The Catholic Champion has presented James Swan: Begging the Question on Sola Scriptura.A few weeks back he put forth Revolutionizing Catholic Apologetics: Cutting Out The Middle Man and also wrote this.
So, shouldn't I simply skip the middle man? Exactly why should I read Matthew's response according to Matthew's own logic? He should just simply point me to which books would be the best response. But wait... that's the middle man pointing me to the best books.
I guess I'm stuck with the middle man is some regard until the magisterium does something, anything.... but their hands are full with lawsuits and allegations this week, so perhaps next week they can work on a good list of resources in response to my comments on sola scriptura.
Since Matthew recommends skipping the middle man, the argumentation I'd use in response to him would be found here. I suggest Matthew purchase this book and get right to the source of my argumentation.
By the way, I'm still hopeful Matthew will provide a list of which "middle men" to avoid. How do we know according to Matthew who qualifies as a "middle man"? Matthew states:
"The best place to start your research is by using faithful, well educated scholars and clergy to compile your material from, as well as the original sources of the Church, Church Fathers and the Saints."
Matthew suggests cutting out the middle men will revolutionize Romanist apologetics. Every revolution requires sacrifice, so let's get started with a list:
Steve Ray
Tim Staples
Karl Keating
Mark Shea
John Martignoni
Matthew Bellisario
I'm willing to sacrifice the insights of these guys. Whom else could we do without?
Posts
255 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 255 of 255Your church opposes direct abortions, but supports indirect abortions under certain circumstances. In both cases the life of the unborn child is taken (to save the life of the mother).
"Your church opposes direct abortions, but supports indirect abortions under certain circumstances. In both cases the life of the unborn child is taken (to save the life of the mother).
Remember your quote?
"No one advances that an abortion is acceptable. These measures do not constitute an abortion."
This means that the Church is not supporting an abortion, period.
[Quote]
INDIRECT ABORTION
In direct abortion a living and nonviable fetus is removed from the uterus. The reason for the removal is that the pregnancy, added to some pathological condition from which the mother is suffering, increases her difficulties or even lessens her chances of survival. No condition exists, however, which makes the removal of the uterus itself necessary as a means of saving the mother's life.
The abortion is termed indirect when the pregnant uterus itself is excised because its condition is such that its removal is medically necessary. If the uterus contains a living and nonviable fetus, the fetus will of course inevitably die. There is no direct attack upon the fetus, however, and its death is merely permitted as a secondary effect of an act which needs to be performed and which, as we shall see immediately, it is permissible to perform.
http://www.ewtn.net/library/PROLIFE/INDIRECT.TXT
Steve you can backpeddle all you want. But we all know the Catholic Church does not support abortion under any circumstances, period. The law of double effect applies, and the act is not considered to be an abortion by the quote you quoted yourself from the USCCB. This goes to show everyone what happens when your arguments rely on cut and paste methods.
Bellisario:
It's already been shown that you were speaking from ignorance when you claimed that your church doesn't make an exception for "double effect" circumstances.
If anyone is backpedaling now, it is you. You'd look less belligerent if you just admitted that you should have done your homework, and moved on.
The fact that you don't just ingrains the minds of the readers here that you can't admit when you make a mistake.
Turretin, "It's already been shown that you were speaking from ignorance when you claimed that your church doesn't make an exception for "double effect" circumstances."
Are you mad? I am the one who brought up double effect! Not you or your buddy Steve. The fact is the Catholic Church does not endorse abortion under any circumstances. The USCCB document just quoted by Steve Hays says very plain the the result that happens from the medical procedure is not an abortion, period. You really are making asses out of yourselves here. You do not understand moral theology, or how the Church defines moral acts. Take a class in Thomistic philosophy, then maybe you two can talk on an intelligent level here.
""No one advances that an abortion is acceptable. These measures do not constitute an abortion."
Steve asked: Doesn’t Catholicism allow abortions in double effect situations?
Bellisario responded: No.
Now, Bellisario insists: "Are you mad? I am the one who brought up double effect! Not you or your buddy Steve."
Also, Bellisario now admits that his church does allow pregnancy terminations in double effect situations, though he does want to call such pregnancy terminations "abortions."
However, the CCC acknowledges the distinction between direct and indirect abortions (CCC 2271).
Waiting for the next round of abuse from the Romanist who never admits he makes a mistake,
- TurretinFan
Read your buddy Steve Hays' quote.
"No one advances that an abortion is acceptable. These measures do not constitute an abortion."
Once again, learn proper reasoning and terminology concerning moral theology. The Catholic Church does not endorse abortions under any circumstances, period. I just love how you guys cut and paste, then when you realize that what you have cut and pasted refutes your own argument, then you go and keep on making the same mistake, digging yourself deeper and deeper into a hole. Keep on digging, this is fun watching you two squirm.
It is funny how you two have completely changed the argument from Sacred Tradition and Sola Scriptura into a debate on abortion, and 10 other topics. I guess when you cannot admit that you are wrong on one argument, one way to draw attention from it is to start another one. Yet everyone you start you end up in the same place, on the losing end.
