|
|
|
|
|
| Abortion & Politics
Posted: 6/11/2007 3:24:45 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.
halftime dad,
I don't know what will convince you and the rest of the world when life begins...or more specifically, at what point humanity is indwelt with a soul ....all i can do is point out some things.
abraham wasn't quite sure himself that he would ever have a son. him being 90 years old and all, he had good reason to doubt. and he did. he even told god he wasn't sure he believed him.
god assured him that he would have descendants as numerous as the grains of sand (zygotes are smaller) or as numerous as the stars in the sky.
zygotes and atoms and neutrons and electrons are smaller than grains of sand. yet they all have life.
david was in awe of the complexity and intricate organization of god, the master planner, and creation.
"how fearfully and wonderfully i am made. in the womb, you knit me, If I say, "Surely darkness shall hide me, and night shall be my light" --
Darkness is not dark for you, and night shines as the day. Darkness and light are but one.
You formed my inmost being; you knit me in my mother's womb.
I praise you, so wonderfully you made me; wonderful are your works! My very self you knew;
my bones were not hidden from you,
When I was being made in secret, fashioned as in the depths of the earth.
Your eyes foresaw my actions; in your book all are written down; my days were shaped, before one came to be.
How precious to me are your designs, O God; how vast the sum of them!
Were I to count, they would outnumber the sands; to finish, I would need eternity. "
===psalm 139 | |
|
| Abortion & Politics
Posted: 6/11/2007 3:38:35 PM |
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.
The first statement is curious, because the Church's views on abortion are well-known. Maybe it's in reference to the tragedy of miscarriages? The second statement is ambiguous, because life is present in a potted plant, for example.
I don't know what will convince you and the rest of the world when life begins...or more specifically, at what point humanity is indwelt with a soul...
And that's... OK. The rest of the world isn't trying to convince you when life begins. "It's all about freedom, baby, yeah!"
zygotes and atoms and neutrons and electrons are smaller than grains of sand. yet they all have life.
Huh?... you've lost me here. Energy, yes, but life??? | |
|
| Abortion & Politics
Posted: 6/11/2007 3:55:40 PM | 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.
The first statement is curious, because the Church's views on abortion are well-known. Maybe it's in reference to the tragedy of miscarriages? The second statement is ambiguous, because life is present in a potted plant, for example.
hi flyguy, we were discussing the matter of when the soul is infused with the human. "voiceofreason" felt that children in the womb did not have souls. i am not sure if he believes people have souls at all. i do not believe the catholic church came out and said souls are infused at conception. the church has taught life is present at conception. but it has not stated, to my knowledge, that the soul is infused at conception.
a zygote is a fertilized human egg. it has life. i am not sure if i was stretching it when i said atoms and neutrons have life too. i agree that they are energy, but it is possible that they have life too because god is present in all of life. life is not limited to humans only. | |
|
| Abortion & Politics
Posted: 6/11/2007 4:03:00 PM |
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.
You're saying there should morally be cases where a father has a right to say if someone is killed or not??? If abortion is murder, then it should be murder in ALL cases including rape because the "soul" of the baby isn't the one guilty.. it's innocent. So unless you advocate murdering innocent people, then I say you're quite a hyprocrit if you make that acception for rape and incest.
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.
That's ridiculous. If you take the common sense approach as to when a "soul" appears in a fetus right when brain activity begins right at the end of the first trimester, then everyone there is no question of murder when it comes to abortion in the first 3 months. Everyone can freely choose to do it without murdering a soul (pun intended). However this should be discouraged since it is a risky operation to the mother.. and yes if a man is prosecuted for rape and resulted in a woman having to take this risk in having an abortion, he should bear the consequences of the risk he put on her health. If she waits until after the first trimester, it should be murder no matter what unless the mother's life is at risk too.. then it comes down to which life is more likely to be saved if both can't. | |
|
| to oppose abortion.
Posted: 6/11/2007 4:46:19 PM |
i know that people have souls because there are miracles attributed to various saints...who are in heaven.]
You just lost all credibility as far as I'm concerned, but I'll humor you because you did reply to me directly.
humanae vitae stated life was present at conception well before it was proven as scientific fact. life is considered present at conception.
