Duff

Here was my reasoning: the Church will state a woman doesn't have to have her baby if it was a fatal operation to her. The Church told her she was not allowed an abortion, and so I was right to assume that the Church had decided that a c-section would not kill the girl. I'm not a doctor, I don't know much if anything at all about what constitutes as a situation that could end up fatal or not. But I'm sure the Church looked adequately on the situation and made a choice accordingly. And for Pete's sake already, we've established that my views are far different than yours. We disagree. I'm not going to turn pro-choice, and you're not going to turn anti-abortion. Let that be the end of it (or move to another topic).

I got my Texas Instruments 30XIIs calculator! :thumbup:

The Magisterium interprets 'God's law' to the people of this earth, and so I hold that above the regular law. However, since we all share the same morals (which I believe are given to us by God), many of our current laws reflect God's law. The legalization of abortion, on the one hand, goes against one of our most basic morals: not to kill. It goes against God's law and the teachings of the Magisterium, and so I find the legalization of abortion to be morally wrong. When we're dealing in matters of whether it's right to kill or wrong, I completely trust with all my being the Magisterium. And that is what that first quote was in context of. As to your second paragraph, I still see no 'inherent contradiction that undermines the whole argument'. The Church says that because of our intellect and Sacred Scripture and Tradition, we can try to explain/characterize God. But it admits that none of these explanations/characterizations will allow us to fully comprehend God. There is no contradiction in that. It sounds like you're saying, "You cannot prove that Sacred Tradition and Scripture are correct," which is, in essence saying "You cannot prove God exists" (in a way). And if you say that, that's fine. That's your stance on the matter. I believe otherwise, and am clarifying what I believe for people, not whether it's true or not. You add nothing to a discussion that asks me to clarify what I believe by coming in here and saying, 'what you believe is wrong.' We're haven't been discussing whether God exists, whether heaven and hell exist, but rather, if they did, what does Church doctrine say on the matter. As for your third argument, people who do despicable things in the name of the Church, when the Church does not support such things, can't even be seen as reflecting Church teaching. The Church does not preach to go out and harass those who have had abortions. It is completely against it. So why should the Church be seen as responsible for such harassment? Any radical group can claim that any person/institution influenced their actions. People were claiming her life was at risk. I was pointing out that it wasn't.

Oh. I didn't know that. :s

When my roommate flirts and acts the nice friendly guy to all the girls, and then complains when they all ask for him to listen to their problems. I told him yesterday that maybe he should kinda lay off and not act like he's willing to be there for them when they need to vent.

He has the skull helmet and 100% armor complete, but has only played 77 games and is a Colonel Grade 1.

January Jones. So beautiful.

I woke up to it raining and misting outside. It was really refreshing, and I felt like I had gotten a good night's rest cause of it.

Did he credit boost? o.O

Cath - Death Cab for Cutie I just love how upbeat it is. I find their newer stuff to be not as good as the older stuff, save for a few songs. They've always been a favorite of mine ever since I heard Brothers on a Hotel Bed on the radio before Plans even came out. :thumbup:

I see you saying "The law says this, I don't see how anyone can say differently." That makes me think you think the law is above all. And to me, that hints that you think we should look to it for the right decisions; and in that case, since that hints it has the right decisions and that it is above all, it is always right. I shouldn't have said you worshiped the law. It was stupid. But to me, it sounds like you look to it as a moral compass.

It's an innocent child, nonetheless. It cannot control how it was born, and we should hold none of that against it. We should especially not hold the child's father's crime against it. "The law says this, so I don't know why anyone else would say differently." Wasn't trying to be disrespectful. It just seems like you completely trust the law. If I offended, I did not mean to. Again, I'm not saying that anything about the situation was a good thing. I'm just as angered as you are about it. But taking a human life is wrong. This is off-topic. Take it to the other thread. You know the Church's stance, you do not agree, fine.

One of them is bound to have a gun. That picture just screams 'don't [bleep] with us'.

