Talking prolife issue with a priest.

If you really did it, it was a rotten thing to do.

Rotten how?

Quoting TiredThinker

His emphasis seemed to be on human DNA and less on sentients and the soul.

So no haircuts, no claipping toenails, no sneezing or spitting, no bleeding, no fellatio or cunny (even in marriage :yikes: ), no "just war" (re: Catholic Catechism – 2309), etc ... because "human DNA" is sacred? :pray: :roll:

Quoting TiredThinker

I brought up the topic of beastiality and if a viable abomination should be kept alive.

From standpoint of Catholics who believe in the literal miracles of God and the anti-miracles of Satan, it's possibly a relevant but impolite troll.

Are we not descendants of Cain, the envious murderer, inheritors of original sin, beastly in those aspects that deny everyone grace and dignity?

Why can't Satan cause virgin births, or induce holy bastards?

Who can discern what is true evil, if the entire Church is possibly the grip of Satans lie and we are tainted? What hope do we have if the God we've been exposed to by the artifice of men is the greatest of deceivers.

In that case, Catholics might really be unwitting Satanists. Who can know for sure...

Satan's pro-life stance is a kind or propaganda that belies his cunning pro-death drive. All the souls of those dead mothers and fetuses, denied life saving treatment due to terrible policy, will be made into cereal for the rich denizens of hell (or heaven or whatever).

The argument of an impure human blood is a good one? In the pro choice counter arguments one might post a picture of a goat or whale fetus or something to show how difficult they are to tell apart early on. If the prolife emphasis is on genetic information and less on a yet meaningful formation, wouldn't a mixed species be the only argument that even at conception life may not be important on its own?

Quoting TiredThinker

His emphasis seemed to be on human DNA and less on sentients and the soul.

What does DNA have to do with a pro-life stance? Was the priest trying to explain which scenarios make abortion permissible (if DNA abnormality shows soul won't stick to the fetus and the mother is at expected risk), or the threshold at which most abortion is impermissible (when chromosomes combine from germ cell fusion)?

When there's disagreement, it's best to err on the side of caution. A simple example should get the point across. If you're unsure whether the rustling in the bushes behind you is a tiger or a bunny, it's best to assume you're outta luck. False positive errors tend to be, by and large, felix culpae. The same applies to the abortion debate vis-à-vis humanness - we should go with the fetus is a human rather than not as the worst-case scenario is when you say it isn't while it actually is.

Reply to Nils Loc

I don't know what he was trying to say. I think he was trying to explain as if from a scientific point of view.

Reply to Agent Smith

I wouldn't call it a debate since I was talking to a priest who is dogmatic on all topics. I think religion tries to umbrella and over simplify all things to do with morals. I like to consider all possibilities to suggest that nothing is a fit all answer.

Reply to TiredThinker

True, true. religion imposes a moral standard on every activity we undertake. In religion's eyes there are only 2 categories, to wit good and bad. Everything then becomes permitted or forbidden. It's with the latter we have issues with because there are many projects that have been put on hold, despite how immensely beneficial they can be to humanity, for religious/ethical reasons. It's just a repeat of an old story we're familiar with. An example to refresh your memory is the long battle against geocentrism kicked off by Copernicus. Religion retards scientific progress is the takeaway here.

That said, we must consider the cost of progress, the toll it exacts on our psyche. Is anything permissible in the name of scientific advancement? Scientia non olet?