Arguement for Pro life

[Prodigal_Son1]

Lawyer jokes rock. Like I said I’m mostly concerned with rights. If two people engage in consensual sex and then decide - hey - we don’t want a child - well too bad. You sowed it - you reap it. I don’t think ‘changing your mind’ works. But in the case of a rape…their was no mindset to have a child. No a prior thought of consensual sex. At that point everything becomes forced. The rights of the living breathing woman have been subjugated for the potential, and alleged rights of the -fill in the blank. That’s a point we haven’t even discussed. Until a child is actually born it’s a potential as there is no guarantee it will actually emerge from the womb just as there is no guarantee you will return from getting the mail. Any medical doctor will tell you that it is near impossible to even p(name removed by moderator)oint the actual time of conception so you are in reality assigning rights to some ‘undetermined point in time’ - It simply comes down to rights. You are a reasonable and intelligent person. I can respect your right to believe that life(personhood) begins at conception. What I expect in return is a reciprocal respect for those who do not share your beliefs. The problem is that people who feel as you do strongly believe life begins at conception want to force other women to bow to their moral position about abortion and they want their beliefs on the issue to be compelled by law. See we are once again entering the realm of force, and rights. But I would never presume to force anyone to get an abortion. I look at it as simple logic - diametric realities. Until the world locates, and captures the soul and keeps it in a box as evidence (it better weigh 21 grams) then I am under no burden to except your opinion or any church’s opinion regarding a soul or what qualifies as personhood. Nor am I under any burden to forfeit my rights to satisfy your position which I’m not in agreement with. My position would never restrict someones rights not to have an abortion, the opposing position does.

I’ve explained my views on life begins at conception; through the living cells that develop through stages until a child is born. I believe pro-life is life from conception until natural death, for all people. This means I am one of the Catholics that is anti-death penalty as well as anti-abortion; however, I question man’s ability to legislate morality. Murder is against the law, as are drugs, rape, robbery, etc. We have not stopped those crimes by legislating against them. I think the very best we could hope for would be the preserving of as many lives as possible through legislation. Legislating morality is as if man believes he knows a better way of achieving what God does not, but certainly could.

The rape scenario you present would be a very hard moral choice for anyone that was in that situation. It’s easy to say what we would do in a similar situation, much easier than what we would really do if it were a reality we had to live with. Because of that thought I believe we should exhibit compassion, as well as respect, irregardless of a decision by another. That’s an aspect of pro-life that seems to be overlooked at times, respecting others and treating them with compassion, as I believe we’re called to do. We’re supposed to seek a conversion of hearts so that these discussions, including the scenarios you paint, wouldn’t be necessary.

It’s a difficult subject for either side. I only say that so we all give thought to how we should approach the subject with each other.

You know why lawyers are good divers in shark infested waters?

Professional courtesy…

 

[ManRay]

I think we’ve come to that wonderful place in dialogue where good feelings abound - I’m cool with this. I respect what you’ve said, and you’ve said it with class. I too wish the world was different. I’m probably more of a catholic than an atheist, but I don’t like to subscribe to labels, and ‘camps’…I only say Catholic because outside of eastern religions, and Islam - there isn’t anything but the catholic church in my opinion. Anyway,
It seems clear to me that something can’t come from nothing - but my mind isn’t capable of understanding a thing that exists outside of time and space - I live within time and space so I don’t have a reference point. I’m impressed that others have this ability, that they can actually define something that exists outside of the known parameters of definition. I even find my self praying sometimes - but I like to to refer to it as going into my super hope mode. Turbo longings!

I’ve explained my views on life begins at conception; through the living cells that develop through stages until a child is born. I believe pro-life is life from conception until natural death, for all people. This means I am one of the Catholics that is anti-death penalty as well as anti-abortion; however, I question man’s ability to legislate morality. Murder is against the law, as are drugs, rape, robbery, etc. We have not stopped those crimes by legislating against them. I think the very best we could hope for would be the preserving of as many lives as possible through legislation. Legislating morality is as if man believes he knows a better way of achieving what God does not, but certainly could.

