• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi had priests come to her San Francisco home to preform an "exorcism

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
And if you know what the Church teaches and you choose to go against it, you are accountable for it. And if you do it in a public fashion, you can be subject to discipline such as being barred from Communion. That's the rules
Yes, that's true, and what I posted is also true.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Yes, I am fully aware of that, but that doesn't negate the right of personal discernment. If we go against a Church teaching, then the onus is on us personally if it's a bad decision.

An excellent book on this is: "Let Your [Informed] Judgement Be Your Guide", which is a Catholic publication.
The Catholic Church's position on abortion has not been consistent. For a long time it was not considered murder, but was still a sin if used to cover up sex outside of marriage:

Abortion and Catholic thought. The little-known history - PubMed

Sex outside of marriage was considered to be the worse 'evil'.
 

Saint Frankenstein

Wanderer From Afar
Premium Member
Like I predicted. You failed. Your "brilliant" comeback only underscores that fact.

What the antichoice crowd hates is that a rational argument puts the burden of proof upon them.
You didn't even bother to respond to what I said. It's an ethical and moral position, and I stated mine. You have done nothing to argue against it or anything. But you have the the nerve to try to handwave it away and then pretend you won an argument? Pathetic. I shouldn't have taken you off ignore. You got the response your crap deserves.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
You didn't even bother to respond to what I said. It's an ethical and moral position, and I stated mine. You have done nothing to argue against it or anything. But you have the the nerve to try to handwave it away and then pretend you won an argument? Pathetic. I shouldn't have taken you off ignore. You got the response your crap deserves.
I did respond. I pointed out how you failed at making a rational argument. That was all that was needed. Did you forget the challenge already? That was not a handwave. You do not get to abuse terminology in a rational argument. You have been the only one doling out crap here.

Can you make a rational argument that supports your stance. An emotional argument is not a rational one.
 

Saint Frankenstein

Wanderer From Afar
Premium Member
I did respond. I pointed out how you failed at making a rational argument. That was all that was needed. Did you forget the challenge already? That was not a handwave. You do not get to abuse terminology in a rational argument. You have been the only one doling out crap here.

Can you make a rational argument that supports your stance. An emotional argument is not a rational one.
I made one - it's wrong to kill innocent human life. You just don't want to deal with it.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
I made one - it's wrong to kill innocent human life. You just don't want to deal with it.

No,you made unjustified assumptions and then got mad when you were caught doing so.

There are several problems with your claim. You are not defining or justifying what is a "human life". Your claim about it being wrong to take human life then has quite a few implications. Obviously you can't kill in self defense. You can't support a death penalty. Or even the ability of a country to defend itself against foreign invaders. Do you see the problem that improperly defined statements lead to?
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
All politicians "force" their beliefs on others. That's what lawmakers do.
Yeah, but personal religious views are inappropriate and have no proper place in deciding legislation.
As I said, other sources are more appropriate and not as prone to violating the rights of others and forcing them to comply with someone else's superstitions.
 

We Never Know

No Slack
It's no different than pulling the plug on someone who is brain dead. Everything that makes a human into an individual is not present. No consciousness, no awareness, just an automated shell of a human.

False equivalence.

One who is brain dead is damaged beyond repair, has no future.
The other isn't damaged and has a whole future ahead.
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
Yes, I know.
But religious folk who consider themselves
secular still have their religion influence their
secular beliefs. Many such posters here fit
that description...posters who advocate things
I find oppressive, eg, higher taxes.
Religious people aren't secular. Can't happen. You can't have religion and also lack religion.
That's an issue on the walking contradictions.
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
False equivalence.

One who is brain dead is damaged beyond repair, has no future.
The other isn't damaged and has a whole future ahead.
Not necessarily, and unwarranted optimism doesn't help your case. Like the point people love to make about aborting someone who would cure cancer. Well, they never mention it's just as likely to abort the next Hitler.
 

Saint Frankenstein

Wanderer From Afar
Premium Member
No,you made unjustified assumptions and then got mad when you were caught doing so.

There are several problems with your claim. You are not defining or justifying what is a "human life". Your claim about it being wrong to take human life then has quite a few implications. Obviously you can't kill in self defense. You can't support a death penalty. Or even the ability of a country to defend itself against foreign invaders. Do you see the problem that improperly defined statements lead to?
A "human life" is a human being. That should've been simple enough for everyone to understand. A zygote, blastocyst, fetus, etc. are mammals at early stages of development, and we're discussing humans in particular here.

And I said "innocent" for a reason. Self-defense is ethically defendable, for example, as are certain types of war. Unfortunately, sometimes violence is needed on a practical level to protect life and society against aggressors (from the level of out of control individuals like murderers and rapists to unjust governments). But that should ideally be a last resort and violence should never be initiated against the innocent and vulnerable (young children, the elderly, handicapped, etc.). I believe society should protect the most vulnerable among us.

There's also more extreme interpretations where only total pacifism is allowed, but I don't see such things as workable.
 

We Never Know

No Slack
Not necessarily, and unwarranted optimism doesn't help your case. Like the point people love to make about aborting someone who would cure cancer. Well, they never mention it's just as likely to abort the next Hitler.

"Like the point people love to make about aborting someone who would cure cancer. Well, they never mention it's just as likely to abort the next Hitler."

That has nothing to do with my post.
 

Saint Frankenstein

Wanderer From Afar
Premium Member
It's no different than pulling the plug on someone who is brain dead. Everything that makes a human into an individual is not present. No consciousness, no awareness, just an automated shell of a human.
The brain dead person is, for practical purposes, dead. They're already gone. Hopefully they are only being let off of life support when there's no realistic chance of recovery. But that's not the case with a healthy pregnancy.
 

Saint Frankenstein

Wanderer From Afar
Premium Member
Yeah, but personal religious views are inappropriate and have no proper place in deciding legislation.
As I said, other sources are more appropriate and not as prone to violating the rights of others and forcing them to comply with someone else's superstitions.
Why is religion unacceptable as a reason but not political ideology? It's okay if you're a Marxist but not okay if you're a Christian, Jew, Buddhist, etc.? You're basically saying that religious people shouldn't be allowed to uphold their conscience in the public square.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
A "human life" is a human being. That should've been simple enough for everyone to understand. A zygote, blastocyst, fetus, etc. are mammals at early stages of development, and we're discussing humans in particular here.

And I said "innocent" for a reason. Self-defense is ethically defendable, for example, as are certain types of war. Unfortunately, sometimes violence is needed on a practical level to protect life and society against aggressors (from the level of out of control individuals like murderers and rapists to unjust governments). But that should ideally be a last resort and violence should never be initiated against the innocent and vulnerable (young children, the elderly, handicapped, etc.). I believe society should protect the most vulnerable among us.

There's also more extreme interpretations where only total pacifism is allowed, but I don't see such things as workable.
Then by your poor definition a human being is not a person. All of those are only potential persons. And are they "innocent"? They clearly do not intend to, but they do harm the host. There is no doubt about that.

Lastly can the government order you to be surgically attached to another so that they could use your kidneys or other organs for a limited amount of time. Say nine months?
 
Top