Well they, like the rest of us, don’t have direct access to God’s mind. It would be nice, of course, if we did but that wasn’t God’s plan. Hence people will always be prone to error.
You referred to sex as an expression of love, not maturity. Why does the girl need to be mature, or even have reached puberty. I mean, the love of a father or mother for their small child is great. If sex is allowable on the basis of love, the result is pedophilia, something that the gay rights movement is opening the door to, as you confirmed in your previous post.
Maybe pedophilia will be legal, at least in California, by the 40th.Exactly. We don’t, or shouldn’t, have sex with most people we love. An adult man may very much love his mother but he shouldn’t express his love by having sex with her. Hopefully almost everyone still finds that repulsive, but who knows with the love is love movement. They have no rational grounds for condemning it.You referred to sex as an expression of love, not maturity. Why does the girl need to be mature, or even have reached puberty. I mean, the love of a father or mother for their small child is great. If sex is allowable on the basis of love, the result is pedophilia, something that the gay rights movement is opening the door to, as you confirmed in your previous post.
Yeah, happy 20th.
I prefer not to confuse the eggs with the chickens.
Also the acorns with the oak trees. Moreover, the medical students with the doctors. There is qualitative and quantitative difference and it is a serious logical error not to distinguish them. There is a good reason for using a different nomenclature and not just for the sake of clarity.For that you can blame God. He could inform us about his preferences - and I mean directly, so there could be no confusion. I know that the church claims to speak for God, but there are soooo many claims…Well they, like the rest of us, don’t have direct access to God’s mind. It would be nice, of course, if we did but that wasn’t God’s plan. Hence people will always be prone to error.
Yes, and I am glad you did not.
Thank goodness for that.You got that right. Not just the message is problematic, but the excuse: “we hate what you do, but we love you, and want to save your soul” is unconvincing. I heard a quick rebuttal: “worry about your own salvation, I will worry about mine”.
I understand, but you are a minuscule and ever shrinking minority.
That’s no problem. I’ll be careful not to refer to fetuses as “babies”.I prefer not to confuse the eggs with the chickens.
I’m just happy to belong to a Church that is tolerant toward people who disagree with us – see the Second Vatican Council’s Declaration on Religious Freedom,For that you can blame God. He could inform us about his preferences - and I mean directly, so there could be no confusion. I know that the church claims to speak for God, but there are soooo many claims…
Yes, today it is undoubtedly true. In the dark ages it was not true. Only a few dozens of years ago the non-Christians were called “infidels” (and the infidels called the Christians “infidels”, too
hilarious!) and both sides were extremely intolerant of the other one.What is the personhood of bunch of cells? Before the brain develops?
Here, typing this response. I am a bunch of cells and a whole microcosm of bacteria, tying away.
And, we can change the legal definition of “baby” any time we want, so the legal definition isn’t really all that helpful.Good thing our society doesn’t allow the murder of what are legally considered babies then
Well, the brain doesn’t fully develop until the early-to-mid twenties for most people; does that make the killing of a 15-year old less serious than that of a 30-year old?
Well I doubt you and I will be watching many comedies together, as we apparently have very different ideas of what’s hilarious. But regardless, I agree absolutely that the Catholic Church has become far more tolerant in modern times, as have many other denominations and religions.Yes, today it is undoubtedly true. In the dark ages it was not true. Only a few dozens of years ago the non-Christians were called “infidels” (and the infidels called the Christians “infidels”, too
Fetuses have brains – in fact, most embryos have brains. The brain develops early in the first trimester.
That “tail” is actually the child’s brain stem.
The law could just as easily make it legal to kill any baby under two, in nod to King Herod. Using legal definitions is not very helpful. Blacks were once legally three fifths a person.
I would be willing to stipulate that as soon as the brain’s electrical activity starts (which is about 12 weeks) it is a good point to consider the fetus to be a human being. But not until then.
I’m reminded of a science fiction story I read years ago. A couple, both scientists, are working on the project to listen for communications from other intelligent life from outer space. One day, their equipment picks up what is clearly a pattern. There is much excitement around the world. We’ve found intelligent life! We’re not alone in the universe!For that you can blame God. He could inform us about his preferences - and I mean directly, so there could be no confusion. I know that the church claims to speak for God, but there are soooo many claims…
So would agree with me that there can be legal restrictions at least on second trimester abortions?
Yes, it would be a rational compromise. Of course I would like to see some compromise from your side - concerning contraception. Unfortunately neither one is likely to happen.