Non-Catholic religions and abortion

[JMJ_coder]

Hello,

**Actually, I have not mentioned equality once. Of course they are not equal. Nothing is equal. Equality is a myth. **

Yes you did, when you claimed that when the Church argues for the protection of the innocents (meant by the Church innocent humans) that She must include animals.

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.

Another ludicrous claim. Where did I say that the equality lie in their intelligence. The reason that humans are superior in the natural order to the rest of creation (bar Angels) is because we are made in the image and likeness of God. That image consists of - 1. free will and 2. reason. The level of intelligence has no bearing on the inherent dignity of a person.

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.

I meant in the moral order, not the realm of biology.

 

[zearro]

Hello,

Yes you did, when you claimed that when the Church argues for the protection of the innocents (meant by the Church innocent humans) that She must include animals.

Well I guess you could claim equality in innocence but I don’t think that is necessary. Still if you add human after the word innocence then you are arguing on grounds of elitism. The issue of innocence is not an absolute moral principle as we know that animals are an exception to it.

Another ludicrous claim. Where did I say that the equality lie in their intelligence. The reason that humans are superior in the natural order to the rest of creation (bar Angels) is because we are made in the image and likeness of God. That image consists of - 1. free will and 2. reason. The level of intelligence has no bearing on the inherent dignity of a person.

I meant in the moral order, not the realm of biology.

My apologies. I have been debating with catholic on another board who did use the intelligence argument to justify the killing of animals. However, I would point out that that both free will and reason are aspects of intelligence. You can’t have them without some intelligence. and we know that the foetus does not have free will and reason and presumerably neither does the animal. So neither the foetus nor the animal can make moral decisions. So neither can be described as moral beings. So really with respect to the moral order one cannot distinguish between the foetus and the animal.

So it isn’t really to do with foetus having free will and reason in fact the real distinction is to do with the belief that humans are given souls and animals are not. A belief that is not open to being tested as souls are invisible. It is a matter of faith. In which case the catholic church has no absolute moral criteria that can be understood through reason.

pp:shrug:

 

[fierysword1920]

Yeah it’s simple, right is right wrong is wrong, you know that thing that speaks to you in your mind called a conscience, or in other words the Holy Spirit. That is what God gave us to help dictate our doings. Again Zearro abortion is not right because they are people and God wants people on the earth to be faithful servants to him and any other purpose he may have. God grants children to us through procreation and it is wrong to abuse the divine gift of life. Animals are all here for specific purposes as well. Cattle, pigs,chickens and so on are for food, while others are for work use, pets and many other purposes. Many animals are abused and killed wrongly and this is a sin that angers God greatly becauase ultimately they belong to him and we are to use the resources given us by him for good and responsibly. 99% of the world knows right from wrong and none of us does right always but thanks to the Holy Spirit we are neve alone in making our decisions hopefully in righteousness more often than not.

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.

 

[estesbob]

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.

You show the usual muddled thinking of one who jumps from religion to religion. Knowing a little bit about each, understanding very little, but feelingqualified to lecture others on their faith.

Your absurd post making a moral equivalence between death camps and eating meat disqualifies you from engaging in any discussion about religion or for that matter anything else.

 

[fierysword1920]

I may be wrong but I have never seen where the Catholic Church stated that animals have no soul, and fetuses as far as I have read do have distinct personalities and reason while in the womb. They had a really neat show on discovery channel that showed human babies and animal babies and the human baby’s that were twins it showed them fighting and also hugging one another and also the animals showed very distinct personalities as well. I believe that at least some animal species may have souls and am not opposed to their sanctitiy as they are also created by God so really all of God’s creation is Holy!

My apologies. I have been debating with catholic on another board who did use the intelligence argument to justify the killing of animals. However, I would point out that that both free will and reason are aspects of intelligence. You can’t have them without some intelligence. and we know that the foetus does not have free will and reason and presumerably neither does the animal. So neither the foetus nor the animal can make moral decisions. So neither can be described as moral beings. So really with respect to the moral order one cannot distinguish between the foetus and the animal.

