Who said this??

  • Thread starter Thread starter jlw
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
jlw]Faith most certainly is. It’s also about TRUTH.
Click to expand...
Agreed!đź‘Ť
But putting religion aside, **you **think that the act of abortion is not objectively wrong,
Click to expand...
speak for yourself, that’s not what I believe, but everyone right or wrong doesn’t necessarilly believe as you do…
regardless of what we do on Saturday, Sunday, or 5 times a day
Click to expand...
plenty pew sitters that might look in the mirror…
 
40.png
jlw:
Huh?? you misread…I hope.

I said “do you believe that it is *not *objectively wrong…”
Click to expand...
your right, i responded too quickly… at work…
 
Michael C:
So what happened??!..
Click to expand...
The same thing that happened to Jesse Jackson, Al Gore, Gephardt, Dashcle, Kerry, and Clinton. As soon as they tried to go national, they had to sell their soul…
 
40.png
jlw:
The same thing that happened to Jesse Jackson, Al Gore, Gephardt, Dashcle, Kerry, and Clinton. As soon as they tried to go national, they had to sell their soul…
Click to expand...
And the same thing also happened to Ronald Regan, and George Bush Sr…
 
space ghost:
speak for yourself, that’s not what I believe, but everyone right or wrong doesn’t necessarilly believe as you do…
Click to expand...
Wait a minute…SO…

Abortion is OBJECTIVELY wrong, right?? You’re still arguing that it is SUBJECTIVELY wrong, aren’t you??
 
40.png
jlw:
Faith most certainly is. It’s also about TRUTH.

But putting religion aside, you think that the act of abortion is not objectively wrong, regardless of what we do on Saturday, Sunday, or 5 times a day??
Click to expand...
Of course it isn’t objectively wrong. If it were it wouldn’t be accepted by a wide segment of the population. It is wrong or right depending on some very delicate choices of how to define things. That’s part of what i was getting at here.
 
40.png
Tlaloc:
Of course it isn’t objectively wrong. If it were it wouldn’t be accepted by a wide segment of the population. It is wrong or right depending on some very delicate choices of how to define things. That’s part of what i was getting at here.
Click to expand...
You are suffering from relativism,Tlaloc. Just because it is accepted by a wide segmant of the population does not make it more right.You could use that for a case to let the nazi party off the hook.Truth is not relative or it wouldn’t be truth:p
 
40.png
Tlaloc:
Of course it isn’t objectively wrong. If it were it wouldn’t be accepted by a wide segment of the population. It is wrong or right depending on some very delicate choices of how to define things. That’s part of what i was getting at here.
Click to expand...
WHAT???

Whoa. My friend. think your post through. Reread it, and then answer again.
 
40.png
jlw:
WHAT???

Whoa. My friend. think your post through. Reread it, and then answer again.
Click to expand...
Sadly he is serious read his past posts:crying:
 
40.png
Tlaloc:
Of course it isn’t objectively wrong. If it were it wouldn’t be accepted by a wide segment of the population. It is wrong or right depending on some very delicate choices of how to define things. That’s part of what i was getting at here.
Click to expand...
After quickly reading your first post from you link, I understand why you are misinformed.

True, how we define words makes a huge difference.

Your logic is very flawed because it based on opinions, not scientific facts.

In regards to “personhood” we might be able to argue it, but the fact that a life, a BRAND NEW human life with his/her VERY OWN DNA with SPECIFIC CHROMOSOMES is concieved, and in a matter of weeks, develops a nervous system (able to feel pain)and a developing beating heart is indisputable!!!

We should protect all with with the equal right to life regardless of race, creed, color, sex, national orgin, physical or mental maturity or appearance!!!
 
40.png
jlw:
Wait a minute…SO…

Abortion is OBJECTIVELY wrong, right?? You’re still arguing that it is SUBJECTIVELY wrong, aren’t you??
Click to expand...
i Personally agree that abortion subjectively, objectively, fried, poached, and scrambled, anyway you look at it is Intrinsically evil…
AND YES WRONG… my stand on that has never waivered…

but, me damaging your reputation and calling you names because you don’t agree with my theology is wrong too…

when someone represents a body of people, he/she feels the need to represent all the people right or wrong… that’s probably why i would never make a good politian. I like many in these forums have some non-negotiables. That being said though does not give me the right to be un-christian or unkind to someone who dosen’t have my same non-negotiables…
 
space ghost:
i Personally agree that abortion subjectively, objectively, fried, poached, and scrambled, anyway you look at it is Intrinsically evil…
AND YES WRONG… my stand on that has never waivered…

but, me damaging your reputation and calling you names because you don’t agree with my theology is wrong too…

when someone represents a body of people, he/she feels the need to represent all the people right or wrong… that’s probably why i would never make a good politian. I like many in these forums have some non-negotiables. That being said though does not give me the right to be un-christian or unkind to someone who dosen’t have my same non-negotiables…
Click to expand...
Do you feel abortion is objectively wrong or it IS objectively wrong. You say is IS, but then you rationalize someone supporting something intrisically evil??? Explain this contradiction, please.

