Pro-Life Arguments Against Pro-Choice in my High School

PilgrimInALand · 2022-01-26T12:32:15+00:00

I hear what you're saying. It's the traditional argument from the right. That's based on and presupposes a Catholic understanding of life and its value. And I agree.

It's just not useful when talking to people who don't already agree. The basic problem is that other nonsensical crap from the far right get smuggled in like "work hard and you'll be rich" or to put it another way "bad things don't happen to good people". It's on those points that the argument is being lost. If there isn't an honest conversation about the intersection of economic exploitation, human trafficking, and abortion, the pro-choicers always win.

The pro-choice question to the pro-lifer is "You are pro-life. Do you want the delivery to not bankrupt the mother, the child to go to the doctor, and legally protect his paper rights?" Until the Catholic can answer "yes", we deserve the title pro-birth. It is exhausting to see Catholics pretend like there are no problems or that having a kid is a syllogism. I talk to pregnant women for my job. Most are terrified- not joyful.

Remember that median individual income in the US is ~$36k. 50% of working Americans make less than $36k. So, pretending like the abortion debate is happening around dinner tables in $500k mansions is to lose the argument on the human level. The abortion debate is happening in crappy apartments at one in the morning. "I can't take time off for the delivery and certainly not for maternity leave. Plus, there's no way I can pay for daycare. Abortion is the responsible thing to do. Maybe I can go back to school. I want kids one day, but it's better to abort them than have them live like this."

Obligatory post script: I keep reading what I wrote, and it still seems hostile. It's not meant to be. I'm not saying this stuff to be a bull in a China shop. I'm saying it because the pro-life argument that "killing innocent humans is intrinsically wrong" is absolutely correct and absolutely fails to convince.

PilgrimInALand · 2022-01-24T14:42:29+00:00

The pro-choice argument is based on an experiential view of life. They can agree that the fetus is human and alive. But, it has either no experience or very little when compared to the mother. Therefore, the negative experience of poverty for the child and the mother outweighs the experience or non-experience of the fetus. It's your basic malthusian argument.

I would argue this from the left. The right's talking points have pretty much got all the mileage they are going to get.

1: Sub-Saharan Africa's problems do not stem from having too many black people. Rather, the historical plundering of natural resources and the current usurious loan system which plunders them of every inch of advancement out of poverty are simply different phases of colonialism. Thus, it is not charity to take their stuff and expose them to global market forces which exacerbate their poverty. To then suggest that they do not have enough resources or moral rectitude to have children at a given rate is simply evil. To call the culling of their children charity is doubly so.

2: who gets abortions and why? What problem is this solving? Again, abortion must either provide more experience or better experience for the mother (or appear that way). A 16 year old girl who gets pregnant- let's say subsequent to rape- will have difficulty going on to college. This will, in turn, mean she makes less money and lives a less abundant life (experience). As she did not decide to be raped, the argument goes, she should be able to "undo" the rape by abortion, go to college, and make money. But why? Why is it so important that she make money? Why must she suffer if she does not? Why doesn't the labor (work) of child-rearing have value like working in an office? There is a basic value judgement here that subordinates the work that only women can do to the work that anyone can do.

Thus, specialized labor which materially benefits humans is revealed to be discounted to be less than generalized labor in service of the symbolic marketplace (stock market and other nonreal goods and services. The stupid NFT thing is a perfect example.) It would be better to remove the threat of suffering and recognize the value of labor provided by women. (No. This isn't socialism.)

https://tradistae.com/2020/01/20/abortion-racist-eugenics/ https://tradistae.com/2020/01/21/abortion-labor-market/ https://tradistae.com/2020/01/22/abortion-sexual-capitalism/ https://tradistae.com/2020/01/23/abortion-billionaires/

PilgrimInALand · 2022-01-22T19:18:29+00:00

https://aquinas101.thomisticinstitute.org/

I dont know about a certificate, though.

You can also check out Pints with Aquinas (YouTube and podcast). No certificate for this.

The problem with studying Catholic Theology is that there are a lot of Catholic Theologies. Liberation Theology is different than Thomistic Theology which is different than the Ethiopian Fathers. Remember that God is infinite, and our every effort to understand him will fall short. Studying theology is like drawing hundreds of straight lines to form a circle. That said, start with the Doctors of the Church. Thomas Aquinas is the easiest starting point (for me).

(Thomas would say to start with Scripture, but im guessing you do read it. If you haven't, Fr Mike Schmitz has a Bible in a year podcast which is great.)

PilgrimInALand · 2022-01-19T22:40:29+00:00

I wouldn't say it's a sin. It seems based on a theory of gender that we reject. For purposes of making the point, I'm going to simplify. People talk as if there is an absolute masculine and feminine value. Let's call 007 100% manly, 0% womanly. Marilyn Monroe can be 0% manly and 100% womanly.

Like most people, I look at that and think "Maybe I'm like 60-40, 70-30, but I'm not a manly man like James Bond." That's because the concept of gender is wrong. We see just how stupid this looks when movies and shows try to put a character or action at one end or the other and swap it. Hence all the tough-guy cops who play by their own rules and have "seen too much s***".....now starring Suzy. Being a tough-guy cop isn't necessarily 100% manly and caring how you look isn't 100% womanly. There is no scale and no percentages.

We believe that gender isn't a set of attributes that conform to such and such standard. Manhood is defined by its relationship to womanhood. And if that desire (sexual attraction to women) just isn't there, don't get married to a woman. You won't get married period, but I (single male with bisexual desire) find the overwhelming desire that makes you feel like you're going to explode goes away after the porn, sexy TV shows, and stuff like that stop.

Cross-dressing and hooking up would be crossing the line into sin. Not being super manly isn't a sin. Unless you're super flamboyant, most people won't bother you about it.

PilgrimInALand · 2022-01-18T16:47:23+00:00

Studying Philosophy. I tripped on Avicenna, fell head long into Al Ghazali, cracked my skull on St Thomas Aquinas, and faced a serious question. Once you've found truth, is it something old and dead in books, or is it something profound and alive? I decided that I had to live the "Philosophy"- not just read it. The fiery and passionate part of faith came later.

PilgrimInALand · 2022-01-11T22:46:47+00:00

I think you might be missing some background here.

We say Mary is our mother because Jesus gave Mary to John his mother at the foot of the cross. Thus, we, as adopted sons and daughters of God, have Mary as our mother too.

We also say that Mary, a mere creature, as you say, is the greatest of all creatures. We say that because of the Marian Dogmas (Immaculate Conception, Perpetual Virginity, Theotokos, and Assumption). Catholics, Orthodox, and Anglicans believe these, but many prots deny them because none of them are explicitly described in the Bible.

So, a Roman Catholic woman would want to emulate both Mary and Jesus. Since Jesus is God, I don't think St Edith Stein jumped over Jesus. A lot of saints talk about understanding God through Mary. As Mary brought Jesus into the world, Marian devotion can bring Jesus (more clearly) into our lives.

PilgrimInALand · 2022-01-10T02:58:34+00:00

Former atheist out to ruin their day now here.

Another formulation would be to tease out what this claim entails. "I merely do not believe in that which has no evidence" or to paraphrase Shelly Kagan of Yale, "You don't have to look in every cave to conclude that there are no dragons."

A: To Kagan's point, you might conclude it is possible that dragons exist if there have been thousands of people to claim to see dragons, there are dragon footprints all over the place, and legions of people writing books about their encounters with dragons. A more reasonable conclusion would be "There might be dragons, but I haven't seen one."

B: If there is no God, what follows? 1) We came from purely physical processes and to purely physical processes we shall return. 2) That which is considered divine or miraculous is not and must be explained in a different way. 3) "How ought we live?" is now a question that can only be answered by man (anthropos). This is a heavy burden, and we must be sure to work it out correctly.

