I am always on the lookout for arguments based upon reason and rationality. However, recently I was told, that the catholic morality is not based upon “pure reason”, rather on revelation.
You are misrepresenting what was stated. All Catholic moral teaching can be shown through logical arguments. Some of them depend on divinely revealed axioms.
What is pure reason? Catholic morality is based on observable facts, and divine revelation. However, the public, in general, has been lied to. And false statements are taught to otherwise intelligent individuals at Universities by instructors who are not interested in some facts, but who accept the information they are given without examining it in too many cases.
"More than twice as likely to be arrested for a juvenile crime;[20]
Twice as likely to be treated for emotional and behavioral problems;[21]
Roughly twice as likely to be suspended or expelled from school;[22] and
A third more likely to drop out before completing high school.[23]Abortion is a relately simple problem. There are very good, secular arguments against abortions after the brain develops. That is the time when one can argue that the conglomerate of the cells “deserves” the name of “person”. Not before that.
)Who owns the media? Who funds education boards? Who wants to reduce the world population by 95%? Who supports Mathusian philosophy? Who funds environmentalism and pushes for woman’s rights and contraceptives? How is the banking system set up to give these people total control?
I cannot answer those hysterical “questions”, except one of them.
okay your argument could not be more wrong. I have a degree from Griffith university in pharmacy. Going back for my masters of pharmacy here in a few months. So let me educate you. (just for fun give me the benefit of the doubt) O’Rahilly and Muller are the gentlemen who (from the Carnegie laboratories) did the most recent update to the Carnegie Stages of Early childhood development. It has been updated every 5-7 years since WWII and is mandated by international agreement to be in EVERY embryology textbook in the WORLD. In this work Muller says quite literally “the word egg should be reserved exclusively for a nutritional item often found on a breakfast table because it has nothing to do with embryology.” He says this because his findings were that the human “organism” comes into existence when the flagella is still hanging out of the oocyte. Organism is the highest level of tissue development and constitutes a separate distinct life. (bacterial organisms may live in your stomach but they are not a part of you) human life literally according to the best science of the day comes into existence at the moment of fertilization. of course we know that many sellers of contraceptives tell convenient fairy tails to women that this won’t allow you to become pregnant. In my first year anatomy and physiology class I was told point blank in lecture “every single hormonal contraceptive is an abortifacient”. (by a women no less)Abortion is a relately simple problem. There are very good, secular arguments against abortions after the brain develops. That is the time when one can argue that the conglomerate of the cells “deserves” the name of “person”. Not before that.
The arguments before the brain develops can only be theological, by brining up ideas like “immoratal soul”. None of those can be rationally established, therefore they are irrational.
By the way, the media is not “pushing” anything. The media is a business, and it sells what the population wants to read and see. And it is a fact that the society is moving toward a secular arrangement. The influence of all the different religions is in decline. I know you don’t like it, but the facts are there.
Can you establish a good, purely secular argument against masturbation or birth control? (It has been refuted that masturbation causes blindness or will grow hair on the palms.
Tyrion;10277401 said:
Nope. People in high and mighty places, like the Rockefeller’s, who also fund universities. Funny how until after Mathus woman’s rights did not get picked up by the educated. These sexual rights only became a big deal after the really wealthy started talking about overpopulation. And most people now think that abortion and birth control will save us from overpopulation.
Both physiologically and psychologically it is proven that masturbation is a healthy endeavor… however the prohibition of it causes very serious psychological probelms as displayed by those poor teens who suffer from their guilt. I suggest you stick with the “hairy palm” hypothesis. It is MUCH better established.
No, one does not USE the partner. They agree to concentrate on each other, to give and receive as much pleasure as possible. Besides, the pope hardly qualifies as a secular expert.
Decent people of all strata of the population reject the concept that women should be simply “breeding machines”. That is the reason of supporting women’s rights to self-determination and to give them control over their own bodies. The population does not need to be controlled by anyone. As the technology allows that fewer people will be needed of the farms, and the standard of living will increase, the unfettered breeding will stop by itself - as it is currently happening in the developed countries.
Tyrion, I hope by women’s rights you do not mean equal pay and the right to vote. Those I am sure are accepted by everyone on this thread. Where we contrast in view is whether choosing to kill the infant in their womb is a right. You didn’t address one of the posts above, which is deeply based in science and reason. Even the prominent atheist Richard Dawkins agrees that the fetus in the womb is alive and a human being. He just focuses on the amount of pain the infant suffers while being killed, and puts it at close to 0. So in short, Dawkins knows a human being is being killed, just that it isn’t that painful, so it is okay. Is that reasonable? It seems like reason and science are only used when they benefit your side of the argument.
oh and we will just take your word that the Pope is a fool in secular matters, but you are a genius. You could not even follow a logical argument just now or be bothered to make a logical argument to back up your claims. I did site a source the document called Humanae Vitae unless I am mistaken that would be Paul the VI who had the courage and wisdom to see clearly all the problems we are facing.
Just one more interesting point. I notice you drop the anti-embryo argument. I am glad you concede the point as it is really an answered question anyway. Thank you for proving you actually did read my post.
Please read post #8 and my answer in post #9. The right to self-determination, the right to prevent unwanted pregnancies via birth control is the question here. The problem of what to do when the attempted prevention fails is a different question, which must be discussed separately.
and we got your word on that right? you are your own source on when a person comes into being? I have already pointed out Muller and O’Rahilly and the Carnage institute which are the definitive scientific work on the matter which clearly state in embryology there is no such thing as a fertilized egg. According to Muller an embryo IS a person. Unless you have done some world shattering research in the last 24 hours that the rest of the scientific community does not know about you have no case to make these statements and no source from the science of embryology. Therefore you are wrong.I already explained that when the fetus develops a brain, then the terminology of “person” becomes acceptable. A bunch of cells without a brain cannot be called a person. Just like a dish of scrambled eggs cannot be called a “fried chicken”, even if the rooster had a short, but fun time with the hen, and the egg now contains the full DNA of a “chicken”.
Personally, I wish that no abortion would ever take place. It would be nice if conception would only happen if and when both parties explicitly want it to happen. Unfortunately this is not the case, even though this ideal state of affairs could be approximated by judiciosly selected prevention methods. If the church would push for close to 100% effective prevention methods, then the stance against abortion would be embraced with open arms, even by the non-religious.