- #1
Adam
- 65
- 1
I'm interested in peoples' thoughts on the pro-life people who murder doctors. I'm just after opinions, thoughts about the different values at work, et cetera.
Originally posted by Adam
I'm interested in peoples' thoughts on the pro-life people who murder doctors. I'm just after opinions, thoughts about the different values at work, et cetera.
Originally posted by phatmonky
No more contradicting than pro choice people against the death penalty.
Originally posted by selfAdjoint
1>Was that aimed at me? I didn't say anything about contradiction, but since you bring that up...
2>The death penalty and abortion are a hard pair of oxen to yoke. Both sides have problems. The late Cardinal Bernadin of Chicago tried to link them for Catholic pro-lifers with his Seamless Web teaching. Just as Jesus' robe, at the Crucifixion, had no seams along which it could be divided among the Roman soldiers, so our concern for life should not stop at fetuses but be extended to prisoners on death row as well. This is persuasive, but it's a hard sell to the pro-life community, since the people who are conservative on abortion tend to be conservative on the death penalty (i.e they're for it), too.
On the pro-choice side, as you say, many who are for the right to abortion are also for abolition of the death penalty. They explain this by the fact that - for them - the fetus is not a person, and the felon is. It is persons, human beings, whose life we should care about. And they deny, sometimes a little desperately, that a fetus is a person.
I'm interested in peoples' thoughts on the pro-life people who murder doctors.
Originally posted by olde drunk
we can not legislate moraliy. each of us must follow our own credo.
peace, [/B]
And abortion... What's wrong with "killing" an undeveloped "creature"? Even if it has consciousness, it has no more intelligence than the animals we kill for food- so if it has consciousness there's no reason to think they don't. If it's okay to kill them... And some things (EG the morning-after pill) abort when all that exists is a several-celled creature- not even a brain yet. If we can kill ants without a thought, why not a several-celled creature with NO brain at all?
Adam said:I'm interested in peoples' thoughts on the pro-life people who murder doctors. I'm just after opinions, thoughts about the different values at work, et cetera.
Don't you see the contradiction inherrent in applying science to part of the issue, but not the whole issue or picking and choosing where to apply science?cowboy_mortician said:Killing an "undeveloped creature"? I've seen premies at like 5 mos live. Are you going to call them an "undevelloped" creature. So are you for killing "regular" people also? Do we have no more intelligence than the animals we eat? When do you make the separation between developed and undeveloped? Last I checked, we can't draw the line between alive and not. I am not taking a punch at anyone, I am just very curious on how people can think this.
I think I have good reason to question what the Catholic Church says about abortion.(2) Did the fetus have a soul from the moment of conception or did the soul enter its body at some later time? Before about 600 A.D., Christian scholars couldn't decide that one. Between 600 and 1500 A.D., the debate about whether abortion was homicide continued. There was no prevailing view that it was. In fact, penances given for abortion were often lighter than for bribery or theft. Therapeutic abortions were allowed to save the life of the mother as most theologians held that "ensoulment" was delayed and took place forty days after conception for males and eighty days for females[this is, of course, why males are smarter than females].
In the Middle Ages, little was known about the biology of reproduction. Scholars thought that women's ovaries were without any real function. They believed the male sperm contained fully formed babies which simply required the mother's womb as a place for them to grow.
that is what YOU believe. not everyone has the same view.loseyourname said:I don't see why this has to be a religious issue. It seems a little arbitrary to grant personhood upon birth. The only difference between a child just born and one about to born is that one breathes air and the other does not.
loseyourname said:I don't see why this has to be a religious issue. It seems a little arbitrary to grant personhood upon birth. The only difference between a child just born and one about to born is that one breathes air and the other does not.
russ_watters said:I think I have good reason to question what the Catholic Church says about abortion.QUOTE]
Both Saints Thomas and Jerome recognized that ensoulment and abortion were two distinct and separate issues. They both condemned abortion in the strongest possible terms The question of ensoulment does not change the fact that the Catholic Church has always taught that abortion is wrong.
"You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish."
Regarding the moment of the soul, it is true that there has been discussion through out time on when this actually takes place but this does not change the fact that direct, intentional abortion is always wrong, and has always been wrong according to the Catholic Church.
Pro Lifers are actively mentally ill …..and all the rest of that post too long to quote..
What a gross generalisation! No wonder our ‘nation’ has such problems with such sweeping generalisations.
You should look up what extreme means and apply it to the appropriate groups.
Dayle Record said:When I studied Sikhism, it was said that in a woman's pregnacy there was a 120th day celebration. They believe that the spirit takes residence in the unborn at the 120th day. Prior to that time, it was not celebrated. There are those that set the "life" issue back a bit.
loseyourname said:I don't see why this has to be a religious issue. It seems a little arbitrary to grant personhood upon birth. The only difference between a child just born and one about to born is that one breathes air and the other does not.
I have to agree with you; I don't think it's justifiable to use birth as a dividing line. That's why I support in certain restricted circumstances the right of parents to kill a newborn child.
Kerrie said:making the distinction that a child is not a person because it cannot breathe on its own is really ignorant, and i hate to stereotype, but this is typical coming from a male.
I say do what you feel is right for you and don't try to shove your personal beliefs on others. That goes for both sides of the argument.
Personally, I'd rather see an embryo aborted than a child tortured to death. I'd rather see neither, but I am not so naive that I think once the child is born everything is going to be just wonderful.Entropy said:Its different when your believes effect others that don't share it, especially when it kills them.
Adam said:I'm interested in peoples' thoughts on the pro-life people who murder doctors. I'm just after opinions, thoughts about the different values at work, et cetera.
I think it is fairly obvious that “murder” isn’t actually what such people stand against. I suggest if they wish to become better acquainted with at least one source of trouble in this world they go look in a mirror.Originally Posted by Adam
I'm interested in peoples' thoughts on the pro-life people who murder doctors. I'm just after opinions, thoughts about the different values at work, et cetera.
Until the day I see anti abortion groups taking responsibility for the welfare of the children and mothers they want to have control over, I will remain pro choice.
Preventing abortion will just cause more horrible abuse & death for children, but that's ok? Many that don't die will be emotionally scarred for life. Many then become abusers and killers. It's a vicious cycle. But they were born, isn't that wonderful? We can all sleep better at night knowing that it's because of our interference that they were born into a living hell.