Is Answering To Pro Abortion/choice Poster Taking You Away From What You Need To Do About The Issue Of Abortion

  • Thread starter Thread starter elts1956
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Please re read the first post. There are many threads discussing the time of conception for a child. This thread was to be used to find out what you can do to help people with the elections themselves.

Please don’t side track.

Thanks.
 
urban-hermit said:
I took the point to be that if somebody can’t understand that killing a baby is one of the most evil injustices in existence, then our time might be better spent talking to somebody else.
Click to expand...
marietta said:
That ignorant, fluff-ball, no-experienced empty power suit Sarah Palin doesn’t scare anyone?

marietta
Click to expand...
Did you read my first post and the reason for this thread?
 
wanner47 said:
Obama scares me more, and he is someone with *less *experience than Palin. At least Palin recognizes that killing innocent children is wrong. That’s a step in the right direction.

How many states have you been governor of, marietta?
Click to expand...
Read the first post please and go to it. Thanks.
 
wanner47 said:
Obama scares me more, and he is someone with *less *experience than Palin. At least Palin recognizes that killing innocent children is wrong. That’s a step in the right direction.

How many states have you been governor of, marietta?
Click to expand...
Jade_Tiger said:
Go Sarah Palin. If being the governor of a state and pro-life makes her an “no-experienced fluff-ball”, then I sure hope that “no-experienced fluff-ball” is a compliment.:whistle:
Click to expand...
Re read 1st post. Thanks.
 
Voco_proTatiano said:
It has been said before, and will be said again:
You are not voting for the Pope, or the next Messiah.
USA is not, and G_d help us, never shall be a Christian Caliphate.
Of the people
By the people
For the people
Or something very much like that, I believe.

As for when life begins: We do not know.
Best estimates are a few million years after the Earth became cool enough to support liquid water.
But that is not the context you are trying to define, even if that is what your words mean.

The fusion of a spermatazoan and an oocite is not the beginning of life.
It is the beginning of the possibility of a new individual, or several.
Yes, it is certainly the beginning of a new form of, (in our context, here), humanity.
You might call it a human being, for it is definitely human, and definitely a being, ie alive.
However, by that definition, both spermatazoa, and oocites are also human beings.

If you want to define absolutes, then your language needs to be absolute.
Mother Church says, and this is true, that the beginning of every new human life is conception.
That is, the cause of A is B.
That does not mean that for every B there will be an A, or that one B causes one A.
There is much between B and A.
Actually one might say, more accurately:
B:=> n x A, where n is any whole number from zero to, possibly more than four.

So conception does not initiate an individual, for the zygote is free to fission ito identical siblings.

Mother Church has agonized much over when the new individual receives its imortal soul, and left the verdict open.

His Holiness, JP23, in his epistle favoured conception, buit that was just his opinion. You might agree, or disagree.

This is all angels dancing on the head of a pin.
It is undefined, and undefinable.

No-one has yet come up with a better guess than the quickening, or about week 16.

Scientifically, this is feasible, for it represents the infant beginning to run on internal systems, ie, it is the beginning of its independence.
It is certainly a major improvement on birth.

So logically, when, and under what circumstances might a pregnancy be terminated?
1/ When there is a real and present mortal danger to the mother, and thereby to the pregnancy. For the pregnancy cannot be saved, and the mother will also be lost.
2/ Where the pregnancy will not produce a viable delivery, ie, the foetus is ancephalic.
3/ Getting into grey areas: where the pregnancy will result in a hopelessly disabled birth.
Honest judgements would, to varying degrees, support the above.
Below this line, ther are no simple judgements.
Inconvenience, non mortal danger, non-hopeless disability.
Let the objector pay.
If the mother is incapable of raising a severely disabled infant, then thoe who insist that the pregnancy must come to term, are responsible for the upkeep, and development of that disabled child.
In nature, a disabled infant would rapidly come to a sticky end, and so be removed from the genetic pool. Euthanasia is surely preferable to a sticky end.

Pre-quickening termination is a suitable means of euthanasing non viable pregnancies, and involves no suffering to the foetus, as there is then no operable nervous system.

Yes, in the Kingdom of G-d, where non of these bad things happen, let there be no abortions.
But Our Lord also said that in the Kingdom, there would be no marrying, or giving in marriage, no birth, and no death, for we will all be as the angels.

But for now, we have this precious planet to care for, and we must follow the rule imposed upon us by the limited resources of this blessed blue sphere

Don’t get me wrong,
Abortion is not an acceptable means of birth control.
There is only one acceptable means of birth control.

ps.
My view is that once the infant has quickened, it is a baby waiting to be born, and, every effort should be made to ensure a viable live birth, once this moment has passed.
That means that if a termination is then required for urgent reasons, for the welfare of the mother, it must be put off as long as is physically possible, so that the premature nbirth has the best possible chance of survival.
Partial birth termination is a CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY.
Click to expand...
MOTHER CHURCH DECIDED A LOOOOOOONG TIME AGO WHEN LIFE BEGINS. YOU NEED TO CATCH UP.
 
Voco_proTatiano said:
It has been said before, and will be said again:
You are not voting for the Pope, or the next Messiah.
USA is not, and G_d help us, never shall be a Christian Caliphate.
Of the people
By the people
For the people
Or something very much like that, I believe.

As for when life begins: We do not know.
Best estimates are a few million years after the Earth became cool enough to support liquid water.
But that is not the context you are trying to define, even if that is what your words mean.

The fusion of a spermatazoan and an oocite is not the beginning of life.
It is the beginning of the possibility of a new individual, or several.
Yes, it is certainly the beginning of a new form of, (in our context, here), humanity.
You might call it a human being, for it is definitely human, and definitely a being, ie alive.
However, by that definition, both spermatazoa, and oocites are also human beings.

If you want to define absolutes, then your language needs to be absolute.
Mother Church says, and this is true, that the beginning of every new human life is conception.
That is, the cause of A is B.
That does not mean that for every B there will be an A, or that one B causes one A.
There is much between B and A.
Actually one might say, more accurately:
B:=> n x A, where n is any whole number from zero to, possibly more than four.

So conception does not initiate an individual, for the zygote is free to fission ito identical siblings.

Mother Church has agonized much over when the new individual receives its imortal soul, and left the verdict open.

His Holiness, JP23, in his epistle favoured conception, buit that was just his opinion. You might agree, or disagree.

This is all angels dancing on the head of a pin.
It is undefined, and undefinable.

No-one has yet come up with a better guess than the quickening, or about week 16.

Scientifically, this is feasible, for it represents the infant beginning to run on internal systems, ie, it is the beginning of its independence.
It is certainly a major improvement on birth.

So logically, when, and under what circumstances might a pregnancy be terminated?
1/ When there is a real and present mortal danger to the mother, and thereby to the pregnancy. For the pregnancy cannot be saved, and the mother will also be lost.
2/ Where the pregnancy will not produce a viable delivery, ie, the foetus is ancephalic.
3/ Getting into grey areas: where the pregnancy will result in a hopelessly disabled birth.
Honest judgements would, to varying degrees, support the above.
Below this line, ther are no simple judgements.
Inconvenience, non mortal danger, non-hopeless disability.
Let the objector pay.
If the mother is incapable of raising a severely disabled infant, then thoe who insist that the pregnancy must come to term, are responsible for the upkeep, and development of that disabled child.
In nature, a disabled infant would rapidly come to a sticky end, and so be removed from the genetic pool. Euthanasia is surely preferable to a sticky end.

Pre-quickening termination is a suitable means of euthanasing non viable pregnancies, and involves no suffering to the foetus, as there is then no operable nervous system.

Yes, in the Kingdom of G-d, where non of these bad things happen, let there be no abortions.
But Our Lord also said that in the Kingdom, there would be no marrying, or giving in marriage, no birth, and no death, for we will all be as the angels.

But for now, we have this precious planet to care for, and we must follow the rule imposed upon us by the limited resources of this blessed blue sphere

Don’t get me wrong,
Abortion is not an acceptable means of birth control.
There is only one acceptable means of birth control.

ps.
My view is that once the infant has quickened, it is a baby waiting to be born, and, every effort should be made to ensure a viable live birth, once this moment has passed.
That means that if a termination is then required for urgent reasons, for the welfare of the mother, it must be put off as long as is physically possible, so that the premature nbirth has the best possible chance of survival.
Partial birth termination is a CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY.
Click to expand...
Timbothefiveth said:
Wrong! The sperm and egg are merely cells of the parent, once they fuse, they have their own DNA pattern, and are human.
:

What I really like about this year, is that I don’t have to have either. Mccain 08!

I don’t see you voulenteering to stop using resources. Funny how people say the human population must be reduced for the earth’s sake, but never voulenteer themselves.
Click to expand...
Re Read first post, the object of this thread. Thanks.
 
Jade_Tiger said:
I agree. As of now, I quit arguing on these forums with stubborn people who will not be convinced. It is pointless, and I will just spend my time praying for an end to abortion.
God bless everyone.😛
Click to expand...
Jade Tiger Go to my original post and read please. Thanks.
 
elts1956 said:
Did you read my first post and the reason for this thread?
Click to expand...
Yes, ma’am.

