Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
And the Freudian Slip of the Year, goes to: SteveB28!Learn to live with being wrong.
a fetus is a young baby .
And the Freudian Slip of the Year, goes to: SteveB28!
You have been saying that in spite of whether something turns out to be right or wrong, the consensus is "right" regardless...i.e. learn to live with being wrong. (RIGHT!)
I have been saying that, in spite of what the consensus is, "right" is right, and people are often wrong. ... Which does mean that your advice of learning to live with being wrong, fits...but not because I will, but because people definitely are often wrong...but NEVER, I will never learn to live with being wrong (with the consensus)...never!
so what do you think a human fetus is then a young kitten ?
yes a human fetus has the potential to be classified as a person but of course they are already classified as people by those who consider all human beings as people . so some do and some do not classify a young human as a person .A human fetus is a potential human person.
yes a human fetus has the potential to be classified as a person but of course they are already classified as people by those who consider all human beings as people . so some do and some do not classify a young human as a person .
yes a human fetus has the potential to be classified as a person but of course they are already classified as people by those who consider all human beings as people . so some do and some do not classify a young human as a person .
And you are a member of the minority that thinks this way.
Good for you. Most people don't. Most people never have. This is why there has always been strong public support for the right of a woman to make the requisite decisions about her reproduction.
And you don't like this. We understand. You want to be able to tell all women what they should and should not do.
It isn't going to happen. As I said to Scott, learn to live with the fact that you are on the wrong side of history and the wrong side of this issue.
I see many here who would wish to deny a woman the right to terminate a pregnancy, by declaring that it would be an act of murder.
And yet I also see those same people running away from this question:
How would such a law be enforced?
history typical does not look back kindly on those who dehumanize and kill others and there are as many people who are pro-life as there are who are pro-choice in the US http://www.gallup.com/poll/170249/split-abortion-pro-choice-pro-life.aspxAnd you are a member of the minority that thinks this way.
Good for you. Most people don't. Most people never have. This is why there has always been strong public support for the right of a woman to make the requisite decisions about her reproduction.
And you don't like this. We understand. You want to be able to tell all women what they should and should not do.
It isn't going to happen. As I said to Scott, learn to live with the fact that you are on the wrong side of history and the wrong side of this issue.
"The law does not provide that the act of abortion pertains to homicide, for there cannot yet be said to be a live soul in a body that lacks sensation..."--St Augustine
"The intellective soul i.e., true person is created by God at the completion of man's coming into being." -- St Thomas Aquinas
"Many modern philosophers and theologians return to St. Thomas' view."--Fr Joseph F. Donceel, S.J.
"To admit that the human fetus receives the intellectual soul from the moment of its conception, when matter is in no way ready for it, sounds to me like a philosophical absurdity. It is as absurd as to call a fertilized ovum a baby." --Jacques Maritain
"In the rabbinic tradition...abortion remains a non-capital crime at worst."--Rabbi David Feldman
The Scriptures are silent in defining when one becomes a person.
history typical does not look back kindly on those who dehumanize and kill others and there are as many people who are pro-life as there are who are pro-choice in the US http://www.gallup.com/poll/170249/split-abortion-pro-choice-pro-life.aspx
You realize that abortion actually was illegal up to 1972, and that law enforcement and courts did deal with it.
So all you actually have to do is read a bit of history.
1. It is murder, by any logical standard.I see many here who would wish to deny a woman the right to terminate a pregnancy, by declaring that it would be an act of murder.
And yet I also see those same people running away from this question:
How would such a law be enforced?
1. It is murder, by any logical standard.
2. How or whether to punish it is an entirely separate matter.
Not entirely true, but you are referring to earlier centuries in which people didn't know that the unborn child was anything but a clump of flesh, completely incapable feeling, etc., like a tumor. WE NOW KNOW BETTER, just as we no longer allow workers to paint radium on watch faces with brushes moistened by their own lips.You mention 'history' then fail to observe the history evident in your own graphs! Whilst it has been closer in the last five years, HISTORY would show that the public has always clearly supported the right of a woman to make her own decisions about her reproduction.
You are speaking here only of what the status of the act is in law. The question, however, was whether or not it should be considered murder.1. In your mind only. The courts and public opinion disagree with your 'logic'.
That's irrelevant to the point #2 as I made it.2. Unless a crime has been committed, discussion of punishment becomes irrelevant.
Not entirely true, but you are referring to earlier centuries in which people didn't know that the unborn child was anything but a clump of flesh, completely incapable feeling, etc., like a tumor. WE NOW KNOW BETTER, just as we no longer allow workers to paint radium on watch faces with brushes moistened by their own lips.
You are speaking here only of what the status of the act is in law. The question, however, was whether or not it should be considered murder.
That's irrelevant to the point #2 as I made it.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?