Ask a Unitarian Universalist

  • Thread starter Thread starter NowHereThis
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Thanks for the link; I believe in going to primary sources 🙂 - and I appreciate the personalized view as well.

Re the first item on the list, this is quoting directly from the website . . .

"There are seven principles which Unitarian Universalist congregations affirm and promote:
Code:
**The inherent worth and dignity of every person;**" (emphasis mine)
it seems that where the great divide between the UU guiding principle on abortion and the Catholic teachings about it lies in the definition of “person” within the context of those seven principles.

@ my fellow Catholics on this thread - even if we disagree with the OP, we should not come at him or her with both barrels, but in a spirit of inquiry and comparing our respective beliefs in order to further the search for truth. Or to put it another way, one catches more flies with honey than with vinegar. :twocents:
Yes, I think that’s the key distinction when it comes to abortion. And the two cents is much appreciated!👍
 
There are a ton of sources online, but this simple website sums it up decently: wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_latest_you_can_have_an_abortion

“In the US most abortions are performed during the first 14 weeks… They can be performed in some states up until 24 weeks. If you go to get an ultrasound at a clinic and they say you are to far along I would ask if they know of any place that will perform it. That is assuming of course you still want it. In the US abortions after 24 weeks are only performed because of health complications. I know that in Chicago and California you can have one up to 24 weeks but it will be VERY expensive at that point. If you consider the fact that at 24 weeks you only have 3 months left to full term you MAY want to change your mind to adoption.”

I find it interesting however, that you admit the fact that the only difference between a baby aborted at 23 weeks and one cared for in the ICU is whether the child is wanted or not. After all they are both viable.
Your question about medical waste seemed to imply that any prematurely born baby would be treated as medical waste, and that was the implication I was questioning. I wasn’t making any other statement. As I said, if there is viability as determined by a doctor, then there is an actual child.
 
No I would not agree with that. Our view of truth is obviously not equal, but are ability to know truth is absolute. Whether or not we find truth is relative to our situation.

We should be striving to find truth, not wallow in our comfort of relativism.
Interesting. How do we know when we’ve found absolute truth? And what do you mean by “relativism”?
 
Your question about medical waste seemed to imply that any prematurely born baby would be treated as medical waste, and that was the implication I was questioning. I wasn’t making any other statement. As I said, if there is viability as determined by a doctor, then there is an actual child.
So every abortion doctor, determines viability…you can’t possibly believe that. The age of allowable abortion is set by the government. Then each individual clinic/doctor can set its own rules. Women walk into clinics everyday and abort their 25 week baby with virtually no questions asked. THIS BABY is VIABLE. It is proven that babies as young as 21 weeks can survive.

So, what is the difference besides location and desirability between baby A who is aborted and baby B who is born and nursed to health.

You do realize that the pro choice folks in Texas where outraged that Texas wanted to ban abortion after 20 weeks. They wanted to ban it after that point because the baby is viable after that point. But of course the other side says that it is an attack on women. The other part of the Texas law was for regulating abortion clinics and requiring standards so none of them could slip through the cracks like Gosnell’s in PA. Of course people are outraged by that too! How ridiculous. We regulate our dentists offices, but not our abortion clinics…its unbelievable.
 
Interesting. How do we know when we’ve found absolute truth? And what do you mean by “relativism”?
We use logic, history, science and philosophy and we try to understand truth. As a Catholic I believe that God revealed truth to us absolutely, and it has been handed down through the Church over the centuries, it has grown and developed. Doctors of the Church like St Thomas Aquinas have elaborated and analyzed the truth and unpacked it in a lot of ways.

I am sure you would agree there is only one truth in regards to science, and science is the search for that truth.

Philosophy/Metaphysics should be no different.

What I mean by relativism is the idea that everyone makes their own truth. Your truth says x and mine says y and that is ok and they are both valid because it is our personal truth.

By definition truth cannot be relative.
 
