Help with a Catholic

[The Grand Nudger]

As many as grow up to be skilled enough breathers to hand out magazines and newsletters.

[Hurny]

That's his definition. Legally, a fetus is not a "person." End of story.

I wonder how many black, crack-addicted, babies his fucking church helps?

well like I said before as he stated the objective morality we are debating about isn't defined by the law, so like my previous post above he says evil things have often been legal at some times and illegal at others but this doesn't change whether something is right or wrong. I think you'd agree that if suddenly it became legal to kill all non-believers we would say that that is an evil law and and evil action, the law doesn't just make it right.

So if I were to get anywhere with him on the person issue I would have to be able to show in someway by reason why we say that the fetus isn't a person. To save us some time I will tell you a few of the arguments he already used against me. Whenever I would say the fetus isn't a person because of _____... he would find an example of an already born person with the same deficiency and show me that I believed that that human was a person and so I would also have to by that logic agree that the fetus is a person. Size, handicap, dependant or whatever else I couldn't find one situation where such a deficiency would justify killing a born person so he says it shouldn't justify killing an unborn person either.

So that is where I am at more or less with the abortion debate.

Then as far as the attacks on his church, like I said from the evidence he has shown me they seem to actually do quite a bit to help both the children and the mothers in these cases so I think I'm only hurting my case by trying to further that advance.

The black baby strategy in particular I think is probably not a good approach considering the fact that margaret sanger herself had an agenda to exterminate the black people.
"We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don't want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population. and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members."
Margaret Sanger's December 19, 1939 letter to Dr. Clarence Gamble, 255 Adams Street, Milton, Massachusetts.

She was something of an evil lady when you look into it

[BethK]

I wonder how many black, crack-addicted, babies his fucking church helps?

Surely you jest! They'll flat out tell you that adoption is an alternative to abortion. They'll point out there are waiting lists to adopt babies, and tell anecdotal stories about people waiting for years for a baby. Then, they'll show pictures of late-term aborted foetuses, who are white.

There are years-long waiting lists to adopt a healthy, white infant. However, if the baby is black, mixed-race, crack-addicted, or disabled in any way, those children will languish forever in a series of foster homes. If the baby is taken to raise by its mother, in an attempt to punish herself or having been talked into it being the "responsible" thing to do, then changes her mind in several months or years, it's no longer adoptable because it's not an infant. Nobody wants it, so it's years of foster homes for that child too if it's given up, or the child can grow up with a mother (at least) who never wanted him/her.

Evangelical Christian Republicans: Those who believe that life begins at conception and ends at birth.

[Hurny]

I wonder how many black, crack-addicted, babies his fucking church helps?

Surely you jest! They'll flat out tell you that adoption is an alternative to abortion. They'll point out there are waiting lists to adopt babies, and tell anecdotal stories about people waiting for years for a baby. Then, they'll show pictures of late-term aborted foetuses, who are white.

There are years-long waiting lists to adopt a healthy, white infant. However, if the baby is black, mixed-race, crack-addicted, or disabled in any way, those children will languish forever in a series of foster homes. If the baby is taken to raise by its mother, in an attempt to punish herself or having been talked into it being the "responsible" thing to do, then changes her mind in several months or years, it's no longer adoptable because it's not an infant. Nobody wants it, so it's years of foster homes for that child too if it's given up, or the child can grow up with a mother (at least) who never wanted him/her.

Evangelical Christian Republicans: Those who believe that life begins at conception and ends at birth.

sorry I'm not quite sure if I follow your point here other then it's harder for black children to get adopted then white children, what does that have to do with the issue I'm stuck on with this guy? if you could clarify maybe thanks

[Minimalist]

Why does HIS morality count more than that of a woman who does not want to bring another child into the world? He sounds like a self-righteous twat frankly who thinks that his particular fairy tale vision of the world should be forced down everyone else's throat.

At the end of the day these people are simply ignorant and if you engage with them on their terms you'll lose.


As the saying goes: never mud wrestle with a pig....you both end up dirty and the pig likes it.

[Hurny]

Why does HIS morality count more than that of a woman who does not want to bring another child into the world? He sounds like a self-righteous twat frankly who thinks that his particular fairy tale vision of the world should be forced down everyone else's throat.

At the end of the day these people are simply ignorant and if you engage with them on their terms you'll lose.


As the saying goes: never mud wrestle with a pig....you both end up dirty and the pig likes it.

He isn't exactly saying that it is his morality (although it is what he believes) he is saying that it is The Objective Morality that is binding on all people, so he's not saying that it is 'his' belief that he wants to cram down everyone's throats but he seems to be saying that there is objective right and wrong actions and the killing of an innocent person violates such an objective standard.

