Abortion

[Socrates]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='Sep 25 2004, 05:40 PM'] Those other arguments being that some would say no soul at all. And some would say a smaller sin, but not murder. These then possibly allowing in order to allow the moral to legally accept other's morals even that conflict with ours. [/quote]
The whole idea of pro-life legislation is that protection of innocent human life is the most fundamental order of law. That is why abortion has been illegal in this country until 1973. Either all innocent human life is worthy of legal protection, or it is not.

Your pluralistic argument, allowing for different "moralities" is a weak one. What if my personal "morality" declares some people (say "Jews" for instance, to use a Nazi "morality") to not have souls, and therefore my killing of them would not be "murder." I know this example is rather outrageous, but it makes the point that legal protection of all human beings is the only non-subjective grounds for protection-of-life laws.

Total subjectivism leads to moral anarchy and ultimately to a "survival of the fittest" legal code, in which the whims of the politically strong will be imposed on the politically weak (or voiceless).

All major monotheistic religions (Christian, Jewish, and Islamic) have universally regarded abortion as an abomination, until the late 20th century. This goes back to Old Testament Jewish law.

[Oik]

[quote]Here is the science of the situation with no spins or forced deductions. A sperm and an egg combine. It is growing. It has its own unique DNA. It is not part of the mother, it is its own person.[/quote]

Straight up and right on.

[quote]Philosophically speaking anyone can argue that the baby does not have a soul. You can't logically force this onto a person without some assumptions that can only be held on faith.[/quote]

Dairy, time for some Oxford-English dictionary for you:

[b]SOUL:[/b] "The principle of life in man. The principle of thought and action in man, commonly regarded as an entity distinct from the body; the spiritual part of man in contrast to the purely physical."

Baiscally, the soul is what animate man. Nothing is animated or alive without a soul.

[dairygirl4u2c]

socrates. I acknowledge that can be taken too far. There is a time for setting a standard. go back and read my first post. Your example may not be the same as this situation. If you think it is, that is your perogative. I am also questioning whether or not it's not different. If it is, I'm wondering what should be done. Because if this was the case, you example wouldn't be analougous. It seems your assuming what I'm trying to figure out in the first place. Go back and read my first post and make sure to read the one a couple up. Then get back with me.

oik.
[quote]SOUL: "The principle of life in man. The principle of thought and action in man, commonly regarded as an entity distinct from the body; the spiritual part of man in contrast to the purely physical."

Baiscally, the soul is what animate man. Nothing is animated or alive without a soul. [/quote]

Are these meant to follow or are they two separate thoughts?

And if they're two separate thoughts why the first one? If you want me to know what you mean when you say a person is alive, then that's nice, I'm glad we have that cleared up. I don't see what purpose it serves the discussion though. And your own definition says the soul is regarded as separate from the body. It does not say that all living things have souls, if it did you'd have a reason for posting it. And it still can be argued from this definition that the a baby may not have a soul.

And if the first thought is independent from the second one, what is your point in saying the second? Unless you're implying that plants or red blood cells have souls etc? Regardless you're still just making statements.. you're not justifying your conclusions.

Or are the thoughts suppose to logically follow? After showing me the definition of soul, how does your conclusion follow? It seems you're trying to disagree with me, but I'm not following you anyway I look at it. You need to clear it up for me.

Edited September 26, 2004 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

Since I don't think anyone will do it. I'll cut to the chase of what you should be saying to me. You should be saying that you regard not allowing for the morals of others as the moral thing to do. It's your plea for objective truth. (jeff said this once and it's really all you can say) But that is all you can say. Beyond this anyone is free to disagree. You can't logically force this value one anyone that I can see. Even if someone were to be prolife personally you could not necessarily force that one them either. But this is why I am here by the way, to discuss this as it applies to abortion. I might regard abortion as separte from the other laws where I do allow for other's morals. we shouldn't be arguing about the allowing for other's morals. We should just accept that I'm going to allow for others morals and then argue with me to see if abortion should apply or not. Again that is why I am here. And to see if what I am saying right now in general of this post is all it boils down to. I was hoping to see more.

Edited September 26, 2004 by dairygirl4u2c

[azaelia]

Why is it that people have closed minds and open mouths?

