Note: If you are seeing my posts in script, I am sorry! It's not the font I'm using; it may be related to the computer or program you are on. Script is hard to read, and I would never choose it for the blog.
Welcome to my latest Quick Takes, even as the never-say-die post has passed the 1,000-comment mark! I am just flabbergasted. But I'm trying to move on just a bit….
1) The next time someone tells me that mothers and fathers are interchangeable in a child's life and that fathers do not matter, I will simply link to this:
In our hearts, we all understand this. We know.
2) Speaking of things we know in our hearts (and the absuuuurrrd lengths we will go in order to fool our own consciences), get a load of Cecile Richard's latest doozy:
The president of the country’s largest abortion provider said she didn’t think the matter of when life begins is pertinent to the issue [of abortion].I know. I had to read that twice, too. My brain twisted, strained, and then...
“It is not something that I feel is really part of this conversation,” Cecile Richards of Planned Parenthood told Fusion’s Jorge Ramos on Thursday. “I don’t know if it’s really relevant to the conversation.”Yes, that happened. She just said that.
When pressed, Richards said that in her view life began for her three children when she delivered them.Yes, that just happened, too.
She explained that the purpose of her organization is not to answer a question that “will be debated through the centuries,” but to provide options for pregnant women.
Then, my brain imploded.
And this, my friends, is one of our nation's most respected elites, who has the ear of Barack Obama, free and easy access to the White House, and millions upon millions of your tax dollars.
Lord, have mercy.
3) So I tend to save a lot of facebook memes to my desktop if they grab my attention. Unfortunately, they then have a habit of sitting there for months until I use them or trash them. I have decided to clear up my computer screen by posting some here.
This one pretty much sums up the culture war in general, ha ha:
And this meme takes on the biggest current battle in the culture war and says a whole lot in a little bitty space:
4) Memes are sort of like bumper stickers, it's true, but that doesn't mean they are all trite. Here are three that will bear some serious fruit when meditated upon:
5) This one just made me chuckle, even though I believe my family members could turn it around on me. Hmmmmm….
6) I have begun taking screenshots of delicious recipes/dishes I see on facebook, and then I send the screenshot to my husband with a "Wow, this looks so good, can we* make this??"
He has made the first two, with great results! I think I should probably be able to handle the third one. Maybe tomorrow I'll try it, because after all… tomorrow is another day! [Scarlett O'Hara being one of my role models.]
*"we" of course means "you"
7) Oh, be still my heart!! Look at Andy! A seven-year-old cutie with Down syndrome, in need of a family to call his own:
 |
| Click my photo for more info! I have a large grant! |
From a 2013 update:
Andy is in his 3rd year of Kindergarten (which is the equivalent to USA preschool) and the hope is that he will attend the special education school for the next school year. He enjoys going to the community center on most nights so that he can dance to the music. He is waiting for his forever family to find him so he can dance into their hearts.
Broccoli looks so yummy. Can't wait to try it.
ReplyDeletethat video brought me to tears. I've watched it at least five times. so sad.
ReplyDeletelove the memes!!
If you don't rinse the broccoli immediately prior to preparing it then how long before should you rinse it?
ReplyDeleteThat video....yeah we know. We've become the brats. In reality, our society is that kid poor kid and God is asking us " Do you want me to be your Father?". If we weren't so arrogant we would answer as wisely as that kid.
ReplyDeleteLeila, the readings today have stomped on my chest. He is so faithful.
"seek ye first...!"
Okay, looking at Andy, well, it just made me cry....
ReplyDeleteNature bats last. Children know, no matter how much brainwashing and shaming they might endure by their two "daddies" and their two "mommies" or by their opposite-sex parent(s) who acquired them through manufacturing them as a commodity (by sperm, egg or womb-swapping) and this sick society that endorses all such ills (all should check out Alanna Newman's blog that Leila has linked on her sidebar), what they need and of which they've been deprived, whether it's been a father or a mother.
ReplyDeleteThe stats are there, if you want to look around, and if you want to look further than this link: http://thefatherlessgeneration.wordpress.com/statistics/
So unnecessary.
Have I told you my new favorite bumper sticker? I saw it a few weeks ago while visiting my MIL. It read -
ReplyDeleteThe Catholic Church: Outlasting Oppressive Governments since 33 AD.
Bwahahahahaha. Amen!!!!!
Thanks Leila you have given me an idea for youth group - give them a meme to tease out its meaning and discuss what it means to their lives.
ReplyDeleteThat potato and buffalo chicken casserole is in the oven right now! Much better idea than the chicken I was planning on making. Thanks, Leila! :)
ReplyDeleteMarie, awesome! Mcbabyadventures, tell me how everyone likes it! Bethany, can you believe I have a facebook meme that says just that, ha ha! The Catholic Church will definitely outlast America. We are on the decline in America, but the Church will be just fine. That's why I am so glad I am Catholic before I am American (as much as I love these great United States).
ReplyDeleteGFNY, that is so sad. We used to lament fatherlessness, now we celebrate it and create fatherless children proudly.
Chris, the readings for today were AWESOME!!!!!
Julie, I think if you just make sure the broccoli is dry, you'll be fine. Tell me if you like it. :)
Leila -it was a smash hit. I think next time I might try adding a vegetable in there so I can have a complete one-dish meal, but other than that it met all of my family requirements: lots for leftovers even if we have seconds (but we're only 4), pretty inexpensive (chicken was on sale this week!), cheesy, a bit of spicy heat but not so much the two year old won't eat it, and it can be prepared using a minimum of dishes. My husband and I added extra hot sauce because we like to live dangerously. ;)
ReplyDeletemcbabyadventures, yay!!! It was such a hit here, too!! Crowd-pleaser. :)
ReplyDelete"The Catholic Church will definitely outlast America."
ReplyDeleteHey Leila- Could you please clarify this for me? It's not the Church's truths but the institution itself won't get poor or die at any point in the future for sure?
I do not see the relevance of asking someone when life begins. When does life begin after a seed is planted? Is there life in an ear of corn when it is harvested? Is there life in a tree when it is cut down or in a pig when it is slaughtered?
ReplyDeleteSo, there is life in a fertilized egg or in a fetus. What does that have to do with a woman's choice as to whether or not to go through with an unwanted pregnancy when her whole future is at stake? Really.
It's very relevant, Bill, if you believe that all human beings have an equal right to life. If a new human being begins at conception, as any biology or embryology textbook states, then it would follow that that human being should have the right to life.
ReplyDeleteBill, so until the moment of birth, that magical moment when the last toe is out of the womb, a child is now "alive", where as the second before she was not? As Cecile Richards claims for her own children?
ReplyDeleteIt's very relevant, Bill, if you believe that all human beings have an equal right to life.
ReplyDeleteJoAnna,
I actually do not believe that all human beings have an equal right to life. I believe that fully formed human beings capable of living without being attached to another human being by an umbilical chord have a greater right to life than those who do not meet that criteria. My belief is supported by case law.
I actually do not believe that all human beings have an equal right to life.
ReplyDeleteAh, so you do acknowledge that unborn children are human beings? Great! Interesting how the human beings you wish to oppress are smaller, weaker, and more vulnerable than you.
My belief is supported by case law.
What a coincidence. Slavery was supported by case law in 1835. The killing of Jews was supported by German law in 1935. Both were instances in which the law stated that some human beings had more rights than others (or stated that the victims weren't actually human beings).
You're playing the role of the oppressor, Bill.
JoAnna,
ReplyDeleteDo you dismiss the importance of case law in our evolution into a better society? Without relying on case law, where would we be in terms of trying to secure justice for all?
Francis,
ReplyDeleteI'm getting off this thread an conversing on the new one if you want to continue. I value your posts.
Interesting that I have something in common with Obama and Richards. We are all psychopaths. I've learned something about myself.
Bill, I think you wanted that last comment to be on the other post, not this one.
ReplyDeleteBill, given your history here (you like to play games, you act very similarly to a troll, and many folks have told me they are weary of you), I will insist that you answer the questions that are posed to you and stay on point. Focus like a laser beam. Answer JoAnna directly and address her points. If not, because you are always "probationary" here, you will be asked to leave this discussion. Thanks for understanding.
ReplyDeleteBill,
ReplyDeleteIs case law infallible?
You're playing the role of the oppressor, Bill.
ReplyDeleteJoAnna,
Have I not answered your questions and given you my point of view for which you then said that I am playing the role of the oppressor?
Isn't the Texas legislature oppressing women in the name of looking after their health and safety when they pass a law that results in the closing of clinics that can't meet unnecessary standards which everyone knows are intended to make it more difficult to have a safe and legal abortion?
They are the oppressors whom people like Wendy Davis are up against in the battle for women's rights. Where am I wrong on this?
Funny you should mention Wendy Davis, Bill, since JoAnna's article on her is published by LifeNews this very day:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.lifenews.com/2014/03/03/wendy-davis-would-be-okay-if-club-footed-babies-like-my-son-are-aborted/
Is case law infallible?
ReplyDeleteCase law is our most accurate arbiter of legal v. Illegal, just v. unjust, fair v. unfair, etc. But no, it is not infallible.
Please address her points in her comment of 7:36.
ReplyDeleteYou acknowledge that the unborn are human beings? And they are weaker than you, and unable to defend themselves? And what of the laws that she referenced? Please address directly.
That cucumber salad is altered in our house to the Polish/Hungarian version Mizeria or Uborka salata. So delicious on the Easter feast table, and refreshing throughout spring and summer during late afternoons on the deck.
ReplyDeleteSlice cuc's paper thin
Omit tomatoes.
If you use onions, red are best, as they add a sweetness
Add about 1/2 c to 1 c sour cream
Prepare sugar and vinegar dressing to your liking
Add fresh chopped dill
Salt and pepper to taste
We're blessed with a family of several incredible cooks.
Interesting comments by Cecile Richards. So I'd like to ask her, if her children's lives did not begin until delivery, did she seek prenatal care? Was she careful to avoid alcohol or medications that could harm whatever it was (certainly not a human!) inside her uterus? Did she take care of herself during pregnancy? I assume she did because - shockingly - she was taking care of the life inside of her! Does she not see or hear how ridiculous she sounds? Certainly she can't be that clueless or ignorant. She's lost. I pray for her conversion!
