appendage being a blunted or covered hood, wherewith the entire foetus is extracted by a violent delivery. There is also a copper needle or spike, by which the actual death is managed in this furtive robbery of life: they give it, from its infanticide function, the name of enbruosphaktes, the slayer of the infant, which was of course alive … life begins with conception, because we contend that the soul also begins from conception; life taking its commencement at the same moment and place that the soul does.

Tertullian, theologian (150-225), Treatise on the Soul, pages 25 and 27.

Those who give drugs for procuring abortion, and those who receive poisons to kill the foetus, are subjected to the penalty for murder.

Trullian (Quinisext) Council (692), Canons, 91.**

 

[tuscany]

**
SUMMARY OF THE MOST SIGNIFICANT EARLY CHURCH TEACHINGS AGAINST ABORTION

• The Apocalypse of Peter.
• Hippolytus, Bishop of Pontius and theologian (died 236), Refutation of All
Heresies, 9.7.
• Origen, theologian of Alexandria (185-254), Against Heresies, page 9.
• Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage (c. 200-258), Letters, page 48.
• Methodius, Bishop of Olympus (died 311).
• Council of Elvira in Granada, Spain (305), Canons, 63 and 68.
• Council of Ancyra in Galatia, Asia Minor (314), Canon, 21.
• Ephraem the Syrian, theologian (306-373), De Timore Dei, page 10.
• Ephipanius, Bishop of Salamis (c. 315-403).
• St. Basil the Great, priest (c. 329-379), Letters, 188.2, 8.
• St. Ambrose, Bishop of Milan (c. 339-397), Hexameron, 5.18.58.
Apostolic Constitutions (late Fourth Century)
• St. Augustine, Bishop of Hippo (354-430), Enchiridion, page 86.
• St. John Chrysostom, Bishop of Constantinople (c. 347-407), Homily 24 (“On
The Book of Romans”)
• St. Jerome (died in 420)
• Council of Chalcedon (451)
• Caesarius, Bishop of Arles (470-543), Sermons, 1.12.
• Council of Lerida (524).
• Second Council of Braga (527), Canons, 77.
• St. Martin of Braga (580)
• Consillium Quinisextum (692).

More Recent Teachings of the Church.

The Catholic Church has always taught that abortion is murder.** However, some confusion exists because the penalties for the murder of a preborn child have been changed several times in the history of the Church.

In 1588, Pope Sixtus V tried to discourage abortion by reserving absolution to the Holy See alone. Because of the numbers of abortions taking place, it soon became evident that such an arrangement was impractical, and so in 1591, just three years later, Pope Gregory XIV returned absolution for abortion to the local ordinary (the local bishop).

Paolo Zacchia, Physician-General of the Vatican, published a book in 1620 entitled Quaestiones Medico-Legales in which he argued that ensoulment takes place at conception and that development is a continuum.

In 1679, Pope Innocent XI condemned the writings and teachings of two theologians, Thomas Sanchez and Joannis Marcus, who believed that abortion was lawful if the fetus was not yet animated or ensouled and the purpose of the abortion was to prevent shame to the woman. This act showed decisively that the Church did not tolerate abortion, and was willing to prosecute those who spread error regarding child-killing.

The French Jesuit Theophile Raynaud (1582-1663) believed that indirect abortion of a viable baby to save the mother’s life was allowable. This was notable because he was the first theologian to hold this view and his teachings were unique in the Church until about 1850. This is an early statement of the “double effect,” described later in this chapter.

In 1869, Pope Pius IX took the action that ‘Catholic’ pro-abortionists deliberately misrepresent in order to buttress their heretical views. The abortophiles allege that, in this year, the Pope condemned abortion for the very first time.

In reality, the Pope officially removed the distinction between the animated and unanimated fetus from the Code of Canon Law. This action dealt not with theology, but with discipline, and merely made the punishment for abortion at any stage uniform. The Pope removed the distinction in order to support the Church’s stance that life and ensoulment both begin at conception.

St Thomas Aquinas never advocated abortion in any way; he was just wrong about when conception/ensoulment took place. He did call abortion a grave sin.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

I see a couple of things you may want to address.

1. Science verify’s that Life begins at the moment of conception.

Well a sperm and an egg are living cells too. I think you may be thinking about “personhood” which is a much misunderstood legal construct.

1. You say " we are more developed". Hitler would have been proud of you. He also said that the “Jews, Gypsies, Homosexuals, Catholics etc.” were not as developed either, however does this excuse his crime?