See, I called it!
Matthew Bellisario said...
“It is funny how you two have completely changed the argument from Sacred Tradition and Sola Scriptura into a debate on abortion, and 10 other topics. I guess when you cannot admit that you are wrong on one argument, one way to draw attention from it is to start another one. Yet everyone you start you end up in the same place, on the losing end.”
Funny how you can’t remember your own comments. Did I bring up the issue of abortion? No. That was you, back when you said: “Actually you should go tell your Protestant brothers and sister this since many of your kind allow abortion under certain circumstances.”
So, the fact that you initiated this change of subject must mean, when measured by your own yardstick, that when Bellisario can’t admit he was wrong on one argument, one way to draw attention from his error is for him to start another argument.
Matthew Bellisario said...
"Steve you can backpeddle all you want. But we all know the Catholic Church does not support abortion under any circumstances, period. The law of double effect applies, and the act is not considered to be an abortion by the quote you quoted yourself from the USCCB."
Your church allows for pregnancy termination under certain circumstances. That's the working definition of an abortion. You can't weasel out of the substantive issue by evasively redefining your terms.
And if you try to redefine abortion in such tendentious, idiosyncratic terms that pregnancy termination doesn't fit the definition, then your church has a policy on abortion which is every bit as permissive as NARAL.
"Your church allows for pregnancy termination under certain circumstances. That's the working definition of an abortion. You can't weasel out of the substantive issue by evasively redefining your terms."
Steve did you or did you not quote the USCCB doc as your proof? Did the document not say, ""No one advances that an abortion is acceptable. These measures do not constitute an abortion."
It seems that you are the one trying to redefine abortion, not me. My claim stands, the Catholic Church does not endorse abortion under any circumstances, as your Protestant brothers and sisters do, who all go by the doctrine of Scripture Alone. That is the point. Why don't you go over and tell your Protestant brother Peter Ruckman, who also goes by Scripture Alone, that abortion should not be tolerated. He thinks that Scripture tells him that the baby does not have a soul in the mother's womb since it has not breathed in air. He gets that from his interpretation of Genesis.
It is the same deal with your interpretation of Gen 38, or lack of an interpretation, that allows you to justify the abomination of self abuse. This is the problem with Sola Scriptura. No matter how you slice it, you are taking authority over God's Written Word to interpret it according to your own liking, therefore ultimately deciding for yourself what you are or are not going to believe.
The rotten fruit is clear, none of you can agree on anything. You can't even use your own reason to define the act of abortion correctly. You can't even use your reason to see that the doc you quoted by the USCCB to supposedly substantiate your argument says in the text that you are wrong. After you found out that you cut and pasted without reading the entire text, then you had to redefine abortion for yourself so you could fit into your flawed argument.
Remember the quote that you yourself posted? Lets look at it again. "No one advances that an abortion is acceptable. These measures do not constitute an abortion."
Matthew Bellisario said...
"It is the same deal with your interpretation of Gen 38, or lack of an interpretation, that allows you to justify the abomination of self abuse."
Coitus interruptus is hardly synonymous with masturbation. Perhaps when you're old enough to take 8th grade sex-ed, you'll learn the difference.
"... when Bellisario can’t admit he was wrong on one argument, one way to draw attention from his error is for him to start another argument. "
What makes the situation comical is that Bellisario is unsuccessful in avoiding errors in his tangents. I am half inclined to graph this comment box to show how his pursuit of tangents simply leads to the multiplication of his errors.
Perhaps you will listen to your mentor John Calvin who saw the clear similarity in spilling one's seed outside of intercourse, which goes along with his interpretation of Gen 38. You know Steve, he went by Scripture Alone too. Perhaps you should tell everyone how Calvin was an idiot too since he agrees with me. "The voluntary spilling of semen outside of intercourse between man and woman is a monstrous thing." That includes self abuse in case there is any confusion for you.
"The rotten fruit is clear, none of you can agree on anything."
This is more absurd than the abortion claim. It could be made more comical if you would imagine Bellisario shouting it, instead of typing it.
TF says, "What makes the situation comical is that Bellisario is unsuccessful in avoiding errors in his tangents. I am half inclined to graph this comment box to show how his pursuit of tangents simply leads to the multiplication of his errors."
First of all they were not my tangents. We can see that it is you and your buddies who came on here and started making all kinds of attacks and took everything I wrote concerning Scripture Alone out of context.
"I am half inclined to graph this comment box to show how his pursuit of tangents simply leads to the multiplication of his errors."
We all know that you will take everything I have said out of context just like you do with all of your cut and paste efforts, and then post them up on your blog in the same way the news media does to distort everything presented here. You are a dishonest person, and you are going to have answer for the kind of dishonest rhetoric you post on these blogs. It is plain that every single argument you put forth was shot down. You will not even admit that the Catholic Church does not endorse abortion, period, despite the quote that your buddy Hays posted, which totally shot down his own argument. You and Hays are morally bankrupt and have been that way since I first dealt with you on the net years ago.
