|
|
Post by Mr. Daniel on Apr 9, 2013 13:15:10 GMT -5
Which arguments from John Paul II: Millennial Pope and Lake of Fire are the best?
|
|
|
|
Post by samanthae on Apr 15, 2013 8:47:10 GMT -5
One argument from John Paul II: Millennial Pope that was very convincing was the point the Pope made when he stated that if an unborn baby isn't safe in its mother's womb then how can anyone know that they are safe. An embryo is the most innocent and defenseless thing and to not be safe really shows the culture of death and how horrible it is.
|
|
|
|
Post by jenniferr on Apr 15, 2013 8:49:12 GMT -5
I agree wqith Sam that that was the most powerful argument in the movie. AN embryo can not think for itself and can not fend for itself. It is completely helpless and relies on other people for what it needs to survive. Since we are responsible for taking care of the embryo and the fetus and responsible for its life, and it can not think or help itself, it is completely immoral to destroy that being. I think that this was a very convincing argument as well and it makes a lot of sense.
|
|
|
|
Post by samanthae on Apr 15, 2013 8:52:39 GMT -5
The movie Lake of Fire gave people the oppertunity to really see the struggle and emotional strain on having an abortion. The girl demonstrates how hard the process can be which is a very good argument within itself.
|
|
|
|
Post by saramwhite on Apr 15, 2013 10:37:43 GMT -5
The argument that the embryo is the most innocent and defenseless thing is very convincing. The movie Millenial Pope showed how horrible some can be when treating the embryo just as a simple cell that would never form into a human. You can not punish a future life just because another does not have the want to take care of that life. Lake of Fire portrayed how an abortion can emotionally scar a woman. I believe that the feeling of being a mother to an unborn child and then having that child killed inside you can be one of the most scarring experience a person would have to go through.
|
|
|
|
Post by victorialord on Apr 15, 2013 10:48:21 GMT -5
I agree with Sara, that one of the strongest arguments against abortion relies on the fact that some people treat the embryo just as a simple mass of cells. This is not true, as the mass of cells that is the embryo will, themselves, grow into a fetus, to a baby, and so on. The cell, itself, has everything it needs to grow into a human person. The embryo can't just be treated as a mass of cells, because it contains human life. This clearly makes one of the strongest arguments against abortion, as it is wrong to intentionally take a human life.
|
|
|
|
Post by saramwhite on Apr 15, 2013 10:51:26 GMT -5
Victoria, you stated that an embryo is a human life do you also think that an embryo is a human person and deserves the rights of a person? I believe that it is a human person and therefore we should not take away its right to live.
|
|
|
|
Post by victorialord on Apr 15, 2013 10:54:17 GMT -5
I disagree that an embryo is human person. Even though it clearly is considered a life, I think that the qualifications for being a human person relies on the ability to reason, think, and actively live. As mr. daniel discussed in my class, it would be hard to consider someone who is completley brain dead a human person, even though they are undoubtedly a human life. I think that this creates some grey area in discussing the "rights" of an embryo.
|
|
|
|
Post by felicityfitz on Apr 15, 2013 15:22:36 GMT -5
Saramwhite, you say that a woman who's fetus is destroyed within her may be one of the most scaring experiences there are. This may be true, but there is a REASON why she chose to have an abortion, even while weighing the possibility of emotional scaring. I insist that you open your mind a little bit to the possibility that being forced by law to give birth might be even MORE scaring.
And Vicky, yes, I agree with you on what best defines a human being.
|
|
|
|
Post by karinad on Apr 15, 2013 22:02:21 GMT -5
Yep, an embryo definitely IS a human life, that is, a member of the species, homo sapien, but it is definitely NOT a human person - I thought that was interesting. (Mr. Daniel and I will continue to split hairs over potential vs. capacity blah blah blah, right, Mr. D.?) A human person is conscious, has thoughts and feelings, and has the illusion of being a self. Somewhere between being conceived and forming a sense of self, the human being gains a right to live. Also the black v. white. v. grey concept was good. Pope John Paul 2, not so much - he definitely had a good heart. Felicity, great comments - you rock!
|
|
