| Topic: |
Science > Abortion |
| User: |
"papa jack" |
| Date: |
21 Oct 2004 10:14:43 AM |
| Object: |
Opposition to Abortion More Than an Article of Faith |
On 10/21/04 the Catholic Herald psoted an article by Bishop
Paul S. Loverde titled: "Opposition to Abortion More Than an
Article of Faith." Go to:
http://www.catholicherald.com/loverde/2004homilies/election1021.htm
__________________________________________________________________________
Excerpts:
"A short time ago, when asked about his position on
abortion, this candidate said, 'I believe that I
can't legislate or transfer to another American
citizen my article of faith. What is an article of
faith for me is not something that I can legislate
on somebody who doesn't share that article of faith.'
[...]
"The error is simply this: the wrongness of direct
abortion is decidedly not just 'an article of faith.'
Rather, it is rooted in the natural law. Citing legis-
lators who say 'I am personally opposed to abortion,
but I cannot impose my religious beliefs on others,'
my predecessor, Bishop John Keating, spoke clearly in
words which I echo today, 'The fallacy in this reason-
ing is simply that the morality of abortion is not a
religious belief, any more than the morality of slavery,
apartheid, rape, larceny, murder or arson is a religious
belief. These are norms of the natural law of mankind
and can be legislated even in a completely religionless
society" (A Pastoral Letter on Morality and Conscience,
1994).
"In this light, it is obvious why we bishops stated the
following in Catholics in Political Life: 'Failing to
protect the lives of innocent and defenseless members
of the human race is to sin against justice. Those who
formulate law therefore have an obligation in conscience
to work towards correcting morally defective laws, lest
they be guilty of cooperating in evil and sinning against
the common good.'...
[...]
"To be a faithful Catholic necessarily means that one is
pro-life and not pro-choice. To be pro-choice essentially
means supporting the right of a woman to terminate the
life of her baby, either pre-born or partially born. No
Catholic can claim to be a faithful member of the Church
while advocating for, or actively supporting, direct
attacks on innocent human life. In reality, protecting
human life from conception to natural death is far more
than a Catholic issue. It is an issue that cuts across
denominational lines. It is an issue of fundamental
morality, rooted in both the natural moral law and the
divine law. Because of this, no other issue is objec-
tively more important. Therefore, both as citizens and
as Catholics, we can never give up our efforts to
eliminate the killing of innocent, defenseless human
beings."
__________________________________________________________________________
Papa Jack commented:
I'm not a Catholic, but Bishop Loverde's logic is easy for me
to support.
I particularly appreciated his quote of Bishop Keating:
"The fallacy in this reasoning is simply that the
morality of abortion is not a religious belief,
any more than the morality of slavery, apartheid,
rape, larceny, murder or arson is a religious
belief. These are norms of the natural law of
mankind and can be legislated even in a completely
religionless society"
.
|
|
| User: "junegill" |
|
| Title: Re: Opposition to Abortion More Than an Article of Faith |
22 Oct 2004 03:47:40 AM |
|
|
"papa jack" <papajack37@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:bd9f1f6b.0410210714.7bddfd85@posting.google.com...
On 10/21/04 the Catholic Herald psoted an article by Bishop
Paul S. Loverde titled: "Opposition to Abortion More Than an
Article of Faith." Go to:
http://www.catholicherald.com/loverde/2004homilies/election1021.htm
[snip]
I particularly appreciated his quote of Bishop Keating:
"The fallacy in this reasoning is simply that the
morality of abortion is not a religious belief,
any more than the morality of slavery, apartheid,
rape, larceny, murder or arson is a religious
belief. These are norms of the natural law of
mankind and can be legislated even in a completely
religionless society"
The fallacy in Bishop Keating's reasoning is that all those actions hurt
someone, hence the laws making them crimes. Abortion does not hurt anyone -
the embryo/foetus is incapable of feeling pain before 24 weeks' gestation.
Therefore it is a religious belief.
--
June G
# 364
http://uk.geocities.com/junegill@btopenworld.com/webpages/index.html.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Savard" |
|
| Title: Re: Opposition to Abortion More Than an Article of Faith |
23 Oct 2004 08:20:14 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 08:47:40 +0000 (UTC), "junegill"
<junegill@btinternet.com> wrote, in part:
The fallacy in Bishop Keating's reasoning is that all those actions hurt
someone, hence the laws making them crimes. Abortion does not hurt anyone -
the embryo/foetus is incapable of feeling pain before 24 weeks' gestation.
Therefore it is a religious belief.
But larceny doesn't hurt anyone either! (A scene in the book "Life and
Death in Shanghai" comes to mind...)
In other words, whatever else may be going on in your argument, you have
confounded two senses of the word "hurt".
John Savard
http://home.ecn.ab.ca/~jsavard/index.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "junegill" |
|
| Title: Re: Opposition to Abortion More Than an Article of Faith |
29 Oct 2004 12:17:47 AM |
|
|
"John Savard" <jsavard@excxn.aNOSPAMb.cdn.invalid> wrote in message
news:417b02f3.11977415@news.ecn.ab.ca...
On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 08:47:40 +0000 (UTC), "junegill"
<junegill@btinternet.com> wrote, in part:
The fallacy in Bishop Keating's reasoning is that all those actions hurt
someone, hence the laws making them crimes. Abortion does not hurt
anyone -
the embryo/foetus is incapable of feeling pain before 24 weeks'
gestation.
