R
RyanL
Guest
If I were to say, “I am without color, because I am blind and do not accept color,” what would be your response?
God Bless,
RyanL
- Status
God Bless,
RyanL
R
RyanL
Guest
After birth, the baby is dependant on the mother’s breast milk. Is it a baby? It is still dependant on someone else for the first several years of life - is it now “less bad” to kill them? Furthermore, well before birth the baby is capable of being “independant” (as you define it) - is viability the definition of when human life begins, according to you?
Scientists cannot agree on how the universe came into existance. Therefore, the universe did not come into existance. (?!? - Same logic - ?!?)
“Potential persons”? “Slaves are persons”? According to the Constitution (first draft), slaves are only 3/5 persons. According to Hitler, Jews aren’t persons. According to the then-communist block, capitolists aren’t persons. Can you please cite one positive example of where certain living members of the species were excluded from personhood?
I agree on both points. I question you, however – what makes abortion “not a good thing”?
God Bless,
RyanL
D
Daniel_Marsh
Guest
My favorite is Job security. When you kill off people you destroy their demand for products and for services. Teachers like myself are being laid off due to lack of funds. Lack of students equals lack of funds. More students, more teachers are needed. More people in next generation, stronger social security program. More people on earth in the US, more demand for any products that are out there, thus more jobs to fill.
H
Hitetlen
Guest
Not true. If you buy eggs from a farm, you may very well get eggs which are fertilized. However to make a dish out of those you still would not call that dish a fried chicken, would you?
No one suggested that the med student should be killed. I asked if he should be considered a doctor, just because he entered college. The med student is only a potential doctor.
H
Hitetlen
Guest
It is not dependent on the mother’s milk. Anyone, even a properly programmed machine can provide the necessary nutrients to keep the child alive. This is not the same as having a dependent existence.
Viability is a poor approach, since it is subject to change with technology. A better one would be to define personhood, when electrical brain activity first emerges. Without a functioning brain there is no human being, just a bunch of cells.
RyanL said:
Yes, in certain historical instances people with working brain have not been afforded full human rights. So? At the very least in the first trimester the fetus has no brain, therefore it cannot be considered a person.
It is a traumatic intrusion. Simply having a morning-after pill would achieve the same result without undue medical interference.
T
Thal59
Guest
Hitetlen
But let’s say I thought the same way as you do. What if I decide you are my enemy to me and the enemy of life and so I decide to put a gun to your head and pull the trigger. What’s to stop me?
“Actually I am without “sin”, because “sin” is a religious concept, which I do not accept; therefore I have commited no sin in killing you. Also, I have commited no crime because “crime” is a man-made judicial concept, which I also do not accept; therefore I go free.”
Fortunately for you, Hitetlen, there is a God who is more sensible than you.
Thal59
You should thank God that you are one of the few people on earth, if not the only one, who thinks this way. Your statement is one of self-deification; whatever I wish to believe is true, whatever I reject is false - I am therefore beholden only to myself and nothing more.
But let’s say I thought the same way as you do. What if I decide you are my enemy to me and the enemy of life and so I decide to put a gun to your head and pull the trigger. What’s to stop me?
“Actually I am without “sin”, because “sin” is a religious concept, which I do not accept; therefore I have commited no sin in killing you. Also, I have commited no crime because “crime” is a man-made judicial concept, which I also do not accept; therefore I go free.”
Fortunately for you, Hitetlen, there is a God who is more sensible than you.
Thal59
H
Hitetlen
Guest
So when do humans get “infected” with the “Original Sin”? At conception? At birth? Some other time?
H
Hitetlen
Guest
Not so few, actually. Besides, your analogy is incorrect: even if I disagree with a law, the existence of the law is beyond doubt. Since God’s existence is only an unsupported assertion, I see no reason why to accept corollaries to this concept. If God so wishes, he can come to me and prove to me that he exists. If he would do that I would re-evaluate my position vis-a-vis the concept of “sin”. But not until then.
H
Hitetlen
Guest
RyanL said:
Only according to your definition of morality. I can conceive circumstances when killing an innocent person is necessary for bringing about some greater good. Example: a terrorist plans to destroy half of the Earth. We must find the device to disarm it. If the only way to achieve this is to kill the terrorist’s children, it may not be a morally upright act, but it would be necessary to avoid a true disaster.
