Posted on 09/18/2006 4:18:11 PM PDT by wagglebee
Excellent point...
IMO the right to life campaign has been enormously effective, judging from the attitudes of the young women in my extended family. It has raised consciousness of the sacredness of bringing a new life into the world. Anyone who thinks it through would come to realize that a ban on all abortion just wouldn't work as a law and should remain a matter of conscience.
Therein lies the problem.
I have class now--I'll explain when I get back.
Why? What is wrong with letting the individual states decide as they did before 1973? There are over 1 million abortions every year in the United States, do you honestly believe the conscience will lower this? (Because it hasn't up to now.)
That's not a very scientific view. Not compatible with reason. Breath combines with flesh in the lungs when it joins the blood stream. From the moment the zygote attaches to the uterine wall it is supplied with blood and thusly the "breath of life." It ceases to be a zygote at that point and becomes a fetus. (I don't recall my biology precisely so it may cease to be a zygote even earlier.) That is very early on. To be intellectually honest you would have to recognize that as the cut-off point between life and non-life and therefore murder and abcess removal (if that's what you consider it?).
I'm totally for an individual state vote. People vote, not an old man vote.
I think one of the biggest problems with the legal side of the abortion issue is the fact that the American people have NEVER been allowed to vote on it. The left is so desperate to preserve abortion no matter what, that they are horrified of the prospect of people actually voting based on conscience. They are totally opposed to the new 3-D ultrasound machines that clearly show that after the first trimester it is a baby not some "lump of cells."
When the Pope speaks of "A reason which is deaf to the divine ..." I would think he would include a "matter of conscience" like terminating a pregnancy through violence.
"A reason which is deaf to the divine and which relegates religion into the realm of subcultures is incapable of entering into the dialogue of cultures."
I don't know his or the Church's traditional position on procreation but I would think that if human life is considered divine then the process of pregnancy that multiplies and sustains human life would be too.
A whole lot of these contentious issues should be voted on by a people vote IMO. I think a lot of people on both sides would be a whole lot less frustrated, and it would make politicians jobs much more effective, since the politicians are unable to deal with the hot button issues without enraging half the voters at the very least.
The big issue that should be voted on is the ILLEGAL ALIEN issue. It is very frightening to a lot of little people.
Four out of five Planned Parenthood clinics are within three miles of a lower-class or minority-dominated neighborhood, or the inner city. Why do you think that is?
Eugenics. I know you already knew that. Now if only we could figure out why the dems and feminazis ignore that simple fact - or paint it as a 'positive'. (rhetorical - follow the money, for starters)
I know we know the answer. But does she? 8^)
Except that one of the Biblical (and dictionary) uses of the word, "soul" is to represent the entire being, the entire person, a living human being. So, for example, if Mary had taken some inequivalent of RU 486 to kill Jesus when he was a zygote, Jesus would have been killed, not some non-human entity, or some non-soul. What is irrational is the attempt to separate a living human being, at any stage of development, from personhood, or from soulhood. An artificial distinction between breathing and soul is sophistry and a misuse of words. Philosophically speaking, it is a category error.
As emotionally wrenching and unbearable as the truth is to us sometimes, in the long run it is always better to face it and accept it. It will set us free, because with acceptance of the truth there follows grace, forgiveness and healing. The alternative is to live in a state of denial, irrationality and despair. It's a whole lot of mental work to try to live in an alternate universe of one's own making, believe me. I know from experience:^(
There is no such being as a potential person, or a potential soul. Potentialities, or capabilities, such a breathing, are limited to the kinds of things to which they belong. If a being ever has the potential to breathe, either now or in the future, then that being belongs to that class of beings that can breathe, otherwise that being would never have that potential. A radish could never have that capability. In the case of a prenatal human being at any stage of development, even a zygote, the potential to breathe air at some future with his lungs already indicates that he belongs to that a class of beings which breathes air, in this case a human being, whether he is presently breathing air with the lungs or not.
The easiest way to demonstrate that all human beings are 'souls', if you will, from the very beginning of their existence, is simply to ask, when did you begin to exist?
The answer to that ontological question is self-evident.
Cordially,
I hope so. Differences on demographics alone.
Pro-choice Rudy Giuliani's crime fighting is a good counterexample, but you could also say that the decrease in petty crimes and even violent crimes New York has seen is insignificant compared to it being one of the most dangerous places in the world to be an unborn baby.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.