How would we enforce new abortion laws?

  • Thread starter Thread starter JimG
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Faithdancer said:
And in fact, there is general agreement about the basic components (history, prophecy, wisdom writings, Gospel, letters, apocalyptic writing, etc.) of Scripture writing in mainline Protestant, Catholic and Orthodox traditions standpoints. The “skeptic” in general often “interprets” the narrative of Genesis in the most fundamentalist manner, then uses this in some convoluted way to reject Jesus Christ.
Click to expand...
eggzactly
(stealing the punch line of another famous poster here)
 
If I understand it, the Church’s just war doctrine states that killing is justified in some circumstances. If that is true, how does this relate to abortion doctrine?
 
Ormond said:
If I understand it, the Church’s just war doctrine states that killing is justified in some circumstances. If that is true, how does this relate to abortion doctrine?
Click to expand...
It would only relate to a choice between either saving the mother or saving the fetus from physical annihilation (i.e. self defense of the mother’s life). With modern medicine, the necessity to make such a choice is exceedingly rare.
 
goout said:
Nonsense.
The Catholic Church does not read or interpret the bible like fundamentalists do.

Fundamentalists would agree with that.
In fact most knowledgeable atheists concede this.
So I have no idea where you are coming from, but it is not a reasoned position.

The reality is, your reading of scripture is in line with fundamentalist readings.
Atheist:
“It says here in the bible xyz, therefore God kills small children and he is not loving…”
Fundamentalist:
“It says here in the bible xyz, therefore the killing of small children was willed by God…”

Atheism and fundamentalism read the bible in the same way.
Which points out that atheists object to a false notion of God.
Click to expand...
You forget the most important prequel.

The fundamentalists say: “Since the Bible is the inerrant word of God… what it says must be accepted unquestioningly and literally.”

The atheist say: “The church never issued a list of the literal vs. allegorical verses, we are all free to pick and choose which ones are interpreted and which ones are literal.”

Your attempt to put the fundamentalists and the atheists into the same camp fails - miserably. Until the church is willing to come clean and provide guidelines, you have no leg to stand on.
Faithdancer said:
Can you give us an example of any Christian church that has an “official annotated” Bible?
Click to expand...
Of course not. If they would do it, anyone could rub their nose into it. It is much easier to play the hide and seek game. But there is a definitive “Skeptics’ Annotated Bible”.
 
Faithdancer said:
It would only relate to a choice between either saving the mother or saving the fetus from physical annihilation (i.e. self defense of the mother’s life). With modern medicine, the necessity to make such a choice is exceedingly rare.
Click to expand...
I will add that, with modern communication, diplomacy–and weaponry–the necessity to make the choice to invoke casus belli should also be exceedingly rare. But that’s a topic for another thread…
 
Elf01 said:
There is a difference between somebody running me over on purpose (or as a result of negligence) or completely accidentally. I would compare the first scenarios to abortion, and the last to a failure to implant.
Click to expand...
👍
Yes, a failed implant is natural, while induced abortion is not.
 
Faithdancer said:
Yes, a failed implant is natural, while induced abortion is not.
Click to expand...
If everything that is not “natural” would disappear from the world, we all would be in very sad shape. How can anyone badmouth what is not natural, AND do it on the pinnacle of technology - the internet - is beyond hypocrisy.
 
Vera_Ljuba said:
If everything that is not “natural” would disappear from the world, we all would be in very sad shape. How can anyone badmouth what is not natural, AND do it on the pinnacle of technology - the internet - is beyond hypocrisy.
Click to expand...
So if I go shoot someone that should be no worse than someone dropping dead of a heart attack? One’s natural and one isn’t, but who cares? 🤷
 
WingsOfEagles said:
So if I go shoot someone that should be no worse than someone dropping dead of a heart attack? One’s natural and one isn’t, but who cares? 🤷
Click to expand...
Wrong post. It was Faithdancer who gave a very generic evaluation, expressing that natural events are fine, artificially induced events are not. Observe the general condemnation of the “artificial” in his/her post.

