Catholicism and Voting

[Patroklos]

They want to deny women their own control over their body and decisions regarding reproduction.

And someone on the other side can just as easily say that pro-choice people want to deny the unborn the right to life.

Exactly. This is why I told you, MF, to think about your earlier statment a little bit more.

[MrFun]

I do not think fetuses are the same in terms of being a person, as someone who has been born already.

[Imran Siddiqui]

And obviously, other people do.

[MrFun]

But they're wrong.


It's still debateable whether or not a fetus is indeed a person in the same sense as that of someone already born.

It's not arguable however, whether or not an adult woman is a person. There is no question then as to the status of adult women and thus, they ought to be entitled to full rights over their own body.

[Patroklos]

I do not think fetuses are the same in terms of being a person, as someone who has been born already.

Oh, cool then. Since thats what you think, I guess we will just force everyone to think that too.

[MrFun]

If only you would know how much better the world would be if that could be the case, Pattycakes.

[snoopy369]

This is why the abortion debate is a bit more cloudy than the gay rights debate - both sides have a reasonable point of view, based on a single beginning assumption one way or the other; an assumption that you could easily argue could go both ways. I don't fault any religion for being pro-life, and honestly would be surprised if they were otherwise - religion has always been about making sacrifices for the greater good, and except in the case of overpopulation, abortion is a choice for selfish reasons (not necessarily inherently bad selfish reasons, mind you, but selfish nonetheless) versus the 'greater good' of another person.

That said, I still think it's ludicrous to suggest that voting for one candidate over the other for any reason is a sin, and I'm certain that every one of the priests I knew would have laughed at this argument. Heck, didn't His Holiness support a certain mustached character in his youth, who supported much more evil things than abortion??? I'd say if a Hitlerite can become pope, an Obama supporter can take communion.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by MrFun
But they're wrong.


It's still debateable whether or not a fetus is indeed a person in the same sense as that of someone already born.

It's not arguable however, whether or not an adult woman is a person. There is no question then as to the status of adult women and thus, they ought to be entitled to full rights over their own body.

So basically:

Beliefs that would deny other people their rights are not morally-acceptable beliefs.

Is a bunch of bull****. If we are going to substitute our own views of what rights are then you think their belief aren't morally acceptable and they think your beliefs aren't morally acceptable and we have sectarian fighting.

Good job

[Felch]

Originally posted by MrFun
But they're wrong.

It's still debateable whether or not a fetus is indeed a person in the same sense as that of someone already born.

It's not arguable however, whether or not an adult woman is a person. There is no question then as to the status of adult women and thus, they ought to be entitled to full rights over their own body.

Really it all comes down to what makes a human a human. If it's a certain number of chromosomes, than people with Down Syndrome are inhuman mutants without rights. I think the only really scientific definition of the beginning of life would be the beginning of brain activity, given that brain inactivity is usually the definition of dead. The Church has its own views, and I support them, even if I find them to be less than ideal scientifically. You have your own. I see no point in arguing with you about it, since neither of us will budge. I do have to ask though, since you're no longer Catholic, why do you care what we believe?

[pedrojedi]

Originally posted by Felch


I do have to ask though, since you're no longer Catholic, why do you care what we believe?

Maybe some habits are hard to lose.

I find it amusing that there's so much debate on religion in States, with furious attacks by each part, while in here there's a certain "muteness" about the subject. Not that the catholic God is a winning part here - the number of atheists is growing strongly in Brazil and the prolific rising of other religions (Kardecism, Umbanda, Batuque and many many many others...) and sects (Evangelists of various sorts) makes many catholic priests wonder what is going wrong.

The main problem with religion is that it is always the "right choice" when many legislators and governors think about law - considering, of course, their electorate. Many bad decisions are continually made just considering "God's Will".

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Felch
I do have to ask though, since you're no longer Catholic, why do you care what we believe?

Because I think civil rights and human rights are important.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


So basically:

Beliefs that would deny other people their rights are not morally-acceptable beliefs.

Is a bunch of bull****. If we are going to substitute our own views of what rights are then you think their belief aren't morally acceptable and they think your beliefs aren't morally acceptable and we have sectarian fighting.

Good job

If a church requires congregation members to adhere to the belief of white supremacy would it be in our interest to accept this belief as morally sound in the inerest of preventing sectarian fighting?

Not that I'm even calling for sectarian fighting anyway.

[Felch]

Originally posted by MrFun
Because I think civil rights and human rights are important.

Freedom of assembly, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, what are those called again? I thought they were human rights.

You might consider the "right" to marry whomever you want to be a right, but it really isn't. We can't marry family members, or multiple people. There are plenty of restrictions on marriage. Marriage is a social institution, and society determines how it is carried out. Personally I don't care about the issue.

Likewise, the "right" to an abortion isn't really cut and dried. It involves a fundamental conflict between the rights of the mother and the rights of the unborn. It's a contentious political issue, and one that reasonable people can debate.

Basically I think you're mixing up rights and privileges here. Voting is a privilege, because it is under certain restrictions (age, prior felonies, citizenship, etc.) Likewise with marriage, and driving. Free assembly, religion, and speech are not privileges, they are rights. They only restriction on them is that they may not be used to harm other people. So you don't have a right to practice human sacrifice, or to slander another person.

[SlowwHand]

Originally posted by MrFun


Because I think civil rights and human rights are important.

For some. You've already admitted to that fact.

[Felch]

Originally posted by MrFun
If a church requires congregation members to adhere to the belief of white supremacy would it be in our interest to accept this belief as morally sound in the inerest of preventing sectarian fighting?

The Nation of Islam preaches black supremacy. As long as they don't act on it violently, they're free to do so. There are "Christian Identity" churches, (I think that's what they're called) which are essentially white supremacist fronts. As long as they don't act out on their theology, they're generally free to do whatever. They're all monitored of course, but that's sensible.

Is it morally sound? No. But it's their right to say it. Welcome to America.