B
Brywan
Guest
I’m against slavery. But that’s my choice…
- Status
N
Nate13
Guest
Exactly. Your science says people of all colors are equal, my science says they are not. Are you going to force your opinion on me?
K
karebear92
Guest
They are always welcome
Which Church? Here are some Church Fathers and early writings on the matter. I will also mention that the entire concept of sacrament was not developed in the early Church, and that nobody received any sacraments until they were older (Not baptism, eucharist, reconciliation etc.)
And that is also not why there is not a sacrament to remove original sin from the unborn. The spirit is what original sin is removed from, and most all throughout history have held that it happens either at conception or a few, months, weeks, or days after conception. Why Baptism isn’t allowed on fetuses I honestly cannot say. Perhaps because they are not conscious, and they cannot be anointed except through surgical means.
At conception the egg’s composition changes to not allow any more sperm to enter into it. It has all of the DNA that will be required to create a child. It then fuses to each other creating a unique chemical composition than either a sperm or an egg. So chemical changes have already occurred at conception that distinguished the zygote from either an egg or a sperm.
The church has been clear. It is essentially infanticide (though not yet an infiant by classification). It is against the 5th commandment “Thou shall not kill.”
The law is a teacher of right and wrong. Look at drug use in America: While alcohol is used by 64% of adults each year, marijuana is used by 10 percent of adults each year, and that number is higher in states with less strict laws. One must look at laws in two ways: one, the laws shape morality, or two, people shape the laws based on the morality of the majority. There is a duality behind the laws.
The status of citizenship has no bearing on the formation of an individual. Legal records exist to establish citizenship and one cannot declare citizenship for someone who is inside another person. Who do you give citizenship to, as the identity of the person is not yet established? The substance of the child is but not the identity. Fetuses are, however, protected in a strange way in America. If one murders a pregnant woman (at least in a few states maybe nation wide?), the murderer is charged for the murder of both individuals.
Once again one can logically say that there will be fewer abortions if abortion is illegal. Think of speeding: if the speed limit is 65 and they change it to 75, then the number of people going under 65 will be less. Also look at drug laws again. While 65 percent of adults enjoy alcoholic beverages throughout the year, only ten percent use marijuana and two percent use harder drugs like cocaine. As the penalty for use increases the percentage of people who use it decreases.
I have never actually heard anyone who thought the slippery slope argument would be implemented. It is usually presented that one could reach the same conclusion when discussing the elderly.
K
karebear92
Guest
Yes.
N
Nate13
Guest
Now that wasn’t so hard of a question to answer now was it?
K
karebear92
Guest
No, it wasn’t.Now that wasn’t so hard of a question to answer now was it?
V
Verbum_Caro
Guest
Hokami,
Those are interesting thoughts, and should be treated respectfully. Here are my thoughts on them, one by one:
My other thought is whether or not you are using “begs the question” to indicate a fallacy or do you mean it in a colloquial sense equivalent to “raises the question”?
Thanks,
VC
Those are interesting thoughts, and should be treated respectfully. Here are my thoughts on them, one by one:
Yes, the Church can’t but help recognize a difference between the born and unborn, but the difference isn’t one of degree, or kind, but of position. As for no sacrament being available for the unborn – that is a practical limitation on the administration of the sacraments. Just as a priest in San Juan, Puerto Rico cannot baptize a man who is currently in Cairo, Egypt; or a priest in this room can’t baptize a baby in the next room through a wall, so can’t a priest baptize an unborn baby,
I think others have (and will) respond to this point. It seems somewhat of a difficult position to hold. You yourself say that “it” can die. When does the risk of dying start? Whenever that starts, is when its life starts. But, leaving that aside, and just taking your assertion that no new life is created because it is continuous, I can’t help but wonder when and if any new life is created, anywhere at anytime?
This seems to me to be an odd characterization, and not one I’ve ever come across. Wouldn’t the responsibility of the state be, rather, to protect innocent human life within it’s borders? This doesn’t have anything to do with citizenship. Murder is illegal regardless of whether or not the victim is a citizen of place or not. It is a good thing for a state to protect people who are there and discourage other people from killing people who are there.
My other thought is whether or not you are using “begs the question” to indicate a fallacy or do you mean it in a colloquial sense equivalent to “raises the question”?
