AntiAbortion, pro legal abortion

[Winchester]

[quote]If 2 year olds were dying at that age, I would not be for it. This is because two year olds are not to me reasonably disputed. I don't believe your analogy stands. It may to you but I hope my next explanation will say why I don't think it does even for someone who believes the baby is a person by faith.
[/quote]The criteria set forth to make the analogy work weren't mine. You cited embryo deaths in a case for disputed life of the unborn.


I don nto wish to get into a heretic, not a heratic discussion. Many would argue a Catholic could hold Kerry's position and not commit heresy.

What I wish to discuss is believing that one would find what one admits is immoral (in this case, murder) to be a private matter between a woman and her doctor. It is like saying "I believe Jews are human, but their execution is between them and the Nazis."
Not once have I asked about someone who doubts the humanity of the unborn, as your disputable life argument indicates. Explain to me how you would feel murder should be permitted under the law because some people think said murder is not murder.

[quote]I'm thinking you want to discuss how someone can think the baby is a life by faith and still be pro-choice? You want to discuss in general how someone can think this right?
[/quote]
Both are acceptable. However, I believe by science and reason as well.

[quote]the Catholic Church's stance is that the baby is a viable human [/quote]
Wrong. The CC's position is that the baby (unborn, I'm sure we all know) is a human. Viability hasn't a whit to do with it.



[quote]the mother's choice could be above a reasonably disputed life[/quote]
What is a reasonably disputed life? What are your criteria? You obviously are not using a biological definition of "life," since the dividing cells of even the most recently fertilized egg are obviously "alive."

[dairygirl4u2c]

I will not use viability anymore because I see that we're using it differently.


I see that no matter my explanation you will disagree on a rational level.
[quote]What is a reasonably disputed life? What are your criteria? You obviously are not using a biological definition of "life," since the dividing cells of even the most recently fertilized egg are obviously "alive." [/quote]


However, I think it is rational for others to think otherwise. If you do not, then you could not possibly agree. If you could grant for the sake of argument that it is rational for someone to think the unborn at a certain stage is not a human then maybe you might reconsider at least in theory.


Maybe if you thought of it in terms of faith in Jesus. You say you have faith in Jesus but people do not want to impose their faith on others who know the faith. Not believing is a sin of the highest degree right? Even if you can't MAKE them believe, shouldn't it be part of the country government? But yet doesn't the Catholic Church say that you should separate them? (I may be wrong) (maybe just skip this issue)


I only mention this because it is at the heart of the issue.
[quote]The criteria set forth to make the analogy work weren't mine.[/quote]

Here is what you said.
[quote]would you feel comfortable removing the status of human from 2 year olds if they suddenly averaged 60% mortality?[/quote]
I believe your analogy did not stand to someone like Kerry because there is a difference between a 2 year old and the newly conceived. The two year old is not reasonably disputed to Kerry but the newly conceived is[i] based on reason alone[/i]. You'd have to agree that even when you have faith, you can know where your reason ends and your faith begins, correct?

[quote]It is like saying "I believe Jews are human, but their execution is between them and the Nazis." [/quote]
I believe this analogy does not stand for the same reason.


I know you don't agree yet. So here is the core of the issue. Kerry believes the unborn is human by faith. Kerry believes that you cannot reach that descision except by faith. (you have to accept this as a rational decision in order for it to work at least in theory) That means that the only way to decide without using faith is by using reason. Reason alone is not clear. (again you have to accept this as a rational decision in order for it to work at least in theory) [i]Because reason alone is not clear, because he realizes that he might be wrong, he believes by faith that letting them decide is just.[/i]

His faith recognizes the limits of the reason and makes a judgement accordingly to judge allowing others the ability to decide.

So this is the main point: he would have to regard [i]by faith [/i]the freedom of choice above "reasonably" disputed life. He uses reason to acknowledge that he cannot reasonably convince others and he chooses [i]by faith [/i]to let them decide. Again, he recognizes the reasonableness and holds freedom of choice above life that is reasonably disputed.

If you just don't agree then I understand because your posistion would be this: I hold that the life is a life rationally and to think otherwise is tantamount to thinking the sun does not exist. But I grant for the sake of argument (I assume you'd do this) that the life is reasonably disputable and can't think otherwise except by faith. I hold my faith of the status of the life above allowing others the choice in the matter. Even though by reason alone I see that they can reasonably think the unborn is not alive, I believe that the unborn is alive by faith. For this reason I believe my faith should prevail above any notions that they might be right, even though I do recognize by reason that I might be wrong.




