Arguement for Pro life

[ManRay]

You will need to give me evidence for your claims, I just see a mouth running off with no solid facts coming forth, which ultimatley means that your points are a waste of my time.

Dandruff?

Unborn Baby

Seriously, please tell me which is more liklier to become life… I doubt its your dandruff. Historically, people were scientifically ignorant. Now, science says “Human Life begins at conception”. Science is the authority on natural matters, so let me see your papers on the authority you have to trump proven science

I don’t even know who you are talking to because it isn’t me - but I agree - I’m sure if you read a book on quantum physics it would be a complete waste of your time also. I can’t lower myself any further. I think we can agree to disagree. Have a good evening, and sleep tight.

 

[mymamamary]

What does quantam physics have to do with an unborn child???

An unborn child is a human being, science says so, so does Our Faith, therefore, it is wrong to kill. Abortion=Murder

I dont think I could get any more simpler, its pure, simple logic…

 

[mymamamary]

Life force??? Are you making things up my child? Don’t respond to my posts if you don’t read them, oh and parts of my body most certainly are potential human beings through cloning. This IS scientific fact. Sorry.

What is this some kind of pet phrase?? Do you even know what your are talking about? Where did I subjectify the value of life? I would like for you to explain that to me. Please. Coherently.

See - you didn’t read my post at all I guess. If that is your argument then I can easily turn that on its head by asking you why is the fetus’ life more valuable than the born human being?

The rest of your post must be for someone else because I never argued any of that. It’s like you are making up arguments and attributing them to me, so that you can say…SEE - THERE! - It makes no sense.

I can easily turn your question on its head by giving you the answer: ALL human life is sacred. Born and UBORN. How do you like that for simple philosophical logic??

 

[tuscany]

**Human Life International®
pro-life missionaries to the world

Lies to Confuse. The most common pro-abortion lie about Catholic Church teaching claims that the Church has not always condemned abortion. This particular lie has been effectively used by unscrupulous pro-abortion activists all over the world to confuse and neutralize their Catholic opposition.** Just a few of the various forms this pro-abortion lie assumes are shown in Figure 9-1. The first quote, by the propaganda front group ‘Religious’ Coalition for Reproductive Choice (RCRC), summarizes many of the most common outright pro-abortion lies about the early history of Church teachings regarding abortion :
**
Typical Pro-Abortion Deceptions Regarding Catholic Church Teachings on Abortion :

** “Catholic theology, which now regards the early fetus as a person, did not always do so. The Church first adopted the belief of Aristotle, St. Jerome, St. Augustine, and St. Thomas Aquinas that ensoulment occurs several weeks after conception. Pope Innocent III, who ruled at the turn of the 13th Century, made that belief part of Church doctrine, allowing abortion until fetal animation. It was not until 1869 that the Church prohibited abortion at any time and for any reason.”
— ‘Religious’ Coalition for Abortion Rights (now RCRC). June 1978
propaganda pamphlet entitled “ABORTION: Why Religious
Organizations in the United States Want to Keep it Legal.”​

“The Catholic Church is not consistent in its teaching. From 1211 to 1869, it recognised two types of foetus. It taught that the male foetus became animated at 40 days, and the female at 80 days. Furthermore, until 1869 the Church allowed abortion until quickening.”
— Diane Munday of the British pro-abortion group Association for the
Reform of the Abortion Law (ARAL). Quoted in Colin Francome’s
Abortion Freedom: A Worldwide Movement. London: George Allen
& Unwin Publishers, 1984, pages 89 and 90.​

   "[Prior to 1869], the Church had officially accepted the theory of delayed animation for 500 years ... Abortion before ensoulment was tolerated by the Catholic Church."

— Canadian psychiatrist Wendell W. Watters. Compulsory Pregnancy:
The Truth About Abortion. Toronto: McLelland & Steward, 1976, page 90.​

“Abortion was only declared illegal and condemned by the Roman Catholic Church in the 1800’s. The Catholic Church condoned abortion until the fetus “quickened,” meaning the time when a pregnant woman first feels the unborn child moving.”
— Ann Lukits. “The Agony of Abortion.” The Kingston, Ontario Whig
Standard, September 24, 1983, page 1.​

   "Until just over 100 years ago, the Vatican's attitude towards abortion was relatively tolerant."

— Penney Kome. “Woman’s Place.” Homemaker’s Magazine, April 1976, page 21.​

In a single pamphlet, ‘Catholics’ for a free Choice makes more than 50 deliberate misstatements of Catholic teaching. These are deliberately chosen in order to cause the most confusion possible. Some of these are listed below, and have comments following them in [brackets].

“Before 1869, the Catholic Church held that the early fetus did not have a soul, and therefore was not fully human. Consequently, it could be permissible to abort in early pregnancy” [As proven in this Chapter, abortion was never permissible. It was punishable at all stages]. … “Catholics are disturbed by the excursions of the Catholic hierarchy into anti-abortion politics, which constitute a threat to the separation of church and state. … According to Vatican II, “Declaration on Religious Liberty:” “The Christian faithful have the civil right of freedom from interference in leading their lives according to their conscience”” [see Father John Courtney Murray’s refutation of these statements later in this Chapter]. …​

“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! ]

 

[tuscany]

**
Summary of the Rebuttal. The falsehoods shown in Figure 9-1 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).**

 

[ManRay]

So you’re saying we basically don’t know. Let me borrow from Peter Kreeft. We have four options:

Peter Kreeft…uhm ok I’m not sure it’s as much about options as it is about definitions. The concept of abortion as murder has not been a constant - even in the Catholic Church my friend - this is very real evidence regarding the complexity of this matter. St Thomas Aquinas himself didn’t believe the soul came into the fetus until sometime after conception - he referred to it as ‘ensoulment’. Conception is the most recent stance, but the church used to use the concept of quickening (when the fetus moved) 40 days, 80 days, and 116 days - the arbitrary nature of these times is more evidence to the complexity of this situation. It has always been considered a sin and rightly so, but a sin and murder are different. Lying is of course a sin.

Two points:

1. The definition of personhood allows for some different interpretation. I could disagree that a women is person in the same way you could say a fetus isn’t a person. How would I be wrong in saying this?
2. If the decision would hold the same weight for either side, I’d agree with you. However, the woman would be inconvenienced whereas the baby would be killed. I’d say the benfit of a doubt lies with the baby as it has the potential to lose far more.

Point one - wow - that’s a really long philosophical discussion regarding form, self awareness, reactive and proactive relations to outside stimuli, etc…etc…and on, and on. I never said it wasn’t a concept.

Point 2 - you are framing an argument - this is a logical fallacy. Who said the woman would be just inconvenienced? What if it could be medically established that going full term would kill her? Why do the ‘alleged’ rights of the fetus trump her rights? Why are you assuming that the baby will even go full term? - this is begging the question.

I like your style though

 

[R_C]

Historically a fetus has never been considered a human being (or at least very rarely).

Historically a fetus has never been considered a human being (or at least very rarely). 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

You suggest that others should read your posts carefully. Perhaps you should be the first one to do so.

Assuming you are in good faith, both are gravely erroneous statement.

Let’s begin with the first one.

To begin with, “rarely” does not mean anything. All that matters is whether or not something is right.

Let me quote you passages that are literally thousands of years old about considering a fetus a human being, from books that now are collectively called the Bible.

Isaiah 44

“This is what the Lord says—your Redeemer, who formed you in the womb

Isaiah 49

Before I was born the Lord called me;
from my mother’s womb he has spoken my name.

2 Maccabees 7

I cannot tell how ye came into my womb: for I neither gave you breath nor life, neither was it I that formed the members of every one of you

Job 10

Your hands shaped me and made me. …] Remember that you molded me like clay. …] Did you not pour me out like milk and curdle me like cheese, clothe me with skin and flesh and knit me together with bones and sinews?

