Culture of Death


#1

The Historic Christian Teaching
Few realize that up until 1930, all Protestant denominations agreed with the Catholic Church’s teaching condemning contraception as sinful Is contraception a modern invention? Hardly! Birth control has been around for millennia. Scrolls found in Egypt, dating to 1900 B.C., The Bible mentions at least one form of contraception specifically and condemns it. (Gen. 38:8–10). Once a moral principle has been established in the Bible, every possible application of it need not be mentioned.

CONTRACEPTION, GATEWAY TO THE CULTURE OF DEATH
These texts should suffice to show that a long Christian tradition regarded contraception as an anti-life kind of act, comparable to homicide and intentional abortion.
christendom-awake.org/pages/may/contraception.htm
catholic.com/library/Birth_Control.asp

priestsforlife.org/resources/abortionimages/index.htm
Galleries of Images of Aborted Children, Medical Illustrations of Abortion Procedures, Streaming Video

“Birth Control and the Racial Future,” by Frank H. Hankins,1931
Nothing is clearer in these matters that that each class or sect tends to perpetuate its own traditions and standards of life. New England, once the stronghold of Unitarianism and congregationalism is now being rapidly dotted with Catholic churches, Irish, Polish, French Canadian, and Italian. Immigration stands in the background of these and associated changes.We need here say only that birth control contains the key to the problem of racial decay, if there be such, just as it is the arch-stone of any practical scheme of eugenic racial improvement
eugenicsarchive.org/html/eugenics/essaystextonly.html

Planned Parenthood -The eugenic theme figured prominently in the Birth Control Review, which Sanger founded in 1917. She published such articles as “Some Moral Aspects of Eugenics” (June 1920), “The Eugenic Conscience” (February 1921), “The purpose of Eugenics” (December 1924), “Birth Control and Positive Eugenics” (July 1925), “Birth Control: The True Eugenics” (August 1928), and many others.
Sanger answered Gamble on Dec. 10. 1939, She wrote: “We do not want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten that idea out if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.” In 1940, money for two “Negro Project” demonstration programs in southern states
blackgenocide.org/sanger.html

International Task Force
on Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide
Euthanasia in the Netherlands
"Killing Babies, Compassionately: The Netherlands follows in Germany’s footsteps" by Wesley J. Smith (Weekly Standard, 3/27/06)
Italian official causes outrage in Holland for his comments on Dutch plans to officially permit child euthanasia.
“Dutch government intends to endorse new guidelines on child euthanasia”
“The change in Dutch policy is especially significant because it will provide the model for how the country treats other cases…such as those involving the mentally retarded or elderly people who have become demented.” (Canadian Press, 9/30/05)
internationaltaskforce.org/holland.htm

Jacques Cousteau, mild-mannered marine biologist, for another. “In order to stabilize world population, we need to eliminate 350,000 people per day.” If Hitler had managed that death rate, he would have completed his holocaust in under a month!
quackgrass.com/roots/ddp95.html

The New Anti-Catholicism: The Last Acceptable Prejudice liberals prosecuting Prohibition, family planning, sex education, legalized abortion, feminism, gay rights, and other progressive causes embraced anti-Catholicism later.
amazon.com/New-Anti-Catholicism-Last-Acceptable-Prejudice/dp/0195154800

healthsystem.virginia.edu/internet/library/historical/eugenics/2-origins.cfm
Health Sciences Library
PO Box 800722 Charlottesville, VA 22908

lifesite.net/ldn/2004/mar/04030910.html
Forced Abortion Legal in America
Woman awakes in a closet after coerced abortion
FRONT ROYAL, Virginia, March 9, 2004 (LifeSiteNews.com/pop.org) - The Population Research Institute has revealed that coerced abortion is a reality in America. A court ruled that a woman can be forced to submit to an abortion, if, in the opinion of the abortionist, the measure is necessary to “protect the health of the mother.” The Jane Roe II vs. Aware Women Center for Choice, Inc. ruling was handed down in January.

March 22, 2005, 7:59 a.m.
Pushing Infanticide
From Holland to New Jersey.
nationalreview.com/smithw/smith200503220759.asp

Abortion statistics and other data
johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/


#2

Thanks Dosdog,

This would have been a great help on another thread. I am printing it just in case we crash again.:cool:


#3

I know I’ll get flamed, but I think contrceptives are a good thing. Let’s face it, the global population is exploding and there is only so many resources to go around. Unless you wanna take a pg from Soilent Greens and begin to eat ppl :stuck_out_tongue:

As for abortion…uhh I’m ok with up to 1st trimester. When its a rough collection of cells that doesnt really resemble anything it is really more identifiable to a parasite or cancer than to a baby.

My. $0.02

PS. For ‘Culture of Death’, If I were the church I’d be more concerned about the people who’s lives go to ruin all for the sake of a saving at some super store


#4

Seppuku (Japanese: 切腹, “stomach-cutting” or “belly slicing”) is a form of Japanese ritual suicide by disembowelment. Seppuku is also known in English as hara-kiri (腹切り)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seppuku

have a ball been nice knowing you


#5

Loginus,

What makes you the expert on an approveable age of abortion? I have had a hard time understanding why it is ok to snuff out human life. I think you have to agree with me that the “cellular organism” is a life form. The two unique RNA have created a brand new DNA. It is not a cancer or some other form of chaotic rapid cell creation. Science even has to agree that the life form has the potential to be human life, just as a seed has the potential to become a tree, given an adequate growth environment.

What you are arguing is not science, but law. It is only under the law that we can say this life form does not have rights as a human being, since it is still dependant upon the mother. This is another issue altogether. I would be happy to chat about this as well.

I for one am happy that my parents decided to keep me. They were at the abortion clinic ready to dump me when my mother felt that she really wanted to keep me instead. At that time, I had the potential for life that did form to become human. I was also born 2 months early (my brother was 2.5 months early). Some women abort babies that far along… kind of scary.

All of this is a real slippery slope, especially when matters like this are soley left to the law. The argument starts by not acknowledging the unique (growing) creation at its earliest time of existence. Once people disregard this as life, the envelope continues to get pushed, till you then have PBA. I am sorry, but like I said, babies older than me when I was born are getting wiped out left and right.

Anyways, sorry to make it so long, but abortion is a hot topic for me. I consider to the Catholic viewpoint to be sound.


#6

Well I never claimed I was an expert, I merely expressed my opinion. I to find abortion after a certain period disgusting, but I admit this is my own value judgement. If its evil or good is more upon the individual and the society as science doesnt pass that sort of judgement.


#7

And us individuals are so good at discerning what is good and what is evil??? Read a history book! The “society as science” is not a definitive authority. Science puts forth the best guess they have at any given time period


#8

So you are agaisnt Democracy and would rather have a Theocracy where the will of the people is surpressed because an invisible being that only a select few can ‘communicate’ with feel they have absolute moral authority?


#9

Hi Loginus,

[INDENT]RE: "I to find abortion after a certain period disgusting, but I admit this is my own value judgement".[/INDENT]

Please don’t think I’m trying to be sarcastic, but that’s one of the major problems with abortion.

Person A might think abortion disgusting after three months, while person B feels it’s disgusting after six months.
Some people think it’s okay to abort in the eighth month. Others, during the first month.

They can’t all be right. Is truth really subjective?

If the Supreme Court hadn’t played God and taken away the “personage” of the unborn child, the idea of truth being subjective would be a non-issue.

And even if we remove God from the discussion, I still have to ask myself: What right did the Supreme Court have to take away the “personage” of the unborn?

I don’t know. I just can’t come to terms with that.

God Bless!


#10

This was what I was driving at. I think it is safe to say that Loginus and I both respect science. This issue of abortion really has nothing to do with scientific evidence. Biology would classify a baby in the womb as a living organism. It is not some random cluster of cells, it is growing and has the potential to be a functional human being.

Again, science can really just look at the facts. It is under the law that we have to determine which kind of life forms have rights. The law has determined that a developing child does not have any rights. This is really opinion based, since our great democracy at one time said that black people did not have rights either. Our system also said it was ‘lawful’ to seize Indian land as well. The law is subjected to our opinions of right and wrong (in a Democracy). We determine what is justified. As we can see, sometimes what is justified is not morally sound.

So I guess the big question is, what can we do to change the law? Again, it seems to me that scientific fact is not the answer. The evidence is there to prove that a growing child has the potential to be a viable child. Any of you guys have some ideas?


#11

To: Denies and Callador
I agree fully

the fact is, humans for the most part dont like to think in a scientific manner when it comes to this. This is one of te flaws in a democracy. Unless you can convince others to follow the catholic ways or at least view abortion as wrong, then what you say will remain nothing more than an opinion in a sea of opinions in our society.

The only reason I support 1st tri abortion is because our society has done away with natural selection. Now just about anyone can live well beyond what our ancestors lived. It is not fair to destroy potential but we’ve also played God and destroyed the natural order of things. Again, this is merely my opinion


#12

Thank you for your kind and thoughtful reply, Loginus.

RE: “we’ve also played God and destroyed the natural order of things.”

I can’t argue with that one.

Unless you can convince others to follow the catholic ways or at least view abortion as wrong, then what you say will remain nothing more than an opinion in a sea of opinions in our society.

I can see your point, here, but what about those who aren’t Catholic, yet also believe the unborn child is a person and not a clump of cells?

Personally, I think science has done wonderful things for mankind, and is a vital part of our lives.

My only problem with it, is when some scientists use it, or try to use it, to disprove the existence of God, which inevitabally makes believers look ignorant in the eyes of the scientific community.
Thereby, discrediting the believer, because of his or her Faith and morals.

Believers hold to the teaching that God is a mystery. It’s not the place of science to prove or disprove mystery.
It should only deal with facts. At least, that’s what I’ve always believed.

Thanks again for your input. It’s been, both, enlightening and thought provoking. :slight_smile:

God Bless!

[INDENT]P.S. – Please define “Natural Selection” for me? For some reason, I’m drawing a complete bank, today. :o[/INDENT]


#13

Hello and ty, I too enjoy discussing with you :slight_smile:

To answer your question, Natural selection is a process that is universal and always happening. Although it happens in just about everywhere and in all things in the universe, it may be better if we just focused on natural selection pertaining to life.

Back in the old days, if a woman had a baby that was over 8lbs, there would most likely be complications and both die
If a woman had a baby under 4lbs (?), it was usually too underdeveloped and feeble to live for very long after the pregnancy
If a woman was between the two and was healthy shed have a healthy baby.
In this way it worked for much of our history as the offspring of mothers with babies >* and <4 would die off leaving only avg offspring.

Sadly, our culture has eleminated alot of barriers. We can grow our own foods and store them so we can endlessly multiply. Whenever we feel a shortage we simply wipe out a competitor (human or animal) and take their share.
In terms of births, child mortality in the west is incredibly low despite that in nature. humans ahve one of the highest mortality rates during pregnancy than any other mammel.
We’ve extended out age by a great deal as well and we no longer have predators as we’ve essentially wiped them out.
Even disease is a non-issue as we can cure most diseases or at least prolong the life of the infected.

I personaly cant take away the potential of another, child or otherwise. But we’ve played God and defied nature. Humans are not exempt from nature, eventually we’ll have to pay up because God gives two gifts, life and death.


#14

Okay, now I see/understand where you’re coming from.

Maybe we do pay up, in a way. Natural disasters, wars and incurable diseases, are three I can think of at the moment.

Maybe there is some kind of balance. Abeit, not perfect.

I think Science (especially medical science), when applied to life-saving causes, is a wonderful thing, and if I may go so far as saying, a Gift of God. (Sorry, I don’t know whether or not you believe in God. I’m only going on the basis of this discussion/thread)
If I’m in error, please correct me?

Thanks and God Bless!

P.S. – You’re causing my brain to work overtime tonight. :stuck_out_tongue:


#15

Natural disasters and disease have always existed and is part of nature. Wars is not and is a symptom. Just about any war has economic roots underlying it. it falls under eleination of competitors, it is part of our ilness for believing we are God.

We’ve effectively killed God in our society. We are no longer at his mercy and no longer need him to create which is why we can defy the laws of nature…for now.

The problem is all we do is create in terms of our selfs. We keep consuming and multiplying with no regard for the limited resources
Medicine can be seen as an example of this and so is agriculture.

The thing is, God also granted death. We only keep finding ways to make ourselves for comfortable and live longer even those of whom would die early to the forces of nature.

As I said thou, as much as I dislike the idea of human Arrogance, I cant break away. Instead, I think 1st tri is ok because why bring a child into an already overpopulated and resource taxed world and not want it/love it?

Dunno if all that made any sense ><


#16

Let me try to understand.

Is it your contention then: Since we’ve killed God off in our society and have also played God so many times, then why not continue to play God in regards to abortion (or denying the personage of the unborn)?

If I’m misreading you or putting words in your mouth, I apologize in advance, and please correct me. (Sometimes it’s difficult to grasp someone else’s meaning without voice inflection and emphasis).

Thanks and God Bless! :slight_smile:


#17

Hmm in retrospec, my rant has nothing to do with the topic ><
Ah w/e, to finish off the rant, no creature is exempt from nature’s laws including us. We like to think it doesnt apply to us because we are superior but it will catch up. And the penalty for defying nature is always death. In our case, death of the species most likely. We can already see some of the effects in destruction of the eco-system, resistant disease and vermin, melting of ice caps,etc.

Back on topic. It is just an opinion for me :stuck_out_tongue: If we wanted to be anal about the potential for life we’d just freeze all sperm and ova and create humans from there. As you can see that can lead into problems :stuck_out_tongue: So what is a person is tricky. yaa thats my pt lol

PS. Here’s a lovely highlight of man’s achievements as God youtube.com/watch?v=cvgrN6LJWmk&mode=related&search=


#18

Heh, lots of interesting stuff being talked about here. :smiley:

As for the definition of a life form, I am not sure the sperm or egg would constitute human life. Both in and of themselves are just RNA. It is when the two come together that the magic of life happens. We have DNA! This imprint now has the potential to become life, although as you mentioned, natural mortality can of course end this.

I agree that modern medicine has really changed natural selection. I think about something as simple as a woman having hips that are too narrow to deliver. In past ages, this one simple genetic variable would have been wiped out naturally. Now with viable C-Sections, something like this is carried to later generations. Even eye sight is a big thing. My vision is poor without contacts / glasses. Again, in a more natural environment, I too probably would have not survived. This is off the topic a bit, but I like thinking about stuff like this as well :slight_smile:

As for changes concerning the abortion issue, it can be hard for people to understand the pro-life position. Our current culture is very focused on personal concerns. Everything focuses on ME, ME, ME. It will take time to change to a more group oriented cultural idea again. This is not to say that there are individuals that are not focused on self, but Democracy focuses on the majority. (Side Note) Plato’s Republic says some interesting stuff about Democracies. He makes it the second lowest form of government, since there really are no un-mutable truths. Again, the mob rules. In the case of abortion, this idea compounded with the idea of preservation of self, I think help create a platform for Pro-Choice.

So what are some ways to help people understand the pro-life position? I have a couple, but please feel free to add some more. I like to focus on the scientific fact that growing human babies are life-forms. They have the potential to be human as well. Most would then say that they don’t have a problem with this, but the real issue lies in the fact that it is a dependant life-form. Jokingly, I reiterate that we too are pretty dependant. Heh, wipe out the atmosphere, and well… you get the idea. :slight_smile: It seems to me that there needs to me more than dependacy to determine the legitimacy of a life-form. The conversation then turns to the law, where again, it can be much harder to argue. Most would say that the sentient human (adult) life has rights under law, while the growing organism does not. This alone gives the adult life-form the right to terminate the (questionable sentient - especially in the earlier phases of development) growing one. Again, any ideas?


#19

Thanks for the link. I’ll check out the video when I have a little more time.

God Bless! :slight_smile:


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.