Election Results & Comments

[KnightofChrist]

55 minutes ago, Peace said:

That is not an argument that has any weight with abortionists (and most scientists), because they believe that there is a distinction between human beings and human persons. They have criteria for personhood such as cognizance, etc.

You might be better off to prove that all human beings have a right to life, regardless of their personhood.

We're both saying the same basic thing though. The only time when the personhood of certain human beings is questioned is when others look for reasons to justify killing or otherwise abusing legal 'nonperson' persons.

Cognizance, human form, independence or the lack therefor has always been used to justify denying personhood to a group of people and that has always been used to enslave, murder, or abuse that particular group of people.

Personally, with friends and family at least, I have found pointing out that their justifications for denying personhood to babies is just recycled  logic that was used to deny personhood to countless other groups of people through out history. Many times the response is something along the lines of "I've never thought of it that way before." Which is something at least. It worked for my father, he went from being strongly pro-choice, which he thought of as pro-woman to being prolife because he has always been against other forms of bigotry (whether that bigotry is based in kkk kind of hate, or coldhearted completely indifferent kind of hate.)

Edited November 11, 2016 by KnightofChrist

[Credo in Deum]

[Guest]

To cover themselves ... and their front page ...The [Sydney Aust] Daily Telegraph is saying the acronym definition is "Will Trump flourish or fail?"

http://www.businessinsider.com.au/sydneys-daily-telegraph-has-a-brilliant-front-page-capturing-what-even-conservatives-think-about-trump-2016-11

     

 

[Guest]

A quite good commentary from Catholic Culture on the recent election in the USA:
 

Quote

 

http://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/otn.cfm?id=1184

Excerpts: ".............In his important book Coming Apart, Charles Murray showed how the wealthy and privileged tend to isolate themselves from the poor and the middle class. In past generations rich families might have employed servants, and if they were sensitive at all, they learned a bit about the daily struggles of the servants’ families. But today’s rich—living in leafy gated communities, commuting to work in secure high-rise fortresses—rarely encounter the people who are struggling. The stock market is rising, so they think that the economy is healthy, not noticing that for middle-class households, living standards have been steadily falling. Their children are being educated at prestigious schools, and taking their own places in the elite; so they do not understand the anxiety of parents who worry how their children can support a family..............

.............A Hillary Clinton administration would have been a disaster for the causes of life and family and faith. We do not yet know what to expect from a Trump administration. But the time is ripe for change—not just in America but throughout the Western world. Ross Douthat of the New York Times likens the Trump victory to the ascent of Napoleon to power. But Napoleon came to power only after the cataclysmic turmoil of the French Revolution.

For us the turmoil is just beginning.

 

 

[WhiteLily]

Let us place our trust in Jesus. He promised he would never leave his church. However, we read In this weekend's gospel, Jesus said there will be tragedies, division, and persecution along the way before He comes again. However, he promised he will never leave us. 

"Jesus, I trust in you!"

Edited November 13, 2016 by WhiteLily

[Guest]

Some scary type comments in articles here:

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/projects/cp/opinion/election-night-2016/heres-what-happened-with-the-latino-vote

(I found myself thinking, "I hope the media gets it wrong again."  Knowing that media can get things so very wrong is some consolation.  While we are at a sophisticated stage in our evolution in all the sciences and as human beings, we might think that we know it all.  If anything, this election has shown that we do not at all - we only think we do - and just how far off the reality target we can be.)

We can indeed put absolute trust and confidence in Jesus, which does not mean at all that there is not suffering and conflict ahead - and perhaps seriously so.  What it does mean is that despite how things might appear to our human finiteness, "all is well, all is well and all shall be well" (Julian of Norwich).

I thought this quotation from St Vincent de Paul had something important to state too about the Doctrine of Divine Providence and absolute trust in Jesus:

Quote

"“I beg you to consider all things in the designs of Providence and, while humbly and carefully doing your share to contribute to success, leave the rest to the good pleasure of God.” – St. Vincent de Paul"

We must and are called to do our part humbly and peacefully yet diligently insofar as we are able while leaving success or the lack of it to Jesus with trust and confidence.

I can be rich in praise of The Lord when all is well to my taste - but not so loud, mea maxima culpa, in rich praise when things are not at all as I would have them.  Might not be as I would have them, but Faith tells me that I am wrong and that The Lord and His Will, His Goodness, is triumphing nevertheless (Doctrine Divine Providence).

Think tank.  I wonder if a benevolent dictator is the answer rather than democracy? Or will absolute power always corrupt absolutely? 

Did a quick Google and really surprised to see so many links about the subject.  No time to do any research just now.

Edited November 13, 2016 by BarbaraTherese

[Socrates]

On 11/11/2016 at 3:52 PM, Peace said:

That is not an argument that has any weight with abortionists (and most scientists), because they believe that there is a distinction between human beings and human persons. They have criteria for personhood such as cognizance, etc.

