Life at Conception is un-Christian

[Givemeareason]

http://www.catholic.com/tracts/birth-control

Birth Control

"In 1968, Pope Paul VI issued his landmark encyclical letter Humanae Vitae (Latin, "Human Life"), which reemphasized the Church’s constant teaching that it is always intrinsically wrong to use contraception to prevent new human beings from coming into existence.

"Contraception is "any action which, either in anticipation of the conjugal act [sexual intercourse], or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible" (Humanae Vitae 14). This includes sterilization, condoms and other barrier methods, spermicides, coitus interruptus (withdrawal method), the Pill, and all other such methods."

I am aware of the Catholic position. However what does that say about the right wing fundamentalist groups that are pushing for legislation for all claiming life begins at conception?

 

[fatherjimparker]

<<I am aware of the Catholic position. However what does that say about the right wing fundamentalist groups that are pushing for legislation for all claiming life begins at conception?>>

It says that they agree with the RCC and would really like to end the holocaust of elective abortion which has claimed well over 50 million lives in the USA alone.

It says that a human being is not a chattel and cannot be disposed of for any reason like a dog or a slave.

It says that conservative Christians do not allign themselves with those who declare that an unborn human being is "life unworthy of life," (in German: "Lebensunwertes Leben") which was the Nazi designation for the segments of populace which had no right to live and thus were to be "euthanized".

Such legislation would recognize the dignity of ALL human lives, not just the lives of those who can be utilized for profit ("human resources"). It would assert that no human beings, born or unborn, are what Margaret Sanger called "human weeds" (Africans, Hispanics, Asians) worthy only to be eradicated so that there would be continued bounty for the elite, racially-favored, white people. (Per Darwin's famous book: The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.

It says that they reject the materialist/socialist dogma that a human being is only worth the wealth it can produce for its masters or for the "revolution" and that new "human resources" which are not likely to be useful in producing wealth should be disposed of.

It says that they reject the resurgence of Eugenics through "Planned Parenthood" and similar organizations masquerading as "women's rights advocates" and sterilization of the undesirable poor.

What do YOU say?

 

[Givemeareason]

<<I am aware of the Catholic position. However what does that say about the right wing fundamentalist groups that are pushing for legislation for all claiming life begins at conception?>>

It says that they agree with the RCC and would really like to end the holocaust of elective abortion which has claimed well over 50 million lives in the USA alone.

It says that a human being is not a chattel and cannot be disposed of for any reason like a dog or a slave.

It says that conservative Christians do not allign themselves with those who declare that an unborn human being is "life unworthy of life," (in German: "Lebensunwertes Leben") which was the Nazi designation for the segments of populace which had no right to live and thus were to be "euthanized".

Such legislation would recognize the dignity of ALL human lives, not just the lives of those who can be utilized for profit ("human resources"). It would assert that no human beings, born or unborn, are what Margaret Sanger called "human weeds" (Africans, Hispanics, Asians) worthy only to be eradicated so that there would be continued bounty for the elite, racially-favored, white people. (Per Darwin's famous book: The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.

It says that they reject the materialist/socialist dogma that a human being is only worth the wealth it can produce for its masters or for the "revolution" and that new "human resources" which are not likely to be useful in producing wealth should be disposed of.

It says that they reject the resurgence of Eugenics through "Planned Parenthood" and similar organizations masquerading as "women's rights advocates" and sterilization of the undesirable poor.

What do YOU say?

Whew.... took me a while to read all that. But you forgot to address the issue of all the right wing fundamentalists engaging in the use of birth control pills (which would appear to a mortal sin according to you) while they are also trying to force all society to conform to the idea that life begins at conception as well. There are many who would talk about all the misery and death caused by such actions. Do you consider that as just the moral consequences?

 

[fatherjimparker]

<< you forgot to address the issue of all the right wing fundamentalists engaging in the use of birth control pills (which would appear to a mortal sin according to you) >>

I'm not a Roman Catholic so I am not required to subscribe to the opinion of the pope.

<< they are also trying to force all society to conform to the idea that life begins at conception as well. >>

They have a legal right to do so.

Their purpose is to end abortion on demand as it is the murder of an innocent infant without cause.

<< There are many who would talk about all the misery and death caused by such actions. >>

Since you have not specified what you mean by "all the misery and death caused by such actions" I cannot respond. What misery and death is caused by considering every human life as valuable?