Is this accurate? If there's anything that's not please quote it and ask me. Please say yes or not and then explain if no. Also please state Kerry's position as I am making it out so that I understand that you understand.

Edited October 29, 2004 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote]even though I do recognize by reason that I might be wrong.[/quote]
Here is something important I might think. Just to put it in context.

Do you think it's possible for someone who has faith in Jesus to accept the possibility that he might not exist? To accept the possiblity that they might be wrong?


If you say no or yes might make a difference in understanding our stances.

Edited October 29, 2004 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

bump

[Theoketos]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='Oct 28 2004, 09:33 PM'] Here is something important I might think. Just to put it in context.

Do you think it's possible for someone who has faith in Jesus to accept the possibility that he might not exist? To accept the possiblity that they might be wrong?


If you say no or yes might make a difference in understanding our stances. [/quote]
Dairy you are blessed with a sense of honesty.

Winchester and you have been doing a good job debating with charity, and did not think it approperiate to do much then sit on the side lines,

but now

I think that it would be good to pharse the question differently.

If it could be unequivocally proven that Jesus did not exsist, then a truly formed conscience would demand that the truth be followd.

However, this will never happen, and can know this by reason and by faith.

So I think that I can accept if I see proof then I must act with prudence, but this different then having faith in Christ, who might not have exsisted. That sounds like agnostisism, with is contrary to faith.


Ave Maria

James III

[Winchester]

[QUOTE]However, I think it is rational for others to think otherwise. If you do not, then you could not possibly agree. If you could grant for the sake of argument that it is rational for someone to think the unborn at a certain stage is not a human then maybe you might reconsider at least in theory.

[/QUOTE]
I can see someone doubting the humanity of a being they cannot see. But their limitation does not revoke the right of that being to life. you have failed to demonstrate how the rights of the mother to terminate the allegedly disputable life within her supersede the rights of the allegedly disputable life within.

I posit that with our current knowledge, it is not reasonable to doubt the humanity of the unborn at the moment of conception, when all DNA points to human. A person ignorant of these facts could be held reasonable in their doubt. If one is going to proffer the idea that humanity is in doubt at a stage, then one must offer the reasons behind such a position. You have not done this, unless I have missed it.

Confronted with African pygmies, one who had never before seen such a human may well reasonably come to the conlcusion that the pygmie is not human. Certainly if one were confirmed in this belief, the culpability for mistreatment would be reduced if not totally mitigated. But would you seek to protect wrong acts under the law because of the ignorance of a person, or would you seek to veducate the person about the human dignity of pygmies?

[QUOTE]Maybe if you thought of it in terms of faith in Jesus. You say you have faith in Jesus but people do not want to impose their faith on others who know the faith. Not believing is a sin of the highest degree right? Even if you can't MAKE them believe, shouldn't it be part of the country government? But yet doesn't the Catholic Church say that you should separate them? (I may be wrong) (maybe just skip this issue)

[/QUOTE]
I shall not skip it, because it is so grotesquely distorted that it must be put out of its misery. I cannot force someone to believe in Christ. Very well. But if their lack of faith inspires them to kill people, then I shall have to step in. Lack of belief is internal, murder is external. D&C gives the target no choice in the matter, while proselytzing involves the choice of the target to succumb or resist.
The CC doesn't ask for separation of Church and state. In facat, she calls it fatal. This is not peculiar to the Roman Rite.

[QUOTE]I believe your analogy did not stand to someone like Kerry because there is a difference between a 2 year old and the newly conceived. [/QUOTE]
There is also a difference between a 2 year old and a 15 year old, or a 30 year old. What difference are you citing that makes humanity a given for one and absent for the other? Is it the ability to scream which makes one uncomfortable? I can tell you it is far easier to be in the presence of a dying fetus inside the womb than in the presence of a dying child of 6 months, but if lack of comfort with the death of the subject determines humanity, then lawyers are up the creek.

[QUOTE]The two year old is not reasonably disputed to Kerry but the newly conceived is based on reason alone. [QUOTE]
Am I to take it that emotion plays a role? It is not reason alone. Science is involved as well.

[/QUOTE]I believe this analogy does not stand for the same reason.