The rape scenario you present would be a very hard moral choice for anyone that was in that situation. It’s easy to say what we would do in a similar situation, much easier than what we would really do if it were a reality we had to live with. Because of that thought I believe we should exhibit compassion, as well as respect, irregardless of a decision by another. That’s an aspect of pro-life that seems to be overlooked at times, respecting others and treating them with compassion, as I believe we’re called to do. We’re supposed to seek a conversion of hearts so that these discussions, including the scenarios you paint, wouldn’t be necessary.

It’s a difficult subject for either side. I only say that so we all give thought to how we should approach the subject with each other.

You know why lawyers are good divers in shark infested waters?

Professional courtesy…

 

[Farsight001]

Mr. obtuse - Ok I’ll hold your hand - since you want to be a hateful person, and know that you wont’ get banned - be the keyboard warrior that you think you are!!! Tough guy!!! Yea - the internet provides courage for the people who have none!!! Awesome!! If you read properly I was referring to mitigation is regards to painting a complex subject with one stroke - nothing to do with what you are talking about. IT DOESN"T SAY IT PERTAINS TO INNOCENT BYSTANDERS!!! THAT"S THE WHOLE POINT BRAINIAC!!! It doesn’t pertain to any one subject. In your infinite wisdom you stated that it pertained to an attacking assailant or whatever. Wow - you’re amazing!!! Make sure you report this so I can get banned and you can pat yourself on the back - MIGHT MAKES RIGHT!!! YEA!!!

Lol. I’m a keyboard warrior? No. I’m just bored, having discovered that I don’t have the data necessary to write one of my field reports because the professor has not yet provided it, so I thought I’d kill time here. You said your expertise was in law? Well, it sure ain’t in psychology. In more plain terms, you’re not good at reading people.

Ok, so it doesn’t pertain to any specific subject. And? what about the rest of what I wrote? About how mitigating circumstances reduces culpability, but does not remove guilt? Strange that you have failed to acknowledge any of that, but chose instead to mock me and insult my intelligence. Ad hominems are the true mark of one with nothing left to offer.

Wow - you are a hateful person. Are you a republican by chance? Just curious. There is no universal definition that a fetus possesses personhood - you are wrong. Youre probably confusion the nouns human, and human being - even the lame source wiki sums it up well.

What about my statement would have been hateful? And why in the world would being hateful make you assume I am a republican? (I am not)

There is no universal definition? No? like I said, check any medical dictionary or biology textbook on the planet. It’s right there. You can declare the definition doesn’t exist all you want. You would simply be wrong. and wikipedia? It’s an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. Learn the difference.

Sure I did - you just can’t read. Sorry

Checked again. Nope. Not there. No acknowledgment of my statements or a response to them.

Oh so now I’m a liar huh? You know I would get banned if I wrote that - I bet you won’t though. Very telling. You are an awesome representative of catholic charity…You rock. Thanx for your charity, but I need a shower now. I won’t be letting you wast any more of my time. I’m sure I was baited anyway.

You have said you support abortion and you have said you are pro-life. The two positions are impossible to hold simultaneously. Thus, logically, at least one of the claims must be false. Hence, logically, no matter which one may be true, you are lying about at least one of them. No one gets banned for calling out dishonesty here. But for your willful insults above? Probably.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

No argument is necessary. Abortion kills a human being. This is murder. There, argument.

 

[JDaniel]

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:

It’s easy to deflect an argument by grossly redefining terms - which you seem to be fairly good at. (But, not great, by any means! We see through your feigned indigence instantly.)

“Sovereign rights.” The closest the OED has to defining that collection of words is: sovereign good." And this means: “noun, (the sovereign good), the greatest good, especially that of a state or its people.”

So your concoction of words should mean, “the greatest right(s), especially that of a state or its people.”

All rights are not the same. All rights do not carry the same weight. The most important right, in my view, and probably the people’s and the state’s, is the right to life. All others are way on down the list - except for those people who can’t keep their private parts in their pants, and don’t give a damn about their progeny.

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??

That is an essentially baseless argument. One only need to go on-line to discover that truth. In the world, there are about 800 women who die each day from childbirth complications, 99% of which are preventable. Now, let’s see, in America alone, 215,000 unborn children are murdered each day. Percentage wise, far more women die from cigarette smoking in a day than women who die from childbirth complications. I’d be willing to bet that you are not out there vocally advocating that women cease smoking, are you? Well, are you?

