H
hasikelee
Guest
No it’s okay, really.
- Status
E
Elric
Guest
Not even religious?
Thats a bit much isnt it?
So now I am a liar for disagreeing with you (generalised & exaggerated?)
You do realise that there were a lot of people in the US (amongst other countries) that would not give up slavery because of what the bible said, they believed that it was their God given right. Apparently there was a war fought about the situation. Or am I making that up.
Cant remember chapter and verse, but it did involve convincing a race of people to remove their foreskins. While they were recovering from their private pain, that race was attacked and wiped out. Its in there.
I cant remember the chapter and verse of the other one, but that doesnt mean that it isnt in the bible.
Killing infedels not being murder, well that was a Papal decree during the Crusades. Along with similar statements like “God wills it” involving the killing of Moors and Saracens (even if they couldnt defend themselves).
No I am not generalising or exaggurating or even making things up.
But are you suggesting that mercy, compassion and love are not actually taught from the bible?
So you suggest that I am “traumatised” and the proceed to riddicule me?Of course, you never know…the attending may have just wanted less responsibility…if the father signed paperwork choosing to kill one patient, that leaves less culpability on the doctor in the case of a difficult situation. It’s easier to just pressure the father to authorize killing the child and not have to worry about liability in case you accidentally kill the child, know what I mean?
And if that was the case, elric’s story has more to do with cowardly doctors protecting themselves than about moral dilemmas of life and death.
I would feel rather angry myself, if a doctor was that concerned about covering his behind as to want to seal my child’s fate. I certainly wouldn’t have felt my wife was safe in that doctor’s hands!
Maybe elric realised something similar to my ponderings above and in order to feel he is in conrtol of his life and what happened, he rejected medicine, science, logic and truth to maintain a surrealistic belief. It’s a common tendency in humans when subjected to trauma or “bad things” to want to maintain control.
I mean, if elric were to accept facts on this thread, and his situation really was true, then his wife and child were severely mistreated and he himself was lied to by their own doctor. It also means elric at that time was poorly misinformed and could have made a permanent choice…the wrong choice. That’s a lot to swallow…maybe elric just wants to stay in his bubble of pro-choice fairytales instead of think about those possibilities…
Not only that, you seem to enjoy riddiculing the situation that I was in without even knowing what that situation was. I guess that I was wrong about compassion being taught in the bible.
Now science/medicine seems to be subjective. Some say that it isnt necessary, while others say that it is it depends on who you listen to. As far as medical goes, mental health does not seem to be included in that catagory.
Logical: well it seems pretty logical to me to end someones suffering, but that seems to be subjective as well.
But I guess that abortions are not necessary, same with amputations, open heart surgery, mending broken bones and penicilin not being necessary.
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
I wonder if it’s possible to compare atrocities, though ?
ISTM that the blood-letting in the two World Wars, & under the various dictatorships, is equally appalling - different as these are from abortion. Numbers are not unimportant - but they are not the only thing of importance: the Nazi genocide was shocking, partly because of the numbers, & also because it was so hard to believe that a supposedly civilised country, with a long Christian tradition, which was not different in general culture from its neighbours in Europe, could do what it did; if a country like Germany could do what it did, similar countries have to wonder about their own capabilities for evil.I would be equally concerned about the cruelties of more distant regimes - I think it’s very disturbing that China is being treated as though it were not a tyranny. The behaviour of the West to China is very eloquent - human rights are of no importance compared to capitalism.
One can only be grateful that a previous generation stood up to Hitler - were he alive today, he would probably be regarded as a venerable elder statesman.
D
DanteAlighieri
Guest
Indeed.
For those reasons, and the fact that Elric has resorted to merely being rude, I’m through arguing with him.
But I’m also praying for you, Elric.
Peace,
Dante
I
iamrefreshed
Guest
Once again you offer no citations and just babble.
Please at least try to justify your position without breaking out the “don’t pick on me” card!
No one is ridiculing you. But I would like for you to once cite one of your comments with more than “it is in the bible somewhere”. Really, if you can’t say where it is, how are we supposed to believe you read it!?!?!
E
Elric
Guest
Excuse me, but I have not resorted to merely being rude. Perhaps you should look at the post hasikelee made if you want to see what rude is.
