CDZ Abortion

[peach174]

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?

I'm saying that the unborn should have just as much right to life as possible, as those of us who are born.

 

[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.

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

Your own post, #27 stated life begins. Now, it's something else. Who can't read, even his own posts?
You haven't answered what it is that fascinates you with this control over others.

 

[Pogo]

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.

Once again for the illiterati... I proffered no opinion on what the "definition of murder" is. I pointed out that the Church's definition --- and they are a major player here -- has vacillated several times over the years.

The point being, for the disilluminati, that whatever we may decide murder is, some given situation must by definition either always be murder, or always be not-murder. Yet this has not been the case at all. So depeding on which view is popular at a given time, we've either failed to condemn millions of murders, or unjustly condemned millions of innocents.

As for your personal opinion, hey, hold any one you want. I'm just pointing out that it teeters in a very grey area and is by no means the fait accompli you seem to think it is.

 

[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.

Your own post, #27 stated life begins. Now, it's something else. Who can't read, even his own posts?
You haven't answered what it is that fascinates you with this control over others.

There is no something else. Life begins at conception because a new biological entity with its own dna and chromosomal make up is made at conception.

Stop trying to obfuscate the language here with your jewish dishonesty and trickery.

Funny that a jew is talking about control. Talk about projection. I want to live in a free society, you can't have a free society where the sovereignty and right to life of the most vulnerable individuals is violated.

Freedom does not equal anarchy.

What fascinates your tribe with controlling the money supply through the Federal Reserve? Why don't you mind your own business?

 

[JoeMoma]

I can understand that a woman has a right to control her own body; however, there is also an issue of responsibility. If a woman were to choose not to use her body to feed her new born baby and allow the baby to simply to starve to death she would most likely be charged with murder based on neglect. The woman is expected to use that body of her's (not necessarily breastfeeding ) and take care of that baby or find someone else that will.

 

[Steinlight]

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.

Once again for the illiterati... I proffered no opinion on what the "definition of murder" is. I pointed out that the Church's definition --- and they are a major player here -- has vacillated several times over the years.

The point being, for the disilluminati, that whatever we may decide murder is, some given situation must by definition either always be murder, or always be not-murder. Yet this has not been the case at all. So depeding on which view is popular at a given time, we've either failed to condemn millions of murders, or unjustly condemned millions of innocents.

As for your personal opinion, hey, hold any one you want. I'm just pointing out that it teeters in a very grey area and is by no means the fait accompli you seem to think it is.

That's because you have no balls to stake out what you know what is a biologically incorrect position. So you create a strawman argument about the Catholic Church and expect me to defend them. Like I said, if you want to debate them, go to your local parish and find some priest. The Catholic Church's 5th century position has no basis in reality, clearly.

I don't agree with it because it is scientifically wrong, so if you don't agree with it, then don't bring it up. Stop avoiding the issue and address my argument, not the Church's.

That is true, you can be as contradictory as you want. I never said you couldn't. But I will call out your position as philosophically, morally, and scientifically inconsistent.

The fact that a unique biologically entity is created at conception isn't a personal opinion, it is scientific reality.

 

[peach174]

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

Science says you're wrong.
Scientific Fact Human Life Begins at Conception or Fertilization LifeNews.com

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

BONZI SAID:

“Can you defend that [abortion] it is not [murder]?

Yes.

The protected liberty of the woman is paramount:

“It is an inescapable biological fact that state regulation with respect to the child a woman is carrying will have a far greater impact on the mother's liberty than on the father's. The effect of state regulation on a woman's protected liberty is doubly deserving of scrutiny in such a case, as the State has touched not only upon the private sphere of the family but upon the very bodily integrity of the pregnant woman.”

Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey 505 U.S. 833 1992

Moreover, prior to birth, the embryo/fetus is not a 'person' in any legal context:

'After analyzing the usage of "person" in the Constitution, the Court concluded that that word "has application only postnatally." Id., at 157. Commenting on the contingent property interests of the unborn that are generally represented by guardians ad litem, the Court noted: "Perfection of the interests involved, again, has generally been contingent upon live birth. In short, the unborn have never been recognized in the law as persons in the whole sense." Id., at 162. Accordingly, an abortion is not "the termination of life entitled to Fourteenth Amendment protection." Id., at 159. From this holding, there was no dissent, see id., at 173; indeed, no member of the Court has ever questioned this fundamental proposition. Thus, as a matter of federal constitutional law, a developing organism that is not yet a "person" does not have what is sometimes described as a "right to life." [n.2] This has been and, by the Court's holding today, remains a fundamental premise of our constitutional law governing reproductive autonomy.' ibid

Consequently, because the embryo/fetus is not a person entitled to Constitutional protections, abortion as a fact of law is not 'murder,' to argue otherwise is completely devoid of merit.

