Hypothetical: Non-Theist despite evidence

[prodigalson2011]

Yup, but per this exercise it wouldn’t be limited to just a deists belief, because there was a revealing. I did not mean it on an individual level, like he spoke to everyone. Like revealed. Like, something global. I can’t come up with something, but the debate isn’t really resting on the how
In this, we don’t even know if God has doctrine he wants us to follow. We assume, sure, but which one is right? this make a deist a theist, no?
The title is Deist despite evidence, the evidence is mere existence.

This doesn’t add up. You can’t be a deist and pray. If you pray to God, you are a theist.

But no matter, I think this was just a case of a simple misnomer. Moving on…

What did I miss? That I shouldn’t be allowed to speak to God?

No; you’re perfectly welcome to talk to God all you want. But if you do, you can’t call yourself a deist.

But what you really can’t do is say “I prayed to God and He told me X,” as part of your argument. I could just as easily say “Well, I prayed to God and He told me Y.”

To say that this debate assumes no revealed doctrine and then say that God revealed a moral doctrine (or lack thereof) to you is an obvious violation of your own rules.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

IOn the other hand, there is rape. But, that child isn’t a rapist.
What if it’s a product of incest rape, and the child is underage? Or a step-father or something?
Or underage period. No possible means of self-support
& of course the underlying feeling I’ve always had that, by what right as a man do I have to tell a woman what to do with her body?

The closest thing to an acceptable condition for terminating a pregnancy that the Church tolerates is an unintentional ending of the pregnancy by way of a procedure to save the mother’s life. For an ectopic pregnancy in the Fallopian tube the mother can get the tube containing the embryo removed to save her life. The embryo will die as a consequence. What would not be acceptable in this situation is a clinical abortion. In either case the fetus will die, but the latter is considered a direct attack of the fetus while in the remove of the tube by the principal of double-effect (the death of the fetus is unintentional) is not a moral infraction.

Personally I’ve never been able to wrap my mind around the difference in these two methods of saving the mother’s life. If you do procedure A, procedure B, or no procedure at all the fetus dies. So personally I’d have no moral issue with a clinical abortion for this scenario. But I’ve been told they are not the same.

 

[JohnMichaels]

I agree. Before I returned to the Church I was mostly pro-choice, but what largely led me to reconsider Catholicism was that I could not bring myself to support abortion (for a few years of my atheism, at least)…

I’d hope you aren’t suggesting an atheist cannot be against abortion.
Actually none of any of what you said made any sense once you added that sentence in parenthesis

That being said I had a busy day with another in the morning. You’ve all left me with quite a bit to go over.

Cheers!

 

[JRKH]

I wanna take this to an issue I’m on the fence about
Abortion

On one hand, it is a life. Arguing it’s ok to abort early in a pregnancy and not ok late in a pregnancy, is to me somehow implying that age determines the value of that life. I disagree
Furthermore, would that mean an unborn life is less valuable than a someone counted by the census? It’s an argument the left makes that doesn’t really mesh. How can we put people first, & advocate killing unborn people? ehhh

On the other hand, there is rape. But, that child isn’t a rapist.
What if it’s a product of incest rape, and the child is underage? Or a step-father or something?
Or underage period. No possible means of self-support
& of course the underlying feeling I’ve always had that, by what right as a man do I have to tell a woman what to do with her body?

SOOOO difficult…

What say the Church?

Well the Church says that life begins at conception - that the taking of innocent life is a sin and therefore abortion, under any circumstances is a grave sin…It is murder.
As to your questions concerning rape and incest etc…these are crimes, but they are crimes in which the child is entirely innocent. So why should the child get the “death penalty” when the rapist (if caught and convicted) does not?
I’ve had this “jingle” in my head for some time…the Child in the womb asking…
Mama, mama, tell my why
What did I do that I should die?

As to the matter or telling a woman what to do with her body…I agree - as a society we should not tell a woman what to do with her body. However - when her actions effect the life and well being of another’s body, then the state as an interest. The child, from the moment of conception has a unique DNA that is different than the mother’s. It is a separate body and has a right to life. The Catholic Church supports this child’s right to life.

