jmjtina Posted December 21, 2004 Share Posted December 21, 2004 [quote name='Phatmasser777' date='Dec 21 2004, 01:57 AM'] If the person cant live or doesnt want to live with the pain of any illness which is terminal, should have the right to end their life. [/quote] Well, if that is what you think enthunasia is for, less than 1% of people actually do it because of "pain". They do it because they feel worthless, or a "burden" on the family. Should they be killed because they feel they are a financial burden? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmotherofpirl Posted December 21, 2004 Share Posted December 21, 2004 [quote name='Madonna' date='Dec 21 2004, 12:27 PM'] I read through this thread quickly, and I just wanted to comment on some of the misunderstandings. To give credibility to what I'm about to say, I'll quote the dictionary. This is also what I've learned in theology classes. There are three types of abortion. 1. direct abortion: the term we often use for the intended killing of a baby in the womb. 2. spantaneous abortion: aka, a miscarriage. 3. indirect abortion. Clarification on indirect abortion. Many of you have said that removing of the fallopian tubes isn't an abortion. But it is, by definition. And the only other case I know of where there are indirect abortions is when a woman is in the advanced stages of uteran cancer. The uterus is removed, and as a result, the baby is removed with the uterus. To answer the original question, no, all abortion is not immoral. A miscarriage and (in most cases) an indirect abortion are unfortunate, but not sinful, things. Direct abortion, however, is probably one of the worst of the evils. For secular and humanistic reasons to oppose abortion, the book [url="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0880704721/103-8836342-6563065?v=glance"]Prolife Answers to Prochoice Arguments[/url] is a must read. It's good for someone who is pro-choice or pro-life to read. A point to throw out there to snuff out the "the brain and heart form at this time" argument...any embryologist will tell you that life forms at conception. Look at the last definition. It says an aborted organism. An organism is life. The dictionary says a growing baby in the womb is life. [/quote] ABORTION. In Catholic morality, abortion is either direct (induced) or indirect. Direct abortion is any destruction of the product of human conception, whether before or after implantation in the womb. A direct abortion is one that is intended either as an end in itself or as a means to an end. As a willful attack on unborn human life, no matter what the motive, direct abortion is always a grave objective evil. Indirect abortion is the foreseen but merely permitted evacuation of a fetus which cannot survive outside the womb. The evacuation is not the intended or directly willed result, but the side effect, of some legitimate procedure. As such it is morally allowable. The essential sinfulness of direct abortion consists in the homicidal intent to kill innocent life. This factor places the controverted question as to precisely when human life begins, outside the ambit of the moral issue; as it also makes the now commonly held Catholic position that human life begins at conception equally outside the heart of the Church’s teaching about the grave sinfulness of direct abortion. Abortion was condemned by the Church since apostolic times. The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, composed before A.D. 100, told the faithful “You shall not procure abortion. You shall not destroy a newborn child” (II,2). Direct abortion and infanticide were from the beginning placed on the same level of malice. Hundreds of ecclesiastical documents from the first century through the present testify to the same moral doctrine, with such nuances as time, place, and circumstances indicated. The Second Vatican Council declared: “Life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception,” so that “abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes” (Constitution on the Church in the Modern World, IV, 51). Pope Paul VI confirmed this teaching in 1974. “Respect for human life,” he wrote, “is called for from the time that the process of generation begins. From the time that the ovum is fertilized, a life is begun which is neither that of the father nor of the mother. It is rather the life of a new human being with its own growth. It would never be made human if it were not human already.” Consequently, “divine law and natural reason exclude all right to the direct killing of an innocent human being” (Declaration on Procured Abortion, III, 12). (Etym. Latin abortivus, born prematurely, abortive; from aboriri, to miscarry.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Madonna Posted December 21, 2004 Share Posted December 21, 2004 That's pretty much what I said. I don't know if you posted that to disagree with me or reinforce what I said. But that is right and very eloquently put. Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmotherofpirl Posted December 21, 2004 Share Posted December 21, 2004 [quote name='Madonna' date='Dec 21 2004, 12:27 PM'] I read through this thread quickly, and I just wanted to comment on some of the misunderstandings. To give credibility to what I'm about to say, I'll quote the dictionary. This is also what I've learned in theology classes. There are three types of abortion. 1. direct abortion: the term we often use for the intended killing of a baby in the womb. 2. spantaneous abortion: aka, a miscarriage. 