Abortion,Catholic tip of spear? Why?

[IrishJoe]

Heil Singer comes to mind… he’d kill the baby? I mean WHAT?

Hey when we’re at it lets kill people who wear glasses…

 

[Black_Rose]

So, humans who are unconscious or cannot feel pain for whatever reason don’t deserve human dignity (ethical considerations). Is this for real? What a sad state this world is in if people believe what he says to be true.

If you can pick and choose who deserves ethical considerations (creating a hierarchy among humans who are all equal and are all children of God), then nothing is wrong. Kill whomever you want, especially those who do not benefit society. This is similar to Nazi Germany or the 20th century socialists where they killed those who don’t contribute much or anything: the elderly retired people, people with disabilities, the chronically ill, etc.

Continuing the pitching analogy, all you have done is whiff at Singer’s pitches (bring up irrelevant points based on incorrect interpretations of his arguments) or get called strikes (not addressing his positions at all).

You incorrectly draw the conclusion based on what you think Singer’s arguments that everything would be acceptable under his preference utilitarianism. You also think that the criterion for ethical consideration in preference utilitarianism is social utility, but actually it is the ability to suffer and possess interests. Even slackers possess interests, and under Singer’s system, they would not be killed or murdered. Of course, the ability to suffer and feel pain are somewhat nuanced though. Most people feel pain when they put their hand over a hot surface, but they do not “suffer”.

I am having visions of people with disabilities, intellectual capacities of children, being forced to donate organs to people who “need them more.” Maybe I heard too many science fiction stories (island of clones where people get organs harvested).

Lord have mercy on the souls of those who are or allow themselves to be brainwashed by the “pro-choice” individuals, or believe the arguments have merit.

If I remember correctly, some people in Pakistan sell their organs to Westerns. Of course, some of this is caused by the impoverished state of the farmers.

But I had no intention of being a Singer apologist in this thread; I just wanted to make the point that he is a formidable intellectual adversity, and it seems that the best his opposition can muster are misrepresentations of his arguments.

 

[Black_Rose]

• adversary (not adversity)

 

[truthscout]

HUMAN morality.

Doesn’t it go without saying that all “human morality” is not the same? When you say “human”, do you specifically mean the morality which you hold dear? And if I disagree with you, does that make me sub-human?

truthscout

 

[Momofmyangels]

Abortion and slavery are two different issues. It is easy for one to demonstrate the harm inflicted by slavery, but much harder to assail abortion. You do have to remember the abortion is not defended by mediocre intellects; the best ethical minds have come to the conclusion that it is morally acceptable in some ethical frameworks. For example, Peter Singer has some overpowering stuff that he uses to defend abortion and he can delivery it to the corners of the plate quite accurately. In contrast, pro-lifers cannot make solid contact with his offerings and just fail to address his points.

Singer’s arguments that abortion is morally permissible is based on his denial that life begins at conception, a fact that the Catholic Church teaches otherwise. He also fails to obey the fifth commandment and states that since a newborn baby “lacks the essential characteristics of personhood” that killing a newborn baby “is never equivalent to killing a person”!!!
I am not sure what you mean when you say that “pro-lifers cannot make solid contact with” the garbage that comes out of his mouth. Unless you mean that the truth falls on his deaf ears. He needs many, many prayers.

 

[Spirithound]

The one issue that seems to be most definitive here is abortion. Rightly so, but why rightly so?

Is it because it so clearly delineates what Jesus taught about treating the least like they may be Him? Or does it stand on its own merits?

Is the opposition to abortion like our love for our children in the respect that we can love all of them equally as much, yet reserve some favor for each of our kids at the appropriate time or is it like the love showered upon one of our kids at the expense of another ?

Is being pro life just a line in the sand ? Or is it one of our foot prints in the sand or perhaps a line that our foot prints won’t cross.

Does being pro-life entail more than being just concerned with the policies of sexual relationships or does being pro-life encompass all our relationships

I think yes, it does encompass Jesus’s teaching about how to treat the least, but it also stands on its own merits. I’m afraid I don’t understand your analogy in the second paragraph. Pro-life is a line in the sand, and I hope that it is our footprint in the sand too, for all generations to embrace!

Abortion really is only the tip of the spear of being pro-life. Abortion is the logical conclusion of a society that has given in to its own sense of entitlement. When sexual intercourse stops being about being a gift of self to the other, and becomes all about one’s own pleasure, then masturbation becomes a natural alternative when one’s partner is not available. Contraception becomes a way for one’s partner to always be available, and abortion becomes Plan C contraception. When sex is all about pleasure, marriage becomes meaningless from a spiritual point of view, divorce rises, homosexuality rises, and polygamy starts to rear its head too.

 

[Holly3278]

“Our morality”? Or Catholic morality? Or Jewish morality? Or Hindu morality?

Or my morality?

bridesmaid

There is only one morality. Either abortion is murder or it is not. The fact is that it IS murder! There is no getting around that fact. I don’t care if you or anyone else believes that abortion is not murder. Regardless of whether you choose to believe it is murder or not, it IS murder.

 

[Black_Rose]

Singer’s arguments that abortion is morally permissible is based on his denial that life begins at conception, a fact that the Catholic Church teaches otherwise. He also fails to obey the fifth commandment and states that since a newborn baby “lacks the essential characteristics of personhood” that killing a newborn baby “is never equivalent to killing a person”!!!
I am not sure what you mean when you say that “pro-lifers cannot make solid contact with” the garbage that comes out of his mouth. Unless you mean that the truth falls on his deaf ears. He needs many, many prayers.

Singer is throwing at 97 mph… Does any pro-lifer have the intellectual ammunition to deal with Singer’s “heat” or he’ll just K you!!? How do pro-lifers attack utilitarian ethics intellectually?

