A
_A
Guest
Wow, we have really covered a lot of subjects on the last 2 threads. I would like to start again and say that you have all been very generous with your time. Thanks and keep it up!
No, and that is why the decision about what stays in her body and what goes is hers alone.Can one own another Human Being?
Which is why she is allowed to remove it from her body. Just like (as far as I am concerned) as soon as it is out, **you **are welcome to save it’s life.She is not removing her womb or killing her womb. She is killing the baby which has an inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The baby’s body is not her body.
It increases a persons personal happiness without harming anyone.Can you prove and demonstrate any of this as good moral choices? I think this is all rather speculative and arbitrary.
With that reasoning it is ok for a woman to instantly kill a man while he is inside of her during sex, if she changes her mind about letting him in there.Which is why she is allowed to remove it from her body. Just like (as far as I am concerned) as soon as it is out, **you **are welcome to save it’s life.
Originally Posted by A:
Of note, the DNA structure of the fetus is distinct from the DNA of the woman’s body. The fetus is not “part” of her, like the stomach, the liver or the brain; while dependent for sustenance on the mother, the fetus nonetheless has a distinct identity that will remain if the fetus is allowed to mature.No, and that is why the decision about what stays in her body and what goes is hers alone.
I see nothing wrong with trying to save the fetus.
And as far as depending on the mother for food, sure the mother can remove it if she wants. If the baby was already born and the only food around was her milk, I guess she could claim the right to refuse the baby access to her body and let it die that way too, based on that reasoning. But in either case she’d still be heartless and selfish.Of note, the DNA structure of the fetus is distinct from the DNA of the woman’s body. The fetus is not “part” of her, like the stomach, the liver or the brain; while dependent for sustenance on the mother, the fetus nonetheless has a distinct identity that will remain if the fetus is allowed to mature.
I’m married and have never used any kind of birth control in my entire life. Non-Catholics are perfectly capable of committing to marriage and having and raising children.The Church is what holds society together.
If we were all athiest everyone would have sex with condems…if they got pregnant they would have an abortion. And you can forget about the devine institution of marriage because couples would just live together. And many of those couples would be gay.
The family would cease to exist and so society would fall apart.
The church holds family’s together…so the church holds society together.
I don’t think a world full of athiest would survive very long.
Do you have scientific evidence for this? Can it be measured empirically, in the scientific sense of the word? How would you go about testing this?It increases a persons personal happiness without harming anyone.
How hard is that to understand?
Wow, another thread!The Church is what holds society together.
If we were all athiest everyone would have sex with condems…if they got pregnant they would have an abortion. And you can forget about the devine institution of marriage because couples would just live together. And many of those couples would be gay.
The family would cease to exist and so society would fall apart.
The church holds family’s together…so the church holds society together.
I don’t think a world full of athiest would survive very long.
I have not been a part of the catholic faith for many years, but I believe the church is against civil unions of same sex couples.Usually you would define it by having sex with the a person of the same sex as you.
Being a recent convert, I am not clear on how the Catholic church feels about the term “civil union” in place of marriage. (I guess I just haven’t done the research) Personally, I believe that a loving relationship can be formed between those of the homosexual persuasion and they should not be denied the same freedoms (mostly social and economical) that are allowed for their heterosexual peers.
Perhaps my logic is screwed up but I believe that marriage, as a sacrament of the church must be held in a completely different light than the legal marriage of the state.
I tend to agree with this. Though I’d take it a step further and remove marriage from the law altogether. Marriage is supposed to be this eternal thing, but the state has no claim to the eternal.Usually you would define it by having sex with the a person of the same sex as you.
Being a recent convert, I am not clear on how the Catholic church feels about the term “civil union” in place of marriage. (I guess I just haven’t done the research) Personally, I believe that a loving relationship can be formed between those of the homosexual persuasion and they should not be denied the same freedoms (mostly social and economical) that are allowed for their heterosexual peers.
Perhaps my logic is screwed up but I believe that marriage, as a sacrament of the church must be held in a completely different light than the legal marriage of the state.
I have not been a part of the catholic faith for many years, but I believe the church is against civil unions of same sex couples.
I know here in the US, Massachusetts is the only state that legalized same sex marriages. There are a few other states, including the state I live in, that have civil unions where the couples have all the same rights and responsibilities as married couples. But the majority of the country does not have such unions. I guess it will take a very long time(if at all) for the church to accept such unions. I am happy to hear that you support the issue from a legal standpoint.
In my previous post when I said “I would like to know what you think makes a person homosexual”, I meant is it caused by biological or environmental factors?**
Oops. Read it out of context. Honestly, and I’m no doctor and me speculating on that would be way out of line.
I think it is a good part of the law due to financial obligations of a marriage. But I think it would be an interesting research project for a social science type to look into how society would function differently if “marriage” was simply refering to a commitment before God and not a contract in the JOP office.I tend to agree with this. Though I’d take it a step further and remove marriage from the law altogether. Marriage is supposed to be this eternal thing, but the state has no claim to the eternal.
So if you had a heart transplant, would your faith vanish?No A, it wasn’t “inside” my own mind, but inside my heart.