A new cause of immorality exposed sorry conservatives this one is enviromental

[Traditional_Ang]

Liberalsaved:

The difference is that a person using birth control is in charge of their own body. I do not see a fetus as a human until it meets the criteria of ability to think late in the pregnancy. This is where I stand. I would not abort a baby at all, were it my choice, BUT IT IS NOT. It is your choice to not abort a child you and your spouse may have. It comes down to choice. A thinking human is different than a sperm that may become a human or a newly formed fetus.

Liberalsaved:

So, when do you believe a fetus starts to “think” and “becomes” a human being? Who gets to decide whether the Baby “thinks” or not? abd, On what basis do they decide whether the baby “thinks”? According to what standard or what instruments?

If it’s an EEG, it’s around 20-22 weeks. If that’s the basis, how do you explain those on your side who chose to allow Aborions all the way up to and including BIRTH?

And, why thinking? How would you define gravely mentally disabled people outside the womb? Or Who are severely mentally retarded? Or Who can’t communicate? Or Who are florally psychotic? Or Who have advanced Alzheimer’s Syndrome? Or Who have received the verdict “Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity” or “Not Guilty by Reason of Mental Defect”?

On what basis? According to what modality?

Can you see that your standard would allow some humans who are not fetuses to be deemed “Not Humans” and to be “Aborted” whenever they become inconvenient or too much of a burden?

Are you just willing to look at the claims of our Lord and to look at His saving act and what He’s done for you?

Are you willing to see that you just might be wrong, and all of these crazy Catholics just might be right?

In Christ, Michael

 

[Traditional_Ang]

Liberalsaved:

The ability to form a thought. Regardless of whatever one may beleive, there is a point before which a fetus does not have that ability at all.

Iiberalsaved:

I suspect there are a lot of people from the list I wrote on my post who wouldn’t qualify as Human Beings according to your logic.

I believe that most, if not all, of the below would be definable as “Nonthinking Beings” and not as Human Beings according to your logic posted above:

Those with grave mental disabities
Those who are severely mentally retarded
Those who have no ability to communicate
Those who are florally psychotic
Some with advanced Alzheimer’s Syndrome
Those who are "Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity by Reason of Mental Defect"

History has an example of people who thought like that. they even had a “Bible”, The Release of the Destruction of the Life Devoid of Value, which was used to justify what they did. Nearly 73 Million people were slaughtered in the war they started, 16 million of them in an industrial slaughter the likes of which the worldhas never seen and will never see untill the End of Days.

I beg you to look very carefully at your logic. It has in it the seeds of our destruction.

In Christ, Michael

 

[Traditional_Ang]

Liberalsaved:

I’m actually advocating the lack of a restriction. But I thought we were having a discussion. Until you can stop twisting my words and taking shots at me, we’re done talking.

Liberalsaved:

No one here is twisting what you’re saying.

What we are doing is showing the logical conclusions and consequences of your thinking and the ethics you claim to hold. we can’t help that those conclusions and consequences are ugly. Humanity has been down certain roads before, and those roads have been pretty ugly.

I’m sorry you don’t like what you see in the mirror.

Have you considered that maybe the logic you thought served people actually hurt them and was dangerous? If that’s true, don’t you think the truly compassionate thing to do is to look at the ethicl system that truly “does no harm”?

In Christ, Michael

 

[St.Sharky]

Traditional Ang:

The figure of 5,000,000 is probably laughably low, which is why Europe will be Islamic in less than 20 years.

Now thats just sensationalist paranoia if I ever heard it. The Islamic population in a country such as England is 3%. So you are trying to tell me that in 20 years another 50 000 000 Muslims are going to be born?
Traditional Ang:

That’s why Catholics who use contraception have the same divorce rate as the secular world, while those who don’t and who faithfully follow the Teachings of the Church and attend Mass together at least once/week divorce at a rate of 4%.

