Pro Choice Catholics

  • Thread starter Thread starter Nightfly
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
vern_humphrey said:
That says nothing about the allocation of resources – and in many capitalist nations, we see large amounts of resources devoted to people who are not productive – capitalism in the service of charity.
Click to expand...
And they deserve large amounts of resources. But not the largest amounts.

Maybe just 10%.
 
Let me also clarify the position of inequal worth logically.

Axiom 1: Human adults are worth 10000 credits.
Axiom 2: Human children are worth 1000 credits.
Axiom 3: Animals are worth 500 credits.
Axiom 4: It is always wrong to kill something worth more than 900 credits.

Animals are worth less than 900 credits (axiom 3)
So it is not always wrong to kill animals (3, 4, modus tollens)
Human children are worth less than adults (1, 2)
But human children are worth more than 900 credits (2)
So it is always wrong to kill human children (2, 4, modus ponens)

Though I do not entirely agree with this argument, it does set up a good example of how “some humans are worth more than others, therefore it is acceptable to kill some humans for whatever reason” is not a good argument.
 
aristotle said:
So blanket definitions (“all life is equal/ all human life is equal”) may not be a priori true simply because their negation could be used to argue for anti-Semitism.
Click to expand...
We know not all life is equal – if it were, the killing of bacteria in you body by your immune system would be as serious as murdering a man.

We also can show that if all human life is not equal, the concept of human rights is invalid.
aristotle said:
Of course. So logical people can believe very strange things. Like my computer right now, for instance, as it seems convinced that we should all be burned alive by cosmic rays. Very logical, since it can only proceed from what it’s been given.
Click to expand...
People can get wrapped around the axel on their basic (name removed by moderator)uts - just as a computer can. But people can take a deep breath, stand back and reexamine the issue from a different perspective.
aristotle said:
Or something that all parties in the discussion can agree upon.
Click to expand...
But all parties to the discussion do not agree that animals are of equal worth with human lives.
aristotle said:
Agreed, I think PETA is wrong. But not necessarily illogical.
Click to expand...
If you think 2+2 = 5, it would be logical to think 4+4 = 10. But that’s using the term in the coloquial sense, not as logicians use it.
aristotle said:
Because I find your statement that all human life is equal just as accurate as PETA’s statement that all (animal) life is equal.
Click to expand...
Can PETA show how their position supports something as basic as the concept of human rights? And how denying it destroys tha concept?
aristotle said:
How can I provide a counter-argument when no initial argument has been provided? At least, no coherant one, yet.
Click to expand...
You might try to show how there can be such a thing as human rights without the right to life.😛

That is my basic argument – without the right to life, there are no human rights. And if the right to life isn’t inherent in all humans, or if it can be diminished, it isn’t a right at all.
aristotle said:
Sorry. No. And again for the reasons above stated. I am not using Aquinas’s argument. I am using Aristotle’s.

It does not follow that simply because not all humans are of equal worth, it is acceptable to kill a human save for self-defense.
Click to expand...
If all humans are held to the same standard (self defense) then all humans are equal!!😃
 
aristotle said:
Let me also clarify the position of inequal worth logically.

Axiom 1: Human adults are worth 10000 credits.
Axiom 2: Human children are worth 1000 credits.
Axiom 3: Animals are worth 500 credits.
Axiom 4: It is always wrong to kill something worth more than 900 credits.
Click to expand...
But you can’t show any of that to be true – and to ask me to accept your axioms is begging the question. You can’t prove you position unless I accept your position at the outset.
 
SoCalRC said:
I, personally, am leary to declare who can and cannot be Catholic. I am reminded of something C.S. Lewis wrote in MERE CHRISTIANITY, I cannot look into someone’s heart and see their true intentions and I am specifically instructed by my savior not to make moral comparisons between myself and others. At most, I might speculate that, based on observed behavior, someone does not seem to be a good Catholic.

Even that is something I am hesitant to say. Take the question at hand. How can I truly judge if someone’s vote is ultimately ‘pro life’ or not? Consider a real scenario (though I will drop party and politician names).

