| to oppose abortion.
Posted: 6/7/2007 6:36:45 PM |
anything that has consciousness needs to be respected to some degree.
How is consciousness measured?
If by brain activity, then folks on the operating table are fair game for harvest, by having plant status that is.
I'm just using the artificial argument to demonstrate that God's hand isn't apparent until the soul actually appears.
Are you making a claim that God has a hand in it? That's really some incredible act of individual intervention from the hand of God. Not to mention, you claim it to be a soul instead of the pinnacle of the evolved brain capable of conscience thought and reason on this planet. | |
|
| to oppose abortion.
Posted: 6/7/2007 6:47:08 PM |
How is consciousness measured?
If by brain activity, then folks on the operating table are fair game for harvest, by having plant status that is.
Folks on the operating table still have brain activity.. otherwise they would be declared brain dead.. and in that case.. yes, they would be fair game to be put to rest.. unless their family has need for the vegetable as it is. But that in my opinion is an immoral.
Are you making a claim that God has a hand in it? That's really some incredible act of individual intervention from the hand of God. Not to mention, you claim it to be a soul instead of the pinnacle of the evolved brain capable of conscience thought and reason on this planet.
I'm only using the terms God and soul in order to talk in a language you can understand. My definition of God is that which we do not know. And my definition of a soul is the conscious self identity of an organism. | |
|
| to oppose abortion.
Posted: 6/7/2007 8:59:31 PM | I love this.......
30% of the children in the USA are uninsured.......
Election GOP talking points!!!!!!!
Abortion.....Gay rights.......Military gays.........FLAG......
FLAG or FAG.......Killing babies.
The GOP debate Abortion........
MEN instructing women what is moral.......
No man should have any voice in this issue...... | |
|
| to oppose abortion.
Posted: 6/7/2007 10:49:04 PM |
No man should have any voice in this issue......
This is where it gets tricky in mho. Since it takes both a man and a woman to create a fertilized egg, an embryo, a potential child, should a man have the right to go to court to stop a women from having an abortion if she is carrying his potential offspring ?
It's the woman's body, but sperm that was needed to create the fertilized egg, does the man have any legal claim to the fertilized egg, embryo, potential child since the fertilized egg contains part of him ?
If the fertilized egg was allowed to develop into a child, the male would have legal rights once the child was born, so does the male have no rights to his offspring until the offspring leaves the mother's womb ?
What if the man was told the odds were a million to one he could father a child but he beat the odds and impregnated a women, his one chance to have an offspring but the women wanted an abortion ? | |
|
| to oppose abortion.
Posted: 6/8/2007 8:24:50 AM | Here is my take on it. It should be ultimately up to the pregnant woman as far as the choice of an abortion goes since it's her body. The father should not have a legal ability to force a woman to have an abortion.. or force her not to have an abortion even if it's a "one-in-a-million" thing. ( Once the fetus has some kind of conscious self identity after the first trimester, that should be weighed into the legal ability to have an abortion as well. )
However, constitutionally the father should probably have the ability to disown the child legally if he so chooses and that would involve giving up all possible future legal custody or visitation or child support responsibilities. It would be like the father is giving it up for adoption. It would have the same effect as legally being able to force the mother not to have the child when it comes to his future legal responsibilities for a child. This would discourage abortion in favor of adoption and should probably be a topic of a new thread as far as the advantages and disadvantages to society. | |
|
| to oppose abortion.
Posted: 6/10/2007 3:43:15 PM | I was just pointing out that there is no arguable case for the existance of a soul until there is consciousness and self-identity. If there is no soul, there is no evidence of "God".. especially if man (not God) created the original embryo in the first place.
voice of reason,
i know that people have souls because there are miracles attributed to various saints...who are in heaven.
at what point the embryo's soul is present in the womb is an unanswered question at this point...its probably up for debate obviously...but it doesn't change the fact that embryos do have souls. what i find fascinating is that humanae vitae stated life was present at conception well before it was proven as scientific fact. life is considered present at conception. humanae vitae stated life is present at conception, in 1968. which was 25-30 years in advance of that being proven as scientific fact. which is why once that was proven, abortions performed after 3-4 months became harder to get. also this scientific fact is the reason people are anxious to get the ru486 pill or the morning after pill. they want to beat the sperm to the formation of life and perhaps to minimize the suffering of the child embryo if they delayed the abortion. they probably figure it will be less painful for the child and the mother.
