Split from Open Mic- Struggling With The Catholic Faith

[4588686]

[quote name='Brother Adam' timestamp='1312419113' post='2281139']
Okay, sure. Let's say you are walking down the road and you see a baby struggling and drowning in 2 inches of water while her parents are watching and not doing anything. Is it okay for them to let their baby drown in two inches of water? Would you have an obligation to try to save the baby?[/QUOTE]

That's different from abortion in which the prohibition of abortion means the state dictating what a woman does with her body. You don't have to be pro-choice to see why your analogy is highly imperfect




[QUOTE]Why isn't it wrong to be an atheist? Can God both exist and not exist?[/QUOTE]

The fact that God either exists or does not exist has no immediate logical consequence on whether it is moral or immoral to be an atheist.

[Brother Adam]

That's different from abortion in which the prohibition of abortion means the state dictating what a woman does with her body. You don't have to be pro-choice to see why your analogy is highly imperfect

Seriously? Take it somewhere else, open another thread if you must, but this is not the thread for off topic discussions, and its ridiculous to say that "prohibition of abortion means the state dictating what a woman does with her body". While it is a form of serious physical and psychological torture, what happens to the unborn baby is more important. If you would prefer we could say that the baby is being beaten to death with a baseball bat while the mother stands by and watches.

The fact that God either exists or does not exist has no immediate logical consequence on whether it is moral or immoral to be an atheist.


She says she believes in God but thinks it is okay not to believe in God. If God exists then of course it has an immediate metaphysical consequence to be an atheist.

[Maggyie]

With regard to abortion - the main issue comes down to whether you are comfortable classifying a a set of humans as non-persons who therefore have no rights. Almost every educated person on both sides of the debate agrees that

a. the fetus is alive - a living creature with its own unique genetic structure and cell division
b. the fetus is human - its genetic structure has a human signature. In short it is a human fetus. It is not a random collection of cells; it definitely belongs to a specific species.

The question is, is it a PERSON. Only persons have rights. Non-persons have no rights. I'm not comfortable declaring that some humans are non-persons. To me, that is SO not our call. That attitude is the seed to all the violence we see around us, whether it is war, the death penalty, or oppression of women. Being pro-choice means being OK with violence as a response to the problems in our world. As frequently attributed to Mother Teraesa, "the fruit of abortion is nuclear war."

Every woman has a choice what to do with her body. The vast majority of terminations result from a woman and a man CHOOSING to have genital sex. If you do not insert a penis into a vagina, no pregnancy will result. It's not hard to avoid an unwanted pregnancy (easiest thing ever, actually) and multiple choices and decisions are made before it gets to that point. The same argument can be applied to dead-beat "dads" who claim they weren't given a choice in continuing the pregnancy and didn't want to support a child. They chose to accept the possible biological consequences of sex when they chose to have sex. Every woman should understand this: if you are healthy, you are fertile. CHOOSE your sexual behavior accordingly.

Of course there's the situation of rape and incest. Where the woman does not make a choice. Would you be comfortable outlawing abortion except in the case of rape and incest? Did you know, that's actually the position of the National Right to Life Committee. Not the Catholic Church, but the NRLC.

I don't think anybody would say it's immortal to be an atheist... the question is whether it's correct or incorrect.

Edited August 4, 2011 by Maggie

[4588686]

[quote name='Brother Adam' timestamp='1312424195' post='2281219']
Seriously? Take it somewhere else, open another thread if you must, but this is not the thread for off topic discussions, and its ridiculous to say that "prohibition of abortion means the state dictating what a woman does with her body". While it is a form of serious physical and psychological torture, what happens to the unborn baby is more important. If you would prefer we could say that the baby is being beaten to death with a baseball bat while the mother stands by and watches.[/QUOTE]

You're still missing the point. And my comment had nothing to do with validating abortion. Which I have not done here and would not do because I tend to view abortion as infanticide. That personal belief does not change the fact that you analogy is deeply flawed. the moral issue of abortion is intimately tied up with the issue of the extent to which a woman is sovereignty over her body. Maybe you believe that the child's right to life supersedes the woman's right to be sovereign over her body. That's perfectly respectable. What is less respectable is for you to totally bypass the moral complexity surrounding the issue so you can make a cheap, emotional analogy to try to guilt her into accepting your position rather than substantively engaging her reservations about the pro-life position.



[QUOTE]She says she believes in God but thinks it is okay not to believe in God. If God exists then of course it has an immediate metaphysical consequence to be an atheist.
[/quote]

It may. That depends on the nature of the God. Again you either missed the point or are here trying to ex post facto modify your original claim to make it more defensible. You offered as argument for the immorality of atheism that either God exists or he doesn't exist. That's true. Even an atheist could agree with that. But you try to suggest that it follows from that tautology that there are moral implications for not believing that God exists. That does not follow. Even if the proposition you draw as your conclusion is perfectly true it still does not follow logically from the premise that either there is a God or there is not a God.

[4588686]

[quote name='Maggie' timestamp='1312424348' post='2281221']
With regard to abortion - the main issue comes down to whether you are comfortable classifying a a set of humans as non-persons who therefore have no rights. Almost every educated person on both sides of the debate agrees that

a. the fetus is alive - a living creature with its own unique genetic structure and cell division
b. the fetus is human - its genetic structure has a human signature. In short it is a human fetus. It is not a random collection of cells; it definitely belongs to a specific species.

The question is, is it a PERSON. Only persons have rights. Non-persons have no rights. I'm not comfortable declaring that some humans are non-persons. To me, that is SO not our call. That attitude is the seed to all the violence we see around us, whether it is war, the death penalty, or oppression of women. Being pro-choice means being OK with violence as a response to the problems in our world. As frequently attributed to Mother Teraesa, "the fruit of abortion is nuclear war."

Every woman has a choice what to do with her body. The vast majority of terminations result from a woman and a man CHOOSING to have genital sex. If you do not insert a penis into a vagina, no pregnancy will result. It's not hard to avoid an unwanted pregnancy (easiest thing ever, actually) and multiple choices and decisions are made before it gets to that point. The same argument can be applied to dead-beat "dads" who claim they weren't given a choice in continuing the pregnancy and didn't want to support a child. They chose to accept the possible biological consequences of sex when they chose to have sex. Every woman should understand this: if you are healthy, you are fertile. CHOOSE your sexual behavior accordingly.

Of course there's the situation of rape and incest. Where the woman does not make a choice. Would you be comfortable outlawing abortion except in the case of rape and incest? Did you know, that's actually the position of the National Right to Life Committee. Not the Catholic Church, but the NRLC.

I don't think anybody would say it's immortal to be an atheist... the question is whether it's correct or incorrect.
[/quote]


Just to be clear. I'm not trying to argue that abortion is moral. At all. I just think Bro. Adam's argument is sophistic.

[Amppax]

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1312424795' post='2281228']

You're still missing the point. And my comment had nothing to do with validating abortion. Which I have not done here and would not do because I tend to view abortion as infanticide. That personal belief does not change the fact that you analogy is deeply flawed. the moral issue of abortion is intimately tied up with the issue of the extent to which a woman is sovereignty over her body. Maybe you believe that the child's right to life supersedes the woman's right to be sovereign over her body. That's perfectly respectable. What is less respectable is for you to totally bypass the moral complexity surrounding the issue so you can make a cheap, emotional analogy to try to guilt her into accepting your position rather than substantively engaging her reservations about the pro-life position.





It may. That depends on the nature of the God. Again you either missed the point or are here trying to ex post facto modify your original claim to make it more defensible. You offered as argument for the immorality of atheism that either God exists or he doesn't exist. That's true. Even an atheist could agree with that. But you try to suggest that it follows from that tautology that there are moral implications for not believing that God exists. That does not follow. Even if the proposition you draw as your conclusion is perfectly true it still does not follow logically from the premise that either there is a God or there is not a God.
[/quote]

sovereign. not sovereignty. and yeah, when you put it like that it is pretty simple. Someone's right to life does come before someone's right to comfort.

[4588686]

[quote name='Amppax' timestamp='1312425087' post='2281234']

sovereign. not sovereignty. and yeah, when you put it like that it is pretty simple. Someone's right to life does come before someone's right to comfort.
[/quote]


You corrected a misspelling and purposefully misrepresented my argument so you could respond with a sarcastic rebuttal. Which is to say you constructed a straw man. That's fine for an internet forum. I've done it before here too. Be sure you can recognize the deficiencies of this as an actual rebuttal before you get to college. Just a heads up.

[4588686]

I'm not responding to anything else here regarding my rebuttal to Bro Adam. If you all want to continue this elsewhere I'm happy to. But this is getting off topic. That's completely my fault. I apologize. I shouldn't have made a controversial response on this thread. But let's drop it here. I'm happy to continue on another thread though.

