Total Posts:214|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Is abortion murder?

frbnsn
Posts: 353
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2016 9:43:50 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/3/2016 8:15:57 AM, LiberalProlifer wrote:
I think it is. Unborn babies have the right to live.

You are right.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2016 3:51:06 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/3/2016 8:15:57 AM, LiberalProlifer wrote:
I think it is. Unborn babies have the right to live.

Haven't seen you around in some time.
UtherPenguin
Posts: 3,684
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2016 3:53:27 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
Depends how far it is into the pregnancy, usually around the late to end of the first trimester would the fetus be considered living.
"Praise Allah."
~YYW
Yassine
Posts: 2,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2016 3:58:28 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/3/2016 3:53:27 PM, UtherPenguin wrote:
Depends how far it is into the pregnancy, usually around the late to end of the first trimester would the fetus be considered living.

- 120 days to be precise.
Current Debates:

Islam is not a religion of peace vs. @ Lutonator:
* http://www.debate.org...
UtherPenguin
Posts: 3,684
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2016 4:01:01 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/3/2016 3:58:28 PM, Yassine wrote:
At 2/3/2016 3:53:27 PM, UtherPenguin wrote:
Depends how far it is into the pregnancy, usually around the late to end of the first trimester would the fetus be considered living.

- 120 days to be precise.

That's roughly the late first trimester I believe.
"Praise Allah."
~YYW
Yassine
Posts: 2,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2016 4:02:29 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/3/2016 4:01:01 PM, UtherPenguin wrote:
At 2/3/2016 3:58:28 PM, Yassine wrote:
At 2/3/2016 3:53:27 PM, UtherPenguin wrote:
Depends how far it is into the pregnancy, usually around the late to end of the first trimester would the fetus be considered living.

- 120 days to be precise.

That's roughly the late first trimester I believe.

- Or, mid second. :-)
Current Debates:

Islam is not a religion of peace vs. @ Lutonator:
* http://www.debate.org...
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2016 4:38:21 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/3/2016 4:01:01 PM, UtherPenguin wrote:
At 2/3/2016 3:58:28 PM, Yassine wrote:
At 2/3/2016 3:53:27 PM, UtherPenguin wrote:
Depends how far it is into the pregnancy, usually around the late to end of the first trimester would the fetus be considered living.

- 120 days to be precise.

That's roughly the late first trimester I believe.

Almost all religions have had history's with "the quickening" being the cutoff. Islam has some interesting bits about "as long as it was unforced-blahblah" but has held to this 120 days, and I give them some credit for that. ALL of them have included abortion for the sake of the mother. In Jewish tradition it would be a sin to threaten the life of the mother for sake of the fetus.
walker_harris3
Posts: 273
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2016 5:33:36 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/3/2016 8:15:57 AM, LiberalProlifer wrote:
I think it is. Unborn babies have the right to live.

Yes. The right to life is a natural right for everyone. Scientifically, life starts at conception.

People who are pro-choice (or pro-murder) believe that life only begins when you begin to look like a baby, but this is untrue. Life develops.

Another argument is that women can do what they want with their body.

To make this argument, you'd have to say that the fetus is the owned property of the mother, and is an extension of her body. This is not true, human life is not property, and human life is individual.

Feminists are moronic. They argue for women's rights, but then advocate for the removal of the right to live for female fetuses. In a way they're also advocating eugenics. More black babies in NYC are aborted than are born
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2016 5:42:44 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
To make this argument, you'd have to say that the fetus is the owned property of the mother, and is an extension of her body. This is not true, human life is not property, and human life is individual.

No. All you have to do is accept that anyone has the right to decide how their body is used - regardless of expense to others. You you have the right to kill another who wishes to use your body counter to your will?

Feminists are moronic. They argue for women's rights, but then advocate for the removal of the right to live for female fetuses. In a way they're also advocating eugenics. More black babies in NYC are aborted than are born

This has no bearing on the discussion.
Geogeer
Posts: 4,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2016 9:05:24 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/3/2016 3:53:27 PM, UtherPenguin wrote:
Depends how far it is into the pregnancy, usually around the late to end of the first trimester would the fetus be considered living.