Thanks,
VC
C
Castello
Guest
To the op, re-read your original post, substitute the word “rape” or “incest” or “beastiality” or “chattel slavery” for the word “abortion”. Society requires laws or it becomes immoral.
Believe it or not, prior to Roe V Wade, there were not scores of unwanted children running the streets, women were not dying in droves from illegal abortions. Some people did break the law, most people did not - they were more careful about sex and familes were stronger.
Abortion is not wrong because of religion. It is moral law, natural law.
Believe it or not, prior to Roe V Wade, there were not scores of unwanted children running the streets, women were not dying in droves from illegal abortions. Some people did break the law, most people did not - they were more careful about sex and familes were stronger.
Abortion is not wrong because of religion. It is moral law, natural law.
R
rom422
Guest
OK, so I’ll try to answer the second question for you. If the question means “Is it OK to push for legislation based solely on religious motives?”, I answer YES. But if the question means “Is it OK to push for legislation based on solely religious arguments?”, then I answer NO. To be acceptable in a pluralistic society, there should be philosophical arguments, not merely theological arguments, supporting a civil law.
E
edwest2
Guest
You are right about choosing freely. God does not force anyone to love Him and neither does the Church.
Sometimes, people believe the Church has separate ‘belief only’ issues and issues that have their basis in a truth that all can grasp. We read in Acts 17:11 of a certain people examining the Scriptures to see if what Paul was teaching them was true:
bible.cc/acts/17-11.htm
Jesus did refer to the Old Testament and we read that things happened “in fulfillment of the Scripture.”
We all make choices, and they are based on the trust we put into those telling us about why, for example, abortion should be legalized. Sometimes, myself included, we don’t examine the basis of certain claims because we are busy with our own lives and it may not be practical.
As Catholics, we are obligated to believe the Church teaches us the truth. Sometimes, however, there are those who provide false and misleading information that convinces us that the Church has either made a mistake or has taken away our free will.
I invite you to read the following account about one man who was involved in promoting legalizing abortion before it became legal. All of us, regardless of our beliefs or lack of beliefs, should understand the truth about abortion.
aboutabortions.com/Confess.html
Peace,
Ed
R
rom422
Guest
Before I answer this, let me clarify first what I think the function of civil government is.
It is not the function of civil government to make people holy. Its function is to protect life, property, peace and order, and in general, the common good. Thus, for example, the government should not make laws forcing people to pray or to worship God on Sundays, because a person’s failure to go to Church does not entail civil damages. However, the government should have laws prohibiting theft, because stealing causes damage to other people’s private property. Likewise, the government should not legislate against masturbation because this act, although immoral in itself, does not entail any civil damages. However, the government should make laws prohibiting anyone from masturbating in public, due to the disruption to peace and order that will result.
Let’s apply this now to the people’s right to choose. Sure, the law should not prohibit anyone from making free choices, as long as these choices do not entail civil damages - I mean destruction to life, property, peace and order, and the like. The law should not force anyone to choose between what is morally right and morally wrong. But when free choices have resultant civil consequences, then they become subject to civil legislation. This is why I don’t think that there should be legislation prohibiting sodomy, just as there should be none prohibiting fornication, because as private acts, these usually have no civil consequences. HOWEVER, there should be legislation in place that would protect people from criminal and civil damages resulting from other people’s irresponsible or immoral behavior. For example, a person with HIV virus, who knew about his condition, conceals it from his partner, and engages in sodomy in spite of the risks, should be punished by law. But this principle applies not only to homosexuals, but to fornicators as well, etc.
Our issue against abortion is not against choice, or against people’s freedom to choose between morally right and wrong. Our issue is against the act of abortion itself, because it entails the destruction of innocent human life, and therefore should be prohibited by civil law. Note that I am not talking here of just any kind of abortion (such as non-intended abortion), but the kind that may be technically classified as murder.
No, you are not wrong. We really shouldn’t force faith and values on people who don’t want it. But we should prevent them from doing anything, based on their chosen faith and values, that would damage life, property, peace and order, …and the common good.
F
Foxtrot
Guest
That’s the problem with moral relativism. If you follow it to its logical conclusion anything anyone does is ok if they believe that it’s ok.
So, if a guy down the block believes that African-Americans aren’t fully human then he should be allowed to keep one as a slave. The moral relativist would have to say: I’m personally opposed to keeping an African American as a slave, but if you think that it’s ok, then it’s your choice.
It’s a gruesome slope the human race is sliding down.
