Irrefutable pro-life argument

  • Thread starter Thread starter adriancombe
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
  1. Respect for human life is not just a Christian obligation. Human reason is sufficient to impose it on the basis of the analysis of what a human person is and should be. Constituted by a rational nature, man is a personal subject capable of reflecting on himself and of determining his acts and hence his own destiny: he is free. He is consequently master of himself; or rather, because this takes place in the course of time, he has the means of becoming so: this is his task. Created immediately by God, man’s soul is spiritual and therefore immortal. Hence man is open to God, he finds his fulfillment only in Him. But man lives in the community of his equals; he is nourished by interpersonal communication with men in the indispensable social setting. In the face of society and other men, each human person possesses himself, he possesses life and different goods, he has these as a right. It is this that strict justice demands from all in his regard.
  2. Nevertheless, temporal life lived in this world is not identified with the person. The person possesses as his own a level of life that is more profound and that cannot end. Bodily life is a fundamental good, here below it is the condition for all other goods. But there are higher values for which it could be legitimate or even necessary to be willing to expose oneself to the risk of losing bodily life. In a society of persons the common good is for each individual an end which he must serve and to which he must subordinate his particular interest. But it is not his last end and, from this point of view, it is society which is at the service of the person, because the person will not fulfill his destiny except in God. The person can be definitively subordinated only to God. Man can never be treated simply as a means to be disposed of in order to obtain a higher end.
 
  1. In regard to the mutual rights and duties of the person and of society, it belongs to moral teaching to enlighten consciences; it belongs to the law to specify and organize external behavior. There is precisely a certain number of rights which society is not in a position to grant since these rights precede society; but society has the function to preserve and to enforce them. These are the greater part of those which are today called “human rights” and which our age boasts of having formulated.
  2. The first right of the human person is his life. He has other goods and some are more precious, but this one is fundamental - the condition of all the others. Hence it must be protected above all others. It does not belong to society, nor does it belong to public authority in any form to recognize this right for some and not for others: all discrimination is evil, whether it be founded on race, sex, color or religion. It is not recognition by another that constitutes this right. This right is antecedent to its recognition; it demands recognition and it is strictly unjust to refuse it.
  3. Any discrimination based on the various stages of life is no more justified than any other discrimination. The right to life remains complete in an old person, even one greatly weakened; it is not lost by one who is incurably sick. The right to life is no less to be respected in the small infant just born than in the mature person. In reality, respect for human life is called for from the time that the process of generation begins. From the time that the ovum is fertilized, a life is begun which is neither that of the father nor of the mother, it is rather the life of a new human being with his own growth. It would never be made human if it were not human already.
  4. To this perpetual evidence - perfectly independent of the discussions on the moment of animation[19] - modern genetic science brings valuable confirmation. It has demonstrated that, from the first instant, there is established the program of what this living being will be: a man, this individual man with his characteristic aspects already well determined. Right from fertilization is begun the adventure of a human life, and each of its capacities requires time- a rather lengthy time- to find its place and to be in a position to act. The least that can be said is that present science, in its most evolved state, does not give any substantial support to those who defend abortion. Moreover, it is not up to biological sciences to make a definitive judgment on questions which are properly philosophical and moral such as the moment when a human person is constituted or the legitimacy of abortion. From a moral point of view this is certain: even if a doubt existed concerning whether the fruit of conception is already a human person, it is objectively a grave sin to dare to risk murder. “The one who will be a man is already one.”[20]
 
kimmielittle;6523655]For a limited Government role - over-turning of Roe v Wade - would grant both lives equal protection - reverence… with the least amount of Government.
Click to expand...
No, it would not. Over turning Roe would mean a state could pass a law usurping the individual’s decision putting in place a govt decision—that is not limited govt.
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.
Click to expand...
And so…the law makes classifications all the time to promote multiple policies. Roe and Casey are not saying abortion can not be heavily regulated to help protect the unborn life.(you want that right?) Its saying at some early point it is the women’s decision not govt’s----thus limiting govt’s role to some degree.

Your agrument is like saying that " because we have the progressive income tax system we now have to have an IRS to help collect taxes." Well, yes that is what you have to have if you want a tax system, but that does not mean the policy of limited govt has no more significance ie…the IRS cannot, at least yet, come inside your house to see if you are making " under the table" wages running a bar out of your basement.
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’
Click to expand...
But it is the Court that has the authority to say what the Constitution means. And in it is not the Bill of Right that states " the right to life". It is the 14 th Amendment …" No State shall make or enforce any law …that deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;"

" liberty" in there just like " life". The Court has the authority to decide what that means in each context.
 
Worthy5 said:
No, it would not. Over turning Roe would mean a state could pass a law usurping the individual’s decision putting in place a govt decision—that is not limited govt.

And so…the law makes classifications all the time to promote multiple policies. Roe and Casey are not saying abortion can not be heavily regulated to help protect the unborn life.(you want that right?) Its saying at some early point it is the women’s decision not govt’s----thus limiting govt’s role to some degree.

