Christian Discussion Thread VIII: Augustine's Revenge.

[Salus Maior]

Some children die from extreme child abuse. They die painfully and in tears.

The difference is that child dies (and I say dies in religious context)in an abortion quickly and painlessly verses slowly and in pain.

Those issues could be fixed if food stamps included diapers and increased funds for those who have children and are on welfare.

Also, one other issue I have is that it forces other religions who say that abortion is not heresy to not do something.

For example, Hinduism has no acts of Apostasy. Under their religion abortion is fine. Should we force Hindus to not do something that Christianity forbids?

What other religions and belief systems think about it is irrelevant. Abortion is wrong, simply put. It's a denial of a human being a chance at life, and it doesn't matter if it's a Catholic baby or a Hindu baby, or whatever. It's not like drinking or circumcision or baptism or any other kind of religious standpoint, it's about whether an unborn human being is valuable. Which is a fundamental concept which needs to be decided for everyone, a human life is either valuable or it isn't, and can just be thrown away given specific circumstances.

If a religion thought murder wasn't wrong, would we allow them to murder freely as long as they're that religion? No, we wouldn't.

And again, you can't guarantee every child that would be aborted, or even live in abusive homes, would automatically die horribly or not have the chance of a better life. You don't know what their future would be. And abortion isn't going to stop child abuse.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

Partial-birth abortions sound bad, but they are not the only abortions out there.

Single parents do indeed have less income. This is because of taxes that would normally be lower on couples are not single parents.
Tackling poverty would be an extreme task that would be insanely hard to do. It would most likely require a massive minimum wage increase and the government building a massive public works project (EG: A road).

Lastly, Hinduism is the world's third largest religion, and Atheism and Agnosticism are also rising worldwide. All three have no heresys to commit and therefore would be fine for woman of these religions/Irreligion and for men/women to be abortion doctors.

I agree that economic solutions would be best for all involved, however for those religions/Irreligion should not be forced to follow our rules.

They are bad. Especially if you've ever seen one. Would not recommend it, but if you look on Google there are pictures. Lots and lots of pictures.

Not necessarily extreme. It's the most important task that needs to be handled domestically, besides education. Which also needs more funding. It's the most important thing we need to be handling as a country right now, far more important than immigration and gun control and those sorts of things.

Once again, if the solution is based on economic improvement and removing poverty, so people aren't as scared of having children, then nobody will be worried about religious differences.

I will take your word for it, I do not really wish to see it.

I thought the most important task that needs to be handled domestically was building a yuuuge wall.

But yes the education system does need a lot of work and removing poverty needs to be number one.

If it is and if removing poverty is successful, then I would agree that abortions should be limited to only those who need it or they will die, or in remaining poverty cases that can not for any reason use an orphanage.

Of course thats all extremely idealist and a best case scenario.

Because there is no money to be made in removing poverty the corporations will remain apathetic.

Reastlicy, abortion right now is the best option for those parents who are poor and refuse to send there child to an orphanage and considering who is in the white house right now, poverty will most likely increase. We really should have felt the Bern.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

Some children die from extreme child abuse. They die painfully and in tears.

The difference is that child dies (and I say dies in religious context)in an abortion quickly and painlessly verses slowly and in pain.

Those issues could be fixed if food stamps included diapers and increased funds for those who have children and are on welfare.

Also, one other issue I have is that it forces other religions who say that abortion is not heresy to not do something.

For example, Hinduism has no acts of Apostasy. Under their religion abortion is fine. Should we force Hindus to not do something that Christianity forbids?

What other religions and belief systems think about it is irrelevant. Abortion is wrong, simply put. It's a denial of a human being a chance at life, and it doesn't matter if it's a Catholic baby or a Hindu baby, or whatever. It's not like drinking or circumcision or baptism or any other kind of religious standpoint, it's about whether an unborn human being is valuable. Which is a fundamental concept which needs to be decided for everyone, a human life is either valuable or it isn't, and can just be thrown away given specific circumstances.

If a religion thought murder wasn't wrong, would we allow them to murder freely as long as they're that religion? No, we wouldn't.

And again, you can't guarantee every child that would be aborted, or even live in abusive homes, would automatically die horribly or not have the chance of a better life. You don't know what their future would be. And abortion isn't going to stop child abuse.

Hinduism has over 1.08 billion adherents worldwide. It is relevant because in an american context, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

1-5% of the american population follows Hinduism. Why should we tell 1-5% of the american population they can't do something that there region allows?

On the same coin you can't guarantee every child that would be aborted would not live in abusive homes or die horribly.
I would argue it takes away the "Child was a mistake" argument.

Anyway, this should really be in the abortion megathread so I'm going to stop now.

[United Marxist Nations]

What other religions and belief systems think about it is irrelevant. Abortion is wrong, simply put. It's a denial of a human being a chance at life, and it doesn't matter if it's a Catholic baby or a Hindu baby, or whatever. It's not like drinking or circumcision or baptism or any other kind of religious standpoint, it's about whether an unborn human being is valuable. Which is a fundamental concept which needs to be decided for everyone, a human life is either valuable or it isn't, and can just be thrown away given specific circumstances.

If a religion thought murder wasn't wrong, would we allow them to murder freely as long as they're that religion? No, we wouldn't.

And again, you can't guarantee every child that would be aborted, or even live in abusive homes, would automatically die horribly or not have the chance of a better life. You don't know what their future would be. And abortion isn't going to stop child abuse.

Hinduism has over 1.08 billion adherents worldwide. It is relevant because in an american context, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

1-5% of the american population follows Hinduism. Why should we tell 1-5% of the american population they can't do something that there region allows?

On the same coin you can't guarantee every child that would be aborted would not live in abusive homes or die horribly.
I would argue it takes away the "Child was a mistake" argument.

Anyway, this should really be in the abortion megathread so I'm going to stop now.

Do we allow honor killings because they are allowed in some religions?

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

Hinduism has over 1.08 billion adherents worldwide. It is relevant because in an american context, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

1-5% of the american population follows Hinduism. Why should we tell 1-5% of the american population they can't do something that there region allows?

On the same coin you can't guarantee every child that would be aborted would not live in abusive homes or die horribly.
I would argue it takes away the "Child was a mistake" argument.

Anyway, this should really be in the abortion megathread so I'm going to stop now.

Do we allow honor killings because they are allowed in some religions?

No, but you have to recognise that other religions/irreligions define death differently than us and the country's defines death differently.

Under there definitions, abortion is not murder.

Separation of church and state means that using an religion definition as the country's definition would violate the first amendment.

[United Marxist Nations]

Do we allow honor killings because they are allowed in some religions?

No, but you have to recognise that other religions/irreligions define death differently than us and the country's defines death differently.

Under there definitions, abortion is not murder.

Separation of church and state means that using an religion definition as the country's definition would violate the first amendment.

Then it comes down to which we serve first: the Church or the state.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

No, but you have to recognise that other religions/irreligions define death differently than us and the country's defines death differently.

Under there definitions, abortion is not murder.

Separation of church and state means that using an religion definition as the country's definition would violate the first amendment.

Then it comes down to which we serve first: the Church or the state.

And that, is a matter of what the people should decide.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

So, I saw Luminesa get called Sister Luminesa in this thread.

Do I get to be called Brother Herp now?

[Germanic Templars]

News for now:

My home state of Ohio passed a bill to outlaw abortion, at least up to the point of a heartbeat.

[The Alma Mater]

News for now:

My home state of Ohio passed a bill to outlaw abortion, at least up to the point of a heartbeat.

Why a heartbeat ? We have been basing judgement if someone has died on brainactivity for quite a while now...

[Luminesa]

News for now:

My home state of Ohio passed a bill to outlaw abortion, at least up to the point of a heartbeat.

Why a heartbeat ? We have been basing judgement if someone has died on brainactivity for quite a while now...

Baby's heartbeat starts at 21 days...a couple of weeks before the baby has brainwaves.

I mean why not? If your heart's beating you're alive...

[Germanic Templars]

Why a heartbeat ? We have been basing judgement if someone has died on brainactivity for quite a while now...

Baby's heartbeat starts at 21 days...a couple of weeks before the baby has brainwaves.

I mean why not? If your heart's beating you're alive...

