PDA

View Full Version : U.S. Issues The Catholic Church, Abortion, and Nancy Pelosi


Jenson71
08-24-2008, 10:35 PM
Nancy Pelosi was on Meet the Press today and this exchange took place:

MR. BROKAW: Senator Obama saying the question of when life begins is above his pay grade, whether you're looking at it scientifically or theologically. If he were to come to you and say, "Help me out here, Madame Speaker. When does life begin?" what would you tell him?

REP. PELOSI: I would say that as an ardent, practicing Catholic, this is an issue that I have studied for a long time. And what I know is, over the centuries, the doctors of the church have not been able to make that definition. And Senator--St. Augustine said at three months. We don't know. The point is, is that it shouldn't have an impact on the woman's right to choose. Roe v. Wade talks about very clear definitions of when the child--first trimester, certain considerations; second trimester; not so third trimester. There's very clear distinctions. This isn't about abortion on demand, it's about a careful, careful consideration of all factors and--to--that a woman has to make with her doctor and her god. And so I don't think anybody can tell you when life begins, human life begins. As I say, the Catholic Church for centuries has been discussing this, and there are those who've decided...

MR. BROKAW: The Catholic Church at the moment feels very strongly that it...

REP. PELOSI: I understand that.

MR. BROKAW: ...begins at the point of conception.

REP. PELOSI: I understand. And this is like maybe 50 years or something like that. So again, over the history of the church, this is an issue of controversy. But it is, it is also true that God has given us, each of us, a free will and a responsibility to answer for our actions. And we want abortions to be safe, rare, and reduce the number of abortions. That's why we have this fight in Congress over contraception. My Republican colleagues do not support contraception. If you want to reduce the number of abortions, and we all do, we must--it would behoove you to support family planning and, and contraception, you would think. But that is not the case. So we have to take--you know, we have to handle this as respectfully--this is sacred ground. We have to handle it very respectfully and not politicize it, as it has been--and I'm not saying Rick Warren did, because I don't think he did, but others will try to.


This has not been much of a controversy throughout Christianity, it is absurd that Pelosi would even say that this is teaching that goes back 50 years.

Here is a list of early Christians who spoke against abortion

http://catholidoxy.blogspot.com/2008/08/pelosi-on-mtp-catholic-tradition-vague.html

Athenagoras

“Since this is our character, what man of sound judgment would say that we are murderers? For you cannot eat human flesh until you have killed someone…What reason would we have to commit murder when we say that women who induce abortions are murderers, and will have to give account of it to God? For the same person would not regard the fetus in the womb as a living thing and therefore an object of God’s care, and at the same time slay it, once it had come to life. Nor would he refuse to expose infants, on the ground that those who expose them are murderers of children, and at the same time do away with the child he has reared. But we are altogether consistent in our conduct. We obey reason and do not override it.” (Plea for the Christians, ca. 176-177 A.D.)

Justin Martyr (ca. 100-165 A.D.)

“But as for us, we have been taught that to expose newly-born children is the part of wicked men; and this we have been taught lest we should do any one an injury, and lest we should sin against God, first, because we see that almost all so exposed (not only the girls, but also the males) are brought up to prostitution. And as the ancients are said to have reared herds of oxen, or goats, or sheep, or grazing horses, so now we see you rear children only for this shameful use; and for this pollution a multitude of females and hermaphrodites, and those who commit unmentionable iniquities, are found in every nation. And you receive the hire of these, and duty and taxes from them, whom you ought to exterminate from your realm. And any one who uses such persons, besides the godless and infamous and impure intercourse, may possibly be having intercourse with his own child, or relative, or brother. And there are some who prostitute even their own children and wives, and some are openly mutilated for the purpose of sodomy; and they refer these mysteries to the mother of the gods, and along with each of those whom you esteem gods there is painted a serpent, a great symbol and mystery. Indeed, the things which you do openly and with applause, as if the divine light were overturned and extinguished, these you lay to our charge; which, in truth, does no harm to us who shrink from doing any such things, but only to those who do them and bear false witness against us.” (First Apology, 27)

“And again [we fear to expose children], lest some of them be not picked up, but die, and we become murderers. But whether we marry, it is only that we may bring up children; or whether we decline marriage, we live continently.” (First Apology, 29)

Letter to Diognetus

“[Christians] marry, as do all [others]; they beget children; but they do not destroy their offspring.” (5; second century A.D.?)


Letter of Barnabas

“The way of light, then, is as follows. If anyone desires to travel to the appointed place, he must be zealous in his works. The knowledge, therefore, which is given to us for the purpose of walking in this way, is the following…Thou shalt not slay the child by procuring abortion; nor, again, shalt thou destroy it after it is born.” (19:5; ca. 75-100 A.D.).

Apocalypse of Peter

“And near that place I saw another strait place . . . and there sat women. . . . And over against them many children who were born to them out of due time sat crying. And there came forth from them rays of fire and smote the women in the eyes. And these were the accursed who conceived and caused abortion” (25; ca. 135 A.D.)

Didache (i.e., the so-called “Teaching of the Twelve Apostles”)

“And the second commandment of the Teaching; You shall not commit murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not commit pederasty, 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 born.” (Didache 2:2; ca. 100 A.D.?)

Minucius Felix

“And now I should wish to meet him who says or believes that we are initiated by the slaughter and blood of an infant. Think you that it can be possible for so tender, so little a body to receive those fatal wounds; for any one to shed, pour forth, and drain that new blood of a youngling, and of a man scarcely come into existence? No one can believe this, except one who can dare to do it. And I see that you at one time expose your begotten children to wild beasts and to birds; at another, that you crush them when strangled with a miserable kind of death. There are some women who, by drinking medical preparations, extinguish the source of the future man in their very bowels, and thus commit a parricide before they bring forth. And these things assuredly come don from the teaching of your gods. For Saturn did not expose his children, but devoured them.…Among the Persians, a promiscuous association between sons and mothers is allowed. Marriages with sisters are legitimate among the Egyptians and in Athens. Your records and your tragedies, which you both read and hear with pleasure, glory in incest: thus also you worship incestuous gods, who have intercourse with mothers, with daughters, with sisters. With reason, therefore, is incest frequently detected among you, and is continually permitted. Miserable men, you may even, without knowing it, rush into what is unlawful: since you scatter your lusts promiscuously, since you everywhere beget children, since you frequently expose even those who are born at home to the mercy of others, it is inevitable that you must come back to your own children, and stray to your own offspring. Thus you continue the story of incest, even although you have no consciousness of your crime. But we maintain our modesty not in appearance, but in our heart we gladly abide by the bond of a single marriage; in the desire of procreating, we know either one wife, or none at all.” (Octavius, 30-31a; ca. 160-300 A.D.)

The Sibylline Oracles (80-250 A.D.? Thought Christian, but possibly Jewish) includes among the wicked two groups: women who “produce abortions and unlawfully cast their offspring away” and sorcerers who dispense abortifacients (II.345).

Clement of Alexandria

“Our whole life can go on in observation of the laws of nature, if we gain dominion over our desires from the beginning and if we do not kill, by various means of a perverse art, the human offspring, born according to the designs of divine providence; for these women who, in order to hide their immorality, use abortive drugs which expel the matter completely dead, abort at the same time their human feelings…Abortion is killing human life that is under God’s care, design and providence.” (Clement of Alexandria, Paedagogus 2.10, ca. 190-200 A.D.)

Tertullian

"In our case, a murder being once for all forbidden, we may not destroy even the fetus in the womb, while as yet the human being derives blood from the other parts of the body for its sustenance. To hinder a birth is merely a speedier man-killing; nor does it matter whether you take away a life that is born, or destroy one that is coming to birth. That is a man which is going to be one; you have the fruit already in its seed" (Apology 9:8; ca. 200).

“Among surgeons’ tools there is a certain instrument, which is formed with a nicely-adjusted flexible frame for opening the uterus first of all and keeping it open; it is further furnished with an annular blade, by means of which the limbs [of the child] within the womb are dissected with anxious but unfaltering care; its last appendage being a blunted or covered hook, wherewith the entire fetus is extracted by a violent delivery… There is also [another instrument in the shape of] a copper needle or spike, by which the actual death is managed in this furtive robbery of life: they give it, from its infanticide function, the name of embruosphaktes, [meaning] ‘the slayer of the infant,’ which of course was alive…They all knew well enough that a living being had been conceived, and pitied this most luckless infant state, which had first to be put to death, to escape being tortured alive… Now we allow that life begins with conception because we contend that the soul also begins from conception; life taking its commencement at the same moment and place that the soul does.” (The Soul 25, 27; 210 A.D.).

“The law of Moses, indeed, punishes with due penalties the man who shall cause abortion [Ex. 21:22–24]" (The Soul, 37 A.D.).


Hippolytus of Rome

“Women who were reputed to be believers began to take drugs to render themselves sterile, and to bind themselves tightly so as to expel what was being conceived, since they would not, on account of relatives and excess wealth, want to have a child by a slave or by any insignificant person. See, then, into what great impiety that lawless one has proceeded, by teaching adultery and murder at the same time!” (Refutation of All Heresies, 9.7 ca. 228 A.D.).


Basil the Great (329-379 A.D.)

“Although keeping parrots and curlus, pagans do not adopt an orphaned child. Rather they expose children who are born at home. And yet they take up the young of birds. And so they prefer irrational creatures to rational ones…Fathers, forgetting about the children they have exposed, unknowingly have intercourse with a son who has debauched himself or with daughters who are prostitutes.”

"She who has deliberately destroyed a fetus has to pay the penalty of murder. The hairsplitting difference between formed and unformed makes no difference to us....Here it is not only the child to be born that is vindicated, but also the woman herself who made an attempt against her own life, because usually the women die in such attempts. Furthermore, added to this is the destruction of the child, another murder... Moreover, those, too, who give drugs causing abortion are deliberate murderers themselves, as well as those receiving the poison which kills the fetus." (Letter 188:2)


Council of Ancyra

"Concerning women who commit fornication, and destroy that which they have conceived, or who are employed in making drugs for abortion, a former decree excluded them until the hour of death, and to this some have assented. Nevertheless, being desirous to use somewhat greater leniency, we have ordained that they fulfill ten years [of penance], according to the prescribed degrees" (Canon 21; 314 A.D.).


