Non-Catholic religions and abortion

[RebeccaJ]

Doing is being. If you completely stop doing, you stop being.

We are not nouns, we are verbs.

In some philosophies, you can only truly Be, when you stop doing, including this thing called mind.

In other philosophies, the mind is an illusion, it doesn’t exist.

Scientifically speaking, you can only prove what the brain is doing, you can prove nothing about the mind. Agnotheist is defining life as when the mind exists, yet there is no consensus that the mind exists, what it is, and if it does exist when it forms.

The fact still remains, an embryo EXISTS, it’s nature is HUMAN, the rest of the discussion is about what the embryo is doing, not what it is being. It is being what it is. Human.

 

[jmcrae]

IMO, a baby is only a baby if it is a person (one that has a personality, or a self-aware sentient mind). I dont think a very young embryo is already a person.

What else could it be? It’s not a dog or cat. It’s not a fish. It has 100% human DNA.

In no other case does the child of a criminal ever receive the death penalty.

 

[AgnosTheist]

I just happened to take one last look before I left the computer for good and saw your response. Thank you.

usccb.org/prolife/issues/bioethic/fact298.htm

the link did not really call a zygote as an embryo. rather in one area it said:

“The chromosomes of the oocyte and sperm are…respectively enclosed within female and male pronuclei. These pronuclei fuse with each other to produce the single, diploid, 2N nucleus of the fertilized zygote. This moment of zygote formation may be taken as the beginning or zero time point of embryonic development.”

so a freshly fertilized zygote isnt really an embryo, but merely a zero time point.

and uh, that was really a biased source. not just the fact that its a catholic website, but some arguments used were merely opinions of some authors.

anyway with all the semantics aside, i was really just referring to the single celled fertilized EGG. None of you would dare acknowledge that it doesnt have a single brain cell. If you guys cannot acknowledge this simple fact, you will always put a blind eye on complex facts which goes against your opinions.

 

[AgnosTheist]

According to who?

according to popular opinion as is evidenced in the dictionary.

Anyway, you as pro-life, is there any circumstance that you would agree with abortion? like if there was an accident and the only way to save the woman’s life would be to abort?

 

[AgnosTheist]

Doing is being.

You as pro-life, is there any circumstance that you would agree with abortion? like if there was an accident and the only way to save the woman’s life would be to abort?

 

[AgnosTheist]

What else could it be? It’s not a dog or cat. It’s not a fish. It has 100% human DNA.

a human embryo.

 

[jmcrae]

a human embryo.

Right. A human embryo is a very young human being. Left to grow and develop, it will not become something else. It is not a “potential” human being, as though it had options to do something else instead. It already has all of the DNA that it will continue to have throughout its natural life. If it dies at the age of 90 years, it will have no more and no less DNA than it has at the moment of conception.

To kill a human being (regardless of how young) without the need of self defense is an act of murder.

 

[st_lucy]

:tiphat:

according to popular opinion as is evidenced in the dictionary.

Anyway, you as pro-life, is there any circumstance that you would agree with abortion? like if there was an accident and the only way to save the woman’s life would be to abort?

Hello Agnos,

the close-minded person here :tiphat:

You keep asking this question I think everyone here has answered you and the answer is NO there is absolutely no reason a mother can have killing her child. And I shiver to think that anyone can EVER think that there is.

So my question is when is it okay in your mind (since you are a person ) is it okay for a mother to kill her offspring? It it when she sees him as a burden? Is it when she sees him as a threat? or is okay just because she feels like it?

 

[notself]

In some philosophies, you can only truly Be, when you stop doing, including this thing called mind.

In other philosophies, the mind is an illusion, it doesn’t exist.

Scientifically speaking, you can only prove what the brain is doing, you can prove nothing about the mind. Agnotheist is defining life as when the mind exists, yet there is no consensus that the mind exists, what it is, and if it does exist when it forms.

The fact still remains, an embryo EXISTS, it’s nature is HUMAN, the rest of the discussion is about what the embryo is doing, not what it is being. It is being what it is. Human.

I agree with you. Even in deep meditation, one is still doing. One is observing. The embryo is existing. Human is an adjective describing the embryo which is a desciption of being, which is a verb.

 

[AgnosTheist]

Right. A human embryo is a very young human being. Left to grow and develop, it will not become something else. It is not a “potential” human being, as though it had options to do something else instead. It already has all of the DNA that it will continue to have throughout its natural life. If it dies at the age of 90 years, it will have no more and no less DNA than it has at the moment of conception.

it all boils down to whether or not a human embryo (from day 1 to day 90) is a person. there is more evidence suggesting that its not. you cant even provide an unbiased (from neutral sources) formal definition of the word.

 

[jmcrae]

it all boils down to whether or not a human embryo (from day 1 to day 90) is a person. there is more evidence suggesting that its not. you cant even provide an unbiased (from neutral sources) formal definition of the word.

It has a soul. (It is animate - it has life.)

Because the DNA is human, the soul is a human soul; not an animal soul. A being with a human soul is a human person.

(The soul is that which goes missing when we die.)

 

[AgnosTheist]

You keep asking this question I think everyone here has answered you and the answer is NO there is absolutely no reason a mother can have killing her child. And I shiver to think that anyone can EVER think that there is.

i just wanted to hear it from each one of you.

what if the accident ensures that there is no way to save the embryo, but if it wasnt aborted the mother would die first before the embryo. would you rather have them both die than terminate the pregnancy?

