It would seem that governance by disparate navel gazing is inherently flawed since seeing eye to eye on things will always be thwarted by the belly buttons that impinge on the view.
Which agreed with the consensus at the time–and today. Read the polls from the mid-70s.
As I keep saying, no one is stopping you. Go for it.
Why are you still confusing morality with legality? But yes, I would agree with your last sentence–“the right of individuals to dtermine their own morality that is absolute.” God created mankind knowing that they would sin. In other words, for God (and that’s good enough for me), free will is more important than sin.
Where is that coming from? Not me. If I believe something is morally wrong, I am bound by that, not the law. I wouldn’t ignore my own morality to follow the law; just the opposite. But that’s my own morality–I wouldn’t impose it on others. You’re STILL confusing morality and legality. Two different things.
Absolutely. Only God can determine if a conscience is well formed. I am not God. Therefore, I can’t determine that.
I don’t think you’ve read any of my posts. You say my argument is specious and then you go and repeat my own argument: “Murder is punishable by law because the majority of society believe that it is wrong.” Correct. Again, legality has nothing (necessarily) to do with morality.
It all depends on what you mean by “human life.” Obviously a human sperm and egg are not going to produce an elephant. So in that sense it’s “human life.” But in the sense that matters for the abortion debate–when does this collection of cells become an individual human being with a soul and all the rights of a human being–that’s a different story. As you say, the “infusion of a soul is another matter.” Exactly. And different religions have different beliefs concerning when that happens. And you are telling them they’re wrong, and they would say you are wrong.
Interesting reading of history. The pilgrims didn’t arrive in 1620 and set up a colony with freedom of religion. They set up their own theocracy; they just disagreed (as we are doing) as to who gets to impose their version of morality on everyone else. And sure, enough, pretty soon people that disagreed were forced to leave Massachusetts and set up their own colonies, where they could then impose yet another version of morality on everyone in that colony. But by the 18th c. in both England and the American colonies, people began to realize that wasn’t the way to go.
Now you’ve got it. But I have a feeling that you don’t realize that you’re acting as if you are God.
Exactly. And if I try to impose my vision on you, and you try to impose your vision on me, we have a problem.
So you have no idea whether your own conscience is well-formed or not? Nor do you have any idea whether doing this or that will lead to a better formed conscience than you currently have? You cannot determine that at all?
No, the Catholic Church does not “tell them they are wrong” with regard to the exact time that a human body, created at conception, contains a soul. Rather, since we don’t know when God infuses the immortal soul, we err on the side of safety and consider conception to be the point at which protection should occur.
Actually you are incorrect here. Merely because some are usurpers does not imply that all are.HarryStotle:
Now you’ve got it. But I have a feeling that you don’t realize that you’re acting as if you are God.
I think you may need to follow some of @OneSheep threads so that you can fully appreciate this view.
What if it is God who proposes his vision to you and you still have a problem? Does God have no right to impose his vision, given that it is the perfectly right, true and good vision?
I suppose that if no one can, in principle, ever be correct about “acting as if they are God,” then acting as God becomes a completely null proposition. Not even God could then act as if he is God, according to your a priori beliefs about acting as God.
You’re being silly. Do I know with absolute certainly that my conscience is well fromed? Of cousre not. Neither do you. Neither does your local priest. Or his bishop. Or any of the cardinals. Or the pope. No one knows.
Ah, but God is all knowing! So we, as humans, can’t hold anyone responsible (morally–not legally!!!). But God can. Because God knows the person’s limitations, temptations, etc. etc. Just as a judge tries to take into account everything he can find out about a convicted criminal before imposing a sentence, God does the same–but perfectly.
Not perfectly, no.
As I said above, God holds each of us accountable. Not to some universal, absolute standard, but with concessions to our individual weaknesses. For example, I have never been attracted to the idea of drinking to excess. It just doesn’t appeal to me. I’m not being super moral, it just doesn’t tempt me. Others, for all sorts of genetic, psychological, or environmental reasons might be extremely tempted to drink to excess. Will–or should–God judge each of us equally if we get drunk? Of course not. I would be much more guilty, simply because I was better able to exercise my will to get drunk. Another person would have less of their will involved.
I agree. The Church plays it safe and errs (if it errs) on the side of pushing the “exact time” as early as possible.
Anyone who acts as if they are God belongs in an asylum, not in a position of power. Anyone.
Really? Please show me that in a Vatican II document or the catechism.
Actually, no. God gave man free will. He could have chosen otherwise–God could have created a universe where there was no sin and all creatures agreed on what “proper conscience” was. He didn’t. I rest my case.
I don’t doubt that it may be meaningless to them, but that does not relieve us of our obligation to know and speak the truth. We have a moral obligation to bring our faith into the public arena. We are to be salt and light to the world. That doesn’t mean everyone will agree with us.
I’m getting really tired of this. I have said over and over and over: knock yourself out. Lobby. Petition. Give money to candidates. Run for office. Do whatever you can to convince those who believe that abortion is OK that it’s not. But until “everyone” (a “consensus” to me) agrees, we shouldn’t pass a law imposing our morality on others.
Never? No. When you have convinced the vast majority of people that you are right. If you still have a significant portion of the population believing you are WRONG, you have a problem. That should be obvious. They try to convince you, you try to convince them. So far, as I’ve pointed out using polls, the anti-abortionists haven’t moved the needle in 40+ years.