That is scientifically false. Embryology has shown us it is the same organism right from being a zygote.
Geogeer
Posts: 4,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2016 9:06:34 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/3/2016 4:38:21 PM, TBR wrote:
At 2/3/2016 4:01:01 PM, UtherPenguin wrote:
At 2/3/2016 3:58:28 PM, Yassine wrote:
At 2/3/2016 3:53:27 PM, UtherPenguin wrote:
Depends how far it is into the pregnancy, usually around the late to end of the first trimester would the fetus be considered living.

- 120 days to be precise.

That's roughly the late first trimester I believe.

Almost all religions have had history's with "the quickening" being the cutoff. Islam has some interesting bits about "as long as it was unforced-blahblah" but has held to this 120 days, and I give them some credit for that. ALL of them have included abortion for the sake of the mother. In Jewish tradition it would be a sin to threaten the life of the mother for sake of the fetus.

What us Catholics get no credit for saying it was always wrong? We've been very consistent.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2016 9:10:54 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/3/2016 9:06:34 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 2/3/2016 4:38:21 PM, TBR wrote:
At 2/3/2016 4:01:01 PM, UtherPenguin wrote:
At 2/3/2016 3:58:28 PM, Yassine wrote:
At 2/3/2016 3:53:27 PM, UtherPenguin wrote:
Depends how far it is into the pregnancy, usually around the late to end of the first trimester would the fetus be considered living.

- 120 days to be precise.

That's roughly the late first trimester I believe.

Almost all religions have had history's with "the quickening" being the cutoff. Islam has some interesting bits about "as long as it was unforced-blahblah" but has held to this 120 days, and I give them some credit for that. ALL of them have included abortion for the sake of the mother. In Jewish tradition it would be a sin to threaten the life of the mother for sake of the fetus.

What us Catholics get no credit for saying it was always wrong? We've been very consistent.

No no no... Not so quick. There is history of decent in the church on this issue. Saint Anselm of Canterbury. This was canon law for some time "he is not a murderer who brings about abortion before the soul is in the body."
liltankjj
Posts: 430
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2016 9:16:04 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
I feel that it's up to the parents at an early point. Personally, I would never abort a pregnancy and neither would the wife. but I don't see why I should control someone else.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2016 9:17:10 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/3/2016 9:06:34 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 2/3/2016 4:38:21 PM, TBR wrote:
At 2/3/2016 4:01:01 PM, UtherPenguin wrote:
At 2/3/2016 3:58:28 PM, Yassine wrote:
At 2/3/2016 3:53:27 PM, UtherPenguin wrote:
Depends how far it is into the pregnancy, usually around the late to end of the first trimester would the fetus be considered living.

- 120 days to be precise.

That's roughly the late first trimester I believe.

Almost all religions have had history's with "the quickening" being the cutoff. Islam has some interesting bits about "as long as it was unforced-blahblah" but has held to this 120 days, and I give them some credit for that. ALL of them have included abortion for the sake of the mother. In Jewish tradition it would be a sin to threaten the life of the mother for sake of the fetus.

What us Catholics get no credit for saying it was always wrong? We've been very consistent.

"For fourteen hundred years until late in the nineteenth century, all Catholics, including the popes, took it for granted that the soul is not infused at conception. If the church was wholly opposed to abortion, as it was, it was not on the basis of the conceptus starting as a human being."

"From the fifth century, the church accepted without question the primitive embryology of Aristotle. The embryo began as a non-human speck that was progressively animated. This speck had to evolve from vegetative, through animal to spiritual being. Only in its final stage was it a human being. This is why Gratian was able to say: `He is not a murderer who brings about abortion before the soul is in the body.'"

