Ask a Unitarian Universalist

[ProudUU]

…then why call the UU a “church”?

church
/CHərCH/
Noun

A building used for public Christian worship.
A particular Christian organization, typically one with its own clergy, buildings, and distinctive doctrines: "the Church of England".

If there’s no truth to any deity, isn’t the UU really just a social club after all (though certainly one that includes kind and generous members in its ranks)?

By that definition, any church that isn’t Christian is not a church (and I suppose it’s true that other religions have different names for it, i.e., synagogue, mosque, temple, etc.). But it’s definitely a religion; not in the construct of the “belief in a superhuman power,” but in the construct of “a sense of beliefs concerning the purpose of the universe.” Calling it a social club is offensive in the extreme.

And, to be honest, I don’t really like the word “church.” I think we use that term because so many of our members come from a Christian background, and our religion came from that, but has evolved. I don’t mind if you don’t want to call it a church - many UU congregations use the terms “fellowship,” “congregation” (as mine does), etc. But it IS a valid religion.

 

[LisaA]

I missed that post, sorry.

When a fetus can live separate from the host (in other words, at viability [which, yes, changes with the advent of medical science], and I use the word “host” because it’s not always the mother who is carrying the fetus, such as in the case of a surrogate), then it is no longer a “potential” life, in my view. But, since almost all abortions occur before this point, it’s really moot. 3rd trimester abortions are very rare, and they aren’t being chosen by women who think, “You know, I’ve come this far, but meh, I decided I don’t want this baby.” They’re almost always performed because of severe fetal anomalies or to save the life of the mother/host.

Since we seem to often have to take things to the extremes, if we force women to carry fetuses they do not wish to carry, then why shouldn’t we force people to be life support machines for born people? Why shouldn’t we force people to donate kidneys in order to save a born person? After all, you can live with one kidney, and there’s a long waiting list of people who need them.

I don’t think any person’s - man or woman - medical decisions are mine to make. It’s none of my business.

Your logic fails in so many ways. To call a pregnant woman a “host” is not only biologically incorrect but it’s offensive, in fact disgusting. Do you understand in biology that often the parasite as the baby is now deemed, either kills or damages the host?

Unless the unborn child is dead, it’s not “potential life” he or she IS alive. Have you ever watched the amazing video that was done by a completely secular man as his baby developed? It was sped up of course but the rapid rate of growth in development in the womb is never duplicated after birth. The baby is VERY much alive, developing and changing every day.

As to your thought that the baby is only a baby if viable outside the womb would suggest you believe in killing the disabled since they are unable to function without massive outside support. Would you have decided Christopher Reeve should die since he could literally do nothing, including breathe on his own? This is such a specious argument and the irony is that it’s often made by the very liberals who champion the rights of other humans who are in poor circumstances.

As to your argument that if we “force” a woman to carry her child to term (and as yet I have not heard of anyone who promotes chaining a woman to a pole until delivery so that strawman burns immediately) that we should force people to stay on life support or force people to donate a kidney, it is COMPLETELY illogical and unrelated. How in the world can you make that analogy.

And finally your claim that late term abortions are done almost always for fetal abnormalities…geez please do a little research before making such specious claims. Did you not read about the Gosnell trial? He SPECIALIZED in late term abortions and they were NOT done for fetal abnormalities. They were done because a woman made a late decision to abort. The babies aborted were not only normal but some WERE viable after the forced abortion and were later killed by Gosnell or his staff. These were not deformed animals put out of their misery but babies that would have developed normally were they not killed prior to a normal delivery date.

Again those who promote abortion have nothing but the philosophy that “might makes right” You have no biological basis, no ethical basis, no theological basis nor in this country that claims to protect LIFE, any political basis for your position.

Yes there are reasons for abortion, just no good ones. I have no respect for any religion that allows “the least of these” to be killed for little more than convenience. It’s truly horrible the way even ministers will stand up for this slaughter as a “right.”

