C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
Linux
Have you forgotten that you once lived inside your mother?
Or was that somebody else?
Have you forgotten that you once lived inside your mother?
Or was that somebody else?
- Status
L
Linux
Guest
We can change that when you provide genuine evidence to the court that a foetus has a personal soul.
They have the legal right to destroy a foetus. They don’t have the legal right to kill a person.
I think the issue is more complex than that. The state does not believe it has the right to legally enforce a religious understanding of human nature on society. It does not think that it has the right to criminalise people as murderers merely on the basis that you believe a foetus has a personal soul.
I agree. I don’t want any religion to be forced on me.
L
Linux
Guest
I know that a foetus was inside my mother which became a person. That’s as far as the evidence can go on this issue.Linux
Have you forgotten that you once lived inside your mother?
Or was that somebody else?
L
Linux
Guest
An infant is legally a person. It has the characteristics of what is generally thought to be a personal being living outside of his or her mother. It also goes against the pragmatic goals of the state to deny the person-hood of infants.
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
Linux
“I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody who asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect. Similarly I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy. In purity and holiness I will guard my life and my art.” Hippocrates, a Greek physician (not a Catholic!)
We can change that when you provide genuine evidence to the court that a foetus has a personal soul.
Not everyone believes in the soul. But everyone believes in DNA. The DNA that was inside your mother’s womb is the same DNA you are carrying around today. You were a human being inside your mother, as you are a human being outside your mother.
Do you deny this?
“I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody who asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect. Similarly I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy. In purity and holiness I will guard my life and my art.” Hippocrates, a Greek physician (not a Catholic!)
We can change that when you provide genuine evidence to the court that a foetus has a personal soul.
Not everyone believes in the soul. But everyone believes in DNA. The DNA that was inside your mother’s womb is the same DNA you are carrying around today. You were a human being inside your mother, as you are a human being outside your mother.
Do you deny this?
E
estesbob
Guest
In short an infant is a person because you say it is. The unborn are not because you say they are not. More circular reasoning.
As far as Pragmatism goes the pragmatic thing to do would be to kill the children of all those living in poverty I am sure we come twist the definition of human life to make this legal.
R
Rolltide
Guest
You could just as easily legally and pragmatically argue that an infant isn’t legally a person. You can’t prove it has a personal soul or that it is a “personal being”. Didn’t you JUST use that as your test for the personhood of a fetus? If not, then what’s the difference? You could also argue that an infant can’t survive on it’s own (without outside help), that at least until around the age of two, or that it doesn’t even have the mental capacity of a chimpanzee or dolphin. If it lacks the ability to communicate, has an underdeveloped short term memory, poor coordination, etc., then what’s the harm in killing an infant? They’re not a fully developed human either. The only difference is that we can physically see one with our eyes, and the other is hidden behind about three inches of flesh.
R
Rolltide
Guest
It’s worth mentioning that the exact reaction you’re getting on this board… the one that you would find among the nearly 50% of Americans do not support or even fathom your argument… THAT is why abortion laws could very easily change in this country. Your position is FAR from obvious, settled, or definitive.
T
TimothyIgnatius
Guest
Forgive me if I am mistaken, but wasn’t the Church traditionally more liberal-leaning up until the Roe v Wade decision? Isn’t there a possibility that the conservatives used this to their political advantage by turning over faithful Catholics and Christians to their side specifically because of this issue?
I’m far from an expert, but the Democratic party seems infinitely more inclined to pass laws that are compassionate. The Republican party seems more interested in manipulating people to keep the status quo. Just my opinion. Personally I think both parties are corrupt to the core, but Republicans are slightly more-so. Just slightly.
I’m far from an expert, but the Democratic party seems infinitely more inclined to pass laws that are compassionate. The Republican party seems more interested in manipulating people to keep the status quo. Just my opinion. Personally I think both parties are corrupt to the core, but Republicans are slightly more-so. Just slightly.
L
Linux
Guest
That’s what you would do because that’s how you define the pragmatic goals of the state. And anyway, the conservative party is already getting rid of the poor by not providing them proper health care and putting profit before the needs of the poor. And this abortion issue is just another shameful ploy to justify the ever growing gap between the rich and the poor.