"The characteristics of the foetus were attributed solely to the father. It (and it was correct to refer to the embryo as `it') became human at forty days for the male and eighty days for the female. A female resulted, said Aquinas, from defective seed or from the fact that conception took place when a damp wind was blowing. It followed that to abort a foetus in the early stages of pregnancy was wrong, since it was the destruction of a potential human being. It was not murder, since it was not the killing of an actual human being."

"In the fifteenth century, moralists began to ask whether it was not possible in certain circumstances to get rid of the foetus without fault. For example, when it results from rape or incest or even from adultery, thus threatening the husband's rights and the marriage itself. The same dilemma arose in the case of a mother whose health would be endangered if she had to bring a foetus to full term. Was it not a moral duty to save a human life at the expense of a non_human if potentially human life? Some of the best theologians answered Yes."
walker_harris3
Posts: 273
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2016 9:18:44 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/3/2016 5:42:44 PM, TBR wrote:
To make this argument, you'd have to say that the fetus is the owned property of the mother, and is an extension of her body. This is not true, human life is not property, and human life is individual.

No. All you have to do is accept that anyone has the right to decide how their body is used - regardless of expense to others. You you have the right to kill another who wishes to use your body counter to your will?

It obviously isn't against their will if >99% of the time the sex leading to the unwanted pregnancy is consensual. You are blaming an innocent baby for something it had no part in doing. Would you have a child if you didn't want one? No.

Feminists are moronic. They argue for women's rights, but then advocate for the removal of the right to live for female fetuses. In a way they're also advocating eugenics. More black babies in NYC are aborted than are born

This has no bearing on the discussion.

I believe OP asked for thoughts, and I gave my thoughts. The discussion isn't even defined here, but I presume it's on the morality of abortion which would make everything I said valid towards the discussion.
Geogeer
Posts: 4,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2016 9:19:08 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/3/2016 9:10:54 PM, TBR wrote:
At 2/3/2016 9:06:34 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 2/3/2016 4:38:21 PM, TBR wrote:
At 2/3/2016 4:01:01 PM, UtherPenguin wrote:
At 2/3/2016 3:58:28 PM, Yassine wrote:
At 2/3/2016 3:53:27 PM, UtherPenguin wrote:
Depends how far it is into the pregnancy, usually around the late to end of the first trimester would the fetus be considered living.

- 120 days to be precise.

That's roughly the late first trimester I believe.

Almost all religions have had history's with "the quickening" being the cutoff. Islam has some interesting bits about "as long as it was unforced-blahblah" but has held to this 120 days, and I give them some credit for that. ALL of them have included abortion for the sake of the mother. In Jewish tradition it would be a sin to threaten the life of the mother for sake of the fetus.

What us Catholics get no credit for saying it was always wrong? We've been very consistent.

No no no... Not so quick. There is history of decent in the church on this issue. Saint Anselm of Canterbury. This was canon law for some time "he is not a murderer who brings about abortion before the soul is in the body."

Yes there was disagreement when a "human" soul entered the body. However, abortion was always considered sinful and immoral. They had the truth, but they didn't yet have the scientific knowledge to support it. Thus there was a different punishment because they didn't know if it was human. Now we know.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2016 9:23:20 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/3/2016 9:18:44 PM, walker_harris3 wrote:
At 2/3/2016 5:42:44 PM, TBR wrote:
To make this argument, you'd have to say that the fetus is the owned property of the mother, and is an extension of her body. This is not true, human life is not property, and human life is individual.

No. All you have to do is accept that anyone has the right to decide how their body is used - regardless of expense to others. You you have the right to kill another who wishes to use your body counter to your will?

It obviously isn't against their will if >99% of the time the sex leading to the unwanted pregnancy is consensual. You are blaming an innocent baby for something it had no part in doing. Would you have a child if you didn't want one? No.

You would have to show that the intent of every sexual act was to procreate. Further, the fetus is not necessarily innocent. It can interfere with the woman's right to control her body without every having intent.


