CDZ Abortion

[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

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.

Exactly, biology is consistent and based in reality, the law is contradictory. On one hand it isn't murder to abort your child, however if someone murders you and your child in the womb, they get charged with double homicide.

 

[peach174]

Considering that in the Bible, Adam and Eve didn't actually come to life until God "breathed the Breath of Life into them".

Until a baby draws it's first breath, it's still not a "human".

The baby is breathing through the umbilical cord.

 

[there4eyeM]

Your limited view of things says life starts at conception. That is all you have stated, not an objective fact or reality. It is thus because you say so. Fine, for you. That's true for everyone, in his/her intimate, private reality. That does not extend to others.
What do you find so rewarding, so necessary in deciding for others? What do you fear from women deciding if they have a baby or not?

 

[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?

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.
,
,
,
,

I didn't bring up "the Church" here.

You are bringing this up as thought I a obligated to believe some fantasy inconsistent with biology that was created by a 5th century pope.

Keep your stupid logic traps out of this thread, thanks.

 

[there4eyeM]

Considering that in the Bible, Adam and Eve didn't actually come to life until God "breathed the Breath of Life into them".

Until a baby draws it's first breath, it's still not a "human".

The baby is breathing through the umbilical cord.

Oxygen is being supplied as to all other parts of the woman.

 

[peach174]

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.

Where is the rights for the other body inside her?

 

[Steinlight]

Your limited view of things says life starts at conception. That is all you have stated, not an objective fact or reality. It is thus because you say so. Fine, for you. That's true for everyone, in his/her intimate, private reality. That does not extend to others.
What do you find so rewarding, so necessary in deciding for others? What do you fear from women deciding if they have a baby or not?

It is an objective reality. A new human being with 46 chromosomes and a unique dna makeup is created at conception. This isn't up for debate.

 

[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.
,
,
,
,

I didn't bring up "the Church" here.

You are bringing this up as thought I a obligated to believe some fantasy inconsistent with biology that was created by a 5th century pope.

Keep your stupid logic traps out of this thread, thanks.

Hey, if you don't dig logic traps, then don't get caught in them. And while the abortion question may be open to question, one thing that is not: you do not dictate what I can post, ever.

I brought in the Church because it is the entity claiming all abortion is "murder". The law doesn't say that. Furthermore if you'd actually READ the link material you would have seen that that position on abortion-as-murder was "no"... then "yes".. then "no" again... then "yes" again.

Moreover I forgot to add this part:

"In the US: Many pregnancies are not viable. According to estimates, 50% of pregnancies terminate spontaneously before the first missed menstrual period; these abortions usually are not clinically recognized. Spontaneous abortion typically is defined as a clinically recognized (ie, by blood test or ultrasound) pregnancy loss before 20 weeks' gestation." (first link)
​

Now what?? Wanna lock up 50% of all women?
.
.
.
.

 

[PratchettFan]

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.

Where is the rights for the other body inside her?

That body has the rights of every other body. Do I have the right to your body?

 

[Pogo]

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.

Where is the rights for the other body inside her?

That body has the rights of every other body. Do I have the right to your body?

Hey now. I saw her first.

 

[jwoodie]

OK Bullshitters, let's get SPECIFIC. Exactly when do YOU think abortion should be disallowed? Out side the womb but not yet breathing? Partial birth? Full term? Viable outside of the womb? Three months? Never? How about being honest for a moment and SPELL IT OUT? I will start:

I think this decision should be left to each State to decide, but I would vote for fetal viability outside of the womb. Prior to that time, abortion could at least be considered a form of PREGNANCY control. After that time, it is brutal BIRTH control in its WORST SENSE.

WHAT SAY YOU?

 

[there4eyeM]

Your limited view of things says life starts at conception. That is all you have stated, not an objective fact or reality. It is thus because you say so. Fine, for you. That's true for everyone, in his/her intimate, private reality. That does not extend to others.
What do you find so rewarding, so necessary in deciding for others? What do you fear from women deciding if they have a baby or not?

It is an objective reality. A new human being with 46 chromosomes and a unique dna makeup is created at conception. This isn't up for debate.

Your cited post said life begins, now you change to another beginning definition.
You still haven't told us what it is about forcing your decisions on others that gets you off. Apparently, it isn't religion.

 

[peach174]

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.

Where is the rights for the other body inside her?

That body has the rights of every other body. Do I have the right to your body?

WTF?
Are you asking me to be your Mom?

 

[PratchettFan]

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.

Where is the rights for the other body inside her?

That body has the rights of every other body. Do I have the right to your body?

WTF?
Are you asking me to be your Mom?

