zeyeon Posted December 1, 2006 Author Share Posted December 1, 2006 (edited) [quote name='Farsight one' post='1132621' date='Dec 1 2006, 12:43 AM'] Yes, provided her chance of survival changes significantly enough. Something like from no chance to a 75%. Ever talked to a woman who was raped and kept the child? Try it sometime. There are a few who are tormented by such things, but adoption can be used in that case. The vast majority, however, look at their child and see it as a reminder of the trials that they have overcome - a source of immense joy, not pain. [/quote] Well then there is a major flaw with the right to life arguement then. I mean both the embryo and the mother have an equal right to life right? shouldn't we perhaps flip a coin? Or should we add to the mother's right to life her right to decide what happens in and to her body, which everybody seems to be ready to grant...the sum of her rights now outweighing the fetus's right to life? [quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1132626' date='Dec 1 2006, 12:47 AM'] The soul is a spiritual temple do I have to explain why the soul does not have "walls" [/quote] only if you expect me to explain why you didn't get the analogy Edited December 1, 2006 by zeyeon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Farsight one Posted December 1, 2006 Share Posted December 1, 2006 Dangerous? How exactly? With no abortion, there's no death in that regard. A life outweighs any amount of suffering. We are not required to go out of our way to save a life, but we cannot actively end one to save someone some suffering. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winchester Posted December 1, 2006 Share Posted December 1, 2006 [quote name='zeyeon' post='1132623' date='Nov 30 2006, 11:44 PM'] God gave the football player the desiese... and according to Pro Lifers... Expects you to hook yourself up to him inorder to give him life. [/quote] Really? So the football player and God were hanging out and it's contagious? Seriously. Whether or not God gave the football player the disease, removing oneself from the machines does not cause the football player's death. The kidney disease cause it. A procured abortion directly causes death. Pro-lifers do not require people to hook themselves up to other people to keep them from dying of diseases. They do expect that healthy people be alowed to continue to live. Being involuntariy impregnated is not the same as being hooked up to someone with a disease. It is a violation of a human right, certainly, but ending the pregnancy is another violation of another human right. We do not have the right to avoid natural death. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zeyeon Posted December 1, 2006 Author Share Posted December 1, 2006 [quote name='Winchester' post='1132625' date='Dec 1 2006, 12:46 AM'] body=material soul=immaterial The body deveops. At the moment of conception, the human body is in its proper state. The body does in fact exist, just not with the accidents present later in life. At what point is a body "finished," anyway? [/quote] that's not correct. the body lacks the necessary equipment to be tempted, to sin, to love... it's impossible for the body at that stage to perform any of the functions necessary. I have no idea what god considers as finished. But I know that it's not as an embryo given the reasons in my previous statement. [quote name='Winchester' post='1132637' date='Dec 1 2006, 12:53 AM'] Really? So the football player and God were hanging out and it's contagious? Seriously. Whether or not God gave the football player the disease, removing oneself from the machines does not cause the football player's death. The kidney disease cause it. A procured abortion directly causes death. Pro-lifers do not require people to hook themselves up to other people to keep them from dying of diseases. They do expect that healthy people be alowed to continue to live. Being involuntariy impregnated is not the same as being hooked up to someone with a disease. It is a violation of a human right, certainly, but ending the pregnancy is another violation of another human right. We do not have the right to avoid natural death. [/quote] So then according to that logic... The abortion did not kill the embryo that was concieved during a rape.... The rape killed it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winchester Posted December 1, 2006 Share Posted December 1, 2006 [quote name='zeyeon' post='1132638' date='Nov 30 2006, 11:55 PM'] that's not correct. the body lacks the necessary equipment to be tempted, to sin, to love... it's impossible for the body at that stage to perform any of the functions necessary.I have no idea what god considers as finished. But I know that it's not as an embryo given the reasons in my previous statement. [/quote] So you're putting forth the argument that it's not proper for the human body to begin as it does in the womb? [quote]So then according to that logic... The abortion did not kill the embryo that was concieved during a rape.... The rape killed it. [/quote] Hang on, I'm dizzy. You put that chain together for me and show how the logic of disease causing cellular death matches with impregnation (causing life) being innately tied to a separate decision to end that life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Farsight one Posted December 1, 2006 Share Posted December 1, 2006 [quote name='zeyeon' post='1132627' date='Nov 30 2006, 11:52 PM'] Well then there is