Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 26 of 26
  1. #21  
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Hartford, CT USA
    Posts
    2,024
    Quote Originally Posted by Gingersnap View Post
    Now if they will just follow through and leave their church completely. There are innumerable secular organizations willing to take their money and their time. Saints and sinners belong together but sheep and wolves don't - at least not yet.
    Maybe, maybe not. :D

    They say there's a heaven for those who will wait
    Some say it's better but I say it ain't
    I'd rather laugh with the sinners than cry with the saints
    the Sinners are much more fun...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #22  
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,852
    Quote Originally Posted by FlaGator View Post
    Because you are not a believer you have erroneous concepts of how believers view God and the Church. This is understandable. The church doesn't hold one's soul for ransom either.
    Perhaps those outside the church are in the best position to evaluate it's character... I have been both inside and out of the Catholic church at least, and I would be hard pressed to describe what they do as anything but holding souls for ransom.... at least when they start taking hard stances on candidates and political issues.

    Personally I don't care one way or the other what the government does or does not do concerning the pill because that is a secular matter and between man and man's government.
    Bingo! Abortion is exactly the same. If I'm not mistaken, the church has a similar view in regards to the pill... which is why their stance on abortion's legal status is blatantly hypocritical.

    If I was asked to vote on a law that would outlaw the pill I might vote yes or I might vote no. I am not sure. I would have to know the details before I could make a intellectual decision on that. I can say that from my moral high horse that using the pill for abortion purposes is wrong. But I am not willing to through the baby out with the bath water. I know of no Scripture that says that birth control is wrong. Until such a time as someone can show me in Scripture where prevention is immoral I will support it. As Luther said "I cannot do otherwise".

    If someone decides to use the pill for abortion purposes then that is between them and God. Since the pill is legal they have that ability. The pill has dual uses, one I consider amoral and the other I see as immoral but I'm not the one who is going to have to speak with God about that decision to abort. I have enough issues in my life to answer to God for without adding someone else’s.
    There is no scriptural support for the idea that a newly conceived egg is a human being either. Using the pill for birth control, in essence, is using it for 'abortion purposes', since one of the ways it sometimes prevents pregnancy is by chemically inducing abortion of a conceived egg. I don't know of any common medical reason an abortion prohibitionist could use too justify the legality of the pill, where the circumstances were so grave, that the death of an infant is an acceptable risk.

    Intent only matters for the culpability of the person taking the pill. But in the end it results thousands/possibly millions of dead babies, according to the Catholic worldview... so one wonders how the church can remain so silent on the legality of the pill, regardless of intent of the people taking it (which in the vast majority of cases is simply to prevent pregnancy). Dead babies are still dead babies.

    That leads one to also wonder, how they can be so vocal and cantankerous on their member's own personal beliefs on the matter of abortion... and why I stand by my claim that they (church officials) have simply gone off their rockers (more-so than usual;)). They aren't just preaching that abortion is wrong... they are telling people its a sin, worthy of the harshest punishment available (excommunication) to think that government isnt the solution to this 'problem'!!

    If I didn't believe that my moral point of view right then it wouldn't be a moral point of view would it? It would be a opinion. Opinions are not morals. As I said above the government can do what it will do and if it wants to keep abortion legal then that is ok. However, if given the choice to vote on it I'm going to vote with my morals.

    The bolded portion is a completely hypocritical position my atheist friend. You seem to be saying that I can't use government to reflect my morals but you may use the government to force your morals on the unborn. My morality doesn't forbid me from using my morals for social decisions and apparently yours does. But you are now asking me to accept your morals and let abortion remain unfettered and my morals must remain silent. If abortion didn't involve the murder of the unborn I wouldn't have a problem with this and I would say fine let people make a morally poor decision if they want. Unfortunately a defenseless third party is involved so the situation is more complex. My morals tell me to defend those who can't defend themselves.
    Since when, in the conservative worldview, is the government the be-all and end-all solution for defending those you think need defending? You are perfectly free to defend them... just not with the threat of force.

    Coercing an entire nation of people to conform to a philosophically shaky position that they don't agree with by threat of government force is immoral... and (I don't bring this canard out often, but it's true in this case) unamerican! Like it or not, a slim but significant majority of people in this country feel very strongly that the government shouldn't outlaw abortion. One cannot hide from that fact that there are persuasive, solid arguments that human rights do not begin at conception. This cannot be swept under the rug and ignored while repeating the meme's about murder and baby butchery.

    We could stop all abortion tomorrow if we submitted to totalitarian style law enforcement on the issue. On the spot public executions for sympathizers etc etc.... but we know that would be cutting off our nose to spite our face. With a population with such strong emotions on both sides, and as divided as it is, you cannot even begin to hope make a significant dent in the practice by overturning a simple law unless you resort to such measures. This is the trade off we live with, in a democratic republic. The people must be convinced, not the government.