If you would rather agree to disagree, that would probably be for the best. Because I cant really see either of us moving on our position. But dont accuse me of things that I have not done (I did back up the claims that I made, even if they are not point for point references. That hardly suggests that they are made up).
R
RyanL
Guest
That’s it – Elric convinced me.
You people are too narrow minded and are generally heartless. You see, despite the scientific/biological fact that unborn humans are exactly that…human…I now agree with Elric that sometimes it’s compassionate to offer them up in sacrifice (to Baal…perhaps as a burnt offering…a.k.a. “holocaust”) so that the mother can live as she pleases. It’s just nicer to dismember them to death or chemically burn them in the womb. How can you not see that?!?
Now some folks have said that abortion is fine in the case of ectopic pregnancies. Of course, that’s not what the Catholic Church teaches – the Church teaches that you may never deliberately kill an innocent human being – the correct answer (according to the Church) is to excise the affected organ, in this case the fallopian tube, and the resulting death of the unborn human would be an unintended consequence. But that’s obviously just hooey. What did Aquinas know about morality, anyway?!? He wasn’t that smart… Oh, and using the line about “wouldn’t live anyway” is a cheap cop-out that Elric and I (and the Church) can see right through. We’re all “going to die anyway”. That’s just not a good response, as it presupposes that the unborn human’s life isn’t valuable unless it “will live anyway”.
But Elric is right. Abortions are fine because a woman’s life is “established” while an unborn human’s life is not “established”. You see, having a credit card bill makes your life more valuable, morally. Again…how could you not see that?!? It’s soooooo obvious!
Besides, having never seriously investigated the crusades, I feel supremely confident in saying that there is no possibility that the Church may have had serious and just moral reasons for saying that combatants killing each other in the midst of a defensive war is morally permissible. No chance. The Church must be wrong. Trust me – I haven’t studied it extensively!
Further, having also not studied the differences between ancient to medieval servitude and the western version of abusive chattel-style slavery, I feel equally confident that Elric has pronounced the right answer regarding the Church’s position on slavery. Because I haven’t looked into this, his claim seems perfectly sound. You must be ignorant not to agree!
But I digress… What is important is that Elric is right. Compassion means squashing innocent humans underfoot (or under scalpel). THAT’s mercy. THAT’s what the Bible teaches. You ask when it’s morally permissible to intentionally kill innocent humans – Elric (and my) answer is that it’s fine whenever we happen to feel that it’s nicer to the person whom we can hear scream.
I can’t believe y’all don’t agree with us!
God Bless,
RyanL
You people are too narrow minded and are generally heartless. You see, despite the scientific/biological fact that unborn humans are exactly that…human…I now agree with Elric that sometimes it’s compassionate to offer them up in sacrifice (to Baal…perhaps as a burnt offering…a.k.a. “holocaust”) so that the mother can live as she pleases. It’s just nicer to dismember them to death or chemically burn them in the womb. How can you not see that?!?
Now some folks have said that abortion is fine in the case of ectopic pregnancies. Of course, that’s not what the Catholic Church teaches – the Church teaches that you may never deliberately kill an innocent human being – the correct answer (according to the Church) is to excise the affected organ, in this case the fallopian tube, and the resulting death of the unborn human would be an unintended consequence. But that’s obviously just hooey. What did Aquinas know about morality, anyway?!? He wasn’t that smart… Oh, and using the line about “wouldn’t live anyway” is a cheap cop-out that Elric and I (and the Church) can see right through. We’re all “going to die anyway”. That’s just not a good response, as it presupposes that the unborn human’s life isn’t valuable unless it “will live anyway”.
But Elric is right. Abortions are fine because a woman’s life is “established” while an unborn human’s life is not “established”. You see, having a credit card bill makes your life more valuable, morally. Again…how could you not see that?!? It’s soooooo obvious!
Besides, having never seriously investigated the crusades, I feel supremely confident in saying that there is no possibility that the Church may have had serious and just moral reasons for saying that combatants killing each other in the midst of a defensive war is morally permissible. No chance. The Church must be wrong. Trust me – I haven’t studied it extensively!
