CDZ Abortion

[Steinlight]

The idea that a woman has a "right" to abort her child is a belief, therefore under your analogy it is overridden.

 

[there4eyeM]

...and all cells contain and are controlled by DNA, and DNA has been continuously alive for billions of years, so all living things began life way back then. When does life begin for a human? We can impose almost any limit we desire. We make decisions all the time about when to end it. 'Abortion' is just another decision. Who has the right to make this for a woman other than the woman?

Human beings didn't exist billions of years ago, don't try to implement your talmudic logic here.

Life begins for a human at conception, when it is a unique biological entity with 46 chromosomes

If we can impose any limit, than I impose it at conception, when the human life starts. A woman does not have the right to murder another human being in her womb.

Right, you impose your definition. Impose it, then, on yourself and leave freedom to others.
'Talmudic' has nothing to do with it outside your imposition.
What right does government have to execute anyone? What gives you the right to pay taxes to have people killed at your behest all around the world?
Impose anything and everything you want or can. Others are not obliged to accept your ideas. This issue has been decided by society and the law. Fortunately, it is not up to you to change it.

 

[Steinlight]

No need to dress it up -

At 5 weeks a living human being in the womb has a heart.

Do you admit abortion is murder?
Can you defend that it is not?

At 5 weeks a human fetus is virtually identical to a fish fetus with gills and a tail. You might as well argue that eating caviar is akin to abortion except on the scale of trillions.

"Virtually identical", except it has a totally different dna and chromosomal makeup and doesn't look like a fish at all.

Except that you can't tell the difference in the DNA at that point either.

Embryos Show All Animals Share Ancient Genes Discovery News Discovery News

Yea, no shit we share DNA with all animals, we are all related at some point. We share 98% of our DNA with chimps, but we aren't identical to chimps. Sponges share 70% of the same genes as humans, we aren't identical to sponges. No where in your article does it say human beings in the womb have identical DNA. Learn to read your own links.

Great job backpedaling away from your fallacious claim that the fetus has "totally different DNA".

:ROFL:

No one is backpedaling, xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx. Humans have totally different DNA to fish. You claimed that you can't tell the difference between human fetus dna(as though human dna changes when it leaves the womb ), when there is a major DNA difference between the two(we share about 70% of DNA with zebra fish for exmaple). Your article said nothing about no difference between human dna in the womb and fish dna, when in reality the opposite is the case.

 

[Coyote]

It is not murder until it's viable. Until then, it's part of it's mother and her rights supercede the fetus'.

Biologically, it is a separate genetic entity from the mother, and not "her body".

Biologically it can not survive outside her body.

 

[Coyote]

...and all cells contain and are controlled by DNA, and DNA has been continuously alive for billions of years, so all living things began life way back then. When does life begin for a human? We can impose almost any limit we desire. We make decisions all the time about when to end it. 'Abortion' is just another decision. Who has the right to make this for a woman other than the woman?

Human beings didn't exist billions of years ago, don't try to implement your talmudic logic here.

Life begins for a human at conception, when it is a unique biological entity with 46 chromosomes

If we can impose any limit, than I impose it at conception, when the human life starts. A woman does not have the right to murder another human being in her womb.

That's fine then, we'll remove it and hand it over to you to take care of.

 

[Coyote]

The idea that a woman has a "right" to abort her child is a belief, therefore under your analogy it is overridden.

She has a right to control any and all decisions regarding her body.

 

[Steinlight]

...and all cells contain and are controlled by DNA, and DNA has been continuously alive for billions of years, so all living things began life way back then. When does life begin for a human? We can impose almost any limit we desire. We make decisions all the time about when to end it. 'Abortion' is just another decision. Who has the right to make this for a woman other than the woman?

Human beings didn't exist billions of years ago, don't try to implement your talmudic logic here.

Life begins for a human at conception, when it is a unique biological entity with 46 chromosomes

If we can impose any limit, than I impose it at conception, when the human life starts. A woman does not have the right to murder another human being in her womb.

Right, you impose your definition. Impose it, then, on yourself and leave freedom to others.
'Talmudic' has nothing to do with it outside your imposition.
What right does government have to execute anyone? What gives you the right to pay taxes to have people killed at your behest all around the world?
Impose anything and everything you want or can. Others are not obliged to accept your ideas. This issue has been decided by society and the law. Fortunately, it is not up to you to change it.

Sorry buddy, I don't support anarchy. By your logic, I shouldn't murder and but leave murder to others, after all it isn't my business. How absurd. Biologically, life begins at conception when a separate genetic entity is created with 46 chromosomes, and taking human life is murder and should be illegal across the board.

Talmudic, because you sound like a jew trying to employ some kind of logic trap. Don't lie, you have a sader dinner later tonight

 

[Steinlight]

...and all cells contain and are controlled by DNA, and DNA has been continuously alive for billions of years, so all living things began life way back then. When does life begin for a human? We can impose almost any limit we desire. We make decisions all the time about when to end it. 'Abortion' is just another decision. Who has the right to make this for a woman other than the woman?

Human beings didn't exist billions of years ago, don't try to implement your talmudic logic here.

Life begins for a human at conception, when it is a unique biological entity with 46 chromosomes

If we can impose any limit, than I impose it at conception, when the human life starts. A woman does not have the right to murder another human being in her womb.

That's fine then, we'll remove it and hand it over to you to take care of.

We should "abort" drug addict homeless people as well, since you wont take them into your house. Brilliant!

 

[Coyote]

...and all cells contain and are controlled by DNA, and DNA has been continuously alive for billions of years, so all living things began life way back then. When does life begin for a human? We can impose almost any limit we desire. We make decisions all the time about when to end it. 'Abortion' is just another decision. Who has the right to make this for a woman other than the woman?

Human beings didn't exist billions of years ago, don't try to implement your talmudic logic here.

Life begins for a human at conception, when it is a unique biological entity with 46 chromosomes

If we can impose any limit, than I impose it at conception, when the human life starts. A woman does not have the right to murder another human being in her womb.

That's fine then, we'll remove it and hand it over to you to take care of.

We should "abort" drug addict homeless people as well, since you wont take them into your house. Brilliant!

Apples and oranges. My body is not someone's house.

 

[Derideo_Te]

The idea that a woman has a "right" to abort her child is a belief, therefore under your analogy it is overridden.

The rule of law overrides your beliefs. You don't get to force women to "carry your seed". Slavery was outlawed about 150 years ago.

 

[Steinlight]

It is not murder until it's viable. Until then, it's part of it's mother and her rights supercede the fetus'.

Biologically, it is a separate genetic entity from the mother, and not "her body".

Biologically it can not survive outside her body.

A human being biologically isn't defined by viability. By your logic, a human being on life support loses their humanity since it is dependent on others to continue to live.

 

[Pogo]

The idea that a woman has a "right" to abort her child is a belief, therefore under your analogy it is overridden.

And so is the belief that she doesn't... and in the marketplace of ideas you can have any belief you want. And the Church can too, and always has, depending on what seems to work at the time:

[Pope] Gregory XIII (1572-85) said it was not homicide to kill an embryo of less than forty days since it was not human. Even after forty days, though it was homicide, it was not as serious as killing a person already born, since it was not done in hatred or revenge. His successor, the tempestuous Sixtus V, who rewrote the Bible, disagreed entirely. In his Bull Effraenatum of 1588, he said all abortions for whatever reason were homicide and were penalized by excommunication reserved to the Holy See. Immediately after Sixtus died, Gregory XIV realized that, in the current state of theological opinion, Sixtus' view was too severe. In an almost unique decision, he said Sixtus' censures were to be treated as is he had never issued them. Popes can be precipitate. They never did have answers up their sleeve to ongoing moral problems. Moral judgments depend on facts and circumstances, all of which must be kept under review. The nineteenth-century papacy forgot this basic principle on every issue related to liberty. Twentieth-century pope, have forgotten it on every issue relating to sex. --- The RCC's "traditional" Teaching on Abortion

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~​

In his 1995 encyclical, Evangelium Vitae (The Gospel of Life), Pope John Paul II laid out the Church's definition of "pro-life" behavior. His starting point was the Didache, the most ancient non-biblical Christian writing. The Didache explores the differences between "a way of life and a way of death." "The way of death is this...they show no compassion for the poor, they do not suffer with the suffering, they do not acknowledge their Creator, they kill their children and cause God's creatures to perish; they drive away the needy, oppress the suffering, they are advocates of the rich and unjust judges of the poor; they are filled with every sin." Thus the Didache teaches us that to evaluate whether an individual is pro-life depends on far more than his or her position on abortion.

The Pope maintains that abortion at any time constitutes murder. However, he concedes that "the texts of Sacred Scripture never address the question of deliberate abortion and so do not directly and specifically condemn it." Indeed, although he doesn't discuss this, for more than 1500 years the position of the Catholic Church on abortion was very close to that of the U.S. Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade: Early term abortion is not a mortal sin.

St. Augustine, Bishop of Hippo (ca. 415 AD), one of the most influential of all Catholic theologians, persuaded early Church leaders that abortion should not be regarded "as homicide, for there cannot be a living soul in a body that lacks sensation due to its not yet being formed." He, and Thomas Aquinas after him, taught that the embryo does not acquire a human soul until the end of the first trimester. At the beginning of the 13th century Pope Innocent II proposed that "quickening" (the time when the woman first feels the fetus move within her) should be the moment at which abortion becomes homicide. Abortions occurring prior to that moment constituted a less serious sin. Pope Gregory XIV's declaration in 1591 that early abortion was not grounds for excommunication guided Church policy until 1869. In that year, Pope Pius IX eliminated the distinction between the animated and non-animated fetus and insisted on excommunication for anyone having or providing an abortion at any stage of pregnancy. That instruction was written into the Canon Law in 1917.

--- Devil in the Details
​

==============​

For fourteen hundred years until late in the nineteenth century, all Catholics, including the popes, took it for granted that the soul is not infused at conception. If the church was wholly opposed to abortion, as it was, it was not on the basis of the conceptus starting as a human being.

From the fifth century, the church accepted without question the primitive embryology of Aristotle. The embryo began as a non-human speck that was progressively animated. This speck had to evolve from vegetative, through animal to spiritual being. Only in its final stage was it a human being. This is why Gratian was able to say: `He is not a murderer who brings about abortion before the soul is in the body.' (RCC above, op.cit.)
.
.
.
.
.​

 

[Steinlight]

The idea that a woman has a "right" to abort her child is a belief, therefore under your analogy it is overridden.

The rule of law overrides your beliefs. You don't get to force women to "carry your seed". Slavery was outlawed about 150 years ago.

Your law is a belief.

Whereas, the fact a new human being with 46 chromosomes and it's unique dna makeup is created at conception.

at a woman being pregnant being a "slave".

 

[Coyote]

It is not murder until it's viable. Until then, it's part of it's mother and her rights supercede the fetus'.

Biologically, it is a separate genetic entity from the mother, and not "her body".

Biologically it can not survive outside her body.

A human being biologically isn't defined by viability. By your logic, a human being on life support loses their humanity since it is dependent on others to continue to live.

It's rights as a living breathing human being begin with breath - or, viability, when it can breath outside it's mother and survive. Until then, it can be evicted.

 

[Coyote]

The idea that a woman has a "right" to abort her child is a belief, therefore under your analogy it is overridden.

The rule of law overrides your beliefs. You don't get to force women to "carry your seed". Slavery was outlawed about 150 years ago.

Your law is a belief.

Whereas, the fact a new human being with 46 chromosomes and it's unique dna makeup is created at conception.

at a woman being pregnant being a "slave".

She is if the pregnancy is forced against her will.

 

[Steinlight]

The idea that a woman has a "right" to abort her child is a belief, therefore under your analogy it is overridden.

And so is the belief that she doesn't... and in the marketplace of ideas you can have any belief you want. And the Church can too, and always has, depending on what seems to work at the time:

[Pope] Gregory XIII (1572-85) said it was not homicide to kill an embryo of less than forty days since it was not human. Even after forty days, though it was homicide, it was not as serious as killing a person already born, since it was not done in hatred or revenge. His successor, the tempestuous Sixtus V, who rewrote the Bible, disagreed entirely. In his Bull Effraenatum of 1588, he said all abortions for whatever reason were homicide and were penalized by excommunication reserved to the Holy See. Immediately after Sixtus died, Gregory XIV realized that, in the current state of theological opinion, Sixtus' view was too severe. In an almost unique decision, he said Sixtus' censures were to be treated as is he had never issued them. Popes can be precipitate. They never did have answers up their sleeve to ongoing moral problems. Moral judgments depend on facts and circumstances, all of which must be kept under review. The nineteenth-century papacy forgot this basic principle on every issue related to liberty. Twentieth-century pope, have forgotten it on every issue relating to sex. --- The RCC's "traditional" Teaching on Abortion

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~​

In his 1995 encyclical, Evangelium Vitae (The Gospel of Life), Pope John Paul II laid out the Church's definition of "pro-life" behavior. His starting point was the Didache, the most ancient non-biblical Christian writing. The Didache explores the differences between "a way of life and a way of death." "The way of death is this...they show no compassion for the poor, they do not suffer with the suffering, they do not acknowledge their Creator, they kill their children and cause God's creatures to perish; they drive away the needy, oppress the suffering, they are advocates of the rich and unjust judges of the poor; they are filled with every sin." Thus the Didache teaches us that to evaluate whether an individual is pro-life depends on far more than his or her position on abortion.

