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

[coyote]

Traditional Ang:

John Ennis:

Well said. I don’t think Liberalsaved gets the idea that we’re human beings because God forms us in the womb and knows us by name before our parents name us, and that all of these things happen whether he wants to admit them or not.

God bless you.

In Christ, Michael

This is FAITH.
This is BELIEF.
It is not provable as FACT.
It is unrealistic to assume that EVERY PERSON is obligated to accept what you accept on faith.

 

[coyote]

Liberalsaved:

Religion has nothing to do with laws in my country. I like religious ideals and legal structure and try to make them get along.

And my causes are pretty clear. The defense of true free will, the right not to have government exceed the bounds of keeping society together on a non-moral level, which is the job of government, the right for everyone to express what they feel they want to express, which is why you are allowed to express this view and I am allowed to disagree. I also beleive in views not being forced on people, which is why I will fight for your right of expression but will also fight for other people’s right not to have to live by that opinion.

My cause is humanity. My cause is being able to write a story about abortion without condemning the subject if I so desire. My cause is to be able to write a book concerning Catholicism or Protestantism or Buddhism or Atheism and be able to write it the way I wish, without having to bow to the way the people in question see themselves, for only by writing the world the way you see it can a story be good. And only by writing the world the way you see it can a story be bad. It’s the only way to get ANY real truth out of a story.

My cause is for people who are told “You cannot live this way, someone you have never met who knows you only as an abstract concept says that it is wrong”. It’s for people who have to hide the only true beleifs and passions they will ever feel for a religion or a person or a thing or a place because those around them want them to be more like themselves. It’s for people who’ve been pushed around and made to feel like less because someone else somewhere decided they were the ideal of perfection and that everyone who didn’t measure up was to be discriminated against.

THAT is my cause.

Woo hoo! Whoo hoo!

Ditto!

Very well said.

 

[coyote]

vz71:

I have two kids under 5 that refute that.

Your children are capable of refuting physiology! Wow.

Perhaps it is your interpretation that is in repute.

I have a child also, nothing about sugar “activates” him. I feel more confidence in trusting the SCIENCE.

 

[vz71]

coyote:

This is FAITH.
This is BELIEF.
It is not provable as FACT.
It is unrealistic to assume that EVERY PERSON is obligated to accept what you accept on faith.

It is also unrealistic to expect to terminate a life based on an arbitrary belief.

I agree with you that we must appeal to something more concrete then what is presented. So here it is… 1. The life is human. This is its genetic structure, and that can be proven scientifically.
2. The life is unique from either parent. Again, this can be shown scientifically. The genetic structure is unique and different from that of the mother or the father.
3. The life is alive. This also can be shown through our own medical science. All criteria for life are met.
4. Characteristics 1, 2, and 3 are true from the moment of conception. Again, Science has shown us this.
So there it is. Not faith, Not belief, FACT.
Now given that the facts support from the moment of conception a unique and human life, taking of this life is wrong.

Anything less is not supported by the facts.
And shouldn’t our laws reflect fact?

 

[Scott_Waddell]

coyote:

This is FAITH.
This is BELIEF.
It is not provable as FACT.
It is unrealistic to assume that EVERY PERSON is obligated to accept what you accept on faith.

This would overthrow the argument that abortion is wrong only if one could prove that the fetus was something other than human. But no can do this–meaning that there is at least a possibility that it is human (nevermind that in reality it is an overwhelmingly strong possibility), and as long is there is possibilty basic morality (not necessarily religious) demands we may not abort. Otherwise it is the equivalent of a hunter firing his gun into rustling bushes without first making sure what he is firing at.

 

[Liberalsaved]

Traditional Ang:

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.

FYI: I chose to stop discussing it with one person because he did so continually. If I thought that made everyone guilty I wouldn’t still be reading the thread.

 

[Liberalsaved]

Traditional Ang:

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"

Those people can form a thought, can they not? The question there is the stability of the thought, not whether or not they can form it.Those are people with issues that need treated. Except people with no ability to communicate. Take it from me, those people are just writers.

 

[Liberalsaved]

T. Ang:

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?

I explain it this way: I have no “side”. I am very liberal in my beleifs, but liberal is a description, not a political line as some people would have it be. There is room for a wide variety of beleifs. I do not agree with those people.

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”?