And again - on the matter of not telling a woman what to do with her body…Freedom is indeed a precious thing but with freedom comes responsibility and society DOES have the right to expect that it’s citizens act in a responsible manner. When people choose to engage in sexual activity, pregnancy is a possible result and there are few in this modern society who do not know this.
So - the “right” to use your body as you choose, carries the “responsibility” of living with the possible consequences of that decision. Too often people seem to want to divorce these rights from the responsibilities.

The closest thing to an acceptable condition for terminating a pregnancy that the Church tolerates is an unintentional ending of the pregnancy by way of a procedure to save the mother’s life. For an ectopic pregnancy in the Fallopian tube the mother can get the tube containing the embryo removed to save her life. The embryo will die as a consequence. What would not be acceptable in this situation is a clinical abortion. In either case the fetus will die, but the latter is considered a direct attack of the fetus while in the remove of the tube by the principal of double-effect (the death of the fetus is unintentional) is not a moral infraction.

Personally I’ve never been able to wrap my mind around the difference in these two methods of saving the mother’s life. If you do procedure A, procedure B, or no procedure at all the fetus dies. So personally I’d have no moral issue with a clinical abortion for this scenario. But I’ve been told they are not the same.

TS, you bring up a good point here…and I agree that in this the hair is split very fine indeed. That said, I think there is good reason to split the hair this fine…and it relates to what I call the “yea but what if” syndrome…
Because there are so many variables in these matters, the Church has tried to address them. Now the Church has, for very sound reason, said that abortion is always wrong - and it is since it is the taking of innocent life. But there IS the occasional circumstance where the issue becomes a double edged sword. whent he choice is between the life of the child and the life of the mother.
The problem is that, should the Church say in such circumstances the direct killing of the child is acceptable…it opens a pandora’s box of, “Yea but what if…” - - you can fill in the blank of problems related to the health of the mother and child. It’s a slippery slope.
Therefore the Church, in her spirit guided wisdom, has told the faithful this. If there is circumstance where it is necessary to remove the child in order to save the mother’s life, the intent should still be to try to save both.
Right now, this might not be medically possible…but who knows what the future might bring medically. Some preemies live today who would have had no chance at all just 20 or 30 years ago.
The wonders of laser and microsurgery etc also hold the potential that - maybe - someday - an ectopic fetus could be safely moved to a safe place in the uterus.

Sorry to prattle on like this. Obviously there is much that can be said on the subject.

Of course, things like ectopic pregnancies, matters of rape and incest, accidents and such are but a very small percentage of the total number of abortions - over 4000 per day in the U.S. Most occur simply as a method of “birth control”.

Peace
James

 

[JohnMichaels]

This doesn’t add up. .

I went back and focused only on the conversation between us. Hard sometimes cause I hold the same conversation with different people

I will try to be brief

The teaching of the Catholic Church is that God loves all human beings, regardless of their behavior, and He desires them all to turn from their sin and come to Him. In the Catholic view, God does not send people to Hell because He hates them. People choose Hell by choosing to reject God, who is the source of all good. This does not mean God does not love them. He respects the free will He gave them and He will not force someone who does not want Him to be with Him…

God, by definition, is omnipotent and omniscient. If you accept his existence, for this exercise, then you accept those definitions. Given that, you can’t say “God disagrees with you,” as though he’s just an old buddy with a fallible human mind whose opinion holds no more weight than yours. .

Because God doesn’t contradict Himself. Have you ever studied natural law?

You know a lot about what God think’s, apparently.
All I said was

I prayed deeply for the Lord to send me an answer on this issue. Should I be chaste before marriage. He spoke to me, & told me I was of him, & there was no sin in his eyes.

This doesn’t describe what you suggest I did

No; you’re perfectly welcome to talk to God all you want. But if you do, you can’t call yourself a deist.

But what you really can’t do is say “I prayed to God and He told me X,” as part of your argument. I could just as easily say “Well, I prayed to God and He told me Y.”

To say that this debate assumes no revealed doctrine and then say that God revealed a moral doctrine (or lack thereof) to you is an obvious violation of your own rules.

