All well and good father and I agree but until we start treating human life outside the womb with the dignity, then are we really surprised about the problem of abortion. It seems to me that much of american Christianity, mostly Protestant I would say, is obsessed with this issue to the exclusion of almost all others, apart from homosexuality perhaps. Meanwhile, many who seek abortions come from poor communities who could do with the same kind of advocacy u r showing to the unborn...
@brendos444 yet we don't see this.. Again, Protestant ideology in America seems to embrace the kind of individual freedom to choose that philosophers like Ayn Rand and FA Hayek promote. Freedom to not take care of the poor if you don't want, freedom to make heaps of money, freedom to do anything you want. And yet, when it comes to abortion they somehow make an exception... I think, ironically, pro-choice is umbilically linked to the "freedom" ideology we see in puritanical evangelical America.
@brendos444 yet we don't see this.. Again, Protestant ideology in America seems to embrace the kind of individual freedom to choose that philosophers like Ayn Rand and FA Hayek promote. Freedom to not take care of the poor if you don't want, freedom to make heaps of money, freedom to do anything you want. And yet, when it comes to abortion they somehow make an exception... I think, ironically, pro-choice is umbilically linked to the "freedom" ideology we see in puritanical evangelical America.
God bless you Father and thank you. These things needed to be said. This was thorough, honest, and, as always, very eloquently presented. My question is this: what would you propose as a healthy, moral alternative to an abortion?
@Mrmentalmadness123 None, Catholicism is the believe in Christ and His Mystical body the Church and practicing His teachings. So just like you can't have a football player that doesnt play football, you can't have a catholic that doesnt practice Christ teachings. Altho if done by ignorance or for any other reason, with a valid baptism and a firm purpose of amendment, you can be restored into sanctifying grace.
Abortion is murder in just the same way the the death penalty is murder, or a soldier invading another country and shooting someone is murder, or a cop killing someone becasue they didn't stop when they commanded to is murder.
Murder is murder. Period.As Catholics we cannot kill. We cannot support murderers. Wether they are state sanctioned or not makes no difference. We follow God first and the state second where it does not contravine God's laws.
@Infiltratr "Murder is murder. Period.As Catholics we cannot kill. We cannot support murderers."
WTF -- catholic were responsable for kill and torturing poeple in the crusades and inqustion.. or are you saying catholic cannot kill unless the Pope says God told him it was Ok
@Infiltratr While I agree with you that we cannot murder, I wouldn't say death penalty is murder. Death penalty is something brought upon someone by himself alone. If it's anyone's fault, it's solely the criminal's. And if the war is just, it's not morally equivalent to killing an innocent baby, for example.
Part 2: Now definetly something must be done on healthcare about it and that is to erradicate abortion and provide information and psychological help for the woman that have gone through an abortion or are thinking about abortion, beacause as it is now abortion clinics use eugenic policies and are negligent, to say the least, to push their agendas so Pick your side Pro Life or pro death do not be a mediocre. =)
Part 1: Wow some people are so intelligent that they dont use common sense lets try to break through that intellectual pride and see things the way they are. Here's an example: two woman are pregnant, one of them goes and has an abortion, the other one doesn't... then the time comes for the baby to be born one goes and she gives birth, the other has already "chosen" to kill her baby, so the child that would have been born that day, is dead... Can we see how brutal this is... (see Part 2)
stupid, a born sentient slave is not some unwanted, human-parasitic-fetus that needs a woman's body to survive, and her will and legal rights to abort.
Surely Jeffrey Toobin, a graduate of Harvard Law School and smart enough to be an editor for Harvard Law Review, has heard of the "naturalistic fallacy" or the "is-ought gap."
Perhaps every philosopher since Hume was wrong where Jeffrey Toobin has gained some heretofore-unpublished, but groundbreaking insight into metaethics.
I suggest you make a video about the ten commandments. Explaining exactly what each of them mean. Start with number 10. What exactly does that man servant part mean?
A mere shift in spatial locality from inside to outside the womb does not determine that a baby is human, alive, or deserving of rights.
This is an irrelevant distinction without a real difference propagated by the exact same genocidal mentality that turns a human being into an object before killing it so it can justify its murder with a clean conscience.
@chase82 it isn't genocide - throwing that term around loosely makes light of the holocaust and Rwanda, Kosovo etc. What I will say is that it is the equivalent of murder and that it represents a significant human rights issue which most groups have neglected out of political correctness
Its been a great week here in Ireland. Our new priminister finally gave the pope a proper going over re: the lies, cover ups, and ongoing abuses of the catholic church in relation to innocent children. Telling him that the rule of law supercedes canon law. Not being from Ireland, you would never appreciate the control the church had on all levels of government, the police, and everyday people. The church was never questioned and we have a history of destroyed lives because of blind faith!
@Bulloxe4 I have never heard religious people say there are no gay people. That notwithstanding, like Fr. Barron says, just because it is prevalent or even natural, doesn't make it good. Alcoholism, for example, has at least a significant genetic predisposition, but noone would claim that it follows that it is good.
Excuse me, I'm a troll. but please indulge me. If human life is a continuity from conception until death (as Catholic-Christianity maintains), why is impossible to extend full human rights to the unborn? You might consider it naive, ill-advised, or unworkable, from your perspective, Those who abuse children should be subject to legal penalties. If human life is discernable, it is worthy of protection. Prove to me that a zygote (having at least 46 chromosomes and human DNA) is not a human.
I can't prove to you a zygote isn't a human because a human is not a well defined term precisely because of these extremes. I also can't prove to you my 102 year old demented, senile, paralysed, blind grandfather is human because he doesn't move or speak.
You're asking for proof, but it's not about proof, it's about the view on the matter.
PS, my grandfather in this comment is hypothetical, I do not have a grandfather like that.
@Bulloxe4 So are you sayiing that if you view a particular organism as "human," it's human, but if you don't, it's not? Well, that seems to be the current jurisprudence, and it works conveniently for pro-abortion advocates and people with sick or elderly relatives who can't be bothered (I understand that your "grandfather" was hypothetical here). But there are indeed objective and scientific criteria of human identity. The human genome has been pretty well mapped out..
I know there is an objective way to discern a human being from other animals or other objects or from nothing. That's not the question.
The question is granting rights. What is legally considered a human being with full rights? That is something which is dependant on how we view life. You believe that a concevied child has full rights, some believe unconcevied children also have full rights.
@Bulloxe4 See, this is the whole problem with secularism and atheism. "Personally, I think...," and who can gainsay you? What if the year was 1959, and I were to say to you, "I know that black people can reproduce with white people, so they're obviously human. But, just the same, should they be considered LEGALLY human, 'with full rights'? I mean, we just make this stuff up as we go along, right? Personally, I think Caucasion is a good line." See the problem?
I'm sorry but your comparison is just plain stupid. I'm pro-abortion because born and alive people have a certain right of CHOICE. Or at least I believe they should.
A right to make their own medical choices, to marry who they want,...
To forbid inter racial marriage is limiting the choice of those same people. To put it this way : THE REASON WHY I'M PRO ABORTION IS THE SAME AS WHY I'M NOT ANTI RACIAL MIXING.
@Bulloxe4 Yeah, but what are the limits to that choice? You don't think that people can choose to do anything at all, do you? Therefore, you have to move the discussion to another level. Defending a limitless right to "choose" is just morally a non-starter.
Of course theres limit to the choice of a human being. You don't have the right to own slaves for instance.
When I advocate a position people always assume I'm defending the absoute extreme of it.
I am a great believer that people alone should have the right to chose what happens to their bodies. Make own medical choices, to give birth or not, euthanasia; In my opinion should always be left for people to decide for themselfs and never decided for them, by the state or other.
@Bulloxe4 No, sir. Usually, I'm polite, and apologize, and I admit when I have been wrong. But, in this case, I leave it to the readers of this vlog to decide. I do not admit stupidity, nor do I see any consistency in your argument.
@Bulloxe4 But I should be more charitable; perhaps you really don't get it. Let me try again. Do you believe that the legal protection of one's human rights should be determined by one's address (outside vs. inside the womb? Perhaps by one's age (9 months or older)? Yeah, I'm sure you are pro-abortion for the same reason you now accept racial mixing: you have been indoctrinated into the secular, postmodern world. You love Big Brother. Congratulations. Things could be worse...
Yes, I already said, as far as I'm concerned, birth is a good line. Granted, there is a limit as how far you can make the abortion. I think it's something like 20 weeks, but thats not important.
And how would you decide who's rights to protect. Based on do you understand or agree with their views perhaps? Based on their religion perhaps?
@Bulloxe4 When did I say I was against racial mixing? My point is that it was once taken for granted in our society that those of African descent were not fully human and could be treated as such. The US Supreme Court said so (Dredd Scott v Sandford, 1857). Thankfully, the consensus on that issue changed for a variety of reasons. Currently, our society and its Supreme Court won't protect all human life. I think you should consider the possibility that our society is wrong on this issue. Peace.
You see, your society once people were force to be slaves. NOBODY is forcing people to undergo abortions. This is a very important distinction. Abortion is a matter of choice. I think it should remain as such.
I'm not advocating state policy, in fact I disagree on a number of issues with our society. I know it can be wrong.
My personal opinion is that you christians don't have the right to make these choices for other people. That's it.
@Bulloxe4 If the fetus is a human being (which, scientifically and objectively, it is) then when it is aborted a human life is taken. Nobody should have the right to choose to take the life of an innocent human being. Nobody was forcing white plantation owners to own slaves. The Confederacy was "pro-choice" on the issue. "Don't like slavery? Don't own one!" But the situation was fundamentally unjust, because the poor slave had no "choice" in the matter, just as the multitudes of aborted humans.
Yea, I guess that's the main point of disagrement on the entire issue. You just can't bring yourself to view it as just a fetus. I just don't see a fetus equal to a born man.
