Pro-Lifer Throws Incendiary Device at PP

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
541

That’s not really Natural Law. Natural Law’s premise is basically there is positive law and there is Natural Law. NL is what is true for all (well most) societies and cultures. Well it has done great so far, it is the foundation for most of the European Government, American government, &c. It also put the Nazi leaders to death.

And does this include willingly terminating the unborn?

For me, yes.

[quote]
Supporters of natural law will often try & convince people that their views are the by-products of reason & observation (their are no inherent value judgements driven by emotion) .Though, in reality I will always contend morality basically falls apart without at least some emotional weightedness.[/quote]

I suppose, but what does one’s emotions towards something have to do with it’s reasoning. Yes, we don’t want to use emotion to prove something. However, that doesn’t mean that because someone has emotions that they can’t reason. Otherwise that goes to dangerous places.

The premise upon which one’s reasoning is built upon is pretty much always emotional in nature. We are always going to be lumbered with a fact >> value gap. This is why, earlier in this thread I used the phrase ‘hiding behind semantics’.

Well, I guess the you’ll have a problem with the Stoic’s Natural Law as well? And, I don’t get the emotion thing. Even so, cannibalism isn’t just unpleasant (let’s take that out of the discussion as that’s an emotion), it’s morally wrong because it goes against the first principle that an innocent person should not be willfully killed.[/quote]

Cannibalism doesn’t have to entail killing.

542

[quote]GorillaMon wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]GorillaMon wrote:

Because I’d be anticipating fatherdom.
[/quote]

But you would let your wife kill your child? Doesn’t sound like you are anticipating it that much. Or am I missing something here?[/quote]

Yes, you are missing something. You seem to be assuming that on some level I agree with your concept of personhood, when in reality, I don’t.

[/quote]

I know we ostensibly disagree on that point. Believe me, I know exactly where I’m going with this.

Since you appear either to not get where I’m leading or to not want to cooperate, I’ll just come to the point: Why would you be disappointed at the removal of a clump of cells? Or, if you don’t like the description, call it what you will, but you have yet to define for me just exactly what you think that thing in her womb is, exactly, if not a “person.”

If it is not a person, then I don’t see why you should feel, “gutted,” from my understanding a rather strong expression of the word “disappointed.”

Secondly, if it is indeed not a person as you say, then when does it transform from whatever it is into a full fledged person?

I’m not asking for anything but reasonable answers to natural questions, but you don’t appear to want to cooperate with me by answering the questions I am asking forthrightly. I’m asking you for an honest answer, or at the very least to explain yourself.

543

On that note Mak, please define the unborn for me. You are asking for BC to answer your question yet you miss out with my request.

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:
… some rants about the Catholic faith …[/quote]

I’m very interested in any response to this. Especially the bolded part. Would you let your qualms about non-procreational sex and sex outside of marriage get in the way of reducing abortion rates, or even making it a thing of the past?[/quote]

544

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
On that note Mak, please define the unborn for me. You are asking for BC to answer your question yet you miss out with my request.

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:
… some rants about the Catholic faith …[/quote]

I’m very interested in any response to this. Especially the bolded part. Would you let your qualms about non-procreational sex and sex outside of marriage get in the way of reducing abortion rates, or even making it a thing of the past?[/quote]
[/quote]

Maybe when you learn to calm down, and when you learn to quote like a normal person.

545

[quote]Makavali wrote:
no it should not be allowed throughout the entire nine months of gestation.[/quote]

So, we can agree on two things. 1) that pro-lifers also have the right to freedom of speech and 2) that abortion shouldn’t be allowed through the entire nine months of gestation. 2/2!

Could you tell me when during the pregnancy you think it is wrong to kill a child (like in weeks or months)?

546

[quote]Makavali wrote:
I’m very interested in any response to this. Especially the bolded part. Would you let your qualms about non-procreational sex and sex outside of marriage get in the way of reducing abortion rates, or even making it a thing of the past?[/quote]

No, because both are considered evil by the Church. Its teachings will not change about non-procreational sex and sex outside of marriage and therefore we would not let go of our qualms in order to reduce abortion rates.

This is because we hold that the means can never justify the end. So, if the end is good, but the means to that end are evil, then it is still considered evil.

547

[quote]GorillaMon wrote:
personhood, when in reality, I don’t.
[/quote]

When does someone become a person?