is "voice of reason" doubting that humans have souls to begin with? Please respond to this question.
also, 'voice of reason' is making an unreasonable argument when he decides to throw out catholic teaching on abortion in this thread, or any debate on a prolife abortion issue for that matter. what he calls 'faith' is in actuality, catholic teaching, catholic teaching should play a part in the debate on abortion at the court level, however on the personal level, as an individual, faith definitely plays a part in the decision to abort or not. catholic teaching should not be discounted. other religions...ok they should be discounted, but not catholic teaching. faith should not be discounted as it most definitely does play a major part in one's decision to abort or not.
voice of reason, if you believe that humans have souls, and you were to come to believe that embryos have souls, then what would your new stance on abortion be? | |
|
| to oppose abortion.
Posted: 6/10/2007 4:19:02 PM | | Actually, until the 19th Century, Catholic teaching was that the soul entered the human body during birth. That's what Thomas Aquinas thought and it was accepted by the Church. It was an argument over caesarian section births that lead to the current teaching. | |
|
| Abortion & Politics
Posted: 6/10/2007 8:39:29 PM | | I would GLADLY vote for a canidate who said that they favor a women's right to choose without softening it with "I don't personally believe in abortion...". It will never happen in the presidential election because it is votes that count, not principles. | |
|
| Abortion & Politics
Posted: 6/10/2007 9:26:16 PM | csk
what if the candidate 'softened' their stance by saying, i wouldn't choose abortion for myself. would you still object? its as if you are saying i won't vote for a candidate who doesn't drink alchohol...and i won't hire a person who doesn't drink with my drinking buddies...
are you saying that political candidates don't have a right to their own free choice, but other women do?
that is what you are sounding like.
i think a person 'who doesn't personally believe in abortion' means that she would not have one herself. i dont' see why that should qualify her for office. in fact, i think it might disqualify her if she did it for political reasons. gotta hide the evidence of out of wedlock baby...oooo
so, are you saying that only women who have had abortions and men who have encouraged/coerced a wife or girlfriend to abort his own flesh and blood are electable?
would you seriously want to elect a man who encouraged coerced cajoled his fwb gf to get an abortion so that he could run for elected office at some future date without having to deal with the shame and risk his own personal reputation. that just stinks in my book and he would not be electable for that very reason. it just proves he would abuse his power and run people over if it was politically expedient. i would wonder what other things he has tried to cover up. | |
|
| to oppose abortion.
Posted: 6/10/2007 9:30:25 PM | Actually, until the 19th Century, Catholic teaching was that the soul entered the human body during birth. That's what Thomas Aquinas thought and it was accepted by the Church. It was an argument over caesarian section births that lead to the current teaching.
halftime dad
are you catholic?
i see you are from england, so i am not sure if your telling the truth or not. england has a 500 year history of lying about catholics and catholic teaching and anything involving political/territorial issues when it relates to catholicism or anyone who is catholic. i've been studying up on you guys. :D | |
|
| to oppose abortion.
Posted: 6/10/2007 9:59:53 PM | | I don't even know where to begin. I'm Canadian. And everything I stated is public record. Look at what Aquinas said about it, that's easy enough. | |
|
| Abortion & Politics
Posted: 6/10/2007 10:42:10 PM | i think a person 'who doesn't personally believe in abortion' means that she would not have one herself. i dont' see why that should disqualify her for office. in fact, i think it might disqualify her if she did it for political reasons. gotta hide the evidence of out of wedlock baby...oooo
in msg #84, this sentence should have said: i don't see why that should DISQUALIFY her for office.
i don't think a candidate should be disqualified if he/she takes the position that he/she personally would never get an abortion, yet is pro choice. i think there is something wrong with someone who thinks only a woman who would get an abortion or has had one is worthy of being elected for political office. if you were truly pro-choice then you wouldn't find it objectionable to elect this type of person. time to go back and rethink your true position on your pro- 'choice' stance. you're not pro life and you're definitely not pro-choice. | |
|
| Abortion & Politics
Posted: 6/11/2007 10:34:02 AM | I confused about this issue.
_They say abortion is murder and/or a Sin.
_The same people who are against this particular "sin" abortion, have a strong belief in Fornication, sex between a unmarried couple (another sin).
Am I missing something here??? | |
|
| to oppose abortion.
