If I dont go visit my frozen embryo..

[CaptainFritz28]

1. What you call "nutrition" can only be gained through what science calls "parasitism". You are moving goalposts here compared to your previous justification for infringing on women's freedom to choose what to do with their own bodies:

So what you are telling me is that new life is a disease. Gotcha.

A baby, already born, cannot survive without outside aid. A child in the womb cannot survive without outside aid. Most kids in America cannot survive without outside aid. What you call parasitism I call the necessity for support from others. That doesn't mean that a child in the womb isn't still a separate life.

No, I was not telling you that your so-called "new life" is a disease. Parasitism is a biological term for a certain type of symbiotic relationship. This isn't about "outside aid" or the "the necessity for support from others". (As a socialist, I believe in the moral imperative for society to support and aid children.) Your so-called "new life" isn't a child; it can only turn into a child in the womb of a single individual, who should be free to choose whether or not they want a child.

This doesn't refute the fact that it is a life. It is an earlier stage of life, yes, and one which can only move on to a later stage with outside aid from a specific individual. That doesn't mean it isn't alive.

2. Cherishing the value of human life is fundamental to my political beliefs and moral compass. That's why I oppose capital punishment (1), torture (2), enforced disappearances (3), war crimes (4), poverty (5), maternal mortality (6), gun ownership (7), police brutality (8), structural racism (9) and the current genocide in Gaza (10). Abortion doesn't make the cut.

(1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_the_United_States
(2) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enhanced_interrogation_techniques
(3) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_rendition
(4) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_war_crimes
(5) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_and_health_in_the_United_States
(6) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maternal_mortality_in_the_United_States
(7) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States
(8) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_brutality_in_the_United_States
(9) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Societal_racism#In_the_United_States
(10) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza_genocide

I don't care what makes the cut or not. Your list of social justice issues is irrelevant to the fact that new life is new life.

Social justice issues? I'm pointing to the fact that life is life. It's curious how you seem to care so much about what you call "new life" but choose to label the prevention of unnecessary deaths as "social justice issues".

Abortion is a social justice issue, and I advocate for the prevention of unnecessary deaths by the abolition of it. That is a social justice issue just as much as any of the others on your list.

My point here was to say simply that you hold a double standard. It doesn't matter what you do or don't support; a life destroyed by abortion is the same as a life destroyed in Gaza, by poverty or police brutality, or by any other means. Life is life.

[BrianBaru]

There are two closely related issues here:
1. The Science of Life
2. The Value of Life

1. The Science of Life
Science shows that human life begins at the fertilization of a human egg. From the moment of conception, the fertilized egg is a living, unique, and growing human. When fertilization is complete, a unique genetic human entity exists. To say that the beginning of human life cannot be determined scientifically is utterly ridiculous.
a. Upon fertilization, a new organism exists after fertilization that did not exist before conception. That new life is not simply a continuation of the life of the sperm or egg cell. Rather, it is the life of a distinct, unique, new individual who has never existed before in history and will never exist again.
b. Nothing will be added to this new organism except nutrition. This new organism has its own human DNA that is distinct from the mother and father, meaning that it is a unique human person. From fertilization onward, it is a new organism that is unique, alive and growing.
c. Cells start dividing within an hour of fertilization This new life continues to grow and develop until death occurs due to injury or illness.
d. Every fertilized human egg dies, or grows into a human
e. This new human life will continue to grow and develop as long as nutrition is provided and its life is not ended through violence or illness.
f. Human Life changes continuously - A human is very different at age 85 than at 40. By age 16, the development of the brain allows for most adolescents have fully developed abstract reasoning, which is why it is difficult to teach calculus in grade school. Five year olds cannot survive on their own. One year olds have just learned to walk. Humans have a long period of development. That does not mean they are not humans from conception on.

