Mother is denied Pill by Muslim pharmacist

[deb1]

So, the mother is absolute master over her body? She is the “owner”? The baby is a stranger and his/her absolute right to life is secondary to the contrived “property rights” of the woman?

How does the Christ fit into that reasoning?

So, when does the child have a right to life? Does the mother have the right to abort up to birth?

 

[james1441]

I thought my body was a Temple of the Holy Spirit and belonged to God? I thought this was true from the moment God formed me in the womb?. Where did you ever get the idea our body was our own property?

in the temporal realm this body is ours and our responsibility and we are to be the caretaker, i again ask if this body is not mine nor is anyones body their own that whats to stop me from doing anything i want to you or anyone else?

 

[fix]

i dont think they were trying to say that the baby has no worth or was trying to say abortion is a good thing. however it is correct that a person’s body is their property and they are master of it so long as it does not conflict with the rights of another person

Christ is the owner, not us.

(this would be why a consensual pregnancy would not allow an abortion since that mother knew she would be having a child, and for her to then kill the child would then be a violation of his property rights and his right to live) after all if a person does not even have the right to their own body then there is no reason why i couldnt just kill them or rape them.

We have a right to properly care for our bodies. We have no right to murder or defile our bodies. We have the right to self defense. That does not mean we have a right to do anything we want with our bodies, that is my point.

even though this analogy doesnt have to do with abortion this might put things in a better perspective. a man suddenly handcuffed himself to you and then threw you two over the side of a bridge, now you two are hanging there for dear life. you realize you two will eventually fall off in a matter of minutes, you also have once chance to escape but that would involve letting him fall to his death. so do you allow him to die and you to live or you both die?

That is in no way analagous to an innocent child. The man who handcuffed himself is an unjust aggressor. The moral reasoning would be one has a right to defend themself.

well the answer would be that you have the right to let him fall since it was him who violated your rights in the first place and got you into this mess, you have no right to die for his action.

A baby is not an unjust aggressor.

 

[fix]

So, when does the child have a right to life? Does the mother have the right to abort up to birth?

Ask those who think the child is an unjust aggressor who may be terminated by the host.

 

[james1441]

Christ is the owner, not us.

We have a right to properly care for our bodies. We have no right to murder or defile our bodies. We have the right to self defense. That does not mean we have a right to do anything we want with our bodies, that is my point.

That is in no way analagous to an innocent child. The man who handcuffed himself is an unjust aggressor. The moral reasoning would be one has a right to defend themself.

A baby is not an unjust aggressor.

we have a right to our own property and ourselves in this life, otherwise anyone can do anything with anything they want

and you obviously never even read my first sentence in the analogy, i never said it had anything to do with the situation of abortion. why not do something called “reading” it will get you far in life

 

[deb1]

Ask those who think the child is an unjust aggressor who may be terminated by the host.

Sorry. I meant to ask acermak, not you.

 

[a_cermak]

So, the mother is absolute master over her body? She is the “owner”? The baby is a stranger and his/her absolute right to life is secondary to the contrived “property rights” of the woman?

How does the Christ fit into that reasoning?

He doesn’t if we’re talking civil law. Now morally, a woman’s individual beliefs will need to be considered. One woman may love and name her child from the moment of conception and another may have a differing view.

 

[a_cermak]

So, when does the child have a right to life? Does the mother have the right to abort up to birth?

No. Because the child can live independently from her after the 6 month point (maybe even earlier now). She has the right to demand a C section and the child to be removed from her at that point, but the child will have an excellent chance of surviving. Now, I can’t imagine anyone choosing that except in extreme cases (e.g. need for radiation treatment or some such).

I’m a big fan of the artifical womb that they are developing because then there will be no need for the child to die, it can simply be transferred to more hospitable quarters.

 

[fix]

we have a right to our own property and ourselves in this life, otherwise anyone can do anything with anything they want

Of course, we need to be more specific than what you say here. In fact, the argument you make here is the argument the other poster is proposing to defend abortion.

and you obviously never even read my first sentence in the analogy, i never said it had anything to do with the situation of abortion. why not do something called “reading” it will get you far in life

Is it my reading comprehension, or your writing skills? Perhaps both. You state what you state in the first sentence then go one to make the case for “property rights” that has nothing to do with what we were discussing.

If your point is that we have the right to self defense and the right to determine what we do with our bodies I would agree, as long as you state we have limits and those limits are not solely determined by a false understanding of so called property rights.

 

[fix]

He doesn’t if we’re talking civil law.

Now, that is the sticky part, right? That certain civil laws currently exist that conflict with natural law does not mean there existance is just.

Now morally, a woman’s individual beliefs will need to be considered. One woman may love and name her child from the moment of conception and another may have a differing view.

Well, differing views are not all equal or all correct.

 

[estesbob]

No. Because the child can live independently from her after the 6 month point (maybe even earlier now). She has the right to demand a C section and the child to be removed from her at that point, but the child will have an excellent chance of surviving. Now, I can’t imagine anyone choosing that except in extreme cases (e.g. need for radiation treatment or some such).

