Submitting to reality

[Freddy]

Freddy:

The woman is a week pregnant. What she is carrying is a human (noun, aka human being/person): Incorrect.

If the creature growing inside of the woman is not a human, what is it?

In any number of posts, Mike, in this thread and others, I have emphasised the equality in meaning between human and person. People want to keep using human as in ‘What she is carrying is human’. Which is obviously correct. But a week after conception, there is no person there.

Someone asked for a definition of a person and I suggested the possesion of a working cerebral cortex which will allow some of the functions that we’d associate with ‘personhood’.

A week after conception, that definition doesn’t apply.

 

[MikeInVA]

A week after conception, that definition doesn’t apply.

I disagree with your definition - a person in an accident who damages his cerebral cortex is still a human (at least to me).

I will ask again, what is the creature in her womb? It has unique DNA, so it is not the woman. It is obviously not a fully mature human (that won’t happen for about 20 years), but if it is not a human, what is it?

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

A week after conception, that definition doesn’t apply.

I disagree with your definition - a person in an accident who damages his cerebral cortex is still a human (at least to me).

I will ask again, what is the creature in her womb? It has unique DNA, so it is not the woman. It is obviously not a fully mature human (that won’t happen for about 20 years), but if it is not a human, what is it?

I didn’t say a partly working cerebral cortex. Damge it so that it no longer functions or remove it completely or have a situation when it hasn’t developed and you don’t have a person.

 

[BornInMarch]

The human race will continue even if less than 100% of able adults choose to reproduce.

It strikes me as a tad bit little hypocritical for us, whose Priests take a vow of celibacy, to tell other people that they as individuals have a duty to reproduce.

 

[JimG]

The human race will continue even if 100% of human adults don’t reproduce.

How? Will there be baby factories that do not use the DNA of any human parent?

 

[Freddy]

BornInMarch:

The human race will continue even if 100% of human adults don’t reproduce.

How? Will there be baby factories that do not use the DNA of any human parent?

I think the minimum number of individuals to maintain a species is around 2,000. We’ve got plenty of leeway.

 

[BornInMarch]

How? Will there be baby factories that do not use the DNA of any human parent?

I see how I was unclear. What I meant was along the lines of “if only 70% or so humans reproduce we’ll be fine”. My bad.

 

[BornInMarch]

You get what I meant. Enough people are having families that we can afford for some to choose not to.

 

[Gorgias]

74% of divorces are Christian couples

How does that compare to the number of marriages? In other words, are more than 74% of those who are married, Christian?

More to the point – given that non-Catholic Christian denominations tend to teach that divorce is ok – what’s the percentage of divorces among Catholics, with respect to the number of marriages?

15% of Catholics think contraception is wrong

This is a particular problem. Still, who are the “Catholics” whom they are surveying? Those who attest that they hold to Catholic belief? After all, if they self-identify as folks who don’t believe what the Church teaches, you can’t really say “Catholics say such and such”, but rather, “Catholics who don’t believe what the Church teaches” (and then, is it any surprise that those who don’t believe Church teachings don’t follow Church teachings?)…

74% of those who believe in God think abortion is ok in some or all cases

Are they Catholics?

57% of those living in an unmarried partnership are Christian

Are they Catholics?

57% of those living in an unmarried partnership are Christian

Are they Catholics?

OK… I’m gonna stop here. You get the point. “Catholic” =/= “undifferentiated Christian”

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

74% of divorces are Christian couples

How does that compare to the number of marriages? In other words, are more than 74% of those who are married, Christian?

More to the point – given that non-Catholic Christian denominations tend to teach that divorce is ok – what’s the percentage of divorces among Catholics, with respect to the number of marriages?

15% of Catholics think contraception is wrong

This is a particular problem. Still, who are the “Catholics” whom they are surveying? Those who attest that they hold to Catholic belief? After all, if they self-identify as folks who don’t believe what the Church teaches, you can’t really say “Catholics say such and such”, but rather, “Catholics who don’t believe what the Church teaches” (and then, is it any surprise that those who don’t believe Church teachings don’t follow Church teachings?)…

74% of those who believe in God think abortion is ok in some or all cases

Are they Catholics?

57% of those living in an unmarried partnership are Christian

Are they Catholics?

57% of those living in an unmarried partnership are Christian

Are they Catholics?

OK… I’m gonna stop here. You get the point. “Catholic” =/= “undifferentiated Christian”

The post was in response to one of Jim’s. The term Christian was used as opposed to Catholic. Hence I responded in kind. As did you I think:

JimG:

The fundamental task of each generation is to produce the next generation, so that our people will continue.

As a Christian…

 

[Gorgias]

The post was in response to one of Jim’s. The term Christian was used as opposed to Catholic. Hence I responded in kind. As did you I think

In my case, I was thinking of my responsibilities which flow from the teachings of Christ. Hence, “Christian” as the wider umbrella. To make a distinction of “Catholic” vs “Christian” there would be immaterial. It seemed that @JimG was doing the same, talking about “Christianity” as such.

Nevertheless, when you say “a-ha! Christians do these things!”, I’m left scratching my head a bit. Some Christian denominations teach that divorce and remarriage is ok; some teach that use of contraceptives is ok; some even teach that abortion is ok. Why, then, are you pointing to “Christians” doing those things, as if it’s surprising?

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

The post was in response to one of Jim’s. The term Christian was used as opposed to Catholic. Hence I responded in kind. As did you I think

In my case, I was thinking of my responsibilities which flow from the teachings of Christ. Hence, “Christian” as the wider umbrella. To make a distinction of “Catholic” vs “Christian” there would be immaterial. It seemed that @JimG was doing the same, talking about “Christianity” as such.

