Irrefutable pro-life argument

  • Thread starter Thread starter adriancombe
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Doc Keele

*No, I never refused to face it Charlemagne.

Two points: one, you are employing casuistry based on your misunderstanding and/or misrepresentation of foetal homicide laws; and two you are using the term schizophrenia in a totally inaccurate fashion.*

What I have always been disappointed with in your answers is that they are full of denial or accusation, but never include any supporting data. It must be a great comfort to know that you are above all the rules for apologetic discourse. :rolleyes:
 
:rolleyes:

and what’s great about your posts is how they move the debate on - going to mention commonsense again?:rolleyes:
 
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.” 😃
 
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.
From the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

2271 Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law:
 
Schizophrenia means “splintered mind”, not this crass notion of two personalities many lay people have. I don’t know where you got that definition from, but not any dictionary I recognize.
Now you substitute schizoid, used in an equally cavalier manner.

I don’t need to explain anything of course, I didn’t pass the statutes. If you would post the particular statute you have issues with, I might feel inclined to comment on it. Clearly the two acts are not the same, but you omit to mention that.
Foetal “homicide” laws clearly do not accord the foetus the status of person, as I’m sure you realise. Granting the foetus some moral status obviously does not mean that the foetus has full moral status.
 
Schizophrenia means “splintered mind”, not this crass notion of two personalities many lay people have. I don’t know where you got that definition from, but not any dictionary I recognize.
Now you substitute schizoid, used in an equally cavalier manner.

I don’t need to explain anything of course, I didn’t pass the statutes. If you would post the particular statute you have issues with, I might feel inclined to comment on it. Clearly the two acts are not the same, but you omit to mention that.
Foetal “homicide” laws clearly do not accord the foetus the status of person, as I’m sure you realise. Granting the foetus some moral status obviously does not mean that the foetus has full moral status.
Correction: *Foetal “homicide” laws clearly do not accord the foetus the full status of a born person, as I’m sure you realise. *
 
Correction: Foetal “homicide” laws clearly do not accord the foetus the full status of a born person, as I’m sure you realise.
But if an unborn child is growing to become a Person then would stopping that growth be tantamount to stopping a born child from growing to a fully mature adult?
 
You’re incorrect LS. I have been told many times by people on this forum, and I know also from my perusal of Church documents, that this is not considered permissible by the Church.
I don’t think I’m wrong (of course I was wrong before). But this has come up many times. Would you please post documentation to back up your assertion?

Here is documentation to back up mine:

Moral Principles:

In the case of an ectopic pregnancy, the lives of both the mother and child are placed at risk. The moral teachings of the Church call for medical treatment that respects the lives of both. Most recently, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops reiterated these principles:

· In the case of extrauterine pregnancy, no intervention is morally licit which constitutes a direct abortion.

· ** Operations, treatments and medications that have as their direct purpose the cure of a proportionately serious pathological condition of a pregnant woman are permitted when they cannot be safely postponed until the unborn child is viable, even if they will result in the death of the unborn child.**

On one hand, there can be no direct attack on the child (direct abortion) to save the life of the mother. On the other hand, the life of the mother is equally valuable and she must receive appropriate treatment. It might be that the only available remedy saves the life of the mother but, while not a direct abortion, brings about the unintended effect of the death of the child. Morally speaking, in saving the life of the mother, the Church accepts that the child might be lost.

This principle applies in other pregnancy complications as well. With severe hemorrhaging, for example, if nothing is done, both will die. In respecting the life of the mother, the physician must act directly on the uterus. At that time the uterus loses its ability to support the life of the embryo. The mother’s life is preserved and there has been no intentional attack on the child. The mother and the uterus have been directly treated; a secondary effect is the death of the child.

Another example arises in the treatment of uterine (endometrial) cancer during a pregnancy. The common treatments of uterine cancer are primarily hysterectomy (surgical removal of the uterus) and sometimes chemotherapy or radiation therapy. Again, taking the life of the baby is not intended, but a hysterectomy does mean the removal of the womb and the death of the child. **Yet, if a hysterectomy must be performed to save the life of the mother, the Church would deem the procedure morally licit.

Thus, a moral distinction must be made between directly and intentionally treating a pathology (a condition or abnormality that causes a disease) and indirectly and unintentionally causing the death of the baby in the process.**

This distinction is derived from a moral principle called “double effect.” When a choice will likely bring about both an intended desirable effect and also an unintended, undesirable effect, the principle of double effect can be applied to evaluate the morality of the choice. The chosen act is morally licit when (a) the action itself is good, (b) the intended effect is good, and (c) the unintended, evil effect is not greater in proportion to the good effect. For example, “The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one’s own life; and the killing of the aggressor. . . . The one is intended, the other is not” (Catechism, no. 2263, citing St. Thomas Aquinas).

cuf.org/faithfacts/details_view.asp?ffID=57

[bolding mine]

There is much more detail on this website which discusses medical treatment of an ectopic pregnancy, but because of the length and forum rules, I’ve only posted the above.

CCC 2263:

Legitimate Defense:

The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. “The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one’s own life; and the killing of the aggressor…the one is intended, the other is not.”

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

St. Francis, please pray for all unwanted and hurt animals.*
 
Schizophrenia means “splintered mind”, not this crass notion of two personalities many lay people have. I don’t know where you got that definition from, but not any dictionary I recognize.
Now you substitute schizoid, used in an equally cavalier manner.

I don’t need to explain anything of course, I didn’t pass the statutes. If you would post the particular statute you have issues with, I might feel inclined to comment on it. Clearly the two acts are not the same, but you omit to mention that.
Foetal “homicide” laws clearly do not accord the foetus the status of person, as I’m sure you realise. Granting the foetus some moral status obviously does not mean that the foetus has full moral status.
Thank you for definining “schizophrenia.” I have MPD - it irritates me to be told I have schizophrenia.

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

St. Francis, please pray for all unwanted and hurt animals.*
 
From the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

2271 Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law:
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.*
 
The issue with infanticide is the culpability of the mother. It’s not automatic that the charge will be infanticide. Abandoning a child is a separate issue, but I agree that having the service that a child can be left at a safe haven seems eminently sensible.
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?

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

St. Francis, please pray for all unwanted and hurt animals.*
 
So you’re saying that if a woman has a heart condition that makes pregnancy likely to kill her or damage her health, the Church would say it’s acceptable for her to go to Planned Parenthood and have the fetus cut up into little pieces and removed?

If this is true, then I did have a wrong idea about the Church’s teaching all this time.
Uh, no. That is not the way it works. It’s not up to the mother to decide that she has a heart condition that makes pregnancy likely to kill her (and damaging one’s health doesn’t count as a reason to undergo treatment which will end the life of her unborn child). The goal is always to save both mother and child. The unborn child has value as a human being. So does the mother.

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 that is not treated and if the tube will burst, this will most likely kill both the child and the mother. There are certain medical ways to save the mother’s life, but the life of the child will most likely be lost. This is not considered an abortion. If the unborn child can be implanted or otherwise saved, then she must be saved. Her life is important, too.

It’s not like the mother gets a note from a Catholic doctor or priest, excusing her from continuing her pregnancy. It’s very serious and very unfortunate and sad if the child or the mother or both die(s).
However, even if it’s immoral to kill animals for no reason, it is moral to kill them for food. It is moral to destroy property if for example you’re trapped in it and need to get out to live.
Abortion doesn’t happen in a vacuum, it happens because the woman needs to have an abortion to protect her well being.
I don’t eat unborn children.

Please define “well being.” Thank you.

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

St. Francis, please pray for all unwanted and hurt animals.*
 
Here is some more documentation (it was used in the preparation of the documentation I already provided):

Operations, treatments, and medications that have as their direct purpose the cure of a proportionately serious pathological condition of a pregnant woman are permitted when they cannot be safely postponed until the unborn child is viable, even if they will result in the death of the unborn child.

This is from the National Conference of Catholic Bishops.

usccb.org/bishops/directives.shtml [scroll down to #47]

I realize this is already quoted in my previous post, but I posted it again, listing the original document in which it was presented.

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

St. Francis, please pray for all unwanted and hurt animals.*
 
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.
 
=LittleSoldier;6489710]Uh, no. That is not the way it works.
Uh, how what works. Not answering this poster’s posts. You have alot to say Littlesoldier but seem to want to ignore this poster’s posts. Is it safe to assume no response will be provided to the posts? Thanks
 
So Little Soldier, does that mean the govt (we the people) should guarantee everyone a
$ 100.00 minimum wage? Free unlimited healthcare? Free College education? If your brother did not perform such a heroic deed, should he have been prosecuted for failure to act?

Regards
Yes. It means all of those things. Absolutely. That and a yearly paid five-week vacation to the tropical island of one’s choice. I choose Aruba.

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

St. Francis, please pray for all unwanted and hurt animals.*
 
Uh, how what works. Not answering this poster’s posts. You have alot to say Littlesoldier but seem to want to ignore this poster’s posts. Is it safe to assume no response will be provided to the posts? Thanks
OK, I answered your post. Actually I had a better answer but it got deleted and then I got involved in the “abortion of a child in an ill woman” debate and then was sidetracked by four other threads I’m involved in (I’m the OP in two of them) and received two PMs in the last hour.

Then I forgot about it.

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

St. Francis, please pray for all unwanted and hurt animals.*
 
LittleSoldier;6489970]Yes. It means all of those things. Absolutely. That and a yearly paid five-week vacation to the tropical island of one’s choice. I choose Aruba.
This answer speaks for itself.

Regards
 
No, I never refused to face it Charlemagne:rolleyes:

Two points: one, you are employing casuistry based on your misunderstanding and/or misrepresentation of foetal homicide laws; and two you are using the term schizophrenia in a totally inaccurate fashion
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.

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

St. Francis, please pray for all unwanted and hurt animals.*
 
This answer speaks for itself.

Regards
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.

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

St. Francis, please pray for all unwanted and hurt animals.*
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top