Abortion=sin?

[Jayhawker Soule]

The HS works thru man. That itself complicates the situation.

... the man named Pope Sixtus V or the man named Pope Gregory XIV? Or perhaps both? Perhaps neither? And how do you know?

 

[Quiddity]

... the man named Pope Sixtus V or the man named Pope Gregory XIV? Or perhaps both? Perhaps neither? And how do you know?

Try the link that I posted for Pah. Post #59. If you need further clarificaiton let me know.

~Victor

 

[michel]

Why care if it is a sin or not. And who is any body to say what is a sin and be judged by man about abortion. If this god really finds fault in it then he will deal with it on some kind of judgement day. Besides the holy books are filled with contradictions any way so who really is to say this that or the other is a sin.

I see it the same way; I do not believe that it is my 'Job' to go around telling others what to do or what not to do. It isn't up to me.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Try the link that I posted for Pah. Post #59. If you need further clarificaiton let me know.

Thank you. You wrote, in part, ...

With that said, doctrine is found in the consciousness of the Church. That is exactly why things are revised and further explained. From day one people have misunderstood and deviated from what the Church was trying to say. ... That is why a live interpreter and corrector (The Church) is needed. And that is why I said that doctrine is found in the consciousness of the Church.

But what we have here is not the Church refining its explanation to an obtuse or resistant flock, but the Church apparently reversing itself. Your "live interpreter and corrector" was reinterpreting doctrine and correcting your previous "live interpreter and corrector" - only to have it 're-reinterpreted' and 're-corrected' later by a later "live interpreter and corrector".

 

[Darkdale]

I see it the same way; I do not believe that it is my 'Job' to go around telling others what to do or what not to do. It isn't up to me.

That's the government's job.

 

[Quiddity]

But what we have here is not the Church refining its explanation to an obtuse or resistant flock, but the Church apparently reversing itself. Your "live interpreter and corrector" was reinterpreting doctrine and correcting your previous "live interpreter and corrector" - only to have it 're-reinterpreted' and 're-corrected' later by a later "live interpreter and corrector".

Good obeservation. What needs to be shown is that the "essense" of a doctrine has meant to mean the complete opposite (under what was perscribed). That hasn't been done. If it can be done even after explanation then I can only be honest and say that I would struggle. The RC position would fall.

~Victor

 

[joeboonda]

Abortion=Sin.

That is what I believe, at least.

All sin can be forgiven, Thank God.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

What needs to be shown is that the "essense" of a doctrine has meant to mean the complete opposite (under what was perscribed).

Whatever its perceived worth, the "Holy Spirit" appears particulary challenged when it comes to inspiring clarity. Your Church waffled on when life begins - that is the 'essence' of the matter.

 

[Quiddity]

Whatever its perceived worth, the "Holy Spirit" appears particulary challenged when it comes to inspiring clarity.

I suppose it's too far fetched that the clarity problem is the problem of man.

Your Church waffled on when life begins - that is the 'essence' of the matter.

How did they waffle it?

~Victor

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

How did they waffle it?

Forgive me, but are you and I reading the same thread?

 

[huajiro]

There are some who would disagree;
http://www.postfun.com/pfp/blasphemy.html
The word of God makes it clear to us that abortion is not a sin. In fact it's quite clear that to believe otherwise is nothing short of idolatry and blasphemy, and those are, quite definitely, sins.



Psalm 139 and the Beginning of Life







One of the most beautiful chapters in the Bible is Psalms 139. It speaks of God's constant, practically doting, love for his creation. It is distressing to see this chapter used by anti-abortionists as proof that life begins at conception. If you read the chapter in its entirety it becomes clear that our existence begins in the mind of God and that God's attentions follow us all of our days, through good and bad. Here are the verses that anti-abortionists use to twist this beautiful chapter to a common political tool:

For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast covered me in my mother's womb. I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvelous are thy works: and that my soul knoweth right well. My substance was not hid from thee, when I was made in secret, and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth. Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them.

Psalms 139:13-16​

​

These verses are used to prove that human life begins at conception. But there is nothing here to even suggest that. God conceives of us first. We read that a blueprint, of sorts, exists in a book, God's book. Before we are born God uses this to form our bodies. Nowhere here does this describe anything but the making of the human form. Nowhere here does it describe how we are imbued with a human soul. But there are numerous other places in the Bible where God makes it quite clear when and how we become a living being and not just an "imperfect substance" as mentioned in Psalms 139.







Consider first, Genesis 2:7,

And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."​

(The above is only a short extract see the site linked for the full article.)

I think you made a mistake......you say "The word of God makes it clear to us that abortion is not a sin", but you show that it is. You say "It is distressing to see this chapter used by anti-abortionists as proof that life begins at conception"...and you show a case against abortionists.