Feminists are moronic. They argue for women's rights, but then advocate for the removal of the right to live for female fetuses. In a way they're also advocating eugenics. More black babies in NYC are aborted than are born

This has no bearing on the discussion.

I believe OP asked for thoughts, and I gave my thoughts. The discussion isn't even defined here, but I presume it's on the morality of abortion which would make everything I said valid towards the discussion.

OK. I think pro-life is moronic. Every effort made has worsen the abortion issue, not improved it. Attempting to degenerate feminists has nothing to do with the topic at hand.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2016 9:24:35 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/3/2016 9:19:08 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 2/3/2016 9:10:54 PM, TBR wrote:
At 2/3/2016 9:06:34 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 2/3/2016 4:38:21 PM, TBR wrote:
At 2/3/2016 4:01:01 PM, UtherPenguin wrote:
At 2/3/2016 3:58:28 PM, Yassine wrote:
At 2/3/2016 3:53:27 PM, UtherPenguin wrote:
Depends how far it is into the pregnancy, usually around the late to end of the first trimester would the fetus be considered living.

- 120 days to be precise.

That's roughly the late first trimester I believe.

Almost all religions have had history's with "the quickening" being the cutoff. Islam has some interesting bits about "as long as it was unforced-blahblah" but has held to this 120 days, and I give them some credit for that. ALL of them have included abortion for the sake of the mother. In Jewish tradition it would be a sin to threaten the life of the mother for sake of the fetus.

What us Catholics get no credit for saying it was always wrong? We've been very consistent.

No no no... Not so quick. There is history of decent in the church on this issue. Saint Anselm of Canterbury. This was canon law for some time "he is not a murderer who brings about abortion before the soul is in the body."

Yes there was disagreement when a "human" soul entered the body. However, abortion was always considered sinful and immoral. They had the truth, but they didn't yet have the scientific knowledge to support it. Thus there was a different punishment because they didn't know if it was human. Now we know.

So we have scientific knowledge of when the soul enters the body now? Can you provide a link?
Geogeer
Posts: 4,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2016 9:28:23 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/3/2016 9:17:10 PM, TBR wrote:
At 2/3/2016 9:06:34 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 2/3/2016 4:38:21 PM, TBR wrote:
At 2/3/2016 4:01:01 PM, UtherPenguin wrote:
At 2/3/2016 3:58:28 PM, Yassine wrote:
At 2/3/2016 3:53:27 PM, UtherPenguin wrote:
Depends how far it is into the pregnancy, usually around the late to end of the first trimester would the fetus be considered living.

- 120 days to be precise.

That's roughly the late first trimester I believe.

Almost all religions have had history's with "the quickening" being the cutoff. Islam has some interesting bits about "as long as it was unforced-blahblah" but has held to this 120 days, and I give them some credit for that. ALL of them have included abortion for the sake of the mother. In Jewish tradition it would be a sin to threaten the life of the mother for sake of the fetus.

What us Catholics get no credit for saying it was always wrong? We've been very consistent.

"For fourteen hundred years until late in the nineteenth century, all Catholics, including the popes, took it for granted that the soul is not infused at conception. If the church was wholly opposed to abortion, as it was, it was not on the basis of the conceptus starting as a human being."

"From the fifth century, the church accepted without question the primitive embryology of Aristotle. The embryo began as a non-human speck that was progressively animated. This speck had to evolve from vegetative, through animal to spiritual being. Only in its final stage was it a human being. This is why Gratian was able to say: `He is not a murderer who brings about abortion before the soul is in the body.'"

"The characteristics of the foetus were attributed solely to the father. It (and it was correct to refer to the embryo as `it') became human at forty days for the male and eighty days for the female. A female resulted, said Aquinas, from defective seed or from the fact that conception took place when a damp wind was blowing. It followed that to abort a foetus in the early stages of pregnancy was wrong, since it was the destruction of a potential human being. It was not murder, since it was not the killing of an actual human being."

