(July 11, 2023 at 12:08 pm)arewethereyet Wrote: There's something abhorrent to me about a man, who will NEVER have to carry a child, who thinks he can dictate the rules of pregnancy.

If men could get pregnant - the laws would change again in a hurry.  And kids would be only children because no man would go through it twice.

Remember how I asked him how many unwanted children he had given birth to or how many unwanted children he now supports? He danced around the question by saying be regularly gave money to the Church. In reality, his answer should have been, "None." A hypocrite indeed. 

(July 11, 2023 at 1:12 pm)Nishant Xavier Wrote: And look, we understand Abortion is difficult issue, particularly for Women.

Then may I suggest reinvesting your financial resources in things that make it easier for women to continue a pregnancy?

Specifically, are you willing to foot the entire bill for a woman to provide food, clothing, housing, transportation and medical care, plus educational costs for the child, until the child graduates from college?  Open your wallet or shut up.

(July 11, 2023 at 1:59 pm)Nishant Xavier Wrote: Hymnal, Apologies for not addressing your post earlier.

To your question, it is a deep one: they go to Limbo, as St. Thomas states, which is a place of Perfect Natural Happiness, although deprived of the Beatific Vision and the Super-Natural Joys of Heaven itself. Beyond that, Catholic Theologians have different opinions, and I will give you my own based on my reading and thinking about it; if the Parent of the Child regrets the child's death and prays for the child to receive the Grace of Baptism, then it can receive Baptism in voto, or Baptism of Desire, and go to Heaven itself; and if that's true, all the more important is Pro-Life Work, and the hope that Parents will love and pray for both any aborted or mis-carried children they might have had. Certainly, all little babies will go at least to Limbo, and it's possible some or maybe even many will go to Heaven later on. It is a matter of free theological speculation and that is my view, based on Scripture, Magisterium, Tradition and Theology.

It sounds like god is punishing the souls of aborted babies or babies god itself kills.

Why would god create an after life one step up from hell and a step down from paradise just to closet dead baby souls?

What do you think X. Does it sound like a punishment to you?

I have to say that post-birth abortions are more fun.

(July 10, 2023 at 7:24 am)Deesse23 Wrote: Terminology:
Up to the 9th week the correct term is "embryo", after that "fetus". Your feeble attempt to poison any discussion right away by throwing in the incorrect term "baby" is telling, about you,

And term human being applies to all stages of development be it an embryo, fetus, infant, toddler, child, or adult. Each is ontologically a human being. So really, there is no escaping the fact that abortion is the voluntary termination of a human life. You may be okay with that and there may be reasons to justify such violence, but at least own up to it. Kinda like the comedian (Bill Barr?) said, " I am totally for a woman's right to choose an abortion but that said you're still killing a baby."

I'm okay terminating a jumble of cells lacking personhood.

Here's a Paper from the Journal of Medical Ethics on After Birth Abortion: "Abortion is largely accepted even for reasons that do not have anything to do with the fetus' health. By showing that (1) both fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons, (2) the fact that both are potential persons is morally irrelevant and (3) adoption is not always in the best interest of actual people, the authors argue that what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled."

Source: After-birth abortion: why should the baby live? Alberto Giubilini, Francesca Minerva.

Angrboda said: "Either, a, you are implicitly asserting that the preborn are possessed of all human rights including the right to life, which is the same as your conclusion and is therefore an example of begging the question and is thus an invalid argument."

No, this is not correct. That could be said of any Argument. Take this one: All men are mortal. Socrates is a man. Therefore, Socrates is mortal. You cannot say that in a I am implicitly asserting Socrates is mortal, and therefore, my conclusion is invalid. A is a General Truth. B is a Particular Statement. C follows from both.

But tell you what, and this is for others too, jff, we'll turn the situation around. You explain to me why, with Logical and Moral Reasons, the people who made the above argument, for Post-Natal Infanticide, or so-called After Birth Abortion, are wrong. I will play Devil's Advocate: I will take the position, that killing babies after birth is ok, because we "know" killing babies before birth is also ok.

And let's take this analogy for a minute: 

Astreja said: "A woman's body is sovereign territory, and I believe that she has an absolute right to rule it as she will, and banish anything and anyone from its borders at her sole discretion."