What misery and death are caused by having respect for every human being. (Even if they're not white)

<<Do you consider that as just the moral consequences?>>

Do I consider exactly what as just the moral consequences? When you speak in such broad generalizations, you don't really say anything. State precisely what you mean by the word "that."

 

[Givemeareason]

<< you forgot to address the issue of all the right wing fundamentalists engaging in the use of birth control pills (which would appear to a mortal sin according to you) >>

I'm not a Roman Catholic so I am not required to subscribe to the opinion of the pope.

<< they are also trying to force all society to conform to the idea that life begins at conception as well. >>

They have a legal right to do so.

Their purpose is to end abortion on demand as it is the murder of an innocent infant without cause.

<< There are many who would talk about all the misery and death caused by such actions. >>

Since you have not specified what you mean by "all the misery and death caused by such actions" I cannot respond. What misery and death is caused by considering every human life as valuable?

What misery and death are caused by having respect for every human being. (Even if they're not white)

<<Do you consider that as just the moral consequences?>>

Do I consider exactly what as just the moral consequences? When you speak in such broad generalizations, you don't really say anything. State precisely what you mean by the word "that."

I am not concerned with the pope either. Okay step by step. Right wing fundamentalists are trying to legislate life begins at conception. They want all society to agree. We are not talking about abortion of the fetus. If life begins at conception preventing the fertilized egg from attaching in the womb as birth control pills do isn't that the equivalent of forcing the fertilized egg to be aborted. Since the right wing fundamentalists are still using birth control pills and IUDs is that not legislating trying to prevent so called murder while still committing the so called murder? Let's just stick to this for the moment.

 

[fatherjimparker]

<< We are not talking about abortion of the fetus. >>

That is exactly what we are talking about.

<< If life begins at conception preventing the fertilized egg from attaching in the womb as birth control pills do isn't that the equivalent of forcing the fertilized egg to be aborted. >>

I believe that is the position of the RCC.

<< Since the right wing fundamentalists are still using birth control pills and IUDs is that not legislating trying to prevent so called murder while still committing the so called murder? Let's just stick to this for the moment.>>

Why? Because you don't want to address the genocidal holocaust being carried out by the advocates of eugenics under the false banner of women's reproductive rights?

If you need a fundamentalist's view, I suggest you ask a fundamentalist.

And are there "left-wing" fundamentalists (other than communist purists like the "Shining Light.")?

-----------
I note that you did not respond to:

<< There are many who would talk about all the misery and death caused by such actions. >>

Since you have not specified what you mean by "all the misery and death caused by such actions" I cannot respond. What misery and death is caused by considering every human life as valuable?

What misery and death are caused by having respect for every human being. (Even if they're not white)

<<Do you consider that as just the moral consequences?>>

Do I consider exactly what as just the moral consequences? When you speak in such broad generalizations, you don't really say anything. State precisely what you mean by the word "that."

You seem to me to avoid specifics when they might be uncomfortable.

 

[Givemeareason]

<< We are not talking about abortion of the fetus. >>

That is exactly what we are talking about.

<< If life begins at conception preventing the fertilized egg from attaching in the womb as birth control pills do isn't that the equivalent of forcing the fertilized egg to be aborted. >>

I believe that is the position of the RCC.

<< Since the right wing fundamentalists are still using birth control pills and IUDs is that not legislating trying to prevent so called murder while still committing the so called murder? Let's just stick to this for the moment.>>

Why? Because you don't want to address the genocidal holocaust being carried out by the advocates of eugenics under the false banner of women's reproductive rights?

If you need a fundamentalist's view, I suggest you ask a fundamentalist.

And are there "left-wing" fundamentalists (other than communist purists like the "Shining Light.")?

No again. The title of this thread is about the idea that life begins at conception. It is all about when life begins. It is not about abortion. If you reread the op you will see this. At different times through history and in the bible it has been viewed in many ways. We.are not talking how Catholics view it. We are not talking about how secularists view it. We are attempting to examine how right wing fundamentalists view it. It seems they want their cake and eat it too.

And I am not interested in a discussion of murder or whatever.

 

[fatherjimparker]

<< The title of this thread is about the idea that life begins at conception. It is all about when life begins. It is not about abortion.>>

If that were all it is about then there would no purpose in attempting to pass legislation which defines the beginning of life to be conception.

The ONLY reason that people want such legislation is to afford the infant in the womb the same right to live as an infant outside of the womb.

Your attempt to separate that into a separate issue is disingenuous. And it hasn't fooled me for an moment.

