Duff

Exchanging a life of challenges for an eternity of happiness. Yes, I think that sounds like a good deal. In your eyes yes. Because you choose to believe in a fairy tale. In my eyes no. Because i choose to believe in science. I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't label religious doctrine in such a condescending manner. It isn't very mature. Oh, in your eyes, is an eternity of happiness not worth a short life of challenges? Is that not a good deal? That was your question to me. Now I ask it of you. If your answer is that it does sound like a good deal (which it will be), then you'll understand why the Church is doing what it is doing. And I find it too funny that you label a good Catholic life as miserable. You can't have sex until your married? How awful! You can't abort a child because you never thought that your girlfriend would get pregnant, even though you are thoroughly warned that birth control is not 100% fool proof? Dang, I'm sorry. It's so tough not being able to do everything that you want to do. That sure makes life completely miserable, huh?

Exchanging a life of challenges for an eternity of happiness. Yes, I think that sounds like a good deal.

I guess where we're not connecting is the fact that you seem to think I don't know that people don't believe the Church should be telling us what to do. But I do. The Church believes it should, and so it does. Whether you believe in heaven or not, it is going to try and get you there. No amount of telling it to [bleep] off will make it do otherwise. I don't see how the Church is thinking of themselves. Since heaven is a place of ultimate happiness, and everyone (yes, everyone) wants to be happy; what makes them think you'd want otherwise? The Church wants everyone to be ultimately and eternally happy. Only someone with an psychological order would not want to be happy. EDIT: @Noxxx: The Church believes it has knowledge of what's in the best interests of everyone through Tradition and Scripture. I obviously know you don't believe that. But just because you don't believe they don't have the authority doesn't change the fact that they think they do. And quit being disrespectful and calling my religion a bunch of fairy tales and ghosts.

But i do not. And neither do a lot of other people. The Church should concern themselves with their own matters and leave the legal matters to the Law. The law is doing what they believe is in the best interest for ALL the people. Giving people the option is what is best, not trying to force them in one direction. I don't want some cult meddling with my life and what should be my choices just like you don't want heathens meddling with yours. So it's intentions would be in the wrong place because it would force people to break away from what THEY really want ad would be forced to do what "the Church" sees right. The Church's 'own matter' is the salvation of all people. The Church is doing what it believes in in the best interest for ALL the people. Giving people the option is not what is best. Would a parent want to give their son the option of burning his hand on an open stove? People just don't want to live a life according to the Church because they can't do whatever they want in such a life. What a person 'wants' is not always what is best for them, Noxxx. The Church wants the best for everyone, and there is no harm in that intention.

Lol. The Church wouldn't be an institution that holds solidarity as one of it's themes of social justice if it just let people commit, in it's eyes, morally wrong actions. Granted, the majority of people don't agree with the Church on matters of what is morally right and wrong. I get that. However, the Church believes in heaven, and it wants all people to have as best a shot as possible to get there. It's not like its intentions are in the wrong place. And that's all I'll say.

They don't force people to believe that abortion is wrong. And they have every right to vote against abortion. Since when has that ever been a problem. The government allows us to vote against it. There is nothing wrong with taking this option. So technically, the government is giving us the option to 'force' our beliefs on people. Get angry at them if your angry about feeling 'forced' to believe something.

So instead, we deprive them of life, possibly the greatest gift given to anyone. And though I agree that everyone is going to have differing opinions, the Catholic Church's goal is for all people to obtain salvation. It is it's responsibility to tell people when they are in error. They don't force this belief on people. They don't force anything on anyone.

By "Chuch," I mean the Catholic Church. And as a note, the Catholic Church does not damn unbaptized, unborn children to hell. That doesn't mean that it doesn't matter if these unborn children die or not. Every life is precious. You act like it's the childs fault that it's causing 'problems' for the mother and father. It is in no way the child's fault. It's completely the parents fault, and all the blame is on them for being irresponsible. Don't even begin to accuse an innocent child for being at fault for something that was entirely the parents' faults.