I’m a big fan of the artifical womb that they are developing because then there will be no need for the child to die, it can simply be transferred to more hospitable quarters.

A child can not live independently for about 10 years-with my kids it was more like 20. its a false argument. Either we respect human life or not. If one does not respect life they can come up with all sorts of reasons(like referring to a Mother as a “host”) as to why it is disposable.

 

[estesbob]

in the temporal realm this body is ours and our responsibility and we are to be the caretaker, i again ask if this body is not mine nor is anyones body their own that whats to stop me from doing anything i want to you or anyone else?

Love of God and Gods love for you, If you focus on this you will fight as hard to end abortion as the rest of us.

 

[james1441]

Of course, we need to be more specific than what you say here. In fact, the argument you make here is the argument the other poster is proposing to defend abortion.

Is it my reading comprehension, or your writing skills? Perhaps both. You state what you state in the first sentence then go one to make the case for “property rights” that has nothing to do with what we were discussing.

If your point is that we have the right to self defense and the right to determine what we do with our bodies I would agree, as long as you state we have limits and those limits are not solely determined by a false understanding of so called property rights.

ok then it seems we are in agreement then. all i am stating is that a person has right to self defense and a defense of their own bodies and land, possesions, etc. based on the fact that all the above are their own property based on natural law. also one does not have a right to aggression against another’s property, however one is allowed self-defense to defend ones property or property of another so long as it does not violate a 3rd parties right. abortion is usually an issue where this conecept is rarely brought up, usually abortion is given over to overly emotional tirades and not rational discussion. and yes sometimes private property rights have been used to defend every kind of abortion however we know that is simply not true, based on even reason alone we can figure out a child has a right to itself as much as an adult

 

[james1441]

Love of God and Gods love for you, If you focus on this you will fight as hard to end abortion as the rest of us.

“love of god” is a terrible comeback. what if 2 people have diffferent ideas on god? what his love is and isnt? what if they dont even believe in god? god being a god of reason, as pope benedict made his central theme in his recent statement involving the byzantine emperor, he therefore set down natural law that everyone can figure out. and would you please tell me since when did i ever say i was pro-abortion in any ways? and would you fight just as hard against children killed in war or sanctions, or is that just “collateral damage” to you?

 

[a_cermak]

A child can not live independently for about 10 years-with my kids it was more like 20. its a false argument. Either we respect human life or not. If one does not respect life they can come up with all sorts of reasons(like referring to a Mother as a “host”) as to why it is disposable.

I meant independently as in can breathe, eliminate, take food or drink. An infant can’t live independently, but she can live indepently from her mother (as in adoption or being reared solely by the father).

 

[fix]

ok then it seems we are in agreement then. all i am stating is that a person has right to self defense and a defense of their own bodies and land, possesions, etc. based on the fact that all the above are their own property based on natural law. also one does not have a right to aggression against another’s property, however one is allowed self-defense to defend ones property or property of another so long as it does not violate a 3rd parties right. abortion is usually an issue where this conecept is rarely brought up, usually abortion is given over to overly emotional tirades and not rational discussion. and yes sometimes private property rights have been used to defend every kind of abortion however we know that is simply not true, based on even reason alone we can figure out a child has a right to itself as much as an adult

OK, perhaps we are simply talking past each other.

 

[estesbob]

“love of god” is a terrible comeback. what if 2 people have diffferent ideas on god? what his love is and isnt? what if they dont even believe in god? god being a god of reason, as pope benedict made his central theme in his recent statement involving the byzantine emperor, he therefore set down natural law that everyone can figure out. and would you please tell me since when did i ever say i was pro-abortion in any ways? and would you fight just as hard against children killed in war or sanctions, or is that just “collateral damage” to you?

Then they are in serious need of someone helping them find God. I have just as much right to push for my moral beleifs based upon a beleif as God as do those confused souls who either dont beleive in God or beleive that God would actually countenance the slaughter of his chidren.

You say you arent pro-abortion yet you keep giving us excuses as to why its OK-what else are we supposed to think??

BTW- i am also opposed to children be killed in war although i fail to see what that has with the subject at hand.

 

[james1441]

Then they are in serious need of someone helping them find God. I have just as much right to push for my moral beleifs based upon a beleif as God as do those confused souls who either dont beleive in God or beleive that God would actually countenance the slaughter of his chidren.

i agree with all of that, but god still has set natural laws which state a person has rights to himself and to his fellow human being

You say you arent pro-abortion yet you keep giving us excuses as to why its OK-what else are we supposed to think??

give me ONE, just ONE example of where i gave an “excuse” for abortion to be “ok”

 

[bones_IV]

i agree with all of that, but god still has set natural laws which state a person has rights to himself and to his fellow human being

give me ONE, just ONE example of where i gave an “excuse” for abortion to be “ok”

I noticed that with your pro-abortion statements you didn’t capitalize God. Which shows carelessness. May God help you!

 

[Lance]

I thought all this had been settled by the Church when she stated, “No birth controls, no abortions, no morning after pills”. If we are Catholic we must follow these guidelines. We may disagree with them but we must follow them.