So, if a guy down the block believes that African-Americans aren’t fully human then he should be allowed to keep one as a slave. The moral relativist would have to say: I’m personally opposed to keeping an African American as a slave, but if you think that it’s ok, then it’s your choice.
It’s a gruesome slope the human race is sliding down.
T
TheRealJuliane
Guest
This is also taught in all medical schools, that life begins at conception. check any biology textbook.
meltzerboy
New member
Biological life may begin at conception, but according to the Jewish interpretation of Genesis, the soul is not imparted to Man (beginning with Adam) until after the body is fully formed, shortly before birth. Science says nothing about the soul. This is why, if there is a conflict regarding saving the mother’s life and saving the life of her unborn child, the mother’s life takes precedence and an abortion has to be performed even late in pregnancy, according to Jewish teaching. Admittedly, this is a rare occurrence but an Orthodox Jewish woman, if she chooses to abide by Jewish Law, is nonetheless obliged to save her own life in this heartbreaking situation. I realize the Catholic perspective is quite different, involving I think the verse “I knew you before you were born” and other biblical interpretations. However, that is precisely the reason I believe there should be a religious exemption if Roe v. Wade is overturned. It is not a question of moral relativism, but rather theological differences in belief. We can all agree that abortion should never be on demand for frivolous reasons, but unfortunately there are painful circumstances (including medical anomalies, incest, and rape) when it may be justified on theological grounds other than that of Catholicism, and should therefore ultimately be left to the woman, her family, her doctor, and her religious or spiritual advisor. It is a most personal, often agonizing, decision and should be treated as such.
meltzerboy
New member
The polar alternative to moral relativism is Sharia Law or Torah Law or Catholic Canon making the rules for all of society to obey or suffer the punishment. Surely we would do better as a society of diverse cultures, faiths, and customs to accept something less authoritarian as a compromise to absolute moral relativism and absolute religious law. In a sense, the former is a kind of law unto oneself, whereas the latter by its diversity is a kind of moral relativism that has varying reference points.
N
Nate13
Guest
Where was the soul even talked about in her post? What about if my religion taught me that babies don’t have souls until they are at least 1 year old? Would it then be ok for me to kill that child based on a religious exemption? The law does not require someone to have a soul in order to be considered human and alive. Her statement stands that at the point of conception you have a human life that should be protected under the law, period.
What is the difference between a baby in the womb, and a severely mentally handicap, one year old baby in terms of dependence on their mother? The only difference is the woman doesn’t need to go find a doctor if she wants to get rid of the baby. Both babies are fully dependent on others to be taken care of.
C
Catholicpotato
Guest
This is about as illogical as you can get. A baby once born is in no way capable of living outside of the womb. Try it! Take a newborn baby, set it down, leave, and see what happens.
In fact, my six year old could not live outside the womb on her own… The lie that is trying to be put forth here is that as long as the baby gets its life from the mother’s body then it is somehow less than human.
The problem these people will have is as science expands, the womb is no longer needed to start human life. And anyone who needs “help” living is somehow less than human.
Imagine that the next time your relative is in the hospital!!!
C
Catholicpotato
Guest
This makes no sense. in an emergency C section at 22 weeks are you saying that right before the scalpel cuts, God blows some kind of magical soul on the child? Try telling that to a victim of miscarriage. “oh, don’t worry dear, the child didnt even have a soul…”
meltzerboy
New member
I’m giving you a rational theological argument in Orthodox Judaism that is based on the verse in Genesis describing G-d’s creation of Adam from the earth and His infusing Adam’s body with the breath of life (i.e. the soul) after his physical body is formed. You may have a different theological interpretation, and I respect that. But your example of a woman who has a miscarriage is an emotional strawman. The emergency C-section example is better and I would suppose that G-d does infuse the soul at that point, but I don’t know what Jewish teaching is on this. It might also be beneficial to either debate the scriptural passage in question from Genesis, present other passages which support your viewpoint, or simply acknowledge there are honest religious differences concerning when human life, consisting of body and soul, begins.
C
Catholicpotato
Guest
This is not rational or logical. Is it your contention that from this viewpoint that Jews believe someone has to be “full grown” to receive a soul as Adam was? Granted I am not Jewish but I have never met one who would purpose as you have. I guess that is the advantage of having a Magisterium. I can tell you EXACTLY what Catholics should believe.
- Status