ConcordeBoy
Topic Author
Posts: 16852
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 8:04 am

A Question For ProLifers: *warning*, Graphic Image

Sun Feb 20, 2005 6:38 am

Hmm, I'm going to expand on the related 2headed baby thread here.



To other ProLife advocates:
Feminine-choice not withstanding (for the sake of argument here), if preliminary testing showed this to be the fate of your child.... would you [temporarily?] change your stance on abortion, if for only this one such event?



Obviously, everyone is welcome to participate here, but I'm specifically interested in the stance of those who are for-the-most-part against abortion.
Faire du ciel le plus bel endroit de la terre c'est impossible sans Concorde!
 
ly7e7
Posts: 2222
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2004 3:15 am

RE: A Question For ProLifers: *warning*, Graphic Image

Sun Feb 20, 2005 7:05 am

I'm pro abortion.
Why?

1. See the photo.
2. Vera Drake (the movie)
2 things are endless: ignorance and space
 
MD-90
Posts: 7835
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2000 12:45 pm

RE: A Question For ProLifers: *warning*, Graphic Image

Sun Feb 20, 2005 7:48 am

No.

--filler--
--filler--
 
777236ER
Posts: 12213
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2001 7:10 am

RE: A Question For ProLifers: *warning*, Graphic Image

Sun Feb 20, 2005 8:04 am

You didn't vote. Who cares what you think.
Your bone's got a little machine
 
September11
Posts: 3293
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 12:49 am

RE: A Question For ProLifers: *warning*, Graphic Image

Sun Feb 20, 2005 8:10 am

i do not have anything to do with this - i am neutral.. very sad graphic image
Airliners.net of the Future
 
User avatar
aerorobnz
Posts: 7458
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2001 3:43 pm

RE: A Question For ProLifers: *warning*, Graphic Image

Sun Feb 20, 2005 9:35 am

exactly why abortion is sometimes the moral thing to do. Not always, but it's certainly another shade of grey in an already grey world.
Flown to 120 Airports in 44 Countries on 73 Operators. Visited 55 Countries and counting. Wanderlust is like Syphilis, once you have the itch it's too late for treatment.
 
ShyFlyer
Posts: 4698
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2009 11:38 pm

RE: A Question For ProLifers: *warning*, Graphic Image

Sun Feb 20, 2005 10:25 am

I'm probably gunna get kicked in the teeth for this but here goes:

I would not change my position on abortion (I'm prolife). Why? As a Christian, I believe that God places challenges in our lives for reasons known only to him. Further, He will not place a challenge in my life that I am not able to handle. Therefore, if it is His will that a child such as this be placed in my care, so be it.

Of course, a decision such as this is a personal one, and can only be made by the affected party, namely the father & mother. Those of us not in the family have no real say in the matter.
I lift things up and put them down.
 
MD-90
Posts: 7835
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2000 12:45 pm

RE: A Question For ProLifers: *warning*, Graphic Image

Sun Feb 20, 2005 11:42 am

exactly why abortion is sometimes the moral thing to do. Not always, but it's certainly another shade of grey in an already grey world.

The MORAL thing to do? Killing a God-ordained life because she has an extraneous fleshy growth on her body?
 
bravo7e7
Posts: 1162
Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2004 1:43 am

RE: A Question For ProLifers: *warning*, Graphic Image

Sun Feb 20, 2005 11:48 am

Quoting Aerorobnz (reply 5):
exactly why abortion is sometimes the moral thing to do. Not always, but it's certainly another shade of grey in an already grey world.


Out of curiosity, are you for the death penalty?
 
yegmaster
Posts: 932
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2004 6:58 am

RE: A Question For ProLifers: *warning*, Graphic Image

Sun Feb 20, 2005 11:56 am

It looks like the girl will make a full recovery, so it would have been murder.
It's life at the moment of conception.
It's simple.
 
goCOgo
Posts: 680
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 11:24 am

RE: A Question For ProLifers: *warning*, Graphic Image

Sun Feb 20, 2005 12:03 pm

C-boy, I would never ever change my position on abortion. Life is a gift. Even that poor child is a gift. If she survives (haven't read up on the story) ask her in a few hears if she would have preferred to have been removed from her mother and chopped into pieces before she was born, I wonder what she would say?

My reasons:

Psalms 139:14-16:
"14 I shall laud you because in a fear-inspiring way I am wonderfully made.
Your works are wonderful,
As my soul is very well aware.

15 My bones were not hidden from you
When I was made in secret,
When I was woven in the lowest parts of the earth.

16 Your eyes saw even the embryo of me,
And in your book all its parts were down in writing,
As regards the days when they were formed
And there was not yet one among them."

Life begins at conception.

Exodus 21:22-23:
"22 “And in case men should struggle with each other and they really hurt a pregnant woman and her children do come out but no fatal accident occurs, he is to have damages imposed upon him without fail according to what the owner of the woman may lay upon him; and he must give it through the justices. 23 But if a fatal accident should occur, then you must give soul for soul"

Part of the law given to Israel was that fatal injuries to unborn children was punishable by death.

I know, I know, "what about us atheists?" Well, most acknowledge that at some point a baby is too developed to abort, such as the second or third trimester. Tell me exactly when a mother goes to bed without a life in her womb, and wakes up with one?
"Why you fly is your business, how you fly is ours"
 
allstarflyer
Posts: 3264
Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 7:32 am

RE: A Question For ProLifers: *warning*, Graphic Image

Sun Feb 20, 2005 12:32 pm

There are fewer gray areas in life than people think, and in any abortion case, if the life of the mother is involved, then save her life regardless. In this case here, it looks on the surface like one child was able to be born in a relatively healthy condition in light of the circumstances, so that's a plus.

One of the biggest stinks I have about abortion is that men aren't men. Just a hunch, but I feel if men were men, we'd have fewer unwed pregnancies, fewer single moms, fewer women feeling left alone with little choice about what to do, etc. Some of you don't like it, but women make their choice about it when they're in bed (unless that's forced on them). Adult males who take the easy way out then stick the responsibility solely on the woman. Awful a lot of men would do and have done that. Obviously, I wish these women wouldn't sleep with some of these jerks. But that's a whole different story. I'm glad this woman had her child, and I hope the kid makes it fine, like we all do.

-R
Living the American Dream
 
goCOgo
Posts: 680
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 11:24 am

RE: A Question For ProLifers: *warning*, Graphic Image

Sun Feb 20, 2005 12:46 pm

Quoting Allstarflyer (reply 11):
if the life of the mother is involved


I've read some quotes from doctors that just about any circumstance can be dealt with without endangering the life of the mother until the baby comes to term (that is, ready to be born, not necessarily to full term). If, when the child is nearing birth and the mother's life is actually in danger and the choice is between the mother and the child, that is another story. Than it is the parent's decision. But to abort a child based on the prognostication of a doctor that you will have problems in a few months is wrong in my opinion. A difficult pregnancy is not the same as one that puts the mother's life in danger, too. Many try to substitute the word "health" for "life" and pretend they are the same thing. They are not.
"Why you fly is your business, how you fly is ours"
 
User avatar
aerorobnz
Posts: 7458
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2001 3:43 pm

RE: A Question For ProLifers: *warning*, Graphic Image

Sun Feb 20, 2005 5:29 pm

Quoting BRAVO7E7 (reply 8):

Out of curiosity, are you for the death penalty?