So the pro-life politician is apparently pushing his views on pro-choicers, but Sen Kennedy is rationalized as oh-so-tolerant of everyone, even though he pushes his views onto pro-lifers?? Again, double standard??
 
space ghost:
i Personally agree that abortion subjectively, objectively, fried, poached, and scrambled, anyway you look at it is Intrinsically evil…
AND YES WRONG… my stand on that has never waivered…

but, me damaging your reputation and calling you names because you don’t agree with my theology is wrong too…

when someone represents a body of people, he/she feels the need to represent all the people right or wrong… that’s probably why i would never make a good politian. I like many in these forums have some non-negotiables. That being said though does not give me the right to be un-christian or unkind to someone who dosen’t have my same non-negotiables…
Click to expand...
HELLO, SPACE GHOST:) Sometimes people get emotional with situations like these and say things they shouldn’t,maybe its because the pro-aborts gleefully point it out when you try to tell them what the Church teaches on it.But give Lance a break, as humans sometimes we say things out of total frustration.God Bless
 
40.png
Tlaloc:
Of course it isn’t objectively wrong. If it were it wouldn’t be accepted by a wide segment of the population. It is wrong or right depending on some very delicate choices of how to define things. That’s part of what i was getting at here.
Click to expand...
Oh, yeah, and large segments of populations are never wrong about anything. :rolleyes:

I suppose you think genital mutilation of women in Muslim nations isn’t objectively wrong. I suppose you think the mass genocide in Sudan wasn’t objectively wrong either. I suppose you think suicide bombing attacks in Israel aren’t objectively wrong either. Sept. 11 must’ve only been wrong if you were in a certain part of the world, right? Isn’t that what you’re saying, Tlaloc?
 
40.png
Lisa4Catholics:
HELLO, SPACE GHOST:) Sometimes people get emotional with situations like these and say things they shouldn’t,maybe its because the pro-aborts gleefully point it out when you try to tell them what the Church teaches on it.But give Lance a break, as humans sometimes we say things out of total frustration.God Bless
Click to expand...
thank you…

i certainly loose it too sometimes…ok, lots of times…
still a work in progress…
 
40.png
Lisa4Catholics:
You are suffering from relativism,Tlaloc.
Click to expand...
I don’t consider relativism to be something suffered so much as realized, but whatever.
Just because it is accepted by a wide segmant of the population does not make it more right.You could use that for a case to let the nazi party off the hook.Truth is not relative or it wouldn’t be truth:p
Click to expand...
Truth =/= morality
The statement “abortions occur” is objective truth
The statement “Abortions are bad” is a subjective moral judgement
 
40.png
jlw:
After quickly reading your first post from you link, I understand why you are misinformed.
Click to expand...
Neat. And I understand why you are misinformed. As the post was getting at we can speak to each other with mutual respect so as to discuss the issue. Or you can call me “Baby killer” and I can call you “fundamentalist” and no one can really learn anything. Just letting you know the options up front, I can go either way.
Your logic is very flawed because it based on opinions, not scientific facts.
Click to expand...
The choice of these definitions are not scientific “facts.” The facts do not make moral jugdgements.
In regards to “personhood” we might be able to argue it, but the fact that a life, a BRAND NEW human life with his/her VERY OWN DNA with SPECIFIC CHROMOSOMES is concieved, and in a matter of weeks, develops a nervous system (able to feel pain)and a developing beating heart is indisputable!!!
Click to expand...
And irrelevent. As discussed in that thread (and we may want to move this discussion to that thread) human chimeras are more common than once thought so the argyument that each person has a unique DNA is no longer ironclad. Besides which it runs into problems with the idea of transplants.
We should protect all with with the equal right to life regardless of race, creed, color, sex, national orgin, physical or mental maturity or appearance!!!
Click to expand...
We should protect all human beings, but a mass of tissue is not a human being according to my definition. A human being is a separate organism and hence a fetus before a certain stage does not qualify.
 
40.png
sweetchuck:
Oh, yeah, and large segments of populations are never wrong about anything. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Sure they are but things that have objective proof tend to get accepted fairly quickly. Not many believe the world to be flat anymore. Objective proof became available and fairly soon after was widely accepted.
I suppose you think genital mutilation of women in Muslim nations isn’t objectively wrong. I suppose you think the mass genocide in Sudan wasn’t objectively wrong either. I suppose you think suicide bombing attacks in Israel aren’t objectively wrong either.
Click to expand...
Yeah they are subjectively wrong. But by all means feel free to prove how they are objectively wrong if you think you can.
 
40.png
Tlaloc:
Neat. And I understand why you are misinformed. As the post was getting at we can speak to each other with mutual respect so as to discuss the issue. Or you can call me “Baby killer” and I can call you “fundamentalist” and no one can really learn anything. Just letting you know the options up front, I can go either way.

The choice of these definitions are not scientific “facts.” The facts do not make moral jugdgements.

And irrelevent. As discussed in that thread (and we may want to move this discussion to that thread) human chimeras are more common than once thought so the argyument that each person has a unique DNA is no longer ironclad. Besides which it runs into problems with the idea of transplants.

We should protect all human beings, but a mass of tissue is not a human being according to my definition. A human being is a separate organism and hence a fetus before a certain stage does not qualify.
Click to expand...
“my definition” hence makes this a subjective argument? So you you only have an opinion, not a fact to point to.

fetus is the latin word for…baby.

You don’t believe in objective truth?? You think that truth is defined by a majority public opinion?? Does life have meaning?? Not subjective meaning, but Meaning BEFORE you and I have opinions about how meaningful or unmeaningful somethiing is???

When exactly does the baby, er, uh, fetus, become more than a “blob of tissue”, objectively speaking, of course??
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top