You see, there's where some confusion lies. I do not like the idea of a 9 year old giving birth because of the physical strains it would put on her. I did say earlier that a C section is a very standard procedure, and that abortion can be equally as physically damaging. Abortion can also be psychologically damaging, especially when one has one at age 9. But still, I'm extremely angry and frustrated that this girl was in this position. I would never wish it upon anyone, and neither would the Church. The Church, and I, do not say that it the effects of having an abortion or having a baby while so young (psychological and physical), are wholly good. The Church does not say that rape is okay. Everyone see's the Church's position on this subject in the wrong light. The Church abides by it's two most central pillars of social justice: respect for human dignity and human life. Therefore, it sees abortion as wrong because it violates these. People take the Church's stance of 'no abortion, even in a situation of rape' as the Church not caring about rape and kinda pushing it to the background. This is not a correct view of the Church's stance. The Church must condone abortion because it violates the respect for human dignity and human life. Also, the Catholic Church would allow the mother to make a choice in the case that birth would be fatal to the mother. Obviously in this case, it wouldn't be because the girl could have a C section. There is no need to judge which human is more important, because both can live (this is assuming there wouldn't be a miscarriage; if so, the Church see a miscarriage as natural). I can honestly see that none of you agree with Church teaching on this one. I've explained it as simply and best as I can. We can agree to disagree, because this argument is going nowhere. The Church is not an awful institution because it holds the killing of an innocent child immoral. It in no way sees rape as a good thing, nor would it wish birth upon a young girl who may not be fully capable of giving birth to a child without negative effects. But in the end, it must stand by it's central respect for human dignity.