Therefore it is a religious belief.
But larceny doesn't hurt anyone either! (A scene in the book "Life and
Death in Shanghai" comes to mind...)
Sure it does. Wouldn't you be hurt if someone stole your money or
possessions?
In other words, whatever else may be going on in your argument, you have
confounded two senses of the word "hurt".
No, all kinds of hurt are considered when making laws. I once fought and
won an Equal Pay for Equal Work case and was astounded when I was awarded an
extra sum for 'hurt feelings'. I hadn't ever thought that my feelings had
been hurt, but I could see what they meant, and that's the law.
--
June G
# 364
http://uk.geocities.com/junegill@btopenworld.com/webpages/index.html.html
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Calwell" |
|
| Title: Re: Opposition to Abortion More Than an Article of Faith |
22 Oct 2004 02:11:22 PM |
|
|
junegill wrote:
The fallacy in Bishop Keating's reasoning is that all those actions hurt
someone, hence the laws making them crimes. Abortion does not hurt anyone -
the embryo/foetus is incapable of feeling pain before 24 weeks' gestation.
Therefore it is a religious belief.
Well, that's not true, but let's assume that it is for the sake of
argument.
The point is not about the administration of 'physical pain'. It is
about the deliberate destruction of human life. The facts as stated by
Bishop Keating are somewhat more fundamental and profound than merely
matters of neural stimulus.
--
June G
# 364
http://uk.geocities.com/junegill@btopenworld.com/webpages/index.html.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "junegill" |
|
| Title: Re: Opposition to Abortion More Than an Article of Faith |
22 Oct 2004 08:59:34 PM |
|
|
"Michael Calwell" <michael.calwell@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:41795d1b$0$1839$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...
junegill wrote:
Hmm, I'd just posted to you in another thread when I found you'd posted to
me. Small virtual world.
The fallacy in Bishop Keating's reasoning is that all those actions hurt
someone, hence the laws making them crimes. Abortion does not hurt
anyone -
the embryo/foetus is incapable of feeling pain before 24 weeks'
gestation.
Therefore it is a religious belief.
Well, that's not true, but let's assume that it is for the sake of
argument.
The point is not about the administration of 'physical pain'. It is
about the deliberate destruction of human life. The facts as stated by
Bishop Keating are somewhat more fundamental and profound than merely
matters of neural stimulus.
And it's the religious who attribute a totally unwarranted sanctity to human
life.
--
June G
# 364
http://uk.geocities.com/junegill@btopenworld.com/webpages/index.html.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Calwell" |
|
| Title: Re: Opposition to Abortion More Than an Article of Faith |
23 Oct 2004 01:48:03 AM |
|
|
junegill wrote:
The point is not about the administration of 'physical pain'. It is
about the deliberate destruction of human life. The facts as stated by
Bishop Keating are somewhat more fundamental and profound than merely
matters of neural stimulus.
And it's the religious who attribute a totally unwarranted sanctity to human
life.
Well, if you think that the human life doesn't have sancitity, then
there's not a great deal more to say, except that I believe that people
need protecting from that kind of fundamentalism.
--
June G
# 364
http://uk.geocities.com/junegill@btopenworld.com/webpages/index.html.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "junegill" |
|
| Title: Re: Opposition to Abortion More Than an Article of Faith |
23 Oct 2004 10:59:00 PM |
|
|
"Michael Calwell" <michael.calwell@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:417a0066$0$27551$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...
junegill wrote:
The point is not about the administration of 'physical pain'. It is
about the deliberate destruction of human life. The facts as stated by
Bishop Keating are somewhat more fundamental and profound than merely
matters of neural stimulus.
And it's the religious who attribute a totally unwarranted sanctity to
human
life.
Well, if you think that the human life doesn't have sancitity, then
there's not a great deal more to say, except that I believe that people
need protecting from that kind of fundamentalism.
How do you justify human life having sanctity ... without invoking a Creator
God? Think about it for a moment: take human life away from the world and
what have you got? A beautiful planet. Take plant life away instead and
what have you got? A lump of rock. Rather puts us in our place, don't you
think? That is not to say that I don't consider human life to be somewhat
special - we're pretty amazing creatures, but then, so are most other
creatures of different species. Whilst we're not the only species that can
empathise, we are the only species that can formulate (in writing anyway)
laws that reflect that empathy, which boils down to: I won't hurt you if you
don't hurt me. I can't think of a law that isn't based on that (which is
not to say there isn't one). Because some people have more power than
others, these laws become the province of the government, so that the weak
are protected from the stronger. When someone is killed, it isn't the
victim who feels the pain (except maybe during the act of dying), it's the
bereaved. The only person who can possibly be hurt by an abortion is the
woman concerned (and maybe to a lesser extent her partner and family), but
since this is her choice, it's hardly likely to hurt her. The aborted
embryo/foetus is incapable of feeling hurt until the neural connections to
the brain have been made at about 24 weeks' gestation.
--
June G
# 364
http://uk.geocities.com/junegill@btopenworld.com/webpages/index.html.html
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: Opposition to Abortion More Than an Article of Faith |
23 Oct 2004 05:02:42 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 07:48:03 +0100, Michael Calwell
<michael.calwell@btopenworld.com> in alt.abortion with message-id
<417a0066$0$27551$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk> wrote:
junegill wrote:
The point is not about the administration of 'physical pain'. It is
about the deliberate destruction of human life. The facts as stated by
Bishop Keating are somewhat more fundamental and profound than merely
matters of neural stimulus.
And it's the religious who attribute a totally unwarranted sanctity to human
life.
Well, if you think that the human life doesn't have sancitity, then
there's not a great deal more to say, except that I believe that people
need protecting from that kind of fundamentalism.
That is a religious term, and since no religion has ever been proven
to have any validity it can be discounted as meaningless.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Calwell" |
|
| Title: Re: Opposition to Abortion More Than an Article of Faith |
23 Oct 2004 05:12:25 AM |
|
|
Attila wrote:
On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 07:48:03 +0100, Michael Calwell
<michael.calwell@btopenworld.com> in alt.abortion with message-id
<417a0066$0$27551$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk> wrote:
junegill wrote:
The point is not about the administration of 'physical pain'. It is
about the deliberate destruction of human life. The facts as stated by
Bishop Keating are somewhat more fundamental and profound than merely
matters of neural stimulus.
And it's the religious who attribute a totally unwarranted sanctity to human
life.
Well, if you think that the human life doesn't have sancitity, then
there's not a great deal more to say, except that I believe that people
need protecting from that kind of fundamentalism.
That is a religious term, and since no religion has ever been proven
to have any validity it can be discounted as meaningless.
It is only narrowly religious. Secular fundamentalism has plenty of
sanctities. A synonym for sanctity is inviolability. I think it's fair
to say that human life is fundamentally inviolable, don't you?
.
|
|
|
| User: "magnulus" |
|
| Title: Re: Opposition to Abortion More Than an Article of Faith |
23 Oct 2004 09:02:22 AM |
|
|
You don't have to be religious to believe in the morality or ethics of
something. Most people agree lying, for instance, is wrong... becaues a
society full of liars would lead to nobody being trusted. Likewise, a
society where human life was cheap would lead to a society that would be
soulless and unlivable to all but the most cold-hearted fiends.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Opposition to Abortion More Than an Article of Faith |
23 Oct 2004 01:13:54 PM |
|
|
Michael Calwell <michael.calwell@btopenworld.com> wrote:
Attila wrote:
That is a religious term, and since no religion has ever been proven
to have any validity it can be discounted as meaningless.
It is only narrowly religious. Secular fundamentalism has plenty of
sanctities. A synonym for sanctity is inviolability. I think it's fair
to say that human life is fundamentally inviolable, don't you?
I think it's safe to say that you don't believe anything of the sort.
People die by the thousands daily of hunger. I don't see anybody
forcing you to give up your money and freedom in order to keep them
alive. I don't even see you volunteering to give up your money and
freedom.
No, in this country it is liberty that is the most fundamental value.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: Opposition to Abortion More Than an Article of Faith |
23 Oct 2004 10:06:44 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 11:12:25 +0100, Michael Calwell
<michael.calwell@btopenworld.com> in alt.abortion with message-id
<417a3051$0$1161$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk> wrote:
Well, if you think that the human life doesn't have sancitity, then
there's not a great deal more to say, except that I believe that people
need protecting from that kind of fundamentalism.
That is a religious term, and since no religion has ever been proven
to have any validity it can be discounted as meaningless.
It is only narrowly religious.
According to Webster that is it's only meaning.
Main Entry: sanc·ti·ty
Pronunciation: 'sa[ng](k)-t&-tE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -ties
Etymology: Middle English saunctite, from Middle French saincteté,
from Latin sanctitat-, sanctitas, from sanctus sacred
1 : holiness of life and character : GODLINESS
2 a : the quality or state of being holy or sacred : INVIOLABILITY b
plural : sacred objects, obligations, or rights
Secular fundamentalism has plenty of
sanctities.
Whatever that is.
A synonym for sanctity is inviolability
Not according to Webster
Main Entry: in·vi·o·la·ble
Pronunciation: (")in-'vI-&-l&-b&l
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French or Latin; Middle French,
from Latin inviolabilis, from in- + violare to violate
1 : secure from violation or profanation
2 : secure from assault or trespass : UNASSAILABLE
- in·vi·o·la·bil·i·ty /-"vI-&-l&-'bi-l&-tE/ noun
- in·vi·o·la·ble·ness /-'vI-&-l&-b&l-n&s/ noun
- in·vi·o·la·bly /-blE/ adverb
http://www.m-w.com
I think it's fair
to say that human life is fundamentally inviolable, don't you?
Nothing is inviolable.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Anderson" |
|
| Title: Re: Opposition to Abortion More Than an Article of Faith |
23 Oct 2004 09:27:43 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 11:12:25 +0100, Michael Calwell
<michael.calwell@btopenworld.com> wrote:
Attila wrote:
....
And it's the religious who attribute a totally unwarranted sanctity to human
life.
Well, if you think that the human life doesn't have sancitity, then
there's not a great deal more to say, except that I believe that people
need protecting from that kind of fundamentalism.
That is a religious term, and since no religion has ever been proven
to have any validity it can be discounted as meaningless.