No, but that's because of the judicial system fucking up too often, besides how can you claim a moral high ground over them, if you are going to kill them, just as they did to their victim. besides death is the easy way out for both parties. Death isn't punishment, it is a release from accountability for a murderer.

Quoting MD-90 (reply 7):
he MORAL thing to do? Killing a God-ordained life because she has an extraneous fleshy growth on her body?

I don't believe in God, so I don't believe that life is 'God ordained'. If the baby has no chance to survive beyond a few months what is the point of keeping it alive, and making it experience immense pain and suffering, it's hardly going to make you a healthy well rounded human being either.. Life comes and goes in the world, so does death. Humans make the world black and white, it makes it easier to comprehend. But in reality no two situations are never alike, and that is why abortion should be available. One size shoe does not fit all feet. I don't believe in abortion after 10 weeks because before that they are no more than a few undeveloped cells, after that point they interact with the outside world and become fully developed foetuses. Before then they are not human. They are the blueprints to a final design.
Flown to 120 Airports in 44 Countries on 73 Operators. Visited 55 Countries and counting. Wanderlust is like Syphilis, once you have the itch it's too late for treatment.
 
MD-90
Posts: 7835
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2000 12:45 pm

RE: A Question For ProLifers: *warning*, Graphic Image

Sun Feb 20, 2005 6:42 pm

Quoting Aerorobnz (reply 13):
I don't believe in abortion after 10 weeks because before that they are no more than a few undeveloped cells, after that point they interact with the outside world and become fully developed foetuses. Before then they are not human.


So it's okay to kill a 9 week-old baby, but not a 10-week old one? Hmmm...
 
User avatar
aerorobnz
Posts: 7458
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2001 3:43 pm

RE: A Question For ProLifers: *warning*, Graphic Image

Sun Feb 20, 2005 8:00 pm

Quoting MD-90 (reply 14):
So it's okay to kill a 9 week-old baby, but not a 10-week old one? Hmmm...

Well that's what the Midwives tell you in the antinatal classes. From the 10th week of gestation the foetus is complete. It has only to grow into a fullsized baby, before that it does not resemble a baby at all, Medical Tests show that from this point they respond to outside stimulae, prior to that they have no perception of life or death because they have no perception of self.
Flown to 120 Airports in 44 Countries on 73 Operators. Visited 55 Countries and counting. Wanderlust is like Syphilis, once you have the itch it's too late for treatment.
 
Udo
Posts: 4288
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 5:16 pm

RE: A Question For ProLifers: *warning*, Graphic I

Sun Feb 20, 2005 10:18 pm

What I find hypocritical and ridiculous is the fact that some people on the one hand explain everything with the "It's god's will, life is in HIS hands, so we must not interfere"-argument but on the other hand support human-made death penalty...but well, probably there are more people out there - aside from an allegedly "Christian" president - who think to receive orders directly from heaven...  Insane


Regards
Udo
Me & You & a Plane Named Blue...
 
TACAA320
Posts: 7153
Joined: Fri Aug 06, 2004 3:03 am

RE: A Question For ProLifers: *warning*, Graphic Image

Sun Feb 20, 2005 10:31 pm

I'm definitely pro-life. Against abortion, murder, capitol penalty. In a few words: "Thou shall not kill."
'Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind'. Albert Einstein
 
TACAA320
Posts: 7153
Joined: Fri Aug 06, 2004 3:03 am

RE: A Question For ProLifers: *warning*, Graphic Image

Sun Feb 20, 2005 10:38 pm

"What follows is a comment from the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) in Washington, D.C., regarding the future of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act in light of three recent adverse lower court decisions, the most recent of which was handed down today by a federal district court in Nebraska.

NRLC Legislative Director Douglas Johnson said: "Four years ago, five justices of the Supreme Court said that Roe v. Wade allows abortion providers to perform partial-birth abortions whenever they see fit, even on healthy women with healthy babies, if the providers claim some 'health' benefit. Future appointments to the Supreme Court will determine whether partial-birth abortion remains legal. President Bush is determined to ban partial-birth abortion, but John Kerry has vowed that he will appoint to the Supreme Court only justices who share his views on abortion."

Senator Kerry voted against passing the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act every chance he got -- six times.

President Bush signed the bill on November 5, 2003, saying that in partial-birth abortion "a terrible form of violence has been directed against children who are inches from birth." The Administration is appealing the adverse rulings to higher courts.

In a ruling issued in New York on August 26, U.S. District Judge Richard C. Casey said, "The Court finds that the testimony at trial and before Congress establishes that D&X [partial-birth abortion] is a gruesome, brutal, barbaric, and uncivilized medical procedure . . . [and finds] credible evidence that D&X abortions subject fetuses to severe pain."

On May 20, Senator Sam Brownback (R-Ks.) and Congressman Chris Smith (R-NJ) introduced the Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act (S. 2466, H.R. 4420). This bill would require that abortionists provide women seeking any type of abortion past 20 weeks with certain information regarding the capacity of their unborn children to experience pain and regarding the availability of pain-reducing drugs. For more information on the bill and on the issue of fetal pain, see http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/fetal_pain/index.html

The National Right to Life Committee maintains the most comprehensive collection of documentation on partial-birth abortion available anywhere on the Internet, at http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/index.html

For a good primer on what the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act does and does not do, and on other disputed issues pertaining to partial-birth abortion, see the memo "Partial-Birth Abortion: Misconceptions and Realities," here:
http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/PBAall110403.html

A collection of key documents pertinent to medical issues surrounding partial-birth abortion are posted here:
http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/keymedical.html "
'Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind'. Albert Einstein
 
whitehatter
Posts: 5180
Joined: Sat Jun 12, 2004 6:52 am

RE: A Question For ProLifers: *warning*, Graphic Image

Sun Feb 20, 2005 11:08 pm

Safe, legal and rare.

The case above isn't really relevant as that should throw up the issue of whether surgery can treat the child effectively, and that causing the death of the attached malformed infant is the only possible option. It could never exist on its own after all.

For the bible thumpers, take your superstition elsewhere. This is an issue of basic human ethics, and there are instances where abortion is a necessary tool. For instance where the life of the mother is threatened or where a child will be born so malformed that it can only expect a painful and brief existence (I won't call it a life for obvious reasons). Rape and incest too.

However abortion is not and should never be a birth control method, to be used as a second line to condoms and tablets.
Lead me not into temptation, I can find my own way there...
 
ushermittwoch
Posts: 2530
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2004 10:18 pm

RE: A Question For ProLifers: *warning*, Graphic Image

Sun Feb 20, 2005 11:19 pm

Quoting WhiteHatter (reply 19):
For the bible thumpers, take your superstition elsewhere. This is an issue of basic human ethics, and there are instances where abortion is a necessary tool. For instance where the life of the mother is threatened or where a child will be born so malformed that it can only expect a painful and brief existence (I won't call it a life for obvious reasons). Rape and incest too


Whitehatter, isn't that ALL God's will, too?! Go to Texas (or any other bible belt state) and they'll let'cha know! You know how these rape victims tempt men with their style of clothing...  Nuts
Where have all the tri-jets gone...
 
fspilot747
Posts: 3455
Joined: Mon Nov 01, 1999 2:58 am

RE: A Question For ProLifers: *warning*, Graphic I

Mon Feb 21, 2005 12:49 am

How cute that you would let a child suffer "in the name of jesus."

