Irrefutable pro-life argument

[LittleSoldier]

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

But then I would have established a precedent. You asking a silly question and me posting a serious response and so on. I would be giving you permission to show me disrespect. I won’t do that.

You referred to “playing argument hardball.” That’s not what I’m doing. I’m not playing at all. If I wanted to play I would get a piece of string and dangle it in front of my cat. What I’m doing here is attempting to discuss matters of great importance both to myself and to others.

These threads are read by more than those who post. The lurkers are important to me.

If you had left out everything but the last part of your (mostly) inane post to me I would have answered with a serious response. I even have a passage from the CCC to back me up.

But I’m not going to play with you. This isn’t a diversion to me. It’s what I do.

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

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

 

[LittleSoldier]

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.

I would like to add that the jury agreed with the prosecution and convicted him of two counts of murder.

I thought that might be important, too.

Let us all keep Lacey and Conner in our prayers.

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

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

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Doc Keele

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

Your tedious, repetitious and empty one-sentence replies have become too much for me.

I concede to you the laurel of victory. Wear it if it fits.

Have a great life!

 

[Worthy5]

LittleSoldier;6492509]But then I would have established a precedent. You asking a silly question and me posting a serious response and so on. I would be giving you permission to show me disrespect. I won’t do that.

You referred to “playing argument hardball.” That’s not what I’m doing. I’m not playing at all. If I wanted to play I would get a piece of string and dangle it in front of my cat. What I’m doing here is attempting to discuss matters of great importance both to myself and to others.

These threads are read by more than those who post. The lurkers are important to me.

If you had left out everything but the last part of your (mostly) inane post to me I would have answered with a serious response. I even have a passage from the CCC to back me up.

Your scrambling LittleSoldier. :tsktsk:

 

[Doc_Keele]

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.

Thanks sister
I feel a lot better now I’ve had a sleep.
I’m not being difficult over the sources thing, it’s just I tend to remember the piece of information much better than where I got it from. And the essay I’m about to write revolves around the issue of the principle of double effect with reference to the Church’s position on life, so that’s why I’m so certain I’m correct. But anyway, I’ll find those sources if no one beats me to it

 

[Doc_Keele]

Your tedious, repetitious and empty one-sentence replies have become too much for me.

Good, because your tedious, repetitious and empty evocations of “commonsense” insulted the intelligence of nearly everyone here. Not to mention your cheap jibes about term papers on US law, which would be really, really weird for a student of English law

I concede to you the laurel of victory. Wear it if it fits

Oddly enough I’m not so shallow as to be concerned with such things:shrug:

 

[LittleSoldier]

Thanks sister
I feel a lot better now I’ve had a sleep.
I’m not being difficult over the sources thing, it’s just I tend to remember the piece of information much better than where I got it from. And the essay I’m about to write revolves around the issue of the principle of double effect with reference to the Church’s position on life, so that’s why I’m so certain I’m correct. But anyway, I’ll find those sources if no one beats me to it

Well, I can guarantee that I won’t beat you to it! I will admit that the principle of double effect makes me dizzy when I think about it. I have a problem getting a grasp on the concept.

I’m glad you’re feeling better.

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

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

 

[Doc_Keele]

Well, I can guarantee that I won’t beat you to it! I will admit that the principle of double effect makes me dizzy when I think about it. I have a problem getting a grasp on the concept.

I’m glad you’re feeling better.

A lot of the problem with PDE revolves around what exactly “intention” means, and that definitely makes me dizzy!

 

[anode]

The problem is, you can’t stop abortion. Making it illegal will do nothing, It is unenforceable. Increasingly, abortions in the US are medical–any doctor or, I suspect, other health care provider, can prescribe the medicines for a medical abortion. Any clinic, any office–not an outpatient women’s clinic or a Planned Parenthood. How are you going to prevent this? Sex education, contraception and supportive health care legislation for mothers and children do more to prevent abortion than all the picketing you can organize.

 

[kimmielittle]

For those that debate the “Personhood” as justification for legality / acceptability of abortion…i.e, “The Mirror Test” etc

IMHO, this is in grave error.

It is based on Psychology, Philosophy, Sociology, ALL of which are the “Soft Sciences” to debate against the “Hard Science”.

Soft Sciences bow in the wind. What is accepted today, by psychologists etc, is under subjective speculation - at that / any particular point of time.

