Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Catholic Church buries aborted babies
Topic Started: Jan 24 2005, 09:49 AM (1,284 Views)
24thcenstfan
Member Avatar
Something Wicked This Fae Comes
Dandandat
Jan 24 2005, 10:08 PM
24thcenstfan
Jan 24 2005, 05:54 PM
Dante,

Would you consider it murder for a woman to have her pregnancy terminated due to the high probability that the pregnancy could harm or kill her?  The situation being, she thought the fetus was alive, but it was an either or situation (the life of the fetus or her life).

I wouldn't.  I would consider it self-defense.  She should still be allowed to grieve without being called a murderer or having her right to do so questioned.

Incidentally, some of the women who had fetuses aborted (in the article first mentioned by CV6) did so for the very same reasons.  They certainly have a right to grieve and are not murderers in my opinion.

That’s a good question and I will admit that I did not think of that situation. Is it common for woman in this situation to go to "abortion" clinics? I would think woman with complications are going to go to a hospital for treatment not an "abortion" clinic.

If the mother’s life weren’t in immediate danger, then I would imagine the doctors would give the mother a time frame for when she would need to have the abortion by and/or options to where she could have the abortion. The mother may be in the first stages of complications. Not yet life threatening, but as the pregnancy progresses so will the complications putting the mother’s life in danger.

Her choosing to have an abortion at a clinic could have been for any number reasons...

1)The local hospital doesn’t perform abortions unless the situation is immediate. 2) The doctor who performs abortions at the hospital also works at the clinic, and he recommended she come to the clinic for some reason (e.g. scheduling). 3) The women’s doctors diagnosed the problem then gave the mother the option to have an abortion anywhere she preferred (at the hospital or at a clinic).

I am just guessing here. I don’t know why these women had abortions at a clinic instead of at the hospital.

Regardless, if the doctor diagnoses her pregnancy as "high risk”/possibly or eventually will be life threatening or was in immediate danger, then I personally wouldn’t call it murder if she chose to have an abortion. This is all based on the scenario of the mother personally believing the fetus is alive and still chose to abort to save her own life.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dwayne
Profanity deleted by Hoss
Minuet
Jan 24 2005, 08:36 PM
Dwayne - I believe that parents in hospital that have lost a baby through a miscarriage are given a choice on how to dispose of the body. If the mortuary is not following through on thier wishes then they have performed a grave wrong. The church that followed through and accepted the children is just as wrong. If the parents did not specifically give permission to the church to bury the bodies then they do not have the right to bury the bodies. Seems simple to me.

Does the article state that these miscarried children were buried against the parents wishes, or was it simply the aborted children buried against the parent wishes?

It seems to me that if aborted, the parents certainly give up the right to the method of disposal for the tissue mass after it's removed from the body. But if it is a miscarriage the parents have the final say, because they did not wilfully relinquish said tissue mass.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
Twilight
Jan 24 2005, 07:51 PM
I would reply, but the religious emotion here is running this thread. And only one person asked, why I said that. I have already been condemned, over a quip.

This is not the first time you've made an anti-Catholic comment, quip or not. What's your problem with Catholics? I'd advise you to keep your bigotry to yourself! :realmad:
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Minuet
Member Avatar
Fleet Admiral Assistant wRench, Chief Supper Officer
Dandandat
Jan 24 2005, 09:50 PM
Minuet
Jan 24 2005, 05:43 PM
Guys - I really don't think the real issue here is abortion. The real issue is the imposition of a particular religion on others who don't believe in it.

Dante - as an athiest how do you feel about that. Maybe not as strongly as I do, as it is much easier for a non believer to just shrug everything off as superstition that is just making the people doing the burials feel better. However, as a person who has a religion I am quite offended because this type of action is an attempt to devalue other religions.

I think that the mortuary should be sued for allowing this to happen and that the bodies should be exhumed and reburied in a non sectarian cemetary. The Catholic church should also take a long hard look at the leadership of this particular parish.

Since you are not the fetus I cant see how they are pushing anything on you. Unless as you pointed out, the fetus where from miscarriages, and I already said that changed things. But is it common for miscarriage victims to got to an "abortion" clinic?

The miscarriages took place at the local hospital, according to the article, not the abortion clinic. I presume they sent the remains to the same mortuary. However, the mortuary did keep them separate because they were identified as from the hospital as opposed to being from the abortion clinic.

