Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
I am simple. I don't like those "double negatives", needs too much of my limited "brainpower". So you say here "It's consistent to reject...unrelated"
Personally I like burkas, niqabs. And calling it "backward elements of certain Islamic cultures" even I find that demeaning. But "free speech" ... I get it.
No one has the "right" to take human life. Creed is an irrelevance. But pertinent to the discussion is to what extent the west should facilitate Muslims who live within it. The idea that the west must accept the burka because extremists (who hate everyone anyway) may use the rejection of the burka and niqab by some countries as "proof" of western oppression is laughable. If that's the case, then in a very real sense they're already won. Bringing up abortion is a deflection.
What you personally like is meaningless to me. But just so we're clear I'm not talking about the hijab. I'm specifically talking about garments which hide the face. And yes, the idea that a women should have no identity in the public sphere is backwards.
But we have the "right" to determine for ourselves what constitutes a human life. Many people don't consider a fetus, prior to electrical activity in the brain, to meet the definition of "living" nor strictly "human being", and whether you agree with it or not this is a value that many western societies are beginning to lean towards. Given this, do you not think there is some comparison between an allegedly regressive culture enforcing its views on a modern society and the actions of the Catholic church in this regard? It seems fairly apt. I would say that those who believe in curtailing the reproductive rights of others, and dictating absolutely where the line between life and non-life exists (against established science on the matter), in service to their own personal ideals which were established thousands of years ago are regressive extremists.
No one has the "right" to take human life. Creed is an irrelevance. But pertinent to the discussion is to what extent the west should facilitate Muslims who live within it. The idea that the west must accept the burka because extremists (who hate everyone anyway) may use the rejection of the burka and niqab by some countries as "proof" of western oppression is laughable. If that's the case, then in a very real sense they're already won. Bringing up abortion is a deflection.
What you personally like is meaningless to me. But just so we're clear I'm not talking about the hijab. I'm specifically talking about garments which hide the face. And yes, the idea that a women should have no identity in the public sphere is backwards.
So what are your thoughts on Savita Halappanavar's death? I would argue that it was Catholic dogma taking a life in that case.
I disagree. Any demarcation of what constitutes human life that does not begin at conception is arbitrary and self-serving. Human life is human life and the fact that a civilization has been widely convinced to the contrary is in no way a moral justification. But again, pertinent to the discussion, that I think Muslims who come to the west should be expected to (within reason) integrate within the wider culture is not inconsistent with my unease with the moral direction western civilization seems to be taking at the moment. (Heck, your opening sentence frankly scares me in its implications).
I do not accept the idea that it is ever "established science" that the taking of human life (in any of its stages) is morally justifiable. Such is an ideological position not a scientific one. Remember, eugenics in the eyes of a lot of people was once "established science".
So? What kind of argument is that?
Yes. One would be the ending of the life of a living, thinking, sentient creature. The other isn't.
Again, so what? If something isn't living, it shouldn't be considered living. That's all that matters.
False equivalence. I've already said that I don't consider fetuses to be living up to a point, as many people do, so to compare something I consider living and something I don't consider living is erroneous.
Only if you're delusional. A living person is not the same as a collection of cells or a non-living organism.
This makes no sense.
I'm extremely confused by most of this.
Why? Do you not understand that there are people who disagree with that and have valid reasons?
But where does your definition come from? How is it NOT self-serving to say that your definition of human life should trump all others and, regardless of what others believe, should dictate the reproductive rights of others? How is your attitude any different to Muslim extremists?
It's not about unease, it's about actively campaigning for society to conform to your ideals. This is what was happening with the Catholic church in Ireland. In what way is it different to what hardline Muslims do?
What about the science that says a fetus isn't technically living?
It is not an ideological position to say that electrical activity in the brain only begins at around 25 weeks, and it is not an ideological position to say that our definition of death (at least, in humans) is defined by the point at which electrical activity in the brain ceases. These are both true.
The fact that you're willing to say - and thus demonize the women who make the decision to terminate their pregnancies - this just indicates to me how unwilling or unable you are to see the hypocrisy and regressive nature of your position in light of a more civilized approach. This attitude is every bit as regressive as any hardline Muslim campaign against the rights of people, and the Irish public has just proven it will not be held in the sway of such ideology - especially when its chief exponent is responsible for the deliberate and malicious ending of the lives of hundreds of living children and their mistreatment around the globe.
In what way? What's your point? It's no different to the thought "If your mother had volunteered for religious celibacy, your would never have been born". So what?
In the same vein, many Christian authorities have declared the Pope to be the Antichrist, so Catholicism is not part of Christianity... right?
What are you talking about? Do you not see why pointing this out is asinine? I understand perfectly that if my mother had aborted me I wouldn't exist, just as you understand that if your mother had volunteered for lifelong celibacy you would not exist.
Oh, I understand perfectly well that a majority have come to believe that the murder of countless innocents is not only moral, but a right. It's a lamentable reversion.
Muslim extremists wish to impose (at the point of a sword if need be) their specific brand of Islam upon you. They too traffic in death and barbarity, albeit in a very different and far less subtle flavour than what is advocated by progressives. I on the other hand do not seek to impose Catholicism upon you or anyone. I don't advocate for enforced church attendance and the jailing of fornicators. What I advocate for is a civilization with the decency to recognize the value of human life in all its stages. Only in a decadent, selfish and nihilistic society could such a conviction be dismissed as "religious extremism".
No, I'm advocating for the sanctity of human life. I'm advocating for the conviction that of all human rights, the most basic is the right to life. It just so happens that it is (mostly) Christian voices pointing out the monstrous hypocrisy of a progressive ideology that prattles on endlessly about "rights" whilst explicitly denying the most innocent of theirs.
Again, as morbid as the suggestion is, go to google images and have a look at the dismembered examples of "non-life".
Again, you can "define" all you want. I will not accept any attempt to define away the question.
I don't consider infanticide civilized. Dress it up in the garbs of progress, rights and civilization all you want the truth no matter how many deny it remains. Truth always remains and the truth is that abortion is nothing more than the legalized murder of children. We are no different than the long gone pagans who either left the unwanted to die of exposure, or threw them off bridges to drown. That we're more "scientific" in method changes nothing.
Ah yes, those Irish, who like ghouls danced on the street in elevation of their new found "right" to infanticide. For all the wrongs the Catholic Church institution may be responsible, it in no way detracts from the moral bankruptcy displayed by those who think abortion is something to be celebrated.
But you don't have the right to enforce that view of the many people who disagree with it, or have it be the determining factor in deciding a national policy.
Are you suggesting that there aren't Christian extremists who would do the same thing?
Enforcing a religious view upon others - including your view on abortion - is religious extremism in my book.
Now you're just being silly. I already explained that I value human life but that I don't consider a fetus living. To misrepresent my position like that is dishonest at best. In fact, I would argue that I value human life more than you do - including the lives of children - because if an organization I belonged to and supported participated in prolonged, historical instances of mass infanticide and cover ups of child abuse, I wouldn't remain a supporter of that organization.
And now you're trying to emotionally blackmail me into your world view. That's far worse than anything any Muslim has tried to do to me, personally.
No, you're advocating for your specific interpretation of life and using it to judge, demonize and impose on others. You are attempting to enforce your religious view on a society which doesn't necessarily share your religion.
And yet it is the Catholic church that laid hundreds of children in mass graves around Ireland and Scotland due to poor care. Speak of hypocrisy.
No, because it's irrelevant. If you google "realistic baby doll" you might find yourself feeling great empathy with an unliving piece of plastic, but that doesn't make it living.
But that's your view, and you have no right to legislate your personal view into law, and any attempt to enforce religious law on non-religious people is extremism, in my opinion.
I'm not "defining it away". It's quite clear.
And not shared by many people, hence why your personal view doesn't dictate the rights of others.
Then why did the Catholic church repeatedly cause and attempt to hide it?
The truth is that "legalized murder" is an oxymoron.
Or the Catholic orphanages that did the same?
We are all dead before we're born (up to around 26 weeks, at least), that's the point. You can't "kill" something before it is living. If you fail to understand that, there is a serious fault in your grasp of logic.
Put aside the question of abortion for a second and answer me this: is it legitimate for the state to enforce laws against infanticide? Say, a mother decides that after three or so months that raising a child isn't for her after all and thus proceeds to smother the baby. Would that or would that not constitute murder in your view?
A theocracy strictly speaking is a political situation wherein the church and state are one in the same thing; wherein there is no distinction between secular and religious authority. Very, very few Christians actually argue for this yet alone think conversions at gun point as moral. Christians obviously want the societies in which they find themselves to reflect their values to some degree but in this liberals and progressives are no different.
Actually no. The conviction that the unborn have the right to life is not in and of itself a religious view. It's a moral one first and foremost. Christianity also teaches that one should be always ready to perform charitable works yet the fact that Christianity teaches charity (as it does the sanctity of human life) doesn't make doing charity a religious action in and of itself. So when I defend the right of the unborn to live, it is not ipso facto because I'm Catholic or want to impose Catholic morality upon everyone. It's because I am convinced that abortion is the murder of innocent human life. If I were to simultaneously claim that the unborn have the full value of human life yet decline to defend the right of that life to protection under the law, I would be rightly condemned as morally bankrupt.
I know, and I think you're wrong.
Finding examples of Catholics who have done wrong (even monstrous wrong) is shooting fish in a barrel. In fact multiple visionaries and mystics have actually prophesied a grave institutional failure of Church and a future wherein there will be a near total collapse of the the faith. (Which I know you don't take seriously). The point is that the institution and the men who run it are not synonymous with the faith.
Why? Because you don't want to look at reality in the (literal) face? A picture is worth a thousand words as they say.
Again, the right to life is not in and itself a "religious" view. But I understand it must be convenient to think that anyone and everyone who is pro-life must be a religious extremist.
Right and wrong is not a democratic vote. If most people at some point in the future come to believe that killing newborns is as morally permissible as abortion, does that make it so?
It's outright lying to equate an instance of a Catholic care-home inadequately dealing with child mortality as a deliberate mass infanticide.
You know darn well what I mean by it.
Catholic orphanages may be guilty of historical cases of inadequate care and its cover-up (although infant morality was until fairly recently an unfortunate reality) but unless you can give me concrete examples of Catholic institutions deliberately killing babies then you have nothing but anti-Catholic polemic.
It's not my grasp of logic that's the failure here. I don't accept the premise.
Define "legitimate". If we talking about whether I agree with it morally, then no.
Yes, it would constitute murder.
Why? Can you not tell the difference between a living being and a non-living being?
But you're attempting to enforce a view that has a basis entirely in your personal religious adherence upon people in a society which does not share your religious adherence. How does that make you any better than the Muslims you criticize for doing the same?
But it is in your case, which is the point.
But it just so happens to be true in your case, so your diverting here isn't really relevant. You are still attempting to enforce a specifically religious view on to society.
Because your religion convinced you that was the case.
Based on what? What is your reasoning, if not religious?
Not Catholics, Catholic organizations and institutions that were supported by the Catholic church, who also participated in the suppression of information about these cases.
The institution acted in a manner designed to protect paedophiles and silence their victims.
And yet the people who have been in charge of Catholic doctrine have been responsible for justifying infanticide. How can you continue to support the Church in light of this?
And why was infanticide and the protection of paedophiles necessary?
No, it isn't, regardless of your hyperbole.
So infanticide is fine when people you agree with do it? This is very telling.
Because it's irrelevant, as any reasonable person would know. You ever looked directly at a kidney transplant?
I didn't say that - I said anyone who does so FOR RELIGIOUS REASONS is an extremist.
But it is and it was.
I do. It's meaningless, garbled rhetoric with no actual substance behind it.
Then the fault is with you.