UNICEF Promotes Abortion in Latin America

[aggiecatholic05]

This simply isn’t true. If you had read any Aquinas or Thessalonius, you’d know the beginning of life isn’t so cut and dry, even in the Catholic faith. A dig into Rousseau (though Mills is about as good, here) and Kant would give you a view of matters of ‘life’ from a more academic point of view. But (to show I’m not ‘sectsist’), dig up some Gregory of Nyssa, John of Damascus, and Anathasius - numerous statements are made declaring either no knowledge of when a life is a life or declaring it to be well after conception.

the only problem is that none of those people were popes. they gavce opinons and did not speak infailably. rather they did the best they could with the nformation they had.

abortion is still murder. and it is never ok. never.

 

[Canto]

what does the term ‘special interest’ mean to you, exactly. I’ll even let you do the denotative meaning. Look it up and tell me why your questions here are ridiculous.

Songwriter Carole King (tapestry) is campaigning on the Northern Rockies Ecosystem. That is here special interest. She’s on the TV, at congress etc. She is not to my knowledge campaigning on the Amazon, Orangutans etc. She is focusing on the Rockies.

Life site news for e.g. doesn’t focus on the Rockies, or the football results or what Britney Spears is up to, it focuses life, specifically relating to abortion, stem cells, cloning etc.

There is nothing pure about that science. If what you’re saying is true - that it’s ‘pure science’, then we wouldn’t even be having this debate. And you’re right…science supports a lot of crazy ideas…it’s just that the church goes apesh*t whenever it’s on their side.

Pure is a figure of speech to illustrate the majority concensus (from what I’ve read) amongst scientists is that human life begins at conception. If not then when? Within 18 days there is a heartbeat, within 2 month the life can suck his/her finger.

what exactly does ‘pro-life’ mean anyways? I can’t be ‘pro-life’ and ‘pro-choice’ at the same time? I’ve already stated numerous cases in which even the church hesitates to say for sure one way or the other.

The Church does not hesitate. She opposed abortion 100%
If a person supports abortion under any circumstance than in my op. they can’t be pro-life. As for choice what about the choice of the father (takes two to tango, if consensual of course) or the right of the child.

They were fighting for sovereignty over their own lives. You’re fighting for sovereignty over someone elses.

Unborn children can’t defend themselves, so someone has to.
Everyone has the right to life.

What would the ‘opposite outcome’ be? And even so, what does it matter? If there’s a woman who had an abortion and then was institutionalized because it drove her insane, it’s only because of the ideology you spew eating her humanity. In either case, it’s fanatics like some of those found on these forums that caused the destruction of this person.

If every human followed the Church’s so called ideology to the T (wishful thinking I know) then there would be no rape, babies would be conceived in marriage and wanted. I’d say the fantaic was the (insert curse word) who raped her. But if you are raped and kill your child, two wrongs don’t make a right.

if it’s really murder.

If human life begins at conception and you have an abortion you are killing a human life. I’d say that’s murder.

This simply isn’t true. If you had read any Aquinas or Thessalonius, you’d know the beginning of life isn’t so cut and dry, even in the Catholic faith. A dig into Rousseau (though Mills is about as good, here) and Kant would give you a view of matters of ‘life’ from a more academic point of view. But (to show I’m not ‘sectsist’), dig up some Gregory of Nyssa, John of Damascus, and Anathasius - numerous statements are made declaring either no knowledge of when a life is a life or declaring it to be well after conception. But I also encourage you to read the gospels of Mary, Judas, Thomas, and Joseph. There is also the Book of Seth which has a very early creation myth which puts a lot into the ‘beginning of life’ discussion. **Even your own church doctrine declares that, whether right or wrong, a person shouldn’t do anything that is in objection with their conscience. ** If you believe in a personal god, you must also believe it’s possible for him to tell you something that isn’t in the rest of the doctrine - happens all over the Old Testament.

The Didace c.70AD, the Apostolic Constitution, St Jerome etc all cleary state that abortion is murder.