See above response…

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

They might be. Except for the ones who think everyone should agree. This is my real issue with these debates. Not what you think but whether you beleive other people should be restricted (there is a difference between a law that removes restrictions and one that places them) by what you think.

 

[vz71]

Liberalsaved:

Those people can form a thought, can they not? The question there is the stability of the thought, not whether or not they can form it.Those are people with issues that need treated. Except people with no ability to communicate. Take it from me, those people are just writers.

So it is not a question of whether or not we are killing human life, but a question of whether or not the person we are killing can form a stable thought?
How is that to be measured?

 

[Traditional_Ang]

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.

Coyote:

You’re citing a study that tried to compare a “Sugar High” with the one people get from taking drugs. That wasn’t what I was talking about. I was talking about what parents and other caretakers observe everytime kids consume a load of Twinkies, cake, candy or other sweets.

If you don’t believe me, get a group well-behaved 4 year olds and feed them a bunch of sugar. Try to control them for the next hour or so.

Anyway, that topic is off topic, and I don’t care to debate topics that parents observe whenever they hand their kids a bag of Twinkies or whenever their kids dig into their Halloween “take”.

I was just trying to say that I didn’t see any connection between that and the widespread use of Artificial Contraceptives, and I can’t see why why you would have any disagreement with that or why you would decide to post a disagreement to a post expressing something just about every parent here has seen.

If you wat a debate on the merits of sugar, PM Brother John and see if he’ll set up a thread for that, or set one up yourself, but that’s off topic here.

In Christ, Michael

 

[Traditional_Ang]

Liberalsaved:

They might be. Except for the ones who think everyone should agree. This is my real issue with these debates. Not what you think but whether you beleive other people should be restricted (there is a difference between a law that removes restrictions and one that places them) by what you think.

Liberalsaved:

Except that, if the Catholics, Christians and other religious people are right, Abortion kills HUMAN BEINGS.

Since I’ve shown that you’re logic can be used to define groups who have already been BORN as NON-HUMAN, don’t you think the babies in the uterus just might be HUMAN?

Are you willing to consider that? or, Would you rather err AGAINST human life and humanity, continuing to set the precedent with has already been used once to justify killing the groups of people I listed above?

My other question, If the younger baby (still less than 12 weeks old) hadn’t been human, how could the other baby in this story have recognized Him?

*During those days Mary set out and traveled to the hill country in haste to a town of Judah, where she entered the house of Zechariah and greeted Elizabeth.

When Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the infant leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth, filled with the holy Spirit, cried out in a loud voice and said, "Most blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb. And how does this happen to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? For at the moment the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the infant in my womb leaped for joy. Luke 1:39-44*

Luke is considered to be the Gospel According to MARY. These are HER recollections.

In Christ, Michael

 

[Traditional_Ang]

Liberalsaved:

Those people can form a thought, can they not? The question there is the stability of the thought, not whether or not they can form it.Those are people with issues that need treated. Except people with no ability to communicate. Take it from me, those people are just writers.

Liberalsaved:

How can you tell these people can form thoughts?

Last year, we put a gravely disable woman to death in FL because there was some debate as to where she could form complete thoughts and whether she had said she had wanted to live.

She died of systemic and complete dehydration. By the time she died, her body temperature was 107° F.

They were using your logic, or at least they thought they were.

The precedent has already been used in other cases, and has been placed in something called the Grundingen University Hospital Proticols.

Michael

 

[Traditional_Ang]

coyote:

This is FAITH.
This is BELIEF.
It is not provable as FACT.
It is unrealistic to assume that EVERY PERSON is obligated to accept what you accept on faith.

Coyote:

This is a thread on a CATHOLIC Board. The Teaching of the Catholic Church is taken as proven by the sponsors of the board and gy most of the members. If you don’t like that, there are Secular Boards, such as Democratic Underground, where most of the people will agree with you, where most of us aren’t allowed to express our opinions as you’ve been allowed to do here.

As other poster have pointed out, there are SCIENTIFIC arguments for the humanity of the baby in the uterus. As several of us have illustrated, there are NON-Religious PHILOSOPHICAL arguments for the humanity of the baby in the uterus. And, with the exception of the reasoning around Roe v. Wade, there are legal arguments for accepting the humanity of the baby in the uterus, because you can’t disprove it, at least not without disproving the humanity of people we generally acknowledge to be human.

