Actauly all you gave was a good example of the convoluted “logic” one must engage in to try and justify killing the unborn. its not complex at all-the unborn have just as much a right to life as you do-their mothers have no more right to kill them than your mother does you.
John18:37-40 No one has the right to do what is wrong"Abraham Lincoln"
Rape accounts for perhaps one percent of all abortions; can you explain what makes the other 99 percent complex?
If it cannot be known then for all practical purposes it cannot be said to exist.
Here’s the rub and I have yet to hear your answer. Where do you stand on this question?
In the struggle to decide how to act in response to a particular situation, the time comes when a decision must be made. It seems to me that there are two possibilities for deciding: either the individual is the final arbiter of right and wrong or he is not. If he is not then he has the obligation to discover who - or what - is and to follow the guidelines presented to him.
That you find these issues complex does not mean they actually are. If you believe that right and wrong are determined by you then I can understand your dilemma: everything is complex because you have no independent standard with which to measure actions. You believe that right and wrong change with circumstance so you have to delve into all the circumstances, addressing one what-if after another. For those of us who believe that God is the arbiter of right and wrong and that the Church correctly interprets his word, a great deal of the difficulty has been removed.
Abortions because of rape or incest account for less than 4,000 abortions a year. Abortion apologists always want to concentrate on this minuscule number of abortions because they think it gives them the moral high ground My response is always okay lets ban the other 1,996,000 abortions and see if we come to an agreement on the rest. Most abortion apologists will not even agree to this.
There is a reason why no one is responding to your statements.
Wow, this is the weakest response of them all. So, if there’s this big reason, what is it? It’s no argument to make a blanket, unexplained statement like that, and frankly it makes me wonder if the real reason is that no-one has yet decided how to reconcile the violent, judgemental, jealous God of the Old Testament - who is happy for unborn babies to die as long as they’re not Israelites - with the loving God of the New Testament. Presuming, as you all seem to do, that God is a perfect being, why the need for such a sweeping change?
And to a humanist like myself, that means a great deal of moral responsibility has also been removed. Self is not necessarily the final arbiter in a moral decision - there must be consideration for the needs of others who are affected by your choice. Beings who are capable of suffering are entitled to be spared unnecessary suffering. Scientific research indicates that a foetus (not a euphemism, but a scientifically correct and accurate term) is incapable of processing pain during the first trimester, when the vast majority of abortions are performed. Late-term abortions, which are more likely to cause pain to the foetus, are, like cases resulting from rape, comparatively very rare, and usually performed for very pressing reasons, often to do with the health of the mother.
The rule is never that simple, unless you are content to just be told what to do. Everything is connected. Those of you who bluster about the “millions” of abortions performed every year in the United States alone - have you stopped to think of the impact it would have on the planet had all those babies been born? Especially if they were to grow up to expect the kind of relative affluence many Americans take for granted? Humanist morality is never a matter of just making self the highest good. Other people, and other creatures, and the world in general, matter, and all are affected in one way or another by the issue of abortion. That’s what makes it complex.
Your conclusion just destroyed your introduction.
To Sair,Children of Hammas youtube.com/watch?=eTGbP55HGi8 Nancy you need to type in children of hammas and hit search click on thr first movie.This world is at it’s final hour and satan know children are a gift of God weather they be in the womb or out side of it satan wants to destroy,and only God can give and take we have no rights as people of God if we truly are. Think about it!You misunderstand the point. After all the consequences, circumstances, and considerations are weighed and measured, you claim to be the final arbiter of the morality of your choices. I never said you ignored everyone but yourself; I said essentially that you recognize no higher moral authority than yourself.
I really have little patience for this argument. It is constantly thrown out by those who believe there is something complicated in inventing their own rules and something mindlessly simple in applying natural laws. To be frank, making up your own rules is no more complex than deciding that you prefer Mozart to heavy metal or vice versa.
Humanist morality is an oxymoron - and I mean that as a fact, not an insult. I would like to see a humanist proof of your statement that: “Beings who are capable of suffering are entitled to be spared unnecessary suffering.”
Wow that is powerful and accurate. Where is Ban Ki Moon and the U.N. while HAMAS brainwashes and destroys children?
The world would be a better place. I marvel that people find people to be the real problem.
I know I said my previous post would be my last, but I felt this required a response.
Virtually ever action we perform is a choice; if there were no choice involved there could be no sin for choosing wrongly.
Morality without God is an oxymoron. If humanists are right and God does not exist then neither they nor anyone else can behave morally as morality itself could not exist. If God does exist, however, then one behaves morally when one acts in accordance with his laws whether one believes in him or not.
I cannot conceive of such a possibility and have asked you to explain the ultimate source of your moral views. Don’t send me on a fishing expedition; tell us what you believe.
Maybe one could be “good” without God, (although HE’S still there in your soul) but one will NEVER get to Heaven without God.
SAIR,you may be able to be good without God But you cannot be Saved without Him! NancyI was not picking on Sair when I made my comment, I was addressing the issue of whether good and evil can exist in a godless universe. If either of you believe that it can I would like to hear an explanation. How would you define good and evil in any way other than that which appears useful? What would be the source of “goodness”?