I would assume that you are against abortion....it just is confusing from your wording

 

[huajiro]

It doesn't matter who says what about what. If "God" believes it is ok to end innocent lives, worry more about having an orgasm and self-gratification than avoiding the destruction of innocence, than I do not believe in him or her. The supreme being that I believe in is more worried about ending and avoiding suffering than what you or I think feels good. It is time for "Man" to stop and think about this. It isn't about your body, it is about your soul.

 

[Quiddity]

Forgive me, but are you and I reading the same thread?

I hope so. Was the RC attempting to pin point a date?

~Victor

 

[Pah]

[/color][/color]

Since you have made it clear that you do not wish to work thru the "narrow" definition we attempted to explain. It really is just your opinion unless you can stick to my explanation on post #59 http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/showthread.php?t=18554&page=7&pp=10.

~Victor

It is quite my opinion, that your referenced post is a high handed attempt to bury an issue. The fact of the matter is that what is taught in the Catechism is to be taken as, as you said, "the Church's position". You quoted it without disclaimer in this thread. Now you want to fall back on a disclaimer? Would you like to retract your previous post, #7. You can't have it two ways.

 

[Flappycat]

Personally, I find late-stage abortion distasteful, but equating an embryo with an infant or adult just shows complete ignorance for the things that make us truly alive and serves to trivialize life in ways that many don't seem to realize. I can sympathize with someone who doesn't want a fetus near birth to be destroyed, but I frown upon the attitude that something as big and important as human life can be reduced to the presence of a stupid molecule. A molecule that can do extraordinary things is still just a molecule.

Also, the whole notion of "potential life" sounds like a rhetorical backflip. A "potential life" still isn't a life.

 

[Linus]

A zygote is more than "a stupid molecule". Much more. It is a living cell or a group of cells. Cells are alive. Life begins at the cellular level (is that redundan enough for you all?). Whether or not they are human life is up to you.

 

[Flappycat]

This entirely misses the point, Linus. At the zygotic stage, they have more or less the same characteristics as almost any other vertebrate zygote, and it is inescapable that they are not sensate and not capable of feeling any loss over being destroyed. I think that it is highly irresponsible to diminish the value of sentience by excluding it from our moral evaluations. By saying that destroying a non-sentient zygote is equal to killing an adult, one effectively denies the value of sentience and also denies the moral significance of inflicting suffering upon another human being or acting contrarily to a person's wish to continue living. The attitude that truly extreme pro-lifers have taken toward the most important aspects of our values is unethical and dangerous.

Again, I can at least sympathize with someone who wishes to prevent harm against things that are capable of experiencing sensation. I merely think that it is morally unsupportable to hold a zygote to be the equal of a conscious and feeling person.

 

[James the Persian]

I saw this for the first time when Pah showed it to me weeks back. I suppose I could quote dozens of other early church fathers to show the RC position is still the same. Some date as far back as 70 A.D. but I hesistate because I do not know if it will have any affect of having everybody understand that catholics know where to go for proper doctrine. Bishops, priests, etc. can be wrong. I've said this before. Doctrine lies in mind of the Church operated by the Holy Spirit. Even if some of it's parts (priest, bishops, etc.) are going in a different direction. It's got a way of working itself out.



The Least
~Victor

PS-Surely James can respect this. Our faith systems work very similar.

Absolutely, Victor. So far as I can see the RCC has the very same attitude to abortion as we do, which is the very same attitude I find in the early Fathers. I was surprised to find that this has not always been the case but a few people leading the Church astray does not really matter in the long run so long as their teachings are corrected. All men are fallible and the RCC does seem to have returned to the ancient understanding on this one. I absolutely meant no condemnation of the RCC by my interest in the information Deut posted.

James

 

[constantine]

Abortion is not a form of birth control....... Its a medical procedure that no woman wants to endure but if they do,.. they shouldn't have to endure anyone elses moral persecution.


What is a pro-life belief accomplishing ..other than trying to gain control over another who doesn't share the same belief ..
to save an egg and risk a womans life isn't pro-life. I think its time to "get a life"...
Noone is making you have an abortortion......save the dying today,and you save a soul tommorow....
Your cause to save the egg, with all the rightiousness nobody other then god dare bistow
Please stop playing god almighty.....allrighty ...
You have no right to impose your beliefs to control someone elses freedoms choice ....

 

[James the Persian]

Abortion is not a form of birth control....... Its a medical procedure that no woman wants to endure but if they do,.. they shouldn't have to endure anyone elses moral persecution.


What is a pro-life belief accomplishing ..other than trying to gain control over another who doesn't share the same belief ..
to save an egg and risk a womans life isn't pro-life. I think its time to "get a life"...
Noone is making you have an abortortion......save the dying today,and you save a soul tommorow....
Your cause to save the egg, with all the rightiousness nobody other then god dare bistow
Please stop playing god almighty.....allrighty ...
You have no right to impose your beliefs to control someone elses freedoms choice ....

I don't actually see anyone here trying to impose their beliefs on anyone, just discussing what those beliefs are. The question on this thread was whether or not abortion was a sin, not whether or not abortion should be outlawed.

James