ReplyDeleteSome more direct questions for Bill, if he's interested:
ReplyDelete"I believe that fully formed human beings capable of living without being attached to another human being by an umbilical chord have a greater right to life than those who do not meet that criteria. My belief is supported by case law."
Have you considered that "case law" criterion is perhaps flawed?
Have you considered that perhaps you are being too dogmatic about the law always being correct?
Is it possible that faulty decisions are handed down based on the wrong standard?
Have you considered that whatever is enacted in law often becomes looked upon as 'morally correct', when, realistically, that could be inaccurate?
Do you agree that as law goes, so goes the mindset of a culture, so go its values?
Do you see how usurping the right to life could apply to anyone, now that it's been altered and voted upon instead of acknowledged and protected?
Have you considered that as the laws go, so goes a culture, for better or for worse?
Have you considered that an unjust law could affect you?
Was it right for the RvW criterion to shift as it did, from objective to subjective?
Have you read the critiques of that decision?
If it's unjust, do you see the necessity for reversal?
I made up my mind recently to stop commenting here, but I can't pass up the above commentary because as a person of Jewish heritage I find it EXTREMELY offensive.
ReplyDeleteEvery time there is a debate about abortion here, slavery and the holocaust are inappropriately and inaccurately used as comparisons to abortion.
JoAnna, exactly how is an embryo and it's surrounding environment in a womb and a woman's decision to have an abortion EXACTLY the same as 246 years of economically driven captivity held over men, women and children that included psychological, physiological trauma? Are embryos enslaved in the womb? Are abortion providers buying them? A slave who was alive was worth a lot more to a plantation owner than a dead one. The states that historically supported slavery? Yeah, they're also the ones that now are trying to pass the most strict anti-abortion laws so how does that fit into your scheme?
And regarding the Holocaust- please tell me specifically how an embryo is on par with 6 million men, women and children of Jewish heritage who died because of one political party's attempt at genocide? Are you equating the pregnant woman to a Nazi for having an abortion?
Which cases (US 1835, Germany 1935) are you referring to and where in the legal script of those cases does it state exactly what you claim it does?
You don't have to answer any of these questions, of course, but I am not going to sit idly by watching yet another disgusting appropriation of unspeakable tragic historical events be appropriated for your use to argue that abortion should be illegal.
Bill, I have held off addressing you for so long, but I have had enough.
ReplyDelete1) The bill was to ensure that clinics - REAL healthcare - are nearby (within 30 miles, but IMO, in a medical emergency, 30 miles is way too far) in case an abortion goes wrong. Abortions do go wrong (wrong medically, past the killing of a child for the mother's choice to have sex when she was unprepared to bring a child in the world - THAT is her choice, not killing a child from her behavioral choices), but it's a dirty secret the pro-aborts, nor the mainstream media, don't want to publicize. Read: Knowledge will help swing the tide against abortion, and the pro-aborts can't lose money, now can it? Contraception and encouragement to have sex when unprepared on all levels = profit off women. Abortion = profit off women. Women = profit mules for contraceptive, abortion and baby manufacturing industries.
2) You've admitted that a past girlfriend had an abortion. I cannot help but believe your stance, to this day, is your way of rationalizing/quantifying the abortion of your child. Nothing will do so. You lost something precious and irreplaceable to the mindset of this culture, not to truth. I am sorry for that, but I, on the secular level and the religious level, will not allow you, or anyone else, to say that something so evil is a good, and worse, a right, to placate you when it is neither, and thus promote it.
3) You've been here for several months. Why do you keep coming back?
Are you here so often, in spite of your often promises that you're done here, because you know, deep down, that the Church speaks the truth and that you think by repeatedly saying the untrue that that's going to change?
Don't you realize that most of us faithful Catholics (and it's a shame that "Catholic" has to have a qualifier, i.e. "progressive" Catholic, "liberal" Catholic, "devout" Catholic - you either believe all, or you are a Protestant and dissent, but I digress) were in your shoes, or pretty close to it, and you aren't telling us anything different, or even better, than other non-Catholics have said here?
For all that you claim your Catholicism was false, oppressive, etc., it's clear that atheism hasn't helped you one bit.
Enough. Please go, and get help.
Gwen, be very careful here. My husband is Jewish. His entire family is Jewish. My children are Jewish (in the sense that Hitler would have considered them Jewish, since that is their ethnicity and heritage. My children and husband would have been first in line to the camps and gas chambers. Don't pull the "I'm offended" line with me or with my husband. I can assure you, my husband, bar mitzvahed in the Temple, feels exactly as I do about the open slaughter of the unborn. Human beings are human beings. The ONLY way people can get away with mass extermination of any humans (or even one at a time) is to dehumanize them. Just as the Nazis dehumanized the Jews (systematically, and with euphemistic language), just as pro-"choice" advocates have dehumanized the unborn.
ReplyDeleteSo, tread very carefully here.
Have you considered that "case law" criterion is perhaps flawed?
ReplyDeleteIn that it involves interactions among human beings (the most intelligent beings known to exist), case law might be flawed. But it is the best arbiter of right and wrong known to exist.
Have you considered that perhaps you are being too dogmatic about the law always being correct?
No more dogmatic than Catholics are about Church teaching.
Is it possible that faulty decisions are handed down based on the wrong standard?
Yes. That is the risk that we run depending on court decisions.
Have you considered that whatever is enacted in law often becomes looked upon as 'morally correct', when, realistically, that could be inaccurate?
A decision should be fair. "Morally correct" implies that there are objective truths about morality. That is a religious notion. Law is not based on religion.
Do you agree that as law goes, so goes the mindset of a culture, so go its values?
Yes. I do agree.
Do you see how usurping the right to life could apply to anyone, now that it's been altered and voted upon instead of acknowledged and protected?
Yes. I do see that.
Have you considered that as the laws go, so goes a culture, for better or for worse?
Uh huh.
Have you considered that an unjust law could affect you?
The law depriving my right to die with dignity should I become terminally I'll does affect me. An attempt to change it was shot down in my state due to overwhelming opposition from Catholics. That does affect me and has to be changed before I get to that point.
Was it right for the RvW criterion to shift as it did, from objective to subjective?
I am not up on that ruling. So I don't know what you are talking about.
Have you read the critiques of that decision?
I haven't read anything about R v. W.
If it's unjust, do you see the necessity for reversal?
Unjust to whom. It should be just for women.
Post a comment.
Unsubscribe to comments on this post.
Posted by Nubby to Little Catholic Bubble at March 3, 2014 at 9:02 AM
Leila, thanks I don't need any threats from you about "treading carefully." I'm not "playing a card" and I'm not going to get into a silly challenge about who is "more Jewish." How do you justify de-racializing Jewish genocide at the hands of the Nazi regime to fit into your comparison to abortion?
ReplyDeleteAnd let me tell you something else, Gwen. Oppression happens when those with the power use it over those who are weak or defenseless. Science proved long ago that the unborn child is a human being. You can kill those human beings ONLY because you are stronger and bigger. That is the ONLY reason. So, the oppressed (women) have become the oppressors. That is horrendous. True feminists do not kill defenseless children, at any stage. True feminists (like the classical feminists) would never pit a child and a mother against each other. The strong PROTECT the weak in a civilized society. You have utterly abandoned and turned upon the weakest among us.
ReplyDeleteAnother thing, which is so important and which I have brought up before. The reason we use examples like the Nazis and the slave-owners is because we have to reach to those evils to find evils that we can all agree on. So many things that everyone used to think were evil are now seen as "good" by the left. So, in order to find common ground, to find analogies that we can both understand and agree upon, we have to use Nazis and slavery. I hope you can logically understand my point.
You start playing the Jewish card when you are talking to the wife and mother of Jews, and yes you are going to get what I give. Mama bear comes out, that's how it is.
ReplyDeleteAnd see above for my answer to the question you just posed.
"Was it right for the RvW criterion to shift as it did, from objective to subjective?
ReplyDeleteI am not up on that ruling. So I don't know what you are talking about."
You'll want to give that a glance to understand why certain justices have voiced their disagreement with that ruling.
"If it's unjust, do you see the necessity for reversal?
Unjust to whom. It should be just for women.
It should be just to all.
When I say a unjust law could affect you, that means that if a judiciary is now handing down what it means to be human to the right degree, as they proclaim, then you could easily be declared a non-person, Bill. If you don't meet the requirements, then a voting body now can declare your human value, if any. That's the point.
Maybe I can phrase it this way: Gwen, do you agree that one way to justify the killing of a group of people (with certain characteristics, deficiencies, ethnicities, religious affiliations, whatever) is to dehumanize them in the minds of others?
ReplyDeleteEthnic Poles were mass murdered by the Nazis. I'm Polish to a large degree. Romani people were murdered, too. I'm Romanian, as well. It is a relevant comparison for the sake of argument.
ReplyDeleteIt should be just to all.
ReplyDeleteNubby,
Hardly any court decision is accepted as just for all. If the court had judged in favor of Wade, many would consider that unjust to women. As it turns out, many consider the decision to be unjust to the unborn. Whether you like it or not, justice to women supersedes the perceived rights of the unborn. That's just the way it is.
Gwen,
ReplyDeleteI think that the unjust killing of even one human being is a tragedy, regardless of that human being's age, size, level of development, or location. The Holocaust was an immense tragedy, as is the current holocaust of over 50 million unborn children in the US since 1973.
Look at the Dred Scott decision by the US Supreme Court in 1835 for one example of how black people were dehumanized.
Look at the Nuremberg Laws in 1935 Germany for one example of how Jewish people were dehumanized.
Look at Roe v Wade in 1973 for one example of how unborn children were dehumanized.
I really don't understand your outrage. By your logic, the death of a teenager should be more tragic than the death of an infant. I think they are both tragic. It's not either/or, it's both/and.
Bill,
ReplyDeleteWhy do you oppose rigorous safety standards for ambulatory surgical centers? Do you think that abortions should be performed in unsafe conditions?
Perhaps you should be asking the abortion facilities why they are shutting down instead of taking all the measures they possibly can to keep women safe.
You should also ask the abortion centers why they need to shut down, if abortion is only 3% of their business, as they so often claim. Wouldn't it be better to stop doing abortions so that they can stay open and provide the other 97% of their services to women?
" Whether you like it or not, justice to women supersedes the perceived rights of the unborn. That's just the way it is."
