Laws are based on the recognition of a human being which science has already defined and a fetus has nothing to do with this. Fetal viability is the term used in the US to determine whether a human being has rights recognized by the constitution and none of the mumbo jumbo you are trying to promote.
Is America great?
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
Laws are based on the recognition of a human being which science has already defined and a fetus has nothing to do with this. Fetal viability is the term used in the US to determine whether a human being has rights recognized by the constitution and none of the mumbo jumbo you are trying to promote.
I'll likewise remind you that the Bill of Rights refers specifically to persons, people and public several times. I'm sure they're not referring to the dead...which under your intentionally broad rubric, would enjoy ample post-mortum rights.
noguru
Well-known member
Don't call me buddy.
I am using the abortionist argument because there are people that do use it. I do not agree with it in many cases, but that is not my point. You have to first understand an argument before you can disagree with it. Your rejection of it is prior to even considering it.
Remove your lipstick.
I am not in your way. You are in your own way.
noguru
Well-known member
I am not confused, you are confused. I don't need a Bible to discuss morality.
The Bible does not determine morality. If it did one could not determine the moral content of the Bible.
The only reason abortion was approved because of the legal void maintained by a lack of Nascaritus laws that has been around for centuries, not for some purposeful scientific or legal decision that you are promoting.
As evidence since RvsW 330 Human Life bills have been presented in the US, all of which have failed. They don't fail because of anything to do with "personhood" but because Democrats don't want the legal status challenged.
Then wherefore the right's politcal push for personhood status on behalf of the unborn?
What part did you miss about Human Life legislation?
You call me idiot and I call you buddy. I see your type of morality is do as I say not as I do.
I need Jesus Christ. He is the culmination of the Bible. Who do you need?
The part where you claimed human rights have nothing to do with "personhood".
If so, why the push for it?
Abortion was not made legal not because of a developed personhood philosophy but of a legal vacuum that was filled with the unscientific term called "fetal viability".
We in the prolife movement are focusing on getting lawmakers to defer to science like many other countries in the world have done.
I don't doubt that some in the prolife movement are promoting a personhood argument but this is less rigorous than scientific evidence. especially for a nation that now rejects God's laws in principal.
Again, the question of unborn rights lies beyond science.
In the world of those who promote homicide, yes.
Now, we were having a respectful discussion over abortion and you had to resort to a hyperbolic rhetorical device. (Popularly viewed as a pro-life death knell.)
Conventional wisdom would dictate that prior to our current level of scientific advancements pregnant individuals over the centuries have had a firm intuitive grasp that the unborn inside of their womb is of the human species. That is, we need not science to know humans beget human offspring. What novel discovery does the current state of science bring to the table?
Dan Emanuel
Active member
Our Lord Jesus Christ reveal's His infallible morality to us in the teaching's of the papacy on faith, doctrine and moral's. Jesus is against abortion and S.S.B.
Part of the papacies' message in the Catechism, on public policy recommendation's for civil government's, is that the freedom of faith, doctrine and moral's, which is equivalent to religious liberty, should alway's be recognized, honored, defended, nurtured, encouraged, served and protected by civil government.
This recommendation is something we American's have alway's understood as Jesus Christs' own recommendation, as an older brother would lovingly provide for his younger brother's and sister's, for our safe keeping (contra Genesis 4:9 KJV), his serious advice on the matter.
Jesus say's, that if it were up to Him, He seriously would protect and defend religious liberty sparing no expense. And most of the worlds civil government's --including the Vatican itself --are currently taking Jesuses' advice, and strongly fighting for religious liberty.
Its interesting that Jesus doesn't say to favor the/His Church in any way. He very clearly take's a position that is opposite of giving the Church any kind of special advantage, in the administration of "the sword." Romans 13:4 KJV
Its also interesting that of all the fundamental human right's implicit in the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness --claimed by the American founder's --the freedom of religion is the 1 most unmolested today, along with the freedom to literally publish whatever you want to publish. The freedom of religion is protected and defended fiercely in America.
I say America is great.
Daniel
Last edited:
gcthomas
New member
I've tries to clarify our different uses of similar words, but let's try one more time on the issues than can be muddied with wordplay:
| Moral personhood One of the first issues that need clarifying when thinking about abortion is the idea of what we mean when we talk about 'human life.' When people talk about 'human life' they may mean: * a member of the biological human species - having the human genetic code But they may mean something very different: * a being that possesses certain human characteristics in addition to the human genetic code And the time at which a foetus gets the right to life because it's achieved the relevant list of characteristics can vary from the moment of conception to the time the baby is born.* characteristics often suggested might be the ability to think, to imagine, to communicate * a being that is a 'moral person', i.e. one that has rights, and probably duties too* but the lists of characteristics put forward may be designed to limit the definition of human in the way the speaker wants (In fact for some philosophers, very young babies don't really qualify as having earned the right to life by possessing the right characteristics. Fortunately for young children, these philosophers concede that young babies do have the right to life as a result of tradition and law instead.) Does it matter? Yes of course it does, because without getting the point sorted out people can find themselves arguing about completely different things, even though they're both using words like 'human being'. But it may not matter in terms of pure moral philosophy, since there are cases when most people agree that even if the foetus is a person, abortion may be morally justified. And some philosophers have argued that abortion can be morally justified even where there is no risk to the physical or mental health of the mother. |
from the ethics pages here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/abortion/philosophical/moralperson.shtml
Rather than just ignore opposing opinions as plain wrong and scientifically disproved, you would benefit from at least trying to understand our reasoning when you try to attack it.
the other part
the big part
of the pope's message
it
the importance of the family
and
he is dedicating his life to protect it
noguru
Well-known member
How can you know Jesus had wisdom, if you were incapable of determining morality on your own?
noguru
Well-known member
"Buddy" is patronizing. You are an idiot. That is not patronizing.
I do let some people call me "Buddy", but they are usually naive. You are not naive, you are sinister.
I believe there is a "knowing" that is instinctual and oriented to self-preservation.
It is that upon which good parenting and mentoring builds.
As a child one learns incrementally. As knowledge is absorbed one has the beginnings of a tool kit which enables one to begin to think exponentially.
It is in the guidance and nurturing of our children That moral thinking and moral behavior blossom.