So it isn’t really to do with foetus having free will and reason in fact the real distinction is to do with the belief that humans are given souls and animals are not. A belief that is not open to being tested as souls are invisible. It is a matter of faith. In which case the catholic church has no absolute moral criteria that can be understood through reason.

pp:shrug:

 

[zearro]

Yeah it’s simple, right is right wrong is wrong, you know that thing that speaks to you in your mind called a conscience, or in other words the Holy Spirit. That is what God gave us to help dictate our doings. Again Zearro abortion is not right because they are people and God wants people on the earth to be faithful servants to him and any other purpose he may have. God grants children to us through procreation and it is wrong to abuse the divine gift of life. Animals are all here for specific purposes as well. Cattle, pigs,chickens and so on are for food, while others are for work use, pets and many other purposes. Many animals are abused and killed wrongly and this is a sin that angers God greatly becauase ultimately they belong to him and we are to use the resources given us by him for good and responsibly. 99% of the world knows right from wrong and none of us does right always but thanks to the Holy Spirit we are neve alone in making our decisions hopefully in righteousness more often than not.

You keep telling me what God says as if God is a moral being. But you have no absolute moral criteria to decide whether God is good or evil or just plain amoral. I have demonstrated this again and again and it is a point that no one cares to address.

You seem to think that I 'm arguing that we should not kill animals on the grounds of equality. This is false. I m not a moral elitist! I believe we should not kill animals on the grounds of compassion. Whether they lack souls, or intelligence or in whatever way they are inferior to humans is neither here nor there. One can at least feel for them. In the west at least it is possible to survive healthily on a vegetarian diet molar teeth or not.

**It is because one can feel for the human foetus that one seeks to protect it. That one can feel compassion for it. Equality does not come into it - why should it? I don’t seek to protect the foetus or an animal because I believe in some way that it is equal to a grown man! **

In fact one of the reasons that I could not obey a creator god was because I could not see as good a being who saw perfect creation in a world were animals fed on each other. A world were animals and humans did not have enough to eat and were most of their babes died young. And you can hardly blame the plight of animals on the fall of Adam and Eve! How can you say such a god is good and even worse obey it? One’s conscience would forbid it.

 

[JMJ_coder]

Hello,

My apologies. I have been debating with catholic on another board who did use the intelligence argument to justify the killing of animals. However, I would point out that that both free will and reason are aspects of intelligence. You can’t have them without some intelligence.

I know many people who have a great capacity for reason, but are not very intelligent. And I know of an even greater number of people who are intelligent but lack a great deal of reason.

Saint Thomas tells of the two aspects of the human soul that bear the image and likeness of God are intellect (which includes reason - mea culpa for my imprecision) and free-will.

He defines free-will as the faculty of judging freely. He defines the intellect as the faculty of thought. Note, these are extremely short answers and fall pitifully short of completely covering the topic. I suggest you read Saint Thomas’ Summa for the comprehensive answer. This topic can be found in Part One, Section Seven - questions 75-102.

and we know that the foetus does not have free will and reason and presumerably neither does the animal. So neither the foetus nor the animal can make moral decisions. So neither can be described as moral beings. So really with respect to the moral order one cannot distinguish between the foetus and the animal.

Another ludicrous statement. It seems with you there a dime a dozen. The human baby, even at the stage of a fetus, is a human being with a human soul - and that soul is made in the image and likeness of God. This is NOT the case with any animal.

So it isn’t really to do with foetus having free will and reason in fact the real distinction is to do with the belief that humans are given souls and animals are not. A belief that is not open to being tested as souls are invisible. It is a matter of faith. In which case the catholic church has no absolute moral criteria that can be understood through reason.

It’s not just a belief, its the truth. And the truth, which is God Himself, is absolute - whether you acknowledge it or not.

 

[JMJ_coder]

Hello,

You keep telling me what God says as if God is a moral being. But you have no absolute moral criteria to decide whether God is good or evil or just plain amoral. I have demonstrated this again and again and it is a point that no one cares to address.

You seem to think that I 'm arguing that we should not kill animals on the grounds of equality. This is false. I m not a moral elitist! I believe we should not kill animals on the grounds of compassion. Whether they lack souls, or intelligence or in whatever way they are inferior to humans is neither here nor there. One can at least feel for them. In the west at least it is possible to survive healthily on a vegetarian diet molar teeth or not.

**It is because one can feel for the human foetus that one seeks to protect it. That one can feel compassion for it. Equality does not come into it - why should it? I don’t seek to protect the foetus or an animal because I believe in some way that it is equal to a grown man! **

In fact one of the reasons that I could not obey a creator god was because I could not see as good a being who saw perfect creation in a world were animals fed on each other. A world were animals and humans did not have enough to eat and were most of their babes died young. And you can hardly blame the plight of animals on the fall of Adam and Eve! How can you say such a god is good and even worse obey it? One’s conscience would forbid it.

