|
Post by vocoprotatiano on Apr 26, 2012 22:54:33 GMT
Pro-life, Yes I support this in GENERAL terms. My belief is that any couple, who vountarily engage in UNPROTECTED sex, have consciously agreed to accept the probable consequences. However, saying NEVER, under any circumstances will destroy the argument. Consider, for instance, the case of an ectopic pregnancy. Science, to date has no means of bringing such a pregnancy to term, or maintaining it to the point that a viable infant can be delivered surgically, without mortal risk to the mother, which to date is at 100%. Thus, the only procedure to date, to save the mother of an ectopic pregnancy, is to sacrifice the foetus, and so terminate the pregnancy. It only takes one counter case to destroy an argument. This is a battle which cannot be won. Instead, there is an obvious battle in need of engagement, and that is termination for trivial reasons, primarily of convenience. Any termination AFTER the QUICKENING, except in the case of ectopic. And Science should be directed towards the safe recovery of any viable foetus necessarily removed from the mother for reasons of mortal peril. Also Science should investigate surgical techniques to correct ectopic pregnancy. This does not devalue the hope that ALL terminations should be avoided, but it must be accepted that this is a pipe-dream. Battles which cannot be won are futile. Commit to the winnable battles first. Who knows what the future will bring?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 27, 2012 0:34:17 GMT
This a common misconception. In the case of an ectopic pregnancy the baby will die when the fallopian tube is removed, to save the life of the mother. The pregnancy is non-viable but it is NOT a direct attack on an innocent child, rather his/her death is a secondary effect of the operation. It's not an abortion, for the intent is not to kill the child. You have brought up an important point Vocoprotatiano. Perhaps this will answer you in more detail. Again, it's important to note the principle of double effect. www.cuf.org/FileDownloads/doubleeffect.pdf is simpler to read. I hope this answers your questions. www.ewtn.com/library/PROLIFE/INDIRECT.TXT As for committing to a battle that can be won, every child who is not aborted is a win for Christ and it's all for the Kingdom of God so backing down isn't really an option for me, or any Christian. Prolife work is central to working for His Kingdom, it's not a side issue at all at all, it's central. Furthermore abortion for trivial reasons versus serious reasons is beside the point. Either way, someone dies, I don't see why one child is more worthy of life because his folks had a one night stand but a child whose parents are verging on bankruptcy should be pulled apart limb from limb. No child is more "worthy" of life than another, it's barbarism to judge a child like that. It's a point that needs to be communicated more. Your/my mess of a life shouldn't lead to someoneone else dying.
|
|
|
Post by vocoprotatiano on Apr 27, 2012 22:34:43 GMT
The problem is: We are dealing with a science based system. W have at least made some progress, in that science now accepts that the ife of the child is present before birth. Normally, for a born person, life is verified by respiration, and brain stem activity. We need therefore, first, to get the scientists, and therefore also, the lawmakers to apply this criterion to the unborn. That, at least will make it possible for wanton abortion of an unborb child that has Quickened, to be classified as child killing, ie, murder, or at least mansaughter. To go back earlier in the scientific arena gets into muddy water. You see, the blastocyst is just a bunch of undifferentiated cells. Some may develop into the foetus, and some into the placenta. Or worse, tha blastocyst may fail to implant. If we are talking about the Soul, then the scientist will just walk away. He dous not recognose the entity. He accepts the existance of a living process, which you might consider is equivalent to the 'life-force', or 'animating soul'. The 'rational soul', which is attributed to humans, as opposed to the lower animals, the scientist would insist is a function of the rational brain. He would associate this with 'personality'. The scientist, thus, could be persuaded that, when activity in the Central Nervous System is detectable, the Person of the Child is alive. This actually occurrs some time before the Quickening.
Cf wiki: Medical facts
The first natural sensation of quickening may feel like a light tapping, or the fluttering of a butterfly. These sensations eventually become stronger and more regular as the pregnancy progresses. Sometimes, the first movements are mis-attributed to gas or hunger pangs.
A woman’s uterine muscles, rather than her abdominal muscles, are first to sense fetal motion. Therefore, a woman’s body weight usually does not have a substantial effect on when movements are initially perceived. Women who have already given birth have more relaxed uterine muscles that are consequently more sensitive to fetal motion, and for them fetal motion can sometimes be felt as early as 14 weeks.
Usually, quickening occurs naturally at about the middle of a pregnancy. A woman pregnant for the first time (i.e. a primigravida woman) typically feels fetal movements at about 18–20 weeks, whereas a woman who has already given birth at least twice (i.e. a multipara woman) will typically feel movements around 15–17 weeks.
