Question to Catholics about Abortion

[mapleoak]

If he or she isn’t a citizen, then they have no right guranteed to them by the United States

Human rights do not depend on a guarantee from the government. If you steal my car, I was wronged. You took my car, not my right to the car.

(unless the US has given rights to the un-born? if so, please give me a link, I’d like to know),

The US does not give human rights to anyone. Human rights are intrinsic to human beings.

their not even born, their not citizens of the U.S, cause they have to be born, to be eligable.

Eligible for what?

Basic Rights are a joke.

You are free to give up your rights if you are not happy with them.

In the Middle East, and other countries, when the regimes take over, and take the food the UN sends the people, where is that basic right enforced? It’s not (usually), Basic Rights are not anything, if they can not be enforced everywhere.

You are confused in that human rights are not legal priveleges granted that which require enforcement. Laws and governments (such as those in the Middle East and the U.S.) which violate human rights attack rights which are intrinsic to human nature. It does not take them away.

Yes, Slavery was wrong,

Oh! okay. If you say so.

but it was corrected later on

So the law was wrong then?

(and if your correct, so will abortion, which is fine by me, I do not care, Pro or No, if the US Government rules its not ok, then fine with me, but if they rule its ok, fine as well).

Therefore your view of right and wrong is dictated by the government.

Therefore you likely do not understand the dangers of blind obedience to government. How about a quiz. Do you believe Hitler was a good man for his concern and attempt at preserving the ‘elite’ of society?

 

[LilyM]

Actually, BK, in some situations the law DOES give right to life to the unborn. My understanding is that in some jurisdictions if someone murders a pregnant woman and her unborn baby dies as a result, they are charged with an additional crime over and above just the murder of the woman. I suspect it’s simply double homicide, but don’t quote me.

 

[mapleoak]

Regarding opening post:

Abortion. First thing I think of is why. Why would this mother want her baby taken from her? Well, their are MANY reasons, some of which I doubt I’ll ever know, but I do support some reasons. I support Abortion if it was due to a Rape, or if the mother will die and the baby, during the pregnancy.

Why do you support murder in only these instances? If it is okay to murder innocent people because of the questionable actions of their ancestors, surely any other reason must be sufficient to kill people.

Other then that, doubtful, well better yet, not at all, if its a teen pregnancy, then so be it, no abortion, cause both had consented sex, and knew the risk, I am a teen, and if I got a girl pregnant, I would take the responsibility and support her and the kid, until the day I die, and I do not mean child support.

How does consent of both parents who have together conceived make it immoral to kill an innocent human being? How does one party not consenting make it moral to kill an innocent human being?

Would you be willing to give up Freedom of Religion, for Abortion to be out-lawed?

In what way is freedom of religion at stake in outlawing abortion? It is rather naive to think that if the government is going to take away your freedom it will ask you if it is alright to do so. The question is are you willing to die to defend your freedom?

 

[Squishy]

So if the government decided tomorrow that if a grown man decided he should be able to have an intimate relationship with boys anywhere from the age 5 and up and the rest of the country voted 51% to 49% for this new law you would be okay with that? Keep in mind that these boys cannot vote for themselves.

The idea of going along with something just because the government says it is okay and because the majority of the population says it is okay seems a little scary doesn’t?

You follow the teachings of the church. If the church where to turn around tomorrow and say that grown men should be able to have intimate relationships with boys would you agree and say its ok?

Arguments such as this are nonesensical. You cannot critasize someone for going along with societys ideas of morality while you youself go along with some other bodys idea of morality.

As a side note, my ‘faith’ in freedom of choice for women, has weakened somewhat over the past weeks in arguing against you all. And i thank you for making me re-evaluate my views. However most of the arguments i see again and again against abortion are weak.

Religious views (this includes Natural Law) cannot be argued succefully in a secular society. Find more common ground to get your point accross. If you are arguing from completly opposite sides of the room. Its difficult to find a middle ground.

 

[mapleoak]

You follow the teachings of the church. If the church where to turn around tomorrow and say that grown men should be able to have intimate relationships with boys would you agree and say its ok?

We are to follow all of the teachings of the Church in all matters. It is false to posit such a situation as such would never occur. The Church will never condone evil in any form. Also, because such teaching of the Church is unchanging, it will not turn around tommorrow and say different.
Therefore the following statement is nonsensical:

Arguments such as this are nonesensical. You cannot critasize someone for going along with societys ideas of morality while you youself go along with some other bodys idea of morality.

As a side note, my ‘faith’ in freedom of choice for women, has weakened somewhat over the past weeks in arguing against you all. And i thank you for making me re-evaluate my views. However most of the arguments i see again and again against abortion are weak.

Part of the problem with many arguments against abortion is that they stoop to the level of rejecting natural and unchanging moral laws in their argument, which therefore will have holes or exceptions in them. For instance, to define killing innocent human beings as unjust because it is a violation of natural law holds up in all cases as do all violations of the natural law. Saying it is wrong because it negatively impacts society is a non-absolute to which arguments can be effectively made against.

 

[BareKnuckler]

Regarding opening post:
Why do you support murder in only these instances? If it is okay to murder innocent people because of the questionable actions of their ancestors, surely any other reason must be sufficient to kill people.

How does consent of both parents who have together conceived make it immoral to kill an innocent human being? How does one party not consenting make it moral to kill an innocent human being?

In what way is freedom of religion at stake in outlawing abortion? It is rather naive to think that if the government is going to take away your freedom it will ask you if it is alright to do so. The question is are you willing to die to defend your freedom?

lol, cute “only”. Well, I guess I’d have to ask what you consider murder. I support the death penalty, murder again? Then I support Murder yet again , and I support troops, even if they kill men/women who try to kill them, murder again?

idk what exactly your talking about, your sentence is very “weird” Are you saying why is it wrong for both parents to agree, but alright for one?

Actually, BK, in some situations the law DOES give right to life to the unborn. My understanding is that in some jurisdictions if someone murders a pregnant woman and her unborn baby dies as a result, they are charged with an additional crime over and above just the murder of the woman. I suspect it’s simply double homicide, but don’t quote me.

I never said it didn’t, but I did ask for a example, and thanks for one. I am pretty sure your right, I have heard of some of these, I’ll try to find some to be sure and get back to ya.

Human rights do not depend on a guarantee from the government. If you steal my car, I was wronged. You took my car, not my right to the car.

The US does not give human rights to anyone. Human rights are intrinsic to human beings.
Eligible for what?

You are free to give up your rights if you are not happy with them.
You are confused in that human rights are not legal priveleges granted that which require enforcement. Laws and governments (such as those in the Middle East and the U.S.) which violate human rights attack rights which are intrinsic to human nature. It does not take them away.

Oh! okay. If you say so.

So the law was wrong then?
Therefore your view of right and wrong is dictated by the government.

Therefore you likely do not understand the dangers of blind obedience to government. How about a quiz. Do you believe Hitler was a good man for his concern and attempt at preserving the ‘elite’ of society?

US Citizenship

Varies on opinoin, in my opinoin the law was wrong, but that doesn’t mean I can break it, means I should protest it, and try to get it changed, which I am pretty sure is what you people are trying to do with abortion.

Hitler was a sad man. He did so many things wrong, I had to laugh when I read the book Rise and Fall of the Third Reich (great read, I’d reccommend it, and Collapse of the Third Republic, both are by William Shirer). He didn’t try to preserve the elite of society, he dealt away with them, they were the former aristrocrats from the time of the Imperialist Germany, back when they had the Kaiser. He then made his own elite, which were non-jews, german, and then later on he got more specific, even though he didn’t qualify for a lot of these “superior genes”. Hitler wasn’t a good man, but that is my opinoin, you could think Hitler was a saint, thats your opinoin, you have one, whether or not anyone says you do or not, at least, thats my opinoin.

The OP seems to put faith in blind obedience to the law. The law is most certainly not absolute, as evidenced by the very fact that it is subject to change. In fact anything not based on absolute morality is subject to change. If one chooses to put blind obedience and faith in the law, It is pitiable indeed.

Oh you’ve figured it out. I love the law, it just happened to screw my family over not too long ago, but yes I love it, I adore it. You are one to talk about blind obediance when later on in this topic you said, and I quote

We are to follow all of the teachings of the Church in all matters.

So, I am the one that has blind obediance? please…

I can question my government, and I can oppose it, my family did 148 years ago, and I would do it again for the same reasons they did, but their is no way it would work, and it would only bring destruction to the land I was born on.

 

[Des]

lol, cute “only”. Well, I guess I’d have to ask what you consider murder. I support the death penalty, murder again? Then I support Murder yet again , and I support troops, even if they kill men/women who try to kill them, murder again?

Murder is the intentional taking of an innocent life as what one does when they kill an unborn child. It can’t get much simpler than that.