Synod of Elvira (Spain, 306 A.D.)

“If a woman becomes pregnant by committing adultery, while her husband is absent, and after the act she destroys the child, it is proper to keep her from communion until death, because she has doubled her crime.” (Canon 63).


John Chrysostom

"Wherefore I beseech you, flee fornication. . . . Why sow where the ground makes it its care to destroy the fruit?—where there are many efforts at abortion?—where there is murder before the birth? For even the harlot you do not let continue a mere harlot, but make her a murderess also. You see how drunkenness leads to prostitution, prostitution to adultery, adultery to murder; or rather to a something even worse than murder. For I have no name to give it, since it does not take off the thing born, but prevents its being born. Why then do thou abuse the gift of God, and fight with his laws, and follow after what is a curse as if a blessing, and make the chamber of procreation a chamber for murder, and arm the woman that was given for childbearing unto slaughter? For with a view to drawing more money by being agreeable and an object of longing to her lovers, even this she is not backward to do, so heaping upon thy head a great pile of fire. For even if the daring deed be hers, yet the causing of it is thine" (Homilies on Romans 24; 391 A.D.).


Jerome

"I cannot bring myself to speak of the many virgins who daily fall and are lost to the bosom of the Church, their mother. . . . Some go so far as to take potions, that they may insure barrenness, and thus murder human beings almost before their conception. Some, when they find themselves with child through their sin, use drugs to procure abortion, and when, as often happens, they die with their offspring, they enter the lower world laden with the guilt not only of adultery against Christ but also of suicide and child murder" (Letters 22:13, 396 A.D.).


Ambrose of Milan (339 to 397 A.D.)

“The poor expose their children, the rich kill the fruit of their own bodies in the womb, lest their property be divided up, and they destroy their own children in the womb with murderous poisons. and before life has been passed on, it is annihilated."

One great book, written by a secular sociologist, is The Rise of Christianity by Rodney Stark. I had to read this for a class and found it a great read. On page 124, Stark writes: "From the start, Christian doctrine absolutely prohibited abortion and infanticide, classifying both as murder." Stark even writes that Christian teachings against these acts helped contribute to the rise of Christianity in the long run.

It is very troubling to see anybody try to twist Catholicism around to make it seem morally acceptable to support abortion. It is an absolutely disgusting lie.

ROYC75
08-24-2008, 10:57 PM
Well, it's not above my pay scale .......Plus I get paid very poorly.

Color Red
08-24-2008, 11:01 PM
With all respect, people like that ought to have the integrity to get out of the church. I got out of that church for lesser reasons, because I respect, and I reserve for the church an authority for them to pronounce what they understand to be true. To stay in the church and believe what is contrary to church is a hypocrisy and arrogance. How honorable I would find it of someone to say, "gee I love my church, but they think abortion is wrong and I think it's okay, so I got out." But the poor church, bless its heart, has many baby killers who are cavalier about the matter. My hat is off to the church for wanting to refuse communion to baby killers. You know, the church is polite about this, and frankly gracious. They have had generations now of these liberal types that flaunt issues of doctrine and still call themselves Catholic, and it stinks. My respectful admiration to them for being willing to draw a line in the sand.

'Hamas' Jenkins
08-24-2008, 11:04 PM
With all respect, people like that ought to have the integrity to get out of the church. I got out of that church for lesser reasons, because I respect, and I reserve for the church an authority for them to pronounce what they understand to be true. To stay in the church and believe what is contrary to church is a hypocrisy and arrogance. How honorable I would find it of someone to say, "gee I love my church, but they think abortion is wrong and I think it's okay, so I got out." But the poor church, bless its heart, has many baby killers who are cavalier about the matter. My hat is off to the church for wanting to refuse communion to baby killers. You know, the church is polite about this, and frankly gracious. They have had generations now of these liberal types that flaunt issues of doctrine and still call themselves Catholic, and it stinks. My respectful admiration to them for being willing to draw a line in the sand.

So much for the Reformation, I guess.

irishjayhawk
08-24-2008, 11:05 PM
And this is why religion and government don't mix.

What a retarded exchange.

irishjayhawk
08-24-2008, 11:06 PM
Also, Jenson, God himself killed 1st borns. How do you reconcile that?

'Hamas' Jenkins
08-24-2008, 11:27 PM
Also, Jenson, God himself killed 1st borns. How do you reconcile that?

He's a seven year old burning ants with a magnifying glass.

Jenson71
08-25-2008, 10:59 PM
Also, Jenson, God himself killed 1st borns. How do you reconcile that?

As humans, we're not really on the same playing field as an all-powerful, all-wise divine being. We shouldn't try to create life, like Victor Frankenstein, or practice in eugenics in order to carefully funnel the evolution of mankind.

With abortion, I believe we must chose to err on the side of presuming that the life right from conception has a soul and must be protected. Like other moral issues, this side comes not out of fear but out of love for human beings and the precious life we all get one chance to go through.

Abortion also has detrimental effects on those women who chose to abort the fetus. I know I'm going off on a tangent from your question, but I do feel my position is morally straight, logical, and the subject of extreme importance.

Jenson71
08-25-2008, 11:12 PM
And this is why religion and government don't mix.

What a retarded exchange.

I find my post hard to articulate. Religious beliefs are often ethical bases or foundations. People and government do need ethical foundations. Therefore, discussing of those ethics and morals are not out of the question. Actually, they should be totally IN the question.

The debates on morals and ethics and beliefs do have a place in government. It is when government and religion mix and cause 1.) suppression of a persons basic freedoms and 2.) corruption of religious beliefs for advancement of government that people get legitimately worried about the mixture.

irishjayhawk
08-25-2008, 11:14 PM
I'll address these tomorrow. I have an early class.

Fairplay
08-25-2008, 11:43 PM
Kevorkian was one cool MTF'er. That's for sure.

Fairplay
08-25-2008, 11:44 PM
I find my post hard to articulate. Religious beliefs are often ethical bases or foundations. People and government do need ethical foundations. Therefore, discussing of those ethics and morals are not out of the question. Actually, they should be totally IN the question.

The debates on morals and ethics and beliefs do have a place in government. It is when government and religion mix and cause 1.) suppression of a persons basic freedoms and 2.) corruption of religious beliefs for advancement of government that people get legitimately worried about the mixture.


:ZZZ:

Logical
08-26-2008, 12:07 AM
As humans, we're not really on the same playing field as an all-powerful, all-wise divine being. We shouldn't try to create life, like Victor Frankenstein, or practice in eugenics in order to carefully funnel the evolution of mankind.

With abortion, I believe we must chose to err on the side of presuming that the life right from conception has a soul and must be protected. Like other moral issues, this side comes not out of fear but out of love for human beings and the precious life we all get one chance to go through.

Abortion also has detrimental effects on those women who chose to abort the fetus. I know I'm going off on a tangent from your question, but I do feel my position is morally straight, logical, and the subject of extreme importance.Then why are Catholics so abhorent of cloning, how is it worse than abortion?

Jenson71
08-26-2008, 12:16 AM
Then why are Catholics so abhorent of cloning, how is it worse than abortion?

I'm sorry, but that's something I honestly haven't much knowledge on. Cloning and stem-cell research is a little too scientific for me to get interested in, sorry science fans.

I'm going to say something that I think is where the Church comes from in this subject regarding stem-cell research, which is very dangerous to do (just look at the first post!) but again, I don't want anyone to think I'm speaking for the Church.

I think the opposition to this by the Church is when human embryos are destroyed in the process of stem-cell research. If embryos are acquired by "morally licit means" then the research is considered acceptable.

I don't know if one is considered worse than the other in the Church's views.

BucEyedPea
08-26-2008, 05:03 AM
Pelosi doesn't even know her own Church's teachings.

But why would anyone ask her or a govt judge....how about asking a scientist...like an embryologist, the specialist on these things.

tiptap
08-26-2008, 06:11 AM
Are you OK with evolution because I don't know any prominent embryologists that don't view the process in any other manner. Both the embryo and the species are under reproductive pressure. That would include infanticide and over production of offspring in face of assured casualties. It is a harsh notion. As a human I would like to mitigate the harshness of such biological imperative. That is what planning is about and in the failure of planning, choice. If choice is offered than that is an indication we are not at the mercy of evolution and just biology.

InChiefsHell
08-26-2008, 06:21 AM
Pelosi joins the ranks of "famous" people who need to stop saying that they are Catholic. John Kerry, Pelosi, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly...they all have said things contrary to what they Church teaches, and under the guise that they are "good Catholics" who know what the Church teaches...it drives me nuts. Heck, Hannity had a Priest on and was railing against the priest about what the Church teaches...it was embarrassing.

Just goes to prove, right or left it doesn't matter to me, these people are in serious error with the Church and either need to humble themselves and admit that they really don't know what they are talking about, or leave the Church and call it good.

tiptap
08-26-2008, 06:33 AM
There has always been a schism between Old World Catholics and New World Catholics. It is embedded in the difference between democracy and theocracy. Not that one can be imposed on the other in their sphere (render unto Ceasar . . ) but that there is a fundamental disconnect when both are cherished.

Programmer
08-26-2008, 08:41 AM
I'm surprised that Nasty Pelosi would even talk about her Church openly. As part of the government isn't she supposed to drop her affiliation with the Church so as not to infer State beliefs of Christianity? ROFL

irishjayhawk
08-26-2008, 09:18 AM
As humans, we're not really on the same playing field as an all-powerful, all-wise divine being. We shouldn't try to create life, like Victor Frankenstein, or practice in eugenics in order to carefully funnel the evolution of mankind.

Obviously, this is predicated on the fact that there is an all-powerful, all-wise divine being. However, this has nothing to with what we as humans should do.

First of all, if said divine being is all-powerful, it would mean he is quite capable of intervening in the affairs of humans. Does he? It would seem the answer is unequivocally and emphatically no. All you have to do is look at the World Trade Center, the London Bombings, the Iraq War, and Africa.

At this point, I'm sure you would postulate something similar to free-will, "if he intervened, we wouldn't have faith" or something similar. Yet, at the same time, the canonical book Christianity holds dear contains said divine being intervening. So, it seems we're stuck in an interesting situation. On the one hand, God intervenes. On the other, he cannot because we won't have faith. Interestingly, the birth of Christ (which is supposed to help our faith) fails at this exact argument because it is, in fact, an example of God intervening. But I digress.