So every abortion doctor, determines viability…you can’t possibly believe that. The age of allowable abortion is set by the government. Then each individual clinic/doctor can set its own rules. Women walk into clinics everyday and abort their 25 week baby with virtually no questions asked. THIS BABY is VIABLE. It is proven that babies as young as 21 weeks can survive.

So, what is the difference besides location and desirability between baby A who is aborted and baby B who is born and nursed to health.

You do realize that the pro choice folks in Texas where outraged that Texas wanted to ban abortion after 20 weeks. They wanted to ban it after that point because the baby is viable after that point. But of course the other side says that it is an attack on women. The other part of the Texas law was for regulating abortion clinics and requiring standards so none of them could slip through the cracks like Gosnell’s in PA. Of course people are outraged by that too! How ridiculous. We regulate our dentists offices, but not our abortion clinics…its unbelievable.
This link (miscarriage.about.com/od/pregnancyafterloss/a/prematurebirth.htm) shows that viability is a matter of percentages, and that there are a variety of factors involved. That makes it a medical judgment, because specialized expertise is required to weigh the factors. It’s not a good subject for drawing a specific bright line at a certain number of weeks legislatively. If the doctor makes the judgement negligently and harm results, let him or her be sued just as it would be with any other negligent medical decision.

Regarding abortion clinic regulations, abortion is an outpatient service. Why should clinics be held to the same standards as facilities that expect to have patients in need of longer term care? In my view, these regulations aren’t about protecting women, they are about restricting access for as long as possible. That leads to more late-term exploitation of desperate women by people like Gosnell. Upping the regulation and closing clinics will produce more Gosnells.
 
Yes, I think that’s the key distinction when it comes to abortion. And the two cents is much appreciated!👍
Has this distinction regarding personhood been adapted from Judaism? There’s more to the issue of viability outside the womb in Jewish belief regarding abortion, but your argument sounds similar to me in some respects.
 
Why did you join a Catholic forum? To agitate and antagonize? Or to spread the lies of your so-called “church”, that tries to justify what is objectively the murder of babies?
 
WHY I AM NOT A UNITARIAN UNIVERSALIST by Larry Reyka, Humanist Chaplain Humanist Society o
Code:
           WHY I AM NOT A UNITARIAN UNIVERSALIST

             by Larry Reyka, Humanist Chaplain
                Humanist Society of Friends
===================================================================
Code:
                       INTRODUCTION:
This was my last sermon preached from a Unitatian Universalist
pulpit, it was delivered in 1985 or so at The First Unitatian
Universalist Church of Columbus (OH), and in it I share my, shall
we say, misgivings about the Unitarian Universalist movement.
Around that time is when I resigned from membership in that
church.

==================================================================

The reasons for NOT being Unitarian Universalist may be as diverse
as the reasons for coming here in the first place.

I’ve been told by a Unitarian Universalist minister acquaintance
of mine that the average “stay” within the Unitarian Universalist
church is about five years.

In that sense, it seems to me the church is like a train station,
a place to be between where you’re leaving from and where you’re
going to. This led me to a working title for my talk today,
UNITARIAN UNIVERSALISM, THE TRAIN STATION RELIGION, OR PARDON ME
BOY, IS THAT THE CHATTANOOGA U-U?

My personal stay as a MEMBER of the church was approximately two
years. My doubts began, in reality, about the time the ink was
drying on my name in the book, but it took me a number of
experiences, some of which I detailed in my sermon on my religious
odyssey, to realize that I am, in fact NOT a Unitarian
Universalist.

The historical roots of the Unitarian Universalist Church have
produced a religion with a unique flavor. The combination of
residual Christianity and disguised Humanism found in this
denomination is to be found nowhere else. The hospitality to
atheists as well as to believers in mysticism, flying saucers,
pyramid power and all manner of foolishness is amazing. You do
provide a church home for a lot of people who simply would be
without one otherwise. I am attracted to many things, and most of
the people here. Hence, my reason for still being about as a
FRIEND.

