Abortion

[Guest Aluigi]

I'm not even gonna say nuthin...

[Guest Tudie]

After reading the entire thread on carrdero's musings on when life begins, I have to ask one question. Once this life has begun in the womb consisting of the 23 chromosomes of the mother and the 23 chromosomes of the father, who has the right to snuff this life out? In most cases, the conception has come about because of the misuse of the conjugal act which belongs only to marriage. If a married couple decides to terminate the life they have begun with the procreative act, they must ask themselves why they are married. We know that John the Baptist was infused with the Holy Spirit in utero, and that St. Elizabeth recognized the divinity of Our Lord in utero. We either believe sacred tradition and the Holy Scriptures or we don't. There is no debate if we dabble in the realm of relative truth or ascribe to absolute Truth. We are not on a level playing field. Abortion is a coward's solution. Christians who agree to this dance with the devil want to dispose of the "problem". The truly Christian response is to give the woman an alternative which would preserve the unique life within her. We would rally around her and help her as biblical society took care of widows and orphans. We would decry the irresponsiblilty of the sperm doner who impregnated her. We would seek to preserve her from the barbarism that allows a procedure that butchers her baby in order to eradicate the blatant abuse of sexuality which has violated humanity for the past 30 years. Clearly, abortion is the work of satan, himself.

[Fiat_Voluntas_Tua]

It was Dr. Seuss who said so perfectly:

"A person's a person, no matter how small."

Does a cake that is just put into the oven contain the same ingredient's as one that is taken out of the oven?

Isn't a tadpole's life the same as the frog it become's?

Does not a butterfly have the same life as the caterpilar it once previously was?

Doesn't a child that is just conceived contain the same kind of spiritual soul as one that is just birthed?

Doesn't a child that is just conceived contain the same kind of DNA as one that is just birthed? (I know that each person's DNA is different)

Isn't a human a person no matter how small?



With Charity and hope for the end of the Culture of Death,

Andy

[HartfordWhalers]

[quote name='Luthien' date='Sep 27 2004, 07:46 PM']Death is not the same as murder.

Murder is the taking of a life.

Death is the body dying.

God only has the right to take life.

We have no right to take it, and God does not use us to kill.[/quote]
This will probably be considered hijacking this thread, but it has pretty much been beaten to a pulp anyway...

We DO have the right to kill in certain circumstances, but we NEVER have the right to murder (abortion is always murder, and murder is always wrong). Now, as far as killing is concerned. The Council of Trent tells us we can kill in 4 circumstances: we can kill animals, we can kill in self-defense, we can call in a (just) war, and we can kill as a means of capital punishment. In addition, accidental killing is not a sin. Here is what the Council says:

[quote][b]The Prohibitory Part of this Commandment


Exceptions:


The Killing Of Animals[/b]

With regard to the prohibitory part, it should first be taught what kinds of killing are not forbidden by this Commandment. It is not prohibited to kill animals; for if God permits man to eat them, it is also lawful to kill them. When, says St. Augustine, we hear the words, "Thou shalt not kill," we do not understand this of the fruits of the earth, which are insensible, nor of irrational animals, which form no part of human society.


[b]Execution Of Criminals[/b]

Another kind of lawful slaying belongs to the civil authorities, to whom is entrusted power of life and death, by the legal and judicious exercise of which they punish the guilty and protect the innocent. The just use of this power, far from involving the crime of murder, is an act of paramount obedience to this Commandment which prohibits murder. The end of the Commandment­ is the preservation and security of human life. Now the punishments inflicted by the civil authority, which is the legitimate avenger of crime, naturally tend to this end, since they give security to life by repressing outrage and violence. Hence these words of David: In the morning I put to death all the wicked of the land, that I might cut off all the workers of iniquity from the city of the Lord.


[b]Killing In A Just War[/b]

In like manner, the soldier is guiltless who, actuated not by motives of ambition or cruelty, but by a pure desire of serving the interests of his country, takes away the life of an enemy in a just war.

Furthermore, there are on record instances of carnage executed by the special command of God. The sons of Levi, who put to death so many thousands in one day, were guilty of no sin; when the slaughter had ceased, they were addressed by Moses in these words: You have consecrated your hands this day to the Lord.


[b]Killing By Accident[/b]

Again, death caused, not by intent or design, but by accident, is not murder. He that killeth his neighbour ignorantly, says the book of Deuteronomy, and who is proved to have had no hatred against him yesterday and the day before, but to have gone with him to the wood to hew wood, and in cutting down the tree the axe slipt out of his hand, and the iron slipping from the handle struck his friend and killed him, shall live. Such accidental deaths, because inflicted without intent or design, involve no guilt whatever, and this is confirmed by the words of St. Augustine: God forbid that what we do for a good and lawful end shall be imputed to us, if, contrary to our intention, evil thereby befall any one.

There are, however, two cases in which guilt attaches (to accidental death). The first case is when death results from an unlawful act; when, for instance, a person kicks or strikes a woman in a state of pregnancy, and abortion follows. The consequence, it is true, may not have been intended, but this does not exculpate the offender, because the act of striking a pregnant woman is in itself unlawful. The other case is when death is caused by negligence, carelessness or want of due precaution.


