Need help defending life to non-religious

  • Thread starter Thread starter Carolyn
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

Carolyn

Guest
Help!
How do I effectively defend life in discussions with Pro-“Choice” advocates… especially those who are skeptical about “religion” but consider themselves “spiritual”?

(I don’t get the "I don’t believe in religion but I consider myself “spiritual” philosophy… sounds like an agnostic cop-out to me.)
 
(I don’t get the "I don’t believe in religion but I consider myself “spiritual” philosophy… sounds like an agnostic cop-out to me.)
You’re right… it is. Just another way that people bend and twist and conform religion to fit them instead of them bending and twisting and conforming to religion. Another “Me” mentality and very self-centered.

Paul
 
The ‘religious’ need help understanding the life issue as well.
 
(I don’t get the "I don’t believe in religion but I consider myself “spiritual” philosophy… sounds like an agnostic cop-out to me.)
Nah, its Protestantism without Christ or the Bible. The person still believes in God (or something bigger than humanity) and this belief guides (more or less) their values, decisions and actions.

But I am afraid I can’t help with with the life question. That is a matter of faith for me.
 
Help!
How do I effectively defend life in discussions with Pro-“Choice” advocates… especially those who are skeptical about “religion” but consider themselves “spiritual”?

(I don’t get the "I don’t believe in religion but I consider myself “spiritual” philosophy… sounds like an agnostic cop-out to me.)
The Priests for Life site has a ton of resources however I am unable to open the U.S site but here is a link to the Canadian one for starters.
priestsforlifecanada.com/english.shtml

I too am tired of people claiming to be spiritual but not religious at the same time though its hard to blame them if they are under 30 because they likely have no real religious education even if they were raised Catholic. Im in my 20s and Id probably be one of them if it wasnt for the grace of God. They want to know God they are just ignorant.
 
If you can rationalijze abortion into morality, you can just as easily sanctify your motives in supporting it. No one ever wakes up in the morning and thinks, “Today I will do something inconcievably evil.” He does the inconcievably evil and defends it as a good in his case so that the whole world is made to change before he is changed. And no one ever says, “I am evil.” He says everyone is wrong about what is evil.

The abortion rights argument is intellectually bankrupt, although those who take the position portray themselves as enlightened.

The intellectually honest answer they should give is that they do not oppose the killing of the innocent to serve another purpose, but that honest answer would take them where they dare not go. This, for example, was the argument used by the Germans in the T-4 program that enabled them to kill over 100,000 disabled, mentally handicapped and aged individuals leading up to the era of the concentration camp. The camps, themselves were evolved into medical installations for the killing of the useless eaters. All this was done for the good of society with the tacit and explicit cooperation of doctors and psychiatrists.

To avoid the odious logic of the truth, they simply declared the unborn infant as not alive (therefore they are not murderers) and have been twisting and contorting ever since trying to explain why their selection of a point in the developement of a human being is not merely arbitrary. They cannot supply a reason for choosing the first trimester or any other stage as opposed to conception for the moment when life begins that does not strain credulity.

In the end, logic will not persuade them because all the rationalizations for their viewpoint have already been laid out for them and theirs is a position of passion, not intellect.
 
Being spiritual without being religious isn’t some agnostic cop-out. I’d argue that Buddhists are spiritual and not so religious. I find that religion without spirituality is empty. However, spirituality without religion can be quite fulfilling. Just think about how many Catholics complain that the religion feels empty to them. I think that’s an example of religion sans spirituality.
 
Being spiritual without being religious isn’t some agnostic cop-out. I’d argue that Buddhists are spiritual and not so religious. I find that religion without spirituality is empty. However, spirituality without religion can be quite fulfilling. Just think about how many Catholics complain that the religion feels empty to them. I think that’s an example of religion sans spirituality.
Spirituality as you are using it is a subjective state. I would respond that having subjective feelings is a plus but bears no necessary relationship to truth. Penecillin makes you better no matter how you feel about it. Furthermore, feelings cannot be commanded therefore we cannot be commanded to feel. The beauty of Catholicism is that the Eucharist effects us regardless of how we feel on any given day.
 