God bless,
jd

 

[ManRay]

you called me a flipping liar??? Hahhahahahhahaa_ ad hominems >> hahahaha - i did completely respond to this!!! It isn’t even germain to what i was talking about??? I can"t lower my self any more.
I’ll just do what you do… And tell you that you"re wrong. K thanx.
See ya.

 

[JDaniel]

Lawyer jokes rock. Like I said I’m mostly concerned with rights. If two people engage in consensual sex and then decide - hey - we don’t want a child - well too bad. You sowed it - you reap it. I don’t think ‘changing your mind’ works.

MR:

Excellent.

But in the case of a rape…their was no mindset to have a child. No a prior thought of consensual sex. At that point everything becomes forced.

By who?

The rights of the living breathing woman have been subjugated for the potential, and alleged rights of the -fill in the blank. That’s a point we haven’t even discussed. Until a child is actually born it’s a potential as there is no guarantee it will actually emerge from the womb just as there is no guarantee you will return from getting the mail.

There are two kinds of death: (1) natural, and, (2) nonnatural. As much as any Catholic would like to prevent natural deaths, we at least can prevent nonnatural ones. Abortion is of the latter kind.

Any medical doctor will tell you that it is near impossible to even p(name removed by moderator)oint the actual time of conception so you are in reality assigning rights to some ‘undetermined point in time’ - It simply comes down to rights. You are a reasonable and intelligent person.

You really believe that the absolute pinnacle of rights - the “right to life” - is trump-able? If you do, that defeats your entire “rights argument.” What your argument really boils down to is that my right to not be inconvenienced trumps a human beings right to life. Are you really sure you want to argue that?

I can respect your right to believe that life(personhood) begins at conception. What I expect in return is a reciprocal respect for those who do not share your beliefs.

What’s the alternative belief? Are you now going to try to argue that an unborn child’s “personhood” really doesn’t occur until they are on the outside of a woman’s belly skin? Really? Since when did “breathing air” become a property of, or part of, the definition of a “baby?”

The problem is that people who feel as you do strongly believe life begins at conception want to force other women to bow to their moral position about abortion and they want their beliefs on the issue to be compelled by law.

The problem with people who argue as you are is that they are usually guys who want to loosen female morality. (Be honest; you just want to be able to have consensual sex as often and with whomever it pleases you. )

See we are once again entering the realm of force, and rights.

Clever. But, smart girls won’t buy that line - no matter how hard you try to get them to.

But I would never presume to force anyone to get an abortion. I look at it as simple logic - diametric realities. Until the world locates, and captures the soul and keeps it in a box as evidence (it better weigh 21 grams) then I am under no burden to except your opinion or any church’s opinion regarding a soul or what qualifies as personhood.

Even if you are never convinced by our argument for the “soul,” you, yourself, have argued for the existence of “sovereign” rights, as you call them. Is my right to keep my water greater than your right to consume some of it if you are about to go into your fourth day without any? Not in my book! I may run out if I allow you to take some. On the other hand, I may not. But, four days without water usually results in death.

Nor am I under any burden to forfeit my rights to satisfy your position which I’m not in agreement with.

Of course not. But, you must permit yourself to forfeit any right which objects to a much more fundamental and primary right. Right?

There is a hierarchy of rights, right? Give me one that supervenes the right to life. The only thing you have been trying to do is to try to reduce the unborn child to something else. Look: the definition of a cause is that a specific effect always, or almost always, follows from it. Thus, if very occasionally, a baby dies before birth, the fact that a human baby will always, or almost always, be born is still more than just logical, it is extraordinarily ontological.

BTW: when you change your mind, will you join us?

God bless,
jd

 

[oldcatholicguy]

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

Your entire post is based on a poor understanding of science. A fetus is a human, an acorn is an oak tree, and a chicken egg is a chicken. You seem to think science determines what something is based on its developmental stage. It doesn’t work like that.

 

[ManRay]

MR:

Excellent.

By who?

 

[Marc_Anthony]

Your entire post is based on a poor understanding of science. A fetus is a human, an acorn is an oak tree, and a chicken egg is a chicken. You seem to think science determines what something is based on its developmental stage. It doesn’t work like that.

You are correct. My first thought was that an acorn, when it has reached the point where it will naturally develop into an oak tree, is quite obviously the same thing at a different developmental stage.

I really don’t see how this is arguable.

 

[JDaniel]

]The woman. She didn’t wake up in the morning, and decide to become raped. That’s the whole point of rape. It’s forced sex. And now the law is forcing her to have a child. That’s immoral.

MR:

No. To borrow an expression from a past VP of the United States, it’s an inconvenient miracle! Unfortunately, we see so many young being born, that we have learned to see it not for what it really is, instead it has become merely another, everyday occurrence.

Another person cannot force another person to produce a baby, no more than a person can force another person to kill a baby.

Here’s where that logic breaks down: a rapist has the power in that situation to force whatever he wants. But, there’s no secular law forcing a rapee to have the baby. It is our belief that any and all ensoulments of any and all brand new human children is miraculous, caused by God, and no human has the exquisite right to usurp that miracle. As I said, it is an inconvenient miracle.

It’s fundamental logic. I have no problem understanding this - and the religious do. Maybe that’s the whole problem.

But, it’s not “logic.” It’s personal whim. PERIOD. Remember, thousands of years ago, it was more than likely the predominant method of pro-creation of the species. It wasn’t called “rape” then. Perhaps it was called, “Ugh.” I don’t know as I wasn’t there. So, now, after centuries of accepting our bodies as our closest personal possessions, the idea of “rape” has become more abhorrent. But, it is not the brand new child’s fault, nor is it the mother’s fault. It is the rapist’s fault; and, it is he who will ultimately pay for his sin - even though he may not pay here and now.

I don’t agree. If you consider abortion murder, then you are defacto considering murder unnatural.

So, how is it “natural?”

That’s fine if that’s how you feel, but I can’t agree. I would argue that murder is a complete natural act born of natural tendencies.

“Natural tendencies” sounds like something causative to me. But a cause is that which produces the same effect always, or almost always. If, as statistics show, one out of five women will be raped once in their lifetimes, there is no causation to something called “natural tendencies,” in this instance. Murder is a rarity - even though our news media love to write about it. Logically, natural tendencies is not a cause for murder by any stretch. If it were, defense attorneys would use it as a mitigator.

NEVER SAID THAT. In Fact YOU are the one saying that. If the right to life cannot be trumped then it is a contradiction in terms to consider that a fill in the blank’s existence trumps the woman’s rights. You are the one saying that - not me.

Not so. You are saying that the new child’s existence cannot trump the woman’s right to her own body. This is what we disagree with. We fully understand the heroism involved in keeping and bearing a child of rape. God calls us to be heroic. Look at what He did as Jesus.

I reason that a cell - or even a cluster of cells - is not a person, because it logically fails.

“Fails” what? Fails to be born the instant you want it to? Fails to breathe air the moment you expect it to? Fails? What kind of logic is that?

No one in their right mind considers an acorn to be an Oak tree. No one considers an egg to be a Chicken. So you have to succumb to cognitive dissonance in order to make it otherwise work in your mind

How do oak trees come about? How do new human beings come about? Is there something I missed when in school? Do acorns become sharks? Do new babies become, in nine months, oak trees? Cognitive dissonance? Who really has it?

You have developed your belief system - your world view.

Not so. It is the view of the Catholic Church and has been for a couple of thousand years now.

So when something breaks the logic - your mind will not allow you to understand it,

I ask you that same question!

You have to believe that a cell is a person or else you get into mental trouble.

Not so. No Catholic believes that a cell is a person, unless it has just undergone fertilization.

continued . . .

 

[JDaniel]

continuation . . .

Even though this isn’t even true as defined by simple definitions. The very hateful person above keeps saying that any biology text book will tell you the same thing, and then calls me a liar. His mind is so distorted with dissonance that he is willing to attack someone in order not to have his belief system shaken. The reason we have words such as CELL, ZYGOTE, BLASTOCYST, FETUS etc…etc…Is because the word PERSON would be completely inaccurate.

“Completely inaccurate?” So, by your consideration, a newly born child is not a person either. A 'sprout" is not its representative tree, or plant; a puppy is not a dog; a chick is not a bird. Are you sure you want to go this route?