It is only narrowly religious. Secular fundamentalism has plenty of
sanctities. A synonym for sanctity is inviolability. I think it's fair
to say that human life is fundamentally inviolable, don't you?
http://machaut.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/WEBSTER.sh?WORD=sanctity
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sanctity (Page: 1273)
Sanc"ti*ty (?), n.; pl. Sanctities (#). [L. sanctitas, from sanctus
holy. See Saint.]
1. The state or quality of being sacred or holy; holiness;
saintliness; moral purity; godliness.
To sanctity she made no pretense, and, indeed, narrowly escaped the
imputation of irreligion. Macaulay.
2. Sacredness; solemnity; inviolability; religious binding force; as,
the sanctity of an oath.
3. A saint or holy being. [R.]
About him all the sanctities of heaven. Milton.
Syn. -- Holiness; godliness; piety; devotion; goodness; purity;
religiousness;sacredness; solemnity. See the Note under Religion.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inviolablity is a property of sanctity, but is not a synonym of
sanctity.
http://machaut.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/WEBSTER.sh?WORD=inviolable
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inviolable (Page: 786)
In*vi"o*la*ble (?), a. [L. inviolabilis: cf. F. inviolable. See
Inviolate, a.]
1. Not violable; not susceptible of hurt, wound, or harm (used with
respect to either physical or moral damage); not susceptible of being
profaned or corrupted; sacred; holy; as, inviolable honor or chastity;
an inviolable shrine...
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since it is painfully obvious that human life *IS* susceptable to
hurt, wound, harm and being profaned and corrupted; it is obviousl
that human life is not inviolable no matter how much we might wish it
to be so.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Calwell" |
|
| Title: Re: Opposition to Abortion More Than an Article of Faith |
23 Oct 2004 10:00:41 AM |
|
|
Paul Anderson wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inviolablity is a property of sanctity, but is not a synonym of
sanctity.
Well, Roget's Thesaurus lists it as a synonym, but hey, in the name of
'throwing a bone to a pedant' I'll agree with you.
http://machaut.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/WEBSTER.sh?WORD=inviolable
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inviolable (Page: 786)
In*vi"o*la*ble (?), a. [L. inviolabilis: cf. F. inviolable. See
Inviolate, a.]
1. Not violable; not susceptible of hurt, wound, or harm (used with
respect to either physical or moral damage); not susceptible of being
profaned or corrupted; sacred; holy; as, inviolable honor or chastity;
an inviolable shrine...
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since it is painfully obvious that human life *IS* susceptable to
hurt, wound, harm and being profaned and corrupted; it is obviousl
that human life is not inviolable no matter how much we might wish it
to be so.
The violation of abortion is what we (the older bigger people) do to
others (the smaller younger people). It is about intent. I deeply
suspect that you know this anyway.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: Opposition to Abortion More Than an Article of Faith |
23 Oct 2004 01:36:26 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 16:00:41 +0100, Michael Calwell
<michael.calwell@btopenworld.com> in alt.abortion with message-id
<417a73df$0$1158$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk> wrote:
The violation of abortion
Abortion is not a violation of anything.
is what we (the older bigger people) do to
others (the smaller younger people).
Who? The pregnant woman?
It is about intent.
The intent is to terminate an unwanted pregnancy.
I deeply
suspect that you know this anyway.
Of course.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Calwell" |
|
| Title: Re: Opposition to Abortion More Than an Article of Faith |
23 Oct 2004 02:03:14 PM |
|
|
Attila wrote:
On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 16:00:41 +0100, Michael Calwell
<michael.calwell@btopenworld.com> in alt.abortion with message-id
<417a73df$0$1158$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk> wrote:
The violation of abortion
Abortion is not a violation of anything.
is what we (the older bigger people) do to
others (the smaller younger people).
Who? The pregnant woman?
It is about intent.
The intent is to terminate an unwanted pregnancy.
George Orwell, come and have a look at this.
I deeply
suspect that you know this anyway.
Of course.
Now I see why there aren't more pro-lifers here. You can only put up
with the fingers-in-ears/parrot/deny treatment for so long.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: Opposition to Abortion More Than an Article of Faith |
23 Oct 2004 03:03:04 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 20:03:14 +0100, Michael Calwell
<michael.calwell@btopenworld.com> in alt.abortion with message-id
<417aacb9$0$27551$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk> wrote:
Attila wrote:
On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 16:00:41 +0100, Michael Calwell
<michael.calwell@btopenworld.com> in alt.abortion with message-id
<417a73df$0$1158$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk> wrote:
The violation of abortion
Abortion is not a violation of anything.
is what we (the older bigger people) do to
others (the smaller younger people).
Who? The pregnant woman?
It is about intent.
The intent is to terminate an unwanted pregnancy.
George Orwell, come and have a look at this.
Meaning what?
I deeply
suspect that you know this anyway.
Of course.
Now I see why there aren't more pro-lifers here. You can only put up
with the fingers-in-ears/parrot/deny treatment for so long.
No, like you they had no factual support and it is easy to point out
the purely emotional and religious basis for their opposition.
I see you answered few of the questions. Not an uncommon situation.
Your next course of action is to refuse to respond any more.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Anderson" |
|
| Title: Re: Opposition to Abortion More Than an Article of Faith |
23 Oct 2004 12:19:10 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 16:00:41 +0100, Michael Calwell
<michael.calwell@btopenworld.com> wrote:
Paul Anderson wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inviolablity is a property of sanctity, but is not a synonym of
sanctity.
