Irrefutable pro-life argument

[banjo]

You are correct. I’ve posted this and the following sections many times. But please note that the reference is to “direct abortion.”

What I am discussing is not direct abortion.

*Holy Mother, please keep
all unborn children safe today.

St. Francis, please pray for all unwanted and hurt animals.*

Yes, I can see that from your subsequent posts.

 

[LittleSoldier]

Doc Keele

and what’s great about your posts is how they move the debate on - going to mention commonsense again?

You also could move the debate on by explaining how the laws on abortion are not schizoid when, on the one hand, they put people in jail for killing an unborn human, and on the other hand, reward an abortionist by offering him police protection for the same act.

Schizophrenia - “a state characterized by contradictory or incompatible elements.”

I found this definition of “schizophrenia”:

1. psychiatric disorder with symptoms of withdrawal into self: a severe psychiatric disorder with symptoms of emotional instability, detachment from reality, and withdrawal into the self
2. offensive term: an offensive term for a state characterized by contradictory or conflicting attitudes, behavior, or qualities ( insult )

bing.com/Dictionary/search?q=define+schizophrenia&FORM=DTPDIA

*Holy Mother, please keep
all unborn children safe tonight.

St. Francis, please pray for all unwanted and unborn animals.*

 

[flyingfish]

If, during treatment meant to save the mother’s life (and I don’t mean going to PP and having her unborn child cut up or killed with saline or anything like that which I personally find morally repugnant and nauseating), the unborn child dies, it is a very unfortunate effect of the treatment to save the mother’s life.

For example, if the woman has an ectopic pregnancy…

Right, that’s what the Church teaches. Only in very specific cases of “right then and there”, and specific situations where you can legitimately remove the baby (such as by removing a cancerous uterus, or a fallopian tube) can you kill the baby to save the woman.

If it were just a regular old case of a woman with a bad heart and with pregnancy giving her a high chance of death, the doctors can’t protect her life by doing a run of the mill abortion.

Please define “well being.” Thank you.

Good physical health, good mental health, ability to pursue one’s dreams, happiness.

 

[Worthy5]

LittleSoldier;6490055]As did your question. If you want a serious response from me, please submit a serious question. I will show respect when I am shown respect.

Quit dodging----you do not have an adequate response. If you want to play argument hard ball than be willing to take the heat. The title to the thread is an " Irrefutable pro-life argument"----none exist---- a legal argument that is, reasonable people can disagree on this issue of govt involvement in this matter.

Regards and God Bless

 

[adriancombe]

I wish the “Pro-Life” Catholics here would read what other “Pro-Life” Catholics post, because I have been told many times that a woman cannot have an abortion even to save her life (and been shown the Church documents that spell this out).

Expecting anyone to read all the related posts is unrealistic. There are thousands. Why don’t you just tell us which one you have in mind?

Also, this is a poor substitute for answering my question, is there an actual difference between what LS posted and DDE? Or were you merely blowing smoke?

I have a theology degree. I studied under Hahn and Miravalle to name a few. I know for a fact DDE applies to ectopic pregnancies. I’m not merely googling info quickly and slapping it into a response. Moreover, I’ve never known anyone catholic even remotely hint that DDE did not apply to ectopic pregnancies.

 

[Doc_Keele]

OK. Thank you. I’m going to assume that the punishment would be much less for one convicted of infanticide than for one convicted of murder. Is that correct?

Yes - the assumption (rightly or wrongly) that a mother who kills her baby can’t be in her right mind.

 

[Doc_Keele]

Doc Keele

*Foetal “homicide” laws clearly do not accord the foetus the status of person, *

They do in California, which recognized Stacy Peterson’s child as a human victim of murder.

Are you quibbling about the difference between a legal document versus a human being? Are you then right with killing illegal immigrants because they cannot be identified as “persons”?

… as I’m sure you realise. Granting the foetus some moral status obviously does not mean that the foetus has full moral status.

Oh, my, the fetus is half human and half what, exactly?

My dictionary is the Random House Dictionary of the English Language.

OK, try quoting my correction. And complying with my request to actually quote a particular foetal homicide statute.

 

[Doc_Keele]

I think you are a bit confused about what the Church teaches. She teaches that it is best to save both mother and child, but that if the child dies because life-saving techniques are introduced to save the mother, no abortion is performed, even if the unborn child dies. The Church does not consider this an abortion. I don’t know how I can make it any clearer than that

This **is **PDE

Nobody is saying that a woman must die in order to give birth to her unborn child. It just isn’t true

People on this forum have said exactly that to me.

Let me try another way:
A woman is pregnant.
She develops a life-threatening condition,
or a previously unknown life-threatening condition is discovered.