548

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:
I’m very interested in any response to this. Especially the bolded part. Would you let your qualms about non-procreational sex and sex outside of marriage get in the way of reducing abortion rates, or even making it a thing of the past?[/quote]

No, because both are considered evil by the Church. Its teachings will not change about non-procreational sex and sex outside of marriage and therefore we would not let go of our qualms in order to reduce abortion rates.

This is because we hold that the means can never justify the end. So, if the end is good, but the means to that end are evil, then it is still considered evil.[/quote]

Then you are allowing religious feelings to let abortion as a practice continue. Here is where we will vastly differ.

549

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:
no it should not be allowed throughout the entire nine months of gestation.[/quote]

So, we can agree on two things. 1) that pro-lifers also have the right to freedom of speech and 2) that abortion shouldn’t be allowed through the entire nine months of gestation. 2/2!

Could you tell me when during the pregnancy you think it is wrong to kill a child (like in weeks or months)?[/quote]

I have already addressed this if you keep reading past where you quoted.

As medical technology advances children can be kept alive at increasingly earlier stages so too should the cut off point for abortions be adjusted.

I do not see things as black and white as you do, there are far to many shades of gray to have an outright halt. Progress in many things, especially this, will be slow and tedious. Again, the way forward is education.

550

lol Now I have to meet your criteria on the internet? Are you truly that full of yourself?

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
On that note Mak, please define the unborn for me. You are asking for BC to answer your question yet you miss out with my request.

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:
… some rants about the Catholic faith …[/quote]

I’m very interested in any response to this. Especially the bolded part. Would you let your qualms about non-procreational sex and sex outside of marriage get in the way of reducing abortion rates, or even making it a thing of the past?[/quote]
[/quote]

Maybe when you learn to calm down, and when you learn to quote like a normal person.[/quote]

551

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[/quote]

Sorry, I didn’t exactly pick up on that, mia culpa.

So, it depends on the medical technology as to when you can kill the child. Why does it matter about the technology? Is it because the unborn is not a person before it can survive outside the womb?

552

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:
I’m very interested in any response to this. Especially the bolded part. Would you let your qualms about non-procreational sex and sex outside of marriage get in the way of reducing abortion rates, or even making it a thing of the past?[/quote]

No, because both are considered evil by the Church. Its teachings will not change about non-procreational sex and sex outside of marriage and therefore we would not let go of our qualms in order to reduce abortion rates.

This is because we hold that the means can never justify the end. So, if the end is good, but the means to that end are evil, then it is still considered evil.[/quote]

Then you are allowing religious feelings to let abortion as a practice continue. Here is where we will vastly differ.[/quote]

Can you explain to me how I am allowing religious feelings influence me on this subject?

553

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[/quote]

Sorry, I didn’t exactly pick up on that, mia culpa.

So, it depends on the medical technology as to when you can kill the child. Why does it matter about the technology? Is it because the unborn is not a person before it can survive outside the womb?[/quote]

Because abortion is already here. It is extremely unrealistic to expect it to disappear without providing alternatives.

554

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:
I’m very interested in any response to this. Especially the bolded part. Would you let your qualms about non-procreational sex and sex outside of marriage get in the way of reducing abortion rates, or even making it a thing of the past?[/quote]

No, because both are considered evil by the Church. Its teachings will not change about non-procreational sex and sex outside of marriage and therefore we would not let go of our qualms in order to reduce abortion rates.

This is because we hold that the means can never justify the end. So, if the end is good, but the means to that end are evil, then it is still considered evil.[/quote]

Then you are allowing religious feelings to let abortion as a practice continue. Here is where we will vastly differ.[/quote]

Can you explain to me how I am allowing religious feelings influence me on this subject?[/quote]

You claim to want to see an end to abortion. You allow religious teachings to influence your opinion on a potential solution.

I will say it again, education and availability of contraception will be what ends the need for abortion.

555

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]GorillaMon wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]GorillaMon wrote:

Because I’d be anticipating fatherdom.
[/quote]

But you would let your wife kill your child? Doesn’t sound like you are anticipating it that much. Or am I missing something here?[/quote]

Yes, you are missing something. You seem to be assuming that on some level I agree with your concept of personhood, when in reality, I don’t.

[/quote]

I know we ostensibly disagree on that point. Believe me, I know exactly where I’m going with this.