[Amppax]

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1312425560' post='2281239']
I'm not responding to anything else here regarding my rebuttal to Bro Adam. If you all want to continue this elsewhere I'm happy to. But this is getting off topic. That's completely my fault. I apologize. I shouldn't have made a controversial response on this thread. But let's drop it here. I'm happy to continue on another thread though.
[/quote]

you're right. sorry. this isn't the time or place.

Edited August 4, 2011 by Amppax

[4588686]

[quote name='Amppax' timestamp='1312426364' post='2281251']

you're right. sorry. this isn't the time or place.
[/quote]


Yeah but it's somewhat unfair that I got to respond to you all and you all didn't get to respond to me before we decided we needed to halt. So If a Mod would split this to another thread I'd appreciate it. Unless you all have no wish to continue.

[MIKolbe]

topic's split...debate away..be holy

[Amppax]

[quote name='MIkolbe' timestamp='1312457048' post='2281414']
topic's split...debate away..be holy
[/quote]
Thanks MIkolbe!

[Adrestia]

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1312419403' post='2281145']
[quote name='Brother Adam' timestamp='1312419113' post='2281139']
Okay, sure. Let's say you are walking down the road and you see a baby struggling and drowning in 2 inches of water while her parents are watching and not doing anything. Is it okay for them to let their baby drown in two inches of water? Would you have an obligation to try to save the baby?
[/quote]
That's different from abortion in which the prohibition of abortion means the state dictating what a woman does with her body. You don't have to be pro-choice to see why your analogy is highly imperfect
[/quote]

Whether one classifies Brother Adam's analogy as sophistic depends on how one defines life. Some people see in utero children as parasites that have no rights until they're breathing air. Some people believe that in utero children have rights, but those rights are not as important as the mother's rights. The church teaches that children have the same right to live within the womb as they do outside of the womb. In the context of the church's teachings about the sanctity of life, the analogy could be "if you saw a mother drowning her baby" instead of "if you saw a mother letting her baby drown." In my opinion, the analogy is irrelevant to the topic. If a person does not value the life of the in utero child to the same extent as the life of the mother, no analogy will mean anything.

On the topic of abortion, there is more involved than the rights of the child. There is major emotional damage to the mother, father, and the rest of the family. In my opinion, abortion doesn't just kill the child, it also kills a part of the mother, the father, grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins, and everyone that loved the child.

[Ice_nine]

I love analogies! Can I play?

So you have a set of conjoined twins, each having their own brain, heart, and most of their internal organs. One is in relatively good health, but the other has a severe mental handicap and his/her cognitive skills may never progress to that of a typical adult. Doctors are fairly certain that a surgery which attempts to separate the twins into two independent bodies a would probably result in the immediate death of at least one of the twins, and perhaps complications from the surgery would cause the other to die within a few years anyway.

However, the doctors also propose if they euthanize one twin and focus all their efforts onto saving the other, that the chances of a normal life for the living twin would be exponentially greater. After all they could use any parts they needed from the deceased twin because he/she wouldn't need them for him/herself anymore. One of the twins is severely mentally handicapped anyway, he/she has little to no self-awareness, reasoning skills, and perhaps with time and therapy and medical discoveries these conditions can be improved, but who knows? The other twin, should they remained joined, will be severely impeded by the handicapped twin physically and his/her brother/sister will probably hold him/her back in almost all practical areas of life. He/she will not have sovereignty over his/her own body, as the twins' life are co-dependent on one another.

Given the circumstances is it ok to kill the mentally handicapped twin to improve the life of the "normal" twin?

Sure every analogy has it's breaking point, but I think that's pretty beaver dam close. Unfortunately I think people who ascribe to a strictly materialistic atheism would say that to kill one twin would be permissible.

[Amppax]

[quote name='Adrestia' timestamp='1312475655' post='2281484']

Whether one classifies Brother Adam's analogy as sophistic depends on how one defines life. Some people see in utero children as parasites that have no rights until they're breathing air. Some people believe that in utero children have rights, but those rights are not as important as the mother's rights. The church teaches that children have the same right to live within the womb as they do outside of the womb. In the context of the church's teachings about the sanctity of life, the analogy could be "if you saw a mother drowning her baby" instead of "if you saw a mother letting her baby drown." In my opinion, the analogy is irrelevant to the topic. If a person does not value the life of the in utero child to the same extent as the life of the mother, no analogy will mean anything.

On the topic of abortion, there is more involved than the rights of the child. There is major emotional damage to the mother, father, and the rest of the family. In my opinion, abortion doesn't just kill the child, it also kills a part of the mother, the father, grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins, and everyone that loved the child.
[/quote]
this. especially the first paragraph.