The reason, as far as I can see it, that the divorce rate is lower among the couple who dont use contraception is that these are the couples who are extremely fundamental in their beliefs. Whether this is a good thing or a bad thing is not for debate here, but the point is that along with contraception being taught to be sinful to these kinds of couples, they have also been taught that divroce too is sinful, hence they will not get divorced.
Traditional Ang:

Liberaslsaved:

Please come up with a definition for human life which demonstrates that a baby inside of his mother’s womb is not a human being but does not do the same with any dependent person OUTSIDE the mother’s womb.

Geography can’t be and absolute determinant of humanity, even HYPOCRATES understood that.

Michael

Ok, hows this: The baby in the mothers womb is not only not concious, but is also dependent entirely on the mother. It can even be said that the baby is just an extension of the mother for the first few weeks of pregnancy.

Therefore geography is a small part of this issue. And dont give me the old argument that if I was dependent on someone to feed me that then I could be killed, because anyone can feed or look after a person, but only the mother can carry the child inside of her for 9 months, and therefore it is at her discretion what to do if she falls pregnant. I know you have all probably heard it a few thousand times and are now sick of this saying, but it really is the mothers choice.

vz71:

I cut myself shaving this morning. I will have a scar. Is this consequence an affront to freedom? Perhaps I should picket before the Gillette headquarters for taking away my freedom to not have a scar.

Ah, but if there was a way to get away from cutting yourself without getting a scar then would you do it?

I hope you tell you Catholic daughters/sisters/female friends not to have abortions. I really d. But please do not try and impose your views on the rest of the (non Catholic) population.
Traditional Ang:

Liberalsaved:

I want to see LOGIC that differentiates a Black person from a fetus since you refuse to call a fetus a human being. Most people on your side of the fence when confronted with this logical problem are willing to admit that the fetus is a HUMAN BEING and then come up with some explanation as to how the fetus is not a HUMAN PERSON.

Ok, heres the difference. A black person is able to function and think on their own, or independently. A fetus is entirely dependent on the mther to survive.

vz71:

So a human that is not thinking is not worth as much as one that is? How do we measure this thinking?
Are we talking about abstract thought?
Theoretical physics?
Rocket Science?
Is someone that thinks a great deal more human then someone that does not think as much?
Is the retarded child worth less then The holder of a Doctorate?

Your line is suddenly blurry. And you still have not addressed the harm that abortion does to the mother.

Dont be silly and take what he said the wrong way on purpose. I dont know what precise liberal was referring to, but thought to me entails one having independent thought processes, being able to think for themselves.

Im not sure regarding Catholic women, but I think having an unwanted baby is a lot more psycholigally damaging for some non cathoolic women than haivng an abortion.

vz71:

And that is your opinion on where the line should be drawn?
Interesting. And arbitrary.
But I am curious how you address the issue of taking a human life. You see, wether thinking or not, it is alive, and unique, and human.

Further, your position is increasingly untenable since it stands on opinion (yours), and as stated earlier, there is a problem with making law out of opinion.

Which leaves your side with a problem too doesn’t it?
(No, dont say the bible is law. The bible isn’t recognised as a law manual in any democratic court of law)

 

[St.Sharky]

Traditional Ang:

Liberalsaved:

No one here is twisting what you’re saying.

What we are doing is showing the logical conclusions and consequences of your thinking and the ethics you claim to hold. we can’t help that those conclusions and consequences are ugly. Humanity has been down certain roads before, and those roads have been pretty ugly.

I’m sorry you don’t like what you see in the mirror.

Have you considered that maybe the logic you thought served people actually hurt them and was dangerous? If that’s true, don’t you think the truly compassionate thing to do is to look at the ethicl system that truly “does no harm”?

In Christ, Michael

So when he said that a person is a person when they can form thought, and one of you guys asked that if that meant that babies needed doctorates, that wasnt twisting or taking out of context?

 

[luvmykids]

I’m still confused about what sugar has to do with this??

 

[thistle]

luvmykids:

I’m still confused about what sugar has to do with this??

