Non-Catholic religions and abortion

[estesbob]

In short there are no principles behind catholic morality other than obedience. Catholics being anti abortion is good but their moral argument is weak.
.

The moral argumnet is not weak at all. You have rejected the Church, rejected Christ and now try and tell us that you have gained some unique insight into Catholic Theology. No matter what someone ways you respond "the moral; argument is weak. And you base this only on thour personal opinion and your personal interpetation of a random Church document or so that you personally decided shows the moral argument is weak. around and around we go-where we stop nobody knows…

 

[estesbob]

I find it best to stick to sites people approve of then they can’t use excuses like yours. Not that I don’t look at anti catholic sites, I do. With regard to the papal bull - NOT GUILTY in that respect. This is a catholic site. If you want to know what papal bulls etc are the links are at the top. papalencyclicals.net/Ben12/B12bdeus.html. You could have checked this out for yourself as I have provided the link at least once before. Why didn’t you do so before accusing me of obtaining the bull from an anti catholic site?

These are the criteria for speaking ex cathedra from Vatican Council I

we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that

when the Roman pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA,
that is, when,
in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians,
in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority,
he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church,
he possesses,
by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter,
that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals.
**Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable. **

piar.hu/councils/ecum20.htm

If you check this against the papal bull I think you will find that it easily meets the criteria of ex cathedra. Anybody can check this for themselves. You don’t need superb insight.

Are their nuances in the Bull that can only be understood when viewing the latin version? What was the context it was issued in. Who was it directed at? Why should we accept your personal interpretation of it? If you personal interpretation confilcts with the consistent teachngs of the Church what would be the basis of accepting your interpreattion? What are your qualifications to lecture on Catholic theology?

As far as you not having superb insight i dont think there is any dispute about that.

 

[zearro]

I myself am completely against abortion and yes suffering is universal that is why the catholic churches stance is supported by morals and obedience. These sufferings are rendered to us by God for disobedience. God does not just say that those who sin will be affected only, rather it is all of us sharing in our human existence that suffer for iniquity. Those whom the message does not apply as you say, it is only that because in their own selfish and prideful vanity that they do not humble themselves. I also am for the humane treatment of all life on earth and the way that we slaughter some animals for food is not correct and is inhumane, but this is off subject and meant for another thread.
Abortion is wrong and the church has much info as to why besides blind obedience, if only a person truly wishes to find it, which you seem not to be interested in.
God Bless everyone and have a good weekend, walk with the man!

On the contrary I m very interested in moral reasons for abortion beyond :‘God says so’ It is just that the ones offered so far do not go to their logical conclusions. I’m aware that God makes innocents suffer for the original sin of Adam and Eve. This is another reason that I suspect that catholics are not interested in the suffering of the foetus.Catholics complain about an innocent foetus suffering (quite rightly) and then say that God thinks it perfectly moral to visit the effects of originl sin on all mankind including the innocent! It is logically inconsistent. It is for reasons like this that I argue that there are no principles behind catholic morality It just comes down to obedience to God. For that matter it seems to be that God says: ‘Do what I say and not what I do’ .

 

[zearro]

The moral argumnet is not weak at all. You have rejected the Church, rejected Christ and now try and tell us that you have gained some unique insight into Catholic Theology. No matter what someone ways you respond "the moral; argument is weak. And you base this only on thour personal opinion and your personal interpetation of a random Church document or so that you personally decided shows the moral argument is weak. around and around we go-where we stop nobody knows…

Well then tell me what the absolute principles behind catholic morality are. Commit yourself to that and we will get somewhere very fast.

List of absolute principles that catholic morality is based on are:
Then we can see how strong catholic morality is. I have asked but nobody so far has listed them other than God says so. It will also help if you restrict yourself to showing the weakness of my arguments rather than trying to show me in bad light. Of course my argments are bsed on my personal opinion. It is your personal opinion that the pope is right when he says that he is infallible. Are you telling me that your personal opinion counts for nothing? COLOR]

.

 

[estesbob]

On the contrary I m very interested in moral reasons for abortion beyond :‘God says so’ It is just that the ones offered so far do not go to their logical conclusions. I’m aware that God makes innocents suffer for the original sin of Adam and Eve. This is another reason that I suspect that catholics are not interested in the suffering of the foetus.Catholics complain about an innocent foetus suffering (quite rightly) and then say that God thinks it perfectly moral to visit the effects of originl sin on all mankind including the innocent! It is logically inconsistent. It is for reasons like this that I argue that there are no principles behind catholic morality It just comes down to obedience to God. For that matter it seems to be that God says: ‘Do what I say and not what I do’ .

In you opinion but you offer nothing to support your opinion other that is your opinion. Your understanding of Oroginal Sin , for instance , is muddled at best. And from this muddled understanding you reach “profound”(but incorrect) theological conclusions,

I believe you stated you are now a Buddhist? From reading your posts I beleive you are much more of a Gnostic than a Buddhist.

