Remove the stigma!

[JacktheCatholic]

...'fetus' is a latin term expressing 'unborn child'. 'fetus' is used instead of 'unborn child' so as to 'lesson' the guilt and 'diminish' the 'act' of ending a life. a married woman doesn't call family & friends to inform then that "I'M GOING TO HAVE A FETUS!" and the 'exhausted' appeal to 'incest or rape' does not account for the 'millions' aborted every year, or else Nancy Grace would be on 24/7.

Thank God for someone else not caught up in the self centered world of today.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

We're not talking about babies.

Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy of a fetus or embryo - that is the scientific definition.

Whether you see it as a baby or not is a moral opinion. So, you can't call it the "murder of an innocent baby" if the other side doesn't see it as a baby.

You better look up what abortion is in the Catholic Church if you are going to represent one.

Or I can save you the work. Just let me know. Or spend some time in OBOB.

I will say that the Catholic Church sees abortion as the murder of an innocent life and only excuses abortion when the mother's life is at risk and can be considered an act of self defense.

Which, by the way, means rape and incest are no excuse for an abortion. EVER.

 

[Trashionista]

You better look up what abortion is in the Catholic Church if you are going to represent one.

Or I can save you the work. Just let me know. Or spend some time in OBOB.

I will say that the Catholic Church sees abortion as the murder of an innocent life and only excuses abortion when the mother's life is at risk and can be considered an act of self defense.

Which, by the way, means rape and incest are no excuse for an abortion. EVER.

That's nice.

I actually went to Catholic schools - where yes, I was told the perspective of the Church.

However, I am strongly for the seperation of Church & State. Politics & religion shouldn't be in bed together.

Maybe abortion is a moral issue from a person-to-person basis. But on a nation-wide [or territory-wide] level, that should be decided by a non-Partisan government. Abortion and the legality of it is a government issue - as far as I'm concerned, it has to be offered.

I'm not pro-abortion, I am pro-choice. There is a difference. A woman has the right to do whatever she feels is best for her body - just as any man would. If aborting a pregnancy in her view comes under that umbrella, she should have that right.

As I've said in previous threads, there are several things I disagree with within the Catholic church. Abortion just happens to be one of them.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

That's nice.

I actually went to Catholic schools - where yes, I was told the perspective of the Church.

However, I am strongly for the seperation of Church & State. Politics & religion shouldn't be in bed together.

Maybe abortion is a moral issue from a person-to-person basis. But on a nation-wide [or territory-wide] level, that should be decided by a non-Partisan government. Abortion and the legality of it is a government issue - as far as I'm concerned, it has to be offered.

I'm not pro-abortion, I am pro-choice. There is a difference. A woman has the right to do whatever she feels is best for her body - just as any man would. If aborting a pregnancy in her view comes under that umbrella, she should have that right.

As I've said in previous threads, there are several things I disagree with within the Catholic church. Abortion just happens to be one of them.

Just because you are raised Catholic does mean you know what it is to be Catholic. As I said before... you better learn what it means to be Catholic if you are claiming to be.

Even the secular world knows that the Pope has threatened excommunication for any Catholic politician that supports or votes pro-choice.

The Catholic Church does not take the murder of 1.5 million babies a year softly. It is an abomination.

God said to follow men in authority unless they go against the teachings of God. And young girl abortion is murder in Gods eyes. You have many Catholic sources that do not rely on scripture alone. Use the wealth of the Catholic Church since it is the Pillar of Truth and keeps both the Oral and Written teachings of the Apostles. Even consider the Didache (teaching of the Apsotles) from as eearly as 70 AD which tells us abortion is evil.

DIDACHE:
"1. And the second commandment of the Teaching; 2. You shall not commit murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not commit pæderasty, you shall not commit fornication, you shall not steal, you shall not practice magic, you shall not practice witchcraft, you shall not murder a child by abortion nor kill that which is begotten. You shall not covet the things of your neighbour, 3. you shall not forswear yourself, you shall not bear false witness, you shall not speak evil, you shall bear no grudge. 4. You shall not be double-minded nor double-tongued; for to be double-tongued is a snare of death. 5. Your speech shall not be false, nor empty, but fulfilled by deed. 6. You shall not be covetous, nor rapacious, nor a hypocrite, nor evil disposed, nor haughty. You shall not take evil counsel against your neighbour. 7. You shall not hate any man; but some you shall reprove, and concerning some you shall pray, and some you shall love more than your own life."

