what is your belief about pro-life?

  • Thread starter Thread starter water
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
jack_hawkins said:
Originally Posted by jack hawkins
*
So now the fetus is the cause of the disease and therefore should be removed?*Yes that is my exact point. Do you understand now?
Click to expand...
The fact that you’re alive proves that your mother’s obstetrician did not think that way about you when you were just a fetus.
 
Chancellare said:
The fact that you’re alive proves that your mother’s obstetrician did not think that way about you when you were just a fetus.
Click to expand...
I wouldn’t go there if I were you without knowing anything about my life history:thumbsup:
and it hardly applies to what I’m saying anyway (obviously if you consider it)
you can equally say look at the mothers who wouldn’t be here if they hadn’t had abortions in the same circumstances I have described
 
jack_hawkins said:
Huh? It explains nothing
what a leap of presumption
and what a massive non sequitur - condoms = fornication?
HUH?:confused:
Click to expand...
I think Chancellare is carrying through the logic of your analogy.

Since cops need bullet-proof vests as a consequence of their calling to protect and serve, we need condoms as a consequence of …what? Our calling to fornicate?

Of course it’s a non sequitur.

Peace.
John
 
john_ennis said:
I think Chancellare is carrying through the logic of your analogy.

Since cops need bullet-proof vests as a consequence of their calling to protect and serve, we need condoms as a consequence of …what? Our calling to fornicate?

Of course it’s a non sequitur.

Peace.
John
Click to expand...
👍
 
jack_hawkins said:
There’s nothing wrong with righteous anger. I totally agree this is about right and wrong.
There is still a vital difference between the situations - the foetus relies on the mother for life. If the foetus is viable then naturally delivery is an option but if it isn’t then inducing labour is effectively abortion. In actual fact death of the foetus is a side-effect of separating the mother from the cause of her disease.
Killing in self-defence is morally acceptable, agreed???
Click to expand...
The perspective that killing the fetus would be self-defense is very thought-provoking.

If one person were about to kill another, but didn’t intend it or even realize it, is that a case where killing that first person could be called self-defense?

I confess I never considered it. If I witnessed an individual who was unwittingly about to kill someone, and the only way for me to prevent it (for some weird reason) was to kill them, should I?

Comments, anybody?

Peace.

John
 
Imagine a similar situation that might help - a psychotic person is running amok with a lethal weapon
being psychotic, morally he is innocent
and of course if there were any other way to stop him without killing him, it should be done
but failing that, then it would be acceptable to most people to (very reluctantly) kill him

on this basis I would say that abortion (in very limited circumstances) is morally acceptable

that is working with the premises which I presume followed by the church and pursuing them to a logical conclusion
 
john_ennis said:
The perspective that killing the fetus would be self-defense is very thought-provoking.

If one person were about to kill another, but didn’t intend it or even realize it, is that a case where killing that first person could be called self-defense?

I confess I never considered it. If I witnessed an individual who was unwittingly about to kill someone, and the only way for me to prevent it (for some weird reason) was to kill them, should I?

Comments, anybody?

Peace.

John
Click to expand...
Legal definition of Self Defense:
The cases for which a man may defend himself are of two kinds; first, when a felony is attempted, and secondly, when no felony is attempted or apprehended.

1st. A man may defend himself and even commit a homicide for the prevention of any forcible and atrocious crime, which if completed would amount to a felony; and of course under the like circumstances, mayhem, wounding and battery would be excusable at common law. A man may repel force by force in defence of his person, property or habitation, against any one who manifests, intends, attempts, or endeavors, by violence or surprise, to commit a forcible felony, such as murder, rape, robbery, arson, burglary and the like. In these cases he is not required to retreat, but he may resist and even pursue his adversary, until he has secured himself from all danger.

2d. A man may defend himself when no felony has been threatened or attempted: 1. When the assailant attempts to beat another and there is no mutual combat, such as where one meets another and attempts to commit or does commit an assault and battery on him, the person attacked may defend himself, and; 2. An attempt to strike another, when sufficiently near so that that there is danger, the person assailed may strike first, and is not required to wait until he has been struck.

I found none of the above applies to a helpless fetus. So killing a fetus is not within the ambit of self defense.
 
jack_hawkins said:
Huh? Of course you can - it can be demonstrated in the scriptures in fact. What about St Jerome?
OK - try again. As a physician I know condoms prevent the transmission of HIV/AIDS. That’s the scientific truth, unpalatable as it might be.
what secular reasoning?
Click to expand...
There IS no “reliable” way to prevent AIDS - sexually speaking, that is - except for abstinence. They have a tendency to break - and quite often at that. You should know that.
As for your secular reasoning - read your own signature line. It is in STARK contrast with the teachings of the Church - the VERY Church you wish to enter.
And, Again - as for your “righteous anger” - there is nothing righteous about it.
Read your Catechism, study the faith and if you can’t conform to the church and its teachings, I would suggest that your re-think your impending entry into the Church - or put it off until you can overcome your spiritual pride.
 