I guess what it comes down to on the abortion debate between us is this: "Is it objectively wrong to kill and innocent person?"

His "terms" as you say seem to be nothing more than the terms of reason which is exactly if I understand it correctly the terms that freethinkers like ourselves are always appealing too. So I am a little worried in this situation because he is battling us here on the grounds of reason alone without using a religious authority and I can't seem to beat him (which is why I am here). He is saying that it is a fact of natural law that killing and innocent person is wrong and that an unborn fetus is an innocent person.

So the way I see it is that I guess I'm asking for help from someone to be able to on the grounds of reason show either that A) killing an innocent person isn't wrong (which I don't really think can be done other then to say there is no such thing as morality at all) or B) the fetus isn't a person.

I realize a lot of us might not agree with his church but like I've tried to say a few times from what he has shown me they seem to be decent people with honest motives trying to do good work, so if you could please give me some advice on how to address this abortion issue and the issue of objective truth without appealing to attacks against his person or his religion.

Sorry to be so objective to so many of your responses its just that he has already answered a lot of these objections from me and I'm sort of having a crisis of "non faith" you might say and I'm wondering how I'm going to address these difficult questions.

[Minimalist]

"Is it objectively wrong to kill and innocent person?

There were plenty of ancient societies which practiced child sacrifice without a concern about it. Much like the bozo you are talking to they thought they were placating their god, too.

I wonder if anyone can identify any moral standard which was universally accepted?

[Hurny]

"Is it objectively wrong to kill and innocent person?

There were plenty of ancient societies which practiced child sacrifice without a concern about it. Much like the bozo you are talking to they thought they were placating their god, too.

I wonder if anyone can identify any moral standard which was universally accepted?

Yeah that's true, however there is a distinction that he makes which seems true to me which is that although different societies might practice different moralities this does not mean that there isn't one morality. whether there is or not is what I'm looking for help with, but this example fails to disprove that there isn't. He used the example that different societies have thought different things about whether the earth is flat or round or whether it goes around the sun or the sun goes around it. Just because different societies have believed different things about this doesn't mean that there isn't a right answer. Some ancient tribe might have believed human sacrifice was ok and believed that the sun goes around the earth but this does not make either belief true, the truth isn't changed by what people believe about it.

So we need to address the overall issue of objective truth and in particular objective morality.

When I denied objective truth to him he asked me whether or not it is objectively true that there is no objective truth. You shoot yourself in the foot either way you answer if you try to disprove it.

That's my dilemma, it seems that objective truth is inescapable, we can't deny it without contradicting ourselves. Also I can't find a way to avoid objective morality when it comes to the situation of abortion as he has argued it, it seems "objectively wrong" to say it is ok to kill an innocent person. I don't know how to avoid that without denying something that I know is true which is that murder is wrong.

Help Plz!!!! And thanks also for the time that you all have already given to me I appreciate it a lot.

[Minimalist]

Yeah that's true, however there is a distinction that he makes which seems true to me which is that although different societies might practice different moralities this does not mean that there isn't one morality.

Uh-huh. And of course it is HIS morality which is the right one.

And his morality is the right one because it is based on HIS book of Holy Horseshit.

And He knows that HIS Book of Holy Horseshit is the right one because HIS god told him so.

He's no different than any other religious asshole. You have to cut him off at the knees by telling him that his religion is just as much a pile of shit as that of the Ancient Incans, Mayans or modern Mormons.

Perhaps start him with this quotation.

"When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F Roberts

Half measures are wasted on religious psychos.

[Hurny]

Yeah that's true, however there is a distinction that he makes which seems true to me which is that although different societies might practice different moralities this does not mean that there isn't one morality.

Uh-huh. And of course it is HIS morality which is the right one.

Minmalist I appreciate all the time you've given me today you've been real generous. Still though I think we are seeing things differently here. I'm really trying to get at the point that he is talking about objective things. I see what you mean when you say 'of course it's his ideas that are right' but that's the whole debate is whether or not what he is saying is true and which side can prove it from logical arguments.

So I guess my question to you is, and please try to just answer the question, - "is there a real objective morality, or is it all personal opinion and nothing is objectivly wrong? Can we say killing an innocent person is actually wrong or is it just a matter of opinion?"

To me all common sense seems to say matter of factly that killing innocent people is objectively wrong. I agree with that and I think most other people do too. The problem that logically follows from this is that there then exists Eternal Objective Moral Values and we have to start asking where did such values come from? Keep in mind what has already been said above so we can try to make progress here.