[carrdero]

[quote]Theoketos writes: I think that the Body is the temple of the Holy Spirit, and thus every part of us belongs to Him. [/quote]

What helps me to understand the human entity is that I identify it as a piece of space (land). But it is the only real physical property that we can actually call ourselves. I liken the human body as a house, a sometimes comfortable shelter a sometimes burdensome weight (I am, of course talking about waking up and aging), with utilities that are free but you still have to keep them up (I believe we all “renovate”). I don’t think that an honest soul encased in a human shell belongs exclusively to GOD or any one entity, I sincerely believe it belongs to everyONE-even through death.

[Oik]

Dairy, you aren't reading. Agina, my post is totally relevant.

As for you keying in on the whole idea of my definition, please read what it says.
[quote]And your own definition says the soul is regarded as separate from the body.[/quote]
They soul is identified as being different from the body for obvious reasons, mainly because is it. People speak of thier body parts seperatly. My teeth are in my mouth, but my teeth are not my mouth. Please stop attacking my logic and read.

[quote]Are these meant to follow or are they two separate thoughts?[/quote]

When people post different lines in the same post, that is an indication that it is one thought with many points or parts.

[quote]I don't see what purpose it serves the discussion though.[/quote]
The points is that human beings are not alive with out a soul, because the soul is what animates the body. Since I already established that you can scientifically prove that a human being is alive and present at conception (fertilization or when egg and sperm meet), I have already shown that the soul is present.

[quote]I might regard abortion as separte from the other laws where I do allow for other's morals.[/quote]

First, I don't but into relativism. There is no way to practice it. In relativism, one individual has to compromise to satisfy other individuals, so no one really ever practices what one really wants to. People choose to "re-define" what is means to be moral, that is really irrelevant. There is only one True set of morals. All others are inadeqaute. There is only Absolute Truth and people decide to practice it at varying degrees.

[quote] we shouldn't be arguing about the allowing for other's morals. We should just accept that I'm going to allow for others morals and then argue with me to see if abortion should apply or not.[/quote]

In this thread, we all made this allowance, however, in the pursuit of Truth, relativism has been struck down to show that only one view in this issue is possible.

Basically, to argue, with the marvels of modern science, that a human being is alive and encoded with all possibilities, but does not have a soul is ludicris. A human being can not be alive with out a soul because the soul is what animates the body. Your own words:
[quote]Here is the science of the situation with no spins or forced deductions. A sperm and an egg combine. It is growing. It has its own unique DNA. It is not part of the mother, [b]it is its own person[/b].[/quote]
A person, but no soul? Prove to me that a human being can be alive with out a soul.

[Socrates]

Dairygirl, no offense, but I'm having a lot of trouble following what you are trying to say. You seem to be saying that while you are personally pro-life, the humanity of a fetus is questionable and a matter of faith, so therefore we should not impose our "morals" on those who diagree with us. Am I correct in this, or did I misread you?

I, along with others, are arguing that the humanity of human fetus is established beyond reasonable dispute, and that laws should reflect this.

The growing acceptance of euthanasia and "mercy-killing" is an outgrowth of the pro-abortion mentality that rejects the idea that all human life is sacred and should be protected. Human life may be killed if it is inconvenient for us. This is the "culture of death" the pope talks about.

If morality is totally subjective, and no one can "impose his morality" on anyone else, why have laws at all? By this logic, everything and anything should be legal.

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote]If morality is totally subjective, and no one can "impose his morality" on anyone else, why have laws at all? By this logic, everything and anything should be legal. [/quote]

I'd argue that objective reality does exist. I'd argue that it is beyond us to say what it is absolutely. Now, even if even if everything happens in a subjective manner from people like me, that doesn't mean we'd all of the sudden not make laws or make everything legal. For one, subjective beliefs are still beliefs and can make laws to implement them. And as far as the making everything legal, I'm not sure why your first paragraph seems to have good grasp on my idea, but this sentence makes me think maybe you don't. If you think there's a place where we are not seeing eye to eye on what we are even talking about, then bring it up, because I'm not sure why you're still saying this. But in response to that making everything legal.

[quote]You seem to be saying that while you are personally pro-life, the humanity of a fetus is questionable and a matter of faith, so therefore we should not impose our "morals" on those who diagree with us. Am I correct in this, or did I misread you?[/quote]

I actually am not sure what stance to take personally or for society. What I am arguing though, is that having faith that the baby is a baby doesn't mean you have to disregard any ideas that it might not be when the disputes are reasonable to you. For example, I can believe in Jesus but acknowledge that I can not really prove his divinity and shouldn't expect others to believe because I can see reasonable beliefs from people who don't believe. That kind of faith to me is real. I would not be closing off the reasonable ideas of others because if it goes against my faith.