The Church is clear that life begins at conception c.f. Catechism of the Catholic Church.

As for the bit I bolded the Church infalibly teaches against abortion. There are no iffs or butts no matter what an individual Catholic’s conscience may say, the Church is plainly clear on this.

In Catholicism we have Sacred Tradtion both written (the Bible) and spoken.

 

[spectrm]

@canto:
couldn’t quote - your formatting was bad. Most of the post was rubbish anyway. You can spout as much catechismic rhetoric as you’d like. No matter how many times you repeat, it’ll still be catechismic rhetoric and nothing more.

No scientist that I know believes life begins at conception. Given that my wife is currently pregnant - and I’ve discussed every possible detail with our oby/gyny…to the extent that I’m afraid she’s gonna start charging by the hour, rather than the visit - and the heart doesn’t begin beating til the fifth week and there aren’t even any thumbs to suck until nearly the second trimester. How is any of this relevant anyways? Is sucking a thumb or having a heart beat proof of a person? Cuz last I checked, a person was defined by consciousness. That’s a thread I have going twice. Any questions posed, I’ll likely link to the other conversation.

Also - if everyone human being were CAPABLE of living the ‘catholic ideal’ to the ‘T’, we wouldn’t be having any conversation at all, because then people would be perfect, the world would be utopian and there would be no reason for religion, politics or any of the worlds other evils. I choose to view the world pragmatically. Look it up…

And lastly…infallibility. Amazing…the one catholic doctrine that is always sited and yet is the ‘auto-dictator button’ in any other political organization. The Pope is not infallible. He is a human being, just like any of us. He is elected by counsel, not appointed by god. In addition, popes have consistently contradicted each other. To think that an infallible lineage can contradict each other, and still believe they’re both infallible, is a feat of mental gymnastics I’m pretty sure I could never accomplish. If you actually buy the infallibility nonsense, watch Kevin Smith’s Dogma. Obviously meant to be ‘for fun’, but also meant to make a point - and also gives a clear picture of how ‘human infallibility’ should be treated.

 

[Canto]

No scientist that I know believes life begins at conception.

If not conception then when does life begin, 2 months, 6 months, 12 years?

The Pope is not infallible.
not appointed by god.
popes have consistently contradicted each other.

contadiction - for example

Matt 16:18 You are Rock and upon this rock I will build my Church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it."

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

Infallibility does not mean the Pope makes things up as he goes along. Means that he defends the faith accurately, the faith that has been in existence for 2000 years.

Life does begin at conception, a totally new organism that is genetically different than the father or mother.

That organism is not a parasite, it is the offspring. Proof of this is that the mother’s immune system, does not attack the growing embryo. In fact the body changes quite early to accommodate the embryo. The immune system becomes somewhat suppressed. Subtle changes in a women’s sense of smell are there, this happens so the woman can be more aware of potential toxins that can harm the baby.

Finally, here is a link to a slide show from webmd (not a religious website)

webmd.com/baby/slideshow-conception

Fertilization: Sperm Penetrates Egg
If a sperm cell meets and penetrates an egg, it will fertilize the egg. The fertilization process takes about 24 hours. When fertilization happens, changes occur on the surface of the egg to prevent other sperm from penetrating it. At the moment of fertilization, the genetic makeup is complete, including the sex of the*** infant***.

 

[mlchance]

once again, we have a difference in opinion over when life begins.

Don’t quote pseudo-science…

Your complaint about pseudo-science would be more convincing if it didn’t follow the tired canard about opinion mattering when it comes to when life begins. It is a fact that a developing embryo is alive.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[spectrm]

Your complaint about pseudo-science would be more convincing if it didn’t follow the tired canard about opinion mattering when it comes to when life begins. It is a fact that a developing embryo is alive.

Thanks for notably ignoring the rest of my post.