From what I understand the bodies were given to the mortuary for disposal, not the church. They should not have been given to the church and the church should not have accepted them.

Guys - I really feel strongly about this issue of any religion's morals being applied to any being (or thier families) that was unable or unwilling to chose it themselves. My point in linking the article about the baptisms was to highlight the similarites. Yes, various religions have morals that they feel very strongly. But where is the respect for others????

In the case of the Mormon Church and the Jews whose morals should prevail? I do not believe the Church members were bigotted against Jews. But I do see where the people who submitted those name were not respectful of the wishes of the dead involved or thier families. In the US (and Canada) where there is no state religion, this is just wrong.

In the case of the baby burials the exact same thing is taking place. It really does not matter if the members of that Church don't think the child will go to heaven if they are not buried. IT IS NOT THIER CHOICE. It is the choice of the parents. And you are getting into slippery legal territory if you try to divide that between parents who chose abortion and parents who miscarried. Laws have to cover everyone, and Dante - I'm sorry if that offends YOUR morals, but isn't that the point here? What gives YOU the right to enforce YOUR morals on the parents who aborted?

This stretches right out to other issues such as same sex unions. I would heartily defend the right of any religious institution to deny the validity of a same sex union and refuse to perform in in thier church. But they have no right to prevent other churches (and there are some out there that would do it) from performing those marriages/unions.

Religious freedom is not the freedom to impose your religion on others simply because that is what you believe. Freedom only extends to the individual level. You are free to believe what you want. You are not free to impose it on others.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Wichita
Member Avatar
The Adminstrator wRench
Minuet
Jan 25 2005, 01:04 PM
Guys - I really feel strongly about this issue of any religion's morals being applied to any being (or thier families) that was unable or unwilling to chose it themselves. My point in linking the article about the baptisms was to highlight the similarites. Yes, various religions have morals that they feel very strongly. But where is the respect for others????

In the case of the Mormon Church and the Jews whose morals should prevail? I do not believe the Church members were bigotted against Jews. But I do see where the people who submitted those name were not respectful of the wishes of the dead involved or thier families. In the US (and Canada) where there is no state religion, this is just wrong.

Personal Response

Minuet, do Jewish people believe that the spirit doesn't live on after the body dies? I definitely get that feeling based what Koutsch (sp?) said in the article you linked. I don't really get the same thing from you, but then I don't get that you disagree with that either.

Nowhere in the article does he ever mention the words "free agency" (which is critically important belief for Mormons), but he then bashes Mormons for failing to believe in what is essentially "free agency". I don't know enough about the Jewish faith to provide an example, but imagine if someone seized upon one specific tenet of your faith, denied other crucial ones ever existed, and then claimed you couldn't be trusted to live up to the rest.

The closest "true" comment in the article was the one he utterly rejected:

Quote:
 
Others say they will never stop being Jews, simply because there is a paper saying they had been baptized, that the act of posthumous baptism is unimportant and should be ignored.


Because we believe in "free agency" for the living and for the Spirit after death, then, if the person regards it as unimportant, it IS unimportant and should be ignored. I cannot choose for anyone - each person chooses.

A couple weeks ago, a very learned woman who I respect very much spoke about her children. She was very concerned because one was living his life outside the church. Now he is a young man and is not so much rebellious as he is just "young". It is a typical time for questioning one's beliefs. No matter how concerned she was, she herself said that she could not deny him his "free agency". It is his choice.

Now, you point out that these practices are not respectful of the wishes of the dead or of the families. How do you know what the wishes of the dead are? This is not a "gotcha" question - it is a serious one and goes back to my original question. Now, if you don't believe the Spirit lives on after the body, then I understand. We are simply discussing the issue from different perspectives that are mutually exclusive.

However, if the Spirit does live on, how do we know what he/she wants? Should the families be allowed to deny the Spirit "choice"?

Mormons believe that certain ordinances must completed in order to enter into God's kingdom. (It should be noted that we also believe in more than one heaven, but that's another long explanation.) If the Spirit agrees, then the work has been done for them. It the Spirit doesn't agree, then the baptism is utterly unimportant.

Quote:
 
In the case of the baby burials the exact same thing is taking place. It really does not matter if the members of that Church don't think the child will go to heaven if they are not buried. IT IS NOT THIER CHOICE. It is the choice of the parents.


Ah, here we have reached a critical point of disagreement. It's actually the "choice" of the child if and what religion it embraces - or none at all.

