-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
SC priest: No communion for Obama supporters| Me: No tax break for your church!
- Thread starter speculawyer
- Start date
- Status
Buckethead
Banned
mmm denominationallism at it's finest.
mre said:
The entire legal system as it were acts on the basis of it's neutrality. Arguing for the type of law that you personally want, undermines the law that establishes all everybody has. If legal jurisprudence has defined specific terms then one cannot easily reject them unless the aim is to go above and beyond the court be creating another form of jurisprudence.
Atrus said:
All right, I was screwing with you earlier, but this is just a load of shit. Lawyers argue for changing the law everyday in court rooms all across America in order to achieve a better result for their client. It's how the law evolves and progresses. With this is mind: of course you can reject any definition assigned to a term by a court and argue for a new, in your mind better or, perhaps, more accurate, definition. How do you think modern jurisprudence has reached the state its at now? By never changing? Let's all hang our hats on stare decisis and be done with it?
megashock5
Member
JayDubya said:
No, obviously they all don't. However, when the Church covers it up and moves the offending Priests to another city/state/parish (where they'll likely do it again) - it becomes the Church's problem and at least partially their crime.
Ignatz Mouse
Banned
Fetus != human.
No brain. No rights.
End of discussion, as far as I am concerned.
No brain. No rights.
End of discussion, as far as I am concerned.
Terrell said:
I agree, scientifically, a living human being is a living human being. In a rational legal setup informed by science and a belief in human rights, religious in origin or otherwise, living human beings would not be denied rights.
Scientifically speaking, you couldn't be more wrong.
Basic embryology. The life of any organism begins when it first appears on scene, demonstrating all the biological characteristics of a living entity.
What life we value is not science, but ethics, politics, and law, which are not always informed by science.
CajoleJuice
Member
Yes, this is the key.Karakand said:
Giganticus
Member
it might be "living" but under those same definitions so do cancer cells. what matters is if it can be classified as having a human life. it's definitely not that until a significant distance into the pregnancy.JayDubya said:
this is agreed by scientists, doctors, the bible and by theist philosophers like Thomas Aquinas. the only difference they have is when exactly that human life begins. Aquinas said a few weeks after conception while the bible maintains it begins with the first "breath of life" (Genesis and that other bit where they talk about some guy who forced a woman to have an abortion through violence and didn't get charged with murder). scientists and doctors hold it somewhere in the middle, usually around 20-30 weeks. no one believes life begins at conception in the western world except this twisted american christianity and of course crazy Randian zealots.
in this regard, any ethical, political or legal obstruction to abortion is not based on scientific findings or on actual religious morality. socially speaking, abortion seems to be favoured, so what's left to oppose it?
Worm_Buffet
Member
JayDubya said:
This is a peculiar stance to me if I'm reading this right. Are you saying that soon as a group of cells start to form in the uterus it is to be considered a human being?
Giganticus said:
A cancer cell is not an organism, it is part of an organism, and moreover, it is in a pathologic state.
My arm is not me, and amputating it should it become gangrenous is not a killing act.
The Catholic Church only exists in America. Huh.
Who? Where? Huh? You mean, as in Ayn? Objectivists can be cult-like in how they toe the line, but that line is pro-abortion.
1- The red cross is NOT a religious organization. Hell, It is not even remotely religious inspired, its cross is based on the Switzerland flag, not on the christian crossa.
2- To assume that every church is a charitable organization is simply put, a fallacy and an extremely naive or willingfully ignorant view of them. There ARE churches which does NOT provide any charity service and some of them are organized like business aimed at gaining money with TV preachers, merchandaising and bullshit. Why should all of them get tax exemptions, then again? Or even more, why should religious services get any kind of tax exemptions as if spiritual assistance would be a charity service?
Worm_Buffet
Member
JayDubya said:
That's all fine and well, but just because something is an organism doesn't mean it's human life. Doesn't it have to display some properties of a human being?
Besides, is it really an organism if it's unable to reproduce or sustain itself in any way?
thesoapster
Member
JayDubya said:
I mentioned this already, but it seemed to be missed. I have known quite a number of Catholics. Have you never heard of the term "Cafeteria Catholic"? It's really a term that should apply to just about any Christian. Almost no one follows their church's doctrine 100%. A number of the teachings are not consistent with modern times (I previously pointed out the birth control issue of Catholicism...you may know Catholics that still practice the birth control teaching, but they either a) have a lot of children b) have next to no sex c) cheat the teaching somehow so they can have sex whenever they want).
