'Yep, I'm Gay': Happy 20th out anniversary, Ellen DeGeneres

[Vera_Ljuba]

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!

The de-coding and analysis begin and words begin to emerge. In the beginning… The first chapter of Genesis emerges. It’s published on the front page of every newspaper in the world. Over the next days, more and more of Genesis is emitted from signals coming from outer space.

Which language would the broadcast use? Hopefully not ancient Aramaic, Hebrew, etc…? No one would understand it. Would the broadcast be then in all the modern languages? Which translation would be used?

I personally think God has been very direct in telling us His preference, so to speak, that the Catholic Church is His truest and most reliable voice on earth: The apostolic succession. “You are Peter and on this rock I build my church.” ~ Jesus

Not a big surprise, since the church selected, which ancient texts are authentic “words of God”, and which ones are apocryphal.

Look at the lives of the saints, the Incorruptibles, the Eucharistic miracles, miracles that follow Rosaries and novenas.

Where? They are just stories.

But believing these things might throw us up against a culture that will criticize us. Better to not believe them.

Keep on believing them, if you are so inclined. But be prepared for the criticism. Just one example. The concept of “hell”, meaning eternal torture and punishment is a major obstacle in taking the “good” new seriously.

 

[Peter_J]

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.

Not sure what you mean by the second sentence. I don’t know of anyone trying to overturn Griswold, so I guess you’re talking about other countries – or you’re talking about our expression of our belief that it is wrong (along with homosexual sex, premarital sex, and masturbation). But our exercise of our First amendment right doesn’t infringe on anyone else’s rights, so …

 

[Peter_J]

Not a big surprise, since the church selected, which ancient texts are authentic “words of God”, and which ones are apocryphal.

Would you mind telling that to my friends who are Baptist, Presbyterian, Methodist, Lutheran, and Anglican?

 

[pnewton]

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.

I for one would compromise on this, as a nod to the fact that we are living in a pluralistic society. I can understand the need to accommodate conscience in the choices people make, good or bad in areas that do not harm another living human being.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

I for one would compromise on this, as a nod to the fact that we are living in a pluralistic society. I can understand the need to accommodate conscience in the choices people make, good or bad in areas that do not harm another living human being.

I am confused. If you agree that a fetus without a working brain is not a human BEING yet, then abortion before that time does not harm another living human being. Can’t have both.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

Would you mind telling that to my friends who are Baptist, Presbyterian, Methodist, Lutheran, and Anglican?

They are already aware of it.

 

[pnewton]

I am confused. If you agree that a fetus without a working brain is not a human BEING yet, then abortion before that time does not harm another living human being.

I do not agree that a fetus is not a human being.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

I do not agree that a fetus is not a human being.

So what is your definition of a human being? With Peter J we seem to be in agreement that a brain with electro-chemical activity would be the a good compromising point. You also agreed. So why do you backpedal now?

 

[Arizona_Fat_Gir]

My husband used to call Ellen, Ellen Degenerate. He really thought that was her name. It wasn’t a joke or a slur. He could never get names right.

 

[Peter_J]

So what is your definition of a human being? With Peter J we seem to be in agreement that a brain with electro-chemical activity would be the a good compromising point. You also agreed. So why do you backpedal now?

You’re responding to

I do not agree that a fetus is not a human being.

But I do not agree that a fetus is not a human being either.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

This is what you said:

So would [you] agree with me that there can be legal restrictions at least on second trimester abortions?

Why do you propose NOT to have restrictions during the first trimester? Because that is what your post implied though it did not say it explicitly.

But I do not agree that a fetus is not a human being either.

The same question arises: “How can an entity without a brain be declared a human being?” We can lose all of our body parts and replace them with artificial prostheses and we are still what we were before. We might lose some of our capabilities, but as long as our brain works, we are humans.

As I said before: There are huge changes going on during our development. Some are quantitative, others are qualitative. There is a good reason to use a different nomenclature for the different stages (zygote, embryo, fetus). Which is the point when the collection of the cells becomes a human being? And “why” that point and not another?

 

[Peter_J]

This is what you said:

Why do you propose NOT to have restrictions during the first trimester? Because that is what your post implied though it did not say it explicitly.

There’s no reason for anyone to propose not having restrictions during the first trimester, that’s already the way it is – at least in America where I live.

The second trimester is where the debate lies. I believe there should be restrictions on abortions throughout the second trimester, pro-choice groups disagree obviously.

Edit: And of course it’s troubling to me that a handful of states don’t have laws against third trimester abortions.

 

[at9009]

There’s no reason for anyone to propose not having restrictions during the first trimester, that’s already the way it is – at least in America where I live.

The second trimester is where the debate lies. I believe there should be restrictions on abortions throughout the second trimester, pro-choice groups disagree obviously.

Edit: And of course it’s troubling to me that a handful of states don’t have laws against third trimester abortions.

