Jump to content

Beliefs, Religion and Faith.


Assume Nothing
 Share

Recommended Posts

Hamtaro already made this point.

 

Also,

Matthew 5:17- Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill.

Basically, this means that Jesus' teachings (see below) are more important than some crazy laws from Leviticus.

Matthew 7:12- Do to others whatever you would have them do to you. This is the law and the prophets.

We can deduce from this that it is more important to treat everyone with dignity as equals than to kill someone for being the way that God made them.

 

The Catholic Church does not go against it's own doctrine.

 

Fortunately, Catholicism doesn't advocate for hating gay people.

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.

pMcEU.png

| My Tumblr |

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 412
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

 

From the article:

 

But the Church takes these positions that are so rigid that it ends up weakened. It is very intolerant, and that intolerance is going to scare off more and more followers.

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.

pMcEU.png

| My Tumblr |

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. (has absoultely no effect on the validity of my arguement, it could be the first example or the millionth)

 

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. (infinite simplicity? thats a logical impossiblity right there, besides were it possible then god would be the easiest thing to explain because he'd be, well, simpler thean the simplest thing possible.)

 

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...

 

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

 

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

 

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...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i have a question maybe a bit unrealted to the currect discussion:

 

would architecture have prgressed as it did if it werent for religion?

since most big cathedrals were built to honor God and were very rich in detail, stained glass windows, giled altars ect.

2nv5bvl.png
99 Firemaking 30-5-2010 | 99 Fletching 13-7-2014
TET-AU member:6-10-2010 - 21-10-2011

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i have a question maybe a bit unrealted to the currect discussion:

 

would architecture have prgressed as it did if it werent for religion?

since most big cathedrals were built to honor God and were very rich in detail, stained glass windows, giled altars ect.

To me that concept shows money being pushed over to the Church instead of towards scientific advancement, or if not that things like healthcare. They are great, sure.

RIP TET

 

original.png

 

"That which does not kill us makes us stronger." - Friedrich Nietzsche

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

 

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...

 

You can always give the kid up for adoption you know. That process still exists you know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can always give the kid up for adoption you know. That process still exists you know.

 

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.

RIP TET

 

original.png

 

"That which does not kill us makes us stronger." - Friedrich Nietzsche

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ever heard of Sodom and Gomorrah? Lot and his family? Once I get back from class, I'll look for that bible verse...

God told everyone to run away and dont look back, Lot did and turned into a pillar of salt

2nv5bvl.png
99 Firemaking 30-5-2010 | 99 Fletching 13-7-2014
TET-AU member:6-10-2010 - 21-10-2011

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

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?

 

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.

 

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.

summerpngwy6.jpg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ever heard of Sodom and Gomorrah? Lot and his family? Once I get back from class, I'll look for that bible verse...

God told everyone to run away and dont look back, Lot did and turned into a pillar of salt

 

What? Maybe you need to read your bible again. I'm pretty sure that it was Lot's wife that looked back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

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?

 

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.

 

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.

 

 

And just because i believe something to be moral or immoral does not mean i believe in a higher power. I believe it is immoral to steal. I believe that, because you should not be allowed to take what does not belong to you. I believe that there should be punishment for it. It has nothing to do with me believing or not believing in a higher power. It's a personal opinion. Nothing more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. (has absoultely no effect on the validity of my arguement, it could be the first example or the millionth)

 

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. (infinite simplicity? thats a logical impossiblity right there, besides were it possible then god would be the easiest thing to explain because he'd be, well, simpler thean the simplest thing possible.)

 

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...

 

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.

 

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.

 

 

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.'

 

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.

 

 

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.

 

You can always give the kid up for adoption you know. That process still exists you know.

 

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).

 

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.

 

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?

 

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.

 

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.

pMcEU.png

| My Tumblr |

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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).