I said God told me I wasn’t wrong to personally not remain chaste. I looked within for personal answers. I’ve not presented Dogma.
What I have done, in saying what I did, was REPEAT a line I’ve heard theists say more times than I can count. Yet, I think, because you know I really did NOT have this revalation - you cannot accept me using it in the exercise.
What you can blindly accept is your own definition. So, moving on

This study has nothing to do with the debate at hand. It is addressing abstinence after, or rather during marriage; not before. It would behoove you to read your sources.

If I’m reading this correctly, you’re kinda saying that marriage itself should be reserved purely for couples who wish to procreate. Those couples who marry otherwise are moreso stamping a seal of approval on their romance. - ME

That’s correct. If there is no intent to start a family, there is no logical reason for the state to recognize your relationship. However, it is also unfeasible and intrusive to expect the state to police every married couple, so there will unavoidably be cases of such marriages.

The** full pictur**e, as regards the teaching of abstinence, is provided by the Catholic Church’s teaching on chastity; a teaching from which not even married couples are excluded.

The study then suggest couples who remain chaste during marriage, can lead to divorce.
If a married couple had 1 child, then decided to stop having children - they would be chaste. It would behoove you to remember your stances.

a) this study specifically deals with Southern Protestants, whose views on human sexuality are markedly different from Catholic teaching.
b) simply calling oneself a Christian does not mean that one is particularly passionate and devout in their faith. Many people are simply “cultural Christians” and do what is expected of them without really thinking about it. Their ignorance and impassivity is no reflection on Christian teaching itself.
Further, I can find no link to the study itself, and the only place it has ever been referenced appears to be here and a few other blogs (mainly gay activist websites.) Her methodology is not available for review, and the quotes cited qualify as little more than conjecture on their own.

I too noticed I couldn’t find a link to the actual study. So, you’re saying since they presented these facts they should provide the evidence to support the claims? Alright, that is fair. Everyone should agree to that. I’ll move on

While it may not be the end of civilization altogether, it will certainly be the end of our societies as we know them. A prominent Muslim once said something to the effect of, “We will take over the world, not by the sword, but by the womb.” The rapidly growing Muslim population of Europe, paired with the ever diminishing native European population, suggests he is right. The face of Europe is due for a dramatic makeover.

Please provide me the research that proves with certainty society as we know it will end, not speculation.

Overall though, I didn’t want to get into pasting studies back & forth because I’ve seen too many studies twisted to someone’s personal ends.
I don’t REALLY endorse total promiscuity, never suggested as such.

I hope I covered what we were discussing. Now I gotta do this for everyone else ::hypno:

 

[prodigalson2011]

You know a lot about what God think’s, apparently.
All I said was

This doesn’t describe what you suggest I did

Did I say anything about what God thinks? No, I don’t think I did. I said that God is, by definition, omniscient, and therefore whatever He does think is the truth.

I said God told me I wasn’t wrong to personally not remain chaste. I looked within for personal answers. I’ve not presented Dogma.
What I have done, in saying what I did, was REPEAT a line I’ve heard theists say more times than I can count.

Repeating a fallacious argument from a theist doesn’t make it not fallacious for you.

Yet, I think, because you know I really did NOT have this revalation - you cannot accept me using it in the exercise.

I cannot accept you using it because it’s completely arbitrary and useless in a debate, just as it would be for a theist. It would be the same if we were having a debate about the possibility of time travel and I said, “I built a time machine and travelled to the future, so time travel is possible.” It’s silly, it has no logical basis and, thus, it is utterly useless in the pursuit of the truth. It’s utterly pointless to debate about completely whimsical imaginary experiences with no logical foundation.

What you can blindly accept is your own definition. So, moving on

I do not blindly accept anything. And what “definition” are you referring to?

The study then suggest couples who remain chaste during marriage, can lead to divorce.

If a married couple had 1 child, then decided to stop having children - they would be chaste. It would behoove you to remember your stances.

Being “chaste” does not necessarily mean being “abstinent”. It would behoove you to learn something about your opponent’s stance before making ignorant statements such as this. Your current approach to this debate is not much different from a Young Earth Creationist who denies evolution without ever having cracked open a science textbook.