Whether I’m a good student or a bad student - I’m a student of philosophy.

And I hope you will become a great philosopher some day!

It seems completely clear to me that an overwhelming indicator and reality of a thing is it’s form.

Despite that a form may be continually changing? When you were 6 years old, you probably weighed 40 lbs. Now, you probably weigh 140 lbs. 100 lbs of change!! Yet, through it all, you are still you. Remember, the form of a living being does not require absolute permanence. Things that mature and grow do so without substantially altering the thing’s substantial Form.

We separate interpretively through this very process. Everyone does this! The only was to get around this is to succumb to dissonance. Why is a dog a dog? A cat a cat? Part of having personhood is to also possess that form

A form that can, and does, change accidentally, but remains the same substantially. (This would be a great subject for a new thread!)

(now don’t go creating straw men, and stating - well what about a deformed person - or the elephant man etc…etc…)

I won’t.

I’m saying that’s part of it - form. There would also have to be consciousness, the ability to exist apart and independent of another thing, etc…etc.

Which a zygote can participate in within a few days or weeks.

I don’t believe that a person who’s brain has been obliterated by gunshot, and is now being kept alive with a machine as fitting the definition of possessing personhood either.

So, a person who once had personhood, but because of an accident, is accidentally changed no longer has personhood. I sure hope my children don’t view me that way when I get lots older!

Oh and I’m celibate

That’s probably a little more than I need to know.

This goes back to what I said before. Possessing water isn’t an unalienable right. A person cannot have foreknowledge of everything you are describing - you cannot use hypothetical and fantastical scenarios to drive home such a point.

This is not a fantastical, hypothetical scenario. It most likely happened quite often in the old west. And, if it wasn’t water, it was a cow, or a pig, or a chicken. If it wasn’t any of them, it might have been shelter from inclement weather, or the cold. Etc., etc.

That just fails.

That favorite expression, of your, is beginning to fail!

Even if this were true it makes you just as guilty because you are forfeiting the rights of the mother over the rights of the fill in the blank. This is the clear contradiction that I’m talking about that in my humble opinion everyone has failed to squash. Whether or not something happens less than the other doesn’t diminish the effective reality. If you follow that logic then EVERY criminal arrested by a cop is in fact guilty because MOST of them end up to be. That logic is easily broken.

No. that’s the wrong direction to proceed. One should instead say, Everyone is innocent until proven guilty. While the few get arrested, the many never do.

Absolutely - I love studying religion. It’s endlessly fascinating how the mind works. Catholicism is even extremely aesthetically pleasing - I love the whole pomp and circumstance, the iconography, the wild history etc…etc… Cool stuff.

Terrific. Now, I’m not asking for your conversion (even though that would be wonderful) I am asking for your willingness to debate and powerfully defend your views. I can imagine debating against you if you were pro-life! You’d be a tough opponent.

God bless,
jd

 

[R_C]

I would argue that murder is a complete natural act born of natural tendencies.

Let us give thanks to the wise ManRay for teaching us highly uneducated, silly religious people that murder, “the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another”, is a natural thing, like eating, sleeping, and falling in love.

Perhaps, dear ManRay, you may want to further expand and enlighten us as well on why murder can be a good thing.

Perhaps you may want to instruct us even further, beyond the case of abortion, on when is murder recommended.

This way we may be able to take decisions in a more informed way, and perhaps promote some new legislation for “murderer rights”.

 

[ManRay]

MR:
No. To borrow an expression from a past VP of the United States, it’s an inconvenient miracle! Unfortunately, we see so many young being born, that we have learned to see it not for what it really is, instead it has become merely another, everyday occurrence.
Here’s where that logic breaks down: a rapist has the power in that situation to force whatever he wants. But, there’s no secular law forcing a rapee to have the baby. It is our belief that any and all ensoulments of any and all brand new human children is miraculous, caused by God, and no human has the exquisite right to usurp that miracle. As I said, it is an inconvenient miracle.

I don’t support arguments from authority. I see no evidence that there is any such thing as a miracle. The logic doesn’t break down. I don’t advocate forcing people to get abortions. If you get it your way there is a third party that will force a woman who not only had no intention of having sex, but no intention of having a baby - or face repercussion. What if she possessed a medical condition where a pregnancy would jeopardize her health, and life?

