Christian Discussion Thread XI: Anicetus’ Revenge

[Lower Nubia]

I view the underlying conclusion of abortion and premature birth as identical: a foetus becomes separated from their necessary environment to then become viable. Sure, the reasons for that separation are completely different but the conclusion to the individual person is the same and they logically become a separate person under unique medical care - and circumstances that produced that care do not take away the fact that they need the care necessary for their survival.

Tbh this doesn't sound any different from arguing contraception. It's ultimately just another enabler for people to become more individualistic and treat sex more flippantly than they already do. As well as further throw away any obligation to care for children that aren't explicitly planned for.

To choose to throw away a child, either through abortion or abandonment (which is what this is) is mortally wrong. This whole concept is just another step for society to further worship the self and erode family culture.

Please, if people want to take the pill and sex away they can anyway. This isn't going to make people any more like rabbits. Abandoning a baby is a reality which the Church accounts for anyway - it's called adoption, they kind of have this abandonment anyway and Christians are devoted to caring for the unwanted. Yet the fact stands: abandonment is better than murder.

The amount of opposition from Catholics on this technology is fascinating.

[Salus Maior]

Tbh this doesn't sound any different from arguing contraception. It's ultimately just another enabler for people to become more individualistic and treat sex more flippantly than they already do. As well as further throw away any obligation to care for children that aren't explicitly planned for.

To choose to throw away a child, either through abortion or abandonment (which is what this is) is mortally wrong. This whole concept is just another step for society to further worship the self and erode family culture.

Please, if people want to take the pill and sex away they can anyway. This isn't going to make people any more like rabbits. Abandoning a baby is a reality which the Church accounts for anyway - it's called adoption, they kind of have this abandonment anyway and Christians are devoted to caring for the unwanted. Yet the fact stands: abandonment is better than murder.

The amount of opposition from Catholics on this technology is fascinating.

Cut the snipes and sanctimony. You've admitted yourself that using this technology for child abandonment is morally "shaky" (an understatement). There's really no way any Christian should be pleased at this development, that we should be on board with the idea that we're just going to become a society of serial child-abandoners rather than child killers. What an upgrade. I'm sure Christ is smiling down on us for that. And regardless, it's not the existence or use of a technology that's concerning, but rather its abuse for an evil end.

It's wrong for us to settle for treating the symptoms of an evil society rather than seeking a change of its heart.

Besides, do you honestly think Pro-Choice advocates and feminists would ever budge from their position of absolute abortion freedoms? They don't even consider a fetus to be an actual human being. They see the destruction of which the same way someone would see the removal of appendix or tonsils. I think it's foolish to think that anyone who believes such a thing that they encourage anyone to go to the extra effort of supporting a life they already see as subhuman and completely disposable. They would not make that kind of concession to Christianity or conservatives in general by saying that the unwanted, unborn life is worth saving.

[Lower Nubia]

Please, if people want to take the pill and sex away they can anyway. This isn't going to make people any more like rabbits. Abandoning a baby is a reality which the Church accounts for anyway - it's called adoption, they kind of have this abandonment anyway and Christians are devoted to caring for the unwanted. Yet the fact stands: abandonment is better than murder.

The amount of opposition from Catholics on this technology is fascinating.

Cut the snipes and sanctimony. You've admitted yourself that using this technology for child abandonment is morally "shaky" (an understatement). There's really no way any Christian should be pleased at this development, that we should be on board with the idea that we're just going to become a society of serial child-abandoners rather than child killers. What an upgrade. I'm sure Christ is smiling down on us for that. And regardless, it's not the existence or use of a technology that's concerning, but rather its abuse for an evil end.

Oh well, if there's fuck all we can do about it then why don't we just let them be serial child killers! Why even bother having this discussion if we can only make the situation better and not completely fucking Rosey, why fucking bother!

Besides the internet can be used for evil, yet I don't see the magisterium taking down their website! I don't see the Pope leave his car because it could be used to ram people. Nuclear power can obliterate cities, I don't see the Vatican refusing electric from the same technology when they have the same origin. What's your end game here with the: "And regardless, it's not the existence or use of a technology that's concerning, but rather its abuse for an evil end." Yeah, the scientists that made it wanted it to... kill premature babies... no, no. That's not it, oh what was it? ... Save them, that's it. How evil...