jack_hawkins said:
Imagine a similar situation that might help - a psychotic person is running amok with a lethal weapon
being psychotic, morally he is innocent
and of course if there were any other way to stop him without killing him, it should be done
but failing that, then it would be acceptable to most people to (very reluctantly) kill him

on this basis I would say that abortion (in very limited circumstances) is morally acceptable

that is working with the premises which I presume followed by the church and pursuing them to a logical conclusion
Click to expand...
There is no imaginable analogy to apply this to a helpless fetus that was in the first place placed there by the actions of 2 adults which were not created by the fetus to begin with. If ever there was culpability as to why the fetus came about in the body of a woman, it is with the 2 adults who brought about the fetus by their own actions.
 
Chancellare said:
There is no imaginable analogy to apply this to a helpless fetus that was in the first place placed there by the actions of 2 adults which were not created by the fetus to begin with. If ever there was culpability as to why the fetus came about in the body of a woman, it is with the 2 adults who brought about the fetus.
Click to expand...
That’s your opinion.
I still favour taking responsibility over a pseudo-spiritual fatalism.
 
elvisman said:
There IS no “reliable” way to prevent AIDS - sexually speaking, that is - except for abstinence. They have a tendency to break - and quite often at that. You should know that.
As for your secular reasoning - read your own signature line. It is in STARK contrast with the teachings of the Church - the VERY Church you wish to enter.
And, Again - as for your “righteous anger” - there is nothing righteous about it.
Read your Catechism, study the faith and if you can’t conform to the church and its teachings, I would suggest that your re-think your impending entry into the Church - or put it off until you can overcome your spiritual pride.
Click to expand...
[sarcasm]TY for both your medical and spiritual wisdom. They are on a par in my eyes, I would humbly suggest.[/sarcasm]
Please don’t give me any more unsolicited spiritual advice. As for pride, I think proclaiming oneself as a “Hardcore Catholic”[sic] fits the bill.
 
Chancellare said:
Legal definition of Self Defense:
The cases for which a man may defend himself are of two kinds; first, when a felony is attempted, and secondly, when no felony is attempted or apprehended.

1st. A man may defend himself and even commit a homicide for the prevention of any forcible and atrocious crime, which if completed would amount to a felony; and of course under the like circumstances, mayhem, wounding and battery would be excusable at common law. A man may repel force by force in defence of his person, property or habitation, against any one who manifests, intends, attempts, or endeavors, by violence or surprise, to commit a forcible felony, such as murder, rape, robbery, arson, burglary and the like. In these cases he is not required to retreat, but he may resist and even pursue his adversary, until he has secured himself from all danger.

2d. A man may defend himself when no felony has been threatened or attempted: 1. When the assailant attempts to beat another and there is no mutual combat, such as where one meets another and attempts to commit or does commit an assault and battery on him, the person attacked may defend himself, and; 2. An attempt to strike another, when sufficiently near so that that there is danger, the person assailed may strike first, and is not required to wait until he has been struck.

I found none of the above applies to a helpless fetus. So killing a fetus is not within the ambit of self defense.
Click to expand...
well these legal definitions are hardly going to apply are they - get real? If you use a legal argument then you have to concede abortion is legal, so your argument fails all ways.
 
Chancellare said:
That’s your opinion too, with the responsibility of failing to establish logical analogy.
Click to expand...
No, just the failure to persaude you, that’s all - big difference.
In any case, it’s a spacious argument to say my position is wrong because you think my analogy’s weak. If you can’t see what I’m getting at I’m clearly wasting my time and need to move the discussion on with someone more capable.
 
jack_hawkins said:
well these legal definitions are hardly going to apply are they - get real? If you use a legal argument then you have to concede abortion is legal, so your argument fails all ways.
Click to expand...
You failed in legal and logical construction. Accept it.
 
Chancellare said:
Your failure to establish logical connection is the big difference.
Click to expand...
We are getting to the playschool stage aren’t we? I suggest growing up and realising you have to make sense for people to agree with you.
 
jack_hawkins said:
[sarcasm]TY for both your medical and spiritual wisdom. They are on a par in my eyes, I would humbly suggest.[/sarcasm]
Please don’t give me any more unsolicited spiritual advice. As for pride, I think proclaiming oneself as a “Hardcore Catholic”[sic] fits the bill.
Click to expand...
So, you will disagree with the Catholic Church - the very Church you are hoping to enter - on grave matter such as artificial contraception and abortion and incur mortal sin?
You will go against God and His Church?
You’re braver than I thought. Then, again, maybe NOT . . .
PS - Maybe the meaning of the term “Hardcore” was lost on your European sensibilities. Here, in America, it just means that you are steadfast in your fervor.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top