[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
I just had some moron try and tell me cum is a living human being and if I jack it then I’m committing mass murder too (discussing abortion obviously).
I really feel sorry for the future of our species sometimes. [/quote]
I agree, and for this reason, I encourage us to not save the species when people act stupid.
When people go hiking near a forest fire (yes it happens here), don’t save them. When people go surfing when we have a storm, fuck 'em, let them drown. When people don’t evacuate when there is a mudslide, a fire, flood, or a favorite natural disaster of your choosing. Fuck 'em.
Let the species get stronger, let’s thin the herd.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Well, I don’t know if he’s a “raging Calvinist”, but opeth7opeth seems to think otherwise.
My post was not an assertion of fact, it was a question. Your answer, and presumably Pat’s answer, is that the unborn are innocent, and that a discussion of Original Sin is irrelevant to the conversation.[/quote]
Well, it depends since everything is connected theologically then I guess it is not irrelevant. However, it is irrelevant as Original Sin does not take away the innocence of the baby. As they did not ask for Original Sin and they do not have the capacity to understand their actions.
I think you might want to look into double effect doctrine. There are other operations that have been done that have a higher survival rate for both mother and baby than abortion when the mother is in danger of death.
[quote]The only reason I asked the question was to get Alrightmiami’s (and anyone else’s) opinion on whether a belief in Original Sin alters their definition of the word “innocent”. So far the most thoughtful and satisfying answer has come from opeth7opeth.
Out of curiosity, Chris, does the Eastern Catholic Church baptize infants? If so, why?
[/quote]
Yes, they do. They do it in order to protect the baby and to remove anything that is influencing the baby, ultimately to bring the child into the Church.
We also do “confirmation” and “communion” when a baby is being baptized.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Now I’m being told I don’t respect myself because I’m not willing to change my mind on abortion. Unreal. [/quote]
I had a girl (I say girl, because she was highly immature) tell me that we need to save all the sperm and eggs because they are human beings. I didn’t even want to know how she saved her eggs, but I pointed out that even if I didn’t masturbate my body automatically shoots a load at night while I am dreaming…
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Now I’m being told I don’t respect myself because I’m not willing to change my mind on abortion. Unreal. [/quote]
I had a girl (I say girl, because she was highly immature) tell me that we need to save all the sperm and eggs because they are human beings. I didn’t even want to know how she saved her eggs, but I pointed out that even if I didn’t masturbate my body automatically shoots a load at night while I am dreaming…
Her face made me laugh.[/quote]
Like I told this person, it is hilariously ironic that the go to line for a progressive is something to the tune of, “you are ignoring the science,” yet with abortion science is thrown completely out the window. It would be funny except for the tens of thousands that die because of this crap.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
I just had some moron try and tell me cum is a living human being and if I jack it then I’m committing mass murder too (discussing abortion obviously).
I really feel sorry for the future of our species sometimes. [/quote]
I have heard that too and it’s the dumbest counter claim I have ever heard. Something being alive doesn’t make it human. My finger is made out of human tissue, but to cut it off is not murder. The key point is that ‘the fetus’ is a misnomer. A ‘fetus’ is a stage of human development. Just like ‘toddler’ or ‘teenager’. The fetus is a human being in an early stage of development. Sperm is not a human being. An egg is not a human being. Once the sperm penetrates the egg (and hence committing suicide in the process) and the DNA structure completes the process and becomes an embryo does the organism become a distinct and separate human being.
It’s the deliberate and willful killing of human beings that I am concerned with. Not anything living. Bacteria lives and it’s not murder to take antibiotics. There is a difference between something living in you and a human being living in you.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
I just had some moron try and tell me cum is a living human being and if I jack it then I’m committing mass murder too (discussing abortion obviously).
