Anyone else see the inconsistency?

[merrylander]

Originally Posted by Oerets

All the woman wanted was a baby. What the big deal in how it happens? Or was it that it had a cost associated with it. For an organization that is steadfast in it views on abortion I don't see their argument against in vitro fertilization.

http://www.courier-journal.com/viewa...e=nletter-news

BTW parochial schools now receive state tax dollars for students who's families are eligible for vouchers. Removing the dollars from the local public schools.

Barney

Guess they figure it is spare the rod and spoil the child.

[d-ray657]

Originally Posted by merrylander

Guess they figure it is spare the rod and spoil the child.

Dirty old man.

Regards,

D-Ray

[Oerets]

Originally Posted by Boreas

Yes, I can.

Are these mostly parochial schools or schools with religious affiliations or are the big buck prep schools doing it too?

John

We have a fair amount of both, but the Catholic schools are the ones loosing more students to public do to the pricing, The Christian and Military inspired schools are holding steady I have heard from the teachers at my local school.

But next year there will be no limit to the number of students who can transfer schools. Up to now the state had a limit on transfers.


Barney

[ebacon]

Originally Posted by Oerets

All the woman wanted was a baby. What the big deal in how it happens? Or was it that it had a cost associated with it. For an organization that is steadfast in it views on abortion I don't see their argument against in vitro fertilization.

http://www.courier-journal.com/viewa...e=nletter-news

BTW parochial schools now receive state tax dollars for students who's families are eligible for vouchers. Removing the dollars from the local public schools.

Barney

Oerets,

Here is more from the Vatican on in-vitro fertilization.

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/co...n-life_en.html

[Oerets]

I think I understand the arguments about the storage of fertilized eggs and all the concepts of life beginning at conception. But a chance at a life is still better then no chance at all.

The inconsistency also goes deeper in my eyes in that if one really believes in a life after death. Then would not the life ended by abortion or in vitro be spared the pains of having to endure living in the here and now and go to the after life? I could see their argument more strongly if this was indeed the only life and no other. So me thinks they are not to sure in their faith.




Barney

[bobabode]

Originally Posted by Oerets

I think I understand the arguments about the storage of fertilized eggs and all the concepts of life beginning at conception. But a chance at a life is still better then no chance at all.

The inconsistency also goes deeper in my eyes in that if one really believes in a life after death. Then would not the life ended by abortion or in vitro be spared the pains of having to endure living in the here and now and go to the after life? I could see their argument more strongly if this was indeed the only life and no other. So me thinks they are not to sure in their faith.




Barney

Helluva a post, Barney.

[piece-itpete]

A common thing among Christians is, when they're having a hard time of things, "I wish I would hurry up and die!' and so then be in heaven

But, it is not up to us.

Pete

[Oerets]

Originally Posted by piece-itpete

A common thing among Christians is, when they're having a hard time of things, "I wish I would hurry up and die!' and so then be in heaven

But, it is not up to us.

Pete

If one really believed this 100% then why go to a Doctor when sick at all. Take medications or get glasses. One should think a Creator enabled us with the tools to have control over our life's.



Barney

[ebacon]

Originally Posted by Oerets

I think I understand the arguments about the storage of fertilized eggs and all the concepts of life beginning at conception. But a chance at a life is still better then no chance at all.

The inconsistency also goes deeper in my eyes in that if one really believes in a life after death. Then would not the life ended by abortion or in vitro be spared the pains of having to endure living in the here and now and go to the after life? I could see their argument more strongly if this was indeed the only life and no other. So me thinks they are not to sure in their faith.




Barney

I see where you are coming from but you have ignored the Vatican's position on several topics and replaced them with your own.

Here is a big one. You posit that ending a life by abortion or in vitro would be spared the pains of having to endure living. Such a position ignores another rule -- the rule against abortion. The overriding position of the Vatican is to let nature run its course and to not intervene. Abortion and in vitro selection are impermissible interventions, e.g. man is playing God.

I'm no expert at this stuff. It just seems to me that the paper consistently applies a rule against human intervention between procreation of married spouses.

[Oerets]

Ahhh intervention only matters when it comes to procreation and by the interpretation of celibate men. But to keep on alive when sick is a totally different matter!




Barney