then theres also the fact that none of the assumptions made are backed up by any evidence, theyre just flatly asserted. "God transcends all creatures." "on what basis do you claim to know this?" "....." so if god is "the inexpressible, the incomprehensible, the invisible, the ungraspable" as the catholic church proclaims just how on earth can they possibly claim anything about god at all. either something is incomprehensible in which case you cannot know anything else about it by definition, or you can know things about it in which case its not incomprehesible. Seeing as the catholic church is claiming to know things about god then they are also claiming that god isnt incomprehensible.......while claiming that god is incomprehensible. nevermind that in order to be able to properly judge something as incomprehensible (as opposed to just 'I cant comprehend this') you would have to comprehend that something first in order to make that evaluation, which would mean its not incomprehensible. Did you read that part of the Catechism that you quoted at all? The Church states that, because of our human intellect, we can attempt to describe him and his attributes as best as we can, though these will always fall short. Just like you can still attempt to describe perfection, in the end, you can never fully comprehend it because nothing on this earth or what we know of is perfect. Also, like mostly everything else in this thread, the Church claims to know things through Sacred Scripture and Tradition. Half of the things we're discussing in this thread (baptism, heaven, hell) assert that God exists for the sake of discussion. You're basically coming into this thread while we are all clarifying and discussing Church doctrine, and saying, "hey, by the way, the church can't prove god exists." It's adding nothing, really. oh my, speaking of irony.... so lets get this straight. Demonising people for exercising control over their own bodies,prevent children from growing up in poverty as their parents cant afford them, or like in this case to prevent almost certain perment disability or death due to her being 9 years old because hey, more babies need to be pumped out DOESNT count as haterd of women? to add to the horror of the rape shes going to have to endure people harrassing her and calling her a murderer for the rest of her life because of the dogma you and they subscribe to, if that doesnt register as hatred to you then quite frankly youre beyond reasoning. so congratulations on having such a lack of self awareness that you prove exact what you were trying to deny. Demonizing? I don't see it. Preventing children from growing up in poverty? There's adoption. Plus, there's thousands of charities and organizations which will help women who have had a baby and cannot provide for them. Also, a C-section is a safe procedure and would've prevent disability or death of the 9 year old. It's a standard procedure and doesn't show anything about hating women. And you don't think it's been proven that there are drastic psychological and physical side effects to having an abortion? Oh, and I want to see an instance in which the authority of the Church will harass this child. There will always exist those followers who feel the need to harass people who had abortions, but I can assure you, no authority figure of the Church is going to (under full support of the Pope in Rome) harass a person who had an abortion. The doctrine says it's wrong, but does not say 'make so-and-so's life miserable because they did it anyway.' oh my, speaking of irony.... so lets get this straight. Demonising people for exercising control over their own bodies,prevent children from growing up in poverty as their parents cant afford them, or like in this case to prevent almost certain perment disability or death due to her being 9 years old because hey, more babies need to be pumped out DOESNT count as haterd of women? to add to the horror of the rape shes going to have to endure people harrassing her and calling her a murderer for the rest of her life because of the dogma you and they subscribe to, if that doesnt register as hatred to you then quite frankly youre beyond reasoning. so congratulations on having such a lack of self awareness that you prove exact what you were trying to deny. Yeah i kind of have to side with Locke on this one. And, speaking of rape and abortion... I don't see how a god and his churches and his followers could be so cruel and call someone who aborts a rape child a sinner or a murderer. An unborn child (fetus) still has no life nor rights. It's not a person in the eyes of the law. So if in the eyes of the law it's not murder i don't see why anyone one else should classify it as that. But that's not the point anyway. What i really want to say is that i don;t get how a god and his people can expect a rape victim to keep a child conceived as a result of the rape. I doubt there are many women strong enough to raise the child like their own and not hate it. Back in South Africa a girl and her family were forced out of the church down the road from us because she had an abortion. Her boyfriend forced himself on her. The whole church was in an uproar about this. Everyone going nuts because she killed her unborn baby. She made the point that if she had kept the baby chances were that she would have killed it at a later stage anyway. And afterwards she would have probably killed herself. Just the thought of having a baby conceived by rape sickened her and made her hate every second she had the fetus in her. No one really understood this because everyone claimed it to be a gift from god. Really? You call getting raped and having a constant reminder of that terrifying experience a gift? They say god is just. He is gracious, kind and understanding. Why can he not understand then? Why can't his people understand then... So you're claiming the law is always right? Since when has the masses ever always been right? Often times they're wrong. You sound like you worship the law; it's made by humans, and humans have flaws. First off, the Church believes life begins at conception. And that difference in belief is what causes this whole dispute with abortion. All this 'hate' towards this child is completely uncalled for. You're hating something that is completely innocent. And she's 9 years old, of course she going to talk like that about the baby and about herself. I just find it quite awful how people don't see a child conceived of rape as just like any other innocent child; they see it as a reminder of the rape. And that really is in no way treating this child with human dignity, which is what we are called to do with every single person. God will justly judge everyone who has ever lived. It is not the Church's job to give the final judgement, only to point people in the right direction. Abortion, in the Church's eyes, no matter how the baby was conceived, is the killing of an innocent child, and is therefore unacceptable. The Church is not condemning this person to Hell. You cannot claim God is not just, loving, kind, and understanding because he considers taking a human life as sinful. We will all be at his mercy in the end, and he will judge according to the circumstances. Are you saying that a raped child should have to keep the baby? That is sickening. They are not mentally nor physically ready to have a baby regardless of if they keep it. Are the mentally or physically ready to have an abortion? There have been dozens of testimonies of women who have wholly regretted their abortion. This girl will grow up, and at some point, she will realize that what was inside her could've been a fully grown human being with it's own character, unique. I find it sickening that someone would deprive a being of life because it will remind them of something, and this reminder the little innocent child can do nothing about (for it is not the innocent child's fault at all). Cheating on your spouse is not wrong in the eyes of the law. Would you say that cheating on your spouse is not an immoral action? And what gives the "law" the authority to define the rights available to a fetus? We don't know what God expects in situations like that. Many Christians claim to know, but the beliefs of many Christians are not biblical and founded on old traditions that have no basis in theology, etc. Additionally, whether or not you agree with a god's moral standing is irrelevant to the existence of said God. Actually, the fact that you believe that any specific action can have a moral index assigned to it goes to show you believe in some sort of higher power. Although adultery itself is not a crime, it has many legal consequences. Like i sad though, only a living being can have rights. Since a fetus is not yet a living being (ie. able to breath on its own) it can have no laws to protect it. Except in cases where habeas corpus is applied. If you want non-living things to have the same rights as living beings, then why not have laws that protect pencils, books, glasses, etc. Again, the Church has a different view on when life begins. And I can't help that, and there will always be arguments over abortion because of it. They will get nowhere, I tell you, unless an agreement is reached on when life begins (I assure you, that will only happen when the public decides life begins at conception, for the Church will not budge on it's judgement; seeing as that's the case, no agreement will be reached in this thread). If you all want to continue talking about Abortion, you should use the respective thread, too.