A) Chastity within marriage means remaining open to life. If there are morally sufficient reasons to avoid having children for a time (and “We only wanted one” is not a morally sufficient reason), the couple may practice natural family planning, a program of periodic abstinence wherein intercourse is avoided during the woman’s fertile period (which is usually, at most, a few days a month.)

B) Couples who practice NFP (periodic abstinence) have the lowest divorce rate of all (around 1 percent).

C) The kind of abstinence within marriage that is being discussed in the study is forced abstinence, e.g. “frigidity”, or withholding sexual relations against one’s spouses wishes. Huge difference.

I too noticed I couldn’t find a link to the actual study. So, you’re saying since they presented these facts they should provide the evidence to support the claims? Alright, that is fair. Everyone should agree to that. I’ll move on

Yes, specifically when you start making claims about the causes of your findings/statistics, it is important to show how you obtained that information/came to that conclusion. In some cases, such statements are just the researcher’s hypotheses.

Please provide me the research that proves with certainty society as we know it will end, not speculation.

Did you watch the documentary I linked to you? If you are really interested in “understanding” the other side, you should be willing to invest the necessary time to do so.

youtube.com/watch?v=lZeyYIsGdAA#t=209

Most, if not all, of the researchers involved in this project are secular (though one, if I remember correctly, states that his research has led him to begin to look more closely at the Catholic Church).

Also, do you keep up with what’s going on in Europe? Here are some sobering statistics (taken from a website that appears to be quite nihilistic, so no need to worry about a religious bias):

zerohedge.com/news/2013-01-09/20-facts-about-collapse-europe-everyone-should-know

Western civilization is collapsing. It’s obvious; the evidence is all around us. Does that mean that we’re approaching some sort of “extinction level event”? No. But it does mean that we’re in for a very rough ride.

(continued…)

 

[prodigalson2011]

(…continued)

Overall though, I didn’t want to get into pasting studies back & forth because I’ve seen too many studies twisted to someone’s personal ends.
I don’t REALLY endorse total promiscuity, never suggested as such.

Nor did I say you did. However, as the history of America since the beginning of the sexual revolution clearly demonstrates, total promiscuity is the logical end of a “sexually liberated society.” If sex can be had just for kicks; if we can abort unwanted children; if we can just take a pill to avoid them; if sex can be made inconsequential, why shouldn’t we have it with as many people as we want?

With this issue, too, the evidence is all around us. The things that make it onto primetime television nowadays would have had people thrown in jail just half a century ago. It is virtually impossible to listen to the radio for 5 minutes without hearing casual sex promoted. Before the sexual revolution, the number of common STDs was about 3. Since that time, the number is now somewhere around 30. And the infection rates have increased astronomically as well. And among the new diseases? AIDS. Our “sexually liberated culture” is quite literally deadly: AIDS victims, abortion victims, “sexting”-related suicides and teen rape as teenage boys become ever more desensitized to the dehumanization of women through porn. The cliched analogy of the boiling frog rings ever more true with each passing year.

Sex is the single most important and, alongside murder, the most consequential action human beings can perform. It is the very basis of human life. When it is trivialized, so is human life. The evidence? Listen to what passes for comedy, look at what passes for entertainment: degradation, degradation and more degradation.

 

[JohnMichaels]

However, as the history of America since the beginning of the sexual revolution clearly demonstrates, total promiscuity is the logical end of a “sexually liberated society.” If sex can be had just for kicks; if we can abort unwanted children; if we can just take a pill to avoid them; if sex can be made inconsequential, why shouldn’t we have it with as many people as we want? .

I Had a long day. I did read it all, but I have other’s to reply to first. This caught my eye though. I decline this notion of no middle ground. If sex isn’t used only for child birth the logical conclusion is sexual chaos? sounds extremist to me. no room for compromise.

 

[JohnMichaels]

Not so…The Church still loves them too. That doesn’t always mean that every individual in the Church acts properly loving toward them…that is a matter of personal sin…but the Church continues to love them and teaches us to love them too.
In this discussion - The idea is to deal with Church teaching. It is unfair to say that “the Church excludes” or “the Church is intolerant” when such things can be found nowhere in Church teaching.