The Pope maintains that abortion at any time constitutes murder. However, he concedes that "the texts of Sacred Scripture never address the question of deliberate abortion and so do not directly and specifically condemn it." Indeed, although he doesn't discuss this, for more than 1500 years the position of the Catholic Church on abortion was very close to that of the U.S. Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade: Early term abortion is not a mortal sin.

St. Augustine, Bishop of Hippo (ca. 415 AD), one of the most influential of all Catholic theologians, persuaded early Church leaders that abortion should not be regarded "as homicide, for there cannot be a living soul in a body that lacks sensation due to its not yet being formed." He, and Thomas Aquinas after him, taught that the embryo does not acquire a human soul until the end of the first trimester. At the beginning of the 13th century Pope Innocent II proposed that "quickening" (the time when the woman first feels the fetus move within her) should be the moment at which abortion becomes homicide. Abortions occurring prior to that moment constituted a less serious sin. Pope Gregory XIV's declaration in 1591 that early abortion was not grounds for excommunication guided Church policy until 1869. In that year, Pope Pius IX eliminated the distinction between the animated and non-animated fetus and insisted on excommunication for anyone having or providing an abortion at any stage of pregnancy. That instruction was written into the Canon Law in 1917.

--- Devil in the Details
​

==============​

For fourteen hundred years until late in the nineteenth century, all Catholics, including the popes, took it for granted that the soul is not infused at conception. If the church was wholly opposed to abortion, as it was, it was not on the basis of the conceptus starting as a human being.

From the fifth century, the church accepted without question the primitive embryology of Aristotle. The embryo began as a non-human speck that was progressively animated. This speck had to evolve from vegetative, through animal to spiritual being. Only in its final stage was it a human being. This is why Gratian was able to say: `He is not a murderer who brings about abortion before the soul is in the body.' (RCC above, op.cit.)
.
.
.
.
.​

So you don't think a human is created at conception because some 5th century pope said so? Do you also think the earth is flat?

 

[Steinlight]

...and all cells contain and are controlled by DNA, and DNA has been continuously alive for billions of years, so all living things began life way back then. When does life begin for a human? We can impose almost any limit we desire. We make decisions all the time about when to end it. 'Abortion' is just another decision. Who has the right to make this for a woman other than the woman?

Human beings didn't exist billions of years ago, don't try to implement your talmudic logic here.

Life begins for a human at conception, when it is a unique biological entity with 46 chromosomes

If we can impose any limit, than I impose it at conception, when the human life starts. A woman does not have the right to murder another human being in her womb.

That's fine then, we'll remove it and hand it over to you to take care of.

We should "abort" drug addict homeless people as well, since you wont take them into your house. Brilliant!

Apples and oranges. My body is not someone's house.

It isn't apples and oranges. You said if I oppose the murder of someone who is dependent, I should have to take care of them myself.

Sorry, if you don't like the logical conclusions of your own analogy.

Come up with something better next time.

 

[Derideo_Te]

...and all cells contain and are controlled by DNA, and DNA has been continuously alive for billions of years, so all living things began life way back then. When does life begin for a human? We can impose almost any limit we desire. We make decisions all the time about when to end it. 'Abortion' is just another decision. Who has the right to make this for a woman other than the woman?

Human beings didn't exist billions of years ago, don't try to implement your talmudic logic here.

Life begins for a human at conception, when it is a unique biological entity with 46 chromosomes

If we can impose any limit, than I impose it at conception, when the human life starts. A woman does not have the right to murder another human being in her womb.

Right, you impose your definition. Impose it, then, on yourself and leave freedom to others.
'Talmudic' has nothing to do with it outside your imposition.
What right does government have to execute anyone? What gives you the right to pay taxes to have people killed at your behest all around the world?
Impose anything and everything you want or can. Others are not obliged to accept your ideas. This issue has been decided by society and the law. Fortunately, it is not up to you to change it.

Sorry buddy, I don't support anarchy. By your logic, I shouldn't murder and but leave murder to others, after all it isn't my business. How absurd. Biologically, life begins at conception when a separate genetic entity is created with 46 chromosomes, and taking human life is murder and should be illegal across the board.

Talmudic, because you sound like a jew trying to employ some kind of logic trap. Don't lie, you have a sader dinner later tonight

Biology has nothing to do with the law. Countless millions of spontaneous abortions occur biologically every year. You don't get to charge those women with murder.