Lisa

 

[ffg]

I’m not sure if you’re referring to my comment, Or SteveVH’s original post. He suggested (wait, he didn’t suggest, he stated). He stated that UU’s don’t believe in anything. Then he offered up a straight-up question: Jesus is a liar or he is not. Then I responded with a comparably framed question re: Mohammed and Joe Smith. Do you have a problem with SteveVH’s premise or mine?

You made a comment that he was shaping your theology. First, I was pointing out that world history is not a theological necessity. To us as humans, what occurs in time is as real as you can get. We can be most confident in understanding the outcomes of the events in time. (first of the two-fold error)

Second you stated the obvious in that other people wrote about what they experienced regarding the subject matter being Jesus. Perhaps I jumped the gun a bit in assuming you meant this in defense of why you think the Bible (Church) should not be trusted, that the people writing are bent.

This argument can’t hold any water. It’s scale is lower than that of not trusting a Broadcast sideline reporter for telling you about a football game. The sideline reporting isn’t experiencing the football life. The Apostles experienced the life.

If you gave up everything to follow someone who wanted to go around the world on a boat, is it more likely that you would write in confidence of what you are experiencing, or in error?

Then I argued in defense of my points. Included in was an asside about your point in leaders of other religions.

In conclusion, we should be able to agree that historical events happen. Then it’s not a stretch to conclude that well intentioned people write the majority of what is available to read about history. Then considering how easy it is to write today vs on parchment, or papyrus, or animal skins using feathers and dipping ink. Writing in the past would have been for a very important purpose, not something done out of boredom or in jest.

To be sure people could have confidence of the reality of the New Testament as we can read it today, multiple people did the writing. Including 4 versions of the same story that don’t contradict each other, yet have varying degrees of detail displaying the writers were not congregated in a room together ensuring consistency. (Gospels)

A person’s belief (or lack thereof) in world history is not necessary for the existance of the reality of the events.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

By that definition, any church that isn’t Christian is not a church (and I suppose it’s true that other religions have different names for it, i.e., synagogue, mosque, temple, etc.). But it’s definitely a religion; not in the construct of the “belief in a superhuman power,” but in the construct of “a sense of beliefs concerning the purpose of the universe.” Calling it a social club is offensive in the extreme.

And, to be honest, I don’t really like the word “church.” I think we use that term because so many of our members come from a Christian background, and our religion came from that, but has evolved. I don’t mind if you don’t want to call it a church - many UU congregations use the terms “fellowship,” “congregation” (as mine does), etc. But it IS a valid religion.

I’m really confused about your religion. Do you believe in God - the Creator?

 

[ProudUU]

Your logic fails in so many ways. To call a pregnant woman a “host” is not only biologically incorrect but it’s offensive, in fact disgusting. Do you understand in biology that often the parasite as the baby is now deemed, either kills or damages the host?

Unless the unborn child is dead, it’s not “potential life” he or she IS alive. Have you ever watched the amazing video that was done by a completely secular man as his baby developed? It was sped up of course but the rapid rate of growth in development in the womb is never duplicated after birth. The baby is VERY much alive, developing and changing every day.

As to your thought that the baby is only a baby if viable outside the womb would suggest you believe in killing the disabled since they are unable to function without massive outside support. Would you have decided Christopher Reeve should die since he could literally do nothing, including breathe on his own? This is such a specious argument and the irony is that it’s often made by the very liberals who champion the rights of other humans who are in poor circumstances.

As to your argument that if we “force” a woman to carry her child to term (and as yet I have not heard of anyone who promotes chaining a woman to a pole until delivery so that strawman burns immediately) that we should force people to stay on life support or force people to donate a kidney, it is COMPLETELY illogical and unrelated. How in the world can you make that analogy.

And finally your claim that late term abortions are done almost always for fetal abnormalities…geez please do a little research before making such specious claims. Did you not read about the Gosnell trial? He SPECIALIZED in late term abortions and they were NOT done for fetal abnormalities. They were done because a woman made a late decision to abort. The babies aborted were not only normal but some WERE viable after the forced abortion and were later killed by Gosnell or his staff. These were not deformed animals put out of their misery but babies that would have developed normally were they not killed prior to a normal delivery date.

Again those who promote abortion have nothing but the philosophy that “might makes right” You have no biological basis, no ethical basis, no theological basis nor in this country that claims to protect LIFE, any political basis for your position.

Yes there are reasons for abortion, just no good ones. I have no respect for any religion that allows “the least of these” to be killed for little more than convenience. It’s truly horrible the way even ministers will stand up for this slaughter as a “right.”

Lisa

Us arguing this is futile, really. We are SO far apart that I doubt we really have any common ground. I don’t care, quite honestly, if you find my position disgusting. I find the total lack of regard for women’s rights, or the placing of fetuses as superior to women, disgusting. And I’m sure you don’t care. So, whatever.

If a disabled person had to be connected to another person, without that person’s consent, in order to survive, then there would be an issue. Connecting a disabled person, with that person’s consent, to a machine is different. Just as removing a viable fetus and connecting it to a machine is different than forcing a woman to carry it against her will. And no, forcing women to carry babies against their will is not a straw man, as abortion restrictions and attempts to outlaw it are attempts to do just that.

Gosnell is an outlier. And restricting abortions will make MORE of him - monsters who prey on desperate women to make a buck. Again, I don’t care if you disagree with that.

There are plenty of valid reasons for abortion. Not in YOUR view, but in the view of many. And it is not your decision or mine to make.

 

[ProudUU]

I’m really confused about your religion. Do you believe in God - the Creator?

Do I? No. Do some UUs? Yes.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

Do I? No. Do some UUs? Yes.

I thought you said you sang hymns to a deity?

 

[CHRISTINE77]

Religion (from O.Fr. religion “religious community,” from L. religionem (nom. religio) “respect for what is sacred, reverence for the gods,”[10] “obligation, the bond between man and the gods”

How is can UU be a religion if you don’t believe God or gods?

 

[Lochias]

Us arguing this is futile, really. We are SO far apart that I doubt we really have any common ground. I don’t care, quite honestly, if you find my position disgusting. I find the total lack of regard for women’s rights, or the placing of fetuses as superior to women, disgusting. And I’m sure you don’t care. So, whatever.

Unborn babies actually have a greater right to our responsibilities and care than the average adult, because babies are helpless. Really, if people can get worked up about saving the latest never-heard-of-endangered species of brine shrimp because “SOMEONE has to do it”, it results in foolishness to say that an unborn human life doesn’t have an inherent right to protection and care.

If a disabled person had to be connected to another person, without that person’s consent, in order to survive, then there would be an issue. Connecting a disabled person, with that person’s consent, to a machine is different. Just as removing a viable fetus and connecting it to a machine is different than forcing a woman to carry it against her will. And no, forcing women to carry babies against their will is not a straw man, as abortion restrictions and attempts to outlaw it are attempts to do just that.

Oh, please. This argument assumes that the mother’s body was never meant to carry a child to term. Get real.

Gosnell is an outlier. And restricting abortions will make MORE of him - monsters who prey on desperate women to make a buck. Again, I don’t care if you disagree with that.

You are mistaken. Houston clinics have already closed because more “outliers” like Gosnell are being discovered.

There are plenty of valid reasons for abortion. Not in YOUR view, but in the view of many. And it is not your decision or mine to make.

The majority saying that there are valid reasons does not make them valid. Where does their authority come from? And it will always be my decision to interfere and fight on the behalf of those with no voices of their own.

By that definition, any church that isn’t Christian is not a church (and I suppose it’s true that other religions have different names for it, i.e., synagogue, mosque, temple, etc.). But it’s definitely a religion; not in the construct of the “belief in a superhuman power,” but in the construct of “a sense of beliefs concerning the purpose of the universe.” Calling it a social club is offensive in the extreme.

It’s only a religion if you all believe in something alike. The UU is a club, pure and simple. That doesn’t mean it doesn’t have some wonderful people in it, but it can’t call itself a religion or a church just because it would prefer to. A taco is a taco, not a hamburger.