"As a Christian, I believe that God places challenges in our lives for reasons known only to him."

for reasons only known to him. isn't that convenient? We have no idea why god would do this so we're just going to say we're not supposed to know.

And to answer this thread, I'm not against abortion unless it's something like where the baby is in the 3rd tri and can easily make it. In that case, you committed so stick with it. But for physical/mental disabilities, there's no point in letting the child live in hell and die young.
--

In terms of this case, they said the 2nd head could smile and blink. I'm wondering if it actually had a brain and was actually alive.




FSP

[Edited 2005-02-20 16:56:28]
 
dl021
Posts: 10836
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 12:04 pm

RE: A Question For ProLifers: *warning*, Graphic Image

Mon Feb 21, 2005 12:58 am

Only in cases of life or death for the mother or child.

Obviously this is one of those cases. If the doctor has to make a difficult choice here then it's certainly not a case of post-coital birth control.
Is my Pan Am ticket to the moon still good?
 
SSTjumbo
Posts: 2579
Joined: Sun Jun 17, 2001 3:29 am

RE: A Question For ProLifers: *warning*, Graphic Image

Mon Feb 21, 2005 3:16 am

From the caption: Egyptian doctors said they removed the second head from the 10-month-old girl on Saturday.


Seems as though the girl lived. Now then, why was abortion necessary in this case?  Insane
I don't know, so this is my signature.
 
GDB
Posts: 12653
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

RE: A Question For ProLifers: *warning*, Graphic Image

Mon Feb 21, 2005 3:27 am

Abortion should be considered as akin to war, something not to be done lightly or encouraged, but that sometimes is necessary.
To the Pro Lifers, consider, before the 1967 Abortion Act became law in the UK, an estimated 1000 women a year were either killed or badly maimed by back street abortions.
Given at that time, the US population was over four times that of the UK, that is a the potential for a lot of corpses, almost all from the most disadvantaged in society.
Not so 'Pro Life' after all then.
 
MD-90
Posts: 7835
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2000 12:45 pm

RE: A Question For ProLifers: *warning*, Graphic Image

Mon Feb 21, 2005 7:02 am

Safe, legal and rare.

If there's nothing wrong with abortion, then why should it be rare?

Given at that time, the US population was over four times that of the UK, that is a the potential for a lot of corpses, almost all from the most disadvantaged in society.

There have been 40 MILLION abortions in the USA since Roe vs Wade. That's an awful lot of corpses.
 
TACAA320
Posts: 7153
Joined: Fri Aug 06, 2004 3:03 am

RE: A Question For ProLifers: *warning*, Graphic Image

Mon Feb 21, 2005 7:34 am

"Mahatma Ghandi was against medical contraceptions such as diaphrams. He thought that the beginning of a persons life was at birth because that was when you became alive. He never saw abortion become an issue, but anyone that thinks he would have liked it -given the context of his other explicitly stated opinions -is a brain dead moron. Also, Mother Theresa specifically stated that abortion was a terrible act -analogous to murder.
So for all you people saying that only callous people don't give women the right to choose -say that to Ghandi and Mother Theresa so I can laugh at you.
From the logical perspective; A fetus is a LIVING member of the HUMAN species. a HUMAN LIFE!!! No matter what dancing around the issue that you do the fact remains that anyone who aborts a child has deliberately taken an innocent HUMAN LIFE. And that is the definition of murder.
From an emotional standpoint; within the womb a child is already sucking its thumb, opening its eyes and SMILING. That, my friends is response to stimuli in ways that are recognizably human. When a child is born it recognizes its mothers voice. That is cognitive development through the processing of stimuli to make them familiar; ask any child psychologist, it a fetus is learning to recognize its mothers voice, that qualifies as the beginning of a psyche. Considering the fact that there is no significant difference between a third trimester baby and a newborn, it follows logically that if a newborn is a human then so is a third trimester child. If a third trimester child is a human being then the cat is out of the bag; when do you draw the line? When does one become a human? Very simply: at conception. At least that's what Mother Theresa and Ghandi thought....."
'Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind'. Albert Einstein
 
TACAA320
Posts: 7153
Joined: Fri Aug 06, 2004 3:03 am

RE: A Question For ProLifers: *warning*, Graphic Image

Mon Feb 21, 2005 7:45 am

Some precious quotes:

"An abortion kills the life of a baby after it has begun. It is dangerous to your life and health. It may make you sterile, so that when you want a child you cannot have it... Birth control merely postpones the beginning of life."

--Planned Parenthood "Plan Your Children" pamphlet in 1963.



"There is no difference between a first trimester, a second trimester, a third trimester abortion or infanticide. It's all the same human being in different stages of development. I finally got to the point I couldn't look at those little bodies anymore."

--Dr. Arnold Halpern, former director of a Planned Parenthood abortion clinic



"Abortion is a hard enough thing for any woman to decide without the torture of seeing the baby on an ultrasound screen.”

--Dr. L. Lacroix
Planned Parenthood, Kelowna, B.C.
Kelowna Daily Courier
August 24, 2000


More reason to praise the Lord! The woman of the companion case, Doe v. Bolton, which allowed abortion under virtually ANY circumstance, told The National Memorial for the Unborn:

"I am Sandra Cano. I became known as Mary Doe when the U.S. Supreme Court released Roe v. Wade's companion decision, Doe v. Bolton, which allowed abortion for virtually any reason. I am against abortion; I never sought an abortion; I have never had an abortion. Abortion is murder. For over twenty years, and against my will, my name has been synonymous with abortion. The Doe v. Bolton case is based on deceit and fraud. I stand today in this place of healing, the National Memorial for the Unborn, and pledge to the memory of these innocent children, that as long as I have breath, I will strive to see abortion ended in America."

--Sandra Cano March 23, 1997


"Abortion is advocated only by persons who have themselves been born."

--President Ronald Reagan


"America needs no words from me to see how your decision in Roe v. Wade has deformed a great nation. The so-called right to abortion has pitted mothers against their children and women against men. It has portrayed the greatest of gifts--a child--as a competitor, an intrusion, and an inconvenience.”

--Mother Theresa, Wall Street Journal


"A person is a person, no matter how small."

--Dr. Seuss


"This very successful old and withered person, who doesn't look in the least like a woman, especially when she raises her clenched fists in prayer, and who, for us, is a very suspect holder of the Nobel Prize... has become for us the symbol of all that is bad in motherhood and womanhood--an image with which we do not wish to be associated. Mother Theresa is the perfect image of a sexless, religious woman. This is, however, not the image of womanhood that we want. Show us instead the mother or daughter who can take delight in the most enjoyable of all worldly pleasures, sexual intimacy. You, you nightmare of women! You unliberated, enslaved wives, mothers, nuns and aunts, what do you want from us, who have finally decided that we are going to take control of our bodies, our children, and our destiny into our own hands? Do you not realize that you are all merely puppets of the devil?"

