Abortion

[Duff]

Now that you've answered my question, you have an idea of what the Church feels. And that was what I was getting at.

I'm pretty sure my idea of what the church wants and your idea of what it wants are still two very different things. I'm sure that's not what you were getting at.

But okay. Time to stop going of topic, i think.

I know what the Church wants. I've said it. If whatever you think the Church wants is different than what I know the Church wants, then your idea of what the Church wants is incorrect.

 

The Church wants every person to make it to heaven (aka. eternal happiness). This is because it believes a place such as heaven exists. Just as you admitted to, an eternity of happiness (if it were to exist) is worth the bit of struggle during our earthly years. By admitting to that, you should realize that is why the Church is so set on getting people to live lifestyles as the Church teaches. Even if these lifestyles are a bit difficult, at least they'd be helping you gain eternal happiness.

 

If you think the Church wants to oppress it's people, force people to follow its rules, etc, then you're wrong.

 

EDIT: It's plainly written in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. I've read it. I can make the above claims.

[Nomrombom]

If you think the Church wants to oppress its people, force people to follow its rules, etc, then you're wrong.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_Inquisition

http://www.remnantofgod.org/nl0405.htm

http://www.blaghag.com/2011/07/catholic-church-apologizes-for-150000.html

http://radicalhub.wordpress.com/2011/08/04/forced-birth-crowd-led-by-catholic-church-dedicated-to-blocking-contraception-proposal/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusades

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Inquisition

http://www.catholicsentinel.org/main.asp?SectionID=2&SubSectionID=35&ArticleID=16245

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summis_desiderantes_affectibus

 

[Duff]

I asked, if there was, would it be worth a challenging life to achieve it.

 

Who can say no to a question like that? But salvation comes to whoever accepts the Christian Lord as their Saviour regardless of what life they lead before that. I could live a sinful life until my end of days and repent with sincerity and a humble heart and (possibly) be Saved. And while the true test for the spirit of a man or woman would be to love a child gotten on them by rape or otherwise would be to love them unconditionally, we aren't perfect. According to Christianity, the only perfect person who walked among us was the Christ who even then gave himself to save us.

That's the point. No one can. This is why the Church feels it should be doing what it's doing.

 

I don't even want to bring it up, but I have to: the Church believes in purgatory. If the Church is successful in helping the people of the earth lead better lives, they'll spend less time in purgatory, therefore having an easier road to heaven.

 

I know that many people don't believe in purgatory. I'm not proving it exists. I'm merely clarifying to Kimberly why, even if God has incomprehensible mercy, urging us to live by the Church's ways is still worth it.

[obfuscator]

I asked, if there was, would it be worth a challenging life to achieve it.

 

Who can say no to a question like that? But salvation comes to whoever accepts the Christian Lord as their Saviour regardless of what life they lead before that. I could live a sinful life until my end of days and repent with sincerity and a humble heart and (possibly) be Saved. And while the true test for the spirit of a man or woman would be to love a child gotten on them by rape or otherwise would be to love them unconditionally, we aren't perfect. According to Christianity, the only perfect person who walked among us was the Christ who even then gave himself to save us.

 

People pursuing something so drastic as abortion because of irresponsible behavior is a dangerous thing in society, but it has root problems elsewhere. And they need to be addressed in other ways. We all have natures, and the free will to choose within that nature. It's not for the government to save our eternal souls and outright ban abortion. That is an individual's responsibility. But at the same time we can't be wholly concerned with theology because we also have to remember the world we live in. That's why there's a moderation when it comes to the laws, late term abortion being banned in the states. There's another life at stake, at that point.But beyond those restrictions in place right now, I don't think it's right to do anything further. (ie outright ban of abortion/outright legalization)

 

I'm sure that in some places, my understanding of Christianity is rusty. And I'm sure I'll be corrected, either in my understanding or my logic. But these are my personal beliefs.

No, your understanding is pretty good.

[Zeno]

From what I'm seeing Duff is referring to the Catholic religion, while Kimberly is referring to the Christian religion

[Duff]

A very good clarification. Other Christian denominations don't believe in purgatory. My apologies.

 

Though, I feel, since heaven is a place for perfect people, we must go somewhere beforehand to become perfect, as we are not perfect when we die.

[Kimberly]

That's the point. No one can. This is why the Church feels it should be doing what it's doing.

 

Should it come at the misfortune, harm, or pain of others though? The theory behind the Church says no, but again...as we aren't perfect, neither is the way we carry out His will. It's why so many people today struggle against the Church.

[obfuscator]

Well, if God exists, he obviously supercedes our desires in every way.

 

It's a big IF.

[Duff]

That's the point. No one can. This is why the Church feels it should be doing what it's doing.

 

Should it come at the misfortune, harm, or pain of others though? The theory behind the Church says no, but again...as we aren't perfect, neither is the way we carry out His will. It's why so many people today struggle against the Church.

If you think about it, though, a person living by Catholic doctrine would not suffer misfortune, harm, or pain because of it. They would not have to worry about abortion because they wouldn't have sex until marriage (just one example). It's going to be hard for those who have already done things that are discouraged by the Church. But what if the Church was able to convince a generation to follow it's teachings? I'm, of course, speaking of an ideal life. But if the Church was able to convince a generation to follow it's teachings, and that generation was able to do the same to the next, slowly but surely, people would not experience misfortune, harm, or pain due to the Church's teachings.

 

I'm speaking ideally. I realize that. Just something to think about. :)

[Nomrombom]

Well, if God exists, he obviously supercedes our desires in every way.

 

It's a big IF.

 

Could you clarify what you mean?

[Zeno]

It's a big IF.

 

True, but in my opinion, if Heaven and God do exist, I wouldn't want to be on the wrong side, that's just me though

[Duff]

Well, if God exists, he obviously supercedes our desires in every way.

 

It's a big IF.

 

Could you clarify what you mean?

The way Catholics believe God to be, he fulfills all of our desires. He is the ultimate desire. Thus, we would do anything to achieve 'God', even if it meant putting aside our other desires.

 

I think that's what he means.

 

EDIT: Nevermind. Though, the point is still good. :P

[obfuscator]

Well, if God exists, he obviously supercedes our desires in every way.

 

It's a big IF.

 

Could you clarify what you mean?

If an omnipotent, eternal being created us and our world, obviously he would be more important than us.

[Nomrombom]

Duff, any response to my other post?

[Duff]

Didn't see that until now.

 

I think I got the gist of what your point was just by looking at the link text. And I'll say those were the results of bad popes who were affected by politics and who came to power through force and not because of their merit. I think we've already gone over that the Catholic Church has owned up to these actions and admitted it had been corrupt.

 

That still doesn't do any damage to the fact that the Catechism of the Catholic Church clearly expresses it's universal salvific will.

[aspeeder]

If you think about it, though, a person living by Catholic doctrine would not suffer misfortune, harm, or pain because of it. They would not have to worry about abortion because they wouldn't have sex until marriage (just one example).

You do realize that women can have unwanted pregnancies when they're married, right? She could have been chaste before marriage, had as many kids as she wanted (Even none if she didn't want any children), and then she'd have to either use contraception (Which is against some Catholic doctrine), continue to squirt out babies against her wishes, or never have sex again despite having fulfilled all of God's expectations.

 

 

But what if the Church was able to convince a generation to follow it's teachings? I'm, of course, speaking of an ideal life. But if the Church was able to convince a generation to follow it's teachings, and that generation was able to do the same to the next, slowly but surely, people would not experience misfortune, harm, or pain due to the Church's teachings.

So by being Catholic for ~5 generations we can take away the central nervous system's reaction to stimuli? I'm being a bit facetious, but there is no life without pain. And no offense, but we (Europeans) did follow the Catholic Church's teachings for many generations; it was called the Dark Ages, and I'm pretty sure there was an insane amount of misfortune, pain, and suffering even under the most benevolent of Popes. Diversity and division of power helps to minimize the tyranny that ALL earthly organizations create with enough influence and power.

[lizzywizzy]

I am neither for nor against abortion.

 

It is not something I would really ever consider, unless the baby had a serious health issue that meant it would either be guaranteed to be still born or have absolutely no quality of life once it was born. continuing with the pregnancy would be more cruel to the baby than terminating it.

 

However, if anyone I know was to have an abortion, I would support them the whole way, even go with them if they wanted to.

I am not going to think bad of someone if they decide to do that, its their decision.

 

 

I do know though, whether it was for a good reason or not, I would find it hard to forgive myself for terminating a baby. Sometimes when I am feeling really bad (depression mixed with post natal depression is not always fun) I do think that Freya is only here because I would not really be able to terminate a baby.... however when I look at her and see her gummy smile and her playing with her toes or trying to roll over, it reminds me that she is worth it.... tablets help a lot too lol.