You gave me life and showed me kindness, and in your providence watched over my spirit.

Psalm 22

On you was I cast from my birth, and from my mother’s womb you have been my God.

Psalm 139

For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb.
…]
Your eyes saw my unformed body; all the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be.

Jeremiah 1

The word of the Lord came to me, saying, “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart

Whether you believe in the Scriptures or not is irrelevant. You ought to acknowledge that the Jewish tradition and the Christian tradition have always upheld that the unborn child is alive, no longer part of the mother’s body, but a body and a soul of his own.

I will proceed to show briefly the falsehood of that statement on the Church. However allow me to post one thing to begin with:

• a quote from the Didache (1st Century):

you shall not kill the conceived one (técnon) with abortion

• a quote from a the letter Consuluisti de infantibus of Pope Stephen V (year 887):

homicidal is he who has destroyed with abortion the conceived one in the womb

Please, kindly keep a more moderate tone when entering this argument, for we know what we stand for and what we uphold, when we defend life, while you are after all trying to justify death.

 

[ManRay]

Although Catholic teaching on abortion has shifted through the centuries

I NEVER SAID ANYTHING TO THE CONTRARY…thanx for the good sources though!!!

Has the catholic teaching on stealing or murder shifted through the centuries?

I didn’t think so.

**Human Life International®
pro-life missionaries to the world

Lies to Confuse. The most common pro-abortion lie about Catholic Church teaching claims that the Church has not always condemned abortion. This particular lie has been effectively used by unscrupulous pro-abortion activists all over the world to confuse and neutralize their Catholic opposition.** Just a few of the various forms this pro-abortion lie assumes are shown in Figure 9-1. The first quote, by the propaganda front group ‘Religious’ Coalition for Reproductive Choice (RCRC), summarizes many of the most common outright pro-abortion lies about the early history of Church teachings regarding abortion :
**
Typical Pro-Abortion Deceptions Regarding Catholic Church Teachings on Abortion :

** “Catholic theology, which now regards the early fetus as a person, did not always do so. The Church first adopted the belief of Aristotle, St. Jerome, St. Augustine, and St. Thomas Aquinas that ensoulment occurs several weeks after conception. Pope Innocent III, who ruled at the turn of the 13th Century, made that belief part of Church doctrine, allowing abortion until fetal animation. It was not until 1869 that the Church prohibited abortion at any time and for any reason.”
— ‘Religious’ Coalition for Abortion Rights (now RCRC). June 1978
propaganda pamphlet entitled “ABORTION: Why Religious
Organizations in the United States Want to Keep it Legal.”​

“The Catholic Church is not consistent in its teaching. From 1211 to 1869, it recognised two types of foetus. It taught that the male foetus became animated at 40 days, and the female at 80 days. Furthermore, until 1869 the Church allowed abortion until quickening.”
— Diane Munday of the British pro-abortion group Association for the
Reform of the Abortion Law (ARAL). Quoted in Colin Francome’s
Abortion Freedom: A Worldwide Movement. London: George Allen
& Unwin Publishers, 1984, pages 89 and 90.​

   "[Prior to 1869], the Church had officially accepted the theory of delayed animation for 500 years ... Abortion before ensoulment was tolerated by the Catholic Church."

— Canadian psychiatrist Wendell W. Watters. Compulsory Pregnancy:
The Truth About Abortion. Toronto: McLelland & Steward, 1976, page 90.​

“Abortion was only declared illegal and condemned by the Roman Catholic Church in the 1800’s. The Catholic Church condoned abortion until the fetus “quickened,” meaning the time when a pregnant woman first feels the unborn child moving.”
— Ann Lukits. “The Agony of Abortion.” The Kingston, Ontario Whig
Standard, September 24, 1983, page 1.​

   "Until just over 100 years ago, the Vatican's attitude towards abortion was relatively tolerant."