And with this in mind, I would never regard letting someone kill others who are born or letting people do whatever they wanted when it harms other people. I can make this statement because I believe these are beyond "reasonable" dispute. Again, if you think the personhood of the baby is beyond reasonable dispute, I accept your stance that you will be against it. I am arguing that with my idea of real faith, maybe it's not beyond reasonable dispute.

I realize as Catholics you should do what you're told, but I want you to respond to me with more than just because. If it's a simple difference in values or just because that you might have in dispute with someone who believes what I just described as far as abortion goes, then just admit it and we'll be done. No one is adding to this any new ideas so it looks like there is not much more to say as far as this thread is concerned.

Edited September 27, 2004 by dairygirl4u2c

[Socrates]

Okay, you seem to agree that it should be illegal to kill human beings.

Let me simplify things by asking: If the unborn human baby(fetus/embryo) is not a human being, what is it? I've given some basic reasons why it is. (Note that I have not said it is human because the Church says it is, as you seem to claim.) You have not given any explanations as to why it may not be human, other than that some people say it's not. (The only reason people say it's not is to justify abortion.)

Again, pretty much everyone (not just the Catholic Church) agreed that abortion is killing until the sexual revolution of the sixties, when people wanted to justify permitting immoral actions.

You have yet to give a scientific reason why the unborn baby is not a human being.

Edited September 27, 2004 by Socrates

[dairygirl4u2c]

Well, I did make a few implied cases where I mentioned it. But you are right that I didn't focus explicitly on the issue enough. I suppse I was focusing too much on explaining why I think it is moral to consider other's morals because I don't think too many people understand that concept. I actually invented the words "moral to consider.. etc" though admittedly not the concept, and since language plays such a large role in the way people percieve, I just wanted to elaborate. But considering the magnitude this issues brings that you bring to light, that was pretty shaddy of me.

I'm not sure you really have ground to say that everyone prior to the.. etc everyone believed that. You are probably looking at the fact that it was illegal, and that was largely because of a religious country we have. It doesn't mean everyone believed it. Aquanis Augustine etc. (though admited no sicence) didn't see it the same way you do. Other people still struggled with the issue, and had abortions or even wondered about it, I'd be sure. Though I admit I don't have grounds to say these "other people" did but I can say what you said is a generalization, which generalizations usually don't work. (how's that for a generalization! )

You ask the question "what else can it be?" First I want to say again, that by asking the question you asked is not answering it. But it is good you asked to get some info out of me.

You say what else can it be? That seems to be a loaded question. Of course it is human in genetic make up etc. I hope you are not being sarcastic thinking I am saying it is a dog. That argument gets old fast because it's a total play on words used by the inexperienced. But it can still be cells which grow into a human in the full sense. You'll ask when? And I might conjecture that well reasonably not there... not reasonably there.. and so we'll have to cut it somewhere in the reasonably section.

also. Now the cells at early age are just like normal body cells. This is why people often times say it's only the potential to be a human. But it does have its own dna and it is growing. But it's still just like normal body cells. A part of me sees some reason to the dispute the humanity in every sense of the word of the baby. It's a matter I really don't know how to look at but have biases toward saying that it is in every sense of the word human perhaps even to the point to put to rest my notion of "moral to consider..." argument as far as abortion goes.

Edited September 27, 2004 by dairygirl4u2c

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

Why are "normal body cells" not human?

[dairygirl4u2c]

Again, I just want to note that by asking, you are not answering. But the question is good for further analysis.

If someone wanted to play that game, then they have that choice. But I could not reasonably subscribe to relating to that notion that we are just cells. So I would not stand for it. Again, if you wanted to say a baby is a baby without a doubt then I understand.

The cells of the baby are just like or a lot like (maybe some science buffs can help me out here as this is a point that needs elaborated on) normal body cells of a person, so I can possibly reasonably see saying they are just cells.

[Guest Aluigi]

i'm just a clump of average ordinary human cells just like that baby. if it should be legal to kill that fetus, it should be legal to kill me.

[Guest Aluigi]

by the way, in asking that question, he means to assert the idea that those normal body cells are human. the question might have thrown you off.

anyway, something that is growing into a more developed human being must be considered a human being. i am currently growing into a more developed human being, you are currently developing into a more developed human being, a fetus is currently developing into a more developed human being. it contains all of the information which will develope it. it is not going to receive information from an outside source, every aspect of it from the moment of conception comes from within. its eyecolor is determined, its physical attributes are all developing from within from the information contained within the sperm and within the egg.