Responses to Pro-Choice Arguments

  • Thread starter Thread starter St_Aloysius
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
fix said:
What are we before birth?
Click to expand...
that is hotly debated. for the religious humanity begins at the point of conception. for me it begins the moment of self-awareness, sometime after the 3rd month.
 
fix said:
This makes little sense. It simply states evil should be codifeid into law because some will always choose to do evil. Civilized societies outlaw killing innocents.
Click to expand...
Then what current society is “Civilized”?
fix said:
That is not only a stretch, but faulty logic. Any attempt to limit evil is not canonizing any particular candidate or position. It is applying traditional moral reasoning.
Click to expand...
You are confused. The theological concept of proportional reasons is relatively new. The traditional Catholic view is along the lines of St. Thomas Aquinas - a clear and enforcable ‘natural law’.
 
SoCalRC said:
Then what current society is “Civilized”?
Click to expand...
That is why I favor changing the law. And you?
You are confused. The theological concept of proportional reasons is relatively new. The traditional Catholic view is along the lines of St. Thomas Aquinas - a clear and enforcable ‘natural law’.
Click to expand...
You mean Cardinal Ratzinger is confused. Perhaps you could volunteer to educate him.
 
I don’t need to convince anyone here, I hope, that abortion is wrong, and also very harmful to women, as well as being fatal to unborn babies. Here are 2 things I would say
  1. you can’t give yourself an abortion, so you aren’t " doing what you want with your own body " The doctor is doing it. ( or whoever performs )
  2. If its your own body, and the child is male, would that make you partly male for 9 months? That opens up a can of worms, that no one besides God can close, I think
 
AgnosTheist said:
depends on the state of coma. if its like Terri Shiavo, pull the plug. thats nothing more than an empty shell. a zombie.
Click to expand...
Should there be any civil action to certify or authorize ‘pulling the plug’? The zombie as you say cannot speak for itself, but the family may have hope there is still a chance for recovery. Can/should the state step in and act without regard to the family, or the other way around? Who has the higher authority to decide and what if they disagree?

Because of such arguments the only answer is human life in any and all forms is to be respected and nurtured to live. The only justified way to end human life in any and all forms is to have a proper civil disposition made regarding that life. A criminal is taken to court, and a terminally ill patient in a coma is adjudiucated with family and physicians.

It is wrong for a 20 year old to kill their parents for money, and it is wrong for a parent to kill their children for convenience. I say we owe the baby within the womb their day in court before killing them. How about you?
 
Verisimilitude said:
Who has the higher authority to decide and what if they disagree?
Click to expand...
if there is no law being broken then its the immediate family. in this case, the husband. otherwise its the government.
Verisimilitude said:
Because of such arguments the only answer is human life in any and all forms is to be respected and nurtured to live. The only justified way to end human life in any and all forms is to have a proper civil disposition made regarding that life. A criminal is taken to court, and a terminally ill patient in a coma is adjudiucated with family and physicians.
Click to expand...
the creature has no will of its own. its not really “ending human life”. its more like letting mother nature take its course.

the CC is not consistent. it abhors the artificial conception of life, and yet it promotes the artificial support for it. 🤷
Verisimilitude said:
It is wrong for a 20 year old to kill their parents for money, and it is wrong for a parent to kill their children for convenience. I say we owe the baby within the womb their day in court before killing them. How about you?
Click to expand...
as long as it is a human being, i’m all for it. 🙂
 
AgnosTheist said:
if there is no law being broken then its the immediate family. in this case, the husband. otherwise its the government.
Click to expand...
What if the husband caused the injury? It might not be known otherwise if just taken his word.
the creature has no will of its own. its not really “ending human life”. its more like letting mother nature take its course.
Click to expand...
the CC is not consistent. it abhors the artificial conception of life, and yet it promotes the artificial support for it. 🤷
Click to expand...
I don’t think it supports extraordinary efforts to keep humans alive in that manner. If I ever have a tattoo put on me it will be a large DNR (do not resisitate) on my chest to avoid being placed in that position.
as long as it is a human being, i’m all for it. 🙂
Click to expand...
Well, it is a human being, from conception. I don’t think you have made your non-human case very well for a baby in the womb before or after 3 months.
 
AgnosTheist said:
If you agreed to share it, you forfeit your right to take it back. You will have to live by the consequences of your decision

If a woman was raped and got pregnant, she has every right to abort the rapist’s unwanted child. There was no agreement.
Click to expand...
So, if one of your buddies robs me and from some of his proceeds, he buys you a new car, I can shoot you because you are one of the consequences of his crime . . . makes great sense.

Abortion is the modern day equivalent of Hitler’s Final Solution. Eliminate the unwanted, weak, malformed, powerless and society will become more pure.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top