Non-Catholic religions and abortion

  • Thread starter Thread starter iamrefreshed
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
estesbob said:
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.
Click to expand...
Yes I feed on reason and logic mwhhha.

VB
 
zearro said:
That makes three people unble to refute the argument (in fact they didn’t even try) and resort to good old insults. O well

VB
Click to expand...
You didn’t make an argument. You took facts that no one disputes – i.e., the church does not prohibit killing of animals – and you made up conclusions based on those facts.
 
You give it a try, so far I ahve completely rebuked your heresy yet you won’t reply, take yor own advice. They simply are done with you because it is foolishness to deal with a fool over and over again.
I suppose I also am done, if the rest feel the need to waste precious time on you so be it.
zearro said:
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
Click to expand...
 
zearro said:
That makes three people unble to refute the argument (in fact they didn’t even try) and resort to good old insults. O well

VB
Click to expand...
What you did was present at a false syllogism. It goes like this:

Zebras have a Z in their name
All Zebbras have stripes
Zearro has a Z in his name
Therefore Zearro has stripes.
 
“The Church was created by God. So was Hitler. Therefore, the Church is Hitler.”

How the heck are we supposed to argue rationally with something like that? 🤷
 
Hello,
jmcrae said:
“The Church was created by God. So was Hitler. Therefore, the Church is Hitler.”

How the heck are we supposed to argue rationally with something like that? 🤷
Click to expand...
I would reply to the idiot that spews this nonsense like this:

“You were created by God. So was Hitler. There, you are Hitler. Are you ready to stand trial for war crimes?”
 
Hello,
zearro said:
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.
Click to expand...
Yes, this is one of the most idiotic and moronic posts I have ever read. The equation of people with animals is preposterous. Do you belong to peta?

Have you ever read the account of Genesis? God gave man dominion over the rest of creation. Animals and the natural resources of the earth are here to serve man and his needs. Likewise we are to be responsible stewards of them. Animals can be killed for food, clothing, experimentation, etc.
 
fierysword1920 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Go through each of my points one by one and without reacting! Say which ones are true and which ones are false.

I certainly am not saying that the modern catholic church is practising evil in the way Hitler was. Most catholics I know are decent human beings.

The only comprison I’m making (and this comparison certainly applies to most of mankind) is that human morality is based on inconsistantly applied moral principles. or moral relativism.

I certainly don’t buy the idea given in the bible that animals were created by God for humans to eat. This is just a rationalisation. Just as some tribes like to eat their neighbours because they taste good so humans like to eat animals for the same reason.

Of course humans are omnivores and , of course, they have evolved to be such. as you pointed out by referring to their molars. This would equip them to eat any meat including the human.

If one says that God hs created a world where animal has to eat animal to survive one wonders about the ethics of such a being. It is no more than the pleasure that some people get from cock fighting or dog fighting.

I m sure most people don’t kill animals out of malice and I don’t doubt that in some parts of the world vegetarian life would be difficult. I am also sure that people don’t abort human foetus’s out of malice either.

Perhaps sing the comparison with Hitler ws not the best idea as people seemed to be imagining that I was sying that they were maliciously evil.

Wht I wanted catholics to consider was whether they had any absolute principles behind their morality i.e applied in all circumstances.
 
Interpreting the First Precept

The first of the precepts is to refrain from taking life. The most serious instance of killing is taking a human life. The reasoning behind this prohibition is that nothing is as dear to a living being as its own life. The behavior of animals on the way to slaughter and even insects about to be squashed make this clear. The injunction against taking life, then, is rooted in compassion for living beings in danger of losing what they hold most dear. Placing more importance on one’s own welfare than the welfare of other beings is often cited as the reason beings continue to circle within the vicious wheel of samsara. The path to enlightenment is seen as integrally related to reversing the tendency to self-grasping and self-cherishing.

Abortion, because it is seen as taking the life of a fetus, poses a serious moral, spiritual, and personal dilemma. In Indian Buddhist texts, taking life applies to taking the life of a “sentient” being, a being with consciousness and hence the potential to achieve enlightenment. Taking life includes performing the action of killing, having someone else kill, or encouraging someone to kill. Killing a human being is considered more serious than killing an animal and taking the life of a fetus is regarded as killing a human being. There is no prohibition against family planning methods that prevent conception.

Traditionally for Buddhists, the life process of sentient beings begins at the moment of conception, when a being’s consciousness “enters" the conjoined egg and sperm of the parents. Because life begins at the moment of fertilization, there is thought to be no qualitative difference between an abortion in the first trimester versus the last trimester. Although a fetus is not regarded as having a fully developed “personality,” in the Western sense of the word, it is regarded as being a “person,” complete with the five aggregates that serve as the basis of determining personal identity: form, feelings, perceptions, karmic formations, and consciousness.

fnsa.org/fall98/tsomo1.html
 
Buddhists regard life as starting at conception.

Buddhism believes in rebirth and teaches that individual human life begins at conception. The new being, bearing the karmic identity of a recently deceased individual, is therefore as entitled to the same moral respect as an adult human being.
Damien Keown, Science and Theology News, April 2004
 
Hinduism Is Prolife on Abortion

Hinduism is an ancient religion practiced by hundreds of millions in India and abroad. One commentator describes it as

…more than just a creed: it is a total culture, a way of life based on the belief in the unity of all creation. Hindus, like Buddhists, see humankind not as an entity separate from animals, but rather as an integral part of the universe that includes all living creatures. Although Hinduism is well known for considering cows to be holy, in Hindu doctrine, all living creatures, including insects, plants, and trees, are thought to enjoy a kinship with one another and to be worthy of respect and life. (1)

According to Nine Beliefs of Hinduism, a tract published by the Himalayan Academy of San Francisco: “Hindus believe that all life is sacred, to be loved and revered, and therefore practice ahimsa, or nonviolence.” All life is sacred because all creatures are manifestations of the Supreme Being.