So what if life is present at conception? What's your point? Every cell in our body is "human life". Even a skin cell is human life. Are you going to say we can't go out in the sun because we might get burnt and kill "human life"? lol If your point is that human life "with the potential" of becoming a soul is present at conception, the I can agrue that every cell in your body also has the potential of becoming a human soul. Scientists can already make embryonic stem cells from mice skin cells. Most in the scientific community agrees that human skin cells can eventually be made to do the same thing with enough research. So again, using your logic, we can not go outside because we kill the souls entrapped in our skin! lol This is the danger of defining murder on potential. You open pandora's box and create a bunch of moral dilemmas and make yourself into a hyprocrit.
is "voice of reason" doubting that humans have souls to begin with? Please respond to this question.
My definition of a "soul" is exactly what it is. It is the conscious self-identity of an organism. All sentient life has a "soul". The power of perception by the senses is the "soul". Trying to define a soul as anything more than this or limiting it to sentient human life only is defining it with faith. Using faith in defining anything is very dangerous because it by definition ignores reasoned judgement. Reason ALWAYS wins over faith over time. Never before in history has this not been the case.
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,
I know next to nothing about catholic teaching. I'm not religious. I do not need religion to find happiness (which is the purpose of sentient life). But I do know that organized religion warms up to progress (rationality) over time. From what I know of Catholism, back in the 40's and 50's it defined birth control as immoral or "murder" and now it is generally accepted. Reason won out over faith. It is now even warming up to abortion because it was only a few months ago when the Pope declared that an unborn child does not have to go to hell if it's not baptized. Yes, it's only a first step in morally accepting some forms of abortion, but it's a significent step. Again, reason is winning out over faith. The Pope even acknowledged evolution.
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?
It's not a matter of "faith" or "believing" humans have souls. If you take the literal non-faith-based definition of a soul as I defined above, the human body acquires this "soul" characteristic right around the beginning of the 2nd trimester. Therefore, I'm as anti-abortion as anyone else here in the 2nd and 3rd trimesters and agree it should be considered murder. In the 1st trimester however, the human embryo is nothing more than any other human life growing in the body like a skin cell, an organ or anything else. The only difference is that it has the "potential" to develop a soul in the future. BUT it can be argued any other human life in your body has that same "potential". You can NOT murder something that has only the "potential" to be a soul. Defining murder based on potential or "faith" is a very dangerous road to travel. | |
|
| Abortion & Politics
Posted: 6/11/2007 9:51:07 PM | | The Nazis called the jews subhuman. Abortion "rights" use the term fetus. somehow the fetus becomes a baby upon birth. This is called rationalization. | |
|
| Abortion & Politics
Posted: 6/11/2007 10:25:10 PM | A baby was born at 21 weeks of gestation ... weighing 10 ounces.. born in Miami, FL in 2006.
That means the 'baby' was in the uterus only 5 months. Guess the 'soul' was present even then.
The USA limits the parameters of 'legal abortion at 16 weeks'... think about that...how close that is to a documented case of an actual baby... not just fetus... baby ... born at 21 weeks. My guess is that any abortions taking place even at the legal limits are killing babies...actual human lives.
Canada is even more liberal... for the pregnant woman. Meaning having an abortion here at 16 weeks is very conservative compared to Canada. Reason I bring this up is because several regular Canadian Posters often bring up how liberal and proud of it...they are in Canada compared to the USA.
Oh... here's the link referencing Canada's abortion policies.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Canada | |
|
| Abortion & Politics
Posted: 6/11/2007 10:50:24 PM |
Canada is even more liberal... for the pregnant woman. Meaning having an abortion here at 16 weeks is very conservative compared to Canada. Reason I bring this up is because several regular Canadian Posters often bring up how liberal and proud of it...they are in Canada compared to the USA.
90% of abortions are performed in the first trimester, with just 2 to 3% performed after 16 weeks.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Canada
and the later ones are the result of medical neccesity.
I'm still proud of my county, and frankly I'm glad we don't force women to give birth when they don't want a child.
Before you take the moral high horse, maybe you should ask why your good conservative country pumps out so many teen pregnancy, perhaps your abstinance only aproach isn't work out to well?
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3324401.html
That means the 'baby' was in the uterus only 5 months. Guess the 'soul' was present even then.
She still doesn't have a soul, you don't have a soul, I don't have a soul. The soul arguemen it a silly one, you could claim a person has a soul before they are concieved. You could claim it happens upon errection. It's a meaningless unmeasurable term. | |
|
| Abortion & Politics
Posted: 6/11/2007 11:08:41 PM |
I'm still proud of my county, and frankly I'm glad we don't force women to give birth when they don't want a child.
