Catholic & Christian Fundamentalists

[micro 0]

Quote

In one sentence it's a child. The next sentence it's an embryo.

Yeah...makes sense to me. Early in development it's an embryo. It develops into a child. :)

linz

When? When it passes outside of a woman's womb into the free air?

When it passes into the variable stage of "viability," Which in and of itself is a rather nebulous term since, according to SCOTUS, a mother is still allowed to kill her child AFTER viability for basically any reason (since "health" of the mother is so broadly defined)?

When it can feel pain?

When it's heart beats?

When brain waves are detected?

When it first "looks" like a human?

What really defines a human? The pro-abortion debate has made what defines a human subjective. And therein lies the heart of the problem w/ that side. What their argument comes down to is this... no one has the right to tell a woman what to do w/ her body... but if it's a baby, i.e. another human being, it's NOT her own body! She's supporting another human and to terminate that pregnancy is to kill that other human. So, that begs the question, when is the "embryo" human?

To that, almost every pro-choice person I've ever talked to has said this... You, as a pro-lifer cannot prove to me that human life begins at conception.

To that, my answer has always been, I don't believe that to be true, I think it can be proven, but for the sake of forgoing a protracted argument, you can't prove it doesn't. That then leaves us at an impass.

If it's unprovable that life does begin or doesn't begin at conception, that leaves the ramifications for a mistake VERY high! If it DOES begin at conception, and you abort, you're taking a human life. The only logical thing to do in a situation like this is to assume that it CAN be human, ergo you MAY be killing a human.

"Oh, but it's so small... it doesn't look human... it hasn't had a life yet... it won't feel anything... it's gonna really fuck up my life..."

"It is a poverty that a child must die so that you may live as you wish." A great saint of a woman said that, whom I met once in Gallup New Mexico. Blessed Mother Teresa of Calcutta.

I miss Lee.
And JP.
And Chris. And...

[Lindsey 0]

In my thinking, it's not whether it's alive that's important, but rather whether it is capable of suffering. It requires brain development to be able to suffer. But I don't think that life, in itself, is sacred.

linz

--
A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail

[Nightingale 0]

A woman has control over what happens to her OWN body. The fetus is changing the woman's body, and she has the right to stop those changes. At the time when the fetus no longer depends on the woman for survival, the fetus should be considered a separate entity.

When life begins doesn't even enter the equation for me, because it's quite obvious a fetus is alive. However, as long as it cannot survive outside the womb, it can't be considered separate from the woman.

[micro 0]

Quote

The kind of society you describe is contradictory to the first amendment of the US constitution.

Why not take the situations you describe and use them to teach your child?

When a child's school teaches actual scientific theories you think are wrong, use the opportunity to present any evidence you may think is contradictory. I oppose teaching creationism in science class because it isn't science. I do, however, believe it should be (and often is) taught in a religions or sociology class.

When you see a billboard you don't like, explain that you don't agree with the message, and why not. Tell your child why you think it's disrespectful to the people in the billboard, and why, and ask him/her what she thinks. Use the opportunity to open a dialogue. I don't believe in telling someone else that they can't say or do something I disagree with. It isn't my decision.

Quote

I don't want my kids to be taught by society that it's okay to murder an unbaby, simply because "it's not the right time to have one.

I'm not sure what you mean by "unbaby" other than it's not a baby at that time, which it isn't. I agree with you. I don't believe abortion is the right choice in most situations, and I would never have one myself except to save my own life (and in that case, I'd call it self defense). However, I recognize that it isn't my right to make that decision for someone else, because I don't walk in their shoes and I don't live their life. They could be facing medical or emotional difficulties that I'm unaware of, and it simply isn't my place to make a decision like that for them.

If you disagree, you can talk to your child about why, about what makes people choose abortion, and why you disagree with those choices. You can also use the opportunity to tell your daughter that if she becomes pregnant that you will do everything you can to support her, won't be angry, will be disappointed, but really, truly want her to come talk to you before making any decisions. Same conversation for a son regarding a girlfriend.

Society is always going to behave in ways you don't agree with, simply because people don't agree with you. I think the main difference between us is that I want to allow other people to make their own choices, while you want to decide for them along the lines of what your faith teaches. I don't have any problem at all with you allowing your faith to guide your life, or about you teaching your faith to others. I don't like it when you presume to make choices for other people. It is your place to teach. It is not your place to force.

I like some of the things you have to say... however, when we see things like raunchy bill boards, TV shows that are approaching soft-core porn (and are essentially already there) in prime time TV, the choices have been forced upon us. Our society is NOT a safe place to raise kids anymore, at least not according to people w/ traditional judeo-christian values. modern clothing styles that leave nothing to the imagination that really leave young women, barely teenagers, dressing like hookers, magazine covers like cosmo at the grocery store proclaim all sorts of raunchiness about the most sacred act two humans can engage in, glorified violence on TV and in the movies, the list could go on and on. These are the kinds of things we want to raise our kids in. And this isn't the kinds of culture this country USED to be! The media used to be cleaner. What Windcatcher is, in part, trying to say I think, is that exposure to some of those things, is, we believe, harmful, esp. to young people. Our desire to see them OUT of society is for the GOOD of society, not to ramrod our beliefs down anyone elses throats.