For a number of years it has been well known that there are serious problems with human rights abuses, human trafficing, and forced participation in sex trades as well as sweat shops, in Saipan. Saipan is part of an American Protectorate. As a consequence, items made there can be marked “Made in America”.

The US Conference of Catholic Bishops specifically noted the problems in Saipan in multiple reports on human rights and slavery. One of the most offensive things (to me at least) that investigators discovered was that there are camps of guest workers from China. If one of these workers, essentially female slaves, becomes pregnant, forced abortions occur. How many? No one is sure, but human rights worker Eric Gregoire told ABC News, “With 11,000 Chinese workers here, I have never seen a Chinese garment factory worker have a baby.” A statement that still gives me chills.

I am sure that there are more horrible things than having your baby forcibly killed inside you so that you can be more productive in your indentured servitude, but I am hard pressed to come up with one at the moment. Anyway, the factory and sex trade owners benefiting from this gave huge sums of money to a Washington lobbiest (who is now convicted and disgraced on several charges). The lobbiest, in turn, gave large sums of money to certain politicians and their political party.

In addition, the most powerful politicians were given expensive perks, like family vacations to exotic resorts. Now, several politicians (from both parties I should add), became aware of this situation and tried to take action. They basically wanted to extend some American labor laws to the protectorate.

Several of the politicians receiving money from the lobbiest (one in particular) blocked the legislation from advancing. They also spread false and damaging statements about other people to help discredit reports of the abuses.

Now, here is the tricky part. Are the politicians who blocked the changes pro-abortion or pro-life? In other words, is the proper litmus test what they say they about Roe v. Wade, or the actual consequences of their actions in office?

Again, I do not mean this to be a political endorsement for any side or person. I am just making the point that few perfect candidates exist and a Catholic who, for example, felt a great calling with regards to poverty or socio economic exploitation might decide to vote for a different ‘lesser of two evils’ than a fellow Catholic who felt called to God’s work in a different area.

Best Wishes
Click to expand...
Hitler made the trains run on time. So by your logic we should have left him alone to “run” is country. This is false. Think about it.
 
vern_humphrey said:
But you can’t show any of that to be true – and to ask me to accept your axioms is begging the question. You can’t prove you position unless I accept your position at the outset.
Click to expand...
If it is possible, then it is reasonable, even if it is not sensible or actual or true.

And, without a certain number of assumptions some reasonable people may disagree with, you can’t show that any human has any value at all.
 
There are some other things you say, but I found this to be the first that needs remark.
vern_humphrey said:
If you think 2+2 = 5, it would be logical to think 4+4 = 10. But that’s using the term in the coloquial sense, not as logicians use it.
Click to expand...
You are wrong.

Logicians use logic in exactly this way. They don’t care where the axioms come from once they start the proof. Their question is really “how far can we go with what we have?”

And it is impossible, logically, to prove that 2+2 = 4 or anything else without an infinite set of axioms. Godel established this. 2+2=4 is a matter of faith.
Can PETA show how their position supports something as basic as the concept of human rights?
Click to expand...
Why should I care about anything as basic as human rights?

Why should PETA?

But the first part, at least, can be well-supported. If all life is worth all the same, and if thus no life should be taken, then no human life should be taken, and we have the most basic of human rights. The others follow in a like manner.
That is my basic argument – without the right to life, there are no human rights.
Click to expand...
And there is a right to life for all humans. So there are human rights.

But this does not require that all humans are equal.

So I do not accept that they are. See adjoining argument for one possible reason why.
 
vern_humphrey said:
We know not all life is equal – if it were, the killing of bacteria in you body by your immune system would be as serious as murdering a man.
Click to expand...
The other, more interesting part of the argument.

No, we don’t “all know this”. Maybe killing a bacteria is as serious as the death of a human being. Human beings and bacteria both die all the time. I don’t bat an eye for most of them.
We also can show that if all human life is not equal, the concept of human rights is invalid.
Click to expand...
How can you show that this is necessarily the case?

