O
openmind77
Guest
OK, that is your opinion. In my opinion, the soul matters a lot, even more than the body.
- Status
E
edwest211
Guest
No, it’s not a useless personal opinion. The Catholic Church:
"Presumably in response to the liberalization of abortion practices and laws, as well as in anticipation of the loss of Church legal power through the Papal States, Pope Pius IX released the encyclical “Apostolica Sedis Moderationi” in 1869. This document, like “Effraenatam,” dismissed quickening as a standard for determining the right to life of the fetus and reaffirmed the consequence of immediate excommunication for any intentionally procured abortion.
“The condemnation of abortion without regard to quickening or stage of fetal development is still the official doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church and many popes have since elaborated on the Church’s beliefs in their own papal documents. “Humanae Vitae” by Pope Paul VI and “Evangelium Vitae” by Pope John Paul II both dismiss the importance of quickening in determining the value of embryonic or fetal life and fiercely defend the decision set in motion by Pope Pius IX. In addition, as science has progressed with technology to observe life in the womb, the Roman Catholic Church has pointed to techniques such as ultrasound to support the irrelevance of quickening for determining the beginning of life. The documents named above are also reinforced by the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which confirms the idea of immediate hominization or ensoulment upon conception and disregards quickening as a point of legal or moral significance.”
"Presumably in response to the liberalization of abortion practices and laws, as well as in anticipation of the loss of Church legal power through the Papal States, Pope Pius IX released the encyclical “Apostolica Sedis Moderationi” in 1869. This document, like “Effraenatam,” dismissed quickening as a standard for determining the right to life of the fetus and reaffirmed the consequence of immediate excommunication for any intentionally procured abortion.
“The condemnation of abortion without regard to quickening or stage of fetal development is still the official doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church and many popes have since elaborated on the Church’s beliefs in their own papal documents. “Humanae Vitae” by Pope Paul VI and “Evangelium Vitae” by Pope John Paul II both dismiss the importance of quickening in determining the value of embryonic or fetal life and fiercely defend the decision set in motion by Pope Pius IX. In addition, as science has progressed with technology to observe life in the womb, the Roman Catholic Church has pointed to techniques such as ultrasound to support the irrelevance of quickening for determining the beginning of life. The documents named above are also reinforced by the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which confirms the idea of immediate hominization or ensoulment upon conception and disregards quickening as a point of legal or moral significance.”
O
openmind77
Guest
Nobody’s opinion is useless even if it is only a personal one. I do respect everyone’s opinion, especially that of the Catholic Church.
But that does not stop me from having my own.
E
edwest211
Guest
Very well. The science I pointed out will be a feature in future legislation.
V
VanitasVanitatum
Guest
That’s not entirely true. You can both agree that a dog isn’t a person, and you disagree that an embryo is a person.
Last edited:
Given the forum is Catholic, the teachings of the church are taken as fact.
W
Wozza
Guest
Your next response is an apology or you are being reported. Your call.
Last edited:
G
goout
Guest
Your position is directly comparable and shares the same moral bankruptcy with the 3/5 compromise and the holocaust.goout:
Let’s get this straight, goout. What are you saying by the term Holocaust there? It seems to me that you are implying something that I find excessively abhorrent. Maybe you wanna back track a little.
I’ll tell you something that might sound convenient but is the absolute truth. I’m in middle Europe at the moment and I was at Auschwitz less than a week ago. I needn’t tell you what effect a visit to that hell hole can have on anyone.
If you are insinuating that my position on early term abortion is in ANY way comparable to my opinion on the Holocaust, then I am demanding an apology.
I have never reported anyone in any forum I have ever been involved with over very many years, but depending on your answer, you may be the first.
Your position subjects human life to political power and uses the language to accomplish it.
Why is it hard for you to own your own philosophy?
W
Wozza
Guest
Reported…Wozza:
Your position is directly comparable and shares the same moral bankruptcy with the 3/5 compromise and the holocaust.goout:
Let’s get this straight, goout. What are you saying by the term Holocaust there? It seems to me that you are implying something that I find excessively abhorrent. Maybe you wanna back track a little.
I’ll tell you something that might sound convenient but is the absolute truth. I’m in middle Europe at the moment and I was at Auschwitz less than a week ago. I needn’t tell you what effect a visit to that hell hole can have on anyone.
If you are insinuating that my position on early term abortion is in ANY way comparable to my opinion on the Holocaust, then I am demanding an apology.
I have never reported anyone in any forum I have ever been involved with over very many years, but depending on your answer, you may be the first.
Your position subjects human life to political power and uses the language to accomplish it.
Why is it hard for you to own your own philosophy?
E
EZweber
Guest
What is your definition of “soul”? My definition is the life principle of a body, in which case the science is inconclusive.
E
EZweber
Guest
To return to the discussion here, I think that we should return to the definition of person. I define “definition” as a statement of essence. A definition should state what inherently makes a thing what it is. My problem with your definition is that there are persons who do not fit your definition of person (such as those in a coma), so your definition cannot be what inherently makes something a person.
W
Wozza
Guest
Then add those who are in a coma.
E
Elf01
Guest
Why do you consider people in a coma persons when they don’t meet your definition?
G
goout
Guest
Thank you.goout:
Reported…Wozza:
Your position is directly comparable and shares the same moral bankruptcy with the 3/5 compromise and the holocaust.goout:
Let’s get this straight, goout. What are you saying by the term Holocaust there? It seems to me that you are implying something that I find excessively abhorrent. Maybe you wanna back track a little.
I’ll tell you something that might sound convenient but is the absolute truth. I’m in middle Europe at the moment and I was at Auschwitz less than a week ago. I needn’t tell you what effect a visit to that hell hole can have on anyone.
If you are insinuating that my position on early term abortion is in ANY way comparable to my opinion on the Holocaust, then I am demanding an apology.
I have never reported anyone in any forum I have ever been involved with over very many years, but depending on your answer, you may be the first.
Your position subjects human life to political power and uses the language to accomplish it.
Why is it hard for you to own your own philosophy?
I hope that helps you own your philosophy, it’s real history, it’s direct comparison to barbarism and oppression, and it’s consequences for human beings.
Same philosophy, different set of corpses.
E
EZweber
Guest
You miss my point. If those in a coma are persons, and they do not fit the essence of personhood in that definition, then that definition doesn’t state the essence of personhood. A definition with exceptions is not a good definition.
W
Wozza
Guest
It’s not an exception. We’ve included ‘someone in a coma’ into the definition of person. It’s now part of the definition we can use.Wozza:
You miss my point. If those in a coma are persons, and they do not fit the essence of personhood in that definition, then that definition doesn’t state the essence of personhood. A definition with exceptions is not a good definition.
Don’t you consider them persons? I’m sure you do. As do I. So being in a coma doesn’t preclude you from being within the definition of ‘person’. Now we have a definition with which we can both agree.
We can do ‘brain dead’ now if you like. If someone is truly brain dead (let’s say his rain has been removed to avoid ambiguity) then that is not a person.
When do we stop doing this?
Last edited:
E
EZweber
Guest
My point is that we are trying to find the essence of personhood here. We are trying to find the one thing that all persons have that nothing that is not a person has. Your definition cannot be it because it is not common to all people.
E
Elf01
Guest
I notice that my question as to why they are persons is ignored.
W
Wozza
Guest
It’s not one thing is my point. I could say a person is a conscious being and then you’ll say that someone in a coma is not conscious so is not a person.Wozza:
My point is that we are trying to find the essence of personhood here. We are trying to find the one thing that all persons have that nothing that is not a person has. Your definition cannot be it because it is not common to all people.
So let’s stick with this example and see where it goes. It may solve all other areas of disagreement. What does a person in a coma posess that a person who has had his brain removed does not? It can’t be consciousness as neither has it. It can’t be life as both are still alive. So what do you consider to be the difference?
E
Elf01
Guest
It’s what you consider the difference that we are trying to establish.
- Status