What giggles me the most about the whole issue is how some people are getting upset over the issue.

[Venerable Bede]

So, I saw Luminesa get called Sister Luminesa in this thread.

Do I get to be called Brother Herp now?

It's a monastic title, she's called that because she's planning on becoming a monastic.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

So, I saw Luminesa get called Sister Luminesa in this thread.

Do I get to be called Brother Herp now?

It's a monastic title, she's called that because she's planning on becoming a monastic.

Oh.

[Salus Maior]

What other religions and belief systems think about it is irrelevant. Abortion is wrong, simply put. It's a denial of a human being a chance at life, and it doesn't matter if it's a Catholic baby or a Hindu baby, or whatever. It's not like drinking or circumcision or baptism or any other kind of religious standpoint, it's about whether an unborn human being is valuable. Which is a fundamental concept which needs to be decided for everyone, a human life is either valuable or it isn't, and can just be thrown away given specific circumstances.

If a religion thought murder wasn't wrong, would we allow them to murder freely as long as they're that religion? No, we wouldn't.

And again, you can't guarantee every child that would be aborted, or even live in abusive homes, would automatically die horribly or not have the chance of a better life. You don't know what their future would be. And abortion isn't going to stop child abuse.

Hinduism has over 1.08 billion adherents worldwide. It is relevant because in an american context, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

1-5% of the american population follows Hinduism. Why should we tell 1-5% of the american population they can't do something that there region allows?

On the same coin you can't guarantee every child that would be aborted would not live in abusive homes or die horribly.
I would argue it takes away the "Child was a mistake" argument.

Anyway, this should really be in the abortion megathread so I'm going to stop now.

Considering that abortion is not a necessary function of any religion your point about separation of Church/State and Hinduism is irrelevant.

And the "child is a mistake" argument only has merit because you're giving it merit, you're buying into the idea that people define what people are worth. It doesn't actually have merit on its own, because as I said before, people don't define what people are worth, God does. No one is a mistake regardless of what people think.

And the difference between your argument and mine is that I'm not arguing for something that will permanently deny life to a human being based off of arrogant assumptions as to how their life will turn out. And as some of us have said before, the issues around child abuse are not going to be solved with abortion, the core of the issue is in economics and issues surrounding poor living. Which can be solved.

[Salus Maior]

You should note that pro-life charities are fairly active in helping poor families provide for young children. They often don't advocate a governmental solution, but they spend quite a bit of time and money acting directly.

And that's good and all, but we won't be able to make real change without getting the government behind it as well.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

What other religions and belief systems think about it is irrelevant. Abortion is wrong, simply put. It's a denial of a human being a chance at life, and it doesn't matter if it's a Catholic baby or a Hindu baby, or whatever. It's not like drinking or circumcision or baptism or any other kind of religious standpoint, it's about whether an unborn human being is valuable. Which is a fundamental concept which needs to be decided for everyone, a human life is either valuable or it isn't, and can just be thrown away given specific circumstances.

If a religion thought murder wasn't wrong, would we allow them to murder freely as long as they're that religion? No, we wouldn't.

And again, you can't guarantee every child that would be aborted, or even live in abusive homes, would automatically die horribly or not have the chance of a better life. You don't know what their future would be. And abortion isn't going to stop child abuse.

Hinduism has over 1.08 billion adherents worldwide. It is relevant because in an american context, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

1-5% of the american population follows Hinduism. Why should we tell 1-5% of the american population they can't do something that there region allows?

On the same coin you can't guarantee every child that would be aborted would not live in abusive homes or die horribly.
I would argue it takes away the "Child was a mistake" argument.

Anyway, this should really be in the abortion megathread so I'm going to stop now.

Ahem, In this case such an action is prohibited because two person's rights are involved. We'll use a clearer example: religiously sanctioned honor killings. Even though some religions sanction honor killings, under American Law they are prohibited because they affect 2 people: the perpetrator and the victim. Though the perpetrator technically has the right to free practice, the victim has the right to equal protection under the law, including not to be murdered, which trumps the right of free practice of the perpetrator. As the saying goes "your right to swing a bat stops just before my face."


