Neocon Catholic leaders nurtured by GOP and Conservative Philanthropy on their heels

[vern_humphrey]

The right to life is the most fundamental of all human rights. Without a right to life, all other rights are valueless. What good does freedom of speech do a dead man? How can a corpse exercise the right to trial by jury?

The right to life accrues to each of us as a part of our basic humanity. It is as much a part of us as our minds, our personalities, or our arms and legs. It is given to us by no one. It is ours merely because we are living human beings.

There are those who say that “society” or the government decides when we get the right to life. If that is so, then it is no right at all, but merely a privilege, for if the government can grant the right to life, it can surely withhold it. Once you accept that the government has this power, you must accept, willy-nilly that the government can decree some people – perhaps Jews, or Blacks or Catholics – never get the right to life.

If, therefore there is such a thing as a right to life, it must accrue to every living human being. This sets up a simple, three-part test.

 Is the unborn child living? If it were not, we would not be having this debate!

 Is it human? Check the DNA. If it has rabbit or squirrel DNA, then it is not human. But if it has human DNA, it is human.

 But is it a being? Check the DNA again. If it has the mother’s DNA, then it is a part of her body. But if it has its own DNA, then it is a being – a separate and distinct human life.

Very clearly, the unborn has the same right to live as any other living human being. Who denies that, denies the whole concept of human rights.

 

[vern_humphrey]

What objective standard? What makes a standard objective?

Do you have a dictionary? Does it define both obejctive and standard?

It’s a simple question. It could be repharased to ask if it’s morally acceptable to kill, say a 20-year old cripple, a ten year old with Down’s Syndrome, or a 95 year old woman with Alzheimers.

What standard can you apply to abortion that justifies killing the unborn, but not all those I listed above?

Conversely, what protects those people I listed, other than their common humanity?

 

[estesbob]

I’m not aware of anyone who disputes that the sperm is alive, the egg is alive, and the fertilized egg is alive. Nor do I know of anyone who disputes that all three are of the homo sapiens species. The dispute arises with the question of when a homo sapiens is considered a person.

It is disputed only by those trying to justify kiling them.

 

[RowBoat]

The right to life is the most fundamental of all human rights. Without a right to life, all other rights are valueless. What good does freedom of speech do a dead man? How can a corpse exercise the right to trial by jury?

The right to life accrues to each of us as a part of our basic humanity. It is as much a part of us as our minds, our personalities, or our arms and legs. It is given to us by no one. It is ours merely because we are living human beings.

There are those who say that “society” or the government decides when we get the right to life. If that is so, then it is no right at all, but merely a privilege, for if the government can grant the right to life, it can surely withhold it. Once you accept that the government has this power, you must accept, willy-nilly that the government can decree some people – perhaps Jews, or Blacks or Catholics – never get the right to life.

If, therefore there is such a thing as a right to life, it must accrue to every living human being. This sets up a simple, three-part test.

 Is the unborn child living? If it were not, we would not be having this debate!

 Is it human? Check the DNA. If it has rabbit or squirrel DNA, then it is not human. But if it has human DNA, it is human.

 But is it a being? Check the DNA again. If it has the mother’s DNA, then it is a part of her body. But if it has its own DNA, then it is a being – a separate and distinct human life.

Very clearly, the unborn has the same right to live as any other living human being. Who denies that, denies the whole concept of human rights.

OK. They deny a single cell the right to life. You support that right. That’s the question. Each side relies on assertions, and it goes on and on and on. Then each side tries to use the law to force the other side to do what they want. It’s a question on which there is vast disagreement.

 

[vern_humphrey]

OK. They deny a single cell the right to life. You support that right. That’s the question. Each side relies on assertions, and it goes on and on and on. Then each side tries to use the law to force the other side to do what they want. It’s a question on which there is vast disagreement.

But that’s sophistry. As I have shown, to deny the right to life to any living human being is to deny the very concept of human rights.

If you believe **you **have rights – any rights at all – then you cannot logically deny the right to life to any other livnig human being.

 

[estesbob]

OK. They deny a single cell the right to life. You support that right. That’s the question. Each side relies on assertions, and it goes on and on and on. Then each side tries to use the law to force the other side to do what they want. It’s a question on which there is vast disagreement.

So how many cells does a human have to have before you are against killing them? How many cells did you start off with?

 

[rlg94086]

I’m not aware of anyone who disputes that the sperm is alive, the egg is alive, and the fertilized egg is alive. Nor do I know of anyone who disputes that all three are of the homo sapiens species. The dispute arises with the question of when a homo sapiens is considered a person.

This thread is about Catholics and political affiliation. There is no dispute in the Catholic Church as to the beginning of personhood. Your arguments have absolutely no bearing on which party would attract a Catholic viewpoint. A Catholic who is pro-choice is taking a position contrary to the Church.

 

[RowBoat]

Do you have a dictionary? Does it define both obejctive and standard?

It’s a simple question. It could be repharased to ask if it’s morally acceptable to kill, say a 20-year old cripple, a ten year old with Down’s Syndrome, or a 95 year old woman with Alzheimers.

What standard can you apply to abortion that justifies killing the unborn, but not all those I listed above?

Conversely, what protects those people I listed, other than their common humanity?

I do indeed have a dictionary, and I have frittered away many a playful hour as I perused its many mysteries. However, I have noted that human ideas are far more complex than the dictionary credits. Any lexicographer has finite resources which cannot hope to ensnare all the uses and misuses in a living language like English. They do yoeman’s work, but it’s always an insufficient catch-up. Remember, the language and its usage comes before the dictionary.

