PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Abortion Debates
     "Forget not love"
       From a Catholic Seminarian

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
CatholicSeminarian

|       |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

America, Land of the free, home of the Brave..Right?  We live, we breath the red, white and blue.  To us it symbolizes the ability to be "Free", the ability to practice what it is we "feel" to be the right thing.  But is this "freedom" that we so earnestly speak about really free?  Or is it a false illusion that we play into to make our sweet little minds content.  Is it a lie that has been so earnestly carved into our brains so that we can do what we "feel" is the best possible solution.  Most of you know what I am talking about right now, and that is the murder of an innocent Child.  The ripping apart of a Childs bones and flesh to satisfy a man and womanís life.  To make the path to her future more smooth and easy.  Sure I can be called an ignorant fool, or an inconsiderate pig, but is what I am proposing really that ignorant, or better yet, really that inconsiderate.
      The most common line that I have heard to date is that one is personally opposed to Abortion, but would NEVER interfere with a womanís "right to choose."  But what if Abraham Lincoln would have said that?  What if he would have said that "I am personally opposed to slavery, but I would NEVER impose my views on anyone else."  So my question to you is, are you really "Personally opposed?"  I have been told by people that I donít have a vigina so I would not know what it is like, or I have been told that because I am a man, I will never understand what a women goes through.  But is all of this really about understanding the opposite sex?  Is it really all about forcing my "Christian" views on other people?  Is it really about my "horrid views" of keeping the baby through a rape or incest?  Or is it about the love that one has for all human life, the binding force that has been lost and buried away by people who "feel" what they are doing is ok.  Then comes the financial burden.  Where is one going to get the money to raise this child?  There is adoption, but there is an overflow in that.  I mean who knows, that baby could grow up living on a park bench because no body cared.  To that I have only one thing to say, somebody did care.  Somebody cared, and it was their mother.  She cared to give that child what is so often taken away, the ability to be born.  The ability to breath and move, and who knows, maybe someday even love.  You see, Abortion isnít about Christianity, its not about views, its about the love and sacredness of a human life.
     Then thereís the "life" aspect.  Is it really a life?  Or is it just a "piece of tissue."  I can speak of science to where we can see a fundamental change from when there was no life, to the instant the baby is conceived, but I would only be called a fool.  Or I can speak of Christianity, and can go on and on quoting scripture and I can speak of how "God doesnít want us to do that", But then I would only be called a biased Christian.  Or I can speak out of love, love for both the mother and the child, and confess that although I do not have all the answers, life is the most precious gift that one can receive, no matter the form that it is brought in.  To this I do not know what i can be called.  But whatever it is, I do hope one thing is remembered.  "Forget not Love."
Thanks Mom.



-------
JDL
 


Posts: 4 | Posted: 1:39 PM on January 18, 2005 | IP
Yod Heh Vav Heh

|      |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Cancer is live human tissue, does live human tissue = personhood? Uh, no.

And who cares for all the kids that prolifers would want to emerge into existence to assert their dominance over women? The fundamentalists don't care when the kid arrives. And would you seriously send your kid to a catholic institution for bringing up kids? No chance. Same for secular adoption agencies and boarding school type places. I would rather not exist than go to any of these for a serious length of my life, and I'm sure many victims of such places feel the same.

Potential personhood does not equal actual personhood, you can't speak in hindsight of what someone who doesn't exist yet has done, and any "could" argument is replacable with a worse one.  It's simply wrong to talk of it like a child before it has the functions of a child. It doesn't miss what it doesn't have, nor has the ability to comprehend at all.

And what of the anti birth control in areas that REALLY need birth control, like in africa? "Abstinence only" does not work and you are dooming children to short HIV-infested lives out of some backwards adherence to dogma from a church that sees some "higher purpose" in human suffering, and opportunities to evangelise. After all, what's real life pain compared to an imaginary endless one contructed by church leaders, that hides just beyond death so noone can report on it.


-------
Vengeance is mine.
 


Posts: 22 | Posted: 11:43 AM on January 19, 2005 | IP
got_dooie

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Cancer is live human tissue, does live human tissue = personhood? Uh, no.

Potential personhood does not equal actual personhood, you can't speak in hindsight of what someone who doesn't exist yet has done, and any "could" argument is replacable with a worse one.  It's simply wrong to talk of it like a child before it has the functions of a child. It doesn't miss what it doesn't have, nor has the ability to comprehend at all.

False analogy, live human tissue does not have its own set of DNA from that of the mother's and doesn't have its own brainwave nor does it have potential to be a person.  The problem with saying that potential personhood doesn't equal personhood is you are saying that the unborn baby HAS the potential to be and nothing more.  The unborn human baby not only has the potential to be, but IS.  There's a difference there.

Empirical science has undoubtedly prove that the unborn baby has brain waves detected at 42 and has a new set of DNA at the instant the two gamettes meet, what more proof do you need?

To speak of the child's functions that it does not have and will not miss is the same as saying to kill a person in a vegetative state that has will not miss what that person will not know and deeming it to be legal.  This is absurd.

And what of the anti birth control in areas that REALLY need birth control, like in africa? "Abstinence only" does not work and you are dooming children to short HIV-infested lives out of some backwards adherence to dogma from a church that sees some "higher purpose" in human suffering, and opportunities to evangelise. After all, what's real life pain compared to an imaginary endless one contructed by church leaders, that hides just beyond death so noone can report on it.


The church does not see any higher purpose in pain and suffering, nor does she hold it in high regards.  She acknowledges that pain is part of life and that in Christ is where one would fine eternal bliss.  The problem with you comparing the existential pain and eternal pain (if I understood you correctly) is that one is infinite and one is finite.  You can't compare the two because in the eye of the infinite the finite is obliterated.  Also it is God's job to create life, and take it if it's in his plan.  We are mere creatures not creators, therefore since we did not create, we cannot destroy what we've not created.

--dooie


-------
I always live in the past, the present is not not, the future is not yet, therfore only the past.
 


Posts: 84 | Posted: 12:48 PM on January 19, 2005 | IP
Yod Heh Vav Heh

|      |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from got_dooie at 12:48 PM on January 19, 2005 :
Cancer is live human tissue, does live human tissue = personhood? Uh, no.

Potential personhood does not equal actual personhood, you can't speak in hindsight of what someone who doesn't exist yet has done, and any "could" argument is replacable with a worse one.  It's simply wrong to talk of it like a child before it has the functions of a child. It doesn't miss what it doesn't have, nor has the ability to comprehend at all.

False analogy, live human tissue does not have its own set of DNA from that of the mother's and doesn't have its own brainwave nor does it have potential to be a person.


Cancer definately DOES have a different set of DNA seperate from the host, since that's why it's growing out of control. But so what? What if humans reproduced by parthogenesis? Would aborting those foetuses be ok in your moral view? I bet not!

And if the brain activity of the foetus implies it is sentient somewhere on the level of a newborn, then that's where I'd draw the line, the cutoff point for abortions, except for under medical grounds.

The problem with saying that potential personhood doesn't equal personhood is you are saying that the unborn baby HAS the potential to be and nothing more.  The unborn human baby not only has the potential to be, but IS.  


No, you're doing exactly what I complained about. A fertilised cell is nto equivalent to a baby. A fertilised implanted cell is not equal to a baby. Nor is any foetal matter in a gestation period up to where it has the brain activity remotely comparable. It certainly should not gain full human rights merely because it's got DNA that's replicating.

Empirical science has undoubtedly prove that the unborn baby has brain waves detected at 42 and has a new set of DNA at the instant the two gamettes meet, what more proof do you need?


DNA is organic chemistry, I don't have emotional values attached to it. brainwaves, however, are a different story. If the brainwaves are comparable to a human infant rather than something utterly minimal, if it's capable of sensation and response and more complex functions, then yeah, then i have a problem with aborting it.  Something with less mental activity than the food you eat? No. I have more feelings for the animals that died to keep me full up than it.

To speak of the child's functions that it does not have and will not miss is the same as saying to kill a person in a vegetative state that has will not miss what that person will not know and deeming it to be legal.  This is absurd.


You may not know this, but vegetative people on life support are often killed, since there's little chance of them coming back round, or it would not be worth them coming back round.

I refuse to accept the idea that a gestating human organism is equivalent to someone who has already gone throguh that gestation, been outside then lost cognitive function at some point. It's simply not the case.


The church does not see any higher purpose in pain and suffering, nor does she hold it in high regards.  She acknowledges that pain is part of life and that in Christ is where one would fine eternal bliss.  The problem with you comparing the existential pain and eternal pain (if I understood you correctly) is that one is infinite and one is finite.  You can't compare the two because in the eye of the infinite the finite is obliterated.


Too bad infinite pain and bliss are imaginary and not based in reality. And the church certainly do think suffering has a higher purpose, the wearing of purple represents suffering in catholicism! Martin Luther subjected himself to extensive suffering when he was a monk, and annuals in various areas, big S&M christian shows of suffering happen in various areas, with people being temporarily crucified, whipped through the streets and soforth.