And, to be honest, I don’t really like the word “church.” I think we use that term because so many of our members come from a Christian background, and our religion came from that, but has evolved. I don’t mind if you don’t want to call it a church - many UU congregations use the terms “fellowship,” “congregation” (as mine does), etc. But it IS a valid religion.

Because you say it is? Not hardly.

 

[Major_Tom]

The reason for my statement is the fact that if I walked into a building in which a group of people were meeting and found Buddhist, Hindu, Wiccan, Christian, Muslim, fill in the blank religious materials, the first thing I would ask is “What do you folks believe?”. Since one cannot believe all simultaneously I would have to conclude that they do not know what to believe. Others of your own organization have said that it matters not what one believes. That is not a statement which one who actually holds a belief would make.

I can’t say that I believe everything in Wicca, as I very unfamiliar with their practice and belief. Do I believe, literally, in Ganesha, the Hindu god who is half-elephant? No. It is incorrect to say that we believe in all things simultaneously. I’ve stated here several times that I disapprove of the separation of sexes during the Muslim call to prayer, as one example.

Do I think that Hinduism might contain some insight into God that is worth studying? Yes. Do you think Hindus, or believers in Native American religion and folklore, have any insights that you might find edifying? Or are those folks lying too? Lying is saying something that you know to be untrue. If I said “The sun is purple”, I would be lying, as I know that it is not. Is there scholarship to suggest that Mohammed and Joseph Smith knew that they were telling an untruth? Is there a teaching in the Catheschism on this? Is it possible that they are mistaken, instead?

You mention “others of our organization”. I don’t think cheese speaks for all Unitarians. I think he was taken out of context, or mispoke. (To be clear, I like Cheese ). It is not accurate to generalize about all Unitarians because of this. I do not think you would agree with an argument that went “Well, StaunchCatholic57 said something indefensable in his post, so the Catholic position is clear”.

 

[Major_Tom]

I like the UU faith. I think that it is a very nice religion. I enjoy listening to the sermons from UU pastors on the interent. I can at times listen to the UU paster located in Montclair New Jersey. I also think that UU people do much for the community when it comes to social justice. I take my hat off to your church.

Thank you, Man…!

 

[ffg]

And no, forcing women to carry babies against their will is not a straw man, as abortion restrictions and attempts to outlaw it are attempts to do just that.
QUOTE]

I do agree the argument is futil when one or more minds do not evaluate the facts in light of reason and common sense and are open to the whole truth.

Just curious, is the actual reality of forcing women to get abortions a concern?

What is not quite understood here is reality vs hypotheticals. Have you thought about what it would take to make “forcing a woman to carry a baby” a reality?

It would be a crime that would not be as easy to get away with and as common as what can be used to force the opposite.

Also, unless you have the ability to prove something, calling what one abortionist does an outlier vs others shows a great lack in the facts of what they do.

Regardless of if the fetus (scientific term used for the early stage of development, similar to “toddler”, and “adult” as development stages) is thrown away or on a shelf does not make a killer a monster (it’s the killing). The practice of killing is a commonality, science takes care of the proof for when a human is human (do you know your building blocks and when they become a reality?).

Regardless of that fact, common sense which used to and should guide law, would question the need to kill for the sake of convenience.

 

[LisaA]

Us arguing this is futile, really. We are SO far apart that I doubt we really have any common ground. I don’t care, quite honestly, if you find my position disgusting. I find the total lack of regard for women’s rights, or the placing of fetuses as superior to women, disgusting. And I’m sure you don’t care. So, whatever.

If a disabled person had to be connected to another person, without that person’s consent, in order to survive, then there would be an issue. Connecting a disabled person, with that person’s consent, to a machine is different. Just as removing a viable fetus and connecting it to a machine is different than forcing a woman to carry it against her will. And no, forcing women to carry babies against their will is not a straw man, as abortion restrictions and attempts to outlaw it are attempts to do just that.

Gosnell is an outlier. And restricting abortions will make MORE of him - monsters who prey on desperate women to make a buck. Again, I don’t care if you disagree with that.

There are plenty of valid reasons for abortion. Not in YOUR view, but in the view of many. And it is not your decision or mine to make.

I don’t think discussing these issues is futile. You see ProudUU I used to believe as you believe. I was a staunch supporter of “a woman’s right to choose…” (death of course is the missing word in the sentence). And I didn’t come to my pro-life conversion as a result of becoming Catholic. In fact I was still pretty much an agnostic at the time. But I was always a believer in human rights. I was always appalled by mistreatment of the weak. And I always felt if I had a position, it had to withstand any and all assaults.

To be pro abortion is to toss a consistent position on human rights to the wind. The unborn baby is alive. The unborn baby is human. The unborn baby, from the moment of conception is a completely different entity than the mother with different although HUMAN DNA. Thus to be consistent in my own human rights stand, I couldn’t find a single valid reason that the unborn child didn’t deserve the same protection that a born baby, a toddler, an elderly or disabled person or a person who is a marginalized minority. I

So I figure if logic got through to me, who grew up with a radical feminist mother and totally secular parents, it might work on you! Further someone who thinks they are “pro choice” but hasn’t really thought about the complete lack of credible reasons for abortion at will, might also be persuaded.

I’ll pray for your heart to change.

Lisa

 

[Major_Tom]

I’m not sure you interpreted SteveVH’s question correctly. You say words were written ‘of Jesus by others…’ which sounds like someone created a fictional account of Jesus rather than quoting HIs words.

The New Testament was written relatively closely to Jesus’ actual life on earth, and the writers’ accounts were amazingly consistent in what Jesus said about His nature and who He was. Thus what He said is either correct or Jesus lied. (I’ve got several books indicating that the NT accounts were far more credible than much of recorded history due to the proximity of time and writer to the subject).

I don’t think you can make valid comparison to Mohammed who never claimed to be of divine nature or Joseph Smith who, in my opinion was one step above a carnival barker. I LOVE Mormons but their founder was pretty sketchy! I think he probably was a liar.

BTW I’m curious, as a Cradle Catholic, do you think you were well catechized? In my mind, to KNOW the Church is to love the Church. The incredible wisdom, logic and consistency in the Catechism and in Catholic teaching are very compelling to me. I came into the Church through an intellectual analysis long before I fell in love. It all makes perfect sense to me and the beauty of the carefully crafted and supported teaching makes disagreement difficult.

As a convert, what I’ve found is that people who reject the Church often reject something that is not true and based on misunderstandings or regurgitating by rote memory without really thinking about what you are saying. I just wonder if you fall into that category.

Lisa

On the NT: I find it curious how John’s Jesus is fond of long, “I am this…”, “I am that…” metaphors. Whereas in the other Gospels, he’s much much shorter in conversation, has to prodded to converse at times, and does not speak in the bold “I am…” fashion. I also think it’s clear that each author had different motivations. No nefarious intent here. Every author does.

The difference is that Catholics believe those words are all inspired, and thus are consistent in teaching (if not content, such as the Nativity). I believe it’s accurate to say that all of us non-Catholics do not believe that is clear. I don’t believe it is.

Yes, I would say that I was well-cathechized. What about this summary: Do you believe that it’s possible that someone, genuinely open-minded, well-cathechized, could NOT believe in the Church’s teaching, and thus not become a Catholic? I would say yes, that is possible (and would apply to me).

I don’t think you can make valid comparison to Mohammed who never claimed to be of divine nature or Joseph Smith who, in my opinion was one step above a carnival barker. I LOVE Mormons but their founder was pretty sketchy! I think he probably was a liar.

Didn’t Mohammed claim to fly to Jerusalem…?

I LOVE Mormons but their founder was pretty sketchy! I think he probably was a liar.

What little I know of him has also set off my “sketchy-meter”. I find it very intriguing, though, to understand what part of their message has galvanized, and evagelized, so many people. Perplexing.

 

[Major_Tom]

No doubt. I don’t have a problem with that. I think UUs are some of the loveliest, most loving people around. (Hiya, Major Tom! )
.

A win for ecumenism! (You’re ok with ecumenism with us heathens…? Don’t want to get you in trouble!

I very much enjoy our conversations. You’re one of the most eloquent Catholics I’ve met.

No doubt. I don’t have a problem with that. I think UUs are some of the loveliest, most loving people around. (Hiya, Major Tom! )

What I do have issues with is how UUs have created a god in their own image, rather than conforming their image to God’s.

Their belief system consists of a god who happens to agree with every single one of their own beliefs.

Curious, isn’t it?

I can’t imagine that the God of the Universe would happen to agree with every single one of my own personal principles/beliefs/morals.

Rather, if there is a God, then His Ways are going to be superior to my ways. And what God has revealed is going to be what I conform my views to.

I change my principles/beliefs/morals based on what God has proclaimed.

Not find a god who happens to believe every single one of my principles/beliefs/morals.

After some thought, I don’t think your characterization is accurate. I simply do not think that God has proclaimed as many things as Catholics do. There is much that I don’t think has been revealed. In light of that, we have our reason and our communal fellowship to try our best to discern knowledge and morality. That’s different than saying that God has spoken, and he agrees with me.

Is it possible that I’m mistaken in picking up what God has laid down? With genuine humility, I say yes.

Is it possible that Catholics misconstrue, or misapply, Catholic teaching? I would say yes, also. Since both are possible, I’m rolling with the theology that gives me, personally, more confidence that I’m growing spiritually.

Is it possible that a Catholic teaching is incorrect? I would say yes, I know you would say no.

 

[LisaA]

On the NT: I find it curious how John’s Jesus is fond of long, “I am this…”, “I am that…” metaphors. Whereas in the other Gospels, he’s much much shorter in conversation, has to prodded to converse at times, and does not speak in the bold “I am…” fashion. I also think it’s clear that each author had different motivations. No nefarious intent here. Every author does.

Different styles perhaps, different motivations, no. They were all transmitting the Word of God, to “make disciples of all nations…” per the teaching of Christ. Further they were promoting a completely different Way of life…in fact Christianity was first known as “the Way.” Rather than trying to follow the Law, they were to follow in Christ’s footsteps, literally and figuratively. Christ had very specific acts, tasks and treatment of our fellow man that were transmitted through the Gospels and the New Testament.

Anyway not to launch into a Bible course but to distinguish between differences in style (I happen to LOVE the poetic language in John) rather than differences in theology and motivation.

I think too many who dismiss the Bible mistake Truth for fact. For example if someone can prove that there really was no specific woman at the well, then the parable wasn’t a factual account but the story was still true. I suspect based on your other posts that you do understand the difference. But just wanting to point out that the Gospels are remarkably consistent even if there are differences in style.

The difference is that Catholics believe those words are all inspired, and thus are consistent in teaching (if not content, such as the Nativity). I believe it’s accurate to say that all of us non-Catholics do not believe that is clear. I don’t believe it is.

Yes, I would say that I was well-cathechized. What about this summary: Do you believe that it’s possible that someone, genuinely open-minded, well-cathechized, could NOT believe in the Church’s teaching, and thus not become a Catholic? I would say yes, that is possible (and would apply to me).

Of course there is no reason that everyone will accept the Truth. But I often find with either those who left the Church or those who are suspicious or opposed to Church teaching, often don’t understand them. I recall telling a friend about converting and her comment was “How can you worship dead people and statues?” This friend incidentally is a UU but had attended other Christian churches, in fact was at one time very involved at the Episcopal Cathedral’s spiritual direction course.

Didn’t Mohammed claim to fly to Jerusalem…?

What little I know of him has also set off my “sketchy-meter”. I find it very intriguing, though, to understand what part of their message has galvanized, and evagelized, so many people. Perplexing.

Yes there were some interesting stories about Mohamed. I have such a negative opinion of Islam these days I don’t spend too much time thinking about their stories.

As to the LDS church, I love Mormons and can see the appeal in the incredible sense of community, love of neighbor and charitable outreach. In an increasingly unkind, unwelcoming world that demeans faith and family, the LDS community is a support system literally and figuratively. I had two aunts who converted to LDS, one was a lifelong Methodist and the other a Lutheran. I’m not sure what inspired their conversion but it was complete and most sincere.