Mother Theresa
'Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind'. Albert Einstein
 
TACAA320
Posts: 7153
Joined: Fri Aug 06, 2004 3:03 am

RE: A Question For ProLifers: *warning*, Graphic Image

Mon Feb 21, 2005 7:50 am

"There have been 40 MILLION abortions in the USA since Roe vs Wade."

"The woman from Roe v. Wade became Christian, and is now completely against the decision. Like many, if not most other victims of abortion, she took the pro-life road to redemption. Read this quote:

"I am Norma McCorvey. I became known as Jane Roe on January 22, 1973 when the U.S. Supreme Court released the Roe v. Wade decision which created a woman's "right to abortion". I am now a child of God, a new creature in Christ; I am forgiven and redeemed. Today I publicly recant my involvement in the tragedy of abortion. I humbly ask forgiveness of the millions of women and unborn babies who have experienced the violence of abortion. In this place of healing, the National Memorial for the Unborn, I stand with those who honor the worth of every unborn child as created in the image of God. I will strive, in the name of Jesus, to end this holocaust."

--Norma McCorvey March 23, 1997 "
'Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind'. Albert Einstein
 
whitehatter
Posts: 5180
Joined: Sat Jun 12, 2004 6:52 am

RE: A Question For ProLifers: *warning*, Graphic Image

Mon Feb 21, 2005 8:01 am

Quoting MD-90 (reply 25):
If there's nothing wrong with abortion, then why should it be rare?



Why did you not quote the rest of what I said?

Let me refresh your memory


Quoting WhiteHatter (reply 19):
However abortion is not and should never be a birth control method, to be used as a second line to condoms and tablets.
Lead me not into temptation, I can find my own way there...
 
LifelinerOne
Posts: 1497
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2003 10:30 pm

RE: A Question For ProLifers: *warning*, Graphic I

Mon Feb 21, 2005 8:27 am

Currently not in the country, but I'm from the forbidden country The Netherlands, where we have legal abortions, legal softdrugs and the possibility for homosexuals to get married! It's hell on earth!

Now to the abortion topic. Over the last decades, The Netherlands developed from a rather Christian country to a country where religion has been parked a side. Religion is now a private matter, it doesn't affect many of our lives here on a daily basis. Religion is also seperated from politics, making it possible to create such things as legal abortion and the homosexual marriage.

This is a good thing! We, and only we, are responsible for our own lives. Not God. A recent poll made clear that a large amount of Dutchmen didn't even think that there is a God. I'm one of them. I'm way to practical for this. Of course, we've learned some Bible-stuff at school, like God created heaven and earth in seven days. But we also learned about the big bang and the dinosaurs, which aren't mentioned in the Bible... So what to believe?

I'm strolling off from the abortion-thing. Sorry. Abortion can be a very good thing. Ending someone's life because of endless suffering is also a good thing. Why is man only allowed to reproduce himself and therefore create life and aren't we allowed to end one (BOUNDED BY STRICT LAWS OFCOURSE) when it's moral and ethic justable?

Now a personal problem, which I encountered in the last few months. My girlfriend and I are talking about having kids in a year or two. However, her little brother had a very rare, but very painful muscle decease. This decease can be transferred to our children. Her brother had 7 very difficult years, full of pain, disgrowth and morphine. Not even a life you wish for your worst enemy. So, we've decided to get ourselves tested. Is that a good pro-life choice? Are we allowed to do so, or do we just make love, get pregnant and risk that we give birth to a handicapped child which will have a very hard and painful life? Now, the bad thing, they can only test a foetus... So, we've talked long and hard on this and we will end the pregnancy when it appears that the foetus is positive with the decease.

Now, are my girlfriend and I bad people??

Think a little about that. Just typing that it's Gods will is BS for all those people who encounter these problems. I don't want to give life to a person if it isn't a life.

And now I'm off to bed.
Only Those Who Sleep Don't Make Mistakes
 
lehpron
Posts: 6846
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2001 3:42 am

RE: A Question For ProLifers: *warning*, Graphic Image

Mon Feb 21, 2005 8:43 am

>>"Seems as though the girl lived. Now then, why was abortion necessary in this case?"<<

Did she live happy? You are using hindsight to prove a point. Using that logic, I could bring in the WMD issue with Iraq and win everytime.  Yeah sure How was anyone supposed to know before hand? I think that was the point on this thread.

What would you had done if you had realized you were about to give birth to a two-headed child?

I personally hope that doesn't happen to anyone I have choose to have kids with, because I have no idea what I would do.

[Edited 2005-02-21 00:46:28]
The meaning of life is curiosity; we were put on this planet to explore opportunities.
 
User avatar
aerorobnz
Posts: 7458
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2001 3:43 pm

RE: A Question For ProLifers: *warning*, Graphic Image

Mon Feb 21, 2005 8:46 am

Quoting TACAA320 (reply 26):
within the womb a child is already sucking its thumb, opening its eyes and SMILING.

not before 10 weeks it isn't because it has not developed fingers, its eyes aren't properly developed and it is yet to develop muscle tissue that could perform the task of smiling. Before 10 weeks the embryo has high odds to be miscarried anyway. Clinics here can only perform the procedure up until the 10th week of gestation after that they can lose their license and be shut down by law. Most girls that have to procedure have it done as early as possible anyway because it gets physically more painful and scarring the longer you wait. Having a law like that offers a window of leniency for unusual circumstances. It's not ideal, but the world isn't ideal - it's a dog eat dog world where we run on sacrifice to benefit the greater good.

If you have a car accident and the pregnant passenger loses her baby because of it you cannot be tried with manslaughter, because to be declared 'human' it must be born first. It does not get a birth certificate because it has not been 'born', so it cannot be pronounced dead/recieve a death certificate. That's the definition of murder/manslaughter.

If life after death is so good for us 'humans', and those of us who repent/accept God go to heaven to be with God, then what's the issue? I mean save them from life's temptations and hardships and book 'em into Eternity on Easy Street. Or is the issue that they deep down we all know that it won't go to heaven and that it will cease to exist just as we all will when we die, and by denying it the remainder of it's development we prevent it from ever existing at all.
Flown to 120 Airports in 44 Countries on 73 Operators. Visited 55 Countries and counting. Wanderlust is like Syphilis, once you have the itch it's too late for treatment.
 
ShyFlyer
Posts: 4698
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2009 11:38 pm

RE: A Question For ProLifers: *warning*, Graphic Image

Mon Feb 21, 2005 9:11 am

Quoting FSPilot747 (reply 21):
How cute that you would let a child suffer "in the name of jesus."

Cute? That's absurd.


Quoting FSPilot747 (reply 21):
for reasons only known to him. isn't that convenient?

It's anything but convenient. My life would be a lot simpler if there were a few questions I could have answered. Life isn't fair. Decisions are rarely easy.
I lift things up and put them down.
 
A332
Posts: 1421
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2005 3:58 am

RE: A Question For ProLifers: *warning*, Graphic Image

Mon Feb 21, 2005 10:02 am

I'm definitely going to side with the pro-choicers here... sorry people...