Next, you mention the being is all-wise. Again, this has nothing to do with anything. If god has created morality, his followers are perhaps the worst exemplars of it. Just look at all the wars religions have had throughout the ages. You cannot begin to justify it. At this point, you will give something similar to free will as an argument justifying how the two paths (god vs human) diverged or continues to. Yet, we remain in the same paradox of earlier. Again, this is a digression.

The Frankenstein argument is weak. Whether or not we use the technologies we come up with is another question all together. However, to say that we should not try to help ensure our survival is, well, stupid. It is what separates us from other species. We are able to think about our survival rather than just rely on our instincts. Exploration to the limits and capabilities of the natural world have to be done. Whether, after careful experimentation and observation, those limits are realistic and practical to use, do we have to answer the question of whether we "should".

In summary, the argument against creating life is as weak as the argument that there is a divine being.


With abortion, I believe we must chose to err on the side of presuming that the life right from conception has a soul and must be protected. Like other moral issues, this side comes not out of fear but out of love for human beings and the precious life we all get one chance to go through.

Define soul? Is it an actual entity or a metaphor for our consciousness? Do animals have souls? If not, why do they not have souls; what are the criteria for having a soul? If so, why do we continue to slaughter them?

Next, we must ask why at conception? Is a clump of cells really a human? How is it different than an egg? Is an egg a chicken? At what point does a clump of cells actually become human? Is it when we see them start to take form?

That leads us to another series of questions. Why is the start of life continually moved back? Why does technology get to redefine life when nature had a prerequisite set back since the beginning of time: birth? Why are you wanting to redefine child? Why are you taking away the necessary requirement for something to be considered a baby (birth)?

Then we have to answer these questions as they relate to religion. It is a fact that this entire debate is predicated on religion. It is predicated on the fact that someone higher than us judges it human, when science tells us its not. So, we must answer questions in this realm. Why does God kill so many people in the Bible? Who speaks for God? Why are there so many miscarriages? Aren't those "God's abortions"? If so, what does that say? If not, what are they? If the answer is "nature", why is nature incapable of defining life with it's prerequisite of birth? If the answer is "the devil", why does God not stop this devil from killing innocent babies, especially if he is all powerful and all wise? If it's "God's plan", aren't we back to "god-the-abortionist" starting point?

Face it, the fact is, religious people are redefining child. They are, in a sense, redefining what "human" is. And for what? A clump of cells feels no pain, has no consciousness, nor has feelings. This is personification in the form of propaganda spread by pro-life people, most of which are hypocrites anyway.


Abortion also has detrimental effects on those women who chose to abort the fetus. I know I'm going off on a tangent from your question, but I do feel my position is morally straight, logical, and the subject of extreme importance.

This has nothing to do with it. Choosing the wrong job can have detrimental effects on someone who choose to do it. Choosing something has consequences. Sometimes good, sometimes bad. So, to use that as an argument is futile.

Moreover, notice the nice contradiction. Your argument is that abortion has detrimental effects on those that choose abortion. Yet, you want to take the choice away.

irishjayhawk
08-26-2008, 09:28 AM
I find my post hard to articulate. Religious beliefs are often ethical bases or foundations.

No. This is simply false. Religious beliefs are based on ethics. They are not bases in and of themselves. If, for the sake of argument, they were, it would be the most horrible moral system ever devised. Surely, you have looked through the Bible. Surely, you would look at Islam's (though some say misinterpreted) call for jihad. Surely, if they were, we wouldn't be fighting over who's ethical base or foundation is right. Would we?

Religion did not found ethics or morality. Likewise, it does not have a monopoly on either.


People and government do need ethical foundations.

No doubt. But they don't come from religion.

Therefore, discussing of those ethics and morals are not out of the question. Actually, they should be totally IN the question.

Here, you complete your circular logic. Religion is the base. Therefore, we must talk about religion. However, religion is not the base as we've already covered.

Most would probably agree with you. However, you are redefining "human" when talking about life beginning at conception. Therefore, you are extending the ethics and morals for BIRTHED humans to UNBORN cells. This is where the question of morality starts to get questioned.


The debates on morals and ethics and beliefs do have a place in government. It is when government and religion mix and cause 1.) suppression of a persons basic freedoms and 2.) corruption of religious beliefs for advancement of government that people get legitimately worried about the mixture.

This is a laughable passage. The first sentence is most definitely a true statement. That's why we have laws against killing. The second sentence is pure rubbish.

#1 is very true. However, it also extends to religion. That's why we cannot have a state sponsored religion. It would suppress basic freedoms we cherish.

#2 is very wrong. It is predicated on the assumption that religion is the thing being corrupted. Very often, it is the other way around, as history would show. #2 could very easily read:

corruption of government for advancement of religious beliefs

Both are examples of things that happen when government and religion mix. Good examples can be found in the Middle East and Asia.

irishjayhawk
08-26-2008, 09:31 AM
I'm sorry, but that's something I honestly haven't much knowledge on. Cloning and stem-cell research is a little too scientific for me to get interested in, sorry science fans.

So you are neutral in your position or do you still take a stance against it since your Church is adamantly opposed?


I'm going to say something that I think is where the Church comes from in this subject regarding stem-cell research, which is very dangerous to do (just look at the first post!) but again, I don't want anyone to think I'm speaking for the Church.

I think the opposition to this by the Church is when human embryos are destroyed in the process of stem-cell research. If embryos are acquired by "morally licit means" then the research is considered acceptable.

I don't know if one is considered worse than the other in the Church's views.

Notice the bold. Very often, I see people refer to them as that. Isn't it exactly like "motor sport"? That is, if racing was an actual sport, it wouldn't need the prefix motor.

It's like when someone puts the prefix on to something to make it something it's not. Either it is human or it is an embryo. Either it is a child or it is an embryo. It can't be both.

Jenson71
08-26-2008, 01:21 PM
I'm not surprised you just gave me a 10th grade book report of The God Delusion. Your talent at reaching for issues you believe are being argued and adding some idea some person wrote that you agree with far exceeds your ability to argue the actual arguments being made.

Obviously, this is predicated on the fact that there is an all-powerful, all-wise divine being. However, this has nothing to with what we as humans should do.

Oh, and the all-powerful, all-wise diving being cares about us and our actions and we are judged on who we are and what our actions are. Now it does matter what we as humans should do.

Next, you mention the being is all-wise. Again, this has nothing to do with anything. If god has created morality, his followers are perhaps the worst exemplars of it. Just look at all the wars religions have had throughout the ages. You cannot begin to justify it. At this point, you will give something similar to free will as an argument justifying how the two paths (god vs human) diverged or continues to. Yet, we remain in the same paradox of earlier. Again, this is a digression.

I'm sure we're all impressed that you can dress up your language as sophisticated as possible, but honestly, this statement, in light of our discussion, and in and of itself with it's topic starter, is - ahem, shut your mouth --ish.


The Frankenstein argument is weak. Whether or not we use the technologies we come up with is another question all together. However, to say that we should not try to help ensure our survival is, well, stupid. It is what separates us from other species. We are able to think about our survival rather than just rely on our instincts. Exploration to the limits and capabilities of the natural world have to be done. Whether, after careful experimentation and observation, those limits are realistic and practical to use, do we have to answer the question of whether we "should". In summary, the argument against creating life is as weak as the argument that there is a divine being.


Since when is creating life (Frankenstein) about ensuring our survival?

Define soul? Is it an actual entity or a metaphor for our consciousness? Do animals have souls? If not, why do they not have souls; what are the criteria for having a soul? If so, why do we continue to slaughter them?

A soul, a rational soul, is a spiritual entity that allows us the human capabilities of knowing God and deciding. Animals do not have rational souls. Only humans do - we are special to God. And just for clarification, human begins at the point in historical evolution where God deemed that a creature would have a rational soul.

Next, we must ask why at conception? Is a clump of cells really a human?

Where does the human life begin? It must begin at some point, even before birth. At the very beginning, we must consider that this clump of cells has the ability to have a rational soul.

That leads us to another series of questions. Why is the start of life continually moved back? Why does technology get to redefine life when nature had a prerequisite set back since the beginning of time: birth? Why are you wanting to redefine child? Why are you taking away the necessary requirement for something to be considered a baby (birth)?

We are considering life, and the beginning of life. We can not move back the start of life.

This has nothing to do with it. Choosing the wrong job can have detrimental effects on someone who choose to do it. Choosing something has consequences. Sometimes good, sometimes bad. So, to use that as an argument is futile.

I understand the point. And you're right, it doesn't matter with my argument.

Jenson71
08-26-2008, 01:28 PM
No. This is simply false.

You don't believe most Christians find their ethical and moral beliefs and answers in the Christian religion?

Religion did not found ethics or morality. Likewise, it does not have a monopoly on either.

I never argued it did. Stay focused here.

#1 is very true. However, it also extends to religion. That's why we cannot have a state sponsored religion. It would suppress basic freedoms we cherish.

That's exactly what I said in different terms.

#2 is very wrong. It is predicated on the assumption that religion is the thing being corrupted. Very often, it is the other way around, as history would show. #2 could very easily read:

That goes with number one if we're talking about a government based in freedom (which we both are). #2 is a different worry and just as legitimate.

Jenson71
08-26-2008, 01:33 PM
So you are neutral in your position or do you still take a stance against it since your Church is adamantly opposed?

I think the Church's teachings and ethics are the most fundamentally sound and reasonable human beings have ever put together. I believe the Church is protected by the Holy Spirit, the third Person in the Trinity, and therefore, is a perfect institution with its teachings. Based on those beliefs, I am opposed to it, but not vocally, as I don't have much to argue on.

Notice the bold. Very often, I see people refer to them as that. Isn't it exactly like "motor sport"? That is, if racing was an actual sport, it wouldn't need the prefix motor.

It's like when someone puts the prefix on to something to make it something it's not. Either it is human or it is an embryo. Either it is a child or it is an embryo. It can't be both.

First off, I don't see why it can't be both. Secondly, I put that to distinguish human embryos from animal embryos or plant embryos.

irishjayhawk
08-26-2008, 05:01 PM
I'm not surprised you just gave me a 10th grade book report of The God Delusion. Your talent at reaching for issues you believe are being argued and adding some idea some person wrote that you agree with far exceeds your ability to argue the actual arguments being made.

I'm not surprised you stoop to superstition. What am I supposed to say to this? :shrug: The same applies to your arguments with respect to the Bible.



Oh, and the all-powerful, all-wise diving being cares about us and our actions and we are judged on who we are and what our actions are. Now it does matter what we as humans should do.

You just ignored the bulk of the argument. The basic, underlying theme in your entire argument is that there is a God who defines life as thus. And those who speak for him have declared that to be conception.

That's not 10th grade version of the God Delusion, that's the fact that underlies your argument.



I'm sure we're all impressed that you can dress up your language as sophisticated as possible, but honestly, this statement, in light of our discussion, and in and of itself with it's topic starter, is - ahem, shut your mouth --ish.

And what is this response supposed to be?

I digressed into the basic tenet of your argument which was that of a divine being who is the center of morality. It doesn't seem that you're refuting this.

Since when is creating life (Frankenstein) about ensuring our survival?

Since when is it not?

Seriously, the audacity of you to say I'm arguing at 10th grade level and you pose a question as ridiculous as this?

A soul, a rational soul, is a spiritual entity that allows us the human capabilities of knowing God and deciding. Animals do not have rational souls. Only humans do - we are special to God. And just for clarification, human begins at the point in historical evolution where God deemed that a creature would have a rational soul.

Is there proof of this soul? Evidence for its existence? Or is it another extension of the faith you place in an evidence-lacking deity? Why do animals not have souls? Because they aren't capable of rational thought (aka consciousness)? If so, then is consciousness the soul?


Where does the human life begin? It must begin at some point, even before birth. At the very beginning, we must consider that this clump of cells has the ability to have a rational soul.

See, you laugh at me addressing the basic underlying claim you are making. That is that there is a divine being and he has given us a soul. You keep going in that circle.

Human life was dictated by an event we called "birth." Birth is the prerequisite for life. That's why our birth certificate is when you are BORN. It is how life was before technology gave us the capability to see inside and it's that way now. It's how life has been defined since the beginning.

Granted, technology has moved the line closer and closer to conception, but it doesn't redefine human life to conception.

(I am stressing HUMAN life because if we start talking in generic terms of "life" we miss the fact that bacteria - single or multicellular - is technically alive. So, a single cell is definitely living. But to call it human would be to mistake any single cell for a human. You see the difference here?)


We are considering life, and the beginning of life.

I don't know how that was a response to what you originally quoted of mine, but I hope I answered it above.


I understand the point. And you're right, it doesn't matter with my argument.

Fair enough.

irishjayhawk
08-26-2008, 05:04 PM
You don't believe most Christians find their ethical and moral beliefs and answers in the Christian religion?

They most certainly do. But to claim that Christianity was the first or owns a monopoly over those ethical and moral beliefs is laughable.


I never argued it did. Stay focused here.

You kind of did. You said:

Religious beliefs are often ethical bases or foundations.

That is much different than:

Ethical (or Moral) bases are the foundations for religious beliefs.

That's why I clarified.


That's exactly what I said in different terms.


That goes with number one if we're talking about a government based in freedom (which we both are). #2 is a different worry and just as legitimate.

#2 is just as legitimate, but only if you understand that it works in the reverse way that you stated.

irishjayhawk
08-26-2008, 05:09 PM
I think the Church's teachings and ethics are the most fundamentally sound and reasonable human beings have ever put together.

Yet, you fail to see that these same systems preceded Christianity and Catholicism. The Golden Rule is perhaps the best example. Confucius came up with that rule years before Christianity was formed and years before Judaism was formed.

(On a side note, have you read the Epic of Gilgamesh?)


I believe the Church is protected by the Holy Spirit, the third Person in the Trinity, and therefore, is a perfect institution with its teachings.

And this gets into an entirely different and separate argument. I always forget that 3 is the new 1.

Based on those beliefs, I am opposed to it, but not vocally, as I don't have much to argue on.

So, essentially, blind obedience is bliss?

Let me ask you a question: If it was proven that cancer would cease to exist (be cured forever) if 20 embryos had to be killed to get there, would you accept? 200? 2000? 20000?


First off, I don't see why it can't be both. Secondly, I put that to distinguish human embryos from animal embryos or plant embryos.

It cannot be both because to be human you must be born. Period. An egg is not a chicken.

Secondly, why are they different? Does this revolve around the "soul"?

sportsman1
08-26-2008, 05:13 PM
To question the presence of what is defined as life, I think you must first define what is the purpose of sex, what are the responsibilities involved when engaging in sex. Therefore by engaging in sex you understand that it creates life. By then terminating that life you have committed an act of murder which defined by all ethical bases as wrong.

irishjayhawk
08-26-2008, 05:15 PM
To question the presence of what is defined as life, I think you must first define what is the purpose of sex, what are the responsibilities involved when engaging in sex. Therefore by engaging in sex you understand that it creates life. By then terminating that life you have committed an act of murder which defined by all ethical bases as wrong.

To an extent, that is a good argument. However, we have devised ways to have sex for pleasure. Contraception is opposed, most adamantly by the Catholic Church, by most religious organizations. Even in AIDS ridden Africa.

So, I don't buy your argument practically. And partially not even on principle.

sportsman1
08-26-2008, 05:23 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jenson71 View Post
I think the Church's teachings and ethics are the most fundamentally sound and reasonable human beings have ever put together.
Yet, you fail to see that these same systems preceded Christianity and Catholicism. The Golden Rule is perhaps the best example. Confucius came up with that rule years before Christianity was formed and years before Judaism was formed.

(On a side note, have you read the Epic of Gilgamesh?)

Thus the wonder of religious teachings. As time comes along religion continues to steer the ethical base as new needs arise in societies. Organized religion helps interpret right and wrong under the premise of an almighty power, but at that same time its purpose serves a more just society. By this religion absolutely provides a personal basis for ethical beliefs. These provide common ground and have everything to do with government to ensure the most just societies.

irishjayhawk
08-26-2008, 05:27 PM
Thus the wonder of religious teachings. As time comes along religion continues to steer the ethical base as new needs arise in societies. Organized religion helps interpret right and wrong under the premise of an almighty power, but at that same time its purpose serves a more just society. By this religion absolutely provides a personal basis for ethical beliefs. These provide common ground and have everything to do with government to ensure the most just societies.

:spock:

Jenson71
08-26-2008, 05:35 PM
No, I have not read the Epic of Gilgamesh.

***SPRAYER
08-26-2008, 05:45 PM
Thus the wonder of religious teachings. As time comes along religion continues to steer the ethical base as new needs arise in societies.

That's complete BS. Unless your an episcopalian.

Simply Red
08-26-2008, 05:54 PM
this is awesome, I'm all ears.

***SPRAYER
08-26-2008, 05:56 PM
The Catholic League strikes back at Pelosi's idiocy:

PELOSI DENIES CATHOLICISM OPPOSES ABORTION

August 25, 2008


On yesterday’s NBC-TV show, “Meet the Press,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was asked to comment on when life begins. Here is what she said: “I would say that as an ardent, practicing Catholic, this is an issue that I have studied for a long time. And what I know is, over the centuries, the doctors of the Church have not been able to make that definition.”

When Tom Brokaw told her that the Catholic Church “feels very strongly” that life begins at conception, Pelosi said, “I understand. And this is like maybe 50 years or something like that. So again, over the history of the Church, this is an issue of controversy.”

Catholic League president Bill Donohue responded as follows:

“Here is what the Catechism of the Catholic Church says: ‘Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception.’ It also says, ‘Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable.’ Looks like Pelosi didn’t study the subject long enough. But not to worry: We are sending her a copy of Catholicism for Dummies today (the Catechism is like maybe a bit advanced).

“Whether Joe Biden is as ignorant of what his religion teaches remains to be seen. What is not in doubt is the enthusiasm which NARAL showed when he was selected to join the ticket. The radical pro-abortion group was delighted, as were the radical pro-abortion delegates to the Democratic convention: as reported in today’s New York Times, 64 percent of Americans reject abortion-on-demand, yet only 23 percent of the delegates do. It is only fitting, then, that NARAL’s president will speak today at the Convention and Planned Parenthood’s president will speak tomorrow.

“So there we have it: the man running for president on the Democratic ticket supports selective infanticide, his running mate is a pro-abortion Catholic, the delegates are wildly out of step with Americans on abortion and the Speaker of the House hasn’t a clue what her religion teaches on the subject.”

Jenson71
08-26-2008, 06:01 PM
I'm not surprised you stoop to superstition. What am I supposed to say to this? :shrug: The same applies to your arguments with respect to the Bible.

I don't resort to superstition. I believe Catholicism is a reasonable and logical philosophy.

I digressed into the basic tenet of your argument which was that of a divine being who is the center of morality. It doesn't seem that you're refuting this.

Of course I believe God is the center of morality, why tread on this old ground again?

Since when is it not?

Seriously, the audacity of you to say I'm arguing at 10th grade level and you pose a question as ridiculous as this?

You don't need to create life to ensure the survival of life already being.

Is there proof of this soul? Evidence for its existence? Or is it another extension of the faith you place in an evidence-lacking deity? Why do animals not have souls? Because they aren't capable of rational thought (aka consciousness)? If so, then is consciousness the soul?


Is there physical proof of anything spiritual? Not really. I can't point to the soul in the body. I don't know if it's so much about rational thought. Can animals think rationally? And it's not about being conscious, though maybe that's part of it. It's more about conscience.

Human life was dictated by an event we called "birth." Birth is the prerequisite for life. That's why our birth certificate is when you are BORN. It is how life was before technology gave us the capability to see inside and it's that way now. It's how life has been defined since the beginning.

What? You don't know that. Before technology, you think people looked at the bulge protruding from a woman's stomach and thought, "Could be a duck?"

Birth is just what happens after the required nine months or so of formation.

banyon
08-26-2008, 06:04 PM
Good Lord, I am so sick of this issue dividing our society and preventing us from accomplishing anything. Can we just make it illegal again so we can get back to the back-alley abortions and get something else done in this country?

***SPRAYER
08-26-2008, 06:05 PM
Good Lord, I am so sick of this issue dividing our society and preventing us from accomplishing anything. Can we just make it illegal again so we can get back to the back-alley abortions and get something else done in this country?