But, it’s not “logic.” It’s personal whim. PERIOD. Remember, thousands of years ago, it was more than likely the predominant method of pro-creation of the species. It wasn’t called “rape” then. Perhaps it was called, “Ugh.” I don’t know as I wasn’t there.

Whoaaa - whooaooaoaoaoaoao!!! I don’t even know how to respond.

So, how is it “natural?”

“Natural tendencies” sounds like something causative to me. But a cause is that which produces the same effect always, or almost always. If, as statistics show, one out of five women will be raped once in their lifetimes, there is no causation to something called “natural tendencies,” in this instance. Murder is a rarity - even though our news media love to write about it. Logically, natural tendencies is not a cause for murder by any stretch. If it were, defense attorneys would use it as a mitigator.

It’s a natural act, because human beings are greedy, selfish, envious, hateful. However wrong it is - murder can be the final expression of purely natural emotions. How many times it happens has nothing to do with it. You keep using likelihood versus the unlikelihood of something happening as some sort of proof as to the validity of your argument. It’s ridiculous.

Not so. You are saying that the new child’s existence cannot trump the woman’s right to her own body. This is what we disagree with. We fully understand the heroism involved in keeping and bearing a child of rape. God calls us to be heroic. Look at what He did as Jesus.

Then we disagree. So be it.

How do oak trees come about? How do new human beings come about? Is there something I missed when in school? Do acorns become sharks? Do new babies become, in nine months, oak trees? Cognitive dissonance? Who really has it?

You have it. Don’t confuse the process with the product. You know that an acorn isn’t an oak tree. Dissonance wont allow you to except it when debating your worldview. If you tell me to prepare a chicken for an important dinner party and I crack some eggs in bowl, and bring them out to you - Are you going to except that the chicken dinner is served and expect everyone there to be down for that? Please man…get real. You know this isn’t true. Just as paint isn’t a painting.

Not so. It is the view of the Catholic Church and has been for a couple of thousand years now.

I don’t accept arguments from authority.

 

[ManRay]

That is a gross bastardization of my point. I never said that murder is right. Never said that it wasn’t unlawful. Is said it is a natural part of the human condition. People lie, cheat, and steal - always have. Misrepresenting me with the straw man automatically makes you wrong.

Let us give thanks to the wise ManRay for teaching us highly uneducated, silly religious people that murder, “the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another”, is a natural thing, like eating, sleeping, and falling in love.

Perhaps, dear ManRay, you may want to further expand and enlighten us as well on why murder can be a good thing.

Perhaps you may want to instruct us even further, beyond the case of abortion, on when is murder recommended.

This way we may be able to take decisions in a more informed way, and perhaps promote some new legislation for “murderer rights”.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

On the rape scenario, I must wonder if there would be a lower propensity towards aborting a child produced by rape if that child could be promised a good home by willing intended parents that commit to adopting the child. From what I understand a woman is less likely to consider abortion if she feels she is in a position to take care of a child. So I also wonder if the female feeling that her child will be taken care of after it is born would have the same impact. It may even give her a chance to go through some psychological/emotional healing after which she might have interest in being a part of the child’s life. It would also give some that have strong feelings against abortion to be part of the change they would like to see in the world.

This is partially speculative, but also partially based on a family I know whose then middle school aged daughter was raped. Abortion was considered, but at the end of the consideration the parents of the girl decided that they would take care of the child. As it turned out the girl did not become pregnant.

Kind of a side note, but something the girls father said was that while they had talked about the subject of abortion before (in social conversations) it wasn’t until he was really in a situation where it impacted him that the topic became “real.” In comparison the way he had described the previous discussions sounded like they felt more like “academic exercises” (my words, not his).

 

[ManRay]

continuation . . .

“Completely inaccurate?” So, by your consideration, a newly born child is not a person either. A 'sprout" is not its representative tree, or plant; a puppy is not a dog; a chick is not a bird. Are you sure you want to go this route?