Although I do not feel abortion should be used freely as a birth control method, I do happen to believe we have too many people on the earth already and we need to keep the populations in check... termination of unwanted pregnancies will assist in that matter... although much of the world is far too backwards and religious to understand that logic...

Anyways...
Bad spellers of the world... UNTIE!
 
san747
Posts: 4345
Joined: Sun Dec 19, 2004 10:03 am

RE: A Question For ProLifers: *warning*, Graphic Image

Mon Feb 21, 2005 10:08 am

I feel that if a woman A) is careless enough to have an unwanted pregnancy, and B) then decides to abort it, she'll pay the consequences, whether they be emotional or spiritual... The point is, you have to let the woman make the decision.

Maybe I just feel that way because I'll never get pregnant, but I'm just speaking from logic here. You make a choice, you pay the consequences of that choice. But a person has to be able to make that choice.

san747
Scotty doesn't know...
 
TACAA320
Posts: 7153
Joined: Fri Aug 06, 2004 3:03 am

RE: A Question For ProLifers: *warning*, Graphic Image

Mon Feb 21, 2005 10:17 am

Quoting Aerorobnz (reply 32):
If life after death is so good for us 'humans', and those of us who repent/accept God go to heaven to be with God, then what's the issue?


What's the issue?

For Christian only those who comply with God's will go to heaven. Their life after death is going to be more than good. For the others, the ones that not accept His Law, it's going to be miserable. That's the issue!
'Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind'. Albert Einstein
 
fspilot747
Posts: 3455
Joined: Mon Nov 01, 1999 2:58 am

RE: A Question For ProLifers: *warning*, Graphic I

Mon Feb 21, 2005 10:25 am


Quoting ShyFlyer (reply 33):
Cute? That's absurd.


Absurd? Coming to conclusions about someone's life based on a book of tales that you think you might believe in isn't absurd?

[Edited 2005-02-21 02:28:05]

[Edited 2005-02-21 02:28:37]
 
User avatar
aerorobnz
Posts: 7458
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2001 3:43 pm

RE: A Question For ProLifers: *warning*, Graphic Image

Mon Feb 21, 2005 11:09 am

Quoting TACAA320 (reply 36):
For Christian only those who comply with God's will go to heaven. Their life after death is going to be more than good. For the others, the ones that not accept His Law, it's going to be miserable. That's the issue!

So you are in fact saying that an unborn child cannot reach heaven because it cannot comply with God's will, even if by 'God's will' it is stillborn. Yep sounds like God loves us unconditionally alright...
Flown to 120 Airports in 44 Countries on 73 Operators. Visited 55 Countries and counting. Wanderlust is like Syphilis, once you have the itch it's too late for treatment.
 
OttoPylit
Posts: 2259
Joined: Wed Dec 17, 2003 10:58 am

RE: A Question For ProLifers: *warning*, Graphic Image

Mon Feb 21, 2005 11:20 am

I am a pro-lifer, against abortion in about every form. The only exceptions that I see abortion possibly needed for would be if it will endanger the life of the mother. I almost felt that way about a rapist's child, but I once talked to a person who was the product of a rape and was placed for adoption by his mother and adopted. This person told me that they did not blame their mother one bit and if given the choice now of whether to be born or aborted, they would choose to be born, because even though they were not concieved out of love, they went to a loving home and were brought up to be a good person.

If I were about to have a child as described in the picture, it would not change my outlook on abortion. This child had a deformity, as sad as that is, but has had the surgery to remove the extra head(which, btw was not capable of sustaining life at all), and will make a full recovery. Is this a bad thing? This child is now blessed with a life and the parents are blessed with a child. How would it be better to have aborted the child and cheat everyone out of life?

Life begins at the moment of conception in my book. Sure, the person is not more than a cell, but when an airline is being built, it may not look like an airplane in the beginning, but are we to say that it isn't an airplane? To show that it is a life in the womb, I would refer everyone to the photo(perhaps someone on here can find post it, since I don't know how to post non-a.net photos. The picture is a premature baby being operated on while still inside the womb. When the doctors were done and about to close up the mother, a little arm reached out of the hole that was made and grabbed the doctor's finger. Obviously, something that isn't human could not have done that.

Unfortunately, people use abortion as birth control in this country way too often. I knew this girl during high school and once had a crush on her when we were younger, and she only dated 3 guys the whole time in high school, but by the time she graduated, it was well known that she had 3 abortions. At that time, I did not have a stance on abortion as I wasn't very aware of creating a stand at that young of an age, but I did believe that 3 abortions was quite excessive in 4 years. I believe that abstinence and sexual education should be done in high school and have special presentations by teen mothers about how your decisions when you have sex will matter down the road. My reasoning for being against abortion is the fact that I am a Christian and it is spelled out for me that abortion is a sin and is something you will one day be judged for. Now, if you are not a Christian, then that is fine, I don't care, but the fact of the matter is that that is a child inside that woman and in 85% of most cases, the woman DOES later resent the choice. I would like to see the only way to have an abortion is to lose your ability to have children in the future, then you will see the rate go down considerably.


I also believe in the death penalty. How can I be so for life and so against life? Once again, my religion spells it out for me, "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth." I believe it is found in Exodus 21:24. I believe that whatever you do to someone, it shall be returned upon you. So if you kill someone, your punishment is to be killed, preferably the same way. If I could have my say, I would go back to the days when we have hangings on the courthouse lawn, none of this sitting on death row for fifteen years waiting for appeals. Which is why I don't get Europe which has abolished the death penalty completely, especially when folks like Milosovich is obviously guilty of ordering the genocide of thousands, yet will probably only spend the rest of his life in prison? I like comedian Ron White's outlook. He said that a bill was being passed through the Texas legislature that speeds up the process of execution in heinous crimes where there were more than three witnesses. If three or more people saw you do what you do, you go right to the front of the line on death row. He said, "While ther states are trying to abolish the death penalty, my state is putting in an express lane."
I don't have a microwave, but I do have a clock that occasionally cooks shit.
 
goCOgo
Posts: 680
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 11:24 am

RE: A Question For ProLifers: *warning*, Graphic Image

Mon Feb 21, 2005 12:08 pm

Quoting Aerorobnz (reply 32):
If you have a car accident and the pregnant passenger loses her baby because of it you cannot be tried with manslaughter, because to be declared 'human' it must be born first. It does not get a birth certificate because it has not been 'born', so it cannot be pronounced dead/recieve a death certificate. That's the definition of murder/manslaughter.


Then why is Scott Peterson rotting on death row for DOUBLE murder, when according to your definition, he only killed ONE person? That legal statement is clearly not true.

Quoting Aerorobnz (reply 32):
not before 10 weeks it isn't because it has not developed fingers, its eyes aren't properly developed and it is yet to develop muscle tissue that could perform the task of smiling. Before 10 weeks the embryo has high odds to be miscarried anyway.


So your saying 10 weeks is some kind of magic number? The mother goes to bed at 9 weeks, 6 days without a life in her womb, but wakes up at 10 weeks all the sudden with a growing life? Please. And what if the person running the sonogram miscalculates? What if a baby is aborted at 10 weeks, 2 days because the medical tech though the fetus looked more like 9 weeks, 4 days? And if the child has "high odds" of dying anyway, which is most certainly NOT THE CASE, who needs abortions?
"Why you fly is your business, how you fly is ours"
 
lehpron
Posts: 6846
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2001 3:42 am

RE: A Question For ProLifers: *warning*, Graphic Image

Mon Feb 21, 2005 12:17 pm

>>"For the others, the ones that not accept His Law, it's going to be miserable. That's the issue!"<<

I don't get it, how does "His Law" apply to people who do not follow "His Law" in the first place? So a Muslim or Hindu or Buddist born child may grow up to die miserably? IMO, those 'rules' apply only to believers of that faith as scare tactics to keep you from turning your back on your faith. The idea is to award believers and scold traitors. Since most atheists used to be christians, the I can see the logic. But I was never born to Jesus and niether was that Egyptian family, what nerve do you have to claim your opinion as being more than just that?
The meaning of life is curiosity; we were put on this planet to explore opportunities.
 
TACAA320
Posts: 7153
Joined: Fri Aug 06, 2004 3:03 am

RE: A Question For ProLifers: *warning*, Graphic Image

Mon Feb 21, 2005 12:22 pm

Quoting Aerorobnz (reply 38):
So you are in fact saying that an unborn child cannot reach heaven because it cannot comply with God's will, even if by 'God's will' it is stillborn. Yep sounds like God loves us unconditionally alright...


NO. I didn't said that. The unborn, as well as the none baptized has the original sin according with the Catholic doctrine. BUT once again, only God decide who go to heaven and who doesn't. Not the CC, not me, ONLY God.

And YES. God loves us all equally and unconditionally.
'Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind'. Albert Einstein
 
CORULEZ05
Posts: 1250
Joined: Sat Feb 05, 2005 10:39 am

RE: A Question For ProLifers: *warning*, Graphic Image

Mon Feb 21, 2005 12:28 pm

I am still against abortion even in that kind of situation. We are no one to make the decision of whether another human being comes into this world or not. Therefore, I think that even with an abnormality...a baby should be given a chance to live.....if that's how God wants it to be, then that is how it has to be. Just my personal opinion.........
Fly jetBlue today!!!!!!!
 
User avatar
aerorobnz
Posts: 7458
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2001 3:43 pm

RE: A Question For ProLifers: *warning*, Graphic Image

Mon Feb 21, 2005 2:47 pm

Quoting GoCOgo (reply 40):
Then why is Scott Peterson rotting on death row for DOUBLE murder, when according to your definition, he only killed ONE person? That legal statement is clearly not true.


It is in my country. You may notice that I have a different flag from yours. That example happened a few years ago here.

Quoting GoCOgo (reply 40):
So your saying 10 weeks is some kind of magic number?

don't be pedantic, no system is perfect, but as far as fetal development goes it is the best guide there is for knowing when it becomes a foetus as opposed to an embryo. As I said, most people who are serious about abortions have had them by that time anyway.

Quoting GoCOgo (reply 40):
And if the child has "high odds" of dying anyway, which is most certainly NOT THE CASE, who needs abortions?


It is a whole lot harder to actually get pregnant than people think, it's not just a case of the sperm and the egg finding each other, they actually have to be compatable. It is harder again to stay pregnant. After each passing week the odds go down more until the term of gestation is completed. I've been around enough pregnancies in my time through family and friends, and practically every one of those woman that has got pregnant has suffered a miscarriage in the early stages of development (up to 5-6 weeks). They are all perfect fertile & healthy and have healthy offspring. I think it was Dr Robert Winston that suggested it may even be as high as 1 in 4 conceptions will fail at some point in the pregnancy, most in the early stages.

Quoting TACAA320 (reply 42):
The unborn, as well as the none baptized has the original sin according with the Catholic doctrine.


Now if want you to clarify that for me, but with what you have said there If they have the Original sin that was committed by Adam & Eve, then they can't get into heaven, unless they repent for their sin through baptism according to Catholic Doctrine, which of course being in the womb they can't because they are not equipped to do so, and as far as I know you cannot posthumously baptise.

However I agree that if God exists that he would be the sole judge, so really whatever any of us do in our lifetime we have no idea of the criteria to get into Heaven because the Bible was written by people not God, and accordingly it is not any religions job to pass judgement.
Flown to 120 Airports in 44 Countries on 73 Operators. Visited 55 Countries and counting. Wanderlust is like Syphilis, once you have the itch it's too late for treatment.
 
TACAA320
Posts: 7153
Joined: Fri Aug 06, 2004 3:03 am

RE: A Question For ProLifers: *warning*, Graphic Image

Mon Feb 21, 2005 9:19 pm

Quoting Aerorobnz (reply 44):
However I agree that if God exists that he would be the sole judge, so really whatever any of us do in our lifetime we have no idea of the criteria to get into Heaven because the Bible was written by people not God, and accordingly it is not any religions job to pass judgement.


It was written by people, but It's the word of the Lord.
'Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind'. Albert Einstein
 
TACAA320
Posts: 7153
Joined: Fri Aug 06, 2004 3:03 am

RE: A Question For ProLifers: *warning*, Graphic Image

Mon Feb 21, 2005 9:26 pm

From the Catholic Cathecism:

"You shall not kill.54
You have heard that it was said to the men of old, "You shall not kill: and whoever kills shall be liable to judgment." But I say to you that every one who is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgment.55

2258 "Human life is sacred because from its beginning it involves the creative action of God and it remains for ever in a special relationship with the Creator, who is its sole end. God alone is the Lord of life from its beginning until its end: no one can under any circumstance claim for himself the right directly to destroy an innocent human being."56

I. RESPECT FOR HUMAN LIFE

The witness of sacred history

2259 In the account of Abel's murder by his brother Cain,57 Scripture reveals the presence of anger and envy in man, consequences of original sin, from the beginning of human history. Man has become the enemy of his fellow man. God declares the wickedness of this fratricide: "What have you done? The voice of your brother's blood is crying to me from the ground. And now you are cursed from the ground, which has opened its mouth to receive your brother's blood from your hand."58

2260 The covenant between God and mankind is interwoven with reminders of God's gift of human life and man's murderous violence:


For your lifeblood I will surely require a reckoning. . . . Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for God made man in his own image.59
The Old Testament always considered blood a sacred sign of life.60 This teaching remains necessary for all time.

2261 Scripture specifies the prohibition contained in the fifth commandment: "Do not slay the innocent and the righteous."61 The deliberate murder of an innocent person is gravely contrary to the dignity of the human being, to the golden rule, and to the holiness of the Creator. The law forbidding it is universally valid: it obliges each and everyone, always and everywhere.

2262 In the Sermon on the Mount, the Lord recalls the commandment, "You shall not kill,"62 and adds to it the proscription of anger, hatred, and vengeance. Going further, Christ asks his disciples to turn the other cheek, to love their enemies.63 He did not defend himself and told Peter to leave his sword in its sheath.64

Legitimate defense

2263 The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. "The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one's own life; and the killing of the aggressor. . . . The one is intended, the other is not."65

2264 Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one's own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow:


If a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repels force with moderation, his defense will be lawful. . . . Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one's own life than of another's.66
2265 Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.

