Abortion

[estesbob]

Ok.

What are you personally going to do to help women find better alternatives to abortion?

There really is only one alternative to abortion and that is not killing your child. The first step in ending this holocaust is to conitnue sending the message their is NO EXCUSE for killing ones child.

 

[Oreoracle]

It does make me sad that you fail to grasp all of this, but I will continue to pray for you and all like you.

Are you sad for me, or sad that your god has one less follower?

Yes, I used to deny your god’s culpability when I was very young. It’s the easiest thing in the world to deny the responsibility of who you perceive to be a friend, but perhaps one day you’ll break free of this comfort.

 

[estesbob]

I think religion (in fact, the willingness to accept religious comfort) is part of the downfall of the world and the origin of social problems. “X deserves Hell and Y deserves Heaven” really warms people up to the idea of tolerating suffering. We see this attitude in action with capitalism.

Yes, but a person has desires (in my definition, anyway). Fetuses have no desires, emotions, preferences, etc. for at least a few months into the pregnancy.

I agree junk releigion and capitalism and turn the world over to the enlightened atheists like mao and Stalin. After all no one died becuase of them…

As far as the unborn being disposable becuase they have no desires-you are fortunate your Mother did not feel that ay.

 

[estesbob]

Are you sad for me, or sad that your god has one less follower?

Yes, I used to deny your god’s culpability when I was very young. It’s the easiest thing in the world to deny the responsibility of who you perceive to be a friend, but perhaps one day you’ll break free of this comfort.

Lucky you-you have met god and he is you. Must be awesome!

 

[True_Believer_1]

Love by its nature is grounded in conditions. To say that love is unconditional is to say that love is without cause, and nothing is without cause.

Unconditional love is possible, because with God all things are possible. But, if you are unable to even consider the possibility that God does exist, then you will not be able to fathom this concept either.

Given our two points of view, when we die, and one of us is wrong, who is going to be more suprised? In other words, when your maker is looking into your eyes and asking why you did not give him a chance to enter your life, what are you going to say?

Again it really does come down to faith. If you do not have faith, then I fear that you may truely be lost. And again, this does make me quite sad.

God will Bless you, but you must be willing to accept that Blessing!

NOT JUST STRONG…CATHOLIC STRONG!!!

 

[HickmanJosh]

Perhaps, but I’m sure my premises would be rejected before they are even considered.

Actually, I would be preventing the person from existing to begin with (that is, if we’re accepting my definition of “person”). But tell me this: what’s the difference between a woman getting an abortion and a woman that planned on having a child deciding against it? Both prevent the existence of a potential person, but only one is frowned upon. Why do you feel this is so?

Well in my opinion if a woman has an abortion she is physically killing the child because she is denying it life. But if she where do decide against getting pregnant in the first place (by this i mean not having sex) then life is not being created there is no sin. This is where the choice is supposed to be made not after the irresponsible chioce to have sex and not want children.

Oreoracle:

Perhaps, but I’m sure my premises would be rejected before they are even considered.

don’t be so sure, Catholics may defend there faith vigorously but i know there are plenty of us who are open to a logical debait.

“X deserves Hell and Y deserves Heaven” really warms people up to the idea of tolerating suffering.

The RCC says we all deserve hell but when Jesus died he gave us all a chance to get into heaven. contrary to popular belief God does not send anyone to hell. They chose it for themselves by the life they have lived and the sins thieve committed.

Oreoracle:

Yes, I used to deny your god’s culpability when I was very young. It’s the easiest thing in the world to deny the responsibility of who you perceive to be a friend, but perhaps one day you’ll break free of this comfort.

To tell the truth i was once an atheist. 8 months ago actually.

A new thread would be good to continue this discussion, this has very little to do with abortion.

Oreoracle:

Friendly challenge: define “love.”

Love is a choice.

HickmanJosh

 

[grannymh]

I don’t know any specific articles, but is it not the Catholic position that sinners cannot stand before God (and must use Jesus as their shield)?

Friendly challenge: define “love.”

Love by its nature is grounded in conditions. To say that love is unconditional is to say that love is without cause, and nothing is without cause.

Hi Oreoracle,

Good place to say hello and give you a hard time –

Come on… you are not fooling a granny. You know unconditional love is love with no strings attached.

Blessings,
granny

All human beings are worthy of profound respect.