    Morals as enforced by the government must be secular morals, since they must rightly govern people of *all* religions as well as the non-religious.

    A person is made righteous by his relationship with God and not by his relationship to the Visible Church. A person does not answer to the Church for his sins but to God and Christ bleed to death to play for the sins of believers, not the Church. The only leverage a Church has over someone is the leverage that they give the Church. Many, and I mean many, people have left one Church to join another because they could not accept the teaching or moral views of the Church they previously attended. Lots of these people are Catholic. I am an Anglican and we have lots of people who were once Catholic. People are not as bound to their church as you seem to believe.
    I think you're minimizing just how powerful the churches influence over its members is. Threat of ex-communication... a punishment only served to the most grave offenders in the Catholic church.. the absolute most severe punishment the Church can give someone.
    Last edited by wilbur; 10-19-2008 at 06:47 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #23  
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,852
    Quote Originally Posted by Constitutionally Speaking View Post
    It IS alive and it IS human. The DNA proves it. Unless you want to contradict science, DNA determines species.
    Depends on what definition of species you use... the concept of species is a lot fuzzier than we typically think.

    Millions of cells that slough off of us on a daily basis have DNA... the live cells we may use for a DNA test have DNA. Interestingly enough, a down syndrome baby has extra DNA (a whole nother chromosome). A turners syndrome baby is missing a chromosome. So under your DNA criteria, is it OK to abort fetuses with these conditions?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #24  
    Power CUer FlaGator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    The Swamps of N. Florida
    Posts
    22,407
    Quote Originally Posted by wilbur View Post
    Perhaps those outside the church are in the best position to evaluate it's character... I have been both inside and out of the Catholic church at least, and I would be hard pressed to describe what they do as anything but holding souls for ransom.... at least when they start taking hard stances on candidates and political issues.
    <snip>
    I was going to give a point by point reply but I am unable to do that because of many misunderstandings you have concerning Scriptural doctrines. (For example you view a wrong and a sin as two different things as in:
    They aren't just preaching that abortion is wrong... they are telling people its a sin
    something morally wrong is a sin). Anyways I want to ask you this.

    What is so wrong with expecting people to make the right choice at the right time? We could end all abortion that way as well. All the pro-life side is saying is make the right choice before a life has to be taken. Choose abstinence and if that isn't acceptable choose prevention. What is wrong with people making those choices? In our society we have become so use to not being responsible for our actions that we extend it to every facet of our lives. I see parallels with abortion and jumping off a building. If I leap off a 10 story building then I can't decide to reverse my fall if I'm less than a 1/3 of the way from the top. I have to see things through to the end. That was the decision I made when I jumped. Same with abortion. A couple of people made a choice that they knew could result in a pregnancy and now the want a do over because the unthinkable happened. As conservatives are we suppose to want people to accept responsibilities for their decisions both good and bad? Why should pregnancy be held to a different standard?
    Last edited by FlaGator; 10-19-2008 at 08:56 PM.

    I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.
    C. S. Lewis
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #25  
    Power CUer
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Posts
    11,488
    FG, I agree with almost everything you're saying here. People should definitely use precaution; sometimes precautions fail. Some people simply are careless, but some take care and still have a failure. Abortion is not meant to be birth control, but it can be a remedy for when it fails.
    "Today, [the American voter] chooses his rulers as he buys bootleg whiskey, never knowing precisely what he is getting, only certain that it is not what it pretends to be." - H.L. Mencken
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #26  
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,852
    Quote Originally Posted by FlaGator View Post
    I was going to give a point by point reply but I am unable to do that because of many misunderstandings you have concerning Scriptural doctrines. (For example you view a wrong and a sin as two different things as in: something morally wrong is a sin). Anyways I want to ask you this.
    The church makes it quite clear, it is a grave sin to vote against a pro-life candidate if the other candidate is more moderate, period. How am I confusing things here?

    What is so wrong with expecting people to make the right choice at the right time? We could end all abortion that way as well. All the pro-life side is saying is make the right choice before a life has to be taken. Choose abstinence and if that isn't acceptable choose prevention. What is wrong with people making those choices?
    There's not much to argue with here, nothing is wrong with those choices... but abortion prohibitionists want to take it a step further, and make the choices for them... that's not personal responsibility, that's big government nanny-statism.... Very philosophically close to liberalism.. people can't be counted on to be responsible enough to weigh the issue themselves because they won't always make the choice that abortion prohibitionists want them to make... so lets just force them!
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •