The pope... wise, or silly ?

InnerBrat · Post by **InnerBrat** » 2003-04-21 03:35pm

Hobot wrote:You believe contraception is acceptable? Not that I don't, it's just that Catholics (I know you aren't one) and a lot of other Christians believe that contraception is just as immoral as abortion.

He's said time and time again that he believes the zygote has a soul. So he must therefore be against hormonal contraception, and no other form is remotely as effective.

Jonathan · Post by **Jonathan** » 2003-04-21 03:52pm

Slartibartfast wrote:
Johnhathahnhhh wrote:I never said anytihng about forcing her. I just said I think it was wrong.
"I never said anything about forcing people to die. I just said I thought it was wrong to let doctors save lives."

There is a difference between beliving something is wrong and forcing other people to go along with your beliefs. And I think abortion is a rather different matter to what you just said. Abortion is something open to debate.

Jonathan · Post by **Jonathan** » 2003-04-21 04:01pm

Hobot wrote:You believe contraception is acceptable? Not that I don't, it's just that Catholics (I know you aren't one) and a lot of other Christians believe that contraception is just as immoral as abortion.

If the purpose of sex was purely for conception, then I might well agree with them. However, I think that it exists for our enjoyment to/ A way for a husband and wife to enjoy each other and become closer, so I see nothing wrong with having sex purely for the purpose of pleasure.

Jonathan wrote:What leads you to believe that? Assuming that souls exist, they wouldn't be part of the biological process would they? It doesn't make sense imo, to give a clump of cells a soul. There's no doubt that that clump of cells is human, but I wouldn't say it's a person. I would say by the time the fetus is in the third trimester (with functioning brain and the ability to survive outside the womb) it is a person.

I would say that the soul isn't biological and it should be present at the first moment that the baby is created, which would be when the egg and sperm join. I understand the brain argument though and am grateful that there are some restrictions on abortion.

I wouldn't say that abortion is murder, even if you consider the fetus to be a person. Abortion isn't against society's laws nor is it mentioned in the Bible as far as I'm aware. Also, murder implies that there is malice behind the killing (or in the case of cold-blooded murder, no feeling). However, for the women aborting the fetus, there is no malice instead there is great pain and sorrow (except for those bastards who use abortion as a regular form of contraception).

There is no reason by human standards, that the foetus deserves to die. And given the choice between the life of a foetus and the life of the mother, I would say that at least the mother has had some years of life. The baby should have a few of its own. Malice could also be said to be a lack of love/compassion and the killing of a baby for the reason of abortion would not be compassionate.

And no, I'm not aware of it being mentioned specifically. I think there are principles that can be extended to cover the situation though.

Hobot · Post by **Hobot** » 2003-04-21 04:18pm

I would say that the soul isn't biological and it should be present at the first moment that the baby is created, which would be when the egg and sperm join.

Why does the soul come into play at the moment of conception? What leads you to believe that? Why isn't until the fetus develops a brain?

Malice could also be said to be a lack of love/compassion and the killing of a baby for the reason of abortion would not be compassionate.

Yes, I did mention cold-blooded murder. However, I don't think there is a lack of compassion on the woman's part. If she has a just reason for the abortion (eg. risk to her life, physical/emotion immaturity, very unfavourable environment for child, etc.) then I'd say that the act is compassionate. Why subject a child to a life of pain and suffering when it's possible to save them before they're even sentient?

InnerBrat · Post by **InnerBrat** » 2003-04-21 04:32pm

Jonathan wrote:
Hobot wrote:You believe contraception is acceptable? Not that I don't, it's just that Catholics (I know you aren't one) and a lot of other Christians believe that contraception is just as immoral as abortion.
If the purpose of sex was purely for conception, then I might well agree with them. However, I think that it exists for our enjoyment to/ A way for a husband and wife to enjoy each other and become closer, so I see nothing wrong with having sex purely for the purpose of pleasure.

You mean barrier/ withdrawal methods only, I presume?

Jonathan · Post by **Jonathan** » 2003-04-21 04:57pm

innerbrat wrote:You mean barrier/ withdrawal methods only, I presume?

In order to be consistent, I would have to say that only methods which prevent the egg and sperm being joined would be permissable. Not being married, I haven't given it a huge deal of thought yet.

Jonathan · Post by **Jonathan** » 2003-04-21 05:03pm

Hobot wrote:Why does the soul come into play at the moment of conception? What leads you to believe that?

Because that's when the life of the feoutus begins.

Why isn't until the fetus develops a brain?

Because the soul doesn't end when our brains stop working. I don't believe that the brain has a connection to the soul.

Yes, I did mention cold-blooded murder. However, I don't think there is a lack of compassion on the woman's part. If she has a just reason for the abortion (eg. risk to her life, physical/emotion immaturity, very unfavourable environment for child, etc.) then I'd say that the act is compassionate. Why subject a child to a life of pain and suffering when it's possible to save them before they're even sentient?

I would say that it's unfair to decide on the child's behalf what it is not capable of handling. By that logic, Beethoven would never have been born. Or was it Mozart? One of them was born into a very large family that could not afford another child and had a good risk of some unpleasant, life threatening illness. It also leads us down a dangerous path of deciding just what kind of disabilities should a child be born with. Do you abort someone with Down's Syndrome? My aunt has it, greatly enjoys life and brings a lot of joy to the life of others. We do not know what a baby's future will hold.

Iceberg · Post by **Iceberg** » 2003-04-21 05:07pm

Montcalm wrote:
Darth Pounder wrote:I'd ask "If you have faith in god and you think your her representative on Earth, WHY DO YOU HIDE BEHIND INCH THICK GLASS, man theres faith in action"
Faith did`nt help much when he was shot in the early 80s.

I'd argue that God gave him the sense to install bullet-proof glass on his car. Like it or not, public figures are targets for assassination in the modern age, and there aren't many figures who are more public than the Pope.

A serious question would be "Would you give away all the wealth the catholic church has accumulated over the centuries?"

There's an easy (albeit long) answer to that question.

That accumulated "wealth" is, in great majority, illiquid. Not only that, the vast majority of it is in architecture and artwork, which the Church keeps on public display at great expense. Were the Church to give it away, or to sell it in order to pay for humanitarian missions, not only would it be expensed permanently (preventing the church from using it for further fundraising activities), but it would almost certainly enter into private collections, where it would be hidden permanently away from the eyes of the public. Many great artworks would be lost to the ages in this way. Better to keep it where it is.

Jonathan · Post by **Jonathan** » 2003-04-21 05:23pm

Having a fair bit of money in the bank provides a good bit of incom in terms of interest as well, which can be used as a continuous source of humanitarian relief funds, to pay the wages of priests, to build new churches, etc.

Hobot · Post by **Hobot** » 2003-04-21 07:00pm

Jonathan wrote: Because the soul doesn't end when our brains stop working. I don't believe that the brain has a connection to the soul.

How do you know the soul doesn't end when our brainst stop working?
Why don't you believe the brain has a connection to the soul?

I would say that it's unfair to decide on the child's behalf what it is not capable of handling. By that logic, Beethoven would never have been born. Or was it Mozart? One of them was born into a very large family that could not afford another child and had a good risk of some unpleasant, life threatening illness.

Isn't it also unfair to subject that child to a very unpleasant life? Humanity is fortunate that neither of those great composers were not aborted, but if they had been aborted we would be no worse off.

Maybe God (being all knowing) only assigns souls to people who will have a life outside of the womb. So all those fetuses who are aborted, fail to attach themselves to the uterus lining, or die before being born don't actually have souls. I can't say for sure, as I do not believe in God and even if I did I would not claim to know his mind.

It also leads us down a dangerous path of deciding just what kind of disabilities should a child be born with. Do you abort someone with Down's Syndrome? My aunt has it, greatly enjoys life and brings a lot of joy to the life of others. We do not know what a baby's future will hold.

True, but maybe it is best to err on the side of caution. If a child is aborted, they don't lose a life as a person since they never had one in the first place.

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2003-04-21 07:20pm

"Hey, I hear the Hugenauts are itchin' for a rematch. You on?"

Jonathan · Post by **Jonathan** » 2003-04-21 07:23pm

Hobot wrote:
Jonathan wrote: Because the soul doesn't end when our brains stop working. I don't believe that the brain has a connection to the soul.
How do you know the soul doesn't end when our brainst stop working?
Why don't you believe the brain has a connection to the soul?

Why should it? I think the soul keeps going after death because otherwise, that would be us dead. Kakput. Nothing left.

Isn't it also unfair to subject that child to a very unpleasant life?

How do you know what kind of life is a child is going to have? Why should you decide for them?

Humanity is fortunate that neither of those great composers were not aborted, but if they had been aborted we would be no worse off.

You just contradicted yourself there.

Maybe God (being all knowing) only assigns souls to people who will have a life outside of the womb. So all those fetuses who are aborted, fail to attach themselves to the uterus lining, or die before being born don't actually have souls. I can't say for sure, as I do not believe in God and even if I did I would not claim to know his mind.

It's something I'm not certain about either.

It also leads us down a dangerous path of deciding just what kind of disabilities should a child be born with. Do you abort someone with Down's Syndrome? My aunt has it, greatly enjoys life and brings a lot of joy to the life of others. We do not know what a baby's future will hold.

True, but maybe it is best to err on the side of caution. If a child is aborted, they don't lose a life as a person since they never had one in the first place.[/quote]

How is that erring on the side of caution? If you're wrong, they do lose their life.

Hobot · Post by **Hobot** » 2003-04-21 07:41pm

Why should it? I think the soul keeps going after death because otherwise, that would be us dead. Kakput. Nothing left.

So if the soul isn't connected to the body, how can you be sure when someone gets one? Wouldn't it be logical to assume you get a soul once you're a person (ie. when the fetus develops a brain).

How do you know what kind of life is a child is going to have? Why should you decide for them?

Well if there's a very good indication that the child's life will be tragic then it should be our duty to do something about it. I'm not talking about aborting just any fetus, I'm talking about the fetus from a rape victim, a teenager, an alcoholic, a crack addict, etc.. In those cases we know the child will have a traumatic life.

You just contradicted yourself there.

No. Those composers did add to our culture, but without them we wouldn't suffer at all. If they hadn't been born, we wouldn't know what we were missing.

How is that erring on the side of caution? If you're wrong, they do lose their life.

You can't lose something you don't have...

Jonathan · Post by **Jonathan** » 2003-04-21 08:59pm

Hobot wrote:So if the soul isn't connected to the body, how can you be sure when someone gets one? Wouldn't it be logical to assume you get a soul once you're a person (ie. when the fetus develops a brain).

Why do you assume that a person is only when the brain develops? The start of a person's life is when the sperm joins with the egg.

Well if there's a very good indication that the child's life will be tragic then it should be our duty to do something about it. I'm not talking about aborting just any fetus, I'm talking about the fetus from a rape victim, a teenager, an alcoholic, a crack addict, etc.. In those cases we know the child will have a traumatic life.

No you don't. You can't se the future. Get better health care. Get better social services. Help the girl. Help the family. Help the child. Don't kill it because you think it'll be easier than helping it.

No. Those composers did add to our culture, but without them we wouldn't suffer at all. If they hadn't been born, we wouldn't know what we were missing.

You don't have to know you're suffering in order for it to be true.

You can't lose something you don't have...

What if you're wrong?

Post by **Gandalf** » 2003-04-21 10:21pm

"Does that hat give you any gnarly powers, like lightning or anything?"

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-04-21 10:54pm

Jonathan wrote:Why do you assume that a person is only when the brain develops?

Brain-death is the death of a person, because we have scientifically ascertained that thought is connected to biochemical processes in the brain. Thereore, brain activity is also the beginning of life. The body is a mere sack of flesh without a brain, and at the moment of brain-death it loses any and all human rights so it can be terminated at will. Ergo, the converse is true; any human being considered "alive" must have brain activity.

The start of a person's life is when the sperm joins with the egg.

I like the way you expect others to justify their position in some detail while you spout your position as if it's a fact.

You don't have to know you're suffering in order for it to be true.

Yes you do. Suffering is a subjective state. A person under anesthetic feels no pain, hence does not suffer during invasive surgical procedures. Holy shit, are you ever a dumb-ass.

You can't lose something you don't have...
What if you're wrong?

Mindless Universal Rebuttal(TM). Does not directly address the point in any way.

Jonathan · Post by **Jonathan** » 2003-04-22 08:17am

Darth Wong wrote:Brain-death is the death of a person, because we have scientifically ascertained that thought is connected to biochemical processes in the brain. Thereore, brain activity is also the beginning of life. The body is a mere sack of flesh without a brain, and at the moment of brain-death it loses any and all human rights so it can be terminated at will. Ergo, the converse is true; any human being considered "alive" must have brain activity.