How many of us here would be happy to learn that the religion chosen for us by our parents (whose religion was chosen by their parents) is it. You are anywhere from minutes to weeks old and the decision is made - and you have no choice in the matter - for not only the rest of your life on Earth but the rest of your existence in the cosmos. What if your parents refused religion and as a result you could never embrace it? What if the reason your parents never embraced religion is that they never heard of it, but you have to live with that decision?

Quote:
 

Religious freedom is not the freedom to impose your religion on others simply because that is what you believe. Freedom only extends to the individual level. You are free to believe what you want. You are not free to impose it on others.


I actually agree with that statement. I believe you agree with that statement. We disagree what practicing that statement "looks" like.

*******

As to the rest of the article, there were a number of minor errors. He is taking a definition of baptism that is not completely accurate for Mormons and drawing conclusions about what we believe from it. At least one of his claims, I have never heard of before.

Also, the IGI (the file he is complaining about) contains over 700 million names (I looked it up). There is no way that church members have baptized 700 million people as Mormons.

Because churches of all denominations keep more complete and consistent records than governments tended to do historically, most of those records probably do come from marriage, death and baptismal records, but they are not just Mormon baptisms.

700 million sounds like a lot until you remember that it includes all people who ever lived on earth. I know I have ancestors in there from the 1400's.

End of Personal Response
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dandandat
Member Avatar
Time to put something here
Minuet
Jan 25 2005, 08:04 AM
Dante - I'm sorry if that offends YOUR morals, but isn't that the point here? What gives YOU the right to enforce YOUR morals on the parents who aborted?

I should point out that I am not working off morals, but logic and do not have an emotional attachment to my argument (even if it seems that way) I am just pointing out points of conjecture that I see. I would not presume to tell any one how to live their life in a real life situation. And if some one wants to have their cake and eat it to over this issue that is their problem I don’t care either way.

My main point is that the argument for abortion or choice of abortion (that the mother gets to choose if the fetus is alive or not because medical since can not give us a good answer - (if the fetus is alive then abortion is murder, except for the instances of self defense 24 pointed out)) logically does not give those who abort the room to on one hand believe their fetus is not alive yet on the other hand treat it as if it where alive. It is hypocriful, now if you say we are on a slippery slop trying to “make laws” that differentiate between abortion and miscarriage that is another issue and one I would not be so quick to judge, but that is not what I am arguing. All I am arguing is the essence of the issue, not the practicals.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dr. Noah
Sistertrek's Asian Correspondant
I'm afraid things are not as black and white as you'd like them to be. Sometimes people have to make difficult choices such as this, and you should thank God everyday you never had to make the decision between your wife and your child. Or your child's life and your life, or whether your child is better off with another chance at life or if you should try to raise a deformed child who may not live more than a few years.

You see, your morality is not universal. Believe it or not, people actually see things in the world differently than you. Your judgement of others is not the end all be all.

Thank God.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Minuet
Member Avatar
Fleet Admiral Assistant wRench, Chief Supper Officer
Wichita
Jan 25 2005, 09:14 AM
Minuet
Jan 25 2005, 01:04 PM
Guys - I really feel strongly about this issue of any religion's morals being applied to any being (or thier families) that was unable or unwilling to chose it themselves. My point in linking the article about the baptisms was to highlight the similarites. Yes, various religions have morals that they feel very strongly. But where is the respect for others????

In the case of the Mormon Church and the Jews whose morals should prevail? I do not believe the Church members were bigotted against Jews. But I do see where the people who submitted those name were not respectful of the wishes of the dead involved or thier families. In the US (and Canada) where there is no state religion, this is just wrong.

Personal Response

Minuet, do Jewish people believe that the spirit doesn't live on after the body dies? I definitely get that feeling based what Koutsch (sp?) said in the article you linked. I don't really get the same thing from you, but then I don't get that you disagree with that either.


We talked about this a long time ago in the thread in the "Spiritual Journeys" forum. Yo-Yo described the Jewish belief well. I will try to do it as well as he. What Yo-Yo said basically is that we don't believe heaven and hell are separate places. After death your soul is either near G-d or farther away. How close you are reflects what kind of life you lived. Hell is the point further away.

