(August 7, 2018 at 6:46 am)robvalue Wrote:

(August 7, 2018 at 6:08 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote: What is the responsibility of a doctor, if a patient is indicating that they are going to commit suicide, or harm others?

So you're saying you'd advocate restraining and forcing coming to term in this instance, assuming she never changes her mind?

I believe that would be the responsible thing for someone who is indicating that they intend to harm themselves or others. What do you think?

Morality puzzle time!

You are walking by a fertility clinic when you hear a cry and smell smoke. The building is on fire! You rush inside and find a small child and a tray of (clearly marked) 1000 fertilized human eggs/6 week old embryos.

The fire is right there, seconds from destroying the room and everything in it.  You only have time to save either the small child or the 1000 fertilized eggs/6 week old embryos.  

What do you do, and why?

(August 6, 2018 at 4:40 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote:

Quote:The Catholic Church's position on HIV/AIDS prevention has attracted controversy due to its opposition to condom use. In 2010 Pope Benedict XVI said that the use of condoms could sometimes be considered a first step toward moral behavior, but a spokesperson for the church later clarified that the use of condoms was still considered immoral and that the pope had not intended to take a position "on the problem of condoms in general."[1] In relation to the sexual transmission of the disease, the Church teaches that chastity (sexual abstinence before marriage, and monogamy inside marriage), are a better means of limiting the spread of the epidemic than the use of condoms. United Nations bodies have criticised the Church for its stance against condom use, on the basis that condoms are the best available means to prevent infections among sexually active people. UN bodies co-operate closely with the Church on the provision of patient care, and in eliminating infections in children.

Catholic Church and HIV/AIDS

The church has actively opposed the use of contraceptives, leading to an AIDS epidemic in Africa and additional unwanted pregnancies elsewhere. It may be true that if abstinence were a reasonable goal, then unwanted pregnancies would drop. And if wishes were horses, then we'd all ride in style. The fact is that we live in this world, not in that alternate reality which can never be. As long as Catholics continue to compromise the real lives lived in this world for talking about some fantasy land that will never be, I hold them accountable for the vast amount of suffering in Africa as well as the additional unwanted pregnancies, and this idea that you're not responsible because the church teaches an unrealizable fantasy in place of a sensible approach to reality is just bullshit. You're responsible for the consequences of your beliefs, not God. God hasn't been around. This is all on you.

Right, but again, we oppose contraception in place of abstinence, which is the only 100% sure way of preventing aids. Of someone has aids, they shouldn't be having sex with other people with or without a condom because there is still risk of infecting them. The message given in Africa was never "have sex without a condom." It was "abstain from having sex." If this was actually practiced, it would have done more good than anything else in the prevention of pregnancy and the spread of aids. No one has premarital sex and then refrains from using a condom due to Church teaching. If they were following church teaching, they wouldn't be having sex in the first place.

Other than that, I don't care for the way you're talking to me and the language, when I took the time to respond to your post respectfully.

(August 7, 2018 at 7:33 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote:

(August 7, 2018 at 6:46 am)robvalue Wrote: So you're saying you'd advocate restraining and forcing coming to term in this instance, assuming she never changes her mind?

I believe that would be the responsible thing for someone who is indicating that they intend to harm themselves or others.   What do you think?

-and that's exactly why abortion is legal in this country. On the one hand..we would have assholes letting women bleed out in alleys..and on the other, assholes putting them in straight jackets. Spitroasting the nations pregnant females between two groups of complete assholes is hardly defensible. The state has a compelling interest in preventing any of that shit even if we lay aside questions of bodily autonomy, even if we decide to conceptualize abortion as babykilling to tug at the heartstrings.

You can outright kill a motherfucker if he walks into your house...but not if he walks into your uterus......? lol.

---

(August 7, 2018 at 7:58 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote: The message given in Africa was never "have sex without a condom." It was "abstain from having sex." If this was actually practiced, it would have done more good than anything else in the prevention of pregnancy and the spread of aids. 

"If people would just stop having sex...this advice wouldn't be contributing to the spread of aids in africa!"

(August 7, 2018 at 7:58 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote: The message given in Africa was never "have sex without a condom." It was "abstain from having sex." If this was actually practiced, it would have done more good than anything else in the prevention of pregnancy and the spread of aids.

