Abortion

[dairygirl4u2c]

It appears to me as if it is a judgement call of a judgement call, which ultimately is a judgement call. But it does help distinquish what is going on here. Based on the criteria of what constitutes a judgement call, many people think that it is not our right to tell anyone whether or not the baby is human. Based on the same criteria you all base your judgement call that it is not a judegement call. Ultimately, we are going to have see the basic fact of what has arisen, that is, either way you cut it, some are going to say we're over stepping our boundaries, and some will say we are not.

If you look on google.com you will find many who don't agree with abortion personally but think that it is not the government's right to interfere for many reasons. My reason is that we shouldn't play God in deciding. The supreme court used thisk, at least personally that's what the justice said. But officially they said we should not violate a woman's privacy, since we shouldn't even know if she is pregnant, and said this (which I can also see to a degree):

1. Government may not interfere with a woman's decision to terminate a pregnancy in any way during the first third or trimester of pregnancy, except to insist that it be performed by a licensed physician.

2. In the second trimester, government has the power to regulate abortion only in ways designed to preserve and protect the woman's health.

3. At the beginning of the final third of a fetus' gestation, protection of fetal life becomes a compelling reason sufficient under Roe to justify interference with the exercise of the right to choose abortion. At that point, the government can regulate or prohibit abortion in order to protect fetal life unless the abortion is necessary to preserve the life or health of the woman.

This is what a man said the court said. As a compromising individual I think this is a good stance. I do understand the uncompromising stance of yours, I truly do. But I don't think we should enforce our morals by force and don't know to think otherwise.

Edited February 3, 2004 by dairygirl4u2c

[cmotherofpirl]

:wall:

[ironmonk]

dairy,

If you value life, then you should try to prove that an unborn baby is not human. NOT the other way around.

It all comes down to priorities... if you value human life, since you cannot prove that the unborn baby is not human, then you cannot allow abortion, because of reasonable doubt.

If you do not value human life, then it would be logical for you to think that it should be up to the mother because it is worth the risk of killing an innocent person.

If you think it should be up to the mother, you have no right to be against capital punishment of someone who is guilty of serious crimes. If you are against captial punishment and for abortion, then you have got some serious issues to deal with. Many people who are for abortion believe that captial punishment is wrong - which doesn't make sense.

If you think it should be up to the mother, then you should also think it should be up to Osama if he wants to kill more people. If you think it should be up to the mother, then you should think it be up to the rapist that he rapes or not.

SHOULD RAPE BE A MATTER OF CHOICE?

by Thaddee Renault

Using the arguments politicians so often use to justify their unwillingness to legislate and criminalize abortion, one would be led to think so. The popular expression is to say that "I am personally opposed to abortion", but that "I shouldn’t impose my morality or beliefs on others." Looking at this stand from another point of view, I could just as reasonably state that "I am personally opposed to RAPE sweeping this country and would not participate in such an act, but I have no right to impose my morality on others; rather the RAPIST should have the right to choose, and this decision should be made between the RAPIST and his attorney." And I could go on to say that those fanatical anti-RAPE groups are using emotional pictures of aborted fetuses to dramatize their anti-choice position. Most of them, you see, attend churches which hold similar views. That makes this a religious issue and that’s a clear violation of separation of church and state. Also making RAPE illegal won’t stop all of the incidents, it will only make criminals out of the RAPISTS. Therefore, the only alternative is legalization. That’s why I support RAPE on demand. After all you can’t legislate morality. Furthermore, during an election year, we must vote for those pro-choice politicians who endorse permissive RAPE laws. With liberalization, RAPE will become quick and efficient, performed out in the open, under ideal conditions. Do we want to ever return to the days of back-alley rape? Gimme a break!

Evidently, this silly rationalization of rape is farfetched. But it serves to illustrate the illogical and incredibly stupid attitude of our lawmakers where the regulation of pre-natal infanticide is concerned. In those rare instances where pregnancy results from rape intercourse, society singles out the innocent unborn child for execution and misplaces on the fetus the anger which should be more appropriately directed towards the rapist who committed the monstrous crime. In most cases, the rape victim who has been aborted is then abandoned, as if her need for care ended with the death of her child. Do we punish other criminals by killing their children? Can a child innocent of any crime be attacked and killed in a most painful fashion with the attacker completely safe from being prosecuted? Isn`t it a twisted logic that would kill an innocent unborn baby for the sick behaviour of his or her father? It is the assailant who should be punished, not the innocent baby. Let’s keep the focus on the victim, the baby who is being killed. In Canada over 100,000 babies are aborted each year and less than 1% of these abortions are done because of rape and incest. Those who promote abortion rarely talk about the remaining 99%. The life taken in an abortion belongs only to the baby, not to the mother or anyone else. No person has the right to talk of compromising, using the baby’s life.

