How to re-educate so that people will understand about abortion?

[allhers]

**Many someone elses.

Limerick**

Obviously they were concerned for the aborted babies eternal soul and the taking of the innocent life by abortion, which, from reading your posts, doesn’t seem to be a concern of yours.

However, it does seem that when you say that you have repented, but yet still believe that abortion is a choice, even a very sad one, that you really haven’t repented as repentance entails a turning away from sin, not a persistance in it.

By saying that you are for choice, we see that as you saying that you acknowledge that abortion is alright for those who choose it. You say it is between them and God, and we are saying that God has already made it clear when He said Thou shall NOT murder.

Abortion is the choice to murder an innocent life.

I’m not saying that when someone says a baby killer will go to hell and stay there, that that isn’t a possibility (if they truly don’t repent), but I do know that God knows if they have repented or not when they don’t say one way or the other, but …

When someone says that they have repented and that abortion is a choice, we all can clearly see that there is no true repentance.

 

[allhers]

**Misunderstood or interpreted differently?

L**

It was clear that he misunderstood, as he said himself, they speak for themselves, and they made it clear in the footnotes that he pointed out, what they were indeed saying.
Perhaps you could go back and read the whole thing and we won’t have to rehash it yet again, some of these things, as you know, have been discussed both on this thread and the thread entitled Abortion.

 

[vz71]

"I squirm for no one!"

And we now see absolute denial.
The previous posts, as well as this one, attest to this.

**

We can discuss death

**, vz. What do you want to say to me? Not to “the opposition”, that vague and dishonest reference to anyone who does not agree with your every point.And it appears that the opposition is still trying to obscure what the subject always has been
Well, at least there is no longer a semblence of choice in the argument.
Instead, death has made an appearence.

There is no such thing as an assurtion.

All we can do here is offer apologies for not spelling the word assertion correctly.
But we can also be secure in the knowledge that the debate is ours.
Whenever you find yourself correcting the spelling of the opposition rather then grappling with the logic of the argument, you have lost.
In this case, they are not grappling with our logic, they are indeed complaining about spelling…
And while we say…“It has never been about choice. It has always been about life.”
It is answered with **

Here you contradict yourself. You seem to have been saying all along that choice is about death.

**
Clearly they are substituting the word death for life.
It is a sad situation that the pro-abortion side now is in.
They know well that it is not about choice, they are clearly in favor of death, and cannot even bring themselves to use the word life.
**

Perhaps we know all to well what it really is, but we allow for the possibility that not every person on the planet is a Roman Catholic or believes and behaves as a Roman Catholic does.

Oh, well. Here we see the tired old argument that they have been using all along.
This time wrapped in the cloak of religious zealotry.
It is not about religion, it is about life.
They have already admitted that they are in support of ending human life.
Perhaps they are ashamed. Perhaps their heart is simply too hardened.
Perhaps they are simply too blind.

First you say we’re not warm and fuzzy enough because our hearts have been hardened; then you say there is no room for our inappropriate emotions in the most emotion-laden topic of the last 40 years. Pick one and stick with it

**.OK, let’s examine this one…
Warm and fuzzy was never in the vocabulary we have used…it is a red herring. Ignore it.
No one said there was no room for emotions in the most emotion laden topic of the last 40 years. This too is a red herring. Ignore it.
The command to “pick one and stick with it” is an effort to exert authority over you.
They have lost control of the argument, and they know it.
It is here that we need to be especially watchful of our emotions. The pro-abortion side at this point is likely to turn to the vulgar and vapid to illicit emotions from you and turn the argument into one of emotions and not life.

And note…they have still avoided answering the question on the table.
Why do you suppose that might be?
We have agreement that abortion ends human life.
We have agreement that they are in support of abortion.
Yet they are reluctant to tell us if they support the current legislation against murder.
Maybe they can see that it undercuts their argument of choice.**

If you are referring to me as “they”, may I ask why? Why can you not be direct yourself, vz71?

