The Objective Morality Debate

[xSilverPhinx]

[quote name='havok579257' timestamp='1307802455' post='2252344']
no matter if its a losing battle or not, you continue to stand up and fight for what is right. trying to fight terrorism is a losing battle, although if you were president would you tell the american people its a losing battle so we should just stop fighting terrorism? if its a losing battle or not, that does not chnage the morality of something. if you stand opposed to morality on these issues then you stand against God. that is not something that we should ever do. if you think its s lolsing battle that's one thing. although to come out in support of something immoral is another thing. my advice, for your own soul, stand in accordance with church teaching and don't support immoral things. God's law is always right.[/quote]

Depends on how you fight it, and the Church is just not doing a good job of it if it's not working.

[xSilverPhinx]

[quote name='havok579257' timestamp='1307802963' post='2252350']
actually i would say sex education directly increases the odds of hiv,stds, abortions and unwanted pregnancies. look at the statistics for this generation where so called sex education is more than its ever been. now how can you tell me sex education is working?
[/quote]

Because promoting chasity is not working for larger numbers. If it doesn't work, it doesn't work.

It's a question of what's the lesser evil, though as MissScripture clarified, does not apply in the case of contraceptives. Absolute morality in this case is something which I personally think is a flaw.

[Socrates]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1307647164' post='2251707']
They wouldn't be the decider, they would assess the criteria and give the patient the option if the criteria is met. They would then administer the solution at request only.
Regardless what you have been told by your church, this is a very humane thing to do.
If I were in the situation, I would want the option. I don't know why non religious patients and non religious doctors need to follow your religious based rules.
Surley Catholics can teach Catholics not to take the option when offered rather than influencing law. This would be as successful as Catholics teaching Catholics not to have sex before marriage. Ultimately god gave people free will for a reason.
[/quote]
The criteria set for killing a human being would remain something completely arbitrary. The determination of what level of pain or suffering we start considering "unbearable" remains completely subjective. Doctors should try to[i] save[/i] life as far as reasonably possible (in accord with the Hippocratic oath), not deliberately destroy it.

As far as following "religiously based rules," what if the doctors at a certain hospital deemed in their own judgment that the life of the sick and infirm had absolutely no intrinsic value at all, and started just killing off whatever patients they deemed had lives not worth living or a "drain on the system"?

I'm sure at this point you'd bring up something about the rights of the patients or their families, but lets say the doctors in question declared that the whole idea of "rights" was a lot of quasi-religious philosophical nonsense that they did not believe in. Why do they need to follow other people's rules?

The point is, unless you're advocating absolute nihilism, people have to play by somebody's set of rules whether they agree or not. And I think an ethos based on the sanctity of human life and "thou shalt not kill" is far more desirable than one in which we decide it's okay to kill innocent human persons based on arbitrary criteria.

And sorry, but Christians have just as much right to influence law as atheists.

[havok579257]

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1307826493' post='2252462']
Because promoting chasity is not working for larger numbers. If it doesn't work, it doesn't work.

It's a question of what's the lesser evil, though as MissScripture clarified, does not apply in the case of contraceptives. Absolute morality in this case is something which I personally think is a flaw.
[/quote]


except chastity is the only thing that can solve the aids epidemic and the std epidemic. promoting sex with numerous people will not solve the aids and std epidemic. no matter how much athiests tell us it will. having sex with only one partner your whole life will eliminate the problems over a few generations. promotion of sex with everyone and anyone will make the problem worse.

[havok579257]

[quote name='kujo' timestamp='1307823913' post='2252445']
I won't bother to refute the claims you made within that post because it would involve picking through it with a finer comb than I possess. Suffice to say that a sex education class that taught that sex is no different than drinking a soda would not be one worth teaching; however, offering one that educated the students on the moral and literal consequences of the actions--ie. all of the bad things you mentioned-- and how best to avoid them--abstinence first; contraceptives second-- would be a lot better than simply saying "don't do it."