-----------------------

With real study into the matter, the only choice, for those who value human life is that they be pro-life.

Do you claim to be Christian? If so, what denomination, it is appearent that you are not Catholic?

-ironmonk

[ironmonk]

Would it be wrong for a Catholic, as long as she is personally against abortion herself and for every other Catholic, to support the court if they said this?

Yes, because the Church says we must protect life... especially the unborn and innocent.

If you read Scripture you would know this.

Proverbs 31:8-9

Open thy mouth for the dumb, and for the causes of all the children that pass. Open thy mouth, decree that which is just, and do justice to the needy and poor.

Luke 1:26-31

In the sixth month, the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a town of Galilee called Nazareth, to a virgin betrothed to a man named Joseph, of the house of David, and the virgin's name was Mary. And coming to her, he said, "Hail, favored one! The Lord is with you." But she was greatly troubled at what was said and pondered what sort of greeting this might be. Then the angel said to her, "Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. Behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall name him Jesus .

The Lord was in Mary's womb at conception.

Luke 1:41-43

When Elizabeth heard Mary's greeting, the infant leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth, filled with the holy Spirit, cried out in a loud voice and said, "Most blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb. And how does this happen to me, that the mother of my Lord 14 should come to me?

Jeremiah 1:5

Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I dedicated you, a prophet to the nations I appointed you.

-ironmonk

[PatrickRitaMichael]

accidentally double posted. sorry!

Edited February 4, 2004 by PatrickRitaMichael

[PatrickRitaMichael]

It seems to me that whether or not a person is recognizable as a person or not should not determine the law. The current laws say that murder is illegal, this does not depend on whether the victim is ugly, in a coma, old, a burden, inconvenient, or wanted -- taking another human life is illegal. It's already been established that the fetus is a distinct, unique human being, separate but dependent upon the mother. So abortion is taking another human life -- murder. Why is this not illegal? For the same reasons that slavery was legal -- the popular opinion said Africans were not humans and had no rights. Now we realize that this was wrong -- all human beings are worthy of certain inalienable rights, such as the right to life, whether some or all people disagree that certain human beings are worthy of it or not. Maybe one day the tide will turn in the same way and we'll look back with disgust at how we could let such barbaric practices occur within our 'civilized' society.

[megamattman1]

this is a sad discussion. dat's all i got's to say.

Edited February 4, 2004 by megamattman1

[dairygirl4u2c]

I have a **clarification** to hopefully help your side see where I am coming from. But first one question, one thing I kinda about people who feel the law should absolutely ban abortion:

If the government decided to start killing, say, blacks because the majority of the people didn't agree with it, what would you all do? Is it okay for Catholics to physically fight for them? And if it is, why don't you fight for the babies? I would imagine that either you don't feel the baby is human, you can at least understand the dispute, or you are too afraid to stand up for what you believe in.

It's already been established that the fetus is a distinct, unique human being

If this were truly the case, I would agree with you. But many women feel that if the baby is dependant on the mother, that is, if removed would die, it is not really a human. I am not saying dependant as a born child is dependant on her parents. Either way, moreso they would argue that the combined egg and sperm is so far from a human, that it is not really human. And if we were to give any benefit of the doubt they would argue that it should be toward one of the trimesters such as the court decided, reasoning that the baby is not human early on, but it is later, and somewhere in between becomes human. It's silly but I think it's understandable, maybe this is my downfall. But any benefit of the doubtsis still a judgement call, and should not usually be allowed.

I believe the baby is a human early on in development. I make this judgement on faith. I can not see how we should force other people to follow my faith. Yes, motherofpearl I see your frustration, but as I have admited, we do make laws based on morals which we should not be making, such as forcing the use of helmets, and other personal endeavors mentioned. But that does not mean that we should. The only moral that we should be basing the law on is the moral not to infringe on people's rights as long as it doesn't infringe on other people's.