"In the fifteenth century, moralists began to ask whether it was not possible in certain circumstances to get rid of the foetus without fault. For example, when it results from rape or incest or even from adultery, thus threatening the husband's rights and the marriage itself. The same dilemma arose in the case of a mother whose health would be endangered if she had to bring a foetus to full term. Was it not a moral duty to save a human life at the expense of a non_human if potentially human life? Some of the best theologians answered Yes."

You see that is why Christianity works with the sciences and science flourished in the West. The Church always looks to understand why. Based on what could be learned prior to modern science there was no indication that the unborn were human before a certain age. So while the Church knew from Tradition that abortion was wrong, it didn't fully understand why. Once modern science enabled mankind to understand that it was a human right from fertilization onwards, the traditional teaching gained a fuller understanding.

You can get some theologians to say anything. The Church has always taught that abortion is wrong. That individuals in the Church questioned that shows that we are a questioning faith always looking for deeper understanding.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2016 9:30:30 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/3/2016 9:28:23 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 2/3/2016 9:17:10 PM, TBR wrote:
At 2/3/2016 9:06:34 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 2/3/2016 4:38:21 PM, TBR wrote:
At 2/3/2016 4:01:01 PM, UtherPenguin wrote:
At 2/3/2016 3:58:28 PM, Yassine wrote:
At 2/3/2016 3:53:27 PM, UtherPenguin wrote:
Depends how far it is into the pregnancy, usually around the late to end of the first trimester would the fetus be considered living.

- 120 days to be precise.

That's roughly the late first trimester I believe.

Almost all religions have had history's with "the quickening" being the cutoff. Islam has some interesting bits about "as long as it was unforced-blahblah" but has held to this 120 days, and I give them some credit for that. ALL of them have included abortion for the sake of the mother. In Jewish tradition it would be a sin to threaten the life of the mother for sake of the fetus.

What us Catholics get no credit for saying it was always wrong? We've been very consistent.

"For fourteen hundred years until late in the nineteenth century, all Catholics, including the popes, took it for granted that the soul is not infused at conception. If the church was wholly opposed to abortion, as it was, it was not on the basis of the conceptus starting as a human being."

"From the fifth century, the church accepted without question the primitive embryology of Aristotle. The embryo began as a non-human speck that was progressively animated. This speck had to evolve from vegetative, through animal to spiritual being. Only in its final stage was it a human being. This is why Gratian was able to say: `He is not a murderer who brings about abortion before the soul is in the body.'"

"The characteristics of the foetus were attributed solely to the father. It (and it was correct to refer to the embryo as `it') became human at forty days for the male and eighty days for the female. A female resulted, said Aquinas, from defective seed or from the fact that conception took place when a damp wind was blowing. It followed that to abort a foetus in the early stages of pregnancy was wrong, since it was the destruction of a potential human being. It was not murder, since it was not the killing of an actual human being."

"In the fifteenth century, moralists began to ask whether it was not possible in certain circumstances to get rid of the foetus without fault. For example, when it results from rape or incest or even from adultery, thus threatening the husband's rights and the marriage itself. The same dilemma arose in the case of a mother whose health would be endangered if she had to bring a foetus to full term. Was it not a moral duty to save a human life at the expense of a non_human if potentially human life? Some of the best theologians answered Yes."

You see that is why Christianity works with the sciences and science flourished in the West. The Church always looks to understand why. Based on what could be learned prior to modern science there was no indication that the unborn were human before a certain age. So while the Church knew from Tradition that abortion was wrong, it didn't fully understand why. Once modern science enabled mankind to understand that it was a human right from fertilization onwards, the traditional teaching gained a fuller understanding.

You can get some theologians to say anything. The Church has always taught that abortion is wrong. That individuals in the Church questioned that shows that we are a questioning faith always looking for deeper understanding.