Varies on opinoin, in my opinoin the law was wrong, but that doesn’t mean I can break it,

If it was law like it is in communist China to have to murder your unborn child if you have more than the allowable children in your family, you’re darn tootin’ I’d break that law. Laws can morally be broken at times.
Or If my mother was dying of a heart attack, I’d break the speed limit to get her to the hospital. Another law worth breaking.

 

[BareKnuckler]

Murder is the intentional taking of an innocent life as what one does when they kill an unborn child. It can’t get much simpler than that.

If it was law like it is in communist China to have to murder your unborn child if you have more than the allowable children in your family, you’re darn tootin’ I’d break that law. Laws can morally be broken at times.
Or If my mother was dying of a heart attack, I’d break the speed limit to get her to the hospital. Another law worth breaking.

Wait a second. I thought in Christianity, no one was innocent? Like, babies are born with original sin, and we all sin, so how could you take a innocent life?

darn tootin? lol. Ok, and?

 

[Des]

Wait a second. I thought in Christianity, no one was innocent? Like, babies are born with original sin, and we all sin, so how could you take a innocent life?

darn tootin? lol. Ok, and?

Original sin isn’t personal sin. Big difference.

Besides, we aren’t talking religion remember? So why even bring that into the equation. I’m speaking in terms of a secular world like the one you belong to. An unborn child has never intentionally tried to hurt anyone.

 

[c659smith]

Wait a second. I thought in Christianity, no one was innocent? Like, babies are born with original sin, and we all sin, so how could you take a innocent life?

darn tootin? lol. Ok, and?

In Deuteronomy 30:19, God says, “I call heaven and earth as witnesses today against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing; therefore choose life, that both you and your descendants may live…”

The Old Testament specifically mentions the act of abortion, or “ripping open a woman with child,” only 4 times that I know of, in every case condemning it. 2 Kings 8:12 calls abortion evil, and Amos 1:13 says God will punish those who perform abortions. Amos 1:13 doesn’t even list the other wrongs that were done, only abortion. By itself, it is enough to anger God to wrath.

 

[BareKnuckler]

In Deuteronomy 30:19, God says, “I call heaven and earth as witnesses today against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing; therefore choose life, that both you and your descendants may live…”

The Old Testament specifically mentions the act of abortion, or “ripping open a woman with child,” only 4 times that I know of, in every case condemning it. 2 Kings 8:12 calls abortion evil, and Amos 1:13 says God will punish those who perform abortions. Amos 1:13 doesn’t even list the other wrongs that were done, only abortion. By itself, it is enough to anger God to wrath.

lol ok.

Original sin isn’t personal sin. Big difference.

Besides, we aren’t talking religion remember? So why even bring that into the equation. I’m speaking in terms of a secular world like the one you belong to. An unborn child has never intentionally tried to hurt anyone.

lol whatever.

What if it kills its twin in the womb? (strangled by the other’s birth cord I think was what I read on some of them)

 

[st_lucy]

lol ok.

lol whatever.

What if it kills its twin in the womb? (strangled by the other’s birth cord I think was what I read on some of them)

Are you serious? You are really grasping at straws now. No one who is sane would ever think that a child in utero intentionally killed his twin with his umbilical cord. That is nuts and so are your straw men.

 

[Des]

What if it kills its twin in the womb? (strangled by the other’s birth cord I think was what I read on some of them)

I said murder is the ‘INTENTIONAL’ killing of an innocent human being. Read much?

 

[rosetta_stone]

this is a flawed question. Majority rule is by necessity tyrannical and oppressive because the minority is oppressed. Furthermore, Adolf Hitler was democratically elected and enjoyed majority approval ratings. Thus according to your logic we should have supported killing Jews if we lived then because we shouldn’t be undemocratic. If majority rule is how government is based than the majority can take away liberties and no one can stop them.

Democracy is not better than any other form of government and is only viable if the people of a nation are virtuous. The social contract is complete bs.

a great saying: A prince can be a Nero or a Marcus Aurelius, while a people can be a Nero but never a Marcus Aurelius

 

[bbarrick8383]

You can visit the link in my sig if you would like some facts on abortion.

The Federal Government has way to much power, the States need to regain power and tell the Feds where to stick it. In the case of abortion, California would probably allow, but Oklahoma never will. Same with Gay marriage.