Your agrument is like saying that " because we have the progressive income tax system we now have to have an IRS to help collect taxes." Well, yes that is what you have to have if you want a tax system, but that does not mean the policy of limited govt has no more significance ie…the IRS cannot, at least yet, come inside your house to see if you are making " under the table" wages running a bar out of your basement.

But it is the Court that has the authority to say what the Constitution means. And in it is not the Bill of Right that states " the right to life". It is the 14 th Amendment …" No State shall make or enforce any law …that deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;"

" liberty" in there just like " life". The Court has the authority to decide what that means in each context.
Click to expand...
Actually, I was thinking more of the 9 th amendment. Which would apply to the 14th amendment IMHO. Granted you, I wasn’t clear.

You seem to be of the conviction that there needs to be an 'individual’s" right or justification to commit premeditated murder: if not torturous murder, over another human life.
Under Roe v Wade this was granted to a selected population - without regard for equality.

No place can I find reason within The Constitution or Amendment Articles, a thought that one life should trump another life. That a select population should be granted that right…especially for the convenience of that selected population.
 
shannonfbc said:
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
  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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).
Click to expand...
Thank you for those quotations. Your post should be read by every Catholic (actually everyone, whether Catholic or not).
 
Worthy5 said:
Your agrument is like saying that " because we have the progressive income tax system we now have to have an IRS to help collect taxes." Well, yes that is what you have to have if you want a tax system, but that does not mean the policy of limited govt has no more significance ie…the IRS cannot, at least yet, come inside your house to see if you are making " under the table" wages running a bar out of your basement.

But it is the Court that has the authority to say what the Constitution means. And in it is not the Bill of Right that states " the right to life". It is the 14 th Amendment …" No State shall make or enforce any law …that deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;"

" liberty" in there just like " life". The Court has the authority to decide what that means in each context.
Click to expand...
Do you believe that a court in one country in the world has the authority to determine what the laws on abortion should be for the entire world? I’m asking you this because I have never seen a post written by you that indicates you are even aware that there are many other countries in this world and they are not bound by the USA Supreme Court.

However, as you’ve posted the 14th Amendment from the US Constitution, what I see from the wording is that no individual state can make (or enforce) any law to protect the life of an unborn child without due process of law. What is this due process of law? Would you please explain that to me?
 
LittleSoldier said:
Do you believe that a court in one country in the world has the authority to determine what the laws on abortion should be for the entire world? I’m asking you this because I have never seen a post written by you that indicates you are even aware that there are many other countries in this world and they are not bound by the USA Supreme Court.

However, as you’ve posted the 14th Amendment from the US Constitution, what I see from the wording is that no individual state can make (or enforce) any law to protect the life of an unborn child without due process of law. What is this due process of law? Would you please explain that to me?
Click to expand...
Gee, I’ve waited for the explanation I requested for let’s see, almost six months now.

I suppose this means I’m not going to receive a reply. 😦
 
adriancombe said:
…
Most advocates of abortion will claim it is not possible to know for certain whether the preborn fetus is a person with rights. Very few, if any will stats they know for a fact it is not - precisely because, by their own lights, such a certainty cannot exist. A pitfall of relativism, but I digress.
…f.
Click to expand...
You have to learn how not to reason using strawmen. A knowledgeable abortion advocate would say the fetus has rights, only they are outweighed by the rights of the mother.

If you want to defeat the pro-abortionists, you need to understand their real arguments, not ones you make up for them.
 
Reservoir_Dog said:
You have to learn how not to reason using strawmen. A knowledgeable abortion advocate would say the fetus has rights, only they are outweighed by the rights of the mother.

If you want to defeat the pro-abortionists, you need to understand their real arguments, not ones you make up for them.
Click to expand...
I’ve never taken a class in logic. Everything I know about logic (which is a tiny, tiny amount) has come from websites and personal conversations with people more knowledgeable about logic than me.

So may I please ask why the poster is using a strawman? You’ve used the term “knowledgeable abortion advocates” and based on what I have read (I’m sorry but it’s late and I can’t find the links now) I agree with you. But what about the common, run-of-the-mill pro-abortion activist? Does he/she believe the fetus has rights or does he/she rely on the old “blob of cells, not a human being” argument?

I’m asking this because I’ve seen a resurgence in that very argument. "It’s a potential life; it’s not human until it’s born; it’s not human until it has self-awareness; it’s a womb-squatter; it has no right to take up space in another person’s body; it’s just a blob of cells and not a human being; it’s not a human being until it actually attaches to the uterine wall; etc. etc. ad nauseum.

I think that pro-abortion activists who are knowledgeable would probably agree that the embryo/fetus is a human being whose rights are trumped by the mother’s rights, although I don’t think even knowledgeable pro-abortion activists would claim that a newly fertilized ovum is a human being.

But I also think those old arguments are still out there and people are using them to justify killing the unborn. I don’t think that poster “made up” those arguments. I’ve seen those very arguments used by pro-abortion activists.