Remember Hay's quote?
"No one advances that an abortion is acceptable. These measures do not constitute an abortion."
You both have a lot of nerve to lie in the face everyone reading this blog. You did the same thing when you and your buddy Bridges made asses out of yourselves by saying the Catholic Church advocated the use of the "withdrawal out method," which you were both refuted on, then you both lied about.
Lets roll back the clock and look at your lies, shall we?
http://catholicchampion.blogspot.com/2008/08/bridges-over-troubled-waterchess-player.html
"You know Steve, he went by Scripture Alone too. Perhaps you should tell everyone how Calvin was an idiot too since he agrees with me."
Our harshly negative view of your abilities is not directly connected with the positions you take. Taking this case as an example ...
Calvin's explanation regarding the verse about Onan is connected with his comment, "For this means that one quenches the hope of his family, and kills the son, which could be expected, before he is born."
That's not the reason that Rome says that the act is horrible. Furthermore, that reason condemns the rhythm method of contraception (you like to call it Natural Family Planning).
In any event, while the commentary in question did appear in the original Latin edition of the commentary, it was evidently removed when the Latin commentary was translated into French.
Unlike certain folks, Calvin didn't consider himself personally infallible.
"First of all they were not my tangents."
In that very same comment, you then introduce a new tangent of the time when Gene Bridges showed that you were unfamiliar with the disagreement among Roman Catholic bishops over the topic of contraception.
Meanwhile, you false accuse Mr. Hays and myself.
Are you really that clueless?
"That's not the reason that Rome says that the act is horrible. Furthermore, that reason condemns the rhythm method of contraception (you like to call it Natural Family Planning)."
What? Are you really going to go there again? NFP is not contraception! You got your ass handed to you last time you brought this up. Alex and I refuted over an over and over on this issue and you are still going to lie about it again? Do want to go another round and further demonstrate that you have no concept of moral theology or what constitutes an actual act? I will tell you what. To avoid a further 220 comments, if you want to actually debate what constitutes a contraceptive act let me know. We can lay it out in a formal written debate. For now you have once again made an as out of yourself trying to equate a contraceptive act with NFP. You are totally delusional.
"NFP is not contraception!"
Cambridge International Dictionary of English defines contraception as: "(the use of) any of various methods intended to prevent a woman becoming pregnant"
Of course, that same dictionary defines "abortion" as "the intentional ending of a pregnancy, usually by a medical operation"
I'm aware (even if you are not) that on the issue of contraception, your church's catechism distinguishes between what it calls contraception and the use of the rhythm method. Given that point, I find it unlikely any amount of debating would ever persuade you that it is legitimate to use the word "contraception" the way that the dictionary uses it.
Same goes, incidentally, for "abortion," as already illustrated above.
But I'm sure that in your own world where you keep running off on new tangents, you'll think I'm delusional for speaking like a person who is not bound to call "white" by the name "black" if my church so decrees it.
-TurretinFan
TF writes, "Of course, that same dictionary defines "abortion" as "the intentional ending of a pregnancy, usually by a medical operation"
Do you see the word intended in the sentence? That means that what I said still stands. The Catholic Church opposes all abortion, period. As far as NFP, there is no act being carried out, so obviously there is no contraceptive act.
"Do you see the word intended in the sentence? That means that what I said still stands."
As long as you get to define "intended" in the specific way you want, namely so that it excludes "foreseen" and only includes "desired," sure. But, of course, the Cambridge dictionary defines "intend" as "to have as a plan or purpose" ... while the death of the infant is not part of the purpose of indirect abortion, it is part of the plan.
"The Catholic Church opposes all abortion, period."
If other groups were as sophistical as you, they could claim the same thing. However, as has been demonstrated, in double-effect scenarios, your church permits abortion, where abortion is defined as a planned pregnancy termination.
A pro-death group, for example, could simply say that it defines abortion to mean "terminating the pregnancy for the sole purpose of killing the unborn child," and then claim that it opposes abortion, period.
That kind of sophistry is transparent, whether from you or a pro-death group.
"As far as NFP, there is no act being carried out, so obviously there is no contraceptive act."
Apparently, you are not familiar with NFP. Without getting into the details, NFP, in its most popular manifestation called the sympto-thermal method, involves taking temperature measurements of the woman daily and charting them out. Other physical observations, such as Cervical mucous and firmness are also normally made with the temperature measurements.
It's actually significantly more complicated and requires more acts than most other techniques for attempting to have sexual congress while remaining infertile.
Some of the other manifestations, like the beads method, etc., may be a little less complicated, but they all involve making observations, planning, etc. It's not as simple as popping a pill, although folks from your church use sophistical reasoning to condemn that act while permitting the other acts.
I'm also aware of the fact that the folks from whom you get your ideas give "contraceptive act" a special definition, such that the acts of avoiding conception (while engaging in sexual activity) in some ways count, and other ways don't.
- TurretinFan
TF sais, "I'm also aware of the fact that the folks from whom you get your ideas give "contraceptive act" a special definition..."