It's wrong for us to settle for treating the symptoms of an evil society rather than seeking a change of its heart.

Society has made a heartfelt decision - it likes the convenience of killing babies, I'm sorry if your approach to making people just change their minds is the one you want, but facts are facts, Christianity is becoming less relevant, not more, so if you want to continue your "change hearts approach" then go ahead, because it's done fuck all so far!

Besides, do you honestly think Pro-Choice advocates and feminists would ever budge from their position of absolute abortion freedoms? They don't even consider a fetus to be an actual human being.

They'll pick the easiest option and if the easiest option is to let them live but put them up for adoption, then. So. Be. It. So let's make having children the easiest option. Isn't that one of the points about Catholic political policy? To make having families easier so that abortion isn't a necessary option for people.

They see the destruction of which the same way someone would see the removal of appendix or tonsils. I think it's foolish to think that anyone who believes such a thing that they encourage anyone to go to the extra effort of supporting a life they already see as subhuman and completely disposable. They would not make that kind of concession to Christianity or conservatives in general by saying that the unwanted, unborn life is worth saving.

So that's it then. You've said here:

"It's wrong for us to settle for treating the symptoms of an evil society rather than seeking a change of its heart."

Now you're saying:

"They see the destruction of which the same way someone would see the removal of appendix or tonsils. I think it's foolish to think that anyone who believes such a thing that they encourage anyone to go to the extra effort of supporting a life they already see as subhuman and completely disposable."

Oh, but your "let's change their hearts" idea sounds great, even though you admit humans are sometimes just a rooted evil. I mean what do you hope to accomplish? Gotta wait for Jesus to come down solve every problem or do you think for one glorious shining moment we could try and make the world a little less shit through an imperfect method.

[Tarsonis]

Tbh this doesn't sound any different from arguing contraception. It's ultimately just another enabler for people to become more individualistic and treat sex more flippantly than they already do. As well as further throw away any obligation to care for children that aren't explicitly planned for.

To choose to throw away a child, either through abortion or abandonment (which is what this is) is mortally wrong. This whole concept is just another step for society to further worship the self and erode family culture.

Please, if people want to take the pill and sex away they can anyway. This isn't going to make people any more like rabbits. Abandoning a baby is a reality which the Church accounts for anyway - it's called adoption, they kind of have this abandonment anyway and Christians are devoted to caring for the unwanted. Yet the fact stands: abandonment is better than murder.

The amount of opposition from Catholics on this technology is fascinating.

Equivocation is the first step in abandoning morality

[Lower Nubia]

Please, if people want to take the pill and sex away they can anyway. This isn't going to make people any more like rabbits. Abandoning a baby is a reality which the Church accounts for anyway - it's called adoption, they kind of have this abandonment anyway and Christians are devoted to caring for the unwanted. Yet the fact stands: abandonment is better than murder.

The amount of opposition from Catholics on this technology is fascinating.

Equivocation is the first step in abandoning morality

How is this equivalent to contraception? The goal here is to have a baby after the 9 months, it's the antithetical to contraceptive use.

If we're going with your reasoning about disregarding such technology, we don't end up with any baby.

[Tarsonis]

Equivocation is the first step in abandoning morality

How is this equivalent to contraception? The goal here is to have a baby after the 9 months, it's the antithetical to contraceptive use.

If we're going with your reasoning about disregarding such technology, we don't end up with any baby.

thats not what I meant. you said "Please, if people want to take the pill and sex away they can anyway."

The Church has strict and specific teachings on the morality of sex and child rearing. The fact that people aren't following them anyway, isn't a grounds to abandon those positions. Once you start equivocation on grounds of "well they're gonna do it anyway" there's no end to what positions you can rationalize abandoning.

As I said, the Church doesn't readily embrace the "lesser of two evils" philosophy. That's why they haven't jumped on the "safe, but rare and legal platform for abortion like so many other denominations have. They're still holding down the never camp.

[Lower Nubia]

How is this equivalent to contraception? The goal here is to have a baby after the 9 months, it's the antithetical to contraceptive use.

If we're going with your reasoning about disregarding such technology, we don't end up with any baby.

thats not what I meant. you said "Please, if people want to take the pill and sex away they can anyway."

