I don't care if you think abortion is wrong.

[Avatar]

not to mention one is self aware and the other isn't

So. What.

 

[Westvleteren]

Again, what's your point? Certainly, its living (so not sure why you put that in your post.). Not breathing, though, so is that the criteria? I guess we can let people on respirators die then. Not feeling, is that the criteria? Bye-bye comatose folk.

And, btw, who decided the criteria necessary for a human life to meet in order to have a right to life? I didn't. So it would be lawyers, yes? And, of course, its always a good idea to look at the results of lawyers duking it out in an adversarial setting to determine our own moral and ethical stands.

Above, I made the distinction between ending a pregnancy and ending a life. That eliminates the odyssey into respirator/disabled land.

You and I (and Lisa) are obviously going to disagree on what point a person becomes a person -- at which point, I submit, they get a "right to life." (Until they're old enough to be drafted, of course, when they get their "right to die for their country.") For now, this country has reached an uneasy compromise between those who believe a person is created at conception, and others, who don't. You and I aren't going to come up with anything any better here, I'm afraid.

But I jump into these threads not because I think I have all the answers (my attitude notwithstanding) but because I get tired of people making assumptions about what women who have abortions feel and experience, and why some of us don't feel we're doing anything immoral.

 

[Lisa0315]

so, life begins at conception... does that mean that all the contraceptives that stop blastocyst implantation are abortion and murder too?

Gray area. Birth control that prevents conception is between you and God. If you are speaking of an after birth control, then, yes, that is potentially an abortion as well.

Lisa

 

[Lisa0315]

Well, thanks for the sentiment, but theoretically, either you think I'm a murderer or you don't. Why does being face-to-face (so to speak) change anything?

(I'm pro-choice for turtles, too. If Mrs. Turtle doesn't want those eggs, she can jolly well have omelet for breakfast...)

P.S. And I would imagine not many of us end pregnancies carelessly. It's not an easy decision.

I think you are a sinner no more and no less than I am.

If you were pregnant, and your husband, boyfriend, or stranger harmed you to the point that you lost your baby, that person would be tried for murder. What is the difference?

Second, we were not talking about the turtles terminating their own eggs, but about society valuing those turtle eggs as precious life but does not value human life in the same manner.

Lisa

 

[Texas Lynn]

Previous Quote:
Originally Posted by sacerdote
Please explain exactly who the "religious right" is and "how" you can justify the statement that they hate people.

Thank you.

Saint, I ask you again, who in your opinion constitutes the religious right and what justification you have that they hate people. List some denominations and churches would be a step in illuminating these points.

Cannot answer for "Saint" but can provide some background information.

Traditionally, anti-abortion views were all but exclusively Catholic. While such views appear in Catholic thought through the years, most notably by St. Thomas Aquinas, they were esoteric and ignored by the general population. They became doctrine in the late 19th Century as the Catholic Hierarchy became more conservative. Indeed, in 1967, when Governor Ronald Reagan (!) signed California's liberalized abortion law (The Belieson Bill) the only opposition to it was from the Catholic leadership in Cali.

The first major Protestant "Religious Right" group was the Religious Roundtable which began during Jimmy Carter's Presidency and at their first meeting abortion was not even on the agenda. Indeed, like Methodists, Lutherans, and Episcopals, Southern Baptists were pro-choice until the 1970s. Religious Right groups got their most traction from this issue with gay rights being a close second. Jerry Falwell made both two of his founding issues in the establishment of the Moral Majority in 1977. Religious Right groups include besides those already mentioned The Christian Coalition, Traditional Values Coalition, Coral Ridge Ministries, Focus on the Family, and many more. By and large these are Protestant multi-issue groups. The anti-abortion only groups like the National Right to Life Committee tend to be Catholic dominated thought calling them anti-abortion only is somewhat misleading as they generally oppose birth control as well as involve themselves in other issues. There is cooperation between these Catholic dominated groups and the Protestant Religious Right organizations though it is limited and fraught with mutual distrust.

By and large conservative fundamentalist/evangelical church bodies are anti-abortion in general. The Southern Baptist Convention is the largest and best known of these. More liberal Protestant bodies tend to be pro-choice and many belong to the Religious coalition for Reproductive Choice ( www.rcrc.org ).

 

[Texas Lynn]

Blah Blah Blah. Funny how 2000 years of all christianity says different. Does your opinion trump all 2000+ years guided by the holy spirit??

Any person who thinks the killing of an unborn child is worthless in themselves and has zero respect for the dignity of human life. Each unborn child has a unique soul that is gone forever once its aborted.. A woman who has an abortion needs to have a GREAT amount of contrition..Unless a woman who has had an abortion is truely sorry for what she has done and has great contrition(sorrow for her sins) she is unrepentant and in a state of mortal sin(which will send her to hell when she dies unless she realizes what she did was wrong, has contrition, and repents of it)..Any support, voting, funding, and social pressure to have an abortion is also a mortal sin and must be repented of..

Interestingly in polls on religious affiliations of women who obtain abortions, Catholics tend to obtain abortions at higher rates than Protestants or Jews. Thus it is apparent that such extremist views as yours carry little weight in Catholic circles. The failure of the RCC to do such things as excommunicate abortion providers and pro-choice politicians is surely by design though there are rare exceptions such as have occurred in the Catholic dioscese in Corpus Christi, Texas, and a Missouri Bishop's threat to deny the Lord's Supper to John Kerry in 2004. The Hierarchy knows an extreme response such as you might advocate would cause their members to leave in droves, thus they are content to give it lip service and little else.

 

[SaintInChicago]

not to mention one is self aware and the other isn't

Pretty sure self awareness doesn't develop until several months after birth.

So a one month old, by our definition, isn't a person. So if someone were so horrible as to go into a nursery and kill all the newborns it would not be murder, following your principles.

That's a problem.

 

[Renton405]

Interestingly in polls on religious affiliations of women who obtain abortions, Catholics tend to obtain abortions at higher rates than Protestants or Jews. Thus it is apparent that such extremist views as yours carry little weight in Catholic circles. The failure of the RCC to do such things as excommunicate abortion providers and pro-choice politicians is surely by design though there are rare exceptions such as have occurred in the Catholic dioscese in Corpus Christi, Texas, and a Missouri Bishop's threat to deny the Lord's Supper to John Kerry in 2004. The Hierarchy knows an extreme response such as you might advocate would cause their members to leave in droves, thus they are content to give it lip service and little else.

It seems you do not know much about the Church. Abortion provider and support already incur an automatic excommunication..

Canon 1398 provides that, "a person who procures a successful abortion incurs an automatic (latae sententiae) excommunication." This means that at the very moment that the abortion is successfully accomplished, the woman and all formal conspirators are excommunicated.


The Church dosen't have to go to everyone and say "your excommunicated". The act in itself of abortion excommunicates them automatically..The Church has already explained that these "pro choice catholic groups" are not in communion with the Catholic Church and are already excommunicated..There is no such thing as a pro-choice Catholic..You cannot support something that the church says is an extreme mortal sin and incurs an automatic excommunication. You would be lying to yourself as well as the church and Christ. A supporter of abortion who takes the eucharist commits sacrilege, which is another great mortal sin. In the end all the person does is hurt himself and heaps more and more sin on his back. This is what the denial of sin does to a person..

If someone who supports abortion takes the eucharist he is drinking damnation on himself because he is taking the eucharist in known mortal sin. Unless he repents of the sin of abortion(or supporting of such) he will have that mortal sin on his back until he repents of it. If he dosen't and happens to die, he/she will go to hell because of dying in a state of mortal sin..