 

You talk about women who have regretted their abortion. This is a nine year old child who has become pregnant through rape. Having a baby, through c-section or otherwise, at that age would be permanently physically and psychologically damaging. Yes, the unborn child was innocent, but we have to judge which is more important; the wellbeing of the unborn child or the 9 year old who has barely started her life? I would stress the latter. I am in disbelief that you think it is ok for a 9 year old to give birth to a child conceived as a result of rape.

 

This is somewhat off topic, I know.

RIP TET

 

original.png

 

"That which does not kill us makes us stronger." - Friedrich Nietzsche

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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).

 

You talk about women who have regretted their abortion. This is a nine year old child who has become pregnant through rape. Having a baby, through c-section or otherwise, at that age would be permanently physically and psychologically damaging. Yes, the unborn child was innocent, but we have to judge which is more important; the wellbeing of the unborn child or the 9 year old who has barely started her life? I would stress the latter. I am in disbelief that you think it is ok for a 9 year old to give birth to a child conceived as a result of rape.

 

This is somewhat off topic, I know.

 

Age 9? I have never seen a girl who was developed enough to have a baby at age 9. AND, even if they were, it would most likely be a miscarriage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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).

 

You talk about women who have regretted their abortion. This is a nine year old child who has become pregnant through rape. Having a baby, through c-section or otherwise, at that age would be permanently physically and psychologically damaging. Yes, the unborn child was innocent, but we have to judge which is more important; the wellbeing of the unborn child or the 9 year old who has barely started her life? I would stress the latter. I am in disbelief that you think it is ok for a 9 year old to give birth to a child conceived as a result of rape.

 

This is somewhat off topic, I know.

 

Age 9? I have never seen a girl who was developed enough to have a baby at age 9. AND, even if they were, it would most likely be a miscarriage.

It's happened younger.

polvCwJ.gif
"It's not a rest for me, it's a rest for the weights." - Dom Mazzetti

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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).

 

You talk about women who have regretted their abortion. This is a nine year old child who has become pregnant through rape. Having a baby, through c-section or otherwise, at that age would be permanently physically and psychologically damaging. Yes, the unborn child was innocent, but we have to judge which is more important; the wellbeing of the unborn child or the 9 year old who has barely started her life? I would stress the latter. I am in disbelief that you think it is ok for a 9 year old to give birth to a child conceived as a result of rape.

 

This is somewhat off topic, I know.

 

Age 9? I have never seen a girl who was developed enough to have a baby at age 9. AND, even if they were, it would most likely be a miscarriage.

It's happened younger.

 

Freak of nature. Did any of those babies even get far enough in the process to even be born?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

pMcEU.png

| My Tumblr |

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lol Duff you're funny. Quote me where i claim the law to be always right, please. And where i make it seem like i worship it. Maybe then i can start taking you serious again. I make 2 posts regarding law and now i worship is. Funny. You're heading down the "I have something to say, but it will only sound valid if i pretend like he claimed something when he really didn't" road. I cannot take someone serious if he needs to do that to make his point seem stronger. And again, you're saying you can't understand why there is so much hate towards the unborn child. I cannot help you with that. If you're seriously telling me you don't understand why someone would hate a child conceived of rape, that's your own problem. The child is only born because of what you call a "sin" and i call i crime. The child was not wanted.

Now sure, you might ask if i would have the same feelings towards a love-child. No, that child was not forcefully put inside of you. That child was not conceived on the most horrifying moment of your life. That child will not be a constant reminder of that moment. You won't have to fear that the child (if a boy) gets the same animalistic instinct as his rapist father. You will not have to fear the child committing suicide when he finds out his father was a rapist and that's the only reason you're alive.

 

Off topic i know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

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.

"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.

pMcEU.png

| My Tumblr |

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

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.

"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.

I don't get it. You quote me saying the law does not claim a fetus to be a living being and therefore cannot have right. How does that make me a worshiper of the law. How is that claiming the law to be always right? I said i don't see why anyone should go against it. That is all.

 

And i'm not offended, just confused. Worried that i might not be making myself very clear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

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.

pMcEU.png

| My Tumblr |

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.