Fidei Defensor Posted November 25, 2009 Author Share Posted November 25, 2009 [quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='24 November 2009 - 11:24 PM' timestamp='1259126674' post='2009068'] He doesn't have the internet. [/quote] I don't even think he has a computer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 [quote name='fidei defensor' date='24 November 2009 - 11:28 PM' timestamp='1259126919' post='2009073'] I don't even think he has a computer. [/quote] With him, I can believe it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
add Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 [quote name='fidei defensor' date='24 November 2009 - 10:51 AM' timestamp='1259074275' post='2008527'] It's not a cop out. I have said NOTHING contrary to your position. You have yet to demonstrate how my usage is wrong, other than the popular definition being different. I've already explained my use and have not been deceitful. [/quote] ---------------------------------------------------------- well, you can start with the truthful definition of pro-choice, not some obscure new meaning you made up. [color="#000000"] pro-choice (prō-chois[b]'[/b])[/color] Favoring or supporting the legal right of women and girls to choose whether or not to continue a pregnancy to term. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antigonos Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 Allow me, if I may, to add two more aspects to the question? One, when does an embryo/fetus have full legal rights that are equivalent to those of the persons conceiving/bearing him/her? If we say that the soul enters at the moment of conception, and therefore [i]even[/i] if the fetus is [i]completely[/i] unable to survive outside the womb, his interests are equal to those of his parents, we put ourselves in a very difficult position for reasons I'll discuss below. If we say that once the fetus can survive outside the uterus, he is given full rights, even if his prematurity means that his chances of survival are not equal to that of the mother, whose rights take precedence? Or do we only assume that the fetus is legally an individual from the moment of birth? Second, pregnancy can be dangerous to the mother [about 10 times more dangerous than side effects of the Pill, btw]. If the existence of the fetus causes harm, possibly fatal harm, to the mother, does the fetus' rights as a fully-ensouled human being take precedence even if continuing the pregnancy can kill the mother? [and, coincidentally, probably killing the fetus, depending on the stage of pregnancy when the situation develops] Or are we justified in ending the pregnancy, even in a relatively advanced stage, in order to avoid killing two people by killing one? Must the mother inevitably be sacrificed to the child? Does that not mean that we are giving a potential life more importance than an actual one? What happens when the pregnant woman, as occasionally happens in cases of rape, declares that she will absolutely commit suicide unless the pregnancy is terminated? Do the rights of the fetus take precedence over those of the mother? Even if the fetus is only several weeks old, and not even fully formed as a human being? Further, if we assume that the soul enters at the moment of conception, is it not immoral to have sex when conception cannot take place, since obviously the reason for sex is conception, and, contrariwise, must married couples engage in sex whenever conception is likely to take place, so that no potential fetus is prevented from existing? I know this seems to verge on the absurd, but it is the logical extension of claiming that every joining of egg and sperm is already a complete human being with legal rights equivalent to those of an adult. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fidei Defensor Posted November 25, 2009 Author Share Posted November 25, 2009 (edited) [quote name='apparently' date='25 November 2009 - 06:44 AM' timestamp='1259153049' post='2009169'] ---------------------------------------------------------- well, you can start with the truthful definition of pro-choice, not some obscure new meaning you made up. [color="#000000"] pro-choice (prō-chois[b]'[/b])[/color] Favoring or supporting the legal right of women and girls to choose whether or not to continue a pregnancy to term. [/quote] You're the definition of closed minded. I've explained, MANY TIMES, what I believe it means to truly be pro-choice, that the choice happens before pregnancy. I don't care what the "truthful" definition is. All words have the meaning we give to them. If you have some sort of problem with me, come out with it. But stop accusing me of being deceitful or whatever. I'm ON YOUR SIDE. Just because you live in a word of concrete and unchanging anything doesn't mean I can't be honest with my words and mean what I say. Edited November 25, 2009 by fidei defensor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winchester Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 [quote name='apparently' date='25 November 2009 - 07:44 AM' timestamp='1259153049' post='2009169'] ---------------------------------------------------------- well, you can start with the truthful definition of pro-choice, not some obscure new meaning you made up. [color="#000000"] pro-choice (prō-chois[b]'[/b])[/color] Favoring or supporting the legal right of women and girls to choose whether or not to continue a pregnancy to term. [/quote] It's a rotten euphemism and THE Godless heathen is correct in coopting it. The fact thet you initially responded improperly is clouding your judgement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now