<< We are attempting to examine how right wing fundamentalists view it. It seems they want their cake and eat it too. >>

Then I suggest you address your question to a "right-wing fundamentalist" leader, someone who speaks for them. There are several with TV ministries and they all post their addresses so you can write to them and get THEIR response rather than attempting to get responses from people who do not represent your favorite bogy-men, that really scary "right-wing fundamentalist."

<< And I am not interested in a discussion of murder or whatever.>>

Of course you aren't. No one on the left wants to admit to what they really advocate.

 

[Givemeareason]

<< The title of this thread is about the idea that life begins at conception. It is all about when life begins. It is not about abortion.>>

If that were all it is about then there would no purpose in attempting to pass legislation which defines the beginning of life to be conception.

The ONLY reason that people want such legislation is to afford the infant in the womb the same right to live as an infant outside of the womb.

Your attempt to separate that into a separate issue is disingenuous. And it hasn't fooled me for an moment.

<< We are attempting to examine how right wing fundamentalists view it. It seems they want their cake and eat it too. >>

Then I suggest you address your question to a "right-wing fundamentalist" leader, someone who speaks for them. There are several with TV ministries and they all post their addresses so you can write to them and get THEIR response rather than attempting to get responses from people who do not represent your favorite bogy-men, that really scary "right-wing fundamentalist."

<< And I am not interested in a discussion of murder or whatever.>>

Of course you aren't. No one on the left wants to admit to what they really advocate.

I can only surmise you are not aware of this debate. There are no rational discussions when people try to portray extreme positions by calling the other position murder. Your best bet for being heard is out on some picket line.

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

We.are not talking how Catholics view it. We are not talking about how secularists view it. We are attempting to examine how right wing fundamentalists view it.

The title of the thread is "Life at Conception is un-Christian". It doesn't specify any particular theological viewpoint within Christianity. Your dismissal of the Catholic POV on this matter seems rather arbitrary.

Since the right wing fundamentalists are still using birth control pills and IUDs is that not legislating trying to prevent so called murder while still committing the so called murder? Let's just stick to this for the moment.

If you want to focus particularly on that, I'll mention that the Hobby Lobby contraception case did specifically concern their refusal to cover abortifecient forms of birth control. It's not clear what "right-wing fundamentalists" you're referring to here.

 

[Givemeareason]

The title of the thread is "Life at Conception is un-Christian". It doesn't specify any particular theological viewpoint within Christianity. Your dismissal of the Catholic POV on this matter seems rather arbitrary.



If you want to focus particularly on that, I'll mention that the Hobby Lobby contraception case did specifically concern their refusal to cover abortifecient forms of birth control. It's not clear what "right-wing fundamentalists" you're referring to here.

I began with the Southern Baptists used to being pro-choice. That would indicate lack of concensus. The Catholics have always had their own positions. Before Roe vs Wade abortion was not even a political issue amongst protestants. The reason it is now is largely because of its politization by people like Fallwell who have emotionalized and polarized the issue to their political advantage. What was perfectly acceptable and no concern to anyone but Catholics has now become an irrational fiasco. You may know more than me but there was legislation in Ohio I think trying to exploit this debate. The issue of using birth control pills is back. Again not talking about the Catholics who have not wavered but the life begins at conception idea came from Fallwell and his fundamentalist following dragging it into becoming the religious right after he managed to reverse the Baptists from being pro-choice.

 

[fatherjimparker]

<< I can only surmise you are not aware of this debate. >>

To what debate are you referring? You have been seeking approval of and agreement with your condemnation as hypocrites those whom you label as "right-wing fundamentalists." That's not a debate. That is mud-slinging.

<< There are no rational discussions when people try to portray extreme positions by calling the other position murder. >>

There can be no rational discussion when one party takes your position that some lives are of no value and can be terminated at will. That is the position of materialists, nihilists, communists, et. al. It is demonically insane.

<<Your best bet for being heard is out on some picket line.>>

The title of this thread is "Life at Conception is un-Christian"

My response was that the church has always considered abortion to be the murder of a human being. Since that human being's life begins its life at conception, (that is a biological fact, not a philosophical position) the title of this thread is a false statement. The fact that, today, we know much more about the process of conception through birth, does not change the fact that the Church has always condemned abortion as the murder of an infant.

What you have been doing in this thread is seeking to find agreement with your view that "right-wing fundamentalists" are hypocrites. That purpose is no where to be found in the title of this thread. Your need to portray your opposition as hypocrites rather than to engage them in discussion is your personal issue.

