E
Edward_H
Guest
What’s the value add here…you’re just reminding us that the state uses arbitrary definitions, which can be changed over time, based on opinions…or moment to moment based on a mother’s intentions.
:yawn:
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
:yawn:
E
Edward_H
Guest
So…Hadley Arkes’s question is this:
Shouldn’t we at least anesthetize the unborn baby before a mother kills it…after all its head is going to get crushed.
Shouldn’t we at least anesthetize the unborn baby before a mother kills it…after all its head is going to get crushed.
D
Dawnia
Guest
Depends on the statute and the state. If someone other than the mother has the unborn child killed, the child is a person. If a doctor causes the death of a child before he or she is born, the unborn child is a person. If a women smokes crack while pregnant, the child is a person. If a pregnant woman applies for public assistance, the child is a person. If the father dies and leaves an estate, the child is a person.According to your beliefs a women is killing children. According to legal defintions of personhood they are not.
So tell us again how the legal definition of a personhood doesn’t include unborn children?
E
estesbob
Guest
Why? What possible relevance should it have that the unborn child has a soul? Can you prove genuine evidence that you have a soul?You personally don’t have to, but if you want to change the law you have to provide genuine evidence that a fetus has a personl soul.
In think this is an area where a little knowledge can be dangerous. The Church has NEVER made ensoulment an issue where abortion is concerned. There was a vigorous discussion, mostly in the 6th century, about when ensoulment happened-but it was only in reference to what the penance for aborting should be. Abortion has ALWAYS been held to be a mortal sin Yet 1500 years later you still see people trying to parse this argument into a justification for abortion.
Now if you want to, again, dismiss the Church in this discussion please bring "soul’ into the discussion
J
JButky
Guest
Yes and both can’t be correct. Any arbitrary one is not a definition and ultimately pursues something other than what it is. It is therefore merely misplaced by the state as a definition and in that lies the deception when it differs from the natural law. Relativism eventually renders anything meaningless. That is why relativistic reasoning should be avoided at all costs.There is no redefintion or deception. There is the states defintion, and then there is the Catholic defintion.
Joe B
B
Brendan
Guest
Like the definition of a slave as 3/5th of a person equated to the pragmatic goal of the state.Exactly. It equates with the pragmatic goals of the state.
So you would agree that African slaves were not fully persons who were entitled to basic human rights, even if those rights were denied under the law.
B
Brendan
Guest
Actually no. The legal crime of murder does not involve any requirement of proof of a soul. Only that the person was, in fact a person.You personally don’t have to, but if you want to change the law you have to provide genuine evidence that a fetus has a personl soul.
We have seen that legal definitions are really no guarantor of that, as the Holocaust and slavery proved.
What we CAN look at is objective science. Is the organism in question a distinct, scientifically recognized member of the species homo sapiens.
Or are you anti-science.
W
wheels10
Guest
Exodus 22 And if men strive together, and strike a woman with child, so that she be delivered, and no mischief happen, he shall in any case be fined, according as the woman’s husband shall impose on him, and shall give it as the judges estimate. 23 But if mischief happen, then thou shalt give life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 branding for branding, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.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.
I’m not sure what your Bible states, but the above seems to indicate that if the death of the unborn child is an accident, then a fine must imposed on him according to the woman’s husband - could this fine also include the death penalty? However if the death is a result of evil intent, the penalty is death - the same as for killing a born child.
J
jeffrey_erwin
Guest
My Bible is The Jerusalem Bible, a Catholic Bible. Exodus 21:22-25, “If, when men come to blows, they hurt a woman who is pregnant and she suffers a miscarriage, thought she does not die of it, the man responsible must pay the compensation demanded of him by the woman’s master; he shall hand it over, after arbitration. But should she die, you shall give life for life…”Exodus 22 And if men strive together, and strike a woman with child, so that she be delivered, and no mischief happen, he shall in any case be fined, according as the woman’s husband shall impose on him, and shall give it as the judges estimate. 23 But if mischief happen, then thou shalt give life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 branding for branding, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.
I’m not sure what your Bible states, but the above seems to indicate that if the death of the unborn child is an accident, then a fine must imposed on him according to the woman’s husband - could this fine also include the death penalty? However if the death is a result of evil intent, the penalty is death - the same as for killing a born child.