Sometimes the natural events are better, other times the artificial ones are superior. The point is that zillions of impregnated eggs are flushed out with the menstrual fluid, and no one cares. According to your beliefs those are ALL human BEINGS, who die prematurely due to natural causes. Millions of children die due to natural causes, and people are sad about their demise. All I did is pointed out the inconsistency of your position. In other words, despite your expressed belief that the impregnated eggs are “human BEINGS”, you do not act as if you really believed it. Again, your hypocrisy is showing.
 
Vera_Ljuba said:
Wrong post. It was Faithdancer who gave a very generic evaluation, expressing that natural events are fine, artificially induced events are not. Observe the general condemnation of the “artificial” in his/her post.

Sometimes the natural events are better, other times the artificial ones are superior. The point is that zillions of impregnated eggs are flushed out with the menstrual fluid, and no one cares. According to your beliefs those are ALL human BEINGS, who die prematurely due to natural causes. Millions of children die due to natural causes, and people are sad about their demise. All I did is pointed out the inconsistency of your position. In other words, despite your expressed belief that the impregnated eggs are “human BEINGS”, you do not act as if you really believed it. Again, your hypocrisy is showing.
Click to expand...
You’ve never had a close friend miscarry, have you? I’ve witnessed the devastation from that.
 
WingsOfEagles said:
You’ve never had a close friend miscarry, have you? I’ve witnessed the devastation from that.
Click to expand...
The millions of women who lose their zygote with the menstrual fluid are NOT devastated, not even the catholic ones… So obviously they do not consider the zygote to be a human being.
 
Vera_Ljuba said:
The millions of women who lose their zygote with the menstrual fluid are NOT devastated, not even the catholic ones… So obviously they do not consider the zygote to be a human being.
Click to expand...
Once again, the event you describe is natural…in the sense that it is part of God’s Providence. I’m referring of course to zygotes that fail to implant and / or spontaneous abortions. The deliberate taking of innocent human life by other human beings is, however, gravely sinful and wicked. You are comparing apples and oranges

And–a second reminder–unless you want to be perceived as deliberately antagonistic, you need to capitalize the word “Catholic” in these forums when used to refer to the Catholic church. Thank you for your cooperation in this regard.
 
Faithdancer said:
Once again, the event you describe is natural…in the sense that it is part of God’s Providence.
Click to expand...
That is a contradiction. In your belief system there is nothing natural.
Faithdancer said:
I’m referring of course to zygotes that fail to implant and / or spontaneous abortions. The deliberate taking of innocent human life by other human beings is, however, gravely sinful and wicked. You are comparing apples and oranges
Click to expand...
So in your opinion if God causes something, be it a miscarriage or a worldwide deluge, or “permits” something, like the holocaust, it is A-OK. Sorry, that is unacceptable.
Faithdancer said:
And–a second reminder–unless you want to be perceived as deliberately antagonistic, you need to capitalize the word “Catholic” in these forums when used to refer to the Catholic church. Thank you for your cooperation in this regard.
Click to expand...
I have no control over your perceptions, therefore I am not responsible for them. There were some very catholic posters around here, who NEVER used capitalized words, even when they referred to the christian god. If you have a problem with this… it is YOUR problem, not mine. Deal with it.
 
So the lower case spelling is intentional, then. Thanks for clarifying.
 
Faithdancer said:
So the lower case spelling is intentional, then. Thanks for clarifying.
Click to expand...
No, it is simply laziness. Sometimes I press the “shift” key, other times I don’t. It is totally irrelevant. And it has nothing to do with the topic of this thread.
 
goout said:
Your examples support the Catholic position.
You used the word chicken in regard to the egg, oak tree in regard to an acorn. Noting the one is inseparable from the other.
Everything of a tree is contained in an acorn. It’s simply a stage of development.
Just like the unborn are human.

Can you at least admit the unborn are human?
Click to expand...
Besides which, the reductionist comparisons are spurious. Human beings are not to be equated with lower forms of life, being dignified with an immortal soul and the capacity, at least, for sanctification. Human beings are the pinnacle of God’s handiwork on earth and “a little lower than the angels” ( in creation if not in behavior).
:signofcross::harp:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top