No. I’m arguing that spirituality is a person’s beliefs and that religion is the tangible, visible practice (mass, etc.) of said faith. Would Catholicism be Catholicism without Mass? No. Would Judaism be Judaism without Temple? No.
 
No. I’m arguing that spirituality is a person’s beliefs and that religion is the tangible, visible practice (mass, etc.) of said faith. Would Catholicism be Catholicism without Mass? No. Would Judaism be Judaism without Temple? No.
If spirituality is not the tangible practice of belief, then is it not subjective?
 
Um, according to the Catholic Church, unless you believe in certain things, you’re not Catholic. So, from a Catholic perspective, belief is not subjective at all. Or at least, certain aspects of it can’t be subjective.
 
Um, according to the Catholic Church, unless you believe in certain things, you’re not Catholic. So, from a Catholic perspective, belief is not subjective at all. Or at least, certain aspects of it can’t be subjective.
Are you using belief and spirituality interchangeably? And the Church teaches there is objective truth to which the individual should conform. The belief of the individual would be subjective to him.
 
That we need help defending the goodness of life to the non-religious tells us all we need to know about where we would be without our faith. There but for the grace of God, right?
You can’t reason the goodness of life to people who don’t believe in it. If people say they’re spiritual but not religious, tell them you’re conversational but not linguistic, digestive but not gustatory and circulatory but not respiratory. Some things just don’t make sense when they don’t work together.
 
Well, I always use the DNA argument.

When sperm and egg come together, at that moment, the complete genome (DNA blueprint) for a fully mature human being comes into existence.

If it is alright to kill an incompletely developed human being in the early stages, then it is alright to kill any incompletely developed human, such as a pesky toddler, bratty teenager or irritating 24-year-old.

If it is not alright to kill the last 3, then it is not alright to kill the first.

That’s my story and I’m sticking to it!

Ruthie
 
In my experience, the biggest issue ‘spiritual’ people have with life is a fundamental misunderstanding about individuality.

I once had a discussion with someone who said that the parents of a disabled child were right to have an abortion, and that their child would thank them when ‘they’ were born able-bodied. This makes the fundamental mistake of believing that something (a soul or whatever) is waiting in the wings, marked ‘child 1’, just waiting for the first child to pop out of the womb, if the disabled child was born, child 1’s soul would become the disabled child, if not, the next child would get the same soul, would be the same ‘they’, and would be happy to have been born with the able body instead of the disabled body.

This is often a view that goes hand-in-hand with reincarnation and the belief in pre-existent souls, which God ‘sends’ rather than ‘creates’ at the moment of birth/conception.

The problem with this is it means ‘my’ soul isn’t really mine, it’s just a parasite that’s living temporarily in my body. ‘I’ (the physical me, with memories, emotions, desires, etc.) have to do good works in this life in order to benefit the welfare of my ‘soul’ which then goes on somewhere else, where it will not share my memories, body, emotions, or desires, in other words, where it will leave anything constitutive of ‘me’ behind. This is in some ways similar to Buddhism, but not authentic Buddhism, rather the cod-spirituality version that is sold in the West (as a friend once put it, the third school of Buddhism, Mahayana, Theravada and Califirniyana:D )

The fundamental point, whether you believe in a ‘soul’ or not, is that each child is unique. Genetically, each child born to the same couple will combine the couple’s DNA differently, and will be influenced by innumerable factors in the womb. Nobody (even an identical twin) is the same ‘person’ as their brothers and sisters, this is obvious. If one child dies in the womb, the next child will not be the same, nor a replacement. It may be comforting at first for the mother to believe that this is the same child come back, but at the end of the day it is profoundly damaging to the child’s sense of self-esteem and individuality (read Roddy Doyle’s A Star Called Henry and you’ll see the damage such lack of individuality can do!) It’s precisely our uniqueness that gives us value as human persons, and that we should, as ‘spiritual’ people, give thanks for.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top