From my experience there are several "Jewish" views of what happens to the soul after death. There are some Jews, those that study Jewish Mysticism (Kabbalah) who believe in reincarnation. This belief has been carried down in the Ashkenazi Jewish tradition of naming a baby after a loved one who has passed away. Some believe that the baby being given the name is also being given the soul. I have heard some remarkable stories of people researching the ancestor they are named after and finding remarkable similarities in thier own lives - especially related to interests and character.

So I guess the answer is yes - we do believe in a soul that lives on. At least most of us do :yes: (There is an old saying. Get 2 Jews in a room and you will get at least 3 opinions :lol: )

Quote:
 
Nowhere in the article does he ever mention the words "free agency" (which is critically important belief for Mormons), but he then bashes Mormons for failing to believe in what is essentially "free agency".  I don't know enough about the Jewish faith to provide an example, but imagine if someone seized upon one specific tenet of your faith, denied other crucial ones ever existed, and then claimed you couldn't be trusted to live up to the rest. 

The closest "true" comment in the article was the one he utterly rejected:

Quote:
 
Others say they will never stop being Jews, simply because there is a paper saying they had been baptized, that the act of posthumous baptism is unimportant and should be ignored.


Because we believe in "free agency" for the living and for the Spirit after death, then, if the person regards it as unimportant, it IS unimportant and should be ignored. I cannot choose for anyone - each person chooses.


I have not heard the specific term "free agency" before. Now again, this is going to be a tricky one to answer - because, like most questions involving Judaism there is more then one answer.

The concept you are describing would certainly have applied to the "Marranos". They were the Spanish Jews who underwent forced conversions during the Inquisition. Many continued to practice Judaism in secrecy.

However - in todays society in order to go through any of the rituals one goes through in Synagogue (brit millah, baby naming, Bar or Bat Mitzvah, etc...) One needs to show that they are Jewish. This is going to sound elitist - but yes, we do believe that one is "born" Jewish or whatever else they are. We believe that G-d has placed us where he wants us. That is why we do not actively seek converts to Judaism. (Although we do accept converts) I have explained the concept of the "chosen people" before, but think I need to here again. The 10 Commandments were given to mankind as a whole, but there are 613 Commandments that Jews alone are required to follow. Not necesarily a blessing if you catch my meaning.

In Orthodox families if a person decides to convert to another religion thier families actually sit Shiva (the week of mourning) as if the person has died. Afterwards they basically act as if the person was never born. I guess they figure a mistake was made.

Making the posthumous baptismal certificates can make it difficult for the descendants to "prove" they are Jewish. Something he does touch on in the article. It would be especially tricky for Orthodox families considering the tradition I just mentioned of cutting the person out of thier lives.

Quote:
 
Now, you point out that these practices are not respectful of the wishes of the dead or of the families. How do you know what the wishes of the dead are?  This is not a "gotcha" question - it is a serious one and goes back to my original question.  Now, if you don't believe the Spirit lives on after the body, then I understand.  We are simply discussing the issue from different perspectives that are mutually exclusive.

However, if the Spirit does live on, how do we know what he/she wants?  Should the families be allowed to deny the Spirit "choice"? 


I think how one lived one's life should be sufficient to determine what thier wishes are with regards to religion after they die. The Holocaust victims in question lived thier lives as Jews. It is reasonable to believe that they would not want to be told otherwise after they pass on. As you said - it might not actually change anything. But in my mind it does not show respect for how they identified themselves in thier lifetimes.

As for the families of the children who died before birth - I already explained our concept of being placed where G-d wants us. It is not the families denying the spirit it's choice. G-d already did that.

Quote:
 
Mormons believe that certain ordinances must completed in order to enter into God's kingdom.  (It should be noted that we also believe in more than one heaven, but that's another long explanation.)  If the Spirit agrees, then the work has been done for them.  It the Spirit doesn't agree, then the baptism is utterly unimportant.   


If what the spirit believes is the most important then why is so much emphasis placed on the ritual? The spirit that wants to go to "God's Kingdom" in the Mormon sense, should be allowed to regardless of a human ritual if "free agency" is involved. Unless I am missing something here? In other words - you see the certificate as meaningless. The people it has been imposed upon do not. Therefore the wishes of the people whom it is being imposed upon should be the wishes that prevail - especially if the certificate is "utterly unimportant" to you.

Quote:
 
Quote:
 
In the case of the baby burials the exact same thing is taking place. It really does not matter if the members of that Church don't think the child will go to heaven if they are not buried. IT IS NOT THIER CHOICE. It is the choice of the parents.