Lisa

 

[ffg]

The difference is that Catholics believe those words are all inspired, and thus are consistent in teaching (if not content, such as the Nativity). I believe it’s accurate to say that all of us non-Catholics do not believe that is clear. I don’t believe it is.

Yes, I would say that I was well-cathechized. What about this summary: Do you believe that it’s possible that someone, genuinely open-minded, well-cathechized, could NOT believe in the Church’s teaching, and thus not become a Catholic? I would say yes, that is possible (and would apply to me).

I think you hit the nail on the head here. What seems so clear to Catholics, is not to others. This is an obvious statement, but what happens is Catholics are not thinking long and hard about how to create clarity. Many times they (we) just repeat or muddy the waters. Which just shows we are all equal, Catholic or non, all prone to error and in need of out of this world help to live.

There are Catholic folks who use terminology that most Catholics don’t understand, how in the world will non-Catholics ‘get it’?

We need folks like you to help with that clarity by asking the tough questions. However, if clarity is to be emitted, it must be received to create itself, no? (clarity can’t exist without reception)

Another angle on the ‘minds not on the same wave length’ which I think has some truth to it, is that if Grace flows from the sacraments, some of that grace could be categorized as ‘understanding’.

Unfortunately to a non-Catholic, it’s a bit self-absorbed for Catholics to say “you’ll get it once you’re in it”, but the difficult message doesn’t automatically eliminate it’s possible truth.

Where is the best place to go for understanding something? The source (in the case of Sacraments, Grace is like God whispering in the ear). It’s our choice to listen and understand, or not listen and reject.

 

[LisaA]

Unborn babies actually have a greater right to our responsibilities and care than the average adult, because babies are helpless. Really, if people can get worked up about saving the latest never-heard-of-endangered species of brine shrimp because “SOMEONE has to do it”, it results in foolishness to say that an unborn human life doesn’t have an inherent right to protection and care.

Oh, please. This argument assumes that the mother’s body was never meant to carry a child to term. Get real.

You are mistaken. Houston clinics have already closed because more “outliers” like Gosnell are being discovered.

The majority saying that there are valid reasons does not make them valid. Where does their authority come from? And it will always be my decision to interfere and fight on the behalf of those with no voices of their own.

It’s only a religion if you all believe in something alike. The UU is a club, pure and simple. That doesn’t mean it doesn’t have some wonderful people in it, but it can’t call itself a religion or a church just because it would prefer to. A taco is a taco, not a hamburger.

Because you say it is? Not hardly.

I thought your post bears repeating because you so clearly point out the complete disconnect between the Left that is at the forefront of protecting turtle eggs and baby birds and lizards and fish claiming they have a right to their natural habitat and to live in peace, but that same group is often at the opposite pole with respect to unborn human life. Apparently an “unhatched” human has less right to life than an unhatched turtle or bird, or even a frog. And given the natural habitat of an unborn baby human is the womb, why does that 'habitat" not deserve the same protection as a forest or pond? The same shrill demands that the Delta Smelt be protected (to the detriment of the humans in the area) and allowed to lay eggs and reproduce completely ignores protection of unborn humans.

I would truly love to have a pro abortion rights supporter explain this disconnect. It would be amusing in its lack of logical thought if not for the reality that it’s this very disconnect that allows abortion to continue at any stage of a pregnancy. The religious Left is the defender of nature, the foe of fossil fuels and plastic bags, but doesn’t seem to understand that they are so hypocritical.

As to tying into this thread, I think UUs are very proud of their anti-war, anti-death penalty stance, their care of the environment and human rights…in fact this is number one on their seven principles. But somehow this peaceful position on other issues can exist in the same person who believes in abortion rights. Few things less peaceful than abortion, for the woman or the child. Even a pro abort columnist admitted that no matter what you say the reality of abortion is traumatized women and dead babies.