ReplyDeleteAnd that's why your argument is invalid. The right to Life was always upheld, pre-RvW. It was always objectively identified and recognized. It wasn't until the justices decided to define "personhood".
This is exactly why you should read up on the critiques. To understand the law as it was, and to see it now for how it fails to protect.
ReplyDeleteWhy do you oppose rigorous safety standards for ambulatory surgical centers?
Who made the determination that this was a problem and what influenced them to make that determination? I say it was made by those opposed to abortion for the purpose of making it more difficult to access abortion providers. Health and safety was the excuse. Not the reason.
Do you think that abortions should be performed in unsafe conditions?
There is no compelling evidence that this is happening. It is just an excuse to eliminate as many abortions as possible. It is a sham.
Perhaps you should be asking the abortion facilities why they are shutting down instead of taking all the measures they possibly can to keep women safe.
Yes. Make all this their fault. How convenient.
You should also ask the abortion centers why they need to shut down, if abortion is only 3% of their business, as they so often claim.
Is it 3% for the facilities closing or 3% of all services provided in all facilities?
Wouldn't it be better to stop doing abortions so that they can stay open and provide the other 97% of their services to women?
That's not your call.
Bill,
ReplyDeleteHave you heard of Kermit Gosnell?
Have you heard of Kermit Gosnell?
ReplyDeleteYes. He is in jail where he belongs.
I cannot help but believe your stance, to this day, is your way of rationalizing/quantifying the abortion of your child.
ReplyDeleteAnd it is working. I used to think the prolifers were on the moral high ground and that I was a scumbag. Now I don't feel that way. It's been good to learn the reasons why Catholics are the way they are. Their lack of compassion for woman who make mistakes puts them on the same level with everyone else.
No, I don't understand your point because it isn't logical at all. How are the myriad reasons that women across racial, class and ethnic lines make difficult decisions about abortion relevant to distinct, complex, historical events? And you didn't answer my question-does your comparison of abortion to the holocaust make women who choose abortions akin to Nazis?
ReplyDeleteWhat is oppression and how does it occur? have you read Michel Foucault and his analysis of power? It might help you tease out these generalized ideas you have about oppression. Please explain how women are oppressors in society?
JoAnna, you didn't really answer my questions. Also, Dred Scott case is 1856:
"Dred Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393, 60 U.S. 393, 15 L.Ed. 691 (U.S.Mo.,1856)(The provision in Act Cong. passed March 6, 1820, 3 Stat. 545, commonly known as the Missouri Compromise act, prohibiting the holding and ownership of slaves in the territory of the United States north of the line therein mentioned, is not warranted by the constitution, and is therefore void; Right of property in slave is distinctly and expressly affirmed in the Constitution. The federal government has no power over person or property of citizens except what citizens of the United States have granted and no laws or usages of other nations or reasoning of statesmen or jurists on relations of master and slave could enlarge powers of government or take from citizens rights reserved. No federal tribunal may deny the right of property in slave, or deny to slave owners benefit of provisions and guarantees provided for protection of private property by the Constitution, since the Constitution recognizes such right of property and makes no distinction between slaves and other property. Under federal Constitution, federal government has no right to interfere with reserved power of states to regulate slaves for any other purpose but that of protecting rights of owner)."
"You start playing the Jewish card when you are talking to the wife and mother of Jews, and yes you are going to get what I give."
ReplyDeleteyou have little to give.
Not very classy to insult Leila'a intelligence on her own blog, Gwen. No one is forcing you to read it. If her posts and comments bother you so much, feel free not to read them.
DeleteBill, have you ever heard of Douglas Karpen? He's the Kermit Gosnell of Texas: http://m.chron.com/news/houston-texas/houston/article/Houston-doctor-accused-of-illegal-abortions-4519565.php
ReplyDeleteI still don't understand why you oppose holding all ambulatory surgical centers to the same safety standards. Why should abortion facilities be exempt from safety regulations?
Gwen, thank you for the date correction.
You realize that comparing the Nazi Holocaust to the abortion holocaust is not a perfect analogy, I hope? In any case, the abortionists more akin to the Nazis. They are killing human beings for what they believe is a greater good. Women are often just another victim. Some studies estimate that as many as 60% of women who abort were forced or coerced into doing so.
Why use euphemisms, Gwen? "women across racial, class and ethnic lines make difficult decisions about abortion" = "women.... who make the decision to have their innocent child killed" (even though many aren't aware that is what they are doing)
If you support abortion, why not speak plainly about it?
I haven't read the work you mention, but you seem to be overthinking the concept. When the strong victimize, and dehumanize the weak, that is oppression. This definition applies to slaves, Jews, and the unborn -- all of whom were/are victims.
I still don't understand why you oppose holding all ambulatory surgical centers to the same safety standards.
ReplyDeleteJoAnna,
Why can't you just admit the real reason for religious right Texan legislators passing the anti-abortion law? You do know the main objective of the legislation and how it is all about reducing abortions under the guise of increasing safety. There are all kinds of safety concerns in this world. What are the chances that these zealots would focus on the safety of women having abortions with no other motive than a genuine concern for their safety. The odds against it are astronomical. They just happened to pick the very concerns for safety that would get clinics closed. What are the chances of that? Amazing.
"And you didn't answer my question-does your comparison of abortion to the holocaust make women who choose abortions akin to Nazis?"
ReplyDeleteIt is a comparison of criterion used to determine "personhood" or human value.
It is not a comparison of women who abort = Nazis.
Thank you, JoAnna and Nubby!
ReplyDeleteGwen, can the weak and defenseless oppress the strong and powerful? If so, can you show me where/how that happens? Thanks! I've only thought about oppression in terms of the stronger and more powerful oppressing the weak and defenseless.
"under the guise of increasing safety" Good grief, Bill, don't pretend to care about women who are having abortions if you are fine with them having an invasive procedure with serious risks, in a facility that is allowed to have lower standards than other ambulatory care centers. That is not showing concern for women, it is showing concern for abortion providers. Go ahead and believe that abortionists should have the right to kill innocent children, but don't pretend to be pro-women while you allow the abortionists to operate under substandard medical conditions.
ReplyDeleteSharon,
ReplyDeleteThis never, ever was about women's health and safety or about substandard conditions at abortion clinics. If it were, it would have been brought up by people other than the ones who have the most to gain by turning a nonissue into an issue in order to shit down as many clinics as they could. So Wendy Davis is against women's health and safety? That's what you are saying.
Anyone who thinks that this has anything to do with health and safety is being duped big time.
Sorry.. in order to SHUT down..
ReplyDeleteOnce again, Bill... Why do you oppose rigorous safety standards for ambulatory surgical centers? You keep ranting about the alleged motivations of the bill sponsors and supporters, but won't answer what you think of the bill's actual purpose.
ReplyDeleteBill: Yes, Wendy Davis is against women's health. Pro-aborts generally are. There is nothing about abortion that is good for women's health.
ReplyDelete...but won't answer what you think of the bill's actual purpose.
ReplyDeleteSeriously, JoAnna, seriously? What do you think is the bill's actual purpose? Ok. So you won't keep asking me and so Leila doesn't think I am not answering your questions. Yes. I am for what you said. I didn't mean to give the impression that I am against women's health and safety.
Bill,
ReplyDeleteThe bill's purpose is to impose rigorous health and safety standards on abortion facilities, so that they are brought up to the same standard as all other ambulatory surgical facilities in the state of Texas. I think rigorous safety standards are a good thing to have in medical facilities, especially ones in which surgerical procedures are performed. And as President Obama has said regarding other legislation, if these laws save even just one life, they will be worth it. Do you agree?
*surgical
DeleteOk Johanna. Let's say that one reason is for the health and safety of women having abortions (even though this never was an issue). The other reason is most definitely to get clinics closed and reduce the number of abortions by making women travel farther to the facilities that survive the new standards. For the latter reason, the courts will eventually strike down the law because it violates the 14th Amendment.
ReplyDeleteBill, why aren't the pro-abortion forces (the ones who are so "pro-woman") interested in requiring abortion clinics to have a base level of standards? Why is there a lower set of standards for "women's clinics" when these folks are so pro-woman? Where is the push for higher standards of safety? It's not computing for me. Don't tell me that they don't want standard safety simply because pro-lifers are pushing those standards… because that would be sacrificing actual women and women's health for an agenda.
ReplyDeleteAnd pro-aborts would never sacrifice real women for an agenda, right? Hmmm…
DeleteHelp me understand why anyone who cares about women would oppose this.
Bill, you keep saying that women's safety during abortions isn't and hasn't been a problem. Just because it hasn't been on your radar doesn't mean it hasn't been a problem. The notoriety of the Gosnell case and the shocking lack of basic licensing/inspection of his clinic was so egregious it couldn't be completely ignored even by the mainstream media outlets, but it's far from the only example. Even a cursory attempt at research will reveal an unmistakable problem (involving women dying not just babies).
ReplyDeleteLeila, having been a pro-abort back in the day, I think the reason measures like this are opposed by pro-choicers because pro-choicers do not like confronting the medical reality of abortion. Abortion is a "procedure," not a surgery. To acknowledge that it's invasive and that to be "safe" (of course, it's never safe for the baby) there need to be competent medical professionals involved would reveal that it's not the instant miracle fix for a problematic pregnancy. Even marketing the abortion pill is like that, even though the experience after taking it is horrible. The attitude, "Oh, take this, and suddenly no baby. It's magic." The reality of what will happen is downplayed.
ReplyDeleteIf abortion is going to be embraced the way pro-aborts want it to, they have to hide as much as they can about how it happens (and the information age, in part, I think, is responsible for young people not being enthusiastic about abortion as a "women's rights" issue anymore.)
"My oh my, you sure know how to arrange things. You set it up so well, naturally" - Lying Eyes, Eagles.
ReplyDeleteThe Texas law is bulletproof. Anyone against it wants these facilities run by Gosnells. They oppose health and safety. They don't put the toilet seat down or brush after meals. Anyone for it is looking after women's health and safety and never put their elbows on the table. It's a stroke of genius.
Bill, that's cute and snarky, but there's a very real problem that's being addressed by the Texas law. Instead of giving in to what you seem to think is clever, engage with the issue! Just because you disagree with pro-lifers doesn't mean you have to support everything pro-abirtionists do. Basic safety to prevent women's deaths in these clinics should be a no-brainer - whether pro-life or pro-abortion.
