Why do some Catholics support legal abortion?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Charlemagne_II
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Adolphus_WC said:
People debate when the life is considered a Human Being rather than a potential human being
Click to expand...
If I were a hunter (which I am not) and I and my friend Sam was out in the woods hunting.

And we saw something stir up a head but could not tell if it was a person or if it was a deer.

And we even quietly debated back and forth …he thought it was a person but I thought it was maybe a deer …

And I decided to go ahead and shoot.

Well even if it turned out to be a deer – I would have done very wrong.

For I shot what was a “potential person”.

One must not shoot in such a situation.
 
Adolphus_WC said:
There is life before conception. The sperm is alive, the ovum is alive. People debate when the life is considered a Human Being rather than a potential human being and whether a woman can be forced to grow a human being that she doesn’t want.
Click to expand...
Very true. Sperm and Ovum are alive and this life has been known for many years now.
And for as long as we have understood DNA, we have known that the union of the two results in a unique organism, distinct from mother or father, but carrying the same genetics to mark it as human.

It is not potential, it is.
Further growth is potential, but the fact of human does not change.
 
Adolphus_WC said:
When this life is a human being is what is debated. It is not debatable from a Catholic perspective. It is debatable from a secular one. It is debated and will continue to be debated.
Click to expand...
No, it is fact that the life is a human being.
That others wish to turn a blind eye towards the fact does not in any way diminish it.

There is no real debate to be found. There are those that wish to support death and destruction, those that oppose that death, and a large number that are ignorant of the facts.

Anyone provided the facts and an understanding of these facts that believes there is debate to be found of the legality of killing the unborn child is in dire need of our prayer.
 
Adolphus

**It is debated and will continue to be debated. **

There is no debate among biologists, who ought to know, that a distinct new creature is created in the womb by the fusion of the mother’s and the father’s DNA.

The only debate carried on by some who don’t want to see the truth is whether the new creature deserves to be called a human being. And exactly what else could it be if not human?
 
Charlemagne_II said:
Adolphus

**It is debated and will continue to be debated. **

There is no debate among biologists, who ought to know, that a distinct new creature is created in the womb by the fusion of the mother’s and the father’s DNA.

The only debate carried on by some who don’t want to see the truth is whether the new creature deserves to be called a human being. And exactly what else could it be if not human?
Click to expand...
Again - the sperm is alive, the ovum is alive. When they join life is still there. It doesn’t disappear and reappear. That isn’t what is debated. The woman has rights, what are the rights of the developing life. Do they supersede the rights of the woman. That is what is debated.
 
Charlemagne_II said:
Adolphus

There is life before conception. The sperm is alive, the ovum is alive.

The sperm has only the father’s DNA. The ovum has only the mother’s DNA. A new creature with his/her own DNA does not begin to exist until they are brought together in the womb. This is not debatable.

People debate when the life is considered a Human Being rather than a potential human being …

It is wrong to kill one’s own child … or anyone else’s.

This also is not debatable.
Click to expand...
And yet we’ve spent, what 23 pages of posts debating exactly that issue. What do you think of that?

I think that it is impossible to stifle dissent by attempting to claim dissent isn’t possible. It is not only ineffective it makes one look silly.
 
BillP

**I think that it is impossible to stifle dissent by attempting to claim dissent isn’t possible. It is not only ineffective it makes one look silly. **

Oh, dissent is possible for sure. Nobody is trying to suppress dissent. All that needs to be suppressed is stupidity. 😃
 
BillP said:
And yet we’ve spent, what 23 pages of posts debating exactly that issue. What do you think of that?
Click to expand...
I think that is a testament to dissention against facts.

For it to be a true debate, there has to be a valid alternative view.
There is not.

Abortion is destruction of human life.
That some wish to claim otherwise is not a valid point of view, it is a complete ignorance of the facts.

One may as well claim that Jews, or Muslims, or Blacks, or Hispanics, or any other subset is not really human. It is an ignorance (willing or otherwise) of fact, not a valid debate.
 
vz71 said:
I think that is a testament to dissention against facts.

For it to be a true debate, there has to be a valid alternative view.
There is not.