More on Didache: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Didache

 

[PostTribber]

Yes, and if you read the post to which she was responding, it was discussing abortion in cases of rape and incest.

...here's a statement made by the woman who was named in the case of Roe vs Wade..."In an interview on 8/10/95 with WBAP radio in Dallas, McCorvey announced, "I'm pro-life. I think I've always been pro-life, I just didn't know it" (Reaves, DALLAS MORNING NEWS, 8/11/95). McCorvey, claimed before Roe that she had been raped, was 21 and pregnant when approached by attorney Sarah Weddington about suing for the right to have an abortion. McCorvey never had an abortion, because the decision came too late. She carried the baby to term and gave her up for adoption. McCorvey later admitted that she had not been raped (ibid., 8/11). ABC's "World News Tonight" and "Nightline" featured exclusive interviews with McCorvey, in which she renounced her role in the abortion advocacy movement and declared that "abortion is wrong."
"I think abortion is wrong. I think what I did with Roe vs. Wade was wrong, and I just have to take a pro-life position on [abortion]" ("World News Tonight," 8/10/95).

 

[Archivist]

...here's a statement made by the woman who was named in the case of Roe vs Wade..."In an interview on 8/10/95 with WBAP radio in Dallas, McCorvey announced, "I'm pro-life. I think I've always been pro-life, I just didn't know it" (Reaves, DALLAS MORNING NEWS, 8/11/95). McCorvey, claimed before Roe that she had been raped, was 21 and pregnant when approached by attorney Sarah Weddington about suing for the right to have an abortion. McCorvey never had an abortion, because the decision came too late. She carried the baby to term and gave her up for adoption. McCorvey later admitted that she had not been raped (ibid., 8/11). ABC's "World News Tonight" and "Nightline" featured exclusive interviews with McCorvey, in which she renounced her role in the abortion advocacy movement and declared that "abortion is wrong."
"I think abortion is wrong. I think what I did with Roe vs. Wade was wrong, and I just have to take a pro-life position on [abortion]" ("World News Tonight," 8/10/95).

Yes, I've heard this before. Irrelevent because the question of rape didn't play a factor in the Supreme Court's decision.

 

[PostTribber]

Yes, I've heard this before. Irrelevent because the question of rape didn't play a factor in the Supreme Court's decision.

..."McCorvey, claimed before Roe that she had been raped, was 21 and pregnant when approached by attorney Sarah Weddington about suing for the right to have an abortion." perhaps the question of rape didn't play a factor in the Court's decision, but it was the reason to bring the case before the Court in the first place.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

I think abortion is wrong. I think what I did with Roe vs. Wade was wrong, and I just have to take a pro-life position on [abortion]"[/B] ("World News Tonight," 8/10/95).

I know a girl that had an abortion at 15 years of age because society said it is OK and she was afraid.

Guess what? Every year around the time of when that baby would have exited the womb she has great depression and feelings of guilt. Something to think about since thousands of woman go through this regret afterwards.

 

[Archivist]

..."McCorvey, claimed before Roe that she had been raped, was 21 and pregnant when approached by attorney Sarah Weddington about suing for the right to have an abortion." perhaps the question of rape didn't play a factor in the Court's decision, but it was the reason to bring the case before the Court in the first place.

But the same claim could have been made whether she had been raped or not. Again, it played no factor in the decision.

 

[Archivist]

I know a girl that had an abortion at 15 years of age because society said it is OK and she was afraid.

Guess what? Every year around the time of when that baby would have exited the womb she has great depression and feelings of guilt. Something to think about since thousands of woman go through this regret afterwards.

So abortion should be illegal because some people later regret it? That's hardly a basis for making something a crime.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

So abortion should be illegal because some people later regret it? That's hardly a basis for making something a crime.

I have stated why I think it is wrong more than once.

It is MURDER!!!

 

[LunarPlexus]

Hello to everyone!

I have stated why I think it is wrong more than once.

It is MURDER!!!

By definition, it isn't.

I have a question: Do you consider yourself a monster when you step on ants?

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Hello to everyone!



By definition, it isn't.

I have a question: Do you consider yourself a monster when you step on ants?

Ants are not the children of God and given a spirit with a will that will determine if they spend eternity with the Father in Heaven.

A baby has a soul like you or me. When Mary was pregnant with Jesus and was visiting Elizabeth the baby in Elizabeth lept for joy.

And another time God says that he knows us before we are born.

If you are Christian then you are of Christ and Christ does not condone the killing of an unborn baby.

You decide to live by laws created by sinful men and to understand the world based on scientists that change their teachings every so often and are proven wrong often enough.

As a Chritian I choose to follow God's law and will not allow man's law to cause me to stray from God's law. I also realize science can be wrong and see science as a way to understand God's creation.

BUT even with that said... We can look up definitions for "homocide" and what an unborn child is and what "life" is and we will find that at conception the parts from a man and a woman cease to be sperm and an egg and become a living creature. This creature has the DNA of a human and is in the process of developing into a human. From scripture we know this creature has a soul. Even adolesents are developing into a full grown human and have a brain that is growing and have not the ability to reproduce.

To abort a baby at any time is to kill it. And since it is a human then it is the killing of a human. Just because evil men have made it legal, it is not legal by God's law.

You choose man's law that is your choice. I chose God's law. When it is all said and done we will see who is right and who is wrong...

 

[LunarPlexus]

Ants are not the children of God and given a spirit with a will that will determine if they spend eternity with the Father in Heaven.

A baby has a soul like you or me. When Mary was pregnant with Jesus and was visiting Elizabeth the baby in Elizabeth lept for joy.

And another time God says that he knows us before we are born.

If you are Christian then you are of Christ and Christ does not condone the killing of an unborn baby.

You decide to live by laws created by sinful men and to understand the world based on scientists that change their teachings every so often and are proven wrong often enough.

As a Chritian I choose to follow God's law and will not allow man's law to cause me to stray from God's law. I also realize science can be wrong and see science as a way to understand God's creation.

BUT even with that said... We can look up definitions for "homocide" and what an unborn child is and what "life" is and we will find that at conception the parts from a man and a woman cease to be sperm and an egg and become a living creature. This creature has the DNA of a human and is in the process of developing into a human. From scripture we know this creature has a soul. Even adolesents are developing into a full grown human and have a brain that is growing and have not the ability to reproduce.

To abort a baby at any time is to kill it. And since it is a human then it is the killing of a human. Just because evil men have made it legal, it is not legal by God's law.

You choose man's law that is your choice. I chose God's law. When it is all said and done we will see who is right and who is wrong...

So you are saying that ants have less inherent value than humans?
They aren't children of God? If God created everything, I would like to think that ants are equal to humans. If a foetus is equal to a human being then surely an ant is?

I wouldn't expect you to stray from God's law, but attempting to monopolize the wombs of other women is something I wouldn't expect any decent human to attempt.

 

[Assisi]

By definition, it isn't.

The problem with this argument is that it implies that morality is dependant on the laws of the land. ActionJack is saying that murder is a moral concept, and and moral evil (and I agree), whereas you (and others) are saying that murder is a legal concept, and is illegal.

If it became illegal to have an abortion, would we then be able to call it murder and to classify it as wrong? Can the government decide that 5 year olds with intellectual disabilities are not really children, and that they can be legally killed? Would that then mean that killing a 5 year old is not murder?

To me, murder is murder. And it is defined by God, not the government. I don't care whether the laws of the land don't classify it as murder. The government can't change reality.

 

[LunarPlexus]

This is a good point.
I don't really care what you want to call it, because the principle remains the same. While I personally don't believe that God determines what is right and wrong, I don't necessarily feel that the law is always right.

I made a pointless statement. I apologize.

 

[jad123]

So you are saying that ants have less inherent value than humans?
They aren't children of God? If God created everything, I would like to think that ants are equal to humans. If a foetus is equal to a human being then surely an ant is?

I wouldn't expect you to stray from God's law, but attempting to monopolize the wombs of other women is something I wouldn't expect any decent human to attempt.

Human beings are intrinsically more valuable than animals, pets or any other creature. People are made in God’s image; animals are not. People must give an account to God for their actions on Judgment Day; animals have no such day awaiting them. Man has a conscience and a moral will that is free, able and obligated to do right; animals have no such conscience and are not obligated by God to do right. The choices of animals are governed by instinct, self-preservation, self-gratification or habit formed in them through human training. Unlike humans, they are unable to act from higher motives. Now with all that said we told to be good stewards to God's creation which includes animals, insects, etc. But to compare stepping on an ant to killing an unborn human child is ridiculous as the two are not equal in any way. Lets compare aborting an 8 week old child in the mothers womb with killing an 8 week old child already born.

 

[Atlantians]

If you don't want to read all of this post, I have devided it by person I have responded to.

Responses to: Archivist

But it isn't up to us to force a woman who is a victim of rape or incest to carry the fetus to term.

Why?

No one should be forced to give birth to the child of her attacker.

Why?

The choice has to remain with her.

Why?

Homicide and murder are both legal terms that have specific requirements. Abortion is neither homicide nor murder.

They are legal terms with certain deffinitions.
They are also linguistic terms with broader deffinitions.

Homicide is simply the legal term for one person killing another.
Like hemhorage is the mediocal term for bleeding.
So apparently you didnt know what homicide actually meant when you said that.

Murder is defined legally as performing the act of killing a person intentionally without legal justification.

Murder is defined linguistically as: The intentional killing of an innocent human being.

The Nazi slaughter of the jews was Murder by linguistic deffinition.
Not by legal deffinition as no human law forbid it.

So most certainly you wouldn't argue that the holocaust cictims were not murdered because the acts didn't technically fall under the legal deffinition of murder under Nazi German rule?

That would be absurd.
Why would you then use that argument for this?

Who are you to tell a woman who has already suffered with the pain of rape or incest than she suffer more and must carry the spawn of her attacker to term?

Spawn?
Don't change the terminology to dehumanize through conotation the living human children at question here.
Who are you to allow murder?
The killing of an innocent human being?

What gives you that right? The choice must be hers.

What gives her the right?

But it isn't legal homicide (which is what I was discussing), nor is it murder as you previously claimed.

Yes it is and you are arguing semantics anyway.

You are entitled to your opinion, which is no more or less reasonable than my views on the subject.

Wrong. In fact it is more reasonable because your view is not based on scientific, linguistic, and legal fact... unlike his which is.

Just because I disagree with you, why do you have to start throwing insults? I think that we can carry on a rational discussion without doing that.

He wasn't throwing insults, he was identifying the fact that you did not know what the term meant, and that you were acting as if you did.

No because I am a life in being. Killing me would be murder. A fetus is a potential life, not a life in being. Have you read Lord Coke on this subject?

Lord Coke would be wrong. I already proved that a fetus is a living human child by all deffinitions of life.

Again, who are you to tell a victim of rape or incest that she must carry the spawn of her attacker to term. That is slavery, which we have thankfully abolished in this country.

A natural biological process is not slavery.
That is rhetorical scare terminology.

Is it fair to force a woman who has already been victimized once to go through morning sickness, weight gain, stretch marks, the pain a labor, the possible scarring of a c-section and the very real possibility of death?

Is it fair to value a living human being less than the mother, so that one can justify the death of the child?

When did I say that it was about me???????

Never. He wasn't saying you did.

And, again, abortion isn't murder.

By legal deffinition. But neither was the mass slaughter of so many people under Soviet rule.
The holocaust.
Not that you would want to use that same argument in those cases, because that wouldn't be a good idea would it?

Convenient claim until one points this out isn't it?

Yes, I've heard this before. Irrelevent because the question of rape didn't play a factor in the Supreme Court's decision.

Irrelivent. It played a part in the presentation of the case and is thus relevent to the debate about Roe V. Wade. Not this debate however.

Responses to: Quirk

We're not talking about babies.

Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy of a fetus or embryo - that is the scientific definition.

Whether you see it as a baby or not is a moral opinion. So, you can't call it the "murder of an innocent baby" if the other side doesn't see it as a baby.

That is scientifically false and logically absurd.
A fetus is a living member of the species of which it was concieved.
This is scientific fact.