Can an openly homosexual man, practicing homosexual behavior in the privacy of his own home, attend your Church? If so, I take it back

When a person self identifies as something, they are identifying themselves with all that the title embodies. Being a member of an organization - and identifying yourself as a member of that organization - indicates that you agree with the principles, rules, etc associated with said membership.
Now If one acts in a way that is contrary to that organization…the organization has a perfect right to inform the person that they are in violation and, if necessary, take action against them - even to the point of expulsion. This is true of every organization from the Rotary club, to the boy scouts, to religious groups.

The Church is composed of people who self identify as Catholic. No one makes them self identify as Catholic. If they do not wish to abide by the teachings of the Church then they really should do what you have done…set themselves apart from it.
Then they can do whatever they like. Free will remember?

I’ve never agreed with Free will. I used this example to JW once while in my backyard

“I have 3 gates leaving my yard. One side gate, 1 back 1 front. You are free to use any gate you please. I’d prefer you leave out the side gate, but the choice is yours. However, if you do leave through any of the other 2 gates…I’ll shoot you. Which door would you choose?”

This is why I brought up the larger issue of authority. Yes - one CAN force oneself to follow this or that teaching if one has confidence that the Church has the proper authority. This takes humility. (A lot of humility - which might explain why I was away from the Church for 35 years.)

Then - over time and with humble study and prayer one begins to see how the various teachings of the 2000 year old Church hand together so beautifully. Even if one is not entirely convicted on a given point, one can see that these things are not arbitrary, or a tangled mess or contradictory, but in reality are well thought out, cohesive and consistent.

So this is how it works.

That makes sense. I just couldn’t proudly tell it to another person. I’d have to be a closet catholic

 

[prodigalson2011]

I Had a long day. I did read it all, but I have other’s to reply to first. This caught my eye though. I decline this notion of no middle ground. If sex isn’t used only for child birth the logical conclusion is sexual chaos? sounds extremist to me. no room for compromise.

No, there is no room for compromise, because sex is a very serious and, when improperly used, dangerous thing. It has drastic consequences: emotional, physical, personal and social. Contrary to popular belief, sex is not a private matter. It is, in fact, the social matter, because it is the tool with which societies are built. Like any tool, if not used for its proper purpose, it can cause a lot of damage.

What makes sex exceptionally dangerous is the effect it has on human reason, and moreover, human chemistry. Sexual stimulation, and especially orgasm, act almost exactly like hard drugs (such as cocaine) on the brain. Like strong prescription medications, when used properly, sex can be healthy, beneficial and serve a wonderful purpose. But also like strong prescription medications, when turned into a recreational activity, it becomes unhealthy and destructive.

Every sane person will acknowledge that there is a certain element of chaos within the human sex drive: it can make people irrational; it tends to make them do things they would not do if they were thinking properly.

For any society that does not try to restrain the fire of that passion, and in fact fuels it, the conclusion is obvious: it will burn.

The first step in restraining it is in keeping it in its proper place and context. Just as the proper place and context for a fire is in an open hearth, so the proper place and context for sex is within marriage that is open to life. A fire outside the hearth will burn the house down; sex outside of marriage corrupts and destroys societies, not to mention, in many cases, individual lives. A closed hearth will fill the house with poisonous smoke; sex that is closed to life clouds the meaning of the act and poisons its purpose.

Contraception is to sex what bulimia is to digestion. Any healthy-minded individual recognizes that bulimia is disordered and unhealthy. Contraceptive sex is not all that different. It is acting so as to receive the pleasure of a particular bodily function while disrupting its natural and proper end.

 

[JohnMichaels]

Hmm, I didn’t think I’d made such an appeal.

I didn’t specifcially mean you. I meant overall. Like, someone changes the rules don’t they? Nobody, I wouldn’t imagine, lives 100% by the bible. So, someone has to “talk to God” and make sure it’s OK to change things, just can’t be me.

In all it was a serious point draped in sarcasm. which seems to be falling way flat here, my apologies.

I’m saying that the function of the intellect is to know truth and to direct the will towards it. We can be right or wrong about what is true. Sin is when we misapprehend truth and direct our will towards it.

How can one know the difference if what one considers truth is predetermined?

I don’t think humanism is a bad starting point. But it is a pretty broad category which does not preclude religion.

I’ve never once, nor would I ever, advocate anything of the sort. Religion on the whole does a lot of good in the world. I’m concerned with weeding out the bad it does. To do so, I need to understand
A) Why it feels justified in doing the wrong I feel it does
or
B) why my understanding of it is wrong

Cheers

 

[JohnMichaels]

The closest thing to an acceptable condition for terminating a pregnancy that the Church tolerates is an unintentional ending of the pregnancy by way of a procedure to save the mother’s life. For an ectopic pregnancy in the Fallopian tube the mother can get the tube containing the embryo removed to save her life. The embryo will die as a consequence. What would not be acceptable in this situation is a clinical abortion. In either case the fetus will die, but the latter is considered a direct attack of the fetus while in the remove of the tube by the principal of double-effect (the death of the fetus is unintentional) is not a moral infraction.

Personally I’ve never been able to wrap my mind around the difference in these two methods of saving the mother’s life. If you do procedure A, procedure B, or no procedure at all the fetus dies. So personally I’d have no moral issue with a clinical abortion for this scenario. But I’ve been told they are not the same.

You have a good point. If the result is the same, why does the location matter?
I don’t know…

 

[prodigalson2011]

I Had a long day. I did read it all, but I have other’s to reply to first. This caught my eye though. I decline this notion of no middle ground. If sex isn’t used only for child birth the logical conclusion is sexual chaos? sounds extremist to me. no room for compromise.

P.S. I should add that the Church does recognize that sex has a unitive as well as a procreative function. That is, it also serves the end of strengtening the spiritual bond between the spouses, and so neither the Church, nor I, would say that sex is “only for child birth.”

While it should remain open to life (no deliberate frustration, artificial or otherwise, of the natural course of the act), not every act must be engaged in with the intent to produce a child. If this were the case, the Church would not allow for the use of NFP in any circumstances.

 

[JohnMichaels]

As to the matter or telling a woman what to do with her body…I agree - as a society we should not tell a woman what to do with her body. However - when her actions effect the life and well being of another’s body, then the state as an interest. The child, from the moment of conception has a unique DNA that is different than the mother’s. It is a separate body and has a right to life. The Catholic Church supports this child’s right to life.

I proposed this to some young friends of mine. A couple. It became apparent to me they were being given new information. They told me it was murder at 5-6-7-8 months to abort, but OK at 2. Why? Are they not a person until we can see a person? They are unborn, but they’re life is inevitable (barring medical complications resulting in the loss of the child)
When I sprung the unique DNA on them, I got wide-eyed blank stares. They assumed I’m sure the child was merely an extension of the mother until it was born. Like removing an unnecessary kidney.

Still hard to wrap my mind around trying to forbid others from doing so…:juggle:

 

[JohnMichaels]

No, there is no room for compromise,.

Before I go back & re-read your other post plus this one, 2 questions

1, if you’re right explain 1 Corinthians 7
2. Are you & Prodigal_Son the same, or different people?

 

[JRKH]

Can an openly homosexual man, practicing homosexual behavior in the privacy of his own home, attend your Church? If so, I take it back

Sure he could attend my church.

If the person in question is Catholic - and knows that his behavior is gravely sinful - that person is not to receive communion. This is a teaching of the Church that he freely belongs to and attends. Also, he should seek guidance from his confessor on how to overcome this sin that he finds himself in.

If the person is not Catholic but is looking into the Church the same rule applies - no communion. But he is certainly free to pray and sing along with the rest of the congregation. He is also free to attend RCIA classes preparatory to entering the Church - but again the issue of the continuing sin would need to be dealt with. So like the Catholic above, counseling would be indicated.