Ah, here we have reached a critical point of disagreement. It's actually the "choice" of the child if and what religion it embraces - or none at all.


As already explained - Jews believe it is G-d's choice. And again - if it is the choice of the child - does a certificate here on earth change that?

Quote:
 
How many of us here would be happy to learn that the religion chosen for us by our parents (whose religion was chosen by their parents) is it.  You are anywhere from minutes to weeks old and the decision is made - and you have no choice in the matter - for not only the rest of your life on Earth but the rest of your existence in the cosmos.  What if your parents refused religion and as a result you could never embrace it?  What if the reason your parents never embraced religion is that they never heard of it, but you have to live with that decision?   


What can I say. G-d put you in that family. When you are old enough you do get the capacity to choose. If you die before you are old enough to make that choice then that is G-d's will for whatever reason. We do not have to understand that. It just is. It would seem to me that "free agency" can fit into this in the manner I have said. If a child that is too young to decide has died then they should be allowed "free agency" after death without the constraints of having to have performed certain rituals in life. :shrug:

Quote:
 
Quote:
 

Religious freedom is not the freedom to impose your religion on others simply because that is what you believe. Freedom only extends to the individual level. You are free to believe what you want. You are not free to impose it on others.


I actually agree with that statement. I believe you agree with that statement. We disagree what practicing that statement "looks" like.


I'm glad we agree on something. Please consider what I have said. I hope I have explained myself better now.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Wichita
Member Avatar
The Adminstrator wRench
Personal Response

First of all, there are no "certificates" as such. When I converted from Lutheran to Mormon, I was told to keep all history of my time as a Lutheran because that is part of my life story. While it may be difficult from the Jewish belief to maintain the knowledge of their history (which is why the agreement was probably made), it would not become obscured from Mormon side. We celebrate our life stories.

Minuet
 
The concept you are describing would certainly have applied to the "Marranos". They were the Spanish Jews who underwent forced conversions during the Inquisition. Many continued to practice Judaism in secrecy.


Actually, no, "free agency" would be incompatible with the practice you describe.

Quote:
 
I think how one lived one's life should be sufficient to determine what thier wishes are with regards to religion after they die. The Holocaust victims in question lived thier lives as Jews. It is reasonable to believe that they would not want to be told otherwise after they pass on. As you said - it might not actually change anything. But in my mind it does not show respect for how they identified themselves in thier lifetimes.


Again, an divergence of opinion between tradition and individual choice... I don't agree that one necessarily is the same as the other. The Holocaust victims were of all ages, economic and educational backgrounds, and nationalities. I have no idea what they individually believed.

Minuet
 
If what the spirit believes is the most important then why is so much emphasis placed on the ritual? The spirit that wants to go to "God's Kingdom" in the Mormon sense, should be allowed to regardless of a human ritual if "free agency" is involved. Unless I am missing something here? In other words - you see the certificate as meaningless. The people it has been imposed upon do not. Therefore the wishes of the people whom it is being imposed upon should be the wishes that prevail - especially if the certificate is "utterly unimportant" to you.


The Spirit is not penalized for what he/she did not have the opportunity to attain on earth. Heaven has a very different concept of time than we do. A person who has lived a worthy life (and in that definition we are talking outside the bounds of most religion - caring for their fellow man, helping others, etc.) will get into heaven.

But, like all churches, we believe in a certain rituals. We may be wrong - as you or Bill may be wrong about yours. We can only act within the level of understanding we have at the time.

Minuet
 
If a child that is too young to decide has died then they should be allowed "free agency" after death without the constraints of having to have performed certain rituals in life.


A clarification ... In that section I was specifically speaking of a live child. In our faith, we believe a child who dies before the age of 8 will go to be at God's side with no delay or rituals involved.

End of Personal Response
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Minuet
Member Avatar
Fleet Admiral Assistant wRench, Chief Supper Officer
Wichita - I am thoroughly confused with your response.

Quote:
 

Again, an divergence of opinion between tradition and individual choice... I don't agree that one necessarily is the same as the other. The Holocaust victims were of all ages, economic and educational backgrounds, and nationalities. I have no idea what they individually believed.


Explain to me why if you have no idea what they believed then what gives anyone the right to even try and define it after thier death.

Quote:
 
The Spirit is not penalized for what he/she did not have the opportunity to attain on earth. Heaven has a very different concept of time than we do. A person who has lived a worthy life (and in that definition we are talking outside the bounds of most religion - caring for their fellow man, helping others, etc.) will get into heaven.