**Now here is a point of confusion I have realized: It is true that since we believe the baby is human, it wouldn't really matter about the stupid obviously wrong helmet laws and stuff because we would make the baby as human as Joe Blow and thus entailing all his rights.**

Am I allowing murder? Yes my faith inclines me to believe it is murder. It is a sick fact we know exists but happens anyway. I take comfort that many people choose life at all costs. People have very strong understandable opininons on both sides, and as a civilized society, I do not see how we can constructively force our faith. But feasibility aside, also, as you may reason, I do value freedom and everything that constitutes freedom and understanding of other's beliefs above human life.

I refuse to force my faith on someone else when it is somewhat understandable that they dissent. As I admitted, we do force our faith on other people taken to the extreme that Joe Blow's humanity is questioned. If you feel he is not human, you are being violated your right not to kill him. But I see this as less understandable and therefore I do not agree and would indeed argue and in this case physically fight for him as well.

And yes my faith is a fact. Just like Jesus is the Christ is a fact, but that doesn't mean we enforce it, because it is less obvious which **human eyes can not see for themself, just as an early embryo can not be seen as a human without this kind of faith** My concession to the Joe Blow senerio is somewhat silly since it is not really this kind of faith, but it could be argued that it is this kind of faith so I digress. I do not see enforcing the anti-abortion laws by the faith that Joe Blow is human as the same kind of faith as an early embryo is human, and it is less understandable, and therefore can tolerate the pro-choice laws because I do value freedom, and everything that constitutes freedom, and understanding of other's beliefs above human life. Perhaps this is my downfall and perhaps this is the new point where you can convert me.

Edited February 4, 2004 by dairygirl4u2c

[ironmonk]

Abortion was illegal all over for THOUSANDS OF YEARS... ABORTIONIST FORCED THEIR FAITHLESSNESS ON US.

The abortion problem is NOT a FAITH issue.

It is a murder/let live issue.

ABORTION BEING ILLEGAL IS NOT FORCING FAITH ON SOMEONE.

It doesn't matter what someone feels if that feeling leads them to murder.

Your arguement has been amply proven wrong in previous posts.

You should really start studying the issue instead of coming at it from a philosophical angle...

Here are some resources:

http://www.catholic.net/culture_of_life/te...50&channel_id=7

http://www.priestsforlife.org/resources/ph...byage/index.htm

http://www.priestsforlife.org/resources/ab...mages/index.htm

http://www.prolife.com/

http://www.prolife.com/FETALDEV.html

http://www.prolife.com/SARAH2.html

http://www.prolife.com/EVERETT.html

GET THE FACTS.

-ironmonk

Edited February 4, 2004 by ironmonk

[dairygirl4u2c]

It is a good indication I am making head way when people start throwing their words at me with the caps on. ^_^

Your arguement has been amply proven wrong in previous posts.

The only reason you think my arguement has been proven wrong is because you never really understood what I was saying. I admit it's a bit technical, the values and the ideas with the constraints of the words with which I am trying to convey. But I believe my last post addressed all your concerns pretty darn good.

http://www.catholic.net/culture_of_life/te...50&channel_id=7

That link is sad.. yet beautiful. What a nice turn around of outlook. If only they all could see this.

All of your other links are sad too, and disgusting, :sadder: yet we need them to persuade women against abortion. I like the links, we should take them to women considering aborting their baby for as that first link says:

It is the worst of times because of great sin, but it is the best of times because of an abundance of God´s grace. Love is a decision. Let us decide to be silent no more.

Edited February 4, 2004 by dairygirl4u2c

[Dave]

I believe the baby is a human early on in development. I make this judgement on faith. I can not see how we should force other people to follow my faith. Yes, motherofpearl I see your frustration, but as I have admited, we do make laws based on morals which we should not be making, such as forcing the use of helmets, and other personal endeavors mentioned. But that does not mean that we should. The only moral that we should be basing the law on is the moral not to infringe on people's rights as long as it doesn't infringe on other people's.

**Now here is a point of confusion I have realized: It is true that since we believe the baby is human, it wouldn't really matter about the stupid obviously wrong helmet laws and stuff because we would make the baby as human as Joe Blow and thus entailing all his rights.**

Am I allowing murder? Yes my faith inclines me to believe it is murder. It is a sick fact we know exists but happens anyway. I take comfort that many people choose life at all costs. People have very strong understandable opininons on both sides, and as a civilized society, I do not see how we can constructively force our faith. But feasibility aside, also, as you may reason, I do value freedom and everything that constitutes freedom and understanding of other's beliefs above human life.