a major flaw with the right to life arguement then. I mean both the embryo and the mother have an equal right to life right? shouldn't we perhaps flip a coin? Or should we add to the mother's right to life her right to decide what happens in and to her body, which everybody seems to be ready to grant...the sum of her rights now outweighing the fetus's right to life? [/quote]One could flip a coin, but, at a fifty percent chance to live after an abortion, remember, that there's a fifty percent chance that BOTH will die. If the mother caries the baby to term, there is a 100% chance that someone(the child) will live(unrelated complications not withstanding). Therefore to properly compromise, in my mind, it would have to be a 75% chance. How does her rights outweigh the fetus's rights? I know this is a wierd analagy, but the fetus' right to life is like the number zero to me. Multiply the fetus' right to live by the mothers right to what happens in her body, and you still get zero. The importance of the fetus' right to live outweighs the mother's convenience so much that in that particular situation, the mother's convenience doesn't exist in a way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KnightofChrist Posted December 1, 2006 Share Posted December 1, 2006 [quote name='zeyeon' post='1132627' date='Dec 1 2006, 12:52 AM'] Well then there is a major flaw with the right to life arguement then.[/quote] No Sir, there is not, if the mother dies the child will also die, and if the child has a chance to live by being born, there is no reason to kill the child in the first place. However if the child is in one of the falopian tubes and can not be removed safely into the womb, the operation would not be to kill the child but the save the life of the mother. [quote name='zeyeon' post='1132627' date='Dec 1 2006, 12:52 AM']I mean both the embryo and the mother have an equal right to life right? [/quote] Yes! Crazy is it not? Blacks and Whites also have equal right to life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kosh Posted December 1, 2006 Share Posted December 1, 2006 (edited) strictly speaking you shouldn't even deliberately kill the baby to save the life of a mother. Farsight one, you are mistaken. Killing the baby to save the life of a mother is not right. Would you kill an innocent person to save another? Edited December 1, 2006 by Kosh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Socrates Posted December 1, 2006 Share Posted December 1, 2006 [quote name='zeyeon' post='1132638' date='Dec 1 2006, 12:55 AM'] that's not correct. the body lacks the necessary equipment to be tempted, to sin, to love... it's impossible for the body at that stage to perform any of the functions necessary. [/quote] One could make the same arguments about a newborn infant - I doubt most infants in their first year or so are capable of sin (Stewie from Family Guy to the contrary). In fact, the Catholic Church traditionally considers seven the "age of reason" - age at which one is morally culpable for his actions. In fact some pro-abortion philosophers, such as Dr. Peter Singer, use the lack of significant difference between a preborn fetus and an infant to argue for legalized feticide. At least he's constistant. And human development is long process, bodies only being fully developed in the late teens or so. Considering at which point a human being becomes a human being at point past conception (when a new human life begins) becomes purely arbitrary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KnightofChrist Posted December 1, 2006 Share Posted December 1, 2006 [quote name='Kosh' post='1132651' date='Dec 1 2006, 01:03 AM'] strictly speaking you shouldn't even deliberately kill the baby to save the life of a mother. Farsight one, you are mistaken. Killing the baby to save the life of a mother is not right. Would you kill an innocent person to save another? [/quote] That was what I was [i]trying[/i] to say... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kosh Posted December 1, 2006 Share Posted December 1, 2006 (edited) we agree!! Cool!!! XD XD XD srry. Its late and I have physics and thus am random. look, there are other medical procedures that are done where the death of the unborn is an unintended cause. In abortion the INTENT is to kill the baby. Thats wrong. wow, nothing like me posting to destroy the conversation, eh? no one's said anything for like 10 minutes. Edited December 1, 2006 by Kosh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KnightofChrist Posted December 1, 2006 Share Posted December 1, 2006 I'm sorry... I was posting my 1000th post in the Divine Mercy Chaplet Thread! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kosh Posted December 1, 2006 Share Posted December 1, 2006 XD That rox! hey, where'd all the opposition go? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KnightofChrist Posted December 1, 2006 Share Posted December 1, 2006 [quote name='Kosh' post='1132691' date='Dec 1 2006, 01:24 AM'] XD That rox! hey, where'd all the opposition go? [/quote] Idk, his replys where getting shorter and shorter... beddy by time, I guess? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kosh Posted December 1, 2006 Share Posted December 1, 2006 no, he's still on..oh well. Well, Abortion is objectively wrong and God gives us a soul at the moment of conception and no, we can't prove it. Its a matter of faith. That 'bout sums it up, I think. 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