Before you take the moral high horse, maybe you should ask why your good conservative country pumps out so many teen pregnancy, perhaps your abstinance only aproach isn't work out to well?
I spoke of the liberal atmosphere Canadians here on forums speak of compared to the conservative USA. I didn't demean your Citizens like you did ours. See the difference???
This gets aggravating on this site. Sorry to have to say that. But, do any of you realize how it makes us feel to see the 'veiled' remarks... oh, we aren't against the Citizens...just the Prez and Admin...then, they go on to tell us what all we, as Citizens, do wrong.
As for your reference to teen pregnancies...you might want to compare actual Population Stats for the US versus Canada into the equation. I don't know what the outcome would be and don't care. I didn't attack your Citizens and didn't attack your Politicans. I gave a link and provided facts without going into the gutter to attack Canadians as a people. | |
|
| Abortion & Politics
Posted: 6/12/2007 1:19:15 AM |
As for your reference to teen pregnancies...you might want to compare actual Population Stats for the US versus Canada into the equation. I don't know what the outcome would be and don't care. I didn't attack your Citizens and didn't attack your Politicans. I gave a link and provided facts without going into the gutter to attack Canadians as a people.
I'm looking and looking and looking, and all I can see in your post is an attack on the Canadian liberal atmosphere of Canada and how it effects abortion rates, and in my post you see a statement about how conservative ideals in the United States certainly haven't improved the situation.
So this martyr thing you have going on comes off as pretty sad. Also a little thing about "rates" "rates" usually refer to per capita statistics. As in per person. The statistics control for population. | |
|
| Abortion & Politics
Posted: 6/12/2007 2:02:57 AM | | I have been reading some of these posts, and all I can say is o my god what planet are you from? some of the replies on here, at the end of the day you all have a right to believe what you want, that is called a democracy, freedom of choice, and at no point have you got the right to force what you believe on anyone else. this is one of those arguments that can go on forever and a day, with no side agreeing, Teen pregnancies are on the rise, and in Britain it is the highest in Europe, and the termination rates are high as well, so where are we going wrong? I am a firm believer in the right to terminate, but at the same time, why are there so many terminations? because the morals that used to hold our society together are declining, children as young as 11 having sex, and children as young as 11 having babies when they are little more than babies themselves. Sex has been made fashionable, whether it is through the media through the clothes our children where, they make padded bras and thongs for 6 year olds, but what we as a society are not teaching is consequence and responsibility, Sex isn't fashionable, it is something that is supposed to be intimate, between two consenting adults, who are aware of what the consequences can be and who are taking precautions. Although precautions aren't always 100%, unlike children who don't use any. The right to terminate isn't ideal, but until our society takes a turn around and absence is taught, or the outcome of unprotected sex, not only with an unwanted pregnancy but STDS, there is no other option open. | |
|
| Abortion & Politics
Posted: 6/12/2007 11:22:52 AM |
until our society takes a turn around and absence is taught, or the outcome of unprotected sex, not only with an unwanted pregnancy but STDS, there is no other option open.
I hear you there, Punkinpie74. The only real solution, as I see it, is education. I hate to say it, because it sounds harsh, but I haven't really heard of teen pregnancies being a big problem amongst intelligent, well-educated kids.
That education includes sex education, by the way. I don't know how it is in England, but that sort of thing is very controversial here in the US. The very people who hate the thought of sexually active teens are the ones trying to stifle sex education. Abstinence, while a valid philosophy, is not an effective or realistic one. It is based upon the premise "You'll never drown if you never get in the water." Well, kids get really curious about swimming and water sports; they look like a lot of fun. These adults solely emphasize the negatives, and the kids smell BS. | |
|
| Abortion & Politics
Posted: 6/12/2007 11:25:17 AM |
The Nazis called the jews subhuman. Abortion "rights" use the term fetus. somehow the fetus becomes a baby upon birth. This is called rationalization.
No, that is called faith. Rationalization is when you take faith totally out of the equation. First define what a soul really is. It's when an organism first becomes sentient. Then define murder based on that. You can't murder something without a soul. Something that isn't sentient.