Yes, folks like the Catholic Church and her official documents, which is what we go by, not by your own definitions and opinions. If there is no sexual act taking place, then there is no contraceptive act. If you study Thomistic logic then maybe you might get it, because as of now, it seems you have no concept of what constitutes a contraceptive act, or any act for that matter. Choosing not to have sex is not a contraceptive act.
As far as the abortion issue goes, it seems that you want to ignore the quote your buddy Hays quoted from the USCCB which tells us that there is no abortion taking place within the framework of double effect. The intent is not killing the baby, and there is no direct action that kills the baby, it is an unavoidable consequence of the other medical procedure, so obviously the definition fits the Catholic USCCB doc that Hays quoted.
The definition you quoted, "the intentional ending of a pregnancy, usually by a medical operation", the USCCB, "No one advances that an abortion is acceptable. These measures do not constitute an abortion." There is no intention to kill the baby by the medical procedure, therefore no abortion has taken place. Nice sophistry, but My claim still stands.
Bellisario:
My immediately previous comment addressed each of those points. There is one exception. I had not previously addressed your obvious blunder in which you affirm that I correctly anticipated your counter-argument and then nevertheless assert that I have "no concept" of your position. That being now addressed, I suppose this long discussion is at an end (unless you seriously wish to say that when I correctly anticipate your arguments, it proves I have no concept of your arguments).
- TurretinFan
Catholic moral theology condemns at all times, including in pursuit of protecting the life of the mother, the expulsion of the embryo or fetus per se. I understand that to non-Catholics and/or those who have not been trained in any philosophical way of thinking, particularly the Thomistic way of thinking, these people might find the real distinctions at play here hard to grasp and nothing more than sophistry. However, it is apparent that this should not be the case, and absent sound argumentation against the Catholic position we can clearly see that Turretinfan and Hays has more stock invested in being intellectually dishonest so as not to give any ground whatsoever to any Catholic approach than in giving truth itself a fair hearing.
There are subtle approaches to the principle of double effect; nevertheless, there are four conditions which must be present in order for the act in question to properly adhere to PDE, and these are:
(a) The end must be morally acceptable.
(b) The cause must be either good or morally indifferent
(c) The good effect must immediately follow (meaning that the evil effect may not be a means to the good effect, the evil effect must either follow the good or both the good effect and the evil effect must follow independently from the cause, otherwise the good would have resulted from evil and one may never do evil)
(d) There must be a grave reason for positing the cause (meaning that the cause can stand alone in it’s moral evaluation)
In the case of say a cancerous uterus there are two effects, one intended and the other outside or beside intention. Is it licit to remover the uterus even though we can predictably foresee the death of the child? Secondly, is this an abortive act per se? Again, what is an abortion? An abortion is the expulsion of an embryo or fetus. Is it morally permissible to procure an abortion under threat of losing the mother’s life? No, Catholic teaching (and natural law) condemns any direct action that violates the bodily integrity of the embryo or fetus. However, it is morally permissible given the conditions of PDE supplied above that the cancerous uterus itself can be removed even though this would predictably cause the death of the embryo or fetus. The difference in action is found in that this type of act protects the mother from the evil effect of cancer. The cancerous uterus would need to have been removed regardless of the existence of the fetus. The action taken is directed in a proportionate manner per se against the cancerous uterus, and not per se against violating the fetus. It is clear that the object of the act is the direct removal of the cancerous uterus as a proportionate act so as to protect the mother. The act in removing the uterus is only a partial cause of harm to the fetus, and not a direct cause of harm as would be the case in procuring an abortion. As such the foreseen evil of the death of the fetus is physical rather than moral, and this is an important distinction.
The medical act of removing a cancerous uterus is good. The (physical) evil effect of the death of the fetus is not sought as an end but permitted. The cause of the death of the fetus on behalf of the moral agent is a partial cause. The good effect is not achieved by the evil effect as a procured abortion would have been, meaning it wasn’t because the fetus was extracted that the mother was protected. The removing of the uterus does not involve killing the fetus, the action was taken against the uterus and not the fetus. In short, the evil effect which would have otherwise not been chosen followed from a moral act that became a partial cause, but not the cause , of the evil effect.
Let’s suppose an example where there is an ectopic pregnancy, and the fetus is still alive but the mother is undergoing internal hemorrhaging. Is it moral to undergo surgery in order to extract the fetus? No. Catholic moral teaching (as well as natural law) states that it is always and everywhere immoral to cause harm to the embryo.
At present there are four different ways in treating a tubal pregnancy, and they are:
(a) Expectant management
(b) Salpingectomy (Removal of the tube with embryo)
(c) Salpingostomy (Removal of just the embryo)
(d) Methotrexate
Methods (a) and (b) are both morally acceptable. In (a) we leave the situation to take care of itself, where this results in a spontaneous abortion, but this is only the case in less than half the cases of occurrence. Situation (b) is very much similar to the scenario above where the removal of the cancerous uterus is not immoral in itself, and no direct action was taken against the fetus. Similarly, the removal of the fallopian tube under grave conditions where to do nothing would cause internal hemorrhaging is likewise moral. Again, here the principle of double effect applies. Both (c) and (d) are acts which do violate sound moral principles and are immoral.