I really feel sorry for the future of our species sometimes. [/quote]
I have heard that too and it’s the dumbest counter claim I have ever heard. Something being alive doesn’t make it human. My finger is made out of human tissue, but to cut it off is not murder. The key point is that ‘the fetus’ is a misnomer. A ‘fetus’ is a stage of human development. Just like ‘toddler’ or ‘teenager’. The fetus is a human being in an early stage of development. Sperm is not a human being. An egg is not a human being. Once the sperm penetrates the egg (and hence committing suicide in the process) and the DNA structure completes the process and becomes an embryo does the organism become a distinct and separate human being.
It’s the deliberate and willful killing of human beings that I am concerned with. Not anything living. Bacteria lives and it’s not murder to take antibiotics. There is a difference between something living in you and a human being living in you. [/quote]
One more time, I am not advocating infanticide. As far as I am concerned, the only reasons to kill a living thing is if it is a threat to you, you are going to eat it, or both. I have no desire to dine on roasted human fetuses, so unless it’s an “abort this baby or the mother will surely die” situation, I cannot justify the practice.[/quote]
I think you might want to look into double effect doctrine. There are other operations that have been done that have a higher survival rate for both mother and baby than abortion when the mother is in danger of death.
[/quote]
I think that “abort this baby or the mother will surely die” is a perfect case for the principle of double effect. Surely you would agree that in the case of an ectopic pregnancy (which is not a statistically insignificant event: one in fifty pregnancies implant that distinct and separate human being somewhere else other than the uterus, at lethal risk to the mother), performing an abortion would not only be morally justified, but that it would be immoral not to.
One more time, I am not advocating infanticide. As far as I am concerned, the only reasons to kill a living thing is if it is a threat to you, you are going to eat it, or both. I have no desire to dine on roasted human fetuses, so unless it’s an “abort this baby or the mother will surely die” situation, I cannot justify the practice.[/quote]
I think you might want to look into double effect doctrine. There are other operations that have been done that have a higher survival rate for both mother and baby than abortion when the mother is in danger of death.
[/quote]
I think that “abort this baby or the mother will surely die” is a perfect case for the principle of double effect. Surely you would agree that in the case of an ectopic pregnancy (which is not a statistically insignificant event: one in fifty pregnancies implant that distinct and separate human being somewhere else other than the uterus, at lethal risk to the mother), performing an abortion would not only be morally justified, but that it would be immoral not to.[/quote]
I would disagree that it would be immoral not to do so. Such an act is amoral. What I mean is that the mother can choose to save the child to her own peril. So in this specific instance, you still have a choice but one without the normal moral consequences. You are not morally obligated to save a life that may destroy your own, but you may still choose that option if the conditions for a favorable outcome for the baby are there.
Here is an example:
Let the species get stronger, let’s thin the herd. [/quote]
Margaret Sanger would have agreed wholeheartedly with this sentiment.[/quote]
Some astute comments about Eugenists by the Roman Catholic God-hater, G.K. Chesterton:
Great quote. I think this applies to everything about the entire politically correct Newspeak movement.
[/quote]
Yep. I was just recently thinking of the Planned Parenthood phrase…something along the lines of “providing compassionate care to women.” This perversion of language reminded me of another phrase: " … the perversion of language is the mother of all subsequent perversions."
Let the species get stronger, let’s thin the herd. [/quote]
Margaret Sanger would have agreed wholeheartedly with this sentiment.[/quote]
Some astute comments about Eugenists by the Roman Catholic God-hater, G.K. Chesterton:
Great quote. I think this applies to everything about the entire politically correct Newspeak movement.
[/quote]
Yep. I was just recently thinking of the Planned Parenthood phrase…something along the lines of “providing compassionate care to women.” This perversion of language reminded me of another phrase: " … the perversion of language is the mother of all subsequent perversions."
[/quote]
I believe one day history will judge this period, where abortion is legal and supported as harshly as we judge slavery and the Final Solution. Eventually all of mankind will have to deal with reality of what abortion really is. Eventually, people will not be able to hide behind semantics and slogans.