But since we get the kind of shit we do, like how "negative" the Christian ethos is, well, then families like mine do what we just did... We buy a farm and move to the country. Where we won't see that filthy shit anyway. the people are friendly, they don't swear nearly as bad (which is good for me, since I tend to swear like a sailor and need to work on that), we don't even HAVE billboards, I don't get TV reception, so no problem there, our kids are more involved in activities esp. involving nature and animals and they sure as hell aren't exposed to the level of violence and danger that the swill-filled cities are.

People CAN make their own choices... and they do... too often however, it's to wade around in a mire of muck. (I'm certainly not saying that of you, Nightingale, not at all... I've always found you to be very thoughtful, respectful, highly intelligent and well versed.)

I miss Lee.
And JP.
And Chris. And...

[micro 0]

Quote

In my thinking, it's not whether it's alive that's important, but rather whether it is capable of suffering. It requires brain development to be able to suffer. But I don't think that life, in itself, is sacred.

linz

Two questions:

1: Is Jay's life sacred to you?

2: When does a fetus have a sufficiently developed nervous system to feel pain?

I miss Lee.
And JP.
And Chris. And...

[micro 0]

Quote

A woman has control over what happens to her OWN body. The fetus is changing the woman's body, and she has the right to stop those changes. At the time when the fetus no longer depends on the woman for survival, the fetus should be considered a separate entity.

When life begins doesn't even enter the equation for me, because it's quite obvious a fetus is alive. However, as long as it cannot survive outside the womb, it can't be considered separate from the woman.

With regards to your first question, that can quite handily be dealt w/ by applying hte principle of the double effect. (I haven't the time to list it here... google it if you like) That is why I disagree w/ your first statement in this post above.

(I haven't the time b/c I have to pack for a trip that will last all week, I have to leave at 4 am... I really shouldn't be on here at all, but you all are like crack to me!!!)

As for your second statement, fetal viability (the ability to live outside of the mothers womb) has changed w/ advances in medical technology. What is viable today will be antiquated in 10 years time. What then? Again, according to SCOTUS, viability doesn't event matter. You can kill your baby right up to and including during delivery. Change your mind during the last trimester, do what the new england girl did, take a pistol to your abdomen and shoot your baby to death. She lived, the baby did not. She went on trial for murder or homicide, I don't remember which, and a slick atty got her off b/c she was only giving herself AN ABORTION even though she testified she was intending to kill her baby. Also, Partial birth abortions are real and do occur.

Life SHOULD enter into the equation for you, b/c if it IS in fact human life, it is wrong to kill it.

Alright, enough for me... gotta go pack... sorry to stir the shitpot ladies, know you have all my respect, even when I may sound like a twat on here...

I miss Lee.
And JP.
And Chris. And...

[Nightingale 0]

Quote

I like some of the things you have to say... however, when we see things like raunchy bill boards, TV shows that are approaching soft-core porn (and are essentially already there) in prime time TV, the choices have been forced upon us.

Nobody's forcing you to watch television. Just turn it off or turn the channel if you don't like it. Put a lock on your TV if you're concerned about your kids. I don't have cable/satellite/antenna. I just rent videos. I have no idea what's on television now.

Quote

Our society is NOT a safe place to raise kids anymore, at least not according to people w/ traditional judeo-christian values. modern clothing styles that leave nothing to the imagination that really leave young women, barely teenagers, dressing like hookers, magazine covers like cosmo at the grocery store proclaim all sorts of raunchiness about the most sacred act two humans can engage in, glorified violence on TV and in the movies, the list could go on and on. These are the kinds of things we want to raise our kids in. And this isn't the kinds of culture this country USED to be! The media used to be cleaner.

Don't like raunchy billboards? Take your kids to an art gallery like the Getty that has some of the classic nude paintings and sculptures. Get them to compare it to what they've seen on television and examine the difference between art and not-art. You can use the opportunity to teach them about the body being sacred and about why you want them to respect their own bodies.

My mom's a pretty hard-core catholic. I remember watching Ghost with her when I was I guess about 12-14. She didn't know that there was a sex scene between Patrick Swayze and Demi Moore. She let the scene play, and then stopped the movie and had a discussion with me about the scene, what she thought, what I thought, and why. Seeing something not-so-appropriate became a bonding experience between us and a chance to have a discussion that we wouldn't have had otherwise, at least, not in that context.

