S
St_Francis
Guest
Oh, good, then we won’t have to hear it from you.
I haven’t seen the rest of the statement.
Have I insulted you?
- Status
S
sedonaman
Guest
They are not assumptions according to California Medicine, and you have come out in support of consultation with the “medics,” per your post on the thread about the rape of the Brazilian girl.
You need to get your stories straight.
J
justlookin
Guest
If the source is human sperm and human ova, then it is human at the point of conception. Question is, is that bunch of cells sentient. People who follow religions, talk about souls. Same difference
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
*I thought this should be an interesting thread. Basicly, is, or isn’t, a fetus a human? *
That is the question stated in the first post of this thread. The question was long ago answered by biologists. The fetus is a human being with a unique set of 46 human chromosomes, half from the mother and half from the father. The fetus is therefore a human being. Case closed.
Why is there any need to keep this thread open any longer?
That is the question stated in the first post of this thread. The question was long ago answered by biologists. The fetus is a human being with a unique set of 46 human chromosomes, half from the mother and half from the father. The fetus is therefore a human being. Case closed.
Why is there any need to keep this thread open any longer?
D
Doc_Keele
Guest
I’ve never read “California Medicine” (why would I?), so I have no idea what you’re referring to. As for “getting stories straight”, I am equally mystified.
You can explain if you like, or not - it’s no skin off my nose either way. You’re not addressing the issues at all, so I’m not all that interested to be frank:shrug:
D
Doc_Keele
Guest
You’ve really sunk low now
No arguments left.
Just attacks.
Very sad.
It’s amazing to see the resentment come out because someone dares to present some challenges to the orthodox views. It just confirms to me that the majority of the “Pro-Life” brigade are just intrinsically conservative rather than motivated by compassion. That’s why you want to impose your views on other people rather than persuade them - and in any case for most “Pro-Lifers” it’s more about self-righteousness than actually achieving anything concrete:shrug:
S
St_Francis
Guest
You’ve really sunk low now
No arguments left.
Just attacks.
Very sad.
It’s amazing to see the resentment come out because someone dares to present some challenges to the orthodox views. It just confirms to me that the majority of the “Pro-Life” brigade are just intrinsically conservative rather than motivated by compassion. That’s why you want to impose your views on other people rather than persuade them - and in any case for most “Pro-Lifers” it’s more about self-righteousness than actually achieving anything concrete:shrug:
S
sedonaman
Guest
This is nothing more than a Orwellian ploy. When it comes to imposing views on others, liberals are infamous. They can’t get their values passed by a popular vote, so they infiltrate the courts to impose liberal values on the rest of society. That’s what happened in the case of Roe v. Wade. Abortion is the ultimate imposition of the liberal will of deciding who lives and who dies. There is no one more Orwellian than a liberal.
T
Tamsulosin
Guest
You can rationalize and brainstorm about definitions, but in the end it all comes down to abortion being a selfish act after a negligent intercourse.(with the exception of rape).
Think before you act, then take responsibiity for the consequences.Do not blurr the truth.
That is what we have been taught by our parents.
At least mine.I was blessed with good parents.
Think before you act, then take responsibiity for the consequences.Do not blurr the truth.
That is what we have been taught by our parents.
At least mine.I was blessed with good parents.
D
Doc_Keele
Guest
Ah yes, this is what an American Catholic considers the ultimate insult - “liberal”
As for Orwellian ploys, another standard hardline Catholic tactic:thumbsup:
Nothing original here, anyway.
What a wonderfully high standard of argument - but then that suits those who rely on rhetoric like yourself. Logic is so awfully liberal isn’t it?
S
sedonaman
Guest
What a wonderfully high standard of argument: just declare your opponent’s argument null and void. The super brain must have been really working overtime to come up with one as original as that.
D
Doc_Keele
Guest
Yes, the rush to the bottom has been won! Hallelujah!
Facts are important to me. Ideology is important to you.
T
twb1621
Guest
If the choice of life is between the child or the mother both of whom can survive independant of each other yet the host (mother) may not survive due to the existance of the fetus while the fetus can survive, who has the right to sacrifice the life of the child or choose which of the two should die… In such a case, it would be the mother who is medically afflicted, not the fetus and It would seem a God believing doctor would concentrate on medical intervention as best as possible for the mother to the point God determines who is to proceed in life. On the other hand, the CC acknowledges the following welcoming further questions be directed to the Church itself.
“Abortion is a fatal termination of this process. It may result from various causes, which may be classed under two heads, accidental and intentional.”
“Accidental causes may be of many different kinds. Sometimes the embryo, instead of developing in the uterus, remains in one of the ovaries, or gets lodged in one of the Fallopian tubes, or is precipitated into the abdomen, resulting, in any of these cases, in an ectopic, or extrauterine gestation. This almost invariably brings on the death of the fetus, and is besides often fraught with serious danger to the mother. Even if an ectopic child should live to maturity, it cannot be born by the natural channel; but, once it has become viable, it may be saved by a surgical operation.”
source of excerpt;
oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Abortion
S
sedonaman
Guest
I going to explain it, but not for your benefit because I know you won’t understand it, much less care. This is for others who might have missed reading it.
You criticized a poster in another thread for not thinking for himself. Then you said,
Why do you need a “horse’s mouth” or even the internet if you can think for yourself and come up with the perfect answer to any moral question without referring to any experts at all, technical or otherwise, since, being able to think for yourself, you consider your judgment to be infallible. [Note: “Thinking” implies the use of right reason.]Doc_Keele said:
You also admonished someone for not knowing the importance of language. Why would you read pro-abortion California Medicine? You wouldn’t need to if you think for yourself; but in case you really can’t think for yourself after all and do need a “horse’s mouth” in the form of a “medic” which you stated that you prefer, that publication is one, specifically, the September, 1970 issue, page 68. In only one paragraph, it recognizes not only that human life begins at conception but the importance of changing language to get the public to accept that it doesn’t.
So, do you think for yourself and not need a “horse’s mouth”, or not think for yourself and do? Got to get your story straight.
S
sedonaman
Guest
But truth isn’t.
D
Doc_Keele
Guest
Sedonaman, you’re just spouting bile now.
It’s really quite laughable, and I do just laugh in your face, you’re getting really ridiculous now
Your post just amounts to one massive argumentum ad hominem and shows your lack of intellect. Personal abuse is not an argument.
It’s really quite laughable, and I do just laugh in your face, you’re getting really ridiculous now
Your post just amounts to one massive argumentum ad hominem and shows your lack of intellect. Personal abuse is not an argument.
D
Doc_Keele
Guest
J
jmcrae
Guest
What facts are we overlooking?Yes, the rush to the bottom has been won! Hallelujah!
Facts are important to me. Ideology is important to you.
46 chromosomes, all human, means that it is a human being.
At such a small size and young age, it has never deliberately harmed any other person - it is innocent of all wrong-doing.
The killing of an innocent human being is the essential definition of the term “murder.”
We see in Genesis 1:27 that all human beings are created in the image and likeness of God. Therefore, to harm a human being is to do damage to the image of God.
J
jmcrae
Guest
Not at all. The soul is the animating force that keeps the cells from disintegrating into decay, and allows for self-propelled movement.
Sentience is the ability to think rationally. The child has a soul (an animating force) long before he or she has the ability to think rationally (which is thought to occur around the age of six or seven years).
D
Doc_Keele
Guest
Well there’s a few problems with that statement. 46 chromosomes doesn’t make a human being, and not having 46 chromosomes doesn’t exclude being a human being.What facts are we overlooking?
46 chromosomes, all human, means that it is a human being
It’s not quite as simple as that. Self defence is permissible when one faces a threat that is not objectively morally justified.
No, that’s not a logical conclusion.
- Status