W
whatistrue
Guest
“Brain damaged” does not always mean “dead”. There are thousands, possibly millions, of people with brain damage walking around, talking, earning a living, etc.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
B
BartholomewB
Guest
Why is abortion wrong for the child? Do you really need to ask?as to why abortion is wrong either for the child
J
Julius
Guest
If I had a nickel for every time I heard that line…
Remember guys: Basing personhood on some criteria on a checklist that is determined by the people in power to exclude the “undesirable” group, is Nazi logic. And KKK logic too.
Remember guys: Basing personhood on some criteria on a checklist that is determined by the people in power to exclude the “undesirable” group, is Nazi logic. And KKK logic too.
Last edited:
0
0Scarlett_nidiyilii
Guest
Please explain how brain damage equals death.No I would not but legally the person is already dead and some people could respond with he/she is already dead so what does it matter.
E
Eaglejet23
Guest
Yes dumb question I know but still some people truly believe a fetus is not a human organism.
E
Eaglejet23
Guest
When one is brained their bodies require artificial support to maintain function. If the brain dies then the body eventually dies with it.
E
Eaglejet23
Guest
Oh, you said brain damage I thought you meant brain dead. My fault.
0
0Scarlett_nidiyilii
Guest
Brain damage covers a wide range of conditions from mobility impairments up to and including a flat eeg.When one is brained their bodies require artificial support to maintain function. If the brain dies then the body eventually dies with it.
So at what point do you decide a person is no longer fit to live?
F
Formon
Guest
Blacks were never considered 3/5 of a person.Can blacks be 3/5 of a person?
Is that in your bag of gratuitousness?
F
Fauken
Guest
Blacks were never considered 3/5 of a person.
I believe this is what @goout is referencing.
F
Formon
Guest
I know. But the 3/5 compromise said NOTHING about blacks.
F
Fauken
Guest
Black people may not have been referred to directly by this, but it’s not like there were white “non-freed” persons who would be affected by this. This was made for slaves.I know. But the 3/5 compromise said NOTHING about blacks.
F
Formon
Guest
Yep. Regardless of race.This was made for slaves.
H
heidi_storage
Guest
Neither do newborns, really; they have about as much personality as a potted plant. Now, if you don’t believe that a human being is made in the image of God, then it would make sense to devalue those human beings who have not yet gained (or who have lost) the ability to show reason, fear, love, faith, etc.
H
heidi_storage
Guest
Actually, people often argue that it is better for a child to be killed in the womb rather than born to a life of misery. It’s a lousy argument, in my opinion, but somewhat consistent in that those who support abortion quite often support active euthanasia, as well. If one does not believe that human life belongs to God, then it is fairly easy to say that there’s some point at which expected quality of life is so bad that it’s better for everyone if that life is ended.
V
Victoria33
Guest
Life is treated as disposable, that’s why it is harmful.
I think if more value on life as principle was in society, any society, there would be less strife.
I honestly do think that is part of the problem in inner-cities of the US.
I guess one could say, well, why isn’t that the case in Brazil where abortion is illegal but probably more poverty.
I think if more value on life as principle was in society, any society, there would be less strife.
I honestly do think that is part of the problem in inner-cities of the US.
I guess one could say, well, why isn’t that the case in Brazil where abortion is illegal but probably more poverty.
B
bruisedreed
Guest
Here are a few of my thoughts that might help you think through this yourself, @Eaglejet23. I am opposed to abortion. I believe it is a grave evil. But I disagree with the strategy that is usually taken up by those opposed to it, and that is on display here. We as Catholics need to be more persuasive on this point and try to think outside of the box to persuade others about the truth regarding the dignity of the unborn. This requires real rational engagement with the other person. Implying that the other person is in the company of Nazis and the like will not persuade people.