**

My argument is this. Abortion is legal, but if it were not it would not stop women from having abortions. Murder is illegal, but just because it is against the law it will not stop people from committing murder. It’s the same thing as every cop is just this side of criminal behavior and every psychiatrist is just this side of going mad.

Again, desperate attempts to exert control over the topic.
In this case, laying claim that the question concerning the current legislation against murder was not phrased properly.
This too is a lie. A quick read through the previous posts shows this.

And they have given what they claim to be their “argument”
This really is not. It is another decoy.
The flimsiness is somewhat embarrassing to look at, just because a law will not stop an action is not an excuse for making the act legal.
This is shown with every law on the books and the people currently serving time for breaking this.

Another red herring.

All of these desperate attempts to not address the crux of this issue.
They have admitted to be in support of abortion.
They have admitted that abortion is ending human life.
They are still reluctant to answer for the current legislation on murder.

It is important the pro-life side stays the course here and does not let them change the topic. The audience is listening, and the case the pro-abortion side has lost its footing.

 

[WillieWonka]

I understood what the Sacred Congregation said, I’m not asking you to speak for them. Would it be so bad to acknowledge that you misunderstood what they were saying?

“19. This declaration expressly leaves aside the question of the moment when the spiritual soul is infused. There is not a unanimous tradition on this point and authors are as yet in disagreement. For some it dates from the first instant; for others it could not at least precede nidation. It is not within the competence of science to decide between these views, because the existence of an immortal soul is not a question in its field. It is a philosophical problem from which our moral affirmation remains independent for two reasons: (1) supposing a belated animation, there is still nothing less than a human life, preparing for and calling for a soul in which the nature received from parents is completed, (2) on the other hand, it suffices that this presence of the soul be probable (and one can never prove the contrary) in order that the taking of life involve accepting the risk of killing a man, not only waiting for, but already in possession of his soul.”

“The Supreme Pontiff Pope Paul VI, in an audience granted to the undersigned Secretary of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on June 28, 1974, has ratified this Declaration on Procured Abortion and has confirmed it and ordered it to be promulgated.”

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19741118_declaration-abortion_en.html

 

[WillieWonka]

So is this an acknowledgement that you agee that they are taking an innocent life when someone aborts that life?

It is an observation that there is no disagreement about the fertilized egg being alive.

 

[vz71]

Was trying to respond to a post that disappeared?!!

Oh, I see, its the way limerick responds, nevermind.

If you click on what she said in the above post it just leaves the page blank as though she said nothing. Try it, click on quote and you’ll see what I mean.

Interesting.

I was able to replicate this in the sandbox threads.

It involves building your response and then placing the entirety into quotes.

This fits well into the realm of education as well. They went out of their way to make themselves “unquotable”
One could readily conclude they are simply trying to antagonize the opposition.

We can learn from this as well. In antagonizing others, they hope the rise of emotions will weaken the argument.

It is the act of someone that is well aware that their logical arguments are no longer as solid as they believed them to be.

 

[vz71]

It is an observation that there is no disagreement about the fertilized egg being alive.

Do you agree that it is human life?

 

[WillieWonka]

Do you agree that it is human life?

It is an egg of the human species, fertilized by a sperm of the human species, resulting in a fertilized egg of the human species. And it’s alive.

 

[vz71]

It is an egg of the human species, fertilized by a sperm of the human species, resulting in a fertilized egg of the human species. And it’s alive.

Human life.
There really is no need to go into all of the detail.

 

[WillieWonka]

Human life.
There really is no need to go into all of the detail.

Need is a function of purpose. Some people choose detail, and some don’t. The more accuracy one wants to convey, the more detail is included.

 

[allhers]

“19. This declaration expressly leaves aside the question of the moment when the spiritual soul is infused. There is not a unanimous tradition on this point and authors are as yet in disagreement. For some it dates from the first instant; for others it could not at least precede nidation. It is not within the competence of science to decide between these views, because the existence of an immortal soul is not a question in its field. It is a philosophical problem from which our moral affirmation remains independent for two reasons: (1) supposing a belated animation, there is still nothing less than a human life, preparing for and calling for a soul in which the nature received from parents is completed, (2) on the other hand, it suffices that this presence of the soul be probable (and one can never prove the contrary) in order that the taking of life involve accepting the risk of killing a man, not only waiting for, but already in possession of his soul.”

“The Supreme Pontiff Pope Paul VI, in an audience granted to the undersigned Secretary of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on June 28, 1974, has ratified this Declaration on Procured Abortion and has confirmed it and ordered it to be promulgated.”

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19741118_declaration-abortion_en.html

We’ve been all through this over a hundred posts ago. Back on post 402 I explained this to YOU:

…and that still doesn’t change this part of what I said that the Document itself said:

1. Respect for human life is not just a Christian obligation.(and ends with this):
   Created immediately by God, man’s soul is spiritual and therefore immortal.

Then, using your endnotes for # 19 it explains this (which of course are not really YOUR endnotes but the Documents endnotes) It was just that you FINALLY said that you were speaking of the end notes:

1. This declaration expressly leaves aside the question of the moment when the spiritual soul is infused. There is not a unanimous tradition on this point and authors are as yet in disagreement. For some it dates from the first instant; for others it could not at least precede nidation. It is not within the competence of science to decide between these views, because the existence of an immortal soul is not a question in its field. It is a philosophical problem from which our moral affirmation remains independent for two reasons: (1) supposing a belated animation, there is still nothing less than a human life, preparing for and calling for a soul in which the nature received from parents is completed, (2) on the other hand, it suffices that this presence of the soul be probable (and one can never prove the contrary) in order that the taking of life involve accepting the risk of killing a man, not only waiting for, but already in possession of his soul.

So, if that soul is placed by God within that person before they implant (which is the word nidation above - that I underlined and bolded,) or after they implant we don’t know for sure is all it sounds like to me. In any case, its a baby with a soul.

By the way, it also proves that its a baby before it implants in the womb too.

So, either way, its a human life, and as God clearly makes clear, it is HIM that gives that life, not US, so whats your point?

Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you. (ever heard of that?)

---

 

[WillieWonka]

We’ve been all through this over a hundred posts ago. Back on post 402 I explained this to YOU:

…and that still doesn’t change this part of what I said that the Document itself said:

1. Respect for human life is not just a Christian obligation.(and ends with this):
   Created immediately by God, man’s soul is spiritual and therefore immortal.

Then, using your endnotes for # 19 it explains this (which of course are not really YOUR endnotes but the Documents endnotes) It was just that you FINALLY said that you were speaking of the end notes:

1. This declaration expressly leaves aside the question of the moment when the spiritual soul is infused. There is not a unanimous tradition on this point and authors are as yet in disagreement. For some it dates from the first instant; for others it could not at least precede nidation. It is not within the competence of science to decide between these views, because the existence of an immortal soul is not a question in its field. It is a philosophical problem from which our moral affirmation remains independent for two reasons: (1) supposing a belated animation, there is still nothing less than a human life, preparing for and calling for a soul in which the nature received from parents is completed, (2) on the other hand, it suffices that this presence of the soul be probable (and one can never prove the contrary) in order that the taking of life involve accepting the risk of killing a man, not only waiting for, but already in possession of his soul.

So, if that soul is placed by God within that person before they implant (which is the word nidation above - that I underlined and bolded,) or after they implant we don’t know for sure is all it sounds like to me. In any case, its a baby with a soul.

By the way, it also proves that its a baby before it implants in the womb too.

So, either way, its a human life, and as God clearly makes clear, it is HIM that gives that life, not US, so whats your point?

Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you. (ever heard of that?)

---

The Sacred Congregation wrote the document and the Pope Paul VI approved of it and promulgated it. People are now free to read it for themselves. That’s re-education.

 

[allhers]

It is an egg of the human species, fertilized by a sperm of the human species, resulting in a fertilized egg of the human species. And it’s alive.

So therefore we can see that it is clearly a human life, not a whale, not an elephant or any other species.

 

[limerick]

Obviously they were concerned for the aborted babies eternal soul and the taking of the innocent life by abortion, which, from reading your posts, doesn’t seem to be a concern of yours.

However, it does seem that when you say that you have repented, but yet still believe that abortion is a choice, even a very sad one, that you really haven’t repented as repentance entails a turning away from sin, not a persistance in it.

By saying that you are for choice, we see that as you saying that you acknowledge that abortion is alright for those who choose it. You say it is between them and God, and we are saying that God has already made it clear when He said Thou shall NOT murder.

Abortion is the choice to murder an innocent life.

I’m not saying that when someone says a baby killer will go to hell and stay there, that that isn’t a possibility (if they truly don’t repent), but I do know that God knows if they have repented or not when they don’t say one way or the other, but …

When someone says that they have repented and that abortion is a choice, we all can clearly see that there is no true repentance.

**
That abortion is** an option for women today has nothing to do with me or my moral code or my relationship with God. If a woman chooses abortion to end her pregnancy, that is not my sin, it is hers. That God has “already made it clear when He said Thou shall NOT murder” puts these women in a state where grace is not available to them. It is up to them to reconcile that with God. I am no third party in the negotiations or the assessment of that sin. Nor do I endorse putting cameras and microphones in the confessional so officious meddlers can scan the films for signs of sincerity or brazenness and then weigh in as if their opinions count on the Big Tally Sheet in the Sky.

I have repented for my sin, but I will not be held accountable for the sins of others. The field within which you can point a sanctimonious finger at me is narrow at best and you can neither understand it nor accept it. You and others on this thread are compelled now to evaluate the degree and sincerity of my remorse and my repentance. You cannot. The only One who can is God. Just let Him do his job and stay the hell out of it.

Limerick

 

[WillieWonka]

So therefore we can see that it is clearly a human life, not a whale, not an elephant or any other species.

Nobody denies the fertilized egg is of the human species. My point from the start of the discussion was that the Sacred Congregation and Pope Paul VI said union of body and soul is probable, but not certain, at conception.

I think this has surprised many people who had believed the Church absolutely taught body and soul formed a composite at conception.

 

[royal_archer]

I don’t understand. Can you elaborate?

If they feel we have a right to murder fetal children based on their level of development and because they are infringing on the lifestyle of the mother. That logic would apply to other situations right? Using that logic is akin to saying that it is OK to murder the disabled who are a “burden” on society, or the less inteligent, or the young, etc.

When I say it is wrong to take an innocent human life, I believe that arguement holds true and those who support that possition agree with its application nearly accross the board. The oppositions reasons, do not hold true when applied outside this one very narrow application.

 

[royal_archer]

**
At least I’m making an attempt to suggest something other than “baby killers go to hell and stay there.”

L**

They have the chance to realize that murder is wrong and truly repent. While everyones situation is different, those who repent and turn away from evil will surely be better off than those who refuse to acknowledge the wrong doing and continue to advocate for others to be able to continue such a sin.

 

[royal_archer]

**You can’t seriously be suggesting that the father has no idea who he had intercourse with, can you? If he suspects he may have contributed to a conception, what’s to keep him from actively and aggressively pursuing the joys and responsibilities of supporting the mother and parenting the child when it is born? Why does the mother have to do all the footwork? Or does your overlooked father wannabe also have a sexual history that defies computation? Or maybe he was drunk enough or high enough that he just can’t put it all together.

Limerick
**

Do you think it would be appropriate for those men to call up the women every couple of weeks to see if they discovered they are pregnant yet?

 

[WillieWonka]

If they feel we have a right to murder fetal children based on their level of development and because they are infringing on the lifestyle of the mother. That logic would apply to other situations right? Using that logic is akin to saying that it is OK to murder the disabled who are a “burden” on society, or the less inteligent, or the young, etc.

When I say it is wrong to take an innocent human life, I believe that arguement holds true and those who support that possition agree with its application nearly accross the board. The oppositions reasons, do not hold true when applied outside this one very narrow application.