However, as a Humanist, I find certain aspects of Unitarian
Universalism to be frustrating. The principle of affirming no
creed is, I believe, less than forthright. Agreeing to disagree
is an appropriate principle for our pluralistic society as a
whole, but it is not appropriate for a religious community
dedicated to celebration and action as a community. Groups that
stand for everything stand for nothing or else they deceive.

The alliance of convenience between residual Christians and Closet
Humanists is inhibiting - to both groups. Neither theists nor
atheists may act boldly or creatively on their convictions out of
fear of offending the other. For Humanists, the result is a timid
humanism that spends more time keeping peace with the god
believers in the church than meeting their own needs as Humanists
and reaching out to other Humanists in the larger community.

The Unitarian Universalist Hymnal - a hymnal for both Protestants
and Atheists - is not a miracle; it’s a disaster. This hymnal to
me is a symbol of the watered down religion so often offered in
the U-U church.

The willingness on the part of the Unitarian Universalist Church
to TOLERATE my Humanism is far from enough for me. My need is for
an organization that AFFIRMS my Humanism.

So, while I will remain a friend of the Unitarian Universalist
Church and of all of you, as long as you’ll have me, I cannot for
reasons above consider myself a member of your congregation.
 
Two things. First, the standard for determining whether it is an potential or actual child wasn’t whether the child was “fully developed” or not. It was whether or not it can survive outside the womb. A two year old child could survive outside the womb, and thus would have the right to procedural and substantive due process under the 14th Amendment before it’s life could be taken, just like an adult.

Second, as I stated in my first post, UU is a diverse movement. I cannot say whether every UU would adopt the reasoning that I’ve offered here, only that I as a UU have.
So if our technology changes that a baby can live out side the womb at conception abortion would be illegal with your logic

Or in reality a baby can’t live outside the womb on thier own until at least 2. Look at how incapable new norms are they can’t ever hold thier heads up.
 
Separate Question:

Please explain how truth can be relative.

It seems to me that truth is absolute, just as the laws of the universe are not relative to the individual.
In my view (as one of the diverse UU members out there): Truth is not relative. However, our understanding of Truth is constantly evolving. The Christian scriptures even show evidence of this.
 
We use logic, history, science and philosophy and we try to understand truth. As a Catholic I believe that God revealed truth to us absolutely, and it has been handed down through the Church over the centuries, it has grown and developed. Doctors of the Church like St Thomas Aquinas have elaborated and analyzed the truth and unpacked it in a lot of ways.

I am sure you would agree there is only one truth in regards to science, and science is the search for that truth.

Philosophy/Metaphysics should be no different.

What I mean by relativism is the idea that everyone makes their own truth. Your truth says x and mine says y and that is ok and they are both valid because it is our personal truth.

By definition truth cannot be relative.
I agree that even if everything else was relative, the statement “all statements other than this one are relative” would be an absolute truth. So there is some kind of absoluteness. That having been said, we should be aware that we see “through a mirror, darkly” as Paul put it, and be open to new perspectives, new ways of understanding. Just because we can search for truth freely and responsibly, as the principles put it, doesn’t mean it would be responsible to prematurely declare that we’ve found it. Especially when you’re dealing with something beyond full experience like the absolute/the divine/God.
 
Has this distinction regarding personhood been adapted from Judaism? There’s more to the issue of viability outside the womb in Jewish belief regarding abortion, but your argument sounds similar to me in some respects.
I can’t say for sure, but it would not surprise me at all. UUs have been involved in pro-choice coalitions that have included rabbis for decades now, and many UUs are themselves Jewish. Jewish teachings are included in one of the six sources we’ve agreed that we draw from.
 
What do you think about the bible is it the word of God?, if it isn’t shouldn’t you denounce Christians as false
 
Why did you join a Catholic forum? To agitate and antagonize? Or to spread the lies of your so-called “church”, that tries to justify what is objectively the murder of babies?
You should direct your anger to the creators of this forum, who allow a ‘Non-Catholic Religions’ sub-forum to exist.
 
What do you think about the bible is it the word of God?, if it isn’t shouldn’t you denounce Christians as false
Can I join the conversation? Not many UU’s on the board, I couldn’t resist!

