Help with a Catholic

[LastPoet]

Well Hurny seems that these guys have given it their best shot and come up short.

Of course GC, anything we'll say will come short to you. But don't worry, I speak for myself and some others when I say you are one of those hopeless. Hell, you even admitted to be a fundie somewhere.

Even if any of our words 'ticked' in your head, you would never accept it, because of indoctrination, wishfull thinking and you've putted so much at stake in your beliefs that pride gives you pause.

Oh well, have fun with your silly delusions, after all, there is the maxim:"Ignorance is bliss".

---

PS- How many jesus points evangelizing the OP gets you?

[Anymouse]

Your real problem here is that positions on abortion are views which are so diametrically opposed (there ain't much middle ground between "legal" and "illegal") that they -both- are equivalent to religious positions, not political arguments.

Even the terminology used to describe the two sides in the fight is selected to be sound bites: "Pro-life" (you aren't pro-death, are you), or "Pro-choice" (you aren't anti-freedom, are you).

Moreover, while abortion is technically "legal," that legality stands on a Supreme Court decision. The Supreme Court can change its mind. A lower court, though they often do not do so, can hand down a decision calling a Supreme Court decision into question.

Until there is an actual law, or Constitutional Amendment, one way or the other on the issue there will be endless debate that amounts to nothing more than religious dogma on both sides.

[Jaysyn]

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.

Fetuses aren't people. People don't depend on the living organs of another being for life support. I don't care when the heart starts beating. The heart has fuck all to do with consciousness other than delivering oxygen & nutrients to the brain. I can make heart tissue beat in a petri dish with a small electrical shock, but that doesn't mean it's a person either.

[The Grand Nudger]

What arguments are we to positively refute, the theist has none. His entire position is based on an absolute lack of information. A lack of information about our cosmos, our own origins, and then the embarrassing lack of any evidence for god. Any argument that starts from this position is not an argument at all. Your statement of victory is a farce. That he would like justification in science for his religious position is understandable, his position against abortion as a catholic is a joke.

(also, grab the snorkels and fins, great floods have been known to occur in the vicinity of GC's mind, wouldn't want to be caught unawares)

[Napoléon]

Fetuses aren't people. People don't depend on the living organs of another being for life support. I don't care when the heart starts beating. The heart has fuck all to do with consciousness other than delivering oxygen & nutrients to the brain. I can make heart tissue beat in a petri dish with a small electrical shock, but that doesn't mean it's a person either.

Bang fuckin' on.

[Hurny]

Ok so I've got a couple of things here -

firstly, I used to treat believers rather poorly, and used a lot of personal attacks on them mostly because of the stereotypes I've held against them. However after discussing more and more with this guy I have found him to be respectful, honest, and intelligent and so I'm not a real big fan at this point of just totally trashing believers down as ridiculous ignorant jerks of somekind.
Also the fact is that while we might not be convinced of their god at this point I at least am willing to admit the results aren't in just yet and that you know what we still don't know what banged the big bang, how non-life became life and how unconscious matter became not just conscious but self conscious. So I just don't know about holding them all out to be ignorant morons.


Then as far as what we've been discussing so far I guess I had better ask a few questions to get some clarifications so I understand what you guys are saying more before I respond.

It seems like I have gotten a lot of different responses regarding objective morality but no one has really answered the question head on yet. I'm asking that if we aren't admitting an absolute objective morality then would you say it is wrong to kill and innocent person. Its a yes or no question, and its aside from the abortion scenario, just plain and simple is it wrong to kill and innocent person, if someone today were to kill your closest loved one for no reason would you say that that was wrong? Yes or no?

Part of my confusion seems to come from the fact that absolute objective morals really can't be grounded in an atheistic belief system which for me is where I am finding my difficulties. Since I have posted on here I have heard people criticize my co-worker and his church for several different things as if they were actually objectively wrong things that they are doing. Yet when I ask about objective morality we say more or less no, objectivly morality doesn't exist it's all just cultural relativism, so there seems to be a dis-congruity between what we are professing and how we are acting. Let me know what you think.

Lastly for the abortion argument he put things (for starters there is more) to me this way, "can you prove to me that the fetus isn't a person?" I gave certain objections but nothing that would in any way prove it beyond any shadow of a doubt, but more just personal standards or opinions of personhood. Then he said "if we can't prove for certain that it isn't a person, wouldn't the obvious thing to do would be to wait to find out before we kill it? For example if you were driving and saw a trenchcoat on the road and you weren't sure if it was a person or just a coat would you run it over or would you go around it? Or if you were hunting and you saw something move in the bushes and you weren't sure if it was your hunting partner or an animal would you shoot first and ask questions later?" And so more or less he made a fairly reasonable point that if there is debate or uncertainty shouldn't we wait before we kill?
He had further objections to other justifications for abortion but this was at least his starting point.

So the question is "how do we define a person?"

Sorry I know this was a long post, but ultimately I am mostly hoping for the Yes or No answer to the question do you think it is ok to kill and innocent person, and for some definitions of what a person is. Thanks guys

[Jaysyn]

Lastly for the abortion argument he put things (for starters there is more) to me this way, "can you prove to me that the fetus isn't a person?" I gave certain objections but nothing that would in any way prove it beyond any shadow of a doubt, but more just personal standards or opinions of personhood.

Actually, if you read all the replies you received you'd have some pretty good definitions of what a person is including a biblical one directly from Genesis.

I'm starting to wonder if you are an apologist in wolf's clothing.

[The Grand Nudger]

Sure is it morally right to kill an innocent person. Simple answer, one that you already know...it depends. As far as absolute moral authority, your catholic buddy is the one who insists that such a thing exists. Why not ask him to show proof of that authority, rather than allowing him to set the pace of a discussion he's obviously had before.

[Napoléon]

Ofcourse he has proof Rhythm! You're forgetting christian logic 101! IT SAYS SO IN THE BIBLE!

[The Grand Nudger]

LOL, you know what, no matter what falls out of the mouth of the believer, if he then says "it's in the bible" I'm likely to believe him. It's a big damn book. Seriously though Hunry, he is in effect asking you for proof of his concept. That concept being an absolute moral authority. That's his job, not yours. What you feel about a fetus or life, or morality needs only stand up to your own opinions. That's all you need to justify. Your standards of morality are not absolute, but they are an authority....an authority as to your own opinions of morality. The science he brought up is irrelevant. If it were definitively shown that a fetus isn't a human life (it has been..at least here in the US), that wouldn't bother him in the least. He's taking agreement where it suits him and discarding the vast body of knowledge that directly contradicts his underlying point. Gods, souls, sins, and punishment.

Don't let people do this with you. They argue an ancillary point to exhaustion, and then conclude victory to their main point. Either he doesn't realize he's doing this, or your friend is literally bs'ing you. If you're accurately representing your friends argument to us, I'd be pretty inclined to treat him poorly. That's just me.