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
To approach the question from a non-theological standpoint is often helpful.
Jefferson, Locke and so on discussed the concept of “unalienable rights.” These are fundamental rights which come to you as a part of your human condition. No one (no human) gives them to you, and no one can take them away (although you can throw them away by your own actions.)
In both the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights the right to life comes first – because without the right to life, what good are all the other rights? The right to life is the basic, fundamental human right, and on it all other rights are based.
If, as some pro-abortionists say, “society” decides when you get the right to life, it is not a right – it is merely a privilige. What society grants, it can withhold or withdraw. If we grant society decides when you get the right to life, can society decide that some people – Jews, Catholics, Blacks – never get the right to life? Yes! Once you grant that society gives you the right, you must accept that society (or the government) can withold it.
Who denies there is an unalienable right to life denies the existance of the entire concept of human rights. Who claims society (or the government) decides when you get the right to life denies the entire concept of human rights.
This leads to a simple conclusion – all livning human beings have an unalienable right to life, which is as much a part of them as their arms and legs, or mind and personality.
“But,” say the pro-abortionists, “the fetus isn’t a person.”
The unborn child is a living human being. This is a three-part test:
Jefferson, Locke and so on discussed the concept of “unalienable rights.” These are fundamental rights which come to you as a part of your human condition. No one (no human) gives them to you, and no one can take them away (although you can throw them away by your own actions.)
In both the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights the right to life comes first – because without the right to life, what good are all the other rights? The right to life is the basic, fundamental human right, and on it all other rights are based.
If, as some pro-abortionists say, “society” decides when you get the right to life, it is not a right – it is merely a privilige. What society grants, it can withhold or withdraw. If we grant society decides when you get the right to life, can society decide that some people – Jews, Catholics, Blacks – never get the right to life? Yes! Once you grant that society gives you the right, you must accept that society (or the government) can withold it.
Who denies there is an unalienable right to life denies the existance of the entire concept of human rights. Who claims society (or the government) decides when you get the right to life denies the entire concept of human rights.
This leads to a simple conclusion – all livning human beings have an unalienable right to life, which is as much a part of them as their arms and legs, or mind and personality.
“But,” say the pro-abortionists, “the fetus isn’t a person.”
The unborn child is a living human being. This is a three-part test:
- Is it living? If it were not, we would not be having this discussion!
- Is it human? Check the DNA. If it’s human DNA, then it’s human.
- Ah, but is it a “being” or a person? Isn’t it really just a part of the mother’s body, like her fingernails or appendix? Check the DNA again. If it has the mother’s DNA it is indeed a part of her body. But if it has its own DNA, then it is a being or a person.
R
RyanL
Guest
This is not dependent on my own conception of morality, it is an objective truth - but the subject of moral subjectivism or relativism should be better left to another thread.
As for your circumstances, it is a question of competing evils, not a question of whether or not killing children is a morally “good” thing. Because you have not come up with a circumstance where it would be “right” to kill an innocent human being, the logical proof stands. To refute it you must demonstrate that the intentional killing of an innocent person is a “good” end, not a means to a “greater good” or a “lesser evil”.
Incidently, you should agree with us regarding the absolute ban of abortions after the 40 day point, which is the point after which brain function can be recorded. By your definition (well…one of them, anyway), this is the point at which abortion clearly becomes murder. And, just so you know, the 40 day point is where Muslims and Jews believe ensoulment occurs. I, of course, disagree. I believe that when a human (genetically unique DNA being the most basic determination of a “human”) becomes self-determinate regarding his/her own development it is the point at which human life / personhood begins. This occurs at conception.
Finally, Original Sin is accrued with ensoulment. OS, however, does not have the character of personal (or committed) sin. Please check out the following link (search of the Catechism regarding concupiscence).
God Bless,
RyanL
R
RyanL
Guest
Look into the history of religion, and you will see that atheism is intellectual elitism. You have to believe that the vast majority of humanity was collectively insane and that you few, you lonesome few, are the only ones who have it “right”. The argument from common consensus, btw, is one of the logical proofs for the existance of God.