 

[Pogo]

The idea that a woman has a "right" to abort her child is a belief, therefore under your analogy it is overridden.

And so is the belief that she doesn't... and in the marketplace of ideas you can have any belief you want. And the Church can too, and always has, depending on what seems to work at the time:

[Pope] Gregory XIII (1572-85) said it was not homicide to kill an embryo of less than forty days since it was not human. Even after forty days, though it was homicide, it was not as serious as killing a person already born, since it was not done in hatred or revenge. His successor, the tempestuous Sixtus V, who rewrote the Bible, disagreed entirely. In his Bull Effraenatum of 1588, he said all abortions for whatever reason were homicide and were penalized by excommunication reserved to the Holy See. Immediately after Sixtus died, Gregory XIV realized that, in the current state of theological opinion, Sixtus' view was too severe. In an almost unique decision, he said Sixtus' censures were to be treated as is he had never issued them. Popes can be precipitate. They never did have answers up their sleeve to ongoing moral problems. Moral judgments depend on facts and circumstances, all of which must be kept under review. The nineteenth-century papacy forgot this basic principle on every issue related to liberty. Twentieth-century pope, have forgotten it on every issue relating to sex. --- The RCC's "traditional" Teaching on Abortion

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~​

In his 1995 encyclical, Evangelium Vitae (The Gospel of Life), Pope John Paul II laid out the Church's definition of "pro-life" behavior. His starting point was the Didache, the most ancient non-biblical Christian writing. The Didache explores the differences between "a way of life and a way of death." "The way of death is this...they show no compassion for the poor, they do not suffer with the suffering, they do not acknowledge their Creator, they kill their children and cause God's creatures to perish; they drive away the needy, oppress the suffering, they are advocates of the rich and unjust judges of the poor; they are filled with every sin." Thus the Didache teaches us that to evaluate whether an individual is pro-life depends on far more than his or her position on abortion.

The Pope maintains that abortion at any time constitutes murder. However, he concedes that "the texts of Sacred Scripture never address the question of deliberate abortion and so do not directly and specifically condemn it." Indeed, although he doesn't discuss this, for more than 1500 years the position of the Catholic Church on abortion was very close to that of the U.S. Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade: Early term abortion is not a mortal sin.

St. Augustine, Bishop of Hippo (ca. 415 AD), one of the most influential of all Catholic theologians, persuaded early Church leaders that abortion should not be regarded "as homicide, for there cannot be a living soul in a body that lacks sensation due to its not yet being formed." He, and Thomas Aquinas after him, taught that the embryo does not acquire a human soul until the end of the first trimester. At the beginning of the 13th century Pope Innocent II proposed that "quickening" (the time when the woman first feels the fetus move within her) should be the moment at which abortion becomes homicide. Abortions occurring prior to that moment constituted a less serious sin. Pope Gregory XIV's declaration in 1591 that early abortion was not grounds for excommunication guided Church policy until 1869. In that year, Pope Pius IX eliminated the distinction between the animated and non-animated fetus and insisted on excommunication for anyone having or providing an abortion at any stage of pregnancy. That instruction was written into the Canon Law in 1917.

--- Devil in the Details
​

==============​

For fourteen hundred years until late in the nineteenth century, all Catholics, including the popes, took it for granted that the soul is not infused at conception. If the church was wholly opposed to abortion, as it was, it was not on the basis of the conceptus starting as a human being.

From the fifth century, the church accepted without question the primitive embryology of Aristotle. The embryo began as a non-human speck that was progressively animated. This speck had to evolve from vegetative, through animal to spiritual being. Only in its final stage was it a human being. This is why Gratian was able to say: `He is not a murderer who brings about abortion before the soul is in the body.' (RCC above, op.cit.)
.
.
.
.
.​

So you don't think a human is created at conception because some 5th century pope said so? Do you also think the earth is flat?

I didn't say what *I* think; I pointed out that what the Church thinks depends on what it finds politically expedient at the time.

Read much?
Guess not.
,
,
,
,

 

[Steinlight]

The idea that a woman has a "right" to abort her child is a belief, therefore under your analogy it is overridden.

The rule of law overrides your beliefs. You don't get to force women to "carry your seed". Slavery was outlawed about 150 years ago.

Your law is a belief.

Whereas, the fact a new human being with 46 chromosomes and it's unique dna makeup is created at conception.

at a woman being pregnant being a "slave".

She is if the pregnancy is forced against her will.

She was forced to have sex?