Worm_Buffet said:
If an organism can correctly be identified as both living and human, I'm not sure what's awkward about calling it a living human organism, human being, member of Homo sapiens, etc., etc.
At the embryonic / fetal stage, reproduction is very rapid: mitosis.
As for acquiring nutrients from their environment, again, self-evident.
Ignatz Mouse
Banned
Fatghost said:
If a woman has a persistent state vegetative person stuck inside her and the only way to remove it is to kill it, then I am all for killing.
Brain damage is a superset of persistent state vegetatives, and severly retarted people still have feelings and thoughts.
So, yes only to one of your examples, and on the condition of being able to verify that state. I was all for pulling the plug on Terry Shaivo.
Worm_Buffet
Member
Fatghost said:
People of lesser mental capacity still have some mental capacity, so I don't see how it would apply.
I would think it would only apply to vegetatives, and for as for them: I think that's a special case and not really comparable.
JayDubya said:
Yes, but how do you identify a blob of cells as human?
JayDubya said:
Isn't that growth, rather than reproduction? An embryo cannot spawn another embryo.
Are we observing the embryo for what it is, or by trying to estimate what it will be in 9 months time?
thesoapster
Member
Worm_Buffet said:
Although I'm essentially on the side of pro-choice, I'll play a little.
At what age can humans reproduce? (rhetorical question) So while they are still considered human and have reproduction equipment, they're not actually able to carry out the essential act of reproduction yet.
Baraka in the White House
2-Terms of Kombat
And that is precisely why the religious right can go fuck itself. Nevermind our country's economic backbone being strained to the breaking point, GAYS ARE GETTING MARRIED!? FETUS BLOOD IS FLOWING THROUGH THE STREETS!! SOCIALISM RAWWR!
Worm_Buffet said:
We're all organisms comprised of a bunch of cells. Whether we have billions of cells or only hundreds is merely a matter of what stage of our lifespan we're in.
I'm not going to laugh at this or insult you, just correct it the best way I know how.
By the standard you're supposing, based on an apparent misunderstanding of what that particular criterion for biological life means, someone would not be considered alive until puberty.
JayDubya said:
Just to note...
You called Catholics voting for a pro-choice candidate hypocrites. Except as I noted earlier in the thread, the Churches view on what it means to be "pro-life" expand greatly beyond simply abortion (well, hardly simply). And most of that, except for calling for the outlawing of abortion, falls on the Dem side of the map, with the GOP disavowing everything except the abortion stance.
So. If you're calling Catholic voters hypocrites for simply voting for Obama, not cool. If you're calling all Catholic voters hypocrites for voting for anyone (since no candidate fully subscribed to the Church's teaching on being "pro-life") then cool.
I really just wanted to clarify that.
...
Anyhow, the voters guide the Conference of Bishops sent out laid out the issues pretty well and let Catholics decide for themselves, based on various Church stances on wide-ranging issues. Which is what the Church, as a religious institution, ought to be ding. In other words, its crap for these people (who do not fully represent the Church as an institution) to start calling out fellow Catholics for following their (potentially) well-formed consciences when their favored person with one specific issue (and even then only partially that issue) didn't win.
The Lamonster
Member
Colbert last night: us Christians use every part of the Jesus!
(reference to hunters using every part of an animal they kill)
(reference to hunters using every part of an animal they kill)
JayDubya said:
Exactly! I mean, my brain is not me, and amputating it is not a killing act, either!
...
Oh, wait... :lol
So where does this end, all-knowing-one? Can I just keep cutting off pieces of myself, because they aren't "me", until there's nothing left? And in doing so I haven't killed myself because those parts weren't actually "me"?
Wow, this is deep.
So what you're saying is that, when it comes down to it, the physical manifestations of myself aren't really "me" at all. I could be chopped into pieces but I'd still be "me". You mean... like... my soul? ...or something?
So what you're saying is that we're not really "here" at all? Wait... I'm confused. Wouldn't this all mean that it doesn't matter if a fetus is aborted or not? Because, afterall, we're only detroying the phyiscal manifestation of that fetus (not a killing act, right?) ...the fetus isn't actually DYING. It's just like cutting off a gangrenous arm.
uhh... right?
Sanctimonious B.S.
TheFightingFish
Member
Ignatz Mouse said:
Well then the choice should be easy for you. It's scientifically recognized that by the fetus stage (starts at the beginning of the 11th week) a fetus has a functioning brain.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetus#Development
So by your logic you are at least on board with banning abortions after the 11th week. Which puts you 3/4 of where I want you to be, but it's a good start none the less.
worldrunover
Member
JayDubya said:
That's possibly the dumbest thing you've ever posted. Perhaps the single-minded lemmings of any religion would agree with you, but since we as people have these complex thought processes that allow us to weigh more than one matter at a time, it's silly to think one issue of our faith or political belief makes one a hypocrite.