The Hindu practice of nonviolence is connected to a belief in reincarnation: the repeated re-embodiment of souls in different species of life. The karma generated in one’s present life determines whether one enjoys a higher or suffers a lower existence in the next reincarnation. Dr. T. K. Venkateswaran, a Hindu leader in the Parliament of the World’s Religions, writes that karma is “the moral and physical law of cause and effect by which each individual creates one’s own future destiny.” Hinduism teaches that there are 8,400,000 species of life, beginning with the microbes, rising through the fish, plants, insects, reptiles, birds, and animals to the humans and gods. According to their desires, living entities perpetually take birth in these species. These transmigrations are directed by the mind propelling the soul to newer and newer bodies. As Dr. Venkateswaran notes, “All souls are evolving and progressing towards union with God…The individual soul reincarnates, evolving through many births and deaths, until all the karmic results, good and bad, are resolved.” (2)

fnsa.org/fall98/murti1.html
 
Valke2 said:
You didn’t make an argument. You took facts that no one disputes – i.e., the church does not prohibit killing of animals – and you made up conclusions based on those facts.
Click to expand...
Well that is the socratic method - you start with facts that everybody agrees on then gently led them to a conclusion they don’t like. You can still show if there is flaw in the logic between the premise of the argument and its conclusion. No one has done so far. They have just thrown up their hands in horror and declared it nonsense.

So premises:

It is alright to kill innocents
Catholics :yes if an animal no if a human foetus.

Some suffering is permissable in killing a being.
Catholics yes if an animal and no if human foetus

Conclusions: The rules don’t apply in all circmstances. Therefore, they are not absolute moral criteria.

All true and yet three people declared it nonsence.

So do the innocent have a right to life or not? Do they have right not to suffer or not? Or is it ll relative?

So you hear catholics say that the innocent have a right to life. It is an absolute moral principle. No exceptions. O animals - that’s different. They´re the exception to the rule

Can’t you see point after point that there is inconsistancy in how you apply moral criteria. It is a moral argument with regard to the foetus but not to the animal.

If you throw out all the inconsistantly applied arguments for morality all the catholic is left with is someone said ‘God said so’. If there are no absolute moral criteria how can you tell what is the difference between good and evil. How can you even know if God is good. You have no criteria to judge him by!
 
Hello,
zearro said:
Well that is the socratic method - you start with facts that everybody agrees on then gently led them to a conclusion they don’t like. You can still show if there is flaw in the logic between the premise of the argument and its conclusion. No one has done so far. They have just thrown up their hands in horror and declared it nonsense.

So premises:

It is alright to kill innocents
Catholics :yes if an animal no if a human foetus.

Some suffering is permissable in killing a being.
Catholics yes if an animal and no if human foetus

Conclusions: The rules don’t apply in all circmstances. Therefore, they are not absolute moral criteria.

All true and yet three people declared it nonsence.

So do the innocent have a right to life or not? Do they have right not to suffer or not? Or is it ll relative?

So you hear catholics say that the innocent have a right to life. It is an absolute moral principle. No exceptions. O animals - that’s different. They´re the exception to the rule

Can’t you see point after point that there is inconsistancy in how you apply moral criteria. It is a moral argument with regard to the foetus but not to the animal.

If you throw out all the inconsistantly applied arguments for morality all the catholic is left with is someone said ‘God said so’. If there are no absolute moral criteria how can you tell what is the difference between good and evil. How can you even know if God is good. You have no criteria to judge him by!
Click to expand...
Again, you make the ludicrous claim that people are equal to animals. They are NOT. The Catholic Church is not a member of peta. There is no equality or comparison between that which is animal and that which is human.
 
notself said:
Why is there a forum for non Catholic Religions if Catholics find the opinions and beliefs of others to be so boring?

I came here to learn but perhaps I should look elsewhere.

Metta
notself
Click to expand...
Well you can learn a lot. I’m an ex catholic and an ex Buddhist. I don’t expect the catholics to have anything but a mild interest at best in other religions. If you want to learn about catholicism there are catholic sites set up for that purpose. If you want to know about other religions it is best to go to sites who are run by members of that religion.
 
JMJ_coder said:
Hello,

Again, you make the ludicrous claim that people are equal to animals. They are NOT. The Catholic Church is not a member of peta. There is no equality or comparison between that which is animal and that which is human.
Click to expand...
**Actually, I have not mentioned equality once. Of course they are not equal. Nothing is equal. Equality is a myth. **

The intelligent and less intelligent are not equal in intelligence
The inexperienced and experienced are not equal in experience

I´ m sure if you did a test of intelligence of one race against another race one would come out more intelligent. They would not be equal in that respect. So if we take your criteria that it is permissble to kill the less equal - you are treading on dangerous ground.

After all some will argue that the severely mentally disabled is not equal to the healthy human in all sorts of ways . But I hope you would not point to their obvious inequality as a reason to kill them.

You also say that there is no comparison between the human and other animlas!!!

Let me remind you of a few:

They both eat
They both drink:
They both have sexual urges and reproduce:
They both sleep.
They both have means of getting around called legs
They both have eyes, ears, nose, mouth, skin, hair etc
They both can feel pain.
They both run from danger or fight it

So far from there being no comparison they in fact have quite a lot in common

etc etc etc.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top