No, I don’t think the Bible is the word of god. At best, I think it was inspired by god and transcribed by humans. I find it difficult to believe, though, that the only times a human being has been inspired by god to write a book occurred some 73 times, all within one very small geographic area. Certainly, there must have been a few others…? (Cathechism was a long time ago, forgive me if I have the number wrong). But if you believe otherwise, I’m not going to denounce you for it. I try to ration my denouncing for the really nasty stuff!
Some of this choice (about what to denounce or not) is emphasis and some is pragmatism. Does one spend their time affirming things that they do believe, or denouncing things that they don’t believe?
 
I agree that even if everything else was relative, the statement “all statements other than this one are relative” would be an absolute truth. So there is some kind of absoluteness. That having been said, we should be aware that we see “through a mirror, darkly” as Paul put it, and be open to new perspectives, new ways of understanding. Just because we can search for truth freely and responsibly, as the principles put it, doesn’t mean it would be responsible to prematurely declare that we’ve found it. Especially when you’re dealing with something beyond full experience like the absolute/the divine/God.
(NHT, here’s where I go all intellectual Catholic apologist on you . . . I still wish others wouldn’t be angry and snarky, that’s not helpful . . . you seem sincerely trying to have a conversation and I’m willing to meet you on those terms)

As Catholics we believe that historically Jesus the Son of God established a Church and gave it the authority, as well as the guidance of the Holy Spirit (one of the three Persons of the Trinity) to “lead it into all truth.” We believe Jesus, the second Person of the Trinity, did this at the will of God the Father the first Person of the Trinity. Trinitarian belief is essential to our religion.

What I’m getting at is that we do believe that from the get-go, Christ established a Church that would search for the truth as His Body and guided by Him.

There is a presupposed unity in the Judeo-Christian belief that human beings are created in the image and likeness of God, especially in their spiritual aspect, and therefore are equally subject to the need to search for and find the one Truth despite the fact that they do have different life experiences, gifts, and contributions to make to building up God’s Kingdom.

Catholics study how God has revealed Himself and His Truth throughout what we term “Salvation History.” As the Scripture says, we are many parts but all one body (cf. Romans 12:4, 1 Corinthians 12). So no one individual is an authority unto himself or herself, it’s in all of us together that the Body of Christ consists.

This in no way lessens the value of the individual and we are all certainly equally loved by God. But what does He want us to do with the life He has given us? Think of it as like an orchestra - you have your violinist, your pianist, your trumpeter, your percussionist, and so on. Together they make a symphony, provided they are playing in unity and following the direction of the conductor! :harp:

If each individual is seeking and thinks he or she has found truth, and then you gather them together, the result is more of a cacophony of individuals with contradictory and clashing hypotheses as to what truth is. They try, but can they truly succeed in figuring out how to reconcile these contradictions into a genuine harmony? Or perhaps they dodge the conundrum by simply having them coexist side by side, but then is there music, or silence, or noise, or what? 🤷

Psychologically, and you’ve probably heard this before, it seems to me that UUs generally are folks with authority issues. What do you think?
 
Why did you join a Catholic forum? To agitate and antagonize? Or to spread the lies of your so-called “church”, that tries to justify what is objectively the murder of babies?
Years ago I did enjoy antagonizing and agitating. But I learned and grew, and that’s what I’m doing here and elsewhere: learning and growing through dialogue with people of a variety of beliefs.
 
So if our technology changes that a baby can live out side the womb at conception abortion would be illegal with your logic

Or in reality a baby can’t live outside the womb on thier own until at least 2. Look at how incapable new norms are they can’t ever hold thier heads up.
Yes, that would be a logical extension of what I’ve said before, but under those circumstances, what need would there be for abortion, since the egg and sperm would probably just be combined outside the body as well? The woman would never even be pregnant in the first place.

Who said anything about living outside the womb “on their own”? All I said was that an actual child would be capable of surviving outside of the womb. That means without being literally attached to the mother’s body 24/7. It doesn’t mean totally on their own.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top