“Hard Science” states, LIFE begins at conception.

Until you refute this statement using the “Hard Science”., that states it ], you have nothing but speculation - theories.

Abortion kills, LIFE. This too, is “Hard Science.”
No matter what reasoning you may wish to hold dear.

As always, just my thoughts

 

[adriancombe]

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.

What argument? So far you haven’t made an argument, only bald assertions or denials. Who is Kaczor, a villain on Star Trek? Please provide a URL.

 

[JimG]

The problem is, you can’t stop abortion. Making it illegal will do nothing, It is unenforceable. Increasingly, abortions in the US are medical–any doctor or, I suspect, other health care provider, can prescribe the medicines for a medical abortion. Any clinic, any office–not an outpatient women’s clinic or a Planned Parenthood. How are you going to prevent this? Sex education, contraception and supportive health care legislation for mothers and children do more to prevent abortion than all the picketing you can organize.

And yet: very few physicians are willing to do abortions; stand-alone abortion clinics make fortunes doing late term abortions.

If restricting abortion is no big deal, Dr. Leroy Carhart should have no worries. Planned Parenthood clinics should have no need to fight against it.

Why don’t they all just agree to prohibit abortion except where the mother’s life is in danger? That would eliminate 99% of all abortion. Abortion clinics and abortionists have no interest in limitation because there is big money to be made in promoting abortion.

Limitations on abortion are as enforceable as any other law.

 

[LittleSoldier]

The problem is, you can’t stop abortion. Making it illegal will do nothing, It is unenforceable. Increasingly, abortions in the US are medical–any doctor or, I suspect, other health care provider, can prescribe the medicines for a medical abortion. Any clinic, any office–not an outpatient women’s clinic or a Planned Parenthood. How are you going to prevent this? Sex education, contraception and supportive health care legislation for mothers and children do more to prevent abortion than all the picketing you can organize.

I beg to differ. Making it illegal will mean that any physician who performs an abortion may lose his license, be charged with a criminal offense, and/or spend time in prison.

Organizations like PP would not be able to promote abortion or provide facilities where procured abortions are obtained.

I don’t think most physicians are going to blatantly or covertly attempt to bypass laws if abortion is made illegal.

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

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

 

[LittleSoldier]

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.

I’m not sure what you mean by “very specific cases of ‘right then and there’ and specific situations.” Did you read the entire article? I only posted part of it, per forum rules.

I keep saying this - it is not considered an abortion by the Church if the death of an unborn child is an unwanted consequence of saving the life of the mother. So of course a woman with a “bad heart” can’t run down to PP with notes from her doctor and priest giving her permission to have her unborn child cut apart or burned with saline. This is very serious. The life of the unborn child is very important, just as is the life of the mother.

If a woman has a “bad heart” and is pregnant with life-threatening complications due to that pregnancy, she isn’t even going to be able to go to PP. She’ll be in a hospital - a real one that is inspected by government health agencies.

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

Shouldn’t those be rights for everyone? For you, me, children, infants, unborn children? An infant most likely does not have the ability or even the desire to pursue her dreams, but let her live and she will. So will an unborn child. The unborn child and the infant should have life-long rights, just as everyone else should. If a woman is a new mother and unhappy about her current situation, the life of her child is much more important than her desire to alleviate her temporary unhappiness by tossing the infant into a dumpster. If a woman is pregnant and unhappy about her pregnancy, the life of her child trumps her temporary unhappiness. Her unborn child’s life is much more important than her desire to rid herself of her unhappiness by procuring an abortion.

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

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

 

[Worthy5]

LittleSoldier;6496942]I beg to differ. Making it illegal will mean that any physician who performs an abortion may lose his license, be charged with a criminal offense, and/or spend time in prison.

Organizations like PP would not be able to promote abortion or provide facilities where procured abortions are obtained.

I don’t think most physicians are going to blatantly or covertly attempt to bypass laws if abortion is made illegal.

Okay, but the doctor’s role is separate from the issue of personal autonomy of the women and the policy of limited govt.

 

[fkjuliano]

I respectfully submit to all Catholic brethren and other persons of good will who may read this that, as much as logic, reason and decency, may be on our side, we will never sway the vast majority of abortionists because their hearts and minds are closed, to us and especially to God.

