kasey wrote: "As Vince said it's only tissue until it is viable outside the womb. Take the life issue away and reduce the debate. I believe Vince is a Christian also."
Vince certainly believes that Vince is a Christian... I don't believe that I said "it's only tissue" and if I did, that was not contextually what I was going for so perhaps I mis spoke. It is tissue which is potential life but it is not life itself and not a person. Becuase of what this particular tissue represents, it makes the question very serious indeed. Kasey also said the definition of when life begins is a religious question. That I would exactly agree with, it is a religious question, and that is why one particular religious interpretation cannot be engrained in law. There is great divergence within Christendom on that answer, as well as within Judaism. And there is inconsistency within the opinions. And then there is the fact that we have the establishment clause on religion in the Constitution anyway let alone the diversity of beliefs, which leads us back to being pro choice for the law. People are then left free to practice their particular beliefs in accordance with the case law that does govern abortion stemming from Roe v Wade, with grants a limited right to an abortion in the 2nd trimester and a very, very limited right to abortion in the 3rd trimester. The Roman Catholic understanding is not that old as being canon or doctrine., very recent, within the last several hundred years. No part of the church ever considered life as being dated friom conception, just the potential for life being dated such, which is why liturgically miscarriages are not considered deaths, but medical events, and a miscarried fetus is disposed of (hopefuilly with respect) and not accorded a funeral, because a person did not die, rather, a medical event occured. A tragedy certainly, but not death, because there was yet no life. Vince