So with more complete knowledge it could change its position again, right?
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2016 9:30:32 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
Yes it is murder. I'm not really sure why prochoice people think there is some huge differnce between the day a baby is delivered and the hour before that.
walker_harris3
Posts: 273
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2016 9:31:46 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/3/2016 9:23:20 PM, TBR wrote:
At 2/3/2016 9:18:44 PM, walker_harris3 wrote:
At 2/3/2016 5:42:44 PM, TBR wrote:
To make this argument, you'd have to say that the fetus is the owned property of the mother, and is an extension of her body. This is not true, human life is not property, and human life is individual.

No. All you have to do is accept that anyone has the right to decide how their body is used - regardless of expense to others. You you have the right to kill another who wishes to use your body counter to your will?

It obviously isn't against their will if >99% of the time the sex leading to the unwanted pregnancy is consensual. You are blaming an innocent baby for something it had no part in doing. Would you have a child if you didn't want one? No.

You would have to show that the intent of every sexual act was to procreate. Further, the fetus is not necessarily innocent. It can interfere with the woman's right to control her body without every having intent.

That's easy. What is the purpose of sex? Reproduction. How could you possibly hold a baby accountable for a Mother's discomfort when that same mother allowed herself to become pregnant and create the very thing causing her discomfort?

Feminists are moronic. They argue for women's rights, but then advocate for the removal of the right to live for female fetuses. In a way they're also advocating eugenics. More black babies in NYC are aborted than are born

This has no bearing on the discussion.

I believe OP asked for thoughts, and I gave my thoughts. The discussion isn't even defined here, but I presume it's on the morality of abortion which would make everything I said valid towards the discussion.

OK. I think pro-life is moronic. Every effort made has worsen the abortion issue, not improved it. Attempting to degenerate feminists has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

Pro lifer's don't kill their own people. Plain and simple. The abortion issue can't be fixed by anything except enlightenment. Once people realize that you run the risk of pregnancy every time you engage in unsafe sex, and instead take every precaution to engage in safe sex, then and only then will the abortion issue be solved. Condoms are dirt cheap. Birth control has health benefits. So why do people not use these two widely available resources to stop themselves from having an unwanted pregnancy? That's the million dollar question.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2016 9:32:34 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/3/2016 9:30:32 PM, Wylted wrote:
Yes it is murder. I'm not really sure why prochoice people think there is some huge differnce between the day a baby is delivered and the hour before that.

Well, mostly because while in utero the fetus is there only with consent of the host
Geogeer
Posts: 4,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2016 9:34:06 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/3/2016 9:24:35 PM, TBR wrote:
At 2/3/2016 9:19:08 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 2/3/2016 9:10:54 PM, TBR wrote:
At 2/3/2016 9:06:34 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 2/3/2016 4:38:21 PM, TBR wrote:
At 2/3/2016 4:01:01 PM, UtherPenguin wrote:
At 2/3/2016 3:58:28 PM, Yassine wrote:
At 2/3/2016 3:53:27 PM, UtherPenguin wrote:
Depends how far it is into the pregnancy, usually around the late to end of the first trimester would the fetus be considered living.

- 120 days to be precise.

That's roughly the late first trimester I believe.

Almost all religions have had history's with "the quickening" being the cutoff. Islam has some interesting bits about "as long as it was unforced-blahblah" but has held to this 120 days, and I give them some credit for that. ALL of them have included abortion for the sake of the mother. In Jewish tradition it would be a sin to threaten the life of the mother for sake of the fetus.

What us Catholics get no credit for saying it was always wrong? We've been very consistent.

No no no... Not so quick. There is history of decent in the church on this issue. Saint Anselm of Canterbury. This was canon law for some time "he is not a murderer who brings about abortion before the soul is in the body."

Yes there was disagreement when a "human" soul entered the body. However, abortion was always considered sinful and immoral. They had the truth, but they didn't yet have the scientific knowledge to support it. Thus there was a different punishment because they didn't know if it was human. Now we know.

So we have scientific knowledge of when the soul enters the body now? Can you provide a link?