Well, Roget's Thesaurus lists it as a synonym, but hey, in the name of
'throwing a bone to a pedant' I'll agree with you.
Then you will also agree that you were wrong when you wrote:
Well, if you think that the human life doesn't have sancitity, then
there's not a great deal more to say, except that I believe that people
need protecting from that kind of fundamentalism.
Can we also agree that claiming the sanctity of human life is a
religious thing which is meaningless in legislating in a secular
nation (which is what the U.S. is.)
http://machaut.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/WEBSTER.sh?WORD=inviolable
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inviolable (Page: 786)
In*vi"o*la*ble (?), a. [L. inviolabilis: cf. F. inviolable. See
Inviolate, a.]
1. Not violable; not susceptible of hurt, wound, or harm (used with
respect to either physical or moral damage); not susceptible of being
profaned or corrupted; sacred; holy; as, inviolable honor or chastity;
an inviolable shrine...
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since it is painfully obvious that human life *IS* susceptable to
hurt, wound, harm and being profaned and corrupted; it is obviousl
that human life is not inviolable no matter how much we might wish it
to be so.
You claimed that human life was inviolable -- will you also retract
that claim? Or will you simply ignore this and continue telling lies
such as human life being sacred and inviolable?
The violation of abortion is what we (the older bigger people) do to
others (the smaller younger people).
This is another of the basic lies of the anti-abortionist. Abortion
is "the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting
in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus." It is
not about anyone doing anything to others.
It is about intent.
The intent of an abortion is to terminate the pregnancy. The
embryo/fetal demise is unfortunate but not the intent.
I deeply
suspect that you know this anyway.
This would be another of your religious beliefs that is contrary to
real world facts.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Baard Ove Kopperud" |
|
| Title: Re: Opposition to Abortion More Than an Article of Faith |
22 Oct 2004 04:51:52 AM |
|
|
(papa jack) wrote in message news:<bd9f1f6b.0410210714.7bddfd85@posting.google.com>...
On 10/21/04 the Catholic Herald psoted an article by Bishop
Paul S. Loverde titled: "Opposition to Abortion More Than an
Article of Faith." Go to:
http://www.catholicherald.com/loverde/2004homilies/election1021.htm
__________________________________________________________________________
Excerpts:
"A short time ago, when asked about his position on
abortion, this candidate said, 'I believe that I
can't legislate or transfer to another American
citizen my article of faith. What is an article of
faith for me is not something that I can legislate
on somebody who doesn't share that article of faith.'
<SNIP>
Papa Jack commented:
I'm not a Catholic, but Bishop Loverde's logic is easy for me
to support.
I particularly appreciated his quote of Bishop Keating:
"The fallacy in this reasoning is simply that the
morality of abortion is not a religious belief,
any more than the morality of slavery, apartheid,
rape, larceny, murder or arson is a religious
belief. These are norms of the natural law of
mankind and can be legislated even in a completely
religionless society"
Yet, the Bible and Christianity have been used to defend
slavery, apartheid and many forms of rape (as women
are the property of men, and they're "obliged" to submit
to their husbonds). What can hardly be described as
anything *but* murder has been justefied with the Bible -- and
even done in the name of Jesus. As for arson... does
nuking a city or burning witches count?
Jews have the same God as Christians... Christianity is
based upon Judasim. Jesus never mentioned abortion, and
he must be concidered very liberal for a Jew (like allowing
eating pig) and quite progressive when it came to the
rights of women... yet Judaism specifically *allows*
(even demands) abortion...
How many humans eggs are wasted during the life of a
human female... especially knowing that about 10 are
readied every month, but that all but one self-destructs
as soon as one is ready? How much sperm during a mans
life? Most often a fertelized egg will *fail* to implant
itself -- and when it does, usually the pregnancy will
end by itself (due to some error with the genes) even
*before* the woman knew she was pregnant. A baby is
the _very rare_ *exception*... not the rule!
This is about nothing *but* faith! But this faith *must*
be weighed with other things -- like women's-rights and
the rights of those with a different belief.
This should be between the woman and her doctor!
-Koppe
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rosebud" |
|
| Title: Re: Opposition to Abortion More Than an Article of Faith |
28 Oct 2004 01:23:24 PM |
|
|
papajack37@sbcglobal.net (papa jack) wrote in message news:<bd9f1f6b.0410210714.7bddfd85@posting.google.com>...
On 10/21/04 the Catholic Herald psoted an article by Bishop
Paul S. Loverde titled: "Opposition to Abortion More Than an
Article of Faith." Go to:
http://www.catholicherald.com/loverde/2004homilies/election1021.htm
__________________________________________________________________________
Excerpts:
"A short time ago, when asked about his position on
abortion, this candidate said, 'I believe that I
can't legislate or transfer to another American
citizen my article of faith. What is an article of
faith for me is not something that I can legislate
on somebody who doesn't share that article of faith.'
<SNIP>
Papa Jack commented:
I'm not a Catholic, but Bishop Loverde's logic is easy for me
to support.