Again, it would always be preferable for everyone to wait for marriage; however, abstinence is NOT 100% effective. Beyond it's obviously limited mass-appeal, it offers no protection against rape. Say you caught an STD from such a heinous act; sure, wearing a condom wouldn't have been an option in THAT moment. But somewhere along the line, someone had unprotected sex with someone else, who caught the STD and passed it on and on and on until it reached you. At some point--whether through ignorance or indifference-- someone chose NOT to protect themselves from disease. And while it might be nice to hope for a world where the best answer--again, [b]I believe that abstinence is the ideal answer here (I can't stress that enough)[/b]-- is taken by all, the real world beckons us to reality. And the reality is that it's better to have an educated population than an uneducated one.

**Edited to organize paragraphs better.
[/quote]


not worth it

Edited June 11, 2011 by havok579257

[Socrates]

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1307648304' post='2251717']
You make it sound as if the decision is being made by others rather than the person themselves. It's not the doctor that tells the patient that since they're terminally ill and will suffer till their last days that they should accept suicide based on doctors recommendations.

What right do people have to keep people from ending their own suffering? I agree with Stevil, I think people should be allowed to make such choices for themselves without others who have nothing to do with anything step in and selfishly force measures on them that keeps them in their suffering.

I think the religious black and white approach to this is selfish and cruel, disguised as compassion and caring.
[/quote]
Well good that you see us Christians as the cruel, selfish, nasty people we really are, unlike you sweet atheistic types. It's so selfish to spend one's time and efforts to care for and save the lives of the sick and ailing, rather than heroically and selfishly shooting them on request like any saintly person would. No doubt most who care for the sick and dying just do so for the cruel selfish pleasure they get out of watching other people suffer.


But seriously, if I were depressed and said my life was miserable and I found life's sufferings unbearable, and wanted my life to end, but wanted someone else to do it for me (because I was afraid of botching my suicide or something), and let's say I was not really terminally ill or in extreme physical pain, though maybe I had an unpleasant though not extreme chronic medical condition, would it be moral for you to kill me just because I insisted that's what I wanted?
Or should you instead try to help me help so my live would be saved?

Do you think we should have assisted suicide on demand to whomever asks for it?

After all, exactly what kind of physical pain is bearable or not depends a lot on the individual and his attitude. If it's "selfish and cruel" to deny suicide to a terminally ill person, because he "should be allowed to make such choices for himself," then is it also selfish and cruel to refuse to assist the suicide of a physically healthy person if he makes that choice?

Where do you draw that line, or should suicide assistance be available to all, young and old, sick or healthy? After all, to do otherwise would be denying some people their choice.

[Socrates]

[quote name='kujo' timestamp='1307741946' post='2252179']
Peace, brother. I'm quite well aware of the Church's teach on sexuality, and I absolutely agree with it; however, it's one of those round-hole square-peg sorta things. Is the goal to be "right" or is the goal to prevent the spread of disease and limit unplanned pregnancies (and, therefore, abortions)?
[/quote]
Interesting that rates of both STDs and abortions were much lower back in the days before the pill and the sexual revolution, and the explosion in contraception use, sex ed, and condoms passed out in schools.

Interesting that people laughed at Pope Paul VI when he stated in [i]Humanae Vita[/i]e that widespread use of contraception would lead to greater acceptance of abortion, and a breakdown in marriage and the family. Yet his words have proved prophetic. Contraception is not the "cure" for abortion, but the contraceptive mentality and widespread abortion go hand-in-hand.

Catholics should be preaching sexual morality and respect for life, not the sin of contraception.

[kujo]

[quote name='havok579257' timestamp='1307828441' post='2252471']
not worth it
[/quote]

What isn't worth it? Answer my questions or investing the "science" (or lack of it) behind your beliefs?

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1307829269' post='2252475']
Interesting that rates of both STDs and abortions were much lower back in the days before the pill and the sexual revolution, and the explosion in contraception use, sex ed, and condoms passed out in schools.