That is true.... "if".
But, knowing human nature, that condition is impossible to uphold.
The Church, as the institution allegedly "advised" by God himself, should be fully aware that such a message would result in the opposite of its intention.
Actually, there are two messages:
- Abstain from sex, except with your spouse.
- When having sex, it must be with the purpose of conception, so no contraception is permitted.

While some (dare I say most?) people would have no problem following both messages, there are enough people in Africa for those that won't follow one or the other or both to cause chaos. And chaos was caused.
And repeated in South America.

If there was an actual supernatural entity determined to keep human suffering to a minimum, would that entity not have passed on a different message, at a time when AIDS and a few other very nasty diseases were spreading?
Instead, we have an institution that claims to speak for a god that in unchanging. Because of that, the message must be unchanging. What would have been valid in the middle-ages, must remain valid in the 80's and 90's and today and forever.
But the message comes not from a god, but from a human mind, a philosopher... and that potentially erroneous message is being touted as god's... and causing all the harmful diseases to spread further than they should ever have.
Some clerics have been known to go as far as pronounce condoms as unable to protect from viruses, nor to prevent the propagation of sperm, in an attempt to get people not to use them. And this should be a criminal act, but is completely allowed in a culture where the cleric holds the power.
Which tells us that the whole thing is solely about power. That old human weakness... so very human...

Also, you know, God should have been aware that such an outcome was likely / a certainty.

---

(August 7, 2018 at 7:33 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote:

(August 7, 2018 at 6:46 am)robvalue Wrote: So you're saying you'd advocate restraining and forcing coming to term in this instance, assuming she never changes her mind?

I believe that would be the responsible thing for someone who is indicating that they intend to harm themselves or others.   What do you think?

Sure, yes. If I though abortion was equivalent to murdering another human being, then I would agree with you. I don't, but I'm glad you accept the consequences of your belief.

---

(August 7, 2018 at 7:52 am)Aroura Wrote: Morality puzzle time!

You are walking by a fertility clinic when you hear a cry and smell smoke. The building is on fire! You rush inside and find a small child and a tray of (clearly marked) 1000 fertilized human eggs/6 week old embryos.

The fire is right there, seconds from destroying the room and everything in it.  You only have time to save either the small child or the 1000 fertilized eggs/6 week old embryos.  

What do you do, and why?

I save the child. It's a distinct human being by this point, so I would grant it the right to survive in favour of a load of potentials which haven't developed to that point.

I don't automatically consider that more life is always a positive thing, either. Clearly most people don't, even if they won't admit it explicitly, or else they'd continually pump out as many children as possible.

I'll be interested to see our pro-lifers' responses.

Lol, “hey Africa! Quit having sex!” Wow, what a bullet proof a plan. I don’t understand how that wasn’t effective!

(August 7, 2018 at 8:31 am)LadyForCamus Wrote: Lol, “hey Africa!  Quit having sex!”  Wow, what bullet proof a plan. I don’t understand how that wasn’t effective!

And not to be disrespectful, but I imagine their quality of life and financial situations are generally considerably lower; and such people expect them not to do probably the most enjoyable and natural thing they have available, which is also free.

(August 7, 2018 at 8:34 am)robvalue Wrote:

(August 7, 2018 at 8:31 am)LadyForCamus Wrote: Lol, “hey Africa!  Quit having sex!”  Wow, what bullet proof a plan. I don’t understand how that wasn’t effective!

And not to be disrespectful, but I imagine their quality of life and financial situations are generally considerably lower; and such people expect them not to do probably the most enjoyable and natural thing they have available, which is also free.

Yeah, it always comes back to that for me too.  Why design sex to feel the way that it does in the first place if it’s going to lead to so many problems?  Talk about setting people up to fail.  Why not design sex to feel uncomfortable, like a trip to the dentist?  That way only people who really want babies would be doing it, and god wouldn’t have to be upstairs suffering all this moral angst over our disobedience? Plus, way less AIDS.

(August 7, 2018 at 7:52 am)Aroura Wrote: Morality puzzle time!

You are walking by a fertility clinic when you hear a cry and smell smoke. The building is on fire! You rush inside and find a small child and a tray of (clearly marked) 1000 fertilized human eggs/6 week old embryos.

The fire is right there, seconds from destroying the room and everything in it.  You only have time to save either the small child or the 1000 fertilized eggs/6 week old embryos.  

What do you do, and why?

I would probably save the child.
Why? Probably more of an emotional attachment thing.