— Penney Kome. “Woman’s Place.” Homemaker’s Magazine, April 1976, page 21.​

In a single pamphlet, ‘Catholics’ for a free Choice makes more than 50 deliberate misstatements of Catholic teaching. These are deliberately chosen in order to cause the most confusion possible. Some of these are listed below, and have comments following them in [brackets].

“Before 1869, the Catholic Church held that the early fetus did not have a soul, and therefore was not fully human. Consequently, it could be permissible to abort in early pregnancy” [As proven in this Chapter, abortion was never permissible. It was punishable at all stages]. … “Catholics are disturbed by the excursions of the Catholic hierarchy into anti-abortion politics, which constitute a threat to the separation of church and state. … According to Vatican II, “Declaration on Religious Liberty:” “The Christian faithful have the civil right of freedom from interference in leading their lives according to their conscience”” [see Father John Courtney Murray’s refutation of these statements later in this Chapter]. …​

“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]

Never said that it supported abortion. I even stated that it was a sin. My point was that it’s definition of whether it was murder has changed. You can throw out straw men and red herring fallacies all day. It strengthens my position.

**
Summary of the Rebuttal. The falsehoods shown in Figure 9-1 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).**

 

[ManRay]

Cherry picking the bible doesn’t impress me - I can quote till the cows come home all of the murderous things in the bible as evidence that there isn’t anything ‘pro - life’ about it.
Scripture defines life as breath in many place - start at genesis
God “breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.”
Jewish law generally considers personhood to begin a birth. Jesus was a jew.

God kills babies over and over in the bible. He commanded a bear to kill children because they made fun of someone. We could go on, and on.

You suggest that others should read your posts carefully. Perhaps you should be the first one to do so.

Assuming you are in good faith, both are gravely erroneous statement.

Let’s begin with the first one.

To begin with, “rarely” does not mean anything. All that matters is whether or not something is right.

Let me quote you passages that are literally thousands of years old about considering a fetus a human being, from books that now are collectively called the Bible.

Isaiah 44

Isaiah 49

2 Maccabees 7

Job 10

Psalm 22

Psalm 139

Jeremiah 1

Whether you believe in the Scriptures or not is irrelevant. You ought to acknowledge that the Jewish tradition and the Christian tradition have always upheld that the unborn child is alive, no longer part of the mother’s body, but a body and a soul of his own.

I will proceed to show briefly the falsehood of that statement on the Church. However allow me to post one thing to begin with:

• a quote from the Didache (1st Century):
• a quote from a the letter Consuluisti de infantibus of Pope Stephen V (year 887):

Please, kindly keep a more moderate tone when entering this argument, for we know what we stand for and what we uphold, when we defend life, while you are after all trying to justify death.

 

[ManRay]

Please, kindly keep a more moderate tone when entering this argument, for we know what we stand for and what we uphold, when we defend life, while you are after all trying to justify death.

I BEG YOUR PARDON??? Me keep a moderate tone?

 

[ManRay]

I can easily turn your question on its head by giving you the answer: ALL human life is sacred. Born and UBORN. How do you like that for simple philosophical logic??

I like how you didn’t really respond to any of the post at all. Please don’t confer with me anymore. Thank you.

 

[ccmnxc]

Peter Kreeft…uhm ok I’m not sure it’s as much about options as it is about definitions. **The concept of abortion as murder has not been a constant - even in the Catholic Church my friend **- this is very real evidence regarding the complexity of this matter. St Thomas Aquinas himself didn’t believe the soul came into the fetus until sometime after conception - he referred to it as ‘ensoulment’. Conception is the most recent stance, but the church used to use the concept of quickening (when the fetus moved) 40 days, 80 days, and 116 days - the arbitrary nature of these times is more evidence to the complexity of this situation. It has always been considered a sin and rightly so, but a sin and murder are different. Lying is of course a sin.