You control what your kids wear, what they watch, and what they do. There may be some information that they get that you don't approve of. Locker room talk, magazines passed around at school, whatever. You can't protect them from everything. What you can do is keep an open relationship with them, and let them know that it's okay to talk to you about absolutely anything at all.

What kids see isn't nearly as important as the context in which they see it.

Quote

What Windcatcher is, in part, trying to say I think, is that exposure to some of those things, is, we believe, harmful, esp. to young people. Our desire to see them OUT of society is for the GOOD of society, not to ramrod our beliefs down anyone elses throats.

It isn't your right to decide what is good or isn't good for me and for my family. It's my right to make that choice. Things can be good, things can be not good. It's all in the context. Example: When I was twelve or so, a girl my age in gym class said that you can't get pregnant the first time. Some girls believed her. Others didn't. Some, like me, went home and said "Mom, can you get pregnant the first time?" For the girls that believed her, what they heard was not good for them. For the ones that didn't, the experience had no effect. For the ones that went home and were comfortable enough to asked mom or dad, the experience became a very positive learning experience, both about sex, and about not believing everything you hear.

You cannot protect your children from everything, and it isn't your place to protect my family from ideas you personally disagree with. Honestly, I think I'd prefer if my future kids were exposed to ideas like porn and sexuality while they're living at home rather than when they're out of the house and in a place where I can't guide them quite so easily. Maintaining an open relationship with your kids is the absolute best thing you can do for them. If your kids feel they can talk to you about absolutely anything, they will. If not, then no matter what you do to change society, you'll have lost the chance to shape your child.

Quote

But since we get the kind of shit we do, like how "negative" the Christian ethos is, well, then families like mine do what we just did... We buy a farm and move to the country. Where we won't see that filthy shit anyway. the people are friendly, they don't swear nearly as bad (which is good for me, since I tend to swear like a sailor and need to work on that), we don't even HAVE billboards, I don't get TV reception, so no problem there, our kids are more involved in activities esp. involving nature and animals and they sure as hell aren't exposed to the level of violence and danger that the swill-filled cities are.

If that's what makes you happy, awesome. Live where you want, do what you want, teach your kids what you want. That's part of what the USA is all about.

Quote

People CAN make their own choices... and they do... too often however, it's to wade around in a mire of muck. (I'm certainly not saying that of you, Nightingale, not at all... I've always found you to be very thoughtful, respectful, highly intelligent and well versed.)

If people want to "wade around in a mire of muck," that is their decision. It's not my place or your place to pull them out of that muck against their will. Honestly, I've never even seen a porn film. However, I'm not going to tell someone else they can't watch one, produce one, or star in one. It's just not my job to make someone else's choices for them.

[Lindsey 0]

Quote

Quote

In my thinking, it's not whether it's alive that's important, but rather whether it is capable of suffering. It requires brain development to be able to suffer. But I don't think that life, in itself, is sacred.

linz

Two questions:

1: Is Jay's life sacred to you?

2: When does a fetus have a sufficiently developed nervous system to feel pain?

Jay is more important to me than anything else in the world. That's because of who he has grown into and how our relationship has developed over the years. I'm glad that he's my son.

I'd have to review my embryology to give a thoughtful answer to your second question. Somewhere in the 2nd trimester I'd think....

--
A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail

[billvon 2,400]

>I don't want my kids to go to a school that tells them they evolved from
>monkeys, and therefore have no purpose because they weren't "created."

No school tells kids "they evolved from monkeys." However, we and monkeys (and squirrels, and squids, and even trees) share a common ancestor. That's science, and that's what should be taught in science classes.

There are also plenty of creation stories around. They should be taught in religion classes.

>I don't want my kids to be exposed to raunchy billboards, pornography
>on tv and movies, obscene gestures, etc.

It is your job as a parent to supervise the environment they grow up in. If you don't want them to see stuff on TV - don't let them watch TV. If you don't want them to see pornographic movies - don't take them to pornographic movies.

>I don't want my kids to be taught by society that it's okay to murder an
>unbaby, simply because "it's not the right time to have one."

Society doesn't teach your kids what's right and wrong. You do.

>You say that Christianity has a "negative effect" on society, but I don't
>like living in a society that promotes pretty much anything and everything
>against what the Bible preaches.

That's the definition of freedom - living in a society that allows anything that doesn't hurt someone else. It can be a bit scary, because others may not share your values, and interacting with people like that can be (at times) upsetting.

But the good part of being free is that you have the freedom to teach your kids whatever you want. Sure, they will learn science in school - but no one's going to force them to pray to Allah, or Christ, or Vishnu. That's up to you, and you can choose to raise them however you choose.

[billvon 2,400]

>What really defines a human?

A human has a mind.

If a rescuer comes across a trauma victim who has been decapitated, but still somehow has a pulse, no paramedic/ER will try to save them Why? Because there is no chance the mind will survive; the brain is gone. A human body without a mind is not a human being.

