- Status
G
Gift_from_God
Guest
There’s a good Dick Cheney joke I could make about this, I just don’t know what it is.
But no, it can’t be refuted. Why? Abortion isn’t attached to logic.
But no, it can’t be refuted. Why? Abortion isn’t attached to logic.
L
LittleSoldier
Guest
What I’ve seen in this thread (and many others) are attempts to rationalize killing unborn human beings, even if it is accepted that they are human beings.
What I don’t think many pro-abortionists understand is that not only is a human being formed at conception (and logically this is the only time a new human being can be formed), that human being goes through stages of development - not in order to become a human being (because she is already a human being), but because she is developing into a more mature human being.
This is the way I see this progression occurring (of course it is simplified; to write it all would entail writing a book):
At conception a new human being is formed.
The new human being attaches to the uterine wall.
For approximately 40 or so weeks (measurement of actual gestational age is not really correct as gestational age is not usually measured from time of fertilization), this human being continues to develop inside her mother’s womb.
The human being is then born.
The human being continues to develop.
She develops from an unborn human being, dependent on her mother, to a newborn infant, dependent on her mother (or surrogates) for sustenance, protection from the elements, and contact with a warm human being with a beating heart - a heartbeat she has heard for quite some time as she developed in the womb. She starts to smile as a response to a human face. She develops the ability to digest food. If she is lucky enough to be breast-fed she is held close to her mother and a bond is formed.
She develops into a toddler. She attempts to gain autonomy. Her brain continues to develop, as do her bones, muscles, and other organs.
She gains weight, she gets bigger, she becomes more autonomous.
She starts to speak, garbled at first, then forming words, then sentences (my first was “I don’t want to!”).
She develops into an older child. Her brain is still developing. She learns how to interact with other human beings, she begins a life-long process of obtaining knowledge. She learns to read. She learns to do simple arithmetic.
She continues to develop.
She becomes a teenager and goes through puberty. She becomes able to reproduce.
She is still developing. She is learning. She will continue to learn through the rest of her life.
I can go on through young adulthood, adulthood, middle age, late age, and death, but I hope what I’ve posted as far as development of a human being is adequate.
My point in posting all this is that although a tiny, little zygote can’t do all the things a fetus can do, or a newborn, or a toddler, a child, a teenager, an adult can do, she is developing as a human being. A zygote cannot become a human being. She is already a human being. She is not a potential life or a potential human being. She is already a life and a human being.
I’ve seen some efforts to shift the focus from the fact that a zygote is a human being to a discussion of when she should be given the rights that newborn infants have or teens have or adults have. I’ve seen the words “consciousness,” “self-awareness,” and “intelligence” tossed about. But all these are just attributes of an existing, living human being who is presently at a stage during which these attributes exist.
It is most likely true that a zygote does not have “consciousness”, at least in the form with which most people would agree. But as the zygote develops, she is forming the physical structures necessary for consciousness to become present. And that’s just one thing she is doing. She is also developing into a being with arm and leg buds, with a heart, with lungs, a liver, a spleen. ** No person alive today has suddenly had “consciousness” thrust upon them but must first go through the development necessary for that “consciousness” to exist, to support consciousness.**
No child at eighteen months suddenly has “self-awareness” thrust upon her but must first go through the development necessary for that “self-awareness” to exist.
This seems to be forgotten or assumed to be unimportant by many who believe it’s morally acceptable to kill an unborn child. And I see that as indicative of a lack of understanding of basic human development.
A human being is formed at conception. From conception on, what occurs is development. A human being’s right to life should not be dependent upon the presence of “consciousness,” or her location, or her age, or her IQ, or her physical health, or her gender, or her ethnic background, but simply because she is a human being.
*Holy Mother, please keep
all unborn children safe today.
St. Francis, please pray for all unwanted and hurt animals.
Jesus, I love you. Please bestow on me the gift of faith.*
What I don’t think many pro-abortionists understand is that not only is a human being formed at conception (and logically this is the only time a new human being can be formed), that human being goes through stages of development - not in order to become a human being (because she is already a human being), but because she is developing into a more mature human being.
This is the way I see this progression occurring (of course it is simplified; to write it all would entail writing a book):
At conception a new human being is formed.
The new human being attaches to the uterine wall.
For approximately 40 or so weeks (measurement of actual gestational age is not really correct as gestational age is not usually measured from time of fertilization), this human being continues to develop inside her mother’s womb.
The human being is then born.
The human being continues to develop.
She develops from an unborn human being, dependent on her mother, to a newborn infant, dependent on her mother (or surrogates) for sustenance, protection from the elements, and contact with a warm human being with a beating heart - a heartbeat she has heard for quite some time as she developed in the womb. She starts to smile as a response to a human face. She develops the ability to digest food. If she is lucky enough to be breast-fed she is held close to her mother and a bond is formed.
She develops into a toddler. She attempts to gain autonomy. Her brain continues to develop, as do her bones, muscles, and other organs.
She gains weight, she gets bigger, she becomes more autonomous.
She starts to speak, garbled at first, then forming words, then sentences (my first was “I don’t want to!”).
She develops into an older child. Her brain is still developing. She learns how to interact with other human beings, she begins a life-long process of obtaining knowledge. She learns to read. She learns to do simple arithmetic.
She continues to develop.
She becomes a teenager and goes through puberty. She becomes able to reproduce.
She is still developing. She is learning. She will continue to learn through the rest of her life.
I can go on through young adulthood, adulthood, middle age, late age, and death, but I hope what I’ve posted as far as development of a human being is adequate.
My point in posting all this is that although a tiny, little zygote can’t do all the things a fetus can do, or a newborn, or a toddler, a child, a teenager, an adult can do, she is developing as a human being. A zygote cannot become a human being. She is already a human being. She is not a potential life or a potential human being. She is already a life and a human being.
I’ve seen some efforts to shift the focus from the fact that a zygote is a human being to a discussion of when she should be given the rights that newborn infants have or teens have or adults have. I’ve seen the words “consciousness,” “self-awareness,” and “intelligence” tossed about. But all these are just attributes of an existing, living human being who is presently at a stage during which these attributes exist.
It is most likely true that a zygote does not have “consciousness”, at least in the form with which most people would agree. But as the zygote develops, she is forming the physical structures necessary for consciousness to become present. And that’s just one thing she is doing. She is also developing into a being with arm and leg buds, with a heart, with lungs, a liver, a spleen. ** No person alive today has suddenly had “consciousness” thrust upon them but must first go through the development necessary for that “consciousness” to exist, to support consciousness.**
No child at eighteen months suddenly has “self-awareness” thrust upon her but must first go through the development necessary for that “self-awareness” to exist.
This seems to be forgotten or assumed to be unimportant by many who believe it’s morally acceptable to kill an unborn child. And I see that as indicative of a lack of understanding of basic human development.
A human being is formed at conception. From conception on, what occurs is development. A human being’s right to life should not be dependent upon the presence of “consciousness,” or her location, or her age, or her IQ, or her physical health, or her gender, or her ethnic background, but simply because she is a human being.
*Holy Mother, please keep
all unborn children safe today.
St. Francis, please pray for all unwanted and hurt animals.
Jesus, I love you. Please bestow on me the gift of faith.*
D
Doc_Keele
Guest
LS, with respect you can’t say that everyone who supports abortion in very limited circumstances is trying to rationalise killing - they just have a different idea of what being pro-life is. I think that a woman shouldn’t have to die because the foetus’ rights trump hers.
L
LittleSoldier
Guest
Please quote where I said what you are accusing me of saying in my last post. I never said the fetu, I mean the foetus’ rights trump the mother’s rights. They are both important. I didn’t even mention the mother dying! I never said “that everyone who supports abortion in very limited circumstances is trying to rationalize killing.” Please, Doc, please don’t put words in my mouth.
How did you ever come to the conclusion you did about my post?
*Holy Mother, please keep
all unborn children safe today.
St. Francis, please pray for all unwanted and hurt animals.
Jesus, I love you. Please bestow upon me the gift of faith.*
D
Doc_Keele
Guest
I’m not saying you believe that the foetus’s rights trump the mothers’, but that some people like me believe that the Pro-Life position makes this practically the case in the (rare) situations where the mother and foetus can’t both be saved.
We have different positions partly because we have different opinions about the implications of certain doctrines, not necessarily because we have fundamentally different values.
I don’t disagree with your values LS - no slight was intended.
We have different positions partly because we have different opinions about the implications of certain doctrines, not necessarily because we have fundamentally different values.
I don’t disagree with your values LS - no slight was intended.
K
kimmielittle
Guest
If both lives are treated equally i.e given the same protections and reverence. There is no ‘trumping’ of one life over the other.
L
LittleSoldier
Guest
I’m not saying you slighted me and I take no offense. I’m confused. I wrote a post, you responded and although you didn’t quote that post I have to assume your response is to that post. And in that post I never said anything you said I did. You stated “You can’t say…” and I never did!
All I see here is that I posted and you responded by saying I said things I never said. So I am confused. What post is your post in reference to? Where did I ever say the things you say I said?
*Holy Mother, please keep
all unborn children safe tonight.
St. Francis, please pray for all unwanted and hurt animals.*
L
LittleSoldier
Guest
Yes, thank you! That is what I have been saying all along. The lives of both mother and child are equally important. And I believe the documentation I posted shows that.
The goal is to always save both. Always.
W
Worthy5
Guest
In a moral sense. But legally, the policy of limited govt plays a role. A role you seem to want to ignore but yet no society can be free without such a policy.
S
shannonfbc
Guest
Honestly Abortion is a known mortal sin it is killing another person. My bible doesn’t say thou shalt not kill unless the person lives within yourself in which case its your choice because its your body, does yours?
Regardless of what the laws are in the country we reside in as Catholics we cannot be pro-choice it is an offense against god.
While I am use to seeing abortion debates online I certainly never expected to see anything like it here.
Regardless of what the laws are in the country we reside in as Catholics we cannot be pro-choice it is an offense against god.
While I am use to seeing abortion debates online I certainly never expected to see anything like it here.
D
Doc_Keele
Guest
When I posted “you can’t say”, the words of yourself I quoted were about rationalising killing (which were in your post). Then I went on to say about the foetus’ rights trumping the mothers, which you didn’t say. Yes, probably very confusing but then I even confuse myself sometimes:blush:I’m not saying you slighted me and I take no offense. I’m confused. I wrote a post, you responded and although you didn’t quote that post I have to assume your response is to that post. And in that post I never said anything you said I did. You stated “You can’t say…” and I never did!
All I see here is that I posted and you responded by saying I said things I never said. So I am confused. What post is your post in reference to? Where did I ever say the things you say I said?
K
kimmielittle
Guest
For a limited Government role - over-turning of Roe v Wade - would grant both lives equal protection - reverence… with the least amount of Government.
IMHO
It is precisely because of Roe v Wade that government HAS to now define such things as late term abortions - "person-hood’ - defining as health care … issues etc.
If ALL Human life was protected by our Constitution The Bill of Rights ] - as opposed to **defined ** by courts - it would limit Government roles. It The Bill of Rights ] states simply "The Right To Life’
K
kimmielittle
Guest
:thumbsup:As Catholic doctrine teaches.
K
kimmielittle
Guest
L
LittleSoldier
Guest
Welcome to CAF! There are always abortion threads here. There are pro-abortion “Catholics” and atheists/agnostics, etc. It’s constant.
I agree with what you wrote. It is an offense against God. And my Bible states “Thou shalt not kill,” although it wasn’t translated correctly. The Commandment is actually “Thou shalt not murder” which is even more appropriate when referencing abortion. Who is more innocent than an unborn human being?
S
shannonfbc
Guest
Yes I have noticed a lot more threads in here on Abortion since commenting here though I have not bothered to comment on them I do find them somewhat alarming. It just seems so very wrong to have people professing to be Catholics arguing for pro choice. It seems very wrong to me to argue and try to convince others that the murder of innocent Babies is okay when it clearly goes against God. How can a Christian person argue for anything that goes against God and still call themselves Christian.
I know my last statement will probably offend some and I apologize for that It’s just how I feel and what I strongly feel to be the truth.
People murder their own children (in the womb) for reasons that bewilder me… reasons like we just want to wait a few more years to have children, I’m just not ready for this. Others do it because there is something “wrong” with their child like a test that shows the child has down-syndrome or some other “defect”, but really who are we to decide that these children are somehow in-perfect or less.
My friends son has down-syndrome and he is truly a gift from god, that child brings so much joy and love to everyone he encounters in life it is impossible to spend anytime with him and think him anything but perfect he loves everyone, his innocence and ability to forgive people is truly remarkable.
I know my last statement will probably offend some and I apologize for that It’s just how I feel and what I strongly feel to be the truth.
People murder their own children (in the womb) for reasons that bewilder me… reasons like we just want to wait a few more years to have children, I’m just not ready for this. Others do it because there is something “wrong” with their child like a test that shows the child has down-syndrome or some other “defect”, but really who are we to decide that these children are somehow in-perfect or less.
My friends son has down-syndrome and he is truly a gift from god, that child brings so much joy and love to everyone he encounters in life it is impossible to spend anytime with him and think him anything but perfect he loves everyone, his innocence and ability to forgive people is truly remarkable.
K
kimmielittle
Guest
There are certain things one can expect from a ‘just society’. Moral and ethical obligations, if you will. Decent living conditions, wages, etc.
Where people have gone wrong, is to think that a ‘just society’ has an obligation - morally or ethically, to provide a woman with an excuse to murder. No other citizen is provided this ‘right’ except a pregnant woman. In a just society, there is no justification for murder, or expecting a just societies support of it. -kimmie
Where people have gone wrong, is to think that a ‘just society’ has an obligation - morally or ethically, to provide a woman with an excuse to murder. No other citizen is provided this ‘right’ except a pregnant woman. In a just society, there is no justification for murder, or expecting a just societies support of it. -kimmie
S
shannonfbc
Guest
Okay I went to the vatican website itself to get the church’s official view of this subject and it is exactly what I though it is a mortal sin… it is murder and catholics should not argue for it!
SACRED CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH
DECLARATION ON PROCURED ABORTION
SACRED CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH
DECLARATION ON PROCURED ABORTION
- The problem of procured abortion and of its possible legal liberalization has become more or less everywhere the subject of impassioned discussions. These debates would be less grave were it not a question of human life, a primordial value, which must be protected and promoted. Everyone understands this, although many look for reasons, even against all evidence, to promote the use of abortion. One cannot but be astonished to see a simultaneous increase of unqualified protests against the death penalty and every form of war and the vindication of the liberalization of abortion, either in its entirety or in ever broader indications. The Church is too conscious of the fact that it belongs to her vocation to defend man against everything that could disintegrate or lessen his dignity to remain silent on such a topic. Because the Son of God became man, there is no man who is not His brother in humanity and who is not called to become a Christian in order to receive salvation from Him.
- In many countries the public authorities which resist the liberalization of abortion laws are the object of powerful pressures aimed at leading them to this goal. This, it is said, would violate no one’s conscience, for each individual would be left free to follow his own opinion, while being prevented from imposing it on others. Ethical pluralism is claimed to be a normal consequence of ideological pluralism. There is, however, a great difference between the one and the other, for action affects the interests of others more quickly than does mere opinion. Moreover, one can never claim freedom of opinion as a pretext for attacking the rights of others, most especially the right to life.
- Numerous Christian lay people, especially doctors, but also parents’ associations, statesmen, or leading figures in posts of responsibility have vigorously reacted against this propaganda campaign. Above all, many episcopal conferences and many bishops acting in their own name have judged it opportune to recall very strongly the traditional doctrine of the Church.[1] With a striking convergence these documents admirably emphasize an attitude of respect for life which is at the same time human and Christian. Nevertheless, it has happened that several of these documents here or there have encountered reservation or even opposition.
- Charged with the promotion and the defense of faith and morals in the universal Church,[2] the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith proposes to recall this teaching in its essential aspects to all the faithful. Thus in showing the unity of the Church, it will confirm by the authority proper to the Holy See what the bishops have opportunely undertaken. It hopes that all the faithful, including those who might have been unsettled by the controversies and new opinions, will understand that it is not a question of opposing one opinion to another, but of transmitting to the faithful a constant teaching of the supreme Magisterium, which teaches moral norms in the light of faith.[3] It is therefore clear that this declaration necessarily entails a grave obligation for Christian consciences.[4] May God deign to enlighten also all men who strive with their whole heart to “act in truth” (Jn. 3:21).
S
shannonfbc
Guest
- “Death was not God’s doing, he takes no pleasure in the extinction of the living” (Wis. 1:13). Certainly God has created beings who have only one lifetime and physical death cannot be absent from the world of those with a bodily existence. But what is immediately willed is life, and in the visible universe everything has been made for man, who is the image of God and the world’s crowning glory (cf. Gen. 1:26-28). On the human level, “it was the devil’s envy that brought death into the world” (Wis. 2:24). Introduced by sin, death remains bound up with it: death is the sign and fruit of sin. But there is no final triumph for death. Confirming faith in the Resurrection, the Lord proclaims in the Gospel: “God is God, not of the dead, but of the living” (Mt. 22:32). And death like sin will be definitively defeated by resurrection in Christ (cf. 1 Cor. 15:20-27). Thus we understand that human life, even on this earth, is precious. Infused by the Creator,[5] life is again taken back by Him (cf. Gen. 2:7; Wis. 15:11). It remains under His protection: man’s blood cries out to Him (cf. Gen. 4:10) and He will demand an account of it, “for in the image of God man was made” (Gen. 9:5-6). The commandment of God is formal: “You shall not kill” (Ex. 20:13). Life is at the same time a gift and a responsibility. It is received as a “talent” (cf. Mt. 25:14-30); it must be put to proper use. In order that life may bring forth fruit, many tasks are offered to man in this world and he must not shirk them. More important still, the Christian knows that eternal life depends on what, with the grace of God, he does with his life on earth.
- The tradition of the Church has always held that human life must be protected and favored from the beginning, just as at the various stages of its development. Opposing the morals of the Greco-Roman world, the Church of the first centuries insisted on the difference that exists on this point between those morals and Christian morals. In the Didache it is clearly said: “You shall not kill by abortion the fruit of the womb and you shall not murder the infant already born.”[6] Athenagoras emphasizes that Christians consider as murderers those women who take medicines to procure an abortion; he condemns the killers of children, including those still living in their mother’s womb, “where they are already the object of the care of divine Providence.” Tertullian did not always perhaps use the same language; he nevertheless clearly affirms the essential principle: “To prevent birth is anticipated murder; it makes little difference whether one destroys a life already born or does away with it in its nascent stage. The one who will be a man is already one.”[8]
- In the course of history, the Fathers of the Church, her Pastors and her Doctors have taught the same doctrine - the various opinions on the infusion of the spiritual soul did not introduce any doubt about the illicitness of abortion. It is true that in the Middle Ages, when the opinion was generally held that the spiritual soul was not present until after the first few weeks, a distinction was made in the evaluation of the sin and the gravity of penal sanctions. Excellent authors allowed for this first period more lenient case solutions which they rejected for following periods. But it was never denied at that time that procured abortion, even during the first days, was objectively grave fault. This condemnation was in fact unanimous. Among the many documents it is sufficient to recall certain ones. The first Council of Mainz in 847 reconsidered the penalties against abortion which had been established by preceding Councils. It decided that the most rigorous penance would be imposed “on women who procure the elimination of the fruit conceived in their womb.”[9] The Decree of Gratian reported the following words of Pope Stephen V: “That person is a murderer who causes to perish by abortion what has been conceived.”[10] St. Thomas, the Common Doctor of the Church, teaches that abortion is a grave sin against the natural law." At the time of the Renaissance Pope Sixtus V condemned abortion with the greatest severity.[12] A century later, Innocent XI rejected the propositions of certain lax canonists who sought to excuse an abortion procured before the moment accepted by some as the moment of the spiritual animation of the new being.[13] In our days the recent Roman Pontiffs have proclaimed the same doctrine with the greatest clarity. Pius XI explicitly answered the most serious objections.[14] Pius XII clearly excluded all direct abortion, that is, abortion which is either an end or a means.[15] John XXIII recalled the teaching of the Fathers on the sacred character of life “which from its beginning demands the action of God the Creator.”[16] Most recently, the Second Vatican Council, presided over by Paul VI, has most severely condemned abortion: “Life must be safeguarded with extreme care from conception; abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes.”[17] The same Paul VI, speaking on this subject on many occasions, has not been afraid to declare that this teaching of the Church “has not changed and is unchangeable.”[18]
- Status