Posted: 6/11/2007 12:52:38 PM | the soul enters the body at conception
that is evident from scripture.
refer to luke at the time of the holy spirit conceiving jesus in mary's womb.
she immediately went to visit elizabeth, her cousin who was 6 months pregant with john(the baptist)
upon arrival john leapt up in his mother's womb at the approach of mary's visitation. the child recognized the presence of God in mary. the soul was active and alive in john at 6 months and he recognized the presence of the Lord as an embryo. if neither of these embryos/fetuses had souls, they would not have recognized each other. it was pretty obvious to elizabeth that mary was blessed with the presence of the lord in her womb as merely an embryo.
so there
i answered it myself
the mystery of the visitation proves that at conception, embryos have a soul. god proved it. and john the baptist, the 6 month fetus, proved he had a soul and jesus, the embryo, had a soul.
Luke 1:35 -42
And the angel said to her in reply, "The holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. Therefore the child to be born will be called holy, the Son of God.
And behold, Elizabeth, your relative, has also conceived a son in her old age, and this is the sixth month for her who was called barren;
for nothing will be impossible for God."
Mary said, "Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord. May it be done to me according to your word." Then the angel departed from her.
During those days Mary set out and traveled to the hill country in haste to a town of Judah,
where she entered the house of Zechariah and greeted Elizabeth.
When Elizabeth heard Mary's greeting, the infant leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth, filled with the holy Spirit,
cried out in a loud voice and said, "Most blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb.
And how does this happen to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?
For at the moment the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the infant in my womb leaped for joy.
Blessed are you who believed that what was spoken to you by the Lord would be fulfilled."
And Mary said: "My soul proclaims the greatness of the Lord;
my spirit rejoices in God my savior.
| |
|
| Abortion & Politics
Posted: 6/11/2007 1:00:53 PM | Actually, until the 19th Century, Catholic teaching was that the soul entered the human body during birth. That's what Thomas Aquinas thought and it was accepted by the Church. It was an argument over caesarian section births that lead to the current teaching.
thomas aquinas was mistaken and so are you. | |
|
| Abortion & Politics
Posted: 6/11/2007 1:02:47 PM | | Aquinas and Roger Bacon were the two great minds of the Middle Ages. Now I know I'm not as smart as Aquinas, and I'm betting you aren't either. So you might very well be wrong. | |
|
| Abortion & Politics
Posted: 6/11/2007 1:12:31 PM | aquinas was from the 13th century. not sure of bacon.
aquinas is considered a doctor of the catholic church.
aquinas is the one who attempted to formulate and organize the teachings of the church into a philosophical framework, using the teaching methodology of aristotle, plato and socrates. he gave us the first catechism.
i do not worship philosophers as you do.
for the limited science of the 13th century, which was primitive or rudimentary, at best. aquinas got as close to the truth as he could get for the time in which he lived. babies have souls. i just proved embryos have souls using the bible. how science will prove this..i have no idea. most scientific breakthroughs come from scripture anyway.
aquinas was not a scientist. he was a philosopher and logician.
interestingly enough, a catholic priest was the first geneticist. but, if you want to get technical, jacob of the bible was.
| |
|
| Abortion & Politics
Posted: 6/11/2007 1:26:10 PM | | Sorry, this is a philisophical question. And a theological one. Lets assume that Aquinas knew the Bible just a tad better than you or I. He came to a conclusion that you didn't. I'm going to bet on the faster horse in this race. | |
|
| Abortion & Politics
Posted: 6/11/2007 1:46:36 PM | Sorry, this is a philisophical question. And a theological one. Lets assume that Aquinas knew the Bible just a tad better than you or I. He came to a conclusion that you didn't. I'm going to bet on the faster horse in this race.
the faster horse would be me...
you should stop making irrelevent and invalid arguments that have nothing to do with abortion today--june 2007.
amazing how illogical and unreasonable those who claim that everyone should rely on reason and logic alone reach false conclusions.
Remind me, what does the Bible say about vanity again?
halftime dad, it says its a chase after wind....this horse ran faster than the wind, with a little help. i'm sure aquinas would be proud of me. i am positive there is a lot of cheering,clapping and laughing in heaven right now. | |
|
| Abortion & Politics
Posted: 6/11/2007 1:49:52 PM | Remind me, what does the Bible say about vanity again?
And to respond to your edited post: The argument boils down to where the fetus is human. For you it's at conception because by your theology that's when the soul enters the body. That's not logic. I'm pointing out that you could be mistaken, since the great theologian of your church felt otherwise. | |
|
| Abortion & Politics
Posted: 6/11/2007 2:11:27 PM | And to respond to your edited post: The argument boils down to where the fetus is human. For you it's at conception because by your theology that's when the soul enters the body. That's not logic. I'm pointing out that you could be mistaken, since the great theologian of your church felt otherwise.
well,
halftime dad,
i'm glad you brought that up
you see,
if you put together a human sperm and human ovum and they crash into each other and fertilize, the result would naturally be a human fetus. not an alien from outer space or from tv. not a monkey or an ape, not a salamandar or alligator with clock. rather, it would be a human. this would not be classified as theology, this would be classified as logic and scientific fact. it is genetics.
so to answer the burning question, which many have:>>>yes. fetuses are indeed human. | |
|
| Abortion & Politics
Posted: 6/11/2007 2:16:15 PM | Uh, uh. But when 2 cells divide into 4, by my definition of human, that's not it. At some point well before 40 weeks it is. But I don't know where to draw the line. For you it's easy and black and white. For Aquinas it was easy and black and white. For me it's not.
edit: For Aquinas I'm sure it wasn't easy. I apologize to his legacy. Everything he wrote was well and carefully reasoned. | |
|
| to oppose abortion.
Posted: 6/11/2007 2:19:19 PM |
the soul enters the body at conception
that is evident from scripture.
What some don't know is that the birth control pill sometimes (rarely) allows an ovum to get fertilized, it just doesn't allow it to attach to the uterus. In light of that, people who believe the above quote should not use the pill, if they want to be consistent in their principles.
In any case, the above quote is a belief, not a fact, and personal beliefs and their resultant principles should not be legislated on a free populace. To answer the OP, I don't believe a president has much power over the number of abortions that take place, so, no, his or her stance on the issue is not a big decider for me. | |
|
| Abortion & Politics
Posted: 6/11/2007 2:19:56 PM | I don't buy the premise 'it's a woman's body and she can do with it whatever she likes' as a blanket solution.
Reason:
Except in the cases of rape (and if the guy wants to admit and take responsibility for this crime and the consequences...then, let him step forward)... the man has a right to have a say so if his unborn kid is going to be killed and the right to show just cause why the abortion should not take place and allow him to raise the child.
If we are going to (and we should absolutely) prosecute men for using their penis as weapons/creation in the cases of assault/rape versus love making, then a woman's uterus (once impregnated) should be considered a weapon/vessel in regard to abortion versus sustaining life. | |
|
| Abortion & Politics
Posted: 6/11/2007 2:34:57 PM | Uh, uh. But when 2 cells divide into 4, by my definition of human, that's not it. At some point well before 40 weeks it is. But I don't know where to draw the line. For you it's easy and black and white. For Aquinas it was easy and black and white. For me it's not.
well, i don't know if this will help. god did say "be fruitful and multiply." so its not beyond reason to me that the whole mystery of genetic science is actually revealed in the first few chapters of the book of genesis.
i don't know if you took biology or science but we learned about dna in a catholic high school and i also went to college at a public university majoring in biochemistry my first year.(I actually wanted to be a mad geneticist splicer and dicer.) the 23 chromosomes of the sperm and the 23 chromosomes of the ovum...unite to form 46 chromosomes...a unique and complete human person with their own identity and characteristics. as soon as that combination meeting is complete, the growth process occurs immediately with multiplication and division very rapidly and continuously. (even now, cells within your body are multiplying and dividing. living and dying. sloughing off. recreating themselves)
this multiplication and division is the process of differentiation into the various pieces of the human body. spine, arms, legs, hair, eyes, ears, the nervous system.
that zygote has no choice but to be fruitful and multiply into the individual human it has been been catalogued as to become. it cannot change its hair color or eye color. it has no control over what color its eye or hair color will be, how tall it will be, etc. this was determined by the 1 lucky sperm of millions of a single man, who, in one expedition, determined to crash the castle of the ovum.
i understand your uncertainty, because i was uncertain myself until i started reading this thread and finding the illogical fallacies.
the catholic church has not, to my knowledge, taken the position that the soul is present at conception. it did take the position that life is present at conception. but i think that if i wrote a letter to the pope that the soul is present at conception, using the mystery of the visitation as the revelation, then he would agree with my conclusion and probably start writing about it, announcing and teaching it. | |
|
Home
login 