I’ve never agreed with Free will. I used this example to JW once while in my backyard

“I have 3 gates leaving my yard. One side gate, 1 back 1 front. You are free to use any gate you please. I’d prefer you leave out the side gate, but the choice is yours. However, if you do leave through any of the other 2 gates…I’ll shoot you. Which door would you choose?”

Interesting analogy…but I would make a slight change - instead of you shooting me, you explain that one gate has attack dogs, and the other has a venomous snake pit on the other side.
However - regardless of the specifics, I will submit that even in this scenario free will remains…It is still my choice which gate I exit by. You have not removed my free will, you have merely informed me of the consequences of my decision.

That makes sense. I just couldn’t proudly tell it to another person. I’d have to be a closet catholic

That is why it is good to remove “proudly” from our vocabulary and from our heart.

Peace
James

 

[prodigalson2011]

Before I go back & re-read your other post plus this one, 2 questions

1, if you’re right explain 1 Corinthians 7

This says that sex should remain between husband and wife. It does not condone contraception. Moreover, St. Paul here also recommends periodic abstinence by mutual consent, which is precisely what natural family planning is.

1. Are you & Prodigal_Son the same, or different people?

No relation.

 

[Aloysium]

I proposed this to some young friends of mine. A couple. It became apparent to me they were being given new information. They told me it was murder at 5-6-7-8 months to abort, but OK at 2. Why? Are they not a person until we can see a person? They are unborn, but they’re life is inevitable (barring medical complications resulting in the loss of the child)
When I sprung the unique DNA on them, I got wide-eyed blank stares. They assumed I’m sure the child was merely an extension of the mother until it was born. Like removing an unnecessary kidney.

Still hard to wrap my mind around trying to forbid others from doing so…:juggle:

Sounds like you have done a lot to help this couple (and likely others if you can approach people with such candor about very sensitive and volatile issues).

In terms of "forbid(ding) others from doing so . . . ", you are likely far less cynical and much more optimistic than myself.
I see nothing of the kind ever happening in secular societies; perhaps when this world hits rock bottom.

People would be forbidden, in a world turning to God and doing His will. At that point abortion, etc would be seen as the evils they are, and such acts would be not considered to be consistent with a society (a church actually) reaching out to Him.

 

[JRKH]

I proposed this to some young friends of mine. A couple. It became apparent to me they were being given new information. They told me it was murder at 5-6-7-8 months to abort, but OK at 2. Why? Are they not a person until we can see a person? They are unborn, but they’re life is inevitable (barring medical complications resulting in the loss of the child)
When I sprung the unique DNA on them, I got wide-eyed blank stares. They assumed I’m sure the child was merely an extension of the mother until it was born. Like removing an unnecessary kidney.

Sounds like you gave them something to think about…

You might find THIS interesting too.

Still hard to wrap my mind around trying to forbid others from doing so…:juggle:

Every culture / nation on the planet that I know of forbids the taking of innocent human life. The baby by virtue of it’s DNA is a human life distinct from it’s mother. It has committed no crime and therefore is innocent.
So - what justification is there for allowing this “choice”??

Peace
James

 

[JohnMichaels]

Interesting analogy…but I would make a slight change - instead of you shooting me, you explain that one gate has attack dogs, and the other has a venomous snake pit on the other side.
However - regardless of the specifics, I will submit that even in this scenario free will remains…It is still my choice which gate I exit by. You have not removed my free will, you have merely informed me of the consequences of my decision.

I use life and death in my analogy because the people involved are alive. It was the best way to get it across. I’d be silly to suggest “Leave out the other 2, and I will haunt your afterlife” would I not?

Altering my analogy is fine, I’ve still placed that evil which awaits the 2 gates I did not recommend. It does not exist without my placing it in opposition of the exits I disapprove of.
Have I taken your free will, no. I’ve presented you with a very one-sided situation, though.
My analogy cannot possibly reach the level of complication of it’s parent text, but I hope the point gets across of how I’m looking at it

That is why it is good to remove “proudly” from our vocabulary and from our heart.

Huh? You don’t…what?

(I’ll note you changed my mind, then changed it again all on the exclusion subject. While it still comes off slightly intolerant, magnificent debate, I admit I was wrong, if your words are true)