Ilegalizing Aboriton not the answer

  • Thread starter Thread starter Arturo_Ortiz
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Our Church holds the belief that abortion is murder. But the Catholic Church is not the only religion in the world. Other major religions hold different views, views that seem to be based on Scripture. The practice abortion is recorded in ancient Egypt, 1300BCE. The tribes of Israel were in Eygpt at that time and would have had knowledge of the practice. But in all of the 613 commandments that Moses received from YHWH, none prohibits abortion. The closest Law is is Exodus 21:22-25: If a man negligently causes an abortion, he must pay a fine. But if that negligence causes the death of the woman, then he has to pay the death penalty. Also we have Genesis 2:7 “YHWH God fashioned man of dust from the soil. Then He breathed into his nostrils a breath of life, and thus man became a living being.” On this basis, other major religions do not hold that life begins at conception. As Catholics, we do not practice abortion. But to use secular law to enforce our belief system on other religions is contrary to our Scriptures. Matthew 20:25, “You know that among the pagans the rulers lord it over them, and their great men make their authority felt. This is not to happen among you.”
Prayer, service, and understanding should be our Catholic response to the abortion problem, not arrests, incarcerations, and deaths from septicimia caused by illegal operations.
 
Linux said:
This is a straw-man. That is not what i argued at all. Abortion remains legal, because it does not contradict the legal definition person-hood (a pragmatic definition based on the secular goals of the state). If you want to change the legal definition of person-hood to include a fetus, then you need genuine evidence to support it. The Catholic definition of what it means to be a person has no genuine evidence to support it in a court of law, and that is why abortion is legal.
Click to expand...
You did it again-abortion must remain legal because" it does not contradict the legal definition person-hood." Circular argument for sure.

Why should ones right to life depend on artificial definitions like “personhood” I dont want to challenge the legal definition of personhood because it is totally irrelevant to whether human life should be protected.
 
estesbob said:
You did it again-abortion must remain legal because" it does not contradict the legal definition person-hood." Circular argument for sure.

Why should ones right to life depend on artificial definitions like “personhood” I dont want to challenge the legal definition of personhood because it is totally irrelevant to whether human life should be protected.
Click to expand...
Yea, when is a person not a person?
 
fix said:
Yea, when is a person not a person?
Click to expand...
When its mother doesnt want them, evidently.

Personhood is an artificial term created by the USCC to justify killing children. It is just another in a long line of labels used to justify killing humans ie: subhuman, slave
 
fix said:
We hold that belief because that is what it is. The response to it is to make it illegal. The babies deserve at least that much.
Click to expand...
Mr. Fix, you criticize others for making “circular arguments.” But your own reply to my post is just as circular as anyone else’s statements. Did you even read past my first sentence? You address none of my points. Your response is the response of the inquisition: Use force to compel others to comply with our beliefs.
 
jeffrey_erwin said:
Mr. Fix, you criticize others for making “circular arguments.” But your own reply to my post is just as circular as anyone else’s statements. Did you even read past my first sentence? You address none of my points. Your response is the response of the inquisition: Use force to compel others to comply with our beliefs.
Click to expand...
Shouldn’t people of faith have just as must right to lobby for laws as do everyone else?
Dont all laws force beliefs on those covered by the law?
 
Linux said:
True. The legal system has evolved over time. But again that had nothing to do with the legal definition of person-hood, but has everything to do with peoples private beliefs infecting the legal process. They believed that black people were less than the legal definition of person-hood. This racist belief, not the legal definition of person hood, was eventually found to be false in a court of law because there was no genuine evidence to support those racist beliefs; although i am sure that the racists and slave owners (some of which were Catholics and i bet conservative) had all manner of concoction to make it seem as if they did have evidence. Its evidence that is being discussed here, and it is precisely this issue that prevents the law on abortion from changing. It will never change so long as this evidence is lacking and also so long as there is a split between church and state.

Pointing out that racist laws have come and gone, really doesn’t support your case precisely because those racists beliefs suffer from the same flaws as anti-abortion beliefs and that is a lack of legal justification or evidence.
Click to expand...
It had to do with the legal definition of person, who had what rights and who decides.

Two examples of defining personhood , now in tension. Law doesn’t equate with morality.

White men effectively deciding personhood in the case of slavery…women now have been “given” that same contrived right by the court. Women now get to decide personhood.
 