I think the word “developed” is possibly being usednin two different sense here so these arguments are not similar. As I have heard the argument in early pregnancy pain receptors and the nervous system have not formed (developed) and the fetus is thought to not be able to feel pain or suffer. In the statement attributed to Hitler there isn’t any hint that physical formation is incomplete.

Pardon my mistakes. Sent from my mobile device.****

---

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

There is a simple problem in logic. If it is illogical to take a life through force, then it is illogical to force the production of a life.

I can’t apply ‘force the production of a life’, as you’re using it. According to, what I think you’re saying, where would the ‘forcing’ begin? Where does life begin?

Without the sexual act, the gametes would not bind, forming the zygote. No one is forcing the sexual act, under normal circumstances. Once two ‘human beings’ share gametes through the sexual act, and those gametes fuse together forming the zygote, the production of a human being’s development has started. This is if we follow the natural flow. There is no ‘forcing’ at this point, or points after.

Forcing would be a ‘change’ of what occurs naturally. At this point, we are not ‘forcing’ the natural production of the development of a life. To stop this natural occurrence, we could ‘force’ a different result. Stopping the natural production of the development of a human being would be a forcing of an adverse occurrence from what would normally happen,

If a pregnancy will halt the life of the mother, then you are straight away stating that the embryo’s life trumps the mother’s life…but how can this be so? This is a clear contradiction in terms. People who feel that a fetus is a human being have no choice but to assert this argument - or quite frankly they have no argument, but that this status is an objective scientific fact is debatable in contextual terms. Anti abortionists always confuse the nouns human…and* human being* - stating that a fetus is human - well of course? Like we think that it’s a creature from another planet. Get serious. My skin is human, cells in my body are human - but they are not human beings.

The cells in your skin are human cells; however, you will not create a zygote simply by touching another human being, even if the other human being is of the opposite sex. So there is no development of life. To develop natural life requires specific cells fusing together. When two human being’s, of different sexes, gametes fuse, it results in a zygote which is one of the stages of developing embryo; which can only be another human being through naturally occurring development.

Unfortunately, they are assuming the very thing that requires proving, thereby committing the logical fallacy of “begging the question.” Biology, medicine, law, philosophy, and theology have no consensus on the issue, and neither does society as a whole. There will never be a consensus because of the subjective and unscientific nature of the claim, philosophical concepts are not tenets of science. There is such a concept as personhood… so we must give the benefit of the doubt to women, who are indisputable human beings with rights. * An cell or zygote possessing genetic code doesn’t mean anything. My blood contains DNA - my blood is not a human being. You may argue - hey but a zygote has chromosomes, it isn’t blood or dead skin cells - but this is where potentiality comes into play - with cloning, a cell from my dandruff is enough to create a new human being. Although it would have my identical genetic make-up, it would still be a unique individual, because human beings are much more than our genes* Both a fertilized egg and a cloned cell represent a potential, not an actual human being. It’s a worn cliché, but it bears repeating—an acorn isn’t an oak tree and the egg you had for breakfast isn’t a chicken. Historically a fetus has never been considered a human being (or at least very rarely). It wasn’t until the antiquated term ‘quickening’ came about when people noticed the fetus moving that they actually started sometimes referring to it as such. This wasn’t until the 1800’s. Do catholics realize that the church allowed abortions up to the quickening as late as 1869??? I could go on, and on - but this is a good start

The Church teaches ‘life from conception, to natural death’. How is cloning a natural conception? Can you give an example of it naturally occurring sometime through history? When you find that example, would it fall more under that ‘forcing’ you started off with at this beginning of your post, that I quoted?

Acorns, breakfast eggs, or human beings all begin life’s natural development upon fertilization. It can be stopped, but not by natural means.

Lastly, what does a specific era that man learned the details of this process have to do with anything? Life has been occurring naturally since man’s beginning, even though they may not have understood the complete details, and/or called it by an erroneous description. Just because man has the ability to identify each stage of life does not change the processes one bit, unless there is a ‘forcing’.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I see a couple of things you may want to address.

Well a sperm and an egg are living cells too. I think you may be thinking about “personhood” which is a much misunderstood legal construct.

And what gives one human being the right to decide another human being’s personhood?

I think the word “developed” is possibly being usednin two different sense here so these arguments are not similar. As I have heard the argument in early pregnancy pain receptors and the nervous system have not formed (developed) and the fetus is thought to not be able to feel pain or suffer. In the statement attributed to Hitler there isn’t any hint that physical formation is incomplete.