3. indirect abortion. Clarification on indirect abortion. Many of you have said that removing of the fallopian tubes isn't an abortion. But it is, by definition. And the only other case I know of where there are indirect abortions is when a woman is in the advanced stages of uteran cancer. The uterus is removed, and as a result, the baby is removed with the uterus. To answer the original question, no, all abortion is not immoral. A miscarriage and (in most cases) an indirect abortion are unfortunate, but not sinful, things. Direct abortion, however, is probably one of the worst of the evils. For secular and humanistic reasons to oppose abortion, the book [url="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0880704721/103-8836342-6563065?v=glance"]Prolife Answers to Prochoice Arguments[/url] is a must read. It's good for someone who is pro-choice or pro-life to read. A point to throw out there to snuff out the "the brain and heart form at this time" argument...any embryologist will tell you that life forms at conception. Look at the last definition. It says an aborted organism. An organism is life. The dictionary says a growing baby in the womb is life. [/quote] There are several problems with this terminology. Abortion is the murder of a human being, so the term "spontaneous abortion" makes no sense, you are not spontaneously murdering your child. The term miscarriage is far more appropriate. The term indirect abortion is also inappropriate as well, since you are again not murdering a child, you are doing a medical procedure and not intentionally murdering a human being. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Madonna Posted December 21, 2004 Share Posted December 21, 2004 (edited) [quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='Dec 21 2004, 12:16 PM'] There are several problems with this terminology. Abortion is the murder of a human being, so the term "spontaneous abortion" makes no sense, you are not spontaneously murdering your child. The term miscarriage is far more appropriate. The term indirect abortion is also inappropriate as well, since you are again not murdering a child, you are doing a medical procedure and not intentionally murdering a human being. [/quote] It doesn't seem logical to me to disagree with facts. These are the unbiased definitions of what an abortion is. Of course, when we refer to abortion in everyday language, we are referring to a direct abortion. I just wanted to point out that in medical world, "spantaneous abortion" is the word used for miscarriage. See [url="http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/001488.htm"]here[/url]. Just because you dislike the terminology doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. I did not fabricate any information I posted. In society, it would be inappropriate to say that a woman who miscarried had an abortion. But medically, it IS correct. There seemed to be a lot of loosely throwing terms around. I posted those definitions, mainly to clarify and make the point about the case of an ectopic pregnancy or uterine cancer. Edited December 21, 2004 by Madonna Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmotherofpirl Posted December 21, 2004 Share Posted December 21, 2004 I also posted a definition of abortion. I never said you made it up. The problem IS how the words are thrown around, because when you say the Church allows indirect abortion the word indirect gets lost, and people only hear the Church allows abortion. To most people abortion equals murder. So people then get the idea that abortion is ok. That is why the term miscarriage is better than spontaneous abortion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phatmasser777 Posted December 22, 2004 Share Posted December 22, 2004 [quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='Dec 21 2004, 07:10 AM'] So you believe in nothing at all? [/quote] do you purposely try and find things that dont exist?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phatmasser777 Posted December 22, 2004 Share Posted December 22, 2004 [quote name='melporcristo' date='Dec 21 2004, 09:36 AM'] Okay, I'm sorry but even though there isn't a "Catholic law" persay, does that give you an excuse to fail to stand up for the Church? I am praying for you brother, Mel [/quote] The church hasnt done much for its followers, especially in South America, and now the Church is paying for it. Thousands of catholics are converting to ministeries like Benny Hinn, Joyce Meyers & so on. Same is starting to happen in the Phillipines. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phatmasser777 Posted December 22, 2004 Share Posted December 22, 2004 [quote name='jmjtina' date='Dec 21 2004, 11:35 AM'] Well, if that is what you think enthunasia is for, less than 1% of people actually do it because of "pain". They do it because they feel worthless, or a "burden" on the family. Should they be killed because they feel they are a financial burden? [/quote] In the US. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phatmasser777 Posted December 22, 2004 Share Posted December 22, 2004 [quote name='Aluigi' date='Dec 21 2004, 02:08 AM'] typical case of post-enlightenemnt brainwashing. "we ought to give votes to the most obscure of all our classes: the ancestor" -G.K. Chesterton you, my friend, suffer from a bad case of chronological snobbery (term coined by C.S. Lewis). We should not dismiss the past so lightly. Just think about that, and what a grim worldview you hold if everyone that came before you was so wrong and misguided, if they really wasted their lives that much. tell me, if we were years ahead and lacked objective moral guidance, [color=#999999](and this is assuming the civilization that the Church basically sustained and rebuilt after the Roman collapse magically got itself back together and people started scientific discovery even though the beginings and seeds of all scientific discoveries are found in men of the Church)[/color] and we had a cure for cancer and death was defeated by all our inginuity and medical trickery, would humanity really be better off? I think perhaps the spiritual advancements of this "stranglehold" on Europe that those Europeans who are our ancestors seemed to be quite fine with far outweigh any medical advancement that could have happened. no matter how great and good medecine is to heal, it is temporal. if you are content to a grim worldview in which the temporal is the ultimate goal (you got that from the "enlightenment" when they abandoned the afterlife and began worrying about living as long as possible on earth) then you can be upset with the Church's "stranglehold" [/quote] Lol How ironic u calling ME brainwashed. All I was saying is that history, majority of it cannot be trusted 100%, since its either as the old saying goes; "History is written by the Victor", but it can also be History is written by the displaced and angered, for example read any Prod books on the Catholic Church, and you'll notice they use Boentters book. So dont give me this Post-Enlightn. philosphy junk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ironmonk Posted December 22, 2004 Share Posted December 22, 2004 [quote name='Phatmasser777' date='Dec 22 2004, 12:24 AM'] Lol How ironic u calling ME brainwashed. All I was saying is that history, majority of it cannot be trusted 100%, since its either as the old saying goes; "History is written by the Victor", but it can also be History is written by the displaced and angered, for example read any Prod books on the Catholic Church, and you'll notice they use Boentters book. So dont give me this Post-Enlightn. philosphy junk. [/quote] Silly boy. People don't sit around and write "History"... except some people like Bobby Jones, Jack Chick, and Boettner. History is 99% correct. I believe that history being rewritten by those is power is a protestant lie conjured up long ago. Bobby Jones University is a promoter of this lie. History comes from people sending letters to people, news stories of the given time, etc.... In the beginning of Christianity, when a document was created, it was copied by many priests and sent out to all the Churches, in many different countries, under many different rulers. The documents were copied by hand at these Churches over the years periodically so that they would not loose the information. This is how and why we still have very accurate texts for the Holy Scriptures. This is how and why we still have the Early Church Fathers writings. There were kept at hundreds of Churches... but mainly dozens of Cathedrals... in various different countries. With so many people involved no one country or power could have ever rewritten anything.... dozens and sometimes hundreds of copies of the documents exist. With all the monisteries in Europe used to for monks copying these documents and they all match up except for minor spelling or single word translation issues, proves that it is trustworthy. If you want to go on believing the lie that you can't trust history, then you've got that right... You need to apply a little logic, basic knowledge of human nature of men who give up everything for Christ, and thought to who is creditable and who is not.... God Bless, ironmonk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ironmonk Posted December 22, 2004 Share Posted December 22, 2004 As far as the term... Hell... [url="http://phorum.phatmass.com/index.php?showtopic=26063"]http://phorum.phatmass.com/index.php?showtopic=26063[/url] God Bless, ironmonk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phatmasser777 Posted December 22, 2004 Share Posted December 22, 2004 [quote]History comes from people sending letters to people, news stories of the given time, etc....[/quote] And what is that?? Personal beliefs, comments and statements. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ironmonk Posted December 22, 2004 Share Posted December 22, 2004 [quote name='Phatmasser777' date='Dec 22 2004, 02:54 AM'] And what is that?? Personal beliefs, comments and statements. [/quote] Use a little thought bro... What gives credit to history in books... Comments on what happened... Who wrote it, what else did they write, what kind of person where they, how many other people wrote the same thing, where are the conflicts in the "facts", etc... When looking at the creditbility of people, one must know something about them... What their values are... What if anything do they get out of lying - i.e. do they have a motive to lie... how likely is it that they can get away with a lie... How many back up the story... what is the personal relationship between the person backing it up... What about the person backing it up, same questions need to be asked.... not just asked, but answers should be found... etc... Only a fool will base a judgement off of questions without answers. In a situation like the Catholic Church as I described in my above post, it's easy to see history is trustworthy when you have hundreds if not thousands of city papers in a country all writing the same thing. A quote for you to ponder on... "He who mistrusts most should be trusted least" - Aesop. See, a little tidbit on human nature... most people will assume that "most people" are like them... someone who is honest will generally be very trustful of others. Someone who thinks everyone lies or is untrustworthy typically is an untrustworthy person because he knows he lies, so they assume that most people lie. God Bless, ironmonk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don John of Austria Posted December 22, 2004 Share Posted December 22, 2004 Phatmasser777-- Well your right, everything in history has to be taken on faith, as a matter of fact everything that happens that you don't personally witness has to be taken on Faith, Do you remember World War II Maybe everybody just made it up, Certianly slavery and the Civil War that all could have been made up, maybe all those graves are from when tyhe Martians invaded and everybody just made up the civil war as giant cover. You know really How do you know that the room even exist when your not in it, maybe you arethe causation for existance and when you leave the room everything in it ceases to exist and only starts existing once you enter the room agian. Dismiss history if you want to, but realize that by your logic you have to dismiss everything y9ou didn't personally witness. 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