>implying other generations had so much more self control The US population growth rate is actually decreasing, believe it or not (source: census.gov). And look at this: (source: cdc.gov via wikipedia) The blue is the baby boomers. If anything, we have more self control than they. That's entirely besides the point. We need to get some self control instead of giving people a morally wrong (in my opinion, and the Church's) way out of having a child. Technically, that would not be murder (assuming it is allowed by law). Is it wrong (IMO)? Yes. Is it ridiculous and backwards (IMO)? Yes. I am simply saying that in the US, at current time, abortion is not murder because it does not fit the definition of murder. Murder is also defined as the killing of a human being specifically, and since nobody can rightfully make a blanket statement whether fetuses are human beings or not, nobody can rightfully make a blanket statement that abortion is murder. Simply because we cannot come to an agreement that a fetus is a human being or not doesn't mean it's automatically not a human being, and therefore not capable of being murdered. Plus, we're focusing on stupid labels/English words, when the act itself, the killing of another person, is the same in both instances, regardless of if you're in the United States or the Middle East. Deities don't count for anything here. We don't know that any deity exists and so any "rights" or "dominion" or whatever you want to call it "given" by one is not an acceptable reason for anything (not to mention that because one of the basic human rights agreed upon by all but 3 nations is freedom of religion, so the laws/rules given by one deity may not govern universal law). And why are we allowed to kill people under so many circumstances? I am not making any assumptions as to whether a fetus can be considered living. I am asking why anyone has the right to define it. In what circumstance are we told to kill people when they aren't threatening our own life? This is an honest question. The Church doesn't support the killing of anyone. It would rather have no one die, but when the circumstance involves one's own life, they make an exception. This doesn't mean they support killing.

Yes, exactly. This is why we also "need" abortion. Maybe they were drunk, or stupid, or tried to pull out, or the condom broke, or any combination of those. Abortions have saved countless numbers of children from having to endure terrible quality lives. There are people who, if abortion was illegal, simply have their baby in secret and kill it. What if having a baby endangers the safety of the mother? What if the baby is going to be born deformed and will have extremely poor quality of life? What if the mother is a prostitute addicted to cocaine and the father is a random guy who hired said prostitute? What if the mother/father have little money, no way to have the child cared for, and no jobs? First off, I was thinking more along the lines of 'stop having sex if you aren't planning on having a baby.' If our generation had some self control, we wouldn't be in this problem, tbh. And to the rest of that paragraph, I'm sure you could find succinct answers somewhere else. Look into it yourself. I know the Catholic Church has answers for those questions. How can you even say that when laws are not universal? Are you meaning to tell me that because the law doesn't find raping and killing a woman who has had an affair somewhere in the Middle East murder, that it isn't? You are basically saying that the laws determine our morals, and that is far from the truth. God gave us dominion over the rest of the earth. That's why we're allowed to kill the things you said (except for people). There are exceptions though, because caring for God's creation is one of the key themes of Catholic Social Justice. And it sounds like you're making your own assumption as to whether the fetus can be considered living or not. Who are you to make this call?

Because our generation needs sex and without birth control or condoms, there would be so many irresponsible parents out there unable to raise children. Of course people would support being able to have sex all the time without taking on the responsibility of what it is meant to do. Sex is sacred, and the Church is against separating the pleasure of sex from sex's original purpose: to create life. Strictly speaking, there is no difference between birth-control, condoms, or abortion in my view. I don't believe in any of them, as does the Church.

You know that many people don't agree that something has to take it's first breath to be considered living. Personally, I find that requirement completely ridiculous.

Me too! D: I'm currently working on a poem analysis of William Wordsworth's short poem I Wandered Lonely as a Cloud. I think I've actually come up with some good ideas for it, so now it's all about finding the right rhetorical features and passages and writing them down right. Also have to write up a prelab for Chemistry. I hate how they make you rewrite the whole procedure. My hand feels like it's going to fall off after every lab.

Geezums... The doctor was really cool (he worked in Philadelphia before, so he's seen much worse than an ingrown toe: gunshot wounds, etc). He just decided that it'd be better to rip out my whole toenail instead of just the side. So, now I am nail-less, and a complete gimp. I'll have to leave 25 minutes early to get to my classes. D: But, it'll definitely be worth it. @Kimberly: I had to pay $100 for the visit. But I misunderstood one of their questions (who is supporting you, i.e. usually parents) and so I answered my dad's gross income without taxes (my mom is unemployed). What I should've said, since it was the complete truth, was that I'm am completely on college scholarships and loans. My parents aren't helping me pay for it at all, so technically I have no one financially supporting me right now. That would've lowered the price to $50. I think my mom is going to be pissed and fix it, though. The anesthesia is wearing off now, and it stings. :c

New Blink-182 album Neighborhoods came out a day or so ago. So I'll be spending the next few weeks getting to know that album real well. ;-) Tom still has too much Angels & Airwaves in him. I wanna hear the punk come out more. It's why I liked Blink-182 in the first place.

Well, first, it was difficult finding a place that would do the operation for someone like me (poor college student, no income, no insurance). And then I have to find time and someone to drive me down there. And this has all happened within the last few weeks. I've been just too busy with school. I finally decided not to put it off anymore. :P Plus, I'm starting to get a limp, and I'm afraid my whole toe will become infected (it partially is); don't want to lose the whole thing. ;-)

I'm actually going to an Urgent Care Center today to get my ingrown toe fixed... after a month and a half of having it hurt like crazy. Bleh, I don't like needles.