Further, having also not studied the differences between ancient to medieval servitude and the western version of abusive chattel-style slavery, I feel equally confident that Elric has pronounced the right answer regarding the Church’s position on slavery. Because I haven’t looked into this, his claim seems perfectly sound. You must be ignorant not to agree!
But I digress… What is important is that Elric is right. Compassion means squashing innocent humans underfoot (or under scalpel). THAT’s mercy. THAT’s what the Bible teaches. You ask when it’s morally permissible to intentionally kill innocent humans – Elric (and my) answer is that it’s fine whenever we happen to feel that it’s nicer to the person whom we can hear scream.
I can’t believe y’all don’t agree with us!
God Bless,
RyanL
E
Elric
Guest
So I guess that the Civil War didnt happen and neither did the Crusades. Which part was babble?
Dont pick on me card?
I only pointed out what the poster was doing, there was no “card playing” involved. Its just enlightening to see how some people will react when you disagree with them, I may not be able to cite chapter and verse but that does not mean that it isnt in there does it?
It certainly doesnt mean that I made it up. Why would I do that when any of you could check your bibles to see if I did?
That would be a very stupid thing to do on my part.
No one is riddiculing me?
I beg to differ, read what hasikelee wrote. It didnt debate what my opinion was, it was basically a shot at me. Calling me a liar when there was no reason to (I have stated that I dont remember where something is rather than feed you all some line) joking about a position that I was in (when they do not know the full story) and making light of my mental health.
Now how are you meant to believe me because I cant remember where something is in the bible, well there are two ways.
- You could take what I say at face value, since I have not given any reason for you to believe I am deceptive. I have taken what you have said at face value and have not called you a liar.
- If you think that there is reason to question what I say (and there isnt), you chould double check before you start calling me a liar.
E
estesbob
Guest
You made assertions- you back them up. Its that easy. You dont carry on a discussion by claiming , say, that once upon a time you read something somerwhere in scripture about klilling people who didnt cut their foreskins off…
I did notice that you made the standard “crusades” comment which leads me to believe wild tales about the inquisition slave trading Popes can not be far behind.
12,000 children have been slaughtered since this thread began.
B
bmmckinney
Guest
Elric and others, you can’t win the debate on abortion so you keep trying to make it a religious issue or talk about crusades or other things then the fact that abortion is a violent act that kills a baby.
If you and others want to know the reality of abortion and want to know how to help end this genocide and not just talk about it please take a look at my movie at
youtube.com/profile?user=cbrinfo
This will answer a whole lot of confusion people have about this issue I think and will get people to get motivated to save lives and not talk about discomfort about some who are born.
If you and others want to know the reality of abortion and want to know how to help end this genocide and not just talk about it please take a look at my movie at
youtube.com/profile?user=cbrinfo
This will answer a whole lot of confusion people have about this issue I think and will get people to get motivated to save lives and not talk about discomfort about some who are born.
D
DanteAlighieri
Guest
No, you were being rude – or at least dismissve – and that is not worthy of charitable debate.
And, no, you didn’t back up your claims that the Church is wrong, or that she has been wrong in the past, or that killing the sick is merciful, or that abortion can be acceptable. You have, at best, offered vague generalities and bald assertions with no support other than a few out-of-context allusions to things that were once permitted by the Law of Moses that are no longer permitted.
“Agree to disagree” is the call sign of the relativist. I’m sorry, but you’re wrong – and I would go on arguing with you if you would actually argue instead of resorting to logical fallacies and obstinance.
Peace,
Dante
F
fix
Guest
Saying the events took place does not prove anything about the morality of them.
L
Linnyo
Guest
would you stop arguing about rudeness and get back to the question in hand please
H
hasikelee
Guest
Elric, it does sound as if you have a lot to sort out in your heart, before your mind can present clearly the ideas and beliefs you may have.
I wish you luck as you dig deeper into things and I hope that you are always open enough to yourself so as to learn about something before shunting it off.
It is disappointing that you think emotional pokes will distract others from seeing you have no intention of clarifying your position or offering any credos to it. (For example, more information regarding this “last minute decision in the delivery room”)
Anyways, I entered into this discussion as I do everytime on the subject of abortion: looking for someone with an open heart and mind. I didn’t find one this time around so I am bowing out.