[QUOTE]
And that is? I have nothing concrete. I can assume the ability of the victim to look you in the eye ,eans something for the victim's humanity. That's emotional. I don't think any reasonable human being should allow emotion to determine the legal right to kill a segment of the population in an unavoidable stage of life.



It is not by faith alone that one arrives at the humanity of the unborn. It involves science. Have you heard of atheists who oppose abortion? I have. It's good science. Now, if one has the guts to say the unborn are human but being helpless haven't a right to life, then I applaud them as honest and brave, while acknowledging their Luciferian evil for what it is.
How is it reasonable to dispute the humanity of the unborn? This is not demonstrated.

[dairygirl4u2c]

I wanted to give this sometime to sit before responding. I thought it would be the charitable thing to do.


[quote]It is not reason alone. Science is involved as well.[/quote]
First I want to say that when I say reason that involves reason. I understand what you meant though, you're basing your perspective on more than just speculating with reason but on hard data that has gone through the scientific process. It seems that this data can be interpreted and someone could reasonably disagree with you.

But anyway, you are saying that it is not rational to think the unborn could never be not human. I can live with that.

It seems that you should be mad at Kerry, then, because he's lying. He's thinking it is a matter of faith.

It doesn't seem that you should be mad at the theory that Kerry has. (remmebering not talking about as a Catholic because as one he can'tthink this) Because in theory he has not contradicted himself.

Two examples quickly to justify. The one where you might admit that your faith might be wrong, but belive it anyway, and then allow others to do their own thing based on the fact that you want them to have the choice. And another idea is that you allow no notions whatsoever that your faith is wrong, but still realize it's your faith and that you want them to have the choice in deciding. I do not see how in theory that is contracdictory.

Anyway, you should be mad at him for lying and not what was originally mad at him for if I understand you correctly?

[Mateo el Feo]

Dairy,

Regarding your quote from the pro-life website ("studies indicate that up to 80% of conceived embryos naturally fail to implant."). The original quote was actually:
[quote]"Opponents state that studies indicate that up to 80% of conceived embryos naturally fail to implant."[/quote]
Either way, I followed the links. The statement is still just hearsay, and it looks like the website author thought it was hearsay, too. I still doubt that there is any empirical data to back up the claim. For this reason, I'm still interested in seeing something more substantial than a mention of "studies" without any citation.

If you ever bother looking for these "studies," please let me know what you find.

Regarding your post to Winchester:
[quote]I believe your analogy did not stand to someone like Kerry because there is a difference between a 2 year old and the newly conceived.[/quote]
I have come across pro-abortion advocates who believed that children as old as ~9 months should be allowed to be "aborted" on the whim of their mother.

Unfortunately, these pro-infanticide advocates are able to move beyond the arbitrary placement of legal personhood at birth. It's interesting (and sad) to review history and see the personhood of so many (elderly, handicapped, Jews, blacks, etc) denied by using "reason." Science knew them all to be human; but the law denied their legal right to life. It seems the usual reason is economic.

The unanswered question is: what is the difference between a human with legal recognition as a person and a human without legal recognition as a person?

[Winchester]

jjust got the phone working again. shall return

[Guest AudioDiva]

Endulge me for a moment and step into the make-believe world I am now creating:

We have all just walked into a room with unlimited amounts of guns, ropes, knives, swords and poison strewn throughout.

Now, I am your new Ruler and have decided that it will now be perfectly legal for you to KILL anyone in or out of this room that you see fit! All you must do is pay your fee of $100 per person. Other than that, there are NO CONSEQUENCES. The catch, You may also be KILLED.

So now humor me, by now some of you are outraged that I am allowing this! And yet, there is NOTHING you can do!

Back to Reality....so you ask, what did I just do that exercise for? And I reply with my own question:

How is that Different from Legalized Abortions?!?!?!

The Catholic church teaches that life begins at CONCEPTION!! It is scientifically proven that a baby's HEART is beating since the 18th DAY!!! that's just over 2 WEEKS after coception!! As a woman, we can't even be sure we're Pregnant at that time since we haven't been through a full cycle!!

At just 11 weeks, ALL BODY SYSTEMS ARE WORKING, and yet Planned Parenthood says it is OK to perform an abortion even at 24 Weeks!!!

Anyway, I'll be hopping off my soapbox now and in closing I'd like to add this:

No one can decide what you think for you, but I encourage everyone to educate yourselves before making a decision! It's the only way to go!!

Through Him All things are possible!
God Bless