I wish we could keep abortion out of politics, too. Indeed, a hundred to two hundred years ago, Americans wanted to keep slavery out of politics, too.

irishjayhawk
08-26-2008, 06:06 PM
I don't resort to superstition. I believe Catholicism is a reasonable and logical philosophy.

It involves in an all powerful being otherwise known as god. It is, therefore, by definition, a superstition.


Of course I believe God is the center of morality, why tread on this old ground again?

Because that's where it runs into a wall. You don't want government and religion to mix yet your view on abortion is entirely driven by religion. And thus you push for religion to influence the government's decision (Roe v Wade).


You don't need to create life to ensure the survival of life already being.

Are you really thinking this simply? The artificial creation of life could, at some point for some reason, save our species. We need to at least know if it is possible and how to do it. I don't get how that's unrealistic.


Is there physical proof of anything spiritual? Not really. I can't point to the soul in the body. I don't know if it's so much about rational thought. Can animals think rationally? And it's not about being conscious, though maybe that's part of it. It's more about conscience.

Therefore, it is superstition grounded in the unknown that is consciousness (specifically the subset of consciousness known as the conscience).



What? You don't know that. Before technology, you think people looked at the bulge protruding from a woman's stomach and thought, "Could be a duck?"

Birth is just what happens after the required nine months or so of formation.

I do know that. That's why there was a thing called a birth day. It celebrated you coming into the world. We didn't celebrate it 9 months earlier or right when the couple found out.

Our entire culture has predicated human life beginning after birth. Birth is a prerequisite.

banyon
08-26-2008, 06:07 PM
I wish we could keep abortion out of politics, too. Indeed, a hundred to two hundred years ago, Americans wanted to keep slavery out of politics, too.

That's what I am saying, I don't give a f*ck. Go ahead and make it illegal again.

irishjayhawk
08-26-2008, 06:08 PM
Good Lord, I am so sick of this issue dividing our society and preventing us from accomplishing anything. Can we just make it illegal again so we can get back to the back-alley abortions and get something else done in this country?

I do sympathize with the core message you are trying to get at. However, we cannot just surrender the topic unless you are willing to deal with all the ramifications. It's about choice. Revoking the choice in the name of religious fever is to revoke choice in a a broader sense.

I wish we could keep abortion out of politics, too. Indeed, a hundred to two hundred years ago, Americans wanted to keep slavery out of politics, too.

I'm sure you and I disagree on the issue of abortion but I have to agree with you here.

Jenson71
08-26-2008, 06:08 PM
Yet, you fail to see that these same systems preceded Christianity and Catholicism. The Golden Rule is perhaps the best example. Confucius came up with that rule years before Christianity was formed and years before Judaism was formed.

There are similarities. They are not the same systems, at all.

So, essentially, blind obedience is bliss?

Let me ask you a question: If it was proven that cancer would cease to exist (be cured forever) if 20 embryos had to be killed to get there, would you accept? 200? 2000? 20000?

I don't think it is blind obedience. It is enlightened obedience.

I don't know if that's even possible. Like I said, I don't know much about embryos. We've made a lot of advances on cancer from science and medicine and I don't think any of that occurred because we were able to kill people in the process. The end doesn't always justify the means.

irishjayhawk
08-26-2008, 06:10 PM
There are similarities. They are not the same systems, at all.


I don't think it is blind obedience. It is enlightened obedience.

You just said you didn't know. How could that possibly be enlightened obedience?


I don't know if that's even possible. Like I said, I don't know much about embryos. We've made a lot of advances on cancer from science and medicine and I don't think any of that occurred because we were able to kill people in the process. The end doesn't always justify the means.

So you aren't going to answer the question, even though you're "enlightened" enough to be obedient.

***SPRAYER
08-26-2008, 06:11 PM
That's what I am saying, I don't give a f*ck. Go ahead and make it illegal again.

I know that your a lawyer. When was it illegal in the United States?

Jenson71
08-26-2008, 06:15 PM
It involves in an all powerful being otherwise known as god. It is, therefore, by definition, a superstition.

I thought superstition is a belief not based in any reason or logic, but based on emotion or non-reality.

Because that's where it runs into a wall. You don't want government and religion to mix yet your view on abortion is entirely driven by religion. And thus you push for religion to influence the government's decision (Roe v Wade).

It is a moral and ethical decision as well as religious.

Are you really thinking this simply? The artificial creation of life could, at some point for some reason, save our species. We need to at least know if it is possible and how to do it. I don't get how that's unrealistic.


Would artificial creation of life be artificial life? Yeah, I think so. Wouldn't really be our species.

I do know that. That's why there was a thing called a birth day. It celebrated you coming into the world. We didn't celebrate it 9 months earlier or right when the couple found out.

Our entire culture has predicated human life beginning after birth. Birth is a prerequisite.


Well if our culture started having birthday parties 300 years ago, then that must mean that's when life starts! That's very complex, bravo.

Jenson71
08-26-2008, 06:18 PM
You just said you didn't know. How could that possibly be enlightened obedience?

So you aren't going to answer the question, even though you're "enlightened" enough to be obedient.

My understanding of Catholicism is enlightening to me. My conclusion is that I freely choose to obey.

irishjayhawk
08-26-2008, 06:21 PM
I thought superstition is a belief not based in any reason or logic, but based on emotion or non-reality.

Well, then we'd have to argue about how Christianity is or isn't logical.

It is a moral and ethical decision as well as religious.


Only because your religion has decided to redefine words. It is mostly religious.

Would artificial creation of life be artificial life? Yeah, I think so. Wouldn't really be our species.

That's not true. If they have identical DNA to a "natural human", it would most certainly be the same species. It's pretty stupid to say otherwise.


Well if our culture started having birthday parties 300 years ago, then that must mean that's when life starts! That's very complex, bravo.

Okay, I see, simplistic examples don't count. To become human, you must be BORN. It is a prerequisite. I don't see how you can even fight that.

irishjayhawk
08-26-2008, 06:21 PM
My understanding of Catholicism is enlightening to me. My conclusion is that I freely choose to obey.

So you aren't going to answer the question?

***SPRAYER
08-26-2008, 06:22 PM
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/10/26/europe/EU-GEN-Spain-Beatification.php

banyon
08-26-2008, 06:23 PM
I know that your a lawyer. When was it illegal in the United States?

Abortion was legal in most of the colonies until "the quickening" until states began to pass laws prohibiting it in the 1820's. Eventually by the 20th century, all the states had anti-abortion statutes.

States then reformed their laws in the fifties and sixties to provide varying degrees of protections for the mother or fetus. These were mostly unworkable because of the ease of crossing state lines to go to the easiest route. Then Roe v. Wade ad Griswold v. Connecticut came along and prohibited the banning of contraceptives, and prohibited the banning of abortions in the first two trimesters. Casey v. Planned Parenthood from the early 90s is important too, because it allows states to put up obstacles to obtaining an abortion, so long as the obstacles aren't too great.

That's it in a nutshell.

Jenson71
08-26-2008, 06:27 PM
Okay, I see, simplistic examples don't count. To become human, you must be BORN. It is a prerequisite. I don't see how you can even fight that.

Okay, what is this thing?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c4/10_weeks_pregnant.png

***SPRAYER
08-26-2008, 06:29 PM
Abortion was legal in most of the colonies until "the quickening" until states began to pass laws prohibiting it in the 1820's. Eventually by the 20th century, all the states had anti-abortion statutes.


That was before massive immigration. Was it because of religion, or was it based on practicality?




States then reformed their laws in the fifties and sixties to provide varying degrees of protections for the mother or fetus. These were mostly unworkable because of the ease of crossing state lines to go to the easiest route.

Unworkable to whom?

Then Roe v. Wade ad Griswold v. Connecticut came along and prohibited the banning of contraceptives, and prohibited the banning of abortions in the first two trimesters.

Were contraceptives banned to prevent pregnancy? When did contraceptives become a "contra" to pregnancy? When did they become a "contra" to venereal disease?

Casey v. Planned Parenthood from the early 90s is important too, because it allows states to put up obstacles to obtaining an abortion, so long as the obstacles aren't too great.


I think the simple solution to this issue is to put it to a state referendum. I think people should have a right to live in or not live in a state that is pro-abortion. For me, abortion is anathema. It is murder. Abortion to me is no different than the abolitionist felt about slavery.

That's it in a nutshell

Thanks you for the feedback.

Jenson71
08-26-2008, 06:31 PM
So you aren't going to answer the question?

My answer is that I don't have an answer.

banyon
08-26-2008, 06:31 PM
Okay, what is this thing?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c4/10_weeks_pregnant.png

Is that the little alien guy from "Perfect Dark"? He was great in multiplayer mode, because it was tough to aim down and shoot his head.

irishjayhawk
08-26-2008, 06:37 PM
Okay, what is this thing?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c4/10_weeks_pregnant.png

It's a fetus.

Jenson71
08-26-2008, 06:38 PM
It's a fetus.

I agree! Now could you be a little more specific? Is it a cat fetus? Dog fetus? Monkey fetus?

irishjayhawk
08-26-2008, 06:41 PM
I agree! Now could you be a little more specific? Is it a cat fetus? Dog fetus? Monkey fetus?

It is a homosapien fetus.

Jenson71
08-26-2008, 06:42 PM
Exactly. It is an unborn human fetus.

irishjayhawk
08-26-2008, 06:44 PM
Exactly. It is an unborn human fetus.

Notice how you have to clarify it now to unborn.

irishjayhawk
08-26-2008, 06:47 PM
I'll also add that the classification of homosapien doesn't bring the connotations you wish to correlate when you say "human".

Jenson71
08-26-2008, 06:48 PM
Notice how you have to clarify it now to unborn.

Sure, I clarified it, but it's irrelevant. We agree it's a human in the stage of being a fetus. It's not a cat. It's not a mystery. And no, banyon, it's not the alien from Perfect Dark.

***SPRAYER
08-26-2008, 06:54 PM
I'll also add that the classification of homosapien doesn't bring the connotations you wish to correlate when you say "human".

Sub-Human or Aryan?

ROFL

banyon
08-26-2008, 06:54 PM
That was before massive immigration. Was it because of religion, or was it based on practicality?