Cheers,
hasike
S
SoCalRC
Guest
At the risk of incurring a great deal of wrath I must confess that statements like the title of this thread weigh like a great stone on my heart. To me, the presumption that human tragedy can be meaningfully and usefully judged in numerical context requires both turning ones back on our Savior’s teachings and missing the central point of Pope John Paul II’s beautiful Evangelium Vitae.
Would it lesson the agony and emotion of large scale abortion if I were to point out, truthfully, that bout 80% of abortions occur in the first trimester, so, to be ‘fair’ in our comparison, have to adjust the abortion numbers downward by at least 20% because of the number of miscarriages and other impedements to birth rates world wide?
Would the pressure on anyone’s heart lesson if I insisted on being a ‘stickler’ in our comparison and more precisely apply Catholic teaching? After all, the Nazi crimes were all clearly murders of human beings. With abortions we are counting both ‘murders’ and ‘anticipated murders’ under Church teaching. Pope Pius IX, while dropping the distinction of an ‘animated’ fetus for the purposes of Canon Law, expressly stated that, early in the development process, a fetus is not an ensouled human being. The Church still has not taken a new stance on when ensoulment occurs, but modern biology would appear to make the concept of ‘Simultaneous Animation’ heretical. In other words, at some, unknown point, abortion is a grave moral act because it is the murder of an innocent human being. But, before that, it is a grave moral act because it is the “anticipated murder” of a potential human being. Again, does the distinction, or applying it in some mathmatical way, help?
It just happens that I was quite close to one of the very last MIA (later declared KIA) Marines in Vietnam. It would be very hard for me to detail the complete impact of that single loss. I could explain about feeling guilty to be alive. I could describe how simply not knowing shredded at a mother’s sanity and, I think, ultimately drove her to an early grave. But if I followed every thread of a fabric of family and community torn apart, I still could not create a meaningful numeric ‘total’ for the pain. Without a total, how could I multiply it by 50,000 to ‘gauge’ the relative pain of a war?
In our faith, we are each a unique creation of a God who can, and does, love us without limit. In mathmatics there is no way to multiply and compare terms which include infinity. Attempting to do so, if anything, is a failure to appreciate the true value, in the eyes of God, of each individual live. The scope of WWII does not diminish the human cost of Vietnam, any more than Veitnam can diminish the true human cost of a single, smaller scale, incident like the Trail of Tears.
What saddens me most is when we start to believe these comparisons have meaning, and then use the false comparisons to rationalize actions. Like the Pharisee, we are quite sure of ourselves, thus fail to see the harm that we, ourselves, can do. Even when we are “obviously” working for the greater good.
Peace be with you all.
Would it lesson the agony and emotion of large scale abortion if I were to point out, truthfully, that bout 80% of abortions occur in the first trimester, so, to be ‘fair’ in our comparison, have to adjust the abortion numbers downward by at least 20% because of the number of miscarriages and other impedements to birth rates world wide?
Would the pressure on anyone’s heart lesson if I insisted on being a ‘stickler’ in our comparison and more precisely apply Catholic teaching? After all, the Nazi crimes were all clearly murders of human beings. With abortions we are counting both ‘murders’ and ‘anticipated murders’ under Church teaching. Pope Pius IX, while dropping the distinction of an ‘animated’ fetus for the purposes of Canon Law, expressly stated that, early in the development process, a fetus is not an ensouled human being. The Church still has not taken a new stance on when ensoulment occurs, but modern biology would appear to make the concept of ‘Simultaneous Animation’ heretical. In other words, at some, unknown point, abortion is a grave moral act because it is the murder of an innocent human being. But, before that, it is a grave moral act because it is the “anticipated murder” of a potential human being. Again, does the distinction, or applying it in some mathmatical way, help?
It just happens that I was quite close to one of the very last MIA (later declared KIA) Marines in Vietnam. It would be very hard for me to detail the complete impact of that single loss. I could explain about feeling guilty to be alive. I could describe how simply not knowing shredded at a mother’s sanity and, I think, ultimately drove her to an early grave. But if I followed every thread of a fabric of family and community torn apart, I still could not create a meaningful numeric ‘total’ for the pain. Without a total, how could I multiply it by 50,000 to ‘gauge’ the relative pain of a war?