2266 The efforts of the state to curb the spread of behavior harmful to people's rights and to the basic rules of civil society correspond to the requirement of safeguarding the common good. Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict punishment proportionate to the gravity of the offense. Punishment has the primary aim of redressing the disorder introduced by the offense. When it is willingly accepted by the guilty party, it assumes the value of expiation. Punishment then, in addition to defending public order and protecting people's safety, has a medicinal purpose: as far as possible, it must contribute to the correction of the guilty party.67

2267 Assuming that the guilty party's identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.

If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people's safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.

Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity "are very rare, if not practically nonexistent."68

Intentional homicide

2268 The fifth commandment forbids direct and intentional killing as gravely sinful. The murderer and those who cooperate voluntarily in murder commit a sin that cries out to heaven for vengeance.69

Infanticide,70 fratricide, parricide, and the murder of a spouse are especially grave crimes by reason of the natural bonds which they break. Concern for eugenics or public health cannot justify any murder, even if commanded by public authority.

2269 The fifth commandment forbids doing anything with the intention of indirectly bringing about a person's death. The moral law prohibits exposing someone to mortal danger without grave reason, as well as refusing assistance to a person in danger.

The acceptance by human society of murderous famines, without efforts to remedy them, is a scandalous injustice and a grave offense. Those whose usurious and avaricious dealings lead to the hunger and death of their brethren in the human family indirectly commit homicide, which is imputable to them.71

Unintentional killing is not morally imputable. But one is not exonerated from grave offense if, without proportionate reasons, he has acted in a way that brings about someone's death, even without the intention to do so.

Abortion

2270 Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person - among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life.72


Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you.73
My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately wrought in the depths of the earth.74

2271 Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law:


You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish.75
God, the Lord of life, has entrusted to men the noble mission of safeguarding life, and men must carry it out in a manner worthy of themselves. Life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception: abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes.76

2272 Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life. "A person who procures a completed abortion incurs excommunication latae sententiae,"77 "by the very commission of the offense,"78 and subject to the conditions provided by Canon Law.79 The Church does not thereby intend to restrict the scope of mercy. Rather, she makes clear the gravity of the crime committed, the irreparable harm done to the innocent who is put to death, as well as to the parents and the whole of society.

2273 The inalienable right to life of every innocent human individual is a constitutive element of a civil society and its legislation:

"The inalienable rights of the person must be recognized and respected by civil society and the political authority. These human rights depend neither on single individuals nor on parents; nor do they represent a concession made by society and the state; they belong to human nature and are inherent in the person by virtue of the creative act from which the person took his origin. Among such fundamental rights one should mention in this regard every human being's right to life and physical integrity from the moment of conception until death."80

"The moment a positive law deprives a category of human beings of the protection which civil legislation ought to accord them, the state is denying the equality of all before the law. When the state does not place its power at the service of the rights of each citizen, and in particular of the more vulnerable, the very foundations of a state based on law are undermined. . . . As a consequence of the respect and protection which must be ensured for the unborn child from the moment of conception, the law must provide appropriate penal sanctions for every deliberate violation of the child's rights."81

2274 Since it must be treated from conception as a person, the embryo must be defended in its integrity, cared for, and healed, as far as possible, like any other human being.

Prenatal diagnosis is morally licit, "if it respects the life and integrity of the embryo and the human fetus and is directed toward its safe guarding or healing as an individual. . . . It is gravely opposed to the moral law when this is done with the thought of possibly inducing an abortion, depending upon the results: a diagnosis must not be the equivalent of a death sentence."82

2275 "One must hold as licit procedures carried out on the human embryo which respect the life and integrity of the embryo and do not involve disproportionate risks for it, but are directed toward its healing the improvement of its condition of health, or its individual survival."83

"It is immoral to produce human embryos intended for exploitation as disposable biological material."84

"Certain attempts to influence chromosomic or genetic inheritance are not therapeutic but are aimed at producing human beings selected according to sex or other predetermined qualities. Such manipulations are contrary to the personal dignity of the human being and his integrity and identity"85 which are unique and unrepeatable.

Euthanasia

2276 Those whose lives are diminished or weakened deserve special respect. Sick or handicapped persons should be helped to lead lives as normal as possible.

2277 Whatever its motives and means, direct euthanasia consists in putting an end to the lives of handicapped, sick, or dying persons. It is morally unacceptable.

Thus an act or omission which, of itself or by intention, causes death in order to eliminate suffering constitutes a murder gravely contrary to the dignity of the human person and to the respect due to the living God, his Creator. The error of judgment into which one can fall in good faith does not change the nature of this murderous act, which must always be forbidden and excluded.

2278 Discontinuing medical procedures that are burdensome, dangerous, extraordinary, or disproportionate to the expected outcome can be legitimate; it is the refusal of "over-zealous" treatment. Here one does not will to cause death; one's inability to impede it is merely accepted. The decisions should be made by the patient if he is competent and able or, if not, by those legally entitled to act for the patient, whose reasonable will and legitimate interests must always be respected.

2279 Even if death is thought imminent, the ordinary care owed to a sick person cannot be legitimately interrupted. The use of painkillers to alleviate the sufferings of the dying, even at the risk of shortening their days, can be morally in conformity with human dignity if death is not willed as either an end or a means, but only foreseen and tolerated as inevitable Palliative care is a special form of disinterested charity. As such it should be encouraged.

Suicide

2280 Everyone is responsible for his life before God who has given it to him. It is God who remains the sovereign Master of life. We are obliged to accept life gratefully and preserve it for his honor and the salvation of our souls. We are stewards, not owners, of the life God has entrusted to us. It is not ours to dispose of.

2281 Suicide contradicts the natural inclination of the human being to preserve and perpetuate his life. It is gravely contrary to the just love of self. It likewise offends love of neighbor because it unjustly breaks the ties of solidarity with family, nation, and other human societies to which we continue to have obligations. Suicide is contrary to love for the living God.

2282 If suicide is committed with the intention of setting an example, especially to the young, it also takes on the gravity of scandal. Voluntary co-operation in suicide is contrary to the moral law.

Grave psychological disturbances, anguish, or grave fear of hardship, suffering, or torture can diminish the responsibility of the one committing suicide.

2283 We should not despair of the eternal salvation of persons who have taken their own lives. By ways known to him alone, God can provide the opportunity for salutary repentance. The Church prays for persons who have taken their own lives.

II. RESPECT FOR THE DIGNITY OF PERSONS

Respect for the souls of others: scandal

2284 Scandal is an attitude or behavior which leads another to do evil. The person who gives scandal becomes his neighbor's tempter. He damages virtue and integrity; he may even draw his brother into spiritual death. Scandal is a grave offense if by deed or omission another is deliberately led into a grave offense.

2285 Scandal takes on a particular gravity by reason of the authority of those who cause it or the weakness of those who are scandalized. It prompted our Lord to utter this curse: "Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened round his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea."86 Scandal is grave when given by those who by nature or office are obliged to teach and educate others. Jesus reproaches the scribes and Pharisees on this account: he likens them to wolves in sheep's clothing.87

2286 Scandal can be provoked by laws or institutions, by fashion or opinion.

Therefore, they are guilty of scandal who establish laws or social structures leading to the decline of morals and the corruption of religious practice, or to "social conditions that, intentionally or not, make Christian conduct and obedience to the Commandments difficult and practically impossible."88 This is also true of business leaders who make rules encouraging fraud, teachers who provoke their children to anger,89 or manipulators of public opinion who turn it away from moral values.