Ok, let's use your analogy; first, the child was conceived with the Father's and Mother's consent, yes (excepting cases of rape)? Therefore, just as someone who has legally emigrated to a nation and now become a member/been granted citizenship of that country cannot after that just be banished just like that, the same would follow for the child - so your analogy proves the opposite of what you want it to prove. It proves the child has the right to live in his or her own mother's body, and yes, of course, the father primarily has the duty/obligation to provide for that child. 

Don't confuse obligations of justice with obligations of charity. Everyone has the obligation to provide for his/her own family - this, in justice. To provide for others in need is an obligation of charity only. As for me, I earn a fair amount, donate around 20%, and aim to gradually scale up about 4-5% a year to around 40% in time. That's more than many people I know, and so I reject false reproaches from any on that issue unless you donate more; I will accept a reproach on that matter from Pastor Warren, since he donates 90% as I mentioned; increasing a little every year.

Anyway, to work and earn and provide for one's children is a basic duty. Rights presuppose Duties. You can only have Rights if you have Duties too. If you want to say you have the Right to Life and someone can't kill you just like that, it follows others have Duties not to kill you. And if they have that duty, even if they're not your family, then you have that Duty to them too. But as for our own children/family, we have the highest duty toward them. It is simply a moral absurdity to say Parents don't have the Duty to care for and love the children they themselves brought into the world - virtually unheard of before the 1960s free love revolution, the fornication and abortion it led to, and the 2 Billion Children killed in its wake.

Hymn4n, they have Perfect Natural Happiness, and a Possibility of even Super-Natural Hapiness. Doesn't sound so bad to me. Abortionists and those who promote and support baby-killing should consider their own Children might rise up at the Judgment and ask God to condemn them. And what do you think God would do if those Babies asked him to, Hymn4n? If one has committed an abortion, or supported it, the right thing is to ask God, and one's children, for forgiveness. There is no right to take life. There is a duty to protect life, especially the lives of one's own innocent children. That might be hard, but it is the Truth. The Truth will set you free.

@Neo-Scholastic

Quote:And term human being applies to all stages of development be it an embryo, fetus, infant, toddler, child, or adult. Each is ontologically a human being. 

Ontologically, every cell in every human being is a human being, because - with cloning technology - ever cell is a potential human.

When I discard my fingernail clippings, is that killing a baby? What if I spit on the sidewalk - should I face a murder charge for cell in that blob of spittle? Suppose someone cremates a deceased loved one…are you prepared to claim that they’ve committed trillions of baby-murders? Sheesh.

Boru

Quote:And term human being applies to all stages of development be it an embryo, fetus, infant, toddler, child, or adult.

And only one of those is inside a woman against her will. 

Quote:Each is ontologically a human being. 

By that logic a sperm is a human being 

Quote:So really, there is no escaping the fact that abortion is the voluntary termination of a human life.

There actually is. Good thing though we don't even need to worry about that because it's aside the point. 

Quote: You may be okay with that and there may be reasons to justify such violence,

I'm far more okay with killing a fetus than reducing a woman to an involuntary incubator. That's a kind of violence you seem fine with so get off your high horse. 

Quote: but at least own up to it. 

When you own up to the idea women should be second-class citizens and should have no bodily rights 

Quote:Kinda like the comedian (Bill Barr?) said, " I am totally for a woman's right to choose an abortion but that said you're still killing a baby."

Nope, I'm giving a woman a say. Which is more than you are willing to do.

The cells on my arm I scraped off in the garden today are "human life".
They were not human beings.
The cells in a zygote / embryo are not a "being".
They are a potential being.

Definition : "being" : the nature or essence of a person.
A clump of cells with no brain, not even a neural streak, is not a being.
Potential and actual are not the same.
There is no defined "moment of conception" ... it's a long complex series of events, and the "moment" is not defined in science.
The first sperm cell to enter the oocyte prepares the way for one of the ones which follow to begin the replication process ?
Is that a human being ?

Edit to add :
When does the "being" start ?

a. sperm approaches egg ?
b. 1st electron of sperm cell enters electron cloud of egg cell ?
c. sperm contacts egg wall ?
d. sperm 1/2 way into egg ?
e. sperm entirely in egg ?
f. DNA of sperm contacts DNA of egg ?
g. DNA replication begins ?
h. DNA replication 0.567534521897 % complete ?
i. 1st DNA replication complete, (poof..soul enters) ?
j. 2nd DNA completes ?
k. zygote forms ?
l. zygote multiplies ?
m. zygote begins to travel ?
l. zygote approaches endometrial wall ?
m. zygote touches endometrial wall ?
n. zygote implants in endometrial wall ?