Dawnia said:
For the purpose of the census that is true, but in most locals for a long time, they were considered property, not people.
Click to expand...
Exactly. White men got to decide personhood. Today each woman has been given that authority…from what basis is anyone’s guess.
 
jeffrey_erwin said:
Mr. Fix, you criticize others for making “circular arguments.” But your own reply to my post is just as circular as anyone else’s statements. Did you even read past my first sentence? You address none of my points. Your response is the response of the inquisition: Use force to compel others to comply with our beliefs.
Click to expand...
I did not accuse you of circular reasoning that was another poster.

How is my response circular? It is self evident that a mother has a baby in her. That is a life. There is no proof needed to show what is obvious. Those that deny that do not need proof. They refuse to accept reality.

I left out the rest of your post because it has no bearing on the truth of the matter.

The only force being used is against an innocent child. Nice.
 
estesbob said:
Shouldn’t people of faith have just as must right to lobby for laws as do everyone else?
Dont all laws force beliefs on those covered by the law?
Click to expand...
Apparently everyone has “rights” except the child being killed.
 
Linux said:
… person-hood (a pragmatic definition based on the secular goals of the state). If you want to change the legal definition of person-hood to include a fetus, then you need genuine evidence to support .
Click to expand...
Pragmatic definition ? … now that’s an oxymoron! Just say arbitrary and create your supporting evidence! Maybe this is exactly the reason why the reality of personhood being synonymous with human life at any stage of development is a stumbling block to the pro abortion crowd. NO, they can’t be honest about what is and instead just say, let’s just create an arbitrary definition and make up the evidence to support what we want.

Philosophically, separating personhood from human life is extremely difficult if not impossible, especially in the light of what science and biology present as supportive evidence. The “Secular goals of the State” have no jurisdiction over that definition. (other than deception of what is.) What they did with slavery was take the social contracts at the time to govern relationships between whole persons. And they did so by using incorrect terminology. And back then they did, as they still do today, get the “definition” wrong and misused it. Now it’s personhood and the “pragmatic definition” method is exactly the same means used to justify all similar fallacies and misapply them in governance.

For example, the whole “Gay Marriage” debacle is another example of making an arbitrary definition devoid of reality by creating supportive evidence to make it “legal”. They both root in the culture of death and these are but two of the fruits of said culture.

When Legal definitions in History contradict or ignore the Natural Law, you get atrocities. Redefining personhood arbitrarily and falsely to suit the “Secular needs of the State” is perhaps the greatest evil of its kind.

Joe B
 
Quote: " I left out the rest of your post because it has no bearing on the truth of the matter."
I based my post on the noted scripture. Are you saying that scripture has no bearing on this?
 
jeffrey_erwin said:
Quote: " I left out the rest of your post because it has no bearing on the truth of the matter."
I based my post on the noted scripture. Are you saying that scripture has no bearing on this?
Click to expand...
Your interpretation has no bearing on it, but the Catholic Church’s interpretation does.
 
JButky;10300Pragmatic definition ? … now that’s an oxymoron! Just say arbitrary and create your supporting evidence! Maybe this is exactly the reason why the reality of personhood being synonymous with human life at any stage of development is a stumbling block to the pro abortion crowd. NO said:
When Legal definitions in History contradict or ignore the Natural Law, you get atrocities. Redefining personhood arbitrarily and falsely to suit the “Secular needs of the State” is perhaps the greatest evil of its kind. Pragmatic definition ? … now that’s an oxymoron! Just say arbitrary and create your supporting evidence! Maybe this is exactly the reason why the reality of personhood being synonymous with human life at any stage of development is a stumbling block to the pro abortion crowd. NO, they can’t be honest about what is and instead just say, let’s just create an arbitrary definition and make up the evidence to support what we want.

Philosophically, separating personhood from human life is extremely difficult if not impossible, especially in the light of what science and biology present as supportive evidence. The “Secular goals of the State” have no jurisdiction over that definition. (other than deception of what is.) What they did with slavery was take the social contracts at the time to govern relationships between whole persons. And they did so by using incorrect terminology. And back then they did, as they still do today, get the “definition” wrong and misused it. Now it’s personhood and the “pragmatic definition” method is exactly the same means used to justify all similar fallacies and misapply them in governance.

For example, the whole “Gay Marriage” debacle is another example of making an arbitrary definition devoid of reality by creating supportive evidence to make it “legal”. They both root in the culture of death and these are but two of the fruits of said culture. tes

Joe B
Click to expand...

There is no redefintion or deception. There is the states defintion, and then there is the Catholic defintion.
 
Linux said:
There is no redefintion or deception. There is the states defintion, and then there is the Catholic defintion.
Click to expand...
Why should I have to accept the states definition? Why should the right to life be predicated on subjective definitions?

Can you explain the scientific basis of the States determination of when human life is expendable?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top