2. The Value of Life
Preborn babies are the most vulnerable and helpless members of our society. The value of a human being does not depend on where they live, physical shape, what race they are, what they look like, or how old they are. Each person has inherent worth because of who and what he or she is - a member of the human species. Bad things happen when we don’t recognize the value of human life.
a. The National Socialists of Germany did not value certain lives, which led to the death of homosexuals, Slavs, Roma and 6 million Jews.
b. Margaret Sanger did not value Negro lives, and founded what became Planned Parenthood to discourage and eventually eliminate, “the defective and diseased elements of humanity” and eliminate the “dysgenic horror story” of blacks who reproduced “carelessly and disastrously.” We now have seen over 60 million abortions in the USA, 4 out of 10 Black pregnancies aborted, and Planned Parenthood puts 86% of its Abortion Facilities in minority neighborhoods
c. The Communists value power over life. The 20th century saw over 200 million killed by the communists, not counting wars.

The Declaration of Independence in the USA says “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” The founding Fathers saw the clear relationship between the Right to Life and Liberty. A really slippery slope when life is devalued.

If all of the above is true, why does Alabama have the death penalty?

If all of the above is true, why does Alabama have the death penalty?
I can't speak for the people of Alabama. But even the Catholic Church, which defends life from the moment of conception to a natural death, understands the need for a Just War

The Catechism of the Catholic Church lays out the conditions for just war in paragraph 2309:
• the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
• all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
• there must be serious prospects of success;
• the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modem means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.
The Just War Theory recognized the basic fact that sometimes force must be used to stop the evils of human violence.

The death penalty is used when there is evidence that other means of stopping evil is not effective

[Jamiet99uk]

Your implicit defense of Soviet and CCP communism is also silly lol. There should just be a separate thread where you all throw random numbers at one another and wait to see whether it changes anyone's mind.

What implicit defence? I did not mention any specific country or party.

You defended communism in response to a post that includes numbers of dead that clearly relate to mismanagement/atrocities committed by the CCP and USSR.

But of course there's fine print you didn't write lol. You somehow didn't mean your comments should apply to either of the two major examples of real life communism that the original post was clearly referring to. You probably also don't mean to defend Cuba or Venezuela...or really any actual communist government. But capitalism is bad too and you've got the *numbers* to prove it lol.

It's just dumb on both sides.

His number is bullshit so I'm not specifically defending any specific regime to whom he might attribute that number. I resent, and dispute, the implied suggestion that communism values human life significantly less than whatever America is currently practising.

[Jamiet99uk]

What implicit defence? I did not mention any specific country or party.

You defended communism in response to a post that includes numbers of dead that clearly relate to mismanagement/atrocities committed by the CCP and USSR.

But of course there's fine print you didn't write lol. You somehow didn't mean your comments should apply to either of the two major examples of real life communism that the original post was clearly referring to. You probably also don't mean to defend Cuba or Venezuela...or really any actual communist government. But capitalism is bad too and you've got the *numbers* to prove it lol.

It's just dumb on both sides.

Sure, but his main thrust isn't a numbers game: "capitalists value money over life. Capitalism commoditises human life."

Thank you. Good to know someone could see the point.

[Jamiet99uk]

You defended communism in response to a post that includes numbers of dead that clearly relate to mismanagement/atrocities committed by the CCP and USSR.

But of course there's fine print you didn't write lol. You somehow didn't mean your comments should apply to either of the two major examples of real life communism that the original post was clearly referring to. You probably also don't mean to defend Cuba or Venezuela...or really any actual communist government. But capitalism is bad too and you've got the *numbers* to prove it lol.

It's just dumb on both sides.

Sure, but his main thrust isn't a numbers game: "capitalists value money over life. Capitalism commoditises human life."

I estimate we're at about the half way point of the cul-de-sac. We've got the dumb numbers out of the way. We've made sweeping and useless generalizations about the relative value of political-economic systems. Soon we'll find out that we all actually just like social welfare supporting democracies, which can be more or less capitalist/collectivist. Then hopefully the convo turns back to abortion and IVF lol.

Don't look at me. BrianBaru decided to bring a discussion of Communism into this debate, not me. Unfortunately I have observed through bitter experience that if someone makes bad, ill-founded generalisations about a specific belief, policy, system, etc., and if nobody calls out their bullshit, they will later claim that they have proved it as fact.