[b]Killing In Self­Defence[/b]

If a man kill another in self­defence, having used every means consistent with his own safety to avoid the infliction of death, he evidently does not violate this Commandment.[/quote]

Edited September 30, 2004 by HartfordWhalers

[Fiat_Voluntas_Tua]

True Hartford... a child in a mother's womb is not in an animal, not a criminal, not in a just war, and not going to intentionly kill someone (even though a birth may cause death to the mother, the child is not on the 'offense'...) I would guess we both agree with this.

With Charity,

Andy

[carrdero]

[quote]The Council Of Trent says: It is not prohibited to kill animals; for if God permits man to eat them, it is also lawful to kill them.[/quote]

Actually it is humans who permit humans to eat other entities. The choice to consume any entity out of need of nutritional value often results in violent death (this also includes cannibalism). GOD understands that we need food to survive but if humans didn’t ever K(NOW) GOD, humans would eventually have figured out that this was humankind’s only way for survival and would have realized that they did not need GOD’s “permission”.

[quote]The Council Of Trent says: When, says St. Augustine, we hear the words, "Thou shalt not kill," we do not understand this of the fruits of the earth, which are insensible, nor of irrational animals, which form no part of human society.[/quote]

It is apparent that the Council Of Trent doesn’t seem to understand the vital role that other entities (plants, insects, mammals, fish) play in human society. Nor do they seem to grasp the fact that GOD embraces/observes/considers plants, insects, mammals, fish on equal terms with all other living things (including humans). Animals can display (unconditional) LOVE, can feel pain and sadness and are sometimes more rational/spiritual and better behaved than most humans. Plants also have an essential PURPOSE not only to their own lives but to human lives as well as other physical entities, even though they are incapable of screaming when picked/cut/pulled from their habitat they are not to be considered insensitive life-forms.

What murder or death basically comes down to is choice-our choice. Not GOD’s choice, not Satan’s choice but our choice.

DO YOU WANT TO MURDER?
Some people say only if they had to.
Some people say that yes, they are capable.
Some people say that some people deserve it.
Some people would rather not murder.
Some find other creative ways to release their murderous intentions.

IF YOU DO NOT WANT TO MURDER –THEN DON’T DO IT!!!
If it is within your means and it is something that you personally detest then DON’T DO IT.
If you do not want to go to jail and/or ruin your social reputation then DON’T DO IT.
If you are engaging in an activity that may eventually lead to the act of murder then DON’T DO IT.
If you have a fear of GOD and/or do not want to bring reproach to your relationship then DON’T DO IT.
If you feel that all life has dignity and worth then DON”T DO IT.

I personally choose not to murder simply for the reason that I cannot find the time to devise a plan for my own living let alone find the time to devise a plan for someone else’s death. Also the judicial consequences of murder in this society do not appeal to me. Am I capable of murder? Everyone is capable of murder. Do I desire to murder? No.

The fact of the matter is that murder happens. Murder happens frequently, murder is permissible not only in this country but in others. Everyone has tried to stop it, nobody has succeeded. There are people who promise security from murder but cannot deliver. Most people yell “pro-life”, “pro-life”, detest the act of murder then demand capital punishment all in the same breath. Where do you think murderers come from? I can assure you they do originate from aborted fetuses.

So is abortion murder? Is murder wrong? Murder is one of the many ways to exit a physical existence. “Everyone dies, everyone has to go out of this physical existence some way. This is a TRUTH and I challenge anyone to PROVE this TRUTH false. If you do not UNDERSTAND this TRUTH about death there is no way you will UNDERSTAND the other two TRUTHS about death. There are no guarantees to LIFE, no promises. Whether you die 2 months in the womb from abortion, whether you choke on food when you are four, whether you die of suicide at age 19, whether you die in a natural disaster at the age 28, whether you die in a car accident at 41, whether you die of a disease at 58 or whether you die a peaceful death in your bed at 71, you are going to die. There is no cowardly way out and there is no noble way to die. Even if GOD thought that murder was wrong and resurrected you the minute after a violent murder took place there are still over 14.678 other ways to leave this physical existence.

This is what society seems to be doing by placing moral or amoral judgments about death. They are trying to reduce our chances of dying by implicating manmade legal laws or defining Divine Law. We may design all the legal and Divine laws we wish, we are not going to abolish death or death through murder. It probably isn’t a good idea to try to justify murder either. What is a just reason for one person is an unreasonable excuse for another. Society has a strong tendency to desire to want to be right all the time. When it comes to understanding death there is no “taking away” or “loss” that many people seem to propose. Death is death no matter how you try to understand or justify it.

Edited September 30, 2004 by carrdero

[Craftygrl06]

I don't know if someone already memtioned this because i didn't read every single post however i find it interesting that if someone kills a pregnant woman the can be charged with double homocide but when it comes to abortion it's just tissue? Strange how we can make such a distinction so that we can make ourselves feel better about doing what we want to do...In sympathic situations where a pregnant mother is killed we immediately want the worset punishment for the killer but when the mother is the killer we look the other way because it's her choice it's her body...unfortunately your body is not entirely yours God made you so it is His as well.

