Dawkins and "The Great Tim Tebow Fallacy" (re: pro-life advertisement)

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.

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: I think the pro-lifers would see that as "playing god"... you know what I mean?Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.

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.

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? 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. 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

Of course, if you count all successfully fertilised eggs that fail to reach term as miscarriages. 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.

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.

Actually I don't believe this is correct anymore. Vatican

quote:

---

The International Theological Commission has studied the question of the fate of un-baptised infants, bearing in mind the principle of the hierarchy of truths and the other theological principles of the universal salvific will of God, the unicity and insuperability of the mediation of Christ, the sacramentality of the Church in the order of salvation, and the reality of Original Sin. In the contemporary context of cultural relativism and religious pluralism the number of non-baptized infants has grown considerably, and therefore the reflection on the possibility of salvation for these infants has become urgent. The Church is conscious that this salvation is attainable only in Christ through the Spirit. But the Church, as mother and teacher, cannot fail to reflect upon the fate of all men, created in the image of God, and in a more particular way on the fate of the weakest members of the human family and those who are not yet able to use their reason and freedom.

​

It is clear that the traditional teaching on this topic has concentrated on the theory of limbo, understood as a state which includes the souls of infants who die subject to original sin and without baptism, and who, therefore, neither merit the beatific vision, nor yet are subjected to any punishment, because they are not guilty of any personal sin. This theory, elaborated by theologians beginning in the Middle Ages, never entered into the dogmatic definitions of the Magisterium, even if that same Magisterium did at times mention the theory in its ordinary teaching up until the Second Vatican Council. It remains therefore a possible theological hypothesis. However, in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1992), the theory of limbo is not mentioned. Rather, the Catechism teaches that infants who die without baptism are entrusted by the Church to the mercy of God, as is shown in the specific funeral rite for such children. The principle that God desires the salvation of all people gives rise to the hope that there is a path to salvation for infants who die without baptism (cf. CCC, 1261), and therefore also to the theological desire to find a coherent and logical connection between the diverse affirmations of the Catholic faith: the universal salvific will of God; the unicity of the mediation of Christ; the necessity of baptism for salvation; the universal action of grace in relation to the sacraments; the link between original sin and the deprivation of the beatific vision; the creation of man in Christ.

---

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

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

Straggler answers precisely this in his opening post of this sub-thread (How Many Humans?) 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?

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".

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

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. 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?

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. 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? 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"? 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.

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. Scientists in the medical community, particularly those who specialise in reproduction, are in fact working to stop spontaneous abortions.

quote:

---

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.

---

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. 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

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