A priest recently talked about how many confessions he had where the woman thought birth control was not a sin. It was absolute war. But in the end the truth prevailed and nearly every confessor he has had ended up admiting the wrongs of birth control. That is what a good priest does,, he may seem likeable and friendly, but DOES NOT confirm someone in their sins. There may be priests who try to avoid to issue because they don't want to argue about it. The good ones don't because they realize how severe it is to confirm someone in their sins..Its the truth that matters , not how many members there are..

So whatever "Catholic circles" you talk of are not in true communion with the Catholic Church and are not considered Catholics. Schismatics or Heretics, yes.. But Catholics, no..

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Pretty sure self awareness doesn't develop until several months after birth.

So a one month old, by our definition, isn't a person. So if someone were so horrible as to go into a nursery and kill all the newborns it would not be murder, following your principles.

That's a problem.

I agree... but I'm big enough to admit that this is purely from an emotional standpoint, not a logical one...

Further, I doubt tht the average parent would be seeking to kill newborns, when the abortion option would have been available for the previous several months.

Remember, we aren't justifying anyone murdering with impugnity here, we are discussing a woman's right to choose what happens to her

 

[Avatar]

we are discussing a woman's right to choose what happens to her

Unless that woman hasn't yet been born. Then others get to choose what happens to her.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Unless that woman hasn't yet been born. Then others get to choose what happens to her.

if she hasn't been born, she isn't a woman yet... or a person.

 

[Avatar]

if she hasn't been born, she isn't a woman yet... or a person.

Says you.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Says you.

well, tell me this... when an abortion occurs... who is actually sentient of any harm? I mean who is actually harmed and aware of being harmed?

 

[Avatar]

well, tell me this... when an abortion occurs... who is actually sentient of any harm? I mean who is actually harmed and aware of being harmed?

Whether or not the baby knows its being harmed doesn't change the fact that it is being harmed, does it?

On another note, liberals truly perplex me. Almost all my moral positions fall in line with liberals - except abortion. So I class myself as a moderate (that's a conservative in Canada because we're a way liberal country). Liberals are champions of the oppressed. Liberals fight and have fought against racism, bigotry, religious intolerance, homophobia, any wrong committed against anyone essentially. Liberals are the champions of the underdog, they speak for those without voices. Except the most helpless among us, the unborn. Liberals do not stand up for them but rather insist that they are without rights and can be destroyed.

I just don't get it.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Whether or not the baby knows its being harmed doesn't change the fact that it is being harmed, does it?

On another note, liberals truly perplex me. Almost all my moral positions fall in line with liberals - except abortion. So I class myself as a moderate (that's a conservative in Canada because we're a way liberal country). Liberals are champions of the oppressed. Liberals fight and have fought against racism, bigotry, religious intolerance, homophobia, any wrong committed against anyone essentially. Liberals are the champions of the underdog, they speak for those without voices. Except the most helpless among us, the unborn. Liberals do not stand up for them but rather insist that they are without rights and can be destroyed.

I just don't get it.

Just as harmed as the cow you ate for dinner, and significantly less aware of the harm and fear than that cow probably suffered... but I digress

Well first of all, I consider myself a conservative, and I'm staunchly pro-life. However, while I think abortion is very, very rarely appropriate or the best option, I don't believe that my personal belief needs to be enforced onto anyone else, and I also don't believe in argument by emotion... and imbuing a foetus with the attirbutes of a sentient human does just that. Its a non sentient blob of cells, and its destruction is not comparable to the destruction of a sentient being with friends family and loving relationships who will miss it.

Like I say, I don't think abortion is ever a good idea, except in exceptional medical circumstances, but that doesn't mean I approve of bandying about terms like "murder" or "murder factory" and so on. Its this gross oversimplification of the issue, and the demonising of those who support a woman's rights to choose that I find really abhorent, and the reason why, despite my personal stance, I find myself roughly grouped in the "pro-choice" camp.

One of those, "I disagree with your opinion, but will fight for your right to express it" type deals

 

[Avatar]

Except its not an opinion your fighting for, its someone's death.