 

[mapleoak]

lol, cute “only”. Well, I guess I’d have to ask what you consider murder. I support the death penalty, murder again? Then I support Murder yet again , and I support troops, even if they kill men/women who try to kill them, murder again?

No need to use an immaturish sarcastic tone in every post you write. A weak argument is weak whether sarcasm is used or not. Just a bit of remedial advice.
Mapleoak:
How does consent of both parents who have together conceived make it immoral to kill an innocent human being? How does one party not consenting make it moral to kill an innocent human being?

idk what exactly your talking about, your sentence is very “weird” Are you saying why is it wrong for both parents to agree, but alright for one?

Actually they are two sentences and opposite ones at that. Read them in the context of your opening post and it will illustrate the contradiction. You claim it is okay for a rape victim to kill an innocent human being (one party did not consent to the act resulting in conception). Then claim that if both parties agreed to conceive together, it is now somehow wrong for them to kill an innocent human being.

US Citizenship
Varies on opinoin, in my opinoin the law was wrong, but that doesn’t mean I can break it,

If the law attacks intrinsic human rights, not only can one break it, one has the
obligation to disobey it. For instance, if the law compels one to abort an innocent human
being, one would be obligated to be disobey it.

means I should protest it, and try to get it changed, which I am pretty sure is what you people are trying to do with abortion.

So now you person believes you have the
right to impose your idea of morality us people?

Hitler was a sad man. He did so many things wrong, I had to laugh when I read the book Rise and Fall of the Third Reich (great read, I’d reccommend it, and Collapse of the Third Republic, both are by William Shirer).

I didn’t find them humourous.

He didn’t try to preserve the elite of society,

Yes he did. In fact, if you didn’t fit his definition of a member of his elitist society, good bye.

he dealt away with them, they were the former aristrocrats from the time of the Imperialist Germany, back when they had the Kaiser. He then made his own elite, which were non-jews, german, and then later on he got more specific, even though he didn’t qualify for a lot of these “superior genes”.

Now you contract yourself in that Hitler
didn’t try to preserve the elite of society.

Hitler wasn’t a good man, but that is my opinoin, you could think Hitler was a saint, thats your opinoin, you have one, whether or not anyone says you do or not, at least,

You have digressed.
Mapleoak:
The OP seems to put faith in blind obedience to the law. The law is most certainly not absolute, as evidenced by the very fact that it is subject to change. In fact anything not based on absolute morality is subject to change. If one chooses to put blind obedience and faith in the law, It is pitiable indeed.

Oh you’ve figured it out. I love the law, it just happened to screw my family over not too long ago, but yes I love it, I adore it. You are one to talk about blind obediance when later on in this topic you said, and I quote
*“We are to follow all of the teachings of the Church in all matters.”
*So, I am the one that has blind obediance? please…
You are seemingly trying to make a point (if so it is very unclear what it is) or you are just
being an insincere troll. Yes, we are to follow all of the teachings of the Church, which
of course means at many times being at odds with society. Indeed you are the one that
has blind obediance, especially in light of this statement:

I love the law, it just happened to screw my family over not too long ago, but yes I love it, I adore it.

I state once again, one who puts blind obedience in the law is
pitiable indeed.

 

[mapleoak]

Are you serious? You are really grasping at straws now. No one who is sane would ever think that a child in utero intentionally killed his twin with his umbilical cord. That is nuts and so are your straw men.

Don’t feed the troll!

 

[BareKnuckler]

this is a flawed question. Majority rule is by necessity tyrannical and oppressive because the minority is oppressed. Furthermore, Adolf Hitler was democratically elected and enjoyed majority approval ratings. Thus according to your logic we should have supported killing Jews if we lived then because we shouldn’t be undemocratic. If majority rule is how government is based than the majority can take away liberties and no one can stop them.

Democracy is not better than any other form of government and is only viable if the people of a nation are virtuous. The social contract is complete bs.

a great saying: A prince can be a Nero or a Marcus Aurelius, while a people can be a Nero but never a Marcus Aurelius

lol, you obviously do not know much about the rise of Adolf Hitler. He wasn’t elected democratically, he was elected cause the SA would kill you, and maybe your whole family if you didn’t, he murdered the other parties, nearly half of the communist leadership was murdered, and most of the others imprisoned or banished. He was betraying a lot of his own leaders because they seen how insane he was (a majority of the SA was for a second revolution, when he had already taken over, that was a major reason he destroyed the SA). In America, the democrats don’t order hits on half the Republican leadership, or at least, I do not believe so. Last time I checked, I didn’t have to worry about a private police organization, coming to my door if I voted for the wrong party. Hitler was NOT voted democractically, he was voted in out of fear, and out of anger. They were angry cause of the Versailles Treaty, and Hitler promised them a way out of it, without the ending of their nation being torn apart, of course in the end he was wrong, but he was wrong about a lot.