Interesting that people laughed at Pope Paul VI when he stated in [i]Humanae Vita[/i]e that widespread use of contraception would lead to greater acceptance of abortion, and a breakdown in marriage and the family. Yet his words have proved prophetic. Contraception is not the "cure" for abortion, but the contraceptive mentality and widespread abortion go hand-in-hand.

Catholics should be preaching sexual morality and respect for life, not the sin of contraception.
[/quote]

I would agree that there appears to have been a gigantic increase in STDs and abortions in the last 60-70 years, though I would wonder whether there were some other explanatory factors behind the simple increase in amount of sexual partners each person has. Then there's the whole question regarding the accuracy and reliability of any data we had on such things outside of that time frame, especially as it pertains to abortions; how could we know how many abortions were occurring if it was illegal in some/most states in the U.S.?

I would also agree that the permissive mindset of our hyper-sexualized culture is undoubtedly one of the culprits in all of this.

I guess my main point isn't that the Church should revise its position; rather, I think that comprehensive sexual education (i.e- full course that gives equal weight to both abstinence AND contraceptives) ought to be taught in schools while the family and the churches should be dutiful and diligent in preaching the Gospel of Life and advocating for sexual morality. That balance is the only tenable thing to hope for; if we have ALL of the facts, we can make a better decision. That's my opinion anyway.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1307765829' post='2252279']
I made love to my wife/girlfriend for about 10 years before we decided to start having babies. Stopped using condom and voila, a baby.
Hard to trust this 15% failure rate, what's your source?
[/quote]
U.S. Government

[kujo]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' timestamp='1307831821' post='2252489']
U.S. Government
[/quote]

I could be mistaken, but isn't a large portion of the 15% failure rate due to an assortment of human error? If so, wouldn't that number decrease alongside an increase in the sort of sexual education that includes a thorough portion dedicated to condom usage?

Just a thought.

[kujo]

It might also be useful to clarify exactly what is meant by "comprehensive sexual education," since the term is close to becoming trite within the confines of this discussion.

[havok579257]

[quote name='kujo' timestamp='1307830365' post='2252482']
What isn't worth it? Answer my questions or investing the "science" (or lack of it) behind your beliefs?

[/quote]


its not worth it to argue with a someone who is catholic but does not agree with the church and opposes church teaching. all that will happen is that i will say your not following church teaching and your going against what the church teaches. you'll claim otherwise or claim that your not technically against church teaching. it will degrade into an arguement that will go no where. you are obviously not ready to accept ALL that the catholic church teaches. hopefully in time you will, for your own sake. although to many times on these boards any arguement degrades into a catholic who folllows all church teaches and a catholic who does not follow all church teachings arguement. then judging comes out from both sides and so does being sarcastic and rude. things that are not good for either involved. so that is not worth it. arguing with an athiest makes sense since they have their own beliefs. arguing with a catholic who does not hold all the catholic beliefs does not make sense. to me, being a catholic is all or nothing.

[stevil]

[quote name='havok579257' timestamp='1307834216' post='2252501']
you are obviously not ready to accept ALL that the catholic church teaches. hopefully in time you will, for your own sake.[/quote]
I very much respect a person's ability to think for themselves rather than give up that human right and to align your thoughts with that of an organisation.

[xSilverPhinx]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1307837730' post='2252528']
I very much respect a person's ability to think for themselves rather than give up that human right and to align your thoughts with that of an organisation.
[/quote]

Seconded.

[havok579257]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1307837730' post='2252528']
I very much respect a person's ability to think for themselves rather than give up that human right and to align your thoughts with that of an organisation.
[/quote]


if you don't want to align your thoughts with the catholic church then don't call yourself catholic. its that simple. by saying your catholic and then not representing what the catholic church believes in produces scandel. its no different than a person who is a part of the civil rights movement. if they don't agree with rights for all people no matter skin color then they should not be part of the group. it produces scandel.