I'm glad the debate now is WHEN should an abortion be legal.. not WHETHER it should be legal. When is the real debate. Those who want to outright ban it after conception or keep it legal in the later trimesters are the ones working on faith and quite frankly should be ignored if you want a reasoned rational conpromise on this issue. | |
|
| Abortion & Politics
Posted: 6/12/2007 12:37:49 PM |
That education includes sex education, by the way. I don't know how it is in England, but that sort of thing is very controversial here in the US. The very people who hate the thought of sexually active teens are the ones trying to stifle sex education. Abstinence, while a valid philosophy, is not an effective or realistic one. It is based upon the premise "You'll never drown if you never get in the water." Well, kids get really curious swimming and water sports; they look like a lot of fun. These adults solely emphasize the negatives, and the kids smell BS.
In the UK it is a controversial subject as well, and that is probably one of the reasons, the rate of teen pregnancy is as high as it is, and also one of the reasons STDS are on the increase with young people. Even though sex education is covered at secondary school it is just the basics and doesn't go in depth, it doesn't teach about unwanted pregnancies or STDs, and you are right in your statement although I am sure it happens but less frequently with those kids who are better educated. and it is the same here, those people who don't like to think that kids and that is what they are is kids having sex are the ones who do not want sex ed taught. by ignoring the problem it isn't going to go away.
When I say abstinence I don't mean never, but not throwing it about like sweets with a different partner everynight, or every couple of weeks, it is not only the responsibility of the school to teach children about sex but that of the parent, to teach them about safe sex and unwanted pregnancies and STDs, the problem is, mixed messages are being sent, the media the film industry the fashion industry all sell sex in one form or another and as I said make it seem fashionable, but on the other hand those who are responsible for our children be that the parents or the education system make sex a dirty secrete something forbidden, so as you say it eve and the forbidden apple. Education is the answer, and being open and discussing with our children the consequences of unprotected sex, and that babies are not little mini mes that can be dressed in all the latest gear, and be paraded like fashion accessories, they are hard work and reliant on you for everything, and don't need a reason to cry. And it is the poorer sections of society that are effected more. And until attitudes change toward sex and the consequences of unwanted pregnancies and STDs will continue to rise. And to me this is what politicians are failing to grasp and are severely underestimating the problem, and by underestimating the problem and failing to deal with it, the rate of unwanted pregnancies and the number of terminations and STDs will continue to rise. | |
|
| Abortion & Politics
Posted: 6/12/2007 3:33:00 PM | By default you tend to get less unwanted teen pregnacies in Canda than the United States.
Reason: That is because those unwanted babies are being killed.
I find it amazing that we give more rights to terrorists (who do not follow the geneva conventions and are in no way inherently protected by constitutional judicial processes, than to our futre generations. | |
|
| Abortion & Politics
Posted: 6/12/2007 3:54:22 PM | I think it's because Terrorists as much as you like to dehumanize them have complex neurological structure and are capable of feeling pain. A cow has more intelligence and capability than a fetus. I don't suppose you think we should provide rights to a cow.
As to the teen pregnancy rate being lower here as a result of abortion... Good! The entire point of having this damned ugly procedure is so pregnancy doesn't end up wrecking a persons life. | |
|
| Abortion & Politics
Posted: 6/12/2007 4:20:46 PM |
I think it's because Terrorists as much as you like to dehumanize them have complex neurological structure and are capable of feeling pain.
You sure about that? | |
|
| Abortion & Politics
Posted: 6/12/2007 4:26:12 PM | | Actually, teen pregnancies that are terminated are included in the statistics. The ready availability of the morning after pill here might have something to do with lower teen pregnancy rates (you don't need a prescription, so you don't need to go to a doctor). Most here think an abortion is a bad thing since it's a last resort, but a necessary evil. And we're all pretty sure that the earlier the better (in terms of the woman, and the later the abortion the murkier the moral ground), so it's easily accessible early. | |
|
| Abortion & Politics
Posted: 6/12/2007 5:22:20 PM | | Abortion is morally wrong and leaves people unrespondible for thier actions, but banning abortion will make it worse, and people will perform abortion in back alley or underground clinics putting the womens life in danger, and therefore it should remain legal to have abortions. Goverment should make discision who lives or dies to begin with. | |
|
| Abortion & Politics
Posted: 6/12/2007 6:25:40 PM | I don't think politicians should be put on the spot over their stance on abortion and there should be no legislated laws concerning this issue. You want an abortion? Go ahead and get one, anytime. However, you must realise that you and your practitioner bear in your consciences the act of murder. As sure as we have souls, we will be held to account in the hereafter for such grave deeds.
