I'm pro-life...but that's my choice

[rom422]

Originally Posted by Aquila Lucis

In my heart, I feel that to force everyone to choose life, to remove their rights as humans and as citizens to choose for themselves between right or wrong would be the same as forcing my athiest brother to come to Mass every day: my brother, as well as the countless people who choose abortion, do know the consequences of their actions and of their own free willare choosing wrong.

Before I answer this, let me clarify first what I think the function of civil government is.

It is not the function of civil government to make people holy. Its function is to protect life, property, peace and order, and in general, the common good. Thus, for example, the government should not make laws forcing people to pray or to worship God on Sundays, because a person's failure to go to Church does not entail civil damages. However, the government should have laws prohibiting theft, because stealing causes damage to other people's private property. Likewise, the government should not legislate against masturbation because this act, although immoral in itself, does not entail any civil damages. However, the government should make laws prohibiting anyone from masturbating in public, due to the disruption to peace and order that will result.

Let's apply this now to the people's right to choose. Sure, the law should not prohibit anyone from making free choices, as long as these choices do not entail civil damages - I mean destruction to life, property, peace and order, and the like. The law should not force anyone to choose between what is morally right and morally wrong. But when free choices have resultant civil consequences, then they become subject to civil legislation. This is why I don't think that there should be legislation prohibiting sodomy, just as there should be none prohibiting fornication, because as private acts, these usually have no civil consequences. HOWEVER, there should be legislation in place that would protect people from criminal and civil damages resulting from other people's irresponsible or immoral behavior. For example, a person with HIV virus, who knew about his condition, conceals it from his partner, and engages in sodomy in spite of the risks, should be punished by law. But this principle applies not only to homosexuals, but to fornicators as well, etc.

Our issue against abortion is not against choice, or against people's freedom to choose between morally right and wrong. Our issue is against the act of abortion itself, because it entails the destruction of innocent human life, and therefore should be prohibited by civil law. Note that I am not talking here of just any kind of abortion (such as non-intended abortion), but the kind that may be technically classified as murder.

Originally Posted by Aquila Lucis

Am I wrong to think that we shouldn't force faith and values on people who don't want it? Doesn't it degrade their own humanity by not letting them choose freely, just as we all have chosen freely to accept Christ?

No, you are not wrong. We really shouldn't force faith and values on people who don't want it. But we should prevent them from doing anything, based on their chosen faith and values, that would damage life, property, peace and order, ...and the common good.

[Foxtrot]

That's the problem with moral relativism. If you follow it to its logical conclusion anything anyone does is ok if they believe that it's ok.

So, if a guy down the block believes that African-Americans aren't fully human then he should be allowed to keep one as a slave. The moral relativist would have to say: I'm personally opposed to keeping an African American as a slave, but if you think that it's ok, then it's your choice.

It's a gruesome slope the human race is sliding down.

[TheRealJuliane]

Originally Posted by JimG

That a new and distinct individual of the human species has its beginning at conception is scientific fact, not a belief. A new human being begins at conception.

When a new human individual is capable of living on its own is purely arbitrary and varies widely. Usually humans are capable of living on their own sometime after the age of 18 years. If independence in living is the criterion for life, a lot of people are in danger.

This is also taught in all medical schools, that life begins at conception. check any biology textbook.

[meltzerboy]

Originally Posted by TheRealJuliane

This is also taught in all medical schools, that life begins at conception. check any biology textbook.

Biological life may begin at conception, but according to the Jewish interpretation of Genesis, the soul is not imparted to Man (beginning with Adam) until after the body is fully formed, shortly before birth. Science says nothing about the soul. This is why, if there is a conflict regarding saving the mother's life and saving the life of her unborn child, the mother's life takes precedence and an abortion has to be performed even late in pregnancy, according to Jewish teaching. Admittedly, this is a rare occurrence but an Orthodox Jewish woman, if she chooses to abide by Jewish Law, is nonetheless obliged to save her own life in this heartbreaking situation. I realize the Catholic perspective is quite different, involving I think the verse "I knew you before you were born" and other biblical interpretations. However, that is precisely the reason I believe there should be a religious exemption if Roe v. Wade is overturned. It is not a question of moral relativism, but rather theological differences in belief. We can all agree that abortion should never be on demand for frivolous reasons, but unfortunately there are painful circumstances (including medical anomalies, incest, and rape) when it may be justified on theological grounds other than that of Catholicism, and should therefore ultimately be left to the woman, her family, her doctor, and her religious or spiritual advisor. It is a most personal, often agonizing, decision and should be treated as such.

[meltzerboy]

Originally Posted by Foxtrot

That's the problem with moral relativism. If you follow it to its logical conclusion anything anyone does is ok if they believe that it's ok.

So, if a guy down the block believes that African-Americans aren't fully human then he should be allowed to keep one as a slave. The moral relativist would have to say: I'm personally opposed to keeping an African American as a slave, but if you think that it's ok, then it's your choice.

It's a gruesome slope the human race is sliding down.

The polar alternative to moral relativism is Sharia Law or Torah Law or Catholic Canon making the rules for all of society to obey or suffer the punishment. Surely we would do better as a society of diverse cultures, faiths, and customs to accept something less authoritarian as a compromise to absolute moral relativism and absolute religious law. In a sense, the former is a kind of law unto oneself, whereas the latter by its diversity is a kind of moral relativism that has varying reference points.

[Nate13]

Originally Posted by meltzerboy

Biological life may begin at conception, but according to the Jewish interpretation of Genesis, the soul is not imparted to Man (beginning with Adam) until after the body is fully formed, shortly before birth. Science says nothing about the soul. This is why, if there is a conflict regarding saving the mother's life and saving the life of her unborn child, the mother's life takes precedence and an abortion has to be performed even late in pregnancy, according to Jewish teaching. Admittedly, this is a rare occurrence but an Orthodox Jewish woman, if she chooses to abide by Jewish Law, is nonetheless obliged to save her own life in this heartbreaking situation. I realize the Catholic perspective is quite different, involving I think the verse "I knew you before you were born" and other biblical interpretations. However, that is precisely the reason I believe there should be a religious exemption if Roe v. Wade is overturned. It is not a question of moral relativism, but rather theological differences in belief. We can all agree that abortion should never be on demand for frivolous reasons, but unfortunately there are painful circumstances (including medical anomalies, incest, and rape) when it may be justified on theological grounds other than that of Catholicism, and should therefore ultimately be left to the woman, her family, her doctor, and her religious or spiritual advisor. It is a most personal, often agonizing, decision and should be treated as such.

Where was the soul even talked about in her post? What about if my religion taught me that babies don't have souls until they are at least 1 year old? Would it then be ok for me to kill that child based on a religious exemption? The law does not require someone to have a soul in order to be considered human and alive. Her statement stands that at the point of conception you have a human life that should be protected under the law, period.

What is the difference between a baby in the womb, and a severely mentally handicap, one year old baby in terms of dependence on their mother? The only difference is the woman doesn't need to go find a doctor if she wants to get rid of the baby. Both babies are fully dependent on others to be taken care of.

[Catholicpotato]

Originally Posted by Aquila Lucis

B) Life--humanity--begins when the fetus is capable of living outside the womb. Bacteria is a fully formed, independant life form; removed from a laboratory (or simply one that's on your kitchen counter) the bacteria is able to exist without support. A child removed from the womb immediately following conception is not able to do so.

This is about as illogical as you can get. A baby once born is in no way capable of living outside of the womb. Try it! Take a newborn baby, set it down, leave, and see what happens.
In fact, my six year old could not live outside the womb on her own.... The lie that is trying to be put forth here is that as long as the baby gets its life from the mother's body then it is somehow less than human.
The problem these people will have is as science expands, the womb is no longer needed to start human life. And anyone who needs "help" living is somehow less than human. Imagine that the next time your relative is in the hospital!!!

[Catholicpotato]

Originally Posted by meltzerboy

Biological life may begin at conception, but according to the Jewish interpretation of Genesis, the soul is not imparted to Man (beginning with Adam) until after the body is fully formed, shortly before birth. Science says nothing about the soul. This is why, if there is a conflict regarding saving the mother's life and saving the life of her unborn child, the mother's life takes precedence and an abortion has to be performed even late in pregnancy, according to Jewish teaching. Admittedly, this is a rare occurrence but an Orthodox Jewish woman, if she chooses to abide by Jewish Law, is nonetheless obliged to save her own life in this heartbreaking situation. I realize the Catholic perspective is quite different, involving I think the verse "I knew you before you were born" and other biblical interpretations. However, that is precisely the reason I believe there should be a religious exemption if Roe v. Wade is overturned. It is not a question of moral relativism, but rather theological differences in belief. We can all agree that abortion should never be on demand for frivolous reasons, but unfortunately there are painful circumstances (including medical anomalies, incest, and rape) when it may be justified on theological grounds other than that of Catholicism, and should therefore ultimately be left to the woman, her family, her doctor, and her religious or spiritual advisor. It is a most personal, often agonizing, decision and should be treated as such.

This makes no sense. in an emergency C section at 22 weeks are you saying that right before the scalpel cuts, God blows some kind of magical soul on the child? Try telling that to a victim of miscarriage. "oh, don't worry dear, the child didnt even have a soul...."

[meltzerboy]

Originally Posted by Catholicpotato

This makes no sense. in an emergency C section at 22 weeks are you saying that right before the scalpel cuts, God blows some kind of magical soul on the child? Try telling that to a victim of miscarriage. "oh, don't worry dear, the child didnt even have a soul...."

I'm giving you a rational theological argument in Orthodox Judaism that is based on the verse in Genesis describing G-d's creation of Adam from the earth and His infusing Adam's body with the breath of life (i.e. the soul) after his physical body is formed. You may have a different theological interpretation, and I respect that. But your example of a woman who has a miscarriage is an emotional strawman. The emergency C-section example is better and I would suppose that G-d does infuse the soul at that point, but I don't know what Jewish teaching is on this. It might also be beneficial to either debate the scriptural passage in question from Genesis, present other passages which support your viewpoint, or simply acknowledge there are honest religious differences concerning when human life, consisting of body and soul, begins.

[Catholicpotato]

Originally Posted by meltzerboy

I'm giving you a rational theological argument in Orthodox Judaism that is based on the verse in Genesis describing G-d's creation of Adam from the earth and His infusing Adam's body with the breath of life (i.e. the soul) after his physical body is formed. You may have a different theological interpretation, and I respect that. But your example of a woman who has a miscarriage is an emotional strawman. The emergency C-section example is better and I would suppose that G-d does infuse the soul at that point, but I don't know what Jewish teaching is on this. It might also be beneficial to either debate the scriptural passage in question from Genesis, present other passages which support your viewpoint, or simply acknowledge there are honest religious differences concerning when human life, consisting of body and soul, begins.

This is not rational or logical. Is it your contention that from this viewpoint that Jews believe someone has to be "full grown" to receive a soul as Adam was? Granted I am not Jewish but I have never met one who would purpose as you have. I guess that is the advantage of having a Magisterium. I can tell you EXACTLY what Catholics should believe.

[meltzerboy]

Originally Posted by Nate13

Where was the soul even talked about in her post? What about if my religion taught me that babies don't have souls until they are at least 1 year old? Would it then be ok for me to kill that child based on a religious exemption? The law does not require someone to have a soul in order to be considered human and alive. Her statement stands that at the point of conception you have a human life that should be protected under the law, period.

What is the difference between a baby in the womb, and a severely mentally handicap, one year old baby in terms of dependence on their mother? The only difference is the woman doesn't need to go find a doctor if she wants to get rid of the baby. Both babies are fully dependent on others to be taken care of.

The main point of my post is precisely that the previous poster was presenting a biological definition of life, not a religious definition (and not a legal definition either). I did not raise the issue of dependence on the mother: I raised the issue of the mother's life being endangered if her pregnancy is not terminated. The mother's life is not endangered by a severely mentally disabled child or by a one-year-old child, both of whom are already born. My religious exemption idea has a real-life basis, namely a probable threat to the mother's life.

[meltzerboy]

Originally Posted by Catholicpotato

This is not rational or logical. Is it your contention that from this viewpoint that Jews believe someone has to be "full grown" to receive a soul as Adam was? Granted I am not Jewish but I have never met one who would purpose as you have. I guess that is the advantage of having a Magisterium. I can tell you EXACTLY what Catholics should believe.

This is not my own idea! Yes, Adam is fully grown, but the point is that the soul does not enter his body at the start of his creation, but at the end. This is Orthodox Jewish teaching, part of Torah Law. The same reasoning would therefore apply to an unborn child: the soul enters their body after the body is formed, not at conception.

[Catholicpotato]

Originally Posted by meltzerboy

This is not my own idea! Yes, Adam is fully grown, but the point is that the soul does not enter his body at the start of his creation, but at the end. This is Orthodox Jewish teaching, part of Torah Law. The same reasoning would therefore apply to an unborn child: the soul enters their body after the body is formed, not at conception.

Again, the body is not formed at birth. This is basic knowledge.....

[meltzerboy]

Originally Posted by Catholicpotato

Again, the body is not formed at birth. This is basic knowledge.....

I know the body, brain, and mind are not completely formed at birth; after all, I teach developmental psychology. But the physical essence is there.

[Catholicpotato]

Originally Posted by meltzerboy

I know the body, brain, and mind are not completely formed at birth; after all, I teach developmental psychology. But the physical essence is there.

As it is before birth as well.
There is no logical argument here. So, you will have to frame a theological one. Can you cite Jewish teaching on the subject?