Secular Arguments on moral issues

[Moore11]

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.

Just a side note the church is ‘pushing’ for the only method I (as a medical professional in pharmacy) know of that is even close to 100%. The plain fact is 54% of all abortions come from failed contraceptives. This is a Planned Parenthood statistic (guttmacher institute) and they know it. They announced it publicly 2 years ago at the international abortion convention and nobody even questioned it.

“54 percent of women who have abortions had used a contraceptive method *usually condom or the pill) during the month they became pregnant.” These figures are similar to those of a report in Spain showing abortions doubling despite increased family planning promotion.

lifenews.com/2011/01/11/report-shows-contraception-failure-54-used-before-abortion/

its reporting from there own study. that is why they want the contraceptive mandate. Because more contraceptives = more abortions directly without question.

But I forgot we have you to tell us all this new scientific information. Your degree is in? You do research with who again?

I notice the new member sign so perhaps this is less than charitable of me. Allow me to explain. Most people around here expect you to foot note or source the information you are giving out to some kind of authority. I see a lot of talk but no foot notes.

And that my friends is how you argue an issue in a secular context. facts and bluntness.

It all depends on what context you are in. If at work you probably can’t argue all that well about issues such as homosexuality and abortion. But to family members and acquaintances I have often employed good tactics to show things without being theological.

I remember one conversation I had with my mom about my cousin who is gay and hom much my mom was supporting it. I bluntly described the act of homosexual “sex” using terms and creating mental images that no son should ever have to talk about with his mom. My mother was disgusted. End of story. All I did was expose the cute little lie the media puts in our faces. Homosexuals are funny, useful in fashion, and great for one liners that are so empathetic and cuddly like modern family, will and grace, say yes to the dress Etc… and turned it into the reality of a top and a bottom. I used this on a friend once in exactly the same way and they tried to come back with an equally graphic description of hetero sex, the only thing is that it backfired because of how obvious it was that the human body was made to do one thing and not the other and the one thing it was made to do creates life.

Abortion is even easier to describe.

Like I said, this can only be used in certain contexts and situations.

 

[down_under]

And that my friends is how you argue an issue in a secular context. facts and bluntness.

It all depends on what context you are in. If at work you probably can’t argue all that well about issues such as homosexuality and abortion. But to family members and acquaintances I have often employed good tactics to show things without being theological.

I remember one conversation I had with my mom about my cousin who is gay and hom much my mom was supporting it. I bluntly described the act of homosexual “sex” using terms and creating mental images that no son should ever have to talk about with his mom. My mother was disgusted. End of story. All I did was expose the cute little lie the media puts in our faces. Homosexuals are funny, useful in fashion, and great for one liners that are so empathetic and cuddly like modern family, will and grace, say yes to the dress Etc… and turned it into the reality of a top and a bottom. I used this on a friend once in exactly the same way and they tried to come back with an equally graphic description of hetero sex, the only thing is that it backfired because of how obvious it was that the human body was made to do one thing and not the other and the one thing it was made to do creates life.

Abortion is even easier to describe.

Like I said, this can only be used in certain contexts and situations.

Oh you misunderstand in the work place facts and bluntness could be qualified by beating a person in the head with a medical text yea! (probably not but I’ll think about it and go to confession after)

but seriously if you ever want to win the argument of abortion in the secular world tell them to go online and read from the driest medical text they can find exactly what a doctor does during a D & C abortion (the most often used abortion procedure). That is the whole argument. It works every time someone looks it up. I can’t describe, even in dry medical terms, what goes on here for you. There is simply no way to sugar coat it if kids read this.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

enickman

**What are some of the best, secular ways to defend our Catholic stance on modern issues such as homosexuality and abortion? Using Catholic responses or anything that directly involves God immediately shuts off a non believer, so I’m looking for arguments that they will be able to understand. **

Ask them to understand that sodomy has been universally condemned by all cultures through all times. Same-sex marriage has never been practiced or approved of by any culture, and even in our time, corrupted as we are by sexual politics, it is by no means universally accepted.

Even among the ancient Greeks, where sodomy was known to be popular, it was never approved as natural. Here are the views of Plato and Aristotle:

Laws 8.836c-e, in which Plato discusses what laws should regulate sexual conduct. It’s plain that Plato sees a historical decline in morals since the time of Laius.

“Suppose you follow nature’s rule and establish the law that was in force before the time of Laius. You’d argue that one may have sexual intercourse with women but not with men or boys. As evidence for your view, you’d point to the animal world, where (you’d argue) the males do not have sexual relations with each other, because such a thing is unnatural. But in Crete and Sparta your argument would not go down well, and you’d probably persuade nobody. However, another argument is that such practices are incompatible with what in our view should be the constant aim of the legislator - that is, we’re always asking, ‘which of our regulations encourages virtue, and which does not?’ Now then, suppose in the present case we agreed to pass a law that such practices are desirable, or not at all undesirable - what contribution would they make to virtue? Will the spirit of courage spring to life in the soul of the seduced person? Will the soul of the seducer learn habits of self-control? No one is going to be led astray by that sort of argument - quite the contrary. Everyone will censure the weakling who yields to temptation, and condemn his all-too-effeminate partner who plays the role of the woman. So who on earth will pass a law like that? Hardly anyone, at any rate if he knows what a genuine law really is.”

Plato, Laws [636c] “And whether one makes the observation in earnest or in jest, one certainly should not fail to observe that when male unites with female for procreation the pleasure experienced is held to be due to nature, but contrary to nature when male mates with male or female with female, and that those first guilty of such enormities were impelled by their slavery to pleasure.”

Aristotle
Nichomacean Ethics Book 7, Section 5:
“Some things are not naturally pleasant, but can become so through injury, habit or congenital depravity. And for each unnatural pleasure there is an abnormal state of character. There is the brutish character, as in those tribes around the Black Sea who eat human flesh. Also, morbid states, like nail-biting or homosexuality … may have been acquired by habit, for instance if someone has been sexually misused as a child.”

 

[enickman]

Thank you all, these are what I was searching for.

 

[Midwest88]

By the way, the media is not “pushing” anything.

Now that’s funny.

The media is a business, and it sells what the population wants to read and see.

True, it is a business. But the last time I heard producers aren’t calling houses and doing survey’s on what the vast majority of Americans want to see on television and in film.

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.

Well, sir/miss, I doubt anyone who is a practicing Catholic or a practitioner of any religion will say otherwise. I’m not sure where your attitude comes from.