I just wanted to point out that pro-life apologists are unable to address any of Singer’s arguments. Singer has some excellent well-argued points.

But you do have to admit that Singer’s framework is internally consistent and his reasoning is correct. Yes, he denies that ethical consideration does begin at human conception.

 

[Momofmyangels]

Singer is throwing at 97 mph… Does any pro-lifer have the intellectual ammunition to deal with Singer’s “heat” or he’ll just K you!!? How do pro-lifers attack utilitarian ethics intellectually?

I just wanted to point out that pro-life apologists are unable to address any of Singer’s arguments. Singer has some excellent well-argued points.

But you do have to admit that Singer’s framework is internally consistent and his reasoning is correct. Yes, he denies that ethical consideration does begin at human conception.

I could never admit that Singer’s reasoning is even remotely correct. Are the decisions I make and the rational I use to make those decisions the same as yours, the same as a sociopath or a serial killer? What if that serial killer was a female that was abused as a child by a man and now feels that, “balancing out good and evil” for the greater good that all men should be eliminated from this earth? I know, a bit extreme, but using the utilitarian theory, if she truly feels that the consequences of her actions are in the best interest of the general population then she is justified morally in her actions. How far does this go? What is the criteria for making decisions? How could we possibly predict accurately the consequences of those decisions? Human nature is flawed at best. Look around you, people make wrong decisions on a daily basis. “How does this benefit me” is certainly more commonplace than doing the greater good for others.

Singer has no “heat”. He is leaving God out of His role as creator and judge. He sets us all up as our own judges over our own morality, with total disregard to the laws and commandments set forth by the church and by God. This from a man who has stated that if he had sole guardianship of his mother (who has alzheimers disease) that she likely would not be alive today. No, his reasoning is the furthest from correct I’ve ever seen.

 

[portarica]

I think yes, it does encompass Jesus’s teaching about how to treat the least, but it also stands on its own merits. I’m afraid I don’t understand your analogy in the second paragraph. Pro-life is a line in the sand, and I hope that it is our footprint in the sand too, for all generations to embrace!

Abortion really is only the tip of the spear of being pro-life. Abortion is the logical conclusion of a society that has given in to its own sense of entitlement. When sexual intercourse stops being about being a gift of self to the other, and becomes all about one’s own pleasure, then masturbation becomes a natural alternative when one’s partner is not available. Contraception becomes a way for one’s partner to always be available, and abortion becomes Plan C contraception. When sex is all about pleasure, marriage becomes meaningless from a spiritual point of view, divorce rises, homosexuality rises, and polygamy starts to rear its head too.

The analogy was meant to ask if we are pro-life or anti abortion. Do we love all people to the same extent or do we discriminate in our loving?

Like kids, the form the love takes may be different, but if we love them all as much as we can we will do the appropriate thing at the appropriate time .But if we are like some parents who do not subscribe to the ideal of loving each of their children as much as they can and need to be loved and show preferences to the detriment of the other kids, that is different.

Abortion may be a line in the sand, but really isn’t all life on the same side of the line since the reference for the line came way before the abortion debate.

When we say we love the unborn more than the born by our actions aren’t we saying we love the unborn more than the born? Shouldn’t we love all with the same commitment? Does God have a lesser love for those of us who can type on a computer like we are now doing and more love for the unborn?

Peace

 

[Spirithound]

When we say we love the unborn more than the born by our actions aren’t we saying we love the unborn more than the born? Shouldn’t we love all with the same commitment? Does God have a lesser love for those of us who can type on a computer like we are now doing and more love for the unborn?

(emphasis mine) These are really loaded questions. Those who are pro-life, including strongly against abortion, will strongly object that they love the unborn equally with the born. For someone to try to interpret their actions as displaying more love for one or the other group is fraught with difficulties. Can you elaborate on this?

 

[portarica]

(emphasis mine) These are really loaded questions. Those who are pro-life, including strongly against abortion, will strongly object that they love the unborn equally with the born. For someone to try to interpret their actions as displaying more love for one or the other group is fraught with difficulties. Can you elaborate on this?

The question is a loaded one.

I’m not saying that being strongly anti-abortion ipso facto make us not love others as much as they love the unborn. But being anti-abortion doesn’t also mean that ipso facto we love all the born as much as we love the unborn.

The question is loaded because the church’s policies on abortion didn’t spring from thin air, but from the concept of the value in each of us as taught by Jesus. Jesus taught about loving the sinner, loving our enemies, loving our neighbors and treating the least like they may be He. That is a pretty tall order, but from it flows the wisdom that makes us realize that even the unborn deserve love. But well before we even conceived of loving the newly conceived we knew to love the least.

So can we be truest pro-life if we don’t love the least as much as we love the unborn?

Peace

 

[Spirithound]

So can we be truest pro-life if we don’t love the least as much as we love the unborn?

No we can’t.

Peace

 

[hoop0826]

I am reading a book called The Church Speaks to the Modern World - The Social Teachings of Leo XIII. , and in the section entitled On the Evils Affecting Modern Society: Their Causes and Remedies there is this quote

“…that kind of civilization which conflicts with the doctrines and laws of holy Church is nothing but a worthless imitation and meaningless name.”

The rest of the Encylcal letter actually entitled Inscrutabili is really worth a read to get the holy message. I think the point I found is that because our civilization permits abortion, which is in conflict with the doctrines and laws of holy Church, we end end up with no civilization at all, but an imitation of one.

So this begs the question, if we are in America, an imitation of a civilization, not a real one which would be founded on doctrines and laws of holy Church, what do we have?

So I think that abortion is definitely at the tip of the spear.