Thank you Meg
A well reasoned argument. You seem to be arguing (correct me if I'm wrong) that because a foetus is growing from conception that it has a soul from conception. Is that correct?

In your post you said "At conception, human life begins to grow, develop, follow a genetic path until, unimpeded, birth takes place. Birth is little more in the process than a change of address…the newborn is as dependent as an unborn, in real terms." That would seem to imply that biological development is a sign of ensoulment.
But hold on a minute. Animals grow & develop in the womb & they DON'T have souls. It follows therefore that biological development is NOT caused by the soul.

However we are jumping ahead of ourselves. First we MUST prove that the soul exists. So what evidence do you have that a soul exists Meg?

Reagarding papal infallibility I'm afraid you are mistaken Meg.
A pope is only infallible when he speaks "ex cathedra" NOT in encyclicals or papal bulls, etc. This doctrine was only proclaimed in the 19th century by the way.

The idea that the offical teaching of the catholic church (i.e. teaching which has been tradionally taught by the church or proclaimed by a church council) is considered infallible has been accepted & taught for centuries. Please don't accept MY say so. Ask any priest or visit any Catholic theological site. They will say the same thing.

Thanking you in advance for your reply.

P.S. The quickening is NOT when a child is born, it merely refers to the first time a baby moves. This would seem to imply that the soul was linked in the churche's conception with movement.

Hi all

Pericles (post 1:41:02 PM 28/2/06)

A long recitation might admonish your comments. But as my 82-year old aunty says; "You are entitled to your ridiculous opinions."

Comparing the value of a goldfish to the sanctity of a foetus exposes your thinking. You've probably never made a life & death decisions - I have.

Your criticism of me over the disenfranchised? Read what I said. I am appalled at society's disregard for the less-fortunate.
(1/3/06)

mjpb (posts 9:50:25 PM & 10:51:31 PM 1/3/06)

I agree with most of your comments, but I am not Catholic.

I must differ with the semantics of your utterance: "There is no right to harm others.". You probably meant that 'there ought to be no right ..' because, unfortunately some democratic individuals assert a "right" which can only be made illegal by consensus or regulatory law. Thus a thief justifies the 'right' to steal - on the basis of the 'right' to survive. A clash of philosophies.
(2/3/06)

Yabby (post 10:52:14 PM 1/3/06)

The Holy Bible illustrates many "great men & women of God" who sinned. Solomon & Simon Peter are just 2.

Unlike Catholics, I believe that the Pope is full of error - including John Paul II & Benedictine. Catholicism only claims "ex cathedra infalliblity". The Apostle Paul (Saul of Tarsus), a Roman Jew persecute the early Christians. Priests are like other humans - fallible. Part of their 'problem' is celibacy - it's optional in Scripture. Statistics show more molestations of children by close relatives than clergy. Notwithstanding, it is deplorable when a priest or minister is involved.

You link the 'woman's rights' in the 1st 12-weeks to claimed non-attributes of the foetus. However, as medical science becomes better informed it discovers its own errors.

At 10-weeks the foetus has its own blood-type? Prior, a separate heart can be detected. Simultaneously the foetus reacts to stimulae. Those realities suggest the foetus is a "feeling person", & many well be 'thinking' - in a limited format. Science will reveal further truths.

Now that's not too emotive, is it? ...

...(t.b.c)

Cheers all

Hi all

reply to Yabby (post 10:52:14 PM 1/3/06) cont

The comments of former-abortionist, American Bernhard NATHERSON, make interesting reading. In the 70s & 80s he was about the single largest provider in the USA. He is now pro-life.
(2/3/06)

Col Rouge (post 3:33:10 AM 2/3/06)

Indifference is one of the "7 Deadly Diseases of Attitude".

If a person neither cares whether his/her daughters are married or not, & accepts the lesser standards of the boyfriend/girlfriend (not the p/c "partner"), then it can be argued that the parent is failing their "duty of care" - to protect the daughter. Letting a male into the 'lollyshop' without accepting responsibility for their behaviour doesn't really respect the female.

I defend your rights to criticise the Roman Catholic Church - but predominantly only its corrupt practitioners rather than much of its sound dogma.

