[quote]dmaddox wrote:
The fetus is considered a neighbor.[/quote]
Technically you could also consider it a parasite. It fits the description fairly well.
The Church doesn’t bitch when people get rid of tapeworms, right?
[quote]Ghost22 wrote:
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
The fetus is considered a neighbor.[/quote]
Technically you could also consider it a parasite. It fits the description fairly well.
The Church doesn’t bitch when people get rid of tapeworms, right?[/quote]
You should elaborate on your argument right now it’s not following a logical progression.
? didnt we already do this one…?
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Ghost22 wrote:
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
The fetus is considered a neighbor.[/quote]
Technically you could also consider it a parasite. It fits the description fairly well.
The Church doesn’t bitch when people get rid of tapeworms, right?[/quote]
You should elaborate on your argument right now it’s not following a logical progression.[/quote]
I was ignoring the primary point of the thread and poking fun at calling the fetus a neighbor.
just another case of church politics and thats a FACT. Getting a procedure that will kill your fetus to save your life: Excommunication, murderer, express train to hell. But getting a procedure that most likely kill your fetus to save your life: totally acceptable, see you next sunday.
even more absurd that the nun did not fund or preform the abortion, just agreed that such a case is ok. Since the church’s stance isn’t black and white, why bother with an excommunication?
whats the point of a church ethics committe if the rules are supposedly clear?
[quote]PB-Crawl wrote:
just another case of church politics and thats a FACT. Getting a procedure that will Save your life and directly kill the fetus: Excommunication, murderer, express train to hell. But NOT getting a procedure that will save your life and therefore indirectly kill teh fetus along with yourself: totally acceptable, see you next sunday.
even more absurd that the nun did not fund or preform the abortion, just agreed that such a case is ok. Since the church’s stance isn’t black and white, why bother with an excommunication?
whats the point of a church ethics committee if the rules are supposedly clear?
[/quote]
EDIT: better now eh?
fetus’ are people too…unless your pro choice then they arent.
[quote]Ghost22 wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Ghost22 wrote:
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
The fetus is considered a neighbor.[/quote]
Technically you could also consider it a parasite. It fits the description fairly well.
The Church doesn’t bitch when people get rid of tapeworms, right?[/quote]
You should elaborate on your argument right now it’s not following a logical progression.[/quote]
I was ignoring the primary point of the thread and poking fun at calling the fetus a neighbor. [/quote]
Okay. Well, I do assume you are not serious about calling a fetus a parasite.
I want to send this thread to some pro life activists. Shit they would bleed from the eyes.
[quote]PB-Crawl wrote:
just another case of church politics and thats a FACT. Getting a procedure that will kill your fetus to save your life: Excommunication, murderer, express train to hell. But getting a procedure that most likely kill your fetus to save your life: totally acceptable, see you next sunday.
even more absurd that the nun did not fund or preform the abortion, just agreed that such a case is ok. Since the church’s stance isn’t black and white, why bother with an excommunication?
whats the point of a church ethics committe if the rules are supposedly clear?
[/quote]
Obviously you cannot discern the difference between a deliberate killing your child to save your life, and trying to save your child while saving yours. Actually the Church’s stance is very black and white. No abortion.
We have made our case logically, it is a valid and sound argument. Now, some people say it is not a good argument, but after being yelled at in the epitome of knowledge (universities) for five years, I have never come across a sound argument and not even close to a good argument. I have listened to philosophy majors, philosophy doctorates, philosophy teachers and deans, all kinds of different students, student leaders, student body presidents, none of come with a sound argument, only emotional arguments.
[quote]andrew_live wrote:
I want to send this thread to some pro life activists. Shit they would bleed from the eyes.[/quote]
I’m not an activist, but I am pro-life and I do presentations for an activist group. I am not sure if you know pro-life activist, but like me, I have seen enough horrific images, seen every shock-value tactic in the book and it doesn’t phase me.
There is only so many times you can have someone yell in your face, spit on you, take punches, pretend they are going to hit you with their car before it becomes normal and you then become numb to it, even smile while it happens. Although, my size has deterred such activities for awhile, when it does happen, I don’t lose my cool.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]PB-Crawl wrote:
just another case of church politics and thats a FACT. Getting a procedure that will kill your fetus to save your life: Excommunication, murderer, express train to hell. But getting a procedure that most likely kill your fetus to save your life: totally acceptable, see you next sunday.
even more absurd that the nun did not fund or preform the abortion, just agreed that such a case is ok. Since the church’s stance isn’t black and white, why bother with an excommunication?
whats the point of a church ethics committe if the rules are supposedly clear?
[/quote]
Obviously you cannot discern the difference between a deliberate killing your child to save your life, and trying to save your child while saving yours. Actually the Church’s stance is very black and white. No abortion.
We have made our case logically, it is a valid and sound argument. Now, some people say it is not a good argument, but after being yelled at in the epitome of knowledge (universities) for five years, I have never come across a sound argument and not even close to a good argument. I have listened to philosophy majors, philosophy doctorates, philosophy teachers and deans, all kinds of different students, student leaders, student body presidents, none of come with a sound argument, only emotional arguments.
[/quote]
Maybe you didnt bother to read my post or didnt understand. Let me clarify, radiation of a cancerous uterus, is going to result in fetal death. First trimester, abortion rate is 20% and goes up from there. Theres many variables upon waiting till after birth, but regardless from a church standpoint, abortion via this treatment is A-OK, and many others are included.
This form of radiation while necessary, is no means to “save a child” what so ever.