She will die if she remains pregnant until term.

The Church teaches that it is morally permissible to remove the child
if this will save the mother’s life.

The Church states that this is not an abortion.
It does not meet the Church’s definition of abortion

Not true.

The Church’s definition of abortion is removal of the child as a means to kill the child

Not true.

Adrian, whatever your qualifications or whoever has taught you, if you think that removing the foetus to save the mother’s life is permitted by the Church you are wrong. The Church counts that as direct abortion.
And there certainly are Catholics who have problems with treatment of ectopic pregnancy, try reading Kaczor’s paper and others.
You do not “know for a fact” that PDE/DDE does “apply to ectopic pregnancies”. The argument for this is debatable.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Doc Keele

OK, try quoting my correction.

Again, as usual, wording is too sparse. What correction are you talking about?

And complying with my request to actually quote a particular foetal homicide statute.

No, I don’t do your homework for you. A clue, though. Start with the California penal code, where Scott Peterson was convicted of a double murder in the case of his dead pregnant wife. Are you familiar with the case? If not, perhaps you are too young to have heard about it. Just Google his name.

Surely you believe Peterson’s lawyer would have challenged the indictment if he thought he could do so and get away with it. Surely you believe the judge would have thrown out the second indictment for the unborn child if there was no basis for it in the law. Surely you believe that because you have proven yourself a great defender of legal rulings (Roe v Wade, for example).

 

[LittleSoldier]

Quit dodging----you do not have an adequate response. If you want to play argument hard ball than be willing to take the heat. The title to the thread is an " Irrefutable pro-life argument"----none exist---- a legal argument that is, reasonable people can disagree on this issue of govt involvement in this matter.

Regards and God Bless

If you ask me a serious question and show me respect, I will be happy to answer your question respectfully.

Please don’t accuse me of not having an answer. Your question is full of nonsense and what I read as sarcasm. I don’t have time to waste on playing games. If you wish to discuss my brother’s action I will be happy to do so. If you want to ask me silly questions and then claim I’m dodging, it becomes obvious that you aren’t taking this discussion seriously. I’m not getting involved in that.

*Holy Mother, please keep
all unborn children safe today.

St. Francis, please pray for all unwanted and hurt animals.*

 

[LittleSoldier]

This **is **PDE

People on this forum have said exactly that to me.

Not true.
Not true.

Adrian, whatever your qualifications or whoever has taught you, if you think that removing the foetus to save the mother’s life is permitted by the Church you are wrong. The Church counts that as direct abortion.
And there certainly are Catholics who have problems with treatment of ectopic pregnancy, try reading Kaczor’s paper and others.
You do not “know for a fact” that PDE/DDE does “apply to ectopic pregnancies”. The argument for this is debatable.

I don’t know what PDE is. I don’t understand why you are making your statement about PDE when I stated nothing about it, whatever it is.

I requested references to back up your assertions. So far I haven’t seen them, but I have provided references to back up mine. All I’ve seen from you is “not true” and “not true.”

Please provide supporting documentation.

I was referring to people in this thread, not people on this forum. I can’t possibly read all the posts in all the threads in this forum or in these forums. People on these forums have told me lots of things - that I don’t care about unborn children being murdered, that I would want Scott Roeder to come rescue me if I were being murdered, that euthanizing an animal is morally incorrect because only God and Satan have the right to determine when one should die, that environmentalism means death…

I don’t believe everything people tell me on these forums.

*Holy Mother, please keep
all unborn children safe today.

St. Francis, please pray for all unwanted and hurt animals.*

 

[Doc_Keele]

The thing is LS as you will probably know or guess I agree that a woman whose life is at risk from their pregnancy should be able to have an abortion - but the Church does not. Yes, in a case of ectopic pregnancy or uterine cancer indirect abortion can occur, but the case of a woman with a pregnancy-related complication who has an abortion is deemed direct abortion and never permissible. Kage_ar can trot out all the reasons and Church documents for you or jmcrae - PM them if you want.
It’s not something I get excited about because I disagree with it anyway.

 

[LittleSoldier]

The thing is LS as you will probably know or guess I agree that a woman whose life is at risk from their pregnancy should be able to have an abortion - but the Church does not. Yes, in a case of ectopic pregnancy or uterine cancer indirect abortion can occur, but the case of a woman with a pregnancy-related complication who has an abortion is deemed direct abortion and never permissible. Kage_ar can trot out all the reasons and Church documents for you or jmcrae - PM them if you want.
It’s not something I get excited about because I disagree with it anyway.

Please provide supporting documentation. I’m not going to do your homework for you. If you wish to produce Kage_ar’s or jmcrae’s posts that contain documentation backing up your assertion, that is your responsibility.