The Church has strict and specific teachings on the morality of sex and child rearing. The fact that people aren't following them anyway, isn't a grounds to abandon those positions. Once you start equivocation on grounds of "well they're gonna do it anyway" there's no end to what positions you can rationalize abandoning.

As I said, the Church doesn't readily embrace the "lesser of two evils" philosophy. That's why they haven't jumped on the "safe, but rare and legal platform for abortion like so many other denominations have. They're still holding down the never camp.

I'm aware of what you targetted, but I wanted to ask if you'd provide a homeless man a bed.

[Tarsonis]

thats not what I meant. you said "Please, if people want to take the pill and sex away they can anyway."

The Church has strict and specific teachings on the morality of sex and child rearing. The fact that people aren't following them anyway, isn't a grounds to abandon those positions. Once you start equivocation on grounds of "well they're gonna do it anyway" there's no end to what positions you can rationalize abandoning.

As I said, the Church doesn't readily embrace the "lesser of two evils" philosophy. That's why they haven't jumped on the "safe, but rare and legal platform for abortion like so many other denominations have. They're still holding down the never camp.

I'm aware of what you targetted, but I wanted to ask if you'd provide a homeless man a bed.

That's not an apt comparison.

[Lower Nubia]

I'm aware of what you targetted, but I wanted to ask if you'd provide a homeless man a bed.

That's not an apt comparison.

Why not?

[Salus Maior]

1.Oh well, if there's fuck all we can do about it then why don't we just let them be serial child killers! Why even bother having this discussion if we can only make the situation better and not completely fucking Rosey, why fucking bother!

2.Besides the internet can be used for evil, yet I don't see the magisterium taking down their website! I don't see the Pope leave his car because it could be used to ram people. Nuclear power can obliterate cities, I don't see the Vatican refusing electric from the same technology when they have the same origin. What's your end game here with the: "And regardless, it's not the existence or use of a technology that's concerning, but rather its abuse for an evil end." Yeah, the scientists that made it wanted it to... kill premature babies... no, no. That's not it, oh what was it? ... Save them, that's it. How evil...


3.Society has made a heartfelt decision - it likes the convenience of killing babies, I'm sorry if your approach to making people just change their minds is the one you want, but facts are facts, Christianity is becoming less relevant, not more, so if you want to continue your "change hearts approach" then go ahead, because it's done fuck all so far!

They'll pick the easiest option and if the easiest option is to let them live but put them up for adoption, then. So. Be. It. So let's make having children the easiest option. Isn't that one of the points about Catholic political policy? To make having families easier so that abortion isn't a necessary option for people.



4.So that's it then. You've said here:

"It's wrong for us to settle for treating the symptoms of an evil society rather than seeking a change of its heart."

Now you're saying:

"They see the destruction of which the same way someone would see the removal of appendix or tonsils. I think it's foolish to think that anyone who believes such a thing that they encourage anyone to go to the extra effort of supporting a life they already see as subhuman and completely disposable."

Oh, but your "let's change their hearts" idea sounds great, even though you admit humans are sometimes just a rooted evil. I mean what do you hope to accomplish? Gotta wait for Jesus to come down solve every problem or do you think for one glorious shining moment we could try and make the world a little less shit through an imperfect method.

1. Because it's not actually making anything better. The root of the problem is the same, that our society thinks children aren't human persons and that adults should be made to be as individualistic and free of "burdens" as possible. We can't acquiesce to that because that's obviously antithetical to Christianity. It is immoral to abort, it is immoral to abandon children, and it is just as immoral for someone to choose to grow their child in a plastic bag rather than in the womb as a form of abandonment.

So obviously, if the Church is meant to have a moral stance, it should be condemning that choice just as much as it condemns abortion or abandonment in general.

2. You're being obtuse. The internet is good for a number of things, but the abuse of the internet for evil is wrong and should not be done. Likewise, artificial wombs might have good applications, but the abuse of the artificial womb as a means to dump children with a false sense of "doing the right thing" is evil. Because you're abandoning your own child, and not only that, but depriving them of even being grown in a womb or being born naturally. Can't even have the bare minimum of natural family I guess.