Fact, the church’s standpoint is not black and white, “secondary” effects that result in abortion are ok. Differentiating between primary and secondary effects when the mother is likely to die is complete nonsense. When death is not likely is a different issue, not one this article is bringing up.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]PAINTRAINDave wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
The woman was suffering from a life-threatening condition that likely would have caused her death if she hadn’t had the abortion at St. Joseph’s Hospital and Medical Center.[/quote]
Seriously, to the two posters who replied, what the fuck is wrong with you?[/quote]
They hate women?[/quote]
I do not think that is the case, we take care of those that have no voice, that cannot defend themselves. How is having an invasive surgery to extract the baby, that will possibly allow the baby to live, a worse idea then an abortion?[/quote]
Clearly, you did not read the article. She was at 11 weeks, there is zero possibility of the fetus staying alive at this point. It’s lungs aren’t even developed.
[quote]PB-Crawl wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]PB-Crawl wrote:
just another case of church politics and thats a FACT. Getting a procedure that will kill your fetus to save your life: Excommunication, murderer, express train to hell. But getting a procedure that most likely kill your fetus to save your life: totally acceptable, see you next sunday.
even more absurd that the nun did not fund or preform the abortion, just agreed that such a case is ok. Since the church’s stance isn’t black and white, why bother with an excommunication?
whats the point of a church ethics committe if the rules are supposedly clear?
[/quote]
Obviously you cannot discern the difference between a deliberate killing your child to save your life, and trying to save your child while saving yours. Actually the Church’s stance is very black and white. No abortion.
We have made our case logically, it is a valid and sound argument. Now, some people say it is not a good argument, but after being yelled at in the epitome of knowledge (universities) for five years, I have never come across a sound argument and not even close to a good argument. I have listened to philosophy majors, philosophy doctorates, philosophy teachers and deans, all kinds of different students, student leaders, student body presidents, none of come with a sound argument, only emotional arguments.
[/quote]
Maybe you didnt bother to read my post or didnt understand. Let me clarify, radiation of a cancerous uterus, is going to result in fetal death. First trimester, abortion rate is 20% and goes up from there. Theres many variables upon waiting till after birth, but regardless from a church standpoint, abortion via this treatment is A-OK, and many others are included.
This form of radiation while necessary, is no means to “save a child” what so ever.
Fact, the church’s standpoint is not black and white, “secondary” effects that result in abortion are ok. Differentiating between primary and secondary effects when the mother is likely to die is complete nonsense. When death is not likely is a different issue, not one this article is bringing up.[/quote]
The irradiation of a cancerous uterus is to treat the cancer. Abortion is to kill the child in the womb.
radical christians?, i think the best thing is not to believe in religion
[quote]weby wrote:
radical christians?, i think the best thing is not to believe in religion[/quote]
let me know how that works out for you in the end . . .
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
We have made our case logically, it is a valid and sound argument. Now, some people say it is not a good argument, but after being yelled at in the epitome of knowledge (universities) for five years, I have never come across a sound argument and not even close to a good argument. I have listened to philosophy majors, philosophy doctorates, philosophy teachers and deans, all kinds of different students, student leaders, student body presidents, none of come with a sound argument, only emotional arguments.
[/quote]
it’s one thing to sit in an ivory tower and think logical thoughts, it’s another thing to live in the real world. What if this woman were your daughter? Could you honestly tell her that she had to go through with the pregnancy even if it meant her death? I have a daughter, and I could not do it. Yes, this is based on emotion - I love my daughter so much that I would be willing to give up my own life for hers, and I could not bear the thought of her dying. This is why I left the church. Priests will never understand what it’s like to face the prospect of having a child die. All the Ph.D.s in philosophy and theology cannot substitute for this real life experience. As such, I believe that priests are not qualified to render an opinion on this issue.
As for a logical argument, a fetus is a potential human. As such, it deserves certain protections. I do not agree with having an abortion for convenience purposes. However, when the mother’s life is at stake, you’re looking at balancing a potential human life with a life already in being. The life in being wins.
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
[quote]weby wrote:
radical christians?, i think the best thing is not to believe in religion[/quote]
let me know how that works out for you in the end . . .[/quote]
You don’t need to be part of an organized religion to have faith.
[quote]BBriere wrote:
I consider myself pro-choice. A woman can choose to have sex and get pregnant so she can choose to deal with the consequences. She knew she had a disorder. My wife has asthma and epilespy. It’s something we have to take into consideration if we choose have a child.[/quote]
So if your wife became pregnant and developed life threatening complications, you would be totally okay telling her, “Sorry honey, you need to die to save the child?”
I hope you sleep well at night.
To get mad at us because you guys wants us to give the nod to kill one human to save another.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
To get mad at us because you guys wants us to give the nod to kill one human to save another.[/quote]
If this is what you wish to believe that’s fine. I even think it was perfectly justified for the nun to have been excommunicated since she did violate Catholic teaching on this issue. The problem I have is when you want to reduce a predominantly Catholic teaching to a civil law rule. I say “predominantly Catholic” because even many Christians who oppose abortion believe that it is justified in cases where the mother’s life is at stake.
There is also a serious constitutional problem with a law that would prohibit all abortions even in cases where the mother’s life is at stake. And I’m not taking about a separation of church and state issue, which many conservatives don’t agree exists, or a right to privacy issue, which many conservatives think was read into the Constitution by an activist court. I’m talking about a substantive due process issue. It’s the government saying to a pregnant woman, “We realize that it is highly likely that carrying your pregnancy to term would result in your death, and we realize that there is a medical procedure (abortion) that could potentially save your life, but we have decided that you cannot have access to this procedure. If this results in your death, too bad. Better luck next time.” This is highly offensive to me as a thinking person, and it violates the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment, which provides that the government shall not deprive a person of life without due process of law. Only no amount of due process will remedy the situation so it is a substantive due process issue.