Sure - an embryo is ‘alive’ - so is bacteria, by the same definition. The point is whether the life is protected under the law, and for very important reasons, the line has been drawn somewhere in between where I stand and where you stand. What I’m arguing isn’t pseudo-science, it’s social theory. What you’re arguing is catechism in scientific clothing.

Life doesn’t not always equate to individual sovereignty. In cases of ‘vegetation’ - permanent comatose - an executor (usually a spouse of family member) is granted the right to make legal decision (including additional treatment) on behalf of the person. There are important legal reasons for this as well.

The world, and society in general, is not black and white. It’s unfortunate that you see it as such.
Mary Gail 36:

Infallibility does not mean the Pope makes things up as he goes along. Means that he defends the faith accurately, the faith that has been in existence for 2000 years.

One Pope accepted the likelihood of the BigBang as the origin of the universe (I’m sure he believed god got the ball rolling). The next Pope rescinded this decree…that’s not defense, that’s contradiction.
Mary Gail 36:

Life does begin at conception, a totally new organism that is genetically different than the father or mother.

Again - in a biological or legal sense? They are two distinctly different faculties, for the individual in question as well as the legal implications of those around.
Mary Gail 36:

That organism is not a parasite, it is the offspring. Proof of this is that the mother’s immune system, does not attack the growing embryo.

Bu the mother’s immune system DOES attack the embryo. White blood cells are pressed to destroy blood cells of a different blood type. If the fetus’s blood is of a certain type with a positive rhesus count and the mother is of the same type (even) with a negative rhesus count, the mother’s body will attack the fetus - women have to take pills to down their immune system until the placental wall is fully sealed for the third trimester. This also occurs with wrong blood types or if the body detects any abnormality in the fetus’s development - it will naturally abort (the use of the term ‘miscarriage’ doesn’t change the fact that this is an auto-induced abortion).
Mary Gail 36:

In fact the body changes quite early to accommodate the embryo. The immune system becomes somewhat suppressed. Subtle changes in a women’s sense of smell are there, this happens so the woman can be more aware of potential toxins that can harm the baby.

Toxins and predators, certainly. And the body changes (physically) to a great extent - joints are more lubricated and flexible - but this occurs all over the body, not just around the pelvis/abdominal area. This isn’t some magic, however. It’s the bodies natural hormones being released and taking effect after being stimulated into production by a change in blood chemistry.
Mary Gail 36:

Finally, here is a link to a slide show from webmd (not a religious website)

Very well and good. I’ve conceded all of this from a biological perspective (though any educated person I know would challenge the use of ‘infant’ when discussing a fetus). What I’m arguing is that ‘life’ != ‘person’. Sure, it may be a human life. But it is not inherently a ‘human person’.

If you all had your way, it would become legal to sue a waitress for serving a pregnant woman sushi if the sushi induced sickness that caused a miscarriage. The poor waitress could be charged with ‘negligent homicide’ just as bar tenders are when people leave their bar and kill someone drunk driving. If you can’t understand the legal implications here, then I can’t there will be much reason in this conversation.

 

[mlchance]

Thanks for notably ignoring the rest of my post.

I didn’t ignore anything.

Sure - an embryo is ‘alive’…What you’re arguing is catechism in scientific clothing.

Then why bring up a supposed difference of opinion about when life begins? And who mentioned a catechism? I know I didn’t. I merely pointed out the fact that a developing embryo is alive. Someone who says a developing embryo isn’t alive is wrong, not merely expressing a difference of opinion.

The world, and society in general, is not black and white. It’s unfortunate that you see it as such.

You seem to be awfully confident in making assertions about what people you don’t know believe. What a curious habit.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[Cracker_Mom]

Thanks for notably ignoring the rest of my post.

Sure - an embryo is ‘alive’ - so is bacteria, by the same definition. The point is whether the life is protected under the law, and for very important reasons, the line has been drawn somewhere in between where I stand and where you stand. What I’m arguing isn’t pseudo-science, it’s social theory. What you’re arguing is catechism in scientific clothing.