Nevertheless, when you say “a-ha! Christians do these things!”, I’m left scratching my head a bit. Some Christian denominations teach that divorce and remarriage is ok; some teach that use of contraceptives is ok; some even teach that abortion is ok. Why, then, are you pointing to “Christians” doing those things, as if it’s surprising?

It’s not surprising. The majority of people in, for example, the US are Christian. And there are a very wide range of moral beliefs. So some are bound to accept contraception and ssm etc. But it keeps getting pointed out by Catholics (in this forum) that the great unwashed masses of liberal unbelievers are the cause of all this immorality by setting a bad example. When the vast majority of people doing so (in comparison to atheists) are Christians themselves.

I simply quoted some figues to back that statement up.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

It strikes me as a tad bit little hypocritical for us, whose Priests take a vow of celibacy, to tell other people that they as individuals have a duty to reproduce.

They only have to be open to life in their marriage.

 

[JimG]

Articles by Rod Dreher always seem to cover a lot of ground. In the originally posted article he quotes both Hobbes and Edward Feser. He makes the point that the current trend against the traditional family structure took several centuries to percolate down to the general population.

Now, young people seem to be avoiding marriage and children. I don’t know if that has anything to do with the fact that total fertility rates are dropping worldwide and many nations are below replacement level. But if I were younger I would be planning for widespread economic decline as well as the decline of nations who will experience the birth dearth.

A few more excerpts:

“We are living through an experiment to discover what happens in an anti-familistic society — that is, a society in which marriage and family ceases to be a normal ideal, and is just one choice among many equally valid ones. Marriage is hard. Raising children is hard. If people feel no wider social pressure towards doing it, fewer will. If you have to talk people into doing so, the battle is all but lost.”

“Producing and nurturing the next generation is the fundamental “ought” built into nature. A society and culture that cannot do that, that does not hold doing that as the highest normative goal (“normative” in the sense that most people, though not all, are called to do this), will disintegrate.
As we are doing.”

 

[Freddy]

Articles by Rod Dreher always seem to cover a lot of ground. In the originally posted article he quotes both Hobbes and Edward Feser. He makes the point that the current trend against the traditional family structure took several centuries to percolate down to the general population.

Now, young people seem to be avoiding marriage and children. I don’t know if that has anything to do with the fact that total fertility rates are dropping worldwide and many nations are below replacement level. But if I were younger I would be planning for widespread economic decline as well as the decline of nations who will experience the birth dearth.

A few more excerpts:

“We are living through an experiment to discover what happens in an anti-familistic society…”

Where’s all this happening? My two kids were brought up by two liberal atheists and they are happily married. Two kids for my daughter and one on the way for my son. And they both seem to spend a lot of time attending weddings of friends and celebrating new arrivals.

Is there an alternative reality of which I am not aware?

 

[JimG]

Well, your experience sounds like very good news. I hope it is the norm. My own anecdotal experience with some young relatives is that they did not wish to marry, although some of them did marry after having children. And some who were 1970’s era hippies eventually did marry their significant others after several decades. I will be happy if we retain a family friendly culture with laws that support family formation.

 

[Freddy]

This from The Guardian: Is marriage really on the decline because of men's cheap access to sex? | Marriage | The Guardian

'Marriage is not in decline, it is in delay,” says historian Stephanie Coontz, author of Marriage, a History and director of research and public education at the Council on Contemporary Families.

She points out that the percentage of Americans expected to marry by early middle age – around 80% – is remarkably similar to what it was 50 years ago.’

There is definitely a generational change. My in-laws were married at 18. My wife and I at 23. My kids were over thirty. I don’t know any single people over forty.

 

[JimG]

Not in decline but in delay. That’s hopeful anyway. Of course, too much delay also reduces the chances for children, and increases the likelihood of older grandparents. My own grandparents died in their 50’s and 60’s. Now I see grandparents in their 70’s trying to babysit for new grandkids.

 

[Pattylt]

Grandparents are living longer and in better health so honestly, I think that’s a wash… both my grandparents that were alive when I was born, died by the time I was 11. I’m 68 and have much more interaction with my grandkids than I ever had with mine.

Like Freddy, my husband and I are are liberal non believers. We raised two kids who are both married and have children. Since my son was the only one capable of passing on the family name, I worried when he only had a daughter. However, my daughter never gave up her maiden name and that granddaughter doesn’t plan on giving up hers either! Seems it’s a name worth keeping!

I was married at 21. My son and daughter were in their late 20’s. It’s still too soon for the grandkids as neither kid had their children right away. They each waited about five years.

All my friends are married as well…some on their second marriage. I had two coworkers that never married and I can guess why. They really prefer their independence. What’s odd is my father was one of seven children born between 1912 to 1924. Three of them never married! They may be unusual in this as they were Orthodox Jews and most Jews marry. They had enough choices, it was a large community. Except for the oldest uncle that died in his late 30s, my aunt had a boyfriend and my uncle had a girlfriend…I have no idea why they never married, though…and I never asked!

Just because the trend right now is delaying marriage and children doesn’t mean it’ll stay that way. The industrial revolution in England saw a dramatic shift in marriage age to later…and slowly reverted back to early 20’s later on. It could shift again. So much of it now is economically driven. If the economy improves and stays stable, especially if wages finally rise to more livable wages, it could easily change the current delaying trend.

 

[Lucy_1]

Happy Cake Day, dear. I always appreciate your (name removed by moderator)ut, and I’m so happy you’ve migrated to St. Isidore’s.