Yes, it would be very hypocritical of me as a Catholic to vote for Obama, because the thinly veiled sham that is John McCain's belief in overturning Roe v. Wade should most certainly take precedent over Obama's far superior economic and foreign policies. I forgot that prentending that maybe one day five hypnotized judges will be able to overturn a single court decision that would do nothing to actually prevent abortions anyway is much more important than my desire to see our economy and standing in the world improve and maybe, just maybe make a better life for millions of people.
You're right. What a hypocrite I am.
first .. Jay I completely disagree with you but I respect your view. And that is the nice part of CHOICE. If you (and I mean in genreal not just JayD)don't want to abort, you don;t No need to push your view onto others.
Based on that I think it is important that the church and other groups that are against abortion should stop with these silly antics and simply goback to teaching religion and morality / informing people and convince people this way to not have abortions or better yet not even get pregneant.
There also needs to be a better way of assisting those that do end up pregneant and not abort it. Because after the baby is born many times everybody pulls their hands off the mother and child and leaves them alone, helpless and often in a bad situation.
I personally can accept early term abortion only as long as it is not used as a convience like it is a haircut or something and when the person in question has been inforemd about all the possibilties/consequences of their choice. I once knew a family where the mother did NOT abort her last child , even though the doctors told her that she woudl be mentally handicapped if continued. She was in very bad shape and no soley depended on her husband to take care of her. THAT is her choice and I had great repect for it. In another case I knew someone whos kid was from a rapist. She decided to keep it.Again he highest respect. However if someone cannot make that sacrifice then they should have the choice to do an abortion without worries of it s legality.
Many Ant-Abortion American seem to make it out that pro-choice (stupid word anyways) means pro baby killing. and I think that is wrong.
The answer needs to lie in proper sex ed, and deterrence and if that fails plenty of guidance and assitance during and after pregnancy.making abortion truly last resort.
I guess I just have an issue with people forcing other people to do what they want.
/rambling rant
ps. calling yourself pro-lifer but being for death penalty is horribly hypocite
Based on that I think it is important that the church and other groups that are against abortion should stop with these silly antics and simply goback to teaching religion and morality / informing people and convince people this way to not have abortions or better yet not even get pregneant.
There also needs to be a better way of assisting those that do end up pregneant and not abort it. Because after the baby is born many times everybody pulls their hands off the mother and child and leaves them alone, helpless and often in a bad situation.
I personally can accept early term abortion only as long as it is not used as a convience like it is a haircut or something and when the person in question has been inforemd about all the possibilties/consequences of their choice. I once knew a family where the mother did NOT abort her last child , even though the doctors told her that she woudl be mentally handicapped if continued. She was in very bad shape and no soley depended on her husband to take care of her. THAT is her choice and I had great repect for it. In another case I knew someone whos kid was from a rapist. She decided to keep it.Again he highest respect. However if someone cannot make that sacrifice then they should have the choice to do an abortion without worries of it s legality.
Many Ant-Abortion American seem to make it out that pro-choice (stupid word anyways) means pro baby killing. and I think that is wrong.
The answer needs to lie in proper sex ed, and deterrence and if that fails plenty of guidance and assitance during and after pregnancy.making abortion truly last resort.
I guess I just have an issue with people forcing other people to do what they want.
/rambling rant
ps. calling yourself pro-lifer but being for death penalty is horribly hypocite
worldrunover said:
Well, at least you recognize it.
You believe in souls; I don't. Your church states that ensoulment begins at conception. If you agree with your church, legal abortion is one of the most significant moral wrongs conceivable.
If you don't agree with your church, why are you going to that church?
Worm_Buffet
Member
JayDubya said:
How grand of you. Really, thanks a bunch. Because that would have made you a mean-spirited person.
There are some people on the Internet who thrive on putting other people down with snarky sarcasm. It's nice to meet someone who isn't like that.
JayDubya said:
It was my understanding that established biology implied that such technicalities (along with women that have gone through menopause etc.) were excempt as long as the prospect of reproduction is on the table. A child still displays reproductive capabilities even if it they are not fully operational yet(?)
Please enlighten me, what have the biologists agreed on, if anything?
But, regardless, I see your point-of-view now. You consider a collection of human cells to be a human being on acount of it being made up of human cells. I set the bar higher where it actually has to display some human properties.
However, you say a collection of human cells is an organism since it can reproduce. It is life and human, therefore a human life.
