Comment history

Catholic archbishop gives moral guidance on election

Bad Dog---Viability is better (vitality is technically OK, but viability is what I was looking for--thanks!).I found what I believe to be the world record for a premature baby to survive--21 weeks, 6 days:http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11222-worlds-most-premature-baby-set-to-leave-hospital.html

October 22, 2008 at 3:35 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Catholic archbishop gives moral guidance on election

"those that condone killing in the name of Judaism, Christianity and Islam obviously know nothing of their religion."--I'll agree with you on Judaism and Christianity. However Sharia has very specific instances where killing in the name of Islam is perfectly OK.

October 22, 2008 at 1:33 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Catholic archbishop gives moral guidance on election

Logicsound--In what way is my point inaccurate? Babies born prematurely take their first breath weeks--or months--before other babies their same age. If a baby is born at, say, 20 weeks, it is considered alive. What is it about taking that breath that makes it more "alive" than a baby at 38 weeks, stil sitting in the uterus?I'll listen to arguments about when life begins--at the very least, I'll listen to the arument for "life begins at vitality." Whatever "vitality" might be--I believe the world record is still 21 weeks gestation, although that will certainly go lower and lower, due to technology. But "life begins with the first breath" is illogical.

October 22, 2008 at 1:29 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Catholic archbishop gives moral guidance on election

The "life begins at breath" argument is pretty easily refuted-some babies take their first "breath" after only 20 weeks gestation. Some, 42 weeks. What makes the 41 and ½ week old fetus less "alive" than the 20 week-old that had the misfortune of "breathing" prematurely?The Court in Roe v. Wade, like Obama, professes to be unqualified to define the beginning of life. That's fine. The error of RvW is that it fails to protect the POSSIBILITY of life. It's reckless.RvW essentially says, "Human life MIGHT exist in the womb-we don't know. So we won't allow the states to restrict the termination of that life/non-life (whatever it is)."That logic is akin to a hunting law that says, "That movement you see in the bush MIGHT be another human hunter-but it MIGHT also just be a dumb animal. But since you're not sure what it is, feel free to blast it. It's not your fault if it turns out that you killed another human being."One of the first rules of hunting is, "Be CERTAIN of your target (and beyond) before firing." Sounds reasonable, no? It's the exact opposite logic of RvW.

October 22, 2008 at 11:12 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Catholic archbishop gives moral guidance on election

AGILLA-Very good point. I'm against both--but I recognize that there is a difference between the philosophy of criminal justice and preservation of innocent lives.POLLY-You're just not correct, here. Some people DO think abortion as a good thing. I disagree with that position, but I respect it-they're being true to themselves. What I cannot stand is the Biden position-the "I think abortion is wrong, but don't want to force my morals on others" position. Substitute "abortion" with any moral issue-"polygamy," "incest," "tax evasion." Just because some people don't agree with your side doesn't give you an excuse to wimp out on your convictions. What if the Gay Marriage proponents took that view? The vast majority of Americans think Gay Marriage is immoral--but that hasn't stopped them from pushing for it.

October 22, 2008 at 10:25 a.m. ( | suggest removal )