3. Yeah, Christianity is less relevant these days. So, why are they going to listen to you and go out of their way to put up for adoption rather than simply have a stop by a clinic? Just because you want to acquiesce to modernist culture, doesn't make them any more likely to listen to you.

4. My point is that because they don't see the unwanted unborn as a real life to begin with, they're not going to be on board with artificial wombs because that implies that the unwanted unborn are persons deserving protection. It's not going to be effective because you're trying to ineffectively treat the symptoms of evil rather than the root of evil.

The truth is, it's highly unlikely that we're actually going to make any real change in society as a whole regardless of the method.

[Diarcesia]

1.Oh well, if there's fuck all we can do about it then why don't we just let them be serial child killers! Why even bother having this discussion if we can only make the situation better and not completely fucking Rosey, why fucking bother!

2.Besides the internet can be used for evil, yet I don't see the magisterium taking down their website! I don't see the Pope leave his car because it could be used to ram people. Nuclear power can obliterate cities, I don't see the Vatican refusing electric from the same technology when they have the same origin. What's your end game here with the: "And regardless, it's not the existence or use of a technology that's concerning, but rather its abuse for an evil end." Yeah, the scientists that made it wanted it to... kill premature babies... no, no. That's not it, oh what was it? ... Save them, that's it. How evil...


3.Society has made a heartfelt decision - it likes the convenience of killing babies, I'm sorry if your approach to making people just change their minds is the one you want, but facts are facts, Christianity is becoming less relevant, not more, so if you want to continue your "change hearts approach" then go ahead, because it's done fuck all so far!

They'll pick the easiest option and if the easiest option is to let them live but put them up for adoption, then. So. Be. It. So let's make having children the easiest option. Isn't that one of the points about Catholic political policy? To make having families easier so that abortion isn't a necessary option for people.



4.So that's it then. You've said here:

"It's wrong for us to settle for treating the symptoms of an evil society rather than seeking a change of its heart."

Now you're saying:

"They see the destruction of which the same way someone would see the removal of appendix or tonsils. I think it's foolish to think that anyone who believes such a thing that they encourage anyone to go to the extra effort of supporting a life they already see as subhuman and completely disposable."

Oh, but your "let's change their hearts" idea sounds great, even though you admit humans are sometimes just a rooted evil. I mean what do you hope to accomplish? Gotta wait for Jesus to come down solve every problem or do you think for one glorious shining moment we could try and make the world a little less shit through an imperfect method.

1. Because it's not actually making anything better. The root of the problem is the same, that our society thinks children aren't human persons and that adults should be made to be as individualistic and free of "burdens" as possible. We can't acquiesce to that because that's obviously antithetical to Christianity. It is immoral to abort, it is immoral to abandon children, and it is just as immoral for someone to choose to grow their child in a plastic bag rather than in the womb as a form of abandonment.

So obviously, if the Church is meant to have a moral stance, it should be condemning that choice just as much as it condemns abortion or abandonment in general.

2. You're being obtuse. The internet is good for a number of things, but the abuse of the internet for evil is wrong and should not be done. Likewise, artificial wombs might have good applications, but the abuse of the artificial womb as a means to dump children with a false sense of "doing the right thing" is evil. Because you're abandoning your own child, and not only that, but depriving them of even being grown in a womb or being born naturally. Can't even have the bare minimum of natural family I guess.

3. Yeah, Christianity is less relevant these days. So, why are they going to listen to you and go out of their way to put up for adoption rather than simply have a stop by a clinic? Just because you want to acquiesce to modernist culture, doesn't make them any more likely to listen to you.

4. My point is that because they don't see the unwanted unborn as a real life to begin with, they're not going to be on board with artificial wombs because that implies that the unwanted unborn are persons deserving protection. It's not going to be effective because you're trying to ineffectively treat the symptoms of evil rather than the root of evil.

The truth is, it's highly unlikely that we're actually going to make any real change in society as a whole regardless of the method.

If we flip the narrative and say that there's a drug or technology that would make everyone asexual until they're married, what would be the church's stance on this?

[Salus Maior]

If we flip the narrative and say that there's a drug or technology that would make everyone asexual until they're married, what would be the church's stance on this?

That'd also be pretty fucked.