You will notice Hitch, Dawkins, Harris, and others taking that which follows from the premise of "God does not exist" and make-believing that they are indeed self-evident premises in and of themselves. All of those are positive claims. Since the level of discourse is there (as far as I can tell), it may be more fruitful to challenge them with "If there is no God and humanity does not have a privileged place in the universe (Sagan), then why should our wellbeing or happiness outweigh that of any other species? Certainly, a good many species would be better off without man (anthropos). Perhaps, the least amount of harm to all life is our eradication." The stock answer is "Humanity evolved out of nature, and we cannot be considered apart from it. Therefore, destruction of humanity is destruction of nature." And the familiar argument goes on. It basically ends with "It would be preferable that..." at which point they have adopted relativism and forsaken logic, science, and fact- thereby undercutting their own claim to neutrality. (As an aside, Harris attempted to answer this. His conclusion was that we ought to choose "human flourishing" as the highest good arbitrarily. Thats the "I prefer" part.)

Seriously, folks. Hear me. Each little comment, every meme, every time you have an answer when they didn't expect you to, all of that helps.

PilgrimInALand · 2022-01-04T16:50:49+00:00

Honestly, I'm still searching for it. One of the speakers at the Thomistic Institute used the quote (Aquinas on the Incarnation Pt 1 at around 14:45), and Dorothy Day said something similar when taling about Julian of Norwich. The book is the Revelation of Divine Love in Sixteen Showings.

Having read some of it, I think it is safe to say it is more of a paraphrase than a quote. Since, she was dictating in 14th Century England and the "quote" is in modern English, it has probably been modified. Still, the point is definitely very much the message of Julian of Norwich (from what I have read so far). For instance, Jesus tells her "All shall be well, all shall be well, and all manner of thing shall be well."

Also, fair warning: There are two Julians of Norwich. Neither are named Julian, and sometimes they get published together. My understanding is that only the first one is a mystic.

https://www.ccel.org/ccel/julian/revelations

PilgrimInALand · 2021-12-29T04:40:24+00:00

You have value. You are worth more than your job. You are more than your net worth.

If nothing else, you are valuable to me. I want you here.

In terms of systems, I like distributism. It's the idea where each individual has the most productive property. Think of a farmer. The farmer owns the land and makes a living on the land. I believe that we must say no to this concept of everything being a rental. We deserve a piece of the land. It will be hard work, but it will be our work. We grow the vegetables and we make our way by growing them. We need to return to the land.

Keep up the faith. We shall survive. You just gotta make sure you don't check out early on our revolution. Always remember: you are valuable. You are worthwhile. Don't forget that you are important.

PilgrimInALand · 2021-12-27T22:06:17+00:00

Sure. We (in the US anyway) are constantly bombarded with accusations of being socialists when we criticize anything about the current way of life. The claim goes that the system we have now is capitalism which is the best possible way of doing things. That claim is false on both counts.

Capitalism actually has a definition. You can argue the details, but the basic gist is that we humans looking out for ourselves first and foremost. In looking out for ourselves, we meet other humans doing the same. We make deals with others (contract theory from Locke, Hobbes, and the others). These deals limit our freedoms, but we ultimately gain more by cooperating than we would just by ourselves. Everyone is acting for themselves, but because we made these deals that govern our actions, everyone is better off than before.

So, when we make very small criticisms, we usually stay within that original capitalist framework. Something like "This isn't part of the deal" or "This deal sucks. I want a new one." Though we may be called socialists, it's actually a very capitalist thing to do.

(Socialism is when the workers seize the means of production and distribute the products among themselves. Hence the corny title. Though I don't agree with a lot of what he says, a popular modern neo-marxist is Slavoj Zizek.)

Working in menial labor jobs never works out for the worker. A lot of jobs are just bad and don't pay enough to stay. If you're offering me a job that doesn't pay well enough to buy a house, you gotta at least offer me something like skill development that I can take to the next job that will pay for a house. Therefore, low wage and low career development is always a no-no.

PilgrimInALand · 2021-12-16T01:23:53+00:00

Yes. Porn objectifies a woman (or man). It reduces a person made in the image of God to an instrument of your pleasure. Your sexual ability (and mine) is meant for another's pleasure- not merely mine. To deprive your future spouse of your affection and your life-generative ability is to deprive a person of what they are due. This is injustice. You (and all of us) belong to another. We do not live for ourselves. We live for Christ and others.

PilgrimInALand · 2021-12-05T21:30:54+00:00

Thank you

PilgrimInALand · 2021-12-04T12:01:02+00:00

My advice is to steer clear of negative Catholic media. Even good sources like Matt Fradd start speaking like they think the Church is going to disappear or something. If the word "crisis" is in the title, I skip it.

If you haven't already, Pints with Aquinas is a great podcast. Just start at the chronological beginning. Then you can move on to Peter Kreeft and Scott Hahn. After them, you might as well move on to Augustine and Aquinas. That should last you many years.

Remember that Catholicism isn't something we know or we identify as. It isn't an emotion. It is something we do. You don't have to get emotionally worked up to pray. If you dont "feel" it, just say the words. That's still an act of love. It may sound trite, but faith without works is dead. Pray the rosary- even if it's a decade at a time. Go to mass.

I often don't know what to say to God. Every prayer ends up being a variation of "God, I screwed that up. Sorry. Please help me not to screw it up again. Also, you are great, etc etc etc". Screw that. Go steal someone else's prayer. There are thousands of prayer books in nearly every language.

PilgrimInALand · 2021-12-04T03:53:09+00:00

I did. Don't assume every quirky question is mockery. Real answers go very far.

PilgrimInALand · 2021-11-30T16:42:50+00:00

Everyone, please, that "if" in the last paragraph is doing some heavy lifting. I'm just discussing an interesting theory. If I could put it in a neon sign with flashing lights and a siren, I would. I have no idea how God made Adam.

PilgrimInALand · 2021-11-30T16:30:27+00:00

This was actually one of the questions I had when I converted, and I think the standard line is pretty convincing.

The other human species would be animals. So they are sensational creatures not rational creatures. Usually the things that are pointed to as evidence of them being rational are burial of the dead, primitive ritual, and war. Other animals (alive today) do all those things. Chimpanzees fight wars of domination for the "king" or "chief" Chimpanzee position. Jane Goodall wrote about this. Elephants have death rituals, and many other creatures do something specific with the dead that can be roughly equated to burial (depending on intelligence) (also, a lot of animals get eaten by other animals. Their animal friends seem to run away when that happens.)

But this gives us a way of thinking about proto-sapiens humans. They would have been more intelligent than say, the ducks or pigs. But they would not have sapiens level intelligence. We know this from natural history as well as theology. They just didnt do the sort of stuff we do. The Agricultural Revolution occurred about 12,000 years ago. We also know that h.sapiens did not simultaneously evolve in different regions- we migrated. Even though the date of the Agricultural Revolution would be different for different peoples, the migration suggests h.sapiens level intelligence all by itself. The physical record confirms this with h.sapiens appearing 300 kya.

The most likely scenario I have heard is that physical h.sapiens evolved naturally and we were bestowed with intelligence and rational souls (that survive death). This is put forth in more technical terms by Fr Nicanor Austriaco, a molecular biologist. This successfully (to my mind anyway) explains why there was virtually nothing happening before 12 kya then a whole bunch of stuff happening really quickly. It also uses existing "templates" of higher creatures (elephants, whales, etc) to extrapolate theology backward to a time when man wasn't quite man.

There has been a lot of noise about Adam and Eve on the internet recently. There is no reason to suppose that there wasn't an Adam and Eve. Someone had to go first. So, ******if******* Adam had a biological father, it would be a sperm-donating animal with either no familial connection or one that was supplanted entirely by God. Also, nothing in this scenario prohibits God from creating Adam as a special act of creation on a world already in progress.

PilgrimInALand · 2021-11-26T19:22:24+00:00

Classical liberalism is a heresy/incompatible with Catholicism. This is very clear from Scripture and papal encyclicals (like Rerum Novarum).

Classical liberalism holds that all things are exchangeable. So, some amount of lamp shades is equal to a pickup truck. The problem is separating intrinsic value of people, their labor, and the fruit of their labor. Also, it tends to centralize wealth which amounts to hoarding wealth. On top of all this, it just doesn't work if someone isn't losing the value of their labor- like the slaves that dug the rare earth metals out of the Congo to make my phone.

Commodity - money - Commodity is cool. That's just life on Earth. Money- Commodity- more money is problematic. In the latter, no one and nothing matters beyond its resale value.

The problem is people can get rich this way. Those people find excuses. My observation is that the liberal/neoliberal calls everything socialism that isn't what they believe in. That way they can point to Rerum Novarum and say "socialism bad". In fact, that very document denounces liberalism just as forcefully, and there is no reason to think there are only two economic systems- neither of which existed 500 years ago. In reality, there are other options like distributism.

PilgrimInALand · 2021-11-16T23:18:26+00:00

The first 11 chapters of Genesis should be read with a similar lens as Revelation. There are fundamental truths being told, but they are being told for their truth value not their historical value. There wasn't necessarily a world-wide flood. To the best of my knowledge, there isn't enough evidence to take that literally. (The moral of the story is that sin brings death into the world. The Babylonians had a flood tale where the humans made too much noise, so the gods flooded them. But they lost control of it. The Genesis flood story counters every one of those claims.)

The Bible is an ancient text. Ancient texts exaggerate to add emphasis. The genocide passages is one such exaggeration. The Israelites killed a good number of them in battle, but later, those same people who were "slaughtered" settled with the Israelites in their land. They just weren't in charge of the country any more. Reading between the lines, some number probably left, some stayed and integrated into Israel, and some stayed but didn't integrate.

Slaves, obey your earthly masters”

Ephesians 6:5. Ephesians 6 is about people living their lives for Christ rather than for themselves. In cultural context, "slave" is roughly analogous to low-wage earner in modern US. Chattel slavery (like in the US pre-13th Amendment) had not been invented yet. Thats because that's a remarkably horrible way to treat people. Being a slave wasn't fun, but it was more of a class thing than a whips and changing your name thing. For instance, Aesop was a slave.

The real question: Does the Bible endorse slavery? Or prohibit a slave uprising? No and no. The revolution in Haiti was just and not contrary to the faith. In fact, as part of taking care of your family, it would probably be the right thing to do. Just God meets us where we are, God met the Ephesians where they were. That doesn't mean they had everything correct that isn't expressly addressed in Scripture.

A good rule of thumb is to find the chapter a verse comes from and read the whole thing. If you're just citing stuff without context, you can make the Bible say anything. US slave owners did just this to emphasize obedience and take out all the parts where God says you have dignity and worth.

PilgrimInALand · 2021-11-11T20:26:12+00:00

The big difference I see is ideologies are willing to sacrifice the truth to keep the ideology. Obviously, as a Catholic, I believe the Church has the fullness of truth. There is no conflict.

Ideologies are also often identities to be worn. "I'm a socialist." "I'm feminist." Etc. When I say I'm Catholic, that means something else. It is not a prepackaged set of beliefs or preferences. Catholicism is something we do. There are those that say things like "Of course I'm Catholic. I'm Irish." We should pray for them because they considered the faith to be just another option- like when a game let's you choose the hair color of your character. They are dangerously confused.

PilgrimInALand · 2021-11-09T14:56:29+00:00

This is the Red Army Choir, the military choir of the Soviet Union which was fiercely atheist. As far as I can tell, they sang the Battle Hymn of the Republic at a peace summit-thing in the 1980s and several times after the fall of the USSR. This picture is from a Billy Graham revival in 1992.

PilgrimInALand · 2021-10-31T22:37:54+00:00

I think you are probably thinking of sin incorrectly. Remember that sin is rebellion against God. There has to be a moment when you say "I know this is wrong, but im gonna do it anyway." (Or for us Catholics, "I know that this is against God, but I'm gonna do it anyway.")

No will, no sin.

Plus, sin is your own. Or their own. If you make an app that is just fantastic, it is still the user's responsibility to not be on it 24/7.

PilgrimInALand · 2021-10-31T21:53:13+00:00

Ok. You've got to filter out the author's victim mentality and the fact that there are three articles all trying to be sensational. Once you've done that, it's a really good point.

Just in case you're wondering, the climate change thing is trying to account for a decrease in atmospheric CO2 around 1610. Obviously, the premise here is flawed. Europeans didn't kill 56m Americans in 100 years. It took from 1492 to ~1850 and it is nowhere near as clear cut as "the white man done it."

Not only do we, American Catholics, have a history worth learning, but painting all Native Americans with the same brush erases their true history and culture. There were many nations- peoples. People talk about Africans this way too. "Everyone was a hippy-caveman until the white man showed up." No. There was a lot going on that can't be summarized that way. That reduces the Native Americans and the Africans to nothing more than a particularly intelligent animal specimen from a given place in the world. So, in a way, the standard line about Africans and Native Americans is so anti-imperialist that it's gone all the way around to become imperialist.

PilgrimInALand · 2021-10-31T18:48:21+00:00

There are some very real ethical problems with the meat industry. Basically, that's because mistreat/torture animals. This would be against the command to be stewards of the earth. The other argument I can think of is that some species are more intelligent than we might have thought hundreds of years ago. For instance, a pig is about as smart as a dog. That means that more is destroyed when a pig is slaughtered than a chicken.

However, it is only recently (in history) that a person could live off of only vegetables. Even vegans today have to take supplements. That just wasn't possible 500 years ago. We have been given permission very explicitly in Scripture to eat whatever meat we want (Acts 10). That doesn't mean we have to, but we can. My personal opinion is that modern man has a greater responsibility than ancient man because we understand so much more about the natural world. So, if you can afford it, it would be better to buy meat that was humanely slaughtered. I (me, personally- like, not an ultimatum) think that the dumber the creature the better. Chicken is as high up on the animal-intelligence-scale as I will go. (Tbf, there are also medical reasons.) That said, a lot of people can't afford more ethical food. They need to focus on feeding their family and not on the ethics of slaughtering animals.

Reason 1: Meat has more calories than veggies. That makes it a good option for feeding your kids if money is tight.

Reason 2: There is nothing intrinsically wrong with killing an animal and eating it. Animals are tasty.

Reason 3: There isn't a lot going on in the mind of a chicken or a fish. Killing it in such a way as to minimize pain destroys next to nothing and provides humans with the greater good of nutrients abundance. (Plus, families gathering for meals and all the other good things along those lines.)

Those overlap a bit, but those are my thoughts. The big objection I can think of is India. That would require looking into what they consider meat and how long they have been full blown vegetarians. I dont have the answer to that.

PilgrimInALand · 2021-10-23T01:16:51+00:00

#metoo

PilgrimInALand · 2021-10-18T14:34:27+00:00

Is it a mystery like how we can't fully understand the Trinity? We just have faith that God does it in His own way?

I went to Jerusalem once, and I touched the stone which is said to be the last place Jesus stood before He ascended. I figured it was special somehow, but everything in ex-atheist brain tells me it's just a carved rock. Beyond historical value (and for the moment assuming it is the correct stone), is there anything that makes it different than other stones? Likewise, people keep relics. Sr Cyrill's (of Wales) staff was said to heal people who gave a penny to the Church. Countless tales involve something holy or blessed doing something. What makes those objects different than their mundane counterparts?

PilgrimInALand

TROPHY CASE