Those of us who are pro-life need to be aware of every rationalization made by pro-abortion activists, not just those used by knowledgeable activists.

Besides, if they were really “knowledgeable” they would realize that a new human being is formed at conception and that the new human being deserves every single right that any born human being deserves simply by virtue of being a human being.

In fact, I wouldn’t call them “knowledgeable” at all.
 
LittleSoldier said:
I’ve never taken a class in logic. Everything I know about logic (which is a tiny, tiny amount) has come from websites and personal conversations with people more knowledgeable about logic than me.

So may I please ask why the poster is using a strawman? You’ve used the term “knowledgeable abortion advocates” and based on what I have read (I’m sorry but it’s late and I can’t find the links now) I agree with you. But what about the common, run-of-the-mill pro-abortion activist? Does he/she believe the fetus has rights or does he/she rely on the old “blob of cells, not a human being” argument?

I’m asking this because I’ve seen a resurgence in that very argument. "It’s a potential life; it’s not human until it’s born; it’s not human until it has self-awareness; it’s a womb-squatter; it has no right to take up space in another person’s body; it’s just a blob of cells and not a human being; it’s not a human being until it actually attaches to the uterine wall; etc. etc. ad nauseum.

I think that pro-abortion activists who are knowledgeable would probably agree that the embryo/fetus is a human being whose rights are trumped by the mother’s rights, although I don’t think even knowledgeable pro-abortion activists would claim that a newly fertilized ovum is a human being.

But I also think those old arguments are still out there and people are using them to justify killing the unborn. I don’t think that poster “made up” those arguments. I’ve seen those very arguments used by pro-abortion activists.

Those of us who are pro-life need to be aware of every rationalization made by pro-abortion activists, not just those used by knowledgeable activists.

Besides, if they were really “knowledgeable” they would realize that a new human being is formed at conception and that the new human being deserves every single right that any born human being deserves simply by virtue of being a human being.

In fact, I wouldn’t call them “knowledgeable” at all.
Click to expand...

You’ll also want to look up “circular reasoning”.
 
Reservoir_Dog said:
You’ll also want to look up “circular reasoning”.
Click to expand...
I have a real problem with people who go into my posts and change things. I didn’t use red to emphasize anything. You changed my post. That is not appropriate and it’s also kind of rude.

No, I’m sorry. I was wrong. It’s not just kind of rude. It’s really rude.

If you want to discuss my post and any problems in logic you see with it, then let’s please do that. But when I see what you’ve done to my post and I see your one-sentence response it makes me feel that you’re just blowing me off.

I also don’t believe I’m using circular reasoning. It’s clear to me that any person who is knowledgeable about embryology and human development would understand that a new person is formed at conception. How is that circular?

You also didn’t answer my question about the use of a strawman.

🤷
 
LittleSoldier said:
I put it this way: if the mother desires to give birth, the unborn within her womb is a child. If the mother doesn’t want it, the unborn within her womb is not a child.

The same nonsensical argument can be used replacing the word “child” with the word “person.”

It either is a child or isn’t a child.
It either is a person or isn’t a person.

It makes no difference what the mother thinks.

And a brand new human being begins at conception. 🙂

Holy Mother, please keep
all unborn children safe today.
Click to expand...
As a mom of 2 sons, I know the truth of what you say. Those sons of ours were BABIES from the minute I thought I might be pregnant, and definitely they were OUR BABIES once I knew I was pregnant. So what makes a baby NOT a baby? If the mother doesn’t want to be pregnant, does that make the baby an un-baby, a non-person? No, of course not. My baby at 10 weeks is the same as her baby at 10 weeks. This exposes the true evil of abortion - that it is murder for the sake of convenience after fornication.

sorry - I just realized this thread was bumped up and is quite old. NM.
 
TheRealJuliane said:
As a mom of 2 sons, I know the truth of what you say. Those sons of ours were BABIES from the minute I thought I might be pregnant, and definitely they were OUR BABIES once I knew I was pregnant. So what makes a baby NOT a baby? If the mother doesn’t want to be pregnant, does that make the baby an un-baby, a non-person? No, of course not. My baby at 10 weeks is the same as her baby at 10 weeks. This exposes the true evil of abortion - that it is murder for the sake of convenience after fornication.

sorry - I just realized this thread was bumped up and is quite old. NM.
Click to expand...
Thanks for your post. I didn’t remember this thread being so old when I posted my last two posts. I think sometimes threads on the topic of abortion start and stop and then start again.

Anyway, I read your post and want to thank you. I just can’t comprehend how any person can deny that a human being is formed at conception. It’s the only logical time.

I think it all comes down to sex. There’s a thread here where a poster finally admitted it - that sex was fun and the presence of a “baby” might interfere with that fun, so aborting the “baby” was moral. In a way I was happy to see that post because it showed everyone who saw it that, at least to one person, it all boils down to sex. Just sex.

You are blessed with your children and they are blessed to have you as a mother!!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top