But I am a pro-choice poster. I’m doing exactly what I need to do to prevent pro-life posters from focusing on the vote. I’m sucking up their time.

marietta
 
elts1956 said:
You don’t need to get huffy. Apparently there is a discrepancy between my intention and your action.
Click to expand...
Not being huffy, just curious. 🤷 I’ve participated in the 40 Days for Life campaign, donate money to pro-life causes when I can, and pray to help end the abortion movement. I also try to debate the abortion issue online in order to, with the help of the Holy Spirit, change hearts.

Is there more you think I ought to be doing?
 
elts1956 said:
Please re read the first post. There are many threads discussing the time of conception for a child. This thread was to be used to find out what you can do to help people with the elections themselves.

Please don’t side track.

Thanks.
Click to expand...
This is a blatently political matter.
The tone of the argument is clearly pro-republican.
You should all know better than discussing party politics here.
 
marietta said:
Yes, ma’am.

But I am a pro-choice poster. I’m doing exactly what I need to do to prevent pro-life posters from focusing on the vote. I’m sucking up their time.

marietta
Click to expand...
Marietta, I debated whether to mention this to you at the time, but now I see that I should. After our last encounter on another abortion-related thread, my commitment to the pro-life movement was so strongly rekindled that I wound up making a large donation to a pro-life group. Also, due to your comment at the time about pro-life donors “not forgetting to take the tax deduction,” I made a point of making it a non-deductible donation. So, you haven’t “prevented” pro-lifers from doing anything. You haven’t “sucked up pro-lifers time.” All you’ve done is to motivate at least one pro-lifer to return to active support for the pro-life movement. Thank you.

Please continue sharing your insights here, and maybe others will be similarly moved.
 
wanner47 said:
Not being huffy, just curious. 🤷 I’ve participated in the 40 Days for Life campaign, donate money to pro-life causes when I can, and pray to help end the abortion movement. I also try to debate the abortion issue online in order to, with the help of the Holy Spirit, change hearts.

Is there more you think I ought to be doing?
Click to expand...
Voco_proTatiano said:
This is a blatently political matter.
The tone of the argument is clearly pro-republican.
You should all know better than discussing party politics here.
Click to expand...
Huh? Abortion is an issue in THIS POLITICAL election, so WHAT is the problem with discussing it here?
 
wanner47 said:
Not being huffy, just curious. 🤷 I’ve participated in the 40 Days for Life campaign, donate money to pro-life causes when I can, and pray to help end the abortion movement. I also try to debate the abortion issue online in order to, with the help of the Holy Spirit, change hearts.

Is there more you think I ought to be doing?
Click to expand...
Nope. You are doing just GREAT. Just wanted to make sure the reason I made the post is done. Don’t want to get into trouble with the mods, you know. But you read it, so that is that. I keep wondering where I can post the pro death vs. pro life ads of Obama and McCain so the most people can see it. Do you know the one I mean? I think I got it off either the priestsforlife.org site, or the Bishops’ one.
 
elts1956 said:
Nope. You are doing just GREAT. Just wanted to make sure the reason I made the post is done. Don’t want to get into trouble with the mods, you know. But you read it, so that is that. I keep wondering where I can post the pro death vs. pro life ads of Obama and McCain so the most people can see it. Do you know the one I mean? I think I got it off either the priestsforlife.org site, or the Bishops’ one.
Click to expand...
I would say to post it in the Politics forum.
 
Voco_proTatiano said:
3/ Getting into grey areas: where the pregnancy will result in a hopelessly disabled birth.
Honest judgements would, to varying degrees, support the above.
Below this line, ther are no simple judgements.
Inconvenience, non mortal danger, non-hopeless disability.
Let the objector pay.
If the mother is incapable of raising a severely disabled infant, then thoe who insist that the pregnancy must come to term, are responsible for the upkeep, and development of that disabled child.
In nature, a disabled infant would rapidly come to a sticky end, and so be removed from the genetic pool. Euthanasia is surely preferable to a sticky end.
Click to expand...
As one of those disabled where I seen 9 out of 10 people with my disability “euthanized”, I am glad you were not my parent.
 
kage_ar said:
As one of those disabled where I seen 9 out of 10 people with my disability “euthanized”, I am glad you were not my parent.
Click to expand...
Dear Friend,
It grieves me that you have a severe burden to bear, but I was not talking of disabilities that could be with a little effort, lived with.
I was talking of utter disability:
Deaf/blind comes to mind, or worse, combined with paralysis.
There is, as the trek to Switzerland proves, a goodly number of people who honestly believe that there are many things worse than death.
As I said: Let him who denies me the right to die with dignity, PAY for the loving care that he insists that I have. And further, let him be responsible for the abuse of power which all too often takes place in asylums for the incompetent.
Know that your principles have a cost, and that cost is YOUR responsibility.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top