Guest LooseCannon Report post Posted February 7, 2003 And if you want a citation: From the encyclical letter of Pope Paul VI, humane vitae, July 25, 1968. Section 14. Illicit Ways of Regulating Birth "In conformity with these landmarks in the human and Christian vision of marriage, we must once again declare that the direct interruption of the generative process already begun, and, above all, directly willed and procured abortion, even if for therapeutic reasons, are to be absolutely excluded as licit means of regulating birth. " EDIT: sorry you slipped that post in before I added this one. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest NoCalMike Report post Posted February 7, 2003 Every girl should carry the morning after pill. It works. Most girls I know that get pregnant were NOT using any type of contraceptive, so in otherwords they are IRRESPONSIBLE, 9 months of pregnancy usually is not going to change that, so is it a good thing to make irresponsible people into parents?? And don't tell me how great adoption is, there are enough unwanted children already out there. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest The Metal Maniac Report post Posted February 7, 2003 3 things to add: 1. I don't really think it's fair to use the argument "It's the mother's body" when discussing the fetus. It is a PART of her body, granted, but since we currently can't define exactly WHEN that fetus becomes deserving of it's own body (Positions on this vary a lot, from birth, to conception, to the third trimester, or whatever) I don't think it's a fair argument. It's like when people say that you can't use God when discussing this sort of thing. You don't believe in God, so therefore, that argument, to you, is meaningless. I believe that at conception, the process of being a human is already started, and it just happens to be located inside the mother. Therefore, the argument that's it's nothing but the "mother's body" is meaningless to me. Or something like that. I dunno, it sounded better when I thought of it originally... 2. Cancer is a growth in the human body, it is living tissue, a fetus isn't a human, it's living tissue. therefore should we not allow people to kill cancerous tumours because it's living tissue. There's a BIG difference here. Cancer is an unwanted growth, that in many cases can grow whether or not a person has done anything to warrant this growth. It just happens sometimes. Secondly, a tumour won't grow into a human being. Thirdly, cancer generally causes death, so even if it WERE alive, as a method of self-defense, people could kill it anyway. 3. We've been discussing this in my Legal Thinking class, and the prof brought up something I found to be interesting: The Golden Rule. Assuming that we can all accept the Golden Rule (Treat others as you would like to be treated) then it leads to the question: Would YOU like to have been aborted? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest LooseCannon Report post Posted February 7, 2003 I think the best argument from a moral (not legal) perspective is that, since we are uncertain about whether or not the fetus is human life, it is reckless to kill it. That is, we are deliberately ignoring the real possibility that it is a human life. For example if you were driving down the street at night and you saw something on the road that you thought might be a person but you weren't sure, you wouldn't deliberately run it over. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
LaParkaYourCar 0 Report post Posted February 7, 2003 Genesis 2:7: "...and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living soul." Breath is the official action of life, according to this verse. Therefore, a fetus is not a living being according to the bible. Where does it say that in that verse? It also says in the Bible that God knows you while you're still in the womb so don't take it out of context. I'm going to give my opinion. The baby has no control over how it gets there not matter the means of how it's concieved it's there trying to come into the world. For the crimes of man the baby is taken away for something it has not done? I realize that when a woman is raped they do not want the baby, but that baby had no choice in the matter. Why is it people find babies cute, cuddly, and always to be protected when they're out of the womb, but don't give a second thought when it's inside if the mother didn't want it there. Give it up for adoption once it's born, but don't punish it for something it didn't do. I'm not stupid though. I know we'll never stop women from having abortions. So ultimately it will be a decision that people will have to make for themselves whether it's right or wrong. God gave us free will and sometimes that means we will do things that are not for the best, but he's not taking the free will away. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bob_barron 0 Report post Posted July 31, 2010 heh. No Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bob_barron 0 Report post Posted July 31, 2010 heh No Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheFranchise 0 Report post Posted August 29, 2010 heh No No! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites