Catholics in US overwhelmingly support homosexual unions [CWN]

[StAnastasia]

Let’s deal with your twisted views on abortion in a thread about abortion.

You need to learn to think critically and read carefully. This includes not engaging in ad hominem arguments and misrepresenting your interlocutor’s position.

 

[StTommyMore]

No, I am not saying that. You need to learn to read more carefully, and think in a more critical and nuanced fashion.

I do read critically thank you very much. I read critically enough to realize that your heterodox claptrap has no merit.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

Catholics form a relatively low percentage of participants the Tea Party movement, have similar views to most Americans on abortion, and overwhelmingly support the legal recognition of …

More…

I place the blame for this squarely on the shoulders of the USCCB. They have the responsibility for catechesis and have failed on that count miserably for nearly 3 decades.

 

[StAnastasia]

I do read critically thank you very much. I read critically enough to realize that your heterodox claptrap has no merit.

Now you’re reverting again to ad hominem arguments. I recommend a philosophy class where you might study critical thinking. Go back to whatever post of mine you find objectionable, and construct an argument based on its own merits, not on vitriol. Words like “heterodox claptrap” are not helpful unless they actually refer to something, and unless you can muster a coherent counter-argument.

 

[rlg94086]

You need to learn to think critically and read carefully. This includes not engaging in ad hominem arguments and misrepresenting your interlocutor’s position.

:yawn:

So, no answer on the question of homosexual unions then?

 

[edwest2]

I place the blame for this squarely on the shoulders of the USCCB. They have the responsibility for catechesis and have failed on that count miserably for nearly 3 decades.

I think you need to look at the media over the last 3 decades. In the 1960s, there were words you could not say on television. That’s why George Carlin created his little drama about those words you can’t say on television. And Chris Rock going on and on and on about graphic sexual subject matter.

The transition between good and wholesome media and pushing the envelope of what people find acceptable has revealed one important thing: Who were these people for which the envelope was being pushed? Christians. Why? To make what the envelope pushers already loved acceptable to Christians. Believe me, if we had gone from I Love Lucy to a Chris Rock rant about sex overnight, Mr. Rock would have been brought up on charges for indecency.

You look at the number of broken families since No-Fault Divorce took off in the 1980s and the picture gets clearer. How about the ACLU going after local City Halls in the 1990s?
“You can’t have that creche there! It’s unconstitutional!!”

The goal was simple: get good, clean wholesome entertainment off the TV or just leave a fraction of it, and replace it with sex jokes, profanity and TV shows about grossly dysfunctional living. And look at cartoons: the opening song to Family Guy makes it a point to spit on “those values on which we used to rely.” Gosh. I guess ‘those values’ have been replaced by something else.

And what about Dexter? That lovable guy who works in a police crime lab by day and kidnaps and cuts up people at night. Which was your favorite episode? The one where he uses the chainsaw? No? None would be my reply.

Just push religion to the margins of daily life. Out of sight, out of mind. And bash Christianity on a regular basis. Oh yeah, that’ll set the kids straight.

God bless,
Ed

 

[StTommyMore]

Now you’re reverting again to ad hominem arguments. I recommend a philosophy class where you might study critical thinking. Go back to whatever post of mine you find objectionable, and construct an argument based on its own merits, not on vitriol. Words like “heterodox claptrap” are not helpful unless they actually refer to something, and unless you can muster a coherent counter-argument.

Ad hominem means “to the man.” By its very nature the word “heterodox” applies to positions, not people. Likewise with claptrap. I was doing the exact opposite of an ad hominem. I was attacking your position, not your person.

 

[StTommyMore]

I place the blame for this squarely on the shoulders of the USCCB. They have the responsibility for catechesis and have failed on that count miserably for nearly 3 decades.

Don’t we all share in the responsibility for catechesis? I think it is unfair to blame the bishops exclusively. We share a part of the blame for not passing on our own faith effectively.

 

[StTommyMore]

Now you’re reverting again to ad hominem arguments. I recommend a philosophy class where you might study critical thinking. Go back to whatever post of mine you find objectionable, and construct an argument based on its own merits, not on vitriol. Words like “heterodox claptrap” are not helpful unless they actually refer to something, and unless you can muster a coherent counter-argument.

I have taken courses in metaphysics, epistemology, Chritsology, ecclesiology, moral theology, and Scripture. My argument is the simple fact that abortion is an intrinsically evil act. That means the the act in itself is evil, and no circumstances exist where it cannot be considered evil. I believe it then falls on you to prove this point wrong. When is abortion a good?

 

[StAnastasia]

I was attacking your position, not your person.

Go back to whatever post of mine you find objectionable, and construct a coherent argument based on its own merits, not on vitriol. Words like “heterodox claptrap” are not helpful unless they actually refer to something, and unless you can muster a coherent counter-argument.

 

[StTommyMore]

Go back to whatever post of mine you find objectionable, and construct a coherent argument based on its own merits, not on vitriol. Words like “heterodox claptrap” are not helpful unless they actually refer to something, and unless you can muster a coherent counter-argument.

I will no longer respond until you provide a single instance that abortion could be considered a good act.

 

[1234]

The Hippocratic Oath is merely a custom. It does not have force of law.

Moreover, many versions of the oath exist. According to a review conducted in 1993, the provision forbidding abortion was omitted at 92% of the medical schools in the US.
scienceweek.com/2004/sa040917-6.htm

The Hippocratic oath is not administered as an oath. It is full of outdated medicine, obviously, since it is so old --“not cutting for a stone”–what’s that?

Abortion is occasionally done to save the life of the mother, in cases of uncontrolled eclampsia, and in the recent case of uncontrolled pulmonary hypertension. It’s not a ‘good’, it’s a necessary evil. The mother can survive and --maybe–have another pregnancy, although the condition may recur.

 

[StTommyMore]

The Hippocratic oath is not administered as an oath. It is full of outdated medicine, obviously, since it is so old --“not cutting for a stone”–what’s that?

Abortion is occasionally done to save the life of the mother, in cases of uncontrolled eclampsia, and in the recent case of uncontrolled pulmonary hypertension. It’s not a ‘good’, it’s a necessary evil. The mother can survive and --maybe–have another pregnancy, although the condition may recur.

Direct abortion, even in this tragic instance, cannot be justified in any way.

 

[StAnastasia]

I will no longer respond until you provide a single instance that abortion could be considered a good act.

So it’s decided then, as neither will I reply until you respond to a post of mine that you find objectionable. Over and out!

 

[StTommyMore]

So it’s decided then, as neither will I reply until you respond to a post of mine that you find objectionable. Over and out!

Typical. Those that embrace wrong teaching will do anything they can to avoid defending theor wrong-headed beliefs.

 

[StAnastasia]

The Hippocratic oath is not administered as an oath. It is full of outdated medicine, obviously, since it is so old --“not cutting for a stone”–what’s that?

Abortion is occasionally done to save the life of the mother, in cases of uncontrolled eclampsia, and in the recent case of uncontrolled pulmonary hypertension. It’s not a ‘good’, it’s a necessary evil. The mother can survive and --maybe–have another pregnancy, although the condition may recur.

1234, I don’t know the details of the Arizona pulmonary hypertension case, and perhaps we should deal with that elsewhere. But if you have any useful web links detailing the medical facts, I would be interested in learning about them.

 

[MarianD]

WHAT, ? DON’T PUNISH THE WOMAN FOR GETTING AN ABORTION? blame the Father,parents , the envirerment,her friends,the Church, Society, her boyfriend made her have an abortion? , BUT don’t blame the woman, Do you call the person killing a baby ,for no other reason , but to get rid of IT: A Woman???

Where are you getting this “blame everyone but the woman” thing from? I said blame the people who forced her to get an abortion.

Clearly, you’ve never been around, talked to, heard about, etc. a woman who actually has had an abortion. Had you, then you’d know that rarely does a woman want to get an abortion. She feels she’s trapped in a corner with nowhere else to go, and she feels horrible about it afterwards. So why should she be punished instead of the one who killed the baby (the doctor) and the ones who forced her to kill the baby?

That makes as much sense as punishing a woman who is forced to choose one of her children to be sent to the gas chambers. Why punish her, when she was backed into a corner and put a child up for death because she was absolutely forced to? Why not punish the child’s killer and those who forced her to put the child up for death instead?

 

[StAnastasia]

Typical. Those that embrace wrong teaching will do anything they can to avoid defending theor wrong-headed beliefs.

You said you wouldn’t respond. In any case, you have yet to show me which of my posts is 'wrong-headed." I can’t defend what you won’t show me!

 

[StTommyMore]

You said you wouldn’t respond. In any case, you have yet to show me which of my posts is 'wrong-headed." I can’t defend what you won’t show me!

It is not a single post, but the attitude you present that infants have no rights and the mother has the power of life and death over her child.

 

[StAnastasia]

It is not a single post, but the attitude you present that infants have no rights and the mother has the power of life and death over her child.

I never said that – you simply made it up. That’s calumny!