Pardon my mistakes. Sent from my mobile device.****

---

Whether pain receptors, or the nervous system have developed, has nothing to do with the fact that development has began and will soon follow in the normal and natural process of development. Once those cells have fused, if left alone to the natural process, a human being’s development has started.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

And what gives one human being the right to decide another human being’s personhood?

I think that comes down to a question of how laws are enforced; a topic that strays far from the subject at hand. I think that “personhood” is often mistaken to mean “human.” They don’t mean the same thing. One that has “personhood” is granted the legal benefits and protections that come with it. Historically these have not always been granted on the grounds some one was human. “Citizenship” is the closest related concept I can think of to it. In the early USA black males were not granted persoon hood and thus didn’t have the same legal protections as white males (see 14th ammendment).

Whether pain receptors, or the nervous system have developed, has nothing to do with the fact that development has began and will soon follow in the normal and natural process of development. Once those cells have fused, if left alone to the natural process, a human being’s development has started.

From reading this i get the impression that you think i am trying to argue against Pro Life. That’s not the case. What I was attempting to do was show that different meanings for the word “developed” were being used creating a false equivalency of the statements from Hitler.

Pardon my mistakes. Sent from my mobile device.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I think that comes down to a question of how laws are enforced; a topic that strays far from the subject at hand. I think that “personhood” is often mistaken to mean “human.” They don’t mean the same thing. One that has “personhood” is granted the legal benefits and protections that come with it. Historically these have not always been granted on the grounds some one was human. “Citizenship” is the closest related concept I can think of to it. In the early USA black males were not granted persoon hood and thus didn’t have the same legal protections as white males (see 14th ammendment).

Then, can we agree, that man made laws can be faulty?

A human being has a distinct ‘personhood’ from conception, to natural death, even if they lack the ability to express it for themselves. It is not something granted by other men, or is mistakenly assumed that other men have that authority over a natural occurrence; however one wishes to express it. This is evident in the example of black males you’ve provided us. As that was a mistake, we discuss the possibility of a mistake existing in laws surrounding another group of human beings, who at the earliest stages of development cannot speak for themselves.

From reading this i get the impression that you think i am trying to argue against Pro Life. That’s not the case. What I was attempting to do was show that different meanings for the word “developed” were being used creating a false equivalency of the statements from Hitler.

Pardon my mistakes. Sent from my mobile device.

The hazards of discussions in the written form; we cannot see body language, or hear inflections of the voice characterizing agreement, or disagreement.

I did not take you as arguing, one way or the other, and hope I am not conveying an ‘air’ of argument. I am only trying to put into words that which I believe.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Then, can we agree, that man made laws can be faulty?

They can be. Though some one that authors a law/rule with malicious intent or apathy for a group of people may not consider it faulty so long as the goal behind the law is satisfied. This can be illustrated with some of the earlier USA laws and activities (ex: USA laws that were motivated by nativism and euginics, Tuskegee experiment, treatment of the natives, and so on). But even for a well intentioned person it can be difficult to codify ones intentions into words. Even if on successfullu codifies them something that has positive impact on one group may have a negative impact on others. There is also the problem of laws not being able to account for every scenario.

Pardon my mistakes. Sent from my mobile device.

 

[kingpomba]

1. Science verify’s that Life begins at the moment of conception.

The problem is, what is your definition of life and what implications come along with this?

I’ve had the privilege of being able to study developmental biology and the life that is there after conception, looks very different and is very different from the kind of life you’d find in a womb say 6 months later.

What will be a baby is a simple collection of 2…4…8…etc cells for awhile. Nothing resembling a human being. We don’t even have a heart beat until the 4th week.

So, its important you define what you mean by life and why this is important. Bacteria is alive but i dont see many people shedding tears over their beer or bread made with yeast. These are crucial distinctions.

It started off good and i actually agreed with a lot of your reasoning but it got rather hyperbolic and outlandish rather fast once we started dragging hitler into it, thats not how logical arguments work (unless they’re about hitler maybe).

This might help (ethicalrealism.wordpress.com/2011/06/02/writing-philosophical-arguments/).

 

[ManRay]

I can’t apply ‘force the production of a life’, as you’re using it. According to, what I think you’re saying, where would the ‘forcing’ begin? Where does life begin?