I particularly appreciated his quote of Bishop Keating:
"The fallacy in this reasoning is simply that the
morality of abortion is not a religious belief,
any more than the morality of slavery, apartheid,
rape, larceny, murder or arson is a religious
belief. These are norms of the natural law of
mankind and can be legislated even in a completely
religionless society"
Baard Ove Kopperud
Yet, the Bible and Christianity have been used to defend
slavery, apartheid and many forms of rape (as women
are the property of men, and they're "obliged" to submit
to their husbonds). What can hardly be described as
anything *but* murder has been justefied with the Bible -- and
even done in the name of Jesus. As for arson... does
nuking a city or burning witches count?
Jews have the same God as Christians... Christianity is
based upon Judasim. Jesus never mentioned abortion, and
he must be concidered very liberal for a Jew (like allowing
eating pig) and quite progressive when it came to the
rights of women... yet Judaism specifically *allows*
(even demands) abortion...
How many humans eggs are wasted during the life of a
human female... especially knowing that about 10 are
readied every month, but that all but one self-destructs
as soon as one is ready? How much sperm during a mans
life? Most often a fertelized egg will *fail* to implant
itself -- and when it does, usually the pregnancy will
end by itself (due to some error with the genes) even
*before* the woman knew she was pregnant. A baby is
the _very rare_ *exception*... not the rule!
This is about nothing *but* faith! But this faith *must*
be weighed with other things -- like women's-rights and
the rights of those with a different belief.
This should be between the woman and her doctor!
-Koppe
rosebud:
So, some folks in the past used religion to promote in justice. This
does not make injustice to the pre-born/pre-viable person any more
correct. Birth as compared to the outcome of other fertilized eggs
might be and exception. But, that does not change injustice
perpetratated upon the pre-born/pre-viable person into a just action.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Savard" |
|
| Title: Re: Opposition to Abortion More Than an Article of Faith |
23 Oct 2004 08:35:23 PM |
|
|
On 22 Oct 2004 02:51:52 -0700, (Baard Ove
Kopperud) wrote, in part:
How many humans eggs are wasted during the life of a
human female... especially knowing that about 10 are
readied every month, but that all but one self-destructs
as soon as one is ready? How much sperm during a mans
life? Most often a fertelized egg will *fail* to implant
itself -- and when it does, usually the pregnancy will
end by itself (due to some error with the genes) even
*before* the woman knew she was pregnant. A baby is
the _very rare_ *exception*... not the rule!
This is about nothing *but* faith! But this faith *must*
be weighed with other things -- like women's-rights and
the rights of those with a different belief.
This should be between the woman and her doctor!
To me, deriving an answer to the question "is a fetus appropriately
treated as a citizen with equal rights" is fairly simple.
What are egg cells and sperm cells? Living human cells produced for a
specialized purpose. They live independently of the human being that
gave rise to them, and can be compared to red and white blood cells.
There seems to be no reason to suspect that they would have a claim to
legal rights stronger than that of a white blood cell, or the amoeba
which it resembles.
What is a baby? An extremely immature human organism, that requires care
and nurturing, but which does have the passive rights of a human being,
that is, the rights not to be injured, but not the active rights
conferred upon adulthood, such as signing contracts or voting.
Which one does a fetus more closely resemble?
Even at seven weeks, a fetus - or embryo - has two eyes, a brain, a
skeleton, fingers, toes. The embryo's heart beats; the limbs of the
embryo move in response to commands from the brain of the embryo.
Certainly, people should be able to act according to their beliefs in
matters that only concern themselves, or matters that are unclear. But
it is difficult to see where there is any unclearness here; by the time
most abortions are performed, the status of the embryo or fetus as a
baby who is more immature than ordinary babies seems a matter of raw
fact.
Agreeing to the legalized murder of innocent children seems to be rather
more than one can reasonably ask for in the name of tolerance.
John Savard
http://home.ecn.ab.ca/~jsavard/index.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Frank Dwyer" |
|
| Title: Re: Opposition to Abortion More Than an Article of Faith |
23 Oct 2004 09:20:07 PM |
|
|
John Savard wrote:
On 22 Oct 2004 02:51:52 -0700, (Baard Ove
Kopperud) wrote, in part:
How many humans eggs are wasted during the life of a
human female... especially knowing that about 10 are
readied every month, but that all but one self-destructs
as soon as one is ready? How much sperm during a mans
life? Most often a fertelized egg will *fail* to implant
itself -- and when it does, usually the pregnancy will
end by itself (due to some error with the genes) even
*before* the woman knew she was pregnant. A baby is
the _very rare_ *exception*... not the rule!
This is about nothing *but* faith! But this faith *must*
be weighed with other things -- like women's-rights and
the rights of those with a different belief.
This should be between the woman and her doctor!
To me, deriving an answer to the question "is a fetus appropriately
treated as a citizen with equal rights" is fairly simple.
Appropriately? Absolutely. The rights that all fetuses currently hold IS
appropriate.
What are egg cells and sperm cells? Living human cells produced for a
specialized purpose. They live independently of the human being that
gave rise to them, and can be compared to red and white blood cells.
There seems to be no reason to suspect that they would have a claim to
legal rights stronger than that of a white blood cell, or the amoeba
which it resembles.
What is a baby? An extremely immature human organism, that requires care
and nurturing, but which does have the passive rights of a human being,
that is, the rights not to be injured, but not the active rights
conferred upon adulthood, such as signing contracts or voting.
Which one does a fetus more closely resemble?
Even at seven weeks, a fetus - or embryo - has two eyes, a brain, a
skeleton, fingers, toes. The embryo's heart beats; the limbs of the
embryo move in response to commands from the brain of the embryo.
Certainly, people should be able to act according to their beliefs in
matters that only concern themselves, or matters that are unclear. But
it is difficult to see where there is any unclearness here; by the time
most abortions are performed, the status of the embryo or fetus as a
baby who is more immature than ordinary babies seems a matter of raw
fact.
Holy irrelevant, Batman!
What does a sculpture of a person more closely resemble, a person or a
block of marble? Do sculptures deserve rights?
Agreeing to the legalized murder
"legalized murder" is an oxymoron. It's usage not only reveals a very
heavy bias, it also negates the validity of the sentence.
of innocent
Define "innocent".
children seems to be rather
more than one can reasonably ask for in the name of tolerance.
When you figure out what the definition of murder actually is, you'll
need to refine your position.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: Opposition to Abortion More Than an Article of Faith |
24 Oct 2004 05:49:10 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 01:35:23 GMT, jsavard@excxn.aNOSPAMb.cdn.invalid
(John Savard) in alt.abortion with message-id
<417b0377.12108832@news.ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
On 22 Oct 2004 02:51:52 -0700, (Baard Ove
Kopperud) wrote, in part:
How many humans eggs are wasted during the life of a
human female... especially knowing that about 10 are
readied every month, but that all but one self-destructs
as soon as one is ready? How much sperm during a mans
life? Most often a fertelized egg will *fail* to implant
itself -- and when it does, usually the pregnancy will
end by itself (due to some error with the genes) even
*before* the woman knew she was pregnant. A baby is
the _very rare_ *exception*... not the rule!
This is about nothing *but* faith! But this faith *must*
be weighed with other things -- like women's-rights and
the rights of those with a different belief.
This should be between the woman and her doctor!
To me, deriving an answer to the question "is a fetus appropriately
treated as a citizen with equal rights" is fairly simple.
What are egg cells and sperm cells? Living human cells produced for a
specialized purpose. They live independently of the human being that
gave rise to them, and can be compared to red and white blood cells.
There seems to be no reason to suspect that they would have a claim to
legal rights stronger than that of a white blood cell, or the amoeba
which it resembles.
What is a baby? An extremely immature human organism, that requires care
and nurturing, but which does have the passive rights of a human being,
that is, the rights not to be injured, but not the active rights
conferred upon adulthood, such as signing contracts or voting.
Please advise exactly where a list of these 'passive rights' can be
found.
An existing human being (that is, ont that has been born alive) has
certain rights and protections under the law but there is no mention
of any 'passive' or 'active' rights.
Which one does a fetus more closely resemble?
Even at seven weeks, a fetus - or embryo - has two eyes, a brain, a
skeleton, fingers, toes. The embryo's heart beats; the limbs of the
embryo move in response to commands from the brain of the embryo.
Exactly like the fetus of any other species.
Certainly, people should be able to act according to their beliefs in
matters that only concern themselves, or matters that are unclear. But
it is difficult to see where there is any unclearness here; by the time
most abortions are performed, the status of the embryo or fetus as a
baby who is more immature than ordinary babies seems a matter of raw
fact.
No it is not. No baby exists prior to live birth just as no chicken
exists until the egg hatches.
Agreeing to the legalized murder
There is no 'legalized murder' and cannot be. It is a contradiction
in terms since by definition murder must be an illegal act.
The use of this term is a clear example of a propaganda ploy and a
flagrant attempt to create guilt by association.
of innocent
The use of this term clearly has a religious connotation, and as such
has no place in a discussion of the legal right of a pregnant woman to
choose whether to complete her pregnancy or terminate it.
children
No child is involved with or harmed in any way by an abortion.
seems to be rather
more than one can reasonably ask for in the name of tolerance.
It appears the proper and accurate use of terminology is more than can
be reasonably or unreasonably expected from the anti-choice faction.
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Savard" |
|
| Title: Re: Opposition to Abortion More Than an Article of Faith |
26 Oct 2004 10:23:43 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 06:49:10 -0400, Attila <prochoice@here.now> wrote,
in part:
There is no 'legalized murder' and cannot be. It is a contradiction
in terms since by definition murder must be an illegal act.
What _would_ you call it, then, if a hunting season were declared on
Negroes and Jews?
John Savard
http://home.ecn.ab.ca/~jsavard/index.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Opposition to Abortion More Than an Article of Faith |
26 Oct 2004 10:26:37 AM |
|
|
In article <417e6bd5.1899105@news.ecn.ab.ca>, John Savard
<jsavard@excxn.aNOSPAMb.cdn.invalid> wrote:
On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 06:49:10 -0400, Attila <prochoice@here.now> wrote,
in part:
There is no 'legalized murder' and cannot be. It is a contradiction
in terms since by definition murder must be an illegal act.
What _would_ you call it, then, if a hunting season were declared on
Negroes and Jews?
John Savard
http://home.ecn.ab.ca/~jsavard/index.html
Are you honestly trying to claim a government can have "legalized
murder?" Murder, by definition, is illegal.