So, since you used the term objective standard, it sems reasonable to ask what you mean. I hope that’s not out of bounds.

When you ask about morality, I need to know what morality you are using. Then we apply the standards of that morality to the quetsion at hand and easily get an answer.

The moral standard that would justify killing a single cell is one which does not recognize the cell as a person. This has been a common belief through the ages. Aquinas taught that the homo sapiens goes through three stages of the soul, and this takes place over a long period in the womb. He recognized three distinct states that changed over time. The “Quickening” was the term used by Medieval popes to describe the point in time when the homo sapiens fetus was infused with an intellectual soul. (I note the Highlander series stole that term.)

One thing that protects people from being killed is belonging to a group that will prevent such killing. Such groups are formed as a result of the mutual motivation of each member to self-preservation.

 

[RowBoat]

It is disputed only by those trying to justify kiling them.

I would be delighted to know the name of anyone who contends the sperm, egg, and fertilized egg are not alive. I think the only alternative is to be dead. Dead or alive? You can see the little critters kicking under a microscope. So who says they are not alive?

 

[RowBoat]

But that’s sophistry. As I have shown, to deny the right to life to any living human being is to deny the very concept of human rights.

If you believe **you **have rights – any rights at all – then you cannot logically deny the right to life to any other livnig human being.

OK. They deny human rights. That was easy.

 

[rlg94086]

I would be delighted to know the name of anyone who contends the sperm, egg, and fertilized egg are not alive. I think the only alternative is to be dead. Dead or alive? You can see the little critters kicking under a microscope. So who says they are not alive?

Of course sperm and egg are living, but they aren’t living beings. Your argument is really silly.

 

[RowBoat]

So how many cells does a human have to have before you are against killing them? How many cells did you start off with?

I don’t know. Aquinas saw it as the point where the homosapiens had an intellectual soul. I don’t think he left a count.

I started of as two cells. One was an egg. the other was a sperm. And then - Voila! - there was one cell. Given the continuity of life, we can look at an unbroken chain going very, very far back. I suppose we could say we are all the product of the trillions and trillions of cells of each of our ancestors, going all the way back to that little wriggler in the primordial ooze.

 

[Walt_Oliver]

---

Let’s get back on topic, please.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I do indeed have a dictionary, and I have frittered away many a playful hour as I perused its many mysteries.

But obviously with little profit.

However, I have noted that human ideas are far more complex than the dictionary credits. Any lexicographer has finite resources which cannot hope to ensnare all the uses and misuses in a living language like English. They do yoeman’s work, but it’s always an insufficient catch-up. Remember, the language and its usage comes before the dictionary.

Despite all that, I am able to show, in a single page, that the Right to Life is inherent in all living human beings, and to deny that is to deny the very concept of human rights.

So, since you used the term objective standard, it sems reasonable to ask what you mean. I hope that’s not out of bounds.

As I say, you seem to have got little profit from your perusal of the dictionary.

When you ask about morality, I need to know what morality you are using. Then we apply the standards of that morality to the quetsion at hand and easily get an answer.

How about “Man is the measure?” Is that too complex for you?

When you deny one man’s right to life – no matter what his physical conditioin – you deny all men all rights.

The moral standard that would justify killing a single cell is one which does not recognize the cell as a person.

Which, as I have shown, is an immoral concept – because it destorys the concept of human rights.

This has been a common belief through the ages. Aquinas taught that the homo sapiens goes through three stages of the soul, and this takes place over a long period in the womb. He recognized three distinct states that changed over time. The “Quickening” was the term used by Medieval popes to describe the point in time when the homo sapiens fetus was infused with an intellectual soul. (I note the Highlander series stole that term.)

Spare the histronics. If you deny any other human being the right to life, you deny your own. Simple enough for you?

One thing that protects people from being killed is belonging to a group that will prevent such killing. Such groups are formed as a result of the mutual motivation of each member to self-preservation.

So feuds and tribal warfare are moral?

 

[RowBoat]

This thread is about Catholics and political affiliation. There is no dispute in the Catholic Church as to the beginning of personhood. Your arguments have absolutely no bearing on which party would attract a Catholic viewpoint. A Catholic who is pro-choice is taking a position contrary to the Church.

Does the CC hold a person has an immortal, intellectual soul? Is something without such a soul a human person?

Can you direct me to the official and definitive Catholic teaching that says an intellectual and immortal soul is present in the single cell?

 

[rlg94086]

Does the CC hold a person has an immortal, intellectual soul? Is something without such a soul a human person?

Can you direct me to the official and definitive Catholic teaching that says an intellectual and immortal soul is present in the single cell?

The moderator has asked us to get back on topic. But, I recommend you do some searching on this forum for similar topics and/or go to the parent website - www.catholic.com

Pax,
Robert

 

[RowBoat]

Of course sperm and egg are living, but they aren’t living beings. Your argument is really silly.

I’m glad we have established they are alive. A few posts back someone said there were deniers in our midst.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I’m glad we have established they are alive. A few posts back someone said there were deniers in our midst.

They are living human beings and have the same right to life all living human beings have.

 

[RowBoat]

Vern, RLG,

I just noted an item from a moderator cutting off this exchange. I’m done.

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

Choose to 1) abort , or 2) carry the fetus full term and give birth.

It’s not a fetus. It’s a baby.