Since you appear either to not get where I’m leading or to not want to cooperate, I’ll just come to the point: Why would you be disappointed at the removal of a clump of cells? Or, if you don’t like the description, call it what you will, but you have yet to define for me just exactly what you think that thing in her womb is, exactly, if not a “person.”

If it is not a person, then I don’t see why you should feel, “gutted,” from my understanding a rather strong expression of the word “disappointed.”

Secondly, if it is indeed not a person as you say, then when does it transform from whatever it is into a full fledged person?

I’m not asking for anything but reasonable answers to natural questions, but you don’t appear to want to cooperate with me by answering the questions I am asking forthrightly. I’m asking you for an honest answer, or at the very least to explain yourself. [/quote]

‘Gutted’ is an English colloquialism. It’s used in many different contexts. It’s doesn’t neccessarily mean: Emotionally devastated/deeply traumatized etc.

Slightly bad choice of wording on my part.

Like I said before, I see this as a matter of degrees.

Also, condider the possibility of a pregnant mother accidently killing her unborn child (assuming she didn’t even know she was pregnant), would you have the same moral objection to this as any other termination?

Again, practicality.

556

[quote]GorillaMon wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]GorillaMon wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]GorillaMon wrote:

Because I’d be anticipating fatherdom.
[/quote]

But you would let your wife kill your child? Doesn’t sound like you are anticipating it that much. Or am I missing something here?[/quote]

Yes, you are missing something. You seem to be assuming that on some level I agree with your concept of personhood, when in reality, I don’t.

[/quote]

I know we ostensibly disagree on that point. Believe me, I know exactly where I’m going with this.

Since you appear either to not get where I’m leading or to not want to cooperate, I’ll just come to the point: Why would you be disappointed at the removal of a clump of cells? Or, if you don’t like the description, call it what you will, but you have yet to define for me just exactly what you think that thing in her womb is, exactly, if not a “person.”

If it is not a person, then I don’t see why you should feel, “gutted,” from my understanding a rather strong expression of the word “disappointed.”

Secondly, if it is indeed not a person as you say, then when does it transform from whatever it is into a full fledged person?

I’m not asking for anything but reasonable answers to natural questions, but you don’t appear to want to cooperate with me by answering the questions I am asking forthrightly. I’m asking you for an honest answer, or at the very least to explain yourself. [/quote]

‘Gutted’ is an English colloquialism. It’s used in many different contexts. It’s doesn’t neccessarily mean: Emotionally devastated/deeply traumatized etc.

Slightly bad choice of wording on my part.

Like I said before, I see this as a matter of degrees.

Also, condider the possibility of a pregnant mother accidently killing her unborn child (assuming she didn’t even know she was pregnant), would you have the same moral objection to this as any other termination?

Again, practicality. [/quote]

I can’t have a moral objection to an accident. There was no will involved.

So which is it then, you would be kinda like, “Oh well, that sucks but cool babe, it’s your call. Feel like Chinese tonight?” More upset than this? Less?

Keep in mind that the object she is tearing limb from limb will almost certainly become your actual, real child should she choose not go go through with it.

557

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]GorillaMon wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]GorillaMon wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]GorillaMon wrote:

Because I’d be anticipating fatherdom.
[/quote]

But you would let your wife kill your child? Doesn’t sound like you are anticipating it that much. Or am I missing something here?[/quote]

Yes, you are missing something. You seem to be assuming that on some level I agree with your concept of personhood, when in reality, I don’t.

[/quote]

I know we ostensibly disagree on that point. Believe me, I know exactly where I’m going with this.

Since you appear either to not get where I’m leading or to not want to cooperate, I’ll just come to the point: Why would you be disappointed at the removal of a clump of cells? Or, if you don’t like the description, call it what you will, but you have yet to define for me just exactly what you think that thing in her womb is, exactly, if not a “person.”

If it is not a person, then I don’t see why you should feel, “gutted,” from my understanding a rather strong expression of the word “disappointed.”

Secondly, if it is indeed not a person as you say, then when does it transform from whatever it is into a full fledged person?

I’m not asking for anything but reasonable answers to natural questions, but you don’t appear to want to cooperate with me by answering the questions I am asking forthrightly. I’m asking you for an honest answer, or at the very least to explain yourself. [/quote]

‘Gutted’ is an English colloquialism. It’s used in many different contexts. It’s doesn’t neccessarily mean: Emotionally devastated/deeply traumatized etc.