Unsupported? There are at least 24 logical proofs for the existance of God, and only 1 (of which I’m aware) that claims to disprove God - the problem of evil. I believe this problem has been well answered. See C.S. Lewis The Problem of Pain. It’s a good foundational book.
Hi.
Why do you think you’re on a Catholic site? God uses His creations to do His will. If you don’t believe in sin, you have obviously never lived in New York City. 
God Bless,
RyanL
T
Thal59
Guest
My analogy had nothing to do with what is provable or what exists, but what criteria is used to establish what one believes. You are obviously and atheist, and, as is the case with all atheists who deny the existence of God, they become a God unto themselves. They, and they alone, determine what is acceptable and what is not. Therefore, it does not matter if a law exists, I - in my state of divine inspiration - determine if I will accept the validity of the law. In some arabic countries it is the law to amputate a man’s hand for the crime of theft. I do not accept that rationale as justice; therefore I deny the validity of that law whether it exists or not.
You are guilty of this same thinking…
But you reserve for yourself the divine right to determine which entities that are “alive” can be allowed to live and which should perish.
A fetus, a tumor, or YOU. All are alive. But if I thought like you, anyting that lives is subject to my self-determination regarding whether it is a viable or acceptable lifeform. But since I do not believe in sin, nor do I accept the validity of any given law simply because it exists; rather, I base all provable and valid concepts on the criteria of self-satisfaction. Since you do not satisfy my needs, nor in any other way please me, I have decided that your state of being “alive” should be terminated.
Fortunately for you, I do believe in God and sin and you are therefore safe.
But who is safe from you?
Thal59
R
rightbehind
Guest
The best pro life argument:
Your child, the fruit of your womb, is not worthless. It is important to God and humanity. It is GOOD NEWS that the Pope has spoken infallibly that your child is extremely important and valuable and not to be destroyed. Your child was created for a divine purpose.
Your child, the fruit of your womb, is not worthless. It is important to God and humanity. It is GOOD NEWS that the Pope has spoken infallibly that your child is extremely important and valuable and not to be destroyed. Your child was created for a divine purpose.
P
Pedro
Guest
So why was Scott Peterson convicted of TWO counts of murder? Do you believe he should have only been charged with destruction of property for killing his unborn baby? Who is being inconsistent here?
H
Hitetlen
Guest
Not insane, simply mistaken. (Please don’t put words into my mouth.) Many people believed in Jupiter, Zeus, the Sun-god, Zoroaster, all sorts of pagan gods, Allah, Jehovah, you name it. All they all “real”? What makes your God different?
There is a very good saying: “I sumbit we are all atheists. I simply disbelive in one more god than you do. Once you understand why you don’t belive in all those gods, you will understand why I don’t belive in yours”.
By this argument the Earth must be flat, because more people believed in a flat Earth. Consensus means nothing, only facts do.
There is not one which would give a proof. There is not even one which would substantiate God’s existence. But this really would belong to a different thread.
H
Hitetlen
Guest
Judicial error.
L
Lazerlike42
Guest
As the poster pointed out, you are unfamiliar with Catholic understanding of original sin. Original sin is in now way the presence of something extra. It is not an “infection.” It is the absence of something, that being grace.
L
Lazerlike42
Guest
No. Nobody is born guilty of anything. You really need to learn what original sin is.
H
Hitetlen
Guest
This is incorrect. I am part of humanity, not better nor worse than any other person. And thus would not take the responsibility to dictate other’s behavior, just like I don’t want others to dictate my behavior. Living in a society imposes limitations on my freedom, some of which I accept and some of which I don’t.
Again, it is not MY decision, it is the decision of the affected woman.
So the only reason you do not go on a killing rampage is because you fear of retribution? That is really scary. Other people who accepted this starting point firmly believed that God orders them to commit genocide, and they cheerfully set out to perform God’s command. The Old Testament is loaded with examples.
Everyone, because I do not believe that I have the right to make decisions for you. One of my favorite bumper-stickers: “Against abortion? Then don’t have one!”
- Status