@Bulloxe4 So we're back to square one, which I imagined we had surpassed. "I can't prove to you a zygote isn't a human because a human is not a well defined term precisely because of these extremes. I also can't prove to you my 102 year old demented, senile, paralysed, blind grandfather is human because he doesn't move or speak." So go ahead; unplug Gramps. After all, who's to say, right?
I am a big believer in euthanasia. Abortion is different.
I don't think we ever moved from square one to be frank.
There are actually laws which protect prenatal life, you know. So you can do abortion only in the early stages of pregnancy. The fetus then is really undevelopt. So I don't think it should be that big of a deal.
It's really pointless, we will never move from square one because you will never except anything different then abortion = murder.
@Bulloxe4 I am a big opponent of euthanasia for the same reasons I oppose abortion. Once, advocates of abortion used to deny that the "product of conception" was human. This tack is being abandoned because it is so demonstrably false, so now an appeal is made to distinguish human life from human life that should be granted rights. And guess who is going to determine that? People already born, who are stronger and smarter and more fit to survive. Welcome to the Brave New World. Might makes right
Did you ever see a late stage of some terminal diseases? Do you know how it's like to have nothing but a few months of pointless and excruciating pain, undignified self defication, loss of all abilities? Do you know how it's like to reach a point when you can't even recognise people you loved and who love you?
I understand you see possible misuse of euthanasia, but there are times when it is a mercifull act.
It's not about eugenics. Or about sanctity of life, it's about mercy.
@Bulloxe4 To address your questions in order: Yes. No. No. (How would you have answered?) I am amazed by the historical naivete of so many who advocate euthanasia and abortion. It always starts with talk of compassion and human dignity and mercy. Certain "hard cases" are used to mold public opinion. In the end, someone decides that someone else has a life not worth living, and the parameters for human life worthy of protection coincide suspiciously with one's own power interests.
@Bulloxe4 No, it's never about eugenics in the beginning. The Nazis didn't begin by saying, "We're going to overturn centuries of human philosophical and religious tradition, build a master race and rid society of these parasites and useless eaters" (although the Final Solution was implicit there in Hitler's "Mein Kampf"). Genocide is an ugly word. All effective social engineering starts with linguistic engineering. Google "The Charitable Transport Company for the Sick" if you don't believe me.
I just can't believe you see the rise of nazism in abortion. Do you really think that since abortion is legal someone will one day say, hey this killing thing is usefull, you know what we should do. We should kill some people. Yea, call it adult abortion.
We could do all the cripples, invalids, defects first. Maybe the jews later.
Are you really telling me that's how you see this developing?
@Bulloxe4 I'm telling you that's how these things always develop. You really need to get some historical perspective. There are always social and political forces and agendas at work in current affairs, sometimes with conscious and deliberate intent, sometimes working toward common goals without a deliberate plan. You can caricature anything and make it sound ridiculous; that doesn't prove it to be wrong. I know that the scenario you described happened in recent history. "Never forget."
@Bulloxe4 This is not caricature:"Do you really think that since abortion is legal someone will one day say, hey this killing thing is usefull, you know what we should do. We should kill some people. Yea, call it adult abortion.
We could do all the cripples, invalids, defects first. Maybe the jews later.
Are you really telling me that's how you see this developing?" Are you serious?
If something is blown out of proportion, I'm not the one who made it such. I agree that it's caricaturistic. But you're the one telling me abortion will lead to genocide. That's caricaturistic to me. It's so ridiculus that I don't know what to do but joke about it.
@Bulloxe4 It was no joke to the Jews and Poles and Slavs and Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholics and evangelical Protestants and homosexuals and disabled and Jehovah's Witnesses and other dissenters and those deemed officially subhuman by the Third Reich. But of course, that ever happen again.
@Bulloxe4 Well, all I can say at this point is that you probably are the product of the modern education system, which means that as long as you regurgitated the political correctness and social programming you were spoon-fed from kindergarten through college, you passed with flying colors. This is not a changing of the subject, in my opinion. This goes very much to the heart of the problem: lack of historical and philosophical understanding. And Christians are supposed to be the gullible ones.
No, it's you who are gullible if you think atheism is what lead to the rise of nazism, and if you think abortion will lead to the rise of fascism in america then you don't understand how these things come to be. From a historical perspective.
It's a complete change of subject because you can't stand behind your words. You think abortion will lead to genocide. But when someone confronts you with that you talk about the victims of WW2, modern education system, PC,...
@Bulloxe4 I am saying that there are many components to the rise of totalitarianism and genocide. You caricature this by implying a simplistic and inevitable route from atheism to the Third Reich, or abortion to the Final Solution. Ideas have consequences, and once certain configurations of ideas are in place within a population (eg., there is no absolute authority by which to judge the action of the state; certain human lives are unworthy to be lived, etc.), the unthinkable becomes possible.
You're telling me, that I'm implying a simplistic and inevitable route from atheism to the Third Reich, or abortion to the Final Solution.
My entire problem with your argument here is that you are doing that exact thing.
Now what you're saying is: "No No No, it's not that simple, you're simplifying it, it's a configuration if ideas you see, and when an idea is adopted it is always carried out to the extreme you know."
@Bulloxe4 No, I am sorry if you missed my point again. I am trying to be as clear as I can, but you seem to be intent on missing my point. Historical precents are something that historically astute persons would undertstand and would be wary of when deliberating on public policy. There are historical precedents that should be heeded.
You're like a comedian who doesn't see his own comedy. I'm just representing it like it is, as comedy.
And BTW, there is an absolute authority by which to judge the action of the state. It's called the constitution. No law may oppose the constitution. Even though there were times when men oof low morale saw fit to ignore it because of "national security".
@Bulloxe4 Okay. Well, glad I could amuse you.I think we're done now. You win. I am completely blown out of the water. The philosphical sophistication and broad historical perspective of dogmatic materialists never ceases to amaze me. When will I learn to quit trying to defeat such profound arguments? Oh, and thanks for reassuring me about the Constitution. That 's a great comfort to liberty-loving people everywhere.
To clarify, I think euthanasia and abortion are two different issues. I am a strong proponent of euthanasia for reasons I already stated.
Now, I don't like abortion, I would like it if there's more sexual responsibility, less abortion. But I still think that it should be allowed for people to abort in the early stages of pregnancy ( which it is ).
@Bulloxe4 What should be the minimal IQ required to claim human identity? How developed would the hearing and eyesight have to be? Would Helen Keller have made the cut? Beethoven? The Irish poet Christie Brown? If standards of physical strength or agility were to be applied, exactly when would Stephen Hawking be excluded? Rhetorical questions, but the point is, you see human value as a matter of quality of life; I see it as a matter of sanctity of life. We both believe in mercy, I think.
I'll ask you something which you don't have to answer. Are you oppose to eating meat?
I'm not, but lately if been reading all these reserch which show that animals which we eat have a much more complex emotinal and intelectual life then we thought.
Granted, never near a human, but they feel sad, scared,... They seem to be a lot more concious then we think?
So, at what point will we consider eating them morally wrong?
@Bulloxe4 I'm sure there are probably chimpanzees and maybe dolphins with intellectual abilities close to those of my Down Syndrome god-daughter. I would not want to eat or kill these species, but would not equate such an act with manslaughter. It is the approximation of these higher animals to our own characteristics that makes them more sacred to me than a cow. I would eat pork, though, even though pigs are quite intelligent. I would not eat my god-daughter under ordinary circumstances.
Im saying, you deem human life as sacred. But is it sacred just because it is, or for some other reasons. Conscience maybe? Empathy? Personality? Emotions?
Now it seems that some animals which we kill in massive numbers have all those things which make a human so special and sacred, just not as complex.
I wan't to make a point of sanctity of life. "I would do this, I would do that."
Excatly, that's what I mean when I say a human life is a subjective term in the extreme ends.
@Bulloxe4 I know you don't. Human life is a continuity, from the first human pair to all descended from them. And there is no clear demarcation from the zygote to the fetus to he neo-natal to the infant to the toddler to the child to the adolescent to the the adult to the geriatric. Don't you see that these are all arbitrary distinctions that cannot be made into hard and fast rules about when to start respecting human life? The same is true of "trimesters" in pregnancy. Who says?
@billybagbom This is not just a problem with secularism and atheism but theism too. Morals change and evolve. You just have to read the Bible on slavery. Israelites were considered superior to other races and could not be purchased as slaves but other races could.Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT As to rights of one human over another read. (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB).
Abortion is also objectionable to non theistic Buddhists but for very different reasons than from Catholicism. For the Buddhist the "unborn child" suffers. It is the suffering that makes the act of abortion wrong, not the child's humanness. Catholics generally accept the "need" to eat meat justifies some suffering of non human animals. Suffering for Catholics, therefore, is not the issue but the uncertainty over what will happen to the unbaptised unborn child's immortal soul i.e damnation.
@zearro53 If you think that the suffering of an aborted fetus is negligible from a Catholic/Orthodox POV, you are mistaken. Why must it be "either"/"or"? Why can't apostolic Christians oppose abortion on grounds of the sanctity of human life AND (complementarily) on grounds of the suffering of the innocent? It might be argued by atheists that zygotes feel no pain. Catholics say they still have 46 chromosomes and belong to the human family! Exactly how "developed" must their nervous systems be?
@billybagbom I appreciate that many catholics use the suffering argument and I agree with you that both the soul and the suffering argument can be used together. I would not say that the suffering of an aborted human fetus is negligible from a Catholic POV but is secondary to the human/soul criteria. This is why Catholics strive to prove that a fetus is a human/soul. If suffering was the main criteria, there would be no need to prove humanness & killing animals would become immoral.
Do you think an embryo is not a child just because you can't see the little hands, feet...? so if you don't like to call him child what is it for you? isn't it human life already? and if not when is it worthy to be considered as a human being with the fundamental right to live according to you?
Unless the person was raped by their dad, or some horrendously traumatic similar event, or you know the child will be born with severe deformity, and you know the the poor thing will only live a long agonizingly difficult life, full of disability and social ostracism, people should be castrated for being irresponsible and not thinking before having sex.
What about people who never conceive a child? Are they murderers? Technically, they had the opportunity to let someone into this world and they didn't take it. If abortion is murder isn't an unwillingness to have a child also murder. Why not?
If I throw someone out of a club, or I don't let him in at all, what's the real difference? At the end, he's just out of the club and he could have been in if I was a less strict a bouncer.
You know how Aristotel considered things not just what they were but the sum of all they are and all they could be. So a seed is also a tree.
A woman is also a mother even if she never gave birth. Following me? The fact that there's no life doesn't change the fact that there could be. If you take steps to prevent life from forming you have diminish the object, therefore commited murder.
This isn't my line of thinking, why do you think many churches oppose contraception.
@Bulloxe4 I agree with what you just said, but I don't think birth control amounts to murder. To murder is to end innocent human life. If you contracept, no human is made.
The position of the Vatican is it believes all HUMAN LIFE is sacred. This includes nascent human life. The simple fact is this: When humans conceive, they conceive a HUMAN...not a sack of cells that becomes human after 90 days.
to @guy1b: I think as soon as the sperm breaks the wall of the ovum (egg) is the answer you are looking for. That sperm has 24 genes and the ovum 24 and that makes up the human 48 and the soul of course comes from God. The female has all the eggs she will ever have at birth (in different stage) and so all her genes are 'set' to so speak. The male makes the sperm during copulation. The stuff we are made of is all encrypted to unzipped including all the errors/flaws.This is why we need Jesus.
What moment constitutes the acquisition of God-given rights to a human being? At conception, as a zygote, a blastocyst, or a foetus? If there is a specific time, an abortion could be performed before that time. Before that time, it would essentially be moral by that standard. If at the moment of conception, any abortion would be considered immoral. Could you clarify for your audience the Mother Church's official view? If this question is misplaced, apology.
@Guy1b I'm not father Barron:) but i'll try to answer to your question according to the Mother Church's Magisterium. The Church teaches that at the very moment of conception there's a person in its fullness, in that moment God instils the soul in a human being. For this reason abortion is always immoral, it's not a case that the Church considers the morning-after pill as abortive and not simply as contraceptive. Hope it was clearly said:) God bless
@Guy1b Inalienable human rights must be applied to humans at every stage of the development (hence the "inalienable"), and the human life begins at the moment of conception. If you find a justification for taking away human rights at one stage of development, you can take away those rights in another --infancy, puberty, etc.
What right do politicians have to invade conscience rights of doctors? That's fascist. The EU recently re-inforced the rights of doctors (and similar workers) to follow their conscience in refusing to assist in certain elective procedures. Of course if a woman is aborting and she needs resuscitation, she should be helped in the same way a car accident victim is helped, but elective abortion should be managed by those who feel comfortable doing such immoral deeds.
A lot of times, people simply disagree with what a human being is... or at what point we gain rights. So I propose a thinking excercise. :)
Say you wake up tomorrow and you find a grown 35 year old man, complete stranger to you, grafted to you, dependent on your digestive track for survival with no other medical alternatives... would you believe it is your right to decide that you didn't ask for this and want to be seperated or would you decide this is life for you from this point on.
Well unfortunately for that thought experiment is that it is flawed. Women don't suddenly become pregnant for no rhyme or reason. Suppose in your thought exercise that you participate in a enjoyable course of action that you know could full well lead to such a predicament, namely your scenario. Even if there are methods to help avoid it, you know full well that it's not 100%. Then your scenario occurs, is it now okay to say oops no thanks, kill this guy.
@Jim1905 The idea is not to recreate the same conditions as a pregnate woman but to explore you own sense of morality... It doesn't have to make sense either :)
But even if you don't really commit yourself, in your answer, you do use that thought experiment. You are saying that the difference is choice. In one case, you chose to have the sex where as in the other... this was done to you without consent.
@HarfangX People don't get pregnant by inhalation of sperm. To become pregnant you must willingly (rape is outlawed) engage in sexual intercourse. Then even if you do become pregnant, in about 9 months you will be free again and you can always just give the baby up for abortion. A 35 yo man grafted onto you is just bizarre and this confounds any analogy to pregnancy which is the way all life reproduces sexually and how we humans strengthen our families and relationships.
@PuraguCryostato The thought experiment is strange... but the idea is just exploration here... the parameters by which you think abortion is ok or not. The bible or cathechism does not rescue you with easy clear cut answers this time... your own sense of right and wrong is solicited.
Like Jim1905 you don't commit yourself to an answer, although you seem to think the "strangeness" of the predicament and the time period, 9 months vs forever are key differences that would affect your answer?
@HarfangX If I woke up with a Siamese twin drafted to me, I would definately not blame him for his presence there. Could we be seperated safely? If yes, we'd probably opt for that, as long as he agreed. If not, we'd have to co-exist. I could seek legal ways of forcing him to reconsider IF the procedure was safe for both of us. A fetus however does not have that choice. A woman (and her selfish partner) have a choice, they can abstain from sex or have sex and keep the baby or give it away. Thanks
@PuraguCryostato also you just write off rape, just like that, when really that is a clear parameter here and the test emulates it.... unless you think the "illegality" of it is the difference and therefor... conscent is key in your answer?
My problem I have talking to pro-choice people is that in trying to stay consistent in their position, within minutes they argue themselves into the most ridiculous and abhorrent corners.
Last night as a challenged a pro-choicer's position, in an effort to cling to his view he wound up within minutes saying it was OK to kill infants or two-year-olds if they weren't wanted, or that you could kill a homeless person if he had no friends. How do I even respond to that?
@Bulloxe4 The reason why this guy said that is because he couldn't give me a reason to justify abortion that couldn't also be used to justify infanticide. So, he said, infanticide is OK.
Some mothers don't want their newborns, does that make infanticide ok?
"The fetus isn't aware of its surroundings."
At many stages where abortion occurs it can indeed feel itself being killed. And people in comas aren't aware of their surroundings. Is it OK to kill them? Do they have no rights?
It went on until he gave up and said infanticide was OK.
If parents are unable or unwilling to keep a child, is given up for adoption. The difference here is that an unborn child does not have a life outside of the womb. I do not favor abortion, but I don’t think is a good idea either to fill the jails with promiscuous teens. Abortions should be limited only to the point where medical science cannot sustain the life of the fetus outside the womb. When the fetus can be saved, abortions should be illegal and replaced by a mechanism for adoption.
@dejesusluisx If it is not human life, deserving of the same protections of human life, then why go through the trouble of inventing such a hypothetical procedure? If it is ever going to be deserving of the protections afforded human life, why start only later and not now?
@benabaxter When you make something illegal, you loose all control over it. You cannot regulate and assure the well being of the parties involved. Same happens with drugs and look where we are. Again, I am against abortion, but same as drugs, making it illegal will not eliminate the practice. You have to be morally right but also realistic. If we do not learn from past mistakes... What I propose provides an alternative within the law in a morally sensible way.
@dejesusluisx What you suggest is a little silly. Should we make murder legal to control that too? Have a thieves’ guild? A government department overseeing legal fraud? What about accredited child abuse centres?
Really, if it's wrong to kill someone, you don't provide places for those who really want to kill to do so with little harm to themselves. When you look at how laws really work, what you suggest is the opposite of being realistic.
@twoplugs You are morally right but practically wrong. A woman who has decided not to have a child will not stop to think if it's legal or not; she will find a way. Making it ilegal is not going to save that life. If I had a daughter in that situation I would do anything in my power to avoid that terrible decision, I would even put her in jail BEFORE to save that life, but we cannot read minds, or control people 24/7. That is why the Holy Father changed Church stance on condoms. (continue...)
@dejesusluisx You seem confused. The 'Holy Father' hasn't changed the Church's stance about anything. 1) A book length interview is NOT an act of the Magisterium, nothing a Pope says in that context can possibly change ‘the Church’s stance’ on anything, and 2) Nothing Benedict said about condoms was a change of position. Did you read what he ACTUALLY said? He said condoms are immoral and not a real solution to the HIV problem, and never said their use was ever permissible. Nothing’s changed.
@twoplugs I have to admit that I only heard what the media published. I stand corrected. Nevertheless, the argument of not being able to prevent these things from happening is still valid.
@twoplugs Remember now it’s legal. What I propose is an improvement over the current status and a way to gradually reduce the number of abortions until completely eliminated. This is so because science will continue it’s advances to allow saving the fetus life at even earlier stages. Continuous improvement is part of human nature; this will happen and eventually there would be no abortions. In the meantime we would continue our militancy to save as many as we can. God Bless.
@dejesusluisx Secondly: I’m right practically. Whatever you do to reduce abortions while they’re legal can equally be done while they’re illegal, without the absurdity of legitimising what you claim to be wrong by (in your opinion) assisting people to murder. Having your actions contradict what you say with your mouth is not a practical way to get a point across. You also have facts against you. Where in the world has the decriminalisation of abortion led to the lowering of the abortion rate?
@twoplugs You will not change the current legal position if you do not offer a choice. You can be mad about it, but it won't make a difference. The reality is that abortions are legal and the way you present your opposition is getting you nowhere. It’s nonsense to expect different results doing the same thing. A change in strategy is needed.
@dejesusluisx True, the current law won’t change to treat abortion as murder because people don’t believe abortion is murder. However, trying to compromise won’t work either. The primary problem is that if you ‘offer choice’, you tacitly agree with the prevailing opinion that abortion is a legitimate option, and you won’t convince anyone to restrict access to something that is legitimate. So you’ve got to convince them of ‘my idea’, that abortion is wrong, before they’ll even consider yours.
@twoplugs I might be wrong, but is my impression that the mayority of people know abortions are wrong, including most of the women that go through it. The problem is that their shame, life situation or financial need is stronger than their morality. We are at a dead end, it might not be mine, but a different tactic needs to be explored. God Bless.
@dejesusluisx - "but a different tactic needs to be explored" I've often thought the same thing. To me, praying in front of an abortion clinic makes women feel like they're being condemned or that we're imposing religion on them. It also seems like that's the only thing christianity talks about when there are other issues as well. I don't have the answers but something more innovative needs to be done...
How can embryo in early stage be called human being? A lot of imagination is needed to see something else than few tissues. Working nervous system is absolutely necessary for embryo to become human being and there is no nervous activity till third month. So how can ending pregnancy in second week be a murder?
@OlejzMaku Well, in an embryo there's something you cannot see but which makes it a human being: the soul. At the moment of conception God instils a soul. Now if you're a non believer you can at least see it from a scientific point of view and reach the same conclusion. According to science a human being is made of its gene pool in which all the information about the person is contained. So at the moment of conception the gene pool is formed (46 cromosomes=23+23).
@littlemary86 Genetic information is human being? So when human genom was read and saved in computer file, that file became human being? And if I delete that file I am committing murder?
@OlejzMaku You shouldn't ask me this question, as a believer of course i think that a human being is much more than genetic information...this is the problem with people who say that a person is only made by its biological parts.
@littlemary86 Well its not my problem either. I am defining human being as some product of nervous system. I dont need to know exatly what product to conclude that human being cannot exist without working nervous system.
@littlemary86 I cannot sence what you believe in. I can only react to your words. You wrote that according to science human being begin to exist in the moment of concempion, when gen pool is put together. Unless you hiding something else it means genetic information is actualy human being. If you dont believe that you schould express yourself better. It would also help if you explain what is there more than biologicals part and why you believe that.
@OlejzMaku What i wrote is just a conclusion that i reached after hearing scientists say that all that we are is contained in our genetic pool (information about eye colour, skin colour, height...) if it's so then at conception there must be a person. Being religious, i believe a person is not only made of biological and chemical parts, it's a spiritual being because of a God given soul at the moment of conception. So, i was thinking about the possibility that both believers and unbelievers
@littlemary86 How you reached that conclusion? I dont get why there had to be person if there is information. Does it mean that if there is blueprint there had to be building? Also what reason you have to believe God give soul at the moment of conception beside being believer? Believe beause you are believer sound like cylcular reasoning to me.
@OlejzMaku Let's just put it this way if you prefer: don't you think that saying life begins at conception would be a good way to avoid abortion? to give life the chance to develop naturally? when i hear people arguing wether or not a 90 days foetus is to be considered a person or you need to wait one or two more days i really find it pathetic...even if you don't believe in the existence of soul you know that en embryo has all the potential to develop into a human being...so just let nature
@littlemary86 Why avoid abortion? Complicated pregnacy when mothers health or life is theaten, pregnant rape victims or unwanted prenancy ( there is not enought adoptive oarents ) could be good reasons for abortion. Abortion should be an option.
@OlejzMaku Is the mother's life wortier than the child's? will you delete the shock of a rape by killing the baby? adding crime to crime? let me tell you here in italy where i live there are more couples who would like to adopt than children needing a family.
@littlemary86 We are talking about embrios not children. You need to explain how can one day old embrio be human being and back it up with something more than believe than you can ask these questions.
Adoptiove parents choose usualy only nice healthy newborn babies so not and childen can have adoptive parents.
@KnightOwl2006 - Conservatives taking this kind of single-issue hard line is probably a big pat of why abortion is still legal in this country. There are millions of pro-life Democrats, and they aren't confused. It's just that neither party fits the label "pro-life" very well.
Most Republicans want to ban abortion, but they tend to support war and executions, and they often oppose the social safety net, leading to the rather valid accusation that they only care about fetuses -- not children.
@TheCrookedTimber - I don't think that's inescapable. It depends on where you draw particular lines that are hard to draw. If you accept the idea that a zygote = a human being, then yeah, a newborn baby deserves no more protection than a zygote.
If you believe (as I do) that we achieve "human being" status at some undefinable point in the third trimester, then Singer's wrong: a newborn is more deserving of rights and protection than a developing fetus that has not yet reached that point.
@TheCrookedTimber - I think there are people who say that, or who would say that, if you pushed them. But most people are politically savvy enough to know that's not very convincing, as even people who accept The Bible as authoritative may have different interpretations of it. I am slightly familiar with Singer's work, but not enough to fully comment. His position is not the same as mine, which questions whether a few cells should really have the same legal/ethical status as a human being.
You talk about children being killed as this yanks the chain of any moral person. It does to me. Is the morning after pill the same? When does a bundle of cells become a child of god? Why do you feel you have an answer to this question other than you suggest that pregnancy is god's will - I presume that is your position.? Otherwise let a woman decide - she is the host of the cells. Catholicism is a patriarchal religion ( aint they all?) hence the difficulties.
@bigguitar22 Well, leave God out of it for the moment. I go with the scientists who tell me that from the moment of conception, we are dealing with a recognizably human reality.
All well and good father and I agree but until we start treating human life outside the womb with the dignity, then are we really surprised about the problem of abortion. It seems to me that much of american Christianity, mostly Protestant I would say, is obsessed with this issue to the exclusion of almost all others, apart from homosexuality perhaps. Meanwhile, many who seek abortions come from poor communities who could do with the same kind of advocacy u r showing to the unborn...
brendos444 2 weeks ago
@brendos444 yet we don't see this.. Again, Protestant ideology in America seems to embrace the kind of individual freedom to choose that philosophers like Ayn Rand and FA Hayek promote. Freedom to not take care of the poor if you don't want, freedom to make heaps of money, freedom to do anything you want. And yet, when it comes to abortion they somehow make an exception... I think, ironically, pro-choice is umbilically linked to the "freedom" ideology we see in puritanical evangelical America.
brendos444 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@brendos444 yet we don't see this.. Again, Protestant ideology in America seems to embrace the kind of individual freedom to choose that philosophers like Ayn Rand and FA Hayek promote. Freedom to not take care of the poor if you don't want, freedom to make heaps of money, freedom to do anything you want. And yet, when it comes to abortion they somehow make an exception... I think, ironically, pro-choice is umbilically linked to the "freedom" ideology we see in puritanical evangelical America.
brendos444 2 weeks ago
God bless you Father and thank you. These things needed to be said. This was thorough, honest, and, as always, very eloquently presented. My question is this: what would you propose as a healthy, moral alternative to an abortion?
Thanks again!
seanbsworldwide 3 weeks ago
How many of the aborted pregnancies are requested by Catholic women?
Mrmentalmadness123 1 month ago
@Mrmentalmadness123 None, Catholicism is the believe in Christ and His Mystical body the Church and practicing His teachings. So just like you can't have a football player that doesnt play football, you can't have a catholic that doesnt practice Christ teachings. Altho if done by ignorance or for any other reason, with a valid baptism and a firm purpose of amendment, you can be restored into sanctifying grace.
Grma008 1 month ago
Abortion is murder in just the same way the the death penalty is murder, or a soldier invading another country and shooting someone is murder, or a cop killing someone becasue they didn't stop when they commanded to is murder.
Murder is murder. Period.As Catholics we cannot kill. We cannot support murderers. Wether they are state sanctioned or not makes no difference. We follow God first and the state second where it does not contravine God's laws.
Infiltratr 2 months ago in playlist More videos from wordonfirevideo
@Infiltratr "Murder is murder. Period.As Catholics we cannot kill. We cannot support murderers."
WTF -- catholic were responsable for kill and torturing poeple in the crusades and inqustion.. or are you saying catholic cannot kill unless the Pope says God told him it was Ok
badpanda84 1 month ago
@badpanda84 Do you really need me to explain it to you???????
Infiltratr 1 month ago
@Infiltratr well how can the inqustions and crusades be condone by the catholic church ( which involved killing in Gods name)
badpanda84 1 month ago
@Infiltratr "We follow God first and the state second where it does not contravine God's laws"
SO explain the crusades and the inqusition -- why was murdering and killing people OK then.
badpanda84 1 month ago
@badpanda84 Was murdering and killing OK then? I must have missed that memo....
Infiltratr 1 month ago
@Infiltratr While I agree with you that we cannot murder, I wouldn't say death penalty is murder. Death penalty is something brought upon someone by himself alone. If it's anyone's fault, it's solely the criminal's. And if the war is just, it's not morally equivalent to killing an innocent baby, for example.
cashernandes1 1 week ago
Part 2: Now definetly something must be done on healthcare about it and that is to erradicate abortion and provide information and psychological help for the woman that have gone through an abortion or are thinking about abortion, beacause as it is now abortion clinics use eugenic policies and are negligent, to say the least, to push their agendas so Pick your side Pro Life or pro death do not be a mediocre. =)
Grma008 2 months ago
@Grma008 Guff! Learn to spell!
Mrmentalmadness123 1 month ago
Part 1: Wow some people are so intelligent that they dont use common sense lets try to break through that intellectual pride and see things the way they are. Here's an example: two woman are pregnant, one of them goes and has an abortion, the other one doesn't... then the time comes for the baby to be born one goes and she gives birth, the other has already "chosen" to kill her baby, so the child that would have been born that day, is dead... Can we see how brutal this is... (see Part 2)
Grma008 2 months ago
stupid, a born sentient slave is not some unwanted, human-parasitic-fetus that needs a woman's body to survive, and her will and legal rights to abort.
FREEAMERICANOW69 3 months ago
Surely Jeffrey Toobin, a graduate of Harvard Law School and smart enough to be an editor for Harvard Law Review, has heard of the "naturalistic fallacy" or the "is-ought gap."
Perhaps every philosopher since Hume was wrong where Jeffrey Toobin has gained some heretofore-unpublished, but groundbreaking insight into metaethics.
migkillertwo 5 months ago
I suggest you make a video about the ten commandments. Explaining exactly what each of them mean. Start with number 10. What exactly does that man servant part mean?
9921yourwong 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
A mere shift in spatial locality from inside to outside the womb does not determine that a baby is human, alive, or deserving of rights.
This is an irrelevant distinction without a real difference propagated by the exact same genocidal mentality that turns a human being into an object before killing it so it can justify its murder with a clean conscience.
grunderlyme 5 months ago
Comment removed
grunderlyme 5 months ago
Abortion is genocide. It's murdering a baby. Do you have a "baby" shower or a fetus" shower.
chase82 6 months ago 5
@chase82 it isn't genocide - throwing that term around loosely makes light of the holocaust and Rwanda, Kosovo etc. What I will say is that it is the equivalent of murder and that it represents a significant human rights issue which most groups have neglected out of political correctness
trouter2000 1 month ago
Comment removed
ScutigeraColeoptrata 6 months ago
Comment removed
ScutigeraColeoptrata 6 months ago
Comment removed
ScutigeraColeoptrata 6 months ago
very eloquent!
irishgal2002697 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Its been a great week here in Ireland. Our new priminister finally gave the pope a proper going over re: the lies, cover ups, and ongoing abuses of the catholic church in relation to innocent children. Telling him that the rule of law supercedes canon law. Not being from Ireland, you would never appreciate the control the church had on all levels of government, the police, and everyday people. The church was never questioned and we have a history of destroyed lives because of blind faith!
newfrontier01 7 months ago
@BibleBeliever994
For instance, we know some people are gay. They are sexually attracted to the same sex.
But religious people preach there are no gay people. Gay people are for them just sinners.
And they think like that because they believe there is an all mighty creator who made laws of sexual conduct.
Bulloxe4 8 months ago
@Bulloxe4 I have never heard religious people say there are no gay people. That notwithstanding, like Fr. Barron says, just because it is prevalent or even natural, doesn't make it good. Alcoholism, for example, has at least a significant genetic predisposition, but noone would claim that it follows that it is good.
MrJohnnywonny 8 months ago
@MrJohnnywonny
I'll send you a message
Bulloxe4 8 months ago
The ultimate problem is people believe in god.
This prevents them to see things as they are.
Bulloxe4 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Bulloxe4 "The ultimate problem is people believe in god.
This prevents them to see things as they are." Give me an example concerning your assertion.
billybagbom 8 months ago
Excuse me, I'm a troll. but please indulge me. If human life is a continuity from conception until death (as Catholic-Christianity maintains), why is impossible to extend full human rights to the unborn? You might consider it naive, ill-advised, or unworkable, from your perspective, Those who abuse children should be subject to legal penalties. If human life is discernable, it is worthy of protection. Prove to me that a zygote (having at least 46 chromosomes and human DNA) is not a human.
billybagbom 10 months ago
@billybagbom
I can't prove to you a zygote isn't a human because a human is not a well defined term precisely because of these extremes. I also can't prove to you my 102 year old demented, senile, paralysed, blind grandfather is human because he doesn't move or speak.
You're asking for proof, but it's not about proof, it's about the view on the matter.
PS, my grandfather in this comment is hypothetical, I do not have a grandfather like that.
Bulloxe4 8 months ago
@Bulloxe4 So are you sayiing that if you view a particular organism as "human," it's human, but if you don't, it's not? Well, that seems to be the current jurisprudence, and it works conveniently for pro-abortion advocates and people with sick or elderly relatives who can't be bothered (I understand that your "grandfather" was hypothetical here). But there are indeed objective and scientific criteria of human identity. The human genome has been pretty well mapped out..
billybagbom 8 months ago
@billybagbom
I know there is an objective way to discern a human being from other animals or other objects or from nothing. That's not the question.
The question is granting rights. What is legally considered a human being with full rights? That is something which is dependant on how we view life. You believe that a concevied child has full rights, some believe unconcevied children also have full rights.
Personally I think birth is a good line.
Bulloxe4 8 months ago
@Bulloxe4 See, this is the whole problem with secularism and atheism. "Personally, I think...," and who can gainsay you? What if the year was 1959, and I were to say to you, "I know that black people can reproduce with white people, so they're obviously human. But, just the same, should they be considered LEGALLY human, 'with full rights'? I mean, we just make this stuff up as we go along, right? Personally, I think Caucasion is a good line." See the problem?
billybagbom 8 months ago
@billybagbom
I'm sorry but your comparison is just plain stupid. I'm pro-abortion because born and alive people have a certain right of CHOICE. Or at least I believe they should.
A right to make their own medical choices, to marry who they want,...
To forbid inter racial marriage is limiting the choice of those same people. To put it this way : THE REASON WHY I'M PRO ABORTION IS THE SAME AS WHY I'M NOT ANTI RACIAL MIXING.
So no, I don't see the problem.
Think out your comparisons.
Bulloxe4 8 months ago
@Bulloxe4 Yeah, but what are the limits to that choice? You don't think that people can choose to do anything at all, do you? Therefore, you have to move the discussion to another level. Defending a limitless right to "choose" is just morally a non-starter.
wordonfirevideo 8 months ago
@wordonfirevideo
Of course theres limit to the choice of a human being. You don't have the right to own slaves for instance.
When I advocate a position people always assume I'm defending the absoute extreme of it.
I am a great believer that people alone should have the right to chose what happens to their bodies. Make own medical choices, to give birth or not, euthanasia; In my opinion should always be left for people to decide for themselfs and never decided for them, by the state or other.
Bulloxe4 8 months ago
@Bulloxe4 No, sir. Usually, I'm polite, and apologize, and I admit when I have been wrong. But, in this case, I leave it to the readers of this vlog to decide. I do not admit stupidity, nor do I see any consistency in your argument.
billybagbom 8 months ago
@Bulloxe4 But I should be more charitable; perhaps you really don't get it. Let me try again. Do you believe that the legal protection of one's human rights should be determined by one's address (outside vs. inside the womb? Perhaps by one's age (9 months or older)? Yeah, I'm sure you are pro-abortion for the same reason you now accept racial mixing: you have been indoctrinated into the secular, postmodern world. You love Big Brother. Congratulations. Things could be worse...
billybagbom 8 months ago
@billybagbom
So, you do not accept racial mixing?
Yes, I already said, as far as I'm concerned, birth is a good line. Granted, there is a limit as how far you can make the abortion. I think it's something like 20 weeks, but thats not important.
And how would you decide who's rights to protect. Based on do you understand or agree with their views perhaps? Based on their religion perhaps?
And what's wrong with secularism?
Bulloxe4 8 months ago
@Bulloxe4 When did I say I was against racial mixing? My point is that it was once taken for granted in our society that those of African descent were not fully human and could be treated as such. The US Supreme Court said so (Dredd Scott v Sandford, 1857). Thankfully, the consensus on that issue changed for a variety of reasons. Currently, our society and its Supreme Court won't protect all human life. I think you should consider the possibility that our society is wrong on this issue. Peace.
billybagbom 8 months ago
@billybagbom
You see, your society once people were force to be slaves. NOBODY is forcing people to undergo abortions. This is a very important distinction. Abortion is a matter of choice. I think it should remain as such.
I'm not advocating state policy, in fact I disagree on a number of issues with our society. I know it can be wrong.
My personal opinion is that you christians don't have the right to make these choices for other people. That's it.
Bulloxe4 8 months ago
@Bulloxe4 If the fetus is a human being (which, scientifically and objectively, it is) then when it is aborted a human life is taken. Nobody should have the right to choose to take the life of an innocent human being. Nobody was forcing white plantation owners to own slaves. The Confederacy was "pro-choice" on the issue. "Don't like slavery? Don't own one!" But the situation was fundamentally unjust, because the poor slave had no "choice" in the matter, just as the multitudes of aborted humans.
billybagbom 8 months ago
@billybagbom
Yea, I guess that's the main point of disagrement on the entire issue. You just can't bring yourself to view it as just a fetus. I just don't see a fetus equal to a born man.
Bulloxe4 8 months ago
@Bulloxe4 So we're back to square one, which I imagined we had surpassed. "I can't prove to you a zygote isn't a human because a human is not a well defined term precisely because of these extremes. I also can't prove to you my 102 year old demented, senile, paralysed, blind grandfather is human because he doesn't move or speak." So go ahead; unplug Gramps. After all, who's to say, right?
billybagbom 8 months ago
@billybagbom
I am a big believer in euthanasia. Abortion is different.
I don't think we ever moved from square one to be frank.
There are actually laws which protect prenatal life, you know. So you can do abortion only in the early stages of pregnancy. The fetus then is really undevelopt. So I don't think it should be that big of a deal.
It's really pointless, we will never move from square one because you will never except anything different then abortion = murder.
Bulloxe4 8 months ago
@Bulloxe4 I am a big opponent of euthanasia for the same reasons I oppose abortion. Once, advocates of abortion used to deny that the "product of conception" was human. This tack is being abandoned because it is so demonstrably false, so now an appeal is made to distinguish human life from human life that should be granted rights. And guess who is going to determine that? People already born, who are stronger and smarter and more fit to survive. Welcome to the Brave New World. Might makes right
billybagbom 8 months ago
@billybagbom
Did you ever see a late stage of some terminal diseases? Do you know how it's like to have nothing but a few months of pointless and excruciating pain, undignified self defication, loss of all abilities? Do you know how it's like to reach a point when you can't even recognise people you loved and who love you?
I understand you see possible misuse of euthanasia, but there are times when it is a mercifull act.
It's not about eugenics. Or about sanctity of life, it's about mercy.
Bulloxe4 8 months ago
@Bulloxe4 To address your questions in order: Yes. No. No. (How would you have answered?) I am amazed by the historical naivete of so many who advocate euthanasia and abortion. It always starts with talk of compassion and human dignity and mercy. Certain "hard cases" are used to mold public opinion. In the end, someone decides that someone else has a life not worth living, and the parameters for human life worthy of protection coincide suspiciously with one's own power interests.
billybagbom 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@billybagbom
Those were retorical questions, you didn't have to answer them.
Discern a private matter from a public one. Euthanasia and abortion are private decisions of a single pearson or his familly.
A form of euthanasia is practised everyday, when they unhook a machine supported patient who has no chance of recovering. DNR, you know.
Again, this isn't something the public will ever have the right ( or the wish ) to decide.
Bulloxe4 8 months ago
@billybagbom
Don't bring eugenics into this because that's not what abortion or euthanasia is about.
Bulloxe4 8 months ago
@Bulloxe4 No, it's never about eugenics in the beginning. The Nazis didn't begin by saying, "We're going to overturn centuries of human philosophical and religious tradition, build a master race and rid society of these parasites and useless eaters" (although the Final Solution was implicit there in Hitler's "Mein Kampf"). Genocide is an ugly word. All effective social engineering starts with linguistic engineering. Google "The Charitable Transport Company for the Sick" if you don't believe me.
billybagbom 8 months ago
@billybagbom
I just can't believe you see the rise of nazism in abortion. Do you really think that since abortion is legal someone will one day say, hey this killing thing is usefull, you know what we should do. We should kill some people. Yea, call it adult abortion.
We could do all the cripples, invalids, defects first. Maybe the jews later.
Are you really telling me that's how you see this developing?
Bulloxe4 8 months ago
@Bulloxe4 I'm telling you that's how these things always develop. You really need to get some historical perspective. There are always social and political forces and agendas at work in current affairs, sometimes with conscious and deliberate intent, sometimes working toward common goals without a deliberate plan. You can caricature anything and make it sound ridiculous; that doesn't prove it to be wrong. I know that the scenario you described happened in recent history. "Never forget."
billybagbom 8 months ago
@billybagbom
I absolutely did not caricurate anything. Caricature is when you blow something out of proportion. Like you draw someone with a huge nose.
I actually said exactly what you're saying, that abortion will ultimately lead to genocide.
Ok, give me a specific example of a scenario you're talking about.
Bulloxe4 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Bulloxe4 This is not caricature:"Do you really think that since abortion is legal someone will one day say, hey this killing thing is usefull, you know what we should do. We should kill some people. Yea, call it adult abortion.
We could do all the cripples, invalids, defects first. Maybe the jews later.
Are you really telling me that's how you see this developing?" Are you serious?
billybagbom 8 months ago
@billybagbom
That's excatly what you're saying.
If something is blown out of proportion, I'm not the one who made it such. I agree that it's caricaturistic. But you're the one telling me abortion will lead to genocide. That's caricaturistic to me. It's so ridiculus that I don't know what to do but joke about it.
Bulloxe4 8 months ago
@Bulloxe4 It was no joke to the Jews and Poles and Slavs and Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholics and evangelical Protestants and homosexuals and disabled and Jehovah's Witnesses and other dissenters and those deemed officially subhuman by the Third Reich. But of course, that ever happen again.
billybagbom 8 months ago
@billybagbom
Yea, change the subject.
That's what you people do best.
I'm don't think genocide is ridiculus, I think people who think abortion is a natural pathway to genocide are ridiculus.
Bulloxe4 8 months ago
@Bulloxe4 Well, all I can say at this point is that you probably are the product of the modern education system, which means that as long as you regurgitated the political correctness and social programming you were spoon-fed from kindergarten through college, you passed with flying colors. This is not a changing of the subject, in my opinion. This goes very much to the heart of the problem: lack of historical and philosophical understanding. And Christians are supposed to be the gullible ones.
billybagbom 8 months ago
@billybagbom
No, it's you who are gullible if you think atheism is what lead to the rise of nazism, and if you think abortion will lead to the rise of fascism in america then you don't understand how these things come to be. From a historical perspective.
It's a complete change of subject because you can't stand behind your words. You think abortion will lead to genocide. But when someone confronts you with that you talk about the victims of WW2, modern education system, PC,...
Bulloxe4 8 months ago
@Bulloxe4 I am saying that there are many components to the rise of totalitarianism and genocide. You caricature this by implying a simplistic and inevitable route from atheism to the Third Reich, or abortion to the Final Solution. Ideas have consequences, and once certain configurations of ideas are in place within a population (eg., there is no absolute authority by which to judge the action of the state; certain human lives are unworthy to be lived, etc.), the unthinkable becomes possible.
billybagbom 8 months ago
@billybagbom
You're telling me, that I'm implying a simplistic and inevitable route from atheism to the Third Reich, or abortion to the Final Solution.
My entire problem with your argument here is that you are doing that exact thing.
Now what you're saying is: "No No No, it's not that simple, you're simplifying it, it's a configuration if ideas you see, and when an idea is adopted it is always carried out to the extreme you know."
Bulloxe4 8 months ago
@Bulloxe4 No, I am sorry if you missed my point again. I am trying to be as clear as I can, but you seem to be intent on missing my point. Historical precents are something that historically astute persons would undertstand and would be wary of when deliberating on public policy. There are historical precedents that should be heeded.
billybagbom 8 months ago
@billybagbom
Yea, I get your point, it's just that your argument is bad. We're done, no good can come out of this discussion.
You just keep saying things which are basically the same as "god works in mysterious ways".
"No, no, you see, you don't get it, there are historical precedents which I won't name that you just don't get."
"No, no, abortion doesn't lead to genocide except that it does but don't say it so directly, it sounds stupid like that."
Bulloxe4 8 months ago
@billybagbom
You're like a comedian who doesn't see his own comedy. I'm just representing it like it is, as comedy.
And BTW, there is an absolute authority by which to judge the action of the state. It's called the constitution. No law may oppose the constitution. Even though there were times when men oof low morale saw fit to ignore it because of "national security".
But that's an entirely different thing.
Bulloxe4 8 months ago
@Bulloxe4 Okay. Well, glad I could amuse you.I think we're done now. You win. I am completely blown out of the water. The philosphical sophistication and broad historical perspective of dogmatic materialists never ceases to amaze me. When will I learn to quit trying to defeat such profound arguments? Oh, and thanks for reassuring me about the Constitution. That 's a great comfort to liberty-loving people everywhere.
billybagbom 8 months ago
@billybagbom
I don't see it as winning. I really wouldn't call myself a dogmatic materialists, but if you see me as such, ok, as you wish.
My advice to you is that you don't try do defeat an argument, instead try to build one.
Bulloxe4 8 months ago
@Bulloxe4 Okay. Thanks for the advice. Maybe we could work together sometime -- you know, me as your apprentice...
billybagbom 8 months ago
@billybagbom
Asshole
Bulloxe4 8 months ago
@Bulloxe4 At last! We agree on something!
billybagbom 8 months ago
Comment removed
Bulloxe4 8 months ago
@billybagbom
To clarify, I think euthanasia and abortion are two different issues. I am a strong proponent of euthanasia for reasons I already stated.
Now, I don't like abortion, I would like it if there's more sexual responsibility, less abortion. But I still think that it should be allowed for people to abort in the early stages of pregnancy ( which it is ).
Bulloxe4 8 months ago
@billybagbom
So, let's focus on the main point.
Is a zygote a human? No nervous system, no eyes and no toung, no thoughts, nothing. It's on road to become a human being, but it still isn't.
Basically, the only human thing it has is the human genome. But your saliva, your hair, your blood, all those things have the human genome.
Bulloxe4 8 months ago
@Bulloxe4 What should be the minimal IQ required to claim human identity? How developed would the hearing and eyesight have to be? Would Helen Keller have made the cut? Beethoven? The Irish poet Christie Brown? If standards of physical strength or agility were to be applied, exactly when would Stephen Hawking be excluded? Rhetorical questions, but the point is, you see human value as a matter of quality of life; I see it as a matter of sanctity of life. We both believe in mercy, I think.
billybagbom 8 months ago
@billybagbom
Of course HK, CB, LWB,... would "make the cut".
Cogito ergo sum.
It's not a hard condition. Every man, woman or child on this planet would pass it, no matter how sick, deformed or defected they are.
But a zygote wouldn't.
Bulloxe4 8 months ago
@billybagbom
I'll ask you something which you don't have to answer. Are you oppose to eating meat?
I'm not, but lately if been reading all these reserch which show that animals which we eat have a much more complex emotinal and intelectual life then we thought.
Granted, never near a human, but they feel sad, scared,... They seem to be a lot more concious then we think?
So, at what point will we consider eating them morally wrong?
When does survival become eugenics in your world?
Bulloxe4 8 months ago
@Bulloxe4 I'm sure there are probably chimpanzees and maybe dolphins with intellectual abilities close to those of my Down Syndrome god-daughter. I would not want to eat or kill these species, but would not equate such an act with manslaughter. It is the approximation of these higher animals to our own characteristics that makes them more sacred to me than a cow. I would eat pork, though, even though pigs are quite intelligent. I would not eat my god-daughter under ordinary circumstances.
billybagbom 8 months ago
@billybagbom
Im saying, you deem human life as sacred. But is it sacred just because it is, or for some other reasons. Conscience maybe? Empathy? Personality? Emotions?
Now it seems that some animals which we kill in massive numbers have all those things which make a human so special and sacred, just not as complex.
I wan't to make a point of sanctity of life. "I would do this, I would do that."
Excatly, that's what I mean when I say a human life is a subjective term in the extreme ends.
Bulloxe4 8 months ago
@Bulloxe4 I know you don't. Human life is a continuity, from the first human pair to all descended from them. And there is no clear demarcation from the zygote to the fetus to he neo-natal to the infant to the toddler to the child to the adolescent to the the adult to the geriatric. Don't you see that these are all arbitrary distinctions that cannot be made into hard and fast rules about when to start respecting human life? The same is true of "trimesters" in pregnancy. Who says?
billybagbom 8 months ago
@billybagbom
Do you think DNR orders should be legal?
Bulloxe4 8 months ago
@billybagbom This is not just a problem with secularism and atheism but theism too. Morals change and evolve. You just have to read the Bible on slavery. Israelites were considered superior to other races and could not be purchased as slaves but other races could.Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT As to rights of one human over another read. (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB).
zearro53 8 months ago
Abortion is also objectionable to non theistic Buddhists but for very different reasons than from Catholicism. For the Buddhist the "unborn child" suffers. It is the suffering that makes the act of abortion wrong, not the child's humanness. Catholics generally accept the "need" to eat meat justifies some suffering of non human animals. Suffering for Catholics, therefore, is not the issue but the uncertainty over what will happen to the unbaptised unborn child's immortal soul i.e damnation.
zearro53 10 months ago
@zearro53 If you think that the suffering of an aborted fetus is negligible from a Catholic/Orthodox POV, you are mistaken. Why must it be "either"/"or"? Why can't apostolic Christians oppose abortion on grounds of the sanctity of human life AND (complementarily) on grounds of the suffering of the innocent? It might be argued by atheists that zygotes feel no pain. Catholics say they still have 46 chromosomes and belong to the human family! Exactly how "developed" must their nervous systems be?
billybagbom 10 months ago
@billybagbom I appreciate that many catholics use the suffering argument and I agree with you that both the soul and the suffering argument can be used together. I would not say that the suffering of an aborted human fetus is negligible from a Catholic POV but is secondary to the human/soul criteria. This is why Catholics strive to prove that a fetus is a human/soul. If suffering was the main criteria, there would be no need to prove humanness & killing animals would become immoral.
zearro53 10 months ago
@zearro53 Agreed.
billybagbom 8 months ago
@zearro53
What is a soul?
Bulloxe4 8 months ago
Did we just give citizenship to fetuses? Because if we did there are some rather interesting consequences.
gnoxycat 11 months ago
Excellent argument against abortion. Keep up the good work Fr. Barron
casperdog777 1 year ago
It is time to reframe the argument about when conception occurs because it is a waste of time and just distracts from the truth.
Conception is greater, and is above any argument regarding the organic nature of human life.
lets us see if some of you can think beyond the carnal, and raise your thinking to the spiritual level
archangel1187 1 year ago
Fantastic video. :-)
AnAngelOfMercy 1 year ago
Do you think an embryo is not a child just because you can't see the little hands, feet...? so if you don't like to call him child what is it for you? isn't it human life already? and if not when is it worthy to be considered as a human being with the fundamental right to live according to you?
littlemary86 1 year ago
Unless the person was raped by their dad, or some horrendously traumatic similar event, or you know the child will be born with severe deformity, and you know the the poor thing will only live a long agonizingly difficult life, full of disability and social ostracism, people should be castrated for being irresponsible and not thinking before having sex.
artisticlatino07 1 year ago
What about people who never conceive a child? Are they murderers? Technically, they had the opportunity to let someone into this world and they didn't take it. If abortion is murder isn't an unwillingness to have a child also murder. Why not?
If I throw someone out of a club, or I don't let him in at all, what's the real difference? At the end, he's just out of the club and he could have been in if I was a less strict a bouncer.
Bulloxe4 1 year ago
@Bulloxe4 "What about people who never conceive a child? Are they murderers? "
No. To murder is to end innocent human life. If they haven't conceived a child, there's no human life to end and murder is impossible by definition.
Jugglable 1 year ago
@Jugglable
You know how Aristotel considered things not just what they were but the sum of all they are and all they could be. So a seed is also a tree.
A woman is also a mother even if she never gave birth. Following me? The fact that there's no life doesn't change the fact that there could be. If you take steps to prevent life from forming you have diminish the object, therefore commited murder.
This isn't my line of thinking, why do you think many churches oppose contraception.
Bulloxe4 1 year ago
@Bulloxe4 I agree with what you just said, but I don't think birth control amounts to murder. To murder is to end innocent human life. If you contracept, no human is made.
Jugglable 1 year ago
The position of the Vatican is it believes all HUMAN LIFE is sacred. This includes nascent human life. The simple fact is this: When humans conceive, they conceive a HUMAN...not a sack of cells that becomes human after 90 days.
zztestenglish 1 year ago
@zztestenglish
actually, a sack of cell is a better description then a human.
Bulloxe4 8 months ago
to @guy1b: I think as soon as the sperm breaks the wall of the ovum (egg) is the answer you are looking for. That sperm has 24 genes and the ovum 24 and that makes up the human 48 and the soul of course comes from God. The female has all the eggs she will ever have at birth (in different stage) and so all her genes are 'set' to so speak. The male makes the sperm during copulation. The stuff we are made of is all encrypted to unzipped including all the errors/flaws.This is why we need Jesus.
Clarissa2go 1 year ago
Dear Father Barron,
What moment constitutes the acquisition of God-given rights to a human being? At conception, as a zygote, a blastocyst, or a foetus? If there is a specific time, an abortion could be performed before that time. Before that time, it would essentially be moral by that standard. If at the moment of conception, any abortion would be considered immoral. Could you clarify for your audience the Mother Church's official view? If this question is misplaced, apology.
Guy1b 1 year ago 6
@Guy1b I'm not father Barron:) but i'll try to answer to your question according to the Mother Church's Magisterium. The Church teaches that at the very moment of conception there's a person in its fullness, in that moment God instils the soul in a human being. For this reason abortion is always immoral, it's not a case that the Church considers the morning-after pill as abortive and not simply as contraceptive. Hope it was clearly said:) God bless
littlemary86 1 year ago
@Guy1b Inalienable human rights must be applied to humans at every stage of the development (hence the "inalienable"), and the human life begins at the moment of conception. If you find a justification for taking away human rights at one stage of development, you can take away those rights in another --infancy, puberty, etc.
Mystagogia87 9 months ago
thanks father!
BIGBobJohn23 1 year ago
What right do politicians have to invade conscience rights of doctors? That's fascist. The EU recently re-inforced the rights of doctors (and similar workers) to follow their conscience in refusing to assist in certain elective procedures. Of course if a woman is aborting and she needs resuscitation, she should be helped in the same way a car accident victim is helped, but elective abortion should be managed by those who feel comfortable doing such immoral deeds.
PuraguCryostato 1 year ago
A lot of times, people simply disagree with what a human being is... or at what point we gain rights. So I propose a thinking excercise. :)
Say you wake up tomorrow and you find a grown 35 year old man, complete stranger to you, grafted to you, dependent on your digestive track for survival with no other medical alternatives... would you believe it is your right to decide that you didn't ask for this and want to be seperated or would you decide this is life for you from this point on.
HarfangX 1 year ago
@HarfangX
Well unfortunately for that thought experiment is that it is flawed. Women don't suddenly become pregnant for no rhyme or reason. Suppose in your thought exercise that you participate in a enjoyable course of action that you know could full well lead to such a predicament, namely your scenario. Even if there are methods to help avoid it, you know full well that it's not 100%. Then your scenario occurs, is it now okay to say oops no thanks, kill this guy.
Jim1905 1 year ago
@Jim1905 The idea is not to recreate the same conditions as a pregnate woman but to explore you own sense of morality... It doesn't have to make sense either :)
But even if you don't really commit yourself, in your answer, you do use that thought experiment. You are saying that the difference is choice. In one case, you chose to have the sex where as in the other... this was done to you without consent.
HarfangX 1 year ago
@HarfangX People don't get pregnant by inhalation of sperm. To become pregnant you must willingly (rape is outlawed) engage in sexual intercourse. Then even if you do become pregnant, in about 9 months you will be free again and you can always just give the baby up for abortion. A 35 yo man grafted onto you is just bizarre and this confounds any analogy to pregnancy which is the way all life reproduces sexually and how we humans strengthen our families and relationships.
PuraguCryostato 1 year ago
@PuraguCryostato The thought experiment is strange... but the idea is just exploration here... the parameters by which you think abortion is ok or not. The bible or cathechism does not rescue you with easy clear cut answers this time... your own sense of right and wrong is solicited.
Like Jim1905 you don't commit yourself to an answer, although you seem to think the "strangeness" of the predicament and the time period, 9 months vs forever are key differences that would affect your answer?
HarfangX 1 year ago
@HarfangX If I woke up with a Siamese twin drafted to me, I would definately not blame him for his presence there. Could we be seperated safely? If yes, we'd probably opt for that, as long as he agreed. If not, we'd have to co-exist. I could seek legal ways of forcing him to reconsider IF the procedure was safe for both of us. A fetus however does not have that choice. A woman (and her selfish partner) have a choice, they can abstain from sex or have sex and keep the baby or give it away. Thanks
PuraguCryostato 1 year ago
@PuraguCryostato also you just write off rape, just like that, when really that is a clear parameter here and the test emulates it.... unless you think the "illegality" of it is the difference and therefor... conscent is key in your answer?
HarfangX 1 year ago
this guys needs to be making some laws. seems like hes the only one with knowledge.
RESIDENTRYAN 1 year ago
My problem I have talking to pro-choice people is that in trying to stay consistent in their position, within minutes they argue themselves into the most ridiculous and abhorrent corners.
Last night as a challenged a pro-choicer's position, in an effort to cling to his view he wound up within minutes saying it was OK to kill infants or two-year-olds if they weren't wanted, or that you could kill a homeless person if he had no friends. How do I even respond to that?
Jugglable 1 year ago
@Jugglable Oh Boy! I know what it feels like, it's happened to me also...it's totally insane.
equitemcroce 1 year ago
@Jugglable
Yea, I don't know what kind of lunatics you talk to.
I'm pro-choice and I don't think killing people is very nice. Made an understatement there.
Bulloxe4 8 months ago
@Bulloxe4 The reason why this guy said that is because he couldn't give me a reason to justify abortion that couldn't also be used to justify infanticide. So, he said, infanticide is OK.
Jugglable 8 months ago
@Jugglable
really? he couldn't give you a reason for that?
Bulloxe4 8 months ago
@Bulloxe4 He tried, but failed.
"Well, the mother might not want the kid."
Some mothers don't want their newborns, does that make infanticide ok?
"The fetus isn't aware of its surroundings."
At many stages where abortion occurs it can indeed feel itself being killed. And people in comas aren't aware of their surroundings. Is it OK to kill them? Do they have no rights?
It went on until he gave up and said infanticide was OK.