[Jamiet99uk]

There are two closely related issues here:
1. The Science of Life
2. The Value of Life

1. The Science of Life
Science shows that human life begins at the fertilization of a human egg. From the moment of conception, the fertilized egg is a living, unique, and growing human. When fertilization is complete, a unique genetic human entity exists. To say that the beginning of human life cannot be determined scientifically is utterly ridiculous.
a. Upon fertilization, a new organism exists after fertilization that did not exist before conception. That new life is not simply a continuation of the life of the sperm or egg cell. Rather, it is the life of a distinct, unique, new individual who has never existed before in history and will never exist again.
b. Nothing will be added to this new organism except nutrition. This new organism has its own human DNA that is distinct from the mother and father, meaning that it is a unique human person. From fertilization onward, it is a new organism that is unique, alive and growing.
c. Cells start dividing within an hour of fertilization This new life continues to grow and develop until death occurs due to injury or illness.
d. Every fertilized human egg dies, or grows into a human
e. This new human life will continue to grow and develop as long as nutrition is provided and its life is not ended through violence or illness.
f. Human Life changes continuously - A human is very different at age 85 than at 40. By age 16, the development of the brain allows for most adolescents have fully developed abstract reasoning, which is why it is difficult to teach calculus in grade school. Five year olds cannot survive on their own. One year olds have just learned to walk. Humans have a long period of development. That does not mean they are not humans from conception on.

2. The Value of Life
Preborn babies are the most vulnerable and helpless members of our society. The value of a human being does not depend on where they live, physical shape, what race they are, what they look like, or how old they are. Each person has inherent worth because of who and what he or she is - a member of the human species. Bad things happen when we don’t recognize the value of human life.
a. The National Socialists of Germany did not value certain lives, which led to the death of homosexuals, Slavs, Roma and 6 million Jews.
b. Margaret Sanger did not value Negro lives, and founded what became Planned Parenthood to discourage and eventually eliminate, “the defective and diseased elements of humanity” and eliminate the “dysgenic horror story” of blacks who reproduced “carelessly and disastrously.” We now have seen over 60 million abortions in the USA, 4 out of 10 Black pregnancies aborted, and Planned Parenthood puts 86% of its Abortion Facilities in minority neighborhoods
c. The Communists value power over life. The 20th century saw over 200 million killed by the communists, not counting wars.

The Declaration of Independence in the USA says “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” The founding Fathers saw the clear relationship between the Right to Life and Liberty. A really slippery slope when life is devalued.

If all of the above is true, why does Alabama have the death penalty?

Because people murder.

You said life was an unalienable right. An unalienable right is one that cannot be taken away in any circumstances.

Now you are saying that it is ok to kill some people.

That means it isn't unalienable. You think it's fine to kill people in some circumstances (in your example, if they are found guilty of murder). So you accept that life is not an unalienable right.

[Jamiet99uk]

c. The Communists value power over life. The 20th century saw over 200 million killed by the communists, not counting wars.

As a communist I must respond to this particular point.

First of all I'm not sure where you're getting the 200 million figure from but I expect it is an exaggeration.

Second of all, capitalists value money over life. Capitalism commoditises human life. The 20th century saw over 100 million killed by capitalism.

We're getting back into the debate of two extremes. Extreme communism leads to the end that the leaders value power over life. Extreme capitalism leads to the end that the leaders value money over life. Both of these are wrong, duh.

I am glad that you also disagree with BrianBaru.

[Jamiet99uk]

I don't think pregnancy is a necessary consequence of sex in 2024. An IUD almost perfectly prevents pregnancy. I don't think it's wrong for women to use IUDs. Some woman can't use an IUD and instead use other, less reliable methods of birth control and I don't consider it their fault when alternative methods fail.

The smoking analogy is actually a great one, because we do basically have consequence-free nicotine products now. Smoking an unfiltered cigarette is the same as raw dogging it in the middle of your fertile window. Vaping might be like condomed sex. Nicorette gum is like an IUD.

Natural processes have natural outcomes. You're conflating what we can do with what we should do.

So we agree that a fetal life is not exactly as valuable as any other human life.

No. I believe that both lives are equally valuable, such that if, and only if, one life must be sacrificed, it is equally a tragedy for either to die. However, often when the mother dies, the child does too, making it twice the tragedy. Also, while we can consult the mother on whether she is willing to give up her own life, we cannot consult the child. Thus, we must make a decision based on only one opinion. However, because the lives are equally valuable, it doesn't matter who dies, just that someone did die, and either way it is a tragedy.

Nope, that's definitely not what I said. My logic here is that forcing unwilling parents to raise unwanted children is going to reliably produce bad results for parents, children, and society.

And your solution is to kill all the unwanted children.

Sure, for some people abstinence might be a good solution. But experience suggests that abstinence-first isn't a very useful way to prevent unwanted pregnancies. I think human sexuality is a natural part of most peoples lives. I don't think it's outrageous for men and women take preventative measures that limit the risk of pregnancy and STIs from sex. And I don't think that the failure of these reasonable preventative measures necessarily puts a woman on the hook to carry a baby to term. A safe, early-term abortion doesn't strike me as much more morally meaningful than just having successfully used birth control in the first place. But, more and better birth control would mean fewer abortions, which is something I think everyone would like.

So basically, "oh, don't fix the problem, just try to find another solution." Forgetting that that other solution causes the death of millions.

And you're engaged in the naturalism fallacy. Just because eating raw meat makes me sick doesn't mean I can't safely eat cooked meat lol.

And I want to give mothers the choice to determine when they have children. That means the right to choose a partner, use birth control and, when birth control fails, have access to a safe abortion.

Your solution is to force women to carry unwanted children to term. Then what? Hope they suddenly become willing and capable mothers? Foist them onto an overburdened foster care system?

If human lives are so valuable even when they're not wanted, why not ban birth control? Or even start a breeding program? Collectivize childcare and start pumping out test tube babies?

I don't count the deaths of zygotes as murder, because they're a being with the capability of a cup of yogurt who is not far removed from the sperm and eggs we dump down the toilet / into the garbage all the time.

I could not agree with this more strongly.
Very hard agree.

[Jamiet99uk]

You [Esquire B] have openly admitted that you believe that not all human life deserves the same value, and that some scientifically proven life, such as babies before they are born, deserve no value.

You did the same thing when you said that it was ok for Alabama to kill people if they were criminals. You openly admitted that you think a murderer's life is of less value than the life of an unborn foetus.

I am not, for the purposes of this post, agreeing or disagreeing with your value judgement. What I am doing is pointing out that you made a judgement which holds that not all human life has the same value, when you endorsed Alabama's death penalty.

[Jamiet99uk]

So in summary: Force women to carry rape babies to term, because that 'lil zygote who could have been prevented with birth control simply must be carried to term now that it exists - it's a human life. And try your best to just ignore the reality that most women will only have a certain number of kids in their life and that an unwanted child supplants a wanted one, because that makes it harder to justify extreme concern for existing zygotes at the clear expense of future ones.

There are plenty of practical options we have to prevent unwanted pregnancies. Evidence-based sexual education. Accessible birth control. And yes, some nudges towards stable long-term partnerships that plan their paternity. These are the things that will practically reduce the number of abortions.

If the zygote is a human then IVF is creating then murdering hundreds of humans. I think that's a silly way to look at it. No one suffers the supposed "harm" or letting a zygote whither away unused in a tube. I think the same is true for a 4-week abortion.

I think living beings have value to the extent they can experience things. Their potentiality to experience things matters too - we're not worthless when we're deeply sleeping, then valuable when we wake up. I just don't think that living beings' value is a magical property that emerges the second they have a unique genetic strand - not if it's created in a tube, and not even if that strand gets implanted in a fertile womb.

Again, hard support this position, and excellently articulated.

[Jamiet99uk]

There are two closely related issues here:
1. The Science of Life
2. The Value of Life

1. The Science of Life
Science shows that human life begins at the fertilization of a human egg. From the moment of conception, the fertilized egg is a living, unique, and growing human. When fertilization is complete, a unique genetic human entity exists. To say that the beginning of human life cannot be determined scientifically is utterly ridiculous.
a. Upon fertilization, a new organism exists after fertilization that did not exist before conception. That new life is not simply a continuation of the life of the sperm or egg cell. Rather, it is the life of a distinct, unique, new individual who has never existed before in history and will never exist again.
b. Nothing will be added to this new organism except nutrition. This new organism has its own human DNA that is distinct from the mother and father, meaning that it is a unique human person. From fertilization onward, it is a new organism that is unique, alive and growing.
c. Cells start dividing within an hour of fertilization This new life continues to grow and develop until death occurs due to injury or illness.
d. Every fertilized human egg dies, or grows into a human
e. This new human life will continue to grow and develop as long as nutrition is provided and its life is not ended through violence or illness.
f. Human Life changes continuously - A human is very different at age 85 than at 40. By age 16, the development of the brain allows for most adolescents have fully developed abstract reasoning, which is why it is difficult to teach calculus in grade school. Five year olds cannot survive on their own. One year olds have just learned to walk. Humans have a long period of development. That does not mean they are not humans from conception on.

2. The Value of Life
Preborn babies are the most vulnerable and helpless members of our society. The value of a human being does not depend on where they live, physical shape, what race they are, what they look like, or how old they are. Each person has inherent worth because of who and what he or she is - a member of the human species. Bad things happen when we don’t recognize the value of human life.
a. The National Socialists of Germany did not value certain lives, which led to the death of homosexuals, Slavs, Roma and 6 million Jews.
b. Margaret Sanger did not value Negro lives, and founded what became Planned Parenthood to discourage and eventually eliminate, “the defective and diseased elements of humanity” and eliminate the “dysgenic horror story” of blacks who reproduced “carelessly and disastrously.” We now have seen over 60 million abortions in the USA, 4 out of 10 Black pregnancies aborted, and Planned Parenthood puts 86% of its Abortion Facilities in minority neighborhoods
c. The Communists value power over life. The 20th century saw over 200 million killed by the communists, not counting wars.

The Declaration of Independence in the USA says “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” The founding Fathers saw the clear relationship between the Right to Life and Liberty. A really slippery slope when life is devalued.

If all of the above is true, why does Alabama have the death penalty?

If all of the above is true, why does Alabama have the death penalty?
I can't speak for the people of Alabama. But even the Catholic Church, which defends life from the moment of conception to a natural death, understands the need for a Just War

The Catechism of the Catholic Church lays out the conditions for just war in paragraph 2309:
• the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
• all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
• there must be serious prospects of success;
• the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modem means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.
The Just War Theory recognized the basic fact that sometimes force must be used to stop the evils of human violence.

The death penalty is used when there is evidence that other means of stopping evil is not effective

The Roman Catholic Church is an institutionally evil organisation and they can get fucked, I could not care less what they have to say. Fuck the bastards.

[DarthPorg36]

If all of the above is true, why does Alabama have the death penalty?

If all of the above is true, why does Alabama have the death penalty?
I can't speak for the people of Alabama. But even the Catholic Church, which defends life from the moment of conception to a natural death, understands the need for a Just War

The Catechism of the Catholic Church lays out the conditions for just war in paragraph 2309:
• the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
• all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
• there must be serious prospects of success;
• the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modem means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.
The Just War Theory recognized the basic fact that sometimes force must be used to stop the evils of human violence.

The death penalty is used when there is evidence that other means of stopping evil is not effective

The Roman Catholic Church is an institutionally evil organisation and they can get fucked, I could not care less what they have to say. Fuck the bastards.

Hey Hey calm down. You personally don't have to agree with the positions of the Catholic Church, but that does not mean they are "institutionally evil". This has been talked about numerous times. The church is not evil. They have made bad decisions, and done evil things, but the amount of good the church has done for the world far outweighs the bad they have inflicted on the world. Especially now. The Catholic Church does not summon legions to fight across the world, it is a relatively benign organization trying to spread the love and message of Jesus Christ. It is not perfect, but nobody is. I'm not even a Catholic, I'm a Protestant, so even I don't care too much about the Catholic Church, but they are my fellow humans and Christians. As such, I really can't stand aside if you're going to unilaterally declare the Catholic Church "evil" with such strong language.

If I may ask, why do you think this anyway?

[Jamiet99uk]

If all of the above is true, why does Alabama have the death penalty?
I can't speak for the people of Alabama. But even the Catholic Church, which defends life from the moment of conception to a natural death, understands the need for a Just War

The Catechism of the Catholic Church lays out the conditions for just war in paragraph 2309:
• the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
• all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
• there must be serious prospects of success;
• the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modem means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.
The Just War Theory recognized the basic fact that sometimes force must be used to stop the evils of human violence.

The death penalty is used when there is evidence that other means of stopping evil is not effective

The Roman Catholic Church is an institutionally evil organisation and they can get fucked, I could not care less what they have to say. Fuck the bastards.

Hey Hey calm down. You personally don't have to agree with the positions of the Catholic Church, but that does not mean they are "institutionally evil". This has been talked about numerous times. The church is not evil. They have made bad decisions, and done evil things, but the amount of good the church has done for the world far outweighs the bad they have inflicted on the world. Especially now. The Catholic Church does not summon legions to fight across the world, it is a relatively benign organization trying to spread the love and message of Jesus Christ. It is not perfect, but nobody is. I'm not even a Catholic, I'm a Protestant, so even I don't care too much about the Catholic Church, but they are my fellow humans and Christians. As such, I really can't stand aside if you're going to unilaterally declare the Catholic Church "evil" with such strong language.

If I may ask, why do you think this anyway?

They exist to control, subjugate and profit from people in the name of a non-existent deity.

A few quick examples of systemic abuse, violence, and criminal activity by the Catholic Church:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magdalene_Laundries_in_Ireland
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_sexual_abuse_cases
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inquisition
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Bartholomew%27s_Day_massacre

[Jamiet99uk]

Note I am criticising the institution(s) of the Catholic Church, not individual people who practice Christianity with a Catholic flavour. Those people have, in the main, simply been misled, I assume.

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

If all of the above is true, why does Alabama have the death penalty?
I can't speak for the people of Alabama. But even the Catholic Church, which defends life from the moment of conception to a natural death, understands the need for a Just War

The Catechism of the Catholic Church lays out the conditions for just war in paragraph 2309:
• the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
• all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
• there must be serious prospects of success;
• the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modem means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.
The Just War Theory recognized the basic fact that sometimes force must be used to stop the evils of human violence.

The death penalty is used when there is evidence that other means of stopping evil is not effective

The Roman Catholic Church is an institutionally evil organisation and they can get fucked, I could not care less what they have to say. Fuck the bastards.

Hey Hey calm down. You personally don't have to agree with the positions of the Catholic Church, but that does not mean they are "institutionally evil". This has been talked about numerous times. The church is not evil. They have made bad decisions, and done evil things, but the amount of good the church has done for the world far outweighs the bad they have inflicted on the world. Especially now. The Catholic Church does not summon legions to fight across the world, it is a relatively benign organization trying to spread the love and message of Jesus Christ. It is not perfect, but nobody is. I'm not even a Catholic, I'm a Protestant, so even I don't care too much about the Catholic Church, but they are my fellow humans and Christians. As such, I really can't stand aside if you're going to unilaterally declare the Catholic Church "evil" with such strong language.

If I may ask, why do you think this anyway?

I don't know if Jamie's "evil" condemnation is particularly useful in a conversation like this, but what else could one call rampant child sexual abuse that was knowingly covered up by the church? "It wasn't us, it was just our priests and their leaders" is only convincing to those who are very eager to excuse the Church. The other common defense, that the child diddling doesn't happen more than in some other child-facing organizations (e.g., organized sport), is a complete abdication of the moral superiority the Church claims in every other circumstance.

That's of course on top of obvious historical wrongs (residential schools in Canada and Australia, literally siding with the Nazis in WW2, etc.).

And the benefits of the Catholic church as an institution aren't so clear cut. If Catholic do-goodery saves 10,000 lives in Africa, but then convinces those same people to do away with contraception and STI-prevention, it's really hard to say what the net impact was.

A lot of believing Catholics certainly get value from their Catholicism. But if there were no Catholic church, these people would probably just get their spiritual nourishment elsewhere. Likewise, if Catholic charity came in another flavour, it might not get diverted to support a weighty, expensive, and sometimes-ostentatious church apparatus.

I don't think Catholics are evil. It's easy to point to good things done by Catholics and their church. But I do feel sorry for folks who put a lot of personal stock in the Catholic church being a force for good in the world - it must be hard when the institution proves to be so profoundly and disappointingly human.

[DarthPorg36]

The Roman Catholic Church is an institutionally evil organisation and they can get fucked, I could not care less what they have to say. Fuck the bastards.

Hey Hey calm down. You personally don't have to agree with the positions of the Catholic Church, but that does not mean they are "institutionally evil". This has been talked about numerous times. The church is not evil. They have made bad decisions, and done evil things, but the amount of good the church has done for the world far outweighs the bad they have inflicted on the world. Especially now. The Catholic Church does not summon legions to fight across the world, it is a relatively benign organization trying to spread the love and message of Jesus Christ. It is not perfect, but nobody is. I'm not even a Catholic, I'm a Protestant, so even I don't care too much about the Catholic Church, but they are my fellow humans and Christians. As such, I really can't stand aside if you're going to unilaterally declare the Catholic Church "evil" with such strong language.

If I may ask, why do you think this anyway?

I don't know if Jamie's "evil" condemnation is particularly useful in a conversation like this, but what else could one call rampant child sexual abuse that was knowingly covered up by the church? "It wasn't us, it was just our priests and their leaders" is only convincing to those who are very eager to excuse the Church. The other common defense, that the child diddling doesn't happen more than in some other child-facing organizations (e.g., organized sport), is a complete abdication of the moral superiority the Church claims in every other circumstance.

That's of course on top of obvious historical wrongs (residential schools in Canada and Australia, literally siding with the Nazis in WW2, etc.).

And the benefits of the Catholic church as an institution aren't so clear cut. If Catholic do-goodery saves 10,000 lives in Africa, but then convinces those same people to do away with contraception and STI-prevention, it's really hard to say what the net impact was.

A lot of believing Catholics certainly get value from their Catholicism. But if there were no Catholic church, these people would probably just get their spiritual nourishment elsewhere. Likewise, if Catholic charity came in another flavour, it might not get diverted to support a weighty, expensive, and sometimes-ostentatious church apparatus.

I don't think Catholics are evil. It's easy to point to good things done by Catholics and their church. But I do feel sorry for folks who put a lot of personal stock in the Catholic church being a force for good in the world - it must be hard when the institution proves to be so profoundly and disappointingly human.

Paragraph 1: True. That was horrible.
P2: Also True, those were also terrible decisions by the Catholic Church.
P3: Good: 10,000 lives. But yes, I agree the Catholic Church's stance on contraception and whatnot is often strange.
P4: Yes, sometimes the catholic church apparatus is quite large for the message of the gospels. But Pope Francis has rejected this to a significant degree. Even the Pope may agree that the church's wealth is odd.
P5: The Catholic Church is made up of humans, who are humans. Therefore the Catholic Church is human as well. They do fall short time and time again, but who does not? I try to see the potential for goodness in people/organizations. Despite the truly, truly, terrible things the church has done I think there is potential that they can truly be a force for good. That does not make less of the crimes they have committed, but I digress...

[Jamiet99uk]

Sorry, don't let my comments about the Catholic Church send this discussion off down a weird tangent. My main point was I don't regard that institution as the source of moral righteousness that Brian was attempting to rely on it as.

(Also its bizzare that he was suggesting the rules of just war should apply to an individual decision to sentence a particular person to death, but never mind).

[Jamiet99uk]

I'm more interested to hear from Fritz about his value judgement that not all human life has the same value.

[BrianBaru]

Sorry, don't let my comments about the Catholic Church send this discussion off down a weird tangent. My main point was I don't regard that institution as the source of moral righteousness that Brian was attempting to rely on it as.

(Also its bizzare that he was suggesting the rules of just war should apply to an individual decision to sentence a particular person to death, but never mind).

(Also its bizzare that he was suggesting the rules of just war should apply to an individual decision to sentence a particular person to death, but never mind).

Sorry you missed the point I was making. I’ll elaborate.

A just war involves killing humans. The death penalty involves killing humans, so the two are closely related.

Look at the 4 points I listed. These are the conditions necessary to justify taking a human life in a just war.
• the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
• all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
• there must be serious prospects of success;
• the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modem means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.
The second one - all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective – supports the Catholic Church’s position against the death penalty. Even purely evil men like Charles Manson or Jeffery Dahlmer can be kept in solitary confinement.

And it also follows that there is no justification whatsoever for killing humans in Abortion, or disposing of fertilized human eggs in IVF procedures.

[CaptainFritz28]

I'm more interested to hear from Fritz about his value judgement that not all human life has the same value.

I'll be replying to this tomorrow. Sorry, I've been busy.