www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News HORIZONS article on re-definition of conception

Dave, you have to read the sarcasm in Theophilus' tone of voice.

Really, he was joking.

LatinTrad

Dear Friends,

Well, I still think you guys are big on the "why's" but weak on the "how" of conception.

If it wasn't for the women on this forum who e-mailed me privately . . .

Thank you, O Holy Women of God!

Alex

Theophilos,

You certainly have a stupid way of making jokes.

Go back to your day job.

Joe

Dear Friends,

But let us remember Our Lord's injunction against calling our brother "raka" or "fool" - for we shall then be in danger of the hell-fire.

Lord Jesus, have mercy on us!

Alex

Joe:

Yes, my wife has told me I have a very Talmudic sense of humor. I always thought that was a compliment. Apparently, it's not.

Maybe I should begin using the "graemlins"?

In Christ,
Theophilos

Seeing that this is a written forum sarcasm, and many other forms of jokeing, do not come off well here as sarcasm, and many other forms of jokeing, require body language or tone of voice which do not carry over into the written media.

It would be my suggestion, as this is a forum covering a serious topic, that sarcasm, and most other jokes, not take place here as they are easily misunderstood.

Now I know if we did this, the number of posts would drop greatly, but it would save some time and some misunderstandings.


David

Yes. Maybe Alex can help you there? He's quite versed in this.

Everything is cool between Theophilos and me. We're going to get together with Alex and LatinTrad and have some Oreos and carmel/caramel.

Joe

Dear Joe,

Yes, that's what I meant - I was referring to the Caramelites . . .

And I've been razed on the hot coals here for missing one or two graemlins which, had I used them, would have changed the interpretation totally . . .

I'm happy you've started using them too - I was going to ask if you were having a lousy day.

I just thought it wasn't a good idea to use the word "stupid" when referring to another poster other than oneself.

If you wanted to use it in reference to yourself, that's all right, however. . .

I'm glad you Rusyns have such a thick skin, though!

Alex

I once read a book (for research to write a pro-life article) that argued in favor of infanticide, using this same argument - that there is no difference between a baby 1 minute before it is born and one minute afterward; therefore if it is legal to abort the baby before birth it should be legal to kill it afterward. The guy was serious! If I remember right, he was arguing for the "right" to kill your children up to TWO YEARS OLD because he said they weren't "people" until then. Maybe the author was this Singer you are mentioning - I don't remember.

Tammy:

Glory to Jesus Christ!

Singer argues that it is morally impermissible only to kill "persons." In order to be a person, you must have an interest in staying alive, and in order to have such an interest, you have to be a thinking, self-aware being and have an understanding of yourself as a being which endures through time. Infants and other disabled human beings do not have this self-awareness and thus may be put to death.

As I recall, in his work Practical Ethics, he argues that even healthy infants may be killed up to 28 days after their birth.

That said, his argument -- like those of Michael Tooley and Mary Anne Warren -- is predicated on the idea that human life presupposes a certain quality of life. They seek to articulate criteria based upon which one can judge whether a given individual may be killed.

Interestingly enough, the criteria tend to reflect the ideals and self-understanding of the well-paid academic philosophers themselves: namely, a human being is one who has (thinks he has) control over his or her own destiny. If this kind of control is not present or never develops (as in the pre-born or infants), or if that kind of control is lost (as in old age), killing is justified.

Peter Singer, by the way, also does not believe in spending money on efforts to comfort or minimize the pain of the disabled. According to his brand of utilitarianism, he thinks we ought to just let them die/kill them and use the money we would have spent for other, more worthy things.

Of course, when his mother fell ill with Alzheimer's -- and became, by his own definition, a non-person -- he didn't hesitate to spend lots of money on private home healthcare.

In Christ,
Theophilos

Theophilos:
I could come up with some very sarcastic comments about this guy, but someone might misunderstand my post and think I actually agreed with him!
Tammy