Non-Catholic religions and abortion

[jmcrae]

And thats a world of difference. JMCrae even agreed that serial killers dont deserve to live. That means he has requirements too. Your flawed logic puts him on the same boat as the Nazis.

Being a serial killer is not a genetic defect - it’s a moral defect - one that puts others at serious risk.

If we can avoid killing serial killers while still defending society from their actions, then we ought to do so. For the most part, that’s very doable - but in situations where it’s not possible to remove their ability to kill others without killing them, then we have to kill them.

 

[fierysword1920]

Like I said before everyone just quit talking to agnostheist. He has nothing better to do with his time other than to try and grandstand about something he knows is wrong. He’s just jerking your chains. He is a waste of time and yes jennifer you are right he does not know what hes talking about thats why he replies with to you with a 3 year olds wit that oh yes he does know and too bad for you that you don’t mentality. Just read his posts and you will see you have all defeated him over and over again. All he has left to do is try and irritate you guys. Ignore him and he will go away, he has nothing left to say worth spit.

 

[estesbob]

From Todays Office of readings. i think it is applicable to this thread-especially in light of the fact so many pro-abortion advocates claim the stage of development is important.

The religion of souls should follow the law of development of bodies. Though bodies develop and unfold their component parts with the passing of the years, they always remain what they were. There is a great difference between the flower of childhood and the maturity of age, but those who become old are the very same people who were once young. Though the condition and appearance of one and the same individual may change, it is one and the same nature, one and the same person.

From An instruction by St Vincent of Lerins

 

[AgnosTheist]

Being a serial killer is not a genetic defect - it’s a moral defect - one that puts others at serious risk.

If we can avoid killing serial killers while still defending society from their actions, then we ought to do so. For the most part, that’s very doable - but in situations where it’s not possible to remove their ability to kill others without killing them, then we have to kill them.

nobody said that it was a genetic defect. but we kill those people anyway.

embryos are not even people.

 

[notself]

From Todays Office of readings. i think it is applicable to this thread-especially in light of the fact so many pro-abortion advocates claim the stage of development is important.

The religion of souls should follow the law of development of bodies. Though bodies develop and unfold their component parts with the passing of the years, they always remain what they were. There is a great difference between the flower of childhood and the maturity of age, but those who become old are the very same people who were once young. Though the condition and appearance of one and the same individual may change, it is one and the same nature, one and the same person.

From An instruction by St Vincent of Lerins

Now this does not make sense. To believe this you must reject spiritual growth, repentance, and reformation. One can be a hateful, spiteful, angry person and change dramatically into someone completely different except in physical appearance, which of course is always changing.

Perhaps the quote is taken out of context to prove a point.

 

[zearro]

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?

A baby is a baby is a baby. Created by God.

Why would a child of rape not deserve to live?

Buddhism too condemns abortion. The reasoning is different from catholicism. In Catholicism it is because the baby is a human being and therefore has a soul. Buddhism says all killing is wrong and this would extend to animals. They don’t have to get into whether the foetus is person or not. They reject the idea of a soul anyway.

The Buddhist would argue that any being that can experience pain should not be killed. This argument is used by catholics with regard to the human foetus only. It can experience pain and therefore it is cruel to take its life. If one takes this stance then one has to extend the idea to all beings that feel pain. The logical consequences of this is vegetarianism.

Buddhism takes non killing much further than catholicism. Catholicism has different rules for animals and humans. For example catholicism would see nothing wrong in putting an animal out of its misery, castrating an animal to prevent unwanted puppies etc or even an abortion to save the life of a dog.

The issue for catholicism is not that he foetus feels pain (if that was the criteria then they would have to forbid the killing of animals) but because they believe the human foetus has a soul and that the animal has not. This is something that catholic would be hard put to demonstrate to someone who saw no reason to believe in a soul.

 

[estesbob]

Now this does not make sense. To believe this you must reject spiritual growth, repentance, and reformation. One can be a hateful, spiteful, angry person and change dramatically into someone completely different except in physical appearance, which of course is always changing.

