What are the “objective moralities/truths”? Is there a list?

[o_mlly]

How well is that working? By the number of abortions that take place, I would say not very well.

And you would be wrong. All who follow the Catholic prescriptions regarding sexual activity have never, nor will ever, choose to abort. That is 100% efficacy.

 

[o_mlly]

“The abortion index for Catholic women showed that their relative abortion rate was nearly the same as that for all women (1.1).”

See reply to qwerty. If I tell the child not to play in traffic and, disobeying me, the child dies from an accident then is my instruction defective? No, the problem is the child’s disobedience.

 

[goout]

Personally speaking, from your point of view, I would never trie to conceive because that would condemn a child to death.

I think you mean to say “subjectively speaking” instead?
And you did not articulate my point of view either. That is another problem for atheists when trying to present coherent rebuttals to Christianity: you don’t really know what it is, even after all this time spent debating it…and that’s years for you. Years discussing it, and still don’t understand it. You could have built a habitat house from scratch with this time.

Human beings conceive because we are wired to desire and value human life. Human life has a value that is independent of your subjectivism.

And this in full view of the fact that we all die. It’s good to be alive.
See, that’s what’s great about Christianity. Human life has a value that transcends even suffering and death.

So, you didn’t really address the similarities your subjectivist treatment of human life has with genocide.
What do you think? Is it ok for the Nazis to kill the Jews and others they consider less than full potential human beings?

 

[HarryStotle]

You seem to have missed the point.

If you have sex with your wife with the intention of having a child, the chances are that a child will die (as far as you are concerned) before a baby is born. There is a more than average chance that your wife will reject what you would describe as a human being before she sucessfully conceives.

Personally speaking, from your point of view, I would never trie to conceive because that would condemn a child to death.

You don’t seem to understand the consequences of what you speak.

Your logic here seems a tad askew. Every human being dies at some point. Does that mean you ought never have children at all because every one of them is “condemned” to death at some stage of their life?

The natural and unwanted death of a child/person would seem a bit different, morally speaking, from the intentional killing of a child – which is what abortion is.

 

[Bradskii]

Of course the argument is specious. I am pointing that out. I am pointing out that saying a few cells being aborted is a tragedy entirely ignores the fact that this happens naturally all the time.

If if’s a tragedy if it’s intentional then it is equally a tragedy if natural. The result is exactly the same. But does anyone lose sleep over ‘a living human being’ being tosssed into a garbage an in a restroom?

If you told a woman that she was in the process of expelling her next child from her body, what would her reaction be? Well, I will guarantee that it would be different if the ‘child’ was nothing more than a few cells and if it were a few months old.

If she grieved over the few cells as she would over the foetus a few months old we would think she had a psychological problem. So it is obviously and undeniably a matter of degree.

 

[Bradskii]

QwertyGirl:

How well is that working? By the number of abortions that take place, I would say not very well.

And you would be wrong. All who follow the Catholic prescriptions regarding sexual activity have never, nor will ever, choose to abort. That is 100% efficacy.

You do realise that the largest group of women who have abortions are Catholic?

 

[o_mlly]

No, I do not realize that and, if true, that would be regrettable. You do realize that no women who follow Catholic teaching have never directly aborted their child?

 

[Dan123]

“Women who don’t have abortions don’t have abortions” is a complete tautology. That’s not how we measure efficacy. If we measured it your way women who use hormonal birth control have a 99.99% chance of not conceiving. But the real world is different because people don’t adhere to things perfectly and we measure the efficacy of something not by it’s theoretical maximum yield but by it’s actual effect on the actual world.

And the actual affect of teaching people Catholic teachings is … the exact statistical average of the rest of the population.

All that, mind you, while using contraception as basically the same rate as everyone else

Loading…

www.guttmacher.org

 

[margaret42]

Well,
If you or someone else is a Catholic Christian, some objective truths would include the Commandments; the Beatitudes; sins that fall in the categories against these teachings, etc.

 

[Dan123]

This is an apologetics forum…

 

[goout]

“Women who don’t have abortions don’t have abortions” is a complete tautology.

That’s not what was said. You invented a thing there, and expect to use it as a rebuttal?

What was said was:
A person who follows Church teaching does not have abortions.
Obviously, Catholics have had them, but those acts run counter to objectively true teaching about the value of human life.
The act is done counter to what the Church teaches.

 

[o_mlly]

“Women who don’t have abortions don’t have abortions” is a complete tautology.

Strawman alert.

If we measured it your way women who use hormonal birth control have a 99.99% chance of not conceiving. But the real world is different because people don’t adhere to things perfectly and we measure the efficacy of something not by it’s theoretical maximum yield but by it’s actual effect on the actual world.

And the actual affect of teaching people Catholic teachings is … the exact statistical average of the rest of the population.

You seem to confuse that neither objective truth nor morality are determined by statistics about adherents or non-adherents. Your argument seems to be the childish argument, “But everyone else is doing it so it must be OK.”

 

[margaret42]

I agree with you- the idea being devout Catholic women.

 

[Dan123]

Agreed, I wasn’t criticizing the teaching itself, nor was I saying it’s okay as @o_mlly suggests I was saying. I wasn’t saying there’s an issue with the teachings but the teaching. For all the work the church does it seems to have a negligible effect on the actual people who are being taught. Does that not bother you at all?

If I taught math and at the end of the class none of my students were able to do math, I would be an ineffective math teacher, even if everything I taught was correct. And that is what I was trying to point out, you don’t measure how well something works by how well you think it should work but by how well it works.

Advocate abstinence all you want but try to do so in a way that actually accomplishes something, otherwise you’re just making yourself feel good not actually doing good.

 

[Gorgias]

Of course the argument is specious. I am pointing that out.

Let me rephrase: your counter-example is specious.

It doesn’t demonstrate “procured abortion isn’t a tragedy because natural miscarriage isn’t a tragedy”; rather, it makes the specious claim “all natural death is a tragedy, so no one should ever have children.” That’s why it doesn’t work…

I am pointing out that saying a few cells being aborted is a tragedy entirely ignores the fact that this happens naturally all the time.

If if’s a tragedy if it’s intentional then it is equally a tragedy if natural. The result is exactly the same.

And, if you were making this claim anywhere else but a Catholic forum, you’d get away with that assertion. However, I know that you know (since we’ve been on threads in the Moral Theology section of the forum, discussing this precise topic) that Catholic Moral Theology does not accept the theory that the morality of an act is determined exclusively by its outcome. That’s ‘consequentialism’, and the Church rejects it as a moral theory. Instead, the Church posits that the morality of an act depends on the object of the act, the intention of the actor, (and, with respect to degree only, the circumstances).

So, by that standard, natural miscarriage isn’t a moral tragedy, since there is no intent to kill. Abortion, on the other hand…

If she grieved over the few cells as she would over the foetus a few months old we would think she had a psychological problem. So it is obviously and undeniably a matter of degree.

Women do grieve over miscarriages and spontaneous natural abortions. I don’t know where you’re getting your data point from, but you’re mistaken.

 

[o_mlly]

Advocate abstinence all you want but try to do so in a way that actually accomplishes something, otherwise you’re just making yourself feel good not actually doing good.

And what better way would there be? Teach the children that 1 + 1 = 2 but sometimes equals 3. But when that happens, it’s OK to cancel out the 3rd one?

Over 85% of abortions in the USA in 2014 were committed by fornicators.

… of all women who obtained an abortion … 85.5% were unmarried.
Abortion Surveillance — United States, 2014 | MMWR

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

Of course the argument is specious. I am pointing that out.

Let me rephrase: your counter-example is specious.

Women do grieve over miscarriages and spontaneous natural abortions. I don’t know where you’re getting your data point from, but you’re mistaken.

My counter argument is not to be taken seriously. It’s mean to be classed as hyperbole.

And women do most definately not grieve over natural abortions because in the vast percentage of the time they are not even aware that they are pregnant. To most women it is a normal period. But what she is tossing in the can in the restroom might well be what some here are describing as a human being.

Does anyone you know check to see if that is the case? Obviously not. And if you actually explained this to a woman who wasn’t aware of it then my guess woukd be a shrug of her shoulders.

But you demand that those few cells, tossed away without any thought, be treated the same as a baby a few months old in the womb. Surely if we were to take your point then every woman who is trying to get pregnant should be checked at the time of her period so that if her body is ejecting a potential embryo a day or so old, she will treat it as she would if it were a few montbs old and rejected.

But no woman in her right mind would do that. Because it’s just a failed pregnancy comprising a few cells.

 

[Bradskii]

No, I do not realize that and, if true, that would be regrettable. You do realize that no women who follow Catholic teaching have never directly aborted their child?

There are two Catholic churches. One one run by the vicar of Christ comprising all the teachings of the holy Roman Catholic Church. And there are all of you.

The church run by the pontiff represents theological perfection. Which no doubt most, if not all Catholics are trying to acheive. But personally, I go with the second church. Which is all of you.

I don’t expect perfection. I don’t expect to be discussing morality with saints. I don’t believe that anyone can fulfill all the requireme ts of being a good Catholic. It is beyong anything that mere mortals could hope to acheive (which is why you have confession).

So if someone aske me what Catholics think of abortion and the largest group of women who have them are Catholics, then my response would be: ‘they appear to be in favour of it’. Likewise the situation with contraception and gay marriage and sex for the fun of it etc etc.

Yes, I know what Rome decries. I know what the catechism says. But I also know what most Catholics believe when push comes to shove.

So yeah, if a woman follows Catholic teachings then she will never have an abortion. She will never use contraception. She will only have sex if it is ‘open for procreation’. But let’s keep the discussion with at least one foot in reality.

 

[Escabrosa]

You do realise that the largest group of women who have abortions are Catholic?

According to the linked page the largest group had no religious affiliation. Catholics are next because they are the largest religious group in the US.

 

[Gorgias]

But you demand that those few cells, tossed away without any thought, be treated the same as a baby a few months old in the womb.

We’re not talking about actions being taken – we’re talking about how we categorize an embryo. If a person aborts naturally, and doesn’t know it – or even doesn’t know she’s pregnant – then of course there will be no subjective action taken. Objectively, however, it’s a human life that has ended.

So if someone aske me what Catholics think of abortion and the largest group of women who have them are Catholics, then my response would be: ‘they appear to be in favour of it’. Likewise the situation with contraception and gay marriage and sex for the fun of it etc etc.

Yes, I know what Rome decries. I know what the catechism says. But I also know what most Catholics believe when push comes to shove.

You could make that claim about just about any group, couldn’t you? If so, then this is a distinction without a difference. Yes, in any group, there are those who “follow the rules” and others who choose not to do so. However, the group is characterized by what it proclaims, and not by those among its members who are unable to live up to that standard.

I would also make the claim that, for those Catholics who do practice things that the Church prohibits – and yes, especially in the area of sexual morality, there are many! – these people were catechized by the culture of the 20th and 21st centuries, rather than by the Church. So, it’s less a desire to be a “second Catholic Church” as it is a failure by the Church to properly teach her members.

It’s hard to be a Catholic. It ain’t easy to follow all the rules. But we as Church as that Catholics try. That’s all.