I must have not been clear but I’m having trouble understanding why it is so hard to not see the problem in logic with this. A human being has a right to posses it’s own life. Our lives cannot trump another life. We cannot murder someone as they possesses the same right to life we have (obviously) nor can we force anyone to do the same. So - you are stating that a zygote possesses these same rights to life. One of the major reasons for allowing abortion is the physical and mental health of the mother. So you enter a scenario where giving birth will kill the mother. This is where the logic problem happens. By not allowing the woman to protect her own life - you are defacto stating the the zygote’s alleged rights to life can trump the women’s right to life. You are forcing her in no uncertain terms to continue with the pregnancy at the expense of her own life. This is a clear contradiction in terms, and very problematic.

The cells in your skin are human cells; however, you will not create a zygote simply by touching another human being, even if the other human being is of the opposite sex. So there is no development of life. To develop natural life requires specific cells fusing together. When two human being’s, of different sexes, gametes fuse, it results in a zygote which is one of the stages of developing embryo; which can only be another human being through naturally occurring development.
This is about potentiality. I would argue that cloning is a natural occurrence since it is now part of the natural world.
The Church teaches ‘life from conception, to natural death’. How is cloning a natural conception? Can you give an example of it naturally occurring sometime through history? When you find that example, would it fall more under that ‘forcing’ you started off with at this beginning of your post, that I quoted?

This is about potentiality. I would argue that cloning is a natural occurrence since it is now part of the natural world. We culture, and destroy embryos during in vitro fertilization. The laity doesn’t seem to decided on a candidate based on whether they have or condoned in vitro do they - even though there are multiple abortions during that process.

Acorns, breakfast eggs, or human beings all begin life’s natural development upon fertilization. It can be stopped, but not by natural means.

They can also begin through unnatural means. Chicken farms are the most unnatural things on the planet. Do you think that chickens prefer to be hobbled? Kept in cages? We’ve created eggs where no eggs would have existed before. What about genetically modified foods etc…? Tree farms? It is not enough to just state that those things happened naturally - there is a whole world of scenarios, and methodology that can be completely unnatural, and lead to a ‘natural’ happening by your definition. In vitro is a perfect example - sperm meets egg - totally natural, but it sure didn’t happen through copulation?

Lastly, what does a specific era that man learned the details of this process have to do with anything? Life has been occurring naturally since man’s beginning, even though they may not have understood the complete details, and/or called it by an erroneous description. Just because man has the ability to identify each stage of life does not change the processes one bit, unless there is a ‘forcing’.

I would argue that our concepts and constructs of supposed and natural reality are absolutely tied to our times. There may be something about the development and production of life that we have totally over looked, or have misunderstood. Maybe Aquinas was right, and the soul does enter the body after conception. There are just as many passages in the bible that describe life as breath, as there are that talk about god knowing you before you were born. I’m not even sure if what is natural really means anything at all. Homosexuality - whether you consider it an aberration or not is a completely natural act. You can look to the most primitive animals, animals that are almost living as pure instinct, and they engage. Would you argue that some animal has decided to act unnaturally? That’s a hard sell.

 

[JDaniel]

Arguments involving rights, genetic codes, etc… etc…if aren’t argued correctly are really lacking in logical merit.

Rights are sovereign possessions that cannot trump another’s sovereign possessions.

MR:

Oh, but they do all the time. E.g., you have a trickle of a stream crossing your property, coming down from a mountain that borders it. The stream ends in a small pond, that has been steadily drying up due to extremely dry weather of late. A hiker is crossing your property too, and he is very thirsty. He stops by your trickle of a stream takes a drink and fills his canteen. You show up with the police and have him arrested because you’ve posted a sign that says, Private Property No Trespassing.

Now, he is a fellow human being and he is very thirsty and also knows that there might not be any water further down the road. So, he helps himself. As a citizen of the Earth, he has the right to life and to the pursuit of happiness. These include, sometimes, the right to avail himself of a little water from your stream. Certainly his right to life and his right to avail himself, in needy times, to natural water, trumps any property rights you may have.

But, consider that it has been very dry and your pond is quickly becoming a sand pit, you’re about to be in a similar position: no water, and thirsty. So, you conclude, along with the law- that you have a priority right to protect the balance of your precious water.

Whose Right trumps the other’s?

For example you have a right to possess your own life. Which is why murder crosses that barrier. When someone murders someone they are using their life to trump another life. So if you follow the logic you run into a problem regarding a zygote and it’s power of right’s. There is a simple problem in logic. If it is illogical to take a life through force, then it is illogical to force the production of a life.