Jugglable 8 months ago
If parents are unable or unwilling to keep a child, is given up for adoption. The difference here is that an unborn child does not have a life outside of the womb. I do not favor abortion, but I don’t think is a good idea either to fill the jails with promiscuous teens. Abortions should be limited only to the point where medical science cannot sustain the life of the fetus outside the womb. When the fetus can be saved, abortions should be illegal and replaced by a mechanism for adoption.
dejesusluisx 1 year ago
@dejesusluisx If it is not human life, deserving of the same protections of human life, then why go through the trouble of inventing such a hypothetical procedure? If it is ever going to be deserving of the protections afforded human life, why start only later and not now?
benabaxter 1 year ago
@benabaxter When you make something illegal, you loose all control over it. You cannot regulate and assure the well being of the parties involved. Same happens with drugs and look where we are. Again, I am against abortion, but same as drugs, making it illegal will not eliminate the practice. You have to be morally right but also realistic. If we do not learn from past mistakes... What I propose provides an alternative within the law in a morally sensible way.
dejesusluisx 1 year ago
@dejesusluisx What you suggest is a little silly. Should we make murder legal to control that too? Have a thieves’ guild? A government department overseeing legal fraud? What about accredited child abuse centres?
Really, if it's wrong to kill someone, you don't provide places for those who really want to kill to do so with little harm to themselves. When you look at how laws really work, what you suggest is the opposite of being realistic.
twoplugs 1 year ago
@twoplugs You are morally right but practically wrong. A woman who has decided not to have a child will not stop to think if it's legal or not; she will find a way. Making it ilegal is not going to save that life. If I had a daughter in that situation I would do anything in my power to avoid that terrible decision, I would even put her in jail BEFORE to save that life, but we cannot read minds, or control people 24/7. That is why the Holy Father changed Church stance on condoms. (continue...)
dejesusluisx 1 year ago
@dejesusluisx You seem confused. The 'Holy Father' hasn't changed the Church's stance about anything. 1) A book length interview is NOT an act of the Magisterium, nothing a Pope says in that context can possibly change ‘the Church’s stance’ on anything, and 2) Nothing Benedict said about condoms was a change of position. Did you read what he ACTUALLY said? He said condoms are immoral and not a real solution to the HIV problem, and never said their use was ever permissible. Nothing’s changed.
twoplugs 1 year ago
@twoplugs I have to admit that I only heard what the media published. I stand corrected. Nevertheless, the argument of not being able to prevent these things from happening is still valid.
dejesusluisx 1 year ago
@dejesusluisx "That is why the Holy Father changed Church stance on condoms"
He didn't.
Jugglable 1 year ago
@twoplugs Remember now it’s legal. What I propose is an improvement over the current status and a way to gradually reduce the number of abortions until completely eliminated. This is so because science will continue it’s advances to allow saving the fetus life at even earlier stages. Continuous improvement is part of human nature; this will happen and eventually there would be no abortions. In the meantime we would continue our militancy to save as many as we can. God Bless.
dejesusluisx 1 year ago
@dejesusluisx Secondly: I’m right practically. Whatever you do to reduce abortions while they’re legal can equally be done while they’re illegal, without the absurdity of legitimising what you claim to be wrong by (in your opinion) assisting people to murder. Having your actions contradict what you say with your mouth is not a practical way to get a point across. You also have facts against you. Where in the world has the decriminalisation of abortion led to the lowering of the abortion rate?
twoplugs 1 year ago
@twoplugs You will not change the current legal position if you do not offer a choice. You can be mad about it, but it won't make a difference. The reality is that abortions are legal and the way you present your opposition is getting you nowhere. It’s nonsense to expect different results doing the same thing. A change in strategy is needed.
dejesusluisx 1 year ago
@dejesusluisx True, the current law won’t change to treat abortion as murder because people don’t believe abortion is murder. However, trying to compromise won’t work either. The primary problem is that if you ‘offer choice’, you tacitly agree with the prevailing opinion that abortion is a legitimate option, and you won’t convince anyone to restrict access to something that is legitimate. So you’ve got to convince them of ‘my idea’, that abortion is wrong, before they’ll even consider yours.
twoplugs 1 year ago
@twoplugs I might be wrong, but is my impression that the mayority of people know abortions are wrong, including most of the women that go through it. The problem is that their shame, life situation or financial need is stronger than their morality. We are at a dead end, it might not be mine, but a different tactic needs to be explored. God Bless.
dejesusluisx 1 year ago
@dejesusluisx - "but a different tactic needs to be explored" I've often thought the same thing. To me, praying in front of an abortion clinic makes women feel like they're being condemned or that we're imposing religion on them. It also seems like that's the only thing christianity talks about when there are other issues as well. I don't have the answers but something more innovative needs to be done...
zztestenglish 1 year ago
Amen father, great video!
zipppy2006 1 year ago
How can embryo in early stage be called human being? A lot of imagination is needed to see something else than few tissues. Working nervous system is absolutely necessary for embryo to become human being and there is no nervous activity till third month. So how can ending pregnancy in second week be a murder?
OlejzMaku 1 year ago
@OlejzMaku Well, in an embryo there's something you cannot see but which makes it a human being: the soul. At the moment of conception God instils a soul. Now if you're a non believer you can at least see it from a scientific point of view and reach the same conclusion. According to science a human being is made of its gene pool in which all the information about the person is contained. So at the moment of conception the gene pool is formed (46 cromosomes=23+23).
littlemary86 1 year ago
@OlejzMaku Conclusion: at conception a human being is formed. So, if conception has taken place even using the morning after pill is an abortion.
littlemary86 1 year ago
@littlemary86 Genetic information is human being? So when human genom was read and saved in computer file, that file became human being? And if I delete that file I am committing murder?
OlejzMaku 1 year ago
@OlejzMaku You shouldn't ask me this question, as a believer of course i think that a human being is much more than genetic information...this is the problem with people who say that a person is only made by its biological parts.
littlemary86 1 year ago
@littlemary86 Well its not my problem either. I am defining human being as some product of nervous system. I dont need to know exatly what product to conclude that human being cannot exist without working nervous system.
OlejzMaku 1 year ago
@littlemary86 I cannot sence what you believe in. I can only react to your words. You wrote that according to science human being begin to exist in the moment of concempion, when gen pool is put together. Unless you hiding something else it means genetic information is actualy human being. If you dont believe that you schould express yourself better. It would also help if you explain what is there more than biologicals part and why you believe that.
OlejzMaku 1 year ago
@OlejzMaku What i wrote is just a conclusion that i reached after hearing scientists say that all that we are is contained in our genetic pool (information about eye colour, skin colour, height...) if it's so then at conception there must be a person. Being religious, i believe a person is not only made of biological and chemical parts, it's a spiritual being because of a God given soul at the moment of conception. So, i was thinking about the possibility that both believers and unbelievers
littlemary86 1 year ago
@littlemary86 How you reached that conclusion? I dont get why there had to be person if there is information. Does it mean that if there is blueprint there had to be building? Also what reason you have to believe God give soul at the moment of conception beside being believer? Believe beause you are believer sound like cylcular reasoning to me.
OlejzMaku 1 year ago
@OlejzMaku Let's just put it this way if you prefer: don't you think that saying life begins at conception would be a good way to avoid abortion? to give life the chance to develop naturally? when i hear people arguing wether or not a 90 days foetus is to be considered a person or you need to wait one or two more days i really find it pathetic...even if you don't believe in the existence of soul you know that en embryo has all the potential to develop into a human being...so just let nature
littlemary86 1 year ago
@littlemary86 Why avoid abortion? Complicated pregnacy when mothers health or life is theaten, pregnant rape victims or unwanted prenancy ( there is not enought adoptive oarents ) could be good reasons for abortion. Abortion should be an option.
OlejzMaku 1 year ago
@OlejzMaku Is the mother's life wortier than the child's? will you delete the shock of a rape by killing the baby? adding crime to crime? let me tell you here in italy where i live there are more couples who would like to adopt than children needing a family.
littlemary86 1 year ago
@littlemary86 We are talking about embrios not children. You need to explain how can one day old embrio be human being and back it up with something more than believe than you can ask these questions.
Adoptiove parents choose usualy only nice healthy newborn babies so not and childen can have adoptive parents.
OlejzMaku 1 year ago
@OlejzMaku could have the same idea of when life begins.
littlemary86 1 year ago
There is no such thing as a pro-life democrat, don't be fooled.
KnightOwl2006 1 year ago
@KnightOwl2006 - Conservatives taking this kind of single-issue hard line is probably a big pat of why abortion is still legal in this country. There are millions of pro-life Democrats, and they aren't confused. It's just that neither party fits the label "pro-life" very well.
Most Republicans want to ban abortion, but they tend to support war and executions, and they often oppose the social safety net, leading to the rather valid accusation that they only care about fetuses -- not children.
jontv 1 year ago
@TheCrookedTimber - I don't think that's inescapable. It depends on where you draw particular lines that are hard to draw. If you accept the idea that a zygote = a human being, then yeah, a newborn baby deserves no more protection than a zygote.
If you believe (as I do) that we achieve "human being" status at some undefinable point in the third trimester, then Singer's wrong: a newborn is more deserving of rights and protection than a developing fetus that has not yet reached that point.
jontv 1 year ago
@TheCrookedTimber - I think there are people who say that, or who would say that, if you pushed them. But most people are politically savvy enough to know that's not very convincing, as even people who accept The Bible as authoritative may have different interpretations of it. I am slightly familiar with Singer's work, but not enough to fully comment. His position is not the same as mine, which questions whether a few cells should really have the same legal/ethical status as a human being.
jontv 1 year ago
I've always wondered what Muslims think about abortion?
pdynamics1 1 year ago
Very strong arguments, Fr. Barron. Keep up the good work.
FalcaoWesley 1 year ago
You talk about children being killed as this yanks the chain of any moral person. It does to me. Is the morning after pill the same? When does a bundle of cells become a child of god? Why do you feel you have an answer to this question other than you suggest that pregnancy is god's will - I presume that is your position.? Otherwise let a woman decide - she is the host of the cells. Catholicism is a patriarchal religion ( aint they all?) hence the difficulties.
bigguitar22 1 year ago
@bigguitar22 Well, leave God out of it for the moment. I go with the scientists who tell me that from the moment of conception, we are dealing with a recognizably human reality.
wordonfirevideo 1 year ago 5