As Bill Buckley said: "Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views."

Your best bet to be heard is among your pro-abortion fellow travelers, eugenicists, Nazis, socialists, anarchists and the like. They tend to agree that "culling the herd" of "human weeds" is our only rational hope for the future.

Here, you will find that there are a few people who will not be drawn into your simplistic attempts at labeling, misdirecting and avoiding the core issue at all costs. I'm one of those people and I'm calling you on your game.

You have a nice day, pilgrim.

Mazzel tov!

 

[Givemeareason]

<< I can only surmise you are not aware of this debate. >>

To what debate are you referring? You have been seeking approval of and agreement with your condemnation as hypocrites those whom you label as "right-wing fundamentalists." That's not a debate. That is mud-slinging.

<< There are no rational discussions when people try to portray extreme positions by calling the other position murder. >>

There can be no rational discussion when one party takes your position that some lives are of no value and can be terminated at will. That is the position of materialists, nihilists, communists, et. al. It is demonically insane.

<<Your best bet for being heard is out on some picket line.>>

The title of this thread is "Life at Conception is un-Christian"

My response was that the church has always considered abortion to be the murder of a human being. Since that human being's life begins its life at conception, (that is a biological fact, not a philosophical position) the title of this thread is a false statement. The fact that, today, we know much more about the process of conception through birth, does not change the fact that the Church has always condemned abortion as the murder of an infant.

What you have been doing in this thread is seeking to find agreement with your view that "right-wing fundamentalists" are hypocrites. That purpose is no where to be found in the title of this thread. Your need to portray your opposition as hypocrites rather than to engage them in discussion is your personal issue.

As Bill Buckley said: "Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views."

Your best bet to be heard is among your pro-abortion fellow travelers, eugenicists, Nazis, socialists, anarchists and the like. They tend to agree that "culling the herd" of "human weeds" is our only rational hope for the future.

Here, you will find that there are a few people who will not be drawn into your simplistic attempts at labeling, misdirecting and avoiding the core issue at all costs. I'm one of those people and I'm calling you on your game.

You have a nice day, pilgrim.

Mazzel tov!

You haven't addressed much of anything I said so I don't see how you have called me on anything. What you are doing is trying to redefine me into something with which you can display an emotional rant in the hope of giving yourself more credence. You ignore all the information I give you and then claim something else. Good luck finding that picket line.

 

[fatherjimparker]

<< I began with the Southern Baptists used to being pro-choice. That would indicate lack of concensus. >>

That is not withing the subject defined by ""Life at Conception is un-Christian""

<<Before Roe vs Wade abortion was not even a political issue amongst protestants. >>

That's because abortion, except for extreme medical situations was illegal and the USA hadn't yet embarked on its holocaust of murdering a million or so infants a year for fun and profit. So before RvW, abortion was not an issue and, not being an issue, there was no reason to politicize it.

That should be obvious or were you attempting to rewrite history by leaving out details that don't support your ideology?

<<The reason it is now is largely because of its politization by people like Fallwell who have emotionalized and polarized the issue to their political advantage. >>

The reason it is politicized is because the USA is a republic and we get laws passed by engaging in politics. Fallwell took up the challenge.

Your demonizing of Fellwell is the standard application of Saul Alinski's RULE 5: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions. " (From Rules for Radicals)

<<What was perfectly acceptable and no concern to anyone but Catholics has now become an irrational fiasco. >>

Again you misrepresent the facts. Who do you think you are fooling? It was not just Catholics who were against abortion. You can't possibly be so ignorant as to not have known that.

The "irrational fiasco" is ongoing slaughter of infants by people like you think they have the right to decide that some children have no right to live.

And the murder of infants who are unwanted is only a rational behavior to pagans, materialists, socialists, et. al.

<<...the life begins at conception idea came from Fallwell and his fundamentalist following dragging it into becoming the religious right after he managed to reverse the Baptists from being pro-choice.>>

That idea did NOT begin with Fallwell. The basis of that truth is found in the documents of the 1st century Church.

Get your story straight.

You aide and abet the murder of innocent infants.

You will need a much better argument when you explain to God why you supported the murder of tens of millions of infants all of whom bore His image and likeness.

Instead of trying to make the Southern Baptists out to be hypocrites, so you can feel justified in your support of the unabated holocaust of infants, you would do well to prepare you defense against the charge of genocide in the court of the King of Kings. (You might consider an insanity defense.)