But, like all churches, we believe in a certain rituals. We may be wrong - as you or Bill may be wrong about yours. We can only act within the level of understanding we have at the time.


Like all churches - the members therein need to understand that they should only act upon those people who consent to be acted upon. This is the cause of the upset in Jewish circles over the baptisms.

It is also the cause of my upset in the case of these burials being performed. As a Jew I believe the body should be buried as soon as possible. But I don't go around taking fetuses from hospitals and abortion clinics and performing my burial rites upon them. The people who stayed with the bodies after 9/11 did not insist that everyone be buried immediately. They only stayed with the bodies so that the Jewish bodies would not be neglected. The prayers and meditations were not said over any individual bodies and no one gave a Jewish burial to bodies that could not be identified.

I'm sorry - I can easily accept that what happened was not the policy of the Catholic church as a whole (as I can accept the same over the Mormon holocaust baptisms) I cannot accept that the individuals involved in either case should be absolved of wrongdoing.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dandandat
Member Avatar
Time to put something here
The Sisko
Jan 25 2005, 10:32 AM
I'm afraid things are not as black and white as you'd like them to be.  Sometimes people have to make difficult choices such as this, and you should thank God everyday you never had to make the decision between your wife and your child.  Or your child's life and your life,



I have already resigned to 24's example form the equation. I have conceded that it would be self defense in that situation. But in truth that is already a contingent argument in the issue of murder. If I murder some one who poses danger to my self it is not punishable, it is accepted.


Quote:
 
or whether your child is better off with another chance at life or if you should try to raise a deformed child who may not live more than a few years.
An illogical argument, morality aside, If you kill a living being for any reason it is murder in our society. If I feel my other wise healthy grandmother would be better off with another chance at life (according to your religion) and I killed her - I would be a murder. If I decided I don’t want to raise my deformed 2 year old child and I kill him I am a murdered. there is no other way about it.

Why can I abort a fetus and not kill my grandmother? Why can I abort a fetus and not kill my deformed two year old? It is the ageless argument on the abortion issue, and the answer pro choice advocates give is that the differences is my grandmother is alive and the fetus is not, my two year old deformed child is alive the fetus is not.

Quote:
 
You see, your morality is not universal.  Believe it or not, people actually see things in the world differently than you.  Your judgement of others is not the end all be all. 

Thank God.
For about the 10th time in this debate I am not making a moral judgment, I am using logic and the arguments others have made. I am not judging any one, just pointing out their hypocrisy.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Minuet
Member Avatar
Fleet Admiral Assistant wRench, Chief Supper Officer
Dante - you are stretching the meaning of the word murder.

Murder is a specific word to describe a killing with sinister intent.

There are many killings that are not murder. Execution of a prisoner is not murder, it is execution. Self defense is not a murder. There is another legal term - manslaughter - that is often used when it is not felt that the word murder applies. Currently, under legal definitions, abortion is not considered to be murder.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dandandat
Member Avatar
Time to put something here
Minuet
Jan 25 2005, 12:25 PM
Dante - you are stretching the meaning of the word murder.

Murder is a specific word to describe a killing with sinister intent.

There are many killings that are not murder. Execution of a prisoner is not murder, it is execution. Self defense is not a murder. There is another legal term - manslaughter - that is often used when it is not felt that the word murder applies. Currently, under legal definitions, abortion is not considered to be murder.

I do not believe I have searched the meaning of the word murder. Murder is not simply kill with sinister intent - it is the premeditated killing of some one by another for any reason other then self deface. If I killed you out of because love (it happens all the time) it is still murder despite the fact that the motive was not sinister.

The fundamental questions still remain.

Why is it wrong to kill my otherwise healthy grandmother if I cant and/or don’t want to take care of her, but its ok to abort my otherwise healthy fetus if I cant and/or don’t want to take care of it.

Why is it wrong to kill me deformed two year old, but its ok to abort my deformed fetus?
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dr. Noah
Sistertrek's Asian Correspondant
Ever hear of the word euthanasia?
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dandandat
Member Avatar
Time to put something here
The Sisko
Jan 25 2005, 12:40 PM
Ever hear of the word euthanasia?

Sure - what does it have to do with the argument
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Create a free forum in seconds.
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Tweet
comments powered by Disqus