That being the case, what is left to us is simply to force them to cease this heinous practice through the imposition of stiff prison sentences and even the death penalty. A fetus is a human being, therefore abortion is murder; as such it should be treated. The fact that the victim is by necessity particularly small, young and defenseless, is, if anything, an aggravating, rather than a mitigating circumstance.

I am fully aware that what is being proposed is easier said than done, but my point is that nothing will be accomplished by using gentle persuasion on the abortionists. Force will be required. Slaveholders claimed the “right” to own other human beings, and they were only persuaded of their error at the point of bayonets. Similarly, abortionists also claim a bogus right, which will be extinguished by the strong hand of a moral government, or, barring that, by the infinitely stronger hand of God.

 

[flyingfish]

I’m not sure what you mean by “very specific cases of ‘right then and there’ and specific situations.” Did you read the entire article? I only posted part of it, per forum rules.

I keep saying this - it is not considered an abortion by the Church if the death of an unborn child is an unwanted consequence of saving the life of the mother. So of course a woman with a “bad heart” can’t run down to PP with notes from her doctor and priest giving her permission to have her unborn child cut apart or burned with saline. This is very serious. The life of the unborn child is very important, just as is the life of the mother.

If a woman has a “bad heart” and is pregnant with life-threatening complications due to that pregnancy, she isn’t even going to be able to go to PP. She’ll be in a hospital - a real one that is inspected by government health agencies.

My point is it having an abortion may drastically reduce a woman’s chance of death, but that is not permitted. Only life saving treatments that have the baby’s death as a side effect are permitted. An abortion itself is not considered a lifesaving treatment.

In practice, very few situations are in that category (like ectopic pregnancy). If pregnancy simply gives a woman a high chance of death, she can’t have an abortion to eliminate that risk according to the Church.

Shouldn’t those be rights for everyone? For you, me, children, infants, unborn children?

I’ve said many times before, and you disagree with me. I think only self aware individuals should have these rights.

 

[Nozzferrahhtoo]

We aren’t discussing viruses here. We’re discussing abortion. That means we are discussing the intentional killing of unborn human beings - not viruses. If you can’t see the difference, then you aren’t being “intellectually honest.”

Littlesoldier,

Thanks for the summary of what the thread is about. I am however more than aware of what it is about, but if you think that every single thread has to stick to the topic so rigidly that it can not in any way reference anything else whatsoever, then may I respectfully suggest that you are on the wrong site? My reference to other elements of the living world are perfectly valid in this context.

The “intellectual honesty” to which you refer comes from the fact that I am not aware of any argument by which I can assign “rights” to a foetus in the 0-16 week term that precludes me from also assigning them to a virus, or a tree. They are essentially the same thing… a coming together of DNA instructions on how to further develop and proceed along a life cycle.

What I seek therefore is a basis for assigning entities rights and the strongest basis I can find for that is to assign them to that very faculty from whence they arise. Given that “rights” appear to exist in one place only, are decided by one place only, assigned by one place only and are enforced by o ne place only, I do not think it in any way a leap to suggest that it is TO and on the BASIS of that place that we assign them.

That “place” is the faculty of human consciousness, a faculty not present in amoeba, viruses, trees, rocks, steaks, table legs, limbs, dna, bones or, specifically, the foetus at 0-16 weeks of development.

On that basis I see no good reason to assign the foetus rights at this stage nor to preclude the choice of abortion.

However from 20 weeks development on wards I can see that all the pre-requisites for human consciousness are present and firing at some level. I can no longer safely say this is not a conscious entity and so I do NOT support abortion from 20 weeks onwards.

 

[Doc_Keele]

Who is Kaczor, a villain on Star Trek?

He’s the co-author of one of the books in the Catholic Answers shop:thumbsup:

 

[dgdough]

Some disgusting thoughts on this subject in here, this is all I need to know that right away it is a child.

The Lord told Jeremiah, “Before I formed thee in the belly, I KNEW THEE: and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.” Jeremiah. 1:5. It was said of Levi, “For he was yet in the loins of his father when Melchisedec met him.” Hebrews 7:10.

Yes, he was talking to Jeremiah but do you not believe He knows ALL OF US before we are even formed? Of course God the all knowing and everlasting knows us and that’s why abortion is murder and the most despicable and selfish sins (in my opinion).

Don’t get me wrong, if someone has an abortion they are not damned to hell…as long as they repent and accept Jesus Christ as their personal savior…they shall surely have eternal life.