Mormon pro-life? Hardly.

  • Thread starter Thread starter Catholic20064
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Stephen168 said:
She is beating that strawman to pieces; while telling Catholics what we believe, again/still. All the while avoiding what the Mormon Church teaches about the sub/non-human nature of children of incestuous parents.
Click to expand...
Yes, it is like talking to a 2nd grader.
 
Stephen168 said:
She is beating that strawman to pieces; while telling Catholics what we believe, again/still. All the while avoiding what the Mormon Church teaches about the sub/non-human nature of children of incestuous parents.
Click to expand...
I’m not telling you what you believe. You are telling ME what you believe. You don’t believe in abortion for any reason. Fine. I get that.

I am telling you that it doesn’t matter what y’all claim to believe, because of what y’all DO.

…and since what the Catholic church, as represented by the membership, does about their zero tolerance policy is to get abortions only slightly less often than vocally pro-choice women do- I find that your characterization of the LDS view of the unborn as ‘sub-human,’ and as us as baby killers, etc., as less than impressive.

We respect the rights of the unborn to live a little over three times as much as you do, as evidenced by what WE do.

and in this topic, which is measured not by words and ink on paper, but by babies born vs. lives thrown away, I think that what is DONE certainly trumps what one claims to believe.

So you come to me when the Catholic abortion rate is down where ours is. When your moral position is at least equal to ours, rather than somewhere under the basement, and when you can dispense with the ‘baby killer,’ ‘murderer,’ ‘Mormons believe that the unborn are sub-human’ rhetoricTHEN I will discuss with you the merits/faults of our respective positions.

Stephen, what’s worse; the Catholics who SAY that abortion is unacceptable at any time, but who have abortions at an only slightly lower rate than outright pro-abortion advocates, or the Mormons who have a less restrictive policy, abide by it…and have an abortion rate three times lower than the Catholics do?

I believe that I have made my opinion very clear on this.

Now you, as a Catholic, may well believe what you claim to believe. As a man you certainly aren’t ever going to have to make that decision for yourself. Perhaps you would do everything in your power to keep your sister, daughter or wife from having an abortion. Perhaps this is all true.

And if it is, wonderful. Go do that, and when your people actually behave as if they actually believed what they claim to believe, you can come and tell the Mormons that WE are the baby killers who think that the lives we save at three times the rate you do are 'sub human."

Yep, I think that’s fair.
However,
 
Stephen168 said:
I’m not telling youI’m telling you.

I guess that is why the Mormon teaching on the murder of the unborn seems morally consistant to you
Click to expand...
It is morally consistant to me. What is NOT morally consistant to me is having someone representing a group that kills the unborn at three times the rate we do criticise our stand on the matter.

As I mentioned; if your goal is to stop abortion, clean your own house before you come after us.

THAT would be moral consistancy.
 
soren1 said:
But it is? Is that really an argument at all, or is it not an example of the ad hominem fallacy, whereby a personal judgment substitutes for a reasoned response to a reasoned argument? Even if only one LDS woman had an abortion for every thousand Catholics, the criticism we have been making here would stand firm, for the single reason that the one LDS woman would be acting with the approval of her Church and none of the Catholic women would be.
Click to expand...
I was hoping it would get beyond the ad hominem fallacy but I guess not.
soren1 said:
The problem here is not I think with continuous revelation, but with the absence of a doctrine of natural law in Mormonism. Mormons deny that God created nature as such; his creation consists only in forming matter, which existed and had its own nature prior to God’s act of creation. More in particular, God did not create the human spirit, and so he did not create human nature. Indeed, he is himself a human. So our first assumption, that God writes his law into the order of nature, determining natural goods and evils in an absolute sense, is a meaningless proposition in their theology, because for them, God is not prior to nature. How then could he write his law into it? The only think that could be taken as a natural law for them is whatever cosmic process it was that allowed God to become God. (Perhaps some first God is the cause of all or perhaps there is an infinite regress of gods.) In any case, Mormonism posits no conscious and purposive source for nature itself. As a result, you cannot by natural reason find any purpose in nature apart from revelation from God. It is glorified positivism. This makes suspensions of basic ethical imperatives conceivable, since those imperatives are not as basic to their worldview as they are to ours.
Click to expand...
I just finished a book on natural law and found this to be a very interesting observation. I think there is a problem with continuing revelation but I see your point which seems to be: the problem is with continuing revelation disconnected from the natural law. Very cool!
 
Stephen168 said:
I was hoping it would get beyond the ad hominem fallacy but I guess not.
Click to expand...
It won’t as long as you continue to use it, Stephen. I am going to say one more thing on this topic and then I’ll be quiet about it–at least until the next time some Catholic gets self righteous about this.

It’s this: in the world of purest logic, it doesn’t matter whether the person who points out the flaws of another is flawed himself or not–or even flawed in the same way and far more deeply. Truth is, after all, truth.

The problem is that we aren’t IN a world of purest logic.

We are in a world of impure people, whose emotions and passions inform logic…and it is in this arena that we all work. Everybody brings bona fides to any conversation. When someone attempts to borrow money to buy a house, it doesn’t matter a bit that his current rent is one and a half times higher than his mortgage payment would be, and that he has paid his rent on time every month for five years. The bank is going to look at his over all credit rating, and if he has a problem with it, he won’t get the loan. If his income to debt ratio is too low, he won’t get the loan, even if the new payment will IMPROVE that.

In a debate about any topic, especially one that involves academic topics, or science, the opinion of a PhD from Harvard or MIT is going to trump the opinion of the humble MS from Cal State Fresno…and it doesn’t matter if the Fresno guy makes more sense than the MIT guy with the doctorate.

bona fides matter.

If you go to a trial, the character of the witness MATTERS. What he says he saw bears more or less wieight according to whether he is the local priest–or is brought in wearing an orange suit and restraints.

This matters because in most areas of discussion, the human element of faith, motive and opinion are important, and those things are directly affected by the character/bona fides of the speaker.

Hypocrisy matters.

Especially, hypocrisy matters.

Catholics, with their high abortion rate…again, three times ours…and back door reasoning to justify the very actions they condemn in us (allowing the end of a pregnancy if the woman’s life is at stake) …don’t have the bona fides in this area.

I’m sorry, but you just don’t.

…and on that note, I’m leaving this thread.
Stephen168 said:
I just finished a book on natural law and found this to be a very interesting observation. I think there is a problem with continuing revelation but I see your point which seems to be: the problem is with continuing revelation disconnected from the natural law. Very cool!
Click to expand...
 
This thread is now closed. Thanks for your participation.

God bless-

Rachel
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top