[Diopolis]

1. Because it's not actually making anything better. The root of the problem is the same, that our society thinks children aren't human persons and that adults should be made to be as individualistic and free of "burdens" as possible. We can't acquiesce to that because that's obviously antithetical to Christianity. It is immoral to abort, it is immoral to abandon children, and it is just as immoral for someone to choose to grow their child in a plastic bag rather than in the womb as a form of abandonment.

So obviously, if the Church is meant to have a moral stance, it should be condemning that choice just as much as it condemns abortion or abandonment in general.

2. You're being obtuse. The internet is good for a number of things, but the abuse of the internet for evil is wrong and should not be done. Likewise, artificial wombs might have good applications, but the abuse of the artificial womb as a means to dump children with a false sense of "doing the right thing" is evil. Because you're abandoning your own child, and not only that, but depriving them of even being grown in a womb or being born naturally. Can't even have the bare minimum of natural family I guess.

3. Yeah, Christianity is less relevant these days. So, why are they going to listen to you and go out of their way to put up for adoption rather than simply have a stop by a clinic? Just because you want to acquiesce to modernist culture, doesn't make them any more likely to listen to you.

4. My point is that because they don't see the unwanted unborn as a real life to begin with, they're not going to be on board with artificial wombs because that implies that the unwanted unborn are persons deserving protection. It's not going to be effective because you're trying to ineffectively treat the symptoms of evil rather than the root of evil.

The truth is, it's highly unlikely that we're actually going to make any real change in society as a whole regardless of the method.

If we flip the narrative and say that there's a drug or technology that would make everyone asexual until they're married, what would be the church's stance on this?

That one ought not to mess with nature and that a healthy sexuality is part of human nature.
You'd have better luck with a hypothetical introducing a drug that turns gay people straight.

[Diarcesia]

If we flip the narrative and say that there's a drug or technology that would make everyone asexual until they're married, what would be the church's stance on this?

That'd also be pretty fucked.

If compulsory... yes. Although what if some Christians use it to help them in their everyday life, out of free will?

[Sundiata]

I just got back from Bible study and I'm grateful to say that I took the time to pray for others before myself. This change was a nice departure from the prayers I've been saying for myself in the face of Goliath.

[Salus Maior]

That'd also be pretty fucked.

If compulsory... yes. Although what if some Christians use it to help them in their everyday life, out of free will?

I still don't think that would be right.

And it would really screw over the motivation to find a spouse in the first place.

[Diarcesia]

If compulsory... yes. Although what if some Christians use it to help them in their everyday life, out of free will?

I still don't think that would be right.

And it would really screw over the motivation to find a spouse in the first place.

Not really. Asexual doesn't mean you're devoid of romantic attraction. And you can totally plan for a family even with the lack of sexual desire. I wouldn't deny that there would be a lot less births if everyone's doing this.

[Salus Maior]

I still don't think that would be right.

And it would really screw over the motivation to find a spouse in the first place.

Not really. Asexual doesn't mean you're devoid of romantic attraction. And you can totally plan for a family even with the lack of sexual desire. I wouldn't deny that there would be a lot less births if everyone's doing this.

Attraction is an important piece of romance and finding a spouse.

It's just a dumb idea overall.

[Diopolis]

I still don't think that would be right.

And it would really screw over the motivation to find a spouse in the first place.

Not really. Asexual doesn't mean you're devoid of romantic attraction. And you can totally plan for a family even with the lack of sexual desire. I wouldn't deny that there would be a lot less births if everyone's doing this.

By Catholic doctrine, a rightly ordered sexuality is intrinsic to the person and includes sexual attraction to the opposite sex. Thus Asexuality is seen as disordered, the same as homosexuality.

[Salus Maior]

Not really. Asexual doesn't mean you're devoid of romantic attraction. And you can totally plan for a family even with the lack of sexual desire. I wouldn't deny that there would be a lot less births if everyone's doing this.

By Catholic doctrine, a rightly ordered sexuality is intrinsic to the person and includes sexual attraction to the opposite sex. Thus Asexuality is seen as disordered, the same as homosexuality.

Honestly, I think asexuality means you'd make a great monastic/celibate.

I don't consider the natural lack of a desire for sex is a bad thing.

[Luminesa]

Ya'll are getting waaaaaaayyyy too heated, cussing each other out over this issue. Come on, now truth and mercy, gentlemen. I understand this is a spicy topic, but if ya'll need to get off and go cool your heads, you really should.