Perhaps the quote is taken out of context to prove a point.

Dis we read the same quote???

 

[zearro]

If your child wasn’t always a person - what was he/she?
You’re not a baby anymore. I presume you’re an adult - who grew and changed.
The Church doesn’t look the same as it did when it started - it grew.
The United States doesn’t look like it did before because it matured and grew.
You can’t have it both ways, Agnos. Either a person is a person from conception or it will never be a person. Just as a chicken’s egg that has not gone to full term contains a chicken - not a goat.
This is plight of those trapped in the flawed and convoluted ideas of moral relativism.
**Like the bumper sticker says, *“If it’s not ***a baby - you’re not pregnant!”

Putting aside the abortion issue, Buddhism would see the issue of a fixed personality quite differently. In fact as a spiritual error.

It would not say that the person at birth is literally the same person when he is 90. There is obviously a connection but to say it is the same person is just a convention of speech. In the 90 year old person there will not be single cell in his body that existed at birth. He will have had experiences that he did not have at birth; knowledge he did not have at birth etc. What is there in him that is identical with the baby that he grew from. Nothing really unless you believe that both have the same unchanging soul.

And an invisible soul is something you would be hard put to demonstrate to an unbeliever.

So you need to define what you mean by person and non person if you take the position that it is alright to kill non persons i.e animals. What distinguishes a human foetus from an animal? It is not greater intelligence because a gorilla is considerably more intelligent; it is not independence because it is helpless. So what is the difference? You are really left with the soul theory and obedience to God’s commands

The catholic church teaches that a baptised child that dies before the age of reason is guarnteed a place in paradise. If you allow a child to live beyond that age there is no guarantee it won’t go to hell. Sure you will go to hell if you kill it but you will have guaranteed the child’s eternal salvation. As we know St Paul espoused the idea of being eternally damned if it were possible to save others by doing so. i.e it is a good thing to sacrifice one’s own salvation for another. It is a shocking idea agreed but the logic is impeccable.

and again the souls of children who have been reborn by the same baptism of Christ or will be when baptism is conferred on them, if they die before attaining the use of free will: all these souls, immediately (mox) after death and, in the case of those in need of purification, after the purification mentioned above, since the ascension of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ into heaven, already before they take up their bodies again and before the general judgment, have been, are and will be with Christ in heaven, in the heavenly kingdom and paradise, joined to the company of the holy angels.

papalencyclicals.net/Ben12/B12bdeus.html

VB

 

[notself]

Dis we read the same quote???

Yes we did.

I have a different interpretation of what the words meant than you. But let’s not take this thread off topic. If you wish we can discuss it on another thread.

 

[fierysword1920]

The way I always understood it was that God the Father has given humanity stewardship over the earth and it’s contents. Animals are for food and thus must be killed, but in a humane manner whatever that is, it’s very relative and sticky in and of its ownself, that being the idea of humane killing. I don’t know if animals have souls or not, many dogs, cats and other animals all exhibit different personalities and individual to themselves even within their species. This would seem to be a human characteristic, but I have never researched what the church has to say about animals having souls, I am not opposed to this idea because many animals have risen far above their status and done great things in the service of humanity and seemingly out of a selfless love. The main characteristic that is objectionable to Catholics about abortion is that it is the killing of our unborn humans, and that it is done for the sake of convenience and the great lack of responsibility and or accountability.

Buddhism too condemns abortion. The reasoning is different from catholicism. In Catholicism it is because the baby is a human being and therefore has a soul. Buddhism says all killing is wrong and this would extend to animals. They don’t have to get into whether the foetus is person or not. They reject the idea of a soul anyway.

The Buddhist would argue that any being that can experience pain should not be killed. This argument is used by catholics with regard to the human foetus only. It can experience pain and therefore it is cruel to take its life. If one takes this stance then one has to extend the idea to all beings that feel pain. The logical consequences of this is vegetarianism.