[obfuscator]

Nice to get the opinion of a recent mother :thumbup:

[Low C]

My stance is i'm against it 100% unless a girl is raped or something traumatic happens then i believe it's up to her to decide what path she wants to take. Regardless i'm a guy so i wouldn't ever know the feeling of terminating a life as a mother but I couldn't imagine doing it.

[Assume Nothing]

I still believe that the mother's right to choice, and the right to good health (including mental health) outweighs the undeveloped fetus' 'right to life'. Admittedly, it does get much harder to draw the line when it starts developing brain waves - when is it 'human' (for a lack of a better term), and why?

[aspeeder]

I still believe that the mother's right to choice, and the right to good health (including mental health) outweighs the undeveloped fetus' 'right to life'. Admittedly, it does get much harder to draw the line when it starts developing brain waves - when is it 'human' (for a lack of a better term), and why?

Some good reading on the subject, you might enjoy it.

[Duff]

If you think about it, though, a person living by Catholic doctrine would not suffer misfortune, harm, or pain because of it. They would not have to worry about abortion because they wouldn't have sex until marriage (just one example).

You do realize that women can have unwanted pregnancies when they're married, right? She could have been chaste before marriage, had as many kids as she wanted (Even none if she didn't want any children), and then she'd have to either use contraception (Which is against some Catholic doctrine), continue to squirt out babies against her wishes, or never have sex again despite having fulfilled all of God's expectations.

Ever heard of Natural Family Planning? Married couples can have sex (save for maybe a week every month) without having to worry about the wife getting pregnant. That is an easy way to avoid unwanted pregnancies when they are married. And it's completely natural. It just involves charting when her time of the month is so you can find out what does she'll be fertile and which days she won't be (or something like that, don't fuss at me over the lingo, I don't know it :P).

 

But what if the Church was able to convince a generation to follow it's teachings? I'm, of course, speaking of an ideal life. But if the Church was able to convince a generation to follow it's teachings, and that generation was able to do the same to the next, slowly but surely, people would not experience misfortune, harm, or pain due to the Church's teachings.

So by being Catholic for ~5 generations we can take away the central nervous system's reaction to stimuli? I'm being a bit facetious, but there is no life without pain. And no offense, but we (Europeans) did follow the Catholic Church's teachings for many generations; it was called the Dark Ages, and I'm pretty sure there was an insane amount of misfortune, pain, and suffering even under the most benevolent of Popes. Diversity and division of power helps to minimize the tyranny that ALL earthly organizations create with enough influence and power.

You completely missed an important part of that statement. Look at the bold. Of course they would continue to feel pain if they stubbed their toe or accidentally scraped their arm. Those pains aren't due to Church teachings. And the Dark Ages were a probably at a time during which the papacy was rather corrupt (as I hinted to Nomrom). The papacy now is very stable. Even if there was a benevolent Pope who actually was chosen for his merit, you cannot blame the disease and horribleness of the Dark Ages on the teachings of the Church (those teachings that were actually credible, as opposed to ones that were made for political gain, etc).

[aspeeder]

If you think about it, though, a person living by Catholic doctrine would not suffer misfortune, harm, or pain because of it. They would not have to worry about abortion because they wouldn't have sex until marriage (just one example).

You do realize that women can have unwanted pregnancies when they're married, right? She could have been chaste before marriage, had as many kids as she wanted (Even none if she didn't want any children), and then she'd have to either use contraception (Which is against some Catholic doctrine), continue to squirt out babies against her wishes, or never have sex again despite having fulfilled all of God's expectations.

Ever heard of Natural Family Planning? Married couples can have sex (save for maybe a week every month) without having to worry about the wife getting pregnant. That is an easy way to avoid unwanted pregnancies when they are married. And it's completely natural. It just involves charting when her time of the month is so you can find out what does she'll be fertile and which days she won't be (or something like that, don't fuss at me over the lingo, I don't know it :P).

Ever heard that [cabbage] happens? Even if you take every precaution possible pregnancy is always a risk, and believing in Jesus and following teachings of x or y church won't reduce the likelihood anymore. And seriously? Scheduling sex around a woman's menstruation cycle might reduce the possibility of pregnancy, but there's only a few days every month where there is no egg to fertilize (And apparently you're not big on the idea of having sex with them during that time), and even then it's still possible; [cabbage] happens. Besides, it's not like natural family planning is exclusive to married couples, just probably wouldn't be as ideal for people having casual sex (And even then all the woman has to do is figure out when it'd be least optimal to have sex and just get everything done herself in the meantime). Your argument that, "They would not have to worry about abortion because they wouldn't have sex until marriage," is completely displaced from reality; marriage does nothing to change the possibility of unwanted pregnancy besides having a long-term sexual partner to discuss and plan with.

 

But what if the Church was able to convince a generation to follow it's teachings? I'm, of course, speaking of an ideal life. But if the Church was able to convince a generation to follow it's teachings, and that generation was able to do the same to the next, slowly but surely, people would not experience misfortune, harm, or pain due to the Church's teachings.

So by being Catholic for ~5 generations we can take away the central nervous system's reaction to stimuli? I'm being a bit facetious, but there is no life without pain. And no offense, but we (Europeans) did follow the Catholic Church's teachings for many generations; it was called the Dark Ages, and I'm pretty sure there was an insane amount of misfortune, pain, and suffering even under the most benevolent of Popes. Diversity and division of power helps to minimize the tyranny that ALL earthly organizations create with enough influence and power.

You completely missed an important part of that statement. Look at the bold. Of course they would continue to feel pain if they stubbed their toe or accidentally scraped their arm. Those pains aren't due to Church teachings. And the Dark Ages were a probably at a time during which the papacy was rather corrupt (as I hinted to Nomrom). The papacy now is very stable. Even if there was a benevolent Pope who actually was chosen for his merit, you cannot blame the disease and horribleness of the Dark Ages on the teachings of the Church (those teachings that were actually credible, as opposed to ones that were made for political gain, etc).

Ok, to use debate jargon you're in the affirmative but your plan has no solvency whatsoever. In other terms, you are supporting a plan (In this case everyone becomes a catholic and stays like that for several generations), and the only defense of said plan is that the plan would not physically harm them. Does it actually help them? Not according to what you said, it just doesn't make things worse. Not only that, but apparently it will only start becoming non-harmful after a while, is it harmful in the beginning? Now that's all just bad grammar, but even the so called credible teachings are still detrimental to, let's say, 60% of the population. And yeah, 60%, from the estimate that 10% of the population is gay and half of them are women. It's harmful to at least these groups because:

 

Negating women is at the heart of the churchs hideous and criminal indifference to the welfare of boys and girls in its priests care. Lisa Miller writes in Newsweeks cover story about the danger of continuing to marginalize women in a disgraced church that has Mary at the center of its founding story:

In the Roman Catholic corporation, the senior executives live and work, as they have for a thousand years, eschewing not just marriage, but intimacy with women ... not to mention any chance to familiarize themselves with the earthy, primal messiness of families and children. No wonder that, having closed themselves off from women and everything maternal, they treated children as collateral damage, a necessary sacrifice to save face for Mother Church.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/11/opinion/11dowd.html?th&emc=th

 

Because same-sex couples will be able to get married, and because Catholic Charities are not allowed to offer health care coverage to spouses in mixed-sex marriages only, they have the choice of denying health care to all spouses who become eligible to join the plan after 2nd March which will bar all couples in same-sex marriages, as they wont be able to get married until after that date or continue to offer health-care coverage to all spouses, even if that means some lurking closety gay spouse of an employee of Catholic Charities finds himself the recipient of health care that the Catholic Church believes he does not deserve.

 

Lastly, do you think it's a coincidence that the church was more corrupt during the Dark Ages, when it was the only organized political force in much of Europe. It became so corrupt by having a complete monopoly on power, giving them that again wouldn't yield vastly different results. And no, the church will not be able to convince a generation of followers, every new generation is less religious than the last. I'm fine with you being catholic, go right ahead, but the world would not run better under that monarchic organization.

[Duff]

I think you have it backward. There are only a few days a month which there is an egg to fertilize. There's plenty of time to have sex without worrying about having a kid. And I'm almost certain that if you follow NFP the way you should, there is no chance of having an unwanted child. And you seem to be misinterpreting what I say a lot. When I said "They would not have to worry about abortion because they wouldn't have sex until marriage," I was referring to the majority of people who get abortions, aka under-aged, irresponsible kids. I did not mean for people to think that abortion would be completely solved if everyone just waited for marriage to have sex. And I figured people who did get married would actually be stable enough to want/provide for a kid. I did not mean for you to think I said waiting to have sex until after marriage would solve the abortion problem. And I think marriage does change the possibility of unwanted pregnancy, seeing as most people (given, less and less couples are having kids nowadays) plan to have 'keep' their kids after they get married.