That's Protestantism. I'm Catholic. :s The Catholic Church is against abortion because it kills a human child, not because they want to force the woman to bear a child against her will. It's a matter of not murdering vs murdering for the Church. Not forcing a woman to bear a child vs letting her off easy. The Church is against birth control because it separates the pleasure of sex from the very purpose of sex. The Church sees sex as extremely sacred, since it involves creating a new being. When one decides to take this sacred act and prevent it from fulfilling its purpose (naming the creation of a life), of course the Church is going to be against that.

Sometime Around Midnight - The Airborne Toxic Event What an awesome song. I'm not a fan of their other big hit, but this one gets me. EDIT: I knew it. I'm beginning to fall in love with all of The National's songs. City Middle - The National <3:

A woman in it's most natural state: awake at four in the morning. :3 Elisha Cuthbert [hide] [/hide] And for those who care: [hide][/hide]

I don't believe that your hypothetical situation actually happens... And for some reason I cannot see a young child taking the life of another child, realizing that this other child isn't going to 'wake up' or open his/her eyes, and not feeling sad or disturbed or guilty.

Isn't that brainwashing? :s I think if you brainwash someone for their whole life, telling them that killing is a good thing, they'll eventually think it's right. That doesn't mean they didn't feel mildly disturbed when they first started being told that, or when they first realized what they were actually doing (ending someone's life)...

Morals are universal, found in all people (save the psychologically disordered); so a truly basic moral statement is one that is believed by all people. Catholicism simply believes morals come from God. That's where religion plays into it. Also, Catholicism helps us apply these morals to modern day situations. I hate to bring it up again, but for example, abortion: the Church reminds us that abortion is murder, which is morally wrong, and therefore so is abortion. Of course, you can rationalize that abortion is not murder, which has been done ten times over. :P

so when the vatican actively and knowingly financing groups that picket and harrass outside medical centres that do abortions it doesnt count as support? expressing support for laws that make it illegal to have an abortion in countries like malaysia, which further victimise the women who undergo the procedure, that doesnt count as support? blackmailing those women by preaching abortion is a sin, and threatening them that theyll burn forever in hell as a result doesnt count as harrassment in and of itself? when the church authorities (almost exclusively old men) think they have any right over the bodies of others under the BS pretense "its for your own good", their armies of sycophants theyve trained up to hang on their every word start emulating this belief and act as if they have any right over other the bodies of others and so begins the harrassment and blackmail. your beliefs inform your actions after all, so whoever bears the responsiblity for planting those beliefs in those people (which the church is no doubt keen to attribute to itself) also bears a proportional part of the responiblity for the consequences of the actions that result from those beliefs (which is what apologetics tries to weasel out from when those actions arent favourable). You're straight up putting words into the Church's mouth. And they're so wrong. The Church finances groups to peacefully sit outside abortion clinics, not to harass those who go into the clinic. This is like what we've already gone over: you cannot hold the Church responsible if it's followers do something that the Church condones (i.e. harassing people going to the clinic). I've sat outside a Planned Parenthood myself; want to know what my family and I did? We prayed the rosary. There's nothing awful about that. "Expressing support for laws that make it illegal to have an abortion in counties like malaysia, which further victimise the women who undergo the procedure..." I don't see how this is a bad thing. Of course the Church is going to support the 'illegalization' of abortion; it's against it's teachings. That doesn't mean it supports the victimization of the women who undergo the procedure. We've been over this before. "blackmailing those women by preaching abortion is a sin..." How is stating that abortion is morally wrong equal to blackmailing? Am I blackmailing all women who have had abortions by believing it's wrong? That's just a stupid statement. "threatening them that theyll burn forever in hell as a result doesnt count as harrassment in and of itself..." Lmfao. You've made so many wrong accusations. Where does the Church say women who have abortions will burn in hell forever? Honestly, your arguments are all over the place. How is the Church teaching that "murder is wrong, abortion is murder, therefore abortion is wrong" not in the best interest of humanity? Who would say that murdering innocent children is not harming to our society? If I tell you that murder is wrong, are you going to tell me that I can't say that because I'm telling other people what they can and cannot do with their bodies?

Thanks for the clarification. I meant murder. And I agree; that's where the a lot of the problem comes from: a difference in defining whether abortion is murder or not (which depends on whether we consider a fetus a human). The Church takes the position that a fetus is a human being, and so calls abortion murder --> morally wrong. When a fetus becomes a human (for those who don't believe abortion is murder) is a very grey area, in my opinion.