Life doesn’t not always equate to individual sovereignty. In cases of ‘vegetation’ - permanent comatose - an executor (usually a spouse of family member) is granted the right to make legal decision (including additional treatment) on behalf of the person. There are important legal reasons for this as well.

The world, and society in general, is not black and white. It’s unfortunate that you see it as such.

One Pope accepted the likelihood of the BigBang as the origin of the universe (I’m sure he believed god got the ball rolling). The next Pope rescinded this decree…that’s not defense, that’s contradiction.

Again - in a biological or legal sense? They are two distinctly different faculties, for the individual in question as well as the legal implications of those around.

Bu the mother’s immune system DOES attack the embryo. White blood cells are pressed to destroy blood cells of a different blood type. If the fetus’s blood is of a certain type with a positive rhesus count and the mother is of the same type (even) with a negative rhesus count, the mother’s body will attack the fetus - women have to take pills to down their immune system until the placental wall is fully sealed for the third trimester. This also occurs with wrong blood types or if the body detects any abnormality in the fetus’s development - it will naturally abort (the use of the term ‘miscarriage’ doesn’t change the fact that this is an auto-induced abortion).

Toxins and predators, certainly. And the body changes (physically) to a great extent - joints are more lubricated and flexible - but this occurs all over the body, not just around the pelvis/abdominal area. This isn’t some magic, however. It’s the bodies natural hormones being released and taking effect after being stimulated into production by a change in blood chemistry.

Very well and good. I’ve conceded all of this from a biological perspective (though any educated person I know would challenge the use of ‘infant’ when discussing a fetus). What I’m arguing is that ‘life’ != ‘person’. Sure, it may be a human life. But it is not inherently a ‘human person’.

If you all had your way, it would become legal to sue a waitress for serving a pregnant woman sushi if the sushi induced sickness that caused a miscarriage. The poor waitress could be charged with ‘negligent homicide’ just as bar tenders are when people leave their bar and kill someone drunk driving. If you can’t understand the legal implications here, then I can’t there will be much reason in this conversation.

But there will still be silliness in not admitting life begins at conception.

 

[Al_Masetti]

But there will still be silliness in not admitting life begins at conception.

If you damage the egg of some bird, you might go to jail. But it’s open season on humans.

[You cannot even collect bird feathers! … the ones you find on the ground.]

 

[Cracker_Mom]

If you damage the egg of some bird, you might go to jail. But it’s open season on humans.

[You cannot even collect bird feathers! … the ones you find on the ground.]

Exactly.

 

[spectrm]

If you damage the egg of some bird, you might go to jail. But it’s open season on humans.

[You cannot even collect bird feathers! … the ones you find on the ground.]

I didn’t know that human beings were classified as endangered species. That’s amazing - when did that happen?

 

[Cracker_Mom]

I didn’t know that human beings were classified as endangered species. That’s amazing - when did that happen?

It happened when abortion became legal.

 

[aggiecatholic05]

It happened when abortion became legal.

yep, theres no other species out there where we’d allow a 40-50% annual cull on the population. thats just not a sustainable figure.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

OK It’s a human life…not a human person?

What does it need to do to be a person? Think, breathe, have a heartbeat, dance, have a degree in physics?

There have been times when blacks were not considered people, they were considered property.

Jews were not considered people.

Now preborn are not considered people.

In roe vs. wade, Justice Blackmun said he didn’t know if the preborn was a person, but if it was he conceded that Roe could not be decided that way…because the right to** life **is a greater right than the right to privacy.

Now almost 40 years later, with advances in medical science, the ability to see into the womb and see a little human, with a heartbeat, limbs, brain…we still say that they can be destroyed?

It is** arrogance **to say it is a human life, yet doesn’t deserve the most basic lhuman right, life. :banghead:

 

[LRThunder]

yep, theres no other species out there where we’d allow a 40-50% annual cull on the population. thats just not a sustainable figure.

Especially when the day comes that our own government makes it mandatory ala China.