Slightly bad choice of wording on my part.

Like I said before, I see this as a matter of degrees.

Also, condider the possibility of a pregnant mother accidently killing her unborn child (assuming she didn’t even know she was pregnant), would you have the same moral objection to this as any other termination?

Again, practicality. [/quote]

I can’t have a moral objection to an accident. There was no will involved.

So which is it then, you would be kinda like, “Oh well, that sucks but cool babe, it’s your call. Feel like Chinese tonight?” More upset than this? Less?

Keep in mind that the object she is tearing limb from limb will almost certainly become your actual, real child should she choose not go go through with it.
[/quote]

If I really had my mind set on fathering her child it would be difficult. We may even separate.

If I didn’t have my mind set on fathering her child it would be more a relief/I’d feel it was for the best/the right thing to do.

558

[quote]GorillaMon wrote:

If I didn’t have my mind set on fathering her child it would be more a relief/I’d feel it was for the best/the right thing to do.

[/quote]

Yeah, it would probably give you great relief to know that your future son or daughter was torn apart piece by piece because you were not quite ready to start a family. I wonder would this be the ultimate definition of selfish?

559

[quote]GorillaMon wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]GorillaMon wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]GorillaMon wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]GorillaMon wrote:

Because I’d be anticipating fatherdom.
[/quote]

But you would let your wife kill your child? Doesn’t sound like you are anticipating it that much. Or am I missing something here?[/quote]

Yes, you are missing something. You seem to be assuming that on some level I agree with your concept of personhood, when in reality, I don’t.

[/quote]

I know we ostensibly disagree on that point. Believe me, I know exactly where I’m going with this.

Since you appear either to not get where I’m leading or to not want to cooperate, I’ll just come to the point: Why would you be disappointed at the removal of a clump of cells? Or, if you don’t like the description, call it what you will, but you have yet to define for me just exactly what you think that thing in her womb is, exactly, if not a “person.”

If it is not a person, then I don’t see why you should feel, “gutted,” from my understanding a rather strong expression of the word “disappointed.”

Secondly, if it is indeed not a person as you say, then when does it transform from whatever it is into a full fledged person?

I’m not asking for anything but reasonable answers to natural questions, but you don’t appear to want to cooperate with me by answering the questions I am asking forthrightly. I’m asking you for an honest answer, or at the very least to explain yourself. [/quote]

‘Gutted’ is an English colloquialism. It’s used in many different contexts. It’s doesn’t neccessarily mean: Emotionally devastated/deeply traumatized etc.

Slightly bad choice of wording on my part.

Like I said before, I see this as a matter of degrees.

Also, condider the possibility of a pregnant mother accidently killing her unborn child (assuming she didn’t even know she was pregnant), would you have the same moral objection to this as any other termination?

Again, practicality. [/quote]

I can’t have a moral objection to an accident. There was no will involved.

So which is it then, you would be kinda like, “Oh well, that sucks but cool babe, it’s your call. Feel like Chinese tonight?” More upset than this? Less?

Keep in mind that the object she is tearing limb from limb will almost certainly become your actual, real child should she choose not go go through with it.
[/quote]

If I really had my mind set on fathering her child it would be difficult. We may even separate.

If I didn’t have my mind set on fathering her child it would be more a relief/I’d feel it was for the best/the right thing to do.
[/quote]

ZEB nailed it, but to reiterate: So the only substantial difference in either scenario is just you. What’s more, you really tip your hand when you reveal that your decision making process does not even involve your wife, whose “choice” it supposedly is. For instance, you could have said, “If I really had my mind set on fathering her child it would be difficult. We may even separate. But I would do my best to understand the decision from her point of view as, ultimately, it really is her choice.”

But you didn’t say that.

And so we see this: Whether a budding life, with all the potential to be born, and grow, and live, and thrive, to become her own person, author of her own story and master of her fate, will be allowed to live indeed, or be snuffed out, torn apart before she even has the chance to draw her first breath, is ultimately decided by one thing; Pure, postmodern, narcissistic selfishness.

I appreciate your honesty.

560

Having kids when you are really young & not in the best possible position to be a parent= VERY SELFISH!!

See how this works:)