P
PRmerger
Guest
LOL!
I think we all know that a moral human person would NOT shoot if she wasn’t sure if the shadow was a human person.
- Status
I think we all know that a moral human person would NOT shoot if she wasn’t sure if the shadow was a human person.
P
PRmerger
Guest
So then you should endorse the idea that a man can beat his wife because it is his own home.
N
NM505StKate
Guest
I don’t know intent. Also you said if I saw a shadow. I said I am sure I can tell a human from an animal. Human shadow no I would not shoot but you didn’t state clearly that the shadow was human.
N
NM505StKate
Guest
No because it harms someone. Even if I agree that a fetus is a person and think that is killing a person I would still be pro choice.
P
PRmerger
Guest
But if you weren’t sure, then you wouldn’t shoot.
So you’ve essentially eliminated any abortions after conception, since you’re not sure it can’t think or has personality.
P
PRmerger
Guest
P
PRmerger
Guest
And yet, Kate, you’ve also said that beating a woman is not ok.
Domestic violence is bad but killing a person is ok?
Think really hard about how you’re supporting your arguments here, 'k?
N
NM505StKate
Guest
No removing a handful of cells, which most abortions are during the first trimester, is okay. If the mother’s life is at risk then I am for removing a fetus.
S
steve_b
Guest
I am not trying to be difficult either.
But your statement** I am not one to step on the rights of women whom want one ] **is a common secular sentiment that people have bought into. In reality it violates both the following laws that Jesus says nothing is greater than these Mark 12:30-31
*]Love God with your whole heart soul mind and strength
*]Love your neighbor as yourself
Re: abortion, the deliberate taking and ending of innocent human life I refer to these sections of the Catechism.
From the CCC
2271 Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law:
You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish.75 God, the Lord of life, has entrusted to men the noble mission of safeguarding life, and men must carry it out in a manner worthy of themselves. Life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception: abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes.76
**
2272** Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life. "A person who procures a completed abortion incurs excommunication latae sententiae,"77 "by the very commission of the offense,"78 and subject to the conditions provided by Canon Law.79 The Church does not thereby intend to restrict the scope of mercy. Rather, she makes clear the gravity of the crime committed, the irreparable harm done to the innocent who is put to death, as well as to the parents and the whole of society.
**
2273** The inalienable right to life of every innocent human individual is a constitutive element of a civil society and its legislation:
"The inalienable rights of the person must be recognized and respected by civil society and the political authority. These human rights depend neither on single individuals nor on parents; nor do they represent a concession made by society and the state; they belong to human nature and are inherent in the person by virtue of the creative act from which the person took his origin. Among such fundamental rights one should mention in this regard every human being’s right to life and physical integrity from the moment of conception until death."80
"The moment a positive law deprives a category of human beings of the protection which civil legislation ought to accord them, the state is denying the equality of all before the law. When the state does not place its power at the service of the rights of each citizen, and in particular of the more vulnerable, the very foundations of a state based on law are undermined. . . . As a consequence of the respect and protection which must be ensured for the unborn child from the moment of conception, the law must provide appropriate penal sanctions for every deliberate violation of the child’s rights."81
**
2274** Since it must be treated from conception as a person, the embryo must be defended in its integrity, cared for, and healed, as far as possible, like any other human being.
Prenatal diagnosis is morally licit, "if it respects the life and integrity of the embryo and the human fetus and is directed toward its safe guarding or healing as an individual. . . . It is gravely opposed to the moral law when this is done with the thought of possibly inducing an abortion, depending upon the results: a diagnosis must not be the equivalent of a death sentence."82
Look at those 2 laws Jesus gave. Apply that to your personal (philosophy statement) about a woman having the right to an abortion. Your belief, breaks both those laws. Not to mention the woman who has the abortion
S
steve_b
Guest
I noticed that I didn’t answer your 1st question in my last post. My bad
here it is
princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2.html
S
steve_b
Guest
The term “pro choice” has been hijacked by the corrupt, to mean murder is a choice and there is nothing wrong with it.
God is pro choice. Except His choice is life NOT death. Choosing death brings curses on that person.
Dt 30:
19 I call heaven and earth to witness against you this day, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and curse; therefore choose life, that you and your descendants may live, 20 loving the Lord your God, obeying his voice, and cleaving to him; for that means life to you and length of days,
J
JimG
Guest
There is a heartbeat at one month and brain waves at 6 weeks.
W
WingsOfEagles
Guest
I think everyone here understands what Roe v. Wade says, so I don’t know why you keep stating this. By that logic, there are many laws that we would consider immoral by today’s standards that would still be on the books. What is being argued is whether or not Roe v. Wade was an accurate ruling in the first place.
L
LexDivina
Guest
To answer the question quite simply, you can’t enforce. Women have been getting abortions since we existed pretty much. They happened back in the medieval days and they happen now, just methods now are a lot safer for the mother to not die from injury or sepsis ( though there are still cases of botched abortions.) …hm. There are specific herbs a woman can take, homeopathics and naturopathic doctors use them. They date back to ancient days are relatively easy to get a hold of but dangerous to use unsupervised. These herbs have other uses when used alone, its the combination of them that turns them into abortives. So unfortunetly, regulating that is rather difficult you see.
W
WingsOfEagles
Guest
Simply eliminating the ability to walk into a doctor’s office and get one would greatly eliminate the number of abortions a year.
H
Hope_Philomena
Guest
Even if you were able to prove this statement, it doesn’t negate the fact that there will be women who are desperate enough to seek out dangerous methods. Sure, maybe restricting abortion access will deter some women who weren’t very determined in the first place. But you’re putting the lives of women determined to not be pregnant in danger.
P
PRmerger
Guest
It’s a weird kind of logic that states we should make it easier and safer for big people to be able to kill little people.
P
PRmerger
Guest
…because, hey, they’re going to do it anyway, right?
H
Hope_Philomena
Guest
Would you rather kill the mother and the child, or just the child?
O
Ormond
Guest
Reduce yes, greatly eliminate seems an exaggeration.
Again, middle class and rich people will simply hop a quick weekend flight to Canada. So I see an anti-abortion law as having very modest impact on those groups, which form most of the country.
Poor people will be effected for sure, that will be the main impact. But illegal underground clinics will spring up everywhere. Has outlawing drugs ended drug use? Do traffic laws stop reckless driving? Where there is a demand, someone will serve it. Outlawing abortion will change where abortions happen for sure, but it won’t end abortion or even close.
The main impact of an anti-abortion law will be to flood the pro-choice groups with huge sums of new cash. The media will be running stories every other day about some poor woman who bled to death in some botched back alley abortion. The political pendulum will simply keep on swinging, as it always does.
And, don’t forget, about half of American Catholics think abortion should be legal. Point being, if the pro-life side can not persuade even most Catholics, it’s going to be tough sledding indeed to maintain a national anti-abortion law over time.
pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/09/19/majority-of-u-s-catholics-opinions-run-counter-to-church-on-contraception-homosexuality/
- Status