Most states now recognize brain death as the end of life. After brain death, the only questions left to resolve is what to do with the body. Why? Because, again, the human being is gone. What's left is a shell; the family chooses how to deal with the remains.

Similarly, before an embryo has a mind of any sort (before about 8-12 weeks) there's just no way it can be considered human. After the brain can process information (including responses to pain, reactions to sound and light, and basic reflexes) it is almost certainly human. So before 8 weeks, I think the claim that an embryo is human is a stretch. After about 20 weeks, I think claiming that a fetus is _not_ human isn't that supportable.

[Royd 0]

Quote

No school tells kids "they evolved from monkeys." However, we and monkeys (and squirrels, and squids, and even trees) share a common ancestor. That's science, and that's what should be taught in science classes.

So, how does that read in the science bible. "In the beginning, Science...."

[Royd 0]

Quote

Similarly, before an embryo has a mind of any sort (before about 8-12 weeks) there's just no way it can be considered human.

The question should be, Is it life?

I Know that you are a man who believes in saving or renewing our resources.

Imagine how many potentially great lives have been flushed down the drain because someone just didn't want to be bothered with the task of raising a child. This is the great tragedy.

A rancher, knowing that his herd is pregnant, doesn't neglect it, because, after all, it's not beef on the hoof, yet.

[Lindsey 0]

The question should be, Is it life?

I don't think it matters if it's life. Life, for its own sake, isn't sacred in my mind....or in many other people's minds.

I cut my grass a couple times a month, because that's a life I don't want quite so alive in my back yard.

linz

--
A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail

[steveorino 7]

Quote

Quote

I also take Communion in church. But in the Methodist Church, the bread and grape juice are symbols of Christ's body and blood....we don't believe they're the real thing.

A most reasonable belief, since the most cursory examination shows that wine is NOT blood and bread is NOT meat.

This thread was turning into an abortion debate, so I will attempt to bring it back ...

Catholics believe that during Communion, during the Mass, a miracle takes place and the bread is actually changed into Jesus’ flesh and that the wine is actually changed into His blood (that is called Transubstantiation).

That’s one end of the spectrum. At the other end of the spectrum are the Baptists — Baptists believe that the bread stays bread, but the wine is miraculously changed into grape juice.

steveOrino

[kallend 1,625]

Quote

Catholics believe that during Communion, during the Mass, a miracle takes place and the bread is actually changed into Jesus’ flesh and that the wine is actually changed into His blood (that is called Transubstantiation).

I sure hope that people who actually believe this are never called upon as eyewitnesses at a criminal trial.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[JackC 0]

Quote

Sorry, I was a little vague. I think you misunderstood my use of the word 'them' up above. I meant to say that you don't have to believe what someone else believes, but why not atleast respect the person and accept that they have a different set of beliefs. I see consistently in this forum, attemtps to make people feel like jerks just because someone disagrees with their particular religion.

Chris

Here's how H. L. Mencken puts it:

"There is nothing about religious opinions that entitles them to any more respect than other opinions get. On the contrary, they tend to be noticeably silly."

People do seem to get disproportionately pissed when their faith is questioned. But really, if the only way you can accept an assertion is by faith, then you are conceding that it can't be taken on its own merits. That doesn't seem worthy of any significant amount of respect to me.

You obviously disagree and I'd like to know why you think believers of religion X should automatically get respect simply for believing, that's all.

[StreetScooby 5]

Quote

Similarly, before an embryo has a mind of any sort (before about 8-12 weeks) there's just no way it can be considered human. After the brain can process information (including responses to pain, reactions to sound and light, and basic reflexes) it is almost certainly human. So before 8 weeks, I think the claim that an embryo is human is a stretch. After about 20 weeks, I think claiming that a fetus is _not_ human isn't that supportable.

That's well put, Bill. Too bad others can't see that, as it might resolve a very contentious issue in our society.

But, that would require educating girls about their periods. Fundamentalists Christians don't want that to happen.

We are all engines of karma

[billvon 2,400]

>The question should be, Is it life?

It is absolutely alive. So is your skin. But if you want to get circumcised, there's not much of a moral issue cutting off and killing a living part of you for cosmetic/religious reasons.

>A rancher, knowing that his herd is pregnant, doesn't neglect it,
>because, after all, it's not beef on the hoof, yet.

And a rancher who has prairie dogs often blows them to bits. And ranchers who have problems with wolves shoot them (if they can do it legally.) And both prairie dogs and wolves are alive. Not sure that comparison is such a good one.

[billvon 2,400]

>So, how does that read in the science bible.

There is no science bible, and there is no "religion science." That's the fundamental misunderstanding that plauges some school districts. The bible is NOT a science book, and science books do NOT teach morality.