In the case of abortion however, the law is much more murky as there are about a dozen confounding factors on whether the preborn actually have legal protection under the law

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

Hinduism has over 1.08 billion adherents worldwide. It is relevant because in an american context, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

1-5% of the american population follows Hinduism. Why should we tell 1-5% of the american population they can't do something that there region allows?

On the same coin you can't guarantee every child that would be aborted would not live in abusive homes or die horribly.
I would argue it takes away the "Child was a mistake" argument.

Anyway, this should really be in the abortion megathread so I'm going to stop now.

Considering that abortion is not a necessary function of any religion your point about separation of Church/State and Hinduism is irrelevant.

And the "child is a mistake" argument only has merit because you're giving it merit, you're buying into the idea that people define what people are worth. It doesn't actually have merit on its own, because as I said before, people don't define what people are worth, God does. No one is a mistake regardless of what people think.

And the difference between your argument and mine is that I'm not arguing for something that will permanently deny life to a human being based off of arrogant assumptions as to how their life will turn out. And as some of us have said before, the issues around child abuse are not going to be solved with abortion, the core of the issue is in economics and issues surrounding poor living. Which can be solved.

No it is not and I'm telling you why in one word: Freedom.

Once you force your rule of law to other religions that do not have that rule, you have taken away someone else's freedom. And that is something, on concept alone, that I can not endorse.

Exactly the opposite, "child is a mistake" argument needs to be kept invalid and legal abortions are the only way to make that happen.

And when exactly will that happen? I don't see it happening in the next four years, thats for certain.
It hasn't happened despite many pro life people holding office.

I'm being realistic here. Poverty is a problem and needs to die, yes. But, It hasn't died. There will most likely always be poverty, there has not been a time in recorded history where 0% poverty was a thing, anywhere.

Like war. Everyone agrees war sucks. Soldiers, civilians, governments. Everyone agrees that war is a stupid thing.

Yet, we keep on doing it.

Hinduism has over 1.08 billion adherents worldwide. It is relevant because in an american context, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

1-5% of the american population follows Hinduism. Why should we tell 1-5% of the american population they can't do something that there region allows?

On the same coin you can't guarantee every child that would be aborted would not live in abusive homes or die horribly.
I would argue it takes away the "Child was a mistake" argument.

Anyway, this should really be in the abortion megathread so I'm going to stop now.

Ahem, In this case such an action is prohibited because two person's rights are involved. We'll use a clearer example: religiously sanctioned honor killings. Even though some religions sanction honor killings, under American Law they are prohibited because they affect 2 people: the perpetrator and the victim. Though the perpetrator technically has the right to free practice, the victim has the right to equal protection under the law, including not to be murdered, which trumps the right of free practice of the perpetrator. As the saying goes "your right to swing a bat stops just before my face."


In the case of abortion however, the law is much more murky as there are about a dozen confounding factors on whether the preborn actually have legal protection under the law

"How come when it's us, it's an abortion, and when it's a chicken, it's an omelette?"- George Carlin

Do unborn chickens deserve protection under the law?

[Tarsonis Survivors]

Considering that abortion is not a necessary function of any religion your point about separation of Church/State and Hinduism is irrelevant.

And the "child is a mistake" argument only has merit because you're giving it merit, you're buying into the idea that people define what people are worth. It doesn't actually have merit on its own, because as I said before, people don't define what people are worth, God does. No one is a mistake regardless of what people think.

And the difference between your argument and mine is that I'm not arguing for something that will permanently deny life to a human being based off of arrogant assumptions as to how their life will turn out. And as some of us have said before, the issues around child abuse are not going to be solved with abortion, the core of the issue is in economics and issues surrounding poor living. Which can be solved.

No it is not and I'm telling you why in one word: Freedom.

Once you force your rule of law to other religions that do not have that rule, you have taken away someone else's freedom. And that is something, on concept alone, that I can not endorse.

Exactly the opposite, "child is a mistake" argument needs to be kept invalid and legal abortions are the only way to make that happen.

And when exactly will that happen? I don't see it happening in the next four years, thats for certain.
It hasn't happened despite many pro life people holding office.

I'm being realistic here. Poverty is a problem and needs to die, yes. But, It hasn't died. There will most likely always be poverty, there has not been a time in recorded history where 0% poverty was a thing, anywhere.

Like war. Everyone agrees war sucks. Soldiers, civilians, governments. Everyone agrees that war is a stupid thing.

Yet, we keep on doing it.

Ahem, In this case such an action is prohibited because two person's rights are involved. We'll use a clearer example: religiously sanctioned honor killings. Even though some religions sanction honor killings, under American Law they are prohibited because they affect 2 people: the perpetrator and the victim. Though the perpetrator technically has the right to free practice, the victim has the right to equal protection under the law, including not to be murdered, which trumps the right of free practice of the perpetrator. As the saying goes "your right to swing a bat stops just before my face."


In the case of abortion however, the law is much more murky as there are about a dozen confounding factors on whether the preborn actually have legal protection under the law

"How come when it's us, it's an abortion, and when it's a chicken, it's an omelette?"- George Carlin

Do unborn chickens deserve protection under the law?

Generally a chicken egg is unfertalized, so making an omelette doesn't actually kill anything. Secondly, a human and a chicken are not equal examples, it's perfectly legal and widely considered morally fine to kill a chicken. Same cannot be said for Humans.

[Pasong Tirad]

Hello there, I'm a Catholic in the Philippines and I did a search in this thread on Liberation Theology and for some reason people are outright opposed to it and I want to wonder why.

[Irecker]

Hello there, I'm a Catholic in the Philippines and I did a search in this thread on Liberation Theology and for some reason people are outright opposed to it and I want to wonder why.

It was condemned by Pope Benedict in 2007 (I think?) for a variety of reasons.

Liberation is well meaning, certainly, but heretical nonetheless.

[Pasong Tirad]

Hello there, I'm a Catholic in the Philippines and I did a search in this thread on Liberation Theology and for some reason people are outright opposed to it and I want to wonder why.

It was condemned by Pope Benedict in 2007 (I think?) for a variety of reasons.

Liberation is well meaning, certainly, but heretical nonetheless.

Heretical? How so?

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

No it is not and I'm telling you why in one word: Freedom.

Once you force your rule of law to other religions that do not have that rule, you have taken away someone else's freedom. And that is something, on concept alone, that I can not endorse.

Exactly the opposite, "child is a mistake" argument needs to be kept invalid and legal abortions are the only way to make that happen.

And when exactly will that happen? I don't see it happening in the next four years, thats for certain.
It hasn't happened despite many pro life people holding office.

I'm being realistic here. Poverty is a problem and needs to die, yes. But, It hasn't died. There will most likely always be poverty, there has not been a time in recorded history where 0% poverty was a thing, anywhere.

Like war. Everyone agrees war sucks. Soldiers, civilians, governments. Everyone agrees that war is a stupid thing.

Yet, we keep on doing it.



"How come when it's us, it's an abortion, and when it's a chicken, it's an omelette?"- George Carlin

Do unborn chickens deserve protection under the law?

Generally a chicken egg is unfertalized, so making an omelette doesn't actually kill anything. Secondly, a human and a chicken are not equal examples, it's perfectly legal and widely considered morally fine to kill a chicken. Same cannot be said for Humans.

Both are god's creatures. Do both not deserve god's love?


Second, when a chicken : kills millions,creates a dystopian government, uses white phosphorus munitions and, creates a bomb cable of scorching the earth.
Let me know. Until then, chickens are the more moral species of the two.

[Irecker]

It was condemned by Pope Benedict in 2007 (I think?) for a variety of reasons.

Liberation is well meaning, certainly, but heretical nonetheless.

Heretical? How so?

It's too focused on material things, advocates for a class war, it's Marxism-lite wearing a Catholic skin.

Caring for and loving the poor is a very Catholic thing to do, but Liberation theology goes about it the wrong way.

[Pasong Tirad]

Heretical? How so?

It's too focused on material things, advocates for a class war, it's Marxism-lite wearing a Catholic skin.

Caring for and loving the poor is a very Catholic thing to do, but Liberation theology goes about it the wrong way.

An interesting position. Sorry for the curiosity, I was just taught Liberation Theology differently.