 

[aggiecatholic05]

Especially when the day comes that our own government makes it mandatory ala China.

yeah and the path we’re on makes it seem like that day is fast approaching, especially if the pro-infanticide lobby teams up with the militant gays, and envrionentalists.

 

[spectrm]

OK It’s a human life…not a human person?

Yes - the statement was made that abortion is, by definition, murder. So I posed a series of circumstances which SHOULD spell out how considering a fetus a human person has sever legal implications on a lot of innocent people.

What does it need to do to be a person? Think, breathe, have a heartbeat, dance, have a degree in physics?

A ‘person’ is more defined by what they’re entitled to under the law. Currently, there’s not much entitlement to fetuses. Clearly, a blatant attempt to attack the fetus (boyfriend maliciously attacks the girlfriend, specifically targeting the womb) or a crime is carried out whilst the attacker knows the woman is pregnant can incur additional charges in the name of the unborn.

There have been times when blacks were not considered people, they were considered property.

Well, we’re not talking about a separate, sovereign entity. As soon as we are, that comparison will fit.

Jews were not considered people.

In NAZI Germany, perhaps.

Now preborn are not considered people.

Welcome to the world - ain’t it grand?

In roe vs. wade, Justice Blackmun said he didn’t know if the preborn was a person, but if it was he conceded that Roe could not be decided that way…because the right to** life **is a greater right than the right to privacy.

Let me guess…he was one of the dissenters?

Now almost 40 years later, with advances in medical science, the ability to see into the womb and see a little human, with a heartbeat, limbs, brain…we still say that they can be destroyed?

For one, it didn’t take those 40 years of ‘medical advances’. The monitoring, sure…that’s come a bit of a way since the 50’s, but we’ve known the development order and cycle of a human fetus for centuries.

It is** arrogance **to say it is a human life, yet doesn’t deserve the most basic lhuman right, life. :banghead:

In principle, I agree with you. But the hard-line you’re demonstrating just isn’t pragmatic and it certainly isn’t secular. Unfortunately for you, the majority of people with computers live in countries that are secular and therefor must be pragmatic - which likely means you live in one of those countries.

I just don’t see how a Catholic could state that even if the death of the mother is guaranteed, abortion is still not an option. You’re then asking the mother to be complicit to suicide or, essentially, commit it by going ahead with the delivery. I remember learning that suicide is one of the gravest Catholic sins…how do you contend with this?

 

[Cracker_Mom]

Yes - the statement was made that abortion is, by definition, murder. So I posed a series of circumstances which SHOULD spell out how considering a fetus a human person has sever legal implications on a lot of innocent people.

A ‘person’ is more defined by what they’re entitled to under the law. Currently, there’s not much entitlement to fetuses. Clearly, a blatant attempt to attack the fetus (boyfriend maliciously attacks the girlfriend, specifically targeting the womb) or a crime is carried out whilst the attacker knows the woman is pregnant can incur additional charges in the name of the unborn.

Well, we’re not talking about a separate, sovereign entity. As soon as we are, that comparison will fit.

In NAZI Germany, perhaps.

Welcome to the world - ain’t it grand?

Let me guess…he was one of the dissenters?

For one, it didn’t take those 40 years of ‘medical advances’. The monitoring, sure…that’s come a bit of a way since the 50’s, but we’ve known the development order and cycle of a human fetus for centuries.

In principle, I agree with you. But the hard-line you’re demonstrating just isn’t pragmatic and it certainly isn’t secular. Unfortunately for you, the majority of people with computers live in countries that are secular and therefor must be pragmatic - which likely means you live in one of those countries.

I just don’t see how a Catholic could state that even if the death of the mother is guaranteed, abortion is still not an option. You’re then asking the mother to be complicit to suicide or, essentially, commit it by going ahead with the delivery. I remember learning that suicide is one of the gravest Catholic sins…how do you contend with this?

More silliness. Laying down your life for another is a heroic virtue, not suicide.