 Also it is God's job to create life, and take it if it's in his plan.


Maybe it was God's plan for the foetus to be aborted. Maybe the "unborn child" goes straight to heaven and we're doing them a favour.

 We are mere creatures not creators, therefore since we did not create, we cannot destroy what we've not created.


The thing is, we did create that life. We had sex, and it's continuing use of our body to grow and survive is entirely resting on our will to keep it there.




-------
Vengeance is mine.
 


Posts: 22 | Posted: 4:45 PM on January 20, 2005 | IP
got_dooie

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

What if humans reproduced by parthogenesis? Would aborting those foetuses be ok in your moral view? I bet not!


You bet right.  There certainly has to exist a moral boundary where one would think that even if we were to be created by parthenogenesis, it is not by us that is created, yet it is by the will of God.  Therefore not right for us to determine what we would do with what we've not created.

The thing is, we did create that life. We had sex, and it's continuing use of our body to grow and survive is entirely resting on our will to keep it there.

No! people have sex, but they do not create life.  Life is created by God.  Many people have sex, yet cannot create life...how can this be you ask?  Well the scientist can answer as much as he can with the study of the hormones and such, but there are cases where people that are said to not be able to have babies still conceive.  How does science explain such phenomena?

No, you're doing exactly what I complained about. A fertilised cell is nto equivalent to a baby. A fertilised implanted cell is not equal to a baby. Nor is any foetal matter in a gestation period up to where it has the brain activity remotely comparable. It certainly should not gain full human rights merely because it's got DNA that's replicating.

Yet neither is it not equivalent to that of one.  The whole problem with defining when life begins has struck many scientists and philosophers, yet they have not the right answer to such question yet, and that is why we are writing these arguments.  Since no one can say when exactly does life begin, one cannot determine when life should be taken because potential personhood and personhood are that one of the same.

Let us for one minute compare the unborn babies and the borned ones.  The unborn is not able to speak, walk, or reason rationally yet all have the potential to.  The borned is not yet able to speak, walk, or reason and still all have the potential to.  Is there some kind of magic through the birth canal that justitifies the born as babies and the unborn as not?  I hope not.

DNA is organic chemistry, I don't have emotional values attached to it. brainwaves, however, are a different story. If the brainwaves are comparable to a human infant rather than something utterly minimal, if it's capable of sensation and response and more complex functions, then yeah, then i have a problem with aborting it.  Something with less mental activity than the food you eat? No. I have more feelings for the animals that died to keep me full up than it.

The food that you eat that you have feelings for will NEVER (not even potentially) be able to reason rationally or have any kind of feelings towards you.  Yet the fertilized egg in the woman's womb will.  The question then is whether or not you acknowledge such fact.

You may not know this, but vegetative people on life support are often killed, since there's little chance of them coming back round, or it would not be worth them coming back round.

Still the question is whether or not such act is right.  That is why euthanasia is still such a heated debate.

Too bad infinite pain and bliss are imaginary and not based in reality. And the church certainly do think suffering has a higher purpose, the wearing of purple represents suffering in catholicism! Martin Luther subjected himself to extensive suffering when he was a monk, and annuals in various areas, big S&M christian shows of suffering happen in various areas, with people being temporarily crucified, whipped through the streets and soforth.

Yet, infinite pain and bliss still exists.  We know of an infinite number, but we do not know whether if it is odd or even, because every number is either odd or even.  So since we can conclude that there is an infinite number and do not know what it is, it is not so different to say that we know of infinite bliss and pain and do not know what it is.

You have much more to read about the Catholic Church before you emphasize on what it believes.  The color of purple is worn on days of sorrow and penance.  This does not mean that we believe in pain and sufferring.  Luther was in a Augustinian monastery and their way of praying is different than of the Church.  This is not to say that we differ in faith, but it is to say that they believe certain ways of acting are good penance for their sins.  Besides Luther didn't leave the Church because of his indifference of how the Church gave penance, but rather in his literally interpretion of the bible.

Maybe it was God's plan for the foetus to be aborted. Maybe the "unborn child" goes straight to heaven and we're doing them a favour.

No! God's omni-benevolence will not will such.  He cannot will things to die because that would not be all good.  He is God of the living, not of the dead, therefore he cannot will the babies to die, for he would be contradicting his nature.

--dooie


-------
I always live in the past, the present is not not, the future is not yet, therfore only the past.
 


Posts: 84 | Posted: 8:01 PM on January 20, 2005 | IP
    
[ Single page for this topic ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

©†YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.