Pro Choice Catholics

[Ani_Ibi]

I would say that’s too hypothetical to aswer at this stage – in the end, of forced to choose among pro-choice candidates, I would select the one who is least pro-choice.

If I couldn’t tell which one that was, or there was no material difference between candidates, I’d have to use other decision criteria – which is basically what Cardinal Ratzinger said.

I am fed up with having to choose between pro-choice candidates. So I am writing Vern Humphrey’s name in my ballot this fall in the Ontario provincial election. I am writing Vern Humphrey – pro-life.

Yall down there, if you find yourselves in a similar position to me, you can write in Ani Ibi – pro-life.

 

[vern_humphrey]

For the pro-choice crowd they can argue in terms of relative worth , or relative anything for that matter. But for the baby about to be aborted it is not relative. It is absolute. He either has worth enough to live. Or she has not enough worth to live.

So next question, what is the absolute threshold of worth for a human being?

The value of a human life is incalculable. We can never, therefore say one life is “worth” more than another.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

The value of a human life is incalculable. We can never, therefore say one life is “worth” more than another.

I agree. I asked the question to put the worth argument on the hotseat. People arguing worth should be able to quantify.

 

[aristotle]

What is the value of a house that has just been torn down? What is the value of a bubble that has burst? What is the value of a tank of gas that has been burned?

Now who’se making everything about money?

Carbon still has value. God made it.

And even a torn down house still has items in there of value. These were once trees. Of immense value.

But even that is irrelevant. We are talking about humans while they live, not after they are dead. That one human is sacrificable in order to save another does not make one human worthless. Just less worthy.

When you take the position that you can sacrifice someone else’s live in the manner you cited, that person’s live is valueless.

Again, I don’t understand. How so?

 

[aristotle]

“Credits” and “grants” are not monetary?

Correct.

What are they, fish?

No. Just arbitrary units. They might count as packets of soul-stuff. Or really anything you like. As I said, it’s numerical (hense credits), not monetary (no dollars).

But if I were to give a credit-value in money, I would say that 1 credit = infinity $.

I’ll take that as an admission.

And you will be wrong.

How can you have equity in a human being?

Do you mean, what are human beings equal to?

Depends on the human being.

This would be the ethics definition of equity (fairness, amount to make equal), not the legal definition.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Now who’se making everything about money?

You did.

Carbon still has value. God made it.

And even a torn down house still has items in there of value. These were once trees. Of immense value.

Back to the old stand, eh? The value of a human being is the value of the components of his carcass.

But even that is irrelevant. We are talking about humans while they live, not after they are dead.

When you sacrifice one human for another, the person sacrificed is dead.

That one human is sacrificable in order to save another does not make one human worthless. Just less worthy.

And how do you compensate him for his loss?

Again, I don’t understand. How so?

How do you compensate him for his loss?

 

[vern_humphrey]

No. Just arbitrary units. They might count as packets of soul-stuff. Or really anything you like. As I said, it’s numerical (hense credits), not monetary (no dollars).

That’s what money is – abitrary unts of value.

 

[aristotle]

You did.

Nope. Already explained. Any future statement of this nature will simply be ignored.

The value of a human being is the value of the components of his carcass.

Again, no. See above.

When you sacrifice one human for another, the person sacrificed is dead.

Only once sacrificed. Now you are convoluting dead people and living people.

How do you compensate him for his loss?

By the knowledge that the person saved, because of his death, is worth more. If he is truly virtuous, he will understand this, and this will be compensation enough.

 

[aristotle]

That’s what money is – abitrary unts of value.

But not all arbitrary units of value are money.

In logic, this is called a converse error.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Nope. Already explained. Any future statement of this nature will simply be ignored.

Again, no. See above.

You can’t ignore the truth, me lad.

Only once sacrificed. Now you are convoluting dead people and living people.

That’s what happens when you turn living people into dead people/

By the knowledge that the person saved, because of his death, is worth more. If he is truly virtuous, he will understand this, and this will be compensation enough.

And if he isn’t “truly virtuous?” If he unreasonably objects to your decision to sacrifice his life?

 

[vern_humphrey]

But not all arbitrary units of value are money.

In logic, this is called a converse error.

No, you have it backwards – some money (for example, gold coins) may have a value established by the market.

But in the modern world, which is mostly off the gold standard, if it is an arbitrary unit of value, it is money.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

How do you compensate him for his loss?

It’s a street corner economy, I guess. Whatever you can grab is free.

 

[aristotle]

That’s what happens when you turn living people into dead people/

I believe that you are purposefully missing the point. This may not be the case, but if it is not so, then it seems as though it is impossible for us to communicate with each other on this point.

I think it would be best, at least at this time that for the sake of our discussion, that my viewpoint on human worth be seen as an unchangeable belief. It is not, in actuality, but in actuality, it sadly seems we cannot dialogue about it reasonably.

As I hope this is the only aspect of the discussion about which we cannot seem to communicate, I also hope this will not kill the discussion.

If it does, then the death was inevitable. In any case, it was fun while it lasted.

And if he isn’t “truly virtuous?” If he unreasonably objects to your decision to sacrifice his life?

Most people on death row still wish to live. They die anyway. And this, for the goal of saving lives more worthy.

 

[aristotle]

…if it is an arbitrary unit of value, it is money.

Any arbitrary unit of value is money?

How much money is 10 gauss?

 

[ragincajunjoe]

Any arbitrary unit of value is money?

How much money is 10 gauss?

$3.00 according to the current exchange rates

 

[aristotle]

$3.00 according to the current exchange rates

lol!

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

Why do many Catholics, Catholics who are spiritual and not just nominal Catholics, willing to back candidates who are pro abortion? For Catholics, this is a central issue but some people can rationalize. What has happened?

If they were in fact, “spiritual” in line with fruit of the spirit in Gal 5, then they can not in anyway be pro-choice or pro-murder of babies. So, the problem is you are assuming that they are spirit filled christians when in fact they are not.

Matthew 7:22-24, Jesus will say I never knew you depart from me you who do wicked deeds.

Matthew 25, the goats will go into eternal punishment because what they did to the least of these ( that is murder children ) they have done to christ himself.

So, no they are not christians, and I am not allowed here to use the word that best describes them.

keep up the good fight.

 

[SoCalRC]

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.

I’m sorry, I missed this. But I am also missing your point. I am saying that evil, dishonest people probably shouldn’t run the government, even if they tell you what you want to hear.

Regards