What is in bold is exactly what I was addressing. It doesn’t matter if it has always been defined as murder. In fact, my argument is about the fact that it has (and isn’t) always defined as murder. What matters is that since we don’t have a knowledgeable concensus about whether or not it is murder, we should err on the side of caution.

Point one - wow - that’s a really long philosophical discussion regarding form, self awareness, reactive and proactive relations to outside stimuli, etc…etc…and on, and on. I never said it wasn’t a concept.

Then as a concept, how is it legally defined, how do you define it, and do you think there is a universal definition? When you argue from concepts, by definition they are relative and therefore don’t have much bearing when trying to persuade someone.

Point 2 - you are framing an argument - this is a logical fallacy. Who said the woman would be just inconvenienced? What if it could be medically established that going full term would kill her? Why do the ‘alleged’ rights of the fetus trump her rights? Why are you assuming that the baby will even go full term? - this is begging the question.

Alright, I’ll argue this based on the average case. Very few cases turn out where the choice is between the life of the mother and the life of the baby. Also, surveys show that a small minority of abortions are for health of the mother, disabled baby, or rape/incest. Inconveneice may be too cliche of a word, but most aren’t due to impending cataclysm. Even if they give birth, nobody is forcing them to keep the baby after that.

 

[R_C]

I BEG YOUR PARDON??? Me keep a moderate tone?

Yes, please do so.

Also, I do not know if you are aware of the fact that according to the netiquette, writing all capitals equals to yelling, hardly a polite thing to do.

Your tone on this thread has not been one of peaceful discussion: instead, you order people not to speak to you, or attempt (without any success, by the way) to place yourself on a higher step, without even knowing the level of culture of those to whom you try to present your comments. Not that a high degree of knowledge matter on these arguments, for truth is always hidden from the proud, yet revealed to the simple of heart.

Furthermore, with no offense intended, kindly allow me to point that some of your remarks, among which that on “murderous things in the bible” and the ridiculous comment on the “bear”, show your impressive lack of understanding of the Scriptures, which immediately disqualifies you from any serious discussion on this forum, in my humble opinion.

It is not a matter of “cherry-picking” the Scriptures, and in fact it is one of Satan’s skills to know the Scriptures perfectly and quote them pretty much in the way you describe. It is a matter of being humble and, by the grace of the Holy Spirit, understand that the Bible is about life and salvation - a message hardly understood by the secular world of darkness to which many seem to enjoy belonging to.

Overall, please know that I am reporting your posts to a moderator, that he may review them in accordance with the conduct rules of this forum.

 

[ManRay]

What is in bold is exactly what I was addressing. It doesn’t matter if it has always been defined as murder. In fact, my argument is about the fact that it has (and isn’t) always defined as murder. What matters is that since we don’t have a knowledgeable concensus about whether or not it is murder, we should err on the side of caution.

I understand what you are saying but erring on the side of caution doesn’t help us towards any real definition. That’s like the argument for believing in god because what if there really is one - then you go down the rabbit hole of which god etc… etc… and you never really know if there is a god, you’re just believing - just in case. That isn’t knowledge.

Then as a concept, how is it legally defined, how do you define it, and do you think there is a universal definition? When you argue from concepts, by definition they are relative and therefore don’t have much bearing when trying to persuade someone.