You might be better off to prove that all human beings have a right to life, regardless of their personhood.

If you take a strictly materialist atheistic view of life, and don't believe in a soul or spiritual nature to man, all human beings are ultimately nothing more than clusters of cells, pieces of tissue, etc.  Its just that some of these clusters of cells are more developed and have more complex functions than others.

Also, from the strict materialist standpoint, the only logically consistent position would be that all human rights, including the right to life, are completely human inventions, and rest on no higher authority than the human beings that create and grant them.  If it is man that grants rights, man can just as easily take them away.  The same is true for the concept of "personhood."

The question of the right to life and "personhood" is outside the scope of the material sciences, and cannot be settled by material science.  Rights (including the right to life) are not physical things that can be scientifically observed or measured.  You can't test for rights in the lab, or see them through a microscope or telescope.

 

This is why ultimately the issue of the right to life is a spiritual one, and converting those stuck in a utilitarian pro-abortion mindset will require spiritual conversion.

I'm not sure if there's really any argument to use with those who insist that some human beings are not persons, and thus have no right to life.  Probably the best you can do is use "slippery slope" arguments - if "personhood" is denied to some humans, whom might be denied it next? - but not all will find that convincing.  They will first have to change their godless and perverse philosophy.

[Anomaly]

Soc,

I think you would be surprised if you dig a little more into defining "personhood".  An atheist is not a synonym for sociopath.    There are lots of reasonable arguments for determining personhood. 

Are you even aware that the Church at one time, considered the embryo as mere tissue until "ensoulment?"    That the baby needs to breathe to receive the "breathe of life" as described in Genesis?

Being anti-abortion or trying to determine personhood and protecting them with laws is not solely the realm if diests.  Don't be so quick to disregard potential allies.  

[Ice_nine]

In other news he appoints a white nationalist as one of his most influential cabinet members.

 

[Peace]

11 hours ago, Socrates said:

If you take a strictly materialist atheistic view of life, and don't believe in a soul or spiritual nature to man, all human beings are ultimately nothing more than clusters of cells, pieces of tissue, etc.  Its just that some of these clusters of cells are more developed and have more complex functions than others.

Also, from the strict materialist standpoint, the only logically consistent position would be that all human rights, including the right to life, are completely human inventions, and rest on no higher authority than the human beings that create and grant them.  If it is man that grants rights, man can just as easily take them away.  The same is true for the concept of "personhood."

The question of the right to life and "personhood" is outside the scope of the material sciences, and cannot be settled by material science.  Rights (including the right to life) are not physical things that can be scientifically observed or measured.  You can't test for rights in the lab, or see them through a microscope or telescope.

 

This is why ultimately the issue of the right to life is a spiritual one, and converting those stuck in a utilitarian pro-abortion mindset will require spiritual conversion.

I'm not sure if there's really any argument to use with those who insist that some human beings are not persons, and thus have no right to life.  Probably the best you can do is use "slippery slope" arguments - if "personhood" is denied to some humans, whom might be denied it next? - but not all will find that convincing.  They will first have to change their godless and perverse philosophy.

I generally agree that athiests don't have any solid basis for holding certain basic ideas such as "it is wrong to kill" or what have you.

But most people, whether believers or athiests, do agree to a large extent on certain basic moral principles, and have a basic moral sense of right and wrong. That moral sense comes from God in both cases. The athiest just refuses to acknowledge it.

Since most athiests have a moral sense and hold many of the same moral principles as we do, solid pro-life arguments can be made, based on these principle, without making an appeal to religion. You have plenty of "Godless" pro-life athiests such as Anomaly as the proof that this is possible.

[Anomaly]

You can ascribe empathy and introspective thought to a God given ability or God talking to you or an normal behavior part instinct and part needed & learned social behavior.   

Applied empathy is both good for society and desired by most religions.   Rational thought is also good for society and desired by most religions.   

If we can both agree that a zygote is a unique human person in it's developmental journey to eventual death of natural old age,  isn't the argument wether the atheist was led to that conclusion by God or the Christian was led to that conclusion by rational thought, secondary to the primary goal of protecting human life from beginning to end?  What, how, and why we do with that life (and any after) can de debated later.  

[Didacus]

Congrats on all US friends on electing the first pro-life president since Ronald Reagan!

If all the liberals are moving to Canada, I just might move to the states!

Choo-Choo!   The Trump train arrived in Washington!!!! 

[Socrates]

23 hours ago, Anomaly said:

Soc,

I think you would be surprised if you dig a little more into defining "personhood".  An atheist is not a synonym for sociopath.    There are lots of reasonable arguments for determining personhood. 

Are you even aware that the Church at one time, considered the embryo as mere tissue until "ensoulment?"    That the baby needs to breathe to receive the "breathe of life" as described in Genesis?

Being anti-abortion or trying to determine personhood and protecting them with laws is not solely the realm if diests.  Don't be so quick to disregard potential allies.  

First, I never said that atheists do not believe in rights, or that all would deny human rights to others.  My point was that for the atheist (if he is logically consistent with his atheism), rights (including the right to life) rest on higher authority than man.  Rather than all men being endowed by the Creator with certain inalienable rights, it is man that creates rights and "personhood" and confers them on his fellow man.

If man is the creator and giver of rights, these rights become ultimately arbitrary, and dependent on the whims of those in positions of power, or of society at a given time.

I don't doubt for a minute the sincerity of your pro-life convictions (even if I sometimes doubt the sincerity of your atheism), but how would you argue against another atheist who holds to the Peter Singer school of utilitarianism that a human being is only a person if he has a certain level of cognizance or sentience, and claims that an undeveloped human fetus or embryo has no more sentience than a fish, and is therefore not yet a person with a right to life?

You may "feel" that all human life is "sacred" and inherently deserving of protection, but many others may not feel that way.  If the right to life is based on no higher authority than the human brain, who's to say who's right?  It all becomes subjective.  (And, at least according to the surveys, the overwhelming majority of atheists are in fact "pro-choice" on the abortion issue - much less likely to be pro-life than religious people.  I don't believe that's a coincidence.  You still seem to maintain overall a very Christian moral philosophy.)

If man alone is the source and giver of rights, then a general right to life is determined either by government or legal authority (which in the U.S. denies the right to life to the unborn), or by democratic consensus or societal norms (and most people in our society are accepting of at least some abortions).  Thus, without belief in something higher than man, the right to life rests on a very shaky basis.

13 hours ago, Peace said:

I generally agree that athiests don't have any solid basis for holding certain basic ideas such as "it is wrong to kill" or what have you.

But most people, whether believers or athiests, do agree to a large extent on certain basic moral principles, and have a basic moral sense of right and wrong. That moral sense comes from God in both cases. The athiest just refuses to acknowledge it.

Since most athiests have a moral sense and hold many of the same moral principles as we do, solid pro-life arguments can be made, based on these principle, without making an appeal to religion. You have plenty of "Godless" pro-life athiests such as Anomaly as the proof that this is possible.

I won't speak for Anomaly, but he was a Catholic Christian most of life, before becoming atheist several years ago.  He seems to maintain a lot of respect for Catholic moral principles, but many atheists do not share them -  as shown by the overwhelming majority of atheists not believing the unborn are persons with a right to life.  

Yes, obviously atheists can be pro-life, as the natural law is written on the hearts of all men, but they have less logical ground to back up their convictions.  

[Anomaly]

Soc,

Out of respect for dUSt, his site, others beliefs, and my beliefs of messy tolerance, I'm not going to argue with you about what atheism believes.  

Any defifinitions are relatively arbitrary and dependent upon the contextual understandings of society and cultures.  You can't point to a single divine utterance that unassailably defines and determines what exact nanosecond a Person becomes a Person. Catholic philosophers have struggled and evolved about that for centuries.  As has Aristotle and Socrates and many other philosophers.  

Peter Singer's utilitarianism is easily refuted because it is so narrow, asks for judgements based on narrow factors, and too easily dismisses long term effects of principles for short term goals of principles.   If utilitarianism is an act for the greater good of the greatest number, you also have to consider the effect on society beyond your short life span.   We are social creatures living a short life, but part of a society that proceeds and follows our life.   If we already move beyond acting as a sociopath, we see the value of ourselves and others.  Empathy.

You can call the person recognizing their individuality and a part of society Divine Natural Law.   Or, it can be called evolved genetic instinct and learned cultural behaviors.    I, like most people, can leave that definition to others and struggle to operate as a Person; a cognizant and tolerant individual responsible to my opinion of myself and as a cognizant and tolerant member of a larger society, tempered with both limited confidence and limited humility.

The right to life and who/what is a Person, IS on very shaky ground.  Humanity has struggled with that for eons.  Faith in Catholic Christianity alone is not the panacea for it all.   Rational, logical, philosophy and scientific thought is needed as well.  Catholic railing against Modernism is not against logic and pondering, but against philosophy and science without its God.

Fine.   We can disagree on a "Divine" regulator as defined by a few Religions in the recent couple millennium, but human society has been evolving and developing human wisdom and successful societies (mostly for good) much longer.  Christianity had its heyday and its theological philosophy aided society, but  Christianity Faith/Beliefs was/is not the sole source of morality, and is not without reason and logic.  Of course sane reason and logic philosophy often appears as Judea/Christianity.  And visa-versa.  

Edited November 17, 2016 by Anomaly

[Ash Wednesday]

Part of me is secretly amused by some of the histrionics coming from the elitist left. Though some have fears that are understandable. We're in completely new and uncharted territory having elected a total political outsider. 

My prayers are always with any new president no matter what party they are from.