C
Catholic Crusader
Guest
So you don't think there should be a law against sucking this child through a vacuum tube and throwing him in the trash?
-
-
-
-
Desire to be a vessel of honor unto the Lord Jesus Christ?
Join Hidden in Him and For His Glory for discussions on how
https://christianforums.net/threads/become-a-vessel-of-honor-part-2.112306/
the Christian truth about the evil of birth control
- Thread starter biblecatholic
- Start date
R
Rick W
Guest
Barbara Allan said:
And who is to decide treatment is needed? The user? Not going to happen. Sure, there are some that will seek treatment but very few.
In the name of individual sovereignty as proposed we'd have prostitution, abortion and drug use as socially acceptable.
How is individual sovereignty an aid to a better society? How does that benefit the whole? Individual sovereignty abandons regard for social health, rebels against social morality and focuses on nothing but self. In short it's a very selfish ideal. We are all a part of society, we are social creatures by nature and our actions have an influence on others directly or indirectly. Abandonment of morality on a social level for the sake of absolute individual freedom does not yield social freedom but rather chaos and discontent.
Back in the late '60s, early '70s I joined a commune for the exercise of individual freedom. Do as you please, it's your right to do so. Free love, turn on, tune in and drop out of social establishment and tyrany. It was great for several months but things became chaotic, there was little support for others and no support at all for the group as a whole. The group was in jeopardy of breaking up, something had to be done. So we addressed the issues creating law for ourselves, rules to live by. As time went on we had become exactly as that which we were rebeling against. And that for the good of the group. We had failed in our social experiment of individual sovereignty but survived as a group regulated by law as a whole.
The ideal the commune was built upon didn't work. "Live and let live" has a lot of appeal. So does "To each his own". But the reality of it all is that a society cannot survive based on such principles, large or small. It doesn't work.
G
gila
Guest
The more I think the more I am for not using birth control pills. I have not been Christian all my life so it is too late for me but I will educate my chirldren not to use BCP.
God said to be blessed and multiply. It is expensive to have many kids but God provides. If we live humbly, we can manage to raise all children God gives us.
God said to be blessed and multiply. It is expensive to have many kids but God provides. If we live humbly, we can manage to raise all children God gives us.
C
Catholic Crusader
Guest
Everyone should read this encyclical by Pope Paul VI,
HUMANAE VITAE
Humanae Vitae (Latin "Of Human Life") is an encyclical written by Pope Paul VI and promulgated on July 25, 1968. Subtitled "On the Regulation of Birth", it re-affirms the traditional teaching regarding abortion, contraception, and other issues pertaining to human life.
LINK:
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_ ... ae_en.html
HUMANAE VITAE
Humanae Vitae (Latin "Of Human Life") is an encyclical written by Pope Paul VI and promulgated on July 25, 1968. Subtitled "On the Regulation of Birth", it re-affirms the traditional teaching regarding abortion, contraception, and other issues pertaining to human life.
LINK:
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_ ... ae_en.html
Birth control is no more against God than any other medical procedure.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josef_Mengele
Being "medical" confers no legitimacy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josef_Mengele
Being "medical" confers no legitimacy.
B
Barbara Allan
Guest
Potluck: And who is to decide treatment is needed? The user? Not going to happen. Sure, there are some that will seek treatment but very few.
B: Wrong. People try all the time but can't get into treatment programs. Instead America opted for a penal solution.
P: In the name of individual sovereignty as proposed we'd have prostitution, abortion and drug use as socially acceptable.
B: I think there's a difference between acceptability and approval called realism.
P: How is individual sovereignty an aid to a better society? How does that benefit the whole? Individual sovereignty abandons regard for social health, rebels against social morality and focuses on nothing but self. In short it's a very selfish ideal. We are all a part of society, we are social creatures by nature and our actions have an influence on others directly or indirectly. Abandonment of morality on a social level for the sake of absolute individual freedom does not yield social freedom but rather chaos and discontent.
B: As opposed to repression and imprisoning more young black men than go to college? The selfishness is actually in the smug certainty in the willingness to use the appratus of government to control others.
P: Back in the late '60s, early '70s I joined a commune for the exercise of individual freedom. Do as you please, it's your right to do so. Free love, turn on, tune in and drop out of social establishment and tyrany. It was great for several months but things became chaotic, there was little support for others and no support at all for the group as a whole. The group was in jeopardy of breaking up, something had to be done. So we addressed the issues creating law for ourselves, rules to live by. As time went on we had become exactly as that which we were rebeling against. And that for the good of the group. We had failed in our social experiment of individual sovereignty but survived as a group regulated by law as a whole.
The ideal the commune was built upon didn't work. "Live and let live" has a lot of appeal. So does "To each his own". But the reality of it all is that a society cannot survive based on such principles, large or small. It doesn't work.[/quote]
I've heard of communes but never met any in such a thing. I fail to see relevance in this little narrative. I've worked all my life and never considered joining such a thing. So I am certainly unwilling to concede my autonomy to someone who had the privilege to do such a thing. Your little "failed social experiment" does not resonate with real people living real lives. It is no excuse for government getting into people's personal business. I am certainly unwilling to concede any of my own personal autonomy to those who think they know better like your privileged lot.