 

[zearro]

Are their nuances in the Bull that can only be understood when viewing the latin version? What was the context it was issued in. Who was it directed at? Why should we accept your personal interpretation of it? If you personal interpretation confilcts with the consistent teachngs of the Church what would be the basis of accepting your interpreattion? What are your qualifications to lecture on Catholic theology?

As far as you not having superb insight i dont think there is any dispute about that.

There may well be nuances I have not seen. Unfortunately, I can’t find a latin version. I am happy for you to read the Latin and prove to me that the bull is not really saying that baptised children who die before the age of free will are assured of heaven. Or you could show me how how the context it was written in means something different from what I claim it means. Feel free to quote any ecclesiastic, saint etc to back up your view.

 

[zearro]

In you opinion but you offer nothing to support your opinion other that is your opinion. Your understanding of Oroginal Sin , for instance , is muddled at best. And from this muddled understanding you reach “profound”(but incorrect) theological conclusions,

I believe you stated you are now a Buddhist? From reading your posts I beleive you are much more of a Gnostic than a Buddhist.

Nope I said I was a Buddhist. if my thinking on Original sin is muddled please correct me with examples. Don’t just say it is muddled that helps no one. For example Zearro says but this can’t be true because the church actualyy teaches. I can respond to that sort of approach.

newadvent.org/cathen/11312a.htm

 

[jmcrae]

On the contrary I m very interested in moral reasons for abortion beyond :‘God says so’ It is just that the ones offered so far do not go to their logical conclusions. I’m aware that God makes innocents suffer for the original sin of Adam and Eve.

Nobody is born innocent, though. That’s the whole point of Original Sin. We are all born into the state of not being in a relationship with God, and with the inclination to sin.

All things being equal, we are, by (fallen) nature, selfish - children have to be taught to say “Thank-you,” but they do not have to be taught to rebel against their parents.

It just comes down to obedience to God. For that matter it seems to be that God says: ‘Do what I say and not what I do’.

 

[estesbob]

Nope I said I was a Buddhist. if my thinking on Original sin is muddled please correct me with examples. Don’t just say it is muddled that helps no one. For example Zearro says but this can’t be true because the church actualyy teaches. I can respond to that sort of approach.

newadvent.org/cathen/11312a.htm

For staters God does not afflict Original sin on anyone. Realizing that your whole theses falls apart.

 

[crenfro]

Reading through these posts, it makes me seriously glad that we have the Church to act as a beacon of truth in the defense of human dignity. Without it, our own subjective morality reigns. The relativist garbage some religions propose is stunning.

THANK YOU for this post!

 

[Verisimilitude]

I was saying there is a danger in espousing morality based on obedience to God’s will. You can ignore the suffering of another if you believe God’s will permits it., For example some Christian’s believe that God’s will permits abortion at least in certain circmstances.

There are many dangers regarding God not the least of which is espousing His will incorrectly. Maybe the next time you get the same answer you will listen. Reason is not to be discarded when discerning God but employed to know truth when you see it. Your accusations are baseless as are your conclusions with respect to Catholics at least. If some Christians take that wrong view of abortion direct your arguments to the non-Catholics and don’t twist the question to turn every topic to your personal thorn about the Church.

I would like to see principle of minimising suffering being given more importance in catholic morality. I think they could get some ideas from Buddhism in that respect.

Somebody seems to think I have in post #282.

 

[zearro]

This is relevant as abortion is an issue which concerns who has the right to life and who does not. Some exclude the human foetus and even certain classes of people and others extend these rights to other non human animals.

I was given this response to one of my posts:

*1) Godwin’s Law - you lose.

1. Hitler was a vegetarian *

I replied as follows:

1. However, Godwin’s law itself can be abused, as a distraction or diversion, that fallaciously miscasts an opponent’s argument as hyperbole, especially if the comparisons made by the argument are actually appropriate. A 2005 Reason magazine article argued that Godwin’s law is often misused to ridicule even valid comparisons.[6]

Godwin's law - Wikipedia

The comparison with Hitler is appropriate

The slaughter of animals can be appropriately compared to the genocide of Hitler. In both cases killing is done on a large scale and secondly it is done on the basis of elitism with no real regard for the suffering involved. The only disagreement the catholic church and all mankind has with Hitler is where to draw the line as to who are amongst the elite. Hitler’s line is a lot narrower than most.