How do you even debate with someone who is so far out in left field? I don’t even think he’s still in the same ballpark.

 

[zearro]

You show the usual muddled thinking of one who jumps from religion to religion. Knowing a little bit about each, understanding very little, but feelingqualified to lecture others on their faith.

Alas you are wrong. I was twenty five years a catholic including four and half years at a junior seminary. I was over 20 years a Buddhist including 8 as a minister. Hardly jumping from religion to religion and hardly a matter of a superficial acquaintance with either! What relevance your unwarranted claim (libel?) has on the argument to hand I will leave to your conscience. Even if your claims were true they would be irrelevant and a distraction.I don’t concern myself with your credentials to debate. I just look at the validity of your argument. I suggest you do the same.

Your absurd post making a moral equivalence between death camps and eating meat disqualifies you from engaging in any discussion about religion or for that matter anything else.

My comparison was with moral criteria! And the moral criteria is identical. I have never said that modern Catholics believe in death camps!!! Your judgment that I should be disqualified from engaging in discussion is bizarre. You may wish it but that is another matter.

It often feels that I am called to defend something I never said. Somebody believes I m arguing that animals should not be killed on the grounds that they are equal to humans. But I am not a moral elitist like the catholic church. I’ m against the killing of foetuses and animals on the grounds of compassion.

 

[zearro]

I may be wrong but I have never seen where the Catholic Church stated that animals have no soul, and fetuses as far as I have read do have distinct personalities and reason while in the womb. They had a really neat show on discovery channel that showed human babies and animal babies and the human baby’s that were twins it showed them fighting and also hugging one another and also the animals showed very distinct personalities as well. I believe that at least some animal species may have souls and am not opposed to their sanctitiy as they are also created by God so really all of God’s creation is Holy!

Well it is interesting you say that because I came upon these sites stating that John Paul II said that animals had souls. (I had always been taught differently in the 60s and 70s). Anyway, I stand corrected and updated.

all-creatures.org/ca/ark-186soul.html

dreamshore.net/rococo/pope.html

I have come across other catholic sites that say that animals do not go to heaven. It seems animal souls are not considered immortal. Still I found it heartening that the pope spoke* ‘also the animals possess a soul and men must love and feel solidarity with our smaller brethren’ *. This puts the emphasis on compassion and not elitism. Elitism as a moral criteria being a matter of grave concern to me.

• This discourse caused a stir around the world, and was especially encouraging to Catholic animal welfare groups which had begun to despair that anything ‘animal friendly’ would ever be heard in Rome. The then professor of theology and dogma at the University of Urbino, Carlo Molari, called it ‘very important and significant. It is a “sign of the times” because it demonstrates the Church’s desire and deep concern to clarify present confused thinking and attitudes towards the animal kingdom. There should be no need, but the Pontiff, in reiterating that animals came into being because of the direct action of the “breath” of God, wanted to say that also these creatures, as well as man, are possessed of the divine spark of life and that living quality that is the soul. And are therefore not inferior beings or only of a purely material reality.’ *

Very interesting and encouraging. Let’s see where it goes. Alas I don’t get the Discovery Channel - only have the old digibox, but sounds worth a look.

Does anybody know where I can get sight of an extract of the late pope’s public address?

 

[sadie66]

IMO, a baby is only a baby if it is a person (one that has a personality, or a self-aware sentient mind). I dont think a very young embryo is already a person.

And in that case why should a rape victim & her spouse endure the pains & punishment of bearing & raising the child of her violator? Me, I love having a second child. But I can hardly afford it. If my wife gets raped and she wants to abort the result, i would be more than happy to agree with her. I would rather that we bear & raise the product of our own love.

Reason would tell us that a creature that has the exact same genetic make up as ourselves is of the same species. Only illogical self motivated twisting can make a human embryo anything but human. If personality is our litmus test for humanity- we are in real trouble. I do agree that it is not necessary for religion to be used as an arguement in this case. cxommon sense obviously tells us that when we women start killing our own children and justifying it- something is really wrong.

 

[zearro]

Hello,

I know many people who have a great capacity for reason, but are not very intelligent. And I know of an even greater number of people who are intelligent but lack a great deal of reason.