Lastly, the USCCB stated in directive #45 the following:
Abortion (that is, the directly intended termination of pregnancy before viability or the directly intended destruction of a viable fetus) is never permitted. Every procedure whose sole immediate effect is the termination of pregnancy before viability is an abortion, which, in its moral context, includes the interval between conception and implantation of the embryo. Catholic health care institutions are not to provide abortion services, even based upon the principle of material cooperation. In this context, Catholic health care institutions need to be concerned about the danger of scandal in any association with abortion providers.
It is my hope that both Turretinfan and Hays will overcome their brain excrement masquerading as “logical thinking” and accept the fact that as Matt has stated the Catholic Church condemns abortion in every circumstance. I doubt that this will happen. Even after much discussion Turretinfan seems perfectly incapable of making the distinction between NFP under grave reasons with contraception. After humiliating Hays on his ignorant understanding of the various stripes of “conservative jurisprudence,” and schooling him on Scalia’s particular form of jurisprudence, he continued to argue like a five year old. I have little hope in him.
"It is my hope that both Turretinfan and Hays will overcome their brain excrement masquerading as “logical thinking” and accept the fact that as Matt has stated the Catholic Church condemns abortion in every circumstance."
I've addressed Bellisario's argument above. If you define abortion according to normal English sources as planned termination of pregnancy you get one result - if you define away the double-effect indirect abortions ... so be it. That sort of sophistry condemns itself to the honest reader.
"Even after much discussion Turretinfan seems perfectly incapable of making the distinction between NFP under grave reasons with contraception."
Refusing to accept your sophistical definitions is not a lack of familiarity with the distinctions you try to raise.
- TurretinFan
Turretinfan, the fact remains that you are the sophist who ignores important distinctions due to their inconvenience towards the objection against all things “Rome” you are trying to raise. The removal of the uterus or fallopian tube, while it does partially cause the death of the fetus or embryo, it is not consider to be an abortion procedure per se. The procedure is not an abortion procedure. I have already explained why this is the case, and I have demonstrated what type of procedure these actions actually are.
If you define abortion according to normal English sources as planned termination of pregnancy you get one result
Even under this definition, the medical procedure as planned is to remove the uterus or fallopian tube which has a necessary yet unwanted side effect of providing the partial cause of harming the embryo. This is hardly an abortion. An abortion is the removal or expulsion of the embryo or fetus per se. You call this sophistry, and maybe in the insignificant Bible colleges you people attend don’t bother with critical thinking, but in the professional world of medicine, law, etc., as well as those philosophers devoted to understanding the proper species of moral action, these distinctions in kind are taken seriously, and not simply wished away by those who are more eager to obfuscate the facts with ridiculous accusations of sophistry. Perhaps you can engage and argue against the evidence presented instead of hiding behind your lame accusations.
"Turretinfan, the fact remains that you are the sophist who ignores important distinctions due to their inconvenience towards the objection against all things “Rome” you are trying to raise."
You call them important distinctions, I call them sophistical distinctions. You call me a "sophist" but you lie when you claim I ignore the distinctions. Rejecting them is not ignoring them.
Steve has already provided more than enough evidence regarding the use of the term "indirect abortion."
"An abortion is the removal or expulsion of the embryo or fetus per se."
a) Removal of the child-containing-organ also removes the child. This is foreseen and intended (we'll omit the cases where the child's presence wasn't known). It would be medical malpractice (and unnecessary trouble) to leave the child in his mother while removing the organ that was most proximately containing him (in the case of a hysterectomy - perhaps a child relocation could be attempted in other circumstances - I would expect it to be mostly futile).
b) Birth is not abortion, though it has the result of expelling the child.
"You call this sophistry, and maybe in the insignificant Bible colleges you people attend don’t bother with critical thinking, but in the professional world of medicine, law, etc., as well as those philosophers devoted to understanding the proper species of moral action, these distinctions in kind are taken seriously, and not simply wished away by those who are more eager to obfuscate the facts with ridiculous accusations of sophistry."
The irony is that your appeal to intellectual superiority is found to be
a) run-on sentence; and
b) a bit heavy on the use of ad hominem.
"Perhaps you can engage and argue against the evidence presented instead of hiding behind your lame accusations."
See above.
-TurretinFan
Both Alex and Bellisario are reduced to splitting hairs over synonyms.
"Both Alex and Bellisario are reduced to splitting hairs over synonyms."
Hays and Fan are reduced to being intellectually dishonest, and two men who cannot reason anything through logically. My points still stand sound. The Catholic Church never endorses abortion for any reason, as stated by Steve Hays himself. Notice how you all ignore the very quote that Hays provided which refuted his own argument. We all have to laugh and wonder where Hays thinks he can even begin to discuss legal matters, when he puts up quotes that refute his own arguments. What a joke.
Remember your quote?
"No one advances that an abortion is acceptable. These measures do not constitute an abortion."
"We all have to laugh and wonder where Hays thinks he can even begin to discuss legal matters, when he puts up quotes that refute his own arguments."
I didn't anticipate that new tangent ... I suppose now Bellisario thinks himself competent to judge debates in matters legal as well as theological.
As for the quotation ... you do realize it is from the USCCB, right Bellisario? You're not of the impression that Steve Hays said that (although you claim "as stated by Steve Hays himself").
Matthew Bellisario said...
"Hays and Fan are reduced to being intellectually dishonest, and two men who cannot reason anything through logically. My points still stand sound. The Catholic Church never endorses abortion for any reason, as stated by Steve Hays himself."
Your point collapsed in a heap of dust because all you can do is quibble over synonyms. And even on purely semantic terms, "indirect abortion"is one of the terms in one the Catholic sources I quoted.
Even more to the point is the actual concept of pregnancy termination, which your church allows in double effect situations.
When I was just a wee tot, I remember seeing a movie called, I think, The Cardinal. In the film the priest's sister was giving birth but the complications meant that he would have to choose between saving her life or that of the baby. He chose to save the life of the baby and let his sister die. His reasoning, as I recall, was that his sister had had her time in life but it would be wrong to deny the tot his due.
I was wondering what the RCC folks here would have to say about his choice, and can it be confirmed or denied by something specific in the Catholic Catechism or some other authority statement. He obviously needed to make some kind of decision, did he make the right one, and why?
Thats it Steve, keep ignoring the fact that the quote you put up by the USCCB refutes your own argument. Remember the quote? I just love rubbing the dog's nose in its own excrement.
"No one advances that an abortion is acceptable. These measures do not constitute an abortion."
Great job! The great logician Hays at his best defeating his own argument. Are you done making an ass out of yourself?
TF writes, "As for the quotation ... you do realize it is from the USCCB, right Bellisario? You're not of the impression that Steve Hays said that (although you claim "as stated by Steve Hays himself")."
Did you even read what I wrote or are you going to continue to make an ass out of yourself further as well? Hay's quoted the USCCB as a defense to his argument for Catholicism supposedly allowing abortion. Yet the quote that he posted refuted exactly what he was arguing for. Did you not comprehend that part, or are you going to lie your way of this like you always do when you and your buddies are proven incompetent?
Remember the USCCB quote that Steve posted?
"No one advances that an abortion is acceptable. These measures do not constitute an abortion."
"Did you even read what I wrote or are you going to continue to make an ass out of yourself further as well?"
Given that I quoted and commented upon what you wrote, I suppose that only someone of very meager understanding could think that I didn't read what you wrote.
"Hay's quoted the USCCB as a defense to his argument for Catholicism supposedly allowing abortion."
And, in fact, it did show what Steve brought it forth to show, namely that your church permits indirect abortion in certain double-effect situations.
You seem to have missed that point (whether out of ignorance or malice I cannot say) and focused on the definitions used by the article, rather than on the substance of the article.
"Yet the quote that he posted refuted exactly what he was arguing for."
No. Since you are playing (or perhaps are) clueless here, let me explain: Steve didn't quote what quoted to prove that the USCCB defines "abortion" to mean [X] but rather that the USCCB tolerates abortions of a particular kind. His point stands, whether or not the USCCB wishes to call such abortions "abortions" or something else.
"Did you not comprehend that part, or are you going to lie your way of this like you always do when you and your buddies are proven incompetent?"
The trail of evidence above clears Steve and my name against your slander.
"Remember the quote? I just love rubbing the dog's nose in its own excrement."
Although your attitude is despicable and manners completely absent, it is mildly amusing that in your haste to speak negatively of Hays you refer to the writings of the USCCB as dog excrement.
-TurretinFan
"Although your attitude is despicable and manners completely absent, it is mildly amusing that in your haste to speak negatively of Hays you refer to the writings of the USCCB as dog excrement."
No we can see the dog excrement is his asinine understanding of the document. The document itself says there is no abortion taking place you idiot. But again we can see your dishonesty in redefining things the way you want to define them so that you can try and weasel your way out of your bad arguments. You two are the dishonest ones here and most rational people cans see that that is the case. You and Steve have again failed to prove anything contrary to what I have written thus far on the subject.
The document itself says there is no abortion taking place you idiot.
Steve quoted a Catholic source elsewhere in this thread that was discussing exactly what the other document described, so, which rather shows that what the former document refers to by the term "abortion" is what the other source calls an "indirect abortion." If you disagree with that term, then perhaps you can tell us what the termination of a pregnancy due to some other medical procedure than a direct abortion is appropriately called and/or why the other source Steve quoted is describing something different (if not exactly what the other document described). If not, then it seems you are reduced to simply repeating "the document says that's not an abortion" ...all the while not giving us your principled alternative terminology with a supporting argument.
But again we can see your dishonesty in redefining things the way you want to define them so that you can try and weasel your way out of your bad arguments. Until you do the above, it seems you need to aquaint yourself with the psychological phenomenon known as transference.
You two are the dishonest ones here and most rational people cans see that that is the case.
You entered this thread talking about "illogical" argumentation. Yet you seem to be the one who doesn't understand both the word-concept fallacy and truth by definition. "Rational people" can savor that irony.
You two are the dishonest ones here and most rational people cans see that that is the case. Yeah, well, you're just a "middle man." Why should anybody take what you say as an acceptable argument. This thread, if you will recall, is about you not providing us with a specific list of acceptable sources and, in fact, calling for "cutting out the middlemen" (to borrow a turn of phrase), without telling us who is an acceptable and unacceptable middleman.
Let's take a look at Bellisario's paragraph:
"No we can see the dog excrement is his asinine understanding of the document. The document itself says there is no abortion taking place you idiot. But again we can see your dishonesty in redefining things the way you want to define them so that you can try and weasel your way out of your bad arguments. You two are the dishonest ones here and most rational people cans see that that is the case. You and Steve have again failed to prove anything contrary to what I have written thus far on the subject."
I've used bold emphasis to highlight the parts of his paragraph that really give it its punch. Notice, however, that Bellisario provides no actual argument to respond to the arguments I've presented. Instead, he simply relies on rhetorical color.
Bellisario's fallacy is, as Gene has pointed out, the word-concept fallacy. Nevertheless, there does not appear to be any end in sight for the rhetorical jabs.
-TurretinFan
Wow it seems that Gene has crawled out from under his rock again! A bit late to the party I am afraid. The fact is the Catholic Church does not allow for abortion under any circumstances, while your Protestant brothers like Peter Ruckman allow for it because of their interpretation of Genesis. I think maybe you should go debate your Protestant brother Ruckman on Sola Scriptura and abortion. He however also goes by the Bible alone so you will have to prove why your interpretation is authentic, while his is not. Good luck.
"Wow it seems that Gene has crawled out from under his rock again!"
Notice the immediate hostility.
"A bit late to the party I am afraid."
Time will tell about that.
"The fact is the Catholic Church does not allow for abortion under any circumstances, ..."
This has been disproved above. Bellisario hasn't answered the arguments except to repeat his assertions.
"... while your Protestant brothers like Peter Ruckman ..."
a) He's Bellisario's "Protestant brother" assuming Bellisario holds to Vatican II;
b) He's also Bellisario's "Non-Reformed brother."
" ... allow for it because of their interpretation of Genesis."
His interpretation of Genesis is wrong on that point. It's not his only mistake. He's a fallible human being.
"I think maybe you should go debate your Protestant brother Ruckman on Sola Scriptura and abortion."
a) I'd love to see Bellisario try to debate his "brother" Ruckman on sola scriptura.
b) We'd be more than happy to debate Ruckman on abortion, if Ruckman would go for it. We're sure he wouldn't go for it.
"He however also goes by the Bible alone so you will have to prove why your interpretation is authentic, while his is not."
Yes, that's how debates among professing Christians work.
Augustine: Let us not hear, You say this, I say that; but let us hear Thus saith the Lord. There are the Dominical books, whose authority we both acknowledge, we both yield to, we both obey; there let us seek the Church, there let us discuss the question between us. Of the Unity of the Church, Chapter 3, Section 5
Of course, when it came to issues related to ensoulment, and particularly the interpretation related to the "breath of life" Augustine (unlike Bellisario and his "brother" Ruckman) acknowledged his uncertainty:
"Since many questions of this kind are raised on this matter, such as cannot be investigated by any human sense, are far removed from our experience and hidden in the most secret recesses of nature, it is no shame for a man to admit that he does not know what he does not know, lest by pretending that he does know he should deserve never to know."
- Augustine, Letter 190, To Optatus
[cont'd in part 2]
[cont'd from part 1]
And furthermore, Augustine appeared to be uncertain when life began: "If the embryo is still unformed, but yet in some way ensouled while unformed ... the law does not provide that the act pertains to homicide, because still there cannot be said to be a live soul in a body that lacks sensation, if it is in flesh not yet formed and thus not yet endowed with senses." (Augustine, translation by John Thomas Noonan)
Alternative translation (by Joseph A. Komonchak) and Latin:
The fact that it does not think that an un-formed offspring has anything to do with homicide, shows that it did not consider such an offspring in the womb to be a man. Here a question is usually asked about the soul: whether what is un-formed can also be understood not to be en-souled (animatam), and it is not homicide because if it did not have a soul, it can’t be said to be de-souled un-formed killed). … If, then, that child was un-formed, but in some sense was in an un-formed way en-souled (animatum)–because the difficult problem of the soul must not be resolved in haste with the rashness of an opinion not subjected to careful examination–the Law did not want it to be considered a homicide because a soul within a body still deprived of the senses cannot be called living, if it is such in a body not yet formed and therefore not yet endowed with senses.”