 

[PratchettFan]

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?

I'm saying that the unborn should have just as much right to life as possible, as those of us who are born.

So then I do have a right to your body. Don't I have as much right to life as the unborn?

 

[PratchettFan]

I can understand that a woman has a right to control her own body; however, there is also an issue of responsibility. If a woman were to choose not to use her body to feed her new born baby and allow the baby to simply to starve to death she would most likely be charged with murder based on neglect. The woman is expected to use that body of her's (not necessarily breastfeeding ) and take care of that baby or find someone else that will.

So... bottle feeding is illegal?

 

[peach174]

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?

I'm saying that the unborn should have just as much right to life as possible, as those of us who are born.

So then I do have a right to your body. Don't I have as much right to life as the unborn?

Certainly
This is why we have blood banks.

 

[PratchettFan]

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?

I'm saying that the unborn should have just as much right to life as possible, as those of us who are born.

So then I do have a right to your body. Don't I have as much right to life as the unborn?

Certainly
This is why we have blood banks.

Oh no. I have a very rare blood type and they don't have what I need. I'm going to need the sheriff to handcuff you and haul you to the hospital against your will. Because my right to life overrides your right to your body. Just wait until I need a bone marrow transplant.

 

[ABikerSailor]

A fetus is just as much a human being as a set of blueprints is a house.

Sure............the fetus has the DNA (i.e. the blueprint), but it isn't a human being until it is outside the womb and breathing on its own.

Same thing with a house..........Sure, you can have the foundation laid, but it's not a house. Sure.......you can have the foundation and the framing done with the outside shell done, but it's still not a house, not until you complete the interior, do the wiring, plumbing, flooring and all the other stuff.

THEN the blueprints become a house.

Let the fetus grow and build itself from the raw materials the mother's body makes available to it, it will eventually be born, and start breathing.

THEN the fetus is a human.

Oh..................and for the edification of a previous poster? Fetuses and babies don't breathe while they're in the womb because their lungs are full of amniotic fluid. And no.............they don't "breathe" through the umbilical cord. That is what is used to supply oxygenated blood from the mother to the fetus. The mother is actually the one that breathes for both of them.

 

[daws101]

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".

I wasn't aware Adam was a fetus in the womb. But leave it to stupid shitlibs like you to employ shoddy jew logic traps.

Man, you are so brilliant.

By the way, your definition of human differs with that of science. You are a human being at conception, when you are a separate and unique chromosomal entity.

until then you are a wad of cells.

We are all "wads of cells". All living beings are made up of cells.

and?
the question is not when you become human.

 

[Blackrook]

People who say fetuses aren't human beings have no scientific evidence to back them up.

 

[daws101]

People who say fetuses aren't human beings have no scientific evidence to back them up.

Philosopher Mary Ann Warren argues that in order to be considered a person, a being should have the following characteristics:

1. A developed capacity for reasoning.
2. Self awareness
3.Consciousness and ability to feel pain
4. Self motivated activity
5. Capacity to comminicate messages of an indefinite variety of types.

It would seem as if even new born babies may not be considered as persons according to the aforementioned school of thought.

No doubt infanticide has always got widespread condemnation, but abortion has always been a controversial issue.
So, what do you think? Is a fetus a person?

 

[Blackrook]

Philosophy can't be trusted to decide who is a person, and who isn't.

The Nazis and Communists proved that.

 

[JoeMoma]

I can understand that a woman has a right to control her own body; however, there is also an issue of responsibility. If a woman were to choose not to use her body to feed her new born baby and allow the baby to simply to starve to death she would most likely be charged with murder based on neglect. The woman is expected to use that body of her's (not necessarily breastfeeding ) and take care of that baby or find someone else that will.

So... bottle feeding is illegal?

The woman would still have to use her body to prepare the bottle and feed the baby. It doesn't happen by magic.

 

[Blackrook]

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".

This is the stupidest thing I've ever seen in an internet forum, and I've seen a lot of stupid.

 

[Pogo]

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".

This is the stupidest thing I've ever seen in an internet forum, and I've seen a lot of stupid.

Actually -- this is the Clean Debate Zone.
"Clean" is self-explanatory but "Debate" means you're not allowed to post drive-by flames, especially with no address of the topic.