LOL! I wouldn’t argue with that!

Saint Thomas tells of the two aspects of the human soul that bear the image and likeness of God are intellect (which includes reason - mea culpa for my imprecision) and free-will.

He defines free-will as the faculty of judging freely. He defines the intellect as the faculty of thought. Note, these are extremely short answers and fall pitifully short of completely covering the topic. I suggest you read Saint Thomas’ Summa for the comprehensive answer. This topic can be found in Part One, Section Seven - questions 75-102.

OK more homework .-)

Another ludicrous statement. It seems with you there a dime a dozen. The human baby, even at the stage of a fetus, is a human being with a human soul - and that soul is made in the image and likeness of God. This is NOT the case with any animal.

Woah hold on! I deliberately left out the faith aspect that the foetus has a soul. A distinction is being made between the soul as spirit and a moral being. . And as free will and reason is what is said to make us moral beings it is reasonable to conclude the foetus is not a moral being whether it has soul or not.

It’s not just a belief, its the truth. And the truth, which is God Himself, is absolute - whether you acknowledge it or not.

Maybe so but is it truth that can be demonstrated or is it dependent on faith for now. Well I would like some criteria that the being you claim is good can be shown to be good. With all due respect one could be having faith in a demon. I have known Christians make exactly that claim about the Muslim God.

So the question: How do you decide whether the Spirit you worship is a good God or an evil demon or of mixed morals is an important one. How do I know that I am worshipping the one true good god or a demon? Is that really something that can be left to faith? There are non catholics who claim faith in all sorts of things that the catholic church would say could not come from the Good God.

 

[JMJ_coder]

Hello,

Maybe so but is it truth that can be demonstrated or is it dependent on faith for now. Well I would like some criteria that the being you claim is good can be shown to be good. With all due respect one could be having faith in a demon. I have known Christians make exactly that claim about the Muslim God.

So the question: How do you decide whether the Spirit you worship is a good God or an evil demon or of mixed morals is an important one. How do I know that I am worshipping the one true good god or a demon? Is that really something that can be left to faith? There are non catholics who claim faith in all sorts of things that the catholic church would say could not come from the Good God.

Read the Summa. You’ll have to go beyond the small section on man, but these questions are addressed by Saint Thomas - and he does so from a philosophical and logical point of view.

 

[fierysword1920]

Hey look you win. Your idiocy has exhausted my interest in this discussion you have the comprehension of less than my two year old and you simply don’t listen. We’ve all spelled it out for you and you jsut keep side stepping the real topic at hand, you should be a politician because your quite deft at dodging the straight forward answer.
Go away and bother people like yourself, and stop polluting our website.

You keep telling me what God says as if God is a moral being. But you have no absolute moral criteria to decide whether God is good or evil or just plain amoral. I have demonstrated this again and again and it is a point that no one cares to address.

You seem to think that I 'm arguing that we should not kill animals on the grounds of equality. This is false. I m not a moral elitist! I believe we should not kill animals on the grounds of compassion. Whether they lack souls, or intelligence or in whatever way they are inferior to humans is neither here nor there. One can at least feel for them. In the west at least it is possible to survive healthily on a vegetarian diet molar teeth or not.

**It is because one can feel for the human foetus that one seeks to protect it. That one can feel compassion for it. Equality does not come into it - why should it? I don’t seek to protect the foetus or an animal because I believe in some way that it is equal to a grown man! **

In fact one of the reasons that I could not obey a creator god was because I could not see as good a being who saw perfect creation in a world were animals fed on each other. A world were animals and humans did not have enough to eat and were most of their babes died young. And you can hardly blame the plight of animals on the fall of Adam and Eve! How can you say such a god is good and even worse obey it? One’s conscience would forbid it.

 

[fierysword1920]

Way to go Sadie, really like that post especially from a woman. It just carries more water. Sometimes the men don’t get a lot of support for this issue and it is great to see a woman lay it out there in black and white.
Good woman:thumbsup:

Reason would tell us that a creature that has the exact same genetic make up as ourselves is of the same species. Only illogical self motivated twisting can make a human embryo anything but human. If personality is our litmus test for humanity- we are in real trouble. I do agree that it is not necessary for religion to be used as an arguement in this case. cxommon sense obviously tells us that when we women start killing our own children and justifying it- something is really wrong.