Comparing Hitler’s political election to America’s is absurd, the situations are insanely different, and our nation is not going through a depression like Germany was in 1933 is vastly different then America 2009.

No need to use an immaturish sarcastic tone in every post you write. A weak argument is weak whether sarcasm is used or not. Just a bit of remedial advice.
Mapleoak:
How does consent of both parents who have together conceived make it immoral to kill an innocent human being? How does one party not consenting make it moral to kill an innocent human being?

Actually they are two sentences and opposite ones at that. Read them in the context of your opening post and it will illustrate the contradiction. You claim it is okay for a rape victim to kill an innocent human being (one party did not consent to the act resulting in conception). Then claim that if both parties agreed to conceive together, it is now somehow wrong for them to kill an innocent human being.

If the law attacks intrinsic human rights, not only can one break it, one has the
obligation to disobey it. For instance, if the law compels one to abort an innocent human
being, one would be obligated to be disobey it.
So now you person believes you have the
right to impose your idea of morality us people?
I didn’t find them humourous.
Yes he did. In fact, if you didn’t fit his definition of a member of his elitist society, good bye.
Now you contract yourself in that Hitler
didn’t try to preserve the elite of society.
You have digressed.
Mapleoak:
The OP seems to put faith in blind obedience to the law. The law is most certainly not absolute, as evidenced by the very fact that it is subject to change. In fact anything not based on absolute morality is subject to change. If one chooses to put blind obedience and faith in the law, It is pitiable indeed.

You are seemingly trying to make a point (if so it is very unclear what it is) or you are just
being an insincere troll. Yes, we are to follow all of the teachings of the Church, which
of course means at many times being at odds with society. Indeed you are the one that
has blind obediance, especially in light of this statement:
I state once again, one who puts blind obedience in the law is
pitiable indeed.

I am pretty sure I am not the only one that has used sarcasm in this topic

o0o, thanks for explaining that. Ok, ya, I made a mistake there, I am against the idea that the woman has the only choice, cause I think the father has a choice too of the baby.

When does the law force people to have abortions?

I can put my opinoin in a topic, its your choice to read it, not mine.

Hitler didn’t try to preserve the elite of society, he got rid of the old elite, and made his new elite, you deny this?

lol, wow, you just ignored my statement, your not the one with blind obediance, yet you follow all the church’s rules…

I was being sarcastic, you didn’t catch my second sarcastic comment!
(sorry, i use sarcasm, if it makes you upset, ill stop, or at least, ill try my best)

 

[BareKnuckler]

Don’t feed the troll!

lol? Feed me ye people of faithful, I need food.

 

[rosetta_stone]

lol, you obviously do not know much about the rise of Adolf Hitler. He wasn’t elected democratically, he was elected cause the SA would kill you, and maybe your whole family if you didn’t, he murdered the other parties, nearly half of the communist leadership was murdered, and most of the others imprisoned or banished. He was betraying a lot of his own leaders because they seen how insane he was (a majority of the SA was for a second revolution, when he had already taken over, that was a major reason he destroyed the SA). In America, the democrats don’t order hits on half the Republican leadership, or at least, I do not believe so. Last time I checked, I didn’t have to worry about a private police organization, coming to my door if I voted for the wrong party. Hitler was NOT voted democractically, he was voted in out of fear, and out of anger. They were angry cause of the Versailles Treaty, and Hitler promised them a way out of it, without the ending of their nation being torn apart, of course in the end he was wrong, but he was wrong about a lot.

Comparing Hitler’s political election to America’s is absurd, the situations are insanely different, and our nation is not going through a depression like Germany was in 1933 is vastly different then America 2009.

That is patently untrue Hitler had approval ratings in the 80’s late into the war, and even with harassment and imprisonment of opposing parties. Hitler was also legally appointed chancellor by the president. The Nazi party was wildly popular in Germany after its initial successes and even without the oppression the Nazis would have had more votes than any other party.

You still have failed to grasp how illogical your argument. If a majority said that all people who are under 18 should be killed than you would say it is fine because it is democratic.

This my last post since you are probably a troll.