2287 Anyone who uses the power at his disposal in such a way that it leads others to do wrong becomes guilty of scandal and responsible for the evil that he has directly or indirectly encouraged. "Temptations to sin are sure to come; but woe to him by whom they come!"90

Respect for health

2288 Life and physical health are precious gifts entrusted to us by God. We must take reasonable care of them, taking into account the needs of others and the common good.

Concern for the health of its citizens requires that society help in the attainment of living-conditions that allow them to grow and reach maturity: food and clothing, housing, health care, basic education, employment, and social assistance.

2289 If morality requires respect for the life of the body, it does not make it an absolute value. It rejects a neo-pagan notion that tends to promote the cult of the body, to sacrifice everything for it's sake, to idolize physical perfection and success at sports. By its selective preference of the strong over the weak, such a conception can lead to the perversion of human relationships.

2290 The virtue of temperance disposes us to avoid every kind of excess: the abuse of food, alcohol, tobacco, or medicine. Those incur grave guilt who, by drunkenness or a love of speed, endanger their own and others' safety on the road, at sea, or in the air.

2291 The use of drugs inflicts very grave damage on human health and life. Their use, except on strictly therapeutic grounds, is a grave offense. Clandestine production of and trafficking in drugs are scandalous practices. They constitute direct co-operation in evil, since they encourage people to practices gravely contrary to the moral law. "
'Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind'. Albert Einstein
 
TACAA320
Posts: 7153
Joined: Fri Aug 06, 2004 3:03 am

RE: A Question For ProLifers: *warning*, Graphic Image

Mon Feb 21, 2005 9:34 pm

"Now if want you to clarify that for me, but with what you have said there If they have the Original sin that was committed by Adam & Eve, then they can't get into heaven, unless they repent for their sin through baptism according to Catholic Doctrine, which of course being in the womb they can't because they are not equipped to do so, and as far as I know you cannot posthumously baptise."

Aerorobzn

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Baptism for the Forgiveness of Sins

977 Our Lord tied the forgiveness of sins to faith and Baptism: "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to the whole creation. He who believes and is baptized will be saved."519 Baptism is the first and chief sacrament of forgiveness of sins because it unites us with Christ, who died for our sins and rose for our justification, so that "we too might walk in newness of life."520

978 "When we made our first profession of faith while receiving the holy Baptism that cleansed us, the forgiveness we received then was so full and complete that there remained in us absolutely nothing left to efface, neither original sin nor offenses committed by our own will, nor was there left any penalty to suffer in order to expiate them.... Yet the grace of Baptism delivers no one from all the weakness of nature. On the contrary, we must still combat the movements of concupiscence that never cease leading us into evil "521

979 In this battle against our inclination towards evil, who could be brave and watchful enough to escape every wound of sin? "If the Church has the power to forgive sins, then Baptism cannot be her only means of using the keys of the Kingdom of heaven received from Jesus Christ. the Church must be able to forgive all penitents their offenses, even if they should sin until the last moment of their lives."522

980 It is through the sacrament of Penance that the baptized can be reconciled with God and with the Church:

Penance has rightly been called by the holy Fathers "a laborious kind of baptism." This sacrament of Penance is necessary for salvation for those who have fallen after Baptism, just as Baptism is necessary for salvation for those who have not yet been reborn.523"
'Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind'. Albert Einstein
 
goCOgo
Posts: 680
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 11:24 am

RE: A Question For ProLifers: *warning*, Graphic Image

Tue Feb 22, 2005 1:48 am

Quoting Aerorobnz (reply 44):
It is in my country. You may notice that I have a different flag from yours. That example happened a few years ago here.


Unlike Lifelineone, you didn't specify "this applies to NZ only." You made a general statement. You said "you," which I, as an American took to mean "me," an American. And does that mean unborn children are alive in the US and not in NZ just because our laws differ? I don't think so. And I'm sure "that example" upset plenty of New Zealanders.


Quoting Aerorobnz (reply 44):
I think it was Dr Robert Winston that suggested it may even be as high as 1 in 4 conceptions will fail at some point in the pregnancy, most in the early stages.


So what you are saying is accidents happen, so it is OK to cause them deliberately. It is possible for someone to fall out of a window, so it is OK to push them out deliberately? Or, most accidents happen in the home, so as long as you kill someone in their home, it's OK?
"Why you fly is your business, how you fly is ours"
 
User avatar
aerorobnz
Posts: 7458
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2001 3:43 pm

RE: A Question For ProLifers: *warning*, Graphic I

Tue Feb 22, 2005 7:57 am

Thanks for that Taca, I'm baptised,reconciled and confirmed but it's been a few years since I was actively involved in any church (For obvious reasons  Wink/being sarcastic) so i needed it clarified.

Quoting GoCOgo (reply 48):
you didn't specify "this applies to NZ only." You made a general statement......And I'm sure "that example" upset plenty of New Zealanders.

Yes I used 'you', it is how I always seem to apply a scenario, I agree it wasn't clear enough put. It is clarified now. As for 'that example' it barely even registered in the news. I think it made one TV current affairs interview. That isn't to say that the people didn't care, just that it wasn't well publicised. It was talking about the actual law, and used that example as a loophole in defining a life. As it happens it should be clarified so that people like that Scott Petersen do get charged for 2 deaths because they killed a woman they knew was pregnant, and so killed any chance of a wanted birth. however in a car accident where the foetus is miscarried as a result it is very hard to argue that the person who crashed into them is culpable for the death of the child, when it may have happened anyway without the crash ever happening - the variables associated with pregnancy aren't as predictable as the outcome of the crash.

Quoting GoCOgo (reply 48):
So what you are saying is accidents happen, so it is OK to cause them deliberately.


Nope not at all, a failed conception is no accident, the process of developing life was not completed because it malfunctioned. Just like getting cancer is not
an accident, it is your cells mutating into a rogue form. You can put it down to an 'Act of God', I can put it down to a quantifiable scientific explaination, either way it is not accidental it is a most deliberate response to a malfunction.

As for abortion I may sound very pro, but I'm not. I, like most people in a situation where their girlfriend gets pregnant would certainly not be encouraging her to get one if she said she didn't want to bring the child up/didn't have the means to support it. Abortion is a last resort/saving grace, that should only be used in a circumstance where the medical condition of the child would restrict quality of life for both child & parents, or alternatively where conception was forced (ie: rape/incest). It needs to be available for those reasons. To prolong an existance knowing that it will inflict pain and suffering on an individual/s is inhumane and as callous as it is to terminate the baby to prevent it from suffering for longer than they have to.
Flown to 120 Airports in 44 Countries on 73 Operators. Visited 55 Countries and counting. Wanderlust is like Syphilis, once you have the itch it's too late for treatment.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: aerlingus747, Baidu [Spider], MaverickM11, vikkyvik and 33 guests