1) A human being, as the term human is used in common speach, is any unique member of the species of homo sapiens sapiens.
Thus any unique member of the human race is a human being.

2) A fetus is a unique organism/being. It grows, developes, has a metabolism, and has a response to its suroundings based on its awareness (awareness in the physiological sense of reaction to stimuli, not sentient awareness) thereof, aswell as being seperate and self-contained, unlike say a skin cell which is living but a part of a larger being/organism and is thus not a being in of itself. A fetus is a living entity unto itself.
Thus a fetus is living or was at one point living if its life was terminated.

3) A fetus is a member of the species of which it is concieved. This is blatantly obvious, but forgotten. A fetus is genetically and biologically a member of the race of which its parents are of. A fetus is the product of succesful reproduction. Reproduction is the causing of the emergence of a new unique member of the race of being it is genetically and biologically a member of.
Thus a fetus of human biology and genetic code is a human fetus.

4) A child is the offspring of parents. A child is an offspring of its parents at any stage of development. An offspreing is a child at anystage of development because the words are synonymous when used literally.
Thus a fetus of human descent is a Human child.

5) A baby is, in the common sense of the word, the young offspring of a human being, being a more specific term than child (which covers from conception and on, but is ussually thought to end at teenagerhood or pre-teen-hood). This includes all early stage development from conception to the dawn of toddlerhood.
Thus a pre-born Living Human Child is at all stages a baby.

Thus a human fetus is by scientific and linguistic deffinition: A living Baby Human Child.

However, I don't believe using "fetus" or "embryo" in anyway suggests that a burden should be lessened. Personally, I'm using it as a scientific term - abortion is a medical procedure. Its no different that using "uterus" instead of "mummy's tummy" when discussing a hysterectomy.

I use it as a scientific term also.
But the scientific-ness of the term is used to hide and diminish the humanity of the child by pro-abortionists.
Ironic though, that the word means, essentially, "unbornchild'.
Fetus is a latin idiom meaning: developing child.

However, I am strongly for the seperation of Church & State.

Fine so am I.
The deffinition of the seperation and church and state is not what you think it is as expressed by your view bellow:

Politics & religion shouldn't be in bed together.

Why are secular, atheistic, and humanist oppinions superior to religious ones that religious ones are defaulted against?

Why should the morality of this nation be based only in secular, atheistic, and humanistic oppinions rather than religious ones?

The state is not supposed to force the practice and adherence to a particular religion.
The state is supposed to dictate the morality of the nation.
And legal morality must be based on oppinions.
All oppinions are based on assumptions at some level or another.

You, by saying religious views (in this case that Abortion is morally wrong) must be ignored in the legal square, you establish secularism as, quite frankly, the state religion.

"You must only present secular views in legal matters."

Atheistic views, humanistic views, are all considered secular.

As I've said in previous threads, there are several things I disagree with within the Catholic church.

You can't disagree with the Catholic Church and still honestly call yourself Catholic.
Martin Luther tried that already.

Responses to: LunarPlexus

By definition, it isn't.

By linguistic deffinition it is:
The intentional killing of an innocent human being.

I have a question: Do you consider yourself a monster when you step on ants?

Murder, by deffinition, does not literally apply to anything besides humans.

So you are saying that ants have less inherent value than humans?

Yes he is and I agree.

They aren't children of God?

No.

If God created everything, I would like to think that ants are equal to humans.

God created Rocks.

If a foetus is equal to a human being then surely an ant is?

Non sequitor.
A fetus is a human being, not merely of the same level of worth.

Ants are not human.

I wouldn't expect you to stray from God's law, but attempting to monopolize the wombs of other women is something I wouldn't expect any decent human to attempt.

The use of the term monopolize is totally ad hoc.

 

[Archivist]

Why? (This was in response to my statement that "But it isn't up to us to force a woman who is a victim of rape or incest to carry the fetus to term.")

Two reasons: 1) Just because you believe that life begins at conception, the woman who is a victim of rape might not and should not be required to carry a fetus to term just to satisfy your moral views and 2) Article XIII prohibits involuntary servitude except in cases of criminal punishment, and forcing a woman to acrry a child to term against her will qualifies as involuntary servitude.

