Bishop orders priests to read anti-Obama letter at Sunday sermons

[estesbob]

I’m having a hard time following this debate but so far this is what I’m getting: human life = a person. I’m not sure why the two are being equated. Human life is an objective, scientifically provable fact from the moment of conception. By constrast, like I was saying in another thread, human personhood is a social construct.

Does that distinction make the earliest forms of life less valuable? Most definitely: no! What it does do is recognize practical realities of what can and cannot be afforded a human life that is enclosed within another human.

I’m all about practical realities. If a zygote is afforded the same rights as a born person then each of the conceptions (50-70%, I’m told) which do not end in delivery of a term baby must be investigated as a criminal case? Really?

And one we start using “social constructs” to determine when human life can be terminated evil always arises.

 

[seekerz]

The next president may appoint as many as three supreme court justices. If Obama gets re-elected, legalized abortion will be the law of the land for many more decades. We can start saving lives by making it illegal for women to kill their babies…then they will truly have a choice…a choice as to whether or not they want to break the law to kill their baby.

Please join me in firing the the extreme pro–death Obama.

It is you who will have to live with your conscience and face the fearsome judgment seat of Christ.

My conscience and my commonsense tell me that you are being a tad dramatic. Nothing significant about abortion will change because the people needed to elect politicians (president included) are still too much in favor of women being free to choose or reject abortion.

Even if I were to take a “happily ever after” mentality and assume the best case scenario, if my life depended on it, I would not bet on what any particular SC composition would decide. Recent history teaches me better.

And where is the assurance that returning rights to the state would not make things worse rather than better in the states where most people favor abortion? Obviously, the first job is to change the equation with regard to the general public and its abortion stance.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

Ugh. Go ahead, allow as many people to perish in abortions as you want. As long as you get your free healthcare, foodstamps, and CAFE regulations, its all good.

 

[seekerz]

And one we start using “social constructs” to determine when human life can be terminated evil always arises.

Human life is not a social construct, so I’m not sure how your post addresses mine.

 

[seekerz]

Ugh. Go ahead, allow as many people to perish in abortions as you want. As long as you get your free healthcare, foodstamps, and CAFE regulations, its all good.

Throwing general insults at people is a GREAT way to convince them to choose life…

 

[rlg94086]

umm what parable was that…i know most of them, reference?

Prodigal son.

I think seekerz is saying she supports the Democrat Party’s current preference for debauchery, in the hopes that someday they will return to morality.

 

[bellasbane]

Scientifically, this is one of the dumbest arguments I’ve ever heard. A “fertilized egg” is a new human being with distinct DNA. It is much different than a sperm. You may want to delve into the philosophical similarities, but those aren’t concerns for science.

From a scientific standpoint, what is existentially different between an implanted zygote and an zygote that has not yet implanted. They both have the same biological substance, do they not?

Now, when it comes to protecting these new human lives and viability, it is a very simple logic. If a zygote does not implant, it is miscarriage. The unborn human will not survive. If you use chemicals or other means to block implantation and therefore cause a miscarriage, you are purposely trying to prevent this new human life from surviving. That is an abortion.

A dumb argument is one that deliberately misses the point.

Lets try to overcome the analogically challenged point you are making and think about what I am saying. What was “true” up until the 19th century that a sperm was a unique human being - just like a “seed” is a unique plant. All that it needed was the proper medium (a “fertile womb”) in order to “grow”. If the medium lacked certain nutrients the growing organism would emerge with certain defects. This was state-of-the-art scientific reasoning up the emergence of cell theory in the late 19th century.

So tell me - how does a fertilized egg differ from this? Why do you think “spilling one’s seed” was considered so sinful? Its because sperm were believed to be tiny little people.

 

[seekerz]

Prodigal son.

I think seekerz is saying she supports the Democrat Party’s current preference for debauchery, in the hopes that someday they will return to morality.

The great “insult them to win them over” strategy lives on, I see…is there a biblical reference for that?

 

[seekerz]

Prodigal son.

I think seekerz is saying she supports the Democrat Party’s current preference for debauchery, in the hopes that someday they will return to morality.

Oh, and by the way, it is not the parable of the Prodigal Son. It is this: Matthew 21:28-32.

 

[rlg94086]

A dumb argument is one that deliberately misses the point.

Lets try to overcome the analogically challenged point you are making and think about what I am saying. What was “true” up until the 19th century that a sperm was a unique human being - just like a “seed” is a unique plant. All that it needed was the proper medium (a “fertile womb”) in order to “grow”. If the medium lacked certain nutrients the growing organism would emerge with certain defects. This was state-of-the-art scientific reasoning up the emergence of cell theory in the late 19th century.

So tell me - how does a fertilized egg differ from this? Why do you think “spilling one’s seed” was considered so sinful? Its because sperm were believed to be tiny little people.

You really don’t know? The difference is that a “seed” is not the same thing as a “fertilized egg.” Sperm does not have a distinct DNA. It has the DNA of the human it originated from. You may want to bring your arguments into the scientific reasoning of the 21st century.

If a zygote does not implant due to natural causes there is not a moral issue involved, so it isn’t even the same as the “spilling one’s seed” issue in antiquity that you are bringing up. If a zygote’s implantation is purposely prevented, a human life is being forced to die. Apparently, you are okay with that? You think science will somehow evolve to the point where distinct DNA in an organism that will naturally become a grown human being will no longer be considered human at some point?

 

[rlg94086]

The great “insult them to win them over” strategy lives on, I see…is there a biblical reference for that?

:yawn:

 

[Nimzovik]

Reading these posts - I must say… I thank God for Abyssinia, the Poster.

 

[LisaA]

A dumb argument is one that deliberately misses the point.

Lets try to overcome the analogically challenged point you are making and think about what I am saying. What was “true” up until the 19th century that a sperm was a unique human being - just like a “seed” is a unique plant. All that it needed was the proper medium (a “fertile womb”) in order to “grow”. If the medium lacked certain nutrients the growing organism would emerge with certain defects. This was state-of-the-art scientific reasoning up the emergence of cell theory in the late 19th century.

So tell me - how does a fertilized egg differ from this? Why do you think “spilling one’s seed” was considered so sinful? Its because sperm were believed to be tiny little people.

This is truly the silliest and most specious approach. What does some obscure 19th Century medical fallacy have to do with abortion today? Back in the 19th Century people were treating colds with a narcotic. So what?

As to abortion, our Church has taught from the beginning that abortion is wrong, is evil and is not negotiable.

Do you have anything relevant?

Lisa

 

[rlg94086]

Oh, and by the way, it is not the parable of the Prodigal Son. It is this: Matthew 21:28-32.

My apologies. I don’t see how that one applies to the current parties. The Democrats are a different son who says “no” and doesn’t go. The Republicans are a different son who says “yes,” goes to the vineyard, but don’t necessarily work as hard as he should. And, you pick the son that says no and doesn’t go because?

 

[Mickey]

My conscience and my commonsense tell me that you are being a tad dramatic.

And mine tells me you are being obtuse.

Nothing significant about abortion will change…

You do not know this.

And where is the assurance that returning rights to the state would not make things worse.

55 million babies have been murdered since Roe v Wade. Let Romney appoint justices to make a majority that might overturn this criminal law.

Voting for Obama assures us that more than 1500 babies will continue to die every day. If you vote for Mr. Obama…the champion of abortion…that will be on your conscience.

 

[seekerz]

My apologies. I don’t see how that one applies to the current parties. The Democrats are a different son who says “no” and doesn’t go. The Republicans are a different son who says “yes,” goes to the vineyard, but don’t necessarily work as hard as he should. And, you pick the son that says no and doesn’t go because?

I “pick” neither. The context of the quote has been lost but if I remember well it was in response to a point regarding which party is closer to Catholic theology. My point was, it doesn’t matter a whit if your theology (substitute platform/words/mission statement, as applicable) is right, if your actions fail to live them out. On the other hand, even people who have unsound theology can do things which are very pleasing to God.

 

[rlg94086]

I “pick” neither. The context of the quote has been lost but if I remember well it was in response to a point regarding which party is closer to Catholic theology. My point was, it doesn’t matter a whit if your theology (substitute platform/words/mission statement, as applicable) is right and your actions fail to live them out. On the other hand, even people who have unsound theology can do things which are very pleasing to God.

Exactly. I pick the son that has sound theology and whose actions match, though they aren’t enough, over the unsound theology whose actions also match and promote evil. Pretty simple choice, actually.

 

[seekerz]

And mine tells me you are being obtuse.
You do not know this.
55 million babies have been murdered since Roe v Wade. Let Romney appoint justices to make a majority that might overturn this criminal law.

Voting for Obama assures us that more than 1500 babies will continue to die every day. If you vote for Mr. Obama…the champion of abortion…that will be on your conscience.

You do not “know” the things you are theorizing either. It’s your theories against mine, and since I have my own experiences regarding the lengths which women will go to choose abortion regardless of legality, I will go with mine, thank you very much.

This is 2012. Who would help government enforce laws that prohibit abortion? Doctors? Seriously?

 

[seekerz]

Exactly. I pick the son that has sound theology and whose actions match, though they aren’t enough, over the unsound theology whose actions also match and promote evil. Pretty simple choice, actually.

Read the parable again: neither son’s actions matched their words.

 

[rlg94086]

Read the parable again: neither son’s actions matched their words.

Correct. As I said in my post, the parable doesn’t match the reality of the Democrat or Republican parties. It was a poor choice of parables to get your point across.