 

[Barb3]

I have read most of the comments and agree with some and disagree with others. I feel very STRONGLY about abortion because I have three adopted children in my family – one of my grandsons is adopted, and a nephew has two adopted children – one girl and one boy. What would they have done if adoption was not available? I seem to recall that the wait for an adopted baby was a long one – and I believe both of them adopted through a Catholic agency.
I don’t think the Church gets enough credit for the “good” they do to help unwed mothers – I believe we have a “home” for unwed mothers here in San Francisco (a nurse friend of mine worked there many years ago).
Abortion is “killing” and since I’ve had a number of pregnancies I can’t understand why ANYONE would agree to “killing” that baby (I hate to use the term “fetus”), particularly after she can feel the baby moving inside.

 

[Oreoracle]

Well in my opinion if a woman has an abortion she is physically killing the child because she is denying it life. But if she where do decide against getting pregnant in the first place (by this i mean not having sex) then life is not being created there is no sin. This is where the choice is supposed to be made not after the irresponsible chioce to have sex and not want children.

Obviously, the possible factor of sinfulness doesn’t enter my thought process. Our divergence in ethical deliberation occurs early in our thinking, so it is unlikely that either of us will successfully persuade the other.

don’t be so sure, Catholics may defend there faith vigorously but i know there are plenty of us who are open to a logical debait.

I find that most Catholics here are unable to speak outside of their own jargon. For example, Catholics typically use obscure definitions of “love,” “faith,” and “murder,” to name a few.

The RCC says we all deserve hell but when Jesus died he gave us all a chance to get into heaven. contrary to popular belief God does not send anyone to hell. They chose it for themselves by the life they have lived and the sins thieve committed.

For your sake and for the thread’s, I will not respond to this part of your post, as this particular aspect of your religion makes me rather angry. As you guys would say, it would be difficult for me to respond “charitably.”

Hi Oreoracle,

Good place to say hello and give you a hard time –

Come on… you are not fooling a granny. You know unconditional love is love with no strings attached.

That’s how it’s defined, yes, but I see no such love taking place.

God’s an artist and a father, right? He enjoys being in the presence of his creations–his children–because he takes pride in having made them. Is this pride not conditional? Why would a mother love her child and not others, even if all the children are identical? Because it’s her child, and this ownership is the condition of the love. God would love us because he created us (emphasis on “cause,” as that denotes a condition).

 

[grannymh]

I find that most Catholics here are unable to speak outside of their own jargon. For example, Catholics typically use obscure definitions of “love,” “faith,” and “murder,” to name a few.

Try listening to the jargon of some scientists. Sometimes that is really scary.

Regarding unconditional love as being without strings attached.

That’s how it’s defined, yes, but I see no such love taking place.

I agree. But because we don’t see it around us, does that change the definition in any way?

God’s an artist and a father, right? He enjoys being in the presence of his creations–his children–because he takes pride in having made them. Is this pride not conditional?

Not sure.

Why would a mother love her child and not others, even if all the children are identical?

Having spent time in Alaska, the first thing learned is don’t mess with a mother bear with cubs.

Because it’s her child, and this ownership is the condition of the love. God would love us because he created us (emphasis on “cause,” as that denotes a condition).

Are you seeing a theme here? There’s God as father of His creation, especially humans. Bears and cubs which in a way represents creation. A mother and her child. I can speak to that. When one of my young kids was being attacked in his face by a neighbor’s angry dog, – in two minutes, I had that boy in my arms. I have no memory of how I got the dog away from the boy or even what happened to the dog.

Blessings,
granny

All human beings are worthy of profound respect.

 

[HickmanJosh]

Obviously, the possible factor of sinfulness doesn’t enter my thought process. Our divergence in ethical deliberation occurs early in our thinking, so it is unlikely that either of us will successfully persuade the other.

True.

I find that most Catholics here are unable to speak outside of their own jargon. For example, Catholics typically use obscure definitions of “love,” “faith,” and “murder,” to name a few.

It just depends on what your definition of faith love and murder are.

in my opinion
Faith is believing in someone and that they want whats best for you.
Love is an action. you love people by helping them or smiling to them without any deceitful porpoises in mind.
Murder is an unacceptable sin and is borderline unforgivable (in my opinion).

For your sake and for the thread’s, I will not respond to this part of your post, as this particular aspect of your religion makes me rather angry. As you guys would say, it would be difficult for me to respond “charitably.”

sorry, what i met by this was if people chose to do bad things in there lives instead of doing good ones then when they meet God they see all there sins and say to him something along the lines of: “i don’t belong hear” and so they go to hell. God wants everyone (except the fallen angles) in heaven. But if you chose otherwise then in his love he must let you go, it hurts him every single time he loses one of us to Satan. He cannot forcibly keep someone in heaven if they don’t want it.

But if someone has sinned like a madman but wants to go to heaven then He goes to purgatory so that he can be purified of his sins but can still get to haven. It can take a while though, some people are in purgatory suffering until the second coming.

HickmanJosh

 

[fix]

But tell me this: what’s the difference between a woman getting an abortion and a woman that planned on having a child deciding against it? Both prevent the existence of a potential person, but only one is frowned upon. Why do you feel this is so?

It is not self evident? It is the diffeence between killing and not killing.

 

[grannymh]

Actually, I would be preventing the person from existing to begin with (that is, if we’re accepting my definition of “person”). But tell me this: what’s the difference between a woman getting an abortion and a woman that planned on having a child deciding against it? Both prevent the existence of a potential person, but only one is frowned upon. Why do you feel this is so?

My apology. I missed your definition of “person.” Would you mind giving it again or directing me back to a post?

In any case, I’ve heard that idea about preventing a person, usually someone great with mighty talents, from being born. That was literally years ago. It sounds like a clever idea but I doubt if it plays out in real life. Should I be updated?

Blessings,
granny

All human life is sacred.

 

[traillius]

Why?

1. My wife cannot conceive a child, and at this point, might not survive pregnancy or childbirth if she could.
2. Our only child is adopted.
3. I was born august 1973
   count back 9 months, and you get 2-3 weeks prior to ROE v WADE.
4. I live less than 50 yards from a place that murders babies.

 

[Oreoracle]

My apology. I missed your definition of “person.” Would you mind giving it again or directing me back to a post?

I feel that a “person” is an entity that is self-aware and has conception of time (so that the entity can have goals). Obviously, a fetus has neither, at least for a few months.

It is not self evident? It is the diffeence between killing and not killing.

So because it appears brutal, it’s wrong? “Killing,” (in your usage) “murdering,” etc. are words loaded with connotations. Let’s keep to the facts: a young fetus is not sentient. For as long as it is not sentient, it has all the moral significance of a weed. You could argue that it’s a potentially sentient life, but all the sperm cells killed in the process of procreation were potentially sentient lives as well.

 

[fix]

So because it appears brutal, it’s wrong? “Killing,” (in your usage) “murdering,” etc. are words loaded with connotations. Let’s keep to the facts: a young fetus is not sentient. For as long as it is not sentient, it has all the moral significance of a weed. You could argue that it’s a potentially sentient life, but all the sperm cells killed in the process of procreation were potentially sentient lives as well.

The baby is alive. If you want to pretend he/she is not that does not change reality.

 

[Oreoracle]

The baby is alive. If you want to pretend he/she is not that does not change reality.

Wow. I don’t know how anyone can just sit there and blatantly strawman as you did. I’m not denying that it’s alive. I’m saying that life doesn’t have inherent value, and neither does humanity.

A weed is alive too. Why is it okay to kill weeds in a garden but immoral to have an abortion? Again, unless you think something has inherent value because it’s human, I don’t see the argument.

 

[grannymh]

. I’m not denying that it’s alive. I’m saying that life doesn’t have inherent value, and neither does humanity.

Oreoracle,

I believe that as a human being and as the unique, lovable Oreoracle, you have infinite inherent value even if your definition of person is on the slim side.
For you … :flowers:
granny

 

[Brendan]

I feel that a “person” is an entity that is self-aware and has conception of time (so that the entity can have goals). Obviously, a fetus has neither, at least for a few months…

So a homo sapien who is unconscience is no longer a ‘person’. Because such an entitity does not fit your definition of personhood.

How about a patient in a coma that is expected to recover in several months, are they ‘persons’ too.

 

[estesbob]

Wow. I don’t know how anyone can just sit there and blatantly strawman as you did. I’m not denying that it’s alive. I’m saying that life doesn’t have inherent value, and neither does humanity.

A weed is alive too. Why is it okay to kill weeds in a garden but immoral to have an abortion? Again, unless you think something has inherent value because it’s human, I don’t see the argument.

The it would not be immoral for someone to kill you. Correct?