 

[mozart-250]

I’ m against the killing of foetuses and animals on the grounds of compassion.

Well at least you are consistent. I don’t know how many animal rights folks I have met that have no problems with killing the unborn.

Anyway, carry on.

 

[zearro]

Hello,

Read the Summa. You’ll have to go beyond the small section on man, but these questions are addressed by Saint Thomas - and he does so from a philosophical and logical point of view.

Ok will do. At the moment have just moved into a flat in Helsinki so quite a bit of upheaval. Will get back to you no doubt. VB

 

[zearro]

Hey look you win. Your idiocy has exhausted my interest in this discussion you have the comprehension of less than my two year old and you simply don’t listen. We’ve all spelled it out for you and you jsut keep side stepping the real topic at hand, you should be a politician because your quite deft at dodging the straight forward answer.
Go away and bother people like yourself, and stop polluting our website.

I am not interested in winning and people continuing with an inconsistant morality. I am interested in telling the truth. I am interested to convince. I keep saying over and over again that the catholic position on morality is inconsistent. Sure people have tried to answer my questions but I have not been satisfied with the answers. The answers obviously convince you but you must not assume that because they don’tconvince me that I am being perverse.

** I feel disappointed that you have taken the stance you have and have resorted to insults** . You accuse me of polluting this site when all I wish is that catholics extend the same compassion to animals as they do to foetuses. You are not going to go to hell for being a vegetarian. Me asking catholics to refine their compassion by extending it to not killing animals is hardly a polluting idea. I find your response quite perverse.

You must realise that I am challenging the very fundamentals of your beliefs - that the god you worship is good. It is on this basis, that your god is good, that you justify the killing of animals. I would like you to consider the fact that you may be wrong. In fact that you have no way of knowing.

You tell me what the real topic is and how I have sidestepped it. You must however quote me. I am not interested in your insulting conclusions without evidence. If I am in the wrong I will apologise as some of you well know… If you can’t do that, then please have the decency to apologise for libelling me.

VB

 

[jmcrae]

You accuse me of polluting this site when all I wish is that catholics extend the same compassion to animals as they do to foetuses.

Again, there is no moral equivalency between animals and foetuses.

Foetuses are our brothers and sisters, created by God in His own image and likeness.

Animals were created by God for us to eat their flesh, wear their skins, and make tools out of their bones, to be our pets, and to help us with our daily work. They are not our brothers and sisters.

 

[fierysword1920]

Animals are extended rights by good people of many faiths and especially by Catholics. From a biblical standpoint they are extended the rights to be raised and cared for properly before being slaughtered for food. In a striclty scientific point of view if people wanted to use evolution for the sake of arguement what else would the main purpose of a cow, pig or chicken be other than for food. Should we simply continue raising these animals for the sake of breeding and run out of room to put them and then let them be piled on top of one another for your sake of humaneness. That is absurd and many of us here have shown that your aguement is absurd. You have been reproved over and over again you just can’t accept that you are wrong. So now tell me how is it more humane to breed an animal so that it is so over populated that there is no more space for them, or should we just let them all die out and become extinct and waste the various food species in totality.
You tell me because I see here that you have no valid point. We are all consistent here in what we say be it our theology or otherwise. Where is your point?

I am not interested in winning and people continuing with an inconsistant morality. I am interested in telling the truth. I am interested to convince. I keep saying over and over again that the catholic position on morality is inconsistent. Sure people have tried to answer my questions but I have not been satisfied with the answers. The answers obviously convince you but you must not assume that because they don’tconvince me that I am being perverse.

** I feel disappointed that you have taken the stance you have and have resorted to insults** . You accuse me of polluting this site when all I wish is that catholics extend the same compassion to animals as they do to foetuses. You are not going to go to hell for being a vegetarian. Me asking catholics to refine their compassion by extending it to not killing animals is hardly a polluting idea. I find your response quite perverse.

You must realise that I am challenging the very fundamentals of your beliefs - that the god you worship is good. It is on this basis, that your god is good, that you justify the killing of animals. I would like you to consider the fact that you may be wrong. In fact that you have no way of knowing.

You tell me what the real topic is and how I have sidestepped it. You must however quote me. I am not interested in your insulting conclusions without evidence. If I am in the wrong I will apologise as some of you well know… If you can’t do that, then please have the decency to apologise for libelling me.

VB