2.In addition to being a teetotaler and a non-smoker,[1] scholars agree that Adolf Hitler practiced some form of vegetarianism.[2] The vegetarianism of Adolph Hitler is thought to have been based on Richard Wagner’s anti-Semitic historical theories which connected the future of Germany with vegetarianism.[3][2] Hitler believed that a vegetarian diet could both alleviate his personal health problems and according to the racial policy of Nazi Germany, spiritually renew the Aryan race.[2] In spite of these beliefs, reports state that Hitler occasionally ate meat during the 1930s. While Hitler reduced his meat consumption, he may have not eliminated it entirely, with culinary accounts indicating a sporadic preference for sausage, squab, liver dumplings, ham, and caviar. As a result, many vegetarians dispute the claim that Hitler was a vegetarian.[2]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegetarianism_of_Adolf_Hitler

Nowhere is it stated that Hitler’s vegetarianism was the result of his belief that animals should not suffer. Even if such a farcical idea could be proved it would prove no more than that Hitler was inconsistent with the idea that the minimising and/or avoidance of suffering was a moral principle. The avoidance of suffering is not a universal principle of human morality (and I m certainly not limiting this to the catholic church - it applies to us all!). Neither is the right to life (in so much as life can be taken without permission and without suffering).

The issues of suffering and the right to life always take second place to the issue of elitism - as elitism is a more practical issue. This is because some life has to be destroyed in order that we may survive. (This includes suicide and self sacrifice)! So whether we draw the lines at Arians only; or Jews only; or Whites only; or humans only, or primates and dolphins only; or animals only; our primary moral criteria is elitism. In fact elitism is not really a moral criteria but a necessary evil in order to survive. For most of us it only becomes shocking when we find ourselves and /or the ones we love outside the protective sphere of the elite or fear that our position within it could be threatened.

Despite this unpalatable truth of the necessary evil of elitism, I still believe that the minimising of suffering should be an absolute moral principle that guides our actions. The avoidance of suffering altogether being an impossible one. It will lead to dilemmas were the suffering of one will be permitted so that another may not suffer. Some will be more selfless in this respect than others but we can all still improve. Why be complacent just because we want an easy life. Our reluctance to improve in this respect is always due to putting the avoidance of our own suffering before that of others. Arguments of ‘specialness’ whether of ‘the superiority of the arian race’ myth or ‘humans are chosen by God and have a soul’ myth are in the last resort just rationalistions. Our real reasons are always selfish.

 

[fierysword1920]

So what you are saying is that the Catholic Church is the same as Hitler because we kill animals as does most of the world so that we may eat them. That is completely out there and some of the worst hyperbole I have seen. Killing human beings for convenience is a lot different than killing animals for food.
You should write for the national enquirer.

This is relevant as abortion is an issue which concerns who has the right to life and who does not. Some exclude the human foetus and even certain classes of people and others extend these rights to other non human animals.

I was given this response to one of my posts:

*1) Godwin’s Law - you lose.

1. Hitler was a vegetarian *

I replied as follows:

 

[zearro]

I have been checking with various Catholics to see if I can get some generlly accepted criteria. Indeed I did get some but they seem to be applied inconsistntly.i.e there is a double standard

MORAL CRITERIA:

1. The innocent have a right to life:
Hitler disagrees with regard to the mentally subnormal, animals etc.
Catholic church disagree with regard to animals (exemption applied to anything considered an ‘innocent’ human)

2.Moral beings do not have the right to take the life of beings that have no moral judgment.
Hitler disgrees.
Catholics disgree with regard to animals (exemptions made for ‘inocent’ humans such as children beneath the age of reason; madmen and certain types of people with learning difficulties all who hve no moral judgment.)

3.Killing the sickest and weakest is not for the common good.
Hitler disgrees. In his opinion it is for the common good.
Catholic church disagrees with regard to animals (exemptions made for ‘innocent’ humans)

4.Just because it can be seen as useful to kill something that does not make it good.
Hitler disagrees.
Catholic church disgrees with reagrd to animals (exemptions made for ‘innocent humans’)

5.Designating a creature special gives them the right to kill creatures not designated as special
Hitler agrees. Arians are special - non arians are not.
The catholic church agrees. Beings with souls are special, beings without are not.

6.Authority decides what is moral not any old body.
Hitler agrees. He is the authority
The catholic church agrees. It is the authority

7.Obedience to authority is the absolute moral criteria.
Hitler agrees
Church agrees

8.Authority decides what it is permissble to kill and what is not permissable
Hitler agrees
Church agrees

Comparison valid. The catholic church agrees with Hitler on the above moral criteria but has few more exemptions.

 

[Valke2]

I have now witnessed the true definition of nonsense.

 

[fierysword1920]

That is the stupidest bunch of nonsense. You post a bunch of jumbled nonsensical information that YOU made up out of thin air. Our church does not condone killing people, born or unborn. Killing animals raised for food is perfectly fine. That is what a cow or pig is for. What else good are they. Sure a person could make a pet of an animal like this, and that is fine, but this is obviously not the purpose of these animals. They are for food and humans are omnivores, we eat vegetables and meat, that is why we have canine like incisors and molars for crushing vegetation. Hitler and the Church have nothing to do with eachother. God says thou shalt not kill which means murder and murder carries out intent with malice, there is no malice involved in killing animals for food. Killing unborn children is murder because it is an evil and selfish act. Nature takes care of itself that is why the weakest of any species dies of the litter or is not able to breed and carry on its weaker genetics. As people in the Catholic Church we believe all folks have a very important purpose, whether they be mentally retarded or otherwise. We are to nurture and protect these people at all costs. I once was at the mall and some guys were picking on a mentally retarded kid and I ended up beating these jerk offs up pretty bad, perhaps I took it a little far,but I stand resolute in what I did because it was in the defense of an otherwise indefesible person. Your whole arguement is less than weak and totally unfounded. You have basis or arguement so go and find meaning for your life so your not going around making false accusations and spreading lies.

I have been checking with various Catholics to see if I can get some generlly accepted criteria. Indeed I did get some but they seem to be applied inconsistntly.i.e there is a double standard

MORAL CRITERIA:

1. The innocent have a right to life:
Hitler disagrees with regard to the mentally subnormal, animals etc.
Catholic church disagree with regard to animals (exemption applied to anything considered an ‘innocent’ human)

2.Moral beings do not have the right to take the life of beings that have no moral judgment.
Hitler disgrees.
Catholics disgree with regard to animals (exemptions made for ‘inocent’ humans such as children beneath the age of reason; madmen and certain types of people with learning difficulties all who hve no moral judgment.)

3.Killing the sickest and weakest is not for the common good.
Hitler disgrees. In his opinion it is for the common good.
Catholic church disagrees with regard to animals (exemptions made for ‘innocent’ humans)

4.Just because it can be seen as useful to kill something that does not make it good.
Hitler disagrees.
Catholic church disgrees with reagrd to animals (exemptions made for ‘innocent humans’)

5.Designating a creature special gives them the right to kill creatures not designated as special
Hitler agrees. Arians are special - non arians are not.
The catholic church agrees. Beings with souls are special, beings without are not.

6.Authority decides what is moral not any old body.
Hitler agrees. He is the authority
The catholic church agrees. It is the authority

7.Obedience to authority is the absolute moral criteria.
Hitler agrees
Church agrees

8.Authority decides what it is permissble to kill and what is not permissable
Hitler agrees
Church agrees

Comparison valid. The catholic church agrees with Hitler on the above moral criteria but has few more exemptions.

 

[estesbob]

I have been checking with various Catholics to see if I can get some generlly accepted criteria. Indeed I did get some but they seem to be applied inconsistntly.i.e there is a double standard

MORAL CRITERIA:

1. The innocent have a right to life:
Hitler disagrees with regard to the mentally subnormal, animals etc.
Catholic church disagree with regard to animals (exemption applied to anything considered an ‘innocent’ human)

2.Moral beings do not have the right to take the life of beings that have no moral judgment.
Hitler disgrees.
Catholics disgree with regard to animals (exemptions made for ‘inocent’ humans such as children beneath the age of reason; madmen and certain types of people with learning difficulties all who hve no moral judgment.)

3.Killing the sickest and weakest is not for the common good.
Hitler disgrees. In his opinion it is for the common good.
Catholic church disagrees with regard to animals (exemptions made for ‘innocent’ humans)

4.Just because it can be seen as useful to kill something that does not make it good.
Hitler disagrees.
Catholic church disgrees with reagrd to animals (exemptions made for ‘innocent humans’)

5.Designating a creature special gives them the right to kill creatures not designated as special
Hitler agrees. Arians are special - non arians are not.
The catholic church agrees. Beings with souls are special, beings without are not.

6.Authority decides what is moral not any old body.
Hitler agrees. He is the authority
The catholic church agrees. It is the authority

7.Obedience to authority is the absolute moral criteria.
Hitler agrees
Church agrees

8.Authority decides what it is permissble to kill and what is not permissable
Hitler agrees
Church agrees

Comparison valid. The catholic church agrees with Hitler on the above moral criteria but has few more exemptions.

Truly one of the more ridiculous post I have ever run across in my 25 years on the Internet.

 

[estesbob]

I have now witnessed the true definition of nonsense.

Have you ever read J.R.R. Tolkien’s The Hobbit? Remember the creatures that turned to stone when the sun came up? One of them has now made an appearance in this thread. The only way they go away is if you quit feeding them.

 

[zearro]

I have now witnessed the true definition of nonsense.

Then you will have no trouble using reason to rebut this ‘nonsense point by point’. I wait with baited breath.

VB

 

[zearro]

Truly one of the more ridiculous post I have ever run across in my 25 years on the Internet.

So what did you disagree with? Point to any statement that is false? It is easy to say something is ridiculous but let me see you fault my logic.

Let me help you.

It is false to say that … because…Go on give it a try.

VB