Good women have abortions.

[Sword of the Lord]

The Didache calls it murder. Read Didache 2:2: "Do not commit murder; do not commit adultery; do not corrupt boys; do not have illicit sex; do not steal; do not practice magic; do not practice witchcraft; you shall not murder a child, whether it be born or unborn. Do not covet the things of your neighbor."


The Didache - The Complete Text

Since he doesn't seem to care that JPII called it murder, I highly doubt he cares that the Didache calls it murder. He, apparently, knows better.

 

[katerinah1947]

I could name a bunch of states that would make it legal if RvW were overturned.

Hi,
Even if that were true, like your some states statement, suggesting that some was correct word, rather than saying what it truly was which is a few states, which would been accurate, what would God have us do?
The whole point is, what would God have us do? And to say that cannot be allowed as it is subjective, is entirely opposite, as subjectivity does count.
Remember, although males are supposed to lead women, and Adam your role model, rather than doing what God wanted, and what Eve wanted him to do, did his own will.
That is what all women today, fight consciously in the case here now, and every place else.
So, only four states approved abortions prior to Roe Versus Wade. Only four.
The Supreme Court changed all that in 1970, or so. Okay, lets look at the accuracy of The Supreme Court to see if they are correct enough, to not destroy humans some of the time, from their actions.
The Supreme Court passed Separate but Equal. And the point here like in abortions is "What would God have us do?".
A lot of African Americans died, as a result of that decision, of the Supreme Court. Later it was overturned.
Who overturned this? It was not the Supreme Court per se. It was the equivalent of the fetus. The fetuses, overturned Separated but Equal. They all banned together and no matter how poorly, they spent money on training one fetus after another, until they had enough fetuses that were lawyers, even if most of them were horrible.
They fought the legal system, finally the non-fetuses realized, Sepate, is never equal. They then who re-enslaved the African Americans, after the Civil War, changed their ruling.
It took almost 90 years, to have in America, just one more thing, that corresponded to something like "What would God have us do"

You would have us throw that out, under the guise or error of your own sayings. How can I believe you, when your actions destroy women? How can I believe you, when men have always been like Adam. I would have Adam, if I were Eve, give me up, and choose God, over me. Remember, I was fooled, Adam was not.
My issue back then, as Eve was I did not take a statement from God as more absolutely correct, than anything, even my husband said. That is all I would have had to have done, but here before me were words. I became fooled. I ate. I ate because what should have been ringing in my ears is this. But, But But and then like a loud motor, those Buts should have drowned out all else. That did not happen. I as Eve ate. I touched. Even touching was the death sentence.
Fetuses, cannot band together. Someone else has to fight for their rights when they lost them, like in Separate but Equal, where the African Americans lost their rights.
Subjective? Yes. Should this ever not be subjective? Yes. Yes, but not the way you say it. Not your way. Objectively we should say, if we cannot prove lack of personhood, then objectively we cannot prove that it is a not a person.
If you can't prove it has no personhood, then you can't prove it isn't a person.
LOVE,
...Katie., .... .

 

[TheBarrd]

Bottom line.
We will all have to face God one day.
I am content to face Him as someone who has fought the good fight against the evils of abortion.
I would not wish to face Him with the blood of these innocent little ones on my hands.

Think about it.

 

[brewmama]

I could name a bunch of states that would make it legal if RvW were overturned.

That at least would make it democratic and in the hands of the people, as it should be.

 

[brewmama]

We could have a fascinating discussion about all of this. Indeed, start another thread about it and I'd love to. However, it's not really germane to my 2 big points here, which were, if you recall, that

a. all beliefs about the morality of abortion are subjective, and

b. That in my personal opinion, sentience/self awareness /hard question psychological term of choice is what makes humans special, not the property of having unique DNA.

*whisper* be careful with all those citations, apparently only people who don't understand what they're talking about use them

Your arguments are perfectly rebutted in a magazine I am currently reading, and involves Wittgenstein, Toulmin, and Tolstoy. You probably need a subscription to read the article, but some portions are:

Toulmin spent his career combatting such fallacies, which he found not only philosophically mistaken but also socially destructive. Abstract rationality, he argued, is only one model of knowledge, appropriate in some circumstances but not in others.

we both deplored recent developments in “critical theory” endorsing absolute relativism. That puerile conclusion was invariably reached by presuming that unless knowledge could be absolutely certain, it was not knowledge at all. Without unshakeable “foundations,” everything was at best a matter of taste but more likely an expression of hegemonic power. As we liked to joke, such reasoning was not only shallow but deeply shallow.

Where there is reasoned argument, there is room for what Toulmin calls “honest and conscientious difference of opinion.” Intellectuals, no less than religious fundamentalists, have a tendency to shut down debate by insisting that only one point of view could possibly be moral.

As Toulmin was well aware, the very idea of legitimate disagreement about abortion had long been taboo in university circles.

Toulmin liked to quote Aristotle’s Nichomachean Ethics: “it is the mark of an educated person to look for precision in each class of things just so far as the nature of the subject matter admits.” While some fields demand logical proofs, others, like jurisprudence, properly depend on what Aristotle called “rhetoric,” reasoning that strives for nothing more than persuasiveness. Persuasive reasoning, which differs from field to field, is not some sort of inferior logic, but is the right way to approach many questions. Or as Aristotle observes, “it is evidently equally foolish to accept probable reasoning from a mathematician and to demand from a rhetorician scientific proofs.”

Modern philosophy notwithstanding, ethical reasoning does not properly work by deduction from abstract principles or laws. As Aristotle pointed out, such an approach leads to moral monstrosity because “all law is universal but about some things it is impossible to make a universal statement that is correct.” Principles are formulated with a paradigm situation in mind, but life presents complexities and contingencies never dreamed of. At such times, one needs good moral judgment, and judgment by definition is not a matter of rules. Rather, it is acquired by sensitive observation of many particular cases and constant reflection on one’s mistakes. As Tolstoy liked to say, good ethical judgment depends on “moral alertness.”

And so on...The tyranny of theory by Gary Saul Morson - The New Criterion

 

[twob4me]

~~~~~~~~~~~~MOD HAT ON!!~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

This thread is being closed for staff review

~~~~~~~~~~~~MOD HAT OFF!!~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

[James Is Back]

Mod Hat On

Thread will remain closed permanently for too many flaming/goading posts. Since you guys can't play nice we will keep this thread closed for good. In the future,address the post not the poster so we can avoid thread closures like this. Thank you!

Mod Hat Off
​