Cf. wiki: Legal history
The word "quick" originally meant "alive". Historically, quickening has sometimes been considered to be the beginning of the possession of "individual life" by the fetus. British legal scholar William Blackstone explained the subject of quickening in the eighteenth century, relative to feticide and abortion:
Life… begins in contemplation of law as soon as an infant is able to stir in the mother's womb. For if a woman is quick with child, and by a potion, or otherwise, killeth it in her womb; or if any one beat her, whereby the child dieth in her body, and she is delivered of a dead child; this, though not murder, was by the ancient law homicide or manslaughter. But at present it is not looked upon in quite so atrocious a light, though it remains a very heinous misdemeanor.
Nevertheless, quickening was only one of several standards that were used historically to determine when the right to life attaches to a fetus. According to the "ancient law" mentioned by Blackstone, another standard was formation of the fetus, which occurs weeks before quickening. Henry de Bracton explained the ancient law, about five hundred years before Blackstone:
If one strikes a pregnant woman or gives her poison in order to procure an abortion, if the fetus is already formed or quickened, especially if it is quickened, he commits homicide.
The rule that a fetus was considered alive upon formation dates back at least another millennium[dubious – discuss] before Bracton. For example, in the Septuagint text of the Old Testament, killing the fetus was considered to be taking a life, "if it be perfectly formed". However, this is probably a mis-translation, as the Hebrew text translates literally to "her children come out but there is no disaster" with no mention of physical formation, and other translations of exactly the same verses maintain that killing the fetus was considered to be taking a life without regard to its physical formation. Thus, quickening perceived by a woman has been only one of the standards used to mark when a human life legally begins. Others include Viability, birth, and conception.
In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries a woman convicted of a capital crime could claim a delay in her execution if she were pregnant; a woman who did so was said to "plead the belly". In Ireland on 16 March 1831 Baron Pennefather in Limerick stated that pregnancy was not alone sufficient for a delay but there had to be quickening. See Limerick Evening Post and Clare Sentinel 18 March 1831.
It is clear that we MUST make our battle lines to restore this ancient and honourable priciple and position. This Must be the first line of battle. If this cannot be achieved, then all else is futile, for this position is based on science and reasonable logic.
|
|
|
Post by vocoprotatiano on Apr 28, 2012 15:02:46 GMT
Concerning ectopic pregnancies, I found this: realchoice.blogspot.co.uk/2007/11/ectopic-survival.htmlIt seems foetal survival is not hopelessly impossible. Gestation to 38 weeks is not unknown. Yes, these survivals are a close approximation to itervention of the benevolent hand of Our Lord, but they do show that it may, at some time in the future, be possible for a more positive form of medical intervention, than the quick and easy answer now seen.
|
|
|
Post by catholicfaithdenier on May 2, 2012 22:18:54 GMT
What happens to the soul of a child murdered in the womb? Would the present pope have any opinions on this matter? Woud the New Order "priest" who gets the creeps from holy stuff have any opinions on this matter?
|
|
|
Post by vocoprotatiano on May 3, 2012 23:06:45 GMT
What happens to the soul of a child murdered in the womb? Would the present pope have any opinions on this matter? Would the New Order "priest" who gets the creeps from holy stuff have any opinions on this matter? Ah, friend, Soul, which soul, the animating soul, or the rational soul? The animating soul, which ALL LIVING things possess, that which distinguishes animal and vegetable from mineral. That is there from the beginning, not just from conception, but from before, and during. Where there is life of any kind, there is the animating soul. As for the RATIONAL soul, then that needs something capable of rationality to be present in actuality. Yes, it is present in potentiality, but that potentiality was there from the beginning of time. If you are crying: "MURDER", then you are accusing of the killing of a rational human being. There is no compelling evidence of the presence of a 'rational' human being before the quickening. This is why a distinction is made between foeticide and infanticide. In the old law, infanticide was considered to be manslaughter at least, and murder at worst. Foeticide was a less serious matter. The stilling of a quickened foetus was mourned as the death of an infant, whereas the abortion, (natural, or otherwise), of a non-quickened foetus was a matter of regret. So, yes, if the foetus has quickened, and is thus, then, an unborn infant, and is stilled by artificial means, then manslaughter has been committed, and the soul of the infant is in G_D's hands, and his blood is upon the hands, and the head of whosoever brought this about.
|
|
|
Post by vocoprotatiano on May 4, 2012 22:25:36 GMT
Let us get down to brass tacks: Mother Church accepts that an early, or ever, G_d forbid, a late termination is permissible if it involves a serious risk to the mother's life. See my previous posts. Ectopic pregnancies can be terminated under the assumption that they are futile, and involve a 100% mortal risk to the mother. Both of these assumptions are false. About 1% of ectopic pregnancies are potentially viable, but only remotely, at about 2%. This means that the assumption made is 99.98% accurate. Yes here I am signposting a tiny error, but it shows an error in principle. That is a threat to the mother's life, of the order of 99% is an acceptable cause for a procedure, which has the secondary effect of aborting a foetus which has a viability of less than 0.02%. The argument then comes, having accepted the point in principle, what levels of risk, and viability remain inside the brackets of acceptability. Let us set aside arguments of humbug. If you excise a section of fallopian tube containing a foetus, then, by that act, you kill the foetus. The act of killing the foetus is as direct as if you were to wall up a prisoner in a dungeon, and allow him to starve or suffocate. The question is raised in the debate, should a mother be FORCED to bring to term a pregnancy which has been initiated illegally, and against her wishes. I say NO. I still say that the termination, if that is the choice of the mother, is still infanticide, or foeticide, but the guilty person is not the mother, neither is it the practicioner, but it is the person who caused the sitruation, by illegally, and involuntarily imposing an unwanted pregnancy upon this mother.