I would agree from the point of view of human given rights and the laws given by society. That is how the law stands at the moment.

I like the way you expect others to justify their position in some detail while you spout your position as if it's a fact.

I'm stating it as opinion. At that point, we no longer have two separate entites, but rather one, which is growing into a child.

Yes you do. Suffering is a subjective state. A person under anesthetic feels no pain, hence does not suffer during invasive surgical procedures. Holy shit, are you ever a dumb-ass.

Prof of one cse is not proof of all cases.

You can't lose something you don't have...
What if you're wrong?

Mindless Universal Rebuttal(TM). Does not directly address the point in any way.[/quote]

We were talking about erring on the side of caution i.e. even you're wrong the conseuqences won't be too bad. I was pointing out that if you were wrong, you'd be killing a baby. Please read the argument before jumping in with accusations.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-04-22 09:01am

Jonathan wrote:I would agree from the point of view of human given rights and the laws given by society. That is how the law stands at the moment.

I like the way you refuse to argue the point, but rather, you simply dismiss it as "human given rights". If human thought is dependent upon human brain biochemical reactions, which is easily verified through scientific means, then what I stated is not just a matter of "laws given by society", but FACT.

I like the way you expect others to justify their position in some detail while you spout your position as if it's a fact.
I'm stating it as opinion. At that point, we no longer have two separate entites, but rather one, which is growing into a child.

I didnt' see the word "opinion" in the post to which I replied. And besides, if it's mere opinion which you can't back up, then it has no place in a debate.

Yes you do. Suffering is a subjective state. A person under anesthetic feels no pain, hence does not suffer during invasive surgical procedures. Holy shit, are you ever a dumb-ass.
Prof of one cse is not proof of all cases.

What a pathetic rebuttal. You claimed that you still suffer even if there's no brain activity, I pointed out that this is obviously not true because of the definition of suffering and gave a clear example, and that was the best you could come up with? The burden of proof has been clearly put on your shoulders now, and you are not meeting it.

We were talking about erring on the side of caution i.e. even you're wrong the conseuqences won't be too bad.

There is no need to "err on the side of caution" when there is no scientific doubt whatsoever that human thought is dependent upon the biochemical processes of the human brain, dumb-ass. Moreover, your judgement call that the "consequences won't be too bad" is ridiculous; we are talking about a massive assault upon womens' rights and the forcible birth of babies whose mothers don't want them.

I was pointing out that if you were wrong, you'd be killing a baby. Please read the argument before jumping in with accusations.

Bullshit. I provided a precise scientific justification for my claim, which you refused to address. Then you turn around and act as though there's still some doubt, based on nothing but your own "opinion".

InnerBrat · Post by **InnerBrat** » 2003-04-22 10:05am

Given that a sexually active woman almost certainly gets pregnant every cycle, (less often with the barrier method), but the zygote usually does opt attach, then God's a bigger bastard than we thought.
And incredibly busy. He has to go round giving souls to millions of zygotes a day, most of which He has Decreed will not survive a week.

Also, it is murder to have sex at any point other than at that small point during the cycle, when the endometrial lining is thick, and the egg is more likely to be implanted.

Otherwise, there's a very high risk an ovum might be fertilised and flushed out.

Jonathan · Post by **Jonathan** » 2003-04-22 11:56am

innerbrat wrote:Given that a sexually active woman almost certainly gets pregnant every cycle, (less often with the barrier method), but the zygote usually does opt attach, then God's a bigger bastard than we thought.
And incredibly busy. He has to go round giving souls to millions of zygotes a day, most of which He has Decreed will not survive a week.

Also, it is murder to have sex at any point other than at that small point during the cycle, when the endometrial lining is thick, and the egg is more likely to be implanted.

Otherwise, there's a very high risk an ovum might be fertilised and flushed out.

Hmm, I was unaware of this. Maybe it's when the zygots attaches itself then. I guess before that it has no source of food, oxygen, etc. and therefore incapable of life and it wouldn't make sense that there would be millions of dead souls like you describe. Like I said, it's a sticky area. And I'm not a biologist.