 

[Renton405]

well, tell me this... when an abortion occurs... who is actually sentient of any harm? I mean who is actually harmed and aware of being harmed?

The Mother is harmed physically and physcologically the rest of her life. The baby is harmed because it is being killed. One dead, the other mentally ruined..It also puts the mother and the doctor(including all her supporters) in a extreme state of mortal sin. If the mother dies during having an abortion she will almost surely go to Hell, because she is dying in a state of mortal sin(unless by some miracle she is repentant and has contrition right before she dies in that very little amount of time)..

The harm definatly outweighs anything else. Death, murder, mental pain, mortal sin, risk of death by hemmorage and possible damnation..

http://youtube.com/watch?v=-Vh1frrx_-w


notice how they ask for no lights and sirens to be put on in the ambulance.. horrible people they are..

 

[IzzyPop]

Except its not an opinion your fighting for, its someone's death.

And I do the same for euthanasia and the death penalty. Although I do admit that I'm much more ambiguous about that last one. I identify closer with the emotional revenge part of it than the so-called rational deterrent part. But that would be a different thread.

 

[Texas Lynn]

It seems you do not know much about the Church. Abortion provider and support already incur an automatic excommunication..

Canon 1398 provides that, "a person who procures a successful abortion incurs an automatic (latae sententiae) excommunication." This means that at the very moment that the abortion is successfully accomplished, the woman and all formal conspirators are excommunicated.


The Church dosen't have to go to everyone and say "your excommunicated". The act in itself of abortion excommunicates them automatically..The Church has already explained that these "pro choice catholic groups" are not in communion with the Catholic Church and are already excommunicated..There is no such thing as a pro-choice Catholic..You cannot support something that the church says is an extreme mortal sin and incurs an automatic excommunication. You would be lying to yourself as well as the church and Christ. A supporter of abortion who takes the eucharist commits sacrilege, which is another great mortal sin. In the end all the person does is hurt himself and heaps more and more sin on his back. This is what the denial of sin does to a person..

If someone who supports abortion takes the eucharist he is drinking damnation on himself because he is taking the eucharist in known mortal sin. Unless he repents of the sin of abortion(or supporting of such) he will have that mortal sin on his back until he repents of it. If he dosen't and happens to die, he/she will go to hell because of dying in a state of mortal sin..

A priest recently talked about how many confessions he had where the woman thought birth control was not a sin. It was absolute war. But in the end the truth prevailed and nearly every confessor he has had ended up admiting the wrongs of birth control. That is what a good priest does,, he may seem likeable and friendly, but DOES NOT confirm someone in their sins. There may be priests who try to avoid to issue because they don't want to argue about it. The good ones don't because they realize how severe it is to confirm someone in their sins..Its the truth that matters , not how many members there are..

So whatever "Catholic circles" you talk of are not in true communion with the Catholic Church and are not considered Catholics. Schismatics or Heretics, yes.. But Catholics, no..

I've heard other conservative Catholics say these things. But they are meaningless as long as the hierarchy doesn't act, which they will not do. You can believe all that if you want but it's essentially just meangless drivel.

 

[Texas Lynn]

...liberals truly perplex me. Almost all my moral positions fall in line with liberals - except abortion. So I class myself as a moderate (that's a conservative in Canada because we're a way liberal country). Liberals are champions of the oppressed. Liberals fight and have fought against racism, bigotry, religious intolerance, homophobia, any wrong committed against anyone essentially. Liberals are the champions of the underdog, they speak for those without voices. Except the most helpless among us, the unborn. Liberals do not stand up for them but rather insist that they are without rights and can be destroyed.

I just don't get it.

If a fetus could be determined to have certain rights which do not infringe on the woman's rights liberals would not oppose them, but ultimately the woman's rights must take precedence. Liberals do not oppose measures to reduce abortion which forego a criminal law context. The unwillingness of the antiabortion faction to forego this method prevents compromise.