Abortion is destruction of human life.
That some wish to claim otherwise is not a valid point of view, it is a complete ignorance of the facts.

One may as well claim that Jews, or Muslims, or Blacks, or Hispanics, or any other subset is not really human. It is an ignorance (willing or otherwise) of fact, not a valid debate.
Click to expand...
If I said I had a freezer full of infants you’d call the police. If I said I had a freezer full of frozen embryos you wouldn’t blink an eye.

There is a difference.
 
Adolphus_WC said:
The woman has rights, what are the rights of the developing life. Do they supersede the rights of the woman. That is what is debated.
Click to expand...
A question that ought not ever even be deliberately raised.

One does not play off a little living child against his Mother.
 
Adolphus_WC said:
If I said I had a freezer full of infants you’d call the police. If I said I had a freezer full of frozen embryos you wouldn’t blink an eye.

There is a difference.
Click to expand...
Correct.

Infant refers to a human being that is born.
Embryo refers to the earliest stages of development of human life. Assuming of course you are referring to human embryos and not animal ones.

differences of development do not constitute a negation of humanity.
 
Adolphus

**If I said I had a freezer full of infants you’d call the police. If I said I had a freezer full of frozen embryos you wouldn’t blink an eye. **

Oh, believe it. I would think you creepy in either case! 😃

What would you do with a freezer full of embryos? Roast and eat them? :confused: :eek:
 
vz71 said:
Correct.

Infant refers to a human being that is born.
Embryo refers to the earliest stages of development of human life. Assuming of course you are referring to human embryos and not animal ones.

differences of development do not constitute a negation of humanity.
Click to expand...
It’s disingenuous to speak as if they are the same.
 
Adolphus_WC said:
It’s disingenuous to speak as if they are the same.
Click to expand...
It is just as disingenuous to speak of an elderly man and an infant as if they were the same.

Some wish us to believe that a difference in development constitutes a difference in humanity. It does not.

All of them are human: the embryo, the fetus, the infant, and the elderly man.
 
vz71 said:
It is just as disingenuous to speak of an elderly man and an infant as if they were the same.

Some wish us to believe that a difference in development constitutes a difference in humanity. It does not.

All of them are human: the embryo, the fetus, the infant, and the elderly man.
Click to expand...
👍
 
Adolphus_WC said:
It’s disingenuous to speak as if they are the same.
Click to expand...
So it is disingenuous to equate life with life? Sorry, I disagree. All life is sacred, from conception to natural death. It is disingenuous to be Catholic and espouse a pro-choice/death tolerance, doesn’t matter whether you are American or not. God’s Church has declared it intrinsically evil, the debate is over. It is up to us to figure out how to live life with this truth; and to inform others of the same as God tells us in Ezekiel 3:17-21;

“Son of man, I have appointed you a sentinel for the house of Israel. When you hear a word from my mouth, you shall warn them for me.
If I say to the wicked, You shall surely die—and you do not warn them or speak out to dissuade the wicked from their evil conduct in order to save their lives—then they shall die for their sin, but I will hold you responsible for their blood. If, however, you warn the wicked and they still do not turn from their wickedness and evil conduct, they shall die for their sin, but you shall save your life.
But if the just turn away from their right conduct and do evil when I place a stumbling block before them, then they shall die. Even if you warned them about their sin, they shall still die, and the just deeds that they performed will not be remembered on their behalf. I will, however, hold you responsible for their blood. If, on the other hand, you warn the just to avoid sin, and they do not sin, they will surely live because of the warning, and you in turn shall save your own life.”
 
Adolphus_WC said:
If I said I had a freezer full of infants you’d call the police. If I said I had a freezer full of frozen embryos you wouldn’t blink an eye.

There is a difference.
Click to expand...
Is an older person more human than a younger person?
 
vz71 said:
It is just as disingenuous to speak of an elderly man and an infant as if they were the same.

Some wish us to believe that a difference in development constitutes a difference in humanity. It does not.

All of them are human: the embryo, the fetus, the infant, and the elderly man.
Click to expand...
I agree. Especially from a legal perspective. A adult has legal rights and privileges that an infant does not.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top