L
Linux
Guest
L
Linux
Guest
Assertion, ignoring context.
The state follows a different criteria for judging what is and what is not a person. Its **not **the Catholic criteria.
I never provided a test for person-hood. I merely pointed out that the state uses a different criteria for judging person-hood, and it is essentially not Catholic in nature. If you cannot prove that a foetus has a personal soul then there is no good reason for the state to acknowledge your criteria for judging person-hood.
You have wilfully ignored every argument I have given. That’s the only reason you don’t understand it.
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
Linux
I never provided a test for person-hood. I merely pointed out that the state uses a different criteria for judging person-hood, and it is essentially not Catholic in nature. If you cannot prove that a foetus has a personal soul then there is no good reason for the state to acknowledge your criteria for judging person-hood.
You keep making this a Catholic issue, when it is really a common sense issue. People should not be killing their children before they are born. Forget about this “soul” business. We are talking about a human being, such as you were in your mother’s womb …
I never provided a test for person-hood. I merely pointed out that the state uses a different criteria for judging person-hood, and it is essentially not Catholic in nature. If you cannot prove that a foetus has a personal soul then there is no good reason for the state to acknowledge your criteria for judging person-hood.
You keep making this a Catholic issue, when it is really a common sense issue. People should not be killing their children before they are born. Forget about this “soul” business. We are talking about a human being, such as you were in your mother’s womb …
L
Linux
Guest
The state uses a different criteria for judging person-hood, and it is essentially not Catholic in nature. If you cannot prove that a foetus has a personal soul then there is no good reason for the state to acknowledge your criteria for judging person-hood.
R
Rolltide
Guest
Not at all. I promise that I haven’t willfully ignored your argument. I’ve considered it from both a religious and secular viewpoint, and it is simply not logical to me. I can honestly say that I don’t understand how people hold such an opinion, except out of selfish convenience. The fundamental problem is that you have a totally different worldview, and that’s something we won’t solve on this discussion board. You’re the modern equivalent of a Sophist, espousing the famous words of Protagoras, “Man is the measure of all things”. In other words, there is a sort of pragmatic moral relativism. Catholics (and a great many other religious and non-religious people too) are more in line with Socrates, who based his entire career on debunking that assertion of Protagoras. He argued that there is a sort of absolute morality, and that certain things like murder were always wrong, even if the entire society believed otherwise. Nevertheless, Protagoras and Socrates were both basically secular philosophers, demonstrating that this is an argument that dates back thousands of years and is not based on religion.
R
Rolltide
Guest
Well… how did the state, in it’s infinite wisdom, come up with their arbitrary criteria? Is that absolute, or can it change?
It vaguely reminds me of the old Star Trek: The Next Generation episode “Half a Life”.
E
estesbob
Guest
Actually your “arguments” have been addressed and systematically dismantled by just about everyone in this thread. You continue to make flat out wrong assertion about church teaching, continue to claim the basis for the legality of abortion is the fact it is legal and insist people rely on an artifticial contract of human life with you claim is “personhood”
L
Linux
Guest
You are the one that is making assertions here. My argument is clear and irrefutable.
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
Linux
**You are the one that is making assertions here. My argument is clear and irrefutable. **
Over and out!
**You are the one that is making assertions here. My argument is clear and irrefutable. **
Over and out!
R
Rolltide
Guest
It is hardly irrefutable. In fact, the fact that almost half of society disagrees with you would lend quite a bit of doubt to your argument. It’s not like this is geocentric vs. heliocentric theory, where you have scientific evidence to prove your point. Instead, you’re starting with an objective assertion that cannot be proved by anyone except philosophically. The only two arguments are either that out of an abundance of caution, you must respect human life from the moment it is conceived to avoid committing murder, OR that sometimes, it is better to terminate a pregnancy because the societal problems end up being too great (regardless of the status of the fetus/embryo). These are both purely philosophical and secular in nature. The Catholic Church does take an official position on one of these positions, however. The government happens to currently allow the other, and like in any democracy, could change that opinion at any time to whatever the majority agreed with.
- Status