Latin: Quod vero non formatum puerperium noluit ad homicidium pertinere, profecto nec hominem deputavit quod tale in utero geritur. Hic de anima quaestio solet agitari, utrum quod formatum non est, ne animatum quidem possit intelligi, et ideo non sit homicidium, quia nec examinatum dici potest, si adhuc animam non habebat. … Si ergo illud informe puerperium jam quidem fuerit, sed adhuc quodammodo informiter animatum (quoniam magna de anima quaestio non est praecipitanda indiscussae temeritate sententiae), ideo Lex noluit ad homicidium pertinere, quia nondum dici potest anima viva in eo corpore quod sensu caret, si talis est in carne nondum formata, et ideo nondum sensibus praedita.
Augustine, Questions on the Heptateuch, Questions on Exodus, Question 80
"Good luck."
:)
- TurretinFan
Wow it seems that Gene has crawled out from under his rock again!
Well, I do confess to taking a certain amount of enjoyment in watching you hang yourself with each passing post, but I thought it time to point out the irony of your statements, among other things. On the other hand, I've been rather busy IRL over the past several months.
The fact is the Catholic Church does not allow for abortion under any circumstances,
Thus says the Middle Man. Thus far, you've left what I posted untouched. I will, in perhaps the vain hope you will answer it, repost it:
Steve quoted a Catholic source elsewhere in this thread that was discussing exactly what the other document described, so, which rather shows that what the former document refers to by the term "abortion" is what the other source calls an "indirect abortion." If you disagree with that term, then perhaps you can tell us what the termination of a pregnancy due to some other medical procedure than a direct abortion is appropriately called and/or why the other source Steve quoted is describing something different (if not exactly what the other document described). If not, then it seems you are reduced to simply repeating "the document says that's not an abortion" ...all the while not giving us your principled alternative terminology with a supporting argument.
Perhaps this requires some explanation for you to understand it.
What you seek to rebut via truth by stipulation appears, from the two documents to be a synonymous act. Ergo, you are appealing to one document at the expense of the other without a supporting argument. How is this not the word-concept fallacy? You seem reduced to repeating the same phrase while all the time, it is plainly evident that what is described in one document is, by the other, called an "indirect abortion." Is one document in error? If so, why is that,or could it be that the Catholic rule of faith is a blueprint for misunderstanding and, ergo, anarchy?
Peter Ruckman Introducing Peter Ruckman into this discussion is irrelevant to the conflict between these two documents and your unwillingness to provide us the "correct" terminology for a the termination of a pregnancy due to non-direct means, which is otherwise called an indirect abortion.
Steve, I warned you not to mess around with Bellisario. He is ninja-esque in his deft and deadly use of the sword of logic. He's so good, so deadly, and so well trained; that you don't even know you've been beaten. How does it feel to have crossed intellectual blades with the most logical mind on the planet?
Bishop B.S. (Belli - sario) opines:
Everyone knows that historians have traditionally taught that there were immediate successors of St. Peter, in the form of a singular bishop. If anyone is the postmodern nutjob it is those who think they can rewrite history.
Everyone knows…except Cardinal Newman….d’oh!
The papacy did not come into existence at the same time as the church. In the words of John Henry Newman, “While Apostles were on earth, there was the display neither of Bishop nor Pope.” Peter was not a bishop in Rome. There were no bishops in Rome for at least a hundred years after the death of Christ. The very term “pope” (papa, daddy) was not reserved for the bishop of Rome until the fifth century – before then it was used of any bishop (S. 89). ….
Wills, Garry. Why I am a Catholic. Boston, Houghton, Mifflin and Company, 2002. p. 54
“The study of the history of the Roman primacy has shown that Catholics must resign themselves to the fact that the New Testament does not support claims for Peter’s position of primacy, nor for succession to that position, nor for papal infallibility…Consequently, no historical foundation exists in the New Testament to justify the papal primacy. The concept of this primacy is, rather, a theological justification of a factual situation which had come about earlier and for other reasons.” ”
Dr. Karl Heinz-Ohlig. Professor of Catholic Theology, University of Saarbrucken.
we may conclude, with at least high probability, that Peter was not at Rome during any of the time on which the writings of the canonical Scriptures throw much light, and almost certainly that during that time he was not its bishop. We have an Epistle of Paul to the Romans full of salutations to his friends there, but no mention of their bishop. Nor is anything said of work done by Peter in founding that Church. On the contrary, it is implied that no Apostle had as yet visited it;. for such is the inference from the passage already cited, in which Paul expresses his wish to see the Roman Christians in order that he might impart some spiritual gift to the end that they might be established. We have letters of Paul from Rome in which no message is sent from Peter; and in the very last of these letters Paul complains of being left alone, and that only Luke was with him. Was Peter one of the deserters? The Scripture accounts of Peter place him in Judea, in Antioch, possibly in Corinth, but finally in Babylon.
Salmon, George, D.D. Lectures Delivered in the Divinity School of the University of Dublin, Lecture XIX. “Peter’s Alleged Roman Episcopate”. (1888).
More B.S. (Belli - Sario)!
Post a Comment