So my question is when is it okay in your mind (since you are a person ) is it okay for a mother to kill her offspring? It it when she sees him as a burden? Is it when she sees him as a threat? or is okay just because she feels like it?

for me, she can terminate the pregnancy for any reason before its 90th day. after that period aboration should only be allowed if its to save the woman’s life.

 

[iamrefreshed]

it all boils down to whether or not a human embryo (from day 1 to day 90) is a person. there is more evidence suggesting that its not. you cant even provide an unbiased (from neutral sources) formal definition of the word.

Semantics used to justify a selfish decision to end a life. For all the nonsense talk about abortions due to rape, incest and danger to the mother, 98% of abortions are for convenience.

BTW, how would you define mother?

How can one be a mother and have an abortion? According to you she can’t because it’s not a child. Yet you yourself use the name mother.

You need to come up with another name for mother for the first 90 days then! What will you call her? Host to a blob of flesh?

 

[jmcrae]

i just wanted to hear it from each one of you.

what if the accident ensures that there is no way to save the embryo, but if it wasnt aborted the mother would die first before the embryo. would you rather have them both die than terminate the pregnancy?

That’s a pretty bizarre accident. I don’t think it would ever happen in real life.

for me, she can terminate the pregnancy for any reason before its 90th day. after that period aboration should only be allowed if its to save the woman’s life.

God is her judge; not you. (For better or for worse.)

 

[iamrefreshed]

i just wanted to hear it from each one of you.

what if the accident ensures that there is no way to save the embryo, but if it wasnt aborted the mother would die first before the embryo. would you rather have them both die than terminate the pregnancy?

See, you called her the mother.

 

[RebeccaJ]

according to popular opinion as is evidenced in the dictionary.

Anyway, you as pro-life, is there any circumstance that you would agree with abortion? like if there was an accident and the only way to save the woman’s life would be to abort?

Popular opinion doesn’t usually impress me.

I formed my POV regarding abortion while an atheist. I am of a stance that for me, personally, I could not kill an unborn child. I couldn’t live with myself even if my life were in danger. Rape or incest…it wouldn’t even be a consideration for me, personally. A growing, unborn child had nothing to do with what it’s ******* biological “father” is, or did.

I firmly believe that is a life growing there, a real human. I have never seen sufficient proof that it is not. At one time I believed as you, that there MUST be some point that a growing bunch of cells becomes a person. But I could never find what the point would be, not definitively.

So I had to look at what it is, what is growing there. That, and I had a 3 year infatuation with the philosophies of Yoga. And Grasshopper, a single cell organism is being what it is. It has no brain. It doesn’t have much of anything. But it is alive. It is doing what it does. It is being. A human, at the point of conception, is much, much more complex than a single cell organism. It is doing what it does. It is being.

Honestly, I cannot make these decisions for another person. The mere idea scares me…I mean, could I look at a mother of 5 children who may die in her 6th pregnancy and say, you must die and leave 5 children without a mother? Could I look at a child of 12 who has been repeatedly raped by her own father and say you must let that child live? What agonizing decisions.

I could never tell anyone what their decision should be. But for me, I know what my decision is.

 

[scottm]

Many other religions accept abortion in one form or another.

Mormonism allows it in cases of rape, incest or danger to mother.

Islam allows abortion up until birth if the mother is in danger.

Jews are somewhat vague but it’s generally accepted that if the mother is in danger it is accepted.

As we all know, numerous Christian denominations vary widely.

Yet catholics find it reprehensible on all accounts.

Why the difference?

Interesting question. This question and the homosexual issue are what got me started down the road toward Catholicism. It was my first step. I was awed and puzzled by the RC Church’s ability to hold ground and not waver one inch, while seemingly every other nominally Christian religious body at least wavered, if not crumbled altogether. I wanted to know why the Catholics were different.

And that led to another step, and suddenly I was in RCIA.

The difference that I found is in the way that doctrine & dogma is declared. Once something is declared “true” in Catholicism, it cannot later be declared “false.” It is sealed until the end of time. I am unaware of any other religious body that follows this same practice. No Protestant group has this practice. This method of declaring truth is in point of fact contradictory to the foundation of Protestantism, so of course none of them can do it. The foundation of Protestantism is that people can change their minds about what is true, and that is why they crumble and change under public pressure.

 

[AgnosTheist]

It has a soul. (It is animate - it has life.)

Because the DNA is human, the soul is a human soul; not an animal soul. A being with a human soul is a human person.

(The soul is that which goes missing when we die.)

sounds like pure personal opinion. can you find me an unbiased source for a definition like this?

 

[jmcrae]

sounds like pure personal opinion. can you find me an unbiased source for a definition like this?

The Latin-English dictionary. “Anima” means both “soul” and “life.”

 

[Jaypeeto4]

**Wiccans for life

Athiests for life

Gays for life

The people who are stripped of dignity most understand the importance of the right to life.**

I agree with you that there ARE organized pro-lifers among the groups above. In fact, those are the names of their organizations.
But your last statement is an overly broad generalization.

The vast majority of Wiccans, Gays, and Atheists are
pro-CHOICE on abortion, not pro-life.

Jaypeeto4
+JMJ+