Well I stated that there isn’t a consensus - bioethics don’t necessarily agree with law, philosophy, religion, medicine and back and forth between them. I think they all agree that a coherent living woman is a real person though. I think in my humble opinion to possess personhood is to be a self sustaining independent being capable of reflecting, and deflecting outside, and inside stimuli within the three dimensional world. This abortion argument is really no different than people who become brain dead and whether or not it’s acceptable to end their biological functions, and whether it is murder. I would deem it acceptable because I would reason that they no longer possess personhood. Keeping them alive with a machine doesn’t qualify them as having a life - even though they are technically alive. In a strange analogy the woman is the machine during child birth. The zygote is incapable of sustaining not only biological functions independently on its own, but it is not even aware that it exists. It meets criteria that even a catatonic person can’t meet. A catatonic may not be aware of the world, but they are in fact still sustaining there own life functions. I don’t support abortion, and I believe it to be wrong, but I also am fully aware that I’d have to be honest and state that I don’t consider a cell to be a human being. It is really no different conceptually than the acorn oak tree analogy. You will never convince someone that an acorn is an oak tree, but that same person will state that a cell is a human being. There is a cognitive dissonance that takes place that seems to be fueled by the human exceptionalism that grows out of romantic and poetic notions of mankind. If you order chicken in a restaurant and they bring you an egg - do you say thank you? Know you inform them that you ordered a chicken, and not an egg. How is that any different than the egg of a human? I reason that things can be defined. I reason that the law of noncontradiction is axiomatic. Something cannot be one thing and another thing at the same time. To possess personhood seems to have quantitative and qualitative indicators that a cell doesn’t possess.

Alright, I’ll argue this based on the average case. Very few cases turn out where the choice is between the life of the mother and the life of the baby. Also, surveys show that a small minority of abortions are for health of the mother, disabled baby, or rape/incest. Inconveneice may be too cliche of a word, but most aren’t due to impending cataclysm. Even if they give birth, nobody is forcing them to keep the baby after that.

Fortunately we cannot attain legal, or even philosophical realities based on average cases. Have you ever heard the expression that one exception ruins the universality of an argument?

 

[ManRay]

Yes, please do so.

Also, I do not know if you are aware of the fact that according to the netiquette, writing all capitals equals to yelling, hardly a polite thing to do.

Your tone on this thread has not been one of peaceful discussion: instead, you order people not to speak to you, or attempt (without any success, by the way) to place yourself on a higher step, without even knowing the level of culture of those to whom you try to present your comments. Not that a high degree of knowledge matter on these arguments, for truth is always hidden from the proud, yet revealed to the simple of heart.

Furthermore, with no offense intended, kindly allow me to point that some of your remarks, among which that on “murderous things in the bible” and the ridiculous comment on the “bear”, show your impressive lack of understanding of the Scriptures, which immediately disqualifies you from any serious discussion on this forum, in my humble opinion.

It is not a matter of “cherry-picking” the Scriptures, and in fact it is one of Satan’s skills to know the Scriptures perfectly and quote them pretty much in the way you describe. It is a matter of being humble and, by the grace of the Holy Spirit, understand that the Bible is about life and salvation - a message hardly understood by the secular world of darkness to which many seem to enjoy belonging to.

Overall, please know that I am reporting your posts to a moderator, that he may review them in accordance with the conduct rules of this forum.

That’s cool - I reported yours also. I understand that I am also under attack. Ive said nothing offensive or unreasonable. No different than you telling me I’m some kind of death merchant.

 

[R_C]

That’s cool - I reported yours also. I understand that I am also under attack. Ive said nothing offensive or unreasonable. No different than you telling me I’m some kind of death merchant.

I accept from this moment any decision the moderator may take with regards to my posts.

I have never said you have been offensive or unreasonable. By the way, could you kindly clarify where have I told you that you are some kind of death merchant? Show me that I did tell you this, and I myself will ask the administrator to ban me from CAF.

 

[ManRay]

I accept from this moment any decision the moderator may take with regards to my posts.

I have never said you have been offensive or unreasonable. By the way, could you kindly clarify where have I told you that you are some kind of death merchant? Show me that I did tell you this, and I myself will ask the administrator to ban me from CAF.

when we defend life, while you are after all trying to justify death.

Death merchants try and justify death, we are trying to ascertain if abortion is considered murder - please don’t attack me because I don’t agree with you. I say some kind as in - not so many words, but it’s clear to me where you were heading.

 

[R_C]

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]

Arguments involving rights, genetic codes, etc… etc…if aren’t argued correctly are really lacking in logical merit.
And whoever posted “case closed” wow…

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

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