[toledo_jesus]

carrdero equates plants and animals with humans. this is uninformed. While all life surely comes from God, it also surely suits God's purpose.
We can eat meat. We also can eat plants. God has given us permission to do so, from the beginning we were able to eat plants, from the flood we have had explicit permission to eat animals.

How does this relate to abortion? Quite simply, it does not. Carrdero attempts to equate the killing of an animal with the murder of a human being. True, we should be kind and loving even to the lowliest of God's creatures, for cruelty is not a virtue. Neither should we attach any undue status to the creatures of this world. If an insect stings you, kill it. If a dog has rabies and is a danger, kill it. If a group of people needs to eat, find a cow, milk it, then kill it. I could go on, but suffice it to say animals are not humans, and should not be accorded the same status. To argue that all killing is murder is baseless and ignorant, because we have scriptural backing for the consumption of other life forms.

Abortion is wrong, no question, as it is the extinguishing of a human life. We are not cattle, nor are we plants. We are made in God's own image. We are His most prized creation. He sent His only Son to redeem us, because He loved us. It insults the majesty of God and the weight of His sacrifice to equate a chicken with a man. Just as it insults Him to slaughter our own young as if they were so much poultry. :angry:

Edited September 30, 2004 by toledo_jesus

[Mary's Knight, La]

Crafty, that's why the law allowing it to be considered double homocide is considered a dangerous step by most pro-abortion people

[Mary's Knight, La]

Dairy, as to what do we say to those who don't consider it a baby:

science has a wonderfully effective way of classifying things, people, etc... it's determined by their parts in the case of humans all their parts have DNA available, not only do all parts of a human have DNA but all parts of the same human have the same DNA. It has also proven that while it isn't necessarily true that two parts having the same DNA belong to the same person (identical twins have the same DNA i think) it is true that two parts having different DNA belong to different humans assuming both dna strands are human.

The seperate DNA of the child means the child is not the mother, so now we come to the question of what is the child? The child has DNA so we can restrict our search of what the child can be to those things that have DNA. then looking at the DNA we are left with the only possibility that the cells are human. Now we are left with, 1 are they living? 2 are they the full human

1 is a no-brainer the cells do all the things live cells do

2 it's an odd quirk of life that I am where my body parts are unless somehow (through loss) i have body parts in seperate locations, the same for the baby, unless those cells are a discarded part of the child then they are where the child is because the child is nowhere else but it is there

i admit #2 is a little convoluted but i think just the DNA stuff will answer your question

[HartfordWhalers]

[quote name='Craftygrl06' date='Sep 30 2004, 05:59 PM'] I don't know if someone already memtioned this because i didn't read every single post however i find it interesting that if someone kills a pregnant woman the can be charged with double homocide but when it comes to abortion it's just tissue? Strange how we can make such a distinction so that we can make ourselves feel better about doing what we want to do...In sympathic situations where a pregnant mother is killed we immediately want the worset punishment for the killer but when the mother is the killer we look the other way because it's her choice it's her body...unfortunately your body is not entirely yours God made you so it is His as well. [/quote]
I think they explain that by quoting from Roe v Wade that says that they did not know at the time for sure whether or not the embryo or preborn baby is actually a baby. Therefore, since we don't know which way (according to the Supreme Court), if a person does not think that it is a human, then he is not charged this way, but if someone kills the baby of someone else, which person may think the baby IS a person, then he should be charged based upon the person who was murdered. Moreover, if a person kills another, he clearly has a disregard for life, so even if the person were considered to be alive in his mind or in the State's he would not have ceased to commit the crime either way... of course, it is absurd to say that the human baby is not a human just because he is inside of his mother's womb.

[White Knight]

Abortion is no different, than walking up to a child in a craddeal, and shooting them with a Ak-47 (Russian Rifle); its Murder Plain and Simple, its a Sin, its terrible, its crusome, its wrong, and I believe the CHurch will put a stop to this, with the power of God, through us, I believe it will happy very soon, I believe ABortion will become illegal with 2 years. Anything is possible.

God Bless You All.

[HartfordWhalers]

I wasn't saying that abortion is not murder, if that was directed toward me (but I assume it was in general)

[Fiat_Voluntas_Tua]

Mother Mary...Pray for Them and Us!

[carrdero]

[quote]Toledo_jesus writes: True, we should be kind and loving even to the lowliest of God's creatures, for cruelty is not a virtue.[/quote]

Lowliest? This statement carries shades of discrimination and LOVE being dispensed out of pity. I do not think GOD has a list of creatures that are cataloged from superior to inferior. Anyone who thinks that GOD favors one entity over another TRULY does not K(NOW) GOD. Anyone who thinks that GOD “looks down” upon human society does not TRULY K(NOW) GOD.

[quote]Toledo_jesus writes: I could go on, but suffice it to say animals are not humans, and should not be accorded the same status.[/quote]

Yet humans at many times act like animals and animals sometimes act better than humans so what exactly is the status quo that you are basing your judgments on? And do we have the right to judge? That is what this whole debate is about.