B: Wrong. People try all the time but can't get into treatment programs. Instead America opted for a penal solution.
P: In the name of individual sovereignty as proposed we'd have prostitution, abortion and drug use as socially acceptable.
B: I think there's a difference between acceptability and approval called realism.
P: How is individual sovereignty an aid to a better society? How does that benefit the whole? Individual sovereignty abandons regard for social health, rebels against social morality and focuses on nothing but self. In short it's a very selfish ideal. We are all a part of society, we are social creatures by nature and our actions have an influence on others directly or indirectly. Abandonment of morality on a social level for the sake of absolute individual freedom does not yield social freedom but rather chaos and discontent.
B: As opposed to repression and imprisoning more young black men than go to college? The selfishness is actually in the smug certainty in the willingness to use the appratus of government to control others.
P: Back in the late '60s, early '70s I joined a commune for the exercise of individual freedom. Do as you please, it's your right to do so. Free love, turn on, tune in and drop out of social establishment and tyrany. It was great for several months but things became chaotic, there was little support for others and no support at all for the group as a whole. The group was in jeopardy of breaking up, something had to be done. So we addressed the issues creating law for ourselves, rules to live by. As time went on we had become exactly as that which we were rebeling against. And that for the good of the group. We had failed in our social experiment of individual sovereignty but survived as a group regulated by law as a whole.
The ideal the commune was built upon didn't work. "Live and let live" has a lot of appeal. So does "To each his own". But the reality of it all is that a society cannot survive based on such principles, large or small. It doesn't work.[/quote]
I've heard of communes but never met any in such a thing. I fail to see relevance in this little narrative. I've worked all my life and never considered joining such a thing. So I am certainly unwilling to concede my autonomy to someone who had the privilege to do such a thing. Your little "failed social experiment" does not resonate with real people living real lives. It is no excuse for government getting into people's personal business. I am certainly unwilling to concede any of my own personal autonomy to those who think they know better like your privileged lot.
B
Barbara Allan
Guest
Catholic Crusader said:
Spare us the maudlin appeal to emotion.
Asked and answered. It's not the business of the government.
B
Barbara Allan
Guest
Timf said:
Mengele was a researcher. Today his methods are considered abhorrent and ethical practice prevents same.
There is of course no comparison of Mengele to medical providers in America of today.
C
Catholic Crusader
Guest
Barbara Allan said:
Spare us the maudlin appeal to emotion.
Asked and answered. It's not the business of the government.[/quote:c25b6]
It is the business of government to protect children. Please don't evade the question. I want you to look at this baby, and tell us all you think it should be legal to kill him:
B
Barbara Allan
Guest
The government's primary objective is to protect all it's people, including the unborn.[/quote:070cd]vic C. said:
No government yet instituted has ever adopted such a policy.
handy
Member
- Jun 21, 2007
- 10,028
- 99
Catholic Crusader said:
Spare us the maudlin appeal to emotion.
Asked and answered. It's not the business of the government.[/quote:cc1fd]
It is the business of government to protect children. Please don't evade the question. I want you to look at this baby, and tell us all you think it should be legal to kill him: [/quote:cc1fd]
Barbara hasn't 'evaded' the question. She has made her position quite clear. She believes that it is not the government's place to interfere. She is under no obligation to answer the question you are asking here CC.
I don't mind giving an answer though. It was through the study of human development in the womb, aided by pictures such as these, that I did a 180 on this subject. In high-school, I actually won debates taking the pro-choice stand. But, I was also quite ignorant of what happened within the womb. By the end of college (and no, I did not go to a Christian college, I went to a good old California State College, which is known for putting the "liberal" into "Liberal Arts") I was far more educated and allowed what I had learned to change my attitude.
Abortion is such a hot-button topic, it's hard to anyone to appreciate the other's point of view. However, since Mengele has been brought up, perhaps everyone could at least think about this: Mengele is an example of just what can happen when we allow the government total control over medical issues. Under Mengele, the government committed horrible atrocities, and many who are against abortion are against it because they do not want governmental interference in medical decisions. And, as a social conservative, I agree. I don't want governmental interfering in my medical decisions either, or in the medical decisions of folks like my brother-in-law who, as someone with cerebral palsy, would have been exterminated by Mengele as well.
However, what the folks on the side of no governmental interference fail to appreciate is what I and almost all other pro-life folks see. That little life right there in that picture. It's not maudlin, it's a baby, a living, feeling baby who has the potential to be the one who cures cancer, the one who figures out how we get to Mars, the one who resolves the Mid-East madness.
So, what is viewed as one as a 'medical decision' is viewed by me as a life worth saving.
B
Barbara Allan
Guest
handy said:
I think that is entirely an appropriate response by an individual woman to her own situation, but it is not a proper response to be forced on others by the apparatus of government.
Similar threads