The unborn child, particularly in the initial stages, is obviously a person in a way completely unlike a grown adult is. We are not in the habit of calling a seed a tree, although the seed and the tree are the same being at different stages in development. To insist that the unborn child is a person, without any qualification or nuance, is just dishonest. Much has been made in recent history regarding the theology of the person on this point: that the person is principally relational being. It is at the center of what it is to be a person that the person relates to others. That is the most marked characteristic of the Triune God; that in the most Holy Trinity the Divine Persons relate to each other with an intentional and reciprocal exchange (relation) of love. This relational aspect of the human person is simply not developed in the unborn child. The unborn seem, on first impression, inert and completely passive. Perhaps on this point @Eaglejet23 you can respond to people by pointing out that the unborn actually do respond to the caresses of their mothers and thus display an elementary reciprocity. I’m not saying the unborn child is not a person, but if the pro-choice person hears you lacking any nuance, they will not take you seriously as an intellectual equal.
Secondly, some people will agree that abortion harms the baby, but they will ask whether is always wrong to do something which harms another. This is a common line of argument. They may agree that abortion is the killing of an innocent, but they may disagree that the killing of an innocent is always wrong. They might respond, for example, by suggesting that the reasons are disproportionately in favor of the mother, since the unborn has no conception of its loss and will experience likely little to no conscious suffering. Last week or so I saw an article written on First Things by a person who claims to be staunchly opposed to abortion, but the article was in serious defense of Truman’s intentional killing of thousands of innocents at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. This is the sort of duplicity that scandalize pro-choice people and lead them to think that it can be just to intentionally kill the innocent.
All in all, I really encourage you to remember the word you originally used: “dialogue”. Dialogue means listening to the other person, and not just looking for a way to rebut everything they say.
The unborn child, particularly in the initial stages, is obviously a person in a way completely unlike a grown adult is. We are not in the habit of calling a seed a tree, although the seed and the tree are the same being at different stages in development. To insist that the unborn child is a person, without any qualification or nuance, is just dishonest. Much has been made in recent history regarding the theology of the person on this point: that the person is principally relational being. It is at the center of what it is to be a person that the person relates to others. That is the most marked characteristic of the Triune God; that in the most Holy Trinity the Divine Persons relate to each other with an intentional and reciprocal exchange (relation) of love. This relational aspect of the human person is simply not developed in the unborn child. The unborn seem, on first impression, inert and completely passive. Perhaps on this point @Eaglejet23 you can respond to people by pointing out that the unborn actually do respond to the caresses of their mothers and thus display an elementary reciprocity. I’m not saying the unborn child is not a person, but if the pro-choice person hears you lacking any nuance, they will not take you seriously as an intellectual equal.
Secondly, some people will agree that abortion harms the baby, but they will ask whether is always wrong to do something which harms another. This is a common line of argument. They may agree that abortion is the killing of an innocent, but they may disagree that the killing of an innocent is always wrong. They might respond, for example, by suggesting that the reasons are disproportionately in favor of the mother, since the unborn has no conception of its loss and will experience likely little to no conscious suffering. Last week or so I saw an article written on First Things by a person who claims to be staunchly opposed to abortion, but the article was in serious defense of Truman’s intentional killing of thousands of innocents at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. This is the sort of duplicity that scandalize pro-choice people and lead them to think that it can be just to intentionally kill the innocent.
All in all, I really encourage you to remember the word you originally used: “dialogue”. Dialogue means listening to the other person, and not just looking for a way to rebut everything they say.
H
heidi_storage
Guest
(P.S. I’ve had three babies, am expecting a fourth. I already feel an intense love for the child squirming around inside me, but this love is not predicated on the child’s personality or abilities. I am not being insulting to newborns when I compare them to potted plants.)
E
Eaglejet23
Guest
Yeah, this was my mistake. I thought you said brian dead, which is when a person is legally dead. However, you’re right in that brain damage doesn’t equal death. My apologies.
H
heidi_storage
Guest
The problem, though, is that there is at least one fundamental, impassable divide: Is Man created in the image of God, and does life belong to God? The answer to those questions vitally affects whether it is ever permissible–even beneficial–to kill an unborn child.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.