No. I need a blood transfusion and you happen to be a match for me. So I should be able to have to taken to the local hospital, at gun point if necessary, and take your blood (against your will) because I have a right to your body. Correct?

 

[peach174]

OK Bullshitters, let's get SPECIFIC. Exactly when do YOU think abortion should be disallowed? Out side the womb but not yet breathing? Partial birth? Full term? Viable outside of the womb? Three months? Never? How about being honest for a moment and SPELL IT OUT? I will start:

I think this decision should be left to each State to decide, but I would vote for fetal viability outside of the womb. Prior to that time, abortion could at least be considered a form of PREGNANCY control. After that time, it is brutal BIRTH control in its WORST SENSE.

WHAT SAY YOU?

I also agree it should be up to each State.
I say up to 4 months for an abortion.

 

[peach174]

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.

Where is the rights for the other body inside her?

That body has the rights of every other body. Do I have the right to your body?

WTF?
Are you asking me to be your Mom?

No. I need a blood transfusion and you happen to be a match for me. So I should be able to have to taken to the local hospital, at gun point if necessary, and take your blood (against your will) because I have a right to your body. Correct?

That has nothing to with it.
You have already been born.
I am talking about the rights of the unborn.

 

[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?

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.
,
,
,
,

I didn't bring up "the Church" here.

You are bringing this up as thought I a obligated to believe some fantasy inconsistent with biology that was created by a 5th century pope.

Keep your stupid logic traps out of this thread, thanks.

Hey, if you don't dig logic traps, then don't get caught in them. And while the abortion question may be open to question, one thing that is not: you do not dictate what I can post, ever.

I brought in the Church because it is the entity claiming all abortion is "murder". The law doesn't say that. Furthermore if you'd actually READ the link material you would have seen that that position on abortion-as-murder was "no"... then "yes".. then "no" again... then "yes" again.

Moreover I forgot to add this part:

"In the US: Many pregnancies are not viable. According to estimates, 50% of pregnancies terminate spontaneously before the first missed menstrual period; these abortions usually are not clinically recognized. Spontaneous abortion typically is defined as a clinically recognized (ie, by blood test or ultrasound) pregnancy loss before 20 weeks' gestation." (first link)
​

Now what?? Wanna lock up 50% of all women?
.
.
.
.

No one fell for your "logic traps", they aren't clever at all, poor attempts there.

You can post whatever stupid things you want, but they have nothing to do with reality. I am not the Church, and I am saying abortion is murder. If you want to debate the Catholic Church, go interview some irish child molesting queer at your local church. But you are debating me.

A unique biological entity with its own chromosomal and dna makeup is created at conception, and taking that life is murder by the definition of the word. Just because the law is contradictory and morally inconsistent, doesn't change the biology of the matter. Biologically speaking, a new life emerges at conception. In moral and philosophical terms, a law that doesn't recognize this is invalid as it is logically contradictory.

You can't on one hand say it is a double murder if a child is murdered in the womb, along with the mother, by another, but on the other hand not call it a murder of the mother gets an abortion. It's like saying 2+2=5.

That isn't murder, don't play dumb and try to employ your cleversilliness to warp the definition of murder, which is the premeditated taking of a life by another.

 

[PratchettFan]

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

Where is the rights for the other body inside her?

That body has the rights of every other body. Do I have the right to your body?

WTF?
Are you asking me to be your Mom?

No. I need a blood transfusion and you happen to be a match for me. So I should be able to have to taken to the local hospital, at gun point if necessary, and take your blood (against your will) because I have a right to your body. Correct?

That has nothing to with it.
You have already been born.
I am talking about the rights of the unborn.

So you are saying the unborn aren't the same as everyone else?

 

[Steinlight]

Your limited view of things says life starts at conception. That is all you have stated, not an objective fact or reality. It is thus because you say so. Fine, for you. That's true for everyone, in his/her intimate, private reality. That does not extend to others.
What do you find so rewarding, so necessary in deciding for others? What do you fear from women deciding if they have a baby or not?

It is an objective reality. A new human being with 46 chromosomes and a unique dna makeup is created at conception. This isn't up for debate.

Your cited post said life begins, now you change to another beginning definition.
You still haven't told us what it is about forcing your decisions on others that gets you off. Apparently, it isn't religion.

I didn't change the definition, you just can't read.

 

[prison/con.net]

it's not a life (yet) so it's not murder, by definition. You might not like it, but so what? that's the law and you can't change it. you've been TRYING to enslave women (again) for the past 40 years and you can't get it done. Yes, the laws ARE nonsense when they say it's murder if harm to the woman results in the fetus becoming unviable