Catholic Doctrine says that contraception interferes with the natural process of sex between a married couple, which is...babies! (Hopefully.) However, I do recognize that we have a society which treats babies as less than subhuman, as Salus mentioned. At the same time, we need to work toward a way to make those babies wanted, as I think Nubia is arguing. Contraception only causes less kids, is the problem. It's imperfect, and even can be destructive, given that our national birth rate and those of other "developed" countries are falling.

We need to work together to find a way to bring our culture to appreciate children and babies again. We have to support families and we have to stop turning everything, including children, into commodities. We need to find other solutions, better ones, bigger ones. This is what the Church calls us to do, to be perfect just as our Heavenly Father is perfect. We have to be active in calling for these things, in order to pull away from the imperfect. I don't think cussing each other out on the internet is going to bring about those changes.

[Lower Nubia]

1.Oh well, if there's fuck all we can do about it then why don't we just let them be serial child killers! Why even bother having this discussion if we can only make the situation better and not completely fucking Rosey, why fucking bother!

2.Besides the internet can be used for evil, yet I don't see the magisterium taking down their website! I don't see the Pope leave his car because it could be used to ram people. Nuclear power can obliterate cities, I don't see the Vatican refusing electric from the same technology when they have the same origin. What's your end game here with the: "And regardless, it's not the existence or use of a technology that's concerning, but rather its abuse for an evil end." Yeah, the scientists that made it wanted it to... kill premature babies... no, no. That's not it, oh what was it? ... Save them, that's it. How evil...


3.Society has made a heartfelt decision - it likes the convenience of killing babies, I'm sorry if your approach to making people just change their minds is the one you want, but facts are facts, Christianity is becoming less relevant, not more, so if you want to continue your "change hearts approach" then go ahead, because it's done fuck all so far!

They'll pick the easiest option and if the easiest option is to let them live but put them up for adoption, then. So. Be. It. So let's make having children the easiest option. Isn't that one of the points about Catholic political policy? To make having families easier so that abortion isn't a necessary option for people.

4.So that's it then. You've said here:

"It's wrong for us to settle for treating the symptoms of an evil society rather than seeking a change of its heart."

Now you're saying:

"They see the destruction of which the same way someone would see the removal of appendix or tonsils. I think it's foolish to think that anyone who believes such a thing that they encourage anyone to go to the extra effort of supporting a life they already see as subhuman and completely disposable."

Oh, but your "let's change their hearts" idea sounds great, even though you admit humans are sometimes just a rooted evil. I mean what do you hope to accomplish? Gotta wait for Jesus to come down solve every problem or do you think for one glorious shining moment we could try and make the world a little less shit through an imperfect method.

1. Because it's not actually making anything better. The root of the problem is the same, that our society thinks children aren't human persons and that adults should be made to be as individualistic and free of "burdens" as possible. We can't acquiesce to that because that's obviously antithetical to Christianity. It is immoral to abort, it is immoral to abandon children, and it is just as immoral for someone to choose to grow their child in a plastic bag rather than in the womb as a form of abandonment.

So obviously, if the Church is meant to have a moral stance, it should be condemning that choice just as much as it condemns abortion or abandonment in general.

What? We're not killing people now. Hello? Am I just not conversing correctly. Not killing people is better than killing people. Abandoning people is better than not killing them either. The root of the problem is being solved because the system I have provided turns what they perceive as a clump of cells into a person. Saving that person. This isn't a difficult concept to grasp.

2. You're being obtuse. The internet is good for a number of things, but the abuse of the internet for evil is wrong and should not be done. Likewise, artificial wombs might have good applications, but the abuse of the artificial womb as a means to dump children with a false sense of "doing the right thing" is evil. Because you're abandoning your own child, and not only that, but depriving them of even being grown in a womb or being born naturally. Can't even have the bare minimum of natural family I guess.

You haven't even provided an argument here. My argument is that if artificial womb should not be used because it can be abused, neither should the internet as the internet can be used in more horrifying ways than artificial wombs. Yet the Vatican uses the internet, which contradicts your point that because it can be abused, it should thus not be used - unless the vatican is wrong?

