What does Satan do?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Brenlae
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Why should the stage of development factor determine the right to life. Why not p(name removed by moderator)oint the moment of birth?

Or the moment of conception, when that DNA begins to exist?
 
Interesting,“it’s not a baby” .I have yet to hear anyone inquire of a pregnant woman: “When is your fetus due?”“Have you felt your fetus move yet.” “Do you know what sex your fetus is?“The medical term for a " baby” in utero is fetus,however,as the saying goes…” a rose by any other name is still a rose"…

Ditto! 👍 Welcome to the forum.
 
Charlemagne_II said:
Wanstronian

But it has happened. Call it what you want to call it. It was destined to live on average 70 years. All that was taken away.
Click to expand...
The potential was removed, the 70-odd years (probably) of life was not.
If it had happened to you, you would not be alive today. Don’t deny that you were a fetus, the child of your mother and father, sharing their DNA.
Click to expand...
Why would I deny it? Of course I was a foetus, of course I share the DNA of my parents. You seem to be implying that I’ve said otherwise.
You had as much right to live as they did. They believed it because they gave you life in the womb instead of killing you in the womb.
Click to expand...
HUGE non-sequitur. Until I became sentient, I was not a person, I was just a collection of cells with the potential to become a person. I had no legal right to live. Whether I had a moral right is irrelevant because as a non-person, morals didn’t matter to me.

And stop with this loaded language. If you have to actually learn something to do so, then learn it. My mother carried me to term because she wanted a child, not because she weighed up whether I had a right to life. You’re arguing a straw man. Again.
If you think a fetus does not have exactly the same DNA as the mother and the father combined, you don’t even believe in science, never mind the right of children to live their full 70 years.
Click to expand...
Well, I’ve neither stated this nor implied it, so hopefully you can let go of this stupid and unprompted line of argumentation.
You don’t get to demolish the rights of a human being by calling it a fetus instead of a child.
Click to expand...
No, but I do get to point out that a foetus is not a person and therefore has no rights. I’m not removing their human rights; it’s just that they haven’t yet reached the stage to qualify for them.

It’s ironic that you’re accusing me of using weasel words, because I’m using the proper terminology. It’s you who are ascribing sentience and personhood to an undeveloped collection of cells. It’s time you learned your subject instead of just gouting dogma.

If you can’t stop yourself misrepresenting me, and if you can’t stop yourself using disingenuous terminology in this discussion to pretend you have a point, then I politely request that you shut up.
 
Jeanne_S said:
Interesting,“it’s not a baby” .I have yet to hear anyone inquire of a pregnant woman: “When is your fetus due?”“Have you felt your fetus move yet.” “Do you know what sex your fetus is?“The medical term for a " baby” in utero is fetus,however,as the saying goes…” a rose by any other name is still a rose"…
Click to expand...
Oh dear, what’s next - “Evolution is only a theory?”
 
tonyrey said:
Welcome to the forum, Jeanne! It’s refreshing to have a breath of common sense. 🙂
Click to expand...
The fact that you think someone who equates a colloquial term with a scientific one is speaking “common sense,” is enough to disqualify you from any further commentary on what constitutes common sense.
 
tonyrey said:
Why should the stage of development factor determine the right to life. Why not p(name removed by moderator)oint the moment of birth? :confused:
Click to expand...
Have you read the rest of the thread? If not, do so. Then you should have your answer.
 
Charlemagne_II said:
Why should the stage of development factor determine the right to life. Why not p(name removed by moderator)oint the moment of birth?

Or the moment of conception, when that DNA begins to exist?
Click to expand...
You must feel terrible when you cut yourself. Just think of all those babies that are pouring out of the cut in your skin, only to die on the vegetable chopping board, alone and afraid.
 
Wanstronian

It’s ironic that you’re accusing me of using weasel words, because I’m using the proper terminology. It’s you who are ascribing sentience and personhood to an undeveloped collection of cells. It’s time you learned your subject instead of just gouting dogma.

The fetus is a developed collection of cells that are on a journey toward birth, childhood, adulthood, old age, and death. You would deny the fetus (baby) that right to journey all the way.

You don’t get to define a human being as something sentient. A dog is sentient.

Even a dog would not kill its unborn pup.

Why do you have the mentality of an abortionist? :confused:
 
wanstronian said:
The fact that you think someone who equates a colloquial term with a scientific one is speaking “common sense,” is enough to disqualify you from any further commentary on what constitutes common sense.
Click to expand...
The fact that you equate scientific explanation with reality is enough to disqualify you!
Do you regard your family and friends solely as biological specimens? 😉
 
All sophistry from Wanstronian aside—how ever ‘well intentioned’ he/she may be (and I do not doubt he is honestly trying to bring the truth to us poor benighted religionists)—I find it extremely telling that a thread opened by a Catholic seeking to understand the Adversary is fairly early on hijacked by an atheist to become an epistemological polemic. Hence, we are no longer discussing the Adversary but are now running round in circles trying to understand the polemics-in-operation.