 

Oh, and I think you're taking my little ideal scenario a bit too seriously. I was hypothesizing that, though the current generations would be drastically affected if everyone all of the sudden began living their lives according to Church teach, eventually the effects wouldn't be so drastic as the coming generations would find themselves dealing less and less with problems of the previous generations; so, kinda like a slow process of getting used to the Church's teachings. And I think it's obvious the way I've been posting that I do think everyone would benefit if everyone followed Church teaching (the ultimate benefit being heaven). And when you say harmful from the beginning, I think you should understand that when I said harm, I meant difficult for those who are currently going against Church teaching. It will be harmful to them in their eyes.

 

Please enlighten me though, maybe with a citation from an actual Roman Catholic, Vatican approved document that shows that the Church strives to make life difficult for homosexuals and women. I can tell you now that, since the respect for human dignity lies at the center of Catholic Social Justice Teaching, the Catholic Church respects all people. I do suggest that, if you're caught up in the Church's view on homosexuals, you should look into that stuff yourself (make sure you look into Catholic Church Doctrine so you avoid people who argue incorrectly about the Church). I say this because I'm not extremely knowledgeable about the Church's view on homosexuals. I do know that the Church does not see women as lesser than men.

 

And lastly, my little ideal situation was in no way talking about making the Church the ruler of the world. I would never think of that. Especially in the form of a monarchy. I did say that I only meant a sudden change in obedience to the Church: everyone starts to follow it's moral teachings. I stated that perhaps the world would be better if we all adopted the Church's teachings; not if we made the Church the world central government. I know exactly why the Church became corrupt, and I'm sure the Church knows itself.

 

Phew. It was just a little dream scenario, that's all. :s

[Noxx]

When i was about 13 this guy came to my high school to talk about smoking/drugs and the effects it could have on our lives. He talked about this mother he knew who was a 2-packs a day smoker. She smoked during her pregnancy and when the child was born his body was so dependent on some of the chemicals in cigarettes that he HAD to start smoking himself at a very young age. I think it was from the age of 3 or something. Otherwise his body would have such bad withdrawals that he could possible die. I think when he reached the age of 12 or something he died because of lung cancer. His mother was against abortion. She wrecked the life on an innocent child because of her addictions.

 

Millions of children are born in africa each day. Children whos parents don't even have the money to each once every day, sometimes not even once every other day. Sure, most of them probably can't afford abortions but a large enough portion of them are not allowed to have abortions due to their religious beliefs. This child grows up in poverty and suffers from day one. As if that isn't enough the chances of the child having aids is there too. In lot of african cultures the husband may have multiple wives/sex-partners so he goes around spreading his seed and by doing so he spreads his aids resulting in thousands of children being born with aids. The wife cannot deny the husband his right (sex) so she is impregnated against her will. Not only is the cruel to the mother, but even more so to the unborn. Adoption can't always be an option. Not many people would be willing to adopt a baby with aids and put not only their lives at risk but everyone the child comes in contact with. Children play and get bumps and bruises all over the place. And having being born with hiv could potentially be a death sentence. Because of their religious beliefs they spread aids when they could have prevented it. Of course i'm not saying they're the reason aids is spreading, so don't come with your "are you claiming/implying".

 

Many of the arabic families in Qatar and i think in Saudi (might be in other middle-eastern countries too), inbreeding is/was a common thing. It was the only way to keep a clean bloodline. Most of those children are born with defects. Not only that, but most of the time the mother had no say in the matter. She could either have sex with a relative or face whatever consequences there may be. These children all get put in a Home where they are taken care of by strangers. The father doesn't care. The mother had no option of abortion because it is against her religious beliefs. And no one is going to adopt a mentally ill/deformed child. The child will never be able to live a normal life.

 

Edit: I also see no point in making abortions illegal. Underground abortions will soon become popular. Then you're faced with sketchy basement operations where the risk of the mother dying become all the more greater. In South Africa you can now get abortions at the age of 13 without parental consent (if i remember correctly) and as soon as the news was released posters started popping up all over the town. People offering cheap, easy, fast abortions. So many of the girls that go in don't come out the same. A lot of them get very ill and some of them even die. So taking away the right to abort won't solve a damn thing, in fact it will only take more lives.