September 2016

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
        1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30  


« Wright vs. Wasilla | Main | Hitchens's Challenge Solved »

September 08, 2008


I think we give up too much when we let them describe this as "theological" ground. This is biological ground. I don't have to base my view on theology. Biology alone tells us that from conception the fetus is fully human.

Thanks Melinda for posting this. I commented on the post below on this subject because I saw the interview and wondered how to respond to this line of argument. I guess I was under the impression that it was scientific fact that a new original life is created at conception.

I agree with you Chad and I am beginning to understand why Greg dislikes the word "faith"(as in a blind leap of) within this context. Why should we be pushed off of the scientific podium when we clearly have every right to be on it...based on the evidence that is present?
However, it is quite understandable why Senator Biden might not be able to see this as being the case. Catholics, just as anyone else, need to be educated about the fact that this something that can be argued from a scientific platform and not a purely subjective kind of faith one.

The whole debate over when life begins is a red herring of sorts.

The fact is that if you don't do anything, this "tissue" will become a human being!

When someone brings up this argument, usually it's because they want to find a place in the timeline that they feel comfortable about killing a human being.

There is just no good argument against taking an innocent human life.

Killing an innocent human being is murder whether born or unborn. Dr.Bernard Nathanson has a good testimony on this in his films, "SILENT SCREAM", and "ECLIPSE OF REASON".

Plus Thomas Aquinas had access to the greatest medical technology back in the 13th century. The technology we have today is much more inferior.

Sheesh…enough with the Thomas Aquinas already.

Funny that they cite him over John Paul II or Mother Teresa – or maybe it’s not funny.

We know why they do.

Evidently, Ms. Pelosi has agreed to meet with Archbishop Niederauer to discuss her recent public comments regarding her stance on abortion.

Niederauer's public statement.

When ever talking to people in general about abortion I make it a point to ask this question. Have you ever heard a mother to be ask her husband, child, friend to put their hand on her belly and feel the FETEUS move or put their ear to her tummy and listen to the FETEUS' heart beat? It is always a BABY when one wants to keep it and a FETEUS when they want to dispose of it. This question always makes them aware of the idoicy of their arguments concerning life.

I saw an interesting youtube clip where atheist Chris Hitchins explains why he is pro-life. (I'll post it when I can find it, but I'm at school right now which has blocked access to youtube). While as a theist I believe his reasons are ultimately without grounding, his main point is consistency. He makes the point that it makes no sense to speak of a "child" as a real concept with rights but ignore "unborn child" as a real concept as well.

I understand the point behind the 'faith' only issue. However, we base our science on our faith in the God of the Bible and what He says.
In Psalm 51 David talks about being 'conceived' in sin and iniquity. Since man is the only creature made in God's image, we therefore are now the only moral agents capable of sin.'Life' from a Biblical point begins at conception. If we leave the faith element out, we leave the door open to "legal interpretations." The scientific (DNA) evidence for life is just relegated to a legal debate. We end up with the kind of debate of a few weeks ago, where one individual tried to make the case for 'morality' being just a biological function inherited from evolution. The distinctions in terminology noted in the post, shows how quickly it can degenerate to just semantics; a conclusion that can not be held from the Biblical perspective based on passages like Psalm 51.

The real reason there is a debate of when life begins has a direct relation to the fact that people don't want to be responsable for there actions. It's too bad our society can even fathom the idea of abortion becacse a baby is an inconvience.

Amen to that Rachelle. To reduce a living soul's life to merely a debate or talking point.....we have truely fallen from greatness and likely Grace.

The pro-life atheist:

> When someone brings up this
> argument, usually it's because
> they want to find a place in the
> timeline that they feel
> comfortable about killing a human
> being.

Funny how the Left wants policy on this issue to be faith-based instead of science-based.

Fellow pro-lifers, I have a request: please stop using the term "murder" when describing abortion. I know it feels good, and evokes an emotional response with those we engage in discussion.

However, one thing STR tries to teach is that we should minimize use of loaded words (read the "Ambassador's Creed" here on the site). The word "murder" is a legal term with a specific meaning. "Homicide" is more technically correct.

Using Garry's words (from above) as an example: "Killing an innocent human being is murder whether born or unborn." Is this true? Can you think of any case where an innocent person is killed and it's *not* "murder"? How about an unintentional fatal car accident?

I'm just asking us to be careful about the words we use, so we can get to the truth of the matter with those we engage, and not be turned away when we use emotionally-charged and imprecise language.

Thanks for reading. :)

Hi Paul,
I don't really follow your thinking here.

An unborn baby that is killed by an accident is a miscarriage.

I would say that premeditated killing of an unborn baby = murder.

I would protest more that we keep saying "an innocent human being." The Bible tells us that no one is righteous, no not one, and that we were conceived in sin, wicked from our mother's womb.

Unborn baby seems straighforward enough.

Thanks for the comments. My point was that "murder" is a legal term, and (for the moment) abortion is legal, so it's not an accurate use of the term. My concern is that the use of a term imprecisely and/or merely to gain an emotional foothold in a debate can turn away an otherwise receptive audience.

I think the use of "innocent" is to distinguish between someone who deserves to die (under our legal system), as in capital punishment, and one who hasn't committed any (earthly) capital offense for which the taking of life is justified. Thus the term "unborn innocent human person" (or some permutation) is used to convey that the state doesn't have proper justification for taking its life, and that it should be instead doing all it can to protect it.

The comments to this entry are closed.