The Enlightenment Culture and Creative Reason

Originally posted by frogstomp
nah its easy to tell the right one, he's da one that can do miracles.
it he cant he dont speak for God.

Lay off the booze, froggy.

Originally posted by ivanhoe
It leaves the woman in the dark about the permissability of abortion.

That's a fact and as such it is a misogynistic indifferent stance.

The advice to a woman to kill her own off-spring is misogynistic and anti-human. The act of abortion affects the dignity of women.

It implies that the woman needs someone standing over her shoulder instructing her in morality, and in your world that someone is obviously a male priest. Do you know anything about women?

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
It implies that the woman needs someone standing over her shoulder instructing her in morality, and in your world that someone is obviously a male priest. Do you know anything about women?

BdN: "It implies that the woman needs someone standing over her shoulder instructing her in morality, and in your world that someone is obviously a male priest.

That is not what my stance implies.

BdN: "Do you know anything about women?

Yes, they are human beings with their own dignity.

Originally posted by ivanhoe
[b]BdN: "It implies that the woman needs someone standing over her shoulder instructing her in morality, and in your world that someone is obviously a male priest.

That is not what my stance implies.

BdN: "Do you know anything about women?

Yes, they are human beings with their own dignity.[/b]

You dont recognize human dignity as anything but an abstract concept and only then in accordance to what your masters tell tell you.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
This is the wisest choice.

How so?

If you assume, just for a minute, that an unborn fetus is a human being, then how is it wisest to let the mother decide whether the child should live or die?

Alternatively, do you think it wisest to let mothers decide whether six-day old infants should live or die? Six weeks? Six months?

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Is this infallibility shared by any other religious orders, or is His Church unique in its perfection?

When there are two Popes are they both infallible?

Is this infallibility shared by any other religious orders, or is His Church unique in its perfection?

It isn't "perfection" (impeccability). It's infallibility. The one is positive, the other is non-negative.

When there are two Popes are they both infallible?

When there seem to be two Popes (as it has seemed a number of times), only one is rightly elected so. It is he who has the charism.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
How so?

If you assume, just for a minute, that an unborn fetus is a human being, then how is it wisest to let the mother decide whether the child should live or die?

Alternatively, do you think it wisest to let mothers decide whether six-day old infants should live or die? Six weeks? Six months?

well you certainly dont have a right to to tell her and since you dont then you dont have the right to tell the government to use it's power to force her.

Originally posted by lucifershammer

If you assume, just for a minute, that an unborn fetus is a human being, then how is it wisest to let the mother decide whether the child should live or die?

Because she is the mother. L'homme propose, la femme dispose.

Originally posted by frogstomp
well you certainly dont have a right to to tell her and since you dont then you dont have the right to tell the government to use it's power to force her.

Are you saying no one has the right to tell a woman not to kill her six-day old child? No one has the right to tell the Government it must use whatever means it has to prevent such an action?

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Because she is the mother. L'homme propose, la femme dispose.

How does the same argument not work for a six-day old child? Or a six-week old child?

Originally posted by lucifershammer
How does the same argument not work for a six-day old child? Or a six-week old child?

While the child is part of her body, it is the mother's prerogative to decide. Let's hope she makes the right decision for her (not for you) and for her people (not yours) if she has any.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
While the child is part of her body, it is the mother's prerogative to decide. Let's hope she makes the right decision for her (not for you) and for her people (not yours) if she has any.

While the child is part of her body, it is the mother's prerogative to decide.

What about at the moment of birth, when the child is still "part of the mother's body" through the umbilical cord? Or the third trimester, when the child is as much a part of the mother's body as in the second trimester (or the first)?

Let's hope she makes the right decision for her (not for you) and for her people (not yours) if she has any.

You're angry. I understand.

But it is not simply herself a mother has responsibility for - she is also, in every way, responsible for the life and well-being of her child. She is as responsible for it as if it were a new-born baby.

Some philosophers hold that rights come with 'personhood' (i.e. the possession of an intellect and will). Since a young infant is not yet a 'person', logically they must conclude that it has no intrinsic right to life either.

I find such a position unconscionable - one that makes it morally permissible (though, perhaps, not legally) to kill infants. As, I'm sure, do you.

Originally posted by frogstomp
and there are people that think that decision is best left to the woman and doesnt require State action.

The one thing Im legally sure of is in the US a fetus has no Constitutional status as a citizen.

You are against abortions so dont have one.
Here's a deal let Ratzinger get himself pregnant and carry to full ...[text shortened]... really is against abortions,,which btw most are spontaneous and therefore acts of God.

You know, the only proper response to a miscarriage is a wake.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
You may as well tattoo "I am a misogynist" on your forehead.

But make sure the text is backwards, 'cause we already know this.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Are you saying no one has the right to tell a woman not to kill her six-day old child? No one has the right to tell the Government it must use whatever means it has to prevent such an action?

Im saying the Pope and his minions dont. and neither does any other religious group have a right to tell a government to force a clearly religious matter upon anybody.

The same would apply the other way if a government ordered someone to have an abortion , it simply shouldn't have that power and that in that event you would be adding your voice and be standing up for the woman's right to choose.

A predominantly heterosexual culture has no more of a legitimate reason in banning gay marraiges than a predominantly homosexual culture would have in banning straight marraiges.
It's a matter of improper use of State power nothing more nothing less.