I'm no expert on this, but the "Quickening" was a religious/communal concept I think that tracks pretty closely with the modern 'third trimester" approach.


Unworkable to whom?
People who wished to prohibit abortion.


Were contraceptives banned to prevent pregnancy? When did contraceptives become a "contra" to pregnancy? When did they become a "contra" to venereal disease?

They were banned for religious reasons, interfering with natural procreation, etc.


I think the simple solution to this issue is to put it to a state referendum. I think people should have a right to live in or not live in a state that is pro-abortion. For me, abortion is anathema. It is murder. Abortion to me is no different than the abolitionist felt about slavery.

Unless every state has the same laws, or there's a Federal ban, then it would be unworkable for the reasons it was prior to Roe, IMO. But I guess it's noteworthy that most criminal laws, including what is currently recognized as murder, are defined by each state and vary quite a bit.

A question to you: If abortion is murder and it were made illegal, should it have the same consequences as murder? For example, in Kansas, that could be a "Hard 40 to life".

banyon
08-26-2008, 06:57 PM
It's a fetus.

Are you sure:

http://images.google.com/url?q=http://media.g4tv.com/images/blog/2007/10/15/633280323314491220.jpg&usg=AFQjCNEHttZB0u2hRPxGX-1mbEm1Hzs_LQ

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c4/10_weeks_pregnant.png

***SPRAYER
08-26-2008, 07:33 PM
A question to you: If abortion is murder and it were made illegal, should it have the same consequences as murder? For example, in Kansas, that could be a "Hard 40 to life".


I don't want to police the world. What a woman does between her and her doctor is none of my business.

That's between her and her maker.

All I ask is that you don't involve me. Don't demand my approval or complicity.

I believe the abortion issue should be decided by the people by a referendum. I think Roe Vs Wade is law made by judicial fiat.

I beleive that since then, abortion has not been something that is done out of desperation, but it has become a form of birth control. I also believe that abortion on demand has culturally compromised the value of human life and dignity in our country.

Those are my beliefs.

banyon
08-26-2008, 07:38 PM
I don't want to police the world. What a woman does between her and her doctor is none of my business.

That's between her and her maker.

All I ask is that you don't involve me. Don't demand my approval or complicity.

I believe the abortion issue should be decided by the people by a referendum. I think Roe Vs Wade is law made by judicial fiat.

I beleive that since then, abortion has not been something that is done out of desperation, but it has become a form of birth control. I also believe that abortion on demand has culturally compromised the value of human life and dignity in our country.

Those are my beliefs.


I don't mean to be a pest, but you completely avoided my question.

tiptap
08-26-2008, 07:45 PM
I agree! Now could you be a little more specific? Is it a cat fetus? Dog fetus? Monkey fetus?

Wow we are in trouble here because telling the difference between an ape and a human embryo can be pretty tricky until the third trimester.

Jenson71
08-26-2008, 07:57 PM
Wow we are in trouble here because telling the difference between an ape and a human embryo can be pretty tricky until the third trimester.

I'm counting on wikipedia to get the picture straight. I don't think you can tell it's even a human until after a couple of months. Nevertheless, it is.

***SPRAYER
08-26-2008, 08:08 PM
I don't mean to be a pest, but you completely avoided my question.


I'll pull an Obama---

It's above my paygrade. Look, Hindu's think swatting a fly or eating a cow is murder.

I just think that I am in the world, I am not of it. In the space of eternity, my life is not even a fraction, and I believe that when I die I answer for what I have done here.

***SPRAYER
08-26-2008, 08:19 PM
Civilization is an agreement.

Nothing more, nothing less.

It does get complicated, though.

Good night.

banyon
08-26-2008, 08:24 PM
I'll pull an Obama---

It's above my paygrade. Look, Hindu's think swatting a fly or eating a cow is murder.

I just think that I am in the world, I am not of it. In the space of eternity, my life is not even a fraction, and I believe that when I die I answer for what I have done here.

It's a little different though. If you are advocating that we put a criminal law on the books, there has to be a coherent punishment for that law. Obama isn't advocating any ban, therefore, he doesn't have to think up a penalty.

BucEyedPea
08-26-2008, 08:26 PM
Wow we are in trouble here because telling the difference between an ape and a human embryo can be pretty tricky until the third trimester.

Silly! It only has all the dna of a complete human...not an ape, a frog or a dog. You're the scientist now.
And that's discrimination based on looks. Tsk! Tsk!

BucEyedPea
08-26-2008, 08:28 PM
Exactly. It is an unborn human fetus.

Which is has the properties of life: cells splitting, dividing and growing.
In other words, it ain't dead.

HonestChieffan
08-26-2008, 08:33 PM
Pelosi and Obama must both feel that killing babies is an OK thing. Sick.

banyon
08-26-2008, 08:37 PM
Pelosi and Obama must both feel that killing babies is an OK thing. Sick.

Here goes nothing, I'll try "Honest" Chieffan:

A question to you: If abortion is murder and it were made illegal, should it have the same consequences as murder? For example, in Kansas, that could be a "Hard 40 to life".

HonestChieffan
08-26-2008, 10:37 PM
excellent question. Avoids the issue that Obama and Pelosi have no moral opposition to abortion or in Obamas case even allowing born alive aborted babies to die.

banyon
08-27-2008, 08:04 AM
excellent question. Avoids the issue that Obama and Pelosi have no moral opposition to abortion or in Obamas case even allowing born alive aborted babies to die.

So, no one wants to answer this question. I think I'm really on to something here maybe.

irishjayhawk
08-27-2008, 08:41 AM
So, no one wants to answer this question. I think I'm really on to something here maybe.

There was an early George Carlin stand up on last night. It was hilarious.

And it talked about abortion. It was, as always, spot on.

Republicans like to get government off your back, but they like to stay in the uterus. Republicans like to get government off your back but they like to dictate your sex life. Plus, the "right to lifers" are usually pro-death penalty.

It was pretty funny and true.

Chiefnj2
08-27-2008, 09:44 AM
"I hate dead baby fetuses, you know? I hate them because they’re dead, and they shouldn’t be. They should be alive, and they should be loved.”

patteeu
08-27-2008, 10:06 AM
So, no one wants to answer this question. I think I'm really on to something here maybe.

I'll answer your question. It doesn't really seem like a hard one to me. The obvious answer is "yes", the punishment for murder ought to apply whether the victim is 80, 8, or 8 months of gestation.

banyon
08-27-2008, 12:40 PM
I'll answer your question. It doesn't really seem like a hard one to me. The obvious answer is "yes", the punishment for murder ought to apply whether the victim is 80, 8, or 8 months of gestation.

So you agree that it fits this definition?

21-3401. Murder in the first degree. Murder in the first degree is the killing of a human being committed:

(a) Intentionally and with premeditation; or

(b) in the commission of, attempt to commit, or flight from an inherently dangerous felony as defined in K.S.A. 21-3436 and amendments thereto.

Murder in the first degree is an off-grid person felony.

mlyonsd
08-27-2008, 12:43 PM
So you agree that it fits this definition?

21-3401. Murder in the first degree. Murder in the first degree is the killing of a human being committed:

(a) Intentionally and with premeditation; or

(b) in the commission of, attempt to commit, or flight from an inherently dangerous felony as defined in K.S.A. 21-3436 and amendments thereto.

Murder in the first degree is an off-grid person felony.

What's an "off-grid" felony?

ROYC75
08-27-2008, 12:50 PM
Here goes nothing, I'll try "Honest" Chieffan:

A question to you: If abortion is murder and it were made illegal, should it have the same consequences as murder? For example, in Kansas, that could be a "Hard 40 to life".

I say , Yes.

It's a touchy subject, Remember when Jack Kervokian ( spelling ) was helping people kill themselves due to illnesses, he got into a lot of trouble.

patteeu
08-27-2008, 02:25 PM
So you agree that it fits this definition?

It was an assumption of your question that we consider abortion to be the same as murder.

But for someone who believes it's murder, I would think that that statute would reasonably describe it.

banyon
08-27-2008, 03:57 PM
What's an "off-grid" felony?

Bad, real bad.

Kansas has sentencing guidelines that govern most crimes. There are some crimes that are serious or technical enough though, that they are off-grid and have their own penalties written outside of the sentencing guidelines. Murder has its own sentencing rules outside of the guidelines chart.

For example, here is the Kansas Grid:

http://ksag.washburnlaw.edu/opinions/1994/1994-043.jpg


Rape, for instance, is a severity level 1 person felony. Your sentence depends on how many other felonies you have committed.

If you've committed 2 Person Felonies, You're a "B" offender, your sentence is 554 to 618 months (less 20% "good time" credit"). If you have no criminal history, though, your sentence is 147 to 165 months (less 20% gtc).

Murder is sentenced on each case's circumstances, but with its own rules. Here's the murder sentencing statute (for first degree):

21-4635. Sentencing of certain persons to mandatory term of imprisonment of 40 or 50 years or life without the possibility of parole; determination; evidence presented; balance of aggravating and mitigating circumstances. (a) Except as provided in K.S.A. 21-4622, 21-4623 and 21-4634 and amendments thereto, if a defendant is convicted of the crime of capital murder and a sentence of death is not imposed pursuant to subsection (e) of K.S.A. 21-4624, and amendments thereto, or requested pursuant to subsection (a) or (b) of K.S.A. 21-4624, and amendments thereto, the defendant shall be sentenced to life without the possibility of parole.

(b) If a defendant is convicted of murder in the first degree based upon the finding of premeditated murder, the court shall determine whether the defendant shall be required to serve a mandatory term of imprisonment of 40 years or for crimes committed on and after July 1, 1999, a mandatory term of imprisonment of 50 years or sentenced as otherwise provided by law.

(c) In order to make such determination, the court may be presented evidence concerning any matter that the court deems relevant to the question of sentence and shall include matters relating to any of the aggravating circumstances enumerated in K.S.A. 21-4636 and amendments thereto and any mitigating circumstances. Any such evidence which the court deems to have probative value may be received regardless of its admissibility under the rules of evidence, provided that the defendant is accorded a fair opportunity to rebut any hearsay statements. Only such evidence of aggravating circumstances as the state has made known to the defendant prior to the sentencing shall be admissible and no evidence secured in violation of the constitution of the United States or of the state of Kansas shall be admissible. No testimony by the defendant at the time of sentencing shall be admissible against the defendant at any subsequent criminal proceeding. At the conclusion of the evidentiary presentation, the court shall allow the parties a reasonable period of time in which to present oral argument.