I’ve already provided documentation supporting my position.

*Holy Mother, please keep
all unborn children safe today.

St. Francis, please pray for all unwanted and hurt animals.*

 

[Doc_Keele]

Scott Peterson was convicted of first-degree murder in the death of his wife. He was convicted of second-degree murder in the death of his unborn son. According to the evidence, this makes sense.

I’m a bit confused as to why this indicates misunderstanding of fetal homicide laws.

Well, think about this LS - why first degree murder of his wife and only second degree murder of his unborn son?

 

[Doc_Keele]

Charlemagne II;6491580I:

. Start with the California penal code, where Scott Peterson was convicted of a double murder in the case of his dead pregnant wife. Are you familiar with the case? If not, perhaps you are too young to have heard about it.

And why would a Briton know about an American case?

OK. End of conversation. Don’t ever have the cheek to say that I have refused to face a question tho:thumbsup:

I’ve asked for clarification which you’ve refused to give. You brought up the issue.

 

[Doc_Keele]

Please provide supporting documentation. I’m not going to do your homework for you. If you wish to produce Kage_ar’s or jmcrae’s posts that contain documentation backing up your assertion, that is your responsibility.

I’ve already provided documentation supporting my position.

LS, I’m too tired and headachy to be bothered, and I am not that worried anyway. You can take my word for it or not, it’s no skin off my nose. I’m just a little surprised that I know the Church’s position better than you. I’m more surprised one of the “Pro-Life” troopers hasn’t stomped in to correct you:shrug:

When my brain is rested I will be writing an essay not looking up Church documents, fun as that is

 

[LittleSoldier]

Well, think about this LS - why first degree murder of his wife and only second degree murder of his unborn son?

First degree murder: He intentionally killed his wife with premeditation. Autopsy reports indicate that she had several ribs that were broken before death. Her head, arms, and at least one leg were severed before she was thrown into the ocean.

Second degree murder: The murder of Conner may not have been premeditated (that could not be proved) and he was still inside his mother’s womb at the time of her death and when she was thrown overboard. The reason he was not found still in her womb is that gasses built up after her death and he was expelled. He was not killed directly, but died because his mother died.

That is the difference - not because Conner was a unborn child but because the manner of his murder was different than the manner of the murder of his mother.

*Holy Mother, please keep
all unborn children safe today.

St. Francis, please pray for all unwanted and hurt animals.*

 

[LittleSoldier]

LS, I’m too tired and headachy to be bothered, and I am not that worried anyway. You can take my word for it or not, it’s no skin off my nose. I’m just a little surprised that I know the Church’s position better than you. I’m more surprised one of the “Pro-Life” troopers hasn’t stomped in to correct you:shrug:

When my brain is rested I will be writing an essay not looking up Church documents, fun as that is

I’m sorry you’re tired and have a headache. I understand that. But I question why I should believe you on this subject when you won’t even provide documentation. What I believe has to be based on Church teaching. You haven’t shown me any Church teaching. So I wonder why you are so sure you understand the Church’s position at all.

Good luck on your essay. I hope you feel better soon. God bless.

*Holy Mother, please keep
all unborn children safe today.

St. Francis, please pray for all unwanted and hurt animals.*

 

[Worthy5]

LittleSoldier;6491610]If you ask me a serious question and show me respect, I will be happy to answer your question respectfully.

Please don’t accuse me of not having an answer. Your question is full of nonsense and what I read as sarcasm. I don’t have time to waste on playing games. If you wish to discuss my brother’s action I will be happy to do so. If you want to ask me silly questions and then claim I’m dodging, it becomes obvious that you aren’t taking this discussion seriously. I’m not getting involved in that.

With all that you typed you could have just provided your answer.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Doc Keele
*
OK. End of conversation. Don’t ever have the cheek to say that I have refused to face a question tho.*

Ah, but you did refuse. Why isn’t the law schizophrenic with respect to homicide of the unborn and abortion of the unborn? You haven’t answered the question because you can’t find an answer that gets around the schizophrenic character of the laws…

And why doesn’t your dictionary give “contradictory or incompatible thought processes” (or something equivalent to that) as one of the definitions of schizophrenic? Are you using a pocket dictionary?

*I’ve asked for clarification which you’ve refused to give. You brought up the issue. *

I didn’t refuse to clarify. The facts of the case are transparent. The defandant’s lawyer did not appeal the indictment of the unborn child. The judge did not quash it.

You ask for the penal code. I just can’t be bothered doing your homework for you! I suspect you are writing a term paper and may be too lazy to do your own research.

Maybe you can find somebody else to do it for you.