Why? (This was in response to my statement that "No one should be forced to give birth to the child of her attacker."

See my previous answers. Apparently you care very little for rape victims if you want to put them through this. Remember, I am not proposing that we force rape victims who want to carry the fetus to term to have abortions. I think taht they should be free to do that if they so desire. You are the one who wants to impose your moral views on others.

Why? This was in response to my statement "The choice has to remain with her."

They are legal terms with certain deffinitions.
They are also linguistic terms with broader deffinitions.

But we are talking about a legal issue, so it is the legal definition that must prevail.

Homicide is simply the legal term for one person killing another.

But criminal homocide is homicide prohibited and punishable by law. Abortion does not meet this definition.

Like hemhorage is the mediocal term for bleeding. So apparently you didnt know what homicide actually meant when you said that.

No, I was correct in what I said, as I just explained.

Murder is defined legally as performing the act of killing a person intentionally without legal justification.

What is your source? Black's Law Dictionary, the recognized source in the legal field, defines murder as "the Killing of a human being with malice aforethought.

Murder is defined linguistically as: The intentional killing of an innocent human being.

Again, what is your source? Webster's defines murder as "the unlawful and deliberate killing of a human being." Again, abortion does not meet this definition.

The Nazi slaughter of the jews was Murder by linguistic deffinition. Not by legal deffinition as no human law forbid it. So most certainly you wouldn't argue that the holocaust cictims were not murdered because the acts didn't technically fall under the legal deffinition of murder under Nazi German rule?

You need to study history. The Nuremberg Court found the actions bu y the Nazis to be "crimes aginst humanity," so yes, it was illegal under international law.

Spawn?
Don't change the terminology to dehumanize through conotation the living human children at question here.

A fetus is not a living human child. If it were, it would be legally protected.

Who are you to allow murder?

As stated above, it is not murder. There is really no reason for us to discuss this if you are going to insist on making up your own definitions.

The killing of an innocent human being?

No, potential human being.

What gives her the right?

Because, as stated above, involuntary servitude is prohibited. If you don't like that, I suggest you work to have the 13th Amendment repealed or revised.

Yes it is and you are arguing semantics anyway.

When you are dealing with legal issues, semantics matter.

Wrong. In fact it is more reasonable because your view is not based on scientific, linguistic, and legal fact... unlike his which is (this was in response to my statement to Action jack that he was entitled to his opinion, which is no more or less reasonable than my opinion).

So, now I am not entitled to my opinion? Actually, my views are supported by the accepted legal and lingistic definitions, as I have shown by quoting from reliable sources. The scientific issue hasn't been raised in thsi thread, and you have supplied nothing to back that claim.

He wasn't throwing insults, he was identifying the fact that you did not know what the term meant, and that you were acting as if you did.

Again, as shown above, I am fully aware as to the correct meaning of the terms under discussion. BTW, his exact words were that it was "obvious that you have no clue." There are reasonable ways to disagree; saying that someone has "no clue" is insulting.

Lord Coke would be wrong. I already proved that a fetus is a living human child by all deffinitions of life.

No, you haven't proven anything. I have provided definitions from reliable sources; you have not. You are aware, I presume, that Coke is the father of the Common Law.

A natural biological process is not slavery.
That is rhetorical scare terminology.

No, that is basic Constitutional law. Forcing a woman to carry a fetus against her will is a violation of the 13th Amendment.

Is it fair to value a living human being less than the mother, so that one can justify the death of the child?

Yes, the mother is a life in being. The fetus is not.

Never. He wasn't saying you did.

I don't understand this particular reply. It was written in response to my statement "When did I say that it was about me?" which I wrote in reply to the statement "But this is not about you." So, yes, he did say that.

By legal deffinition. But neither was the mass slaughter of so many people under Soviet rule.

Had the Soviet leaders been brought up on chages of Crimes against Humanity, they would most certainly have been found guilty. However, Stalin and his underlings were all dead by the time the Soviet Union collapsed, so no such trial ever ocurred.

The holocaust.

Already explained.

Not that you would want to use that same argument in those cases, because that wouldn't be a good idea would it?

Again, already explained.

 

[Archivist]

I have stated why I think it is wrong more than once.

It is MURDER!!!

No, it is not.