(d) If the court finds that one or more of the aggravating circumstances enumerated in K.S.A. 21-4636 and amendments thereto exist and, further, that the existence of such aggravating circumstances is not outweighed by any mitigating circumstances which are found to exist, the defendant shall be sentenced pursuant to K.S.A. 21-4638 and amendments thereto; otherwise, the defendant shall be sentenced as provided by law. The court shall designate, in writing, the statutory aggravating circumstances which it found. The court may make the findings required by this subsection for the purpose of determining whether to sentence a defendant pursuant to K.S.A. 21-4638 and amendments thereto notwithstanding contrary findings made by the jury or court pursuant to subsection (e) of K.S.A. 21-4624 and amendments thereto for the purpose of determining whether to sentence such defendant to death.

History: L. 1994, ch. 341, § 6; L. 1999, ch. 164, § 15; L. 2004, ch. 102, § 4; July 1.

banyon
08-27-2008, 04:02 PM
It was an assumption of your question that we consider abortion to be the same as murder.

But for someone who believes it's murder, I would think that that statute would reasonably describe it.

Fair enough, you're consistent. I just think most people would see it as highly draconian.

***SPRAYER
08-27-2008, 04:49 PM
So, no one wants to answer this question. I think I'm really on to something here maybe.

Like I said, civilization is an agreement. There are laws of the land you either agree with or you don't, and you have a choice, you can stay in the civilization and enjoy all the privileges, opportunities, health care, running water etc, or you can reject it and go try your luck in the woods.

Just because the law says abortion is "ok" doesn't mean that morally I can't reject it. I think it is murder. I think you are confusing right and wrong with the law. I don't think a person's life should be ruined because they smoke marijuana, but the law says that person will get arrested, charged, lose his or her drivers license, maybe lose a job or worse, an entire career. Is that morally and ethically ok with you just because the law says it is? No, of course not.

Look, like I said, I think the issue should be decided state by state by referendum. I resent that abortion was made "legal" by judicial fiat. And I really don't know why the pro-abortion brigades reject that offer, because I think the only state that would make abortion illegal would be Louisiana.

Anyway, the envelope gets pushed further and further by the Left, to the point where it's now ok to deny a partial birth abortion baby still alive outside of the wombs--- the same rights that you and I have.

It's really alot more complicated that you want to reduce it to. The Nazi's reduced mass murder to a beuracratic procedure as well.

Plus, the "right to lifers" are usually pro-death penalty.




Out of all the liberal talking points, that is one of the most dishonest. I'm not a "right to lifer" I'm anti-abortion. Just as you are not "pro-choice", you are pro-abortion.

And comparing the killing of an innocent unborn child, who has done no harm to anybody, to a fiend like Ted Bundy is ridiculous even by moonbat standards.

***SPRAYER
08-27-2008, 04:51 PM
Fair enough, you're consistent. I just think most people would see it as highly draconian.

I think most people saw the Jill Stanek case and what happened there as highly draconian.

irishjayhawk
08-27-2008, 04:56 PM
Out of all the liberal talking points, that is one of the most dishonest. I'm not a "right to lifer" I'm anti-abortion. Just as you are not "pro-choice", you are pro-abortion.

It's not very dishonest. And I was recalling Carlin's stand up.

The Pro-Life camp is not really Pro-Life. It's Pro-Human-Life. Even then, however, you run into the contradictions of holding a Pro-Life stance while simultaneously allowing the death penalty. It's ironic to the highest degree.

Moreover, the dishonest part here is Pro-Choice=Pro-Abortion. It's simply not true. That's like turning Democracy into Facism because you limit the selection of candidates to 1. Take away choice and you take away democracy.


And comparing the killing of an innocent unborn child, who has done no harm to anybody, to a fiend like Ted Bundy is ridiculous even by moonbat standards.

So all killing is not equal? This is fun, especially since that argument is used against the Pro-Choice crowd.

***SPRAYER
08-27-2008, 05:01 PM
The Pro-Life camp is not really Pro-Life. It's Pro-Human-Life. Even then, however, you run into the contradictions of holding a Pro-Life stance while simultaneously allowing the death penalty. It's ironic to the highest degree.

Moreover, the dishonest part here is Pro-Choice=Pro-Abortion. It's simply not true. That's like turning Democracy into Facism because you limit the selection of candidates to 1. Take away choice and you take away democracy.



So all killing is not equal? This is fun, especially since that argument is used against the Pro-Choice crowd.

Dude, if mental gymnastics and cognitive dissonance are your idea of a good time, by all means, have at it.

But taking something as simple as pro-abortion and anti-abortion and twisting it into some semantical pretzel like you and other moonbats do, is intellectually dishonest.

You are a dishonest person. Period.

banyon
08-27-2008, 05:12 PM
Like I said, civilization is an agreement. There are laws of the land you either agree with or you don't, and you have a choice, you can stay in the civilization and enjoy all the privileges, opportunities, health care, running water etc, or you can reject it and go try your luck in the woods.

Just because the law says abortion is "ok" doesn't mean that morally I can't reject it. I think it is murder. I think you are confusing right and wrong with the law.

Where did I confuse this? I think I've ben pretty clear when I'm discussing policy and when I'm discussing morality. To some extent, policy will always stem for moral values. It sounds like you are pro-choice if you think it should be left up to the individual as to what's right and wrong.

Look, like I said, I think the issue should be decided state by state by referendum. I resent that abortion was made "legal" by judicial fiat. And I really don't know why the pro-abortion brigades reject that offer, because I think the only state that would make abortion illegal would be Louisiana. I think there are a bunch of Red states that would move to ban, mainly the same ones that had a ban pre-Roe.

Anyway, the envelope gets pushed further and further by the Left, to the point where it's now ok to deny a partial birth abortion baby still alive outside of the wombs--- the same rights that you and I have.

Very few people are for unlimited partial birth abortion on demand. Obama is against it and so am I, but if there's no exception for the health or life of the mother, then it's a big problem.

It's really alot more complicated that you want to reduce it to. The Nazi's reduced mass murder to a beuracratic procedure as well.


Calling the other side Hitler never helps anything. Stalin banned abortion in Russia and strictly enforced it. Does that make you a Stalinist? Of course not. And I haven't advocated any bureaucratic procedure. Not wanting a ban, I don't need one. You want a ban, so you need a bureaucracy and procedure.

irishjayhawk
08-27-2008, 05:29 PM
Dude, if mental gymnastics and cognitive dissonance are your idea of a good time, by all means, have at it.

But taking something as simple as pro-abortion and anti-abortion and twisting it into some semantical pretzel like you and other moonbats do, is intellectually dishonest.

You are a dishonest person. Period.

My irony meter just exploded.

***SPRAYER
08-27-2008, 05:36 PM
Where did I confuse this? I think I've ben pretty clear when I'm discussing policy and when I'm discussing morality. To some extent, policy will always stem for moral values. It sounds like you are pro-choice if you think it should be left up to the individual as to what's right and wrong.

I reject the term "pro-choice" but I do believe that as individuals we will all from time to time have to make our own decisions about what is right and wrong regardless of the law.



Very few people are for unlimited partial birth abortion on demand. Obama is against it and so am I, but if there's no exception for the health or life of the mother, then it's a big problem.

In the Jill Stanek case, where was the health or life of the mother threatened? She was exterminating a mentally retarded baby.



Calling the other side Hitler never helps anything. Stalin banned abortion in Russia and strictly enforced it. Does that make you a Stalinist? Of course not. And I haven't advocated any bureaucratic procedure. Not wanting a ban, I don't need one. You want a ban, so you need a bureaucracy and procedure

I'm sorry you took that the wrong way, it wasn't my intent. I was under the impression you were reducing the argument to statue B.100001 et al and I'm not a lawyer so I can't look at it in those terms.


I never said I wanted a ban--- I said I want a referendum state by state. I reject any law declared by judicial fiat. Our legislative body should determine what abortion is or isn't.

irishjayhawk
08-27-2008, 05:37 PM
Why do you reject the term pro-choice?

***SPRAYER
08-27-2008, 05:40 PM
Why do you reject the term pro-choice?

Because it is dishonest. I'm not deciding whether or not to put mustard or mayonaisse on a sandwich--- that would be a choice.

We are discussing a very specific procedure and it has a name-- ABORTION.

You are either for it or against it. Why is that so hard to understand?

DaneMcCloud
08-27-2008, 05:42 PM
Because it is dishonest. I'm not deciding whether or not to put mustard or mayonaisse on a sandwich--- that would be a choice.

We are discussing a very specific procedure and it has a name-- ABORTION.

You are either for it or against it. Why is that so hard to understand?

No, you CLEARLY don't understand the term.

Pro-Choice DOES NOT mean Pro-Abortion.

It means that it's up to the individual to decide whether or not to carry an unborn fetus to term.

Not you. Not me. And not the Federal or State government.

The CHOICE is made by the mother.

banyon
08-27-2008, 05:54 PM
I reject the term "pro-choice" but I do believe that as individuals we will all from time to time have to make our own decisions about what is right and wrong regardless of the law.

That's great. But I am talking about what the law should be, not your individual preference, which is probaly the same as mine. It's just whether or not you feel that standard should be imposed on others.


In the Jill Stanek case, where was the health or life of the mother threatened? She was exterminating a mentally retarded baby.

I didn't say that it was threatened in her case. It should be reserved for genuine permanent health concerns only if the exception is allowed, like paralysis, coma, etc.


I'm sorry you took that the wrong way, it wasn't my intent. I was under the impression you were reducing the argument to statue B.100001 et al and I'm not a lawyer so I can't look at it in those terms.

Naturally, as a lawyer and a prosecutor, I'm interested in changes to the criminal code, but I only posted that statute stuff though because mylonsd asked about it. I originally brought up the kansas murder statute to see if people thought it would apply.


I never said I wanted a ban--- I said I want a referendum state by state. I reject any law declared by judicial fiat. Our legislative body should determine what abortion is or isn't.

The Right to privacy is judicially pretty complicated. Roe especially, but I think there was a lot of pressure because the state-by-state approach just didn't work. People just crossed the state lines and did it there. But saying there's no right to privacy and that we only have the explicit rights in the Bill of rights creates a lot of problems also. Do we have the right to marry, to procreate, to travel? I think everyone would hope that we do, but they aren't specifically enumerated rights either. Should states be able to ban those things? Why not?

irishjayhawk
08-27-2008, 06:04 PM
Because it is dishonest. I'm not deciding whether or not to put mustard or mayonaisse on a sandwich--- that would be a choice.

We are discussing a very specific procedure and it has a name-- ABORTION.

You are either for it or against it. Why is that so hard to understand?

I was unaware there was no choice being made about abortion. You know, whether to get one or not.

BucEyedPea
08-27-2008, 06:15 PM
Pro-Choice is a euphemism for allowing the killing of a human life. It means you're for abortion happening without saying that.

That it's a fetus is irrelevant because that is still human life. That's just an age bracket and phase of development like all the other phases: Zygote, embryo, fetus, infant, baby, toddler, pre-pubescent child,teen, young adult, adult, middle-aged, old—it's all the same person.

Abortion was a capital offense in every civilized country including the USA until a judge decided an individual could make taking it's life a choice. It shouldn't. It's not a choice it's a baby born or unborn.

banyon
08-27-2008, 06:35 PM
Pro-Choice is a euphemism for allowing the killing of a human life. It means you're for abortion happening without saying that.

That it's a fetus is irrelevant because that is still human life. That's just an age bracket and phase of development like all the other phases: Zygote, embryo, fetus, infant, baby, toddler, pre-pubescent child,teen, young adult, adult, middle-aged, old—it's all the same person.

This definition is too broad. It makes sperm cells and fingernails human life as well.

Abortion was a capital offense in every civilized country including the USA until a judge decided an individual could make taking it's life a choice. It shouldn't. It's not a choice it's a baby born or unborn.

Well here's the unsubstantiated make up history as you want to post of the month. Quite the keeper. Abortion was a capital offense until Roe. Uh-huh. :shake:

Adept Havelock
08-27-2008, 06:45 PM
This definition is too broad. It makes sperm cells and fingernails human life as well.

Pretty much. Using her "logic", a newly fertilized Hens egg is a chicken.

Granted, I'm probably ignoring some superstitious mumbo-jumbo about the allegedly inherent sacredness of human life and the precious value of a human "soul".

No, you CLEARLY don't understand the term.

Pro-Choice DOES NOT mean Pro-Abortion.

It means that it's up to the individual to decide whether or not to carry an unborn fetus to term.

Not you. Not me. And not the Federal or State government.


Bingo. It's about leaving that choice to the mother, not the state.

tiptap
08-27-2008, 06:50 PM
I'm counting on wikipedia to get the picture straight. I don't think you can tell it's even a human until after a couple of months. Nevertheless, it is.

Does it have 23 pair of chromosomes or does it have more or less. Because as evolution goes there was a time my ancestor had 24 pairs. You speak decidedly about spiritual events as being the distinguishing function to relate humans to god but it is a physical presentation that you rest your present argument.

Should I consult my wife's Fetal Malformation text? We can easily put up totally mixed up ball of teeth and organs and guts that have absolutely no connection together to a human. They all have 23 chromosomes.

It is a process. If the relationship between layers and flow of material from maternal sources are not chemically identified than the growth is not coordinated. It is a process that take 40 weeks. To get an adult it takes 16 years or more.

HolmeZz
08-27-2008, 06:51 PM
Pro-Choice is a euphemism for allowing the killing of a human life.

Kinda like being pro-death penalty?

banyon
08-27-2008, 06:53 PM
Kinda like being pro-death penalty?

I was thinking "Pro-Lying". Unless we outlaw lying in every instance, that means you must support lying.

irishjayhawk
08-27-2008, 09:20 PM
Pretty much. Using her "logic", a newly fertilized Hens egg is a chicken.

Granted, I'm probably ignoring some superstitious mumbo-jumbo about the allegedly inherent sacredness of human life and the precious value of a human "soul".



Bingo. It's about leaving that choice to the mother, not the state.

There are people (SHTSPRAYER) who don't think there is a choice at all. I don't really understand how that works, but whatever.

Don't let Jenson catch you with the bolded. That'll be considered talking down to them, rather than pointing out their argument.



Pro-Choice is a euphemism for allowing the killing of a human life. It means you're for abortion happening without saying that.

No, it doesn't. Pro-Choice means you keep the choice. Period. By being pro-choice I am not actively allowing the killing of a human life. And again, you are redefining "human life".

That it's a fetus is irrelevant because that is still human life. That's just an age bracket and phase of development like all the other phases: Zygote, embryo, fetus, infant, baby, toddler, pre-pubescent child,teen, young adult, adult, middle-aged, old—it's all the same person.

Abortion was a capital offense in every civilized country including the USA until a judge decided an individual could make taking it's life a choice. It shouldn't. It's not a choice it's a baby born or unborn.


Do you eat chicken? Cows? Have you killed an insect? Have you blown a booger out of your nose?

All of these have killed life.

So, you must not be Pro-life at all.

***SPRAYER
08-31-2008, 02:33 PM
Cardinal Egan and the Abortion Debate
C. Edmund Wright

Did I just hear Cardinal Egan change the abortion debate? Perhaps I did.


Tuesday, the Archdioces of New York issued an unequivocally blistering rebuke to Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and her mind numbing attempt to keep the question of when life begins "above her pay grade" (not to mention the pay grades of Barack Obama , Cardinal Egan, the Pope and pretty much the entire Catholic Church.) Egan, perhaps fresh off a raise, is apparently of sufficient pay grade to answer this nagging question. And answer it he did, with clarity and certitude and with passion.


What he did not include in his answer, and this is the game changer, was scripture.


"We are blessed in the 21st century with crystal-clear photographs and action films of the living realities within their pregnant mothers. No one with the slightest measure of integrity or honor could fail to know what these marvelous beings manifestly, clearly and obviously are, as they smile and wave into the world outside the womb."


Game, set and match to the pro-life crowd. Cardinal Egan just pulled a reverse of the Scopes Monkey trials. He demonstrated that scientific proof was on the side of the Bible, but knowing he was speaking to a lot of folks who put no credence in the scriptures, he avoided even bringing them into the conversation.


By not using the Bible as reference, he was (to quote the scriptures) being "wise as serpents" while being "harmless as doves" (Matthew 10:16). It was a magnificently crafted response, the richness of which grows everytime you read it. While giving the profound, gentle and almost sweet defense of unborn babies, Egan slipped in some hardcore political commentary with the conclusion that the pro-choice movement is not equipped with "the slightest measure of integrity or honor." In otherwords, the Democrat ticket is devoid of even "the slightest measure of integrity and honor." It was elegant, yet lethal politically.


Compare this with other pro life acitivism. There was no protest outside an abortion clinic. There was no language about how God is bringing economic doom the United States because of abortion and homsoexuality. Not a whiff of Hurricane Katrina being part of God's punishment on this country in general and the "Big Easy" specifically. No banging of the Bible across the heads of those who don't believe in the Bible, much the way almost every Southern Baptist Convention position on abortion has included for decades.


There was not even the seeker sensitive Rick Warrenesque commentary about how everyone running for President is "a patriot" and "a great American." It was simple truth being injected into the abortion debate (and the 2008 campaign) with clarity and no grey areas.


And the nature of his proof, resting in a common sense analysis of what high tech equipment makes so obvious, was give public relations cover to folks who in their gut want to agree with the pro-life stance, but cannot stand the idea of agreeing with a "bunch of Bible thumpers" clinging to their guns and religion. Here was a man of God using rational thought and science to make his point. Here was a pro-life advocate beyond any caricature often associated with the movement. Here was someone gently pointing out the obsolete nature of the science available at the time of Roe V. Wade without even mentioning the Supreme Court.


And as gentle as his words were, his message was very direct.


"Anyone who dares to defend that they may be legitimately killed because another human being ‘chooses' to do so or for any other equally ridiculous reason should not be providing leadership in a civilized democracy worthy of the name."


In other words, no endorsement of Obama-Biden will be coming from the Catholic Church anytime soon. It cannot, because by the Cardinal's own definition, those men "should not be providing leadership in a civilized democracy." Ditto for Pelosi.


But not a single word of scripture in the statement. No threats about God's retribution. No mention of anything religious really. It was simply a man of God using reason wisely. Much like the Apostle Paul, who used logic and reason to debate the Athenians (Acts 17) about Biblical truth, Cardinal Egan was aware of his audience and his stage and he was indeed "all things to all people, so that by all means (he) might win some" (1 Corinthians 9).


If much of the evangelical pro-life movement would take His Emminence's lead, some real traction can be made on this issue. Amen, and pass the plate.


http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/08/cardinal_egan_and_the_abortion.html

***SPRAYER
08-31-2008, 02:35 PM
Statement on Remarks by Speaker Pelosi
August 26, 2008

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: August 26, 2008

STATEMENT OF HIS EMINENCE, EDWARD CARDINAL EGAN CONCERNING REMARKS MADE BY THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES


Like many other citizens of this nation, I was shocked to learn that the Speaker of the House of Representatives of the United States of America would make the kind of statements that were made to Mr. Tom Brokaw of NBC-TV on Sunday, August 24, 2008. What the Speaker had to say about theologians and their positions regarding abortion was not only misinformed; it was also, and especially, utterly incredible in this day and age.

We are blessed in the 21st century with crystal-clear photographs and action films of the living realities within their pregnant mothers. No one with the slightest measure of integrity or honor could fail to know what these marvelous beings manifestly, clearly, and obviously are, as they smile and wave into the world outside the womb. In simplest terms, they are human beings with an inalienable right to live, a right that the Speaker of the House of Representatives is bound to defend at all costs for the most basic of ethical reasons. They are not parts of their mothers, and what they are depends not at all upon the opinions of theologians of any faith. Anyone who dares to defend that they may be legitimately killed because another human being “chooses” to do so or for any other equally ridiculous reason should not be providing leadership in a civilized democracy worthy of the name.

Edward Cardinal Egan

Archbishop of New York










August 26, 2008


http://www.archny.org/news-events/news-press-releases/index.cfm?i=8803