IM ABSOLUTELY SURE I WANT TO GO THIS ROUTE!!! You are having a hard time digesting simple English my friend. That is understandable but don’t misrepresent my arguments to validate yours!!! The word puppy is a descriptor within the already established form that is dog. Get real. A puppy has the form of a dog. I stated in no uncertain terms that form was part of it. Once again A puppy has the form of a dog. Not the form of a cell, or a kitten, or a plant. ARE YOU KIDDING ME??? A cell has NO FORM of person hood. There isn’t even a brain. It’s a cellular structure. It isn’t a person. It is a ‘potential person’… A child has the form of a person…and so on, and so on.

And I hope you will become a great philosopher some day!

Better than you guys — sheesh. I’m not misrepresenting your arguments. I’m not throwing straw men at you guys. I’m not the one twisting contexts. This is weak.

Despite that a form may be continually changing? When you were 6 years old, you probably weighed 40 lbs. Now, you probably weigh 140 lbs. 100 lbs of change!! Yet, through it all, you are still you. Remember, the form of a living being does not require absolute permanence. Things that mature and grow do so without substantially altering the thing’s substantial Form.

This is amazing. First I said form is part of it. Second there is a difference between evolving form, and becoming something different. You have to be able to understand this. A child grows, but it still possesses the form of a person from the 40-140 pounds. Are you kidding me? The only way your logic holds water is if you believe that a caterpillar is a butterfly, and a butterfly is a caterpillar. You know this isn’t true, but you’ll argue it anyway within the context of this debate because that is exactly what you are doing. A caterpillar perishes before it becomes a butterfly. How would you describe it in a way that someone would understand what you were talking about. If you have an assignment in Earthscience class that requires you to collect samples of caterpillars and butterflys are you just going to bring back a bunch of caterpillars, and try and convince the teacher that they are butterflys? really? If I want to see someone’s butterfly collection and they show me a collection of caterpillars I’ll send em your way.

Terrific. Now, I’m not asking for your conversion (even though that would be wonderful) I am asking for your willingness to debate and powerfully defend your views. I can imagine debating against you if you were pro-life! You’d be a tough opponent.

I’m pretty sure I’m spot on. thanx for the compliment. I do feel like I’m being misrepresented, and the contexts are being seriously twisted…but oh well.

 

[R_C]

That is a gross bastardization of my point. I never said that murder is right. Never said that it wasn’t unlawful. Is said it is a natural part of the human condition. People lie, cheat, and steal - always have.

No, you said that it was a completely natural act born of natural tendencies. That is incorrect.

To lie, cheat, steal, and murder are perversions of natural acts born from vicious tendencies that ought to be corrected. Which is why both the religious and the secular world agree - so far - on the necessity to have laws that condemn and punish lying, cheating, stealing, and murdering.

To claim that they are “natural but wrong” is awkward, and makes one wonder who has the right to discern which “natural” things are right and which are wrong.

That being said, perhaps you should explain why you keep referring to a developing human being as “a cell”. Perhaps you want to review the stages of human development to see how that “cell” fairly quickly develops into a person (I’d rather not arbitrarily add the adjective potential to what is still a person). Perhaps I should remind you that after 18 days the heart of the “potential person” starts beating, and after 42 to 56 days we detect brain waves in the brain stem.

As for becoming a great philosopher, sure thing, I’ve read the works of great philosophers who have developed such horrors as moral relativism.

Yet wisdom is justified by her deeds.

Btw, we have forgotten the point of this whole argument: the human soul. These secular thinkers ignore the existence of the soul, so they cannot understand our point. Sure, we should step down towards them and try to explain from the purely worldly standpoint why abortion and murder are wrong, but it’s complicated when you are missing a big part of the picture.

 

[doormouse73]

i have a question to ask any body who is willing to answer…

a woman in my town got run over by a speeding car.

she was four weeks pregnant.

the police in the local papers says she was carrying a child.

why did they not say one of those stupid words(zigot?) what ManRay uses to justify no life.

I would argue that murder is a complete natural act born of natural tendencies.

and he never got charged with murder,why?is it because its natural to murder somebody?

 

[R_C]

and he never got charged with murder,why?

If that is the case, then it is because (as far as I know) this is called involuntary manslaughter, given the absence of intent, malice, and aforethought. This is still a homicide, as well, but a non-criminal one.