But at the same time you establish that it can reproduce on account of it being a member of the human species.
Doesn't that a circular argument make?
VictimOfGrief
Banned
Guys... do you need my help in this thread?
As for the communion.... yikes.
As for the communion.... yikes.
Worm_Buffet said:
I was actually trying to be nice there, and rather than be a sarcastic dickhead, to simply point out why you were wrong, in the hopes that a bit of education might clarify things. I won't make that mistake again when you say something stupid.
Reproduction is one of the criterion for life, as you identified. The cellular reproduction process known as mitosis meets this qualification.
worldrunover
Member
JayDubya said:
Why can't I believe that AND vote for Obama? How can John McCain's singular belief be more important than everything else Obama stands for? Answer: It doesn't.
Here we go again. GAF will undoubtedly take one priest as representing the whole religion. This is completely against what Christianity stands for. He's wrong in denying communion for Obama supporters.
Hell, I'm Catholic, and am an Obama supporter. While I don't agree with some of his views (yeah I'm pro-life...but I don't think it should be enforced by law, because there are circumstances where pro-life is not an ethical option), I agreed with him moreso than McCain. Way too many Christians are taking a stance against Obama on a single issue. However, look at the good side, he's much more of a pacifist than McCain. His views on healthcare are far more ethical as well. To me, although he wasn't perfect, he was the better choice.
Hell, I'm Catholic, and am an Obama supporter. While I don't agree with some of his views (yeah I'm pro-life...but I don't think it should be enforced by law, because there are circumstances where pro-life is not an ethical option), I agreed with him moreso than McCain. Way too many Christians are taking a stance against Obama on a single issue. However, look at the good side, he's much more of a pacifist than McCain. His views on healthcare are far more ethical as well. To me, although he wasn't perfect, he was the better choice.
From a religious perspective, that would almost make sense if abortion was currently illegal, and Obama was trying to legalize it.
However, that is not the case, it already is legal ... so how does the argument have any merit? That 's even before considering that President's don't pen laws to begin with.
Absurd.
Bumblebeetuna
Member
Always good reading JayDubya dominating entire threads :lol
Would you really classify what the priest said as political? Seems entirely non political to me. And :lol @ taxing the church. Good luck with that, unless you want to start taxing all charities.
Would you really classify what the priest said as political? Seems entirely non political to me. And :lol @ taxing the church. Good luck with that, unless you want to start taxing all charities.
Worm_Buffet
Member
JayDubya said:
Somehow I don't believe you. Why did you even bring up the prospect of ridicule? Are you thinking out loud through your keyboard?
Would you critique your son's piano playing by saying 'instead of saying that you're hopelessly untalented and I intensly regret the day you were born, i will suggest that you practice more'?
JayDubya said:
But that is reproduction on celllular level, which would constitute growth or regeneration rather than reproduction on organism-level for a multi-celled organism (AFAIK).
The IRS can and will (under the right circumstances) revoke tax-exempt status of non-profits- even charities- that cross into political advocacy, as this plainly does. The statement baldly targets voters for a specific politician for his policy views after all.Bumblebeetuna said:
EDIT: I'm not saying the CCofA should have its tax-exempt status revoked because of this, just that it does run that risk if it continued far enough down this path. Which it won't.
worldrunover
Member
Also,
You believe life begins at conception. America doesn't. If you don't agree with your country, why do you live here?
JayDubya said:
You believe life begins at conception. America doesn't. If you don't agree with your country, why do you live here?
Worm_Buffet said:
Pretty much stream of consciousness, yeah. In retrospect, I can see your point as to why that would have the opposite effect.
The AFAYK is what I'm trying to remedy, and the earlier example of the logical consequences of the difference was meant to do precisely that.
Ignatz Mouse
Banned
TheFightingFish said:
Close. Reading that, you'll see that the functions are still rudimentary. I'm cool with the current standing on 3rd trimester based on the rest of the reading of that article and the development of the brain. I'd be cool with 1/2 way through the second, frankly, but that's not what anybody is arguing.
Now, I'm guessing you are nowhere near where I want *you* to be. Bad start.
Ignatz Mouse
Banned
JayDubya said:
Because the world is just exactly that black and white, and you could of course dial up a church that agrees with your beliefs 100% on every issue.
worldrunover said:
One incarnation of the Supreme Court != America. Roe represents quite possibly the most repugnant act of any federal government branch in the past half-century, and that's saying something.
And calling scientific fact a belief is just silly. Do I believe in gravity? I suppose one actually could say they believe in gravity, it's just not something one would say.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked