|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 4972 days) Posts: 572 From: UK Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Dawkins and "The Great Tim Tebow Fallacy" (re: pro-life advertisement) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Apothecus Member (Idle past 2441 days) Posts: 275 From: CA USA Joined: |
Hey CS.
Is not "original sin" a core tenet of the Catholic faith? If so, this would explain the traditional Catholic standpoint on everything from birth control pills to Plan-B to full out abortion. So if I'm thinking correctly, according to some, due to original sin, all of these naturally or artificially aborted fetuses what? Go to hell? Is that really what Catholics generally think happens? Do you subscribe to this as a Catholic? Why? Just curious, and maybe you could shed some light on my confusion. Have a good one.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Is not "original sin" a core tenet of the Catholic faith? If so, this would explain the traditional Catholic standpoint on everything from birth control pills to Plan-B to full out abortion. So if I'm thinking correctly, according to some, due to original sin, all of these naturally or artificially aborted fetuses what? Go to hell? Is that really what Catholics generally think happens? Do you subscribe to this as a Catholic? Why? We were taught that they went to Purgatory, iirc. Baptism would erase Original Sin. I don't really know what I believe, and am fairly apathetic. Beliefs seem to come and go as they please. I was Confirmed Catholic and I haven't been excommunicated so I think I should count as one, but I'm not very religious. You'll find a whole continuum of devoutness in the Catholics. I just got out of college, well.. not just, but I'm still having a lot of fun From Message 105:
The technology's already there, fellas. It's call fertility treatments. I can guarantee you that with Clomid, injectable treatments like Follistim, as well as intrauterine insemination or hell, IVF if you want to go "all in", we'd whittle that 70% down by maybe three-quarters (a good faith estimate ). We'd have to make these treatments mandatory for all women of childbearing age, regardless of cost, because, you know, cost shouldn't be a consideration when considering the life of death of the unborn. I think the pro-lifers would see that as "playing god"... you know what I mean? Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Apothecus Member (Idle past 2441 days) Posts: 275 From: CA USA Joined: |
I think the pro-lifers would see that as "playing god"... you know what I mean? I do see what you mean. You realize I was using facetiousness to extend the argument, right? Thanks for the info regarding Catholicism. It's kind of what I thought I had heard (grew up in a mostly Cath. community, dated a few Cath schoolgirls ), especially the baptism thing, but I couldn't quite remember. But thanks. And now back to the topic at hand, eh? Have a good one.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
whatever the case it seems fairly well established that over 50% of all conceptuses effectively end up in the sewage system quite naturally. So by your definition of humanity the majority of "humans" are never born What you are describing is miscarriages, which if compared to live births would be low in comparison, not the majority. Are you really saying that miscarriages occur more often than live births?
Shouldn't you be advocating major research into natural abortion and the billions of "human lives" lost rather than complaining about a miniscule percentage of fetuses that are medically aborted? If saving "human life" (as you define it to be) is genuinely your goal here? Straggler, I do advocate major research in mitigating spontaneous abortions! Good thing such research in fact does exist. Regardless you keep overlooking a huge component here. You are comparing natural deaths to intentional killing. That would be like comparing the number of people that in car accidents versus the number that are killed via vehicular homicide.
Of couse that research would overpopulate the planet in no time if successful No, not really. Because when a woman miscarries, what does she usually do? She tries again until she receives a healthy baby. If the first infant did not miscarry, she would not be trying again, right? So the net ratio is exactly the same. "Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." --John Adams
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3673 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
Are you really saying that miscarriages occur more often than live births? Of course, if you count all successfully fertilised eggs that fail to reach term as miscarriages.
So the net ratio is exactly the same. Only if contraception use rose dramatically. There would be many more pregnancies by those that are lax with their contraception Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Asgara Member (Idle past 2332 days) Posts: 1783 From: Wisconsin, USA Joined: |
Part of this that you're not taking into account, is most of these early miscarriages take place before the woman even realizes she is pregnant. And many of them happen to women who may not actually prefer a pregnancy at that time. Women who accept it if it happens but if given the choice of when it happens would prefer to wait.
So no, not all these early miscarriages would result in the woman trying again to conceive and leaving the net ratio exactly the same.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2981 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
We were taught that they went to Purgatory, iirc. Baptism would erase Original Sin. Actually I don't believe this is correct anymore.
Vatican quote: I was Confirmed Catholic and I haven't been excommunicated so I think I should count as one, but I'm not very religious. Yeah, me too. I did the whole thing: Catecism, Confirmation, I was even an alter (guy) in the military. Truth be told, it just got me out of cleaning the barracks. But now look at us, we're a couple a heathens. - Oni
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
Part of this that you're not taking into account, is most of these early miscarriages take place before the woman even realizes she is pregnant. Part of this that others are not taking in to account is if no one realizes she miscarried, then how can any estimates be gleaned from it? The mother doesn't know she's pregnant, which means the doctors don't know she's pregnant. That means no one knows she was ever pregnant. That being the case how can you offer statistics for X if the solution for X is not known? It doesn't really matter either way. Stragglers whole point is that I should care what the mortality rate is due to miscarriage. Since I do care, we can get on without the needless straw man/diversion to a perfectly legitimate topic. "Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." --John Adams
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3673 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
That being the case how can you offer statistics for X if the solution for X is not known? Straggler answers precisely this in his opening post of this sub-thread (How Many Humans?)
Since I do care, we can get on without the needless straw man/diversion to a perfectly legitimate topic. So you do care deeply that the majority of people die before even being born? But are only vocal about the much smaller percentage of these that are intentionally caused?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3673 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
My opinion is that a blastocyst, foetus, newborn, toddler, child, teenager, young adult, or geriatric adult are just terms of gestation and/or life-cycles that everyone, if left without intervention, would follow quite naturally. As we have seen, the average outcome of this natural progression is to not make it to birth. So it probably doesn't form the best set of stages upon which to rest a definition of "person".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3673 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
They involve crushing skulls, burning the skin with high concentrations of salt, tearing limbs from the body, etc. Do some research, it's not just about taking a morning after pill. The vast majority of abortions take place in weeks 8-10 where the foetus ranges in size from 0.5 to 1.5 inches. How much crushing, burning, and tearing do you really think is necessary? But yes, I totally agree, they're great words for stiring the emotional side of the debate
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
I think that they think that venting their morality is justified because they imbue the conceptus with personhood not that they are imbuing that conceptus with personhood in order to justify venting their morality. Willfully ignorant quite possibly. How open do you think the average pro-lifer would be to the information about conceptuses we have been discussing (i.e. approx 60% unknowingly flushed down the toilet)? This information is freely available to anyone who looks for it. Why do they not look this stuff up? I think they use the whole "baby killer" line as a convenient and highly emotive method of imposing their morality on others whilst holding their hands over their ears and yelling "lalalalalala" should anyone have the temerity to mention any biological facts.
In which case they should either treat all conceptuses as persons or keep their irrationalities to themselves. Which they do, they just don't advocate intervening with nature for a person that hasn't been born yet. Because they don't see it as equivalent in terms of personhood to one that has been born? Why the difference between the two? And is that not essentially the exact same distinction being made by the pro-lifer?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
What you are describing is miscarriages, which if compared to live births would be low in comparison, not the majority. Are you really saying that miscarriages occur more often than live births? Yes. The majority of fertilised human eggs never result in established pregnancies, much less birth. The majority of humanity, as you have defined it, is flushed down the toilet before anyone even knows it exists.
Straggler, I do advocate major research in mitigating spontaneous abortions! So you advocate that we set our research sights on saving those 50+% of lost souls that nobody is ever even aware existed? Population explosion or what? From which other medical funding would you redirect resources away from to pursue this lunatic cause?
Regardless you keep overlooking a huge component here. You are comparing natural deaths to intentional killing. That would be like comparing the number of people that in car accidents versus the number that are killed via vehicular homicide. Should we let sick toddlers die? As long as it is natural and we are not killing them that is OK right? If over 50% of all toddlers were dying would you be so apathetic as you are about over 50% of all conceptuses? Why the inconsistent approach if, as you claim, they are all equally "human babies"?
No, not really. Because when a woman miscarries, what does she usually do? She tries again until she receives a healthy baby. If the first infant did not miscarry, she would not be trying again, right? So the net ratio is exactly the same. You seem to be having a problem grasping the facts of the situation here.
The majority of fertilised human eggs never result in established pregnancies, much less birth.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
Yes. The majority of fertilised human eggs never result in established pregnancies, much less birth. The majority of humanity, as you have defined it, is flushed down the toilet before anyone even knows it exists. Again, if that's true then you could not account for how many fertilized human eggs are in fact flushed down the toilet, which means that you could not accurately give a percentage either.
So you advocate that we set our research sights on saving those 50+% of lost souls that nobody is ever even aware existed? Scientists in the medical community, particularly those who specialise in reproduction, are in fact working to stop spontaneous abortions.
quote: Should we let sick toddlers die? As long as it is natural and we are not killing them that is OK right? If over 50% of all toddlers were dying would you be so apathetic as you are about over 50% of all conceptuses? Slippery slope and immaterial. We are directly talking about the morality of abortion, which is the intentional killing of a fetus. You smuggling in through the back door sick toddlers and miscarriages is a scarecrow. The difference between a sick toddler and a murdered toddler is that no one is at fault for the child's death. Is it tragic? Of course. But A murderer on the other hand is someone who took their life on purpose. That's tragic and unjust.
Why the inconsistent approach if, as you claim, they are all equally "human babies"? It's not at all inconsistent. I said, very clearly, that I approve of research to stop spontaneous abortions. So please tell me where I've been inconsistent? Inconsistency apparently means that if I'm not omnisciently in every toilet simultaneously to save every fetus I must not care or must be inconsistent. Give me a break here, Straggler. This is a slippery slope argument, a shamelessly pathetic one, that bears no relevance to the topic we are currently discussing. Deal with the subject. "Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jazzns Member (Idle past 3941 days) Posts: 2657 From: A Better America Joined: |
Again, if that's true then you could not account for how many fertilized human eggs are in fact flushed down the toilet, which means that you could not accurately give a percentage either. You really believe that this is an unknowable statistic? You have that little confidence in modern science?
Argument from Incredulity much? If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. --Thomas Jefferson
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024