I am not opposed to abortion, personally, nor is it banned anywhere in my country. I also have not killed anyone yet, but I’ll yet you know if anything changes. However, I am not particularly interested in forcing chrstians to accept secular morality.
The paradox I am referring to, is not in the fact that people that preach tolerance should be tolerant to everyone. I am instead pointing out the fact that western progressive culture, while preaching diversity, do not actually accept people that disagree with them, so inclusivity is contingent on acceptance of certain views, in that sense, this “diversity” is skin deep, we only accept you if you already agree with us.
This is similar to how christians have historically thought, ironically. So while blaming catholics of being intolerant of everything they disagree with, it seems like you are doing exactly that.
Yeah, because Western cultures have realized that trying to compromise with people on concepts like “human rights” and “medical requirements” doesn’t work. There is no room for agreement with someone who thinks “abortions are always immoral.” They’re wrong. We know this because we value human life.
You’re so close to realizing that Christian ideology is fundamentally intolerant and wrong, but are getting so weirdly hung up on this idea of “but what if killing women is actually based? shouldn’t they be allowed?” No. We can be intolerant of people who have been intolerant of science-based thinking for centuries. It’s actually the only way society can progress forward.
While there is probably no room for agreement with someone who thinks “abortions are always immoral”, this does not mean their position is wrong somehow. What do you mean “we know this because we value human life”? I would say opposition to abortion is motivated by an appreciation for human life, even before birth we are valued.
A situation when a woman’s life is contingent on doing an abortion is a rare edge case, and I would say you should always save the mother then, but if they want to try to make sure the child survives as well in most cases where it is feasible, I can respect that since I see their rationale.
I would say, that the church while there were issues in which the church opposed some ideas that are now considered scientific consensus, most notably evolution and heliocentrism, I would say that it is not accurate to say it is opposed or has ever been opposed to science, nor that it opposes scientific thinking. This is like saying Marxists are opposed to science(which they famously love) because they opposed the theory of relativity in the soviet union.
You are saying they are wrong that it is immoral, but what gives you the right to say what is and what is not moral like you are some kind of prophet? The point is, if you accept their moral views, which are quite reasonable, and in case of their view on abortion not exclusively christian, their actions are perfectly rational most of the time in that regard, this has nothing to do with the denial of science.
I don’t think you did address it.
What do you mean women shouldn’t have rights? There are more rights than right to abortion, and you don’t have to be dogmatic about it.
I am not opposed to abortion, personally, nor is it banned anywhere in my country. I also have not killed anyone yet, but I’ll yet you know if anything changes. However, I am not particularly interested in forcing chrstians to accept secular morality.
The paradox I am referring to, is not in the fact that people that preach tolerance should be tolerant to everyone. I am instead pointing out the fact that western progressive culture, while preaching diversity, do not actually accept people that disagree with them, so inclusivity is contingent on acceptance of certain views, in that sense, this “diversity” is skin deep, we only accept you if you already agree with us.
This is similar to how christians have historically thought, ironically. So while blaming catholics of being intolerant of everything they disagree with, it seems like you are doing exactly that.
Yeah, because Western cultures have realized that trying to compromise with people on concepts like “human rights” and “medical requirements” doesn’t work. There is no room for agreement with someone who thinks “abortions are always immoral.” They’re wrong. We know this because we value human life.
You’re so close to realizing that Christian ideology is fundamentally intolerant and wrong, but are getting so weirdly hung up on this idea of “but what if killing women is actually based? shouldn’t they be allowed?” No. We can be intolerant of people who have been intolerant of science-based thinking for centuries. It’s actually the only way society can progress forward.
While there is probably no room for agreement with someone who thinks “abortions are always immoral”, this does not mean their position is wrong somehow. What do you mean “we know this because we value human life”? I would say opposition to abortion is motivated by an appreciation for human life, even before birth we are valued.
A situation when a woman’s life is contingent on doing an abortion is a rare edge case, and I would say you should always save the mother then, but if they want to try to make sure the child survives as well in most cases where it is feasible, I can respect that since I see their rationale.
I would say, that the church while there were issues in which the church opposed some ideas that are now considered scientific consensus, most notably evolution and heliocentrism, I would say that it is not accurate to say it is opposed or has ever been opposed to science, nor that it opposes scientific thinking. This is like saying Marxists are opposed to science(which they famously love) because they opposed the theory of relativity in the soviet union.
You are saying they are wrong that it is immoral, but what gives you the right to say what is and what is not moral like you are some kind of prophet? The point is, if you accept their moral views, which are quite reasonable, and in case of their view on abortion not exclusively christian, their actions are perfectly rational most of the time in that regard, this has nothing to do with the denial of science.
I already addressed the point in your second paragraph directly.
“I don’t think women should have rights” is not a differing opinion worthy of consideration.
I don’t think you did address it. What do you mean women shouldn’t have rights? There are more rights than right to abortion, and you don’t have to be dogmatic about it.