State Of The Union Address

[PatrickRitaMichael]

Actually the Holy Father never said this. He said to "exhaust all other avenues." This does not mean the same thing as "do not go to war"

But Bush didn't exhaust all other avenues. So he's going against what the Pope said, right? I don't know too much about this, though, so if I'm wrong, please tell me again (second time's the charm in this case).

Speech, the difference between terminating a cat and human pregnancy is that one involves humans and one involves cats. You could argue that cats and humans have the same intrinsic worth but then that means no cat OR human abortions. You could argue that humans have a greater worth because they are humans, so it's okay to terminate a cat life but not a human life. It just depends on where you're coming from. I doubt you'd say that human life and cat lives do not have worth and then it is okay to kill them both. But who am I to assume?

Also, I'm curious why you think murder (not talking about abortion in this case) is harmful to the social fabric? Please explain further...

[God Conquers]

Speech,

There is nothing more harmful to the social fabric than abortion, barring widespread war and the precursers to abortion, contraception and broken families. How many doctors, scientists, lawyers, great thinkers and politicians have been aborted we can never know. It destroys women, psychologically and physically. It makes men more irresponsible. Besides, it is murder, so if murder is wrong so is abortion.

Life is a single continuum. There is only one place where ensoulment could logically take place, conception. We become a unique genetic being at conception. After that, we do not change, we only grow. Birth changes nothing except our location. Death is the end of the line, and the only other significant change. Almost as much change happens in our bodies through puberty than from conception to birth, is it ok to kill adolescents?

There is no reason for abortion. All arguments i've heard for it are ridiculous and fall apart under philosophical (not even religious) scrutiny.

[Speech]

thicke writes:

Are you saying the argument is if an unborn child has a soul, or it if the unborn child is alive. It seems to me that most Pro-Choicers believe that the unborn are not alive yet. That is why they justify abortion. Have I been wrong all this time? Now granted, we Catholics believe that having a soul and being alive are mutually inclusive. But, this is the first time I have heard a pro-choicer use the term "soul" in their arguments.

It would be silly to argue that fetuses are not alive. It's undeniable biological fact that when fertilization occurs, life comes into existence. Some have argued that this life is not human life, but I don't think that's really worth its weight in gold. If it's not human life, what else is it? If it comes from a human father and a human mother, what are we to assume that it is if not a human life?

Ensoulment is not my primary argument for abortion choice. As I've said, I don't know when ensoulment occurs. Given my ignorance, if I were basing my pro-choice views only on the possibility that ensoulment doesn't occur at conception, that would really be a gamble. My primary argument for abortion choice is that there are some instances when such an unfortunate choice may have to be made for the greater good. Some find this horrifying, but I find it no more horrifying than the doctrine of just war or the (rarely) just use of capital punishment.

PatrickRitaMichael writes:

Speech, the difference between terminating a cat and human pregnancy is that one involves humans and one involves cats. You could argue that cats and humans have the same intrinsic worth but then that means no cat OR human abortions. You could argue that humans have a greater worth because they are humans, so it's okay to terminate a cat life but not a human life. It just depends on where you're coming from. I doubt you'd say that human life and cat lives do not have worth and then it is okay to kill them both. But who am I to assume?

I don't think it's okay to just arbitrarily kill either a cat or a human. But just as I think there are times when it may be necessary to kill cats, I think there are times when it may (unfortunately) be necessary to kill humans. Before you look at me in horror and call me a monster, consider your own church's teaching on just war. Your own church teaches that there are times when it may be necessary to kill humans. Granted, the doctrine of just war is an entirely separate issue. But my point is that some people believe in a doctrine of just abortion, and I'm one of those people. I don't think abortion is okay all the time, but I think there are times when it may be okay.

Actually, I believe that humans are different from cats. But it's simply belief. I do believe that humans have a different kind of soul from cats. Not necessarily better, but different. But I have no proof for this. That's been my point in this thread. There is no proof for ensoulment, so it can't be used as a legal argument.

Also, I'm curious why you think murder (not talking about abortion in this case) is harmful to the social fabric? Please explain further...

Because it removes a human being who is contributing to society, and it diminishes the dignity of all life to arbitrarily take away even one life. When even one murder is okay, then the dignity of all life is diminished until even more murders are okay. Thus, it destroys the social fabric.

God Conquers:

There is nothing more harmful to the social fabric than abortion, barring widespread war and the precursers to abortion, contraception and broken families. How many doctors, scientists, lawyers, great thinkers and politicians have been aborted we can never know. It destroys women, psychologically and physically. It makes men more irresponsible. Besides, it is murder, so if murder is wrong so is abortion.

This is certainly an emotionally charged statement. But can you prove any of it? Can you prove that there's nothing more harmful to the social fabric than abortion? Can you prove that any aborted fetuses were going to become doctors, scientists, lawyers, great thinkers and politicians? (The answer: No, not anymore than I can prove that they were going to become pedophiles, prostitutes, serial killers and drug users). Can you prove that it destroys women psychologically and physically? (All women?) Can you prove that it makes men more irresponsible? Can you prove that it's murder?