From the article: I find this just too ironic. The Church will not be lenient and appear weak by making exceptions just so that it can gain more followers. That's saved for politics. The Church will always do it's best to teach what is right and good, not what is easiest for it's followers. Like any good argument, a slippery slope must be avoided. Yes, I do feel for the girl and the girls' family, but when you think about it from the view of the unborn child, it was morally wrong. People seem to think that killing the child will make it seem like the rape never happened; others even associate this very innocent child with whoever committed the rape, and see killing the child as a sort of 'payback'. But what it boils down to is that a life was taken, a life that could honestly have been just as good as any other life. EDIT: And that's just stupid to think that the Church hates women/girls... Really, let's try to be intellectually competent here.

Hamtaro already made this point. The Catholic Church does not go against it's own doctrine. I did not say the Catholic Church did not condone gay marriage. They do. They do not support violence against people who are gay. Simply put, their teaching is that it's fine to be gay, but you should not act on this orientation (i.e. gay marriage, take part in homosexual acts, etc). I'm assuming you have a Bible verse ready that supports God saying "don't do this." But I'm also going to assume that whatever he did say, he was not saying 'don't be gay' but condoning homosexual behavior. I am curious to hear which Bible verse you are talking about. And also, which one you found that has, explicitly, God massacring homosexuals.

Honestly, your paraphrase is completely wrong. And frankly, I don't like your attitude at all. It's people like you who think the Church is a joke that piss me off, and I have no respect at all for said people. Those passages are hardly contradictory at all. And I may just be guessing, but seeing as that is Part I Section I Article I, I bet you just started at the beginning and tried to look for the first instance in which you could claim there were contradictions. I glean from those passages that 1) The Church is confident that we can (we have the ability to) speak about Him and of Him because of our intellect 2) Our knowledge of God is limited, and so will all our explanations/ideas/descriptions: "Our human words always fall short of the mystery of God...Admittedly, in speaking about God like this, our language is using human modes of expression; nevertheless it really does attain to God himself, though unable to express him in his infinite simplicity. I still am dumbfounded at how you came to the conclusions you did from these passages. I dunno how I'm going to keep up an intellectual conversation with you...

Twice baked potatoes are mouth watering!

Don't worry, Killer. I learned it senior year of high school, too.

You can interpret it as 'be thankful for what you have' (yah, it's a stretch). And that's what I do every time I see something like that. I ignore whatever they actually wrote. I'm think I know what you mean, though. I don't think you're a cold hearted. ;-)

As annoying as I find those things, too, they're good 'eye-openers' if you see it differently. If you read it as "You think your life is tough, some people are suffering worse," then it's a useful reminder to be thankful for what you have. I'd rather be reminded of how thankful I should be because of how well off I am by one of those stupid statuses than not be reminded at all. :\

I can see where I may have been misleading. You act like a guy like me can't make mistakes unknowingly (if he didnt want to imply it then he wouldnt have written it). I did not mean for people to interpret what I said as meaning truth and age are correlated. Plainly, I meant that, since the Catholic Church has been around for so long and is rather prevalent in today's society, it would be a good idea to look into that it, especially because it's teachings are so well defined. Just think of it as me suggesting someone look into buying a computer made by Microsoft first instead of a computer made by a relatively new company. The history of the Church is filled with mistakes. There were dozens of popes that were not fit for the position. The modern Church has acknowledged this. But I assure you that the Catechism of the Catholic Church is not contradictory. Your example of contradictory spans over time, while I meant 'non contradictory' as in it's teachings now - compared to fundamentalist Christianity (which was why this subject came up), which is very contradictory in that one part of the Bible taken literally clearly contradicts another part of the Bible taken literally. Again, you will not find a spot in the Catechism that contradicts another point in the Catechism; that is what I meant by non contradictory. Humans are flawed. Also, it's taken many mistakes and many arguments for the Catholic Church to get where it is now. It will continuously improve upon itself by better fleshing out its teachings, and that only comes with time.

As much as I want to try, I have a feeling I'll make a mistake. :\ If I'm lucky, it'll come in tomorrow (along with my Texas Instruments calculator!). As for your second question, I am thoroughly convinced that God exists. I'm pretty sure that that is the different from claiming that I know God exists. Being convinced/believing is different than claiming you know, yes?

^ That's for sure. All The Sails - Eluvium The dissonance in this song gives me chills.