Buddhism takes non killing much further than catholicism. Catholicism has different rules for animals and humans. For example catholicism would see nothing wrong in putting an animal out of its misery, castrating an animal to prevent unwanted puppies etc or even an abortion to save the life of a dog.

The issue for catholicism is not that he foetus feels pain (if that was the criteria then they would have to forbid the killing of animals) but because they believe the human foetus has a soul and that the animal has not. This is something that catholic would be hard put to demonstrate to someone who saw no reason to believe in a soul.

 

[wanner47]

embryos are not even people.

Yes, they are. They’re people in a different stage of development than you or I.

My second child, Noel, stopped growing at 7 weeks, 5 days gestation, when s/he was technically still an embryo.

My husband and I mourned our child, buried him/her, and visit his/her grave often. We had a graveside service and a memorial Mass for him/her.

This is his/her ultrasound picture, the only one I have of him/her:
img263.imageshack.us/img263/7898/noelsv3dl4.jpg

And this is what s/he would have looked like when s/he died:
img186.imageshack.us/img186/4586/baby7xg9.th.jpg

I see a person. How can you not?

And notself, it was AgnosTheist who first brought up the number of Protestants killed in the Crusades, Inquisition, etc. The comment that you referenced was in response to him.

edited to reduce picture size

 

[notself]

And notself, it was AgnosTheist who first brought up the number of Protestants killed in the Crusades, Inquisition, etc. The comment that you referenced was in response to him.

edited to reduce picture size

Fish passer.

wanner47,

I am sorry for your loss. I know you will always think of Noel. How could you not? :console:

 

[fierysword1920]

I am so terribly sorry for your loss, it brings tears to my eyes and when people like agnos idiot spew forth ignorant rants that they use for beliefs it really makes me sad and angry. I am a parent and have a two year old daughter and she is the greatest gift God has given my wife and I. I am really sorry and I really hope that God has given your family his grace and love to help you through.

Please feel free to message me or PM anytime,In Christs Love Jason.

Yes, they are. They’re people in a different stage of development than you or I.

My second child, Noel, stopped growing at 7 weeks, 5 days gestation, when s/he was technically still an embryo.

My husband and I mourned our child, buried him/her, and visit his/her grave often. We had a graveside service and a memorial Mass for him/her.

This is his/her ultrasound picture, the only one I have of him/her:
img263.imageshack.us/img263/7898/noelsv3dl4.jpg

And this is what s/he would have looked like when s/he died:
img186.imageshack.us/img186/4586/baby7xg9.th.jpg

I see a person. How can you not?

And notself, it was AgnosTheist who first brought up the number of Protestants killed in the Crusades, Inquisition, etc. The comment that you referenced was in response to him.

edited to reduce picture size

 

[AgnosTheist]

And this is what s/he would have looked like when s/he died:
img186.imageshack.us/img186/4586/baby7xg9.th.jpg

I see a person. How can you not?

I’m sorry for your loss. For me if you want something that hard, its very much alive and very much want you it to be. For this sake, I have no problem seeing him/her as a person too.

 

[fierysword1920]

Wow Agnos knucklehead just does not get it does he. His last post is as veiled and backhanded as any I have seen at trying to come across literate and educated and compassionate. He says that if YOU wanna believe something that bad then for your sake he will admit that was a person. He or she was and is a person, it’s a life that grew inside you, doesn’t matter at what stage the baby was at. It is not as if you were going to give the child a brain at the last second before it was to be born thus giving status to the baby that it is now a human being. From the beginning when a baby is only cells, within those cells are every part of a completely grown human being. This is the AWESOME POWER OF GOD. Stage means nothing, and we all come from the same beginning and are no less or no more then or now.
Nuff Said!!!

I am so terribly sorry for your loss, it brings tears to my eyes and when people like agnos idiot spew forth ignorant rants that they use for beliefs it really makes me sad and angry. I am a parent and have a two year old daughter and she is the greatest gift God has given my wife and I. I am really sorry and I really hope that God has given your family his grace and love to help you through.

Please feel free to message me or PM anytime,In Christs Love Jason.

 

[wanner47]

I’m sorry for your loss. For me if you want something that hard, its very much alive and very much want you it to be. For this sake, I have no problem seeing him/her as a person too.

By your logic, Agnos, *you *are not a person. I don’t believe that you are a person, so therefore, you are not one.

Also, by your logic, the Nazis were justified in killing Jews because they didn’t believe that Jews were people. They even passed laws to that effect.

See where the logic of the “it’s only a person if you think it is” leads?

Either embryos are people, or they aren’t. It’s an objective Truth, not a subjective one.

Noel WAS a person. S/he WAS a dearly beloved and much missed child.

 

[AgnosTheist]

By your logic, Agnos, *you *are not a person. I don’t believe that you are a person, so therefore, you are not one.

this is my logic: a person is anything that possesses a self-aware mind.

so by that logic is Agnostheist a person or not?

Also, by your logic, the Nazis were justified in killing Jews because they didn’t believe that Jews were people. They even passed laws to that effect.

my logic: a person can only be killed if you are defending from the the said person’s destructive aggression, or if the person have committed crimes against humanity.

Either embryos are people, or they aren’t.

i’m sorry but technically they arent. YET.

 

[wanner47]

this is my logic: a person is anything that possesses a self-aware mind.

What is your evidence of that one characteristic constituting personhood?

Newborn children aren’t self-aware either. Are they also not persons? If not, do you advocate legalizing infanticide?

my logic: a person can only be killed if you are defending from the the said person’s destructive aggression, or if the person have committed crimes against humanity.

By that logic, an unborn child would be justified in killing the mother who wishes to abort him/her.

i’m sorry but technically they arent. YET.

That’s not what you said earlier. You said my child was a person if I considered him/her to be one.

And yes, s/he was a child. S/he had his/her own unique DNA, his/her own unique brainwaves. S/he was every bit as much a person as the child growing inside me is.

Is the baby in my womb a person yet? Please tell me the magic day when s/he will become a person. I’d love to know.

 

[AgnosTheist]

What is your evidence of that one characteristic constituting personhood?

personhood is only an idea. i’m just basing it from popular opinion, like paragraph3 of this source:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Person

reminded: my argument for being pro-choice is not about personhood, but about the possession of a mind.

Newborn children aren’t self-aware either. Are they also not persons? If not, do you advocate legalizing infanticide?

self awareness develops during the fetal stage of pregnancy.

By that logic, an unborn child would be justified in killing the mother who wishes to abort him/her.

i am fully against killing a fetus.

That’s not what you said earlier. You said my child was a person if I considered him/her to be one.

Yes, because its yours and your opinion is harmless, then its entirely your business in saying that he/she was a person. And I have no problem agreeing with it.

Is the baby in my womb a person yet? Please tell me the magic day when s/he will become a person. I’d love to know.

i’ll try to find that science article again about when a fetus develops awareness.

 

[fierysword1920]

Don’t worry wanner47 I have already addressed this issue to knucklehead. He just continues to prove himself wrong. As I have stated even when a baby is a small embryo the entire mixture, ingredients, etc. are all present and yes that includes brain cells, there is a mind present and also developing. Also because mans law allows for something does not make it right with God. I suppose by agos weenies logic we could consider him some sort of lower life form not deserving of the same privileges as ourselves,… NAH cause were Catholics and we don’t operate like heathens and cheapen life.
Praise be to Almighty God in Heaven, Amen!

this is my logic: a person is anything that possesses a self-aware mind.

so by that logic is Agnostheist a person or not?

my logic: a person can only be killed if you are defending from the the said person’s destructive aggression, or if the person have committed crimes against humanity.

i’m sorry but technically they arent. YET.