3. Yeah, Christianity is less relevant these days. So, why are they going to listen to you and go out of their way to put up for adoption rather than simply have a stop by a clinic? Just because you want to acquiesce to modernist culture, doesn't make them any more likely to listen to you.

Acquiesce with modernism? Now who's being sanctimonious. You're not even arguing against the technology here, it's clear that the process can be exceedingly simple, just as a mother can give her child up for adoption simply by placing it at a fire stations door or at a monastery. It needn't be complicated.

This is why this is an actual solution to this problem. If your solution to stop this actual death is to make Christians, you've lost. End of. It's not changing for a long time - centuries, so you're just going to sit there and hope you change enough hearts (which you aren't I've seen the graphs) instead of thinking about the uses of this sort of technology to deal with these issues.

I mean, what are your actual solutions here. I'm fascinated that you've just flopped like a fish to provide no actual alternative besides "hearts and minds". Which, I'm not going to lie, sounds like modernist spirituality instead of solutions.

4. My point is that because they don't see the unwanted unborn as a real life to begin with, they're not going to be on board with artificial wombs because that implies that the unwanted unborn are persons deserving protection. It's not going to be effective because you're trying to ineffectively treat the symptoms of evil rather than the root of evil.

The truth is, it's highly unlikely that we're actually going to make any real change in society as a whole regardless of the method.

So you've given up. Great.

Your first statement is irrelevant, under the law babies at usually 22 weeks (and above) are considered independent life. As long as this technology allows the "undesired" to reach the point of being "viable" then the law sees them as individuals - and most people see them at that point as people too.

I'll say it again, only Catholics seem opposed and I've yet to see a consistent reason even within the presumptions of Catholicism's theological tenets.

[Lower Nubia]

1. Because it's not actually making anything better. The root of the problem is the same, that our society thinks children aren't human persons and that adults should be made to be as individualistic and free of "burdens" as possible. We can't acquiesce to that because that's obviously antithetical to Christianity. It is immoral to abort, it is immoral to abandon children, and it is just as immoral for someone to choose to grow their child in a plastic bag rather than in the womb as a form of abandonment.

So obviously, if the Church is meant to have a moral stance, it should be condemning that choice just as much as it condemns abortion or abandonment in general.

2. You're being obtuse. The internet is good for a number of things, but the abuse of the internet for evil is wrong and should not be done. Likewise, artificial wombs might have good applications, but the abuse of the artificial womb as a means to dump children with a false sense of "doing the right thing" is evil. Because you're abandoning your own child, and not only that, but depriving them of even being grown in a womb or being born naturally. Can't even have the bare minimum of natural family I guess.

3. Yeah, Christianity is less relevant these days. So, why are they going to listen to you and go out of their way to put up for adoption rather than simply have a stop by a clinic? Just because you want to acquiesce to modernist culture, doesn't make them any more likely to listen to you.

4. My point is that because they don't see the unwanted unborn as a real life to begin with, they're not going to be on board with artificial wombs because that implies that the unwanted unborn are persons deserving protection. It's not going to be effective because you're trying to ineffectively treat the symptoms of evil rather than the root of evil.

The truth is, it's highly unlikely that we're actually going to make any real change in society as a whole regardless of the method.

If we flip the narrative and say that there's a drug or technology that would make everyone asexual until they're married, what would be the church's stance on this?

That's screwed up too.

[Sundiata]

To anyone who wanted to keep in touch over Skype and discuss theology, I apologise. I won't be as available over the next month.

However, TG works for me still.

[Salus Maior]

So you've given up. Great.

Your first statement is irrelevant, under the law babies at usually 22 weeks (and above) are considered independent life. As long as this technology allows the "undesired" to reach the point of being "viable" then the law sees them as individuals - and most people see them at that point as people too.

I'll say it again, only Catholics seem opposed and I've yet to see a consistent reason even within the presumptions of Catholicism's theological tenets.

Yeah. Western society isn't responsive to God or morality, and hasn't been for a very long time. You need at the very least a philosophical view based in Christianity to really propagate the pro-life message, and that doesn't really exist anymore.

Is that British law? Because there are no protections for unborn children at all in Canada and the U.S. You can abort a child right up until it's being born. With some pro-choice advocates even going as far to say that the newly born can be left to die as well.