OP—Friend, you wanted to know how the Devil operates, and you have just been given a clear cut example on this very forum.
 
wanstronian said:
And the fundamental right to choose should certainly not be removed as a result of a subjective interpretation of certain passages within a three thousand-year old collection of fairy stories like the Bible.
Click to expand...
I’m surprised you haven’t been yet been banned for your blatant contempt for Catholicism, Christianity and religion as a whole (a flagrant breach of the rules) which reveals that your sole motive for coming to this forum is to express your animosity and not from any desire to seek the truth…
A foetus is not a child.
Click to expand...
Nor is a child a foetus!
The world has good aspects and bad aspects, and it has always been thus. There is no reason to ascribe the good bits to religious belief and the bad bits to the absence thereof.
Click to expand...
How can the world have good aspects and bad aspects in an amoral universe? By a scientific conjuring trick?
Your ignorance shines through here. Women don’t “kill children” when they have an abortion; they terminate foetuses. Foetuses are not aware, they feel no pain. This is the “Loaded Language” fallacy, and it doesn’t score any points.
Click to expand...
A foetus is alive and therefore it is killed.

You also imply that unawareness and the inability to feel are sufficient reasons for killing a living being - which is absurd…
 
TevereNauta said:
All sophistry from Wanstronian aside—how ever ‘well intentioned’ he/she may be (and I do not doubt he is honestly trying to bring the truth to us poor benighted religionists)—I find it extremely telling that a thread opened by a Catholic seeking to understand the Adversary is fairly early on hijacked by an atheist to become an epistemological polemic. Hence, we are no longer discussing the Adversary but are now running round in circles trying to understand the polemics-in-operation.

OP—Friend, you wanted to know how the Devil operates, and you have just been given a clear cut example on this very forum.
Click to expand...
My remark on his blatant contempt and animosity - which do not have a “natural” explanation - reflects your view (that I hadn’t read) … 🙂

I doubt that your lack of doubt is justified. 😉
 
Heya Tony—I am not expert in diabolism, nor would I wish to be, but from many learned sources (particularly Malachi Martin, S.J., deceased) I’ve garnered that it is futile to argue with the possessed. In fact, in exorcism, it is dangerous for a priest to even try, because of the supernatural intelligence he is dealing with. Indeed, without the power given him by Our Lord to act in His name, an exorcism would not only be futile, but dangerous spiritually and physically dangerous—extremely so—for the exorcist. Since this board in discussing a very real and extremely grave, evil topic, I think we should take his advice. Learn of the devil to fight him, to avoid him, to flee him, but do not fall into polemics that will surely delight him.

Also, this is not the place for discussing general biological philosophy and the conception of life. This topic is to deal with the Adversary, although, as I already stated, it is a testament to his ability that he immediately throws off a conversation of his nature with arguments on epistemology and polemics. Beware. This is not a topic to discuss flippantly.
 
TevereNauta said:
Heya Tony—I am not expert in diabolism, nor would I wish to be, but from many learned sources (particularly Malachi Martin, S.J., deceased) I’ve garnered that it is futile to argue with the possessed. In fact, in exorcism, it is dangerous for a priest to even try, because of the supernatural intelligence he is dealing with. Indeed, without the power given him by Our Lord to act in His name, an exorcism would not only be futile, but dangerous spiritually and physically dangerous—extremely so—for the exorcist. Since this board in discussing a very real and extremely grave, evil topic, I think we should take his advice. Learn of the devil to fight him, to avoid him, to flee him, but do not fall into polemics that will surely delight him.

Also, this is not the place for discussing general biological philosophy and the conception of life. This topic is to deal with the Adversary, although, as I already stated, it is a testament to his ability that he immediately throws off a conversation of his nature with arguments on epistemology and polemics. Beware. This is not a topic to discuss flippantly.
Click to expand...
I agree with you but in this case the adversary is far from being a new arrival on the scene and has been sent packing more than once by concerted responses from members of this forum. We have plenty of experience in dealing with amateur “experts” in epistemology and metaphysics…🙂
 
Wanstronian

In post # 45 you said:

Until I became sentient, I was not a person, I was just a collection of cells with the potential to become a person. I had no legal right to live. Whether I had a moral right is irrelevant because as a non-person, morals didn’t matter to me.

You were not just a collection of cells. Bad biology. Just a collection of cells would be anything living in you, such a a thumbnail or a lock of hair. These things might not have a right to live. If every human being killed his thumbnails and lost all his hair, no rights would be violated, nor would the human race be much the worse for the loss of hair or thumbnails. But if you killed every fetus in the world, you would be killing off the human race. That’s the difference between your “collection of cells” and a human being!

I suspect it’s also how every abortionist can live with himself. It pleases him to believe that the fetus he rips out of the mother’s womb is no more the essence of humanity than a thumbnail or a lock of hair; the fetus is just another collection of dispensable living cells.

Satan is very busy guiding the abortionist’s fingers. :eek:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top