To be honest the whole debate about when or not abortion is morally ethically from the pro-choice stand point is entirely flawed and weak. Just using my deduction if a baby is a baby at 20 weeks therefore cannot be aborted, why would 16 weeks not also be important since it becomes teh baby if left untouched?

Let’s not forget most of embryonic development and organ genesis is completed around 8 weeks and rest is fetal development and maturation.

However this entire discussion is kind of off topic of the original thread and may better serve as a new thread entirely

 

[pnewton]

So what is your definition of a human being? With Peter J we seem to be in agreement that a brain with electro-chemical activity would be the a good compromising point. You also agreed. So why do you backpedal now?

So many question and one false statement. I did not agree on a definition of when life begins, much less something like you came up with. I will have to go with life beginning at conception, with the caveat that I really have no idea.

The point it, a mother contemplating an abortion also does not know when that which is in her has a soul given by God. So, what is it called if you take an action which may or may not end a human life? If you do end a human life, it is called manslaughter. If you take an action that might end the life of another but you do not, it is called reckless conduct. At best, abortion at any time is reckless. So I do not have to say when life begins. The burden of proof is 100% on the one wanting abortion, or in this case, the legalization of abortion. Yet to date, there is no such proof of life beginning later than conception.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

The point it, a mother contemplating an abortion also does not know when that which is in her has a soul given by God.

Not even the church dares to say about the moment of “ensoulment” - any more. So to refer to the soul is a logical error. Of course, as soon as you can provide a soul-o-meter, which can accurately prove that a soul exists (and what kind!), then the whole conversation can be restarted from square “one”.

 

[18Gingasoldier]

Why is this thread talking about abortion, when the title indicates something else? This is not the thread to talk about abortion. You can make another thread and continue the discussion there.

 

[MrZoom]

Hard to believe it’s been 20 years since Ellen came out. Also weird thinking back to when such an event was a huge deal. A lot has changed in 20 years in that regard. Out actors and characters on TV are not particularly unusual anymore.

Actually, I’m surprised that it’s only been 20 years. For some reason I thought it had been longer than that.

 

[holyrood]

Which language would the broadcast use? Hopefully not ancient Aramaic, Hebrew, etc…? No one would understand it. Would the broadcast be then in all the modern languages? Which translation would be used?

It’s beside the point. Is it any more or less coincidental if the Bible is spelled out, verse by verse in Aramaic, English, Hebrew, or Russian? To me, this is a perfect example of trying to obfuscate the point. And what good does it do you in the end, if God is indeed who and as Christians believe? Are these clever little points going to impress Him?

Where? They are just stories.

They are ‘just stories’ in the same sense that the Holocaust is ‘just a story.’ I’m guessing no one on this board witnessed it. But we have plenty of reports. Or the way the Revolutionary War is ‘just a story.’ No one here witnessed it. But we have many eye-witness reports.

roman-catholic-saints.com/incorruptible-saints.html
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorruptibility
listverse.com/2007/08/21/top-10-incorrupt-corpses/

Do some research. My understanding is that it is possible to go visit some of these and see them for yourself. I haven’t, personally, but then, I haven’t seen the Revolutionary War or the Holocaust, either.

therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/a3.html

These ‘events’ if you don’t wish to call them miracles, have been studied by scientists and doctors. Blood types and muscle and tissue types have been identified.

Keep on believing them, if you are so inclined. But be prepared for the criticism. Just one example. The concept of “hell”, meaning eternal torture and punishment is a major obstacle in taking the “good” new seriously.

As long as the ‘criticism’ is in the spirit of genuine open-minded questioning, I have no problem. Criticism for the sake of criticism…I have no problem with that, either. It’s not my eternity at stake.

I have good news. There’s a land of milk and honey, of beauty and opportunity, of abundance and happiness, where people are kind to one another and you’ll live in joy. Just one thing. The way to that land runs near a windy cliff with a sharp drop-off. Your chances of arriving at this land are better if you stay as far as possible from that windy cliff. If you get too close, the wind may blow you to your death or the edge may crumble and drop you to your death.

Does the danger of the cliff nullify the good news of that beautiful land? Are you going to say that beautiful land doesn’t exist because some people choose to run too close to that cliff and by their own choices fall to their death?

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

It’s beside the point. Is it any more or less coincidental if the Bible is spelled out, verse by verse in Aramaic, English, Hebrew, or Russian? To me, this is a perfect example of trying to obfuscate the point.

You are mistaken. The point is that the information is not first hand. Why should I accept your word for something that is just a 2000 years old story, written by unknown people, selected by other unknown people, translated by other people, none of whom were present at the events they described. If you really think that reference to the Holocaust is somehow on the same level of credibility, then you have a very serious problem.

And what good does it do you in the end, if God is indeed who and as Christians believe?

That would be the worst possible news.

Are these clever little points going to impress Him?

I would prefer God to impress me.

 

[JanetF]

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.

Human DNA is present from the moment of conception, therefore it’s a human being from the moment of conception.