|
|
|
Post by catholicfaithdenier on May 5, 2012 20:22:17 GMT
I asked a fairly straightforward question about the fate of a soul which has been infused into the body of an as yet unborn human being. This is a human life which has been created by God (no need to leave out the "o" in God) and if left to follow its natural course will become a newborn baby. Man terminates the pregnancy. What happens to the soul?
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on May 5, 2012 22:38:52 GMT
Vocoprotiano and Catholicfaithsaver deserve one another. Vocoprotiano justifies murder and Catholicfaithsaver uses the issue to grandstand his "the Pope is not a Catholic" shtick. As regards the soul of the murdered baby; there are different theological opinions. Limbo is a possibility, but there are legitimate theological objections to it (since Jesus came to redeem creation, how can an enclave of nature remain untransformed when all else has been oriented for Jesus or against Him). God is a God of mercy, and we must hope and pray that His mercy will shine on these innocent victims - but even if every aborted baby goes straight to HEaven, murder is still murder and must be fought as such. Now stop this obscene grandstanding, both of you.
|
|
|
Post by vocoprotatiano on May 6, 2012 10:24:06 GMT
No! I do not justify MURDER, nor manslaughter, nor infanticide, not Foeticide. They are all sinful, and a shud be seen as criminal. However, Mother Church accepts that in certain special circumstances, the killing of innocents may be permitted, when they are the unintended but inevitable result of an act to avoid a worse evil, such as an ectopic pregnancy, or a 'Just War'. In the 'Just War' situation, the commander-in-chief, of the offending combattants is deemed to be guilty of all deaths in the conflict, and the defending side is deemed to be innocent, provided that only 'reasonable force' has been used. Note, this does not justify Hiroshima or Dresden. I was just applying this argument to terminations deemed to be necessary. They are still sinful, and should still be seen as criminal, but the sin, or crime should be seen as by the hand of the causer of the necessity, not by the parties who suffer in its correction. Sic est.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on May 6, 2012 21:02:56 GMT
Vocoprotiano - as a self-admitted heretic you should not be posting in the Catholic Forum section at all. The threads here are for people who accept Catholic teaching on abortion and wish to discuss its implications. I will move your posts to a thread on the general forum and you can continue your arguments there. I should have dealt with this earlier but I overlooked it because I was distracted by work and by Catholicfaithsaver. Kindly do NOT post on any threads in the Catholic Forum in future - ONLY in the general forum
|
|
|
Post by vocoprotatiano on May 6, 2012 23:29:38 GMT
Mea culpa.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on May 7, 2012 17:54:21 GMT
This thread is for discussion on the rights and wrongs of abortion; unlike the threads in the Catholics Forum section, non-Catholics and pro-abortionists are invited to participate.
|
|
|
Post by vocoprotatiano on May 15, 2012 21:37:57 GMT
Abortion, is killing. Any killing is wrong, except in special circumstances: 1/ Self defence. Reasonable measures can be made to protect yourself from a real and present danger, or what is reasonably perceived as such. 2/ An act of War, under superior orders, provided that those orders are lawful. All other forms of killing are manslaughter, possibly murder. How does abortion measure according to these basic rules.
If the pregnancy is for some medical reason, sufficiently hazardous to the mother, and the probability of bringing it to term is vanishingly small, then this would seem to be covered by 1/. If the pregnancy was illegally initiated, against the mother's consent, then this might be seen as coming under 2/, and though it is still manslaughter, the blame, as in the case of 'collateral damage' is the responsibility of the causer of the pregnancy.
There are arguments as to when the protected life of the individual begins. The common legal position in most countries is at birth. In special cases, it can be deemed to be earlier. For many years, the 'quickening' was deemed to indicate the presence of an independent 'soul'. Some believe that this protection goes back to conception. And, even further, some thinkers say that the protection exists even before conception.
My personal belief is that both pre-planning, and conception, are concerned with protecting the potentiality, while post 'quickening' is concerned with protecting the actuality.
Protecting the potentiality is a matter of 'sin'. Protecting the actuality SHOULD be a matter of LAW.
I am not setting out what you should believe as faith, but only what should be protected as a matter of law.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on May 16, 2012 15:24:54 GMT
How could the protection exist BEFORE conception, since that is when the new individual comes into existence?
|
|