ReplyDeleteBill, way to completely skirt the question. Now, please answer directly. I've been told I'm a patient person, but I don't believe it.
ReplyDeletesarahcecelia, I think Nicole C. should chime in about the "safety" issue, since she is an expert on that, as she is the head of Right to Life in her area, and has seen and knows of the horrors that go on in the "safe" clinics all around her. But she may be having her baby, as she hasn't responded to my email, ha. So, praying for a safe delivery. :)
mcbabyadventures, that is a great observation!
"I think the reason measures like this are opposed by pro-choicers because pro-choicers do not like confronting the medical reality of abortion."
ReplyDeleteI'd add that pro-choicers do not like confronting the morality of abortion.
Science reduces us to acknowledging the morality behind the action of abortion. It does this by presenting the biological facts. Morality is the elephant in the room.
The instant pro-choicers start treating after-effects of abortion as mere effects of a choice, or of a procedure, that tables a brand new discussion which completely ignores the morality of the act.
Keeping the science front and center maintains the focus on the moral issue, which is the ultimate issue (the protection of human life); otherwise we get into these dog and pony shows about "women's health", and all the euphemisms that entails, as JoAnna has mentioned.
I agree entirely. It was a quick jump for me from learning the medical reality to understanding the immorality of abortion. I can't handle that level of cognitive dissonance, but it's shocking to see how many people can.
DeleteAnd pro-aborts would never sacrifice real women for an agenda, right? Hmmm…
ReplyDeleteAm I supposed to answer that? You think pro-choice proponents are willing to endanger women having abortions?
Help me understand why anyone who cares about women would oppose this.
Because it is more dangerous to drive the extra miles to the clinics that remain open than to have an abortion at the ones that have to close.
Oooh man, I'm just catching up here, but I can't let this comment from Bill pass: "Who made the determination that this was a problem and what influenced them to make that determination? I say it was made by those opposed to abortion for the purpose of making it more difficult to access abortion providers. Health and safety was the excuse. Not the reason. "
ReplyDeleteBill, my pro-life group that vigils outside of abortion clinics, last year witnessed FIVE women transported from our local PP clinic to emergency rooms, in a span of five weeks. So, a woman a week was being taken to the ER from an abortion clinic. And we have it on video. So no...it wasn't us making up some "determination". It was what we witnessed.
And mind you, one of the women was transported by one of our vigilers because PP wouldn't see her, even though after an abortion at PP, she was experiencing severe pains. She went to see her Ob/Gyn, who via ultrasound, found baby parts left inside her. He told her to go back to PP to get it taken care of. After sitting in the lobby for hours, her mother came out to talk to our vigilers, one of whom told her to get in her car, and she would personally transport her where she needed to go. There is now an impending lawsuit against our local PP.
I'm sure once I get through more comments I'll be back!
Nicole is here! Thanks, Nicole!
ReplyDelete"Because it is more dangerous to drive the extra miles to the clinics that remain open than to have an abortion at the ones that have to close."
You miss the point. It would "have to close" because it's conditions for safety are sub-par. It doesn't have to meet safety requirements, because it's a "women's clinic". You don't see that as problematic for women? Or anti-woman in any way? I mean, I get that it's "pro-abortion", but that has never meant "pro-woman."
Let me dig up some of the testimonies of the 2 nurses and one manager from our local PP about the conditions there. Believe me, you wouldn't take your pet to a veterinarian under those conditions, let alone take your daughter for some sort of Gyn "care". And after 2 public hearings in front of state legislators and several OSHA violations, they still got a slap on the wrist. They're still not subject to Health Dept inspections or being accredited by a credible overseeing organization. There is ZERO oversight. They still do not have to abide by standards of care that ambulatory surgical facilities abide by. BOGGLES MY MIND that people still defend this.
ReplyDeleteSo the actual transcripts of the testimonies I have are on Word docs, so I can't post them here, but here are a couple of good links with summaries:
ReplyDeletehttp://liveactionnews.org/nurses-planned-parenthood-administrators-delaware-regulators-failed-to-address-meat-market-conditions/
http://www.lifenews.com/2013/05/28/planned-parenthood-nurses-to-testify-about-ridiculously-filthy-abortion-clinic/
Their interview with a Philadelphia station: http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/story?section=news/local&id=9059172
Still searching for one that is really good, but it might be in the paid archives for our local paper. Argh! Anyway, keep in mind that all of this came to light just a couple of months after the Kermit Gosnell trial in Philly (we're just down I-95 from Philly), while the pro-abortion community was screaming that Gosnell was an isolated incident.
Bill, you said,
ReplyDelete"Am I supposed to answer that? You think pro-choice proponents are willing to endanger women having abortions?"
Ummm... yes! Absolutely, 100%. Why else do they oppose EVERY.SINGLE common sense measure that is proposed to make their clinics safer. And I'm not talking over-the-top regulations. I'm saying, they oppose ANY measure that simply brings them up to the same standards of other medical facilities. Abortion is a medical procedure. They claim they hire medical professionals. They have a Gyn wing in their facilities (not all, but many). Yet, they're not subject to medical regulations??? Seriously. Boggles the mind.
Nicole, thank you, and I certainly hope Bill will respond to what you have shown him. I would love to hear Miss Gwen's take on this, too, if she is still around.
ReplyDeleteDon't forget that California expanded abortion access by AB 154 last October.
ReplyDeletehttp://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140AB154
Used to be abortions had to be performed by a licensed physician, but now? Nope. 1st trimester abortions by suction can be performed by nurses, physician's assistants, midwives...soon to be your local supermarket checkout person!
So, there's no risk of bleeding, infection or anything else by someone sticking a vacuum up a woman's vagina? Really? This is women's healthcare?
Sick, deceitful, delusional, profiteering misogynists. So much blood money to be made. That's what this is about. Money. Feed the women lies, then feed them to abortionists.
How about we have nurses perform vasectomies? How about that? Let's see how far that goes. Hey, give me a boxcutter, some needles and thread, and I'll give it a try and call it, "Men's healthcare"!
GFNY, yes, the California law is extremely troubling. Hey, anything to ensure abortions for all! I felt sick when that law was signed by your shameless governor.
ReplyDeleteThey're still not subject to Health Dept inspections or being accredited by a credible overseeing organization. There is ZERO oversight.
ReplyDeleteWhat is needed is safe and legal services. I still think that the main intent of the Texas law was to shut down the clinics. But, Nicole, I am now more aware of the problems. Thank you.
I also learned that abortion can be more complicated from a medical standpoint. But how does that affect your judgment in terms of its morality?
ReplyDeleteAnd you really can't judge someone's level of morality without knowing her situation, not to mention that we are all responsible for our own morality and very few people have any right to judge us anyway.
Bill,
ReplyDeleteIf abortion facilities shut down because they won't meet improved safety standards, I consider that a good thing. Do you really want an abortion facility open if it has substandard safety protocols?
Judging the morality of abortion is really very simple. It's objectively wrong to intentionally kill an innocent human being.
As for judging, you're mistaken there as well. For one thing, you seem to be judging pro-lifers plenty, so obviously you have no problem judging. For another, see here: http://catholicphoenix.com/2011/03/01/yes-catholics-can-judge/
JoAnna,
ReplyDeleteI see that both Leila and you commented on that article. The way I see it, by professing a certain faith, one implicitly chooses to be judged by others of that faith in accordance with the rules for that faith. Orthodox Jews consciously choose to be judged by the rules of Judaism, Muslim fundementalists choose to be judged by the rules of Islam, etc.
Being a devout Catholic gives you the right and responsibility to tell other Catholics when they are not adhering to the teachings of the Church.
I'm not a devout Catholic. I don't look to you for guidance on how it should live. As fellow bloggers, I do invite you to give your opinions and sometimes I am invited to give mine (and sometimes I give my opinions when not invited to do so).
So, the number of people you can judge according to Church teachings is restricted to those who choose to try to adhere to the teachings of the Catholic Church.
I wrote that article, Bill. :)
ReplyDeleteYou're incorrect again. Catholics can and should judge the actions and behaviors of others when they deal with objective morality and natural law, Bill. Those apply to everyone, not just Catholics.
By your own logic, though, you can only judge other atheists/agnostics. Doesn't seem like you're holding yourself to that standard.
Catholics can and should judge the actions and behaviors of others when they deal with objective morality and natural law
ReplyDeleteJoAnna,
I'll let you in on a secret. Come closer. (There is no such thing as objective morality and natural law. That's a Catholic thing.)
I use condoms. What gives you the right to say I can't? Only that we are on this blog together meaning that we agree to let each other give opinions to one another. Other than that, you have zero right to judge my use of condoms. You can give your opinion as a fellow blogger but you can't really judge me. Not to use condoms is a Catholic thing. I reject it. Period.
Unfortunately, Bill, I'm on my way to work at the moment so I can't take the time to prove that you are wrong. Maybe during my lunch break later today. In the meantime, perhaps other commenters will be able to provide evidence to show just how very wrong you are.
ReplyDelete"So, the number of people you can judge according to Church teachings is restricted to those who choose to try to adhere to the teachings of the Catholic Church"
ReplyDeleteWe don't judge souls, Bill. We certainly don't judge motivations.
We can see an action and call it what it is against reality- in the case of abortion case, we measure against science. That isn't judging the soul of the person, nor his/her motivation for why he/she acted.
The morality of the choice is front and center, because science makes it very clear. There is no dog and pony show, parading of terms like "women's health", no word games. It is what it is.
No one condemns, no one casts anyone into hell, that's not even an option, nor an interest, for a practicing Catholic; you should understand that, being a former Catholic yourself.
* in the case of abortion
ReplyDeleteOk JoAnna, have a good day. Drive carefully.
ReplyDeleteNubby,
ReplyDeleteI will bet that very few people who speak out against abortion are doing anything other than trying to save lives. The number of them who are actually judging anyone must be minuscule. If you go protest outside an anortion clinic, it unlikely that you are really judging anyone. I think JoAnna and I got sidetracked and she tried to insist that Catholics can and SHOULD judge others, when really what I think she was trying to say that Catholics SHOULD speak up against abortion. I myself have stood outside a clinic holding up and praying the rosary thinking that a woman might see that and change her mind. Judging those coming to the clinic or even those working there was the furthest thing from my mind.