In the classical sense a soul is the animating force that gives life. It was believed that there were different kinds of souls. Trees had a certain kind of soul, that is why they couldn't move and interact like animals. Animals had animal souls. As such every organism has a soul. A philosopher like Aquinas would've used this understanding to view that the person moved from a plant soul (unmoving) to an animal soul (moving) to a human soul (intellect). However this is now quite apparently wrong as moder science shows us the limitations of the philosophy that then in regards to this particular discipline.
Geogeer
Posts: 4,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2016 9:36:25 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/3/2016 9:30:30 PM, TBR wrote:
At 2/3/2016 9:28:23 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 2/3/2016 9:17:10 PM, TBR wrote:
At 2/3/2016 9:06:34 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 2/3/2016 4:38:21 PM, TBR wrote:
At 2/3/2016 4:01:01 PM, UtherPenguin wrote:
At 2/3/2016 3:58:28 PM, Yassine wrote:
At 2/3/2016 3:53:27 PM, UtherPenguin wrote:
Depends how far it is into the pregnancy, usually around the late to end of the first trimester would the fetus be considered living.

- 120 days to be precise.

That's roughly the late first trimester I believe.

Almost all religions have had history's with "the quickening" being the cutoff. Islam has some interesting bits about "as long as it was unforced-blahblah" but has held to this 120 days, and I give them some credit for that. ALL of them have included abortion for the sake of the mother. In Jewish tradition it would be a sin to threaten the life of the mother for sake of the fetus.

What us Catholics get no credit for saying it was always wrong? We've been very consistent.

"For fourteen hundred years until late in the nineteenth century, all Catholics, including the popes, took it for granted that the soul is not infused at conception. If the church was wholly opposed to abortion, as it was, it was not on the basis of the conceptus starting as a human being."

"From the fifth century, the church accepted without question the primitive embryology of Aristotle. The embryo began as a non-human speck that was progressively animated. This speck had to evolve from vegetative, through animal to spiritual being. Only in its final stage was it a human being. This is why Gratian was able to say: `He is not a murderer who brings about abortion before the soul is in the body.'"

"The characteristics of the foetus were attributed solely to the father. It (and it was correct to refer to the embryo as `it') became human at forty days for the male and eighty days for the female. A female resulted, said Aquinas, from defective seed or from the fact that conception took place when a damp wind was blowing. It followed that to abort a foetus in the early stages of pregnancy was wrong, since it was the destruction of a potential human being. It was not murder, since it was not the killing of an actual human being."

"In the fifteenth century, moralists began to ask whether it was not possible in certain circumstances to get rid of the foetus without fault. For example, when it results from rape or incest or even from adultery, thus threatening the husband's rights and the marriage itself. The same dilemma arose in the case of a mother whose health would be endangered if she had to bring a foetus to full term. Was it not a moral duty to save a human life at the expense of a non_human if potentially human life? Some of the best theologians answered Yes."

You see that is why Christianity works with the sciences and science flourished in the West. The Church always looks to understand why. Based on what could be learned prior to modern science there was no indication that the unborn were human before a certain age. So while the Church knew from Tradition that abortion was wrong, it didn't fully understand why. Once modern science enabled mankind to understand that it was a human right from fertilization onwards, the traditional teaching gained a fuller understanding.

You can get some theologians to say anything. The Church has always taught that abortion is wrong. That individuals in the Church questioned that shows that we are a questioning faith always looking for deeper understanding.

So with more complete knowledge it could change its position again, right?

It's position never changed, only the understanding of its position become more complete.