I refuse to force my faith on someone else when it is somewhat understandable that they dissent. As I admitted, we do force our faith on other people taken to the extreme that Joe Blow's humanity is questioned. If you feel he is not human, you are being violated your right not to kill him. But I see this as less understandable and therefore I do not agree and would indeed argue and in this case physically fight for him as well.

And yes my faith is a fact. Just like Jesus is the Christ is a fact, but that doesn't mean we enforce it, because it is less obvious which **human eyes can not see for themself, just as an early embryo can not be seen as a human without this kind of faith** My concession to the Joe Blow senerio is somewhat silly since it is not really this kind of faith, but it could be argued that it is this kind of faith so I digress. I do not see enforcing the anti-abortion laws by the faith that Joe Blow is human as the same kind of faith as an early embryo is human, and it is less understandable, and therefore can tolerate the pro-choice laws because I do value freedom, and everything that constitutes freedom, and understanding of other's beliefs above human life. Perhaps this is my downfall and perhaps this is the new point where you can convert me.

You say the moral we should be basing the law on is that of not infringing on others' rights. Well, abortion infringes on the baby's rights!

You also say that we shouldn't force our faith on anyone. Well, we have laws against murder, theft, rape, drug dealing and selling, prostitution, etc. We know those are all morally wrong from a religious standpoint as well as legally wrong. Yet would you argue that telling people to do that type of stuff would be forcing your faith on others? Somehow I doubt that.

As for all this talk about freedom, no one, but no one, is free to do that which is wrong -- not even if the secular law permits it.

One more thing -- are you Catholic? If you're Catholic and you choose to disagree with the Church's teaching against abortion and supporting abortion, you have no business receiving the sacraments. It's a mortal sin to willfully disagree with Church teaching. Besides, since Communion is a sign of unity between a person and Christ's Church, it wouldn't be fitting to receive Communion if you're not also in communion with the Magisterium.

[dairygirl4u2c]

First let me make the point, philosophy is a good tool to figure things out! Every debate of throwing "facts" and such around always has an underlying value set behind it. Even scientists use their values. And yes some values are plain silly but that's pretty much our debate.

As far as Ironmonk goes, he thinks he proved me wrong, but you can't prove a judgement call (opinion) wrong. My judgement call is that the decision is a judgement call and therefore don't think we have the right to decide. His judgement call is that it is not a judgement call and therefore no one has the right. If his former judgement call is correct (that it's not a judgement call), I would agree with him. But as it stands, I do not. And as for applying this to dehumanizing someone else (since it's always in a way a judgement call... ironically as you guys are mainly the ones pointing out!!) ... I will get to that later.

I would imagine that Ironmonk sees my point probably and wishes to either brush it off without really considering it which is not good. Or brushes me and my opinion off, which is his perogative and is good. (he could at least admit he never understood me since he was twisting my logic earlier)

Now.. as for you, let me first say that I understand where you are coming from.

You say the moral we should be basing the law on is that of not infringing on others' rights. Well, abortion infringes on the baby's rights!

The baby having rights would be obvious if we could prove that the baby was human beyond just a vote. That is because the baby's humanity is the very judgement call which I am talking about.

Yet would you argue that telling people to do that type of stuff would be forcing your faith on others?

Well you must not have really read what you quoted of me either. Here is what you quoted just to reiterate that, and ironically the answer to your question. Let me know if you need me to explain further because I assume you did not read, or more likely consider, it (we all do this.. I'm not blaming just you):

My concession to the Joe Blow senerio (that he is not human in that that means we can kill him if we please) is somewhat silly since it is not really this kind of faith, but it could be argued that it is this kind of faith so I digress. I do not see enforcing the anti-abortion laws by the faith that Joe Blow is human as the same kind of faith as an early embryo is human, and it (killing Joe Blow) is less understandable, and therefore can tolerate the pro-choice laws because I do value freedom, and everything that constitutes freedom, and understanding of other's beliefs above human life.

... and since the abortionists choice is more **understandable** than any of our killing, raping, or robbing Joe Blow. If someone wants to insist that Joe Blow is not human, he can do that and the people (I would hope) would not stand for it either.

Also, yes again I have chosen freedom and understanding above an individual's life... but again... only **since the individual's actual human life is the very question at hand** That means this does not translate to ransacking Joe Blow because his humanity is not at question. And again if it was it would not be understandable to me. Just like it is not understandable to you that someone would not agree with you about abortion.. so again.. yes I understand you

Also I want to point out that no one asked my hypothetical question above about killing black folk.