Our comments crossed paths. Yes. I agree. You agree with me. Be afraid. Be very afraid.
ReplyDeleteNo. Actually, I agree with you.
"(There is no such thing as objective morality and natural law. That's a Catholic thing.)"
ReplyDeleteYou better alert the courts, judiciaries, lawyers, and scientists of every branch in every field, then, because their work centers on weighing, creating, upholding, discovering, testing, theorizing, and measuring against objective realities, and in some cases, natural law, all day long.
Objective truth describes reality, it relates to reality. To claim that every truth is subjective is to claim an objective truth, which you, yourself, deny. You're refuting yourself by claiming subjective truth as an absolute.
Bill, it's no secret that pro-lifers want abortion clinics to shut down. Our lives' work is to end abortion, so yes, fewer clinics mean fewer abortions. But like JoAnna said, if they can't meet basic health and safety standards, wouldn't even YOU want them shut down??? I should think anyone would, but the "sacrament" of abortion is far more important to the pro-abort side than the safety of women. Be sure of that. You wouldn't go to a dentist (or enter any other medical professional here) who wasn't regulated and subject to Health Dept. inspections, I would hope. It really boils down to a public safety issue, when 5 women are transported to the ER in 5 weeks. (And the nurses I mentioned who spoke out of the things they saw at PP are self-described "vehemently pro-choice".)
ReplyDeleteI also want to add...above I mentioned that our local PP is not accredited by a credible overseeing organization. I would like to point out that it's "accredited" by Planned Parenthood of America. Sounds unbiased, right? *eye roll*
Nubby,
ReplyDeleteWe have a couple of misunderstandings. From a scientific standpoint, there are the laws of nature which one could call natural laws. Gravity, in that sense, could be called a natural law. I am talking about the natural law which is one and the same as the objective moral law. For this to exist, every culture in the world would have to have the same understanding of what the Catholic Church identifies as "Natural Law". There is no universal agreement with such a law as there is with say, gravity or the laws of thermodynamics. All can agree on those laws.
And I didn't say there is no objective truth such as 2+2=4. I said there is no objective moral law. Morality is a cultural concept not a given.
Sorry, I've been in a rush this morning and will be away from the computer for some time. Bill, did you ever address the issues of safety (or danger) that Nicole laid out for you, just in her own area? Should these clinics be held to the basest level of safety standards or should they stay as unregulated as they are? Do you care about women's health, or only about access to abortion?
ReplyDeleteNicole,
ReplyDeleteYou are being honest. You admit that at least one of the purposes of the Texas law was to close clinics and reduce abortions. If that were the sole purpose, it probably would have been seen as a way of taking away some of the rights given under R v. W. making it a blatant violation of the 14th Amendment.
The rest boils down to the evidence that you have provided, which does demonstrate the need for oversight by a regulatory agency, which I have been woefully ignorant.
So, you kind of admit that the gloves are off when it comes to reducing abortions but also that I am missing the secondary purpose of the law. Got it.
Bill, I wasn't implying motives, I was just stating the obvious. I can't speak for Texas because I'm not involved there. But I can tell you that with regards to my own state, we went to the legislature seeking tougher regulations BECAUSE women were being sent to the ER. And then because after the nurses reached out to us, we felt an obligation to our community to tell the truth about what their tax dollars are going to. It wasn't primarily to get the clinic shut down at that point (well it was, just because of the health dangers of it, not necessarily the abortion part of it...we could have done that at any time). I hope I'm making sense.
ReplyDeleteIf clinics shutting down is a by-product of them living up to safety standards, that's on them.
ReplyDeleteLeila,
ReplyDeleteI have answered Nicole as best I can. I accept her assessment of the PP facilities that are problematic. I'm not against abortion just because there are facilities like that but there had to be more control than just having the facilities certified by PP. It's like having the fox guard the chicken coop.
"We have a couple of misunderstandings. ...There is no universal agreement with such a law as there is with say, gravity or the laws of thermodynamics. All can agree on those laws.
ReplyDeleteAnd I didn't say there is no objective truth such as 2+2=4. I said there is no objective moral law. Morality is a cultural concept not a given."
There is no misunderstanding on my part. I'm not talking about laws of nature, obviously. I'm talking about the reality of the existence of objective morality or objective truth. The terms can be interchangeable in these types of discussion. Objective truth is known through reason, through the senses, and through discovery of what has been revealed. Objective morality/truth exists because we can measure it against what has been revealed or observed in reality. That can include math as well as faith/religion. See?
Every culture in the world can agree on the reality of objective morality. Morality is only a "cultural concept" as far as which laws are enacted that drive or direct that culture, but the grounding, the truth that grounds, is there in every culture. It's the nominal value. The laws were set up in tandem with what is true.
You're missing the point in the logic of your claim. You have refuted your own claim by saying, "Your Catholic truth is only true for you. It's not true for everyone else". You state this as an objective truth. You are claiming that this applies to everyone. Based on this statement alone, then, it's not true that all truth is relative (because you're claiming an objective truth, here, and applying it for all people.) See?
I'm talking about the reality of the existence of objective morality or objective truth.
ReplyDeleteIf you say instead:
"I'm talking about the reality of the existence of objective morality AND objective truth." then I can address them separately and say that morality is relative, not objective. Moral truth does exist but it likely does not include many things that you believe to be objective truth.
Example: using a condom violates an objective moral and that is an objective truth. Using a condom doesn't violate anything but the teachings of the Catholic Church and maybe some cultural norms. To say it is immoral to use a condom is not an objective truth. It just seems like one to you.
"To say it is immoral to use a condom is not an objective truth. It just seems like one to you."
ReplyDeleteFinish the thought process. This is an incomplete thought. What am I measuring against? Is it just a flippant opinion (subjective)? What is the nominal that this reasoning is based on?
Revealed truth, revealed reality? Yes. A standard is there.
Correction: change
ReplyDeleteMoral truth does exist
To
Objective truth does exist
Sorry for making this more confusing than it already is.
Getting into discussions about logical fallacies is confusing. My point was to show you how you are refuting yourself and making your argument invalid, when you make claims that are subjective and try to apply them as an objective truth. It's just deductive reasoning. It's not me arguing you, subjectively.
ReplyDeleteNubby,
ReplyDeleteNone of us can structure our lives around only objective truths. Most of our assumptions are merely subjective. All I need Catholics to do is stop representing their beliefs as objective truths and their morals as objective morals.
The Pope lives in Rome. That is an objective truth. The beliefs listed in the Nicene Creed as agreed upon by the bishops and the Emperor Constantine. Those are subjective truths. Those are what you accept as true.
You're claiming that we've assigned values or opinions to creeds, and therefore, we label these as objective. That's inaccurate. We learn objective moral truth based on what has been revealed. To quote Prof Kreeft, "Truth is not how we know; truth is what we know."
ReplyDeleteHow do we explain "what is"? We conform to truth, to what really is. We don't assign an opinion or created our new standard.
* or create our new standard.
ReplyDeleteBill - Natural law theory originated with Aristotle and Cicero, long before the time of Christ. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law
ReplyDeleteBecause of the intersection between natural law and natural rights, it has been cited as a component in the United States Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States, as well as in the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen. Declarationism states that the founding of the United States is based on Natural law.
ReplyDeleteJoAnna,
The link you provided points to what I see as a philosophical concept which, among other things, served as the basis for the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. My concern is that Natural Law can be hijacked and rehashed to promote any ideology you want to promote. The Founding Fathers, many of them Masons, would have one understanding of Natural Law. The Catholic Church could have a completely different understanding of it. How do we know if something is in accord or violation of Natural Law?
Does contraception or homosexual acts violate Natural Law. If we can't agree on whether it does or not, then just what is Natural Law. I think the whole concept is subject to all kind of abuses.
Thanks for the link though.
"All I need Catholics to do is stop representing their beliefs as objective truths and their morals as objective morals."
ReplyDeleteYou "need" this? And yet you continue to haunt this blog. If you "need" the Church to stop preaching Catholicism, you are going to be disappointed (that's like asking someone's heart to stop beating). But if you need to get away from the Church's teaching, that is easy enough. It's not well-known or well-thought of in the larger culture, and in fact, most Catholics don't even know what the Church teaches or why. So, why the pressing "need" to get away from something that is so easily gotten away from? Unless it's your conscience that won't let you alone…
We learn objective moral truth based on what has been revealed.
ReplyDeleteWas something that was agreed upon at the Council of Nicea "revealed"?
Is that how the Nicene Creed became an objective truth? Is the Resurrection an objective truth?
Bill,
ReplyDeleteWas Bernoulli's equation revealed?
You are conflating natural law as a legal practice with natural law found in the nature of a thing.
ReplyDeleteUnless it's your conscience that won't let you alone…
ReplyDeleteHow was my conscience developed? Can it be trusted? The answer can be found in reason and logic.
You didn't address my points or answer the question...
ReplyDeleteTruth isn't a truth because it is agreed upon. Truth is revealed, Bill. Separating heresy or untruth from truth is the purpose of councils.
ReplyDeleteAs with any objective truth- we conform to it. We don't change it via a vote. Ironic, considering that's exactly what happened with the RvW decision, right?
You asked why I "need" the Catholic Church to stop declaring its teachings to be objective truths and its morals to be objective morals.
ReplyDeleteBecause I want to truly determine what is objectively true and moral. And since the Church claims to be the keeper of truth and morality, I like to question it and see if what it says make sense. You are the most knowledgeable person on Church teaching that I know. So I want to see what you have to say about various situations.
"None of us can structure our lives around only objective truths."
ReplyDeleteYou do this (we all do) whether we are aware of all or some objective truths or not. There are physical laws you are unaware of, Bill. Guess what? They still exist, despite your being ignorant of them. And you still live by them. Same with a moral law. A moral law does not function with physical properties, so don't bother implying that there should be a physical equation or proof to these, as would be found in a lab. We're talking two kinds of law here. Both objective, both available to the intellect, and both true.
Objective reality is there, no matter our ability or inability (or unwillingness) to adjust to it.
Because I want to truly determine what is objectively true and moral. And since the Church claims to be the keeper of truth and morality, I like to question it and see if what it says make sense. You are the most knowledgeable person on Church teaching that I know. So I want to see what you have to say about various situations.
ReplyDeleteAnd yet, when she does just that, you flatly declare that the Church is wrong, or "ridiculous," or so on, without offering any reasoning as to how you arrived at that conclusion. You just make the statement with no logic and reason to back it up. From what source do you derive this certainty that the Church is wrong, and how do you know that source has objective truth?
Nubby,
ReplyDeleteWhat I mean is that a lot of the decisions we make are in response to subjective truths. For example, you marry someone because you subjectively know that you love him.
You choose a religion based on subjective knowledge, too. The times of the masses are objective truths. But choosing the 9:00 mass to go to because you like the choir at that mass is subjective. Subjective truths are not false, they are just not the same as objective truths.
Completely incorrect, Bill. I didn't choose Catholicism because of my subjective opinion, feelings, or personal whims.
ReplyDeleteChoosing which Mass time to attend has zero correlation to why I chose Catholicism.
It's insulting when you assume that we are all driven by emotion. It's, infact, the very thing I dislike in the atheist mentality. Feelings are not my standard. Understand?
Bill,
ReplyDeleteCan air act like a fluid?
JoAnna,
ReplyDeleteI don't know. I guess I'm just throwing out ideas and seeing which ones stick. I argue that abortion is not wrong because I had involvement in one. I support gay marriage because my son is gay and contraception because I've always used it. I don't want to feel bad about these things if they are just Catholic guilt trips.
Bill,
ReplyDeleteIf you are just throwing out ideas, don't frame them as declarative sentences: "The Church is wrong. That is ridiculous. You are brainwashed."
Throwing out ideas would be, "I think that's wrong because [reasons]." or "I don't agree with that because [reasons supported by evidence]." or "I think that is incorrect due to [this evidence]."
I oppose abortion because it's objectively wrong to kill an innocent human being, not because of my involvement in abortion, or lack thereof. My beliefs are based on logic and reason, not an emotional reaction to a past event in my life. I oppose gay marriage due to logic and reason, not because of an emotional reaction to a person or event in my life. I oppose contraception due to logic and reason, not because I used to use it and now feel bad about using it (at the time I contracepted, I was honestly living by the truth I had been taught).
If you use logic and reason to form your beliefs, you don't have to worry about alleged guilt trips.
JoAnna,
ReplyDeleteAlthough I am quite certain that the idea of there being anything one might call supernatural in this universe is only the product of humanity's collective imagination, the fact remains that we might all be better off if we do not dismiss the rationality of living in accordance with Catholic tradition. Take it away from people who have been living it for generations and what have you got? For example, lent begins tomorrow and everything about it, including confession, is good for us. Sometimes I think I am really messed up (ya think?) hanging on to Catholicism when I no longer believe. I haven't got anything to replace it.
When you come right down to it, if you deny the supernatural there is no rational reason to practice the religion.
"I don't know. I guess I'm just throwing out ideas and seeing which ones stick. I argue that abortion is not wrong because I had involvement in one. I support gay marriage because my son is gay and contraception because I've always used it. I don't want to feel bad about these things if they are just Catholic guilt trips."
ReplyDeleteOh, irony of ironies, Bill. You've made your arguments based solely on emotional criteria. You've done the exact thing you claim we practicing Catholics do, when in reality it's the exact opposite.
In case you've missed it, this is place to hash out stunted thinking. People here finish the follow-through on the logic. We believe this because it's grounded in that.
At the the end of the day, try giving the last word to logic instead of merely throwing out emotion to see what sticks. Maybe take the thought to its end. Take the route of logic, of deduction.
Subjective Truth: Bill is an internet troll
ReplyDeleteObjective Truth: Bill is an internet troll
Troll or not, we should be charitable enough to build on the truth that's there. We have a foundation, so we can work with that, even if Bill chooses to work against it.
ReplyDeleteBilly, say" the Catholic Church" came out tomorrow and declared they had an epiphany, they've finally seen where they were wrong in their teachings, and essentially endorsed your views. Include even the existence of God in that, if you wish. Assume they would essentially give your reasoning for their change of mind, or the new atheists'. What would you think/feel? Would you think, deep down, they've finally seen the truth, or non-existence of truth? Or would you feel disappointed? A loss? Do you really believe that what you, or the new atheists say, is the truth? Or do you know, deep inside, that, thank God, uncomfortable as it may sometimes be, the Church knows and speaks truth? I'm not out to win any argument against you, just seriously interested. Thanks
ReplyDeleteSorry, that should read Bill, not Billy!
ReplyDeleteSebastian,
ReplyDeleteI guess if the Church came out and said that the supernatural is imaginary, but everything else about the Church is still there to serve its members, I would embrace such a Church. I would still go to mass every Saturday afternoon or Sunday morning. There would still be weddings, baptisms and funerals. All the social functions would continue and the charities would still collect and distribute money. Everything that didn't require divine intervention would still go on.
"I argue that abortion is not wrong because I had involvement in one. I support gay marriage because my son is gay and contraception because I've always used it."
ReplyDeleteThis is what is written about in What We Can't Not Know (re: Natural Law).
Go to this post and scroll down a bit and read about the Five Furies of the conscience:
http://littlecatholicbubble.blogspot.com/2011/10/laughing-at-dead-babies-and-avenging.html
It's about the ways the guilty conscience responds to the Five Furies. The proper way, and the disordered way. It just really struck me that that's what you are doing.
"There would still be weddings, baptisms and funerals. All the social functions would continue ..."
ReplyDeleteThese would absolutely not exist. The Church is not a social club.
These sacraments function to impart graces to souls which is a spiritual reality. The Church is the mission of Christ. Take away the supernatural and spiritual reality and you certainly wouldn't need these sacraments to carry on. They are spiritual food for a spiritual journey, Bill.
How can this be your take-away?
Bill,
ReplyDeleteCan air act like a fluid?
What on earth would motivate you to go to Mass without belief in the supernatural? Isn't that worse than mumbo jumbo? What an incredible waste of time it seems to me.
ReplyDeleteI accept, but find it hard to believe, that the Church jettisoning its core faith would in fact satisfy you. The truth that She teaches - on gay "marriage", abortion, contraception, to mention just some of the ones recently discussed on this blog - seem so self-evident and easily accessible to me, that to deny them must require a very significant effort at muzzling one's inner voice, or conscience as we call it.
Make no mistake, I sin every day myself, and when I do, there is a justification readily at hand. But I know even then, and much clearer later on, that it is wrong. The Church helps me in knowing why it is wrong, She helps me to repent, She helps me to overcome and heal, and She forgives. But She never waivers from truth. What more can we men wish for? Do you never feel the need for what the Church offers you? Do you never long for it? Truth, love and forgiveness?
For the record, I have a homosexual half sister and a direct cousin, whom I both love dearly. So like you, I am "directly affected". In my cafeteria catholic days, a then girlfriend aborted a child she conceived from me (though I had always told her I would stand by any children that might come from our love). We contracepted without having second thoughts. I know now how wrong that was, and a child had to die from that careless attitude. But I am so glad for finding the truth through an unwavering Church, and yet a deeply loving and forgiving Church. I hope you will too, one day soon.
Sebastian, I am so sorry for the loss of your child.
ReplyDeleteBill, I thought of you when I saw this:
"FOR this is one of the very queerest of the common delusions about what happens to the convert. In some muddled way people have confused the natural remarks of converts, about having found moral peace, with some idea of their having found mental rest, in the sense of mental inaction.... To become a Catholic is not to leave off thinking, but to learn how to think."
~G.K. Chesterton: 'The Catholic Church and Conversion.'
If you all could please stop and pray… I have a very urgent prayer request. Please pray. A Memorare, anything. Thank you.
ReplyDeleteBill, I've been reading this blog for a while and rarely post. I just prayed like Leila requested and also said a prayer for you. I don't mean that in a pity way either. There just seems to be something missing with you. You seem to be missing some inner peace that I believe will only come once you grasp the Truth. After reading your comments on this thread and the other, I am truly perplexed. We're all accountable for what we know and what we don't know as well.
ReplyDeletePlease read what Sebastian just posted again. I think he hits it perfectly.
Thank you, Tonka.
ReplyDeleteAnd thank you, everyone. The prayers are for a close friend, a young father and husband who is in ICU, very ill. Thanks again.
Do you never feel the need for what the Church offers you? Do you never long for it? Truth, love and forgiveness?
ReplyDeleteYes. But longing for something and choosing to believe in it doesn't make it true for me. I know it does for you and the others. That's how religion has gained such a foothold in society. It fills a need even if it isn't grounded in reality.
"But longing for something and choosing to believe in it doesn't make it true for me. I know it does for you and the others. That's how religion has gained such a foothold in society. It fills a need even if it isn't grounded in reality."
ReplyDeleteYou've got this precisely backwards. I choose to believe in Christianity because it is true. I had to realize it was true first. I tried deluding myself into believing other things for a long time because they were easier. I fought for a very long time against the truth...because to the person growing up with a secularist mindset, Christianity is the worst. Yet, many people growing up in secular households convert every year, including people like me, who end up losing friends and going through other hardships. I wouldn't choose to do those things for the fun of self-delusion. Better to do something easy like get addicted to something (and I tried that first! But even that wasn't good enough!)
You've got this precisely backwards. I choose to believe in Christianity because it is true. I had to realize it was true first. I tried deluding myself into believing other things for a long time because they were easier. I fought for a very long time against the truth...because to the person growing up with a secularist mindset, Christianity is the worst.
ReplyDeleteThis is exactly right! And the crazy thing is, so many people have corrected Bill on this point, so many times, and he still keeps ignoring it. It's so bizarre. No matter how many times he is corrected, no matter how many times he hears this from different Catholics, he insists on his own echo chamber in his head. He's talking to himself.
Bill,
ReplyDeleteCan air act like a fluid?
Still waiting on a simple answer...
"Can air act like a fluid?"
ReplyDeleteNubby,
A fluid is a liquid or a gas. Air is a mixture of gases? What is the point of your question?
And we seek not to become just, but to justify ourselves.
ReplyDeleteYes, Leila. That is what I am trying to do. It was stated well in that post.
You've got this precisely backwards. I choose to believe in Christianity because it is true.
ReplyDeleteAnd it is "true" to you because it works. It works because so many people believe that it is "true" that it can't help but work in those areas and instances where it is asked to work. It gives hope and hope leads to confidence and confidence leads to success. It gives comfort and comfort leads to acceptance. It gives rules and following rules lead to self-discipline which also leads to success.
Who wouldn't want it to be true? But do those results prove that it is true or could we get those results even if Jesus didn't rise from the dead and really isn't present in the sacraments? Wouldn't it still work by providing hope, comfort, rules, etc.? Just asking.
Bill,
ReplyDeleteI was inquiring about the flow characteristics.
Air can act as a fluid. It is classified as such. Consider the lift of an airplane. Consider windmills or cooling systems, or boat propellers vs. cooling fans.
Did you know the truth of this example before the definition/information was "revealed" to you?
Did you know this truth existed objectively, before you pondered it, or gave thought to the characteristics, to the nature of it, etc.?
This truth existed regardless of when you intellectually grasped it.
This truth existed before you even knew it existed. It exists despite your apprehension of it. It exists despite what you do with this knowledge.
The same holds true for the moral law, but even more so, as it predates the physics in the above example: it exists and it is objective. And unlike the above example, moral law has made itself known apart from academic knowledge, even in a primordial sense; and it demands a human response. Most importantly, it has been revealed in verifiable history, and in a Person (Jesus Christ) who extends a perpetual invitation to everyone.
My point is to put to bed this notion you seem to be stuck on; that when truth is "revealed" (as you quoted it previously), that means it's fictitious, subjective, or decided by popular vote.
Revealed truth and objective truth are interchangeable in this discussion. Revealed truth = previously existing independent of one's intellectual grasp, brought to one's attention via one's sensibilities. Gaining fuller knowledge or revelation of it doesn't change it. It changes us.
Ok Nubby,
ReplyDeleteI get it that we become aware of an objective truth when it is revealed to us. Like the Higgs Boson was theorized before it was revealed after $8 billion of experimentation. But it was an objective truth even before it was detected or revealed to us.
Is the parting of the Red Sea an objective truth because it is revealed in scripture? Or do we not know whether it is an objective truth or a myth? It is an objective truth that the event is described in the Bible, but does that in itself make the event an objective truth or a myth that may or may not be objectively true?
There are different modes of communication or writing style in the Bible. The Catholic Church is silent on interpretation of any number of stories in the Bible. The main message for Catholics is the New Testament. This is saving good news, these gospels record the events of the God-man who lived, died, and rose again. This is the core of our belief. Accepting the accounts in the gospels is key to our faith and to our salvation. You know this.
ReplyDeleteYes. You've made your point crystal clear. You have just about a perfect understanding of Catholicism. The ball is in my court. Need time to think about it and come to a decision. To fish or cut bait. To poop or get off the pot. Thanks.
ReplyDeleteI'm not forcing any timeline. That's not mine to demand. I'd never demand that of anyone. Thinking out loud here hopefully is a benefit to anyone reading.
ReplyDeleteNo. The timeline is all mine. It comes down to how long I can endure the misery that essentially comes down to not being Catholic or atheist but agnostic. I was more sure I was an atheist before I got into blogging and before I read Leila "that's just the way it is" article on another blog. Wish I didn't know now what I didn't know then.
ReplyDeleteBill, why don't you do Lent like a believing Catholic this year and see what happens? Don't hold anything back. This is perfect timing, no?
ReplyDeleteNot a good day for that. Getting ashes would send the wrong signal to my wife who I have been able to persuade to live in peaceful coexistence with an unbeliever. Other wise I would be at the 9:00 mass which it is here. If there is one thing I need more than everything else, it is self discipline. So the fasting I can do privately and I can comb my hair and wash my face and not show it too anyone else. I'll try.
ReplyDeleteBill, you can read today's readings online. And since it's not a Holy Day of Obligation, that's okay.
ReplyDeleteThat's good. My contribution to my coexistence with my wife is that I do go to mass on Holy Days of Obligation and I say Hail Marys with her on Tuesdays.
ReplyDeleteI had a sausage McMuffin this morning, so I botched the first day.
Bill, I don't know how you keep doing this. I for one think you have been doing fine answering their questions. It's obvious you are not liked here.
ReplyDeleteso I have a few questions:
How are condoms against "natural law".
can one both believe that abortion is wrong and still be pro choice?
I actually have other questions, but try as I may I have such a hard time getting my questions answered here. Perhaps because I am unliked?
ReplyDeleteDoes conjugal marriage require love? Leila your little blurb seems to imply it does, yet far too many times here I've been told it's not about love. Explain?
Also if an infertile couple marries, and they cannot procreate (lets put the "miracle" of those that do aside) then how on earth is their marriage "procreative in type"?
The buffalo chicken dish looks awesome. Looks like a heart attack in one dish, but delicious none the less.
just sprinkle a little Lipitor on top.
DeleteHow are condoms against "natural law".
ReplyDeleteI say an example of Natural Law is: everyone knows you shouldn't torture a puppy for savage amusement. Don't torture a puppy for savage amusement. Everyone doesn't know you shouldn't use a condom to avoid getting a woman pregnant or spreading disease. So Natural Law does not prohibit the use of a condom.
Can one both believe that abortion is wrong and still be pro choice?
I believe that it is sometimes the wrong thing to do, such as when you want a son and it is a girl. There are many other examples of when I think it is wrong. It would probably be easier to say when I think it is not the wrong thing to do. Whatever I think, I know that it is the woman's choice. Not mine or anyone else's. So I am pro-choice.
Sorry Bill, I didn't mean those questions for you, but I was not clear on that and I apologize.
ReplyDeleteI actually was hoping for an answer from one of the catholics.
I figured that when I saw your second set of questions. I'll eat the time on your next invoice.
ReplyDeletealan, does marriage require love (I am guessing you probably mean a romantic feeling)? Clearly not, or all the folks who are married but not "in love" would suddenly not be married. I think I have used the example of Tevye and Golde many times here. And my grandparents, who barely knew each other when they first married. They were married 50+ years. Would anyone say they were not married on that day in 1935? Is there any marriage license that "requires" love in order to have a valid marriage?
ReplyDeleteMarriage has been unique among other relationships because it has been conjugal in nature.
I have no idea what you mean by someone being "pro-choice" but against abortion. I guess whoever said it might mean that we are all for "choice" (heck, I made the choice to paint my bedroom, my sister made the choice to cook chicken for dinner), but that we are not for evil choices (like killing children). I'm really not sure who that question was directed to…
As for "ordered toward" procreation. The marital act is always ordered that way, because that is the design of the act. The nature of sex is procreative in its essence. Just because someone's body is broken or old, doesn't change the nature of the body, the systems, or the act. For example, take a pen. A pen that is out of ink does not cease to be a pen. We all know that a pen (even one without ink) is ordered toward writing. A particular pen may be unable to complete what it was designed for, but it's still a pen, and we all "get" that. The nature of a pen has not changed.
I am not going to be able to be on here today, so please forgive me. Anyone else want to take over? Thanks guys!
Leila, I guess you'll have to catch up later (I realize this is an important day for you) as I cannot imagine you just throwing stuff out there with no intention of continuing to respond back.
ReplyDeleteI am not saying your grand parents were not married. I'm not saying love is integral to marriage. I just want you to go reread what you posted as it does say "uniting love in spouses", so that goes against what many have said (yourself included) about marriage.
But please how do you define the love for your husband? Is it conditional on having children? Is it that of a "really good friend" or is it romantic? Did that (or could it) love exist without children?
I guess I now need a definition of love in the marital sense, if that is indeed not this romantic love that you speak of.
And please lets not play Nancy Naïve with this baloney about the choice of the color in your child's bedroom or your sister cooking chicken. You seem to be good with the spinning of words to suit your purpose (I'm married to someone who can spin words really well).
You know good and well we are talking about a woman's choice to have an abortion. I will strongly defend her choice, even though I hate abortions. I would say I disagree with them in most situations, however it's not up to me to decide for others. I've been called and advocate for abortion (I'm not) and a long time ago had one of your readers tell me I only agreed with them so I could have my pleasures with no consequences (man was she way wide of the mark). So perhaps now is the time to read my actual words rather than skimming and assigning motives to me. Never been involved in an abortion in a personal way except with friends and being supportive to them.
So see one can think that abortions are wrong and still be pro choice.
I'd be happy should someone take this discussion besides Leila, but again I realize most of you are busy today.
as an aside I'll give kudos to this pen analogy. I think it's the first one of your analogies that made actual sense to me.
ReplyDeleteMaybe there is hope for me yet :o)
thanks, alan. Just quickly: Love means willing the highest good of the other (the highest good meaning Heaven, and also never acting against the moral law, never doing evil, etc.). Love is a choice, not a feeling. You said "required" when you said is love required. Love is expected in a Christian marriage. Love looks like Jesus on the Cross… sacrifice. Self-giving. Never doing anything that will jeopardize the [true] good of the other.
ReplyDeleteAs for pro-choice. As long as you believe that certain human beings do not merit any legal protection from killing, you are culpable for being complicit in that killing, even if you don't like the killing. Can you imagine: "I don't like slavery, slavery is wrong, I am anti-slavery, but I am definitely for laws that allow slavery, oh yes!" It makes no sense.
I did that pen analogy with a migraine and typing so quickly. Maybe that's how I should do all my comments, ha ha.
ReplyDeleteare you wearing that St Rita head band with thumb tack, thing?
DeleteLeila, love needs to be explained in a way that doesn't involve god, heaven and morals. They are all so debatable, so that makes them our beliefs. But I do appreciate the effort. Lets dig deeper. My husband and I will tell you we don't jeopardize the good of the other in any way. So I need more. I know it may take a while, that's ok. I think you see I'm not going anywhere.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure that I agree that love is a choice, but it is a feeling. But you still really aren't explaining how love in a marriage is different than love in a "really good friendship"
I am culpable or complicit in the killing of no one ( I don't see abortion as killing, but that's a debate for another day). I see a difference in a human that is incapable of sustaining life on it's own as opposed to one that can, and indeed is. I see a difference in what one chooses to do with their own body as opposed to what one is forced by another to do with their body. I hope that makes sense.
Sorry about the migraine, hope it goes away.
JoAnna
ReplyDeleteWow this is a banner day. I've understood a Leila analogy, and I think we agree to something in theory.
I think any medical clinic should be held to very high standards and regulations. So yes clinics that provide abortions should not be an exception. If they are I too would fight that they should have to be.
That being said I also agree with Bill that I too am fairly certain this was all brought about was an end game to end abortion, not to regulate these clinics. I think anyone who says otherwise is perhaps being naive?
Now about logic and reason. you state "I oppose gay marriage due to logic and reason, not because of an emotional reaction to a person or event in my life. I oppose contraception due to logic and reason"
What is your logic and reason?
And I love your little gems like this. "Unfortunately, Bill, I'm on my way to work at the moment so I can't take the time to prove that you are wrong."
Isn't pride a sin? That's a pretty prideful assertion that you will prove Bill wrong about anything. I think we all know that the only way to prove anything in this arena is when we die? Is that not true?
Alan, no, it's a statement of fact, not a prideful one.
ReplyDeleteRe: logic and reason for not using contraceptives: http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/sexuality/se0002.html
Re: logic and reason for opposing gay marriage: http://www.npr.org/2013/03/20/174848127/severing-love-from-diapers-gay-marriage-opponents-make-their-case
Thank, Alan. Migraine not going away, but that's ok for lent. Somehow your comments are coming to my email now.
ReplyDeletePeople for slavery laws saw "a difference in a human" also. That's the point. Objectively, all humans are humans. All humans have human rights, not some humans only.
If you take heaven, God or morals out of the equation of love, then it's just chemicals firing, right? A feeling, like you said. So then, who cares what anyone does? Just go for the good feeling.
Marriage is different from a "really good friendship" because it is conjugal. That conjugal union (that union of male and female that is ordered toward the procreation of other humans) is the difference between marriage and all other relationships.
From the secular: If marriage were not about the potential that a man and woman can make babies together through their union, there would be no such thing as "marriage" throughout the history of mankind. It binds men to their children and the mothers of their children. Otherwise, the state would have no vested interest in it. The state has no interest in recognizing the romance of its citzens.
If you take heaven, God or morals out of the equation of love, then it's just chemicals firing, right?
ReplyDeleteWrong. God? Heaven? I would agree about morals, but you consider contraception to be immoral. So we don't have agreement there.
We've been married 38 years and I love my wife as much today as the day we married. God, heaven and morals are there, but it is not just chemicals firing when we aren't thinking about those things. Except when she says "oh God, oh God!"
I made that last part up. I hope that didn't offend anyone.
Leila. I apologize for trying to be funny. It just came to my head as I was typing. This being Ash Wednesday and the beginning of Lent, I picked a bad time and venue to joke like that. My wife would kill me if she ever saw that. Please disregard even if you do take it the way it was meant. Sorry.
ReplyDeleteSo Alan, a quick story. At our local youth football field months ago, a 14 year old boy decided to use the girls bathroom. An observant nearby dad saw the commotion and went into the girls bathroom and grabbed the “yute” by the neck and led him outside. The young man mouthed off and the dad chewed him a new one. The boys mom rushed in and berated the dad for telling her sweet boy what to do. An argument ensued, and a third dad (who didn’t even know what happened) came to the defense of the mom and a shoving match resulted in the first dad being escorted from the field by the police after the mom called the cops. My Hero. I wasn’t there to see it but just knowing that thousands of years of horrifying injustice has been remedied was worth all the hard feelings and strife among all the parents.
ReplyDeleteWell , off the anger management classes. Can’t respond until later. Nope, gotta git my gigantic buck teeth ground down a few inches at the dintist.
Just Saying…
and we are back to not agreeing JoAnna.....shocker.
ReplyDeletePrideful is prideful. All I'm gonna say about that.
And as expected, your "facts" aren't actually facts. Oh well, we were so close to something special for the shortest of times.
Leila, I am glad my post have finally decided to straighten up (is that a pun?) and fly right.
ReplyDeleteSo marriage is all about sex. Got it. Love, all about sex. Got it. Sorry conjugal sex.
I guess I was unfair in saying that love was just a feeling. It's so much more. I just know it has nothing to do with god, Jesus, the catholic church or any other religion. I'm not sure I can explain further than that. I can tell the difference between the love I feel for my husband and my best friend. And like you I save my sexing for the husband.
I could attempt to argue that the government more than likely originally got involved in marriage to keep it as an ownership of women by men, but I can only imagine where that would go.
But Leila, perhaps you are right, the government has no interest in our romantic relationships. But see, the problem is that the government is involved. And as America is a free country where are all allegedly treated equally, well never mind. I can't even see explaining that we should be equal due to that.
Yeah I know, I'm making no sense now.
I dare say you are a bit of a sexist Leila. Marriage binds men to their children and their wives? You of course realize (I hope anyway) that marriage doesn't bind the man, but rather the man binds the man. As the woman binds the woman. It used to be that the woman's fathers money or dowry bound the woman, but that form of traditional marriage seems to have fallen out of favor. As have marriage to keep blood lines going, to keep classes separated and etc etc etc.
For slaves, I see your point.
Some people see other human beings as having different rights from them, and that is never acceptable.
Unless it is.
Then we just rename a right a privilege and that changes everything.
The only rights we have are those granted to us by god.
So if you don't believe in god, well sorry, but you still only have gods rights?
That about sum it up?
Chris, quick story
ReplyDeleteA guy walks out of a bar and gets beaten nearly to death because that bar is a homosexual bar.
Wait, sorry, what was the point of your story?
And more importantly is the point of "Well , off the anger management classes. Can’t respond until later. Nope, gotta git my gigantic buck teeth ground down a few inches at the dintist.
Just Saying…"
Or are you just being ignorant?
And this comment was justified by...?
DeleteOk, Alan, can you prove I was motivated by pride? Without knowing my heart and mind I don't see how you can make that call?
ReplyDeleteBill said there is no such thing as objective truth and natural law. That statement is false. He can certainly say he doesn't personally believe in objective truth or natural law, but (as you said) he can't conclusively prove that they don't exist. And I've showed him how natural law theory predates Christianity, and Nubby has shown how his notions about objective truth are logically false. So....
See, alan, I saw this right here:
ReplyDelete"So marriage is all about sex. Got it. Love, all about sex. Got it. Sorry conjugal sex."
Never said that at all. Never said "marriage is all about sex." Never said, "love, all about [conjugal] sex." Never said it. That is why I do not dialogue with you. You never seem to be able to understand anything I explain. Except the pen analogy. At least we had that. ;)
Blessings!
JoAnna, motivation is not necessary to be proved for something to be truthful.
ReplyDeleteAre you saying you don't make judgments (like my judgment that you are being prideful) without knowing the heart and mind of others?
You have not proved him to be wrong.
"natural law theory"
"logically false"
Is it a theory?
Not proven logically false by anyone.
I guess I misunderstood Bill.
I thought what Bill was saying is what the catholic church calls natural law (regardless of when it was first written about, the catholics seem to be claiming god created natural law, and as gods chosen religion they, more than anyone else, know what natural law is) and objective truth is neither natural or objective?
I apologize that I misunderstood Bill.
I thought what Bill was saying is that what the catholic church calls natural law and objective truth may in fact both be wrong.
You have not proven that to be wrong, in my opinion.
Leila
ReplyDeleteI apologize for summarizing what I was reading you to have written. It was probably wrong of me.
But at the end if you read what you wrote you should be able to see how I summarized how I did.
I'm a basic call it as I see it kind of guy. You, in my opinion, have boiled marriage down to just sex.
I'm sorry that you don't seem to understand what I am writing.
Alan, I judge acts and behaviors. I don't judge the state of souls. If someone's acts and behaviors are evidence for their motivation, I give reasons for why I am making that judgement. What evidence do you have that my statement was made due to pride, and was not a simple statement of fact on my part?
ReplyDeleteNubby showed that Bill was appealing to an objective truth when he said, "There is no objective truth," since he believes that statement to be objectively true. See?
As for natural law, where did Bill disprove it? Can you link the post?
Bill said there is no such thing as objective truth and natural law.
ReplyDeleteI didn't say objective truth. I said objective morals. And there is the concept of natural law but it is not based on Catholic morality which is the way the Catholic Church uses the term.
Objective morality is a type of objective truth, Bill.
ReplyDeleteWhat evidence do you have that natural law, as defined by St. Thomas Aquinas, does not exist?
JoAnna
ReplyDeleteYou assumed you would prove Bill wrong. That is an act of pride. You assumed you knew better and would prove him wrong.
If your intent was to prove him wrong then you simply should have done so.
To state that you will come back and prove him wrong shows pride.
So I am indeed judging you on the act and behavior you exhibited.
And then on top of it all you didn't prove him wrong.
And did I say Bill proved natural law to be wrong?
"I didn't say objective truth. I said objective morals."
ReplyDeleteAnd you understood when I said those terms are interchangeable for sake of discussion here. So I thought.
I also provided you with a couple of illustrations to this point, in separate replies. We are, after all, discussing objective morals as universal truths, or was that salient point lost in translation?
What evidence do you have that natural law, as defined by St. Thomas Aquinas, does not exist?
ReplyDeleteIt exists as a philosophical concept.
2+2=4. Objective truth? Yes.
ReplyDeleteContraception is intrinsically evil. Objective Moral? I think not.
Objective Truth? No freakin way.
Bill,
ReplyDeleteHow do you know that 2+2= 4 is objective?
I may disagree with Leila about a few things but I have to say that the Loaded Potato and Chicken casserole, now dubbed "Mexican Fiesta" in my house, was a huge success. They practically licked the serving dish clean. I served it with sour cream as we are out of Ranch. Thank you for sharing the recipe. I'm adding it to the rotation. Finding a new dinner that they ALL agree on is akin to a miracle in this house.
ReplyDeleteLizaMoore, awesome!! It seems to be a hit all the way around!
ReplyDeleteif you throw an object in the air, if there is no interference it will fall to the ground. Is that an objective truth.
ReplyDeleteIf you stop breathing and do not begin again you will die. Is that an objective truth.
You tell us, alan. You tell us what makes a truth objective? And what makes a truth a truth? What's your criterion?
ReplyDeleteNubby,
ReplyDeleteWhy are you having so much difficulty understanding the concept of objective truth? 2+2=4. You can prove it on your fingers.
Nice try, Bill. I know the answer(s). Do you? Try again.
ReplyDelete