That 1,790,000 people criticised Catholicism isn't significant. Some criticism may have been valid - some wasn't. If the Internet had been available when Chamberlain, Churchill & Hitler were alive, in 1938, then Churchill would have been the pariah. The dissenting would have been numerically greater. That doesn't equatre to correctness. Opinions are only opinions. They aren't facts.
(2/3/06)

billie (post 11:18:15 AM 2/3/06)

I'm saddened that you see anti-abortionists as "god botherers". I held an anti-abortion stance 30-years before I ever contemplated Christianity. And I'm not Catholic!.

I do have, however, great empathy for those who are 'victims' of "unwanted pregnancy". But looking only from the "women's rights" perspective ignores the conflicting rights of the foetus to also survive.

Whilst not totally pragmatic - within modern societal attitudes - abstinence & some 'protection' should avoid most pregnancies. However, if a couple wishes to play "Russian roulette" then they take the risk of having a child.

A woman is only fertile about 5-days out of 28.

Backyard abortionists? Yester-year's standards should never be reverted to. However, abortion is still illegal in NSW, Victoria & especially QLD (plus others). In NSW it directly contravenes Sections 83 & 84 of the Crimes Act.
(2/3/06)

Cheers all

Meg and Te, perhaps you emotionally engulfed types should spend a bit of time learning what goes on in that 3 pound lump behind your eyes, before making emotional but factually incorrect claims on here.

The discussion in Britain has been about fetal pain after 26 weeks in late term abortions. At 12 weeks there is no functioning human brain. If you don’t have a cortex connected to the rest of the body, ie. if you are not conscious, how can you perceive pain? Do you feel pain when you are asleep? Yet you move when you are asleep.

Te your comment about abortions requiring anesthetics is nonsense, and is probably some babble you read on an anti choice website. Nowhere does a 12 week old organism require an anesthetic. If so show me where.

Meg, the 85k number is used by various people in the medical industry. The morning after pill does not cause abortions, it just stops that little sperm meeting the egg. So even in Catholic terms, that’s not an abortion.

You asked me what number I thought was acceptable Meg, that’s why I replied. Next post you ask why it should matter what I think is acceptable.
You are losing your marbles dear :)

By scheming to only have sex on non fertile days Meg, you are clearly deliberately frustrating its natural end- procreation, so even you are going against what your infallible pope claimed.

Dignity is in the eye of the beholder and it should be up to them to decide how
much pain they are prepared to endure and for how long. If Catholics want to suffer, ok, so suffer, but don’t try to force that suffering on the rest of us. Again the Church is trying to infringe on our rights to make decisions about our own lives.

Yes the Catholic Church runs hospitals, so do lots of large corporations.
People pay huge amounts per day to go there, hospitals make money from
full beds.

.

Yabby - you are 'all over the shop' with your comments. They are becoming less and less coherent. What is going on?

You make the comment "Meg and Te, perhaps you emotionally engulfed types should spend a bit of time learning what goes on in that 3 pound lump behind your eyes, before making emotional but factually incorrect claims on here." - at what point in any of my posts is there 'emotional engulfment'? Surely not when I say my heart goes out to people in pain? Do a "Pauline Hanson" and 'please explain'.

I also suggest that you obtain the documentary that has been shown both on SBS and the ABC called "The Miracle of Life". It was NOT put out by the prolife groups but is a medical/scientific production. It clearly shows the brain as one of the first organs to be formed.

It is hard to understand how one can be so blind as to not be able to see when the evidence is easily available.

I thinks thou protesteth too much.

Cheers and happiness,
Te
PS Oops, how that wasn't my emotional engulfment happening agains :-))

"at what point in any of my posts is there 'emotional engulfment'? Surely not when I say my heart goes out to people in pain?"

Te, your posts are full of it lol. Get used to it, hearts pump
blood, they do no more. Fingerprints don't matter, little feet
don't matter, etc etc. What matters is brain development and
ability to consciously feel pain.

You high oxytocin types make great, nurturing moms, sadly reason
is not one of your strengths :)

This link might be over your head, but try to understand the arguments anyhow. http://www.prochoiceforum.org.uk/comm53.asp

My posts are quite coherant, it seems its simply above you and Meg to understand and follow the arguments.