No, you’re right. We’re talking about extending the same rights we have to others, even though their choices may not be the same as ours. I’m sorry that you didn’t understand my comparison though.
I understand it just fine. I think that affirming the right of others to eat escargot when I don’t like it is on a different moral plane than affirming the right to take the life of a person.
Again, it has to do with consent. A man doesn’t have the right to rape a woman because that woman has the autonomy to refuse. Whatever a man enjoys doing with that woman, she still has to consent in order for it to be legal.
Maybe he can just prey on non-autonomous women? Paralyzed, fragile, developmentally disabled? How about if he just drugs them first so they don’;t have any autonomy to refuse,then would it be ok?
We must pay our taxes to support our economy and community, and Christ said to render to Caesar what is Caesar’s. You do have the freedom to move to a place with lower taxes. When I lived in Chicago, my property taxes were $6000/year…I moved to a place with considerably less “perks” such as garbage pick up for example, and now I pay $1000/year. We have the freedom to move where taxes are less burdensome in exchange for less community services
But WHY do we support our economy and community? What if I don’t WANT to support it? What if I am too poor to move? My point is that I can be compelled by the law to participate in something I don’t choose. How is it we are obligated to render unto ceasar, but we are not obligated to defend the innocent life of those who cannot defend themselves?
…You are not “enslaved” because you can’t drink and drive because you again remove consent from the person you harm or kill because you yourself don’t have the right of consent to drive while mentally impaired.
Nonsense. Plenty of people believe they drive better when they are under the influence. Who are you to say they can;t?
How are we not removing consent from the victim in the womb?
No one should have the freedom to operate heavy machinery while intoxicated if they can cause harm to another individual while doing so, that’s common sense not a right to have…
What are you saying, that morality should be based upon “common sense”? What if my "common sense’ tells me that the life in the womb is a person?
you cannot take a pistol to shoot anyone who aggravates you for the same reason,
Why, because common sense tells me so?
however you do have the right to shoot someone who is trying to harm or trying to kill you…at least I do where I live.
News flash, Rence. The child in the womb does NOT have this right. When they reach in there to suck out or dismember their body, they have no way to defend themselves where they live.
But that goes hand-in-hand with the taxes thing because it would take the Police 20+ minutes to reach me if an intruder broke in.
Police can’t stop immoral behavior, either. All they can do is arrest people and charge them for doing what seems to you like violations of “common sense”.
Turns out common sense is not very common.
But it doesn’t fail to convey that some acts considered intristically evil are done so by the Church, and should be enough to make Catholics comply.
Are you saying that the Church is committing intirinsically evil acts?
Who decides what is intrinsically evil?
But they still aren’t recognized as such by those who don’t follow the rules of the Church. Of course, we as Catholics know the Church is correct, but that doesn’t mean we can take the rights of others away when they don’t believe in the Church or what it teaches to be correct.
In that case, then we should not make others pay taxes, or make laws about stealing rape and murder,a nd all other prohibited acts in our society. We should respect that they don’t believe like we do ,adn we should affirm their rights to exercise their freedoms. If they believe what I have should belong to them, who am I to “take away the rights of others” by shooting them if they try to take it? Their common sense tells them they have a right to it.
Because common sense will tell you that it costs a lot more for society to support a malformed child than it does to let it die.
But those of different religions will not form the same concience based on their own religions and upbrinings. For example, the most devout of Jewish would allow for an abortion in the case of a woman’s life being in peril. What the Church says is probably not important to them, but they have still carefully formed their conscience. They have the right to consent or refuse treatment just like a Catholic
on an appropriate use of the term “heresy”.