[littleflower+JMJ]

just to let you guys know, we talked to one of the peeps from march for life :infant: and she said it was a HUGE success, that sooo many ppl showed up and it was like -32 degrees!! and they still showed up in washinton to stand up for life!! not to mention ALOT of youth and other denominations were there!

amazing!! ^_^

[hyperdulia again]

Abortion is sick. Killing people is sick, always. It is never necessary to kill an unborn child. Babies are babies are babies. This is why raging little liberal I am, I have only ONE choice, don't vote; I can't vote for a man responnsible for the death babies in Iraq and I can't vote for the alternative, a man who wants babies to continue dying here. So I won't be voting.

[Laudate_Dominum]

I can't vote for a man responnsible for the death babies in Iraq

What about just war? Sometimes death is a consequence of something that must be done. I'm not talking about Iraq particularly because I don't know that much about it but just the fact that sometimes people die because of other people doing the right thing. It's an unavoidable consequence of war. That's a different kind of thing from abortion and to compare the two, I think, clouds the sinister reality of abortion.

When George Bush sent troops to Iraq he was not thinking, oh yeah! I'm going to kill some babies. When Clinton vetoed the partial birth abortion ban he may have been thinking "kill 'em all, let God sort 'em out".

[Laudate_Dominum]

My primary argument for abortion choice is that there are some instances when such an unfortunate choice may have to be made for the greater good. Some find this horrifying, but I find it no more horrifying than the doctrine of just war or the (rarely) just use of capital punishment.

That doesn't sound like an argument for abortion "choice". Just war and things like that rest upon the fact that there is no other choice! And death is not chosen, it's a sad consequence. There is no circumstance where someone is justified in choosing to have an abortion. The extreme case of where the baby and mother will die if nothing is done does not justify choosing to kill the baby. It justified doing everything possible to save both the mother and the babies life but sometimes it's not possible to save the babies life (like in ectopic pregnancies) but the point is it's not an act of killing a baby, it's an act of trying to save lives and the death of the baby is a sad, unavoidable consequence. Just war, properly understood, is like this too. It's a defensive thing, not offensive, it's not a choice of killing people, it's an unavoidable choice to save lives and defend the common good that, because of the nature of war, costs lives. And civilian casualties are not justifiable, it's supposed to be people who willingly offer to risk their lives for the just cause, not an innocent baby who's mom decides that she wants to finish college before she has a baby so this, her first child, must be destroyed.

And murdering people is never a valid means of solving one's problems.

That's the problem here is that abortion is legal in our country for any or no reason! That should bother you regardless of whether you think there are situations when it's justified. And since you think it's ok to kill for certain reasons, tell me, what about infanticide? What's the difference between a mother slaying her child in the womb because she feels she can't afford to support a child and a mother slaying her newborn infant because she feels it's a hassle?

[Laudate_Dominum]

don't think abortion is okay all the time, but I think there are times when it may be okay.

What are these circumstances of yours that justify abortion? It's hard to discuss if you aren't clear. By definition abortion is direct and intentional killing of an unborn child. I hold that there are no circumstances that justify this. Just war, self-defense, and the ectopic pregnancy thing are not direct, intentional killing, these are examples of the principle of double-effect. That's the main difference as I see it.

[PatrickRitaMichael]

Because it removes a human being who is contributing to society, and it diminishes the dignity of all life to arbitrarily take away even one life. When even one murder is okay, then the dignity of all life is diminished until even more murders are okay. Thus, it destroys the social fabric.

does that mean that it is okay to kill people who are NOT contributing to society?

[Speech]

I'm hereby putting everyone on notice that I won't be responding on this thread after this post.

Laudate_Dominum writes:

What are these circumstances of yours that justify abortion? It's hard to discuss if you aren't clear. By definition abortion is direct and intentional killing of an unborn child. I hold that there are no circumstances that justify this. Just war, self-defense, and the ectopic pregnancy thing are not direct, intentional killing, these are examples of the principle of double-effect. That's the main difference as I see it.

I believe that abortion is justified when the life or health of the mother is at risk, and in cases of rape and/or incest. Just war and self-defense are indeed direct, intentional killing. You are directly killing, and (especially in war) you intend to kill. The difference may lie in intention. In premeditated murder, the murderer wants to kill the victim for malicious reasons. In self-defense, the person wants to kill the attacker to protect himself/herself. Both of these are direct, intentional killing, but the intent is different. There can be different intentions in abortion, as well.

PatrickRitaMichael writes:

does that mean that it is okay to kill people who are NOT contributing to society?

There's no such thing as a person who doesn't contribute to society.

[PatrickRitaMichael]

There's no such thing as a person who doesn't contribute to society.

Then if babies contribute to society, as well as retarded people, handicapped people, and people in comas. So if murder ruins the social fabric by removing a contributing member of society, then isn't abortion just as bad b/c it is removing a contributing member of society as well?