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Savard" |
|
| Title: Re: Opposition to Abortion More Than an Article of Faith |
27 Oct 2004 01:11:27 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 08:26:37 -0700, "David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com>
wrote, in part:
Are you honestly trying to claim a government can have "legalized
murder?" Murder, by definition, is illegal.
The definition of murder is premeditated unjust killing. Subsequent to
the existence of the English language, laws and governments arose among
the speakers of English. The name "murder", given to an act, then also
became the designation of a particular criminal offence.
But in _that_ sense, "murder", like "homicide", is a _technical term_,
primarily of interest to lawyers.
Of course people can be legally murdered - it happens all the time in
repressive regimes, for example.
John Savard
http://home.ecn.ab.ca/~jsavard/index.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Opposition to Abortion More Than an Article of Faith |
27 Oct 2004 09:33:38 PM |
|
|
In article <417f3b70.716759@news.ecn.ab.ca>, John Savard
<jsavard@excxn.aNOSPAMb.cdn.invalid> wrote:
On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 08:26:37 -0700, "David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com>
wrote, in part:
Are you honestly trying to claim a government can have "legalized
murder?" Murder, by definition, is illegal.
The definition of murder is premeditated unjust killing.
No, it isn't. Generally, murder is the unlawful killing of a person.
(There are also fine tuned definitions we need not get into.)
Subsequent to
the existence of the English language, laws and governments arose among
the speakers of English. The name "murder", given to an act, then also
became the designation of a particular criminal offence.
But in _that_ sense, "murder", like "homicide", is a _technical term_,
primarily of interest to lawyers.
Well, I'm a lawyer. Besides, aren't we speaking of the law?
Of course people can be legally murdered - it happens all the time in
repressive regimes, for example.
Here is the problem. People try to say HOMICIDE and MURDER and KILLING
are the same in a non-legal sense. BUT, the reason they do so is
because they hope to impose the stigma that comes with the LEGAL sense.
It is disingenuous.
It is like when people try to claim those who are pro-choice are the
same as pro-abortion. They act real innocent and point to one
dictionaries definition, but the insist on using pro-abortion because
they know that people don't view it t hat way, in reality. It is very
dishonest.
John Savard
http://home.ecn.ab.ca/~jsavard/index.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Savard" |
|
| Title: Re: Opposition to Abortion More Than an Article of Faith |
28 Oct 2004 12:38:25 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 19:33:38 -0700, "David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com>
wrote, in part:
It is like when people try to claim those who are pro-choice are the
same as pro-abortion.
If someone wishes to prevent the abolition of slavery, then that person
favors keeping black people subject to being enslaved. Hence, that
person is legitimately termed "pro-slavery", even if he has never
encouraged any white person to purchase a slave.
It is also true that those who seek to keep abortion legal seek to deny
fetuses the right to be protected by law against arbitrary killing. They
may not encourage any woman to have an abortion. But they still support
and favor the peculiar institution of legal abortion that makes fetuses
subject to being killed in abortions.
It is entirely natural, appropriate, and fair to call these vicious
bigots "pro-abortion".
John Savard
http://home.ecn.ab.ca/~jsavard/index.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Opposition to Abortion More Than an Article of Faith |
28 Oct 2004 12:47:49 AM |
|
|
In article <41808507.414038@news.ecn.ab.ca>, John Savard
<jsavard@excxn.aNOSPAMb.cdn.invalid> wrote:
On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 19:33:38 -0700, "David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com>
wrote, in part:
It is like when people try to claim those who are pro-choice are the
same as pro-abortion.
If someone wishes to prevent the abolition of slavery, then that person
favors keeping black people subject to being enslaved. Hence, that
person is legitimately termed "pro-slavery", even if he has never
encouraged any white person to purchase a slave.
Opinion. Not mine.
It is also true that those who seek to keep abortion legal seek to deny
fetuses the right to be protected by law against arbitrary killing.
Right.
They
may not encourage any woman to have an abortion. But they still support
and favor the peculiar institution of legal abortion that makes fetuses
subject to being killed in abortions.
So?
It is entirely natural, appropriate, and fair to call these vicious
bigots "pro-abortion".
Because the truth doesn't work?
John Savard
http://home.ecn.ab.ca/~jsavard/index.html
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: Opposition to Abortion More Than an Article of Faith |
28 Oct 2004 03:54:05 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 05:38:25 GMT, jsavard@excxn.aNOSPAMb.cdn.invalid
(John Savard) in alt.abortion with message-id
<41808507.414038@news.ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 19:33:38 -0700, "David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com>
wrote, in part:
It is like when people try to claim those who are pro-choice are the
same as pro-abortion.
If someone wishes to prevent the abolition of slavery, then that person
favors keeping black people subject to being enslaved. Hence, that
person is legitimately termed "pro-slavery", even if he has never
encouraged any white person to purchase a slave.
It is also true that those who seek to keep abortion legal seek to deny
fetuses the right to be protected by law against arbitrary killing. They
may not encourage any woman to have an abortion. But they still support
and favor the peculiar institution of legal abortion that makes fetuses
subject to being killed in abortions.
It is entirely natural, appropriate, and fair to call these vicious
bigots "pro-abortion".
No, because that term clearly indicates someone who supports abortion
over birth. The term 'pro-choice' clearly indicates someone who
supports the right of a pregnant woman to choose her course of action
over not being able to choose her course of action.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