Again, murder is always wrong. It is defined as wrongful killing.

 

[Drawmack]

Limerick,

Sorry for the delayed response, you made some good arguments so it took me a bit to put together a defense. Also, I ask that you speak charitably. In other words don’t say “Can you spell …” Instead ask the question in a conversational tone.

Yes. It’s possible. Legal obligation? Can you spell HIPPA?

Yes I can spell HIPPA, which is a rather intriguing question to ask because I can also spell, HIPAA which is the acronym I think you intended to use. Additionally I can spell, Health Information Privacy Accountability Act of 1996 which is what HIPAA stands for.

I stated that a woman should be legally obligated to inform the father, unless the father is deemed a danger to the mother or the child. No, the mother should not be able to simply say the father is a danger. If the father is a proven danger then, and only then, should he not be informed of the pregnancy. In order to invoke HIPAA as a protection against this legal compulsion I would have to be advocating that someone other than the mother be tasked with informing the father. HIPAA protects people from having their information disclosed by someone else, it does not protect people from being compelled to reveal their own medical conditions and history. If this were the case, then insurance companies could not have pre-existing conditions clauses.

You want to know something else I can spell, Reasonable Disclosure Clause. This is part of HIPAA, in case you didn’t know. The Reasonable Disclosure Clause of HIPAA states that if a person’s diagnosis or prognosis has the reasonable expectation of a direct effect on another person’s life, health, or well-being than said person is legally compelled to share their diagnosis or prognosis with the person, or people, it has this reasonable expectation in relation to. For example if you are diagnosed with HIV and then you have sexual intercourse with someone and do not inform them that you are HIV+ you can be charged with attempted murder because this diagnosis had a reasonable expectation of effecting your sexual partner’s life. I think that a woman being pregnant has the reasonable expectation of affecting the father’s life. If you disagree with this please explain how paying child support for 18 years does not affect someone’s life.

Obviously, anyone with a record or a trial pending in the battery/spousal abuse/child abuse/pedophilia area.

I agree 100%

Substance abusers. Dope dealers. Gun runners.

If this is proven, not merely alleged, and if it is current, not something dredged up from the past, I agree.

Anyone who is physically, mentally, spiritually, emotionally, legally, financially unable to raise a child.

Do you believe that a physically handicapped woman should be legally compelled to get an abortion? Should she be sterilized to prevent future pregnancies?

Do you believe that a mentally handicapped woman should be legally compelled to get an abortion? Should she be sterilized to prevent future pregnancies?

Do you believe that an emotionally handicapped woman should be legally compelled to get an abortion? Should she be sterilized to prevent future pregnancies?

Do you believe that impoverished women should be legally compelled to get abortions? Should they be sterilized to prevent future pregnancies?

Exactly how are we to make the call on whether or not someone is spiritually capable of raising a child? If we can make this call should a woman who is deemed spiritually incapable of raising a child be legally compelled to have an abortion. Should they be sterilized to prevent future pregnancies?

If you answered no to any of the above questions then you believe that men and women should have different standards and rights applied to them. And, you should just be aware that you are prejudice.

That’s a lot of people.

Only if you’re applying the same standards to women and men. Otherwise, it’s a lot of men and you are prejudice.

And who knows better than the women who had intimate relations with him?

Only a man who is legally proven to be a danger to the woman or the child should not be notified. This is not a decision that should rest on the sole authority of a woman who could be emotionally, mentally, physically, financially, and/or spiritually incapable of making such a decision. After all we wouldn’t want a convicted child molesting female to decide who can have contact with her child would we?

If a man decides he wants to fight for his embryo, his fetus, or his child, and he cannot do so through discussion with the pregnant woman or through mediation, he will have to go through the courts to do so. That’s the way it’s set up. Don’t ask me to defend the entire legal system.

The problem is that the man might not even know about the embryo. I’m not asking you to defend the entire legal system. I am asking you why a woman’s parental rights should start before the man’s do?

to be continued …