Quote:
Originally Posted by SWTXBelle
As to "proof" - I'm not sure what you would regard as acceptable. At what point do you believe an embryo/fetus is alive? Is it the point at which there is a heartbeat? A beating heart = life seems to be pretty straight forward. Is it at the point of viability? That is of course a slippery slope - only 5 - 10 years ago babies who can now be saved would not have been considered viable. Is it when a certain stage of development has been reached? A student today told me he believes life begins when X number of chromosomes are present. I'd never heard that definition before.
The "stay out of my uterus" argument seems to argue that because there is no agreement, we should err on the side of the more restrictive definition of life. I would say that if there is a question we should err on the side of the more open definition of life. That being the case, it's not your uterus that is being discussed. It's the zygote/fetus/baby/whatever you care to call it that is there, and his/her/its rights that are the topic of discussion. As I said earlier, castigating those who disagree with your viewpoint as somehow trying to deprive you of your rights misses the actual point of concern for whether or not a human life is being taken. Do you really want to live amongst those who would say "I believe a life is being taken, but it's none of my business"? I can understand arguing that a life is not being taken, but I can't understand counseling those who think a life is being lost and who believe they should do something about it to stand aside. The 20th century had plenty of examples of that, and it wasn't pretty.
It's interesting that we are also seeing a great deal of debate as to when life is over - there is a case now where an orthodox Jewish family whose son is on a respirator is saying that because their rabbinical authority has ruled that as long as his heart is beating he is alive, even though he has absolutely no brain function. If he were taken off the respirator he would die - I imagine what will happen is that he will be taken out of the hospital (which is arguing that there is no treatment for his current condition, and the insurance company will not pay for his care) and taken home or to another facility. Both sides are trying to avoid taking it to court.
|
We are not going to agree. You want to err on the side of "a fetus / unborn baby is alive from the moment of conception" - that is your right. I choose to err on the side of "abortion of a non-viable fetus is not 'murder'" - that is my right.
The Church also takes a hard line against any form of birth control other than abstinence or natural family planning. Even those forms of birth control that are intended to prevent fertilization from taking place at all, are considered sinful and wrong. That means no tubal ligation, no vasectomy, no diaphragm, not even a condom. Perhaps the Church would like to outlaw condom sales?
But I digress. The issue here is that a priest has declared (without any backing from higher-ups in the Church hierarchy, as far as I am aware) that those of his parishioners who voted for Obama should not receive communion unless and until they do penance for their vote.
The Catholic Church's pro-life stance (as it was taught to me in Catholic school) is that life begins at conception and ends when the body naturally expires as a result of illness or injury. Killing a person before they would naturally die, therefore, is murder - a sin. Execution of criminals would thus fall under the category of murder. McCain is in favor of the death penalty. So he's not in line with the Church's pro-life stance either. So isn't it just as "wrong" and "sinful" to support McCain as it is to support Obama?