As our society becomes more sure of life after death, and it will; awareness that the consequences of our actions during our life will determine the quality of our afterlife will bear on those in the medical profession. Getting an abortion won't be possible because it's against the law but because no one will do them anymore. | |
|
| Abortion & Politics
Posted: 6/12/2007 8:23:27 PM |
I don't think politicians should be put on the spot over their stance on abortion and there should be no legislated laws concerning this issue.
That's like saying there should be no legislated laws for murder. Abortion will always be controversial until there is either a Supreme court ruling or a Constitutional amendment setting a firm line in the sand as to when a fetus is actually sentient enough to be covered under the Constitution. The only exception to this is if there is any "faith" as part of this ruling or amendment. Then (as history proves), it may not stand the test of time and the issue could very well remain controversal until it has a totally faith-free reasoned ruling.
As sure as we have souls, we will be held to account in the hereafter for such grave deeds.
Our "soul" or sentient characteristic is not evidence of an afterlife. Assuming an afterlife is faith. Assuming something specific will happen in the future without doubt is faith. This results in living in the future.. not the present. No one can truly be happy in the present if they live in the future like that. The purest of happiness (the purpose of sentient life) is always found in the present.
As our society becomes more sure of life after death, and it will; awareness that the consequences of our actions during our life will determine the quality of our afterlife will bear on those in the medical profession.
You have a Santa Claus mentality in order to find your morality. You find it through fear and coercion. If you take the time to reason out morality rather than using a middle man master to threaten you, you'll find you can finally be freed of such coercion, sure of your own morality and live a much happier life. Good luck. | |
|
| Abortion & Politics
Posted: 6/12/2007 9:03:10 PM |
You sure about that?
If they didn't you wouldn't bother torturing them. | |
|
| Abortion & Politics
Posted: 6/29/2007 12:33:19 PM | I just want to add my two cents' worth: I am so SICK of this issue!! It does not belong in the political arena. This issue should be discussed among medical personnel who are better qualified to decide whether to proceed with a certain type of abortion procedure or not.
Quite frankly, the "pro-life" movement has lost ALL credibility with me--they went out in full force to support George W. Bush, a murderer and a liar. Bush murdered 150 people in Texas with the death penalty, and murdered over 3000 of our troops in his foolish war in Iraq. That is NOT pro-life, people!! I find that the movement is very hypocritical and fixated on fetuses to the point that they are willing to support someone who kills grown men and women! If someone is TRULY "Prolife" that person should also be against other forms of killing such as the death penalty and useless wars such as the war in Iraq. These same fools also want babies to be born into poverty--they support the kinds of politicians who don't care about babies AFTER they've been born!!
The pro life movement should drop out of politics, and work to support adoption agencies and organizations that assist women who are pregnant who would like to bear their children rather than have an abortion. THAT I can support. People who are genuinely pro-choice have NO problems with adoption agencies or with pregnancy crisis centers that support a mother through the pregnancy. Until the pro-life movement gets the hell out 0f politics and stops supporting dirtbags like Bush and Mitt Romney (that nitwit wanted to bring back the death penalty to Massachusetts, hardly what you would call pro-life!) I want no part of their movement.
I would like to see a movement of those who are sick of the debate push for abortion to be removed from politics and placed in the medical arena where it really belongs. | |
|
| Abortion & Politics
Posted: 6/29/2007 2:55:38 PM | "I would like to see a movement of those who are sick of the debate push for abortion to be removed from politics and placed in the medical arena where it really belongs."
I agree and that's why I started this topic,as for your anti-conservative rant I have to disagree.
The dicussion here has been enlightening and I'm glad the flaming has kept to a minimum. | |
|
| Abortion & Politics
Posted: 6/29/2007 3:47:45 PM | Being conservative and "pro life" are incompatible--conservatives want to kill people with the death penalty, and that's state sanctioned murder. So is that foolish war in Iraq. Innocent civilians have been murdered in that war that isn't doing anything to stop terrorism, not just the troops who are being used as pawns by King George.
My anti-conservative rant is the truth, and the truth hurts! Maybe the pro life movement will one day be an enlightened one in which they work in nonpartisan ways to reduce the abortion rate while also sending a consistent pro life message. The current movement that supports conservative murderers is NOT consistently pro-life! | |
|
|
| Page 5 of 12
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 |
|
Home
login 