From reading other threads the OP has a thing about sugar. He thinks addiction to sugar causes people to be irrational and violent.

 

[St.Sharky]

thistle:

From reading other threads the OP has a thing about sugar. He thinks addiction to sugar causes people to be irrational and violent.

Oh yes, I love lollies and regularly beat my friends half to death!

 

[puzzleannie]

jbuttrey:

My point is if more children come out of sugar free homes they will not use the pill.

John

you a real johnny one note on this issue. where is your research showing a correlation between sugar consumption in childhood and use of artificial birth control, drug use, abortion or any other deviant behavior in adulthood? your opinions and suppositions are not research and they are not evidence. If you ever once in your rant on this issue posted any reliable sources and evidence we might be interested, until then, save it.

 

[Liberian]

jbuttrey:

Immorality can start in some cases in the home where self control isn’t taught.

…

Some kids are unwittinly given the example of sugar or other addictions at home. Self control needs to come from Dad and Mom’s example first. I wish I could have done better don’t make the same mistakes I did.

…

Brother John,

If I may get back to what I think the original purpose of this thread was, I will say that children learn more from what you do when you aren’t trying to teach them anything than they learn from anything you tell them. If you tell them “Keep your bedroom clean” and your own bedroom is a mess–and you make no effort to keep it clean–, all they will learn is that you are a hypocrite and that keeping a clean bedroom is not that important. If you tell them that sugar is bad for them as you scoop it into your coffee, they will learn that you are hypocrite and that sugar is just fine.

• Liberian

 

[Traditional_Ang]

St.Sharky:

So when he said that a person is a person when they can form thought, and one of you guys asked that if that meant that babies needed doctorates, that wasnt twisting or taking out of context?

St. Sharky:

I didn’t see that one.

All I know is that I didn’t twist what he said, and neither did most of the other people here.

If he wants to take a random post from one person and generalize it to all of those who disagree with him, as you have just done, he can be my guest, but Christian Charity requires that we treat people as individuals, and truth requires that we follow the logic to it’s inevitable conclusions.

Regarding inevitable conclusions, history has provided us with a horrid example of the inevitable conclusions that a society did reach that agreed with Liberalsaved’s logic.

I’m sorry if that history is one that people who are “Pro-Choice” would rather ignore. To see who agreed with that society, you might wish to read a comprehensive and unbiased history of Margaret Sanger, who believed universal Birth Control and Abortion should be used to “Cull” certain populations out of existence.

The above has been established multiple times on multiple threads by multiple posters. I don’t need to establish it again.

In Christ, Michael

 

[Traditional_Ang]

luvmykids:

I’m still confused about what sugar has to do with this??

Luvmykids:

Brother John thinks it has a lot to do with it.

Frankly, I don’t see any connection, although I do wish parents and others would feed kids less refined sugar. If you’ve seen a classroom or a park full of kids on a “sugar high”, I’m sure you’ll understand what I mean.

I thought we were dealing with the issues Abortion and Artificial Contraception and their effects on society. At least until it became a debate as to whether those were right or wrong and whether anyone had the right to mention that Aborion and Contraception were wrong and harmful to those who had Abortions and used Contraception.

That’s the problem when someone tries to say the Church is wrong on something, or someone decides to use the fact the Church is right to promote a Health Food Agenda.

I hope this clears things up. Hopefully, posters will begin to return to the original topics of discussion.

Happy Palm Sunday.

In Christ, Michael

 

[Traditional_Ang]

Liberalsaved:

Impossible to make a judgement on the number of babies never conceived because of birth control. Sounds like those numbers were far over-estimated just to make it sound worse. Also, with abortion you have a stronger argument. With birth control it really isn’t any of your business.

Liberalsaved:

At least you got that the issue was birth control and not sugar consumption by kids (as another poster seems to have thought).

Well done, and I’m not being sarcastic.

I really do wish you’d look at your logic, because I bet, as dogged and determined that you are, that you’d make a great Catholic, if you could see that Jesus really is what makes us free.

In Christ, Michael

 

[coyote]

john ennis:

I gotta go with you on the estimate being a very high number. Take the dozens of millions of sexually active females on the pill, many of them for years, consider ovulation would take place monthly. Even if the pill was successful in its primary mission of preventing ovulation 99 percent of the time…
Geez! One percent failure resulting in early abortion, over the forty-some years that the pill has been popular…

Peace.

I take great offense at the statement in bold. The “dozens of millions of sexually active FEMALES” have partners. Let’s not, in our presumptions, condemn only one half of the equation.

Secondly, You don’t seem to have an accurate understanding of how the hormonal contraceptive pills work. The active ingredient is progesterone. The same hormone produced by the pregnancy that mantains the pregnancy and INHIBITS maturation of follicles. There is no ovulation. You can’t use erred logic and ignorance of the science to inflate statistics to suit your position. That is, in the very least, misleading.

 

[coyote]

A “sugar high” is a myth. There is no scientific evidence to support this notion. The research was done over 20 years ago.

Children are naturally high energy. Refined sugar only has a half life of 30 minutes max. It is digested and metabolized rapidly and the energy it supplies can’t last beyond that.

Foundational nutrition fact: Complex carbohydrates are what supply sustained energy.

 

[vz71]

St.Sharky:

vz71:

So a human that is not thinking is not worth as much as one that is? How do we measure this thinking?
Are we talking about abstract thought?
Theoretical physics?
Rocket Science?
Is someone that thinks a great deal more human then someone that does not think as much?
Is the retarded child worth less then The holder of a Doctorate?

Your line is suddenly blurry. And you still have not addressed the harm that abortion does to the mother.

Dont be silly and take what he said the wrong way on purpose. I dont know what precise liberal was referring to, but thought to me entails one having independent thought processes, being able to think for themselves.

Odd, no one was being ‘silly.’ The idea that thought dictates if someone is human is odd. And also worthy of further refinement. I am trying to encourage this. The statement was that life begins with thought. OK, what thought? Insects have thoughts, fish have thoughts, how are we to measure these ‘thoughts.’
You admit that you do not know what liberal is referring to, so don’t be silly and accuse others of purposefully taking something the wrong way when you yourself do not know how it should be taken.

Im not sure regarding Catholic women, but I think having an unwanted baby is a lot more psycholigally damaging for some non cathoolic women than haivng an abortion.

There are many statistics that refute this.

Which leaves your side with a problem too doesn’t it?
(No, dont say the bible is law. The bible isn’t recognised as a law manual in any democratic court of law)

No, my side is not the one using opinion to decide law.
My side is the one using the tools at our disposal to help people.

 

[vz71]

St.Sharky:

So when he said that a person is a person when they can form thought, and one of you guys asked that if that meant that babies needed doctorates, that wasnt twisting or taking out of context?

Post number please.
This is quite and accusation and it is easily shown or refuted.

So please, lets see the evidence of this.

 

[vz71]

coyote:

A “sugar high” is a myth. There is no scientific evidence to support this notion. The research was done over 20 years ago.

Children are naturally high energy. Refined sugar only has a half life of 30 minutes max. It is digested and metabolized rapidly and the energy it supplies can’t last beyond that.

I have two kids under 5 that refute that.

 

[luvmykids]

vz71:

I have two kids under 5 that refute that.

I have 5 kids and have never noticed any difference in their behavior after giving them sugar. I try to limit their sugar, because it isn’t good for them, but I don’t understand how someone can say that sugar has ANYTHING to do with artificial birth control and abortion later in life. I’m sure that consistently giving in to your children and letting them do as they please can be something that breeds self indulgent adults, but you can do that with anything, and has nothing to do with sugar itself.

 

[vz71]

luvmykids:

I have 5 kids and have never noticed any difference in their behavior after giving them sugar.

Just shows us that different people react differently to different foods.

Yet another reason I doubt scientists when they make sweeping statements concerning what some foods do to people.