In our faith, we are each a unique creation of a God who can, and does, love us without limit. In mathmatics there is no way to multiply and compare terms which include infinity. Attempting to do so, if anything, is a failure to appreciate the true value, in the eyes of God, of each individual live. The scope of WWII does not diminish the human cost of Vietnam, any more than Veitnam can diminish the true human cost of a single, smaller scale, incident like the Trail of Tears.
What saddens me most is when we start to believe these comparisons have meaning, and then use the false comparisons to rationalize actions. Like the Pharisee, we are quite sure of ourselves, thus fail to see the harm that we, ourselves, can do. Even when we are “obviously” working for the greater good.
Peace be with you all.
E
estesbob
Guest
A distinction without a difference. The Church has ALWAYS taught that abortion was a mortal sin regardless of what stage of development. The disitinction made between animated or ensouled was for the purpose of determing the pennace and for a brief time whether the sin could only be forgiven by appeal to the Vatican. The idea that abortion during the early stage of development was ever allowed by the Church is simply not true.Once one understands this the rest of you arguments collaspe.
Since the Holocaust death toll was 12 millipn and the abortion death poll is over 45 million and counting in this country alone it is obvious the latter is more serious than the former.
J
Jerusha
Guest
The Holocaust was under an opressive regime. The abortion issue is workable through legislation and humane action with those in difficult pregnancies.
When anti-abortion compaigners come to an agreement with those who advocate for other right-to-life issues, maybe I will be more concerned about the abortion issue. The left-right dichotomy issue doesn’t cut it. Anti-abortion is to the right in terms of politics, while minority issues, and others, are to the left. This is not logical, and could lead to disastrous consequences. These are not separate issues.
Two-party system. Bah!! Humbug!!
Seems like some abortion activists are more concerned with shaming and punishing women who become pregnant because of alcohol-related “accidents”, and sexually manipulative men and other social pressures. Where is the respect for women? What can we do to change this? Hint-- we live in a sex-obsessed society
Therefore, holocaust and abortion cannot be compared. Some opponents of abortion have more in common with the perpetuators of the holocaust.
Look at the root causes of abortion, not the act itself. Should a woman live a life of shame because of one mistake that only took 15 minutes to happen? What would Mary say?
When anti-abortion compaigners come to an agreement with those who advocate for other right-to-life issues, maybe I will be more concerned about the abortion issue. The left-right dichotomy issue doesn’t cut it. Anti-abortion is to the right in terms of politics, while minority issues, and others, are to the left. This is not logical, and could lead to disastrous consequences. These are not separate issues.
Two-party system. Bah!! Humbug!!
Seems like some abortion activists are more concerned with shaming and punishing women who become pregnant because of alcohol-related “accidents”, and sexually manipulative men and other social pressures. Where is the respect for women? What can we do to change this? Hint-- we live in a sex-obsessed society
Therefore, holocaust and abortion cannot be compared. Some opponents of abortion have more in common with the perpetuators of the holocaust.
Look at the root causes of abortion, not the act itself. Should a woman live a life of shame because of one mistake that only took 15 minutes to happen? What would Mary say?
E
estesbob
Guest
So you think respect for women should be allowing them to kill their chidren?The Holocaust was under an opressive regime. The abortion issue is workable through legislation and humane action with those in difficult pregnancies.
When anti-abortion compaigners come to an agreement with those who advocate for other right-to-life issues, maybe I will be more concerned about the abortion issue. The left-right dichotomy issue doesn’t cut it. Anti-abortion is to the right in terms of politics, while minority issues, and others, are to the left. This is not logical, and could lead to disastrous consequences. These are not separate issues.
Two-party system. Bah!! Humbug!!
Seems like some abortion activists are more concerned with shaming and punishing women who become pregnant because of alcohol-related “accidents”, and sexually manipulative men and other social pressures. Where is the respect for women? What can we do to change this? Hint-- we live in a sex-obsessed society
J
Jerusha
Guest
Sorry, see my edit.
E
estesbob
Guest
The root cause of abortion is a society that condones it.
- Status