This is your argument? But, it’s not me “forcing the production of life,” It’s Nature doing what Nature does. Sure, I could have maintained my celibacy, but Nature could have done the same thing to me. Your so-called logic is anything but logic. Rather, it betokens nothing more than a particular point of view.

If a pregnancy will halt the life of the mother, then you are straight away stating that the embryo’s life trumps the mother’s life…but how can this be so? This is a clear contradiction in terms. People who feel that a fetus is a human being have no choice but to assert this argument - or quite frankly they have no argument, but that this status is an objective scientific fact is debatable in contextual terms. Anti abortionists always confuse the nouns human…and* human being* - stating that a fetus is human - well of course? Like we think that it’s a creature from another planet. Get serious. My skin is human, cells in my body are human - but they are not human beings.

But, the unborn child IS a Human Being, despite which side of the mother’s belly skin it’s on. That little human being is not an epithelial cell, nor a skin cell, nor an umbilical cell. Those are merely cells without the fullness of humanity. They are analogous to leaves on a tree.

Unfortunately, they are assuming the very thing that requires proving, thereby committing the logical fallacy of “begging the question.” Biology, medicine, law, philosophy, and theology have no consensus on the issue, and neither does society as a whole. There will never be a consensus because of the subjective and unscientific nature of the claim, philosophical concepts are not tenets of science.

That’s not why consensus is difficult. Consensus is difficult precisely because it will never stand the test of exquisite whim. So, you’re right about one thing.

There is such a concept as personhood… so we must give the benefit of the doubt to women, *who are indisputable human beings with rights. * An cell or zygote possessing genetic code doesn’t mean anything.

Not so. Left to grow and mature, a so-called “zygote” grows into a baby, then a child, then a teen, then a young adult, then an adult. He, or she, does not grow into a bird, or a lizard, or a shark.

My blood contains DNA - my blood is not a human being. You may argue - hey but a zygote has chromosomes, it isn’t blood or dead skin cells - but this is where potentiality comes into play - with cloning, a cell from my dandruff is enough to create a new human being.

True. And that’s precisely why a clone must be accorded the same rights as any other human being.

Both a fertilized egg and a cloned cell represent a potential, not an actual human being.

Absolutely wrong. THEY ARE BOTH HUMAN BEINGS.

It’s a worn cliché, but it bears repeating—an acorn isn’t an oak tree and the egg you had for breakfast isn’t a chicken.

Totally irrelevant.

Historically a fetus has never been considered a human being (or at least very rarely). It wasn’t until the antiquated term ‘quickening’ came about when people noticed the fetus moving that they actually started sometimes referring to it as such.

Not so.

This wasn’t until the 1800’s. Do catholics realize that the church allowed abortions up to the quickening as late as 1869???

Error and falsehood, and you know it.

I could go on, and on - but this is a good start

Actually, if that’s the best you’ve got, you might want to duck out of Atheism 101 and jump into Catholicism 101.

God bless,
jd

 

[ManRay]

You’re a day late and a dollar short. Good effort though. Your whole argument sidesteps the point of what we are talking about. We are talking about sovereign rights, and known choices that damage these rights. It’s not like we are choosing a parking space. For your argument to even make sense - The hiker would have had to purposely pick your land, and purposely drink your water knowing that it would in fact kill you. It’s clear there is a difference. The hike couldn’t have foreknowledge of these things.

MR:

Whose Right trumps the other’s?

That’s the whole point - that’s the problem!!!??? Why is it that the zygotes life trumps the mothers in an abortion scenario? Explain that to me. Use the example of a mother dying if she doesn’t terminate. Why won’t any one of you meet that head on??

The rest of your post has been addressed and readdressed - like I said - a day late and a dollar short.

 

[april32010]

off topic,there are a number of reasons books for adults are printed in black and white.1)easier to read,2) crayon colors suggest a lack seriousness to

 

[R_C]

Why is it that the zygotes life trumps the mothers in an abortion scenario? Explain that to me. Use the example of a mother dying if she doesn’t terminate. Why won’t any one of you meet that head on??

Because it was the mother’s (and the father’s) decision to bring forth this life (which you call “zygote”, but that is such only for 4 days, on the 5th day becoming a blastocyst, on the 56th day an embryo, on the 63rd day a fetus.

This living being, regardless of how you want to call it, is automatically developing into a full-fledged human being as far as anyone knows. If the mother, for some unfortunate reason, is dying, she can make decisions over her own body, but she cannot take the innocent life developing inside her and “terminate” it (a kind verb, by the way).

On the same argument, people who reason this way may have no difficulty (and in fact, some have no difficulty) in justifying even worse monstrosities. Consider a child in vegetative state and another one who needs a transplant. Would you really “terminate” the former for the sake of the latter? And what stops us, then, from mass-producing fetuses and then employing them as “replacement parts”? Can you really condone this and still consider yourself a sane, civilized human being?

By the way: there is one thing that makes me glad in what otherwise would be a very depressing situation, the fact that each and everyone of those who do not understand these things will one day know the truth. For nothing matters if there is no God, but if there is one, then all shall see Him face to face, and then you’ll know how mistaken you were…not in upholding what you believed to be the truth according to your conscience, but in not being open to the possibility of being mistaken…of being blind.

This is why we, the Catholic Church, know better: because we know and have been consistently teaching that at the moment of conception God creates a soul in His image and likeness, which remains with the body until physical death is well established.

 

[shoe]

From:ewtn.com/library/PROLENC/ENCYC043.HTM

Abortion to Save the Life of the Mother
The ‘Double Effect.’

Source of Confusion.

The very rare cases of pregnancy that pose a real and immediate threat to the mother’s life including uterine cancer and ectopic pregnancies are a source of great confusion, especially among Catholics.

It is absolutely true that the Catholic Church bans abortion to save the life of the mother. However (and this is an extremely important point) the mother’s life may be saved by a surgical procedure that does not directly attack the unborn baby’s life.

The most common dysfunctions that may set a mother’s life against that of her unborn child’s are the ectopic pregnancy, carcinoma of the uterine cervix, and cancer of the ovary. Occasionally, cancer of the vulva or vagina may indicate surgical intervention.

In such cases, under the principle of the “double effect,” attending physicians must do everything in their power to save both the mother and the child. If the physicians decide that, in the case of an ectopic pregnancy, the mother’s life can only be saved by the removal of the Fallopian tube (and with it, the unborn baby), or by removal of some other tissue essential for the preborn baby’s life, the baby will of course die. But this would not be categorized as an abortion. This is all the difference between deliberate murder (abortion) and unintentional natural death.

The principle of the “double effect” also applies to sexual sterilization. If a woman must have a hysterectomy to remove a dangerously cancerous uterus, this will result in her sterilization, but is not a sinful act. However, if the purpose of the operation is not to heal or safeguard health, but to directly sterilize, then that act is intrinsically evil and is always a mortal sin.[12]

Statement of Intent and Principle.

Pope Pius XII summarized the intent of the double effect when he addressed the Family Front Congress on November 27, 1951; “Both for the one and the other, the demand cannot be but this: To use every means to save the life of both the mother and the child.”[13]

Pius also stated the general principle of the “double effect” on October 29, 1951, at his address to the Italian Union of Midwives. This speech is codified in the Pope’s Acta Apostilicae Sedis, 43(1951), page 855.

Article 14 of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith’s Declaration on Procured Abortion (November 18, 1974) reiterates it.

The pertinent passage of this document reads; “Deliberately we have always used the expression ‘direct attempt on the life of an innocent person,’ ‘direct killing.’ Because if, for example, the saving of the life of the future mother, independently of her pregnant condition, should urgently require a surgical act or other therapeutic treatment which would have as an accessory consequence, in no way desired or intended, but inevitable, the death of the fetus, such an act could no longer be called a direct attempt on an innocent life. Under these conditions the operation can be lawful, like other similar medical interventions granted always that a good of high worth is concerned, such as life, and that it is not possible to postpone the operation until after the birth of the child, nor to have recourse to other efficacious remedies.”

 

[ManRay]

In such cases, under the principle of the “double effect,” attending physicians must do everything in their power to save both the mother and the child. If the physicians decide that, in the case of an ectopic pregnancy, the mother’s life can only be saved by the removal of the Fallopian tube (and with it, the unborn baby), or by removal of some other tissue essential for the preborn baby’s life, the baby will of course die. But this would not be categorized as an abortion. This is all the difference between deliberate murder (abortion) and unintentional natural death.

I have no problem with this - I’m glad that’s it’s left up to a medical professional to make the call, and not. Hopefully another medical professional does accuse the other of a bad call!!! Then where does that leave us!