You can claim that you absolutely must prove the baby in the uterus to be human beyond all doubt before you will accept it as human. But, As one poster pointed out, if you took that attitude about firing into a bush because you thought there were birds and not a human being there, you could still be liable for MANSLAUGHTER.

In Christ, Michael

 

[john_ennis]

Can any Christian truly believe that the degree to which we can form conscious thought is all that makes God’s gift of life precious? It’s all that makes us human?

[Admit, if this is your criteria, that a baby one week short of birth is as surely human as any of us when we were born.]
The babies not yet at this stage, or the profoundly retarded, are not ony not human, but are so obviously not human that we can safely refuse to protect them just in case?

This sounds as horrible as executing someone if most people are just fairly sure that he’s guilty. And they can’t all agree on why–they’re just pretty darn sure.

It’s insanity–I maintain that the argument, “You can’t be interfering with others’ choices on this because you can’t objectively prove to them what you believe,” would have been a perfect argument for pulling the rug out from under abolitionists’ arguments 150 years ago.
Peace.

 

[Liberalsaved]

john ennis:

Can any Christian truly believe that the degree to which we can form conscious thought is all that makes God’s gift of life precious? It’s all that makes us human?

[Admit, if this is your criteria, that a baby one week short of birth is as surely human as any of us when we were born.]
The babies not yet at this stage, or the profoundly retarded, are not ony not human, but are so obviously not human that we can safely refuse to protect them just in case?

This sounds as horrible as executing someone if most people are just fairly sure that he’s guilty. And they can’t all agree on why–they’re just pretty darn sure.

It’s insanity–I maintain that the argument, “You can’t be interfering with others’ choices on this because you can’t objectively prove to them what you believe,” would have been a perfect argument for pulling the rug out from under abolitionists’ arguments 150 years ago.
Peace.

I’ve covered mental retardation in previous posts, as I have covered that there is a point in the womb when the fetus gains thought. I have also covered my stance that any thought will do, and that I do no agree with full-term abortion. I fail to see why you keep rolling these arguments out at me after I have already answered you and others about them.

 

[Traditional_Ang]

John Ennis:

Well stated.

I would just like to know why on the issue of Abortion - Why is it that, on this, we have to prove the HUMANITY of the baby in utero and the fact that the baby in utero is a human being being all doubt, not just to a preponderance of the evidence or beyond a reasonable doubt, but beyond all doubt, when, in all other cases involving human life, the burden of proof is on those wishing to take the life? Why is that? Is it because to admit that the baby is a human being would interfere with people’s sexual license and force them to take responsiblity for their actions? or, Is it that some have already decided that the burden of proof for preserving life should sooner or later fall on the advocates of the severely ill, mentally ill and the disabled which many feel are a burden on our society?

I would just like to know why this is the ONE instance where those wishing to preserve life have to prove that life is worth preserving?

It’s one question I would like to see those who promote Abortions answer.

In Christ, Michael

 

[Traditional_Ang]

Liberalsaved:

I’ve covered mental retardation in previous posts, as I have covered that there is a point in the womb when the fetus gains thought. I have also covered my stance that any thought will do, and that I do no agree with full-term abortion. I fail to see why you keep rolling these arguments out at me after I have already answered you and others about them.

Liberalsaved:

It’s because I can prove human parentage and 48 (or 47 or 49 in the case of certain well-known disorders) Chromosomes. No one can prove the formation of thought, at least not until the person can vocalize it or use some other means to communicate.

That’s why. It’s what we can prove objectively. Your standard is a subjective standard open to interpretation.

A civilized society requires an objective standard when it comes to protecting human life. Can’t you see that?

In Christ, Michael

 

[vz71]

Liberalsaved:

I’ve covered mental retardation in previous posts, as I have covered that there is a point in the womb when the fetus gains thought…

Which post might this be?
I think I missed it.

I would love to hear how you can discern the thoughts of a forming child.

 

[jbuttrey]

Great discussion, You are TOPS for me in Defending the FAith

On the internet today I found the estimated pill use every day of 100,000,000 by a non catholic resource. Sorry it also didn’t have any verifiable sorces but sounds reasonable.

We should take up the question if morally defensible excesses can translate into morally indefensible behavior?

The other question may be if you are contracepting with the PILL what is it doing to the unformed conscience of your children?

Brother John

 

[Sean_Boyle]

Liberialsaved,

What is your purpose on this forum? Are you here for the fun of debate?

People in this forum are a part of something bigger than themselves. I will pray for you.