Lisa

 

[SteveVH]

Your logic fails in so many ways. To call a pregnant woman a “host” is not only biologically incorrect but it’s offensive, in fact disgusting. Do you understand in biology that often the parasite as the baby is now deemed, either kills or damages the host?

Unless the unborn child is dead, it’s not “potential life” he or she IS alive. Have you ever watched the amazing video that was done by a completely secular man as his baby developed? It was sped up of course but the rapid rate of growth in development in the womb is never duplicated after birth. The baby is VERY much alive, developing and changing every day.

As to your thought that the baby is only a baby if viable outside the womb would suggest you believe in killing the disabled since they are unable to function without massive outside support. Would you have decided Christopher Reeve should die since he could literally do nothing, including breathe on his own? This is such a specious argument and the irony is that it’s often made by the very liberals who champion the rights of other humans who are in poor circumstances.

As to your argument that if we “force” a woman to carry her child to term (and as yet I have not heard of anyone who promotes chaining a woman to a pole until delivery so that strawman burns immediately) that we should force people to stay on life support or force people to donate a kidney, it is COMPLETELY illogical and unrelated. How in the world can you make that analogy.

And finally your claim that late term abortions are done almost always for fetal abnormalities…geez please do a little research before making such specious claims. Did you not read about the Gosnell trial? He SPECIALIZED in late term abortions and they were NOT done for fetal abnormalities. They were done because a woman made a late decision to abort. The babies aborted were not only normal but some WERE viable after the forced abortion and were later killed by Gosnell or his staff. These were not deformed animals put out of their misery but babies that would have developed normally were they not killed prior to a normal delivery date.

Again those who promote abortion have nothing but the philosophy that “might makes right” You have no biological basis, no ethical basis, no theological basis nor in this country that claims to protect LIFE, any political basis for your position.

Yes there are reasons for abortion, just no good ones. I have no respect for any religion that allows “the least of these” to be killed for little more than convenience. It’s truly horrible the way even ministers will stand up for this slaughter as a “right.”

Lisa

Excellent, Lisa.

Just some food for thought. A fertilized egg is a potential fetus. A fetus is a potential infant. An infant is a potential toddler. A toddler is a potential ten year old. A ten year old is a potential teenager. A teenager is a potential adult.

We are always a potential something, but that has nothing to do with the fact that there is a life, and it is without doubt a human life, at each and every stage of development. I find it amazing that these tired arguments still exist with all of the scientific evidence proving otherwise.

 

[ProudUU]

I don’t think discussing these issues is futile. You see ProudUU I used to believe as you believe. I was a staunch supporter of “a woman’s right to choose…” (death of course is the missing word in the sentence). And I didn’t come to my pro-life conversion as a result of becoming Catholic. In fact I was still pretty much an agnostic at the time. But I was always a believer in human rights. I was always appalled by mistreatment of the weak. And I always felt if I had a position, it had to withstand any and all assaults.

To be pro abortion is to toss a consistent position on human rights to the wind. The unborn baby is alive. The unborn baby is human. The unborn baby, from the moment of conception is a completely different entity than the mother with different although HUMAN DNA. Thus to be consistent in my own human rights stand, I couldn’t find a single valid reason that the unborn child didn’t deserve the same protection that a born baby, a toddler, an elderly or disabled person or a person who is a marginalized minority. I

So I figure if logic got through to me, who grew up with a radical feminist mother and totally secular parents, it might work on you! Further someone who thinks they are “pro choice” but hasn’t really thought about the complete lack of credible reasons for abortion at will, might also be persuaded.

I’ll pray for your heart to change.

Lisa

And I used to think I wasn’t pro-choice. Then I realized that the laws being made to restrict that right were misogynistic to their core. My heart DID change. Just not the way you would like it to.

And I’m not pro-abortion. I think it’s a terrible choice to have to make. But sometimes, it’s a necessary choice. I seriously contemplated suicide when I got pregnant at 17, as I have very anti-choice parents who still to this day, nearly 20 years later, do not know I had an abortion. Had the choice of abortion not been available to me, I may have simply taken my own life. Thank the god/de/ss that choice was available.