Exam Study

http://www.catholicmemes.com

A Pro-Life Defense of Truth, by sword-meets-rose

Pro-life advocates argue that elective abortion unjustly takes the life of a defenseless human being. In support of this conclusion, pro-lifers cite both scientific and philosophic evidence. Nonetheless, some people ignore the evidence pro-life advocates present and argue for abortion based on self-interest. That is the lazy way out. If we care about truth, we will courageously follow the facts wherever they lead. But there are pitfalls. Here are five common mistakes people make arguing for abortion

Mistake #1: Confuse objective claims with subjective ones (or confuse claims about ice cream with claims about truth).

When pro-life advocates say that abortion is morally wrong because it takes the life of a defenseless child, they are making a particular type of claim. Specifically, they are making a moral claim about the rightness or wrongness of abortion.

Many people, however, misconstrue the kind of claim the pro-lifer is making in order to respond to one they like better. Consider the following responses to the statement, Abortion is morally wrong.

• “That’s just your view.”

[...]

• “Don’t force your morality on me.”

[...]

1) Relativism is self-refuting—it commits intellectual suicide. [...]

2) It is impossible for a moral relativist to say that anything is wrong, including intolerance. [...]

3) It is impossible to live as a moral relativist.
[...]

• “I’m personally opposed to abortion, but I still think it should be legal.”

[...]

Mistake #2: Attack the person rather than refute the argument. (Ad hominem fallacy)
[...]

Mistake #3 : Assume what you are trying to prove.

[...]

Mistake #4: Confuse functioning as a person with being a person.


[...]

Mistake #5: Disguise your true position by appealing to the hard cases.

[...]

VI. Summary and Conclusion:

[...]

The whole thing is availiable here.
(source and author)

What Hypocrisy?

Everyone who reads my other blog Kelly Thinks (a little more often) knows how much I respect the consistency and un-hypocrisy of the pro-choicers who choose to debate me.
Or, at least, how much I would if any of them were either consistent or un-hypocritical.

One of the most common objections that may be merited as real objections (there are many that cannot be merited as such) against pro-life arguments is that we never cite unbiased material.

Now, perhaps I have jumped the gun a little and the citations made to me by pro-choicers recently have not been hypocritical. Or, perhaps, they cannot be blamed for their hypocrisy. Perhaps stfuhypocrisy is really just a fan of irony; maybe stfuprolife is actually interested in non-biased material, even if it happens to show data that turns out to be in favour of not killing children.
Maybe, even though stfuprolife says that they “don’t need to know the difference between pro-life and anti-choice” and that they can “respect a pro-lifer”,[source] they just chose to have that name out of irony. Or something.

However, I think one of these two situations is much more likely: either these people don’t care that they’re being hypocritical because if we post information that only they can agree with, and they post information only they can agree with, then any undecided person only has access to one type of information. Or, with all the honesty that they can manage, the pro-choicers who have recently sent me links and citations believe that everything they send to me, the definitions that they choose to use and the reports that they choose to cite are all completely unbiased.

Here’s the thing: they aren’t.
The following is a link as part of a reply that I was recently sent by stfuprolife. The link to what they said is above.

A fetus is not a child.  It is not a person.  It is simply a potential person.  It is human, but not a human being.  It cannot be an individual if it’s not a separate being, it is depending and residing within someone else’s body.  So by definition, logic, and fact, a fetus simply cannot be considered an individual human being..

Religious Diversity

This week (the final week of my Philosophy of Religion class) we are discussing Religious Diversity.
This is a quote from one of the slides:

Religious diversity does provide a problem for certain religions, like Christianity. Christianity teaches that Fod is all-loving and all-powerful, and yet he chose to reveal his saving truth by way of a human sacrifice in a remote corner of the Roman empire 2000 years ago, and will forever torture everyone who hasn't heard of this or can't believe it.

Now to me, this seems like a grossly unfair claim. I cannot think of a single mainstream Christian denomination holds that God will "forever torture everyone who hasn't heard of this or can't believe it." Indeed, the true Christian denomination - namely Catholicism - does not hold that at all.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church says that:

"Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery."⁶³ Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity.

The foot note [63] says GS 22 § 5; cf. LG 16; AG 7.

 Moreover, "[w]hosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved." (Lumen Gentium 14) This implies that unless you know, epistemologically speaking, "that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ" you can be saved outside the Church. 

Does that mean that we should reject the Chruch? Absolutely not! If you actively seek truth, the Truth, you will come to know that Christ founded the Catholic Church is that it is necessary for salvation and the only sure means thereof. 

The limitless loving devotion to God, and the gift God makes of Himself to you, are the highest elevation of which the heart is capable; it is the highest degree of prayer. The souls that have reached this point are truly the heart of the Church. - Saint Teresa Benedicta of the Cross

God Doesn't Exist

God doesn’t exist. No-one's God does. You have absolutely no evidence for it.
And even if He did, it’s not like He’s loving: just look at all the cruel things that have happened in your life; surely that’s proof against an all-loving God.

What? You think that just because you exist, He must have had some play in that? You think that just because you can come up with reasons for the cruelty He’s supposed to have inflicted on you, that proves He really does love you? You think that just because heaps of other people say they have God means that He really exists?
Oh, you’ve seen God and He told you that He was God.
Well; that changes everything.

But, hang on, what if you’re lying to me?
Sure, so you’re an honest person; but what if you were deluded into seeing God because you so desperately wanted to, because you’d heard other people talk about Him and you really wanted to experience it your self?
Are you sure you weren’t experiencing something other than what you thought it was and that you didn’t project your longings onto what you actually experienced?


You parents don’t exist. No-one’s parents do. You have absolutely no evidence for it.
And even if they did, it’s not like they’re loving: just look at all the cruel things that have happened in your life; surely that’s proof against all-loving parents.

What? You think that just because you exist, they must have had some play in that? You think that just because you can come up with reasons for the cruelty they’re supposed to have inflicted on you, that proves they really does love you? You think that just because heaps of other people say they have parents means that they really exists?
Oh, you’ve seen your parents and they told you that they were your parents.
Well; that changes everything.

But, hang on, what if you’re lying to me?
Sure, so you’re an honest person; but what if you were deluded into seeing parents because you so desperately wanted to, because you’d heard other people talk about them and you really wanted to experience it your self?
Oh. It was a tangible experience.
Are you sure you weren’t experiencing something other than what you thought it was and that you didn’t project your longings onto what you actually experienced?

Love

What is it?
Is love "diligo"? or "caritas"?
Or is it "amour"?

Dear Reader,
What is love to you? What does it entail? Is it strictly passionate? Or does it involve compassion?

Can you love someone you've never met?

Can you love someone you have?

Tell me, Reader, what you think.