What definition do you use for “human rights”?

What do you assume, and why should I accept what you assume?
 
aristotle said:
Why should I care about anything as basic as human rights?
Click to expand...
Look in the mirror and see if the person looking back at you appears vaguely human.😛
aristotle said:
But the first part, at least, can be well-supported. If all life is worth all the same, and if thus no life should be taken, then no human life should be taken, and we have the most basic of human rights. The others follow in a like manner.
Click to expand...
But if all life is the same, you to to prison for swatting a mosquito.😃
aristotle said:
And there is a right to life for all humans. So there are human rights.
Click to expand...
An unalienable right that accrues to them as part of the human condition
aristotle said:
But this does not require that all humans are equal.
Click to expand...
Some are taller than others, some are more talented. But all are equal in their basic humanity and of equal worth.
 
vern_humphrey said:
Just as there was no car bomb detonated in the parking garage of the Twin Towers during the previous administration?

Just as the USS Cole was not attacked during the previous administration?

Just as there were no simulataneous attacks on two US embassies in Africa during the previous administration?

Muslim extremists in general, and Al Qaeda in particular, launched attack after deadly attack against us for a decade prior to 9/11.
Click to expand...
We ignored the situation then and now there are many that want to turn a blind eye now.:mad:
 
Jerusha said:
I am talking about Muslim perception that USA culture contaminates and degrades their culture, and those radicals who believed that their attacks were revenge on USA. Abortion would have been one of the issues. However, any more discussion of this angle would be taking the thread off-topic.

As for , my only comment is quite possibly, given Bush’s ties to intolerant evangelical protestantism. Again, off-topic.
Click to expand...
The planning and plotting was done when the pro-choice people were in charge. So IMHO those that voted for the precious administration has a great deal of the responsibility for 911.
 
Some of Aristotle’s ideas seem extremely reactionary by today’s standards. For example, he supported slavery as being in accord with natural law, and he believed in the natural inferiority of women. However, many of Aristotle’s views were strikingly modern, e.g., “Poverty is the parent of revolution and crime,” and “All who have meditated on the art of governing mankind are convinced that the fate of empires depends on the education of youth.”
Click to expand...
 
In my eyes, and I have implied and stated this many times, the basic problem is that anti-abortion forces tend to be on the right, politically, while other pro-life issues are on the left. People who lean towards fundamentalist Chrstianity are on the right, politically. As I made my point a number of posts ago, Muslim ethics are generally anti-abortion. Muslim-American citizens confront a difficult decision. I can understand that difficulty. Although I am Catholic, I cannot vote on the right, because of my own experiences with people who do not believe I have even the most basic rights because of my ethnicity.

People who are pro-life therefore are forced to choose either “Christian” extremists or people who are pro-life and human rights, excepting for the abortion issue. :bigyikes:

As an eighteen-year old, I was told by a person on the religious right that “right (politically) is right (morally)” An egregious insult to my intelligence. I think there is a saying some use “CTR” (Choose the right) Quite popular, and very offensive to me. (I wish this board had a vomit “smilie”)

Do we want as president a Nazi-in-hiding because he is anti-abortion? I think not.
 
KathleenElsie said:
Only GOD knows the answer to this. I believe it is our duty to be prepaired for whatever is on its way.
Click to expand...
And I pray He never lets us find the answer to that question. My youngest daughter was in Manhatten on 9/11. The city was shut down. She lives in New Jersey and was stranded.

Finally she walked to the ferry landing and begged a ride on the ferry bringing injured people to the Jersey shore.
 
Jerusha said:
Do we want as president a Nazi-in-hiding because he is anti-abortion? I think not.
Click to expand...
The Nazis killed about 12 million people in the Holocaust.

We have killed four times as many in the abortion Holocaust to date – and we continue killing. And pro-abortion politicians want abortion to be taxpayer-funded!.:eek:

You tell me who are the Nazis-in-hiding!!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top