Perhaps you can explain your reasoning in not seeing any conflict while considering yourself to be an intelligent and moral person who also supports the slaughter of infants.

Here's the result of your position:

So why are you so focused on the SBC? Do you think it takes the spotlight off your work?

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

I began with the Southern Baptists used to being pro-choice.

An assertion which you did not substantiate.

Before Roe vs Wade abortion was not even a political issue amongst protestants.

Before Roe v. Wade it wasn't a major political issue in the US at all. The American people were nowhere close to voting in abortion on demand.

What was perfectly acceptable and no concern to anyone but Catholics has now become an irrational fiasco.

Given that it was illegal in all but a handful of states in the US, it was certainly far from acceptable.

 

[Givemeareason]

An assertion which you did not substantiate.



Before Roe v. Wade it wasn't a major political issue in the US at all. The American people were nowhere close to voting in abortion on demand.



Given that it was illegal in all but a handful of states in the US, it was certainly far from acceptable.

The fact that the SBC was pro-choice can be easily verified. What has happened here is that I have allowed this thread to be drawn from a position wherein I questioned the value of a fertilized egg (which is a perfectly legitimate moral question when taken in light of some of the debate going on) over into an irrational depiction by an extremist who wants to post pictures to horrify people. If I were everything he has claimed to be I wouldn't even be able to tolerate myself. This thread needs to be closed at this point.

 

[fatherjimparker]

<<You haven't addressed much of anything I said so I don't see how you have called me on anything.>>

Really???

Is English a second language for you?

Or are you trying to distance yourself from everything that you said now that you are aware that people can see right through your facade?

<<What you are doing is trying to redefine me into something with which you can display an emotional rant in the hope of giving yourself more credence. >>

I have identified your attempt to defame and demonize Jerry Fallwell and the Southern Baptist Church, then to attach them to the fact that life begins at conception. You have done that in order to attack the Church's stance against abortion on demand and to demonize anyone who supports legislation to change the laws of the USA to reflect the truth that abortion kills an infant.

<< You ignore all the information I give you>>

I didn't ignore it; I identified your "information" for what it is: baloney.

Your attempt to demonize anyone who holds to the truth that life begins at conception by trying to connect them to Jerry Fallwell, whom you tried paint as some extremist nut-cake and to the Southern Baptists, whom you attempted to portray as a bunch of hypocrites, has failed. It never rose above the rhetorical efforts of the average high school sophomore.

And you attempt to disguise your attack on the right to life of every human being as being somehow connected to the topic "Life at Conception is un-Christian" is laughable.

You're not fooling anyone by trying to wiggle out of what you have been doing. You're like the toddler who broke the cookie jar and tried to tell his mom it was a burglar who did it.

But you have been amusing; sort of like a SNL satire on the pro-abortion double talk.

 

[fatherjimparker]

The fact that the SBC was pro-choice can be easily verified. What has happened here is that I have allowed this thread to be drawn from a position wherein I questioned the value of a fertilized egg (which is a perfectly legitimate moral question when taken in light of some of the debate going on) over into an irrational depiction by an extremist who wants to post pictures to horrify people. If I were everything he has claimed to be I wouldn't even be able to tolerate myself. This thread needs to be closed at this point.

It should have been closed after your first shot at Jerry Fallwell as a "right-wing fundamentalist" and the SBC as "hypocrites" while pretending you were taking about life at conception being un-Christian and thinking we were all too stupid not to see right through what you were doing.

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

This thread needs to be closed at this point.

You're the OP; you can ask the mods to close it if you want.

 

[Givemeareason]

You're the OP; you can ask the mods to close it if you want.

I considered it but have decided against it. I am surprised they haven't closed it themselves. As it is this thread has become a good example of just how irrational the debate can become. Here are the facts of the original post. And keep in mind this excludes the positions of the Catholic church.

1. Protestants and Fundamentalists were not concerned whether life began at conception (keep in mind we are not talking about abortion)

2. Falwell and the religious right entered the picture and turned it into a political issue by pushing that idea.

3. Now the idea has gained so much momentum that the health of the mother is potentially being compromised.

4. And now even the use of birth control pills has come into question. (again not talking about Catholics)

5. Further even highly questionable religious concepts are being pushed onto society at legislative levels primarily because the issue of when life begins has been redefined and refocused based on the debate over abortion.

I have no issue with the abortion debate. I have issue with the Fundamentalists and the Religious Right when they try to force their views on society.