Now another question for all of you, specifically Ironmonk since he asked me about allowing abortion but being against capital punishment. Are you against people having the right to choose whether or not to pull the plug on someone when the person has never had the chance to voice his opinion on the subject? If you are, you have problems. (actually you don't but I'm doing what you did to me.. to further my point) And actually in this case, saying the individual is not a person would not understandable and therefore would be even worse than choosing abortion...

Furthermore, even if you did not agree with me doesn't mean you can't tell me you understand where I am coming from. Even a Catholic who did not agree with me could do that. (and I would argue he could agree with me too... but let's stay focused on the stuff up there ^) I also want to add that I too argued your side for a long time. But I always wondered how people could be so illogical as to say someone could be pro-life personally and pro-choice for everyone else until a few months ago it actually hit me all this stuff I am saying.

Edited February 7, 2004 by dairygirl4u2c

[dUSt]

dairygirl4u2c,

Your argument holds no weight with me because of your belief that the definition of a human life is a "judgement call" and a "matter of faith".

When human life begins is not a matter of faith, but science. I don't understand how you can label hard, factual, biological science as a "judgement call".

Your thousands of words arguing laws, liberty, freedom, etc, fall completely apart when you refuse to acknolwedge that human life can be defined biologically. The moment you do that, you no longer debate "facts", but ideologies.

I agree that if the definition of a human was defined by religion, we wouldn't have a "right" to impose our beliefs on other people. The fact is, that the definition of a human is not defined by religion, but by science. The definition of a human certainly is not defined by individual mothers, depending on their individual situations--yet, this seems to be what you are arguing.

Also--what denomination do you claim?

God bless.

[dairygirl4u2c]

I should have realized people would jump on me for the word faith because too many people don't realize that to the person holding it, faith is fact.. as if faith is not equal to the reality of the person.The only reason I use the word "faith" is because it is the best way to relay what I am trying to say. Since many people have differenct "faiths"/perspectives they value different things and have different ideas.

The fact is, that the definition of a human is not defined by religion, but by science. The definition of a human certainly is not defined by individual mothers, depending on their individual situations--yet, this seems to be what you are arguing.

You are saying that the humanity of the baby is not of question; that means you side with Ironmonk. But as any look at google will tell you, you will see that many women do question the baby's humanity. Most of them sadly are not sure and are persuaded by abortion doctors. But there are still women who do not think the baby is human and it is still their perogative. The individual situation does not change the truth of the matter, I agree. But the individual situation does indicate who believes what and whose freedoms are being held.

If you want to convince me that I am wrong, convince me that all this freedom talk of mine is not worth more than a human because I believe in freedom and consideration of others above life.

Your thousands of words arguing laws, liberty, freedom, etc, fall completely apart when you refuse to acknolwedge that human life can be defined biologically. The moment you do that, you no longer debate "facts", but ideologies.

Don't tell me. Tell the women who don't think the baby is human. The fact that they do not believe this makes the debate ideological. And in this ideology, I could say the moment you start declaring everything "fact", you miss the whole point of what I am saying. But anyway, it's not just me buying into their lies.. I truly think it's understandable for them to think that at the moment of conception the baby is not human. (again the whole crux of our dispute) I'm separating my belief from theirs else fall into forcing them to compliance simply because we have a majority vote. And since it's understandable...

Also I do not want to mention my religious affliliation because I want to stay focused on the subject.. there's no need for it.

Incidentally, no one is answering my hypotheticals..

Edited February 7, 2004 by dairygirl4u2c

[jmjtina]

If you want to convince me that I am wrong, convince me that all this freedom talk of mine is not worth more than a human because I believe in freedom and consideration of others above life.

This is a contradiction in itself.

How about the freedom and consideration of the defenseless unborn baby? So that makes you pro-murder. hmmmm.

Google is NOT even very good at finding what "the majority of women" believe. Don't schools teach that nowadays? Google isn't the place to go to get FACTS.

I'm curious at to what denomination you are.

I'll respond more laterz. We must respect life from the earliest stages!!! Your "freedom" talk is taking away the freedom of future "freedom" talkers by killing them in the womb. It's not about your opinion vs. our opinion. It's about murder. Murder in the womb.

Peace and God Bless.