I offered this quote simply to point out that other religions may have a scriptural basis for viewing abortion as a lesser offence than the murder of a human being. You are, of course, entitled to any interpretation that you wish to make. The same goes for Genesis 2:7. “Then He breathed into his (Adam’s) nostrils a breath of life, and thus man became a living being.” Jews allow abortion under certain conditions because they hold that a child is not a living human being until it takes its first breath. Again, my argument is not with our obedience to Catholic teaching, but with the attempts to apply Catholic law onto those of other religions by force.
F
fix
Guest
Proscriptions regarding abortion/murder are known not just from revelation but from the natural moral law and common sense.
E
estesbob
Guest
No one is trying to force catholic beliefs on anyone else. What we are trying to do is protect human life-such a protection has been the basis of every civilization in history. we object to the idea you can redefine human life and thus rationalize taking. One should not need a church to tell them that taking of human life is wrong and should not be tolerated in a just societyMy Bible is The Jerusalem Bible, a Catholic Bible. Exodus 21:22-25, “If, when men come to blows, they hurt a woman who is pregnant and she suffers a miscarriage, thought she does not die of it, the man responsible must pay the compensation demanded of him by the woman’s master; he shall hand it over, after arbitration. But should she die, you shall give life for life…”
I offered this quote simply to point out that other religions may have a scriptural basis for viewing abortion as a lesser offence than the murder of a human being. You are, of course, entitled to any interpretation that you wish to make. The same goes for Genesis 2:7. “Then He breathed into his (Adam’s) nostrils a breath of life, and thus man became a living being.” Jews allow abortion under certain conditions because they hold that a child is not a living human being until it takes its first breath. Again, my argument is not with our obedience to Catholic teaching, but with the attempts to apply Catholic law onto those of other religions by force.
W
wheels10
Guest
The unborn child also requires and receives oxygen from the mother, which is the breath of life.My Bible is The Jerusalem Bible, a Catholic Bible. Exodus 21:22-25, “If, when men come to blows, they hurt a woman who is pregnant and she suffers a miscarriage, thought she does not die of it, the man responsible must pay the compensation demanded of him by the woman’s master; he shall hand it over, after arbitration. But should she die, you shall give life for life…”
I offered this quote simply to point out that other religions may have a scriptural basis for viewing abortion as a lesser offence than the murder of a human being. You are, of course, entitled to any interpretation that you wish to make. The same goes for Genesis 2:7. “Then He breathed into his (Adam’s) nostrils a breath of life, and thus man became a living being.” Jews allow abortion under certain conditions because they hold that a child is not a living human being until it takes its first breath. Again, my argument is not with our obedience to Catholic teaching, but with the attempts to apply Catholic law onto those of other religions by force.
L
Linux
Guest
It is not self evident that a fetus has a personal soul.No one is trying to force catholic beliefs on anyone else. What we are trying to do is protect human life-such a protection has been the basis of every civilization in history. we object to the idea you can redefine human life and thus rationalize taking. One should not need a church to tell them that taking of human life is wrong and should not be tolerated in a just society
E
estesbob
Guest
It is not self evident that you have a soul.It is not self evident that a fetus has a personal soul.
L
Linux
Guest
Thats not relivant to the states defintion of personhood.It is not self evident that you have a soul.
E
estesbob
Guest
You are correct-having a “soul” has no relevance as to whether one has the right to life. Given that why did use it to justify abortion?Thats not relivant to the states defintion of personhood.
L
Linux
Guest
However the qeustion of a soul is relivant if a Catholic wants the law to identify the fetus as a person. Becuase without evidence of a personal soul there is no self evident bases on which to claim that a fetus is a person.You are correct-having a “soul” has no relevance as to whether one has the right to life. Given that why did use it to justify abortion?
F
fix
Guest
When is a human not a person?However the qeustion of a soul is relivant if a Catholic wants the law to identify the fetus as a person. Becuase without evidence of a personal soul there is no self evident bases on which to claim that a fetus is a person.
E
estesbob
Guest
H
I know of no traching of the Church past or present that says the right to life is predicstef on having a soul. Person is an artificial construct thag has no meaning from a scientific or biologic standpoint. The right to life is not dependent on what label one decides to dedcribe a stage of lifeHowever the qeustion of a soul is relivant if a Catholic wants the law to identify the fetus as a person. Becuase without evidence of a personal soul there is no self evident bases on which to claim that a fetus is a person.
D
Dawnia
Guest
No it’s not. Religious belief is irrelevant for matters of law.However the qeustion of a soul is relivant if a Catholic wants the law to identify the fetus as a person. Becuase without evidence of a personal soul there is no self evident bases on which to claim that a fetus is a person.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.