The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles

The Didache

(1st Century AD)

The Lord's Teaching to the Heathen by the Twelve Apostles:

1 There are two ways, one of life and one of death; and between the two ways there is a great difference.

2 Now, this is the way of life:"

The second commandment of the Teaching: "Do not murder; do not commit adultery"; do not corrupt boys; do not fornicate; "do not steal"; do not practice magic; do not go in for sorcery; do not murder a child by abortion or kill a newborn infant. "Do not covet your neighbor's property; do not commit perjury; do not bear false witness"; do not slander; do not bear grudges. Do not be double-minded or double-tongued, for a double tongue is "a deadly snare." Your words shall not be dishonest or hollow, but substantiated by action. Do not be greedy or extortionate or hypocritical or malicious or arrogant. Do not plot against your neighbor. Do not hate anybody; but reprove some, pray for others, and still others love more than your own life.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2016 9:37:33 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/3/2016 9:32:34 PM, TBR wrote:
At 2/3/2016 9:30:32 PM, Wylted wrote:
Yes it is murder. I'm not really sure why prochoice people think there is some huge differnce between the day a baby is delivered and the hour before that.

Well, mostly because while in utero the fetus is there only with consent of the host

I mean he is there because the host caused him to be there. It's like dragging somebody into your house and imprisoning them, and then shooting him when you no longer want him therebbecause killing trespassers is ethucal.
NewLifeChristian
Posts: 1,236
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2016 9:38:14 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/3/2016 8:15:57 AM, LiberalProlifer wrote:
I think it is. Unborn babies have the right to live.
Absolutely. Abortion is murder and people need to do more to stop it. We can begin by petition our legislators in Congress to enforce strict anti-abortion laws that will eventually lead to the end of abortion, once and for all.
Pro-Life Quotes:

"I've noticed that everyone who is for abortion has already been born."
- Ronald Reagan

"The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only object of good government."
- Thomas Jefferson

"A person is a person no matter how small."
- Dr. Seuss
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2016 9:38:33 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/3/2016 9:31:46 PM, walker_harris3 wrote:
At 2/3/2016 9:23:20 PM, TBR wrote:
At 2/3/2016 9:18:44 PM, walker_harris3 wrote:
At 2/3/2016 5:42:44 PM, TBR wrote:
To make this argument, you'd have to say that the fetus is the owned property of the mother, and is an extension of her body. This is not true, human life is not property, and human life is individual.

No. All you have to do is accept that anyone has the right to decide how their body is used - regardless of expense to others. You you have the right to kill another who wishes to use your body counter to your will?

It obviously isn't against their will if >99% of the time the sex leading to the unwanted pregnancy is consensual. You are blaming an innocent baby for something it had no part in doing. Would you have a child if you didn't want one? No.

You would have to show that the intent of every sexual act was to procreate. Further, the fetus is not necessarily innocent. It can interfere with the woman's right to control her body without every having intent.

That's easy. What is the purpose of sex? Reproduction. How could you possibly hold a baby accountable for a Mother's discomfort when that same mother allowed herself to become pregnant and create the very thing causing her discomfort?

Not so easy. You still have only made a statement, not proof of anything. Not every insistence of sex is intended to produce a child. That is very clear. Why else would a enormous market exist for contraception?

Your other point begs the question. It is not the intent to punish the fetus, however, the fetus is only allowed to use the mother with her consent. Just as YOU have the ability to not consent for anyone to use your body.


Feminists are moronic. They argue for women's rights, but then advocate for the removal of the right to live for female fetuses. In a way they're also advocating eugenics. More black babies in NYC are aborted than are born

This has no bearing on the discussion.

I believe OP asked for thoughts, and I gave my thoughts. The discussion isn't even defined here, but I presume it's on the morality of abortion which would make everything I said valid towards the discussion.

OK. I think pro-life is moronic. Every effort made has worsen the abortion issue, not improved it. Attempting to degenerate feminists has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

Pro lifer's don't kill their own people. Plain and simple. The abortion issue can't be fixed by anything except enlightenment. Once people realize that you run the risk of pregnancy every time you engage in unsafe sex, and instead take every precaution to engage in safe sex, then and only then will the abortion issue be solved. Condoms are dirt cheap. Birth control has health benefits. So why do people not use these two widely available resources to stop themselves from having an unwanted pregnancy? That's the million dollar question.

That presumes that birth control does not fail, it does. Further, pro-life is doing more to add to late-term abortions, and its close pal religion is LIMITING access to contraception. Good work pro-life. You suck!